In a recent Time article, Barbara Brown Taylor, an Episcopalian priest, was asked how one might find God in times of depression, fear, and high anxiety (a darkness in one's soul). Taylor, a person who left the ministry in her own dark night of the soul, knows only too well that the fear of darkness can also be a time of God's nearness. She comments that darkness should not be feared because God comes to many Biblical characters in the darkness, including Jacob, the Israelites, and Nicodemus. And yet, in this world of light, people fixate on the goodness of light (and "enlightenment") over and against darkness. In darkness, Taylor argues, we learn faster than in light. We also experience God in ways that would not be possible in light. Have you ever experienced God in the dark? What reassurances do you get when you face the dark night of the soul?
The article comes from the Times article dated April 28, 2014 entitled "Let There Be Light", pages 36-41.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Friday, April 25, 2014
Guns and Religion
This past week, Georgia passed a gun law that is the most universal: guns are allowed in almost any setting... provided the setting accepts people to carry guns. That's right: schools, bars, and churches just to name a few of the more controversial places. So I thought we might take a little trip down the history of the church:
In the Old Testament, it seemed that weapons were not only welcomed in the Temple, but arguably a part of the service. Sure, these weapons weren't guns, and they were holy instruments that would be used to slaughter the sacrificial animal on the altar (and not people) but I'm sure some could point out that a weapon is a weapon no matter where it has been used.
However, there were also places of sanctuary in the Old Testament (safe places to go to for those who were considered criminals before due process). These places didn't allow for those who were victims of a crime to seek out their own vengeance if the supposed criminal was within the walls of the city. While the Bible clearly states "an eye for an eye" justice (or in an extreme case: a life for a life), I would argue that these towns of refuge (from Joshua 20) were the start of sanctuary in the Christian church, although I must admit, I haven't done much research on the matter.
In the Christian church history, it wasn't long before those who were being persecuted fled to the church for safety (this was once the church became an acceptable religion). The church was considered holy ground in which bloodshed would not be tolerated. However, in more recent history, we have stories every few months of people walled in the church begging for mercy and people on the outside setting fire to the church walls or brazenly walking in with weapons of any type, killing people on church property. It was only a few years ago a Lutheran Church in Pennsylvania laid witness to a congregation member killing the secretary of the church with a gun.
Should a similar legislation pass in New York state, our Council would immediately be called to decide our stance upon the matter. In all honesty, I don't see this happening any time in the near future. But it doesn't hurt to get a conversation started: would you allow for guns to be permitted on church property and if so, would there be any conditions you would put on the user of the gun(s)? Or if you are on the other side of the fence, on what basis do you defend your claim for no guns on church property? Would you consider other weapons permissible on church property and if so, which ones?
In the Old Testament, it seemed that weapons were not only welcomed in the Temple, but arguably a part of the service. Sure, these weapons weren't guns, and they were holy instruments that would be used to slaughter the sacrificial animal on the altar (and not people) but I'm sure some could point out that a weapon is a weapon no matter where it has been used.
However, there were also places of sanctuary in the Old Testament (safe places to go to for those who were considered criminals before due process). These places didn't allow for those who were victims of a crime to seek out their own vengeance if the supposed criminal was within the walls of the city. While the Bible clearly states "an eye for an eye" justice (or in an extreme case: a life for a life), I would argue that these towns of refuge (from Joshua 20) were the start of sanctuary in the Christian church, although I must admit, I haven't done much research on the matter.
In the Christian church history, it wasn't long before those who were being persecuted fled to the church for safety (this was once the church became an acceptable religion). The church was considered holy ground in which bloodshed would not be tolerated. However, in more recent history, we have stories every few months of people walled in the church begging for mercy and people on the outside setting fire to the church walls or brazenly walking in with weapons of any type, killing people on church property. It was only a few years ago a Lutheran Church in Pennsylvania laid witness to a congregation member killing the secretary of the church with a gun.
Should a similar legislation pass in New York state, our Council would immediately be called to decide our stance upon the matter. In all honesty, I don't see this happening any time in the near future. But it doesn't hurt to get a conversation started: would you allow for guns to be permitted on church property and if so, would there be any conditions you would put on the user of the gun(s)? Or if you are on the other side of the fence, on what basis do you defend your claim for no guns on church property? Would you consider other weapons permissible on church property and if so, which ones?
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
A New Day
Welcome to the Easter season! What a busy week the church had last week, with vigils, long devotional walks, sacred rituals, a plethora of worship services, and finally, the arrival to Easter Sunday. While Lent is over, along with the fasting, it's a shame that in this new day, the church doesn't have a similar practice for the 50 days of Easter leading to Pentecost. It's almost like you're preparing yourself for Holy Week, but shouldn't there be a promise to better yourself in the new day? Even if its simple (like repeating "Jesus died for me", "God loves me so much", or making sure you pray each day), what would you do in this new day while Christ visits and remains with you?
Saturday, April 12, 2014
The Paradox of Palm Sunday
Palm Sunday is often seen as joyous over against the 40 days of Lent and the rest of Holy Week. It includes upbeat hymns, a church-wide procession, and palm-branch waving. Fun times!
But Palm Sunday is also juxtaposed (or in paradox to) the overall sediment of where all our journeys are leading: to the cross. The worship service itself takes on a very real feel once the Gospel (which includes the whole narrative from Maundy Thursday to the cross) is read. And Holy Communion becomes something other than the lively knowledge that our sins are forgiven.
We venture to the cross. Let us not forget the very reality of our faith.
But Palm Sunday is also juxtaposed (or in paradox to) the overall sediment of where all our journeys are leading: to the cross. The worship service itself takes on a very real feel once the Gospel (which includes the whole narrative from Maundy Thursday to the cross) is read. And Holy Communion becomes something other than the lively knowledge that our sins are forgiven.
We venture to the cross. Let us not forget the very reality of our faith.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
A Word About Conversation and Cyber-Bullies
Given the activity of a recent open blog I wrote, I wanted to assure the congregation that I am absolutely ok with the comments given. There's a difference between conversation and cyber-bullying; the former I love, the latter I ignore. A conversation allows for disagreement and ongoing dialogue. While there might be some hard feelings in conversation, the intent is not in harm but rather in getting a point across.
Cyber-bullying is something different. Cyber-bullying often is quickly dismissive, trying to end dialogue before it can even begin. Often, it doesn't allow someone to voice an opinion that is different than the one doing the cyber-bullying. Cyber-bullies usually use pseudonyms, and can have several accounts, acting like different people when it really is one person under several screen names. Cyber-bullies often threaten with suing, defamation of character, and unlawful censorship to intimidate the other side into silence and inactivity. Also, cyber-bullies have a great way of distorting the conversation; for example, if someone commented, "Pastor Kevin has done a lot of research on this topic and I really appreciate and agree with what he says", a cyber-bully might ask, "And I haven't done my homework too?" taking the complement comment that really has nothing to do with the cyber-bully and making it an insult. Lastly, cyber-bullies love sarcasm, a style of writing that is not easy to pick up on through the internet, especially in one sentence comments.
Personally, I don't trust cyber-bullies, not only because I really don't care what they have to say, but also because they are fake personae. The real person/people behind the screen name(s) can be radically different people than the personae, and according to some experts, these people often are insecure in real life so they lash out on the internet--the only place they feel they can. They look to promote anger, and quite frankly, life is too short to allow them to anger me.
When responding to a post, I always ask: does this contribute to the conversation? If so, I will probably respond. However, I also ask a second question: does this end the conversation? If so, it's probably not a good idea to post, as more than most, this may call into question someone's character. I also usually don't try to respond more than once to any specific person unless I feel the conversation is developing; if it's a cyber-bully, I make sure I respond only once, if even at all. If someone is cyber-bullying, if you invite them to see you face-to-face (not something I recommend using unless you have a buddy you can be with during the meeting and even then, you should alert authorities of the meeting and your feelings about the person), they often will not take you on the offer, for whatever you put in writing they can use against you but anything verbal is not as highly prized (as spoken words often reflect perception over literalness). They also won't want to meet because of their own insecurities, if the experts are correct.
Overall, please know, I do understand the full scope every time I post and I don't let it get to me, and you shouldn't let it get to you either. Let people post what they want to post. Learn from Jesus to turn the other cheek and show the love that you would like back... even if you know it won't come across/back that way. If you worry about how your post might be interpreted, don't feel like you need to post, at least to my blogs. My sites are more secure than Patchogue Patch and I can delete comments that are irrelevant to the conversation. Interestingly enough, I feel the blog I posted on Patchogue Patch was highly successful as this post got the attention of the company who owns the site and I couldn't have hoped for better.
God's blessing to you all.
Cyber-bullying is something different. Cyber-bullying often is quickly dismissive, trying to end dialogue before it can even begin. Often, it doesn't allow someone to voice an opinion that is different than the one doing the cyber-bullying. Cyber-bullies usually use pseudonyms, and can have several accounts, acting like different people when it really is one person under several screen names. Cyber-bullies often threaten with suing, defamation of character, and unlawful censorship to intimidate the other side into silence and inactivity. Also, cyber-bullies have a great way of distorting the conversation; for example, if someone commented, "Pastor Kevin has done a lot of research on this topic and I really appreciate and agree with what he says", a cyber-bully might ask, "And I haven't done my homework too?" taking the complement comment that really has nothing to do with the cyber-bully and making it an insult. Lastly, cyber-bullies love sarcasm, a style of writing that is not easy to pick up on through the internet, especially in one sentence comments.
Personally, I don't trust cyber-bullies, not only because I really don't care what they have to say, but also because they are fake personae. The real person/people behind the screen name(s) can be radically different people than the personae, and according to some experts, these people often are insecure in real life so they lash out on the internet--the only place they feel they can. They look to promote anger, and quite frankly, life is too short to allow them to anger me.
When responding to a post, I always ask: does this contribute to the conversation? If so, I will probably respond. However, I also ask a second question: does this end the conversation? If so, it's probably not a good idea to post, as more than most, this may call into question someone's character. I also usually don't try to respond more than once to any specific person unless I feel the conversation is developing; if it's a cyber-bully, I make sure I respond only once, if even at all. If someone is cyber-bullying, if you invite them to see you face-to-face (not something I recommend using unless you have a buddy you can be with during the meeting and even then, you should alert authorities of the meeting and your feelings about the person), they often will not take you on the offer, for whatever you put in writing they can use against you but anything verbal is not as highly prized (as spoken words often reflect perception over literalness). They also won't want to meet because of their own insecurities, if the experts are correct.
Overall, please know, I do understand the full scope every time I post and I don't let it get to me, and you shouldn't let it get to you either. Let people post what they want to post. Learn from Jesus to turn the other cheek and show the love that you would like back... even if you know it won't come across/back that way. If you worry about how your post might be interpreted, don't feel like you need to post, at least to my blogs. My sites are more secure than Patchogue Patch and I can delete comments that are irrelevant to the conversation. Interestingly enough, I feel the blog I posted on Patchogue Patch was highly successful as this post got the attention of the company who owns the site and I couldn't have hoped for better.
God's blessing to you all.
Friday, April 4, 2014
Part 2: Miracle is Not Supernatural
If miracles aren't about morality (people going against common human qualities like hoarding and self-preservation) because God isn't directly the source of the miracle (it's about the human need in that case), then it isn't about a supernatural force coming either every so often.. Granted, this is the most common assumption about miracles today: a stage four terminal cancer patient hears the news that the cancer isn't just in remission, it's completely gone; a tornado touches down in a suburban town and decimates the town except for this one particular house; a teenager runs away from home only to return 14 years later willing to rebuild a shattered relationship. These are wonderful moments in time, but are they miracles?
The easiest answer: it all depends. God isn't behind acts of violence, like when evangelicals said that God sent a hurricane to New Orleans to disinfect the town of its sin or an earthquake to Haiti because they made a pact with the devil. As the Bible states, God is not a God of the dead but rather of the living. The miracle itself, God's direct intervention, is about life. Healing and new starts are miracles of God, but they don't happen just once in a blue moon when the prayers of the people are all in a line, they happen every day.
Our bodies heal themselves every day from abrasions, viruses, and broken bones. We're given a new start every day to overcome the sin that has driven us the day before. We're reminded that no matter what happens to us in these earthly, limited forms, we are forever united with the God of the living, whether here or on the other side. These are the miracles of how God intervenes every day on our behalf, and not from an outside force but directly to us from the Holy Spirit which is in us, guiding us. It may seem that some miracles, then, might be bigger than others, but it is often the small miracles that go overlooked, and even more so, all miracles lead back to God.
As the Gospel of John states, the seven "miracles" within its pages are described as signs, ones that point to the glory of God. May you see signs of God's glory in your own life--every day.
The easiest answer: it all depends. God isn't behind acts of violence, like when evangelicals said that God sent a hurricane to New Orleans to disinfect the town of its sin or an earthquake to Haiti because they made a pact with the devil. As the Bible states, God is not a God of the dead but rather of the living. The miracle itself, God's direct intervention, is about life. Healing and new starts are miracles of God, but they don't happen just once in a blue moon when the prayers of the people are all in a line, they happen every day.
Our bodies heal themselves every day from abrasions, viruses, and broken bones. We're given a new start every day to overcome the sin that has driven us the day before. We're reminded that no matter what happens to us in these earthly, limited forms, we are forever united with the God of the living, whether here or on the other side. These are the miracles of how God intervenes every day on our behalf, and not from an outside force but directly to us from the Holy Spirit which is in us, guiding us. It may seem that some miracles, then, might be bigger than others, but it is often the small miracles that go overlooked, and even more so, all miracles lead back to God.
As the Gospel of John states, the seven "miracles" within its pages are described as signs, ones that point to the glory of God. May you see signs of God's glory in your own life--every day.
Friday, March 28, 2014
"Noah": Get Real
I just came back from seeing the new Noah movie, and I must say, it wasn't a bad movie at all... as long as you suspend most of your beliefs and knowledge about the Noah story in the Bible. Overall, I give it 4 out of 5 stars for theatrics and plot, but for Biblical accuracy, I must say, it was worse than the Son of God movie and would only give it 1.5 stars out of 5 stars. I must also give a spoiler alert, since this movie does divert from the Bible in many ways, but I will promise to be as vague, brief, and concise as possible.
First, the movie does have Noah, an ark, and a corrupt world. Noah also has a family, albeit not the complete one that walks onto the ark (two of the sons are missing wives). The biggest problem in this movie is that Noah appears no better or worse (in all honesty) than the corruption around him. In fact, at several points in the film, he is more comfortable with killing than with life, a common trait of those who were wicked. And he appears no different than the wicked king when both invoke the name of the "creator" (aka. God) without any response from God (most of the time). Just because this has come up, I think the film uses "creator" instead of "God" to be respectful of those traditions that say it is disrespectful to call God as such and also to not show partiality in God's address (Islam, Judaism, and Chrsitianity use different titles for God). It is also clear that the movie Noah focuses on the childhood common story, which is a combination of two (or some scholars say three) different stories. Don't believe me? Read the story of Noah in Genesis: chapters 6-9. You may notice that one of the retellings has only 7 pairs of of animals: clean, unclean, and birds--21 all together (chapter 7) versus pairs of all animals (chapter 6). Better scholars than I can tell you exactly where the two stories bridge in and out of each other, but our Biblical understanding often makes those two stories into one.
Chronologically, the movie Noah skips around from the Bible, bringing back a grandfather (Methuselah) who would be dead at the time of Noah. Also, what I supposed to be the Nephalim, fallen angels whom the wicked people mated with, actually turns out to be the protectors (or "Watchers") of Noah; they also look a lot like the stone giants in the Lord of the Ring trilogy movie. And for those who love the rainbow in the Noah story, you have to wait until well after the flood to spot it (I almost thought they were going to leave it out!).
The most interesting thing about the movie (in my opinion) is how futuristic it appears (almost like it could have been 100 years ago), not something I expected from a story that took place thousands of years before. The clothing and devices used show artistic retelling of how our world might really be doomed to fail. However, woven into the story is the same magic and folklore that is common to mythology, like stones that instantly ignite into fire. What also captured my eye (behind the possible literalistic retelling of the creation story) is an evolutionary quality for life on this earth; however, the evolution all happened in one day, as evidenced by the rising and setting of the sun. People who read the Bible literally usually hate the idea of evolution; some who can agree that evolution is part of God's creation usually don't like thinking of creation in six literal days, understanding the days to be more like the Lord's day--this latter point, though, can be highly argued.
This movie kept reminding me of the apocalypse: doom for all mankind. The fact that many characters (I can't remember at this point if any of them were on the ark) thought that they could overcome the end of the world (especially referencing God's doing) always has me questioning how a person who is a creature, created by God, can usurp God's power... but sadly and rightly, the characters were all wrong.
Several sources I have read says that Focus on the Family has endorsed this movie. I don't see a strong endorsement, though, from their website: http://www.pluggedin.com/movies/intheaters/noah-2014.aspx. What I do read is that this movie can be used to spark "conversation" with others. Even still, I'm surprised that a group, such as Focus on the Family that prizes itself on Biblical accuracy (and inerrancy), a heterosexual partnered lifestyle (man and woman solely), a cohesive family unit with children that support the family, and no divorce rate, would even speak on this movie. I found this movie hard to get through at times, with what appears to be a crazed Noah ready to kill his own grandchildren to appease God and a son (Ham) who walks away from the family in the end. Domestic violence (in this case, emotional) which came out several times it very hard hitting situations should never be endorsed in a family unit. And what about the child that walks away? Noah never seems to want to find him; he is lost from the storyline. As for Noah's own wife, both she and Noah separate over time due to Noah's insecurities, with somehow a "happy ending" closing out the movie, where the wife doesn't even try to address what happened on the boat; literally and unfortunately, a submissive wife. And what about sex before marriage? This movie alludes to it, along with the problem of pregnancy; however, in the Bible, it should be noted that all three sons are married to wives, so there is a possibility that the director/writer just decided not to show the marriage itself. Still, if it isn't made apparent and they still look like children... Could it be that Focus on the Family is breaking down their ever apparent disappoint for families that aren't "ideal" or "perfect" according to their standards in lieu of having conversations? ...I may be naive, but I still won't give them that much credit!
What would I suggest this movie is good for? After a long day, if you want to see a good Hollywood movie full of dramatic effects and wonderful suspense, go for it. But don't use it in Bible studies or for gathering information. Go to the source. It's a lot better and a lot clearer.
First, the movie does have Noah, an ark, and a corrupt world. Noah also has a family, albeit not the complete one that walks onto the ark (two of the sons are missing wives). The biggest problem in this movie is that Noah appears no better or worse (in all honesty) than the corruption around him. In fact, at several points in the film, he is more comfortable with killing than with life, a common trait of those who were wicked. And he appears no different than the wicked king when both invoke the name of the "creator" (aka. God) without any response from God (most of the time). Just because this has come up, I think the film uses "creator" instead of "God" to be respectful of those traditions that say it is disrespectful to call God as such and also to not show partiality in God's address (Islam, Judaism, and Chrsitianity use different titles for God). It is also clear that the movie Noah focuses on the childhood common story, which is a combination of two (or some scholars say three) different stories. Don't believe me? Read the story of Noah in Genesis: chapters 6-9. You may notice that one of the retellings has only 7 pairs of of animals: clean, unclean, and birds--21 all together (chapter 7) versus pairs of all animals (chapter 6). Better scholars than I can tell you exactly where the two stories bridge in and out of each other, but our Biblical understanding often makes those two stories into one.
Chronologically, the movie Noah skips around from the Bible, bringing back a grandfather (Methuselah) who would be dead at the time of Noah. Also, what I supposed to be the Nephalim, fallen angels whom the wicked people mated with, actually turns out to be the protectors (or "Watchers") of Noah; they also look a lot like the stone giants in the Lord of the Ring trilogy movie. And for those who love the rainbow in the Noah story, you have to wait until well after the flood to spot it (I almost thought they were going to leave it out!).
The most interesting thing about the movie (in my opinion) is how futuristic it appears (almost like it could have been 100 years ago), not something I expected from a story that took place thousands of years before. The clothing and devices used show artistic retelling of how our world might really be doomed to fail. However, woven into the story is the same magic and folklore that is common to mythology, like stones that instantly ignite into fire. What also captured my eye (behind the possible literalistic retelling of the creation story) is an evolutionary quality for life on this earth; however, the evolution all happened in one day, as evidenced by the rising and setting of the sun. People who read the Bible literally usually hate the idea of evolution; some who can agree that evolution is part of God's creation usually don't like thinking of creation in six literal days, understanding the days to be more like the Lord's day--this latter point, though, can be highly argued.
This movie kept reminding me of the apocalypse: doom for all mankind. The fact that many characters (I can't remember at this point if any of them were on the ark) thought that they could overcome the end of the world (especially referencing God's doing) always has me questioning how a person who is a creature, created by God, can usurp God's power... but sadly and rightly, the characters were all wrong.
Several sources I have read says that Focus on the Family has endorsed this movie. I don't see a strong endorsement, though, from their website: http://www.pluggedin.com/movies/intheaters/noah-2014.aspx. What I do read is that this movie can be used to spark "conversation" with others. Even still, I'm surprised that a group, such as Focus on the Family that prizes itself on Biblical accuracy (and inerrancy), a heterosexual partnered lifestyle (man and woman solely), a cohesive family unit with children that support the family, and no divorce rate, would even speak on this movie. I found this movie hard to get through at times, with what appears to be a crazed Noah ready to kill his own grandchildren to appease God and a son (Ham) who walks away from the family in the end. Domestic violence (in this case, emotional) which came out several times it very hard hitting situations should never be endorsed in a family unit. And what about the child that walks away? Noah never seems to want to find him; he is lost from the storyline. As for Noah's own wife, both she and Noah separate over time due to Noah's insecurities, with somehow a "happy ending" closing out the movie, where the wife doesn't even try to address what happened on the boat; literally and unfortunately, a submissive wife. And what about sex before marriage? This movie alludes to it, along with the problem of pregnancy; however, in the Bible, it should be noted that all three sons are married to wives, so there is a possibility that the director/writer just decided not to show the marriage itself. Still, if it isn't made apparent and they still look like children... Could it be that Focus on the Family is breaking down their ever apparent disappoint for families that aren't "ideal" or "perfect" according to their standards in lieu of having conversations? ...I may be naive, but I still won't give them that much credit!
What would I suggest this movie is good for? After a long day, if you want to see a good Hollywood movie full of dramatic effects and wonderful suspense, go for it. But don't use it in Bible studies or for gathering information. Go to the source. It's a lot better and a lot clearer.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Noah's Ark... Not Your Sunday School Version
There must be something said about speaking your mind before you have proof to back up your claims. Already, the blogosphere, newsphere, and internet are a buzz with the anticipated movie "Noah". Stories abound of how (according to Russell Crowe) Noah isn't a benevolent person but rather one who would allow everyone else to drown before saving them (which is biblically a problem if Noah is said to be the only one who was good). Others have commented how God had been taken out of the picture; the rumor is that apparently there is no interaction between God and Noah. And with strong endorsements from the evangelical community, Focus on the Family, and (of course) Hollywood, and bans from the Islamic community, I already feel like I've missed the boat... quite literally.
However you find the story line to be, remember that the true story (found in the Bible) is not Hollywood. Also, remember that the true story isn't just Christian ownership (even though many tabloids have assumed such). We share this story with the Jewish and Muslim community, and if you go to such an extreme as finding parallels of the Noah's ark story with other religious text (like the Epic of Gilgamesh), you may open yourself that Noah's ark embodies so much more than even these three traditions could ascertain.
Just remember: 1) the movie doesn't prove or disprove the Biblical story. It actually has absolutely no impact on the Biblical story; 2) we need to listen to our neighbors in faith and understand their reactions, including those in the Muslim and Christian community who think that portraying a sacred person in this life can lead to idolatry (I should blog one day about recent prejudice against the Muslim faith and why I believe evangelicals have it wrong); and 3) in the Bible, it is usually clear when God speaks (for the words "God says" follows the quote), but in life, God still speaks to us but not necessarily in direct ways. Is it possible God spoke to Noah in similar ways to how God speaks to us today?
My personal review will come out on Friday. Check it out here.
However you find the story line to be, remember that the true story (found in the Bible) is not Hollywood. Also, remember that the true story isn't just Christian ownership (even though many tabloids have assumed such). We share this story with the Jewish and Muslim community, and if you go to such an extreme as finding parallels of the Noah's ark story with other religious text (like the Epic of Gilgamesh), you may open yourself that Noah's ark embodies so much more than even these three traditions could ascertain.
Just remember: 1) the movie doesn't prove or disprove the Biblical story. It actually has absolutely no impact on the Biblical story; 2) we need to listen to our neighbors in faith and understand their reactions, including those in the Muslim and Christian community who think that portraying a sacred person in this life can lead to idolatry (I should blog one day about recent prejudice against the Muslim faith and why I believe evangelicals have it wrong); and 3) in the Bible, it is usually clear when God speaks (for the words "God says" follows the quote), but in life, God still speaks to us but not necessarily in direct ways. Is it possible God spoke to Noah in similar ways to how God speaks to us today?
My personal review will come out on Friday. Check it out here.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Does "Resurrection" Have You Wondering about the Afterlife?
Pardon the interruption...
In reference to the ABC show "Resurrection" (of which I'm still trying to figure out the premise of the story now three weeks in), I saw this short clip as I was eating lunch. For a show that is based on (in this case) themes that are specifically resonating with Christian values (i.e. the focus around one small town and in particular, a protestant church), I'm surprised that there was no reference to: a) God; b) church; c) hope. All I can say is if you find yourself wrestling with what the afterlife truly means, come to church.
I must say, unfortunately, this clip is about 1 minute and 50 seconds too long and winds up saying absolutely nothing you probably didn't already know or couldn't have guessed. Must have been a slow news day.
Watch the clip here: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/resurrection-show-viewers-wondering-deceased-loved-time-23032631.
In reference to the ABC show "Resurrection" (of which I'm still trying to figure out the premise of the story now three weeks in), I saw this short clip as I was eating lunch. For a show that is based on (in this case) themes that are specifically resonating with Christian values (i.e. the focus around one small town and in particular, a protestant church), I'm surprised that there was no reference to: a) God; b) church; c) hope. All I can say is if you find yourself wrestling with what the afterlife truly means, come to church.
I must say, unfortunately, this clip is about 1 minute and 50 seconds too long and winds up saying absolutely nothing you probably didn't already know or couldn't have guessed. Must have been a slow news day.
Watch the clip here: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/resurrection-show-viewers-wondering-deceased-loved-time-23032631.
Part 1: Miracles and Morality
The other day, I had an interesting conversation with another pastor. In delving into what a "miracle" consists of and in relation to the feeding of the 5000, I mentioned how a miracle isn't like magic: you don't just wish for something and it appears (an approach that was taken during particular scenes in the Son of God movie). His point was that the miracle in that particular story was in how everyone shared something with their neighbor (with the assumption that everyone brought a lunch with them). I argued with him about his view of "miracle". Upon clarification, he later changed his mind to suggest that the sharing was "a" miracle, given the fact that humans don't naturally share; "miracle" in this sense would be overcoming natural selfish inclinations. Still, I must argue with the premise; for me, a miracle is an event in which God intercedes or interjects God's ability into the situation. Thus, us sharing without God's intervention is more of a moral issue than a theological stance. In like matter, one might offer this argument: if you can do miracles without God, like becoming a morally good person, what's the point of faith? Maybe I am taking this pastor's point a little far, but needless to say, faith is not the same as a moral issue. It's not about we ourselves overcoming human inclinations; that is, unless God intervenes. The miracle for me in the feeding of the 5000 is that God provided for our every need--in the Gospel of John, Jesus healed those who were sick, gave good news to those in bad situations, and fed those who were hungry. The miracle, and theological statement, is that God provides in ways that we can't do ourselves, given our selfish ways.
Now, this isn't to say that miracles don't happen on a regular basis; they do. But they must point to God first as the source of the miracle. There is a big difference between God as the source and people making good moral decisions. And, sometimes the miracle leads us to good moral decisions, but God must again be the source.
To come next: Miracles and the Supernatural
Now, this isn't to say that miracles don't happen on a regular basis; they do. But they must point to God first as the source of the miracle. There is a big difference between God as the source and people making good moral decisions. And, sometimes the miracle leads us to good moral decisions, but God must again be the source.
To come next: Miracles and the Supernatural
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)