I’ve never met Matt Maupin. Our daughter, who graduated from Glen Este High School in 2003, is acquainted with him and remembers that at Sam’s Club, where they both worked, Matt was unfailingly kind, always encouraging. Away on a college internship, our daughter cried when she saw the videotape released by Matt’s captors on network news.
I suppose that like all people in the tristate this morning, my thoughts have been with Matt. The execution of Paul M. Johnson, Jr., by a cell of al-Qaida yesterday, only heightens the sense of danger one has for Matt Maupin.
It also can lend power to our prayers, I think. In one of my favorite books, Prayer by Ole Hallesby, we’re told that prayer consists of two things: helplessness and faith. Those two elements have certainly been present whenever I have genuinely prayed. And they’re present in my prayers for Matt Maupin today.
Often, when we pray, we simply ask God to bless what we’ve already decided that we’re going to do. Or, we ask God to endorse our solution to a problem.
But when we’re helpless, we realize that only God knows best. Until we’re helpless, we won’t get out of God’s way and allow Him to do His will.
The truly helpless person gives God a blank check and says, “It’s too big for me, God. Please take control of the situation. If there’s something I need to do, I’ll do it; just show me. But I want You to call the shots, come up with the plan, do what’s best.”
As to that other element of genuine prayer, faith, Jesus says that we don’t need much faith when we pray. He says that with faith as small as a tiny mustard seed, mountains can be moved.
So, this morning, I prayed again for Matt Maupin. I prayed for his safe release. I prayed that God would comfort and encourage his family as they endure the agony of waiting.
But I also prayed that wherever Matt may be right now, that Jesus will go to him, wrap His burly carpenter arms around Matt, and let Matt know that God has not forgotten him. I asked Jesus to assure Matt that he is loved by God, and also by his family and friends. I asked God also to provide for Matt’s physical needs as he endures captivity. And I prayed that God will open the hearts of his captors and decide to set Matt free.
I look forward to the day when Matt Maupin can return to his family and friends and to our community. Right now, I feel helpless and I feel trust. I’m helpless because this is a situation bigger than any of us, a situation unfolding thousands of miles away from us in Union Township. And I feel trust, faith, not in my own mountain-moving faith; I feel faith in the mighty Mountain Mover. We need God, the Mountain Mover, not just to obtain Matt’s release, but to provide for Matt’s needs while still being held.
No matter how discouraging the news these past few days, let’s keep offering up our prayers to God for Matt Maupin. God is the one Who can light Matt’s way home!
Saturday, June 19, 2004
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
A New Approach to Naming Our Greatest Presidents
An intriguing article about a recent poll conducted among historians to determine who the greatest US Presidents has appeared recently in Opinion Journal. What makes this poll so different from others I've seen is that it makes an effort to screen out various biases, whether those created by ideology or others by proximity in time. I think the collective judgment of historians on the worst president was right on: James Buchanan. (In fact, earlier today, my son asked me who I thought our worst president was and it was no problem naming Buchanan, who treated his duties with malignant neglect, as the bottom of the barrel.)
The historians judged Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt as great presidents. Frankly, I would put Washington in a category of his own. Twice in an illustrious public career, Washington walked away from the implicit possibility of absolute power. He taught the world how power can be peacefully transferred and how to function as the elected leader of a nation-state.
Eisenhower deserves more credit for greatness than he gets. I hope that the recent release of many of his presidential notes, memos, and letters will wake people up to the fact that he was a shrewd and great presidential leader. After his quick wrap-up of Harry Truman's war in Korea, Ike presided over eight years when the U.S. was at peace, an almost impossible feat at a time of unprecedented tension owing to Soviet aggressiveness. As Eisenhower wrote in a post-presidential letter, that didn't happen by accident. Eisenhower did have a tragic blind spot to the call for equality for African-Americans, surely something that must be considered in assessing his presidency.
Of course, assessments of greatness are subjective. But it is amazing how, with the passage of time and adequate study, people of divergent views will often agree on who our greatest leaders have been.
The historians judged Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt as great presidents. Frankly, I would put Washington in a category of his own. Twice in an illustrious public career, Washington walked away from the implicit possibility of absolute power. He taught the world how power can be peacefully transferred and how to function as the elected leader of a nation-state.
Eisenhower deserves more credit for greatness than he gets. I hope that the recent release of many of his presidential notes, memos, and letters will wake people up to the fact that he was a shrewd and great presidential leader. After his quick wrap-up of Harry Truman's war in Korea, Ike presided over eight years when the U.S. was at peace, an almost impossible feat at a time of unprecedented tension owing to Soviet aggressiveness. As Eisenhower wrote in a post-presidential letter, that didn't happen by accident. Eisenhower did have a tragic blind spot to the call for equality for African-Americans, surely something that must be considered in assessing his presidency.
Of course, assessments of greatness are subjective. But it is amazing how, with the passage of time and adequate study, people of divergent views will often agree on who our greatest leaders have been.
What About Gay Marriage? (A Final Version)
I was set to preside at a wedding ceremony. Just before its scheduled start, the groom told me, "Mark, we forgot to get a marriage license. But we figured it was more important to be married in the sight of God than to have our marriage recognized by the State of Ohio."
"You figured right," I told him. "Let's get this wedding started!"
Under Ohio law, I'm authorized to perform legally recognized marital unions. As a result, couples can claim all the legal benefits (and be held to all the legal responsibilities) that the state assigns to married couples.
But I tell each couple over whose wedding I preside that I attach little significance to all that legal stuff. It's far more important that couples be truly married than that they be truly legal.
Marriage truly begins when two people, seeking God's help and the prayers of the Church, their families, and their friends, make public commitments to lives of loving faithfulness to one another. (And who renew those commitments, when they fail in them.)
I bring this up because there is a lot of talk these days about whether states should recognize "gay marriages." I want to make two points on this issue.
One: From a Biblical perspective, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. As one person put it, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." As a Christian pastor, I would not preside over a gay wedding and would fight any mandate to do so, because I believe that it is contrary to the will of God. (For an extensive, scholarly, and sensitive discussion of this subject, you can read the book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice by Robert A. J. Gagnon.)
Two: It bothers me to see how many in the Church approach this question as a political issue, becoming invovled in lobbying. That's just caving in to the world's definition of marriage as a primarily legal or financial arrangement. Christians believe that marriage is a sacred covenant between God, a man, and a woman.
The Church's mission isn't political. The Church's mission is to call people into a personal relationship with the God made known to the world through Jesus Christ, helping people turn from sin and receive new life from Christ.
If the Church focused on its mission, many of the moral issues that are being addressed politically today would not even be political issues.
This may seem like a strange perspective coming from a preacher who once ran for political office. But the Church is not a political organization.
Church political efforts may in fact, reflect a kind of atheism, a lack of trust in God and in God's way of doing things. God's usual method for changing people's minds and hearts isn't the law that political activity seeks to change. Instead, God commissions His followers to go into the world, live authentically for Him, and tell others about the eternal changes God makes in the lives of people who turn from sin and follow Jesus Christ.
That isn't glamorous and it takes time. But it, rather than the coercion that church political activists of both the right and left seek to chisel into state and federal law, is how God changes lives for the better. God persuades us through the faithful love and witness of committed Jesus' followers.
Marriage is a sacred relationship between God, a man, and a woman. Nothing will ever change that, no matter what laws go on the books. (Although, solely as a personal opinion, I have to say that I have no objection to provision being made for civil unions of various kinds if for no other reason than to protect people's civil and economic rights. It's these factors, more than anything else that give the state an interest in people's most intimate relationships, anyway.) But, I believe that if we Christians will strive to be faithful in living for and sharing Christ with others, marriage and every other facet of life in our world will be the better for it.
"You figured right," I told him. "Let's get this wedding started!"
Under Ohio law, I'm authorized to perform legally recognized marital unions. As a result, couples can claim all the legal benefits (and be held to all the legal responsibilities) that the state assigns to married couples.
But I tell each couple over whose wedding I preside that I attach little significance to all that legal stuff. It's far more important that couples be truly married than that they be truly legal.
Marriage truly begins when two people, seeking God's help and the prayers of the Church, their families, and their friends, make public commitments to lives of loving faithfulness to one another. (And who renew those commitments, when they fail in them.)
I bring this up because there is a lot of talk these days about whether states should recognize "gay marriages." I want to make two points on this issue.
One: From a Biblical perspective, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. As one person put it, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." As a Christian pastor, I would not preside over a gay wedding and would fight any mandate to do so, because I believe that it is contrary to the will of God. (For an extensive, scholarly, and sensitive discussion of this subject, you can read the book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice by Robert A. J. Gagnon.)
Two: It bothers me to see how many in the Church approach this question as a political issue, becoming invovled in lobbying. That's just caving in to the world's definition of marriage as a primarily legal or financial arrangement. Christians believe that marriage is a sacred covenant between God, a man, and a woman.
The Church's mission isn't political. The Church's mission is to call people into a personal relationship with the God made known to the world through Jesus Christ, helping people turn from sin and receive new life from Christ.
If the Church focused on its mission, many of the moral issues that are being addressed politically today would not even be political issues.
This may seem like a strange perspective coming from a preacher who once ran for political office. But the Church is not a political organization.
Church political efforts may in fact, reflect a kind of atheism, a lack of trust in God and in God's way of doing things. God's usual method for changing people's minds and hearts isn't the law that political activity seeks to change. Instead, God commissions His followers to go into the world, live authentically for Him, and tell others about the eternal changes God makes in the lives of people who turn from sin and follow Jesus Christ.
That isn't glamorous and it takes time. But it, rather than the coercion that church political activists of both the right and left seek to chisel into state and federal law, is how God changes lives for the better. God persuades us through the faithful love and witness of committed Jesus' followers.
Marriage is a sacred relationship between God, a man, and a woman. Nothing will ever change that, no matter what laws go on the books. (Although, solely as a personal opinion, I have to say that I have no objection to provision being made for civil unions of various kinds if for no other reason than to protect people's civil and economic rights. It's these factors, more than anything else that give the state an interest in people's most intimate relationships, anyway.) But, I believe that if we Christians will strive to be faithful in living for and sharing Christ with others, marriage and every other facet of life in our world will be the better for it.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
More Whatcha Reading?
Over the past two days, I finished reading Rutherford B. Hayes by Hans L. Trefousse and in preparation for my upcoming Sunday message, I read two short books: the classic, Good Grief by Granger Westberg and Five Cries of Grief: One Family's Journey to Healing After the Tragic Death of a Son by Merton and Irene Strommen.
A few thoughts and quotes from each...
Hayes is an interesting figure. His election in 1876 was the subject of great dispute. His Democratic challenger, Samuel J. Tilden, amassed a greater popular vote. But the results of the election were not decided upon until long after the ballots had been cast. Particularly controversial were the votes of African-Americans in Florida. Does all of this read like deja vu all over again?
In truth, the parallels between the Hayes-Tilden race of 1876 and the Bush-Gore race of 2000 are superficial. Back in Hayes' day, the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, was widely seen as being the advocate for Blacks, while the Democratic Party had yet to shake off its racist past. Democrats of that era didn't want the votes of African-Americans to be counted, not only because of their prejudices, but also because Blacks would have voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Republicans and Hayes.
Ultimately, an electoral commission decided by a one-vote majority that Hayes was the winner of the presidency. Many Democrats continued to harbor resentments against Hayes throughout his single term in office and for the rest of his life.
Hayes was a champion of civil service reform, pacifying the South, equal rights for African-Americans, and the kind of progressive reform of American business that later became a trademark of the Republican Party under Theodore Roosevelt.
Although he entered the White House under a cloud, Hayes emerged four years later---he had pledged in 1876 that he would serve only one term---as a popular president whose policies were affirmed in the 1880 election of a Republican President and Congress.
Perhaps no American president before Jimmy Carter---with the possible exception of Grover Cleveland---had a more productive, active, or publicly meaningful life after his time in office than Hayes. He gave his efforts to a number of important causes, especially to education. (He even served on the Board of Trustees of my alma mater, The Ohio State University.)
Trefousse writes of the many worthy efforts in which Hayes was involved and then says:
In this era of a large middle class and concern over the "death tax," Hayes' flirtation with limits on inheritance would be anathema. (And rightly so.) But his concern about the establishment of an American aristocracy is a typical, and appropriate, concern of conservative Republicans.
After all, it was a wealthy Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, who, a generation after Hayes was in office, would rail against "malefactors of great wealth." TR did more than rail: he actively broke up trusts and monopolies.
And he did so not because he was a raging socialist who wanted to bring down the free enterprise system. Roosevelt wanted to preserve that system. The monopolists, who have their modern counterparts, were the ones opposed to free enterprise and the cost reductions and product innovation that result. In his book, Theodore Rex, the second volume of his biography of Roosevelt, Edmund Morris quotes one of the monopolists of the day claiming that by controlling markets, mega-corporations were sparing consumers the brain-addling dilemma of choosing between competing products and services.
Reformers like Hayes and TR were responsible for conserving the best in America, keeping "malefactors of great wealth" from becoming unbridled American royalty. The added benefit to their party of course, is that their reforms secured popular support. Hayes surely had this in mind; in his 1877 Inaugural Address, he said, "He serves his party best who serves his country best."
The reform-mindedness of conservatives like Hayes and more especially Theodore Roosevelt, were responsible for a Republican domination of the White House that, with the exceptions of Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson, held from the presidencies of Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865) all the way through that of Herbert Hoover (1929-1933). Had later Republican presidents like Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover heeded the lessons of history, they would have seen how imperative it is for conservatives to take the lead in reform, in conserving what is best from the past in order to do things better in the future. The Great Depression might have even been avoided.
Liberals have long been upset at the reforming efforts of Theodore Roosevelt, feeling that he co-opted Democratic progressives like William Jennings Bryan. One book that gives vent to this view is The Triumph of Conservatism by the New Left historian, Gabriel Kolko.
Reform is an inherently conservative pursuit. The revolutionary wants to do away with the old; the reformer wishes to conserve, while improving, it. King Josiah, in Old Testament times instituted reform, not to throw out "the faith of his fathers," but to preserve it for the next generation. Martin Luther has been aptly described by insightful historians as a "conservative reformer." He sought to unleash true, Biblical faith in a Church laden with cultural and legalistic accretions.
Rutherford B. Hayes was a reformer. We could use a few conservative reformers today.
Merton P. Strommen is one of the most distinguished and helpful voices in Lutheran Christian circles today. He's a pastor, research psychologist, and founder of the Search Institute, which has blazed the trail in showing communities how to nurture young people. His wife, A. Irene Strommen, teaches peer counseling and parenting with the Augsburg Youth and Family Institute.
Back in 1986, the Strommens' fifth and youngest son, twenty-five year old David, was struck by lightning on a Colorado mountain. He died immediately. Seven years later, the Strommens presented their journey from the moment of David's death. Each chapter presents first, Irene's and then, Merton's, reflections on that journey. The book is organized by those five "cries," which they explain early on:
As I reflect on the Strommens' list and their insistence that such cries can crop up at any time in various ways throughout the journey of grief, it matches my own observations and experiences.
This is a poignant book that refuses to sugar coat, but is shot-through with a resilient faith in Jesus Christ.
Granger E. Westberg was a pastor, hospital chaplain, and college professor who wrote Good Grief, destined to be regarded as a classic, back in 1962. It's a short little book and the writing isn't eloquent. At times, it feels a bit dated. But Westberg seems on target to me when he says that there are such things as bad grief and good grief. As he puts it:
Grief, which he insists can be triggered by everything from job transfers to death in the family, is "good," he claims in the Preface when:
Westberg then proceeds to delineate ten stages of grief, culminating in the four outcomes listed above. Westberg, in an understated way, shows how faith in God contributes to our grief coming to a "good" place.
Jesus tells us that there really is such a thing as good grief when, in the Beatitudes, He says:
A few thoughts and quotes from each...
Hayes is an interesting figure. His election in 1876 was the subject of great dispute. His Democratic challenger, Samuel J. Tilden, amassed a greater popular vote. But the results of the election were not decided upon until long after the ballots had been cast. Particularly controversial were the votes of African-Americans in Florida. Does all of this read like deja vu all over again?
In truth, the parallels between the Hayes-Tilden race of 1876 and the Bush-Gore race of 2000 are superficial. Back in Hayes' day, the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, was widely seen as being the advocate for Blacks, while the Democratic Party had yet to shake off its racist past. Democrats of that era didn't want the votes of African-Americans to be counted, not only because of their prejudices, but also because Blacks would have voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Republicans and Hayes.
Ultimately, an electoral commission decided by a one-vote majority that Hayes was the winner of the presidency. Many Democrats continued to harbor resentments against Hayes throughout his single term in office and for the rest of his life.
Hayes was a champion of civil service reform, pacifying the South, equal rights for African-Americans, and the kind of progressive reform of American business that later became a trademark of the Republican Party under Theodore Roosevelt.
Although he entered the White House under a cloud, Hayes emerged four years later---he had pledged in 1876 that he would serve only one term---as a popular president whose policies were affirmed in the 1880 election of a Republican President and Congress.
Perhaps no American president before Jimmy Carter---with the possible exception of Grover Cleveland---had a more productive, active, or publicly meaningful life after his time in office than Hayes. He gave his efforts to a number of important causes, especially to education. (He even served on the Board of Trustees of my alma mater, The Ohio State University.)
Trefousse writes of the many worthy efforts in which Hayes was involved and then says:
Another one of his causes was the control of the growing inequality of wealth. At a time when theories of laissez-faire predominated, and when it was believed that the iron law of wages could not be disturbed, to say nothing of the ever-present ideas of the survival of the fittest, [Hayes'] concern about this subject was quite unusual and forward-looking...Believing that in America the development of a permanent aristocracy of inherited wealth should not be allowed, he thought the answer might be a limitation on inheritance with the public the beneficiary of the remainder of the estate.
In this era of a large middle class and concern over the "death tax," Hayes' flirtation with limits on inheritance would be anathema. (And rightly so.) But his concern about the establishment of an American aristocracy is a typical, and appropriate, concern of conservative Republicans.
After all, it was a wealthy Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, who, a generation after Hayes was in office, would rail against "malefactors of great wealth." TR did more than rail: he actively broke up trusts and monopolies.
And he did so not because he was a raging socialist who wanted to bring down the free enterprise system. Roosevelt wanted to preserve that system. The monopolists, who have their modern counterparts, were the ones opposed to free enterprise and the cost reductions and product innovation that result. In his book, Theodore Rex, the second volume of his biography of Roosevelt, Edmund Morris quotes one of the monopolists of the day claiming that by controlling markets, mega-corporations were sparing consumers the brain-addling dilemma of choosing between competing products and services.
Reformers like Hayes and TR were responsible for conserving the best in America, keeping "malefactors of great wealth" from becoming unbridled American royalty. The added benefit to their party of course, is that their reforms secured popular support. Hayes surely had this in mind; in his 1877 Inaugural Address, he said, "He serves his party best who serves his country best."
The reform-mindedness of conservatives like Hayes and more especially Theodore Roosevelt, were responsible for a Republican domination of the White House that, with the exceptions of Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson, held from the presidencies of Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865) all the way through that of Herbert Hoover (1929-1933). Had later Republican presidents like Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover heeded the lessons of history, they would have seen how imperative it is for conservatives to take the lead in reform, in conserving what is best from the past in order to do things better in the future. The Great Depression might have even been avoided.
Liberals have long been upset at the reforming efforts of Theodore Roosevelt, feeling that he co-opted Democratic progressives like William Jennings Bryan. One book that gives vent to this view is The Triumph of Conservatism by the New Left historian, Gabriel Kolko.
Reform is an inherently conservative pursuit. The revolutionary wants to do away with the old; the reformer wishes to conserve, while improving, it. King Josiah, in Old Testament times instituted reform, not to throw out "the faith of his fathers," but to preserve it for the next generation. Martin Luther has been aptly described by insightful historians as a "conservative reformer." He sought to unleash true, Biblical faith in a Church laden with cultural and legalistic accretions.
Rutherford B. Hayes was a reformer. We could use a few conservative reformers today.
Merton P. Strommen is one of the most distinguished and helpful voices in Lutheran Christian circles today. He's a pastor, research psychologist, and founder of the Search Institute, which has blazed the trail in showing communities how to nurture young people. His wife, A. Irene Strommen, teaches peer counseling and parenting with the Augsburg Youth and Family Institute.
Back in 1986, the Strommens' fifth and youngest son, twenty-five year old David, was struck by lightning on a Colorado mountain. He died immediately. Seven years later, the Strommens presented their journey from the moment of David's death. Each chapter presents first, Irene's and then, Merton's, reflections on that journey. The book is organized by those five "cries," which they explain early on:
...we found that the oft-quoted grief stages of Elisabeth Kubler-Ross did not fit out grief journey. True, her conceptual model may describe the stages through which grief progresses in linear fashion for persons coping with terminal disease. But for us and others whose accounts we have read, the stage theory is misleading. Rather than passing through stages in sequential fashion, we experienced at different times varying intensities of these facets of grief:
the cry of pain
the cry of longing
the cry for supportive love
the cry for understanding
the cry for significance
As I reflect on the Strommens' list and their insistence that such cries can crop up at any time in various ways throughout the journey of grief, it matches my own observations and experiences.
This is a poignant book that refuses to sugar coat, but is shot-through with a resilient faith in Jesus Christ.
Granger E. Westberg was a pastor, hospital chaplain, and college professor who wrote Good Grief, destined to be regarded as a classic, back in 1962. It's a short little book and the writing isn't eloquent. At times, it feels a bit dated. But Westberg seems on target to me when he says that there are such things as bad grief and good grief. As he puts it:
Suffering is not good, but you need not be devastated by it.
Grief, which he insists can be triggered by everything from job transfers to death in the family, is "good," he claims in the Preface when:
1. We come out of our grief experience at a slightly better level of maturity than before.
2. We come out of our grief as deeper persons, because we have been down in the depths of despair and know what it is like.
3. We come out of it stronger, for we have had to learn how to use our spiritual muscles to climb the rugged mountain trails.
4. We come out of it better able to help others. We have walked through the valley of the shadow of grief. We can understand.
Westberg then proceeds to delineate ten stages of grief, culminating in the four outcomes listed above. Westberg, in an understated way, shows how faith in God contributes to our grief coming to a "good" place.
Jesus tells us that there really is such a thing as good grief when, in the Beatitudes, He says:
"Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted." (Matthew 5:4)
What About Gay Marriage?
[This is a column I've just submitted to the Community Press newspapers.]
Not long ago, I was scheduled to preside at a wedding ceremony. Just before things were to start, the groom told me, "Mark, we forgot to get a marriage license." Before I could respond, he went on, "But we figured it was more important to be married in the sight of God than to have our marriage recognized by the State of Ohio."
"You figured right," I told him. "Let's get this wedding started!"
Under the laws of Ohio, through the offices of the Secretary of State, I'm authorized, in legalese, to "solemnize marriages." It means that I can perform legally recognized marital unions in the State of Ohio and can sign papers to that effect. As a result, couples can claim all the legal benefits (and be held to all the legal responsibilities) that the state assigns to married couples.
But what I try to underscore with each couple over whose wedding I preside is that I attach little significance to all that legal stuff. It's far more important that couples be truly married than that they be truly legal.
Marriage only begins when two people, seeking God's help and the prayers of the Church, their families, and their friends, make public commitments to lives of loving faithfulness to one another. (And who commit themselves to turning back, or repenting, when they fail to be loving or faithful.)
I bring all of this up because there is a lot of talk these days about whether states should recognize gay marriages or not.
I want to make two points, which taken together are bound to anger everyone, I suppose.
One: From a Biblical perspective, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. As one person put it, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." As a Christian pastor, I would not preside over a gay wedding because I believe that it is contrary to the will of God. (For an extensive, scholarly, and sensitive discussion of this subject, you might want to read the book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice by Robert A. J. Gagnon.)
Two: As a Christian, I'm not exercised over efforts to make gay marriages legal. The state's interest in marriage relates basically to things like property and finances, responsibility and liability. The state recognizes marriage so that basically, it can act as a referee between couples and the world and among couples when marriages go bust. That isn't the Christian's interest in marriage at all.
If the state should legalize gay marriages, I couldn't then be forced to perform a gay wedding any more than I can be forced to perform heterosexual unions now.
A lot of Christians today implore political decision-makers to chisel definitions of marriage into law or even into the Constitution. They may be right. But these efforts might also reflect a kind of atheism, a lack of trust in God and in God's way of doing things.
God's usual method for changing people's minds and hearts isn't civil law. Instead, God commissions His followers to go into the world, live authentically for Him, and tell others about the eternal changes God makes in the lives of people who turn from sin and follow Jesus Christ. That isn't glamorous. But it, rather than legal coercion, is how God changes lives for the better.
Marriage is a sacred relationship between God, a man, and a woman. Nothing will ever change that, no matter what laws go on the books. If we Christians will simply strive to be faithful in living for and sharing Christ with others, marriage and every other facet of life in our world will be the better for it.
Not long ago, I was scheduled to preside at a wedding ceremony. Just before things were to start, the groom told me, "Mark, we forgot to get a marriage license." Before I could respond, he went on, "But we figured it was more important to be married in the sight of God than to have our marriage recognized by the State of Ohio."
"You figured right," I told him. "Let's get this wedding started!"
Under the laws of Ohio, through the offices of the Secretary of State, I'm authorized, in legalese, to "solemnize marriages." It means that I can perform legally recognized marital unions in the State of Ohio and can sign papers to that effect. As a result, couples can claim all the legal benefits (and be held to all the legal responsibilities) that the state assigns to married couples.
But what I try to underscore with each couple over whose wedding I preside is that I attach little significance to all that legal stuff. It's far more important that couples be truly married than that they be truly legal.
Marriage only begins when two people, seeking God's help and the prayers of the Church, their families, and their friends, make public commitments to lives of loving faithfulness to one another. (And who commit themselves to turning back, or repenting, when they fail to be loving or faithful.)
I bring all of this up because there is a lot of talk these days about whether states should recognize gay marriages or not.
I want to make two points, which taken together are bound to anger everyone, I suppose.
One: From a Biblical perspective, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. As one person put it, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." As a Christian pastor, I would not preside over a gay wedding because I believe that it is contrary to the will of God. (For an extensive, scholarly, and sensitive discussion of this subject, you might want to read the book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice by Robert A. J. Gagnon.)
Two: As a Christian, I'm not exercised over efforts to make gay marriages legal. The state's interest in marriage relates basically to things like property and finances, responsibility and liability. The state recognizes marriage so that basically, it can act as a referee between couples and the world and among couples when marriages go bust. That isn't the Christian's interest in marriage at all.
If the state should legalize gay marriages, I couldn't then be forced to perform a gay wedding any more than I can be forced to perform heterosexual unions now.
A lot of Christians today implore political decision-makers to chisel definitions of marriage into law or even into the Constitution. They may be right. But these efforts might also reflect a kind of atheism, a lack of trust in God and in God's way of doing things.
God's usual method for changing people's minds and hearts isn't civil law. Instead, God commissions His followers to go into the world, live authentically for Him, and tell others about the eternal changes God makes in the lives of people who turn from sin and follow Jesus Christ. That isn't glamorous. But it, rather than legal coercion, is how God changes lives for the better.
Marriage is a sacred relationship between God, a man, and a woman. Nothing will ever change that, no matter what laws go on the books. If we Christians will simply strive to be faithful in living for and sharing Christ with others, marriage and every other facet of life in our world will be the better for it.
Sunday, June 13, 2004
The Happiness Project: The Poverty That Leaves You Rich
Matthew 5:1-3
(shared with the people of Friendship Church, June 13, 2004)
Not long ago, I spent some time with a friend. He’s a guy bubbling over with happiness. One of the reasons he wanted to get together with me was to share some of his story. “I want you to know that in the past few years, Mark, my faith in God has come to mean more to me than it ever has,” he said. “And I wanted to tell you why.” I was eager to listen.
The story begins, as these stories often do, with my friend’s wife. They were empty nesters, their children moved off to the four corners of the earth. Those of you who have been through this experience know that, initially the departure of your kids from home brings grief and then a sense of needing and wanting to make fresh starts yourselves. My friend, let’s call him Bob, and his wife—we’ll call her Julie—have always believed in God. But they had allowed their attendance at worship to lapse.
Bob told me, “Now, Mark, I believe that you can talk with God anywhere—in the desert, on the golf course, in your car, anywhere. But Julie convinced me that we needed to get back in worship regularly. In worship, she felt, we’d get regular reminders about God and what’s important in life.” Finally, one Sunday, Bob reluctantly agreed to go to worship with Julie. “Mark,” he said, “it has made such a difference in our lives. We just wouldn’t miss a Sunday.” And they rarely do.
At this point, you might expect me to tell you at the beginning of this series of messages on happiness, “If you want to be happy like this man, have a right relationship with God.” Well, ultimately, that is what I want to tell you. But there is more to his story. It’s not all peaches and cream.
A few months after Bob and Julie became re-engaged in an active life with God, Bob’s company went through a major reorganization and he was downsized out of the company where he’d been employed for more than twenty years. Several months later, still without a job, he got word that his mother was going to die. Week after week, month after month, Bob cared for his mother and did so until she passed away. Then, just before the death of his mom, it was learned that Julie had contracted a rare and life-threatening disease. One month later, Bob found out that he had cancer and needed to undergo treatment. Things are still up in the air. Bob’s dad and the rest of the family are still grieving. Bob is still trying to find his right career niche. And both he and Julie are fighting for their health.
“But, Mark,” Bob tells me. “We’ve been amazed at how God has taken care of us. I owe all the credit in the world to Julie. She felt that emptiness and the need for God before I did. And thank God she did, because just before all these bad things happened, we let God fill that emptiness. We couldn't have gotten through all of this without being close to God.” Bob said these words to me with a smile on his face. When I asked him later if I could tell his story—changing the particulars to protect his and Julie’s identity—he readily agreed. You see, he wants you to know that it’s possible for you to be happy too.
The psychologist David Niven, no relation to the late actor, has written an interesting and readable little book called The 100 Simple Secrets of Happy People: What Scientists Have Learned and How You Can Use It. When I’d decided some months ago that I wanted to do a series on happiness, I saw this book and was intrigued in the Introduction when Niven said that he couldn’t tell people how to be happy. But he could present information on what happy lives look like so that others could learn from them. I immediately thought, “Yet another example of science catching up with the Bible” because that's exactly what Jesus did on a mountaintop some two-thousand years ago. Jesus took His disciples apart with Him, up on this mountain, and taught them about happiness. But He didn’t say, “These are the steps to happiness.” He gave them rapid-fire pictures of happiness. “This, folks, is what happiness looks like,” He told them.
Over the next few weeks, we’re going to look at Jesus’ pictures of happiness, found in Matthew 5:1-12, a section of scripture often called the beatitudes. The translation of the Bible that we use during worship—the New Revised Standard Version—shows Jesus saying over and over, “Blessed are...”, “Blessed are...” But the New Testament Greek word, makarioi, translated as blessed could as easily be rendered fortunate or happy. My seminary mentor, Pastor Schein always translated makarioi as blissed out.
In today’s Bible lesson, the first of Jesus’ beatitudes, He tells us, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” The happy, blessed, blissed out people are those who are “poor in spirit.”
But what does that mean?
To be poor in spirit means to be unable to face life, death, or eternity on our own. We’re all poor in spirit. Happy people acknowledge it and let God fill their emptiness. My friend Bob and his wife, Julie, learned that. God has constructed us so that we all need God and we need others. E. Stanley Jones, the great evangelist and writer, used to hold weekend retreats he called ashrams, a name he borrowed from India where he was a missionary. He began the retreats by handing out slips of paper and telling people, “No one will see what you are about to write on this paper. I want you to write what you need today.” I’ve read that every time Jones did this, as people thought, prayed, and wrote, someone would tell him, “I don’t have a need. What do I write down if I don’t have a need?” Jones would reply, “If you think you don’t have a need, then that’s your need.”
Are you willing to be poor in spirit, to admit your need of God? That’s the poverty that can make you truly rich. The poor in spirit, Jesus says, have a piece of the kingdom of heaven! It seems to me that the poor in spirit make three moves that lead to their happiness. First: They make the move from self-sufficiency to prayer. Pete Rengel was backpacking counselor at a camp in the mountains of northern California. Once, he and another counselor led ten young people on two-week wilderness journey. Seven nights into their trek, in unfamiliar territory, a freak summer blizzard dumped two feet of snow on them. They huddled together through the night. When the sun rose the next day, visibility was practically zero and the storm was still raging. The trails had disappeared. Because of the snow, their maps were useless. And because their food drop wasn’t to have happened until that day, they were low on food. Pete was scared, both because he didn’t know what to do and because the terrified kids depended on him. He agreed with his fellow counselor to set out, looking for a familiar landmark, anywhere. By now, the snow was three feet deep. After trudging on for what seemed like forever, Pete had become breathless and frozen. He writes:
Nothing happened. Pete began to sob. He pictured headlines announcing the deaths of all the young people in his charge. Then, he pulled himself together enough to try a different route. He didn’t know why he did so. Involuntarily, he began to move in a different direction. He felt like he was being led. And so he was: Pete turned a corner and saw “the faintest evidence” of the trail. God had made a way where there was no way. The poor in spirit move from self-sufficiency to prayer.
They also move from self-sufficiency to seeking help from others. I always tell people that the folks on Friendship’s church council make me feel smarter than I really am. I know nothing about finances or audiovisual systems or a whole host of other things that the leaders of Friendship know about. The poor in spirit are willing to admit their poverty of knowledge and experience so that others can help them become their best selves, achieving the missions God gives to each of us. The poor in spirit move from self-sufficiency to admitting they need others.
They also move from self-containment to helping others. We follow a Savior Who helped us all by going to a cross and winning everlasting life for all who will turn from sin and follow Him. He called us to serve others as He served us. That’s where happiness resides, Jesus tells us.
In the week of moving ceremony and remembrance we've just experienced in America, honoring President Reagan, the most moving moment of all for me was the eulogy delivered by his successor, the elder President Bush, during the funeral at the National Cathedral. Mr. Bush told about an incident that happened back in March, 1981. Ronald Reagan was being hospitalized following the nearly-fatal assassination attempt on his life. He'd spilled a pitcher of water. Concerned that the duty nurse would be blamed for his accident, this nearly-seventy year old man, recovering from a life-threatening bullet wound, President of the United States, got down on his hands and knees to clean up the water. Orderlies happened to enter Reagan's room and found him doing this; otherwise, nobody would have known about it. Cleaning up that water from a hospital room floor was the action of a man with a servant's heart. It cannot be incidental that the people who knew Ronald Reagan well also report that he was a happy man. People with servant hearts are happy.
In an experiment, researchers revealed back in 1997 that “greater community interactions can increase happiness by almost 30 percent.” Once again, science is catching up with what the Bible, where Jesus showed us and told us two-thousand years ago all about happiness and servanthood! Albert Schweitzer, the great Lutheran missionary and Nobel Peace Prize winner, put it well when he told a group of students, “I don't know what your destiny will be, but one thing I know: the only ones among you who will be really happy are those who will have sought and found how to serve.” Schweitzer knew what he was talking about. He was the Mother Teresa of his time, spending decades providing medical and spiritual care for the poorest of the poor in the heart of Africa. And he too, was a happy person!
Blessed, happy, blissed out are the poor in spirit. The kingdom of heaven belongs to them because they are empty enough to know that they need to let God fill them. They move from self-sufficiency to prayer; from self-sufficiency to getting help from others; from self-containment to loving their neighbor. Tell God your need today and let Him fill it in the ways He chooses, on the timetable He establishes. Then, you will be on the road to happiness!
[The true story of Pete Rengel is recounted in The Aladdin Factor, a book I heartily recommend to all wrestling with whether to admit their poverty of spirit. While I don't agree with every assertion found on this book's pages, it is a good antidote to our American penchant for living under the oppressive delusion of self-sufficiency.
[The phrase, self-sufficiency to prayer, along with the powerful ideas behind it, are stolen from a great book by the late Dutch monk and writer, Henri Nouwen. The book is called Reaching Out: The Three Movements of the Spiritual Life. This is one of those books to buy and read over and over again!
[The research on the link between happiness and community interaction is recounted in the book on happiness by David Niven, the psychologist.
[The true story of E. Stanley Jones's ashrams is told by Robert H. Schuller in his uplifting book, The Be-Happy Attitudes: 8 Positive Attitudes That Can Transform Your Life.]
(shared with the people of Friendship Church, June 13, 2004)
Not long ago, I spent some time with a friend. He’s a guy bubbling over with happiness. One of the reasons he wanted to get together with me was to share some of his story. “I want you to know that in the past few years, Mark, my faith in God has come to mean more to me than it ever has,” he said. “And I wanted to tell you why.” I was eager to listen.
The story begins, as these stories often do, with my friend’s wife. They were empty nesters, their children moved off to the four corners of the earth. Those of you who have been through this experience know that, initially the departure of your kids from home brings grief and then a sense of needing and wanting to make fresh starts yourselves. My friend, let’s call him Bob, and his wife—we’ll call her Julie—have always believed in God. But they had allowed their attendance at worship to lapse.
Bob told me, “Now, Mark, I believe that you can talk with God anywhere—in the desert, on the golf course, in your car, anywhere. But Julie convinced me that we needed to get back in worship regularly. In worship, she felt, we’d get regular reminders about God and what’s important in life.” Finally, one Sunday, Bob reluctantly agreed to go to worship with Julie. “Mark,” he said, “it has made such a difference in our lives. We just wouldn’t miss a Sunday.” And they rarely do.
At this point, you might expect me to tell you at the beginning of this series of messages on happiness, “If you want to be happy like this man, have a right relationship with God.” Well, ultimately, that is what I want to tell you. But there is more to his story. It’s not all peaches and cream.
A few months after Bob and Julie became re-engaged in an active life with God, Bob’s company went through a major reorganization and he was downsized out of the company where he’d been employed for more than twenty years. Several months later, still without a job, he got word that his mother was going to die. Week after week, month after month, Bob cared for his mother and did so until she passed away. Then, just before the death of his mom, it was learned that Julie had contracted a rare and life-threatening disease. One month later, Bob found out that he had cancer and needed to undergo treatment. Things are still up in the air. Bob’s dad and the rest of the family are still grieving. Bob is still trying to find his right career niche. And both he and Julie are fighting for their health.
“But, Mark,” Bob tells me. “We’ve been amazed at how God has taken care of us. I owe all the credit in the world to Julie. She felt that emptiness and the need for God before I did. And thank God she did, because just before all these bad things happened, we let God fill that emptiness. We couldn't have gotten through all of this without being close to God.” Bob said these words to me with a smile on his face. When I asked him later if I could tell his story—changing the particulars to protect his and Julie’s identity—he readily agreed. You see, he wants you to know that it’s possible for you to be happy too.
The psychologist David Niven, no relation to the late actor, has written an interesting and readable little book called The 100 Simple Secrets of Happy People: What Scientists Have Learned and How You Can Use It. When I’d decided some months ago that I wanted to do a series on happiness, I saw this book and was intrigued in the Introduction when Niven said that he couldn’t tell people how to be happy. But he could present information on what happy lives look like so that others could learn from them. I immediately thought, “Yet another example of science catching up with the Bible” because that's exactly what Jesus did on a mountaintop some two-thousand years ago. Jesus took His disciples apart with Him, up on this mountain, and taught them about happiness. But He didn’t say, “These are the steps to happiness.” He gave them rapid-fire pictures of happiness. “This, folks, is what happiness looks like,” He told them.
Over the next few weeks, we’re going to look at Jesus’ pictures of happiness, found in Matthew 5:1-12, a section of scripture often called the beatitudes. The translation of the Bible that we use during worship—the New Revised Standard Version—shows Jesus saying over and over, “Blessed are...”, “Blessed are...” But the New Testament Greek word, makarioi, translated as blessed could as easily be rendered fortunate or happy. My seminary mentor, Pastor Schein always translated makarioi as blissed out.
In today’s Bible lesson, the first of Jesus’ beatitudes, He tells us, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” The happy, blessed, blissed out people are those who are “poor in spirit.”
But what does that mean?
To be poor in spirit means to be unable to face life, death, or eternity on our own. We’re all poor in spirit. Happy people acknowledge it and let God fill their emptiness. My friend Bob and his wife, Julie, learned that. God has constructed us so that we all need God and we need others. E. Stanley Jones, the great evangelist and writer, used to hold weekend retreats he called ashrams, a name he borrowed from India where he was a missionary. He began the retreats by handing out slips of paper and telling people, “No one will see what you are about to write on this paper. I want you to write what you need today.” I’ve read that every time Jones did this, as people thought, prayed, and wrote, someone would tell him, “I don’t have a need. What do I write down if I don’t have a need?” Jones would reply, “If you think you don’t have a need, then that’s your need.”
Are you willing to be poor in spirit, to admit your need of God? That’s the poverty that can make you truly rich. The poor in spirit, Jesus says, have a piece of the kingdom of heaven! It seems to me that the poor in spirit make three moves that lead to their happiness. First: They make the move from self-sufficiency to prayer. Pete Rengel was backpacking counselor at a camp in the mountains of northern California. Once, he and another counselor led ten young people on two-week wilderness journey. Seven nights into their trek, in unfamiliar territory, a freak summer blizzard dumped two feet of snow on them. They huddled together through the night. When the sun rose the next day, visibility was practically zero and the storm was still raging. The trails had disappeared. Because of the snow, their maps were useless. And because their food drop wasn’t to have happened until that day, they were low on food. Pete was scared, both because he didn’t know what to do and because the terrified kids depended on him. He agreed with his fellow counselor to set out, looking for a familiar landmark, anywhere. By now, the snow was three feet deep. After trudging on for what seemed like forever, Pete had become breathless and frozen. He writes:
My terror intensified. Finally, in desperation, I fell to my knees and prayed. I begged God to please lift the storm...
Nothing happened. Pete began to sob. He pictured headlines announcing the deaths of all the young people in his charge. Then, he pulled himself together enough to try a different route. He didn’t know why he did so. Involuntarily, he began to move in a different direction. He felt like he was being led. And so he was: Pete turned a corner and saw “the faintest evidence” of the trail. God had made a way where there was no way. The poor in spirit move from self-sufficiency to prayer.
They also move from self-sufficiency to seeking help from others. I always tell people that the folks on Friendship’s church council make me feel smarter than I really am. I know nothing about finances or audiovisual systems or a whole host of other things that the leaders of Friendship know about. The poor in spirit are willing to admit their poverty of knowledge and experience so that others can help them become their best selves, achieving the missions God gives to each of us. The poor in spirit move from self-sufficiency to admitting they need others.
They also move from self-containment to helping others. We follow a Savior Who helped us all by going to a cross and winning everlasting life for all who will turn from sin and follow Him. He called us to serve others as He served us. That’s where happiness resides, Jesus tells us.
In the week of moving ceremony and remembrance we've just experienced in America, honoring President Reagan, the most moving moment of all for me was the eulogy delivered by his successor, the elder President Bush, during the funeral at the National Cathedral. Mr. Bush told about an incident that happened back in March, 1981. Ronald Reagan was being hospitalized following the nearly-fatal assassination attempt on his life. He'd spilled a pitcher of water. Concerned that the duty nurse would be blamed for his accident, this nearly-seventy year old man, recovering from a life-threatening bullet wound, President of the United States, got down on his hands and knees to clean up the water. Orderlies happened to enter Reagan's room and found him doing this; otherwise, nobody would have known about it. Cleaning up that water from a hospital room floor was the action of a man with a servant's heart. It cannot be incidental that the people who knew Ronald Reagan well also report that he was a happy man. People with servant hearts are happy.
In an experiment, researchers revealed back in 1997 that “greater community interactions can increase happiness by almost 30 percent.” Once again, science is catching up with what the Bible, where Jesus showed us and told us two-thousand years ago all about happiness and servanthood! Albert Schweitzer, the great Lutheran missionary and Nobel Peace Prize winner, put it well when he told a group of students, “I don't know what your destiny will be, but one thing I know: the only ones among you who will be really happy are those who will have sought and found how to serve.” Schweitzer knew what he was talking about. He was the Mother Teresa of his time, spending decades providing medical and spiritual care for the poorest of the poor in the heart of Africa. And he too, was a happy person!
Blessed, happy, blissed out are the poor in spirit. The kingdom of heaven belongs to them because they are empty enough to know that they need to let God fill them. They move from self-sufficiency to prayer; from self-sufficiency to getting help from others; from self-containment to loving their neighbor. Tell God your need today and let Him fill it in the ways He chooses, on the timetable He establishes. Then, you will be on the road to happiness!
Notes:
[The true story of Pete Rengel is recounted in The Aladdin Factor, a book I heartily recommend to all wrestling with whether to admit their poverty of spirit. While I don't agree with every assertion found on this book's pages, it is a good antidote to our American penchant for living under the oppressive delusion of self-sufficiency.
[The phrase, self-sufficiency to prayer, along with the powerful ideas behind it, are stolen from a great book by the late Dutch monk and writer, Henri Nouwen. The book is called Reaching Out: The Three Movements of the Spiritual Life. This is one of those books to buy and read over and over again!
[The research on the link between happiness and community interaction is recounted in the book on happiness by David Niven, the psychologist.
[The true story of E. Stanley Jones's ashrams is told by Robert H. Schuller in his uplifting book, The Be-Happy Attitudes: 8 Positive Attitudes That Can Transform Your Life.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)