I have been struggling the concept of demon possession. Great, another wacko pastor-type! That is the reaction I most fear when I dare to think about this. But here is the problem.
Tomorrow I preach about Jesus binding, silencing, and casting out demons-then equipping his disciples to do the same. And now, tonight, God has cast the verse from 1 Corinthians 12:3, "Nobody can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit." And it connected for me. I understand what Paul is saying. Anyone can mouth the words "Jesus is Lord", to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit, to be truly accepting of Jesus in our hearts, to be truly in God's hands, is when those words truly carry meaning in our own lives.
Paul is fairly consistent with this concept of Holy Spirit-possession, when he talks about doing the things he does not want to do and not doing the things he wants to do. I recognize that enough in my own life. Tying back to Holy Spirit-possession, we begin a journey under that power of turning our lives over to God, of being able to live more in the love of Christ than in the life of sin we came out of.
All that is pretty sound, orthodox 'life in Christ' kind of stuff. But what about the flip side of it? Possession by Spirits that aren't so holy? Now this is a very dangerous topic, because addiction was for a very long time attributed in many instances to demon possession. Depression, bipolar disorder, how many other medical conditions have led to people being treated in cruel and vicious ways in the name of liberating them from demons?
And we are free, responsible beings, responsible for our own decisions and choices. But there is something in the middle there, something I cannot scientifically prove, but something I have seen in my own experience (so-called anecdotal evidence) of people exhibiting self-destructive, sinful, or destructive behavior with what I can only describe as addictive tendencies in ways that I cannot explain.
"The devil made me do it" is no excuse, never has been. Using that excuse undercuts the power of the Holy Spirit. But our lives contain conflicts that, I believe, rise above what we can simply see with our eyes and hear with our ears. But it is a power that runs in both directions, for good, and for ill. And as the Holy Spirit is the author of the good, it will always be victorious.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Why "Oliver Twist" Makes A Lot of Sense
I've been listening to Oliver Twist on audio. I think it has a lot to say about our Foster Care system today. Indentured apprenticeship, church-run workhouses, providing for the poor, but not so much that they can have any fun at all... And yet today, we would call Oliver Twist a social commentary.
Yet there was nothing there that runs contrary to Holy Scripture. The bible does not condemn indentured apprenticeships for children as young as 9-though in the bible that would all under the category of "slavery". The bible, in fact, does not condemn child labor either-the father was the head of the household and everyone fell into place...or else. David was 12 (by interpretive extension) when he was in a life threatening occupation of sheep-herding, taking on lions and tigers and bears...oh my... Okay, truth be told, no tiger is recorded in Scripture.
Yes, we founght a war about it in this country, yes, the bloodiest conflict on U.S. soil, yes, slavery is officially banned in this kinder, gentler world. And no, I am not willing to demonstrate in my own life how it might be something to reconsider. But when you take these culturally run structures, when you take the support or condemnation of Holy Scripture, you can make convincing arguments why bad things are good for us.
The thing about slavery is that our choices about whether or not to have slavery were never made by the slaves themselves. People who were not slaves, would never be slaves because of the color of their skin, people of a cultural class who had the capacity to own slaves, they were the ones whose moral compasses pointed them for or against this horrid condition on behalf of those people who were enslaved, or freed from enslavement.
And here we are again, arguing about homosexuality. We who are "free of that condition" are arguing over the fate of those who have "chosen that condition" as it pertains to Scripture and it pertains to the church. And because the interpretation of Holy Scripture is to condemn homosexuality, the conclusion is that people must choose to be homosexual, because God would not condemn his own creation, because God would not condemn homosexuality if that were the "way God made us".
And the trouble on the other side is if support of homosexuality is the theological position of the church, an intentional biblical "set aside" apparently must occur. And we act like we have never done this before.
But if we are just operating on the "plain reading" of Scripture, we have been operating on this "set aside" notion for generations. Slavery, women's inequality, racial inequality, all of these have been successfully argued from the "plain reading" of Scripture. And they have been overturned because there is a more fundamental law running all the way through God's Word.
That is the Law of Love, which transcends cultural and historic circumstances, which transcends legal niceties and moral categories, to go back to that most fundamental relationship of God and us, God's creation. it is what Jesus died for. It is what the Holy Spirit was sent for. It has guided our understanding of God's Word for two millenia. It allows us to live in tension with some very interesting and oddball points of view found in the bible.
And it needs to speak to us again today.
Yet there was nothing there that runs contrary to Holy Scripture. The bible does not condemn indentured apprenticeships for children as young as 9-though in the bible that would all under the category of "slavery". The bible, in fact, does not condemn child labor either-the father was the head of the household and everyone fell into place...or else. David was 12 (by interpretive extension) when he was in a life threatening occupation of sheep-herding, taking on lions and tigers and bears...oh my... Okay, truth be told, no tiger is recorded in Scripture.
Yes, we founght a war about it in this country, yes, the bloodiest conflict on U.S. soil, yes, slavery is officially banned in this kinder, gentler world. And no, I am not willing to demonstrate in my own life how it might be something to reconsider. But when you take these culturally run structures, when you take the support or condemnation of Holy Scripture, you can make convincing arguments why bad things are good for us.
The thing about slavery is that our choices about whether or not to have slavery were never made by the slaves themselves. People who were not slaves, would never be slaves because of the color of their skin, people of a cultural class who had the capacity to own slaves, they were the ones whose moral compasses pointed them for or against this horrid condition on behalf of those people who were enslaved, or freed from enslavement.
And here we are again, arguing about homosexuality. We who are "free of that condition" are arguing over the fate of those who have "chosen that condition" as it pertains to Scripture and it pertains to the church. And because the interpretation of Holy Scripture is to condemn homosexuality, the conclusion is that people must choose to be homosexual, because God would not condemn his own creation, because God would not condemn homosexuality if that were the "way God made us".
And the trouble on the other side is if support of homosexuality is the theological position of the church, an intentional biblical "set aside" apparently must occur. And we act like we have never done this before.
But if we are just operating on the "plain reading" of Scripture, we have been operating on this "set aside" notion for generations. Slavery, women's inequality, racial inequality, all of these have been successfully argued from the "plain reading" of Scripture. And they have been overturned because there is a more fundamental law running all the way through God's Word.
That is the Law of Love, which transcends cultural and historic circumstances, which transcends legal niceties and moral categories, to go back to that most fundamental relationship of God and us, God's creation. it is what Jesus died for. It is what the Holy Spirit was sent for. It has guided our understanding of God's Word for two millenia. It allows us to live in tension with some very interesting and oddball points of view found in the bible.
And it needs to speak to us again today.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Bible Believing, Open and Affirming
It is time to embrace the contradiction, the APPARENT contradiction, the two positions that seem to be irreconcilable. On the one hand, the ‘conservative’ church states that the Bible says the practitioners of homosexuality (because it is a choice) are sinful beings and that many bad things should happen to them. On the other hand, the ‘liberal’ church embraces those of God’s children who know themselves to be homosexual and that it is not a choice for them.
In an earlier generation, the battle was not over homosexuality, but over the gender role of women. That is still a line in the sand of orthodoxy for some denominations. It is no longer the battle it once was in the PCUSA, now that we have homosexuality to replace it as the new battle.
But here’s the thing. Is this what Jesus really wants us to take away from Holy Scripture? We’ve had a theology that looks to the Scripture to condemn practices not openly condemned in the pages of the Bible, two being slavery and polygamy. But as our culture has developed, as our worldview has progressed, as our knowledge has advanced, as we have advanced in what it means to understand love and grace, Scripture has followed. What kind of guiding principles of interpretation allow for such a structuring of Biblical theology?
And if we can use the bible to condemn practices that the Biblical literature does not condemn, can we flip the practice? Can we look at practices that the bible appears to condemn but come to the conclusion that these things are really okay and that, as our culture has developed, as our worldview has progressed, as our knowledge has advanced, as we have advanced in what it means to understand love and grace, Scripture will follow?
I think the devil has already won. He has convinced good Christians to oppress and sideline on biblical authority people that Jesus came to liberate. He has convinced good Christians to abandon biblical authority that tells us the very liberation story of Jesus. It is time to poke the devil in the eye.
In an earlier generation, the battle was not over homosexuality, but over the gender role of women. That is still a line in the sand of orthodoxy for some denominations. It is no longer the battle it once was in the PCUSA, now that we have homosexuality to replace it as the new battle.
But here’s the thing. Is this what Jesus really wants us to take away from Holy Scripture? We’ve had a theology that looks to the Scripture to condemn practices not openly condemned in the pages of the Bible, two being slavery and polygamy. But as our culture has developed, as our worldview has progressed, as our knowledge has advanced, as we have advanced in what it means to understand love and grace, Scripture has followed. What kind of guiding principles of interpretation allow for such a structuring of Biblical theology?
And if we can use the bible to condemn practices that the Biblical literature does not condemn, can we flip the practice? Can we look at practices that the bible appears to condemn but come to the conclusion that these things are really okay and that, as our culture has developed, as our worldview has progressed, as our knowledge has advanced, as we have advanced in what it means to understand love and grace, Scripture will follow?
I think the devil has already won. He has convinced good Christians to oppress and sideline on biblical authority people that Jesus came to liberate. He has convinced good Christians to abandon biblical authority that tells us the very liberation story of Jesus. It is time to poke the devil in the eye.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
A Letter From Desmond Tutu to the PCUSA
To Rev. Grayde Parsons, Stated Clerk, Presbyterian Church (USA)
Dear Brother in Christ,
I am writing you with the request that you share these thoughts with my brothers and sisters in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.):
It is incumbent upon all of God’s children to speak out against injustice. It is sometimes equally important to speak in solidarity when justice has been done. For that reason I am writing to affirm my belief that in making room in your constitution for gay and lesbian Christians to be ordained as church leaders, you have accomplished an act of justice.
I realize that among your ecumenical partners, some voices are claiming that you have done the wrong thing, and I know that you rightly value your relationship with Christians in other parts of the world. Sadly, it is not always popular to do justice, but it is always right. People will say that the ones you are now willing to ordain are sinners. I have come to believe, through the reality shared with me by my scientist and medical friends, and confirmed to me by many who are gay, that being gay is not a choice. Like skin color or left-handedness, sexual orientation is just another feature of our diversity as a human family. How wonderful that God has made us with so much diversity, yet all in God’s image! Salvation means being called out of our narrow bonds into a broad place of welcome to all.
You are undoubtedly aware that in some countries the church has been complicit in the legal persecution of lesbians and gays. Individuals are being arrested and jailed simply because they are different in one respect from the majority. By making it possible for those in same-gender relationships to be ordained as pastors, preachers, elders, and deacons, you are being a witness to your ecumenical partners that you believe in the wideness of God’s merciful love.
For freedom Christ has set us free. In Christ we are not bound by old, narrow prejudice, but free to embrace the full humanity of our brothers and sisters in all our glorious differences. May God bless you as you live into this reality, and may you know that there are many Christians in the world who continue to stand by your side.
God bless you.
Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu (Cape Town, South Africa)
This letter was shared on October 12, 2011 by the Office of the Stated Clerk, Presbyterian Church (USA).
Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu is one of the voices I most respect in Christendom today.
Dear Brother in Christ,
I am writing you with the request that you share these thoughts with my brothers and sisters in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.):
It is incumbent upon all of God’s children to speak out against injustice. It is sometimes equally important to speak in solidarity when justice has been done. For that reason I am writing to affirm my belief that in making room in your constitution for gay and lesbian Christians to be ordained as church leaders, you have accomplished an act of justice.
I realize that among your ecumenical partners, some voices are claiming that you have done the wrong thing, and I know that you rightly value your relationship with Christians in other parts of the world. Sadly, it is not always popular to do justice, but it is always right. People will say that the ones you are now willing to ordain are sinners. I have come to believe, through the reality shared with me by my scientist and medical friends, and confirmed to me by many who are gay, that being gay is not a choice. Like skin color or left-handedness, sexual orientation is just another feature of our diversity as a human family. How wonderful that God has made us with so much diversity, yet all in God’s image! Salvation means being called out of our narrow bonds into a broad place of welcome to all.
You are undoubtedly aware that in some countries the church has been complicit in the legal persecution of lesbians and gays. Individuals are being arrested and jailed simply because they are different in one respect from the majority. By making it possible for those in same-gender relationships to be ordained as pastors, preachers, elders, and deacons, you are being a witness to your ecumenical partners that you believe in the wideness of God’s merciful love.
For freedom Christ has set us free. In Christ we are not bound by old, narrow prejudice, but free to embrace the full humanity of our brothers and sisters in all our glorious differences. May God bless you as you live into this reality, and may you know that there are many Christians in the world who continue to stand by your side.
God bless you.
Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu (Cape Town, South Africa)
This letter was shared on October 12, 2011 by the Office of the Stated Clerk, Presbyterian Church (USA).
Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu is one of the voices I most respect in Christendom today.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Biblically Based, Open and Affirming…
When I was considering my choices for a career…no, that sounds arrogant… When God closed every door but the door to ministry, when He was on the threshold of kicking me through it, he stuck me in the middle of a preconception. In the PCUSA, women have been ordained for a generation. In the Seminary I was attending, the line in the sand of orthodoxy was that women shall not be ordained.
“WOMEN SHALL KEEP SILENT IN CHURCH!!!!!”
Paul said it, I was raised with it in the CRC (Christian Reformed Church-which has, by the way, fallen across this line into whatever lies beyond orthodoxy), it was built into my paradigmatic understanding of the interpretation of Scripture. I should also say I am a great believer in the inerrancy and literate truth of Scripture.
So there I am, getting what may be the best education in the Reformed faith that can be found, the best traditions of Old Princeton, a non-denominational yet Presbyterian-aligned Seminary, carrying on power from the Scripture that I have never found elsewhere. Teaching me Women Shall Keep Silent in Church. Arguing over whether women in the “non-pastoral” M.Div. tracks should even be allowed in the lowest level homiletics classes, “Gospel Communications”.
And I am attending the First Presbyterian Church of Metuchen, under the pastoral dynamic duo of Bob Beringer and Lucia Jackson. I would be in classes teaching about the non-preachability of women and hear the heart preached when Rev. Jackson was on the pulpit. Bible and life, orthodoxy and praxis, Christian academia and the Christian parish, duking it out in the mind and soul and body of this person.
The preacher won.
At Westminster Theological Seminary, I was a heretic in their midst. I didn’t boast about it, I wasn’t even in the M.Div. program, but I was watching and listening and learning.
Then something Paul said brought about a paradigm shift in my understanding of Scripture. “In Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Jew nor Gentile.” Or something like that. And every barrier of gender, socio-economic situation, racial ethnic identity was stripped away in the light of the Risen Son. And Paul says “Women will keep silent in church” and “Women shall not teach men” (which, by the grace of God that I was in a progressive Christian school that had banned caning did not get me beaten stupid when I proposed that verse as undercutting the authority of the lady who taught me in the sixth grade) and a few more things that establish gender hierarchies and gender barriers, and I am stuck.
Is the systematic repression of women from pastoral leadership what Paul is teaching the church today? Or is something else going on? Have we missed the inerrant, literate truth of Scripture in some way? I don’t reject Scripture because I agree with Paul. I fear some in the denominations where women are in the ministry have taken that path. But I can be confident in the authority of Scripture and my obedience to Biblical authority while celebrating the gifts that my female colleagues in ministry bring to the task.
And if there was a paradigm shift there, another one has brought me to the conclusion that homosexuality and ordination too are not excluded from one another in God’s Word. But that is for another post.
“WOMEN SHALL KEEP SILENT IN CHURCH!!!!!”
Paul said it, I was raised with it in the CRC (Christian Reformed Church-which has, by the way, fallen across this line into whatever lies beyond orthodoxy), it was built into my paradigmatic understanding of the interpretation of Scripture. I should also say I am a great believer in the inerrancy and literate truth of Scripture.
So there I am, getting what may be the best education in the Reformed faith that can be found, the best traditions of Old Princeton, a non-denominational yet Presbyterian-aligned Seminary, carrying on power from the Scripture that I have never found elsewhere. Teaching me Women Shall Keep Silent in Church. Arguing over whether women in the “non-pastoral” M.Div. tracks should even be allowed in the lowest level homiletics classes, “Gospel Communications”.
And I am attending the First Presbyterian Church of Metuchen, under the pastoral dynamic duo of Bob Beringer and Lucia Jackson. I would be in classes teaching about the non-preachability of women and hear the heart preached when Rev. Jackson was on the pulpit. Bible and life, orthodoxy and praxis, Christian academia and the Christian parish, duking it out in the mind and soul and body of this person.
The preacher won.
At Westminster Theological Seminary, I was a heretic in their midst. I didn’t boast about it, I wasn’t even in the M.Div. program, but I was watching and listening and learning.
Then something Paul said brought about a paradigm shift in my understanding of Scripture. “In Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Jew nor Gentile.” Or something like that. And every barrier of gender, socio-economic situation, racial ethnic identity was stripped away in the light of the Risen Son. And Paul says “Women will keep silent in church” and “Women shall not teach men” (which, by the grace of God that I was in a progressive Christian school that had banned caning did not get me beaten stupid when I proposed that verse as undercutting the authority of the lady who taught me in the sixth grade) and a few more things that establish gender hierarchies and gender barriers, and I am stuck.
Is the systematic repression of women from pastoral leadership what Paul is teaching the church today? Or is something else going on? Have we missed the inerrant, literate truth of Scripture in some way? I don’t reject Scripture because I agree with Paul. I fear some in the denominations where women are in the ministry have taken that path. But I can be confident in the authority of Scripture and my obedience to Biblical authority while celebrating the gifts that my female colleagues in ministry bring to the task.
And if there was a paradigm shift there, another one has brought me to the conclusion that homosexuality and ordination too are not excluded from one another in God’s Word. But that is for another post.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Why are Christians portrayed badly on TV?
I like "Rizzoli & Isles". Angie Harmon and Sasha Alexander are fun to watch playing off one another. The storylines usually have an interesting twist. However, the show exemplifies how the Christian faith is too often portrayed on television.
This critique focuses on the episode "Bloodlines", broadcast on August 23, 2011.
The show drew upon the history of Salem and the witch trials. I don't want to give away too many details of the show, so let me focus. There are witches in the show, descended from the people who are accused of being witches and executed during the Salem witch trials. This in turn, according to the storyline, makes them witches. One of these witches is the daughter of a minister. Both are descended from Salem witch. It makes for conflict in the show.
Neither is portrayed well in the faith.
When the police interview the father, the reaction of the police is that the father, the minister, is creepy. They believe this because of the passionate way the minister has reacted to his daughter turning away from the Christian faith to embracing witchcraft, because of her ancestry. He went so far as to attempt to have her abducted to deprogram her. It is not the most flattering portrayal of the dad or a minister. The police decide to have him watched as a prime suspect.
The daughter comes off even worse. She is written with a mental illness that plays into the climax of the episode in what I consider to be a very exploitation way. My faith does not come off well. It was rather stereotypical unfortunately.
The witches were portrayed in a rather stereotypical manner as well, full of face piercings, dark clothing, and generally fringe behavior, poor example, they did not have "real jobs", but all worked in an occult shop. But that critique is for another blog.
This critique focuses on the episode "Bloodlines", broadcast on August 23, 2011.
The show drew upon the history of Salem and the witch trials. I don't want to give away too many details of the show, so let me focus. There are witches in the show, descended from the people who are accused of being witches and executed during the Salem witch trials. This in turn, according to the storyline, makes them witches. One of these witches is the daughter of a minister. Both are descended from Salem witch. It makes for conflict in the show.
Neither is portrayed well in the faith.
When the police interview the father, the reaction of the police is that the father, the minister, is creepy. They believe this because of the passionate way the minister has reacted to his daughter turning away from the Christian faith to embracing witchcraft, because of her ancestry. He went so far as to attempt to have her abducted to deprogram her. It is not the most flattering portrayal of the dad or a minister. The police decide to have him watched as a prime suspect.
The daughter comes off even worse. She is written with a mental illness that plays into the climax of the episode in what I consider to be a very exploitation way. My faith does not come off well. It was rather stereotypical unfortunately.
The witches were portrayed in a rather stereotypical manner as well, full of face piercings, dark clothing, and generally fringe behavior, poor example, they did not have "real jobs", but all worked in an occult shop. But that critique is for another blog.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
An open letter to Stephen Hawking
Dear Professor Hawking,
I am a great fan of yours. "A Brief History of Time" pushed my thinking. I am not a cosmologist by training, but a pastor. I think you have done some of the most amazing work to make cosmological thinking and consideration of the origin of the universe accessible to this generation.
When I saw your episode of "Curiosity" on the Discovery channel, I was prepared to be offended. I was prepared to be hurt because I see you as one of the great thinkers of this generation. But when the program came to an end, I was pleased.
I believe that the universe is elegant, awesome, aesthetically pleasing, that it is, in the description given in Genesis at the end of the seven days of creation, good. I have been moved in my thinking by some of the things I have read about intelligent design. But I reject it as an attempt to write God into science. I believe that the universe shows the handiwork of God, but I do not think He signed his work, at least not in a way that could rewrite scientific inquiry.
Time began at the Big Bang, so there is not a place within scientific inquiry to locate a Creator before then. I hope I have summed up your words satisfactorily. Religious inquiry is not based within or upon science, it is based upon faith. I would not expect to find God bound into the finite universe, not when, by faith, I believe God to be infinite.
I hold the Bible to be how God has chosen to reveal Godself. I hold that book in the highest esteem. I also apologize most profoundly for those of my training and office in this and past generations who have chosen to use the Bible as an implement of censorship and terror against scientific inquiry. What I draw from the poetry of the beginning of the book of Genesis is that there was a beginning to everything. By faith, I believe God created the heavens and the earth. What I draw from scientific observation and inquiry is that there was a beginning to everything. That event was the Big Bang. There, Science and Christian faith agree. Then each carries on its own purpose in the world.
I believe that the miracle of God is God's entry into history, into our reality bound by time and space, matter and energy, as a human in the form of Jesus. I believe that the miracle of our belief in Jesus, in our acceptance of the Truth of God's revelation in Scripture, comes from the indwelling of God's Spirit in the minds and hearts of believers. I believe that God, one all powerful being, is expressed to us in this Trinitarian Way, giving humanity a way to wrap our minds around the Divine.
Simply put, by faith, I believe God exists outside of Time. How then could God be proved to have created the universe? The question is a fallacy, scientifically speaking. Religiously speaking, it carrys a much different dynamic, which is how I earn my living.
"We have just one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe." I cannot state it scientifically, but I can state by faith that I believe there is a heaven and an afterlife. And I have a feeling, I have faith, that you will experience that because of the profound insight, prophetic vision, and gracious joy that your work has brought to me. And I believe you speak a more convincing Truth than many of those who claim to speak for the Almighty.
I close this with a pleasant memory. I remember you, an actor portraying Einstein, and Data playing poker on the holodeck on Star Trek. I remembered that moment when you expressed regret that you never met Albert Einstein. Lord willing, perhaps I will have the very great honor of meeting you some day.
All blessings on you and what you have given to me, and to the world. I look forward to reading your latest book.
Rev. Peter Hofstra
First Presbyterian Church of Perth Amboy, NJ
I am a great fan of yours. "A Brief History of Time" pushed my thinking. I am not a cosmologist by training, but a pastor. I think you have done some of the most amazing work to make cosmological thinking and consideration of the origin of the universe accessible to this generation.
When I saw your episode of "Curiosity" on the Discovery channel, I was prepared to be offended. I was prepared to be hurt because I see you as one of the great thinkers of this generation. But when the program came to an end, I was pleased.
I believe that the universe is elegant, awesome, aesthetically pleasing, that it is, in the description given in Genesis at the end of the seven days of creation, good. I have been moved in my thinking by some of the things I have read about intelligent design. But I reject it as an attempt to write God into science. I believe that the universe shows the handiwork of God, but I do not think He signed his work, at least not in a way that could rewrite scientific inquiry.
Time began at the Big Bang, so there is not a place within scientific inquiry to locate a Creator before then. I hope I have summed up your words satisfactorily. Religious inquiry is not based within or upon science, it is based upon faith. I would not expect to find God bound into the finite universe, not when, by faith, I believe God to be infinite.
I hold the Bible to be how God has chosen to reveal Godself. I hold that book in the highest esteem. I also apologize most profoundly for those of my training and office in this and past generations who have chosen to use the Bible as an implement of censorship and terror against scientific inquiry. What I draw from the poetry of the beginning of the book of Genesis is that there was a beginning to everything. By faith, I believe God created the heavens and the earth. What I draw from scientific observation and inquiry is that there was a beginning to everything. That event was the Big Bang. There, Science and Christian faith agree. Then each carries on its own purpose in the world.
I believe that the miracle of God is God's entry into history, into our reality bound by time and space, matter and energy, as a human in the form of Jesus. I believe that the miracle of our belief in Jesus, in our acceptance of the Truth of God's revelation in Scripture, comes from the indwelling of God's Spirit in the minds and hearts of believers. I believe that God, one all powerful being, is expressed to us in this Trinitarian Way, giving humanity a way to wrap our minds around the Divine.
Simply put, by faith, I believe God exists outside of Time. How then could God be proved to have created the universe? The question is a fallacy, scientifically speaking. Religiously speaking, it carrys a much different dynamic, which is how I earn my living.
"We have just one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe." I cannot state it scientifically, but I can state by faith that I believe there is a heaven and an afterlife. And I have a feeling, I have faith, that you will experience that because of the profound insight, prophetic vision, and gracious joy that your work has brought to me. And I believe you speak a more convincing Truth than many of those who claim to speak for the Almighty.
I close this with a pleasant memory. I remember you, an actor portraying Einstein, and Data playing poker on the holodeck on Star Trek. I remembered that moment when you expressed regret that you never met Albert Einstein. Lord willing, perhaps I will have the very great honor of meeting you some day.
All blessings on you and what you have given to me, and to the world. I look forward to reading your latest book.
Rev. Peter Hofstra
First Presbyterian Church of Perth Amboy, NJ
Thursday, May 5, 2011
What is there to learn?
Don't know how many conclusions I can draw from what we did. There is one that comes to mind. Men like Osama Bin Laden force our nation to seek, train, and equip men and women to be killers. In God's world, that wouldn't be.
We talk about people in uniform who make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. I honor them. For what they do for us, there is not enough gratitude that I can show. But we don't talk so much about the penultimate, the second to ultimate sacrifice.
Osama Bin Laden and those like him have forced us, as a nation, to ask our soldiers to commit the sin of killing on our behalf. We train our people, we impose the most stringent code of conduct and justice that we can to minimize what they are being asked to do, but we ask them, permit them, require them to end life.
And I believe that, however justified, that scars the soul, no matter how evil that other one was. Let us thank them, bless them, surround them with all the grace and healing we can muster for what we ask them to do. Let us bring Jesus as close as we can to them.
We can be grateful for what they have done. We can breathe a little easier that a bad man is dead. But let us never forget the sacrifice we ask them to make in taking that most precious gift of our Lord, the gift of life, to make us all safer.
We talk about people in uniform who make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. I honor them. For what they do for us, there is not enough gratitude that I can show. But we don't talk so much about the penultimate, the second to ultimate sacrifice.
Osama Bin Laden and those like him have forced us, as a nation, to ask our soldiers to commit the sin of killing on our behalf. We train our people, we impose the most stringent code of conduct and justice that we can to minimize what they are being asked to do, but we ask them, permit them, require them to end life.
And I believe that, however justified, that scars the soul, no matter how evil that other one was. Let us thank them, bless them, surround them with all the grace and healing we can muster for what we ask them to do. Let us bring Jesus as close as we can to them.
We can be grateful for what they have done. We can breathe a little easier that a bad man is dead. But let us never forget the sacrifice we ask them to make in taking that most precious gift of our Lord, the gift of life, to make us all safer.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
This Joyful Eastertide . . .
We killed Osama Bin Laden. By we, I mean Americans. $27 million dollars in reward money are set to be collected. . . unless our Seal team has something in their contract that would prevent it.
Best argument against taking Bin Laden alive: How many Americans would have been snatched around the world and beheadings begun, demanding his release?
Most disturbing image for me personally: Americans turning out into the streets to cheer, very much like our Arab brothers and sisters in the Middle East when something blows up over here.
Did we actually change things? Yes. Osama Bin Laden was the boogeyman, the defiant one against the military might and intelligence capabilities of the most powerful nation in the world. His was the face that frightened us at night.
How much did the Pakistanis know? Well, he needed dialysis a number of times a week. Was that available at the villa or did he travel to a clinic?
Why'd we bury him so quickly, and at sea? Was it to perpetrate a fraud? I don't believe so. No country wanted the body. Apparently it was offered to Saudi Arabia. And we showed the decency of proper respect and the carrying out of Islamic religious requirements, even if he didn't.
So what next? How should the church react? How should Christians react?
Sunday, I am preaching on Isaiah 2, beating our swords into plowshares. Thus is the Kingdom of God where peoples do not rise up against peoples. It is the dream that we, as people of Jesus Christ, are seeking to build. Our prayer should be always that although we equip our young men and women to fight and kill in the military, that they never have to be called upon to do so.
And when they must, we must in turn support them, but also repent that we have had to break God's command "Thou shalt not kill", even though justified, even though necessary, even though it is the best thing in these circumstances, and pray for the day when the Kingdom comes and we see God's will done as laid out in the first verses of Isaiah 2.
We needed to kill Osama Bin Laden. We have to repent and ask forgiveness for what we needed to do, praying that we will not need to again.
Best argument against taking Bin Laden alive: How many Americans would have been snatched around the world and beheadings begun, demanding his release?
Most disturbing image for me personally: Americans turning out into the streets to cheer, very much like our Arab brothers and sisters in the Middle East when something blows up over here.
Did we actually change things? Yes. Osama Bin Laden was the boogeyman, the defiant one against the military might and intelligence capabilities of the most powerful nation in the world. His was the face that frightened us at night.
How much did the Pakistanis know? Well, he needed dialysis a number of times a week. Was that available at the villa or did he travel to a clinic?
Why'd we bury him so quickly, and at sea? Was it to perpetrate a fraud? I don't believe so. No country wanted the body. Apparently it was offered to Saudi Arabia. And we showed the decency of proper respect and the carrying out of Islamic religious requirements, even if he didn't.
So what next? How should the church react? How should Christians react?
Sunday, I am preaching on Isaiah 2, beating our swords into plowshares. Thus is the Kingdom of God where peoples do not rise up against peoples. It is the dream that we, as people of Jesus Christ, are seeking to build. Our prayer should be always that although we equip our young men and women to fight and kill in the military, that they never have to be called upon to do so.
And when they must, we must in turn support them, but also repent that we have had to break God's command "Thou shalt not kill", even though justified, even though necessary, even though it is the best thing in these circumstances, and pray for the day when the Kingdom comes and we see God's will done as laid out in the first verses of Isaiah 2.
We needed to kill Osama Bin Laden. We have to repent and ask forgiveness for what we needed to do, praying that we will not need to again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)