Energion Direct

Category: Uncategorized

Can the Many Christian Churches Ever Be United?

by William Powell Tuck
www.friarsfragment.com

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

April 20, 2016
Do Unto Others

by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.

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

April 19, 2016
On Being a Spiritual Grandparent

by Bruce Epperly

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

April 18, 2016
Rethinking Baptism in an Open Table Theology

by Bob Cornwall

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

April 16, 2016
What Words Can’t Do

BY Chris Surber

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

April 15, 2016
The Golden Gate (The Gate of Mercy)

by Doris Murdoch

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

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

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

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

April 14, 2016
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

Your cart (items: 0)

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