Sorry about the delay between posts. Got distracted by more work than a retired guy should be doing.
As both my readers know, a few months ago I totaled my car and had to buy another. The new car has satellite radio, a trial anyway. One of the stations is called Classic Radio. It rebroadcasts old radio shows.
I was thrilled to discover it. I actually own a number of tapes of some old radio shows as well as a book titled The Encyclopedia of Old Time Radio. Born in 1940, I grew up listening to radio. My family didn't get a TV until I was 12, so the "theater of the mind" was a regular companion for me. I confess to a lot of nostalgia for the time.
Lately, when I have a trip of at least 15 minutes I tune into an old show. I've listened to a lot of mysteries, complete with dramatic (or over dramatic) organ music to create tension. Interestingly, the stories still hold up, though the settings are antique. Cars shifting gears, phones being dialed, odd sounding police sirens. Still, the stories work--perhaps a little melodramatically, but they still work.
Lately I've been listening to a lot of comedies. They hold up as well, too. Not necessarily knee-slapping funny, but I do find myself smiling a lot, and even laughing out loud a little. Fibber McGee and Molly, the Great Gildersleeve, Lum and Abner, Jack Benny--these were the programs of my youth. They are a bit antiquated too, but still amusing. Now, here's why I bring this up: they are all clean. Now foul language, no sexual innuendo, no outright sexual situations, no mean-spirited humor. Just funny stuff. Ordinary people doing and saying, what were for the times, ordinary things in a funny setting.
As I listen and remember all the happy hours of my childhood listening to Luigi and Judy Canova, and Bob Hope, I wonder what went wrong. When did funny always have to have a blue tint. The other night I watched the season opener of four comedies. In three of them, people slept together, even those who had just met or who were committing adultery. Did we really need that to make it funny. Plus one of the new series is based on the same premise as the movie Knocked Up. Boy and girl hook up for a one-nighter and she gets pregnant. Great. This is what we need more of on TV to normalize it even more.
I'm not a prude, but like the guy in the funny little commercial about putting the No in Innovation, I've got to ask, "Have we gone too far?" That's what I've been thinking lately. What about you?
Peace,
Jerry+
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Kingdom
I've just completed reading The Gospel of Mark by Marcus Borg. The book is one in a series of books called Conversations With Scripture created by The Anglican Association of Biblical Scholars. The book comes with a built in study guide for individual or group use. I recommend it.
But this isn't a review of the book. I'm doing that later for someone else. Borg reminded me that if we take this Gospel seriously we have to conclude that Jesus was calling people to follow him. More than that, his calls to follow him seem really to be about following him to his inevitable conclusion: entering Jerusalem and all that represented. Borg reminds us that in the early decades after Jesus', his followers were even described as followers of the Way.
When Jesus enters Jerusalem, he does so on the same day that Pilate enters, but probably through a different gate. Pilate would have been coming because Jerusalem needed additional troops during Passover when the population likely tripled to something like 150,000 to 200,000 and feeling against the Roman oppressors ran high and hot.
Pilate makes a grand entrance with his troops to establish again the power of Rome over this city and the world. Jesus makes a grand entrance riding on a donkey colt, but wildly celebrated by the people. Why? At some level they understood his arrival as an announcement about the beginning of the end of Roman occupation.
Jesus had been preaching all along about the coming Kingdom, calling people to prepare for that Kingdom. It was a Kingdom not like Rome's, but a Kingdom brought in by God in order to restore justice and peace and to relieve the suffering of the poor--most people at that time.
Along the way, Christians have watered down Jesus' message and/or replaced it with believing the right things. But it would seem that Mark was saying what needed to be believed was the Jesus was God's son and was the embodiment of God's action in the world. God will bring the Kingdom in God's own time, and in the meanwhile, because we believe who Jesus is, we will act as if the Kingdom is here now. We will see that justice is done--that is, that oppressive and dysfunctional systems are replaced. We will attend to the poor while we change the systems that keep them poor. Jesus had little apparent concern, according to Mark, about our "going to heaven." The focus seems to need to be here and now.
As I teach the history of the Church in the first few centuries after Jesus, I can tell you that we went off the track early and radically. Now's the time to fix that.
Peace,
Jerry+
But this isn't a review of the book. I'm doing that later for someone else. Borg reminded me that if we take this Gospel seriously we have to conclude that Jesus was calling people to follow him. More than that, his calls to follow him seem really to be about following him to his inevitable conclusion: entering Jerusalem and all that represented. Borg reminds us that in the early decades after Jesus', his followers were even described as followers of the Way.
When Jesus enters Jerusalem, he does so on the same day that Pilate enters, but probably through a different gate. Pilate would have been coming because Jerusalem needed additional troops during Passover when the population likely tripled to something like 150,000 to 200,000 and feeling against the Roman oppressors ran high and hot.
Pilate makes a grand entrance with his troops to establish again the power of Rome over this city and the world. Jesus makes a grand entrance riding on a donkey colt, but wildly celebrated by the people. Why? At some level they understood his arrival as an announcement about the beginning of the end of Roman occupation.
Jesus had been preaching all along about the coming Kingdom, calling people to prepare for that Kingdom. It was a Kingdom not like Rome's, but a Kingdom brought in by God in order to restore justice and peace and to relieve the suffering of the poor--most people at that time.
Along the way, Christians have watered down Jesus' message and/or replaced it with believing the right things. But it would seem that Mark was saying what needed to be believed was the Jesus was God's son and was the embodiment of God's action in the world. God will bring the Kingdom in God's own time, and in the meanwhile, because we believe who Jesus is, we will act as if the Kingdom is here now. We will see that justice is done--that is, that oppressive and dysfunctional systems are replaced. We will attend to the poor while we change the systems that keep them poor. Jesus had little apparent concern, according to Mark, about our "going to heaven." The focus seems to need to be here and now.
As I teach the history of the Church in the first few centuries after Jesus, I can tell you that we went off the track early and radically. Now's the time to fix that.
Peace,
Jerry+
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Called
When I was a young man, still a teenager in fact, I had an experience which I interpreted as a "call to preach." In my religious tradition, to be "called to preach" meant, of course, much more than that. It usually meant "called to ordained ministry" and ordained ministry meant not only preaching, but all the usual tasks and responsibilities of being a clergyperson. But that wasn't our language nor the language of much of the Church.
In the tradition of which I am a part now, The Episcopal Church, one is "called to the priesthood" or "called to the diaconate." Both mean "called to ordained ministry," though the ministries are usually different. But in both traditions, being "called" means having a higher authority declare that you are somehow "fit" to be an ordained leader, and then having a bishop and others lay hands on you to signify that. Or not.
That is to say, you can believe you are called by God to a particular ordained ministry and have others decide you're not. Exactly how they decide is, of course, a subjective process full of mystery. I am very aware of people being "turned down," that is, having the legitimacy of their call questioned for, say being overweight or being abrupt. Now the fact is that the ordained ranks are peppered with fat people and abrupt people, and for that matter fat, abrupt people. Yet the fat, abrupt and FaA people still manage to be at least adequate ministers--sometime much more than adequate. And one wonders: did they become F, A, and/or FaA only after ordination?
Today, a woman shared with me that her bishop had recently said to her something to the effect, "Don't ruin your spirituality and ministry by seeking ordination." Was he really giving her the low down on what happens to many who go through the process and become ordained, or was he just trying to discourage one more potential candidate for ordination from clogging the system? In either case, what of her call? What must she do now? Be content with a lay ministry--an important lay ministry? But is she being really faithful if she does?
It's all a mystery to me.
Peace,
Jerry+
In the tradition of which I am a part now, The Episcopal Church, one is "called to the priesthood" or "called to the diaconate." Both mean "called to ordained ministry," though the ministries are usually different. But in both traditions, being "called" means having a higher authority declare that you are somehow "fit" to be an ordained leader, and then having a bishop and others lay hands on you to signify that. Or not.
That is to say, you can believe you are called by God to a particular ordained ministry and have others decide you're not. Exactly how they decide is, of course, a subjective process full of mystery. I am very aware of people being "turned down," that is, having the legitimacy of their call questioned for, say being overweight or being abrupt. Now the fact is that the ordained ranks are peppered with fat people and abrupt people, and for that matter fat, abrupt people. Yet the fat, abrupt and FaA people still manage to be at least adequate ministers--sometime much more than adequate. And one wonders: did they become F, A, and/or FaA only after ordination?
Today, a woman shared with me that her bishop had recently said to her something to the effect, "Don't ruin your spirituality and ministry by seeking ordination." Was he really giving her the low down on what happens to many who go through the process and become ordained, or was he just trying to discourage one more potential candidate for ordination from clogging the system? In either case, what of her call? What must she do now? Be content with a lay ministry--an important lay ministry? But is she being really faithful if she does?
It's all a mystery to me.
Peace,
Jerry+
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Rules
This coming Sunday, we move to Mark's Gospel. And right off the bat, Jesus is confronted by the religious leaders because he and his disciples are breaking the religious purity laws--specifically, they didn't ritually wash their hands before they ate. I'm sure this sounds a bit picky to moderns, but there is something important to remember: the Law was in place, all 616 parts, to serve as a means of grace, a way to draw people closer to their God. That Jesus seems to void that does seem to be pretty drastic and dramatic.
What Jesus does is he uses the opportunity to point out that the emphasis needs to shift. It's not what goes into a person that defiles, he says, it's what comes out.
For the gentle reader or two I have, this is no big surprise. But there are many Christians who insist that following rules is really at the heart of being a believer. The rules are just a bit different. A rule might be that one understand the Scriptures to be the literal word of God, without error of any kind. Or it might be that husbands are to rule over their wives--though that tends to be dressed up in less straightforward language these days. Perhaps the rule is about who can receive Holy Communion or who can be married. Suffice it to say, there are lots and lots of them.
The Epistle reading from James picks up on this same theme by insisting that we be doers of the word of God and not just hearers. And he goes on to illustrate the kinds of behavior that would demonstrate doing instead of just hearing: controlling anger, showing compassion and more.
Fundamentally, what makes a person acceptable isn't rule keeping, but the grace of God freely given to all. And perhaps, since we know very well we really don't deserve it ourselves, we could decide to give that grace to others who don't deserve it either. That's what I've been thinking. What about you?
Peace,
Jerry
What Jesus does is he uses the opportunity to point out that the emphasis needs to shift. It's not what goes into a person that defiles, he says, it's what comes out.
For the gentle reader or two I have, this is no big surprise. But there are many Christians who insist that following rules is really at the heart of being a believer. The rules are just a bit different. A rule might be that one understand the Scriptures to be the literal word of God, without error of any kind. Or it might be that husbands are to rule over their wives--though that tends to be dressed up in less straightforward language these days. Perhaps the rule is about who can receive Holy Communion or who can be married. Suffice it to say, there are lots and lots of them.
The Epistle reading from James picks up on this same theme by insisting that we be doers of the word of God and not just hearers. And he goes on to illustrate the kinds of behavior that would demonstrate doing instead of just hearing: controlling anger, showing compassion and more.
Fundamentally, what makes a person acceptable isn't rule keeping, but the grace of God freely given to all. And perhaps, since we know very well we really don't deserve it ourselves, we could decide to give that grace to others who don't deserve it either. That's what I've been thinking. What about you?
Peace,
Jerry
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Gone Too Far
The Gospel for this past Sunday was the fifth in a series about Jesus as bread of life. In this reading, Jesus shocks some good Jews and God-fearers in the synagogue by proclaiming that unless one eats his flesh and drinks his blood, that one cannot have eternal life.
This is a scandalous saying on two fronts. First, he's addressing people who have a strict dietary rule against eating human flesh and second, a law against drinking the blood of any living thing. Jesus is, in effect, asking them to overthrow all they have believed in, that is, Torah, and follow him.
Their response is understandable, "This saying is too hard." John then goes on to say that some of Jesus' disciples leave and follow him no more. Notice, it is some of those who have been following him, who have been gladly hearing what he has to say, who have perhaps benefited from his healings and feeding who leave. It's not unbelievers; it's those who have believed in him. But finally, he has gone too far.
I wonder if sometimes when we take seriously Jesus' teachings and are faced with bringing justice to a world full of injustice, of caring for the poor--some of whom seem to neither have interest in caring for themselves nor appreciation for our caring for them--if we don't agree with those who left: Jesus has gone too far. When he expects us to love the unlovable, maybe we find it hard to do because Jesus has gone too far. When he expects us to forgive those who do harm to us, maybe we can't because Jesus has just gone too far. What other reasons can we find for our general unwillingness to graciously accept those who believe differently from us? Loving them would just be going too far.
Wounded, when many leave, Jesus turns to the Twelve and asks if they will also leave. And Peter, God bless him, says, "To whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life." Yes, and staying will cost these men dearly. Maybe that's another reason our ardor is not equal to theirs. That, or perhaps we don't really think Jesus has the words of eternal life. Not sure. What do you think?
Peace,
Jerry+
This is a scandalous saying on two fronts. First, he's addressing people who have a strict dietary rule against eating human flesh and second, a law against drinking the blood of any living thing. Jesus is, in effect, asking them to overthrow all they have believed in, that is, Torah, and follow him.
Their response is understandable, "This saying is too hard." John then goes on to say that some of Jesus' disciples leave and follow him no more. Notice, it is some of those who have been following him, who have been gladly hearing what he has to say, who have perhaps benefited from his healings and feeding who leave. It's not unbelievers; it's those who have believed in him. But finally, he has gone too far.
I wonder if sometimes when we take seriously Jesus' teachings and are faced with bringing justice to a world full of injustice, of caring for the poor--some of whom seem to neither have interest in caring for themselves nor appreciation for our caring for them--if we don't agree with those who left: Jesus has gone too far. When he expects us to love the unlovable, maybe we find it hard to do because Jesus has gone too far. When he expects us to forgive those who do harm to us, maybe we can't because Jesus has just gone too far. What other reasons can we find for our general unwillingness to graciously accept those who believe differently from us? Loving them would just be going too far.
Wounded, when many leave, Jesus turns to the Twelve and asks if they will also leave. And Peter, God bless him, says, "To whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life." Yes, and staying will cost these men dearly. Maybe that's another reason our ardor is not equal to theirs. That, or perhaps we don't really think Jesus has the words of eternal life. Not sure. What do you think?
Peace,
Jerry+
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Too Easy
Shooting fish in a barrel. That's the expression for taking a shot at something that you just can't miss, so I almost feel guilty taking my shots with this blog. But, I just need to say something about something.
Coach Pitino. You probably know the story. Six years ago he had sex with a stranger in a bar, got her pregnant and paid for an abortion. The public would never have known except she decided to try to extort money from him. This is stupid on so many levels, I won't say more about it specifically. Let's move on to the next item.
Last week the West Memphis police saw two men standing in the middle of the street, apparently drinking. When the cop rolled up, one of the men ditched what he had into a bush and did the rabbit trick. The cop pursued and caught him. No big deal so far. But the man's mother happens to roll up on the scene and, since the cop is white and the perp is not, she begins to curse calling him a "white m.....f.....," among other things and then says, "Do you know who I am? I'm a former West Memphis Council Member." Well we're allowed to say stupid things at moments such as those, I guess. But as the cop reaches into her car, since apparently she won't step out, she drives off with him hanging on. He quickly let go and wasn't serious hurt. She, however got charged.
Now the thing is, had her son done nothing, the cop would probably have told him to get out of the street and take his drinking inside. End of episode. But noooooo.
I could add to this list several more very public figures who have done similar stupid things recently and had the light of the media shined in their faces. You know who they are. And what are we doing? Shaking our heads and thinking how stupid they are. But they are more than stupid. In each case there is a moral and/or ethic issue that should outrage us and would have outraged our grandparents, maybe even our parents.
Awakening way too early the other day, I entertained myself with TV. There's not much on at that time, so I ended up watching a couple of episodes of "Cheaters." It's a show in which an investigator is hired by a spouse or significant other to check on the fidelity of his or her partner. Of course they are caught being unfaithful. And you know what? They don't care. There is no remorse, no apparent guilt, no repentance, no asking for forgiveness. Instead, they show outrage at being followed and/or blame their partner for their infidelity.
I could go on, but the bottom line for this blog is this: "What in God's name has happened to our standard of morality in this country?" We freak out when we hear some Muslim woman being whipped because she showed her legs or talked to the wrong man. And we should. But where's our outrage at the stuff going on right here that's far worse?
This is what I've been thinking about the last couple of days. Any thoughts?
Peace,
Jerry+
Coach Pitino. You probably know the story. Six years ago he had sex with a stranger in a bar, got her pregnant and paid for an abortion. The public would never have known except she decided to try to extort money from him. This is stupid on so many levels, I won't say more about it specifically. Let's move on to the next item.
Last week the West Memphis police saw two men standing in the middle of the street, apparently drinking. When the cop rolled up, one of the men ditched what he had into a bush and did the rabbit trick. The cop pursued and caught him. No big deal so far. But the man's mother happens to roll up on the scene and, since the cop is white and the perp is not, she begins to curse calling him a "white m.....f.....," among other things and then says, "Do you know who I am? I'm a former West Memphis Council Member." Well we're allowed to say stupid things at moments such as those, I guess. But as the cop reaches into her car, since apparently she won't step out, she drives off with him hanging on. He quickly let go and wasn't serious hurt. She, however got charged.
Now the thing is, had her son done nothing, the cop would probably have told him to get out of the street and take his drinking inside. End of episode. But noooooo.
I could add to this list several more very public figures who have done similar stupid things recently and had the light of the media shined in their faces. You know who they are. And what are we doing? Shaking our heads and thinking how stupid they are. But they are more than stupid. In each case there is a moral and/or ethic issue that should outrage us and would have outraged our grandparents, maybe even our parents.
Awakening way too early the other day, I entertained myself with TV. There's not much on at that time, so I ended up watching a couple of episodes of "Cheaters." It's a show in which an investigator is hired by a spouse or significant other to check on the fidelity of his or her partner. Of course they are caught being unfaithful. And you know what? They don't care. There is no remorse, no apparent guilt, no repentance, no asking for forgiveness. Instead, they show outrage at being followed and/or blame their partner for their infidelity.
I could go on, but the bottom line for this blog is this: "What in God's name has happened to our standard of morality in this country?" We freak out when we hear some Muslim woman being whipped because she showed her legs or talked to the wrong man. And we should. But where's our outrage at the stuff going on right here that's far worse?
This is what I've been thinking about the last couple of days. Any thoughts?
Peace,
Jerry+
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Leading Worship
Last Saturday, along with the Dean of the Cathedral of the Diocese, I had the pleasure and responsibility of training Eucharistic Ministers and Lectors for the Diocese.
That alone is a bit surreal since I'm United Methodist. I was introduced as one who "knows more about this than most Anglicans." I doubt it, but I do know a lot because for seven years I was responsible for selecting, training, scheduling and overseeing 80 to 100 of these in the Episcopal Church where I was on staff as one of the clergy--something else that's surreal.
I took it very seriously and I took the job Saturday seriously as well. Why? Eucharist Ministers in the Episcopal Church typically administer the chalice in the service of Holy Communion and Lectors read the lessons. These are incredibly important tasks for those who are leading worship. In two different ways, these folks are mediating the grace of God to others, one by reading God's word, the other by administering a sacrament.
Without mentioning all the things I talked about, I want to mention one. I reminded those who serve that there is not a test that makes one eligible for hearing the Word or for receiving the cup. What each person believes is not at issue. How each person lived the previous week is not at issue. We have agreed as Christians to have our differences but to gather for worship without having some litmus test administered. We have agreed to leave to God whether or not someone is worthy to come and worship in these ways, and by the way, we believe God has already acted on who is invited.
One of the principles behind this position is that before God, we are all loved and accepted. And, it is hoped, by acting this way in worship, we will be able to actually love and accept those who are, in fact, different from us. Now if we could only pull that off.
Peace,
Jerry+
That alone is a bit surreal since I'm United Methodist. I was introduced as one who "knows more about this than most Anglicans." I doubt it, but I do know a lot because for seven years I was responsible for selecting, training, scheduling and overseeing 80 to 100 of these in the Episcopal Church where I was on staff as one of the clergy--something else that's surreal.
I took it very seriously and I took the job Saturday seriously as well. Why? Eucharist Ministers in the Episcopal Church typically administer the chalice in the service of Holy Communion and Lectors read the lessons. These are incredibly important tasks for those who are leading worship. In two different ways, these folks are mediating the grace of God to others, one by reading God's word, the other by administering a sacrament.
Without mentioning all the things I talked about, I want to mention one. I reminded those who serve that there is not a test that makes one eligible for hearing the Word or for receiving the cup. What each person believes is not at issue. How each person lived the previous week is not at issue. We have agreed as Christians to have our differences but to gather for worship without having some litmus test administered. We have agreed to leave to God whether or not someone is worthy to come and worship in these ways, and by the way, we believe God has already acted on who is invited.
One of the principles behind this position is that before God, we are all loved and accepted. And, it is hoped, by acting this way in worship, we will be able to actually love and accept those who are, in fact, different from us. Now if we could only pull that off.
Peace,
Jerry+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
