god builds us a home in christ, advent 4

"Now when the king was settled in his house, and the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies around him, the king said to the prophet Nathan, 'See now, I am living in a house of cedar, but the ark of God stays in a tent.' Nathan said to the king, 'Go, do all that you have in mind; for the Lord is with you.'

But that same night the word of the Lord came to Nathan: Go and tell my servant David: Thus says the Lord: Are you the one to build me a house to live in? I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a tent and a tabernacle. Wherever I have moved about among all the people of Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the tribal leaders of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, 'Why have you not built me a house of cedar?' Now therefore thus you shall say to my servant David: Thus says the Lord of hosts: I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep to be prince over my people Israel; and I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth. And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and evildoers shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever."

- 2 Samuel 7:1-11,16

As we’ve moved through advent, nativity sets have come out.  We each have our own special place for the nativity set, whether it’s on a table in the living room, on the mantle, or by the front window.  Each year as advent begins, the pieces come out from their boxes where they have been kept safe: out of reach of children and pets.  And so, as the assembly begins, the sheep and the cows find their place under the shelter of the small stable, the shepherds are to the side with the sheep.  The magi, or kings, balance out the shepherds on the other side with their three gifts.   

The manger is, of course, front and center with its nice clean hay ready to hold the savior of the world.  Then the family appears around the manger, with the young, beautiful Mary, full of life with rosy cheeks appearing to have had the easiest time giving birth in all of history and handsome young, bearded, Joseph, with his arm lovingly wrapped around Mary gazing expectantly at the manger.   

And, finally, Jesus.  The sweet, little, close to a year-old-looking, baby, wrapped in nice, clean cloth, with his thick blond hair, blue eyed head peeking out, arms extended.

Advent is one of the best times to recognize our need to make God in our image.  So often in Christmas stories and movies and even in many nativity sets we find a Jesus made to look like many Northern European Lutheran ancestors. 

When we come up with images for Jesus, do we imagine someone from the Middle East?  Do we imagine Jesus in terms of dark, olive skin, rough, curly hair?  Or do we still imagine Jesus with blue eyes and blond hair?  The same can be said for how we think about Jesus’ titles.  Do we call him Savior?  King?  Friend?  Companion or Lord?  Christ?  What about Judge?  Decider?  Rebel?  Radical?

In today’s reading, David wants to build a house for God, a place for God to permanently dwell.  Now, maybe David’s intentions are pure, responding to God’s love and protection by building God a house…

But somehow, I think his intentions are probably not quite so pure, I know mine usually aren’t as pure as I would like them to be. 

By building a house for God, David would be constraining or limiting God; domesticating God, if you will.  He would be making God’s dwelling permanent, limiting the dynamic, transcending, and perhaps transient nature of God. 

I have to admit, I can relate to David’s desire to domesticate God.  I use words that are helpful in talking about God, like God is good and loving, and does good things, but those words are never.     quite.     enough.    because God is bigger than we could ever imagine. 

God’s ways are not our ways and so we are able to perceive only in part who God is and how God is.  God is so much more than I could ever imagine!  It’s like the Mercy Me song, “I can only imagine.”  I have no idea what it could possibly be like to be fully in the presence of God!  I have no idea what I will do, not to mention I have absolutely no clue what God will do, say, think, or even be!  

Thinking too much about the mystery of God can get pretty intimidating, especially with all of the examples in the Bible of God being angry or of God’s justice being understood as something to fear.  I want God to be my little pet that’s warm and furry and waits around all day until I come home and then loves and comforts me. 

That would be a pretty easy God to handle and then I’d know that God was always with me.  God would be in my house, waiting for me to get home and protecting me and my family.  Nice and safe.

But that’s not really what I want.  I want and, more importantly, I need a God who is not like me.        I mess up.       I am a sinner and I know that my good intentions can oftentimes be totally misguided, so what a blessing it is that God is not just like me!  I want a God who cares about others and not just about me.  I need a God who refuses to be domesticated!

So David wants to domesticate God, but then God steps in, asking “Do you actually think you can build me a house??  I haven’t lived in a house for all this time since I rescued my people from Egypt and I still don’t live in a house!  A tent, a temporary, movable dwelling has been fine for me all this time, why should it be any different now?  In all of my wandering with my people, have I ever complained??  Have I ever asked why y’all haven’t built me a house of cedar?”

God steps in, rebuffing David’s grand plan, and asks who David thinks is in control.  Who is David to build a house for God?  Who says God even needs a house??  It’s as if God is saying, “I don’t want to live in a fancy chapel, I’m fine in the campfire so I can dwell anywhere.”  God has been just fine in the sparks of the flame, in the dance of the smoke, in the crackling of the wood, and in the community gathered around it for all this time. 

As the Church, we understand ourselves to be the body of Christ, yet oftentimes we turn the body into a building.  We decide that the chapel where we worship is the dwelling place of God, it is: “God’s house.”  Yet in today’s reading, God tells David, and, indeed, us, that God is in no way in need of a permanent dwelling place.  God has been a wanderer with us since the Exodus.           God has no need and no desire to be confined to the building we use, we build, we choose. 

God turns the tables on this desire to honor, and perhaps control God, by restricting God’s space in our lives to a building.  God declares that God will build David a house, and God is the one who builds us a house.  God constructs a resting space for us. 

That resting space is not a rest that can be found simply in a physical space, it is a rest that goes deeper.  We come today to this physical place not to rest our feet after a long week of working or skiing or traveling, we come here to find a deeper rest, a rest for our souls, our whole beings, our life forces.

We might choose this place to meet together and we do encounter God in this place, but God encounters us everywhere!  As we gather intentionally, we get a foretaste of the deeper rest that God provides for us.  We come together to worship and praise and to receive grace abundant!  We gather at the table, common, tired people to receive the body and the blood, to receive grace and a promise of more to come.

In Christ, God has established a resting place for us and it is not in any building, yet it can be in every building.  Our house, our home, our rest is in Christ and in Christ’s body, which spans both space and time.  We are not called to build a place for God to sit, we are called into God’s house.  We are called into Christ’s body.  Our rest is to be found in Christ and in God’s rule, which lasts forever. 

God assures David with a promise, saying, “Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever” (2 Sam. 7:16).  Similarly Gabriel assures Mary that she will bear the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and whose kingdom will have no end. (Luke 1:31-33). Like David and Mary, we look toward the future with Jesus to fulfill that promise.

In this Advent season, we await the coming of Christ as a small, defenseless child and we may prepare for Jesus by making a place for him in our nativity sets.  We can chose the way we make nativity sets, which ones we buy, where we put them, and we can choose how we imagine Jesus and even give him the kind of shelter that we see fit,        but Advent isn’t just about anticipating the arrival of the infant Jesus, it’s about anticipating the return of Jesus.  Advent is about awaiting Christ’s reign; eagerly looking to the time when God’s home will be everywhere and in every way.

Amen!

sacraments for all!!

this week in class we talked about the sacraments and luther's understanding of the sacraments.  the discussion that i found especially meaningful had to do with infant baptism and then what it meant for communion.  all of this is also in the context of two adorable kids i've been blessed to interact with the last few weeks at my ministry-in-context (mic) site.

this past sunday, one of the children (maybe 5 years old) came up for the children's sermon.  at my mic site the baptismal font is at the front of the church so that we pass it as we come up for communion.  the font has a fairly good sized clear bowl (with high sides) holding an inch or two of water.  as the child came up, he reached up on his tippiest of tip toes and reached down, just barely reaching the water with the tip of his finger.  after dipping it in the water, he brought his hand to his own forehead and made the sign of the cross on his forehead!

each week that i have helped with communion, one child (about 3 years old) continuously comes up for communion with her mom.  the pastor blesses her and she holds out her hands expectantly and her mom, after receiving a piece of bread from the pastor breaks her bread in two and gives a piece to her daughter.  the child is so eager for communion, but has to receive it through her mother rather than directly from the pastor!

the child remembering his baptism pointed to two things for me: 1-kids get the sacraments way more than we give them credit for (and, perhaps, way more than adults like me do!), and 2-we need more water in that font!!  each time the other child comes up for communion, i am reminded also that kids get the sacraments in ways many of us adults don't and i question what she is being taught as she has to receive communion by way of her mom.

luther argued for infant baptism for a variety of reasons.  jesus tells his disciples to baptize all in his name an children are part of that all.  also, baptism has been practiced from the beginning of christianity and infant baptism has lasted for so long that it can't be a heresy.  if it were a heresy, the holy spirit would've conveyed that by now and we would've stopped doing it.  god blessed children and has accomplished great things in and with them, so why shouldn't we trust god to work in them through baptism?  also, and one of the most compelling reasons for me, infant baptism affirms that we as humans don't contribute to baptism.  it's all god.  god's grace, not our effort, work, or initiative.

this then raised the question: why don't we do infant eucharist as well?  if we trust god to work in baptism, why don't we trust god to work in eucharist?  growing up, my family was the god family for another family's two kids and i distinctly remember at their baptism the priest (they were episcopal) telling as all that the candidates for baptism, following their baptism were welcome to come and receive communion as well.  baptism into christ's death and resurrection - baptism into the body of christ; followed almost immediately by communion, christ's body broken for all of god's people.

when a child comes to me with hands open eager to receive communion, i will have a really, really hard time not just giving it to them.  no matter what i will seek out a conversation with their parent(s)/guardians as soon as possible.  if we deny children communion, are we not denying christ as well?  are we not denying god's power and grace?  i can't help remember my sermon from christ the king sunday last week: christ frees us to encounter christ in everyone everywhere.  christ frees us to encounter christ in the least of these.  if children are not the least of these, i don't know who is.  communion is at christ's table and we are just recipients: god gives we receive, who are we to try to control god?

word and sacrament for all!

according to luther all of us, through baptism, have the authority to preach the word and administer the sacraments!!  for luther, this meant that even in his time, when women were not allowed to be pastors, they were allowed to do emergency baptisms (since it was primarily women who were present for births as midwives and there was a high infant mortality rate, this was a really handy position for luther to have). 

this ontological sense of calling to word and sacrament ministry has strong implications for what it means to be an ordained minister.  all of us are called as a priesthood of all believers, some of us are called to ministry in teaching, farming, banking, etc., while others are called to ordained word and sacrament ministry.  after all, if everyone has the authority to preach the word and administer the sacraments, then why is there even a need for pastors?

in a simply practical sense: it's necessary for someone to be appointed, because if everyone did it each time, it would be total chaos.  instead, from the community we pick people to represent the community in the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments.  because the call to word and sacrament ministry is a call for all, no individual can just usurp the position.  no person can say "I'll do it and no one else."  The call must come from the community as well, which is why the elca candidacy process is so nice and complicated.  many other churches have a simpler policy, yet the elca's candidacy process is one of mutual discernment for individuals and the communities calling them to ordained word and sacrament ministry.

one of the really cool things about ordination is the role with respect to the sacraments.  ordination is not considered a sacrament itself, at least not for lutherans, but because ordination to word and sacrament ministry includes administrating the sacraments, those who serve in this capacity function as a means of the means of grace.  the sacraments are understood as a means by which we experience god's grace, so those who administer them are a means for them.  what an honor it is to be called to a life as the means of the means of grace!

since, as i already mentioned, all of us are priests, a calling received at baptism, we each have the possibility to be the means of the means of god's grace.  indeed, we can daily be the means of god's grace in our interactions with each other and with ourselves, but we also can be the channel through which god's grace is experienced in a tangible person-to-person interaction and in a tangible sacramental interaction.  the sacraments bring us all together and in our gathering we choose people, recognizing and affirming their gifts, to administer the sacraments on behalf of the whole community. 

christ frees us to encounter christ the king sunday

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left.

Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’

Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’

And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’

Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’

Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’

Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” 

 -  (Matthew 25:31-46)

Before starting seminary, I spent a year with the ELCA’s Young Adults in Global Mission program in Slovakia.  During the year, I worked with Roma, or gypsies, and non-Roma, or gadje, in after school programs, youth group, and church. 

During orientation for my year, we were told that as we went to our countries of service, we were not going to bring God to the people there.  Instead, we were going to find that God is already at work in and with the people we were going to serve.

It wasn’t about trying to be Christ’s presence for others, trying to be, as Martin Luther said “little Christs.”  It was about recognizing Christ in those we were to encounter.  In the family I lived with, the youth I worked with, in the Roma, discriminated against because of things they could not change, in the “gadje,” trapped in the role of oppressor, discriminating because they knew no other way. 

How hard it was for me to see Christ in those I disagreed with. 

Salvation meant something completely different to my host parents than it did to me.  The gadje youth who distrusted and joked about the Roma youth I connected with so deeply.  The Roma youth who spoke bitterly of the gadje youth I also connected with so deeply.  I struggled to see Christ in each person I encountered while I was in Slovakia.

Even harder, though, has been coming back.  I have been back for just over a year now and each day I struggle, much of the time forgetting, to recognize Christ in those I encounter on a day-to-day basis.  Sometimes I wish God could give me one of those big orange highway signs, but instead of “men working” it would say “Christ working.”  But that’s what this reading is.  This reading is our “Christ working” sign, making sure we know that God is working and Christ is in, and indeed is, all those around us.

Although this reading has oftentimes been used to encourage people to acts of charity, its radical nature lies not in what people do, but precisely in where Jesus is found.  Jesus says, “Truly I tell you, just as you did (or did not) do it to one of the least of these, you did (or did not) do it to me.”  Here, Jesus fully identifies as the “least of these.” 

Jesus!

the Son of Man

king

Lord

the Christ

fully identifies in humanity. 

He doesn’t just say that we should treat each other nicely, he says that as we treat others so we treat him.  Our interactions as humans with other humans are no longer simply person-to-person, they are interactions with Christ. 

Neither the group on the right nor the one on the left really gets what Jesus is talking about.  They respond to Jesus’ declaration of what they have or have not done by asking when exactly this took place, because they don’t seem to quite recall it.  The two groups are simply living their lives, yet Jesus surprises them as he reveals that their actions were not ordinary actions, but were actions done to Christ. 

“Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me,” the king answers the group on the right.  

 “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me,” he tells the group on the left.  Christ is in those that each group encountered daily. 

Now I can use my resources to buy fair trade, but if I am motivated more by pity or guilt than by love and recognition of Christ in those who grow the coffee beans I buy, then what does it mean?  In the reading for today, we find the climax of Matthew’s identification of who exactly this Christ is.  We find that Christ is “the least of these.”  Christ is not there to encourage “good behavior,” but to be the “other.” 

Like the people in today’s reading, Christ surprises us when Christ is present in the “other” we encounter each day.  Christ surprises us and frees us to encounter Christ in the Starbucks barista. Christ frees us to encounter Christ in the blue line train operator taking us to work or school each day.

Christ frees us to encounter Christ in the person who cuts us off in rush hour traffic... and in the person we cut off in rush hour traffic.  Christ frees us to encounter Christ in the annoying person on their phone on the bus.  Christ frees us to encounter Christ in the gossiper, the snitch, the teacher’s pet, the reject, the goth, the popular one, and the athlete. 

Christ frees us to encounter Christ in the person asking for money or food at the Kennedy Expressway exit. Christ frees us to encounter Christ in the person unwilling to give even spare change or a sandwich to alleviate our hunger.

Christ frees us to encounter Christ in the classmate who is harassed and bullied each day ………and in the bully who knows no other way to feel good than to bully.  Christ frees us to encounter Christ in the neglected.   the abused.   the addicted.

Christ frees us to encounter Christ in the 99% and in the 1%. Christ frees us to encounter Christ in the Republican, the Democrat, the Independent, the Tea Party-er, the Occupy-er.

Christ frees us to encounter Christ in the lesbian woman, the straight man, the gay man, the transgender woman, and the precious child of God still questioning and exploring who they are and whom they might love. 

Christ frees us to encounter Christ in the homeless, the home-blessed, and the homebound.  Christ frees us to encounter Christ in the hospitalized, the disabled, the temporarily abled, the differently abled.

Christ frees us to encounter Christ in the one behind bars, the one keeping others behind bars, the one who should be behind bars, and the one who is free............. But what about Penn State?  How can we possibly encounter Christ in Jerry Sandusky, Coach Joe Paterno, President Stanier, the survivors, the students rioting and those holding vigils? 

Christ frees us to encounter Christ in the Christian, the Jewish, the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Atheist neighbor. Christ frees us to encounter Christ in the Native American, the Caucasian, the African American, the Latina/o.  Christ frees us to encounter Christ in the recent immigrant, who shares a room with five to ten other immigrants some with papers and some without all scrimping and saving money to send back home to put food on the table.

Christ frees us to encounter Christ in those who have power over us and in those over whom we have power. Christ frees us to encounter Christ in our children, our siblings, our parents, our grandparents, and cousins.  Even when we are stressed by all of those gathered around our tables and TVs with food to be shared.  As we look ahead to Thanksgiving and Christmas, it is easy to be overwhelmed with the prospect of so many people in one space at one time, and yet Christ is there and frees us to encounter Christ among all the chaos!

Christ frees us to encounter Christ in the parking lot, in the playground, in the Three Brothers’ Garden, the hospital, the nursing home, the office building, the grocery store.  Christ frees us to encounter Christ as we come together today to be fed.  Christ welcomes all to a common table to share in the feast—the body and blood of our Savior, uniting us in one body—to receive God’s grace in the midst of this community.

Christ frees us to encounter Christ in each other and Christ frees us to encounter Christ in ourselves. Christ frees us to encounter Christ everywhere because Christ our King’s reign is   just.       that.        big!

Amen!

we are the church!

one of the coolest things to come from the reformation and martin luther is luther's doctrine of the church, specifically when it comes to who the church is.  at the time of the reformation, the common understanding of the church as very hierarchical.  in this model, the clergy were considered the church.  luther flipped this understanding on its head.  instead of the church being clergy, the church was the people!

the people!!

i don't know if you realize how awesome and crazy that is!  even today we have trouble understanding who the church is.  luther used the german word gemein(d)e which is church as in a community, a group of people, a congregation.  this is more in line with the greek word ekklesia, which means an assembly and is the word used in the new testament to refer to the church.  in the greek, ekklesia refers not just to any assembly, but a democratic assembly.  a place where the gathered people have voice!  in today's (lutheran) church, we have gotten away (to greater or lesser extents) from the idea of church as clergy and very hierarchical, but i don't think we always remember the church is the people.

usually when i talk about church, it's understood that i'm really talking about the chapel or building where worship takes place.  i say i am going to church, not i am the church, or even better: we are the church.  in today's day and age with so much focus on the economy and possession (whether it's those that have not sharing or those that do not demanding it), we have even made church into a possession.  the dynamism of a body of christ is lost in the church as a building concept.

to bring back the understanding of us as church, we not only have to let go of our obsession with possessions, but we also have to let go of our "rugged individualism."  christianity is a communal religion.  we are called into community and understood as a unique community of god in the world.  throughout the epistles, we as the church are identified with christ's body.  we have a plethora of diverse gifts, yet christ's love for us and our loving response unite us.  this means that we are to be radically countercultural as we concern ourselves with the well-being of all of us, not just 1% and not just 99%, but all 100% of us.  we are the church!

this also means that if you or i don't like something the church is doing, there's a really simple solution: do something different!  if we are the church (which we are), then what we do is what the church does and what the church does is what we do. 

a couple weeks ago we celebrated the reformation, a time when people didn't like what the church was doing.  instead of complaining, though they did list their complaints, they changed what they were doing, causing the church to change.  in that case it resulted in a split, but there have been smoother changes in the church as well.  in the elca, we didn't like what the church was doing, so there was a movement to begin ordaining women again (after all, there were plenty of women leaders in the early church) and to recognize and affirm the gifts for ministry of people of all sexual orientations and gender identities.

change inevitably brings anxiety as we enter into a new unknown, but we are the church and so we must change as the holy spirit continues her amazing work in and through us.  may we rise to the promise: we are the church!

god's promises are trustworthy

in discussing luther's doctrine of god, we focused a lot on bondage of the will, one of luther's writings that the professor actually doesn't like.  in it, luther backs himself into a bit of a corner as he seeks to support the claim that "god's promises are trustworthy."  in order to prove this, luther argues that god foresees everything by god's will, that is, god is noncontingent. 

according to luther, in order for god's promises to be trustworthy, god must foreknow everything and if god foreknows everything, then (here luther falls into the double predestinarian trap, assuming that he knows god's hiddenness) god damns certain people and has mercy on others.  for luther to state this makes luther a theologian of glory as he purports to reveal god's hiddenness.

the problem is that luther is pressing for certainty with respect to god.  luther thinks that in order for god's promises to be trustworthy, god must be in total and complete control and therefore must be damning some and showing mercy to others.  actually, god's promises can be trustworthy and we can trust in them and in god (luther's definition of faith) without certainty about god's foreknowledge and actions.  as paul tillich would assert, doubt is a necessary part of faith.  to state faith claims with certainty is to no longer have faith because faith is belief without certainty.

so, in luther's doctrine of god, the key part is that god's promises are trustworthy.  the rest of it comes to be contradicted sooner or later (which is actually for the better for some of it).  the best way for me to believe that god's promises are trustworthy is to go back to the bible.  one of my favorite stories is the story of the israelites' exodus from egypt to the land of canaan.  god hears god's people and rescues them. 

as the israelites wander in the desert, god gives the ten commandments.  in jewish numbering, the first commandment is god's fulfillment of god's promise.  god promised land to abraham and to be god for his descendants and the first commandment is "i am the lord your god who brought you out of the land of egypt, out of the house of slavery." (i know, i've mentioned this before, but i really do love this!)  god's first commandment is god fulfilling god's promise!! 

this is only one of many times throughout the bible where god fulfills god's promise.  this then informs my life as i work to trust in god's promises.  since god is both hidden and revealed (revealed in christ, yet still hidden), the most i can ever do is trust. 

i (and you, for that matter) don't need to work and reason my way to anything, i just need to trust that, as is written in john 3:17, "god did not send the son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."  god came to save.  god came in human form to return us to right relationship with god's self.  this frees me to live and to love in response to god's promises for me and my life, trusting that god is just, yet merciful.

cross v. glory

a lot of luther's theology of the cross has to do with suffering.  christ redeems us, but christ redeems us from death, not from suffering.  in fact, for luther, suffering is to be expected.  if we as a church are faithful to christ, then we as christ's body will suffer.  jesus came to earth and in his faithfulness to god and his mission, he suffered to the point of death on a cross!  god's relationship with humanity is important enough to god that god is willing to suffer humiliation and death to restore us to right relationship.

in luther's context as well as our context today, the church has become much more accepted and so the church actually has power in our cultures.  this means that it is very easy--and very tempting--for the church to use or abuse that power both now and in luther's time.  the church is tempted to view the world, not through the lens of christ, but through the lens of culture.  instead of seeing christ in the "least" of these, the focus is on the powerful, the ones with the purse strings.

the question becomes: how is the body of christ being faithful to god as made known in christ?  it is when we are faithful to christ that we will suffer in society.  what does it mean to be faithful?  where do we rest as a church when we are faithful to christ?  what is our mission?  how do we live as if the reign of god were already here, because, indeed, it is already a done deal.

the theology of the cross is, as paul stated, "god chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; god chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; god chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of god." (1 cor. 1:27-29)  god flipped our human understanding on its head, totally reorienting what is good and what is evil.  this means that what we see as good (works, acts of kindness, etc.) really are not and what we see as bad (suffering, humbleness/humility, etc.) really are good.

a theology of glory is tempting.  i certainly would like to do enough good to earn my way into heaven, to earn god's approval and love, but then there's the reality that i will never do enough good to earn my way.  so, the theology of the cross is, indeed, the only option with hope.  if i am to be in right relationship with god, i have to rely on god, recognizing that it is god's good and god's way of being that is good, not the surrounding culture's way.

law v. gospel...or is it all just grace?

so, according to martin luther sin separates us from god and separation from god is a killer (in the sense that living is being in right relationship with god and dying is being separated from god).  the thing about sin is that we don't always know that we do it.  it's easy to justify and excuse away our many sins.  this is where law comes in.  now, i differ a bit from luther on the purpose of the law.  for luther, law is there so people know how we have sinned (a theological understanding) and to keep us from sinning more (a civil understanding). 

in this day and age, it seems that the majority of us don't really need law to know that we are separated from god, to know that we have messed up.  sin is everywhere we look and we are hurting far too well to be oblivious to it.  throughout the bible, we read of god's grace coming before any judgment or law.  the garden of eden exists far before humans eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  according to jewish numbering, the first of the ten commandments is "i am the lord your god who brought you out of the land of egypt, out of the house of slavery."  only after those words of grace and salvation does the law come in.

so the purpose of the law is to help us understand the magnitude of god's grace rather than the magnitude of our sins and separation from god.  this has a twofold implication:

1-it focuses on god's action rather than our (poor/in)action.  god's already saved us from our sins.  jesus took care of that.  in this sense it further emphasizes that god is the acting agent, not humanity, in the relationship (which is something luther was pretty big on). 

2-it leads to new life and renewal in relationship.  instead of making us feel bad about ourselves and our hopeless situations of sin and destruction, it encourages us and propels us into joyful response to god's grace, renewing our relationship.

for luther law confronts humanity with the reality of sin, leading us to despair and death.  then, when we realize that god is confronting us with the reality of sin, we distance ourselves from god.  this allows for gospel to come in so that we might be in right relationship with God.  luther basically separates them out into distinct categories/things, while i see law and gospel as god's means of grace.  we receive god's grace and the good news is that we can't earn it and that it is huge!!  that is conveyed by law (and gospel, because it is, indeed, good news).

so then the question (regardless of which side is taken) becomes: so what?  what does that have to do with us now?

if we're taking luther's approach to law and gospel, then there seem to be quite a few politicians who might need to be told that taking funds from those in need to give to big companies is sin.  or perhaps person who doesn't take no for an answer in a sexual encounter.  but what about us "regular" folk?  do i need to know every sin i commit?  do i already know that i mess up...a lot?  no, i already know that.  but do i need to hear the good news that god has covered my bases for me?  yes.  is gospel the assurance that i can't be perfect and stressing out about it will not help?  yes.  is that also law?  yes.  so maybe it really does all just fit under grace.

christ the redeemer

this past week in my theology of martin luther class we discussed luther's christology, that is to say, what luther had to say (or write) about jesus christ.  for luther, jesus is the ultimate self-revelation of god's heart (although god is still hidden, never fully known by us).  this then informs luther's understanding of god as luther explains the second article of the apostles creed to mean that jesus as lord is redeemer. 

christ redeems us.  christ frees us from being slaves to sin and death.  we are freed to choose life abundant.  this choice is not always easy, but in god we are always invited into life-giving relationship.  we receive love and hope in our redeemer so that we can go into a broken world and bring that hope to the hopelessness of the world.  christ is good news to the oppressed, because christ redeems the oppressed from situations of oppression, joining the outcasts and welcoming them at the table.  christ redeems the oppressors from systems of oppression, inviting them into a new way of being that is safe from domination, where they are free to be themselves without holding power over others.

luther's christology helps in interpreting scriptures.  the bible is authoritative, yet within the bible there are contradictions.  because god is ultimately made known to us in jesus christ, the gospels are the scripture used to interpret the rest of scripture.  the story of god at work in the world in jesus is the lens through which we understand god's saving actions throughout human history.  this is also why we stand during the reading of the gospel in worship; the gospels account for jesus' life, death, and resurrection.  by standing for the gospels, we are standing in reverence and respect for christ our redeemer.

so, as we set about interpreting scripture, we also interpret it through the lens of the gospel.  in a practical and personal way, this means that when verses from leviticus are tossed around, we go back to a redeemer who sat with the tax collectors and outcasts.  we go to a god who preached love for all of god's children.  we go to a god of love and justice to boldly proclaim that that love in our lives and in the world trumps the levitical law.  we rejoice in the freedom to respond to and trust in god's love for us and for all god's children.  we are freed to make christ known through our lives seeking love and dignity for all people.

the death of an innocent man

last night, an innocent man died.  this time, as in far too many other times, it was at the hand of the state.  troy davis spent nearly half his life awaiting execution.  he was innocent (if you don't believe me, check out his story) and yet he was killed.

a friend posted that she was about to lose all faith in the justice system.  someone else replied that as messed up as it is, it's "better than a mob lynching you or stoning you to death."  to that i have to ask: is it?  is troy davis' execution anything other than legal lynching by another method?

officer macphail's murder is a tragedy and justice needs to be served, but high emotional stakes coercing eye witness testimonies and preventing people from hearing and seeing the truth led to the unjust execution of one more black man accused of killing a white man.  not only that, but in the days and hours leading up to his execution, the delays and denials and second chances at hope amounted to emotional torture.  to state minutes before the scheduled execution that there will be a delay for a final appeal and then three hours later to deny the appeal is pointless.  it would've been better to have executed him like you did anyway than to have a show of seeking justice, which was not found.  

while justice may be blind, the justice system is not.  it is made up of fallible humans who come to every trial with their own biases.  troy davis maintained his innocence until his last breath.  in his final statement he reached out to the macphail family asking them to look deeper into the case so that they can find the truth about what happened that night.  then in close he said, "i ask my family and friends to continue to fight this fight.  for those about to take my life, god have mercy on your souls.  and may god bless your souls."


no one deserves to be killed.  troy davis didn't even deserve "guilty."


last night i did weep.  i wept for troy davis, i prayed for troy davis.  georgia representative john lewis stated last night, "do not weep for troy anthony davis, he will be with god, weep for georgia and for our nation.  capital punishment is barbaric."  today i weep for georgia and for our country and i pray for all our souls.

mic

as a middler (a person in her second year of seminary working towards my m div), i have been assigned a ministry-in-context (mic) site.  it's basically a teaching parish to help me get used to church life from a church leadership perspective.  i began last sunday and today was our rally day (the kickoff for sunday school and the school year worship schedule, etc.).  yesterday when i was meeting people to set up for rally day, i found out that that morning one of the matriarchs of the church, n, had died unexpectedly.  she had been away last sunday, so i hadn't yet met her, but it was clear from the conversations that have happened since receiving the news that she was very involved in the church and that everyone at the church cared deeply for her.

today was a bizarre day.  we began the day with rally day arts and crafts activities, singing in the community garden (we grabbed hands, bumped rumps, and sang the love round - bringing back very fond memories of both sunday school and rainbow trail).  we paraded around the block and took a picture on the church steps.  this was all a very lively and joy-filled way to begin our sunday.

once we got into the building and found our seats, the mood changed quite noticeably.  in the announcements the pastor mentioned n's death as well as the anniversary of the september 11th attacks.  the sermon spoke of a god who sees us in all our grief and anger and hurt and who knows us, pulling from the exodus story.  the pastor spoke of n's love and commitment to the church and the pain of her death as well as to the pain of september 11, 2001.  together, as a community, we grieved.  tears cascaded down people's cheeks as the choir sang "amazing grace."  it was the saddest, most powerful "amazing grace" i have ever heard.  during the sharing of the peace, it was clear that this community, hugging and crying together, was a safe place to be real.  we gathered and we felt.  we were honest with each other and we were present.

although i never knew n, i am honored to be connected to her through my church and this sunday that they shared with me.

commuting

ok, so it's been awhile since i last blogged.  this is not because nothing has been happening in the world of cpe, but instead that a TON has been happening so i haven't had the time/energy to blog.

i quickly realized, upon beginning cpe, that the commute would be substantial.  on classroom days, it's a mere 45 or so minutes (more if i get off the subway early and get coffee at my favorite coffee place and walk the extra blocks), not too bad.  when it's time to head to the docks to hang out with the seafarers, it usually amounts to about 2 hours.  this is if our timing is good and we make it in time for the #40 bus to the ports (if not, we have to wait for the next bus an hour later).

now, i know what you're thinking (or maybe i don't, but we'll pretend i do).  2 hours!  each way?!  that's awful!  well, it would be.  if it weren't for two things:

1-my kindle.  my aunt got me a kindle for graduation from college and i loaded it up with books and took it to slovakia instead of taking a ton of books.  i didn't get through all of the books while in slovakia (i didn't quite get around to many of the classics, which were free downloads since the copyright had expired) and brought the kindle with me to nyc, knowing that i would at least have a bit of a commute.  i've now read: the death of ivan ilych (for cpe), marley & me, bait, and am 95% done with the final book of the golden compass series (next up: frankenstein).  as i travel around manhattan, i bring my kindle everywhere and read, so leg #1 of the commute is occupied by my kindle.

2-my cpe partner, m.  m is an open orthodox rabbi.  i know, confusing.  i'm not going to try to explain what that means to you (although if you're really curious, i can give you some more info), except to say that i have found him to be full of grace in his approach to life.  m and i spend the other two legs of our journey together, taking the path train to new jersey and then the #40 bus out to the ports.  this has been amazing for me.  although i was hesitant at first, i look forward to our conversations.  we have talked about a lot (everything from queerness to the middle east to cpe and why we do what we do how we do it).  the conversations are thought provoking and deep rather than surface level chit-chat and i have thought deep and hard about several things that i had never given much thought before this summer.

an added bonus is that i wear my clerical collar every day and so to the unknowing observer we look like a pastor and a rabbi (i don't know if maurice looks like a rabbi or not, but we'll say he does).  we are the beginning of so many jokes!!!  we walk around all the time, so it really is "a pastor and a rabbi walk..."  (except that i am not yet a pastor, but they don't know that)  i really like being a visible indicator of interfaith dialogue.  it's awesome.

anyway, the commute is one of the parts of my summer that i didn't expect, but have come to cherish greatly.

coincidence? maybe not

yesterday was my first day of classroom-ish time at cpe (clinical pastoral education - basically functioning as a chaplain).  when we went around to do introductions, my cpe supervisor introduced herself and mentioned that she was from slovakia (which i had learned in email introductions, where she had also mentioned that she had been a pastor in eastern slovakia).  she never mentioned where she was a pastor in emails, but when she introduced herself to our group, i discovered that she was a pastor in rankovce!!

before monika and lubo (my host parents) were pastors, there was another clergy couple who were pastors in rankovce and while i was in rankovce i had heard a bit about them, but not too much, so their names easily slipped out of my mind, until yesterday.  silvia and her husband were pastors of the church in rankovce and now she is my site supervisor.  how cool is that?

i'm excited to see where god takes me on this continuing journey.  although i had an incredible experience during my year in slovakia, there were parts of it (as with everything) that were not ideal.  i think this summer might just provide me with the opportunity to redeem some of those parts, and i'm excited to see what the summer brings :)

adventure of the week

ok, so far my entries have not been particularly exciting, but wait til you hear (or read) what happened yesterday on my way to meet with my cpe group! 

so, normally i give myself an extra 15 or so minutes when trying to use public transit, which meant yesterday that i was heading out the door (for a quick stop downstairs to grab my water and apple out of the fridge) of my 13th floor apartment at 8:25ish for a 48 minute (according to google maps) trip downtown where i would meet my cpe group at 9:30. 

on the landing halfway between the 12th and 11th floors, i saw a cat.  it was a gray cat and looked to me quite a bit like apollo, the cat that lives in the apartment which also has the refrigerator i use (and the amazing family i live with-ish).  i'm allergic to cats, so i generally try to keep my distance a bit, so i couldn't be sure.  i decided to keep going and if, upon arrival at the apartment, i realized there was no cat there, i would proceed from there.

upon arrival, i listened intently for apollo and even called out for him.  i received no reply.  so, i was stuck with a dilemma.  i had left a bit early, so i did have some time, and if i knew where the cat was and didn't get it, i would not feel right, but i'm allergic to cats and what if apollo was just hiding really well somewhere??  perhaps needless to say, i headed back up to the landing and gently nudged apollo down to the 11th floor, quickly realizing that nudging him down every floor would take far too long. 

i pressed the button for the elevator and blocked his escape back up the stairs.  when the elevator opened, i caught him around the stomach and guided him into the elevator, where he very quickly made a desperate bid for freedom.  after a little wrestling (he dug his claws into the part with the elevator door - i was part terrified he'd go bolting back outside the elevator and part terrified the elevator door would close on him/us), we were in the elevator with the door closed and the button pushed for our floor.

my focus remained on apollo who was pacing around and when the elevator door opened onto a woman, a dog (on a leash), and a child, apollo headed out with me right behind him, apologizing for the cat coming out of the elevator.  without looking up (knowing that there are only two doors per floor on all but one in the building), i opened the door to what i thought was the right apartment and apollo and i headed in.  as i looked up, a young man turned in his chair to face me and i immediately realized that this was not the right apartment and therefore i had made it to the wrong floor--gotten out early. 

so commenced the next stage of capture apollo.  i grabbed apollo to bring him back outside and after clamping down on me, he quickly made it out of my hands and instead of heading out the open door, he tried to go back between my legs into the apartment.  i grabbed him as he dug into the welcome mat/carpet in the short hallway thing.  when apollo came up, so did the carpet.  we were not getting anywhere.  i let go of him to get a better grip and the nice young man grabbed his front paws and picked them up, detaching them from the carpet.  i grapped onto apollo, apologized and headed out the door. 

once we were back on the stairs, apollo began to whine and so i let him down and nudged him down the next two flights.  once we were only 4-5 stairs away from the apartment, he bolted to the door, confirming that it was, in fact, apollo.  i let him in, with a bit of a scolding, grabbed my water and apple and headed out.  i still had 4 minutes to spare. 

on the way, i did manage to transfer onto the L line at 14th st. and seeing that the train was already there when i descended the stairs, i got right on.  as the doors closed a voice clearly stated "next stop 8th avenue."  i was going to 1st avenue!  luckily it was only one stop (made a bit longer by traffic on the tracks) and then i was at the end of the line and could hop on the train heading back the other way, though i wasn't sure about my timing after that additional detour.

luckily, i'm a fast walker, and i ended up still arriving 5 minutes early at 9:25.  what a morning that was, though!

cpe: day 1 - for real

so my last post should have been titled clerical day one, or something to that effect, at least.  today was my first day actually chaplaining.  we met at sih (seafarer's and international house) and then headed with the director of seafarer's to the newark ports.  when we got there, he drove us around a bit and then we met up with chris, one of the part-time permanent chaplains, at the mall.  then we all headed out to meet the kilian (a ship) since it was in port.  it arrived yesterday and leaves tomorrow night, so the crew had already been visited once and had received phone cards, phones, and a hot spot to use.  we came just to hang out. 

we talked to a few of the crew who were hanging out.  most of them were from the philippines, although there was a cadet from germany as well.  we asked about family and got to see pictures of one of the guy's young son, who is now 1 year old, but who he hasn't seen for several months.  then, there were two decks of cards on the table, so we set about playing two different games, the first was similar to (gin) rummy and the second involved poker hands set up in a triangle shape.  both were fun and were a great way to interact with the men since it didn't rely too heavily on language, though they spoke quite well in english (much better than any of us did in tagalog, that's for sure).  it was also a low stress way of interacting.


after that, we got a bit more of a tour and then were dropped off at newark penn station.  from there we took some time asking about costs for different forms of transportation.  we ended up deciding that the best way to get around would be to take mta (ny transportation) to a path station, then take a path train to newark-penn station, then take the #40 bus to newark port.  the overall cost per trip (since they are each a different type of transportation and don't have transfers) will end up being about $5.05 one way.  multiply that by two, since we have to get there and back, and then by 3 since we'll be doing it three times a week and that ends up with $30.30 spent on travel to the portseach week.  then add into that the travel expenses for cpe the other two days which are $2.25 one way twice a day for two days, and you get $39.30 for travel each week for ten weeks.  this all doesn't include any expenses for other city travel either.

cpe: day 1

today was the first time i wore my clerical collar (is it called a cleric?  a clerical?  or a clerical collar?), because it was the first day of cpe (clinical pastoral education - i am like a chaplain plus i get to do something along the lines of group therapy).  a clerical collar is the either white tab or white collar that clergy wear.  let me tell you, things were most certainly different when i was wearing the collar.

i went to starbucks to get some coffee and use the internet and while i was there two things happened.  first, i met the intern (vicar) at trinity lutheran church of manhattan (where i'll be worshiping this summer)!  she saw my collar and introduced herself and then i told her i knew trinity and then she realized i was "emily" (apparently my name is more unique at trinity than elsewhere in the us).  it was great (and felt completely random) to meet her!  the other thing was that the guy that went to the bathroom before me told me that he made sure it was clean for me (thanks...i think?).

throughout the day i definitely received a few looks (both checking out the whole outfit...i had my chacos on most of the day and just changed when i actually had to look nice), and a few comments "hello, sister" and "hey! how ya doin', sister?" among them...though one was my a police officer outside a catholic school and the other was about a block or two away as i entered the subway at 96th street.

the other unique thing was that as i was checking out at whole foods (having purchased enough food to last me until i leave to visit granny tomorrow afternoon), the woman at the checkout counter asked if i was really a pastor and i said that i was studying to be one and she congratulated me!

i have to say, it is definitely going to take some getting used to, this whole wearing a collar thing.  when i was wearing it, i felt all of this additional pressure to smile at everyone and greet them and not do anything wrong.  wearing the collar automatically identifies me as christian, that means that if i mess up or do something bad, it no longer just reflects on me, it reflects on christianity as a whole.  it's weird.

anyway, those are my thoughts, we start visiting ships next week, so we'll see how that goes!

sex or race: pick one

this week we talked about christianity around the world in class.  as you can imagine we barely scratched a tiny bit of the surface, but one thing that we talked about was the role of women in missionary work.  although women couldn't be ordained ministers, they were allowed to have leadership roles in missionary settings.  at first women just supported missionary work, but then they began to be sent into the field as teachers, nurses, and deaconesses. 

in many mission areas, the native peoples were looked down on as heathens and as less than white people.  christianity was understood as the "white man's religion," so white men were supposed to be the ordained ones doing the preaching and presiding at holy communion.  although native populations were encouraged to evangelize those around them, they were not seen as able to administer the sacraments.  as missionary work increased and spread, this created a dilemma.  there soon were more christians among the native populations than missionary men who could preach and administer the sacraments.

since there weren't enough white men, they began to allow white women to fulfill those roles.  the reasoning was that although white women weren't as good of an option as white men, they were "still better" than native peoples.  the hierarchy created is especially poignant when considering who was being converted to christianity.  by and large the outcasts of the societies where christianity was being preached were the ones converting.  in india the "untouchables" were converting but not nearly as many brahman were.  so, christianity had a huge pull for those who were outcasts because of its message of radical love and inclusion and yet at the same time it would not allow just anyone to preach and administer the sacraments.

to be fair, in some places, such as india, indigenous clergy were ordained fairly quickly, which was important because good leadership is the key to keeping a movement going.  overall, though, white women gained more equality with white men because of racist ideals that allowed white women to do official ministry so that it could remain white people doing the ministry.

this has interesting implications today because so much of society and movements for rights are put into competition with each other.  instead of working against sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism, etc. together in collectives, the different movements are played against each other.  it can be a fight for equal wages for women or a fight for equal wages based on race, but it couldn't possibly be a fight for equal (and livable) wages for all people (please, not the sarcasm).  this is smart by the powerful because if there's infighting further down on the pyramid, then nobody has time to look at the top of the pyramid and try to bring down the whole pyramid.  if we looked at the whole kyriarchy, instead of just one system of oppression, what a change it might make.

seminex

ever since i first heard about seminex, i've been fascinated by it and wanted to learn more about it.   seminex is another name for concordia seminary in exile (this link is coming down on april 29th, so please check it out before then), which is also known as christ seminary-seminex.  the pastor of my home congregation growing up went to seminex, but back then i didn't really know what that meant.  it wasn't until later on in college and, really, this year in seminary, that i knew much about it.  i'm now in my second class with a professor who has come from seminex.  last semester i was privileged to take "pentateuch and wisdom literature" with dr. ralph klein and this semester it's "church history 2" with dr. kurt hendel.

both of these professors have pushed me in my thinking and helped me to grow and develop more nuanced ways of understanding the world.  my theory is that while living through losing a job and being deemed a heretic, those who were involved in seminex had to do a lot of soul searching to figure out what it was that they believe; to sift through the nonessentials and get down to the real essentials of christianity.  this means that they've thought about it a lot more than many people probably do. 

when i began in the candidacy process, the evangelical lutheran church in america (elca) had a document for all wannabe ordained and rostered leaders to sign called "vision and expectations."  the elca still has this document, though it has since been edited.  overall, the document is really awesome and provides guidance and things to consider as we become and are ordained to ministries of word and sacrament/service in the church.  the reason i did not sign it was that it included the expectation that "homosexuals" remain celibate.  while i could have, technically, signed that i would abide by "vision and expectations," it seemed quite clear that when it stated "homosexuals," it really meant anybody who could potentially be in a same-sex or same-gender relationship, which meant me.

while i considered what might happen if i were to fall in love with someone of the same gender as a wannabe lutheran pastor, i was drawn into the story of seminex.  in some ways, extraordinary lutheran ministries (elm) has played a similar role to that of seminex.  when the elca refused to ordain people because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, elm ordained them.  elm made a way for people of all sexual orientations and gender identities to do the ministry to which god was calling them. 

seminex made a way for people with differing beliefs to do the ministry to which god was calling them.  though elm is more to do with sexual orientation/gender identity and seminex has more to do with interpretation of scripture and doctrinal beliefs, there is a common declaration of (to put it more tamely than others have) "so what!  we're doing it anyway."  both groups were forced out of their mainstream and chose not to let that mainstream win.  they chose (or were forced) to find a way to keep following god even when the powers that be said no.

soon after being entranced into candidacy, the elca voted in the churchwide assembly of 2009 for a variety of things (among them the malaria initiative).  many people have forgotten about most of the stuff voted on, but one thing that has been (and perhaps always will be) connected to the elca churchwide assembly of 2009 was the vote regarding human sexuality.  the vote included adopting the social statement on human sexuality, allowing congregations that wished to to bless same-sex marriages (my word not theirs), respecting the variety of views held by those within the elca on issues of sexuality, sexual expression, and gender identity, and allowing people in "lifelong monogamous same-gender relationships" to serve as ordained and rostered leaders of the elca. 

though the decisions made at churchwide in 2009 were diverse and applicable in many situations, when the phrase "churchwide 2009" comes up it almost invariably translates as "letting people who aren't straight be pastors."  this does a disservice to all that happened at churchwide, and yet i can't help but refer to churchwide 2009 (or the 2009 policy change) when i talk about why i can be a pastor.  i don't have to take another route to follow god's call in my life.

we are a reforming church (that whole "lutheran" thing).  that means that we need renewal and change in order to hold true to god's call.  if we are not open to change, then we stop being god's church and become individual people's church.  when that happens, we can only hope that groups such as those involved with seminex and elm emerge to reflect deeply on god's call and to carry out god's work until the church can catch up.

what is an evangelical?

"we cannot, therefore, separate our lives in christ from the situation in which god has placed us in the united states and the world."
"we confess that we have not acknowledged the complete claims of god on our lives."
"we acknowledge that god requires love.  but we have not demonstrated the love of god to those suffering social abuses."
"we acknowledge that god requires justice." (gonzalez, 386)


this is an excerpt from the "chicago declaration" adopted by a group of evangelical leaders in 1973.  i will be the first to admit that much of the time i have looked down on "evangelicals."  not necessarily individual people who identify as evangelical, but the group.  the group that is so very visible as the "moral majority."  the group that seems to really be another word for republican fundraising.  this is not something i'm necessarily proud of, but it is an accurate description of my most recent attitude.


one of the people that began to change this view is jim wallis.  he is the head guy for sojourners, a evangelical group/company/magazine that is deeply rooted in social justice work.  according to dr. hendel, he would fall under the category of neo-evangelical.  this is a group of people who take seriously scripture (in terms of engaging intellectually with scriptures and taking seriously their authority and the locus of their authority), social justice, and evangelization (bringing the good news).  evangelicals locate themselves across christian denominations and have been around for decades.  different aspects of evangelicalism can trace back to the reformation, the great awakenings, and the pietist movement.


evangelicals have a bad reputation because of some particularly vocal evangelicals who also seem to be tied closely to the purse strings and voting constituency of the republican party.  this is very sad, but it's not completely inaccurate.  there are many evangelicals who vote republican because a well-known evangelical leader tells them to.  there are, however, many evangelicals encourage voting for issues rather than famous people, no matter what a person's political party might be.  


this is all in addition to a rather large group of evangelicals who happen to also call themselves "lutheran" (we are, after all, the evangelical lutheran church in america).  the elca calls itself evangelical, yet are we?  at its heart, perhaps evangelical truly is "one who affirms the centrality and cruciality of christ’s work of reconciliation and redemption as declared in the scriptures" (from donald bloesch as stated during class).  do we, as a lutheran church affirm this?  do we affirm it in our actions or simply in our words?  the elca has some pretty great statements (on human sexuality, incarceration, etc.), but what about our actions?  is christ's work of reconciliation and redemption evident in the actions and life of the church?  


perhaps, but sometimes that's hard to see.  how am i seeking reconciliation and redemption?  are we bringing good news to those who hunger for it?  is our hunger for the good news found in others?  how rooted are we in the radical love and grace of god?  are we bold to proclaim god's love to all people?  to fred phelps, to prostitutes, to white, middle-class suburban churchgoers?  to the world?  how do we engage with the world?


so, though i am still working on changing my attitude towards evangelicals, i'm working really hard on taking a page out of their book and engaging with the tough questions of what it means to be evangelical and keep christ fully integrated and implicated in my unique position in this world

call me a socialist, but...

...chances are, i am.

this week in church history we learned about two very important people in the area of church history who were not theologians: charles darwin and karl marx.  i'm actually quite a fan of both, but for this week's purposes, karl marx is my man.  other important information: in the theology of martin luther king, jr., we have created colloquys (basically just means groups to present to the class on a specific topic) and the topic my group within the colloquy has is a comparison of mlk's theology to liberation theology.  needless to say, it's not really feasible to talk about liberation theology without talking about latin american liberation theology, which is arguably the the "original" liberation theology (though some people were in the process of developing different forms of liberation theology at the same time, though the different groups were mutually unaware of each other).  this has allowed me to dig back into my liberation theology books from undergrad, which has been great.

anyway, karl marx.  even before dr. hendel stated in class that karl marx greatly influenced liberation theology, i had been thinking about that as i read for my mlk class.  communism and socialism are very similar (and oftentimes used interchangeably), though marx would probably argue that socialism is just a stepping stone to communism.  i tend to locate myself in more of a socialism camp than a communist camp (probably due to the connection in my head between communism and the ussr) and many times i feel like jesus is there (perhaps because in gospels like mark jesus works within the system - healing, but still having people do the ritual things that need doing to be declared clean by the temple).  that's a bit off-topic, but i do think that karl marx provides an interesting lens to actually, openmindedly think about christianity and jesus.

karl marx's communist theory affirms the idea that human history curves to a place of justice.  this is very clearly articulated in mlk's famous quote, "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" (found in "where do we go from here?"), and liberation theology holds to the belief that not only does it bend towards justice, but that god is bending it towards justice.  as marx articulated the need for understanding societal change with respect to material and economic goods, so too does latin american liberation theology very clearly state that god makes an "option for the poor" (Introducing Liberation Theology, Boff & Boff, p. 44-45).  it is the socioeconomic poor who are the source of liberation theology and those who are not socioeconomically poor are called to struggle with those who are and to stand in solidarity with them.

while marx was very intelligent and had really good ideas (and i could go on about the similarities of liberation theology and marxist communism), the one thing that karl marx lacked is god.  for him, religion was simply the "opiate of the masses."  this has been true for far too long.  liberation theologies come in as they reclaim the church's role as a prophetic voice rather than a pacifying voice.  as god cries out, the church is called to cry out against injustice.  that is what the role of religion should be.  so, on second thought, perhaps karl marx was right about religion.  lately it seems to be the opiate of the masses, but when will it use its power to teach people how to behave (as marx put it) to teach people to act in a way that lines up with god's will for creation?  perhaps instead of demonizing communism, we should consider its critique of religion and what it might mean to get back to our roots, to follow jesus into the margins, and to do theology by doing liberation.

unions, divisions, and reappropriation

this week in church history, we discussed the declaration of prussian union by king friedrich wilhelm iii.  as the tercentenary of lutheran reformation - specifically of the 95 theses and the augsburg confession - king wilhelm was calvinist, but his people were lutherans, so to celebrate, he declared that the lutheran and reformed traditions were to share full communion in prussia.  the main lutheran doctrine is and was the doctrine of justification (we are justified by grace through our faith), which does not subscribe to predestination, whereas the reformed church teachings do and did prescribe to predestination.  for many this was a nonnegotiable distinction.  this meant either going to jail, which many of them did for a bit, or leaving. 

the anti-prussian union confessionalism resounded with me as i considered the past year and a half during which i had my first encounters with members of the reformed church.  while we meet under fairly unusual circumstances (serving as year-long young adult missionaries for our respective churches in the same program working with roma in central europe), we had some interesting discussions regarding our faith and beliefs.  in the various conversations, it was abundantly clear that we share much in common, yet there are important enough differences that we wouldn't switch to the other's denomination.  this was the case for the anti-prussian union after the declaration of the prussian union by king wilhelm.  

while it is important to recognize the differences and to acknowledge the key factors that make us lutheran (or reformed, catholic, etc.), it is also important to remember our commonalities.  this comes through in the elca's full communion with the episcopalians.  our essentials are consistent and our non-essentials are free to be as diverse as they may be.  one unique thing is the historic episcopate.  because lutherans don't care much about the historic episcopate (that the bishops have hands laid on them by people who had hands laid on them by people who had hands laid on them by...peter) and the historic episcopate is an essential for episcopalians, lutherans let the practice and belief of the historic episcopate be part of our practice.  in this way, we honor our full communion with the episcopalians, holding to what we take as the essentials and being willing to compromise on things we don't consider essential.  when it all comes down to it, that's how ecumenism works anyway.  honoring our neighbor's faith while holding true to our own (sometimes a delicate balancing act).

another type of lutheran confessionalism, which we discussed was from the erlangen school.  adolph von harless believed that we should be aware of what we confess as a church, but that that heritage cannot simply be passed from one generation to the next.  we, as lutherans, as christians, as inheritors of wisdom must engage with our individual and communal contexts in order to engage with our confessions and our doctrines and theologies.  afterall, it has been said that "a religion that doesn't change ceases to remain the same."  this connects with repristination theology in that it tried to recover lutheranism.  it tried to get "back to its roots."  the problem with this was that the reformation and luther's changes were viewed and interpreted through the lens of the age of orthodoxy (previously mentioned here).  this meant that the role of scripture (the idea of sola scriptura) were understood as stringent biblicism. 

the key to each of these types of confessionalism is firstly to be aware of them.  as we seek out what our theology is and how we want to be confessional, we need to continue to engage with our local and global contexts as well as with our ancestors of the faith, but we need to see both in light of each other.  when we look to our heritage, we need to remember from where we look.  for example, when i look at luther's statements about jews, i need to remember that i am looking at then in light of the holocaust and the nation of israel, among other things.  we also need to engage our current situations in light of our faith tradition.  how christians have engaged the world should inform us as we seek to engage the world as well (whether it's informing us on what to do or what not to do is also something to keep in mind).  we cannot simply reappropriate our ideas of the roots of our faith, we must thoughtfully engage with them from where we are today.

john and charles: 2 of 19 (though only 10 survived infancy) who created a movement

as we discussed methodism today in class, i couldn't help but think of my college roommate, who happens to be a united methodist.  she has been visiting me this week for her spring break and i shared with her some of what we had been discussing in class.  she pointed out that before and during her years at college, her congregation was going through a period of immense turmoil.  as with many congregations, great turmoil usually impacts the church's budget.  the intriguing part was that the very methodist congregation knew the value of giving and so the congregation continued to collect money in offerings.  the difference came in with respect to where the collection went.  since people were unwilling to support the pastors, they refused to give money that would support the pastors.  instead, they designated their offerings to missions.  While the church stopped paying its apportionments (the required amounts paid to the conference, or what we lutherans refer to as a synod), and almost went without water and electricity, it never stopped funding missions, and funding them strongly.

this is a lesson we could all learn.  my home congregation is currently having money troubles because of its own turmoil, but imagine what a difference it would make if people still gave and recognized the importance of social justice and work in the world.  my congregation hasn't ever been stellar at benevolence, but if the money that's recently been taken away from our congregational budget went directly to benevolence or mission, our identity as a congregation would become very different.  it is a very different way of living out our vocation and mission as a church: giving money out into the world, even when we are unwilling to give it within the church.  this is not only a part of supporting the missions of the church, but it is a way to honor giving as a spiritual practice for individuals and to recognize that it is of great importance to people on a personal level as well as being a way of sharing love in the world.

this could go for the elca as a whole as well.  what if people who were upset with the elca churchwide decision to hold all ordained and rostered leaders to a high standard while allowing them to also live a life of love and commitment with a spouse or partner didn't just leave the church?  since they are clearly still welcome and their opinions and views are clearly still welcomed in a church that tries valiantly to embrace contradictions, what if they didn't take away their synod benevolence and the money they generally set aside to global mission?  what if they continued to support the church, but maybe designated their funds to missions areas?  would the church have to find a new identity?  would the church not only find a new way of understanding its center as christ, but also of understanding why we as individuals and congregations give?

not all of john wesley's ideas resonate both with me and with current methodists.  for example, while wesley and i agree quite a bit regarding the eucharist, current methodists tend to favor a more occasional practice.  also, wesley and i tend to hold very different views regarding tea and alcohol consumption.  we all do, however, seem to agree with the emphasis he placed on working for good in the world.  the love we receive from god cannot be contained simply within ourselves.  the only way to fully experience the love god has for us is to respond to it in love towards others. 


on a related note, i also learned that much of the success of the methodist movement can be credited to charles wesley, who was not only a prolific hymn writer (many of the hymns in our "lutheran" hymnal are, as my college roommate pointed out, written by charles wesley) but also was apparently much more sociable and friendly, especially in one-on-one interpersonal settings.  being the guy that people "actually wanted to hang out with" seems to have gotten him and the methodist movement as a whole quite a bit further than simply being the preacher who considers the whole world to be his parish.

ortho-dox and the change of faith

in class last week and the week before, we talked about "orthodoxy" (orthodoxy, according to its greek roots means correct teaching, which for many church goers means doctrine) and specifically the lutheran age of orthodoxy, which lasted from about 1570 until about 1740.  during this time, scholars wanted to preserve, explain and elaborate, and systematize theological teachings.  the goal of systematization was to define what it meant to be lutheran: what were the essentials and the non-essentials.  up until this time, faith and religion had not been based as much in rational explanation, but during the age of orthodoxy, those doing systematic theology began to rely heavily on philosophical arguments to back themselves up.  they went to great lengths to articulate precisely what was necessary for the church and what was not.

johann gerhardt was a proponent of the idea that scripture is the source for theology.  this is not a bad thing, in fact it's a good idea, but it becomes problematic in how it has played out in christianity since then.  since scripture is the source of theology, for gerhardt, it was made "normative, authoritative, and trustworthy" (from my class notes).  this is not anything new, but with it came the idea that since it's the inspired word of god, it must be infallible.  the logic is that since the holy spirit inspired the biblical writers, the words they wrote must be infallible, since god inspired them.  the concept of the bible being dictated to humans by the holy spirit or the holy spirit moving the hand of the human writing is actually not a view held since the beginning of christianity.  it was during this age of orthodoxy that it really took hold.  that's in the late 1500s!!  still, that is what gerhardt used to get to the idea that if doctrine comes from scripture, and if scripture is infallible, then doctrine must be infallible, too.

this is a viewpoint that is very evident in fundamentalist christianity today.  people argue that since the bible is the inspired word of god, it must be infallible.  they seem to change the definition of inspired from "imbued with the spirit to do something" to "dictated word for word by god or another heavenly being."  that is a big difference.  my call to ministry is inspired by god, but god did not sit down with me face to face and clearly state: "emily, i want you to be an ordained pastor in the evangelical lutheran church in america."  it was something i had to discern and make sense of in my own way, which means it has my own personality in it, much like those who wrote and edited the various books of the bible.

once we get to scripture, however, we still have to figure out how to interpret it.  this is where theology and doctrine coming from scripture (and therefore also infallible) is problematic.  much of history has been written and recorded by men.  not only that, but by fairly well-educated, probably middle or upper class men, who probably have quite a bit of power in their society.  so, when they do theology, they come at it from their unique perspective.  however, when we state that there is only one interpretation of scripture, we lose the impact their experience has had on their theology.

the core problem, however, is deeper than doctrine or the inerrancy of scripture.  since theology in the age of orthodoxy became so focused on having inerrant doctrine to go with inerrant scripture, what it meant to have faith changed as well.  faith became less about trusting god (as martin luther stated) and more about believing the right thing.  again we recognize this in christianity to the extent that people are required to believe certain things about jesus and about god, rather than to trust god with the mysteries and the questions.  it goes something like this: "if i believe the right thing in the right way, then i will have faith and i will be saved."  note, if you will, the conspicuous absence of god in that sentence.

in making faith about specific beliefs about rather than trust in, god loses god's place in our faith.  faith becomes individualistic and self-centered instead of centered in a god who loves and connects all people.  so, while lutherans during the age of orthodoxy did bless us with many, many volumes of systematic theology, which few people will ever read in their entirety, they also set the ball rolling on a slippery slope, which has people believing that rather than believing in.