Former Tennessee Senator Bill Frist has been on the Fred Thompson bandwagon for several weeks now. See his post here and take a look at the massive number of comments in response to it.
Will this be the official audio symbol of a Thompson campaign? (By the way, did you know that was supposed to be the sound of a gavel? I didn't. I just always called it the between-scenes-broing-sound.)
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
The Dynasties Continue...Chelsea in 2016?
[Just my opinion, JUMP]The ascendancy of dynasties as a feature of US presidential politics has been confirmed with reports on the first quarter fundraising efforts of major candidates for President.
That's an even bigger story, to my mind, than the sheer enormity of several campaigns' treasure chests.
The Clinton machine, intent on electing a second Clinton in sixteen years, raised $26-million in the quarter just past.
Meanwhile, the Bush machine, bowing to the fact that Jeb Bush can't succeed his brother to the Oval Office in the face of an unpopular war, is siding with another old Republican monied dynasty, the Romneys and their allies. Bush allies have fattened the presidential coffers of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in his bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. The Romney campaign raised $21-million in the same first quarter.
Clinton and Romney acquired that kind of money in spite of the fact that neither have much elective political experience--she's just begun her second term in the US Senate and he spent all of one term as governor.
Fund raising efforts for the 2008 campaign thus far confirm fears that the presidential contest may provide voters little opportunity to elect someone with new ideas. Instead, the election is likely to pit two dynastic families or their functionaries, people accustomed to wielding power, in a sort of War of the Roses. Clinton and Romney are different packaging for old brand names.
Increasingly, US politics at every level sees certain families with money and connections dominating government. It's a phenomenon that exists in both parties. Last year, for example, there were about ten races for the US House that pitted the children of former members of Congress against one another.
So, irrespective of how things turn out in 2008, you might want to start getting ready for 2016, when Chelsea Clinton, who turns 36 that year, will likely run against Jeb Bush, by then the beneficiary of Bush nostalgia, in another contest involving America's presidential royalty.
[Cross-posted at RedBlueChristian.com.]
[UPDATE: Per Mark Olson, in the comments below, I checked out Hugh Hewitt's explanations for Mitt Romney's first quarter success in campaign fund raising.]
Monday, April 02, 2007
Letters to My Non-Churchgoing Friends (#10: Confusion About Sin)
[I'm writing a series of "letters" to non-churchgoing folks in my community through a column I write for the Community Press here in the Cincinnati area. To see the first nine, go here.]
Dear Friend,
One reason people give for not going to church is their mystification at two words--and their different forms--which Christians use a lot: sin and justification.
Non-churchgoing folks hear Christians say things using these terms in all manner of strange ways:
What is sin, from a Biblical perspective? And what does it mean to be justified? In this column, I’ll talk about sin. In the next, I’ll tackle justification.
I like to draw a distinction between Sin, capital s, and sin, lower case s. Sin, upper case, is the condition into which every person who comes into this world in the normal way is born. In the Old Testament, King David, a person so revered for his faith that the Bible calls him “a man after God’s own heart,” admits that he was born in sin. The only sinless person on this planet since Adam and Eve fell into sin has been Jesus Christ. The rest of us though, are born in this Sin condition.
Sin is alienation from God and other people. And it’s part of us from the beginning. We’re born addicted to ourselves, our desires, our wants, and our agendas.
If an infant takes a liking to an object which his or her parents know could cause injury or death, that baby will scream like mad when the object is taken from it. That’s because the condition of Sin drives us to think only of that which is pleasing to ourselves, without regard to what’s good for us or others.
The Bible teaches that, without help, our slavery to Sin will inevitably drive us to commit sins, small s. Those individual sins are summarized in the Ten Commandments and include:
Deep down, I don’t want to sin. I recognize how my sins hurt me, my life, others, and, I’ve learned, even God.
Each time I sin, I add another brick to the wall separating me from others, from the person I want to be, and from God and eternal life. This is true even when, with good intentions, I make resolutions to do better and fail to do so, repeatedly.
Like Paul, a writer in the New Testament, I want to say, “I've tried everything and nothing helps. I'm at the end of my rope. Is there no one who can do anything for me? Isn't that the real question?” (Romans 7:24)
Who, Paul asks and I ask, can make it possible for a born sinner like me to be freed from my slavery to sin so that I can live with God forever? That really is the question. And justification, which I’ll talk about next time, is the real answer. God’s answer.
Dear Friend,
One reason people give for not going to church is their mystification at two words--and their different forms--which Christians use a lot: sin and justification.
Non-churchgoing folks hear Christians say things using these terms in all manner of strange ways:
- I’m a sinner.
- All have sinned and fall short of God’s glory.
- Christ justifies sinners.
What is sin, from a Biblical perspective? And what does it mean to be justified? In this column, I’ll talk about sin. In the next, I’ll tackle justification.
I like to draw a distinction between Sin, capital s, and sin, lower case s. Sin, upper case, is the condition into which every person who comes into this world in the normal way is born. In the Old Testament, King David, a person so revered for his faith that the Bible calls him “a man after God’s own heart,” admits that he was born in sin. The only sinless person on this planet since Adam and Eve fell into sin has been Jesus Christ. The rest of us though, are born in this Sin condition.
Sin is alienation from God and other people. And it’s part of us from the beginning. We’re born addicted to ourselves, our desires, our wants, and our agendas.
If an infant takes a liking to an object which his or her parents know could cause injury or death, that baby will scream like mad when the object is taken from it. That’s because the condition of Sin drives us to think only of that which is pleasing to ourselves, without regard to what’s good for us or others.
The Bible teaches that, without help, our slavery to Sin will inevitably drive us to commit sins, small s. Those individual sins are summarized in the Ten Commandments and include:
- putting anything in a more important position than God;
- using God’s Name for anything other than prayer, praise, or thanksgiving; ignoring God’s Word, refusing to join others in worshiping God, and not resting once a week;
- failing to respect our parents;
- killing others in thought, word, or deed;
- sexual intimacy outside of marriage;
- taking anything belongs to others;
- gossiping or telling untruths about others; and
- craving the possessions or lifestyles of other people.
Deep down, I don’t want to sin. I recognize how my sins hurt me, my life, others, and, I’ve learned, even God.
Each time I sin, I add another brick to the wall separating me from others, from the person I want to be, and from God and eternal life. This is true even when, with good intentions, I make resolutions to do better and fail to do so, repeatedly.
Like Paul, a writer in the New Testament, I want to say, “I've tried everything and nothing helps. I'm at the end of my rope. Is there no one who can do anything for me? Isn't that the real question?” (Romans 7:24)
Who, Paul asks and I ask, can make it possible for a born sinner like me to be freed from my slavery to sin so that I can live with God forever? That really is the question. And justification, which I’ll talk about next time, is the real answer. God’s answer.
On Seeing Three Penguins at Kroger
[File this one under, JUMP, just my opinion.]
I saw them, three young men struggling to make it across the parking lot of the Kroger I visited two nights ago. You could tell that each step they took was difficult as they waddled, rather than walked. Finally, they made it to their car. But I couldn't help wondering, "What's wrong with them?"
The source of their struggle? The three were part of that growing army of young men who apparently don't know how to wear pants.
Someone needs to tell them that a waist band is just that, a waist band, not a halfway-down-your-backside-band.
One of these kids, fresh from his shift at the grocery store continuously tugged at his pants to prevent them from completely sliding down to his ankles over the course of the fifty-yard trek. Repeatedly, he reached down to pull up his pants just enough to keep from falling headfirst onto the pavement.
A time-motion engineer would probably deliver a staggering calculation as to how much productivity this young man is losing each day as he's forced, stride by stride, to use one hand or the other to pull his pants up just slightly north of the knees.
It's ironic to me that a generation so intent on using its hands for things like text messaging and video game-playing can't see how the way it wears its pants keeps it from doing those and other things.
I wonder what these kids think the crotch of their pants is supposed to be, if it seems natural for the inseams to gather just above their shins? The design of a pair of pants signals that this sagging fashion is all wrong.
And do they think that the world is dying to see their boxers or briefs? Speaking humbly on behalf of the world I can confidently say, "We're not!"
Nor do we want to see the even worse sight to which we're often subjected by these young men unfamiliar with the proper use of waistbands, drawstrings, or belts. I refer specifically to the unsightly "cleavage" their fashion often forces us to witness!
Not long ago, I watched a toddler taking some of his first steps. At one point, he felt his pants slip ever so slightly down over the top of his bulging diaper. When that happened, he realized that continued slippage would prevent him from taking further steps. Who knows, he might have even been a little embarrassed at the prospect of having the whole world see his little baby undergarment? In the face of these facts, he did what any sensible person would do: He pulled up his pants.
One can only hope that the young men who sport their penguin-pants would learn from that toddler!
Please, young men: Pull up your pants. Tighten your belts. Tie your draw strings. Keep the undergarments under. Learn to walk again!
You'll like it, I guarantee.
I saw them, three young men struggling to make it across the parking lot of the Kroger I visited two nights ago. You could tell that each step they took was difficult as they waddled, rather than walked. Finally, they made it to their car. But I couldn't help wondering, "What's wrong with them?"
The source of their struggle? The three were part of that growing army of young men who apparently don't know how to wear pants.
Someone needs to tell them that a waist band is just that, a waist band, not a halfway-down-your-backside-band.
One of these kids, fresh from his shift at the grocery store continuously tugged at his pants to prevent them from completely sliding down to his ankles over the course of the fifty-yard trek. Repeatedly, he reached down to pull up his pants just enough to keep from falling headfirst onto the pavement.
A time-motion engineer would probably deliver a staggering calculation as to how much productivity this young man is losing each day as he's forced, stride by stride, to use one hand or the other to pull his pants up just slightly north of the knees.
It's ironic to me that a generation so intent on using its hands for things like text messaging and video game-playing can't see how the way it wears its pants keeps it from doing those and other things.
I wonder what these kids think the crotch of their pants is supposed to be, if it seems natural for the inseams to gather just above their shins? The design of a pair of pants signals that this sagging fashion is all wrong.
And do they think that the world is dying to see their boxers or briefs? Speaking humbly on behalf of the world I can confidently say, "We're not!"
Nor do we want to see the even worse sight to which we're often subjected by these young men unfamiliar with the proper use of waistbands, drawstrings, or belts. I refer specifically to the unsightly "cleavage" their fashion often forces us to witness!
Not long ago, I watched a toddler taking some of his first steps. At one point, he felt his pants slip ever so slightly down over the top of his bulging diaper. When that happened, he realized that continued slippage would prevent him from taking further steps. Who knows, he might have even been a little embarrassed at the prospect of having the whole world see his little baby undergarment? In the face of these facts, he did what any sensible person would do: He pulled up his pants.
One can only hope that the young men who sport their penguin-pants would learn from that toddler!
Please, young men: Pull up your pants. Tighten your belts. Tie your draw strings. Keep the undergarments under. Learn to walk again!
You'll like it, I guarantee.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
When Jesus Shows Up (Palm Sunday)
[This message was shared during worship celebrations with the people of Friendship Lutheran Church, Amelia, Ohio, on March 31 and April 1, 2007.]Luke 19:28-40
Ronald Reagan--for you young people, he was our fortieth president and a one-time movie star--had a story he loved to tell. In an interview, one of his aides, Peter Robinson, retold it:
Worried that their son was too optimistic, the parents of a little boy took him to a psychiatrist. Trying to dampen the boy’s spirits, the psychiatrist showed him into a room piled high with nothing but horse manure. Yet instead of displaying distaste, the little boy clambered to the top of the pile, dropped to all fours, and began digging. “What do you think you’re doing?” the psychiatrist asked. “With all this manure,” the little boy replied, beaming, “there must be a pony in here somewhere.”Of course, a little boy of a different nature might not have been so sure that there was a pony to be found. He may have decided that where there’s manure, there’s always...more manure.
The point is that two people may react to the same events, experiences, or people in completely different ways. Most people seem to love American Idol, for example. And while I get a charge out of hearing what my friends tell me about the latest episodes, I’ve never even seen it because it just doesn’t appeal to me. We all have different tastes and 99.9% of the time, our diverging views don’t really matter.
But sometimes, our varied reactions to life have deep significance. Back in early 1974, I had just started to date a girl I’d been wanting to take out for a long time. But she was going to be away one weekend. Another girl and I decided to go see a movie, just as friends, we thought. In January, 1974, I showed up at the other girl's apartment, taking my life in my hands in order to walk across her icy parking lot in my black high heel shoes, plaid bell bottoms, and blue velour shirt. The rest is history, as they say. But if I hadn’t reacted to Ann and the opportunity presented by the vacant weekend in the way that I did, I might have missed out on spending the last thirty-two-plus years with my wife!
There’s a reason I bring all of this up. And I'll explain it in just a moment.
Whenever we think of Palm Sunday, I suspect that we conjure up thoughts of palm leaves waving, “Hosannas” being shouted, and vast throngs of people welcoming Jesus into Jerusalem on the Passover week that would bring His crucifixion. But if you look at our lesson from the Gospel of Luke today, you find none of those things.
We do see Jesus’ closest followers putting their cloaks on the animal He rides and onto the pathway He takes into Jerusalem. But we have no mention of what Mark calls “leaves from the field.” Or what Matthew describes as “branches from the trees.” In fact, of the four gospels in the New Testament, only John’s mentions “branches of palms.”
In Luke’s telling, Jesus’ disciples cry out, “Blessed is the king who comes in the Name of the Lord! [And, echoing the song of the angels on the night of Jesus’ birth] Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest heaven!” But not once do we hear the crowds yelling, “Hosanna!,” a word that essentially means “Save now!”
And, as to crowds, our lesson only speaks of “the whole multitude of disciples,” meaning the hundreds of people who were followers of Jesus. But Luke doesn’t mention the thousands who would have been in Jerusalem preparing to celebrate the Jewish Passover when Jesus arrives in the city.
What are we to make of these differences in the ways the four gospel writers tell the story of that first Palm Sunday? It all boils down, I think, to focus. Each of the gospels have different themes on which they focus, different aspects of Jesus’ story and of Christian faith.
And even more particular to today’s lesson, Luke’s account of the first Palm Sunday comes as part of a string of incidents in Jesus’ ministry and parables he tells that hammer away at a single theme.
We see this theme earlier Luke, chapter 19, where we read of Jesus' encounter with a man named Zacchaeus. You know the story of Zacchaeus, probably. "Zaccheaus was a wee little man, and a wee little man was he," many of us were taught to sing as we were growing up. Jesus was traveling through Zacchaeus' hometown. Being a person of short stature, Zacchaeus climbed into a sycamore tree in order to get a good look of this celebrated preacher from Nazareth. When Jesus saw Zacchaeus, He called him down from his perch, explaining that He intended to visit Zacchaeus' place right then and there. Zacchaeus climbed down out of his tree and welcomed Jesus. The problem, as some of the good people of that town saw it, was that Zacchaeus was a notorious extortionist. But it wasn't to those supposedly good people that Jesus said, "Today salvation has come to this house." It was to Zacchaeus. The difference between Zacchaeus and the good church people was that he welcomed Jesus, while they rejected Him.
Later in the chapter, just before Palm Sunday, Jesus tells a story that talks about a king who left his people for awhile, just as Jesus would do after dying, rising, and ascending back to heaven. Some of the king's subjects excitedly welcomed his return. Others didn't want him around.
As we come to his account of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, Luke isn’t saying that there weren’t palm leaves, hosannas, or adoring crowds that first Palm Sunday. But, like a filmmaker showing us one or two people in a scene involving thousands of others, Luke wants to show us something very important, seen in the reactions to Jesus of two relatively small groups of people.
The first is Jesus’ disciples. You and I know that at this point, just days before Jesus was to die on a cross, the five-hundred or so people who followed Him still didn’t get Him. They thought that Jesus would be sort of king who would get rid of the Romans, lower the taxes, and be good to God’s people. But to the extent that they were able at the time, before the crucifixion and before Jesus’ resurrection, they hailed Jesus as their king. They laid down their cloaks as an act of deference and respect. They praised God for Jesus and spoke enthusiastically about all the godly miracles Jesus had performed. They welcomed Jesus into their capital city of Jerusalem and into their lives.
Then, there were some Pharisees. The Pharisees, you know, believed that they could earn salvation and forgiveness of sin, not accepting the teaching of the whole Bible that these things are gifts granted to those who turn from sin and trust in God. Appalled by the display of devotion put on by the disciples, they tell Jesus, “Teacher, order your disciples to stop!” They rejected Jesus as the king of either Jerusalem or their lives.
Two reactions...
Welcoming Jesus.
Rejecting Jesus.
Those who reject Jesus reject peace in their hearts, life with God, and eternity.
Those who welcome Him receive peace, life, and eternity.
Jesus can either be the rock on Whom we build our lives or the stone on which we crash and eternally self-destruct.
What will we choose to allow Him to be in our lives?
A couple from our congregation told me about something that happened when their granddaughter, then young, now a teen, burst from her bed room, where she had been reading the Bible. "I get to live forever!" she said. So do all who welcome Jesus into the center of their lives. And even if the rough and rugged times of life, we have the promise of a God Who loves, forgives, and gives us life forever!
As the disciples welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem on the first Palm Sunday, they had no idea what they were getting into.
They didn’t realize that their king would have to die and rise before He could claim His crown.
They had no idea that following Him meant turning their backs on their sins, even the ones they loved to commit, so that they could take hold of the forgiveness and new life only Jesus brings.
For some, following Jesus would mean death at the hands of their persecutors.
For most, it would mean being rejected by family, friends, and society for trusting in the Savior they saw dead and risen.
But each day for the rest of their lives, they chose to welcome Jesus. For them, accepting the brief and earthly complications associated with following Christ was a small price to pay compared to spending eternity at His side.
As we prepare to celebrate Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter this week, may we commit ourselves to always welcoming Jesus!
Saturday, March 31, 2007
These Were My Boyhood Heroes
The 1960 national collegiate basketball champions from Ohio State. I hope that this weekend and on Monday night, Oden, Conley, Lewis, and others will prove to be successors Lucas, Havlicek, Siegfried, and all in every way, bringing the 2007 championship to Columbus.
Go, Buckeyes!
Friday, March 30, 2007
My Current Favorite Commercial
Click here. Then click on TV Spots and then, Cross Walk. The realism achieved by game developers like those with PlayStation on MLB 07: The Show amazes me. I don't own a system and wouldn't have the time to get caught up in the whole business anyway. But I am impressed.
Here in the real world, I've always considered this to be the best time of year, college basketball's March Madness reaches its climax and baseball season, with the promise of a World Series for my favorite team, hit at the same time. How great is that?
Here in the real world, I've always considered this to be the best time of year, college basketball's March Madness reaches its climax and baseball season, with the promise of a World Series for my favorite team, hit at the same time. How great is that?
Thursday, March 29, 2007
O-H-I-O
I've written before about "Jesus Rising from the Swamp," an oversized and kitschy representation of Jesus that amuses or embarrasses motorists driving north on I-75 between Cincinnati and Dayton.
A member of my parish has sent a picture of what may be the best use to which I've seen the statue yet put: as the H gesture that's part of spelling O-H-I-O when Ohio State fans accompany our band in singing the official rock song of the state, Hang on Sloopy. (See and hear more here.)
As The Ohio State University men's basketball team prepares to play Georgetown in the Final Four, it's good to know that the Swamp Statue is rooting for the Buckeyes!
[Click on the image to enlarge it.]
Go, Buckeyes!
[THANKS TO: Althouse, Ironing Maiden, Holy Coast, Mondok Blog, Nasty, Brutish, & Short, and Buzz Tracker for linking to this post.]
[THANKS ALSO TO: Michael Meckler for linking to this post.]
Female Anger and Passive-Aggression
Dr. Helen Smith, a forensic psychologist, blogs about a study that says women are angrier than men and often express it in passive-aggressive ways.
That rings true to me.
My wife, who feels no hesitation about expressing anger in helpful ways, is a healthier, happier, and less angry person than many women--not to mention than most men, including me--because she doesn't feel the need to artificially bottle up her feelings. And she often laments the conditions the study identifies: that women are angry and that it's probably because they express their anger in passive-aggressive ways. Both she and my daughter are such open people. They get disgusted with women in the workplace who resort to passive-aggression and behind-the-back torpedoing, usually of other women, especially those in positions of authority.
Why is this so prevalent? Historically, our culture has put men in places of authority, whether at home, in the workplace, or in social settings. Women have basically been told to get with the male-set program. This incites understandable, justifiable anger within women with no productive ways to express it.
I don't subscribe to the "tea kettle" school of thought that tells us if we don't immediately vent our spleens, we'll implode. Venting everything we feel can be narcissistic and imprison us and our relationships to our fleeting feelings. There is more to us as human beings than our emotions. Or our thoughts. Or our biology.
But I do think that relationships in all contexts would be healthier if so many women didn't feel constrained to live in the manner described by the study.
The Bible has an interesting passage which I share with people--female or male--when they're thrashing over how to deal with a confrontation they need to have: "Be angry; but do not sin. Do not let the sun go down on your anger."
The point: It isn't "bad," as I think many women are taught, to feel anger. The question is what to do with our anger.
The most hate-filled person I know is an angry passive-aggressive woman who, when confronted with how hurtful her words are, claims that she's being misunderstood and implies that people who think otherwise must either be having bad days or losing their minds, literally. (More passive-aggressiveness.) This woman may even believe it when she makes these claims. But her family will tell you that her approach is very destructive to her, to their family, and to everybody's health.
I think that the insights in this study are right on!
(Smith links the study to some recent dust-ups in the blogging world, none of which really interests me here. I'm interested in the study at a more global level.)
(I was led to Smith's post through a link at Althouse.)
That rings true to me.
My wife, who feels no hesitation about expressing anger in helpful ways, is a healthier, happier, and less angry person than many women--not to mention than most men, including me--because she doesn't feel the need to artificially bottle up her feelings. And she often laments the conditions the study identifies: that women are angry and that it's probably because they express their anger in passive-aggressive ways. Both she and my daughter are such open people. They get disgusted with women in the workplace who resort to passive-aggression and behind-the-back torpedoing, usually of other women, especially those in positions of authority.
Why is this so prevalent? Historically, our culture has put men in places of authority, whether at home, in the workplace, or in social settings. Women have basically been told to get with the male-set program. This incites understandable, justifiable anger within women with no productive ways to express it.
I don't subscribe to the "tea kettle" school of thought that tells us if we don't immediately vent our spleens, we'll implode. Venting everything we feel can be narcissistic and imprison us and our relationships to our fleeting feelings. There is more to us as human beings than our emotions. Or our thoughts. Or our biology.
But I do think that relationships in all contexts would be healthier if so many women didn't feel constrained to live in the manner described by the study.
The Bible has an interesting passage which I share with people--female or male--when they're thrashing over how to deal with a confrontation they need to have: "Be angry; but do not sin. Do not let the sun go down on your anger."
The point: It isn't "bad," as I think many women are taught, to feel anger. The question is what to do with our anger.
- Do we use it to discuss things with the object of our anger, with the goal of finding a commonly-acceptable solution and of repairing the relationship?
- Or do we allow it to live inside of us and make us hateful toward the other person, often expressing the anger and now the hatred, in passive-aggressive ways?
The most hate-filled person I know is an angry passive-aggressive woman who, when confronted with how hurtful her words are, claims that she's being misunderstood and implies that people who think otherwise must either be having bad days or losing their minds, literally. (More passive-aggressiveness.) This woman may even believe it when she makes these claims. But her family will tell you that her approach is very destructive to her, to their family, and to everybody's health.
I think that the insights in this study are right on!
(Smith links the study to some recent dust-ups in the blogging world, none of which really interests me here. I'm interested in the study at a more global level.)
(I was led to Smith's post through a link at Althouse.)
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Doing Their Best to Ruin a Good Thing
The blogging world can sometimes be ugly, as this post reminds us.
Legislation to 'Fix' Presidential Voting Process Would Make Things Worse
[Alert: What follows is just my opinion. I don't claim that, because I'm a pastor, any of my political opinions are somehow sanctified, touched by God's imprimatur. My opinions are just that, my opinions.]
Maryland legislators and evidently, its governor, are tired of seeing their state overlooked in presidential election years. They say that their ten electoral votes make them less important in electing Presidents than large states like California and New York or perennial swing states like Ohio and Florida.
But Maryland's legislature and governor appear poised to approve a plan which, in spite of their intentions, will, if adopted by other states, likely give their state even less say in who becomes President than they have now.
The proposal is being pushed nationally by an organization concerned that under the Constitution and its establishment of the electoral college, four presidential elections in all of US history have produced presidents who didn't receive popular vote majorities or pluralities. They want to have a popularly elected President, but daunted by the process involved in amending the Constitution, they've floated a bizarre proposal that's contained on the Maryland legislation.
Here's how The Washington Post explained it today:
But the bigger problem with the proposal was raised by legislative opponents of the proposal. Says The Post story:
In establishing the Electoral College, the Framers attempted to ensure that powerful larger states--like Virginia, New York, and Pennsylvania--didn't run roughshod over smaller ones. As in so many other places in the Constitution, they sought to prevent majorities from overwhelming minorities. As Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier write:
Maryland isn't ignored because its Electoral College delegation is paltry. The state's ten votes equal those of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Arizona. It has more votes than Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, West Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Lousiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia. Only eighteen states have more electoral votes than Maryland!
The real reason a state like Maryland might get ignored by presidential nominees is its predictability, not the size of its Electoral College delegation! The state's perennial habit of voting for Democrats for President means that Republicans skip the state and Democrats take it for granted.
Lest Marylanders view this assertion skeptically, consider California. Presumably, if the Republicans nominate Giuliani in 2008, that state would be in play for his party for the first time in many a presidential election cycle. In recent years, California has been regarded as being so likely to go for the Democratic candidate that Republicans have made little effort to win over voters there. This, in a state with 55 electoral votes, 20.3% of the total needed to get elected President! Predictability prevents Republicans from pitching their appeals to Californians and causes Democrats to take it for granted. If that's true for California, you can bet it's true for Maryland.
Proposals for converting to the popular election of Presidents may have merit. But since 1789, the Electoral College has been a hedge against disregarding the interests and concerns of smaller states (and communities). Before Maryland and other states throw away the College, they might want to consider what else they might be throwing away!
[Cross-posted at RedBlueChristian.com.]
[THANKS TO: Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice for linking to this post.]
Maryland legislators and evidently, its governor, are tired of seeing their state overlooked in presidential election years. They say that their ten electoral votes make them less important in electing Presidents than large states like California and New York or perennial swing states like Ohio and Florida.
But Maryland's legislature and governor appear poised to approve a plan which, in spite of their intentions, will, if adopted by other states, likely give their state even less say in who becomes President than they have now.
The proposal is being pushed nationally by an organization concerned that under the Constitution and its establishment of the electoral college, four presidential elections in all of US history have produced presidents who didn't receive popular vote majorities or pluralities. They want to have a popularly elected President, but daunted by the process involved in amending the Constitution, they've floated a bizarre proposal that's contained on the Maryland legislation.
Here's how The Washington Post explained it today:
The bill, which the [State] Senate approved 29 to 17 yesterday, would award the state's 10 electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide -- not statewide.It's easy to see a huge problem with this proposal right off the bat. Let's say that in 2008, Maryland voters cast 65% of their ballots for Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee. But assume that the overall national vote total is closer: Rudy Giuliani beats Clinton by a whisker, 50.1% to 49.9%. Wouldn't Maryland voters, who made their sentiments overwhelmingly known, feel disenfranchised when they see their state's electoral votes give the win to Rudy?
But the bigger problem with the proposal was raised by legislative opponents of the proposal. Says The Post story:
Sen. Michael G. Lenett (D-Montgomery) ...said the system proposed could just switch the target for candidates from closely divided states to large cities with many voters -- a scenario that would not necessarily empower Maryland.Lennett is right. Under the Maryland bill, which wouldn't go into effect until states with a collective majority--270 votes--in the Electoral College adopted the same system, Presidential campaigns would likely be focused on vote-rich metropolitan areas only: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, Atlanta, and a handful of other places. Lost in the shuffle would be rural, small town, and suburban areas of all sorts.
In establishing the Electoral College, the Framers attempted to ensure that powerful larger states--like Virginia, New York, and Pennsylvania--didn't run roughshod over smaller ones. As in so many other places in the Constitution, they sought to prevent majorities from overwhelming minorities. As Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier write:
The system was worked out very carefully to strike a balance between the interests of big and small states. In a direct popular election the big states' votes would drown the votes of the small states, a situation the small states could hardly permit; but the big states could not allow the small states to have a disproportionate say in electing the chief executive...Contrary to causing states like Maryland to have less importance in choosing our Presidents, the Electoral College makes it possible for it and other states more say in the process than they would in a process decided solely on the basis of the popular vote.
Maryland isn't ignored because its Electoral College delegation is paltry. The state's ten votes equal those of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Arizona. It has more votes than Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, West Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Lousiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia. Only eighteen states have more electoral votes than Maryland!
The real reason a state like Maryland might get ignored by presidential nominees is its predictability, not the size of its Electoral College delegation! The state's perennial habit of voting for Democrats for President means that Republicans skip the state and Democrats take it for granted.
Lest Marylanders view this assertion skeptically, consider California. Presumably, if the Republicans nominate Giuliani in 2008, that state would be in play for his party for the first time in many a presidential election cycle. In recent years, California has been regarded as being so likely to go for the Democratic candidate that Republicans have made little effort to win over voters there. This, in a state with 55 electoral votes, 20.3% of the total needed to get elected President! Predictability prevents Republicans from pitching their appeals to Californians and causes Democrats to take it for granted. If that's true for California, you can bet it's true for Maryland.
Proposals for converting to the popular election of Presidents may have merit. But since 1789, the Electoral College has been a hedge against disregarding the interests and concerns of smaller states (and communities). Before Maryland and other states throw away the College, they might want to consider what else they might be throwing away!
[Cross-posted at RedBlueChristian.com.]
[THANKS TO: Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice for linking to this post.]
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Passing on Passes at Bible Lessons...for Now
Most weeks, I present as many updates on my reflections and study of the Biblical texts on which our weekend worship celebrations will be built as I can. The purpose is to help the people of the congregation I serve as pastor, Friendship Lutheran Church of Amelia, Ohio, get ready for worship. Hopefully, it's helpful to others as well, since our Bible lesson is usually one from the weekly lectionary, variations of which are used in most of the churches of the world.
However, I won't be presenting the passes over the next several weeks. They'll resume during the week of April 15.
However, I won't be presenting the passes over the next several weeks. They'll resume during the week of April 15.
Letters to My Non-Churchgoing Friends (#9: My Spouse Isn't Supportive)
Dear Friend,
In these letters, I’m addressing common reasons people give for not participating in a local church. Here’s one I often hear from married people: “I can’t get my spouse interested in church. With no support at home, it’s hard for me to motivate myself to even find a church home.”
Statements like these have, in the past, usually been made by wives about their husbands. I personally believe that the reason for this is that historically, in every culture, men have been taught that they don’t need others, not even God. For men who believe this, the idea that we need to admit our sins and surrender to a Savior is radical. I believe it even frightens them. Our bluster about not needing a church or our claim that we can just as effectively worship God on the fairway of Hole 13 often masks our fear. (I know. I’m a recovering control freak who used to like to keeping my life God-free.)
The New Testament portion of the Bible, both in its accounts of Jesus’ earthly ministry and in the letters written by some of His earliest followers, shows us that women have always been more open than men to Christ’s call to repentance and new life through faith in Him. This may partly be because in the cultures in which Christian faith first took hold, women occupied an inferior status. They didn’t suffer from the control freak hangups that so often prevent men from pursuing a life of faith.
But more importantly, through Christ, women saw that in God’s eyes, men and women, both made in God’s image, are equal.
In recent years though, I’ve met a number of married couples in which the traditional pattern has been reversed: the man has wanted a connection to Christ and the church, while the woman resists it. Whichever spouse disdains church involvement, it’s hard for the other spouse.
This is what I tell married people who want to be part of the church, yet are married to folks for whom that isn’t important:
1. Don’t let the objecting spouse keep you from being involved in a church. If you believe that the church is important for your spiritual well-being and growth--and I obviously believe that’s true, you should forge ahead with church involvement. Make it clear that weekly worship and pursuing your own personal area of Christian service are priorities in your life.
2. Don’t criticize your spouse when she or he refuses to go to worship or church functions with you. No one has ever been successfully harried or insulted into faith in Christ or church involvement.
3. Pray for your spouse. Ask God to open their will and heart to the possibility of church involvement.
4. Enlist the prayer support of Christian friends. Ask them to ask God to help you to maintain a strong connection with the church and to pray for that openness in your spouse I mentioned above.
5. Love your spouse.
I can’t guarantee that resistant spouses will join you in worship if you follow these steps. But I can guarantee that if you don’t follow them, they won’t be involved and it’s possible that you’ll lose your motivation, too. Don’t let anything keep you from being connected to Christ and His church!
Sincerely,
Mark
In these letters, I’m addressing common reasons people give for not participating in a local church. Here’s one I often hear from married people: “I can’t get my spouse interested in church. With no support at home, it’s hard for me to motivate myself to even find a church home.”
Statements like these have, in the past, usually been made by wives about their husbands. I personally believe that the reason for this is that historically, in every culture, men have been taught that they don’t need others, not even God. For men who believe this, the idea that we need to admit our sins and surrender to a Savior is radical. I believe it even frightens them. Our bluster about not needing a church or our claim that we can just as effectively worship God on the fairway of Hole 13 often masks our fear. (I know. I’m a recovering control freak who used to like to keeping my life God-free.)
The New Testament portion of the Bible, both in its accounts of Jesus’ earthly ministry and in the letters written by some of His earliest followers, shows us that women have always been more open than men to Christ’s call to repentance and new life through faith in Him. This may partly be because in the cultures in which Christian faith first took hold, women occupied an inferior status. They didn’t suffer from the control freak hangups that so often prevent men from pursuing a life of faith.
But more importantly, through Christ, women saw that in God’s eyes, men and women, both made in God’s image, are equal.
In recent years though, I’ve met a number of married couples in which the traditional pattern has been reversed: the man has wanted a connection to Christ and the church, while the woman resists it. Whichever spouse disdains church involvement, it’s hard for the other spouse.
This is what I tell married people who want to be part of the church, yet are married to folks for whom that isn’t important:
1. Don’t let the objecting spouse keep you from being involved in a church. If you believe that the church is important for your spiritual well-being and growth--and I obviously believe that’s true, you should forge ahead with church involvement. Make it clear that weekly worship and pursuing your own personal area of Christian service are priorities in your life.
2. Don’t criticize your spouse when she or he refuses to go to worship or church functions with you. No one has ever been successfully harried or insulted into faith in Christ or church involvement.
3. Pray for your spouse. Ask God to open their will and heart to the possibility of church involvement.
4. Enlist the prayer support of Christian friends. Ask them to ask God to help you to maintain a strong connection with the church and to pray for that openness in your spouse I mentioned above.
5. Love your spouse.
I can’t guarantee that resistant spouses will join you in worship if you follow these steps. But I can guarantee that if you don’t follow them, they won’t be involved and it’s possible that you’ll lose your motivation, too. Don’t let anything keep you from being connected to Christ and His church!
Sincerely,
Mark
Monday, March 26, 2007
Now What?: In the Face of a Terrible Tragedy
[Today, a memorial celebration of the life of Eileen Murphy, the principal of Summerside Elementary School in our community was held. More than one-thousand people were in attendance, filling the Performing Arts Center of Glen Este High School. She was a beloved figure and the 600-children and staff of Summerside were just some of the people wrestling with the suicide of a beloved educator. Many more who are part of our West Clermont Local School District have been affected by this loss.
[The memorial was wonderful, including a moving and funny eulogy by our friend, Barb Dardy; a solo presentation of Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus by our district superintendent, Gary Brooks; and a parent eloquently speaking of his appreciation of Miss Murphy, among other things. Below is a message I shared during the memorial.]
There are things that happen in this life that are so big and so sad and so horrible that we can’t explain them. As you think about the tragic death of a beloved family member, principal, and colleague, it’s natural to ask, “Why has this happened?”
I’m not sure there is an answer to that question.
More than that, I’m not sure that having an answer would help us very much.
I think that the far more important question for all who mourn Eileen Murphy to ask is this: “Now what?”
How do you--how do we all--proceed with the living of our lives knowing that there are things that happen in this life that are so big and so sad and so horrible that we can’t explain them? How do we live knowing that life is good, but life isn’t fair and life doesn't always make sense? Just a few thoughts.
First, and this is especially for the boys and girls: Listen to each other. Be kind to each other. Treat each other with respect. When we know that even this beautiful world full of wonders and laughter can be infected by sad things, we should all make it our goal to treat others with the same kindness and love with which we want them to treat us.
Second, boys and girls, when you have feelings of sadness or anger inside of you, tell a trusted grown-up like a parent, a teacher, a counselor, a pastor, or, for some of you, a Boys and Girls Club adult. When I was a little boy and I got frightened or sad, those bad feelings always got worse if I kept them to myself. But when I told my parents, grandparents, or some other grown-up I trusted, those feelings got smaller or went away. A trusted grown-up can help that happen for you too. And grown-ups, we never grow too old for this advice!
Third: The sixty-something year old woman who, when I was in my early twenties, helped me move from being an atheist to a believer in God used to tell me whenever something was bothering me, “You know, Mark, it’s not something you can’t pray about.” You can talk with God about anything! You can even tell Him when you’re angry with Him. The Bible tells us to cast all our cares on God because He cares for us. He cares for you. So, talk to God. Pray.
Fourth: Live in the assurance that your life matters to God. Every single second of it!
In the New Testament portion of the Bible, you can read the letters of a man named Paul. Once a hardboiled enemy of Christian faith, he became a follower of Christ and suffered beatings, imprisonment, shipwrecks, and all sorts of abuse because of his faith. He had every reason to ask, “Why?” But Paul kept following Christ.
He did this because he remembered, as many of us will do in just a few days, that Christ gave up His life on Good Friday and then rose to give new life to all who believe in Him on Easter Sunday.
Paul knew that no matter what happened, he was still loved. You should know that too. Toward the end of his life, Paul wrote some words to the band of Christians living in Rome that comfort me whenever I face the uncertainties and pain of life. I hope they will help you today too:
[The memorial was wonderful, including a moving and funny eulogy by our friend, Barb Dardy; a solo presentation of Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus by our district superintendent, Gary Brooks; and a parent eloquently speaking of his appreciation of Miss Murphy, among other things. Below is a message I shared during the memorial.]
There are things that happen in this life that are so big and so sad and so horrible that we can’t explain them. As you think about the tragic death of a beloved family member, principal, and colleague, it’s natural to ask, “Why has this happened?”
I’m not sure there is an answer to that question.
More than that, I’m not sure that having an answer would help us very much.
I think that the far more important question for all who mourn Eileen Murphy to ask is this: “Now what?”
How do you--how do we all--proceed with the living of our lives knowing that there are things that happen in this life that are so big and so sad and so horrible that we can’t explain them? How do we live knowing that life is good, but life isn’t fair and life doesn't always make sense? Just a few thoughts.
First, and this is especially for the boys and girls: Listen to each other. Be kind to each other. Treat each other with respect. When we know that even this beautiful world full of wonders and laughter can be infected by sad things, we should all make it our goal to treat others with the same kindness and love with which we want them to treat us.
Second, boys and girls, when you have feelings of sadness or anger inside of you, tell a trusted grown-up like a parent, a teacher, a counselor, a pastor, or, for some of you, a Boys and Girls Club adult. When I was a little boy and I got frightened or sad, those bad feelings always got worse if I kept them to myself. But when I told my parents, grandparents, or some other grown-up I trusted, those feelings got smaller or went away. A trusted grown-up can help that happen for you too. And grown-ups, we never grow too old for this advice!
Third: The sixty-something year old woman who, when I was in my early twenties, helped me move from being an atheist to a believer in God used to tell me whenever something was bothering me, “You know, Mark, it’s not something you can’t pray about.” You can talk with God about anything! You can even tell Him when you’re angry with Him. The Bible tells us to cast all our cares on God because He cares for us. He cares for you. So, talk to God. Pray.
Fourth: Live in the assurance that your life matters to God. Every single second of it!
In the New Testament portion of the Bible, you can read the letters of a man named Paul. Once a hardboiled enemy of Christian faith, he became a follower of Christ and suffered beatings, imprisonment, shipwrecks, and all sorts of abuse because of his faith. He had every reason to ask, “Why?” But Paul kept following Christ.
He did this because he remembered, as many of us will do in just a few days, that Christ gave up His life on Good Friday and then rose to give new life to all who believe in Him on Easter Sunday.
Paul knew that no matter what happened, he was still loved. You should know that too. Toward the end of his life, Paul wrote some words to the band of Christians living in Rome that comfort me whenever I face the uncertainties and pain of life. I hope they will help you today too:
What then are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything else? Who will bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?...No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.As you face a loss so big and so sad and so horrible that you can’t explain it, I hope you’ll remember that God is bigger than all our hurts and that today and every day, His arms are opened wide to you.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Faith v. Religion
[This message was shared during worship celebrations at Friendship Lutheran Church, Amelia, Ohio, on March 24 and 25, 2007.]John 12:1-8
Less than a week before He will be crucified, Jesus is at dinner in the Bethany home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. Just a short time before, Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead. It was this incident, proving Jesus’ dominion over death, that caused His enemies to hatch their conspiracy to kill Him. They couldn’t stand the thought of losing control of Israel’s religious life to this Savior of wildly unpredictable love and grace.
During the dinner, Mary of Bethany does something strange and extravagant. She breaks open an ointment imported from India, the cost of which is the equivalent of a year’s worth of wages. She pours the ointment on Jesus’ feet. In one way, the gesture is like that of a servant, similar to what Jesus Himself would do on the night of His arrest when He washed the feet of His disciples. In yet another way, Mary’s action is like that of a family member anointing a body for burial, the only other time it was deemed appropriate to touch another person’s feet. Mary seems to sense that in heading for Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover, Jesus is also heading toward certain death.John says the aroma filled the place. What a contrast it would have been to the stench of death that had, just a short time before, filled the tomb in which the body of her brother, Lazarus, had been lain days before Jesus called him back to life.
Mary’s gesture is wildly inappropriate. In those days, in that culture, no woman spoke with a man in public. No woman let her hair down for others to see. And no one but a slave washed the feet of travelers. Judas is appalled! “What a waste!” he says. “This nard could have been sold and the proceeds could have gone to the poor.”
Of course, within days, Judas will betray Jesus for one-tenth of the value of Mary’s nard! Like many religious traditionalists, Judas has a dark core of sin he tries to hide by pointing to the faults, real and imagined, of others. He wants to make everybody as miserable as he is by demanding that they conform to his ideas of religious propriety. When his darkness is bared for the world to see a few days later, Judas' religiosity keeps him from having faith in a gracious God Who forgives and so, embarrassed, he takes his own life. At the dinner in Bethany, Jesus tells Judas to back off: Mary, He says, is only honoring Him and preparing His body for burial when she could.
David Stark, director of a ministry at Prince of Peace Lutheran Church in Burnsville, Minnesota, identifies four ways in which faith, represented by Mary of Bethany, is contrasted with religion, represented by Judas, in this incident. I think that Stark is absolutely on the money here and I want to share these four contrasts between faith and religion with you.
First, Stark says, we see that “religion focuses on outward deeds for appearance sake...”; but faith focuses on our internal relationship with Christ. He tells about a time when actor Hal Holbrook did a workshop for pastors and laypeople on reading the Bible in compelling ways during public worship. One participant asked Holbrook to show them what he meant. So, the actor read Psalm 23. When he finished, the place erupted in applause. The man who’d requested the example then asked if he could try. Holbrook handed the man the Bible and he too, read the Psalm. People were now moved to tears by the same 23rd. Psalm. “I’m confused,” someone said to Holbrook. "Why did you get a standing ovation, but this man from the audience without the same skills you have as an actor moved us to weep?” “It’s very simple,” Holbrook replied. “I used my talent and skill as an actor. This gentleman obviously knows the Shepherd the Psalm talks about in a first-hand way.”
This congregation isn’t everybody’s cup of tea. I believe that one reason for that is that some people walk through our doors looking for religion, a set of rituals and time-worn habits. But other people come here looking for Jesus, looking for a faith relationship with the Savior-God Who died and rose for us. People see Jesus through our imperfections and our surrender to Him in ways they never could if we were a smells-and-bells outfit.
There's nothing wrong with a smells-and-bells approach to worship, as long as it's done out of a genuine faith in Jesus Christ. But such an approach is a hollow show if it's just a weekly religious exercise!
More than a year ago, a Roman Catholic priest was here with me for a time of Bible study. He’d never been in our building before and I wondered how he would react to our sanctuary. He stood in the back of this unadorned place, looking around. First, he saw the piano, guitars, and speakers. He looked at the screen. Then, the cross. Then, the altar on wheels and the chairs. At last, his eyes moved up to the arches and decking. He remained quiet for an excruciatingly long time. Then, softly but enthusiastically, he told me, “What an inviting space! A person could really worship God in here.”
I later told a member of Friendship about his comments and she said, “I think he’s right. You can feel Jesus in here because the people who worship here really love Jesus.”
Of all the compliments I’ve ever received about Friendship, the one I cherish most came from our dear friend Chris, who said, “When I worship at Friendship, I see Jesus!”
If we were into religion, our building and worship practices would be to Judas’ liking; since we’re into a living faith relationship with Christ, I think that we’re more like Mary of Bethany!
David Stark also says that in our lesson, we see that religion never breaks out of old boundaries and rules, but faith does extravagant things because of its love for Jesus. Mary did what Judas could never imagine doing. Faith gives away more love and devotion than it can really afford!
A few weeks ago, I told you about a man I know who periodically slips some money into the locker of a co-worker going through a tough time. He can’t afford to do that. But he would say, “I’ll give up a few soda pops. Bottom line: I can’t afford not to help my friend.” Faith says, “I can’t afford to not be extravagant in sharing Christ’s love for others. After all, He spent His life on a cross to save me from sin and death!”
Shortly after Easter, we’ll be convening a four-session class called ‘Witnesses for Christ.’ This is the most important thing we have ever done at Friendship. The Church Council hopes that every adult and junior and senior high member of Friendship will participate. “I don’t have the time,” you might say. Especially when there will also be some outside reading and assignments. Maybe you don’t have the time. Spend it anyway. Be extravagant. Spend time you don’t have and effort you can’t afford in order to become a more joyful, confident witness for the Savior Who died and rose for you!
Our Bible lesson also shows us that religion loves ruts of standards and habits; but faith jumps at the unexpected chances to live for Christ that everyday life brings. When Mary awoke on the day on which our lesson takes place, she may have had no idea that Jesus would show up. After all, there were no telephones, no email. She probably had no intention of breaking open the container of expensive ointment. Once she broke the glass of the sealed bottle, she would have to use every drop of the ointment; there was no way to re-seal it. Yet, she did break it open. She did so because Jesus was there in her home at a particular moment, a moment that would pass and then be gone. His death seemed imminent to her. She did for Him what she could while she could!
Faith is always on the lookout for ways to demonstrate the love of Christ when it can. I’ve told the story before of what happened when evangelist and social activist Tony Campolo went to Hawaii for a seminar. One evening before a presentation, he and a colleague walked into a diner that turned out to be the gathering place of prostitutes before and after they went out onto the streets. Campolo began to engage these women in conversation. When it was clear that he wasn’t interested in buying what they were selling, they asked questions about him and his work. He explained that he was a Christian and a pastor.
As they talked, Campolo learned that it was the birthday of one of the prostitutes. No one would send her a card or give her a cake and she would spend the evening in her humiliating trade. Campolo found out that this woman and the other prostitutes all would return to the diner at 3:00 in the morning. So, he and his friend went to a bakery to buy a cake. They bought streamers and hung them in the diner. When the prostitutes returned, they were stunned, especially the one whose birthday it was. "What kind of Christians are you?" she asked. Campolo answered: “The kind of God Who throws birthday parties for prostitutes at 3:00 in the morning.” What extravagant expression of Christ’s love will you allow your faith to manifest this week?
The fourth thing our lesson shows us is that religion always looks to others with criticism and judgment; faith moves toward others with love. Mary responded to Jesus’ love with an act of outrageous devotion. Judas condemned her for not looking and acting like all the other good folks down at Jerusalem Lutheran Church.
As some of your know, our daughter Sarah called me from Florida the other night. She was excited. "I was witnessing for Christ with a co-worker," she told me. This co-worker, who’s coarse and difficult and sometimes whiny, had turned a lot of people off. Sarah decided to try to befriend her.
Doing that has been tough. But the other evening, the young woman began to ask Sarah about why she was so friendly to her. Sarah was given the chance to speak with her about how Jesus died and rose for all people. This girl asked Sarah all sorts of questions. “It was so exciting, Dad!” she told me. “I was able to really witness for Christ!”
Here, Sarah’s story dovetails a bit with that of Tony Campolo. She learned that her co-worker’s birthday was the next day. So, before heading for work, Sarah went to the closest grocery story and bought a big birthday cake, along with some candles. It was an unnecessary thing for her to do, extravagant given the small income she and her husband are now bringing in. But it made Sarah feel good. It always feels good to follow faith’s call to move to others with love.
Mary had faith. Judas had religion.
- Mary turned her heart toward Christ; Judas was worried whether others thought he looked religious.
- Mary moved outside the boundaries of propriety to love Christ; Judas kept his religion within rigid lines.
- Mary jumped at unexpected chances to live her faith; Judas wanted everything to be done according to some traditional form.
- Mary moved out in love; Judas lashed out in judgment.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
I Am Such a Dork!
I was unable to watch any of today's Ohio State-Memphis Elite Eight tournament game. But on my way home from our Saturday worship, I heard the final minutes, which my beloved Buckeyes won 92 to 76, I heard OSU's play-by-play announcer Paul Kiels say, "Watch out, Atlanta. The Buckeyes are on their way!"
To prove what a dork I am, those words brought tears to my eyes.
I was born and raised in Columbus. During my growing-up years, contrary to form, Ohio State basketball was more important to me than Ohio State football. I loved Jerry Lucas, John Havlicek, Jim Bowman, and all the other great players from the early-60s who vied for national championships and won one back then. I've had the fever ever since.
OSU basketball has always been a bond between my father and me, too. In fact, just a few moments ago, the first person I called to celebrate Ohio State's entry into the Final Four was dad.
Readers here know how strong my ties to The Ohio State University are. I talk about the university all the time!
Ohio State was the only college to which I applied. It was unthinkable to me to attend any other institution. And I loved my time there! One of my early instructors, Lance Schreffler, teaching the port-of-entry class offered to all incoming freshman, UVC100, urged us to "do the university," finding ways to use the extraordinary resources of the world's largest campus--today there are more than 51,800-students on the Columbus site--to grow intellectually, socially, and in other ways. My grades were so-so. But my hours in the William Oxley Thompson stacks, involvement with the Off-Campus Students' Association, and lengthy conversations with faculty members who gave so generously of their time--people like Stan Swart, Jim Kweder, and Don Van Meter, among others--gave me a first-class education! (Stan and his wife, Jan, attended my wedding and reception.)
My wife also graduated from OSU and our son was born there. Most of my closest friends graduated from State, too.
When our son, Philip, now twenty-five, was growing up, I took a week of vacation in order to take him to OSU Basketball Camp every year. We relished our time on campus and time spent in my favorite city on the planet, Columbus.
I'm so happy to be involved these days in my county OSU Alumni Association, a group of people who not only want football tickets, but also want to serve our community and to provide area young people with the same benefit we enjoy, an Ohio State education!
All of these things probably combined to create my dorky--and I must add in my defense, momentary--response to the announcement that the Buckeyes will be going to the Final Four, the first time since 1999.
Kentucky, Kansas, and UCLA fans, among others, may regard it as an entitlement for their teams to make it into the Final Four. But as an OSU fan, in spite of having had many fine teams to cheer in the past four-plus decades, I can't see things that way. I see it as a special privilege...and a special privilege too, to have such a fine team and a fine coach to represent me and the rest of Buckeye Nation!
To prove what a dork I am, those words brought tears to my eyes.
I was born and raised in Columbus. During my growing-up years, contrary to form, Ohio State basketball was more important to me than Ohio State football. I loved Jerry Lucas, John Havlicek, Jim Bowman, and all the other great players from the early-60s who vied for national championships and won one back then. I've had the fever ever since.
OSU basketball has always been a bond between my father and me, too. In fact, just a few moments ago, the first person I called to celebrate Ohio State's entry into the Final Four was dad.
Readers here know how strong my ties to The Ohio State University are. I talk about the university all the time!
Ohio State was the only college to which I applied. It was unthinkable to me to attend any other institution. And I loved my time there! One of my early instructors, Lance Schreffler, teaching the port-of-entry class offered to all incoming freshman, UVC100, urged us to "do the university," finding ways to use the extraordinary resources of the world's largest campus--today there are more than 51,800-students on the Columbus site--to grow intellectually, socially, and in other ways. My grades were so-so. But my hours in the William Oxley Thompson stacks, involvement with the Off-Campus Students' Association, and lengthy conversations with faculty members who gave so generously of their time--people like Stan Swart, Jim Kweder, and Don Van Meter, among others--gave me a first-class education! (Stan and his wife, Jan, attended my wedding and reception.)
My wife also graduated from OSU and our son was born there. Most of my closest friends graduated from State, too.
When our son, Philip, now twenty-five, was growing up, I took a week of vacation in order to take him to OSU Basketball Camp every year. We relished our time on campus and time spent in my favorite city on the planet, Columbus.
I'm so happy to be involved these days in my county OSU Alumni Association, a group of people who not only want football tickets, but also want to serve our community and to provide area young people with the same benefit we enjoy, an Ohio State education!
All of these things probably combined to create my dorky--and I must add in my defense, momentary--response to the announcement that the Buckeyes will be going to the Final Four, the first time since 1999.
Kentucky, Kansas, and UCLA fans, among others, may regard it as an entitlement for their teams to make it into the Final Four. But as an OSU fan, in spite of having had many fine teams to cheer in the past four-plus decades, I can't see things that way. I see it as a special privilege...and a special privilege too, to have such a fine team and a fine coach to represent me and the rest of Buckeye Nation!
Go, Buckeyes!
Prayer for Habitat for Humanity Wall-Raising
Today, Habitat volunteers, including several from the church I serve as pastor, participated in a special ceremony preceding the wall-raising for a new Habitat for Humanity. Our congregation, along with All Saints Lutheran Church in Mount Carmel and Saint Mark Lutheran Church in Milford, secured the funding from Thrivent Financial Services for Lutherans, constituting 65% of the costs. Volunteers from churches throughout the county are involved in additional fundraising and of course, construction of the home.
Ours is a relatively small congregation; but our experience demonstrates that God can do great things even with a small group of people. It's exciting!
Here's the prayer I did for today's ceremony:
Ours is a relatively small congregation; but our experience demonstrates that God can do great things even with a small group of people. It's exciting!
Here's the prayer I did for today's ceremony:
Lord:
Today, we remember that Your Word tells us, “Unless the Lord builds the house, the builder builds in vain.”
This seems appropriate for us today in several ways.
First: Because we know that whether as it relates to funding, drafting, or construction, we can only do those things for which You have equipped us with the resources that You have given to us.
It also seems appropriate because we know that no couple can truly be a couple, no family can be a family, and no home is really home without Your empowerment.
As Habitat volunteers put up the walls on the Higginses new home, we pray for the safety of all who participate in the construction process. We pray too for Your wisdom and Your help so that everything gets accomplished in a timely way.
But more than that, we pray that You will help everyone involved to build their lives on the strong foundation of Your love and goodness, lavished on us all so freely and so tenaciously in the Person of Jesus Christ.
Bless the work of all who labor here and grant that we will treat this work for what it is: An opportunity to demonstrate to all the world the greatness of our awesome God of love.
May You alone be glorified!
In Jesus’ Name we pray.
Amen!
Friday, March 23, 2007
There in Good Times and Bad
Tomorrow morning, I'll be offering the prayer for a special ceremony. Our congregation will be working with other area churches in the erection of the walls for a new Habitat for Humanity home. It's one of those fun experiences you enjoy as a pastor, watching God's people provide a new home for a family in need of one.
But early this morning, my wife received word that a former boss of hers, the principal of one of our area elementary schools, tragically took her own life. This afternoon, I was asked to lead a community memorial service that will happen at one of our local high schools. This is one of those experiences you dread as a pastor.
And yet, in all sorts of experiences I've learned that the God Who through Jesus Christ has experienced the best and the worst of life, is truly present. Jesus promises to be with us always. The good and the bad times often present me with circumstances I have no idea how to handle. Fortunately, Jesus Christ does. I lean on Him...and He has never failed to help.
But early this morning, my wife received word that a former boss of hers, the principal of one of our area elementary schools, tragically took her own life. This afternoon, I was asked to lead a community memorial service that will happen at one of our local high schools. This is one of those experiences you dread as a pastor.
And yet, in all sorts of experiences I've learned that the God Who through Jesus Christ has experienced the best and the worst of life, is truly present. Jesus promises to be with us always. The good and the bad times often present me with circumstances I have no idea how to handle. Fortunately, Jesus Christ does. I lean on Him...and He has never failed to help.
I'd Have Been Frightened by a Lower Score!
You know the Bible 100%!
Wow! You are awesome! You are a true Biblical scholar, not just a hearer but a personal reader! The books, the characters, the events, the verses - you know it all! You are fantastic!
Ultimate Bible Quiz
Create MySpace Quizzes
Thursday, March 22, 2007
I'm Praying for Elizabeth and John Edwards...and Asking You for Prayers
I've laughed at John Edwards' primping, defended his capacity to empathize with the poor, and decried Ann Coulter's assault on him. But who could help but be impressed with the Edwardses today as they talked about the recurrence of Elizabeth Edwards' cancer? And who could resist the thought, irrespective of one's politics, that if Elizabeth thinks this highly of John Edwards, maybe all of us should consider his substance as well?
We sometimes forget that these public figures are real human beings. The reappearance of cancer in this vital, intelligent, and funny woman's life reminds us all of our common humanity.
I'm praying for the Edwardses!
And speaking of praying, could I ask readers of this blog to add a young man named Ian to your prayers? He's a seventeen year old member of our congregation who is recovering from a major mishap, sustained while he was trying to earn extra credit for an assignment at school. Please ask God to give him complete healing. Thanks!
We sometimes forget that these public figures are real human beings. The reappearance of cancer in this vital, intelligent, and funny woman's life reminds us all of our common humanity.
I'm praying for the Edwardses!
And speaking of praying, could I ask readers of this blog to add a young man named Ian to your prayers? He's a seventeen year old member of our congregation who is recovering from a major mishap, sustained while he was trying to earn extra credit for an assignment at school. Please ask God to give him complete healing. Thanks!
Third Pass at This Weekend's Bible Lesson: John 12:1-8
[To see the first two passes at this lesson, go here and here. The first link explains what these passes are about.]
[Verse-by-Verse Comments, continued]
4But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, 5“Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?”
(1) John always mentions that Judas will betray Jesus. If Mary of Bethany exemplifies authentic discipleship, Judas is its antitype.
(2) Of course, the Scriptures indicate that followers of Christ should make giving to the poor a priority, as it was in Old Testament thought as well. But we see how far Judas is from authentic discipleship in that he will use religious tradition and rhetoric to condemn an act of true devotion to Christ.
(3) A denarius was the usual pay for a laborer's day of work. The perfume used by Mary would thus have cost a year's pay. This is an extravagant act of devotion. (Denarii is the plural form of denarius.)
(4) Brian Stoffregen points out that the 300 denarii "wasted" by Mary is ten times what Judas would take to betray Jesus. All week long, I've been thinking of that old AC/DC song to describe Judas' act: "Dirty deeds done dirt cheap."
6(He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.)
(1) The Greek word translated here as thief is kleptes, from which we get the word kleptomaniac. It's also the same word used by Jesus to describe the thief who threatens the flock in John 10:1, 8, 10. In both cases--that of the thief and of Judas--the aim is to destroy the life, hope, and devotion of the followers of the Good Shepherd. Of course, Judas' act is, in its way, vastly more evil. He is the supposedly pious, but faithless person on the inside tearing down the faith and the unity of the church by insisting that things should be done in a proscribed way.
7Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. 8You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”
(1) Jesus does not mean for the Church to prefer extravagance on things like buildings over against doing for the poor. We should always give the poor priority, along with those with no knowledge of Jesus Christ. But Jesus is commending Mary for taking advantage of honoring Him while she could. Do we take advantage of the fleeting opportunities we have to honor Christ when we can?
[Verse-by-Verse Comments, continued]
4But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, 5“Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?”
(1) John always mentions that Judas will betray Jesus. If Mary of Bethany exemplifies authentic discipleship, Judas is its antitype.
(2) Of course, the Scriptures indicate that followers of Christ should make giving to the poor a priority, as it was in Old Testament thought as well. But we see how far Judas is from authentic discipleship in that he will use religious tradition and rhetoric to condemn an act of true devotion to Christ.
(3) A denarius was the usual pay for a laborer's day of work. The perfume used by Mary would thus have cost a year's pay. This is an extravagant act of devotion. (Denarii is the plural form of denarius.)
(4) Brian Stoffregen points out that the 300 denarii "wasted" by Mary is ten times what Judas would take to betray Jesus. All week long, I've been thinking of that old AC/DC song to describe Judas' act: "Dirty deeds done dirt cheap."
6(He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.)
(1) The Greek word translated here as thief is kleptes, from which we get the word kleptomaniac. It's also the same word used by Jesus to describe the thief who threatens the flock in John 10:1, 8, 10. In both cases--that of the thief and of Judas--the aim is to destroy the life, hope, and devotion of the followers of the Good Shepherd. Of course, Judas' act is, in its way, vastly more evil. He is the supposedly pious, but faithless person on the inside tearing down the faith and the unity of the church by insisting that things should be done in a proscribed way.
7Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. 8You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”
(1) Jesus does not mean for the Church to prefer extravagance on things like buildings over against doing for the poor. We should always give the poor priority, along with those with no knowledge of Jesus Christ. But Jesus is commending Mary for taking advantage of honoring Him while she could. Do we take advantage of the fleeting opportunities we have to honor Christ when we can?
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Second Pass at This Weekend's Bible Lesson: John 12:1-8
[The first pass, containing an explanation of what these passes are about, can be found here.]
Verse-by-Verse Comments
1Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.
(1) We are within one week of the final of three Passovers narrated by John in his gospel. As readers, we know that this will be the Passover week when Jesus will be executed on a cross. Even the disciples themselves, mindful of the mounting opposition to Jesus, would have been aware of the danger that surrounded Jesus, especially if He went to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover, which as a practicing Jew He wanted to do. Death looms over this scene.
(2) The Passover, of course, is the Jewish holiday which remembers Israel's deliverance from slavery in Egypt. Just before their departure, the angel of death was sent to Egypt. It passed over the homes of the Jewish (Hebrew) slaves who put the blood of a lamb on their doorposts. Otherwise, the angel brought death to the firstborn in every Egyptian household. This culminating sign from God--there had been ten--convinced the oppressive Pharaoh to accede to the demands of the leader of the Israelites, Moses. (For more information on Passover, go here and here.)
It was during the week of Passover that God chose the sacrifice of the perfect Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world to take place. By the power of His blood to atone for our sin, we pass over from death to life.
(3) Given the unique timeline of John as it relates to Jesus' crucifixion, this gathering would have taken place on Saturday night, after the conclusion of the Sabbath. (The Sabbath runs from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday.) This would have allowed Martha to serve, as we will soon learn she does.
(4) Bethany, of course, is the hometown of the siblings Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. It was here that in John 11, Jesus brought Lazarus back to life, though he had been dead for four days. It was because of that act that the conspiracy to kill Jesus was hatched.
Bethany is one of the touchstone locales of the Gospels. Ed Markquart points out that it "was two miles from Jerusalem and a stone’s throw to the Mount of Olives and the Garden of Gethsemane." (For more on Bethany, see here.)
2There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him.
(1) The word translated from the Greek as dinner here, deipnon, is only used elsewhere in the Gospels to describe the Last Supper. John does tell about the Last Supper--without the institution of Holy Communion--this dinner has a lot in common with the Last Supper.
(2) Does There refer to Bethany or to the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus? I've always assumed that it meant the latter. But several commentators point out that if this were the case, there would have been no reason to mention Lazarus' presence at the meal.
Still, the fact that Martha, in typical Martha fashion, is the one who serves the dinner, would seem to indicate where it took place.
It also shows us that, in spite of the extravagant gesture about to be made by Mary, the three siblings were far from wealthy.
(3) The mention of Lazarus might also underscore the brewing plot against Jesus, precipitated by His raising Lazarus from the dead.
3Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
(1) This ointment is a myrrh, familiar to us from the Christmas story, where it also foreshadows Jesus' death. Markquart, citing Raymond Brown's commentary tells us that:
(2) Why did Mary do this? Some suggest that she is anointing Jesus as King before what John understands as His enthronement, His death and resurrection.
That may very well be at play here. But I think that something else is going on. Generally speaking, people were expected to wash their own feet. But if it were ever done for them , it would have been the work of a servant. In the coming chapter of John's gospel, in the upper room, Jesus will wash the feet of His disciples, an action for which John will use the same Greek verb translated as wiped here. Initially horrified at His act of submissiveness and servanthood, the disciples will be told by Jesus that such actions are the signs of Christian discipleship. Mary demonstrates that she "gets it," understanding what it means to follow Christ.
(3) The feet of the dead were also anointed.
[More verse-by-verse comments tomorrow, I hope.]
Verse-by-Verse Comments
1Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.
(1) We are within one week of the final of three Passovers narrated by John in his gospel. As readers, we know that this will be the Passover week when Jesus will be executed on a cross. Even the disciples themselves, mindful of the mounting opposition to Jesus, would have been aware of the danger that surrounded Jesus, especially if He went to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover, which as a practicing Jew He wanted to do. Death looms over this scene.
(2) The Passover, of course, is the Jewish holiday which remembers Israel's deliverance from slavery in Egypt. Just before their departure, the angel of death was sent to Egypt. It passed over the homes of the Jewish (Hebrew) slaves who put the blood of a lamb on their doorposts. Otherwise, the angel brought death to the firstborn in every Egyptian household. This culminating sign from God--there had been ten--convinced the oppressive Pharaoh to accede to the demands of the leader of the Israelites, Moses. (For more information on Passover, go here and here.)
It was during the week of Passover that God chose the sacrifice of the perfect Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world to take place. By the power of His blood to atone for our sin, we pass over from death to life.
(3) Given the unique timeline of John as it relates to Jesus' crucifixion, this gathering would have taken place on Saturday night, after the conclusion of the Sabbath. (The Sabbath runs from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday.) This would have allowed Martha to serve, as we will soon learn she does.
(4) Bethany, of course, is the hometown of the siblings Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. It was here that in John 11, Jesus brought Lazarus back to life, though he had been dead for four days. It was because of that act that the conspiracy to kill Jesus was hatched.
Bethany is one of the touchstone locales of the Gospels. Ed Markquart points out that it "was two miles from Jerusalem and a stone’s throw to the Mount of Olives and the Garden of Gethsemane." (For more on Bethany, see here.)
2There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him.
(1) The word translated from the Greek as dinner here, deipnon, is only used elsewhere in the Gospels to describe the Last Supper. John does tell about the Last Supper--without the institution of Holy Communion--this dinner has a lot in common with the Last Supper.
(2) Does There refer to Bethany or to the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus? I've always assumed that it meant the latter. But several commentators point out that if this were the case, there would have been no reason to mention Lazarus' presence at the meal.
Still, the fact that Martha, in typical Martha fashion, is the one who serves the dinner, would seem to indicate where it took place.
It also shows us that, in spite of the extravagant gesture about to be made by Mary, the three siblings were far from wealthy.
(3) The mention of Lazarus might also underscore the brewing plot against Jesus, precipitated by His raising Lazarus from the dead.
3Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
(1) This ointment is a myrrh, familiar to us from the Christmas story, where it also foreshadows Jesus' death. Markquart, citing Raymond Brown's commentary tells us that:
It was used in “incense, cosmetics, perfume, medicines and in burial preparations.”Of nard, Brown writes:
[It is] fragrant oil from the root of a nard plant which grows in the mountains of northern India.Chances are that Mary had been saving this ointment for a long time. I wonder why she hadn't used it to anoint Lazarus' body which?
(2) Why did Mary do this? Some suggest that she is anointing Jesus as King before what John understands as His enthronement, His death and resurrection.
That may very well be at play here. But I think that something else is going on. Generally speaking, people were expected to wash their own feet. But if it were ever done for them , it would have been the work of a servant. In the coming chapter of John's gospel, in the upper room, Jesus will wash the feet of His disciples, an action for which John will use the same Greek verb translated as wiped here. Initially horrified at His act of submissiveness and servanthood, the disciples will be told by Jesus that such actions are the signs of Christian discipleship. Mary demonstrates that she "gets it," understanding what it means to follow Christ.
(3) The feet of the dead were also anointed.
[More verse-by-verse comments tomorrow, I hope.]
Tiny Homes, Texas-Style
That's the new series of photo essays Richard Lawrence Cohen has started on his blog. I love the whole idea! Maybe it will motivate me to downsize sooner than later. That would be a good thing.
Checked Out of the Library Today...
The Holy Vote: The Politics of Faith in America. I've long admired Ray Suarez and so I'm looking forward to reading this book. In addition to being a gifted reporter, he's also a committed Christian.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
First Pass at This Weekend's Bible Lesson: John 12:1-8
[Most weeks, I present as many updates on my reflections and study of the Biblical texts on which our weekend worship celebrations will be built as I can. The purpose is to help the people of the congregation I serve as pastor, Friendship Lutheran Church of Amelia, Ohio, get ready for worship. Hopefully, it's helpful to others as well, since our Bible lesson is usually one from the weekly lectionary, variations of which are used in most of the churches of the world.]
The Bible Lesson: John 12:1-8
1Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 2There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him. 3Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, 5“Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?” 6(He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.) 7Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. 8You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”
General Comments
1. Most commentators point out that this passage is the third of three different versions of what is apparently the same incident. The others are in Mark 14:3-9 (essentially duplicated in Matthew 26:1-13) and in Luke 7:36-49. As in this lesson, the anointing of Jesus is associated with His burial. Luke makes no such link, instead focusing on the woman's devotion to Jesus and His scandalous proclamation of forgiveness. In the Lucan story, the woman is a notorious sinner.
2. The immediate context of the passage is framed first by the end of chapter 11 in which the "chief priests and Pharisess" have decided to find a way to arrest Jesus during the upcoming Passover. This decision is reached in John 11:53, because of Jesus bringing His friend Lazarus back from the dead. This is too definitive a sign, in this Gospel of miraculous signs, of Jesus' dominion over life and death for them to allow. (This has always struck me as bizarrely funny. If the raising of Lazarus confirmed who Jesus was, why did the religious leadership think that they could successfully kill Him off? It just shows how strangely we think when we become consumed with our own power and priorities.)
3. After our passage, we come to the conspiracy to also kill Lazarus, evidence of Jesus' Lordship, and the movement to the cross with Palm Sunday. (The latter passage ends in John 12:19, with the Pharisees' acknowledgement of the futility of standing against Jesus. But they press to kill Him anyway.)
4. We are moving toward the crucifixion at a time appointed by God, irrespective of the machinations of Jesus' enemies. This becomes clearer as we move through John's account of Jesus' execution. Everything about our lesson foreshadows what is to come and in some ways, this is John's version of the Last Supper, although He will talk about that event in ways that vary from the narratives in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
[I hope to present verse-by-verse comments on the passage tomorrow.]
The Bible Lesson: John 12:1-8
1Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 2There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him. 3Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, 5“Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?” 6(He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.) 7Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. 8You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”
General Comments
1. Most commentators point out that this passage is the third of three different versions of what is apparently the same incident. The others are in Mark 14:3-9 (essentially duplicated in Matthew 26:1-13) and in Luke 7:36-49. As in this lesson, the anointing of Jesus is associated with His burial. Luke makes no such link, instead focusing on the woman's devotion to Jesus and His scandalous proclamation of forgiveness. In the Lucan story, the woman is a notorious sinner.
2. The immediate context of the passage is framed first by the end of chapter 11 in which the "chief priests and Pharisess" have decided to find a way to arrest Jesus during the upcoming Passover. This decision is reached in John 11:53, because of Jesus bringing His friend Lazarus back from the dead. This is too definitive a sign, in this Gospel of miraculous signs, of Jesus' dominion over life and death for them to allow. (This has always struck me as bizarrely funny. If the raising of Lazarus confirmed who Jesus was, why did the religious leadership think that they could successfully kill Him off? It just shows how strangely we think when we become consumed with our own power and priorities.)
3. After our passage, we come to the conspiracy to also kill Lazarus, evidence of Jesus' Lordship, and the movement to the cross with Palm Sunday. (The latter passage ends in John 12:19, with the Pharisees' acknowledgement of the futility of standing against Jesus. But they press to kill Him anyway.)
4. We are moving toward the crucifixion at a time appointed by God, irrespective of the machinations of Jesus' enemies. This becomes clearer as we move through John's account of Jesus' execution. Everything about our lesson foreshadows what is to come and in some ways, this is John's version of the Last Supper, although He will talk about that event in ways that vary from the narratives in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
[I hope to present verse-by-verse comments on the passage tomorrow.]
Letters to My Non-Churchgoing Friends (#8: Disappointed with the Church?)
[I'm writing a series of columns for the Community Press newspapers dealing with common reasons people give for not being part of the church. This is the eighth such letter.]
Dear Friend:
I've been talking about common reasons people offer for not being part of the church. Today, I want to deal with a reason often given by those who leave churches and don't come back. "I was disappointed by the church," they say.
Whether their disappointment in a previous congregation stems from unethical practices, feelings of being ignored or marginalized, or from being hurt by someone in congregational leadership, I feel badly when people are disappointed. I listen to them sympathetically. No one wants to be hurt, especially by the church. All churches should be fellowships of safety and welcome.
Having been disappointed by the church myself, I try to remind these hurting people of two things: (1) No church is perfect. Because, as I've pointed out before, the church is a fellowship of recovering sinners, there will be times when we disappoint one another. (2) Not all churches are the same. For every congregation in which the penchant for hurting others is endemic, you can find dozens whose members strive to live in Christian attitudes of love for God and neighbor.
But it should also be said that some people become disappointed with a church not because of a church's sins, but because of their own. They want the church to bend to their wills on matters of personal preference.
For example, I know of a church that lost several member families in a dispute over the color of new carpeting in the sanctuary. They wanted red and the building committee voted for salmon. "I was very hurt," said one of the departing members, which was really her way of saying, "I was ticked off that we didn't get our way!"
In recent years, homosexuality and other sexual expressions outside of marriage have become more accepted in our culture. I'm frankly glad that longstanding forms of homophobia are dying. Any time we think of people in dehumanizing terms, God isn't glorified.
But with this trend toward acceptance of more and diverse sexual expression, many profess disappointment that most Christian churches continue to say that the practice of homosexuality is contrary to God's will. Most churches welcome all people to wrestle with their sin and hear the Good News of forgiveness offered through Jesus Christ. That includes people who profess an orientation to homosexuality.
But churches aren't free to change God's mind on this subject. God has said that sexual intimacy is to happen within the bounds of heterosexual marriage. The Church--my own "liberal" Evangelical Lutheran Church in America included--has refused to alter what God has revealed in the Bible.
Jesus says that sin isn't just about what we do or say, but also about what we think. And the Bible tells us that all have sinned. From this, we can extrapolate that no one is guiltless in sexual matters. But if your disappointment with a church stems from its unwillingness to label right what God has called wrong, chances are you'll be disappointed for a long time.
Whatever the source of your disappointment with a church of which you may have been a part in the past, I hope that you won't let it keep you from finding a church home. There's no such thing as the perfect church. But when you find a church disappointing you, I hope you'll ask yourself this question: "Am I disappointed because God's will has been violated or is it because my will has been denied?"
And, even if you find the church guilty, ask yet another question of yourself: "Should I leave this church or can I stay, keep loving these imperfect people, and pray that they will keep loving me in spite of my own imperfections?"
Sincerely,
Mark
[To see all eight letters thus far written, go here. There will be more installments in this series.]
Dear Friend:
I've been talking about common reasons people offer for not being part of the church. Today, I want to deal with a reason often given by those who leave churches and don't come back. "I was disappointed by the church," they say.
Whether their disappointment in a previous congregation stems from unethical practices, feelings of being ignored or marginalized, or from being hurt by someone in congregational leadership, I feel badly when people are disappointed. I listen to them sympathetically. No one wants to be hurt, especially by the church. All churches should be fellowships of safety and welcome.
Having been disappointed by the church myself, I try to remind these hurting people of two things: (1) No church is perfect. Because, as I've pointed out before, the church is a fellowship of recovering sinners, there will be times when we disappoint one another. (2) Not all churches are the same. For every congregation in which the penchant for hurting others is endemic, you can find dozens whose members strive to live in Christian attitudes of love for God and neighbor.
But it should also be said that some people become disappointed with a church not because of a church's sins, but because of their own. They want the church to bend to their wills on matters of personal preference.
For example, I know of a church that lost several member families in a dispute over the color of new carpeting in the sanctuary. They wanted red and the building committee voted for salmon. "I was very hurt," said one of the departing members, which was really her way of saying, "I was ticked off that we didn't get our way!"
In recent years, homosexuality and other sexual expressions outside of marriage have become more accepted in our culture. I'm frankly glad that longstanding forms of homophobia are dying. Any time we think of people in dehumanizing terms, God isn't glorified.
But with this trend toward acceptance of more and diverse sexual expression, many profess disappointment that most Christian churches continue to say that the practice of homosexuality is contrary to God's will. Most churches welcome all people to wrestle with their sin and hear the Good News of forgiveness offered through Jesus Christ. That includes people who profess an orientation to homosexuality.
But churches aren't free to change God's mind on this subject. God has said that sexual intimacy is to happen within the bounds of heterosexual marriage. The Church--my own "liberal" Evangelical Lutheran Church in America included--has refused to alter what God has revealed in the Bible.
Jesus says that sin isn't just about what we do or say, but also about what we think. And the Bible tells us that all have sinned. From this, we can extrapolate that no one is guiltless in sexual matters. But if your disappointment with a church stems from its unwillingness to label right what God has called wrong, chances are you'll be disappointed for a long time.
Whatever the source of your disappointment with a church of which you may have been a part in the past, I hope that you won't let it keep you from finding a church home. There's no such thing as the perfect church. But when you find a church disappointing you, I hope you'll ask yourself this question: "Am I disappointed because God's will has been violated or is it because my will has been denied?"
And, even if you find the church guilty, ask yet another question of yourself: "Should I leave this church or can I stay, keep loving these imperfect people, and pray that they will keep loving me in spite of my own imperfections?"
Sincerely,
Mark
[To see all eight letters thus far written, go here. There will be more installments in this series.]
Monday, March 19, 2007
'Tiny Houses' Take Off in Japan
Fed by younger people disgusted with extended commutes to and from suburban neighborhoods and with expensive housing, the tiny houses movement I wrote about here, seems to have a significantly larger counterpart in Japan. (TY: Andrew Sullivan)
Bill Puts It on Spin Cycle
Former President Bill Clinton will speak on health issues to a spinning exercise class in Manhattan on Thursday night. It's a fundraiser for his wife's presidential campaign and each participant will pay $2300 for an evening that will include Clinton's presentation, a forty-five minute workout, and "cocktails and appetizers."
It's certainly creative as campaign fundraising schemes go. And it's all part of the Hillary Clinton campaign's aim of raising between $20 and $30-million in the first three months of this year!
Not only have campaigns gotten too long, there's entirely too much money thrown around in the whole process. The Clintons probably raise so much money, in fact, that they're be less susceptible to the pressures for favors brought to bear by their contributors...though perhaps more so to those who run and sponsor their massive fundraising events. But, generally speaking, big givers, whether to Republican or Democratic candidates, aren't donating to candidates' coffers because of deeply-held principles. They're buying access.
But who's going to give access to all the millions of Americans who can't afford to ante up as candidates for both parties' nominations rev up their respective fundraising machines?
Interestingly, most politicians I know hate the campaign fundraising rat race. "I think of all the charities that could be helped with all the dollars I have to raise just to stay competitive and it makes me sick," one told me several years ago.
What's the cure for this wretched excess? I don't know. But I'm sure that the current campaign influence-peddling (pedaling?) system won't improve until all of us are sufficiently sickened by it!
[This has been cross-posted at RedBlueChristian.com.]
It's certainly creative as campaign fundraising schemes go. And it's all part of the Hillary Clinton campaign's aim of raising between $20 and $30-million in the first three months of this year!
Not only have campaigns gotten too long, there's entirely too much money thrown around in the whole process. The Clintons probably raise so much money, in fact, that they're be less susceptible to the pressures for favors brought to bear by their contributors...though perhaps more so to those who run and sponsor their massive fundraising events. But, generally speaking, big givers, whether to Republican or Democratic candidates, aren't donating to candidates' coffers because of deeply-held principles. They're buying access.
But who's going to give access to all the millions of Americans who can't afford to ante up as candidates for both parties' nominations rev up their respective fundraising machines?
Interestingly, most politicians I know hate the campaign fundraising rat race. "I think of all the charities that could be helped with all the dollars I have to raise just to stay competitive and it makes me sick," one told me several years ago.
What's the cure for this wretched excess? I don't know. But I'm sure that the current campaign influence-peddling (pedaling?) system won't improve until all of us are sufficiently sickened by it!
[This has been cross-posted at RedBlueChristian.com.]
'Home, Sweet Home'
An old hymn I learned in my first parish says, "I am but a stranger here, heaven is my home."
Read Charlie Lehardy's wonderful thoughts on home.
Read Charlie Lehardy's wonderful thoughts on home.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
'Stranger Than Fiction'
The Narrator-as-God motif is apparently not uncommon in literature. Neither evidently is the Author-as-Real-Life-Character-with-Her or His-Creations. At least literary types have advised me that this is so.
But since most of my reading is of the non-fiction variety, my exposure to these narrative devices is pretty limited. In fact, I've encountered it only once, back in the mid-1970s, during a fit of post-college "I'm Going to Read Fiction" resolve. I started with Hermann Hesse and moved onto Kurt Vonnegut, both of whose work I enjoyed. But it was Vonnegut's then-newest novel, Breakfast of Champions, his fiftieth birthday present to himself, that intrigued me most.
In its climactic scene, Vonnegut himself appears near the scene of an automobile accident suffered by Kilgore Trout. Trout was a creation of Vonnegut's, a pornographer who had played a part in one of his previous books. Dazed, confused, injured, Trout wonders who this figure in the night is. I created you, Vonnegut tells him. He goes on to say that he's going to transform Kilgore Trout from a sleazy porn writer into a literary giant who produces works of enduring importance. All will be changed.
There's poignance in The Breakfast of Champions as its author with God-like power changes the lives of his fictional creations, but can't change his own life in the way he most wants. He can't fulfill his fondest dream. He can't be young again.
Poignance aside, the device employed by Vonnegut of entering his story and interacting with his creation always intrigued me.
Stranger Than Fiction, the film starring Will Ferrell and a fantastic cast takes the device further. Ferrell's character, Harold Crick, it turns out, also appears fully formed in the imagination of novelist Karen Eiffel, played by Emma Thompson.
In a way, this is far more complicated than Vonnegut's trick in Breakfast of Champions. Here, Crick, though imagined by a novelist, is also a real person. He becomes aware of the voice of a narrator, Eiffel, who is telling the story of his everyday life. That's startling enough.
But then, waiting at the bus stop on his way home from work, Harold hears his death foreshadowed. Naturally enough, he tries at first to find a way to change his fate and then, to live his life fruitfully and well while he can.
Along the way, Ferrell's Crick is helped by a fantastic cast of characters, most notably a professor of literature, played by Dustin Hoffman, and a baker audited by Ferrell's IRS agent, played by Maggie Gyllenhaal.
Emma Thompson, as always, is fantastic, this time as an author struggling with writer's block, then churning out a classic only to change it dramatically in the end. Queen Latifah is effective in her role, although there isn't much substance to her role.
Ferrell gives a fine performance in a part that some might have played like Chance the Gardener in Being There. Harold, in fact, may have been a bit like Chance as this movie starts. For all we know, Harold may have appeared only as an adult, a creature without a past, a cardboard cutout without substance. But as the story moves along, the narrator and Ferrell himself make him more real, more compelling. I found myself desperately wanting this character not to die.
I won't give away the ending at this point. But I will say that this film raises a lot of questions.
First among them is why we don't see more films like this: thoughtful, not heavy-handed, with interesting quirky characters.
This was my first Will Ferrell movie. I liked it. You might like it too.
[UPDATE: Spoiler Alert...Spoiler Alert...Spoiler Alert...Spoiler Alert...Spoiler Alert
One of the most interesting aspects of Stranger Than Fiction, from a Christian perspective, comes in its denoument. Harold finds author Karen Eiffel. She gives him the entire manuscript to read. Included are Eiffel's outline of its last pages, which call for Harold's death.
Desperate, Harold takes the unfinished book to Professor Hilbert (Hoffman). He wants the professor to find a way the book can be changed so that his life will be spared.
Hilbert reads the manuscript and meets Harold the next morning. He informs Harold that this is the climactic masterpiece of Eiffel's literary career. The fictional rendering of Harold's death is essential to the greatness of the work.
In essence, Hilbert, who we learn is also a lifeguard at a local pool, someone who presumably has a preference for saving lives, tells Harold that he must accept his death sentence.
Eiffel, who has perfectly recounted the events of Harold's life to this point, must now be allowed to administer Harold's death sentence by completing her narrative. There is no alternative.
Like most people given a death sentence, whether by a jury or an oncologist, Harold tries to bargain with his fate. He weeps as he tells Hilbert he'd hoped, especially with so many wonderful things now happening in his life, that his death could be avoided. It's a bit like Jesus' Garden of Gethsemane experience in which the Savior, fully aware of what awaited Him the next day, prays that the cup of death might pass Him by.
Christ, of course, ultimately accepted the Father's will that He die in place of fallen humanity so that all who believe in Him may live forever.
After reading Eiffel's manuscript himself, Harold returns it to the author and pronounces that she must finish the novel. He's accepted his death, presumably because of the reason for it and its consequences.
Harold wakes up the next morning, knowing that in a short while, he will stand in front of a moving bus to save the life of a boy who will ride his bicycle into harm's way. Harold exchanges his life for that of another, certainly reminiscent of what Christ did for the whole human race.
This sort of self-giving love is compelling to us all. This is why Jesus is such an attractive figure, even for those who profess no faith in Him.
Of course, as a Christian, I believe that Jesus, unlike the fictional Harold Crick, was sinless and that in His death, He accepted our rightful punishment for our sin. But it seems to me that in most people we deem heroic can be seen the faint echoes of the ultimate hero, Who died for the sins of the world. Jesus is the One of Whom John the Baptizer exclaimed: “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29)
For the Christian adult, Stranger Than Fiction isn't an altogether bad film to see during Lent.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)