Adullam's Cave

Psalm 1

2009-12-23T15:45:00.000-08:00

Psalm 1
1 Congratulations to all who do not entertain the priorities of those who do not belong to YHWH,
or dabble in their practices,
or have their passions corrupted by those who disdain YHWH.

2 They, however, have hearts captured by the Instruction of YHWH;
and saturate themselves in it.

3 Well-cared for, thoroughly nourished with gifts and graces, these folk are both effective and constant in their service for YHWH.

4 Those who oppose YHWH are not so, but are like dust the breeze blows off to nowhere.

5 They will not stand YHWH’s scrutiny, nor will they be allowed a foothold among YHWH’s people;

6 for YHWH keeps watch care over his people, but the lives of all who oppose him will come to a bad end.
*****************************************************************
Psalm 1, along with Psalm 2, introduces the book of Psalms as a whole. Psalm 1 presents the "Way" YHWH's people are to live in he world. It is an ideal type. No one fully lives up to this nor experiences it in exactly this fashion in this life. It is a template for how things are when god fully rules which comes only with Christ's return.

The integrity which God requires and we long for can be described as a rope made out of three strands wound tightly together. These three strands are our

1. PRIORITIES - the deepest convictions we hold and hope to live out in life
2. PASSIONS - the drives and energies that move us to live out our priorities
3. PRACTICES - attitudes and actions that reflect and exhibit our priorities and passions

Psalm 1 reflects the life God intends for his people. I've reflected that in my paraphrase of v.1. What integrates our priorities, passions, and practices according to the psalmist is God's "Law," the Torah, or as I put it, "Instruction." Since Jesus is himself the figure to whom God's Instruction pointed and who fulfills it, that is, shows us what it is really all about, this psalm ultimately points to him as the final arbiter of our priorities, passions, and practices. Jesus aligns the 3 P's around his message of the dawning of God's kingdom. To experience such integration and alignment, the psalmist invites us to "delight" and "meditate" on this divine "Instruction." Taking joy in this gracious gift of God and committing to intentionally focus on it at the core of our lives is the response God expects from us.

This response, however, is premised on grace. In the imagery of v.3, the healthy tree (the person who is to be "congratulated," the person who responds appropriately) is one "planted" or even "transplanted" by irrigating waters planned for and provided by a wise and loving planter (God). This imagery of grace is particularly poignant to those Middle Easterners who livved in a dry, arid region.

Those who respond to such grace are promised here that their life lived for YHWH's sake and service will be both fruitful and constant (v.3). They will fulfill the purposes for which YHWH created and redeemed them.

By living one's life apart from and/or in opposition to YHWH's will and way results in an insubstantial life, one thata a mere breeze can dispel! This is their destiny both in final judgment and in life. In both cases they have no place among God's people. But those who seek to align and integrate themselves with his will and way may be assured of their place amng God's people, now and forever.

This simple portrait of the "Two Ways" so characteristic of both Old and New Testament writers needs to be kept in the back of our minds to sustain us in the dark and difficult times we all must endure. This psalm functions like a GPS for us. We can always discover how we need to go, no matter where we find ourselves. Or. to put it another way, YHWH can be trusted to find and deliver us even in the most seemingly "god-forsaken" situations of our lives.

Peace,
Lee Wyatt

Health Care Hysteria

2009-08-12T16:26:00.000-07:00

I came across these lines today reading David Bentley Hart's ATHEIST DELUSIONS:

"We are first and foremost , heroic and insatiable consumers and we must not allow the specters of transcendent law or personal guilt to render us indecisive. For us, it is choice itself, and not what we choose, that is the first good, and this applies not only to such matters as what we shall purchase or how we shall live. In even our gravest political and ethical debates - regarding economic policy, abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, censorship, genetic engineering, and so on - 'choice' is a principle not only frequently invoked, by one side or both, but often seeming to exeercise an almost mystical supremacy over all other conceerns." (22)

It is hard for me to avoid the conclusion after yesterdays town hall meetings on health care that some such dynamic is a least part (perhaps a major part) of the anger and ritualistic invocation of the specter of socialism and totalitarianism heard so much in these meetings.

Peace,
Lee

Some Reflections on Our Troubles

2009-01-10T19:45:00.000-08:00

(This is a first rough draft of my ideas)

Recently I heard a talk by Walter Brueggemann from a conference a few years ago. He talked a bit about the struggle for Jewish identity going on in Israel. Various groups were competing with one another for the claim to be the norm for what it means to be Jewish. This struggle was both passionate and strident with the various claimants unwilling to yield or compromise. Brueggemann cites a prominent rabbi to the effect that a “win” for any of the contesting parties would in the end result in a “loss” for the whole community.
I began to reflect on our own struggles in the PC (U.S.A.) over sexuality and ordination. Might it not be the case that a “win” for either side in our struggle would eventuate in a “loss” for our whole communion? Our struggle is over justice and hermeneutics, claims the one side, and exegesis and biblical fidelity, claims the other. There is no question that these are indeed crucial issues and strike at the heart of the identity of the PC (U.S.A.). It would be nice to think we cold resolve these kinds of struggles without the internecine warfare and inward (and likely eventually outward) splintering that accompanies such strife. But we have not in the past and likely will not on our present issues, unless something changes in the foreseeable future.
We are clearly at an impasse. Further study and discussion are simply delaying actions. There are few undecided people out there for whom such actions would be helpful. We have no wisdom about how to get beyond this impasse to significant and potentially fruitful conversation with each other. The question for us, it seems to me, is what to do with a church significantly and implacably divided over an important set of issues.
Given that a resolution of our issues leading to a consensus and united ministry seems out of the question at present, and that each side feels significant, even non-negotiable issues of justice, faithfulness, and witness are at stake, and that faithful, truthful witness and unity as a denomination seem in irreconcilable tension, where do we go from here?
Two strategies in which both sides are implicated have been tried. The first, victory through polity has failed. Both sides have held the upper hand at points over the last thirty years but neither has been able to consistently enforce a polity settlement. Second, the threat of separation, a regrettable but tragic last resort, looms over us as the ultimate end game settlement of our disagreements.
Is there any other way, then, for us to maintain our unity amidst serious disagreement, a way that honors both the truth we seek and community we long for? Or more powerfully, the Truth that Jesus Christ is and the unity that alone testifies to the love of God for the world (Jn.17:21)? In terms of the rabbi’s statement noted above, is there any way to avoid the “win” for some of us that will ultimately be a “loss” for all of us?
Might 1 Corinthians 6 offer such a way? There Paul confronts quarrels in that fractious community that have or will soon go public in the law courts. Paul chides them for failing to know who they truly are (vv.2-3), for failing to trust that God will provide them with enough wisdom or wise folk to settle their grievances internally and redemptively (vv.6-7), and for resorting to secular judicial proceedings, even with the inevitable negative consequences for the church’s public witness (vv.6-7).
Instead Paul offers this counsel: “In fact, to have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud – and believers at that” (vv.7-8).
Is Paul discounting the importance of truth here; of issues of justice? Doubtless it can only seem so to the claimants on either side of our issues – if they are focused on “winning.” Paul however, seems to think “winning” such disputes is not necessarily the most desirable outcome, and not because he’s slighting the importance of either truth or justice. He appears to have a different question whose answer governs his response.
That question is the question of identity: who are we as God’s new people in Jesus Christ? Apparently not the kind who press claims against each other at all (v.7) and clearly not those who take their disputes and adjudicate them in terms of secular judicial norms and processes (vv.3-5)! Such practice apparently makes us guilty of wrong and defrauding behaviors ourselves (v.8)! Such a situation seems (scandalously) to entail a threefold critique from Paul’s point of view. First, we are not acting as the people of God we are in Christ, so “bound together as a people in a way that requires (us) to modify (our) former ways of life” (Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Interpretation Series, 93). This further entails an awareness that as this community we have the “mind of Christ” (1 Cor.2:16) and presumably wisdom enough to settle our disputes in accord with this new identity. After all, according to Paul, we have wisdom enough to judge the angels!
Secondly, since integrity follows from identity, such practices distort the church’s witness to the world. Again, Hays writes, “The Corinthians are shamefully taking family disputes out into the streets, as it were, thereby bringing the whole family into disrepute” (Hays, 95).
Thirdly, such actions betray the cross-shaped life to which we are called as God’s people. “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?” (v.7). Paul claimed to intend to know nothing among the Corinthians except “Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Cor.2:2). His counsel to the disputants in the church seems a pastoral translation of this very cruciform theology into concrete terms.
What might our disputes over sexuality and ordination look like if we adapted Paul’s counsel to the Corinthians over legal disputes as our way for struggling henceforth together over these matters? Stephen Fowl, in an insightful article “Scripture in a Divided Church” (www.ajgoddard.net/Ethics_Bibliography/Writers/F/Stephen_Fowl/stephen_fowl.html) offers some guidelines for reading scripture in a situation of dispute. I offer them for their own worth but also as provocations for each of us to consider how we might incarnate such practices and their implications in our own situations.
We cannot read Scripture, according to Fowl, apart from being formed by it in the Church. Our division is a failure of ecclesial love. There are three practices to avoid letting interpretation of Scripture divide us:

1. Seeking the truth in Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:5). Bring all thoughts captive to Christ. Truth is the first casualty of sin and the first component of forgiveness and reconciliation.

2. We must recognize and name sin, especially our own.

3. We must cultivate patience. (Philippians 3:15.)

Or, in Paul’s classic formulation from the letter to the Philippians: “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, 6who, though he was in the form of God,

did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
7but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
8 he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.
9Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
10so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.”
What do you think?
-is it possible that we might continue to live together peaceably in midst of disagreement as a sign and model to a polarized and fractious world that such a thing is possible?
-while it is unlikely that further study will change many minds at this point, is it possible that we might hang together with each other in worship, prayer, accountable friendships, and a humility to wait for any further light to break forth from God’s Word or wisdom on how to keep talking to each other in our disagreement?
-is it possible that we might truly name our sins to ourselves and others, including those we oppose on these issues? What difference to our conversation do you think this might make?
-is it possible that we (on whatever side of the issue we are) might find the courage to commit to this communion even if does not adopt the “right” position at present in the conviction that our unity as a people in serious disagreement bears its own important witness to the world and in hope that we will discover wisdom enough to keep moving toward greater insight in dealing with our issues?
What do you think?

-Rev. Lee Wyatt, Interim Pastor, Westminster Presbyterian Church, Corsicana, TX

2008-09-07T17:25:00.000-07:00

Presbyterian Bloggers
Powered By Ringsurf

How About This!

2008-07-29T10:25:00.000-07:00

Way Back in 1884

"Republicans, entrenched in power, cynically abused it; they subverted the integrity of the vote, and of the press; they mocked the spirit of the Constitution through partisan legislation, and copying the tactics of tyrants, used overseas wars to deflect attention from their actions" -- Jose Marti, Cuban nationalist hero, in New York, observing the US Presidential election of 1884

Peace,
Lee

HANCOCK - Jesus and the American Hero

2008-07-15T14:06:00.000-07:00

I saw Will Smith's lastest movie, HANCOCK, this afternoon. It seems a very conventional movie. It has the makings of a provocative exploration of love and power, duty and self-denial, saving and serving, along the linbes of Smith's recent efforts in PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS and I AM LEGEND. I won't spoil it by describing the plot, but it forfeited that promise by devolving into a stock and quintessentially American version of heroism, salvation, and saviors. HANCOCK plays off love/vulnerability/relationships/powerlessness against duty to others/invulnerability/strength/solitariness. Drawing close in love meant forfeiture of super powers and thus of the call to be a savior of others. Saving and serving, which belong together in Christian theology are played off against one another here. Love and power are split apart and never the twain shall meet, so it seems. It is almost as if Jesus and John Wayne face off in this film, and John Wayne emerges the real hero.

There are some useful insights in identity formation and self-denial in service to duty, but they ultimately serve, from a theological perspective, a distorted identity and finally unhelpful duty. I mourn for what might have been! LEt me know what you think!

Peace,
Lee

The Shack

2008-06-24T10:14:00.000-07:00

I read THE SHACK by WIlliam P. ("Paul") Young last Saturday. What an experience! It's a must read for everyone. It will lift you to the heights, drive you to your knees, thrill you, chill you, make you cry and burst out in praise (sometimes at the same time!) as it ushers you into the presence of a genuinely "gospel" view (and experience) of God.

Responses to THE SHACK have ranged from glowing (as mine) to its being a "trojan horse" through which heresy is being smuggled into the faith (a vast number of responses are posted at the book's website theshack.com, I believe). The more negative responses tend to lift up the theology in the book (of which there is plenty) and subject it to the usual process of theological review and critique. Yet I suspect this is not the most helpful (of fair) way to treat a piece of fiction. You can be being "right" but miss the whole point of the story!

Any piece of literature ought to be first held to the standard it sets for itself. And in the case of THE SHACK, the repeated leitmotiv of the author is that we do not trust GOd because we do not really know who God (the biblical God) is. Young's intent is to tell in fictional form how he discovered and has been transformed by coming to know the biblical God. As a paastor I frequently (far too frequently) watch and hear people describe God in unbiblical ways and suffer tremendously for so doing. Young frames his story in such compelling and winsome ways that the reader receives the gift of experiencing a fresh vision of God, the triune God, as the deity the scripture proclaims him to be - "God is love" (I John 4:8) - unconditional love, no qualifiers, exceptions or small print loopholes.

Now, in a world like ours and people like us, it is hard enough to believe in and follow such a God of love. Imagine then the impossibility of believing in and following a deity whom we are NOT sure loves us that way. And that's precisely the God much traditional Christianity has given to disciples and to the world at large. A God who is power-hungry, obsessed with our obedience/performance, enjoys meting out punishment, is responsible for the tragedy and turmoil in life because "all things unfold according to his will" (so we are told), and is divided within himself - the demanding Father who compels our fear and the loving Son to whom we cling hoping against hope that he has and will continue to placate his "mad Dad." If you think I exagerrate, you should sit in any pastor's study or counselor's office and you will be astonished at how pervasive and debilitating this view of God is! THis is the "god" Philip Pullman "kills off" in his DARK MATERIALS trilogy - a god to whom we should say "good ridddance," but. alas and unfortunately, one to whose defense too many Christians rallied in opposing Pullmann's work.

As a disciple and a pastor I cannot live or do my work without the kind of God found in the Bible and reflected in Young's story. That's why I am so exceedingly grateful for his work. And it saddens me to see it picked at by theologians who seem to forget what Yound's stated aim in the story was in the first place - you can't trust a God whom you don't kow truly and fully loves you, is delighted in you, seeks your compant, and has done everything possible to let you know that!

By the criteria of this, his own stated aim, Young is a rip-roaring success!! You cannot with any sympathy at all read his story without finishing it with a new or renewed sense of God's love for you, God's understanding of who you are, what you have gone through, and where you are now spiritually, God's delight in you, God's deep passion for relationship with you, and . . . Some however have apparently read with so little sympathy for the subject matter or the genre of the book that they have launched theological critiques that, in my judgment, ending up reflecting more on them than on THE SHACK itslef.

A few examples I am aware of:

-some complain that Young failed to adequately balance the one and the three of the trinity, highliting the three at the expense of God's unity. Come on - who doesn't fail on this score in talking about the trinity. Heck, the church itself is divided east and west on where the emphasis should lie - and they're both right! All this critique says is that Young's view of God is more in the eastern tradition of Christianity than the western (to which presumably his critics belong)!

-others have complained that Young's showing of "Papa" (God the Father) bearing the same scars on his wrists that Jesus bears is inappropriate - smacks of patripassianism. After all, only Jesus the Son suffered and died (so they say). While this might be theologically correct (if Young had written a theological treatise), there is no more powerful way I can think of that Young could show the shared love of the Father and the Son for humankind and creation than by this literary device. And such assurance is what many/most of us need to hear and such assurance was what Young set himself to deliver. The theologians are right, perhaps, if you lift the incident out of the story-line but terribly wrong about its appropriateness and power within the story.

-another complaint is that Young is dismissive of the value of institutions - church, government, economics, etc. and fails to reflect a balanced theological assessment of the possibilities and pitfalls of such. Right, again, theologians; and wrong! As an issue for theological discussion, they may be right (though I'm not sure about this myself). But the reality to which Young writes is that churches by and large alienate not only the world but even many within its number from a real relationship with God, and few experience other corporate entities as supportive, trustworthy, believeable, or nurturing places. As a pastor of one of those churches, I have little or no problem affirming Young's portrayl within the context in which he writes.

Well, enough! I've gone too long already. I simply want to encourage peole to read this book for what it is - a wonderful testimony to the gracious, transforming love of God that resonates with the realism of the lead character's struggle, the depth of his pain, the psychological and emotional knots into which he is tied along with an equally realistic (theological and otherwise) portrayal or the relational and tranformative reality of the kind of relationship to which the biblical God calls each and all of us. Such gifts come along all to rarely. I hate to us squander this one by burying it in theological (mis)analysis like the above. Any such reflection, I would suggest, follows only after a deep, prayerful, and appreciative pondering of what Young (and God!) are doing in and through THE SHACK.

Peace,
Lee

"The Fidelity of Betrayal"

2008-06-12T11:23:00.000-07:00

I just finished Pete Rollins "The Fidelity of Betrayal." I had a similar response to it as I did his "How (Not) To Speak of God": more style than substance, and the substance was said earlier and better by Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

In particular,

1. Rollins' interpretation of Judas in the Biblical text seemed sophomoric and implausible. Barth's effort to offer a similar kind of reading of Judas is far more sophisticated and plausible (though, perhaps, not finally convincing).

2. his efforts to debunk the fundamentalist-evangelical/liberal-historical-critical commitment to modernistic assumptions in reading Scripture, while on target, seems a bit unnecessary at this point in time. It has been done repeatedly and well bu many others in the last twenty years. Perhaps, though, Rollins still encounters this enough to make it worth his while to go through the exercise.

3. his efforts to forge a "religion without religion" and his ideas on revelation as an experience on concealment that is finally ineffable again sounded like a postmodern version of Barth's attack on religion in his Romans commentary. Barth however employed a dialectic view in which revelation was a concealing/revealing event that allowed for both content and mystery, truth and provisionality that seems more helpful than Rollins' approach. Further, in the light of Bonhoeffer's criticisms in "Act and Being" Barth reworked his conception of God as pure act in a way that more satisfactorily accounted for continuity in God's being and revelation, an issue that plagues Rollins' account as well.

4. finally, in practical terms, there seems to be little advance beyond Bonhoeffer's "Letters and Papers" in fleshing out a religionless Christianity or nonreligious interpretation of Christianity.

In sum, if our generation needs a rehearsal of these matters and will not read Barth and Bonhoeffer, then Rollins will get them into the issues (though with less depth and nuance!). If one has read Barth and Bonhoeffer, there seems little in either work that advances our understanding.

Peacce,
Lee

The Impact of Entertainment - St. Augustine

2008-06-02T14:13:00.000-07:00

I was reading in Augustine's CONFESSIONS today and ran across his reflections on theatrical entertainment in III.ii(2). After confessing his own attraction to such entertainment Augustine reflects on the impact these shows have on him (and on all of us). Attraction to this entertainment is "amazing folly" for him because it erodes the spectator's ability to withstand the passions enacted in front of him or her. In fact, they become a source of pleasure, this vicarious experience of "grievous and tragic events." It seems he is suggesting that such events have the capacity to shape us thorugh passive viewing in ways we may not find healthy.

A further conequence of this kind of entertainment that Augustine observes is that it corrupts the quality of mercy. Aroused to such passion by the events happening on the stage the spectator is moved, not to action, but only to grief; and a spurious grief at that because the feeling of the pain that arouses this passion is the source of his enjoyment! Thus not only does this feeling of "mercy" not provoke us to sct (presumably in real life as well as in the theater) but it becomes absorbed into our own search for enjoyment and pleasure.

In light of our preoccupation with such visual representations of all manner of "grievous and tragic events," and our national debates over the impact of such on the minds. hearts, and wills of their consumers, it might repay us to reflect on Augustine's reflections on this matter!

Peace,
Lee

Ramblinga and Ruminations on John (4)

2008-04-14T11:24:00.000-07:00

04.Ramblings and Ruminations on John
John 1:6-13

The soaring rhetoric of vv.1-5 lands firmly on terra firma beginning in v.6 with the introduction of John the Baptist. Over the desk in Karl Barth’s study hung a print of the Isenheim Altarpiece painted by Matthias Grünewald. Jesus hangs on the cross, agonized in body and soul. On the right side of painting stands a gaunt but fierce-looking John the Baptist whose long bony forefinger points to the dying Jesus. At the foot of the cross, between the Baptist and Jesus is a lamb with blood pouring out from it heart into a chalice. Grünewald has captured perfectly the role of John the Baptist in John’s gospel. He is a witness (marturia) to Jesus. This is his sole and only function in John. Karl Barth believed this portrait of John the Witness to Jesus was also the proper role of theology. And Barth strove to fashion his theology likewise as a witness to Jesus Christ, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” as John will call him later in John 1.

Witness to Light so all may come to believe in this Light (v.7) – that’s what John is. Witness – no less but also no more. John takes pains to differentiate John as witness from Jesus as the true Light. Probably some of John’s disciples had begin to give him a more exalted role than witness, perhaps even calling him messiah, and John had to set his readers straight about that early on in his story.

Witness to Jesus as the Light and Life of the world – such is our role too. We stand with the Baptist pointing to the One on the cross as the focal point and hope of all God’s dealings with the world (John 12:32). Witness – no less, but also no more. In John “witness” language is law court language. We are the ones called to give testimony on Jesus’ behalf before an accusing world; first-hand testimony as to what we have seen and heard Jesus do for us and others.

Here I give postmodernism its due, whereas I critiqued it a bit earlier. This role of witness is precisely the role into which we have been cast by postmodern thought. Nobody stands outside the human condition to give a god’s-eye perspective on things, undimmed by time, place, experience, et al. Rather we all stand “somewhere” and what we see and here and believe and think are profoundly influenced and conditioned by that “somewhere.” “Witness” is all we can be – what we have seen, heard, experienced, believed about Jesus is what we are called to announce and share with the world. And God seems pleased to work through our witness from “somewhere.” We have not been given a “knock out” argument or clinching declaration that compels others’ acceptance. We cannot “prove” God or the resurrection or anything else. We can, however, and must share what we found and Jesus and who we have discovered him to be. And that means acknowledging that we have been shown these things by God rather than come to them through our own native talents. D. T. Niles said somewhere that sharing our faith is best likened to one beggar telling another where he has found food. I like that. I think John would like that. What do you think?

That the world will not always (often?) credit our witness is no less than what the One to whom we witness experienced when he came into his own creation (vv.10ff.)! “He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, and the world did not know him” (v.10). The mission of the “true Light” is rejected by those who received their very life through him!

Some did believe, though, and through their faith in his name, became part of God’s family, sons and daughters, and this was God’s work from start to finish. Jesus “authorized” (v.12) these to be his appointed witnesses, taking his message to the world whose darkness would contest their efforts but would not ultimately prevail.

Peace,
Lee

Ramblings and Ruminations on John (3)

2008-04-12T18:30:00.000-07:00

03.Ramblings and Ruminations in John

John 1:1-5 (cont’d)

This Word is both co-source (identity, v.1) and agent of creation (v.3). John is emphatic about the Word’s agency in creation. It, the Word, is not a “mere” Creator, however. “Life” (another of John’s theological key-words), the animating power of God’s own presence, is imprinted or embedded in the creation by the Word. And this light was to enlighten humanity (v.4).

All is not well within the creation, alas. There is a “darkness” loose within it that is no part of the Word’s creative work. John will finger human disbelief as one source of this darkness in a few verses. Later on, he reveals the devil as another, even more powerful source of darkness. Even with this, however, ambiguity shrouds this darkness. For the devil too is but a created being, under the authority and certainty of defeat by the incarnate Word. The Whence and reality of this darkness remains shrouded in primal shadows.

Whatever the case with that, this darkness does battle with the Light seeking to “comprehend,” or “overcome,” or perhaps even “extinguish” it. The Greek word katalambanō can bear any of these senses. At any rate, the darkness strives to get the upper hand on the Light and somehow thwart its illumination from shining out. That means this non-created darkness is anti-creation, always using its power to defuse, diminish, and defeat the purpose and work of the Light, the Word, God’s agent in creation. This suggests that the integrity of creation, in every aspect, is always at issue in this contest between the darkness and the Light. This entails a concern for the environment and all that enhances or subverts its proper functioning. I suggest that John’s gospel is “proto-green,” an intuition that seems confirmed by John’s resurrection story in ch.20. But we’ll wait till then to spell this out!
John’s verb tenses highlight the Light’s defeat of the darkness. V.5 could be translated, “The Light keeps on shining (present tense) in the darkness, and the darkness was not able to comprehend/overcome/extinguish it (past tense).” The alternation of tenses suggests that darkness has given Light its best shot and that naught came of it. John nuances this summary judgment in the course of his story, but nonetheless, this is the non-negotiable good news of John’s story announced right here at the outset!

Peace,
Lee

Ramblings and Ruminations on John (2)

2008-04-11T10:04:00.000-07:00

02.Ramblings and Ruminations on John

John 1:1-5 (cont’d)

“Word” (logos) –is a key word in John’s theological vocabulary as well as the wider religio-philosophical world of the time. It resonances are varied and allowed John to converse with these varied religions, spiritualities, and philosophies. I suggest it continues this function in our world and I believe the best of its translational possibilities for our time is “meaning.” “In the beginning was Meaning.”

Meaning seems to be the primary quest of our postmodern world. Great skepticism attends many of these quests. Some have given it up, embracing or bracing themselves for life without meaning. Most, however, continue to the search and to them John makes his claim that “Meaning” is indeed a reality, a reality writ into the fabric of the world and life in this world. But I get ahead of John here.

This “Meaning” or logos, John asserts, is both intimate with and identical to God. “Meaning” is “face-to-face” with God according to the Greek John uses (pros ton theon). God and “Meaning” are in close relation to each other (see Proverbs 8 on “Wisdom”). God and “Meaning” converse and commune throughout eternity (recall earlier questions raised about this).

Then John takes the daring step of internalizing this conversation and community within the very being of God! “’Meaning’ was God.” “Meaning” is thus a self-expression of who God is.

In our context, then, John affirms the existence of meaning and the legitimacy of the quest for meaning. Later in this prologue to his gospel (1:1-18), John will identify “Meaning” with the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth, whose embodiment and reflection of “Meaning” is the decisive and clearest picture of God we have (or will have).

Part of what this means, I think, is that the most direct and provocative claim the Christian faith makes is not about how “god-like” Jesus is (as if we already knew who and what “god” is), but rather about how Jesus-like the Bible’s God is! The word “god” is, of course, the most ambiguous and diversely-used (not to mention dangerous!) word in the world. We must always be clear about which God we mean when we speak with others about God and inquire of them what God they are speaking of when they use the word. “God” is not a univocal word!!

And for us, we spell “God,” JESUS CHRIST!

Peace,
Lee

Ramblings and Ruminations on John (1)

2008-04-10T18:58:00.001-07:00

01.Ramblings and Ruminations on John

Shallow enough for a babe to bathe in, deep enough for a elephant to swim – this well describes the Gospel of John! Its waters run deep yet never mock our inability to negotiate these depths and remain in the shallows. Wherever we are with God there is something for us in this magnificent story. There is always more for us here; we never exhaust its depths. This is so in part because of the author’s insight and subtlety in telling a multilevel story in a variety of hues and textures that continually invite us to go deeper and deeper.

I don’t know where I am with God as I encounter John again. We are never good judges of these things about ourselves. I only know I feel it beckoning me to swim again in its waters and discover what is there for me to find. These notes are my report on what I find. They take no systematic shape; traverse diverse grounds from points of Greek grammar to reflections on Christian faith and life in our postmodern world. That’s why I’ve entitled these notes “Ramblings and Ruminations.” They are the notes of a way-farer seeking sustenance and direction wherever he may find it.

John 1:1-5

“In the beginning” – radicalizes its Old Testament prototype, Genesis 1:1. John begins with claim that deconstructs the orthodoxy of our postmodern world. “In the beginning” rather than “once upon a time” frames John’s and the Bible’s story as a claim to reality, not simply an “as I see it” story constructed from the thought and experiences of its author.

I don’t mean this as a naïve claim to “historicity.” My point is hermeneutical – regardless of our ultimate evaluation of his work, John thinks he addresses reality in its deepest and profoundest form. A hermeneutics of respect must precede a hermeneutics of suspicion. This claim to reality, I believe, cannot be deconstructed a priori by application of a hermeneutics of suspicion. Rather, if it be deconstructed, that can only come a posteriori, after John has been engaged on his own terms with at least a theoretical openness to his claim’s truth.

John’s use of "arche" (“beginning) radicalizes the same word used in the Greek Old Testament of Genesis 1:1 by pushing it back to the absolute beginning. Yet at the same time, by using the same word is it possible that John means us to understand a degree of continuity between the two “beginnings,” between what we traditionally call eternity and time?

-Perhaps “eternity” is not timeless and there is something analogous to what we call “time” in God’s own being and experience?

-Perhaps understanding God as triune, a community of shared love throughout all “eternity,” allows us to posit a “timefulness” in God that enables this divine relationality to be echoed in our own human experience of relationships?

-Perhaps being made in God’s “image” (Genesis 1:26-28) implies something like this?

More on John 1:1-5 next time. This has been pretty “heavy” stuff, I confess, but that’s because John is at times a “heavy” writer. Give him his due and think with him (and me) about these things.

Peace,
Lee

A Modest but Unconventional Proposal for Lent

2008-02-07T07:01:00.000-08:00

No shortage of proposals and plans for observing Lent exist. So why do I feel compelled to offer another? Three reasons:

1. as a psstor I know that at least in my circle of awareness few people actually use these plans and programs;
2. most that I am aware of are too "religious" or "spiritual" and fail to engage participants at the most visceral levels;
3. there remains, as far as I can tell, a genuine hunger for an authentic observance of Lent (i.e. a way to truly experience God).

I propose the following as ways toward a more fruitful experience and observance of Lent:

1. eat a pinch of dirt every day during Lent (and let the taste linger before you drink something to wash it down).

"Remember, you are dust, and to dust you shall return." This traditional Ash Wednesday" affirmation accompanies the imposition of ashes on the forehead. My proposal is a variation and extension of the intent of this liturgical action throughout the season. I'm tempted to call this "a sacrament of dirt." The handling and taste of dirt brings home in a memorably visceral way the Christian call to humility. Humility, from the Latin "humus,"ground" or "dirt," calls us remember who we are, whose we are, and from whence we come. And to thank God for being God, our Creator and Redeemer.

2. Find a replica of a skull (or the real thing if you have access to one!), place it as the centerpiece of the table you gather at to eat or the coffee table in the room your family regularly gathers. Place under the skull a symbol of your financial
life (currency, a checkbook, a bank statement, stocks, bonds, etc.). In ritual and less formal ways, train yourself to say aloud "Lord, have mercy" every time you see the skull and what lies under it. Include your children.

This is actually a variation of an early church ritual designed to confront and counter greed. In my judgment, our relation to money is and will continue to be the most potent and powerful idolatry Christians in North America have to contend with for the foreseeable future. A regualr diet of affirming again and again our vulnerability to the lures of "mammon"(our money and "stuff")and need of God's help to handle it faithfully can only be to the good. TO have the image of that skull, seared in our hearts and brains may provide the ballast we need to grow in grace in this area of our lives.

3. Watch every episode of "House" during Lent.

No show, in my judgment, better captures the dilemma and difficulties of ministry in our time. Ron Heifetz (Leadership without Easy Answers) has taught us that the challenges we face in the changed and changing world we live in are largely adaptive rather than technical. Technical challenges are life changing a light bulb. We know what the problem is and how to solve it. We just have to do it. Adaptive challenges are those for which we do not know exactly what the problem is or how to solve it; and further much of what we know, being oriented to techincal challenges, will mislead us in addressing adaptive challenges. To further complicate things, the rapid pace of change in our world means that we have to think, plan, and implement "on the run" (as it were).

"House" depicts just this challenge of adaptive change in a medical setting. The genius diagnostician, Gregory House, leads his team each week in dealing with a new adaptive challenge, i.e. a medical situation that defies traditional accepted diagnoses and procedures. House and his team are forced to think and act outside the box, fully aware that they might be wrong; and in most cases, their errors place the patient in mortal danger. Time is of the essence; a diagnosis and prescription that comes too late is of no help. This is just where we are in the church today. Attention to "House" with this in mind can be an extrememly instructuve exercise for us who care about and/or have some responsibility for leading the ministry of God's people.

4. During Lent, read and reflect on a poem (any poem) by Emily Dickinson once a week and read two (any two) short stories by Flannery O'Connor.

No poet better captures the many moods and seasons of the continual struggle between belief and unbelief than Dickinson. And no writer better shatters our easy convictions about things Christian than O'Connor. "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you odd!" is one of her characteristically pungent and mind-opening deliverances!

5. Continuing with O'Connor, every time you celebrate the Eucharist (which I hope is often) during Lent, remember O'Connor's response to a dinner party discussion of the Eucharist in which some of the socialites gathered there were reflecting urbanely on the "symbolism" of the Supper. Asked what she thought, O'Connor replied, "If it's only a symbol, to hell with it!"

Enough said, I think!

6. When you retire at night, say "Good Night, God (Lord/Father/Mother/Holy One . . ) and recite the Apostles' or Nicene Creed. When you awake in the morning, say "Good morning, God (Lord/Father/Mother/Holy One . . .) and recite the Lord's Prayer.

The rhythm of "evening and morning" reflects the Jewish reckoning of time and carries with it the important truth that we began and begin our lives at rest, asleep, and inactive, trusting the providence and mercy of God to "raise" us (in every sense of the word)the morning. Our life of work and productivity is the latter part of our day, lived by the grace of daily "resurrection" and a reaffirmation of our commitment to God through the creeds.

This will be my Lenten journey this year. Perhaps it may strike others as something they might want to try.

Peace,
Lee

Will Anything Ever Change?

2008-01-11T10:36:00.000-08:00

As I read Brian McLaren's EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE I had a profound moment of deja vu. I felt like it was thirty or so years ago and I was reading Ron Sider's RICH CHRISTIANS IN AN AGE OF HUNGER. The similarities between the two books far outweign their differences. Though McLaren is more widely focused than Sider, Sider brings in most of the concerns Mclaren articulates through his focus on hunger. Both bemoan the insensitvity of the church to their respective concerns and provide a theolgical framework for a different approach (Sider is better on this point than McLaren). Both attempt serious analysis of the issues and provide some ways that Christians and churches can begin to respond. Both are optimistic that there is already a core of folks alert and responsive to their concerns and they form the nucleus of what can (and must) become a worldwide response of the church. All differences aside, and regardless of what you make of thier analyses and prescriptions (both have been criticized for over-simplifying and somewhat superficial analytical work, probably fairly so), both called for a "revolution" in church practice and mission.

with thirty or so years hindsight, I have to say that Sider's call has gone largely unheeded. There is a greater awareness of hunger and related issues now, due in some measure to his work, but there has been no significant revolution in church practice and mission. Many are now breathlessly embracing McLaren's book as a new revelation, however Sider teaches us that little has been learned and internalized by the North American Church in general, for McLaren says nothing really new that Sider did not say or imply about the theological and missiological aspects of his discussion. Perhaps EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE is this generation's RICH CHRISTIANS, but if so, I hope it substantially more groundlevel impact than its predecessor.

Perhaps I am simply getting older without a correlative increase in wisdom. But I cannot help but suspect that McLaren's message will have as little long-lasting impact as Sider's. One ray of hope: Sider is an academic, McLaren a pastor. Perhaps he has a bit surer sense of how to communicate with church people than Sider. I beleive the problem is more deeply rooted than just that though. Maybe Christians in other countries and parts of the world will take to his message more readily than we North Americans will. I hope and pray so. But, for us in this country, I have to confess a prevailing doubt about whether anything will ever change in our churches here.

On that cheery note,

Peace,
Lee Wyatt

Whose God, Which Deity?

2007-12-05T09:06:00.000-08:00

Perhaps it is providential that the film version of Philip Pullman's THE GOLDEN COMPASS opens during Advent. This is the time of the Church's year when the lectionary offers us a heavy dose of John the Baptist. And I suggest that John is just the figure we need to put into conversation with Pullman's story and the larger conversation about it in our culture.

The Christian Right is busy, as usual, calling for boycotts and warning parents not to let their children see the movie or read the story. Even most secualr commentators I am aware of presume Pullman's atheist agenda. But I wonder. It feels to me like there is too much passion, too much venom for a convinced atheist. Me thinks he doth protest too much! It seems as though he is enraged at the God whom he claims does not exist - which seems an inappropriate response to a non-existent being. And that raises the question for me: whose God, which deity is Pullman committing deicide on in the HIS DARK MATERIALS trilogy?

Just to say the word "God" begs this question. What God are you talking about, which deity is the one you worship or posit as true? Pulllman, it seems to me, posits the angry, vengeful, capricious deity of Old Testament caricature and, sadly, too much Christian teaching and practice as his target. And to that I think we Christians should shout AMEN! After all, we hold (or should hold) no brief for that deity either. He seems more at home among the pantheon of Greek deities on Mt. Olympus than on Mt. Zion! Good Riddance to him and thanks to Pullman for this debunking! After all, this kind of stheism, the debunking and refusal to give adherence to the putative deities of the Roman world, ironically, earned the early Christians the same charge many Christians are throwing at Pullman - atheist! More irony - the "Authority," the God-figure in the stories is revealed at the end as a false deity - a pretender who snookered all the rest of the creatures into beleiving his lie. Some other creature in some other book is also associated with similar prevarications, I believe!

In Matthias Grunewald's magnificent "Isenheim Altarpiece" John the Baptist is unforgettably pictured as pointing his long. bony finger at the agonized suffering Jesus on the cross. If we agree with Pullman's demolition of the "Angry Tyrant" deity (and God willing, we will), then we ought turn our attention to the one to whom John points. For it is that pathetic, powerless, pitiful suffering figure on the humiliating cross on whom "the hopes and fears of all the years" rest! It in in his death for us, for our well-being and flourishing, rather than our deaths for him, that we find the kind of deity who might provoke Pullman to rethinnk some of his views about God. Even if not Pullman, there remain too many still wedded to or tortured by this deity (and his hencemen, the authroitative, repressive church) who deserve to know about this one to whom John points in Grunewals's painting as in the New Testament.

Perhaps it twas this deity as well whose death Nietzsche celebrated. IF so, let's celebrate with him. Let us be proud to be atheists of this stripe. And let us be aware that we live in a world "with devil's filled" as Luther put it in his great hymn A MIGHTY FORTRESS IS OUR GOD - devils of finance and commerce, devils or privilege and poverty, devils of propriety and dessert, devils of oppression and ignorance, devils of education and pride, in short a demon-infested cosmos, all running around trumpeting themselves "gods" and calling humankind to give their loyalty and their lives to them! We need an even more comprehensive "atheism" than the one Pullman envisions. May we let John the Baptist point us to true deity as he directs our gaze to Jesus - "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world"! (John 1:29)

Peace,
Lee

Daily Sabbath

2007-12-02T17:15:00.000-08:00

I watched a gorgeous sunset this evening in Corsicana, TX where I am interim pastor at Westminster Presbyterian Church. God's creational palette made dusk exquisite. It moved me to prayer and what came out of my mouth surprised me and sparked some reflection on the rythm of God's time and sabbath.

The prayer I uttered was "Bring on the evening, God, the beginning of a new day." I started to think about this and about how according to Genesis 1 the structure of the day is "there was morning and there was evening." That means the rythm of our creaturely day begins with evening, with rest, with sabbath. Not only do we "stop" (lit. meaning of "sabbath") but we "worship" by entrusting ourselves to God in sleep ("give your angels charge over those who sleep" from daily office of compline). Not only does sabbath structure our week, then, but each day bears its imprint as well.

What difference might it make if I were to internalize such a rythm for each day? It might give me a way to more clearlt identify the "sabbath-busters" in my life. whatever chronically robs me of sleep, the night terrors and phantoms that seek to break the sabbath of my slumber, might well repay reflection and pray on the assumption that these things are indeed matters of spiritual significance.

It might also suggest that in addition to being physically restorative, an adequate amount of sleep may have spiritual "gravitas" too. Perhaps this puts our workaholism or whatever keeps us up late into the night into fresh perspective. Doubtless there is more here and I will return to these reflections from time to time. But this is enough for now.

Peace,
Lee

"W" is Right; "W" is Wrong!

2007-11-29T07:32:00.000-08:00

George W. Bush, our current (but not for too much longer!) President, is a case study in how to/not to be a Christian in the workplace. In order to pursue this thesis I will set aside the questioon of whether it is even possible or appropriate for a Christian to be the President of a nation-state. That is an even more crucial question but it will have to wait for consideration.

"W" is certainly the most forthright and demonstrative about his faith of any President in my lifetime. He clearly intends to allow Jesus to help hium shape his policies and the way he fulfills his duty as President. His affirmation that "Jesus is my favorite political philosopher" is, I believe, sincerely intended rather than (as some have suggested)a cynical stratagem to deflect atention from how little "W" actually knows about political philosophy. I, at least, propose to take him seriously.

And in taking "W" seriously on this point, I mean to affirm his conviction and commitment that Jesus should be Lord in the workplsce as well as elsewhere. Such commitment in service of a "theology" hitched to wagon of the Religious Right horrifies most other Christians and obscures the reality that we have a President who is resoluitely Christian and intends his faith to inform his work life. And too oftenm I fear, a "theology" such as his causes the rest of us to back off and not want to bring our faith in our workplaces for fear of being tarred with the that same theological brush ourselves. Or else we jujst in general feel it is not in good taste to wear one's faith on one's shoulder like "W" does.

I think that is to confuse the nature of the commitment "W" exhibits with the "theology" that informs it. In our postmodern world, where religion and spirituality are back "in" the cultural "zeitgeist" and which is mandadated to tolerate eeveryone's point of view (except perhaps that of the Religious Right!), is seems to me both appropriate and necessary for us to throuw our commitment to Jesus into the mix of commitmnets and opinions that form the culture of your workplace. There is no longer any reason to feel bashful about sharing who you are and how that impacts your worklife or that is sharing your commitment that you are somehow thereby "imposing" your views on someone else. Now, inherent in my affirmation of "W"'s open faith stance is the caveat that such sharing of one's commitment to Jesus ought to be done in the wisest and most winsome way possible. We should choose our spots carefully and share with an openness to others and to conversation with them (when appropriate) about these commitments. "W" may not quite stand up to scrutiny on these latter points but his willingness to make the stand is, in my judgment, a (or "the") commendable feature of his Presidency. So, "W" is right on this score.

"W" is wrong, however, at most other points. The "theology" that informs his commitment is wretched. If one applies the "What would Jesus do?" criterion to his policies, one would (or, at least, I do) have a hard time seeing how Jesus has substantively informed them. His "theology" appears to be "Americanism" with a thin veneer of Christianity, a veneer that gives way any time something less than Christian needs to be done. In short, if we affirm "W"'s commitment to Jesus in the office of President, we must also disavow the substance of what he thinks "theology" is and many of the policies that flow from it in the strongest way.

To sum up, "W" has in a dramatic way subverted the modernist premise that faith is a private, inner matter that should not be allowed to "bleed" out (pun intended) into public life and one's respoonsibilities there. But he has "deconstructed" himself by the "theology" he embraces which seems intent on others' "bleeding" rather than our own and on them serving our needs and wants rather than vice versa, as Jesus would have it.

May we have the courage to stand for JEsus in our workplaces, as "W" does, but may our theology be advocated and embodied in such a way that it participates in the "deconstruction" of "W"'s theology and presents to the watching world an authentic and compelling vision of the "servant"-gospel lived and taught by Jesus, who is indeed "Lord of All"!

Peace,
Lee

Review of Scot McKnight's A COMMUNITY CALLED ATONEMENT 2

2007-10-08T10:02:00.000-07:00

Reflections on McKnight’s A Community Called Atonement (2)

Chs. 2-4 comprise McKnight’s answers to the first of his atonement questions: “Where to begin? His answers are: with Jesus (ch.2), with God, Eikons and Sin (ch.3), and with eternity, ecclesial community and praxis (ch.4)

Beginning a study of atonement with Jesus brings in the kingdom of God with him. This kingdom “is the society in which the will of God is established to transform all of life” (9). As too often has happened in theology, reflection on atonement has neglected this essential biblical starting point, or rather, ending point. The kingdom of God points to what God intends to achieve, that is, the restoration of human beings to the society of those who live as God intends and reflect his image. Thus, McKnight claims, any theory of atonement that does not feature this societal, or ecclesial component, is inadequate.

He then traces what he calls the “Lukan thread” to make this point. In a crisp survey of Luke and Acts, McKnight takes us through the Magnificat (Luke 1:46—5), the Benedictus (1:67-79), Jesus’ inaugural sermon in Nazareth (4:16-21), the Beatitudes (6:20-26), Jesus’ answer to John the Baptist (7:21-23), and the early church (Acts 2:42-47 and 4:32-35). These texts point us to an ecclesial rather than individualistic focus for atonement. Jesus’ kingdom message is about a covenant community in which God’s will for his creation is lived out, including “healing justice, the ending of disease, dislocation, and oppression. Thus, if atonement is aimed at accomplishing God’s purposes, then a communal/ecclesial focus inheres in such a project.

Ch.3 broadens out the focus to take us back to the beginning and beyond. Noting that where one begins determines where one ends up, McKnight traces a number of different places where others have started their study of atonement, and reminds us that he will start with the kingdom of God, and –surprise – at six other places as well in order to weave a theory supple enough to handle the reality of atonement!

God, according to Christian understanding, is a triune being involved in a eternal dance of love. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit give and receive love from other throughout all eternity. The intricate and inexhaustible patterns of this dance show us not simply “who” God is but “how” God is as well. This God is an eternally relational deity. The nature of love is to extend itself to others; thus in creation God imprints this relationality on everything he makes. All God’s creatures, then are designed for relationship with God and one another, as the Gospel of John in particular makes inescapably clear. Atonement, then, has centrally to do with reweaving the broken threads of all these relationships into a united whole again.

Human beings, created in “God’s image” (Gen.1:26) are “Eikons” of God (Greek word for “image”). That means we are to represent God in the world; we are God’s image throughout all creation. That means we are beings oriented to union with God and with others and created to participate in God’s ruling, caring, protecting, nurturing of creation (i.e., missional beings).

Sadly and tragically, we have become “cracked” Eikons by turning away from that relationship to God. And in so doing we have spoiled our relationships with each other, and the creation as well. Atonement will have as one of its tasks to repair us “cracked” Eikons so we can begin to take up our creational responsibilities and opportunities anew.

Responding to this tragic “crack-up,” the Bible turns toward highlighting the redemptive, atoning nature of God’s image as it focuses on Jesus Christ, the Perfect Eikon.

Next comes “hyperrelational” sin. “Hyperrelational” is a postmodern equivalent for multi-relational and means that sin has damaged and disordered every sphere of life – frontally and primarily with God but catching up everything else in its wake. Sin is our choice to go it alone and live in absolute freedom from God and others. To try to live this way, though, cuts against the grain of our created being. We cannot do it. This is a self-diminishing and destructive way to be. When such cracked Eikons try to live together in society, their inability to live in community as designed results in larger and larger patterns of distortion and deformation, what we call “structural” or “systemic” injustice. Such sin must be dealt with and atonement is God’s means of healing this breach and opening again the possibility of hyperrelational obedience for the creature.

In ch.4 McKnight fills out the last three of his seven starting points for reflecting on atonement: eternity, ecclesial community, and praxis. Biblical imagery for eternity pictures a community or fellowship at worship with God the Father and Jesus Christ, the Son at the center receiving the praise and worship. This is another way of beginning at the end and deducing the nature of atonement from the effect it is designed to produce. If these visions of the future are to come to pass, the God’s atoning work will have to focused on the re-creation of just this kind of community.

Likewise, the historical unfolding of God’s plan has always entailed unveiling a further dimension of community. In Israel, the Kingdom announced and inaugurated by Jesus, and the church following his resurrection, covenant community has always been at the heart of God’s purposes. So also God’s atoning work.

Atonement, for McKnight, has both objective and subjective poles. Objectively, what God has done for us; subjectively, what we do in response. God’s atoning work on our behalf calls for reciprocal acts of atonement by us on others’ behalf. This “reciprocal performance” on our part is “praxis.”

“Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us,” says the Lord’s Prayer. This is praxis. To be called to participate in the “ministry of reconciliation“ (2 Corinthians 5:18-20), this too is praxis.

“To be forgiven, to be atoned for, to be reconciled – syn-
onymous expressions – is to be granted a mission to
become a reciprocal performer of the same: to forgive,
to work atonement, and to be an agent of reconciliation.
Thus, atonement is not just something done to us and for
us, it is something we participate in – in this world – in
the here and now. It is not just something done, but
something that is being done and something we do as
we join God in the missio Dei.” (30, emphasis author’s)

Thus we discover that, at every turn thus far, God’s atoning work is resolutely focused on the rescue, restoration, and renewing of an ecclesial missional community.

Review of Scot McKnight's A COMMUNITY CALLED ATONEMENT

2007-10-05T12:59:00.000-07:00

Reflections on Scot McKnight’s A Community Called Atonement

Scot McKnight, Karl A. Olson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University in Chicago, wades into what he calls the “atonement wars” with a contribution marked by the same freshness, lucidity, and insight we have come to expect from him. The title, A Community Called Atonement, grabs us right off by juxtaposing two terms, “atonement” and “community” that have not often been paired in this discussion. Following an introductory chapter setting up the question, McKnight’s argument proceeds in four Movements seeking to answer anew three perennial atonement questions – “Where to Begin?” “With Which Image?” and “Whose Story?” – before offering an fresh question for examination as well – “Who does Atonement?”

This volume is part of Abingdon Press’s “Living Theology” series, a set of brief, non-technical, accessible explorations of theology under the auspices of Emergent Village, directed by Tony Jones who is also the series editor. Whatever you make of “emergent” or “emerging” theology, this rubric at least alerts one to expect some surprises along the way; and in this, McKnight does not disappoint.

I will offer first a series of posts on the major sections of the book. Then I will close with some reflections on the argument presented.

McKnight’s basic posture on the “atonement wars” is that some of the current criticisms have points that should be heard but too often they are overdone or overheated by attention given to one-sided or incomplete expositions of various classical positions. He offers his own “embracive” formulations that seeks to include the strengths of the others without falling prey to their weaknesses.

The introductory chapter sets out the challenge that the reality of what we have come to call “atonement” poses: does it work? Are the lives of Christians different and better through their relationship to God made possible by Jesus’ death and resurrection? A second challenge that resounds throughout the book is how are we intended to appropriate “atonement”? and how wide the scope of this endeavor on God’s part. Throughout, but focally in the last section the term “missional” provides the shorthand response to this challenge. Atonement makes possible the community that knows itself engaged in God’s “mission” of reclaiming, restoring, and renewing his creatures and creatures to reflect his glory even more fully that the original pristine creation did. This “missional” focus also keep front and center McKnight’s pastoral passion for “praxis” – how does this all work out in our lived reality. The “dialectical assumption” undergirding this study is:

The gospel we preach shapes the kind of churches we create.
The kind of church we have shapes the gospel we preach.

Now we are ready to enjoy the ride through scripture and church history only to arrive back in the early 21st century with some new tools to consider in our teaching on and ministry of “atonement.”

Cunchy Cons

2007-09-19T07:21:00.000-07:00

I read the book Crunchy Cons by Dallas Morning News columnist Rod Dreher over the weekend. Wow! What a read! He writes about "crunchy conservatism," essentailly a renewal movement within the conservative tradition to eschew the "modernist" conservatism of comtemporary Republicanism in favor of reembracing the traditionalist conservatism like that advocated by Russell Kirk. My own political sensibilities are eclectic (or even "anarchic" in the sense in which that term is used in political philosophy) yet I found in Dreher and those whose stories he tell in his book folks with whom I sense I could talk (really talk, not just trade slogans and shibboleths with one another) and ally myself at many points.While there remain things we might not ever agree about (e.g. I am a pacifist and Dreher is not; it is not clear to me that the emphasis on "family" in his book does not preempt the centrality of the church as the primary "family" to which we belong and thus teeter on the edge on one version of idolizing "hearth and home"), nonetheless I think we could find substantial common ground to work on.

Two main arguments of Dreher's book are dead-on:

1. He argues that the findamental divide in our country is not between "liberal" and "conservative" but rather between those (on the right or the left, or the center for that matter) who believe in the vision and values of modernity and those (again on the right, left or center) who do not. If this is correct, as I believe it is, might it not be possible for those of us who deplore and resist modernity and its consequences to begin conversations that might at least dream at forming some sort of alternative to the bankrupt and dysfunctional two party system with which we are currently saddled. It is a conversation definitely worth having, in my view!

2. Dreher and friends are attempting to form their families (and evetually communities) into centers of resistance to the consumeristic materialism that is eroding not only the creation we have been gifted with to steward but our souls as well). What touched my heart in the stories Dreher tells is that these are folk willing and intentional about shaping their and their families lives in accord with their core convictions, making the sacrifices necessary to do that, and finding in that life so ordered deep fulfilment. They are doing what the church should be doing but is not not and seems not to want to do!

Well, read the book! It's well worth your time. And may the tribe of "crunchy cons" increase! And may the rest of us, wherever we find ourselves theologically and politically become "crunchy" if not conservative. And may we find each other and begin to talk!

Peace,
Lee

Following and Serving Jesus in the 21st Century

2007-09-13T11:04:00.000-07:00

My experience in trying to be a disciple and a pastor in these postmodern times has led me to adopt the image of "white water rafting" to describe what it has been like. No longer a gentle canoe ride around a placid lake, being a follower and servant of Jesus in our day is much more a matter of simply trying to stay afloat amist the roiling, foaming waves of white water river rapids. I tend to think of of my/our Christian journey through these days as "White Water Faith for the 21st Century."

The beauty and power of the ever-changing scene around us compels our attention, as do the dangers of the ride which are present, and quite real. It no small matter to keep the raft upright and moving! Yet, we may not be without resources. Those who have ridden white water rapids have learned a set of skills for negotiating the treacherous rapids. If we attend to the practices that sustain them, we may just be able to translate them into practices that with fit us for our journey through postmodern "white water rapids" in a fashion that enables faithful following and serving of Jesus.

The four rules for white water rafting will get us started.

1. Take advantage of the calms because there will always be rapids ahead.

I would translate this into "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy." In our 24/7, never unplugged world it is essential for followers and servants of Jesus to embrace a sabbath rhythm for life. Not only will this align us with the Creator's design for our life, it will save us from ourselves! Practice of Sabbath decenters us weekly, reminding us of the whence and why of our lives and labor. In other words, Sabbath keeping is an antidote to our propensity for making ourselves the functional center of our worlds a weekly spiritual dextox for us, which we all desperately need. Sabbath keeping also provides a counterbalance to our tendencies towardf workaholism. Once a week we let go and trust that God will keep the world turing and our lives safe and provisioned. We are not indispensable! We were not made to work. We are not homo faber (humanity the maker or producer) but rather homo orans (humanity that prays). And Sabbath practice reminds of that every week. More could be said that this will suffice for now.

2. Turn into the rocks, not away from them.

I translate this into Jesus' admonition "take up your cross and follow me." Following Jesus and serving him in our time means an embrace of the cross as both the method and hope by which we live. A big part of what Jesus means by this, I think, is that we so fully identify ourselves and our labor with his cause that we will not shy away from the inevitable difficulties that come with that or expect to that he will save us "from" suffering rather than "through" suffering. And like Paul, we proclaim the crucified Christ as the one in whom we hope and from whom we seek our help. We dare not distance our understanding of Christ from the necessity and reality of his suffering and death even as we must embrace that pattern for our own following and serving of Jesus.

3. When necessary be willing to throw everything over board.

The translation here is Peter's declaration in Acts 4 that there is no other name under heaven than Jesus by which we must be saved. This is bedrock Christian confession. This is an affirmation that cannot be jettisoned without disfiguring Christian faith. Now, that salvation (wherever and however anyone finds it) comes through Jesus is not equivalent to saying salvation comes only to those whose explicit confession of Christ has brought them into the church. It means rather, that any salvation that is to be had is available because of what Jesus came and did for us in his life, ministry, death, and resurrection. How and where the risen Christ meets people and draws them into salvation is something we best do not foreclose on. We must insist, however, as Christians, to say it again, that any salvation anyone finds is due to Jesus' work on our behalf.

4. Never, never, never, ever give up paddling,

This is akin, I think, to Paul's admonitions in I Thessalonians 5, centered in vv.16-18: "Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you." This is how, I suggest, we keep on paddling come what may as we journey through the cultural white water rapids of following and serving Jesus in the 21st century.

As I reflect on this translation effort, it strikes me that this particular complex of practices will stand us in good stead for the journey through our world. In a world that is frantically active but abysmally shallow, Sabbath keeping provides testimony to an alternative, saner, and profounder way to live. In a world bent on entertainment and endless pleasures and diversions, "taking up the cross" entails realistically facing up to the world as it is and the promise of redemptive action to achieve real change in it through suffering and sacrificial servanthood. Having and hoarding is our way to insulate ourselves from others and the world around us and insure our well-being; in Jesus, however, we have all and more than enough of what we need so we can sit looser to what we have and live in a less acquisitive, simpler fashion. Finally, come what may, we can witness to the hope we have in Christ by taking the world as we meet it with joy, prayer and thanksgiving because we believe that in Jesus we have met the World's Creator and our Savior and have discovered that "in all things God works together for good," for our good and for the good of the whole creation.