We Shall Be Free

I am writing this on New Year's Eve.  It is a time when we look back at the past year and forward to new beginnings in the year to come.  We start counting calories again, trying to kick that pesky habit, praying more, giving more away, finally paying off that credit card.  It is a time of transition and new hopes.  

I was reminded of many of my own hopes just a few days ago on Christmas. Danielle's parents gave us the new Garth Brooks box set. Danielle and I absolutely love Garth Brooks.  Not only did his music serve as a soundtrack to our adolescence, but he is from our home state and also went to Oklahoma State University (interestingly enough he threw the javelin for the track and field team).  A few weeks ago we watched his television special live from Las Vegas and enjoyed every minute of it.  

As we were listening to this new box set, hearing him cover the songs of other artists that influenced him as well as listening to his greatest hits of his own as well, we listened to one of my favorites of his that I hadn't heard in a few years.  It is called "We Shall Be Free."  He wrote this song in the early nineties to express his concern over hunger, freedom of speech, homelessness, homophobia, racism, environmentalism, and freedom of religion.  He would go on to perform this song not only on his regular tours, but as a part of events like "Equality Rocks," a gay rights march in Washington D.C.  This song has been a part of Brooks's support for the LGBT community, which comes from his deep love for his older sister, Betty, who passed away just last month of cancer. Brooks supported his sister, an open lesbian in the not-so-accepting world of country music, and bucked the Nashville trend by being very vocal in his support.  I recognize that my mentioning that opens up a big can of worms, but don't let it distract you; "We Shall Be Free" is about that, but it is about much more than that as well.

The reason I bring this song up is that it encompasses many of my hopes and dreams as well.  It recognizes the truth of the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. when he said, "No one is free until we are all free."  My prayer for 2014 is that all people, led by people of Christian faith, will cast off the garments of prejudice, ignorance, condemnation, and self-righteousness and instead clothe ourselves in the garments of peace, love, justice, and mercy, recognizing that when we read the gospels we see that whenever Jesus was forced to choose between the holiness code and the mercy of God, he always chose the mercy of God.  May we follow his example in this blessed and peaceful New Year.    

Peace,

Everett

       

"We Shall be Free" by Garth Brooks

This ain't comin' from no prophet 
Just an ordinary man 
When I close my eyes I see 
The way this world shall be 
When we all walk hand in hand 

When the last child cries for a crust of bread 
When the last man dies for just words that he said 
When there's shelter over the poorest head 
We shall be free 

When the last thing we notice is the color of skin 
And the first thing we look for is the beauty within 
When the skies and the oceans are clean again 
Then we shall be free 

We shall be free 
We shall be free 
Stand straight, walk proud 
'Cause we shall be free 

When we're free to love anyone we choose 
When this world's big enough for all different views 
When we all can worship from our own kind of pew 
Then we shall be free 
We shall be free 

We shall be free 
Have a little faith 
Hold out 
'Cause we shall be free 

And when money talks for the very last time 
And nobody walks a step behind 
When there's only one race and that's mankind 
Then we shall be free 

We shall be free 
We shall be free 
Stand straight, walk proud, have a little faith, hold out 
We shall be free 

We shall be free 
We shall be free 
Stand straight, have a little faith 

We shall be free 

And You Think It's Cold Here!

Just as it was last week, as I look out my office window all I see is snow.  Last night as I was heading over to one of the nursing homes with our church’s Cub Scout Pack for some Christmas caroling, the clouds opened up again and dumped some more of the white stuff on us.  Apparently, though, the forecast for this weekend is for 50’s and 60’s, but with torrential downpours.  Weather-wise we can’t win for losing around here.  Either the steps are icy despite Larry’s best efforts, the sanctuary too hot in the summer no matter how hard the chiller is working, or there’s water pouring into the food pantry.  Woe is us, right?  Well, this week I got a little perspective when I came across a photo of Holy Trinity Eastern Orthodox Church in… Antarctica!

Trinity Church

Trinity Church captivated me.  It is quite obviously the southernmost Eastern Orthodox Church in the world, its parish being the workers at a nearby Russian research station.  The structure, which opened for worship in 2004, is built of lumber shipped in from Siberia and there are thick chains and cables in the sanctuary that help to stabilize the building in extreme weather.  The sanctuary can hold thirty people and it is manned by two Eastern Orthodox priests, usually for a year at a time.  Two couples have even been married there.  You can learn about one of the couples by watching the following video. 

How interesting is that!  Well, it gets better, because in researching Trinity Church I found out that it is not the only church on Antarctica.  There is somewhere around ten churches on Antarctica!  Among those churches is the Chapel of the Snows, which is a U.S. military chapel at the McMurdo Station, offering both Catholic and Protestant worship.  This is the third building they’ve had since 1966.  The other two burned down.  There is the tiny steel St. Ivan Rilski Chapel, built on Livingston Island by Bulgarians, as well as the Notre-Dame des Vents Chapel, a French Catholic chapel at Port aux-Francais, and the Stella-Maris Chapel, which I believe is a Chilean Catholic Chapel on Cape Horn Island.  The most interesting church building is probably that of the Chapel of Santisima Virgen de Lujan, which is Argentine Catholic.  The frame is steel but the walls are made of ice!  I should never complain about my feet being cold in my office again.  My vote for the most picturesque church building in Antarctica goes to the Norwegian Lutheran church in Grytviken, which has been there since 1912!  It is nicknamed The Whaler’s Church.  Here are some pictures of the various church buildings:

Chapel of the Snows

Stained Glass in Chapel of the Snows.  Notice the penguin.

Stella-Harris Chapel

My favorite: the "Whaler's Church"

The ice walls of the Chapel of Santisima Virgen de Lujan

A wedding in the Notre-Dame des Vents Chapel.

While it is interesting to learn about these churches and to see their church buildings, there is something much deeper that we need to see here.  When Jesus told his disciples, "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them," he really meant it.  That goes for Jerusalem, for Rome, for the slums of Brazil, for the hollers of West Virginia, and yes, even for Antarctica.  It also shows us that when the Risen Jesus said, “you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth," he meant that too.

On a blog post by a writer named Brian Merchant I read, “We humans have gone to great lengths to build churches, mostly Catholic ones, in the most unforgiving climates on Earth. First came the expeditions, then the research institutions, then the churches. It's got to be a powerful comfort: the familiar idols, the symbology, the rituals, and the architecture, even for nonbelievers, when it's freezing, and comfort is otherwise elusive… Progress has done little to diminish our faith—secularization has unfolded much more slowly than the techno-optimists once thought. Which is why it's quite likely that one of the first structures humans will build on the moon—after the domiciles, after the research station, will be a church.”

I’m going to ask you to do something today, right now actually, that you never thought you’d ever be asked to do.  Stop.  Right now.  Be quiet for a moment.  Then pray for the Christians in Antarctica, that their faith would sustain them and even grow.  Pray for the priests and pastors in Antarctica, that they would have the wisdom and faith to minister in such unique and extreme conditions.  And pray for those in Antarctica who do not have faith in Jesus Christ. Pray that even though their toes are frozen that their hearts would be thawed so they might hear the gospel of Jesus Christ and respond with trust in God’s grace and mercy.  What an interesting testimony that would be—“I was thousands of miles away from everything in Antarctica.  But Jesus still found me there.”  I mean it.  Pray for them.  I’m pretty sure they need the prayers.

May the hope, peace, joy, and love of God in Jesus Christ bless you in these last days of Advent.  Christmas is almost here.  Try not to freak out about that.  If you keep your eyes not on all you have left to do, but instead on Jesus, you'll be okay... even if you're in Antarctica. 

Be at peace,

Everett   

A Meditation on Snow

Snow.  It’s everywhere right now.  It snowed several inches Friday.  While I was preaching on Sunday I could see out the glass doors that it was a virtual whiteout for awhile.  Did you watch the Detroit Lions and the Philadelphia Eagles later that day?  It was snowing so hard you could barely even see the players.  Then it snowed a few more inches early Tuesday morning.  Our side yard has about eight inches of snow on it, which made for a fun football game with the kids yesterday afternoon.  It is supposed to snow again on Saturday.  Granted, south-central Ohio isn’t quite Buffalo, New York, but this is a good amount of snow seeing as winter hasn’t even officially begun yet.  Looking out my office window on this bitterly cold yet beautifully sunny day, everything is covered with snow. 

Andy Goldsworthy once said, “Snow provokes responses that reach right back to childhood.”  Well, when I was a little kid I lived in the lowcountry of South Carolina.  I can remember two dustings of snow throughout my entire childhood.  For kids who were much more accustomed to the beach, those very light snows were absolutely magical.  I also have a memory that I am not sure if it actually happened or not.  For some reason I remember our family pulling off the road in the mountains of North Carolina and playing in the snow.  The only reason we were ever in North Carolina was when we were on our way to or from Oklahoma, but that was always in summer.  Maybe it didn’t happen, but it’s a good memory nonetheless.

When I moved to northern Oklahoma when I was a freshman in high school I got my first experience with snows of several inches.  One weekend when we were snowed into my grandparents tiny little shack of a house, I remember pulling Lost Horizon off the shelf and reading it cover to cover, and being carried away to Shangri La.  Another time we were snowed in I read Jurassic Park in its entirety in one day.  Later in high school I remember games of snow football on the school lawn and lying down on an old car hood chained to my friend’s dually pick up, being pulled on the snow covered streets.  That was stupid.  Speaking of stupid, I also remember a snow day on which several of us were in our friend James’s Ford LTD that we’d named “Blue Thunder.”  We were doing doughnuts in the snow at the town rodeo arena.  We ended up running into a light pole.  James died five or six years ago of cancer.  He was a wild one and I have a lot of memories of times with James that should have killed us long before cancer took him.

I remember that on January 5, 2001 it snowed really hard in northern Oklahoma.  I remember that because I was in a little Toyota Corolla driving through the snowstorm trying to make the 120 miles from Stillwater to Cherokee.  I remember the date because our wedding rehearsal was that night and we were afraid no one would make it.  The next day it was freezing cold but sunny when we walked out of the church after saying our vows and eating some cake to be showered with birdseed as we climbed into that same Toyota Corolla with “Just Married” shoe-polished onto the back window. 

Another memory of snow that I hold close to my heart comes from five years ago or so when I was hiking with friends at about 10,000 feet in Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado.  It was early October and when we were about four miles into our high altitude hike it started snowing harder than I’ve ever seen.  It was breathtaking.  I felt so small and insignificant, but that was a good thing for a change.  Eventually, though, we had to turn back without making it to the top of the trail because the snow was up to our knees.  We turned around but I’ll never forget the grandeur of what I saw that day.

Snow doesn't usually come to mind when we think about the Bible.  So often we think of all the events in the Bible happening in hot, dry, dusty climates.  Everyone is wearing sandals and protecting themselves from the heat.  However, it does snow in the Holy Land.  It snows a little bit pretty much every winter in Jerusalem, although it doesn’t usually stick, probably kind of like Atlanta.  However, this past January, Jerusalem had its worst snowstorm in twenty years.  They got eight inches in one day which is a good quality snowstorm even here in Ohio.  I love this photo of a Jewish man praying at the Temple Wall in the midst of the snow.  In Galilee, where Jesus grew up and lived until he was about thirty, it snows even more often than it does in Jerusalem.  So Jesus almost certainly got to experience snow as a young man.  I've never imagined that before!

Snow is mentioned twenty-three times in the Bible, usually as an example of something being clean and white.  The most famous example of this comes in Psalm 51:7, "Cleanse me with hyssop and I will be clean; wash me and I will be whiter than snow."  Of course, over time racists being the word-skewers they are, used these kinds of verses to teach those of color that to be white is to be closer to God.  That was a terrible lie and it totally misses the point.  David was pouring his heart out to God and asking for forgiveness. Cleanness is a metaphor for being forgiven.  Snow, when it first falls, is "clean" and "pure." It's just a metaphor; it doesn't have anything to do with anything else.  Snow is used several other times in the Bible as a metaphor in this way, and what a beautiful metaphor it is.  I have heard that when Bible translators were translating the Bible into certain African and Pacific Island languages, they had to find another word besides snow because nobody there had any idea what snow is.  The metaphor for forgiveness is extraordinarily important, too important to be lost just because someone has never seen snow.  I think they ended up substituting the word for clouds or sand or wool.  

My favorite of all biblical mentions of snow comes in Isaiah 55:10-12 and following:

As the rain and the snow

    come down from heaven,

and do not return to it

    without watering the earth

and making it bud and flourish,

    so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,

so is my word that goes out from my mouth:

    It will not return to me empty,

but will accomplish what I desire

    and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

You will go out in joy

    and be led forth in peace;

the mountains and hills

    will burst into song before you,

and all the trees of the field

    will clap their hands.   

I don't know if I really was trying to make any kind of point today.  I just saw snow outside and decided to write about it. The snow, with all the accompanying cancellations of events, has allowed us to have an unexpected Sabbath time within our family.  At first it seemed a hassle, but then it seemed like a blessing.  I hope you are safe, and that you take just a moment today to look at the snow and to think about God, and think about the beauty of nature, and think about some positive memory you have that involves snow.  Share that story with someone, and be at peace.

May you know you are loved and blessed today,

Everett

Not Enthused Part 3 (conclusion)

As I’m sure you figured out if you checked this site last week, I took last week off from posting.  With the Thanksgiving holiday, the whole church staff had just two days to get done what usually takes us four days to accomplish.  That did not leave me any time to write a post and I figured that most folks wouldn’t be interested in reading that post on the day before Thanksgiving.  But I’m back now, and this week I’m going to pick up where I left off in my blog series on why I disagree with those within the Church who are calling for a return to the ways of the Reformers.  The reasons I’ve given so far for my disagreement are (1) not enough people are being invited to the table and (2) both the reformers and their modern devotees emphasize the doctrine of predestination.  This series could go on a great deal longer but I think I’ll conclude it this week to move on to subjects that might be of more interest to the general readership.  But before we move on, here is the last reason I will discuss for why I do not agree that we should return to the ways of the Reformers:

The Reformers lived before modern science and the Neo-Reformed crowd is often dismissive of contemporary science:

First of all, let me offer a little Alka-Seltzer to those of you who just got a terrible case of theological heartburn from reading the bold words above.  Please know that I do not dismiss all thoughts and beliefs from everyone who lived before the advent of modern science.  If I did that I’d have to get rid of a guy named Jesus, along with followers of his such as Paul, James, Augustine of Hippo, as well as Martin Luther and John Calvin.  In no way do I dismiss them as being superstitious and ignorant people as many secularists do.  Only someone who has no sense of history or culture would come to that kind of conclusion.  Socrates, Plato, Homer, Rumi, Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, Muhammad, and Shakespeare all lived before the dawn of what we consider modern science.  Where would we be without them?  

Secondly, I want you to know that I do not think that science will save us from ourselves.  Like everything connected to humanity, science does great good and great evil.  For instance, science is making it possible to eradicate many childhood diseases, while at the same time science is also making it possible for the Syrian government to kill children with chemical weapons.  Science has given us nuclear weapons, just as science has given us the heart transplant.  Science is the answer to some of our problems, but it is not the answer to all of our problems.   Henry David Thoreau asks the same question I ask, “With all your science can you tell how it is, and whence it is, that light comes into the soul?”  Now that you know that I do not dismiss pre-scientific minds as second-rate, and that I do not think that science is the answer to all of our problems, I feel like I can make my point.     

When Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg, Copernicus had not yet published his works that claimed (rightly) that the earth orbits around the sun instead of vice versa.  Later in his life, Luther did learn of this and in response he said, “There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon… but that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."  

Martin Luther, one of the greatest theological minds ever to grace this earth, was wrong on the subject of astronomy.  I don’t blame Luther for being wrong on this.  He was a theologian, not a scientist.  Also, he lived in a time when this idea was new and hard to believe (although it was true).  My problem with Luther is that not only was he wrong, but he also called Copernicus a fool who was just wishing to be clever.  This is not unlike what many conservative Christians say these days about scientists in the field of evolutionary biology; they’re just fools trying to be clever, or even worse evil.  Because Copernicus’s findings contradicted what Luther wanted to believe, Copernicus must be a fool.  It turns out that on that particular subject, history has proven Brother Luther to be the fool.  I really think that someday people are going to look back on this time in history the same way we look back on the 16^th Century and say, “How could they have dismissed what is supported by so much scientific evidence just because it contradicted what they thought the Bible said on the subject?”  The Neo-Reformed folks (some of which reside in the congregations that are leaving the PC(USA)) want to stick with Luther on this one.  They recognize that Luther was wrong on this, but then they are willing to invest a great deal of time, energy, and money into doing the same exact thing he did except this time with common descent of all life and adaptation over time (Evolutionary Biology).       

We don’t know if John Calvin knew much about Copernicus, but we do know that Calvin held the common view of the day that the earth was in the center and everything orbited around it.  I don’t blame Luther or Calvin for being men of their own time, but I do think it is problematic to put as much stock in the biblical-scientific teachings of these two 16^th century geniuses when they knew nothing of modern scientific knowledge in fields such as astronomy, evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and geology.  Again, by no means am I saying this makes all pre-scientific viewpoints valueless.  What I am saying is that science needs a chair at the table as well.  The Reformers didn’t know to invite science to the table.  However, those who call for a return to the Reformers refuse to give the invitation, and I believe they should know better.  

The Reformers and their modern devotees, because of their inerrant and literalistic views of the Scriptures, cannot help but reject scientific knowledge regarding the origins of the Universe, the origins of human life, human sexuality, and so on and so forth.  It causes problems for their rigid propositional theologies so they deny the validity of certain areas of science so they do not have to reformulate what they currently believe based upon 16^th Century interpretations of 2,000-4,000 year old texts.  Many of these folks, along with other conservative Christians, believe that the world was created between 6,000-10,000 years ago, that either dinosaurs didn’t exist (I heard one pastor tell me once that the bones were planted by Satan) or they fit into that timeline and lived alongside human beings although all scientific evidence is to the contrary.  They believe that God created two people from scratch (which God most certainly can do, but it doesn't seem to have been done that way), that God scattered humanity and gave them individual languages, that two of every animal fit on one boat although the lowest estimate of the number of animal species is around 3,000,000 (even if you subtract the water and air animals, this still makes for a number in the millions), that the animals all then spread out from Mount Ararat in modern day Turkey (that’s a long walk/swim for a duck-billed platypus), that God made the sun stand still just so Joshua could kill more people (although the sun doesn’t move anyway), and I could go on and on.  It is difficult for me to understand how and why folks choose to believe this way, but as an American I completely feel they have the freedom to do so.  However, folks who believe this way often want to make the rest of us believe it as well through manipulating public school curriculum.  I think a lot of the Neo-Reformed folks fall into this category.

Personally, I concur with the stance of the Presbyterian Church (USA) on this topic, which states, “In 1969, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States issued the following statement: ‘Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith (Westminster), nor our Catechisms (Westminster), teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory… Our responsibility as Christians is to deal seriously with the theories and findings of all scientific endeavors, evolution included, and to enter into open dialogue with responsible persons involved in scientific tasks about the achievement, failures and limits of their activities and of ours… We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction.’”

       

If you are interested in reading more about this, I have discussed the topic of science and the Christian faith in greater detail in my post from March 5, 2013 entitled “One of My Personal Heroes: Dr. Francis Collins, Md., Phd.”  Also, you should pick up the November 2013 issue of Presbyterians Today, which is entitled “Religion and Science—Can We Talk?” and is available on the small table outside the church office (and each session member has a copy as well).    In addition, I have a book called The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions by Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins.  I’d love to lend it to you.

In conclusion I just want to say something about the Presbyterian Church (USA).  My denomination, the PC(USA), along with the United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Episcopal Church (USA), and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), is one of the most progressive Christian bodies in regard to being a people of strong Christian faith while at the same time accepting, respecting, and often celebrating the findings of modern science including (but not limited to) evolutionary biology.  Some in our denomination are bothered or ashamed of this.  I, however, am filled with joy and a healthy pride because of this.  It is because of, not in spite of, our denomination’s open and progressive stance on this and other issues (in addition to the amazing peace, justice, and reconciliation work that we are doing around the world) that I am proud to be a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and to serve a Presbyterian Church (USA) congregation.  Although I don’t love it as much as I love Jesus Christ, I love this denomination very deeply, and I hope you do too.

Grace and Peace,

Everett    

Not Enthused Part 2b

My personal viewpoint (and I could be totally wrong) is that predestination and free will, although they might be contradictory, are both taught in the New Testament.  I say that because the New Testament is a collection of diverse documents written by many different authors in different situations, authors that very often seem to have believed slightly different things.  In fact, Martin Luther wanted the letter of James deleted from the Bible because it seemed to contradict much of the rest of the New Testament (as well as disagreeing with Luther himself, which I’d imagine was his main motive).  James certainly seems to have had some issues with some things Paul was teaching.  Paul certainly had issues with what Peter was doing and with the leadership of the Jerusalem church.  Paul was even willing to contradict the decision of the “Jerusalem Council” in regard to eating meat sacrificed to the Roman gods.  The community that produced John’s Gospel seems to have had a markedly different picture of who Jesus was and is from the communities that produced the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke.  There is certainly a discernible core of faith and practice in the New Testament, but there is also a great deal of diversity.

Let me ask a controversial question (to some people).  What if some New Testament authors believed in predestination, while some believed in free will, while some believed in universalism?  Also, I think some of them believed in the previously unnamed fourth option: salvation by works.  Even Paul himself seems to vacillate between free will (Romans 10:9 and others), predestination (Ephesians 1:11 and others), universalism (Colossians 1:19-20 and others), and even the dreaded salvation by works (Romans 2:6-8 and others), which even includes the strange idea that women are saved through bearing children (1 Timothy 2:15).  Is it too strange to think that the early church, spread out over the Roman Empire and quite isolated from one another, held a variety of views on this topic just as many views are held on it today?  Could it be that there is no agreement on these matters in the 21^st Century because there was no agreement on these matters in the 1^st Century?  It’s worth considering.

I believe that those who are calling for a return to the reformers see the Scriptures as a clear plate glass window that you can look through and see everything crystal clear; I simply cannot share that point of view.  Maybe the Bible is less like a clear plate glass window that we can look straight through to see the will of God and maybe it is more like a stained glass window with all different shapes and colors.  There are tiny bubbles in some of the pieces of glass.  Some are rough, while others are smooth.  Some of them don’t really seem like they should be a part of the same stained glass window, but somehow in the middle of this crazy stained glass window there is still a figure that has been formed by all the different shapes, colors, and textures; that figure is Jesus.  The light shines through the stained glass window in a beautiful, inspired, and yet not so clear way.  It is light enough to lead us to Jesus, though, and isn’t that really the point?  If this is true, it would cramp the style of those who believe in inerrancy, but it wouldn’t negate the New Testament’s shared witness to Jesus Christ.  After all, within the diversity of the New Testament there is a central message that salvation (however it is divvied out) is made possible by the actions of God through Jesus Christ and that in gratitude for this we are to love God, love neighbor, and share this good news.  God can handle the details.   

Again, I am not in disagreement with the Reformers or their modern devotees because I think predestination is unbiblical.  I just don’t think it’s the only biblical option.  Ultimately I can’t align myself with them on this topic because there isn’t even agreement within my own mind on these matters.  I preach like a free-will advocate because I believe everyone should have the chance to respond to the gospel.  Sometimes when I think about the people I know who just seem to have zero reaction or interest in the gospel I wonder about predestination.  A lot of times I hope and pray that universalism is true because I can’t stand the thought of so many people being damned or the thought of a God who is so willing to damn them for rejecting God or even worse the thought of a God that predestined them to be damned even before God created them. I don't have all the answers, and I'm finally okay with that.  I’ve simply come to trust in God without trying to have all the answers.  I’ll never stop asking the question, though.  That's how we grow and mature.  Since I gave myself over to this trust, I’ve had a peace in my heart that I didn’t have before, and I’ll take a real peace over a false certainty any day.  

Not Enthused Part 2a

Both the Reformers and their Modern Devotees Emphasize the Doctrine of Predestination:

The traditional Reformed doctrine of predestination, especially in the traditions that subscribe to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, is what is called “double predestination.”  This doctrine states that before the creation of the world God decided who would be saved and who would not be saved.  From within the Reformed worldview this is seen as a good thing.  First, it means that, although God could have just let all of us be damned, God is gracious enough to save some of us; this shows God’s concern and love (unless you’re one of the damned).  Second, it means that we don’t have to stay up at night fretting about whether or not we’re saved.  We don’t have to worry because we’re either saved or not.  It keeps us from trying to earn it because it either is or it isn’t; we can’t change that.  John Calvin said that if you are seriously asking the question of whether or not you are saved then that’s a pretty good sign that the Holy Spirit is working in your life, so in all likelihood you’re good to go.  Third, it answers that vexing question: “Why do some people respond to the gospel and some don’t?”  It answers this by saying that this happens because some are predestined by God to respond to the gospel and some aren’t.  You have to admit that predestination gives good answers (as long as you’re not one of the damned).  However, it raises just as many questions.

Before I get too deep in this I need to say that predestination is unarguably biblical.  It is all over the place in both the Old Testament and New Testament, coming from the mouth of Jesus and the pen of Paul.  Well then it’s settled!  Right?  Well, not so much.  The reason for this is that there are a good number of Scripture passages that seem to contradict double predestination by claiming that salvation is offered to all people and any person is free to accept salvation or reject it.  So what I’m saying is that predestination is unarguably biblical and the opposite of predestination seems to be unarguably biblical as well.  I haven’t even mentioned the fact that there are even a few passages of Scripture that seem to say that Christ’s death on the cross will bring salvation to everyone.  This is a minority viewpoint called Christian universalism, and this view was held by several of the “Church Fathers” of the early centuries of the church. 

So there are three (actually there is a fourth one we don’t have time to discuss) different views in the New Testament regarding who can be or will be saved?  The scandal!  The statement I just made is unacceptable to many Christians.  To those who hold the view that the Bible is completely inerrant and always presents a consistent theology, this is a big problem.  In my fallible personal opinion this way of thinking (what Dr. Christian Smith calls Biblicism) paints its adherents into a corner.  You see, when faced with two contradictory views, what they have to do is choose predestination or free will (we won’t deal with universalism here) and then go about interpreting all the passages of Scripture that contradict their viewpoint as not really contradicting their viewpoint at all.  “If you weren’t so ignorant, you’d understand that this passage doesn’t mean what you think it means; it obviously means what I think it means.” 

For instance, 2 Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting you to perish, but all to come to repentance.”  This quite clearly seems to support the free will argument.  However, in John Calvin’s commentary on this verse he says, of course God wants everyone to be saved.  God reaches out the hand of salvation to all… but he only grabs the hand of those “whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.”  Wait a second here!  If God is unwilling to grab the hands of all who reach out to God then God doesn’t really want all to be saved after all does He? 

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism and a big-time “free will” guy looks at a passage of Scripture like Ephesians 4:4-6 and does the same from his perspective.  The passage says this: “He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love.  He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ.”  To this, Wesley makes the point that of course God predestined… that everyone who would come to faith through free will would be saved.  Hey, wait a second here!  God knowing beforehand who will someday put his or her faith in Jesus Christ by their own free will isn’t the same as God choosing who will.  This passage says God chose and predestined, not pre-knew.  I’m sorry Rev. Wesley but you didn’t answer the question that was asked; you answered the question you wanted to answer.

So who am I to disagree with John Calvin and John Wesley?  Come on, it’s not like either one of them is Jesus.  And anyway, I’m just a guy with a blog.  Really I only say all this to communicate to you that I disagree on the subject of predestination with those who want to return to the ways of the Reformers not because I think predestination is wrong, but because I think their emphasis on predestination is wrong.  You see, I think the water on this topic is muddier than they’re letting on.  They present predestination as being the absolute truth, but I don’t think the complete biblical picture bears that out.  Personally, I think the jury is hung on the subject so it doesn’t make sense to me to be as adamant as they are about double predestination, just as it doesn’t make sense to me to be as adamant as their free will opponents are about their perspective, just as it doesn’t make sense to me to be as adamant as the universalists are about everyone being saved.  Personally, I can’t determine which one is correct so I refuse to carry the banner for any of them.  This bothers a good many of them, but it doesn’t bother me.  

I’m not exactly sure how salvation works.  I’m okay with that.  I can still, however, enjoy the benefits of salvation.  After all, I don’t understand how wireless Internet really works but I still enjoy it.  Whether salvation is by predestination, free will, or universalism, I don’t really care.  My faith is in God in Jesus Christ and with the help of the Holy Spirit I’m doing my best to follow the Lord Jesus.  God will have to work the rest out however God does that.    

to be continued next week...

In Christ,
Everett

Not Enthused Part 1

As I have started writing this I have found I have enough material for several weeks.  I recognize that I might lose some of my more casual readers over the next few weeks but those who are interested in theology and in the Church will probably find this of interest.  

Last week I concluded by saying that I am not as enthused as some Christians are for a return to the ways of the Reformers.  This week I’m going to get into what I meant when I said that.  Before I begin, let me remind you that I greatly admire the Reformers, especially Martin Luther and John Calvin.  I give thanks to God for the sacrifices that were made by Protestants during those many years of strife.  Many Protestants gave their lives for the cause of reforming a terribly corrupt Church.  However, just because I am indebted to them, am often guided by their writings, and because I greatly admire what they did in the 16^th Century, does not mean that I think it is a good idea to impose the faith as they taught it and lived it onto the 21^st Century Church without some major amendments being made.  Here is reason number one for me:

There are not enough people being invited to the table:

The Reformers were geniuses.  However, they were all 16^th century highly-educated, white, male geniuses from Northern Europe.  To claim that the Reformers got it right for all times, or that their theological descendents that authored the Westminster Confession and Catechisms completely “nailed it,” is to claim that a 16^th or 17^th century Northern European highly educated white male perspective is the right perspective.  If we are going to claim that, then we also need to remember that this particular 16^th or 17^th Century Northern European highly educated white male perspective was, in fact, only one of many 16^th or 17^th century Northern European highly educated white male perspectives in Europe at the time.  Those who are calling for a return to the Reformers are okay with claiming that their particular favorite Northern European highly educated white male perspective is the right perspective for obvious reasons.  If you were to go to one of the national conferences held by those who are calling for a return to the ways of the Reformers you would find that nearly all the speakers and writers represent one group: white men of Northern European descent (like me).  At the two largest and most popular conferences in this genre for 2013-2014 there either was or will be a combined twenty-one speakers.  21 out of 21 of the speakers are men.  20 of the 21 are white men.  This doesn't mean they are wrong; it simply means that not enough people are being invited to the table.  

What about that 50% of the population that includes my wife and daughter?  I am continually surprised by the very different insights that never would have come to my mind that come from my sisters in faith and ministry.  The Reformers and their current disciples do not allow for women to serve in roles of leadership within the Church.  What about people of color?  What about people from other parts of the world?  What about other kinds of Christians such as Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostals, etc.? What about the contributions of those who lived before the 16^th Century and those who lived after it?  What about the work of those who disagreed with Luther and Calvin (who disagreed with each other on some pretty major issues)?  If we return to the ways of the Reformers the way that many conservative Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Baptists are calling for, the table shrinks and we end up with a Northern European Jesus flanked by Luther and Calvin with a bunch of modern white men in suits sitting at their feet. 

I truly believe that we need the voices of unique indigenous forms of Christianity, even when (or especially when) they have not been heavily influenced by those like Luther and Calvin.  I even think we need the input of those from other religious traditions and I am even open to hearing from (instead of arguing with) those who call themselves agnostics or atheists.  For me, with both the Reformers and with those who idolize them now, the table is too small.  If what you want is for conservative white men of Northern European descent to be the dominant voice, then returning to the Reformers is for you.  It is not, however, for me.  It seems to me that this has more to do with white guys like me gripping more and more tightly to the privilege that we are slowly losing than it does with working toward the Kingdom of God that Jesus preached, enacted, and inaugurated.  I recognize that this is a stereotypical "liberal" response, but it is the response that makes the most sense to me. 

We are at a point in history during which the Christian faith can take on new diversity, complexity, color, and texture.  The faith can hold onto the core of Christian discipleship while looking very different at the same time.  The faith is not diminished by hearing the voices of different perspectives; it is enriched.  For instance, I know the work of the Reformers, but I also appreciate the work of many Roman Catholic theologians.  The Reformers (because of their context) and their modern devotees (because they want to be like the Reformers even though they live in a different context) are not big fans of the Catholics and resist or outright refuse to listen to the input of Catholics.  A prime example of this is R.C. Sproul, who is a theologian and author who has helped me to understand the historical Reformed Tradition but who has not convinced me to continue to adhere to the historical Reformed Tradition in the way he would like.  Here is what he says about Catholics and those of us who are in the “liberal” churches as he calls them such as the PC(USA), Episcopal Church (USA), Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and United Church of Christ: 

“Yes there are believers, true believers here and there in the Roman Catholic Church, in liberal churches and so on. They're mavericks to their community and I personally believe that those people who truly accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior in the biblical sense who live in the Roman Catholic Church have a moral and spiritual duty to leave that communion immediately, that they are living in sin by continuing to be a visible member of an institution that anathematizes the gospel of Jesus Christ.”  

I respect Dr. Sproul for stating what he believes and I recognize that he would wipe the floor with me in a theological debate (because that is his specialty) but although I have read a great deal of what he believes (and I think it should be a part of Reformed theology courses in our PC(USA) seminaries) after a great deal of reflection I simply do not share his beliefs, and the first major reason for that is that his system of beliefs is formulated at a very small, very homogeneous table of discussion.  That is why I refuse to follow his advice to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA) as he did several decades ago when the PC(USA) started to ordain women to the offices of deacon, ruling elder, and teaching elder.  I value the diversity of voices that we invite to the table in the PC(USA).

This will be continued next week...

May the Christ in others stir up the Christ in you so that in all your interactions with others this week there will be peace.

In Christ,

Everett

Reformation Day

This past Sunday we had a wonderful celebration in worship marking Reformation Sunday.  As I explained in worship, Reformation Day is actually on October 31, because it was on that day in 1517 that a Catholic priest/monk/professor in the city of Wittenberg in what we now call Germany finally got so ticked off at the way the Church was being run in Europe that he nailed his 95 Theses (or complaints) to the door of the church in town.  Now, it should be noted, that Luther isn’t the only one who would have nailed papers to the front door of the church.  It was used as a kind of bulletin board for the town.  But regardless, posting his 95 theses on the town bulletin board was a gutsy move.  

As so often happens in history, Martin Luther was the right person living at the right time.  It also helped a great deal that he found a powerful ally in a local ruler by the name of Frederick the Wise (a lot can be said for having friends with money and influence as long as that money and influence is used for God’s purposes).  Perhaps the most important factor, however, was that the printing press was available to Luther in a way that it had not been available to those who came before him.  Because they could be copied rather quickly (by the standards of the times) Luther’s writings spread like wildfire.  It wasn’t long before all kinds of reform movements, some very different from Luther’s, began to take root in cities in France, England, and Switzerland.  Our tradition, Presbyterianism, is the descendent of Scottish Presbyterianism, which is in turn the descendent of the work of John Calvin, a major reformer who was originally from France but did his work in the Swiss city of Geneva.  A fiery Scottish preacher named John Knox (who spent a good deal of time as a galley slave on a ship because of his Protestant beliefs) studied under John Calvin and then returned to Scotland.  The main thrust of the Protestant Reformation (in its many various forms) as a whole was generally to get the Church to return to the Bible as the only authority of the Church, as opposed to Church tradition.  Many of the Reformers saw themselves as working to return to the ways of the early apostolic church.  

I love Reformation history and I have read hundreds and hundreds of pages written by John Calvin as well as many written by Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli.  I’ve read some of John Knox’s work (including the Scots Confession) as well as other documents from other reformers of the era such as the Second Helvetic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism.  Also, I have read many current authors who write a great deal about the Reformation such as Michael Horton, R.C. Sproul, and Kevin DeYoung.  These brilliantly intelligent authors look back to the Reformation in a very similar way that the reformers looked back to the early church—as a kind of pure era to which we must return.  Although I owe an immeasurable gratitude to the Reformers and I have learned a great deal from the contemporary writers who call for a return to the ways of the Reformers, I am not as enthused about the idea of returning to the ways of the Reformers as some Christians are, many of them my good friends.  

But time for both this writer and probably you as the reader is running short so I’ll have to tell you why I’m not as enthused about the call to return to the Reformation next week.

In the meantime, may you all have a blessed Reformation Day on October 31 as well as a day of remembrance and God’s comfort on All Saints Day on November 1.  We will mark All Saints Sunday on November 3.

Grace and Peace,

Everett 

The Bishop of Bling

Over the past few days, Pope Francis has made the news once again for something very positive.  He has suspended the Bishop of Limburg in Germany for using church money to live an obscenely lavish lifestyle. The opulent spending of Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst (what a name!) is so notorious that the media has dubbed him the "Bishop of Bling."  Among other charges against him, it is alleged that he spent $42,000,000 renovating his personal residence.  His extravagant lifestyle has been financed by the offerings that are put into the plate each Sunday by faithful German Catholic worshipers.  It seems as though the Bishop must never have read Jesus' words in Matthew 6, "No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other.  You cannot serve God and wealth."

It is interesting that this has made the news this week as we approach Reformation Day on October 31, which we will mark as a congregation as Reformation Sunday on October 27.  It was on October 31, 1517 that a German Catholic priest/monk/professor by the name of Martin Luther finally grew so ticked off with the excesses and greed of the Church in Europe that he nailed his "95 Theses," which were basically 95 complaints against the Church leadership, to the door of the church in the town of Wittenberg. Although this date is said to have begun the Reformation, really the Reformation had been building strength for more than a century. Metaphorically speaking, the dam had been cracking for more than a hundred years, but Martin Luther's actions burst the already heavily compromised dam letting loose the waters of reform. It must also be noted, because we Protestants are often ignorant of it, that the Catholic Church did actually reform itself through the Councils of Trent that took place between 1545-1563.  Pope Francis is trying to do the same thing right now in regard to the greed of Church leaders, what he calls the "closed-mindedness" of some Catholic doctrines, and the horrible tragedy of priestly molestation and the resulting church cover-ups.  

But let's concentrate on the opulence of religious leaders for a moment. The so-called "Bishop of Bling" is merely the most recent example of greed among church leaders.  Popular American preachers like Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, and TD Jakes teach what is called "the prosperity gospel."  They tell their hearers that if they will give money to God, conveniently through their particular ministry, that the giver will receive more money and blessings from God in return.  Meyer, Osteen, and Jakes have mansions and private jets, yet continue to ask the faithful for more money.  A friend of mine who is an elder in the Presbyterian Church of Nigeria told me that there are many Pentecostal prosperity preachers in Nigeria (and throughout Africa) who have become multi-millionaires from the money given by poor, even destitute, African people.  On a much smaller scale, I've known a Presbyterian pastor who always drove a brand-new Cadillac and wore a Rolex watch.  Also, I've sat in a presbytery meeting and watched as a pastor fought tooth-and-nail to keep the presbytery from setting a minimum salary that congregations must pay a pastor, a minimum of only $40,000. Come to find out, that pastor who was fighting against the $40,000 minimum (I was making $37,000 at the time) had a yearly salary close to $100,000 along with six weeks of vacation and four weeks of study leave per year.  This is most certainly not merely a Roman Catholic problem; this is a Christian problem.

This morning I opened up my email and read my daily devotion from Franciscan Priest Richard Rohr.  Here is part of that devotion:

The biblical bias toward the bottom has been called by some the "preferential option for the poor."  But it is an option, an invitation: it is a grace, and it emerges from inner freedom--or else it would not be from God.  In the last analysis, the Bible is biased; it takes the side of the rejected ones, the abandoned ones, the barren women, and the ones who have been excluded, tortured, and kept outside. This is all summed up in Jesus' own ministry: He clearly prefers, heals, and includes the foreigner, the non-Jew, the handicapped, and the sinner--without rejecting the people of power, but very clearly critiquing them.

I believe what Father Rohr is writing about is true; that is why I struggle with it.  I try to live a simple lifestyle. It may not seem that way to a lot of folks, but I do.  It is true that I live in a huge, almost 3,000 square feet, stately, freshly renovated house.  This could be interpreted as opulence. But it needs to be known that this is simply the house the church owns, the house the church provides for my family and me. We enjoy the house, but we were just as happy in our little 1,100 square feet house in Oklahoma.  "But what about your giant TV?" you might ask.  We didn't pay for that either; it was a housewarming gift from someone in our family. We didn't ask for it; they just gave it.  "Well, I see you wearing expensive Ralph Lauren shirts."  I bought one of those at Ohio Thrift for $3.00.  The other one I bought for $7.00 at the outlet mall. Anything I own that is name brand I bought at a thrift store, off a clearance rack, or it was given to me as a gift.  "But sometimes you play golf."  Whenever I play golf I only do it when someone else is paying for it or if I've been given a little extra money as a gift.  Plus, my set of clubs was given to me for free from someone who pieced it together from spare clubs.  I drive a 2005 Toyota Matrix with 125,000 miles on it and stains on the seats.  Danielle drives a Mazda with 50,000 miles on it. We've never bought a new car or owned a luxury car and we do not plan to do either one.  This church provides generously for my family but all of our money goes back to the church, to pay bills, or to provide opportunities like scouts, piano lessons, and ballet lessons for our kids.  

I'm certainly not the Bishop of Bling or Joyce Meyer, but I must continually allow myself to be critiqued by the words of Jesus.  We all must allow ourselves to be critiqued by his words.  As we celebrate Reformation Sunday this week, let us remember that reformation is always needed in our larger church bodies, in our local congregations, and most importantly in our own lives.  May the controversy over the "Bishop of Bling" be to us a reminder to search our own hearts.  Let us all remember the words of our Lord Jesus, "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.  For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."  

It is my prayer that this week we will all realize and live into the fact that we are blessed by God in order to be blessings to others.  See you on Reformation Sunday!

Grace and Peace,

Everett

Greetings from Louisville

Earlier this year I applied to The Collegeville Institute Writing Pastor Workshop, and thankfully the selection committee chose me, along with eleven other pastors and church workers from all over the United States as well as a writer from Zambia and one from Nigeria.  We were selected to participate in the weeklong workshop with all expenses paid (minus travel).  That is why I am spending this week on the campus of Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.  Our professor for the week is Dr. J. Bradley Wigger who is a writer and a professor of Christian Education here at the seminary.  Interestingly enough, he is also doing research around the world on children who have imaginary friends.  How cool is that!

 

We have completed two days of morning and afternoon workshop sessions, afternoon writing assignments, and a meeting this afternoon with the former Poet Laureate of the state of Kentucky, Maureen Morehead, who teaches in the MFA in Creative Writing program at Spalding University here in Louisville.  Tomorrow we will meet with the current Poet Laureate of the state of Kentucky, Frank X. Walker, who is a professor at the University of Kentucky.  To top it all off, our workshop sessions and evening meals are held in a beautiful old mansion here on campus!  Thank you so much for allowing me to use my remaining study leave time for this wonderful experience. 

 

As a part of the workshop and afternoon sessions, Dr. Wigger gives us certain writing assignments or writing prompts.  I wanted to share with you what I wrote to complete two of these assignments. 

 

This morning, Dr. Wigger gave us a copy of Psalm 8.  As a writing "warm up" he told us to take five minutes to write a short memory prayer for children based on the Psalm.  Here is what I came up with in those five minutes.  It is very simple but that's the point.

 

The whole planet says that God is great.

Babies say it and animals too.

Even space says that God is great.

      And God says back, "I love you." 

 

The second (and final) assignment I'd like to share with you comes from a writing prompt.  Dr. Wigger gave us four opening phrases from which to pick.  We could only choose one and we had to start our story with that phrase.  The piece was to be fiction and it was to be only 600 words.  He sent this assignment with us during our midday break and writing time, and told us to spend about an hour on it.  Of the four prompts, I chose, "Since the plane had a layover in Kathmandu..."  Here is what I wrote:

 

Since the plane had a layover in Kathmandu, a layover caused by what the pilot had called “a glitch,” Barbara found herself standing near the front of a line at the airline ticket counter.  In front of her, a balding businessman yelled at the employee, “I don’t care how you do it, but you better damn well get me home.”  Barbara watched as the young woman at the counter pecked feverishly at her keyboard searching for a connecting flight that would satisfy the man, and then repeatedly saying in her broken English, “I am so sorry, sir.”  Barbara believed the employee but, as she looked back at all the weary travelers, she knew no one else would be as understanding.  She considered abandoning her spot near the front of the line as an act of selflessness.  She’d been working on that, trying to be more giving, more open to “promptings” as her priest had called it in his homily several weeks earlier, but she decided that the Kathmandu airport was not the place to have a breakthrough in generosity. 

She tried to push the thought from her mind, but it was too late.  The thought of moving to the back of the line, of willingly being last, had quickly been planted inside of her and had sent down roots before she could yank them up.  As Barbara listened to the man grow more and more irate and watched the woman directly in front of her standing with arms crossed and doing her best to sigh loud enough that everyone could hear her, Barbara was overwhelmed by the strange feeling that it had been someone else that had planted the thought in her mind.  “Go to the back of the line,” she kept hearing whispered into her ears, but from the inside. 

 "I’ve been away from home too long,” she said to herself.  In fact, she’d been gone so long she wasn’t even sure where home was anymore.  Her house, the house she’d shared with her husband, Ted, before he left her for a woman who was willing to give him the kids Barbara never wanted, was practically a museum.  There was no one waiting for her there, and that is why her boss had chosen her to go to Shanghai, where she had been for four weeks training her Chinese counterparts in plant efficiency and safety.  “Go to the back of the line,” she heard again, this time echoing throughout what seemed to be her entire body.  Barbara looked behind her.  “I must be going crazy,” she thought when she saw that there must have been a hundred people behind her in line, a line so long it snaked out toward the terminal exit. 

 

Barbara’s thoughts were interrupted when she heard the young woman’s voice call out, “Next.”  Barbara looked toward the counter and saw that the woman was now talking to her.  She stared back at her for a moment, unmoving.  “Next!” the woman called out again, this time her voice heavy with frustration.  “Go to the back of the line,” Barbara heard again.  Her foot began to tap nervously.  Finally, much to the confusion of the woman at the counter and to everyone behind her in line, Barbara listened to the prompting, picking up her carry-on bag and making the long journey toward the end of the line.  As she walked, she felt obedient and free at the same time, but when she was just a few steps from the end, she glanced up at the terminal exit and the voice returned, except this time it said, “Keep walking.”

 

Thanks again for letting me loose for a week.  I will be back in time to lead worship and preach this coming Sunday.

 

It is my prayer that you have a blessed week during which you see God at work in your life and the image of God in others.

 

See you soon!

 

Everett