Kicking the Water Can Down the Road

On the same day (Sunday Oct 14, 2012) that the Orlando Sentinel’s Aaron Deslatte writes in his “Capital View” column that our Agricultural Commissioner Adam Putnam is focusing his agency’s work on protecting water supplies as the way to ensure sustainable development for agriculture in Florida, we have the front page of the same paper chronicling the difficult and defeat-ridden road of protecting the Wekiva waters (“Despite protection, Wekiva River’s health, flow continue to decline” article by Kevin Spear). I have been reading columns and articles about the need to protect the Wekiva River basin for about 20 years now, and still to this day we have not had the political courage to match the environmental and scientific knowledge we have in order to craft policies that can stem the rising tide of pollutant damage. But we don’t need alarmist alerts to try to get attention to this problem. That only gets the base fired up, not the wide range of citizenry needed. What we need are tangible directions and solutions that increase the well-being of the individual property owner or citizen. For example, a while back I remember a state legislative initiative to improve septic tank standards (to reduce/eliminate seepage that contaminates the watershed) that ran into the roadblock of adding too much cost on to each individual homeowner’s upgrade of an old system or installation of a new system in new construction. That increased cost is a reasonable objection. But somehow we can’t provide an argument that includes the real cost (economists call them “externalities”) of not improving standards? We can’t show how investing in infrastructure does do that “well-being” thing? We can’t show how a loss of water quality jeopardizes economic vitality and growth? We Americans like to think of ourselves as realists with a “can-do” attitude that is up to any challenge. When it comes to environmental issues, like this one on water quality, we are thinking and not doing. Well, we are doing something. We are kicking the proverbial can down the road…..paying later instead of paying now.

Cars and Ethics

I listen to science as a theologian. I listen to the Union of Concerned Scientists, non-profit founded in 1969 at MIT, when it comes to the environment. According to a study released last month by the Union the effect on global warming of driving a Nissan Leaf is the same as driving a gas-powered vehicle that returns 55mpg in combined city/highway driving. For the Mitsubishi 1, 63mpg. Going electric means relying more, at least for now, on coal....not exactly the cleanest carbon-based fuel. But still, you have to love the 55-65mpg range....with fewer emissions from the cars even as input emissions from the coal plants are counted. Now, how can we continue to make purchases as consumers that will drive up demand for fuel efficiencies and so drive down the cost of the fuel efficient vehicles? We need to help and encourage each other to purchase and spend based on our environmental ethic.

Congregations Going Green

A congregation of any stripe....christian, muslim, jewish, hindu, buddhist and any other.....can get connected with a very effective way of growing environmental stewardship and going green. Check out Greenfaith at www.greenfaith.org and take a look at the Greenfaith Certification Program. I highly recommend it.

God as a Problem....Part 2

God As a Problem and Why I Don’t Blame People for Having a Big Problem with the Church: Part 2

Continuing on the topic of bad theology and misrepresentations of grace as a reason people see the church as boring….or irrelevant…(see my last posting for “Part 1”).
A couple of problems with seeing Christianity as all about sitting up and flying right: One, being nice simply is not a sure fire formula for things turning out right. It’s all too clear that the good do die young and the fair and caring often get the shaft. Secondly, even if temporal security and prosperity do work out for you and you do in fact attribute it to your fidelity, still, can you be certain of your eternal destiny? The payoff for faithfulness is always a bet, and not a good one at that.
We like to think the Devil is our problem and God is our friend who rescues us, when it’s really God who is the problem. God is just too “omni-everything!” Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent and all the rest, and all that we do and believe never consistently or determinately produces the results we want from Divinity.
I think most thinking and feeling people have figured this out and when they hear or see a church life and preaching/teaching that espouses what I am calling here a “Erasmusian theology” they figure it’s not worth their time. Others have figured it out, have seen the theological stumbling blocks, but still stick it out in churches where church gets defined as this place for the upright (or at least for those who admit they are not but who have gathered the gumption to say they are sorry and have enough faith to put them in the best light once again) because gaining a foothold for a decent life through being good is worth the price of suspending honesty from the pulpit (truth be told, being decent and fair is, actually, a good bit of the time, good for business and certainly good for the children to learn!).
But what if you want to be theologically and anthropologically honest? Is there any good word for us concerning our problem with God? Certainly there is, but I don’t think it’s heard enough in today’s church. I’ll finish next week with a thought on what that “good word” actually is.

God As a Problem....and Church Too. Part 1

God As a Problem and Why I Don’t Blame People for Having a Big Problem with the Church: Part 1

It’s possible, perhaps even probable, that the reason so many people are abandoning the church is because it’s theology and practice keeps trying to be Erasmusian in order to appeal to the “common herd” (Erasmus’ own term for the regular folk outside of the university and academic elite – see Luther’s Works Volume 33:45) and this “herd” is tired of being rounded up, corralled (and slaughtered?!).
Most preaching and teaching about Christ today makes Christianity about being morally upright and doctrinally correct. Erasmus, in his debate with Luther over the freedom of the will, was concerned that if grace were free there would be no motivation for people to behave decently and believe accordingly and the result would be societal chaos and degeneration. Erasmus argued that Christianity was about getting on the right track ethically and morally and Christ was required to get you there.
There are, of course, just a couple of problem with this approach! Next week I’ll lay them out for you, but in the meantime, why don’t you chime in and tell us all what you think.
Do you think grace is cheap or costly or free? And what would you say is the difference between the three? And how much difference does it make how grace is preached and taught on how much people give the church the time of day?
(I think that most people who have given it much thought have figured out that the Erasmusian theology is problematic and that any church that divies it out is not worth their time. To them, the church is boring and irrelevant)
“God as a Problem….” to be continued!

95 Reasons to Love Halloween!

If you caught Martin Luther at the grocery store, probably in the beer isle, and asked him “if you died tonight, would you go to heaven or hell?” he would look you in the eye and tell you in no uncertain terms that he has no idea and that is his dilemma if not also his angst and then in the same breath and as breathlessly as this run-on sentence is spilling out onto line after line he would tell you with greater certainty what he does know….and that is that he has heard the word of Jesus Christ, born, lived, died and rose again and that that word is simply is too good not to be true and he is going to trust that light over against the darkness of not knowing and not being able to do anything about his ultimate destiny.
I am a believer in that word too. And if you caught me in the beer isle, after asking if you like lager or ale I would tell you I have no idea what will become of me. But I do know this. I have heard the word of Jesus and he is sweetness to my sour soul.
And I will go there. Much like John watching Jesus approach the river Jordan and pointing to Jesus with “behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” I see Jesus and I am going there. The darkness is too deep for me and I have no answer nor can I provide any light. But God does. In Christ Jesus.
The notion that God is a Judge who holds court and decides who is in and who is out is an image we have fabricated out of our own deep sin of thinking we can take our destiny into our own hands by saying “yes” to a proposition about Jesus or others and fabricated out of our own deep despair at knowing we really do let ourselves down and let others down and so too we must be letting God down too.
The bible is at pains to let us know God is Love who holds court to throw us a feast if we but sit down and eat and drink!
Behold! God is not out to get us! God is out to give us….everything…including our future. But we will not have it! And in the case of our ultimate destiny, because we can’t impact that (why? Because we are not God! Only God is in the destiny business! So we are stuck….and do not know!) we are left in the hands of God. What is God going to do with me? I don’t know! But….God knows I do not know and in his love put on “clothes” in Jesus. And it.s really more intense and radical than that. God didn’t become Jesus. God is Jesus.
And even though I don’t know my destiny, and the darkness of not knowing and not being able to be God and determine that destiny is too dark for words, I have seen the light.
I have seen Jesus Christ. And he is my mercy. And I will trust Him and I will trust in Him.
On October 31, 1517 Martin Luther did not go trick or treating and he knew nothing of our “Halloween” but certainly did know that that day was “All Hallows Eve” from which we get our holiday name if not the way we observe the day, but he did go trucking down to the Castle Church on the opposite side of town in Wittenberg and, being the honorable Professor that he was, proposed a debate by posting his proposition publicly on the church doors. The Thesis for his debate numbered 95 and I mean to tell you they stirred up a hornets nest. Luther’s major contribution and the explosion of grace did not come, in my estimation, from the issue of indulgences of which the 95 are so famous. But that posting event and the Guttenberg press aid in distributing the printed document put him on the map. For me, the genius and power of Luther comes in his work on the freedom and bondage of the will….related to the “if you died tonight” discussion above.
As a closing Halloween treat, and no trick, and related to the beer isle discussions, I offer to you some thoughts from Guther Gassmann and Scott Hendrix’ The Lutheran Confessions (1999) from their chapter on “The Christian Life.”
“Luther agreed with Augustine’s decision and held the doctrine of predestination throughout his life. He acknowledged its danger, however. Conceivably you could believe in Christ and still not be saved because you were not predestined. Luther admitted that such speculation had once almost driven him to despair. Fortunately, he had been consoled by his monastic superior and counselor, John von Staupitz, who advised Luther: ‘Why do you torture yourself with these speculations? Look at the wounds of Christ and at the blood that was shed for you. In their light predestination will shine.’ Luther learned from his own experience that predestination, which belonged to the hidden will of God, was secondary to faith in Christ, which was revealed in Scripture as the way to salvation. He then advised others to put the revealed Word of God ahead of speculation: ‘Accept the present promise [of Christ] and predestination, and do not inquire too curiously about the secret counsels of God. If you believe in the revealed God and accept his Word, he will gradually also reveal the hidden God. For “he who sees me also sees the Father” (John 14:9).”
Happy Reformation Day 2010!
Happy Halloween!

On Quitting Christianity Today (and a surprise from 1845!)

Anne Rice is now famous for her move to “quit Christianity.” She says she hasn’t lost her faith. She just has quit the organized religion. True enough. And right on target for why – she refuses to be anti-life in the many ways so much of the mainstream church in all its forms has been and still is. But realize that Christianity itself was never intended by Christ. It was the outgrowth of people trying to take the one who announced their utter freedom and using him as a front. This freedom of Jesus, identified as Christ, is the total reliance on God and total obedience to God that had nothing to do with using reliance or obedience to shape identity, community, meaning and destiny by claiming a place for self or by creating boundaries to keep others from polluting the purity of it all.
We take Christ and declare positions and demarcations in his name for our own status and power, our own safety and security. Christianity is a system of belief and morals used to justify ourselves. Christ is the end of all justifications. He is the end of all our projects and schemes to create a safe haven for ourselves by either building up our cache or by tearing others down or fencing others out.
But people, perhaps including Rice, are deluded in thinking a Christian can follow Christ without church. Not church as “organized religion” in the form of existing or developing denominations or judicatories or even congregations. Yes, you can follow Christ without those forms of church, but you cannot follow Christ without church in some way shape or form since when you follow Christ you are church. Those that reject today’s “organized religion” are not wrong or radical in such a move. There’s nothing original or particularly creative, however, in rejecting a pattern or style of organizational management that doesn’t meet the needs of one’s needs or worldview. This happens generationally, if not more often. To quit organized religion and go one’s own way of following Jesus on your own – whatever that may mean – is to distinctly miss the mark of Jesus himself. His focus was the dream (aka “kingdom”) of God, to be sure. But this dream is built on the community connection and in many ways is itself the community connection. Church, do we need to say it again, is not what you attend; it’s what you are when you follow Christ. You can stop attending organized religion as a follower of Jesus but you can’t stop being church. Not if you are following Christ. So the challenge and privilege of Anne Rice and all of us who do not agree with an “anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-artificial birth control, anti-Democratic, anti-secular humanism, anti-science organization” approach (as Rice put it), is to follow Jesus Christ into organizing into loving all these “anti’ folks as much as we love our self-righteous and politically correct selves and to shape this new organization, however wonderfully amorphous as it may be, around Jesus Christ and his radical love that destroys our self-justifications and leaves us free to love and serve others at all costs. You cannot not organize if you are people working and living together in mission. And if you are following Christ, you are doing it together, not alone. So, given that, what might the organizing principles be for today’s church? How about love your enemies (teaching of Jesus), see the secular as the sacred and the sacred as secular, with no distinctions (a worldview where it’s all holy, it’s all belonging to God) and making sure nobody goes without (a seriousness and intentionality about community)? How about that?
Interestingly, there needs to be something more, though, than this new or renewed manifesto. There must be more than Jesus and his way of life and living. There must be Christ and his destruction of the myth of human constructions and his new creation of a human being freed from all self-justifications (aka self-improvement plans…take your pick of all the choices! Shall we Eat, Pray, Love or shall we dance?) Today’s church must renew it’s following of Jesus, but it cannot do so while throwing out the thing that Christ did: he died for our sin and was raised from the dead for our life. This work of Christ gets thrown out when those critical of the “theology of glory” (bluntly and too simplistically put as seeing Christ as using the cross as a starting point for personal gain, a place of becoming healthy and wealthy and successful because of God) replace this theology of glory with what is called a “negative theology of glory.” A negative theology of glory takes the end result of the theology of glory (namely a right and secure place with God because of your belief and behavior) and simply applies a “sacrifice self and serve others and become vulnerable and poor and faithful because of God” approach to get that right and secure place instead of the “positive” theology of glory’s application of Jesus’ sacrifice.
We don’t need a negative theology of glory to counteract the positive theology of glory.
We need something entirely different. Martin Luther called it the “theology of the cross.”
For our purposes here, we could simply say that the theology of the cross allows Jesus Christ to do all the saving and doesn’t replace him with anything, not even our wonderful new plans to be what Brian McClaren identifies, in referencing various key leader and voices showing us the way into what the church will or should look like (A New Kind of Christianity, 2010) as “a Christianity worth believing with Doug Pagitt or the new Christians with Tony Jones, whether we call it generative Christianity with church historian Diana Butler Bass or emerging mission with Marcus Borg, or a generous orthodoxy with Hans Frei or integral mission with Rene Padilla.” In other words, again, Jesus Christ is the end of all our scheming, however salutary and genius, and the beginning of new life (see Romans 6 for Paul’s expression of this in death and resurrection language). Once this is done to us, we are free to have at it.
And, well, have at it is what we need.
We do need to be the church of Jesus Christ even as we might “quit Christianity.”
By the way, in closing, let me just make a reference to a stark and direct connection I made with all of this. Just coincidently I finished last week reading the classic little tome Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, Douglass’ autobiography published in 1845. The whole thing is compelling, but it was the “Appendix” that was the amazing correlation to Anne Rice’s critique of today’s Christianity. In this Appendix Douglass cuttingly critiques the church of his day and calls it up short against Christ. Listen: “What I have said respecting and against religion, I mean strictly to apply to the slaveholding religion of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper; for between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference – so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt and wicked. To be the friend of the one, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity.”
In every day and age we lose sight of Christ and replace him with our own agenda, social or other wise. Some agendas are destructive and need themselves to be destroyed, but destroyed by the love of Christ, not brute force. And certainly, as per the theology of the cross, the constructive agendas cannot be our saving grace or holy grail. Only Christ saves. And he never quits.