Are You In The Image of God?

The thesis of the next set of sermons in my church goes something like "the more the Holy Spirit is active in our lives, the more in the Image of God we are."  The premise of the thesis ties together the 6th day of creation, where God says we are created in His image and the '2nd' creation story where it talks about how we were created, out of dust and breathed in with the breath of life directly from God. 


It would have been nice to find a Hebrew 'code word' to explain this process, because the breath of life is expressed-at least in the English translations-as being there for the animals as well as humanity.  A good specifically defined term in the Hebrew would have been nice. 


But this is some rambling about the first couple chapters of Genesis.  What's in it for the rest of us?  Well, unraveling what it means to be in the image of God would answer a challenge that has faced the Christian community for its entire history.  It might also be a part of Rabbinic interpretation of the Old Testament, but that isn't my area of expertise.


Why were we created in the image of God?  Why was this different from the rest of creation?  Because we were given dominion over the creation.  We were put in charge on God's behalf.  I have to admit I don't like the soft pedaling I have heard of us being 'stewards' of the creation, sort of like a community Denethor to God's being Aragorn.  I guess that is part of it, but we were put in charge, and we have used that authority to exploit, destroy, and rip apart whatever we want to make a profit from the Earth.


We have a lot to be held accountable as those but in charge of the creation.  We have a lot to work at to enter into the image of God to do better.  Can't do it on our own.

Does Anyone Really Know How Tough Peace Is?

In Hebrew, it is Shalom.  In Arabic, it is Salaam.  It is a word, a concept, a dream, an ideal, and more hard work than all the wars in history combined!  Destruction has always been easier than construction.  The nearest we've come to equalizing those two was the Genesis Project portrayed in Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, and Star Trek III: Search for Spock.  Even then, we came to find out that they used protomatter in the matrix that made the whole thing unstable...




We need to turn to science fiction to get close to an answer.  My daughter and I share an affinity for dystopian teenage angst fantasy and in those circumstances, peace is found in conformity.  That is not a new concept, I grew up reading "1984" and watching Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" (which I think carries the spirit of George Orwell's fearful vision to its most effective portrayal on the screen).




I sign off on much of my correspondence, electronic or otherwise, with the word "Peace".  It sounds pastoral and something Jesus would do if he sent emails.  But I can't ever do so without feeling a twinge.  The word is so easy to say, so easy to define, but so very hard to live.  We fill our country with "Peace Officers" who in turn fill our prisons with more people per capita than the entire world except for the Seychelles (with a population of 90,000 as opposed to 330 million plus in the US.


Jesus came to bring Peace and they killed him for it.  Gandhi came to bring Peace and they killed him for it.  Martin Luther King Jr. came to bring Peace and they killed him for it.  Malcolm X started in the War Camp but found Peace as his Mission on the Hajj and they killed him for it.  I am blessed as a Christian to follow the one on this list that God brought back.


We don't achieve Peace very often.  We talk about eras like the Pax Romana or the Pax Britannica, times of relative Peace in the world which happened because we had powerful nations big enough to stomp out any opposition. 


I guess it might be helpful to define "Peace".  It is NOT the absence of war, that is called "Ceasefire", like what we've had with North Korea since 1953.  It is not the Exhaustion from war, which existed in the Arab Israeli relations after 1948, after 1956, after 1967-70, after 1973...get the picture?   It sure is not Cold War (as opposed to Hot War) which had two generations in our nation fearing a Soviet nuclear attack.  It is NOT conquest, which existed behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War.


The Peacemakers who died, what did they seek?  Jesus sought love, Gandhi sought liberation, King sought equality, X sought advancement, all of which go into peace.  And their movements did bring about real steps towards achieving peace.  But we've never really gotten there. 


Consider Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X as a test case in our country, seeking to bring peace between 'blacks' and 'whites'.  In the 1860's we fought a war on that issue.  In the 1960's it was a peaceful protest made around that issue.  Now, in the 20-teens, we pay lip service to the 'equality; won, but by the 2060's, will lasting peace have been achieved in this one issue? 


And peace will NOT be won by whites and blacks coming together to keep the next ethnic group (Latinos?) at bay.


I do not consider myself to be naïve.  "War no more" is a pipedream.  The only way that truly leads to peace is when EVERYBODY signs on.  One side giving up war invites conquest by the other side.  We are a violent and bloody race.  War is never good, war is not the answer, but all too often war is what there is.  And sometimes going to war is better than the alternative, appeasement or capitulation, as in against Hitler or against Tojo. 


Salaam, Shalom, Peace, a worthy state of being.  Worth the costs.  But do we really know what those costs will be?

A Revisit to Harry Potter...

A fellow blogger who shall remain anonymous...okay, Mark Sandlin at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thegodarticle/2014/09/the-harry-potter-re-write-christian-style-is-everything-thats-wrong-with-christianity/ made me go look.  I read the first posting for "Hogwarts School of Prayer and Miracles" and cringed.  I think I would prefer to read some of the Chinese knockoffs translated into English, where, among other things, Gandalf was written in as Harry's grandfather (if memory serves). 


Over the past year, I have been revisiting Hogwarts and my old friends.  We did a marathon of the movies over the summer and I wanted to come back to the real thing.  (I am a snob when it comes to that, books versus movies).


But something was tickling at my mind about how a Christian could respond to the world of Harry Potter in a way other than this...fan fiction.  I would recommend Connie Neal's "The Gospel According to Harry Potter".  I read it back in June 2003 on the recommendation of my wife.  It takes us through the first four books, but with a remarkable degree of subtlety and balance.  She has since released an updated version taking us through all seven books (I am putting THAT on my Amazon Wish List!)


Stack Harry Potter alongside Lord of the Rings (professing a Nordic-esque pantheism), Star Trek (professing a humanist progressiveness), Dungeons and Dragons (where do we even start?), or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (did God tell the computer the answer was 42?), and we have the makings of systematically undermining the Christian faith through the ages or we have voices of God's creation that, like the Bible, must be taken thoughtfully, deliberately, and, with proper perspective, can deepen and delight our hearts and imaginations.


Re-writing fiction to "Christianize" it is about as effective as trying to rewrite history to "Christianize" it.  It makes everything all nice and neat and denies the truly messy, dangerous, and deadly world in which we live.

Recalibrating...

For the last six months, I have had the privilege of serving as the chair of the Executive Board of the Middlesex County Long Term Recovery Group.  This group came into being at the Evacuation Center set up at Rutgers University following Hurricane Sandy.  Now, after twenty two months, the work continues, and I will continue to be involved, but in other roles. 


I am not one...to write for six months...to do a diary-form of journaling or blogging.  But maybe I can be more reflective.  Couldn't say for sure.


So, in the last two years, I've had the roles of 'case manager', 'grant writer', 'program designer', 'trainer', 'administrator', I've had a hand in mental health training, survivor advocacy, community organization, ceremonial remembrance, in networking, leadership design and implementation, all in addition to the creation of and participation in our Neighbor to Neighbor spiritual care program.
It was a crash course in community participation. 


One of the questions I have for all this is how the past and ongoing participation in the LTRG connects to my ministry as a pastor.   It was an experience, an education, it pushed the boundaries of what I know to be possible in the Lord's name. 


I think that is going to be the goal of the blog for a bit, to consider the experience, to see what can be learned, to see what can be shared.

Why no posts in five months?

I just realized I have not posted to this blog in almost six months.  It isn't because I haven't anything to say or do.  But it is a symptom of a larger syndrome that I suffer from.


Are you a bouncer?  Not like Patrick Swayze in "Roadhouse" bouncer, but a bouncer from thing to thing to thing?  I have been wondering about that since watching the World Cup in Brazil where the "flopper" seems to be an integral part of the game.  I thought hockey players could take a dive...


Bouncer, one who bounces from thing to thing to thing, maybe in cycles, maybe not.  Maybe there is a central theme that connects the things bounced to, maybe not. The ministry is an example of the bouncing connected by a common theme, or at least it can be.  There are always at least six more things that can use my time in place of what I am doing right now. 


I am told that the first step to correcting a problem is recognizing that you have one.  Is 'bouncing' a problem or simply endemic to the job description of a pastor?  Perhaps it helps to consider jobs where 'bouncing' is rare or non-existent.  I don't know what those jobs might be because I am a pastor. 


I should pause for a moment to reflect on the fact that this is a stream-of-consciousness thing, not a polished essay. 


Are there times in the pastorate when I am not bouncing?  Absolutely.  Pastoral care emergency.  Delivery of Sunday sermon (the sermon may bounce and wander, but I don't).  Dealing with problems that demand a solution.  What is the common theme?  Adrenaline.  I suppose the theological response is 'passion for ministry'.


I am NOT saying that the job doesn't get done.  I will admit that the job is never done.  For every one thing given time, there are six more things (at least) that demand of my time. 


It helps to have a clear vision of what you are trying to accomplish.  It helps to have practiced time management skills (I have them, the practice, not always).  It helps to have a routine.  It helps to recognize that much of the job is in the details. 


Notice how I am calling this 'job' as opposed to 'vocation' or something else equally life-gathering.  That is an intentional choice.  Not because the ministry is not something, by its very nature, that stretches beyond the typical definitions of 'job', but because 'job' provides a paradigm by which to wrestle with the very subject of bouncing.


I am not saying that being a 'bouncer' is a bad thing.  It is a necessary skill for a multi-tasker (something I believe is more damaging-but still necessary-to the job than bouncing).  It is a forest and trees thing.  If the forest is the full extent of the ministry, and the trees what we keep bouncing between, how do we set up the time and opportunity to move between the two? 


I am not sure I have a solution to this, but as I have been told, recognizing the issue is the first step to figuring a solution. 

Numbers 22-24; Acts 24-26

These three chapters in Numbers are the story of Balak and Balaam.  Balak is king of Moab, the next target in the journey of the Israelites.  Balaam is a prophet of the LORD who lives over in what is modern day Iraq, on the Euphrates River.  Balak hires Balaam to come over and curse the Israelites.


Balaam seems to have no contact with the Israelites, yet still serves the LORD.  He is not the only character who shows up in the text from seeming nowhere to interact with the LORD's people as a fellow worshipper.  There is Melchizedek in Genesis 14, "King of Salem", and Moses' father-in-law, Jethro, in Exodus 4 and later in 18, described as "the priest of Midian".


I am sure there is some common thread running here that I just don't see this time through.  That is a joy of continuing to read the Bible.


Balaam is a character study.  First the LORD forbids Balaam to go, no matter the price Balak is willing to pay.  Then the LORD says he can go.  Then three times, the LORD sends an angel with sword drawn to stand in Balaam's way, which, at first only the donkey can see.  The donkey saves Balaam's life each time, but gets a beating for its trouble. 


I would like to see the expression on Balaam's face when the donkey talked back to him.  Here is the parable within the parable.  Balaam beat the donkey because he thought the donkey was making a fool of him-because Balaam couldn't see the angel of death waiting.  The donkey's response was to inquire whether this had ever happened before?  Was this a habit of the donkey?  Maybe Balaam could have responded differently, recognizing something different was happening.


Next, Balaam becomes the donkey and Balak takes the role of the foolish rider.  Four times, Balak will take Balaam to some place to see and curse the Israelites.  But to do so would disobey the LORD.  Was this the habit of Balaam?  Balaam's response was to inquire of Balak whether this-disobeying the LORD's command-had ever happened before?


After four times without a curse, Balaam goes home in peace.


Through Acts 24-26, Paul's time in Caesarea is detailed.  It covers a span of years.  First is with Felix, the governor.  He finds nothing in the Jewish leadership's arguments to turn Paul over.  In fact, he is fascinated by Paul and speaks with him a number of times, expecting a bribe for Paul's release. 


So Porcius Festus takes over, in 25.  He gets the reports of the Jewish leadership and seeks to release Paul to stand trial in Jerusalem.  But Paul invokes his rights as a Roman citizen to take his case directly to the Emperor.  Festus agrees to send him along.


Before he does, Herod Agrippa, the local monarch, and his wife, come to pay respects to the new governor.  They get pulled in to the discussions and examination of Paul, and their conclusion is that Paul could have been released, that there were no sustainable charges against him.  But because Paul invoked the right of appeal to the Emperor, he must see it through.


To take Aslan's argument that Paul was in conflict with the Jerusalem church, these chapters seem like they should be most pivotal.  Paul has been detained, his accusations and trial are being set up.  The Jewish leaders (not the church leaders) want him dead.  A couple of conspiracies to kill him have been outlined.  One was averted when the tribune got Paul out of the city and the second was to take place when Paul was in transit back to the city of Jerusalem-which never happened.


I don't see it.  Now Aslan talks of Luke essentially setting up a whitewash, being a fan of Paul, thus writing the Acts in such a way to bolster Paul's position in the church while at the same time not directly attacking the church in Jerusalem, but reflecting their contrary opinion to Paul's work among the Gentiles that undercut the law of Moses.


What I read in Acts is that Paul has enraged the Jewish leadership by fraternizing with the Gentiles.  At this time, the followers of Jesus are still very much integrated into the Jewish community in Jerusalem, so that Paul's work is still seen as Jewish work, not as a separate thing-not as the Christian faith comes to be in separation from the Hebrew faith.  But it also seems like the leadership of the Jerusalem 'church' don't do much to stand up for Paul.  This whole thing is not about the message of Jesus and how it will change the world.  This conflict is over a presumption that Paul is bringing Gentiles into the temple and the hallowedness of the Jewish faith.


And all of it is not a defense of the faith, but rather a pretext to get Paul to Rome where he may share the gospel in the First City of the Empire.

Numbers 19-21; Acts 22, 23

Numbers 19 completes a section on the work of the Levites.  After establishing that they in charge of the Tent of Meeting, where God is centered and worshipped, 19 gives the authority of the Levites to restore those people who are made ritually unclean and unable to be in the camp. 


The clean/unclean distinction is one of religious ritual, God centered on life and proper worship, the unclean those things of even every day life that take away from that.  These rules have been fulfilled in Christ, whose death and resurrection have transcended the rules of Moses, the rules that set aside the Jews as God's Chosen People, to all of us.


In 20,there are disasters in the life of Moses.  He loses his sister and his brother at the beginning and end of the passage.  When the people complain yet again, this time that they have no water, Moses gets so angry and frustrated that he disobeys God's command and, instead of commanding rocks to bring forth water, he strikes them with his staff.  The result of his disobedience is that Moses too will not live to see the people enter the Promised Land.  In the midst of all of this, as they are traveling, the Israelites try to go through the lands of Edom, of Esau, their relatives.  Remember that Esau is the brother of Israel (or Jacob), the father of the tribes of Israel.  When Edom refuses, they have to go around the long way.


In 21, the Israelites begin that journey.  They are moving across the Negev, the desert in the south of modern Israel, then around to the western edge of modern day Israel, in the modern country of Jordan.  First is a battle over Arad, a Canaanite fortress city on the southern edge of Canaan.  Then, as they move around Edom, they complain to God yet again that they aren't in Egypt.  God responds with poisonous snakes taking their toll on the people (last time was a plague).  A brass snake is built by Moses to end the plague.  Finally, they move up into position across the Jordan River, marching through Moab, and defeating the kings of the Amorites and Bashan to get to the place where they will be ready to cross.


In Acts 22 and 23, Paul tells his story to the Jewish leadership, who aren't too interested.  The Roman tribune pulls Paul out, and would flog him to get the truth until the tribune finds out Paul is a Roman citizen.  Then the game changes.  Roman citizens are subject to one set of rules, the rest of the people to another set.  Roman rules require due process, courtesy, and humane treatment and protection.  The rest of the people were little better than animals.


So now it is on the tribune's shoulders to find out exactly what Paul is charged with to respect Paul's rights as a citizen.  So they appear before the High Priest and the governing Council.  It appears to be going nowhere good for Paul, so Paul confounds the Council by playing on the differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees.  Once again, the tribune has to pull Paul out for his own safety.


Where the Jerusalem church is in all this fuss is unknown.  Follow Aslan's reasoning and they might be abandoning Paul to his fate at the hands of the Jewish authorities to maintain the local peace.  In 23:11, the Lord speaks to Paul and tells him this arrest is how Paul is to be sent to Rome.


Things begin to move more quickly.  Paul is summoned to come to the Council yet again on the next day.  But a conspiracy forms where 40 or more bind themselves to come out and kill Paul in his way that morning.  The conspiracy is that large to overcome the Roman escort Paul is sure to have.  Paul's family gets wind of it, tips off the Romans, and the tribune evacuates Paul from Jerusalem completely, 200 soldiers and 70 cavalry to get Paul to the relative safety of the Roman fortress city of Caesarea on the coast.


Notice how things have shifted since Jesus was put on trial.  Pilate, the Roman Governor, served in Jerusalem, at least for part of the time.  Felix, the new governor, appears not even to set foot in Jerusalem, instead leaving the Roman governance of the city to a Colonel (tribune) in the Roman Army.