Left Behind and Loving It

Compassion or Anger? How Do You Read It?

2012-02-09T17:10:00.000-06:00

Mark 1:40-45 can be read in two very different ways. Below are two translations that I have made, based on the possibilities of the terms and Mark includes. One variant reading (old manuscript that is different from most of the others, has a word that means 'angry' or 'wrathful' as opposed to a word that could either mean 'angry' or 'compassionate.' Other words are agreed upon in the primary manuscripts, but the words themselves have a wide variety of translations, which can only be interpreted by the context. Those kind of interpretation choices are very common in New Testament translations, but this text is particularly interesting because it could either be interpreted as a compassionate moment or an angry encounter. The first translation is most similar to what one might find in most common Bibles. It chooses to translate most of the questionable terms as a compassionate Jesus and a happy, but disobedient man who has been cleansed. It reads like this: And a leper comes to [Jesus], imploring him [and bowing], and saying to him, "If you will you are able to cleanse me." And having compassion, stretching out his hand he touched him and says to him, "I will, be cleansed." And immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed. And speaking earnestly with him, he immediately sent him away. And says to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone, but go present yourself to the priest and bring what is commanded by Moses regarding your cleansing, as a testimony to them." But going out he began to proclaim much and spread the word abroad so that nowhere was [Jesus] able to appear to enter into a city, but was out in deserted places; and they came to him from all places. A second translation would be quite different. In this translation, I am going with the more edgy, difficult reading of words. Partly this is due to the phenomenon that later translations often soften the edge of texts, so an edgier meaning may have the weight of being more original. It is not an exact science, but here you go. I did make one commentary insertion. I believe v.45 is meant to say that Jesus could not go into villages - not because he is too popular, but because he is now ritually unclean. And a leper comes to [Jesus], summoning him [...] and saying to him, "If you dare, you are able to cleanse me." And being angry, stretching out his hand he grabbed him and said, "I will, be cleansed." And immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed. And snorting with indignation, he immediately threw him out and says to him, "Beware that you say nothing to anyone, but go away, show yourself to the priest and bring what is commanded by Moses regarding your cleansing, as a testimony against them." But going out he began to declare and spread the word abroad so that nowhere was [Jesus] able to appear to enter into a city, but was out in deserted places because he was considered unclean; and they came to him from all places.Now, having seen these two translations, I would be quite interested in which one you find more compelling.If you are interested in seeing the exegesis behind some of these choices, please see my earlier post "Compassion and /or Anger!/?

Compassion and/or Anger !/?

2012-02-03T07:41:00.001-06:00

Mark 1:40-45

This week's lectionary gospel text is intriguing because it could be translated as a compassionate story or as an angry story. Or both. Below is my raw translation, along with some words studies and a few comments by others. I'm posting this a bit early because I'm leaving for El Salvador for a few days. Happy reading!

⁴⁰Καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν λεπρὸς παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν [καὶ γονυπετῶν] καὶ

λέγων αὐτῷ ὅτι Ἐὰν θέλῃςδύνασαί με καθαρίσαι.

And coming to him (a) leper, imploring himand bowing and saying to him “If you will youare able me to cleanse.”

Ched Myers: "You could declareme clean if only you would dare."

ἔρχεται : PMI 3s, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come 1a) of persons 1a1) to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arrivingand of those returning

παρακαλῶν : PAPart nms, παρακαλέω, 1) to call to one's side, call for,summon 2) to address, speak to, (call to, call upon), which may be donein the way of exhortation, entreaty, comfort, instruction, etc.

γονυπετῶν: PAPart nsm, γονυπετέω, 1) to fall on the knees, the act ofimploring aid, and of expressing reverence and honour

λέγων : PAPart nsm, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak

θέλῃς: PASubj 2s, θέλω, 1) to will, have in mind, intend 1a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose

δύνασαί : PMI 2s, δύναμαι, 1) to be able, have power whether byvirtue of one's own ability and resources, or of a state of mind, orthrough favourable circumstances, or by permission of law or custom

καθαρίσαι: AAInf, καθαρίζω, 1) to make clean, cleanse 1a) fromphysical stains and dirt 1a1) utensils, food 1a2) a leper, to cleanseby curing 1a3) to remove by cleansing

⁴¹καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ,

Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι:

And having compassion/infuriated, stretchingout the hand of him he touched and says to him, “I will; be cleansed.”

σπλαγχνισθεὶς :APPar nms, σπλαγχνίζομαι, 1) to be moved as to one's bowels, henceto be moved with compassion, have compassion (for the bowels were thoughtto be the seat of love and pity) SEE BELOW UNDER ‘WORD STUDY’

ἐκτείνας :AAPart nms, ἐκτείνω, 1) to stretch out, stretch forth 1a) over, towards, against one

ἥψατο : AMI3s, ἅπτω, 1) to fasten to, adhere to 1a) tofasten fire to a thing, kindle, set of fire

λέγει : PAI3s, λέγω, 1) to say,to speak

Θέλω:PAI 1s, θέλω, 1) to will, have in mind, intend 1a) to be resolvedor determined, to purpose

καθαρίσθητι:APImpv 2s, καθαρίζω, 1) to make clean, cleanse 1a) fromphysical stains and dirt 1a1) utensils, food 1a2) a leper, tocleanse by curing 1a3) to remove by cleansing

⁴²καὶ εὐθὺς ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα, καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη.

And immediately left from him the leprosy and was cleansed.

ἀπῆλθεν : AAI 3s, ἀπέρχομαι,v \{ap-erkh'-om-ahee}
1) to go away, depart 1a) to go away in order to follow any one, go afterhim, to follow his party, follow him as a leader

ἐκαθαρίσθη: API 3s, καθαρίζω, 1) to make clean, cleanse 1a) fromphysical stains and dirt 1a1) utensils, food 1a2) a leper, tocleanse by curing 1a3) to remove by cleansing

⁴³καὶ ἐμβριμησάμενος αὐτῷεὐθὺς ἐξέβαλεν αὐτόν,

And speaking harshly to him, immediately cast him out.

ἐμβριμησάμενος : AMP nsm, ἐμβριμάομαι, 1) to charge with earnest admonition,sternly to charge, threatened to enjoin SEE BELOW UNDER ‘WORD STUDY’

ἐξέβαλεν : AAI 3s, ἐκβάλλω, 1) to cast out, drive out, to sendout 1a) with notion of violence 1a1) to drive out (cast out) 1a2) to cast out 1a2a) of the world, i.e. be deprived of the powerand influence he exercises in the world 1a2b) a thing: excrementfrom the belly into the sink

⁴⁴καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Ορα μηδενὶ (dat) μηδὲν (acc) εἴπῃς, ἀλλὰ ὕπαγε σεαυτὸν δεῖξον τῷ ἱερεῖ καὶ προσένεγκε περὶ τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ σου ἃ προσέταξεν

Μωϋσῆς, εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς.

And is saying to him, “Take care to no one nothing sayingbut go yourself show to the priest and bringconcerning the cleansing of you that which placedMoses into a witness to/against them..

Myers:The Greek translated here as "for a proof to the people" is actuallya technical term for bearing witness in a hostile situation.

λέγει : PAI 3s,

Ορα : PAImpv 2s, ὁράω, 1) to see with the eyes 2) to see with the mind, toperceive, know 3) to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, toexperience 4) to see, to look to 4a) to take heed, beware

εἴπῃς: AASubj 2s,

ὕπαγε : PAImpv 2s, ὑπάγω, 1) to lead under, bring under 2)to withdraw one's self, to go away, depart

δεῖξον : AAImpv 2s,

προσένεγκε : AAImpv 2s, προσφέρω, 1) to bring to, lead to 1a) one toa person who can heal him or is ready to show him some kindness, one to aperson who is to judge him

προσέταξεν : AAI 3s, προστάσσω, 1) to assign or ascribe to, jointo 2) to enjoin, order, prescribe, command 2a) to appoint, todefine

⁴⁵ὁ δὲ ἐξελθὼν ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν πολλὰ καὶ διαφημίζειν τὸν λόγον, ὥστε

μηκέτι αὐτὸν δύνασθαι φανερῶς εἰς πόλιν εἰσελθεῖν, ἀλλ' ἔξω ἐπ' ἐρήμοις

τόποις ἦν: καὶ ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτὸν πάντοθεν.

But he going out began to preach many and to spreadabroad the word so that nowhere him tobe able appear in a city to comein but outside upon deserted places he wasand (they) came to him from all places.

ἐξελθὼν : AAPart nms, ἐξέρχομαι, 1) to go or come forth of 1a) withmention of the place out of which one goes, or the point from which hedeparts 1a1) of those who leave a place of their own accord 1a2) ofthose who are expelled or cast out

ἤρξατο : AMI 3s, ἄρχω, 1) to be chief, to lead, to rule b. ἄρχ. denotessomething as begun by some one, others following

κηρύσσειν : PAInf, κηρύσσω, 1) to be a herald, to officiate as aherald 1a) to proclaim after the manner of a herald

διαφημίζειν : PAInf, διαφημίζω, 1) to spread abroad, blaze abroad 2) to spread abroad his fame or renown

δύνασθαι : PMInf, δύναμαι, 1) to be able, have power whether byvirtue of one's own ability and resources, or of a state of mind, orthrough favourable circumstances, or by permission of law or custom

εἰσελθεῖν: AAinf, εἰσέρχομαι, 1) to go out or come in: to enter 1a) of men or animals, as into a house or a city 1b) of Satan takingpossession of the body of a person

ἦν: IAI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to bepresent

ἤρχοντο : IMI 3p, ἔρχομαι to come or go, used of persons or of things. It denotes theact of coming or going, as, I am coming, etc., in distinction from ἥκω, which denotes the result, as, I am come and am here

WORD STUDY

41. σπλαγχνισθεὶς

From Michael Turton, http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark01.html#1.p.40.45Although most textual witnesses say the text reads "moved with pity,"some manuscripts have "infuriated." As the more difficult reading,this is to be preferred. Bart Ehrman (2000) asks: "If the text of Markavailable to Matthew and Luke had used the term σπλαγχνισθεὶς, feelingcompassion, why would each of them have omitted it? On only two other occasionsin Mark's Gospel is Jesus explicitly described as compassionate: Mark 6:34, atthe feeding of the 5000, and Mark 8:2, the feeding of the 4000. Luke completelyrecasts the first story and does not include the second. Matthew, however, hasboth stories and retains Mark's description of Jesus being compassionate onboth occasions (14:14 [and 9:30]; 15:32). On three additional occasions inMatthew, and yet one other occasion in Luke, Jesus is explicitly described ascompassionate, using this term (σπλαγχνισθεὶς). It's hard to imagine, then, why they both,independently of one another, would have omitted the term from the presentaccount if they had found it in Mark."

A further problem is that the sentence may also bepunctuated so that it is the leper, not Jesus, who is enraged (Lake cited in Willker 2004, p36-7).

43. ἐμβριμησάμενος

Ched Myers (Binding the StrongMan) opts for the angry reading. After his comment about the leper daringJesus to heal him, he writes:

Jesus does indeed dare, but Marktells us he is angry. Then, after the declaration of wholeness has beendelivered, Jesus, "snorting with indignation" (ἐμβριμησάμενος),dispatches the man back to the priests (the probable meaning of ἐξέβαλεν).How are we to make sense of these strong emotions?

They only make sense if the man hadalready been to the priests, who for some reason had rejected hispetition. Deciding to make an issue out of it, Jesus sternly gives the leperthese orders: See that you say nothing to anyone! Rather, go back and showyourself to the priest and make the offering prescribed by Moses for yourcleansing as a witness against them [1:44]

The cleansed leper's task is not topublicize a miracle but to help confront an ideological system: the change inobject (from "priest" to "them") suggests a protest againstthe entire purity apparatus, which the priests control. He is to make theoffering for the purpose of "witnessing against them" (eismarturion autois). This is a technical phrase in the Gospel for testimonybefore hostile audiences (6:11; 13:9). [p. 153]

Other typical translations of ἐμβριμησάμενος

Mt. 9:30- Two blind men eyes were opened, Jesus sternlywarned them to tell nobody- but they did.

Mk. 14:5- People at dinner ‘scolded’ the woman withthe expensive ointment.

Jn.11:33- When Jesus saw Mary and the Jews with her weeping,he was ‘greatly disturbed’ in his spirit.

Jn. 11:38- Again, Jesus was ‘greatly disturbed’ inhis spirit

43, ἐξέβαλεν

Uses of in ἐξέβαλεν in Mark

Mar 1:12 ...immediately the Spirit driveth him into the...

Mar 1:34 ...divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and...

Mar 1:39 ...all Galilee,and cast out devils.

Mar1:43 ...him, and forthwith sent him away;

Mar 3:15 ...heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:

Mar 3:22 ...of the devils casteth he out devils.

Mar 3:23 ...How can Satan cast out Satan?

Mar 5:40 ...to scorn. But when he had put them all out, he taketh the...

Mar 6:13 And they cast out many devils, and...

Mar 7:26 ...besought him that he would cast forth the devil out...

Mar 9:18 ...thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could...

Mar 9:28 ...could not we cast him out?

Mar 9:38 ...we saw one casting out devils in thy...

Mar 9:47 ...eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better...

Mar 11:15 ...temple, and began to cast out them that sold...

Mar 12:8 ...killed him, and cast him out of...

Mar 16:9 ...out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Mar 16:17 ...In my name shall they castout devils; theyshall...

Commentary

from Michael Turtonmhttp://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark01.html#1.p.40.45

Note how in Mark 1 Jesus heals a "leper" (skindisease) and then in Mk 5:21-43Jesus heals a woman with a discharge, followed by the raising of a dead girl(ceremonially unclean due to contact with a dead body). All of these arecontagious impurities (Fletcher-Louis 2003) that affect others who touch them.

v40: Myers (1988) declares: "Mark's storyof Jesus stands virtually alone among the literary achievements of antiquityfor one reason: it is a narrative for and about the common people. The Gospelreflects the daily realities of disease, poverty, and disenfranchisement thatcharacterized the social existence of first-century Palestine's 'other 95%.'"(p39)

v40: Kazmierski (1992) points out that theleper's request presupposes that Jesus is well known as a healer. He alsoobserves that the leper is not merely beseeching Jesus for help, but implicitlychallenging Jesus' reputation for being able to help.

v41: Myers (1988, p153) argues that thesource of Jesus' indignation was his realization that the leper had alreadybeen rejected by the priests.

v43: Crossan (1991, 322) observes that thismay be a scribal insertion (it is not in the parallel texts of Matt and Luke),but the fact that it is a characteristic doublet of v44 argues for Markanauthorship.

v44: Myers (1988, p153) interprets the commandfor the leper to show himself to the priests as an injunction to become awitness on behalf of Jesus that the old order has been overturned and the newone announced by Jesus has begun. TheGreek translated here as "for a proof to the people" is actually atechnical term for bearing witness in a hostile situation. Most exegetessee this as Jesus carefully following the precepts of Mosaic law, which callsfor a healed leper to prove it to the priests so that he may be consideredritually clean again.

Brian Stoffregen

The person who has the leprousdisease shall wear torn clothes and let the hair of his head be disheveled; andhe shall cover his upper lip and cry out, "Unclean, unclean." heshall remain unclean as long as he has the disease; he is unclean. He shalllive alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp. [Leviticus 13:45-46, NRSV]

Myers (Binding the Strong Man)writes about this: "The leper appears aware that his approach to Jesus, anonpriest, was itself in violation of the symbolic system, which is why hegives Jesus a chance to refuse. It is almost as if he says, "You coulddeclare me clean if only you would dare (1:40)."

There is another possible reasonfor Jesus staying outside the cities in the wilderness places -- he had becomeunclean by touching the leper. As the now-clean leper tells everyone whathappened to him, it would have been clear to all the people that Jesus hadbecome unclean. It was against the rules for anyone to associate with Jesus --but see quote from Witherington above.

A third possibility is suggested byMalina and Rohrbaugh (Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels)which they call "gossip backlash". They write:

Among nonliterate peoples (only 2to 4 percent could read or write in agrarian societies), communication isbasically by word of mouth. Where reputation (honor status) is concerned,gossip informed the community about (and validated) ongoing gains and lossesand thereby provided a guide to proper social interaction. Its effects could beboth positive (confirm honor, spread reputation, shape and guide publicinteraction) and negative (undermine others), though overall it tended tomaintain the status quo by highlighting deviations from the norm. It thusfunctioned as an important mechanism of informal social control. For example,in cases where a person sought to claim more honor than his birthright provided(an action considered stealing in a limited-good society in which gain for oneautomatically meant loss for someone else), the gossip network could trigger abacklash that cut the claimant down to size very quickly. That may be thereason for Mark's note here (1:45) that Jesus could no longer openly enter atown. Since he is in his home region and his reputation is growing, backlashmay have started. [p. 185]

http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark01.htmlA chiasm governs the structure:

A And he went throughout all Galilee,preaching in their synagogues and casting out demons.

B And a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him,"If you will, you can make me clean."

C Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand andtouched him, and said to him, "I will; be clean."

D And immediately the leprosy left him, and hewas made clean.

D And he sternly charged him, and sent him awayat once, and said to him, "See that you say nothing to any one; but go,show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded,for a proof to the people."

C But he went out and began to talk freely aboutit, and to spread the news, so that Jesus could no longer openly enter a town,but was out in the country;

B and people came to him from every quarter.

A And when he returned to Caper'na-um after somedays, it was reported that he was at home.

Pietistic Attempts by to Make the Passage Palatable:

Matthew Henry: WhenChrist had cured him, he strictly charged him; the word here is verysignificant, embrimesamenos--graviterinterminatus--prohibiting with threats. I am apt to think that this refers not to the directions he gave him toconceal it (v.44), for those are mentioned by themselves; but that this was such a chargeas he gave to the impotent man whom he cured, Johnv. 14, Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee; for the leprosywas ordinarily the punishment of some particular sinners, as in Miriam's,Gehazi's, and Uzziah's, case; now, when Christ healed him, he warnedhim, he threatened him with the fatal consequence of it if he should returnto sin again. He also appointed him, (1.) To show himself to the priest,that the priest by his own judgment of this leper might be a witness forChrist, that he was the Messiah, Matt.xi. 5. (2.) Till he had done that, not to say any thing of it toany man: this is an instance of the humility of Christ and hisself-denial, that he did not seek his own honour, did not strive or cry,Isa.xlii. 2. And it is an example to us, not to seek our own glory, Prov.xxv. 27. He must not proclaim it, because that would much increasethe crowd that followed Christ, which he thought was too great already; not asif he were unwilling to do good to all, to as many as came; but he woulddo it with as little noise as might be, would have no offence given tothe government, no disturbance of the public peace, not any thing done thatlooked like ostentation, or an affecting of popular applause. What to think ofthe leper's publishing it, and blazing it abroad, I know not; theconcealment of the good characters and good works of good men better become themthan their friends; nor are we always bound by the modest commands ofhumble men. The leper ought to haveobserved his orders; yet, no doubt, it was with a good design that he proclaimedthe cure, and it had no other illeffect than that it increased the multitudes which followed Christ, to thatdegree, that he could no more openly enter into the city; not upon theaccount of persecution (there was no danger of that yet,) but because the crowdwas so great, that the streets would not hold them, which obliged him to gointo desert places, to a mountain (ch.iii. 13), to the sea-side, ch.iv. 1. This shows how expedient it was for us, that Christ should goaway, and send the Comforter, for his bodily presence could be butin one place at a time; and those that came to him from every quarter,could not get near him; but by his spiritual presence he is with hispeople wherever they are, and comes to them to every quarter.

John Wesley: Seethou say nothing to any man - But our blessed Lord gives no such charge to us.If he has made us clean from our leprosy of sin, we are not commanded toconceal it. On the contrary, it is our duty to publish it abroad, both for thehonour of our Benefactor, and that others who are sick of sin may be encouragedto ask and hope for the same benefit.

Jesus, Who Won't Stay Still

2012-01-30T07:37:00.002-06:00

Here is my initial, naive translation of Mark 1:29-39, with some notes of my own and notes culled from others. Enjoy, but please don't hesitate to question, challenge or correct. We can marvel together.

Mark 1:29-39

²⁹Καὶ εὐθὺς ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς ἐξελθόντες ἦλθον εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Σίμωνος καὶ

Ἀνδρέου μετὰ Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωάννου.

And immediately as he went out of the synagogue, he cameinto the house of Simon and Andrew with James and John.

ἐξελθόντες : AAPart npm, ἐξέρχομαι, 1) to go or come forth of 1a)with mention of the place out of which one goes, or the point from whichhe departs

ἦλθον : AAI 3p, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come 1a) of persons 1a1) to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arrivingand of those returning

³⁰ἡ δὲ πενθερὰ Σίμωνος κατέκειτο πυρέσσουσα,καὶ εὐθὺς λέγουσιν αὐτῷ περὶ

αὐτῆς.

And/but/yet Simon’s mother-in-law was lying in bed beingsick with a fever, and immediately they spoke to him about her.

κατέκειτο: IMI 3s, κατάκειμαι, 1) to have lain down, i.e. to lieprostrate 1a) of the sick 1b) of those at meals, to recline

πυρέσσουσα: PAPart nsf, πυρέσσω, 1) to be sick with a fever

I Corinthians 9:5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believingwife,^* as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lordand Cephas?

³¹καὶ προσελθὼν ἤγειρεν αὐτὴν κρατήσας τῆς χειρός: καὶ ἀφῆκεν αὐτὴν ὁ

πυρετός, καὶ διηκόνει αὐτοῖς.

And going he awoke/raised her taking her hand; and the feverleft her, and she served them.

προσελθὼν : AAPart nsm, προσέρχομαι, 1) to come to, approach 2) drawnear to 3) to assent to

ἤγειρεν : AAI 3s, ἐγείρω, 1) to arouse, cause to rise 1a) toarouse from sleep, to awake

κρατήσας : AAPart nsm, κρατέω, 1) to have power, be powerful 1a)to be chief, be master of, to rule 2) to get possession of

ἀφῆκεν : AAI 3s, ἀφίημι, 1) to send away 1a) to bid goingaway or depart 1a1) of a husband divorcing his wife 1b) to sendforth, yield up, to expire

διηκόνει : IAI 3s, διακονέω, 1) to be a servant, attendant, domestic,to serve, wait upon 1a) to minister to one, render ministering officesto 1a1) to be served, ministered unto 1b) to wait at a table andoffer food and drink to the guests,

³²Ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης, ὅτε ἔδυ ὁ ἥλιος, ἔφερον πρὸς αὐτὸν πάντας τοὺς κακῶς

ἔχοντας καὶ τοὺς δαιμονιζομένους:

And/but in the evening, when the sun was setting, theywere bringing to him all of those who were having troubles and those who were demonized,

ἔδυ : AAI 3s, δύνω, 1) to go into, enter 2) go under, be plunged into,sink in 2a) used in the NT of the setting of the sun

ἔφερον : IAI 3p, φέρω, 1) to carry 1a) to carry some burden 1a1)to bear with one's self 1b) to move by bearing; move or, to be conveyedor borne, with the suggestion of force or speed

ἔχοντας : PAPart apm, φέρω, 1) to carry 1a) to carry some burden 1a1)to bear with one's self 1b) to move by bearing; move or, to be conveyedor borne, with the suggestion of force or speed

δαιμονιζομένους: δαιμονίζομαι, 1) to be under the power of ademon.

³³καὶ ἦν ὅλη ἡ πόλις ἐπισυνηγμένη πρὸς τὴν θύραν.

And all of the city was being gathered to the door.

ἐπισυνηγμένη: PerfPPartnsf, ἐπισυνάγω, 1) togather together besides, to bring together to others alreadyassembled 2) to gather together against 3) to gather together inone place

³⁴καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν πολλοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας ποικίλαις νόσοις, καὶ δαιμόνια πολλὰ ἐξέβαλεν, καὶ οὐκ ἤφιεν λαλεῖν τὰ δαιμόνια, ὅτι ᾔδεισαν αὐτόν.

And he healed many troubled ones who were having varieddiseases, and threw out many demons, and was not allowing the demons to speak,because they had known him.

ἐθεράπευσεν : AAI 3s, θεραπεύω, 1) to serve, do service 2) toheal, cure, restore to health

ἔχοντας : PAPart apm, ἔχω, 1) to have, i.e. to hold 1a) to have (hold) in thehand, in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind(refers to alarm, agitating emotions, etc.),

ἐξέβαλεν: AAI 3s, ἐκβάλλω, 1) to cast out, drive out, to sendout 1a) with notion of violence 1a1) to drive out (cast out) 1a2) to cast out

ἤφιεν : IAI 3s, ἀφίημι, 1) to send away 1a) to bid goingaway or depart 1a1) of a husband divorcing his wife 1b) to sendforth, yield up, to expire

λαλεῖν : PAInf λαλέω, 1) to utter a voice or emit asound 2) to speak 2a) to use the tongue or the faculty ofspeech

ᾔδεισαν : PluAI 3p, εἴδω, ἴδω, an obsol. form of the present tense, the place of whichis supplied by ὁράω. The tenses coming from εἴδω and retained by usage form two families,of which one signifies to see, the other to know.

³⁵Καὶ πρωῒ ἔννυχα λίαν ἀναστὰςἐξῆλθεν καὶ ἀπῆλθεν εἰς ἔρημον τόπον κἀκεῖ

προσηύχετο.

And in the morning, while it was still very dark, arisinghe went out and came to a desert/wilderness place and there he prayed.

ἀναστὰς: AAPart nsm, ἀνίστημι, 1) to cause to rise up, raise up 1a) raise up from laying down 1b) to raise up from the dead 1c) toraise up, cause to be born, to cause to appear, bring forward

ἐξῆλθεν : AAI 3s, ἐξέρχομαι, 1) to go or come forth of 1a) withmention of the place out of which one goes, or the point from which hedeparts

ἀπῆλθεν : ἀπέρχομαι, 1) to go away, depart 1a) to go away in order to followany one, go after him,

προσηύχετο: IMI 3s, προσεύχομαι, 1) to offer prayers, to pray

Mark 1:12-13, And the Spirit immediately drove him outinto the wilderness ἔρημον. He was in the wilderness ἔρημον for forty days,tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited onhim.

³⁶καὶ κατεδίωξεν αὐτὸν Σίμων καὶ οἱ μετ'αὐτοῦ,

And Simon and those with him followed after him,

κατεδίωξεν : AAI 3s, καταδιώκω, 1) to follow after, follow up

³⁷καὶ εὗρον αὐτὸν καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ ὅτι Πάντες ζητοῦσίν σε.

and found him saying to him, “Everyone is looking foryou.”

εὗρον : AAI 3p, εὑρίσκω, 1) to come upon, hit upon, to meetwith 1a) after searching, to find a thing sought 1b) withoutprevious search, to find (by chance),

λέγουσιν : PAI 3p, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 1a) affirm over, maintain 1b) to teach 1c) to exhort, advise, to command, direct

ζητοῦσίν : PAI 3s, ζητέω, 1) to seek in order to find 1a) toseek a thing

³⁸καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Ἄγωμεν ἀλλαχοῦ εἰς τὰς ἐχομένας κωμοπόλεις, ἵνα καὶ ἐκεῖ

κηρύξω: εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἐξῆλθον.

And he says to them, “Let us go elsewhere into the surroundingtowns in order to preach there also; for this I was sent.

Ἄγωμεν: PAS 1p, ἄγω, 1) to lead, take with one 1a) tolead by laying hold of, and this way to bring to the point of destination.This is a “hortatory subjunctive” typically translated as “let us”.

ἐχομένας : PMPart apf, ἔχω, 1) to have, i.e. to hold 1a) to have (hold) in thehand, in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind

κηρύξω: PAPart nsm, κηρύσσω, 1) to be a herald, to officiate as aherald 1a) to proclaim after the manner of a herald

ἐξῆλθον: AAI 1s, ἐξέρχομαι, 1) to go or come forth of 1a) withmention of the place out of which one goes, or the point from which hedeparts

³⁹καὶ ἦλθεν κηρύσσων εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν εἰς ὅλην τὴν Γαλιλαίαν καὶ τὰ

δαιμόνια ἐκβάλλων.

And he went preaching in their synagogues throughout Galilee and throwing out the demons.

ἦλθεν: AAI 3s, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come 1a) of persons 1a1) to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arrivingand of those returning

κηρύσσων : PAPart nsm, κηρύσσω, 1) to be a herald, to officiate as aherald 1a) to proclaim after the manner of a herald

ἐκβάλλων: PAPart nsm, ἐκβάλλω, 1) to cast out, drive out, to sendout 1a) with notion of violence 1a1) to drive out (cast out)

Possible Outline

I. Setting : Leave synagogue; enter Simon’shouse

II. Jesus heals Simon’s Mother-in-law

III. Response of the people: Bring thetroubled and demonized

IV. Jesus heals the troubled; exorcises andsilences demons

I. Setting: Leave house for wilderness

II. Simon and others find and confront him,“Everyone is looking for you.”

III. Jesus’ response – “Let us go elsewhere, forthis I was sent”

IV. Jesus leaves area, preaches and exorcisesin synagogues throughout Galilee

Word Studies:

“Synagogue” literally means a “gathering together” (or,transliterated, a “gaggle together”). It does not necessarily mean a “house ofreligious worship” yet. The institutionalization of synagogues increased afterthe diaspora of the late 60s. In general, “synagogue” meant something like a‘town hall meeting,’ not necessarily religious.

Location, Location, Location:

3. “in the wilderness…” Isaiah

4. in the wilderness … John the Baptizer

9. Jesus from Nazareth,baptized by John in the Jordan

12. the spirit threw Jesus into the wilderness

14. Jesus came to Galilee

16. Jesus passing along the Sea of Galilee

21. They went to Capernaum

21. On the Sabbath, entered the synagogue

29. Leaving synagogue, entered Simon and Andrew’s house

35. In the morning, Jesus left the house and went into thewilderness

38. Jesus says, “Let us go into surrounding towns”

39. They went throughout Galilee

45. Jesus could no longer go into a town, so he stayed inthe wilderness places

Commentaries:

Sacred Topography, Neyrey, "Idea of Purity," 95,from Robert R. Beck, NonviolentStory, chapter 4, "The Symbolism of Power." [I would add "Galilee" then "wilderness" as layers inside of Gentile lands.]

This pattern was repeated in other dimensions of Judean life. A ritual calendardistinguished holy days from profane, and they were rated on a scale ofrelative holiness. Food was designated as either fit for the altar, fitfor the table, or unfit for consumption of any kind. And persons werescaled in a social ranking as to their "holiness" -- not so much amoral standing as a status in relation to the holy places. The priests stood atthe top, the physically damaged, such as eunuchs, were at the bottom, whilethe gentiles were off the map entirely. This sense of "holiness"had earlier prompted the various genealogies of the Old Testament, useful forcalculating one's (or another's) proximity to the holiness of Judaism. In otherwords, the ranking of persons according to holiness has to do with one'sstanding in relation to the temple. In this regard, priests are countedas holier than ordinary Israelites; Israelites are holier than converts; and soforth. The map of persons replicates the map of places.
The topography of Palestine-- with its towns and deserts, its synagogues and houses -- and even thephysical bodies of its inhabitants provide Mark with a narrative arena in whichthe contest of powers is played out, almost as on a playing field or a game board.In this chapter we will observe more closely the terms of holiness anduncleanness as they appear in the Gospel. Mark presents the Judeanestablishment's system of barriers and preventions as ineffectual. The onlyeffective opposition to the unclean power is the holy power invested in theprotagonist Jesus. Jesus' critique is condensed in the abrogation of food lawsin Mk 7:15-19. For Mark, this would seem to stand as the emblem of the work ofJesus throughout the Gospel.⁽²⁾
In brief, we will see that holiness understood in a system of opposition tothe unclean is rejected for its inhumane qualities and therefore rejected as aninadequate attribute or image of the compassionate God. Jesus will replace thisimage of holiness with one that privileges compassion and, concomitantly,displays a nondestructive expression of wrath as response to the violations ofcompassion. (pp. 66-68)

From synagogue in Capernaum,to Simon’s house, to the door, to the wilderness, to synagogues throughout Galilee.

Extreme Exorcism Exercise Excessively Executed

2012-01-26T09:30:00.000-06:00

Whenever we read stories about "unclean spirits" or "demons" in the Scriptures - like the story in Mark 1:21-28- it seems that predominant voices offer us two alternative ways to encounter those texts. I will call these two options "Fundamentalism" and "Modernism," although they may not be entirely accurate.

Fundamentalism demands that we adopt a 1st century mentality and believe that there is something like an alternate universe at work around us, filled with angels and demons doing spiritual warfare, occasionally erupting from their spirit world into our own time/space continuum and requiring prayers warriors to gather around and do battle. People of this persuasion encourage us to join the fray using all of the right formulas (which sound almost like "incantations," but they're not because they are Christian formulas). Some folks go really haywire with this language and tend to see the world through this lens of spiritual warfare, taking up their "sword of the spirit" against anything from extreme, torturous human maladies to normal human inconveniences. Whereas some people read this story from Mark and say, "That stuff doesn't happen in real life," the Fundamentalist says, "It happens all the time, everywhere! You just don't have eyes to see it. Maybe you have an evil spirit!"

Modernism demands that we drop the 1st century mentality and adopt a 21st century mentality when we read texts of this sort. Of course the world is not "with devils filled," as that silly old Martin Luther once said. And the kinds of maladies that the New Testament treat as "demonically" driven can easily be explained with the ordinary tools of medicine and science - epilepsy, mental illness, mad cow disease, you name it. No, to the Modernist, Mark's story is of the same cloth as the six-day creation, references to the "four corners" of the earth, and a three-dimensional universe of heavens above/underworld below/battleground earth in between. For 21st century folk, it is time to "grow up," to "come of age" and to leave these vestiges of primitive thinking behind. A story like this is only helpful as a moral story of how Jesus had compassion on people and freed them from being ostracized or counted as 'different' from others. The "guts" of the story, however, we have to simply ignore or explain away, or else we will sound like charter members of the "Flat Earth Society."

I suppose that if I had to choose between these two options, I'd go with the Modernist. But, I don't.

Here's why. Oddly enough, the Fundamentalist and the Modernist interpretations of this text share an assumption, which I think is wrong. They assume that the biblical writers took their own language literally. The Fundamentalist assumes that Mark used this language literally, and so a faithful reading of the Scriptures requires for us to take it that way - and to believe it that way - literally. The Modernist assumes that Mark used this language literally, and so a faithful reading of the Scriptures requires us to take demythologize such stories before we can take them seriously. Either way, the assumption is that Mark and his original audience took this language literally and really thought there were demonic, animating spirits at work in the world, wreaking havoc in human life, and at war with Jesus.

Let me offer this alternative reading. Suppose Mark is not using this language literally, but poetically. I'm not saying that he was looking for Greek words that rhyme with pneumati akaqartw (spirit not-clean). I understand poetic language to be the use of words to point beyond themselves to something that is unnameable, but undoubtedly real. There are ... powers (?) ... in the world that really do affect human life very destructively, but seem alien to it. Any parent that has looked at a child with a mental illness, a disorder, or an addiction, knows the full force of this language. It is your child and it is not your child. It is maddening, because you believe in personal responsibility; but it is pitiful because you know that your child is struggling, as much a victim in the moment as a perpetrator. Or, think of someone who has grown up being abused, when at the most critical time possible for developing a sense of confidence, of being loved, of security and attachment has become, instead, a nightmare of fear and torment. That person is and is not the personality that they become. There is a brokenness at the heart of their identity that is not of their own making, but which mightily impacts who they are. They may even become an abuser one day, which incites us to want justice - even if we can acknowledge that s/he has been damaged along the way.

How do we name such conditions of human life literally? What language can we use to capture the fullness of the pain as well as the evil that resides among us? How do we draw lines between one's "true" personality and their "brokenness"?

The truth is, none of our language speaks of three-dimensional life literally. Our words are merely gathering places of accrued meaning - whether they are spoken in the 1st century or the 21st century.

By naming the man in this story as "a man with an unclean spirit," Mark requires us to take seriously that this man was troubled in some evident way, but that his troubled self was not the whole story. The language allows us to separate the man and the condition, but not to entirely separate them. Jesus looked at this man and spoke to the condition to "shut up and come out of him." By taking the condition seriously - as really one with the man but not the man - the story provides a very sophisticated formula for how to encounter persons with disordered conditions. People are, and are not, one with the evil or destructiveness or self-destructiveness that is in them. And while 21st century language has given some greater precision to naming the conditions that are and are not us, even 21st century language is not "literal." We are marveling - like the crowd marveled - at the Christ who is able to look "a man with an unclean spirit" in the eye and to redeem the man himself.

Scribbling About Scribes

2012-01-25T09:52:00.000-06:00

As we continue looking at the story in Mark 1:21-28, let's do a little word study regarding the Scribes. The reason that the Scribes are of interest in this story and beyond is that many biblical scholars argue that the Scribes were not really players in Galilee during the time of Jesus. Richard Dillon, for example, notes that "To the extent that the gospel references to 'scribes' in Galilee may rest on firm historical foundation, it is possible that they were "village clerks or (perhaps) elementary school teachers rather than experts in the law".("As One Having Authority," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, v.57, 1994, p.94, n.8). The point would be that in actual Jesus time, the crowd's amazement that Jesus "was teaching them with authority and not as the Scribes" would not have made sense. It does, however, make perfect sense in Mark's gospel, where the Scribes are players in the story. And that probably reflects a reality in life in 70CE, during the time that Mark's gospel was probably written (about 40 years after Mark's story ends).

So, the question is less "What did the Scribes do during Jesus' time, which caused the crowd to react this way?" It it more like, "How does Mark see the 'teachings' of the Scribes, to which Jesus' teaching with authority is amazingly different?"

Well, Mark loves a good question of that sort and is always ready to answer. (I'm talking about the gospel writer Mark, not me Mark. I love good questions too, but he's way ahead of me in offering answers.)

The Scribes are not actually present in the story of Mark 1:21-28. It's their reputation among the people that is part of the story. The Scribes themselves don't show up until Mark 2:1-12. That is the story where some people let a paralyzed man down through the roof for Jesus to heal, and Jesus says, "Your sins are forgiven." Then, Mark says, "Now, some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 'Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?'"

Oho! They played the blasphemy card! Right off the bat, the Scribes are the one who accuse Jesus of blasphemy. We need to take note of that, because by the 14th chapter of Mark, the Scribes, Pharisees, Chief Priests, and Elders will convene as the "Sanhedrin," the council which condemns Jesus precisely on the charge of blasphemy.

The real distinction between Jesus and the Scribes is in Mark 7:1-13. There, the Scribes and the Pharisees criticize Jesus' disciples for not washing with proper ritual, and implicitly criticize Jesus for letting them eat in this defiled manner. Then Jesus accuses them of being the hypocrites of whom Isaiah spoke when he said "This people honors me with their lips but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines." Jesus went on to declare that nothing that goes inside of a person from the outside can defile that person. Those were fighting words for Mark's Scribes. They were all about upholding the traditions of the past, even if it meant doing unkind things to people in the present.

When the people in Mark 1 are amazed that Jesus' teachings is "with authority" and not "like the Scribes," it seems that the issue here is not whether Jesus or whether the Scribes followed the Hebrew scriptures or not. They both followed the Hebrew Scriptures in their teaching. The differences seem to be more about how one regards the purpose and meaning of the Scriptures. I would frame the question like this:

Are the scriptures God's gift for enhancing life? Or, are they God's laws to which life must conform?

Of course, 'grace' and 'law' are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But, these fundamentally different ways of seeing the scriptures seem to be at the heart of the confrontations between Jesus and the Scribes, and continue to raise intriguing questions, particularly for folks (like me Mark), who consider ourselves biblical Christians.

Demons, Possessions, and Unclean Stuff

2012-01-23T22:27:00.000-06:00

The gospel reading from the Revised Common Lectionary for this week is Mark 1:21-28. It is the story of a man in the synagogue where Jesus is teaching, who confronts Jesus and whom Jesus promptly casts out. The crowd is amazed.

So am I. At many levels. And I don't even believe in literal demons.

I am amazed at the wisdom behind stories of demonic oppression. It seems to be an ancient way of recognizing that sometimes we are caught up in forces that are not genuinely us, but are so powerful and compelling that they seem to possess us. The word, "possess" is not actually in this story, and I think that we probably use that word too much. But, again, I think it is a means of demonstrating that people are not always under their own control.

Here are some interesting things about this story:
- When Jesus 'entered' the synagogue (v.21), the same word εἰσέρχομαι can be used to describe how Satan or an unclean spirit 'enters' someone.
- When Jesus is described as one 'having' authority, the same word ἔχω can be translated 'possessed.'
- There is a chiastic structure to this text. Like this:

21. And [he] was coming into Capernaum. And immediately on the Sabbath he came into the synagogue teaching (or, teaching in the synagogue).

22. And [they] were amazed about the teaching of him, for he was teaching them as having authority and not as the Scribes.

23. And immediately [there] was in their synagogue to him a man in an unclean spirit [or, ‘a man with an unclean spirit was in the synagogue’], and he cried aloud.

24. Saying, “What to us and to you, Jesus Nazarean? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the holy of the God.

25. And censured [from ‘to set a value, access a penalty’] him Jesus saying, “Be silent and come out out of him.”

26. And convulsing him the unclean spirit and crying out a great voice exited out of him.

27. And were amazed all, so that to ask to each other saying, “Who is this? This teaching with authority? And to the unclean spirits he commands, and they listen to him.

28. And came out the report of him immediately all places into the whole region of Galilee.

- The unclean spirit disobeys and obeys Jesus. Jesus says, "Be silent" and the spirit "cries out with a loud voice." But, Jesus also says "Come out of him" and the spirit "exits out of him." That snotty little spirit.
- This spirit has a habit of being loud - see vv.23 and 26.
- The spirit says, "I know who you are, the holy one of God," but the crowd ask each other "Who is this?"
- The word for "authority" exousian in vv.22 and 27 could be translated as "power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases" - which is the opposite of one who is driven by an unclean spirit.

Those are my raw observations about this text. Later this week, I'm going to wax theological about it. Until then, what do you find intriguing about this story?

The Scandal of a Scandal

2012-01-17T17:10:00.000-06:00

It is undoubtedly the worst and most obscene scandal that the Christian Church has ever faced. And that's saying a lot, because the Christian Church is founded on a scandal. But, this scandal is worse! It's, like, the scandal of a scandal, scandal squared, mega-major-super-duper SCANDAL! This scandal is so scandalously scandalous that it scandalizes even scoundrels!

In short, it's a crying shame. And here it is:

The first scandal - the scandal upon which Christianity is built - is that God was in Christ, suffering shame at the hands of humans, displaying that God's way of exercising power in the world is through the cross, a "power that is made perfect in weakness." Of course, the idea that Christ on the cross was revealing God's way of power to the world is just plain silly. It defies any common sensible approach to power, it is contrary to effective exercises of power made known in history, and it violates every kind of theology that has been preached, worshiped, or idolized since the beginning of religious consciousness. The cross is not power; God is not weak; and dying for a cause has never been as effective as killing for one. To imagine that such a display of weakness can be either a form of power or a revelation of God's power is indeed scandalous or simply foolish.

And yet, that's precisely what the Christian Church professes about the death and resurrection of Jesus. It's scandalous, it's foolish, and it's Christianity. To embrace that scandal is to understand why so many of Jesus' followers betrayed, denied, and fled from him at his hour of trial and death.

Even so, the second scandal of the Christian Church is even more scandalous than the first. And the second scandal is that - somehow, remarkably and convincingly - the Christian Church has managed to denude Christianity of its original scandal and to make it a posh-filled prescription for gaining success. Here are the salient features of this second scandal.
- the cross is no longer a call for followers of Jesus. Jesus died on a cross so that we don't have to.
- the cross, in fact, is a sign of the church's strong power. No more power made perfect in weakness.
- the cross ensures that we can be wealthy, healthy, and reach our full potential of success. As seen on TV.
- Jesus' disciples are called to exercise dominion in this world. Long live the Crusades!
- churches are gathering spots where people of power are assured that they are fine "Just as I am."

The second scandal, so to speak, is that the first scandal has been turned on its head and made meaningless. As it turns out, Christianity now believes - with the Romans of old - that all of this 'power made perfect in weakness' stuff is real foolishness. And so, we have simply translated the cross into a symbol of 'power made perfect in power,' we have relegated dying on the cross to a one-time event in history, and we have imagined that Jesus is now a shiny-headed Caesar-like figure, who is ever on the verge of returning with Caesar-like armies that will conquer evil with real, Caesar-like power. The weak, crucified Christ was a vanishing point in history. The real, Caesarean Christ is shuffling his feet at the door, anxious to come back and show his true colors.

The first scandal - the scandal of the cross - was the sacrificial way that called people to trust in love over hate, goodness over evil, and peace over strength. The second scandal has kept enough of the language of the first scandal to keep us good and sentimental, religious and pious, but not to bother us with any more of that weakness foolishness. Our Jesus pushes Christian soldiers onward and plays for keeps.

It is a sad state of affairs.

Same-Sex Marriage: A Sign of the Times

2012-01-12T08:19:00.001-06:00

Living in Iowa gives one a particular perspective on life. Being a progressive state that reveres the institution of marriage and honors the dignity of the human heart - Iowa declares same-sex marriage to be legal. Of course, not all Iowans are in agreement with this decision, but for now same-sex couples have equal rights toward marriage as heterosexual couples in Iowa.

One hears on occasion that the legalization of same-sex marriage is a "sign of the times." I want to accept that proposition as true, but I'm fairly sure that what I mean by that and what others mean by it are radically different. Here is one way of thinking about same-sex marriage as a sign of the times.

Paul Tillich described a peculiar feature of Protestant Christianity with the phrase "the protestant principle." At other times he would call it "the prophetic principle." (Since this is a blog entry and not an academic paper, I'm not citing sources, so you are welcomed to explore Tillich's writings for yourself. You will find the exploration to be rewarding.) Tillich described the protestant principle in several ways, but the one that has stayed with me most powerfully is that Protestant Christianity has a kind of self-critical principle within its operating system, which compels us not just to legitimize our way of thinking vis-a-vis other ways of thinking; but also to listen closely to other ways of thinking with the openness that they can enable us to understand truth, justice, etc., better. As I hear it, then, the Protestant Principle is grounded in a belief that God is at work everywhere and not just among people who think and believe as I do; that all of humanity is finite, including me and the folks who think like me; and that I should be humble in the face of those whose beliefs are different from mine, because they might offer me a better way of seeing the depths of what I believe than folks who speak and think as I do. In theological terms, the Protestant Principle is grounded in a belief in God's sovereignty, human sinfulness, and redemption.

When it comes to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Iowa, I believe that the State has spoken prophetically to the Church. I know, I know, the dominant voices in our society that speak in the name of the church seem to imply the opposite. They argue that the State has violated God's clear and consistent law and that the Church has to speak prophetically to the State by condemning this action and working to reverse it.

I'm finding that argument to be tiresome. It is grounded in a view of sovereignty that looks too much like Empire thinking and not Cross thinking; it is grounded in a view of sin that always points outward and never seriously points inward; and it is grounded in a view of redemption that is essentially built on winning a game of tug-of-war, rather than discovering God's redemptive presence among others.

In my mind, the State (for the most part) is right and the Church (predominantly, certainly not unanimously) is wrong on this one. It's happened before, of course. Some churches were still banging on the 'slavery is permitted by the Bible - even in the New Testament!' drum long after the nation said 'no more.' Some churches were still intentionally racially divided long after the Civil Rights Act passed. And so on.

So, I'm raising my coffee mug to the State of Iowa on same-sex marriage. I'm valuing the enormous amount of courage that many same-sex couples have had to muster in order to persevere in loving one another among people who seek to destroy their relationship. I'm learning about the give-and-take of commitment from same-sex couples who have been in relationships for very long amounts of time. As a person in a marriage, who really does see many persons de-valuing the covenant of marriage, the courage and perseverance of many same-sex couples is a shining example of the power of love and grace. Your relationships are 'signs of the times' for me that love is not just a feeling or a fleeting emotion, but a life of commitment and work.

Well done.

Advent v. Left Behind Theology

2011-12-22T15:36:00.000-06:00

Over the last four weeks, congregations that worship in the historical tradition of the church have been observing the "Season of Advent." The word "advent" means "coming," as many persons know for different reasons. Left Behind Theology - as one group named "Seventh Day Adventist" attests- know this word because of the centrality of the "second coming" or "second advent" of Jesus that is so important in its theology. One Facebook friend of mine (from within one of the Left Behind Theology traditions) posted an update, right after Harold Camping's ill-fated foolishness, saying that he still believed that the coming of Christ is imminent, probably even in 2011! A friend of his chimed in, "Yes Pastor, I can hear His feet shuffling on the door mat." That's precisely the kind of pietistic passive-aggressiveness that I've grown to despise over the years. Of course, 2011 will end without the feet leaving the door mat, yet the prognostications will go on unabated.

Is there no end to this kind of pseudo-prophetic waste of time and energy?

Some folks, of course, surmise that the only alternative is to ignore the "second coming" and the language about it in the Scriptures altogether. To do that, however, affects the way that we encounter the Season of Advent, by making it rather one-dimensional. The "Season of Advent" ends up referring to the time that we prepare ourselves to welcome the FIRST coming of Christ, the first Advent. So, we listen to the prophets - Isaiah, mostly - and sit with them in the darkness awaiting the revelation of the true light, who comes into the world. And, on Christmas, we welcome that true light as we read from Luke the birth narrative of Jesus. The problem is that we clearly remember doing the same last year and - if this is the only meaning of Advent - we're really kind of pretending the whole thing because we've known all along that this baby would be born, would suffer and die, be resurrected, etc.

As I say, I think focusing only on the First Advent during this season is too one-dimensional. The richness of the Season of Advent comes when we see the phrase "the Coming of Christ" as a multivalent phrase, filled with many dimensions of meaning. It does indeed refer to birth of Jesus, as it is anticipated in the prophets of old and remembered in Luke or Matthew or even in John's felicitous phrase, "the Word became flesh." It also does indeed refer to the "second coming of Christ" - but, not in a way that is narrowly constricted as Left Behind Theology usually depicts it. And - here is a key - it also refers to what I would call "the ever-coming of Christ." What I mean by that is that is - as William Stacy Johnson points out - the incarnation was not a 33 year blip in the screen. It points us to God's way of being. God's way of being God is made known to us most explicitly in the Christ - being in our midst, participating in our reality, God-incarnate - that's God's primary way of being God.

The calendared season of Advent is nothing magical. It is a human construct, set in time that is more influenced by pagan traditions (which have their own kind of wisdom) than the biblical witness itself. But, that is not to say that the meaning of the Season of Advent is unbiblical or simply a human construct. What this season offers us is a way of holding all three of these ways of thinking 'incarnation' together - the birth of Jesus, the consummation of God's purpose in creation, and the ongoing participation of God in human reality. The richness of each of these ways of thinking about "God with us" is when we keep them together in dynamic unity.

To that end, may your Advent season (what's left of it, anyway) be filled with joyfully standing with those who once experienced the hopes and fears of all their years being met in the Christ child; May your life find its direction by living toward the full realization of God's purpose for humanity, even in the throes of history; And may you experience God's ever-present companionship, made known in the smallest acts of human kindness and justice.

Happy Advent!

Things Left Up in the Air

2011-11-07T04:59:00.000-06:00

I Thessalonians 4:13-18 is one of those places where it seems that we often impose our agenda onto a text, instead of simply allowing the Scripture to speak for itself. It is subtitled in many Bibles as, “The Coming of the Lord.” It would appear, then, that what Paul is addressing in this part of his letter to the church in Thessalonica is the Coming of the Lord. That is how this text is usually employed – as a “rapture” proof-text, a description of how the saints are going to be taken up into the air on the day of the Lord’s return. And of course the Apostle Paul does speak about the Coming of the Lord and does describe it in a way that is curious. But, if we allow this letter to the church in Thessalonica to speak for itself, the question at hand is not “What will the rapture look like?” That’s a question that we have imposed on this letter. By setting it aside, we can let the Scripture speak for itself.

Paul’s letter to the church in Thessalonica is probably the earliest New Testament document that we have. In this letter, Paul speaks of the Thessalonians’ inspiring faith, his love for them, how he misses them and how he longs to be with them again. It is a very affectionate letter, filled with relief. Paul’s companion Timothy has just returned from the church to Paul, assuring him that in his absence and amid some controversies and persecutions that followed his stay with them, the church in Thessalonica continued to be supportive of him and his ministry. It was a tremendous relief for Paul, because not all churches had remained faithful in their friendship toward him. And so, the letter has a tone of relief and encouragement, thankful for their faithfulness and urging the church to be stronger still. The motivation that Paul turns to – again and again – is that the Lord is coming again soon. Because of that, the church can live with a very loose attachment to the kinds of things that typically cause anxiety. By living toward the soon coming of the Lord, the church can leave off repaying evil for evil and always try to do good to one another as well as outsiders. So, the coming of the Lord is indeed part of this whole letter and an important part of Paul’s theology.

There is another question, however, that seems to be troubling the church in Thessalonica: Some of their members have already died. And that is troubling to them, because death has always been the awful, looming problem for human life. So many foibles, mistakes, acts of aggression, wars, theft, deceit, and pain are motivated by what Martin Heidegger called “the anxiety of having to die.” This anxiety is so deeply embedded in the human psyche because it pushes us to wonder: If we die and our life is over, what is the meaning of it all? Is it all just a striving in vain, if this is as good as it gets? Do we bear our claws and fight it out for all that we can get now, if this is all there is? Do we stave off death, even if it means the death of others? The idea that our lives might end and simply be over, brings a host of anxious, despairing questions about the purpose and meaning of living today.

The expectation that the Lord would return was a tremendous motivation for the church in Thessalonica to live purposeful and even sacrificial lives. That God may come, as unexpectedly as a thief in the night, filled each day with hope instead of despair. But, in time, the Lord did not return and some of the church folk died. With each death came not only the reminder that others, too, may still have to die; it also raised the question of whether those lives had been spent meaninglessly, since they were not going to be present at that moment when the Lord would return. In some ways, this is the first of many questions that would arise among the early church over the delay of the Lord’s return. Life went on and, with it, death happened. So, this church was beginning to wonder whether death trumped their hope in the Lord’s return.

That is the question that I Thessalonians 4:13-18 is addressing. It is not the question of whether the Lord will return, but the age-old question of whether death is so final that it makes life itself meaningless. And while Paul is still convinced that the Lord’s return will be immediate (he seems less driven by the possibility in later letters), his answer to the problem of death is not “rapture,” but resurrection. Because Christ is risen, life has meaning. Because Christ is risen, we have hope. Because Christ is risen, it is not in vain to return good for evil, to live with integrity and good will. Unlike “rapture theology”, which sees the Lord’s return as a way of escaping the despair of the world, “resurrection theology” gives hope that nothing – not even death itself – can take away life’s meaning.

It is true that Paul expects an immediate return of the Lord. He describes what might be a “rapture,” where the Lord will descend with the blast of trumpet, and the dead in Christ will rise first, then we who are alive will be caught up in the clouds together to meet him in the air. And that’s where Paul leaves it. Whether we then go back up to heaven with the Lord or whether we accompany him back down to earth is not answered here. There is no certainty here: We are left “up in the air,” so to speak. What is certain is that the resurrection. However we envision the resurrection of Christ, it is a proclamation that there is something more powerful and final than death itself. And that gives life meaning.

Rapture Helmets Are Going Fast!

2011-10-21T06:47:00.000-05:00

Today only I am selling the new and improved "Rapture Helmet" for the low, low price of $69.99 to protect your head against any debris that you might encounter as you ascend at warp speed. Guaranteed to withstand impact from meteorites, most airplanes, tree branches, and up to 44 floors of ceilings, should you be in the lobby of a skyscraper when the trumpet sounds.

For an extra $29.99, you can ad the carbon-fortified, 360 visio Face Shield, which will enable you to see the entire rapture without fear of gnats or other small objects clouding your vision.

No checks, cash and credit cards only.

Elaine, Look to the Cookie!

2011-10-20T06:06:00.000-05:00

(please allow me to repeat myself from 9/2008)
A few years ago, the Center for Science in the Public Interest ran an article in their Nutrition Action Newsletter about the nutrional value of ... Girl Scout cookies. They covered the cookies rather thoroughly, exploring the fat, transfats, sodium, and everything else found in cookies ranging from Thin Mints to those delicious Peanut Butter Tagalongs. The CSPI does this kind of research on popular foods with every issue of the N.A. Newsletter, so they weren't 'singling out' Girl Scouts per se, they just were focusing on the cookies this time around.

Still, the results were a little disconcerting-- especially if you are one of those who can't resist the sales pitch of sweet little neighbor children, offering a smile and handing you a ledger sheet to fill in, while their moms waving joyfully from the sidewalk. I know that I'm the kind of person who can refuse junk food and sweets at the grocery store, but once the food in our house, I'm going to eat it. Girl Scouts selling cookies take away my wall of resistance. And the CSPI showed me why that was not such a good thing. (NOTE: I seem to recall that GS cookies have improved their nutritional content over time, so please don't read this as the last word on the subject.)

What was interesting-- and even more disconcerting-- was the reaction from the public over the N.A. Newsletter's research. Letters to the journal accused the CSPI of picking on sweet and innocent little girls, who were just trying to support their participation Girl Scouts, by depicting them as merchants of death. Other letters were not quite that diplomatic. Importantly, very few of the letters actually addressed the science of the report- whether or not the cookies actually did contain the nutrional contents that the CSPI said they did. Instead, they focused on how the report would reflect on the image of a cherished and admirable institution.

I think there is a lot to learn from the public reaction to the CSPI report. There are times that we react strongly to something, not because we agree or disagree with the truth of the matter, but because we are trying to protect an image that we cherish. So, for example, people who don't understand the first thing about the science of carbon dating might reject it in principle, not because they can disprove it, but because the notion that the earth might be billions of years old does not fit within their cherished image of creation.

I think the same might be true with people's devotion to Left Behind Theology. If anyone has ever read Barbara Rossing's book, The Rapture Exposed, or Bruce Metzger's Breaking the Code, they would encounter very strong and reasonable arguments against the biblical and theological premises of Left Behind Theology. The 'science' against it, so to speak, is there. Left Behind Theology is simply bad theology built on flimsy scriptural foundations. And yet, so many people assume it is the Christian perspective of the end times. Why is that?

As Jerry Seinfeld once famously said, "Elaine, Look to the cookie!"*

I think the reason that Tim LaHaye's books (those curious hybrids of fiction and supposed non-fiction) outsell Barbara Rossing's books by such a huge margin, has nothing to do with the cogency of their arguments and biblical interpretations. We cherish the idea that, if the world goes awry, we get to survive- much like the letter writers to the CSPI cherished the image of Girl Scouts. And if we have to ignore the facts in order to protect the image, so be it.

* Jerry's cookie was half vanilla and half chocolate, a happy ebony-and-ivory co-existence that led him to sermonize a bit on human community. Shortly thereafter he got an upset stomach, saying, "I think it was the cookie."

Birds, Orcas, and Other Stuff

2011-10-18T09:32:00.001-05:00

A friend and I have vastly different reactions to the song, "God of the Sparrow, God of the Whale" which we sing occasionally in worship. She hates it; I like it - both for the same reason. As she puts it, "That song doesn't actually say anything. It just asks questions." To which I respond, "Yes!"

The question, to be precise, is phrased with the words, "How can the creature say ...?" I would even prefer to the questions to be phrased, "Can the creature say ...?"

My question resists the spirit of the times. We think we can say anything, that we can name anything, that we can describe anything. After all, we're nominalists, whether intentionally or not. We imagine that words are just words and that we know enough of them to capture anything that we encounter and to describe it well enough.

Not so, according to the Scriptures. In the second creation story, God brought each of the animals - created out of the same dirt that yielded Adam (the 'groundling') and whatever Adam named it, that is what it was. In that case, humanity was indeed invested with the power of naming. Naming, in fact, seems to be a way of exerting power or controlling (see the New Testament stories where Jesus evokes the name of a demon before casting it out.) But, humanity is not so empowered in every case. In Exodus 3, there is an intriguing conversation between the God who calls and Moses, who was called. Moses asks, "What is your name?" to which God answers, "I am who I am." It is a fabulous non-answer. Moses doesn't know what he is asking. Perhaps other gods can be named and invoked and called into action by human tongue, but not this God. This God is the calling God, the naming God, the one who is in charge - not Moses. There are limits to human naming.

I suspect that the limits to human naming go beyond our encounters with the divine. We certainly are empowered to name. But, perhaps 'naming' is a gift that is given to us, not an ability that we own inherently. Perhaps, in some cases that are not the divine essence, but inspired by the divine nonetheless, we encounter our limits of naming.

After recently hearing some experts trying to say what, exactly, the "occupy wall street" movement is all about and where it is going, I began to wonder: Is it the arrogance of our age to imagine that we can name the meaning and trajectory of a movement, while it is still moving? Perhaps we should just say - at least for now - "It is what it is." And leave it at that.

The god of Kingdom

2011-10-11T14:45:00.000-05:00

The god of Kingdom

Any time I read a parable in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) I have begun asking myself, "When is a parable about a king not a 'kingdom parable'?"

I was set on this path years ago when I heard Ched Myers declare out loud that the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30, every capitalist's favorite parable) was not a "kingdom parable." That is, it is not a parable about how the Kingdom of God operates, if we interpret that to mean that the "master" in this parable would be a figure of God. "How could he be a figure of God," Ched wondered, "if the Master is described as 'a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, gathering where you did not scatter seed.'?" In fact, God is described quite the opposite in story after story, psalm after psalm, letter after letter, and even in parables such as the rapacious scattering of seed in the Parable of the Sower. In the end, Ched declared that the one who did not invest his 'talent' (a unit of money, not a special ability), was the one who was acting faithfully, because he was refusing to play along with a 'Master' whose way of life was oppressive.

I have that same kind of reaction to the Parable of the Wedding Feast, in Matthew 22:1-14. Every person of faith and good will bristles when hearing this parable and its king’s harsh overreactions to his people and particularly the hideous treatment of the guest who is ill-dressed. Of course, commentators – who seem to be bent on making parables safe for consumer digestion – will offer a billion reasons why the king in this story is acting rightly. “The king’s people killed his messengers! They refused his hospitality! And that guy was not just underdressed, he was showing dishonor to the king by showing up that way!” There will even be a “Middle East expert” somewhere along the lines who has found a parchment that might have been written by someone who matters saying that wedding apparel might have been a much bigger deal than any of us dares to imagine these days. Maybe.

Phew! As unstable as that argument is, it’s good enough for us. As long as the people who get the king’s harsh treatment deserve it, we’re safe because God is still the loving God we imagine, albeit with a slight tendency to ‘go postal’ on folks who dis God’s honor.

Well, I’m not buying it and here are my reasons why.

1. The king in this story responds to rejection with violence (way, way over-the-top violence). In Matthew’s gospel, the kingdom of God is about overcoming evil with good. (See chapters 5-7, the Sermon on the Mount.)

2. The king in this story is most interested in seeing his banquet hall filled with guests. We think that is a good thing – since we’ve bought into a marketing definition of evangelism and called it good – but Jesus accuses the religious leadership in Jerusalem of being very zealous in reaching out and making disciples, even if they disciple them for perdition. We notice that the king’s son – whose wedding is ostensibly the occasion for this feast – never seems to show up.

3. The king in this story calls the man who is ill-dressed “friend.” Aw, that sounds nice and godly, doesn’t it? Until we read the next story and we see how perniciously the religious leaders address Jesus as a wise and truthful teacher, all the while they are setting him up for his death.

4. The king’s messengers are ignored, then mistreated and killed. We immediately imagine that this must be the history of the prophets at work here. We may be right, but we should also remember that the history of the prophets was part of the religious leadership’s own story. They imagined themselves as part of this tradition, and they believed that God’s way of dealing with rejection was with violence.

5. In the previous parable, Jesus tells of a vineyard owner – also often considered to be a God-figure – whose messengers were killed. Jesus ends by asking the religious leaders, “What will the owner of the vineyard do?” They reply, “He will kill those evil people evilly and give his vineyard to those who will produce!” And Jesus DOES NOT SAY, “You’re right! Ding! Ding!” Instead, Jesus says, “Have you never read the Scriptures?” And Jesus goes on to describe a stone that was rejected. It returned to be the chief cornerstone. That is, God’s response to rejection is not violence, but resurrection.

But, you may protest, the parable must be a “kingdom parable” because it begins with the words, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king …”

Well, it does and it doesn’t. The verb here is not a ‘subjunctive’ verb, which is typically translated ‘may be ….’ It is an aorist (past tense) passive verb and is probably best translated something like, “The kingdom of heaven has been compared to ….” For all of the reasons that 8^th grade literature students are told not to use the passive voice, Matthew very deliberately does use the passive voice. Jesus is not owning this view of the kingdom of heaven. He’s throwing it out there as what is said – and I’d say it is the view that is said specifically by the religious leadership with whom he is in a pitched argument in these chapters of Matthew.

Jesus is not offering his own view of the kingdom of heaven here; he is critiquing the way that others describe the kingdom of heaven. Why, they even try to limit God’s grace by claiming, “Many are called, but few are chosen”! How does that square with the God whose covenant with Abram is established so that, in him, ALL NATIONS will be blessed? What kind of king is this, anway?

Ah, there’s a good question. What kind of king strikes back against rejection with vicious violence? What kind of king offers a banquet which his subjects loathe to attend? What kind of king seems more interested in the appearance of support (by a crowded banquet hall) than in the persons who were invited in the first place?

There’s an answer to that question, which every 1^st century Jew in Jerusalem and Galilee knew well. Herod is just that kind of king. The power of the Roman Empire instilled just that kind of repugnance, even when it was displayed with flash – like a beautifully ornate temple or a lavish religious feast. When we hear ‘king’ we assume the parable is about God. When Matthew’s audience heard ‘king,’ don’t you think their first impulse was to think Herod or the other kings of that region who were kept in power by the violence of Rome? At least for them they didn’t have to explain away the violence and impunity of the story – that was exactly what they had grown to expect from kings of the Herod variety. And that is what this parable describes.

When is a parable about a king not a ‘kingdom parable’? When the king in question is a vicious, violent Herod-like ruler who only knows the language of coercion in response to rejection. Like this one.

Treasures Neu and Old: What Faith Might Learn from Neutrinos

2011-09-24T07:36:00.000-05:00

Reading various accounts of the OPERA and CERN presentations about neutrinos possibly traveling faster than light, I can't help but marvel at the humility and willingness to be proven wrong that the scientific community embraces. They welcome others who might be able to disprove what they've discovered. They re-tried and re-tried their experiments to ensure that no external issues affected their findings. They still aren't quite ready to jump to conclusions or forecast enormous changes as a result of their finding. It's an amazing exercise in disciplined learning.

Compare that to politicians, whose topics are invariably cluttered with all kinds of external factors: People's reactions to economic policies; Motives behind immigration; Whether one's sexuality is chosen or given; What brings 'security' and what does not; Etc. By nature, political hot topics are filled with variables, resistant to proof, and unable to rise to the level of proven certainty. Nonetheless, politicians are considered leadership material the more adamant and intolerant of critics they are. How weird is that?

Aristotle made 2 fundamental distinctions when categorizing 'sciences.' One branch, he called 'Physics' (we might call them the 'hard sciences.') He describe 'physics' as that type of science where 'things cannot be otherwise.' That's why the burden of proof is to negate the 'otherwise,' and why nothing is 'scientifically proven' until the 'otherwise' has been negated. That is also why scientists embrace the word 'theory.' To say that an idea is a 'theory' does not mean that it is some untested whack job. It is an act of humility that leaves open the possibility that there may be an 'otherwise' out there that one has not yet ruled out.

The second branch of Aristotelian science he called 'Ethics' (we might call them the 'humanities.') Aristotle described 'ethics' as that type of science where 'things could be otherwise.' Politics - a science that was important to and largely influenced by Aristotle - was a perfect example of this kind of science. Nothing is ever really 'proven' in politics. Some ideas gather strength and others don't, but the issue is not 'proof'; the issue ends up being 'popularity' or 'effectiveness' or something that may not be measurable, like 'charisma.' Because 'politics' is about that which might be otherwise, polite company does not raise political topics at the dinner table and the language of politics should be considerably humbler than 'proof' language might suggest.

None of this stops politicians from being adamant, from being intolerant, from calling their opponents 'stupid' or 'evil' or some such. None of this even stops politicians from ranting about how 'wrong' science is, and acting as though the language of 'theory' means 'untested and mere opinion.' None of this stops politicians from claiming that they and their ideas are 'right.' And if Carl von Clausewitz was correct by calling 'war' "politics by another means," none of this stops politicians from valuing their ideas over human life.

Oh, and before we get too far, we ought to remember that 'religion' would also fall into the category of 'Ethics,' the science where things might be otherwise. And, of course, everything that I've just said about politicians is too often true of religious zealots, who exchange the language of 'belief' and 'trust' for 'know' and 'certainty.' It's a shame.

What if we Christian believers switched language for a while? What if we were willing to say - as the OPERA and CERN scientists are willing to say - "We believe this to be true, but if you can show us where it is not, please do." And what if we meant it. Wouldn't that require an extraordinary amount of faith in God, and enable us to be humbler people?

Imagining with John Lennon

2011-09-22T10:23:00.000-05:00

Imagine there's no heaven,

It's easy if you try.

No hell below us,

Above us only sky.

Imagine all the people

Living for today ...

There is something very appealing to me about John Lennon's invitation to imagine. Of course, many religious folks will dismiss this song, as idealistic and simply as wrong, because it offends the certainty of heaven, hell, and religion itself. But, if zealous religious folk could put down their cross-stamped swords long enough, they might be able to hear this invitation as a way of deepening faith, not simply as a challenge to faith.

Take heaven, for example. John invites us to imagine there's no heave, only the sky above us. And, in fact, that is how much of the Bible speaks of heaven as well. Seriously, check it out for yourself. Go to http://bible.oremus.org/ (an excellent online Bible resource). Scroll down to where you can search for a word or phrase, and type in 'heaven'. Then, sit back, because this is going to take a while. You will see that the first five zillion references in the Scriptures use the word 'heaven' in a way that essentially means 'the sky.' In almost every early instance of the word, 'heaven' is the 'up there' that is noticeably different from the earth 'down here.' In other words, when many of the biblical writers spoke of 'heaven' they were referring to exactly what John Lennon means when he says, "Above us only sky."

In time, of course, 'heaven' took on other connotations. It became known as the dwelling place of God and other celestial beings. In the first creation story (Genesis 1), heaven is not where God dwells, because 'the heavens and the earth' are the first products of God's creation. But, in time, the heavens became known as the dwelling place of the divine, while earth was the dwelling place of mortals. Even later, heaven became known as the future dwelling place of mortals, probably because in too many lives justice, rewards, or punishments are not fully served prior to death. Later writings in the Hebrew Bible show the beginnings of this development, which is fully-blown by Jesus' time. (However, even then, one group of Jews called the Sadducees were not ready to buy into this new-fangled belief in heaven.)

My point is that John Lennon's imagination of no heaven (as the afterlife existence of humans) is not particularly new. And I think it is promising for to us to join John in imagining no heaven - at least in one way. It is an oversimplification to say that 'religion' in itself or the concept of 'heaven' in itself is the cause of all people not living in harmony. But, believing in heaven could be a cause of all kinds of problems. It depends on 'how' we believe in heaven. Here are two options:

1.One can conceive of heaven as a beacon of hope. Sometimes service, laying down one's life for a cause, or opening oneself to the vulnerability of loving others can be very rewarding in this life. But, too often it is not. Innocent persons suffer and die, caregivers often never receive the care they need, and some means of service are just plain thankless. In that respect, heaven is a promise that the good life, the servant life, the meaningful life - though not necessarily rewarded in our life span - is worth it and is valuable in God's eyes.

2. Or, one can conceive of heaven as representing what is truly valuable and "this old world" as just a temporary testing place. This view of heaven can lead us to ignore, even despoil this life in lieu of 'the next life.' That kind of concept of heaven, it seems to me, is exactly what John Lennon is questioning in his song - and deservedly so.

The Scriptures, it seems to me, see our commitment to this world and our hope for heaven as inherently connected; never separable. When we forfeit this world as a means of attaining the next, we actually imperil both. That's one lesson that John Lennon's imagination helps us to appreciate.

The Book is Here: Shameless Plug

2011-08-25T07:00:00.002-05:00

If the "Car Talk" guys can have a 'shameless commerce department,' then I guess it's okay for me to have the same. So, here it is: Left Behind and Loving It is now available at an online source near you!

Left Behind and Loving It is one way for people of faith to encounter those difficult apocalyptic biblical texts with faith and courage. If we begin with the conviction that God's steadfast love endures forever, then our view of "the end of the world" simply cannot be a view of mass destruction as God unleashes pent-up anger on those who happen to be living in the last generation. But, that is precisely how many people have preached about the "end times," with reference to the "apocalyptic" portions of Daniel, the Gospels, and the book of Revelation. Left Behind and Loving It offers reading strategies for these difficult texts, grounded in the conviction that our finite world is ever under the care of our infinite God.

I subtitled this book "A Cheeky Look at the End Times," because I want you to stay engaged and not to get that dazed and confused look that people often get when reading about these matters.

So, my friends, I invite you to get Left Behind and Loving It from Wipf & Stock or Amazon or go and demand that your local book store stock up with it. Heck, tell all of your church friends to get one. Buy it for your friends, your enemies, and your local pet store worker! You can do it!

Okay, I'll stop now.

Contemplative Grace in an ADD World

2011-08-04T19:31:00.000-05:00

There once was a wise man, who would meditate for hours on end. Then, when he had a moment of enlightenment, he would light a candle and people would gather around his porch as he spoke to them. His words were profound and helpful to all who heard them and the people surrounding his hut began to expect his words every night.

Then, one day, no enlightenment came to him as he meditated. That evening, he did not light the candle and it seemed curious to those who had looked, expecting to see his summons. The next day, again he mediated, listening and waiting in silence as he had done for years, but no words of wisdom were opened to him. And so, the candle remained unlit. Now, people were growing concerned. They saw the wise man moving within the hut, but he did not approach the candle and light it. Nor did he do so the next night; or the next. And, curiously, each night, greater crowds of people would gather around waiting to see if he would light the candle, hoping that he would share words of wisdom with them. Some even became angry and approached the man, demanding an answer to why he was being silent. At first he said nothing, but after their persistent questions he simply said, "If I hear nothing, I am at leave to say nothing."

In time, people quit gathering to see if the candle would be lit. They said among themselves that he must have angered the gods of wisdom; or, perhaps he had gotten full of pride and so the gift of wisdom had left him. The kindlier ones suggested that perhaps he was simply getting old and hard of hearing, physically or spiritually. Either way, when the candle was finally lit again, no one was there to see it, because they had all given up.

[I confess that this story is not original, but I am sure that I am not remembering it well. So, it is another's story that I am remembering as it speaks to me.]

The psalmist in Psalm 130 sings repeatedly, "My soul waits for the Lord."

I've often wondered how I would react if a Sunday morning rolled around and I had no "Word of the Lord" to share. I don't mean to wonder what would happen if I didn't do any work and, therefore, came up dry. It is actually a joy for me to translate the text, do word studies and context studies and outlines and intertextual studies of the Scriptures. I geek that stuff. What I'm asking points, not to the work, but to the inspiration: Would I have the courage to be in silence before the congregation that I serve, if I were not inspired by the text? Would I even notice? Or, am I so practiced in the craft of "making something preachable out of a text" that none of us would know? Most importantly, do I even know what it means to say, "My soul waits on the Lord"?

The psalmist, of course, is not talking about his occupation or his expected role as a public speaker. He is crying out of the depths. From the depths his soul waits on the Lord. And, there are times when God is slow to answer, leaving us to wait. Like someone waiting for test results. Like someone waiting for a phone call that assures us that all is well. Like someone walking day after day toward sobriety. Even in the depths, "my soul waits for the Lord."

I fear I am far too much a product of drive-through windows, remote controls, instant messaging, and 24/7 access to information to ever say, "my soul waits for the Lord." Even in prayer, I end up singing with Queen, "I want it all and I want it now."

Oh, my soul, wait on the Lord.

The Poetry of Hope

2011-07-27T16:48:00.000-05:00

Poetic speech allows us to see irony at work, even in the midst of something threatening or tragic. It's not that seeing the irony makes the tragedy go away - that's too simple. But, seeing the irony, even in a tragedy, even under threatening circumstances, somehow allows us to re-frame it and might even give us hope in something beyond the tragedy.

For example, in the 2nd Psalm, look at how the psalmist names the conspiracy among the nations against God's people:

Why do the nations conspire,

   and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
   and the rulers take counsel together,
   against the Lord and his anointed, saying,
‘Let us burst their bonds asunder,
   and cast their cords from us.’

When the "kings of the earth" and "the rulers" conspire to "burst the bonds" and "cast the cords" away, it sounds as though the psalmist's people are large-scale oppressors and have learned that the oppressed are orchestrating a rebellion against them. That seems odd, because I really do not know of any time when Israel was an "empire," in that respect.

I don't think the psalmist is speaking about a rebellion against Israel's empire, but is expressing that feeling that many individuals, peoples, and even nations have when it seems that "all the world is out to get us." That seems to be how the Apostle Peter heard this psalm when he was praying one day after having been threatened for preaching in Jesus' name. He quoted Psalm 2 and prayed, "For in this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed." (Acts 4:27).

In other words, this psalm is a poetic way that one speaks of feeling threatened. And yet, there is something about it that goes beyond just the conspiracy and the threat of violence. That is because the next few verses re-frame the conspiracy as a vain attempt. Hear the psalmist:

He who sits in the heavens laughs;
the Lord has them in derision.
Then he will speak to them in his wrath,
and terrify them in his fury, saying,
‘I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill.’

The one who sits in the heavens laughs at the silly plan. But, this is no simple laughing matter. It is a derisive laughter, a laughter that is quickly followed by furious anger because the conspiracy is more than simply "politics by another means" (to quote van Clausewitz' description of making war), it is a rebellion against God's own anointed.

So, the conspiracy is not framed as a real threat, an international coup, or a threat against the psalmists existence. Because the one who sits in the heavens laughs, the conspiracy turns out to be an empty piece of imaginative fiction. It may be threatening, they may indeed act on their conspiratorial anger - no one doubts the lengths to which conspirators might go. But, there is more to the situation than even the sneaking conspirators know. Perhaps that is why Peter was able to witness the death of Jesus, hear threats against his own life, and still pray this way: "And now, Lord, look at their threats, and grant to your servants to speak your word with all boldness." God laughs. And when God laughs, things change.

Practicing Wonder

2011-07-21T07:14:00.000-05:00

I've made the argument that the Scriptures draw on a "poetic" voice quite often, especially when trying to address matters that are either too wonderful or too tragic for ordinary discourse. I have further claimed that it not only falls to persons of faith today to read the Scripture in that vein, but also to find our own poetic voice to express our own experiences.

Let's begin by reflecting a moment on the 8th Psalm. If you are a fan of Darkwood Brew (and who isn't?), the you'll know that Psalm 8 is the centering text for this week's worship and conversation. Here's my favorite part of Psalm 8:

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,

the moon and the stars that you have established;

what are human beings that you are mindful of them,

mortals that you care for them?

Before we go forward, please read the following disclaimer:

This is poetic speech. Anyone - fundamentalist Christian and fundamentalist Atheist alike - who reads this text and tries to establish or discredit a cosmology out of it ought to be thrown into utter darkness with people who discuss the germ content of saliva before a first kiss, people who tell small children that Santa isn't real, and anyone else who ruins a great moment with misfounded attempts at 'realism.' Now, back to our psalm.

The psalmist invites us to look at the startling beauty of creation and to get lost in the wonder of it all. But, rather than simply having this experience vicariously through the psalmist's eyes and words, the psalm invites us to practice wonder and to give it a voice.

So, in the same manner, I invite you to take some time and consider this picture, called "Mystic Mountain" from the Hubble telescope. First, just look at it for a while. Second, feel free to read the description from the Hubble Telescope web site. Third, find the beauty and wonder in the picture, that lies even beyond the scientific description itself. And, finally, write something in the comment section - anything - to express the moment. Don't feel the need to be "religious" about it - Wonder is religious enough. Don't let your literalism take over - aim to express that which lies beyond the literal. Be authentic, be poetic, be bold. Be a psalmist.
Here's the picture:

Here's the detail from http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/show/entire/pr2010013a/from/show/
Hubble's 20th anniversary image shows a mountain of dust and gas rising in the Carina Nebula. The top of a three-light-year tall pillar of cool hydrogen is being worn away by the radiation of nearby stars, while stars within the pillar unleash jets of gas that stream from the peaks.

Go.

Maxing Tragic and Waxing Poetic

2011-07-11T15:44:00.000-05:00

Imagine an event taking place right where you live, where pandemonium replaces order, where people are being massacred all around, where there is such a rush to flee that parents are faced with "Shophies' Choice" over which child to rescue and which one to leave to fate.

Okay, that's pretty grim and hard to imagine, I know. But, it does happen and not just in books or movies. Names and phrases are all we need to remember it: the Killing Fields, the Lost Boys of the Sudan, the Shoah in Europe, the massacre of Rwanda - and those are just 20th century terms. It seems that in every age, among a variety of peoples, there have been occasions when the horror was simply too much to comprehend, even many years after in retrospect.

My question is: How can one speak of such unspeakable tragedies? The problem of language in the face of tragedy was a challenge for many biblical writers. For example, if you are living in Jerusalem just after 70AD, how do you describe the horror of seeing your temple destroyed by the Roman military? Do you say, "Approximately 93 per cent of the stones have been damaged beyond repair?" Or, do you say, "Oh, the humanity!"? The second choice is the least literal,but probably truer to the experience than the first. That's the challenge of finding a fitting language for an unspeakable tragedy.

The Lament Psalms in the psalter seem to show one way of giving words to tragedy. I would argue that apocalyptic language is another. The point is certainly not to give a play-by-play description of predetermined future events. That's the fundamental problem with so much of what passes for "interpretations" of apocalyptic texts in the Bible. The point is, we should encounter those texts as poetry, more than literal speech.

And ... More importantly, we should imitate those texts. Enough of this ridiculous enterprise of taking poetry literally. Instead, we should learn to speak poetry. Then we would be in a better position t hear the real cries if despair and hope in texts about "the Great Tribulation." Then we would be able to give better and truer language to the tragedies of our own day.

Whaddya say? Shall we give it a go over the next few weeks?

Two Cheers for Hell

2011-07-06T11:17:00.000-05:00

A sermon from Sunday, July 3, 2011, based on Matthew 11:16-30

This morning’s Scripture reading is a difficult one, for several reasons. First, it assumes an understanding of history, both ancient-to-Jesus and contemporary-to-Jesus, that may not be accessible to us today. We know the ancient reference to Sodom, of course, because of the story in Genesis 18-19, where the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by sulphur and fire from the heavens for their wickedness. I believe that the wickedness of these cities has been largely misunderstood, which is why the term “sodomite” in our English language has come to have an exclusively sexual connotation. Nonetheless, from that ancient story the name “Sodom” itself has come to represent a city that is fraught with wickedness and under judgment. That association, as best we can tell, was prominent in Jesus’ day as well. The very mention of the word “Sodom” seemed to represent a city that was almost pure evil.

While we know the story of Sodom, other ancient references in our reading today are not quite so familiar to us. The names of the cities of Tyre and Sidon also seemed to have some currency in Jesus’ day, where the mere mention of the name evoked a sense of evil and judgment. It is possible to scour the writings of the prophets in the Hebrew Bible and to find judgmental references to the cities of Tyre and Sidon. But, they don’t stand out in nearly the same way that Sodom does. So, whatever images the mention of those names might have evoked in Jesus’ day are somewhat lost to us. Even moreso, the names of the cities of Bethsaida, Chorazin, and Capernaum don’t stick out to us much at all. Of course, a close reader of the New Testament will recognize these names. We might even associate them with the region of Galilee and the home towns of some of the Apostles. But, what we don’t know aside from our story today is why any of them might deserve judgment. More often, they just get lost in the shuffle of unfamiliar names that often make reading the New Testament difficult for us. So, the first difficulty of reading our text for today is the historical distance between this text and today. This text seems to be all about far away places in a long ago time, none of which really resonates with us any more.

The second difficulty in reading this text is cultural. There is something about using the collective voice to praise or condemn an entire city that is very difficult for us to wrap our heads around. When we hear Jesus say that 'Capernaum' will be brought to Hades, we don’t know what to make of it. Even if we substituted names of more familiar cities, we still wouldn’t know what to make of it, because you and I are the recipients of a centuries-old way of understanding right and wrong, good and bad, praise or judgment, that is based on the actions and responsibilities of the individual, not the collective of cities. Jesus’ point is clear enough: He had invested time and energy in bringing the good news of the gospel to these cities, but they would not respond to his call to change and believe. John that Baptist had preached to them, and they rejected John’s message and gossiped that he must have had a demon since he lived an ascetic lifestyle. Jesus came to them not living an ascetic lifestyle and they rejected his message with the dismissive critique that he was a glutton and a drunkard. That’s the reason for the brief story of the children in the marketplace that Jesus tells. “You don’t want to dance to our flutes; but you won’t mourn to our dirges. There’s just no reaching you people!” The point itself is clear enough, but the cultural framework throws us for a loop. We ask, “Really, the whole city is going to Hades? What about Peter’s mother-in-law, living in Capernaum? We know that Jesus healed her and she got off of her deathbed and fixed everyone supper. Is she thrown into this lot of unbelieving people who rejected Jesus’ message?” There is simply something about speaking about collective responsibilities as ‘cities’ that does not jibe with our own cultural way of thinking about individual responsibility.

So, the historical distance between us and these ancient names and reputations, as well as the cultural distance between our way of thinking of individual responsibility and Jesus’ way of condemning collective responsibility makes this a hard text for us to comprehend. But, the third challenge for us is – in my mind – the most difficult. And that difficulty is theological. We struggle with any text that seems to be sheer judgment and condemnation. Now, of course, historically, the church has had no difficulty in passing judgment. Whether we are looking at the virulent anti-Semitism that has been fueled by the church over the ages, or the dismissive attitude toward women that continues to be preeminent in many branches of the church, or even the “God hates you and so do I” message of the Westboro Baptist crusaders, the church has earned a reputation of being a place of judgment and condemnation. The trump card for the church over the years, of course, has been “hell.” It just seems that too many so-called Christians seem to love gritting their teeth and preaching about “hellfire and brimstone!”

However, before critique the church wholesale, we should also recognize that the church has often been a home of reformers and protesters and advocates and martyrs, many of whose sacrifices have made it possible for us to be the broad-minded defenders of human rights and cultural differences that we imagine ourselves to be today. We should also recognize that as many people within the church cringe at the use of damning language and question the doctrine of hell, as outside of the church. So, while the church has spoken the language of judgment and condemnation far too often, the church has been an evolving institution, embracing new and often-controversial ways of openness as well.

The real problem that our reading today presents to us today is that it seems to be just another example of judgment and condemnation, where the worst of our tendencies once again raise their ugly heads. And because it sounds condemning – again – we are wont to dismiss it, or perhaps to glide over it and move on to other readings which seem to be more in keeping with the God we love, the Jesus we love, and not stuff like this.

This morning, however, I invite you to bracket the assumption that any reference to hell is yet another example of unloving, closed-minded, self-righteous hatred. I’m calling this sermon “Two Cheers for Hell,” because I want to go back behind the misuse of judgmental language, to see why the language of condemnation and judgment was so important for the prophets of old, for John the Baptist, for Jesus, and therefore for the church. I can’t call this “Three Cheers for Hell,” because then we’d be joining those hate-mongers that seem to relish the idea that everyone else but them in going down. “Two Cheers for Hell” is my way of expressing that there is something important to be said on behalf of condemnation, but that condemnation is never the last word.

If we begin with the assumption that “God is Love,” from beginning to end, then we still need the language of condemnation. “Sin,” for example, is not simply a matter of breaking some divine rules. “Sin” is a way of naming any activity – individual, or collective or systemic – that is destructive of life and community. If we begin with the assumption that, since God is Love, every individual has absolute dignity and purpose, then we need a language to condemn any activity – individual, or collective or systemic – that violates that dignity and treats individuals as if they do not matter. If we believe that, since God is Love, justice is the right way for women and men to live toward one another, then we need a language to condemn any activity – individual, or collective or systemic – that unjustly violates the rights and well-being of others. While condemnation cannot be the last word – and, therefore, I cannot believe in a literal, eternal hell – it is a necessary word, especially if we believe that God is Love from beginning to end.

When Jesus preached to the peoples of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum that God’s way is to love their enemies, to turn the other cheek, to overcome evil with good, he was inviting them to embrace a way of living believing that God is Love. But, when they hear that message and dismiss it with the sarcastic criticism, “Oh, he’s just a drunkard,” they are sentencing themselves and generations that follow them to the ongoing circular life of violence and vengeance. And they had every chance to escape it! They had the chance right there – whether through Jesus’ presence with them or through John’s message – to escape that vicious cycle and to live in the reign of God. We need historical memory, to see what a trajectory of violence and vengeance looks like. We need a collective voice, because injustice is never confined to the individual who practices it. And we need the language of condemnation, because there are some actions that simply cut off the possibility of life and community. Because God is Love from beginning to end, condemnation can never be the last word. But, it is not just harsh language of hate-mongers. Condemnation is a way of recognizing that, within the Reign of God, hate, abuse, injustice, and violence cannot sustain life and community. Thanks be to God. Amen.

The "Great Tribulation" - An Initial Approach

2011-06-28T16:56:00.000-05:00

The synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) all have places where Jesus speaks of the significance of the forthcoming destruction of the temple (Mark 13; Matthew 24-25; Luke 21). In Jesus' day, the temple was intact. By the time the gospels were written (according to most biblical scholars), the destruction of the temple was either imminently pending (for those who see an early date for Mark), under way (for those who date Mark around 66 CE), or a horrible reality (for those who date Mark around 70CE and Matthew and Luke later).

No matter which date we accept, the destruction of the temple was a singularly devastating event for the people of Israel, including early Jewish Christians. It was not only devastating in a way that any attack on a populated city is devastating (although that's bad enough). It was devastating because of the supreme significance of the temple in Judean theology. As some New Testament scholars point out, the temple was often considered the place where God's presence was most distinctly experienced, radiating outward to Jerusalem, then Israel, and ultimately to the world.

In other words, the destruction of the temple was almost unthinkable at every level. And yet, by the time the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John were written - as well as the book of Revelation - the temple had already been destroyed. With that destruction came mass displacement - the 'diaspora' as it is usually called - of people leaving their homes, their communities, their extended families, and becoming refugees in search of acceptance somewhere else within the Roman Empire's reach. One has to wonder how many good, pious, hard-working, victims of Rome's imperial overreach were traveling with their families, scrounging for food, and all the while wondering, "My God, my God, why have your forsaken us?"

When the Scriptures use over-the-top language to describe the “Great Tribulation,” it is no accident. That over-the-top language is poetic language, the only appropriate way to signify horrendous tragedies of this magnitude.

So … next time, we’ll look at poetic language and how one interprets it, particularly this far away from the event itself.

"The So-So Tribulation"

2011-06-24T09:30:00.000-05:00

Well, ever since the "Rapture" took place on May 21, I've been a little disappointed in the "Great Tribulation." Okay, I realize that the "Rapture" was downgraded to a "spiritual Rapture," and so I suppose that the "Great Tribulation" was downgraded to a "spiritual Great Tribulation" as well. But, still, I was expecting at least a little bit of hardship by now. I mean, c'mon, we're over a month into this thing and the church in the U.S. hasn't suffered anything beyond an occasional visit from the "God hates you, and so do I" folks from the Westboro Baptist Anti-Church.

Let's check the "Great Tribulation" list:
- Wars: Yes, but they were already in progress before the spiritual "Rapture" took place, so they don't count.
- Rumors of War: I don't usually attend to gossip and rumors, but someone told me the other day that they heard from a friend whose beautician had it on good authority that the U.S. was actually going to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan. Wouldn't that constitute a "Rumor of Peace"?
- Signs in the Heavens Above: I'm willing to testify that this has indeed happened since May 21. I mean, it's June 24, the 3rd full day of summer, and the weather in Iowa so far has been "chilly, windy, cloudy, with an ever-present chance of thunderstorms." On the other hand, this is Iowa, where the weather forecast is usually "chilly, windy, cloudy, with an ever-present chance of thunderstorms." And, frankly, it is more of a nuisance - like the "God hates you, and so do I" folks from the Westboro Baptist Anti-Church - than a "dreadful portent in the sky."
- Signs on the Earth Below: This is where I have to set sarcasm and silliness aside and acknowledge that the devastation in Joplin, MO is truly tragic. If someone wants to argue that those tornadoes or the flooding of upper Midwest states, or the fires of Arizona, etc. are "signs of the times," then they can have at it. I would only point out that the flooding in Japan, hurricane Katrina, hurricane Mitch, the earthquakes in Haiti and China, and plenty of other tragedies that happened before May 21 of this year were also tragic in bible-like proportions.

My point is not that tragedy hasn't happened since May 21. Rather, it is that May 21 has not - in any way - signified the beginning of some kind of new phase of tribulation on the earth. It's just the same old low-level tribulation that is absolutely devastating to the people who suffer it directly, and imminently ignorable to others. We might be fascinated by footage on Youtube; we might and should send work teams if an affected area is close enough; we might and should shed tears of compassion. But, what we should not do, is trivialize a tragic event by trying to pigeonhole it into some silly apocalyptic meta-narrative. The folks who suffer tragedy suffer enough without some religious zealot naming their tragedy as God's punishment. (Remember Pat Robertson's demonic attempt to blame Haitians for their earthquake. He has a tendency to do that kind of stuff.)

So, as it turns out, Harold Camping's "Great Tribulation" is as much of a dud as his "Rapture-turned-spiritual-Rapture." At best, we're in the throes of a "So-So Tribulation" and it seems that we have been ever since ... well, ever since the dawn of time, I guess.

Perhaps we should re-think what this "Great Tribulation" is intended to signify. Let's take up that topic next week.

What "Left Behind" Looks Like

2011-06-20T12:41:00.000-05:00

The premise of the "Left Behind" series is that, somehow, some of us will be left behind after the "rapture" and be bereft of grace. I've long been critical of this very notion, that somewhere there can be a place where God is not. Here are two other people who would agree with me:

First, the Apostle Paul describes the overwhelming supremacy of grace in a way that definitively defies the very notion of God-less space in Romans 8:38-39: "For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Second, Paul's conviction here is a reiteration of the conviction behind the139th Psalm, which asks rhetorically, "Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence?" The answer is 'nowhere': If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there. If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me fast."

It is the consistent witness of the Scriptures that any scenario that tries to imagine a "God-less” space" is not speaking of the God made known in the Hebrew Bible or - from the New Testament perspective - the God who is made known most explicitly through Jesus Christ.

There is, however, one place in the Scriptures where we can speak of someone being "left behind." And that is the place where Jesus is completely abandoned. First, “the twelve,” after vehemently arguing that they would never do such a thing, desert Jesus at the time of his arrest. Judas, of course, had already worked out a deal to betray Jesus and Peter will eventually deny even knowing him. And, of course, there are the heartbreaking words from the cross that speak of absolute abandonment: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34, a quote from Psalm 22).

If we want to describe the experience of God-less space, of truly being “left behind,” the place to look is not at the magical timeline of the apocalypse, but at the crucifixion of Jesus. It is there that Jesus stands in solidarity with all who suffer, with anyone whose torment evokes the words of the 22^nd Psalm, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” And it is there that the paradox of hope is revealed. As Paul puts it in Romans 6:4, “Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.”

The experience of being “left behind” is certainly a profound and tragic part of human life. But it is never the last word. From death comes life; from tragedy comes hope; from abandonment comes community. Thanks be to God.

Holding Out for the "Third Coming"

2011-06-14T17:05:00.000-05:00

Well, it seems to me that everyone has given TONS of attention to Jesus' first coming and there is endless speculation about the 2nd coming. My question is, "But what about the other comings?" What does everyone have against Jesus' third coming? Or his fourth? Heck, what about coming #2,874,330, 046, which I experienced just the other day? Why is Tim LaHaye not addressing that one?

Huh, Tim? C'mon, bring it, man! If you're going to go on and on about the second coming why don't you go all out and address the rest of them? Huh? Huh?

Of course, by now you've figured out two things.
1. Tim LaHaye is not one of the two people who read this blog. (By the way, Hi Mom and Dad!)
2. The concept of the 3rd coming, much less the 2,874,330,046th coming makes very little sense.

Unless we read Matthew 25. Then, it makes a lot of sense.

Matthew has no story of the ascension - did you know that? Jesus does not go 'up' to God at the end of Matthew where he "now sitteth until he shall come to judge the quick and the dead." In fact, Matthew's story ends with the words, "And look, I will be with you all the days, even to the consummation of the age." So, in place of ascension, Matthew sees "accompaniment." That is to say, it is not Jesus' "return" but his "presence" that is most important to Matthew.

That explains a lot about how Matthew depicts the end times. In Matthew 24, Matthew takes up the apocalyptic discourse that we find in Mark 13. Only, for Matthew, the apocalyptic (if that's an accurate description) discourse that begins in c.25 continues through c.25. (Remember, chapter divisions were added long after Matthew was written. There is nothing in the text itself that separates the content of c.24 from c.25.) For Matthew cc. 24-25 are one long connected discourse. (Let's say that 3 times a day.)

So, in c.24 we hear (like in Mark 13) about the destruction of the temple (70CE), persecutions, signs and wonders and wars and rumors of wars and cosmic events and the 'Son of Man coming in the clouds' (an image that Mark borrows from Daniel and Matthew adopts from Mark). All of it leads to the admonition, "Stay alert!"

In Mark, that's where the discourse ends. The next sentence begins the with the plot to kill Jesus. In Matthew, however, things keep going and they culminate in the Story of the Sheep and Goats (25:31-46). In that story, Jesus says, "I was hungry and you fed me!" The sheep, then the goats (blessed and accursed folk) ask, "When did we see you hungry?" and Jesus answers "Whenever you fed or refused to feed the least of my children, you fed or refused to feed me."

In other words, it is not the 2nd coming, but the repeated "comings" of the Christ, in the guise of the poor, the hungry, the naked, the prisoner, the sick, etc. that is THE WHOLE POINT of Matthew 24-25. It is NOT the case that c.24 is prediction and c.25 is just some nice encouraging lessons on being nice to poor people. This is, after all, one long connected discourse. Chapter 25 is the conclusion, not some little piece of edification tacked onto the end of the real story.

So, I am not kidding when I say we should hold out for the 3rd coming, the 4th, and even the 2,874,330,046th coming of the Christ. That's the point! At least that's Matthew's point. And I like it.

What Immanuel Kant and Daniel Have in Common

2011-06-12T07:54:00.000-05:00

Immanuel Kant was one of the most influential philosophers in the modern era. But, did you know that one of his driving assumptions was very similar to a remarkable turn that happens in the Scriptures, particularly in the 2nd half of Daniel? I've never heard anyone make this connection before, so bear with me and please, please, correct me if I'm wrong.

Kant wrote three massive and dense "critiques," where he tried to look at the possibility of the true, the good, and the beautiful - which are the 3 primary divisions in philosophy of knowing, doing, and feeling. In his first critique - The Critique of Pure Reason - Kant argued that 'knowing' is limited to the synthesis of percepts and concepts. That is, we only truly know something if we have a perception to accompany our conception of it. A concept of unicorns, for example, has no real life perception to accompany it. We can only 'know' it as a fiction, an imaginative thing that we depict in pictures or ideas. A concept of apples, on the other hand, we can know as a real and edible thing because we've got a real and edible experience to accompany our idea of apples. Get it? (Dear philosophy geeks: Yes, I'm simplifying. It's a blog, for crying out loud! Go back to your hovels!)

By limiting 'knowing' in this way, Kant ruled out 3 things that we cannot know as reality other than ideas: God, human freedom and the immortality of the soul. (It's complicated, but it's also consistent with his limitation of knowing.) Of course, the 'immortality of the soul' has been a staple of philosophy since Socrates, so this was a very radical limitation on what one can 'know.'

In his second critique, however, Kant brings back a way of embracing God, freedom, and immortality. If there is such a thing as 'the good,' there must be a "God" who rewards the good and punishes the bad and there must be human freedom to do the good or the bad. We can look at those arguments some other time, but suffice it to say that - while we cannot 'know' God and freedom - we have to "postulate" them as real in order for morality to exist. And, to our point today, Kant argued that we must postulate the "immortality of the soul." Why? Because it is plainly evident that the good is not always rewarded and the bad is not always punished in this life. Ergo, it must be rewarded and punished beyond this life, which presupposes that the soul exists beyond the death of the body.

Again, that's the gist of a very complicated argument - this mortal life that we 'know' cannot be all there is because the good often goes unrewarded and the bad often goes unpunished.

The 2nd half of Daniel introduces a very similar line of argument. Of course, Daniel is not writing dense philosophy, but writes with poetic brilliance. The underlying theme of the 2nd half of Daniel, however, is very similar to Kant's line of reason. God's promises were not being fulfilled for Daniel's people. The land was invaded by the Greek empire; the king was a puppet of that empire; and the Temple was desecrated by a beast named Antiochus Epiphanes, who sacrificed a pig on the holy altar to Zeus. If God were the kind of God that immediately rewarded the good and punished the evil, those Greeks would have been slaughtered by the Israelite army, or even by a divine act of punishment. But, instead, they just kept thumping along and conquering other places.

For Daniel, either God was non-existent or else punishment and reward was not immediate in history. That's why Daniel's visions were not focused on the immediate experience that he and his people were having, but on the future. It was a radical shift for the people of Israel, whose primary vein of theology was to look backwards at the covenant that God made with Abraham and the fulfillment of it through Moses and Joshua. Now, with the immediate reality looking grim, Daniel looks forward, in the trans-historical realm of 'eternity' as the time/place where God's promises are ultimately fulfilled.

Who would have thought the didactic Kant and the wildly imaginative Daniel had something in common?

Second Coming ... of whom?

2011-06-09T08:08:00.000-05:00

Revelation 13 was a powerful text for many folks in the early church. It begins with some hairy stuff, like this descriptions of the "the beast." I always thought "the beast" was a pretty unimaginative name for this creature, but we must remember that it is the pet of another creature called "the dragon." Unimaginative names seem to be the norm here. Anyway, here's how Rev.13:1-4 describes it:

And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads; and on its horns were ten diadems, and on its heads were blasphemous names. And the beast that I saw was like a leopard, its feet were like a bear’s, and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth. And the dragon gave it his power and his throne and great authority. One of its heads seemed to have received a death-blow, but its mortal wound had been healed. In amazement the whole earth followed the beast. They worshipped the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshipped the beast, saying, ‘Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?’

I love when artists try to depict this beast by figuring out how to fit ten horns on seven heads. The usually end up putting 2 horns on the 3 middle heads, but I think they should put be more literal and put 10/7 of a horn on each head. Show me an artist who can draw 10/7 of a horn and I'll declare him the "Rembrandt of the Tribulation"! Or, more likely he'd be the "Picasso of the Tribulation".

The early church, oddly enough, was less interested in drawing this monster than it was in interpreting it. The key is how "the beast" is described as one who has a 'near death experience,' at least in one of its seven heads: "One of its heads seemed to have received a death-blow, but its mortal wound had been healed." So, in case you're not paying attention, the beast is a Christ-like figure, an imitator, with its apparent death and resurrection. In response, John say, "In amazement, the whole earth followed the beast."

Some among the early church were afraid that this 'beast' was Nero, who had been a nightmare for the early church prior to this death in 68 CE. Nero was remembered - although this is shaky, historically - as the one who was responsible for the deaths of Peter and Paul. He is also the one who was believed to have given the order to destroy the temple in Jerusalem, which was completed shortly after his death. Because of the horror that he carried for them, some writings of the early church felt that Nero would be this head of the beast that revives from its apparent death to bring further destruction and persecution.

It was the "second coming" of Nero that they feared. A pseudo-Second coming, with horrible results, causing people to echo the words of Rev.13 above, "Who is like the beast and who can fight against it?"

I find it interesting that faithful people of many ages have been perplexed by the cryptic writings of the book of Revelation and have tried to find meaning in the unfolding events of their day through them. They were wrong, just like so many of the modern day folk who act as though they are figuring out the Book of Revelation are wrong. But, it was at least an attempt to be faithful in response to a very cryptic book.

The Second Coming and the Problem of Homotextuality

2011-06-02T07:00:00.000-05:00

I've been making the case that "the Second Coming" is a collective phrase that contains a number of ideas from the Scriptures. What I'm saying is that there is no single consensus in the Scriptures of what "the Second Coming" will look like. In fact, I think that when we use the phrase "the Second Coming," we should modify it to some extent as "Matthew's description of the Second Coming" or "Paul's understanding of the Second Coming." I would add "The Gospel of John's view of the Second Coming" but I'm not even sure if the Gospel of John has a view of the Second Coming.

But 'why?' you may ask. Why look at the differences? Why not just put all of the Scriptures that mention the Second Coming together and map it out on a timeline? Why not assume that they are all saying the same thing and fit them all together?

To give a foretaste of my forthcoming book, Left Behind and Loving It (to be published by Wipf & Stock later this summer), when we scrunch a collection of differing views together as if they all say the same thing, we are committing what I call "Homotextuality." It takes away from the integrity of the Scriptures when we take differing texts and act as if they are all essentially the same.

I blame Rene Descartes for this. Well, actually, Richard Bernstein blames Descartes for this and I just happen to agree with him (Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis). As Bernstein describes it, Descartes' process of 'methodological doubt' and its famous conclusion, "I think, therefore I am" were driven by the notion that unless he could come up with "one indubitable principle" as its base, then all of his philosophy would come tumbling down like a house of cards. That is what Bernstein calls "Cartesian Anxiety" - the notion that unless the first principle of philosophy is beyond any doubt, then our knowledge of everything else is imperiled.

In the "Modern Era" (the period following Descartes both temporally and directionally), the same anxiety that Descartes had about the first principle of philosophy was translated into anxiety about the authority of the Scriptures. It was in this era that the whole notion of biblical literalism was invented and, from that, the homotextual method of interpreting the Scriptures as if they all say essentially the same thing.

Please understand that Homotextuality is a 'new kid on the block' when it comes to biblical interpretation. It was not the method of interpretation among the early church (which gave us four different gospels), the Patristic writers (who read many of the Scriptures as allegories), or the Reformers (Like Martin Luther, who referred to the book of James as "that wretched little book.") None of them read the Scriptures literally or homotexually.

So, while it goes against the predominant notions of our day, I would like to start an anti-Homotextuality crusade and invite people to let the Scriptures speak for themselves, in all of their diversity, rather than to try to squeeze them all into the same mold. That's what I am trying to do with the various and differing views of "the Second Coming" in the Scriptures. And if this way or reading the Scriptures takes away from our absolute certainty about what will happen in the future, then ... so be it.

I don't mind confessing that there is one thing that I embrace as the absolute foundation on which I will build my philosophy and belief. It is the most often-repeated phrase from the Scriptures: God's steadfast love endures forever. With that in mind, we'll take a look at various views of "the Second Coming" in the Scriptures in some future posts.

The Second Coming: Be Earful What You Pray For

2011-05-31T08:13:00.000-05:00

In my last post, I stated that the phrase 'the Second Coming' itself does not appear in the Scriptures or the early Christian creeds. It is, rather, a kind of catch-all phrase that points to various visions throughout the Scriptures of what the coming and final Reign of God looks like. (I use 'reign of God' where many would use 'kingdom of God.' Same thing.)

One of those many visions of the coming reign of God is found in the Lord's Prayer, as it is found in Matthew 6, especially verses 9 and 10. There are three petitions in the prayer, which have the same syntax in Greek, so I think they should be translated in a way that reflects that syntax, like this: "May your name be hallowed, may your kingdom come, may your will be done." By translating them consistent with the Greek syntax, it becomes apparent that each of those petitions is modified by the final phrase, "on earth, as it is in heaven."

To wit:

May your name be hallowed, on earth as it is in heaven.

May your reign come, on earth as it is in heaven.

May your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

When we pray the Lord's Prayer, we are asking for the coming of the reign of God to happen here on earth, just like it we envision that it happens in heaven.

This kind of prayer and hope is widely different than the kind of earth-destroying, apocalyptic horror that people often associate with the phrase “the Second Coming,” or with their descriptions of the coming reign of God. We usually mouth the words of the Lord’s Prayer, but we rely on the apocalyptic language of the book of Revelation as our guide to what this coming reign really will look like.

I would argue that the Lord's Prayer is what we ought to be praying, including this kind of vision of the coming Reign of God. The apocalyptic vision, I would argue, is something else. The Lord’s Prayer is our longing, the apocalyptic vision is something else. The Lord’s Prayer teaches us how to live toward God’s reign, the apocalyptic vision teaches something else. We’ll look at that ‘something else’ at another time, my point today is that when Jesus taught his disciples to pray, the phrase ‘on earth as it is in heaven’ captures the vision that Jesus taught regarding the coming reign of God. The apocalyptic vision is something else.

The Second Coming: Many Perspectives

2011-05-26T07:14:00.000-05:00

While early Christian creeds agreed that the risen Christ would one day return to judge the living and the dead, there is not much more detail given to that belief. Partly that is because of the sheer brevity of the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed - nothing gets much elaboration. But, another reason for the lack of specificity - I would guess - is because the Scriptures themselves give many perspectives on what the Second Coming would look like. It is somewhat complex and somewhat simple. Let's look at a few of the complexities.

First, the phrase "Second Coming" itself does not appear in the Scriptures or the creeds. It is a kind of collective phrase that indicates when Christ will establish the Reign of God (called the "kingdom of God" in Mark and Luke; "kingdom of heaven" in Matthew) in all of its fullness.

Second, there are Scriptures that imply that the Reign of God is already here (Luke 17:21) and some that imply that the Reign of God is yet in the future (Luke 13:29). That is why many folks use the phrase "Yet, but not yet" to describe the Reign of God. It means that the Reign of God is here, but it is not yet here in all of its fullness.

Third, most of the writers of the New Testament were expecting the Reign of God to come in all of its fullness very, very soon. And, as time went on and the Second Coming had not yet taken place, it caused many questions. New Testament scholars call this "the problem of the delay of the Parousia." (Psst. 'Parousia' means 'coming', but now that I have told you that I'll have to kill you. Sorry.)

Look, for example at the difference between I and II Peter. I Peter 4:7 says, "The end of all things is near; therefore be serious and discipline yourselves for the sake of your prayers." But, by the time II Peter is written, there seems to be some skepticism creeping in about the nearness of 'the end of all things.' So, II Peter 3:8,9 says, "But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance."

I kind of think the writer of II Peter is using a bit of a sleight of hand here. After all, it was the first letter that set the expectation that 'near' meant 'near,' and not 'thousands of years.' However, the writer is dealing with the same 'delay of the Parousia' that all of the New Testament writers were dealing with.

One question that faces us is: Where do these differing perspectives of the Second Coming leave us today?

Let's 'bookmark' that question as we keep looking at the Second Coming for a while.

"Rapture" v. "Second Coming"

2011-05-25T09:57:00.000-05:00

Let's try to clarify some muddy waters. The Christian Church has historically believed in the Second Coming of Christ, but the idea of the "Rapture" is a fairly new innovation in Christian theology. The earlier creeds of the church - the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed - both embrace the belief in the Second Coming explicitly.

The Apostles' Creed concludes a litany of beliefs regarding Jesus with these words: "... the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick [living] and the dead."

The Nicene Creed also connects the Second Coming with the resurrection and ascension of Christ: "On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end."

I like to think of creeds as snapshots of the ongoing and ever-moving life of the church. These two creed are among the earliest post-biblical creeds that we have and have been generally accepted as reliable expositions of the Scriptures by most of the church throughout its history. What they envision is that - without being specific regarding when or how - Christ will come again as the judge of humankind, both living and dead. What is important in these creeds is that the Second Coming is of one cloth with the incarnation, life, teachings, sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus' First Coming. It is the "consummation" of the story of salvation.

There is no mention of a "rapture" in these creeds. Some of the folks who embrace the doctrine of the "rapture" will tell you that it is because in the latter days God has given us insight into the Scriptures that our forebears did not have. I would argue that there is no mention of the "rapture" because a belief in the "rapture" is not a constitutive Christian belief. I'm not saying that those who believe in the "rapture" are not Christians. I am saying that one who is a Christian does not necessarily believe in the "rapture."

While they are intended to be related, the "rapture" and the Second Coming are different things. This week, I'll take a break from the "Harold Camping Watch" and talk about the differences between the "Rapture" and the Second Coming for a bit. It won't be as entertaining, but I would greatly welcome your input as we all strive to be faithful together.

What to do?

2011-05-21T08:06:00.000-05:00

Well, the long awaited date is here. The "rapture" will not occur at 6:00pm tonight. The "Day of Judgment" has already come and we all have been found both guilty and pardoned. And the "end of the world" is not taking place on October 21st. The date-setting is part of each generation's arrogance, imagining that our catastrophes are the "worst ever" that our expressions of sin are the final expressions of sin, and that our interpretations of both the signs and the Scriptures are the same thing as truth itself.

The question lies before us: When 6:00pm arrives and the rapture does not come, what shall we do? Here are a few of my thoughts.

We've seen enormous wastes of time and energy on Harold Camping's mistaken and presumptuous prediction. I've skewered it mercilessly because I think phenomena like this make all of Christianity look like a collaboration of fools. And, perhaps I've spent too much time and energy countering this ridiculous notion as well. My real argument is this: The "end of the world" is not a static concept that is marked by a divine hourglass. It is a way of protesting the presumption that "this is how it is and things will never change." That certainly was what John of Patmos was arguing when he wrote the book of Revelation in protest of Rome's presumptive power. That is what biblical eschatology is - a way of seeing the end (as in 'end goal') of the world as being fulfilled in Christ.

So, what to do now? Now, we live as though the narrative that the world will never change is wrong. It is wrong to say that might makes right. It is wrong to say that human communities will ever be battling one another in war. It is wrong to say that the strongest survive, the weakest relent. And theologically, it is wrong to conscript God into this mess, by saying that God is on the side of the rich, the powerful, and the aggressive. That is the narrative of the world that eschatology protests.

What eschatology says is that the conquering "Lion" is the slaughtered "Lamb." When we look to see what the conquering Lion looks like, we see the slaughtered Lamb. God's power is made known in human weakness, God's "dominion" is made known through human service, and God's glory is made known in humility. Eschatology is the counter-narrative that what was revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is true. Any eschatology that poses the Hollywood movie script as Jesus' way of conquering is false. The incarnation was not a 33 year experiment that failed. It is God's way of salvation. THAT is what biblical eschatology is all about.

So, today, tomorrow, and the next day are the "Day of Judgment," where human arrogance is judged and found wanting. But eschatology is ultimately a way of seeing salvation, not judgment. And God's way of salvation is still the way of service, of offering a cup of water to the thirsting, food to the hungry, shelter to the homeless. Do this, and we will be serving the risen Christ himself.

Results from Friday

2011-05-21T06:19:00.000-05:00

Well, it is as I assumed it would be. If Harold Camping showed up at our houses tomorrow wanting coffee grounds, we'd welcome him in. And while it would be easy to taunt him, most of us would treat him gently, offering him the coffee and some food to go with it. Most of us would talk to him, or listen to him, and some of us would even offer a fairly sympathetic ear, if he were to tell his story.

Every entry was wonderful - some more lighthearted some more serious. What thrills me is that blog readers and Facebook friends - through public posts or private correspondence - have demonstrated that we captivated by the wisdom of the Scriptures. If love overcomes hate; if turning the other cheek overcomes violence; if good overcomes evil; then the best response to a man whose arrogance has brought him public humiliation, is sympathy and compassion.

I'm going to give the winner's gift this week to Kathryn, because she expressed her answer using the song method from Thursday's contest. I like the idea of Harold showing up to borrow some coffee and receiving a song instead.

Well, this has been fun. So here's our week's benediction:

As you go out into the world, where millions have not been suddenly taken away,
As you go out into the world that continues to belong to God,
As you go out in faith, not in fear or longing for escape,
May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
the love of God,
and the companionship of God's own Spirit,
be with each of you,
this day ... and forever more.

Friday's Contest: Well, hello Mr. Camping

2011-05-20T09:04:00.000-05:00

For my 18th Birthday, I received a lovely gift. It was a box of nothing. A cigar box, with its title "NOTHING" on the top; and the weight, contents, and usual disclaimers on the sides. The gift was from Nowhere and inside there was a single, small slip of paper that read, "Inspected by nobody." For some reason, that gift seems strangely appropriate for what many people will experience tomorrow.

Imagine that it is Sunday morning, May 22nd. Your neighbor, Harold Camping, spent the day yesterday dressed in a white robe, sitting underneath his "rapture hatch" (see below). The robe was a fall back, you know, just in case we don't really leave out clothes behind when we are raptured. Then, he would have a step up on all the rest of the saints, showing up in their shirts and britches. (He could almost hear St. Peter say, "Well, Mr. Camping, how wonderful that you are already robed. You may skip the robe line and come straight to the head of our table!") On the other hand, if it is the case that we leave our clothes behind, the robe would slip off quite easily. (We will not conjecture whether it ever crossed his mind during the day that he actually likes wearing dresses.) But, alas, Mr. Camping's expectation is not met, the "rapture" does not occur, Mr. Camping's math, or interpretive skills, or theology, or something is decidedly wrong, and here we are on Sunday, May 22nd, and Mr. Camping's vaunted "Day of Judgment" has proven to be a dud.

So, it is Sunday morning, May 22nd, and your neighbor Harold Camping knocks meekly on your door with a simple request. "Good morning neighbor. Say, would you happen to have a cup of coffee grounds that I might borrow? I ... er ... didn't go grocery shopping last week and ... well, um ... I'd sure love to brew a pot of coffee to get my day started. Fortunately, I took the day off at work, so I can go shopping this morning."

Friday's contest: What would YOU say to your neighbor at this moment.

(Here's the "rapture hatch," sent in by an alert reader.)

Results from Thursday

2011-05-20T08:38:00.000-05:00

Well, we have quite the musical talent amongst our Left Behind and Loving It readership. Well done all around in Thursday's 'new song' contest.

The winning entry was "God's Own" sung to the tune of "The Flintstones"
Still here, we are still here
And the grace of God is still with us.
Next time, Maybe next time
Harold Camping’s word’s won’t be a bust.
Let’s pray for God’s kingdom here on earth
That’s what Jesus showed us with his birth.
When you’re one of God’s own
You’ll have grace and love for always
And God means always
You’ll have His love always

Congratulations Janice! You'll be receiving a copy of Left Behind and Loving It later this year.

Other creative entries included

"I Left Behind My Heart, but My Body Went to Heaven" by Denise

"Roll Out the Chalice" by Bill (To the tune of "Roll Out the Barrel")
Roll out the chalice, fill it with red Merlot wine;
Roll the paten, with joy and with bread we will dine.
To Jesus Messiah , ring out a hymn of good cheer.
The Spirit is faithful among us, and the gang’s still here!

"Right Here, Right Now" by Catherine
Not coming tomorrow or maybe someday.
Here right beside us as we walk in the Way.
In the eyes of the stranger, in the smile of a friend.
We don't have to wait til the end.

"Up, Up, and Away" by Kathryn (To the tune of the same name)
Would you like to be - where we got dropped on the moon?
Joyful folk below - say our absence is a boon.
We could sit among the stars together, you and I
But we can't fly!
Up, up and alone in the cold, deserted, heir less, (darn it!) moon!

"Jesus Loves Me" by Sharon
Jesus loves me this I know,
For the Bible tells me so,
Did not give his glorious birth,
so we'd leave the 21st.

Yes, Jesus loves me.
Yes, Jesus loves me.
Yes, Jesus loves me.
Just in case, Am ready to go.

Thursday's Contest: A New Song

2011-05-19T06:06:00.000-05:00

As some of you know, the Presbyterian Church (USA) is currently compiling a new hymnal to replace or supplement the former new hymnal, which - I guess - will now become the "old new hymnal." At any rate, t'would be nice for this new hymnal to contain some songs that have been written in honor of the fact that God is still good, we are all still here, and the Reign of God still makes a difference to life on earth.

So, Thursday's contest is for you to come up with the title of a new song to be included in the newest of the new hymnals. You only need a title, but you can offer much more! If you want, you can include a few lines, a refrain, even a suggested tune! (Remember the tune to "Gilligan's Island" goes with virtually anything!)

Here's an example:
"Without a Trace" (sung to the tune of "Amazing Grace" or "Gilligan's Island")
'Without a trace,' they said they'd go;
And leave the rest behind;
But here they are, still left below;
Back to the daily grind.

Okay, I didn't say it was a good example. But, it's an example nonetheless. So, now that you've seen an awful example, you are free to make your entries by midnight tonight! The winner has to receive my book, but I'm sure you can trade it for an older new hymnal somewhere.

Results from Wednesday

2011-05-19T05:34:00.000-05:00

What's not to love about bumper stickers? More permanent than tweets; less permanent than tattoos; and irritatingly un-ignorable to the captive audience behind you in heavy traffic. The only thing better is a contest to come up with a bumper sticker - if we were the kind of persons who might actually put something like this on an otherwise fine vehicle.

We had great entries for Wednesday's contest, including Wednesday's winner, Elysa, not only addressing Harold Camping's recent prediction, but including his former one and anticipating his next one: "Third Time's the Charm" - Harold Camping. Congratulations, Elysa! There will be a copy of Left Behind and Loving It coming your way when it is published later this year.

Other great entries included:
"Acrockalypse now!" by Bill
"Wrong Again" (another reference to Camping's previous missed call)
"Camping Out" (you know, just in case he's right)
and "May 22 is the first day of the rest of your life" - all three by Catherine
"We're all still here, so you can kiss my 'left behind'" by - well, she was embarrassed, so let me say it was by a lovely person who doesn't usually talk that way out loud.
"Making up for lost time"
"Recalculating" (which will happen, I'm afraid, so these ideas will be useful again some day)
and the obscure Steinbeck reference: "What happened to Preacher Casy?" - these three by the other Bill

Thank you one and all!

Wednesday's Contest: Bumper Stickers

2011-05-18T06:01:00.000-05:00

Remember the scene from Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life" when 'Death' comes to take away every member of a dinner party and they decide to drive their cars to the afterlife? Well, that scene and Sue Rutford's suggestion lie behind Wednesday's contest.

Our goals is to make a bumper sticker for AFTER May 21. What should your bumper sticker say?
Here's an example: "You think YOU'RE disappointed: I wanted your car!"

As usual, today's entries are due by midnight and today's winner will receive a complementary copy of Left Behind and Loving It when it is published later this year.

Results from Tuesday

2011-05-18T05:08:00.000-05:00

Well, there are certainly plenty of literate readers of this blog! Rather than "words escape me," Left Behind and Loving It readers are responding to Harold Camping's May 21st "Day of Judgment" prediction with the reply, "words abound."

Tuesday's winning entry - and future recipient of the book Left Behind and Loving It when it is published by Wipf & Stock later this year - is Faux Horsemen, by Johnny. "Harold Camping, Tim LaHaye, Edgar Whisenant, and Hal Lindsey's apocalyptic supergroup."

Other wonderful entries were:
Apocacryptic, by Chris. "The secrets of the end time are only known to a select few."
Crapture, by Elysa. "The ridiculous concept that the end of days is taking place on May 21, 2011."
The Great Ribulation, by Catherine. "The time after the predicted rapture does not happen that the followers of Harold Camping are tortured by others' laughter and jokes."
Revelation, by Bill. "The act of reveling or taking great pleasure in something." E.g. "The people partying at Mark's house enjoyed great revelation in the fact that Harold Camping and his followers failed to disappear on May 21st."
Prophane, by Jeff. "To prophesy using analysis that demeans its source."

Nicely played, one and all. Thanks for your entries.

Tuesday's Contest: Make a New Word!

2011-05-17T05:50:00.000-05:00

We'll, we're inching closer to the alleged date of the "rapture," which - for some reason - is now being labelled the "Day of Judgment." My guess is that if all of the billboards across the nation said "Day of Rapture," the results would be less striking than the reactions to the "Day of Judgment." First of all, people might start scouring their Bibles to find where the reference to the "rapture" is. What a puzzle it will be to find that it is not there! (I have a perfectly sound explanation to why the word "rapture" is not in the Bible in my book, Left Behind and Loving It, being published by Wipf & Stock later this summer.) The other reaction might be one of relief. The world might be a pleasanter place without the likes of Harold Camping and his followers. At least then we could get on with the work of doing justice and walking humbly before God, without the distractions of trying to detect the sounds of God's shuffling feet on the welcome mat of the earth's front door.

Ah well, on to today's contest!
Tuesday's contest is to define a new word that describes the May 21 "Judgment Day" phenomenon.

Here is my example: "Errogance"
er·ro·gance / aer er gəns / noun

the inverse relationship between being correct and being certain.

“The May 21^st prediction was errogance at its worst.”

Okay, peeps, you can either post your entries here on the blog or as comments on my facebook page. And special thanks to Marc Hansen of the Des Moines Register for reading the blog and finding it mention-worthy!

Entries are due by Tuesday, May 17, at midnight (CST)

Results from Monday

2011-05-17T05:31:00.000-05:00

And here is the winning entry from Monday's contest for a May 22 headline:

Local Pastor Attempts to Return $17,000 Entertainment Center

Congratulations to Catherine Foote for winning a signed copy of Left Behind and Loving It when it is released in late summer!

Runner up was Bill Lemosy with, Celestial GPS for the Faith Journey "Recalculating"

Monday's contest was to write a May 22 headline when the "Day of Judgment" had come and gone and the "rapture" had not occurred. Some of the entries were more focused on what the headlines would read if the "rapture" does occur. Ted Coppick wrote with either regret or relief, ENTIRE PRESBYTERYIAN CHURCH USA SPARED FROM "RAPTURE." while Catherine Foote had the gall to write, Local Pastor Mark Davis Rethinks Eschatological Theology After Millions Disappear. Apparently Catherine was forgetting that I get to sign her copy of Left Behind and Loving It.

Tuesday's Contest is coming up!

Countdown Contest #1: Headline News

2011-05-16T07:01:00.000-05:00

Okay folks, we're down to the last six days until the "Day of Judgment." So, let's get serious with a "Left Behind and Loving It Daily Contest"!

Today's contest is a Headline News contest:

WRITE A HEADLINE FOR MAY 22, WHEN THE "DAY OF JUDGMENT"

HAS COME AND GONE AND NOTHING SIGNIFICANT HAPPENED*

(You may include a subtitle.)

Here's an example: "Oops! Millions Left Stranded as Nothing Happens"

Contest Headlines are due by midnight (CST) tonight, Monday, May 16. Each day's winners - from Monday through Friday - will receive a free copy of my book, "Left Behind and Loving It" when it is published later this summer.

* For those of you just joining us, Harold Camping and many of his followers are claiming that May 21 is the "Day of Judgment." Some folks have swallowed this tale, hook, line and sinker. Others, who don't believe or understand why May 21 would be 'the day,' are hedging their bets, just in case. You are invited to defy the whole theology behind this "Day of Judgment" by believing instead in the most often-quoted line of the Scriptures: "God's steadfast love endures forever."

Two Physicians Died and Went to Heaven ...

2011-05-13T14:15:00.000-05:00

Please check me if I’m wrong, but here’s the scenario that many “rapturists” see unfolding, as of May 21.

- The “rapture” comes and the genuinely Christian people are snatched away suddenly. By “genuinely Christian” I mean people who “redeem the time” and don’t waste it by reading superfluous blogs like this.

- Seven years of the “Great Tribulation” take place among those who are “left behind.” This is not to be confused with “so-so tribulations” like the stuff you and I gripe about - bad vacations, visits from the in-laws, two-year-olds, etc.

- Then there is the “Millennium,” the 1,000 years of peace that earth-dwellers enjoy while the beast is locked up. Somehow the prospect of peace just doesn't jibe with humanity, though, because when this time is over, the Beast seems to have an easy time recruiting new soldiers for his futile battle against God.

- Then the beast is released, the “Battle of Armageddon” takes place, the beast and his minions are utterly defeated, and the earth is destroyed, to make way for a “new heaven and new earth.”

- Or, something like that.

**************** We pause this incredibly insightful thought for a story ***********************

Two physicians died and went to heaven. When they walked through the pearly gates, St. Peter said, "Hey Jesus, look! A pair o' docs!" (Pair o' docs. Paradox. Get it? Eh, never mind.)

******************* Now, back to our incredibly insightful thought **************************

The vision of a “new heaven and new earth” is something of a puzzle. Some ‘rapturists’ seem to think – and worse, seem to live – as if our earth, the earth where we live now, the only earth we have ever truly known, is doomed. Therefore, any attempt to preserve the earth – like not exploiting the heck out of it – is classified as a tree-hugging, Mother-earth-worshipping, pagan ritual of god-hatred. Ann Coulter once put it this way (get the yak bucket ready): “God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet — it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars — that's the Biblical view.”*

Thank goodness the historic church saw the “new heaven and new earth” differently. They saw this phrase as a promise of renewal. Much like the view they held of the resurrected body, where it would be a renewed body – still us, but in a new, imperishable form. In other words, the 'new heaven and new earth' metaphor is a paradox - they will be the same / and / they will be different from the heaven and earth that we know. The paradox is the creative tension that comes from holding both the sameness and the difference together. To say that it is just one or the other is to lose the power of the paradox.

Anyone who thinks our existing earth is simply toast because God wants it that way, is missing the point. Anyone who thinks we have no obligations to conserve and preserve the earth might as well make self-mutilation a religious practice as well. But anyone who comprehends the way a paradox works, can – once again – live in awe of God’s promises, even as we live in obedience to God’s commands.

* "Oil Good; Democrats bad", Townhall, 2000-10-12

Are You Ready for the 1.5 Coming?

2011-05-05T11:27:00.000-05:00

So, indeed, the "rapture" is scheduled to take place on May 21. That means that, on May 21 - as so many billboards and painted covered vans have been advertising diligently - the saints are going to disappear. I think the proper order is that the 'dead in Christ' get to rise first, then we who are alive and remain will be caught up to meet him in the air. That's the event that we are supposed to expect on May 21, based on the words of
I Thessalonians 4:16-18, which reads like this:

For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord for ever. Therefore encourage one another with these words.

In the old days, the word that is translated 'to meet' (which is actually a noun - a meeting - not a verb) was the kind of language that signified going out to meet a dignitary that was coming on the highway. (This is how it used in the parable of the 10 Bridesmaids in Matthew 25.) The locals would get cleaned up and go out to meet the dignitary, then accompany him or her back to their humble abode with joy and thanksgiving. That is why the historic church read this passage as a description of the "second coming," not the "meet me half way." For some reason, the "rapture" proponents have turned this formula around to where Jesus 'comes,' and we 'meet him in the air' and then he takes us to his house, while suffering happens back in the old homestead.

So, on May 21, apparently, we're supposed to go to meet the 'coming' Christ, but he's not really coming. He's meeting us halfway and taking us to his house until he really comes later, so it's the "1.5 coming." But, I can't remember any of our Christian forebears talking about that. Can you?

Set the Bagpipe to Thy Mouth

2011-05-02T13:26:00.000-05:00

The tragic death of David Wilkerson last week reminded me of an image that he found useful. In 1985 - after he was well-established as the evangelist among gangs through his book, The Cross and the Switchblade, David Wilkerson came out with a very different kind of book called, Set the Trumpet to Thy Mouth. It was a book of what passes among many folks today as prophetic utterance. It certainly had the feeling of gloom and doom, as many people often ascribe to some of the prophets like Jeremiah or Nahum. The most compelling quality of this kind of "prophecy," however, is it's predictive nature. The words "soon" and "at hand" and other such indicators of time are scattered readily and often in this kind of literature. That may be why the imagery of the prophet as the one 'blowing the trumpet' is so popular. The trumpet - among its other great qualities (namely that it is LOUD) - is immediate. Start blowing and it starts sounding. So, part of the imagery of blowing a trumpet as a warning is that it's attention-getting qualities are immediate. TOOOOOOOOOOOOOT! = NOW!

However, most predictive prophecies simply do not come true. Or, if they do, it is usually in manner that is less devastating or less cosmic, or quite different than the predictor predicted. "America will be utterly destroyed" is the prophecy; "See, 9/11 happened!" is the fulfillment. And, as tragic and heart-wrenching as 9/11 was, it was not the utter destruction of America, it didn't stop the USA from exhibiting whatever sins the prophet seemed to be condemning, or anything like that. "America will be destroyed" is the prophecy; "See, hurricane Katrina destroyed the wicked city of New Orleans!" is the fulfillment. Well, Katrina was powerfully destructive, but it missed Bourbon Street and destroyed a lot of good people's homes. The predictive prophecies - by and large - go unfulfilled, at least to the magnitude and in the manner that the prophets predict.

Therefore, we get the caveats that accompany predictive prophecy: "No one knows the day or the hour" is the caveat; "But, we're reading the signs of the times and it is going to happen soon!" persists the prophecy. "With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years," is the caveat; "But we're on the END of those thousand years" persists the predictive prophecy.

In the end, predictive prophets seem passive-aggressive to me. They want all of the bluster and fear-mongering that the real meaning of their immediate words ("soon!" and "at hand!") conjure up; but they also want to cover their prophetic asses by hiding behind the caveats when 25 years pass and nothing the size of their predicted catastrophe has really taken place.

It's sad. I suggest a better metaphor - if we insist on having this kind of predictive prophecy - would be "Set the bagpipe to thy lips." Those bagpipers blow and blow and blow, filling up their windbag long before they actually start playing notes. At least with this image the predictive prophets would recognize that their use of immediate words is mistaken. It's a start.

It's Getting Serious ... Maybe

2011-04-25T11:51:00.001-05:00

Well, we're down to 26 DAYS! Maybe.

That means the all of Christendom will be waiting! Maybe.

Surely at least those Christians who expect the Second Coming to occur will be waiting! Maybe.

Okay, what's with all of the 'maybe's? Is May 21 the date of the "rapture" or not?

The ambivalence is not my invention. It is a reflection of a Pew Research Center survey that was originally taken in 2006. (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1187/poll-christians-jesus-second-coming-timing) In that survey, which was distributed among people who profess Christianity and not to the public at large, the following tension occurred: In answer to the question, "Do you believe in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ?" 79% of the respondents said, "Yes." But, in response to the question, "Do you believe that Jesus will return to earth in your lifetime?" only 20% said, "Yes."

It's the gap between the 79% and the 20% that constitutes the 'maybe.' And, frankly, if the survey had phrased some questions in terms of the "rapture," the numbers would be even more disparate. The "Second Coming" has been a part of Christian confessional standards since at least the Apostle's Creed and was articulated way earlier than that in the simple phrase, "Come, Lord Jesus."

The "rapture," on the other hand, is a fairly new wrinkle on the understanding of the Second Coming. It seems to me that the idea of the "rapture" is an attempt to make some literal sense of the kinds of visions found in Daniel, I Thessalonians, Mark 13, Matthew 24, Luke 22, and Revelation. Since I don't think any of those texts are intended to be taken literally - much less accumulated together into a 'timeline,' I would be among the folks in the gap between "Yes" and not "Yes." I guess I'll be content standing alongside of Jesus, who didn't even know the times or the season!

Easter V. Rapture

2011-04-18T18:21:00.000-05:00

Ladiieeess and Gentlemeennn! Welcome to the MAIN EVENT in Faithful Expectations!

In this corner, weighing in at less than 200 years of theological inventiveness, hardly attested by the gospels and only decipherable by the most creative of Scriptural interpretations, ... not one, but many times claimed and never validated ... THE RAPTURE.

And in this corner, weighing in at 2,000 years of sacred history, fully attested by all four gospels, the undefeated anchor of Christian hope, the undisputed vindication of all that Jesus said, did, and endured, here it is, the one, the only ... EASTER SUNDAY!

Okay, you two, come to the center of the ring. Now, I want a clean competition, see? No low blows, no cheap tricks, no preying on people's fears or emotional appeals about being "left behind." Got it? Just some good, solid biblical interpretations, theological integrity, and most of all, compassion. See, if you have emotions, and symbolic interpretations, and number-crunching, but don't have love, then ya' got nothing, see? So, none of that. Just get out there and give the people here what they came for, a good reason to crown one or the other of you as the champion of faith, the pinnacle of theology and practice. Got it? All right, shake hands and come out showing your best stuff.

(Ding!)

And Rapture comes out swinging! It's using blogs and raucous preaching! Ooohh, it lands a heavy timeline! What's that? A best-selling series of novels that escapes criticism by calling itself 'fiction' when challenged, but styling itself as 'truth' when appealing to audiences. And now, a flurry of suggestive symbolic pictures, some of which look like actual people existing today! And there's a repetitive claim that "every prophecy has already been fulfilled," which nobody even understands! I tell ya, folks, Rapture is pushing like there's no tomorrow. It's thrown all caution to the wind, cares noting about the long-term fate of the universe, and even ridicules any concern about the earth as a form of pagan idolatry. My goodness! Can the champ take it and still survive?

What's this? Easter is simply standing in the ring, absorbing blow after blow. Easter is letting the fury pass, with hope and confidence. Easter is taking a beating as if it has been abused, despised, and afflicted before! Easter is giving hope for all who have been victimized, granting strength to all who have been weakened by life's incessant worries, proclaiming triumph to any who has been bruised by the powers of violence and ridicule. And now ... it's official. Rapture has spent itself with repeated false alarms, so that Easter is the only truth left standing.

Rejoice, ladies and gentlemen, Easter has prevailed again!

37 Days of Final Preparations

2011-04-14T09:23:00.000-05:00

Oh, we are so close to turning the final corner and heading down the final stretch. Harold Camping has determined - after 70 years of study - that the "rapture" is coming on May 21. We raised the question earlier of what one ought to wear at a "rapture." And now, I'm ready to answer: Nothing. Well, nothing except maybe some old shoes.

Now, why would I suggest some old shoes? It's because of a picture that I have found both inspiring and puzzling. Occasional artistic depictions of the "rapture" typically illustrate ascending saints heading into the clouds either clad in white robes or not clad at all. Of course, when they are not clad at all, the clouds discreetly cover all of the good stuff and all we see are ankles and feet. That is because if you saw more you might lust and the you'd have to be left behind with all of the other lusters. What a mess. So, just enough nakedness to get the message; not enough to get excited.

Other artistic depictions of the rapture show empty clothes left behind from those who have been taken away. This is the 'other side' of the naked ankles and feet depictions. But, I recently found a book cover which has messed with my expectations. It is from a book entitled, Three Views of the Rapture, edited by Gleason L. Archer, Jr. and published by Zondervan. This book cover is extremely alarming to me.

If we leave our clothes behind in the "rapture," then this picture suggests that people who walk around in nothing but a pair of shoes in open fields are among those going in the "rapture." Heck, this guy wasn't even wearing socks! I tell you, I'm glad we have 37 days before the "rapture" because I have to seriously consider whether or not I want to be companioned for all eternity with people who walk around open fields in nothing but shoes. It's kind of creepy if you ask me, and I always figured that the "rapture" excluded the creepy. What do you think?

How Should We Live?

2011-04-11T09:41:00.004-05:00

So, we're counting down to May 21. The latest prediction is that May 21 is definitely the day of the "rapture." I know you thought it would come like a thief in the night, totally unpredictable, catching people unawares, etc., but apparently you were wrong. It's coming on May 21. Or, in 2012. It depends on whether you invest more trust in Harold Camping's 70-year study of the Bible, or the ancient Mayan's millennia-old prognostications. I'm thinking that if we're going to have a countdown, we ought to go with May 21, because I can't think of enough things to blog about all the way to the end of 2012.

So, May 21 it is. I invite you to join me in accepting Mr. Camping's conclusions and his certainty about this date. I invite you to imagine how we ought to live, if we believe that May 21 is the day the rapture will take place.

First and foremost: We ought to repent - that's a given, isn't it? After all, what does it profit us to gain the whole world if we lose our souls? Then, we ought to invite others to repent also - that's how we act in love. Only, let's take a broad view of the word "repent."

To repent is not simply to say, "God, I'm sorry. Please forgive me; wash my sins away; take me to heaven when I die or when you return, whichever comes first." That kind of repentance is not really biblical repentance. It's more akin hedging a bet or purchasing fire insurance or simply trying to appease a guilty conscience. I have no problem with hedging bets (although I don't gamble), purchasing fire insurance (okay, maybe I do gamble, because I have insurance), or appeasing a guilty conscience (no comment). BUT, biblical 'repentance' involves more than all of that. It involves a re-orientation of life.

So, let's live as if the rapture is coming on May 21. Let's confess our sins, let's accept the good news of the gospel that, in Christ, we are forgiven. And, let's live in the newness of a life that is set free from the threat of hell, from the guilt of sin, and from the anxiety of whether or not we are "right with God." To those things, we say, "God's grace is even greater than my sins or my anxieties" and leave it at that. THEN, we embrace our lives anew. We are forgiven, who can we forgive in order to live out our repentance? We are accepted, despite our failures. Who can we accept that we have previously rejected? We are called "beloved children of God." Who can we love that we have previously despised or hated?

Wow! We have a lot to do before May 21!

The Countdown Conundrum

2011-04-08T05:53:00.005-05:00

So, the latest popular attempt to actually name the date of a "pre-tribulation rapture of the saints" says that it will take place on May 21, 2011. While it is plainly evident that I do not believe in this conjecture, I am using this space to entertain the idea. I have no underlying motive. My goal is simply to say, "Okay, if the Bible really is a puzzle that has secret codes and cryptic numbers that predict a future "rapture," then let's give Harold Camping the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's correct." (See my blog from April 4 for details.)

I am aware that many people who believe in and look forward to the "pre-tribulation rapture" are skeptical of Mr. Camping's attempt to name a specific date. So, please don't get the impression that everyone who expects a "pre-tribulation rapture" to occur any time now has May 21 marked on their calendars. That's not how most "pre-tribulation rapture" believers roll - at least not from my own experience. I've only known 2 people who have actually forfeited any investments (economic or otherwise) in the future, because they believed that the rapture was really, really imminent. One of them ended up in a treatment facility (I helped him check in and visited him there); the other dropped out of college and was intending to live in a cave somewhere in Tennessee the last I heard of him. (I am not making this up, although I am fuzzy on many details and did not know him well). Outside of those two persons, most of my "pre-tribulation rapture" friends are just as sane and functional as anyone else. And most of them are not circling May 21 on their calendars, setting their affairs in order, or dressing in white gowns and sitting on their housetops to be "ready."

But - if my own experience is at all typical of anyone who takes their "pre-tribulation rapture" belief seriously - they are a little nervous.

Almost anyone who believes in an imminent "pre-tribulation rapture" has had an experience when s/he observed something that triggered the fear that the rapture had taken place and that s/he has been "left behind." These experiences are funny in hindsight, but not in real time. In real time, anyone who has heard a plethora of "any day now!" proclamations knows what it is like to feel the anxiety of having been "left behind," and it is not pretty.

So, whenever a Harold Camping comes along - anyone who had crunched the numbers, broken the code, connected the dots, and named the date - the result is unsettling. On the one hand, those who believe in a "pre-tribulation rapture" feel the need to read the "signs of the times," and to interpret real time events as the "budding fig leaves" that augur end time events. On the other hand, they remember that "no one knows the day or the hour," of the "pre-tribulation rapture," so they shouldn't actually invest in something as specific as Harold Camping's prediction.

I do not believe in an imminent, "pre-tribulation rapture." I do not believe that we are living in "the last days," if one takes those words to refer, literally, to a countdown to the end of planet earth. And, I would gladly be willing to say, "This is simply a place where we can agree to disagree" over this matter, except that I think a true belief in an imminent "pre-tribulation rapture" can have some disastrous results. We'll explore some of them in the future. If there is one.

Only 45 Shopping Days until the "Rapture"!

2011-04-06T10:18:00.004-05:00

Okay folks, it's getting serious. There are only 45 shopping days until May 21, so you need to get right over to K-Mart and get your "rapture" duds on.

Of course, it is easier said than done. First of all,the question arises, "What does one wear to a good ole' Rapture?" I mean, it's not like we've had enough of these to develop a protocol. Well, we've had plenty of false alarms, so unless we're thinking that their attire was some sort of bad karma that resulted in the "rapture" not happening when people expected it to, we could look at previous "rapture" dates for our sartorial indicators.

For example, back when William Miller began proclaiming with certainty that the Lord would return in 1843 (and then fell back to a revised date of 1844 - See the April 4th blog on math!), the "Millerites" readied themselves for the "rapture" by dressing in white robes. (Some of them took to sitting on their rooftops also, but that seems to be the "rapture" equivalent of pushing and shoving to get to the front of the lunch line to me.) Needless to say, either the Millerites were wrong on both occasions, or else the Lord "raptured" so few people that nobody even noticed that it had taken place.

At any rate, white robes seem to be the preferred dress for saints that are 'ready to go.' Maybe dressing like a first-century Palestinian is akin to being heavenly in some way. I don't know.

A twist on the white robe option could be to dip those robes in blood. I know that sounds a bit gruesome, but there's both biblical and musical precedent for it. Biblically, Joseph's brothers used goat's blood to decorate his robe, which started a fashion in the Ancient Near East that almost nobody talks about any more. And, musically, I love the song "Wayfaring Stranger" that looks forward to the promise of being in concert with the "bloody washed band." (If I ever start a rock group, I'm naming it "Bloody Washed Band.")

Or, we could just shed our clothes altogether on May 21 and go 'commando' like all of the pictures of the "rapture" seem to imply. I'll speak more about this option next time.

For now, I think white robes are our best bets and my suspicion is that the K-Mart near me doesn't even carry them. We might have to order them online from L.L.Bean, or something like that. We could steal some from a local church choir room, but then we wouldn't get to go in the "rapture."

See how important it is to start our shopping now? You don't want to be ill-dressed when May 21 gets here.

Only 47 Days Until the Rapture!

2011-04-04T06:12:00.004-05:00

From a recent news article, we learned that "Harold Camping, 88, has scrutinized the Bible for almost 70 years and says he has developed a mathematical system to interpret prophecies hidden within the Good Book. One night a few years ago, Camping, a civil engineer by trade, crunched the numbers and was stunned at what he'd found: The world will end May 21, 2011."*

Oh, I know that there have been past attempts to name the date and that some of you may view Mr. Camping's projection cynically, since every previous attempt has failed. But, people, c'mon - this is MATH! Who can argue with math? I mean, 2+2=4, no matter what your opinion, no matter whether you are good or bad, no matter if you like it or not. That's the way math is, right?

And God? Well, surely God honors math! God invented it! And if God said, "Here's my mathematically deducible timetable," then, by golly, God's gonna do it! So, please set your cynicism aside and listen to Mr. Camping - if for no other reason than for the fact that he's been at it for 70 years! And just because he's been wrong before - September 6,1994, to be exact - doesn't mean that he is necessarily wrong this time. The first answer was like that first answer I always got with math problems. It never looked exactly right and when I re-did the math I fixed it! I mean, that's why we do math in pencil, right?

So, case closed, we have 47 days and now I'm trying to imagine how God wants us to spend them. Justice seems like such a long and thankless task, so I suspect that's going to be the first casualty in our new list of priorities. Actually taking the time to cultivate relationships of fellowship or service is kind of long-term also, so they're out of here. Taking care of creation ... we'll that certainly seems beside the point now, doesn't it? Uh, let's see ... I think the only thing left to embrace is some kind of instantaneous conversion - we can squeeze a few of those in as we await the great event! So, I guess that means that our Christianity is boiled down to nothing else but preaching a message that is sufficiently convincing (i.e. 'scary') enough to produce a maximum number of conversions. (This is starting to sound suspiciously like the kind of Christianity that I despise.)

The truth is, almost everything I value about living faithfully takes at least 48 days. Darn.

* http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-01/bay-area/17466332_1_east-bay-bay-area-first-time-camping

Getting Started Well

2011-03-31T05:54:00.002-05:00

I am declaring May 21 to be the last, best, final, ultimate, epitome of dates on which the "Rapture" will be predicted to take place.

I say let's all agree that May 21 is it.

I say let's all live as if May 21 is it.

I say let's all pray, repent, share the good news, and put everything else off until May 21.

I say let's all re-arrange our life priorities as if May 21 will be the final hour of "life as we know it."

I say let's give it all that we have, lift up our heads, and watch and be ready.

And then, when the "Rapture" does not come on May 21:

Let's make May 22 to be a DAY OF COMMITMENT for people of faith.

Let's all agree to quit the silly business of trying to guess God's cosmic calendar.

Let's throw that cosmic calendar out the window and into the trash heap where it belongs.

Let's live each day as if it is a gift from God, not a threat from God.

Let's throw away "The time is short!" and pick up "The time is right!"

Let's live as if God's steadfast love really does endure forever.

Let's be motivated by the joy of response, rather than the threat of disaster.

Let's take real disasters as calls to compassion, not signs of the time.

Why not?

Coming Soon: IF We're Still Around

2011-03-30T11:23:00.003-05:00

Friends,

The Left Behind and Loving It blog will be resurrected later in 2011, coinciding with the publication of my book, Left Behind and Loving It, by Wipf and Stock under the Cascade Books label.

At that time I will try to make the blog more interactive, with shorter posts and more invitations for feedback from you.

Until then, I'm intrigued that someone who names a date for the so-called "rapture" can generate interest simply by having misplaced confidence in the human ability to guess what God is up to. Now, it seems, the "rapture" will come on May 21. My brother-in-law is getting married on that day, so I guess it seems as good of a guess as any.

However, I'm expecting to be here on May 22 also. Do you? Why do you think someone making a prediction of this sort gets attention, after every single previous prediction of this sort has proven false? Please post your reflections on the comment section.

Thanks. And welcome back.

A Priestly Kingdom

2009-06-16T06:07:00.003-05:00

[It's been a while since I've posted anything here. Largely the reason has been because I've gotten into some extensive conversations over some notes that I posted on my facebook account. That topic has little relation to this blog, and I've been stretching the parameters of this blog enough already, so I'll just leave it aside and stay with a reading of Revelation here. If anyone wants to see the other notes and responses, let me know and I'll make them available for you.]

I've been looking at the doxology of Revelation 1:5-6 and want to wrap up that portion of this lovely chapter by looking at the 'telos' (the end goal) of the doxology, which says that Christ has "made us to be a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen."

The idea of a 'kingdom' of 'priests' goes all the way back to the story of the 10 Commandments, when the people of Israel were journeying in the wilderness for 40 years and came to Mount Sinai, where they were consecrated and then given the law. Exodus 19:5-6a says, "Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation." There is a powerful combination here of two streams of theology in the Hebrew Bible: God as the God of all the world; and God as the God of Israel. The same two streams are evident in the story of God making a covenant with Abraham, where God promises to bless Abraham's descendants, and then says, "In you will all nations be blessed."

Obviously, these two ways of thinking about God are not incompatible, but they do represent two different ways of focusing our thinking about God. In the Hebrew Bible, you can find texts that imply that the Hebrew people's fate is far more important to God than the fate of other countries (like those dreaded Hittites!). Those stories reflect- I assume- the theology of the storytellers, who would say that Israelite success or failure on the battlefield is theologically significant, but Hittite reality is more or less a background foil for the Israelite story.

There are other stories where the fate of non-Israelite peoples is important- God's covenant with Ishmael, Jonah's preaching and the repentance of Nineveh, for example. Those stories seem to reflect a larger, more universal view of God and God's providential care beyond the people of Israel.

Maybe these two camps were arguing with one another; maybe the ups and downs of Hebrew history caused biblical writers to emphasize one stream of thought over another- I don't know exactly. What I have come to think is this: For much of the Bible, the fate of Israel is inextricably tied to the fate of the world. If God breaks covenant with Israel- that would be disastrous because this is the same God who keeps the world on its axis and rains on the crops, etc. And this God has made a special, specific covenant with Israel, so the whole world really is invested in the fate of Israel. It is not that Israel's well-being is important to the exclusion of all other nations; but that Israel's well-being is important for the sake of all nations.

Perhaps that is one way of understanding what it means to say that the people at Mount Sinai will be a "priestly kingdom." Their offerings, their worship, their sacrifices, etc. are not for their sake alone, but for the sake of the world gathered outside of their tent.

As far as Revelation goes, I think it is the destruction of the temple and the fall of Jerusalem to Rome that marks the great tragedy prompting this book. And the stories that follow are couched in global, cosmic terms because truly the fate of the world rests on whether or not God will keep God's promises. But, the shift is now from the standing of the temple (which is destroyed by the time this book is written) to the resurrection of Christ. It is in Christ- whose crucifixion seemed like the failure of his messiahship, but whose ongoing life refutes that- who invites Christ followers to be the priestly kingdom, worshipping and praying on behalf of the world.

One Last Way of Thinking about “Blood”

2009-05-26T05:54:00.001-05:00

Well, I’ve been looking at the doxology in Revelation 1:5-6, which reads:

To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood,
and made us to be a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father,
to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

So far, we’ve seen 3 different ways of looking at the word “blood” in terms of God’s great act of redeeming humanity- Anselm’s “substitutionary atonement,” Irenaeus’ incarnational theology, and Girard’s understanding of scapegoating (see the past 3 blog notes for more information).

Here is one last way of thinking about “blood” when we see references to it, such as in this doxology of Revelation 1. It is not unrelated to the previous ways of thinking about “blood,” but it is somewhat different.

Walter Wink argues that the two great and competing myths in our world today are “the myth of redemptive violence” and “the myth of redemptive suffering.” (We’re using ‘myth’ in its classic sense, as a great explanatory story behind the way we approach our world.) The Myth of Redemptive Violence is the subtext of virtually every Hollywood action film that has been produced. The hero is typically a normal enough guy, trying to live in peace and do the right thing. The villain strikes out and attempts to talk it out or normal attempts at enforcing the law fall short. Then, in a moment best articulated by Popeye (“I’ve had all I can stand, and I can’t stands no more!”) the hero pulls out the big gunnery and begins to blow the villain away. We leave the theater joyful, because the hero “saves” the day (significant word there) by overcoming the villain’s violence with greater violence.

If this myth were only a plot for Hollywood, there would be no significant problem beyond little boys that get all aggressive with each other at the bus stop following every new release. But, the myth does not stop at Hollywood. It is the unstated rationale behind wars and the industry that sustains war. The idea is that if the right person/country has the greater active or potential for violence in hand, he can use that violence (or the threat of it) to overcome lesser violence. Again, Wink calls this the myth of redemptive violence, because we think of it as having a good ending. Tragedy and unredemptive violence would be if the villains of the world could not be defeated.

On the other hand, Wink says that the cross is an example of “redemptive suffering,” where Jesus could have called 12 legions angels to come to his rescue (Matthew 26:53) but did not. He was an innocent victim, who overcame the violence of Rome by bearing it. His suffering itself is the redemptive act of God, not his greater act of violence. And this myth shows up in Jesus’ teaching as well- such as when he argues against the law of retaliation (“an eye for an eye”) and for “turning the other cheek.”

Contrary to our popular mythology, which sees suffering as a sign of weakness and waits anxiously for that “I can’t stands it no more” moment, the cross points to a different way where suffering itself is redemptive. And it is not a suffering to appease God’s anger and demand for satisfaction (similar to Anselm’s theory). It is suffering because Rome and other villains in the world are violent and they speak the language of violence to legitimate themselves. The cross is the ultimate answer to that violence. And that is why discipleship- following Jesus by taking up the cross- is the “narrow way” that is unpopular and often lonely.

Obviously, many Christians and churches have tried to transform the cross back into the myth of redemptive violence by subordinating the suffering Christ to the angry, Rambo-like Jesus who comes back on a white horse and kicks booty. The Christ of the cross- who suffered, died and was buried- becomes just a temporary picture of Christ, who really tried not to have to resort to violence, but- in the end- the lamb comes back as the roaring lion, etc. In my mind, that is one of the most shameful anti-Christian acts of subverting the true gospel message out there today.

Yet Another Way of Thinking "Blood"

2009-05-24T21:55:00.001-05:00

I used to say—back in the 1980’s when it was timely and I was convinced that I knew everything—that the quickest way to end the cold war would be to simulate an invasion from Mars. Since that time, several Hollywood movies have expressed the same idea, only the rivalries have changed a bit. Think of all of the movies where brown, turbaned folks—typically representing an enemy of the US—joyfully cheer on the American heroes as they destroy the mothership of an even worse enemy from outer space. It’s the same kind of thing that would stop my brother and me from fighting whenever some kid that we both decided to dislike came on the scene. Oddly enough, both the rivalry and the spontaneous transfer of a rivalry to a third party are elements of the way that Rene Girard invites us to consider the doxology in Revelation that says Christ “freed us from our sins by his blood.”
You’ll need to google Girard to get a fuller (and perhaps fairer) description of his thought, but two of his ideas in general offer us a way of understanding the blood of Jesus differently than either Anselm’s substitutionary atonement (see the 5/20 blog post) or Irenaeus’ incarnational use (see the 5/22 blog post). What Girard describes is “mimetic desire” (mimetic means ‘imitative’) and “scapegoating.” “Mimetic desire” is what put my brother and me- or the US and the USSR, or Christendom and Islamdom- into conflict in the first place. (I just made up the word “Islamdom” as a way of separating the nobler aspects of Islamic faith from the political expressions of Islam that often overshadow the faith itself. That’s how I use the word “Christendom” also, by the way.) In mimetic desire, it is the desire to have what another has (and often not until the other has it) that lies at the root of many conflicts.
“Scapegoating” is the mechanism by which conflicting communities get beyond the impasse of their conflict and avoid totally annihilating one another. For my brother and me, it was a common enemy. For white, black, and brown faces in Hollywood movies, it is the amorphous ‘other’ inside of the enemy spaceship. And, in the absence of a well-timed common enemy, we create one by designating a ‘scapegoat’ or a sacrificial lamb, onto which we transfer all of our enmity and sins. Then, we kill or send away the sin-filled scapegoat and we ourselves emerge clean.
Girard shows that mimetic desire and scapegoating have been the “myths” at work in rivalries and religions for ages. But, he also argues that the death of Christ has exposed the sacrificial system by demonstrating that the ones who put the victim to death do not, in fact, emerge clean and forgiven, but are guilty of killing an innocent. To be “freed by the blood of Christ,” in Girard’s understanding would NOT be “freed because the gods are mollified by sacrifices.” We are “freed” because our whole scapegoating system has been exposed and now we have a choice between the need for scapegoating and the way of Christ which overcomes mimetic desire when we join the prayer, “Not my will, but yours be done.”
Rene Girard offers a way of joining the doxology and praising Christ for “freeing us by his blood,” which accepts that Jesus was the innocent sacrificial victim. But, unlike Anselm’s theory, God is not he one who was mollified by Jesus’ death. It was our tendency to scapegoat that was mollified and Jesus frees us by exposing that tendency and calling us to another way.
Next time, one last way of thinking ‘blood.’

Another Way of Thinking "Blood"

2009-05-22T10:51:00.003-05:00

In my last post, I briefly described Anselm’s theory of substitutionary atonement and I said that it seems to be the church’s most popular way of describing Christ’s redemptive work today. It would seem then, when the doxology in Revelation says that Christ “freed us from our sins by his blood,” it is referring to the cross, where Jesus was mangled horrifically and left to bleed and suffocate on the cross. Likewise, we popularly think that whenever we take the bread and wine, remembering the words of Christ that describes them as “my body” and “my blood,” we think the reference again is to that horrific blood-letting on the cross. That’s the insistent theology behind songs that I grew up with, like “Nothing but the Blood of Jesus,” and “There’s Power in the Blood.”

However, there are other ways of understanding “blood” references in the Scriptures- and they’re not all just products of unbelieving modernists who reject the truth and try to make Christianity more palatable to an unbelieving generation (which seems to be the assumption behind another fairly popular song, “I Still Believe There’s Power in the Blood.”) In fact, long before modernism became a problem, a very orthodox voice in the Christian Church spoke of the “blood of Christ” quite differently than the popular way of speaking about it today. I’m thinking of Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons in the 2nd century.

Irenaeus is a key figure in church history for several reasons. He is one of the first to identify nearly all of the books of what we now call the New Testament; he names the first 12 Bishops of Rome as successors to the Apostles and the standard of true Apostolic teaching; and he gives a rationale for the number of Gospels in the New Testament, as well as some explanation of their unity among their differences. These arguments and recollections are found in his books called “Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge Falsely So Called,” but- thankfully- the books are typically called by the Latin title, “Adversus Haereses” (against heresies). In these books, Irenaeus is strongly arguing against a number of innovative “heresies” that were present in the still young church.

For our purposes, Irenaeus describes the “blood” of Christ (a term that he uses often) as a way of talking about the humanity of Christ, his incarnation, rather than his crucifixion. One of the heresies that he was taking on was the Gnostic thought that Jesus was never truly human, because material things are evil and the true Word of God could not be truly found within a material human body. Some even argued that Christ practically came down and stole a body so as to ‘appear’ to be human and suffering and dying and so forth. When Irenaeus argues that the “blood” of Christ is redemptive, he is arguing that the incarnation of Christ, when “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), is God’s redemptive act in history. Therefore, Jesus is the “second Adam” that redeems the sin of the first Adam. (Irenaeus goes on to describe Mary as the faithful virgin whose act of obedience in bearing Jesus is what saves us from the disobedience of the virgin Eve.)

The point is that whenever Irenaeus refers to being redeemed by the “blood” of Christ, he is referring to the true humanity of Jesus as God’s way of salvation. Therefore, when we eat and drink the bread and wine/body and blood of Jesus, we are participating in the new humanity that Jesus brings. (I think it was Karl Rahner, the excellent Roman Catholic theologian of the late 20th century, who said that Jesus could have died of old age and still would have been God’s atoning sacrifice for us, because the incarnation is that act by which God redeems human life. He was self-consciously echoing Irenaeus’ Christology when he said that.)

So, when Revelation says that Jesus “freed us by his own blood,” we ought not automatically to think that it is a reference to the bloody cross. It might be at the other end of the Jesus spectrum- a reference to his blood-filled veins at birth.

More later…

"Blood" in the Bloodiest of Books

2009-05-20T09:11:00.002-05:00

In my last post, I noted the doxology (a song of praise) that John offers in the opening sentences of Revelation:

To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood,

and made us to be a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father,

to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

I noted that biblical writers often turn to the doxological voice when the narratival or didactic voice seems unable to adequately grasp or express the subject at hand.

Today, I want to look a little at the content of this doxology. In particular, I want to ask the question, What does it mean when the writer says that Jesus "freed us from our sins by his blood"?

- Some translations read "washed us from our sins" instead of "freed us from our sins." That translation is based on a faulty reading of two very similar words, one of which means "to loose" and the other of which means "to brighten." The oldest manuscripts here are pretty well agreed that the verb is "to loose" or to set free. It's the same verb that is in Rev. 5:2, which refers to breaking a seal, but not the verb that is in Rev. 7:14 or 22:14, referring to washing robes.

- We tend to read every reference to the "blood of Jesus" through the eyes of a 12th century archbishop of Canterbury named Anselm, who articulated a thorough argument for what is often called "the substitutionary atonement theory" of salvation. Roughly and simplistically , Anselm's argument goes like this:

When humanity sinned, God's justice and honor demanded that there be a price paid. Namely, the violation of God's honor demands death. And, because God is just, God cannot simply say, "Oh, never mind. Let's just hug it out." God is just, therefore, God must be against sin and must punish sin, even with the awful price of death.
However, God is also a loving God. And, in an extreme act of love, God sent Jesus, his only son, to be our redemptive substitute. Therefore, when Jesus- who alone is sinless in all of humanity- was put to death on the cross, he was dying in our place, for our sins.

When we read this doxology from Revelation through Anselm's argument- which, in my experience, is the most popular way of understanding the redeeming work of Christ in the church- then it seems that the song is about being washed in the blood of Christ and being cleansed by it. But ... there are other voices in the Christian tradition which have given us other ways of understanding references to the "blood" of Christ and, consequently, the work of redemption in Christ. But, since my 'blackberry friends' have been complaining about the length of my posts, I'll explore a couple of those other possibilities next time.

Ciao

Back to Revelation!

2009-05-18T17:07:00.001-05:00

I've taken a break (3 months, wow!) from dealing with "left behind" sorts of things in order to reflect on my recent trip to El Salvador. I'm now ready to get back into reading the biblical texts that pertain to what is generally called "eschatology" (doctrine of last things) again.

I left off in the first chapter of Revelation, noting that with phrases like "the faithful witness," "first-born of the dead," and so forth (1:5) the writer of Revelation ("John") is squarely within the Christology (doctrine of Christ) of other New Testament authors. And while John has some unique and ambiguous phrases in his references to Christ, most of his references can be related to either texts from the Hebrew Bible or texts from other "apocalyptic" writings within about a 300 year span (150ish BCE - 150ish CE).

In Revelation 1:5-6, there is a doxology about Christ. It goes like this:

To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood,
and made us to be a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father,
to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

While these words don't necessarily rhyme (and the Greek text is even worse!), there is actually a tune that puts these words into song and it's quite singable. I'm singing it now, but you don't get to hear it- sorry.

I think the presence of doxologies is VASTLY underappreciated in the New Testament. Oh, sure, we're accustomed to admiring the singfulness of the Psalms. But, when it comes to the New Testament, we generally think in terms of two types of writing: The narratival type of the Gospels and Acts; and the didactic type of the letters. But, there are times when narrative or didactic language is simply insufficient to express the wonder and power of what the New Testament writers are trying to say. For that, writers turn to doxology. What I like to say is, “When words fail, why not sing?”

Paul turns to doxological language at several key points in what is, perhaps, his most didactic letter- Romans. See especially Romans 8:31-39 as an example of Paul, breaking out into singing while addressing the unfathomable love of God.

That’s what John seems to do here- early!- in Revelation. Simply introducing Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, is enough to get John going with singing praise. That is key to understanding everything else that follows about Jesus in this book. Here is the one whose nature can only be express poetically in song.

We’ll look more closely at the words of the doxology next time.

A Little Bit of Fun

2009-05-01T13:09:00.002-05:00

My SPAM file is always much larger than my inbox- an enduring testimony to the human propensity of taking a good gift, like the internet, and using it for inane purposes. Occasionally a real message gets thrown into the spam file, so I have to go through it and pull out what I want to save. It’s usually a yucky adventure, but somewhere along the line, I decided to make the best of it by collecting interesting spam headings that appear back-t0-back. Here are some actual spam headings that I found as I was emptying my files. As you will see, some of these headings go back a few months, but, taken together, they cover just about all of the major topics of spam messages except for the notification that a widow in Nigeria wants to give me a billion dollars.

How do I get out of debt: Unbelievable savings on generic meds

Debt elimination 101: Casino directory

To get out of debt: You can order anti-depressants

John McCain’s creative thinking: No study! Buy university diploma degree

Clinton reaches out to Obama: Help stop premature ejaculation

John McCain’s Monday with beach babes: Extreme hurts

The U. of Iowa offers concentration courses for religious service: Win big money

Sometimes, a single heading needs no accompaniment to be funny: "French have more sex in surveys than any other country."

And and finally, a single headline that demonstrates how even spammers have some degree of creativity and humor … “Sarah Jessica Parker arrested for gross negligee”

Enjoy!

Soul Journal: "And there was a feast..."

2009-04-23T05:38:00.003-05:00

We hear it so often in stories that the context of the action is a feast. In mythology, the gods are feasting when a golden apple causes problems. In the Scriptures, there are wedding feasts and religious feasts and feasts that nobody wants to attend. In contemporary storytelling, there are retirement dinners and receptions and extravagant meals with ice sculptures, which make a great background for high drama or low comedy.

But after our last trip to El Salvador, I'll never hear the words, "And there was a feast..." the same again.

What the preamble, "And there was a feast" leaves out of the picture is the massive production that goes into setting the table in the first place. In the canton of El Tablon Cerna, we prepared a festive meal for the school dedication. But, long before we arrived, the preparations were laid. the people of the village set aside the tree branches, lumber, tarp, and wire that would be necessary for building shelters. They spoke with the Pastoral Team about how many ovens needed to be put together for that day, so they could have the requisite number of bricks on hand and the wheel barrows needed to haul them to the right place. Meanwhile, the Pastoral Team was shopping, shopping, shopping for potatoes, carrots, chickens, juice bags, spices, bottled water, and disposable dinner ware. Somebody was gathering all of the pots, pans, knives, spoons, and other cookware that would be necessary to prepare and serve a feast for 500 people.

We left the planning to those who have more experience and sense about these things than we do; but we did have the privilege of participating in all of the preparatory work that goes on long before someone can say, "And there was a feast...." When we first set down pails of water and gathered a few chairs around to peel the potatoes, it seemed like that pile would take forever to peel. And, because we offered ourselves so willingly to the tasks, I noticed that a few people in the community had to go home and scrounge up some extra knives for us. Outside of Juan's house were the potato peelers; inside were the carrot peelers, standing in a group, chatting away the best we could over our language differences. Behind the house were three women cutting chickens and draining them onto a pila, while a couple of very happy dogs were lapping up the water that ran down the side. All around, fires were burning, instructions were going out, and people were scurrying around to get the right stuff in the right place at the right time.

At first, everything was spread out. Potatoes were in one place- unpeeled over here, peeled over there, sliced in the bucket. Carrots were in another place, also divided according to whether peeled or sliced. Chicken were whole in one place, skinned in another, cut up in another, and boned yet another. Eventually, however, everything started coming together. All the potatoes were peeled and sliced and in buckets. Likewise the carrots. And, finally, they were all joined together in large pots cooking over the three side-by-side brick ovens. Then, the dinnerware was brought out, unwrapped, forks were wrapped into napkins, plates were on one side of the serving pots, forks and juice bags on the other.

By the time the guests came walking down the path, (this is the part signified by the words "And there was a feast..."), a good five hours of bustling work had been done that morning by a happy, busy group of people. It was lovely.

Whenever I hear the words, "And there was a feast..." I will think of that morning in El Tablon Cerna and breathe a quiet word of thanks for all of the people who labor for hours just to make those words possible.

Soul Journal: Educating Rita

2009-04-16T05:41:00.002-05:00

I first saw the movie "Educating Rita" as a student in seminary. It is about a teacher in England who teaches working adults. one of whom is Rita. Rita is a hairdresser, with a strong Cockney accent that gives her a sort of low-brow sort of personality, while the teacher (Michael Caine) seems pompous and highly cultured in contrast. In the end, it is Rita who is educates the teacher, teaching him about life in ways that he did not know from all of his book learning.

One of the big events of our trip was the dedication of a school in El Tablon Cerna. The school has significance for many of us in several ways. It was funded with money that came from the death of two women. One was Ruby Hartsook, who lived a long and admirable life, mostly in Des Moines, Iowa. When Ruby died, her son Larry chose to put a significant amount of her estate proceeds toward the school. The other woman was Trina Fischer, who did not have the privilege of living a long life. Trina died last year after a courageous, difficult battle with cancer. She had taken a journey to El Salvador with her father Bill and had expressed her wish that her memorial money would be given toward the school. So, part of what was on our hearts was the bittersweet memory of two very precious friends, whose deaths were transformed from mourning to hope by these donations.

The other significance of the school lay in the need for education if the community is going to work together effectively. Let me illustrate. The first time Larry Hartsook and I went to El Salvador was back in 2001, right after 2 successive earthquakes had rocked the country one month apart. We arrived with lots of money, as well as blankets, twine, tarp and other such supplies that we purchased and carried own in as many suitcases as we could muster. When we got to El Tablon, the Pastoral Team encouraged us to work with the community in distributing an equal share of supplies to each family. So, we asked for someone from the Directiva to keep track of who got what. After some time, they produced Marta, who was about 12 at that time, to be the scribe. They asked a 12 year old because she was better at reading and math than most of the adults who lived in the village. There is no doubt that a fully functioning school is absolutely necessary for this community, particularly as it tries to organize itself for economic and communal projects.

So, the occasion was joyous on every side for a variety of good reasons. To the casual observer, it seems that we were giving them a great gift and were sharing the benefits of our own wealth and education for these poor and ignorant folk. But, for those of us who were there, it was an entirely different feeling. Using their peasant wisdom and know how, the people of El Tablon Cerna began carving out holes, in which they set posts made of thick branches with forked ends, on which they set 2x4s, on which they put some corrugated metal, with string and wire for connections. In this way, they built a canopy to provide shade for the for overflow crowd as well as a shelter for constructing 3 brick ovens. They knew that we needed a wall behind the ovens for a wind block, if we wanted to keep the flames burning; they knew that the metal roof would keep the sun out and the heat in; and all that kind of stuff. The amount of pre-planning and organizing was impressive- every time we needed one more thing, it seemed to arrive out of nowhere, but of course that was only because someone had thought to bring it and have it available. The kitchen operation was equally impressive, as a small mud-and-stick home became the place where several hundred meals were prepared, cooked, and served. It was both exhausting and humbling to see this community in action.

I believe this is the beauty of relation-centered mission. It is not that we are the saviors here. But, neither do we have to romanticize their situation and demean our contributions in order to admire theirs. It is a mutual offering of love, insight, and support to one another, just like any good relationship. Educating Rita; and being educated. That's the beauty of it all.

Soul Journal: Water in El Tablon, pt.II

2009-04-08T08:43:00.003-05:00

Throughout El Salvador there are skeletal remains of a water project that was once carried out by the government. I don't know much about it, but it was called the ANDA project, and every now and then one can find a pipe or an old pumping station with ANDA still visible on it. For the people in the countryside, ANDA was a failure- too many pipes lay on top of the ground and needed constant maintenance; pumping station were needed to get the water up the mountain; pumping stations needed generators because there was no running electricity, generators were often scavenged by people who needed the parts for their own use; and government commitments tend to change over the life of a long-term project of that sort.

So, the big government project failed and (see my last blog) the local well project failed. What next? El Tablon eventually installed some large water containment units, which they fill with rain water that they collect during the rainy season.

On our last visit, we met with a team from El Tablon and other communities, who work on water issues. They told us that the government has re-started the water project and they were somewhat hopeful that running water might be available for El Tablon in the near future. (We also discovered that electricity might be arriving there soon, but all projects had been put on hold until after the presidential elections.) We heard that it is very expensive to hook up to the water pipes. It costs a family more than an average yearly salary to hook up individually, so only a few families were able to participate on those terms. But, if they were able to put together cooperative groups who would share the costs, they could involve more people.

The committee's greater concern, however, were the ongoing costs, even they are fairly minimal. (These are realistic folks who are quite willing to work hard and pay for their own utilities, but the jobless rate and the competition among so many poor people whose skill sets are essentially identical makes it hard to generate reliable, ongoing income for budgeting.) We heard the same kind of concern regarding electricity when we talked with a group at the Health Clinic in El Tablon. They were in favor of getting very expensive (and not terribly reliable) solar panels for the Clinic, instead of hooking up fairly inexpensively to the electrical grid when it is brought in. The point is: These folks expressed more anxiety about small, ongoing costs than one-time large costs.

WHY? Why would minimal ongoing costs be a greater concern than a whopping one time cost?

In the end, we discovered that the fear they have is not really economical. It is relational. They know that there is a church, an NGO, a charity, or someone out there that would eventually donate the one-time large cost of hooking up to water or purchasing and installing solar panels. What is not so certain, to them, is if they get connected to a pipe or a grid, can they rely on others to help them meet their small monthly bills? In other words, there is more one-time, large donor possibility out there than long-term, ongoing support.

What we heard in their worries was an awareness of the difference between a generous handout and a reliable hand-in-hand relationship. The former is great and thank God for it. But it is the latter that really helps communities thrive.

Soul Journal: Water in El Tablon, pt.1

2009-04-06T12:28:00.006-05:00

Our sister-parish relationship between Heartland Presbyterian Church and the community of El Tablon is a profound example of relation-centered missions, which means that it is the source of great joy, great frustration, and change. Water is a great example. When Heartland first voted to step into a long-term relationship with El Tablon, one of the areas that the people of El Tablon had identified for us as needing attention was the need for potable water. We accepted the challenge of addressing the need for water with little understanding of what that meant.

El Tablon is a poor community. When we first went there, there was no electricity, no running water, and most of the homes were made of stick or mud block. The primary water source represented a difficult task for many people in ET, as they had to walk a fairly long, narrow path to get to a little trickle that came out of the side of a mountain. The trickle ran into a small pool (maybe 3 feet x 3 feet, and 8-10 inches deep), where the people would dip their bowls over and over, pouring the water into the plastic jugs that they brought with them. It was very time consuming and people would queue up and have to visit with one another for a long time as they awaited their turn to get water. As a result, they would use their water smartly and sparingly, since it was not readily available for them.

I stooped into the crevice with a little flashlight to follow the trail of where the water comes from through the mountain. About 10 feet in, the water source went up the wall above my head and when I pointed my light up there, twelve million bats came fluttering down and flying out of the hole. Dang! Didn't see that coming!

The curious thing at the water hole was a huge, concrete water containment unit that was supposed to collect water during the rainy season and dispense it during the dry season. When I looked inside, it was practically empty, with just enough moisture at the bottom to glisten when I flashed my light in there. There were also lots of leaves, tiny branches, and a few creepy-crawlers in there. It was my understanding at the time that the rainy seasons did not always replenish the container well enough for it to last during the dry season. It also needed some maintenance, but the community did not have the money to perform what was needed, so the unit mostly was unused.

In the end, we (together) decided together that the best solution would be for El Tablon to have its own well- perhaps the kind with a manual wheel connected to it for drawing water. (They've come a long way since Jack and Jill, even with manual wells.) We hired a geology company that came out to measure water tables and discern the best location for the well. Then, there was the process of purchasing the land, which meant tracking down all six children of the dead guy whose land we were buying. After the lone family holdout finally relented and agreed to sign off on the land, the crew came in and began to dig. Understand that this was a long process. The plan was set in place before the earthquake, the execution of the plan followed the earthquake. I am only mentioning the earthquake because, in the end, the attempt to dig a well failed. The water tables had shifted as a result of the earthquake and El Tablon was no longer considered a viable place for digging a well. Dang.

When we discovered that a well was no longer a possibility, we were sitting in a circle in a small room in Berlin. The last person from El Tablon to speak posed a question in my direction, which the translator translated for me. "What should we do?" It was weird for me to have these folks- from whom I need to learn so much, and for whom I try never to assume superior insight- look at me and ask about something that will affect their lives long after I'm back in the comforts of my own home. I was dumbstruck and simply said, "I don't know what is best for you to do, but I can promise you that whatever you decide, we'll walk with you."

Strangely, that seemed to be as good as it was going to get. A relationship is never built on the assumption that one party is going to perfectly supply all of the other party's wants, needs, or desires. Instead, a relationship is built on being committed to one another for the journey. And when we ran out of answers that money or ingenuity could supply, we discovered relationship.

More later

Soul Journal: Daniel in El Mozote

2009-03-30T06:07:00.005-05:00

I've written about El Mozote before. It's one of those "thin places" in my life where the distance between heaven and earth, delegations and martyrs, seems very small. There are places where a certain kind of quiet reverence seems to be demanded- the Vietnam Memorial Wall; the site of the Twin Towers in NY; the Holocaust Museum; etc. It seems almost like a violation of the space to speak in anything but a hushed tone or, sometimes, to speak at all. To me, that's El Mozote.

So, along comes Daniel. Here we are, a delegation from the US, traveling quite a ways to visit this site of an awful massacre, and we meet Daniel. What a treat. Our introduction to him was when we first arrived in El Mozote, which is still very sparsely populated and so we're about the only folk there except for a few people who will guide us on our visit. We got out of the microbus and met Maria, who would guide us and tell us the story of El Mozote. But, before that, several of our delegation members were more interested in visiting a bathroom. So, Maria told her little boy, Daniel, to show these folks where the bathroom is. Daniel obeyed his mother, but did it in such a shy way that we were all smitten with him immediately. He looked down to the ground and started walking slowly toward the bathroom, looking up only long enough to see if anyone was following. I did not follow, but those who did told me that when they got near the bathroom he just gestured quickly with his hand toward it and then turned to walk back to his mother. It was fetching and he seemed like such a sweet, shy boy. In the end, he was sweet. But, shy? Hmm...

Maria, Daniel's mother, is a lovely woman who was 11 at the time of the massacre. She escaped death because she happened to be in another town that day. Her five brothers and pregnant sister-in-law were not elsewhere and they were among the people who were killed during the massacre. It is an awful story and one of the great experiences of my life was having the honor of meeting Maya Rufina- the only adult survivor- on a trip to El Mozote and hearing her speak about that awful event. Maya Rufina is now buried at the site of the memorial following her death a few years ago.

The most difficult part of the story of El Mozote, for me, is the massacre of the children, which took place in the sacristy of the church. The children were shot and then the building was burned to the ground as those who were not yet dead cried out for their mothers and fathers. Today, there is a garden there, with some of the pavement still bearing blood stains. But, in that place of death, there is now a beautiful, muti-media display of art on the side of the remaining church building, with images of hope and remembrance. Along the bottom of the artwork are names of the children killed there, with ages ranging from 3 days to 18 years. Lots and lots of names. It baffles me to imagine how hard it would be to identify the children when the entire town was virtually wiped out during the massacre. Some of them were only remembered as a child of So and So..., probably by a distant relative from another town. As I read the names, hear the story again, view the monument that says "El Mozote, Nunca Mas!" (Never again!), see the pavement and the artwork, I enter a tunnel of wonder and reverence, where silence seems to be the only thing to say.

And then, there's Daniel. After escaping his initial shyness, he was loud, happy, and energetic. He teased his little sister, he asked his mother for money to get a drink, he climbed a ladder far higher than someone his age ought to be climbing, he ate unidentifiable (to us) objects that fell from the tree, he was cute and mischievous (whereas his little sister was just adorable.) Daniel was not going to let us walk around El Mozote in stunned silence. Whatever quiet moments we had, were quiet only to the extent that we were able to tune him out and that was not easy.

The most unnerving thing that Daniel did was when we first walked up to the site of the old sacristy where the children were killed. Daniel ran ahead of us and when we got there he was lying on the grass. I don't know if he was acting out the story, playing with us, or simply lying in the grass, but it was shocking to see him lying there, right were children would have been lying after being killed. I was petrified. But, his little sister merely jumped on him and he laughed as they tussled a bit in the grass. The juxtaposition of such light-hearted freedom and life in the location where innocent lives were brutally and senselessly massacred was almost overwhelming to me.

But that's how life is sometimes. A flower grows out of the killing field and a child plays where his cousins died. I'm sure Daniel has heard the story of El Mozote many times over. I suspect he'll hear it again and again throughout his life. But I hope he never loses his ability to play there, to live where death has spoken, and to be a witness to us that the reverence for life is not only found in quiet memorials but also in the loud noise of play.

Soul Journal: Perquin

2009-03-25T05:21:00.003-05:00

Perquin is a small town in the Morazan district. Some people say that it was the unofficial center of the liberation movement (FMLN) during the war. I don't know if it had that distinction intentionally, but there is a significant event that happened there, which makes Perquin a meaningful place to visit when we endeavor to listen to the stories of the people of El Salvador.

As Mark Danner recounts in his excellent book, Massacre at El Mozote, one of the FMLN's most significant military achievements ended up in Perquin. The story- as I remember it, so see Danner's book for a more accurate account- is that the Salvadoran Army's Colonel Domingo Monterrosa, wanted badly to capture "Radio Venceremos," which the FMLN used to warn villages and towns and one another about the army's movements. Radio Venceremos allowed the FMLN to stay one step ahead of the army in many cases, and Monterrossa wanted to get the transmitter in order to cut off the broadcasts. (Monterrossa was born right across the street from the house where our Parish Team works and where we stay when we are in ES. He was a very effective military leader- "effective" meaning he did not hesitate to kill women, men, children, combatants, non-combatants, and even animals to achieve his goals. He was the leader of the fearsome "Atlacatl Battalion", and the one who ordered the massacres at El Mozote, Cinquera and elsewhere as part of his policy that "you are either for us or we will kill you.")

What the FMLN did was to boobytrap one of their radio transmitters, by planting a bomb inside of it and leaving it behind them as if they had accidentally done so when they left hurridly. The soldiers who found it took it to Monterrosa, who immediately boarded a helicopter in order to take it to the army's leadership as a trophy of a great accomplishment. When the helicopter was over Perquin, the FMLN detonated the bomb and Monterossa was killed. The place where the mangled helicopter landed is now the location of the Museo de la Revolucion.

This museum is a unique, must-see when one visits El Salvador. Not only does its remote site remind us of the challenges that the FMLN faced when living in the mountainsides, but the simple photo-and-typed-index-card displays of the museum are authentic testaments to the fact that this is a people's museum, organized and put together by those who lived the struggle. It tells of the poverty that provoked the war, the violence that the government used to quell protests, the honor that is due to martyrs, the horrors of massacres and murder, and the process of peace. The silent witnesses that one finds in that museum are simple things like a 500 pound bomb that says "Made in the USA" on the side or the reinforced bullet-proof autos that were used to attend signing of the peace accords. Everything there gives us something to think about, something to remember, and something to repent.