A Story Book and Not a Book of Instruction

Acts 8:26-38 Then an angel of the Lord said to Philip, ‘Get up and go towards the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.’ (This is a wilderness road.) ²⁷So he got up and went. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch… ²⁹Then the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go over to this chariot and join it.’ ³⁰So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ ³¹He replied, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him… ³⁵Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus. ³⁶As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, ‘Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?’ ³⁸He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. (NRSV)

About a decade ago one of the biggest hits in contemporary Christian music was the song “Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.”  If that is your taste in music, there was a lot to like about the song.  Unfortunately, like so many other contemporary Christian songs, the lyrics left a lot to be desired.  The lyrics essentially turned the Bible into in acronym.  It was a clever acronym but one that fundamentally misunderstands the Bible.  

First off the Bible is not about leaving earth, but about entering into the world more deeply or justly.  There are few passages that talk about humanity leaving the earth.  At the very beginning God declared the earth and all that is in it to be “very good.”  Why would we want to leave something that God has declared to be very good? Creation is not something that we need to escape from; transformed yes, but escape no.  Even when the Bible talks about Jesus’ ascension it is with an understanding of returning.  So clearly the Bible is not about leaving the earth.

The second problem with the acronym is the Bible is not an instruction book, basic or otherwise.   It might be nice if the Bible was an instruction book, it would sure make things a lot simpler if not outright simplistic, but that is not the Bible.  The Bible tells the story of a collection of peoples and their experience with God.  This story is often anything but basic; there are contradictions and changes as the stories develop.  Each generation interprets their experience with God in a different way than the previous generations.  To make the Bible into a basic instruction book is to ignore the humanity of the Bible’s authors, as well as the purpose of the Bible itself.  Rather than an instruction book, the bible reveals something of God’s character, which helps us to see the possibilities of a new future, a new hope.  

That is exactly what happens to Phillip on the road, when he comes upon an Ethiopian Eunuch reading from the book of Isaiah.  It is no coincidence that a eunuch would be reading from Isaiah; unlike other biblical writings Isaiah presents eunuchs and others with a place of hope (Isaiah 56.3-4).  While Isaiah offers hope for eunuchs, the dominate view of the day would have judged eunuchs as being cut off from the church, as living outside of the church’s standards.  If the Bible was simply an instruction book Philip would have had no reason to approach the Ethiopian Eunuch.  The answer was simple, he was cut off from worship, cutoff from the church, fortunately the Bible is not an instruction book.  

Instead of choosing the simplistic way, Philip approaches Eunuch and asks him a simple question, “Do you understand what you are reading?”  The Eunuch replies he does not, because no one is guiding him.   So Philip joins him in the chariot and they travel together.  During the course of their travels they continue to discuss the prophet Isaiah, and when they come to some water, Philip, who is well grounded in the biblical tradition and is able to see were the Spirit is leading him, is unable to think of a reason why the Eunuch should not be baptized.  If the Bible was simply an instruction book none of this would have been possible.  However, when grounded (like Philip) in the stories of those ancient peoples experience with God, something of God’s character is revealed opening us up to see where God is coaxing us, even if it rubs against dominate understandings.    

Something similar to Philip’s experience happened at the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.  When it came time to answer the question of who can be baptized (fully included in the church), we as a church could think of no reason to prevent us from fully including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.  We as church could think of no reason why gay and lesbians couldn’t enjoy the same rights to marry as everyone else.   It was a decision that was a long time coming, but also one that was fully grounded in the biblical stories.  Being grounded in the stories of an ancient peoples' experience with God, like the story of Philip and the Eunuch,  allowed us as a church to see God coaxing us to challenge the notion that people should not be discriminated against for being biologically or sexually different than the dominate culture.  

Unfortunately we have become illiterate.  We no longer know the stories of those ancient peoples' experience with God, leading us to view the Bible as nothing more than an instruction book.  Viewed in this way we miss out on the future God is coaxing us toward.  God has given us a great gift in the stories of the Bible, stories we need to read and reclaim.  It may not be as simplistic as a basic instruction book, but the stories of those ancient peoples can lead us to a new future.  One where there is promise enough for everyone, instead of just the few.   

A Very Friendly Congregation...but What About Hospitality?

John 10.11-18 [Jesus said,]“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. ¹²The hired hand, who is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away—and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. ¹³The hired hand runs away because a hired hand does not care for the sheep. ¹⁴I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, ¹⁵just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. ¹⁶I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. ¹⁷For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. ¹⁸No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father.” (NRSV)

This past week was the Rocky Mountain Synod Assembly.  Like most Synod Assemblies this one was held at a hotel in Colorado Springs.  This was the second year in a row we stayed at this particular hotel.  It is a very comfortable hotel the rooms are nice, clean, and the bed restful, but that is not the only reason we have come back to this hotel two years in a row.  They also do a wonderful job with meals.  As is typical with any group this size (550+) there are a number of special dietary needs, whether vegetarian, pescatarian, gluten free, or some other food allergy.    Despite the large number of meals that need to be served in a short period of time, the hotel staff goes out of its way to make sure all those special dietary needs are met.  Even when a request is made that is not related to diet, the staff does its best to accommodate the guest.  Rather than expect the guest to come into their hotel and conform to them, the hotel staff becomes like us.  In becoming like their guests they are able to offer vegetarian, pescatarian, or gluten-free meals.  They add extra recycling bins in the common areas, because we are a green church.  They make sure and have a union contract and pay an equitable wage to their employees, so we can use their facilities for our assembly.  In becoming like us they model for us what hospitality is all about.  Sure they are financially rewarded for their hospitality, but that doesn’t make them less hospitable. 

Hospitality was one of the marks of the early church.  Those early Christians practiced a radical hospitality that wasn’t about financial reward, but based on the understanding that each person has been created in God’s image.  It didn’t matter whether they were Jewish, Greek, Roman, or Samaritan; they were welcomed into the early church because they were beings who had been created in God’s Image.  Their value and worth to the community was based solely on that understanding, and not on their family, birthplace, or ethnicity.  

But then, approximately 1700 years ago we began to replace hospitality with friendliness.  Now there is nothing wrong with being friendly or being nice to people, but it is not the same as hospitality.  Being friendly to people is easy.  It is easy to shake someone’s hand.  It is easy to say “good morning” to someone who has just come in.  It is easy to engage someone in small talk, to talk about the weather, the NFL draft, how the baseball season is shaping up etc.  No matter how friendly we might image ourselves to be, friendliness is not hospitality.  We still expect people who come into our congregation to conform to us, to be like us. 

In that way, we have become like the hired hand.  The hired hand who leaves the sheep, because he doesn’t value them they same way he values himself.  To him they are just sheep who haven’t become like him and thus don’t need to be protected.  Our congregations treat people the same way.  Unless you are a charter member, or related to a charter member, or have lived in the town for generations, or come from the right ethnicity you are left on the outside, because we just don’t value them the same as ourselves. 

The good (here good is being used as an example to follow) shepherd however stays to defend the sheep and is even willing to lay down his life for the sheep.  He doesn’t care that they haven’t become like him.  They are God’s creatures and their value is based solely on that fact, and not on which family they are part of, or how long they have been a member of the flock, or where their ancestors came from.  The good shepherd values the sheep at least as highly as himself, becoming like them and that is the difference between friendliness and hospitality. 

Maybe it is time for us as a congregation and as a church to return to our roots, to return to a genuine practice of hospitality, where everyone is valued on the basis of being created in God’s image, and not on the tenure of their membership or their ethnicity.  John reminds us there are still other sheep who are not yet part of the flock.  It is real hospitality that will make possible the promise of other sheep coming into the flock, the promise of one united and universal flock. 

God's Uncomfortable Reign

Acts 4.32-35 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need (NRSV).

I think one of the most difficult lessons for us to learn, especially as children, is to share.  Much of preschool and even kindergarten is focused on the lesson of sharing.  Whether it is genetic or a product of our environment there is something deep within us that makes it hard for us to share.  It is counter intuitive.  I am no different.  As a child, I hated sharing my toys with my younger brother, and not just because things would come back in worse shape than when borrowed.  There was a fear that if he was playing with my toys, then I was missing out.  Never mind that I wasn’t using them at the time or even planning using them at the time.  There is something about our human nature that makes it hard for us to share.

Even as adults it is often hard for us to share.  That same fear we had of sharing as children still holds us.  But it doesn’t have to control us.  I can honestly say I have no problem sharing my things with my wife, Kim.  I trust her and I am more than willing to share my things with her openly and freely.  While my willingness to share with Kim, might make me sound (self) righteous, or look a little bit better than others, the reality is I know Kim wants nothing to do with most of my stuff.  It just doesn’t interest her, and she would have no need or desire to borrow my stuff.  It is incredibly easy to share your stuff with others, when you know they want nothing to do with it.  Whether as children or adults we just don’t like sharing.  It goes against our nature.  Even at a societal level we don’t like sharing. 

Maybe that is why this passage from Acts makes us more than just a little bit uncomfortable.  If it is of any consolation, we are not the only ones who are uncomfortable.  Many, throughout the history of Christianity, have tried to dismiss this passage from Acts; stating it is either an idealize fantasy that never happened or was tried early on but failed quickly.  As nice as it might be to dismiss this passage, neither of these options are valid.  We have recovered a number of early Christian texts from outside the Bible that show the Christian community continuing to share all possessions a century or more after Acts was written.  Which leaves us with the question of why. Why did the early Christian community think it necessary to share their possessions and distribute them according to need? 

The simple answer to this question is that those early Christians believed it was a part of their calling and identity as Christians.  They believed that Christians were called to follow Jesus, and, at least in part, the church is meant to be a reflection of God’s reign.  Central to God’s reign is that everyone has enough, so that there is “not a needy person among them.” (Acts appropriated this idea from Deuteronomy 15.4 and the Creations stories).  Unfortunately, when people look at the church they see an institution that looks less like a reflection, even dimly, of God’s reign and more like a reflection of the society around them.  We Christians, on the whole, are just as unwilling to share, just as unwilling to make sure none among us has need as the rest of society.  Now there is no difference between church and society.

So may be this text from Acts makes us uncomfortable, but that might be a good thing.  Being uncomfortable reminds us of what the church should be a reflection of God’s reign, even if only dimly.  Being uncomfortable also reminds us that God’s reign, often times, comes in very things that  makes us uncomfortable. 

Don't Worry...the Poor Have Refrigerators

“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another.  Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another” (John 13.34).   

“Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another” Jesus gives his followers this new commandment at the last supper. At first it sounds like a very safe commandment. But let’s face it, it is not always easy to love people, sometimes people make it difficult for us to love them.  I am sure we all know people, like that, who make themselves very difficult to love. Maybe it is the ‘black sheep’ of the family, the one who always manages to annoy the rest of the family during the holidays.  Or perhaps it is a boss or co-worker who is constantly trying to show everyone else up.  Or maybe it is someone we know, who for whatever reason is continuously getting under our skin.  As hard as it might be to love people like that, Jesus’ last commandment to his followers goes beyond just loving the annoying people in our lives. 

Jesus’ command isn’t just about liking or being nice to people, but about really and truly valuing them as human beings.  This is a much harder proposition, especially in our society.  How many times do we hear on TV, the Radio, or in a magazine or Newspaper, that we shouldn’t value or love someone?  We are constantly being told not to value or love the poor, after all they are just lazy, looking to take advantage of the system, or don’t know how to manage their funds.  One “news” channel even went so far as to argue the poor aren’t worth loving or valuing, because most of them have a refrigerator in their dwelling places.  Or how often are we told not to value or love immigrants, especially if undocumented, because they are coming to steal from us, or they might enhance our cultural and ethnic diversity.  Or told why we shouldn’t love or value liberals and progressives because they are only out to destroy the country.  I am sure we can all think of countless others who we are told not to value or love for whatever reason.  We are constantly being bombarded by messages telling us why we shouldn’t value and love others.  Unfortunately many of the people we are told not to value and love live on the margins of our society, people who are easy, for those of us in the majority, to devalue and not love. 

With the constant bombardment, no wonder why it is difficult for us to value and love others, especially those who are most unlike us.  But what does this mean for those of us who call ourselves Christians?  Many of us sense there is something wrong, but are less sure of the answer.  Maybe that is why we gather together on Maundy Thursday, and why so many do not.  We realize and hope that there is something more to Jesus’ commandment than just sentimentality.  On that Maundy Thursday night 2,000 years ago Jesus upset the structures of the world that continue to devalue people for the sake of the few. 

He did so by redefining what it means to be a leader, by washing his disciples’ feet.  While much has been made of the place of foot washing, what is often overlooked is whose feet he was washing.  We might consider the disciples to be the founders of the Church, but in their day they were nobodies, they were unclean, lazy, and uncouth.  They were Jews living in Roman occupied territory, who had some of the worst jobs possible in the hopes of surviving.  They were, in essence, the very people our society tells us not to value and love.  Yet it was their feet that Jesus washed, in so doing Jesus redefines how we value and love people.  No longer will the criteria of our society or theirs determine a person’s worth.  Instead we are to see all as being created in God’s image.  It might not seem like much has changed in the 2,000 years since Jesus’ last supper, but on that night Jesus challenged and changed the world. 

Heights, Sandals, Belief, and Eternal Life

John 3.16-21  ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

¹⁷ ‘Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. ¹⁸Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. ¹⁹And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. ²⁰For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. ²¹But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.’ (NRSV)

I am not a big fan of heights.  It is not necessarily all heights, but some heights.  For example, I had no problem going to the top floor of the Sears Tower (or whatever it is called now) and looking out over the city and Lake Michigan.  On a clear day the view is almost limitless.  Or walking across the glass floor in the CN Tower in Toronto and where you can look straight down 1,100 ft. But take me to the Grand Canyon or Black Canyon and I will admire the view from hundreds of feet from the edge.  Heck I don’t even like to climb the ladder to get to the loft in the back of the church (10-15 ft off the ground).  And I have yet to figure out that TV credit card commercial where the woman is climbing on top of a tall rock spire, barely wide enough for her to walk on.  The inconsistency in my dislike of heights has led me to think that it is not so much a fear of heights, as it is a trust in gravity. 

I know enough physics to know how gravity works, and enough experience to know what happens when you fail to properly trust gravity.  My trust in gravity changes how I live.  I have never looked for a job that involved ascending to great heights, while on vacation I don’t go climbing or get close to the edge of a cliff, and I would probably pass on a call that required me to climb up a pulpit that stands 10 or 15 ft off the ground, the kind seen occasionally in old churches out East or in England.  My trust in gravity changes how I live my life.  It is this understanding of trust that underlies the Greek word commonly translated as belief. 

When we talk about belief or believing, we often think of doctrine or dogma.  I believe this or that about God.  Doctrine and dogma are the things the church has been fighting over for 2,000 years or so.  It is the reason we have so many denominations, with more popping up every day.  But this is not what John is talking about when he says “everyone who believes in [Jesus].”  For John, belief is more about trust than doctrine.  Whether you believe Jesus to be a tall, fair skinned, blue eyed man or a short, stout, dark skinned, brown eyed man doesn’t matter to John.  That is not what John means by belief, but trust is.  To trust in Jesus means to trust in the way that Jesus lived.  This trust changes how we live.  To trust that Jesus’ way is also the way for our lives as well means to change how we live.  Now I am not talking about taking Jesus’ life directly over into ours, as though 2,000 years haven’t passed between us and him.  It doesn’t mean to start wearing sandals, although sandals are a very comfortable footwear, winter or summer.  It does mean to begin to look at how Jesus lived in his time and place, how he healed the sick and lame, fed the hungry, clothed the naked, restored people to the fullness of their humanity and spoke out against injustice.  In living the way he did, he brought eternal life to all those whose life he touched. 

For John, eternal life isn’t something that just begins after our current life is over, but is something that was begun with Jesus, himself.  People, through being healed, fed, clothed, and restored, experience eternal life.  Our trust in Jesus calls us to continue to live in the way of Jesus, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, restoring people to the fullness of their humanity, and speaking out against injustice.  We forget that eternal life is not just a gift for us alone, but is a gift for the entirety of creation. 

Rather than thinking of eternal life as the next life, think of it as God’s way (or desire) for the world, a way that means the eradication of hunger, illness, homelessness, and injustice.  It is a gift that is meant to be received in this life, as well as for eternity. 

Cleansing of the Temple... er Church?

John 2.13 The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. ¹⁴In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money-changers seated at their tables. ¹⁵Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. ¹⁶He told those who were selling the doves, ‘Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a market-place!’ (NRSV)

There is an old saying about love, a saying that forms the refrain of the Social Distortion song “Writing on the Wall.”  “They say if you love someone you gotta let them go….”   Whether or not you are completely convinced by this saying or not, I think it is fair to say there is some truth to it.  The truth of this saying goes beyond just human relationships, it can apply to anything that we love or like. While there is truth in the idea of letting go it is not easy to let go, as the writer of the song acknowledges with the line “but I can’t let go.”  But as hard as it is to let go that is often times exactly what we need to do.  As much for the person or thing we love as for ourselves.

It is not uncommon for us to want the people whom we fall in love with to remain the same as when we fell in love with them.  How many times has one spouse said to the other “You are a dork…you weren’t a dork when I married you” (please feel free change the wording to match your own context).  We fall in love with the person we were dating or engaged to, and that is the person we want to spend the rest of our lives with.  That is the person we want to hold onto. 

But by holding on and not letting go, we hold back the person’s ability to grow, change and become the person God is calling them to be.  Make no mistake it is not easy to let go and there is always risk involved.  It is conceivable that people may grow apart, but in some sense love insists on letting go, allowing the person we love to become something more than our own desire for that person. 

I think it is fair to say the same goes for the church.  There are a great many of us who have come to love the church, or at least the congregation to which we belong.  At some point in the past we came to love the church, and just like in human relationships, that is how we want the church to remain.  We want it to continue to exist as it did in the past.  We may even come to believe that this past vision is what is best for the church, we want others to experience the same church we fell in love with. 

Unfortunately by not letting go, by only wanting the church to remain the same, we make it nearly impossible for new people to come to love the church.  Their experiences are not ours.  They, as much as we do, want to find a church that is relevant for them and their lives.  We “gotta…let go” so that church can grow, change, become relevant again, and become something more than just our desire for it.  

It is easy to see Jesus’ purging of the temple in terms of his dislike for the temple, the Jews and their religion.  But the Gospel according to John is not meant to be denunciation of the Jewish faith or Jews in general.  The whip, the overturning of the tables, and the shouting weren’t the products of his dislike of the temple, but were the product of his love for his own people and his own faith.  Jesus knew just how hard it is to let go, and tried to force the issue.  Unfortunately, this prophetic action didn’t really change anything and instead helped to seal his fate on the cross.  At some point in time, the temple had become the ‘property’ of a select few, who used it to their own benefit and were unwilling to allow it to change, to become relevant for the majority of the people in Jesus’ day. 

Let’s face it we have done a similar thing in our congregations and churches.  We have turned them into temples that serve our own desire.  No amount of cleansing even if it includes a whip, overturned tables, and shouting will change this reality, until we are willing to let go.  There is still a place for the church in the world, but it is a place that has to be more than just our own desires.  I am firmly convinced that God still is calling the church so that it can become what it is meant to be, a blessing to all the people of the world.  “They say if you love something you gotta let it go.”

Stories of Destruction?

Stories of destruction seem to be all around us these days.  No sooner do we get past Harold Camping’s prognostication for end of the world last May and then again in October, before talk turns to the Mayan calendar and the end of the world on December 21, 2012.  If reading the Bible is any indication, stories about the destruction of the world are almost as old human civilization itself.  A few short chapters after the beginning of Genesis, we get the story of Noah and the Flood. There are several things to note, however, about these stories of destruction. 

Most of the stories of the end of the world often serve a personal agenda.  Harold Camping made his fortune, and it is a substantial fortune, through his radio broadcasts.  While not wanting to question the sincerity of his Christianity, one has to wonder what has the greater influence in his broadcast money or faith.  When he began to predict the end of the world how many listeners began to send him even more money? 

When talk turns to the Mayan calendar the agenda becomes even more evident.  According to respectable Mayan Scholars the Mayan calendar doesn’t actually predict the end of the world.  Instead the Mayan Long calendar has a cycle 5,126 years.  If archaeologists have correctly identified the starting date of that cycle (there is at least some disagreement over the starting date) then the end of the cycle will be December 12, 2012.  But the calendar does not actually predict the end of the world on that day, but the beginning of a new cycle.  To finish a cycle and to begin a new cycle was actually seen as a day to be celebrated.  Unfortunately days of celebration seldom sell many books or result in block buster movies.  Stories of destruction, however, sell lots of books and generate attendance at movie theaters. 

Unlike these other stories of destruction, the story of the flood ends in remarkably different way.  After the waters recede, God shows remorse for what has happened.  God realizes that s/he has made a mistake.  And so God makes a covenant with Noah to never again to destroy the world.  As a reminder of this covenant both for Noah and God the bow is set in the clouds (Gen 9.12ff).  We may be able to explain scientifically why we see rainbows, but that does change the fact that for the writers of Genesis they came to symbolize God’s promise to Noah, and through him, all humanity to never again destroy the world.  It is symbol that is often forgotten because stories of destruction or much more profitable than stories of new creation. God’s promise is never one of destruction, but of renewed life for humanity and all of creation.