Energion Direct

Author: empower

A Journey into Understanding Other Religions for People of Faith

by Drew Smith

I teach a survey course on world religions each semester. In that course, we begin with discussions on defining religion and how we can approach the study of religion. The university is an academic setting and in the course we approach the study of world religions from an academic position that is mostly philosophical, historical, and comparative.
But as a person who is a practicing Christian and a minister, I am also concerned with how people of faith might approach the study of other religions in their communities of faith. Certainly there is room to incorporate an academic approach in these settings, but because these settings mostly take place within religious congregations, there may be more at stake when believers from one tradition engage in the study of other traditions.That’s why I think it is important to set the tone for such an endeavor that hopefully engages not only the more open-minded believers, who are already receptive to other faiths, but perhaps also the more traditional believers who may not be as open minded and possibly uncomfortable with delving into understanding not only other faiths, but more importantly, those people who sincerely practice other faiths.[ene_ptp] I think a good starting point would be to deconstruct the stereotypes about other religions that are fed to us through various mediums. In this sense, we must be honest to admit that the actions of a few within a religious tradition do not speak for the many. As a Christian, I would certainly not want the evil actions of particular groups or individuals who claim to be Christian to define what it means to be a Christian. Thus, we should not allow the actions of a minority who claim to be practitioners of a certain religion to define what we accept as that religion’s core values.
A second strategy to take is to reevaluate categories. Christians are so prone to thinking in their own categories that we also think those categories fit other religions. For example, we might think that other religions must believe in some personal deity, but many do not. Moreover, we might wrongly ask what other religions teach about salvation and heaven, when some do not even concern themselves with such questions. We cannot place the grid of our own faith categories onto other faiths hoping to come away with a clearer understanding; our grid does not always fit.
The third action in this approach may be the most challenging for people of faith. Yet, if we are to be sincere in our desire to understand other religions, then we must open ourselves to the faith of others by crossing over into their faith. This does not mean we embrace their belief system as our own, but it does mean that we embrace them in their faith, and we seek to understand, as best we can, why they believe what they believe and practice what they practice. To do this with authenticity, however, requires that we do not judge their faith through our own, but we allow them to speak about their faith on their own terms as we listen and seek understanding.
Such an action should lead to a fourth step in this process, which also may be difficult for many, but is perhaps necessary. We should be critical of our own religion. We live with the tenets of our faith so close to us that it may be difficult to see their weaknesses and faults. We have learned the teachings of our faith, perhaps since a young age, and we know them so well that it is hard to distance ourselves from them. But, if we are to be honest seekers of truth, we must be willing not only to admit the truths we might discover in other religions, but also the faults in our own, and that includes reading our sacred texts critically.
Fifth, we should also embrace differences as part of being human. In a real sense, the world’s faiths are all attempts to understand what it means to be human, although there are other ways of understanding what it means to be human outside of religion. Yet, in our humanity, we are limited in our ability to flesh out this meaning fully with absolute certainty. This has lead to differences in understanding that are also fed by cultural differences in which religions are born and grow. These differences do not have to lead to seeing the other as less human; they should guide us to embrace one another.
The final two steps in this process will hopefully also be the results of seriously engaging in the first five steps. A course of genuine truth-seeking should lead us to recognize the revelatory core of each religion as the basis on which to build common ground, despite how different we believe from others. Once we reach this step, we are deep in the process to the extent that the stereotypes we deconstructed in our first step are now replaced by a more truthful understanding, and we can honestly admit to ourselves and to others the value of other faiths.
This should lead us to the final step, where we not only reaffirm our own faith, but we also affirm the faith of another. Anyone that I have ever spoken with who has involved themselves in interfaith understanding with sincerity has reported that such a venture has led to a deepening of their own faith. Perhaps if we can authentically affirm the validity of another person’s faith, it grounds us deeper into our own beliefs and practices but with greater humility.
In taking these steps, people of faith can remain passionate about their own faith, but they can also encourage others to be passionate about their faith. We can also enrich our own lives by affirming the other instead of treating the other as opposition. In this way, barriers can be torn down and doors can be opened that move us beyond mere intellectual knowledge about other religions into personal relationships with those of other faiths that focus on the common good.
[slideshow_deploy id=’2613′]
Click on any picture for more information or to order

April 13, 2016
DENOMINATIONS: NOT AN EITHER/OR

by Rev. Dr. Robert R. LaRochelle

The following are some rather established facts regarding the current state of institutionalized religion in the United States:
1. Traditional mainline denominations have experienced a significant decline in numbers.
2. Mergers and cooperative arrangements between/among denominations have raised questions regarding the relative importance of denominations and whether affiliating with a particular established church is really that big of a deal.
Some would argue that nit picking about the differences between and among Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians and the like is wasted energy and really problematic when set against Jesus’ expressed intent that His followers ‘all be one’.
In this brief space, I wish to make a case for the importance of denominational identity. In so doing, I make two points:
1. The unique theological insights that have marked the establishment of denominations need to be preserved. As an example, I would cite the incredible work of a Martin Luther or a John Wesley, among others, work which eventually led to denominations with polity and liturgy that reflected these unique theological contributions.
2. Ecumenism, in its best sense, involves finding ways to incorporate insights and practices from traditions not one’s own. In this regard, I would urge Methodists to learn more about Luther and Lutherans to learn more about Wesley, etc. Particular hymns, for example, from various traditions represent theological approaches and nuances that can help expand peoples’ awareness of the depth of Christian theology and practice.
Contemporary church practice has included a proliferation of independent churches, megachurches, and those with very loose affiliation with historic Christian theology. Many of these churches of a more conservative bent focus on the simple act of ‘accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior.’ Many more progressive ones convey a message that actual theology is less important than connection around a particular set of values. They emphasize a conviction that within this church one can hold to a wide variety of perspectives. As a more progressively oriented Christian myself, I am comfortable with diversity of thought within a church. My point is that I would like it if people engaged with and had dialogue around different theological perspectives, including an exploration of their roots.
Basically, what I am calling for is an active, vibrant approach to education within local churches, an education which does not deny, yet rather encompasses the great diversity of the church’s tradition. Healthy, exciting conversations can be had by both youth and adults around topics such as: God, God’s will, sin, afterlife, salvation, etc…The varied, diverse resources of Christian theology and liturgy, born of denominational history, can illumine current conversation and bring it to yet unexplored depth.
I would appreciate if you would discuss the implications of what I am saying for life in a local church community, perhaps your own!
[slideshow_deploy id=’2576′]
Click on any picture for more information or to order

April 12, 2016
It's About the Interpreter… And More

by Allan R. Bevere

Recently, I went to the Cleveland Museum of Art with my daughter, Alyssa to see a special exhibit. If you love art museums and find yourself in Cleveland, Ohio you need to put its art museum on your itinerary. It is one of the best art museums in the country and, except for special exhibits, it is always free.
One of my favorite paintings can be found in Cleveland’s art museum—Frederic Church’s, “Twilight in the Wilderness” (pictured left). Church painted this masterpiece depicting twilight in the American West in 1860. What Church meant to portray in this painting was known only to Church, but that has not stopped the painting’s admirers from speculating as to what the artist wanted to communicate.
Some see in the painting an optimistic view of America’s future with the so-called “westward expansion,” and even though it is twilight, it signifies that a better day is dawning. Others see exactly the opposite. In 1860, Civil War was only a year away; and even though no one was sure at that time war would be the result over the issue of slavery that no one in the country could any longer ignore, many were seeing ominous signs on the horizon. Perhaps, therefore, Church was emphasizing the twilight—that a darkness was about to envelop the United States with the bright colors of the sky highlighting the good days that were about to pass from the scene.[ene_ptp] Whatever Church was trying to portray and no matter what others may see in this magnificent painting, one thing is clear; those who perceive are just as significant as the one who paints what is perceived, just as those who interpret written texts are just as important as the one who wrote the text. It is impossible to divorce the interpreter from the interpreter’s own context in order to render an “objective” interpretation. That is not to say that the “original” context of what was painted or written is unimportant. Nor is the intention of the artist or the author insignificant, and though such intention may be quite difficult to discover, it is a worthy endeavor all the same. But just as we cannot extrapolate “ourselves” from any of our experiences in life in order to have the view from nowhere, so we cannot get out of our own interpretive skin when gazing at paintings in an art museum or in reading a novel or the newspaper or in studying the Scripture in order to give an interpretation that is… well… free from interpretation.
This is not to suggest that all interpretations are created equal, that one reading of a text is just as valid as another. We don’t live life that way, treating the interpretation of STOP signs as up to each individual driver, and neither should we employ such a “relative” hermeneutic. But we must understand that when we engage in interpretation we engage ourselves, who we are in all of our experience.
Focus does indeed determine reality, but it is a good thing to question whether we have focused on the right things when we engage in the hermeneutical endeavor. The interpreter cannot extrapolate herself from reality, but she must also understand that reality is larger than her own context.
In hermeneutics it is about the interpreter, but it is also about more.
[slideshow_deploy id=’2564′]
Click on any picture for more information or to order

April 11, 2016
Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy (John Spong) — A Review

by Bob Cornwall

[Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared in “Ponderings on a Faith Journey,” Bob’s personal blog, on March 7, 2016.

Used with permission.]
The charge of heresy is a strong one. In the past charges of heresy could get one thrown out of the church if not worse. It’s probably not a word to be thrown around lightly. So, when a book arrives carrying the title Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy one will want to proceed with caution. When the person writing the book has been called a heretic himself, we might wonder what we’re in store for as we read. The question raised by the title concerns the way we ought to read the Bible. If to read the Bible literally is a Gentile heresy, what does that mean? In what ways did Gentiles introduce heretical ideas into the Christian community? In other words, how did Gentiles mess things up?
The author of this book with a provocative title is John Shelby Spong, the long retired Episcopal bishop of Newark, New Jersey. Spong has long been a provocative voice within the Christian community. He has regularly pushed boundaries with a “take no prisoners” attitude. On the positive side he has pushed the cause of women in ministry and welcoming LGBT persons into the life of the church. On the other hand, he has often used his position in the church to disparage those with whom he disagrees. And we see some of that in this book. Those who would hold the Bible, for instance, to be Word of God (a theological term) are said to be illiterate. He also suggests that ending the reading of Scripture in worship with the oft-used phrase “this is the Word of the Lord” is, in his words, “little more than the perpetuation of religious ignorance and religious prejudice” (p. 11) It would seem that his purpose in writing this book (and previous books) is to save Christianity from itself by making it intellectually acceptable.
In many ways Spong is a restorationist. Like other Restorationists (my own tradition has a restorationist element), he wants to restore “true Christianity” so that it will be attractive to those who cannot abide a supernaturalist religion. In some ways Spong reminds me of Schleiermacher’s speeches to the “cultured despisers” of religion. But, whereas Schleiermacher’s vision of Christianity had a romanticist element, Spong at times seems closer to Enlightenment rationalists like John Toland and Matthew Tindal. While Spong embraces a Modernist vision, it has become apparent that we have entered a postmodern age that is better able to hold faith and reason in tension in a way that Spong doesn’t seem to embrace
At the heart of this book is Spong’s rather eccentric reading of the Gospel of Matthew. It needs to be noted that Spong is not a Bible scholar, though he seems to want the reader to grant him that role. Rather, he is a popularizer of biblical scholarship. It appears that he is well-read in the biblical scholarship of the age and is a Fellow of the Jesus Seminar (one needn’t be a scholar to be a fellow). There’s nothing wrong with being a popularizer. Like most preachers, when I enter the pulpit I do so as a popularizer of biblical scholarship. I take biblical scholarship and bring its rewards to a congregation through teaching and preaching. I’ve even written a couple of books that exposit and interpret the Bible, but that doesn’t make me a biblical scholar (I do not have advanced degrees in the study of the Bible). With that said, we turn to Spong’s premise. That premise is that Gentile readers have misread the Gospels. They have read them literally, when the Jewish writers and recipients of the Gospels never would have understood them in that way.
In many ways Spong is engaging in the never ending quest for the historical Jesus. The question is whether he has uncovered the historical Jesus or has simply looked down that proverbial well and has seen his own reflection. The way in which this reflection is cast will change with time, but the Jesus seen reflected in the waters of that well will likely be in sync with the vision of reality held by the one doing the looking! John Spong is no different than the rest of us.
At the heart of the book is Spong’s desire to undo what he believes is an unwarranted and even dangerous atonement theology that emerged after Christianity became a Gentile faith. It is true that the atonement is a subject of deep debate in the present era (and really always has been). Nonetheless the cross remains central to the Christian faith, so the question that faces us is the role it will play in the life of the church. In order undo the harm he believes is perpetrated by an atonement theology that denies human worth, he wants to recast our reading of the Gospels.
Those who have studied the Gospels likely know that they emerged late in the second half of the first century, decades after the death of Jesus. The only New Testament texts that predate the Gospels are the letters of Paul, which say very little about Jesus’ earthly life. The cross and resurrection are central in Paul’s thought, though there is little narrative given to these two key points. It is true as well that there is divergence in the Gospel narratives that must be accounted for. Scholars have been busy seeking to explain the points of agreement and disagreement.
Spong offers us one particular take on this effort. He does so by popularizing a theory introduced in the 1970s by the British biblical scholar Michael Goulder that the Gospels are Jewish liturgical texts, which offer up the story of Jesus in terms of Goulder’s reconstruction of a Jewish liturgical year. It should be noted that Goulder’s theories have never been accepted by mainstream biblical scholars. Part of the problem with Goulder’s reconstruction, and thus Spong’s popularization of it, is that we simply don’t know enough of what occurred in synagogues to say anything definitive about how scripture might be interpreted. We especially don’t know how Jesus would have been understood in that context—except for what seems to be revealed at points in the Gospels. But, for me a more pertinent question that never gets answered is why Jewish synagogues would have been reconstructing the story of Jesus in the form of a Jewish liturgical calendar.
Another aspect of Goulder’s view, which Spong takes up, is his rejection of the existence of “Q,” the sayings source that biblical scholars believe Matthew and Luke used in tandem with the Gospel of Mark to create their versions of the Jesus story. While there are a few scholars who reject what has become the accepted theory (sort of like the theory of evolution within biological sciences), it remains the accepted theory. In Spong’s view Matthew uses Mark, but then rewrites it in line with a Jewish liturgical year. He then suggests that Luke took Matthew and revised it for a more cosmopolitan Jewish audience. suggested that while Mark is the earliest Gospel, he rejected the idea of the existence of a sayings source (Q) that was later used by Matthew and Luke. Spong takes up Goulder’s view and suggests that we should reject Q and assume that Matthew was written in the context of the synagogue liturgy. He then suggests that Luke took Matthew and revised it for a different synagogue context. If we accept this theory, then we will read the Gospels through Jewish eyes. And here’s the kicker. If we adopt Spong’s view, then no Jew would have ever read the story of Jesus literally. That means there are few if any historical elements to the story. Of course, this leaves us with a largely mythical Jesus. There may have been a historical Jesus at the bottom of this story, a Jesus who did end up crucified, but beyond that we know very little, because Jews didn’t take such things literally. Or so, he says. In some ways Spong goes even further than most Jesus Seminar participants.
I have to hand it to Spong, he is quite creative. His use of a liturgical calendar to create the story of Jesus seems rather ingenious, but for me he makes too many leaps of logic. While I think we do need to read the Gospels through Jewish eyes, I’m not sure that Goulder is our best guide. And while it’s clear (to me) that the Gospel writers did interpret Jesus’ life through an Old Testament lens that made use of figures such as Moses, I’m not sure that this requires us to make nearly everything metaphor. This is, in my mind, the heart of the problem in current discussions of the story of Jesus. It seems as if we face a choice between taking everything as literal history or everything is to be taken metaphorically. I’m also concerned that Spong shows no awareness of the power of oral tradition in the ancient world. The fact that the Gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus doesn’t mean that they do not reflect stories that were passed on with great care from the time of Jesus. If we reject the value of oral tradition we’re left with a Jesus who has very little to say to us. After all, these parables that mean so much to so many, have no connection to this character of Jesus. So why bother with him? In the end Spong did nothing to convince me that the long rejected Goulder thesis should be resurrected. While we need to be careful with the influence of later traditions, I’m not so sure that we should call a literal reading a Gentile heresy.
Yes, Jesus was Jewish. His teachings would necessarily align with Jewish thought. His earliest followers would have been Jewish, but over time the church took root within a Gentile context. It was natural for the church to recast the story in a way that would make sense, even as Spong himself seeks to do in order to make Christianity palatable to a modern skeptical audience. Besides, I’m just not sure John Spong is the best guide to a modern reading of Jesus. While he offers a lengthy bibliography at the end of the book, he shows little engagement with an of these resources, most of which support the current theories of transmission. For a Jewish reading, maybe we would be better served by reading Amy Jill Levine than John Spong.
I know Spong gets lots of attention. And that’s okay. The tent is broad. The Episcopal Church for that matter has always been rather broad theologically (and that goes back into the seventeenth century). Before Spong there was James Pike. He will have his day, but I just think there are better places to go if one wishes to find a balanced picture of the Gospels. For me, Spong’s book offers a rather sad picture. We’re not left with much to build a faith upon when everything becomes metaphor.
I’ll admit that I’ve never been a fan of Spong’s. This book did nothing to convince me otherwise. I have no desire to separate him from the Christian community, but I do find his attitude toward those with whom he is at odds to be disappointing. Many of us seek to read the Bible in a critical but appreciative manner. We struggle with texts that espouse violence and oppression, at the same time many of us have found the Scriptures to be a place where we encounter a word from God. Thus, to say of those who speak of the Bible as the Word of God are “illiterate” is unnecessary. At the same time, if Spong can elicit from us a serious conversation about how we read the Bible, and read it responsibly, then perhaps he has done us a service.
[slideshow_deploy id=’2343′]
Click on any picture for more information or to order

April 10, 2016
Living Debt Free
by Heath Taws

The USA is currently 18 Trillion dollars in debt. The average American owes 15k in credit card debt, 48k in student loans, 168k in mortgages, and 27k in auto loans. This doesn’t include debts we owe to friends and family, our debt to society, favors, promises made, back taxes, and things we have borrowed and have yet to return. (It also doesn’t include the astronomical spiritual debt that all of us owe the second we come into this world.)
And the crazy thing about debt, is that it really just creeps up on you. There are all sorts of hidden fees, and unexpected expenses, and by the time you realize what has happened, it’s too late; you are in over your head, and drowning in debt.
And yet, we are sort of in love with being in debt, aren’t we?
You will say, “That’s absurd! Nobody loves debt?”
And I think on the surface that is absolutely true.[ene_ptp] But I am talking about the very core of who we are as sinful humans with sin-sick souls.
Our sinful natures tell us that slavery, submission, and debt, are our only options in life.
Our sinful natures love being in debt, because the thought of true freedom terrifies us.
Think about “repeat offenders,” or, “career criminals.” Why do they choose a lifestyle that always ends in jail time, submission, and oppression? For many of these men and women, jail is the only life they have ever known. They get released, and immediately commit a crime in order to get put back into jail.
And this is sort of all of us, isn’t it? We don’t really learn from our past mistakes, so we keep making war, keep getting into debt, and we keep touching all those things that our parents told us not to touch.
Being in debt or owing something is comfortable because it gives us something to work for. It gives us a reason to wake up in the morning, to try and save, a purpose in life; a goal if you will. People who find themselves “free” also quickly find themselves panicking at the lack of structure and goal oriented living. They don’t have to work because they no longer have debt to pay, and they really don’t have to even get out of bed if they don’t want to. They are free to do as they please, and for many people that is absolutely the scariest thing they could ever imagine.
My cousin once told me that he was, “Scared to death of Heaven.” When I asked him why, he responded, “Because I have no clue what I am going to do for eternity.”
In Heaven, we will be truly free. No schedules, no meetings, just 24hr recess, and that freaked him out. (It’s interesting to note that 24hr recess sounds like heaven to a kid, and hell to a “productive” adult. It’s no wonder that Jesus says we must come as little children.)
And that is why freedom is so scary. If I am left to my own devices, no structure, no debt to pay, nothing to work for, who knows what I would do. I could try and accomplish something great, but if my resources were virtually limitless, I would probably end up in rehab from excessive living like so many “free” people in our society do.
Think about those who win the lottery. Did you know that 70% of them eventually go bankrupt?
It’s because our sinful natures don’t know what to do with freedom. It freaks us out.
Even when our sin seems to tell us the opposite, and encourages us to crave power and wealth, we soon learn from those who have it all that power and wealth can many times be a form of debt in itself.
Consider the wealthiest people alive today. Having vast amounts of wealth doesn’t necessarily mean you are debt free, and it certainly doesn’t make you truly happy.
Every year we read reports of famous rich people, both Christian and non-Christians, committing crimes, suffering from addictions, going bankrupt, having affairs, owing millions in taxes, and being found dead from suicide.
And every time we read these reports we tend to have three responses:
1. We are flabbergasted because we thought they had it all worked out, and yet somehow they are/were unhappy.
2. We are flabbergasted because we thought the mask they wore was actually who they truly were inside.
3. We are flabbergasted because they should have known better and it’s ultimately all their fault/hollywood’s fault/the Church’s fault/their parents fault/Obama’s fault.
With the first response, we are tricked because in our eyes they were “debt free” and they didn’t seem to realize it.
With the second response, we are surprised because they pretended to be “debt free” and yet secretly lived a life full of debt.
And with the third response, we are delighted, because we love to watch famous rich people crash and burn, and then come up with reasons for their train wrecks.
In all of this, our sinful nature is the true enemy.
This is ultimately why the Gospel is foolishness to the world and to our sinful ears.
The pastor stands at the pulpit and says, “I am here to tell you that Christ has paid your debt, and those who the Son sets free are free indeed.” And on the surface that all sounds great because we all hate debt, and nobody likes living in debt, and we all want freedom, right?
But at the core of our sinful natures we are squirming in the pews every Sunday. We are repeat offenders, and all we have ever known is jail. The thought of being truly free terrifies us because that would mean we would have to finally live on the outside.
And besides, we have all heard that nothing in life is truly free. Our sin makes us natural skeptics, and so the gospel message of freedom sounds too good to be true. There has to be a catch. What does Jesus really want from me? Doesn’t He actually just want to take away my freedom, and restrict my behavior?
That sort of thinking has come from years of Christian legalism which has really harmed the Church as a whole. The problem with legalism is that all of its power got taken away right along with death’s 2000 some years ago at the cross. Legalism doesn’t change hearts, but the Gospel does.
Wearing a “true love waits” ring is not a reasonable form of birth control. You could have one on every finger, and in 9 months that baby is still gonna be there. Instead of another lecture, that teenage girl and boy need grace, love, and good news. They need freedom, not more iron bars.
Okay, so what about those who accept the gospel message of freedom? Do they actually feel free? Not really, at least not on their own, because their sin wants to stay in debt. They want to pay something, they want to work. Unless the Holy Spirit enters into that jail cell and says, “I can bust you out of here, but you have to trust me,” they will never leave.
Christians sit at the dinner table with God, and when the check comes, they try to reach for it first.
Christians wake up everyday and look in the mailbox for bills that will never come.
Christians get on the treadmill of works, trying to burn off sin calories, even though the liposuction has already taken place.
If I am being honest, I wake up everyday and I try and earn God’s affection. Not only that, but my own salvation. I know that Jesus has set me free, but I don’t feel that I deserve it (which I don’t) so I try to work to earn it (which I can’t) in order to relieve my guilt (which is always with me). I understand grace, but it can’t really be amazing grace if its free, can it? Nothing good in life is free. What you pay is what you get.
And everyday as I am working to earn my salvation, I ultimately end up sinning all throughout the process, thus adding more sin calories to work off. It is a never ending cycle of work, and debt, and more work, and more debt, and at the end of the day I’m exhausted and I think, “Surely, God is disappointed in me. How much more grace can God afford to spend on sinful old Heath?”
“So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.”
This never-ending cycle has to end, and for me, and for you, it only ends when we are reminded of the Gospel. It ends at the cross of Christ, where we throw ourselves down, sweaty, tired, and exhausted from all of our work, and we finally rest.
Jesus has stacks on stacks of grace to give out, and when He enters the club, you better believe He makes it rain grace.
I remember growing up and reading the verse about storing up treasure for yourself in heaven. I never understood that verse until I actually was old enough to have money, and also have debt of my own.
You see, when you live in debt, there isn’t much saving or storing up that takes place. You can’t really save up money, because you are always paying off a loan, a credit card, or some other form of debt.
But what Jesus is saying in that verse is this, “since you are now free and your debt has already been paid, you are now able to store up treasures in Heaven. You are finally free to work on that nest egg. You are finally free to enjoy living.”
How much better does an expensive steak taste when you know you don’t have to pay for it? You can order anything on the menu, because the bill is covered.
Before we knew Christ, we stored up wrath for ourselves, as we accumulated more and more debt. After Christ, we are set free and our debt is paid once and for all on the cross. We are now free to store up treasures in Heaven, and also to withdraw the good works that God has deposited for us in advance.
The transition is from slave to son. It is from outcast to in-law. It is from living in debt, to living debt free.
This is what an exhausted debt-drenched world needs to hear.
My sinful nature will always be with me in this life, but the more I hear the gospel message, and the more I taste the freedom that only Jesus offers, the more I long for Heaven.
Everyday the Holy Spirit coaxes me closer to that door, closer to my freedom, and closer to the ultimate freedom that Heaven will bring. In the meantime, I can experience tastes and glimpses of that freedom here and now. His graces and mercies are new every morning.
If you want a religion that tells you to work harder, do more, and earn your way to Heaven, there are plenty of those out there.
If you want a religion where God has already done all the work for you, and now tells you to rest, enjoy Him, and live in freedom, then have I got some good news for you.
Stop living in debt, and be free. His yoke is easy, and His burden is light, and once He sets you free, you are free indeed.

[slideshow_deploy id=’2846′]
Click on any picture for more information or to order
April 9, 2016
The Only Way? and Many Rooms: John 14:1-6

by Kent Ira Groff

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me.” Extremists abuse this exclusive-sounding text to kill or convert people against their will. Yet I want to show how this text about the “only way” and “many rooms” in John 14:1-6 is one of the most inclusive in the Bible. Jesus may not have said these exact words, but they echo the voice of Jesus through the community back then. What do they say to us now?
“I am the way…No one comes…but by me.” But what is the “way”? And who is the “me” that is the only way? Jesus was very clear about that in Matthew 25: “Just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” During Jesus’ brief ministry he went around touching the lives of people on the edges of society: lepers and tax collectors, filthy rich folks and beaten-down widows, prostitutes and Roman military officials—this despite his clear pacifist teaching.[ene_ptp] In high-tech culture we long to touch Jesus and be touched, like “doubting Thomas,” who said in John 20, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands… and put my finger in his side, I will not believe.” The beautiful thing is that by touching the broken lives of “the least of these”—people with AIDS, prisoners, dehydrated children and their starving parents—we do get to touch the living Christ in the wounds of others, as Mother Teresa witnessed. To ignore the least of these is to miss the only way.
It is the Way of dying and rising, the place where brokenness becomes a doorway to blessing. It is as if Jesus says, “Meet me at the edges, in the marginal people and marginal parts of yourself, for that is the only way to see me rise at the center.” It is the primal Way of life-giving sacrifice at the navel of the universe (Rig Veda). It is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world’ (Revelation 13:8, KJV). It is the Tao Te Ching, the “Way that has Power”—by whatever name.
All this rings true to Jesus’ Easter appearances. Jesus seems unconcerned about name recognition: appearing in the guise of a gardener at the tomb, a stranger on the road to Emmaus, an advice-giving fisher on the shore. And when two disciples’ eyes are opened and they recognize the stranger on the road is Jesus in the breaking of the bread at Emmaus—”Poof”— he disappears! At the tomb when Mary recognizes the gardener is Jesus, she is told: “Do not hold on to me!” The final judgment of a true disciple is to be in touch with the least of these in genuine self-forgetting love: “Lord, when did we see you hungry…?” That is the Way that is Life and Truth.
Many Rooms? (and the Only Way): John 14:1-6
If ever there was a time when we need to think of various traditions of the Way as rooms in the world’s one big house, it is now. In The Next Christianity, Philip Jenkins warns of new crusades, in a mix of religious and political enemies. But in Mere Christianity C. S. Lewis gives us the wisest of words about these many rooms:

When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong, they need your prayers all the more, and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house. (p. ix).

Progressive faith wants to hold together the paradox of “only way” in John 14:6 with the “many rooms” in John 14:2: “In my father’s house there are many rooms.” This is the voice of same Jesus who says in John 10, “I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold.”

[slideshow_deploy id=’2829′]
Click on any picture for more information or to order

Kent Ira Groff, a spiritual companion for other journeyers (by Skype or in person), a retreat leader and author of ten books, calls himself “one beggar showing other beggars where to find bread.” Portions are adapted from Kent’s book What Would I Believe If I Didn’t Believe Anything?: A Handbook for Spiritual Orphans (Jossey-Bass) and Clergy Table Talk (Energion). Founding mentor of Oasis Ministries in Pennsylvania, he now lives in Denver, Colorado. See www.LinkYourSpirituality.com Email: kentiragroff@comcmast.net

April 8, 2016
The Jesus Manifesto

by David Moffett-Moore

I expect most of us grew up with images of Jesus that were “Gentle Jesus, meek and mild,” with children gathered about him or as a shepherd with his flock. Certainly understandable for little children, but this gentle Jesus would never get crucified. In this season of Eastertide, it might be good for us to wonder “Why?”.
I think it is important to remember that Jesus was not executed for religious reasons but for political. The title over his head on the cross was “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews,” a political charge. He preached good news of the coming Kingdom of God, where the last would be first and the first be last, a radical upsetting of the status quo. I’ve long held that what got Rome involved with Jesus was his clearing of the temple. In addition to being the only place on earth where Jews could offer sacrificial worship, the temple was a major market place, a mint, and the place of the Sanhedrin, their high court. Imagine someone taking over Fort Knox, Wall Street, and the Supreme Court. We would not see that as strictly religious activity.[ene_ptp] Who was this firebrand prophet Jesus and what was so explosive about his message? Christians for centuries have views on the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapters five through seven, as the summary of Jesus’ teachings. We might look at it as the Jesus Manifesto.
A manifesto is a summary of someone’s teachings and beliefs, written to inspire and provoke. It is designed to make the message clear, plain and evident. It is a public declaration of motives and intentions and meant to be of public importance. It is radical in that it strikes at the root, reveals the core and foundation of the message. The Communist Manifesto is a brief pamphlet, yet it is recognized as one of the world’s most influential manuscripts. The same might be said of the Sermon on the Mount.
The Sermon on the Mount is three chapters long, in most translations no more than five pages. It would take less time to read aloud the Sermon on the Mount than most sermons take to preach. In his Daily Study Bible commentary, William Barclay writes over 200 pages of commentary on these five pages of text! St. Augustine and Martin Luther both wrote volumes of sermons on these three chapters. Martin Luther King Jr., Doris Day, Mahatma Gandhi and Leo Tolstoy all wrote of the significance of this brief message. It certainly satisfies the parameters of being a Manifesto!
In this passage, Jesus declares what is and challenges us, boldly and practically, on how were are called to live. He says “blessed are; theirs is.” The beatitudes are not a new law for us to submit to, a discipline for us to strive after; he declares how things really are, already. He fulfills the law, not overthrowing it but completing and perfecting it. We can’t help but be both challenged and comforted by his words.
I enjoyed writing my own take on the Sermon on the Mount, entitled appropriately The Jesus Manifesto, adding my “meek and mild” name to the more famous ones. It is part of Energion’s “Participatory Bible Studies” series. I invite you to consider it in your next study. I think it will help you find new meaning, depth and inspiration from these familiar words of Jesus, the prophet king who is pioneer and perfecter of our faith.

April 7, 2016
Is the Church Responsible for the Environmental Crisis?

by Bill Tuck
www.friarsfragment.com

We need to ask some questions about the whole problem with the environment, pollution and ecology. The first question is this– do churches and Christians have any responsibility for the crises in which we find ourselves today? There are some scientists who are saying, “Oh yes, Churches and Christians are largely responsible for this crisis.” Lynn White and other scientists are expounding that attitude. They point to the passage in Genesis which says, “Man is supposed to subdue the earth” and note that we have subdued it to the point of devastation. These scientists believe that Christians are responsible because of the philosophy and theology taken from Genesis, of subduing the earth. Are we responsible? Well, yes and no.
The Prodigal Way of Humanity
[ene_ptp]What then is the nature of our responsibility? Humankind has been like the prodigal son. We have taken all the blessings God has given us and we have wasted them in riotous living, sometimes in excessive living. We have received the bounty of God’s creation and we have exploited and sometimes ruined it. I wish I could stand in this pulpit to¬day and tell you that all of our rivers and streams are pure, and that our air is pure, and the water we drink is fine. But no person can truthfully tell you that today. Many of the trees on the mountaintops of North Carolina are dying because of pollution. It is a serious problem. Just a few years ago, we couldn’t eat oysters taken from our own coast because of the refuse and waste that had been dumped into our waters making them so impure. Even the ocean itself was polluted. We still have factories that spew impurities into our water and into our air today.
Did you know that there are some cities where the air is so thick with pollution that when you breathe the air it is the equivalent of smoking thirty-eight cigarettes a day? I am convinced that one of the reasons we have such a rise in cancer is because the water we drink and the air we breathe and the foods we eat are polluted. Much of life is filled with the problems of living with pollution. You and I, as citizens have to work hard to overcome these abuses of our land, air and water.
Suppose someone told you that you have a bank account with enough money in it to take care of you all your life, if you don’t overspend. If you spend carefully and wisely, you will always have enough in your account. You don’t know the exact amount in your account and you are never going to be told that. But you do know that if you just spend wisely you will always have enough. You would be very careful wouldn’t you?
Our environment is that way. We can’t keep on abusing and destroying rainforests and other parts of the natural world without bringing devastation upon ourselves and our world. Some view environmentalists as “coo-coos” and pretend that we do not have a serious problem. But, it is serious! We have to realize that our children and grandchildren and others may not be able to live in our world unless we take care of it.
Caretakers of Our Planet
As Christian people we have a responsibility. What is that responsibility? Our responsibility is to be stewards and caretakers of God’s universe. The Genesis story doesn’t tell us that we are to devour the earth or we can do anything we want with nature. God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden to take care of it. They were to be caretakers and “to tend the earth.” We are to work with nature and learn how to live in harmony with creation. All of God’s creation is our home. And it is a beautiful home. We have got to learn how to live in harmony with God’s creation and do the very best thing we can to care for it and make it a place that is beautiful and productive. One of our responsibilities as Christians is to do those things which can make this earth the very best place where we can live. It is our home—our only home—and we have to take care of it by conserving its resources and productivity. The scientist, Teilhard deChardin, reminded us that, “The Age of Nations is past. The task before us now, if we will not perish, is to build the earth.” We are all responsible for our planet. We can’t pass the responsibility to others.
[slideshow_deploy id=’2745′] Click on amy picture for more information or to order

April 6, 2016
Rich and Poor

by Elgin Husbeck, Jr.

One of the key differences between left and the right, both religiously and politically is over how they view the “rich” and the “poor.” The Bible has a lot to say about both of these. For example, in response to an earlier article I wrote, the writer cited, Luke 19:25 “Indeed, it’s easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the kingdom of God.” He contrasted this with the poor saying, “Jesus, for instance, extols poverty ‘blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God.’”
While the latter is probably not the best verse to cite in this context as it is referring to spiritual rather than economic poverty, there is no doubt that we are called to be concerned for the poor and to minister to their needs. But does this mean that God only wants poor people in his church? If you are “rich” must you, like the rich man in Mark 10:17-21, sell everything you own and give it to the poor?
[ene_ptp]If so this would be a very strange commandment; after all, are we called to help the poor, or to be the poor? Is poverty a condition to be obtained or relieved? If we are all poor, who will be left to relieve our poverty? As I pointed out in an earlier article, it is pretty clear that selling all of one’s possessions was not a universal injunction.
But that still leaves us with the question of who are the rich and who are the poor. For rest of this article I will focus on the poor. In the time of Jesus, the dividing line was pretty clear and stark. That is no longer true in the developed world as “poor” here has a vastly different meaning than in the third world. With the possible exception of the homeless, the “poor” in western countries would often be considered “rich” in developing countries.
But the difference even varies among western countries. For example, it is common to hear criticism about how little the United States does for the “poor” when compared to the Social Democracies in Europe. But again definitions vary from country to country. Some define “poverty” as simply being lower than the national median income, others define it as the lower 30% of median income or some other value. The income level chosen will have a huge effect on the number of people in poverty.
Another problem is that US poverty statistics often do not take into account assistance such as the earned income tax credit and food stamps. A study in 2000 showed that when these difference are taken into account the differences in the poverty rates between the US and European countries becomes very small. While poverty in the US has increased since that study, benefits have increased even faster, such that when adjusted for inflation those receiving benefits are slightly better off.
When government assistance is taken into account the poor in the US are nowhere near poverty as it would have been understood in Jesus’s time. In fact, based on Census Bureau data of those classified as “poor,” 80% have air conditioning, 75% have a car and 31% have two. Most have cable or satellite TV, and over 50% have a computer with over 10% having 2 or more. More than half have a PlayStation, Xbox or other gaming system, and over 40% have internet access and a wide screen TV, and 25% of these have a digital recording system such as TIVO.
In a recent GCP, co-host Chris Eyre commented on how difficult was to get by on assistance in England and often people did not even have enough food week to week. Yet here in the US, only 4% of poor children and 18% of poor adults report being hungry for lack of money within the last year, and on average their nutrition is virtually identical to the middle class. Only 4% report being temporarily homeless, nearly 50% live in single family homes or townhouses, while 42% own their own home. The average home of the poor in the US has 3 bedrooms, and over 2/3 have more than two rooms for each person.
This means that he average poor person in America has more living space than the average person in most European countries. By their own descriptions, most of the poor in America had enough money to meet their essential needs and were able to access medical care for their family. In fact when factors such as buying power and cost of living are factored in, the standard of living for the poor in America falls into the range of the middle class in much of Europe.
Now to be sure, these are statistics based on the whole. There will be exceptions and special cases. There will be those who fall between the cracks, so to speak. While the vast majority live homes that are “in good repair and without significant defects,” the vast majority is not all. But it is just as true that this hardly paints a picture of neglect.
As a percentage of GDP, total US spending on social welfare is less than in Europe, but since the US is wealthier, per capita spending is higher. In addition, there are the personal factors. Some people, such as the mentally ill and drug addicts are particularly difficult to help and we need to do more in this area. But for most people in the US, the statistics are pretty clear that if you finish High school, and wait to get married before having children your chances of being poor are greatly reduced. In addition, there is a generational component here in that children who are raised in a married family are 80% less likely to be poor.
Given this, perhaps the real way to combat poverty is to be found more in the church, and society as a whole, taking about the values of intact families, rather than pushing for a larger government and increased benefits.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/09/poverty-and-the-social-welfare-state-in-the-united-states-and-other-nations#_ftnref8
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/marriage-america-s-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty
[slideshow_deploy id=’2411′]
Click on any pic for more information, or to order

April 5, 2016
Mysticism, Near Death Experiences, and Hope in the Afterlife
by Bruce G. Epperly

William Blake once asserted that “if the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to us as it is – infinite.” Blake believed that most people live in a cavern, not unlike Plato’s myth of the cave, unaware of the heights and depths of life. They are caught up in the minutia of the ordinary and fail to see the divinity at the depths of each moment of experience. Mystics discover that experiences of immortality, or eternity in the midst of time, awaken us to the infinity of every moment and the holiness of every life.

Today, people are in search of transcendence. According to a recent Pew Research Center Report (2009), 49% of [ene_ptp]Americans claim to have had mystical experiences compared to 22% in 1962.[1] For many, the door to self-transcendence comes through near death experiences. While these experiences remain to some degree ineffable, they are life-transforming in their immediacy and a challenge to one-dimensional understandings of reality. They awaken many people to the reality of a loving God, communication with spiritual beings, and a sense of connection with deceased relatives. They discover that death is real, but it is not final. While they may still fear the pain and helplessness of the dying process, they now “know” that they are in God’s hands, and to quote the Apostle Paul, they now believe that “nothing can separate them from the love of God.” (Romans 8:38-39)

While near death experiences do not definitively prove the reality or landscape of eternal life, they hold in creative tension Martin Luther’s twin affirmations, “In the midst of life, we are surrounded by death. In the midst of death, we are surrounded by life.” To those who have experienced God “on the other side,” there is now more to life than we can imagine. Death no longer has a sting or victory over us. For those who have had them, near death experiences give birth to a lay theology and spirituality that is often more convincing than the ultra-rationalistic ruminations of professional theologians and religious leaders. In the spirit of Jung, such persons no longer “believe” in God, they now claim to “know” God.

While all experiences—including near-death and mystical experiences—are fallible, perspectival, and limited, they need to be recognized as creative responses to the reality of death. They provide assurance that we are in God’s care regardless of what happens in our personal journeys. They join the living and the dead in a dynamic and interdependent reality.
Although I have never had a near death experience, I take them seriously as pastor and professor. They point us back to the “strange world of the Bible” and the faith we affirm, most of which is grounded in encounters with the divine. In the wake of Easter, we must take seriously the reality of the afterlife and the ability of persons to encounter deceased persons. Christ is risen, known by his wounds, able to communicate with his followers, and transcend certain limits of space. We can’t hold on to any one particular vision of Jesus, as our Risen Savior says to Mary of Magdala, but we can awaken to infinity in the midst of life.

Near death experiences are not escapes from reality but invitations to discover infinity in the processes of creativity, birth, amazement at the universe, as well as the hope for immortality. In fact, mystics of all kinds may be more invested in this world and its well-being than those who deny the multi-dimensional nature of reality. Those who have experienced “heaven” are inspired to make God’s “kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.”

I am blessed as a pastor to lead a congregation in which few limits are placed on the spiritual and intellectual journey. My recent Energion book, From Here to Eternity: Preparing for the Next Adventure, emerged from a theological reflection group at our church. With no holds barred and all positions honored, people freely shared their experiences of the divine, including near death experiences and encounters with deceased relatives. I have come to believe that congregations that are open to mystical experiences are vital and growing, regardless of size. Recognizing that God is more than meets the eye and that we are more than we imagine, infinite in our mortality, such congregations are able to give people a taste of the infinite and respond creatively to the yearnings of seekers within the congregation and the larger culture.

[1] http://www.pewforum.org/2009/12/09/many-americans-mix-multiple-faiths/
Transforming Acts
Price range: $9.74 through $14.99 Add to cart

The Energy of Love
Price range: $4.54 through $6.99 Add to cart

Sale!
Spiritual Decluttering
Original price was: $12.99.Current price is: $7.99. Add to cart

Spiritual Decluttering
Price range: $8.44 through $12.99 Add to cart

Ruth and Esther
Price range: $4.54 through $6.99 Add to cart

Process Theology
Price range: $4.54 through $17.99 Select options This product has multiple variants. The options may be chosen on the product page
April 4, 2016

Your cart (items: 0)

Products in cart
Product	Details	Total
	Available on backorder Previous price: Discounted price:	Save