The Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup 2009.28.207

Submit your post to umweeklyroundup@yahoo.com by noon EST on Saturday to guarantee that your post is included.

The week in review in the Methoblogosphere:

Dave Nichols gets a lesson on maturity at the dermatologist.

Mitch Lewis writes about the mighty fortress on Reformation Day.

Bishop Robert Schnase posts on work without boundaries.

The truth and Natural Church Development from Bishop William Willimon. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Mitch Lewis writes on serving the Table of the Lord.

Kevin Watson reflects on the crisis of cynical younger clergy.

John Montgomery reviews Marcus Borg's Conversation with Scripture on the Gospel of Mark.

A report from Joseph Slife on the UM Judicial Council's upcoming ruling on the sexuality resolution of the Baltimore-Washington Conference and the Western North Carolina's "Choice Empowerment" on apportionments.

When teaching becomes task according to Dan Dick.

Corporate disciples? Read Angela Shier-Jones.

Henry Neufeld ponders publishing books in the search for truth.

Kim Fabricius offers a postscript on evangelical universalism.

Joseph Yoo writes on why tradition is important.

Some thoughts on the Methodist-Lutheran Unity Statement from Daniel McLain Hixon.

Richard Heyduck offers three cheers for failure.

Lorna Koskela reflects on worship.

John Meunier posts on 1 Samuel 5 and the doorway to Dagon.

Old but dependable-- a narration from Questing Parson.

Tiffany Steinwert comments on equality across America.

Matt Kelley cogitates on the newly passed hate crimes bill.

Dorothy Brucks is on assignment.

Would YOU buy what you're selling? Steve Heyduck asks the question.

Greg Hazelrig posts his thought for the day on Galatians 5:16.

Kim Matthews writes on radical new beginnings.

Tony Mitchell is interested in a new dialogue.

Andrew Stoddard posts reflections on Ezra 5:1-17, Revelation 4:1-11 and Matthew 13:1-19.

Olive Morgan announces the Second Synchronised Blogging Day.

Is it possible to alter what God has made perfect? Read Andy Bryan.

Andrew Thompson asks, "Do you have a calling?"

Jim Parsons preaches on the raising of Lazarus.

Thoughts from Dave Perry on keeping Christ safe and... behind bars.

Jeremy Smith begins his review of Glo: The Bible for a Digital World.

Shane Raynor is a weekly Communion convert.

Should Christians care about climate change? Ken Carter shares his thoughts.

"The Nature of Commitment"-- a sermon by Michael Daniel.

Brian Russell challenges us to ask, "Who is my mission?" Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Dave Faulkner affirms that in Christ alone his hope is found.

Mark Winter writes on Red Ribbon School Shows.

Ponderments on prayer from Sally Coleman.

Brian Vinson posts on truth-telling.

William Chaney is moving beyond procrastination.

Opinion Central Poll 2009.45: Final Results

Is it OK for Christians to celebrate Halloween?

N.T. Wright on What Happens After We Die

Reflections on Revelation #4: Letters to Seven Churches (Continued)

Revelation 2:18-3:22

The longest address is directed at the church of Thyatira. If Ephesus was the most important of the seven cities, Thyatira was the least among them. It was founded as a military outpost by Seleucis I. Like most of the other churches the risen Christ recognized their works, but like their brothers and sister in Pergamum, the Thyatiran Christians were culpable in gross accommodation with their surrounding pagan context. They must hold on and be faithful until the Second Coming; otherwise the consequences will be severe.

Of the seven churches, Sardis came under the harshest condemnation. The church's compromises with its pagan environment were apparently no cause for concern among the Christians there. It seemed untroubled by outside opposition, but that was likely because it had no trouble tolerating and perhaps even approving heresy and other things quite contrary to the gospel. They were living like pagans, so their "Christianity" was quite inoffensive, which led to the charge that they were spiritually dead. There remained a minority who had not compromised their faith, but the majority had fallen into such a severe state of compromise, that only confession and repentance could return their spiritual life and vitality to them.

Only the churches at Smyrna and Philadelphia received unqualified praise from the risen Christ. The letter mentions that the Philadelphian Christians had little power suggesting that their congregation was quite small and, therefore, did not have much influence in the surrounding community. However, what was made clear was the tension between the Christians and the Jews of the city. It may be that the Jews objected to the Christians' claim to the religious heritage and identity and the inheritance of the people of God apart from the taking of the yoke of the Mosaic Law. The Christians are told to overcome and they will be made a pillar in the temple of God, an image that conveys stability and is an integral part of God's work. It also denotes God's acceptance of the Philadelphian Christians even though they are Gentiles.

The church at Laodicea is popularly referred to as the church of the end times by those who see the seven churches as representing seven ages of church history. This is primarily because the church in the West is seen by many today as a church that has seriously compromised the gospel. The problem with this view is that Laodicea is not the only church of the seven that are condemned for compromise, and even a superficial reading of church history reveals that the church has struggled with compromise from the beginning. This view also assumes that the most significant part of the world church today is to be found in Europe and North America. The church in Africa and Latin America and Asia is not in general decline nor has it fallen in love with the spirit of the age like many churches in North America and Europe. The church on the three continents of developing nations is currently exploding in growth and acting courageously in mission.

Laodicea was known as a city of medicine. It was quite famous for an eye-salve that was exported throughout the Roman Empire. So the irony cannot be missed that those Christians who gave healing to the eyes of so many were themselves spiritually blind. The most difficult problem for the population at Laodicea was an inadequate water source. Water was brought in through stone pipes from several miles away. Moreover, mineral-laden water from hot springs six miles north of the city flowed nearby. By the time the water reached Laodicea, it had cooled and was lukewarm. The minerals from the spring combined with the tepid temperature made the water quite difficult to drink. The risen Christ insists to the Laodiceans that their lukewarm faith is as nauseating to him as the tepid and disgusting water they would only drink if forced, but was only fit to be spit out on the ground.

Letting the Permission Givers Give Permission Is Always Counter-Productive

We all know them-- they are in our churches, our places of employment, our civic organizations, and our government. In fact, they are everywhere. They are the permission givers, that is people who, even though they do not have official responsibility for a task, have taken it upon themselves to make sure what is done is acceptable to them so that nothing can happen until they give their consent.

Permission givers usually have strong personalities and take an intimidating posture toward those who want to accomplish something, though most of the time the permission giver is quite unaware of his or her mode of operation. It does not matter if the permission giver is knowledgeable about the task before the group or not-- he or she always knows what is best, and they will suck out of the room all the air of enthusiasm. Permission givers must not be given permission to be permission givers.

I have been in situations where a permission giver has been allowed by the group to grind everything to a halt because she or he was sure that those who had spent time researching a matter were wrong and there was a better way of doing something or saving money or whatever it might be. Permission givers demoralize people who are committed to the betterment of something and good volunteers in the church simply give up and fade away into the pews. Most of the time, however, it is the permission giver who doesn't know what she or he is talking about.

In the church the permission givers will slow down if not stop entirely new and exciting ministries. They do not do this by giving a flat-out "No;" they will argue there is a better way to do something or that something should be done, but it should be different from what is suggested. I have seen permission givers in the church set about the task of demonstrating that something could be done better or more cheaply, but in reality only waste more time and money in the process. Permission givers spend a dime to save a nickel.

Permission givers have boundary issues. They think everyone's territory belongs in part to them, so they feel free to impose themselves into someone else's job or responsibility. They are indeed trying to be helpful, but what they cannot see is how much they are simply in the way. Permission givers have an emotional need to be approving of others.

Permission givers need to be marginalized from the responsibility of decision-making. They can certainly have productive ministry in the church, but if they are allowed to have their way on most things, the church will find itself discourage, demoralized, and spinning its wheels in ministry.

ATS Fall Lecture Series

I won't be blogging today and tomorrow. Ashland Seminary is hosting my friend, Scot McKnight for our annual Fall Lecture Series. I will be gleaning from his wisdom on the Gospels.

A Prayer for Reformation Sunday

Lord God of hosts, the Refuge of every sinner and the Strength of all who put their trust in you, we praise you for having made us partakers of the blessings of the Reformation. Without any merit on our part, you have sent your Holy Spirit into our hearts and brought us to faith in your dear Son, Jesus Christ. You have made known to us the worthlessness of our own good deeds and the perfect merit of Christ. You have directed our faith away from the commandments of men and cause us to rest our hope only and solely on the exceedingly great and precious promises of your Gospel. You have revealed the beauty of your grace, which rescued us from a just condemnation and assured us of certain salvation in Christ. Grant us your grace that we may receive your forgiveness with thanksgiving and reflect your mercy in thanks-living. Use us as your witnesses in bringing the message of pardon in Christ to our fellow men everywhere. Open our eyes to a better understanding of your Word and a deeper appreciation of your grace that our faith in Christ Jesus may grow and flourish with the fruits of righteous living. Grant purity of doctrine and practice to you. Amen.

That Does Not Compute-- No MBWR This Weekend

I know that of late it seems as if the MBWR has been posted two weeks on and one week off, but my desktop computer had a hard drive meltdown at the beginning of the week that resembled combined rants of illogic from both Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck.

I need to spend a good part of the weekend getting my new hard drive and all my programming up and running again.

The Weekly Roundup will return next weekend. I want to highlight posts that deal with Reformation Sunday and All Saints' Day (though I will certainly not exclude others).

Stephen Colbert on the Cross and the Supreme Court

Vintage Colbert!

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Symbol-Minded
http://www.colbertnation.com/
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore

Quote of the Day: Confronting the Cult of Caesar

"In Paul's day, the cult of Caesar was the fastest-growing religion in the Mediterranean world. In Rome itself the emperors did not claim full divine honors, but they did adopt the title 'son of god'-the god in question being their recently deceased, and newly deified, predecessor. And in the provinces, from Greece and Turkey through the Middle East to Egypt, divinization was standard. The people had worshiped rulers before; why shouldn't Augustus and his successors, with their extraordinary powers, receive the same divine honors?"

"So the imperial cult grew. Its 'good news' was that Caesar, the son of God, was now the lord of the whole world, claiming allegiance from everybody in return for bringing salvation and justice to the world. Resistance was met with crucifixion. The system was based on sheer power."

"When Paul wrote Romans, he wasn't offering a benign religion or faith detached from the world of Roman power. He was confronting imperial power head-on. In the opening lines of his letter (1:1-17), Paul announces that he is coming to Rome as the messenger of God's 'good news,' the news about his son, the royal heir of David (in Psalms, the Davidic king will rule the whole world). The resurrection marked Jesus as God's son. He is now the world's true lord, claiming allegiance from Jew and gentile alike. Paul is not ashamed of this 'good news,' because this message-announcing Jesus as the risen Messiah and Lord, the one true God-unveils salvation and justice for the whole world."

"A close comparison of the 'good news' of the Caesar cult with Paul's words shows that Romans is, among other things, a deliberate parody of the pagan message. Paul's readers in Rome must have understood this, and he must have intended them to."

"Paul’s ideas do not derive from the Caesar cult, as some have suggested; they confront it. His theology, his understanding of the Messiah, remains rooted in Jewish thought forms and in the scriptures. Texts like Exodus, Isaiah and the Psalms propelled him towards just this sort of confrontation with the pagan powers and the gods that stood behind them. He is, perhaps, at his most Jewish when he is confronting and undermining paganism."

You can read N.T. Wright's entire article, "Paul, Leader of a Jewish Revolution," here.

I Humbly Repent of My Wayward Ways

Up until a couple of years ago, I was a big fan of divided government, that is, one political party in the White House and the other party in charge of Capitol Hill. But then something happened-- I caught a strange virus. I started to believe that having only one party in power might prove to be very productive for our government and, therefore, by extension the American people. So, we had six years of Republican rule in both the legislative branch and the executive branch of government. Now we currently have the Democrats in charge. In watching both parties going wild with total power in their hands, I write this post to publicly repent of my wayward ways. I have returned to the true faith of believing once again in divided government and the holy process known as gridlock.

The Founding Fathers of the country believed strongly in checks and balances because they knew that human beings, even decent ones, could not be trusted with too much power. The problem is those checks and balances are threatened and seem to basically disappear when there is a majority party with all the power and a minority party with none. The fox ends up watching the hen house.

When the Republicans were in charge they spent money (in the words of John McCain) "like drunken sailors." That, among other reasons, is why the American people booted them out of power. Of course, the Democrats, in what appears to be a game of "I can spend more money than you," are going to outdo the other party, which I did not think was possible.

But the problem is not only fiscal irresponsibility, I am disgusted with the under-handed and back-door tactics of both the Democrats and the Republicans. When the Republicans were running the show in Washington, the Republicans in the House effectively excluded the Democrats from the legislative process, refusing to allow Democratic amendments to bills to even come to the floor for a vote. After the Democrats won back the House in 2006, the new Speaker, Nancy Pelosi promised that the Democrats would not shut out the Republicans the way Republicans had done to Democrats. Of course, Speaker Pelosi has done the same thing. She has not allowed over 200 amendments offered by Republicans on health care reform even to be discussed and voted on. And then she has the nerve to refer to the Republicans as the party of "No," which is how the Republicans referred to the Democrats on Social Security reform after the 2004 election, even though they too had blocked any Democratic involvement as well. There is plenty of gall to go around in both parties.

And, of course, there is the smoke and mirrors that both parties play with future financial projections. The Bush Administration used ghost numbers to say that their spending when compared with the rate of growth in the economy would not add to the federal deficit. Yeah... right. And now President Obama and the Democrats are calling health care reform deficit neutral, citing the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), which unfortunately accepted the all elusive "we are going to cut costs by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare." That is simply another way of saying, "We are going to cut costs, though we have no idea how."

Moreover, some Democrats have been working on a separate bill behind close doors that will not cut payments to Medicare physicians, which will clearly take away any suggestion that health care reform is deficit neutral. They want to be able to pass this in a separate bill, so they can say that health care reform will not add to the deficit, even though this separate bill, which is still about health care, will. What amazes me is that politicians on both sides of the political aisle think that the American people are so stupid that they will actually accept such blatantly deceptive nonsense.

I believe there are good and decent people in both parties who want to do the right thing even though they may disagree with each other on what the right thing is. I also believe that both parties have scoundrels, but I won't name any names. The dilemma is that too much power has a corrupting influence and it seems when either party is exclusively in charge of Capitol Hill and Pennsylvania Avenue, things end up looking like the obscene political version of Girls Gone Wild. And I have not even talked about the continual flow of Democrats and Republicans that have ethics problems.

So, once again, from this day forward, I will embrace the belief that the best government is divided government. Such a government will hold both parties in check, keeping them from doing too much damage, and forcing them to work together, which will mean that both parties will get a little of what they want, and both parties will have to give up some of what they want. Both parties have some good ideas and both parties have terrible ones. Hopefully, if each party is keeping each other honest, since we cannot trust each party to keep themselves honest, mostly the good ideas from both sides will be passed into law, and nonsense will be left on the cutting room floor. If that happens, over time the biggest winners will be the American people.

Come 2012, I will be voting a split ticket, which won't be a problem for me since I have never been a straight party-line voter. Will I vote for President Obama or his Republican challenger in 2012? I am not yet sure. But whoever I vote for when it comes to President, I will vote for the other party in the congressional races. We simply cannot trust either side with unencumbered power.

I realize that some people reading this post will think I am presenting quite a cynical view of politics. I prefer to see it as the only realistic perspective on representative government.

"Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help. When their breath departs, they return to the earth; on that very day their plans perish" (Psalm 146:3-4; NRSV).

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian

Opinion Central Poll 2009.44: Final Results

What is your preferred method of reading?

You Ever Have One of Those Days When...

You ever have one of those days when you wish you could do just what you wanted instead of having to move from one obligation to the next? I certainly have... in fact, I am having one of those days as I write this post. Nothing dramatic has happened today to make me feel this way, except that I have had to attend one too many meetings. Actually, as far as I am concerned, one meeting in a day is one too many, but when it's more than one, I begin to wonder how many years I have until retirement. I have said many times that when I enter the Kingdom, if the first item on the schedule is a meeting, I'm outta there!

Most days I do not feel this way. I love my life. I am blessed with a wonderful family. I love being a husband and a dad more than anything. I also love being a pastor and a professor and a writer. I cannot complain whatsoever about my existence. But I do have these periodic moments when I think how nice it would be to be on my own schedule.

I wonder if Jesus ever had one of those "I wish I could do what I want" days. If he did the gospels never recorded it. Yes, there is the Garden of Gethsemane story when Jesus asked if there might be another way to achieve salvation apart from his death, but that was an extreme situation. We have to give Jesus that one. But I wonder if he ever had more mundane moments when he wished the crowds would leave him alone just for a little while. I wonder if he had times when he didn't want to teach the same ole' parables again. In moments of great opposition did Jesus ever think about chucking it all as some in the midst of today's "rat race" have done, and spend the rest of his life fishing on the Sea of Galilee?

Yes, Jesus did get away to pray and spend time with his Heavenly Father. All of us should do that regardless of the kind of life we lead. But, I just wonder if Jesus ever had a moment like the one I am having now; I wonder if he looked at the sunshine as I am doing now and thought, "I wish I could do what I want instead of what I must."

Lord, Jesus, I like to think you had such moments in your earthly life, but even if you didn't, give me strength now because the obligations I must fulfill today cannot be ignored. And as I do what I must, remind me of the joy I have in what I do because, most of the time, it is also what I want to do. Thank you for the calling and the necessary obligations you have given me. Amen.

Opinion Central Poll 2009.43: Final Results

If Iran obtains a nuclear bomb, will Israel attack Iran?

This Kind of Nonsense Makes Evangelism Much More Difficult

HT: David Hallam

The Character of Faith: True Generosity

Today's audio sermon from Philippians 4:10-23

A Prayer for the Eighth Sunday in Kingdomtide

O God, by whom the meek are guided in judgment, and light rises up in darkness for the godly: Grant us, in all our doubts and uncertainties, the grace to ask what you would have us to do, that the Spirit of wisdom may save us from all false choices, and that in your light we may see light, and in your straight path may not stumble; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

--Book of Common Prayer

The Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup 2009.27.206

Submit your post to umweeklyroundup@yahoo.com by noon EST on Saturday to guarantee that your post is included.

The week in review in the Methoblogosphere:

Are you a sore loser? Read John Carney.

Dave Nichols reflects on after the wedding.

Bishop Robert Schnase writes on church ministry and pruning.

Bishop William Willimon says, "If this were a REAL church..."

Is there a Wesleyan response as to the fate of those who have never heard of Christ? Craig L. Adams cogitates on the question.

David Hallam reports on the nationwide shake up in the Methodist Church, UK.

Betty Newman offers commentary on Psalm 94.

Discipleship, according to Steven Manskar, is like riding a bicycle.

Gavin Richardson wants us to help him find a new home for children.

Scott McKay ponders the poetry of distraction.

Where is our security?-- A sermon by Dave Faulkner.

Brian Russell offers theological reflections on the Passover narrative.

A sermon from Michael Daniel on overloaded backpacks.

An appreciative inquiry into ordained ministry in the UMC from Ken Carter.

Jeremy Smith asks if Jesus was a martyr.

John Battern shares some thoughts on a new approach to fundraising.

Reflections on stupid sports from Dave Camphouse.

Dave Perry wonders whose viewpoint is correct. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Jim Parsons writes on the great white flight in the church.

Andrew Thompson shares his thoughts on the church and higher education.

Some notable reflections from Andy Bryan on the Wesleyan Jazz Combo.

Olive Morgan posts on Methodists taking action on climate change.

Andrew Stoddard posts reflections on Jeremiah 38:1-13, 1 Corinthians 14:26-22am 37-40, and Matthew 10:34-42.

"Can You?"-- A sermon by Tony Mitchell.

Thoughts on service from Kim Matthews.

Greg Hazelrig posts his thought for the day on John 15:7-8.

Steve Heyduck reviews the book, The Diversity Culture.

Deb Spaulding refers to personal reference.

Beth Quick advises us to be challenged.

Ponderments on experience and health care from Matt Kelley.

Questing Parson offers a narrative on big church/small church.

Ken Hagler cheers us on-- It's game time! Best of the Methoblogosphere!

John Meunier writes from across the far horizon.

Personal reflections from Lorna Koskela on Seasonal Affesctive Disorder (SAD).

Ancient-Future commentary by Richard Heyduck.

Daniel McLain Hixon posts on falling away from the faith.

Joseph Yoo offers comments on the comfort of distance.

Richard Hall shares hope in God's future.

Prayer in a public meeting according to Henry Neufeld.

Angela Shier-Jones grapples with the giggling God.

Chris Roberts wonders what happened to Methodist preaching.

Dan Dick is sinking the steward ship.

Joseph Slife on Adam Hamilton's plea for excellent preaching.

The Kingdom has come near-- A post from Bill McAlilly.

Kevin Watson reflects on our precious heritage.

A friend's new song has gotten Rick Mang thinking.

Mitch Lewis cogitates on two problems with Wesley's teaching on perfection.

Kathy James writes on the culture of fear.

Obama in the Footsteps of George W. Bush

A great editorial from Bernd Debusmann.

HT: Dave Black

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian

How Do Pro-Choicers Reject "Abortion Addiction"?

An article in the Daily Mail Online, dated October 14, details the exploits of a woman "addicted to abortion." Irene Vilar has admitted to having fifteen abortions in a seventeen plus years period of time. She has written a book on her experience entitled, Impossible Motherhood: Testimony of an Abortion Addict.

Her exploits have created quite a stir, including a controversy within the pro-choice community itself. If one is truly pro-choice, how does one condemn this woman's actions over the years? Yet, at the same time, is anyone with any kind of moral conscience completely comfortable with her decisions? Does "abortion addiction" reveal the extremely flawed logic of the pro-choice view or is it completely consistent?

I would like to hear from those persons who consider themselves pro-choice. How do you respond to this women and her many decisions to terminate her pregnancies? How do you reconcile her behavior with your pro-choice views? I would also like to hear from those who are pro-life. What do you make of Vilar's experience and the current debate on abortion?

I invite all to respond. Let's make sure that we keep the discussion civil.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian

The Quotable C.S. Lewis #23: Creation in Process

"We ask how the Nature created by a good God comes to be in this [depraved] condition? By which question we may mean either how she comes to be imperfect-- to 'leave room for improvement' as the schoolmasters say in their reports-- or else, how she comes to be positively depraved. If we ask the question in the first sense, the Christian answer (I think) is that God, from the first, created her such as to reach her perfection by a process in time. He made an Earth at first 'without form and void' and brought it by degrees to its perfection. In this, as elsewhere, we see the familiar pattern-- descent from God to the formless Earth and reascent from the formless to the finished. In that sense a certain degree of 'evolutionism' or 'developmentalism' is inherent in Christianity"

--Miracles

Opinion Central Poll 2009.42: Final Results

What is your favorite season?

Irenaeus, Human Perfection, and the Nature of the Universe

Here someone may raise an objection. "Could not God have made humanity perfect from the beginning?" Yet one must know that all things are possible for God, who is always the same and uncreated. But created beings, and all who have their beginning of being in the course of time, are necessarily inferior to the one who created them. Things which have recently come into being cannot be eternal; and, not being eternal, they fall short of perfection for that very reason. And being newly created they are therefore childish and immature, and not yet fully prepared for an adult way of life. And so, just as a mother is able to offer food to an infant, but the infant is not yet able to receive food unsuited to its age. In the same way, God, for his part, could have offered perfection to humanity, but humanity was not capable of receiving it. --Irenaeus (second century AD).

In this passage Bishop Irenaeus suggests that God did not create humanity in a state of perfection because perfection requires a maturing process. Irenaeus states that by necessity human beings have a beginning in time and, therefore, must be "inferior" to the one who created them. Humanity is not simply able to receive such perfection; it is something attained over time as one grows in love and grace. Such a lack of perfection is suggested in the Garden of Eden story where Adam and Eve are forbidden to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The fact that they lacked such knowledge prior to their disobedience meant they lacked perfection. As is clear from the narrative, the problem with the first couple was not their humanity, it was their disobedience. There is an immaturity, writes Irenaeus, that goes hand in hand with a lack of perfection. In the same way maturity and perfection are indispensably connected. Since maturity cannot be had instantaneously, neither can perfection. One moves toward it.

While the going on to perfection theme is very familiar to Wesleyans, it nevertheless challenges us to reflect not only on our own lives and our relationship, our journey with Jesus Christ, but if Irenaeus is correct, it causes us to think about the very nature of the universe itself. John Polkinghorne, a theoretical physicist and Anglican priest, suggests in his book, Quarks, Chaos and Christianity that the universe itself has been created to "mature", which means that creation is not static and complete, but rather that it is continuing even now, that God is still creating, or in theological terms re-creating. This should not surprise Christians who speak so freely about the human relationship with God as a journey, as one of growth. This is simply consistent with the very nature of the universe itself. Evolutionary theory is nothing more than God's involvement with creation, creating and also allowing its contingencies to go where they may. God's creation of human beings with a free will is simply consistent with the free process built into the fabric of the universe itself. God must act consistently.

Thus, God is not a helpless spectator, nor is God the divine puppet master pulling the strings of a helpless and predetermined creation. Jesus went to the cross as one who chose freely to do so and as one who was fulfilling the will of his Father. The cross of Christ is the fullest expression of the nature of God and the nature of his relationship to humanity and the entire creation.

As the universe expands outward and history moves forward, God journeys with us and the universe, leading and guiding and allowing. Our hope is not in the universe itself, nor in history, but in the eternal and perfect God who moves with us toward perfection.

Reflections on Revelation #3: Letters to Seven Churches

Chapter 2:1-17

.

The seven cities of the churches addressed were all located in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). A basic knowledge of each city brings the situation of each church into focus. The seven churches do not represent the church universal in the various ages of history. In other words, the church at Laodicea does not signify the church of the last days. However, praise and blame given to each church are certainly representative of the church in any age.

At the end of the first century Ephesus could legitimately lay claim as the most important city in Asia Minor. It was a significant commercial and export location in the region. The church's significant witness in Ephesus is found in its intolerance of evil. The congregation has not been afraid to stand for what is right and they have not grown tired in the face of difficulty. The problem with such a decisive witness is that it can breed an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust. The Ephesian Christians have "abandoned the love you had at first" (2:4). Such a charge is very serious. A church motivated more by rooting out evil than by love will cease to be a church.

Any evidence for the identity of the Nicolaitans is purely circumstantial, but in the letter to the church at Pergamum two characteristics of the group are mentioned-- they eat food sacrificed to idols and they practice sexual immorality.

Smyrna is the only city of the seven addressed that is still in existence (modern Izmir). Smyrna had the largest theater in Asia Minor and also prided itself as the home of a vast library and a great stadium. Apparently, a portion of the Jewish population of Smyrna joined with Roman officials to oppress the Christians there. We do not know the nature of the oppression other than it is referred to as "slander." The Romans exempted Jews from emperor worship because of their strict monotheism, and it seems for a while Christians fell under that exemption as they were viewed as nothing more than a sect of Judaism. But as the tensions between the church and the synagogue intensified over the decades, it appears that the synagogue had a stake in distinguishing itself from the church. And as the Gentile population of the church grew, its status as a Jewish sectarian movement was questioned by the Romans.

The Smyrnans are promised "the crown of life" if they are "faithful until death." This crown does not signify royalty (Greek; diadema), but victory (Greek; stephanos) which was the laurel wreath awarded in athletic competitions.

The library at Pergamum boasted a collection of over 200,000 volumes. The upper shelf of the city was home to impressive royal buildings, including a massive altar to the god Zeus. Most significantly, Pergamum was the official center in Asia for the imperial cult, the worship of the emperor. The reference to Christ being the sharp two-edged sword may be a veiled reference to the emperor's power to impose capital punishment as the "right-side of the sword." To call Jesus the sharp two-edged sword is to undermine the emperor's claim of power over life and of death. In actuality, it is Jesus who alone has such authority. The official seat of imperial worship is where "Satan makes his throne" and "where Satan lives."

Unlike the Ephesians, who have resisted and opposed the teachings of the Nicolaitans, such teaching seems to have infiltrated, to some extent, into the ranks of the church at Pergamum. The church is warned to repent or God will take action by way of the truth.

Those who conquer will receive hidden manna and a white stone with a new name written on it. There was a belief among some Jews that the manna hidden in the Ark of the Covenant would be revealed in the messianic age. What to make of what is being said in reference to the hidden manna is difficult. The meaning of the white stone is also not clear. It was a courtroom practice of the time (though not universally) for the jury to vote for the defendant's guilt with a black stone and for innocence with a white one. To have a new name inscribed on the stone is reminiscent of a thread which runs throughout Scripture in which to name someone is to have power over that person. From the early chapters of Genesis we are told that God desires to name humanity as his, but that men and women continue to want to name themselves by going their own way.

The Character of Faith: True Ownership

Today's audio sermon from Luke 12:13-21

The Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup 2009.26.205

Submit your post to umweeklyroundup@yahoo.com by noon EST on Saturday to guarantee that your post is included.

The week in review in the Methoblogosphere:

John Montgomery reviews the movie version of "Lord, Save Us From Your Followers."

Dave Nichols reflects on a daughter's wedding and the wedding at Cana.

The Church Formed by the Power of the Word-- A post from Bishop William Willimon.

Bishop Robert Schnase reflects on recharging in coffee shops, airports, and the soul. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Bishop Sally Dyck wonders what in the world happened.

Rick Mang asks, "Dear Lord... Please break me?

Wesley: A Guide for the Perplexed-- A review by Kevin Watson.

Bill McAllily reminds us the words matter.

Dave Warnock posts on the exciting things happening at Raunds Methodist Church.

Joseph Slife highlights Christian history in the month of October.

Are we captives to comfort? Read Dan Dick.

Chris Roberts ponders the heart of spirituality.

Angela Shier-Jones has been reminded that God is with her always.

Henry Neufeld shares his thoughts on President Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize.

Some additional thoughts on the award for President Obama are offered by Joel Betow.

Who wasn't John the Baptist? Joseph Yoo explains.

Daniel Hixon reflects on ten years of consensus on the doctrine of justification by faith.

Richard Heyduck reports on this year's Gathering of the Texas Conference Pastors Retreat.

Lorna Koskela posts on discipleship.

Do people decide to join a church? John Meunier cogitates on the question.

Ken Hagler on confessions of selfishness.

Questing Parson is really writing.

Some thoughts from Matt Kelley on the much needed push-back in conservative American politics.

A sermon from Beth Quick-- "Be Healed."

Dorothy Brucks comments on the breath of God.

Steve Heyduck writes on blame.

Greg Hazelrig posts his thought for the day on John 15:7-8.

Reflections on covenant from Kim Matthews.

Tony Mitchell says, "Ask not what your church can do for you, but what you can do for your church."

Andrew Stoddard posts reflections on 2 Kings 18:19-25, 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, and Matthew 7:13-21.

Olive Morgan issues an appeal for disaster victims in Indonesia, Samoa, and Tonga.

A tale of two turkeys as told by Andy Bryan. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Mark Winter is enjoying spiritual thrills at St. Phil's.

Andrew Thompson blogs on his mission trip from Peru.

"Upside-Down World"-- A sermon by Jim Parsons.

Is salvation a one man show? Shane Raynor asks the question.

Sally Coleman ponders fears and passions.

Dave Perry writes on walking in the way of gratitude.

Dave Camphouse posts on men +1.

John Battern hates church budgets.

Advice from Jeremy Smith on not cutting up your Bible.

Ken Carter reflects on the problems and possibilities of healing.

Tiffany Steinwert writes on finding wholeness in our brokenness.

"Who's With Us?"-- A sermon by Michael Daniel.

What is the goal of biblical interpretation? Brian Russell writes that it's conversion.

Dave Faulkner offers some basic Christian convictions about marriage.

Scott McKay posts the prayer of the hypocrite.

Gavin Richardson on Kleenex, tissues and the Holy Spirit.

Seven ways to catch your breath according to Brian Vinson.

William Chaney reminds us that not all change is tidy and inspiring.

Steven Manskar has experienced evangelists of the reign of God.

How does intercessory prayer overcome free will? Read Betty Newman.

David Hallam writes on judgment and catastrophe.

Craig L. Adams offers comments on only one foundation.

The Nobel Peace Prize: Apathetic Reflections

Periodically throughout the day, I have been reading the ponderments of many on the left and on the right, in editorial and on the blogosphere, concerning the announcement that President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. I have read many thoughtful reflections from people who believe the president is a good choice and from those who do not. While there has been some name-calling and demagoguery on both sides, I have read many reasonable reflections from people who simply disagree. I have also been interested that for many it is not all that clear what the qualifications should be for those who win the prestigious award.

But I have been wondering what those persons think who simply do not care much about the Nobel Peace Prize nor who gets it. I count myself as one of those persons. I find this whole subject to be completely uninteresting. Don't misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that because I have no interest in it, that such an award is unimportant nor a waste of time. There are all kinds of important things in life that some people just don't care about. But I just cannot seem to work up a whole lot of interest in today's news. Indeed, this post is coming so late in the day because I have had a difficult time motivating myself to write it. I just don't care.

But I am writing this because I think it might be interesting to ponder some thoughts from the apathetic. I suppose for me (and this is personal, of course) I have never been much interested in awards. I have received some honors in my life for which I am grateful to those who thought of me. I have also served on a few committees that have granted awards. Those individuals whom we honored deserved what they received, although I found myself irritated at times with other committee members who attempted to complicate the process, and who frankly took themselves and their own views too seriously, and felt that the giving of the award was more about the statement they were making to everyone as opposed to the person who was honored.

Thus, as one who apathetically ponders the moment, I wonder why I cannot work up more enthusiasm for a prize that is awarded every year by five people in Norway. Perhaps at some point in my life before they bury me, I will come to figure out the significance of all this and actually join future discussions on future recipients; but for now, I will only say one thing because it is the appropriate response, even if I find this whole thing to be somehow beside the point...

Congratulations, Mr. President.

.

+ + + + + + +

.

Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian

Reflections on Revelation #2: Hearing the Vision

Chapter 1

.

As one reads the Book of Revelation, it is important to remember that the original audience heard John's words; they did not have access to copies to analyze sentences and phrases and clauses in detail. In the ancient world, many people were illiterate and making copies of manuscripts was time consuming and expensive. The vast majority of Christians in the first century heard the documents of the New Testament instead of reading them. What is important about this is that as the first hearers listened to the visions and images passing in front of their minds; they would not have had the time to stop and analyze and parse what the images might mean. This is perhaps something to keep in mind as it cautions the modern reader not to analyze the material in too much detail. Revelation comes to us more in pictures and images than in detail and minutiae.

Revelation is apocalyptic literature, but it is also a letter to seven congregations in Asia Minor(modern day Turkey). This too is a reminder to us that this document was addressed to specific people in their specific context and it applied to them. We must keep in mind what it meant to them if we are to correctly understand what the Book of Revelation means to us.

In chapter one, Jesus is affirmed as the one who holds the keys of Death and Hades (v. 18). Right at the beginning of the book the outcome of history has already been revealed. This is critical--the Book of Revelation is about the meaning of history and who is in charge of history. The Principalities and Powers persecuting the seven churches of Asia Minor, though powerful, are ultimately not in charge. They will be defeated because they have already been beaten in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Though John uses the word "Hades," he primarily has in mind the Jewish notion of Hell, although some aspects of the Greek conception of Hades might have been called to the minds of the hearers. Hades was the god of the underworld. The Romans called him Pluto. The word also referred to the underworld in which Hades dwelt. Everyone who died went to Hades, which was divided into three regions, although the naming of the regions of the underworld and its divisions are not always consistent in the literature. But in general Hades consisted of Tartarus (the place of the wicked), the Asphodel Meadows (the abode of those who lived ordinary lives), and the Elysian Fields (the final habitat of the virtuous and the heroic).

What is important to recognize is the notion in Greek literature that the dead were confined to Hades and could not be freed. In the Odyssey, Odysseus was unable to free souls from the underworld and the god Hades made sure no one left. So, it is significant then that Jesus is the one who holds the keys of Death and of Hades. In the ancient world, when walled cities were a common necessity, to hold the keys to the city meant the ability to let people in and out of the town. It was not simply a ceremonial honor as it is today. Thus, for Jesus to hold the key of Death and of Hades meant that he has the power and the authority to free people from the realm of the underworld, from the dominion of death. This undoubtedly would have been of great comfort to the first readers who had lost faithful friends and family to persecution.

.

In hearing these visions, the echoes of the ancient context will enable us to put this great and last book the Bible in our context.

Truth is Stranger than Fiction 2009.21

Airline asks passengers to use the toilet before boarding... so they will weigh less and help cut carbon emissions

By Mail Foreign Service

Last updated at 5:56 PM on 06th October 2009

A Japanese airline has started asking passengers to go to the toilet before boarding in a bid to reduce carbon emissions.

All Nippon Airways (ANA) claims that empty bladders mean lighter passengers, a lighter aircraft and thus lower fuel use.

Airline staff will be present at boarding gates in terminals to ask passengers waiting to fly to relieve themselves before boarding, The Independent reported.

ANA hopes the weight saved will lead to a five-ton reduction in carbon emissions over the course of 30 days.

The airline began the policy on October 1, according to Japan’s NHK television.

Although it is intended as an experiment lasting one month and 42 flights, the trial may be extended if it is well-received by passengers and if results are positive.

Based on an average human bladder capacity of 15oz, if 150 passengers relieved themselves on board an aircraft, this would amount to 63.7kg of waste.

Proofreading Is a Necessary Discipline

Whole Grain Spirituality

Today's audio sermon from John 6:35-40, 47-51, 60-69

A Prayer for World Communion Sunday

Our Father who is in heaven, we believe you are in heaven and we believe you are present in this very room also at this time. We thank you that your Spirit and the Spirit of Christ are within us at all times. As we are gathered to eat this meal before you, we recognize the Presence of your Son in the bread we eat. You have glorified us in permitting us to share this bread which he calls his body and to share in his body. Father, you have made us one in you and in him. We praise you for that. Thank you for offering his body for our sins that we might be brought back into your favor. Thank you for this bread which renews our appreciation at this moment for the life which Jesus has given to us. He has paid for our guilt that we might be free from it. Thank you for your limitless love. Amen.

No MBWR This Weekend

It was my intention to post the Weekly Roundup this weekend, especially since I was unable to post it last weekend. But I am preparing to teach a D.Min proposal seminar at Ashland Seminary this coming week. In having to attend to that and in having to get some thing done around the house before I leave tomorrow evening, there is just not enough time to post on the week in review in the Methoblogosphere.

I apologize. It will be a top priority of mine to post the MBWR next weekend, assuming of course that the unexpected does not become a reality.

Political Visions and Illusions: Introduction

Ideology, Religion and Idolatry

In the post-Cold War era, we are no longer bound, it seems, to two superpowers and their ideologies. Our situation is now one of an "unprecedented shakeup" in loyalty to various ideologies. Christians on the inside of the Soviet Union seemed to be among the few to know that the Marxist-Leninist philosophy was dead long before it died, because its tenets no longer lived in the hearts of the people. In South Africa a kind of nationalist ideology had to die so that apartheid could once and for all be eradicated. Even in the West the ideologies of liberalism and democracy are being critiqued though in less of a dramatic way.

Ideologies are not about to come to an end in our time. Even Cold War ideologies are being expressed in some different ways and in new forms; but we now find ourselves wading through "a cluster of postmodern ideologies" which "have come into being based on similar premises, namely that one's concrete position in life, whether economic class, gender, or race, determines one's overall worldview. This has encouraged what has come to be variously labeled the politics of difference, the politics of recognition or identity politics" (p. 15). Some ideologies may have lost their influence for the time being, but ideology per se is hardly taking its last breath.

So what is an ideology? Koyzis gives his working definition, "...I view ideologies as modern types of that ancient phenomenon idolatry, complete with their own accounts of sin and redemption. From the beginning of its narrative, Scripture inveighs against the worship of idols, false gods that human beings have created. Like these biblical idolatries, every ideology is based on taking something out of creation's totality, raising it above that creation, and making the latter revolve around and serve it. It is further based on the assumption that this idol has the capacity to save us from some real or perceived evil in the world" (p. 15).

Of course, the notion and the term "ideology" itself has been understood differently. Prior to Marx and Engels, ideology was understood positively in various ways of the analysis of different ideas and how they came together. Marx and Engels argued that ideologies were negative because they were "based upon a false view of the real world" (p. 18). Since their analysis, the notion of ideology has primarily been viewed pejoratively.

Of course, the problem with Marxist analysis here is that it reserves the term ideology only for those worldviews understood to be false. Koyzis writes, "The followers of ideologies often wish to impose their own simplistic conception of a monolithic social order on the complexities of a real society" (p. 16).

Koyzis argues that there are four preconditions for the rise of ideologies: First, there must be an awareness of the "long tradition of political theorizing that stands in back of the ideologies" (p. 23). In other words, there are no new ideologies, only reformed and recycled ones that can be found in various forms elsewhere in history. There is indeed nothing new under the sun.

Second, the preaching of the Christian gospel can pave the way for "false messiahs to promise another path to salvation" (p. 24). As Lesslie Newbigin pointed out many years ago, unlike other religions, Christianity is historically founded and historically oriented, and its understanding of salvation is founded on a succession of real events. With more real events to follow (i.e. the Second Coming), it is possible to distort the gospel in ideological fashion.

The third precondition necessary for the rise of ideologies is "the secularization of the Christian faith and of the cultures" (p. 25). Such secularization is seen as a society's rejection of the Christian faith in general while heeding to its framework of redemptive historical teachings. The framework without the faith inevitably leads to idolatrous ideologies.

Fourth, ideologies presume the "possibility of mass political movements" (p. 25). In the modern world the possibility of political participation by the common folk have made the rise of ideology more powerfully corrupting because its proponents have to convince the masses that their ideology is the one to be followed. Such persuasive arguments by necessity take the form of religious speech and ideals. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in democratic societies. "In North America those calling themselves political liberals and conservatives have simply embraced broader sides of the broader liberal agenda with bits of socialism, nationalism and other strains thrown in. This is as true of Ronald Reagan as of Bill Clinton, of Brian Mulroney as of Pierre Trudeau."

Koyzis suggests that there are five basic characteristics of ideologies: they are inescapably religious; they deify something within God's creation and make that god a source of salvation; the fundamental evil from which humanity needs saving is to be located somewhere within creation itself; given an ideology's defective understanding of salvation, it has a "distorted view of the world, and hence government and politics" (p. 31); and finally modern ideologies are inescapably utilitarian-- the end does indeed justify the means.

While there is no generally accepted way of classifying political ideologies, the most common popular way is along "the so-called left-right spectrum" (p. 34). Koyzis believes that it is the least helpful way of classifying ideologies, but it is so widespread, Koyzis feels the need to comment on it. The terms left and right are unhelpful in that they are relative to the issues of the day, they are one-dimensional, and the left-right spectrum cannot account for the religious differences that exist between the differing ideologies (p. 37).

Finally, Koyzis puts forth the six common themes (in the form of questions) that will bring together the deliberation of the five ideologies treated:

First, what is their creational basis?

Second, what facets of God's creation have they rightly focused on even as they effectively deified them?

Third, what inconsistencies have led to internal tensions within the ideology itself?

Fourth, what do they see as a source of evil?

Fifth, where do they locate the source of salvation?

Sixth, to what extent are they able to account for the distinct place of politics in God's world?

Koyzis sees the Christian alternative to the idolatry of ideology to be found in the tradition of Roman Catholic social teachings and the neo-Calvinist movement, which he will put forth in the latter chapters of the book. And while I agree that there is much to be gained from both these traditions, I wonder why Koyzis has seemingly ignored the Anabaptist tradition.

I am quite interested in how his argument develops.

Next Friday-- Liberalism: The Sovereignty of the Individual

Life on Planet Hollywood

The recent arrest of fugitive and film maker Roman Polanski for fleeing before being sentenced for raping a fourteen year old girl thirty years ago, is another reminder of the lack of a moral compass that is continually displayed by so many in the Hollywood community. It is a shock, but it is not a surprise.

Here is a man who committed a heinous crime against a young and innocent girl and never served time for that act. Now many of his colleagues in the Hollywood community are acting as if Polanski is now the victim because of his arrest in Switzerland. Whoopie Goldberg said that while Polanski committed rape it was not like "rape, rape." (Huh?) Jack Lang a film maker referred to Polanski's actions toward the fourteen year old as a "so-called crime." (How does Lang feel about NAMBLA?) Actress Debra Winger referred to the authorities as Philistines (Does she even know who the Philistines were?) and stated that Polanski's arrest was exploiting the world of art. (Yeah, right! Arresting a child rapist will definitely lead to the censorsing of television and films.) Another Hollywood "Rhodes Scholar" stated that Polanski was arrested like a "common terrorist." (No... he was arrested like a common fugitive.) Woody Allen (whose credibility on sexual behavior is hardly to be trusted) is one of 138 artists who signed a petition protesting Polanski's arrest.

Now, it is certainly the case that reasonable people can disagree as to what should be done with Polanski as far as what kind of sentence he should serve, but the minimizing of his behavior because he is an award winning artist reflects the lack of moral center by so many in the Hollywood community. To be sure, there are those in the same community who believe differently, but they are quiet, which says much about the "moral" orientation of those in entertainment industry in general.

Robert Goolrick, a child rape victim himself, writes in an excellent editorial in the Daily Beast, "Define artist. Not so easy to do. Now define pedophiliac rapist. Pretty simple. If Polanski had been, say, a bus driver in Cleveland who had fed Quaaludes and Champagne to a thirteen-year-old girl and then raped and sodomized her, I doubt Jack Lang would be so quick to tell the rest of us about the privileges that come with driving a bus. Jack Lang doesn't care about bus drivers. Jack Lang cares about Artists."

While it should not be surprising, the whole Polanski situation is more proof that Hollywood is indeed disconnected, not only from regular folks, but also from common sense. But what else should we expect from people who spend their lives pretending to be people who don't actually exist.

For those who are skeptical, I offer definitive proof that alien life does exist on other planets... or at least on one other planet... Planet Hollywood.

.

Update: Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post published an excellent editorial on this subject entitled, "Hollywood's Shame."

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian