The Quotable C.S. Lewis #21: It's About the One True God

"The Christians are not claiming that simply 'God' was incarnate in Jesus. They are claiming that the one true God is He whom the Jews worshipped as Jahweh, and that it is He who has descended. Now the double character of Jahweh is this. On the one hand, He is the God of Nature, her glad Creator. It is He who sends rain into the furrows till the valleys stand so thick with corn that they laugh and sing. The trees of the wood rejoice before Him and His voice causes the wild deer to bring forth their young. He is the God of wheat and wine and oil. In that respect He is constantly doing all things that Nature-Gods do: He is Bacchus, Venus, Ceres all rolled into one. ...."

"On the other hand, Jahweh is clearly not a Nature-God. He does not die and come to life each year as a true Corn-king should. ....He is not the soul of Nature nor of any part of Nature. He inhabits eternity: He dwells in the high and holy place: heaven is His throne, not His vehicle, earth is His footstool, not His vesture. One day He will dismantle both and make a new heaven and a new earth. He is not to be identified even with the 'divine spark' in man. He is 'God and not man'. ...."

"Jahweh is neither the soul of Nature nor her enemy. .... She is His creature. He is not a Nature-God, but the God of Nature-- her inventor, maker, owner, and controller. To everyone who reads this book the conception has been familiar from childhood, we therefore easily think it is the most ordinary conception in the world. 'If people are going to believe in a God at all,' we ask, 'what other kind would they believe in?' But the answer of history is, 'Almost any other kind'."

--Miracles

John Wesley at Oxford University

John Wesley began his studies at Oxford University in 1720. He was a member of Christ's Church College. He graduated with a B.A. in 1724. He would stay and receive an M.A. in Divinity being ordained in 1728.

Wesley's relationship with Oxford after his studies became a love/hate affair. He very much loved the university setting, but lamented what he saw as the University's indifference to religion. He was elected as a Fellow of Lincoln College in 1726 and stayed there until 1735 when he went to Georgia on a mission to the Native Americans living there.

During his studies Wesley became disillusioned with the lack of spiritual discipline at Oxford. But after his conversion in May of 1738, Wesley's disenchantment would grow exponentially. As the Methodist movement grew Wesley realized that if religious fervor were to come to Oxford, it would have to happen through the people of the town, not the University.

The event that would seal his break with Oxford happened in August of 1744. Wesley preached a biting sermon at St. Mary's College strongly asserting that the vices condemned in the Bible were the general context of the University community. After the sermon, Wesley wrote in his diary, "I preached, I suppose, for the last time at St. Mary's. Be it so, I am now clear of the blood of these men. I have delivered my own soul."

After the St. Mary's sermon, Wesley's visits to Oxford University were very infrequent; and even though he was quite saddened by the lack of religious interest there, he maintained a fond affection for the place throughout his life. Wesley the scholar and Wesley the reformer were both formed in the context of the Oxford University he cherished and found woefully wanting.

Did Peter Abandon the Jewish Food Laws at Antioch? #2

Galatians 2:11-18

Judaism in the first century was concerned with defining the limits of table-fellowship. The observing of these limits varied from Jewish community to Jewish community. It is reasonable to suggest that even among the Jewish communities of the Diaspora it was expected that good Jews would follow the halakic explanations of the purity laws. This may have been true at Antioch as well. While there was social interaction between Jews and God-fearing Gentiles, more scrupulous Jews would generally avoid table fellowship with Gentiles (Jubilees 22:16; compare Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.1-2). Jews who were more Hellenized, however, might feel free to participate with Gentiles in table-fellowship within certain limits. It is likely that the early church wrestled more intensely with this dilemma as more and more Gentiles entered the church (compare Acts 11:2-3).

Whatever the exact nature of the table-fellowship at Antioch, the dispute finds its core in 2:14 in Paul's rebuke of Cephas (Peter): "‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" Here Peter is told that he lives like a Gentile in matters of table-fellowship. Again, this does not necessarily mean that Peter had abandoned entirely the laws regulating table-fellowship. What the "men from James" wanted was stricter observance of the food laws and purity laws. This effectively meant that unless the Gentiles decided to Judaize, the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians could not have table fellowship together. This could and likely would compel the Gentile believers to Judaize, that is to embrace Jewish customs and laws to the extent that Gentile believers would be accepted at the table.

One reason that Peter may have withdrawn from table-fellowship with Gentiles was that he was told that such behavior was not Jewish, and as a Jew he ought to live like one. He had abandoned the ancestral faith. Indeed, his lifestyle in Antioch hindered the evangelization of other Jews.

Paul saw this withdrawal from the table as inconsistent with the gospel. Peter and his Jewish brothers were not on the right road. In complying with the demands of the church in Jerusalem, if indeed it was the church in Jerusalem or merely certain men claiming such authority, Peter built a wall of separation between the Jewish and Gentile believers it was a wall that denied the Gentile Christians full membership in the church; it denied their status as true believers, unless, of course the Gentiles were to Judaize, which meant becoming more like Jews. In so doing the covenant prerogatives would continue to remain in the hands of ethnic Israel.

Conspiracy Theorists in a NUTshell

I do not understand the psychology behind those prone to believing conspiracy theories, but if nothing else these folks do provide us with entertainment.

Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he is not a natural born citizen (he was actually born of a virgin in Bethlehem).

George W. Bush knew in advance about 9/11 (Bush Derangement Syndrome is still infecting many people).

Rosie O'Donnell believes 9/11 was an inside job because it was the first time in history when fire melted steel (chuckle, chuckle all you steel mill workers).

Whoopie Goldberg suggests that the moon landings never happened (that's one small step for nonsense, one giant leap for insanity).

Sarah Palin's newborn son is really her daughter's (even MSNBC reported it to be true!)

The CIA had John F. Kennedy killed (yeah, and I'll bet he was secretly waterboarded to death after he was taken to the hospital).

The church has covered up the truth about Jesus and Mary Magdalene (don't let history stand in the way of a good fable, especially if it includes sex).

In a NUTshell conspiracy theorists need to get a life.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian

What Does God Know and When Does God Know It?

My sermon for this Sunday is on Genesis 22, the story of God's command to Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac. In his Interpretation commentary on Genesis, Walter Brueggemann writes the following:

Verse 1 sets the test, suggesting God wants to know something. (Notice the intent of God to "know" in 18:21, which also leads to a crisis.) It is not a game with God. God genuinely does not know. And that is settled in verse 12, "Now I know." There is real development in the plot. The flow of the narrative accomplishes something in the awareness of God. He did not know. Now he knows. The narrative will not be understood if it is taken as a flat event of "testing." It can only be seen as a genuine movement in history between Yahweh and Abraham.

I think Brueggemann is right. If we discount a genuine not knowing on the part of God in this story, we lose the significance of the narrative. God wants to know that Abraham will trust him to keep his promise to make of him a great nation even though the one through whom the promise will come (Isaac) is taken away. Abraham must trust God, but God must trust Abraham as well. Throughout the Abraham and Sarah narrative, the first Matriarch and Patriarch continually attempt to take control of the promise themselves (e.g. Hagar and Ishmael). God genuinely is not sure he can trust Abraham to leave it to God to fulfill the promise.

What makes this reading so difficult is when the text confronts our preconceived notions of omniscience and sovereignty. We try to squeeze the text to fit our doctrine of God. When we do that, we fail to let the text speak on its own terms and we perform hermeneutical gymnastics in our reading of Scripture. In addition, it makes God's relationship and interaction with his people appear to be nothing more than "smoke and mirrors" where God calls and leads and speaks even though he already knows the outcome. Is it possible to imagine God going through this entire scenario with Abraham and Issac, putting Abraham through this test with the rationale that God wanted to see if he could trust Abraham, even though God already knew that he could?

None of this explains what God knows about the future, whether he limits his knowledge of the future in order to be in genuine relationship with his creation, and what exactly God limits and what he truly knows of what is to come in our time and space which God is beyond. But in order to maintain the integrity of this biblical text from Genesis, we must take it at face value, and the text says that God does not know the outcome of his command to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac.

Who am I to say otherwise?

Almost Persuaded

Today's audio sermon from Acts 26:24-32

Opinion Central Poll 2009.30: Final Results

What do you think of the amount of coverage of the death of Michael Jackson?

A Prayer for the Eighth Sunday after Pentecost

Lord Jesus I know that all human relations take time if they are to grow and deepen. This is also true of my relations with You, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which must grow over the course of my life. However, this growth is not automatic; time alone means nothing unless I add earnest efforts to it.

You have inspired Your Church to set aside special times when this growth can develop more intensely-- the special seasons of the Church Year. If I fail to move toward You during these times, I waste precious opportunities and endanger my spiritual life. Help me to take them seriously and make a real attempt to use them well, so that I may grow into the person You want me to be. Amen.

New Saint Joseph People's Prayer Book

MBWR Reminder

The Weekly Roundup will return next weekend. Please email your links to umweeklyroundup(at)yahoo(dot)com by next Saturday at 12 noon EST.

Thanks!

Truth is Stranger than Fiction 2009.17

Did Peter Abandon the Jewish Food Laws at Antioch? #1

Galatians 2:11-18

In his letter to the Galatians, St. Paul confronts the Apostle Peter for what Paul sees as hypocrisy on Peter's part as one who participated in table-fellowship with Gentile Christians, but then withdrawing from that fellowship once some "men from James" came from Jerusalem to rebuke him for his laxity in reference to the observance of the law of Moses. But just what had Peter supposedly abandoned? Did Peter and the other Jews in Antioch more or less relinquish the laws regulating table-fellowship? Could it be that the Gentile Christians in Galatia were already observing some of the basic food regulations required by the law (such as abstinence from pork and proper procedure as far as slaughter was concerned), making it possible for the Jewish believers to eat with Gentile believers in an environment less rigorous in the respect to the law, but one falling short of abandonment of all the regulations of table-fellowship?

The evidence is strong that Judaism was attractive to many Gentiles in the Roman world and that they kept the law and followed its regulations in varying degrees (Josephus Ant. 20.38-48, Philo, Vit. Mos. 2.41-43, Plutarch, Cicero 7.6) The practice of Gentiles following Jewish regulations was common enough that certain non-Jewish dietary practices could be mistaken as Jewish (Seneca, Epistulae 108.22). It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that it was somewhat common for Gentile Christians to have been God-fearers prior to their acceptance of Christianity and were already in the habit of regarding the dietary laws to some extent. Along with this it was uncharacteristic for Jewish believers to abandon the law completely, given its boundary-marking characteristics for them as God's people. This included table-fellowship with Gentiles (Daniel 1:8-16; Acts 10:14; 11:2-3; 1 Corinthians 8-10). It is likely that the "men from James" wanted stricter adherence to the laws concerned with dietary and ritual purity, but it is unclear as to how lax the observance of those laws had become.

Given the evidence for Gentile attraction to the law, and the Jewish concern over issues of ethnic boundaries, it is probably the case that the cause of the Antioch incident did not take place over a complete disregard for the dietary and purity laws. At the same time, there appear to have been serious breaches of the law in Antioch. This explains Paul's face-to-face criticism of Peter-- "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live as Jews?" (Galatians 2:14; compare Jubilees 6:35; 15:33-34; Psalms of Solomon 1:8; 8:13). It must be recognized here that this is Paul's interpretation of Peter's behavior, but it is reasonable to assume that both men had enough common ground to agree, for the most part, what it meant to live like a Jew, and by abandoning certain regulations, live like a Gentile (compare Acts 10:9-16; Philippians 3:4-6).

The Competition Really Isn't Much Competition

When I was young, I played little league baseball. I have no idea how teams were chosen. We just waited to receive a call from our coach in the spring informing us of the team we were on. Whether it was coincidental or some coaches rigged the draft, it was clear halfway through the season that some teams had the lion's share of the talent and other teams were woefully lacking in ability. I was fortunate enough to have played on the one of the most talented teams in the league, and at the time it was quite fun beating up on the less talented teams. When I played little league some thirty-five years ago, there were no rules about everyone having to play at least a couple of innings and there were no mercy rules when it came to scoring. Thankfully, most kids' leagues now have such rules in place, but when I was playing, if the score was 32-2 in the last inning, we played until the very last out. There were evenings when the competition we faced was not really much competition.

Bishop and Cappadocian Father, Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330-395) writes the following:

"Thus the obedient and responsive soul gives itself over to the virtuous life. This life is freedom itself, on the one hand, from the chains of this life, separating itself from the slavery of base and empty pursuits. On the other hand, this soul devotes itself to faith and the life of God alone, because it sees clearly that where there is faith, reverence, and a blameless life, there is present the power of Christ, there is flight from all evil and from death which robs us of life. For shameful things do not have in themselves sufficient power to compete with the power of the Lord. It is their nature to develop from disobedience to his commands. This was experienced in ancient times by the first man, but now it is experienced by all of us when we imitate Adam's disobedience through stubborn choice. However, those who approach the Spirit with honest intent, unfeigned faith and an undefiled conscience, are cleansed by the Spirit according to the one who says, 'for our gospel was not delivered to you in word only, but in power also; and in the Holy Spirit and in much fullness, as you know" (On the Christian Mode of Life).

Gregory's words here are quite instructive when it comes to the nature of our temptation and sin. The "shameful things" as Gregory calls them cannot compete with the Lord's power. There is no dualism here, no thought that the principalities and powers are on equal footing with God when it comes to the outcome of the battle. We do not witness two foes of equal strength. The forces of evil are no match for the God of the Universe.

The problem, as Gregory sees it, is human unwillingness to give up those things that cannot compete by our "stubborn choice" in hanging on to such things. It's as if we refuse to play on the side of the team that will obviously win and side with the weaker team because we think we will have more fun in the loser's dugout, than being out on the field playing with the winner. We rob ourselves of the power of Christ because we choose not to pursue the blameless life, the life of faith.

But sin cannot master us if we are willing to let the Spirit work in our lives-- if we have, as Gregory states, "honest intent, unfeigned faith and an undefiled conscience," and if we approach the Spirit in such a posture, the power of God can and will deliver us from those things that so powerfully imprison us, but that are no match for the power of God.

Bishop N.T. Wright on the Importance of Reason

On Capturing the Imagination

Forty years ago today Neil Armstrong was the first human being to set foot on the moon. The country and the world were riveted to their television sets as those first grainy pictures returned live footage of Armstrong and his colleague, "Buzz" Aldrin moving around the surface of our nearest heavenly neighbor.

I was seven years old at the time and I vividly remember sitting in front of the TV watching and trying to imagine what it would be like to be there. I have had an amateur interest in astronomy from a young age and what I watched in front of the television captured my imagination for years to follow.



Some two thousand years ago, Jesus captured the imagination of the people around him. He taught in ways that people had never encountered before, he performed great works that first century Jewish peasants had never seen. He spoke of the things of God that touched the souls of those who listened. And Jesus captured the imagination of the first Christians in his death and resurrection, that salvation came from God in a way they had never imagined. Once the first Christians could imagine what God had done for them, they could imagine what they needed to do for others. They went out from Jerusalem and proclaimed the gospel, capturing the imagination on what God was now doing for the world.

God still desires to capture our imagination today, but it can be difficult for men and women in the twenty-first century West to be so captured because too many have already had their imaginations held captive by the things that Jesus says, "fade away." We have been captured by reality TV (what I call voyeur television), we have been shackled to the pursuit of things that do not enhance our relationship with Jesus Christ; indeed some of those things actually sever that relationship. This is not only true of those who do not follow Jesus, but it can also be the case for some who claim to be his followers.

I fear that the church in America is not as captivated by the gospel as it should be; and thus we lack the imagination to wonder and hope and pray and involve ourselves in those things that will captivate others for Jesus Christ. I am afraid that we in the church have turned so inward on ourselves that we are unable to turn outside ourselves and help the world imagine the kinds of possibilities that only God can bring about, and that cannot happen while glued in front of the television watching the latest family meltdown or listening in on conversations that years ago would have been considered as a private family matter.

The Jesus who captivated the hearts of many two thousand years ago is still captivating hearts and minds today. Are we so captivated? And if so, can we imagine the possibilities that God wants to bring about in this world through the church?

Why the Church Needs More Atheists

Today's audio sermon from Acts 17:16-34

A Prayer for the Seventh Sunday after Pentecost

Heavenly Father You are the One from Whom every family derives its origin. Grant that, in keeping with Your glorious riches we may be strengthened with power through the Spirit for the development of our inner selves. Help us to develop our natural potentialities to the fullwhile at the same time growing in Your likeness to Your Son Jesus Christ. Amen.

Truth is Stranger than Fiction 2009.16

Visa card surprise: $23,148,855,308,184,500: Company cites 'temporary programming error' for 17-digit charges

.

msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 10:52 a.m. ET, Wed., July 15, 2009

.

MANCHESTER, N.H. - Some Visa cardholders were surprised to find that recent purchases cost them a little more than expected — $23 quadrillion, plus change.

.

In New Hampshire, Josh Muszynski said he swiped his debit card at a gas station to buy a pack of cigarettes and when he later checked his account online found that he had been charged the 17-digit number — a stunning $23,148,855,308,184,500.

.

In North Texas, Jon Seale saw the same 17-figure bill on his credit card statement, presumably for a meal July 13 at a restaurant owned by celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck, NBC affiliate KXAS TV reported.

.

"For that amount of money, I could actually own Wolfgang Puck himself," Seale said.

.

Seale said he spent much of Tuesday making calls to Visa and his bank, Wachovia, in hopes of getting the exorbitant charge removed from his Wachovia Visa Buxx credit card. "It's an inconvenience, but it's not like I was truly worried my money was gone," he said. "It's an obvious, glaring error."

.

Seale even tried tracking down Puck "on Facebook and add him as a friend to see if he'd make a comment, but I didn't have any luck finding him."

.

Muszynski, for his part, said he spent two hours on the phone with his bank, Bank of America, trying to sort out the string of numbers and the $15 overdraft fee. The bank corrected the error the next day.

Is It OK to Bargain with God?

The Protestant Reformer, Martin Luther (1483-1546) was born the second son of Hans and Magarete Luther. Martin's father was a miner who wanted his son to enter a profession that had more security. It was decided that Martin would study law. He was almost done with his studies, when one day in 1505, at the age of 21, he was caught outside in the midst of a violent thunderstorm. In the midst of his fear, Luther cried out to St. Anna, the patron saint of miners, "Save me, Saint Anna, and I shall become a monk!"

Luther kept his vow and not too many days later, to the great disappointment of his father and his mother, he entered the Augustinian monastery in the town of Erfurt. Many historians have argued that Luther was already leaning in that direction as a result of his studies, and that the thunderstorm experience only gave certainty to his desires. Nevertheless, in the midst of an intense moment, Luther made a bargain with St. Anna and by extension, God himself.

Many people have tried to bargain with God, most of the time in quite difficult situations. I knew a philosophy professor who was a fighter pilot in World War II, who promised God in the midst of an intense dogfight that if God saw him through the war, he would devote his life to the study of religion and philosophy. He kept his promise.

Is it OK to bargain with God? I do not mean asking God for something; we do that all the time in prayer. In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus asked his Heavenly Father to take the cup he was about to drink from him, but he did not offer to exchange something in return. We do, however ask God to bless us. Is it too much of a sacrilegious stretch to ask for something in return for our commitment? God if you do this for me, I will do that for you?

Of course, it is true that some people commit their lives to Jesus Christ after God has done something dramatic in their lives, but that was not something they bargained for ahead of time. It was a response to something they had not asked for in return for something else before God acted on their behalf.

Let me suggest that it is never OK to bargain with God, because in bargaining with God we get to set the parameters of the deal, not the Almighty. When one looks in the Bible at the covenants God makes with his people, it is God who sets the terms of the covenants and they are non-negotiable. God says, "This is what I will do for you; here is what you will do." There is no bargaining here. What God has promised is not in doubt and what we are to do is not in doubt; whether or not we do it is another matter, but there is no bargaining-- only God's promises and stipulations, and our obedience.

On many Sunday mornings in worship, I will utter the following in prayer, "Lord we have come here to worship you, for you alone are worthy of our praise. We ask that as we worship, you will offer to each one of us gathered here the word of help we need for this day." This is not bargaining language. I am not saying to God, "God if you give us your word of assistance, we will worship you." No! It is, "God we will worship you in this place whether we hear a word from you or not, but we are asking for that word all the same."

Martin Luther kept the word of the bargain he made, and God did great things through him. God wants to do great things through each and every one of us, but none of that is up for negotiation. God calls, we respond, and we ask God to establish the work of our hands (Psalm 90:17).

Opinion Central Poll 2009.29: Final Results

Should the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) be overturned?

Postmodern Judicial Philosophy, Modern Judicial Application

Yesterday's confirmation hearing for SCOTUS nominee, Sonia Sotomayor was quite interesting, unlike the first day's session which was nothing more than senators grandstanding for their constituencies and putting them to sleep.

Judge Sotomayor is obviously intelligent, articulate, and well spoken. What intrigued me was the underlying philosophical narrative taking place on the posture one takes in reading and interpreting texts, in this case the law. Intepreting texts can be a complex thing. The strict constructionist/activist (deconstructionist) dichotomy makes for interesting soundbites on cable news, but it grossly oversimplifies the rigorous activity of understanding what has been written.

Modernity embraced the notion that it was possible for the individual to stand in a neutral place in order to make judgments, that is, one could throw off one's biases and prejudices, one's own personal narratives and convictions in order to stand in an objective place when making judgments. Thus, not only could a person read texts objectively, one should strive to do so. Those old enough to remember the Dragnet series on TV, will recall Sergeant Joe Friday's often remarked dictum, "Just give us the facts ma'am." Such a comment reflects the modern notion of objectivity, that it is possible to sort through all the clutter of an incident to get to the bare and raw truth.

Postmodernism rejects the objective/subjective distinction noting that it is impossible for one to throw off or transcend one's narrative, one's context in order to stand in a neutral place. It is impossible for someone just to give the facts. Each individual sees life through the lens of her or his experience; and each person brings that personal narrative to interpreting texts. Experience is a complex thing; to believe that it can simply be jettisoned is to embrace a fantasy.

What does this have to do with the current confirmation hearings? These are precisely the conflicting presumptions in tension at work on Capitol Hill. President Obama started the discussion when he put forth his belief that empathy was an important characteristic for a judge, obviously embracing a postmodern judicial philosophy. Those who have questioned the place of empathy in interpreting law have reflected the modern mindset of the necessity of neutrality in making judgments. What was extremely intriguing today was that Judge Sotomayor clearly backed away from this postmodern posture that was not only articulated by the president, but by the judge herself in many of the comments she made about about the superior judgment capabilities of a wise Latina. She has received some help in this narrative rewrite from Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, who are speaking of Judge Sotomayor's restrained judicial temperament and insisting that Chief Justice Roberts himself has created law in some of his judgments. So, Judge Sotomayor and Democrats are in effect rejecting the importance of empathy as a quality for a judge that the president who nominated her deems so important. It appears that what is being put forth is that one can hold a postmodern judicial philosophy while employing a modern judicial application of the law. My guess is that supporters of Sotomayor understand that the majority of the American public still accept the modern notion of objectivity and believe that the law can be read and decided from a neutral posture. But the tension between the modern and postmodern reading of texts continues because the two are irreconcilable, which is why Judge Sotomayor's reinterpretation of her own words are not convincing.

Some thoughts in conclusion: The modern objective/subjective distinction is simply false. It is impossible to understand anything from a neutral point of view. Those on the right who believe that such a posture is possible need to rethink their strict constructionist views. Do they really believe that judges with a conservative judicial philosophy read legal texts objectively? Is the suggestion here that objective readers will by necessity be conservative? If objectivity is possible, why do we need nine Supreme Court Justices of the United States? Wouldn't it be better to find just one objective judge and put her or him in the role?

On the other hand, while it is impossible for people to read texts objectively, and while it is true that every individual takes her or his own story (or better stories) into understanding the text, that does not mean that a text can be read in any way the individual reader desires. Texts were written in contexts as well, and their writers also had narratives and they are an indispensable consideration as well. Those on the left need to take this seriously and often they have not. That is not to say that it is an easy thing to know the context in question, but it should not be ignored. Anyone who has ever had their words twisted by someone else know that the context of what is uttered is as important as the context of how the words are understood. The reader of the text should not only understand and appreciate the positive impact one's own narrative has on interpreting texts, that person must also be willing to hold his or her narrative up to critical scrutiny because one's story can hinder hearing the text as well. In addition, it can be asked in postmodern fashion why empathy should be a favored character trait in a judge. What about conscientiousness? What about decisiveness? What about reading texts with artistic creativity? This is not to say that empathy is unimportant in a judge; it is to say that giving empathy priority says much about the personal narrative of President Obama. A future president's narrative may be quite different privileging another personality characteristic in a Supreme Court nominee.

The problem with strict constructionists is that they privilege the context of the text and neglect the context of the reader, while strict deconstructionists give priority to the context of the reader and neglect the narrative in which the text being interpreted was written. The former view the context of the text as some kind of golden era of understanding and the current narrative construals as a wandering away from the original narratival orthodoxy. The latter view the context of the text as primitive and out-of-date and the current context as superior and therefore determinative for and surpassing of what has gone before.

I have no illusions that this hermeneutical discussion will continue along the same lines, but perhaps we might further the discussion if we do not insist on judicial objectivity on the one hand and the privileging of certain narratives on the other, but on judges who in bringing their own narratives to the text understand how the wealth of their experiences can make them good and competent judges, and how a self-critical eye applied to their stories is also necessary as good and competent jurists. Perhaps, when it comes to those who interpret legal texts and decide the fate of plaintiffs and defendants, what we should be looking for is wisdom-- something the Bible deems as an indispensable quality for those who judge and lead.

HT to Scot McKnight whose comments on yesterday's hearings on Facebook was the motivation for writing this post.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian

Bishop N.T. Wright on the Postmodern Movement

This is really, really good stuff!

Opinion Central Poll 2009.28: Final Results

Are you more concerned about Iran or North Korea?

Should a Pastor Display Anger Publicly?

Many years ago when I was a young associate pastor, I had a wedding on a warm Saturday in July. I was very clear to the wedding party on the night of the rehearsal that they needed to be at the church, dressed and ready to go in plenty of time. About fifteen minutes before the wedding, one of the bridesmaids told me that the sister of the bride, the matron of honor, had not yet arrived. This was in the days before cell phones and since there was no answer at her home we assumed she was on the way, but how far away was she?

I had a prearranged sign with the organist to keep on playing if the wedding was to get started late. At a strategic place where only she could see me, I motioned for her to keep playing. We waited ten minutes and then fifteen minutes and then a half hour. The dilemma we had was that there was a wedding after the current one; and while we always scheduled plenty of time between weddings to take delays into account, we only scheduled so much time. I finally approached the bride after a half hour and said that we would wait another fifteen minutes, and if her sister had not arrived by then, we were going to have to begin without her. After all, someone else had scheduled a wedding and we needed to consider them too. The bride's sister did arrive about five minutes later and the wedding ceremony was held better late than never.

About a week later I received a very nasty letter from the bride's sister. First she told me why she was late. I won't go into the details, but let's just say that if she laid that one on a teacher in school, it would have been marked, "unexcused." And then she proceeded to berate me telling me what a terrible pastor I was and that if I were truly "a man of God" (her words) I would apologize to her sister.

As I read the letter I could feel the warmth going up the back of my neck as I became angry. The more I read, the more angry I became. I put a piece of stationary in the typewriter (yes, I still used a typewriter) and I fired off a well articulated and insulting piece of diatribe in response. I responded to her point by point and ended the letter by suggesting that if she were a caring sister she should apologize to her sister for just about ruining her once-in-a-lifetime moment.

As Providence would have it, I decided to show my response to the senior pastor before I mailed it. He read the letter and said to me, "Put it in your desk drawer for a week. Then take it out and read it again. If you still want to send it, then do so." I followed his advice and placed it in the bottom right-hand drawer of my desk. A week later, I took the letter in hand and read it again. I threw it in the trash.

The senior pastor taught me a valuable lesson that week. When the pastor displays anger whether in the form of a letter or an email or in public, the results are seldom positive, even when the pastor's anger is justified. This does not mean that a pastor has to sit there and take a parishioner's anger and insults, but a calm demeanor and a direct response will go farther than a shouting match; and if there are other people witnessing such an event, it is the pastor who will be held in higher esteem than the person doing the shouting. It is possible for a pastor to communicate the truth that in a given situation she or he is angry without showing anger.

Is there ever a time for a pastor to display his or her anger publicly. I would never say never on this, but I know that almost always it is better to be calm and respond with conviction and clarity than to join the cacophony of angry voices posturing to be the one to yell the loudest.

In the midst of a life-threatening storm we look to the one who displays the calm and steady hand, not the one who runs around screaming that everyone is going to die.

A Few Moments for Worship

A Prayer for the Sixth Sunday after Pentecost

God of wisdom and love, source of all good, send your Spirit to teach us your truth and guide our actions in your way of peace. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God for ever and ever. Amen

A Thousand Apologies-- There Will Be No MBWR This Weekend

I was planning to post the MBWR this weekend, but we are on vacation in North Carolina and the Internet connection has been iffy the whole time we have been here. It fades in and out... mostly out. I wanted to post the Weekly Roundup this weekend, even though I am on vacation because I will be unable to post it the next two weekends as I am teaching a colloquium in Theology next weekend and I am officiating at a wedding out of town the following weekend.

So... that means unfortunately that the next MBWR will be posted the first weekend in August. I apologize one thousand-fold.

Links of Interest to United Methodists

Fifty Methodists bishops agree to cut their pay. I think this is a good move.

Ted Campbell, associate professor of church history at Perkins School of Theology, writes on the seven things he hates about the UMC. I agree with him on all of them, especially what he writes on Annual Conferences.

Today is John Calvin's 500th birthday. We Wesleyans like to rail against his theology, and even though there are important places where Calvinists and Wesleyans differ, we must not forget what a first-rate systematic theologian and exegete Calvin was. Wesley acknowledged that he and Calvin were very close together on atonement, and Wesley liked Calvin's account of sanctification. Wesley believed Luther's view was "stunted."

The British Methodist Church in a prophetic move has barred members of political parties whose objectives are racist from full membership. Good for our Wesleyan cousins in the United Kingdom!

Shane Raynor has stirred up the pot in suggesting that some UM pastors have not had a genuine conversion experience. Shane responds by drawing on Father John Wesley. For what it's worth, I think Shane is spot on.

For an alternative view, The Episcopal Church's presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori has now said that the emphasis on personal salvation is heresy and idolatry. I will offer my own perspective in a blog post next week.

Those are the links of interest for today. May your hearts be strangely warmed.

Opinion Central Poll 2009.27: Final Results

Which would you rather do on a warm and sunny day?

Truth is Stranger than Fiction 2009.15

Bird's eye view: Pigeons are trained as fussy art critics in bizarre study

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 1:00 AM on 03rd July 2009

It may explain why they flock to Trafalgar Square. They're there to visit the National Gallery.

Pigeons, it seems, can discriminate between art techniques and can even judge their quality.

According to scientists, given the incentive of food, racing pigeons can be trained to study the colour, pattern and texture of paintings and evaluate them like an art critic.

Their experiment was divided into two halves: the first saw four pigeons placed in a chamber with a computer monitor displaying watercolour and pastel paintings by schoolchildren.

The paintings were divided into 'good' and 'bad' categories by 11 adults, including an art teacher, depending on whether the images were clear and precise.

The pigeons were shown some of the paintings from each category and rewarded with food when they pecked at the good pictures, but not the bad ones.

They were then presented with a mixture of new and old paintings from both categories and the researchers noted the birds consistently pecked at the 'good' paintings more often.

Their judgment was unaffected when the paintings were reduced in size or partly hidden.

However, when they were presented with monochrome paintings, they were no longer able to distinguish between the paintings, indicating that they use colour to discriminate.

The second experiment looked at eight new pigeons, which were trained to recognise the paintings' texture - four were trained to peck at watercolours and four at pastels.

As before, when shown a mixture of new and old paintings, pigeons used both colour and shape cues to discriminate between textures accurately.

Professor Shigeru Watanabe, from Keio University in Japan, said of his research, published in the journal Animal Cognition: 'This research does not deal with advanced artistic judgments, but it shows that pigeons are able to acquire the ability to judge beauty similar to that of humans.'

How Much We Miss in the Present Moment

This week the family and I are vacationing in Holden Beach, NC. (Unfortunately it is quickly approaching the end.) We have been coming here for twenty years. We have missed a year here and there, but it has been THE vacation spot for the Bevere family.

But that never would have happened had it not been for a spur of the moment invitation to come here for two days by a just retired couple who were members of one of the two churches I served while we lived in North Carolina. Carol and I had moved from Ohio to NC so that I could attend graduate school at Duke Divinity School. I was able to get a two-point student charge about an hour and a half away from Duke. Jack and Ruth, who had just retired, "adopted us" as we were a young couple far away from home.

After two years it was time for us to return home. We were about three to four days away from packing up the U-Haul to head for Ohio when Jack and Ruth invited us and our daughter Alyssa, who was nine months old, to go to Holden Beach with them for a couple of days. We were somewhat hesitant; there was so much to do before we moved, but we accepted their invitation, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Without that invitation, we likely would never have come to Holden Beach all these years. At the time, it didn't seem like something that would influence our lives over time. We were just spending some time with two special people and enjoying watching our nine month old daughter (who will be twenty-one this September) sitting on the beach with the surf coming up around her soaking her diaper.

Jack and Ruth are gone now, but they unknowingly gave us a wonderful gift. They introduced us to a place where our family has made many wonderful memories throughout the years. Our children love it here, and I am relatively sure that they will bring their future families here at some point.

How much we miss in the present moment. Events happen and we never stop to think whether what is happening now will make a difference for the future. So often the significance of life is found in the times that slip by without much notice; the days that pass routinely when we are focused on the perceived bigger moments yet to come. I suppose it is too much to ask for us to know those little but life-changing times. We can only see them for what they were as we look back upon them. But at times I think it would have been nice to stand on the beach those twenty years ago and realized that those two days would make a great difference in my life and in the life of my family.

But then again, perhaps the significant moments need time to unfold in our lives. Perhaps they gain their importance not as one moment, but as many moments that come together over a lifetime and weave a tapestry of meaning that can only come together in the walk of life. Maybe I wouldn't want to know what moments are significant; for perhaps the joy of discovery is found only when we stand back and look at the big picture of life. Just maybe the joy can only be had, not in isolating the times of life from other times; the joy can only be found in the midst of the journey. Isolated moments are not isolated; they form a narrative without which the singular moments make no sense.

I think it is time to go to the beach.

Bishop N.T. Wright on Women in Ministry

Politics and the Intelligence Factor

One of the things that bothers me is those individuals on both sides of the political aisle who seem to equate the intelligence of people with their political views. A case in point is the recent editorial by Maureen Dowd on Sarah Palin, which is a well articulated piece of irrational demagoguery aimed at the former governor clearly intimating she is an airhead by referring to her as Caribou Barbie. Conservatives do this as well. I heard one conservative pundit call President Obama an empty suit whom the media has assumed is so smart because they embrace his politics and he went to Harvard Law School.

Both sides of the political aisle also ascribe intelligence to those whose politics they like. The left referred to Ronald Reagan as dumb while his supporters believed his intelligence made him such a great president. The right said that Jimmy Carter couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag, while the left saw his ability to think in nuance as the reason for what some believed to be his indecisiveness. George W. Bush was a dunce according to the left and pointed to his grade point average at Yale to prove it, that is until John Kerry's grade point average, also at Yale was slightly lower than Bush's. The right believed Bush to be bright and intelligent and one who knew how to use the perception of his stupidity to his advantage.

But the truth of the matter is, one's political views say nothing about an individual's intelligence. Indeed, those who equate the two use their own political perspective as the standard of determining someone's smarts. I challenge anyone to argue that such a perspective is not arrogant and self-centered on the part of the one making such judgments. People who equate intelligence with political positions are in effect saying, "You do not share my politics, so you are not too bright, because I obviously am. If you were smart like me would see politics my way." Indeed, not only do they refer to other politicians as stupid, they are referring to their supporters in much the same way, including some family and friends.

Evaluating intelligence based on political stance has been around for a long time and it will not go away tomorrow. But the unfortunate aspect of all of this is that it stifles the discussion necessary to discover the goods all of us have in common. In other words, it deflects from the necessary political debate we must have. Instead of taking the views of the political opponent seriously, all we have to do is write that person off as an idiot. We can feel good in deceiving ourselves that somehow we have contributed something profound to the political debate without having to deal with the substance of the issues before us. If your opponent is an idiot nothing he or she says need be taken seriously.

How would it be received if I said, "If you are a Muslim, you are obviously not too smart," or "Anyone who is a Hindu has to be an imbecile." But that is exactly what many do when it comes to politics. If you are a Republican you're dumb. If you are a Democrat, you are stupid.

Intelligence is actually revealed in one's ability to comprehend the issues before us and make a case for one's position and critique the substance of the opponent's views as well. There are liberals and conservatives who are quite intelligent and there are liberals and conservatives who are not too bright. Discovering the difference between the two is not as easy as some people assume.

It is all too easy to play the "idiot card." It is much more difficult to engage those who disagree on the substance of the issues. The former is unhelpful. The latter is all too necessary.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian

Bishop N.T. Wright on Darwin

Good stuff!



HT: Richard Heyduck

Funny Religious Bumper Stickers

God is my co-pilot, but the Devil is my bombardier.

God spoke, and BANG! It happened!

Heck is a place for people who don't believe in gosh.

I bet Jesus would have used HIS turn signal.

Jesus died for my sins and all I got was this lousy t-shirt!

JESUS SAVES... He Passes It To Gretzky... Gretzky Shoots... He Scores!

Neutrinos have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

Reincarnation is making a comeback!

Nirvana... It's nothing to get excited about.

Heaven is a hell of a place to spend forever.

Eternity... Where will it all end?

That was Zen. This is Tao!

The Big Bang theory: And God said 'Pulleth my Finger'

You found God? If nobody claims him in 30 days, he's yours!

A Few Moments for Worship

A Prayer for the Fifth Sunday after Pentecost

Spirit of wisdom and understanding, enlighten our minds to perceive the mysteries of the universe in relation to eternity. Spirit of right judgment and courage, guide us and make us firm in our baptismal decision to follow Jesus' way of love. Spirit of knowledge and reverence, help us to see the lasting value of justice and mercy in our everyday dealings with one another. May we respect life as we work to solve problems of family and nation, economy and ecology. Spirit of God, spark our faith, hope and love into new action each day. Fill our lives with wonder and awe in your presence which penetrates all creation. Amen.

Thomas Jefferson on Reason, Christianity, and God

Truth is Stranger than Fiction 2009.14

Police: Robbers hit NY gas station, ran out of gas

From Associated Press

July 01, 2009 9:06 PM EDT

KIRKWOOD, N.Y. - State police in New York say two Pennsylvania men robbed a gas station and might have gotten away if they had also fueled up. Troopers said they caught 29-year-old Lonnie Meckwood, of Carbondale, and 51-year-old Phillip Weeks, of Tunkhannock, after their getaway car ran out of gas while the were trying to escape late Monday night.

They're accused of using a knife to rob a clerk at the Quickway Convenience Store in Kirkwood, near the New York-Pennsylvania border about 80 miles south of Syracuse. The clerk wasn't hurt.

Police found the pair about a mile away. Their car was on the side of the road.

They're being held in the Broome County Jail without bail. Troopers don't know if they have lawyers.

Competition for the Kingdom

Years ago there were two churches in a certain community, a Methodist church and a Baptist Church.

The Baptists were temporarily without a pastor when a church deacon died. The family asked the Methodist pastor if he would conduct the funeral service.

This was the Methodist's pastor's first year in the ministry, and he felt he needed approval from the bishop of the area. So he sent a telegram asking, "May I have approval to bury a Baptist deacon?"

The bishop quickly replied with a telegram that read, "Bury all the Baptists you can!"*

Even though this story is humorous, I think it is often sadly true. One of the things that distresses me in my ministry is when I encounter clergy and laity who think their congregation is competing for members with other churches in the community. I must say that most of the time throughout my twenty-five years in ministry, I have encountered fellow clergy in the community to be very open to shared ministry between churches. But every now and then I have dealt with a pastor who refuses to be a part of anything beyond the local congregation he serves (Yes, for no particular reason it has always been a male) because he is afraid some of his "sheep" will be attracted to another congregation. I did, however, know of one pastor who liked shared ministry because he wanted to bring members of other churches to his congregation.

If anything I find the laity in general to be more resistant to shared ministry. Trying to get a shared youth ministry started is like pulling teeth. Adults are worried about losing some of their youth to other churches, even though they would gladly take young people from other congregations. And I have actually known laity who secretly rejoice when another church doesn't like its current pastor, hoping that some of those folks "over there" will end up coming "over here."

Brothers and sisters, these things ought not to be. There is only one church of Jesus Christ made up of individual churches, to be sure, but it is still one Body of Christ with one mission. If the church has competition, it is not the congregation down the street, but the principalities and powers who continue to make mischief in this world, and who work their will in believers by convincing them that it's OK for them to take their children out of church for an entire summer in order to play baseball, or that God understands when we don't tithe because we have run up too much debt buying more stuff we don't need and spending too much money on our expensive hobbies. Our competition is found in those forces that have distracted believers into being distant from the church and distracted from its ministries.

No, a church's competition is not to be found in other churches. We are competing in a struggle for the place of our children's allegiance, not to another congregation, but with everything that distracts people away from their discipleship and subsequently their relationship with Jesus Christ. All Christians have a common Lord and thus a common mission-- Methodists, Baptists, Catholics, and all followers of Jesus have the same task. Let us not fight over each other's sheep, but in following the Good Shepherd, let us work to bring those not of Christ into his fold. And, as individual congregations, let us work with each other in shared ministry in a common cause.

There is one Lord Jesus Christ and one Body of Christ in this world.

---

*Michael E. Hodgin, 1002 Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 96.

Have the Bones of St. Paul Been Discovered?

The New Testament gives us no indication as to how or when the Apostle Paul died. The Book of Acts ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome (approximately AD 60), where Luke tells us he spent "two whole years at his own expense" (28:30). The great question is whether or not Paul was brought to trial and executed at the end of his imprisonment, or released after those two years only to be executed in Rome a short time to a few months up to a couple of years later. (Did he get to Spain in the intervening time?)

Church tradition is unanimous that Paul was executed under the persecution of Nero, although some accounts say it took place while Nero was away from Rome and that the order was given by the prefects of the city. The tradition also asserts that Paul was beheaded, which seems likely given that he was a Roman citizen and would have been spared the shame and the agony of crucifixion.

He was buried not too far away from the traditional site of his execution. His tomb was a place of pilgrimage early on, perhaps even shortly after his death. The Emperor Constantine built a basilica over his tomb, and in the fourth century the Emperor Theodosius ordered a second basilica to be built on the site as well.

The tomb of St. Paul has now been discovered by archaeologists in basically the location that has been marked by an altar. The only question is whether or not the remains in the sarcophagus are in fact those of the great Apostle. Pope Benedict XVI allowed for the drilling of a small hole in the sarcophagus (which is dated from at least AD 390) in which a probe was inserted. Some tiny bone fragments were removed and carbon dated. The person in the sarcophagus lived in the first to the second century AD.

The pope has stated that this seems to confirm the unanimous tradition. He is right. But the most that can be said from the carbon dating alone is that the individual buried there lived in or around the Apostle Paul's time-- nothing more. If it were possible to open the tomb then there might be enough remains to discover more about the person buried there. Was the person male? Approximately what was his age at the time of death? Most significantly of all, was he beheaded? It is doubtful that the pontiff will allow that kind of disturbance of the tomb. According to tradition, Paul's head is not with his body. The skull or at least portions of it are at the St. John Lateran Basilica in Rome.

On scientific grounds alone it cannot be confirmed nor denied at this point that St. Paul is buried in that spot, but the historian has more evidence to go on. The tradition that Paul was buried there is not confused. Surely, Paul's contemporaries would have known where he was buried. The only question somewhere along the way through the decades is whether or not that spot was somehow forgotten and another incorrect location took its place, but there is no evidence from the historical records we have that such a thing happened. So, one would have to argue that Paul's contemporaries got his burial location wrong right from the beginning. But is such a possibility believable?

Of course, if indeed the remains of Paul have been found this does nothing to "prove" the truth of Christianity, although some will want to see it in that way. All it will demonstrate is what we already know-- Paul of Tarsus actually lived and was a follower of Jesus and later on in his life, he went to Rome and was executed.

Nevertheless, that the tomb of Paul may have been found is quite intriguing and exciting.