The Voice of Reason

The Life of a Prophet

          In Philip Yancey's book, "Soul Survivor", he explores the lives of some prominent persons who have directly or indirectly impacted his life.  What he found as he rummaged through the attics of some of these person's minds were lives that were profoundly influenced by faith - personal faith.  He quotes Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr:  "Christianity has always insisted that the cross we bear precedes the crown we wear.  To be a Christian one must take up his cross, with all its difficulties and agonizing and tension-packed content, and carry it until that very cross leaves its mark upon us and redeems us to that more excellent way which comes only through suffering."

          Reading some posts on other Christian blogs and going back and forth about dogma and theology and liturgy and whether homosexuals or sinners of various varieties should be allowed membership in the Church, it occurred to me as I was reading this book that maybe we worry too much about what others are doing.  How many of us could honestly say that we will ever have the enormous impact that Dr. King had?  Could we even dare to hope?  Would we be able to find the courage to live in such a way as Dr. King and risk personal or family safety for the sake of something bigger than self?  How easy it is to point out the faults of others, especially when others are joining in.  I wonder how much time Dr. King spent "blaming" others for the state of the Church?

          Just how big does big have to be in order to positively impact our world for the Kingdom of Heaven?  What must we do in order to give others the sense of hope that I feel so many are missing?  Mr. Yancey writes, "'The glory of God is a person fully alive,' said the second-century theologian Irenaeus.  Sadly, that description does not reflect the image many people have of modern Christians.  Rightly or wrongly, they see Christians rather as restrained, uptight, repressed - people less likely to celebrate vitality than to wag our fingers in disapproval."

          The "wag our fingers" comment is what really stirred me.  It was like a lightbulb in my head finally found an electrical connection.  Has Christianity really digressed to such a point that our "calling" in Christ is restricted to nothing more than pointing out the faults and failings of others?  We share ideas about doctrine and theology - all good stuff - and I really enjoy the various perspectives especially of those with whom I may disagree.  However, it seems to me that we could turn our attention and effort and energy to something a bit more positive; at least positive in the sense that others can look to us and see "the hope that is within us". 

          I freely admit that my greatest failure to date has been not only in failing to pick up my own cross and follow the Lord, but I have been too quick to point out to others that they are not carrying their crosses correctly. 

Moral Formation

          There is an outstanding article published in the July/August '05 issue of Circuit Rider magazine in which writer Bishop Timothy W. Whitaker of the Florida Conference asks a haunting question: "The Church is successful in helping people to feel good, but is it effective in enabling people to be good?"

          His thoughts were provoked by a visiting Jewish lady whose husband was a member of that UM church.  The youth group had expressed to the pastor an interest in learning more about different denominations and religions.  Naturally, the pastor invited the Jewish woman to make a presentation about Judaism.  I don't think the pastor was completely prepared for what was offered.

          "Judiaism is based upon the Torah.  The Torah is the law of God.  We Jews are interested in the moral formation of people by teaching them how to live their lives in accordance with God's law.  The emphasis in Christianity is upon God's forgiveness, but we Jews are interested in how God wants us to be good people by obeying God's law."

          The pastor, now bishop, admits that he can readily see how someone from outside would "get the impression that we are not seriously interested in a moral formation".  I have to ask the question, however: who sets the standard for the "foundation"?  Where must it begin?

          Yes, it is easy to say that the Bible is very clear about morality.  In trying to answer the bishop's question, however, one must be mindful of the reality that there are those among us who virtually dismiss much of the Hebrew text, reasoning that it is "an ancient code written in an ancient time for an ancient people who no longer exist."  The gay Episcopal bishop made this remark while being interviewed during that time in which he had been selected to the episcopacy.  In fact, Mr. Robinson even dismissed portions of the book of Romans for much the same reason.  It struck me as odd that a man who was of a Protestant tradition in which Martin Luther had been FREED by his understanding of grace in Romans,  this very same book was being dissected to suit him.

          This is not necessarily about whether gays get the set the standard for moral formation although it brings up the quandary.  How can we teach others to "be good" if we cannot agree on what IS good? 

          I've probably heard more "liberals" quote The Beatles ("All you need is love") when this type of discussion comes around.  The only moral "code", as it is, is love.  Indeed, Jesus was very intentional about His proclamations.  However, it must be remembered that when Jesus was asked about the GREATEST commandment, His response was that we are to "love the Lord our God with ..." everything we have and everything we are.  The second greatest commandment is LIKE the first; "Love your neighbor as yourself".

          So has the Church failed in enabling people to be good if we have simply allowed that "anything goes" as long as there is love, whatever "love" means?  I remember listening to Father Corapi, an excellent catechism teacher on Eternal Word Television Network, once define biblical love.  "When we speak of love in the biblical context, we are not talking about that infatuation, that overwhelming emotion during which we cannot eat, we cannot sleep, we cannot think straight.  Love is not a warm and fuzzy emotion that we cannot grasp.  Rather, love, in its truest sense, is AN INTENTIONAL ACT OF THE WILL."  In other words, we don't FEEL love; we DO love.

          It seems to me, then, that if love is the standard - and I think it must be - then the standard by which we must first be measured is in how we love THE LORD.  If we have genuine love, then our love must first be directed toward the One through whom all things are possible.  And if He says, "DON'T", then we don't.  If He says, "DO", then we do.  Why?  Because we love Him.  Because we TRUST Him.  We do because we want to do, because we have an intense desire to please Him and no other.  It is not unlike our first love or our married love in which we cannot do enough for those toward whom our love is directed.  It must mean that His Word must come first before we satisfy our own desires. 

          The standard must have a foundation, and that foundation has already been established.  The question still remains: will we stand on THAT foundation, or shall we choose another more to our own liking?

Religion As It Is

          Since I began this blog thing, I've read other blogs of various interests.  In my search, I have found several blogs that are distinct in their affiliation with Christian denominations as well as other major religions.  I've enjoyed reading most of them; others have left me with more than a bad taste.

          Recently a newly consecrated Anglican bishop was quoted as saying, "That which unites us is much more profound than that which divides us."  All due respect to the bishop, but I'm not so sure this is true. 

          This particular bishop has refused to allow himself to get dragged into the discussion about homosexuality.  While many of us would expect that a leader of the Church would be a bit more definitive, I can respect that this man may very well have his sights set on something more far-reaching than one single issue.  And it is, you know.  Homosexuality defines nothing beyond a life style.  It will not single-handedly destroy the Church.

          Jesus Himself said that the "gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church.  He is the Lord, is He not?  Do His words mean anything to us at all?  If so, then we must remember that He has stated emphatically that the CHURCH will prevail.  So why do we allow ourselves to get so worked up over a single issue?  Are there other issues that cut a much wider swath?  I'd say so.

          What I find much more dismaying than those who want the Church to defend itself against homosexuals are those who, apparently in the name of the Lord, continue to mound exhaustive attacks against Islam. 

          I could write a ten-page essay, but I won't.  What I will do is say this:  IF YOU HAVE NOT READ QU'RAN FOR YOURSELF, REFRAIN FROM COMMENTS UNTIL YOU DO.

          Can we have just a moment of peace?

Faith as the Life Preserver

          How many of us can actually live just in this lifetime without some measure of faith?  Even if one is not particularly religious, some faith is required just to maintain any semblance of sanity! 

          Trusting our spouses to any degree requires a certain level of faith.  When we agree with a new employer about a salary, faith requires that we will expect that certain amount.  When we allow a surgeon to put us to sleep on the operating table, faith is required to reasonably expect that the doctor will do his or her level best.  Well, I think you get the point.

          Having been raised in church, I cannot recall a time when I didn't believe that there was a God.  As I grew older and a bit more rebellious, I certainly did not live like I had any sort of faith but then, I do not recall a serious moment when faith for the sake of my salvation ever crossed my mind.  It's not that I didn't believe in heaven or hell; it's just that as a teenager, I probably remembered myself as being just this side of invincible.  It is not often that death and the after-life is seriously considered by many teenagers. 

          Faith is much easier to write about and talk about than to actually live.  With exceptions, of course, faith is not so easy to come by.  The Bible teaches us that faith is a divine gift, that there is no way man's limited mind can ever be comfortable in dealing with concepts as abstract as heaven or hell or even a single, Supreme Being.  However, this is exactly what preachers urge their congregations to hold on to.  We preachers tell our flocks that they have to have faith in order to get into heaven.  We urge them to trust in the Lord.

          There is nothing wrong with this message.  The Bible teaches us that "without faith, it is not possible to please the Lord."  Again, believing in something, or Someone, unseen is quite a stretch.  Given everything we face in this world today, faith is needed now more than ever before.  So if there is this much suffering and faith is "all that", why is it such a tough sell?  Why is it that so many parishioners will tell a preacher, "Nice message, but I'm just not so sure about all that ..."

          But we have to get through this life first, don't we?  Even for some who have been raised in a church and have always heard the Bible stories, faith is hard to grasp.  Why is that?  To be perfectly honest, I'm not so sure that faith has much to do with a person who has always been in church.  Don't get me wrong.  I know there are many who would disagree with that completely.  However, at least in my own experience, I cannot help but wonder sometimes if we were indoctrinated more than we were educated.

          On Wesleyblog.com, there has been some good discussion about "or else" theology.  I know many who grew up in a church where preachers told their congregations that if they failed to adopt faith into their own souls, they would go to hell.  They never seemed to realize, or at least acknowledge, that Jesus never spoke those words even as He warned us that we might be in "danger of the judgment" if we did not repent.  So what happens with this "or else" theology?  Does it produce faith? 

          I don't think so.  I think it might frighten young children into coming forward to "get saved" (although what an innocent child needs to be saved from, I'll never know!), and it might play well with some who are genuinely burdened with a guilty conscience.  After all, there can be no greater message than to hear that there is a loving God and that there is no sin that the Lord God is not willing to forgive in order to be reconciled to His own creation.  You better believe folks need to hear this!

          However, it is painfully clear that there are too many who don't want to hear this.  At the very least, they may believe they don't NEED to hear it.  And even if they do, it's just too ... I don't know .... abstract.  It's not clear, and it's not compelling.  And if this faith is good for nothing except getting us into heaven, how can someone who cannot grasp "heaven" care whether they ever see it?  What will it take to help those who want to know and want to hear and want to hope but cannot comprehend?

Quick Thoughts

          There is a conversation going on at wesleyblog.com about homosexuality and church membership.  Some say that a practicing homosexual should be denied membership in a church simply by virtue of his or her unwillingness to repent.  Part of the membership installment process is to ask, "Do you earnestly repent of your sins?"  Of course, if a practicing homosexual believes that his relationship is somehow righteous, how can he repent if he believes there is nothing to repent from?

          Others insist, and I wondered from an earlier post, that if there be a litmus test for membership that scrutinizes our lives too closely, then there may be very few who will be "qualified" to join a church.

          It seems to me, then, that we may be demanding that a person clean up his or her own act BEFORE they be allowed to join a church.  Is that not sort of like depending on ourselves for our own salvation rather than to "let go, and let God"?  When we are called upon by the Lord to step up, does man have a right to place conditions upon us before we can be allowed to proceed in our spiritual journey?  Must we have everything "right" and in place before we can be allowed to follow in the footsteps of the Christ?

          I'll grant you that transformation is part of the whole thing and while we certainly have to exercise our free will to make righteous choices, we must still not dismiss the reality that we cannot save ourselves.  This is why it is called "grace", and it can only come from the Lord Himself.

          However, the apostle Paul's words cannot be dismissed when he warns us that "a little leaven will harm the whole loaf".  Paul admonishes us to be aware that if we give an inch, they (whomever "they" may be) will take a mile.  So where do we draw the line?  This question is raised because not only would this process begin at membership inquiry but, as one person pointed out, it would be necessary to continue at the confirmation process.  I think, also, that annual "audits" would then become necessary in an effort to "purify" the congregation.  Wow!

          The Amish are well known for their shunning process by which a member is virtually ignored for a period of time.  This follows Paul's instruction to the Corinthians that sin cannot be ignored and must not go unpunished for the sake of the soul that is in jeopardy.  How far, then, must we go?  And who will set the standard?

          I don't think it is as easy as some would like to pretend.  It's not as "cut and dried" as we would like to believe.  There will come a time when we are crossing the line between correcting and admonishing to actually passing judgment.  THEN we endanger ourselves.  If we do not correct and admonish, however, how can we say that we possess the love that is Christ?  How can we pretend that we love the way the Lord loves?  How can we claim that we are still on the path to spiritual perfection? 

It's Not Your Grandmother's Church Anymore!

          We Christians are compelled to constantly review and evaluate every waking moment of our lives.  Did you get that?  Evaluate OUR lives, our OWN lives.  In an effort to continue growing in the spiritual path we've chosen for ourselves, we have to be sure that everything we have become involved with will somehow further the cause of Christ in our own communities and in the lives of others we impact.  We do this not by evaluating how others should be living but, rather, how we should be living in response to others.

          The Church has always had its challenges.  The situations we face today are no different than those faced by the early Church.  Human nature being what it is, there is little change in the way we behave, the way we worship whatever it is we worship, our greed, our lusts, our hopes, our dreams.  Though many would disagree with me, it seems to me that about the only thing that has really changed that has impacted our lives is technology. 

          If this is true, why is it that sin seems to have been redefined?  Why do we have to continually deal with homosexuality, for instance?  Why must we constantly feel a need to defend that which is clearly written in what we once knew to be "holy" Scripture?  When did it become acceptable to disregard those portions of the Bible which we find objectionable, and then demand acceptance and tolerance in the name of Love?

          One of the short arguments homosexuals try to use is to point out that Jesus never mentions homosexuality.  This is a pretty shallow argument, especially from a more liberal perspective, that seems to continually make efforts to redefine the Gospel accounts.  It is simply not possible that the four Gospel accounts we have in our Bibles could have possibly recorded every single word from a Man who lived for approximately 33 years.  Even every single word spoken by Jesus in the 3 short years of public ministry could not possibly have been captured, let alone remembered, by any writer.

          There is another explanation as well.  It could be possible that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality specifically although He does defend the Holy Father's intent in Matthew 19 when asked by the Pharisees if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife.  Jesus answers, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.'"

          It could very well be that Jesus makes no specific mention of homosexuality because it is a no-brainer.  The Word of the Lord cannot be more specific than in Leviticus 18:22; "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.  It is an abomination." 

          How much clearer does it need to be?  Unfortunately, there are those apologists such as the "bishop" Gene Robinson of the Episcopal Church who insisted that the texts we read now were written by "ancient man in an ancient time for an ancient people".  In other words, he seems to claim that the Holy Scripture is now void of any meaning as "holy" or "scripture".    How fitting it is that one other Episcopal priest who was staunchly opposed to Mr. Robinson's selection as bishop lamented that if he had left his wife and children to take up with another WOMAN, he would have surely had his credentials removed!  "Bishop" Robinson leaves his wife and child to take up with a MAN, and they make him a bishop. 

          I maintain, however, that homosexuality is not the end-all, be-all, mother-of-all, sin though it is clearly sin.  Can it be compared to a liquor producer or a tobacco farmer or a casino operator?  Yes, it is written that if we live by the Law, then we are judged by the entire law and not just one single portion of it.  However, it seems to be something of a stretch to compare one to another.  The reason that each must be considered separately from the other is that each one presents its own unique problems, part of the reason why I think the Lord has declared these things as points to be concerned about.

          No, the Bible does not mention tobacco specifically, but this does not mean that we should not take how tobacco use affects others.  Alcohol is the same way even as wine is specifically mentioned as a "drink of choice", so to speak.  However, the Bible is equally clear in its warnings about being a drunkard.

          Something occured to me, though.  While we try to compartmentalize sin by blaming one particular segment, we fail to acknowledge our own part in the internal destruction of the Church.  We may be perfectly content with condemning homosexuals, but what do we do about ourselves in our "admiration", shall we say, of the cute and rather buxom lady in the sun dress?  How do we condemn others while our minds are furiously feasting on fantasies run amok?  Is one somehow worse than the other?  I*DON'T*THINK*SO.

          I think that's enough ranting for now.  I recall that I named this site "Voter's Voice" as an examination of ethics in public life and politics, but I also have to examine how ethics works as it pertains to trying to maintain some sort of purity in the Church.  It is true enough that if there were ever a litmust test for church membership, there would be a lot of empty buildings!  However, it also does not mean that we should not be mindful of that behavior which leads to our own destruction and, ultimately, the destruction of others.

         

Some Random Thoughts

          Is it just me, or has this whole planet gone crazy?  We have our 9/11 and have since gone to war as a result.  London just got hammered by another, apparently organized attack by the same folks with the same demand/threat: get out of Iraq or else.

          Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Conner is retiring, and the Senate is bracing for a showdown with the president before a nominee has even been named.  Charges are already going back and forth with the same demand/threat: appoint whom we like or else.

          A young woman goes missing in Aruba, and mom is ten kinds of upset and, like any other parent, overwhelmed with anxiety.   MAYBE she has said some things that would have been better left unsaid, but who can account for the emotions of a parent whose child has been missing for weeks now?  Apparently the good people of Aruba can because they are very upset with this lady who has hurt their tourism (???).

          A particular blog I've discovered reported the forced leave of absence imposed on a church pastor who refused a known, practicing homosexual membership into the church.  Of course the gloves have come off on that one.   At one time, the discussion is centered on the meaning of church membership and the next thing you know, the discussion is comparing tobacco farmers and horse racers with homosexuals and whether any is fit for church membership.

          A small city in Arkansas has enacted a smoking ban in public places such as restaurants.  Smokers are angry - ANGRY! that their "rights" are being further trampled on. 

          Actor Tom Cruise has angered all kinds of women with his flippant remarks about post-partum depression being nothing more than a lack of exercise and vitamins.  Hey, Tom?   You have Katie Holmes.  Move on!

          I have several of my own thoughts about each of these items, but for now I'll just let them simmer.