Energion Direct

Author: empower

  • Identity and Inheritance: The View of Things from the Heavenly Horizon

    by Allan R. Bevere

     
    MountainSeveral years ago, I was in Cuba on a teaching mission. One afternoon, during some free time, our hosts took us to a mountain on the Isle of Youth. There was a path up the side of the mountain, and those of us who were able and willing, were invited to climb the mountain. It was a tough climb; some who were not in the best physical condition were unable to continue for long. But for the four of us who made it, when we stood on the top of that mountain and looked down at the landscape below, we were treated to a view of the world that one can get only from the horizon.
    Paul and Timothy write, “Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory (3:1-4).[ene_ptp] The earthly things of the world look quite different when viewed from the vantage point of heaven. Our writers to the Colossians are not advocating a withdrawal from the world, but an involvement in the world from a divine vista. Focus does determine reality; perspective interprets what we see. The other-worldly does not nullify the things of the world; it reinterprets them through the eyes of God.
    We must not miss the verb tense in verse one: “Since, then, you have been raised with Christ.” Notice that Paul does not say, “Since, then, you will be raised with Christ.” Resurrection is not something that will happen only when Christ returns; we participate in the resurrected life of Christ right now. In this world we are to live the heavenly life in the present. We are to bring to pass the words of The Lord’s Prayer, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”
    The heavenly life in the midst of earthly existence looks quite different; it looks redeemed. This is why Paul and Timothy tell us to take off the vices that characterize the ways of the world and to clothe ourselves with the virtues of the Christ-like life.
    Living as God’s chosen people means walking the road of discipleship in a manner that will attract others to the gospel, so that those who are “earthly” will desire to live in a “heavenly” way, setting their minds on the things of God and thereby seeing over the horizon to view the world in the way Christ does—from the summit of the cross.

  • Transformative Suffering

    by Joel Watts

    KeatsI’ve been thinking a lot lately about suffering. From time to time, in classes I teach the question is raised, “Why does God allow suffering?” To that end, I’ve turned to writing a short work that I want to use in those times. This is part of it.
    Theosis (becoming a sharer in God’s nature, 2 Peter 1.4) is the goal of the Christian life, but suffering is the process by which we are transformed from our present state into the ideal. We cannot think of suffering as evil, even from a naturalistic standpoint. The Grand Canyon was carved over millions of years by the constant friction of the Colorado River (or rather, a flowing waterway only recently named the Colorado). This friction caused erosion, working with wind and other natural forces, to create one of the most spectacular views in the world. This suffering is not viewed through the minute changes wrought by nature, but by the result and thus is not mourned. Rather, we can now examine it as something praise worthy, with many finding proof of God’s majesty in the mere sight.
    It is rather more difficult to suggest that suffering endured by humans, and sometimes caused by humans, can ever produce [ene_ptp]something as magnificent as the Grand Canyon. It sounds almost clichéd to say that the agony that is sometimes human existence is “all apart of God’s plan,” and yet, we cannot hide from the fact that God is ultimately sovereign. What I would refrain from doing, however, is suggesting specific instances of suffering — war, rape, murder, loss and gain — are part of God’s plan. Rather than attempting to discern patterns in God’s plan, or hoping that “everything will work out all right” for us before we die, we must assume that the will of God is concerned with a wider audience than us.
    Suffering does have a reason, more so than just the cause afforded by Christian theologians. Suffering is to transform us, to recreate us through love into something else. The great 19th century English poet, John Keats, would unknowingly agree with certain Christian theologians in calling this process “soul-making.”
    The common cognomen of this world among the misguided and superstitious is ‘a vale of tears’ from which we are to be redeemed by a certain arbitrary interposition of God and taken to Heaven — What a little circumscribed, straightened notion! Call the world, if you please! ‘The vale of Soul-making.’ Then you will find out the use of the world. (I am speaking now in the highest terms for human nature admitting it to be immortal which I will here take for granted for the purpose of showing a thought which has struck me concerning it.) I say “Soul making.” Soul as distinguished from an Intelligence — There may be intelligences or sparks of the divinity in millions — but they are not Souls till they acquire identities, till each one is personally itself. Intelligences are atoms of perception–they know and they see and they are pure, in short they are God — how then are Souls to be made? How then are these sparks which are God to have identity given them–so as ever to possess a bliss peculiar to each ones individual existence? How, but by the medium of a world like this?
    This point I sincerely wish to consider, because I think it a grander system of salvation than the Chistian religion — or rather it is a system of Spirit-creation — This is effected by three grand materials acting the one upon the other for a series of years — These Materials are the Intelligence — the human heart (as distinguished from intelligence or Mind) and the World or Elemental space suited for the proper action of Mind and Heart on each other for the purpose of forming the Soul or Intelligence destined to possess the sense of Identity. I can scarcely express what I but dimly perceive — and yet I think I perceive it–that you may judge the more clearly I will put it in the most homely form possible — I will call the world a School instituted for the purpose of teaching little children to read — I will call the Child able to read, the Soul made from that school and its hornbook. Do you not see how necessary a World of Pains and troubles is to school an Intelligence and make it a soul? A Place where the heart must feel and suffer in a thousand diverse ways! Not merely is the Heart a Hornbook, it is the Mind’s Bible, it is the Mind’s experience, it is the teat from which the Mind or intelligence sucks its identity–As various as the Lives of Men are–so various become their Souls, and thus does God make individual beings, Souls, Identical Souls of the sparks of his own essence…” – John Keats, April 21, 1810
    St. Irenaeus would write,

    For after His great kindness He graciously conferred good upon us, and made men like to Himself, that is in their own power; while at the same time by His prescience He knew the infirmity of human beings, and the consequences which would flow from it; but through His love and His power, He shall overcome the substance of created nature. For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God, having received the knowledge of good and evil.[1]

    The concept is the same. Life is made for the creature in order to learn to be like God. This “soul-making” theosis is highlighted and promoted by John Hick (1922–2012) in his work, Evil and the God of Love (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010). Hick’s work has demonstrable flaws, as highlighted by Stephen T. Davis’s 2001 3-point rebuttal (Encountering Evil, A New Edition: Live Options in Theodicy, Westminster-John Knox). My proposal will attempt to avoid, for now, the proposal by Hick, and subsequent rebuttals, because I stand apart from him in several key areas. First, I do not believe universalism is a necessary component of Irenaean theosis. Universalism is simply another side of determinism. Second, I do not accept that humans are going to evolve into a “God-consciousness” but simply, that we are to be transformed through the process of suffering into holiness and thus be perfected and able to speak to God face-to-face. Further, I do not believe in free will, although I hold to free choice as the more humane experience.[2] Finally, theosis is not merely an individual enterprise, but one afforded to the whole species corporately. It is part of the human condition, aiding our human flourishing.
    My premise is simple: that suffering is the process by which God transforms us, individually and corporately, into a holy creation able to share in the divine nature. Suffering is not limited to grand exhibitions of evil, but is the all-encompassing actions of those things forcing us to be human. It is friction. It is erosion. It is entropy. It is building only to be destroyed. It is love and loss, good and evil — and all experiences in-between. Suffering by its definition are those events in our lives and in the life of the species that is used to move us from existence as the human animal to the beyond-existence as holy creatures adorned with the presence of God.
     
    [1] Irenaeus, Ad. Her. 1.4.38.44.
    [2] Free choice allows for the ability of the human to choose within a set number of options.

  • My God Is Too Human . . . and Yours Is Too

    by Herold Weiss

     
    TwainParents can be quite surprised when they find out that a child of theirs did some horrendous thing. They had constant personal, objective interactions with their child, but one day out of the blue, as they see it, they discover that they did not know at all who this child of theirs is. On the other hand, it often happens that a child who had an intimate relationship with his father throughout his adolescence and youth and thought at the time that his father was a dumb old foggy totally out of touch with reality when he becomes a young adult and mentally reconstructs the history of his relationship with his father realizes that his father has actually been all along a very wise human being who desires the best for him.
    In my last column, I said that my understanding of God and that of the author of Psalm 137 were totally different. By that I did not mean to say that mine was better than that of the Psalmist. I was just stating that our understandings were different. His God may have had some qualities that I would very much admire, but I do not know about them. Mine may be actually quite different from that of most of my contemporaries, besides being different from that of many biblical authors. Now, if parents can be totally surprised when they find out who their son really is, and young men can radically revise their understanding of their father, even though they have daily physical contact with him, how much more everyone will be quite surprised when we all find out who God really is, given that human beings can have contact with God only in their imagination.[ene_ptp] This is a most important lesson we must learn, and learning it means having achieved some spiritual maturity. I give credit to the Book of Job for teaching me this lesson. Because it was written precisely to teach this lesson, I consider it to be the best theological book of the Old Testament. The way in which the author frames the story of Job tells us that he has come a long way thinking about and coming to some conclusions concerning the question of God.
    On the surface it would appear that the concern of the book is with the problem of the suffering of the innocent or, stated differently, whether God is just. The problem of the suffering of the innocent became crucial once human beings ceased identifying themselves within their tribe and sought individual identity. It no longer made sense to understand one’s suffering as due to the sin of an ancestor (21:19). The author of the Book of Job also makes clear that he has rejected the apocalyptic solution to the problem of the unjust suffering of the righteous. The introduction presents Satan as a respectable member of the council of the sons of God, and not as a rebellious fallen angel who has been ejected from heaven and has become the “god of this world” who is free to cause evil. In this story, God has not lost control over Satan. Besides, the text denies that there is a resurrection (10: 20-21; 14: 12, 19-20; 16: 22; 17: 13-16). The introduction also makes clear that actually Job is a just, blameless and upright man (1: 1, 22; 2: 10, cf. 12:4). If the reader had not been told this repeatedly, one would be inclined to think that Job is a hypocrite when he proclaims his innocence (9:15; 10: 7), and challenges God to bring out any evidence against him (6: 24; 13:20-23). Given what is said about Job in the introduction, the reader knows that Job’s protestations are justified.
    Anyone who has read the Book of Job knows that Job is sinless but impatient. The proverbial patience of Job is not found in the book. It comes from the ancient legend of Job, referred to in Ezekiel 14: 14, 20. According to the Book of Job, a rich patriarch suffered great losses both of wealth and of loved ones. His wife then advised him to curse God and die, but he answered her saying that that those who receive great blessings from God should also happily receive hardships from God (2: 9 -10). On account of Job’s faithfulness, God rewarded him by making him many times richer than he had been previously (42: 12 – 13). The author of the Book of Job added the account of the council of the sons of God in heaven, the dialogue of Job with his visitors, the dialogue of Job with God, and the amazing fact that his daughters inherited from his great wealth. It is also apparent that some digressive poems were likewise added in antiquity.
    The plot of the story is quite simple. Job is obviously under tremendous suffering. The three visitors who come to accompany him insist that his situation is obvious: retributive justice works and God is punishing Job for his sins. Their advice is “despise not the chastening of the Almighty” (5:17). According to them, the solution to Job’s predicament is for him to confess his sins, ask forgiveness and repent. God will assuredly reward him with health and well-being. Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar say this in a number of ways, only affirming what had become the orthodox understanding of God’s justice best expressed in Deuteronomy. A late visitor, Elihu, also affirms it, but admits that “God is clothed with terrible majesty—the Almighty—we cannot find him; he is great in power and justice” (37: 23-24).  Job’s analysis of the situation is quite different. He is innocent of any sin. He has nothing to repent from and for which to ask forgiveness. This means that God is unjust.
    The author of the book has done an excellent job in setting up the situation. We may explore the options available to him in this way: 1) in a world without God, anything is possible and no reasons are to be sought for the suffering of the righteous; 2) in a polytheistic universe, everyone must keep in good graces with the goddess Fortuna; 3) in a monotheistic universe, there are two possibilities: God is either all-powerful and unjust (or not loving), or God is not all-powerful and just (or loving). All the protagonists in the Book of Job agree that God is all-powerful. The four visitors insist that God is all-powerful and just.  According to Job, however, God is all-powerful and unjust. As an aside, it may be noted that most Christians today would opt for the first alternative: God is just and loving but has limitations.
    According to Job, God is unjust on several counts. In the first place God is unjust by causing an innocent person to suffer. In the second place, God is unjust because he refuses to attend to Job’s pleas for release from his sufferings. His pleas are totally ignored by God (9: 32; 13: 3, 18; 23: 17). In the third place, God is unjust because God is a bully who is taking advantage of a weaker being, using him for target practice with arrows, and laughing while having fun with him (6: 14; 9:23; 10: 16; 16: 2). In the fourth place, God is unjust because not only God is causing Job to suffer but has also ruined his reputation and diminished him in the sight of his fellows, including his wife (2: 9; 10:15). In the fifth place, God is unjust by refusing to allow a referee, a third party, to adjudicate between God and Job; there cannot be justice when grievances are to be presented to the abuser (9: 15, 33; 19: 6-7; 24: 1; 31: 35). As the story unfolds, Job insists that he will not cease accusing God with injustice until he is vindicated. His visitors insist that he is a sinner. He insists that he is innocent, and that he must be vindicated before his death (6: 4; 13: 18; 27: 5-6). At his burial, his nearest of kin (the Goel, his redeemer according to Hebrew custom) will stand at the grave site and everyone present will only have something good to say about him (19: 25), but that those will be empty words which he will not be able to hear. Job does not consider a posthumous vindication valid.
    Finally, God appears in a whirlwind that demolishes Job’s self-assurance. Instead of bringing comfort and consolation to Job in his suffering, or explaining the reason for his lamentable situation, God totally bypasses all of Job’s complaints and accuses the three visitors of not having “spoken of me [God] what is right” (42: 7). (Job had throughout accused them of offering worthless lies [13: 4, 12; 21: 34]). For Job, who had been eager to confront God with his accusations of injustice, God has some pointed questions: “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty?” (40: 2). “Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be justified?” (40: 8). Most significantly, Job is confronted with a long series of questions about the way in which God had gone about creating the world and still keeps all creatures active (38: 4 – 39; 40: 10 – 41: 24). God’s questions have a clear agenda. They demonstrate Job’s absolute ignorance and impotence in reference to the natural world, one which in this telling includes Leviathan, the “creature without fear, . . . the king of all the sons of pride” (31: 33-34). Given that Job is absolutely out of his depths in the realm of nature, what makes him think that he knows all there is to know about the realm of justice so that he can declare God unjust?
    God’s rebuke of Eliphaz and his two friends is, “You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has” (42: 8). This can be understood in two ways: It could be a reference to the words Job has just spoken, “I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees thee; therefore, I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (42: 5-6) By these words Job establishes that there are two ways to know about God, by the hearing of the ear and by the seeing of the eye, that is, to know God from the tradition and to know God personally. The distinction makes clear that the first option is inadequate and the second is effective. Facing the Creator God Job realizes the inadequacy of the understanding of God that had enabled him to accuse God of being unjust.
    What God says, however, contrasts what Eliphaz and his friends have said and what Job has said; therefore, most probably it should be taken to refer to what Job has said in his argument with his visitors. As I have analyzed their debate, Job has been giving a very detailed list of God’s activities that reveals a sophisticated understanding of justice. It is on the basis of it that Job charges God with being unjust. It must not be overlooked, however, that Job insists that he wishes to bring God before a court of justice. He is confident that at the court he will be vindicated. This means that in the final analysis Job has faith that the court will be just. On the basis of this fact, it would seem that God is saying that the three visitors who only spouted traditional orthodoxy did not speak right of God, but that Job, who gave an insightful analysis of God’s injustice according to his views of justice, spoke well because of his residual trust in the justice system that would vindicate him.
    What is the author of the Book of Job doing by means of this very well constructed drama? We must not forget that according to the story Job’s traumatic experience has been brought about by God’s desire to win a bet made with Satan, something he added to the traditional legend of Job. When we are confronted with a God who wagers against Satan it is obvious that we are being told that this God is a human creation. Thus, the author is making the point that to expose the futility of our human conceptions of God he could do no better than to create a betting God. It is because of their deep awareness of their impotence that humans like to bet. It is their way of affirming that they are alive by taking chances in search of power.
    Certainly one who could construct the dialogue of Job and his visitors did not think that any one should take his story as true. His whole exercise is a human attempt to explicate God’s justice by manipulating a humanly created God. In other words, the author of the Book of Job aims to tell his readers that any god that humans can use to explain God’s ways in nature and in history is a god of human creation. It is not remotely related to the God who actually created the world and keeps it operative. All our gods are too human. They are human attempts to make sense of our experiences, and as such they fail altogether to reveal the God who actually is the Creator and giver of Life. The God who is God cannot be manipulated to construct explanations of human experience. The author of the Book of Job belongs to the Wisdom School that places experience over traditions, the seeing of the eye over the hearing of the ear. His genius is to have taken an ancient legend and with a very ironic and agile mind turn it into a theological masterpiece in which he rejects the Hebraic orthodoxy that God’s retributive justice is at work now, the apocalyptic view that God’s retributive justice will be at work at the resurrection of the dead, and any other sophisticated explanation of God’s justice or injustice. Those constructs are only human conceptions of retribution, not at all God’s way of acting.
    His insight that human pictures of God are easily manipulated human creations is demonstrated by his explanation that Job’s sufferings are actually caused by God’s need to win a bet. This is obviously a most ridiculous way of manipulating God. To explain God’s just ways by means of a story about God wagering on Job is a contradiction that introduces chance into God’s universe. This obviously sets up an ironic, upside down universe. The Book of Job is a tour de force on an ancient legend to tell everyone that their God is too human. As any oriental storyteller will tell you, the good storyteller is the one who takes a well-known story and expands it to teach a new lesson. He knows, however, that his audience will not accept a different ending. So, the ending of this version of the legend of the patriarch Job tells the very humanly conceived way in which Job is rewarded for trusting in God. All is well that ends well, thus making the story fit human visions of what ought to be.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2675′]

  • On Knowing and Doing

    by David Moffett-Moore

     
    WalkHere I sit, looking out of the window, busy city streets below and in the distance, the beautiful rolling landscape of Ireland, home of the friendliest people in the world.  The reason I am here is because I had a stroke while leading a group of fellow pilgrims. Ireland is a beautiful country, the people are all friendly, and the health care is state of the art, but I don’t recommend adding a stroke to your itinerary.
    In Life as Pilgrimage, I included chapters on being present in the moment, approaching the day and not borrowing life’s burdens. In Wind and Whirlwind, I listed methods for stress management and self-care. In The Spirit’s Fruit, I shared my struggle with anger management and techniques that have helped. I know what I should have been doing, but knowing is not the same as doing!
    I knew I had high blood pressure, but I didn’t want to be dependent on chemical solutions. I could exercise, I could diet. I could,  but I didn’t. Now I can still exercise, still diet, still do the things I know to do, and now I will also take my medicine!

    I’ve heard that knowledge is what we learn from our own experiences and wisdom is what we learn from the experiences of others. May you have the wisdom to learn from my experience to do as well as to know!

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2755′] Click on any picture for more information or to order

  • Can the Many Christian Churches Ever Be United?

    by William Powell Tuck
    www.friarsfragment.com

    Unity banner
    One of the most powerful movements sweeping across the Christian world is the quest for Church unity. Since the Second Vatican Council and the establishment of the World Council of Churches, many Christian bodies have labored diligently to see if the broken body of Christ, the Church, could be united. Many Christians have seen the fragmentation of the Church as a scandal and a factor that harms its witness to the world. Many believe that the wide variety of denominational expressions of the faith hurts the cause of Christ. The fighting within the Church between Christians about correct doctrines and Church practices is an affront to our Lord. As we gather at the Communion Table, we join other Christians around the world who worship on this day with a prayer for Christian unity.
    Those of us in the Western World need to be aware that we have increasingly become a minority in the Church. Since the middle of the last century, the majority of Christians in the world are now colored. The white skinned Christian is no longer the dominant race in the Christian Church. People of color will likely continue to grow in their numbers in the Christian community.[ene_ptp] Jesus prayed for the unity of the future Church (John 17: 20-26). He prayed that the future growth of the Church would not inhibit its unity. What then is the debate about whether or not the Church should be united? The last will and testament of our Lord was a prayer for the unity of the Church. All the debate about whether or not the Church should be united is superfluous, if we really want to follow the intention of our Lord. The unity of the Church was our Lord’s basic desire.
    The efforts to bring about the reunion of the Church have never been easy. Anyone who has labored within ecumenical circles to bring about the unity of the Church knows the difficulties and obstacles for such unity. But we have to start someplace to reunite separated Christian churches. Any small step is at least a step in the right direction.
    In a CBS special several years ago, Bill Moyers told about a man in New York City who decided he would try to do something to help the hungry. As he went to work each day in New York City, he distributed a hundred sandwiches to the street people. The street people soon learned about his kindness, and they lined the sidewalks waiting for him to hand them a sandwich. After a TV segment which showed the man handing out sandwiches to the people, Moyers observed: “New York City’s population now runs in excess of eleven million people. A hundred sandwiches will hardly scratch the surface in the need. But while Sam may never move his world very far, at least the direction he is moving it is forward.”
    Every effort we make to move the Church forward to be united is at least a step in the right direction. Every step we take to bring fragmentation in the Church, we move away from our Lord’s intention.
    Jesus prayed for a unique kind of unity for his Church. He prayed that the future disciples in the Church would be united as he and the Father are united. “May they all be one, as you Father, are in me, and I in You” (17: 20). Jesus’ unity with his Father was based on a unique personal communion of the Son with the Father. The Church’s unity is a reflection of the unity within the Triune God.
    The unity for his Church for which Jesus prays extends beyond organizational or ecclesiastical uniformity. This unity is not simply under some giant administrative group that brings various factions together, but rests on an openness to the Spirit of God who works in our lives as God worked in the life of his Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord.
    The basis of the Church’s unity, as it is modeled after our Lord’s unity with his Father, is rooted in the nature of God and Jesus’ obedient love. The Father was “in” Jesus, and Jesus was “in” the Father. As the Father has “sent” the Son, so Jesus “sends” his disciples into the world (17: 21). Jesus mediated the presence of God through the temple of his body (John 2:17-19), and the flock was united under Jesus, the one “Shepherd” of his Church (John 10:16). The unity of the Church in the contemporary ecumenical movement needs not to be a unity void of all diversity of theology or administrative form. Instead, it is a unity based on the Triune nature of God, characterized by the diversity within the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
    It is sometimes sad to listen to the various theological discussions about the reunion of the church and to see how inflexible many persons are in their stance in various denominational traditions. Dick Shepherd, a leading Anglican churchman of several generations back, gathered a group of church leaders together to discuss the question of the reunion of the Church. He thought the meeting had been very successful until he heard the two clergymen who were the speakers for the night make a comment to their own followers. One of them remarked to his minister friends. “I don’t think I gave anything away, did I?” The other minister observed to his friends: “I rather fancy I held my place all right. Didn’t I?”
    How unlike our Lord who laid down his life for the Church. Too often we are more concerned with. “Can I get my way?” or “Is my position well established?” If unity is going to be achieved, each side must seek to see what each give and not what can they hold on to. To recover unity, sacrifices will have to be made.
    Our model for the unity in the Church comes from our Lord. Jesus Christ extends God’s grace to all persons.  Jesus called all persons to experience the Father’s love. Instead of exhibiting Christ-like love, we often draw circles and exclude persons from the Church. We often want to include only those who think like we do or act like we do. Only those who fit in certain theological boxes or believe along our rigid patterns can be included in the fold. Jesus encountered this attitude in the Pharisees who built their religion on exclusiveness. Their religion erected walls and fences to keep people out. But this was not the kind of religion Jesus proclaimed. Rather than excluding persons, Jesus reached out to include them. Rather than pushing people down, Jesus reached out to lift them up. Rather than crushing people with heavy burdens, Jesus sought to liberate them. Rather than hating people, Jesus sought to love them. Rather than trying to destroy people, Jesus wanted to redeem them. The Christ who reaches out to all of us with his love is the same One who instructs us to reach out to our brothers and sisters across all racial barriers. He does not want to build walls that separate but doors that open to include others.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2745′]

    Click on any picture for more information or to order

  • Do Unto Others

    by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.

     
    Golden ruleFor me, one of the most important moral teachings of Jesus, and in fact one found in various forms in a number of religions and moral philosophies, is his words in Matthew 7:12, “Therefore, whatever you want people to do for you, do the same for them, because this summarizes the Law and the Prophets.”
    At the core of this teaching is to treat people as individuals. We want people to treat us for who we are, not as a member of some group. This is one of the easiest commands to understand, and yet one of the hardest to practice, if for nothing else, because we are not God.
    God knows each one of us as an individual, our strengths and our weaknesses, our good, and our bad. In fact he knows us far better than we know ourselves, because he is truth, and we, unfortunately, lie even to ourselves. After all, if we were all being really honest with ourselves, how could 93% of US drivers place themselves in the top 50% of drivers?
    But we are not God. So when we look at those around us we often do not see people, we see labels and groups: rich, middle class, poor; boss, owner, and employee; Republican, Democrat, and Independent, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, and atheist just to name a very few.[ene_ptp] At this level it is not very detrimental. In fact, labels are necessary. While God can think in terms of individuals our capacity to do so is extremely limited, so we are forced to use those terms. While Jesus may have been able to walk into a village and speak in terms of the individual needs of each person who lived there, his followers could not and so we see him speaking more generally of groups like the poor.
    Where the real problem enters in is when to start to attach adjectives to the label. The rich are not just those have a significant amount of money, they are greedy. The poor are not just those who are lack financial resources, but are lazy. This is just as wrong when reversed. The rich are hardworking, the poor are oppressed.
    To be sure, there are some rich who are greedy just as there are those who are rich because they work very hard. Likewise, there are those who are poor because they are lazy and there are those who are poor because they are oppressed.  And if we are referring to the greedy rich or the lazy poor we may be OK, it is only when we reverse concepts and start seeing the rich as greedy or the poor as lazy that we really begin to run into trouble.  In logic this is call the fallacy of composition, taking something that is true of one part of a group and applying it to the whole group.
    When this logical fallacy is combined with our tendency to lie to ourselves, it becomes very pernicious. Just like we tend to see ourselves as better than average drivers, we tend to see ourselves as better than average people. Thus, as we begin to assign adjectives to the various groups, we will tend to assign the positive ones to the groups to which we belong, and the groups we disagree with will be given the negative ones.
    Is it any wonder that just a few verses before he said “do unto others…” Jesus asked, “Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?”  (Matt 7:3)  We are really good about seeing the problems in others. When we generalize this to the entire group this becomes demonization.
    When this moves into the political realm this can become downright ugly. It happens across the political spectrum. Republicans can be found who demonize Democrats. Democrats routinely demonize Republicans, Big Oil, Wall Street, and the rich in general.  And Independents can be found who demonize the other two. And, of course it is very common to hear people say that they’re all a bunch of crooks.
    This puts us in a dilemma. We do not have the mind of God and thus cannot think of a planet of 7+ billion individuals. To talk about people we must use labels. Yet when we do so we are dehumanizing people to some extent.
    The first thing we can do is remember that these are abstractions, and that we must be caution of the illusion of superiority.  One thing I do is that when dealing with individuals I try to forget all negative labels. Instead I start by assuming only positive ones. The person is just as smart, just as good, just as caring, well meaning, concerned, informed, etc., as I am.  I am prepared for them to be different in some respects from the group to which they belong. Now after talking, or watching them, they may demonstrate that they have some negative characteristics, but the conclusion is based on what they do or say, not because of the group that they belong to.
    In short, I try to treat others the way I would like to be treated, as an individual, and not just an indistinct member of a group. When it is someone I disagree with, I try extra hard.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2411′]

    Click on any picture for more information or to order

     
     

  • On Being a Spiritual Grandparent

    by Bruce Epperly

     
    GrandparentsOne of the great joys for many parents is the day that they become grandparents. Grandparenting gives us a fresh start, and the opportunity to nurture new life, usually without the obligations of day to day care. My wife Kate and I looked forward to grandparenting, and we have been blessed to have our two young grandchildren live just a few miles away in one of Cape Cod’s seashore villages. We pick up our grandchildren most weekdays and have them stay with us typically one night a week. While I am a committed pastor, teacher, and writer, the time I spend with my grandchildren is central to my life.
    As most grandparents will tell you, grandparenting is much more than providing babysitting and buying gifts.  Yes, we spoil the boys, but we also take their spiritual lives seriously. In my Energion book, Letter to My Grandson: Gaining Wisdom from a Fresh Perspective, I focused on the spiritual relationships of grandparents and grandchildren. I emphasized that we teach our grandchildren spiritual values and nurture their inherent spirituality. I believe that children have spiritual hearts. Every child leans toward divinity through their appreciation of the wonder of each moment, their interest in nature and the non-human world, and their inquisitive spirits.
    Grandparents nurture the spirits of their grandchildren, and grandchildren invite their grandparents to experience the sacrament of the present moment.[ene_ptp] Here are some of the practices that are at the heart of my grandparenting:
    First, every night we have evening prayers in which we look back on the day in gratitude.  I ask my grands to think about things for which they are most thankful in terms of daily activities.  We often reflect on play dates, times at school, the animals of our environment, good food, church activities, and their mom and dad.
    Second, we talk explicitly about God.  We don’t talk about doctrine, but questions that come up in the course of the day.  Children are the source of great wisdom that often emerges in questions.  Thirty years ago, when my son was five, he asked me, “If Joseph is Jesus’ father, is God his grandfather?”  A few months ago, I told my grandsons that I had to stop by the church to check in with the congregation’s administrative assistant.  The oldest grand asked, “Is she your boss?”  I responded, “I’m her boss.” My grand responded, “No, God is your boss.”
    Third, we nurture moments of beauty and encounters with the non-human world.  I believe that you love the Creator by loving the creatures.  Each day we talk about the non-human world. This spring, the osprey have returned to Cape Cod and each afternoon we visit their nest on the beach near home, talking about the family values of osprey.  We also talk about how much God cares for birds, dogs, whales, and dolphins.  My oldest grandson and I are “playing” with writing a book, “God Loves Sharks,” that combines his love for sharks with God’s love for creation.
    Fourth, I have taught my grands simple meditative prayers, most especially breath prayers.  When they are stressed or upset, I invite them to pause a moment, breathe deeply, and rest in God’s love and peace.
    Finally, it’s all about love.  Jesus referred to God as “abba.”  We also can call God “amma” (mother) as well.  Children and grandchildren learn God’s love from their parents and grandparents.  God is love and we learn God’s character best when we love one another.
    Grandparents can be spiritual teachers.  It’s a day to day, and long term adventure of growing in God’s love, and an adventure that deepens grandparents and grandchildren alike.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2461′]

    Click on any picture for more information or to order

  • Rethinking Baptism in an Open Table Theology

    by Bob Cornwall

     
    Baptism             In a previous post I argued for the adoption of a completely open Eucharistic Table. I made this argument on the basis of Jesus’ own practice of Table Fellowship. In the practices of most American congregations, at least Protestant ones, the Table is completely open. That is, rarely does a congregation bar a person from taking Communion. They may suggest that it is open to believers and may even suggest that children refrain from taking communion if they’re not baptized, but other than that it’s open. The rationale for this practice is more pragmatic than theological. We want to be nice and and hospitable, but is that enough? As for me, I would like to have a theological foundation for my practice. I hope to explore these ideas in more depth over the next few years.  One of the components of this conversation is the role of Baptism. If you open the Table to all-comers, what does that do to Baptism, which has traditionally functioned as the entry point into the community and the prerequisite to receiving communion?[ene_ptp] I would argue that the connection between Table fellowship and Baptism emerged in the second century, probably for good reason, but it doesn’t lie in the New Testament. Of course, silence is not the best evidence. Nonetheless, I have not found evidence that first century Christians required Baptism prior to admission to the Table. So, could Baptism function in a different way than we’ve typically understood?
    I need to state up front that I am part of a tradition that practices Believer’s Baptism, though we also practice “open membership.”  By that I mean we affirm the Baptisms of those who come to us, even if they were administered differently than is true of our own practice. In other words, if you were baptized as an infant, we won’t immerse you before we accept you as a member.  Now, I was born into the Episcopal Church, and thus I was baptized as an infant, and later Confirmed. On that basis I would have been welcomed into full fellowship as a member of a Disciple church. However, before I ever became a Disciple, I was rebaptized, as a teenager, at a church camp. I did this because I was looking for a sense of confirmation that my new-found commitment to Christ was real. I wanted to have it sealed. This decision, this need for a sealing event in my spiritual life, led to an ongoing struggle with my own baptismal theology. I finally recognized that my issue may have had more to do with my Confirmation experience than my Baptism (I even wrote a lengthy article for Church History on 18th century Anglican Confirmation practices), but nonetheless I have thought often about the meaning of the church’s baptismal practices and theology.
    What then is the connection between Table fellowship and Baptism, if we practice an Open Table? What role should baptism as a sacrament play in our faith journeys? I would like to argue that Baptism is that sacramental event that signals one’s desire to enter into a deeper covenant relationship with God and with God’s people.
    In Acts 2, Baptism functions as the point at which one enters a redemptive relationship with God. Peter suggests that Baptism follows repentance, and is the key to the reception of forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit (though in Acts 10, the mark of the Spirit comes before Baptism).  In Romans 6 it is through Baptism that one identifies with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. Paul connects the symbol of Baptism to our identity as people linked into Christ’s death and resurrection. To be baptized in this scenario is to have died to sin, and have been raised to new life in Christ. Now the reality is that in this earthly life sin’s hold on our lives remains present. I am by no means perfect in my discipleship or my life practices. I get angry. I say things I shouldn’t. I’m selfish. I can even be mean-spirited (hopefully not very often). At the same time, I am a new creation, to draw from Paul’s language in 2 Corinthians 5.
    Baptism is understood to be a once in a life-time event. We don’t need to continually go through ritual baths to purify ourselves, while the Table is understood to be an event that we participate in regularly. I would argue for weekly communion, at the very least. The Table then functions both as entry point, and as the point at which we are nourished by the Bread of Life (John 6). But once again, Jesus didn’t require the crowd who gathered to share in the feeding of the 5000 to be baptized before receiving bread and fish.
    I’m still working this out. I don’t have all the answers. But, if we’re going to practice an Open Table, then we need to consider the consequences of this practice for Baptism. That is, if we’re going to affirm the sacramental importance of Baptism, then we need to figure out how it functions in our faith journeys. Baptism must be more than simply a naming rite. It needs to be more than simply a rite of passage into adulthood. For those communities that practice infant Baptism, they, like we Believer Baptist types, might need to strengthen their Confirmation practices that often parallel our baptismal practices.
    With this brief introduction I invite you to consider with me what it means to baptized in the 21st Century. This will become, I believe, increasingly important since the numbers of persons in our society having no previous Christian connections begin to enter our congregations. Paedobaptist types will need to figure out how to embrace growing numbers of adults who haven’t been baptized as children. Believer Baptism types will need to address the difference between the experiences of our children who have grown up in church and those who are coming in for the first time. Parents can determine when a child takes communion. The same is not true for an adult!
    What is the meaning of Baptism in an Open Table community? That is the question of the day!
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2343′]

    Click on a picture for more information or to order

  • What Words Can’t Do

    BY Chris Surber

     
    WordsFor the first time in my life I’ve experienced something bigger than words. I’m writing a section of “A Cup of Cold Water” tonight. Keyboards and computers are inadequate vessels for some things. Even words can only contain so much of an idea. God has reshaped everything for me. How do I tell that story? How do I do it in a way that points to God’s glory more than my story? How do I tell you about God taking my family to Haiti and crushing our heart on the anvil of its poverty and reshaping everything?
    How do I tell you things we need to hear but don’t want to hear in a way that will make you hear them? How do I tell you that in finding Haiti’s poverty, its curse, I’ve come to realize that our lack of poverty is our curse? How do I tell you that the safest place to be is broken in the arms of Christ every day in every way?
    I’m heavy hearted because I know if I could somehow encapsulate the joy of watching my ten year old become genuine friends with an orphan who looks completely different than him, it could speak to you about the reality that God’s love transcends race and language. I think that could help you understand your place in this world as a follower of the King whose Kingdom is comprised of people from every tribe and tongue. (Romans 14:11)[ene_ptp] I’m lost because in finding my way ministering to the incredibly poor in Haiti, I’m not sure I know how to convince you that to whom much is given much is required.  (Luke 12:48) How do I tell you that Jesus wasn’t playing with the rich young ruler when He told him to sell all he owned and give it to the poor? (Luke 18:22) How can I communicate the broken peace of looking into a hungry child’s eyes and seeing Christ staring back at you? (Matthew 25:40)
    I’m broken. I don’t mean in the cliché way that a Christian and a pastor are supposed to say they’re broken. I don’t mean the hip language of a generation that wants to sound deep but not get dirty. I mean I’m broken like a lawn mower that won’t start broken. I can no longer function well in American Church culture where we talk about sacrifice but don’t sacrifice. I can no longer look children in the eye and tell them it’s good enough to memorize Scripture but not live it out.
    Words can’t do some things. Words can’t make you get up and follow Jesus. Words can point the way. Words can shine a light on a path. But words can never ever open the door into the broken, shattered, beautiful, shining experience of letting go of our soul’s grip on this world by giving our heart away to Jesus in giving our lives away in sacrifice to alleviate someone else’s suffering.
    Words not applied are as meaningless as firewood on a cold night if a spark is never struck. Words can’t push you off the cliff into the abyss of grace. Only obedience can do that. Words can never, will never change even one broken life in this shattered world. Only action founded on faith can do that.
    Tonight I’m a writer with no words; a preacher with no sermon; a musician with no tune. Pray for me and I’ll pray for you. Perhaps God can speak a word that will open my eyes and yours. Maybe He’ll give me some words to write and do something in us that goes beyond what words can’t do.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2771′]

    Click on any picture for more information or to order

  • The Golden Gate (The Gate of Mercy)

    by Doris Murdoch

     

    Golden Gate
    The Golden Gate looking across the Kidron Valley from the Mount of Olives
    The Gate of Mercy, found in Old Jerusalem, is also called The Golden Gate. It is the only eastern gate of the temple mount. The Lions’ Gate is on the eastern side but enters into the Muslim Quarter instead of the Temple Mount. The Golden Gate has been walled up since medieval times in fulfillment of the prophecy found in Ezekiel 44:1-3:
    Then the man brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, the one facing east, and it was shut. 2 The LORD said to me, “This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered through it.3 The prince himself is the only one who may sit inside the gateway to eat in the presence of the LORD. He is to enter by way of the portico of the gateway and go out the same way.”

    In the apocryphal text of the Gospel of James (Protoevangelium), the Golden Gate of Jerusalem was the scene of the meeting between the parents of the Virgin Mary, Anne and Joachim, after the Annunciation; the gate became the symbol of the virgin birth of Jesus. Protoevangelium is the term for the first declaration of the gospel, which occurs in Genesis 3:15. It is a prophecy that Christ will overcome the devil and redeem mankind. The first proclamation of the gospel comes immediately after the fall of Adam and Eve and shows God’s intention of saving men from sin.
    It is also said that Jesus passed through the Golden Gate on Palm Sunday, giving the gate messianic importance by Christians along with the Jewish significance. Some equate it with the Beautiful Gates mentioned in Acts 3, the story of the lame man and his encounter with Peter and John:

    Now a man who was lame from birth was being carried to the temple gate called Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple courts.3 When he saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for money. 4 Peter looked straight at him, as did John. Then Peter said, “Look at us!” 5 So the man gave them his attention, expecting to get something from them. 6 Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” 7 Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly the man’s feet and ankles became strong. 8 He jumped to his feet and began to walk. Then he went with them into the temple courts, walking and jumping, and praising God. 9 When all the people saw him walking and praising God, 10 they recognized him as the same man who used to sit begging at the temple gate called Beautiful, and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.

    The Arabic name Bab al-Dhahabi (also Bab al-Zahabi) means Golden Gate and Gate of Eternal Life. Muslims have named each gate of the two, one being the Gate of Mercy and the other being the Gate of Repentance.
    The Golden Gate was walled up in 810 AD by Muslims and then reopened by Crusaders in 1102 AD. Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent regained Jerusalem in 1187. He rebuilt the gate together with the city walls, but walled it up in 1541 AD; the gates have remained closed until the present and will probably be that way when Christ returns.
    How do you think this will happen? Will Jesus come through the gate on a donkey? Will Jesus cross through the center of the split Mount of Olives as He approaches the Golden Gate? (Zechariah 14:4) Will Jesus arrive at sunrise? There are numerous cemeteries of varying faiths in the area; will these dead be the first to rise up? (Acts 1:10-11) With so many varying Christian faiths present in the Holy Land, how will this all come together at the return of Christ? What about the Christians, Jews and Muslims? What role will each play in the end times? When the Living Covenant returns, do you think the Ark of the Covenant will appear again? There are so many questions to be answered; what an exciting time there will be when the True Living God, Jesus Christ, makes His return to Jerusalem!
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2440′]

    Click on any book cover for more information

     

Energion Direct
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.