Promises

For those who know better, these days need you to be better

In my second year of grad school, our Therapy professor introduced my cohort to the work of Margaret Crastnopol who studied and wrote about psychic micro-trauma. She spent two hours with us presenting a paper and then took questions about her theoretical construct and how we could better work with those with our clients who were cracked or broken because of micro-trauma in their life.

Her work naturally follows in the wake of a similar book on micro-aggressions, by Derald Wing Sue who wrote, Microaggressions in Everyday Life. While micro-traumas are not necessarily the result of micro-aggressions, they are connected. Micro-traumas are the bi-product of recurring small traumas. One helpful metaphor is Chinese water torture. For micro-trauma functions in a similar vein. It is the result of repeated, ongoing small traumas; indifference; low-level emotional, spiritual or verbal abuse; prolonged emotional abandonment; or unintentional, recurring micro-aggressions. Dictionary.com defines Micro-aggressions as,"A subtle but offensive comment or action directed at minority or other non-dominant group that is often unintentional or unconsciously reinforces a stereotype and/or,the act of discriminating against the non-dominant group by means of such comments or actions." 

I fear that many of us are suffering micro-traumas as a result of this completely inane election cycle. And I believe that social media is only compounding the problem. It has become a hotbed of micro-aggression. People's feeds resemble their personal culture and ideologies. Anything outside of their worldview is unwelcome. Using this standard, when people post hateful things, those posts reach the level of being micro-aggressions.

It is people on the political right who distrust academia who seem to struggle with the construct of micro-aggression and micro-trauma the most. Surprisingly, though, micro-aggressions are not limited to the conservative right. We see them within many of the reactive movements that stand against the abusive, systemic powers that conservatives support.

This mutated election cycle, with all of its craziness, has led to not only micro-aggressions but full on assaults on whole demographics by people from both sides. We are truly a fractured nation. What caught me off guard is the scope of the assaults that both sides seem more than willing to perpetrate against the other.

If you look to the right, Mr. Trump and his talking heads apparently enjoy attacking those who oppose them. Let's face it; their strategic offense is offensive. The only way to avoid their ire is to agree with them or avoid them. On the stump, Mr. Trump has lumped hard-working illegal immigrants with rapists and murderers. There is no room in his worldview to obey biblical commands to welcome the alien and the stranger. Likewise, his misogyny is on display nearly every day at every rally he attends. One doesn't have to read too far into the text to see he would have thrown the first stone at the woman caught in adultery, and that he would never have spoken to the woman at the well (except to command her to serve him). He is intentionally and strategically offensive. He is unapologetic and generates tribalism among his followers that is at best, frightening -- and at worst. lethal. 

What surprised me recently, however, is that the other side (though not as course and blatant) is just as deadly and intentional in their attacks on their enemies. When Secretary Clinton referred to half of Mr. Trump's supporters as "deplorables," she not only created a circle of hate; she created an apologetic for it. For, it is not wrong to hate deplorable things. Her allowance of hatred of the deplorables opens the door for all sorts of propaganda that twists and distorts the truth, further inflaming Mr. Trump's supporters. She continues to create an atmosphere that is unwelcoming and damning of anyone who dares to challenge her. This one misspoken phrase reveals much of the character and strategy of the Democratic party.

My Facebook feed is full of articles attempting to argue that it is impossible to oppose Secretary Clinton without being a misogynistic, racist, gay-hater. No longer is it merely Mr.Trump's supporters who are all those things. And now, it is anyone who opposes the former Secretary of State. In me at least, it has backfired, making Mr. Trump more palatable; and that realization disgusts me. I don't want shit ever to taste like anything I'd want to eat.

It has been common in this country to dehumanize your political opponents. There is nothing new in that. I may not like it, but I've grown accustomed to it. What feels different in this election is the attempt to dehumanize the followers of your political opponent. While conservatives blast the intelligence of the progressives (which is irony at its best); the progressives (I will no longer call them liberals -- for the word denies them entrance into its fraternity) blast right back. They do so more subtly and with longer words containing more syllables, but they do it nonetheless. Each side is attempting to dehumanize the other. 

The thing that most breaks my heart, however, is when my classmates and friends from my seminary who sat in lectures with me about micro-aggression and micro-trauma; who worship the same Jesus who we read about in the Holy Scriptures, violate their call to heal. They do so by tearing down those who disagree with them; dehumanizing them and making them, "less than." I want to believe that their micro-aggression is unintentional and that if they realized that they were creating micro-traumas in people, they would stop.

As people who claim to follow Jesus -- who urged anyone who would listen to him to repent and live in the Kingdom of Heaven; we are called to be Kingdom people. I don't care if you vote for Mr. Trump, Sec. Clinton, Gov. Johnson, Ms. Stein, Sasquatch, or my wife (her campaign slogan is: "No bad beer," BTW). For nearly all of us who live in Oregon and Washington, our votes don't matter. Our States' electors are already set. There is no urgency in this part of the country. We are still going to have conversations with others -- in particular with those whose hope rests in the temporary government of the USA. The way we have the conversation reveals how much we love our enemies; how willing we are to trust Jesus when he urges us to turn the other cheek. It reveals to which Kingdom we belong.

We are to be "salt and light." We are to care for the orphans, the widows, the aliens, and strangers (see refugees). We are to beat guns into plowshares and turn weapons into art which gives life rather than taking it. We are to feed the hungry, turn the other cheek, care for the grocery clerk or the gas station attendant who serves us. We are to bring life, joy, hope, peace, faith, and self-control to our world. It kinda needs it right now, don't you think? 

As long as we are focused on tearing down the intelligence of our political opponents, our focus is not where it needs to be. We can and need to demonstrate to the world how to disagree with each other and still love and respect one another. We can (and are called to live in the Kingdom of Heaven while we navigate this world's, wars, hurricanes, tornados, mudslides, earthquakes, raging fires, hunger and poverty,, racism, militarism, consumerism, individualism, and even elections. 

I recognize that there is a certain irony to this post. I hope in its current form there aren't any unseen micro-aggressions left. I think I also removed all the outright aggression as well. I don't want to shame anyone into trying to love better. Though sometimes I try. 

I don't write to discourage people from supporting their candidate of choice, or following their conscience and not voting at all. I write, wanting the conversation to shift, love to come to the forefront, and Christians to remember -- not only that they are royalty but that they are already residents of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Thanks for help along the way

The past three years required me to spend over 40 days either in a cage (car) or on my bike commuting over 31,000 total miles to that little fishing village to the north of Portland to attend classes. I also spent over 100 nights with friends who allowed me to crash "at their pad." I owe a lot of thanks to a lot of people whose generosity made my degree affordable

Mary, Joel, River, Orien, Anna & Cannon, Maren & Ben, Alicia, Kevin, Cam and Kristen, Judy, Lori & Todd, Victoria, Maria, Jacqueline & Jack and Jay; I can't repay you guys. Your gifts of time and yourselves -- your apartments and homes -- food and fellowship. Wow... May you be richer in the Kingdom because of your faithfulness. May you know His smile, exercise His faith and know His joy. May all His blessings be yours. Thanks.

I also want to thank Rebecca and Nichole for the times we were able to carpool north together. Nic, who often kept me company when I was able to pick him up in Tacoma to ride north --  Buddy, our journey together at the Seattle School is truly a story to be told. I look forward to traveling with you a long way, wherever the Lord takes us to live and work in His Kingdom. I also need to thank the Washington State Patrol for only pulling me over and issuing me two tickets (both while I was driving a cage). And the City of Seattle who issued a lot of parking tickets but only got paid for one (wife's car).

And then yesterday, I didn't mention some important people at the school when I spoke of endings: Paul Steinke -- may I ever get to refer to you as my abbot. Your wisdom and love have empowered Paula and me to new paths and hopes. You are a gift to the Kingdom and those under your care. Cheryl Goodwin, I would have only passed half of my classes if it weren't for your patient work with me to teach me to research. You give librarians everywhere a good name. You made the library one of my favorite places to be. Your very presence gave me confidence. Presence matters -- you are living proof of that. Kristen Houston, thanks for helping me navigate courses, think through options and make wise choices. Thanks also for bites of chocolate whenever I came to see you. Dan Tidwell, you are a man I wish I knew better. I can't clearly identify all that you gave me. Somehow, as I heard your story, as I listened to your passions and poured out some of my questions and hurts, I knew you got it, and you get it. I could and should include you with the three early AI's I list below, but you get your own line item. Thanks for becoming my friend.

Vanessa, Tim & Chris: you are the heart and soul of teaching students your craft. You helped the soul artisan in me learn how to enter in, and experience and offer people freedom and voice. Borrowing from John Bowlby, you taught me how to, "Feel things, I was never given permission to feel, think things I was never given permission to think, and do things that I was never given permission to do." In so doing, you empowered me to do likewise. Without you three, I'd know a lot and not be able to do much of anything. Thank you. May your blessing of me be passed on to those I am privileged to serve.

There is a whole other group of people that often go unnamed. They are the Assistant Instructors -- the graders of the papers -- the sages of the classroom -- the answerers of all questions -- and the solvers of technological issues. 

Mallory, Hailey, and Dana -- the three of you made me better as I struggled to be an old man in graduate school. I write better because of you; I think better because of you; I have more confidence because of you. Those are beautiful gifts to be given. Carin, Joe, Mike, Elise, Phil, and Katie,  -- you took the work my early AI's began and pushed me further. I am grateful beyond words. And all of you entered into my story and blessed it and blessed me. 

I get to carry you each with me into what is now the back-half of my life, and I am grateful

You Remember that time?

So you know that moment when you are totally drenched from rain that is hitting you like a thousand needles being driven into your face as you keep telling yourself, “If I ride a little faster, I can dodge the raindrops that aren’t supposed to be falling at all? Yeah that moment earlier tonight on my way home from Seattle to Portland…

God and I had a conversation as the rain came down and my body temperature dropped. I was not equipped for rain today. And I was asking him a couple of things:

1. That I would find a way to be grateful for my soaking. I ended up deciding that I was grateful for it because it was teaching me how to be grateful for the damndest things.
2. For the person I was trying to blame for my getting caught to find peace and love today. They were not the reason I was caught in the down pour. My own thoughtlessness was the reason I was caught in the down pour and I didn’t want to hold myself accountable. It felt easier to blame someone else. I had to give that up and so I prayed for them to have what I wanted. I prayed for them until I meant the words I prayed. This one wasn’t so difficult
3. And I apologized for trying to manipulate him by my choices to pray and, “surrender.” I realized I started my prayers not so much because I was trying to connect with God as much as I thought that maybe if I paid attention to Him, He’d turn off the faucet. I am grateful that I am aware of my attempts to manipulate God. I don’t think it really fazes him one way or the other. It is more a testimony of how I am, and want to be no longer… “I am now ready that you should have all of me, good and bad…”

And in the midst of these prayers I became incredibly grateful for the man who taught  me to pray in such a way; who called me to be the kind of man that could finish a year at The Seattle School; who taught me how to live in spite of my best efforts toward destruction. He and I don’t walk the same path any longer and I am sad about that, and I am eternally grateful that God would place this non-Trinitarian /non-Christian in my life to teach me about Jesus and what it means to follow Him. I still remember telling him, “David, I find it remarkable that God has chosen to use you to teach me more about Jesus than I ever learned in Sunday School or seminary; but then again, if He can use an ass to speak to the Israelites, I’m sure he can use you to speak to me.” I’m here in large part because David listened to God and then gave me what he had been given by another who went before him.

For too much of my life I limited God. He could only speak through approved channels: The Bible and/or a Bible believing (and by that someone that believes the Bible the way I do) pastor or friend. God was small and I was scared. I’m still learning that He is bigger than I can possibly imagine. (Kant was at least right about that.) He can speak through whatever means He chooses. He can even speak through a Unitarian/Universalist or King JAmes only fundamentalist. The trouble is not that He isn’t speaking, but that I don't listen because I don’t believe he speaks that way or through that medium. And so I miss out.

The rain didn’t stop, and God gave me one of the most glorious sunsets I have ever seen, complete with a rainbow on the other side of the freeway. I laughed so hard at His glory that I had to bring my speeding bike back under control. I have a strong feeling that He was laughing with me.

Peter Grieg's book Disappoints Me

Occasionally I will write something for school that I think is worthy of further dissemination. I will adapt those papers for the blog and post them. Here is my response to Peter Grieg's book, God on Mute (Eastbourne, Sussex, England, David C Cook, 2007)

Often one goes to a movie with such high expectations that even though it’s a good movie, it disappoints because expectations were not met, having been set too high to begin with. This
is what happened to me with Grieg’s book, God on Mute. Having read the forward, by Brian McClaren, my expectations were too high. I wanted something new coming from a post-foundationalist author who would provide new ways of talking about prayer in an ultra-subjective and skeptical age. Grieg did not accomplish this. Occasionally he would tease me with what it could be but never get there.

He formed his book around the rhythms of Holy Week. It was not until chapter twelve that I understood why. In chapter 12 he touches on the reality that we still inhabit the Kingdom of the “already / not yet.” We have not reached Easter morning in our own lives. Our resurrection and the final answers to our prayers will not be realized until that day. True and complete resurrection
still awaits us and so to expect that we should not inhabit a world of death somehow misses the point.[1] I need to be continually to be reminded of this truth and Grieg did so beautifully. This alone probably makes the book worth reading. I only wish all of it was as engaging.

In his chapter entitled, “God’s War,” Grieg retells the story of Jesus’ conversation with Peter.
It was in this conversation that Jesus informs Peter that he is going to deny him. Grieg gets so close to a truth about prayer but never gets there in this chapter. He states, “…sometimes instead of delivering you immediately from evil, Jesus will intercede for you in the midst of your trials.”[2]
I so wanted him to flesh this thought out and wanted to scream that he didn’t do so. For this small prayer seems to be the model of His prayers for his people --  not to take them out of the world but to help them live well and love well in the world which they inhabit.[3] Grieg is clear. God will not override his creation’s free will but he will strengthen those who live in this broken world.[4]
I wanted him to finish the thought but he didn’t.

Nowhere does Grieg challenge the types of prayers I pray, asking God to change my circumstances. Nowhere does he challenge me to pray to trust and be changed by the one who is in control and who will not bring me only so far and then drop me.

Grieg missed an opportunity to help me see that maybe God is silent because I want to use Him as a giant, cosmic “fix-all.” (Though he kind of gets there in his final chapters) I wanted him to re-direct me to see that God wants me to pray so he can change me – rather than all the things that I want him to change in the world. The problem isn’t out there in the big, bad world. The problem is inside of me. He wants to change me. He wants to help shape me into His image and likeness.

God wants me to pour out my heart and desires to him without me demanding that He act in ways I think are best. He wants me to humbly ask Him to give me the faith, the sight, and the courage to receive whatever my world is giving me as a gift so that He can change and mold me to join the resurrection throng.

Having been so dismissive of Grieg, I am grateful for his final stories of God’s love and his suffering with us: hanging with a boy, executed by his Nazi captors,[5] or despairing with a grieving husband who lost his wife, after a life full of loss,[6] or hurting alongside an old woman suffering with migraines for the majority of her life.[7] For although these stories may not provide the hope I demand; they provide solace, and in that solace there is peace in the midst of the suffering.

I wanted Grieg to realize that the eschatological hope he points us all to – a real,tangible, bodily hope [8]– can begin now, but he didn’t. I wanted him to call us to ask God to help us see things His way. But he didn’t. I wanted him to let us know that through prayer, and prayer alone, eternal life really and truly can begin now, as we trust The Spirit to work things out His way and to bring us through the fires that will undoubtedly last until our final breaths, so that we will be transformed into His likeness.

I talked to a skeptic that also read the book. Their perspective was that it only gave, “Sunday school answers to hard questions.” I wanted more than that because McClaren promised more than that.[9]
I didn’t get it. I wanted more than He gave. I hoped this book would be as helpful as Bingham Hunter’s The God Who Hears,[10] but it was not. And in that I am disappointed.

 

 

---

[1]
Peter Grieg, God on Mute,  300-315

[2] Ibid.,
p.  209

[3]
See John 15-17, Jesus’ prayer for us.

[4] Grieg,
192-193

[5] Ibid.,
p. 253

[6] Ibid.,
p. 256

[7] Ibid,.
p, 259

[8] Ibid.,
p. 305-307

[9] Grieg,
p. 12

[10]
Bingham Hunter, The God Who Hears.

Why On Earth Are You Going There: A Conversation About the Seattle School

People seem to be scratching their heads over my choice to commute to The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology to complete my MACP degree. It is, afterall, over a 325 mile round trip. Why spend Monday to Wednesday in that dreaded city to the north when we have a fantastic school here in the metro area -- George Fox University, and other options at Multnomah University and Western Seminary as well.

I can't give a clear linear and logical answer. I do know that, in my spirit I became convinced of the rightness of the decision yesterday in our all day orientation. I know there are times I will hate the place, but for now, I really dig the school's ethos.

The first reason I chose the school was Dan Allender. I first met Dr Allender in the early 80's when he was tooling around the country with Dr. Larry Crabb. I attended the Institute for Biblical Counseling somewhere in Michigan and then spent a week in Colorado Springs at the Advanced Institute. I found him to be brilliant, if not a bit reserved and distant. His books, Wounded Heart and Bold Love, written with Tremper Longman were well-used and much appreciated. He and Dr Crabb were formative in my early ministry years.

In 1993 I was a hair breadth away from studying with Dr. Crabb in Colorado. Instead I choose to come home to Oregon, got married and divorced. Started a ministry; and then blew up in a splendid display of narcissistic fireworks.

I needed the journey I've taken to prepare me for this. In an email, my brother called me a white washed sepulchre. He was being too kind. I'm not white washed at all. I needed my journey to figure that out. Dr Allender and The Seattle School welcome broken travellers. If they didn't, I wouldn't be there. I only tend to hang with the broken these days.

Another reason I chose The Seattle School is its tag phrase, "Come study at the intersection of text, soul, and culture."  If I am forced to label myself, I call myself a "post-evangelical." The Seattle School doesn't seem to mind. It seems to welcome confused sojourners like me.

Foundationalism was great for the modern age butI find it to be wholly insufficient an epistomology for the digital age. Though in no way am I a dyed-in-the-wool post-modern, I believe in a relational, and therefore undefinable, epistomology.

The Seattle school roots itself in a narrative/relational theology. It is a safer place for me to explore and expand what I am already learning.

My friend, Mike Munk, told me a long time ago that I wasn't allowed anymore paradigm shifts. They do seem to come at me in bunches. I moved from Fundamental Baptist, to reformed Baptist, to charismatic/reformed baptist, to charismatic house church/reformed/bapistic pastor, to Episcopalian, to semi-Barthian/neo-reformed/sacramental/charismatic/baptistic house church guy...

...Or to put it another way,  I am simply confused...

It is funny that the older I get -- and going back to school with a bunch of twenty somethings has a way of making me feel old -- the less I really know. I'm hoping that my time at the Seattle School will help me learn even less -- because really, when it comes down to it, all that really matters is loving Jesus with everything I've got, and being so loved by Him that I am able to, in the power of the Spirit, love the Father's world as a part of His body. I have a feeling my time at the Seattle School will help me do just that.

I'm looking foward to this journey with some strangers that undoubtedly will become friends. Let the paradigm shifts commence. I Start class next Wednesday.

Thinking about the Kingdom

Twenty-two years ago in the Homewood Suites conference room, Leighton – or one of his minion – asked the twenty two of us to come up with a definition of the Kingdom of God. I was paired with a crazy Texan named Bob Roberts ( I kid you not, that is his name). Bob had a English bull dog named Bluebell (but that is another story.)

The thing I like most about Bob is that he loves Jesus and not a hell of a lot matters past that. It also helped that whenever I hung out with him I was continually laughing.

The exact definition we came up with is buried in a notebook in a box in my garage. But the essence of what we wrote was that the Kingdom of God existed wherever the rule of God was present. We were a lot more eloquent but that is the substance of what we said.

Recently, I read a post Bob wrote on his blog: www.glocal-net.com. He wrote about the role of the Spirit in Church planting, and in discipleship. So, I’d like to offer the following definition of the Kingdom in light of what we said so long ago, what Bob wrote the other day, and what I now believe about the people of God:

The Kingdom of God exists where the people of God invite the Holy Spirit to enable and empower  them to together be the love of God as one people, even as God is one.

Man, trying to say the right thing in a theologically correct way is hard. I guess I am gearing up for seminary. Let me try to expound on the statement: The Kingdom of God can only exist where the Spirit enables and empowers it. Without the Spirit’s intervention we are condemned to a life of isolation and narcissism. The Spirit’s job is to help us mirror back to God his eternal triune relationship. That reflection is the Kingdom. That reflection is our calling. That reflection is our hope. That reflection is only possible in concert with the Spirit and other disciples walking with us toward Jesus.

So if God is all those things, why evil?

There is a question that I have no good answer to. I need to acknowledge that fact here. I’m stymied by it. Some of the best classroom and roundtable discussions in my college and seminary career adressed it. And no one has satisfactorily answered it for me, and partially because of it, I’ve stopped trying to argue that my theological position is the right one. I believe it is, but I don’t know it is. I live as if it is. But this question throws a monkey wrench into the works and it doesn’t make sense.

It is the question of evil. There are many different ways to ask the question. For me, the way I need to ask it is: “If God is all that was, and God is good, and nothing is that wasn’t created by him, where did selfishness and sin come from?”

Traditional theology teaches (and quite honestly I have not done much in depth study of these things) that before God created the universe and all that is in it, He created the angels. At some point Lucifer, an arch angel,  decided he wanted to be God and he and those he could rally behind him were beaten by God and cast out of heaven. They are who people traditionally refer to as “Satan” and the demons. The biblical story has him being the one who tempts Adam and Eve to rebel against God.

With that framework, we understand that we were made with freewill and God used Satan to tempt us so that ultimately we would choose Him rather than our selfish desires which are defined as being evil. This is further complicated by the biblical testimony of Isaiah who writes, “I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these things.” (Is 45:7) The King James Bible translates it this way: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].”

Those are some pretty heavy words. One of my high school teachers first pointed them out to me and I have not been able to get away from them since. So I will return the favour and give them to you.

Given the ultimate question is without answer let's look at some of the present day issues: When there is a disease like AID’s that is primarily – but not wholly – caused by choices we make that run counter to the way God created us to behave, it is no wonder that things go wrong. Let me ask a simple question: “If all people chose to be completely monogamous, having only one sexual partner for all of their lives, what would happen to this most deadly of diseases? And how sexy is that? No one but your spouse ever sees you naked and no one but you ever sees your spouse naked. That has to be pretty extremely sexy. (But that is another topic altogether)

My left wing friends don’t like that statement of fact but it is absolutely true. Let’s talk about heart disease. If we stopped being gluttonous and eating the crap we do, how would it affect the heart disease rates? Let’s talk about diabetes. What would happen if w became more active and less lethargic as a nation, eating better and moving away from our sloth. Do you think it might have an
effect on diabetes as a disease. We can go down a whole list of diseases and see that if we simply lived more in line with how God asked us to live we wouldn't face many of the diseases we do to the extent that we do.

While these changes wouldn’t eradicate disease, it would sure put a dent in them. So there is a partial explanation for a partial problem. We haven’t gotten to hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, tsunamis and the like. Natural disasters occur all the time. They are becoming more frequent. Some environmentalists add many weather related disasters to the list above and talk about how our choices to burn fossil fuels are fueling the drastic weather patterns and severe weather we are experiencing. They may be partially right but even those changes don’t explain the earthquakes and the tsunamis that are the result of them. Calamity seems to strike without warning. People die daily from natural disasters that seem wholly unnatural. Where does this evil come from? Why does God allow it? Why did God create it?

Those are the macro-disasters -- the katrina's and Sandy's --What do you say to your friend that has just been beaten up by their parents, or raped by their boyfriend, or their boyfriend’s friends? What do you say to the class reject that can’t go through a day without being taunted for any number of things that may or may not be in their control? What do you say to the imigrant who feels friendless and completely lost, not understanding the culture or the language of their new home? WHat do you say to the wife whose husband betrays her. Or the husband who watches the woman he loves fall into a hole of addiction and pain?

The immediate answer is: I don’t know. Many blame free will. Some blame god’s judgment, though you will see I didn’t even capitalize “god” in this instance, because those people cannot be worshipping the Christian God of the New Testament, who  no longer sees our sin because of the cross. (See my last post.) They must be worshipping some other god.

You see the problems here. I wish I had answers to give you. I only can tell you what I have experienced and what has worked for me as I live in this broken, messed up world. It may or may not be true. But I need to live as if it is to make sense of things.

That will be my next post…

The Letter Continued

In my last post to you I started telling you about starting preaching in Genesis and Revelation when
I start at a new congregation. Genesis is a confusingly cool read. Lots of people read it like it is a history book. They may be right to read it that way. There are many reasons to do so. And there are also other ways to read it. We need to read at least part of it like a poem. Because Genesis 1 is a poem,Chapter two however doesn't seem to be. I wonder if it has to be a history tbook or science text hough. Could it be a fable or a myth? I don't really know. Evolutionists and Creationists spend lots of time arguing over these chapters. I think they are both foolish. The reason prehistoric times are "pre-historic" is exactly that. They existed before history began. No one really knows what happened before history started.

So this is what I think about the whole thing. First, the evolutionists are silly because if the story is accurate, just like God created a man, not a baby, he would have created the earth to look old, just like the man did. Anyone that wants to argue this is simply arrogantly foolish -- No one can
really know. Every theory is what scientists call "post-dictive". 

On top of that, evolution lends itself to all sorts of philosophical problems (Problems with how we look at life). Survival of the fittest seems to be the way that natural selection occurs, but we don't want to practice that anymore. Instead we quite rightly look after the poorest, the weakest, the sick and the mentally challenged. We try to save the drug addicts and the alcoholics. We try to rehabilitate the criminal, and care for the homeless. If we really believed in natural selection, we'd fall more in line with Hitler. As a matter of fact, Hitler would never have done what he did, had it not been for the evolutionary theory of Darwin a generation before he tried to wipe out all those he found to be weak and a threat to the gene pool: Jews, homosexuals, drug addicts, etc...

In the same way, the creationists are silly to argue that the words in Genesis have to be taken literally; like we'd read a history or science book, because  clearly a lot of the Bible isn’t written that way and forcing the first part into the category of science book makes no sense. It is clear to anyone with eyes to see that Genesis 1 is not a description how God created.

Trying to make a scientific theory out of a biblical text didn’t work when the Church tried to silence Copernicus and Galileo, so why we try to make it a science text now is beyond me.

So Daddy, if those chapters in Genesis are not a science text, what are they? I can hear the question coming now… Kiddo’s, they are so much more. They point to the pre-eminence of God: “In the beginning God…” We try to begin with anything but God. And that is a big mistake. Leading to all sorts of problems.

In the church I grew up in they try to begin with the Bible. But it is not, “In the beginning was the Bible.” No, it is “In the beginning God.” I’m going to come back to this later because it is really important. For now, though, let’s simply say that the point is that everything starts with God. Later, we’ll discover it concludes with Him too but that is also another post. So the first thing that Genesis teaches is that it begins with God. He is the font of everything.

Then we come to these words:

“Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us. They will
reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the
wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the
ground." 

So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male
and female he created them.” Gen 1.26-27

Notice God said, “Let us…” Remember I said that this is a poem? So let me act like an English teacher. Why do you think the writer of Genesis would phrase it this way? “God” singular says, “Let us…” Then on top of it, he says let us make people “Plural” in “our image…male and female he created them…”

When I grew up I was taught that this meant that I, me… singular am made in the image of God. Then I was taught all sorts of gobble-de-gook about how this shows us that we are made up of Body, soul, and spirit. Now I do think that each of us is made in the image of God, we are not informed of that fact until Genesis 9 – feel free to look it up. No, Genesis 1 tells us that together we are made in the image of God.

Guys, this is what everything I believe is built upon. Every person on this planet is part of the image of God. Together, we are supposed to be an image or reflection of who God is. Can you see how that has ramifications for how we are to live our lives together?

Next post We’ll begin talking about who God is so that we can know who we are supposed to be… I’ve
given you enough to think about for now.

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.