Fidem
habeo, ergo scio
Luther always said knowledge of salvation only comes through faith. We cannot know anything about God and what God dose for us other than through faith. Faith is what gives us assurance. Though I'm not perfectly certain about my Latin (someone correct my grammar if it's bad), the above phrase reflects a Lutheran response to Descartes.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Errors and Love
The following reflection is an attempt to process recent readings and not a definitive position.
In Luther's "Disputation Against Scholastic Theology," he claims that the human will can only conform to erroneous ways and that because people are able to love people, they cannot love God. He roughly repeats these statements in the "Heidelberg Disputation." I'm going to attempt to wrestle with both of these seemingly odd statements at once.
As I do this, I recognize that part of the major emphasis in Lutheran theology is our complete and utter dependence upon God. Free will can only do evil "in an active capacity" because otherwise there would be a possibility of someone achieving salvation by works (if one can do good, then one might not need Christ). If we are able to love God, then we might be able not to sin against God. If we are not utterly and completely sinners, then there is a possibility of salvation outside of Christ (Christ is the way, any who come to the Father only come through him).
Where I find I can start is naming what I do affirm, though this affirmation is not part something covered in the above mentioned documents. I affirm Lutheran single predestination. God chooses everyone for salvation and people choose damnation. God only "predestines" people for salvation/healing; moreover, within radical Lutheran sinner/saint dialectic, everyone chooses damnation. God invites everyone to the banquet and gives everyone the clothes necessary for the proper dress attire, and everyone is too busy to attend and refuses to wear the free outfit. Within this framework, I see how Luther can talk about the inability to love God. In John, Jesus describes it as those who love the darkness do not love the light because their deeds are evil.
However, Luther's radical description of the inability to love God I cannot affirm. How I can affirm the radical single predestination theory without affirming the inability to love God? I recognize, quite differently from Luther, the reality of sin in the Eden story. Namely, there is a reality that one sin effects all of creation, that one sin disrupts our relationship with God, that one sin sends us into fear and hiding, and that we, as humans, seem not to have the desire to claim our sins as our own but rather add sin to sin by lying and/or blaming others. Luther sees this as an exposition on original sin, but I recognize it, with my 21st century lens where the Bible is not trying to answer historical fact but tell us about who God is, what God does, and how our relationship with God is lived out, as an exposition on any sin. Sin, even one, has consequences for all of creation (sin is relational; the relationship with other species was broken and the garden was sealed, among other explicit curses upon the three sinners). Sin is a bitter trap wherein we would rather keep sinning than have our brokenness and shame exposes (Adam and Eve put on clothing and blamed others). Sin causes us to fear God rather than love God.
Where this is not as radical as Luther is that experience reveals it false to imagine people cannot love God. It also appears false that people cannot do good. However, it is also false to imagine people can keep from sinning or can keep from fearing God or loving other things above God. Luther needs no possibility of good and love because a small gap allows the scholastics to argue for possibility of otherwise. All I need to is look around and see that even the people who do good more often than not still sin. Sin has permeated all of creation, and its relational reality that covers all creation means that without God's help we cannot help but be effected by sin and become sinners ourselves. We can only have the capacity to not sin when all sinning all together stops.
Of course, Luther gives a role for the Holy Spirit in providing us with the capacity to do good or to love God, but that does not take real account of those who are not Christian and still do good. Luther talks about the appearance of good when there's actually evil at the core. I would talk about the reality of doing good and still being permeated by the sin that effects all creation. For me, this is how we are to understand that our best works are like "dirty rags;" we have not the capacity to fully clean them (by our ability they will always contain dirty even if we wash them 1000 times) or to keep them clean, but there is possibly clean spots on the rags. Still, within that possibility there is the reality that God works with whole rags and doesn't chop of the clean parts as if that's all that matters or enough. God redeems the whole body and doesn't just claim that one moment where you happened not to sin.
I should mention, prior to ending, is that this brings me to Luther's affirmation of the role of faith. Because we all choose damnation, we all sin, we all walk away from God, we all are encompassed in this totality of sin that blankets creation (I know I hear American individualism yelling in my ears, but that may be a conversation for another day), Luther says all we can do is trust God. God chooses all for salvation. We all choose hell, but we trust God's choice is greater than ours. We do not know whether we are going to salvation or damnation, but we trust the promises God has given us for life. We in fact, as the ones who are not making the eternal judgment, trust that God's can fulfill God's desire to save the whole world and we live into that trust by considering the whole world saved.
More could always be said, but I feel I have not more at the moment even though this is not a great stopping point. Just trust God to be God and let that trust rather than the fear evoked by sin rule your life.
In Luther's "Disputation Against Scholastic Theology," he claims that the human will can only conform to erroneous ways and that because people are able to love people, they cannot love God. He roughly repeats these statements in the "Heidelberg Disputation." I'm going to attempt to wrestle with both of these seemingly odd statements at once.
As I do this, I recognize that part of the major emphasis in Lutheran theology is our complete and utter dependence upon God. Free will can only do evil "in an active capacity" because otherwise there would be a possibility of someone achieving salvation by works (if one can do good, then one might not need Christ). If we are able to love God, then we might be able not to sin against God. If we are not utterly and completely sinners, then there is a possibility of salvation outside of Christ (Christ is the way, any who come to the Father only come through him).
Where I find I can start is naming what I do affirm, though this affirmation is not part something covered in the above mentioned documents. I affirm Lutheran single predestination. God chooses everyone for salvation and people choose damnation. God only "predestines" people for salvation/healing; moreover, within radical Lutheran sinner/saint dialectic, everyone chooses damnation. God invites everyone to the banquet and gives everyone the clothes necessary for the proper dress attire, and everyone is too busy to attend and refuses to wear the free outfit. Within this framework, I see how Luther can talk about the inability to love God. In John, Jesus describes it as those who love the darkness do not love the light because their deeds are evil.
However, Luther's radical description of the inability to love God I cannot affirm. How I can affirm the radical single predestination theory without affirming the inability to love God? I recognize, quite differently from Luther, the reality of sin in the Eden story. Namely, there is a reality that one sin effects all of creation, that one sin disrupts our relationship with God, that one sin sends us into fear and hiding, and that we, as humans, seem not to have the desire to claim our sins as our own but rather add sin to sin by lying and/or blaming others. Luther sees this as an exposition on original sin, but I recognize it, with my 21st century lens where the Bible is not trying to answer historical fact but tell us about who God is, what God does, and how our relationship with God is lived out, as an exposition on any sin. Sin, even one, has consequences for all of creation (sin is relational; the relationship with other species was broken and the garden was sealed, among other explicit curses upon the three sinners). Sin is a bitter trap wherein we would rather keep sinning than have our brokenness and shame exposes (Adam and Eve put on clothing and blamed others). Sin causes us to fear God rather than love God.
Where this is not as radical as Luther is that experience reveals it false to imagine people cannot love God. It also appears false that people cannot do good. However, it is also false to imagine people can keep from sinning or can keep from fearing God or loving other things above God. Luther needs no possibility of good and love because a small gap allows the scholastics to argue for possibility of otherwise. All I need to is look around and see that even the people who do good more often than not still sin. Sin has permeated all of creation, and its relational reality that covers all creation means that without God's help we cannot help but be effected by sin and become sinners ourselves. We can only have the capacity to not sin when all sinning all together stops.
Of course, Luther gives a role for the Holy Spirit in providing us with the capacity to do good or to love God, but that does not take real account of those who are not Christian and still do good. Luther talks about the appearance of good when there's actually evil at the core. I would talk about the reality of doing good and still being permeated by the sin that effects all creation. For me, this is how we are to understand that our best works are like "dirty rags;" we have not the capacity to fully clean them (by our ability they will always contain dirty even if we wash them 1000 times) or to keep them clean, but there is possibly clean spots on the rags. Still, within that possibility there is the reality that God works with whole rags and doesn't chop of the clean parts as if that's all that matters or enough. God redeems the whole body and doesn't just claim that one moment where you happened not to sin.
I should mention, prior to ending, is that this brings me to Luther's affirmation of the role of faith. Because we all choose damnation, we all sin, we all walk away from God, we all are encompassed in this totality of sin that blankets creation (I know I hear American individualism yelling in my ears, but that may be a conversation for another day), Luther says all we can do is trust God. God chooses all for salvation. We all choose hell, but we trust God's choice is greater than ours. We do not know whether we are going to salvation or damnation, but we trust the promises God has given us for life. We in fact, as the ones who are not making the eternal judgment, trust that God's can fulfill God's desire to save the whole world and we live into that trust by considering the whole world saved.
More could always be said, but I feel I have not more at the moment even though this is not a great stopping point. Just trust God to be God and let that trust rather than the fear evoked by sin rule your life.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Inalienable Rights and Health Care
Within a society that maintains a separation of religion and government (classically called "separation of Church and State," but I open the language to include all faiths), I find that one of my roles as a minister is to "speak truth to power," to borrow a phrase from 1950's Quakers. In order to speak truth to the power that is government and politics in a society where my religion is separate from the government, I find it to be a mandate that I both speak out of my religious convictions unapologetically and that I find political language to frame my religious convictions when speaking to politicians.
Today, I find I am speaking toward all those who label the Affordable Care Act as "Obamacare," a frame that is meant to identify the reenvisioning of health care as a corrupt act of a "corrupt" President. I have not done indepth research into the Affordable Care Act, but I know it is a worthwhile step in the right direction (see http://www.standupforhealthcare.org/learn-more/quick-facts/12-reasons-to-support-health-care). My argument in its support today derives from my own faith convictions, but in the language of politics I find what I am saying supported throughout United States history by people who are oppressed, particularly including Frederick Douglass (http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=2945).
Our freedom in this country (apologies to all my Native American sisters and brothers for whom this statement is not true; I hope you see soon that my argument extends to you even if it did not originally encompass you) is founded upon self-evident truths (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html). These self-evident truths particular include the reality that all people are endowed with certain unalienable rights. Unalienable means that this rights cannot be taken away for any reason whatsoever. These unalienable rights include, but are not limited to, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as stated in the Declaration of Independence, "among these," implying that these are only a sampling of humanity's unalienable rights). According to the document that founds our freedom, governments are instituted to secure these rights.
Now I ask you, what does it mean for people to have an unalienable right to life? Does it mean that the death penalty has any valid place in this country? No. (For those who come back asking me about abortion, my response is that the abortion question involves a lot more lives than the question of a person securely locked behind bars for the rest of their lives whom the government is supposed to be guaranteeing that no more harm can come to society from that individual; the question of abortion is inherently more complex and thus deserves a more thoughtful response than the straight-forward answer against the death penalty) Does it mean that people do not deserve a health care that will provide them the basic services needed to stay alive when their lives are threatened? No. This government's foundation within our freedom is to secure the unalienable right of life. This cannot be done without universal healthcare.
Moreover, I would go as far to say that our freedom is founded upon the unalienable rights of ALL humans. Though I would not mandate the United States government to provide for all the world, it has the responsibility to secure the right of life to all people within its borders regardless of their citizenship status. This is what all humans means. This is the depth to which unalienable rights is supposed to be enacted. The same argument easily extends to liberty and its inherit connection with education. As long as there exists and inequitable education system in this country, favoring wealthy areas over poor areas, this government is not fulfill its mandate.
This is the challenge I uplift to our government officials: Fulfill your mandate. Secure the unalienable rights of all people within your jurisdiction. Secure our right to life by abolishing the death penalty and providing universal health care. Secure our liberty by providing an equitable education system (and in its equitability, maintain a high standard of education; creating equitability by using the lowest common denominator is not equitability). Without such freedoms secured, we will never have the freedom to pursue happiness.
For those who are not yet persuaded by the importance of this mandate, I wonder if you are like me: educated, in possession of health care, fairly unworried of ever being directly effected by the death penalty. What I have come to realize is that as long as the government is not securing this unalienable rights, my freedom is threatened. The reality of these last few years, as well as of the Great Depression, is that my ability to afford health care is, in many ways, outside of my control. My ability to afford decent education for any offspring I may have in the future is, in many ways, outside of my control. And the protests in Georgia over the death penalty let me know that the security of my right to live is probably out of my control as well. As long as the government does not secure these rights in their fullest sense, my freedom is threatened. I am not free when I do not have my unalienable rights. As long as I do not have my unalienable rights securely maintained by my government, my freedom will always be threatened, no matter how much wealth or power I am able to attain. This is the imperative of this mandate as far as I see it. This is why these rights are important for all Americans, whether they are in the 1% or they are living in poverty.
Government: my freedoms are being threatened by your inability in over 200 years to secure them. Secure my unalienable rights.
Today, I find I am speaking toward all those who label the Affordable Care Act as "Obamacare," a frame that is meant to identify the reenvisioning of health care as a corrupt act of a "corrupt" President. I have not done indepth research into the Affordable Care Act, but I know it is a worthwhile step in the right direction (see http://www.standupforhealthcare.org/learn-more/quick-facts/12-reasons-to-support-health-care). My argument in its support today derives from my own faith convictions, but in the language of politics I find what I am saying supported throughout United States history by people who are oppressed, particularly including Frederick Douglass (http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=2945).
Our freedom in this country (apologies to all my Native American sisters and brothers for whom this statement is not true; I hope you see soon that my argument extends to you even if it did not originally encompass you) is founded upon self-evident truths (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html). These self-evident truths particular include the reality that all people are endowed with certain unalienable rights. Unalienable means that this rights cannot be taken away for any reason whatsoever. These unalienable rights include, but are not limited to, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as stated in the Declaration of Independence, "among these," implying that these are only a sampling of humanity's unalienable rights). According to the document that founds our freedom, governments are instituted to secure these rights.
Now I ask you, what does it mean for people to have an unalienable right to life? Does it mean that the death penalty has any valid place in this country? No. (For those who come back asking me about abortion, my response is that the abortion question involves a lot more lives than the question of a person securely locked behind bars for the rest of their lives whom the government is supposed to be guaranteeing that no more harm can come to society from that individual; the question of abortion is inherently more complex and thus deserves a more thoughtful response than the straight-forward answer against the death penalty) Does it mean that people do not deserve a health care that will provide them the basic services needed to stay alive when their lives are threatened? No. This government's foundation within our freedom is to secure the unalienable right of life. This cannot be done without universal healthcare.
Moreover, I would go as far to say that our freedom is founded upon the unalienable rights of ALL humans. Though I would not mandate the United States government to provide for all the world, it has the responsibility to secure the right of life to all people within its borders regardless of their citizenship status. This is what all humans means. This is the depth to which unalienable rights is supposed to be enacted. The same argument easily extends to liberty and its inherit connection with education. As long as there exists and inequitable education system in this country, favoring wealthy areas over poor areas, this government is not fulfill its mandate.
This is the challenge I uplift to our government officials: Fulfill your mandate. Secure the unalienable rights of all people within your jurisdiction. Secure our right to life by abolishing the death penalty and providing universal health care. Secure our liberty by providing an equitable education system (and in its equitability, maintain a high standard of education; creating equitability by using the lowest common denominator is not equitability). Without such freedoms secured, we will never have the freedom to pursue happiness.
For those who are not yet persuaded by the importance of this mandate, I wonder if you are like me: educated, in possession of health care, fairly unworried of ever being directly effected by the death penalty. What I have come to realize is that as long as the government is not securing this unalienable rights, my freedom is threatened. The reality of these last few years, as well as of the Great Depression, is that my ability to afford health care is, in many ways, outside of my control. My ability to afford decent education for any offspring I may have in the future is, in many ways, outside of my control. And the protests in Georgia over the death penalty let me know that the security of my right to live is probably out of my control as well. As long as the government does not secure these rights in their fullest sense, my freedom is threatened. I am not free when I do not have my unalienable rights. As long as I do not have my unalienable rights securely maintained by my government, my freedom will always be threatened, no matter how much wealth or power I am able to attain. This is the imperative of this mandate as far as I see it. This is why these rights are important for all Americans, whether they are in the 1% or they are living in poverty.
Government: my freedoms are being threatened by your inability in over 200 years to secure them. Secure my unalienable rights.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Trinity
Mother of Earth
Son of Man
Spirit of Christ
Holy Three in One
I know there's a lot of theological debate about non-"Father, Son, Holy Spirit" trinitarian formulas and most theologians think any other formula is non-Christian, but all these names are biblically based (the first is from a psalm where God gives birth to the earth) and I give no apologies for naming God - Hagar did it first.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Lutheran Dualism
The following reflection is an attempt to process recent readings and not a definitive position.
In this document, Luther talks about will / nature / creature and spirit / grace / love. The will produces evil (though it is not by nature evil), the love of creature excludes the love of God, and nature is always an evil will. Spirit, on the other hand, fulfills the law, does good, and loves God. Upon initial reading, my problem with the dualistic view was that it felt as if the spirit of a person was redeemable and the creature was irredeemable. For me it is always a problem when you start talking about dual parts of a human as if one can, with God's will, be good and another, by any will, cannot. It challenges the need for God to redeem my whole being.
What helped me start to make sense of the way Luther was using nature and spirit seem very similar to the way Paul talks about flesh and spirit. Specifically, it seems Luther, when talking about spiritual matters, is not talking about our own spirits but God's Spirit in us. One who spiritually fulfills the law does not sin, and fulfilling the law can only take place by the grace of God. The fulfillment of the law is the love of God, put in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.
Though I am sure I will wrestle with other dualisms in Luther's theology, it has helped to realize that this is not actually a dualism. Rather, this is talking about two separate realities (human and God) and making our ability to be good, to fulfill the law, and to love God and humans entirely dependent upon God's gracious gift of the Holy Spirit. Though I will soon raise other questions about this, for the moment it at least resolves the dualism I struggled to read.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Visions of Ministry
More random visions I have as to who I am as a minister and for the church in which I minister:
God's clear desire, as revealed in scripture, is to save, redeem, and heal all people and all creation; our vision of church should be nothing less
The Church is called to care for all of creation in the manner after the heart of God
I am a sinner, I do evil, and I need your forgiveness
War and acts of violence are always, always, always against the will of God and the gospel
All Christians are priests; I am called not to administer the Word and Sacrament, but to be a norming administer of the Word and Sacrament (revise according to Gritsch-Jenson ch. 9 end)
God's clear desire, as revealed in scripture, is to save, redeem, and heal all people and all creation; our vision of church should be nothing less
The Church is called to care for all of creation in the manner after the heart of God
I am a sinner, I do evil, and I need your forgiveness
War and acts of violence are always, always, always against the will of God and the gospel
All Christians are priests; I am called not to administer the Word and Sacrament, but to be a norming administer of the Word and Sacrament (revise according to Gritsch-Jenson ch. 9 end)
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Vision and Mission Statement
In 2008 I began serious reflections on who I am as a minister. Here are the guiding statements I developed for myself:
Personal Vision Statement: Because I am saved by grace through faith, I
will live my life to love God, to love all my neighbors, to care for all
creation, and to work for the mutual up-building of the community of
believers.
Personal Mission Statement: Be a child of God.
Personal Mission Statement: Be a child of God.
Monday, September 12, 2011
A Prayer for Peace with Justice in the World
The following prayer was originally composed for an ecumenical National Day of Prayer service on May 5, 2011, the week following the death of Osama bin Laden.
Reading: Romans 12:9-21
Almighty God, God of justice and righteousness, God of peace and grace, the world is full of violence and injustice. In the lifetimes of some still living, we have seen two World Wars and the destructive ability of atomic power, plus many more wars and threats of war, a Holocaust and genocides, the rise of international terrorist units and dividing walls, mobs and gangs, riots and revolts, and violence in our own neighborhoods and communities. God, with the voice of Abel’s blood, with the cries of the Israelites in Egypt, in Babylon, and under the Romans, and with the tears of Rachel as she weeps for her children, we dare with a loud voice to demand justice. Evil people and destructive forces have hurt your people too many times, and the injustices wrought on us stop here. LORD God, unleash your justice upon this world, defend the cause of the oppressed, the lowly, and the destroyed. Bring down evil rulers, end systems of violence, and execute judgment upon all our enemies.
Yet, LORD, we know that you are a god of peace. In your call to peace, you marked the first murderer in history with a sign that called all to meet him peaceably. In your beatitudes, you bless those who make peace. In your love, you desire that good overcome evil and that all live peaceably with each other; even the lion is to lie down with the lamb. You provide the peace that passes all understanding, and in this peace you arouse a love for our enemies that we could not and would not arouse in ourselves. Therefore, in our demand for justice we dare to cry out even more boldly for your peace. Flood this world with your peace, fill our hearts with the peace that passes all understanding, and call forth from the depths of humanity the love such peace brings so that all may come to the cross and see how you brought real justice and true peace to the world in your Son, Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord. Amen.
Reading: Romans 12:9-21
Almighty God, God of justice and righteousness, God of peace and grace, the world is full of violence and injustice. In the lifetimes of some still living, we have seen two World Wars and the destructive ability of atomic power, plus many more wars and threats of war, a Holocaust and genocides, the rise of international terrorist units and dividing walls, mobs and gangs, riots and revolts, and violence in our own neighborhoods and communities. God, with the voice of Abel’s blood, with the cries of the Israelites in Egypt, in Babylon, and under the Romans, and with the tears of Rachel as she weeps for her children, we dare with a loud voice to demand justice. Evil people and destructive forces have hurt your people too many times, and the injustices wrought on us stop here. LORD God, unleash your justice upon this world, defend the cause of the oppressed, the lowly, and the destroyed. Bring down evil rulers, end systems of violence, and execute judgment upon all our enemies.
Yet, LORD, we know that you are a god of peace. In your call to peace, you marked the first murderer in history with a sign that called all to meet him peaceably. In your beatitudes, you bless those who make peace. In your love, you desire that good overcome evil and that all live peaceably with each other; even the lion is to lie down with the lamb. You provide the peace that passes all understanding, and in this peace you arouse a love for our enemies that we could not and would not arouse in ourselves. Therefore, in our demand for justice we dare to cry out even more boldly for your peace. Flood this world with your peace, fill our hearts with the peace that passes all understanding, and call forth from the depths of humanity the love such peace brings so that all may come to the cross and see how you brought real justice and true peace to the world in your Son, Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord. Amen.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
An Invitation to the Eucharist
The following invitation to the Eucharistic feast is based on Matthew 24:28. Though many ears may be shocked by its language, it is an invitation based on a real biblical image of our gathering around the Son of Man.
Vultures, the lot of you! How dare you flock around this carcass (point at the cross/crucifix), preparing to tear the flesh and blood (point at the communion elements) right off its body!
Come, vultures, to the feast of he who was dead but now is alive and provides life for the world.
Vultures, the lot of you! How dare you flock around this carcass (point at the cross/crucifix), preparing to tear the flesh and blood (point at the communion elements) right off its body!
Come, vultures, to the feast of he who was dead but now is alive and provides life for the world.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Public Church and Public Living
A good portion of this blog this year will encompass reflections upon old writings as I prepare to write my theological model for ministry for constructive theology class. The following is a book review turned rant from the beginning of 2008:
In Public Church for the Life of the World, Cynthia D. Moe-Lobeda presents an exciting and, theologically, a deeply Lutheran-based exposition on the subject of the church being public. Moe--Lobeda does a breathtaking job of expounding on our public calling through our baptismal vows. She reflects upon those things which are both stopping us and helping us be a public church. However, the focus of this review is upon what it looks like to be a public church, along with a mourning of the realities hindering us from fully living in our calling.
The first item Moe-Lobeda lays out for the church is guideposts to living publicly. These guideposts include keeping the heart of the church’s work as worship, the church is shaped by the baptized and their specific life situations, the church will address specific forms of injustice, and the church will keep the good news and its hope alive in public. As part of these guideposts, Moe-Lobeda points out that the enacting of God’s Will will be life-giving as well as possibly dangerous and costly. With these guidepost, Moe-Lobeda claims the church is equipped to provide three things: “public leadership in moral development, leadership in public lament, and public leadership in critique of and resistance to societal wrong, and in the quest for just, compassionate, and sustainable ways of living." In other words, the church is able and, within and informed by God’s will, should put forth public leadership which shapes society, culture, life into God’s vision and publicly resists any changes to the contrary.
The visions Moe-Lobeda puts forth as the calling of the church are deep and resoundingly true. What I lamented the whole time was the reality that I have heard similar words to these for the many years, but when I see others hear these words, especially within our worship, they are comfortable with them in spite of the fact that the Church looks nothing like this vision in public (a generalization, to be sure, but one that is accurate of many local expressions of the Church). The ministries of many congregations of which I have been a part have stayed within the walls, and when they have not, they have been part of vital, but not public life in-breaking ministries.
How do I say this better? Moe-Lobeda struck a chord with me, and I am seeing a stark disconnect between the public ministries and the in-breaking ministries of my faith communities and especially myself with the publicly in-breaking mission Moe-Lobeda puts forth. Ringing bells for the salvation army is a very public ministry, as is caroling. Experiencing a glimpse of life on the edges of society, in Mexico near the borders for example, is an in-breaking ministry, and somewhat public, but not within the society we live in. Few of our ministries seem to become pervasive of our life as a Christian community, particularly when those ministries move beyond supporting those we identify as "in".
I am trying to figure out ministry and God’s Will, as I will be for the rest of my life. However good Stephen’s ministry, soup kitchens, bell ringing is, I see a large disconnect between these activities and the ministries Moe-Lobeda lays out for the church. She defines public as “‘open and accessible’ to all” when used as an adjective and “the domain of human activity that is not simply […] for ‘members only,’ but is focused on the good of all.” I claim her definitions work, but in practice are missing one vital element in order to become “for the life of the world.” In order to be public in life, public must mean actually accessed by those not part of the private. I can claim my ministry is public, but if it is only accessed by the members of my congregation, then it remains, on a group level, private.
There are three more aspects of my problem with the church as it is, using my beloved childhood congregation as an example, and the church as Moe-Lobeda paints it. The first is the sustainability in its ministries. Each year for Christmas we have a Jesse tree. Jesse trees are good ministries and good thoughts, but once Christmas is over the tree is gone and the ministry is done. Sustained from year to year, partly to do good and partly to feel good, it’s not sustained from month to month or day to day. Second is the disconnect between those ministering and the ministered. Ringing bells for the Salvation Army is a good activity, but those ministering never encounter those to whom they are ministering, and therefore never experiences God’s in-breaking in the places where God calls us. Third, there is no public resistance to realities which are against the will of God. Never have I seen my congregation resist anything besides the rumors that its new contemporary ministry (as all ministry should be, I think, by definition of the word contemporary and in light of the theology which says the church is called to minister in its time and in its place) was a cult, which was a self-serving resistance.
In light of all these problems with ministry as it is, I beg the question: what does public ministry – ministry that both claims to be public and acts upon that claim, ministry that addresses life, ministry that does not come and go but sustains in the essence of our being, and ministry that experiences the in-breaking of Christ – look like? How do we move beyond the “feel good” ministries, though they are truly good ministries and should not be overlooked by any means, to life-sustaining, in-breaking, God’s-will fulfilling, and resisting anything against God’s will public ministries?
I pray the leaders of this church have the tools to do this. Now, let’s wrestle with the issue and act upon it. For God’s sake, let’s act upon what we have been preaching for the last two millennia and be God’s hands in the world.
---
This theme has continued to resonate in my life beyond the writing of this review-rant. I am not as pessimistic in my view of the Church and its ministries as I sound above, but I am just as critical. As we will always be striving to be God's in-breaking Kingdom for the world, I believe its important to continual be critical of our ministries and push them towards a great vision of what God is already doing in this world.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
A Prayer for the Passion of Christ
[Move the baptismal waters]
We come here to meet you, Lord. And yet, we know that meeting you means going there. To that place. To the place they are taking you. To the place you are going. We cannot go there; we cannot bear the pain we will find there; we do not have the strength to get there. And even if we, by some flook of nature found our feet taking us within sight of that…that…we would not be able to look at You, though we long to see your face and though we long for you to look at us. No, we cannot go there.
And so we ask something possibly more dangerous than going there. Lord, come here to this place. Meet us here, for we cannot go there to meet you. We know the danger of this request, for in you coming here, we will be taken there, to that place, to that… But we must ask, afraid though we are. Lord, enter this place that your presence might fill us with grace, truth, and love. Amen.
Now hear the Word of the Lord as told by the writer Mark and see the Word of the Lord as portrayed by our companions in worship and service.
[The Passion of Christ is read at this point]
The Word of the Lord
Thanks be to God.
Lord, thank you for being present here. The grace, the truth, the love You have revealed to us in our hearing and in our sight is so light a burden that it is no burden at all, and yet such a heavy weight that it is a bigger cross than we could possibly bear. Lord - linger here a while longer. Stay with us for this little while, for what is eternity to you but a little while? Keep us in your midst, for we fear we have not the strength, the time, or the energy to stay with you. We know these are a lot of request Lord, but we need You. Help us. Save us. Love us.
[Bow]
Thank you Lord. Thank you Lord. Thank you Lord. Amen.
---
Note on this prayer: The prayer was originally written for use during Holy Week in 2009 at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago. The entire Passion as told by Mark was read in the middle of this prayer. During the reading, multiple members of the community painted reflections upon the reading while all those present were invited to reflect upon the Passion from where they sat, while wondering among the stations of the cross, or while watching our local artists in their journey to the cross of Christ.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)