Pastor's Blog

UNC versus DUKE

2012-02-08T15:13:00.003-05:00

I love basketball. I particularly love college basketball. I love the skill, the intensity, the enthusiasm. I can enjoy most any basketball game whether or not I really know the teams.

Point 2: To use St. Paul's language, I have never consider 'discerment of the spirits' to be one of my strongest gifts.

BUT, I am so very sad it does not seem possible to truly enjoy a UNC-DUKE game unless you carefully screen the audience. I so want to attend the NCAA games in Greensboro this year since both teams are most likely going to be there. And I can sincerely root for both teams (when not playing each other). UNC has a long tradition of playing great basketball in a honorable manner. So does Duke.

How can people claim to be Christian, claim to be a loving, concerned, devoted follower of Jesus Christ while behaving so poorly OVER A GAME? Don't you wish there was as much energy devoted to the fact there are several hundred homeless children in Guilford County? And not just those in shelters, but those in cars and rusted out school buses and under bridges. One such child would be too many and yet ....

My suspicion is that we could solve a major part of the homelessness problem in the USA with the money spent on beer during Super Bowl weekend. And I like beer! I have nothing against drinking a beer!! And I have nothing against being passionate about your school's team. That's fine! It should be fun! But there is a big and important difference being being passionate FOR something, and being passionate AGAINST SOMEONE. What has any Carolina or Duke player done to give you the right to hate them so much? Again, not root against, that's fine .... but hate?

Our world has enough hate. Let's not train ourselves and others how to hate more through a basketball game.

I still have not decided for sure but I suspect you will not find me enjoying the NCAA games in Greensboro. The enjoyment of the game does not offset the feeling of being in a pool of hatred.

2012-01-18T11:07:00.001-05:00

Jesus' grace: Am I accepted?

Chapter 13 of "What is the least I can believe and still be a Christian?"

by: Martin Theilen

I was recently talking with a fellow minister about how in some ways I envy the preachers who can scream and shout threats. The peachers who tell you that you WILL burn in hell! No questions, no doubts -- unless you do a certain thing of course.

I envy those preachers because they provide a simple reason to follow Jesus (the big "or else!") and a simple measuring stick to determine your status: did you pray that prayer or take that walk?

Simple, easy to explain, easy to measure.

Our beliefs are even simpler! But so hard for people to grasp. Yes, God loves YOU! Yes, God accepts YOU! End of discussion!!

Unfortunately that can result in people feeling there is nothing more they need to do (absolutely correct) or should do (very wrong). We don't HAVE to do anything else, but we should respond to God's love for us.

I have had the great joy to be at 7 births: three daughters, and four grandchildren. If God loves me half as much as I loved those tiny little beings .... tiny little beings that had done NOTHING to earn my love ..... if God loves me half as much as I love them --- Wow!

What is amazing is God does not love me half as much as I love them. God loves me 10 times MORE than I could possibly love them. I cannot imagine that. I cannot conceive of a love greater than I have for those children. Its not possible --- for a human. But God loves us that much.

(read Theilen's recounting of the Tony Campolo story about a birthday party -- and then reflect on the last chapter's teaching that the primary requirement is for us to love other people.)

If you read nothing else in this entire book please read the opening section of this chapter, page 82 and top of 83. It answers the single most critical question posed by most people, especially young people in today's society. What is unique about Christianity? What makes us different? Theilen summaries what grace means by comparing it to other religions: "Buddhists follow an eightfold path to righteousness, Hindus believe in the doctrine of karma. Jews, in order to receive God's blessings, must obey God's covenant. Islam has a strict code that all Muslims must follow. In one way or another, every religion of the world requires people to earn God's approval -- every religion except Christianity."

Again, this is not a judgmental statement. Judgment of which is better is something different, this is simply a statement of fact. If I tell you North Carolina has warmer weather than Maine that could make some people want to move to Maine and others move to NC. Those are judgments. The weather is simply a fact and it is a fact that Christianity begins with God's love for us. "God so loved the world" --- NOT "the world so deserved God"

Chap. 12 "Jesus' Priority: What matters most?"

2012-01-18T10:31:00.002-05:00

Jesus' Priority: What matters most?

Chapter 12 of Martin Thielen's What's the least I can believe and still be a Christian?"

Wow! Thielen is good! You would think he had to struggle and question and doubt during his life. Actually it sounds as if he did. Here he nails the primary question: What matters to Jesus? I say that is the primary question because so many churches, and people who say they are Christians, focus on other things. (Here I go, getting in trouble again! Actually it is not possible for me to get into trouble since I am never out of trouble!)

Too often we, all of us, focus on the wrong things. How many churches divide over what music is played? In the Episcopal Church the classic argument is over which order to light the candles or when to stand and when to kneel. ahhhhhh ! Can you just imagine Jesus if He walked into on of those discussions?

As individuals we tend also to focus on the wrong things. Although I don't think it is a good thing to do, I highly doubt God counts the number of times we curse, or watches what we wear to church.

At the same time I believe God notices when we gossip, bad mouth someone, lie, steal, cheat. BUT, I suggest that for most of us the much bigger issue is, in the words of our Prayer Book, "things left undone". Most of us are not terrible people when we reflect on how we act. ALL of us could, and should try to do better!! But we are not terrible.

That said, what we are VERY good at is ignoring the needs of others. We tend to be very good at focusing on our needs and ..... not ignoring but simply not noticing the needs of others. Or maybe we make a small effort for others.

I am a firm believer that (symbolically) God will review our checkbooks and our calendars. God will look at how we used our time and our material resources. (ouch!!)

Theilen uses Jesus' own words to make this point. Jesus said all the commandments grow from (1) love God, and (2) love other people. In Mark Jesus stresses the love of God is about all of us: with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. These are action words. Jesus is not talking about passively sitting with a sweet smile on our face! (Although that might be part of it.) So the question is HOW? How can we love a GOD? What can we do to/for a GOD to show our love with our heart, soul, mind and strength? I firmly believe that is the second part of Jesus' teaching. In fact I like to say we are told to "love God BY loving others". Furthermore that "loving others" has little or nothing to do with whether we "like" them. Loving others is about how we treat them.

I particularly appreciate at this moment in my life, Theilen's discussion on priorities. He began the chapter with the typical story of a couple who got so caught up in their careers they forgot to have a life. Good story -- heard it before. Then later he tells the same story about himself: so caught up in his career and making money he almost lost his family. Good story -- heard it before. BUT then he speaks about how even ministry can do that. He talks about how he had the same over achieving (in human terms) approach to being a minister. Wow! What a warning to everyone.

I am (occasionally) working on a book with the draft title: What is on God's final exam? What will God ask us when the time comes. Think about that.

Chap. 11 "Who is Jesus?" from "What is the least I can believe and still be a Christian?"

2012-01-18T09:37:00.001-05:00

Jesus' Identity: Who is Jesus?

Chapter 11 of Martin Thielen's What's the least I can believe and still be a Christian?"

If you have not yet read Thielen's book it is excellent! In the first half of the book he discusses things he believes a Christian does NOT have to believe. For example, one chapter was titled: Jews won't make it to heaven. Great discussions on each chapter and I have blogged on most of them.

Now we turn to those things a Christian should believe. In the introduction Thielen hits on an essential question and one he should have spent more time on: Does Jesus matter? (My summary and not his.) He tells the story of a Jewish man who attended his church and wanted to know if "all this talk about Jesus was necessary".

Unfortunately people seem to believe that saying Jesus is important to Christians means we are insulting other religions. Not necessarily so. But it is the Christian church after all! I doubt a Buddhist would say Buddha is not important!

Every group sets limits or boundaries around itself. That's what defines a group. Whether the boundaries are static or porous is another issue. One of our (Christian's) boundaries is belief in the importance of Jesus.

Ahhhhh .... not just belief in Jesus but belief in the importance of Jesus. I know some fine, ethical, moral people who believe Jesus was a great teacher --- but no more. In my opinion, they are not Christians. In my opinion that does not change God's love for them. (We can talk about salvation later.)

A GREAT song by Jim Croce "Which way are you going?" includes the verse: You say you love the baby. Then you crucify the man. ....... OUCH ! ...... We love Christmas but are not really happy about commandments --- even when we understand they are for our own health and benefit.

I was a supervisor of people from a very young (adult) age. I always felt a friendly and collegial atmosphere produced the best results. I would chat with them about their families, or the ball game, tell jokes, etc. etc. But I also learned the extreme difficulty of being a friend and a boss. At some point a friend would tell you "don't worry about it" while the boss says "do it anyway".

Jesus is our brother, our friend ... but also our Lord, our boss.

I commend to you Theilen's section "Making a verdict about Jesus". He writes that at some point we all must answer Jesus' question: "Who do you say I am?" We might answer Jesus was a teacher, a miracle worker, even a prophet from God. But until we answer that Jesus is the Son of the living God, we have not accepted Him.

"God loves straight people but not gay people" Chapter 9 of "What's the least I can believe and still be a Christian?"

2011-12-03T13:23:00.004-05:00

God loves straight people but not gay people

Chapter 9 of Martin Thielen's What's the least I can believe and still be a Christian?"

(PLEASE remember he phrases the titles to stir up discussion. They are not necessarily his, or my, conclusion!)

First, allow me to apologize for the lateness of this post. I am having major computer problems, maybe a virus, maybe a problem with Outlook – not sure and none of the diagnosis programs have found anything. What is the texting symbol for inappropriate words?

I suspect Thielen, deliberately or not, was building to these last two chapters. When discussing homosexuality we cannot have a discussion without agreeing on two ground rules. We can have an argument, which usually does happen, but not a discussion.

The first ground rule actually applies to all Bible study. When considering a passage we should (1) actually read the passage! {the number of people who argue about scripture without ever reading it is astonishing!! Don’t believe what anyone, INCLUDING ME tells you. Read it, read scholars who disagree, and make your own decision} (2) consider the passage’s background including type of literature it is (is this a teaching story like a parable, is it poetic, is it historical?, (3) consider the passage in context, both immediate context and the Bible message in total, and (4) consider the passage’s history – what would it mean to the original readers?

The second ground rule when discussing homosexuality is parallelism. When I discuss the beauty of the heterosexual sex act (a man and woman) I am NOT supporting rape, orgies, child abuse, one night stands, or other non-loving actions. Rather I am discussing a loving, caring, monogamous relationship.

In a similar manner it is only logical that we ask how God feels about a loving, caring monogamous homosexual relationship. That conversation does not include, much less support unloving homosexual actions such as rape.

And yes, I am stating that there are loving, caring, monogamous homosexual relationships similar to heterosexual marriage. I have seen such relationships.

We should ask how God feels about homosexual actions. In the Episcopal Church we talk about looking to “scripture, tradition, and reason” to understand God’s instructions. In this context “tradition” means, in essence, what has historically been believed. Sometimes further use of reason applied to scripture determines that tradition has been wrong. Slavery is the most commonly cited example. Historically people had argued that scripture supported slavery. Over time it was agreed that scripture had been misunderstood and God did not think slavery was a good thing.

Currently Christianity in general is having a similar debate over the ordination of women. Many Protestant denominations have agreed that scripture was mis-understood and does not forbid the ordination of women. Most Christians (some Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) still believe scripture forbids ordaining women. Chances are this debate will not be resolved universally in our life time.

A similar debate rages over homosexuality which tradition has almost unanimously said is wrong. So let’s consider the eight scripture passages which may, or may not refer to homosexuality as I defined the conversation: loving, caring, monogamous relationships.

Small aside – many people have discussed the fact that in all of scripture only 8 passages, most very short, MIGHT be about homosexuality. They have argued that shows homosexuality, at worse, is not a major issue for God.

Three of the eight passages are closely related, and I submit, do not fit our definition. Surprisingly they are the Sodom and Gomorrah passage in Genesis and two parallels. What is surprising about that is Sodom and Gomorrah have historically, and still frequently are, the primary scripture referenced in the debates. The term “sodomy” comes directly from this passage.

Again I strongly encourage you to read the passage. The full story is fairly long, chapters 18 & 19 but the heart of it for our discussion is in Genesis 19:1-11.

Bottom line ... the only thing mentioned is rape. Although it is usually not discussed what is mentioned in Genesis is homosexual and heterosexual rape.

(NB: For a while some Bible scholars argued that when we are told the crowd wanted to “know the men” (the angels) it meant they wanted an introduction. However I am convinced that the historical understanding of the Hebrew word, that it meant sexual rape, is correct.)

I could go on .... I wrote my longest paper in seminary on this passage because it is so important, but I will grace you by moving on! But I will quickly add that there in some consensus is that the teaching is about the lack of care and concern shown to strangers. Remember this is a dessert area where lack of hospitality could easily mean death.

The primary reason for concluding that lack of hospitality and similar failings are Sodom’s sin is ..... (drum roll) That is what the Bible says!! Surprisingly few people ask what the Bible says (I would argue “What God says”) was Sodom’s sin. Look at Isaiah 1:10-17, Isaiah 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Ezekiel 16:49, and Zeph. 2:8-11 for descriptions of greed, not caring for strangers, mis-treating the poor and similar actions as Sodom’s sin and not sexuality.

Next, the passage in Judges 19:1-29 seems to be a simple retelling of the teaching, changing a few details to make it apply to a new audience. Even if it is an entirely new teaching the conclusions are the same.

In Jude 1:25 there is a simple reference back to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Now let’s turn to the 5 remaining passages may more directly relate to loving, caring homosexual relationships.

In the Old Testament the only remaining passages are two in Leviticus. Now if you have followed my earlier blogs you have read my support for the Leviticus laws within their historical context. Many of the laws we think ridiculous today, such as not eating pork or shell fish, are actually good and important public health laws in a society without good sewerage treatment, food inspection, or cooking equipment. So I do not reject Leviticus because it seems out of date.

Chapter 18 is worth reading completely although the only possible reference to homosexuality is in verse 22. Basically I believe we have here a series of health laws although most scholars include this in the holiness laws. But if we read them carefully and with insight to the times, most of them are a prohibition to incest. Small aside: thousands of years before genetics were understood, much less DNA, God tells them to avoid health problems such as birth defects by avoiding incest. Wow. What a gracious God.

If we read the entire list (I kept losing count) we find a list of obviously unloving acts. My conclusion is that the reference to male homosexuality also concerns unloving acts. That is, this passage does not address (negatively or positively) a loving, caring, monogamous homosexual relationships.

Next, Leviticus 20:1-27; pretty much parallels chapter 18 with only verse 13 referring to male homosexuality. In the beginning of the chapter the references to Molech are to a Canaanite deity which apparently included child sacrifices. Otherwise the list is of dangerous practices and/or clearly unloving practices. I find no reason to believe verse 13 is the only one that also refers to a loving relationship.

The Hebrew word frequently translated “abomination” (not a bad translation, just easily mis-understood) probably would be more accurately translated something like “become ritually unclean”. That is part of the reason scholars include this in the holiness codes because it is about being different from the neighboring tribes, or in other words, being holy to Yahweh.

And that’s all of the references in the Old Testament.

In the New Testament we have four references but I have already commented on Jude so we are left with three: I Corinthians 6:9, I Timothy 1:10, and Romans 1:18-32. A preview: many scholars argue that the Romans reading is the most direct, and possible the only true reference to homosexual relationships as defined for this discussion (loving, caring, monogamous).

But before we get to Romans we are faced with a linguistic challenge. Remember, neither Jesus nor Paul ever spoke English!! So we are reading translations and sometimes translations are not easy. There is no “English – first century Greek” dictionary. Two words hang us up: malakos and arsenokoites. Both are words seldom seen. The problem is compounded by the fact that Paul uses the word arsenokoites for the first time ever in scripture so we do not have any other uses to help us understand the meaning. (NB: I am using Jack Rogers’ Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality for most of my references.) It could be that Paul has simply combined words for “male” arsen and “bed” koites to create a word which means “men having sex”. It could be but many scholars do not believe that. (Rogers uses the example of the English word “understood” which has nothing to do with being ‘under’ or ‘standing’.) Several English translations create the word “sodomites” as a translation but that word appears nowhere in the Old or New Testament.

So what could arsenokoites mean? I am convinced that context again is important. If we read all of I Corinthians 6 we discover Paul is talking about general purity issues. In fact the first 8 verses are clearly about never suing someone in governmental courts so if we are to be consistent in our understanding we should shun from the church anyone who files a lawsuit! But even setting that aside we are again in a list of obviously unloving actions. Therefore I have no reason to sick a loving, caring homosexual action in this list. (Do I sound like a broken record? Sorry. Please know I personally struggled with these passages.)

OK, a less well known book, 1st Timothy. I find it fascinating that Paul (assuming he is the original author) is writing this to his student, Timothy, and not to an entire church. Furthermore Paul tells Timothy to focus on the important questions and not “myths and endless speculations”. That probably has little to do with today’s discussion! But it is interesting.

Sorry for the repetition, but we again have a list of obviously unloving actions with the word arsenokoites stuck in the middle of murderers, liars, perjurers, and slave traders. I could agree that men who bought male slave children for sexual exploitation would fit into that list. But not a loving, caring couple.

FINALLY, we reach the one passage which even many conservative scholars say most clearly discusses homosexuality as we have defined it. Have you noticed that lesbians have not been mentioned yet? Paul corrects that omission.

The challenge is the description Paul uses of actions being “natural” and “unnatural”. Conservative scholars (I hate such terms as “conservative” and “liberal” but we really don’t have other words to use.) argue, not irrationally, that by this Paul means the most common, physical actions. In other words, since most people have heterosexual sex than heterosexual sex is ‘natural’ and anything else is ‘unnatural’. Furthermore that ‘unnatural’ is wrong.

Rogers points out (p.77) that in Romans 11:13-24 Paul uses the same word to refer to God! In that chapter the word is generally translated as ‘unconventional’. Unfortunately for Rogers, and I generally like his logic, inserting ‘conventional’ and ‘unconventional’ into the text instead of ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ does not help. No matter which word is used Paul is clearly condemning the actions (whatever action Paul was referring to)

However I do agree with Rogers when he points out that this entire section is about idolatry. A good definition of an ‘idol’ is anything we place before God. Looking at our checkbooks and calendars most of us have made idols of money and time because we place them before service to God. (OUCH! That hurt!!)

Furthermore, Paul introduces the section by saying they “degraded of their bodies among themselves”. Going back to our (my) definition that says we are discussing loving, caring, monogamous relationships similar or parallel to heterosexual marriage, I don’t see Paul describing such heterosexual acts as “degrading”. Consequently I am convinced he is not talking about loving actions.

Before I conclude, let me stress that what I did is argue there are no prohibitions to homosexuality activity in the Bible. Fairness and scholarly honesty require me to note that although homosexuality was known in the ancient world, no where in the Bible is it spoken of favorably.

I completely agree with Thielen that, at the least, any church which says it does not welcome homosexuals MUST also make it clear it does not welcome gossips, greedy people, gluttons, people who are lustful and a number of other sins forbidden much more often in the Bible than 8 times. Thielen suggests, and I agree, that would result in very, very, very few churches remaining open!

Obviously I have given a very brief overview of the scholarly work that has been done on homosexuality and the Bible. I strongly recommend Rogers book, not just for his writings but for an extremely detailed bibliography.

I recommend some prayer time before reading Thielen’s conclusion, and mine, which I have copied below:

Thielen: All persons, including homosexual persons, are welcome in God’s church. Beyond that, however, mainline and moderate churches are not of one mind on the issue. For now, “welcoming but not affirming” best describes most mainline churches, and the discussion goes on. (NB: Thielen does not provide his conclusion.)

Kroohs: My conclusion is probably obvious, but not the depth of prayerful reflection which went into it. I am surprisingly thankful to a gay man I met over 30 years ago who I found arrogant, obnoxious and pushy!!! But because of that I was forced to interact with him as a person. I still don’t like the guy! But I did learn that homosexuals are people with all the faults and strengths of anyone. I learned that sexual preference was not the defining characteristic of what made a “good person” and a “not so good person”. Those lessons forced me into many years of Bible study including, as I mentioned, my longest paper in seminary. I did not mention I got my only bad grade in seminary on that paper because I did not proclaim in it what the grad assistant thought should be proclaimed! (That’s my excuse and I stand by it!) I continue to look for good scholarly work on the subject. I am fascinated how many conservative scholars have begun to not mention Sodom and Gomorrah but focus on Romans. That’s a pleasing evolution because once we agree on the ground rules; we can have a serious discussion.

Everything in the Bible should be taken literally Chapter 8 of "What is the least I can believe and still be a Christian?"

2011-11-28T14:32:00.000-05:00

EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE SHOULD BE TAKEN LITERALLY

Chapter 8: What is the least I can believe and still be a Christian?

(Please remember the chapter titles are meant to start conversation and are not necessarily the author’s, or my, opinion!)

This chapter actually causes me to use one of my favorite phrases: Yes, but. “Yes, the Bible should be taken literally – BUT to do that we need to know the type of literature being read and the teachings historical context”. We can take a math textbook literally when it is speaking about math but when it is outlining a word problem (i.e. Shirley drove from Greensboro to Washington DC, a distance of 300 miles, in 3 hours. How fast did Shirley go?) we should not expect every word in the problem to be precisely, literally true.

The historical context issue is similar: Yes, the prohibition about eating sea food should be taken literally --- in those societies which do not have sewerage treatment, food testing, and good cooking equipment. Shell fish are bottom feeders. They live off things like untreated sewerage so do you really want to eat shell fish which has feed on human and animal wastes? There are times when I have been at the North Carolina shore and seen signs: “Do not eat shell fish caught in this area.” In fact consider how amazing it is that the Hebrew people 3,000 years ago were taught basic public health rules! What an amazing and loving God.

So we need to consider that the scriptures are written for a particular time and place. BUT, we should not just throw out a passage as “not relevant” because we don’t like it. Only after careful study should we determine it is not meant for us. In fact, I firmly believe we should always accept the simplest and most direct reading until and unless we can definitively prove another understanding is more accurate.

The question as Thielen correctly states it, is what do we believe the Bible is? Recently I have heard some people comment that the Bible was written by human beings with the apparent implication that the Bible is no more reliable or important than Moby Dick or Shakespeare’s plays.

I have a major problem with that understanding, as does Thielen. But I suspect I go a tad further than Thielen does. I can agree with the fundamentalist preacher Thielen quotes who says once he disbelieves any passage he has to give up on the Bible. I would phrase it very differently but the essence is similar: Once I throw out any passage in the Bible I am questioning every passage in the Bible. And I am not prepared to do that.

So I believe the Bible is inspired by God to be what it is, a discussion of God’s relationship with human beings (and humans to God of course). It is not science, or history, or geography but theology. Plus I believe it was written for a particular culture WITH the understanding that little changes in human society (unfortunately). Yes, we can now eat sea food more confidently but we treat other people pretty much as the Bible describes. Furthermore, our need as Christians to see the rest of the world as opposing Christianity MAY be more true in 2011 than it has been for a thousand years or more.

(One interesting thing to consider is that the commandment to honor thy father and thy mother was intended to protect the elderly once they could no longer tend for themselves. Our generation arguably is the first one in history where this commandment applies to a large percentage of the population. In other words, a commandment written 3,000 years ago was directed more at us than the people who lived then!!)

Furthermore I have found that most debates about the Bible revolve around the issue of “what kind of literature” is the passage. Is it meant by God to be historically precise ? An example I had missed until this week in the first chapter of Genesis: Forget the issue about how there can be 24 hour days before the sun was created. (I picked up on that one in the 3^rd grade.) Consider verse 1:29 “I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of the earth, you shall have them for food.” So a purely literal reading would allow us to have a poison ivy and hemlock salad garnished with poinsettias while handling snakes.

Come on now! I guess that is what upsets me more than anything else … hypocrisy. Is it not possible to be an honest literalist and a ‘rapture enthusiast’ (I intend to keep using that phrase until it is picked up by CNN!) since so much of the timetable they discuss is not Biblical at all.

As Thielen points out, like the rapture and the earth being only 7,000 years old, literalism as currently discussed is a relatively recent invention. Until about 1900 you can find little if any reference to this kind of Biblical interpretation.

I do want to conclude by jumping back to something I said earlier. I believe the key question for most Christians is not whether or not the Bible is to be taken literally. Rather I suspect for many Christians the issue is whether to take the Bible seriously at all! So my discussion question is: How seriously do you take scripture?

You may want to prayerfully read Thielen’s chapter 8 before reading his conclusion which I have repeated below.

Thielen: Although we must always take the Bible seriously, we don’t always have to take it literally.

Jews won't make it to heaven: Chapter 7 of What is the least I can believe and still be a Christian?

2011-11-26T11:55:00.000-05:00

Jews, and other non-Christians, will not make it to heaven

(please remember these titles are meant to create conversation and are NOT my opinions!)

Chapter 7 of: What is the least I can believe and still be a Christian?

I am not going to say much about this chapter; Thielen did a great job! Plus, I used up all my energy on the last chapter about the “rapture enthusiasts”. (My title – like it?)

That said, this chapter poses a good and extremely important question. It actually is important both for non-Christians AND for Christians. For Christians it might be phrased as “will I go to heaven if I ask Jesus to be my Lord and Savior?” To which frankly, my answer would be “not necessarily --- you have to live as if Jesus is your Lord and Savior! Words are nice but actions are what matter.” Several times Jesus tells people that their lives are what matter. For example in Luke 13 when Jesus uses the narrow gate image He says there will be people who shout: ⁶ then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.’ ²⁷ But He will say, ‘I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity. In other words, merely ‘knowing Jesus’ will not be sufficient for salvation.

For many Christians there is a sense of concern at the thought that God will exclude good, moral, ethical people simply because they never knew or never accepted Jesus as Lord. Many of the finest people in the world, think of Ghandi, were not Christian. Will God exclude them?

My bottom line --- and I say this with more than a touch of relief --- is that decision belongs to God alone. I have nothing to say about it. Whew!

EXCEPT …. As a Christian and as a Christian leader (which we all are) this question is one I should consider and not just because my actions are more important than my words. That is, my life as a disciple is more important than any specific prayer or pronouncement.

So here are my thoughts and I recognize and acknowledge that many serious, loving, faithful Christians disagree with me. I firmly believe God is merciful and loving. Furthermore, I believe God would never punish a non-Christian for the faults of Christians. (follow this line of thinking --- it is scary!) The responsibility for teaching about Jesus belongs to Christians, not non-Christians. The responsibility to live a life attract to non-Christians belongs to Christians. Therefore, if there is fault to be found in the failure of non-Christians to fully accept Jesus, that fault belongs to Christians and any punishment should fall on Christians.

You see, I believe Jesus Christ and Christianity as it should be lived is so amazing and wonderful that if we did an adequate job of being Christian disciples then this question of non-Christians would not exist. ………. Yup, quite a standard.

Fortunately I also believe God is infinitely merciful – including to Christians. So despite our failure to teach and live as Jesus’ disciples (i.e. use that nasty word, despite our failure to evangelize) God loves us.

BUT, that does not really answer the core question of why I believe God will be merciful and loving with non-Christians. How can I defend that scripturally? First, there are several places where it is clear Jesus came to save ALL the world. And in Revelation it speaks of people for all tribes, and languages and nations standing before the throne (7:9) Of course a couple verses later it states that these people are those whose robes were “washed in the blood of the lamb” – i.e. Jesus’ death and resurrection. This certainly could mean only those people who accepted Jesus during their lives. It could mean that.

Or it could mean that Jesus death and resurrection was for all people and therefore all people had their robes washed in the blood of the lamb.

Or, if we read Revelation more thoroughly, it could mean that it is possible to grow closer to God AFTER our physical death. That happens to be my belief and understand. That’s how I reconcile the ‘exclusive’ statements in scripture with my belief in God’s love and mercy for everyone. Am I correct?

You may wish to prayerfully read Thielen’s chapter before reading his conclusion which I copied below.

Thielen: The ultimate destiny of non-Christians is in God’s hands, and God can be trusted to do what’s right.

A brief pause from the serious stuff

2011-11-19T12:16:00.002-05:00

Bad People will be 'left behind' and then fry in hell: Chapter 6 of "What is the least I can believe and still be a Christian?"

2011-11-14T17:25:00.000-05:00

Bad people will be ‘left behind’ and then fry in hell

I think we all know this thinking gained public awareness with the “Left Behind” fiction novels which too many people took to be scriptural. (As a SciFi fan I am particularly upset they are not better written! J ) As Thielen points out, in the 1980’s the focus was on the book “The late great planet Earth”. Several problems – (1) none of this was ever ‘known’ before the late 1800’s so it requires us to believe God hid such important information for almost 2,000 years, (2) with few exceptions only American Christians have these beliefs, (3) it’s not scriptural!

Please read Thielen’s chapter because he does a good job on the entire issue. There actually is a fairly wide difference of opinion ( ‘understanding of scripture’ even if everyone claims to be ‘literalists’) over exactly what the rapture, left behind, and years of judgment will look like. Most include some type of secret visit by Jesus to take the special believers to heaven followed by bad times. Jesus then returns again, there is a great battle to defeat evil and then a thousand year reign on earth before the universe ends.

Basic problem --- it ain’t in the Bible!!! In fact, it flies directly against Jesus saying no one knows the time. What people have done is take a variety of disconnected Biblical passages, mixed them together and produced whatever they wanted to produce. (nb: I honestly try very hard to give other people every right to believe what they want. And I do so here. But to quote Dr. Mickey Efird, ‘believe it if you want, just don’t tell me it is in the Bible!’)

I believe the bottom line issue here is actually similar to the issue over creationism. Those who believe the world is only about 7,000 years old (sorry, I think I mis-spoke and said 70,000 earlier) argue that God either created the world in such a way as to fool us (i.e. fossils or ice cores are actually not what they seem), or God allowed the devil to do those things. In a similar manner those who argue this ‘left behind’ thinking (I utterly refuse to use the word ‘theology’) argue that God wrote the Bible to confuse and mis-lead us. They argue that only ‘special people’ – them – can understand how the Bible REALLY should be put together. I believe God is the God of truth, not falsehood. Furthermore I believe God loves us enough that God would never allow the universe, or Bible to be twisted in the manner these people suggest.

I strongly recommend two books: The Rapture Exposed by Barbara Rossing and End Times by Mickey Efird for anyone who is truly interested and wants to know what the Bible really says.

But as a few examples: The valley of the Armageddon is a small valley in Israel which was fairly central to various military battles. It is only mentioned in the book of Revelation in 16:16 AND THERE IS NO BATTLE! (sorry. I get a bit upset sometimes) It does say that the “armies of man gather” there. Problem – do you seriously believe God needs the 4^th army division to defeat evil? I am perfectly willing to postulate that if God wants evil defeated, God can do it without our help – thank you very much!

Second example: The timetable … is usually based on Daniel 9:25-27 with the argument that the ‘weeks’ in Daniel actually means ‘years’. OK, I can go with symbolic language. BUT, even as years none of it adds up so “they” argue that God stopped the countdown (“we are at T minus 7 and holding “– if you remember the Apollo launches) Couple things. First there is no ‘stoppage’ even they can find in scripture! Second, isn’t it amazing that God stopped the countdown until ‘they’ were ready? Do I sense a bit of arrogance here?

Another example is our familiar Christmas passage from Isaiah: For unto us a child is born. Unto us a Son is given. And the government shall be upon his shoulders and his name will be called “Wonderful, Counselor”. Basically they claim the word “and” adds up to the 2,000 years; the time from Jesus’ birth until now. I guess if the second coming does not happen for a while the ‘and’ will mean 2,500 years or whatever.

Finally let’s look at the ‘rapture’ itself. The only place in scripture to get the image of meeting Jesus in the air is in 1 Thessalonians, chapter 4:13-18 : ¹³ Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. ¹⁴ For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. ¹⁵ According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. ¹⁶ For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. ¹⁷ After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. ¹⁸ Therefore encourage one another with these words.

I fully accept that the ‘rapture’ imagery can be supported in this passage. But I believe it is meant more symbolically. In fact, even LaHaye (author of Left Behind) admits that the word ‘rapture’ is never used in scripture. But look more closely at this passage. I will mention the next few verses in a moment but go ahead and read them for yourself to insure I am not picking and choosing a few verses as I accuse others of doing!

MAYBE there is the sense of good people rising into the air on a certain day to meet Jesus in the clouds. MAYBE – but there is nothing about deaths of other people, or years of tribulation, or great wars. NOTHING! (I really get upset at people mis-using scripture!!) Rossing (p. 21ff) explains that those authors claim they ‘piece together’ the entire plot from various places in scripture. Give me a moment and I can prove scripturally that the moon is made of green cheese by ‘piecing together’ portions of scripture!!! (Did I tell you I really get upset when people mis-use scripture?)

So where does this all come from? According to Rossing (p.22ff) it began with a woman’s vision in 1830 Scotland. She saw a vision that said Jesus’ return would NOT happen as outlined in the Bible but would be a two step process with the first return being in secret to protect the true believers. Now notice that this ‘plot’ is not irrational. It even makes a little sense --- EXCEPT that is not what God said!

Another important passage is 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 ⁵¹ Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— ⁵² in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

Which sounds like a ‘rapture’ --- unless of course we read the full passage! Paul is answering those who say there is no resurrection of the dead for anyone. Paul is describing a single incident – Jesus’ return. And Paul is clearly not describing some secret event for a few people.

OK, before my blood pressure shoots all over this page, one more example. Some ‘rapture enthusiasts’ (my phrase – like it?) say that Revelation 3:10-11 proves the whole rapture and tribulation thingie. So let’s look at it: ¹⁰ Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth. I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. On again I will agree that this could be describing some kind of tribulation. And the phrase “keep you from” might be interpreted as meaning a ‘rapture like removal’ from this earth. But, when we examine the scripture we discover the a couple inconsistencies. First, this section is specifically addressed to the church (people) in Philadelphia (not PA!). I have no problem believing the Holy Spirit is only using Philadelphia as an example and this does mean the entire world. But then again, I never claimed to be a literalist! So how can a literalist disregard that the scripture says it is addressed to Philadelphia? (not to mention the problem with it saying literally ‘sixty minutes’ and not 7 years or a thousand years)

More importantly the tone of the entire section is about current events. Current in their time that is – so about 105 AD. Again, I fully believe these teachings apply way beyond that time and to our time, but that is not precisely what is written. The overwhelming number of Biblical scholars believe the ‘hour of trail’ is not the ‘tribulations’ rapture enthusiasts describe. Rather it most likely is referring to specific issues facing that community. In the verses preceding these it specifically speaks about people who claim to be Jews but are not which certainly sounds like a very local issue.

Most importantly, although the term ‘church’ is not used again in Revelation there are several references to ‘the saints’. So the entire “the good people are gone” idea does not work.

In summary, scripture does seem to describe a one time event with the return of Jesus in glory to judge the ‘quick and the dead’. Furthermore that this event will be the end of the world as we know it. But there is no consistent support for Jesus returning twice with years of tribulation in between.

Furthermore, and to me this is very important, I believe scripture says we are God’s warriors (I prefer workers but warriors is keeping with their image) I believe God wants us to be working to build up the kingdom of God. So I find it inconsistent to say God would remove the workers before the job is complete.

OK, you have heard from me. I suggest your prayerfully read Thielen’s chapter. I have written out his conclusion below. Then hit 'comment' and tell us where I am wrong! (hmmm ... that opens the door TOO far .... tells us where I am wrong about this topic!)

Thielen: Left-behind rapture theology is neither a biblical nor a historical Christian belief and should be left behind by mainline and moderate evangelical Christians. The final destiny of non-believers is in God’s hands, not ours, and God can be trusted to do what is right.

Environment and Public Faith: Chapter 5 "What is the least I can believe and still be a Christian?"

2011-11-09T13:03:00.006-05:00

God cares about saving souls but not about saving trees.

This chapter is actually much more important than the title suggests. Thielen touches on an extremely important issue: personal faith verses public faith. Or more precisely, personal faith AND public faith. “Personal faith” includes faith in Jesus plus moral behavior. Of course different churches define “moral behavior” differently. I got in trouble one time for telling some very conservative pastors that in Jesus’ time, by four months after the grape harvest it WAS wine! I thought that was funny but no one else smiled.

The term ‘public faith’ involves a person’s actions towards other people and the world at large. So poverty, peacemaking, homelessness, and the environment are included.

Thielen’s point is that too often people assume God is only concerned with ‘private faith’ and not ‘public faith’. What’s fascinating about that assumption is that the most common instructions in scripture are about how we treat the poor and helpless. In the Old Testament the prophets are constantly criticizing the leaders not about worship style, and not even often about personal behavior (King David being a major exception!) but about how they and the society were treating the poor.

Thielen covers too much in this chapter! He also raises the question of being politically involved and argues that churches should not take political stands. I agree – up to a point. I believe churches should teach about public issues such as how scripture tells us we should treat the poor. BUT, we should allow for debate on that and most particularly debate on the best way to help the poor. Furthermore it is essential we remember there are no perfect answers to any public policy question. Every answer, every course of action will have some negatives. So being willing to proclaim the goal while allowing discussion about tactics can be very important.

But let’s not skip over the environmental questions as quickly as Thielen does. A few years back a number of politicians were very vocal that “God gave us dominion over the earth and therefore we can do whatever we want”. PART of that ‘theology’ (I refuse to call it theology without quotation marks around it!!) is the belief that the world will end any day now (see next chapter) and therefore damaging the environment does not matter.

I would argue that if the world does end soon, then environmental issues are even MORE important! (Not really but I love to start a ‘debate’.) My point being that we have ‘borrowed’ this world from God and when we return it to God we should be concerned what condition it is in. There are lots of good secular reasons for clean water and clear air. I am only focusing on the religious reasons. The Hebrew word frequently translated as ‘dominion’ could also, and more accurately in today’s English, by translated “stewardship”. It is like when I write a check to an investment company – give them control over my money. I expect them to treat my money with respect! They have control over my money. In a similar way God has given us control over this world but with clear expectations.

Let's jump back to the central point of 'private faith' vs. 'public faith'. I suspect most readers know of someone, and possibly some churches which focus heavily on 'private faith'. These would be the people and churches who are emphatically concerned with whether a person has prayed a certain prayer accepting Jesus into their lives. However, these are also the same people and churches you never find helping at the homeless shelter. (PLEASE understand I am using an extreme caricature to make the point and not describing any specific person.)

BUT, if we are honest about it we also know people (and churches???) who focus all their attention on social justice issues such as poverty, that is on 'public faith', while spending very little time focused on learning about and deepening a relationship with Jesus.

Since we probably have not had much disagreement yet --- allow me to start some! :) I appreciate the intensity the 'private faith' people and churches have towards encouraging people to know Jesus. I wish the 'public faith' churches, including and especially the Episcopal Church, could be infected with a dash of that concern. We tend to be very concerned about the people hungry for food (that concern is a GOOD THING!) but frankly unconcerned with people hungry for God. We are 100 times more likely to give a dollar to the man on the corner then to invite someone to a church event. (I said 'church event' so not even asking them to invite someone to Sunday worship!) Tell me, am I wrong? Are you 100 times more likely to give a dollar to the man at the corner than to invite someone to a church event? Does the Episcopal Church need a dash of enthusiasm for encouraging 'private faith'?

Take time to prayerfully read Thielen's chapter. I have copied his conclusion below:

Thielen: God cares about personal salvation and social justice, and so should God's church.
Kroohs -- I cannot say it better than he does!

Can we explain ourselves to others?

2011-11-09T12:39:00.000-05:00

BEING PREPARED FOR ONE OF THOSE 'DISCUSSIONS!

As we continue our wonderful discussions about "What is the least I can believe and still be a Christian?" I have begun to realize that important as the topics may be, can women be preachers for example, it is even more important that we prepare for one of those 'discussions'.

Picture this: You are at lunch with some people. One of them turns to you and asks where you go to church. You respond the Episcopal or Lutheran or Methodist or Presbyterian church or wherever. The person leans back in shock and says: "But I thought you were a Christian!" You respond, "I am". The person says, "but your church allows women to preach!" (or drink wine, or welcome homosexuals, or whatever is the current issue)

Now you could ignore them for the rest of the meal, make some nasty comment, get up and leave, or some other not-very-productive response. True, a person who would say that is not likely to have their mind changed. BUT -- what about the other people sitting there? You have been presented with a major teaching moment. (Here comes the guilt) God has provided you with the opportunity to talk about faith and scripture, not with that critic, but with the other people. They may never say a word but they will be listening very closely.

The best part of the discussions about this book is that they can prepare us for just those "God given opportunities."

Women in church & home: Chapter 4 of "What is the least I can believe and still be a Christian?"

2011-11-01T16:54:00.005-04:00

Women can't be preachers and must submit to men.

I suspect that many people looking at this chapter will be thinking something like: "oh, that attitude died out a long time ago except for a few churches." Well I am not that old and I can remember the debates over the ordination of women. Even if this is history for some churches, it is not for the vast majority of Christians: Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.

Furthermore, and possibly more important, if we take the time to work through this question we can learn a lot about Bible study.

I am soooooo very tempted to start this off with some joke! But knowing how easy it is for me to get in trouble, I think I will be good.

Let’s begin with background. In a strange way the tradition of keeping women away from positions of power probably began because ultimately women are more valuable to the future of the race than men are. (I so know I will hear from some female relatives about that statement!) But it is true. One man could maintain the tribe’s population but it took many females. So females had to be protected. If a man died, it was one man. If a woman died it threatened the tribe’s survival. Women were kept away from dangerous situations as much as possible. (Since no one has a video of the earliest human tribes when this culture developed, no one can prove me wrong!)

Over time I postulate, this protection expanded to keeping women out of leadership roles. I am not ignoring other factors such as physical size but focusing on leadership.

Anyway, by the time of Jesus it was long established in most cultures that women did not have a place of power. There were always exceptions but in general women were second class citizens. This was very true in the Jewish culture. That may be the reason so many positive encounters with women are recorded in the gospels: a great man treating women well was unusual enough to remember! Or maybe, as some have argued, Jesus was pushing the envelope for equal rights as far as he could.

The context of the Bible obviously matters but so do the actually teachings. Most people will quote Paul when he wrote: “Wives be obedient to your husbands” BUT ignore the next phrase: “Husbands love your wives”. I argue that the husband’s instructions are the more difficult! To love someone is much more difficult than to simply obey them. In other words, Paul was pretty even handed.

A similar conclusion can be reached when we read Paul’s comments about women in the church. (OK – being good time is over. I once was in a ‘discussion’ with someone who was ‘instructing’ me that woman should be silent in the church. With a remarkably straight face I said to him: “Oh? I always heard your choir had a wonderful soprano.” ) Read the entire passage and see if you don't discover Paul must have been speaking about a specific, disruptive situation when he said they should be silent.

You may find it helpful to prayerfully read and consider this chapter from Thielen’s book before reading his conclusion and my ‘ps’ below.

Theilen: Women are fully equal with men in marriage, in church, and in society.

Ken’s ps: Several years ago while I was away a female priest filled in. When I got back she told me about one Sunday when a woman cried throughout the service. We later discovered this person was a one time visitor traveling through who grew up Roman Catholic always wanting to be a priest. When she just happened to walk into St. Christopher’s and saw a female priest she could not stop crying with joy.

I cannot leave this post without telling a story on my oldest daughter. When she was about 10 years old she, the priest’s daughter, and another girl were the triumvirate who ran the church we attended (at least they thought so) This was soon after the Episcopal Church began ordaining women and one Sunday we had a female priest substituting for our rector. Those three girls MARCHED in near the beginning of the service and sat in the front row only a few feet from the pulpit ---- not their normal seating position. They stared at this woman the whole time. I have no idea how she survived their stares but as she was shaking hands after the service the three walked up, looked up, and announced: “you did OK” and they danced away!

I have found many people, men and women, who were not supportive of the ordination of women soon discovered “they did OK” (actually a lot better than “OK”!)

Evolution: Chapter 3 of "What is the least I can believe and still be a Christian?

2011-11-01T16:06:00.000-04:00

"True Christians can't believe in evolution !"

These next two chapters raise an interesting issue: What type of literature is the Bible?

The first part of the answer is that the “Bible” is actually a library of books, written over at least a thousand years. Therefore it is not surprising that this compilation of books includes a wide variety of literature types.

The psalms are poetry. So when the author says that “the mountains sing with joy” we can believe it is true without believing we would hear sung words!

Jesus frequently spoke in parables: teaching stories somewhat similar to Aesop’s fables. We can believe in the teaching contained in one of Aesop’s fables without believing an ant and a grasshopper had discernable conversations! Jesus’ use of parables was neither unique nor original; it was a frequent Jewish teaching method so we can accept the lessons without being concerned with the “literalness” of the images.

Archeologists have found evidence of various Old Testament sites which seem to support the historical record in general. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was probably by a volcanic type explosion. If the Biblical account makes it sound more like Thor throwing lightning bolts doesn’t matter. The basic story and teaching remain true.

In addition to the types of literature we need to remember that the Bible was written over at least a thousand years (probably more like 1500 years or more). Each passage had to be written in a manner which taught the people of that age with their understandings, and in their context. So when it says Abraham was ordered to sacrifice his only son Isaac that was written in the context of surrounding cultures which did practice human sacrifice. There was no stronger way to teach that Yahweh did not want human sacrifice. It is interesting to remember Abraham was the very beginning of the Jewish people so the teaching about human sacrifice was one of the very first taught by Yahweh.

All of this applies to our discussion about evolution because the argument against evolution is based on the Jewish word we translate as “day”. That is, the seven days of creation were 7 ‘days’ as we know days; 24 hours. If that is true then obviously evolution over millions of years is not possible.

You may find it helpful to prayerfully read and consider this chapter from Thielen’s book before reading his conclusion and my ‘ps’ below.

Theilen: Science and faith are fully compatible and theistic evolution is a perfectly acceptable Christian belief.

Ps from Ken: I want to reinforce a point Theilen makes. The discussions is not ONLY about evolution, it is about ALL of science. If the earth is less than 70,000 years old then all forms of science are wrong. Furthermore that can only be possible if God deliberately created the universe in a manner designed to fool us. Example: If the universe is only 70,000 years old than there can be no stars more than 70,000 light years away from us – which means 99+% of the stars either do not exist, or God plays with the speed of light. Or God allows Satan to play with the speed of light. Paul tells us God is the God of truth and I believe that.

Chap. 1 - Catastrophes "What is the least I can believe & still be a Christian?"

2011-10-29T12:24:00.000-04:00

Must I believe God causes cancer, car accidents and other catastrophes?

(first section of book: What is the least I can believe and still be a Christian? by: Martin Thielen)

I suspect we have all heard someone say, usually in a quiet voice, "It was God's will", or "It is all part of God's plan" or something similar when a catastrophe hits. Some TV preachers like to find a reason that God is punishing someone when a hurricane, earth quake, or even a terrorist attack happens.

Is this true? Must I believe God looked down and sent a drunk driver to kill little Emma Jane?

On the other hand, if God does not make such decisions, then how can God be all knowing and all powerful? If God is all knowing and all powerful than God MUST be in charge of everything! Right?

Please add her thoughts as a comment and respond to the comments made by other people. Watch for further posts on the other book sections.

Chap 2 - Doubts: "What's the least I can believe & be a Christian?"

2011-10-29T12:10:00.006-04:00

(second section of book: What is the least I can believe and still be a Christian? by: Martin Thielen)

Good Christians Don't Doubt. (??)

If you looked at my blog about “what is the churches’ primary failure” you will have seen me talk about how today’s educational system encourages questions. Memorization is no longer the primary skill students must have. This approach began at least 40 years ago so most of us were educated under the “new system”.

The implications for churches is that people have been told it is OK, and better than OK to question, challenge, and even doubt their instructors. I believe that long term this will become the primary legacy of the internet. Not instant access to information but needing to question and doubt everything we see and hear. (Did you get the email saying the sun did not rise in the east but that was all a governmental coverup? No? Actually I have not started that one around in fear people would believe it!)

Some people will believe about anything if it is said with enough confidence and on a pretty enough webpage. That’s why I argued that the churches’ failure to educate was so important. People want to know the truth and we (the church = all members) should be willing, even anxious to tell it! When that includes questions we cannot answer — admit it! I have a belief about the core reason Jesus had to die on the cross but will freely tell you other explanations can be defended.
Funny thing is that it is doubts that make many people comfortable! As I said, we have been taught to challenge and question so when we can challenge and question we are in a comfortable environment. Furthermore, I know of no way to really learn except to challenge and question — and doubt.

The problem of course is not the doubts, it is living with the doubts. Can I live with a faith that I do not fully understand? ………. Why not? I fly in airplanes without being able to design one. My doctor will soon stick with a needle full of a chemical which will help my back pain. The doctor will explain what it is and what it is supposed to do. The doctor may even talk about “how” the medicine should help. But I will not be able to fully understand all that. Instead I accept the doctor’s advice — on faith.

What do you think?

Post some thoughts in the block below so others can respond. You might want to spend some time in thoughtful prayer before you read Thielen’s conclusion posted below and my post-script.

-

Thielen: Doubt is not the enemy of faith but part of authentic Christianity.
ps: I especially like two quotes he includes: Tennyson: “There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds.” and Madeleine L’Engle: “I believe in God with all my doubts” (not despite her doubts)

Introduction "What's the least I can believe & still be Christian?"

2011-10-29T12:03:00.003-04:00

(Introduction) “What is the least I can believe and still be a Christian?”

October 26, 2011 – 11:38 pm

Ok, time to get started with the book “What is the least I can believe and still be a Christian?” by Martin Thielen. I am very excited about these conversations and invite you to comment at any time, even if it is simply to say “hmmmm”

ONLY rule — we must be polite to each other! It is perfectly acceptable to post “the Bible is a bunch of junk”. It is not acceptable to post “the Bible is a bunch of junk – you idiot!!”
It will work best if you buy the book and read the individual discussions. Most of them are only 2-4 pages long so an easy read! That is not so you will agree with Thielen. I think he is wrong a couple times. But it provides the background for the discussions. (Please simply ask if you need a scholarship for the book.)

In the book’s introduction, Thielen writes about a man who told Thielen right off that he was an atheist. After some conversations the same man said “I realize I don’t reject Christianity. Instead, I reject the way intolerant Christians package Christianity.” — wow. What an insight. The reason people reject Christianity has little to do with God, or for that matter the Bible, but because of the way it is presented.

I would go a step further and say it is not even about the contents of the Bible although most of us wonder about various parts. Rather it is about how some people twist the Bible to make their opinions known.

I will create a post for each of the sections. Feel free to jump around a bit if one does not interest you. Don’t worry about when they were first posted (when the F2F groups met) so go back if you want.

Enjoy!!

The churches' failure

2011-10-26T10:48:00.000-04:00

THE CHURCH’S FAILURE

This summer when I came across the book What is the least I can believe and still be a Christian (the Rev. Martin Thielen) I was actually looking for another book. I have become more and more aware of what I consider to be the primary failure of most churches. In fact, I would say the primary failure of THE CHURCH (as in the universal body of Christian churches).

Our, and I do mean “our”, failure is a failure to educate. Or to use a lesser known term: our failure to provide an “apology of Christianity”. In this context the word “apology” does not mean saying we are sorry. Rather it means being able to explain the basics of Christianity. More importantly it means to answer the questions raised by people.

Our failure goes way beyond the failure to reach out to unchurched persons. Our failure is the primary reason (I believe) there are unchurched persons! Our failure probably is more evident in the people who attend every week, but still have many unanswered questions. I find myself thankful and appreciative of those who come DESPITE the church’s failure.

For example, “why did Jesus have to die a horrible death?” Frankly and honestly there is no single, clear explanation in scripture (again, in my opinion). And the words scripture uses such as “ransom” raise more questions than they answer! After all, who/what has so much power to force the almighty God to pay any ransom?

The primary danger the church faces is not ignorance, but mis-information. When the seeker is told something, then later discovers it is wrong the seeker no long has faith in the speaker. For example, I wonder how many popular speakers even know there is no final battle in the book of Revelation. Or know there is no rapture in that book? Those are both concepts which are ‘borrowed’ from other scriptures and inserted into the narrative in Revelation to make the speakers point. Can I prove those speakers have it wrong? No. But I can say they are changing Holy Scripture!

The church should be willing to aggressively teach what Scripture says while being humble enough to admit the uncertainties. After all, it is the uncertainties which make this a “religion” and not a “science”. If we honestly and sincerely knew it all, we would not need faith and probably not need God! That said, I believe firmly we can honestly and sincerely proclaim that we do know all that is essential: That God’s loves each and every one of us very much.

We, and our children have been raised in an educational system which encourages questions. At one time education was more focused on memorization without much explanation. Now we are expected to question and doubt. Our teenager class this year discussed the time before the big bang. Was there time? Was there God? That is a very different atmosphere than when I took confirmation class!

We are beginning the first discussions about Thielen’s book. Email me at ken@st-christopher.org for more information including the on-line sites. I posted the basic table of contents at www.st-christopher.org/WhatIsTheLeastTOC.pdf

Who are we called to serve?

2011-08-30T17:40:00.000-04:00

One of the major challenges for Christians is getting our heads around Jesus' attitude toward other people. Jesus loved them all. In fact, the primary difference between Christianity and the other major religions is that our Christian God loves us - we might (we frequently) disappoint God. We might (we frequently) even anger God but we never lose God's love.

In other religions, including Judiasm, there is at least the sense that the human is to love and obey their god after which their god may agree to help them. Christianity begins with God loving us and God hoping we will respond.   In other words, in other religions god responds to humans, in Christianity humans respond to God.

Jesus demonstrates that by constantly being in the company of those the "good Jews" would avoid. He spends time with prostitutes, tax collectors, and the general scum of the earth.

What's even more interesting is the pattern of Jesus' interactions. Have you ever noticed He would enter a village, heal the sick, and only then begin to teach? We are never told how many He healed stuck around to hear the teaching.   When He healed the ten lepers only one returned to even say "thank you" so the odds are good that lots of people never bothered to listen to the teachings.

People took what God/Jesus offered and then ran away without listening much less responding.  Jesus responded to those terribly ungrateful people by ..... healing more of them.

I don't believe we build up a credit balance in heaven with our actions. But that image, inaccurate though it is, might help us understand that it is not a particularly Christian action to help (say give money to) our best friend who we love dearly. Any atheist would give money to their best friend.

However if we buy a hamburger for the smelly, toothless, "don't want anyone to see me with him" man at the corner ---- THAT is a Jesus action.

Ahhh ! That raises another question. What about the people who will back away from us, pretend not to see us, fail to invite us to parties because we were seen with that smelly, toothless man?

Ultimately the question is whether we are concerned with their opinions or God's opinion. Do we want God to smile at us or are we afraid those other people will not smile at us?

The biggest challenge may be to understand that we are also called to serve those who do not understand God's love for the poor and needy. In many ways that friend who questions our sanity needs our help even more than the begger on the corner. NOT in some judgmental, negative way but in the sense that if we don't feel God's love for the smelly begger, we cannot honestly feel God's love for us.

Churches and restaurants

2011-08-14T13:55:00.000-04:00

A reflection from the summer number 4 (give or take a couple)

As I mentioned in an earlier blog, I attended the National Evangelical Workshops (NEW) this summer. I did raise my arms a couple times -- but only to ask questions! :)

Reflecting on some of the workshops (they tend to bleed together in my head so I apologize for not giving credit where it is due!) I kept trying to understand our role in the building of God's kingdom. More specifically, our role in helping others grow closer to God. Those 'others' include the people in our pews already as well as those who would never enter a church. Plus, we are 'other' to other people so we are included in that equation too.

It struck me for some reason that the church community (the people not the institution) are somewhat like a restaurant. We are the wait staff or to be more scriptural, we are the servers.

God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is the chef. God has chosen that role for some reason. Few of us (none of us?) grow closer to God without the help of some other people. God creates the 'meal' the main course of which is God's love for us. But someone has to bring the meal to us. Someone has to tell us about God's love.

As the servers our job is to pick up the meal God has prepared and bring it to the customers.

I was once at a fantastic restaurant -- fantastic food. But after 45 minutes our water had not even arrived so I left, without tasting the meal. The servers fell down on the job; not the chef.

Couple things I like about this image. Primarily I like the fact that as servers our job is simply to distribute what someone else (God) has created. Our job is not to create. Our job is not even to explain fully. I frequently ask servers "what is the best thing on the menu?". I have been told a selection but never told what ingredients are in it. The server knew what worked but not why it worked. We do not need to be able to explain everything about God -- only tell people that God loves them. If I ask a server if there is papricka in a dish I am not surprised to have them say they will need to check. If someone asks a question about God we can not answer there is no reason, and no shame in saying "Let me check".

In my image I see the current customers as the people already in the church. They too need to be fed. Those who do not have a church are those we are encouraging to give it a try. Again, think of visiting a good restaurant. Very likely someone told you about it. Maybe it was paid advertising but the impact is even greater when someone you know recommends it. When you arrive, someone greets you pleasantly, tells you something about what is happening (the specials), makes sure you are comfortable with the menu, and then when you leave says "thank you".

We can be servers bringing God's love into someone's life.

The Reason for Church Groups

2011-08-14T13:54:00.000-04:00

(note -- I just discovered that I was not receiving your comments to respond to. My fault - had wrong button clicked - sorry!)

A reflection from the summer number 3 (I think)

While I was attending the National Evangelical Workshops (yup! They let an Episcopalian in!! Seriously they always have great 'stuff'.) While at the NEW I began pondering why various church groups exist. What is their purpose? That begins with and includes the governing body - why bother? I have frequently pointed out that in our area our Vestry (elected board) could meet all church law requirements in about 2 hours A YEAR! So what's happening?

Rather than an explanation or definition I came up with an evaluation tool. Every moment should be divided into whether it focuses on 'institution' or 'ministry'. Obviously at times there is overlap but surprisingly most issues are easy to establish. I offer as the defining question: could the ministry continue if this (whatever) did not exist? Notice I did not ask if the ministry works better with it but simply if it could exist. So for example, the building is completely on the 'institution' side of the equation. For small churches especially, most of the budget ends up on the 'institution' side. Even staff, unless the discussion is about their ministry, are 'institution'.

My measuring stick is that every church group should spend 75% of their time on ministry and only 25% on institution.

One thing that evaluation is likely to do is change the conversation about a question into a ministry discussion --- good thing. Rather than a lengthy debate over what color to paint the Sunday School room, discuss what ministries go on in that room. If the color choice does not affect the ministries, allow 5 minutes for discussion and then pull a choice out of hat!

That said, allow me to stress that physical conditions can affect ministries. A poorly lit nursery can discourage a family from returning so the lighting becomes a ministry question.

Also good staff, supplies, music, etc. etc. can greatly improve ministry. The issue is not to eliminate them all but rather to help focus on the important. I once was consulting at a church that had spent 2 years arguing over a chandelier in the narthex (lobby)! It was ugly -- but the real problem was that the people of the church could not turn their attention to ministry and away from the chandelier.

Activities designed to deepen the spiritual lives of the group members (individually and corporately) definitely fall under 'ministry'. I am pleased that our Vestry begins with a time to discuss what is happening in their lives, then the people we serve (members), Bible study, learning about our mission, and prayer. Those frequently take over half the meeting and are clearly 'ministry'. That beginning also clearly changes the tone of the meeting.

Wouldn't it be interesting if someone did a time line of each meeting noting whether it was spent on 'institution' or 'ministry'?

people already in the pews

2011-07-15T18:17:00.003-04:00

I went to a series of workshops this past weekend which were first class. BUT ... as with many evangelicals (yeah, this Episcopalian was actually talking about that stuff) I found one fascinating pattern. There was a tendency, not unanimous, to focus only on the unhatched. One speaker said that every expense in the church should be evaluated against how many unchurched people were being reached by the activity.

OK ... but what about the people already in the pew? It seemed to me that there was an underlying assumption that the people attending church no longer needed to grow spiritually. That the church (institution) need not (should not?) put any focus on helping the people in the pew grow closer to God.

I respectively but energetically disagree. In fact I would argue that the primary responsibility of the institutional church is to help the people in the pew grow spiritually SO THAT they can do a better job reaching out to the unchurched. Notice what I said --- the responsibility of all Christians is to help other Christians grow with God. That includes the ones already in the pews and those who have never attended church.

And, before anyone gets too angry at me, allow me to agree with their argument!! I pushed the social justice issues down the priority list to #3. First we grow with God, then we help others grow with God, and then we respond to God's love by serving the poorest among us. NOT to ignore that last part but to put it in context. Part of my explanation for this pattern is theological and scriptural but another part is practical. If I can help 5 other people grow closer to God then those 5 people are likely to respond by serving the poor. Therefore this pattern results in more social justice efforts, not fewer.

Our neighbor' s surgery

2010-09-18T09:15:00.004-04:00

As I sit here in the sun room drinking my luke warm coffee with painkiller flavoring --- and feeling a tiny bit sorry for myself --- I watch people walking outside, riding their bicycles, driving to the store and wonder? ..... Why are they not all feeling sorry for me ?!?

OK, OK, so I am feeling sorry for myself. But, it also made me wonder. There are seven houses I can easily see from this window. How many of those people are in pain from an illness, or surgery, or the death of a loved one, or unemployment, etc.?

Or what about joys? A couple years ago a neighbor put up one of those flags which announced the birth of a child. As far as know we were the only neighbors who responded. We knew about that but how many of those neighbors now have new jobs? Or just happy to not have been laid off?

Most importantly --- how do we learn these things? How do we get to know our neighbors or even people we call 'friends' well enough to learn these things about them? Why is it we are more likely to learn about good and bad on Facebook then any other way? How can we respond as Christians when we don't even know what is happening?

No answers --- just reflections.

A passion

2010-09-16T18:06:00.002-04:00

Recently a diocesan (churches in area) meeting began with the facilitator asking people to introduce them self by name, church, and passion. It was interesting hearing people try to express their passion. I know many of the people who were there and knew them to be loving, caring, Christian people in the best sense of that description.

What intrigued me was how, as the introductions moved around the circle, people began saying "all those things plus ___" As if they had to be passionate about everything everyone else was passionate about.

I KNOW THE FEELING! Nobody mentioned anything I would consider unworthy of a Christian's passion. Everyone was talking about serving and caring for other people. All good stuff.

But, I have long since learned what all the business schools, leadership academies, and self-help groups tell you: "When you focus on everything you are focused on nothing." Or, "when you focus on many things you accomplish very little"

In other words if you are trying to feed the homeless, house the homeless, care for the sick, visit the lonely, inspire the uninspired, etc. etc. etc. you may accomplish a little of each but not much of anything. AND, probably accomplish less of any one because you don't take the time to truly learn and understand how to be most effective in that arena.

In sports you are always taught to "play your position". In the military a similar teaching: "depend on the other guy". When we try to do multiple tasks we do none well.

So, what is the primary passion for a church? Or, better expressed, what does God/Jesus want to be the primary passion for a church?

Please note this is called a "blog" as in the sense of a discussion underway and not a lecture of absolutes!

That's important because my answer to that question about a church's primary passion has changed and continues to change. I swing back and forth between "different answers for different congregations" to "there is only one real answer although the application may vary".

I began my ordained ministry expecting to spend my time at homeless shelters and soup kitchens. I felt, and still believe that is where Jesus would be found more often than not.

However over the years I have been struck by the number of people who do not know God's love. A very large percentage of our population are getting the physical support they need (food and shelter) but no spiritual life.

Furthermore I am struck by how many of the large, evangelical churches have become extremely active in social outreach with the poor OUT OF an understanding of scripture and God's will.

Finally I find myself asking about the implications when the atheists of High Point, NC group serve food at the homeless shelter. Atheists can serve food, visit the lonely, etc. Therefore, I am pondering, what is the church's role? What "position" is God calling us to play that only we can do? PLEASE KNOW I firmly believe that includes working at the homeless shelter, etc. That is not the question. The question is about a church's primary role. When resources, and especially human resources, must be allocated, what gets the most consideration?

I am currently thinking the answer should be: "to deepen the spiritual lives of the people around us". I am currently thinking that our first, second, and third priorities should be to seek to deepen the spiritual lives of the people around us. That is not instead of serving the poor but rather the manor in which we do so.

When we are standing in line at the soup kitchen, dishing out meals does the atheist or doubter standing next to us know why we are there? If not, we have missed a golden opportunity.

Do the 60% of our neighbors who are not connected with a worshiping congregation know that corporate worship is important to us? Is it possible that if we told them, they might become active in social outreach thereby expanding our reach?

Possibly when we are asked on Monday, "How was your weekend?" answering "the homeless shelter was a very powerful experience" might generate a more meaningful conversation than "the Panther's offense stinks!!" And yes, absolutely yes, some people will turn and walk away from you if you say anything about serving God.

Question -- what is the top priority? Talking football with that person or taking a chance that someone in earshot might be interested in God?

This blog has moved

2010-04-29T16:23:00.001-04:00

This blog is now located at http://stchristopherpastorsblog.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://stchristopherpastorsblog.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

Styles of spirituality

2009-10-04T08:18:00.006-04:00

This week at St. Christopher's Episcopal Church we will experience all three basic styles of Episcopal worship. What we usually miss is that these are not entertainment styles, but different ways to experience God.

In our jargon we call the more formal style "High Church". This frequently includes chanting, incense (smoke), lots of bells and lots of candles. The clergy vest themselves in special clothing. The physical elements are as formal as possible: silver, linen, etc. The music frequently is classical.

Our regular 5 pm service does not go very far toward the "contemporary" end of the spectrum but it clearly is a step that way. The contemporary style looks to use modern elements to touch people. The music tends to be newer. In many churches the service will look like a modern college classroom with powerpoint presentations of the music and illustrations for the sermon. Usually the setting is much more informal with few candles or linens and ceramic rather than silver.

The "broad church" style attempts to spread its arms and reach toward both ends. There may be a mix of music. The setting is not as formal as the "high church" but more formal than the "contemporary".

Notice I avoid the word "traditional" since what is "traditional" to a person is what they grew up with!! (Old joke -- "traditional in the Episcopal Church is the way I want it done next time!!)

Each style illustrates or illuminates God differently. More importantly each style helps us know and touch a different aspect of God. To do that we must understand the extremes of God. Remember that God is not either/or but is both/and.

On one extreme is the imminent God -- the God who is closer to us than our next breath. The God would walks with us every step of our life. The God who knows us much better than we know ourselves.

On the other end is the creator God. The God who is so far above us that a mere thought created the entire world. The God who is more magnificent than we can even begin to imagine. The God we have no right to approach except if allowed.

The contemporary style tends to illustrate or illumine the imminent God. We avoid the things that might seem to separate us from God: fancy linens, fancy clothing, etc. This style is like having a good friend visit us for lunch.

The high church style tries to illustrate or illumine the creator God ... the God who we really have no right to approach. This style is more like the mail room clerk having the CEO of a multi-national corporation come for dinner! There is no way we can live up to what is expected but we still try to do so. We use all our fanciest things. We do so knowing we cannot impress God, but as a way to show respect for God.

My point is not that either is right or wrong --- simply they are different. And each will touch each of us at different times in our lives. Anyone who knows me knows the high church is not 'my thing' ! But what you may not understand is that is partially because I grew up informal Protestant. But also partially because I tend to think of God as the creator God .... a being so far above me that even a glimpse would be an unexpected gift. So the broad church or contemporary style brings God home to me in a way I need to remember. BUT THAT'S ME!

Other people will have exactly the opposite reaction. Great! The point is to know God and touch God in the way that works for you.

What's most amazing is that our God is so generous, so loving that we are provided with these multiple approaches. Thanks be to God!!

Proper perspective

2009-08-05T10:06:00.003-04:00

Every once in a while we get a kick in the butt from God!

Yesterday I answered the phone for one of "those" calls. A man asked to speak to the pastor -- which means either a salesman or someone asking for money. I listened politely to his very common story --- was addicted, now clean, getting help, will be much better in a couple months, etc. etc. Can you detect the attitude with which I was listening? Then he mentioned how I had helped him last year and apologized for (1) asking so much last year and (2) calling again. My thought --- he is smooth!

Being the type who likes to be prepared I had already "written" my response that we don't have any money to give out and he should seek help from the various agencies.

He then said he was staying at Open Door --- a positive thing. Too often someone calls and explains they are "too good" to stay at Open Door. Plus he had gone to Salvation Army for some clothes --- OK - maybe he is not the biggest con around.

I am trying to politely, always politely, interrupt him to tell him I am too busy to talk any more when he says that what he really would like some help with is .... (I was sure it was a hotel room for a week) ..... underwear and socks. That he would really like to put on some clean underwear and socks. Oh, and if he could have a cheap (kept stressing 'cheap') lock for his locker to protect his things that would be wonderful!

I needed clean clothes because I felt so dirty. I preached two weeks ago on the feeding of the multitude and how Jesus did not check any one's credentials. Jesus never asked if someone was worthy or not. I did say that we need to try and be careful because we had only so much to share but focusing on whether or not a person is worthy would not be Jesus' way.

Guess what I was doing?

OK God, you got to kick me in the butt. And God, I hope you got a chuckle out of this!!! Have to stop now and go buy some underwear, socks, and a lock.

Dis-connected People

2009-06-16T10:54:00.015-04:00

One of my personal interests is the group of people some call the "dis-connected". These are people who believe in God, are very interested in having a deeper spiritual life, but have found churches wanting. (NB: I am a firm believer that if there is "fault" in this situation, it is the churches' fault and not the person's. If a restaurant goes out of business for lack of customers you do not blame the customers.)

Some people are now talking about a "post-Evangelical age" By this they mean that the people who I call "dis-connected"are not finding what they need in either the old style churches or the newer, evangelical style churches. Dr. Scot McKnight at North Park University claims there are 8 characteristics that are generally shared (my comments in italics):
1) cannot accept Bible inerrancy (I suspect that in many cases the issue is less Bible inerrancy than that they have heard/been taught improperly. When Jesus said: "I am the vine, you are the branches" He was not predicting leaves growing from our hands! When the psalmist says the mountains shall sing we need not ask 'which hymn?' If I am correct then my point that the fault lies with the churches is even more accurate.
2) the have been taught a caricature of Jesus rather than the real thing (yup!)
3) do not believe that when science and the Bible colide, science is wrong (yup! Unfortunately we are AGAIN in the topic of bad teaching. We, and most churches, say the Bible contains everything necessary for salvation but never claim it is also a science or history text.)
4) disillusionment with the 'clay feet' of church leadership, and not just the big names but the general leadership (yup --- sadly, very sadly --- yes. That said, I do think it is important to remember that (surprise!) church leaders are human beings with all the human faults. The issue should never be perfection but striving for improvement.)
5) teaching from some churches that 'people not like us are doomed' is rejected (yup! How anyone can argue that the Jesus who went to the Samaritan woman would reject other people is beyond me!!)
6) God is totally gracious and loving -- not angry and vengeful (hmmm ... this one could be dangerous. "Totally gracious and loving" can drift into a God who doesn't care what is done. That said, a God whose basic nature is gracious and loving, not angry and vengeful, is (I believe) what scripture describes.)
7) acceptance of homosexuality without being specifically pro-gay -- to live in harmony with gay and lesbian friends (yup. I always stress a couple things. First a "gay is wrong" OR a "gay is OK" position can be supported from scripture. So it is fine to have strong, personal beliefs. But to suggest the person who disagrees is doomed does not make sense. Second, scripture mentions homosexuality only about 8 times out of thousands of verses so, at worst, it is not a big deal. If we spent a tenth the energy on what scripture does speak about the most -- caring for the poor -- we would be much better off!! It frustrates me how few people have actually read the passages they "quote". For example, Sodom and Gomorrah (and the story's repeat in Numbers) is only about rape. That is all that is mentioned.)
8) language is culturally shaped which affects the theology is describes. (yup! For example, the word frequently translated "fear" as in "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of faith" can equally accurately be translated "awe" as in "being in awe of the Lord is the beginning of faith" ---- How very different our understanding is when we use a different word!)

So what does all this mean for a church today? I believe it emphasizes the need for honesty and sincerity. But also emphasis the importance of being willing to listen, and speak. To hear their stories and share ours. Most importantly, and the part which can be taken from the evangelical history, is the need for a strong desire to be with people. That is, a strong desire to have those people be with us and us with them so we can walk together in our journey. Which means, our desire to be with each other is much stronger than our desire to disagree.
see: http://www.alternet.org/story/140321/america%27s_%27emerging_church%3A%27_will_a_new_post-evangelical_christianity_reflect_more_tolerant_views/?page=entire

LIVING IN A WORLD OF EVIL

2009-04-10T23:03:00.009-04:00

The title for this entry will upset some people after they read this. Sorry. But this really is a reflection on our lives and our world. I am using this post to think through an issue in my life.

I LOVE college basketball. First and foremost I am a basketball fan. As far as teams go I root for Duke, then Wake Forest, then UNC and then just about any ACC team against non-ACC team. My thinking is that the more any ACC team wins, the better my teams look. As a Duke fan I can say with excitement that UNC played one of the best NCAA series ever played. They were great!

I LOVE college basketball. With all the stress and work of my life college basketball is one of my few real diversions. And yet ........... I wonder if next year I can enjoy it as much as I have in past years. This year I became more aware I guess ... life and this world have not changed but maybe I have .... I became more aware that being in the midst of some basketball rivalries feels as if it is being the midst of dark evil. The nastiness, the insults, the hatred can be as un-Christian as anything.

Am I over reacting? I hope so because I LOVE college basketball and would hate to give it up. Scripture tells us to be in the world but not of the world. Our Baptismal questions ask us if we will renounce the forces of evil. So how can I be in the midst of that and still claim to be Christian? I can do it in other venues because, frankly, I don't care about them! But I care about the basketball game. I love to watch good basketball. I love to be with real fans. But to be with people whose primary concern is how much they HATE another team? HATE a group of human beings.

My weakness ... my sin ... is that I cannot simply sit and hear people insult, demean, and be hateful to another person, or team, without getting emotionally involved. I am upset at myself and ashamed that during the NCAA tournament when I went to the UNC - Duke doubleheader that I allowed some nasty, hateful UNC fans get to me. (Make no mistake about it -- Duke fans can be nasty and hateful too! And make no mistake about it, most fans are good people.) I guess I can take some relief in that the worse thing I actually SAID was: "The only class UNC has in the buildings!" --- OK, somewhat clever! But not nice and certainly not loving and certainly not Christian.

Should I renounce being within such atmospheres? Is that the Christian response? Should I only sit in front of my own TV and make a point of not being with other devoted fans? Is it possible to find other fans who can get emotionally and deeply involved in a game without being nasty?

What does it mean to renounce evil when that evil is standing next to you? Does it mean ignoring it? Does it mean challenging the evil? Actually I doubt it means challenging the evil, at least in the moment since I sincerely doubt that can result in anything less than conflict.

What would Jesus do?

CHURCH CHANGES

2009-01-22T09:51:00.003-05:00

This past week I have been (again) reflecting on the many changes at St. Christopher's --- and the many changes likely still to come.

There is a theory about churches, and other human groups, which says they function in various ways depending on their size. For churches the term "family size" is used for the smallest churches. These are churches which do not have full time clergy, frequently do not have any consistent clergy presence, and therefore the leadership tends to be by one or more of the families.

As the church grows the role of the clergy grows and the next size is usually termed "pastoral" -- with more leadership by an ordained pastor.

Next comes the "transitional stage" (more in a moment)

The "program size" describes churches big enough that individuals, even clergy, cannot be active in everything. Therefore the "programs" of the church provide a great deal of the leadership.

Finally the largest churches are known as "resource" or "corporate" size churches. These are churches which function similarly to a major corporation with a CEO and a Board of Directors.

St. Christopher's was in the "family" size just a few years ago. You could hold a congregational meeting around the Sunday morning coffee pot! And it seemed as if every family was represented, or recently been represented on the Vestry.

We now are somewhere in the "pastoral" and "transitional" stages. This change is the most difficult to make. Largely that is because people are used to the centrality of the clergy so keep looking to the clergy. The problem is that the clergy can only juggle a limited number of activities! The challenge therefore is to raise up a new leadership structure.

BUT -- the even bigger challenge is to raise up a leadership structure which is permission giving and not power controlling. Too often the leadership becomes focused on their ideas and interests rather than the ideas and interests of the people involved. (St. Christopher's has done a great job minimizing this problem but we need to be ever vigilant.)

The best term is "servant leaders". I keep emphasizing to the Vestry that 99% of the time our response to someone should be: "How can I help?" and not "do it this way". Trying to come up with extreme and somewhat crazy examples --- if the person leading the pancake supper says "this year we will have triangular pancakes to symbolize the trinity" -- we may think "that's not how it has been done before" or even think "that's going to be difficult to do" but we don't call a committee meeting and vote on the shape of pancakes!

At the same time if someone steps forward and says "we are not going to have Sundy School for the kids anymore --just a play time", then the leadership does need to say "that is not consistent with the goals and vision of this church. Therefore Sunday School will continue."

The difference of course is that the shape of the pancakes does not conflict with the goals and visions of the church whereas eliminating Sunday School very much does.

So we need to move into a new leadership stage but we need to avoid the pitfalls which have destroyed other churches. The rule in business is to be structured as if you are 20% larger than you are and you will grow into the structure. If you structure for your current size you will never grow.

And yet if the business (or church) discourages entrepreneurial thinking - which tends to mean doing things in ways we never did it before -- that too will create negativity and a lack of growth.

The best part of all this is that ultimately it is about doing the many wonderful things we do, even better. It is about making more outreach and spiritual growth possible. It is about encouraging and enabling people to do what they feel called by God to do. St. Christopher's is a fantastic church and the growth is about being more fantastic as we live into Jesus' commandment to reach out to all people.

A delightful Episcopal church

2008-08-10T19:53:00.004-04:00

One of the joys of being on vacation is the ability to visit other churches. While staying in Marlinton, WV we discovered a delightful little Episcopal Church - St. John's. If more Episcopal Churches were as friendly, yet serious as St. John's the Episcopal Church would explode with new members!

We were not dressed for church -- we thought we would have left before Sunday (see blog about the Green Briar Trail) --- and yet we were welcomed warmly. We decided to be true Episcopalians and not arrive TOO early - about 10:55 was early enough. Several people were standing around talking when we walked in but everyone stopped their conversation to greet us. (I did not tell them I was a priest and I think they were much more impressed with Shirley's singing anyway!)

Although there were "only" about 10 people present there was no sense of dispair or depression over numbers but real joy over being together and worshiping.

We used Morning Prayer and the leader, an English woman with a delightful voice, did a great job. She put energy and enthusiasm into the service without it becoming at all disrespectful. She read the gospel lesson as it was written, as a story, with some inflection at appropriate places.

After the service we just stood and chatted with a couple members including a man, Dr. Jim (did not catch his last name) who will soon be ordained a deacon and later a priest. He will be serving two congregations. I sooooo wanted to give him some advice but managed to hold my tongue! (Ask Shirley if you doubt my word on that!)

Whimper not a bang

2008-08-04T22:25:00.010-04:00

Well, the meeting of Anglican (Episcopal) Bishops from around the world, known as the Lambeth Conference, has ended with more of a whimper than a bang ---- personally, I am very glad!!

One of the things I have noticed is that Jesus spent very little time, even with the most generous count, discussing human sexuality. He never once mentioned homosexuality (which is NOT to say it is unimportant!).

My point is simply that we should put the emphasis on issues Jesus emphasized -- care of the poor, our excessive focus on money and material things, healing the sick, visiting the lonely, etc. etc. When our resources, especially our time and energy, are focused in a way which is greatly out of sync with Jesus' focus --- it is time to reconsider our efforts.So I was glad that the Lambeth Conference did not become a 10 day discussion on homosexuality.

I know that those who believe the church should condemn any and all homosexuals believe the fact that many bishops around the world did not attend is a sign they reject the right to even discuss the issue. And there is probably some truth in that.

However I find myself siding with those who say that the fact that over 2/3rds of the bishops from around the world could gather and have honest, deep, meaningful discussions about a number of issues is very encouraging. Furthermore, I am intrigued by the fact that many of the Bishops who did not attend come from some of the poorest, least healthy, and most violent societies in the world. (Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, and Kenya) I have to wonder if God wants His church leaders focused on what happens in New Hampshire while so many of God's children are dying in these Bishop's country of responsibility. I wonder if God would not have preferred they attended Lambeth, made their points on homosexuality, but then also joined in the conversations about how to save the lives of people in their home churches?

We need to continue discussing the issues around human sexuality including homosexuality but also questions about divorce, remarriage, and female church leadership. Those are somewhat less visible but just as divisive in some ways as homosexuality.

I have my thoughts and beliefs, beginning with the firm belief that only God is right all the time, I am not God, and therefore I must be wrong some of the time. So I try very hard to "discuss" while remembering that I could be wrong. But I will "argue" on one point --- when someone says there is nothing to discuss because THEY know exactly what God intends -- I will disagree strongly!

I believe we can only learn what God intends by being willing to discuss --- and listen. We can only learn more from people who disagree with us. People who only repeat our own thoughts can teach us nothing.BUT --- a very important "but" if we spend more time on that then we do being "servants to all" as Jesus instructed us to do -- we have missed the point. I firmly believe God will forgive us for being wrong about capital punishment or abortion or whatever as long as we have honestly and sincerely attempted to understand God's mind. But, I also firmly believe God will be less open to people who fail to act in a loving manner to those around them --- including those we disagree with.

For closing thoughts by the Archbishop of Canterbury, our Presiding Bishop, and our own Bishop Curry you can go to www.episdionc.org for links.

Lambeth Conference - 2

2008-07-10T10:27:00.003-04:00

I suspect we will find many more blogs regarding this summer's Lambeth Conference! In summary that is the every 10 year gathering of Anglican (Episcopal) Bishops from throughout the world.

What the media and many other people have missed is that Lambeth was created as a "family gathering" and not a legislative session. Under our system, this group of bishops has zero authority except when they get home. They do sometimes pass resolutions but those are "sense of the gathering" style resolutions. That is: "the majority of the Bishops gathered hold the opinion that ____ "

Naturally people who agree with the statement like to emphasize it while those who do not tend to ignore the resolution.

Bishop Curry has written a short introduction to this year's Lambeth Conference which you can find at www.episdionc.org You can also go to http://www.episcopalchurch.org/episcopal_life.htm and get information from our national church. They try to be moderate but obviously have some bias. The other side is frequently found at http://www.livingchurch.org/ . They too make some effort to be moderate or balanced but also have a bit of an anti-establishment bias. (Lambeth is July 16-August 3)

My suggestion is to basically ignore the national press who still find it difficult to pronounce "Episcopalian" and watch these three places for updates.

Special music

2008-06-09T10:09:00.004-04:00

On June 8th Shirley and I went to All Saints for a concert by Deborah and Johathan Hutchinson. Wow!

I was tired. We had hustled all week to be ready for Blake Leckie's funeral and interment. That was on top of an already busy week. Then Sunday was the youth car wash which I had little to do with --- but it adds to the confusion! So Shirley and I wondered about even going but decided to give it a try. And we are so glad we did.

Shirley is the musician so I asked her afterwards to characterize the music. She said it all had a gospel theme by the style was impossible to characterize. There were hints of blues, soft rock, even a bit of new age. We were extremely impressed not only by the music, most of which (all?) they wrote but by the "production". Her voice is wonderful! And they way they blended voices, guitar, flute and keyboard was outstanding. Several times they introduced pieces by discussing the scriptural passage which inspired that song.

They gave me permission to post a song or two on this blog ... now I just have to figure out how to do it! (Any help out there?)

It is my sincere hope we can invite them to St. Christopher's sometime in the near future.

Scattering of Ashes

2008-06-09T10:04:00.002-04:00

Saturday for the first time our Memorial Garden was used as intended --- as a location to have a person's ashes scattered. Blake Leckie, one of our founding members, had specified that he wanted his body cremated and his ashes placed in the Memorial Garden.

Although this is not especially common, it is also not unknown. Frequently we hear of people wanting their ashes scattered over the ocean or at a favorite park. Blake was such a pillar of this church that he asked to have his placed here.

I had dug a small ditch for the ashes to be placed within. As the ashes were placed by his children, I covered them with white sand to prevent an blowing away. Later, after everyone had left, I covered them up with the garden dirt.

It was an amazingly moving time for me. Several other people made a similar comment. The Garden is now an extra special place.

Archbishop of Cantebury

2008-05-27T09:05:00.004-04:00

Funny thing --- every time I think we (St. Christopher's) are doing things in a modern way, I find we are behind the curve!!

The Archbishop of Canterbury is on YouTube! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCJ1G_3WPjw

If you have wondered "who is this guy anyway?" This could give you a small taste. PLUS - he is speaking about the upcoming Lambeth conference for most of the Anglican (the general name for the church we belong to) bishops. AND, in so doing he touches on the issues facing our worldwide church.

Although sexuality is the usually named issue, the issues are much more broad and difficult. The underlying issue is the issue of hierarchical authority. As the American bishops pointed out last year, the American church reduced the amount of hierarchical authority after the revolutionary war. (They went on to say: and we have no desire to become a colony again -- paraphrase) After the Revolutionary war we organized a church that has hierarchy -- bishops, but only our General Convention (similar to the US Congress) above the Bishops. The Presiding Bishop has virtually no authority. The Archbishop of Canterbury has no authority over US churches.

Many of our world wide cousins still have a stronger hierarchy and cannot understand that we do not. So they have gone around looking for someone to control us and are frustrated that no such power exists.

(Especially frustrating for me was finding out how many of my ordained, Episcopal colleagues did not understand this! I had friends argue that the Presiding Bishop should do this or the Archbishop of Canterbury should do that. When I pointed out that they did not have the authority to do those things -- I was challenged and doubted -- until they did some research!)

I am impressed that this worldwide gathering of church leaders will spend more time on Bible study than resolutions! What a great model.

We may be behind the technological curve but I am not sure I want to be on U-tube!

Evangelical Manifesto

2008-05-21T10:38:00.005-04:00

An article in the News & Record last Sunday mentioned an "evangelical manifesto" which was shaking up Washington DC! Great lead in ... had to go get it. "www.evangelicalmanifesto.com" The article stresses how the term "evangelical" has become synonymous (to many people anyway) with "right leaning Republicans". Since in many ways I consider myself evangelical -- that characterization really bothers me! And frankly, does not fit me.

The manifest states that "evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally". It goes on to say that "Evangelicals in American, along with people of all faiths and ideologies, represent the greatest challenges of the global era: "Living with our deepest differences"

Wow! We Episcopalians have been attempting to live with our deepest differences --- or at least some CLAIM to be seeking that goal. So to have this group, a group many Episcopalians consider the "other end of the spectrum" from us, to have this group make that claim is both challenging and encouraging.

Can we live up to that standard? A standard to be defined by our theology? More importantly perhaps, what is our theology?

Historically we have said that our theology is basically defined by the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. These are in the Prayer Book on page 358 and page 304 respectively with the Apostles Creed ending with the words: "and the life everlasting".

To that definition I would add (and I think most Episcopalians would agree) "the creeds as expanded upon by the remainder of the Baptismal Covenant" (You can go to www.BCPonline.org if you do not have your copy of the Prayer Book handy!)

As we look over those creeds we discover they say nothing about issues we disagree about, and various evangelical churches disagree about --- capital punishment is probably the easiest example to cite. You can build a pretty good case from Scripture either for or against capital punishment. People who say they go only from Scripture are picking which passages to cite. That's why it is so important to be willing to honestly listen to other people who disagree with us --- it is at least faintly possible they are right and we are wrong!

I mentioned a couple weeks ago how reading sermons and articles defending slavery which were written in the 1850's and 1860's really affected me. In many cases you could hear the sincere faith and belief of the writers. The fact they were wrong in defending slavery did not change the fact that at their deepest level of knowledge and belief they thought they were right. They thought they knew God's will. They thought they were reading scripture as God intended.

I try very hard to remember those authors every time I am absolutely sure I am right!

All that said, there is one issue or question I am totally unwilling to consider being wrong about --- God loves you!!! (and me)

OK I shocked and annoyed a few people by saying I consider myself an evangelical -- at least in many ways. So I guess it is only fair to define the term as I see it: (1) believing God loves us all - equally - even those who do not love God, (2) believing that Jesus meant what He said about how we need to be a servant to all, and especially to the "least of these", and (3) believing Jesus meant what He said in the great commission that our job is to go to all people and preach (word and action) the good news of God's love for them. (btw - that is a Ken Kroohs unauthorized paraphrase of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20

blessings

She's the star!

2008-04-23T19:26:00.003-04:00

The great little girl on the far right is Alyssa! My grand daugher.

Actually I put this up partially to test the use of videon on the blog.

God's referrals

2008-04-20T16:25:00.003-04:00

Have you ever referred some to a doctor or an attorney? By that I mean, known someone needed that kind of help and told them: "Oh, go see _____. They're great! They will help you."

I have been thinking about that because I believe that's essentially what happens when a visitor comes to our church --- God has referred them to us. We are then responsible for what happens.

THAT is a complete reversal of the thought process in many churches. In (too) many churches the thought is that the visitor is responsible for knowing the service, introducing them self, finding place to fit in, getting involved, etc.

If we take the attitude that we are responsible that makes a very BIG difference in our attitude. Its the difference between a retail store where you have to search everything out on your own and a store where people are available to help you. Of course we don't want to become the kind of place that pesters people either! And that used to be a concern of mine but I have come to the conclusion that very, very few churches have to worry about trying too hard.

At every meeting our Vestry (governing board) prays that God make us worthy of the responsibility placed on us.

Crazy Season

2008-03-27T19:06:00.003-04:00

Wow! The stretch from Christmas -- through Bishop Curry's visit --- through Lent --- and then Easter was just crazy! This is within one day the earliest Easter can be. Add the Bishop's visit in the middle and it becomes even busier.

All that said, it was an amazing stretch. The Bishop's visit was great! We have a DVD of the service. Email me or call the office at 869-5311 if you would like a copy. (Someday I will find time to figure out how to post videos on this blog. Probably easy --- after the first time!)

During Lent I tried something visual to go with the sermon theme. I used the theme of "you can only see clearly by looking through the cross" In other words, when we try to view our lives and our world without considering, or looking through the cross we see a distorted view. To make that a bit more obvious I took down the wooden cross behind the altar and covered all the windows with film. Then I cut out the shape of the cross so that was clear but the rest of the windows were fuzzy. (It worked better at night than during the day.) On Easter I took off the film and re-hung the wooden cross.

We also (with lots of help, especially from Tom Gordon and Bert Walls) installed a 15 station prayer walk at the church. We decided this year to go around the parking lot so it was easy for anyone during any weather. Several people commented on how much they appreciated this opportunity. One day I happened to see the meter reader looking at it and going through the booklet! (special thanks to Curtis Tysinger for bringing his power hole digger and to Bruce Kafer for helping to install all the sign posts.)

On Easter we changed the Prayer Walk from the traditional Stations of the Cross to a relatively new: Stations of the Resurrection.

Ash Wednesday fun

2008-02-06T11:26:00.000-05:00

A friend sent me this interchange about Ash Wednesday. The Roman Catholics and Baptists are having a discussion the Pentecostals join in! Enjoy

http://kansascitycatholic.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/lenten-fare-2008/

African Bishop's comments regarding gays

2008-01-24T15:49:00.001-05:00

I mentioned that at our Annual Convention the Bishop of Bostwana spoke. He spent most of his time explaining that the national and international media's comments on how Anglicans around the world feel ----- well let's say they are not telling the whole story! (surprised?)

Click here for an article about the Bishop's remarks. We did not get a written copy so this is the best summary I can offer. (You may have to enlarge it on your screen to read it easily.)

2008 Diocesan Convention

2008-01-20T11:44:00.000-05:00

I always explain that the Diocesan Convention is analogous to the state legislature --- except we only can meet for two days a year!

Our convention met on January 18 and 19th. Several interesting discussions were held.

As always, Bishop Curry's address to the convention was a major highlight! He spoke about how the church did not need a revival, which suggests doing what we have always done, but needs to be a new church. He did not mean that in a demeaning or insulting way but rather to suggest that our church (the people) should look like North Carolina. He quoted from the 3rd Bishop of NC who wrote in 1855 that our church had many of the wealthy people but where were the shop keepers, and where were the slaves? A courageous comment to make in 1855! This link is to the bull Pastoral Address by Bishop Curry but I also have some printed copies at the church.

We adopted a resolution formalizing a campaign diocese arrangement with the Diocese of Botswana (near South Africa - I had to look it up!) Bishop Mwamba was our keynote speaker. I wish his address was available! I will link you to the Greensboro News-Record article as soon as possible so look back here in a couple days. One of his points was to stress how, unlike what the international media may say, not everyone in Africa hates the US church! He stressed how most people were too focused on food and shelter to worry about another countries discussions over sexuality! Plus many people felt maintaining the Anglican Communion was more important than any single issue.

We adopted several other resolutions. Most of them, I am convinced, God has no interest in!! Sure it is important that we agree on how to count votes, etc. but I am sure God would drift out for a cup of coffee and conversation during those discussions. Still, I have included those for anyone interested. For some reason the set we were sent left out the one on the environment and energy conservation. Again, look back and I will link to that as soon as possible.

As has become the norm, the controversial one concerned sexuality and specifically the blessing of same sex unions. The final resolution had three resolves. The first one urges the Archbishop of Canterbury to invite the Bishop of New Hampshire, an openly gay man, to the worldwide Lambeth Conference. (Interesting -- extending such invitations is effectively the ONLY power the Archbishop of Canterbury has!) The argument is essentially, like him or not, Bishop Robinson is a duly elected Bishop and should be invited.

The second resolved asks that our deputies to the next General Convention (i.e. those from our Diocese) support "the full and equal participation of all persons regardless of sexual orientation in all aspects of the Church's ministries, lay or ordained." Although it does not say so quite that directly, the focus of this resolved seems to be on ordination. Effectively that is the only "aspect of the Church's life" currently in question. (see comments on marriage below)

The third resolve was the most controversial. It encourages the General Convention (which is analogous to the US Congress) to "call for the development of public liturgies for the blessing of same sex unions."

To fully understand this issue we must clarify some language issues. The church has NO POWER over who gets married and who does not. That power is entirely and completely a government issue. I can decide NOT to do a wedding, but if the state says a couple should not be married, I cannot do the marriage. For example, it was not so many years ago that a Black and a White could not be married. A priest could not decide to marry them no matter what the priest's opinion.

The church's power is over whose wedding is blessed. Even though I sign the marriage license, I do so as an unpaid employee of the State of NC -- not specifically as a priest. The blessing however is my choice.

Unfortunately the word "marriage" has been linked to religion, when there really is no such link. I wish I had good statistics but a very large percentages of "marriages" in NC have nothing to do with God. They are strictly civil unions with no mention of God at all. They are done in the courthouse or other venue by a civil employee such as a judge. In fact, our Prayer Book has a special service for such circumstances: "The blessing of a civil union." Many people have argued that churches should refuse to do the "marriage", let civil employees do that, and stick to the religious "blessing'. That is what Prince Charles did this last time for example. They went to the courthouse, were married, and then went to the church and asked God's blessing on the marriage. (Although the rule is unlikely to change and I am unlikely to become a stickler on this point -- I have come around to that opinion.)

So what this resolution requests is that the church develop services (liturgies) to allow the blessing of committed, monogamous couples of the same gender. As you probably know some states have approved doing this on a civil level to simplify things like health care decisions, inheritances, ownership, etc. However, this would again be separate from the civil legal decision but be "simply" asking God's blessing.

Opposition to this action seemed to fall into two camps. First there were people who were opposed entirely to the blessing of same sex unions. They (I am assuming here but it is a reasonable assumption) believe the Bible forbids such unions. People who disagree with that statement argue (again greatly simplifying a complex issue) that either those prohibitions were aimed at another society (similar to the prohibitions against certain foods) or second, that the Bible was prohibiting abusive sexual relations of any kind. (That is the stronger argument of the two I believe.)

(semi-aside. I think it is important to note that the discussion is seldom "throw out the Bible" but instead is: "are we understanding the Bible correctly? How did God intend us to understand this passage?)

The second reason for opposition was an issue of timing. (Again, I am assuming - ) That the blessing of same sex unions may be a good thing - later. But for right now we need to take a little more time for discussion, prayer and thought. (not necessarily in that order!) I heard a couple people say that we needed to give moderates around the world a little more time before jumping this far.

Bishop Curry commented toward the end of Convention that the most important point was our ability to discuss controversial issues in a respectful manner. You can read his comments by clicking Bishop's comments.

As always feel free to email me at: ken@st-christopher.org (I hope - eventually - to clear up the spam problem so we can allow a group discussion through this blog.)

Wow ! What fun!!

2008-01-17T17:31:00.000-05:00

I had to stop the email response option because we got spammed by about 50 Viagra ads. I will seek to discover a way to do it better but until then please just email me at ken@st-christopher.org.

I know, I know, I know!!! I promised to keep this updated and have utterly failed in that promise. As I have told the Vestry (our elected board) sometimes the second item on the "to do" list is never reached. In fact, some days it seems as if the FIRST item is pushed off the priorities before the day really begins. Oh well, enough excuses!

We have had two fantastic events since I last wrote. Christmas Eve was all it could be and then some. To those who visited for the first time that day --- many thanks! You added so much to our time together. 14 families or individuals visited on Christmas Eve and New Year's. That is just fantastic. And several of those were specifically invited by friends already attending St. Christopher's! Well done people.

Then on January 13th we had Bishop Michael Curry with us. We baptized four persons and confirmed/received 9. (This picture is only a few of the people involved -- candidates, sponsors, family, etc. Bishop Curry is in the middle with me behind. This picture shows me getting some bright idea with the light bulb over my head --- but I don't remember it!)

If someone has a better photo, please email it to me and I will post it instead.

After the service we had a wonderful dinner organized by Joan. Great job! This was the first time we have used the new space for a large meal and it worked just fine.

At the service I announced the great news that St. Christopher's set another all time attendance record in 2007 AND is one of only two Episcopal churches in the triad whose attendance has grown for the last ten years! Well done people!

A friend starts a new ministry

2007-10-16T12:03:00.000-04:00

With joy for her and saddness for us I report that the Rev. Heather McCain has taken a new call. Heather has been a personal friend to me as well as to many in the congregation. This past summer she preached and celebrated at several of our 5 pm services. For several years Heather has been a real friend to St. Christopher's including officiating at Shirley and my wedding.

Heather's new call is one of the greatest challenges a priest can accept. She will be a "Church Planter". She will be the lead person in the founding of a new Episcopal Church. All the material of that ministry stresses that the single most important need for a church planter is a strong and reliable prayer support team. In the name of all of us, I have committed St. Christopher's to pray regularly for Heather and her ministry.

Responding

2007-10-16T11:56:00.000-04:00

Last Sunday was our first "First Responders Sunday". We heard about and thanked the police officers, fire fighters, Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. who respond when we are in need.

The guess sermons helped with our focus. We were reminded that God calls us all to be responders. We should be alert for the needs of other people and respond to them. Usually it is something small: baby sitting while the mother visits a relative in the hospital, a dinner for a harried person, mowing a neighbor's lawn. "Responding" is not always, in fact seldom is as dramatic as giving CPR!

That said, we do owe a debt to those people who arrive in the moment of major crisis. Let us pray: Gracious and loving God, we scream in terror to you after a heart attack, or house fire, or stroke or other event. We scream in terror to you and you respond by sending these people to minister in your name. We lift them up to you with thanks and ask that your blessings be upon them at all times. amen

Why not say something?

2007-10-11T13:29:00.001-04:00

A busy, very busy week. The memorial service for Lewis Brandon will be Saturday, 11 am at St. Mary's. (Lewis and Margaret have columbarium niches at St. Mary's.)

Why not say something?
Through this week I have been challenged with the question of why so many of us are so hesitant to say anything about God, much less our faith. Well, at least anything positive about God!

Don't give me that "I don't want to offend" stuff. I see people driving around with signs for their football team or NASCAR driver. People will get in a fist fight over whether the school with royal blue or the school with washed out blue is the better school! (OK -- that was a deliberate attempt to get people excited!)

Or offend someone by our political stands? We are willing to speak favorably about this or that candidate even if it offends -- but about God? Why is that so hard?

We make excuses --- "Oh ,that is private." but I am not asking why we don't insult someone else's faith, just why we don't mention our faith.

"Oh, I don't know what to say." --- OK, that one may be fair, at first glance anyway. But if we have nothing to say about God than --------- I am not sure what! But I am sure it is not good.

Maybe it is easier to say something about our church than about God. OK. But we seldom do that anyway. And when we do we normally mention the non-religious factors. They are important, just not necessarily religious. "Oh, everyone is so nice." --- OK, but I can get that at the civic group. "Oh, the music is so good." --- OK, but I can listen to a CD while driving my kids to soccer practice.

Don't mis-understand ! You would not want a group, especially a church, where the people are nasty and the music stinks!!

But a church needs to offer something else so we need to speak about other things -- too. Did the Bible lesson speak to you? Did the sermon touch you? Did the music touch you?

When we get the question: "How was your weekend?" can we respond: "Good, went to the kids soccer games on Saturday. Then at church heard a fascinating talk on forgiveness -- that's hard! Then watched Dallas and Buffalo. Good stuff." If the person wants to follow up, they can. Most likely they won't but maybe after a time or two they might trust us enough to ask a question.

Or when something special goes on at the church respond: "We had 'First Responders Sunday' with fire fighters, police, sheriff, ambulance ... just lots of people!"

Or mention the Christmas carrol sing or Easter Egg hunt or youth group mission trip. None of that is insulting to the other person but it might open the door for some conversation.

Of course, none of that actually speaks about OUR faith but it does open the door.

Final reason why we don't say something --- "What if they ask me a question I cannot answer?" Actually, nothing would be better !!! Say, "Good question and one I wonder about. What don't we get together and ask about it?"

Full immersion baptism in the Episcopal Church

2007-10-04T16:46:00.000-04:00

Note: I have finally posted the last couple sermons so we are up to date (until Sunday!) Go to www.st-christopher.org/sermon.html to get the list and links.

This article is by and about a friend, colleague and all around good person!

(note: this article is from the September 9, 2007 issue of The Living Church and although reprinted with permission it is copywrited.)

Immersion
Death and resurrection are made especially plain when an infant is baptized by immersion.By Lisa G. Fischbeck

The way we worship, what we do in the liturgy, both expresses what we believe and shapes what we believe.

I was 41 years old and had been ordained as a priest for five years before I witnessed a baptism by immersion. This despite the long-standing practice of baptism by immersion in the ancient church, despite the practice in many American protestant traditions, despite rubrics for baptism in the Book of Common Prayer. Baptisms by immersion are not common in The Episcopal Church.

In part, this is because of our church architecture. We are the inheritors of baptismal fonts designed to hold bowls of water, not tubs. Throughout the 19th century, when Victorian propriety and formality were in full bloom, baptisms became formal, private, family affairs. The practice of a light, symbolic, sprinkling of water evolved, for infants and adults alike.

Form followed function. Many of the churches we worship in today were built in that Victorian era, and in the century that followed. These churches were built with relatively small baptismal fonts near the pulpit, or by the west door, at the point of entry, so that the family could easily gather around. Gone from Episcopal and Anglican church architecture for a century or more were the baptistries, the pools in which immersion could take place.

Then the liturgical renewal movement of the mid-20th century got Anglicans and most of the rest of Christendom looking back at our liturgical past, bringing back things that made liturgical and theological sense, including baptism by immersion. Those who studied the liturgy realized that, in the move from immersion to sprinkling, something big had been lost.

In his letter to the Romans, St. Paul writes: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his (Rom. 6:3-5).

Death and resurrection are made especially plain when an infant is baptized by immersion.

The baptismal pool is filled with warm water. The entire congregation gathers round, with the children at the water’s edge. The parents are a bit nervous, perhaps even scared. They are about to hand their precious and vulnerable infant into the hands of a priest who is going to put that infant under water. There is a sense of possible drowning in the minds of the parents, and those who are gathered — especially those who have never witnessed a baptism by immersion before.

Theologically, at least, drowning is exactly what happens when we are baptized. And baptism is indeed about vulnerability, and about death, and about giving ourselves to God and to the Church.

This is made very real when nervous and fearful parents unwrap the towels from around their infant and hand the naked child to the priest. The priest, declaring the name of the child, sweeps the child through the water, saying:“I baptize you in the Name of the Father …”On first pass, the infant is startled by the water, especially if it’s cold. Its eyes pop wide open, then close tightly shut. Most often, at this point, the infant lets out a scream. The trusting yet frightened mother holds her breath.

“And of the Son …” On the second pass, all alarms inside the infant and parents and much of the congregation go off. This is counter-intuitive. It seems almost cruel. What are we doing here?

“And of the Holy Spirit ...”On its back, head first, deeper into the water goes the startled and frightened child. All that is known and comforting and familiar is stripped away. The priest and all watching see the head go down into the water. It is only for a passing second, yet it seems frozen in time. Death is what happens in that moment.

In our baptism we die to the ways of sin, to all that would strive to separate us from God and from one another. We die to the forces of wickedness that conspire to claim us. That is what Jesus made real for us when he willingly went to his death on a cross.

But Jesus did not stay on the cross. He did not stay in the grave. And the infant does not stay in the water. The three days pass. The moment passes. The infant is passed through the water, and the waters of death become the waters of birth. We do not drown in the waters of baptism. We pass through. And as we do, we are born anew. “For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.”

Here the imagery is breathtaking (literally). The people, the parents, see the baby on this third sweep. Eyes are closed tight, fists are clenched, as the infant goes through the water. A few weeks ago this same infant was passing naked through the waters of birth, emerging from its mother’s womb.

Baptism is being born into Christ’s resurrection, being born into the new life, being born in the body of Christ, the Church.

In that moment, something else the church teaches becomes profoundly real: Through our baptism, each of us who has been baptized does in fact, become a member of the body. We are, in fact, brothers and sisters in Christ. We have all emerged from the same womb. We have all passed through the same birthing waters. We have all become one body.

The baby is lifted high, and the gathered congregation shouts “Amen!”

Oil is poured over the infant’s head, and the infant is marked with the sign of the cross as Christ’s own forever, wrapped in fresh white towels, and given to the loving arms of its parents, or, better yet, its godparents.

The newly baptized is welcomed, the Peace of the Lord is shared, and the celebrant, using the pool as aspergillium, casts water upon the congregation, reminding them that they, too, are baptized.

The imagery is vivid in the baptism of an infant by immersion. Imagery not lost, perhaps, but certainly diminished in small bowls, sprinkled water, and fine gowns.

And it doesn’t stop there. Once we have witnessed such a baptism by immersion, it carries over into the Eucharist, the gathering of the baptized at the altar of God, Sunday after Sunday. There we see brothers and sisters, born of the same womb as we were, members of the one body, which is Jesus Christ our Lord.

The way we worship, what we do in the liturgy, is an expression of what we believe and shapes what we believe. Baptizing infants by immersion can profoundly express and shape what we believe about ourselves as baptized people, born again. The Rev. Lisa G. Fischbeck is the vicar of the Church of the Advocate, Carrboro, N.C.

Caroline -- only fair!

2007-09-29T08:24:00.000-04:00

I was being unfair to you all! I had not yet posted a picture of the other beautiful grand daughter. As a Duke graduate I had several "interesting" captions to use, but decided to be nice!

One boss

2007-09-27T07:46:00.000-04:00

NOTE: I think the "post a comment" option is now working correctly. But if it does not appear go to the bottom of the page and you can post in that manner. Please remember that this blog requires a full name on every comment to keep the conversation open and candid. Comments without a name will be deleted.

For the past several weeks the gospels have focused on the need for us to make a choice. We so much want to be fully a Christian and (to use Paul's phrase) fully of this world. We so want to NOT have to make choices between God and our various desires.

Last Sunday we heard Jesus say that we can only serve one master, or one boss. And most of us react to that by making excuses. "Yeah, BUT (I read somewhere that by definition the words following "BUT" are always blasphemy!) "Yeah BUT I have to do what my boss tells me so he/she is the boss."

Jesus is speaking about ultimate decisions. As my mother told me frequently, "if he/she told you to jump off the bridge would you do it?" True, in business matters the boss is the boss, but those are not ultimate decisions. I believe Jesus' point is that at some time the earthly bosses and God will come in conflict --- we need to be clear about that and clear about who we would choose.

If the boss tells you to "cook the books" --- probably not directly but makes obvious suggestions along those lines --- what would you do? Would you take a chance on losing your job? If that sexy person invites you to a quiet dinner --- what would you do? Would you give up that exciting (& scary) chance?

A decision making tool I find helpful is to imagine myself explaining the options to Jesus. Just sitting and talking and telling Jesus what choices were presented to me. I find the decision becomes clear most of the time. In fact, most of the time I wonder why I ever considered the other option at all!

National & International Church

2007-09-26T13:17:00.000-04:00

Couple quick info items: The "post a comment" feature on this blog is only working partially. If you go to the very bottom it allows the post but for some reason has not been allowing it on more recent entries. So try that. Second, the "subscribe" feature may or may not be working -- I will test that out more next week and let you know how it is done!

It is always nice to be proven a prophet! In an earlier post I said the national news outlets would not be able to accurately discuss what is happening between our national Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican communion. Part of the reason is that the "anti's" are better at publicity than anyone else. Why is that always true?
Let me give you the links again to read the up to date info: www.episcopalchurch.org/ens is the official news source for the Episcopal Church. They tend to be moderate to optimistic about the future of our church. http://www.livingchurch.org/ is a more conservative, private news source that is somewhat pessimistic about our future. Read them both and you MAY get a fairly accurate picture.
Our House of Bishops (HOB) was meeting to discuss the criticism aimed at the Episcopal Church by some other members of the Anglican Communion. The central, presenting issue was the election and consecration of Bishop Robinson in New Hampshire, an openly gay man. A related issue is that in some dioceses and churches have blessed same sex unions. (Note again, a point of anger for me, the Canadian church has gone further and yet they are seldom mentioned. There is at least a hint of anti-Americanism in all this.)
I have not yet seen the formal statement so will not comment on it except to point out that both sources said it was adopted with only one negative vote (NB: 3 bishops left before the vote in essence saying the HOB was not worth their time.). Both news sources stressed that it was a middle of the road statement attempting to offer some reconciliation without turning away from or damning gays and lesbians.

Brass tacks time (I have no idea what the phrase originally meant!) (1) The Anglican Communion is not an organization with rules, etc. It is closer to a family. If some of the other churches in the Anglican Communion say they do not want to attend an event Americans attend, they can do that. It is theoretically possible that if enough other churches took that stand that the group would simply not meet. Very unlikely.
(2) If there is some split with some churches refusing to associate with other churches, this will have no direct impact on NC or St. Christopher's. Question -- 5 years ago did you even know you were the member of a worldwide Anglican Communion? I suspect that most people did not.
(3) That said, I and most of the Bishops have stressed the advantage we have when we are in communion with and discussion with other churches. We do not learn much from people we agree with. Having people say they believe we are wrong is the most productive way for us to learn about our relationship with God. It would be a shame to lose that.
(4) The biggest issue for many Bishops, and the one with the most agreement at the HOB is anger at foreign bishops who are deliberately working to split American churches. Yes, that is harsh, but it is also accurate. To go into another church's area and try to recruit people away from their church is not a very good way to show community! Yes, I know, they would say they are only serving the people but there are other ways to accomplish that goal. The American church has set up a system whereby a congregation or an entire diocese can request that another American Bishop serve them.

Finally, the other place most (not all) Bishops agree and I agree with them is that one issue has been allowed to sidetrack us for much too long. Without ignoring the importance of and need for continuing discussion and learning --- let's get back to central Christianity!!

child labor

2007-09-20T19:13:00.001-04:00

Child labor laws? Alyssa came to play with Grandpa and Nana but found painting with Dad the most fun! And yes, that is real paint and a real 4" brush. She did very well, thank you very much! Her only problem was the belief that the further the brush went in the can, the better the paint!

Crop Walk & "the Peace"

2007-09-19T10:41:00.000-04:00

Although I have set it so you do not have to have an account at "Blogger" to post a comment, I am insisting every posting include the person's full name or it will be deleted. If you feel as if you need anonymity (thank God for spell check!) email me directly at ken@st-christopher.org

I hope we can do something a little different this Sunday but not sure if the schedule will work out. Many people, especially our youth, will be going to the High Point Crop Walk. IF -- big word "if" they get back in time I want them to take a moment toward the end of the 5 pm worship service to talk about the experience. What did they learn? What did they think about the hunger teachings?

My goal is to have our young people do such reflections fairly often. That is one way for them to know we appreciate them and believe they have important things to tell the rest of us.

the Peace in the service. For the last 3 weeks at the 5 pm I have been teaching on the Peace and how it fits into our service. We all laugh when I say "It is not half time!!!" -- but it sure feels like that from time to time. I explained how it is where it is because it completes the confession --- we say to the person we offended or their suragate: "our conflict is over from my perspective" .... and it completes the intercessory prayer section by praying the most wonderful prayer we can pray: "the peace of the Lord be with you"
All that said, the community building parts: "How are you? Long time - no see!" are also important. They are just happening at the wrong time in the service. We should be a worshiping community which requires the community building conversation. So starting last week we took 2 minutes a the beginning of the service to stand up, walk around, and build community. We will see how that goes for a while.

"Saving Grace"

2007-09-12T07:39:00.000-04:00

Although I have set it so you do not have to have an account at "Blogger" to post a comment, I am insisting every posting include the person's full name or it will be deleted. If you feel as if you need anonymity (thank God for spell check!) email me directly at ken@st-christopher.org

Have you been watching the show "Saving Grace"? The main character has about as many sinful habits as they can fit into a one hour show! And her "heart of gold" is not always evident -- if it exists. The premise is that God is trying to save her anyway. Despite her extreme sinfulness and despite the fact she accepts it is God's angel talking with her, she refuses to change. Her brother is a Roman Catholic priest and she was raised in a Roman Catholic church but no longer has faith. Occasionally Grace and the angel (Earl --- the writers are having a bit of fun with him!) drift into a serious conversation but only for a moment and it is never concluded. The only real theological point made is that God loves Grace. The other person we see Earl with is a convicted murderer on death row, who has accepted God.

Point --- The show is doing a good job of stressing the extreme efforts God will make to let us know we are loved .... despite everything, we are loved.

Watch the scriptures this Sunday for that message.

WARNING ---- definitely for a "mature audience". The sex scenes are pretty dramatic.

A new idea!

2007-09-11T10:32:00.000-04:00

During my Sabbatical I greatly enjoy writing a blog about what was going on. I have found it frustrating as we grow that I no longer get to talk with a large percentage of the congregation on a regular basis. So I took a course, bought a book and began playing with "blogs"! I will post on some irregular basis but am working on setting it up so you can subscribe and be notified when a new posting is available. BE WARNED !! some of the postings will be pictures of my children and grandchildren! So when they come up you can just say nice things -- thank you very much!!

CHURCH BUSINESS stuff. Last night was the meeting at All Saints at which people could give the Bishops input about how they should respond to the international group of Bishops who have demanded changes in the Episcopal Church. Bishop Curry did a wonderful job explaining the situation. He stressed how a major part of the conflict comes down to church authority. The relationship between the worldwide Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) is similar to the relationship between the USA and the UN. (my comparison and not Bishop Curry's) We can go along with ideas and sign treaties with the UN. But if we do not accept a specific UN action the UN has no authority to force us. The UN could not come into North Carolina and demand some change. In a similar way, the Anglican Communion (which is much less organized or structured than the UN) has no authority to DEMAND a change. They can REQUEST something but a few of the international bishops have been demanding things and making threats. The only threat they can enforce is that THEY will not attend a meeting at which the ECUSA is involved. There is no structure to allow for enforcement of demands.

All that said, and OK -- hear some frustration and anger. I do not like someone threatening me! That is not the way to get me to go along. ..... All that said our ECUSA bishops have agreed that the international bishops who have complained have a valid complaint in that we did something, elect and consecrate an openly gay bishop, without acknowledging the impact that would have on other Anglicans around the world. We have apologized several times, not for the action but for the manner in which is was done.

Now the question is where the international community goes from here. A major part of my input to our Bishops was the importance of the church being able to model to the world the ability to avoid a war. If we cannot model that, how can we honestly expect the Israelis or Palestinians (or whomever) to live together? That does not mean we cave in! As I said, I do not like bullies or threats. And I do not like hypocrites. Most of the people threatening us also say anyone who has been divorced, much less re-married should not be part of the church. And forget female vestry members much less female clergy! Actually the vestry members do not matter much since most of the those churches are very clergy run. I call them hypocrites because to get American supporters those few international bishops never quite mention divorce or female leadership.

Darn it! My anger is showing again isn't it? However I left that in to illustrate the difficulty our bishops are facing. How do we should sincere flexibility and appreciation for others who do not show it for us? The major part of the answer is to remember that out of the 34 world wide Anglican provinces (usually countries or a couple countries) only 3-5 are at the core of the opposition. Most of the provincial leaders are eager to work with the ECUSA to find a way out of the this conflict. The same percentages probably apply for US Bishops.

One of the clergy used the scripture about walking the extra mile. I suggested to the Bishops that they look for ways to walk the extra mile without giving up authority or beliefs. I also told them I did not envy their position at all!!

Two sources for information are the Episcopal News service, the official news which tends to be middle of the road to optimistic about the future of our church, and the Living Church which tends to be pessimistic. Don't count on CNN and other national news outlets. Heck, most of them cannot pronounce "Episcopal"!