It is not often that a book sends chills up and down my spine. I don’t feel that way when I am reading apocalyptic interpretations of modern history based on odd interpretations of Revelations, Daniel, and so on. I don’t feel that way when I am reading about the latest attempt of our denomination to shoot itself in the foot, or knee cap. But Jeff Sharlet gave me shivers.
To think that there is a Christian network woven into American imperial notions leaves me feeling dull inside. I can believe it. It is like a bad dream come true. All of a sudden, all those anti-Christian and anti-American diatribes that we hear on al-Jazeera have a toe hold in reality.
I would not consider myself a political junkie exactly. I think I am just experimenting at the moment, but this book may be the gateway.
So there was the Religious Right, there was the Moral Majority, there was the Christian Coalition, a whole set of expressions of fundamentalist and some evangelical leanings in the political spectrum. But they are public, seeking to ride the news cycle, engaged in the political games of the day. This ‘Fellowship’ or ‘Family’ under the leadership of Douglas Coe bypasses that. Their agenda seems to be within the halls of power, intermingling with the well-placed and whispering in their ears, not standing up and demonstrating in front of their faces.
I see some real theological confusion going on with the covenant God made with the people of Israel through Moses and the covenant these folks seem to see between God and America.
The covenant God made with Moses, reiterating the promises made to Abraham, promising security, prosperity, a land to live in, blessings to those who bless them, cursings to those who curse them, all that came by direct revelation. All that was verbally and completely dictated by God-millennia ago. I do not believe God is re-issuing a variation of the covenant theme with the USA.
The Christian faith now is dictated by the records of those earlier times, the canon of Scripture closed centuries ago. Some may think it weird that the largest faith on the planet takes it lead from a book closed 1600 years ago, a book compiled over several thousand years, but that is for a different blogsideration.
The Family seems to move under a principle of new revelation. Mr. Sharlet does not come out and explicitly use that kind of theological language, but he is a reporter, not a theologian. And as a rather thickly Bible-led Christian, I have trouble explaining what the Family is doing otherwise.
I think the best defense we have is the light of day. Mr. Sharlet’s book provides a whole lot of light and I thank him.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
News from the Culture Wars . . .
We are still in the culture wars. At the last General Assembly meeting, we pulled back once again on defining homosexuality as an unordainable offence. G-6.0106b was taken out of the Constitution, pending the Presbytery fights. Every GA, this bit of our Constitution comes under fire once again. We don’t do gay and lesbian weddings, we don’t ordain ‘practicing’ (read: sexually active) homosexuals.
In the meantime, our conservative brothers and sisters in the evangelical churches and more conservative Reformed churches are boasting powerful growth while we bleed congregations.
Well, here’s the thing, are we cutting edge or are we cultural victims? As cutting edge, are we the churches fighting the battle that will eventually engulf the whole of Christendom? Are we fighting for Scriptural interpretation of homosexual behavior because we are the church that is called by God to lead that fight?
As cultural victims, are we so bogged down in the culture wars over the issue of how we deal with the current ‘them’? At the moment, people branded as ‘homosexual’ are ‘them’.
Here is what makes me angry, defining any group of people as ‘them’. I think it is a greater sin to do so then the sins that lead us to define ‘them’ in the first place.
Something both sides might agree on is the remnant motif happening in our church. This is a motif found in Scripture repeatedly. God’s people are punished for transgressing the covenant and a remnant of the faithful return to start fresh. As cultural victims, we might see the remnant of the faithful finally coming out as the ‘victors’ in keeping ‘them’ out.
As cutting edge, we might be the remnant that begins to build the church up once more to include sexual orientation as a blessing of God, not a curse.
A satirical final thought: Jane Spahr was acquitted of charges that she performed a homosexual marriage ritual because, according to the denomination, marriage is by definition heterosexual, so it cannot happen between people of the same gender. I see that application of Genesis where man and woman, God created us. The second part of that command is procreation as the reason for sexual activity. If we are going to be rigorous, if marriage cannot happen between two men or two women, can we really define sex as happening between two men or two women? It cannot lead to procreation.
In the meantime, our conservative brothers and sisters in the evangelical churches and more conservative Reformed churches are boasting powerful growth while we bleed congregations.
Well, here’s the thing, are we cutting edge or are we cultural victims? As cutting edge, are we the churches fighting the battle that will eventually engulf the whole of Christendom? Are we fighting for Scriptural interpretation of homosexual behavior because we are the church that is called by God to lead that fight?
As cultural victims, are we so bogged down in the culture wars over the issue of how we deal with the current ‘them’? At the moment, people branded as ‘homosexual’ are ‘them’.
Here is what makes me angry, defining any group of people as ‘them’. I think it is a greater sin to do so then the sins that lead us to define ‘them’ in the first place.
Something both sides might agree on is the remnant motif happening in our church. This is a motif found in Scripture repeatedly. God’s people are punished for transgressing the covenant and a remnant of the faithful return to start fresh. As cultural victims, we might see the remnant of the faithful finally coming out as the ‘victors’ in keeping ‘them’ out.
As cutting edge, we might be the remnant that begins to build the church up once more to include sexual orientation as a blessing of God, not a curse.
A satirical final thought: Jane Spahr was acquitted of charges that she performed a homosexual marriage ritual because, according to the denomination, marriage is by definition heterosexual, so it cannot happen between people of the same gender. I see that application of Genesis where man and woman, God created us. The second part of that command is procreation as the reason for sexual activity. If we are going to be rigorous, if marriage cannot happen between two men or two women, can we really define sex as happening between two men or two women? It cannot lead to procreation.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
There are Twelve Tribes, and there are Twelve Tribes
One of my favorite shows on television is “Battlestar Galactica”, dare I admit to both versions? The one currently in its last season on Sci-Fi is some of the best, admittedly depressing, science fiction ever put on the small screen.
The story has the remnants of twelve tribes seeking the ‘lost’ thirteenth tribe. There is a lot of other religion mixed into the show, but this particular bit caught my attention. The twelve tribes, each named for a sign of the Zodiac, allude fairly obviously to the twelve tribes of Israel. These are the tribal/political divisions of the nation of Israel as they complete the Exodus and conquer the Promised Land. These stories are chronicled in the books of Exodus through Joshua of the Old Testament.
The parallels diverge from each other concerning the thirteenth tribe. In Battlestar Galactica, the thirteenth tribe is ‘lost’, out there in the cosmos somewhere, in a place will provide salvation for the remnants of the other twelve tribes. I am told that this is in parallel with the origin story of the church of Latter Day Saints, but I do not profess to know enough about our Mormon brothers and sisters to speak to that.
I want to speak to what I know. In the Old Testament, there are also thirteen tribes, twelve of whom inherit land in the Promised Land. Those twelve originate with eleven of the sons of Jacob, renamed Israel by God, and two of the grandsons of Jacob. (Jacob is in turn the grandson of Abraham, with whom God made the original covenant).
In other words, one son of Jacob, Joseph, has two tribes ascribed to his family, one for each of his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (Joshua 14:4). So twelve get land.
The thirteenth tribe is not lost, it is not eliminated, it is not gone. The thirteenth tribe, named for Jacob’s son Levi is given no inheritance among the territories of the Promised Land. Rather, according to Joshua 13:33 “But to the tribe of Levi Moses gave no inheritance; the Lord God of Israel is their inheritance, as he said to them.”
The tribe of Levi has cities and towns scattered among the other tribes. With God as their inheritance, they became the religious leaders, the priests and religious ‘staff’ of the nation. They represented the presence of God among the people, among the tribes, with them and blessing them if the rest of the nation kept God’s covenant.
Having God was not something the people of the Bible needed to go searching for in a far off land. There was no lost tribe that could save them. That thirteenth tribe was always in their midst, God was always in their midst.
But that does not appear to make as good a science-fiction show.
The story has the remnants of twelve tribes seeking the ‘lost’ thirteenth tribe. There is a lot of other religion mixed into the show, but this particular bit caught my attention. The twelve tribes, each named for a sign of the Zodiac, allude fairly obviously to the twelve tribes of Israel. These are the tribal/political divisions of the nation of Israel as they complete the Exodus and conquer the Promised Land. These stories are chronicled in the books of Exodus through Joshua of the Old Testament.
The parallels diverge from each other concerning the thirteenth tribe. In Battlestar Galactica, the thirteenth tribe is ‘lost’, out there in the cosmos somewhere, in a place will provide salvation for the remnants of the other twelve tribes. I am told that this is in parallel with the origin story of the church of Latter Day Saints, but I do not profess to know enough about our Mormon brothers and sisters to speak to that.
I want to speak to what I know. In the Old Testament, there are also thirteen tribes, twelve of whom inherit land in the Promised Land. Those twelve originate with eleven of the sons of Jacob, renamed Israel by God, and two of the grandsons of Jacob. (Jacob is in turn the grandson of Abraham, with whom God made the original covenant).
In other words, one son of Jacob, Joseph, has two tribes ascribed to his family, one for each of his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (Joshua 14:4). So twelve get land.
The thirteenth tribe is not lost, it is not eliminated, it is not gone. The thirteenth tribe, named for Jacob’s son Levi is given no inheritance among the territories of the Promised Land. Rather, according to Joshua 13:33 “But to the tribe of Levi Moses gave no inheritance; the Lord God of Israel is their inheritance, as he said to them.”
The tribe of Levi has cities and towns scattered among the other tribes. With God as their inheritance, they became the religious leaders, the priests and religious ‘staff’ of the nation. They represented the presence of God among the people, among the tribes, with them and blessing them if the rest of the nation kept God’s covenant.
Having God was not something the people of the Bible needed to go searching for in a far off land. There was no lost tribe that could save them. That thirteenth tribe was always in their midst, God was always in their midst.
But that does not appear to make as good a science-fiction show.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
What does the Bible Have to Say About Intelligent Design?
I am not talking about the Creation Story in Genesis. That is NOT Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design, as I understand it's popular meaning, is looking at creation and seeing the hand of a creator in it. Genesis 1 is explicit that our God is the Creator. Intelligent Design cannot make that assumption without a leap of faith. I have leapt, I believe our God is the intelligent designer, as does Genesis 1, but I am asking a different question.
Does the bible give its permission for Intelligent Design to be used? Are we permitted to look at nature in order to see God? Or is God only revealed to us in the bible? Is creation at best the artful project of a God we can then pursue in the Scriptures?
I think we have permission. Job 12: 7-10:
"But ask the animals, and they will teach you; the birds of the air, and they will tell you; ask the plants of the earth, and they will teach yo; and the fish of the sea will declare to you.
Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?
In his hand is the life of every living thing, and the breath of every human being."
In Genesis 1, we have the story of creation. In Job 12, we have the creation telling the story. Yes, it makes the leap of faith that our Lord is the Creator Lord. It is the bible, after all.
The Scripture quotations contained herein are from the RRSV Bible, Copyright 1989 by the Division of Christian Educatin of the Nation al Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used b permission, all rights reserved."
Does the bible give its permission for Intelligent Design to be used? Are we permitted to look at nature in order to see God? Or is God only revealed to us in the bible? Is creation at best the artful project of a God we can then pursue in the Scriptures?
I think we have permission. Job 12: 7-10:
"But ask the animals, and they will teach you; the birds of the air, and they will tell you; ask the plants of the earth, and they will teach yo; and the fish of the sea will declare to you.
Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?
In his hand is the life of every living thing, and the breath of every human being."
In Genesis 1, we have the story of creation. In Job 12, we have the creation telling the story. Yes, it makes the leap of faith that our Lord is the Creator Lord. It is the bible, after all.
The Scripture quotations contained herein are from the RRSV Bible, Copyright 1989 by the Division of Christian Educatin of the Nation al Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used b permission, all rights reserved."
Thursday, June 26, 2008
We Made the News!
I watched the news this morning with a mix of emotions. The Democrats and the Republicans are angling for the Christian vote. Senator Obama is going to be wooing evangelicals and Senator McCain was portrayed as the candidate without the religious ‘credentials’ in this campaign. This is one reason the theoretical pursuit of a ‘public theology’ has not progressed very far in the last month. The public debate is being run from the political leadership of the nation, not from the church leadership of the nation. And that is how it should be. If a pastor or the leader of a church wants to get into the political arena, more power to them. But I have found myself rethinking the ‘rank and file’ Christian response to public leadership.
There needs to a ‘public theology’ for certain. But that theology should be the church working out its salvation message in fear and trembling against the backdrop of the public arena.
I found it fascinating because this was the lead story on “Good Morning America” today. We are framed in the news reporting as a constituency. I suppose we are, but a constituency full of dynamic Spirit, and a constituency as divided as the number of churches you will find in any neighborhood.
I come out of the mainline, the evangelical wing to be sure, but the mainline. This news reporting was about the evangelical community, not us. They have voices raised in the public debate. I know, “us and them”, a polarizing definition, but it carries perceptive weight in our country.
My ‘public theology’ brings Biblical truth, brings Spirit-filled interpretation, brings the salvific work of Jesus Christ to the public sphere. It cautions against the excesses of power, it stands as a voice to speak grace in a sin filled world where men and women of good character make the best sin-filled choice to tackle a more sin-filled world. The idea of the chaplain, the bringer of religious truth and comfort to a difficult world, speaks strongly to me.
There needs to a ‘public theology’ for certain. But that theology should be the church working out its salvation message in fear and trembling against the backdrop of the public arena.
I found it fascinating because this was the lead story on “Good Morning America” today. We are framed in the news reporting as a constituency. I suppose we are, but a constituency full of dynamic Spirit, and a constituency as divided as the number of churches you will find in any neighborhood.
I come out of the mainline, the evangelical wing to be sure, but the mainline. This news reporting was about the evangelical community, not us. They have voices raised in the public debate. I know, “us and them”, a polarizing definition, but it carries perceptive weight in our country.
My ‘public theology’ brings Biblical truth, brings Spirit-filled interpretation, brings the salvific work of Jesus Christ to the public sphere. It cautions against the excesses of power, it stands as a voice to speak grace in a sin filled world where men and women of good character make the best sin-filled choice to tackle a more sin-filled world. The idea of the chaplain, the bringer of religious truth and comfort to a difficult world, speaks strongly to me.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Passing of a Humanist Prophet
George Carlin was just called home to wherever comics who profess no religious affiliation and have their work kicked to the Supreme Court on an obscenities charge go. For him, at best it seemed that God didn't care.
It was especially powerful when, in his standup, he questioned why politicians are forever ending their speeches with "God bless America" or "God bless the USA". He concludes that God doesn't care about America or any of the other two hundred or so countries around the world that blessing us would apparently preclude from divine intervention.
He also said something very interesting in an interview they replayed with him on NPR. I don't have the quote exactly right and I have not gone back to the podcast, but it goes along the lines of God has created an order here on the earth and religions stomp all over that order with their rules for living and threats of damnation for not living it right.
This from the man who gave us seven words you can't say on TV.
I think the man has a prophetic voice. We live in a nation where there are Christians-some of whom prefer to call themselves 'followers of Jesus' rather than Christians-are trying to steer government to a 'Christian' agenda. That runs the gambit from promoting Israel to bring Armageddon through a thick set of 'prayer cells' across Washington DC's power elite that have confused American expansionist ambition with the order of Jesus to a conservative wing of the church as a whole that would legislate their own social agenda, barring abortion, barring homosexual marriage, barring frank discussion of sexual practice among our young people-and weaving such language into our foreign policy.
George Carlin saw the absurdity of it all and that became the basis for his social commentary-that also made us laugh. He also had a potty mouth which I am ashamed to admit made me laugh all the more.
And he played a Cardinal in the movie "Dogma", which is a review for another day.
It was especially powerful when, in his standup, he questioned why politicians are forever ending their speeches with "God bless America" or "God bless the USA". He concludes that God doesn't care about America or any of the other two hundred or so countries around the world that blessing us would apparently preclude from divine intervention.
He also said something very interesting in an interview they replayed with him on NPR. I don't have the quote exactly right and I have not gone back to the podcast, but it goes along the lines of God has created an order here on the earth and religions stomp all over that order with their rules for living and threats of damnation for not living it right.
This from the man who gave us seven words you can't say on TV.
I think the man has a prophetic voice. We live in a nation where there are Christians-some of whom prefer to call themselves 'followers of Jesus' rather than Christians-are trying to steer government to a 'Christian' agenda. That runs the gambit from promoting Israel to bring Armageddon through a thick set of 'prayer cells' across Washington DC's power elite that have confused American expansionist ambition with the order of Jesus to a conservative wing of the church as a whole that would legislate their own social agenda, barring abortion, barring homosexual marriage, barring frank discussion of sexual practice among our young people-and weaving such language into our foreign policy.
George Carlin saw the absurdity of it all and that became the basis for his social commentary-that also made us laugh. He also had a potty mouth which I am ashamed to admit made me laugh all the more.
And he played a Cardinal in the movie "Dogma", which is a review for another day.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Where Scripture and Confession Define Our Work
In ten years as a member of this Presbytery, I have had come into my possession a document as part of our Presbytery meeting packets a piece that has the single greatest concentration of Biblical and Confessional sourcing of anything in my experience.
I am thrilled to have it, but the circumstances are a little depressing.
The references come out of a lengthy transcript of work done by the Permanent Judicial Commission of our Presbytery. In other words, it comes out of the courts of the church. The details of the case are not important. It struck me that the most rigorously biblical and confessional examination of our work as a church comes from its legal branch.
Judicial process is very highly developed in the PCUSA. I would direct you to Appendix A of the 2007-2009 Book of Order where there are more than 50 forms on more than 33 pages to make sure due process is carried forward.
I can't help but wonder if we carried on with that same rigor in all our activities, if life might not be very different in our church. There was a news item from the PCUSA newswire about a consideration before our GA to get a better translation of the Heidelberg Catechism. Amen! Amen! Amen! I grew up on that one in my Reformed heritage.
One commentary I have seen from the Reformed Right is that modern biblical criticism, by its very nature of applying general literary standards to the bible, have de-emphasized its unique and divine placement in our churches. That de-emphasis has lent itself to a decline in knowledge of the bible, much less the Confessions that we draw our primary biblical interpretation from.
What really frustrates me is a nagging thought, in my more ironic moments, that our judicial process has to be so rigorous because if it is not, it opens itself up to countersuit, perhaps even lawsuit in the secular courts. So we are thorough to cover our behinds, what does that say about our priorities?
I am thrilled to have it, but the circumstances are a little depressing.
The references come out of a lengthy transcript of work done by the Permanent Judicial Commission of our Presbytery. In other words, it comes out of the courts of the church. The details of the case are not important. It struck me that the most rigorously biblical and confessional examination of our work as a church comes from its legal branch.
Judicial process is very highly developed in the PCUSA. I would direct you to Appendix A of the 2007-2009 Book of Order where there are more than 50 forms on more than 33 pages to make sure due process is carried forward.
I can't help but wonder if we carried on with that same rigor in all our activities, if life might not be very different in our church. There was a news item from the PCUSA newswire about a consideration before our GA to get a better translation of the Heidelberg Catechism. Amen! Amen! Amen! I grew up on that one in my Reformed heritage.
One commentary I have seen from the Reformed Right is that modern biblical criticism, by its very nature of applying general literary standards to the bible, have de-emphasized its unique and divine placement in our churches. That de-emphasis has lent itself to a decline in knowledge of the bible, much less the Confessions that we draw our primary biblical interpretation from.
What really frustrates me is a nagging thought, in my more ironic moments, that our judicial process has to be so rigorous because if it is not, it opens itself up to countersuit, perhaps even lawsuit in the secular courts. So we are thorough to cover our behinds, what does that say about our priorities?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)