Jesus On Singing Christmas Songs During Advent (John 75:15-17, Goofed-Up Bible)

“You idiot!  You numskull!  Have you not listened to one word I’ve said about proper worship?”

Jesus was beginning to think he had made a major mistake in picking Peter as a disciple.

Peter, feeling exhausted from helping with the feeding of the 5,000, had made a simple request:  “What you say we all sing ‘O Little Town of Bethlehem’”?

Peter had forgotten what was important.  He had forgotten that God didn’t create Christmas songs to have them sung during Advent.    He had forgotten it was Advent, not Christmas.  If Peter was going to be a part of Jesus’ worship elite he was going to have to shape up.

Jesus sighed, thinking, “The next thing you know Peter is going to want us to clap during worship.  I wish Peter would spend less time and energy on feeding the hungry and more on doing worship the right way.”

John 75:15-17 (Goofed-Up Bible)

Moving Beyond Biblical Criticism?

William Willimon in a blog entry titled “Between Two Worlds: Advice for New Pastors” (May 11, 2009) writes:

. . . Scripture, the tradition of the church, has a privileged place in the communication of the church. Pastors are ordained, ordered to bear that tradition compellingly, faithfully, quite unoriginally before their congregations, not primarily so that their congregations can think through the tradition, but rather so that they can, in their discipleship incarnate Christian truth. We pastors are not free to rummage about in the recesses of our own egos, not free to consult other extraecclesial texts until we have first done business with Scripture and the great tradition. Alas, too much of today’s theological training (arising out of the German university of the Nineteenth Century) places the modern reader above the texts of the church, assuming a privileged, detached and superior position to the church’s historic faith.

Sadly, too often the seminary has taught its students to step back from the Christian tradition and its Scriptures, to reflect, learn to critique, and actively to question. True, such stepping back and critique are developmentally appropriate for the formation of the church’s leaders. Yet when the seminarian becomes a pastor, she takes her place as leader of an organization that has goals like embodiment, engagement, involvement, participation, and full-hearted commitment, embrace of the enemy, hospitality to the stranger, group cohesion, koinonia. The whole point of discipleship is not cool consideration of Jesus but rather following Jesus.

Willimon’s observations about the purpose of seminaries and churches are in order.  Strangely, though, I find myself arguing with Willimon even as I strongly agree with him.   “Following Jesus” is complicated by having a canon that contains four very different gospels, a Bible that includes different theologies, and a Bible that contains unChristian, horrific texts.  So “following Jesus” is not so simple or obvious.  Which Jesus are we to follow:  Matthew’s Jesus, Mark’s Jesus, Luke’s Jesus, John’s Jesus, or Paul’s Jesus?  And what manuscripts are we to use?  And to speak of the historic church faith or of church tradition is – is problematic.  Better put an “s” on tradition so you speak of church traditions. 

Biblical criticism is not an option!  And yes, dealing with the church’s Scripture and its traditions are not optional either, but neither is it optional to deal with insights from science or experience or reason.  Not for the modern Christian.  Experience, science, and reason are equally important sources for our theologies and practices.  Yes, experience, science and reason are problematic sources, but all sources for our theologies are problematic! 

I think Willimon would disagree with me on non-biblical sources for theology being equal to Scripture.  Willimon emphasizes that we start with Scripture and tradition.  Starting with Scripture and tradition gives the appearance that other sources get trumped.   I argue that Scripture, tradition, reason, science and experience are all equally valid sources. And I argue that, in one sense, Scripture is canonized experience so getting the “ego” out of our theologies and practice may sound good, but I’m not sure that is accurate or honest.  There is a fine line between Scripture, tradition, and experience.

Julia Obrien, the Stern Professor of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament at Lancaster Theological Seminary, is also troubled by obsession with biblical criticism and problems with the Bible.  Reflecting on this year’s Society of Biblical Literature meeting, Obrien writes in her blog (November 22, 2009):

how many people treat the Bible as if it is on trial, believing that all they’re been asked for is an up-or-down vote about its value.  Walking through the book exhibits at SBL, I’ve seen again how many “popular” books mark their territory by passing judgment on the historical accuracy of the Bible and/or how good its answers to life’s questions are.  The Bible is a good /accurate book or the Bible is a bad/inaccurate book.  Read this book to help you decide!

I don’t read the Bible that way.  Not anymore.  I am willing to name what’s wrong with the Bible, but that doesn’t stop me from living in it.

Obrien, like Willimon, believes biblical criticism is not the only task or the last task of the clergy or the church.  I agree!  But let us not think that we should move beyond biblical criticism as if we can all of a sudden forget the biblical critical work we have done.  Neither let us think that thinking about a biblical text, getting correct doctrine or theology, is our ultimate task either.  Our focus should be on following Jesus; and that we are forced to do with imperfect sources, including our imperfect egos.

What if following Jesus is being impeded because we set church up in a way that prevents honesty about God, the Bible, church tradition, and ourselves? 

Personally, I don’t find fundamentalist Christianity to be a faithful way to follow Jesus.  We better be careful about eschewing the importance of teaching biblical criticism in congregations or acting like we do biblical critical work and then move beyond it or forget it.  And we better be careful about thinking that biblical critical work is an end to itself.   

I like to say that even with all the confusion about following Jesus we should have enough we are sufficiently clear about to keep us busy.  Of course, what is sufficiently clear to me and what is sufficiently clear to others is not always the same.

Well, enough rambling, here’s a reading from the Goofed-up Bible, Matthew 199:14.

And Jesus said, “I’m not feeding one person, I’m not healing another individual, I’m not saying another word about God’s forgiveness and mercy, until we get Genesis 1:1 figured out.”

Oh, and here’s Luke 199:14.

And Jesus said, “I’m not feeding one person, I’m not healing another individual, I’m not saying another word about God’s forgiveness and mercy, until we get Genesis 1:2 figured out.”

The International Transgender Day of Remembrance is November 20

Each year transgendered people are attacked or murdered on the basis of their perceived identities. On November 20th, the 11th International Transgender Day of Remembrance will bring attention to the brutal violence that ends lives and destroys families.

The passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr.  Hate Crimes Act on October 28th expanded the 1969 hate crime law to include gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which includes protections based on gender identity, is also pending. These legislative efforts are a good step in the right direction, but transgender people are still vulnerable in theUnited States and further action is urgently needed.

Speaking of transgender, if you haven’t seen TransAmerica, please do it.  It is an excellent movie.  In my professional, humble opinion Felecity Huffman should have won the Oscar for Best Actress for her preformance in this movie.

Going Rogue: Should the Church Follow Sarah Palin’s Example?

 

 

rogue definition (yourdictionary.com)

rogue (rōg)

noun

1. Obsolete a wandering beggar or tramp; vagabond
2. a rascal; scoundrel
3. a fun-loving, mischievous person
4. an elephant or other animal that wanders apart from the herd and is fierce and wild
5. Biol. an individual varying markedly from the standard, esp. an inferior one

Etymology: < 16th-c. thieves’ slang < ? L rogare, to ask: see rogation

transitive verb rogued, roguing ro′·guing

1. to cheat
2. to destroy (plants, etc.) as biological rogues
3. to remove such plants, etc. from (land, etc.)

intransitive verb

to live or act like a rogue

adjective

1. acting in defiance of established laws, customs, etc. a rogue nation
2. lacking required authorization, supervision, etc. a rogue intelligence operation

__________________

 

Sarah Palin’s new book has been released and she’s now on her book tour.  I wonder if the church needs to follow Sarah’s example (at least in this one sense) and go rogue.  Of course, we need to be sure what use of rogue we are meaning to communicate.  I’m not suggesting any of the above definitions except for “acting in defiance of established laws, customs”.

In their book, Resident Aliens:  A provocative Christian assessment of culture and ministry for people who know that something is wrong, Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon write:  “we believe that things have changed for the church residing in America and that faithfulness to Christ demands that we either change or else go the way of all compromised forms of the Christian faith.” (p. 12)

Later we read:  “one of us (I’m guessing Hauerwas) is tempted to think that there is not much wrong with the church that could not be cured by God calling about a hundred really insensitive, uncaring, and offensive people in the ministry!” (p. 167)  Of course, Hauerwas (?) is not asking for people who are insensitive just to be insensitive (The church has enough jerks!), but he is calling for clergy willing to go rogue, not to serve the church as ministers of the United States, for example, but to serve the church as ministers of Jesus Christ.

Going rogue, the Old Testament prophets seemed to do it.  In The Prophetic Imagination Walter Brueggemann contends that “the task of prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us.” (p. 13)  So the church needs some more folk like Amos and Jeremiah, people imagining a new world and having the courage to bring that new world to fruition.

Going rogue, it even happens within our scripture.  Yes, there are minority reports in the Bible.  Yes, there are debates within the Bible.  Thank God for them.  Thank God we have the book of Jonah which communicates divine mercy to the Ninevites (Assyrians) whereas in the book of Ezekiel God is proud of having made Assyria suffer “as its wickedness deserves.”  (Ez. 31:11)  And thank God for the book of Ruth which went rogue with respect to the Moabites.  Ruth’s inclusive attitude to the Moabites stands in sharp contrast to other pre-exilic parts which cast Moabite origins in disparaging terms; their founder, Moab, was a product of incest, born of a drunken sexual encounter between Lot and one of his daughters.  “Now, postexile, Moabites get a more respectable place in the family tree – they are ancestors of King David himself.”  (Robert Wright, The Evolution of God, pp. 205-206)

Going rogue, it’s not for the faint-hearted, but perhaps it is for the church.

The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene]: Sexism, Biscuits and Gravy, Solving Family Disputes

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not the only gospels we have.  Other gospels which circulated among some early Christians but were not accepted in the canon (Bible) are known as NT apocryphal gospels.  Below is a list of such gospels.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek Text A]

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek Text B]

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Latin Text]

A 5th Century Compilation of the Thomas Texts

An Arabic Infancy Gospel

The Gospel of James

The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary

The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene]

The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew

The Gospel of Nicodemus [Acts of Pilate]

The Gospel of Bartholomew

The Gospel of Peter

The Gospel of Thomas

The Gospel of Philip

The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion]

The Secret Gospel of Mark Recognized by some as a 20th century hoax.   See Stephen C. Carlson in The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith’s Invention of Secret Mark (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005).

The Gospel of Judas

In the Gospel According to Mary (Magdalene) Mary reports to the male disciples how the post-resurrection Jesus spoke to her and provided her with revelations they had not been given.  The response from the “boys club” was about what you would expect.  Jesus, telling a woman something, instead of telling us.  No way.

I’ll let you read the interchange between Mary and the boys yourself.

The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene

Chapter 9

When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her. But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, Say what you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas. Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things. He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?  Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior? Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said. And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.

O.K., we have a happy ending.  Or do we?  This gospel was not included in our Bible. Evidently, sexism got off to a roaring start early in the church’s history.

On a lighter note, I grew up in a family with four boys.  I was the 3rd child; you might say a momma’s boy.  I worked for my parents at their restaurant, E and J Cafeteria.  Homemade biscuits, pan-fried tenderloin biscuits (don’t get me started), country ham, eggs, grits, hash browns, and gravy.  Coffee by the gallon.  And for lunch we had several meats along with vegetables; in the summer, the vegetables came out of our garden.  (My parents farmed 2 1/2 acres.  We’re talking a lot of veggies.)  E and J was a meat and two, little hole in the wall, country restaurant.  I was mainly the dishwasher, floor mopper and grill cleaner.  Actually, I did whatever my mother told me to do, which was everything.  Run the cash register, fill up coffee cups, wrap silverware, take orders, be the short order cook.  (Have I left anything off?)

Anyway, the last year of my parents’ life Ken, brother number 2, was unbelievably good to my parents.  You might say he moved in with them.  During this special time with them Mom and Dad taught him how to make biscuits and gravy.  Previously, I was the only one capable of carrying on the family tradition.

Of course, boys will be boys.  Boys will be competitive.  And ever since Ken’s biscuit and gravy debut we have had a fierce (but really fun) time arguing over whose biscuits and gravy are the best.

Having read the Gospel of Mary (Magdalene) I was aware of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance to Mary and the special revelation she received.  So…………so I told Ken after our mother’s death that Mom had appeared to me and told me she was afraid of going to hell for lying.  (Actually, I may go to hell for telling this lie!)  And I said, “Mother, you aren’t going to hell.”  Crying she said, “Yes, I am.  I said Ken’s biscuits and gravy were good.  I lied.  I’m going to hell.”  “My dear mother, you have now confessed.  Go, go to your eternal home.  Having told the truth, you can now rest in peace,” I said.

Nothing like a little post-death appearance to solve a family dispute.  Hee, hee.

Critiquing the Modern Church Using a Gnostic Perspective

Gnostics critiqued the early church in ways that, sadly, still apply to the modern church.  Elaine Pagels in her book, The Gnostic Gospels, writes: 

The Tripartite Tractate, written by a follower of Valentinus, contrasts those who are gnostics, children of the Father, with those who are children of the demiurge.  “The Father’s children, he says, join together as equals, enjoying mutual love, spontaneously helping one another.  But the demiurge’s offspring, the ordinary Christians – ‘wanted to command one another, outrivalling one another in their empty ambition’; they are inflated with ‘lust for power,’ ‘each on imaging that he is superior to the others.’ (p. 41)

Of course, there is no human organization that does not include bossy types, rivals, ambition, and lust for power, but one of my questions has been, and continues to be, how do you set up church as to cut out as much of the church crap as possible, or at a minimum, make some new mistakes.  There are no perfect churches, but is God really happy with our edifice complex, our business model of being and doing church?

So how did ancient gnostics organize themselves?  As Pagel asks, “if they rejected the principle of rank, insisting that all are equal, how could they even hold a meeting? ” (p. 41)  Irenaeus tells us about one group in his congregation in Lyons led by a Marcus who dared to meet without the authority of the Bishop, which would be – Irenaeus.  Somehow they pulled it off without the bishop.

How did some Gnostics conduct their meetings?  Irenaeus tell us that when they met all the members first participated in drawing lots.  Whoever received a certain lot apparently was designated to take the role of priest, another was to offer the sacrament, as bishop, another would read the Scriptures for worship, and others would address the group as a prophet, offering extemporaneous spiritual instruction.  The next time the group met, they would throw lots again so that the persons taking each role changed continually.” (p. 41)  It was believed that everyone, through the Gnostic initiation ritual, had received the gift of direct inspiration through the Holy Spirit. (p. 41)

In the modern church, using the business model, we try to find the best possible people to lead worship and to fill different congregational positions, which can be a camouflage for power plays in the church and does not take into account biblical narratives which indicate God has a habit of asking the worst possible people to do stuff. 

(On the other hand, God and the gnostics may want to keep in mind some people seem to be gifted in some areas and really not gifted in others.  You don’t want me doing a solo, for example.  Lord have mercy on my singing and those who hear it.)

Gnostics followed the practice of strict equality.  Casting lots prevented permanent ranks.  Gender and social status were of no importance.  Wow!  Are you listening modern Christians?

Wedgewood Baptist Church, the church I serve as pastor, makes no claim to perfection.  In fact, we like to say everyone is welcome except for perfect people; we don’t want anyone messing up our record.  One thing about Wedgewood worthy of imitation, however, is that we have learned to take turns.  Remember learning to take turns in preschool?  Wedgewoodians fill out an interest survey.  If someone serves in a position one year, and other people want to serve in that capacity the next year, the person rotates off and the names of those interested are “put in a hat” and one name is drawn out.  Anybody can be on any committee at any time and get off any committee at any time.  All committee meetings are open.  You don’t have to be on the committee to attend a meeting.  Gender, sexual orientation, social status – don’t factor in.  How long you have been at the church – doesn’t factor in.  Only two positions, deacon and trustee, require being a church member.  We have many people from various denominations and some agnostics and atheists. We bend over backward to include those leery or weary of the steeples.  The Wedgewood way of being and doing church can get chaotic, but we consider alteratives less appealing and less true to what we feel God is calling us to be and do. 

What if our church organization matched our theology?  Or matched the life and teachings of Jesus?

What if our buildings were built with our theology in mind?  Or the life and teachings of Jesus?

What if our buildings are preventing us from being the people God wants us to be and the world needs us to be?

Even if we have buildings, can’t we be better churches than we are being?

Christians: Not A People of A Book

In their book, Early Biblical Interpretation, James L. Kugel and Rowan A. Greer write the following in their epilogue: 

Christians were less a ‘people of the book’ than the Jews, for the Christian revelation was located in Christ and only secondarily in the Scripture that bore witness to him.

My reading recently has focused on early Christian Biblical interpretation, particularly looking at Origen and Augustine.  In addition to being fascinated by allegorical interpretive moves, I’ve been impressed by the Christological reading of the Hebrew scriptures by early Christian interpreters.  They find Christ everywhere, and I mean everywhere.  Of course, it offends the modern practice of interpretation; however, it is a reminder that Christianity is less about a book and more about a revelation that occurred in the life and ministry of one named Jesus.

I am reminded of (and wish conservatives and fundamentalists would keep this verse in mind) John 5:39:

You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me

May the church rid itself of bibliolatry.

Better Than A Husband

Yesterday I saw a repair service truck and the name of the business was “Better Than A Husband.”  Being the pastor of a church with more than a few gay women who can fix anything and have a shed full of tools I chuckled and thought to myself, “Yeah, that guy working for that company may be better than a husband, particularly if I’m the husband, but I bet he’s not better than the Wedgewood gay women fixer-uppers.”

I can’t fix a darn thing.  Well, I’m good with computers, but in terms of the typical stuff that needs to be fixed up I just – I just lose my religion, particularly when the Wedgedwood gay women give me hell about my lack of fix it skills.  They are so smug and arrogant (smile). 

My mother had four boys.  I was number 3.  2 of the 4 boys turned out to be Mr. Fixers, like my father.  The other two – well, God help us.  Are the two Ayers fixer-uppers as good as the Wedgewood gay women fixer-uppers?  Now that’s a question. 

Kid Theology

TJ Jameson in his Halloween costume.

Jo Jameson, with a mean, but apparently nice at this particular moment, pirate, and TJ Jameson

TJ hugging his mom, Kris Jameson, at Preschool Graduation

Kids say the darndest things. And kids can have the best theology.

But before I get to the kid theology let me share a few important details about TJ, as in cute as a button, as in all boy TJ.  For starters, TJ likes to wear boots to church.

Second, TJ sometimes arrives at church with his shirt backward, with the front on the back and the back on the front.  This is by design.

Third, when we were filming what we call a Wedgie Tale TJ was the lead character, Zacchaeus.  As you know, Zacchaeus climbs a Sycamore tree.  Well, we improvised but we did get Zacchaeus, uhh, we got TJ up into a tree, but not for long.  As the cinematographer commented, our star actor “went on strike”.  When TJ wanted to get out of the tree he got out of it.

You can see his Oscar performance at:

http://www.youtube.com/user/liberalbaptistrev#p/a/u/0/3nEsr_mV-EI

But back to kid theology.  Unfortunately, a robber broke into TJ’s home.  TJ expressed his desire for robbers to make better choices and know they don’t have to steal.  In the same conversation he talked about how he would want the good transformers to change the mean ones into nice ones too.  TJ was a “good” transformer for Halloween. And for the record, TJ is already a good theologian too!

Kris Jameson, also reflecting on the robbery, shared this with me from the book Enough by Adam Hamilton – “Contemplation Prayer – Lord, help me to be grateful for what I have, to remember that I don’t need most of what I want, and that joy is found in simplicity and generosity.”

A Better Use Of 9/11 Steel?

Two caveats.  One, 9/11 was a tragedy of such magnitude that any comments must be measured and given only with the great suffering of victims and the families of victims in mind.  Two, Christians need to be voices for peace in a world battered by wars and saturated with violent rhetoric; and yet, liberal Christians must acknowledge the reality of evil in others even while we remind ourselves of our own evil and our country of its evil.

Now to our topic.  The bow section of the ship USS New York contains 7.5 tonnes of steel from the towers destroyed in the 9/11 attacks.  Television news programs today showed clips of the USS New York as it passed the tragic scene of 9/11.  Here’s a question (after a statement).  I recognize the need for a military (although some early Christians refused to serve in the military) and I appreciate the courage and service of all US soldiers.  Was the use of the 9/11 steel in the USS New York, however, the best symbolic use of that steel which represents the loss of so many precious lives?  What if that steel had been used to build a Center for Christian/Islamic Understanding and Cooperation?