How do you win the game of "hot potato?"
As a kid, I played a game called hot potato. A hot potato (we generally pretended a ball was the potato) was tossed from person to person as quickly as possible. Because the potato was hot, catching and holding it would result in getting burned. Thus, the objective was to get rid of the potato as quickly as possible by tossing it to someone else. Getting rid of the hot potato kept you from getting burned. Tossing it to someone else required them to deal with it. Of course, they dealt with it the same way you did, by tossing it to someone else. As did the next person and so on.
It seems to me that society and culture (think "church") has created a number of hot potatoes. They are "hot" issues - issues that are so emotionally charged they are too hot to handle. Our preferred way of dealing with them is to avoid talking about them. We are in the game but hoping the hot potato doesn't come our way. When someone raises the issue, we seek to pass it off as quickly as possible by instinctively reverting to our already-held position. We assert our position, defend it, and attack any position that challenges it. In doing so, we toss the issue back to the other side who does what we just did: assert their position, defend it, and attack any position that challenges theirs.
LGBTQ+ issues are one of those hot potatoes in The UMC today. Well, to be more accurate, LBGTQ+ issues are a hot potato for people over the age of 40, which is the majority of the members within The UMC. LGBTQ+ issues are not an issue for most of the younger generations. That fact might be one explanation for the absence of many of those younger generations in our congregations. But I digress.
It seems The UMC has being playing the game of hot potato with this LGBTQ+ issue for years. We keep tossing it back and forth to each other by stating our position, defending it while attacking any differing position. This game of tossing the issue back and forth avoids the hard work of dealing with the issue OR our position on the issue OR our emotions that reinforce our position OR any different position that another might have OR the people who hold another position OR their reasons for doing so. That's a lot of avoiding!
It seems that the Commission on a Way Forward has actually engaged in the hard work of listening that leads to hearing that leads to mutual respect and understanding (not agreement!). Now it is time for the rest of us in the local congregations to stop playing the game of hot potato with this issue and engage in the hard work of listening and hearing one another. The objective of this hard work is not to reach agreement, but to reach mutual respect and love as brothers and sisters in Christ.
One challenge to this kind of hard work is the emotion surrounding this issue. Is homosexuality incompatible with Christian teaching? Is it "unnatural?" Is marriage between a man and a woman only? Is an individual engaged in a homosexual lifestyle actively engaged in willful sin? Can a person who identifies as homosexual be called of God into ordained ministry? Each of this sub-issues stirs strong emotions. Those emotions are what make the issue "hot." They are what keep the hot potato game going with the LGBTQ+ issue.
When strong emotions get involved, we lose our ability to think clearly. We lose our ability to listen and hear opposing positions. Instead of thinking, we react. We passionately defend our position. We attack opposing positions and, sometimes, go so far as to attack the people who hold them. We use Scripture to justify our position as "the biblical (i.e., right) position." We end up polarized, divided into us versus them camps. We set up a win/loss scenario in which no one wins and our Christian witness is severely damaged.
This emotionally fueled way of dealing with the issue grows out of our human nature (what the Apostle Paul called "the flesh" in Galatians 5). We cannot come to any mutual respect or understanding, much less mutual love, by living out of our default human nature. Something more is required if we want a different outcome. That something more is spiritual maturity. Paul identified love as the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22). Only the Spirit can guide us to love the other. In other words, dealing with this hot potato issue calls for Christ-shaped, Spirit-empowered spirituality. It calls us to manage and move beyond the strong feelings tied to the issue, i.e, self-control, another one of the nine characteristics of the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:23). Self-control puts us in a position to think more clearly. It allows us to listen in such a way as to genuinely hear the other person. It positions us to choose to love.
I don't remember playing the game of hot potato very often. It really wasn't a fun game to play for very long. There was seemingly no way to win the game.
Monday, October 15, 2018
Monday, October 8, 2018
The Opportunity Before Us
In February of next year (2019), the General Conference of The United Methodist Church will meet in a special, called session to vote on the recommendations of the Commission on a Way Forward. The anticipation of this special session has stirred much angst, anxiety, and fear among United Methodists on both sides of the theological spectrum. A dominant fear is that The UMC as we know it will no longer exist after the special session. For others, the fear is that The UMC as we know it will continue to exist unchanged.
I view this time of angst and anxiety as an opportunity waiting to be embraced. Think with me.
Healthy, vibrant churches function out of a clear sense of purpose. They know why they exist. Everything they do flows out of that purpose. All of their resources are aligned around that purpose. Each group within the church can identify their role in achieving the purpose. Their why determines their what and how. The flip side of this principle is that churches become unhealthy and stagnant when they forget their why, the purpose for which they exist.
Ironically, churches can be unhealthy and stagnant without recognizing it. They are so focused on what that they fail to think about why. Churches function out of repeated activities, groups, and events. Church calendars and church budgets almost always reflect the same activities and events every year. Last year's calendar and budget are generally used to create the next year's calendar and budget. The same groups, organizations, and classes continue to meet the way they always have, doing what they have always done. Business-as-usual becomes the unspoken mantra with little or no room (and certainly no money!) for anything new and different. Honest evaluation that identifies genuine outcome seldom occurs. Success is measured by the numbers who participate and the enjoyment of the event. This way of doing church functions out of an unstated purpose: to do what the members expect and enjoy, keeping them happy.
Churches of every size and stripe drift along in this way of doing church ... until some kind of crisis disturbs their predictable life. The most common kinds of crises are conflict, noticeable decline in attendance, the lack or loss of young families and children, or a new pastor with new ways of doing things. (The special session of The UMC represents 3 out of 4 of these crises: conflict that grows out of a long term decline and the loss of younger generations.)
The predictable reaction to crisis, driven by fear, is to seek to reestablish comfort as quickly as possible by returning to the way things were. This reaction views the crises as a threat.
A crisis is only a threat when it is viewed and treated as a threat. Otherwise, a crisis is an opportunity. It is an invitation to evaluate, rethink, and refocus. It is an opportunity to get clear about why we do what we do - our purpose, the reason we are a church. It is a "wake up call" designed to arouse us out of our unconscious, business-as-usual way of doing church.
Crises are also an opportunity for change. Crises disrupt "what is." In doing so, they make space for something new or different. They provide the opportunity to make creative, purpose-shaped change under the leadership of the Spirit. Crises open the door to a different, more God-shaped future.
I view the looming "crisis" of the called, special session of General Conference (as well as the pattern of decline at FUMCA) as an opportunity. I pray we don't miss it.
I view this time of angst and anxiety as an opportunity waiting to be embraced. Think with me.
Healthy, vibrant churches function out of a clear sense of purpose. They know why they exist. Everything they do flows out of that purpose. All of their resources are aligned around that purpose. Each group within the church can identify their role in achieving the purpose. Their why determines their what and how. The flip side of this principle is that churches become unhealthy and stagnant when they forget their why, the purpose for which they exist.
Ironically, churches can be unhealthy and stagnant without recognizing it. They are so focused on what that they fail to think about why. Churches function out of repeated activities, groups, and events. Church calendars and church budgets almost always reflect the same activities and events every year. Last year's calendar and budget are generally used to create the next year's calendar and budget. The same groups, organizations, and classes continue to meet the way they always have, doing what they have always done. Business-as-usual becomes the unspoken mantra with little or no room (and certainly no money!) for anything new and different. Honest evaluation that identifies genuine outcome seldom occurs. Success is measured by the numbers who participate and the enjoyment of the event. This way of doing church functions out of an unstated purpose: to do what the members expect and enjoy, keeping them happy.
Churches of every size and stripe drift along in this way of doing church ... until some kind of crisis disturbs their predictable life. The most common kinds of crises are conflict, noticeable decline in attendance, the lack or loss of young families and children, or a new pastor with new ways of doing things. (The special session of The UMC represents 3 out of 4 of these crises: conflict that grows out of a long term decline and the loss of younger generations.)
The predictable reaction to crisis, driven by fear, is to seek to reestablish comfort as quickly as possible by returning to the way things were. This reaction views the crises as a threat.
A crisis is only a threat when it is viewed and treated as a threat. Otherwise, a crisis is an opportunity. It is an invitation to evaluate, rethink, and refocus. It is an opportunity to get clear about why we do what we do - our purpose, the reason we are a church. It is a "wake up call" designed to arouse us out of our unconscious, business-as-usual way of doing church.
Crises are also an opportunity for change. Crises disrupt "what is." In doing so, they make space for something new or different. They provide the opportunity to make creative, purpose-shaped change under the leadership of the Spirit. Crises open the door to a different, more God-shaped future.
I view the looming "crisis" of the called, special session of General Conference (as well as the pattern of decline at FUMCA) as an opportunity. I pray we don't miss it.
Monday, October 1, 2018
The Primary, Underlying Issue to the UM LGBTQ Issue
I wrote in an earlier blog that the issue being addressed in A Way Forward is not the real issue. The issues that gave birth to the Way Forward report have to do with the official stance of The UMC concerning LBGTQ people: the language in the Book of Discipline that declares the practice of homosexuality as incompatible with scriptural teaching plus the prohibitions against the ordination of LBGTQ persons, against UM clergy performing marriages for LBGTQ couples, and against the use of UM facilities for such marriages.
On the surface, the issue appears to be a black-and-white, either/or issue: is the practice of homosexuality incompatible with scriptural teaching - yes or no? If the answer is "yes,", then ordination and marriage of LGBTQ individuals are not options.
As with most seemingly black-and-white, either/or issues, this issue rests on deeper issues. Those deeper issues are the ones we must discuss. These deeper issues comprise the foundation for our position on this seemingly black-and-white issue. (I made a list of those issues in my earlier post "There's More to the Issue Than the Issue Before Us.")
It seems to me the primary, underlying issue is: What is the distinguishing mark of a follower of Jesus? A different question comes at the same key issue from a different direction: What is the nature of the Christian life?
I have served in Christian ministry during a time in which being a Christian was defined by a combination of (1) what one believed, (2) one's moral behavior, and (3) one's involvement in church life. A Christian is someone who believed certain things, held to a particular moral standard, and was actively involved in church activities. The particular "brand" of church in which one was involved was determined by the beliefs and moral standard. This way of identifying or defining a Christian resulted in Christians identifying themselves as United Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, non-denominational, etc., not simply "as a follower of Jesus." Each group had its own set of distinguishing beliefs and moral standard.
In this way of defining a Christian, the Bible became the basis for what a Christian believed, for the moral standard the Christian held, and for the religious rituals they followed. The Bible became the authority that defined right belief, right behavior, right ritual. It began to be used as the unquestionable "last word" as to what to believe, how to live, and how to worship. As such, the Bible became a book of laws and rules to which to appeal in times of disagreement over belief, morals, or ritual. The wide variation of what was considered right belief, right behavior, and right ritual lay in how each group viewed the Bible and, thereby, interpreted the Bible.
This way of defining a Christian and using the Bible created churches that are rigid in their views. (They would dislike the term "rigid," arguing that their views were "biblical.") An inevitable consequence of such rigidity is these churches became elitist, excluding "those not like us" (us-them division). Belonging is conditioned upon conformity. Questions are treated as "a lack of faith" rather than a way of growing in faith. Differing views are labeled "unbiblical" or heresy. "Being right" is a prized virtue and the fuel to an unrecognized sense of superiority. Some groups go so far as to say "if you don't believe as we do, you're not a Christian."
This expression of Christianity is quick to argue that homosexuality is incompatible with biblical teaching. Those in this camp can quote chapter and verse from the Bible to support their position. (In my opinion, how they view scripture and how they interpret scripture is really the basis of their position.)
This expression of Christianity is the religious arena in which I have lived since I first became involved in church life as a child. But I am increasingly uncomfortable in this kind of Christianity. It seems to me that it does not reflect the heart of God or the ways of God that Jesus taught, what he called the Kingdom of God. Right belief, right behavior, right ritual are ways of identifying different religious groups (Christian and non-Christian), but not for identifying the followers of Jesus.
Jesus himself said, "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). Love is the distinguishing mark of the followers of Jesus. How one views and treats others is what sets one apart as a follower of Jesus. The nature of the Christian life is a life of love and service to others - the way of the servant.
Us-them, better than-less than thinking are inherent to our human condition. We naturally think and live this way. We associate with "those like us." We exclude (and fear) those who are different. To wrap this us-them, better than-less than way of thinking and relating in religious garb, appealing to the Bible as validation, is not authentic Christianity. Nowhere in scripture do I see that Jesus excluded anyone. He viewed, embraced, and treated all as beloved children of God ... and taught his disciples to do the same.
As the followers of Jesus, we are to love one another. We are to love our neighbors. We are to love our enemies. Because love - love for all - is the distinguishing mark of the followers of Jesus. Love expressed in ministry to others is the nature of the Christian life.
The Way Forward report raises a divisive issue. Before we take a position on that issue, we must first, I believe, be clear on what is the distinguishing mark of the followers of Jesus, on how we describe the nature of the Christian life. Our answer to those questions will determine what position we take on the other issue.
On the surface, the issue appears to be a black-and-white, either/or issue: is the practice of homosexuality incompatible with scriptural teaching - yes or no? If the answer is "yes,", then ordination and marriage of LGBTQ individuals are not options.
As with most seemingly black-and-white, either/or issues, this issue rests on deeper issues. Those deeper issues are the ones we must discuss. These deeper issues comprise the foundation for our position on this seemingly black-and-white issue. (I made a list of those issues in my earlier post "There's More to the Issue Than the Issue Before Us.")
It seems to me the primary, underlying issue is: What is the distinguishing mark of a follower of Jesus? A different question comes at the same key issue from a different direction: What is the nature of the Christian life?
I have served in Christian ministry during a time in which being a Christian was defined by a combination of (1) what one believed, (2) one's moral behavior, and (3) one's involvement in church life. A Christian is someone who believed certain things, held to a particular moral standard, and was actively involved in church activities. The particular "brand" of church in which one was involved was determined by the beliefs and moral standard. This way of identifying or defining a Christian resulted in Christians identifying themselves as United Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, non-denominational, etc., not simply "as a follower of Jesus." Each group had its own set of distinguishing beliefs and moral standard.
In this way of defining a Christian, the Bible became the basis for what a Christian believed, for the moral standard the Christian held, and for the religious rituals they followed. The Bible became the authority that defined right belief, right behavior, right ritual. It began to be used as the unquestionable "last word" as to what to believe, how to live, and how to worship. As such, the Bible became a book of laws and rules to which to appeal in times of disagreement over belief, morals, or ritual. The wide variation of what was considered right belief, right behavior, and right ritual lay in how each group viewed the Bible and, thereby, interpreted the Bible.
This way of defining a Christian and using the Bible created churches that are rigid in their views. (They would dislike the term "rigid," arguing that their views were "biblical.") An inevitable consequence of such rigidity is these churches became elitist, excluding "those not like us" (us-them division). Belonging is conditioned upon conformity. Questions are treated as "a lack of faith" rather than a way of growing in faith. Differing views are labeled "unbiblical" or heresy. "Being right" is a prized virtue and the fuel to an unrecognized sense of superiority. Some groups go so far as to say "if you don't believe as we do, you're not a Christian."
This expression of Christianity is quick to argue that homosexuality is incompatible with biblical teaching. Those in this camp can quote chapter and verse from the Bible to support their position. (In my opinion, how they view scripture and how they interpret scripture is really the basis of their position.)
This expression of Christianity is the religious arena in which I have lived since I first became involved in church life as a child. But I am increasingly uncomfortable in this kind of Christianity. It seems to me that it does not reflect the heart of God or the ways of God that Jesus taught, what he called the Kingdom of God. Right belief, right behavior, right ritual are ways of identifying different religious groups (Christian and non-Christian), but not for identifying the followers of Jesus.
Jesus himself said, "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). Love is the distinguishing mark of the followers of Jesus. How one views and treats others is what sets one apart as a follower of Jesus. The nature of the Christian life is a life of love and service to others - the way of the servant.
Us-them, better than-less than thinking are inherent to our human condition. We naturally think and live this way. We associate with "those like us." We exclude (and fear) those who are different. To wrap this us-them, better than-less than way of thinking and relating in religious garb, appealing to the Bible as validation, is not authentic Christianity. Nowhere in scripture do I see that Jesus excluded anyone. He viewed, embraced, and treated all as beloved children of God ... and taught his disciples to do the same.
As the followers of Jesus, we are to love one another. We are to love our neighbors. We are to love our enemies. Because love - love for all - is the distinguishing mark of the followers of Jesus. Love expressed in ministry to others is the nature of the Christian life.
The Way Forward report raises a divisive issue. Before we take a position on that issue, we must first, I believe, be clear on what is the distinguishing mark of the followers of Jesus, on how we describe the nature of the Christian life. Our answer to those questions will determine what position we take on the other issue.
Monday, September 24, 2018
The Bible Says ...
The ancient Hebrew prophets would begin their messages with the declaration "Thus saith the LORD!" Today, Christians often support their belief or position by saying, "The Bible says ...." In my mind, these two assertions are far from the same thing.
"The Bible says" appeals to the Bible as the ultimate authority regarding Christian belief and practice. (We live in an era that emphasizes belief as the identifying mark of a Christian. But that's another blog, for another time.) I am uncomfortable with this common practice of appealing to the Bible as the ultimate authority ... first, because this practice ignores the nature of scripture and, second, because it misuses scripture. Stay with me as I explain what I mean.
Generally, those who appeal to scripture as the ultimate authority view scripture as totally trustworthy. They use words like infallible and inerrant. They view scripture as the eternal Word of God. In other words, they view scripture as exclusively a divine book. This view of scripture is often portrayed as faith. In my mind, it is not so much faith as a desire for certainty - the opposite of faith. Faith, by nature, involves an element of uncertainty. And this view of scripture is a misplaced faith. My faith is in a person, not a book. My faith is in who Jesus revealed God to be.
Please hear what I am saying. I have a very high regard for scripture. I would argue that I have a higher regard for scripture than those who hold to its infallible nature. Scripture is foundational to my understanding of who God is. It is central to my spiritual life and spiritual formation. I have built my professional life around the study and proclamation of scripture. My preaching style is called expository - the explanation and application of the biblical text. Week in, week out, it is what I do.
But I recognize and honor the dual nature of scripture. It is indeed a divine book - God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16).The Spirit inspired those who wrote, those who compiled, and those who arranged the various books. Scripture is a gift from God. But the Bible is also a human book - the product of human authors (Hebrews 1:1, 2 Peter 1:21). God spoke through them. The Spirit guided them. But, in doing so, God did not obliterate their humanness. Their human touch is evident in every text: in their historical setting, in their culture, in the languages they used, in the various types of literature in which they wrote, in their Near Eastern worldviews.
Both natures - the divine and the human - must be considered in the interpretation of scripture. What God says to us (the divine truth) comes wrapped in a human wrapper. It must be unwrapped to be fully understood. Failure to recognize and honor both natures will cause us to mistake cultural practices and understandings for eternal truth. Divine truth transcends historical times and human cultures.
In addition, proclaiming "the Bible says" often misuses scripture. It uses scripture to defend my belief or validate my position. It declares "God is on my side in this issue." This appeal to the Bible is a not-so-subtle way of shutting down dialogue and the pursuit of truth. It declares "the Bible says it. That's the way it is. Just accept it." (You've heard the platitude: "God - i.e., the Bible - said it. I believe it. That settles it.") This proclamation masks an arrogance that attacks the other's position, treating it as invalid and "not biblical."
In my opinion, the Spirit uses scripture to grow us into the likeness of Christ. The nature of God, the ways of God (the Kingdom), our human nature are all revealed in scripture. The Spirit uses those revelations to guide us into deeper spiritual understanding which, in turn, shapes who we are and how we live. Thus, the proper use of scripture is to reveal God and the ways of God, allowing that revelation to shape us into the likeness of Christ.
My position about the nature of scripture and the use of scripture raises the question: if scripture is not the ultimate authority regarding Christian belief and practice, what is?
For me, the ultimate authority to which I appeal is the nature/character of God as revealed in scripture. The character of God was revealed to Moses in the Hebrew scriptures: the compassionate and gracious God - slow to anger, abounding in faithful love, forgiving all expressions of sin (Exodus 34:6-7). Jesus was the fullest revelation of the character of God (John 1:18; Colossians 1:15, 19; Hebrews 1:1-3). In him, we see the self-giving, servant nature of God (Mark 10:41-45; Philippians 2:5-11) who relates to us out of grace and forgiveness. Because of Jesus, we declare "God is love" (1 John 4:8).
The character of God - the love of God - the servant nature of God - the life and ministry of Jesus are the ultimate authority for the followers of Jesus today. What we believe and how we live are shaped by who God is as revealed in Jesus the Christ.
Using the nature of God as the ultimate authority is an act of faith. We stake our lives on who Jesus revealed God to be. We build our lives around the teachings of Jesus. This way of living does not rely upon a book of rules or beliefs to which we appeal. Rather, it calls us to rely upon the Spirit as we think and discern what is in keeping with who God is and with Jesus' teachings about the ways of God (the Kingdom). It's the kind of thing the ancient Hebrew prophets did when they declared "Thus saith the LORD!"
As we engage in conversation regarding A Way Forward, may we explore "thus saith the LORD" rather than declare "the Bible says."
"The Bible says" appeals to the Bible as the ultimate authority regarding Christian belief and practice. (We live in an era that emphasizes belief as the identifying mark of a Christian. But that's another blog, for another time.) I am uncomfortable with this common practice of appealing to the Bible as the ultimate authority ... first, because this practice ignores the nature of scripture and, second, because it misuses scripture. Stay with me as I explain what I mean.
Generally, those who appeal to scripture as the ultimate authority view scripture as totally trustworthy. They use words like infallible and inerrant. They view scripture as the eternal Word of God. In other words, they view scripture as exclusively a divine book. This view of scripture is often portrayed as faith. In my mind, it is not so much faith as a desire for certainty - the opposite of faith. Faith, by nature, involves an element of uncertainty. And this view of scripture is a misplaced faith. My faith is in a person, not a book. My faith is in who Jesus revealed God to be.
Please hear what I am saying. I have a very high regard for scripture. I would argue that I have a higher regard for scripture than those who hold to its infallible nature. Scripture is foundational to my understanding of who God is. It is central to my spiritual life and spiritual formation. I have built my professional life around the study and proclamation of scripture. My preaching style is called expository - the explanation and application of the biblical text. Week in, week out, it is what I do.
But I recognize and honor the dual nature of scripture. It is indeed a divine book - God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16).The Spirit inspired those who wrote, those who compiled, and those who arranged the various books. Scripture is a gift from God. But the Bible is also a human book - the product of human authors (Hebrews 1:1, 2 Peter 1:21). God spoke through them. The Spirit guided them. But, in doing so, God did not obliterate their humanness. Their human touch is evident in every text: in their historical setting, in their culture, in the languages they used, in the various types of literature in which they wrote, in their Near Eastern worldviews.
Both natures - the divine and the human - must be considered in the interpretation of scripture. What God says to us (the divine truth) comes wrapped in a human wrapper. It must be unwrapped to be fully understood. Failure to recognize and honor both natures will cause us to mistake cultural practices and understandings for eternal truth. Divine truth transcends historical times and human cultures.
In addition, proclaiming "the Bible says" often misuses scripture. It uses scripture to defend my belief or validate my position. It declares "God is on my side in this issue." This appeal to the Bible is a not-so-subtle way of shutting down dialogue and the pursuit of truth. It declares "the Bible says it. That's the way it is. Just accept it." (You've heard the platitude: "God - i.e., the Bible - said it. I believe it. That settles it.") This proclamation masks an arrogance that attacks the other's position, treating it as invalid and "not biblical."
In my opinion, the Spirit uses scripture to grow us into the likeness of Christ. The nature of God, the ways of God (the Kingdom), our human nature are all revealed in scripture. The Spirit uses those revelations to guide us into deeper spiritual understanding which, in turn, shapes who we are and how we live. Thus, the proper use of scripture is to reveal God and the ways of God, allowing that revelation to shape us into the likeness of Christ.
My position about the nature of scripture and the use of scripture raises the question: if scripture is not the ultimate authority regarding Christian belief and practice, what is?
For me, the ultimate authority to which I appeal is the nature/character of God as revealed in scripture. The character of God was revealed to Moses in the Hebrew scriptures: the compassionate and gracious God - slow to anger, abounding in faithful love, forgiving all expressions of sin (Exodus 34:6-7). Jesus was the fullest revelation of the character of God (John 1:18; Colossians 1:15, 19; Hebrews 1:1-3). In him, we see the self-giving, servant nature of God (Mark 10:41-45; Philippians 2:5-11) who relates to us out of grace and forgiveness. Because of Jesus, we declare "God is love" (1 John 4:8).
The character of God - the love of God - the servant nature of God - the life and ministry of Jesus are the ultimate authority for the followers of Jesus today. What we believe and how we live are shaped by who God is as revealed in Jesus the Christ.
Using the nature of God as the ultimate authority is an act of faith. We stake our lives on who Jesus revealed God to be. We build our lives around the teachings of Jesus. This way of living does not rely upon a book of rules or beliefs to which we appeal. Rather, it calls us to rely upon the Spirit as we think and discern what is in keeping with who God is and with Jesus' teachings about the ways of God (the Kingdom). It's the kind of thing the ancient Hebrew prophets did when they declared "Thus saith the LORD!"
As we engage in conversation regarding A Way Forward, may we explore "thus saith the LORD" rather than declare "the Bible says."
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
Learning from How Jesus Used Scripture
As the followers of Jesus today, it makes sense that we would follow how Jesus used scripture.
According to the gospel records, it is evident that Jesus knew scripture, i.e., the Hebrew scriptures. The gospels record him quoting scripture in a multitude of settings. For example, Matthew's gospel records him quoting scripture:
These examples give us an idea of how Jesus used scripture. They indicate that Jesus used scripture (particularly Deuteronomy, the Psalms, and the prophet Isaiah) to help him know God and the heart of God, to know the ways of God and the hearts of humans, to nurture his own faith and guide what he did. Luke's gospel (Luke 4:16-30) indicates that his understanding of his identity and his mission were shaped by scripture (Isaiah 61:1-2).
These examples also indicate how Jesus did not use scripture. He did not use scripture as a rule book - a book of laws to be meticulously followed. And there are plenty of laws in the Torah! But Jesus did not focus on the Laws of the Torah. If anything, Jesus went beyond the Law to the intent of the Law.
Jesus understood and respected the value of the Law. He asserted that he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17-20). But Jesus looked beyond the prescribed behavior of a particular law to the underlying principle ... to the deeper meaning of the Law. In the Sermon on the Mount, he quoted the Torah six times, each time pointing to a deeper understanding of what the law meant. "You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ... but I say to you" (Matthew 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43).
While Jesus understood and respected the value of the Law, he also understood that the Law could be misused, even abused. He understood that the human ego, not recognizing the intent of the Law, could twist and misuse it. Rather than being a reflection of the heart of God and the ways of God, the Law could be turned into a standard by which people were measured and judged. It could become a way of relating to God. This merit-based way of relating to God and one another was opposed to the grace-based, forgiveness-oriented way of relating to God and others that Jesus lived and taught.
This difference of understanding and using the Law was one reason Jesus was so often at odds with the religious traditions and religious leaders of his day. Mark's gospel records four of these incidents back to back in the beginning section of his gospel (Mark 2:15 - 3:6). In each of these incidents, Jesus placed greater priority on people and the needs of people than on following the rules. Jesus' actions were, as would be expected, offensive to the religious leadership of the day ... so offensive that they plotted his death (Mark 3:6). Jesus actions and teachings threatened the very foundation of their Law-based religion. They threatened the identity, status, power, and position of those who had built their lives around the Law and the religious life that grew out of it.
Jesus not only understood the intent of the Law, he also understood the essence of the Law. When asked about the greatest law (Matthew 22:34-40), Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:5, tying it to Leviticus 19:18: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. You shall love your neighbor as yourself." For Jesus, the essence of the Law was love: loving God, loving neighbor. These two commandments from Hebrew scripture were the only two commandments that Jesus taught. In addition, John's gospel records a new commandment that Jesus gave his disciples: "love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another" (John 13:34-35). Jesus' new commandment was an extension of what he identified as the greatest commandment: love. Love would be the identifying mark of the followers of Jesus: "by this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). Jesus emphasized love, not conforming to some standard of behavior. His priority was relationships, not rules. Jesus established love, not the Law, as the standard by which we are to live.
So why this diatribe about how Jesus used scripture?
In the current controversy within The UMC surrounding A Way Forward, people on both sides of the issue quote scripture to support their position. Both are using scripture to validate their position. Both appeal to scripture as the foundation of the standard they use to determine "what is right." Both sides are certain of their position because "The Bible says ..."
It seems to me that both sides are using scripture in a way that Jesus didn't: as a standard to be used to validate their correctness or to judge the other's shortcomings. In addition, they are making "being right" more important than the relationships and love that Jesus taught. I've heard it said: "In a conflict, you can be right or you can have relationship. You can't have both."
From my perspective, I wonder: what are we willing to sacrifice in order to be "right"? And, can we be "right" if we do not love one another?
But then, maybe this blog does the very thing I say Jesus didn't do! More of my thinking about scripture next week. Until then, work at loving as Jesus loved.
According to the gospel records, it is evident that Jesus knew scripture, i.e., the Hebrew scriptures. The gospels record him quoting scripture in a multitude of settings. For example, Matthew's gospel records him quoting scripture:
- in the temptation experiences (Matthew 4:1-11),
- in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43),
- in sending out the Twelve (Matthew 10:34-36),
- in speaking of John the Baptizer (Matthew 11:7-19),
- in explaining his use of parables (Matthew 13:13-16),
- in responding to attacks by the Pharisees and scribes (Matthew 15:7-9),
- in the question regarding divorce (Matthew 19:3-9),
- in his taking control of the Temple compound (Matthew 21:12-17),
- when he was questioned by the religious leaders (Matthew 21:42),
- when asked about the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:34-40),
- when preparing the disciples for his arrest (Matthew 26:31-32),
- when on trial before the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:63-64),
- when on the cross (Matthew 27:45-46).
These examples give us an idea of how Jesus used scripture. They indicate that Jesus used scripture (particularly Deuteronomy, the Psalms, and the prophet Isaiah) to help him know God and the heart of God, to know the ways of God and the hearts of humans, to nurture his own faith and guide what he did. Luke's gospel (Luke 4:16-30) indicates that his understanding of his identity and his mission were shaped by scripture (Isaiah 61:1-2).
These examples also indicate how Jesus did not use scripture. He did not use scripture as a rule book - a book of laws to be meticulously followed. And there are plenty of laws in the Torah! But Jesus did not focus on the Laws of the Torah. If anything, Jesus went beyond the Law to the intent of the Law.
Jesus understood and respected the value of the Law. He asserted that he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17-20). But Jesus looked beyond the prescribed behavior of a particular law to the underlying principle ... to the deeper meaning of the Law. In the Sermon on the Mount, he quoted the Torah six times, each time pointing to a deeper understanding of what the law meant. "You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ... but I say to you" (Matthew 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43).
While Jesus understood and respected the value of the Law, he also understood that the Law could be misused, even abused. He understood that the human ego, not recognizing the intent of the Law, could twist and misuse it. Rather than being a reflection of the heart of God and the ways of God, the Law could be turned into a standard by which people were measured and judged. It could become a way of relating to God. This merit-based way of relating to God and one another was opposed to the grace-based, forgiveness-oriented way of relating to God and others that Jesus lived and taught.
This difference of understanding and using the Law was one reason Jesus was so often at odds with the religious traditions and religious leaders of his day. Mark's gospel records four of these incidents back to back in the beginning section of his gospel (Mark 2:15 - 3:6). In each of these incidents, Jesus placed greater priority on people and the needs of people than on following the rules. Jesus' actions were, as would be expected, offensive to the religious leadership of the day ... so offensive that they plotted his death (Mark 3:6). Jesus actions and teachings threatened the very foundation of their Law-based religion. They threatened the identity, status, power, and position of those who had built their lives around the Law and the religious life that grew out of it.
Jesus not only understood the intent of the Law, he also understood the essence of the Law. When asked about the greatest law (Matthew 22:34-40), Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:5, tying it to Leviticus 19:18: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. You shall love your neighbor as yourself." For Jesus, the essence of the Law was love: loving God, loving neighbor. These two commandments from Hebrew scripture were the only two commandments that Jesus taught. In addition, John's gospel records a new commandment that Jesus gave his disciples: "love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another" (John 13:34-35). Jesus' new commandment was an extension of what he identified as the greatest commandment: love. Love would be the identifying mark of the followers of Jesus: "by this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). Jesus emphasized love, not conforming to some standard of behavior. His priority was relationships, not rules. Jesus established love, not the Law, as the standard by which we are to live.
So why this diatribe about how Jesus used scripture?
In the current controversy within The UMC surrounding A Way Forward, people on both sides of the issue quote scripture to support their position. Both are using scripture to validate their position. Both appeal to scripture as the foundation of the standard they use to determine "what is right." Both sides are certain of their position because "The Bible says ..."
It seems to me that both sides are using scripture in a way that Jesus didn't: as a standard to be used to validate their correctness or to judge the other's shortcomings. In addition, they are making "being right" more important than the relationships and love that Jesus taught. I've heard it said: "In a conflict, you can be right or you can have relationship. You can't have both."
From my perspective, I wonder: what are we willing to sacrifice in order to be "right"? And, can we be "right" if we do not love one another?
But then, maybe this blog does the very thing I say Jesus didn't do! More of my thinking about scripture next week. Until then, work at loving as Jesus loved.
Monday, September 10, 2018
We Cannot Love Out of Anxiety and Fear
In my last blog (We Will Not Fear, 9/3/18), I said that we are not at our best when we live out of our anxiety and fear (or anger, I might add). Our anxiety and fear take our thinking capacity "off line" so that we unconsciously react rather than thoughtfully respond.
This blog takes that idea a step further: when we live out of our anxiety, fear, and anger, we who call ourselves "Christian" betray our Christian identity. We act contrary to what we say we believe. We act contrary to the teachings of Jesus and to the ways of God. We fail to love as Jesus loved. Our anxious, fearful spirit is opposite the grace-based, servant spirit of Christ. This kind of betrayal is especially true when the followers of Jesus become embroiled in conflict.
Conflict among the followers of Jesus is nothing new. Acts 6 records conflict in the first church. The conflict was between the Hellenists (Greek speaking Jews) and the Hebrews (Aramaic speaking Jews). Interestingly, this first recorded conflict had overtones of ethnic and cultural issues. That early church found a way to resolve the conflict and make it an occasion for growth and public witness. But conflict in the church did not end. The church at Corinth, the churches of Galatia, the church at Philippi, the communities of John all experienced conflict according to the witness of the New Testament. My first experience of church conflict was in my home church when I was eleven. It led to the firing of the pastor. As a pastor, I have never served a congregation that has not experienced conflict or some kind of division. The UMC, since 1972, has experienced on-going conflict over the official position of the Church regarding homosexuality.
Unaddressed and unresolved conflict among the followers of Jesus is a public betrayal of our Christian identity. Our failure is on display for all to see and, inevitably, to gossip about.
But what if we dealt with our disagreements and conflict differently? What if we dealt with them in keeping with the teachings of Jesus and the ways of God? What if we approached them out of a spirit of love? What if we addressed them as that early church did: in ways that led to resolution, witness, and growth? What might the impact be on our Christian identity and witness, not to mention our own spirituality?
I believe a different way of dealing with our conflicts is possible, even in the divisiveness we are experiencing in The UMC concerning A Way Forward. We can deal with our disagreements and conflict differently, but to do so requires us to move beyond acting out of anxiety, fear, and anger.
When we live out of our anxiety, fear, and anger, we are living out of what the Apostle Paul called "the flesh" (Galatians 5:16-21). We are living out of our default human nature with its what's-in-it-for-me, self-serving spirit. We are living out of our most base nature ... and it's not pretty! Our anxiety and fear block out what we say we believe (our thinking capacity) and its ability to guide us and what we do.
Paul taught that we can move beyond our default human nature and its anxiety, fear, and anger through the power of the Spirit. "Live by the Spirit" (Galatians 5:16), "keep in step with the Spirit" (Galatians 5:25, NIV), Paul taught. He went on to say that our default human nature is at odds with the Spirit (Galatians 5:17). What we do when we are living out of our default human nature (the works of the flesh, Galatians 5:19-21) is at odds with what the Spirit produces (the fruit of the Spirit, Galatians 5:22-23). Thus, what we do and how we act depends on the spirit out of which we a living in the moment: the spirit of anxiety, fear, and anger that is inherent to our default, human nature or the Spirit of Christ.
Our anxiety, fear, and anger cause us to live out of a defended posture. They cause us to see others as different from us and, thereby, to see them as a threat. We see them as "other." Consequently, we build walls, both physically and emotionally, to protect ourselves from what we view as "other." And, when push comes to shove - which it so frequently does - we use our power to defend ourselves and our position while attacking the other and their position. In other words, our anxiety, fear, and anger breed conflict and division. Paul said it this way: "The works of the flesh are .. enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy," Galatians 5:19-20.
The Spirit, on the other hand, leads us and empowers us to love as Jesus loved. The Spirit empowers us to live out of a spirit of joy and peace that displaces anxiety, fear, and anger. The Spirit empowers us to be patient, kind, generous, faithful, and gentle in the way we treat others. And, most importantly, the Spirit empowers us to exercise self-control.
Spirit-empowered self-control is the key to loving as Jesus loved. It is the door that leads to joy and peace. It underlies our ability to relate to others with patience, with kindness and gentleness, with generosity and faithfulness.
The Spirit calls us to exercise self-control by making us aware of the anxiety, fear, and anger that stir inside us. That awareness creates a choice within us: continue to live out of the anxiety, fear, and anger or manage them so they do not have power over how we think and what we do. (See again last week's blog: do not continue to fear.) The awareness of our anxiety, fear, and anger is the Spirit's call to put ourselves in a position for the Spirit to move us beyond them into joy and peace.
We cannot act in love while we are living out of anxiety, fear, and anger. And isn't love (not belief or a position on can issue) the distinguishing mark of the followers of Jesus?
This blog takes that idea a step further: when we live out of our anxiety, fear, and anger, we who call ourselves "Christian" betray our Christian identity. We act contrary to what we say we believe. We act contrary to the teachings of Jesus and to the ways of God. We fail to love as Jesus loved. Our anxious, fearful spirit is opposite the grace-based, servant spirit of Christ. This kind of betrayal is especially true when the followers of Jesus become embroiled in conflict.
Conflict among the followers of Jesus is nothing new. Acts 6 records conflict in the first church. The conflict was between the Hellenists (Greek speaking Jews) and the Hebrews (Aramaic speaking Jews). Interestingly, this first recorded conflict had overtones of ethnic and cultural issues. That early church found a way to resolve the conflict and make it an occasion for growth and public witness. But conflict in the church did not end. The church at Corinth, the churches of Galatia, the church at Philippi, the communities of John all experienced conflict according to the witness of the New Testament. My first experience of church conflict was in my home church when I was eleven. It led to the firing of the pastor. As a pastor, I have never served a congregation that has not experienced conflict or some kind of division. The UMC, since 1972, has experienced on-going conflict over the official position of the Church regarding homosexuality.
But what if we dealt with our disagreements and conflict differently? What if we dealt with them in keeping with the teachings of Jesus and the ways of God? What if we approached them out of a spirit of love? What if we addressed them as that early church did: in ways that led to resolution, witness, and growth? What might the impact be on our Christian identity and witness, not to mention our own spirituality?
I believe a different way of dealing with our conflicts is possible, even in the divisiveness we are experiencing in The UMC concerning A Way Forward. We can deal with our disagreements and conflict differently, but to do so requires us to move beyond acting out of anxiety, fear, and anger.
When we live out of our anxiety, fear, and anger, we are living out of what the Apostle Paul called "the flesh" (Galatians 5:16-21). We are living out of our default human nature with its what's-in-it-for-me, self-serving spirit. We are living out of our most base nature ... and it's not pretty! Our anxiety and fear block out what we say we believe (our thinking capacity) and its ability to guide us and what we do.
Paul taught that we can move beyond our default human nature and its anxiety, fear, and anger through the power of the Spirit. "Live by the Spirit" (Galatians 5:16), "keep in step with the Spirit" (Galatians 5:25, NIV), Paul taught. He went on to say that our default human nature is at odds with the Spirit (Galatians 5:17). What we do when we are living out of our default human nature (the works of the flesh, Galatians 5:19-21) is at odds with what the Spirit produces (the fruit of the Spirit, Galatians 5:22-23). Thus, what we do and how we act depends on the spirit out of which we a living in the moment: the spirit of anxiety, fear, and anger that is inherent to our default, human nature or the Spirit of Christ.
Our anxiety, fear, and anger cause us to live out of a defended posture. They cause us to see others as different from us and, thereby, to see them as a threat. We see them as "other." Consequently, we build walls, both physically and emotionally, to protect ourselves from what we view as "other." And, when push comes to shove - which it so frequently does - we use our power to defend ourselves and our position while attacking the other and their position. In other words, our anxiety, fear, and anger breed conflict and division. Paul said it this way: "The works of the flesh are .. enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy," Galatians 5:19-20.
The Spirit, on the other hand, leads us and empowers us to love as Jesus loved. The Spirit empowers us to live out of a spirit of joy and peace that displaces anxiety, fear, and anger. The Spirit empowers us to be patient, kind, generous, faithful, and gentle in the way we treat others. And, most importantly, the Spirit empowers us to exercise self-control.
Spirit-empowered self-control is the key to loving as Jesus loved. It is the door that leads to joy and peace. It underlies our ability to relate to others with patience, with kindness and gentleness, with generosity and faithfulness.
The Spirit calls us to exercise self-control by making us aware of the anxiety, fear, and anger that stir inside us. That awareness creates a choice within us: continue to live out of the anxiety, fear, and anger or manage them so they do not have power over how we think and what we do. (See again last week's blog: do not continue to fear.) The awareness of our anxiety, fear, and anger is the Spirit's call to put ourselves in a position for the Spirit to move us beyond them into joy and peace.
We cannot act in love while we are living out of anxiety, fear, and anger. And isn't love (not belief or a position on can issue) the distinguishing mark of the followers of Jesus?
Monday, September 3, 2018
We Will Not Fear
The upcoming special session of General Conference has stirred a great deal of anxiety and fear within the ranks of United Methodists. Perhaps the most common fear is that The UMC as we know it will divide or splinter. Many are anxious about how the action of the special session will impact their local congregation. Clergy are anxious about the impact of the upcoming decision on their careers. People on both sides of the LGBTQ issue fear General Conference will embrace a position that is different from what they believe.
Each of these anxieties, and others like them, are fueled by the unknown. We simply do not know what decisions the delegates to this special session will make. Until we know those decisions, we cannot know their impact. Facing the unknown stirs feelings of powerlessness and, thereby, anxiety.
Anxiety is an expression of fear in response to a faceless threat. Because the threat is faceless, i.e., unknown, we do not know what to do to protect ourselves from it. The result is this inescapable sense of inner dis-ease accompanied by a panicky feeling of wanting to "do something ... anything" that will make the internal dis-ease go away.
We humans are not at our best when we live under the power of anxiety and fear. We react rather than respond. We act unconsciously, without thinking. The thinking portion of our brains is literally "off line" when we are anxious and afraid. As a result, we replay old patterns of behavior that are unique to each of us. Quite often, those old patterns involve some form of anger because anger gives us a feeling of power that soothes the feelings of being powerless.
The Bible has a lot to say about fear ... or, rather, about not being afraid. The psalmist wrote "God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. There we will not fear" (Psalm 46:1-2a, NRSV). Jesus promised his peace along with the exhortation to not be afraid: "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid" (John 14:27). The Apostle Paul also promised the peace of God, exhorting the disciples at Philippi, "Do not worry (be anxious) about anything" (Philippians 4:6).
Both Jesus and Paul used language that communicated the idea "you are afraid; stop it." Their words could be accurately translated as "do not continue to be afraid." Fear and anxiety are a normal part of our human experience. They are reactions that happen unconsciously in the face of a perceived threat. But they are also emotional reactions that can be managed and controlled. Jesus and Paul call us to recognize and manage our anxiety and fear. Rather than allow anxiety and fear to continue to influence how we think and what we do, we intentionally do those things that manage them and their power. Paul urged the Philippians to pray with thanksgiving instead of worrying, promising the peace of God.
Both Jesus and Paul spoke of peace. The peace of which they spoke displaces fear and anxiety. Paul identified this peace as the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:21-22). The peace of Christ allows us to think clearly and consciously respond (as opposed to unconsciously reacting) in line with the teachings of Jesus and the ways of the Kingdom. The peace of God, not our human fear, are to guide how we as the followers of Jesus think and what we do.
How do we deal with the unknown that lies before us? How do we deal with feelings of powerlessness as others make decisions that will impact us? How do we deal with the anxiety that fills our hearts and minds regarding A Way Forward? The psalmist offers us guidance that reflects the teachings of Jesus and Paul: "we will not fear!" We will not live in fear, with fear, out of fear. Trusting the faithful love of God, we will rest in God's peace.
The peace of Christ be with you as we live in the face of the unknown.
Each of these anxieties, and others like them, are fueled by the unknown. We simply do not know what decisions the delegates to this special session will make. Until we know those decisions, we cannot know their impact. Facing the unknown stirs feelings of powerlessness and, thereby, anxiety.
Anxiety is an expression of fear in response to a faceless threat. Because the threat is faceless, i.e., unknown, we do not know what to do to protect ourselves from it. The result is this inescapable sense of inner dis-ease accompanied by a panicky feeling of wanting to "do something ... anything" that will make the internal dis-ease go away.
We humans are not at our best when we live under the power of anxiety and fear. We react rather than respond. We act unconsciously, without thinking. The thinking portion of our brains is literally "off line" when we are anxious and afraid. As a result, we replay old patterns of behavior that are unique to each of us. Quite often, those old patterns involve some form of anger because anger gives us a feeling of power that soothes the feelings of being powerless.
The Bible has a lot to say about fear ... or, rather, about not being afraid. The psalmist wrote "God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. There we will not fear" (Psalm 46:1-2a, NRSV). Jesus promised his peace along with the exhortation to not be afraid: "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid" (John 14:27). The Apostle Paul also promised the peace of God, exhorting the disciples at Philippi, "Do not worry (be anxious) about anything" (Philippians 4:6).
Both Jesus and Paul used language that communicated the idea "you are afraid; stop it." Their words could be accurately translated as "do not continue to be afraid." Fear and anxiety are a normal part of our human experience. They are reactions that happen unconsciously in the face of a perceived threat. But they are also emotional reactions that can be managed and controlled. Jesus and Paul call us to recognize and manage our anxiety and fear. Rather than allow anxiety and fear to continue to influence how we think and what we do, we intentionally do those things that manage them and their power. Paul urged the Philippians to pray with thanksgiving instead of worrying, promising the peace of God.
Both Jesus and Paul spoke of peace. The peace of which they spoke displaces fear and anxiety. Paul identified this peace as the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:21-22). The peace of Christ allows us to think clearly and consciously respond (as opposed to unconsciously reacting) in line with the teachings of Jesus and the ways of the Kingdom. The peace of God, not our human fear, are to guide how we as the followers of Jesus think and what we do.
How do we deal with the unknown that lies before us? How do we deal with feelings of powerlessness as others make decisions that will impact us? How do we deal with the anxiety that fills our hearts and minds regarding A Way Forward? The psalmist offers us guidance that reflects the teachings of Jesus and Paul: "we will not fear!" We will not live in fear, with fear, out of fear. Trusting the faithful love of God, we will rest in God's peace.
The peace of Christ be with you as we live in the face of the unknown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)