The Hardest Part

The hardest part of pastoring is loving people. I don't mean to say that it's hard to love people. I think that's like saying, "It's hard to lift 10 tonne rocks." It's kinda true, but pointless. The only way to lift a 10 tonne rock is by an outside force. The only way to love people is similar--our capacity for love only comes from God (sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly). What makes loving people the hardest part, then? The flip side of love.

A few weeks ago I was looking over the people in my church as we were in worship and God opened my eyes to the love he gave me for them. I know that love is not within my own capacity, so it must have been him. That moment is a nice moment. The following moments one has in care, sermon prep, lunch, listening, etc. are awful. All of the sudden, you are not your own any more. You are somehow joined to the other person and a participant in their suffering because of God's "gift of love." That's the hardest part. You are no longer detached; you are uncontrollably attached and (as they say back home) "done fer." That's the hardest part.

In the moments that follow the empathy you see the true hypocrisy of speaking ill of someone. Just as love thrusts you into their story, feeling the broken and hurting heart they may not even realize they have, ill speech from your own mouth cuts back against you as you are now part of the one you have spoken ill of. In condemning another, you have, quite literally, condemned yourself. And God makes it so. That's the hardest part.

One Statement; Two Shortcomings

The statement: "Love all; trust few." ~William Shakespeare

Shortcoming #1: The Bible leaves it out. It should be a proverb. (Does anyone know where something similar is a proverb?)

Shortcoming #2: The statement finishes, "Do wrong to none." Shorter is better. It captures the existentialist feeling better. It connotes accurately the negativity and yet necessity of loving the unloveable, but the hope that one need not trust them.

I know what some (and by 'some,' I mean Paul, possibly Kirk (though he's at Zion Hill), and perhaps Mark Brewer--though I don't think he reads this) are now thinking about me critiquing William Shakespeare. Let me put it in comedic sketch form:

Chris Farley: "Dad, I can't see too good. Is that Bill Shakespeare over there?"
Phil Hartman: "Actually, Matt, we've encouraged [can't remember name, but character played by David Spade] in his writing."
Chris Farley: "Dad, I'd appreciate it if you'd just shut your big yapper!"

The Feminization of Culture

Stupid title, but I don't care. In the words (I think) of Will Ferrell from the outtakes of Zoolander, "I'm full of red hot fury." Well, I guess not that bad. But I am getting really annoyed with this desperate attempt to see Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' baby. (On Good Morning America this morning it was seriously described as a 'hunger.' A 'hunger' which the reporter seemed to indicate she shared.) A few thoughts on this:

1. All babies look similar. Picture about 10 babies and then average out their faces and that's roughly what she'll look like.

2. The only people who really care about seeing newborns are close friends and family. The rest of it is lip-service. Sorry, but the masses of America are not close friends of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. They may think they are, but they're not.

Ah...now that that's off my chest...

I'm only human?

The following is something I'm working on for a sporadic insert I put in my church's bulletin called, "Theology for Everyone." Like the name suggests, I want this to be accessible to everyone. This means that any- and everyone who reads this blog should get it. If you don't, please tell me because that means I'm not doing what I'm setting out to do! Let me know what you think or if there's anything that resonates with you or that you disagree with. I should also say that it is indebted to Crusty Guy's thought and is mainly a reworking of something he recently wrote.

Theology for Everyone: I’m only Human??

Everyone has heard the phrase, “Well, I’m only human!” The meaning is something along the lines of, “You have to expect failure from a human!” This is troubling if this is what comes to mind when we walk into sin. Here’s why.

Genesis 1:26 records human beings—male and female—as the high-point of God’s creation. Humanity is made in God’s image—living out this image as they rule over creation; as they care for God’s creation (Gen. 2:15). Closely connected to this idea of God’s image—and caring for God’s creation—is God’s presence. In Old Testament times, whenever a foreign king would conquer a land, he would set up a statue of himself in that foreign land to remind the people who was in charge. That statue was called an “image.” Part of what it means to be in God’s image is to do the work of God. God is saying, “ You have to remind all of creation that I care and tend for it.” But what does this have to do with sin?

The first commandment is to have no gods before God. God follows this up in Leviticus by saying we should have no images that we bow before (Lev. 26:1). By worshiping something other than God (be it money, prestige, another person, a hobby, etc.)—by worshiping an image--we are not only doing a wrong against God, but against ourselves. By sinning, we deny the fact that we are made in God’s image and make ourselves into the image of something less. We lower ourselves from the pinnacle of God’s creation and deny our God-likeness. We are supposed to worship the One in whose image we are made and worshiping anything less than God distorts and hurts what it means to be human. Think of how ridiculous it is to worship what other people think of us—and to bear the image of other people instead of God!

So, the phrase, “I’m only human!” is really misleading. The truth is, being human means a whole lot—it means being made in God’s image, given the responsibility to do the work of God in caring for His creation! When we sin, we are not acting like humans, but less than human. When we sin, we make ourselves in the image of something much less than God. Grasp what it really means to be human! Take pride in what it really means to be human. Remember that being human means emulating Jesus (look up Colossians 1:15), being all that God intended humans to be.

Forms of Opposition

In the last post, Jo highlighted the huge potential of all the church doing a little, rather than everyone feeling the need to do it all.

Jo was exactly right. And it reminded me of Mark 14, the story of the woman pouring the perfume on Jesus and those present griping in response. Contrary to the supposed condemnation in Jesus' words about the poor always being with us (the condemnation being, you will always have the poor because you won't care), Jesus is highlighting the kind of love that is unconsidered, abandoned, and thereby wasteful. And he says the woman has done a beautiful thing. What I find most interesting about this story is that it takes place in the home of Simon the Leper (and in Bethany, which in Hebrew means, "house of the poor and afflicted"). Those following Jesus were more than willing to associate with the down and outers--in a town whose name reflected its plight (perhaps), and in the home of a person known for being, at one point, at least, a leper.

What is most interesting about this story is that it is the point of Judas' betrayal. John offers commentary in his replay of the story by saying that Judas left because he was a thief, not because he cared for the poor (John 12:4-6). Mark, however, has only noted the griping of "some who were present." Whatever Judas' motives were in betrayal, he found (on the surface, at least) solidarity with those who had become hyper-zealous, and thereby considered, attached, and extremely practical/efficient in their love.

Two forms of opposition--one secretly selfish, the other explicitly selfless.

Is evangelicalism weird?

First, I want to outline fundamentalism in its historical context. Second, I will share a short anecdote. Third, I want to ask the question, "What is evangelicalism?"

Fundamentalism is a movement that emerged in the early 20th century in response to some liberal tendencies developing in seminaries. Materials were published by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles in 1909 and was sent to ministers throughout the U.S.A. These materials listed the five fundamentals of Christian faith:

• Inerrancy of the Scriptures
• The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
• The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
• The bodily resurrection of Jesus
• The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his premillennial second coming)

What was more important than the set of fundamentals, was the attitude of the movement. The distance they established between themselves and folks such as Billy Graham (he worked with too many of them there liberals) illustrates the attitude.

In regard to scriptural inerrancy, Fundamentalism is not the same as Literalism. Literalism, as the name suggests, believes the Bible to be literally true--there is no room for myth, saga, etc. Fundamentalism, however, operates with an understanding something like, "The Bible is to be understood literally except where it states otherwise." The problem with this idea, of course, is the question of how a writer would say, "This is not literal."

I am sure that most people who read this blog would classify themselves as evangelical. And evangelicalism started as a middle-way between fundamentalism and liberalism. Obviously this is a wide range of people--from weirdists like me (quasi-jokingly having some of my considerations referred to as 'weirdism' recently) to whatever the opposite of weirdism would be! If evangelicalism is home to so many, what does it mean?

I would like this to be open to any and all who find their home in evangelicalism. When you say you are evangelical, what does that mean for you? So, hopefully we won't get sidetracked or bogged down. So, if you consider yourself evangelical, what does that mean coming from you?

The pagans chase food, drink, and clothing

A simple but profound truth, and the pinnacle of Jesus' statement that you cannot serve God and Money: Pursuit of a limited good leaves one's return necessarily limited. Life lived in pursuit of money leaves one's (potential) return only those things which money can buy.

Ministerial Success, or Sly Jesus

In Matt. 6:16-18 Jesus talks of fasting in secret. The context is two-fold. First, the commands to pray, give, fast in secret are tied to doing works of the law ("acts of righteousness," 6:1) as the law was intended--for God. Law is about fidelity to God ("Your Father in heaven sees....". But these actions have been co-opted and have connections with synagogue worship. In other words, Jesus' command to do these things in secret would bring as much attention as doing them publicly. Not doing them was obvious. The point was to have a formal break with the synagogue and cultural loyalties.

And his disciples do just that--they fast in secret. How do we know? Because in Matt. 9:14-17, we have John's disciples asking Jesus why his disciples do not fast, when they and the Pharisees do fast. And Jesus' response? He lets them continue thinking that they are not fasting! He doesn't remind them that he is about recalling allegiance to God. Jesus' disciples have stopped engaging publicly in these practices and, it can be assumed, started practicing them in secret--in loyalty to God. When will the disciples engage in public fasting, again? When will they start engaging in the works which set them apart as Christians? When the bridegroom has gone. When public fasting takes on a new form and symbolizes a new fidelity.

It's no wonder, then, that the next recording of Jesus' followers fasting is in Acts 13: "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting...." The connection of fasting is back in the context of worship. The death and resurrection of Jesus has re-established the law of fasting and brought it into a new community, except it is those not centered around synagogue, but around Jesus. Now fasting is explicitly tied to the Messiahship of Jesus whom they worship. They are now fasting corporately, as a community, in honour of Jesus. They are fasting not for cultural and societal acceptance, but for worship--and in this state they discern the Spirit's leading.

(I suppose it makes sense, then, that Jesus says, "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.")

Bible Thumping: Scot McKnight on Christian Zealotry

The following links are well worth the read. They deal with the tendency of some Bible thumpers to take the Bible so seriously, that they go beyond what it says. And all those raised in strictly pietist homes said Amen! ;)

They are a little lengthy, and thoughtful, but easy to follow.

Here's the first.

Here's the second.

I love blog. I love blog.

1. Attended district conference on Saturday. It went quite well. Short and sweet; some funny parts; saw some people I hadn't seen in a while; set up a golf and a lunch outing. That's some good district conferencing, boy.

2. Golfed today. Shot 94 on a tough course. Shot 44 on the back nine, with four--count 'em--four pars.

3. Preached yesterday. Confirmed again that people need theological preaching. In the words of Ken Gavel, "When they've had it, they'll accept nothing else." It's amazing, though, how words--just spoken, existing for a moment, and then in the realm of memory--are something God uses to do big things.

4. Talked with my brother Paul about Jairus and the woman who has been bleeding for twelve years from Mark 5. Interesting how Jesus disregards two laws in this passage: he doesn't cleanse himself after being touched by a bleeding woman and he touches a dead body. He ignores the defilement that such contact brings. Apparently community oriented and centered around Jesus has new rules; they are given a new purity. Where is William McDowell when you need him? Whooooooooooo!

William McDowell is a great man from Shawville, Quebec, a semi-retired United Church of Canada minister who wears the clerical collar and shouts in the street if he gets blessed. He is also a fine sailor and John Wesley scholar. I have enjoyed the ol' sailing, John Wesley combo. It's not bad, at all.