DO I GET AN A?

I scored 18 out of 20 on Pastor's Tom's quiz, but I think he only gets barely passing marks for his lack of biblical perspective. America is not the theological equivalent of ancient Israel, although sometimes the Religious Right seems to want us to think that. Of course, if we were to consider ourselves responsible to God in our national behavior in the same way, we most certainly would need to understand the biblical mandate to care for the stranger. Providing hospitality to the sojourner remains a mandate of the first order in the Middle East to this day. When fields were harvested, the edges were to be left for gleaners to come and take care of their needs. The covenantal promise to Abraham was that God would bless him so that every family of the earth would bless themselves by the descendants of Abraham.

So I guess it is a good thing that we aren't a Christian nation so that we can ignore our neighbors and accumulate all the wealth we desire and keep it to ourselves!?!?

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

DO YOU LOVE ENOUGH TO SPEAK THE WHOLE TRUTH?

Mardi Gras is a taxpayer supported "heterosexual" festival in New Orleans...
What if that were the focus of the post by Pastor Tom, would he speak of the intolerance of all heterosexuals because of the decadent behavior of a few? I have known a couple of dozen homosexuals and only one or two of them have ever flaunted their sexuality in public to any extent that I witnessed. Overwhelmingly, the gays and lesbians I know simply want to live their lives quietly permitted to have their private lives remain private just like heterosexuals.

Is there something wrong with the decadence in public that this street fair represents? Sure, just like the drunken debauchery at Mardi Gras and spring break. Fortunately, events like these are predictable in that they happen at arranged times in specific places and thus are avoidable by the general public who doesn't want to see that sort of thing.

As for love enough to speak the truth, I'll take the encouragement to heart and loving all of you who read this enough, I want to warn you that faith without works is dead. I also want to warn you that God cares a whole lot about the needs of people who are poor. In fact Christ is present among you right now in the form of people who are sick, hungry, homeless and in prison. He is waiting to see you. On these things the Bible is most definitely clear, certainly clearer than on the issue of committed, loving relationships between members of the same sex.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

WHAT D'YA KNOW?

What d'ya know, a blog from Pastor Tom to which I can wholeheartedly say, "Amen, brother!" That warms the cockles of my ecumenical heart.

I'm also saddened with Tom that more folks don't know the history the Little Rock 9, but I also wonder how many of us today are moved by and see the parallels in the story of the Jena 6 in the headlines (finally) today?

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

JUST DESSERTS

I am very pleased to see Pastor Tom finally draw a line limiting the good effects of the free market. A $14,500 dessert is surely a decadent extreme that can result from the free market run amok. But where does the Gospel demand that we draw the line? The word of God is clear that we cannot serve both God and mammon. So once we start concerning ourselves with the making of money, we have turned our gaze away from God. We must choose what obedience means in the context of our own individual situations, but given the model Jesus provided (he was homeless don't forget) and relative wealth we all know as Americans, I would suggest that that line is a lot closer to where we all live than this outrageous luxury in Sri Lanka.

While not looking for a debate, I did take notice of this line that I found troubling:

I also understand we can abuse the call of God to look out for the poor among us, making that the satisfying of the Gospel to the exclusion of truth.

Given the Bible's exceptional attention to the needs of poor people I find it hard to envision a scenario where anyone can do TOO much in this area. The truth of the Gospel is that it is impossible to love God whom you haven't seen while ignoring the suffering around you. Surely the parable of Dives the rich man and Lazarus shows the truth of the Gospel.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

THE MOUSE THAT ROARED

Have you seen the movie, "The Mouse that Roared"? It is about a small duchy that decides that the solution to their financial woes is to lose a war against the United States so they can receive reparations. They "invade" during a bomb drill and can't find anyone to surrender to. Eventually they happen upon a scientist working on a real bomb. They take him captive and end up having all the power they need to negotiate.

I am also reminded of board game one of my political science classes in college played call, Guns or Butter. I was chosen as prime minister of a fictional third world power. We chose to put all of our money into industry and agriculture and not a penny into military. We then decided to agree to any treaty we were offered regardless of whose "side" that put us on and then set out to lie to the world that we had nuclear capability! The plan worked perfectly as no one ever questioned us, never demanded any evidence. We were largely ignored except when we might serve another country's interests. In the end, the two super-powers nuked each other! Winning the game was based on percentage growth in gross national product. Even without the super-powers' self-inflicted economic crash, their mad rush to spend on guns instead of butter limited their GNP growth, meaning that my country would have won even without the war!

So what does all of this have to do with Ahmadinejad? He is the mouse that roared. Is he a mad man to be feared? I'd have to say "yes." But he is also crazy like a fox and we would be fools not to engage him diplomatically. We've already seen what happens with a military response next door in Iraq, why would we want to repeat that mistake? Ahmadinejad has made a career of asking questions that embarrass us. He has called on us to live up to our Christian principles. Maybe that is exactly what we should do. If we were to show kindness to him that he did not deserve we would be "heaping burning coals on his head." That surely seems better than surrounding him with real burning coals and the death of thousands.

Yes, I realize that this goes far beyond what Pastor Tom raised today, but it is in keeping with the saber-rattling that is currently increasing in volume. Also, my condolences to Tom on the loss of his grandmother.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

WOULD JESUS VOTE FOR HIM?

I don't know if Jesus would vote for Alan Keyes, but apparently he knows who Jesus wouldn't vote for. When Keyes was brought in by the Republicans to run against Barack Obama for the Senate seat from Illinois, one of the things he said was that Jesus wouldn't vote for Obama. It was that comment among other attacks on his faith that finally gave Obama the incentive to start talking publicly about his faith.

I don't want politics to sully religion, and I'm convinced the best place for the prophetic voice is outside of the power structure, but if politicians are going to cite their religious beliefs it is my hope that they will use them to unite and provide hope, not to divide and attack. I'm sure that Mr. Keyes brings a lot to this already crowded field, I simply hope that it is positive and uplifting.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

WAITING ROOM

Pastor Tom passes on some good advice today. It is good to provide some room between initial response and posting on a blog (whether as the author of the blog or through comments). This "waiting room" can save many a subsequent apology for hot-headed remarks by allowing things to cool and gives room for more thought-through expositions.

I admit that this blog in particular tends to be closer to a knee-jerk "thought-dump," but I do try to keep away from emotional tirades. If something at EYW pushes my buttons I'll usually wait a while before writing my post here. Still, my blog posts here don't tend to be very polished. On the other hand, my weekly columns for the local paper that I sometimes post at Culture Dove and regularly post at OpEdNews and Cross Left are intentionally crafted and edited articles that often take me more than an hour to write.

There ought to be room for both styles. Also, it is wise to question how much our egos get in the way. I realize that my ego does provide a good deal of my motivation. In the end, it is my hope that I can put the message ahead of my personal desire for recognition.

Good blog today Tom, including a reasonable explanation for why you no longer accept comments there.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

CAN YOU HANDLE THE CONSEQUENCES?

Today Pastor Tom did exactly what I wanted him to do yesterday, provide source material.

I found the article intriguing. I came away with questions that surely are being debated in scientific circles. For one, I wondered if these scientists agree that carbon dioxide is leading to global warming. I understand that they are suggesting that there are more significant sources than humans, but would they agree that humans are contributing to global warming. I also found it interesting that they seem to be suggesting a somewhat fatalistic "ride it out" approach. They don't seem to be denying that global warming is occurring, just that the consequences may not be as severe as others predict and that we may not be as responsible as others suggest.

Whoever proves to be correct, it still seems that there is some reason to be concerned about global warming. The thing that Tom did not do today that I would expect from him is to tell us why this issue is relevant to us as Christians. For me the relevance lies in our obligation to fellow human beings now and in future generations to be good stewards of the resources of God's creation. Not to mention that whether people are suffering from cold or heat those who suffer are Christ in our midst challenging us to serve them. "When did we see you, Lord?" (Matt. 25)

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

CULTURE ACTIVISTS?

This film does sound odious. Granted, having neither seen it nor read a review (Pastor Tom's opinion piece aside) I don't have any way of knowing what the objective is for the portrayal of pederasty. It seems unlikely that the graphic nature of the depiction is anything but gratuitous, but the motivation of the producers may be to point out the horror of the situation, I simply don't know. Assuming that the film is anti-pedophilia, perhaps the disturbing story line is the intent, i.e. it should be disturbing because it is a disturbing issue and they may intend to stir debate.

I remember seeing a series on TV called "War" with Gwynn Dyer. In it he interviews a Canadian soldier who talked about his motivation to enlist coming from watching the movie Apocalypse Now. I remember being stunned since that movie clearly was intended to be anti-war in its sentiment and in fact is one of the best movies for doing just that. I don't know that is not the intention of this film.

On the other hand, perhaps they are attempting to titillate with gratuitous perverted sex. It is possible that Tom is correct that they are "activists" although my first hunch is that they are simply willing to do anything to make money. But again, I have no idea what their motivation is. Tom hasn't dug out a quote from anyone behind this film to back up his point. Then he lumps these silent people in with an anonymous group that he calls culture activists. If he wants to make this point he needs to show some sources, otherwise it is no more than conspiracy theory.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

APPLES OR ORANGES?

Color me confused. Archaeologists discover evidence of an event that is not recorded in the Bible (did I miss an allusion to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD somewhere in the New Testament?) and somehow that provides external evidence to the internal claim of the authority of the Bible?

I suppose that I can agree with Pastor Tom that seeking external proof of the truth of the Bible is a fruitless endeavor. Except that the reason I would agree is that the "facts" of the stories in scripture do not lie in the historical accuracy of the events, but in the truths of the meanings.

This is one of those foundational, enormous issues that define differences among Christians, so I will resist going into it more here. The centrality of this issue for Tom likely explains why he so quickly made the connection between the "apples" of this discovery and "oranges" of his doctrine.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

WHY ALWAYS ASSUMING?

So why does a study into the learning abilities of 2 year-old children compared to other primates automatically mean that there are Darwinists out to prove that God doesn't exist? These illogical leaps from Pastor Tom are not only tiring but exceedingly unfair. I don't know what the motivation of the researchers was and I'm sure Tom doesn't know either. But I can imagine the researchers wanting to explore what factors impact a young child's learning. Their research may be misguided or lacking substance, but it is totally unfair to accuse them of presupposing that there is no God or that they are out to prove that.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

REST IN PEACE

I am sorry for the family and friends of D. James Kennedy, as well as the people of his church as they grieve his loss. I trust that he has found the comfort of heaven and is now at peace.

I do wish, however, that he had done more for peace in his life. There are a number of issues where I differ from him on theology and on the application of faith in the world. He was a strong opponent of same-sex marriage, believed that judges needed to acknowledge God as the provider of all law, was a young earth creationist, and was a member of the Moral Majority. Needless to say, he and I would not have seen eye to eye. But the one position that he took that I find most disturbing was the way that he found to justify the war in Iraq. He signed a letter sent to President Bush outlining how a preemptive attack on Iraq could be justified by the just war theory. He also preached about the biblical justifications here and here. You may find that you agree with his arguments, but I found them to be both bad theology and a misuse of scripture.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

IS GOD NOT GREAT?

Some Evangelicals had a fit when Bush had the gall to suggest that Allah was the same God that Christians worship. Talk about taking your ball and going home! Sorry, but just because Jews use YHWH to describe the God Abraham worshiped and Muslims use Allah, doesn't give anyone the right to change history and say that they are different deities. So when a Muslim says "Allahu Akbar" he or she is proclaiming that God (yes, the God whom we Christians worship) is great. If Timothy McVeigh or the killers of Matthew Shephard said "Praise the Lord" or "Hallelujah" before committing their crimes does that take the true meaning out of the phrase?

Now that the first Muslim has been elected to Congress. Yes, he got more votes in a free election in America than his opponents. So does that mean that the people of that district are now guilty of some heinous crime for voting for a Muslim? Were they duped? Are they just that ignorant? Of course, some would ask those same questions about the whole nation in relation to electing our current president. Surely he did not suggest some radical, violent Islamic Jihadist agenda in his campaign for this office. Has anyone looked at his record? Has anyone bothered to see what his campaign promises were? Pastor Tom has certainly not done this for us (and I have heard him speak about Ellison on his radio show as well). All that has been provided is guilt by association. I am not sufficiently motivated at the moment to re-do the research I did previously on this group that Ellison has spoken to and his relationship to it. I did do that once and I recall that he has been on record saying that he doesn't support their violent goals. I may not be remembering all the details, but then again, if this is so troubling to others then where are their direct questions to Representative Ellison? Use the freedom of speech and the press to expose the truth directly, not through innuendo.

Show me where Ellison's own words have indicate a personal disdain for Jews and then we'll talk about whether he belongs on a committee about antisemitism. Perhaps that exists in the record, but again, that is not what is being presented.

And just for the record, the definition of Semite is 1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples 2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language So technically, antisemitism is prejudice against any Semite, even an Arab, thus Muslims would be included. I know that the term is not used that way, just food for thought.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

CHICKEN OR EGG?

I, too, am disappointed that a slasher movie is a record breaker. Though it may not matter, it isn't clear to me whether movies like this reflect the culture or create the culture. The fact is that Pastor Tom is correct that the message is that life is cheap. I would simply add to what he says that constant warfare and deadly disease and starvation around the world are also part of the culture of life being cheapened.

It is also noteworthy to think about the fear factor. I don't go to these movies, but it is my understanding that people who do are looking for the thrill of the fear. This seems to be a lesson learned by this administration as they are using fear to motivate cooperation with their policies, which include surrendering civil rights.

Blog you later,
Pastor Ian

Weekend Edition

During one of his nearly daily calls to EYW this week, Pat (Holland's Opus of Think Worm) took aim at my denomination, the United Church of Christ, so I thought I should provide a response.

He referenced the "Bouncer" commercial that the UCC produced which included the line, "Jesus didn't turn people away, neither do we." He raised a complaint that was raised at the time the commercial aired, that it implied that other churches did turn people away. He called this elitist. The fact of the matter is that some people do get turned away from churches. Indeed UCC churches are sometimes guilty of this ourselves. Focus group studies done by the firm that produced the commercials found that this feeling of exclusion was common among the unchurched. Ecumenical leaders were shown the commercial and didn't object, realizing the importance of the message of extravagant welcome. It was edgy, but it wasn't elitist.

Perhaps the edgiest part of the message was showing same-sex couples being turned away. Pat and Pastor Tom discussed how homosexuals were welcome to attend their church. Of course, they also were clear that since they saw homosexuality as a sin that these sinners would feel uncomfortable in their church, but that that was a good thing because that is what leads to repentance and salvation. My question for them is that since all of us are sinners (depraved as they would say) and salvation doesn't change that (we are forgiven not made perfect) then wouldn't everyone be uncomfortable in church all the time? Do you faithfully preach the "whole word of God" all the time and thus decry all sin and make it clear that it is keeping these sinners out of heaven?

Now I get the point that the church is for believers. I agree that we shouldn't be throwing out our convictions in order to make people feel comfortable. But there has to be room for the seeker. Since none of us has it all together, each of us is a seeker, always learning and growing. Maya Angelou's answer to the question "Are you a Christian?" is "Not yet." There is wisdom in that sort of humble assessment of one's pilgrimage. So, yes, everyone is welcome, just as they are. Does the UCC do that better than most? Perhaps, and I hope that we try. Some of our churches don't see homosexuality as a sin, so we are indeed more welcoming. Call that elitist if you like, but that seems to strain the meaning of the word.

What we are is diverse. Pat and Tom would call that pluralism and name us as enemies of God. In my book, that sounds more like an elitist position. They sound like they are claiming to have all the answers. I'm not that prideful, I humbly admit that God isn't finished working with me yet.