Fleeting Bits of Melting Beauty

Seven of the eight of my office windows have 24 panes of glass separated by (metal of some kind) strips; the remaining has just 18 panes because of a permanently installed air conditioner. 

Of these 168 panes of glass, each was covered in frost when I arrived this morning. The patterns of the frost were different in each pane, yet each was beautiful and together they were as stunning as any stained glass. 

Slowly, as the sun rises higher in the sky, those panes in the east windows are melting; the sound of the crinkling ice is ever so slight, but noticeable in the otherwise silent building. 

So it is with God's voice in the midst of these frightful days. Barely noticeably the Realm of God crinkles into our midst like a fleeting bit of melting beauty. 

The Light of hope, shalom, grace, and extravagant love changes us too. 

The ice may be the result of the bitter cold. But the light still shines upon each of us and warms our souls.

Ransomed, Atoned by Blood or Punishment? None of the Above

The original meaning of the word "liberal" involved being open to a variety of ideas and ways of thinking, to be intellectually generous.  I am a liberal in this sense: I am open to and supportive of many ways of thinking and believing.  For me, when things are split into issues of just the binary --black and white -- I see only division and alienation.  For some, these binary boundaries are comforting and necessary; the gray only clouds their thinking and causes insecurity.  Unfortunately, many in the church hold this either/or theology and cannot accept anything different from what they believe -- even if it is proven to be ill-based or non biblical.

What follows is something I wrote this from the top of my head... no footnotes or bibliography... an exposition on a question asked of me by a Pastoral Search Committee in 2013. 

The Question:
     "John 14:6 while Jesus was comforting his disciples he said to them, 'I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.'  This speaks to the fact that one must believe, and accept that God sent his only Son to die on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins and that by believing this and by His Grace alone are we saved.  Is this belief the only way we can be assured of an eternal home with Him?"

My initial response in person was something to the effect that Jesus didn’t ever say he came to die for our sins, that this is a construction of Paul’s and the later church’s.  I added that Jesus was careful to not label individuals as “sinners” when he healed them and offered them forgiveness.   I went on to say that shortly before the passage quoted is another: “In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?” (John 14:2)  and that in another place Jesus says, “I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice.”  And, I said that this is good news for people who have not found hope in a particular faith.  

What some members of the committee heard me say was that Jesus never talks of sin, and that Jesus never called people sinners.  So, here is a full expository of response to this question.

In our time, we have a tendency to put the words of the whole of the New Testament into the mouth of Jesus.  “This speaks to the fact” indicates that what follows is assumed in the reading of the scripture; what follows is a theory of atonement that was developed in the Eleventh and Fifteenth Centuries and is not based upon Biblical texts.  In fact, much of the theology of this question arises from later theology, not the words or ministry of Jesus.

The challenge of the question lies in the conclusion of the second sentence.  This sentence makes a conclusion about the text of John 14:6 that is out of context with the text itself.  The question starts with the context – “while Jesus was comforting his disciples, he said to them….”  The scripture in context is part of Jesus’ response to Thomas about how they will know the way to where Jesus is going.  Jesus is instructing the disciples on what to expect after his death and resurrection.  Jesus is giving the disciples a pep talk, a comforting assurance that if they follow the way they have been taught by Jesus, they will know God; that if they are faithful to what he has been showing them, leading them, and guiding them, they will find their way to God the Father.  He says that if we know Him, we know God the Father. 

In the context of John 14, Jesus is giving the assurance that they have learned well what they need to know, that they know the Father already.

• I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father
• If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever.
• I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you.
• Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

Then the question deviates from that context.  Jesus is not talking about the forgiveness of sins here; he is talking about the immediate future of the disciples and their finding their way in his absence.

At this point in the Gospel of John, Jesus has not yet died; he has not yet risen.  There is not any talk of death, let alone a sacrificial death, though everyone at that last meal together knew full well that Jesus was going to die at the hands of those whose power was threatened by his teaching of truth.  Jesus is saying that if the disciples want to know God, if they want to know where he is going, they need to love one another the way that he has loved them (John 15:12).

Jesus is not the author of the theory that “one must believe, and accept that God sent his only Son to die on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins and that by believing this and by His Grace alone are we saved.”  The seeds of this theory originate in Paul and are germinated and harvested by Anselm of Canterbury, the Protestant Reformers, and, later, Twentieth Century Evangelists.  The theory that Jesus was sent to die for the forgiveness of our sins is not found in the Gospels.  

Further, the idea that “the death of Jesus provides forgiveness of sins” and “His Grace alone” saves us are oppositional to one another.  Payment for forgiveness is not forgiveness; it is a transaction.  Forgiveness is indeed grace, but it cannot be bought by any means or it ceases to be grace and forgiveness.

Okay, having said that, I’m going to give a very long explanation.

Prior to the Eleventh Century and based upon Jesus’ statement in Mark 6:45 that he offered his life as a  ransom for many,  the (Roman)  Church taught that the ransom must have been paid to those powers that hold us captive—namely the devil and the other fallen angels. Adam and Eve turned the entire human race sinful when they listened to the serpent (devil), and therefore making the devil our owner. Jesus offered himself to the devil in as the price of our freedom from this sinful state. The devil didn’t realize that he couldn’t hold the God’s son captive in death and was therefore tricked into losing both us and God’s son.  This is the ransom theory of atonement.  It’s not particularly Biblical; but it’s logical for the era from which it arises.  

In the Eleventh Century, Anselm of Canterbury debunked this theory and developed the concept of blood atonement.  This theory springs from the Old Testament concept of sacrifice.  The underlying assumption of this idea is that the moral order, God’s justice, or something about God’s nature, requires that God punish our sin – and inflict corporal punishment upon us, classically by sending us to hell—unless some substitute can be found to pay the penalty for sin.  Anselm stressed that there is no way for mere humans to satisfy God’s need for punishing us so the need is satisfied by the perfect obedience of Jesus even to the point of dying (note the words of the Apostle’s Creed).  This is the satisfaction theory of atonement.

In the Fifteenth Century, the Protestant Reformers took this a step further and asserted that Jesus chose to take the death penalty in our stead as punishment for our sins (as opposed to obedience to God). This is the punishment theory of atonement.

Either way, satisfaction or punishment, the theories assert that violence is necessary to please God’s need for justice.

There are two places in the GOSPELS that are often used to support these theories of atonement; both are problematic.  In Matthew 26:28, Jesus says “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”  In the same vein (pun intended), Hebrews 9:22 says that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.” The Greek word translated in these passages as “forgiveness” means release from bondage or to free from prison.  Even when understood as “release from penalty,” it merely provides an alternative means of fulfilling the same solution and life-giving role that the law and its penalties were supposed to provide.  Atonement allows God to justly release us from punishment for sin.  The idea that God requires a payment of some sort is logically in conflict with God’s forgiving our sins; true forgiveness involves relinquishing the demand that the penalty be paid.

The second is Mark 6:45, which I used in the discussion of ransom atonement.  The Mark text has to have a lot of speculation or preconceived understandings thrown into the picture in order to pull a theory of atonement from it.  We can read our concept or idea into the text and pull the meaning we desire from it; this is eisogesis:  reading our understanding or position into the text. If instead we begin with the text from Mark devoid of our preconceived understandings, we cannot arrive at a theory of atonement.  Solid Biblical study begins with the text and its context, not our own theology.

Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and the prophets; Jesus did not say that “by His Grace alone” we are saved.  Paul said this, and we read it into the words credited to Jesus.  Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God and what we must do to bring God’s reign to earth.  Jesus showed us the way, the truth and the life through his example, his teaching, and his willingness to die for what he believed is God’s way, truth, and light – which the religious and political powers of his day found threatening to their status and power.

What Jesus teaches is not about what is to come in the next life (again, that is Paul and American Civil Religion’s Prosperity Gospel); what Jesus teaches, preaches, and lives is God’s affinity for the “least of these,” the oppressed, the down trodden, the rejected, and the powerless.  What Jesus assures us of is that God’s realm is found when all people do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8).  What Jesus assures us is that the high will be made low, the first last, the weak strong, the hungry fed, the poor rich in spirit. 

This is what I meant when I said that Jesus did not come (or die) to forgive our sins; he came to show us the way to God; the way of justice; the way of peace.  He certainly did offer forgiveness to people – freedom from that which binds them -- usually the people no one else would ever dream of unbinding, and always as a means to bring justice to the situation at hand.   But he does not assert that he's going to die for our sins. 

-------------------
I am not sure the member who asked this question understood my long winded explanation; I do know that she did not agree with it.  God's path for me was/is by way of another road than the one that passes that particular congregation.  And the exercise of writing out what I believe and why was excellent practice for the challenges of the place where God has called me today.  Thanks be to God.

A Faithful Church is in Business 24/7/365

"When I moved here 12 years ago, I expected that the church would be busy on Sunday mornings.... but there is something happening there every day.... that is not acceptable; it needs to be regulated."(1)

This was spoken at a  meeting of the Village Plan Commission last evening by a member of the community.  My initial reaction was anger.  

• How could someone not know that the work of the a faith based community is non-stop? 
• Where was this person in school when the Anglo settlement  of New England in the 1600's by people fleeing religious regulation was discussed? You remember them -- the Pilgrims, who established a faith based community where the work of faith and life itself were indistinguishable?  
• Was there an extended illness when the 1740's settlement of the  west coast was led by Roman Catholic Missionaries was taught?  You remember that -- the Roman Catholic missions that housed and educated the native population and established all of the oldest communities in California.   
• Surely someone taught about the founding of public education was done by churches who opened their doors to children returning from long hours of labor in factories and mines. 

How did public education fail the person who spoke this complaint?

I understand that someone who does not practice faith might think that Sunday morning is the only time a faith community is active.  Clearly the speaker had an impression of faith communities that did not match my experience. 

• But why would a church need a building if it is  a Sunday-only association?  
• Why not just meet in people's homes?   

Clearly the CHURCH has failed in its 24/7/365 practice of faith. 

I left the meeting with my blood pressure through the roof.  I took the long way home -- walking briskly in the night air five blocks out of my way so I could think and pray about the situation.  

God has a way of turning my reactions into responses if I can just keep my mouth closed long enough. My reactions are usually knee jerk responses in anger or defense; I should never be allowed to speak after 9 p.m. when my brain operates only in the brain stem and my reactions are reptilian .  Responses are the result of trying to understand the other point of view and offering a reasoned, rational reply.  Responses come from the cortex and upper brain anatomy.  I cannot be reasoned or rational if I'm angry. 

Through the cool night air and the brisk stride, God doused the anger with another possibility. In the middle of the second block it struck me that the church this person was talking about is doing faithful ministry -- if they are doing "something everyday," if their ministry is not just on Sunday morning, they are being the Church, the Body of Christ.  If that faith community feeds the hungry, offers drink to the thirsty, welcomes the stranger, clothes the naked, visits the sick and the imprisoned (Matthew 25), they are indeed being the church.  

Celebrate with this community of faith that someone is complaining that they are faithfully following Christ is providing for "one of the least of these who are members of [Christ's} family" [Matthew 25:40).  This IS the work of the church.

If our building is not used 24/7/365, we are not being faithful.  We are not being good stewards of the blessings God has given to us through our predecessors in the faith.  We are going to do better.  We need to fill our empty space with those busy going about the work of providing for the least of these.  We need to find the vision and the energy to commission those among us for ministries.  If the Kingdom is going to come "on earth as it is in heaven," we cannot sit around and wait for it to happen; we are called to use our hearts, minds, bodies, and spirits.  Let us fill the building with God's work!  Let us make busy the doors! Let us be the church to all the world. 


(1) This was the overarching complaint of a number of members of the community who stuck out the entire meeting for the purpose of voicing their concern that an amendment to the village zoning ordinances regarding the definition of "Religious Use" of buildings was removed from the agenda and not discussed.  

To the other concerns, I offer these responses:

Comment:  Churches rent their space to outside businesses and agencies so that they can increase their coffers and make their expenses.
Response:  Churches offer to share our space with agencies who are doing work that tends to "the least of these."  That may include, but is never limited to, young, aged, widowed, addicted, homeless, oppressed, unemployed, under-employed, poor, disabled, sick, naked, hungry, imprisoned or newly released, mentally ill, sinners of all sorts, immigrants and other strangers, and you.  

Sharing space is just that: space is offered so that those who are working toward the fulfillment of the Realm of God (see Matthew 25) can have a safe and secure place to do their work.  If churches make a profit of any kind, they lose their property-tax exempt status and will incur massive expenses; churches offer space at the cost of having that space -- which is far below the market rates.  Churches may recap the cost of the space, but nothing the church can do will ever re-cap the cost of building and upgrading the space; the best that can come of shared space is re-cooping the cost of heat, air conditioning, electricity, and maintenance of the space.  Churches do not make a profit at anything they do.

Comment: Not for profit is tax terminology; it does not relate to the what churches are doing.
Response:  Unlike other entities in our Capitalistic Economy, the goal of the church is NOT to make a profit or to stay "in business."  The mission of the church is to usher in the Realm of God by offering God's extravagant welcome, unbounded hope, abundant grace, and unlimited love to all who will accept it and be transformed by the realization that they are children of God. 

When this  mission is completed, the churches can and should go out of "business;" but it will never be complete in my or your lifetime.  It is ongoing and fueled by hope and the vision of a better world. The difference between the capitalist business (aka a "for profit") and a faith community rests on the benefactor of the activity: For-profits are fueled by the vision of benefit to the owner(s) (monetarily) while not-for-profits have a "benefit the other" driven vision. Not for profits "do it" at a loss -- always because we're not in it for the money; we're in it for the benefit of "the least of these." That's why we depend upon donations. 

Saying No! and Meaning it.

 I don’t know about you, but I’m really tired.  It feels like no matter how hard I try, I cannot get ahead, cannot even keep up with some things.  There are so many things that call out for my attention.  So many special interests are vying for my energy.  There never seems to be enough {{fill in the blank here}}.  Not enough sleep, time, people… you get the idea.

“Not Enough” is a mindset our culture has been ingrained into our thinking.  It is the basis of our economy: there’s not enough to go around so the maximum profit can be made by sellers because we’ll always want for more; we don’t want to fall behind.  This mindset is the basis of our self image:  we can never be enough.  We’re never good enough, pretty enough, smart enough, efficient enough, thin enough, fit enough, strong enough, successful enough.  If we fall short, the culture shames us with its stress on being better than ordinary.  So we say “yes” to doing and having as much as possible so we don’t suffer the “shame of failure.” This mindset of scarcity feeds our greed, our jealousies, our prejudice, and our struggles in living. 

This scarcity mindset undermines the work of the Body of Christ.  Frankly, we become exhausted when we hear the call of the church to be more hospitable, do more in the community, feed the hungry, house the homeless, or free the oppressed.  We long for more community and deeper connection with God and with one another.  But we just don’t have time or energy to do anything more.  We feel depleted, exhausted, run down, tired, stressed, and overextended. We are so controlled by the scarcity mindset of the culture around us that being a disciple of Jesus is just too overwhelming of a prospect.  

If nothing else, Jesus was a counter culture revolutionary.  He stood up against the demeaning and belittling habits of the culture so as to bring people wholeness and fullness of joy.  His ministry and his teaching were about building up, supporting, and strengthening individuals in a culture that ostracized and devalued those who were not perfect in the eyes of the culture.  He did this by valuing them exactly as they were, for who they were. 

Friends, it is past time for us to stand up to the cultural mindset of scarcity.  We do not need to be successful by the culture’s standards; we do not need to measure up to the market’s standards of prosperity.  The way out of scarcity thinking is Sabbath Rest.  I’m not talking about sleeping through church!  I’m suggesting that we need to say, “NO!” to the cultural rat race that feeds of fear of failure and of falling behind.  We need to learn to say “NO!” to doing one more thing that does not build us up as disciples, that does not help to build the Realm of God on Earth.  We need to practice saying, “NO!” to those things that exhaust us and not nourish us, things that manipulate our self esteem, things that do not lead us to wholeness.

To practice Sabbath is to practice resistance.  Walter Brueggemann reminds us that Sabbath resists the spirituality of the principalities and powers--the culture around us--to nurture the physical and spiritual resources to fuel further resistance, making us increasingly available for both community and prophetic ministry[1].  Sabbath requires letting go of the shame-based fear of being ordinary as we allow the world to rush by as we settle into the humble, small and human rhythms of Sabbath. To practice Sabbath means to go quiet, to be less noticed, to rest into the ordinary.

As we move into Lent, I invite you to take Sabbath with me.  Let us take a sacred pause and find new habits. Let us seek together the Joyful Kingdom of God and find the deep joy of following Christ.  I pray you’ll find in this Lenten season fruitful, spirit feeding opportunities to grow in faith. 

[1] Walter Bruggemann:  Sabbath as Resistance: Saying No to the Culture of Now.  Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,  2014.

Donning the Apron of Service

With Memorial Day behind us, the official start of summer is here.  The grills have come out of storage and, in many families, the men have donned aprons while they watch over the sizzling dinners.  The apron is a symbol of the one who cooks, or who hosts the gathering of people.  The one who wears the apron is usually the one who waits upon others whether at home or in a restaurant.

One year my (then) young sons made their dad an apron for Father’s Day.  Using a fabric pen, I outlined their hand prints onto the pocket of the apron and they each filled in their print.  Andrew insisted that we were making a bib for Daddy.  He was remembering his bibs that fit like backward, sleeveless shirts.  The apron we were decorating did look like that wrap-around bib!

The bib and the apron both protect the clothing by adding a layer of protection.  But there is a significant difference in the cultural connotations of bibs and aprons.   A bib is worn by someone who is being fed, being served; an apron is worn by one who is the servant.  A bib is donned by the consumer; an apron, by one who produces and provides. Wearing a bib is a necessary precursor to fitting into an apron.

The juxtaposition of the apron and bib is apt for the Church in this ever-changing time.  As we mature in faith, we move from wearing a bib to donning an apron.  As children, we are fed and nourished in the faith, guided and mentored on the journey by those who have walked their own spiritual path.  We grow out of our constant need for the bib as we learn to feed ourselves and share in the work of feeding others.  We don the apron of service and hospitality as the result of having been fed, nurtured, and growing by the faith community.

Hospitality is an important part of the culture of the scripture:

• Remember the three men who came to Abraham under the oaks of Mamre – Sarah had to cook for them a meal from scratch while the men waited.
• Remember the men of Sodom who were destroyed for their lack of hospitality?
• Remember Jesus’ words “I came not to be served but to serve.”

This is the way of the Middle East then and still today.  A stranger is always to be welcomed, always to be treated as the guest.  “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

As we grow in faith and character, we become the hosts who wear the apron and allow the guest to determine how they are to be treated.  Being a Christian requires us to give up the bib and don the apron.

Barbara Brown Taylor wrote,  “To be where God is -- to follow Jesus -- means going beyond the limits of our own comfort and safety. It means receiving our lives as gifts instead of guarding them as our own possessions. It means sharing the life we have been given instead of bottling it for our own consumption.”  (Barbara Brown Taylor, Seeds of Heaven: Sermons on the Gospel of Matthew. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. 2004. p. 81)

Buy This!

Our society would have us think that life is all about us - our desires, our needs, our achievements. And, so in our pride, we ignore the gospel proclaimed to us by God's love and hope for us. In our greed, we ignore the needs of those God has called us to serve.  We are so afraid of losing what we have, that we hold tightly to it and fail to share God’s love with others in ways that are meaningful and nurturing to them.

I wonder if in the Church, we continue to wear the bib as consumers of church programs and
services, expectant that we will be waited upon by others.  I wonder if there were more apron-wearing servants, would we be able to nurture and grow more seekers toward full belonging?  I wonder if the shortage of leadership in churches is a reflection of continuing need to be spoon fed. 

Friends, it is time for the Church of Jesus Christ to take off our bibs and put on our aprons.

• It is time for us to live trusting the God who keeps promises, and to do the work of hospitality for people who need the Good News and who need God’s assurance that they need not be afraid.
• It is time we lived the Gospel of God’s abundance and shared in that grace.
• It is time we stopped expecting everything to be our way and seek the comfort of those who need God’s abundance and hospitality to be shown to them
• It is time we stop catering to the needs of those who are here and start serving those who most need to hear and experience God’s promises for the first time.

 Let’s make some new aprons and let us wear them boldly into service in God’s name.