Words Actually Can Kill

Perhaps some friends and fellow Christians wonder why, as a pastor, I came out  not fully supporting Phil Robertson’s statements.

As a female pastor – I know how harmful quoting scripture to further your personal viewpoint that targets a particular group of people can be at times. It gets dangerous. It gets violent.

Lately, I’ve been coming to terms with the fact that even here in America, to be a woman pastor is not just frowned upon by some Christians, but it can be life-threatening. The extremes some Christians have gone to against some of my fellow female friends and colleagues in the ministry is more than disturbing. It’s downright frightening.

Female colleagues and friends of mine have had their mailboxes bombed, both at church and at home, had their pets poisoned and purposely run over by those who disagree with their calling and interpretation of scripture. They’ve received numerous death threats and dealt with open hostility day in and day out from other Christians and pastors. They have suffered enormous mental and emotional, if not physical, abuse. Even here in Kearney, terms like “whore of Babylon” and “abomination” get directed at female clergy who would dare to take on a leadership role that involves spreading the hope of Jesus Christ to others.

All because of a few verses of scripture that get taken out of context, and when applied to the whole church in all times and places, directly contradict other parts of the Bible.

But you can find those anti-women passages in scripture. No doubt about it. They can be quoted.

So whether I agree or disagree with Mr. Robertson’s interpretation and stance regarding scripture’s view on homosexuality is frankly irrelevant. Because I find myself feeling a bit of the LGBT pain and their struggle. Of what it’s like being a target and on the receiving end of harmful comments and controversial scriptural quotes.

The arguments and scriptural evidence may not be a direct correlation between homosexuality and female clergy, but people’s responses to them definitely can be. And I certainly disagree with Robertson’s statements regarding how happy African Americans were prior to the Civil Rights movement. Movements like that don’t occur because people are content and happy with their situation or how they’re being treated.

It may have been what he witnessed, but most people who know me and witness how I act and behave would never know the horrible things that get said to me by other Christians. By other pastors. The pain and sorrow that comes with not just walking with people in their struggles, but navigating my own battles of faith. Thankfully – I’ve never been the recipient of death threats – but given many of those friends and colleagues who have been threatened come from a state I have lived in, my situation could have easily been vastly different.

I know many see Mr. Robertson as a stalwart defender of the faith, but I also see how his comments could be used to justify great harm against another human being. And Jesus never condoned that. For that reason , no, I can’t support, as a Christian, what he said. Whether A&E fires him or not is, well, up to them. I know if I were his boss, I would at the very least be having a very, very long conversation with him about ways to talk about these subjects that are less derogatory and inflammatory. Christianity teaches us that Christ stands for the opposite of oppression and tyranny. Thus we need to be careful that our own expressions of faith do not in turn cause oppression and harm to someone else or another group of people with whom we differ. For when that happens, we become just as guilty as those we condemn. So we need to be careful that in our fight against persecution, we do not, in turn,  become persecutors. African Americans, LGBT's, etc. are not upset by the fact that Mr. Robertson shared his faith or shared his opinions and experiences. It's the way in which he shared them and the danger his remarks pose potentially to their lives as a result.

For it is possible, as Satan proved when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness, to quote scripture while at the same time distorting it. I’m not saying he did – many, many Christians will argue and uphold Mr. Robertson’s stance and can make sound theological arguments that agree with his overall viewpoint.

I’m just saying that the fact that you quote the Bible and state you believe what the Bible says doesn’t give you an automatic license or pass for how you witness to what scripture says. Because the Bible says a lot of things. And how you approach those topics can mean life or death for some people.

I applaud the fact that Mr. Robertson turned his life around, and did so on account of his faith in Jesus Christ, and that he stood up to the production company and insisted on praying at the end of each episode.

Those facts still don’t make what he said right. Or any less harmful.

He’s entitled to his beliefs. But when you are given a public platform, you also have a responsibility to think about what your words can do. The harm they can directly or indirectly cause.

The fact that my life, should I ever choose to move from the security of my current situation, could be in danger, in this country, on account of my fellow brother’s and sister’s in Christ does not just sadden me, but appalls me. You don’t have to agree with what I do. You don’t have to agree with my interpretation of scripture. You don’t have to come to my church. You don’t have to accept my life. Just like you don’t have to agree with or accept LGBT lifestyles.

But please, please, think about how voicing your opinions and beliefs that condemn a group of people with whom you disagree might cause harm to them. How those words and thoughts might fuel the fires of bigotry, racism and sexism.

Because persecution in this country is indeed alive and well - sadly, Christians are at times the ones doing the persecuting...against their fellow Christians with whom they disagree.

“Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.” – 1 Peter 4:8

What Constitutes Faithful Christian Witness?

I've been debating whether to publicly comment on the whole Duck Dynasty thing or not. Mainly because, I know my comments will probably get me in trouble with my fellow Christians who are bound to disagree with me. Truthfully, the fact that this has become the forefront of American discussion at the moment in and of itself I find troubling, but perhaps there is a discussion in the middle of this that does need to happen among Christianity as a whole. It has highlighted at the very least some issues regarding what it means to be a faithful witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Does simply quoting the Bible in order to back up a controversial stance constitute faithful witness? I have to wonder.

When I awoke Thursday morning and saw post after post expressing outrage regarding the firing of Phil Robertson, I admittedly was shocked and dismayed by the Christian community's rants, ranging from claims that his free speech had been violated to Obama should have been fired instead (because those leaps of logic are always fun). I think the free speech thing has been covered aptly at this point - the short version being unless you're being thrown in jail, your first amendment rights have not been violated.

Irony of ironies, however, was just a day earlier, I had a friend who had posted a rather controversial personal statement on Facebook that expressed his anger at a particular deity many of us worship. He used crass language that many found offensive. Christians began filling his wall with statements about how they were "offended" and he needed to "not blame God" for his problems. (Job's unhelpful friends in a time of crises jumped to mind). The next day, he posted that due to his Facebook comment, expressing a personal belief that was a result of some bad life situations, his job had summarily been threatened.

Ah, hypocrisy. We Christians thrive on it.

As my friend discovered - his public words and actions had a negative consequence in the community he lived and worked in, which was predominately Christian (and for the record, he is not an atheist. You have to believe in a deity to get mad at that deity). Unfortunately, his Facebook friends only number in the triple digits and he didn't have a twitter hashtag set up so his supporters (all, like, five of us) could demand we respect his right to rage against God if he so chose.

Phil Robertson and my friend are not the only people to discover this reality. Recent examples of people who have lost their jobs due to the public expression of opinion is hardly relegated to Holly-weird targeting religious folk. I didn't see a whole lot of Christians upset by the fact that Martin Bashir was forced to resign due to his statements against Sarah Palin. I mean, MSNBC knew that they had hired a leftist news commentator who was known for making tasteless comments (he had also been suspended from ABC), so why was it so shocking when he went beserk on a right-wing soccer mom from Alaska? It's not like they didn't know what they were getting when they hired him. He was just doing his job.

Same goes for Charlie Sheen. CBS knew full well when they contracted him for Two and a Half Men that there was the potential for some erratic public behavior. Yet he got fired, too, for public comments that CBS just finally decided were too "out there" and just wasn't worth the PR nightmare that went along with it. But they went into it knowing the possibility existed.

The all-mighty dollar and goldmine of getting what you can out of these drama-types by selling their antics to the American public is typically worth the possible future public blunder that will force the cash cow to come to an end. But in the meantime - cha-ching!

The public outrage regarding these firings was fairly minimal. Because, well, their comments, while offensive to someone, weren't religious in nature. In fact - the only Facebook postings I saw from any of my friends regarding Martin Bashir resigning was from a very liberal, non-Christian friend who lives in South Beach, Florida - and his only comment was he never cared much for Bashir's rantings anyway (even though I'm pretty sure he agreed with Bashir's opinion of Ms. Palin in general).

Apparently, the outrage against people getting fired (or in this case suspended) for offensive comments only applies if they're quoting and interpreting the Bible. Never mind that those offensive comments are directed at the very people who sign your paychecks. (I used to work for Disney, which owns A&E, and believe me, the LGBT community pretty much runs that conglomerate. So if you're going to bite the hand that feeds you - prepare to get slapped). Not to mention the fact that anytime you suggest African Americans had an okay life prior to the civil rights movement, you're going to get in trouble. (Perhaps the reason African Americans didn't complain against the white establishment was because they were a bit terrified of being lynched if they did so. Just a thought.)

However I think the question Christians need to be engaging right now is what exactly constitutes a faithful, public, Christian witness? Just quoting the Bible? Because I can quote the Bible right now:

"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Samuel 15:3)

Wait - isn't genocide a bad thing?

Or how about this: "Put a knife to your throat if you have a big appetite." (Proverbs 23:2) Oh, except... isn't suicide a sin? And have you seen my Christmas dinner spread? Ugh.

Or my personal favorite: "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Matthew 19:21)

Uffdah. I guess I don't really want to be all that perfect, or have a lot of treasure in heaven because truthfully - I have no intention of selling off all my possessions. I like having a roof over my head and place to sleep at night, food on my table, and being able to have a television that could, if I chose, make it so I could watch Duck Dynasty. (My television has actually never had that show on it, but theoretically, it could)

But the point is: if we take Jesus at face value - if we take him literally - that is but one of our many challenges as faithful disciples that few of us follow. And we all fail pretty miserably whenever we try.

Whether we want to admit it or not, Christians live in an uncomfortable tension. There are disturbing, seemingly non-Christian type things in the Bible that don't quite jive with Jesus' message of peace, love and somewhat passive resistance against the governing authorities of his day. (The exception being, of course, getting out some whips and chasing out the money changers. Jesus had a spunky side.) There is a mystery that we still do not understand about the fact that Jesus affirms the validity and truth of the Old Testament scriptures, while simultaneously re-interpreting them and incorporating them in ways that baffle us to this day. Our recognition of sin and what God has done about sin through Christ finds itself lived out in a variety ways in many Christian communities. The reason so many different Christian denominations exist is because none of us know exactly how to reconcile everything we read in the Bible. It speaks to us, God's word is a living thing that creates faith in us - and there are definitely points that are non-negotiables - but we still live in the reality that we do not fully comprehend God's ways and as human hearers of this word - we mess it up.

So on the one hand, I can't really blame Phil Robertson for doing what we Christians have been struggling with for the past two thousand years. However, I also can't give him a pass when the statements he made, contrary to some people's perspectives - can, and do, hurt many people. One need only look at the suicide rates and violence against LGBT's to know such public statements only inflame these problems. Nor can one ignore the violence and struggles the African American community has suffered at the hands of the white, Christian, establishment for so long.

From my perspective, these were irresponsible statements to make, even the ones that were directly quoting the Bible. Because it's not just about quoting the Bible - it's about how you go about quoting the Bible. Wielding God's word inappropriately and irresponsibly can have devastating consequences. Wars get started because of that.

One of the disturbing parts in all of this is that apparently, for many, faithful witness about Jesus had better make sure it gets those quotes about homosexuality right. After all, such statements are the reason Jesus says we'll be hated... right? Because that's why Jesus was crucified - for denouncing gay people, just like scripture says we should.

Except... Jesus kind of never mentioned homosexuality. Like, ever.

Hmmmm.

Jesus does indeed warn that his disciples will be hated. But I really don't think it's because they stand up and quote Leviticus 18 faithfully or because they're making offensive comments directed to a particular group of people in His name.

Jesus said they were going to be hated for the opposite reason. That they were going to be hated because they were supposed to follow Leviticus 19: "love your neighbor as yourself." Which, for the Israelites - their neighbor meant their enemies and those whom they disagreed with. Jesus was crucified not because he made some radical statements that upset the secular world and gay community, but because he spoke of a radical love that upset the - get this now - religious leaders of his day... who quoted and followed scripture! <GASP!> He called them a brood of vipers. He challenged their views on purity and righteousness. He was crucified - by faithful, "Bible"-following people.

Let that sink in for a moment.

He even had the audacity to suggest that God's grace and mercy was for EVERYONE. That the religious leaders should be focusing more on mercy, love and justice than following the letter of the law. That forgiveness and healing was available to the outcasts and "sinners." And if you go back and really read the gospels - Jesus' threats about "hell" are never directed at the pagan world. They're directed at the religious leadership. The faithful. The people who have the inside track on this whole God thing. And he was crucified because he made a particular claim in a world that deified their Roman leader - who claimed to be the Son of God, Savior of the world, and the Prince of Peace. That trust and security wasn't going to be found in the Roman system.

Ultimately, the cross of Christ is offensive because it upends the way in which we tend to view the world. Notions of power and strength don't operate the same way in God's Kingdom. The gospel is offensive because it rails against human systems.

Not necessarily because it takes a stand against homosexuality.

I think Tony Compolo really got it right when he made the statement, "love the sinner, hate your own sin." Because believe me, I have a laundry list a mile long - and no, I don't repent of all of it. Because repenting means going completely down a new path and turning away from those sins. Honestly, there are behaviors I engage in, actions I commit, thoughts I have, that I'm not really and truly sorry about. I can be judgmental and figure out a way to justify it. Because - well - I'm a sinner. I'm a hypocrite at times. Because - well - like I said, we Christians are good at that. Many of the things scripture - and Jesus - has to say makes me uncomfortable. Because that's what it's designed to do. It's supposed to make you think about what you're doing in your life and I don't care who you are, you will find something that isn't quite up to par.

Which... is kind of the point of Jesus and why he came here in the first place. Because - we're broken, screwed up people who can't deal with God on his terms, so he came to deal with us on ours, in a form and way we MIGHT have some ability to begin to fathom.

The bottom line is, just because you can quote the Bible does not mean you are necessarily being an ambassador for Christ. Satan quoted the Bible when he tempted Jesus. Now don't take that to an extreme - I'm not suggesting Phil Robertson is Satan (because I know someone will try to suggest that's what I just said. It's not.) My point is - just because "the Bible says it" doesn't give us an automatic "pass" on quoting it and utilizing it to justify every viewpoint we might have. Rather, it requires some thoughtful reflection on how best to convey Jesus' message of salvation to people. How does this scripture fit with the overarching themes of the Bible - faith, love, justice, and mercy? "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!" (Matthew 23:23-24)

There is real persecution of Christians going on in this world - but firing Phil Robertson for making some questionable and charged comments is not one of them. Yes, he had a "right" to say them. But his heavily leaning LGBT employers also had a right to say, "you've crossed a line." (And keep in mind - he hasn't been fired. He was suspended.)

The issue continues to be a debatable one within Christian circles and is but another divisive issue within the church. However, even if Phil's faith and understanding of "proper sexual relationships" is not compatible with LGBT's, there are better ways to address the issue.

Personally, as a Christian, I did not see his statements as standing up for Christ. A good friend of mine put it this way: "When you think you are being persecuted, first ask yourself, "Am I being a jerk?"

Nelson Mandela & The Narrow Gate

On December 5th, the world lost one of its greatest statesmen, Nelson Mandela. As his death hit the Facebook and Twitter cyber-waves, over and over again I saw questions and statements like: “Will we ever see his equal again?” or “If we all could be a little more like Nelson Mandela, what a beautiful world…sigh.”

Indeed, it seems the likes of Nelson Mandela, Martin Lutheran King, Jr., Gandhi… greats among those who practiced non-violent resistance… are a rare breed indeed. And in Mr. Mandela’s case, he didn’t just arbitrarily claim Christianity (a life-long Methodist) as his faith – but lived it to the very best of his ability.

A man who, after being jailed the better part of 27 years for his work against apartheid in South Africa, rather than seeking revenge or retribution against those who incarcerated him – forgave his jailors. Forgave the injustices that had been done to him. And in turn, taught an entire continent – and the world for that matter – the beauty of forgiveness.

The sad part is, Nelson Mandela was not doing anything all that bizarre or strange from a Christian perspective. He was simply following the tenets of his faith. A faith that, according to population statistics, is adhered to by a third of the world.

Though you wouldn’t know it to look at us.

This reality made me begin to think of Jesus’ statement,

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14)

This passage in scripture many times gets quoted to talk about faith in general and how if you don’t believe in Jesus, then you’re headed down the path to destruction (aka hell in many interpretations). However, I don’t think “hell” – that fiery lake of sulfur and torment that many equate this statement to be referencing – is what Jesus is talking about at all.

In fact, I think Jesus’ statement here has a far more urgent and worldly connotation that is applicable in the here and now – not just the afterlife. Instead, this teaching, when put in context, has very  little to do with saying something like the sinner’s prayer or walking down to the front of the church to commit yourself to Christ either for the first time or the tenth time.

Rather, this statement is about taking that commitment and putting it into action. How does one follow and live out this faith they so passionately profess? This verse in scripture follows on the heels of Jesus’ teaching on the “golden rule,” (In everything do to others as you would have them do to you), judging others, bearing good fruit, self-deception and “hearers vs. doers.” Read all of Matthew 7 if you'd like to get a clearer picture of all these teachings put together.

The reason the gate and road that lead to life are so narrow is because it is, in fact, so difficult to follow. Its statement is so true. One path leads to life – one path leads to destruction. Simple as that. War, vengeance, violence, grudges, anger, greed, cruelty, hypocrisy, judging others… easier paths to be sure, but destructive paths in the end. Paths that send us into cycles of violence that we scarcely know how to begin to change. Paths that lead to anything but the kind of life God has envisioned for our world. The fruit that is produced from acts of love and forgiveness are very different kinds of fruit compared to those that are born of vengeance and violence. Few can argue that our world tends to bear the latter rather than the former.

And let’s face it – even many of us who claim to have faith in Christ are guilty of taking the wider road that leads to destruction… because how many of us are willing and able to follow much of what Jesus instructed and thus exemplified in his own life and ministry? Forgiveness, rather than revenge. Treat others the way you want to be treated. Don’t judge. Don’t deceive yourself into thinking you are somehow more “in” with God than another person or group of people because of your doctrinal stances.

When Jesus finishes this litany of teaching he follows it up with:

“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.”

I think it is safe to say – Nelson Mandela heard Jesus’ words and acted upon them. In a world that has become ever-more fearful, where nations build walls and introduce intricate domestic spying networks on its citizens all in the name of “security,” Mandela serves as a stark reminder to us that the cause of peace and justice is not always found in military might, that our anger at how our governments work – even when they’re corrupt, unjust and greedy – is not always best dealt with in the form of armed resistance.

So when people ask, “Will we ever see his equal again,” my ardent hope is that the answer is YES! Given there are nearly 2 billion people that self-identify as followers of Christ, I would fervently pray and hope that among those 2 billion people, there are those who do indeed take the narrow, yet difficult, path.  I’m fairly certain I haven’t always been one of them, finding the ways of the world at times easier than the ways of Christ.

Nelson Mandela was not a perfect man by any means, nor was he a man that always, 100%, held fast and true to his non-violent mantra. And there were many who worked while he sat in jail to help end the apartheid that go unnamed and unmentioned. But for the most part, I think it is fair to say that he strove to take the narrow path, and that despite the flaws, and at times even failures to live these ideals out perfectly - he made the most impact on the world during those times when he exemplified Christ's teachings.

“By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:35)

Silence in the Face of Extinction

Amid government shutdowns, ill-behaved singers, and healthcare website crashes that have been grabbing our headlines of late, there’s one topic that both the media, and Christian communities, have been staying strangely silent about.

When militant Islamists stormed a mall in Kenya last month, massacring all the non-Muslim hostages they had taken, the story popped across news outlets for a moment, then disappeared in the wake of our own governmental issues. Not that such things as government shut-downs and healthcare are not important – they obviously are.

Yet, the slaughter and driving out of Christians throughout the Middle East seems to be getting just a passing note in the media, and American congregations are equally standing silent in the face of the near-extinction of Christianity in the Middle East.

According to a 2012 report in the New York Times, over half the Christians that lived in Iraq  prior to 2003 have either been killed or fled the country with the rising persecution from militant extremist Islamist groups that have flooded the country since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Once home to approximately 1.4 million Christians, Iraq’s Christians have dwindled to fewer than 500,000 in just ten years. Those who remain live in squalor, finding little refuge in the garbage dumps and shanty towns they’ve been relegated to.

Egypt, where the Christian population has only made up 10% of the population since the 1950’s is also seeing a mass exodus. According to Christian News Today, an estimated 8-10 million Christians are seeking refuge in other countries due to the most violent and deadly persecution Christians have experienced since the Islamic invasion nearly a thousand years ago.

Christianity Today reports that more than 450,000 Syrian Christians that previously made up approximately 10% of Syria’s population prior to the civil war have fled, fearing being completely wiped out by the militant Islamist rebels fighting against Assad’s corrupt regime.

In Palestine, the numbers are rapidly dwindling as well. Bethlehem, the birthplace of Christ, has seen a decline of more than 9% of the Christian population since 2000 due to Israeli policies and expansionism that have killed or displaced tens of thousands of Palestinian Christians over the past half a century. In Jerusalem, the Christian presence has dropped to only 2% of the population in a city where Christianity was once the majority. Their lands, businesses, and homes have been seized and bulldozed to make way for Israeli settlements.

So why the silence? Why are American congregations saying little to nothing about the fact that according to many estimates Christianity will cease to exist by 2020 in any formal capacity in the Middle East?

American Christians are undoubtedly silent for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fear of sounding like we’ve joined the anti-Islamic hysteria that has swept through our country since 9/11. However there’s a difference between Islam and militant Islamists – just like there’s a difference between most Christians and the Fred Phelps’ of the world. The only problem is the militant Islamists are gaining in popularity – and power – throughout the Middle East.

Another reason for the silence is due to the fact that a large portion of American Christians are the ones who have pulled the trigger on our brothers and sisters in Christ. Pleas from Christians throughout Palestine, Syria, Egypt, etc. for American Christians to stop the destructive and harmful theology that drives what is known as “Christian Zionism” go unheeded. American Christian Zionists believe they must support Israel’s settlements into Palestinian territories in order to fulfill their understanding of Biblical prophecy – no matter who it oppresses or harms – and works to stop any and all peace talks that don’t result in Israel holding on to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. More than one U.S. President has affirmed this “end times” belief that drives our government’s policies on Israel and Palestine – which only further enrages militant Islamists who are angry about the settlements. Thus Christians living in the region who suffer on account of this belief are viewed by Christian Zionists as merely “necessary sacrifices” that must be made in order to achieve Christian Zionism’s warped vision of “the end times.”

Now being persecuted as Christians is nothing new. However, their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are not supposed to be the ones holding the shotgun to their heads. I must have missed that part in the New Testament. I don’t have time to go into all the fallacies with the Christian Zionist movement or its twisting of scripture, or all the nuances of how it bolsters hatred against the “Christian West” by militant Islamists; but suffice it to say when Christians are at least a driving force behind why other Christians are becoming extinct in a region – perhaps that should raise a few warning flags that there’s a flaw in the theological understanding.

To be clear – this is not to say that Israel, as a nation-state, doesn’t have a right to exist or that we should not be allies with one of the only stable governments in the region. Supporting Zionism, or Israel’s right to exist, and supporting Christian Zionism, which utilizes Jews in their little script to try and manipulate bringing about Christ’s return (as if that were possible) by insisting that Israel MUST occupy all of the land promised to Abraham in order to fulfill God’s promises in the Old Testament, are not the same thing. Christian Zionist theology neglects several points of Christian understanding regarding who exactly God’s promises are for and how Christianity has historically understood what “Israel” means in light of Christ.

In short, the understanding has been that the promises to Israel are bigger than the Jews… it is about all God’s people. It is about God’s promises to Israel expanding out into the world so that “there is no longer Jew nor Greek.” It is about God’s promises going above and beyond the expectation and being fulfilled in ways that stretch out far beyond the borders of an ancient land. Not to mention the fact that Christian Zionism ignores two thousand years worth of Christian history that has never, ever, seen the re-establishment of the nation of “Israel” as a necessary element for Christ’s return. If anything, it has always viewed the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD as evidence of God moving beyond the Temple system, moving beyond just a handful of people in the world.

Rather, Christian Zionism is a product of American escapist theology – an old form of gnosticsm – at its worst and a violent betrayal of our brothers and sisters in Christ throughout the Middle East.

Arguably, we Lutherans, in particular, have an obligation to support a Jewish nation after the horrors of the holocaust of World War II, where Lutheran pastors either remained silent or pushed the national agenda of der Fuhrer from their pulpits. There’s also that little detail of Hitler utilizing some of Martin Luther’s late-in-life anti-Semitic rantings to justify his “Final Solution.” We have to own that.

But saying a nation has a right to exist and purposely stopping peace talks and supporting the displacement of thousands of Palestinians because we’re looking for some blood-thirsty, violent show-down to occur in this region as a part of some whacked-out script that was invented a century and a half ago and propagated by such false prophets as Hal Lindsey (who incorrectly predicted the return of Christ in 1988) is not the same. This ideology is not just an embarrassment to Christianity, but an abhorrent belief system that, in my opinion, has no place among Christ’s followers.

I am not one to usually publicly denounce other Christian beliefs – we all have a right to our interpretations of scripture and goodness knows people screw it up more often than not – but this one has become so dangerous that my conscience on this matter no longer allows me to remain silent. I have spoken out against "rapture theology" and the resulting "Christian Zionism" in the past, but have always watered down my condemnation by saying "of course, I might be wrong." Perhaps I am... but if I am, it violates my entire understanding of what God is doing through Christ in the world. People are dying and being slaughtered – and we say nothing. How can that possibly be part of our Christian witness?

While the problems of the Middle East are many and complicated, and certainly bigger than just Christian Zionism, this is one factor that we, as Christians, can and should speak out against. Otherwise, we become the worst of all hypocrites when we pray for peace in that region, but stay silent on a dangerous theology that contributes to the problems that will ultimately result in the extinction of Christianity in the land where it was birthed.

There Can Be Only One...

As I was perusing my usual blog haunts the other day, I came across an article regarding the "inerrancy" of scripture. Before you get too excited, that actually isn't going to be the focus of this particular posting (perhaps in a subsequent post), but rather, it was one of the comments made regarding the article that caught my attention. I admit, I tend to find the comments section at times far more enlightening, interesting and entertaining than the articles themselves. Such anonymous conversations have a tendency to degrade into something far uglier than most people would ever descend to were they having the conversation face-to-face and are typically excellent examples of why people tend to want nothing to do with Christianity. The heady theological intent of the author usually finds itself lost in the mire of human debate and sinfulness. Therefore there was a lot of mudslinging that went on, accusing people of postmodern relativistic interpretive tendencies (which apparently means you just don't love God because you take too many liberties with His Word), to narrow-minded arrogance that claimed to know, for certain, exactly what scripture means in every instance.

But... I digress.

What caught my attention was a comment thread that stated, "I don't believe there can be multiple meanings in a passage. There can be only ONE REAL meaning." To this commenter's credit, they at least acknowledged that their understanding of what that meaning was could very well be incorrect.

Nevertheless, even in the face of some pseudo-humility, such a statement stunned me a little. I guess I've been travelling in my Lutheran pastoral circles a little too long and participated in that clerical act of intense naval-gazing, leading me to at times forget that narrowing scripture down to clear black and white distinctions is still a popular method of Biblical interpretation in our world today.

Whether right or wrong, I do disagree with that individual's statement. Why?

Because as Christians we make certain claims about the Word of God. First, we claim that the Word of God is NOT scripture itself. (Yes, this comes as a surprise to many "Bible-believing" folk) It is perhaps a semantic distinction, but still an important one nonetheless. God's Word is Jesus Christ. God's instruction made flesh. Scripture is merely the delivery method of that Word. No different, really, than a human prophet who utters and proclaims the Word of God (aka one who utters and proclaims Jesus Christ). In fact, it was prophets, or at least their scribes, who tended to write down those utterances which gave us scripture. But no one mistakes the prophet for God Himself. (Or rather, one SHOULD not mistake the prophet for God, though that distinction can and has been muddled at times) Likewise, one should not mistake the Bible as being God. The Bible merely contains and delivers unto us God's will, word, and intention for our lives - that will and intention being revealed through the person of Jesus Christ. Thus it is through its recordings that we are able to hear, read and experience God's Word being delivered to us, handed down to us through generations of other faithful witnesses.

From that point forward, humans then undergo the task of asking the question, "God's Word has been delivered to me... so what does that mean?" We call that part "interpretation."

Second, we believe God's Word is a living and active Word, not a static Word. That means while the words on the page may stay the same, how those words function in our lives, how it works on us, how it affects us, how it is heard - is actively changing. That it is speaking into our lives in different ways at different times. God's Word in Christ is actively doing something to us - creating faith, condemning, forgiving, releasing, saving... just to name a few.

Thus, to try and pin individual scripture passages to having only one REAL meaning doesn't seem to allow for the Living Word of God to act upon us as it sees fit. Now, to say that the REAL and primary meaning of scripture as a whole is to deliver Jesus Christ - that would be correct. That is its primary function and purpose. But for the intentions of this particular blog post, I'm speaking in terms of individual passages and pericopes with the given understanding that first and foremost, the passage in some manner delivers to us the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Most passages, however, also have some kind of other point and/or lesson.

A seminary professor of mine once put it like this - "we are like light shining onto scripture, and scripture is like a prism that produces a rainbow of meaning." To try and grab hold of just one color of the rainbow and declare that color to be the only color of the rainbow would be absurd. Because just like a rainbow displays a myriad of colors, scripture also operates at multiple levels: literal, symbolic, metaphorical, etc. Not to mention that it is comprised of so many different types of literature forms (narrative, poetry, letters, history, apocalypses, etc.) that how each piece is read is dependent upon the intention of the literary style. For instance, you're not going to read the Divine Comedy the same way in which you read the sports page. One is a blow-blow account of how a game went down (though some commentary and interpretation at times is present even then), while the other is a narrative that utilizes symbolic imagery and poetic prose in order to convey its meaning, though one typically does not attempt to ascribe historical accuracy and events to the narrative because it is meant to convey a deeper commentary on the human condition and divine relationship that is not necessarily rooted in historical events. In short, you don't expect to glean the same kind of information out of one that you do from the other.

Scripture operates much the same way. How one reads the Psalms versus how one reads Paul's letters should be very different. One is essentially a hymn book of poetic prose. The others are rather straight-forward letters from one man to several different congregations that were asking questions and struggling with issues. The point and purpose are very different. One is not less true than the other - it is merely that poetic and parabolic truths at time have far deeper significance in our lives than historical truth ever can.

To illustrate further, Jesus is called "the Light of the World." Great! So what exactly does that mean? Light has the ability to illuminate, to reveal that which was once in shadowy darkness. Light also has the ability to blind. Ever walked out of a dark movie theater and into the bright sunshine? You're temporarily blinded for a moments as you wait for your eyes to adjust. So - which interpretation is the "correct" interpretation regarding what it means for Jesus to be the Light of the World? Does Jesus shed light on our dark world, and illuminate not only God's truth, but the truth about our lives, our sin, etc.?*

Yes.

Does the truth of Jesus sometimes blind people? Scripture states that "he has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts." Paul was literally made blind by Christ in order to help him truly see.

So, again, yes.

Jesus also has a "blinding" effect (which in and of itself then has more than one meaning and interpretation of what the purpose and point of being blinded means). Must we choose between the two and pick just one of these meanings as the "real" meaning behind Jesus claiming to be "the light of the world"? Or, are we able to say scripture can mean both things at the same time?

Not to mention that scripture was written in the Greek language - not English. The Greek has words that a) we simply have no words for in English, and b) has words that many times mean many different things. For example: in John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be "born again." That same word in Greek also means "born from above." Now which is it? Born again... or born from above? Or, could Jesus have purposely chosen this particular word precisely because of its double meaning? Did he mean born from above or born again?

Yes.

Both are necessary elements to being born of "water and spirit." A second, spiritual birth that comes from "above" (aka God).

To be clear, this is not to say that any willy-nilly interpretation is necessarily correct. I am not suggesting proof-text methods of ripping scripture out of its context and applying meaning to it that completely veers off-kilter from the surrounding texts and overall intention and message of scripture as a whole - such methods of applying "meaning" are not what I'm talking about. Let's face it, you torture scripture long enough, you can get it to say and mean whatever you want. No, rather I'm talking about the faithful endeavor of looking at scripture from many viewpoints, perspectives, and understanding. From both the original context, as well as our current context. What did it mean to the original hearers - what does it now mean to us?

Thus it would seem, that to try and narrow any given part of scripture down to only one particular meaning is to rob scripture of its immense beauty and depth. We are recipients of an extensive work of faith written by faithful people and communities across thousands of years that delivers to us the very heart and nature of God. To imagine that we would try and reduce its meaning to one singular point and purpose and not allow for any additional insight seems like an attempt to limit what God has to say to us.

*(if you're interested in more intensive study on the symbolic nature of John's Gospel, I highly recommend Craig Koester's "Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community")

Why Abercrombie & Fitch is NOT Cool

Like most people, when I first heard Mike Jeffries' comments regarding why Abercrombie & Fitch doesn't sell larger sizes, I had a violent physical reaction that involved horrendous retching noises. (Ok, so in reality, maybe it was more like me just going "Really???! I'm posting this garbage to Facebook!") In case you've forgotten, probably the most disturbing comment was as follows:

“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids. Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don't belong [in our clothes], and they can't belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely.”

I was appalled. And yes, I also had to chuckle and go "atta boy" to the guy who went around and bought up A&F clothing at all the Goodwill stores and gave them to the homeless living on Skid Row in LA (see video here).

But now that I've had some time to think about it, I started asking myself why I was so angry at what Mr. Jeffries had to say.

I mean - what's wrong with target marketing? I used to shop at the petite store because "normal" stores didn't cater to my abnormally short stature. Do I think the stores that specialize in selling to petite women are discriminatory and disgusting? No. Stores like Catherine's do the opposite, and cater to the larger sized woman. Having a specialty store that simply doesn't carry certain sizes in and of itself is really nothing new.

Being "exclusionary" in your marketing isn't the issue. So he doesn't sell large or plus sizes. Fine. I can accept that. You want your brand to be more expensive, so it's more of a "luxury" item only the more well-to-do kids can buy? Ok. Fine. That's been going on for generations. Don't like or agree with it necessarily - but I don't tend to go on rampages because Rolex sells watches I can't afford.

So why was I so angry?

As I thought about it more, I sadly realized, I was angry because what he said went beyond talking about just shirt sizes. It went beyond even the discussion between "thin vs. fat." It was his definition of who was "cool" and who wasn't that made me so mad. That his brand was only for the "cool" kids that he defined in a particular way. This made me angry because on the one hand - his statement was very true. On the other hand... it was so VERY false.

True, because unfortunately, our society actually DOES glorify and perpetuate exactly the kind of mentality Mr. Jeffries was talking about. We get judged on our looks. There's no denying that. Our high school students are raised in a culture that places far too much importance on their outer appearance and defines "beauty" by what we see on the cover of Vogue and Cosmo. The fashion industry and Hollywood have dictated for us what exactly a "beautiful" person is supposed to look like.

And we've bought into it. We've bought into exactly what Mr. Jeffries has said about our kids.

I know I did as a teen. I somehow thought beauty and popularity were wrapped up in a jeans size. If I could just be skinny enough... maybe, just maybe, that would make me somehow a "cool" person to hang around with. Truth be told, my senior year of high school, I could have easily fit into the clothing Mr. Jeffries sells. I was a slight 110 lb piece of nothing who was borderline anorexic. I typically skipped breakfast and lunch and would only eat enough at dinner to not make my parents suspicious. Even then, I tended to shove my mouth as full as I could of food, then run to the bathroom and spit it all out in the toilet without ever eating any of it. I spent most of my days with severe headaches and feeling sick and dizzy all the time because I was starving myself to try and fit some unrealistic definition of "beauty" that was related to what the scale told me. Eventually, I couldn't keep it up because not eating made me feel so horrible I could barely function. And my weight went up.

So naturally, hearing Mr. Jeffries talk about how only thin people were "cool" struck a deep chord with me. Because there was a time I believed that malarky. There was a time when I was a part of that social pecking order that determined who was in and who was out on arbitrary things like weight and designer clothes. Cool kids shopped at The Brass Buckle (before they dropped the Brass), Banana Republic, and The Gap (back when the Gap was actually considered "in.") Such were the A&F's of my high school days. There was a time when I believed that lie - because that lie has just enough truth to it that we, at least for a time, believed it. And it impacted our lives in the most unhealthy ways possible.

Funny thing, though. Being nearly anorexic, being able to fit into Mr. Jeffries clothing...  it didn't make me any more popular than I had been at age sixteen when I weighed in twenty pounds heavier. I was just as unpopular and as much of an outcast at 110 as I was at 130. Weird reality...my personality was still my personality. I was still an introvert that people mistook as being snobbish and aloof. I liked science fiction and had a hard time relating to most kids my age. I didn't go out and party and was usually content to spend time at the library reading a good book instead of goofing around. I'm still far too serious and my sense of humor much too dry and sarcastic for many to appreciate right away. And I still don't relate well to that teenage mentality because I so hated it even when I was a part of it.

No the problem is not just whether I can fit into his clothes - I don't like his clothes anyway so I have never cared about that - it's do a I fit his standard definition for "coolness"? And why do I care how he defines what constitutes "cool."

This was the part that was so false in my view. He equated "coolness" with a jeans size - and how, exactly, do you quantify such a thing? Because it didn't work for me. All the Abercrombie & Fitch in the world on my starving little body wasn't going to suddenly catapult me into the arms of all the "cool" kids in high school.

So what I decided really made me mad isn't that Jeffries' statement doesn't reflect a perception and mentality that is prevalent in our society - it's that someone in his position, at his age, would be irresponsible and dumb enough to actually admit that he buys into it. That he not only buys into it - but that he perpetuates it... on purpose. He doesn't just target market to skinny kids - he tries to somehow equate "coolness" with something that SHOULDN'T and can't totally be quantified by a jeans size.

We rail against his statements because most of us, by his age, recognize the harm such a mentality wreaks upon our children. The dangerous things they will do to their bodies just to try and fit into a superficial, materialistic, horribly cold and messed up social system that defines American youth. Those of us who have come out on the other side and recognize it for what it was are appalled that ANY adult would come out and so brazenly state that they support the hell we went through as teenagers. That all-American, good looking kid with a great attitude who has lots of friends? Yeah, that's a small market, Mr. Jeffries. One student out of how many hundred students fit that bill? Target market away... but your definition is a VERY niche market.

And I'll be honest - those of us who are angry - yeah, we're angry because we weren't one of those cool kids he's talking about. We were the ones who were excluded. We're mad at how we were treated and how we were broken up into the "in" and the "out" kids. We're angry because Mr. Jeffries has just come right out and said - I don't want my clothes on YOU, you loser. And it isn't about the fact that I would want to wear his clothing - I don't, but there's something hurtful, no matter what, when someone flat out states they don't WANT you wearing their brand. It brings back for us every horrible thing that was ever said to us, every insecurity we ever had about ourselves. We're mad because we watch our own children struggle with exactly the same things we went through and we had so hoped for a better society and future for them. We're angry because everything he said epitomizes everything we've been trying to fight against our whole adult lives.

That human worth and value can be summed up by a number on a tag. Like cattle in a feed lot.

Because what we realized, on the other side of not being popular... was that, life was bigger than high school. That who we are and how we are defined can't be wrapped neatly in a designer t-shirt. We found other people - who were pretty darn cool and awesome - actually existed without all of those Hollywood and fashion industry-driven perceptions and we began to hang out with those people. Finally we realized we fit in somewhere that wasn't this place called "high school." And you know what... not once did I pay attention to what kind of clothing my friends wore. They were my friends... tall, short, fat, thin, Asian, black, white, male, female, Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic... "cool" people, came in all shapes and sizes and it had nothing to do with what Vogue or Cosmo had to say. In fact, I believe I stopped looking at magazines like that all together by the time I hit college. We were more concerned about the final exams we were cramming for and finding our next opportunity for free food - those other considerations just evaporated.

So Mr. Jeffries... while others hate and revile you... I actually pity you. Somewhere along the line, you didn't grow beyond the absurdity of the high school stereotype and never had the privilege of getting to know that the woman who wears the XL shirt is not just someone with a great attitude - but she's developing the medication that might one day save your life. That guy you gave swirlies to in High School, runs his own fortune 500 company and vacations in Bermuda. That girl with the eating disorder - she's with the Peace Corps feeding the hungry.

I'm sorry Mr. Jeffries that you are stuck in all that teenage drama and apparently are continuing to live and perpetuate everything that is wrong about our society and wrong with our youth. I'm sorry your clothing line is a reflection of your own twisted belief system that purposely tries to define who is "cool" and who is not - who belongs and who doesn't - by size, weight, and clothing.

While one's religious affiliation doesn't determine whether or not we're appalled by Jeffries' statement - an atheist or Buddhist is likely to be just as outraged - as a Christian, I do find particular offense in this statement because as Christians, we're called to reach out to those who are part of the "outsiders" and the "outcasts." The "clothing" Jesus offers is made specifically for the "uncool" kids and people in our society. Because being a follower of Jesus isn't about excluding. It's about including. Our goal is not to haunt the person society has already kicked to the curb by reinforcing it with some idiot who says, "You don't belong. You shouldn't belong!" because you don't fit an arbitrary definition of what it means to "belong."

Our goal instead is to love and accept those who are on those fringes of society and let them know they are loved and cared for. That in God's kingdom, we all belong - no matter our size, weight or popularity. So thank goodness it isn't the Mike Jeffries of the world who ultimately define who belongs and who doesn't. We rail and we write these articles not because we want to continue to give Jeffries the attention he doesn't deserve, but because we want to make sure that our youth hear and understand... he does not get to define us. That his definition of "cool" - yeah, that's not cool.

That his definition is not our definition and our message is going to continue to be very different from the kind of message he spouts.

A Review of "42" - American Legend... Christian Example

I don't tend to go to movie theaters very often anymore. It seems overpriced to spend $12 to watch something I'll just wind up seeing either on DVD or Netflix in a few short months. Unless it's a movie I've just really been wanting to see, odds are - I won't be at the theater. But this Sunday, I was invited to go along with two friends to see the movie "42," the story of Jackie Robinson, America's first African-American to play baseball in the major leagues.

Initially, I admit... I had no overwhelming desire to see the movie, simply because, well, I've never been a fan of baseball, so I didn't figure it would interest me that much.

I was wrong. Turns out, baseball can be far more interesting when it's in movie form and they cut out all the boring stuff... like... most of the game.

But baseball is not what made this movie worth watching. The back story alone between Brooklyn Dodger's owner Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson is well worth the $10 + drink. If nothing else, I learned via this movie that God is a Methodist.

Now, I say that somewhat in jest in response to one of the lines Harrison Ford delivers as Branch Rickey - "He's a Methodist. I'm a Methodist. God's a Methodist."

It wouldn't be the first time a particular denomination has wanted to claim God as their own particular form of Christianity. That said - to be honest, I think maybe Mr. Rickey wasn't too far off base. In many ways, in that time and place, I think God definitely was very much at work within the Methodist Church and the role it played in our society.

During the 1940's, few Christian organizations were as instrumental in the fight against segregation and racial inequality in the United States than the Methodist Church. Sadly, my own denomination does not have such a history - to this day remaining 98% white despite recent attempts at "multicultural outreach." Afraid we jumped on that bandwagon a little too late, trying to cling to our northern European heritage and traditions a little too fiercely while simultaneously trying to manufacture worship that would be appealing to non-Europeans. It's failed rather miserably.

But the Methodists, from their inception, have been forerunners when it comes to "social justice." Surpassed only by the Baptists, they were among the first to welcome and embrace African-Americans during the post-Civil War era. So kudos to the Methodists for being Christ to all people during a time when many "Christians" had lost their focus. While I have a variety of reasons I've opted not to become a Methodist, I freely and openly admit - they had this part right.

Back to the movie itself, I think the part that struck me as the most powerful element to this story was the emphasis on being "Christ-like." Rickey's first conversation with Jackie Robinson was about how Rickey didn't want a player who didn't have the strength fight back, but wanted a player who had the strength NOT to fight back.

Jackie needed to be "Christ-like" if he was going to ever make it as a black player in an all-white league. The strength to keep his mouth shut, no matter what horrible things people were shouting at him. To let how he played baseball speak for him rather than the color of his skin or anything he said. To carry his own cross in silence. To turn the other cheek and just keep on going. To know about the multitude of death threats that are being sent your way simply because of the color of your skin - and say nothing in response.

Amazingly - that's exactly what he does. If ever there was a reason to admire Jackie Robinson, this is it. Even if he had been a horrendous baseball player, the strength of character alone is enough to hold him up as a role model for all people. Especially those who wear the Christian label.

Because believe me, there are times in that movie, where you, as the movie-goer, WANT him to just haul off and pop some of these people in the mouth. In particular, when the Phillies manager, Ben Chapman, goes on a racially charged name-calling tirade from the dug-out. I was ready to slug him just to shut him up. I won't give the entire scene away, but to watch the depth of Robinson's struggle from the perspective of not a black or a white individual, but simply another human being who is being degraded and berated is both difficult and mesmerizing to watch. Likewise Branch Rickey's commitment not just to Robinson, but to continue insisting that the only way to fight back is to play ball and not to meet the enemy "on his own low ground" is beyond inspiring. It is also at this moment - the pinnacle of Robinson's struggle - that the Brooklyn Dodgers finally unite and solidify themselves as a team, accepting, if not totally embracing, their African-American teammate.

Now I don't know how much of the religious element that gets played up is historically accurate or not in regards to Branch Rickey's Christian outlook on the entire situation, but I found it to be not just an inspiring movie about one man breaking the color barrier, but a deep and rich story of faith. At its core - it's a movie that asks the question: How do you overcome hatred? How do you overcome segregation? How do you overcome injustice and cruelty? How do you overcome ignorance and stupidity?

It's not through an eye for an eye, it's not tit-for-tat. It's not through yelling and screaming to try and get your point across, it's not through bombs, guns, tanks, or anything other form of violence. The way of the cross, the way of Christ is to triumph by faithful suffering in the face of hatred and all that it brings with it. Because hatred and violence are not the way in which God triumphs over evil. He triumphs through self-sacrificial love.

You overcome... by being Christ-like. The story of Jackie Robinson in my view is a timely movie. We continue to live in a world filled with prejudice and hatred. A world filled with violence where our response continues to be simply more violence. The focus of our hatred and bigotry may shift, the people we argue and fight against may not be the same as they were sixty or seventy years ago. But the struggle is the same at its core.

How do Christians respond in the face of such problems? I think we have something, as Christians, to learn from the examples of Jackie Robinson and Branch Rickey. Neither men were "doormats" who just allowed people to walk over them. They simply had the wisdom and the faith to recognize there are other ways to "fight" and overcome adversity.

They chose the way of Christ, and at least one little corner of the world was changed forever.

How We Experience God's Word

My husband sent me an email message one day telling me not to text him (it was my day off and I was particularly frustrated about something at home). What I heard and interpreted was, "I don't want to hear from you." What he was actually saying was, "I'm going to be in meetings and my phone buzzing from text messages can be distracting."

What is said and what we hear or interpret can sometimes be way off base. It creates a lot of misunderstandings.

Oddly enough, we sometimes run into this problem when we read scripture as well. We can all read or hear exactly the same thing - and interpret it very differently. We can even have the same experience - and still come to a different conclusion of what that experience meant or how to respond to it.

During my years at seminary, I had it beaten into my brain that "experiential faith" was problematic, because experiences could vary and experience always needed to be held up and tested against the truth of scripture. Because experience... can be flawed. Experienced reality can be highly ambiguous and obscure God's intentions for our lives and our world. Our experience may not reflect what God desires for us. For instance - if I am a starving child in the midst of a refugee camp, having witnessed my family's execution and having been  tortured or raped - my experience does not reflect what God's desire for human relationship actually is. But my perception and view of God can definitely be shaped - and skewed - by this experience.

So as a general rule of thumb, this is true and a good practice. People can go a lot of bizarre places based solely on their experience without the proper balance of scripture to temper and guide the interpretation and understanding of the experience.

That said, there is one ultimate problem with dismissing the reality regarding the experiential nature of faith too out of hand. While one should always be a little careful of getting too caught up in our experiences, we cannot negate its impact and importance. The main reason... is scripture itself.

Scripture is, at its core, the recordings of people's "experiences" with the divine. How they encountered God and their interpretation of that encounter - what it meant and why it was important. Their writings reflect the world they lived in, the problems they faced, the arguments they were engaging, and to a degree, their own individual "style." God inspired them to write what they wrote - therefore it is still His Word - and yet it is also a work of humanity. This is why the Bible can sometimes be difficult to read. While it tells a continuous story of God and his relationship with humanity, when different people write, they use different styles and methods to get their message across. It's like trying to read a novel that sixty or so different people wrote all smashed together - some writing narratives, some writing poems, others writing letters - and many times even in different languages - all trying to move the story along... their voices and thoughts all unique to who they were, what they were going through, and what they were trying achieve by their writings. All had slightly different perspectives. We typically would view such a work as disjointed and difficult to read. In and of itself, this compilation of writings that brings together the larger story of God and is able to inspire faith and belief in millions throughout the world is miraculous if you really think about it.

This is precisely why we refer to it as the "living" word of God. Despite the thousands of years, despite the multitude of writers, despite all the language shifts, it still speaks into our lives. Throughout the eons, whatever circumstance people are in, God's word - even when it's the same the word that was spoken 2000-3000 years earlier - still evokes a response.

Now, where it gets tricky is that this word is typically heard very differently by people depending on their circumstance, time, place, and - yes - experience. But it is living because it continues to move people and create faith in them, just sometimes in different ways.

For instance, Jeremiah's experience of God's word in the midst of Judah's destruction by the Babylonians was very different than David's experience of God as he forged a united kingdom. Jeremiah was moved to write the book of Lamentations as a result of his experience - a book crying out to God, expressing his angst and sorrow over what had become of his people. David was moved to write many of the Psalms, poems and songs of praise that lifted up all that God was doing. We sing many of the Psalms of David in our worship services. We don't tend to sing the lamentations of Jeremiah. And yet - both were faithful servants of God called to serve in the midst of their circumstances. Both are a part of the "experience" of God.

I was recently reading an article from an author of the Pentecostal tradition who shared her life's struggles and faith journey. Now, I'm not a Pentecostal for a variety of personal reasons that I don't think need to be discussed here. It's sufficient to simply say I am drawn more toward the Lutheran faith tradition. But her story was inspiring - and deeply moving.

Additionally, as I read her story, heard her experience of God speaking into her life, I found myself going, "That is, almost verbatim, the same words God used with me when He spoke into my life at a very pivotal time." I felt the exact same "knowing" and understanding that it was not a hallucination. It was real and breathed new life into me. It helped me view scripture and God's message in a whole new light. During my time at seminary, I heard many other similar stories - God's voice breaking in wherever we were at and moving us all in new directions. It's something that connected all of us, and what connects me to this writer as well.

However, as I read her story, it begged the question - how can two people have almost the exact same experience, and still not totally agree on everything when it comes to matters of faith? (And as a caveat - I have not spent enough time talking with or getting to know the intricacies of this author's religious viewpoints - what we agree on or disagree on specifically. She self-identifies as Pentecostal, I identify as Lutheran. I'm working off the overarching different understandings and practices that tend to be inherent between Pentecostals and Lutherans as a whole, not this particular person's specific viewpoints which I truthfully don't know all that well and am not attempting to criticize in any way.)

This almost identical experience inspired faith in her where there had previously been none, while it solidified my already existing faith and set me down the path I am currently on. She heard these words coming out of an abusive childhood and subsequent suicide attempt. I heard these words after a fairly "normal" and loving upbringing, though was going through some turmoil for different reasons. As a result, she found herself for reasons that are her own drawn to the Pentecostal movement. I found myself drawn to the Lutheran tradition, in particular its emphasis of grace and forgiveness. Yet the words spoken to us were the same, and had in many ways the same effect - yet also set us down paths that were somewhat divergent. Despite being drawn to different traditions, God's word breaking in on our lives shared the same ultimate goal - to put us both to work in the building of God's Kingdom.

Is this not the same situation we have when we read scripture in general? We all read and hear the same Word of God - but we interpret and respond to that word very differently depending on our background, our understanding, and our life experiences. Let me illustrate further... saying "You're beautiful" to someone will sound different depending on whether you're a model earning thousands of dollars a day because of your looks, versus a several hundred pound sixteen year old who is made fun of and bullied every day at school because of how she looks. The former will have an easier time believing what she hears and will react a certain way. Society upholds and validates those words for her. The latter by contrast may have difficulty believing those words as they are completely contrary to everything she has experienced among her peers and society. And yet, in the way that matters to God, that overweight sixteen year old typically possess a deeper beauty than can be seen on the outside. (I am speaking in generalities - not trying to say every model has a wonderful self-image or that every overweight teen has a poor self-image - it's simply an analogy to make a point). But they hear - and react - very differently to these same words breaking into their lives - either affirming what they already think, or contradicting what they have been led to believe about themselves.

God's word does the same thing. It can affirm what we already know and believe. Or, it can contradict what we see and hear on a regular basis. It can comfort, or it can cause fear. It can resolve some doubts, or raise more questions.

This does not mean there's something wrong with God's Word. It means how we ALL hear God's word is potentially flawed and definitely not always the same. Our experience alters our perception and understanding. We have a "filter" problem between our eyes/ears and our brain. Like what I interpreted and read into my husband's request to not text him.

It's not a new problem - we see this problem being played out among the early Christian communities and apostles as well. Peter and Paul didn't always see eye to eye or share the same ministry methods. Paul was attacked and found himself having to defend his ministry to the Corinthian congregation. Misunderstandings and hurt feelings abounded even then. Our brokenness continues to be a source of strife even in matters of how we practice and understand our faith in the one who reconciles us back to Himself.

It is easy for us to spout scripture in order to make an argument regarding a particular conviction we might have - to condemn others for not being like we are or believing exactly the way we believe. We all do it. I know I'm guilty. As Christians, we all find ourselves drawn to different parts of scripture because they have more meaning to us in our lives because of our current or past circumstances. We cling to and uphold more vigilantly those parts that speak to us and affiliate with those denominations or non-denominations that fall more into line with how we understand God's Word.

Thus we cannot escape or deny how our experience shapes our understanding. This is why I believe we fight so much among the different branches of Christianity. Every Christian has a unique experience that shapes their understanding of the divine. That shapes their understanding of who and what Jesus is and means to them. That shapes how they hear words like, "you are a child of God." How they hear those words shapes why they are drawn to one particular tradition or another. How they hear God calling shapes how they respond to it.

So who is right and who is wrong?

Maybe that's the wrong question. Perhaps it isn't a question of right and wrong response or interpretation, but a question of what is it that moves us all toward God's vision of reconciliation and building his Kingdom on earth? I know I will continue to disagree with other people's understandings and interpretations of scripture, not be comfortable with certain expressions of faith, and even view some theologies as being harmful as opposed to helpful... but as long as we continue to strive toward the same goal, perhaps there is space for us to recognize that we are all simply small parts of a much bigger picture.

To recognize we continue to be flawed people who misunderstand God's word as much as we misunderstand each other, even those we're closest to, all the time. 

A Good Friday Grief, An Easter Hope

Holy Week and Easter Sunday are now behind us. For most pastors, that typically means slipping into a coma for about a week. Unfortunately, I'm not able to do that this year. The symbolic dates that we put on a calendar to help remind us of what God has done for us through Christ, the cross, and the empty tomb are now past - but that does not mean that we do not continue to live in the midst of our own Good Fridays and need for Easter Morning each and every day.

We spend a lot of time in our lives (well, those of us who find the topic intriguing and of importance anyway) debating theological issues. Debating small points of scripture, asking questions about whether Jesus really said this, that or the other thing. Arguing over the jots and tittles, so to speak. Is it free well, election, predestination, or some combination of all the above? Why does the Bible contain the books it does? Why do we still have those same old traditional services? Why do we think we need drums and guitars to make worship meaningful? Why don't we have more chocolate donuts for the fellowship hour?

Important questions and topics to debate to be sure. But today, two days after Easter, as I prepare to help preside over the funeral service for a 24 year old member of our congregation, I find most of my debates, arguments, and theological nuances flying out the window in favor of one simple message: "For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his." (Romans 6:5)

Whatever arguments, questions, or debates we might have, there is one simple truth in this life: We will die. We will share in Jesus' death whether we choose to or not. We all will have our Good Friday. Our dark hour. A path each and everyone one of us will travel down. We don't know usually know when, we rarely know how.

In the midst of grief and sorrow at the loss of a loved one, whatever debates and theological squabbles we might have with one another within the Christian community seem to melt away as we cling to the Easter promise in the face of death.

We know already that we share in Christ's death - clinging to the promise that we will also share in his resurrection. "He is risen!" is more than a Facebook posting for people to "like," it is the very essence of the Christian faith. The promise of new life, the promise of resurrection, of the old passing away, the new being ushered in. It is more than Easter egg hunts and chocolate bunnies. The empty tomb means something. No... I take that back. It means EVERYTHING. Christ's tomb is empty - a prelude to the promise that our tombs will one day be empty as well.

We walk together during this life, sharing in joys and sorrows - making mistakes, living in the midst of broken relationships, spending too much time arguing and fighting over things that ultimately will never matter. Worrying and stressing about what tomorrow will bring. I'm guilty. I know. I do this as much, if not more, than many people. I have my fair share of things that stress me out and make life less enjoyable than it should be. Which is precisely why hearing and knowing that this will all one day pass away is a lovely promise that I look forward to.

Today, however, my theological arguments lie in one simple, basic promise: "Because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved." (Ephesians 2:4-5)

Faith does not mean there is no grief when a loved one dies - it simply means we do not grieve without hope. Comfort comes not in a question of whether the individual believed or behaved exactly the right way - but rather in God's magnanimous love for sinners and saints alike, that wipes away the mistakes and sins of the past, replacing them with a new creation prepared for the Kingdom of God.

To live as Easter people is to live knowing God has another word to speak, that his power extends beyond the grave. That God has something to say about death - and that death is not the final word. That there is a word of life that not only breaks in on our present, but gives us hope and certainty of new life for the future.

For Christ is Risen... He is Risen INDEED! 

Is Bad Press Better Than No Press?

Last night my husband and I watched the History Channel's new mini-series, "The Bible." I admit, I went in fairly skeptical after reading about who some of the so-called theological consultants were going to be. Yet, I wanted to see for myself how the interpretation of these stories would be conveyed.

We came away disagreeing. Not on its accuracy or characterizations - we both agreed, they totally botched that. Rather, what we disagreed on was whether or not, even with all the inaccuracies and questionable theological interpretation, any press, even if it was seemingly bad press, is really better than no press at all?

My husband's argument was that it was still telling a basic Biblical story that might get someone interested enough to actually find out more for themselves and eventually lead to faith. That its overall message of "have faith" was in and of itself enough to warrant a little skewing of the story lines and characters.

He has a point. (Yes, you can mark that down and hang it on your wall.) If it gets people talking - that's always a good thing. The fact that "The Bible," "Abraham," "Hagar" and "Moses" were the top trending Twitter items for the evening was something of a monumental event. You'll probably never see that again. That it was the History Channel's highest rated show in years - well, not sure what that says about the History Channel. (This is the network that produces "Ancient Aliens" after all) But yes - those are all good things.

However... my concern is what message is actually being conveyed? As a pastor, I spend a lot of time undoing damage done by bad theology. Correcting misconceptions, spending my Sundays helping people re-imagine these stories that so often get watered down and simplified, pulled out of context and are many times devoid of the overarching themes and motifs of scripture.

The beginning of this series was, at least from my perspective, simply one more push toward a legalistic view of scripture that I will eventually have to work on undoing at a later date. That the perceptions people will walk away with if they are not already Biblically literate will be that God is a vengeful, wrathful, judgmental God that scares people into submission. That this is yet another venture in discussing the bad theology, the skewed characterization, the flat out wrong details, the armor-laden ninja-like angels that go into Sodom and Gomorrah... (Ok, maybe we can keep that.)

I was a bit annoyed by, but let go of, the fact that Abraham and Sarah looked like they were maybe in their mid-fifties when they set out from Harran (Abraham was actually 75 when he started travelling cross-country). I let go of the fact that they skipped some pretty primary elements to Abraham's story. That they just leap-frogged over the next three major characters (Isaac, Jacob and Joseph). I was initially annoyed that they didn't bother to tell the part about Abraham giving his wife away to Pharaoh after he passed up the Promised Land in favor of settling in Egypt, thus jeopardizing the promise. I thought this was important because his son, Isaac does the exact same thing - but they fixed that problem by just eliminating the story of Isaac all together.

Movie-makers have time constraints and have to take a certain amount of creative license and make editing decisions in order to fill in the allotted time. The entire Bible in 10 hours.

Ok, some things had to be dropped. I understand that.

And I don't even mind if they're going to take some creative license with the dialogue. Jesus never flat out said he was going to "change the world" like he does in the trailers. But as a writer, I am fine with taking a little license there - provided the general intent, meaning and progression of the story is not lost.

Thus, it was the story of the Exodus and the characterization of Moses that finally sent me over the proverbial "edge," and de-railed my tolerance level. Dreamworks' "Prince of Egypt" and the Cecil B. DeMille classic, "The Ten Commandments" ran theological rings around this farcical attempt at telling this primary event in the history of God's people. I realize, as a pastor, I'm going to be overly critical. But there are just some things you don't use the "creative license" to monkey around with. Moses' call story is one of those things.

I confess, perhaps I'm a bit sensitive to this as hearing and understanding Moses' call for the first time by one of my future instructors during a school visit was what actually helped me make the decision to attend seminary.

The compelling part of Moses' call and exchange with God at the burning bush is one of the central points in all of scripture regarding the "prophetic call" that sets the tone for the call of all other prophets in the Bible. In the Biblical version - Moses is a reluctant prophet. He makes excuses not to go. He even flat out tells God "send someone else." The feelings of unworthiness, fear and reluctance to go where God is sending are  integral parts of how ordinary humans face being called by God to do extraordinary things. It is a prophetic trend that is repeated throughout scripture - Jonah, running away on a boat and even throwing himself into the sea to die to escape his prophetic duties; Isaiah exclaiming he his a man of unclean lips; Jeremiah stating he's too young; Simon/Peter telling Jesus to get away from him because he is a sinful man.

This could make for some pretty powerful dramatization and cinematic footage to boot. Moses is a complex character - a man who tries so hard not to be the man God wants him to be, and eventually turns into an intercessor for and defender of the Israelites when God decides he's fed up with them and wants to destroy them.

Instead, Moses came off as some sort of deranged avenger, telling God to use him to free His people, an almost psychotic glint in his eye as he stared down the camera. Startled, as I heard those utterances, I yelled out, "That is SOOOO not what Moses said or how he reacted!" (Yes, I yell at the television when I see theological debacles much like I scream at the TV when the Huskers fumble the ball away during a football game. Same basic problem as far as I'm concerned.)

Then, they went on to leave out the whole golden calf incident. Another atrocity in my view regarding some primary elements to the story of not just the Exodus - but of Israel's rebellious nature. The golden calf episode is the driving force behind the unfaithfulness that would plague the nation of Israel throughout the rest of their history. Golden calves will be seen again and will lead to the downfall of the Northern Kingdom.

But let's just leave that part out.

It's kind of like leaving the cross out of the crucifixion story. But... details.

Bottom line was that, to me, there is a vastly different message being sent when you have a man who goes, "Yes, use me to free my people," as opposed to "send someone else."

There is so much more going on in these stories at such a deeper level than just portraying "events," most of which come off portraying God as a pretty blood-thirsty, legalistic deity. Not that there aren't some pretty disturbing events in the Bible or that God doesn't engage in some questionable genocidal tactics. However, there seemed to be an emphasis on making sure the battles were conveyed - for example, Abraham yelling "trust in God" as he slaughters Lot's captors - but fails to tell the subsequent story of Abraham meeting with the high priest Melchizedek on his way back from this venture and turning over ten percent of all that he owned. It's a topic that takes up several chapters of the book of Hebrews in the New Testament, emphasizing the kind of priest Melchizedek is that trumps the Levitical priesthood of Aaron's descendants and is held up to the same level as Jesus.

The scene takes up a grand total of two verses in Genesis 14, so it's easy to see why it gets overlooked and dumped on the editing room floor. Yet, at the same time, many of these seemingly minor events come back to have greater significance later on. A more theologically-centered attempt at story-telling would have picked up on these overlooked elements. Spent perhaps a little less time wreaking carnage and a little more time reading between the lines, so to speak.

Perhaps those nuances are not being understood by the general public in this way and my concern is unfounded. There were certainly many Christians out there who loved seeing these stories "brought to life." Jesus does say that those who are not against us are for us. I have no doubt the makers had a genuine desire to tell the story of their faith and they took on a daunting task. Kudos to them for that.

But what message do those not so familiar with these stories walk away with? If it's simply "have faith," then that's all well and good. Yet, some of the responses I saw from the non-faithful were more along the lines of "yup, more bloodshed and stupidity coming out of the Bible. Nothing new there." Some people will get out of it what they want - which is not much - regardless of how deeply theological the story-telling is. I get that. However, would this portrayal push a "fence-sitter" in the direction of faith, or drive them further away from it?

I suppose both the theologian and the story-teller/filmmaker within me will always rail against cinematic endeavors that convey questionable theology and shoddy details. That I am allowing my disappointment in what could truly be "the greatest story ever told" wound up being trite, emotionless and still misses the mark in bridging the gap of several thousand years worth of history to how these stories are relevant to us today to override my sense of "at least it's something." Perhaps my husband is right - and even bad press is still better than no press. Dubious interpretation is better than no attempt at interpretation.

And, who knows - maybe it will get better. Maybe they'll (pardon the pun) redeem themselves when it comes time to introduce Jesus into the story of human history. Though I'm not overly optimistic in this department.

But what do you think? Is it better than nothing?

Why Lent?

Today is Ash Wednesday. For many in the Christian faith, this day marks the beginning of the season we refer to as "Lent." (The word itself simply means "spring" but was originally referred to in Greek as the "Tessarakostē" or "fortieth day before Easter" - obviously, "lent" is easier to say)

No, you will not find any "requirement" in the Christian Bible that says one must observe Ash Wednesday or Lent. In fact, because it is not a "requirement" many Christian denominations choose not to observe this season. Which is just fine. (Though, food for thought - there is nothing in the Bible that says one must observe Christmas or Easter for that matter, either.)

In the faith tradition I am part of, Lutheran, observing church seasons like Advent, Lent, Easter, Epiphany and Pentecost is not about "requirement." It's not about "having" to do something. It's about wanting to. It's about ritual and symbolism and doing all those things that humans do to help bring meaning and significance in their lives. Humans utilize dates and festivals like these in order to set aside special time to draw nearer to God, to carve out time in our otherwise hectic and frenzied lives to focus on God-related events that have happened throughout our long and storied history. The time period between Ash Wednesday and Lent is 40 days (excluding Sundays - those are all considered "little Easters"), which most Biblically literate people recognize that the number 40 is a significant number in the Bible used by God to bring about change and transformation (Noah was on the ark for 40 days and nights, Moses was on the mountain receiving the commandments of God for 40 days, the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years, Jesus was tempted in the wilderness for 40 days, etc.)

The verse from Ash Wednesday is from Genesis 3:19, "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." It is that moment when God exiles humanity from His presence in the Garden. It is the beginning of how sin separated us from God. Throughout the next 40 days, Christians enter into a time of self-reflection, repentance, and prayer, culminating with Holy Week - which starts with Jesus entry into the city of Jerusalem (Palm Sunday), the last supper with his disciples (Maundy Thursday), his death on the cross (Good Friday) and finally, his triumphant resurrection on Easter Sunday. These 40 days represent the entire story of our relationship with God - our sinful nature, God's gracious acts of reconciliation that culminates with the death and resurrection of His Son in order to reconcile and redeem the world.

If nothing else, Lent is a time to just take some time to recognize the sweeping and grand nature of how God has acted throughout human history.

Admittedly, I grew up not really observing Lent. I remember going to my Catholic friend's houses on Fridays and only being able to eat fish sticks, but aside from that, I didn't really know much about it. I was in my late 20's before I began to actually observe the season, and admittedly, the discipline and practice was a transformative period in my life.

Since we do not view it as a requirement, we have no "rules" or "regulations" regarding what people can and cannot do during Lent. We encourage people to utilize the time to reflect, focus, and re-center their faith lives. A time to "re-order" one's priorities in life and their relationship with God. Many may choose the path of "self-denial" - where they give something up as a symbolic gesture that emulates the sacrifice Jesus made for us. Others will fast, again emulating Jesus' 40 days of fasting in the desert. Such a practice weakens us and reminds us of our reliance upon God for food and sustenance. Still others will engage in acts of giving, service, or prayer disciplines. Some will commit themselves to a particular cause during this time.

Now arguably, no matter what "season" it is, one should always be focused on and practicing many of these things. But we're human. We know we lose focus, we know we allow the other conflicts, events, and stresses in our lives to take front and center. Lent merely is that stark reminder of what truly matters - God's mission in this world, in our lives, and where He is leading us.