The past few years has seen an increase in using the word "Liberal" as a term of derision. Some Christians cringe at the thought of bearing that label. They feel that it has the same stigma as the Scarlet A. Not me. I am unapologetic, and unashamed, and unafraid to proclaim that I am indeed a liberal.
Now, let me tell you what it means to me. It means that instead of reading the Bible looking for propositions to live by, I look for relationships to live for. It means that I take very seriously the creations stories found in Genesis 1 and 2, without trying to force some synergistic harmony upon them. It means that I don't have to blend Matthew, Mark, and Luke to get some high octane truth. I can read each gospel as a separate work of different authors who are attempting to shine a light on a particular aspect of God with us. They don't need to be harmonized, they need to be listened to.
It means I am free to move beyond the legalism demanded in much of the Old Testament and follow Jesus the Christ of God who fulfilled the law for us and offers all human beings grace.
It means I can see the face of God in all people regardless of race, gender, age, or creed. And it means that I can accept the fact that God can call and use whomever he chooses for whatever he chooses. If that means female leaders and pastors for churches, so be it.
It means I don't blame secular humanists for the situations we find our world in. I blame those of us who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, but we spend more time arguing about being right rather than doing the right thing.
It means I struggle and strive to live by the one commandment Jesus said was most important, "To love the Lord God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and my neighbor as myself." It means that I honor your right to disagree with me without calling you evil, or saying that you are lost for all eternity because we don't share the same opinions. You are my neighbor and differing opinions do not define who we are in Christ.
Yes, I am a liberal and I am very much okay with it.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Turn or Burn
According to the New Testament, the encounters Jesus had with people were very much grace filled encounters. He did, of course, have some very abrasive words for some religious leaders. He was very much at odds with that part of his faith tradition which was at odds with God. When he made the whip and began to drive out the moneychangers from the temple, it was simply because the house of prayer for all people, wasn't.
The woman at the well, the woman caught in the very act of adultery, and Zacchaeus, come to mind as people we would call notorious sinners. The woman at the well practiced serial marriage, five husbands had gone through her life. She had given up on marriage and was now just living with a man. Jesus offered her living water. The woman caught in the act of adultery was told "Neither do I condemn you." He offered her forgiveness, not condemnation. Zacchaeus was given a place at the table, and he was a hated tax collector.
The list goes on. But these few instances will help frame the question I have been invited to discuss. "Where did we get the idea that violence and coercion, mainly through fear, was the proper way to bring about conversion?"
I would love to blame this entire tragic turn on Constantine, the emperor of Rome who turned the Roman empire into a Christian state. He did so, of course, by means of economic pressure and at the receiving end of a sword. Conquest became synonymous with conversion. It would be easy to point the finger and say, "There is the problem!" But Church leaders had time to go to the New Testament and say, "This isn't right!" They didn't and the crusades were the result.
When US America was founded, the opportunity was there to begin afresh with emphasis on the New Covenant. That didn't happen either. Robert Jewett has written an important book entitled "Mission And Menace." He is tracing four centuries of religious zeal in America. The theology which dominated the Early colonies, and which still dominates today, was the theology of the Puritans. Let me give you a quote from Jewett; "The Puritans derived from the book of Revelation and portions of the Old Testament their dualistic worldview and their belief that violence would inaugurate God's kingdom." Some of the things done in the name of God in this country should bring tears to our eyes.
And we may as well admit that coercion by fear is an act of violence, just as much as physical violence. It is called redemptive violence, but can violence really redeem? Turn or burn may indeed get people to make a profession of fear, but not a real profession of faith.
The woman at the well, the woman caught in the very act of adultery, and Zacchaeus, come to mind as people we would call notorious sinners. The woman at the well practiced serial marriage, five husbands had gone through her life. She had given up on marriage and was now just living with a man. Jesus offered her living water. The woman caught in the act of adultery was told "Neither do I condemn you." He offered her forgiveness, not condemnation. Zacchaeus was given a place at the table, and he was a hated tax collector.
The list goes on. But these few instances will help frame the question I have been invited to discuss. "Where did we get the idea that violence and coercion, mainly through fear, was the proper way to bring about conversion?"
I would love to blame this entire tragic turn on Constantine, the emperor of Rome who turned the Roman empire into a Christian state. He did so, of course, by means of economic pressure and at the receiving end of a sword. Conquest became synonymous with conversion. It would be easy to point the finger and say, "There is the problem!" But Church leaders had time to go to the New Testament and say, "This isn't right!" They didn't and the crusades were the result.
When US America was founded, the opportunity was there to begin afresh with emphasis on the New Covenant. That didn't happen either. Robert Jewett has written an important book entitled "Mission And Menace." He is tracing four centuries of religious zeal in America. The theology which dominated the Early colonies, and which still dominates today, was the theology of the Puritans. Let me give you a quote from Jewett; "The Puritans derived from the book of Revelation and portions of the Old Testament their dualistic worldview and their belief that violence would inaugurate God's kingdom." Some of the things done in the name of God in this country should bring tears to our eyes.
And we may as well admit that coercion by fear is an act of violence, just as much as physical violence. It is called redemptive violence, but can violence really redeem? Turn or burn may indeed get people to make a profession of fear, but not a real profession of faith.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Fun With Dick And Jane
In elementary school, my first encounter with reading was the adventures of Dick and Jane. No one, as far as I know, has ever mistaken these reading primers as "serious" literature. They were nothing more, nor less, than primers for beginning readers. Anything which had to do with science or math was purely coincidental. Thankfully, these primers helped to teach me to read and inspired a passion for reading which remains with me still.
Somewhere along the way the Bible became confused with a science textbook and we have been in trouble ever since. The Bible is not a science book, it is a faith book. The point of those two creation stories in Genesis one and two is not the" how" of creation. It is the "Who" of creation. Science helps us understand how, theology points us toward the creator.
Those "young" earth anti-evolutionist believers are at odds with science because they are attempting to impose something on the Bible which the writers did not intend. They claim the earth is six or seven thousand years old based on counting generations through the Old and New Testaments. These numbers are not exact because the numbers don't add up in a consistent way. Check out the genealogy sections in the gospels of Matthew and Luke sometime. Not only does a different cast of characters produce the same result, the numbers don't add up either. This is not to say that one is right and the other wrong. These folks were just coming at their story from different directions.
The question I have is this, "Why couldn't God choose to create through evolution?" As a matter of fact a strong case could be made for this by reading Genesis one. The story of creation unfolds day by day with the human race making an appearance on day six. Don't the evolutionists say the human race is last on the chain of life to develop?
I'm not proposing this interpretation for Genesis one. Again, I believe science can answer the how questions while theology deals with the Who. The very existence of life itself points to the Who. Science is now capable of doing some amazing things with life, cloning and transplants come to mind. But science cannot create life from scratch, God can. Science cannot rule out God, and theology cannot prove God. But life points us to the direction of a creator.
The stories of faith found in the scriptures are there to inform, form, and transform our journey of faith. They are there to teach, challenge, lead, sometimes push us, into a life of discipleship.
So, whether the earth is thirty five billion years old or seven thousand years old, God is creator. My faith is not in the details of creation. My faith is in God the creator. The Bible points me in that direction. If life sprang from a primal goo, God made the goo and the primal as well.
Science and theology should be sitting around the same table comparing notes instead of throwing stones at each other. I think both could learn something.
Somewhere along the way the Bible became confused with a science textbook and we have been in trouble ever since. The Bible is not a science book, it is a faith book. The point of those two creation stories in Genesis one and two is not the" how" of creation. It is the "Who" of creation. Science helps us understand how, theology points us toward the creator.
Those "young" earth anti-evolutionist believers are at odds with science because they are attempting to impose something on the Bible which the writers did not intend. They claim the earth is six or seven thousand years old based on counting generations through the Old and New Testaments. These numbers are not exact because the numbers don't add up in a consistent way. Check out the genealogy sections in the gospels of Matthew and Luke sometime. Not only does a different cast of characters produce the same result, the numbers don't add up either. This is not to say that one is right and the other wrong. These folks were just coming at their story from different directions.
The question I have is this, "Why couldn't God choose to create through evolution?" As a matter of fact a strong case could be made for this by reading Genesis one. The story of creation unfolds day by day with the human race making an appearance on day six. Don't the evolutionists say the human race is last on the chain of life to develop?
I'm not proposing this interpretation for Genesis one. Again, I believe science can answer the how questions while theology deals with the Who. The very existence of life itself points to the Who. Science is now capable of doing some amazing things with life, cloning and transplants come to mind. But science cannot create life from scratch, God can. Science cannot rule out God, and theology cannot prove God. But life points us to the direction of a creator.
The stories of faith found in the scriptures are there to inform, form, and transform our journey of faith. They are there to teach, challenge, lead, sometimes push us, into a life of discipleship.
So, whether the earth is thirty five billion years old or seven thousand years old, God is creator. My faith is not in the details of creation. My faith is in God the creator. The Bible points me in that direction. If life sprang from a primal goo, God made the goo and the primal as well.
Science and theology should be sitting around the same table comparing notes instead of throwing stones at each other. I think both could learn something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)