A couple is having their first child. Preeclampsia is diagnosed. The mom's health is not the strongest and the doctors recommend, to save her life, she should have an abortion. The couple consults with their religious leader who invokes "Thou shalt not kill." In the case of an unborn child, their religious leader asks "What if the child were one year old? One month old? Would you give your life for the child then?" The couple decides against an abortion and instead, 'to trust in God'. The wife dies of complications and the baby dies, its lung undeveloped. The husband will NEVER trust God again.
The member of one church discovers that their co-worker attends a different church. In what I guess is a test of orthodoxy, the first church member asks what their co-worker believes about homosexuality. This question about belief comes with the assurance from the church member that the Bible-and God-do, in fact, condemn homosexuality without exception. The co-worker chooses to remain silent about their beliefs rather than face condemnation from someone they consider could be a friend.
Church colleagues discuss whether or not the United States should militarily intervene in Syria in the wake of chemical warfare. People of faith hedge their bets, give generic answers, go into political arguments. Biblical or ethical arguments are avoided, as is the unspoken subtext questioning how a loving God could permit humans to use Sarin gas on one another.
Anybody who claims to speak for God is putting themselves into such a presumptuous, vulnerable position.
There is a bumper stick that reads "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." It SHOULD read "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."
How many words do we put into the mouth of our God in heaven? How many times do we, the humans, cause pain and injury and suffering because we are arrogant enough to be God's prophet? It is bad enough when a human is self-serving when they seek to invoke God's authority. It is more painful, for me at least, when the human invoking God's name really thinks that hurting someone else is God's will.
Wonder why people either find the church, as God's thing, at best irrelevant, and, at worst, culpable, for the evils that happen around us?
Where do we start? My suggestion is to measure anything that anyone ever claims with Godly or Biblical or Churchly (Ecclesial) authority against the one Biblical measure that is the foundation for all the rest. "God is Love."
If love isn't there, I believe there is a problem.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Thursday, August 15, 2013
The Movie Ratings System Undermined
I went to a PG-13 rated movie today. Have you ever really considered the ratings system? I took a crash course at mpaa.org on "the anatomy of a rating" and it provides pretty good information, a general age-appropriateness, and details on what kind of things to watch out for, violence, sex, language, etc. The reason I did that was because something happened that I have never seen before.
Before the movie, after the commercials for the TV shows and the colas, they ran the trailers for other movies, more commercials for movies that I will probably see on Netflix if anywhere.
Today, the trailers had a line I've never seen before, that the trailer is "appropriate for the rating of the movie that is to follow". In other words, "R" films came up with trailers cut up for PG-13 audiences. And since, as a parent, I can admit the child between the ages of 13 and 17 to the R movies at my discretion, how about a little extra pressure?
I got a big problem with 'R' movies being advertised before a 'PG-13' film. I got a bigger problem with the fact that the trailers DO NOT carry the movie ratings so that I can have an informed conversation about the movie's appropriateness with my children or my wife or my parishioners or in this blog.
So why would they do that? Why try and advertise movies not appropriate for children to movies where there are going to be children? Without clear labeling? Why advertise any product? To sell it of course, to make money off of it. The movie business is no different from any other business.
It is hard enough to get a discussion going about what is appropriate for our children to be exposed to. The producers of violent and sexually oriented media content are the same producers of news media content, news programs that might in fact sponsor such discussions in the public sphere. But this kind of discussion is not in line with the purpose of media content producers, which is to make money.
It is hard enough to get solid information on the connections between media violence and school violence, good information on media sexuality and sexual practices among our children-at younger and younger ages.
Imagine trying to have a serious discussion on the appropriateness of advertising this kind of material to children?
The ratings system is one of too few tools out there to help us make informed decisions about movies, television, or video games. It amazes me that whenever there is any mention of the ratings systems for popular media, the discussions too easily get sidetracked into the appropriateness or the usefulness of the system.
Before the movie, after the commercials for the TV shows and the colas, they ran the trailers for other movies, more commercials for movies that I will probably see on Netflix if anywhere.
Today, the trailers had a line I've never seen before, that the trailer is "appropriate for the rating of the movie that is to follow". In other words, "R" films came up with trailers cut up for PG-13 audiences. And since, as a parent, I can admit the child between the ages of 13 and 17 to the R movies at my discretion, how about a little extra pressure?
I got a big problem with 'R' movies being advertised before a 'PG-13' film. I got a bigger problem with the fact that the trailers DO NOT carry the movie ratings so that I can have an informed conversation about the movie's appropriateness with my children or my wife or my parishioners or in this blog.
So why would they do that? Why try and advertise movies not appropriate for children to movies where there are going to be children? Without clear labeling? Why advertise any product? To sell it of course, to make money off of it. The movie business is no different from any other business.
It is hard enough to get a discussion going about what is appropriate for our children to be exposed to. The producers of violent and sexually oriented media content are the same producers of news media content, news programs that might in fact sponsor such discussions in the public sphere. But this kind of discussion is not in line with the purpose of media content producers, which is to make money.
It is hard enough to get solid information on the connections between media violence and school violence, good information on media sexuality and sexual practices among our children-at younger and younger ages.
Imagine trying to have a serious discussion on the appropriateness of advertising this kind of material to children?
The ratings system is one of too few tools out there to help us make informed decisions about movies, television, or video games. It amazes me that whenever there is any mention of the ratings systems for popular media, the discussions too easily get sidetracked into the appropriateness or the usefulness of the system.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
And continuing in Romans...
"Paul, a servant* of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures..."
Romans 1
So it narrows down. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, identifying himself with all who seek to serve the Lord Jesus Christ.
Then Paul, called to be an apostle. It is a job within the movement of spreading Jesus' message to the world. Paul gives us lists of some of these jobs, teachers, preachers, apostles, healers, prophets, and more. The Apostles were the leaders of the church, the twelve disciples became Apostles.
Then Paul, set apart for the gospel of God. The gospel is the Good News, the message of Jesus who lived, died, and lived again. We know from the book of Acts and Paul's letters that he was a traveling missionary, going town to town to share the gospel of God. This seems to distinguish him again from the other Apostles, some of whom were travelers, but others of whom seemed to stay settled in the church of Jerusalem and Judea.
Now, we develop again on the sense of the gospel of God. What is it, in Paul's own words? It is that "which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures..." Who is he? God. I know, it is odd not to have "he" capitalized. "he" and "his prophets". Paul has been set apart for that which God promised beforehand through God's prophets in the holy scriptures.
Now, a point of clarity about the 'holy scriptures'. These are what we know to be the "Old Testament" of our bibles. The Letter to the Romans, the gospel accounts of the life and miracles of Jesus, these are (literally) only beginning to be written. The gospel of God does NOT include Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It includes Genesis to Malachi.
Think about this. Paul is telling the Romans that God promised everything that we are going to find in this Letter in the Old Testament of our bible. God's prophets set everything down before the first word of the New Testament was ever written. Can you imagine sharing the faith without pulling out your bible to share the words of John 3:16? Or the Great Commission in Matthew 28?
Paul's work is to share the gospel of God, the good news of God, which was laid out in the Old Testament by God's prophets before Jesus came down to fulfill what had been promised. And that doesn't just mean Isaiah and all those other guys so fun to try and remember. Moses was a prophet, David was a prophet, they were the 'mouthpieces of God'.
So Paul is not coming with something new. He is not taking the Jewish faith and putting a new spin on it. Our faith is the faith of the Jewish religion fulfilled in Jesus. And Paul will spend much time in this Letter speaking more on that.
This phrase continues to develop the authority under which Paul operates, servant of God, apostle, set aside for the gospel that ALREADY exists in the words of God's prophets. Thus is the story that he will tell.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
From The Wolverine (Wolverine 2), a focus for church?
About Yashida, who appears as a young Japanese POW camp guard at the beginning of the movie with Logan, then as the leader of the powerful industrial complex in the present day (aging gracefully as opposed to Logan, the Wolverine, who does not), it was said (and I paraphrase)
"He has one foot in the past and one in the future".
He has taken the traditions of Japan in his industrial structure and brought them into the future of technological advancement and attempted to be a bridge, one to the other.
I believe we need the same bridge for our church. We are doing things 'differently'. If we don't, we are going to go extinct as a congregation. We are seeking to be the church for the next generations. That is where our future lies. But certain things do not change.
Our God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, DOES NOT CHANGE. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The Good News of Jesus Christ does not change. The 21st century did not bring in a new way to heaven. The Bible does not change-although our understanding of it certainly does. To each generation, the Word speaks the Truth. These are the things of the past and the future.
In the future, the style of worship will change. Formal authority gives way to earned authority. Codes of conduct and modes of doing things change. A more casual generation is on the rise. The pastor no longer carries the Authority of the Pulpit as in ages past. The preaching contains more teaching, more persuasion, seeks to address and interpret God's message to new and more diverse situations. The level of education and bible knowledge has dropped from past generations. Christianity used to be more in the mainline of the secular culture, but it has been systematically marginalized for the last three generations.
So we stand across the generations, one foot in what came before, the legacy of two thousand years of faith, and one foot in what will come, the ever changing, dizzyingly diverse world of tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. At the balancing point of past and future is the present. Here today and gone tomorrow.
"He has one foot in the past and one in the future".
He has taken the traditions of Japan in his industrial structure and brought them into the future of technological advancement and attempted to be a bridge, one to the other.
I believe we need the same bridge for our church. We are doing things 'differently'. If we don't, we are going to go extinct as a congregation. We are seeking to be the church for the next generations. That is where our future lies. But certain things do not change.
Our God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, DOES NOT CHANGE. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The Good News of Jesus Christ does not change. The 21st century did not bring in a new way to heaven. The Bible does not change-although our understanding of it certainly does. To each generation, the Word speaks the Truth. These are the things of the past and the future.
In the future, the style of worship will change. Formal authority gives way to earned authority. Codes of conduct and modes of doing things change. A more casual generation is on the rise. The pastor no longer carries the Authority of the Pulpit as in ages past. The preaching contains more teaching, more persuasion, seeks to address and interpret God's message to new and more diverse situations. The level of education and bible knowledge has dropped from past generations. Christianity used to be more in the mainline of the secular culture, but it has been systematically marginalized for the last three generations.
So we stand across the generations, one foot in what came before, the legacy of two thousand years of faith, and one foot in what will come, the ever changing, dizzyingly diverse world of tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. At the balancing point of past and future is the present. Here today and gone tomorrow.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Romans, the next piece
"Paul, a servant* of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God..."
So Paul is introducing himself to the church in Rome, to whom the letter is addressed. He starts by identifying himself as all Christians can, "a servant of Jesus Christ". I don't know how I feel about self-identifying as a 'servant', even of Jesus Christ. I mean, I understand it in my head, being a servant and all that, but some gut reaction, something about being an American and what that means in regards to equality and justice and freedom, is reacting against that phrase.
But that is the challenge of Scripture, to set for us a baseline of truth against which to measure our lives. We talk about service in our faith, even one who serves, but 'servant' implies a humbling, a surrendering of control, an acknowledgement that we have 'a better'. I know, it's class thinking, nobles and peasants, aristocrats and domestics, "Downton Abbey", "Gone With The Wind" manor house life, know what I mean?
But it is to be a servant to perfection...should be good enough to overcome personal biases about class warfare.
Beyond the call to be a servant, we have laid before us Paul's job description. He is "called" to be an "apostle". "Called" is a notion still very important in the church today. As I pursued ordination, the Committee on Preparation for Ministry laid a lot of importance on the "call". Is Jesus calling me to ministry? Is it something that can be seen in my by other people? Is it something that the commitee can see? If not being called, it is easy enough to pull a "reverend" title off the internet.
An "apostle" is a technical title in the work of Jesus Christ. The twelve disciples transitioned from "disciple", literally 'follower' to "apostle", literally 'servant', on Pentecost. That was the day that the Holy Spirit came upon them and turned them after three years of internship with the Almighty into leaders of the church.
Paul was called later, by special arrangement of Jesus, outside the walls of Damascus, when he was intent with a religious fervor to stamp out this new Jewish sect. (It wasn't its own religion yet). He turned that fervor to the service of Jesus Christ and changed the world. Thankfully, he also changed his methodology from 'arrest and charge' to 'preach and convert'.
So, his title is "Apostle", to which he has been called. He is called to be a Servant, called by God, "set apart for the gospel of God". Set apart, this is what he is supposed to be doing, set apart for the "gospel" of God. I leave you with the idea of the "gospel".
"Gospel" is Greek for "good news", quite literally. Paul is set apart for the Good News of God. He is an Apostle for it. He is a Servant for it. What is the Good News?
The Good News is that Jesus lived, died, and lives again for us. It is Good Friday, Easter, and eternity. It is the Great Commission at the end of Matthew, "Go and make disciples of ALL the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit".
This Good News is that people's lives can be changed FOREVER. It is the Good News of love that changes lives for the better. It is the Good News that claims 2 BILLION believers around the world. It is why I was called to be a pastor, to spread that news.
So much in the first three phrases of Paul's most encompassing letter.
But it is to be a servant to perfection...should be good enough to overcome personal biases about class warfare.
Beyond the call to be a servant, we have laid before us Paul's job description. He is "called" to be an "apostle". "Called" is a notion still very important in the church today. As I pursued ordination, the Committee on Preparation for Ministry laid a lot of importance on the "call". Is Jesus calling me to ministry? Is it something that can be seen in my by other people? Is it something that the commitee can see? If not being called, it is easy enough to pull a "reverend" title off the internet.
An "apostle" is a technical title in the work of Jesus Christ. The twelve disciples transitioned from "disciple", literally 'follower' to "apostle", literally 'servant', on Pentecost. That was the day that the Holy Spirit came upon them and turned them after three years of internship with the Almighty into leaders of the church.
Paul was called later, by special arrangement of Jesus, outside the walls of Damascus, when he was intent with a religious fervor to stamp out this new Jewish sect. (It wasn't its own religion yet). He turned that fervor to the service of Jesus Christ and changed the world. Thankfully, he also changed his methodology from 'arrest and charge' to 'preach and convert'.
So, his title is "Apostle", to which he has been called. He is called to be a Servant, called by God, "set apart for the gospel of God". Set apart, this is what he is supposed to be doing, set apart for the "gospel" of God. I leave you with the idea of the "gospel".
"Gospel" is Greek for "good news", quite literally. Paul is set apart for the Good News of God. He is an Apostle for it. He is a Servant for it. What is the Good News?
The Good News is that Jesus lived, died, and lives again for us. It is Good Friday, Easter, and eternity. It is the Great Commission at the end of Matthew, "Go and make disciples of ALL the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit".
This Good News is that people's lives can be changed FOREVER. It is the Good News of love that changes lives for the better. It is the Good News that claims 2 BILLION believers around the world. It is why I was called to be a pastor, to spread that news.
So much in the first three phrases of Paul's most encompassing letter.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Preachers and Hollywood Westerns
I like westerns. It used to be that my wife would find me in front of the TV and my pat response to the question, "What are you watching?" was "Whatever's on Scyfy" (used to be Sci. Fi.) But our cable package has Encore Westerns station so I am more often respond "Some Western".
Did you know that there are as many bad Westerns as there are bad Science Fiction movies?
In the church history of our nation, there are echoes of 'frontier preachers' and 'circuit riders' serving multiple towns and churches in their territories, moving by horseback to provide faith, hope, comfort, to marry and bury people. But not too many preachers show up in the middle of Westerns. Oh, they are guest stars often enough in the old TV Westerns (usually a crisis of faith or redemption needed or some such), but I'm talking about the movie Westerns.
Let me focus the discussion today. I am talking about Westerns focused in the American West. Spaghetti Westerns and Westerns that go down to Mexico have a flavor all their own, to be dealt with at another time.
There are two that come to my mind.
The one I was watching last night was "Blazing Saddles", the Mel Brooks satire on race in America. Liam Dunn plays Rev. Johnson from Rock Ridge and shows up regularly to do the invocations, prayers, benedictions, intercessions, stuff a pastor might do. It pains me to say that he is the only example I can think of where a pastor is integrated into the movie life of the Western town. Classic moment, he tries to intervene to save Sheriff Bart, the "black" sheriff about to be killed by the "white" townsfolk. He raises his bible as he intones his protest, somebody blows a hole in the Good Book, and he saunters off with the throw away line, "You're on your own..."
The rest of the time, he intersperses his 'pastoral' duties with filthy language unworthy of even a gathering of sailors.
The other movie that jumps to my mind with a preacher in the center is Clint Eastwood's "Pale Rider", where he plays a Preacher in the title role (we never catch his name). This time, he is a 'reformed' gunslinger helping out miners being oppressed by the local Mining Baron (they NEVER come off well). And the faith is fine until it is time to beat somebody up (nothing like hickory for a good axe handle), or, in the climax, when he has to go 'redeem' his gun from his safety deposit box and kill everything that moves wearing the 'bad guy' logo.
Beyond those two examples, the most I usually see of the faith in a Western is a fancy clapboard church at the end of the main drag (like in "Silverado").
"Taming the west", at least in Hollywood lore means killing off the bad guys before they can oppress or dominate the good guys. I suppose that by the time the movie gets made, when the bad guys need to be taken out, the preacher was probably already dead or driven out of town. I suppose.
The point I am trying to make is to use the genre of the Western as a reflection of much of Hollywood. Christians are the majority of this nation. Churches are the most pervasive social organizations across the country. Pastors and preachers and priests are, as a vocational class, the largest group of community leaders in the nation. But that isn't reflected in the "America" presented in the movies, or on TV, unless the religious leader falls into one of two categories.
The first is the religious 'poser'. The pedophile, murderer, drug user, drunkard, whatever is using the pastorate as cover for their 'dark side'. The second is the serious whacko, usually killing people in the name of Jesus.
And "Seventh Heaven" may just be the exception that proves the rule.
Did you know that there are as many bad Westerns as there are bad Science Fiction movies?
In the church history of our nation, there are echoes of 'frontier preachers' and 'circuit riders' serving multiple towns and churches in their territories, moving by horseback to provide faith, hope, comfort, to marry and bury people. But not too many preachers show up in the middle of Westerns. Oh, they are guest stars often enough in the old TV Westerns (usually a crisis of faith or redemption needed or some such), but I'm talking about the movie Westerns.
Let me focus the discussion today. I am talking about Westerns focused in the American West. Spaghetti Westerns and Westerns that go down to Mexico have a flavor all their own, to be dealt with at another time.
There are two that come to my mind.
The one I was watching last night was "Blazing Saddles", the Mel Brooks satire on race in America. Liam Dunn plays Rev. Johnson from Rock Ridge and shows up regularly to do the invocations, prayers, benedictions, intercessions, stuff a pastor might do. It pains me to say that he is the only example I can think of where a pastor is integrated into the movie life of the Western town. Classic moment, he tries to intervene to save Sheriff Bart, the "black" sheriff about to be killed by the "white" townsfolk. He raises his bible as he intones his protest, somebody blows a hole in the Good Book, and he saunters off with the throw away line, "You're on your own..."
The rest of the time, he intersperses his 'pastoral' duties with filthy language unworthy of even a gathering of sailors.
The other movie that jumps to my mind with a preacher in the center is Clint Eastwood's "Pale Rider", where he plays a Preacher in the title role (we never catch his name). This time, he is a 'reformed' gunslinger helping out miners being oppressed by the local Mining Baron (they NEVER come off well). And the faith is fine until it is time to beat somebody up (nothing like hickory for a good axe handle), or, in the climax, when he has to go 'redeem' his gun from his safety deposit box and kill everything that moves wearing the 'bad guy' logo.
Beyond those two examples, the most I usually see of the faith in a Western is a fancy clapboard church at the end of the main drag (like in "Silverado").
"Taming the west", at least in Hollywood lore means killing off the bad guys before they can oppress or dominate the good guys. I suppose that by the time the movie gets made, when the bad guys need to be taken out, the preacher was probably already dead or driven out of town. I suppose.
The point I am trying to make is to use the genre of the Western as a reflection of much of Hollywood. Christians are the majority of this nation. Churches are the most pervasive social organizations across the country. Pastors and preachers and priests are, as a vocational class, the largest group of community leaders in the nation. But that isn't reflected in the "America" presented in the movies, or on TV, unless the religious leader falls into one of two categories.
The first is the religious 'poser'. The pedophile, murderer, drug user, drunkard, whatever is using the pastorate as cover for their 'dark side'. The second is the serious whacko, usually killing people in the name of Jesus.
And "Seventh Heaven" may just be the exception that proves the rule.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
From Faith to Culture, Flipping the System
"Paul, a servant* of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit* of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name, 6including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,
To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. "
This is the first SENTENCE in Paul's letter to the church in Rome. That is the first SEVEN verses of the chapter. On a read through, I count 21 sentences over 32 verses in that first chapter (please don't let me know if I messed up). The longest is this one. The shortest, the last part of verse 25, is an imperative "Amen!" (anybody remember their grammar lessons? {Anyone remember being taught grammar as part of their 'English' lessons?})
And people wonder why the Bible is going extinct in the hearts and minds of church goers...although it remains the Best bestseller in history.
As a blog writer, I spend much of my time as the 'opiner', taking things of the culture and filtering them through my faith, expressing my opinions on what I see of significance. The 'theologue', the theologian, derives from the opiner.
I am an avid observer of how the popular culture reflects on my Christian faith. But how about my faith reflecting on the popular culture? I know it is kind of built in, but what about a more explicit view? I am thinking it is time to alternate in this blog between 'Cultural Opiner" and "Faith-Based Theologue".
And this one sentence gives me enough to work with all summer.
First, a little background: The book of Romans is the longest of Paul's "letters". It is written to a church that he is going to visit. This is different from his other letters which were written to churches or to individuals that he had ALREADY worked with, to found and uplift in their faithfulness. These were either as communities or individuals.
The book of Romans can be looked at as an introduction of the most prolific Christian writer of his era (based on writings that still exist to this day) to the church where Paul is going to conclude his ministry. BACKGROUND: At the end of Acts, Paul was under arrest, exercised his rights as a Roman citizen to appeal his case to the Emperor, and was sent to Rome. Historic tradition passes along the story that Paul was eventually executed in Rome.
You might title it: "What I Believe And Why I Think It Will Be Good For Your Church To Hear It From Me". I know, that sounds pretentious, but the letter is a combination of personal introduction, systematized theology, faith story, cultural analysis, and theological reflection on history.
But it starts clearly enough: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ". Before he goes any further with his job description or credentials, he starts right here. It is a starting point that we can all have in common with him. We start with our service to Jesus Christ. That's the reason I write this blog (and it is good to be reminded of that from time to time). That is the reason I pastor a church. That is the basis of my own personal vision statement, the vision for our church, and the vision I hope our entire denomination will be led by.
I don't do 'personal devotions' very well. This blog is going to be an attempt to find a spiritual discipline that helps me do it better. You don't have to agree with me. Please don't give me the pressure of daring to be 'inspired' by what scribblings are put down here. Walk with me, pray for me, and lets change the world.
Peace and Long Life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)