May 31, 2005
Fruits of the Spirit?
Reading this case study, I find myself somewhere in the middle between the two polar positions of Gloria and Jessica.
Scripture gives us example after example in the OT of people who incur God's wrath by going after other gods, and the Acts famously remind us that "there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved". It is clear that we must worship only God as revealed in Jesus Christ - it is only in that name that we can put our trust.
That said, I believe that the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev 19:18, Mk 12:31, Rom 13:9, etc) entails understanding our neighbors, knowing who they are in order to come into real encounter with them. Therefore we should make ourselves informed and familiar with the faiths of the people around us.
I am not sure that what is described in the case study is offered in that sense. The programs offered may fall short of outright worship, but they are not informational or educational in nature - it is clear that the programs are primarily for spiritual formation. The passage from the Tao seems generic enough - one can certainly meditate on the concepts it offers without compromising one's Christian identity. This material is similar to our Wisdom literature. But spiritual formation in the mode of Mother Goddess and the Universal Divine are quite different.
I am not inveighing against feminine concepts of the divine, but the term "Goddess" is inherently gendered. God can be male or female, but Goddess cannot. This is a linguistic quirk of English, but there it is.
Fuller understanding of what is contained in the exercises in paragraph 4 would permit a better evaluation of the situation. But overall, while I would love to see Episcopal parishes learning and teaching about other religions, especially with genuine input from members of those faiths, I cannot advise the use of non-judeochristian meditations, which stray too close to praying to other Gods.
Posted by David Hedges at 10:46 AM | Comments (0)
May 18, 2005
Church and the American Dream
In our increasingly secular world, there are many ways in which the church comes into conflict with civil society. These tensions occur between church and state, between Christian values and secular values. These tensions are manifested in places of employment, educational institutions, medical institutions, government bureaucracies, and even our shopping malls. While most Christians likely encounter tensions between their faith and secular values in a number of different places and in a number of different ways, probably one of the most subtle and most pervasive is embodied in the underlying cultural value known as the pursuit of the “American Dream.”
According to The New Oxford American Dictionary, “American Dream” is defined as “the traditional social values of the United States, such as equality, democracy, and material prosperity.” While the concept of the American Dream includes a variety of values, most people equate it with those surrounding success, prosperity, and obtaining material possessions. For purposes of this brief, I will focus on this commonly held definition based on consumerism. As Walter Brueggemann notes, this ideology of consumerism “operates on the claim that ‘more is better,’ that ‘most’ will make happy, and that each is entitled to and must have all that each can have, even at the expense of others” (Cadences of Home, 27). It is this drive for success and material prosperity that seems to most often come into conflict with the perceived values and teachings of the church.
Brueggemann comments that “For a very long time we have assumed that the ‘American Dream,’ which is our version of Enlightenment freedom and well-being, coheres with the claims of the gospel . . . Now we are coming to see, belatedly are required to see, that the American Dream as it is now understood has long since parted company with the claims of the gospel” (30). Examination of some of the biblical resources on the subject is necessary to help us more fully explore Brueggemann’s assessment of the American Dream.
The Bible has plenty to say about such matters as the love of money and accumulation of wealth. The gravity of biblical insight on this issue ranges from acknowledgment of the accumulation of wealth to mild cautions regarding the dangers of accumulating wealth to stern reproach. The Bible’s acknowledgement of some of the wealthy people includes such people as Joseph (Genesis 39 through 41) Abraham (Genesis 13:2), Boaz (Ruth 2:1), Solomon (1 Kings 3-4; 10:23), Job (Job 1), Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57), and Zacchaeus (Luke 19:2). None of these were condemned by God for having great wealth.
Despite acknowledgements of a number of faithful servants of God who happened to also be wealthy, the Bible contains a great deal of material cautioning against or even condemning those who seek after riches. Cautionary statements include Ephesians 5:15, Proverbs 23:4, Ecclesiastes 2: 1-11, Proverbs 11: 28, Hebrews 13:5, 1 John 2:15-17, and Matthew 13:18-23. These passages demonstrate the futility of the pursuit of wealth, as opposed to living a life in accordance with God’s will. According to scripture, the pursuit of wealth is a futile exercise precisely because such activity leads to separation from God. Passages addressing this consequence include Proverbs 11:4, Matthew 6:19-21, Matthew 6:24, Luke 18:18-25, Luke 6:24-25, Luke 12:13-21, James 1:9-11, James 5:1-5, 1Timothy 6:9-10, and Acts 5:1-10.
While biblical resources regarding wealth range from benign caution to reproach and condemnation, it must be noted that the comments made do not necessarily apply to all people who are wealthy. There were examples of wealthy people who were righteous and followed God’s will, such as Joseph of Arimathea. The Bible does not contain any condemnation against some people, nor do the injunctions against the rich appear to be a blanket condemnation. Rather, the intent of the wealthy appears to be an important consideration. After all, we are told that the Acts community “were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need” (Acts 2:44-45), and that “no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common” (Acts 4:32). In this case, wealth did not appear to be considered an evil per se, but rather a means to helping others who had need. Similarly, the author of Hebrews states “Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God” (Hebrews 13:16). Nothing negative is said about having possessions, but only that those who do have more than they need should share their fortune with others.
This is consistent with Jesus’ “lilies of the field” speech in Matthew 6:25-34, in which he tells people that they should not worry about what they will eat or drink or wear or other bodily concerns. God recognizes that we have such needs and will provide what we need. The most important thing is to “strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well” (Matthew 6:33). Living a righteous life is of more importance than worrying about bodily needs and material possessions. These will be taken care of, presumably through the graciousness of those who have means to do so and the willingness to share of their abundance.
The scarcity of references to the pursuit of wealth for use as a means to providing for the needs of the poor and needy seems to indicate the difficulty of doing so with integrity. I suspect that many people have good intentions of pursuing wealth with the goal of giving back to the community. However, our contemporary, greed-driven society makes implementation of such goals difficult. That is not to say that such societal pressures make altruistic goals impossible to achieve, or that once we start down a path toward accumulation of wealth for personal gain, we cannot change. Ephesians 2:3-5a, 8-10 demonstrates that through God’s grace we are able to turn away from the temptations of the world and live the life God desires for us, doing the works prepared for us. For some, those works just might include striving for wealth that can be used for the good of the kingdom.
John Howard Yoder comments that “the primary social structure through which the gospel works to change other structures is that of the Christian community” (The Politics of Jesus, 154). The Bible’s warnings regarding the use of riches can inform and transform the Christian community’s perspective on how we as Christians use our resources. The community needs to begin to hold its members accountable to the teachings of the gospel as the driving force behind all our actions, including the acquisition and use of wealth. In this way, the church can more adequately fulfill its calling “to be the conscience and the servant within human society” (155). The church can show secular society that the acquisition of wealth can be used for the service of humanity in a manner consistent with the gospel.
The Bible is clear that the accumulation of wealth is not the way to salvation. If anything, the pursuit of riches can be a stumbling block to living a righteous life. Pursuit of wealth can become all-encompassing, to the exclusion of other, more enduring pursuits. But through the grace of God, all have the opportunity to be saved and brought into the kingdom of God through Christ. While the Bible contains warnings about the potential dangers associated with the accumulation of wealth, there is also biblical precedence for wealthy members of the church who have shared from their abundance to help those who are in need. Those who have and accumulate wealth must exercise caution to insure that their wealth does not become an idol replacing God, but rather that wealth becomes a tool for the work of the kingdom. The church, using the warnings contained in scripture, can be instrumental in insuring that the American Dream is not in the service of one’s self, but in the service of God.
Posted by Michael F at 09:44 PM | Comments (2)
Church and Politics at Seminary
After class today a classmate helped me connect today's case study with the prayers that the Episcopal Peace Fellowship at our school "sponsors" during the Prayers of the People at Dean's Mass on Tuesdays. Both the prayers for those scheduled to be executed by X state and the prayers for American soldiers who have been killed in Iraq and the Iraqi soldiers and civilians who have been killed are, in some ways, politics in the liturgy. The classmate further commented to me that this was ok with them cause they were "done right". These prayers are a good example of how this kind of a conversation can occur in a parish setting, because they weren't always "done right" and I'm not fully convinced they are being completely "done right" currently.
Both prayers have been tweaked over time as comments, solicitied and unsolicited, as well as questions have come in. For example, the prayer for those who are scheduled to be executed used to be worded, "We pray for X, who is scheduled to be executed by the state of Y on such and such a day. We pray also for his family, the families of his victims, and the people of state Y in whose name X will be killed." The last part of the prayer raised a few eyebrows and so EPF offered the explanation that when a comvict is executed by the state, the cause of death on the death certificate is listed as "homicide". The prayer in its current form is chosen by the person volunteering to offer the prayer each week.
So, what do y'all think about this? In what ways is this the same kind of thing as our case study and in what ways might it be different? Can one serve as a model for developing a way to deal with the other?
-R
Posted by Ryan W at 12:19 AM | Comments (3)
May 03, 2005
Suffering and Misery
Chaplain Tripp emailed me a response to today’s case study, from which we can hang our further comments. He says:
How do we understand ourselves as a single Body when the suffering of the individual comes to the fore. In my estimation, this is one of the core questions that Don and Sheila are facing. Our understanding of corporate suffering and responsibility is often at odds with our understanding of individual suffering and responsibility.
Job expects his friends to step up and understand. They do not and will not. Job is left alone his misery. Paul often speaks of his own sin, the thorn in is side, as his private burden. And yet it leads him to articulate an understanding of shared sin and salvation in the Body of Christ.
Sheila wonders why the church has not responded. Don wants to know why Sheila has not been clear about her needs. I see this every day at the hospital. Ministers are called by the family at the last possible moment, or are never called at all. "We would not want to trouble them" is often a family's rationale. Sometimes it is as if the family assumes that the pastor has some form of extrasensory perception and will know to come without the aid of a phone call. Funeral homes are so aware of this dynamic that many make a habit of
calling the family's pastor for them. I have spoken to many irate ministers and disappointed families.
The nature of the Body of Christ is realized only when our intentional actions (performance) matches our relational assumptions. It takes work. But our suffering may burden us to such a degree that we cannot even ask for help. And, as pastors, we may be limited in the help we can give. Can we arrive before Lazarus dies? Can we bring some resurrection after Lazarus has passed on and been buried? These questions linger.
There is some Bonhoeffer we could apply here as well. Did the Church let you down? Well, of course it did. Sin exists in all of us, even (especially?) those of us who attempt to be the Body of Christ. Why else does forgiveness exist but for the sake of sins? Why else does resurrection exist but for the sake of death?
Posted by AKMA at 10:59 AM | Comments (2)