Energion Direct

Category: Uncategorized

  • From SAD to GLAD

    by David Moffett-Moore

     
    [ene_ptp]We live in a time of unparalleled, immeasurable, and uncontrollable change. The cell phone in our pocket is more powerful than all the computers used for our lunar landing, and that cell phone is obsolete before we can buy it. Everything is changing, and the change is happening at an ever increasing speed.
    This change affects every congregation. Phyllis Tickle sees the church in the midst of a change it has not seen for five hundred years. Phillip Jenkins describes it as a change we’ve not seen for a thousand years. This is a scale that is beyond our imagination. We live for a span of seventy-five years; how can we relate to a change measured by centuries? It is not just a storm of change, it is a tsunami of change, a change that is an earthquake and a tidal wave combined. It is over powering.
    Change, even when it is good, desired, and controlled, produces stress, and stress produces conflict. This change certainly contains elements that are good, but it is often not desired and certainly never controlled. This increases the level of stress and the likelihood for conflict. Long term stress, stress that is not faced and dealt with, weakens our immune system.
    We come to church as patients infected with the disease of conflictual stress. Our “fight or flight” hormones are active and we are looking for opportunities to express our frustrations, to vent. Most churches are safe places for this venting, thought it puts a strain on all our relationships. Our churches become SAD: Stressed, Anxious and Dysfunctional, they become at risk. Fortunately, there is something we can do about it. We can move from SAD to GLAD: Good, Loving And Dynamic.
    There are Specific, Practical, Actionable Methods (SPAM) that we can use to positively manage stress, reduce conflict and strengthen our congregation’s immune system. Maintaining healthy communication is key to maintaining healthy congregations. Always talk about everything. When we have issues we feel we can’t talk about, we create barriers; when we talk about it, we create bridges.
    Communication needs to be direct, face to face. Confidentiality is good, secrets are bad. Confidentiality means those who need to know, know what they need to know, when they need to know; it is based on sharing. Secrets are about maintaining power, never a good thing in a congregation. Mutual respect and personal accountability and the willingness to give our attention to the other rather than focusing on ourselves are all key factors to maintaining a congregation’s immune system. By doing this, our congregations can become resilient rather than at-risk. We can find ways not just to survive the storm of change but to thrive in the midst of it.
    We cannot control the flow or force of the cultural change that is all around us. Yet it need not overwhelm us. We can move from SAD to GLAD with the help of SPAM! We can be resilient rather than at-risk. If you’d like to learn more, I invite you to read my book Wind and Whirlwind: Being a Pastor in a Storm of Change. Susan Nienaber, then Senior Consultant for the Alban Institute, said, “This should be required reading for all clergy early in their careers.”
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2755′]

     

  • What’s Happened to Easter?

    by William Powell Tuck
    www.friarsfragment.com

     

    [ene_ptp]Why does Easter not seem to have the major impact in our society as Christmas does? It has always been interesting to me that, whereas Christmas seems to turn the modern world on its head with everyone mak­ing preparations months in advance in a flurry of activity, Easter does not stir much excitement in the lives of people today. Easter seems to whimper in, and most people scarcely notice its coming. If it is remembered, what images come to mind—Easter bunnies, egg hunts, new clothes, new hats, vacation time, and spring flowers? Easter comes and goes without much regard. In many places, only a handful attends special Lenten services during “Holy Week,” or on Maundy Thursday or Good Friday. Oh, yes, on Easter Sunday morning we usually have a big crowd. We do not seem to realize that there would be no Christmas celebration without Easter. Easter was the first church holiday— not Christmas. Easter brought the Church into existence. Do we really realize its importance?
    There are three great witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The first witness is the Christian Church itself. The resur­rection was what founded the Church. If Jesus Christ had not been raised from the grave, there would never have been a Church. The Church came into existence because of the disciples’ belief in the risen Lord. The New Testament is the second greatest witness. The New Testament did not create the Church. Disciples in the early church wrote the Gospels, Acts, and the rest of the New Testament to tell others about Jesus Christ, the risen Lord. The third notable witness to the reality of the resurrection is that the Jewish disciples changed their day of worship from Saturday – the Sabbath – to Sunday. As sacred a day as the Sabbath was to the Jews, only a mir­acle could make them change their day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. This miracle they declared was the resurrection of Jesus. If the crucifixion and death of Jesus were the end of his career and life, then neither the Church nor the New Testament would have come into existence. The resurrection made the difference!
    Ernest Campbell, a former minister at Riverside Church in New York City, was confronted by a woman in his congregation at the church door following the Easter service. “Where were the trumpets?” she asked. “Beg your pardon,” he responded. “Where were the trumpets?” she continued. “We always have trumpets on Easter morning in our service.”
    Where are the trumpets? Where are the resounding hallelujahs within the hearts and on the voices of Christian men and women? Where are the shouts of praise and affirmation? “He is risen!” Why are our tongues silent, our voices muted, and no song employed? The resurrection is the one and only thing that turned the defeated disciples into believers and crusading evangelists and brought the church into existence. On Easter Sunday two thousand years later our voices should resound with “Hallelujah! He is risen indeed!”
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2745′]

  • Liberty, Religion and Commerce

    by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.

     
    [ene_ptp]In a recent presidential debate, John Kasich dismissed concerns about religious liberty by saying, “I mean, if you’re in the business of commerce, conduct commerce.” This is a common attitude, and one that sounds nice, but it totally misses the point of current debate. While a few people can always be found that will hold to virtually any position, Kasich’s response is hardly representative of the concern that many have when it comes to religious liberty, which is not a concern about selling to people you disagree with, but rather about having to participate in something your religious beliefs say is wrong.
    For example, the Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman had no problem selling flowers to homosexuals, and had even hired homosexuals. But she did not believe that her religious beliefs permitted her to participate in same sex marriages. If they had just wanted her to deliver some flowers to their wedding that would be one thing. But to her, using her creative ability to select flowers and arranging them for a wedding is far more than just simple commerce; it is participating in the event. As a result she was forced to make a choice to either violate her religious beliefs, or lose her business.
    As she put it, “A government that can force you to say something and express a message that is so deeply contrary to your core beliefs is terrifying. We are entering a whole new realm when we force people to express themselves and use their heart, their head and their hands to create something that violates who they are.”
    Yet that is where we are, as many florists, photographers, and wedding planners have discovered. Nor is this the only front on which religious liberty is threatened. While Hobby Lobby won before the Supreme Court, many seek to overturn the ruling, and with the death of Antonin Scalia that, and many other decisions, hang in the balance. In the medical field there is increasing pressure to force people participate in things that violate their religious views. Where once it was sufficient to simply refer someone to a colleague, that is increasingly seen as an act of intolerance not only to be condemned but prohibited. In short, those holding the banner of tolerance the highest, are becoming increasingly intolerant.
    The bigger government becomes and the more it controls, the less freedom people will have to make choices for themselves, and this is of particular importance when it comes to religious freedom. Many share Kasich’s view that if you’re in the business of commerce, conduct commerce. But I see two problems with this. First, it puts government, not you, in control of what does and does not violate your conscience.
    Sure, it has always done this to some extent, but it has been primarily in the role of restricting certain actions. For example, I believe that the British were correct to ban the practice of Sati (the wife being burned on the funeral pyre of her husband). It is something else to compel someone to do something contrary to their religious beliefs. Thus, we have for example allowed for conscientious objection to military service.
    The other problem is that it is impossible simply to not conduct commerce. In earlier times, this may have been possible, but given the modern economy, just how does one do that? Sure, as a photographer or florist, one could as a matter of policy say that you do not do weddings. However that option is not open to wedding planners. Sure, you could just say, don’t be a wedding planner, but what about those who already are and who have worked hard to establish and build a business? Are the concepts of liberty and tolerance really consistent with the government forcing people to abandon a life’s work? It is a very strange notion of freedom and tolerance that only “tolerates” what government agrees with.
    Then there are the issues raised by the Little Sisters of the Poor and the Hobby Lobby cases. If the left had their way these organizations would be forced to choose between violating their conscience and ceasing to operate. Hobby Lobby, for example, is often mischaracterized as not wanting to pay for birth control. In reality they have no problem with paying for most types of birth control, they only objected to those few that abort a pregnancy after conception. But either way, shouldn’t this be their choice? That someone wants an abortion is one thing, but on what basis can they demand that a 3rd party pay for it, particularly a third party that objects to it on religious grounds?
    True, the current threat is mild when compared to the very real persecution that is common in some parts of the world. Some complain that the threat is overblown and that such things could never happen here. But then for decades, I have heard the “it could never happen” argument many times on many issues only to have it happen. After all, when the defense of marriage act was passed in 1996, it was attacked as an overreaction. We were repeatedly told that same-sex marriage could never happen and no one was even asking for it. Thus the act was simply pandering to unrealistic fears, or even a thinly veiled homophobia. Less than 20 years later it was obvious that it was imposed by the courts.
    So count me as skeptical when it comes to claims that it could never happen here. If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that tyranny and oppression are much more the norm. Liberty is hard to win, and difficult to hold.   Nor can we trust to the good intentions of those behind the current threat.
    As C. S. Lewis wrote, and the 20th century so clearly demonstrated, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2411′]

  • Can a Christian Politician Campaign as a Christian?

    by Allan Bevere

     
    [ene_ptp]By the title of this post I am not asking whether a Christian can campaign for office on some kind of Christian platform. The nature of my inquiry instead is given the rough and tumble and even nasty nature of the world of politics, can a politician who embraces Christian faith run a campaign that looks Christian in character?
    Many years ago, a parishioner of a church I was serving at the time asked me if I ever considered running for political office. I responded in somewhat glib fashion, “I deal with enough politics in the church as it is. Why would I want to intentionally set foot directly into the fray?”
    I have never and would never consider running for political office even locally, not only because I would be terrible at it, and even my supporters would want to throw me out long before serving one term, but as I have said in previous posts, the real political action isn’t taking place in Washington DC, or in local municipalities; the real political action is taking place in the church, God’s kingdom come on earth.
    But since I am a political animal and follow politics closely (which suggests that I probably need to get a life), I have given some thought over the years as to what a campaign for election would really look like if the one running made a conscious effort not to do anything of which Jesus would not approve?
    Let me first set a couple of things in context:
    First, while I very much believe in civility and that as a Christian civility is important, I do not think that the summation of Christian ethics and character is simply to be kind. Jesus did not die on the cross and rise again from the dead, so that I might be nice. Jesus himself became angry at injustice and hypocrisy. St. Paul was none too pleased with the Galatians. So, in this post I am not suggesting that anger and tough words are never acceptable for Christians. Of course, the Bible warns us to measure our words carefully. The problem is not anger per se, or tough words per se; the problem is that often the anger and harsh verbiage come at the wrong time or is expressed in the wrong way.
    Second, neither do I want to suggest that Christians cannot be part of the rough and tumble of political life precisely because it is rough and tumble by nature. Life by its very nature is rough and tumble. It’s not the rough and tumble that concerns me when it comes to political campaigns. What is of direct interest to me in this post is two-fold: the willful distortion and manipulation of facts that seem to go hand in hand with political campaigns, and the unjustified and often unproven attacks on an opponent’s character, both of which are questionable from a Christian perspective.
    First, everyone who follows politics closely knows that political critique of an opponent is almost always selective when it comes to the facts. One politician can accuse another of voting for a tax increase, when the whole truth of the matter is that the legislation voted for was part of a broader package of programs supported by the accuser herself. Or, one can insist that the nemesis being opposed voted for tax cuts for the rich, when the tax cuts also included cuts for the middle class with the latter fact conveniently being left out. This kind of willful distortion happens all the time, and I find it quite difficult to believe that Jesus would approve of such manipulation and distortion of the truth for the sake of political expediency.
    Second, is the inevitable attack on a person’s character during a campaign. It’s not enough to say that an opponent voted for health care reform and here are the reasons it was a bad idea, or that the challenger would have voted against it and here are the reasons that would have been a bad idea. Instead, both sides feel the need to assign nefarious motivations to their reasoning. My opponent supports death panels that will decide whether patients live or die, or my challenger doesn’t care about all the little children who have no health care. If they get sick, his remedy is for them to die quickly.
    Now this is not to say that politicians always do things from impure motives; all of us, at times, can support or oppose something based on questionable and selfish concerns. But such an accusation should have clear and definitive proof before it is made. But that is not what happens in politics. Indeed, what I find is that both sides of the political aisle, and Christians included, are all too willing to trash the character of those whose politics differ from theirs. The political philosophy seems to be, “If you don’t embrace my politics, you are bad!” Brothers and sisters in Christ, these things ought not to be for the followers of Jesus.
    And in connection to all of this is the negative campaigning that everyone says they will not do when the election season starts. But sooner or later almost everyone resorts to it because study after study shows two things: the American voters hate negative campaigning, and the American voters find such campaigning to be convincing. So whether such negative ads start because one politician is down in the polls or whether the politician in the lead has to respond with some negativity of her or his own, it is prevalent nonetheless. And I highly doubt that Jesus would approve of the character assassination of another.
    And related to this—what possible justification could any Christian give for making public embarrassing information about a political opponent’s past? Why would any Christian seek to humiliate someone else in such a way? And to respond, “Well that’s politics,” is not a Christian response. Is there anyone who is not sure what Jesus would do in this situation?
    So, even if I ever had a desire to run for political office, I would never do so because I do not think that I could successfully run a campaign in keeping with the character of Jesus Christ, and just maybe that is the real problem. It is entirely possible for a Christian to run a political campaign that would, in the final analysis, be very Christian in character, but it is quite doubtful that such a campaign would elect anyone.
    The number one concern when it comes to the politics of the nations is not truth or virtue—it is power fueled by money—and the end justifies the means.
    That is why my central political concern is the church and its mission in the world; for only the church is God’s true politic in the world… and when all is said and done the Democrats and Republicans will be left “waiting for the bus” as God’s kingdom passes them by on the way to new creation.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2564′]

  • Good News for Chicken Little

    by Heath Taws

     
    [ene_ptp]I remember shortly after 9/11 asking my father if the world was ending.
    “Dad, is this the end? Is Jesus going to come back soon?”
    I’ll never forget his answer.
    “Son, every generation thinks theirs is the last. Believe me, when the world actually ends, you will know.”
    In my lifetime alone (a very short 27 years), there have been numerous “end of days” prophecies.
    I remember Y2K being a particularly popular one, and my own mother stocking up on food and water, preparing for the worst.
    Harold Camping predicted the end in 2011, and shortly thereafter I predicted that he would apologize in 2012, which he actually did. (Maybe I am a prophet!)
    Personally, I am still waiting for Obama to reveal himself as the Antichrist and declare marshal law! He better hurry up and do it as well, because with each passing day, his chances of subjecting the entire Earth under his oppressive world shattering new world order diminishes.
    And now, here we are in 2016 starting the entire process all over again.
    “The government wants to take away my guns!”
    “Syrian Refugees are coming and we better prepare for the worst once they get here!”
    “ISIS!”
    “I’M UPSET ABOUT SOMETHING BUT I CAN’T PINPOINT EXACTLY WHAT IT IS YET!”
    And these sort of reactions don’t really surprise me when they come from a world obsessed with being scared, being offended, and seeking the cure for death.
    What does surprise me, however, is when I increasingly see these sort of reactions coming from Christians.
    How can people who claim to have the Truth buy into the Chicken Little Theology of the world? You remember Chicken Little, right? Well Chicken Little Theology puts forth this idea that the sky is always falling, and the answer is to either buy more guns, or elect a certain person, or all become doomsday preppers.
    This is not the way in which Children of the King should respond to such things. We of all people should have steady, surgeon-like hands, when it comes to uncertainty.
    In the midst of fear, we aint skeered.
    In the midst of sorrow, we have unshakable hope.
    And in the face of death, we have the promise of resurrection.
    And yet so many of us day by day are buying into these lies. We can see this in the way that many of the Republican candidates talk about America, Isis, and the government. We can see this in the way that the Democratic candidates talk about global warming, the Republicans, and guns.
    On both sides there is fear and uncertainty, and both democrats and republicans are urging the voters to find the “Lion” and tell him about the Sky that is inevitably about to fall upon us all. The Lion, of course, is always their candidate. It is the person who will save us all with their heroic ability to…put forth law and have a bunch of people vote on it. Their dynamic agility and skill in overthrowing the powers of evil by…telling other people to press buttons that send robot drones to drop bombs and stuff. And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention their herculean like strength with regards to…the way in which they use the veto pen.
    Folks, these people aren’t our saviors. They aren’t the Lion that Chicken Little is looking for, and they certainly aren’t our Aslan.
    And yet, we keep bathing in all of this doomsday hogwash.
    “Every generation thinks theirs is the last.”
    And so the question remains. Is our Republican Lion Trump, or Cruz, or Rubio? Is the Lion Hillary, or Sanders? Who will hear of the falling sky and be able to stop it in time before we are all consumed? Which one of these Lions will singlehandedly save us all from destruction!?!?
    Enter the gospel.
    Revelation 5 is one of my favorite passages in all of scripture. John is in the middle of his crazy vision adventure in heaven, when suddenly an angel comes forth talking about a scroll.
    “Anyone worthy to open this scroll?” He asks, as all of Heaven kind of looks around.
    “Nobody? Bueller? Bueller?”
    Silence. Nobody is worthy.
    “But wait! The Lion of the tribe of Judah is worthy!” He proclaims.
    Every head in heaven begins looking for the Lion, but what emerges instead, is a Lamb. And not some huge muscular genetically engineered Lamb with a sword in its hoof, but a Lamb that looks as if it had been slain.
    This Lamb, this slain Lamb, is worthy. He alone is able to open the scroll.
    You see, so many of us like Chicken Little are looking for the Lion to save us, when in reality, we should be looking toward the Lamb that already did.
    The Lamb of God, slain before the foundation of the world. The Lamb that died in our place because He knew that if He didn’t, the sky would eventually fall and crush us all.
    This is good news for all the Chicken Littles of this world. For all the doubters, doomsday preppers, Y2K hoarders, conspiracy theorists, and yes, even your crazy uncle down on 43rd street with, “the end is nigh” written on cardboard strapped to his chest.
    Operation “skyfall,” was in play long before Daniel Craig came on the scene.
    We see a whisper of this plan from the very beginning of the Bible in Genesis 3:15, in which the great snake crusher is prophesied. The serpent will strike, the heel will crush, and it will be finished.
    We clearly see that plan carried out upon the cross, in which Jesus is simultaneously both the Lion of Judah and the Lamb that is slain. Jesus takes upon his shoulders the entire weight of the sky, and the mystery of operation “skyfall” is finally revealed.
    “It is finished.”
    Mission accomplished.
    The sky did indeed fall, and the Lamb took the crushing weight in our place.
    And now, because of Christ, we as believers stand under the umbrella of grace. A promise that on that final dreadful day, when the sky falls once more, none of us who stand under its shade will be crushed.
    Neither Trump, Hillary, Sanders, or Cruz will save us on that final day. Don’t follow the Foxy Loxy’s of this world. They will lead you to their den, and you will never ever come out again.
    Every generation thinks theirs is the final one. Believe me, when the end comes, you will know it.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2846′]  

    Click on a book cover to get more information on that book.

  • Religious Language and Postmodern Ears: Repent vs. Turn

    by Kent Ira Groff

     
    [ene_ptp]In Lake Wobegon, says Garrison Keillor, “All the Norwegians were Lutherans, of course, even the atheists—it was a Lutheran God they did not believe in.” The theism a lot of atheists reject describes a God I cannot believe in either.
    Many grew up, as I did, with an emotionally or physically absent father, at the same time hearing of God mainly as a male figure, so God seemed distant. Images and language skew our attitude toward the Sacred. Lots of religious words make spirituality seem irrelevant. The word repent is one such example.
    I heard Desmond Tutu tell of brutal killers in South Africa who had slowly cooked people alive at one end of a campsite while enjoying a barbecue at the other end. Later in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings, these perpetrators would confess without emotion that they were sorry. They might be staring across the room or down at their shoes as they spoke. But if the victim’s family member would say, “Turn to me; now say what you just said.” Then the confessor would be deeply moved, hardly able to gasp the words.
    In telling this story, the word turn became enfleshed: a simple human act of turning embodies spiritual power. That is exactly what the word shuv in the Hebrew Bible means: “turn”—though it usually gets translated “repent.” And the New Testament Greek word metanoia literally means “turning one’s thoughts” or “changing one’s mind.” Yet when translated into English as “repentance,” both words convey moralistic scruples and miss the basic human connection. So the Bible sounds more religious than it really is.
    If the victim had said, “repent to me” instead of “turn to me,” it would have missed the vulnerable place in the perpetrator’s heart. In this way ordinary words and gestures can have more power than religious language.
    Meanwhile the radio preacher goes on pounding the pulpit: “Repent!” And we go right on driving to the mall to buy clothing made in child sweatshops. The simple language of “turn” can embody more power than “repent.” What if we actually turned our thoughts toward the sweatshops? Or turned toward the real needs beneath our wants?
    What are some religious language barriers that get in the way of genuine spirituality for you?

    Kent Ira Groff, a spiritual companion for other journeyers, 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

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2829′]

    Click on a book cover to get more information on that book.

    (Note: Not all books shown are published by Energion Publications.)

  • Mount Precipice — Sent By and As God, but Not Accepted

    by Doris Horton Murdoch

     
    [ene_ptp]In my previous post, I mentioned that I had just returned from the Holy Land. All of my forthcoming posts will consider my spiritual encounters in the Holy Land with Jesus’ confrontation on Mount Precipice being the topic for today.
    There are many mountains listed in the Bible, but in actuality, most of these mountains are globular hills. These hills consist of sand, clusters of grass, caves, and many, many stones. The landscape is dotted with cedar and olive trees. One of the many hills is Mount Precipice. From the crown of Mount Precipice, one can view Mount Tabor (Mount of Transfiguration) and the Jezreel Valley (also known as the Valley of Megiddo; fertile heartland in the location for Armageddon). Mount Precipice is known as the site where an angry Nazarene mob attempted to throw Jesus over the cliff. We read about this in Luke 4:14-30 (NIV):

    Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15 He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him. 16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
    18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind,
    to set the oppressed free, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
    20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” 22 All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked. 23 Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’” 24 “Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. 25 I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27 And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.” 28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.

    After hearing the reading, the congregation’s eyes were fastened on Jesus; they were amazed at what they were hearing. It was good! The words were awesome! Then along comes the spoilers in the group. There seems to always be someone in the group that can gather the crowd and cause confusion and dissent. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” Joseph was a carpenter; he worked with wood. He wasn’t a man with great schooling and he certainly was not a man of the cloth! Joseph is an honorable man and he has honorable sons, but they surely are not chosen as God’s prophets! A spoiler can plant the seed that causes disunity among families and congregations.
    Jesus uses Elijah’s and Elisha’s stories as examples of how we must have faith and trust that God is in control. God will provide the message and the healing in His time and in His locale. Many times God bases this on the faith of the believers. As we see in verse 28, the group becomes furious with Jesus. How dare Jesus compare His position to the great prophets Elijah and Elisha? Let’s get rid of this false prophet! He is of no value to this community! Just imagine, he thinks He has the powers of Elijah and Elisha! No one will ever equal or exceed the powers of Elijah and Elisha! Let’s get rid of this guy! Throw him off the cliff! As we know, the all-powerful Jesus walked through the crowd and went on his way. Millennium-old rumors say that Jesus leaped from Mount Precipice to Mount Tabor. The Arabic name for the mount, Jebel Qafzeh, translates to “mount of the leaping.”
    Jesus came to loose the chains of slavery for humanity (Luke 4:18-19; Isaiah 58:6; Isaiah 61:1-2) and to anoint man with the freedom of salvation through His final sacrifice. He came to personally claim the good news. Jesus brought love, forgiveness and healing to humanity. He came to proclaim the Lord’s favor on mankind. And what do we do? Reject Him, starting with His very own community.
    Are we supporting our church family? Are we encouragers of all members? Have we placed any members on the precipice? Have we pushed any members over the precipice? Jesus was about his Father’s business and we all need to hold ourselves accountable of being about our Father’s business.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2440′]

  • Mark’s Unsatisfying, but Compelling Ending

    by Drew Smith

    [ene_ptp]While all four canonical Gospels narrate women (In John it’s just one woman, Mary Magdalene) going to the tomb of Jesus, the scene in Mark is a bit remarkable to say the least.
    To understand the distinctive nature of Mark’s resurrection story, or, as some have suggested, an empty tomb story, we have to deal first with where exactly this Gospel ends. Anyone picking up a good English translation of the Bible can turn to the 16th chapter of Mark and find that verses 9-20 are bracketed off and the reader is directed to a note that generally reads, “Some of the most ancient authorities end the book at 16:8.” This means that the best textual sources available to us have the Gospel of Mark ending in 16:8, while other sources include verse 9, and still others go all the way to verse 20.
    This is all too complicated to discuss here, so I will simply state what has become the majority consensus on this issue. Although there are still some very reputable scholars who think differently, the overwhelming number of scholars of Mark believe that the Gospel ends at 16:8. Of course, there is the very slim chance that there was an ending that has been lost, but we have no evidence of this.[1]
    It is easy to see why the precarious verses that follow 16:8 would have been added later. All we have to do is read 16:8, where we discover that the women who go to the tomb, where they are told to go tell his disciples to go to Galilee, actually leave the tomb in great fear and they tell no one. Moreover, and perhaps even more troubling, the resurrected Jesus does not appear again in Mark’s story. And so, perhaps it is better to call this an empty tomb story.
    This ending must have been very unsatisfying to someone who felt the need to add a more interesting ending, one in which the disciples are told of Jesus’ resurrection and the resurrected Jesus does appear. In fact, Matthew and Luke, who write after Mark, but who generally follow Mark’s outline, were both unsatisfied with Mark’s ending, and thus they included appearances of Jesus after his resurrection.
    But if the ending of Mark is at 16:8, why would the author end the story here without including something other writers felt was needed?
    Of course, we cannot travel back in time to talk to the author of this narrative we call the Gospel of Mark. Indeed, Mark may not even be the author’s name. Church tradition ties Mark to this Gospel, but the story never mentions that he is the writer. But we can read what is there in the last chapter of the story and propose some reasons why the narrative ends at 16:8 and what this might mean for our own faith and discipleship.
    While having the women leave in fear and tell no one is problematic for us, and while not having the resurrected Jesus appear in the story is even more difficult for us, these may really be the best clues we need to solve the problem of why Mark’s Gospel ends at 16:8 as it is understood within the framework of Mark’s overall narrative.
    First, although Mark does say that the women were afraid and told no one, we must assume that the message of the young man in the tomb did get out somehow. After all, we are readers of Mark’s story, and thus the message was passed on. Since only the women go to the empty tomb and none of the male disciples receive the message directly from the young man at the tomb, we can be fairly certain that these women told someone, even if this is not included in the story itself.
    As to their fear, we should take a close look at similar responses to numinous experiences throughout Mark’s story. Responses of awe, wonderment, and fear characterize the way many characters react to Jesus’ miracles in the narrative. The women’s fear is not a fear as if they are scared from a threat, although that is possible. Rather, they have experienced something from beyond the realm of creation; the in-breaking of God.
    Concerning the missing Jesus, while Matthew and Luke, as well as John, were concerned with this problem, Mark is not worried the least about this. In fact, the absent Jesus works well for his story.
    What we should understand is that Mark’s story is not about believing in Jesus’ resurrection. It is about how one follows Jesus. It is a story about following Jesus in discipleship; perhaps even a manual on discipleship.[2]
    Indeed, we should notice that this Gospel does not begin with a birth narrative, as do Matthew and Luke. Instead, Mark begins with the baptism of Jesus. Thus, Mark’s story begins at the place where Christian discipleship begins, baptism, and takes us through the life of Jesus, a life defined by challenging the religious and political powers. In this way, Mark’s Jesus is the paradigmatic disciple, who proclaims God’s rule of justice, and who, in doing so, takes up his cross unto death.
    The message the young man tells the women, “He is going ahead of you into Galilee,” is a commission to return to the road of discipleship, where one continually follows Jesus to the cross. Thus, Mark’s resurrection story is not so much a promise of what is to come, nor does believing the story require us to believe that Jesus was actually physically raised; again, he never appears again in Mark. Rather, the resurrection or empty tomb story is a story that empowers us to perpetually return to the road of discipleship to follow Jesus.
    It’s not the ending; it is the beginning.
     
    [1] For arguments for the different views on Mark’s ending, see David Alan Black, ed., Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2008).
    [2] See Philip G. Davis, “Christology, Discipleship, and Self-Understanding in the Gospel of Mark,” in Self-Definition and Self-Discovery in Early Christianity:  A Study in Shifting Horizons, Essays in Appreciation of Ben F. Meyer From His Former Students, ed. David J. Hawkin and Tom Robinson (”Studies in Bible and Early Christianity,” 26; Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990), 101-19.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2613′]  

  • The Dangers of Religious Illiteracy

    The Dangers of Religious Illiteracy

    by Rev. Dr. Robert R. LaRochelle

     
    At this point in our culture, three significant realities are operating at one and the same time:[ene_ptp]

    1. There is significant variety in the different religious perspectives held by Americans and the number of functioning religious groupings. Religious pluralism is a reality.
    2. There is a real lack of knowledge about religious perspectives outside of one’s own.
    3. With the significant decrease in church and religious education attendance, there is a decline among many people in the knowledge of the religious tradition of which they are a part, especially regarding the depth of diversity inside of one’s own tradition.

    Several years ago, Stephen Prothero wrote a significant work simply entitled Religious Literacy. In summary, Prothero contends that lack of religious knowledge can be dangerous. I agree with him. It seems to me that a lack of knowledge of both one’s own AND other religious approaches can lead to unnecessary suspicion, prejudice, and dangerous activity. Sadly, there are far too many examples of this happening not only over the course of history but also in recent years.
    As I see it, two particular problems have to be confronted head on:

    1. The terrible lack of knowledge most Americans have with different religious perspectives. Failing to seek deeper knowledge all too often leads to terrible biases and actions directed toward those who are ‘other.’
    2. The deficiencies in knowledge that ‘mainline’ Christians have about Biblical interpretation, theology and the conversations and developments within their traditions regarding a wide variety of religious issues. This makes misunderstanding about one’s own tradition an all too common reality.

    What I am saying is that a lack of knowledge unfortunately leads to a reflexive fundamentalism regarding the Bible and a surface understanding of the complexities inherent in confronting the ‘ God question.’ Sadly, those who might not feel connected to churches but hold to an inherently ‘liberal’ view of theology often feel as though they are really outside of the mainstream of organized religion and that organized religion can never really express their own way of looking at the world. This need not be true and it isn’t! Yet, without adequate exposure to serious theology within their local churches, the opportunities for deeper understanding of their own traditions may not happen for many of our young!
    Within the Christian community, we are seeing an ever increasing polarization between ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’. Sadly, many of our young are not even engaged in these conversations as they have come to perceive their own churches as places which really do not offer an adequate alternative way of thinking about religious faith. The reality is that those churches rarely do. Therefore, this religious illiteracy is depriving people of the opportunity to learn from such Christian thinkers and practitioners as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Paul Tillich, Dorothy Day, Gustavo Gutierrez, John Shelby Spong, Marcus Borg, Martin Luther King, James Carroll, Oscar Romero, and so many more who have really challenged some of the conventional wisdom of the most conservative elements of the traditions in which they were raised. It is also depriving people of experiencing the depth to be found in some of the major conventional thinkers within various Christian traditions, people like Luther, Wesley, Aquinas, Augustine and many more!
    This is truly sad and unfortunate!
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2576′]

  • Welcoming the Immigrant? Wisdom and Guidance from the Book of Ruth

    by Bruce Epperly

     
    [ene_ptp]The outcry against immigrants is great these days. Candidates vie with one another in terms of who will be harshest in responding to undocumented workers in our land and how to most vigorously protect our southern border from hordes of immigrants from Mexico and Central America. “Build a wall!” one candidate shouts. And, if the Mexicans don’t pay for it, he continues, “We will build one ten feet higher!” Immigrants are blamed for everything from unemployment to terrorism. Even Syrian immigrant children, properly vetted, are seen as threats to national security. Christian politicians are seen as weak whenever they propose a compassionate approach to immigrants and undocumented workers.
    For those who know the Bible, Ruth is not just a sweet love story. It’s a story of immigration in its many dimensions. The story begins with Naomi and Elimelech leaving Bethlehem for Moab to escape starvation. Famine hurts the working poor and the lower middle class hardest.   When there is no choice, people leave their homelands not because they want to, but because they have to, simply to survive. Naomi and Elimelech, like today’s immigrants, cross the border to Moab. We don’t know how they were received, but like so many immigrants today, they work hard, raise a family, and establish themselves in their new land. Their two boys even marry Moabite girls. We don’t know how Naomi or Elimelech felt about this mixed marriage, or how Orpah’s or Ruth’s families responded to their daughters marrying Israelites, but ultimately the two couples were accepted by both families, we suspect.
    Tragedy strikes. All three males die, and three women are left without means of support in a patriarchal society. Hoping to avoid starvation once more, Naomi sets off to her homeland, this time with extra baggage, a childless Moabite widow. Both women band together out of love, but also simply to survive.
    We don’t know if Ruth was accepted at first by the women and men of Bethlehem. She was, after all, a Moabite, and Moabites were viewed as spiritually inferior and morally suspect. Their women were sexually promiscuous, they worshipped other gods, and they were seen as military enemies throughout history. But, as the story goes: Ruth and Boaz meet and marry, have a son, who eventually becomes the grandfather of the great king David. Imagine, David, Israel’s greatest ruler, the descendant of a mixed marriage!
    The story goes on. Centuries later, another child is born, Jesus our Savior, a descendant of this immigrant woman. To add to the drama, this child’s parents flee to Egypt, immigrants themselves, to escape danger like so many immigrant families today. Did the holy family survive in Egypt because someone provided hospitality to strangers and immigrants?
    Christians, especially preachers and politicians, would do well to read their bibles. Sadly, many Christians embrace racist attitudes rather than rational hospitality. They sink to the lowest common denominator, clapping and shouting approval to anti-immigrant harangues and opposing any support for the “least of these,” little children in search of safety and shelter.
    Ruth reminds us that when we welcome immigrants, we may just be welcoming Jesus’ ancestors. Jesus challenges us to see his face in the “least of these” and goes even further to proclaim that God feels the joy and pain of the most vulnerable people we meet.
    A bumper sticker announces, “Honk, if you love Jesus.” In response, another bumper sticker proclaims, “If you love Jesus, seek justice, any fool can honk!” Today’s Christians would do well to go “back to the Bible” and learn lessons of hospitality to immigrants. This doesn’t mean that we make our border porous. It does mean that after properly vetting immigrants, we welcome them into our land as God’s beloved children, who will bless us and our nation by their gifts. (For more on the story of Ruth, see Ruth and Esther: Women of Agency and Adventure, Energion, 2016)
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2461′]

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.