Becoming Child-like

The more I have contemplated Jesus' teaching on becoming like a child, the more I am convinced of the Church's need to embrace it more fully.

I know some may disagree.

"Are you saying we need to be immature?"

"Are you saying we should accept things without question?"

"Are you saying we should just have a blind faith?"

Do you really know children?

Perhaps this is a bit strange for my readers to hear, but I do not just parent my children, I study them.  Yes, I study them.  I watch what they do; how they interact with the world; how they act with one another.  Here are some things I think I have learned.

Immaturity: I am not suggesting that we adults should be immature.  Lord knows, there is enough immaturity in society today.  Just a cursory read of the news shows this unequivocally.  There is a time to grow up and take responsibility.  But taking responsibility does not mean leaving behind some very important things that I believe adults need: a sense of humor, a sense of playfulness, a bit of a mischievous streak, a willingness to laugh even at the simplest things.

Children are playful.  They turn all sorts of things into games.  They use their imaginations--at least they do if you are willing to force them to turn off their games and televisions.  They can instantly go from doing schoolwork to playing in a matter of seconds. 

Why is it that we as adults oftentimes have to plan our fun?  Why is it that we have to schedule our down times?  When is the last time you played at work?  When is the last time you enjoyed a belly laugh for no reason?  I don't think such things are immature. 

Accepting without question: I haven't met a child like this.  Nearly every kid I've come across rebels.  Nearly every kid I come across and have given a command has either told me, "No." or "I don't want to." or has said, "O.K." but then gone and done the opposite.  Children don't accept things without question.  Even at an early state they begin forming their own minds and opinions about things.  This is not a bad thing, but it must be tempered with a respect for authority and obedience to the authority's wishes--especially when the authority is acting in a just manner.

In our day and age, all sorts of authorities try to tell us what we should and should not believe.  I am one such authority.  I do try to tell people what to and not to believe.  However, I am willing to argue and offer reasons for my belief, and I am also willing to give you space to accept or reject what I have to say.  You can tell me, "No."  Yet, if you decide to become a Lutheran Christian and member of my congregation, when it comes to matters of theological doctrine, you are also submitting to obedience.  So, if I were to confront you in a particular sin in accordance with Matthew 18, you would have to be obedient and repent.  Yet, you also have the ability to check and make sure I am on the right track.  If I am wrong in my assessment, you can and should question me.  Perhaps I am being unjust. 

Kids question authority.  We should too.  Yet, kids must be obedient.  We must too.

Blind faith: Nearly every kid I know has insatiable curiosity.  They ask questions.  All the time.  And they don't necessarily accept every answer you tell them.  Oftentimes an answer begets another question. 

Is this the sign of blind faith?  Hardly.

How many of us as adults are insatiable in our curiosity?  How many of us continue to ask life's hard questions even after college or grad school?  I'd submit that many of us are quite content to bask in what we have learned and engage in activities that do not stretch our minds.  Kids don't have this problem.  They want to learn.  They engage in learning.  Not always book learning, mind you, but the world is an open book to them, and they want to know about it.  I think as adults we need to do likewise.

I am sure there will be more thoughts on this as time passes, but enough for now.

Satan Moves to Kill God Once Again

Satan: You know I'm really going to have a field day with this whole hell stuff.

God: You always think you will have a field day with the way I operate.

Satan: I know, I know, and you always seem to have the upper hand, but not this time.  I've got you now.

God: Oh really?

Satan: Yes.  You see, since you aren't trying to make people scared of hell and make them follow you out of fear...

God: Yep.

Satan: And since you give them what their hearts' desire...

God: Yep.

Satan: I will lead them to think they have absolutely no reason to fear you at all.  I will lead them to think they can have their desires without any consequences.  After all, you love them so much that you will just bring everyone to salvation.  I'll make them think that a loving God certainly wouldn't condemn anyone to hell.  It's just not in your nature to do such a thing.  After all, you can't hate, can you?

God: You would be wrong.

Satan: Wait a minute.  Did you just say that you are capable of hatred?

God: Indeed, I AM.

Satan: Now I am confused once more.  I thought I was the King of Hatred.  It is I who make people loathe one another.

God: Yes, you are, and  you do those things impossibly well.  The problem you have is that you do not understand love.

Satan: You know I hate that word.

God: I know.  Your hatred is directed toward all that is good.  My hatred is directed toward all that is bad.  I hate seeing creatures suffer--either for the choices they make or suffering that is brought upon them through no actions of their own.  I hate watching people starve because they refuse to share or distribute the plentiful food I provide.  I hate seeing people perpetuate violence upon one another.  I hate seeing people steal and manipulate each other to further their own means instead of building one another up in love.  Yes.  I know what it is to hate, but my hate is directed toward what people do--not toward people themselves.  This is where I differ greatly from you.

Satan: So what does this have to do with my plan?

God: Ask yourself this: do  you want to be responsible for making me angry?

Satan: Actually, I know very well what that is like. 

God: And  you know the consequences.

Satan: They suck.

God: And  yet, you continue to rebel?

Satan: Because I don't want to be obedient to you!

God: I know that, and so you continue to bring my wrath upon  you.  It's your choice, but others will choose differently.  They do not want to make me angry because they know my wrath is to be feared AND because they respect me.

Satan: Respect?

God: Yes.  Because I love them, they love and respect me.  It is their respect and desire to be obedient to me which drives them to do the works I command.  You might be able to convince them that universal salvation exists, but you will never be able to convince them there aren't consequences to their actions.  They know better.

Satan: How?

God: They've seen the cross.

Satan: Now what in the world does that have to do with this?

God: They know that when they continue to rebel, it is as if they are crucifying me all over again.  For I must pay for their rebellion.

Satan: So, their sin hurts you?  Kills you?  Then I will have to convince them to sin even more!

God: And this is different from when?  But I will trust them in even this.  I will trust them to resist your temptations as I believe many will, because they do not want to disappoint or hurt me by their actions.

Satan: But they will!!  I know they will!!  I know they will hurt you, reject you, kill you!!!

God: There will be some, no doubt.  But there is always forgiveness.  There is always resurrection!

Satan: Do you always have a rebuttal?

God: Do you have to ask stupid questions?

Opinion Versus Conviction

A conviction is something that actually then in many ways is rooted in your soul. It is in your conscience. To change a conviction will involve a changing of who you are as a person. So, we are really not talking about preferences or opinions, and so when two worldviews collide, when two convictions collide, the best thing one can hope for is at least the cordiality with which we can disagree, and the civility with which we can interact in the midst of that disagreement. –Ravi Zacharias, Veritas Lecture "Is Tolerance Intolerant? Pursuing the Climate of Acceptance and Inclusion

I heard the comment many times in my first congregation, "That's just your opinion."

But it's not just an opinion for many.  It's a conviction.

Ravi Zacharias put it succinctly in the above paragraph from his linked Veritas Lecture.

I don't think we are very good at making this distinction in our society today.  We love spouting commentary about another's opinion.  We actually denigrate their stances by calling them such.  For the truth of the matter is, when it comes to many of the things we debate in this day and age, we are dealing with conviction.

And convictions, more often than not, cannot be proven.  They are taken by faith.

For instance, a person who is a believer of God believes in two types of knowledge: knowledge gained by reason and knowledge gained by revelation. 

A person who does not believe in God believes in one type of knowledge: knowledge gained by reason alone.

Which conviction is correct?  (I would also add here, one could call these convictions "assumptions.")

The person of faith cannot prove there is such a thing as revelatory knowledge--at least not by reason alone.  He or she assumes that such knowledge is real. 

The person who believes all knowledge comes from reason is making an assumption as well.  The statement "knowledge comes from reason" is an assumption.  It cannot be proved by reason.  That's called circular logic and has long been acknowledged as a fallacy.

Both convictions are taken upon faith.  Period.

These basic convictions lead to very, very different conclusions about life.  Period.

To change these convictions changes the entire worldview a person holds.  Period.

And how easy is it to change a worldview?  How easy is it to change one's basic assumptions/convictions about life?  Very, very difficult.  Period.

And so how can we discuss things when people hold vastly different convictions, those convictions are so difficult to change, and they lead to such vastly different conclusions about how the world operates and our place in that world?

...when two convictions collide, the best thing one can hope for is at least the cordiality with which we can disagree, and the civility with which we can interact in the midst of that disagreement.

Cordiality and civility.  Two things hardly evident in much of our discourse in these days, especially since we are hardly taught to be humble.  Everyone has to win.  No one's self-esteem can be harmed.  Everything has to be fair. 

I call B.S.

If we are to have a civil and cordial discourse in this day and age, a massive dose of humility must be given to each and every person.

Christians, shouldn't have much of an issue as The Man instructed us, "All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted."  --Matthew 23:12

Sunday's Sermon: Why Should Anyone Listen to the Church?

Why should anyone listen to the church? This question has haunted me since Monday of this week when our bishop made the following statement in a post on Facebook. He said:

Some days I feel the church has abdicated its role as a clear moral voice ik (sic) society, and as a community of reconciliation.

Now, first off, I disagree that the church has abdicated its role as a moral voice in society. That voice is oftentimes not clear. It is quite muddled by the many various denominations who oftentimes disagree on moral issues, but there are still voices that speak up about moral issues within our society. But why should anyone listen to those voices? Why should anyone stop acting in a certain fashion and begin living differently? What compelling reason can we, in the church, give to persuade others that ours is not only a voice to be listened to, but a voice to follow?

I struggled with this mightily. For in reality, I could think of no good reason that we in the church should be listened to. I mean, think about the reality of the Church. Think about the reality of most congregations. Think about how many Christians act and move within our society. What would give anyone the idea that they should listen to what we have to say?

As a global body, the Church is a divided group. We are separated into many denominations. This, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. I mean, even St. Paul goes so far as to describe the Church as a body with many body parts. Each part has its own function and is needed for the whole to function correctly. The head of this body is, of course, Christ. Given this belief, we should recognize one another as fulfilling a particular function that is necessary for the body to work. Yet, do we do this? Do we treat one another as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, or do we spend an inordinate amount of time arguing about who is and who isn’t a part of the body–who is and who isn’t legitimately following Jesus?

Now, I’m just as ready as anyone to get into a doctrinal argument. I’m ready to argue that we as Lutheran Christians are closer to the truth than others, but what I am not ready to do is pronounce that no one else isn’t sincerely trying to follow Christ. I am not ready to make someone else cease and desist following Jesus as a Roman Catholic, Baptist, Missouri Synod Lutheran, ELCA Lutheran, Presbyterian, Amish, or what have you. As far as I am concerned, you are a brother or sister in Christ, and while I may argue with you very heatedly about a particular issue or stance of a particular denomination, I do not think my position grants me any particular place above another–anymore than my particular calling as a pastor places me above any one of you in the eyes of God. It doesn’t.

And yet, there is a tendency to think that because we have a particular stance, we are somehow better than another. I believe we need to re-evaluate such thoughts.

For, you see, the Gospel doesn’t allow us to do such a thing. Let me repeat that: the Gospel doesn’t allow us to do such a thing. For we must be reminded, we are saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus and not through any works, deeds, actions, or beliefs of our own. It is God who does the saving, and not us. Why is this so crucial to remember?

If we attained salvation because of what we did or what we believed on our own, then we could get the idea we were indeed morally superior to someone else. We could get the idea that we were somehow more holy than another by practicing certain things–either a particular moral code–no drinking, cussing, smoking, dancing, acting out sexually, or what have you–or by rigorously following the commands of how we treat our faith–putting the proper amount in the offering plate, doing more to feed the hungry, seeking and practicing justice to the nth degree. We begin to see ourselves as doing a better job than others, and so we begin to head down what Timothy Keller calls the slippery slope of the heart.

We think we are morally superior, so we distance ourselves from those who we feel are not as good as we are. Suddenly, we have it right, and they are wrong. We don’t need to be with them or worship with them or hang out with them because of what they do or not do.

Then we begin to caricature them. We begin to paint others with broad brush strokes. Suddenly "they" become the 1%, the lazy leeches on society, the fundies, the liberals, the conservatives, and what have you. No longer do we take the time to get to know people on an individual level. Instead, we categorize them, label them, and make fun of them.

Finally, after the dehumanizing effects of caricaturing them, we begin to passively and then actively oppressing them. We work to keep them out of leadership positions. We bad-mouth them to our friends and family. If enough in society jump on the bandwagon, we begin working toward passing laws to restrict their behavior while enhancing our own positions.

These are the consequences of thinking that we can be and are morally superior to anyone else. Grace destroys the assumption. Grace says, you are morally superior to no one. Grace says, you can’t commit enough good to cover for your weakness and your sinfulness. Grace says, it’s not up to you. It’s up to God. It’s up to Jesus. It’s up to the cross and resurrection to save you and bring you into a relationship with God. It’s up to God to initiate belief within you–as I said a couple of weeks ago, some neurosurgeons are starting to believe we are hard wired for belief! God always initiates belief! You can’t even believe without Him!

And if we agree with what grace says, it changes the way we treat others. No longer do we see ourselves as morally superior. No longer do we think we are better off because of what we do or what we believe. We are humbled by the actions of Christ on our behalf to atone for our sins and bring us into a relationship that we could never have initiated in the first place. When confronted with the sinfulness of another, we say, "Man, that’s messed up, but down here, in the recesses of my heart, I know that I am just as messed up. I know that it’s just as dark down here. That person and I are alike more than we are not alike. That person and I both need God and His love to cleanse us from this darkness. Neither of us have reached this perfection. And because we are so alike, I cannot treat that person with hostility, but I must treat that person with the same kindness given to me by Jesus."

And so we now reach the reason Jesus gives us the new commandment, "Love one another. As I have loved you, so you should now love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

Now, to return to the original question, why should anyone listen to us? They shouldn’t, unless we can practice what we preach. Unless we can somehow show others that our way of living with one another–our way of treating those we disagree with is somehow better than the way the world operates. If we can show the world a better way of living and moving and having our being, then, they will perhaps be willing to listen. And my brothers and sisters in Christ, it starts right here, in our relationships with each other. May we love one another as Christ loved us. Amen.

Why Should Anyone Listen to the Church? (Part 2)

As I have pondered the question of why anyone should listen to the Church, I have actually come up with many more reasons why one would be skeptical of the Church's message.  It's an unfortunate list to think about. 

#1. We have no clear voice to begin with.  As I stated yesterday, we are a divided Church.  How can a body speak with any authority when it does not have any sort of unity or shared upon definition of what is right and wrong?

As I thought about Christianity and politics, I thought about the two major groups working in society: the Christian Right and the Christian Left.  Both movements seek to influence government policies.  Both groups believe very strongly that their basis for doing so is grounded in the Biblical witness.  Yet, the two groups disagree on nearly everything.  It leaves an outsider very confused as to what a truly Christian voice is.  And these two groups actually represent the extremes.  There are a whole host of Christians who fall somewhere in the middle who, quite frankly, aren't as outspoken but who still have particular understandings of what it means to relate one's faith to the public square.  When you add these, albeit quiet, voices, the confusion grows.

#2. Part of this stems from the fact that we have no agreed upon definition of what constitutes the Good News of Jesus Christ (the Gospel). 

Is it God's reconciliation of the world unto Himself through the death and resurrection of Jesus?
Is it Redistribution of wealth (Jim Wallis)?
Is it God's solidarity with the poor?
Is it God's sacrifice of Himself as the God incarnate Jesus to pay for our sins?  (Similar to the first, but phrased a little different.)
Is Salvation accomplished by God alone, or do we have a part to play in it?
Is the Gospel about heavenly matters or does it apply to earthly things as well?

#3. Depending upon what one's view of #2 is, it influences the ethics one practices--particularly how one views the commands and instructions of God given in the Biblical witness.

Does the Law focus on the individual?
On the community?
On the nation?
Does one follow the Law out of fear or out of love?
There are obviously some laws which are followed and others which are not.  How does one differentiate between what is God's ongoing command and what can be left behind?  For instance, why is it possible for a Christian to remove certain dietary restrictions?  Answer: Because Jesus made all foods clean.  Not all laws are quite so clear cut which adds to the confusion.

With no clear cut understanding of what the Gospel constitutes and how one puts together Christian ethics in the larger community called the Church--as defined yesterday by the Augsburg Confession--the Church actually sows confusion.

#4.  Much of #2 and #3 comes from the inability to come up with a shared understanding of what it means to read and interpret the Bible.  More than a few methodologies abound and are practiced in American Christianity.  Each has their strengths.  Each has weaknesses.  And we darn sure can't agree which is better.  When a disagreement comes to a head--well, add one more denomination to the Christian landscape.  Divisiveness and confusion once again.

#4.  There is much hypocrisy in the Church.  The news media in our country is always ready to jump on a scandal, and the Church provides plenty of fodder.  Sexual abuse by clergy.  Mismanagement of funds by church leaders.  Congregations fighting and splitting over doctrinal issues.  All blatantly contradicting the commands of Christ and other teachings in Scripture.

Even in our passive actions, we tend to disregard what Christ calls us to.  I mean, I know of few clergy who simply accept their compensation packages without scrutiny.  Many "fight for every dime due to me."  And who of us isn't interested in our pension plans and how much money we've saved?  Which clergy among us--especially Protestant--don't like living in comfortable houses, taking vacations with family, driving nicer cars, and having expendable income to fund hobbies?  Even how we live speaks volumes as to what is more important, and it proves our hypocrisy as well.

#5.  Even when the Church can agree on some moral values, those values oftentimes clash with the perceived goals of a particular government.  For instance, many within the Church argue that each and every human is afforded basic rights given that we are all created in the image of God.  Yet, in our own nation, some of these basic human rights are denied to some because of the goal to keep everyone safe.  Further, our society is based upon several announced basic rights: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Our Christian faith actually has a particular way of understanding how we can best experience these rights, but those understandings are oftentimes at odds with government and culture.  One need only look at what our movie culture glorifies in order to see this.

Why should anyone listen to us when such conflicts abound?  Why should anyone pay us the least bit of attention when our actions fail to match our words?  In the pluralistic culture that has become the United States of America, the Church is just one more voice at a very crowded table.  This list does not inspire me to give credence to anything the Church says.

As I continue to think this one through, I hope that there is an answer out there as to why anyone should listen to our voice, especially when there are more than a few holes in our proclamation and action.

Faith and Doubt Revisited

Recently, I listened to Francis Collins' Veritas Forum lecture.   Dr. Collins is perhaps best known for heading up the Human Genome Project.  He is a world famous geneticist and a practicing Christian.  He is very thoughtful in his presentation, and his take on the relationship between faith and science is well worth listening to.

In the Q & A portion of the video, Dr. Collins is asked about certainty, and in his response he makes the claim which I have heard on numerous occasions--doubt is a part of faith. 

Throughout my life, I have heard many pastors say the same thing.  The first Sunday after Easter is traditionally the Sunday we read the account of Jesus' appearance to Thomas--Doubting Thomas, many call him.  Recently, this has also become the Sunday when some pastors, particularly those of a mainline denomination bent tell their flocks, "It's perfectly O.K. to doubt.  Faith requires doubt."

I understand why this is said.  I also preached this early in my ministry.  And one might justify this kind of preaching if one focuses on Thomas and sees in Thomas a reflection of ourselves.

But as I said in a blog post earlier this year, this text isn't about Thomas.  It's about Jesus.  And what does Jesus say to Thomas?  "Do not doubt, but believe."

Pastors say, "It's O.K. to doubt," and encourage it.

Jesus says, "Do not doubt, but believe."

There is a disconnect here!

How can it be resolved?  Is it possible to resolve this?  Can one believe without doubt and somehow have absolute certainty?

Believe with out doubt--I think we can come close.

Have pure certainty--no.

But is what I am suggesting even possible?

If someone gets the gumption to ask me about this matter, I will respond, "I believe in God/Christ/the resurrection with the same certainty that I believe the sun will rise tomorrow."

"Aha!" you might exclaim, "You are talking about absolute certainty!"

Let me ask you: are you absolutely certain the sun will rise tomorrow? 

Prove the sun will rise tomorrow using the scientific method.  Bet you can't do it.  You can make the hypothesis, and that hypothesis may or may not be confirmed.  There is a very high probability that it will, BUT, it is not absolutely certain.  Consider the possibility, however remote, that the sun suddenly goes supernova on us unexpectedly.  Stars do explode.  Or consider there is a giant piece of space matter which has been obscured and unseen by our telescopes.  What if such a thing were large enough to smash into our sun without incinerating causing our sun to explode?  What if such an object were to slam into the earth knocking us out of orbit?  These are possibilities.  Very, very remote possibilities, but still possibilities.  Nothing in this world is absolutely certain.

Yet, I don't know many people who live their lives worrying over such matters.  Not too many people go around doubting the sun will come up tomorrow.  They live their lives with the conviction that it will--even though they can't see it until it happens. 

My faith in God is very much like the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow.  I can't prove it with certainty, but I have the conviction that He is there; that He became God incarnate; that He died and on the third day was raised from the dead.  I don't doubt this.  I believe it like I believe the sun will come up tomorrow.

Why Should Anyone Listen to the Church? (Part 1)

The question stems from something my bishop, Michael Rinehart, said at the end of a lengthy Facebook post:

Some days I feel the church has abdicated its role as a clear moral voice ik (sic) society, and as a community of reconciliation.

My question: Why should anyone listen to the church in the first place?

Let's consider an important assumption to begin with: the church has a clear moral voice in society.  Does it?

Well, first, we must define "The Church."  I am a Christian of the Lutheran persuasion, and I have come to see the wisdom of the Augsburg Confession's definition of the Church:

1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike.  As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.

In my estimation, this definition of The Church allows a very big tent.  Most Lutherans accept a liberal view that our brothers and sisters in Christ include those of the vast majority of Christians found throughout other denominations.  I personally do as well.  I believe Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists, Baptists, et.al. all constitute "The Church."

Yet, there is quite a problem with this definition--this Church is hardly unified in beliefs, practices, understandings, and implementation of doctrine.  We are NOT of one accord.  We do NOT speak with one voice.

In fact, there are many voices presenting many views and interpretations of what it means to be Christian in one's private and in one's public life.  There are many voices presenting many views about what it means to be a moral person and one of upright character.  There are many voices presenting many views about what constitutes a sin and which parts of the Scriptures should and should not be followed.

In short, the American Church has no clear, moral voice.  It is more like a giant cacophony of voices all crying and decrying together.  In the smorgasbord that is American Christianity, one may choose a denomination or congregation based upon what that particular denomination or congregation teaches as it's particular flavor of Christianity.  If the flavor isn't suitable to that person's taste, he or she may leave and seek out another.

This leads me to say, "How can the church abdicate a clear moral voice when it does not have one and hasn't had one for some time?"

This is quite problematic for the Church.  For it leads to a very substantial question: Why should anyone listen to the Church anymore?  Why grant it any authority, moral or otherwise in this day and age?

Unfortunately, I am going to leave it right there for the time being.  The question is actually pretty new and raw for me just coming into focus yesterday afternoon.  It is one thing to defend the Truth of the Christian message.  It is another thing to argue why anyone should listen to it when the Church itself cannot speak with one accord on important moral issues.  This is something I must ponder.