Context is an important element in any of our understanding of what is true or false. For example, if I say, "he kissed his mother," it wouldn’t sound abnormal. But if I revealed that he was Oedipus, son of Laius and Jocasta in Greek legend, it sounds abnormal. In fact that is where the phrase, "Oedipus Complex" originated.
At eighteen I was considered to be of average height. My West Point class was the first class to integrate by heights. Before then, cadets were assigned companies according to their height. But that system had developed some "Napoleonic" complexes in the shorter or "runt" companies. I was one of the first "tall" men to be put in the smallest "runt" company. Suddenly, I went from being average height to tall.
Chapel was mandatory in those days. We marched to church each Sunday. I had never been in a church with musical instruments. On that first Sunday I marched in the chapel and heard this magnificent organ praising God, but I was thinking I was entering the realm of Satan. After two Sundays, I couldn’t wait to attend chapel and worship God on such a high plane! That chapel went from being an instrument of Satan to a truly wonderful way of worshiping and praising God.
Over my life I have been asked many times, "Are you a Christian?" Most often, the person asking the question had a formulated response they expected me to repeat. If I answered as they wanted, they approved of me. If I answered wrongly, they were sure I was condemned to hell.
I hadn’t changed, but the person asking the question was different.
In my other pastorates, in the context of the communities where they were located, I was considered to be a moderate evangelical tongue speaking Presbyterian. In the community where I now reside, where fundamentalism prevails, I am often regarded as a flaming liberal, whose salvation is in doubt.
Context is important, especially in choosing a church. If your understanding of Christianity is it is all about salvation, then you would seek a church of that bent. They would have and emphasis altar calls in Sunday worship, the numbers being saved, how many visitors you bring, and your level of giving to the church. Salvation churches are about expansion, and rightly so, if salvation is what you believe Christianity is all about.
However, if your view of Christianity is people are saved by grace and not good works, and the work of the church is sanctification (becoming more holy or Godly), you would seek a different type of church. That church would see Sunday worship as a gathering of believers (saved people), who come to worship God, seek to equip people to be more Christ like in life so they can attract others to God, emphasize holiness and obedience to the Spirit of God, take serious Jesus’ life and teaching to be the way, the truth and the life, and believe no one can get to the Father (God) in heaven except by being like Jesus. These churches emphasis the age old Shema - love the Lord God with all your might. So if becoming more holy, to be a better follower of Christ and a more Godly person, then these are the churches for you.
Yes context is important, especially when you are seeking a place to worship and to grow spiritually. Names can be deceiving, so look at who they are, not who they say they are.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Equality of Sexes
Many traditions advocate women must be submissive to men. Sad traditions I have encountered all my life. Interestingly enough they claim God established this hierarchy at creation. So let me address it as a creation issue, "Are women spare ribs or prime cut?"
My foundation for examination is I believe, "Bereshith bara Elohim" ...In the beginning when God created... i.e. Life begins with God. Genesis means beginnings. Chapters 1 thru 11 of the book of Genesis are the primordial historical narrative of the earliest generations of the world and humankind. They are background for the call of Abram in the twelfth chapter. It is in this history that we find the creation of boys and girls.
English Bibles or traditional King James paraphrases are very difficult to use for particular endeavor, because they use the word "man" in place of several original Hebrew words. Let us first look at the Hebrew word influencing this subject. The word "adam" in Hebrew generally means humankind. It is not used as the proper name of the first male until verse 4:25. The evolution of the use of the word that goes from meaning humanity to a specific person is not uncommon in many Near Eastern accounts of creation.
The crux of creation is seen in Chapter 1 verse 27 - "So God created humankind (adam - heb.) in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (NRSV) Boys and girls are both created in the image of God. This is the first and oldest text in Scripture concerning we humans. Man and woman were created equal in the sight of God. They are male and female in the image of God. Neither is more of an image than the other.
Then what is the second more familiar story the account of the Garden of Eden? Like much of the rest of Genesis it is a God's method of revealing truth that took place in the beginnings. Much is hard to understand but it is background for many traditions in the nation of Israel. Remember all of these Scriptures were passed down through generations for over a thousand years until they were put into writings just before the collapse of Judah as a nation.
Many people appropriate the story of the rib, which has no medical support. Yet many of us seize the issue of the breath of God. What is more important in the Garden story, the notion of male supremacy or a people of God, male and female, lead by the Spirit of God?
I have always had trouble with the two humans in the Garden being the first humans on planet Earth. Why? Who were the people in the land of Nod east of Eden? I don't know either, but they forced me to look at the story again. In the second look it was fascinating to see God take two particular humans into a special alliance and breath the breath of life into them. The etymologist knows it is the same breath that blew over the chaos and created something out of nothing. It is the same breath that descended as a dove when Jesus received the Holy Spirit.
Eureka! Perhaps these two creatures, male and female, were the first humans on planet Earth to receive the Holy Spirit. The first two humans born from above into the Kingdom of God. That is the real significance about the Garden story. Not some proof text to make me a Tarzan and my wife a Jane. Sorry Bubba, but your wife is also in the image of God and filled with the same Spirit, if she is a child of God.
Scriptures treats humankind as the focus of creation. Each and every human is intended to be prime cut. Yes, made in the image of God, male and female. Humankind is separated by who is in God's Garden and who is not in it. Or who has God's Spirit, the breath of God, and who doesn't have it. During the introduction of sin we find the spare rib concept for female humankind. Isn't it time to return to the original concept for God's people. Recognize we are all created in his image, male and female, and in need of his breath?
And! I am not a feminazi or a flaming liberal feminist! I am a male human in God, who wants equality of position to all humankind. In the place where I live (that's in Christ Jesus) there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female. Won't you move to my neighborhood and live in the fullness for which God created you, whether you are male or female?
My foundation for examination is I believe, "Bereshith bara Elohim" ...In the beginning when God created... i.e. Life begins with God. Genesis means beginnings. Chapters 1 thru 11 of the book of Genesis are the primordial historical narrative of the earliest generations of the world and humankind. They are background for the call of Abram in the twelfth chapter. It is in this history that we find the creation of boys and girls.
English Bibles or traditional King James paraphrases are very difficult to use for particular endeavor, because they use the word "man" in place of several original Hebrew words. Let us first look at the Hebrew word influencing this subject. The word "adam" in Hebrew generally means humankind. It is not used as the proper name of the first male until verse 4:25. The evolution of the use of the word that goes from meaning humanity to a specific person is not uncommon in many Near Eastern accounts of creation.
The crux of creation is seen in Chapter 1 verse 27 - "So God created humankind (adam - heb.) in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (NRSV) Boys and girls are both created in the image of God. This is the first and oldest text in Scripture concerning we humans. Man and woman were created equal in the sight of God. They are male and female in the image of God. Neither is more of an image than the other.
Then what is the second more familiar story the account of the Garden of Eden? Like much of the rest of Genesis it is a God's method of revealing truth that took place in the beginnings. Much is hard to understand but it is background for many traditions in the nation of Israel. Remember all of these Scriptures were passed down through generations for over a thousand years until they were put into writings just before the collapse of Judah as a nation.
Many people appropriate the story of the rib, which has no medical support. Yet many of us seize the issue of the breath of God. What is more important in the Garden story, the notion of male supremacy or a people of God, male and female, lead by the Spirit of God?
I have always had trouble with the two humans in the Garden being the first humans on planet Earth. Why? Who were the people in the land of Nod east of Eden? I don't know either, but they forced me to look at the story again. In the second look it was fascinating to see God take two particular humans into a special alliance and breath the breath of life into them. The etymologist knows it is the same breath that blew over the chaos and created something out of nothing. It is the same breath that descended as a dove when Jesus received the Holy Spirit.
Eureka! Perhaps these two creatures, male and female, were the first humans on planet Earth to receive the Holy Spirit. The first two humans born from above into the Kingdom of God. That is the real significance about the Garden story. Not some proof text to make me a Tarzan and my wife a Jane. Sorry Bubba, but your wife is also in the image of God and filled with the same Spirit, if she is a child of God.
Scriptures treats humankind as the focus of creation. Each and every human is intended to be prime cut. Yes, made in the image of God, male and female. Humankind is separated by who is in God's Garden and who is not in it. Or who has God's Spirit, the breath of God, and who doesn't have it. During the introduction of sin we find the spare rib concept for female humankind. Isn't it time to return to the original concept for God's people. Recognize we are all created in his image, male and female, and in need of his breath?
And! I am not a feminazi or a flaming liberal feminist! I am a male human in God, who wants equality of position to all humankind. In the place where I live (that's in Christ Jesus) there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female. Won't you move to my neighborhood and live in the fullness for which God created you, whether you are male or female?
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Time for a Worldwide Reformation
Wherever we live on this beautiful crazy planet we are being bombarded with daily headlines that sadly reveal a rapidly growing worldwide clash of cultures and values. Examine any culture or value and you will find their ethical roots entwined deeply in their own particular historical and religious development over the ages. This ever developing clash of ideals lurks menacingly just below the surface of every faith and culture. When these lurking ideals finally clash they will create as much or more mayhem in the world as any of the other great steps in culture evolution in the past have brought.
This erupting struggle of cultures and values caused me to ask, "What single idea or perspective is the real cause of this ecclesiastical struggle that is now spilling over into every domain?" Over the last two hundred years or so, societies have been expanding beyond their borders, while at the same time struggling with their isolationism. What has caused this dynamic tension amongst the cultures of the world? I believe it was and is the coming to age of the rapid communications and travel systems that are universally available.
Before this current and almost unbelievable expansion of information humanity seemed to live somewhat happily ever after within their own lands and within their own comfortable religious and cultural ideals and laws. And now, this new increasing access of information is allowing we citizens of the world to know so much more about one another. Maintaining an isolationism of peoples and faiths is growing more difficult each and everyday. In one way or another, we keep finding new needs for our far away neighbors, who we soon realize are so very different from ourselves.
This worldwide struggle according to many leaders is forcing us to choose what primary proclamation are we to declare in this expanding world community? This difficult choice seems to be between two major thoughts or perspectives, that would be difficult to proclaimed together. In fact they struggle to exist together within every faith because of the basic differences in how they are applied to people from/with different cultures and values.
What are these two opposing perspectives? Simply stated they are:
1. (Fill in a word or name) is the only way to acquire life after death (peace).
Or
2. For me/us (Fill in a word or name) is the best way to acquire life after death (peace).
A person deeply committed to statement number one, the one way only theory, will struggle constantly with how to effectively relate with anyone outside that system of belief. Why would this be true? By the nature of the statement, a person with that perspective must view anyone outside their perspective or realm as lost and without hope. They have and always will tend to see these outsiders as the enemy as well as people full of ignorance.
We don’t have to look to relationships between the major faiths of the world to see this in action. Throughout our Christian history this has been evident between many, if not most, Christian groups. Early in our history the Roman Church was one of the first major movements to claim exclusiveness. Subsequently, each and every cause seeking to reform the faith claimed that their particular perspective or way was the best, if not only true one. Nearly every spinoff from one of the main movements was created because someone claimed a new and special way.
Let one thing be clear, if a person or group stands on statement number one, they should by all means be isolationist and treat the rest of humanity as lost. It is a difficult road to walk, but it would seem to be the correct one for this group. Those of this perspective usually claim they simply are believing what God has told them.
In the second stated perspective there appears to be two underlying principles. The first is that how a person, or for that matter which person, is redeemed is freely and exclusively up to a Higher Power or Ideal. The twist? This perspective assumes all who are redeemed are done so by God. Therefore I believe this view also requires a respect of other views of God and reality. This twist evolves out of a humility that understands that there are things about the Creator we humans have yet to learn. It is powered by the notion that God desires every human being to exist forever with God, so they can come to the full knowledge of the truth of the reality of Creation and its Creator. Thus the second group normally endeavors to exist in a manner that will attract others to their faith. They do this by treating others as fellow creatures in the Creator’s world.. Who is or who isn’t in the fold of God is left entirely up to God.
Which statement is correct? Both could be correct and both could be wrong. But both require a deep respect of faith and discipline to that particular way of life. Jesus as well as most all other great teachers of other established faiths recognized this when they taught their followers that a person cannot serve two masters. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people attempt to live by both of the above statements. A person’s circumstance at various times seems to dictate as to which statement governed their actions.. In doing so their faith has been watered down to a point where it is now hard to tell the difference between the two points of view.
Having lived in communities and countries with different faiths than mine, and I found I was comfortable with most of their philosophies. For the most part, I believe they simply didn’t want to offend me. However, in every place I lived, I encountered minorities who strongly advocated just one of the statements. And they made it clear, that for them their statement of faith, whether it was the first or second one cited above, was the only way.
Unfortunately the middle groups who simply didn’t want to offend anyone have slowly lost center stage and control in every faith and culture. They seem to be standing on the sidelines while the two extremes fight for survival.
What should we make of this? Perhaps it is time for a new Reformation, not just in Christianity, but in the all the faiths of the world. Let us seek a common understanding of God and the purpose of this Creation. Let us seek it with love and understanding.
This erupting struggle of cultures and values caused me to ask, "What single idea or perspective is the real cause of this ecclesiastical struggle that is now spilling over into every domain?" Over the last two hundred years or so, societies have been expanding beyond their borders, while at the same time struggling with their isolationism. What has caused this dynamic tension amongst the cultures of the world? I believe it was and is the coming to age of the rapid communications and travel systems that are universally available.
Before this current and almost unbelievable expansion of information humanity seemed to live somewhat happily ever after within their own lands and within their own comfortable religious and cultural ideals and laws. And now, this new increasing access of information is allowing we citizens of the world to know so much more about one another. Maintaining an isolationism of peoples and faiths is growing more difficult each and everyday. In one way or another, we keep finding new needs for our far away neighbors, who we soon realize are so very different from ourselves.
This worldwide struggle according to many leaders is forcing us to choose what primary proclamation are we to declare in this expanding world community? This difficult choice seems to be between two major thoughts or perspectives, that would be difficult to proclaimed together. In fact they struggle to exist together within every faith because of the basic differences in how they are applied to people from/with different cultures and values.
What are these two opposing perspectives? Simply stated they are:
1. (Fill in a word or name) is the only way to acquire life after death (peace).
Or
2. For me/us (Fill in a word or name) is the best way to acquire life after death (peace).
A person deeply committed to statement number one, the one way only theory, will struggle constantly with how to effectively relate with anyone outside that system of belief. Why would this be true? By the nature of the statement, a person with that perspective must view anyone outside their perspective or realm as lost and without hope. They have and always will tend to see these outsiders as the enemy as well as people full of ignorance.
We don’t have to look to relationships between the major faiths of the world to see this in action. Throughout our Christian history this has been evident between many, if not most, Christian groups. Early in our history the Roman Church was one of the first major movements to claim exclusiveness. Subsequently, each and every cause seeking to reform the faith claimed that their particular perspective or way was the best, if not only true one. Nearly every spinoff from one of the main movements was created because someone claimed a new and special way.
Let one thing be clear, if a person or group stands on statement number one, they should by all means be isolationist and treat the rest of humanity as lost. It is a difficult road to walk, but it would seem to be the correct one for this group. Those of this perspective usually claim they simply are believing what God has told them.
In the second stated perspective there appears to be two underlying principles. The first is that how a person, or for that matter which person, is redeemed is freely and exclusively up to a Higher Power or Ideal. The twist? This perspective assumes all who are redeemed are done so by God. Therefore I believe this view also requires a respect of other views of God and reality. This twist evolves out of a humility that understands that there are things about the Creator we humans have yet to learn. It is powered by the notion that God desires every human being to exist forever with God, so they can come to the full knowledge of the truth of the reality of Creation and its Creator. Thus the second group normally endeavors to exist in a manner that will attract others to their faith. They do this by treating others as fellow creatures in the Creator’s world.. Who is or who isn’t in the fold of God is left entirely up to God.
Which statement is correct? Both could be correct and both could be wrong. But both require a deep respect of faith and discipline to that particular way of life. Jesus as well as most all other great teachers of other established faiths recognized this when they taught their followers that a person cannot serve two masters. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people attempt to live by both of the above statements. A person’s circumstance at various times seems to dictate as to which statement governed their actions.. In doing so their faith has been watered down to a point where it is now hard to tell the difference between the two points of view.
Having lived in communities and countries with different faiths than mine, and I found I was comfortable with most of their philosophies. For the most part, I believe they simply didn’t want to offend me. However, in every place I lived, I encountered minorities who strongly advocated just one of the statements. And they made it clear, that for them their statement of faith, whether it was the first or second one cited above, was the only way.
Unfortunately the middle groups who simply didn’t want to offend anyone have slowly lost center stage and control in every faith and culture. They seem to be standing on the sidelines while the two extremes fight for survival.
What should we make of this? Perhaps it is time for a new Reformation, not just in Christianity, but in the all the faiths of the world. Let us seek a common understanding of God and the purpose of this Creation. Let us seek it with love and understanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)