Events of Fertile Ground

This sermon was delivered at First Baptist Church of Austin, TX on July 13, 2014. It was a great morning at our church, mostly because the music was so powerful. Below is the text of the sermon, which I followed fairly closely. It's always better to watch the video of a sermon, in my opinion. If you like good sermons, you should go to fbcaustin.org and listen to some of the ones there. Dr. Roger A. Paynter, our pastor, is amazing. Peace to all of you.

Events of Fertile Ground
Matthew 13:1-9, 18-23

    I love this sanctuary. I know there is an architectural reason it was designed the way it was, but when you move the pulpit and the choir to the side, putting the table and the cross in the center, you make a theological statement as well. It says, none of the people who occupy this space, whether they sing, or preach, is as important as the God who has called us here.
    When we watch a movie, or television show, read fiction or poetry, look at art, or even listen to music, our minds start searching for meaning to these images and metaphors that are presented to us. Stories and images excite our minds in a very unique way. We pick out sages and Christ-figures, heroes and villains, and the like, but all of these help us to make sense of the medium. When those lenses of interpretation can be established quickly, we begin to invest in the story and are more likely to stick with it to the end. When those lenses are absent it leaves us without an emotional anchor to ground their involvement.
    In the book, Reel Spirituality, Robert Johnson talks about this interpretive practice, in relation to movies, as something we all do, and often it happens unconsciously. However, our minds require interpretation in order to bring these alien characters, who often live lives very different from our own, closer to us. Humanity craves these interpretations so much so that we can take things that have little or no meaning and give them a great deal of weight. Bob Dylan never talks about the meaning of his songs because he knows people will make their own regardless of what he says. Mark Twain, when asked to respond to some literary critics interpretation of the meaning of the Mississippi River in the books Tom Sawer, and Huck Finn said, “It’s just a ‘blank’ river.”
    Today, we are looking at this first parable from the book of Matthew, and it paints a picture using agriculture as its theme. According to the last US census, our population has made a significant change. For the first time in American history, the majority of people live in large urban or suburban areas instead of rural locales. The reason I point this out is to highlight that very few of us can connect to agricultural images the same way our parents and grandparents did. That includes all of us sitting here. I mean we are a downtown church. You would have to drive, at least 45 minutes, maybe more depending on normal traffic, and if the president is in town maybe an entire day just to get to a place where there are farms around. Myself, I grew up in a small community and my grandfather did farm, but I don’t understand agriculture out side of the general knowledge I picked up in school.
    In the nine verses that were not read from Matthew 13 today, the Gospel writer tells us that Jesus teaches his disciples that there is a reason why he teaches in parables. It is so God can allow people to make meaning and interpretation of the parables. Then, he goes on to explain what’s happening in the parable of the sower. Even then, theologians, preachers, teachers, and laypeople have interpreted this parable to narrow down certain images that Jesus used. We have heard them. This passage is used often as a source to inspire evangelism, defend interpretations of Scripture, and exemplify the role of Jesus as our Savior. The sower has been cast as the evangelist who goes out to tell the world about the work of Christ, and we are to take up this call. I’ve even heard the Holy Spirit cast as the sower and Christians cast as those who follow along into the world to reap the harvest. These sermons were all in different locations, different churches from different traditions and even in different countries. And for those places, all of them made sense to the people who received that message.
    Now, some of you probably had a sick feeling in your stomach when I said people have interpreted the words of Jesus, but we’ve already done that. Hop in the “Way Back Machine” with me, and let’s go way back. Way back to earlier in the service when my wife, Meg gave me that very inflated introduction.
    Anyway, when you heard her read that passage from Isaiah and the phrase, “...so shall the word that goes forth from my mouth,” you interpreted “word” in that sentence to have a meaning. Either it was the prophetic statement come from God through the prophet Isaiah, or you expanded it to mean the entirety of the Bible, or maybe you connected it to John chapter one and took it to mean that when Jesus moves, things happen. Regardless, you did not just leave it as it was on the page, you put some meaning to it, and hence interpreted it. Just think, people with initials after their names get paid to do what you just did by listening. Maybe I paid too much for seminary?
    But all kidding aside, no matter how much you truly believe that we can take every passage in the Bible literally, none of us can actually do that. There are places where it just doesn’t make sense, just like in the Isaiah passage. Sometimes, the interpretations we give the passage make perfect sense. The bringer of the message struggles and strives to find exactly how to best reflect the Biblical teaching in our current society with all of its technological, sociological, ecological, and economic differences. Sometimes, the bringer is repeating what they have always heard without testing their faith, as the book of First Peter asks us. Well, we have this same struggle with this passage, but we get some help. Jesus does move us from just the images of seed and ground; to the word of the kingdom and the heart of people. However, we still have to wade through some misconceptions and influenced memory to get back to the heart of this parable.
    For instance, how many of you thought Jesus was talking about the “word of God?” It would make sense. The Old Testament reading already talked about words, and if you are a regular member here, Roger often prays about “words and word.” If you grew up Baptist, you may have heard the phrase, “We are people of the Book,” and often that is used as “word of God.” Unfortunately if you did think Jesus he said “word of God,” Jesus never says this or “Kingdom of God” in the book of Matthew. Instead, he says “word of the kingdom” here. In other passages, when naming the kingdom, he uses the phrase, “Kingdom of Heaven.” It’s a small thing to point out, for sure, but if we are to take the Bible seriously, then we have to be serious about what Jesus says, and where it is said.
    So, what do we do with this “word of the kingdom?” For most of my life, I have heard of this word being, “Jesus has come to forgive you of your sins, if you believe in Him, so you can go to heaven.” Faithful men and women from my childhood, youth, and even in churches where I have served have uttered some form of this statement with total conviction. I’ve taught that from so many pulpits in so many places, and I was wholeheartedly behind this. For more than two decades, this was the altar call that many of us responded to. Billy Graham, probably the most effective evangelist of the twentieth century, always spoke of belief leading to forgiveness. While it is a beautiful thought, I mean who would not want to be forgiven of their failures, I don’t think that is what Jesus is talking about, and the reason, Jesus did not say, I have come to forgive you of your sins, if you believe in me, so that you can go to heaven.” I know I’m stepping into some sticky mud with this. However, to be people of the Book, we should be looking at the Book. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus talks about the kingdom, and what is the acceptable response to the kingdom, for three chapters. We call it the sermon on the Mount and it is the longest single discourse from Jesus in any of the four Gospels. In that sermon, Jesus gives a vivid description of the kingdom, and what kind of life this kingdom calls all of us to take up in response. The word about the kingdom calls us to live differently. It asks us to shift our focus from us as individuals and look out at others as our neighbors.
    In Luke chapter four, Jesus quotes from the prophet Isaiah when he is reading in the Nazarene synagogue. And says,
    “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
And then he hands the scroll back and tells the gathered people, “And what you see before you, he’s the one who is going out, doing those things.” I have not been a member of First Austin very long, but if I, or Meg, were to stand up here and say that, you would probably take us down to the Congress Street bridge and throw us in the lake. Or at least, you would tell us to leave and not come back.
    But Jesus is making these kinds of claims, and it does not sound like, “believe in me as the Savior and I will take away your sins so that you can go to heaven when you die.” Instead Jesus says, this is the life I live, and you should live this life if you want to be known as a child of God. Those are very different statements. One is something we are to believe, the other is something we are to live toward. The former takes the responsibility for our missteps away from us through an act of God. Jesus, however, calls us to respond to our missteps by reorienting our life, because God has reconciled us through Christ. You can tweet that if you like.
    The Swiss theologian, Karl Barth, described the word not as something spoken but something that is manifested in the presence of people when the Church, as a community, reflects the life of Christ. The word, then, is not something that we say, or can be said really, instead it is living. This corresponds so much to what Jesus said about how we are to take up our cross, do as he has done, and love as he has love. Why, then, does the idea of Jesus coming into our heart become the dominant metaphor? Well, let’s look at what happened to Jesus when he lived this life. It ended with Jesus being put on a cross and dying a horrible death. That’s not exactly the part of the story we want to emulate, even when we know that Easter Sunday is coming. It’s a lot easier to focus on believing in Jesus because we can talk less about the living like Jesus part. Because when we talk about living like Jesus, it makes us confront the fact that we like our lives just the way they are. We don’t want to rethink political affiliations in light of the Gospel. We do not want to rethink our feelings on social issues in light of the Gospel. And we certainly do not want to be thought of as weird or different, like Jesus was, because that means we might get ridiculed and loose our position in society.
    But the seed, is only part of the parable. The soil where the sower spreads the seed has a very important part to play in this Gospel. In this parable you can not grow seeds without soil. I do know what dirt can do to clothes. I grew up near the Red River, and all of our lakes up there were the same color. I remember having some swim trunks that had a little white on them. For the Fourth of July, when I was a kid, we were going to the lake to spend the day with the family. We swam, fished, skied, tubed and kneeboarded behind the boat that was much older than I am today. And I remember the next day, after we had gotten home, and I was going to play at a friend’s pool. I grabbed my swim trunks, and the white was now a nice reddish brown. That’s the kind of soil I’m used to. I don’t don’t know if that is the soil that Jesus was used to.
    But what I do know is, that if I were to spread seeds to grow a crop, I would definitely make sure that they all end up on good soil. Seeds are expensive, and if I were a farmer this would be my livelihood. There is very little to waste, and so I need to make good choices from the beginning. However, the sower of the parable starts spreading seed, seemingly, everywhere. There is no perceived thought to what kind of soil this is landing on. It is put on the path. It lands on rocks. It flies in among the weeds. It is put on fertile ground. It makes me wonder if this sower is blind or something because I am not a farmer but I know where I would rather spread seed of these four choices. For certain, this sower left the original audience just as perplexed , but that is part of the joy of the parable.
    This word is too precious to be limited by good business. God as the sower shows that this seed needs to go everywhere, even places where it will be choked out and snatched up. But what is this soil supposed to mean to us? Again, in my past experience with this parable from books and such, the soil is supposed to be the hearts of individuals. I remember how this interpretation helped to explain the kids I went to all those conferences with as a kid. I remember watching them respond to the big altar call. If you went to the youth camps I did, then you remember. It was always the last night before everyone went home. We were exhausted, fed a big meal, then lead to worship. The lines would be up the aisles with young women and young men crying over the words from the speaker about how if we died in our church van the next day we wouldn’t know our eternal destiny unless we came down to the front that night. But as we went back to school, things usually faded. My youth minister would talk about how they might be the path, or the rocky soil, or even the weeds. The seed had just not been able to find fertile ground in their hearts.  It makes us recoil a bit now, but individualism is the American way. Our society thrives on it, and our theologies reflect it.
    Instead of seeing the soil as the hearts of individuals, what if the soil is the hearts in communities.  Imagine that. This fertile ground is where, like the Barth quote earlier, the life of Christ becomes manifest in the people of God. The New Testament is full of images of communities living together and working out beliefs. They are not making decisions in a vacuum, just like we are not today. We are responding to the influences around us all the time. What does it look like to be a Christ-follower in 21st-century America? That’s the struggle we are confronted with, and we move in that very particular and powerful context. Just like geologists are telling us about topsoil in response to erosion and water. It is not the same soil from day to day. These are not static locations set in some geographical place or point in time. This is not rock because you can not plant crops in rock. It is fertile ground, combined with good seed that makes these bountiful crops grow. You can not have just part of the equation. Good soil grows nothing without seed, and seed needs the good soil, just like the parable says.
    Combine this good word of the Kingdom with the good soil of hearts in community that are responding to that word, and you have vibrant communities. They are not characterized by right doctrine or proper worship, but vibrant living. That makes good seed in fertile ground an event where the people of God live into the life that was shown to us. It means we have to be active. The event erupts into our lives when the people of God respond to this call from Jesus to live like he lived. It is about movement toward the future of the kingdom not statements of our past comforts. Events are spontaneous, and sweep us away as communities in a movement of God drawing humanity towards the kingdom.
    It’s about loving enemies, turning the other cheek and not resisting evil. Fertile ground and good seed touches the unclean, eats with sinners and prostitutes, returns evil with good, love for violence, bringing in the poor and downtrodden to the great banquet. It loves refugees, heals the brokenhearted and turns the world on its head. It doesn’t just give money for charitable causes but speaks out against injustice and refuses to sit down or be quiet because everyone deserves to be loved. And it says, “You do not get to define love because I am God and I am love.” When it springs up it has a habit of throwing open doors and flinging wide gates. It tears down walls that separate and builds bridges.
    When that event happens, the good seed growing in good soil tells the world that everyone is loved by God and no one is excluded.

Does Anyone Else See a Problem?

So, it’s been a long time since I’ve written last, and I left off in the middle of a series.  I plan to conclude said series, but have struggled with time and other life issues that seem to crop up here and there.  One of those could probably be called Acedia, and I’m probably going to talk about that later.  I hope everyone who reads this, which from following the stats isn’t that many, have been having a joyous good time in the interim, but it’s time to get back to work.
    Yesterday, I was taking a short walk through Austin to grab something at the local convenience store.  I probably forgot to tell you guys that my wife and I have finally settled in Austin while she is attending seminary.  Anyway, I was taking a walk and overheard a conversation between a young couple.  They were discussing the upcoming debate between Ken Ham, of the Answers in Genesis group, and Bill Nye the Science Guy.  They will be getting together on February 4th to debate Creation vs. Evolution.  Apparently, they sold out tickets for this in about an hour, but fear not, you will be able to see the debate afterwards on YouTube. 
    Interestingly, I had read a blog post about this earlier in the week, and so instantly grasped the topic that they were discussing.  The guy was explaining to his female friend that this wasn’t going to be that great a debate, and how he worried that Nye was going to get steam-rolled.  His exact commentary was, “They really need to get someone like Hitchens to talk with those kind of people.”
    While I have no ill-will towards the late Christopher Hitchens, in fact, I believe he reminded us of many of the things religion has overlooked in the landscape of injustice which we are supposed to be fighting against, I was shocked that Hitchens would be the figure needed to oppose Ken Ham.  Hitchens did not describe himself as an atheist, but an “antitheist.”  Typically, he was scathing, denigrating and rude to those who held a religious position.  While I try not to be a person who ridicules a person on their particular relationship to religion, that was exactly what he did to many.  His critiques of people like Bill Clinton, Mother Teresa, and the Dalai Lama were combative to the point of being repugnant.  I believe, the need for this type of figure to be the opponent for someone like Ken Ham says more about the Christian community than it does about the late Christopher Hitchens .
    Personally, I have no dog in this fight, so to speak.  I do not like these debates, and I think they are asking the wrong questions from the outset.  I agree a lot with Formerly Fundie, a blog on Patheos.  I’m not really expecting much in terms of good Biblical scholarship or deep scientific research, but I would have to side with science in this debate because of what we are doing to ourselves with this continued debate.  I will root against fundamentalism within the world of Christianity and that is a lot of what goes into my perception of this debate.
    What has really spurred this particular venture in writing is the implied statement from that guy that only Hitches could adequately stand up to a creationist.  It says something about Christianity and our need to control things that it takes such venom as a Hitchens to respond to us.  What have we done to ourselves that says civil conversations are not allowed?  I am no creationist, but can we not debate our differences with those outside of our faith with grace, humility, and hospitality?  It seems that we can only host these debates on our home turf, with our supporters in attendance,  We then invite the opposing view into our house, and blast them.  This sounds like when Calvin invited Grabel and Manz(spelling errors, I know) to Geneva only to drown them in the river after the debate. 
    We have become so defensive of different theological ground that something in us must fight with every part of our intellectual being to uphold these ideas.  There is no room for compromise, there is no space for sharing and discussion.  This doesn’t just happen in regards to discussions on creation vs evolution, but about LGBTQ issues, Biblical inerrancy, women’s involvement in church leadership, racial equality, and the list could go on. 
    In all of these things, the common denominator are Christians who have decided that there can be no real debate, but the spouting of vitriol.  It’s amazing that in all of these discussions, that the only way to participate is to find the most vociferous opponent in order to stand up to the scathing attacks of Christians on their home turf.  Now, that should shake us to our core.  Christians are so dogged in the defense of these issues, that we are no longer full of the grace of God, the Love of Christ, or the movement of the Holy Spirit.  What have we done?

The Need for Humility

I know I’ve used this word a lot, and I think it’s time to start unpacking it.  Humility seems to keep coming up in most of my posts, granted there aren’t that many, and I’m sure most of you who are reading already know me enough to know how I try to remain humble.  However, it’s time to try and get at the nuances of this oft-used, oft-misused, and oft-misunderstood word.  Likewise, it’s probably one of the most important words we should remember when we are trying to speak into our world.

I say that because words can often carry as much pain as healing, especially when we are talking about God.  In faith, we attempt to speak as prophets into a given situation, hoping to bring forth some wisdom from source of our own peace, and we can be slammed by people both inside and outside the church.  Then, we respond with the emotions that well up inside of us; feelings of hurt, anger, and the need to defend ourselves and the God we have declared.  Before long we have an argument where lines are being drawn and sides are being taken while others walk away shaking their heads.  Our good intentions become nothing more than another battlefield where rhetoric is the hill to be claimed.

So, where does humility fit in this equation?  Why should we care at all about being humble when we speak what our experience has told us is truth?  Here’s where it can get very challenging for many of us.  I think we should begin this discussion by trying to look and see just exactly what is meant by the world “humble.” 

When I try to employ humility in my life, I think about correlating it to the word “wisdom.”  Socrates has a great story about wisdom where he is told to be the wisest man in the world by an oracle.  In order to prove or disprove her statement, he travels around to other wise men and poses the same question.  Their answers are uniform in that they believe themselves to be the wisest person in the world.  Socrates then decides that he must be the wisest person, because he knows he is not wise. 

In my mind, humility is similar to this.  Once a person says they have, they have just lost it.  Therefore, in essence, by writing this post, I am not humble, but that can be a philosophical discussion for another day.  What we can continue on with is this idea that humility is illusory at times, and fragile at best.  As a Christian, I also find humility to be similar to patience, in that if I as God for it in prayer, then I don’t actually get humility.  Instead, I get circumstances that allow me to build my humility. 

But we still need a definition for what actually IS humility.  The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists humble as:

1: not proud or haughty : not arrogant or assertive

2: reflecting, expressing, or offered in a spirit of deference or submission

3a : ranking low in a hierarchy or scale : insignificant, unpretentious

b : not costly or luxurious

Easton’s Bible dictionary says that humility is a great paradox in Christianity because it is the avenue to glory.

What do we do with so little to discuss?  There is the real question.  As a Christian, I was often told that humility had everything to do with how human beings viewed themselves before God.  That in relation to the greatness of the infinite, the finite should remember their place.  Maybe here is where we should begin.  Thomas Aquinas wrote in Suma Theologica that the only thing we can say about God with any certainty, is what God is not. 

These ideas remind me that I have to temper my statements about what God wants, how God works, or what God is doing with the idea that I might be totally wrong.  That is, if I’m going to remember my place in front of God as a part of the Creation, then I have to be willing to change as I come to understand what is the infinite magnitude of that which I worship.  Yes, I do have Holy Scripture to guide me, and the Holy Spirit to counsel me, but I’m still human. 

We can look at our history and see this.  There were pastors on both sides of the debate on slavery and civil rights in America, and now we have them on both sides of the LGBT debate.  I won’t say that one is following the Bible and the other is not, but I will say that we should be humble when we begin to declare that something is God’s way of looking at an issue.  Maybe this way we can have a conversation and not just a shouting match.

Everyone Take a Breath

Americans love, no crave, simple answers to complex situations.  We see an issue, like poverty, and say, “Well, if people just work harder,” or “The wealthy are hogging all the money,” or “It’s pure racism.”  None of those answers are totally wrong, but they do not encompass the entire issue.  Some problems that humanity confronts require responses as nuanced as the initial problem.  To dismiss these issues with short, platitudes negates the real issues and the people who are affected by them.

Today, the biggest issue is gun control, and none of the bills that failed were small or simple.  Likewise the issues they are attempting to address, escalating social violence, change in cultural understanding of firearms, and the fragmentation of our populace, are not questions we can answer with one new piece of legislation.  These times are ones to discuss and talk about how to make new paths for the future and try to unpack some of these issues.  There are parts of our lives that, while not directly impacted by policy, will still feel the impacts of our choices, and all of these need to be taken seriously.

When it comes to firearms, it looks like gun owners have won.  While you are celebrating, my question to you is, “What is the cost?”  While I know that there were letters written by many individuals, and rallies by people at state capitals across the country, the public depiction is one of lobbying groups grabbing the microphone in order to portray themselves as victims.  This is the image that has been given to our culture, and it will be how people know you from here on.  The work of the individuals who came together as a community are lost amidst the image of the suit-wearing lobbyists who spout legal and political jargon like the senators who voted.  Is that the image you want shown to the world?

And, when everything was voted down, where there things in there that could be seen as positive steps?  The bill that would have added veterans who required a fiduciary due to mental health issues to the background check pool may have been something to talk more about.  During the months leading up to this vote, there was no real public discourse about the merits or faults of this particular piece of legislation.  While not wanting to cast a disparaging view on veterans, should we have reconsidered this?  The bill does not remove their ability to buy a firearm, just their exempt status from state run background checks.  Can we continue to talk about this for future reconsideration?  What is the issue.

On the other side of the issue, there are considerations that need to be addressed as well.  The “universal background check” bill was supposed to seal the cracks that allowed bad people to acquire a firearm.  Since the tragedy of Newtown, CT, this has been a focus on those who suffer mental infirmities, as well as others, but we will focus on the mental health issue.  If we are to include mental health declarations in the database used for firearms purchases, do we have to change HIPPA?  Those things would, in a sense, violate doctor-patient confidentiality, and therefore personal privacy.  If you say you are not going to change HIPPA, then you will not have the information you are wanting, and will make the law impotent other than to take away a private individuals power to control their own possessions.  Does this mean we have to legislate what is a private mental health matter and a public information issue?  To be egalitarian, would we want for everyone’s mental health to be a matter of public record?  As someone who has been to therapy in the past, I do not want you knowing what I talked about with my therapist, and I think many would agree tot hat sentiment

While not going into specifics or taking sides, I read the proposed bill, and that was one issue that was never addressed.  Now, you are angry and think there are 46 people who you should be summarily voted out for not approving this bill, but harsh language will not fix this matter either.  President Obama tweeted, though I’m sure he was not the one who sent it, that 98% of Americans favored the bill that was used.  I’m sorry, but I was never asked.  Where does this information come from?  That questions would require pages to address saber-metrics and how those things are measured.  I do not have the expertise to address such an issue.  Besides, this is a blog post, and shouldn’t be that long.

The real issue is that the sun has risen again, and we have to live in this world that rose with us.  We may be angry, or we may be rejoicing, but we need to slow down and look at the people around us.  The issue that lies before us is that both groups are worried about their personal security.  One wants the freedom to take that upon themselves, and the other wants to have a government that is big enough and powerful enough to do it.  Neither is right, and neither is wrong.  Both are a collection of people trying to discern the best for the future of the United States.  May we have the wisdom to see ourselves in the other.

What is Your Response?

As a white, middle-class, American Christian, suffering does not come to my door all that often.  Still, what I might call suffering may not be seen as suffering in the context of another. While newly married and struggling with all the things that come with being young, struggling to meet my financial responsibilities would probably not count as suffering.  My life has never been threatened, I've never had to hide my beliefs from an oppressive social government.  And contrary to the rants of some, my ability to worship as a person has never been stifled in the public square, and though there may be contentions, this is not persecution or suffering.

What is suffering, though, is when a horrible thing like the bombings in Boston takes the life of a young child.  People innocently gathering to enjoy a test of endurance and physical discipline only to become the victims of a terrible act.  In the aftermath, people are left broken, both physically and emotionally, and we as a society have a dark shadow of fear thrown over us.   We search for answers of who did this, why did this happen, what do they want, and how do we respond? 

Many of those questions can not be answered by those who have to find a way to live in the aftermath.  Instead, we should focus on how we will respond.  Voices have already called out over the noise to say what we will or should do as a response.  The cries for retribution have come from all levels, including the president.  I'm sure that as this next Sunday arrives we will get responses from all across the spectrum from ministers who will tell us that its either judgment for some sin or an act of evil that calls for a swift response, and others will ask us to pray for the peace to heal the broken.  The name of God will be bandied about in order to support these perspectives, and we are left to find where we stand in this situation.

While I did not suffer directly, and will not call myself a sufferer because I am a citizen of the country where this happened, people are suffering unjustly.  Bodies have been damaged, emotions are raw, and some are mourning.  This forces us to look at ourselves and marvel at those who respond positively in the moment with courage and compassion, but we should also analyze what it is about ourselves that wants to see these graphic pictures of broken people as well as why we should have to call for more violence as a response.  The smoke is still rising and surgeons are still working.  Evidence of who did this and why has not come forward, but we are ready to strike.  Why?  What compels us to have a response so soon?  As a Christian, is this good?

Since I call myself by the name of Christ, which in and of itself can be problematic, I must look to the example of Jesus' to find a place where I can live in this new present.  I am continually drawn back to this verse.

  “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’  This is the greatest and first commandment.  And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Matthew 22:37-40 NRSV

It is incredible how we can use, and misuse this statement.  It's not a "good" commandment, or a "great" commandment, but the "greatest" commandment.  I have to start here.  I want to respond with anger, I want to be the avenging angel of God, at least in my own little movie of how my life works, but that is not what Jesus lays out as my path.  While it may be uncool to look at the Christian Bible, that's where I'm led, and so I will not apologize for it.  I think there are things we NEED to remember about life.  It's just that important. 

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,  so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.  For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?  And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?  Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.  Matthew 5:43-48 NRSV

While I will overlook the discussion of who is and who is not a Gentile, and why that word can be offensive, this seems so much like a way to ignore the real power of the verse.  "Love" is supposed to be our response.  This love is greater than violence exactly because it does not respond with violence.  It's like trying to break the cycles of familial violence.  If we want to see a new future, we should live a different present.  Continually reacting with more violence and taking of life will change nothing.  Though Osama Bin Laden is dead, we have another attack that kills more.  Though we have ended one war, we have scaled up another.  We say we are fighting terror, while our drones terrorize people half-way around the world.  

Our newsfeeds will be flooded with images of the bloodied and anguished.  Some will win awards for the raw images they can show us of the "moment," and our society will take them in with hands on hearts saying, "we must do something."  Why do we need/want to see such things?  Is not the pain of a person a private thing?  Is it exploitation of the individual to flash these things on the cover of Time and the broadcasts of Fox and MSNBC?  Are we so inhuman that we must see horrific pain in order to feel a connection?  Isn't this just as violent a treatment of these people as the initial act?

I believe there can be love in just letting people weep and wail in private.  I think we can feel empathy without being forced to sickness by the gratuitous.   Human beings are an incredible animal in our ability to perceive beyond ourselves.  I can feel pain without having to have my body destroyed by fire and ball-bearings, and I can also feel pain over loss without having to be shown death.  Can these images be our only motivator for response?

So, now I am on the other side of yesterday.  There are more hurting people in the world, and I have to respond.  I could respond in the vein of past statements that it is our imperative to work on the part of God to remove violence. (This is a summary not a direct quotation.)  Unfortunately, if I am to structure my ethics on the foundations of the teachings of Jesus, then violence can not be my response.  The violent actions of Boston cause me to mourn, and I want to join with those who hurt in solidarity.  I weep for you, and I pray that the peace of the God who mourns is with you and your families.  Peace be with you.

Can we break down our barriers and build bridges?

As a member of Generation Y, or the Millennials, or whatever you want to call it, I have watched my immediate predecessors, Gen X, deconstruct the institutions of the church in response to the fragmentation of society. As we have drawn lines between, conservatives and liberals, fundamentalists and progressives, we have used deconstruction to tear down both the institutions with which we have contended, but also the traditions and doctrines to which we owe our theological heritage. The exercise in itself is a therapeutic and has helped many to see that there were misplaced assumptions taking central roles in our theological proclamations.

However, after deconstruction we are left with a pile of rubble and a lot of cynicism about the future. Our language that has developed in its wake makes it almost impossible to start a new discussion. It's almost as if we can do nothing more than just talk about what we have torn down. "Look at all that junk. Isn't it great that we don't have to live under such a pile of rubble built on air and faulty foundations? I'm so glad we moved away from this horribly destructive idea of foundationalism and modernity."

While there is something valuable to be had in taking apart our unchallengeable proclamations, how do we really be peacemakers in its wake? In this regard, both sides of the argument, those defending the old structures and those who have destroyed them, seem to just want to walk away or convert the other. Agreeing to disagree, while such an uplifting statement 10 years ago, will not truly grab hold of the Gospel and incarnate it. If we are agreeing to disagree then we just walk away and leave the tension of our conflict between us. How can we really be peacemakers and reconcile the world to Jesus if we can not reconcile ourselves to other Christians?

Somehow, someway, we have to break this cycle. Disparaging the other Christian just because we think we are right and they are wrong will never fix it. Just talking about it will only bring about more words and more language, but it will never heal the wounds. The hurt of being told we have lost the Way is painful, but if we can not take the steps to sharing love for healing, then we are stuck in pain. Liberating ourselves from this narrow us-them, right-wrong, left-right vision of the world is imperative to continuing to follow God. We have to start walking again.

What are we doing?

I recently had an experience that brings the disputes amongst Christians into a very sharp focus.  I had joined a discussion group for Confessing Christians and joined a conversation on what is the biggest issue facing the American church.  Topics such as these should be happening on a daily basis in order to help us see what is in front of us everyday.  The argument was limited to four choices that were seen as the big ones.  All of them focused on doctrinal issues, the use of creeds of confessional statements, or focusing on the Bible as the sole authority in of ecclesiology.  I, however, disagreed with all of them and made an argument that the biggest issue facing the church is a lack of humility from church people.

I believe we spend to much time preaching AT people rather than living WITH them.  I tried to temper my statements with the idea that we are fallible human beings who need to remember that we serve an infinite God.  In essence, "Now, we see in part and we know in part, but then we will know, as we are fully known."  This isn't an argument against anything in particular or for anything in particular.

The responses however were not as equitable.  I was told that I should read my Bible more, and then given a list of verses to support a specific argument.  I tried to politely respond with Scriptures of my own and then added that I wanted to avoid throwing the Bible at each other in a hope to achieve an "I Gotcha" moment.  I was then told that that was the real problem.  Because I wanted to avoid using the Bible because I didn't want to misuse it, I am then endorsing putting away all Scriptural authority.  I got really upset and had to remove myself from the group because I didn't want to say something hateful.

It's this black-and-white mindset that I really want to discuss.  Have we become so fragmented as a body of Christ that we cant think outside of our little communities.  Now, before we start saying that this is the problem with conservatives and then spout invective at them, we need to see that this goes both ways.  It's too easy to tear down and walk away from an argument, but to rebuild is even more difficult.  I shouldn't have walked away, as I look back.  It doesn't mean that I'm right and they are wrong, but how do we make peace if we are always walking away from these discussion?  Things will only get worse, and never get better if we continue to build walls between each other.  We say that from both sides. 

I'm not a conservative Christian, I know that is a real shock, but we progressives, liberals, moderates, whatever we want to call ourselves are just as guilty of erecting barriers.  We can just as unforgiving in the way we say the world works, and accepting no alternatives.  If we want to forgive and accept people, then we need to forgive and accept those who do not do that for us.  Jesus is supposed to be our example, and that means we have to go to them. 

This brings me back to the title of the post.  What are we doing?  Are we actually building things and making peace, or are we retreating into our labels and hiding from others?  We have to tackle this issue seriously and with compassion.   The greatest issue I see facing the church is that we are too busy pushing people away, and these are the people who are, in essence, our brothers and sisters in Christ.  We have to do something to build bridges and bring healing to our body.  It's suffering.