Maybe Hell Is Having to Live Your Worst Nightmare?

We Must Reject Christendom

From my soon-to-be-published book, The Politics of Witness:

The subject of this book is of extreme importance to me. Of course, any subject on which an author writes should be significant to him or her. But this particular subject—the politics of witness— is one that has totally reoriented my outlook and perspective on the Christian life, on Christian discipleship.

The position I put forward in this small book is not a view I have always embraced. I grew up in a typical devout Christian household—a household that never questioned that we were mired in Christendom. Indeed, we never thought about Christendom since we did not know there were other options. Throughout my close to half a century journey in this life, I have been a Republican, I have been a Democrat, I have been a political activist (in both Sojourners and Focus on the Family-like fashion), and at one point I was sure the Amish had it right in complete withdrawal from the larger happenings in the world. But the more I read Scripture and the more I read such thinkers as John Howard Yoder, Stanley Hauerwas, Jacque Ellul, William Stringfellow, and others, the more I began to see the decisive inadequacies of the aformentioned political possibilities. I came to the point in my life where I could no longer embrace Christendom as a viable option for Christians. So for the next few years, I thought it would be possible to reform it. But I soon discovered that those who attempt to reform Christendom end up getting reformed by it. Indeed, I would even use the word "converted." It was only after a long journey of zigzagging through "this position" and "that perspective" that I came to the realization that the only possible response of the Christian toward Christendom was its rejection. This book is about the rejection of Christendom. Until Christendom is abandoned by Christians, the church’s mission and witness in the world will be seriously undermined.

I freely admit that the road I have taken in this book is not the road taken by the majority of Christians. Some will no doubt conclude that such minority status already demonstrates that I and those few who are like-minded are wrong. I will only say in response that not only is the majority not always right, but stagnant group-think is more often the product of many people than of only a few. In this book I seek a way out of a status quo ecclesiology and a completely uninteresting understanding of nation state politics. In any case, I hope those who work through these pages will do so with an open mind willing to consider that perhaps God is looking for a remnant of Christian believers to faithfully embody the politics of witness to the nations.

A statement you will find in several places throughout this book is a favorite quote of mine from Stanley Hauerwas: "It is God and not the nations who rules the world." That is the claim I wish to assert throughout because I believe that while most Christians believe the truth of that claim, they do so only in the abstract. Functionally, by the church's political engagements and by aligning themselves with the left and the right, Democrats and Republicans, Christians in actuality display the unacknowledged belief that it is the nations that are indeed running the show. I wish to challenge that unacknowledged belief in no uncertain terms.

The Dangerous Game of Cherry-Picking Scripture

What do you think?

___

by Leonard Pitts Jr., The Miami Herald

OK, put your books away. We’re having a pop quiz.

Below are four quotes. Each is from one of two sources: the Bible or the Koran, although, just to make things interesting, there’s also a chance all four are from one book. Two were edited for length and one of those was also edited to remove a religion-specific reference. Your job: identify the holy book of origin. Ready? Go:

1) “. . . Wherever you encounter [non-believers], kill them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout post . . .”

2) “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

3) “If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’ . . . do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death.”

4) “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

All right, pens down. How did you do?

You Ever Have One of Those Moments?

If I ever did, it was so fleeting that I missed it.

Exegesis Is Hell: Once Again, Rob Bell on Hell

My friend and colleague at Ashland Theological Seminary, John Byron, is posting a multi-part series on Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins. His review focuses on three areas: exegesis, the concept of hell, and the salvation of humanity.

From the second part of his review that he posts today, John writes the following:

He [Bell] simply is not careful in the way that he uses scripture. At times he uses scripture to prop up his ideas in the same way that a school play will create a stage. From the front it all looks fine. There might be a few blemishes here and there, but for the most part it communicates the setting of the story. A quick glance, perhaps from a distance, could give you the impression that this is a first rate production put together by those who clearly know what they are doing. But upon closer inspection you notice that the set is held together by masking tape and coat hangers. A well-aimed kick at just one of the props and the whole set is in danger of collapsing on itself.

The set the Rob Bell creates from the Bible looks “ok” and perhaps even “logical” with a quick glance from the distance. But the biggest hindrance to the way he reads scripture is his failure to observe context.

...adding to his unfortunate use of scripture, Bell moves from his conclusions about Sodom and Gomorrah to providing a string of scripture verses in which God has promised restoration, reconciliation and return. He is correct. These statements are there. But the context makes all the difference in the world. These promises are not for a generic people. They are made to a specific people, to Israel and Judah. God’s chosen covenantal people. To suggest that these are timeless promises, to all peoples, that refer to the possibility that ultimately all people will restored to God regardless of their obedience or lack of obedience to God (which is what Bell ultimately suggests p. 91) is just not sustainable.

As Karl Barth said, exegesis, exegesis, and yet more exegesis!

The last point that John makes about promises to a specific people instead of a generic one strikes home with me. I have frequently argued on this blog, and will do so in my soon-to-be-released book, The Politics of Witness, that when it comes to politics and ethics, too many Christians from all political and moral leanings read the moral adomonitions of Scripture as if they are meant for a generic people instead of a specific people-- the people of God Israel and the Church. That is off in a different place from where John is headed in his review, but it is another reminder of the singular significance of the rigorous exegetical work necessary when it comes to interpreting and utilizing Scripture.

 

Check out the rest of John's second post here, with yesterday's first part, linked here. And check his blog the rest of the week for his further thoughts on hell and salvation.

Are Calvinists More Mission Oriented?

My publisher, Henry Neufeld of Energion Publications, posts on a book he has recently published by Philip Hopkins on the missionary theology of John Piper. Henry is a United Methodist and not a Calvinist, so his disagreement with Piper on various issues is obvious. But, he nevertheless published the book and ponders the relationship between one's view of predestination and missions.

___

Now my regular readers and those who know me will realize that I’m not a Calvinist, and that I’m likely to disagree with John Piper on many, many issues. Let me just say here in passing that the range of ideas that fall within the publishing mission of my company, Energion Publications, does indeed include both Calvinism and Arminianism. One of the problems I see in the church is that we tend to look largely at ideas we find agreeable, and to the extent that we look at other ideas, we look to variations within our own tradition streams.

Pastors, Theology, Politics, and Controversy #2

How Not to Have the Controversial Discussion

We live in a culture where it is very difficult to have a meaningful discussion on controversial issues. We certainly see this in politics where screaming and yelling and hurling insults at the other side appear to be the norm. If one wants to listen to the politically conservative and angry spin, all one has to do is watch the evening lineup over at FOX News. If one wants to see the same thing, but on the liberal end, the evening angry spin over at MSNBC will do quite nicely. In both of these contexts, truth does not matter nearly as much as forwarding one's own agenda, in order to keep or put their own political party in power. The persons facilitating these talking-head soap operas are really nothing more than groupies following their political saviors into the conservative or liberal Promised Land. Thus, conquest and not truth is the order of the day. So, if one wants to learn how to have a controversial discussion, these media outlets are not the place.

Unfortunately, it can be quite difficult to find controversial discussion modeled in the church, and for the most part, I believe it is the fault of those of us who lead the ecclesial community. Too often, we who lead are obnoxious when we give our views; we are surly and insulting, and we insult or demeaningly dismiss those who disagree with us. There is no doubt that this is due in part to the passion we feel when it comes to what we believe, but when we finally blurt out how we truly feel about those who dissent from us, we reveal that down deep we think we are much more intelligent than those "idiots" who think differently. And let all of us in church leadership confess right now-- at one time or another, all of us have engaged in this kind of demagoguery. I have... and I repent in humility.

A Prayer for the Third Sunday in Lent

Jesus, we are quick to sin. You bathe and refresh us, but we act dried out. We quarrel and test God, as they did at Meribah and Massah. We are eager to be judgmental and exclusionary, as we so often are toward the world’s Samaritan women. We cling to categories that keep people labeled as outsider, as other. We are quick to blame you for suffering and neglect to allow the Spirit to transform suffering into hope.

Jesus, Messiah, Rabbi, forgive us. Please. Wash us. Yes.

--David von Schlichten

What Do You Want on Your Tombstone?

Here's what I want on mine!

Gravestone Generator

Internet Wanderings

Some places I have roamed on the Internet Highway:

Six warning signs you are too big for your britches.

More Americans are dropping out of the labor force.

Is ambition a virtue or a vice?

A former Catholic turned evangelical pastor reflects on Rob Bell's hell and the doctrine of purgatory.

The concluding post in a good series on the Bible and infertility.

"It's a fight between billionaires and millionaires.... There isn't any sympathy for multi-millionaires. It's just not going to happen. And somebody has to stand up and say, 'Enough's enough.'"

Mary at the Cross-- John 19:25-27

Why do Christians disagree on evolution?

"Many religions condemn overeating and gluttony. Yet young adults who frequently attend religious activities are 50 percent more likely to turn into obese middle-agers than those with no religious involvement..."

Was the saber-toothed dinosaur a vegetarian?

Caption Contest 2011.4... And the Winners Are...

Mark A.: "The Lilliputians were getting fed up with always finding Gulliver's bath toys in the harbor."

Nancy: "Inspired by an ancient tale of military prowess, the navy launches it's first Trojan Duck."

The Methodist Blogs Weekly Links of Note

This week's five noteworthy posts from the Methoblogosphere:

Ken Carter: our hands are too full (lent 2011)

Dan Dick: What’s Wrong With Us?

Mike Slaughter: By His Wounds

Dale Tedder: I'm a United Methodist because...
.

Nancy Johnson: Perfect

Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction 2011.5: Hey, Your Honor... Want a Cold One?

NY judge jails man for lugging beer to DWI hearing

From Associated Press

March 22, 2011 5:14 PM EDT

MONTICELLO, N.Y. (AP) — Authorities say a New York man appearing before a judge on a felony drunken driving charge arrived at court an hour and a half late, drunk and carrying an open can of Busch beer.

Sullivan County Undersheriff Eric Chaboty says Keith Gruber of Swan Lake had four unopened beer cans in his bag Monday when he tried to walk through the metal detector at the county courthouse.

The Middletown Times Herald-Record reports that Judge Frank LaBuda asked the 49-year-old Gruber if he enjoyed his "liquid lunch." Gruber said he did, then said he was sorry. The judge revoked his bail and sent him to jail, where he remained Tuesday.

Gruber was arrested Dec. 27 in the town of Liberty and was out on $30,000 cash bail. He has prior DWI convictions.

The judge dismissed Gruber's court-appointed lawyer Monday because Gruber refused to cooperate with him. A phone number listed for Gruber was disconnected.

Pastors, Theology, Politics, and Controversy #1

Introduction

The blogosphere is now abuzz over the recent dismissal of United Methodist pastor, Chad Holtz and his postings on such controversial issues as hell, homosexuality, and politics. And once again, many Christians have chosen up sides into the tired and boring and uninteresting conservative and liberal camps, using this situation as fodder to bash the other side. I have never met Chad personally. He and I are Facebook friends. What we share in common is that we are both United Methodists and that I am a graduate of that fine institution of higher learning, Duke Divinity School, while he is currently a student there soon to graduate... which also means we share a mutual love for the Blue Devils (Yes, we are in mourning today). I enjoy reading Chad's blog. He is thoughtful and his posts are thought-provoking. I do not always agree with him, but he is a sophisticated thinker who communicates well. (Full disclosure: I emailed Chad to let him know I would be  mentioning him in this post.)

I do not know all the details of why Chad was dismissed from his current congregation in North Carolina. He claims that it was because he made public his views on controversial issues. His District Superintendent says the situation was more involved. The news media has picked up the story, so we can be sure they will cloud the facts until no one can see anything with clarity. (Whenever I get on the subject of journalists, I always like to refer to Tom Wright who says that the media is great at putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 17.) I have no doubt that Chad is being honest when he gives his side of the story, but if there is another side... if there is more to the situation, we will likely never know. (And I am not really too interested in knowing all the details either.)

Where's Jesus?

Many years ago, when our children were very young, during our vacation in North Carolina we stopped at Duke University so I could show our children my alma mater. The girls had not been there since they were babies, and since Dad was always talking about what a wonderful place Duke was, I decided I should show it to them.

I saved the best part of the tour for last and we entered Duke Chapel. There was the typical sign when one enters a cathedral asking that visitors be quiet, as there may be people praying and meditating. So with our four children we walked quietly to the front of the chancel area. As we walked I drew their attention to the sculptures and stained glass, giving them a lesson on why the sculpture of Paul was in one place, and Peter in another. As I whispered in the midst of the silent, praying people, our son Jason (about four years of age) blurted out at the top of his lungs, "Where's Jesus?" "Where's Jesus?" He wasn't interested in Paul. He didn't care about Peter. He wanted to see Jesus.

Why I Am No Longer a Calvinist

This Wesleyan agrees. What do you think?

___

by Kyle Roberts, Patheos

Are tsunamis ordained by God? Or is there a better way to think of natural suffering? The answer lies in the freedom given to creation and the natural world.

I used to be a Calvinist.

Yet there were things about Calvinism as a theological system that never sat right with me. I had difficulty accepting "meticulous providence," the idea that God intends everything that happens to happen in the specific way it happens. A common analogy for this view of God's sovereignty over history is "God as novelist." God writes the story of creational history. Every event, great or small, happy or horrific, is included in that story for a specific purpose—all of which serves the glory of God and the good of the elect.

But herein lies the problem: I cannot subscribe to a theology which insists that tsunamis and other disasters were intentionally, specifically, intended by God to happen, just as they happen, for some individual, particular reason.

Many Calvinists find comfort in the conviction that God has absolute control over every aspect of life. Some argue that if God isn't scrupulously directing the tough times, including national tragedies and global catastrophes, why should we expect him to direct the good times? This is a fair point. If God wasn't "in control" of the tsunami, why should we suppose him to be in control over the precariousness of a child's birth or an arduous, frustrating job search? It's all or nothing. Right?

Is it really? Does providence only count if God is a micro-manager? Can God be a macro-manager and still be sovereign over the present and the future? Can God be in charge of the whole but not in control of every single detail? I think so. And I think this is the general thrust of the scriptural witness.

There is a meaningful difference between God's permissive will (that which he allows to occur even though he does not want or intend it actively) and God's ordaining will (that which he actively wills, thereby ensuring that it happens just as it happened for a specific reason). This line divides the Arminian from the Calvinist—at least on the issue of providence. David Bentley Hart, in The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami?, suggests that this distinction allows for the reality of inexplicable suffering, the kind that is neither divinely intended nor purposeful. Seemingly pointless suffering may actually be pointless; that is, it may have no direct reference to any specific, immediate divine purpose or explanation that makes it worth the pain.

But can more be said about natural disasters than that they are not divinely intended for specific purposes?

Terence Fretheim, in Creation Untamed: The Bible, God and Natural Disasters, suggests that a proper explanation of natural disasters and the suffering they cause can be found in an adequate biblical theology of creation. Genesis tells us that God created the world good -- not perfect or completed. The elements of creation bore within themselves the freedom and responsibility to continue the creation process—though not apart from God's continual, providential involvement. Freedom, chaos, and even natural disasters are imbedded in the very fabric of life. With life comes death. With joy comes pain. The earth rotates, tectonic plates shift, and the history of the world marches on. Along with the beauty, majesty, and mystery of life, there is pain, death, and tragedy. In the midst of it, God is not distant, removed, or dispassionate, but involved, interested, and empathic. In fact, he entered into it himself, uniting to creation itself through the incarnation of the Son and the ongoing presence of the Spirit.

Read More...

Upper Income Households and the Tax Burden

This should stir up a little controversy. What do you think?

___

From Scott A. Hodge, Tax Policy Blog

During my recent testimony before the Senate Budget Committee (found here), I cited an OECD statistic that the U.S. has the most progressive income tax system among industrialized nations.[1] This prompted one Senator to point out that if the richest 10% of taxpayers earn the most of any OECD country, shouldn't it make sense that they bear the largest tax burden of any country?

The answer can be found in the OECD table [link here]. This table shows the share of taxes paid by the richest 10 percent of households, the share of all market income earned by that group, and the ratio of what that 10 percent of households pays in taxes versus what they earn as a share of the nation's income.

The first column shows that the top 10 percent of households in the U.S. pays 45.1 percent of all income taxes (both personal income and payroll taxes combined) in the country. Italy is the only other country in which the top 10 percent of households pays more than 40 percent of the income tax burden (42.2%). Meanwhile, the average tax burden for the top decile of households in OECD countries is 31.6 percent.

Lent: Sin Is Serious Business

I'm not OK and you're not OK. There is something wrong with us. Yes, it is true that we human beings have been made in the image of God, but that image is distorted. We are not what we should be. For awhile now it has been fashionable not to use the word "sin" too much. We don't sin anymore. We make mistakes. Viewing my shortcomings as mistakes sounds less ominous, and using such verbiage allows me to believe that the problem with me is not me; it's a few bad decisions I make here and there, as if those decisions really do not indicate the problem with me.

Then into our mistake veneered lives comes Lent, and we must face the truth about ourselves-- we are sinners. The house of our lives doesn't only need a little paint here and some new moldings there... anything less than renovation is insufficient. In Jesus Christ God wants to do a new work in us that is transformative in character. The work needed is so extensive only God can do it. As I heard someone say years ago, "If I'm OK and you're OK, why did Jesus need to go to the cross?"

I realize that there are some preachers out there who spend so much time in their sermons talking about the bad news of our sin, that they never seem to get around to the good news. Such a lopsided proclamation of the gospel leads only to despair and its own kind of legalism. But it is not a better thing when some other preachers spend so much time talking about the good news that one has no idea what the bad news is or if any news about the human condition is bad at all. Indeed, it's only until we understand the bad news about ourselves that the true wonder of the good news can come into focus. Once we hear the bad news about ourselves we can receive with joy the great news of what God has done for us in Jesus Christ.

We can celebrate that God has freed us once we realize that our situation, our prison of sin, is of such that only God can free us. The cross was not an accident; it was not, in the words of the late John Howard Yoder, a hurdle on the way to the Kingdom... the cross of Jesus Christ is God's kingdom come.

We cannot have Easter without Good Friday. The truth of the depth of God's love for us cannot be understood nor embraced in all of its wonder and mystery until we face the truth about ourselves.

We are not OK... We are not "mistakers"... we are sinners.

Caption Contest 2011.4

Think Twice Before You Name Your Congregation

We're Never Too Old to Sin

From Missy Buchanan:
___

Not long ago I was chatting with a college student about his waitstaff position at a lovely restaurant in his hometown. I knew he was a favorite staff person among the locals and was considered professional and friendly. Somewhere in the conversation, he sheepishly mentioned his least favorite patrons.

“Church people… particularly OLD church people. They are the worst customers ever,” he said.

It would have been funny if I hadn’t known there was truth in his statement. There have been times that I have witnessed very un-Christ-like behavior from a group of silver-haired grandmothers pushing their walkers on the way to Bible study at their retirement community.

The young man continued. “They come right from church on Sunday morning. They’re all dressed up and wear their cross necklaces, yet they are rude and demanding. To make it worse, they are very stingy tippers.”

Don’t get me wrong. I am pretty sure this behavior is not representative of most senior adults who profess to be Christians. But all of us need to remember that as we age, we have the same bent toward sinning as a 20 year-old or a 50 year-old. It’s not as though we pass a magic age and somehow surpass the ability to sin.

It’s something to think about. May we always think about our behavior. Will it glorify God? You never know when a young man is watching.

A Prayer for the Second Sunday in Lent

God of the covenant, in the glory of the cross your Son embraced the power of death and broke its hold over your people. In this time of repentance, draw all people to yourself, that we who confess Jesus as Lord may put aside the deeds of death and accept the life of your kingdom. Amen.

The Methodist Blogs Weekly Links of Note

This week's five noteworthy posts from the Methoblogosphere:

Cindy Watson: In disaster and in faith dwelling in the Mystery of God

Kathy Randall: I Wonder

 

Steve Heyduck: Yearning to contribute

Gavin Richardson: the church sermon for a new era?

Sally Coleman: Where is our vision, passion, commitment, community? What is church for?

Office Hours with Stanley Hauerwas

Why St. Patrick's Day Matters, for Everybody

From Pat McNamara, Patheos

___

St. Patrick's Day in America celebrates not only a great saint, but a put-upon people who immigrated to a new world, took the meanest jobs, endured prejudice and exclusion, and rose to prominence; it is not just for the Irish, after all.

When George Washington took office in 1789, there were 30,000 Catholics in America. John Adams said they were "scarce as earthquakes." But by 1850, Catholics had become—and remain, today—the country's largest religious denomination. One factor explains this growth: immigration. Since the Irish were the first immigrants to significantly impact Catholic American life, and with St. Patrick's Day approaching, this week offers a good moment to examine their experiences and their impact.

Perhaps no immigrant group has been a greater force on American Catholicism, both in numbers and leadership. Irish immigration had been steady since colonial times, but until the 1840s it was mainly Protestant. By 1800, about 80 percent of Ireland was Catholic, but before the infamous "Penal Laws" were removed, they couldn't vote or hold office, and many professions were closed to them.

Between 1780 and 1840, Ireland's population nearly doubled. Even in the pre-Famine years, poverty was widespread. The social reformer Frederick Douglass visited in 1845. A former slave, he commented: "of all the places to witness human misery, ignorance, degradation, filth and wretchedness, an Irish hut is preeminent." The peasant diet consisted almost entirely of potatoes, a fairly nutritious food.

But when a fungus struck in 1845, the potatoes putrefied and decayed almost instantly. The entire crop was destroyed. At first the British government tried to help, but it was soon faced with a financial crisis at home and an Irish uprising. These combined to end, Charles Morris writes, "even the pretense of official concern . . . for all practical purposes, Ireland was left to die on its own."

In 1847, an eyewitness described conditions: "walking skeletons—the men gaunt and haggard, stamped with the livid mark of hunger—the children crying with pain—the women in some of the cabins too weak to stand." One woman said there was "nothing for us but to lie down and die."

One million Irish died of starvation. There being little future in remaining, many felt they had little choice but emigration.

That too was a sad event. Families would hold a gathering for the emigrants, who might never return, called "the American wake." (No matter how well the Irish did abroad, many considered themselves "exiles.") Nor was the trip itself easy. Many didn't make it. For 50-60 days, they had no food but what they brought, no beds, no toilets. Aboard crowded ships, cholera and typhoid killed thousands.

When they arrived, they settled in east coast cities, mainly because they couldn't afford to go any further. They lived in crowded, filthy tenements, which one observer described as "hell with the lid off." They found jobs on which they were barely able to subsist. But they clung to the hope of a better life for their children.

They certainly received no welcome from white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, who organized anti-Catholic groups like the "Know-Nothings" whose members were bound to secrecy, claiming they "knew nothing" when violence broke out. It was common to see notices reading, "Neither Irish nor Catholic Need Apply," or "No Irish Need Apply," at businesses and in newspaper ads.

Read More...

Love Does Not Always Win

So says, Ben Witherington:

"...love, even divine love, does not always win with everyone, not even in the end, and it breaks the heart of God as it should break ours."

Ben takes us on a whirlwind tour of the New Testament teaching on hell. Read it here.

Why Is There No Looting in Japan?

This is an important story and should generate some serious discussion. What do you think?

___

Discipline in the face of disaster: no looting in Japan

By Elizabeth Stuart, Deseret News

Published: Monday, March 14, 2011 4:17 p.m. MDT

First comes the natural disaster, then comes the looting — it's a pattern established by decades of catastrophe. But in Japan in the wake of a series of powerful earthquakes, people — though desperate — aren't looking to the rubble for relief. Residents of the Miyagi prefecture in northeast Japan, which was severely hit by an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and tsunami, are experiencing a shortage of drinking water and food, but according to Sify News, people are keeping calm. "Gas and water have been switched off in Miyagi and the central city of Sendai. With rare exceptions, electricity is also off," said an eyewitness, who arrived in Miyagi several hours after Friday's earthquake. "But there is no panic either in the streets or shops." Instead, people are patiently waiting in line outside of shops that have had all their windows and doors broken. To prevent hoarding, shops are passing out food and water resident by resident, he said. No one has entered, and nothing has been looted, the eyewitness said.

In contrast, Pichai Chuensuksawadi, Editor-in-Chief of the Bankok Post, in a recent opinion piece posed the question, "How many times have we witnessed devastation caused by natural disasters resulting in looting, robbery and violence?" New Orleans transformed into "chaos and anarchy" after Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005, Chuensuksawadi wrote. Car-jacking was rampant, hospitals were raided and shooting broke out. Rescue operations had to be abandoned because the conditions weren't safe for volunteers. The National Guard could not focus efforts on search and rescue because they had their hands full tackling the looting. Things played out similarly in the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince, which is still suffering the effects of a 2010 earthquake, Chuensuksawadi reported. "Even now in camps which house the survivors, rape and sexual assaults occur as Haitian authorities are unable to clear the rubble left by the devastation over a year ago," he wrote.

We Are Not Entitled to a Risk Free Existence

The current nuclear situation in Japan that resulted from the recent earthquake and tsunami has fostered a debate in the United States and elsewhere on the future of nuclear power as a source of energy. Those opposed to nuclear power have used the crisis in Japan to argue that the risks outweigh the benefits, while those who support expansion of nuclear facilities suggest just the opposite. I think it is safe to assume that nuclear energy is going to be a critical component in the world's energy usage along with other forms of energy. Jeffery Sachs, who is no political conservative, has said since the Japan disaster that foregoing nuclear energy is not the preferred solution to the risks of nuclear power.

The point of this post is not to argue for or against expansion of nuclear facilities in the United States, but rather to point out the obvious but often unacknowledged truth that no human being is entitled to a risk free existence.We sometimes act as if risk in not intrinsic to our lives. Often the rationale for frivolous lawsuits, which are motivated by greed, is that the offense incurred should not have happened because someone else is to blame due to negligence. In other words, "I want your money because I am entitled not to be exposed to risk and it's your fault that I was."

Why Evangelicals Need Lent

This Mainline Methodist agrees. What do you think?

___

Tim Suttle, The Huffington Post

Apollo 13 astronaut Jim Lovell used to tell a story about a mission he flew in his F2H Banshee off the coast of Japan in 1950. He had missed the rendezvous point when his instruments mistakenly picked up a signal leading him away from his aircraft carrier. Lovell felt hopelessly lost as he flew circles in the dark over the stormy Sea of Japan. As he tried to use his map light, suddenly all of the electronics in the cockpit shorted out and everything went black. A bad omen he thought, until he began looking down at the water below. With the absence of light in the cockpit his eyes began to adjust to the dark, making it possible to see the faint trail of phosphorescent algae which had been churned up by the propellers of the carrier. He began to follow the trail which lighted the way home to the carrier where he landed safely. Were it not for the failed light and the resulting darkness, Lovell might have been forced to ditch his plane. The darkness saved him.

This story is a great metaphor for the observance of Lent. Lent is officially the forty days between Ash Wednesday and Good Friday excepting Sundays. It is meant to be a season in which Christians fast from something as a means of preparation for the celebration of Easter. Lenten fasts -- giving up candy, coffee, soda, television, or meat on Fridays -- are meant to help us see things in a new light. When we fast we voluntarily short out the cockpit lights in our daily routines, hoping that in the self-induced darkness we might actually be able to see our way forward a little better. And if ever a people needed to turn out the lights and sit in the darkness for awhile, it is the typical American Evangelical Christian.

Don't get me wrong -- these are my people -- but we Evangelicals have a few issues not the least of which is a pernicious condition called satiation. Satiation is the absolute satisfaction of every human need to the point of excess. If you don't understand the term, grab a bag of Snickers bite-sized candies and start eating. About the time you polish off the bag -- you'll have an acute understanding of the term satiation. Now imagine that sensation drawn across every aspect of life. Every opportunity, every advantage is given to us. Yet, instead of leveraging that toward the common good, we steer it toward a flat screen TV -- not the 32 inch, but the 50 inch; not the plasma but the LCD; not the HD alone but the one with 3D capability -- satiation.

Lent: Asking for Our Daily Bread

Many years ago on a mission trip in Haiti, our group was ministering in the isolated mountains in the west near the Dominican Republic. They village where we stayed was where the road ended. To say it was a “road” was an exaggeration. Early one Sunday morning, we mounted horses and made our way to another village, even more remote, to worship with the believers there. We gathered with them in their sanctuary, a rectangular banana leaf hut. The worship was quite meaningful even though none of us understood Creole. Nevertheless, we didn’t need to speak their language to know that God was being worshiped and Jesus was being glorified.

After worship we gathered at the pastor’s house, a small hut, and we were served dinner. Some of us noticed that none of our Haitian brothers and sisters joined us, but for some reason we didn’t think to ask. We ate a variety of foods and when we were finished, we were quite satisfied.

Later in the day when we were on our way back to the village of our temporary residence, the missionary who was hosting us told us something that made the rest of the trip quite quiet. He informed us that our Haitian brothers and sisters of the village had given up their daily meal, the food they had for that day, so that we could eat. They had given up their daily bread so that we could have ours.

What Only the Whole Church Can Do: Stanley Hauerwas on Leadership

A Prayer for the First Sunday in Lent

Father, through our observance of Lent, help us to understand the meaning of your Son's death and resurrection, and teach us to reflect it in our lives. Grant 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.

Don't Forget!

Set your clocks ahead before you go to bed tonight!

Internet Wanderings

Some places I have roamed on the Internet Highway:

What kind of people do you love to be around?

My sisters and brothers... not many of you should presume to become bloggers.

Do too many pastors and theologians in today's world embrace church tradition but only on their terms?

A meditation on temptation.

Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus necessary?

The puzzle of the Book of Esther.

An FYI on Daylight Savings Time.

Have we lost a sense of modesty in life and in politics?

Neither political party is serious about deficit reduction-- no kidding.

With all the focus on Wisconsin, should we instead be looking to Indiana for the future?

The Methodist Blogs Weekly Links of Note

This week's five noteworthy posts from the Methoblogosphere:

Richard Heyduck: Why Me?

Cathy Turner: Stay Off the High Wire

Josh Tinley: A Quick Lesson on Using Wikipedia for Research

Keith McIlwain: Devil in Disguise

Lorna Koskela: But Is It Church?

Lent: Practicing a Forgiveness that Travels Both Ways

...it must surely be admitted that the restoration of relationships requires not only forgiveness on the part of the offended but also the penitent willingness to be forgiven on the part of the offender. Thus R.C. Moberly interpreted the sacrifice of Christ in terms of the offering of perfect penitence by Jesus as the inclusive representative of all humanity.* The notion of inclusive representation responds to the need for a universal objective atonement. Some theologians will find this difficult and unnecessary, but certainly God's forgiveness comes alive for every sinner when he turns to God in penitence. The sign and effect of our willingness to be forgiven by God is our willingness to forgive others: the prayer 'Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us' implies that the lesson of the parable of the unforgiving servant has been learnt (Matthew 18:21-35). To forgive those who have wounded us is to grow into the moral and spiritual likeness of God. 'Be merciful, even as you Father is merciful' (Luke 6:35-38): that is a translation of 'perfection'.**

These words from Geoffrey Wainwright remind us of the dangers of observing Lent in a rampantly individualistic Western culture. Lenten discipline can all too often degenerate into a self-centered spiritual navel gazing instead of being a further step along the way of discipleship of becoming centrally focused on Jesus Christ and oriented toward others. From Genesis to Revelation the Bible continues to remind us that our biggest problem as human beings is ourselves, our central focus is ourselves, and all too often we attempt healing and reconciliation and restoration through ourselves. Only in a self-centered society can books be written that are labeled "self-help."

One of the areas where our self-centered spiritual navel gazing comes into focus is in reference to forgiveness. As we examine our lives during Lent we seek forgiveness, as well we should. But forgiveness works both ways. We must not forget that Scripture not only comforts us with the possibility of our own forgiveness, but demands that we stand ready to forgive others. To forgive is indeed "to grow into the spiritual and moral likeness of God."

But forgiving can be difficult. We sure want to receive forgiveness when we know we need it, but to forgive those who ask us... that can be asking too much depending upon how greatly we believe we have been wronged. Perhaps our difficulty in forgiving is found in the unspoken assumption that the sins of others are more grievous than our own. Perhaps in a culture where it has become commonplace to demonize those who believe differently than we do, whose politics is other than our own, whose selfish motivations are labeled as nefarious whereas ours are simply mistaken... in that kind of culture it can be so very hard to forgive.

Pope Benedict XVI: Violence Never in God's Name

What do you think?
___

By NICOLE WINFIELD

VATICAN CITY (AP) - Pope Benedict XVI rejects the idea of Jesus as a political revolutionary and insists that violent revolution must never be carried out in God's name in a new book being released Thursday amid great fanfare at the start of Lent.

"Jesus of Nazareth - Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection," is the second installment of Benedict's planned trilogy on Jesus. Part I, which covered Jesus' early ministry, shot to the top of the best-seller lists in Italy when it was published in 2007.

Already, 1.2 million copies of Part II have been printed in seven languages, and reprints of 100,000 more are planned for the Italian editions and 50,000 in German.

In the book, Benedict exonerates the Jews as a people for Christ's death. He also insists that Jesus never advocated violent revolution, as some liberation theologians have suggested, saying violence was not His way no matter how valid the motivation.

Benedict has spoken out frequently to denounce religiously motivated violence against Christians in the Middle East, Pakistan and elsewhere. "The cruel consequences of religiously motivated violence are only too evident to us all," he noted in the book.

Lent: A Time for Clearing Away

He [the Father] removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit. (John 15:2; NRSV)

In John chapter 15, Jesus uses the allegory of the vine and the branches to illustrate the relationship between the disciples and himself. The New Revised Standard Version indicates that each fruit bearing branch (each individual disciple) is "pruned" by the Father so that it might bear more fruit-- works that bear witness to God's Kingdom.

But is "prune" the best word here? The Greek word here is kathairo (καθαίρω) and refers more generally to clearing and in certain contexts cleansing. So, while it is true that pruning, cutting back, is a necessary part of the process of allowing a fruit-producing vine to bear more fruit, John appears to have in mind something more than simply cutting back a healthy branch in order to produce more; the gardener wants to clear away all the dead vegetation and the clutter that can strangle the branches as well.

Lent is a time for clearing away the clutter of our lives. To be sure there is a cutting back and cutting out involved. But so often our lives simply get cluttered in a way that the cares of this life, and the distractions of other endeavors slowly and surely strangle our commitment as followers of Jesus, We fail to produce the Kingdom fruit God expects of us.

Colossians 3:5 states, "Put to death, therefore, whatever in you is earthly: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed (which is idolatry)." Paul tells his readers to kill, to crucify anything that gets in the way of the new life in Jesus Christ. That not only involves cutting out the things that are earthly, but also the earthly things that in and of themselves may not be bad when kept in perspective; but when those latter earthly things are given too much time and space and nurture to grow, they can choke the "things that are from above" (Colossians 3:2) in our lives (Colossians 3:12-17).

During Lent we must clear away the "earthly" clutter of our lives, that our lives might flourish for the sake of Christ and the Good News he offers.

Are Budgets Really Moral Documents?

What do you think?

___

by Timothy Dalrymple, Patheos

Budgeting for Jesus

Slogans like "Budgets are moral documents" and "What would Jesus cut?" bring confusion and not clarity to our federal budget debates.

A common liberal slogan holds that "budgets are moral documents." Yet this is not literally true. A document cannot be moral anymore than a brick can be entrepreneurial. Morality requires responsibility, and responsibility requires some threshold of agency and understanding. What these commentators and activists mean to say, of course, is not that the documents are moral but that they disclose the morality of the people who made them. Budgets are records of decisions that reflect values and priorities, and the budgeters are morally accountable for these decisions just as they are morally accountable for the virtues and vices that shape them.

This is not semantic nitpicking. The United States—from the federal government to state governments and municipalities, to millions of businesses and families—now staggers under mountains of debt. Wise budgeting is one of the preeminent economic and ethical challenges of the age. Slogans like "Budgets are moral documents" or "What would Jesus cut?" serve more to confuse than to clarify.

Let's imagine a simple budget that directs $20,000 to a soup kitchen, $20,000 to savings, and $60,000 to expenses. Is this budget moral? Who knows? The morality of the budget does not inhere in the document, but depends on the character and context of the budget and its budgeters.

What, for example, is the type of budget? Devoting 60 percent to operating expenses and 20 percent to a soup kitchen is generous for most companies, but not for a charity whose purpose is to support the soup kitchen. We have different moral expectations for different types of budgets. Or what is the source of its funds? Money given voluntarily by investors implies one set of obligations. Money coerced from the poorest of the poor, in order to serve the less poor, changes the moral calculus.

Then there are considerations like the intent of the budget and the effectiveness of the means it employs. If the budgeter gives $20,000 to a soup kitchen, but does so for the sake of political gain, this shades the "morality" of the budget. Or if the budgeter seeks earnestly to benefit the needy, but funds programs that actually worsen their plight, the budgeter may be morally culpable for what he should have known. And any number of contextual factors may also change the moral value of a budget. Is the budget heavily financed by debt? Does it fulfill all its responsibilities? Does it take on responsibilities better left to others? Does it save wisely? If the budget should save $30,000 in order to avoid bankruptcy, then it may be more moral in the short term to give less money to the soup kitchen in order (say) to preserve the company and pay its employees and have the opportunity to continue giving to the soup kitchen for years to come.

Much of this kind of nuance has flown out the window in recent debates over the morality of the federal budget and the most moral way to balance the books. A recent study from the Pew Research Center showed that evangelicals, compared to the general populace, more strongly favored reductions in spending on aid to the world's poor, unemployment, environmental protections, and college financial aid. And evangelicals were more likely to favor increases in spending on the military, crime-fighting, and counter-terrorism.

Read More...

Ash Wednesday with Dietrich Bonhoeffer

"We understand Christ only if we commit ourselves to him in a stark 'Either-Or.' He did not go to the cross to ornament and embellish our life. If we wish to have him, then he demands the right to say something decisive about our entire life. We do not understand him if we arrange for him only a small compartment in our spiritual life. Rather, we understand our spiritual life only if we then orient it to him alone or give him a flat 'No.' However, there are persons who would not even bother to take Christ seriously in the demand he makes on us by his question: will you follow me wholeheartedly or not at all?

Should there be something in Christ that claims my life entirely with the full seriousness that here God himself speaks and if the word of God once became present only in Christ, then Christ has not only relative but absolute, urgent significance for me?"

No Greater Love: Lenten Meditations

Do You Believe in the Devil? Do You Believe in Exorcisms?

What do you think?
___

By Tom Foreman, CNN

The sun was shining on the Santa Cruz Mountains. The freeway from the San Francisco airport to San Jose was still buzzing in my ears when I stepped into the parking lot of an unassuming church and the most famous exorcist in America walked up.

“Hello, I’m Father Gary Thomas.” At 57 years old, he has an easy smile, an abiding love for the Giants and strong convictions about the nature of evil.

"You believe there is a devil?" I ask him as we settle in at a small, beautiful chapel near the church.

“Yes.”

“You believe that this devil acts upon people?”

“Correct.”

He says it with the certainty that I reserve for answers to questions like, “Did you bring your lunch?” but that’s no surprise. He has faced skeptics many times and never more than now, because his life and training as an exorcist in Rome are the inspiration behind the Hollywood film "The Rite."

Indeed, at the premiere, as the cameras swirled around the star, Anthony Hopkins, Thomas walked the red carpet alongside him. This movie, like salvation, is something the priest believes in.

On the Difficulty of Preaching the Prophetic Word

The past couple of weeks I have been re-reading a few pages when I get a chance (here and there) of a book Reinhold Niebuhr wrote as a young pastor, Leaves from the Notebook of a Tamed Cynic. It has been years since I pondered its pages, but it is by far my favorite work of Niebuhr. Earlier today I read the following:

I am not surprised that most prophets are itinerants. Critics of the church think we preachers are afraid to tell the truth because we are economically dependent upon the people of our church. There is something in that, but it does not quite get to the root of the matter. I certainly could easily enough get more money than I am securing now, and yet I catch myself weighing my words and gauging their possible effect upon this and that person. I think the real clue to the tameness of a preacher is the difficulty one finds in telling unpleasant truths to people whom one has learned to love.

My purpose in this post is not to ask what kind of preaching is prophetic. I am not even sure that most preachers can given an intelligible answer to that question because for most, prophetic preaching is nothing more than the promotion of the political platform of the DNC or the RNC with a thin veneer of Scripture thrown in for support.

Nevertheless, Niebuhr speaks the truth when it comes to the difficulty of speaking the truth, because while the truth must be spoken it must be spoken carefully, but not be so qualified that the force of the truth is lost in domesticated nuance. To speak the truth is necessary but serious business. In speaking the truth we should not be afraid to spare individuals their feelings, but neither should we trample all over them with sloppy and unsophisticated rhetorical verbiage that seeks more to score points then to consider and persuade. Even further, the prophetic word should not be offered as the final word, but a word that fosters and furthers the discussion necessary for the church itself to be a prophetic witness, and allow for the laity to speak prophetically to the clergy. Pastors are not the only prophets God has called.

There indeed seems to be a reason why most biblical prophets tended to come from nowhere and then go away  to nowhere when the word was dutifully delivered. It should also be noted that the earliest Christians referred to their traveling evangelists as prophets (Didache 11). But for those of us stationed as pastors of a flock, we still find that we must be prophetic even if we prefer not to be. And it can be so difficult to speak the truth to people we have come to love and respect greatly... because in knowing them... we experience personally the cracked image of God in each and every one of them.... In other words, we come to realize that they are just like us. It may be necessary, but it is also dangerous for sinners to speak the prophetic word to fellow sinners.

Those called to speak, "Thus saith the Lord," also need to heed those words as well.

And that too can be difficult.

The opposite of a "Tiger Mother": leaving your children behind

What do you think?
___

by Lylah M. Alphonse, Shine Staff, on Thu Mar 3, 2011 4:25pm PST

Rahna Reiko Rizzuto says that she never wanted to be a mother.

"I had this idea that motherhood was this really all-encompassing thing," she explained on the Today Show, where she was talking about her new memoir, "Hiroshima in the Morning." "I was afraid of being swallowed up by that."

Ten years ago, when her sons were 5 and 3, Rizzuto received a fellowship to spend six months in Japan, researching a book about the survivors of Hiroshima. Four months in, when her children came to visit, she had an epiphany: She didn't want to be a full-time mother anymore. When she returned to New York, she ended her 20-year marriage and chose not to be her kids' custodial parent.

Now, Rizzuto is an author and a faculty member at Goddard College in Vermont, where she teaches in creative writing. Her boys are teenagers—and, she says, they're fine. In fact, their relationship not only survived her leaving, but "has improved."

"I had to leave my children to find them," she writes in an essay at Salon.com. "In my part-time motherhood, I get concentrated blocks of time when I can be that 1950s mother we idealize who was waiting in an apron with fresh cookies when we got off the school bus and wasn't too busy for anything we needed until we went to bed. I go to every parent-teacher conference; I am there for performances and baseball games."

But when that 1950s mother she describes as ideal had to cope with parenthood 24/7, she didn't get to pick and choose which parts to be present for. The idea that a mother could love her children and still choose to leave them to pursue her own goals is the antithesis of being a 'Tiger Mother'—Amy Chua ignited a fiery debate with the release of her book about being a perfection-demanding Eastern-style parent, omnipresent in her daughters' lives. It also goes against our culture's definition of motherhood. But it shines a light on a glaring double standard: When a man chooses not to be a full-time parent, it's acceptable—or, at least, accepted. But when a woman decides to do so, it's abandonment.