CCBlogs thinking critically, living faithfully

We always have spirited discussions in our Tuesday morning lectionary study group, but today’s got a little more spirited than usual.  Part of it had to do with our tendencies to use unstated hermeneutics with roots deep in our separate traditions to pronounce interpretations that are not easily supported by the text itself.  The text, of course, was Matthew 16.13-20, Matthew’s version of Peter’s confession.

It wasn’t simply that we all read it from a post-resurrection point of view, but that we read into it meanings that are not all that present.  Consider my friend Randy who seemed to read “…Messiah, the Son of the living God” as the same thing as “Lord and Savior” as that phrase is used in contemporary language to mean the totality of the doctrine of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus as the unique, one and only way to salvation.  I have no objection to that interpretation as long as the pathway to arriving at it is made clear, but for my friend, that pathway was so thoroughly integrated into his theology that our demands that he articulate it just led to irritated confusion.  Not that we were picking on Randy, we all do the same thing all the time.

We went on to talk about what it means to have the authority to bind or loose.  Most of us, me included, jumped at the assumption that we were talking about forgiving or not forgiving sins.  But Bob objected.  Nothing in the text supports that interpretation.  One has to conflate it with John 19.20-23 to come up with that. In so doing it is wise to remember that in John the authority to forgive or retain sins is not given to Peter, but to the eleven after the resurrection. More than likely, said Bob, it has to do with the authority to permit or prohibit behaviors, ways of worship, or teachings, which is an interpretation that Ray Brown also recommends.  That not only makes more sense, but it is also supported by the text itself. 

These are cautionary matters we must keep in mind not only when preaching but even more when teaching.  We must guard against the hidden hermeneutic.  In fact we need to dump that word altogether, and use ordinary words to explain to those we are instructing exactly how it is that the tradition of our denomination and our own individual study has led us to the interpretation we offer. 

          Chicago: Where Obama Found His Political Voice          Photo by Richard Wall

by James M. Wall

Barack Obama’s father was born in Africa. His mother grew up in Kansas. As a child Barack went to school in Hawaii, Indonesia, and Kansas. His law degree is from Harvard.  But it was the city of Chicago, located on the shores of Lake Michigan in northern Illinois, that gave the 2008 Democratic Party nominee his political voice. 

It was here, in the city of “broad shoulders”, that Barack Obama emerged as a young man who believed he could become the president of the United States. He found his voice which combines community organizing street savvy with big city board room sophistication; a voice that blends religious fervor with classroom erudition. 

Reaching the White House is a goal now close at hand. But before he faces John McCain in November, Oboma must face one final gunfight with the Clinton gang in a confrontation that could echo the deadly cinematic “gunfight at the OK Corral”. 

Democratic Party leaders are desperate to avoid a shootout at the Denver Democratic Convention, August 25-28. Party chair Howard Dean, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate leader Harry Reid have Democrats running in state, local and federal race and they want a strong candidate for president to emerge from Denver.  What worries them is that the Clinton gang seems to have other ideas.

Would you believe Hillary wants her name put in nomination with an attendant celebration so her supporters can shout to the nation that their party is about to choose a candidate who lacks the experience to be president? You don’t believe such a thing?

Then, would you believe the Clintons want to dominate the convention with speeches by both of them to remind the party of a Clinton era of prosperity?  It is true that Bill and Hillary were in the White House before two Bush terms plunged the world into war and high prices at the pump. For them, the shootout at Denver would celebrate those eight years, and maybe, just maybe, weaken Obama enough to set Hillary up to return to the White House for a third Clinton term.

You refuse to  believe any of this?  You prefer to believe that the Clintons only want to get the respect Hillary’s historic campaign deserves?  You prefer to believe that the Clinton gang only wants what is best for them AND for their party? 

So believe what your heart tells you to believe, but before you do, travel back with us to a July 31 cocktail reception in a suburban back yard in Palo Alto, California, an informal gathering of Clinton supporters which was billed as a time for healing.  Time magazine’s Karen Tumulty did not see much healing:

As Clinton took questions from the 150 or so people who had paid $500 and up a head to listen, it became clear that the healing process was far from over. “For so many of my supporters, just like so many of Barack’s supporters, this was a first-time investment of heart and soul and money and effort and sleepless nights and miles of travel,” Clinton said. “You just don’t turn it off like that.”

You don’t?  Is it not inherent that in a democracy voters decide who wins and who loses?  Hillary Clintopn failed to win enough Democratic delegates to gain the nomination. Instead of moving on from that setback, the New York senator tells her supporters that the Obama campaign needs to make them feel better about their loss. 

If this does not sound like the Hillary you have supported since she entered the 2008 primary season as the almost certain nominee, then look at these You Tube clips now available on the internet, here and here, clips obviously taken by an amateur, a supporter who wanted to cherish one final up close and personal moment with the woman she greatly admires.

What Senator Clinton told that group of supporters in Palo Alto were not the words of a gracious loser who came close, but not close enough, to win the nomination of her party. Karen Tumulty’s Time article makes it as clear as anything in politics can be clear, that Tumulty believes the Clintons’ lack of enthusiasm for Obama has an ulterior motive:

In private conversations, associates say, Clinton remains skeptical that Obama can win in the fall. That’s a sentiment some other Democrats believe is not just a prediction but a wish, because it would prove her right about his weaknesses as a general-election candidate and possibly pave the way for her to run again in 2012.

So don’t be surprised by a shootout at the Denver corral. When the delegates gather for battle, watch to see if Harold Ickes, Jr., is mingling with the Clinton delegates,  loading the rhetorical and strategic guns over there in a corner of the corral.  It was this same Ickes who urged Clinton to follow his script through the primaries, demanding that party rules be tossed out so that delegates from “her” states, Florida and Michigan could be seated. It was this same Ickes who would not let Senator Clinton leave the race at an earlier moment in the process, to leave time for Obama to focus solely on McCain. 

 It was also very likely this same Ickes who was behind Clinton’s frequent references to the “sacred” freedom of delegates who had the “right” to forget that they were elected as Obama delegates and vote for Clinton instead. Ickes has previously shown his contempt for convention rules that don’t favor his candidate (Ted Kennedy at the time) when he tried, and failed, to block President Jimmy Carter’s nomination at the 1980 convention. 

You don’t believe any of this?  All you care about is Hillary Clinton getting her moment in the convention spotlight as a reward for almost breaking the political glass ceiling?  And you want us to forget Bill Clinton’s reluctance to throw the weight of his own public esteem behind the last man standing who can prevent a third Bush term and a permanent conservative Supreme Court?  

You liberals who are still angry that your candidate lost, know very well that I am talking to you.  Barack Obama knows how you feel. And he deserves your respect for the manner in which he is trying to ease your pain.  There is a quick and productive way to deal with that pain.

When I complained to a leading Chicago politician that Obama had not supported my candidate in a 2006 Democratic congressional primary race, he looked at me and said quietly, “Jim, get over it.”  Good advice for me, and good advice for the Clinton gang when they head out to Denver.  

In the immortal words of Johnny Cash, 

“Don’t take your guns to town son, 

Leave your guns at home Bill

Don’t take your guns to town.”

Those of you who are regular readers of this Blog know that I have posted a number of articles affirming the legitimacy and validity of women in ordained pastoral ministry.  Therefore, it should be no surprise that I was drawn to a female pastor's take on the infamous passage in I Timothy prohibiting women from teaching or having authority over men. 

Here's how she dealt with this controversial topic:

from allisonsattinger on Vimeo.

Tags: any day a beautiful change, women in ministry, women pastors

For numerologically-interpretive charismatics, “6″ is the number of man. I just thought you’d want to know that. So evidently it’s time for a cleanup of the charismatic movement where it has been fueled by the ideas of men rather than the will of God and acts of the Holy Spirit. You know what I’m talking about.

Dan Edelen is starting a series ([1] [[2]) on “Cleansing the Charismatic Crackup,” and I thought I’d interact a little. Part of his posts includes a list of problems and solutions, and this is the part I will take a look at — you’ll still need to read his posts to get the full thrust of his argument. Here’s what he’s got so far:

Problem: In our rush to regain a proper pneumatology, today’s charismatics abandoned a proper Christology.
Solution: We need to get the focus back on Jesus.

Before I left my (charismatic) CLB, my wife and I held a conversation with some good friends. The four of us had been leaders and more recently had been spending time talking about some of the ills we saw and attempting to encourage one another on a path of endurance. One of us finally said something like, “You know, I really miss Jesus.” The statement really resonated, and we began to spend time together in the gospels — particularly the Sermon on the Mount. My experience of the charismatic movement is that it acknowledges and tends to preach that the Holy Spirit (and “everything”) points to Jesus… but the preaching is more often from the epistles or select Old Testament passages. It stands to reason, though, that if “everything” points to Jesus, we ought to take as close a look at him as we can in the gospels so that we will more easily recognize what does and doesn’t point to or exhibit the characteristics of Jesus.

Problem: Too much of the charismatic movement is self-centered. People rush around looking for a spiritual fix for selfish reasons. Too many are obsessed with more power. Too many leaders lack even the most basic humility.
Solution: Get the cross back into the picture.

I’ve been uncomfortable with images of the cross in the charismatic movement, as it tends to get wrapped up in the idea of personal sacrifice and “laying it on the altar.” What we’re really talking about is selflessness, which is sorely needed. It is true that many (not all) charismatic leaders can exhibit an arrogance that is falsely taken as confidence or faith. I said in conversation essentially that power takes a second place to dialogue and relationship, which is outward-focused. There are a lot of “bless-me” charismatics running around looking for the latest word or prayer ministry from the latest prophet or evangelist or whoever. An outward focus is imperative as the movement needs to learn to bless others rather than merely those within the movement.

Problem: The movement is awash is Old Testament rituals or theology that were fulfilled in Jesus.
Solution: Get back to the New Testament and its New Covenant.

I’m not convinced by this, for two reasons. First, the Old Testament and the New Testament are not in conflict as though one can make an either/or choice between the two, but one need always remember the gracious incarnation of Christ in understanding the two. Second, the issue is really one of hermeneutics, where the Old Testament is inappropriately allegorized or spiritualized or somehow reinterpreted to mean something new and completely foreign to the original hearers. Rampant types and shadows interpretation has to go — you can theologize pretty much anything that way, and pass it off as scripture. It’s scripture all right, but it doesn’t say what is often being purported. We’ve already mentioned the necessity of the gospels, which would be a good corrective here as well.

Problems: Discernment of any kind is sorely lacking at all levels within the movement. Many charismatic teachers craft entire theologies from disconnected or lone passages of Scripture.
Solution: Build a holistic worldview by teaching the Bible from cover to cover, not from topic to topic.

Here again, this is more a problem of hermeneutics rather than discernment. Well, perhaps in a few cases there’s some attendant lack of common sense. The movement does have notable responsible scholars within it, but there are also a number of untrained pastors and teachers who attempt to take their teaching uncritically from dubious sources of all types and pass it along. Dipping into pet passages is an all too common practice (see above) which could be corrected by using the Lectionary, if they could understand that doing so does, in fact, not limit the Holy Spirit.

Problems: Too many charismatics are more interested in what they can get than what they can give. Also, we love to talk about taking dominion over the kingdom of darkness, but we forget the primary means by which we cripple the Enemy’s purposes.
Solution: We need to be drilled on the Great Commission.

This has been mentioned above as selflessness and being outward-focused. Bringing in the Great Commission is my segue to say that a missional approach to one’s neighbours would go a long way toward making the necessary adjustment.

Problem: The charismatic movement is a cult–of celebrity.
Solution: Time for the old guard, who failed to guard what they were entrusted with, to get off the stage.

There really is no place for celebrity and for pedestal-sitting by those who are the annointed vessel of the hour. Humility, please. These leaders should be more concerned with integrity and respect than with fame and glory.

Problem: We let the miraculous enthrall us.
Solution: We need to be more discerning and less surprised by the miraculous.

I wold love to be unsurprised by the miraculous because of its ubiquity… but we just aren’t there. On the other hand, a proper response would be to worship God rather than be excited about the miracle itself. The miracle is the testimony, not the object of which is being testified. Let it all point to God, and catch those who are not so oriented and redirect their gaze.

Problem: The charismatic movement is obsessed with novelty.
Solution: We must understand that there is nothing new under the sun.

This novelty seems to crop up in new teachings or in new methods which get copied. We haven’t seen the widespread adoption of drop-kicking people to bring them healing, but there are smaller quirks that are transferred or copied. I sat in a meeting one time where one person was shaking in a certain characteristic way — I leaned over to the leader beside me and said, “Let me guess, [noted leader] prayed for him, right?” His response was a smile and a happy nod. Things that seem to work for one person or are quirks of their own personality are no formula for healing or blessing. There’s no need to copy it word-for-word and gesture-for-gesture. The movement would do well to consider the tried-and-true non-formulaic rich heritage of the Christian church, rediscovering some of the habits and practices which have been spiritual disciplines for centuries.

Problem: We continue to tolerate the aberrations of the past, the worst excesses of the charismatic movement, digging them up repeatedly for each new generation after they were long buried.
Solution: It’s time to grow up and face today. In many cases, the good old days weren’t all that good. Wrong doesn’t get right over time.

It’s time to become post-charismatic… and there’s no better reason than the one Dan has given to take note of Robbymac’s book, Post-Charismatic? (US residents need to purchase through Amazon.ca). I know I’ve said a lot about this book, but I really believe in what Rob has written. His research provides a movement-by-movement discussion of charismatic lessons that should be heeded. Time and again some “corrective” or new emphasis that is good is sought, but goes into error at some point along the way. Understanding what has typically thrown charismatic movements off the rails will be instructive for creating boundaries to keep on the track now.

Considering the list of problems and correctives, it seems to me they boil down to three primary concerns:

(1) A lack of humility, coupled with a focus on the man and the miracle.

(2) A lack of balanced grounding in Scripture using standard hermeneutic methods.

(3) A weak understanding of the work of Christ and the purpose of the church.

I think I’ve hit my arbitrary word-limit for today, so I’ll have to expound upon these three tomorrow. Stay tuned for part two.

charismatic, dan edelen, lakeland, post charismatic, rob mcalpine, todd bentley You can show appreciation for this post by buying me a can of soup...

Share This

 

Maxwell Smart and 99

99: Oh, Max what a terrible weapon of destruction.

Smart: Yes. You know, China, Russia, and France should outlaw all nuclear weapons. We should insist upon it.

99: What if they don’t, Max?

Smart: Then we may have to blast them. That’s the only way to keep peace in the world.

by James M. Wall

Rick Warren is one smart and not so crazy guy. He names a California church Saddleback and still builds it into a 20,000 member institution that shoots to the top of the mega church charts. He writes a best selling religion/psychology self-help book that appeals to evangelicals and non believers alike. He makes friends easily, two of whom are now running for president. In institutions like the church and politics, it is not truth that speaks to power, but power that speaks to power.

After a few phone calls to his two political friends, they show up on the stage of his Saddleback Church to talk religion and politics.  And right away, we know Rick Warren knows how to conduct an interview to his own liking. He does not want a debate;  he just wants his two guests, Barack Obama and John McCain, to appear on stage with him, separately, before a national television audience, where they dutifully answer identical questions of interest to Warren and his national constituency.  

With these interviews Warren attempts to seize Billy Graham’s mantle as the nation’s national chaplain. The secular media is eager to help. Religion can be so frustratingly complex that the media measures the level of religious faith by asking “do you go to religious services once a month, every week or every day?”  They do appreciate it so much when the professional God people keep it simple.

      Keep It Simple, Rick

Rick Warren sure did keep it simple at his Saddleback colloquy, so simple that post-colloquy discussion hardly noticed what he let slide and what he cherry-picked by his questions that played to the public and media crowd that prefers to keep religion on the surface: Are you for or against same sex marriage?; do you want to eradicate disease and poverty?; have you done bad things in your life (like stealing an apple or cheating on your spouse.)? 

No wonder John McCain was judged to be the winner. The place was wired for him, the questions, the easy answers, the audience, the media’s ignorance on religion and its disdain for nuance. McCain was chosen to go second but would not be able to hear the questions and Obama’s answers. Warren promised us he would keep McCain under a “cone of silence”.

Hey, folks, this is television. They were expected to abide by a code of honor they first broke on the playground when they played hide and seek? The term comes from a television series, for goodness sake, with Maxwell Smart sitting under a “cone of silence” so the enemy would not hear his secret. Not even McCain’s favorite former president, Ronald Reagan, would fall for that one. Remember, “trust, but verify?” 

      Of Course He Knew

Of course, McCain knew the questions going into his segment and he knew Obama’s answers. Frankly, what difference did it make. What the colloquy, with Warren’s questions skewed to his own political views, actually revealed was the character of the two candidates. By exposing their world views under the spotlight of Warren’s softball evangelical-oriented questions, viewers saw the stark contrast between Obama and McCain.

Obama, going first, answered Warren’s question on the existence of evil in his careful and thoughtful manner, while McCain promised to see evil as the current incumbent president sees it (third term, anyone?). Complex awareness versus militant “us against them” simplicity; which man do you want answering that 3 a.m. phone call?

The moment Rick Warren asked his question on evil,  blogger Gary Paul Corcoran, writing on the Talking Points Memo website, saw McCain for what he is, a politician playing to an audience which has been conned into believing for the past eight years that military power is the answers to all problems.

Warren had asked, “does evil exist, and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it or do we defeat it?” Obama answered the first part of the question to the affirmative, went on to explain evil’s many guises, from Darfur to ourselves and our own domestic policies, spoke in terms of “confronting” it but cautioned about the need for humility. A lot of evil has been perpetrated over the years in the name of good.

When asked the same question, McCain, who we now know was peeking from behind the curtain, channels Charlton Heston as Moses in contrast to Obama’s answer. “Defeat it,” he says to a raucous round of applause and with a look as stern as old prophets.

The fact is, McCain never even bothered to address the first part of the question, or to frame his answer in terms other than us against them.

What the colloquy revealed about McCain is that his value system is narrowly focused, far too much so for a multi-cultured nation like ours.  McCain said:  ”Our Judeo-Christian principles dictate that we do what we can to help people who are oppressed throughout the world.” McCain’s fellow world traveler and dark horse vice presidential possibility, Joe Lieberman, echoes this same focus when he campaigns for McCain. 

          McCain’s Judeo-Christian Focus

The Boston Globe has studied McCain’s steady use of “Judeo-Christian” in his comments on religion. In a column written (August 19),  the Globe’s Washington bureau chief Peter S. Canellos noted an early primary Judeo-Christian focus by McCain. 

On a frozen winter evening at a Town Hall meeting in a school in the Manchester, N.H., suburbs, John McCain expressed surprise and irritation with an intelligence report downplaying the threat of Iran’s nuclear program.

At the end of a long list of reasons to be suspicious of the Iranians, McCain declared: “And they sure don’t share our Judeo-Christian values.”

It seemed at the time to be an odd thing to say about a Muslim country. After all, even if there were no nuclear program, no oil, and no rabble-rousing president, Iran still wouldn’t have Judeo-Christian values. And it’s troubling to wonder if that alone would be a reason for suspicion. . . .

McCain’s view of American power harkens back to the World War II era, when the United States held the moral high ground as liberator. He is a staunch interventionist, both on humanitarian and national-security grounds.

To most of the world, especially in Muslim nations, there is an enormous difference between standing up for freedom and standing up for Judeo-Christian values, but McCain conflates the two. And sometimes, his use of the term seems more than accidental.

New York Times Columnist David Brooks defends, or more often explains, McCain, speaking as an old friend who wishes the “old” McCain could return to his senses. He blames the staff and not McCain for his current tactics. 

The man who hopes to inspire a new generation of Americans now attacks Obama daily. It is the only way he can get the networks to pay attention.

Some old McCain hands are dismayed. John Weaver, the former staff member who helped run the old McCain operation, argues that this campaign does not do justice to the man. The current advisers say they have no choice. They didn’t choose the circumstances of this race. Their job is to cope with them.

And coping is what McCain is doing. The polls say it is working; the race is still close. So far, McCain, and his advisors are counting on the media to help them keep the voting public under Warren’s “cone of silence” long enough for McCain’s tough talk–and his insensitivity to all religions and cultures not under the Judeo-Christian blanket–viable through November 4. 

                     The picture and excerpt at the top of this post are from the archives of the Museum of Broadcasting Communications, Chicago, Illinois. They are from the Get Smart episode Appointment in Sahara. Behind the two characters is an image of a mushroom cloud.

 

"While English is Jamaica's official language, most Jamaicans speak patois. But it does not yet have a standard writing system. Those opposed to the translation project have argued in the country's newspapers and other media outlets that formalizing a written standard for patois would undercut efforts to promote Standard English." --"Translation Tiff," Christianity Today (Jocelyn Green).

In art, one of the lines that divides high art from pop art is dialect.  Yet there are often grey areas.  For instance, Warhol used the dialect of consumerism.  Twain used the dialect of the poor, the slave, and the lower class.  Copeland and other Modern composers used the dialect of folk music. 

Christianity often finds itself in the midst of translation battles, high church versus low church, and the valuation of worship.

Worship doesn't need to be quantified, it needs to be qualified.  We are priests, we are the leaders and followers of one who is the leader of the angel armies that sing for joy: "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God Almighty."

Whether one worships and reads in patois or English or Spanish, we must serve God faithfully and trutfully.  And then the division between high and low will fade away.

NOTE: From time to time church people ask me, "WHY are you so insistent on incorporating contemporary secular music into the fabric of worship?" Its a good question - not overly cranky and certainly one that deserves a careful reply - so what follows is the heart of it for me at this moment in time.

Many of us – dare I say too many of us – have been taught and trained to consider prayer as a mental exercise rather than an encounter with the Sacred. Consequently when we pray as adults, if we pray at all, it is either formulaic and ritualized or dry and devoid of emotional depth. As a result, a great many of us simply stopped praying – except in a superstitious or childlike way during moments of fear and anxiety – and part of our inner life became frozen in time. Trapped in immaturity, confused and unfocused.

To be sure, we still experience flashes of awe and spiritual delight – peak experiences of transcendence and peace – but they are random encounters with God rather than something born of regular intimacy. So we plateau, living lives filled with obligations and countless little details, frazzled and slightly over-whelmed by the demands of existence without a deeper awareness of grace. Further, while we know something is missing when we take the time to be still, we don’t know how to fill that hole with something satisfying and real. Our public lives have matured and become complicated, but our inner lives still feel childish – even unformed – so we abandon the quiet places and become busier still. And yet like Bob Dylan sang so long ago, there is a place within whispering: “Something is happening here but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?”

To add insult to injury, our tradition has neither adequately equipped us with the tools to explore this emptiness nor offered the emotional permission to embrace our questions: we feel somehow unfaithful in our spiritual inadequacy – judged for our doubts – and left to flounder by ourselves when we don’t fit in. And in an era like our own, which is filled with social, moral and ethical confusion – let alone the reality of terror – many grow resentful and tired of banging their heads on the walls of a church that fails to hear our cries.
We have heard Christ’s call – “Are you tired? Worn out? Burned out on religion? Come to me. Get away with me and you'll recover your life. I'll show you how to take a real rest. Walk with me and work with me—watch how I do it. Learn the unforced rhythms of grace. I won't lay anything heavy or ill-fitting on you. Keep company with me and you'll learn to live freely and lightly." – but most of the time our churches treat us like unwelcomed outcasts who crash the dinner party.

And this is why I am so committed to exploring the way beauty in general – and music in particular – can help us cultivate a new /old worship experience that is broad enough to express radical hospitality and deep enough to nourish both head and heart. It is clearly why the story of the outcast woman pouring perfumed oil on the feet of Jesus continues to resonate within me for after being scolded by the insiders, Christ says, "She has done something beautiful for the Lord and wherever my story is told it will be shared in memory of her!" As Jesus makes room for those pushed to the periphery, so, too, does an expanded aesthetic of worship.
Too often our orthodoxies only honor beauty when it becomes translated into ethical living: “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, "Your God reigns!" (Isaiah 52: 7) But this is only half of authentic spiritual maturity; good works and ethical living must be nurtured, cultivated and softened lest they give form to “good people in the worst sense of the word” as Mark Twain cautioned.
Beauty – and beautiful music more particularly – waters what is parched in our heart and soul. It lures us towards compassion and encourages us with hope. Indeed, it is one of the ways we experience the promise of God in Psalm 85:

Show us your mercy, O LORD, and grant us your salvation. I will listen to what God the LORD will say for God promises peace to his people, his saints— but let them not return to folly. Surely his salvation is near those who are in awe of the Lord that his glory may dwell in our land. Mercy and truth meet together; compassion and justice kiss. Faithfulness and truth shall spring forth from the earth and right relations will fill us from heaven. The LORD will indeed give what is good and our land will yield its harvest. Compassion goes before him and prepares the way for his steps.
Please be clear about this: the music we are now incorporating into worship is not about me and my quirky aesthetic preferences. That would be arrogant and ugly and unfitting to any worship encounter whether the music be traditional sacred hymnody or secular rock and roll. No, what we are attempting to explore is a new way of being prayerful. It is a style of opening ourselves to God in a manner that is spiritually embodied while at the same time conscious of culture, history and our lived experiences.

It is an experiment in giving Psalm 85 shape and form for adults of the 21st century where head and heart, heaven and earth, the holy and the human and the ordinary and extraordinary are held together in paradoxical unity and tension. In a word, it is a way of meeting God in heart, soul, body and mind with both our faith and our fears – a working understanding of faith that welcomes questions and doubts alongside of hope and love – so that the word becomes flesh within and among us.

Just as Stravinsky shocked the classical world by bringing the jarring tones of the industrial revolution – let alone the wild abandon of ancient mating rituals – into the high culture of his day with “Rites of Spring,” so this experiment in prayer incorporates contemporary popular culture in to the worship tapestry alongside traditional sacred music. It treats rock and jazz as equal partners in the marriage that is public worship and weaves the old into the new so that tradition and innovation becomes a unified garment. And when visual art – and dance and movement are added – then another level of integration and incarnation becomes possible. But always with a spirit of deep reverence and trust that if “God is really one of us” as Jesus said, then the historic wall of separation between sacred and secular must be destroyed and torn down as false and unholy.

People may prefer one style of music – or dance, sculpture, film and film making – over another, but let there no longer be that false and destructive pseudo-elitism in worship that relegates popular culture to the realm of kitsch and elevates tradition beyond its true significance. As the old hymn says, “In Christ there is no East or West, in him no South or North but one great fellowship of love throughout the whole wide earth."
One guy who continues to help me put this all together is The Boss, Springsteen, who understand community, song, faith, hope and love and how beauty can save the world. Back in 1999 when he reunited his old buddies, the E Street Band, they closed their shows with a reworking of "If I Should Fall Behind." It was a little bit of soul, a whole lot of gospel and jazz and an embodied prayer of how this whole thing works. I have been blessed by Bruce in concert (U2, too) more times than in worship - sad, but true - but I don't give up. "For now we see as through a glass darkly..."
This experiment in worship takes St. Paul seriously when he tells us that in Christ there is “neither male nor female, young or old, neither Jew nor Gentile.” For by extension we might add: no “in” or “out” styles of music, no rock or classical, jazz or hip hop, high or low culture either, just one continuous expression of gratitude for a grace that sets us free. "Time makes ancient truth uncouth" our grandparents sang in the 19th century. Today, along with that old stand by, we also sing Gregorian chant, world music choruses from Africa and Latin America alongside U2 and Sarah McLauchlan. For just as Israel’s prayer book, the Psalms, included sounds of joy and sorrow, hope and anger, trust and profound doubt, so, too, our worship in the 21st century.

I've been a long time Christian Century reader, and through these many years I have often turned first to Martin Marty's inside-the-back-cover column. Of course, he started writing this column long before I became a subscriber -- indeed, Marty has been with the Century longer than I've been alive. So, it's with great sadness to read that with this most recent issue -- the one that arrived in my mail box yesterday (and not the one that is currently linked on the website) -- the column comes to an end. I know that they will bring together valuable and important columns to "replace" it, but it won't have the same wit and energy that MEMO has had. Now, Marty will still be writing for the Century, just not in the same place or likely as often. Times are a changin' as I tell my congregation, and this is as true with a journal as it is with the rest of life. So, thank you Martin Marty for being such a blessing to so many!

© Jan L. Richardson ◊The Painted Prayerbook◊

When I was in seminary, one of my professors threatened each year to give a Rock of Ages award to the student who made it through their theological education the least changed. We didn’t have such folks in abundance, but they were evident in each class: those who were present solely because their church or denomination required that they have a seminary degree. Sticking it out until they had that parchment in hand, these classmates went through the motions of education but remained impervious to the transformation that it offered.

Though Jesus refers to Peter as a rock in this week’s gospel lection, I suspect that Peter would have eluded such an award as my seminary professor threatened to give. Matthew 16.13-20 tells us that Jesus and the disciples visit Caesarea Philippi, where Jesus, after asking his companions who others say that he is, then turns the question on them: “But who do you say I am?” Simon Peter, in a dazzling moment of clarity and insight, tells Jesus, “You are the Messiah, the son of the living God.”

Jesus is elated by Peter’s insight, and he begins to lay a blessing on him. He opens with calling him Simon, harking back to his follower’s former name. Jesus goes on to tell him, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Jesus’ naming of Peter plays on the Greek word for rock, petra; his name is sometimes translated as Cephas, from kepha, the Aramaic word for rock.

Peter, however, is a rock of a different sort. Unlike the folks who were candidates for my professor’s Rock of Ages award, Peter is not impervious to change. He exhibits his own points of resistance, to be sure, but he also harbors a fundamental openness to the transformation that Jesus offers. Jesus recognizes that Peter is still in formation. This disciple will yet do things that will provoke Jesus’ ire and disappointment. The human and earthy still run deep in Peter. Yet Jesus glimpses strength within him, and an openness that he knows will become a habitation for the holy.

Pondering this Petrine passage, I find myself thinking of Jacob in the wilderness. Genesis 28 describes how Jacob, having fled for his life, finds himself in a place between the home he has known and the life that is yet ahead of him. As darkness falls in that place, Jacob settles down to rest, laying his head upon a stone. During the night, he dreams of a ladder stretched between earth and heaven, with angels ascending and descending the ladder. He becomes aware of God standing beside him, offering words of promise and sustenance. Waking, Jacob cries, “Surely the Lord is in this place—and I did not know it!” He takes the stone he had used for a pillow, sets it up as a pillar, and pours oil on top of it. Jacob renames the place Bethel: House of God.

Jacob’s stone marks that spot as a thin place, to borrow a notion from Celtic traditions. Celtic folk have long held that in the physical landscape and in the turning of the year, there are places where the veil between worlds becomes thin. It’s not that God is somehow more present in those places, as if God could be more there than elsewhere; rather, something in those places and times invites us to be more present to the God who is always with us. We open, and we see.

Jesus names Peter the rock. In doing so, Jesus signifies that he both recognizes what is within Peter and is also calling forth what has yet to take form in him. In an action that echoes Jacob’s sacramental gesture, Jesus pours a blessing like oil upon Peter. After telling Peter that he will build his church—a house of God—upon him, Jesus goes on to say, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” His words have the tone of incantation, of ceremony, of one who is initiating another into a sacred role. And, in fact, “binding and loosing” are words that come from the rabbinic tradition; they refer to what happens when a question arises about whether an action may be permitted. Steeped in the law, the rabbis had the power to determine which actions would be forbidden (bound) and which would be allowed (loosed). Jesus confers power upon Peter, an authority so profound that what Peter does will have import in both heaven and earth.

Like Jacob who recognized the presence of God in that in-between place, Peter knows Jesus in an instant of brilliant clarity. Where Jacob turned his stone into a sacrament and renamed that place the House of God, Jesus marks this moment by blessing his disciple and renaming him as a rock who will become a dwelling place for God. Peter himself becomes a thin place; within him meet the things of heaven and the things of earth. What Jacob knew, Jesus knew: this is a place upon which to build something holy.

And so I am asking myself this week, what is solid within me? What do I contain that would serve as the ground for a holy place, a sanctuary? How do I allow sacred ground to inhabit me even as I remain open to transformation, to change, to renovation and renewal? How does this happen for you? What thin place might God be seeking to create in the midst of your life and your own being? What might we need to let go of in order to make room for such a space?

May you recognize the holy in your midst this week, and be a place for it to dwell.

No, that's not the name of the book. I'm just reporting in to say I finished the sixth Clare Fergusson mystery, I Shall Not Want. These books, written by Julia Spencer-Fleming, are irresistible. But you probably guessed I felt that...

• Yesterday was one of those "chase your own tail" kind of days. Doctor appointment that went very long, making me late to pick up Chaos for her cello lesson, rushing around, getting to the lesson late -- and the new instructor doesn't show up. Kate needs the lesson because...
• She is auditioning for an honors orchestra the Saturday after Labor Day. She has the music and so we just need to get her enough time to practice and some tutoring. This is the first level of auditions this year; All State is next.
• She's removed the last "tape" from her fingerboard; it's like training wheels for the cello. She probably doesn't need it -- she's dependent on it, though. One step at a time.
• This week should be better than last week, schedule-wise. We are gradually getting used to getting up at o-dark-thirty. It's a matter of just making sure there is enough time for everything to get done.
• Still, it's hard to get used to 5:30 am almost every single day (except Saturday).
• I like the girls having their own cell phone. I will talk to them as they are at the bus stop. It's a compromise -- that way I know for my own peace of mind that they are OK and they don't have me physically hovering.
• I'm thinking about hospitality this week (more) and how it intersects with the Keys of the Kingdom. I want to do two sermon series this Autumn -- or maybe what would be better would be just linking each sermon to one or more of the themes in the 5 Faithful Practices. This week -- I'm still thinking about hospitality. Wikipedia:
• Hospitality refers to the relationship process between a guest and a host
• For an in depth understanding of the term of hospitality, the starting point is the etymology of the word itself. The word hospitality derives from the Latin hospes, which is formed from hostis, which originally meant a 'stranger' and came to take on the meaning of the enemy or 'hostile stranger' (hostilis) + pets (polis, poles, potentia) to have power. Furthermore, the word hostire means equilize/compensate. If you combined the above etymological analysis with the story of Telemachus and Nestor you can develop in your mind the Greek concept of sacred hospitality.
• Hospes is the root word for many different English words: Hospitality, Hotel, Hostel, Hospital, Hospice.
  
• My friend Sophianne named her island on Second Life Xenia, which is the Greek word for sacred hospitality. From Wikipedia: There are a few basic rules; "The respect from host to guest, the respect from guest to host, and the parting gift from host to guest. The host must be hospitable to the guest and provide him with food and drink and a bath, if required. It is not polite to ask questions until the guest has stated his needs. The guest must be courteous to his host and not be a burden. The parting gift is to show the host's honor at receiving the guest."
• Interesting thing: Hospes means both guest and host. We get stuck with a single meaning in English, but Hospes is a reciprocal relationship -- it not only means the respect from host TO guest but also the respect FROM guest to host. I suppose you can't have a host without having a guest; each are necessary for the relationship to exist.
• Jesus was born here on earth; if we see his incarnation as a "visitation" from God to earth, we can see how Jesus is on one hand a guest here on earth, here to receive our honor/hospitality/respect and on the other hand to give to us -- the very keys of salvation. (The Hospitality of God: A Reading of Luke's Gospel By Brendan Byrne Published by Liturgical Press, 2000, p. 4)
• More later.
  

Beam Global Spirits & Wine, Inc has surveyed Washington DCs premier bartenders who serve many of our nation's politicians from both parties. Is it possible that politicians' drinking trends can be politically revealing? Here are partial results of the survey:
Who is a better tipper? Democrats 60%, Republicans 38%
Who is more likely to order a drink straight up? Democrats 14%, Republicans 82%
Who is more likely to order a fruity (pink) drink? Democrats 58%, Republicans 34%
Who has the better pick-up lines? Democrats 74%, Republicans 14%
Who is better at giving a toast? Democrats 63%, Republicans 36%
Who is more likely to arrive first to happy hour? Democrats 48%, Republicans 50%
Who is more likely to be the last to go home? Democrats 53%, Republicans 46%
If the bartenders are this observant, perhaps they should be in Congress while our politicians mix the drinks?
If anyone has any thoughts on this, please feel free to post them.
+ + + + + + +
Source: StarTribune.com
+ + + + + + +
Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian

It was supposed to be a day of sunshine according to the forecast I read over the weekend. It was supposed to be a day of babysitting class at the Red Cross for Light Princess. It was supposed to be...

I ran across two different ways to bolster high school graduation rates.

• One was posted on AP's web site
• the other was posted in the Dallas Morning News

The first involved a creative marketing campaign; the second involved lowering the educational standards.

First, I applaud the Los Angeles Unified School District for their persistence and creativity--demonstrating the practicality of education is a great idea. It's one of those "duh" experiences.  Why haven't more school districts thought of this?

In contrast, I'm dumbfounded by DISD's recent policy changes. What were they thinking? I thought schools were supposed to teach student responsibility and accountability, not procrastination, entitlement and victimization.

It's like reducing the crime rate by legalizing theft.  It simply makes no sense.

Technorati Tags: Los Angeles Unified School District, Dallas Independent School District, Jefferson Senior High School

I don't know what the ratings for Saturday evening's forum were -- after all, it took place right in the middle of the Olympics. The punditry seems to have come down all over the place. It's obvious that McCain knew the crowd (though Rick Warren claimed on Larry King last night that the two campaigns had equal numbers of tickets -- but, if that's true it sure didn't seem that way from my brief observation of the proceedings). So, who won? Who knows.

I find it interesting that Welton Gaddy (Interfaith Alliance) in his blog response (Progressive Revival) found Warren's demeanor and much of the questioning to be both civil and helpful. But, the focus on faith professions (what does Christ mean to you?) and even the location of the forum in a church to be problematic.

In response to Pastor Warren's questions on religion, both John McCain and Barack Obama seemed compelled to offer confessions of faith as a credential for their attractiveness as a candidate for the White House. But, that should not be the case. There is no religious test for public office according to our Constitution and we have no business trying to establish what the Constitution forbids.

Although I find it refreshing to see Democrats willing to address matters of faith, I do think that requiring them to define their faith to be problematic. Of course, for Obama, this is much more problematic because of the perception by a goodly number of people that he is a Muslim. A forum like this allows him to dispel the rumor -- but as he himself has said, the very fact that he has to make this distinction reflects the anti-Muslim sentiment that is running rampant in our nation.

So, as Gaddy reminds us, the Constitution itself declares clearly that there is no religious test. It does not matter whether one is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist, or even Humanist -- there is no religious test. This is something we too easily forget.

UMCYoungClergy.com has posted videos on the issue of Young Clergy and Bishop Willimon is featured in the series. Please visit this site and watch all seven video clips!

Julia Sellers has an article in today's Augusta Chronicle entitled "First Graders Give School Tips to New Kindergartners." First graders at Belvedere and Byrd elementary schools in Aiken County, SC (just across the Savannah River from Augusta) were asked to give advice to the new kids. It seems to me that their advice applies to most people in most situations and in most stages of life. "Know

In my last couple posts (here and here), I have questioned some of the arguments from the religious right regarding the upcoming presidential election. Today, in an effort to upset and distance myself from everyone(!), let me make a quick comment directed toward the "religious left."

In his discussion with Rick Warren last weekend, at least twice Obama alluded to Matthew 25:40: "I tell you the truth, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." Indeed, Obama called the U.S.'s "greatest moral failure in my lifetime" that "we still don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me."

As I was watching the forum with my dad, he made an interesting point: That's a bit of an ironic statement from someone who supports partial-birth abortions.

Now whether or not Obama "supports" partial-birth abortions or simply doesn't flatly condemn them is of course something to be debated, though I would say that based on Obama's overall stance it is clearly the latter. Nevertheless, how does not speaking out against (partial-birth) abortion help America overcome their greatest moral failure and begin abiding by Jesus's teaching in Matthew 25?

Indeed, the Christian action group, the Matthew 25 Network, which has verse 25:40 displayed on their webpage header, also states in their header that they "proudly endorse Barak Obama for President." This group, which includes evangelical/emergent author and pastor, Brian McLaren, among others from all Christian backgrounds, takes this story from Matthew 25 as their very defining position. As far as I can tell from their website (I haven't yet read all the press on them), they have not openly called for Obama to reconsider his extreme positions on abortion. It seems, then, that in looking out for the poor, marginalized, oppressed, and abused, they are not taking a strong enough stance on looking out for the very least of us human beings: the unborn.

So, is it wrong for a Christian group to endorse Obama? Probably not (though it could be argued that as Christians we shouldn't be endorsing any political candidate). Should the Matthew 25 Network be "proud" about their endorsement? Perhaps. But only after they have qualified their endorsement by pressing Obama on his stance on (partial-birth) abortion.

In this election year, why can't Christians of all political stripes come together to support a holistic pro-life platform: anti-poverty, anti-war, anti-death penalty, anti-AIDS, anti-genocide, anti-torture, and last but not least (except in the Matt. 25:40 sense) anti-abortion?

Only by doing so will we be able to influence society for the change that America really needs.

Part 2

What light does Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra shine on infidelity? As I wrote Part 1, news broke of John Edwards’ affair.

Grief

I’m finding this piece more difficult to write than I thought. I guess because I’m grieving.

• Grieving for America. Right now we need all the good ideas and the best people we can find. We can’t afford the loss of any, especially people like John and Elizabeth Edwards who inspired us and who were lifting up the needs of the poor.
• Grieving for the Edwards family. She has cancer to deal with. Now this. “Anguish” is the word one news blog used. And for Edwards himself; the blog quoted one democratic insider who said, “He’s finished.”

The prophet Jeremiah wrote in the same mood:

O that my head were a spring of water,
and my eyes a fountain of tears,
so that I might weep day and night
     for the slain of my poor people! …
For they are all adulterers,
     a band of traitors.

Jer 9:1-2 (NRSV)

Here the adultery is both literal and figurative, representing the people’s unfaithfulness to God.

The grief in the play is nowhere clearer than when Antony sees his friends after abandoning his fleet and pursuing Cleopatra from the battle (Act 3, Scene 11). “I have lost my way forever,” he says. When Cleopatra shows up, he cries, “No, no, no, no, no.” Nothing will ever be the same.

Sin

I almost hate to use the term, because it’s a favorite of politicians who point fingers at others while secretly carrying on affairs of their own. But no other word will do.

We see here the deceitfulness of sin. While Mark Antony acknowledges he must leave Cleopatra because  the affair is causing “ten thousand harms more than I know,” he continues it. He seeks death like a bridegroom leaping into his lover’s arms. His servant’s name, ironically, is Eros, the word for self-gratifying love; he repeatedly calls “Eros!” in his final scenes.

Most teens believe they’re invulnerable, contrary to all evidence; politicians who have affairs believe they’re the exception, the one who won’t be caught. We also teach our politicians they’re special. Their every need is catered to, in the bubble of privilege they live in. So why shouldn’t they gratify sexual impulses?

Meanwhile, sin continues its silent certain destruction of life. Antony compares himself to the shape of a bear or lion in the clouds, that vanishes in a moment: “Here I am Antony: yet cannot hold this visible shape” (4.14.)

Sin leads us to violate our own best nature, to participate in self-destruction.

John Edwards, like Mark Antony and all of us, is responsible for his sins. But there is a communal aspect here as well. For, all of us are responsible for the kind of society we live in. We’re responsible for the sex-drenched advertizing, television, and movies that consume us.

The modesty my Mother believed in strikes us as comical, quaint, maybe puritanical. Perhaps a little. But our sexual openness has gone way too far.

Spiritually, sex is like fire, one of the primal energies. In the hearth it provides warmth. In the stove it cooks our food. But fire, out of such bounds, burns down the house. The Commandment “Thou shalt not commit adultery” interpreted by Jesus’ emphasis on the lustful look and heart shows us where the boundary is. When we find sex outside the boundaries of marriage and monogamous lifelong relationships, we don’t have to wonder, analyze.

The song says, “It can’t be wrong, when it feels so right.” But it is wrong, no matter how it feels; it’s destroying us and all that we love.

Is this the Felix Culpa?

The corny words of scripture turn out to be right on the money: “the wages of sin is death” Romans 6.23.

And the verse goes on: “But the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” My hope is that this is a personal turning point for John Edwards, the felix culpa, the sin which God uses to redeem. Though he may never be the presidential hopeful he was, God still has plans for him.

And for the rest of us sinners, too.

Three educational stereotypes: Women don’t do well in college mathematics and science courses, African American students don’t do well in college and Mexican American students don’t do well in school. Three stereotypes that good teachers not only recognize but are eradicating because they refuse to accept the stereotypes. Chp 4 of Ken Bain, What the Best College Teachers Do, discusses what good teachers “expect” of their students. In one word, they expect “more.” But read on. It’s not that simple.

This chp has probably led me to more pondering and mental meandering than any so far. In other words, it has led me to think and re-think and wonder about how to be a better teacher.

Here Bain summarizes: Claude Steele, a social psychologist at Stanford, “theorized that when victims of negative stereotypes face a task that popular prejudice says they are not very good at [say, women in sciences] but that they nonetheless want to do and believe they can do, they cannot escape the shadow of beliefs around them. If the task is particularly difficult and stressful, that pressure will trigger at least a subconscious reminder of the sterotype” (69). Which leads to what is called “stereotype vulnerability.” Under strees, such persons fall prey to popular prejudices.

What impressed me here, and I think this can help church education too, is that these people not had demonstrated their mental and intellectual competence, but they were personally vested in doing well. Even then, the stress led to stereotype vulnerability and a lack of success. Studies show this: the more they care, the more vulnerable they become.

My question: which groups in the church today suffer from stereotype vulnerability?

Good teachers know this, recognize this, and work through it, over it, and around it. And the big point is recognizing it and working with that person/student individually to overcome the stereotype and get through it. Studies at Stanford and Northwestern demonstrate that recognition and attentiveness get the students through it. Positive expectations, expressed and clear, get students through this. Education theory is where this is at.

First, good teachers appreciate the value of each student.
Second, good teachers had great faith — an emphasis in this chp — in the student.
Third, good teachers have high standards and trust students to meet them.
Fourth, good teachers reject the power they have and empower students.

Let’s hear what you think can be done.