May 04, 2013
If we wright right...
If we
wright right, on a pair of pears, or we lie softly while lying sweetly,
if we tear up while tearing down or bow down to form a bough into
a bow, of a ship, then we will have written correctly on two pears,
will have laid down while whispering sweet nothings to a sweet friend, we will have
mourned for what was wrecked, and we will have stooped low, to form a tree into the
hull of a ship.
May 03, 2013
Eloi Eloi
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?
For those who have been there, He
was also there, alone.
And while being God
He did not consider him-
self God. Instead he
Chose death. Joining us
at the time we need him most.
Not just sympathy.
An understanding.
A God present now, right now.
No words. Just love.
For those who have been there, He
was also there, alone.
And while being God
He did not consider him-
self God. Instead he
Chose death. Joining us
at the time we need him most.
Not just sympathy.
An understanding.
A God present now, right now.
No words. Just love.
March 28, 2013
The Correlation Between Gay Rights and Religious Liberty
I grew up in a conservative Evangelical home, attending a
conservative Evangelical church. While my tribal allegiance is a moving target, I am a person of faith who values both
religious freedom and gay rights, and I think there is a correlation between the two.
Our present notion of religious liberty was not a foregone
conclusion when the Founding Fathers met in the State House of Philadelphia in
1787. For the most part, the tradition
of forcing morality on dissenters was common place. The established churches of Europe forced out
the Puritans, and then they forced out people that
they disagreed with; people like RogerWilliams who championed religious freedom and fidelity to conscience. It was
Williams who insisted on buying land from the Native Americans rather than
simply taking it, and who in contrast to the Puritans, embraced religious
diversity when he founded Rhode Island.
December 06, 2012
When the law is not what it seems
Last year I read a case in my property textbook that has stuck with me. It illustrates the ways that seemingly generic laws are used to empower the powerful at the expense of the weak.
Suppose Landlord has a piece of property. Tenant A is currently in possession and will be moving out, and Tenant B has signed a lease to takeover the premises. If Tenant A does not move out, who should be responsible for taking the time and trouble to evict Tenant A? The Landlord, or Tenant B who has already signed a lease and has the legal rights to the use of the property?
On its face it is a strait forward question. There are pros and cons on both sides. We simply need to pick a rule and apply it consistently so that the market will know what to expect. For some, as long as the rules are followed, that is justice. Which rule we use is not a question of justice. This is not a particularly moral question.
There is a certain logic to requiring the person who now wants to use the land, and who has the legal right to the land, the lease holder, to get rid of the person who has overstayed their lease. But who is more than likely to know that Tenant A will not be moving out, and is in fact three months behind on their rent. Would Tenant B know anything about this? In fact, it is quite possible that the Landlord might rent the property to Tenant B so he could get paid knowing full well that Tenant A was not going anywhere without a fight. Meanwhile, the Landlord is trying to collect rent from both parties, and has shifted this problem to the unwitting Tenant B who had no idea what was going on prior to him leasing the land.
Suppose Landlord has a piece of property. Tenant A is currently in possession and will be moving out, and Tenant B has signed a lease to takeover the premises. If Tenant A does not move out, who should be responsible for taking the time and trouble to evict Tenant A? The Landlord, or Tenant B who has already signed a lease and has the legal rights to the use of the property?
On its face it is a strait forward question. There are pros and cons on both sides. We simply need to pick a rule and apply it consistently so that the market will know what to expect. For some, as long as the rules are followed, that is justice. Which rule we use is not a question of justice. This is not a particularly moral question.
There is a certain logic to requiring the person who now wants to use the land, and who has the legal right to the land, the lease holder, to get rid of the person who has overstayed their lease. But who is more than likely to know that Tenant A will not be moving out, and is in fact three months behind on their rent. Would Tenant B know anything about this? In fact, it is quite possible that the Landlord might rent the property to Tenant B so he could get paid knowing full well that Tenant A was not going anywhere without a fight. Meanwhile, the Landlord is trying to collect rent from both parties, and has shifted this problem to the unwitting Tenant B who had no idea what was going on prior to him leasing the land.
October 07, 2012
Approaches to faith and politics.
According to Jackson, whose video appears below, "It is time [for the black church] to end the slavish devotion to the Democratic Party. [Because] They
have insulted us, used us, and manipulated us. [And] They have saturated the black community with ridiculous lies..."
For some time I have been caught in a tension. On the one hand I feel compelled to raise a similar prophetic voice on the churches syncretism with the Republican Party. I want to name the injustices I feel they implicitly or explicitly condone and sometimes even advocate for. But at the same time I recognize that true reconciliation can only be found by people willing to dialog with respect and nuance.
Even while I have moved to the left, I continue to see the wisdom in some aspects of a more conservative approach.
This tension was illustrated for me when I watched the Jackson's video which was posted by a friend on facebook yesterday. When I initially watched it I thought it was one-sided and manipulative. It looked to me like Jackson was using his position as a pastor and his spiritual authority for political gains. That is immoral. I still think the video is possibly manipulative, but some friends pointed out that the man probably has the spiritual and relational authority to say what he said, at least for the audience he knows best, his black church. If placed in the proper context, his words seem somewhat acceptable.
At the same time I thought, what if you flipped the script? Does the tenor of what he said still hold true from an anti right-wing perspective? Does what he said become appropriate if it comports with my personal politics? Or does both a right wing critique and a left wing critique of this type fall flat?
With that in mind, I carefully listened to the video word by word and wrote a left-wing mirror image of what was said. It appears below.
I both do and do not agree with what I have written. I am torn. Do I embrace a radicle version of the Christian faith that leans well to the left? I have certainly rejected much in Christian culture that leans to the right. But for some reason I can't quite embrace the left. I would like to think that I prefer to take a more nuanced road, a more respectful road. But is that just a lack of commitment? An inability to sacrifice? Might what I have to say below be true?
What bothers and intrigues me is that I am compelled both to fight and make peace. For those that take a partisan approach, I have some partisan answers. For those that use Bible verses to judge others, I have some Bible verses in mind. But I know that when I do, it is not quite right. Often, because I lack humility.
As Pastor Tim Keller discusses here, Jesus refuses political complacency, political simplicity, and political primacy. We should too, and that is the approach I prefer, except when I don't.
I will say that if we are going to go down the road outlined in the video, there is a corollary to what was stated. When I hear someone like Jackson make those type of statements, I am not inclined to back down from the fight. I am inclined to double down. The question is, should I.
Below is a near verbatim transcript of Jackson's video with a few changes. The best way to read what follows is while listening to the video. Judge for yourself if what either Jackson or I said ring true.
For some time I have been caught in a tension. On the one hand I feel compelled to raise a similar prophetic voice on the churches syncretism with the Republican Party. I want to name the injustices I feel they implicitly or explicitly condone and sometimes even advocate for. But at the same time I recognize that true reconciliation can only be found by people willing to dialog with respect and nuance.
Even while I have moved to the left, I continue to see the wisdom in some aspects of a more conservative approach.
This tension was illustrated for me when I watched the Jackson's video which was posted by a friend on facebook yesterday. When I initially watched it I thought it was one-sided and manipulative. It looked to me like Jackson was using his position as a pastor and his spiritual authority for political gains. That is immoral. I still think the video is possibly manipulative, but some friends pointed out that the man probably has the spiritual and relational authority to say what he said, at least for the audience he knows best, his black church. If placed in the proper context, his words seem somewhat acceptable.
At the same time I thought, what if you flipped the script? Does the tenor of what he said still hold true from an anti right-wing perspective? Does what he said become appropriate if it comports with my personal politics? Or does both a right wing critique and a left wing critique of this type fall flat?
With that in mind, I carefully listened to the video word by word and wrote a left-wing mirror image of what was said. It appears below.
I both do and do not agree with what I have written. I am torn. Do I embrace a radicle version of the Christian faith that leans well to the left? I have certainly rejected much in Christian culture that leans to the right. But for some reason I can't quite embrace the left. I would like to think that I prefer to take a more nuanced road, a more respectful road. But is that just a lack of commitment? An inability to sacrifice? Might what I have to say below be true?
What bothers and intrigues me is that I am compelled both to fight and make peace. For those that take a partisan approach, I have some partisan answers. For those that use Bible verses to judge others, I have some Bible verses in mind. But I know that when I do, it is not quite right. Often, because I lack humility.
As Pastor Tim Keller discusses here, Jesus refuses political complacency, political simplicity, and political primacy. We should too, and that is the approach I prefer, except when I don't.
I will say that if we are going to go down the road outlined in the video, there is a corollary to what was stated. When I hear someone like Jackson make those type of statements, I am not inclined to back down from the fight. I am inclined to double down. The question is, should I.
Below is a near verbatim transcript of Jackson's video with a few changes. The best way to read what follows is while listening to the video. Judge for yourself if what either Jackson or I said ring true.
May 09, 2012
The Kingdom of God is the Gospel
I recently read an interesting article, Is the Mega Church the New Liberalism. It focused on culture, gospel, megachurches and compromise with a focus on the issue of homosexuality.
As I'll summarize here, I don't think compromise on the issues of homosexuality or liberalism is the issue for the contemporary megachurch, rather the over-arching issue is American consumerism and individualism. That in turn affects sexual identity, politics, and many other personal habits which may or may not be healthy.
My argument is that one reaches that conclusion by taking a close look at the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and frankly, how one defines the word gospel.
In Mark 1:15 Jesus says, “The time has come, The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”
In this passage, the "good news" or gospel is directly tied to the Kingdom of God. In turn, a critical reading of Christ's teachings on the Kingdom of God tends to create revolutionary changes that go beyond personal salvation. On numerous occasions Jesus avoids giving a singular narrow definition of the Kingdom of God, but instead says, "The Kingdom of God is like..." and then goes on to share a parable which often included radical transformation and sacrifice. Consequently, the Gospel or "good news" should not be defined narrowly by some selected writings of Paul (for example, what some have called the Roman Road, or Four Spiritual Laws), but in combination with the whole teaching of Christ, which is generally not in contradiction with Paul, but rather gives depth and width to those short summaries.
As I'll summarize here, I don't think compromise on the issues of homosexuality or liberalism is the issue for the contemporary megachurch, rather the over-arching issue is American consumerism and individualism. That in turn affects sexual identity, politics, and many other personal habits which may or may not be healthy.
My argument is that one reaches that conclusion by taking a close look at the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and frankly, how one defines the word gospel.
In Mark 1:15 Jesus says, “The time has come, The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”
In this passage, the "good news" or gospel is directly tied to the Kingdom of God. In turn, a critical reading of Christ's teachings on the Kingdom of God tends to create revolutionary changes that go beyond personal salvation. On numerous occasions Jesus avoids giving a singular narrow definition of the Kingdom of God, but instead says, "The Kingdom of God is like..." and then goes on to share a parable which often included radical transformation and sacrifice. Consequently, the Gospel or "good news" should not be defined narrowly by some selected writings of Paul (for example, what some have called the Roman Road, or Four Spiritual Laws), but in combination with the whole teaching of Christ, which is generally not in contradiction with Paul, but rather gives depth and width to those short summaries.
April 01, 2012
What gets preached AND what does not - From the pulpit AND in my life.
I wrote the following to a friend this mourning and thought I would share it with the rest of you. (with a few edits) It is about me, not him, so no worries on confidentiality. Read this as a letter to a friend.
...But to be fair, I am a bit cynical in some respects. It is something I reflect on fairly often with the Spirit in my quiet times. How does one see the world as it really is... ideally through His eye's, and not become cynical?
I was visiting a church the other day and they were preaching on God's immutability. Malachi 3:6a was referenced. “I the LORD do not change."
Clearly there was nothing wrong with what was being preached. And God's character was being made appropriately relevant to the hear and now. But like usual I briefly scanned the rest of the chapter, and a problem immediately jumped off the page.
The issue I saw was not necessarily one for any given church, or any given sermon, but rather concerns our shared Evangelical culture. The issue that leaped off the page at me was what we preach, thematically speaking, over the course of a year, and what does not get preached over the course of a year.
Malachi 3 is a perfect example of this.
(Go ahead and read it here, it won't take long.)
Things more than likely preached over the course of a year.
Mal 3:5a - sorcerers, adulterers are evil - check
Mal 3:6 - God does not change- Check
Mal 3:8-9 - Tithe - Check
Mal 3:17-18 - God's Compassion - Check
What got skipped?
The latter half of Mal 3:5 - "So I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, but do not fear me,” says the LORD Almighty."
...But to be fair, I am a bit cynical in some respects. It is something I reflect on fairly often with the Spirit in my quiet times. How does one see the world as it really is... ideally through His eye's, and not become cynical?
I was visiting a church the other day and they were preaching on God's immutability. Malachi 3:6a was referenced. “I the LORD do not change."
Clearly there was nothing wrong with what was being preached. And God's character was being made appropriately relevant to the hear and now. But like usual I briefly scanned the rest of the chapter, and a problem immediately jumped off the page.
The issue I saw was not necessarily one for any given church, or any given sermon, but rather concerns our shared Evangelical culture. The issue that leaped off the page at me was what we preach, thematically speaking, over the course of a year, and what does not get preached over the course of a year.
Malachi 3 is a perfect example of this.
(Go ahead and read it here, it won't take long.)
Things more than likely preached over the course of a year.
Mal 3:5a - sorcerers, adulterers are evil - check
Mal 3:6 - God does not change- Check
Mal 3:8-9 - Tithe - Check
Mal 3:17-18 - God's Compassion - Check
What got skipped?
The latter half of Mal 3:5 - "So I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, but do not fear me,” says the LORD Almighty."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)