tabletalk

Not Threatened By the State

Recently, I received an email inviting me to a discussion with a number of other pastors who are concerned about protecting the institution of marriage. In the header it suggested that we were in danger of being forced to perform wedding ceremonies that would violate the biblical values of marriage as an exclusive covenant partnership between one man and one woman. I believe this is the biblical value. But I was puzzled and in disagreement with my colleagues on several points.

The first is a practical point. I am not a servant of the state when it comes to performing a wedding ceremony. I don't have to unite anyone in marriage if I don't want to. It's my call. So from the beginning, their advertising was misleading and alarmist. Pastors can choose not to marry anyone.

But it's not true that we can perform weddings for anyone. In our Presbyterian church, we are bound by our constitution which says that marriage is a covenant agreement between one man and one woman. We are not free to go outside those bounds. My ordination is with the church not the state. Even if my conscience is open, as a representative of the church I am not open. I have restrictions which I agree with.

So what needs protecting? Well, I do believe in benefits and rights being the same for all domestic partnerships. I believe it is prejudicial that we don't allow single people to designate a family member or a dependent member of their household to get the same benefits afforded married people. This along with universal healthcare seem to be rights that we should protect and foster. We need to protect and encourage people to make commitments. If you are on my life insurance policy and my health benefits policy and my social security benefits, I'm committed to you. Commitment of caring for others is a good thing regardless of any kind of sexual, social, ethnic, or whatever orientation you can come up with. I know it will cost us something, but the costs are greater in the long run if we ignore it.

What about protecting marriage? First, I don't believe it needs protecting - at least not in the way that my colleagues have surmised. Marriage is a God thing. It is "created by God, blessed by the Lord Jesus Christ, and sustained by the Holy Spirit," at least that is what the marriage ceremony I use says. That means God protects it not me. We uphold it, but don't protect it.

Well, what if the state says that marriage is any two people who want to be together with a license? My response is still, "I'm not a servant of the state." I would argue against using the term marriage to mean something other than one man and one woman bound together. But, if the state, and our society is becoming more rapidly secular all the time, wants to call something marriage other than what the biblical standard is, then I am prepared to qualify what I do as Christian marriage. In fact, it already is that. For myself, if the state decides that same sex unions are to be considered marriage, then I'll stop representing the state in the marriage. People can get a marriage license, like they do in most of Europe. They can be married - but if they want recognition in the church of their marriage as a Christian union, then I will be happy to perform a Christian marriage. I'll stop being a representative of the state of California, even though I am licensed to be.

Maybe it is time we stop serving as cultural chaplains and become servants of the Kingdom of God. Oh I know, we'd lose an income source. So?

Just a thought from out there somewhere.

Questions From Without: Before Deconstruction

Deconstruction in some circles is a dirty word. For many it means making changes for change sake. For others it means throwing the baby out with the bath. Still others believe it is simply a reaction to the status quo by anarchists who want their own way to be put in place. Some of you are puzzled right now by the use of the word and what I'm saying.

It's a simple word. We're going to, as McLaren says, deconstruct Hell.

Let me give you an analogy. I've worked on many cars over the years. I've rebuilt engines a couple of times. I'm very methodical when I work on an engine. The manual is always next to me. As I pull things off the engine to examine the trouble, I lay them out neatly on the garage floor, usually on some sort of tarp, taking care to remember and organize the parts in the order that I have removed them. When I find the parts that don't work, worn rings, charred valves, whatever...I replace those things with new parts. Then I reassemble the engine with the new and original parts. Careful again to put everything back that is needed. If there are extra parts when I reassemble...then I have to go back and start over. I don't want to do that.

Deconstruction is a little like that, though we may decide that there are extra parts in our engine that we can do without. Things that simply inhibit the running of the engine. Or there are better designs to our current concerns.

Before we begin deconstructing Hell, let me remind us of one of C.S. Lewis's points in Experiment in Criticism. Again, I believe this is a must read for any teacher or preacher. I think it is a must read for anyone who wants to know how to view art or read a book. This little book, though quite literary in scope, outshines Adler's book How to Read a Book.

The point I want to take away from Lewis is this: allow the book to tell you about itself. As much as you can, surrender to the text. Don't read into it (which in hermeneutics we would call eisegesis). Literature like art, Lewis says, will communicate itself. Good, bad, enduring, superficial, it comes out in the reading of it. It is difficult to surrender to a book sometimes. Sometimes we're at odds with the author and their method. Sometimes it is over our heads. Sometimes there is such historical distance that we are unfamiliar with the context. All of this happens when we read the scriptures.

How does this apply to Hell? What we know of Hell is often informed by everything but the teaching of Jesus. We hold dear lots of opinions that simply don't come from Jesus. In order to know what it is, we also need to know what it is not. McLaren does the heavy lifting here. In his chapter "Homework Assignment" he outlines the Gospel's teachings on Hell in a way that allows us to examine closely what they are about, and he gives us a way of seeing what they are not about. You may disagree with his method or conclusions, but in the end we must at least take a look at the scriptural passages and determine whether our interpretations are broken or not. If they are, what needs to be done to fix the problem?

So, my encouragement: Be open to reading the text of scripture and surrendering to it alone. We can never be fully objective. But surrender means we will look, and read and wait until the truth or lack thereof, comes out at us. We also don't do this in isolation. There are reputable and faithful saints who have gone before who inform our reading. But for right now, let's put all the opinions aside and see if we can't simply take Jesus at his word without Dante or Milton or Luther jumping in. And let's be honest when they do jump in to not let what we've always held onto get put into Jesus' mouth.

Deconstruction is next.

Questions from Without: Hell Is Up Next

It's hard in an email to just throw out these questions when they represent 30 years of my emotions and deep concerns. Just last night I had another question come up in my thoughts during the night. Could you go over Hell? (Don't laugh.) This question of Hell is one that is always a part of a religious discussion here. What I mean is the idea that if someone doesn't believe in Jesus as their savior and lord then they won't have eternal life. I've always responded that yes Jesus is the way the truth and the life but God is the ultimate judge of a man's soul. This was how it was asked of me.There is only a certain percent of the population that is Christian. Do you mean to tell me that all of these other people are going to hell? It says that to be a Christian you have to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and only those that believe in that are going to have eternal life. What about the rest of us? What about all of the people that went before us that didn't believe. That's a lot of lives not having eternal life in heaven. Craig this is the kind of thinking that is real to some non believers. I always say God is the judge of a man's soul.

These are the coming questions. I wanted to let you all know what is next. Damn.

Hospitality Sightings

A site worth looking at. The stories may be real or cyber-apocryphal, but it is interesting. It is a shameless ad for Hilton Hotels, but if you're looking for a potentially uplifting story, this could provide it. Go to Be Hospitable. Check it out for some fun.

Of HIV/AIDS

It's not often I get to do this, but I want to compliment Rick Warren for the diverse group that Saddleback Church has invited to their HIV/AIDS conference this week. He's taking a lot of flak, but it is for doing the right thing. I want to encourage Saddleback Church to be as open on other topics as well, and truly be a place for the larger community to engage in problem solving on a major scale.

Blessings.

Christians in Name Only

About a week or two ago, Bill Maher the comedian and satirist, wrote a commentary that was printed in many Sunday papers. It was entitled "Praise Allah and pass the hair gel." The comic was suggesting that if we wanted to fly with our haircare products and bottles of liquid, that the simplest way to do so would be to convert to Islam. He was referrencing the news of the Fox journalists who were realeased by their kidnappers after they read a two sentence statement announcing their conversion to Islam.

It wasn't the best editorial of the day, but it was perhaps the shortest. The part that got my attention was this paragraph that summed up what would really be happening if we converted.

"And the best part: Nothing would really have to change. We're not asking Americans to disrupt something essential in their daily lives, like changing your e-mail address. We'd be Muslims in name only, instead of what Americans are now - Christians in name only. I mean, look around, we don't care for the poor, or defer to the meek, or avoid judging people - it's not like we're that committed to Christianity. Seriously, is the Koran that different from the New Testament? Sex is bad, women are inferior, and when in doubt, blame the Jews."

What troubles me is that I believe Maher is right about us being Christians in name only. Or at least me. "It's not like we're that committed to Christianity." My continual teaching and preaching emphacizes practice more than doctrine. I actually believe the doctrinal world of Christianity to be fairly simple and straightforward if we take Jesus at his word. But when we take Jesus at his word, it is the praxis of our lives that comes up short.

Maher is right, though there are many in the faith who do things like care for the poor or defer to the meek, it is the issues of doctrine and politics that dominate most of the headlines and bylines. The American religious world is more concerned about holding on than letting go. We give in percentages, trying to figure out how we can have the appearnace of generosity and still holding on to more of what we've got. We are not close to lavishly sharing out of our abundance. We want the strong Christian who is in-charge and confident that they know God's purposes for our lives. We don't have time for the meek or the humble who might simply trust God without fanfare or great schemes. We want something that works! It's interesting that our culturally dominated Western styled Christianity has led to the observation of a religion that is anemic at best, hypocritical at worst. Christians in name only.

This is not blog that makes logical sense. It's just a short rant that asks, when will we take the Kingdom of God seriously? When will the radical nature of Jesus' message be the dominant theme of our lives and not something we will take up when we're done raising our families or approaching retirement. When will the Gospel be untamed in our lives? As long as I hold on to the things I've accumulated - (I went to the dump twice, filled up three dumpsters with stuff from my garage over vacation!) - and seek to accumulate more - there may never be room for the secret message of Jesus.

Anyway, what if we started where Maher let us off? What if we did two things Jesus said. Let's give to the poor - more than leftover care and money. And let's defer to the meek - pay attention when they talk, give them a place of honor, share the power. What would happen to us if we did that? What would happen in the world if we did this?

The Da Vinci Opportunity

With the advent of the Da Vinci Code movie very close at hand, let me recommend a site that is better researched and thought out than any I could do. Though I intend to make my comments, Mark Roberts, Pastor of Irvine Presbyterian Church has written a great series of articles called The Da Vinci Opportunity. Click on the link and it will take you to Mark's blog and there you can read the articles under the above name. One thing to note up front, is that the issues that are being raised around the book and film are not new. They are issues the church has handled for 2,000 years - and handled well. It is an opportunity for conversation and growing deeper in the knowledge of our faith. But it is not a time to be threatened.

(Just for your enjoyment I'll include a picture from Rosslyn Chapel, just outside of Edinburgh, Scotland. Some suggest the grail is hidden under its floor! Doubt it. But hey, my ancestors, the Sinclairs, were significant in the building of the chapel. We visited there last summer. Dan Brown has put Rosslyn on the map - it was jammed with tourists. We sat next to a woman on the bus who was almost hovering with excitement to reach this "holy" site.)

The picture is of one of the many stone carvings in the chapel. The Masons used the chapel as a showcase for their talent as well as an opportunity for their apprentices to perfect their craft.

Why One?!

I've been asked to elaborate on why One is the right thing to do.  What comes up is the question "How do we know?"  How do we know it will work?  How do we know it is the right thing?

There are many responses to this.  Proof-texting is not my habit, (taking bits and pieces of verses in the Bible to build a case that the scripture doesn't build in context).  In this instance I believe the Bible does have something to say about the issue of interest, though not in many places.  But the few places it does speak on this subject it is clear.

Psalm 15:

"O Lord, who may abide in your tent?  Who may dwell on you holy hill?  Those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right, and speak the truth from their heart; who do not slander with their tongue, and do no evil to their friends, nor take up a reproach against their neighbors; in whose eyes the wicked are despised, but who honor those who fear the Lord; who stand by their oath even to their hurt; who do not lend money at interest, and do not take a bribe against the innocent.

Those who do these things shall never be moved."  - NRSV

In the context of Psalm 15, interest taking by individuals and families is forbidden.   I recognize this does not speak directly to nations.  But it does speak to the character of a nation's people. 

Nehemiah 5:10, in its context speaks of elimination of interest.

Leviticus 25 is the section on Jubilee.  It goes way beyond the issue of interest.  Here God institutes a year of jubilee.   In this year, all holdings are returned to original owners, debts are forgiven, the land is given a rest...It is comprehensive.  As I said in my earlier blog, there is no evidence it was ever practiced.

My first response to "How can we know?" is, debt forgiveness is not first about the forgiven countries, it is about the forgiving countries.  Do the right thing as you know it.

My second response is, since when did actions of faith require a guarantee that they would "work".  This is a truly modernist perspective.  I want a guarantee to invest or act or ?  I learned early on that my faith required me to act in manners I knew were right for me to act.  It does not depend on how others respond.  This is true in all my christian and professional life. 

I believe these three biblical texts support the notion of debt relief.  I know that debt forgiveness is not the same as stopping interest.  But the year of Jubilee certainly challenges and broadens this perspective. 

A third response is this.  Doesn't it make sense?  If a country is paying out $10M a year in interest only payments to a country like ours, when they have millions of people suffering from AIDS and its effects, wouldn't the money be better used helping people rather than balancing books?  It may not solve poverty and disease, but it is a step in the right direction.  To do nothing, is well, to do nothing.  I know that the effectiveness of debt relief depends on how countries will spend the money they save, but this is part of the negotiation.  But it is a moot discussion if the debt remains. 

Perhaps we should learn to act even to our own hurt.

Faithfully - Craig

The Right Thing to Do

One represents the 1 billion people who would gain reflief if the governments of the world forgave the debts of the poorest nations.  It would mean the possibility that nations could develop.  In the Old Testament, this was considered to be the year of Jubilee.  There is no evidence that debt forgiveness ever happened in Israel's history even though it was one of God's commands.  We can learn from the mistakes of the past.  It's a good thing to do.  I signed.  Take a look for yourself.  People as diverse as Rick Warren, Billy Graham and Bono have said yes to one. 

I received an email from my friend Andrew Ritchie in Edinburgh, Scotland.  The churches of the U.K. are coming together to emphacize the need.  The concern in Scotland is not those who will be supporting One at the G8 Summit to be held in nearby Gleneagles, but that anarchists will use this as an opportunity for violence.  Pray they don't.  Cast your vote.

The Weight of Glory 2 (an observation)

"At present we are on the outside of the world, the wrong side of the door.  We discern the freshness and purity of morning, but they do not make us fresh and pure.  We cannot mingle with the splendours we see.  But all the leaves of the New Testament are rustling with the rumour that it will not always be so.  Some day, God willing, we shall get in."

Don King, author of C.S. Lewis, Poet and professor at Montreat College in North Carolina, has said of Lewis (though I don't know if it is Don's original thought), that his best poetry is his prose.  This section from The Weight of Glory is certainly evidence of that.  As I read the beauty of Lewis's prose, I am also aware of the hope that is within him.

Lewis will speak in this sermon of our desire.  He will talk about the fact that our desires are not necessarily proof that we will have them satisfied in the way we want, but our desires are proof that we are created in such a way that our desires point to a satisfaction outside of ourselves.   Lewis will remind us that our desires have ways of being satisfied, like hunger and food.  But he also reminds us that they are mere representations of our greater longings.  In many places, Lewis reminds us like Augustine, and Pascal, that we are made for God and that God alone can meet our longings and fulfill them.

There is a kind of heavenly mindedness that leads to escapism.  We can be so lost in the clouds that we divorce ourselves from reality.  C.S. Lewis urged us in the opposite direction.  He urged us to be so captivated with the vision of the "freshness and purity of morning" that is beyond our reach at the moment, that we would set our hope and one day "get in."  This kind of heavenly mindedness leads to an activism in our own world, and encourages us to act in ways consistent with the vision we long for.

This hope seems to be missing in the discussion of Terri Schiavo's life.  I have listened to enough newscasts and read enough blogs and magazines and newspapers.  What I find amazingly silent are voices that would say:  Easter faith believes that Jesus' sacrifice has overcome the power of death.  Death is not the last word.  The last word is reserved for Jesus.  He's earned it. 

Most of the christian (lower case intentional) conversation seems to say that preserving this mortal life, in whatever diminished state, is the highest moral act for us as human beings.  But this is not how the New Testament speaks of our mortal life.  It is important, but it is not ultimate.  What I long for in the public discussion is a witness to the faith and hope and compassion that exists in the Gospel message.  A faith in the grace and mercy and compassion of God for the person of Terri Schiavo.  A faith that says: "Death is swallowed up in the victory of Jesus over the grave."  Some have said that those asking for the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding-tube are acting as though they have no hope.  The New Testament talks of hope in a way that says our hope isn't in the power of doctors, or technology, but in the power of God to overcome death in Jesus Christ.  We know that the Emperor Julian was embarrassed by the early Christians who cared for their own sick as well as the pagan sick of Rome.  Their witness won many to faith.  Why were they unafraid of the plague?  Because they had already died in their baptism and now knew that what awaited them was far greater than what they would leave behind. It is this vision of heaven that makes us of earthly use.  I'm not sure we have a strong enough faith in the life to come that we can confront well the issues of life that is.  (I believe this is a result of our materialism - but that's another conversation.)

People of faith choose every day whether or not to insert a feeding-tube into someone they love in order to prolong this mortal life.  Choices are made on both sides.  As a pastor I have witnessed this.  These decisions are not made lightly but prayerfully.  They are never easy.  In my opinion this is not an issue of wrong or right.  If I am wrong, and if it is a right or wrong decision, it is not ultimate, because God does get the final word about life- not us.  Where is the trust in a benevolent God?  Where is the belief that God is just and righteous and holds our lives graciously in his hands?  Where is the hope that death doesn't get the final say, but Jesus does?

We live in a culture that avoids death, deformity, disability, pain, suffering, the unlovely, and the uncomfortable.  Jesus faces death and accepts it, and overcomes it.  It is his triumph that makes it possible for us to face not only our final death, but the little deaths that come throughout our lifetimes.  It is knowing what awaits us that makes it possible to care for a child who is severely developmentally disabled - we know this time is nothing in comparison to eternity.  It is the same knowledge that allows us to let go of a loved one whose life is at the end - we know that this time is nothing compare to eternity.  12 step programs have a saying, "Let go and let God."  It is quite the spiritual discipline for people of our time.  Instead of clinging to this mortal life, can we let go and let God?  I'm not advocating assisted suicide, or anything like that.  My purpose in writing is to go after one point, not all.  When we practice the small dying, like letting go of our children as they grow up, not trying to protect them along the way, but trust in God; then we are learning - in very small ways - how to face the biggest letting go we have before us. 

I have opinions about the Terri Schiavo circumstance.  But they are theoretical and distant.  I don't know her.  I don't know what should happen here.  But I also don't think that it is right or wrong.  In many ways I believe our technological ability has created a dilemma that has no satisfying answers.  Remember, this would not have been a choice 100 years ago. To claim to know a biblical perspective that speaks unequivocally about this case is to claim too much.

I believe in God.  I believe in the faith of Easter.  I believe in Jesus who is righteous and merciful and Risen Lord.  I choose to trust in Him.  Death, where is thy sting?  Grave, where is thy victory?  Let's have a heavenly vision that brings hope not merely in this life but the next as well. 

I'm sure for some this will cause an uneasiness.  Remember this is a discussion not a final decree.  This is an open-ended discussion - and unfinished.  Don't hesitate to write.