O The Irony of It All

Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction 2011.7: Would Like Fries With Your DUI?

Ohio DUI suspect keeps cop waiting at drive-thru

From Associated Press

April 28, 2011 9:19 AM EDT

NORTH ROYALTON, Ohio (AP) — Police in Ohio say a woman insisted on picking up some fast food before she allowed an officer to charge her with drunken driving.

The Plain Dealer newspaper of Cleveland reports police in suburban North Royalton got a call about a car weaving and going off a road at a little after 1 a.m. earlier this month. A patrolman tracked the vehicle to the drive-thru of a Taco Bell restaurant and pulled up alongside.

The police report says the driver had sunglasses on and her speech was slurred. She was ordered to get out of the line, but first she proceeded to the second window to grab her order.

Police say the woman's blood-alcohol level tested at nearly twice the legal limit.

Caption Contest 2011.6

Is Creation a Past Event?

Statue of Ancient Egyptian Pharaoh Unearthed

Tue Apr 26, 8:44 am ET

Yahoo News

CAIRO – Archaeologists unearthed one of the largest statues found to date of a powerful ancient Egyptian pharaoh at his mortuary temple in the southern city of Luxor, the country's antiquities authority announced Tuesday.

The 13 meter (42 foot) tall statue of Amenhotep III was one of a pair that flanked the northern entrance to the grand funerary temple on the west bank of the Nile that is currently the focus of a major excavation.

The statue consists of seven large quartzite blocks and still lacks a head and was actually first discovered in the 1928 and then rehidden, according to the press release from the country's antiquities authority. Archaeologists expect to find its twin in the next digging season.

Excavation supervisor Abdel-Ghaffar Wagdi said two other statues were also unearthed, one of the god Thoth with a baboon's head and a six foot (1.85 meter) tall one of the lion-headed goddess Sekhmet.

Archaeologists working on the temple over the past few years have issued a flood of announcements about new discoveries of statues. The 3,400-year-old temple is one of the largest on the west bank of the Nile in Luxor, where the powerful pharaohs of Egypt's New Kingdom built their tombs.

Amenhotep III, who was the grandfather of the famed boy-pharaoh Tutankhamun, ruled in the 14th century B.C. at the height of Egypt's New Kingdom and presided over a vast empire stretching from Nubia in the south to Syria in the north.

The pharaoh's temple was largely destroyed, possibly by floods, and little remains of its walls. It was also devastated by an earthquake in 27 B.C. But archaeologists have been able to unearth a wealth of artifacts and statuary in the buried ruins, including two statues of Amenhotep made of black granite found at the site in March 2009.

Nothing is Mere Doctrine

None of it [the Bible's message] is esoteric. None of it is a specialized, compartmentalized thing. It's all lived... One of the wonderful things about being a pastor is that your whole work takes place in a 'storied' context. . . Nothing is mere doctrine. . . It's all embedded in this narrative way of living."-- Eugene Peterson (HT: Craig L. Adams)

I truly resonate with this quote from Peterson. I have argued on this blog many times that the divide that many Christians draw between doctrine and living, belief and action, orthodoxy and orthopraxy, misunderstands the significant nature of both. As Methodist theologian, Geoffrey Wainwright correctly states,

I see Christian worship, doctrine and life as conjoined in a common 'upwards' and 'forwards' direction towards God and the achievement of his purpose, which includes human salvation. They intend God's praise. His glory is that he is already present and within to enable our transformation into his likeness, which means participation in himself and his kingdom (Doxology, p. 10).

We must avoid the two extremes of denigrating the significance of Christian doctrine as if it makes little to no difference for how Christians live. Neither should we so emphasize right belief that we lose sight of the importance of living faithful lives. Those who emphasize orthodoxy at the expense of orthopraxy do not understand either one. Those who highlight orthopraxy and depreciate the importance of orthodoxy do not understand either one.

This side of perfection we see through a glass darkly, as St. Paul reminds us (1 Corinithians 13:12). We do not have it all figured out when it comes to our doctrine and our practice. What we believe and how we live is not a neat and tidy kind of thing. But since God has given us minds to think and bodies to act, and since both are interrelated, our storied existence as Christians must make as central matters both what we believe and how we live. They are intertwined together. Christianity is not mere doctrine with no implications for discipleship; neither is it mere action without serious consideration of the beliefs we hold dear as Christians, beliefs which shape our identity.

The House Church Movement in the United States

What do you make of this?

___

'Simple Churches' Find a Foothold Across the U.S.

Cathy Lynn Grossman

USA Today

From The Huffington Post

(RNS) This weekend, Jeanne O'Hair, her friends and family will raise their voices in Easter hymns "as the spirit leads us," she says, in her "house church" -- O'Hair's living room in Brea, Calif.

In a metal outbuilding at a shuttered horse track near San Antonio, Jeff Bishop says he will celebrate at his "simple church" under a rough-hewed cedar cross, with "folks who speak 'cowboy' like I do."

In Washington, D.C., at the Saturday night Easter Vigil, "we'll keep it casual and focused on Christ," says William D'Antonio, a member of a network of Catholic-style house churches called "Intentional Eucharistic communities."

No matter what you call them, house churches, or "simple" or "organic" churches, have long thrived in Third World countries where clergy and funds for church buildings are scarce. Now, however, they are attracting a small but loyal following across the U.S.

A Philosophical Critique of the New Universalism

James K. A. Smith, whose book Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? is a must-read, approaches the currently fashionable "new universalism" from a philophical perspective. Smith writes,

___

Let's attend to these two specific sorts of claims. I would note that both of these intuitions are fundamentally anthropocentric strategies--outcomes of what Charles Taylor (in A Secular Age) calls "the anthropocentric turn" in modernity. A couple of thoughts:

1) The "I-can't-imagine" strategy is fundamentally Feuerbachian: it is a hermeneutic of projection which begins from what I can conceive and then projects "upwards," as it were, to a conception of God. While this "imagining" might have absorbed some biblical themes of love and mercy, this absorption seems selective. More importantly, the "I-can't-imagine" argument seems inattentive to how much my imagination is shaped and limited by all kinds of cultural factors and sensibilities--including how I "imagine" the nature of love, etc. The "I-can't-imagine" argument makes man the measure of God, or at least seems to let the limits and constraints of "my" imagination trump the authority of Scripture and interpretation. I take it that discipleship means submitting even my imagination to the discipline of Scripture. (Indeed, could anything be more countercultural right now than Jonathan Edwards' radical theocentrism, with all its attendant scandals for our modern sensibilities?)

Does Belief in a Loving God Lead to Moral Laxity?

On his blog today, John Byron highlights a recent study which concludes that students who believe in a loving God are more likely to cheat their way through school.

In the first study, 61 undergraduates were asked to take a mathematics test on a computer that contained a software glitch. If they failed to press the space bar immediately after reading each problem, the glitch would cause the correct answer to appear on the screen and that just wouldn’t be fair. After taking the test, the students were asked about their perceptions of God.

Of course the sneaky researchers — believers in a benevolent God, no doubt — had peeked to see who had used the space bar and who hadn’t. While they found no differences between self-described believers and non-believers, the psychologists discovered that the students who think of God as angry and punitive were significantly less likely to have cheated.

“Taken together, our findings demonstrate, at least in some preliminary way, that religious beliefs do have an effect on moral behavior, but what matters more than whether you believe in a god is what kind of god you believe in,” Mr. Shariff said.

As I read this story I was reminded of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11.

Jesus' Resurrection and Why This World Matters

I read this post yesterday from Tony Jones on Jesus' Resurrection. Tony is spot on and it's worth a read. It reminded me of something I wrote a few years ago in a similar vein. I repost it below with some editorial additions:

___

I take the position, along with the historic church, that Jesus' bodily resurrection is necessary for salvation. If Jesus was not physically raised, then the Christian faith is false and not worth salvaging. In affirming Jesus' bodily resurrection, I am not simply professing faith in his resuscitated corpse. Jesus was resurrected. His resurrected bodily, while different from his pre-crucifixion body, nevertheless shared similar corporeal properties. And it was necessary that it did so.

Please consider the following:

The New Testament writers would not have known the concept of resurrection without the body. To be sure, there was the concept of the immaterial soul in Platonic philosophy, but the language of the New Testament is not Platonic in this respect. A superficial reading of the New Testament demonstrates this. The Gospels claim that the tomb was empty, which meant that Jesus' body was not there. Now this claim, in and of itself, does not demonstrate that Jesus rose physically, but it does show that resurrection meant to the Gospel writers and their readers that something had indeed physically happened to Jesus' body. Years ago, the Jewish scholar, Geza Vermes stated that the evidence of the empty tomb of Jesus was incontrovertible. It is outside of the bounds of historical competence to imagine that the disciples knew Jesus was dead, but somehow started proclaiming his "resurrection" because his life and ministry changed their hearts. The Jewish leadership would have seen such a claim as no serious threat-- Christians running around Jerusalem proclaiming that a still dead Jesus had been spiritually raised within them.

An Easter Affirmation

Christ is Risen: The world below lies desolate.

Christ is Risen: The spirits of evil are fallen.

Christ is Risen: The angels of God are rejoicing.

Christ is Risen: The tombs of the dead are empty.

Christ is Risen indeed from the dead, the first of the sleepers,

Glory and power are his forever and ever. Amen.

--St. Hippolytus (AD 190-236)

He Descended into Hell

Good words from Ken Carter:

___

The Apostles' Creed affirms that Jesus was "crucified, died and was buried" and then "he descended into hell". On this day, between Good Friday (his death) and Easter (his resurrection) we take a moment to imagine his descent into death and hell, and thus the depths of his love for us. The theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar writes, about the descent into hell, that "Christ disturbs the absolute loneliness striven for by the sinner: the sinner who wants to be damned, apart from God, finds God again in his loneliness, but God, in the absolute weakness of his love...enters into solidarity with those damning themselves".

Read More...

Good Friday: Into the Silence

Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer (Mark 14:60-61).

Our culture does not like silence. We do our best in the routine of the day to fill the quiet with noise. We slap headphones on our ears listening to our iPods, we turn the radio on in the car while driving, and we have the television on constantly. We can't even have silence in the elevator as the music is piped in to us.

Many Christians are even uncomfortable with silence in worship. Many people have told me over the years how difficult moments of silent reflection and meditation are for them. We equate silence with dead time, awkward moments when people are not quite sure what to do. There are time when silence is loud.

Jesus stands before his accusers on trial and he remains silent. Even his interrogators find his lack of response uncomfortable. But no one need worry about the silence lasting very long. We will fill the silence with shouts for his death: Crucify him! Crucify him! The silence of the Lamb of God must be replaced with the shouts of human beings taking matters into their own hands. In silence we wait on God and allow God to act; but in the noise we take matters into our own hands. We control what is to be heard and what is to be done.

In the noise we go about our business; in the silence God seeks to intrude into our business. In the noise we drown out the sounds of God calling; in the silence God speaks to us. In the noise we change the subject from God's expectations of us to the ways in which we will live our own lives; in the silence God confronts us with the obligations we have as persons created in his image.

In the silence, Jesus dies upon the cross. In the silence, the word is proclaimed: How much this Jesus loves us!

An Evangelical Appreciation of Catholicism

What Evangelicals Owe Catholics: An Appreciation
Joe Carter, First Things
___

As a child I had almost no direct contact with Catholicism. My family attended a small backwoods fundamentalist congregation—The First Church of Hellfire and Damnation, or something similarly named—and the preacher would often mention the Pope and Catholicism in one of his "Identifying the Antichrist" sermons. The Antichrist was a slippery chameleon, his identity rotating between "usual suspects" among a handful of heathen groups: Chinese communists, the Russians, secular humanists, New England Senators, Episcopalians.

The Pope, though, was our preacher’s favored candidate for ushering in the End of Days. And the Whore of Babylon was indisputably the Catholic Church.

I was nine years old when I first saw the new Pope—John Paul II—on television. Since this was the man who would be ushering in Armageddon, I figured I'd better get to know the enemy. I watched as he stood in front of thousands of Catholics, waving and smiling, and noticed that something wasn't quite right. His wasn't the charming smile of "The Beast" that Brother Bob had warned his flock against. It was more of a sly grin. In fact, this new John Paul seemed like a nice guy; he might even pass for a Christian. Surely, I thought, he couldn't be the Antichrist. After all, he was Polish. The Beast could be Russian or German, but not Polish. Even as a nine-year-old I knew that Poles couldn't be scary.

This was the beginning of the end for my Jack Chick-style anti-Catholic bias, an inclination that was regrettably prevalent in many parts of rural Texas during my childhood. I became more intrigued by John Paul II, the Catholic Church, and the Catholic girls at my school. Over the years, I've engaged more directly with Catholics and the teachings of the Catholic Church, and my admiration and appreciation continues to grow.

Read More...

Is Early Retirement Hazardous for One's Health?

From Katherine Schlaerth, April 20, 2011, LA Times:

___

A doctor has come to believe that most people just plain do better, both intellectually and physically, when they continue to work.

He was a frustrating patient, a retired field worker with poorly controlled diabetes and hypertension. I'd warned, I'd pleaded, I'd explained, but nothing had worked. He ignored dietary advice, didn't exercise and failed to rigorously use his medication. We grew to dread his visits. Then one day he came to the office early for medication refills. His pot belly was almost gone, and his blood sugar levels and blood pressure were right on target. The reason? He'd decided to return to work.

It brought to mind another of my patients, an oil field worker, who had always had a vitality that belied his fiftysomething years. But then he was involuntarily laid off. The next time he came to the office, I was shocked. It was as if he'd aged a decade or two.

Americans are hard-wired to consider retirement age to be 65. Social Security, under a formula established in the 1930s when the average age at death was about 15 years earlier than it is today, reinforced that idea. And now that retirees can begin collecting Social Security and/or pensions before they turn 65, a growing number of people leave the workplace even earlier.

As a geriatrician, I've come to believe that working longer is generally a good thing. Most people just plain do better, both intellectually and physically, when they continue to work. I've observed many times that mature patients who quit working — whether they have been laid off or retired voluntarily — are likely to gain weight, become hypertensive and even develop depression.

Read More...

Maundy Thursday: The Good News Emerges from the Bad

Few holidays in ancient Judaism evoked more joy and celebration than Passover. In a typical month, the population of Jerusalem in Jesus' day hovered around 80,000. During the time of Passover, the pilgrim travelers could swell the numbers in Jerusalem to a quarter of a million.

Passover can conceptually be described in terms of Israel's Fourth of July. It commemorated God's deliverance of his people from slavery in Egypt. The celebration around the table lasted several hours. The tone set by the Passover ritual was one of great happiness.

So it is not too difficult to imagine the sudden change of mood around the table that evening when Jesus said to those gathered with him, "One of you will betray me." Here in the midst of the good celebration came the bad news that one who was about to hand Jesus over to the authorities, dared to dine in hospitality with the Lord. What is taking place all of a sudden at this table is much worse than the relative who manages to ruin the Easter celebration with his obnoxious, loud mouth. There is an individual at that Last Supper sharing bread and wine and fellowship with Jesus, who will shortly hand him over to those who will kill him.

Lent: Discipleship in the Way of Jesus

Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and arrested him. Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:49b-52).

Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. A servant-girl came to him and said, "You also were with Jesus the Galilean." But he denied it before all of them, saying, "I do not know what you are talking about" (Matthew 26:69-70).

After his arrest, Simon Peter is still following Jesus-- at least from a distance. After that dramatic and traumatic scene in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was arrested, all the disciples fled and left Jesus to his own fate. Peter made an attempt to defend Jesus in drawing his sword, but Jesus would have none of it. Peter had made several attempts to set Jesus straight on the specifics of his role as Messiah. Apparently, Jesus had this bizarre idea that what messiahship was about involved suffering and death. Peter took on the task of instructing Jesus in the true ways of messiahship. So, now, in drawing his sword in the Garden, perhaps Peter and his fellow warriors can fend off the enemy giving Jesus time to escape in order to regroup with his followers in another place. But it was not to be. All of Peter's attempts to persuade Jesus in the virtues of armed resistance are for naught. Jesus tells Peter to put away his sword, warning him that all who rely on it's might will end up on the wrong end of its lethal force.

Pondering the Entire Mystery of Christ

From Robert Royal, The Catholic Thing:

___

And so today the week without compare since the creation of the world begins. Suffering, death, resurrection – all of it strange, even the resurrection tough to take in, given how it comes about. You can see that in the way the apostles are still stunned, for no little time, despite the empty tomb. Instead of regarding it all as a foregone and familiar conclusion, we'd do well ourselves to stay a while with that uncertainty and astonishment at the mysterious events of Holy Week.

The title above is from Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth, which helpfully unfolds the Gospel from Christ’s entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, without trying to explain it away with some rationalist system.... There is no fully explaining God's saving action in history. All the Easter bunnies and candy baskets in the world cannot obscure that fact, though they've tried. Unlike Christmas, there is no way to reduce this season to a warm and fuzzy, feel-good holiday. And yet Christians think it the most important event in the life of the cosmos.

Under the circumstances, a believer is tempted simply to push it all away and withdraw. But Christ didn't come into the world for a private séance with a few elect souls. He came into the world to save the world. And in a way, it's a salubrious thing to reflect on how implausible our belief seems to that world, lest we turn this singular and challenging event into a merely comforting story.

Jesus, the Eschatological Prophet, Not Jesus, the Reformer

From N.T. Wright, "The Historical Jesus and Christian Theology":
___

...within Jesus’ narrative world, there are two... points to he made. First, Jesus invited his hearers to become part of the story. His radical narrative summoned all and sundry to celebrate with him the real return from exile, the real forgiveness of sins. He was offering the latter precisely because he was enacting the former. This is eschatology, not reform. Jesus's so-called "ethics" belong just here: they were part of the story, the story of what God's renewed Israel would look like. Like other Jewish leaders before and since, Jesus was urging his contemporaries to follow turn in the subversive way of peace. He was radically opposed to the way of ultra-orthodoxy, of violent nationalist revolution. This was not, of course, because he was supporting the status quo (or was "non-political"), but precisely because he was not.

Second, Jesus warned his contemporaries that failure to come his way would result in ruin. He stood in the great tradition of Israel's prophets, notably Elijah and Jeremiah. His story had two possible endings between which his hearers had to choose. If they followed his way, the way of peace, they would be the light of the world, the city set on a hill that could not be hidden. If they went the other way, as Jesus saw many of his contemporaries eager to do, they would call down on themselves the wrath of Rome. Jesus, like Amos or Jeremiah, warned that Rome's wrath would constitute God's wrath. To follow his teachings, his subversive wisdom, would be the only way to build the house on the rock. To follow the raised prophets who were leading Israel into nationalist revolution would cause the house to fall with a great crash.

Scot McKnight on Rob Bell

Scot McKnight has posted a review series on Rob Bell's book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. It's been an excellent read and is generating much discussion over at Jesus Creed. Scot is well-suited to review this book for two reasons: First, he is a first-rate biblical scholar, and second, while Scot is not a pastor, he certainly has a pastor's heart in his concern for the church and for the faith walk of individual believers. His eighth post, deals with Bell's "most controversial and important chapter." I have linked to his posts:

Exploring Love Wins 1

Exploring Love Wins 2

Exploring Love Wins 3

Exploring Love Wins 4

Exploring Love Wins 5

Exploring Love Wins 6

Exploring Love Wins 7

Exploring Love Wins 8

Exploring Love Wins 9

Clergy and Public Respect

Dennis Prager is a Jewish commentator, and while he speaks specifically of rabbis in this particular piece, his words are also relative to Christian pastors and priests. I must say that I agree with Prager when he writes, "I understand the desire of some rabbis to be seen as real and human. But acting on a higher plane in public comes with the job description. You cannot have the reward of great communal respect without acting accordingly." However, I also wonder if he confuses some issues in the process of his argument. I am also not convinced that the issue he wants to highlight represents a conservative/liberal divide. What do you think? Read, ponder, and feel free to comment.

___

Dancing with the Rabbis?

Dennis Prager

April 12, 2011

On April 3, under the auspices of the American Jewish University, in its Gindi Auditorium, five Los Angeles rabbis competed with one another in an evening titled "Dancing With the Rabbis." As reported in this newspaper, the sellout crowd loved the evening.

May I respectfully suggest — and I do mean respectfully, as I know that good intentions prompted the evening — that this be the "once in a lifetime" event that some who attended called it. It should not be repeated.

I say this in order to preserve the dignity of the rabbinate. When I was a child, the rabbi was an esteemed figure, by far the most esteemed figure in our Jewish community. Even though it was part and parcel of Jewish religious life to criticize the rabbi for what he said or didn't say in his Shabbat sermon, we would stand up on those occasions when the rabbi walked by our row in shul. And not only did we not address our rabbi by his first name when we spoke to him, we never referred to him by his first name when we talked about him.

Do I Really Want the Holy Spirit to Come Upon Me?

When David had fled and made his escape, he went to Samuel at Ramah and told him all that Saul had done to him. Then he and Samuel went to Naioth and stayed there. Word came to Saul: "David is in Naioth at Ramah"; so he sent men to capture him. But when they saw a group of prophets prophesying, with Samuel standing there as their leader, the Spirit of God came upon Saul's men and they also prophesied. Saul was told about it, and he sent more men, and they prophesied too. Saul sent men a third time, and they also prophesied. Finally, he himself left for Ramah and went to the great cistern at Secu. And he asked, "Where are Samuel and David?"

"Over in Naioth at Ramah," they said.

So Saul went to Naioth at Ramah. But the Spirit of God came even upon him, and he walked along prophesying until he came to Naioth. He stripped off his robes and also prophesied in Samuel's presence. He lay that way all that day and night. This is why people say, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" (1 Samuel 19:18-24).

Saul has not been a very good king. He has not shown much of an interest in the things of God, except when he has been in trouble and calls upon God for help. The prophet Samuel has informed Saul that God has rejected him as king, and while he still sits upon the throne of Israel, David has already been anointed as his successor.

First Samuel 19 recounts one of several occasions when Saul attempts to kill David. David flees to Naioth, but it is not long before spies report his whereabouts to Saul. Saul sends some men to capture him, but the plans of God are much larger than the plans of any earthly king, even the king of God's people. As the men approach, the Spirit comes upon them and they begin to prophesy. When Saul hears of this, he is too determined to be deterred. Two more times he sends men to bring David back, but they too fail to complete the mission as the Spirit falls upon them as well. Apparently, God is even more determined.

The Google Exodus

Have a blessed Passover!

A Prayer for Palm Sunday

Loving God, present in both sunshine and shadow, we follow the drama of salvation with wonder. As we walk with Jesus during this holy week, each day drawing closer to his inevitable suffering and death, we are thankful for every moment of sunshine that fell on his path. We thank you for the common folk and the little children, who sensed a glory that the proud and learned could not see. We thank you for each waving palm frond and every shout of Hosanna. Like latecomers, at the rear of the crowd, we add our praise and pledge our love. Hosanna in the highest! Amen!

--Bruce Prewer

The Methodist Blogs Weekly Links of Note

This week's five noteworthy posts from the Methoblogosphere:

Matt Judkins: The Value of Tradition

Nancy Johnson: Fasting

Will Grady: God Answers a Prayer (Jess the Cat Comes Home)

Shane Raynor: Choose Your Battles, Shane Claiborne

Angela Shier-Jones: Panic, Perfection and the Word of God

Building A Theological Library

Marcus Maher offers good advice for those wanting a religious library:

___

1. Preview before you buy

Books, especially commentaries, are expensive. Try to preview them in some way before you buy them. This will save you money and disappointment.

2. Think about it

There are so many good books to buy. So many! Often times I've learned about a book and gotten really excited about a book and wanted to buy it only to have my initial excitement wear off a few days later.

3. You need more than commentaries

A good theological library should contain commentaries, bible dictionaries, introductory books covering portions of Scripture (NT, OT, Paul, the Gospels, the prophets, etc.) both of the historical critical type and the theological type, systematic theology texts, books of historical theology, lexicons and grammars, books on church history, and some basic references on the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and the Apostolic Fathers.

4. Don't buy it just because...

The Holy Week Journey

Next week is my favorite week of the year. Holy Week has become hugely important in my life, in my faith walk, and in my worship of God. I cannot imagine a spending that week on the beach as some Christians do as they take vacation. I love the beach! I love Holy Week and all that it means even more!

I grew up in a church tradition where Holy Week was not observed. No church I ever attended while I was growing up had Maundy Thursday or Good Friday services. I attended my first Holy Week worship in college. Of course, the churches I attended in my youth celebrated Easter Sunday. Easter was big for us as in most churches. That was obvious because the church musicians pulled out all the stops that day, we saw people in worship we hadn't seen since Christmas Eve, and more than a few were dressed in the newest and latest fashions. Yes, we celebrated the resurrection of Jesus in worship, but we had not journeyed with him in worship to the empty tomb... from his entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, through celebrating his Last Supper, and finally walking with him to the cross.

Silly Attempts to Cover the Naked Truth

A teacher at a public school in Seattle, for reasons of political correctness, has renamed Easter eggs "spring spheres." (The story is here.) That is what the teenager, a volunteer (who attends a private school), told the media as she brought the festively colored, oblong chicken ova to elementary school children. Apparently, the school administration did not want them referred to by their long-held, and apparently offensive name, "Easter eggs."

Now, it should be obvious to everybody how silly this is, but if you are not so sure, I will explain why I believe it is shortly. But first let me say that it should NOT be assumed from this post that I subscribe to the cultural warrior mentality promoted by the Bill O'Reillys of the world. While I certainly believe we have some serious cultural tensions in the good ole' U. S. of A., I think those who believe there is a war on Christmas, etc. doth protest way too much. I find it difficult to sympathize with those ready to declare war on those who would supposedly undo their holidays.

Having said that, however, I find it just as difficult to work up much understanding toward the politically correct camp who feel the need to rename anything and everything with even tangential religious connections. Seriously? Spring spheres?

The End Is Near... Well, Close... Wait... Hold on...

Copyright Gospel Communications International, Inc - http://www.reverendfun.com/

The "Literal" Truth on Taking the Bible Literally

One of Henry Neufeld's pet peeves is one of mine too. In particular I love his last paragraph! What do you think?

___

A Misuse of the Word LITERAL

One of my pet peeves is the way "literal" is used in discussing biblical interpretation. The problem is not just that the word has changed meaning; rather, it is now scattered all over the map. "Literal" comes to mean anything from "seriously" to "severely out of context" much more often than it means "literal as opposed to figurative."Even "literal as opposed to figurative" something to be desired since without a knowledge of just which way something is to be taken, either literally or figuratively, one often can't tell what is meant.

For example, if I say I don’t take Genesis 1 literally, just what do I mean? For me, Genesis is not narrative history. Having said that, there are many things it could be, and it happens that I take Genesis 1:1-2:4a to be liturgy. There are figurative elements in liturgy, but it is a more specific label.

In any case, in studying Philippians, I came across this note in the Orthodox Study Bible regarding the Greek word leitourgia in 2:17: "Service is literally 'liturgy.' …" I hate to beat up on the Orthodox Study Bible so much, especially considering that at the same time as I use it, I'm becoming more and more delighted with the eastern church fathers.

But 'service" is not literally "liturgy" nor is leitougia literally "liturgy." "Liturgy" is merely one gloss one might use, expressing a certain portion of the semantic range of the Greek word. One might say the the word translated "service" is the one from which we derive the English word "liturgy," though that doesn't really mean much regarding the meaning of this passage.

So again I will maintain that "literal" is one of the most misused words in biblical interpretation. I've suggested before that if I could take one phrase away from conservatives it would be "the Bible clearly teaches." If I could take one phrase away from liberals it would be "we don't take that literally." Neither one advances the discussion.

Lent: Entering the Darkness

Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. Now when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, ‘Truly this man was God’s Son!’

There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. These used to follow him and provided for him when he was in Galilee; and there were many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem (Mark 15:37-41)

We must never forget that Jesus had women disciples. They didn't get the title officially in the Gospels, but there were women who believed in Jesus and followed Jesus and assisted Jesus in his ministry. And, perhaps even most importantly, Jesus treated them as disciples.

Mark mentions a few of the more prominent female followers, and one in particular bears important mention-- Mary Magdalene. Mary, who was from the Galilean town of Magdala, endured great darkness in her life. Unfortunately, Mary's reputation has suffered much abuse through the centuries as she has been mistakenly  identified as a prostitute (the Gospels say no such thing) and under the false disguise of "scholarship," some have offered the fanciful scenario that Jesus and Mary were married and had a child together and that after Jesus' death Mary and their daughter went to France. Such a suggestion is slanderous, and is not based on any sort of scholarly and evidential reality. It is therefore not worthy of a response.

A Prayer for the Fifth Sunday in Lent

Loving Lord, you are resurrection and life. Register us among those who commit themselves to the faith that we have already crossed over from defeat to victory, from death to life. Let us live with good humour among the cynics who mask their own despair with witty sarcasm. Let us celebrate the heaven that has already come among us and share it fruits with one another. For your love’s sake. Amen!

--Bruce Prewer

Internet Wanderings

Some places I have roamed on the Internet Highway:

Christians must be people of conviction while being gentle.

How to argue about marriage.

Part 5 of a good series on John Calvin and evolution.

What good is retirement?

Would Ike have gone to Libya?

Bill Cosby offers some thoughts on Donald Trump.

Empathy: The Rope that Binds Us.

Christus Victor and atonement.

Paul rocks... but Jesus reigns!

The concluding post in a series on why Jesus had to die.

Caption Contest 2011.5... And the Winner Is...

Pam BG: Leader: May The Force be with you.

                All: And also with you.

The Methodist Blogs Weekly Links of Note

This week's five noteworthy posts from the Methoblogosphere:

Becca Clark: Risky Business

Lauren Porter: How Do You Keep the Mind from Wandering in Prayer?

Jay Voorhees: Metrics that Matter

John Meunier: Earth Day, Holy Week, and the Episcopalians

Henry Neufeld: No, Burning Books Is NOT Worthy of Respect

You Ever Wonder How the Date of Easter Is Determined?

Mary Fairchild offers the short answer:

At the heart of the matter lies a very simple explanation. The early church fathers wished to keep the observance of Easter in correlation to the Jewish Passover. Because the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened after the Passover, they wanted Easter to always be celebrated subsequent to the Passover. And, since the Jewish holiday calendar is based on solar and lunar cycles, each feast day is movable, with dates shifting from year to year. Now, from here the explanation grows more complicated.

You can read her longer and more complicate and informative answer here.

Stanley Hauerwas on Learning How to Die

I’m 70 and I think about death everyday. I think it's a great gift that God gives some of us -- to grow old in a way that our deaths are unavoidably present. That's a gift: that you get to live into your dying. That is part of what we would like to have possible for everyone. In America death has unfortunately become associated with: you're dead when your doctor can no longer do anything for you. I want to think that our deaths can be claimed as part of a community of friends that are able to be present to us as we die. That means that you don’t have to do everything necessary to keep your body alive.

You can read the entire interview here.

__

HT: Missy Buchanan

The Totalizing Agenda of Empire

The defining feature of Empire is its totalizing agenda. Everything and everyone must come under the service of the Empire. That certainly has implications for how empire relates to those outside its immediate influence but it equally involves how it subjugates those who reside in the empire.

Liberals have used the Empire motif for American international interventions under Republican leadership. It is a characterization worthy of reflection. But what about the Empire building of progressivism?

Michael Kruse

___

I remember reading this quote from Michael's blog a year ago. What recalled it to my mind is that I am currently writing an essay for a book to be published by InterVarsity Press, entitled Jesus Is Lord, Caesar Is Not! Evaluating Empire Studies Today. In addition, I am presently reading Peter Leithart's thought-provoking book, Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christianity. One of the points Leithart makes convincingly in his book is that the character of empire is not only one of "foreign policy" but of "domestic policy" as well. He writes of the reign of the Emperor Diocletian:

In taxation, in religious policy, in administration, he presided over an "activist" government that swept away earlier restraints and inserted state power into the details of daily life.... Not only did this result in a more intrusive Roman government, but it created a new class of bureaucrats whom Lactantius condemned as "rude and illiterate men" who had none of the eloquence of the traditional Roman elites (p. 44).

What Does It Take to Get In?

How would you answer that question?

___

From Scot McKnight at Jesus Creed:

People ask questions about the faith for a variety of reasons and I want to sketch four — there are of course other reasons. Some ask questions because they want to know. This sort of person asks a good question and then sifts through the Bible and sorts out theological history and intellectual options in an attempt to find the truth. Some people ask questions in a more careless fashion — they ask questions, some of them quite good — like How can God be all powerful and all good and have a world like this? — but don’t seem to want to find answers. They just don’t work hard enough. They are proud of having good questions. Some ask good and middling questions but the questions are a cloak for doubt. They don’t ask to find an answer but they soften their overt doubts or unbelief by expressing them in a question. Others ask questions to befuddle and to bewilder — all with a desire to confuse in order to lead to other questions that are behind those questions in order to find deeper answers. I think Rob [Bell] is trying the last approach....

The questions he asks in the first chapter [of his book, Love Wins] are piled on top of one another, one after the other, question, question, question. They are probing one major issue: If we believe in an afterlife, and if that afterlife is entered as a result of some “condition”, what does it take to get in? What do you think? Please stop and answer that one. That’s the question this chp provokes.

Touching on one Gospel text after another, he is led to this laundry list of options, and I eliminate his white space: “Is it what you say, or who you are, or what you do, or what you say you’re going to do, or who your friends are, or who you’re married to, or whether you give birth to children? Or is it what questions you’re asked? Or is it what questions you ask in return? Or is it whether you do what you’re told and go into the city?” (16-17)

Caption Contest 2011.5

Pastors, Theology, Politics, and Controversy #3

The Venues for Controversial Discussions in the Church, Part 1-- Preaching

Should a pastor take politics into the pulpit? There are certainly different points of view on this and all sides have good points to make. Of course, in one sense, all pastors take politics into the pulpit. When the Lordship of Jesus Christ is affirmed, it is a political claim that all earthly authorities, including those in charge of the nations, are provisional. Those who assert that the Gospel is nonpolitical deeply misunderstand the nature of what God is doing in this world as a result of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The earthly powers that be cannot require absolute and unqualified obedience of their subjects; and when they do they foolishly attempt to stand in the place of the risen Christ. Sooner or later they, like the rest of us, will give an account of such pretentious behavior.

Moreover, it is possible in most congregations to hit upon social issues, but in a non-controversial way. I have never met a Christian who does not believe that the poor should be fed. The controversy starts when people begin to get specific on how the poor should be fed. What is the role of the government, and what is the role of the private sector?

Nevertheless, when one speaks of preaching politics in the pulpit, one usually refers to the preacher's address of specific and contentious issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and capital punishment. Is it important to address such matters in the sermon or are such things better left for alternative venues?

1 in 5 US Moms Have Children with Multiple Fathers

What do you think? How can the church be in ministry? Why does the article not raise the personal morality question?

___

Poverty, lack of education and divorce perpetuate lack of opportunities

By Linda Carroll

msnbc.com contributor msnbc.com contributor

updated 4/1/2011 12:33:12 PM ET 2011-04-01T16:33:12

One in five of all American moms have kids who have different birth fathers, a new study shows. And when researchers look only at moms with two or more kids, that figure is even higher: 28 percent have kids with at least two different men.

"To put it in perspective, this is similar to the number of American adults with a college degree," says the study's author, Cassandra Dorius, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. "It's pervasive."

Dorius' study, which was presented Friday at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, examined data from nearly 4,000 U.S. women who had been interviewed more than 20 times over a 27-year period.

This phenomenon is important to study, Dorius says, because there are consequences to both the mom and her children. Women with children from multiple fathers tend to be disadvantaged compared to other moms. "They are more likely to be under-employed, to have lower incomes, and to be less educated," Dorius says.

Further, this type of family structure can lead to a lot more stress for everyone involved, in part because the women need to juggle the demands and needs of more than one dad.

The "Naughty Side" of the King James Version

Presented by David Neff, Editor-in-Chief, Christianity Today:

HT: Clay Knick

Lent: Encountering the Cross

They compelled a passer-by, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross; it was Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15:21).

Simon of Cyrene was the first person to encounter Jesus' cross in an up close and personal way. He was simply minding his own business, coming in from the country after a hard day's work. As he approaches his home, he is enlisted... no... he is drafted... he must do for Jesus what Jesus now cannot do for himself. He must carry Jesus' cross.

Simon was well aware of the evil reality of crucifixion. It was nothing more than state-sponsored terrorism to keep the masses civil and cooperative. He had seen it often, as did the other inhabitants of Jerusalem. So, now, Simon seems to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. He is drafted by the Centurion in charge to carry the cross beam for this Jesus, this condemned criminal, who will be nailed to it in painful agony.

Mark is intentional in stating that this Simon who carried the cross by happenstance, had sons who were obviously believers. How did this happen? Did Simon pass his faith on to his sons? Did this encounter with the cross in an up close and personal way, give Simon a perspective never previously considered? Did he see in Jesus a man dying in a way he had never seen before?