Daily Office, Year One, Proper 4, Tuesday Today's Readings:

• Deuteronomy 12:1-12
• 2 Corinthians 6:3-7:1
• Luke 17:11-19

The word of the day seems to fall between "Purging" and "Cleansing". As a rule, I try not to view the miracles as factual events. Miracles are things like being stranded on a dark road with no lights in an unfamiliar city and a stranger pulls over, calls AAA on their cell phone, and waits with you until help arrives. That's a miracle. Maybe I'm just stuck in a post-modern worldview, but so many of Jesus' miracles are indistiguishable from magic. But the story of Luke, and the healing of the lepers, is read allegorically with no problems, only options. The real point that I read is that true healing is done through faith. Which one of the lepers thought up the notion that they should go to Jesus and get healed? Probably not the one who stayed and praised God. It was probably one of the other nine who saw a way out of their painful lives and used Jesus. Only one stayed. Jesus talked a lot about the good existing with the bad, and a time when the bad would be taken away, but he also taught us to lead by example. When Jesus did talk about the judgement, the cleansing of the earth of iniquity, I believe he didn't mean some far off future, he meant during his lifetime. I don't believe he expected to die in his thirties. He probably would have lived to see teh destruction of the Temple. In some way, the destruction of the Temple was the end of the world, and the wicked were destroyed. The Jewish people had to die and resurrect, the rule that applied to each of us as individuals also applied to Israel. It happened before, it's a cycle. It raises the question: Did Jesus think that the death and resurrection of Israel would be the final death and resurrection? Maybe not. It requires more research.  ¶ 11:38 AM 0 comments

  Daily Office, Year One, Proper 4, Monday Today's Readings:

• Deuteronomy 11:13-19
• 2 Corinthians 5:11-6:2
• Luke 17:1-10

I am reminded that Jesus was another in a long line of prophets. Jerusalem was under the control of an invading force, traditionally a sign that God was displeased with the Jews or the Pharisees. The Jews must have failed to keep God's commandments because they had lost their land, even though they still lived there. They were being punished by God, and Jesus saw that. He pointed it out. It makes me ask "what was up with the Pharisees and Sadducees?" Did they realize that Israel was no match for the Romans? Were they trying to form a silent resistance? What were they doing to free themselves from oppression? I've heard one theory that Judas was looking for a leader, a military leader who would lead a rebellion against the Romans, and he thought he found that leader in Jesus.
In Luke, Jesus teaches us not to expect gratitude. Forgive at every repentance, but don't expect thanks from anyone, even God, for obeying a command. Dare I disagree with Jesus in some small way? Dare I say that giving thanks to other people is a good thing, and expecting other's to be grateful in some minor way is not a bad thing? All I want is to be recognized for some deeds. Maybe that is a problem. I'm looking for some recognition, I'm seeking a connection with the expectation that others will step out of themselves to acknowledge me. I still think it's a good and socially constructive thing to say 'please' and 'thank you' and to teach others to do the same, but if I take to heart the lesson of praying privately, then so much else should remain private.
Wow. I'm glad I worked that out. I didn't think it was a problem for me.  ¶ 11:23 AM 0 comments

  Daily Office, Year One, Proper 4, Sunday (I foolishly realized that I'd been reading the Year Two side of the Daily Office, so I've started this week on Year One).
Today's Readings:

• Deut. 11:1-12
• Rev. 10:1-11
• Matt 13:44-58

I think that there is a connection between the contents of the little scroll in the reading from Revelation that tastes good but leaves a bitter stomach and the law that God commands the Hebrews no keep as they prepare to enter the promised land. Is the honey promised to them destined to taste good but eventually hurt them or leave them discomforted? Could it be that God cannot provide everything a single person needs? If we are co-creators with God, then we need each other as well as we need God. Ultimely all gifts are from God, but we need other human beings to bring those gifts into our lives. Christ said "man cannot live on bread alone", but maybe the converse is true: Man cannot live without bread; without Earthy stuff, without each other. This seems like a dangerous thought, but I don't think it needs to be taken as a threat to God, the idea of God, or the role God plays in our lives. After all, God said that it is not good for Man to live alone. Generalizing, each person needs other people. God was aware of this at the beginning, or quickly learned it. People need people.  ¶ 4:48 PM 2 comments

  Daily Office, Year A, Proper 3, Thursday Today's Readings:

• Psalm 37:1-18
• Proverbs 21:30-22:6
• 1 Timothy 4:1-16
• Matthew 13:24-30

The word that sprung to mind today is Patience. Psalm 37:17: "The little that the righteous has is better than the great riches of hte wicked." Proverbs 22:4: "The reward for humility and fear of the Lord is riches and honor in life." Pauls' letter to Timothy tells us to be patient and focus on Godliness. Matthew tells the parable known as "the parable of the weeds among the wheat." A man sows good seed, an evil man comes after and sows weeds. When the servants see this they ask if they should pull up the weeds, and are told not to, because wheat would also be uprooted. When the time comes the weeds will be pulled away first and burned, then the good wheat will be harvested.
I think there's a lesson about evangelism here. First, it starts with "the kingdom of God is like..." and describes what's happening in the present, not in the future. We think of evangelization by getting people to buy in to our way of thinking, we want to replace who they are with who we are, or think we are. I disagree. It was important for the desciples to go out and teach about Jesus, since Jesus didn't have mass media or the force of history to spread his message. Today, we don't really need to tell people about Jesus. Most people know about Jesus in some form. I'm afraid we've popularizd the "tripumphant judge" aspect of Jesus, which isn't found in the historical texts, just the hopes of the future.
In America, we see religion as a personal thing. The litmus test has become "do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?" Then we see people going out and praying in public to try to convert, or bully people into conversion.Jesus taught us to pray privately, but He also told us to be a light to the world (Matthew 5:15). Evangelism should be about bold patience, proclaiming our Faith that God is in charge, and the weeds of humanity will be stripped away on God's terms.
We should be living in the Kingdom of God. Be patient.  ¶ 10:26 AM 0 comments

  Daily Office, Year A, Proper 3, Wednesday Today's readings:

• Psalm 38
• Prov. 17:1-20
• 1 Tim. 3:1-16
• Matt. 12:43-50

I think the theme of today's readings is healing. Psalm 38 wallows in misery and iniquity. Proverbs teaches that a calm ordered life is a good thing. Paul teaches that Bishops and Deacons must have ordered lifes and a long history with the faith. So why healing? Matthew. Jesus describes a demon being cast out, wandering around, and returning home. But guess what? It's bringing friends. Purging ourselves of evil is not enough, because it lets more evil in. The point is to purge your demons and then create a clean heart. Create in your heard a place where only God may dwell, a place where there is no chaos: Respect, love, empathy, and charity are the furniture in God's house.  ¶ 11:25 AM 0 comments

  The Battle for Words One way to look at religious beliefs is to say that all religions are talking about the same thing, the only real conflicts involve what words to use. I think that there is something to this, and as much as I want to reclaim the word 'Christian' to mean something other than 'Fundamentalist,' I see there are Fundamentalists who want complete control of the word.
Problem is, once you release a word, do you have control over it? This person who wrote to Jonah Goldberg at the National Review tries to define 'Fundamentalist' but misses a few things in his defense. There are ten things that the Fundamentalist movement claims must be believed in order to be Christian. Already they redifine Christian to mean Fundamentalist. What they wanted to do was solidify their faith against the "attack of modernism." So far from defining the historically accurate, they created a way of looking at the Christian Faith in a new way, previously impossible before modernism took hold.
The Fundamentals, as they were called, are along the lines of "The Bible is the inerrant word of God"; "Moses wrote the Pentateuch"; "Atonement Theology is the only Theology"; and such. They are all backed up by scripture, but they are also contradicted by scripture.
This anonymous person (presumbably Mr. Goldberb simply did not print the person's name) claims that the Five Points of Faith are in the Nicene and Apostles Creed. His five: 1) the inerrancy of scripture; 2) the virgin birth of Jesus Christ; 3)the substitutional theory of atonement; 4) the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ; and 5) Christ's imminent bodily return to the world.
First of all, niether creed mentions the Bible. Sure, they say "On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures", but that doesn't mean that any variation of the Christian Bible is being referenced her. I've always understood that phrase to refer to prophecies in the Hebrew Bible. This has nothing to do with the inerrancy of Scripture. They have to work hard with wordplay and logical conundrums to justify the places where the Bible contradicts itself.
The Virgin Birth: this has been long established that 'virgin' is a poor translation of the word used for 'maiden' or 'unmarried woman' which implies virginity, but so does "my kindergarten-aged daughter." I don't fight the virgin birth thing. Jesus is not diminished by having a real human father, just like the rest of us.
The Substitutional Theory of atonement: Bunk. I'm not going to get into that here. It's a big subject.
The Physical resurrection: Here's one that I do believe in, sort of, even though the creeds don't describe it as a physical resurrection. I believe that in the afterlife we will percieve ourselves in bodies, because that's what were used to. I believe we learn many things about God and the universe after death, and we will shed our need for the illusion of a physical body.
Christs imminent return: The history of the afterlife is long and intriguing. It's on my list of things to research. Right now I don't know if I believe that we are judged at the moment of death (or shortly after death) or if we sleep until the end of the world, or if we just watch the world continue until the end of time. The third would be my preference. I'm a big fan of the future, I'd love to see it.
Are the Five Points in the Creeds? No. Is Fundamentalism Christianity? No.
And don't get me started on the argument that 'fundamentalism' should not be applied to Islamist extremists who are doing a very good job of killing Iraqi's.  ¶ 8:38 AM 0 comments