The Worship Council had originally planned a Spring Pet Blessing for this coming Sunday, but we have now rescheduled it for Sunday, May 5 at 3:00 pm. The reason for this is that there is just too much going on in our community this Sunday at 3:00 pm. The Hike for Hospice is at that time. The matinee performance of Tarzan at Miami-Trace High School is at that time. The Fayette County Concert Series at the old Washington Middle School is at that time as well. Fayette County isn’t quite the Vegas Strip; we can’t support that many shows at the same time. So we’ve moved it back a week. The weather will be a little bit warmer, which will be nice. If it rains we’ll find another date for it. No big deal.
Most churches that have pet blessings do it in the fall as close to October 4 as possible. October 4 is the feast day of St. Francis of Assisi. He loved nature and animals and is, I believe, the patron saint of animal lovers. I think that St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church here in town has a Blessing of the Animals during the fall. So we decided to do one in the spring instead. We’re Presbyterians, anyway, so we’re not bound by saints days of any kind. We’re free to do it whenever it makes sense for us. I don’t know about you, but one of the things I think about when I think of spring is animals. Spring reminds us of new life and the beauty of God’s creation. We get out and take a long hike with the dog. The cat chases a butterfly through the yard. So why not have our pet blessing in spring? It’s not the normal thing to do, but who ever said that we’re normal?
I guess the biggest question of all is why we would ever bless animals in the first place. I remember sitting in an introductory theology course in seminary during which the topic of animal blessings came up. One of my classmates said something to the effect of, “What’s the point? Animals don’t have souls. They don’t sin. They can’t forgive or be forgiven. They’re just animals. Really, what’s the point?” I won’t take the time to get into the questions that deal with animals and eternity. If you’re interested in that you can look through the blog archives to find my post from February 14, 2012 entitled “All Dogs Go to Heaven (or do they?)” Although I’m not going to get into the theological or metaphysical arguments regarding the eternal destinies of animals, my classmate’s comments really do raise a get question: why bother having a pet blessing? Here’s my answer to this question: it isn’t really for the animals; it’s for us.
Will it do a dog any good to have someone put a hand on their head and pronounce a blessing on them? Maybe not. Do they really need it? Who knows? They praise God just by being alive. You see, animals are able to do something that we are not able to do—they are able to be who they were made to be. My dog, Eli, is exactly who he was made to be. So are my cat, Romy, and our fish, O.J. Being who God made you to be is what being blessed is all about. Really, what a pet blessing is meant to achieve is that, even more than blessing the animals, it is a blessing of that part of our lives. It is a claiming of that relationship between us and our pets as something that is of God. In 1 John we read, “Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.” Of course, John was referring to love of one person for another, but isn’t all love from God when it is genuine, self-giving love that glorifies our God? A pet blessing says, “You are created and loved by God. Your pets are created and loved by God. Your love and care for your pets glorifies the God who is love. Your pets love and loyalty to you is a blessing to you and to the animal and it glorifies God too. These animals are holy because they were made by a holy God. You have been given the job by the Creator of caring for all of creation. This is a part of that. Do it with love and grace and mercy and peace in your hearts! ‘Whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him’ (Colossians 3:17). When we follow God’s ways that he has given us in the Scriptures and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit all of life is blessed, including Eli and Romy and O.J.!
I hope you will join us in the manse backyard on May 5 at 3 pm (weather permitting). It will be extremely fun, informal, noisy, smelly, and holy all at the same time. See you then!
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Sunday, April 14, 2013
You're Invited!
The Presbyterian understanding of evangelism does not draw its impetus from the question of whether or not someone is going to heaven or to hell when they die. This isn’t the way that Presbyterians tend to believe the faith is spread. Here’s what I mean: I used to think that inviting someone to church was a sorry excuse for evangelism. “Tell them about Jesus,” I’d say, “Not the church!” But then after seminary and spending time leading congregations and watching how they worked, and watching how God worked through them, I realized something. The great commission is, of course, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” This is Jesus Christ’s commission to the Church. God has chosen, through the Holy Spirit, to work through the Church collective. I feel we have individualized this too much. I realized, that when we invite people to church we are recognizing that if this person would just come experience the Holy Spirit through the worship and fellowship of this community then God just might do something in that person’s life through the life of the covenant community that could never been have done through me as an individual. It is the Church that is to go, to make disciples, to baptize, and to teach. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Transformation happens within the community. I’m seeing that happen right now through our congregation in the lives of several folks. Their concerns were not whether or not they were going to heaven or hell. Their concerns were that they wanted a relationship with God through Jesus Christ and with the community of faith. That may take longer and be a bit messier than asking questions about eternal destinies (which are important questions, but not the best starting point) that may or may not lead to a moment of conversion that may or may not “stick” in the long run.
Some evangelists seem to see salvation as punching a ticket for heaven. My personal opinion is that evangelism that emphasizes this way of thinking about it is responsible for the negative view of the church held by so many today, and it utilizes a tactic that has been used again and again and has been rejected again and again. I have never found anywhere in the Bible where Jesus asks someone where they are going when they die. He does not say, “Nicodemus, do you believe in heaven and hell? If you died, where would you go?” While I do certainly believe that eternal life comes through Jesus Christ, I just don’t think this questions makes much sense with our theology and view of salvation.
The covenant community of the church is of utmost importance in Presbyterian theology. This is evident in our beliefs about everything from Baptism and the Lord’s Supper to church government to Bible study to evangelism. I think that this Presbyterian Church (USA) understanding has a lot to offer people in a society that has individuals so isolated from one another in the midst of being more connected (electronically) than ever. A response to this loss of connectedness and community and the power of a congregation living out our faith together and witnessing together is the approach that is the most authentic, holistic, historically prevalent (pre-1800’s or so), and the most Presbyterian. Salvation is, at least in part, the coming into this relationship with God and God’s people and having the Holy Spirit transform us into new creations who are heirs to the promise of eternal and abundant life, which begins now and goes on for eternity. That seems to me to be the witness of the gospels that attest to the gospel of the Kingdom of God, which is not presented as being simply analogous with heaven after death.
So now I believe that inviting someone to church is very much a form of evangelism instead of just being a cop out. I also believe that each Christian needs to be able to give an account of their faith when called upon to do so, but I really think that it is through the community of the church that real evangelism takes place. Invite someone to church and then we’ll love them, invite them, and disciple them in their faith. I won’t do it for you, but, with God’s help, I’ll lead us in doing it together.
Some evangelists seem to see salvation as punching a ticket for heaven. My personal opinion is that evangelism that emphasizes this way of thinking about it is responsible for the negative view of the church held by so many today, and it utilizes a tactic that has been used again and again and has been rejected again and again. I have never found anywhere in the Bible where Jesus asks someone where they are going when they die. He does not say, “Nicodemus, do you believe in heaven and hell? If you died, where would you go?” While I do certainly believe that eternal life comes through Jesus Christ, I just don’t think this questions makes much sense with our theology and view of salvation.
The covenant community of the church is of utmost importance in Presbyterian theology. This is evident in our beliefs about everything from Baptism and the Lord’s Supper to church government to Bible study to evangelism. I think that this Presbyterian Church (USA) understanding has a lot to offer people in a society that has individuals so isolated from one another in the midst of being more connected (electronically) than ever. A response to this loss of connectedness and community and the power of a congregation living out our faith together and witnessing together is the approach that is the most authentic, holistic, historically prevalent (pre-1800’s or so), and the most Presbyterian. Salvation is, at least in part, the coming into this relationship with God and God’s people and having the Holy Spirit transform us into new creations who are heirs to the promise of eternal and abundant life, which begins now and goes on for eternity. That seems to me to be the witness of the gospels that attest to the gospel of the Kingdom of God, which is not presented as being simply analogous with heaven after death.
So now I believe that inviting someone to church is very much a form of evangelism instead of just being a cop out. I also believe that each Christian needs to be able to give an account of their faith when called upon to do so, but I really think that it is through the community of the church that real evangelism takes place. Invite someone to church and then we’ll love them, invite them, and disciple them in their faith. I won’t do it for you, but, with God’s help, I’ll lead us in doing it together.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Wishful Thinking (Part 3)
I believe there is a common fallacy that says that a traditional Christian faith is automatically an unexamined faith, that those Christians who hold to traditional Christian doctrines are merely “closed minded.” If they were more open minded then they would realize how silly they are. Don’t get me wrong, there are certainly a good number of closed minded Christians out there but I promise you that it isn’t just conservative Christians who are the closed minded ones. I’ve met just as many liberals who are just as closed minded as those closed minded conservatives I've met. Both sides seem quite willing to eat whatever they are spoon fed by those authors and speakers with whom they agree or with whom they want to be associated. But I think it is a very important point to make that just because someone’s faith holds to the traditional “orthodox” doctrines, many of which are summarized in the Apostles’ Creed, does not mean their faith is unexamined or that they are closed minded. More than once I have heard folks within the Presbyterian Church (USA) say of people who believe in traditional ways that they “just aren’t willing to think for themselves.” One time a colleague in ministry spoke of someone who believes in a traditional kind of way as someone “whose theology is immature.”
Looking back on my seminary experience, I really do feel that those who held firmly to a traditional faith instead of espousing every critical opinion were treated as being unwilling to think for themselves and theologically immature. Although I never would have treated someone like that any differently, I must admit that during seminary and in my first few years in the parish that I was caught hook, line, and sinker by thinking that it was important for me to be viewed as theologically sophisticated than to be faithful to the Gospel. I’d given in to the idea that this theological sophistication can come only through skepticism, or what academicians call approaching everything with a “hermeneutic of suspicion.” Pretty much every Biblical commentary I owned was filled with skeptical comments about the Scriptures. Many of the theological books I read were “way out in left field.” I was looking for a new way of being a Christian that wouldn’t require me to believe so much stuff that is, frankly, kind of hard to believe sometimes. Interestingly enough, however, after spending six years or so reading only the skeptical viewpoint I realized that it had just as many holes in it as a non-skeptical viewpoint and it really seemed to me that a lot of the authors really just wanted to be seen as smart and innovative, rather than faithful. So after spending six years in deep study on the matter (I continue to study it now) and earning a Master of Divinity degree which (in my opinion) is in many ways built upon this hermeneutic of suspicion I ended up back where I started before I went to seminary—with a “regular ole” traditional Christian faith, although it has now been quite thoroughly examined and continues to be examined.
In G.K. Chesterton’s classic book Orthodoxy he uses a wonderful metaphor to describe how he ended up believing in the Christian faith in a very traditional way. He says it is like a man who sets sail from England in search of a wonderful new land that will be much better than England. He sails all the way around the world and lands on a beach, discovering the most wonderful place he could have ever imagined. Finally, he has found the place he’s been looking for! But, then, as he talks to the locals he finds out that he has, indeed, landed back in England where he began. G.K. Chesterton says that he went out looking for a better faith than is taught in the traditional doctrines of the church. When he finally came to find the form of faith that made the most sense to him and seemed to have the strongest case for truth he realized that he’d landed back where he started—orthodoxy, which C.S. Lewis called mere Christianity and N.T. Wright calls “simply Christian.”
I know a great many colleagues in ministry who seem to grade their own sermons based upon how provocative they are. I had a friend once who went out to preach at a little country church where I’d done quite a bit of preaching. After he preached there I received phone calls from congregation members asking that he never be sent out there again. When I asked him about it he said that they must just be “too small town, too closed minded” to be able to handle what he was preaching. He then offered me the opportunity to read his sermon so I could see how backwards these people really are, although I knew these people quite well and they were not backwards—they were just traditional. He offered the opportunity to read the sermon to another of our colleagues in the ministry. The other colleague said it was just fine and that he shouldn’t put too much stock in what the congregation said. After all, you can’t please everybody. I had to disagree, however. When I read it, it seemed to have two major issues. The first issue was that it wasn’t a sermon at all. It was more like a cross between a research paper and an opinion column. It did not fulfill any of the six great ends of the church, especially the one that has to do with proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ for the salvation of humankind. Secondly, it wasn’t really based upon the Scriptures. It was all about how Mary Magdalene got the short end of the stick by the early church and that her voice had been silenced and how if we read some of the “gospels” that were left out of the Bible that we’d see that she was much more important than the Bible says. He had an opinion about Mary Magdalene and he thought that sharing that opinion amounted to preaching. I was completely honest with him and I told him that I felt he misused the pulpit and that that congregation was not backwards at all but expected him, in his sermon, to proclaim the gospel to them. That’s why they showed up at worship, not to hear his speculations.
The Apostle Paul dealt with this in 1 Corinthians 2, where he writes, “And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” Matthew Henry, in words of commentary on the role of apostles (and later ministers) writes, “[Apostles] were ministers, not masters. They were servants of Christ, and no more. They had no authority to propagate their own fancies, but to spread Christian faith.” I heard a preacher use a good illustration for this not too long ago. He asked, “What do you want the mail carrier to do? What would you think if the mail carrier stood outside your mailbox and wrote all the letters himself/herself and then put them in your mailbox? If he/she did that you wouldn’t be very happy about it because that isn’t the mail carrier’s job. The mail carrier is entrusted with someone’s else’s message for you. Ministers are like mail carriers, the preacher said. “It’s not our own mail we’re delivering. It’s God’s mail for the people. That’s what we’re called to do. We are called as ministers only insofar as we give God’s message to God’s people. It’s not just for whatever we want to talk about as if we are somehow the point.”
Very often I have heard my colleagues in ministry use (I believe they misuse) the phrase “the Church reformed and always reforming” to justify rejection of what I’ve been calling a traditional Christian faith. That’s not the whole phrase, however. The entire phrase is, “The Church reformed and always reforming according to the Word of God.” That limits the kind of reformation that can take place. Reformation can only be allowed to happen so that we will be brought more in line with the Scriptures, not less so. The PC(USA) Study Catechism does a great job of summarizing this in questions and answers 58 and 59. 58 asks, “Isn’t preaching also the Word of God?” The first part of the answer is, “Yes. Preaching and other forms of Christian witness are also God’s Word when they are faithful to the witness of Holy Scripture.” 59 then asks, “Does the Holy Spirit ever speak apart from God’s Word in its written and proclaimed forms?” Here’s the answer: “Since the Spirit is not given to the church without the Word, true proclamation depends on Scripture. Since the Word cannot be grasped without the Spirit, true interpretation depends on prayer. However, as the wind blows where it will, so may the Spirit speak or work in people’s lives in unexpected or indirect ways, yet always according to the Word, never contradicting or diluting it.”
So all that was really just to make this point: just because someone has a traditional Christian faith that may not fit the bill of being a 21st Century postmodern skeptical and nontraditional way of believing in and practicing the Christian faith this does not mean that they (or I, since I put myself in this category) are closed minded, unwilling to think for themselves, theologically immature, or that they have not thoroughly examined their faith. They might have just set out from a traditional Christian faith, sailed around the world and visited all the provocative and skeptical islands along the way, and then ended up back where they began, but this time seeing it not as a place they need to leave, but as a place that is home, the very place where they belong.
Grace and Peace,
Pastor Everett
Looking back on my seminary experience, I really do feel that those who held firmly to a traditional faith instead of espousing every critical opinion were treated as being unwilling to think for themselves and theologically immature. Although I never would have treated someone like that any differently, I must admit that during seminary and in my first few years in the parish that I was caught hook, line, and sinker by thinking that it was important for me to be viewed as theologically sophisticated than to be faithful to the Gospel. I’d given in to the idea that this theological sophistication can come only through skepticism, or what academicians call approaching everything with a “hermeneutic of suspicion.” Pretty much every Biblical commentary I owned was filled with skeptical comments about the Scriptures. Many of the theological books I read were “way out in left field.” I was looking for a new way of being a Christian that wouldn’t require me to believe so much stuff that is, frankly, kind of hard to believe sometimes. Interestingly enough, however, after spending six years or so reading only the skeptical viewpoint I realized that it had just as many holes in it as a non-skeptical viewpoint and it really seemed to me that a lot of the authors really just wanted to be seen as smart and innovative, rather than faithful. So after spending six years in deep study on the matter (I continue to study it now) and earning a Master of Divinity degree which (in my opinion) is in many ways built upon this hermeneutic of suspicion I ended up back where I started before I went to seminary—with a “regular ole” traditional Christian faith, although it has now been quite thoroughly examined and continues to be examined.
In G.K. Chesterton’s classic book Orthodoxy he uses a wonderful metaphor to describe how he ended up believing in the Christian faith in a very traditional way. He says it is like a man who sets sail from England in search of a wonderful new land that will be much better than England. He sails all the way around the world and lands on a beach, discovering the most wonderful place he could have ever imagined. Finally, he has found the place he’s been looking for! But, then, as he talks to the locals he finds out that he has, indeed, landed back in England where he began. G.K. Chesterton says that he went out looking for a better faith than is taught in the traditional doctrines of the church. When he finally came to find the form of faith that made the most sense to him and seemed to have the strongest case for truth he realized that he’d landed back where he started—orthodoxy, which C.S. Lewis called mere Christianity and N.T. Wright calls “simply Christian.”
I know a great many colleagues in ministry who seem to grade their own sermons based upon how provocative they are. I had a friend once who went out to preach at a little country church where I’d done quite a bit of preaching. After he preached there I received phone calls from congregation members asking that he never be sent out there again. When I asked him about it he said that they must just be “too small town, too closed minded” to be able to handle what he was preaching. He then offered me the opportunity to read his sermon so I could see how backwards these people really are, although I knew these people quite well and they were not backwards—they were just traditional. He offered the opportunity to read the sermon to another of our colleagues in the ministry. The other colleague said it was just fine and that he shouldn’t put too much stock in what the congregation said. After all, you can’t please everybody. I had to disagree, however. When I read it, it seemed to have two major issues. The first issue was that it wasn’t a sermon at all. It was more like a cross between a research paper and an opinion column. It did not fulfill any of the six great ends of the church, especially the one that has to do with proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ for the salvation of humankind. Secondly, it wasn’t really based upon the Scriptures. It was all about how Mary Magdalene got the short end of the stick by the early church and that her voice had been silenced and how if we read some of the “gospels” that were left out of the Bible that we’d see that she was much more important than the Bible says. He had an opinion about Mary Magdalene and he thought that sharing that opinion amounted to preaching. I was completely honest with him and I told him that I felt he misused the pulpit and that that congregation was not backwards at all but expected him, in his sermon, to proclaim the gospel to them. That’s why they showed up at worship, not to hear his speculations.
The Apostle Paul dealt with this in 1 Corinthians 2, where he writes, “And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” Matthew Henry, in words of commentary on the role of apostles (and later ministers) writes, “[Apostles] were ministers, not masters. They were servants of Christ, and no more. They had no authority to propagate their own fancies, but to spread Christian faith.” I heard a preacher use a good illustration for this not too long ago. He asked, “What do you want the mail carrier to do? What would you think if the mail carrier stood outside your mailbox and wrote all the letters himself/herself and then put them in your mailbox? If he/she did that you wouldn’t be very happy about it because that isn’t the mail carrier’s job. The mail carrier is entrusted with someone’s else’s message for you. Ministers are like mail carriers, the preacher said. “It’s not our own mail we’re delivering. It’s God’s mail for the people. That’s what we’re called to do. We are called as ministers only insofar as we give God’s message to God’s people. It’s not just for whatever we want to talk about as if we are somehow the point.”
Very often I have heard my colleagues in ministry use (I believe they misuse) the phrase “the Church reformed and always reforming” to justify rejection of what I’ve been calling a traditional Christian faith. That’s not the whole phrase, however. The entire phrase is, “The Church reformed and always reforming according to the Word of God.” That limits the kind of reformation that can take place. Reformation can only be allowed to happen so that we will be brought more in line with the Scriptures, not less so. The PC(USA) Study Catechism does a great job of summarizing this in questions and answers 58 and 59. 58 asks, “Isn’t preaching also the Word of God?” The first part of the answer is, “Yes. Preaching and other forms of Christian witness are also God’s Word when they are faithful to the witness of Holy Scripture.” 59 then asks, “Does the Holy Spirit ever speak apart from God’s Word in its written and proclaimed forms?” Here’s the answer: “Since the Spirit is not given to the church without the Word, true proclamation depends on Scripture. Since the Word cannot be grasped without the Spirit, true interpretation depends on prayer. However, as the wind blows where it will, so may the Spirit speak or work in people’s lives in unexpected or indirect ways, yet always according to the Word, never contradicting or diluting it.”
So all that was really just to make this point: just because someone has a traditional Christian faith that may not fit the bill of being a 21st Century postmodern skeptical and nontraditional way of believing in and practicing the Christian faith this does not mean that they (or I, since I put myself in this category) are closed minded, unwilling to think for themselves, theologically immature, or that they have not thoroughly examined their faith. They might have just set out from a traditional Christian faith, sailed around the world and visited all the provocative and skeptical islands along the way, and then ended up back where they began, but this time seeing it not as a place they need to leave, but as a place that is home, the very place where they belong.
Grace and Peace,
Pastor Everett
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Wishful Thinking (Part 2)
If you haven’t read last week’s post, “Wishful Thinking,” you need to read it first for this post to make much sense.
I cannot afford to subscribe to Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. I spend too much time holding the hands of those who are suffering and/or dying for that. You see, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (wishful thinking spirituality) collapses when faced with undeserved suffering. If God’s job is to make me happy, when I suffer, God must have failed me, abandoned me, or never existed in the first place. If God (my “divine butler” or “cosmic therapist”) is to be at my beck and call, then when God does not answer my understandable and earnest prayers for healing, then God has not fulfilled the responsibilities of the job I “hired” God to do—keep me happy—so I will “fire” God. Oh, how many people I have met who have given up their faith in God because they expected God to reward them for being a halfway decent person by making them happy and healthy all the time and God failed to do that!
I cannot afford to walk into a hospital room or into the home of a hospice patient to be with them with this kind of flimsy pop spirituality. I cannot walk in there with a faith with such a weak foundation. Do you remember the story that Jesus told about this? He said, “Everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is most certainly a “house built on sand.” When the storm comes it will be washed away. I need a faith built on rock! Psalm 18:2 declares, “The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.” The Psalms use the image of God as rock over and over. I can’t think of a single time that the Scriptures use the image of sand for God. Real life, with its good and bad, with its seasons for everything (see Ecclesiastes 3), requires a solid faith in a solid God.
So if God doesn’t want me to be happy all the time, then what good is God? Now, wait a second here, I never said that God doesn’t want us to be happy; what I’m trying to say is that God isn’t in the business of catering to our ideas of happiness. Of course we all want enough to eat, a good safe place to live, a healthy family, and a job that we enjoy. There’s nothing wrong with wanting that and it makes sense for us to strive for that and to make it possible for everyone to have these opportunities. However, one of the very important things that God did through the incarnation of Jesus Christ is to redefine real happiness. The word “happy” is often rendered as “blessed” in the Bible. Strangely enough, Jesus never says, “Happy are those who are healthy. Happy are those who are decent folks. Happy are the materially comfortable. Happy are those who fulfill their lifelong dream.” Nope, that’s not what Jesus says. Instead Jesus says,
“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
He also says, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it” and “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
When I was in college I was diagnosed with “situational depression.” That means that in reaction to something that had happened I had become depressed. The “situational” part of it meant that this wasn’t a chronic brain chemistry issue. They said that with some counseling and some subsequent changes in habit, I’d be able to come out of it, and that is precisely what happened. The reason I bring this up is that I think that what a lot of us rely on (and what Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is built upon) could be called “situational happiness.” But just like situational depression, situational happiness is not lasting. If my happiness is completely based upon things going well in the way that I want them to go well, then I’m going to be in trouble eventually because sometimes life isn’t a beach—sometimes life is more like the other saying about life that ends with a “b” word. That’s why God offers us true happiness, which is not dependent upon our current situation. Actually it is much easier and necessary to be poor in spirit, mourning, meek, hungering and thirsting for righteousness, merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers, and persecuted in the bad times. Happy days (as we think of happiness) are not made up of these things. Usually it is the bad days that are made up of these things. Jesus is saying that we can be truly happy, truly blessed, even in the midst of the worst of times, and even especially in the worst of times. This is what Jesus called “abundant life.”
Once, Jesus put it this way, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” Another time he said it like this, “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” In John’s gospel, Jesus talks about “eternal life” all the time. We often make the mistake of equating this only with heaven when we die. That is a terrible misinterpretation. By “eternal life” Jesus means life that comes from, is lived by, and will remain in those things which are eternal, not by what is temporal or “situational.” A lot of people’s faith is built upon situational happiness. I’m telling you, though, that’s a foundation of sand! We need a foundation of rock.
If God can only be found in the happy times, then God will be missing a great deal of the time, and God will be missing when we actually need God the most. We may long for what we think of as a happy life (and this is only natural), however, here’s the ironic thing—very often we have trouble finding God there. Strangely though, sometimes this abundant and eternal life that is built upon true happiness/blessedness as offered by God is actually easier to get a hold on when our current situation is the worst it’s ever been. Moralistic Therapeutic Deism cannot account for this. However, the Cross can! So many people who say they believe in God, even so many people who call themselves Christians, operate without an understanding of the Cross. The cross is the proof of Psalm 23 and Psalm 139. The Cross and the traditional Apostles’ Creed kind of Christianity that emphasizes the Cross is what we need in the midst of real life. What we don’t need is wishful thinking. We need a God we can trust, not a God we can order around.
The true happiness that is offered by God—the eternal kind of life—will enable us, through the power of the Holy Spirit, no matter what our current situation to “rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for [us] in Christ Jesus.” I cannot afford to walk up to the bedside of a hospice patient with anything less than this kind of faith, and I’m of the mind that none of us can afford to walk through life with anything less than this either.
I may continue on this current thought for one more post next week…
Grace and Peace,
Pastor Everett
I cannot afford to subscribe to Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. I spend too much time holding the hands of those who are suffering and/or dying for that. You see, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (wishful thinking spirituality) collapses when faced with undeserved suffering. If God’s job is to make me happy, when I suffer, God must have failed me, abandoned me, or never existed in the first place. If God (my “divine butler” or “cosmic therapist”) is to be at my beck and call, then when God does not answer my understandable and earnest prayers for healing, then God has not fulfilled the responsibilities of the job I “hired” God to do—keep me happy—so I will “fire” God. Oh, how many people I have met who have given up their faith in God because they expected God to reward them for being a halfway decent person by making them happy and healthy all the time and God failed to do that!
I cannot afford to walk into a hospital room or into the home of a hospice patient to be with them with this kind of flimsy pop spirituality. I cannot walk in there with a faith with such a weak foundation. Do you remember the story that Jesus told about this? He said, “Everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is most certainly a “house built on sand.” When the storm comes it will be washed away. I need a faith built on rock! Psalm 18:2 declares, “The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.” The Psalms use the image of God as rock over and over. I can’t think of a single time that the Scriptures use the image of sand for God. Real life, with its good and bad, with its seasons for everything (see Ecclesiastes 3), requires a solid faith in a solid God.
So if God doesn’t want me to be happy all the time, then what good is God? Now, wait a second here, I never said that God doesn’t want us to be happy; what I’m trying to say is that God isn’t in the business of catering to our ideas of happiness. Of course we all want enough to eat, a good safe place to live, a healthy family, and a job that we enjoy. There’s nothing wrong with wanting that and it makes sense for us to strive for that and to make it possible for everyone to have these opportunities. However, one of the very important things that God did through the incarnation of Jesus Christ is to redefine real happiness. The word “happy” is often rendered as “blessed” in the Bible. Strangely enough, Jesus never says, “Happy are those who are healthy. Happy are those who are decent folks. Happy are the materially comfortable. Happy are those who fulfill their lifelong dream.” Nope, that’s not what Jesus says. Instead Jesus says,
“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
He also says, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it” and “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
When I was in college I was diagnosed with “situational depression.” That means that in reaction to something that had happened I had become depressed. The “situational” part of it meant that this wasn’t a chronic brain chemistry issue. They said that with some counseling and some subsequent changes in habit, I’d be able to come out of it, and that is precisely what happened. The reason I bring this up is that I think that what a lot of us rely on (and what Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is built upon) could be called “situational happiness.” But just like situational depression, situational happiness is not lasting. If my happiness is completely based upon things going well in the way that I want them to go well, then I’m going to be in trouble eventually because sometimes life isn’t a beach—sometimes life is more like the other saying about life that ends with a “b” word. That’s why God offers us true happiness, which is not dependent upon our current situation. Actually it is much easier and necessary to be poor in spirit, mourning, meek, hungering and thirsting for righteousness, merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers, and persecuted in the bad times. Happy days (as we think of happiness) are not made up of these things. Usually it is the bad days that are made up of these things. Jesus is saying that we can be truly happy, truly blessed, even in the midst of the worst of times, and even especially in the worst of times. This is what Jesus called “abundant life.”
Once, Jesus put it this way, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” Another time he said it like this, “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” In John’s gospel, Jesus talks about “eternal life” all the time. We often make the mistake of equating this only with heaven when we die. That is a terrible misinterpretation. By “eternal life” Jesus means life that comes from, is lived by, and will remain in those things which are eternal, not by what is temporal or “situational.” A lot of people’s faith is built upon situational happiness. I’m telling you, though, that’s a foundation of sand! We need a foundation of rock.
If God can only be found in the happy times, then God will be missing a great deal of the time, and God will be missing when we actually need God the most. We may long for what we think of as a happy life (and this is only natural), however, here’s the ironic thing—very often we have trouble finding God there. Strangely though, sometimes this abundant and eternal life that is built upon true happiness/blessedness as offered by God is actually easier to get a hold on when our current situation is the worst it’s ever been. Moralistic Therapeutic Deism cannot account for this. However, the Cross can! So many people who say they believe in God, even so many people who call themselves Christians, operate without an understanding of the Cross. The cross is the proof of Psalm 23 and Psalm 139. The Cross and the traditional Apostles’ Creed kind of Christianity that emphasizes the Cross is what we need in the midst of real life. What we don’t need is wishful thinking. We need a God we can trust, not a God we can order around.
The true happiness that is offered by God—the eternal kind of life—will enable us, through the power of the Holy Spirit, no matter what our current situation to “rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for [us] in Christ Jesus.” I cannot afford to walk up to the bedside of a hospice patient with anything less than this kind of faith, and I’m of the mind that none of us can afford to walk through life with anything less than this either.
I may continue on this current thought for one more post next week…
Grace and Peace,
Pastor Everett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)