Ponderings on a Faith Journey

Open Wide the Gates -- A Sermon

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Cornwall) — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:44:00 +0000

Preachers are counseled to know their audience, but sometimes we find ourselves realizing that even with our best intentions, we really don't know how to speak or what to speak. I was invited to preach at an AIDS memorial service sponsored by a group of churches in Birmingham and Bloomfield Hills, MI. I was invited to preach in part in the hope that my congregation might follow and join in the service. I was invited to do this even though I admitted that I don't have any really experience with persons with AIDS. I can't say that I've even known anyone with AIDS (at least not knowingly), let alone has died of AIDS related illnesses. Although I have committed myself to joining forces with those opening the doors of the church to the LGBT community, this is still rather new territory for me. And so when I went to the pulpit last night, and across the congregation, finding only one familiar face, I found myself at a loss. I'd already written the sermon, and delivered it as best I could, but I truly felt inadequate to the moment. It quickly became apparent that most of the people gathered for this service, and the numbers were small, were people deeply affected by AIDS in one form or another. I tried to balance words of comfort with a call to justice, but perhaps I was speaking more to myself than to anyone in the congregation. I was the one who needed to understand the realities of the moment. It was the door to my own heart that needed to be opened. I thank God that the Spirit is able to speak even when my own words are inadequate.

But maybe these words will speak to others who like me have not paid much attention to persons with AIDS. My audience, really, was a different group, those who have shut the doors to persons with AIDS. My audience, ultimately, is that community of people who believe in justice, but need to be nudged toward recognizing that this is an area of justice that we too often neglect.

So I invite you to consider these words, which are heartfelt.

***********************************

Open Wide the Gates

Sermon for AIDS Memorial Service

We come here tonight to remember loved ones who have died as a result of AIDS related illnesses. As we do this, we hear this word of hope from the Psalmist: “God is our refuge and strength, a help always near in times of trouble.” (Ps. 46:1). These words are reflected in Martin Luther’s hymn: “A Mighty Fortress is our God,” where we boldly sing: “Our God is a bulwark never failing, our present help amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing.” It is this declaration that God is a never failing bulwark that gives us confidence to entrust our loved ones to God’s care.

This word of consolation comes to us once again in the reading from Revelation, which declares that God “will wipe away every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more. There will be no mourning, crying, pain, anymore for the former things have passed away” (Rev. 21:4). In another place Paul speaks of a new creation in Christ that’s made possible because God has reconciled all things to God’s self through Christ. (2 Cor. 5:19).

There are many different kinds of memorial services. Sometimes we gather to remember persons who have died in service to community or country. Not long ago some of us gathered for special services to observe the tenth anniversary of the events of September 11.

Tonight we pay special attention to those who have died of AIDS related illnesses. We do this because some gathered here have lost loved ones to this disease. We also come to support those who face discrimination and exclusion because of the stigma attached to this disease. When word first broke about HIV and AIDS back in the early 1980s, it created great fear in our communities. People were afraid to go to restaurants or use public rest rooms, fearing that they might become infected. But, when we heard that most people contracting HIV and AIDS were gays or drug users, many of us decided that this was a disease that didn’t affect us, and so we shut our hearts and minds to those who were suffering. At the same time, we began to hear leaders from the Christian community declare that the people suffering with AIDS were reaping what they had sown and that this disease was a sign of God’s judgment on sinners. As a result, people with AIDS, both gay and straight, became pariahs, and we shunned them, hoping they would simply go away.

When I was asked to preach this evening I told my colleagues that I couldn’t speak to the congregation from personal experience. I’m not an AIDS activist and I don’t personally know anyone who has AIDS or has died as a result of AIDS. But then again, maybe I have known people with AIDS, but I just never knew because it wasn’t something that could be mentioned or discussed. I agreed to preach tonight because I believe this is an issue of justice that God is deeply concerned about. I believe that as we come tonight to grieve we must also shine the light upon those places in our society that continue to shun and exclude persons with AIDS and their families. It is a matter of justice and it’s a matter of compassion.

Now, it doesn’t matter if a person with HIV or AIDS is gay or straight, male or female, young or old, Christian or not. What matters is that we hear God’s word of grace and inclusion, and that as we remember those who have died, we also speak out on behalf of those who continue to live in our midst with HIV and AIDS and who face discrimination and exclusion, who deal every day with the stigma of this disease. If we fail to do this, then we dishonor the memories of those who have died.

But, even as we make our declaration of justice, we must not lose sight of the grief that is being shared here tonight. We come to hear a word of consolation and a word of invitation, a word of comfort and a word of inclusion.

There is a word in the Ephesian letter that I think speaks to us tonight. The context is different, but this word has implications for our time of remembrance. The author of this letter says that Christ is our peace, and that “with his body he broke down the barrier of hatred that divided us” (Eph. 2:14 CEB). Our calling is, it would seem, using words uttered by an American President to his Soviet counterpart while giving a speech in Berlin, is to say to the world: “tear down this wall.” And as the walls that divide are torn down, we can also open wide the gates so that all might find peace and comfort in the presence of God.

There is another word from Scripture that may be appropriate for this evening. I draw your attention to Peter’s vision, which led him to welcome the Gentiles into Christ’s community. In that vision, after God shows Peter a whole host of animals, and invites him to eat from this palate of choices, God says to Peter, who refuses because these animals are to him ritually unclean, God says to Peter: do not call unclean what I call clean. And with this vision, God opens wide the gates of the realm of God.

Do we not hear something similar in our day about persons with HIV and AIDS? Do we not hear God say to us – open wide the gates, remove the stigma and the shame. Allow people the freedom to grieve and remember in peace, without worry about how others might perceive them and their loved ones. Yes, as God opens wide the gates, we hear this word from the prophet Zephaniah:

I will deliver the lame; I will gather the outcast. I will change their shame into praise throughout the earth. (Zeph. 3:19).

May this be our prayer tonight as we remember those who have died, as well as those who continue to live with AIDS. May our gathering tonight be a sign that God has opened wide the gates.

Politics, Theology, and the Environment

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Cornwall) — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:42:00 +0000

In recent days, politics and theology have become intertwined, with presidential candidates debating the theological veracity of their opponents. The most telling example was Rick Santorum’s charge that President Obama has embraced a “phony theology” that isn’t in line with what the Bible teaches. Elsewhere I addressed this charge, noting that to say that something is phony is to raise questions of a person’s religious integrity.

When the “charge” was first made, the former Senator didn’t elaborate, but a few days later he backed off a bit and spoke of the President’s supposedly radical environmentalist world view that he believes is rooted in a theology (world view) that lacks biblical support. In this clarifying statement about what he meant by a “phony theology” that lacks biblical warrant, Santorum made the following statement:

“That’s why I was talking about energy. This idea that man is here to serve the earth, as opposed to husband its resources and being good stewards of the earth, and I think that is a phony ideal.”

Many people believe that religion is private and should remain private. I believe that religion is personal, but that it also has public implications. What we believe about God impacts the way we see the world. In this, I’m in agreement with Sen. Santorum, though I strongly disagree with the way he understands both the bible and Christian theology. I will also admit that my politics is closer to that of the President than that of the former Senator’s. But for a moment I’d like to have us put aside partisan politics and consider the theology of creation (I use creation here in a theological sense, not a scientific one).

I believe that a good case can be made that concern for the environment is deeply rooted in Scripture and Christian Theology, and that it is a moral imperative for us to concern ourselves with protecting and preserving the environment.

If the earth exists for the benefit of humanity, does that mean that it exists solely for our benefit? Does it mean that we have the right and obligation to “husband its resources” without concerning ourselves with the long term viability of nature?

At the core of this debate is the definition of stewardship. Does being a good steward mean taking good care of something entrusted to us, or does it imply use of something for our immediate benefit? In answering these questions I would like to suggest that Sen. Santorum’s views, which he claims are biblical, could be out of line not only with Scripture, but also the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, of which he is a member.

Before I turn to Catholic teaching on this issue, I’d like to suggest an alternative reading of the biblical story concerning creation and our responsibility to it. In Genesis 1 we find the first creation story. Throughout this beautiful poetic statement, we hear God say of nature – “It is good.” As God concludes the work of creation God creates humankind in God’s image, male and female, and entrusts to them (us) the responsibility of being stewards of creation. Stewardship doesn’t entail absolute rule. There is always accountability to God, who created humankind to represent God in creation. We are not above creation, we are part of it, and as part of creation, we have an important role, to respect, preserve, and use appropriately the resources present in the world around us.

To add to this point about our place in creation, consider the message found in the designated reading from the Hebrew Bible for the First Sunday of Lent (this Sunday). The text is Genesis 9:8-17. It’s part of the Flood story, and as Noah, his family, and the animals disembark from the ark, God makes a covenant, not just with Noah, his family, and his descendants, but also “with every living being with you—with the birds, with the large animals, and with all the animals of the earth, leaving the ark with you. I will set up my covenant with you so that never again will all life be cut off by floodwaters. There will never again be a flood to destroy the earth” (Gen. 9:9-11 Common English Bible). God places in the heavens a bow, a rainbow, to serve as a reminder to God of this covenant, which God makes with “all creatures on earth.” Humanity is, in this scenario, part of, but not the sole concern of God’s covenant with the earth.

I take these texts as an encouragement to be good stewards of the environment. Thus, I believe a truly biblical theology will recognize that our welfare as human beings is linked to that of the rest of creation. My well-being is affected by the despoiling of the environment, whether that is pollution or overuse of natural resources. Although the Senator suggests that global warming is not science but politics, I beg to differ. If climate science is correct, we could be setting ourselves on an environmentally unsustainable course that could be as destructive to the future well-being of humanity as any other economic consideration.

I’ve mentioned but two biblical passages that, in my view, call for us to attend to the protection of the environment. I would suggest that this is part of our covenant responsibility. Yes, we do have a special role as God’s representatives in the world, but that responsibility is an ecologically sustainable one. We can make use of earth’s resources, but we should do this in a wise and sustainable manner.

I said earlier that a biblical case can be made for what is often called “creation care,” but it is also a central focus of Roman Catholic Social Teaching. Although I don’t agree with the Catholic Church on every issue, there are many places where I am in agreement with the teachings of this church. I would say that on the issue of the environment, I’m probably closer to the Church’s teachings than is Sen. Santorum. In support of my claim I want to point out a statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Pope John Paul II.

First consider this statement from the USCCB on Caring for God’s Creation:

54. We show our respect for the Creator by our stewardship of God’s creation. Care for the earth is a duty of our faith and a sign of our concern for all people. We should strive to live simply to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. We have a moral obligation to protect the planet on which we live—to respect God’s creation and to ensure a safe and hospitable environment for human beings, especially children at their most vulnerable stages of development. As stewards called by God to share the responsibility for the future of the earth, we should work for a world in which people respect and protect all of creation and seek to live simply in harmony with it for the sake of future generations.

Pope John Paul II is even clearer and stronger in his statements about our responsibilities toward the environment. These are stated powerfully in a 1990 address celebrating the World Day of Peace. I’d like to share just the two opening paragraphs of this statement, and invite you to read the entire message in support of this statement. The late Catholic leader declared:

In our day, there is a growing awareness that world peace is threatened not only by the arms race, regional conflicts and continued injustices among peoples and nations, but also by a lack of due respect for nature, by the plundering of natural resources and by a progressive decline in the quality of life. The sense of precariousness and insecurity that such a situation engenders is a seedbed for collective selfishness, disregard for others and dishonesty.

Faced with the widespread destruction of the environment, people everywhere are coming to understand that we cannot continue to use the goods of the earth as we have in the past. The public in general as well as political leaders are concerned about this problem, and experts from a wide range of disciplines are studying its causes. Moreover, a new ecological awareness is beginning to emerge which, rather than being downplayed, ought to be encouraged to develop into concrete programmes and initiatives.

Pope John Paul II makes the claim that our relationship to the environment is a moral issue. He states that the future sustainability of this world depends on our ability to address this issue, including the question of climate change. He also notes that how the developed world uses resources has implications for developing nations and for those persons living in poverty. Thus, it is a matter of addressing the needs of “the least of these” (Matthew 25).

I recognize there are differences of opinion on matters theological and political when it comes to the environment. But, a commitment to protecting the earth and its resources – a concern for the welfare of creation as a whole -- is not foreign to the biblical story or to mainstream Christian theology. In fact, as I read scripture and theology, I would suggest that it is a divine imperative that we concern ourselves with protecting the environment as an expression of our calling to be God’s stewards of creation. It is also, in our best interests to concern ourselves with this calling.

Reposted from the Troy Patch

The Predicament of Belief -- A Review

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Cornwall) — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:00:00 +0000

THE PREDICAMENT OF BELIEF: Science, Philosophy, and Faith. By Philip Clayton and Steven Knapp. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. X + 184 pages.

The word “apologetics” might not be the best descriptor for The Predicament of Belief, but that may have less to do with the intent of the authors, and more to do with the accumulated baggage from other apologetic enterprises. The Predicament of Belief is not an attempt to accumulate evidence that demands a verdict; rather, like Schleiermacher’s Speeches to the Cultured Despisers the authors of this book seek to present theism as a reasonable and viable understanding of ultimate reality to an increasingly skeptical audience.

Philip Clayton and Steven Knapp are scholars and persons of faith. Both have impressive academic credentials. Clayton is Ingraham Professor of Theology and Dean of the Claremont School of Theology, along with serving as the founding Provost of newly born Claremont Lincoln University. He has published numerous books and articles on theology and philosophy. One of his primary interests is the relationship of religion and science. I’ve previously reviewed two of his books, and have had the opportunity to personally dialog with him on matters theological. Steven Knapp is President of George Washington University and Professor of English at that university. Although this is my first encounter with Knapp, this isn’t his first collaboration with Philip Clayton. Together they seek to address the “predicament of belief” by taking up the challenges presented by science, philosophy, and religious pluralism to a coherent and viable theism.

Although brief in scope, this isn’t an easy read. The reader will need to have a good grasp of the relevant issues, but then most skeptics and questioners have informed themselves on the issues. They simply seek a reasonable answer to their questions. The hope of the authors is that this is a reasonable response, even though some beliefs will transcend rationality. This is especially true as one moves from the general to the more specific. It is one thing to affirm the idea of an Ultimate Reality (God) and quite another to believe that this Ultimate Reality was present in and through a particular person in history, such as Jesus of Nazareth. This is, therefore, why the authors shy away from calling this book a “manual of Christian apologetics.” This is an attempt to lay out a “minimalist personal theism,” rather than lay out a robust orthodox vision of faith.

The authors recognize that there are significant obstacles to faith, but they also believe that one needn’t be content with agnosticism. The Christian minimalist position, in their estimation, assumes that the “reasons for affirming Christian claims are stronger than the reasons for denying them” (p. 18). The faith they offer holds that the natural world stems “from a not-less-than-personal ultimate reality, a way of conceiving divine action that is compatible with scientific methods and results, and a way of interpreting the New Testament resurrection claims that we think remains plausible for men and women in the twenty-first century” (p. 22). They do this knowing that there are significant reasons for having doubts about the religious enterprise.

Starting with the objections to faith and then moving on to a discussion of the nature of the ultimate reality and the way this reality (God) is active in the universe, while taking into consideration religious pluralism, they lay out the foundations for a minimalist personal theism (MPT), addressing along the way continuing concerns and objections.

It is the two chapters dealing with the particular that should draw considerable attention, and the authors acknowledge that this is the heart of the predicament addressed by the book. One will have had to buy into the more general arguments for a minimalist personal theism to make it this far. If you accept the premise that there is an ultimate reality that is not less than personal, and recognizing that there are a variety of options available to explain that ultimate reality (religious pluralism), then perhaps you’re ready to make a home in one particular tradition. Their understanding of this reality involves the assumption that God does not stand outside the universe intervening in supernatural ways. That assumption may not be robust enough for many Christians, but it fits with their panentheistic understanding of God (the world is in God). With regard to the particularities of the Christian faith their focus is on two questions – the resurrection and the uniqueness of Christ. They deal with issues such as the Trinity as well, but these are the two topics that draw their primary attention.

They offer a number of possible ways of understanding the resurrection, from metaphor to bodily resurrection (sort of from Borg to Wright). They can’t affirm the traditional understanding of a bodily resurrection because it is unsustainable, in their minds, when set against a scientific framework. They also find the metaphorical/symbolic version less than true to what the early Christians envisioned, and thus they propose a participatory model of the resurrection.

Human beings share the “Spirit of Christ” insofar as they enter into the same relationship with God that was embodied in Jesus’ self-surrender to the one he called his “father.” The heart of this theory, in other words, is that, in the event that came to be known as Jesus’ resurrection, his self-surrendering engagement with God became newly available, through the agency of the divine Spirit, to his followers, then and since, as the form, model, and condition of their own engagement with the divine.” (p. 90).

This understanding doesn’t address what happened to Jesus specifically, but it does suggest that the disciples of Jesus, then and now, participate in his relationship with God in a transformative way.

Further, the authors address the question of uniqueness of Jesus. How does Jesus embody or represent the ultimate reality? The participatory theory involves the assumption that in Jesus we participate in the reality that is God, through him, but that doesn’t mean that he is the one and only way for this to occur. The New Testament does assume that Jesus is the highest and fullest instance of human participation in the person and presence of God. But, how strong should our claims be? Clayton and Knapp seek a way between the exclusivist position and one that resist all such claims. They prefer to move beyond an either/or solution to one that affirms some aspects of uniqueness without ruling out other ways in which God is present. The resurrection appearances offer a means by which one can envision the Spirit of God making the presence of Christ available, even if not in a bodily/physical form. Jesus, by the Spirit, remains personally but not physically present. It’s not a metaphor and it’s not a vision, but it’s not Wright’s physical/bodily/tangible presence. I appreciate their attempt at finding a middle ground, though I’m left wanting a more robust understanding of the resurrection.

They close the book with two chapters that revisit the questions of doubt and belief, and it’s here that they address issues such as the Trinity. Then they close with a chapter that deals with the church, and what the church might look like if it allows for a rather wide spectrum of beliefs. Can the church survive and thrive if at its heart it requires a minimalist perspective? The authors offer their vision of the church as the most reasonable way of reaching those who see themselves as spiritual but not religious (about 72% of millennials). The reality is that we likely don’t have a choice. We can be hard and fast with doctrinal rules, but that works only for a rather small number of folks, and its shrinking quickly. Can the church thrive if membership doesn’t require that adhere to one particular understanding of God or of Jesus’ relationship to God?

As we ponder this question the authors note that in presenting the church in this fashion we must also take into serious consideration a question raised by John Cobb: does it matter? Cobb is no conservative, but his suggestion that progressive denominations could be declining because we don’t always seem to believe that what we’re saying and doing is all that important. Unless this faith gives meaning to our lives, it won’t live on, especially in an age where religion doesn’t have much social value.

Ultimately this is the question that we face. Does it matter whether we believe or not? Even if we can overcome the challenges of science and theodicy and religious pluralism, does the Christian faith offer meaning to our lives?

My feelings about this book are mixed. Perhaps it’s because I’ve spent my entire life as a Christian and because I was an evangelical and still have some evangelical elements to my theology, I’m left wanting more. This is especially true of the resurrection. I’m not sure that their solution is sufficient for me. That may be true for other readers. On the other hand, I think this would be a most useful book for my friends that are struggling to accept even a minimalist theism. I think that it will help move people beyond agnosticism, and maybe even atheism. So, maybe my mixed feelings have more to say about me than about the author’s project.

Read the book, especially if you struggle with doubt. If you’re one who seeks a more robust view of God and of Jesus’ relationship to God, then you might be left wanting more, but recognize that the authors really aren’t speaking to you. It has its audience, and hopefully it will help draw into the body those who struggle to find meaning for their lives. One of the reasons why a book like this may not appeal to everyone is that many people prefer a more black and white kind of faith. The faith they offer is rather complex and even messy, and that can be troubling.

The Muslim Luther and Reformation -- Sightings

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Cornwall) — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:47:00 +0000

I continue to be fascinated by Islam and its place in the world. For this very reason I worked to invite Saeed Khan, a faculty member at Wayne State University, to lead a series of presentations on Islam at the church. This series has led to a new set of informal conversations about Islam at a local coffee house.

Why should we be interested in Islam? Well, along with Christianity, Islam makes up more than two-thirds of the world's population. It is diverse in race and ethnicity and in culture. Many non-Muslim observers have wondered -- will Islam experience a reformation like Protestantism? That question is taken up in a Sightings post by Mun'im Sirry, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Chicago. I invite you to read and engage in a conversation about Islam and how it fits into our modern/post-modern world. To what degree will events and ideas of this age penetrate Islam and transform it -- either positively or negatively? Consider this -- one of the outgrowths of the Crusades was Christian encounters with Islamic culture that transformed the culture and theology of Christendom. Consider the reintroduction of Aristotle into the theological mix. Will something similar happen to Islam due to its encounter with the "West"?

********************************

Sightings 2/23/2012

The Muslim Luther and Reformation

-- Mun’im Sirry

On February 15, 2012, Abdulkarim Soroush, a visiting Professor at The University of Chicago, delivered a thoughtful and enlightening talk about revival and reform in Islam. Mohammad Ayatollahi Tabaar writes in The New York Times, “Soroush has been described as a Muslim Luther, but unlike the Protestant reformer, he is no literalist about holy books.” Robin Wright, a journalist who writes frequently about the Middle East, also describes him as “the Martin Luther of Islam,” however she acknowledges that Soroush himself prefers to avoid comparison with Luther. In the beginning of his talk, Dr. Soroush argued that Islam has not undergone a reformation similar to that of Protestantism. This contention is certainly debatable since a number of Muslim reformers cited the need to reform Islam as Christianity was reformed. Even Muhammad Iqbal, one of the Muslim reformers whose projects were discussed by Dr. Soroush, identified Protestant elements in Islamic reform: “We are today passing through a period similar to that of the Protestant revolution in Europe, and the lesson which the rise and outcome of Luther’s movement teaches should not be lost on us.”

Many scholars discuss how the idea of “Muslim Luther” or “Islamic Protestantism” emerges in the discourses of Muslim reformers, especially the Shi’i circle. Charles Kurzman and Michaelle Browers explore the historical usage of the Islamic-Protestant reformation analogy. Sukidi specifically traces the traveling idea of Islamic Protestantism to what he calls “Iranian Luthers,” namely, Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Ali Shari‘ati and Hashem Aghajari. This characterization is, of course, not without problems. Muslim reformers might follow patterns of religious reform similar to those of Christian reformers, yet they certainly found their own ways of dealing with their tradition. However, the analogy is not invalid, given that these Muslim reformers themselves expressed their admiration for Luther and other Christian reformers. Afghani, for instance, strongly believed that Islam needs a Luther and he might have seen himself as that Luther.

The Egyptian Muhammad ‘Abduh’s admiration for Protestant reformation is often overlooked by scholars. Undoubtedly, ‘Abduh is the most influential Sunni scholar whose ideas of Islamic reform reached far beyond the theological divide and the Arab world. In his magnum opus, Risalat al-tawhid, ‘Abduh argues that Christian reformation included “elements by no means unlike Islam.” It would surprise no one that ‘Abduh was so impressed by the way Christian reformers strove to break the entail of obscurantism, curb the authority of religious leaders and keep them from exceeding the precept of religion. “They discovered,” ‘Abduh writes, “that liberty of thought and breadth of knowledge were means to faith and not its foe.”

It is worthwhile that, unlike other Muslim reformers, ‘Abduh brings the discussion deeper into theological issues. “The reforming groups in the West,” he says, “brought their doctrines to a point closely in line with the dogma of Islam, with the exception of belief in the prophetic mission of Muhammad. Their religion was in all but name the religion of Muhammad; it differed only in the form of worship, not in the meaning or anything else.”

Perhaps, it was his disciple, Rashid Rida, who pushed this idea further to argue that belief in the prophethood of Muhammad is not a sine qua non for salvation. Commenting on Qur’an 2:62, he rejects the idea that this verse implicitly stipulates belief in Muhammad. In his own words: “… there is no problem for not stipulating belief in the Prophet because the verse deals with God’s treatment of each people and community who believe in a Prophet and a revelation particular to them. Their salvation (fawzuha) is certain whether they were Muslims, Jews, Christians, or Sabeans. God declares that salvation lies not in religious allegiance (al-jinsiyya al-diniyya) but in true belief which has control over self and in good deed.” Elsewhere, Rida emphasizes the need to combine “religious renewal and earthly renewal, the same way Europe has done with religious reformation and modernization.” Rida’s attitude toward other religions is more complex than is sometimes supposed and is beyond the scope of this article.

It is interesting that Muslim reformers like ‘Abduh and Rida have no qualms dealing with the theological aspects of the nature of Christian reformation. While some Muslims might truly believe that Islam faces challenges similar to those faced by Christianity in Europe, ‘Abduh simply asserts that “Many scholars in Western countries confess that Islam has been the greatest of their mentors in attaining their present position.” Christian reformation is not alien to Muslim reformers, but one may still wonder why Muslim reformers envision their projects in light of Protestant reformation.

References

Mohammad Ayatollahi Tabaar, “Who Wrote the Koran?,” The New York Times, December 5, 2008.

Robin Wright, “Scholar Emerges as the Martin Luther of Islam,” The Seattle Times, February 12, 1995.

Michaelle Browers and Charles Kurzman (eds.), An Islamic Reformation? (Lanham, NJ: Lexington, 2003): pp. 1-17.

Sukidi, “The Traveling Idea of Islamic Protestantism: A Study of Iranian Luthers,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations (2005): pp. 401-412.

Muhammad ‘Abduh, Risala al-tawhid (Cairo: Matba‘a Muhammad ‘Ali Sabih, 1966).

Mun’im Sirry is a PhD candidate in Islamic Studies at the University of Chicago Divinity School. He is currently a Martin Marty Center Junior Fellow and a Harper Dissertation Fellow. His dissertation is entitled Reformist Muslim Approaches to the Polemics of the Qur’an against Other Religions.

----------

This month’s Religion & Culture Web Forum is by Emanuela Zanotti Carney, on Voices of Despair and Gestures of Grief in Rituals of Mourning and Italian Marian Laments in the late Middle Ages. As devotion to Mary as the "mother of sorrows" flourished in the late Middle Ages, poetic narratives of Mary's lamentations at the foot of the cross became an important sub-genre of Marian literature. Emanuela Zanotti Carney studies Marian laments written in the Italian vernacular, arguing that "poets and compilers ... conveyed the emotional experience of the Virgin at the cross by embodying traditional rituals of mourning performed by women (thecorrotto) into their lyrical and dramatic texts" (2-3). Seeking an emotional reaction to Mary's grief, these laments "transformed audiences from passive recipients of a sacred story to active and engaged participants in the history of salvation" (32). Read Voices of Despair and Gestures of Grief.

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

It's the Water -- A Lectionary Reflection

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Cornwall) — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:58:00 +0000

Genesis 9:8-17

1 Peter 3:18-22

Mark 1:9-15

It’s the Water,
and a Lot More

It’s the beginning of Lent, a journey that takes us from temptation to temptation, from grief to death. It’s a time of reflection and for letting go of distractions and obstructions. Some of us do better at this than others. I must confess to a lack of discipline in these things, and Lent has been no different than any other season. But the invitation to allow God access to our lives so that we might be reconciled and renewed is there. Here is an invitation to join Jesus in the wilderness, where trust in God is essential.

Reference is made in each of these lectionary texts to water, which as we know is the foundation for life. Without it life is, it appears, impossible. This is why astronomers search the heavens looking for planets that might have water, and thus the promise of life. We know that our carbon-based bodies are made up primarily of water, and so without water there’s little left except chemicals. Thus, water is, so to speak, our life-blood.

Water is the thread that connects these three texts, taking us from the story of Noah to Jesus’ own baptism at the hands of John, with a stop to reflect on the salvific effects of the baptismal waters. What we learn is that God is at work in the midst of these waters, not washing away dirt, but drawing humanity into the covenant community. Water is, for Noah and for Jesus, the starting point for a journey into the presence of God, and in 1 Peter, baptism is linked to the Noah story, serving as “mark of a good conscience toward God.” Thus, as we begin our Lenten journey, we begin in baptism, which ushers us into the covenant community.

Although baptism doesn’t figure directly into the Genesis passage, the fact that the author of 1 Peter appeals to Noah’s experience with the Flood, which serves as a metaphor for baptism, connects the Noah story to the other texts. Baptism is for Christians one of the two foundational sacraments. We may vary in our theologies and our practices, but whether applied at the beginning of life or at some later time of accountability, Baptism serves as a sign of reconciliation and inclusion into the covenant community of God.

To provide a theological context to consider the relationship of these texts to baptism, I want to point to an invitation given to Disciples of Christ to deepen their theology of baptism. In a book edited by Keith Watkins, we hear this word:

Through the signs of water and word, God is reaching out to humanity to join us to God’s own self. It is this transcendent aspect of Christian baptism that has taught us a truth we did not initiate, and that bids us into covenant partnership with God-in-Christ through baptism. In the preamble to our Design, we affirm along with the whole church in every time and place that baptism is ours only as a gift. [Keith Watkins, ed., Baptism and Belonging, (Chalice Press, 1991), pp. 16-17].

With this thread in mind we turn to three texts that introduce us to the Lenten journey.

If you grew up in the church, as did I, you were introduced to the Noah story early on. You probably didn’t hear the whole story, how God judged the earth and killed every living thing, except Noah, his family, and the mating pairs of animals who would, like and his family, repopulate the earth. All we heard was that God told Noah to prepare for the Flood by building an ark and making room for all these animals. Later I learned that Noah’s Ark was located somewhere up on Mt Ararat in Turkey. That was, however, back in my more literalist days. In this passage, the Flood has subsided, and before Noah, his family, and the animals leave the ark, God makes a covenant with them, that never again would the flood waters destroy all creatures. The sign of this covenant is the bow that God places in the clouds. It will serve as a reminder, not to human or non-human life, but to God. When God sees the rainbow in the sky, God “will remember the enduring covenant between God and every living being of all earth’s creatures.”

It’s important to note the breadth of the covenant partners included in this relationship, especially in light of recent comments made by a Presidential candidate who accused the President of having a non-biblical theology that placed humanity below the earth. What is clear in this passage is that God not only covenants with Noah and family, but with all creatures – great and small. There is a strong environmental/ecological message present in this covenant. As Nicole Johnson writes in her lectionary commentary on this passage:

God’s promise to protect the entire creation calls the faith community to see its own existence and well-being as tied together with the existence and well-being of the rest of the created order, so loved and protected by its creator. Humans are in covenant not only with one another and God but with the natural world as well. (Preaching God's Transforming Justice: A Lectionary Commentary, Year B. p. 129).

It is a reminder that God’s reconciling vision of a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:19) must include more than simply human life, but all of God’s creation.

When we come to 1 Peter 3, we find a discussion about the reconciling ministry of Jesus, who dies that we might have forgiveness of sins, but who is made alive in the resurrection so that he might take his place at the right side of God, where Jesus “rules over all angels, authorities, and powers” (1 Pet. 3:22 CEB). This is a rather intriguing passage with mysterious connotations. The meaning of baptism is linked to the Flood, and the ministry of Jesus includes preaching “to the spirits in prison,” that is the disobedient spirits that had been waiting since the time of Noah to hear this message of salvation.

There isn’t space here to explore the implications of this obscure reference, though it has been taken as the foundation of the so-called “harrowing of hell,” whereby Jesus liberated the spirits from their hellish existence so that, having heard the good news, might be saved. It’s a passage that gives some support to the idea that there are post-grave opportunities to hear and respond to the gospel. The passage is not clear, but it is suggestive, and thus worth pondering.

With regard to baptism, Peter connects it to the Flood, so that even as Noah and his family are “rescued through water, baptism is like that. It saves you now . . . because it is a mark of a good conscience toward God” (1 Peter 3:20-21 CEB). Peter links this act of baptism to the resurrection, which is the ultimate foundation of salvation. Although this reference is not as clear as Paul’s reference in Romans 6, here it seems that baptism serves as a sign of identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Even as we go through the baptismal waters we are saved through the resurrection of the one who sits in heaven at God’s right side. If the connection with Noah holds, then baptism isn’t just an appeal of a good conscience, it is the sign of the covenant that God makes with the world.

With the gospel reading we return to the Baptism of Jesus, which we observed at the beginning of Epiphany. Once again we hear a word of how Jesus came to John and was baptized in the Jordan. Mark’s account is brief and active. As he comes out of the water, the heavens split open and Jesus sees a Spirit fall like a dove upon him, and then hears a voice from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I dearly love; in you I find happiness.” There is, of course, an adoptionist understanding of Jesus’ relationship to God. There’s no pre-existence or miraculous birth, just an embrace of Jesus as the one who would be God’s Son – and thus the one who would represent God in this world.

But the baptism is only part of the story. We’ve already been to this place in this story, and so we must move with Jesus into the wilderness. Mark with his forceful delivery tells us that the Spirit “at once . . . forced Jesus out into the wilderness.” The wilderness of Palestine shouldn’t be confused with our understanding of wilderness. Growing up in Oregon, wilderness means rugged mountains with lots of big trees. Here the wilderness is a desert. Water may be the foundation of life, but here water is a scarce commodity, and thus life is precarious. Here Jesus faces the tempter, Satan. For forty days, Jesus is out among the animals, facing temptation. What this temptation is, Mark doesn’t say. Matthew and Luke fill in the details, but Mark just has Jesus wrestling with temptation, and as he does, the angels, whom according to 1 Peter, Jesus will one day rule over, attend to his needs in this difficult hour.

Following this wilderness experience, and after John is arrested, Jesus begins his ministry. He goes into Galilee, a much lusher place to live, where he announces God’s good news. And what is this good news: “Now is the time! Here comes God’s Kingdom! Change your hearts and lives, and trust this good news!” (Mark 1:14-15 CEB). From Baptism to the travails of the desert, Jesus is prepared to take up his calling to preach the good news, the news that saves and brings into existence God’s kingdom. The nature of the kingdom isn’t defined. But it’s clear that the kingdom is coming, and it’s time to get ready. So do change your heart and you life, so you’ll be ready. And know that it is for this reason that God is happy. The reign of God in Christ is here.

As we begin this Lenten journey, a journey that begins in a baptism that draws us into the covenant community of God, we hear our own calling to announce God’s good news. As Paul makes clear in a passage read during Ash Wednesday, to us is given the ambassadorship of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:20). Since the reign of Christ is upon us, may we trust our lives to the God proclaimed in this good news.

The Bible, Disability, and the Church -- A Review

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Cornwall) — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:35:00 +0000

THE BIBLE, DISABILITY, AND THE CHURCH: A New Vision of the People of God. By Amos Yong. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011. Xiii + 161 pp.

Why do churches sometimes try to evade the American Disabilities Act? Does this evasion suggest a lack of concern for persons with disabilities? When it comes to reading Scripture, do we read it in ways that perpetuate stereotypes and stigmas? And does our language exclude rather than include and welcome persons with disabilities?

I must admit that until I began reading Amos Yong’s book The Bible, Disability, and the Church I hadn’t thought much about these kinds of questions. Reading this book was a consciousness-raising experience that forced me to look at biblical texts and the church in a very new and different light.

I became acquainted with Yong’s work as I reviewed Who is the Holy Spirit? (Paraclete, 2011). Being that I’m interested in the Holy Spirit, this was a natural book for me to read, and I was impressed by the quality of his theological work. So, when this book appeared, I requested a review copy to see what a Pentecostal theologian might have to say about this topic. Although Yong is a Pentecostal teaching at a divinity school sponsored by a famous TV evangelist, his perspective might surprise some readers, especially non-Pentecostals living on the left side of the theological divide. But whether one is surprised or not by the author’s perspective, the reader will be transformed.

As an evangelical Yong has a high view of scripture. It is for him the Word of God and thus needs to be taken seriously. But, he also understands that how we interpret that text has important implications for how we live out the Christian life. Although as a Pentecostal he believes that God heals, he also knows that God is not healing curing everyone or removing the disabilities experienced by people. Thus, perhaps there other ways in which healing occurs – including the removal of stigmas that isolate and exclude persons.

Yong’s own engagement with how the church views and includes persons with disabilities began early in life, as he helped care for his brother who has Down syndrome. This relationship, together with watching his brother living out his faith fully and enthusiastically, opened his eyes to the way in which persons with disabilities are often viewed in the church. This engagement opened his eyes as well to the fact that persons with disabilities, including people with intellectual disabilities have gifts and charisms to bring to the community of faith.

His engagement with his brother and others with disabilities led to his reengaging scripture. We know that there are numerous stories, often healing stories that include persons with disabilities. According to the Gospels, for instance, Jesus heals the lame, the leper, the epileptic, the hemorrhaging woman, persons who were blind and deaf. I myself have interpreted these actions as restoring persons to wholeness, but in making this interpretation, have I stigmatized persons with disabilities as being less than whole? Yong refers to such interpretations as reading the text from a “normate” position. That is, a perspective on the text from the vantage point of what society considers normal or able-bodied.

But in helping us look at this question of perspective, we need to look at the language we use. He points out that in our day there are attempts at avoiding discriminatory language. This we use terms like physically challenged to avoid negative connotations, but he chooses to retain the language of disability, in part because it’s accessible to most church goers, but in doing so we should avoid the “linguistic trap of reducing people to their disabilities.” But, having said this, disabilities are part of the person. With that in mind he spends time near the end of the book with how we envision the resurrection body. Do we assume that these “disabilities” cease to mark the person? He notes that Down Syndrome is part of who is brother is. In speaking of disability, he includes a wide spectrum of realities, from physical to intellectual. The discussion is complex, but Yong approaches it with grace and sensitivity. His focus is not on why persons have disabilities, but rather on raising our awareness of disabilities so that our churches can be truly inclusive and welcoming.

This is a book written for the church, inviting it to think a new about the question of disability. It asks us to consider whether disability is some intrinsic evil that needs to be eliminated, either here on earth or in the age to come? But in writing this word to the church, he focuses his attention on the way we read Scripture. In the course of four chapters, we move from the Old Testament to the gospels, through the letters, and finally to eschatologically focused texts.

He addresses the holiness codes that stipulated who is considered fit to join the community in worship. Disabilities are often seen as blemishes and thus prohibitive. Holding to a high view of scripture he wishes to redeem these texts. There are, however, other texts, such as the passage describing Jacob’s limp, which is a mark of his spiritual encounter with God and not a blemish, or David’s care for Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan who has a disability. There are discussions of Job and prayers and laments found in the Psalms. What he notes is that we need to move beyond just looking at what the Bible says, and recognize the complexity of perspective that is found in these pages, a complexity that can help us better understand what it means to have a disability and how that affects one’s place in the congregation.

The Gospels and Acts, of course, are full of healing stories, which often involve questions of forgiveness. He pushes on the idea that healing comes as a result of forgiveness of sins, as if it is sin that leads to disability. From a disability perspective, we need to push back on such ideas. He also asks the question as to whether physical healing is a prerequisite to discipleship. But consider the story of the eunuch – he becomes a disciple, but his status as a eunuch isn’t reversed. Perhaps the most powerful point of this chapter is the conversation about Pentecost. He reminds us that the “all flesh” receiving the Holy Spirit includes people with disabilities.

From Paul he takes a “theology of weakness.” He notes Paul’s own confessions about a “thorn in the flesh.” While we don’t know exactly what this “thorn” was, in some way or another Paul seems to have a disability. This theology of weakness includes Paul’s discussion of honoring the weaker member. From this Yong discerns the possibility that the weaker one is essential to the church and due greater honor, and they are equal recipients of the Spirit’s charisms. Indeed, they are indispensable to the life of the church.

In the final chapter, Yong looks at the issue eschatologically. He raises the question of disabilities and the resurrection. Whether or not you believe in a physical resurrection, this is a fascinating discussion because it reflects on how we look at persons with disabilities in the here and now. If there is no place for disabilities in the new creation does that mean that something about a person’s identity gets lost in the eschaton? Is such a vision of a “disability-free paradise” ultimately oppressive to persons with disabilities? Yong answers: “a disability perspective would insist that some impairments are so identity-constitutive that their removal would involve the obliteration of the person as well” (p. 121). Examples include dwarfism – Zacchaeus – and Down syndrome. Even blindness and deafness become for many persons with these disabilities formative of their identities and character. Will this be lost in the eschaton?

In answering these questions he notes first that in Paul’s discussion of the resurrection bodies (1 Corinthians 15, there is transformation and continuity. Thus, our sizes and shapes and forms are part of this continuity. In addition, Yong points our attention to Jesus’ own resurrection body, which according to John’s Gospel retains the wounds from the cross. Could this be Jesus’ way of entering into the experience of persons with disabilities? And thus these impairments are redeemed, not removed.

This is a powerful meditation on Scripture. Even if you don’t read the text the same as the author at every point, you will be transformed by reading it. It will help form a new perspective on how the church views and welcomes persons with disabilities. It raises an interesting question as to the way in which we view healing. In many cases, the healing that’s needed isn’t the physical cure of a person, but a healing of attitudes that stigmatize and ostracize persons with disabilities. With the intention of addressing negative interpretations of biblical and theological images that are embedded in Jewish and Christian cultures, we are led toward a more redemptive and welcoming interpretation. The hope is that the church will be transformed, but also the broader culture.

Yong’s attempt to lay out a disability reading of scripture takes its place among other readings of the scripture that seek to liberate those whom society has marginalized. As is true with feminist and liberationist readings, whether Latin American, Asian, or black theology, it reminds us that context matters and vantage point matters. Since most readers and interpreters begin with normate readings, it’s important to read the texts anew in the light of the experiences of others.

Since this book is well written, thoughtful and accessible, it should find a ready audience in the church. Yong doesn’t take an adversarial position, but rather with grace and humility, he invites us to enter the text of scripture and read it with new lenses. The author honors Scripture, even reveres it, and yet he finds ways deconstructing the way it’s read. He invites us to experience healing so that we might share in the blessings of fellowship with those we so often consider disabled. Our efforts are enhanced by the inclusion of discussion/Reflection questions at the end of each chapter. Therefore, we have the resources to begin the conversation. Take and read, and be transformed.

Be Reconciled -- An Ash Wednesday Reflection

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Cornwall) — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:06:00 +0000

It is Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent, a season of reflection and repentance. We do this knowing that God has already reconciled us to Godself through Christ. Having been reconciled and having received this word with openness, we are now able to be God's ambassadors. We tell the story of Christ, who, according to Paul, did not know sin, but became sin so that we might know the righteousness of God.

I invite you to read these words of Paul taken from 2 Corinthians 5-6, a text designated by the lectionary for Ash Wednesday. Hear the word of reconciliation and the invitation to ministry.

²⁰ So we are ambassadors who represent Christ. God is negotiating with you through us. We beg you as Christ’s representatives, “Be reconciled to God!” ²¹ God caused the one who didn’t know sin to be sin for our sake so that through him we could become the righteousness of God.

¹ Since we work together with him, we are also begging you not to receive the grace of God in vain. ² He says, I listened to you at the right time, and I helped you on the day of salvation. Look, now is the right time! Look, now is the day of salvation!

³ We don’t give anyone any reason to be offended about anything so that our ministry won’t be criticized. ⁴ Instead, we commend ourselves as ministers of God in every way. We did this with our great endurance through problems, disasters, and stressful situations. ⁵ We went through beatings, imprisonments, and riots. We experienced hard work, sleepless nights, and hunger. ⁶ We displayed purity, knowledge, patience, and generosity. We served with the Holy Spirit, genuine love, ⁷ telling the truth, and God’s power. We carried the weapons of righteousness in our right hand and our left hand. ⁸ We were treated with honor and dishonor and with verbal abuse and good evaluation. We were seen as both fake and real, ⁹ as unknown and well known, as dying—and look, we are alive! We were seen as punished but not killed, ¹⁰ as going through pain but always happy, as poor but making many rich, and as having nothing but owning everything. (2 Corinthians 5:20-6:10a Common English Bible).

As you reflect on these words, consider the nature of our ministry. Consider the way in which God calls us to be present in the world. It is a call to humility. It is a call to take the way of the cross. It is not "onward Christian soldiers marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before." The cross is not a weapon to be wielded, but a path that leads us through Christ into the presence of God.

As you reflect on these words of Paul, consider also these words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer from his Ethics.

The church is the place where it is proclaimed and taken seriously that God has reconciled the world to himself in Christ, that God so loved the world that God gave his Son for it. The spaced of the church is not there in order to fight with the world for a piece of its territory, but precisely to testify to the world that it is still the world, namely, the world that is loved and reconciled by God. It is not true that the church intends to or must spread its space out over the space of the world. It desires no more space than it needs to serve the world with its witness to Jesus Christ and to the world's reconciliation to God through Jesus Christ. The church can only defend its own space by fighting, not for space, but for the salvation of the world. Otherwise the church becomes a "religious society" that fights in its own interest and thus has ceased to be the church of God in the world. So the first task given to those who belong to the church of God is not to be something for themselves, for example, by creating a religious organization or leading a pious life, but to be witnesses of Jesus Christ to the world. For this the Holy Spirit equips those to whom the Spirit comes. Of course, it is presupposed that such a witness to the world can only happen in the right way when it comes out of sanctified life in God's church-community. Nevertheless, true sanctified life in the church-community of God is distinguished from any pious imitation by the fact that it leads the believer at the same time into witness to the world. Where that witness has become silent it is a sign of inner decay in the church-community, just as failure to bear fruit is a sign that a tree is dying. (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics (Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, Vol. 6), pp. 63-64).

May we be listening this day to the God who seeks to reconcile the world to Godself in Christ and invites us to be humble partners in this work.

Seeking Justice for the Community

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Cornwall) — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:30:00 +0000

As I read scripture, I am continually reminded that God is concerned about justice, especially justice for the poor and the marginalized in our society. Some politicians may not be concerned about those who fall below the poverty line. Some of my fellow believers may not care. But, it’s clear that God cares.

Consider the words of the Psalmist who declares:

Give justice to the lowly and the orphan; maintain the right of the poor and the destitute! Rescue the lowly and the needy. Deliver them from the power of the wicked! (Psalm 82:3-4 Common English Bible).

Or consider this word from the prophet Jeremiah:

No, if you truly reform your ways and your actions; if you treat each other justly; if you stop taking advantage of the immigrant, orphan, or widow; if you don’t shed the blood of the innocent in this place, or go after other gods to your own ruin, only then will I dwell with you in this place, in the land that I gave long ago to your ancestors for all time. (Jeremiah 7:5-7 CEB).

Then there is the word of judgment offered by Jesus:

“Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who will receive good things from my Father. Inherit the kingdom that was prepared for you before the world began. I was hungry and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me. 36 I was naked and you gave me clothes to wear. I was sick and you took care of me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ . . . “Then the king will reply to them, ‘I assure you that when you have done it for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you have done it for me.’ (Matthew 25:34-40).

Scriptures like these remind me that God is concerned about justice, and justice means something other than “law and order.” The focus of God’s justice is creating a community of equity and fairness. In Roman Catholic social teaching it’s called “God’s preferential option for the poor.”

It is from this biblical perspective that I have tried to understand my role in society, and that of the church. As a result I chose to join in the formation of a coalition of suburban congregations seeking to engage the political and economic systems so that they might become just and fair and responsive to the needs of the people living in our communities. This coalition has its origins in conversations that began a year ago, and that led to the formation of the Metropolitan Coalition of Congregations. Our purpose is spelled out in our mission statement:

"The Metro Coalition of Congregations is an interfaith organization of clergy and religious congregations working together for transformative systemic and societal change in our communities. The Coalition, representing Macomb, Oakland and Wayne counties, is seeking partnership with civic leaders from metro Detroit communities, and is committed to building power in order to influence policy and become a strong, unified voice speaking out and taking action on issues that affect all of southeast Michigan. "

As a coalition we have chosen to focus our attention on the issue of financial and economic justice, with a special focus on the foreclosure crisis. We have been engaged in a number of activities, including hosting a Faith and Financial Justice Summit in November that provided an opportunity for members of the faith community to hear from a number of sources, including political leaders and persons involved in providing assistance to those in need.

Among the issues we discussed was the logjam that keeps the State of Michigan’s Housing and Development Authority (MSHDA) from releasing more than $400 million dollars in federal money designed to prevent homeowners from suffering foreclosure. Very little of that money has found its way to its intended beneficiaries, and if you google this program you'll find little news coverage. We'd like to see this change, so a meeting has been set up for members of the coalition to meet with the head of MSHDA to see what can be done to facilitate the movement of funds. We have talked about putting pressure on banks that have resisted participating in efforts to work with homeowners to resolve these problems.

Consider for a moment that one in three Michigan homeowners owes more on their mortgages than their homes are now worth.

One of the ways we are responding to this crisis is to launch a preaching series on Economic Justice in churches across the three Metro Detroit counties. In sermons, worship experiences, and faith expressions we are trying to get the word out, letting congregants know what kinds of resources are available to them, and inviting them to get involved in changing a system that often works against the best interests of the community. We observed this day at my congregation on February 19th. Others are doing so throughout January and February.

We hope that these experiences will lead to conversations that will empower people in the community to work for fair and ethical banking, and financial justice.

By raising the issue in worship we want to counter the personal shame and guilt that are often associated with foreclosure and highlight the injustice of big banks that have been throwing congregants, their friends, and their neighbors out of their homes.

I hope that you will reflect on these texts of scripture, these issues that confront us, and consider joining us in working toward a just and lasting solution. For more information about the coalition see our website.

Reposted from Troy Patch

Religion of Atheism -- Sightings

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Cornwall) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:51:00 +0000

You would think that atheism would be anti-religion, and it often is, but some who consider themselves atheists see value in aspects of religion, even if they can't abide the theological elements. Martin Marty alerts us to a book by Alain de Botton called Religion for Atheists. Marty notes that he's not read the book -- thus no review -- but points us to a Wall Street Journal excerpt that lifts up the value of religious meals that help create community, and thus offers an atheist version. Marty asks the question as to whether such a "religion for everyone" will work. That is, he asks whether the idiosyncrasies of our religions help define the meal and its rituals, something that can't be reproduced outside the religious dimension. Take a read, consider the proposal fro de Botton, and Marty's response. What do you think?

************************

Sightings 2/20/2012

Religion of Atheism

-- Martin E. Marty

Notice: This is an alert, not a review. Repeat: This is an alert, not a review. In our sights this week—they would be hard to miss—are notices of Alain de Botton’s Religion for Atheists: A Non-believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion. The ethic of reviewers demands that they will at least have read the book they are critiquing, and I’ve not read or seen more of it than the already numerous articles about it with excerpts or quotes. A review on that basis? Unfair. An alert about the book? Fair.

In the two-page article by de Botton in the weekend Wall Street Journal we read a perceptive highlighting of what’s good about religion and religions. Fair. His analysis of what religion(s) can do when at its (their?) best is likely to get less attention than his projection of what the Journal headlines as “Religion for Everyone.” Communicators who must score by coming up with the novel will find the notion of Religion for Atheists a concept hard to pass up, sure to attract notice, and demanding response. This e-column is itself a sample thereof. Rather than gorge on the promise of this new religion or than sneer at its announcement, we might serve the cause by examining the prospect of de Botton’s vision and prescription.

His main examples of usable functions to be retrieved, replicated, advanced, and celebrated from the old dying religions—his main points draw on Catholicism—have to do with rituals, eating together as in the Mass, forming community, and the like. He pictures value in what he would “build” and advertise as the Agape Restaurant, modeled after the sacramental love-feast (=agape) practiced by early Christians and re-modeled both in the Mass of communal meals of most believing communities.

Now for the look ahead: I’d buy stock in the media which will debate the proposal. But if history is any guide, stock in any sort of “Religion for Everyone” is bearish. “It’s been done!” is a world-weary sigh which we historians are expected to sigh. Of more potential value for faith, non-faith, religion, post-religion, and communities (from local to global) is examining the question of why a “Religion for Everyone” or “A Religion of Atheism” or “The Religion of Humanity” as advanced by major figures like John Stuart Mill and Auguste Comte in early-modern centuries failed so dismally if not disastrously. It may be because they were proposed by Mills and Comtes and not voiced by Muhammad, Moses, and the others. Without suggesting that this is an all-purpose reason, let me plug my favorite analysis, George Santayana’s words in Reason in Religion. A religion for everyone? He writes:

“Any attempt to speak without speaking any particular language is not more hopeless than the attempt to have a religion that shall be no religion in particular. . . . Thus every living and healthy religion has a marked idiosyncrasy. Its power consists in its special and surprising message and in the bias which that revelation gives to life.” Its vistas and mysteries propound “another world to live in,” and “another world to live in. . . is what we mean by having a religion.”

De Botton’s work is a laudable critique of what goes wrong in the old religions, which he seems to envy and about which he is nostalgic. “The religions” could take lessons from some of what he proposes. But it does not transcend the merely secular world, and does not appear to offer “another world to live in.” We’ll watch.

References

Alain de Botton’s, Religion for Atheists: A Non-believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion (Pantheon, 2012).

George Santayana, Reason in Religion, quoted in helpful context by Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York Basic Books, 1973), p. 87.

Alain de Botton, “Religion for Everyone,” Wall Street Journal, February 18, 2012.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204883304577221603720817864.html

Martin E. Marty's biography, publications, and contact information can be found at www.memarty.com.

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Foxes Have Holes -- A Sermon for Economic Justice Sunday

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Cornwall) — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:00:00 +0000

Luke 9:57-62; Psalm 82

Today is Transfiguration Sunday, a day when we remember God’s mountaintop affirmation of Jesus’ ministry. It is a moment in Jesus’ life, when he receives the mantle of Moses the Lawgiver and Elijah the Prophet. As was true at Jesus’ baptism, God points to Jesus and says – that’s my child, the one who reveals my nature and purposes.

This is also the beginning of our Week of Compassion emphasis, which invites us to contribute to the welfare of those in need both in the United States and around the world. Last year, the Motown Mission project at Northwestern Christian Church received a grant from Week of Compassion that enabled the work teams to renovate the church so it can be of greater service to the neighborhood.

Today is also, at least for us, Economic Justice Sunday. It’s not on the liturgical calendar, but it is an emphasis of the Metropolitan Coalition of Congregations. This Coalition, which Luke Allen will talk more about in a moment, had its birth a year ago in our Library. I was among the first group of clergy who met with Luke and Bill O’Brien of the Harriet Tubman Center to talk about building a coalition of suburban congregations that would work together to address important social and economic issues facing the residents of Metro-Detroit. Several congregations have already had their Economic Justice Sunday, raising the consciousness of their congregations to the needs of the community around them. Today is our day to join them.

The focus today is on justice, which is a major concern of the biblical writers, including the Psalmists. With that in mind, I invite you to listen prayerfully to the reading of Psalm 82.

¹ God takes his stand in the divine council;
   he gives judgment among the gods:
² “How long will you judge unjustly
   by granting favor to the wicked?
                         Selah
³ Give justice to the lowly and the orphan;
   maintain the right of the poor
   and the destitute!
⁴ Rescue the lowly and the needy.
   Deliver them
   from the power of the wicked!”
⁵ They don’t know; they don’t understand;
   they wander around in the dark.
   All the earth’s foundations shake.
⁶ I hereby declare, “You are gods,
   children of the Most High—all of you!
⁷ But you will die like mortals;
   you will fall down like any prince.”
⁸ Rise up, God! Judge the earth
   because you hold all nations
   in your possession!

(Psalm 82, CEB)

I invite you to look out across Metro-Detroit with these words in mind. When we look at the landscape, we see the ravages of time and this economic downturn. Shuttered auto plants; boarded up schools and homes; vacant lots, often filled with garbage. But there also signs of hope and signs of life. Sometimes we miss them because the green shoots lie buried under the debris that covers the surface.

I tend to be an optimist, but to envision something new requires more than optimism. It requires hope, and hope is not passive. It’s active. It seeks to bring into existence the vision that God casts for us.

Like many people I was taken in by Chrysler’s half-time ad during the Super Bowl. The ad featured the gravelly voice of Clint Eastwood, who suggested that Detroit and America stand at half-time. Although we’ve gone through harrowing times, things are changing, largely because people are working together to make a difference. And so we see images of once shuttered auto plants coming back to life and families re-engaging their communities. You had to feel good after watching it. Things are improving. We’ve turned the corner. But, of course, it’s only half-time in America.

And, if you remember, the New York Giants were down by a point at halftime. They pulled ahead and turned away a last gasp effort by the Patriots to take back the game. The second half will likely be full of ups and downs, and so we can’t get complacent. There’s still lots of work to be done!

Consider with me these realities. Michigan’s unemployment rate has dropped a couple of points, and the decline of the housing market may have bottomed out. But for many people, inside and outside this congregation, the good times have yet to roll. Many neighborhoods in Detroit, Pontiac, and across the metropolitan area continue to suffer the ravages of this Great Recession. Thousands of residents have left the area, including about 7000 people who moved from Troy. Not only have people lost jobs, but many have seen a decline in their salaries and benefits.

As the Psalmist declares, God is concerned about justice for the lowly, the destitute, the orphan, the poor. Although many of our politicians may not be concerned about the poor, including the working poor, they stand at the center of God’s heart. Knowing this to be true, the Psalmist implores God to rescue all who are caught in the grip of the wicked. That is, those who use and oppress the poor for their own benefit.

When we think about justice, we often have “law and order” in mind, but for the prophets and the writers of the Psalms, the focus is on God’s desire to bring equity and fairness to society. This was the reason for the Jubilee Laws that governed property rights and use. The prophets weren’t always warmly received, and in our day, they likely would be accused of fomenting “class warfare.”

Now that I’ve waded into the political stream, I want to raise a question: How should we, as the people of God, respond to this crisis afflicting our nation and our communities, including suburban communities? This isn’t just about Detroit and Pontiac. Just about every community has had to deal with the effects of this economic crisis. There are some even here in the congregation who have experienced the challenges of this crisis. So, where is that justice that God is concerned about?

One of the primary concerns today is the foreclosure crisis. I picked this passage from Luke because it reminds us that Jesus experienced homelessness. He was an itinerant preacher who, unlike foxes and birds, had nowhere permanent to lay his head. He lived at the mercy of the people. As his followers, who seek to emulate his life, are we ready to experience homelessness? Are we ready to leave all behind to follow him?

Before Luke Allen comes to talk about the Coalition and its efforts to address the foreclosure crisis, I’d like to give you a bit of background information:

More than 1 in 3 Michigan homeowners owes more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. That includes me, and we’re in pretty good shape. For many others there’s little hope that they’ll ever recoup their investment.
The average Michigan home has lost more than $6,000 in value due to nearby foreclosed homes.
More than 400 million dollars in federal money earmarked for foreclosure prevention sit unused in the state coffers. If that money could be released, many homeowners facing foreclosure might be able to stay in their homes.
Many banks refuse to cooperate, including those who’ve received billions of dollars in government assistance. Many of them seem more inclined to evict than negotiate.

The question is – what can we do to address this situation? How can we join God in bringing justice to our land? Micah writes that God asks us to do what is good, that is, “to do justice, embrace faithful love, and walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8 CEB).

As Luke comes to the pulpit to talk more about the Coalition and its work in our community, I’d like to point out the insert in your bulletin that lists some of the resources available that can help you or someone you know that is affected by this crisis find some kind of help and relief.

*************************

Handout

Did you know….

-That one-third of homeowners may be underwater on their mortgages?

-That many people are hesitant to seek assistance from their faith communities in foreclosure situations?

There are resources to help.

· For information on the foreclosure process and to check your eligibility for special programs, go to www.foreclosuredetroit.org

· Contact a foreclosure prevention counselor through the Michigan State Housing Development Authority at

www.michigan.gov/mshda Click on “Homeownership”

· In Oakland County, contact the Oakland County Foreclosure Prevention Initiative at (888)-350-0900 or www.fightmortgageforclosure.com/oakland

· For homebuyer education and HUD-certified foreclosure intervention counseling to help renegotiate a mortgage, contact the Housing Opportunity Center of Southwest Housing Solutions at (313) 841-9641 or www.swsol.org

· To locate assistance for any health or human service need, call 2-1-1.

“Give justice to the weak and the orphan; maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” Psalm 82:3-4

These resources were compiled by the Metro Coalition of Congregations, an interfaith organization of clergy and religious congregations working together for transformative change in our communities.

************************

Preached by:
Dr. Robert D. Cornwall
Pastor, Central Woodward Christian Church
Troy, Michigan
Transfiguration Sunday
February 19, 2012

What is the future of the church?

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Cornwall) — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:38:00 +0000

My friend Diana Butler Bass has just released a new book Christianity After Religion: The End of Church and the Birth of a New Spiritual Awakening. I've not yet started reading, though I've been in conversations with her and have attended several presentations and lectures that she's given over the past three years -- while she was writing this book. She has been raising up the question of the relationship of religion and spirituality. Many of us in the Christian Community, especially we who pastor relatively traditional "brick and mortar" churches, have been wondering about our future.

In a little more than a year from now, I'm planning on taking a sabbatical, and in the hopes of gaining a nice grant to cover my 3 months off, I've been working on a theme. I'm playing with a theme centered on tradition. That is in part due to my own academic interests in 18th century high church Anglicanism. No one was more embedded in Tradition than "my guys," the Nonjurors. But the question that many of us have to ask is -- how do we remain tethered to our traditions, while walking into the future. What will that look like?

Diana has been working on that question, and I expect it appears in her book (I'll let you know once I'm done with it -- as a review copy sits on my desk). In the meantime, Diana has a brief video conversation from Day1, where she shares some of the concerns and opportunities of the day. Take a look and listen, and then offer thoughts. Where are we and where are we going?

H/T Diana's Blog.

Romney, Mormonism, and the American Compromise -- Sightings

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Cornwall) — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:58:00 +0000

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is an enigma to most Americans. Many of us know Mormons personally. Growing up some of my best friends were Mormons. We know them to be good people, with strong moral foundations, and committed to family. We may also know them from their famed Mormon Tabernacle Choir. No one does The Messiah quite like them. And of course, BYU has produced quite a few strong armed quarterbacks. But theology is an area that always complicates the discussion. As Terryl Givens notes below, Mormons have essentially let others define them, and thus the most esoteric elements are the pieces we hear about. Givens suggests that Mitt Romney's candidacy has opened up that can, and it can't be left untouched. This is especially true as Romney has hinted at his pastoral roles in the LDS church. So, what do Mormons actually believe, and does it matter?

*********************************

Sightings 2/16/2012

Romney, Mormonism, and the American Compromise

-- Terryl Givens

Mitt Romney is threatening to disturb the American compromise with Mormonism.

Nineteenth-century observers were largely indifferent to the new religion Joseph Smith founded in 1830. Most dismissed his claims about angels and gold plates as just another example of American gullibility. “Had we not seen in our own days similar impostures practiced with success,” yawned one Illinois contemporary, “[Mormonism] would have excited our special wonder; as it is, nothing excites surprise.” But in Missouri and Illinois local tensions erupted in violence, and national concern intensified when Brigham Young—relatively safe in the refuge of Utah—announced a system of plural marriage in 1852. For the next forty years, from the popular press and pulpits alike, cries for the eradication of this “relic of barbarism” streamed forth from the pulpits, press, and party platforms. Then came concessions—but limited concessions—from both sides. Mormons abandoned polygamy and political isolationism. And America granted partial accommodation. The deal was signed in 1893—but it was a devil’s bargain. Here is what happened.

At the choral competition of the World’s Columbian Exposition held in Chicago, on Friday September 8, in front of packed crowds, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir dazzled the audience and the judges alike, to win the silver medal. (The general consensus of Mormon and non-Mormon alike was that they had actually earned the gold.) The recipients of rapturous acclaim, the choir had suddenly become America’s sweetheart. They were invited to provide the patriotic music for the placement of the Liberty Bell at the Chicago Exposition. Their farewell concert was standing room only, journalists raved to a receptive public about the singing sensation, and concert promoters lobbied the choir to tour the east. Suddenly, Mormons were not just legitimate, they were popular. And then, a funny thing happened on the way to the festivities. In conjunction with the grandiose Columbian Exposition, organizers had planned a World’s Parliament of Religion for September 11-22, 1893, in order to “promote and deepen the spirit of human brotherhood among religious men of diverse faiths.” Over three thousand invitations had been sent worldwide, to bring together representatives of every world faith and Christian denomination in a momentous gesture of interfaith respect and dialogue. Many faiths were underrepresented—but only one group was deliberately and conspicuously left out altogether. And that was, not unpredictably, the Mormons. So even while the choir was singing its way into history and America’s heart, the Mormon church was emphatically denied a voice in the nation’s first attempt at a comprehensive interfaith dialogue. What seemed like a contradiction was actually a compromise.

In the century since the Chicago fair, Mormons have been lauded for their choirs and their football. They are largely respected as good, decent, family-centered people, who are welcome to sing for presidents and dance with the stars—and everyone agrees to avoid theological questions. But as presidential nominations near, Romney’s candidacy threatens this compromise, because what a Mormon presidential candidate actuallybelieves seems far too important to table. And when Mormon theology enters the public discussion, the words Charles Dickens wrote in 1851 strike many as still apt: “What the Mormons do, seems to be excellent; what they say, is mostly nonsense.”

But this is only true because in acquiescing to the compromise, Mormons have largely left others to frame the theological discussion. In opting to emphasize Mormon culture over Mormon theology, Mormons have too often left the media and ministers free to select the most esoteric and idiosyncratic for ridicule. So jibes about Kolob and magic underwear usurp serious engagement, much as public knowledge about the Amish is confined to a two-dimensional caricature involving a horse and buggy. But members of a faith community should recognize themselves in any fair depiction. And it is the fundamentals of Mormonism that should ground any debate worth having about Mormon beliefs or Mormon membership in the Christian community. What are these fundamentals?

God is a personal entity, having a heart that beats in sympathy with human hearts, feeling our joy and sorrowing over our pain.
Men and women existed as spiritual beings in the presence of God before progressing to this mortal life.
Adam and Eve were noble progenitors of the human family, and their fall made possible human life in this realm. Men and women are born pure and innocent, with no taint of original sin. (We find plenty on our own).
God has the desire and the power to save, through his son Jesus Christ, the entire human family in a kingdom of heaven, and except for the most perversely unwilling, that will be our destiny.
Heaven will principally consist in the eternal duration of those relationships that matter most to us now: spouses, children, and friends.

None of these beliefs is relevant to a political candidate’s fitness for office. But they should be the starting point for any serious attempt to get at the core of Mormon belief. And there should be no compromise on that point.

Terryl Givens is Professor of Literature and Religion at the University of Richmond.

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

A Time of Unveiling -- A Lectionary Reflection for Transfiguration Sunday

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Cornwall) — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:54:00 +0000

2 Kings 2:1-12

2 Corinthians 4:3-6

Mark 9:2-10

A Time of Unveiling

Transfiguration Sunday brings to a close the journey we call Epiphany. Throughout this season we have considered the ways in which God is revealed to us in the person of Jesus. That which is veiled is unveiled. The Word is made flesh and dwells among us. The divine encounters the human and we are drawn into the presence of God. Now is the time of the unveiling, when at least for a moment we are allowed to see the glory of God, and in this moment the world is transformed.

In this Transfiguration moment there is a passing of the mantle and a bearing witness to this exchange. Elijah passes the mantle of prophethood to Elisha, with the prophets of the Jordan bearing witness. Then there’s Moses and Elijah in conversation with Jesus, essentially passing the prophetic mantle on to Jesus – as witnessed by three of disciples. And as Paul says to us we have been given the “light of the knowledge of God’s glory” as revealed in the “face of Jesus Christ.” How might we bear witness to the work of God and in that moment be transformed?

There is a strong connection between this passage in 2 Kings and the Transfiguration story in Mark 9. In one Elijah goes into the heavens leaving behind Elisha to carry on the work. In Mark Elijah and Moses both appear and then leave behind Jesus to carry on the work. Elijah is the prototypical prophet. He speaks truth to power and causes great angst in high places. He boldly speaks the message of God, which means that he’s not all that popular. But those who are attuned to his message, they are loyal. At least Elisha is loyal.

The passage in 2 Kings begins with a summary statement – It’s time for the LORD to take Elijah into heaven. His work is done. It’s time for another to pick it up. But when is the right moment. Elijah is accompanied by Elisha, and Elijah tells Elisha to stay behind, first at Gilgal, but Elisha won’t stay behind. Instead Elisha says: “As the LORD lives and as you live, I won’t leave you.” The same response is given at Bethel, after a group of prophets come out and tell Elisha that God is going to take away his master. That may be, but Elisha isn’t ready to talk about it. They go to Jericho, though Elijah again tells his disciple to stay behind. Elisha isn’t willing to abide this directive, because as long as God is alive and you are alive, I’m with you. They go to the Jordan and the same thing occurs; only this time there are fifty prophets who come out to meet them. When Elisha again refuses to stay behind, the prophets follow them to the river, though at a distance. Once there, Elijah takes off his coat, rolls it up, hits the water, dividing the river so that they can walk across on dry land.

Elisha has been true to his word. He will not abandon his master. His loyalty is resolute, but now the time comes when Elijah must depart. Now that they’ve arrived at the river of departure, Elijah asks his disciple and successor – what do you want from me – and Elisha responds: “Let me have twice your spirit.” This is a bold request. Is it brash? Is it a sense of personal need for power? Or is it simply a voicing of a desire to continue the prophetic work that he has witnessed? Elijah tells his disciple – “If you can see me when I’m taken from you, then it will be yours . . .” And when the fiery chariot arrives to take Elijah away, Elisha doesn’t flinch, but keeps his focus until he could no longer see Elijah and the chariot of heaven. Then he takes hold of his clothes and rends them in two, as a sign of grief. Now it is upon him. Something similar, it seems, happens in Acts 1, when the disciples continue looking into the heavens as Jesus ascends. The angels must snap them out of their gaze, so that they can continue on the work. Elisha grieves, but he must also continue on for he asked and shall receive the mantle of his master.

In Mark 9 we have Mark’s account of the Transfiguration. Together with Peter, James and John, Jesus goes to a high mountain. He is “translated” (CEB) or “transfigured before their eyes. The clothes are as bleached white, dazzling them. And Moses the Lawgiver and Elijah the prophet paramount appear and talk with Jesus. We’re never told what their talking about. As a baseball fan it has the appearance of a gathering at the mound for a strategy session. Whatever is the case, Mark wants us to realize that Jesus stands in important company. He is one who continues the ministries of Moses and Elijah. Their appearance serves to bear witness to his primacy. Peter seems to understand this. Like Elisha he is loyal and brash. Yes, he will flee when the time of trouble arrives, but he will also return and will take up the mantle.

In this setting, Peter feels the need to do something. He’s not sure what that should be so he offers to build tents or shrines for the three figures. Does he expect Moses and Elijah to camp out with them? Or is he seeking to create a place of reverence and even worship? Is he affirming Jesus’ place amongst the greats of Israel’s history? Does he understand Jesus to be the recipient of this mantle, that Jesus is the fulfillment or climax of Israel’s history? Mark says that Peter really didn’t know how to respond, so this was his best effort.

While all of this is going on a cloud overshadows them, even as a cloud overshadowed Moses and Elijah had disappeared into the clouds, and a voice from the cloud declared: “This is my Son, whom I dearly love. Listen to him!” At that moment Peter, James and John find themselves alone with Jesus. Does this mean that Jesus supersedes his predecessors? Some have taken it this way, and in doing so have denigrated Judaism. Does this mean that the witness of the Moses and Elijah has been sufficiently affirmed by God that their work is done, and Jesus can no go forward? We must ponder these questions. Whatever the case, Jesus is not ready for this revelation to be made known broadly. Not until after the resurrection will they be free to share this word. First things first!

I close with Paul, not because Paul supersedes these first two texts, but in part because the Old Testament reading and the Gospel reading fit together. But I think too that Paul is on to something. There is a sense of veiling and unveiling going on in these texts. Elisha must keep watching if he is to receive the mantle – keep your eyes on the prize. Peter must keep his eyes on Jesus if he is to fulfill his calling. They may not completely understand, but they have seen into the other side. They have crossed the river and climbed the mountain. They must process the realities they have observed and experience, but at the right time they must reveal what they have seen and heard. Now Paul’s word about the road to destruction is off-putting. It seems to suggest a sort of “double predestination” idea. God unveils the truth to some and keeps it veiled to others who are on the road to destruction. I would rather see this not as God veiling our eyes, but our unwillingness to see and hear. Elisha must keep focused. Some are willing to do so. Others get distracted and their lives end up on a road to destruction. I believe that even here God is able to redeem them, but are willing to hear the witness of God and follow it?

For Paul Jesus is the image of God. Yes, we are all created in the image of God, but Jesus is the full embodiment of that image. For Paul, Jesus is the second Adam, the one who walks in obedience and shows us the way to life. We have a choice – do we follow the first Adam or the second Adam? To follow the second Adam, for Paul, involves preaching not one’s self, but Christ as Lord. To do so is to be a slave for the sake of Jesus. Slavery is, for us, a rather problematic term. Our understanding of slavery is so defined by American ante-bellum slavery, and how Paul was used to uphold it, that we’re not comfortable with it. But, can we walk boldly, but humbly, with Jesus. Will we, like Elisha, stand firm, come what may? If so, then will we be the means by which the light will shine in the darkness? Paul closes with these words:

He is the One who shone in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory in the face of Jesus Christ.

Are we willing to look at the face of Jesus so that we might truly see God’s glory? I know that some of my co-religionists are uncomfortable with the emphasizing the uniqueness of Jesus. I know that in the context of religious pluralism that this emphasis is problematic, but if you remove Jesus from the center is there anything left? In our conversation on Islam, my Islamic scholar friend, answered the question of whether Muslims consider the Qur’an to be inerrant. This is, he said, an article of faith. You remove it, and the religion collapses, even as removing the divinity of Christ pulls the rug out from under Christianity.

So I wonder, with Paul and with Mark, are we ready to embrace a robust understanding of the person of Christ. When we look into his face, do we see the glory of God in a way that actually transforms our lives? Are we any different as a result of our confession? This doesn’t have to be seen in some kind of haughty superiority with regard to other faith traditions. The point is, am I a transformed person as a result of my engagement with Jesus? Or is this simply a game to play?

I close with a quote from venerable theologian John Cobb as recorded by Philip Clayton and Steven Knapp:

The more progressive denominations on the whole have been losing members and resources. There are many reasons. But I think the deepest one may be what we do and say does not seem to be terribly important. This is true with regard to our children whom we bring upon the church. They may have a positive attitude toward it, but they may not see any reason to give much, if any, of their time and energy to its support. (Quoted in The Predicament of Belief: Science, Philosophy, and Faith, p. 151).

For Paul, Elijah and Elisha, for Moses, and for Jesus, this is rather important. Is it true for us? Will it transfigure us as well?

What is a Minimalist Understanding of Church Membership?

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Cornwall) — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:40:00 +0000

Yesterday I asked the question: "What makes one a member of the church of Christ? I laid out an answer provided by Benjamin Hoadly, an 18th century Anglican bishop, who sought to provide a broad path, one that relied not on adherence to a complex statement of faith, but sincerity of belief in Christ. Disciples of Christ, as I noted, simply ask one to affirm the Great Confession: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." It is a confession that leaves room for different understandings of who Christ is.

I want to add a possibility offered by Philip Clayton and Steven Knapp in their book The Predicament of Belief: Science, Philosophy, and Faith. In this book, as I'll later lay out in a review, they address the continuing dilemma that many face today in regards to traditional claims about God, about Jesus, and about the Trinity. Suffering and evil, scientific discovery, and religious pluralism, all raise questions, and thus work against belief and joining the community. So, in response they offer a minimalist alternative, one that may provide a more hospitable context for becoming part of the community. But what would that look like in terms of church membership? What would a church look like that had less defined boundaries or that lives without creeds?

They write concerning the way in which many today enter the community. Rather than start with belief leading to action, this is reversed:

Participating in a church community and beginning to share its values becomes a path toward belief rather than a consequence of what one already believes. (In one author's pithy expression, "believe, behave, belong" is replaced by "belong, behave, believe.") A range of people-- those attracted to the Christian proposition, those who clearly affirm it, and those with even more robust affirmations of the unique revelation of God through Jesus Christ -- join together in a community associated with Jesus' name. They seek to live in ways consistent with his life and teachings, even while doubts may remain unresolved and the exact implications of his teachings only gradually become clear. Out of the evolving practices of worship, study, and discipleship, some degree of shared belief may well emerge, even if complete convergence of belief is unlikely. (p. 147).

Now, there is more to this discussion than may be apparent here, but as a formulation for gathering as church, is this sufficient? Is it necessary to have a fairly robust affirmation of the uniqueness of Jesus's relationship to God necessary? Is there a view of the resurrection that is necessary? Here the starting point is choosing to be in the community and then discerning what that means in terms of actions and beliefs. What say ye?

Andru Bemis in Concert at CWCC

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Cornwall) — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:07:00 +0000

Andru Bemis

In concert at

Central Woodward Christian Church

(Diciples of Christ)

3955 W Big Beaver Road, Troy, MI 48084

Sunday March 4, 2012

2:00 pm (doors open 1:30)

Since 2001, Andru Bemis has wandered the ends, edges and in-betweens of North America more times than he can count – by passenger train, foot, thumb, bicycle, bus, subway, ski and occasional aeroplane. Wearing a three-piece suit and a derby hat, he carries his beat-up instruments on his back; banjo, guitar, sometimes a fiddle or banjo-ukulele…Call him a “Folk” musician if you will. Bemis plays music for folks, simple as that. His unmistakable voice, lightning-fast banjo and expressive finger-picked guitar styles, quirky humor, engaging stage presence and exquisitely crafted tunes of travel, love and longing have earned Bemis a dedicated following through Mexico, Canada, the U.S. and beyond.

“Andru Bemis, Michigan’s premier neo folk artist…is a modern day train hopping, banjo slinging troubadour who has made a name for himself in small venues across the US. His charismatic live show gamers (accurate) comparisons to Arlo and Woody.” (This is Happening)

Check out his website for his full biography, links to hear his music and see some video clips.

www.andrubemis.com

Opening for Andru will be Central Woodward Christian Church's own Mary Margaret. Mary just released a new album and will share songs from it, before Andru comes on.

General Admission, free will donation basket will be available.

For directions see map at: www.centralwoodward.org

What makes one a member of the church of Christ?

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Cornwall) — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:31:00 +0000

Does what one believe about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and any number of other things determine whether one is a church member? Or is it something else? Should the list be long or short. Disciples, my tradition, have taken a non-creedal perspective. We require as a statement of faith the Good Confession of Peter -- "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" (Mt. 16:16). This simple non-creedal perspective has antecedents in John Locke's writings and those of his followers, including Benjamin Hoadly, an 18th Century Latitudinarian Anglican Bishop. Hoadly emphasized sincerity.

I'm going to post later on what Philip Clayton and Steven Knapp call a minimalist personal theism as the basis for being church, but I thought I'd post first from Hoadly, whose works I studied during my Ph.D. studies (though my focus was on Hoadly's maximalist opponents).

It is useful to start with Hoadly's understanding of authority. It's helpful to note that he was seeking a way of accommodating into the national church those persons who were of Presbyterian and Congregationalist sympathies. While he affirmed the role of the government in ordering the religious arena, he believed that ultimately it was the conscience of the individual not the rulings of the church that should prevail.

So, he writes that Christ is the sole law giver and judge with regard to matters of conscience and salvation. In a pamphlet entitled the Nature of the Kingdom, or Church of Christ (1717).

And in the sense therefore, "His kingdom is not of this World;" that he hath, in those points, left behind him, no visible, human authority; no Vicegerents, who can be said properly to supply his place; no interpreters, upon whom his subjects are absolutely to depend; no judges over the consciences or Religion of his people. For if this were so, that any such absolute Vicegerent authority, either of making new laws, or interpreting old ones, or judging his subjects, in religious matters, are lodged in any men upon earth; the consequence would be, that what still retains the name of the church of Christ, would not be the Kingdom of Christ, but the Kingdom of those men, visited with such authority. (The Works of Benjamin Hoadly, 1773, 2:404).

Further Hoadly defines the church and its membership in this way:

And the notion of the Church of Christ, which at first was only the number, small or great, of those who believed him to be the Messiah; or of those who subjected themselves to Him, as their King, in the affair of Religion; having since that time been so diversified by the various alterations it hath undergone, that it is almost impossible so much as to number up the many inconsistent images that have come by daily additions, to be united together in it: nothing I think, can be more useful, than to consider the same thing under some other image, which hath not been so much used; nor consequently so much defaced. (Works, 2:404).

For Hoadly there is no perfectly defined version of the Church of Christ. We have what we have, and the key is to be faithful and to practice our faith with sincerity. Thus, concerning the peace and unity of the church and Christ's realm, he writes:

The peace of Christ's Kingdom is a manly and reasonable peace; built upon charity, and Love, and mutual forbearance, and receiving one another, as God receives us. As for any other peace; founded upon a submission of our honesty, as well as our understandings, it is falsely so called. (Works, 2:409).

As you might expect, Hoadly was rather controversial, and not well appreciated in his time, though he was a favorite of some in the royal family, so he did rise to prominence. Still, he wrote in a way that offered later Christians an opportunity to broaden their horizons. There is much affinity, for instance, between Hoadly's Latitudinarianism and that of Alexander and Thomas Campbell (they also had an affinity for Locke).

The question is -- can this minimalist view of doctrine be sufficient for the existence and health of the church?

For more on Hoadly see William Gibson's Enlightenment Prelate: Benjamin Hoadly, 1676-1761,
(James Clarke, 2004).

The Virtue of Dialogue -- A Review

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Cornwall) — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:41:00 +0000

THE VIRTUE OF DIALOGUE: Conversation as a Hopeful Practice of Church Communities. By C. Christopher Smith. Englewood, CO: Patheos Press, 2012. (eBook).

Conversation: If we’re willing to engage in it, it might transform a congregation. But, are we ready and willing to take the steps required to truly engage in conversation, to listen to one another, even when one vehemently disagrees with the other?

We live in an age that demands immediate results, that has become increasingly segregated, not only along ethnic and linguistic lines, but also political and generational lines. The old homogeneous principle that Church Growth enthusiasts hailed as the key to success, has been successful, but I’m not sure that the results have been beneficial to society or the church. We also live in an age where civility in conversation is a rare commodity. I realize that civility has always been something difficult to attain and maintain, but it seems as if things have gotten out of hand, making fruitful conversation difficult at best. But, there is hope and there are models that can guide us, if we’re willing to engage and be patient along the way.

Part of our problem is that in our embrace of democracy, which can mean the rule of the majority (or in some cases the tyranny of a noisy minority), we find it difficult to move toward consensus. There are faith communities that work on this model, but few try it – I’ve yet to really try it, but it’s a model that is suggestive of possibilities. It is a model that is described and illustrated in a new e-book written by Chris Smith, editor of the Englewood Review of Books and a member of the Englewood Christian Church of Indianapolis, which is the focus of the book.

Before I comment further on this brief but insightful book, I need to reveal that I’ve been a regular contributor to the Englewood Review of Books, and Chris has reviewed my own books. Having added this caveat, I will also say that what I have to say about the book isn’t some kind of quid pro quo arrangement where I say nice things about his work so he’ll nice things about mine! It is a book, brief though it may be, that needs to be read with care.

Chris tells the story of the transformation of an aging urban congregation that in its heyday was a mega-church and one of the leading congregations of its tradition. Over time the surrounding community began to change. The leading employers closed factories or downsized. The population declined and then changed. Many of the members of the Englewood Church moved to the suburbs, and commuted to the church. Despite various attempts to adapt and grow, usually making use of church growth principles, the church found it difficult to move forward and membership dropped to about 200. The future looked bleak, but then a conversation began that would ultimately prove transformative.

This conversation that is the subject of Chris’s book began on Sunday evenings as a replacement for a fading Sunday evening service – what he describes as Sunday morning lite. What is intriguing is that this conversation began in the mid-1990s and continues to this day, expanding beyond that Sunday evening slot. During these conversations, congregants, and members of the community that surrounded the church, gathered to discuss scripture, theology, the community, and ministry. These conversations often were difficult and contentious, but they helped move the congregation to a new way of being present in the community. It helped them reenvision their ministry as a church, even if not everyone agreed as to the nature and purpose of the church.

I approached this book with deep interest, in large part because I pastor what one might consider the remains of a former mega-church. Like Englewood, Central Woodward was once a leading congregation in our denomination. It was a church that provided national leaders to our denomination and to the ecumenical movement. It was also viewed as the “cathedral” for Michigan Disciples. But, as Detroit changed the church found it difficult to adapt, and finally it followed the remaining membership into the suburbs. It was a choice made by many predominantly white congregations during the 1960s and 1970s, though it probably did so a decade too late. Unlike Central Woodward, however, Englewood stayed put in its neighborhood, though its future looked grim.

The church has not returned to its former mega-church status, which we’re introduced to in the first chapter of the book, but it has embraced its call to be present in the community and developed ministries appropriate to its setting. It has involved itself in creating businesses, housing, and ministries to the neediest in the community. It has taken root in the community, and it’s been able to do so because it committed itself to taking the long road of conversation that began in the mid 1990s.

Chris speaks of conversation being an essential practice of the church, where we “learn to set aside our personal agendas and talk together in Christ-like ways” (location 121). But as is clear this doesn’t happen overnight. The conversations were hampered by the fragmentation present in the congregation that reflected a “culture of individualized faith.” Participants brought with them their various theological, social and political views, along with “an emotional attachment to these convictions.” All of this took place as our culture lost its ability to engage in conversation. As Chris describes the realities of this conversation one wonders how they stuck with it.

Our conversation in those earliest years was extraordinarily volatile. People frequently got angry and yelled at others; some would get up and walk out. The conflict was intense, and not everyone was prepared to handle it. Some members quit coming on Sunday nights; others left the church completely. (loc. 258-259)

Being that this was a congregation with evangelical inclinations some of the most volatile conversations centered on the nature of salvation. Some focused on personalistic views while others sought a broader less individualistic vision. By the time that Chris got involved, these conversations had been going on for eight years, and the climate was still difficult. And yet they persisted in the conversations. What ultimately sustained them was the commitment to each other and God’s work in that community. They didn’t agree on a lot of items, and they fought about them, but they remained together, engaging in conversation. Eventually the conversation became more civil and structured, but the work has not ended.

As I read the book, I have to admit that I’m not sure I’m ready to take this path. I can be rather averse to conflict, and thus I might shy away from engaging in such volatile conversation. Besides, the culture of democracy that pervades our congregations makes a consensus form of decision-making difficult. It’s rather scary, and yet there is great attractiveness to this vision. It is a reminder that much of our functional church life is rooted less in spirituality and more in modern institutional life. Our churches look more like legislatures than a council of spiritual leaders.

Chris has provided us with an introduction to the kinds of conversations that can be transformative, even if they’re not easy to engage in. These are conversations that require much patience and willingness to work hard at achieving our goals. Still, we’re blessed to have this primer that can encourage us and guide us toward a much more healthy way of being church, one that is rooted theologically in scripture, and one that allows us to move beyond individualistic versions of our faith. For this we are grateful.

A Valentine's Day Reflection

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Cornwall) — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:37:00 +0000

It's Valentine's Day, a day to spend money on flowers, cards, candy, and perhaps a big dinner, all in the name of romance. I've been married to the same person for almost 29 years. We may not put on the dog for Valentine's Day, but we find our ways to rekindle the love that first bloomed nearly 30 years ago.

While Valentine's Day celebrates romance, and romance is something worth celebrating and enjoying, a relationship is more than romance. Romances come and go. They can be long lasting or fleeting, but pure romance lacks the sustainability for the long haul. I'm concerned that in our society that we have over hyped romance, to the detriment of long-term relationships. There's a growing trend, in my view, of people falling in love with being in love.

As I look back over the years, I can see many rough patches. These were spots that could have easily derailed our marriage. But, somehow, we found a way to move forward.

So, here's my thought for the day:

Enjoy romance, while it lasts.
But build a relationship that lasts and lasts.

Thirty years is a lot

But, 60 and 70, now that's really a lot.

My poetry may not be all that hot,
but I'm celebrating a love that remains hot.

That really sounds bad, but hey, maybe I've made a point. And so today, let's celebrate those folks that still hold hands after 70 years together!!!