Promises

So How Should We then Read the Bible?

A friend pointed out that my last post, identified a problem but provided no solutions. I must admit, it was a reactive post. I am tired of well-intentioned people chasing "being right" and "being good" rather than chasing God. I am tired of people being alienated from love because of "truth" that is no "Truth" at all because it has no love. I am tired of conservatives and liberals arguing over words, when it is the Word that matters.]

I am aware that many of these discussions are helpful and create some light in a murky world, but I fear that more often than not we miss God through our reasoning together and our apparent need to understand. If all of this is true, then what is our recourse? How do we approach the Scriptures?

Let me suggest some possible guidelines that might help:

1. We need to approach Scipture humbly and with a prayerfully open mind. Rather than trying to become masters of it we need to allow it to master us. Rather than trying to use it to get people to do what we want we need to see what it is saying to us as individuals and to our immediate community. Asking God for help in this endeavor is a great starting point. I try to start my day, "God, what do you have for me today? Help me listen."
2. We try to understand what the original author was attempting to say to his original audience and what that audience would have heard. They are two different things and sometimes we focus on the former forgetting the latter, while the Spirit of God's initial concern is obviously the latter rather than the former. We do this not so much to hem the text in -- if that is what it originally meant than that is surely what it means today..." -- no that would be foolish. We do it in order to create a back drop for understanding what God might be wanting to say to us today in our current situation.
3. Scripture needs to be studied in community. It needs to be studied with the historical community -- those who have gone before and wrestled with the text in their time and culture -- and the current community. Those who are wrestling with it now. This community needs to be both local and global, and voiced need to be heard not necesssarily obeyed. The Word of God to First Baptist is not necessarily the Word of God to First Congregational or First Presbyterian, but the Word of God to those congregations needs to be heard by First Baptist. In a simliar vein, the Word to Johnny's family may not be the same Word that Susie's family needs to hear. And following it further, Maria -- Johnny's daughter may hear a different Word than Malachi, Johnny's son. (One hearsthat they are to be a missionary, the other that she is to be a business woman who supports him. One is a pacifist, the other manufactures guns.) This framework can be problematic but does not have to be. It can be abused and individualised but it does not have to. God is still in the business of speaking to individuals. It is sad that not many of us are in tunewith Him enough to hear His voice as clearly as He would like.

Paul tells us in Colossians that we are to "Let the Word of Christ dwell in us richly..." He doesn't say, "Dwell in the Word of Christ." Insteadm, we are to let it take root in us, become a part of us; in a very real sense, "be in relationship with us." The Psalmist writes, "Your Word I have hidden in my heart," We need to do this. The Word needs to become part of our daily lives rather than merely words on a page placed there to be studied and understood. When the Word becomes a part of us we will find that we argue about it less because it is a part of us. We don't argue about my bald spot or my overweightness. Neither would we argue about Scripture being a part of me. 

I think we would find that if we approached the Word this way, then the different testimonies of the Spirit to us about the Word would bother us less. We would cease using it as a carrot or a stick. We would instead use it to love people and care for people, to speak the Truth to people as we've understood it for our lives that they may find freedom from the bondages that they face. 

I read the Scriptures differently than I used to. It may not be perfect, but it does testify about Perfect, Incredible, Crucified and Risen One. His name is Jesus, and He really digs me. And I really dig Him back.

Satan uses Scripture to control the masses. Jesus uses it to set them free. -- Donald Miller

I read what I wrote below and I sounded angry to myself. I realized that I probably am angry. I kinda think that God might be a little miffed as well. My anger is not directed at the Church. My anger is directed at the system that enslaves her. Miller is right. We've gotten all bound up. We need to learn to be free. So here is my angry treatise:

Inerrancy is one of the foundation stones of the evangelical faith. When you read most baptistic doctrinal statements they don't begin with God. They begin with Holy Scripture. It is so important to the evangelical culture that growing up I heard arguments of why we needed to say, "inerrant" rather than, "infallible" -- "Infallible" wasn't a strong enough descriptor.

In seminary I asked why we didn't start with God -- after all He pre-dates the Scriptures and one would suspect is more important than they are. However, in the evangelical world He takes a back seat. Our thinking was that we had to defend Scripture to defend our positions on God. However, when you put something before God it is always the second thing you lose. 

Evangelicals may not have lost God, but we are heading that direction; limiting Him; not allowing Him to be as big as He wants to be. We limit His communication with us to His special, verbal revelation found in the original manuscripts of the Scriptures. The God who speaks to His people in ongoing dialogue (and did so throughout the Holy Scriptures we fight to call inerrant) seems to be growing evermore silent; at least here in the West. And because God is limited, we seem to be losing the Scriptures as well. 

The evangelical / fundamental doctrine of Scripture as most often formulated something like: "The Bible is the Word of God and is infallible and inerrant in the original manuscripts." We argue, "If we don't say this, then all of Scripture is up for grabs. We can't trust any of it. If it is errant, how can we know that any of it is true? How do we know which parts are without error?" 

The trouble with this argument is that it is a non-starter. When pushed to the limits, the evangelical scholar has a fall back -- "The original documents." The Bible is only inerrant in the orignal manuscripts. The trouble is, we don't have them. We can get get very closeto them and when one compares the many different documents one discovers only minor discrepancies between them, but that means that our documents must be errant. The difference is that with this formulation, we know where they are errant, at least we think we do, and those errors are so small that we can dismiss or control them. But now we have said that the documents we have are errant.

The second problem is that of translation. Hardly anyone, except perhaps, some of the King James Only folk, believe that the translators are divinely inspired, and none of the scriptures were written in English. So now we have a problem that our English Bibles can also contain errors and are errant. To answer this problem, we created a clergy class that could go back to the original languages and let us know what the best translation is. All of a sudden the clergy class hass a reason to exist. 

Some would say that I made a big jump and make it sound like a giant corporate conspiracy theory. I do not think it is. I think it is merely the truth that those with poweer don't like to give it up and hate change. We create apologetics to excuse our behaviours. This is but one convenient one. Do you remember, historically that King Henry VIII had people killed for translating the Scriptures into English. THe Word of God was not to be in the language of the people. That idea was too much of a threat. Inerrancy accomplishes the same ends for those with power. The masses don't know the orignal language and so are a tier down from the clergy.

The third problem is linguistic. Words are symbols of reality. They point at it. The do not contain it or define it. They reveal portions of the infinite. So how can the finite, descibe the infinite perfectly? The short answer is that it can't. Language is limited. It cannot be perfect. It is errant in and of itself. Can errant words become the inerrant Word? I do not believe that they can?

Can the Infinite use the finite to perfectly reveal exactly that which He wants to communicate to His finite creation. I believe He can. But it is He that is perfect. He is inerrant, not the words he uses. They merely point to the Perfect. This is the point of Barth's argument that Scripture is a witness to the Word who is Jesus. All of Scripture points to Him. All of Scripture reveals Him. All scripture is designed to bring us into this all freeing realtionship with Him.

 

 

Two Authorities

From: As Bill Sees It

Many people wonder how A.A. can function under a seeming anarchy. Other societies have to have law and force and sanction and punishment, administered by authorized people. Happily for us, we found that we need no human authorities which are far more effective. One is benign, the other malign. There is God, our Father, who very simply says, "I am waiting for you to do my will." The other authority is named John Barlicorn, and he says, "You had better do God's will or I will kill you."

 << << <<      >> >> >>

 The A.A. Traditions are neither rules, regulations, nor laws. We obey them willingly because we want to. Perhaps the secret of their power lies in the fact that these life-giving communications spring out of living experience and are rooted in love. (1. A.A. COMES OF AGE, P. 105 2. A.A. TODAY, P. 11)

I posted this because of my previous posts on authority. there were so many questions from well-meaning "church people" who simply baulk at the idea of authority that is lived out daily in 12 step rooms. Bill Wilson in his usual crisp and clear manner seems to go to the heart of the matter.

I can't help but think that we have too long neglected the role of the Spirit (cf Jer. 31.31) because of a tradition handed down by earthly authorities that created human authority in reaction to very real problems and confusion left over by a church that was making a mess as it tried to live faithfully in those early centuries. 

Historically speaking, the real problem hit when Contstantine co-opted the church for the State's and his personal gain in the 4th century. In one fell swoop, authority in the church was turned on its head. I realize that more words need to be written on this and after I finish writing on the steps I will certainly revisit the subject.

An Evening to Remember

This was forwarded to me by an old friend: It is definitely worth the read:

What the Graham team continues to communicate with or without words

A few days ago I journeyed to The Cove—the Billy Graham Training Center in Asheville, North Carolina—to participate in a small two-day discussion between pastors and business leaders. After dinner on the first evening, we guests were honored by a visit from Billy Graham, Cliff Barrows, and George Beverly Shea. Barrows is in his eighties, Graham his nineties, and Shea his hundreds (yes, he's 102).

For an hour the three men chatted back and forth, reminiscing on their 65-year partnership in world evangelization. Barrows and Shea sang a few of the songs that were often featured at Graham crusades in the past. They even coaxed Billy into joining them for one of them. The three told many stories and remembered "inside jokes" they'd played on one another. But always the focus of the conversation was their indelible joy over the tens of thousands who had crossed the line into faith in Jesus Christ as a result of their efforts.

Throughout the hour Barrows, Graham, and Shea expressed great affection and appreciation to each other in ways that made us all realize that each was conscious that there might not be another occasion quite like this one when the three of them would be together again. Aging at this advanced point, you must understand, makes moments like these precious beyond understanding.

Watch three men like this who have lived a lifetime of kingdom-service, and you are reminded of the words of E. Stanley Jones who wrote toward the end of his life, "My song is a life-song. Not the temporary exuberance of youth that often fades when middle and old age sets in with their disillusionment and cynicism …. No, I'm 83, and I'm more excited today about being a Christian than I was at 18 when I first put my feet upon the way." Ditto: these three.

As I listened to these remarkable old men speak of God's faithfulness in their lives, my memory went into overdrive.

My first experience with Cliff Barrows—music director and crusade coordinator—came when I was just 16 years old, a student at a New York boarding school. It was 1956, the year of Billy Graham's historic, four-month crusade at Madison Square Garden. On one of those days, a schoolmate of mine and I took the train into the city, found the "Garden," and sneaked in a side door. It was midday and the arena was empty except for one solitary figure sitting on the edge of the stage shuffling papers. It was Cliff Barrows.

When he saw my friend and me, he put his papers aside and swiftly walked in our direction. "I'm Cliff," he said when he reached us. "Welcome to the Garden. Where are you from?" We told him we had come to the city hoping to be part of the event that night. I shall not forget his response.

"Well, let's see how we can make that happen." He took us to the stage where there were three or four rows of chairs right behind the podium. Barrows pointed to those seats. "Where do you think you'd like to sit, second or third row?" We were astonished! And when we realized he was serious, we pointed to two seats in the second row. He immediately took paper and wrote, "Reserved for Gordon MacDonald." Doing the same for my friend, he placed the papers on the seats we had chosen.

"Now let's find a way to get you back into the Garden tonight," he said. Taking us to a small office outside the arena area, he spoke to a security guard. "These two young men need passes for the side door. Please make that happen." And the man did.

When Barrows left us in the following moments, he said, "Now, boys, pray for Mr. Graham tonight while he preaches. That's why I've got you up there."

 

And we did. I think I grew a foot taller and several years older that day, thanks to Cliff Barrows.

Some years later as a seminary student, I had my first chance to meet Mr. Graham personally. "Billy, I'd like you to meet Gordon MacDonald," my introducer said.

I was a 24-year-old scrawny, somewhat unpromising kid, struggling to pass basic seminary courses, and I was one of many being introduced to Billy Graham. What do I remember about that moment? That he fixed his piercing eyes upon me, extended his hand and said, "Mr. MacDonald, it's an honor to meet you." Mr. MacDonald! He addressed me as if I were a peer or someone "superior" to him. Oh, the dignity of the moment for me. For the space of about—I'm guessing—ten seconds, he connected with me and it seemed as if the two of us were the only people in the room. For weeks I bathed in that awesome moment in which this extraordinary man poured value into me. Such a tiny encounter: such an unforgettable moment.

I know it sounds like an exaggeration, but ever since that moment when I shook Billy Graham's hand, I have always tried to replicate that same sense of intensity of interest any time I have been introduced to anyone.

And now, the other evening, I sat and watched three very aged men do their best to make us, we visitors to The Cove, feel welcomed and honored. Their singing was a tad off key. Their words were halting as they taxed their memories for the right ones to express themselves. Their eyesight and their hearing were obviously impaired. Their physical limitations were apparent. But they filled the room with grace, and I was tearful and awed. They are still bringing people to Jesus.

When a godly person grows old—Simeon and Anna in the temple come to mind—and reaches the twilight in a life of faithfulness, there is no need to be musically on key or smooth with words. The fact is that one's Spirit-filled presence is all that is needed to bring others blessing.

When the evening was over, we milled around these three saints trying to offer appropriate words of thanks, snapping pictures with them and with one another, seeking to sort out our own thoughts about what it's like to occupy a small piece of holy ground (or floor in this case) where you are in the presence not of celebrity but of men who have walked with God.

Do you think any more like them are coming down the pipeline?

Gordon MacDonald | posted 5/24/2010

Theology and the Fourth Step

Note: This is a really long post. I am sorry for that. I hope it proves helpful though. I quote extensively from the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous Here. 

I don't think many people other than alcoholics really know what AA, and other fellowships which have followed in its footsteps, teach. This is meant to begin to remedy that. Bob Seger kicks it all off with Lock and Load off "It's a Mystery" released in 1995:

The Second Step Storyline

“The first thing anyone in recovery has to understand is that there is a God and I’m not him,” the old timer reminds anyone who will listen. One lens to read the Scriptures is the lens of the 2^nd step. Following is a brief summation of what I mean.

The story of Genesis makes this point abundantly clear: From the beginning people have wanted to be God, and God doesn’t like it very much. The very first temptation from the serpent to Eve was, “You will be like God, knowing the difference between right and wrong.”

Adam was with Eve when she ate, and according to Paul, he wasn’t deceived, and yet he ate anyway. He chose Eve over God.  A little while later, Cain didn’t like the way God played favourites and so he simply killed his brother, because he knew better than God. God cursed him that he would forever wander and, trying to thwart the curse, Cain built a city. A little later on, we read that people did whatever they wanted. If they saw something they took it. In so doing, they broke God’s heart. People were usurping his role and messing things up. So he sent a flood wanting to start again. It didn’t work. In just a little while, the people tried to build a tower to the heavens to honor themselves. Once again, God stopped them, confusing their languages and scattering them over the earth.

After reading through the first 11 chapters of Genesis a reader has to be nearly blind to not understand that God wants those who follow him to know that He is God and they are not. When we try to ignore that, things get messed up. The last 33 chapters of Genesis, which tell the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their families – the Patriarchs of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity – continue to point out the foolishness of forgetting that people are merely human and God is creator.

Abraham decided that he would sleep with his wife’s servant in order to obtain an heir, and he was willing to pretend Sara was his sister rather than his wife and allow Pharaoh to sleep with her to alleviate his fears.

Jacob’s life was all about trying to be God and manipulating the situation to get whatever he deemed was good for him. His brother and uncle probably thought him a sociopath. It was not until rather late in life, made a cripple that he began to realize and believe that there was a God who loved him more than he loved or hated himself.

When we read about Jacobs kids in the last chapters of Genesis the narrative is littered with examples of his kids trying to be God, manipulating things to go there way. Always the story comes back to the fact of a miraculous intervention by the real God to save the false gods from themselves.

The book of Exodus continues with the message. Moses, a prince in Egypt decides to take the life of an abusive guard. In so doing, he loses his position and spends the next forty years in the dessert learning just how small he really is. Then God asks him to move telling him that he will go with him and he plays god again – this time the self effacing, false humble god, “O no, I’m not good enough. I know better than you…” god role. He still thought he could dictate to God how things were to go. It is not the action of a humble man. It is the action of a broken man still full of himself.

Reading through the rest of the Pentateuch the story of the nation of Israel’s attempts at godhood are revealed, and shown to fall short of their lofty intent. We see God’s response to people, trying to help them be human rather than god. We see his love in letting them become who he made them to be rather than to continue striving to be something they never could be.

Joshua and Judges continue in the same vein.  And then Ruth tells the story of someone who was willing to let God be God and the blessing they received. 1^st and 2^nd Samuel, 1^st and 2^nd Chronicles, and 1^st and 2^nd Kings, go back to the narrative of Israel trying to be god and failing. Inside the narrative, the reader gets story after story of men and women all falling into the same trap and needing God to show up simply to continue breathing. The examples are too numerous to expound.

So we could go on, book after book, throughout the Old Testament testifying to that same truth, “There is a God and Humans and nations aren’t him and can’t become him despite their best efforts!”  

And so the New Testament begins, perhaps to tell the story of God coming to show us how to be us since we can’t be him. Maybe that is one way to view Jesus. God become man to teach us how to be man. (Pardon the sexist language.) “If you want to save your life, you have to lose it.” It is exactly what he did. And even as he laid his life down, His Father gave back a new life to him that was better than the human life he had before.

The theologian in me wants to scream all sorts of cautions at this moment, but I need to stay with this version of the story as being one of the storylines of Scripture. It is, if you’ll grant me the freedom to say so, “The second step storyline.”

Re-thinking Authority

 It was about that time that the mother of the Zebedee brothers came with her two sons and knelt before Jesus with a request.

"What do you want?" Jesus asked.

She said, "Give your word that these two sons of mine will be awarded the highest places of honor in your kingdom, one at your right hand, one at your left hand."

Jesus responded, "You have no idea what you're asking." And he said to James and John, "Are you capable of drinking the cup that I'm about to drink?"

They said, "Sure, why not?"

Jesus said, "Come to think of it, you are going to drink my cup. But as to awarding places of honor, that's not my business. My Father is taking care of that."

When the ten others heard about this, they lost their tempers, thoroughly disgusted with the two brothers. So Jesus got them together to settle things down. He said, "You've observed how godless rulers throw their weight around, how quickly a little power goes to their heads. It's not going to be that way with you. Whoever wants to be great must become a servant. Whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave. That is what the Son of Man has done: He came to serve, not be served — and then to give away his life in exchange for the many who are held hostage."-- Matt 20:20-28  (from THE MESSAGE: The Bible in Contemporary Language © 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson. All rights reserved.)

 

Working through this series on the 12 traditions of AA and the church is good for me. I am struck by some of the responses to it, and have been forced to think through what I see as different in how in general terms the church is organized[1] and how AA is organized. One post even garnered a response in a friend’s blog. You can read it here along with my initial response to his criticisms.

I’m struck by the taught dichotomy between the direct teachings of Jesus and the teaching of Paul and the apostles to the NT church. It seems to me, and I could be off base here, that we can’t simply dismiss the teaching of Jesus about authority in favor of a more Hellenistic understanding of authority that modern teachers get from Paul.

Jesus had a bunch of people following him because they thought Jesus was going to make them a “somebody”. He repeatedly pushed back against the idea.

·                  “If you want to be first you have to be last…” (Mt 19)

·                  “If you want to save your life you have to lose it” (Mt 10 & 16, Mk 8, Lk 9 & 17)

·                  “Take up your cross and follow me.” (Mt 16, Mk 8, Lk 9)

·                  “But the greatest among you shall be your servant.” (Mt 23)

·                  “If anyone among you wants to be first, they must be last of all and servant of all” (Mk 9)

·                  “The one who is the greatest among you, must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.” (Lk 22)

Later in the Biblical story Paul was helping a small often struggling church organize in world that didn’t seem to want it around. He fought against people that questioned his apostleship. He battled some really weird and wonderful heresies, and people who took authority in the church to lead it astray.

The New Testament church is encouraged to appoint elders & deacons. And apparently they are to at the very least “care for and apply themselves to” their congregations. Six times Paul uses the Greek word: proïst¢mi which means – “direct, be at the head of, manage; care for; apply oneself to”[2]. as he speaks about Church leadership. It is funny how we automatically jump to the conclusion that Paul must be telling those men to “rule”, “manage”, or “direct” their congregations,

Paul and Jesus don’t have to be at loggerheads on this issue. Paul could simply be urging his elders in light of what Jesus said to apply themselves to and care for the congregations give over to their care.

This is not a question of authority. Jesus had authority. He taught with authority, He healed with authority. He forgave sins which took authority. He cast out demons authoritatively. He even raised the dead. Jesus had authority. And then in Mat 28 he gave that authority to his followers. John spells it out a little differently. “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” (Jn 20)

Jesus personified the bullet list above. He was the servant. He came as a babe, and grew up among the people to the point that many rejected him because he was too familiar. He had been a lad playing in the street in their midst. He was last. He took up his cross and forfeited his life. Then he told his disciples – the 12 apostles to go the way he came to them.

Jesus had authority but it was not his own. It came from the Father and manifested itself through the Spirit of God working through him. The disciples also had authority but it was not because of their position as apostles. Like Jesus, it was because of the Spirit which indwelt them. Too often today, church leaders have authority because of their position. They are like the disciples seeking to sit on the right and the left of Jesus in his Kingdom. “Jesus, aren’t you lucky to have me,” they utter under their breath so that no one, including themselves might hear.

AA leaders have authority but it is not their own. Their authority is simply the twelve steps and twelve traditions, what has been given to them by those that came before them.

I pondered authority in the 12 step rooms. There is authority there. Sponsors have incredible authority in the lives of their sponsees. One NA old timer told the story of being told to get a haircut twice within an hour by his sponsor simply because his sponsor didn’t like the first one he got and wanted to see how willing the sponsee was. That sponsor probably abused his authority in that instance, but similar stories are not uncommon in recovery rooms.

A major difference between that sponsor and the abusive pastor is that the sponsor didn’t ask to sponsor the sponsee. The sponsee asked him to sponsor him and gave him whatever authority he had. In the church, “sponsors” (pastors) look for “sponsees” (disciples), taking authority over them in direct disobedience to Jesus. In recovery, sponsees look for sponsors, giving authority to them.

Being a sponsor is no fun. You start with a completely self obsessed, hurting, grandiose, childish, and oversensitive person calling you every day and telling you all the stuff that is going through their crazy, often disgusting minds. Sponsors sponsor to remember the craziness that used to flow around in their cranial cavity. They do it because they know that the only way that they can hope to hang onto all the gifts that they have been given is to give them away. They do not do it for the position of authority it gives them in another human being’s life. It is a lot of painstaking thankless work. They do it in order to learn to love. And teach others to love.

Too often I fear that pastors find their authority, not given by God but by the nature of their position. This is the problematic authority which has ruled much of the church for much of its history. It is the authority that leads to spiritual abuse, manipulation and destroys lives. It is what is visible to a world that distrusts anything associated with the church.

It is in contrast to the authority of Jesus which was not / is not problematic. Jesus never tried to force his ways upon anybody. He never once tried to control another human or tried to manipulate them into behaving in a way that he thought would be better for them. That was not the authority he practiced. He did not manage his disciples but rather won them over with attraction rather than promotion. We need to get back to this kind of authority.

And what I now think is true, is that the model of AA helps facilitate a Jesus leadership more than a historic church model which has proven to be Machiavellian too many times.

---

[1]  Historically the church has caused kingdoms to fight wars over how they think churches are to be organized so I can only speak in general terms. A congregational church in New England organizes itself differently from a Church of England congregation in Yorkshire, and we haven’t yet addressed the Presbyterians in the Midwest United States or the Methodists in the Deep South, house churches in Forest Grove, OR, independent Baptists in Florida or Charismatics in Michigan, Lutherans in Washington DC, or Catholics in Rome, or the Plymouth Brethren in Arizona. When I speak in terms of “organization” I am speaking in the broadest possible categories of understanding authority and governing.

[2] from Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament © 1990 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved

Bailing out the Economy

Perhaps the following email made it to your inbox:

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG. Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend. To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bona fide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up. So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00. My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let's assume a tax rate of 30%. Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam. But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife has $595,000.00 (sic) . What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family? Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved. Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads. Put away money for college - it'll be there. Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs. Buy a new car - create jobs. Invest in the market - capital drives growth. Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves. Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else.

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces (sic). If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( 'vote buy' ) economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President.

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+! As for AIG - liquidate it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to being American General. Sell off the real estate. Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up. Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't. 

Sure it's a crazy idea that can 'never work.' But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party! How do you spell Economic Boom? I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion.
We Deserve It Dividend more than do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC. And remember, my plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.

On the surface seems like a great idea… I wouldn't mind $595,000.00 in Shell's and my account. I wouldn't mind Dad having an additional $297,000.00. We could pay off the house and still have money left over. Our issue would be solved…

Or would it? Wouldn't money be devalued? If everyone has that kind of money, money is worth less than it otherwise would be. Giving money away doesn't solve anything really. Ron Paul is correct,

Grabbing hold of the Charisma

OK, so I married a Foursquare girl. She has no official theology of the Spirit...only an experience.

Back in my reformed days, which in all practicality means before 2006, I self labeled myself a reformed charismatic Anglican. Though I no longer worship in an Anglican community, I still consider myself to be one... Though I don't worship in a Charismatic community I still consider myself to be one. Though rationalistically (or perhaps modernically -- how about that new word) I still would be considered to be reformed, experientially I am not.

I really miss the thoughtful liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer. I also really miss the use of all the gifts in worship. (I haven't been party to those being used for many a year now.) An emergent pastor here in Portland stated that he didn't see that anyone would really be interested in a Charismatic emergent church -- that there would be little to no target audience. I think he missed the point.

Though we live in a world of mystery and the unknown, post-modernism really still is an age of skepticism and rationality. We focus on experience -- our experience -- and if something falls outside of that experience we tend to discount it.

With all the excesses and abuses of the Pentecostal movement, the emergent church community tends to rightly be skeptical. Having said that, I really believe that they are not only missing the point, they are missing God in the process.

Over the past seven years I have grown to know a God who truly transforms lives and offers his good gifts to those who are willing to surrender to him. Who in their right mind wouldn't want that?

I am hoping that as we get more involved with Tree of Life Church and the Jesus People that make up the congregation, we will find a synergy of life changing power and post modern expression of that  power that will take root and become something more than anything I have known. We will see what God has... This is his call...

Distancing Oneself From Jeremiah Wright

The cynic in me wonders how much of this is orchestrated... But for what it is worth...

When the story of Jeremiah Wright first broke and Obama gave that incredible speech on race in America. I stood up in front of my TV and cheered for him much in the way I stood up in my living room when Senator Mark O Hatfield stood up before the Senate proclaiming, "I will not vote for war now, nor will I vote for war later..." and was the solitary vote against the first Gulf war... Obama's gutsy move in that speech had the same effect for me.

From the first clips of Wright saying, "God damn America..." I couldn't figure out what the issue was. After all he was giving voice to the African American experience of this nation.

While the pilgrims were trying to create, "a city on a hill," or "a new Jerusalem," Africans were being imported as slaves to build our pyramids. An African American theological image is not of a city on the hill but of the Exodus and God calling the people out of bondage and slavery. An African American pastor as prophet and preacher needs to call the evils of the enslaving society into the open Wright did that.

I don't agree with Wright about Aids or Farrakan, But I don't despise him either and wouldn't repudiate his words as Obama has done -- at least not publicly.

Is what Wright said so much different from what Falwell and Robertson said about God's judgment and 9-11? He is  giving voice to a minority opinion. Lets not crucify him for it. Instead lets try to heal the wounds which caused him to say it in the first place.