Category: Uncategorized Page 61 of 71

For what it is worth, here is this month’s Bradenton Herald column from Saturday’s paper. Obviously it is the fruit of our race discussions on Thursdays. These have been very helpful to me.

By the way, the editors of the Herald were either a) so impressed with the column or b) so desperate for front page copy, that they referenced my column on the front page. No doubt that doubled readership – from two to as many as four, I surmise.

In case the link does not work, here is the column (with their headline):

Hear a pastor’s black-and-white confession

It’s time for some confession. I’m white. A quick glance at my picture will confirm this. I’m a white boy who grew up in the ’60s, isolated from the racial struggles of that time. I was so insulated I can name for you all the black students with whom I graduated from high school. All three of them. Freedom marches and race riots were things on TV, not things that mattered to me. In my town, all was white with the world.

More confession: I’m conservative. I’m a part of a church that falls within the conservative, evangelical spectrum of American Christianity. My tradition has had a narrow and limited social conscience. I’m appreciative of the spotlight this tradition has aimed at some serious social ills and grievous sins of our society, but our blind spots have been serious as well. Issues of justice, poverty and race have been overlooked or downplayed. Now we must play catch-up with those in other Christian traditions who have long championed these concerns.

Being so white, so insulated and so distracted has made it hard for me to appreciate the seriousness of racial sin. That former Secretary of State Colin Powell traveling with his new wife from Virginia to New York could find no rest rooms open to him is like something from a different universe. I’ve never experienced such exclusion. Friends who grew up being taught never to look a white man in the eye introduce me to a world that I never visited before.

Things have changed, yes. But I’ve been on the outside and only occasionally looked in. Black and white can use the same rest rooms now. Black and white go to the same schools now. Black men no longer have to look down in the presence of a white man. It’s all cool now, right?

It’s easy to think so. But I know that it is not for me. Racial prejudices are born in the heart, and until the heart is cured of its pride and idolatry, we will always struggle with the temptation to stereotype and exclude others who differ from us. Perhaps it was once blacks and Chinese, Italians or Poles, but our hearts, unless changed, will always move in the direction of separation and exclusion from those who differ from us.

Whenever I have prejudged a black man as unequal to myself simply because of the color of his skin, I have sinned against all black men. Whenever I have made questionable judgments about Hispanics as a group, I have sinned against each individual Hispanic man I meet (one of whom is about to become my son-in-law).

And whenever I have done these things, no matter how subtly and with what sophistication, I have sinned not only against these men and women, but against the God who created them and gave his son for sinners such as me.

Racial prejudices linger within the proud and idolatrous confines of the human heart. I repent, and ask others to repent with me, of the sin that such prejudices produce. And I ask, and encourage others to ask with me, the Savior who forgives me to root out the remaining vestiges of favoritism and mistrust.

I can never stop being white. I long for that day when all that matters is that we are creatures created equal in the image of God.

My guess is that the upcoming movie The Golden Compass will receive a ton of free publicity courtesy of the Christians whose zeal it will be to protest the movie. I understand the dilemma. Hollywood marketing machines will put this movie into the same category as The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia when, in fact, it is in its original conception the antithesis of these films. Christian leaders are concerned that unsuspecting parents will be intrigued by the sanitized version of the film which will be released just before Christmas and will buy their children the books upon which the film is based.

The Atlantic Monthly, no Christian propaganda rag, to be sure, has an article this month about the movie. This article is available on-line only to subscribers, but some excerpts here would not be out of place. The article is entitled “How Hollywood Saved God”. The subtitle is telling: “It took five years, two screenwriters, and $180 million to turn a best-selling antireligious children’s book into a star-studded epic—just in time for Christmas.”

How anti-religious (we would say ‘anti-Christian’) is the book? The article gives us a hint:

This month, New Line Cinema will release The Golden Compass, based on the first book in a trilogy of edgy children’s novels written by the British author Philip Pullman. A trailer for the movie evokes The Lord of the Rings, and comparisons have been made to The Chronicles of Narnia. All three are epic adventures that unfold in a rich fantasy world, perfect for the big screen. But beyond that basic description, the comparisons fall apart. In the past, Pullman has expressed mainly contempt for the books on which the other movies were based. He once dismissed the Lord of the Rings trilogy as an “infantile work” primarily concerned with “maps and plans and languages and codes.” Narnia got it even worse: “Morally loathsome,” he called it. “One of the most ugly and poisonous things I’ve ever read.” He described his own series as Narnia’s moral opposite. “That’s the Christian one,” he told me. “And mine is the non-Christian.”

Pullman’s books have sold 15 million copies worldwide, although it’s difficult to imagine adolescent novels any more openly subversive. The series, known collectively as His Dark Materials, centers on Lyra Belacqua, a preteen orphan who’s pursued by a murderous institution known as “the Magisterium.” Or to use the more familiar name, “the Holy Church.” In its quest to eradicate sin, the Church sanctions experiments involving the kidnap and torture of hundreds of children—experiments that separate body from soul and leave the children to stumble around zombie-like, and then die.

The series builds up to a cataclysmic war between Heaven and Earth, on the model of Paradise Lost (the source of the phrase his dark materials). But in Pullman’s version, God is revealed to be a charlatan more pitiable even than Oz. His death scene is memorable only for its lack of drama and dignity: The feeble, demented being, called “the ancient of days,” cowers and cries like a baby, dissolving in air.

Not real subtle, this.

So how do we respond?

A helpful and cautious answer to that question is posted by Family Life and can be read here. Depending heavily upon the Christian film critic and author Jeffrey Overstreet, this post encourages Christians not to overreact. Overstreet says

“… whenever Christians are linked with movies in the media, you can expect it has something to do with protesting. And it’s already begun. There is such a loud, aggressive protest against ‘The Golden Compass’ happening, that Christians are playing right into the hands of the ugly stereotype that the world has of us; which is that we only wake up and get busy when we’re angry about something.

”For me, I’ve found it much more productive to talk with my neighbors about these movies, ask them to consider what the stories say and whether the stories really have any bearing on reality. In His Dark Materials – which is the name of the series that ‘The Golden Compass’ begins – the way the churchgoers are portrayed are as malevolent, controlling, heartless puppeteers, people who want to rob people of their freedoms and their joys. I think that Pullman is reacting against his perception of the church, and if we come out with our picket signs and our guns blazing, so to speak, we’re playing right into the image of the Church that he is showing people in that series. Wouldn’t it be better if our response to the movie argued with the movie simply by being different, by showing people that Christ sets an example of grace and of dialogue, and argument, yes, but argument with love.“

He notes curiously that Pullman’s diatribe throughout the books is against the church. But he has nothing to say about Christ, and his characters attempt to love and sacrifice in a world in which, devoid of a God, such acts are meaningless.

My understanding is that this movie has been cleansed of any overt content that would hurt it at the box office. We should, as always, be cautious and discerning in our entertainment. And in this case, we should be knowledgeable. But any loud verbal protesting will only be seen by the world as ugly, and help, inadvertently, the prospects of the film.

I think I’ll stay home from this one and watch something harmless, like one of the Harry Potter films.

I do not blog for money or fame. (In fact, as some of you have noticed, for most of these recent days, I do not blog at all.)

Andy Warhol said that in the future everyone would be world-famous for fifteen minutes. In the internet age, that fame can at least be achieved among fifteen people. At last count my internet fame stands at 91. Nothing much to crow about.

So, I do not do this for fame or fortune, and I certainly do not do this in order to have another creative outlet. I write a sermon each week, and generally generate several thousand other words in writing for various projects and opportunities.

My purposes here are much more basic. I pastor a church, and this blog can be an outlet by which I extend my care for this congregation in a way in which others can listen in. My hope is to say things here for which I have no other context, things which, by God’s grace, might be useful and helpful to others.

An example is a post which I am planning on the upcoming movie The Golden Compass. I’ve been asked twice in the past week about this movie. So, people are thinking about it. Others are stirring up a buzz about it. But where and how can I say anything helpful to a congregation that might be looking for some guidance regarding this movie? A blog provides a fluid and accessible context for such content.

However, as any who have tried this will tell you, keeping a blog is time consuming. I have no lack of ideas… I have eight drafts begun of posts and a dozen other ideas scribbled down… but I have posted nothing in the past two weeks. Why? Time.

Perhaps some day I will be able to find where this task falls into the routine of my week and I will be able to be more faithful in posting. But in the meantime consider this the occasional blog, the erratic and inconsistent ramblings of one less-than-famous 21st century pastor.

Tonight my son will don a costume and venture out onto the neighborhood streets to retrieve candy from friendly neighbors. That is to say, he will be doing what I would have forbidden not to many years ago. What’s changed?

I confess to a lot of ambivalence about Halloween. I actually hate the day. I hate the fact that ghosts and witches and devils are displayed everywhere. I resent the invasion of the movie snatchers in the local theaters (this year Saw IV). And, I confess, I’m not fond of shelling out over $20 for candy to pass out to the kids that come by. (Of course, this year I bought PLENTY so that we will have leftovers… and I get to control WHAT we have as leftovers.) I am saddened that our culture gets so excited by a day that fails to really see the evil that many of its images portray.

So what has changed? Just this: from a child’s point of view it is simply the one occasion each year when what he loves to do is allowed and encouraged. A child’s imagination is so ripe, so fresh. A child loves to pretend and to let his imagination take him to another world. And Halloween is the only day where he is not only allowed to do that, but is encouraged to do it in public. In short, I began to see the day as not so much a celebration of evil as a day when my child can have some fun dressing up. I have no fear of his getting into witchcraft because of it. Besides for two years in a row he wanted to dress as a paleontologist. Not much harm in that.

But there is another reason my mind changed. It used to be that on Halloween we would vacate our house to cloister at the church for a Halloween alternative. Our house would then be the dark one in the neighborhood. What did that say to our neighbors? Perhaps it said, “These people have convictions that won’t let them participate.” More likely it said, “These Christians think they are too good for us.” I have found Halloween to be one of those rare occasions where we can wander around the neighborhood, speak freely to all our neighbors, greet those whom we’ve not seen recently, and in general nurture a friendliness that may not be possible on other days. This is one pagan practice that can be clearly redeemed for good.

A good post on this subject is here. Far more reflective and thoughtful than my own, but clearly to the same point.

Tonight, Colin is no longer going to be a paleontologist. Tonight is is going to ‘be’ Boba Fett from the Star Wars movie. And he is thrilled. I’m glad that we can have this fun together.

Tonight begins the 2007 World Series, for some the beginning of the baseball season. And the Cleveland Indians will not be in it.

The Indians have made it to the World Series five times in the past 100 years, winning in 1920 and 1948. Most recently they appeared in 1995 and 1997, losing both times. There is, I understand, a feeling in Cleveland that if the worst can happen, it will. In this year’s American League Championship series, a best of seven playoff to see which AL team would make it to the World Series, the Indians were up 3-1 and had three chances to win that last game. They couldn’t, and now they sit at home and watch Boston do their thing.

This year the Indians won 96 games, the best in baseball. They have, I understand, a great organization from the general manager to the ball boy. Their players are star quality. And they are going home. The worst has happened.

I can sympathize with Cleveland fans. I cheer another team, Hope Presbyterian Church, whose experience can seem at times quite Indians-ish. We have great leadership in some of the best elders around. We have good teaching, and music that is rich and varied. We have some creative outreach programs in place, and our people are warm and receiving. Relationships are being developed and discipleship is happening.

With all this, our attendance does not change. Recently, we’ve seen three people (apparently) come to faith in Christ. One disappeared. Another moved away. God has given us some visitors who have hung around and even joined, while others have had to move away.

So, I join the fans of Cleveland in shaking of heads and bewilderment. But the good news is that unlike baseball the church is not about winning and losing. It is so often about the process. Even when the worst seems to happen, God is in the midst of it accomplishing his winning purposes.

We may never have our World Series ring. In baseball, it is all about the winning. But in the church, it is all about faithfulness.

The series of lunches that has been mentioned in this blog here, here, and here will begin this Thursday. Please be in prayer, and if you are in the area, please come! We received some positive coverage from the Bradenton Herald this morning. You can check that out here.

Most of us don’t read difficult books. Many of us who might may stop part way bewildered by what we are reading. Those who persevere may find gold, but only after some pretty serious chipping of rock. What makes books — like Edwards’ Religious Affections so hard to read? Is it my stupidity? I’m willing to accept that. Sort of. But one cannot discount the matter of style as well. His content is marvelous. His style is repetitive and at times obtuse.

In one typical paragraph (randomly selected), I counted six sentences in one 41 line paragraph (about one page). In these sentences, there were 41 commas and ten semicolons, and average of 8 1/2 breaks per sentence. Such a ponderous style can make it VERY difficult to hold in one’s mind the logic and flow of an argument.

This may have been a wonderfully readable style for Edwards’ day. However, it is ponderous now and creates a barrier for those who would try to understand him today.

FOOTNOTE: Sometimes to mine the gold of a great mind, we need to adapt. We need to learn the skills that are necessary to unpack his style if that is a barrier.

But that should not always be necessary. A couple I’m to marry live at some distance and their premarital counseling is being done by a pastor in another denomination and in another city. To get things started, he gave them a book to read… a book on marriage written in 1842.

The bride-to-be’s comment was this: “We have read the first chapter, and well, it was somewhat difficult to say the least. It is all the same original vocabulary and grammar style from back then, making it a long and slow process of understanding its meaning!”

This makes me sad. It may be necessary to invest the labor to gain what one can only gain from Edwards, but wonderful books on marriage emerge with every generation. I hope this couple is given the chance to abandon 1842 and read something they can wrap their hearts around.

Reading time has been difficult to come by recently. Hence the distance between posts on Jonathan Edwards’ Religious Affections. This morning I was able to read what Edwards lists as the third test of the genuineness of our affections in response to God. This led me to reflect on the character and atmosphere of our worship as Christians.

Edwards makes a distinction between what he calls the natural perfections of God and His moral perfections. The distinctions here are subtle, but the natural perfections are God’s power, majesty, omniscience and the like. His moral perfections are his love, mercy, faithfulness, and so forth. Unconverted men may come to have knowledge of God’s natural perfections, and may even have occasion to become aware of his moral perfections. They may even be moved to stand in awe of God for what they see of him. But only the truly converted will be drawn to celebrate and adore the moral perfections of God.

This distinction causes me to reflect upon the nature of our worship. I am sensing three potential theological foci of worship.

The first is worship which focuses almost exclusively upon the work God has done for his people. In this, we celebrate his saving acts and his works of redemption. We respond with words and hymns of gratitude. Our hearts are filled with thanksgiving. Our focus here is on what God has done for us, and we respond having reflected on those matters. Our view of the cross in such worship is one in which we see that Jesus died FOR ME. God has done a good thing for me. That excites us because what we most feared is now removed. This is good, but such worship does not necessitate that we love God. We may simply be grateful for what he has done just as we might be thankful for a good Samaritan who changes our tire on the highway, without feeling any particular love for him.

A second possible foci of worship is upon the majesty and wonder and might of the creator God. Here is God who is great and powerful. He has created the vastness of space and the intricacies of the human eye. He can speak and waters part and he can speak and people die. There is an awe which arises before the majesty and infinite power of such a God. Worship is full of reverence and reflections upon our own smallness. All the earth is quiet and still before him. He is not a tame lion. Such worship is full of words and hymns and language which considers God at a distance, from the foot of Sinai looking up at the trembling and smoking mountain. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of such a God. Our view of the cross within such worship is one in which the holy wrath of God is poured out upon the terrible scourge of our sin. Again, nothing here is untrue. But if this is where we stay, there is nothing which distinguishes this as Christian worship. We are here moved by the natural perfections of God. It is possible for us to so limit worship to such themes that we make no progress up the mountain and through the curtain which Jesus has rent in two.

The third foci is one which turns our attention to the absolute beauty of the person of God himself. God is one who can be loved because he is love. His mercy is seen and so attached to his person that those beholding it find that they love him. He is the real person behind the cross who sent his son because of the love he has for his people. In such worship, the view of the cross that captivates is one in which the great love of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is displayed there. Such worship will reflect something of Psalm 18 (“I love you, O Lord”) or Psalm (“to gaze upon your beauty”). Such worship is emotive and may have the aura of a love song to Jesus, as offensive as that sounds to many. This, too, is good, unless of course the emotional experience itself becomes a replacement for knowledge of the true God to whom the emotions are to be attached.

I have not before worked through these distinctions in quite this way, so perhaps I can be forgiven any excess or imprecision. Clearly, our worship should be “blended” in the best sort of way. God’s majesty exposes our smallness and sin, driving us to the cross, from which we emerge deeply grateful and deeply moved, captivated by the beauty of God’s person, and longing to know and enjoy him more. Our liturgy should reflect this and our hymnody should support it. The personality of a church may lead it to unhealthy emphases. Of that we should be aware and cautious.

We don’t want to stay uninformed on the hottest (pun intended) topic in the world of metaphor. Click here for more info on frogs and hot water.

There has been a lag in my posting, I confess. It is not from a lack of something to say; it is from a lack of energy to say it. We’ll see if I can climb out of this malaise. In the meantime, this: James Fallows, a well respected journalist, was commenting about Al Gore using the old frog in the kettle metaphor for doing nothing. While some might debate how accurate Gore is on global warming, he says we are all dead wrong on amphibian warming:

Summary of the undisputed science on this point: If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will either die or else be so badly hurt it will wish that it were dead. If you put it in a pot of tepid water and turn on the heat, the frog will climb out — if it can — as soon as it gets uncomfortably warm.

Well, there goes an otherwise perfectly good cliche. Is it still true that pots and kettles are black?