I feel there is a lesson for the church in this story: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/08/elderly-woman-ruins-19th-century-fresco-in-restoration-attempt/
Maybe, when we feel motivated toward "creative destruction," we should all talk about it together before one person makes a decision to "go and do something about it."
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Food that nourishes the body, nourishes the soul
For when life is difficult and unpredictable:
Salmon with rice and cabbage (for 1)
-1 small fillet of wild-caught salmon
-1/2 cup uncooked rice
-a bunch of cabbage leaves
-1 tsp. white wine
-2 tsps. (divided) lemon juice
-1 tsp. olive oil
-1 tsp. (divided) "Mediterranean" style seasonings
-olives are garnish (opt.)
-water
Using a rice cooker, cook rice in water and splash of olive oil. Add whole cabbage leaves to steamer, sprinkle with 1 tsp. lemon juice, and steam for last 5 minutes of rice cooking cycle. Place small salmon fillet on microwavable plate, pour white wine and 1 tsp. lemon juice on top, and season with half of seasonings. Cook on high for 2 minutes or until it flakes easily with fork. Add rice and cabbage to plate, season with remaining seasonings, add olives.
Salmon with rice and cabbage (for 1)
-1 small fillet of wild-caught salmon
-1/2 cup uncooked rice
-a bunch of cabbage leaves
-1 tsp. white wine
-2 tsps. (divided) lemon juice
-1 tsp. olive oil
-1 tsp. (divided) "Mediterranean" style seasonings
-olives are garnish (opt.)
-water
Using a rice cooker, cook rice in water and splash of olive oil. Add whole cabbage leaves to steamer, sprinkle with 1 tsp. lemon juice, and steam for last 5 minutes of rice cooking cycle. Place small salmon fillet on microwavable plate, pour white wine and 1 tsp. lemon juice on top, and season with half of seasonings. Cook on high for 2 minutes or until it flakes easily with fork. Add rice and cabbage to plate, season with remaining seasonings, add olives.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Living in the moment
When I was in music school, one of my biggest challenges was inconsistency. I could play exactly how I wanted in the practice room most of the time, in my teacher's studio some of the time, in studio class rarely, and in recital never. My emotions would often determine not just my overall musical plan, but also my fingerings and bowings (this should have been easy to fix, had I been a little more mature). Not only that, but I'd fit a lifetime of emotions into one movement. It was enough to make everyone seasick.
By the time I was finishing music school, I had far too many emotions to contain within just a movement, and all I could do instead was cry. Not all the emotions were sorrow, but they were all too much for me to handle.
Seminary, and aging, slowed down many of those emotions, helped me find their roots (which ironically were mostly theological anyway), and gave me enough case studies and opportunities to talk about them when they are happening to other people.
The rush to get to the end of the piece with as many emotions as possible is no longer a problem, I think. I've been working on the Wieniawski Romance for a recital (that may not happen now), and it has allowed me to live in those long, held out moments with only one thing in mind.
A beloved family member of mine is facing a serious, undiagnosed illness, and another family member is facing ongoing health issues with question marks around them. My husband is far away (another continent) and won't be with me for what seems like eternity now. Yesterday, I was the pastor for a funeral and committal, the first such events where I've taken this role. The woman who had died loved the violin very much, and the family asked that I play. I played old hymns, some of my favorites ("How Great Thou Art," "In the Garden," "Amazing Grace"), and a Dvorak tune from the 9th Symphony ("Going Home").
In a place of complete dependence upon God for any amount of strength, I did not cry; I did not fit all of my emotions into these songs. I just sat in the drawn-out phrases, in the place of waiting, in the place of hope in the resurrection. No worries about consistency or timing. It was beautiful. It would have startled me if I had any proactive need to play well. The whole event, funeral and committal, was beautiful.
This is where my good music comes from- the quiet, drawn-out place of waiting for the resurrection.
By the time I was finishing music school, I had far too many emotions to contain within just a movement, and all I could do instead was cry. Not all the emotions were sorrow, but they were all too much for me to handle.
Seminary, and aging, slowed down many of those emotions, helped me find their roots (which ironically were mostly theological anyway), and gave me enough case studies and opportunities to talk about them when they are happening to other people.
The rush to get to the end of the piece with as many emotions as possible is no longer a problem, I think. I've been working on the Wieniawski Romance for a recital (that may not happen now), and it has allowed me to live in those long, held out moments with only one thing in mind.
A beloved family member of mine is facing a serious, undiagnosed illness, and another family member is facing ongoing health issues with question marks around them. My husband is far away (another continent) and won't be with me for what seems like eternity now. Yesterday, I was the pastor for a funeral and committal, the first such events where I've taken this role. The woman who had died loved the violin very much, and the family asked that I play. I played old hymns, some of my favorites ("How Great Thou Art," "In the Garden," "Amazing Grace"), and a Dvorak tune from the 9th Symphony ("Going Home").
In a place of complete dependence upon God for any amount of strength, I did not cry; I did not fit all of my emotions into these songs. I just sat in the drawn-out phrases, in the place of waiting, in the place of hope in the resurrection. No worries about consistency or timing. It was beautiful. It would have startled me if I had any proactive need to play well. The whole event, funeral and committal, was beautiful.
This is where my good music comes from- the quiet, drawn-out place of waiting for the resurrection.
I wait for the Lord, my soul waits,
and in his word I hope;
my soul waits for the Lord
more than those who watch for the morning,
more than those who watch for the morning.
O Israel, hope in the Lord!
For with the Lord there is steadfast love,
and with him is great power to redeem.
-Psalm 130:5-7
Friday, July 6, 2012
Say what?!
Okay, folks. I think it's time for a review of some of the verbs we use when we are talking about our faith in God. I'd like to offer some examples from conversations I've had recently, with some alternatives. They come from my particular context, and I don't expect you to adopt my "recipe," but I do want you to know what others hear when you talk about these very close, very vulnerable topics of discussion.
___________________________________________
"I know..."
Contexts: "I know that God is unchanging." "I know that God is love." "I know that God hates fags."
Here's the issue: one tends to sound less like a spiritually mature adult and more like a bitter teenager when we say, "I know..." Example: "Honey, it's time to go to your violin lesson." "I KNOW Mom, I know! You don't have to tell me. I KNOW!" Example 2: "What, you think you can wear that tank top outside? It's cold out there!" "Mom, I KNOW it's cold. I don't care!" It's always a joke to say that if you want "to know" something, you ask a teenager, but if you want to find someone who realizes that they know very little, talk to a grad student.
So when we apply some of this context to theological discussion, you start to hear a bit of the "don't tell me, because I know this and I know everything" syndrome. It is possible that you and others will say something like: "I know that God is love" because you believe it with all your might. Trust me, I do too. However, I usually say that I believe that God is love, or that God is the God of love.*
Thus, when you say, "I know that God hates fags," you act like you have a special secret knowledge that God has revealed only to you and those of your own culture who magically believe all the same things you do. I admit, when I am committed to the opposite, that the God of love does not "hate fags" as one might claim, that I have not cornered special knowledge and that the truth might have escaped me here. That's a difficult thing for me to say, because then it sounds to an outsider like I don't really have my heart in it. However, my alternative does offer something better (in my opinion):
"I think..."
Contexts: "I think God is unchanging." "I think that God is love." "I think that God hates fags."
Yes (I KNOW) there is a sense of weakness about our statements when we say, "I think..." Yes, there's a sense of head-knowledge, of intellectualism that lacks heart. I'm sorry you get that impression. Yes, I recognize that weakness in this verb-alternative, but it also has unbounded strength in that it acknowledges the mystery of God. In a world of black-and-white, I'm-right-and-you're-wrong, it's-either-the-truth-or-hell kind of world, I'm okay with the gray area. My whole theology is based on a lot of paradox, which is completely heart-bound, passionate, and sincere. I believe in and love God with my whole heart, and I know God is "there" and "here." But the minute I start dictating to others that "I know" God is this one way (especially when the majority of Biblical witness doesn't really support what is being stated), then I've gone too far. It's not that God is all things to all people. In fact, quite the contrary. We should stand boldly for truth. However, I don't have a corner on all truth, and neither do you. Sorry, I know your pastors have been feeding you "the Truth" since you were a kid, and you really think God is exactly what those pastors claimed He was. Maybe we can start asking questions about your beliefs together. I'm really a nice person, and I already let you say all those terrible things about my Jewish, Atheist, Muslim, and gay friends without screaming at you. Let's just ask a few questions together, and see how your beliefs hold. I have no expectation that you'll change all your beliefs right then and there, if ever. Take these questions home and wrestle for a few days, weeks, or years. If they hold, then please, keep believin'. If they can't hold under the weight, it's not that everything you learned was a lie; it just means you didn't have "the Truth" in a box (with the only key being in your possession). I meant that sometimes we are all guilty of starting with ourselves and our own contexts and then writing them into God's identity. In short, we are all guilty of creating God in our image. While we all might be guilty of eisegesis (reading into the Biblical texts our own images, desires, and prejudices) at times, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid it.
______________________________________________
"I believe..."
Contexts: "I believe the house you are looking for is down the road and on the left." "I believe in grace." "I believe in America."
Obviously, this first example of verb usage is something synonymous with "I'm pretty sure..." or "I think..." without all that pesky head-without-heart-knowledge implication. It means that you are confident that the house really is down the road. You've seen that house before, and you've even stopped in a time or two. You're more sure than not that the house really is there, but if the person receiving your directions goes down the road and doesn't find it there, at least you didn't say, "I know..." and then turn out to be totally wrong.
To say: "I believe in grace," implies that it's a core aspect to your belief system, firmly rooted in your heart of hearts. To say that you "believe in America" is to say that you have confidence in it's structural soundness, and that you also have skin in that game. I think it's a rather compelling campaign statement too- it implies one's religious sensibilities, applied at a political and governmental level. It might as well say: "I'm a God-fearing man, and I believe that God has a special investment in America." Of course, we can assume the candidate is referring mostly to North America, and specifically to the United States of America, and not necessarily using it in a more universal term that might include, say, Colombia or Venezuela or Brazil, or any of those other countries that rightly declare they are part of a larger "America."
These statements: "I believe in grace" or "I believe the house is down yonder on the left", or even "I believe in America," are really fraught with weaknesses. A strong discernment of language and implication would lead one to say, perhaps, "I think the house is down yonder..." and "I believe in the God of grace..."
"I believe..." (alternative)
Contexts: "I'm confident the house you are looking for is down the road and on the left, but I'm not totally sure." "I believe in the God of grace."* "I'm totally cool with America." (I know, this last one isn't nearly as catchy.)
As a candidate for ministry and seminary graduate and general theological thinker, I avoid saying something like: "I believe in grace," and offer the alternative, "I believe in the God of grace."* I believe in God. Grace is an abstract concept until it has an agent and an object (Ex: "God saves me through grace.") As another example, I don't believe in the Bible, but I believe in the God of the Bible.* The Bible is a collection of writings by faithful witnesses to the workings and doings and movings and sayings of God in this world. It's a "unique and authoritative witness" to "the Word", who is Jesus Christ. The Bible can't save me, but God can. I can't even read the Bible and be illumined by the truth it contains without the help of the Spirit. So, I'm okay saying that I believe in the Triune God, but I stop short of saying that I believe in grace or the Bible or faith or anything other than the God to whom all these things point. I also won't say I believe in you (sorry), but I might offer instead that I know you are strong and that God is faithful (and if you push me, I might stretch to say that God believes in you, because why not? God loves you passionately, and if it gets you through that moment of doubt about your own strength or God faithfulness, maybe it's enough to restore your confidence. I'm not a legalist...I'm a pastor.)**
The first statement is the most common statement in discussion. You want to say that you know something strongly, but it's not the Source of your faith and life and grace and new life. It's not God, but you are so confident that this thing is just like this. Say, "I think..." As with the alternative to "I know...", you really hold strongly to it, but in reality, it has nothing to do with faith or belief. Save your belief for God. Having spent my time on different sides of such discussions, I think it's more important to leave these special words, "I believe" for a higher purpose. Don't use the same verb to describe your directions to someone's house. You have alternatives: "I'm confident that..." "I'm sure that..." "It clear in my mind, but not totally certain, that..." Even those who totally disagree on the whole God-thing with you will respect that you've thought about your language and that you aren't careless about it.
___________________________________________
Jesus said: "Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles." -Matthew: 15:16-18 (Yes, it's a relevant text, but you could rightfully argue that I just committed the grave sin of eisegesis!)
___________________________________________
*Note: It's not that I believe in multiple gods, and that I'm pointing out that one particular god I believe in is the "God of Love." I'm am not a polytheist. On the contrary, this is a standard turn of phrase for many mainline Protestants, in part because people say silly things like: "I believe in love," or "I believe in America." Sorry, Mitt. I don't believe in love, or in America. I believe in the God over all things (including love), and over all creation (including America). To imply that America could be our god and that we believe in her is more polytheistic than saying, "I believe in the God who is over all creation, including America."
**Note: On a personal note, if you tell me that you believe in me, or that God believes in me, when I am in the midst of suffering, I might yell at you. Don't give me that crap. Give me the honest truth, and the God-given fire inside will burn enough to get me through. If I tell you that God believes in you, and you also have the fire I have inside, please yell at me. I'll deserve it.
___________________________________________
"I know..."
Contexts: "I know that God is unchanging." "I know that God is love." "I know that God hates fags."
Here's the issue: one tends to sound less like a spiritually mature adult and more like a bitter teenager when we say, "I know..." Example: "Honey, it's time to go to your violin lesson." "I KNOW Mom, I know! You don't have to tell me. I KNOW!" Example 2: "What, you think you can wear that tank top outside? It's cold out there!" "Mom, I KNOW it's cold. I don't care!" It's always a joke to say that if you want "to know" something, you ask a teenager, but if you want to find someone who realizes that they know very little, talk to a grad student.
So when we apply some of this context to theological discussion, you start to hear a bit of the "don't tell me, because I know this and I know everything" syndrome. It is possible that you and others will say something like: "I know that God is love" because you believe it with all your might. Trust me, I do too. However, I usually say that I believe that God is love, or that God is the God of love.*
Thus, when you say, "I know that God hates fags," you act like you have a special secret knowledge that God has revealed only to you and those of your own culture who magically believe all the same things you do. I admit, when I am committed to the opposite, that the God of love does not "hate fags" as one might claim, that I have not cornered special knowledge and that the truth might have escaped me here. That's a difficult thing for me to say, because then it sounds to an outsider like I don't really have my heart in it. However, my alternative does offer something better (in my opinion):
"I think..."
Contexts: "I think God is unchanging." "I think that God is love." "I think that God hates fags."
Yes (I KNOW) there is a sense of weakness about our statements when we say, "I think..." Yes, there's a sense of head-knowledge, of intellectualism that lacks heart. I'm sorry you get that impression. Yes, I recognize that weakness in this verb-alternative, but it also has unbounded strength in that it acknowledges the mystery of God. In a world of black-and-white, I'm-right-and-you're-wrong, it's-either-the-truth-or-hell kind of world, I'm okay with the gray area. My whole theology is based on a lot of paradox, which is completely heart-bound, passionate, and sincere. I believe in and love God with my whole heart, and I know God is "there" and "here." But the minute I start dictating to others that "I know" God is this one way (especially when the majority of Biblical witness doesn't really support what is being stated), then I've gone too far. It's not that God is all things to all people. In fact, quite the contrary. We should stand boldly for truth. However, I don't have a corner on all truth, and neither do you. Sorry, I know your pastors have been feeding you "the Truth" since you were a kid, and you really think God is exactly what those pastors claimed He was. Maybe we can start asking questions about your beliefs together. I'm really a nice person, and I already let you say all those terrible things about my Jewish, Atheist, Muslim, and gay friends without screaming at you. Let's just ask a few questions together, and see how your beliefs hold. I have no expectation that you'll change all your beliefs right then and there, if ever. Take these questions home and wrestle for a few days, weeks, or years. If they hold, then please, keep believin'. If they can't hold under the weight, it's not that everything you learned was a lie; it just means you didn't have "the Truth" in a box (with the only key being in your possession). I meant that sometimes we are all guilty of starting with ourselves and our own contexts and then writing them into God's identity. In short, we are all guilty of creating God in our image. While we all might be guilty of eisegesis (reading into the Biblical texts our own images, desires, and prejudices) at times, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid it.
______________________________________________
"I believe..."
Contexts: "I believe the house you are looking for is down the road and on the left." "I believe in grace." "I believe in America."
Obviously, this first example of verb usage is something synonymous with "I'm pretty sure..." or "I think..." without all that pesky head-without-heart-knowledge implication. It means that you are confident that the house really is down the road. You've seen that house before, and you've even stopped in a time or two. You're more sure than not that the house really is there, but if the person receiving your directions goes down the road and doesn't find it there, at least you didn't say, "I know..." and then turn out to be totally wrong.
To say: "I believe in grace," implies that it's a core aspect to your belief system, firmly rooted in your heart of hearts. To say that you "believe in America" is to say that you have confidence in it's structural soundness, and that you also have skin in that game. I think it's a rather compelling campaign statement too- it implies one's religious sensibilities, applied at a political and governmental level. It might as well say: "I'm a God-fearing man, and I believe that God has a special investment in America." Of course, we can assume the candidate is referring mostly to North America, and specifically to the United States of America, and not necessarily using it in a more universal term that might include, say, Colombia or Venezuela or Brazil, or any of those other countries that rightly declare they are part of a larger "America."
These statements: "I believe in grace" or "I believe the house is down yonder on the left", or even "I believe in America," are really fraught with weaknesses. A strong discernment of language and implication would lead one to say, perhaps, "I think the house is down yonder..." and "I believe in the God of grace..."
"I believe..." (alternative)
Contexts: "I'm confident the house you are looking for is down the road and on the left, but I'm not totally sure." "I believe in the God of grace."* "I'm totally cool with America." (I know, this last one isn't nearly as catchy.)
As a candidate for ministry and seminary graduate and general theological thinker, I avoid saying something like: "I believe in grace," and offer the alternative, "I believe in the God of grace."* I believe in God. Grace is an abstract concept until it has an agent and an object (Ex: "God saves me through grace.") As another example, I don't believe in the Bible, but I believe in the God of the Bible.* The Bible is a collection of writings by faithful witnesses to the workings and doings and movings and sayings of God in this world. It's a "unique and authoritative witness" to "the Word", who is Jesus Christ. The Bible can't save me, but God can. I can't even read the Bible and be illumined by the truth it contains without the help of the Spirit. So, I'm okay saying that I believe in the Triune God, but I stop short of saying that I believe in grace or the Bible or faith or anything other than the God to whom all these things point. I also won't say I believe in you (sorry), but I might offer instead that I know you are strong and that God is faithful (and if you push me, I might stretch to say that God believes in you, because why not? God loves you passionately, and if it gets you through that moment of doubt about your own strength or God faithfulness, maybe it's enough to restore your confidence. I'm not a legalist...I'm a pastor.)**
The first statement is the most common statement in discussion. You want to say that you know something strongly, but it's not the Source of your faith and life and grace and new life. It's not God, but you are so confident that this thing is just like this. Say, "I think..." As with the alternative to "I know...", you really hold strongly to it, but in reality, it has nothing to do with faith or belief. Save your belief for God. Having spent my time on different sides of such discussions, I think it's more important to leave these special words, "I believe" for a higher purpose. Don't use the same verb to describe your directions to someone's house. You have alternatives: "I'm confident that..." "I'm sure that..." "It clear in my mind, but not totally certain, that..." Even those who totally disagree on the whole God-thing with you will respect that you've thought about your language and that you aren't careless about it.
___________________________________________
Jesus said: "Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles." -Matthew: 15:16-18 (Yes, it's a relevant text, but you could rightfully argue that I just committed the grave sin of eisegesis!)
___________________________________________
*Note: It's not that I believe in multiple gods, and that I'm pointing out that one particular god I believe in is the "God of Love." I'm am not a polytheist. On the contrary, this is a standard turn of phrase for many mainline Protestants, in part because people say silly things like: "I believe in love," or "I believe in America." Sorry, Mitt. I don't believe in love, or in America. I believe in the God over all things (including love), and over all creation (including America). To imply that America could be our god and that we believe in her is more polytheistic than saying, "I believe in the God who is over all creation, including America."
**Note: On a personal note, if you tell me that you believe in me, or that God believes in me, when I am in the midst of suffering, I might yell at you. Don't give me that crap. Give me the honest truth, and the God-given fire inside will burn enough to get me through. If I tell you that God believes in you, and you also have the fire I have inside, please yell at me. I'll deserve it.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Newer News
If you couldn't tell, my writing energies have been funneled into sermons and liturgy lately. This occasion for writing has been a stretch and challenge for me- as now I have a very specific context for writing liturgy and sermons- and I'm not sure others would follow what I am writing. Therefore, I am not brave enough to post anything here. One day, when I am in a different place, I'll read over my material again with fresh eyes and see if there's anything useful about it for any of you, dear readers.
With summer has come eating out of the garden again. Fresh fruit, organic veggies from the CSA, fresh-baked breads on Sabbath- I love eating this time of year. This year, I am helping maintain a communal garden. This year also happens to be rather dry. There's lots of rain dancing and hardly much success. The rare rainy nights seem like small miracles.
Again, I hear a call from God to dwell with the outcasts and strangers. I still don't know what this looks like or where to begin. I see glimpses, but when I chase after them they disappear. Part of me wonders if I will look back at this time of my life and think that I was quite blind to all the signs. Blindness is hardly a condition one can overcome alone. Rural life is very isolating, but then again so is living in the middle of a big city. I will just wait and see what happens. I'm not sure what this time is supposed to be about. Patience?
Again, I hear a call from God to dwell with the outcasts and strangers. I still don't know what this looks like or where to begin. I see glimpses, but when I chase after them they disappear. Part of me wonders if I will look back at this time of my life and think that I was quite blind to all the signs. Blindness is hardly a condition one can overcome alone. Rural life is very isolating, but then again so is living in the middle of a big city. I will just wait and see what happens. I'm not sure what this time is supposed to be about. Patience?
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Tension (and release?)
I must admit that I'm still a bit of a newcomer to the whole "diversity of opinions" sort of thing in the church. The Southern Baptist Church is pretty good at avoiding that whole problem within its denomination. Presbyterians, however, seem to live with tension all the time. The two sides (in reality there are way more than 2 opinions, but we tend to be a 2-sided sort of country right now) use their own vocabulary to describe the world, and I've just recently found a nice way to line them up:
1. If we err, we should err on the side of righteousness.
2. If we err, we should err on the side of grace.
It's not that either camp sides completely with one or the other, but it seems that a camp tends to favor one over the other. Of course what's being described here is the dialectical tension between God's grace and God's justice- we can neither fully reject one nor fully embrace the other, and they do not fit into neat categories side-by-side, but they wrestle with each other. If we wish to engage the tension, we will be forced to wrestle with both. However, we're likely pre-disposed to let one side win over the other, and it may not rely fully on our fully-rational, objective choice.
Here's an interesting write-up in Time about a recent study that shows a difference in brain structure between self-proclaimed political "conservatives" and "liberals." Note in the article that the study's author was not clear on whether the brain influenced preference or if the preference re-mapped the brain.
So when we have "open dialogue" about issues that come up in the politics of the church, how willing are we to compromise? Yes, an open mind is necessary in a debate if some sort of compromise is desired. However, we don't live in a context where debates are necessarily solved in the minds of all witnesses by the power of reasoning of the "winner" of the debate. I cannot think of a single Republican Presidential Debate during the primaries/caucuses where the majority of viewers could declare an uncontested winner. This fact might be more telling about those particular candidates more than the state of arguments in general though. Truly, the practice we've put into political debates, regardless of which side we took, might have taught us well how to be more entrenched in our own pre-conceived notions. Our lack of practice in effective communication tends to leave us 20 minutes or 10 hours after a debate coming up with new arguments for the side to which we've already committed. I'm sure you, dear Reader, remember times when you came out of a difficult debate thinking, "I should have said this instead of that. Why couldn't I think of that in the heat of the moment!?"
Is there really such a thing a "open dialogue" then? Can we really put ourselves into the argument of our opponent and truly question our own arguments? Obviously we don't want to imagine our "enemy" as correct or insightful, but it might be a good practice in general.
An alternative might be simply to pursue a third way. Third ways, while they tend to open us to the wrestling with both sides of the dialectical tension, also tend to be wildly unpopular. Still, the simple pursuit of the third way might add value to the conversation, as it can open the imagination of those on opposite sides of the table.
So, should we err on the side of righteousness or the side of grace? I've tended to side with grace, mostly because I'm so deeply in touch with my own depravity (thank you, SBC). If I can be forgiven by God and neighbor, I most certainly can offer grace to those who sin against me. But I wrestle quite often with righteousness (which I tend to pair with the notion of "justice" from the Hebrew Scriptures). I might lean toward theological liberalism, but I also engage in some questionable practices, writing letters to my elected officials in order to "lobby" for the poor, engaging in political dialogue with my neighbors, preaching about God's justice from the pulpit- things that upset greatly the voice for the "separation of church and state" that exists in others and in myself.
Still, when I wrestle with righteousness and grace, I remember that God is not as fragile as we presume God might be. When we read all the scripture texts where God seems to be sinfully angry and jealous, we rely on our fear (and who wouldn't be afraid of an all-powerful, all-seeing, angry God?!) to push us in the direction of protecting God. If our sin makes God angry, why wouldn't we try and hide it from God, or protect God from the sinfulness of ourselves and others?
But if Jesus came in love and sacrifice for sinners, then maybe God isn't as angry as we thought. If God took on flesh and didn't shoot up the place, maybe God's more gentle and understanding than we thought. So if we decide that there's no need for fear in the Christian understanding of God, then how else might be approach God- in trust? In love? In compassion? In peace? In understanding? In hope?
Jesus asked Peter: "Do you love me?" Peter replied, "Yes, of course Jesus. Of course I love you." "Feed my sheep," replied Jesus. Jesus, wanting to fully establish his point, does this dance 3 times in a row. Few things in the Bible get repeated with such intensity. Jesus really means it, y'all.
If loving God does not require protecting God from the awfulness of our sin and the sin of our neighbors, maybe we can see how closely related our love of God connects to our love of neighbor. Does that mean we should be righteous (act justly)? Yes. Does it mean we should offer grace? Yes.
My honest question out of this goes as such: Why does the church so often pick sides between an excessive protection of God's righteousness (thus leading to our excessive judgement and condemnation of each other) and an excessive grace toward neighbor (that does not hold the people we love accountable when they work very hard for the destruction of the other people we love)? Can we hold people accountable in love and still offer grace? What does that look like in the context of current "debates" about our common life?
1. If we err, we should err on the side of righteousness.
2. If we err, we should err on the side of grace.
It's not that either camp sides completely with one or the other, but it seems that a camp tends to favor one over the other. Of course what's being described here is the dialectical tension between God's grace and God's justice- we can neither fully reject one nor fully embrace the other, and they do not fit into neat categories side-by-side, but they wrestle with each other. If we wish to engage the tension, we will be forced to wrestle with both. However, we're likely pre-disposed to let one side win over the other, and it may not rely fully on our fully-rational, objective choice.
Here's an interesting write-up in Time about a recent study that shows a difference in brain structure between self-proclaimed political "conservatives" and "liberals." Note in the article that the study's author was not clear on whether the brain influenced preference or if the preference re-mapped the brain.
So when we have "open dialogue" about issues that come up in the politics of the church, how willing are we to compromise? Yes, an open mind is necessary in a debate if some sort of compromise is desired. However, we don't live in a context where debates are necessarily solved in the minds of all witnesses by the power of reasoning of the "winner" of the debate. I cannot think of a single Republican Presidential Debate during the primaries/caucuses where the majority of viewers could declare an uncontested winner. This fact might be more telling about those particular candidates more than the state of arguments in general though. Truly, the practice we've put into political debates, regardless of which side we took, might have taught us well how to be more entrenched in our own pre-conceived notions. Our lack of practice in effective communication tends to leave us 20 minutes or 10 hours after a debate coming up with new arguments for the side to which we've already committed. I'm sure you, dear Reader, remember times when you came out of a difficult debate thinking, "I should have said this instead of that. Why couldn't I think of that in the heat of the moment!?"
Is there really such a thing a "open dialogue" then? Can we really put ourselves into the argument of our opponent and truly question our own arguments? Obviously we don't want to imagine our "enemy" as correct or insightful, but it might be a good practice in general.
An alternative might be simply to pursue a third way. Third ways, while they tend to open us to the wrestling with both sides of the dialectical tension, also tend to be wildly unpopular. Still, the simple pursuit of the third way might add value to the conversation, as it can open the imagination of those on opposite sides of the table.
So, should we err on the side of righteousness or the side of grace? I've tended to side with grace, mostly because I'm so deeply in touch with my own depravity (thank you, SBC). If I can be forgiven by God and neighbor, I most certainly can offer grace to those who sin against me. But I wrestle quite often with righteousness (which I tend to pair with the notion of "justice" from the Hebrew Scriptures). I might lean toward theological liberalism, but I also engage in some questionable practices, writing letters to my elected officials in order to "lobby" for the poor, engaging in political dialogue with my neighbors, preaching about God's justice from the pulpit- things that upset greatly the voice for the "separation of church and state" that exists in others and in myself.
Still, when I wrestle with righteousness and grace, I remember that God is not as fragile as we presume God might be. When we read all the scripture texts where God seems to be sinfully angry and jealous, we rely on our fear (and who wouldn't be afraid of an all-powerful, all-seeing, angry God?!) to push us in the direction of protecting God. If our sin makes God angry, why wouldn't we try and hide it from God, or protect God from the sinfulness of ourselves and others?
But if Jesus came in love and sacrifice for sinners, then maybe God isn't as angry as we thought. If God took on flesh and didn't shoot up the place, maybe God's more gentle and understanding than we thought. So if we decide that there's no need for fear in the Christian understanding of God, then how else might be approach God- in trust? In love? In compassion? In peace? In understanding? In hope?
Jesus asked Peter: "Do you love me?" Peter replied, "Yes, of course Jesus. Of course I love you." "Feed my sheep," replied Jesus. Jesus, wanting to fully establish his point, does this dance 3 times in a row. Few things in the Bible get repeated with such intensity. Jesus really means it, y'all.
If loving God does not require protecting God from the awfulness of our sin and the sin of our neighbors, maybe we can see how closely related our love of God connects to our love of neighbor. Does that mean we should be righteous (act justly)? Yes. Does it mean we should offer grace? Yes.
My honest question out of this goes as such: Why does the church so often pick sides between an excessive protection of God's righteousness (thus leading to our excessive judgement and condemnation of each other) and an excessive grace toward neighbor (that does not hold the people we love accountable when they work very hard for the destruction of the other people we love)? Can we hold people accountable in love and still offer grace? What does that look like in the context of current "debates" about our common life?
Monday, April 16, 2012
First Day
So, I was asked (called? more like contracted) to become the Interim Pastor for a congregation recently. Today is my first day, officially. I came to the church/pastor's study around noon, in case the previous pastor was moving anything out- I wanted to make sure she had space to say goodbye. Now I've been here all afternoon. Here are some impressions:
-Where is everyone? I've been here alone all day, except for the lovely couple coming to drop off some plates for a community dinner coming up. Still, I somehow imagined this would be a completely relational sort of vocation, but apparently pastors spend quite a bit of time alone. Today, I mostly prayed and planned and read and wrote. If the Spirit is going to be my only companion during the day, I think I'll get a radio so we can rock it out all day together.
-Meal planning will be interesting. I brought 1.5 meals with me, consumed everything for lunch, so I'm now eating a grocery-store made salad with mayonnaise and bacon on top (really, Midwest? mayo and bacon need to be on everything?!). I live approximately 40 miles away from the church.
-There's also no coffee shop here. I'm hoping someone will clue me in to where there is "community" happening around here. I'm guessing it might involve taco pizza at the local gas station (and I'm not even kidding).
-The Deacons meeting is in an hour, and I am more excited about just being around people than what it is we'll discuss at the meeting. And I'm an introvert.
-How'd it get so cold again? And what is this I hear about snow storms possible in April? I'm not sure I'm okay with this.
-Despite not getting to meet with people so far today, nor talking with more than the local phone directory lady calling to update the church information, I'm still super excited about this Interim Pastor thing and have unbounded energy at the moment. Seriously, can I just dance around the office in praise to God right now? I've been filled with dreams for years about this, and here I am in the Pastor's study, writing liturgy and reading and dancing around the office with the Spirit.
Praise be to God!
-Where is everyone? I've been here alone all day, except for the lovely couple coming to drop off some plates for a community dinner coming up. Still, I somehow imagined this would be a completely relational sort of vocation, but apparently pastors spend quite a bit of time alone. Today, I mostly prayed and planned and read and wrote. If the Spirit is going to be my only companion during the day, I think I'll get a radio so we can rock it out all day together.
-Meal planning will be interesting. I brought 1.5 meals with me, consumed everything for lunch, so I'm now eating a grocery-store made salad with mayonnaise and bacon on top (really, Midwest? mayo and bacon need to be on everything?!). I live approximately 40 miles away from the church.
-There's also no coffee shop here. I'm hoping someone will clue me in to where there is "community" happening around here. I'm guessing it might involve taco pizza at the local gas station (and I'm not even kidding).
-The Deacons meeting is in an hour, and I am more excited about just being around people than what it is we'll discuss at the meeting. And I'm an introvert.
-How'd it get so cold again? And what is this I hear about snow storms possible in April? I'm not sure I'm okay with this.
-Despite not getting to meet with people so far today, nor talking with more than the local phone directory lady calling to update the church information, I'm still super excited about this Interim Pastor thing and have unbounded energy at the moment. Seriously, can I just dance around the office in praise to God right now? I've been filled with dreams for years about this, and here I am in the Pastor's study, writing liturgy and reading and dancing around the office with the Spirit.
Praise be to God!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)