We Are What We Are

I drive a 14-year old vehicle.  It’s been paid off now for a couple off years which helps make ends meet in our expensive little community, but it has the quirks and oddities of any mechanical device that old, let alone one as complex as an automobile.  Most recently, the retracting radio antennae no longer retracts, perhaps because it partially melted and fused into place during a recent sojourn  in Las Vegas for the world billiards tournament.

These things happen.  Things age.  You can’t expect a 14-year old car to function like a brand new one.  It would be foolish to think that somehow a vehicle – or any other thing – could remain independent of it’s actual age.  It’s a reality brought home to me more  and more, as some of my other possessions – particularly books – begin to show their age.  This was brand new when I bought it, but despite hardly being read, the pages are yellowing and the binding is cracking!  Duh.  I bought it brand new 30 years ago.  Things age because  they are what they are.

People are no different, though I think popular cultural mantras try to tell us otherwise.  There’s this idea – perhaps I shared it when I was younger – that we can objectively critique reality and ourselves and those around us.  We can isolate ourselves from what we are and objectively judge reality.

But the reality is that we can’t.  We are what we are, and part of what we are is a product of our time.  We may like that or not.  We may think about it or not.  But it’s true.

Since the radio antenna is stuck on, I turned on the radio today and sought out a station that would have made me shudder 30 years ago.  I turned on the 80’s station.  I hated 80’s  music when I was in the 80’s.  Mostly because it was popular and I saw myself at odds with everything popular and fashionable – mostly because I was neither.  But now, I seek out that station.  I hum along with Duran Duran and even Culture Club, despite hating them in the 80’s.  There is nostalgia there now, and comfort.  I’m a product of the 80’s,  when I came of age and became aware of the artistic culture around me.  I can’t change that.  I can be ashamed of it, I can embrace it, but I can’t divorce myself of it.  When I try, I end up sounding stupid.

Like this article.

I watched this show somewhat when it came out.  Growing up on reruns of the original Star  Trek series, I thought this basically did a good job of picking up the mantle and carrying on while trying to do so in original ways.  Sometimes they worked, sometimes they didn’t.  Not all the episodes were great, but they were overall enjoyable.

So this article is annoying and naive.  It critiques the series by and large for aesthetic issues related to when the series was made – the late 80’s and early 90’s.  It presumes that somehow the series should have been able to create an atmosphere completely disassociated from current cultural norms and trends.  As though the show could be or represent something other than what it  was – a group of actors and writers and designers and producers who were influenced not only by the original series but by their culture at the time.

One can like or dislike aspects of the culture, but to critique the culture for being the culture at the time is ridiculous, and to presume that it is possible to create something completely new and unaffected by current cultural fashions or ideas is arrogant.  We are what we are, and part of what we are is products of our culture,  even if we’d rather not be.

Not being God, we can’t create ex nihilo, out of nothing.  We can simply recombine things that already exist into other things.  This can be done in surprising and impressive ways, but it remains an act of creating from raw materials already there, so there will always be residue of what materials were available or plentiful or desired at the time.  And while I can lament that I seek out music I grew up on even when I grew up hating it, I’m reminded that I am formed and shaped even by the things I reject, and sometimes there is  comfort to be found there.

I’m considerably older than my car.  I shouldn’t expect myself to feel or be otherwise.  Hopefully I find a way to appreciate and enjoy who  and what I am now as I grow in my understanding and appreciation of the One who not only created me ex nihilo, but continues to shape and form me.

Authority

We sit chatting at our Sunday night happy hour open house.  She’s  leaving this week for grad studies out of state and this will perhaps be the last time I see her.  She has an impossibly beautiful smile and a keen mind overlaying troubles and doubts and fears that walk with her through the rooms  of her life.  A friend has come along tonight.  He’s visited once or twice before, roommates with her boyfriend.  He asks me a curious question – what is a change you can think of in your theology?

The question strikes me as curious immediately.  What changes in my theology?  Is theology mine?  Am I free to change it?  Or is theology something I have received, that I can build upon and expand and grow in my depth of understanding and appreciation, but which I am not free to change outside of discarding error as I uncover it in myself?  A million thoughts flash through my mind.  What is he really getting at?  What changes has his theology undergone?  And what do you want to learn or know by asking a pastor about how his theology changes?

I bring up a theological doctrine of sorts  I was introduced to in Seminary that I have grown in my fondness for, even if I can’t substantiate it in this lifetime and may never even in eternity, touching as it does on the inner workings and relationships of the Trinity.  I talked about how amazed I was the first time it was suggested that Jesus did not perform signs and wonders within his own power and authority as the Second Person of the Trinity, but rather God the Holy Spirit performed signs and wonders through him by the directing of God the Father.  Essentially similar to how the apostles and other followers of Christ have performed miracles – not on their own power or authority but through the  power and authority of the Holy Spirit.  Though of course Jesus was the perfect conduit for such power in his perfect obedience to the will of God.

She brings up almost immediately how she still struggles with the role of women in the church.  It’s not relevant, but it’s on her mind.  She flashes her smile as I respond that her issue isn’t so much with the Church perhaps as it is with Scripture.  Heretic here, remember?  I’m the heretic.  She smiles again.  I know a bit of her story, raised Christian but with experiences and doubts that haven’t been addressed or remedied.  And now recently graduated from a local Christian university where, she admits next, she was taught to be a feminist.  The smile and the heresy comment are  meant to defuse and deflect.  No need to really grapple with what might be truth in this regard because we can just dance around the heretic term as though it doesn’t really mean anything.

I believe her assessment is accurate – she arrived at this Christian university with one set of ideas and understandings, and those were altered or added to during her four years there.  In part a good university should do this.  But in the realm of theology this becomes tricky, as I suppose it is in any realm.  But the ramifications of changes or additions in the realm of theology have potentially eternal consequences – something very unique to this realm.

I ponder as the conversation eventually trails off.  Raised for the first eighteen years of her life with one set of beliefs, she has now set those aside because of things she was presented with in four years of undergraduate schooling.  Because these things were presented as the intellectual, educated position, no doubt.  Because she was challenged I’m sure, to adopt these not just for herself but for her entire gender.

And so a person’s theology changes.  But doesn’t just change, in this instance.  Changes so that the source and foundation of that theology ceases to be the revealed, sacred text it derives from and becomes something else.  Something personally dictated.  Authority switches from the Word of God expressed in human language to the personal beliefs or preferences of an individual or a larger but transitory culture.

So perhaps her response was more on topic than I first assumed.

This has over and over and over again been the point of conflict and disagreement in theological discussions on Sunday night.  What or who is your authority?  And over and over and over again it has become very clear that even for professing Christians, the Word of God is not their authority.  It is their personal emotional concerns or worries.  It is the cultural expectations they are inculcated with, expectations of how you define things like equality.  And that if the Word of God doesn’t back their definitions or ideas or even directly contradicts them, they’re more apt to discard the Word of God – or at least that particular part of it – and hold on to their own feelings and ideas.

Now, to be sure we all do this in small ways, most likely.  There are aspects of God’s Word that confuse or frighten us, that we avoid thinking about and reading.  This is sinful, of course, but it is different than outright confronting these issues and seeking to faithfully adhere to God’s Word even if it means discarding our own ideas and preferences.  This trend that I see and hear so often now is very dangerous indeed.

And others recognize this as well.

The role of the Church is to teach and reinforce the faith, as conveyed to us through the Word of God, and as made sense of in both doctrine and practice.   The Church should equip men and women with these abilities so they in turn can instill them in their children, not simply as rote memorization but in an active and alive sense so that their children grow to be men and women who, assisted and strengthened by the Church, are able and willing to pass these things down to their children.

But this process has been disrupted  in our American Christian culture – or at least parts of it.  Christians are increasingly unfamiliar with the Word of God, resistant to doctrines and practices grounded in it, and increasingly willing to discard all of this in order to cobble together a set of beliefs and practices that better support their authority – themselves.

Here is just one recent example of another article saying exactly the same thing.

Note several paragraphs down how younger people are discarding organized orthodox religion (doctrine and practice) for a smorgasbord of other  concepts and practices, often drawn together from diverse and contradictory traditions.  Not that they necessarily believe any of this, it’s a matter of convenience, of serving the purpose of reinforcing their own authority.  If they find that it no longer does that, they can discard it without any feelings of guilt or any concerns about eternal ramifications.  None of that is real, anyways, right? is the basic gist here.  If there is anything greater than us out there, it probably likes us and isn’t very interested in what we do beyond wanting us to be nice and happy.  And if there’s nothing greater than us out there, well, might as well be the me I’d like to be, right?

She  leaves this week for graduate school and starting life in a new place.  She’s bright and beautiful and has a wonderful boyfriend and likely a future together with him.  I’ll pray for her and him and them.  Not simply for their relationship but for their authority, that it would be not  simply the faith of their fathers, so to speak, but the faith as revealed in the Word of God.  Even when they don’t like it or it feels restrictive or when it clashes with societal notions.  Even when their professors (at a Christian university) won’t back it or support it but put out their own ideas and their culturally formed notions instead.

Authority matters a great deal, and you can’t claim to be Christian if you reject the authority of the Word of God, just as you can’t claim to be a good Muslim if you reject the Quran.  We can have theological discussions or debates about interpretation to some level, and this is good and helpful.  But to skip that quest and grappling for truth  in favor of just ignoring the bits we don’t like so we can do and think and be the things we prefer, that is a big problem.  For the Church, for families, for the world, and possibly for eternity.

 

 

 

 

 

Reading Ramblings – August 4, 2019

Reading Ramblings

Date: Eighth Sunday after Pentecost, August 4, 2019

Texts: Ecclesiastes 1:2, 12-14, 2:18-26; Psalm 100; Colossians 3:1-11; Luke 12:13-21

Context: This is one of the very few Sundays with a reading assigned from Ecclesiastes. The book has been a conundrum to Jewish and Christian theologians for almost three millenia. But it well suits a larger theme in the readings of the meaning of life. Man’s quest for meaningfulness in his short life is not a new thing, even if our answers to that question (at least as far as Western Civilization goes) differ markedly from previous generations. Without God to anchor our identity and therefore meaning, we seek after alternatives, winding up at best with the desire for a good life – long life, health, wealth, fame, etc. But as the Gospel text points out, these are false and misguided purposes as we are not the determiners of our own fate.

Ecclesiastes 1:2, 12-14, 2:18-26 – Ecclesiastes is traditionally ascribed to King Solomon, son of King David and last of the monarchs of a united kingdom of Israel. Solomon is credited with writing Song of Solomon as a young man, Proverbs as a middle-aged man now king of Israel, and Ecclesiastes as the work of an aged Solomon reflecting on his life. The philosophical bent of the book has made generations of the faithful ill at ease, but it calls us to an understanding of our identity and purpose as creations of God meant for relationship for him through the vocational callings of our lives. Anything that eclipses God will soon prove itself to be shallow and meaningless, providing an ever decreasing return on investment. When we live out our identities as creatures of God, we can properly deal – theologically and philosophically – with the ups and downs of life, enjoying moments of happiness and weathering moments of sorrow and loss.

Psalm 100 – This psalm beautifully captures the spirit of the final verses of the reading from Ecclesiastes. We are made to praise God. This is our natural purpose, though it is distorted and misdirected by our sinfulness. When we cease to see our lives as primarily about us and what we want or like and more as an opportunity to acknowledge and then praise our Creator, when we place ourselves into his hands, trusting his care and provision in all circumstances, there is peace which will naturally flow out into praise and thanksgiving. This might sound like a tenuous position to place ourselves in. But God is not capricious! God is good! He creates and tends us like a shepherd does his sheep, and his love is steadfast and endures. The implication is that it endures despite our cold-heartedness and our misguided fears and distrust and rebellion against him. We are not ever-loving or steadfast in our relationship with God but He remains steadfast with us. Who could more rightly deserve our joyful noises, our service, our singing, our thanksgiving, our praise and our blessings?

Colossians 3:1-11 – Paul is not expressing doubt about the salvation of the Colossians. His opening thought in verse 1 is not maybe you are or maybe you aren’t saved. Paul is engaged in rhetoric, based on the strong assertion of the reality of the Colossians’ faith in Christ expressed in 2:1-19. The Colossians are in Christ! And if that is a reality (which it is) then certain things flow from that reality logically. They are dead to the ritualistic prescriptions of the Levitical laws and rabbinic traditions (2:20-23). Since their identity in Christ is secure they are free to divert their attention from these distractions to more important and appropriate things – the things of God (3:1-4). But this is not to say that the behavior of the Christian is unimportant or should not be attended to. Paul constantly has to defend himself and the gospel against the charge of antinomianism – the idea that Christians can ignore and flout the Law of God because of the grace and forgiveness they have in Christ. What a silly idea! Those who have been restored to proper relationship with God cannot help but value and seek after the will of God, and this will is summarized in the core of the Law. He deals with idolatry (1^st Commandment), inappropriate speech (2^nd Commandment), adultery (6^th Commandment), the roots of theft (7^th Commandment), false witness/slander (8^th Commandment) and covetousness (9^th & 10^th Commandments). While ritualistic rules about food and protocol are no longer binding, the center of the Law in the 10 Commandments is. Rather than maintaining distinctions between who is of God and who is not, Christians are to see that such distinctions are misleading, since all are creations of God whom God desires to have in right relationship with him again through Christ (v.11). Our lives are to conform to the will of God but not the whims of mankind, and those who seek to equate those whims with the will of God are dangerously mistaken, however good their intentions might be (2:23).

Luke 12:13-21 – In the presence of a renowned rabbi who is gathering an impressive following due to his teaching and working of miracles (12:1), this man wants Jesus to use his religious prestige to settle an inheritance dispute! Rather than attending to Jesus’ words, rather than weighing the sober reality that following Christ might entail (12:4-12), this man is focused on a financial consideration, as though this was more important than the message Jesus came to teach. While we might be quick to dismiss this man’s words as shallow, how often do we seek God in prayer for things not of eternal consequence? It isn’t that this is necessarily wrong, but perspective is critical!

The parable illustrates this reality. The wealthy landowner nowhere gives thanks to God for his blessings (though we presume the character is intended to be Jewish and therefore would follow prescribed rules for offering sacrifices at the proper harvest times). Nor is his concern for the poor (although as a Jewish character he would no doubt more or less follow the injunctions of Leviticus 19:9-17, which we read a few weeks ago). While the man’s outward appearances conform to the requirements of the Law (presumably) his heart is focused entirely on himself.

Note also that the man’s demise is not painted as the direct result of his heart’s self-centeredness. God knows the length of our days and holds them in his hands. We are properly called to remember this not only during times of great joy and blessing but also during hardship and suffering. God alone knows the day of our death, and therefore our perspective should retain this reality at all times, which will inevitably affect both how we endure suffering and enjoy blessing. These are transient things. We like to function as though they are within our control, and if we just do these things and avoid those things we can chart a trajectory towards a long and happy life. But we must acknowledge that God alone determines these things. While that doesn’t make us passive or inactive, it should lead us to see that all things are in God’s will, not ours. All things are according to his plans and purposes, not ours. James 4:13-17 is instructive here!

The purpose of life is not simply comfort or longevity but proper relationship to God as expressed in obedience to God’s Law – loving God and loving our neighbor. We live our days acknowledging God as the author of all of them. Just as we did not will ourselves into creation we do not fully control either the number or quality of our days. But if we leave this in God’s hands in faith and trust, we will have his peace in all of our days, and into eternity.

Farewell, Rutger

Interesting that there has been so little mention of the passing of actor Rutger Hauer.

He is most famous as the villain in the classic sci-fi movie Blade Runner.  His closing scene in the film is truly beautiful, and a testimony to his acting chops.  You can watch it – but only if you’ve already seen the film – major spoiler here!

I came to appreciate Blade Runner a bit belatedly.   Hauer will always be bound up in my memory with another film, Ladyhawke.  It could be that it’s an early film of Matthew Broderick.  It could have to do with the lovely Michelle Pfeiffer and those piercing blue eyes.  It could have to do with my personal preference for medieval settings and sword and sorcery stories.  It could be that I was young and it made a big impression on me.   It likely has to do with all of the above.

Regardless, the film is marred by one of the worst soundtracks I can think of, a terrible 80’s synthesizer fusion that doesn’t match at all the scenery or setting and is an awful distraction.  It’s unfortunate because the plot is a very good one.  And Hauer delivers a typically understated performance that still leaves you rooting for him.  It’s a shame his passing didn’t make more of an impression on the media.  But it’s a good reminder that fame is fickle and legacy is more often pursued than achieved.

 

Acts 16:6-10 and Change

By all  accounts it was a successful trip so far.  Wonderful reunions with congregations Paul founded on his first mission trip.  Congregations in Derbe.  Lystra.  Iconium.  Psidian Antioch.  How the Holy Spirit was at work!  How much more might be accomplished!  Plans were made to build on these successes by further mission work in the area to the north.  But such plans came to nothing.

What does it mean to be forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia (v.6) ?  Was it clear to Paul and his associates that this was the case?  Did the Holy Spirit reveal the divine will in this matter?  It would seem not.  They attempted to go to Bithynia and were unable to.  Confusion.  Frustration.  They had the will and the ability, why couldn’t they make good on their plans?  Why did they reach nothing but dead ends despite all the good work accomplished thus far?

More time should probably be given to considering verses six and seven, to the simple statements that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus prevented Paul and his companions from sharing the Gospel in certain areas.  What a strange thought to us today, who are so certain that we control evangelism, we make our plans, we execute them!  Confident that the Holy Spirit desires all to hear and be saved, how can we make sense of the possibility that for the purposes of God, and without conflicting with the reality of a good God who desires that all would be saved, God the Holy Spirit might for his unrevealed reasons frustrate the plans of faithful Christians to share the Gospel with certain others?  I’d argue we can’t, and we don’t even try any more.  But that’s a secondary consideration for me right now.

In the midst of confusion and frustration comes a vision.  More than a dream, perhaps.  Something visible, and something with supernatural overtones.  Paul can see this man.  Perhaps he can hear him as well.  He understands him despite an accent perhaps.  He sees the different clothing.  Somehow Paul understands where this man is from, where this man represents.

Morning comes.  Paul reports his experience to his associates.  Silas.  Timothy.  And based on the sudden change of pronouns in v.10, many presume also Luke himself was there, the author  of the book of Acts.

What to make of it.  The message is clear – an appeal for help in Macedonia.  Moving from the Asian continent to the European continent.  An entirely different arena for sharing the Gospel.  The vision was clear, but what to do about it?

I imagine that the men were hesitant at first.  After all, they’d had such success in the area of what we call Turkey today.  Thriving congregations!  Certainly, they hadn’t been able to travel north as they intended, but surely that would resolve itself in short order and they could continue with their plans.  Surely there were other opportunities closer to hand.  They weren’t doing anything wrong, but what they were doing wasn’t working the way it had previously.  Was it clear to them this vision came from God?  I presume not necessarily, as we’re told in v.10 they concluded it was.  There was some level of analysis, consideration, prayer.  And the result of all those things was a determination that God was behind this and it was time to follow.

Change is hard.  It isn’t what is expected.  It isn’t what is familiar.  Yet small changes can yield incredible results.  A diversion from Asia to Europe – such a small matter in the moment and yet the history of the world is changed no doubt as part of that change.  Would the Holy Spirit still have worked through Paul and his associates if they came to the conclusion that while the vision was interesting, they really were better suited and preferred to stay in Asia?  Of course.  They might have been mistaken, but that certainly wouldn’t have made them bad or evil.  Perhaps the Holy Spirit would have sent a clearer indication of the proper path.  Perhaps He would have worked with them where they were.

It’s good to remember ultimately that the Church claims that God the Holy Spirit is behind everything we do.  That doesn’t mean we aren’t prone to error, it doesn’t mean we don’t interfere.  It doesn’t mean that things are always clear and simple and easy.  But we have to trust the Holy Spirit to work in and through and at times despite us.  And this should foster a level of humility, a willingness to acknowledge our limitations and brokenness and therefore the very real possibility that we might be mistaken.  And it should drive us to hear in others the possible voice of the Holy Spirit, even if we don’t like or agree with what they say.

Change is difficult.  So is staying the course.  Such forks in the road are an opportunity for faith to work itself out in surprising ways.  Not necessarily pleasant ones, but surprising ones, with the trust and confidence that the Holy Spirit is working things out to the glory of God regardless of what is motivating us and our decisions.

Humbling indeed.  But comforting as well.  Sola dei gloria.  Always and in all situations.

 

Schrödinger’s Meth-Head

Almost exactly a year ago I created a Schrödinger’s Meth-Head situation that is still ongoing.

Schrödinger is  famous for a thought experiment involving a cat in a sealed steel box with a bit of radioactive material inside along with a hammer and a small glass vial of hydrogen cyanide.  If a single atom of the radioactive material decayed, it would trigger a mechanism that would drop the hammer, shatter the vial, and the cat would die from the poisonous gas.  On the other hand, if no atom decayed, the cat would remain alive.   There was no way to know the status of the cat without opening the steel box.  The cat effectively would remain both dead and alive simultaneously (effectively) until somebody could verify the status.

I have no idea what happened to that young woman.  I still pray and like to think she got on the bus and did the right thing.  Nothing in my experience with recovering addicts in the last year leads me to think this is very likely.  But I can pray it is.  That she’s in recovery, getting the help she needs, moving on with her life.

I’m undecided as to whether I like this status of not knowing.  It is what it is.  And ultimately, regardless of whether she made it home or not, I can pray that her life is better today than it was a year ago when our paths crossed.

So I do.

Reading Ramblings – July 21, 2019

Reading Ramblings

Date: Sixth Sunday after Pentecost ~ July 21, 2019

Texts: Genesis 18:1-14; Psalm 27; Colossians 1:15-29; Luke 10:38-42

Context: Two women, separated by roughly 2000 years but perhaps little else. Both tending households. Both given the unique opportunity to serve the Son of God (I side with those who see in Old Testament accounts of a physically present God a pre-figuring of the Son of God, Jesus). Each one listening in to a conversation the Son of God is having with someone else in the household. Each one preoccupied with their duties yet hoping perhaps for something more. So many different nuances in these passages. Hospitality. Domesticity. The presence of God with his people, and the love and care of God for his people even when they are focused on other things.

Genesis 18:1-14 – The assigned reading only goes through the first half of verse 10, indicating that the intended focus is on Sarah serving, rather than the divine exchange with her regarding a promised son and clarifying the relationship between this passage and the Gospel. However the story is so classic that it seems a shame not to finish it out! Sarah is busy with her duties. Her husband sits at leisure with his guests. She does all the work, yet Abraham has the honor of being the host who presents the meal to his guests. Yet as Sarah labors behind the scenes, seemingly unnoticed, it is clear that she is not unnoticed. The Lord inquires of her. But this is hardly necessary. The Lord who created Sarah knows her better than she knows herself. And He loving passes over her dishonesty and incredulity. More important things are afoot, and Sarah is remembered thousands of years later because of them and the promise that she would bear in the birth of Isaac.

Psalm 27 – The assigned portion of this psalm is just the second half – verses 7-14. Again I believe this is done to narrow the focus but I prefer to read complete sections of Scripture rather than fragments whenever possible. These words might well have been spoken by Sarah or Martha in their hearts, but the texts are silent on the matter. Likewise the texts are effectively silent as to what prayers Sarah and Martha might have prayed and waited for answers on, though Sarah’s thoughts in Genesis 18:12 might be interpreted as evidence of many years of frustrated prayer. The emphasis in the latter half of this psalm is patience, trust not only in the Lord’s care and presence but his timing, which may not always line up with our own preferred timelines. The psalmist faces adversity in the form of enemies. If this is a psalm of David then it might refer to the rebellion of his son Absalom. But the main emphasis for the speaker is rightness with God, proper worship and contemplation of the divine more than a particular prayer for deliverance. Deliverance is presumed: the Lord is capable of delivering the psalmist from any situation, and while the psalmist prays for such deliverance from this present situation (vs. 5-6), the psalm as a whole is more an assertion of the Lord’s ongoing and eternal goodness, and the importance of right relationship with God as the foremost concern.

Colossians 1:15-29 – I’m not sure why the assigned reading skips vs. 15-20. Yes, it’s a discrete unit of thought and therefore easily removed, but if the point of lectio continua is to read portions of Scripture in whole, it makes no sense to exclude this. And in fact, what appears to be a tangential discussion of the nature of the Son of God is in fact very important in tying together the assurance of forgiveness and redemption in v. 14b with the reality of who the Colossians used to be in v.21. It is because of the eternal and divine nature of the Son of God, Jesus the Messiah, that the Colossians can rest assured of their grace and forgiveness. These are real things they can trust because of the reality and trustworthiness of God the Father himself, acting through and in God the Son. It is our faith that binds us to these promises.

But invariably the focus is drawn to vs. 24-25. What is Paul saying here? Were Christ’s sufferings somehow insufficient or inadequate? Is Paul adding to what Christ accomplished, improving upon it, extending it somehow? We must be careful with the language here. The concept of affliction is never associated with Christ’s redemptive death. Jesus dying for our sins on the cross is never described in Scripture as an affliction. But the nature of his public ministry might well be described as a long series of afflictions(Matthew 8:20, etc.). And Jesus makes it clear to his disciples that they will likewise endure many things for his name (Matthew 10:25, etc.). So Paul’s meaning here might be better translated as furthering the afflictions which Jesus suffered, just as many of the faithful over the centuries have endured terrible things for the sake of Jesus’ name. Paul’s sufferings in this respect have no bearing on salvation – they are not meritorious for the forgiveness of sins as Jesus’ afflictions and suffering and death were. But they are instructive to those who come after, just as Jesus’ personal ministry style was instructive to those who came after. All this to the end of making the Word of God fully known (v.25).

Luke 10:38-42 – The Gospel reading is the centerpiece text on any given Sunday. I’m not sure I’m completely comfortable with this, as it might mislead people somehow into thinking that it’s really just the red-letter aspects of the Bible – the things Jesus specifically said or did – that are somehow qualitatively better than the rest of Scripture. It might be said that they are oftentimes clearer, clarifying Scriptural interpretation for us, but the entire Bible is the Word of God. Yet it is true that the Old Testament points forward in various ways to the incarnation of the Son of God, and there is a logical rightness to making this incarnation the focal point.

Once again the woman in the domestic setting, providing for the needs of her honored guests. But it is not just a guest but the Son of God she serves, and as such He knows her and her concerns, perhaps a long history of sibling jealousy or small skirmishes based on personality differences. And yet clearly there is more to it than this, as Jesus declares in v.41. Martha has many things on her mind, perhaps perpetually. Yet only one of those many things is important, and only one of them sits in her house, present and tangible, teaching and sharing. Surely this is more important than a meal?

Notice that Jesus doesn’t tell Martha to quit making the food and come in and sit down. It isn’t what she’s doing that’s wrong, but rather how she’s feeling, and her desire to compel her sister to the same priorities as herself. Rather than reinforcing Martha’s request that Mary come and help her, Jesus makes it clear that He will not do this, but rather affirms Mary’s priority. Compare this to Psalm 24. David had many things on his mind as well but he knew what was most important. It is this Martha has lost sight of.

Jesus is the one needful thing. Our acts of service are demonstrations of love of God and neighbor and the world has need of them. We can’t all sit at Jesus’ feet 24/7. But even as we labor in our vocations, we can keep our eyes fixed on him, knowing that what we do ultimately is for and because of him. This should guide not just our actions but our motivations and attitudes.

Pumps & Systems

That’s the name of the magazine.  Really.

Thanks to Lois for sharing this article with me.  It’s a brief story about Mike Rowe, the guy who became famous for a show about dirty jobs and has gone on to become a leading proponent for re-introducing the trades to upcoming generations who are almost exclusively steered towards a 4-year degree – and the associated debt which more often than not goes along with it.

It’s something we continue to talk with our kids as they get older (17, 14, and 13) and look to the future.  As a former university faculty member I value education greatly.  But I also know there are many ways to learn throughout your life that don’t require the debt and other issues associated with a 4-year degree.  I worked my way through my undergraduate degree because back then you could still do that with part-time jobs.  Now even if you go to an in-state public school you aren’t going to be able to work and pay your way through it.

There’s nothing wrong with considering the trades.  Lord knows we need good, honest plumbers, electricians, and all manner of other folk to survive, and this is a beautiful way of loving your neighbor as you love God.  It isn’t necessarily for everyone, but neither is college.

I hope more and more folks will consider all of their options – or all of the options for their kids and grandkids.  You don’t need a college degree to be intelligent.  You don’t need six figures of student loan debt to be well-rounded.   You just need to know who you are and how God has gifted you.

Book Review: The Best We Could Do

The Best We Could Do: An Illustrated Memoir  by Thi Bui

I received my first graphic novel in late high school or early college, a gift from my best friend.  As a literature junky, I found it interesting, but difficult to consider it literature.  The artwork was good, the story was interesting, but it felt too compacted, too  sparse.

My interest in Vietnam and it’s history began years ago when I was tasked with taking over teaching a course on the Vietnam conflict from a fellow faculty  member.  I did a lot of reading and grew fascinated by the curious role of this country in the larger Cold War maneuverings of China, the United States, and the Soviet Union.  During seminary the field work congregation I served was in the process of attempting to merge with a Vietnamese Lutheran congregation, and I was able to spend time with the several Vietnamese families, second generation folks who came over when their parents fled Vietnam after the fall of Saigon.  Then in 2016 my wife and I were privileged to visit the country on business and pleasure purposes, and it deepened my appreciation of the beauty of the country and people as well as the complexity of their history, of which the US was only a very small part.

And Vietnamese cuisine is amazing – something that has been on my radar for  the last 20+ years!

So this book was a mixture of interests, memories, and impressions.  While I think it’s a great work, I still don’t know what to make of the graphic novel format.  If I don’t try to think of it as literature, but its own unique  thing, it’s much simpler.  Thi Bui tells a wonderful and at times overwhelming family story, and does so in a way that is compelling both visually and textually.  It is not an easy story, and she doesn’t attempt to reduce it to one, but rather to find a way to live with and in the complexity that is her family and her two countries.

If you’re interested in memoirs, family dynamics, Vietnam or history, this is a very worthwhile read.

 

Reading Ramblings – July 14, 2019

Reading Ramblings

Date: Fifth Sunday after Pentecost ~ July 14, 2019

Texts: Leviticus (18:1-5)19:9-18; Psalm 41; Colossians 1:1-14; Luke 10:25-37

Context: How we treat one another matters. It is not simply a matter of getting along, of utilitarian best practices. Rather, it is a reflection of our relationship with our Creator, and an acknowledgment of his wisdom and holiness. We are not free to innovate. The readings reflect both the divine imperative in this matter as well as pictures of how this plays out and makes a real difference in our individual and corporate lives.

Leviticus 18:1-5, 19:9-18 – The first five verses of Chapter 18 set the context for the lengthy discourse on divinely instituted morality and ethics. This context is necessary to properly receive all that follows, including the verses assigned in Chapter 19. In these verses, as elsewhere, each directive is ended with the reminder I am the Lord. More accurately, I am YHWH, and God identifies himself by the name He gave to Moses in Exodus 3. The God who directs the Israelites in their personal and public life is the God who brought them out of slavery and saved them from the genocidal policies of the Egyptians. He is the same God who currently sustains them in the wilderness and has promised to bring them to their own land. He is the God they have pledged covenant faithfulness to, and receive their protection from. As such, these directives are not to be questioned or ignored but followed faithfully with the understanding that to do so is to walk in the way of a good life (18:5). These particular directives remind us that what we have is not exclusively ours, but is ours in a larger communal context. God does not socialize property, but makes it clear that what is given personally is not exclusively for personal use. Likewise, both our private feelings (19:17) as well as our public actions are guided by an overarching love for our neighbor as a fellow creature, a child of God. It might reasonably be argued that these edicts apply first and foremost to those who share faith in our God, it would also seem highly unreasonable to insist that they only apply to our brothers and sisters in faith.

Psalm 41 – This is a very personal and touching psalm, yet broad enough that most any of us might find these words appropriate at one point or another in our lives. The first three verses assert how the Lord blesses and protects the one who has consideration for the poor, a phrase which can only likely mean not merely an awareness or pity but an active response to specific poverty as per Leviticus 19. As such, it may be that the sin referenced in v.4 is a sin of omission or commission in this regard – failing to adequately care for the poor. Could it be a reference to Bathsheba, and David’s appropriation of another man’s wife, a man poor in comparison to the power of the King of Israel? Perhaps, but it is not necessarily the case. Verses 5-9 flesh out skillfully the impact of unfaithful friends, of those who do not practice the good will and love of neighbor highlighted in Leviticus 19. How brutal such betrayal and malice is! But verses 10-12 make it clear that despite the ill-will shown to the speaker, God has restored him and protected him from the evil intentions of others, and therefore God is rightly to be praised in the doxology (a short expression of Christian praise of God) of v.13.

Colossians 1:1-14 – Having concluded Galatians, we continue in the lectio continua tradition of Ordinary Time by starting through another of Paul’s letters, this time to the Colossians. Today’s section is comprised of the traditional first parts of a properly organized Roman letter. First there is the greeting that identifies who the letter is from and who it is directed to (vs. 1-2). Then there is a section for thanksgiving, which Paul normally uses to give thanks to God on behalf of the addressees. This is no perfunctory thanks, but a detailed and personalized section. Similar to the Thessalonians, Paul gives thanks to God for the faithfulness of the Colossians as expressed in their love of those in Christ, all of which is motivated by their identity in Christ and the glories they look forward to when they are reunited with him eternally. Paul credits Epaphras with the solid foundation of the Colossians’ faith. Paul speaks highly of Epaphras here and commends his ministry. He is mentioned again near the close of this letter and described as one of you, likely meaning he hails from Colossae and may have been part of the church there before joining Paul in his missionary work. This might explain then why Paul mentions Epaphras once more in his letter to Philemon, where Epaphras is identified as a fellow prisoner with Paul (Philemon 1:23) who sends greetings to Philemon. But Paul doesn’t simply give thanks for the Colossian Christians, he prays specifically for their continued knowledge, wisdom, and faithful living out of these gifts, and that they be strengthened towards endurance and patience and joy.

Luke 10:25-37 – Jesus applies and describes love of neighbor in terms that would be very challenging for his hearers. They likely interpreted the directives of Leviticus 19 in a narrow sense, limiting them to just their fellow Jews. But Jesus makes it clear that such an application is not appropriate. Neighbor is not defined by theological or cultural similarities, but transcends these categories. We should be quick to note that this parable is typically used to exhort us to being good neighbors. But the reality is that each of us has a limit to how much we can love and who we can love. Good intentions are no substitute for the perfect and total love we are called to by the Law of God. There is only one who perfectly fulfills love of neighbor as the moral imperative, and that is the Son of God himself, who both suffers the ill-will of his fellow-man like the man in this story, and in turn shows perfect and selfless love not just for those like him but those who sought to do him harm. It is hard to read this parable and not hear Jesus on the cross interceding for his antagonists, asking God to forgive them in their ignorant hatred.