A friend recently gave my wife a little book written by Max Lucado, titled Safe in the Shepherd’s Arms. It is a series of short reflections on the 23rd Psalm. In it Max writes,
…Life is a jungle. Not a jungle of trees and beasts. Would that it were that simple. Would that our jungles could be cut with a machete or our adversaries trapped in a cage. But our jungles are comprised of the thicker thickets of failing health, broken hearts, and empty wallets. Our forests are framed with hospital walls and divorce courts. We don’t hear the screeching of birds of the roaring of lions, but we do hear the complaints of neighbors and the demands of bosses. Our predators are our creditors, and the brush that surrounds us is the rush that exhausts us. It’s a jungle out there. And for some, even for many, hope is in short supply.
Yep. I think he nailed it. And jungles such as these can be overwhelmingly fearful places to be—places where hope can be in short supply. But, as Max points out, God can restore hope in the same way God can restore souls. He goes on to write,
Whether you are a lamb lost on a craggy ledge or a city slicker alone in a deep jungle, everything changes when [the Shepherd] appears. Your loneliness diminishes…your despair decrease because you have vision. Your confusion begins to life because you have direction. Please note: You haven’t left the jungle. The trees still eclipse the sky, and the thorns still cut the skin. Animals lurk and rodents scurry. The jungle is still a jungle. It hasn’t changed, but you have. You have hope.
The Shepherd can appear in many guises. A friend who slips you a little book to bolster your spirit. Another who drops you a card with a warm and loving note. Still another who sends a card that makes you erupt in laughter when laughter seems such a forgotten experience. A hug. A whispered, “It’s going to be OK. Don’t know what it’s going to look like, but it’s going to be OK.” The phone call that concludes with, “I’m praying for you.” These are the urban jungle’s machetes that hack away the strangling vines and help point the way toward a sense of hope.
It’s a jungle out there. But, it’s not one you in which you are alone and lost.
Peace,
Jerry+
Friday, November 14, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Feast Day
Today is my birthday, but it is also the feast day of William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, who died in 1944.
Temple's admirers have called him "a philosopher, theologian, social teacher, educational reformer, and the leader of the ecumenical movement of his generation," "the most significant Anglican churchman of the twentieth century," "the most renowned Primate in the Church of England since the English Reformation," "Anglican's most creative and comprehensive contribution to the theological enterprise of the West.”
Pretty impressive company.
One of his most important accomplishments was his vigorous involvement in movements for Christian co-operation and unity, in missions, in the British Council of Churches, in the World Council of Churches, in the Church of South India (a merger of Anglican, Congregationalist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches into a single church, with provisions for safeguarding what each group thought essential).
Temple was initially refused ordination by his bishop because of his less than orthodox views on the Virgin Mary and Jesus’ resurrection. But the then Archbishop of Canterbury thought he saw something important in Temple and ordained him anyway. I guess he was right. Oh, incidentally, Temple eventually came around to the orthodox view, but clearly his greatest contributions had little or nothing to do with his orthodoxy. Hmmm. Could this be something the Church needs to pay more attention to?
Peace,
Jerry+
Temple's admirers have called him "a philosopher, theologian, social teacher, educational reformer, and the leader of the ecumenical movement of his generation," "the most significant Anglican churchman of the twentieth century," "the most renowned Primate in the Church of England since the English Reformation," "Anglican's most creative and comprehensive contribution to the theological enterprise of the West.”
Pretty impressive company.
One of his most important accomplishments was his vigorous involvement in movements for Christian co-operation and unity, in missions, in the British Council of Churches, in the World Council of Churches, in the Church of South India (a merger of Anglican, Congregationalist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches into a single church, with provisions for safeguarding what each group thought essential).
Temple was initially refused ordination by his bishop because of his less than orthodox views on the Virgin Mary and Jesus’ resurrection. But the then Archbishop of Canterbury thought he saw something important in Temple and ordained him anyway. I guess he was right. Oh, incidentally, Temple eventually came around to the orthodox view, but clearly his greatest contributions had little or nothing to do with his orthodoxy. Hmmm. Could this be something the Church needs to pay more attention to?
Peace,
Jerry+
Saturday, November 1, 2008
All Saints
Today is All Saints’ Day in much of Christendom. Most churches that observe it will do so tomorrow since we tend not to do weekday feast days.
Venerating those who have died for the faith began very early in Christianity, almost as soon as the Jesus Movement started. During the Roman persecutions of the late first and throughout the second century, many chose death rather than renounce their faith. Pretty quickly, the places of their birth or their martyrdom began to be venerated along with them and then churches began to be built on or near those spots. After the Peace of the Church in 313, martyrdom virtually disappeared, but the definition of saints changed a bit and the identification of saints continued .
The Gospel for All Saints is the Matthew list of the Beatitudes. And not accidentally. The Sermon on the Mount, of which they are a part, has been called the summary of Jesus’ teaching and the Beatitudes the summary of the summary. They are not prescriptive, however. That is, they are not the new law which all must obey. They are descriptive. They represent the reality for those who live according to these precepts. Not that it would hurt us to consider them prescriptive! But we wouldn’t be any better at living them than in living the Golden Rule, so maybe it’s just as well we don’t set them out as the desired ideal.
One more thing. During the persecutions, very many more people caved in than stood firm. One of the first controversies of the Imperial Church was how to treat the lapsed—and this was not the first time the issue had arisen. The context this time was “if a clergyman lapsed and then returned to the faith, were the sacramental acts, such as baptism, that he had performed or would perform, valid?” The bottom line, which by no means pleased everybody was, “yes.” The grace resides in God not the “actor.” Damn good thing don’t you think.
Peace
Jerry+
Venerating those who have died for the faith began very early in Christianity, almost as soon as the Jesus Movement started. During the Roman persecutions of the late first and throughout the second century, many chose death rather than renounce their faith. Pretty quickly, the places of their birth or their martyrdom began to be venerated along with them and then churches began to be built on or near those spots. After the Peace of the Church in 313, martyrdom virtually disappeared, but the definition of saints changed a bit and the identification of saints continued .
The Gospel for All Saints is the Matthew list of the Beatitudes. And not accidentally. The Sermon on the Mount, of which they are a part, has been called the summary of Jesus’ teaching and the Beatitudes the summary of the summary. They are not prescriptive, however. That is, they are not the new law which all must obey. They are descriptive. They represent the reality for those who live according to these precepts. Not that it would hurt us to consider them prescriptive! But we wouldn’t be any better at living them than in living the Golden Rule, so maybe it’s just as well we don’t set them out as the desired ideal.
One more thing. During the persecutions, very many more people caved in than stood firm. One of the first controversies of the Imperial Church was how to treat the lapsed—and this was not the first time the issue had arisen. The context this time was “if a clergyman lapsed and then returned to the faith, were the sacramental acts, such as baptism, that he had performed or would perform, valid?” The bottom line, which by no means pleased everybody was, “yes.” The grace resides in God not the “actor.” Damn good thing don’t you think.
Peace
Jerry+
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Surprized
“…since the will of man is a slender reed, not to be relied on to do the right thing, evil will exist. No police force can be expected to do what religion, good example, and the fear of being caught have failed to accomplish.”
This quotation is from a novel by Ralph McInerny titled Grave Undertakings: A Father Dowling Mystery. I was struck by it’s simple truth. In fact, stunned by it is a more appropriate way to put it.
It is very popular today to decry the decline of morality. It’s as if it’s a new thing; that there was some better time, say the post War 50s that where a high water mark of civility and high morals, or perhaps the Victorian Age. Well I certainly remember the 50s as pretty good, but I had a very limited world view. And since the media didn’t always tell us everything they knew, for example, JFK and MM, we can’t be faulted for believing it was actually better. Plus, there were so few choice of media. Now with the 24 hour new cycle and the necessity to fill it up, plenty of “bad” news gets reported perhaps given us a jaundiced view.
It’s not that I don’t think modern morality is the pits—I do. But declined? I’m not so sure. As regular readers know, I’ve been teaching a survey course on the history of the Church. Again and again I get reminded of the low level of morality both of the religious leaders and of the people throughout history. Otherwise apparently good men got elected to bishoprics or to the papacy and the power just seemed too much. There was a rampant sense that holding the office somehow permitted excesses. And the temporal rules seemed to basically care about their own needs at the expensive of their subjects.
So it seems pretty clear that McInerny is right. If religion can’t reform the lives of people, we’re doomed. And it seems clearer and clearer to me that it can’t—or at least it doesn’t. That’s not to say there aren’t good moral men and women in the world, clearly there are. It is to say that all the evidence seems to indicate they are outnumbered very many to one. That being the case, we can just expect things to continue to be bad. I just don’t see another Great Awakening coming and I don’t see a corrective in culture swing us back from our excesses.
I know this seems pretty pessimistic. But I’m feeling pretty pessimistic these days as injustice touches close to home again.
Jerry+
This quotation is from a novel by Ralph McInerny titled Grave Undertakings: A Father Dowling Mystery. I was struck by it’s simple truth. In fact, stunned by it is a more appropriate way to put it.
It is very popular today to decry the decline of morality. It’s as if it’s a new thing; that there was some better time, say the post War 50s that where a high water mark of civility and high morals, or perhaps the Victorian Age. Well I certainly remember the 50s as pretty good, but I had a very limited world view. And since the media didn’t always tell us everything they knew, for example, JFK and MM, we can’t be faulted for believing it was actually better. Plus, there were so few choice of media. Now with the 24 hour new cycle and the necessity to fill it up, plenty of “bad” news gets reported perhaps given us a jaundiced view.
It’s not that I don’t think modern morality is the pits—I do. But declined? I’m not so sure. As regular readers know, I’ve been teaching a survey course on the history of the Church. Again and again I get reminded of the low level of morality both of the religious leaders and of the people throughout history. Otherwise apparently good men got elected to bishoprics or to the papacy and the power just seemed too much. There was a rampant sense that holding the office somehow permitted excesses. And the temporal rules seemed to basically care about their own needs at the expensive of their subjects.
So it seems pretty clear that McInerny is right. If religion can’t reform the lives of people, we’re doomed. And it seems clearer and clearer to me that it can’t—or at least it doesn’t. That’s not to say there aren’t good moral men and women in the world, clearly there are. It is to say that all the evidence seems to indicate they are outnumbered very many to one. That being the case, we can just expect things to continue to be bad. I just don’t see another Great Awakening coming and I don’t see a corrective in culture swing us back from our excesses.
I know this seems pretty pessimistic. But I’m feeling pretty pessimistic these days as injustice touches close to home again.
Jerry+
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Test?
"When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He said to him, "`You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: `You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." [Matthew 22: Sunday's Gospel]
It could hardly be put more simply. Love God with all you are; love others at least as well as you love yourself. Why is it then, we seem to have so much trouble with this? I begin each day reading the local paper. I’d guess that about 30 to 40 percent is about how we fail at the second part of this pair. Those news bits are about murder, robbery, gossip, malfeasance, and more. About 2 or 3 percent seem to be about something good. This morning a local woman was highlighted as one of 500 nationally invited to the White House because of her volunteer efforts. That was nice to read. She seems to get it.
I went to a Bible study last night with a group of people I don’t know. Meeting new people is always hard for me, so this was a big deal. The man to my left was named—it really doesn’t matter. I found him friendly at first, but quickly he began to be contentious with the leader and others who spoke up. Argumentative in an environment in which we had been encouraged to listen to other points of view. To my right was a young man who had broken his wrist and who looked a bit ragged. About half way through the Bible study, he leaned over and asked for money to buy some BC powders for the pain in his wrist. I didn’t doubt he was in pain, but I also believed the free clinic that set his wrist had probably given him something for it. Was I being taken advantage of? Conned?
Was this a Phariseean test for me? On my left hand a difficult person to like. On my right hand a stranger who hit me up for a few bucks. I left the parish hall wondering if I’d return. I will, I decided, on the ride home. But the real test for me is how I will relate to these two people next week. My natural tendency will be to avoid them. But would that be loving?
Peace,
Jerry+
It could hardly be put more simply. Love God with all you are; love others at least as well as you love yourself. Why is it then, we seem to have so much trouble with this? I begin each day reading the local paper. I’d guess that about 30 to 40 percent is about how we fail at the second part of this pair. Those news bits are about murder, robbery, gossip, malfeasance, and more. About 2 or 3 percent seem to be about something good. This morning a local woman was highlighted as one of 500 nationally invited to the White House because of her volunteer efforts. That was nice to read. She seems to get it.
I went to a Bible study last night with a group of people I don’t know. Meeting new people is always hard for me, so this was a big deal. The man to my left was named—it really doesn’t matter. I found him friendly at first, but quickly he began to be contentious with the leader and others who spoke up. Argumentative in an environment in which we had been encouraged to listen to other points of view. To my right was a young man who had broken his wrist and who looked a bit ragged. About half way through the Bible study, he leaned over and asked for money to buy some BC powders for the pain in his wrist. I didn’t doubt he was in pain, but I also believed the free clinic that set his wrist had probably given him something for it. Was I being taken advantage of? Conned?
Was this a Phariseean test for me? On my left hand a difficult person to like. On my right hand a stranger who hit me up for a few bucks. I left the parish hall wondering if I’d return. I will, I decided, on the ride home. But the real test for me is how I will relate to these two people next week. My natural tendency will be to avoid them. But would that be loving?
Peace,
Jerry+
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
A Bribe
Sunday, at the announcements, the priest said, “Remember next Sunday to stay after services for free Gus’ fried chicken and fixings. Let me be up front about this. It’s a bribe to get you to stay and learn about this years’ pledge campaign. We’re going to try to get you to make a pledge.” I had two reactions. On the one hand, I laughed. I loved his candor. “Let’s not sugar coat it. We want your money.” On the other hand, how regrettable that we have to entice people to learn about the financial needs of their parish and “twist their arms” to get them to give.
Isn’t something very wrong with that picture?
Plus, if this presentation is like the other thousand (well not literally) I’ve sat through, it will not be very detailed and it will indicate that the vast majority of the money will go for internal needs: salaries, utilities, etc. Just keeping Church’s the motor running costs a fortune—never mind actually getting on the road to the Kingdom.
A professor I had in seminary, James Glass, wrote a book called Getting It Together in the Parish. One of the things he wrote was the Church might want to consider a different model. How about, he suggested, a congregation of ten families: 1minister and 9 lay? All would tithe. That would make the minister's salary an average of the lay salaries. The minister would tithe too and this would all be spent on external programming. Plus, the minister would have such a small congregation that he/she would be free to devote almost all his/her time to ministry in the community. As the congregation grew to 20 families, they would split and form a new ten family congregation. And, of course, they would meet in someone’s home so there is no facilities upkeep to drain resources.
Though it is a model not without some problems, it certainly seems to return us to New Testament times when Christians met in homes and the definition of minister was very fluid. And it provides for a lot of community ministry. Unlike the present big church model.
Oh, well. Just an idea.
Peace,
Jerry+
Isn’t something very wrong with that picture?
Plus, if this presentation is like the other thousand (well not literally) I’ve sat through, it will not be very detailed and it will indicate that the vast majority of the money will go for internal needs: salaries, utilities, etc. Just keeping Church’s the motor running costs a fortune—never mind actually getting on the road to the Kingdom.
A professor I had in seminary, James Glass, wrote a book called Getting It Together in the Parish. One of the things he wrote was the Church might want to consider a different model. How about, he suggested, a congregation of ten families: 1minister and 9 lay? All would tithe. That would make the minister's salary an average of the lay salaries. The minister would tithe too and this would all be spent on external programming. Plus, the minister would have such a small congregation that he/she would be free to devote almost all his/her time to ministry in the community. As the congregation grew to 20 families, they would split and form a new ten family congregation. And, of course, they would meet in someone’s home so there is no facilities upkeep to drain resources.
Though it is a model not without some problems, it certainly seems to return us to New Testament times when Christians met in homes and the definition of minister was very fluid. And it provides for a lot of community ministry. Unlike the present big church model.
Oh, well. Just an idea.
Peace,
Jerry+
Friday, October 10, 2008
Moses, Paul, and Me
The Exodus reading for Sunday [32:1-14] is troubling. Having grown tired of waiting for Moses to come down from the mountain, the people insist that Aaron, Moses’ right hand man, make a god for them to worship. He collects their gold and makes the golden calf and he and the people begin to worship the calf. This is the troubling part for two reasons.
The reading shows again just how fickle God’s people can be. They are unhappy there in the wilderness, perhaps still preferring Egyptian slavery to difficult freedom. The thankful they must have felt when they crossed over from Egypt is completely forgotten. In their unhappiness, they decide to abandon Yahweh and chase after a god of their own making who will apparently take better care of them. We should be able to identify.
It’s not as if we’ve never done the same thing. In fact, we seem to be better at it today than ever. The most recent god at whose altar we have decided to devote ourselves seems to be greed and a sense of entitlement. We seem to have largely abandoned concern for the things of God in favor of chasing after more transitory things which we believe will make us happy and provide security. It has backfired in spades, of course. Greed and stupidity have created the worse economic situation we have faced in 90 years—and not just in the U.S.
Whatever security and peace we’ve sought has turned in on itself and now many are just chasing survival. Not to say some haven’t gotten filthy rich in this debacle, but most have lost their shirts.
Paul, in Sunday’s epistle reading encourages his friends in Philippi to seek peace in a very different way. He says, “Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Keep on doing the things that you have learned and received…and the God of peace will be with you.”
I shared with my wife, Carol, the other day what mixed emotions I have when I write a check from savings for a charitable purpose. On the one hand, the needs are real and we want to respond to them out of a sense of thankfulness for our having been blessed. On the other hand, as a retired person who has seen pension and investment values drop by 30% in the last few weeks, I can’t help think, “We may need this money ourselves before long.” So far, the thankfulness has outweighed the fear. But I can better understand those who fear in the wilderness.
Peace,
Jerry+
The reading shows again just how fickle God’s people can be. They are unhappy there in the wilderness, perhaps still preferring Egyptian slavery to difficult freedom. The thankful they must have felt when they crossed over from Egypt is completely forgotten. In their unhappiness, they decide to abandon Yahweh and chase after a god of their own making who will apparently take better care of them. We should be able to identify.
It’s not as if we’ve never done the same thing. In fact, we seem to be better at it today than ever. The most recent god at whose altar we have decided to devote ourselves seems to be greed and a sense of entitlement. We seem to have largely abandoned concern for the things of God in favor of chasing after more transitory things which we believe will make us happy and provide security. It has backfired in spades, of course. Greed and stupidity have created the worse economic situation we have faced in 90 years—and not just in the U.S.
Whatever security and peace we’ve sought has turned in on itself and now many are just chasing survival. Not to say some haven’t gotten filthy rich in this debacle, but most have lost their shirts.
Paul, in Sunday’s epistle reading encourages his friends in Philippi to seek peace in a very different way. He says, “Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Keep on doing the things that you have learned and received…and the God of peace will be with you.”
I shared with my wife, Carol, the other day what mixed emotions I have when I write a check from savings for a charitable purpose. On the one hand, the needs are real and we want to respond to them out of a sense of thankfulness for our having been blessed. On the other hand, as a retired person who has seen pension and investment values drop by 30% in the last few weeks, I can’t help think, “We may need this money ourselves before long.” So far, the thankfulness has outweighed the fear. But I can better understand those who fear in the wilderness.
Peace,
Jerry+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
