Javascripture

SENSORY WORSHIP

2006-11-25T20:02:00.000-08:00

Here are some thoughts I recently sent to our pastors concerning worship.

We have been beginning to re-envision ways to enrich our worship experiences, and the aspect that grabbed my imagination, considers the use of our five senses. I have given a lot of thought over the years regarding worship, and the ways we can draw our whole self/ all ourselves into glorifying God and making ourselves aware of His presence. For what other reason did God give us senses than for the purpose of communication, relationship (with Him, others, and Nature), and discovery?

Over the past many years, some of my worship experiences have been in other congregations. One deeply meaningful relationship I had thirty years ago was with a Franciscan community/monastery in Salzburg, Austria. Aesthetically, the place of worship had a profound impact on me. Actually, much of Europe with its Gothic Cathedrals, and Baroque churches affect me positively. One of the things I noticed was the way light was used, meaning the natural sunlight streaming through windows: whether stained glass or plain glass. Even the colors used: primarily reds and blues, could affect one a certain way, and elicit a sense of the transcendence of God. I was disappointed in the absence of high windows that could let in sunlight when our sanctuary was built. Since we rely 100% on electricity and man-made lighting arrangements, it does something to our worship…almost as if we have too much control. It doesn’t leave the opportunity open for God to suddenly roll back a bank of clouds and have rays of light suddenly illuminate a sanctuary, where before all was cast in shade and muted light. I’m sure that few people (if anyone) had thought of that when the sanctuary/worship hall was designed, but I think about things that way…a bit odd, perhaps. All of this is to point out that the use of LIGHT, not just colors, or visual effects, can be very important. Light sources are also important, not just images or pictures that are visible because they reflect light. Candles, Sunlight, Lamps, etc…

When we gathered a week or so ago for pizza and visioning/dreaming, I wrote a few notes. These are some rough notes that can be fleshed out as time goes on:

Worship engages us with the Arts that engage our senses:
Visual Arts (sight)== includes color (such as banners that reflect the various seasons in the church calendar), imagery: banners, 3D (depth as well as form); LIGHT—such as lamps, muted lighting, and even darkness (as in tenebrae service), as well as candles, direct sunlight, etc…
Musical/Audio Arts (hearing)== includes a variety of music and singing: also various instruments (like violin, trumpet, flute, piano, guitars, I wish we had an oboe!!!) Audio can also involve choral readings like last week with the scripture. Possibly (if the Reformers among us can stomach it) chant or responsive readings, choral responses to psalms. Our hymnal has quite a collection at the back. Let’s use the hymnal more. Praise songs address the affective/emotional domain, but less the cognitive/intellectual domain which hymns address more profoundly. Worship should not only help us to feel well—feel closer to God, but also think well—think more profoundly, theologically about God.
Kinesthetic Arts (touch, movement)== Raising hand, bending our knees, learning perhaps a song with hand motions—let the woman who knows sign language teach us all one song totally in sign language as we sing it (something simple). Do we ever bow our heads or kneel? It’s scriptural, but also Roman Catholic, so Protestants have veered away. Even making the sign of the cross. Popish, perhaps, in some peoples eyes, but a lllloooonnnnnggggg standing tradition of the Church Universal: making the sign of the cross. I wonder how much we can dare without turning some people off? Does raising our hands in worship and praise scare some people away? Perhaps, those who fear Pentecostals. Would crossing oneself shock someone else??? Questions to explore as we continue to look into the depth of worship.
Another kinesthetic practice could be in dance (liturgical dance and otherwise) as well as drama, plays, skits, processions up the aisle.
Aromatic Arts (smell)== This is where I remember the incense within an Episcopal Church I attended our first year of marriage. AH! Frankincense and myrrh. Think about the pungent worship Israel had as they offered those smoky burnt offerings to the LORD. And think of the psalmist who wrote of offering incense and prayers…. I wonder what we could do here. I think I would be reticent for the practice seems so Catholic, but it is quite powerful, and I have heard that the sense of smell actually deeply affects and strengthens memory of events. Once you can associate a smell with an event, person, or place, and you can smell that again, the memory of it comes flooding back. One has to just be careful of allergies, or of being too over powering. Perhaps scented candles?? Fragrant potlucks? More flowers? Rose scented air freshener?
Epicurean Arts (taste)== Obviously in worship the thing that comes first to mind is Communion/Lord’s Supper/Eucharist. Bread and Juice. Question: is Wine forbidden by the Covenant, or just not used? Wine is a far more powerful and authentic element than juice: both in taste, in symbolism, in tradition.
How else could taste be employed? The ancient church had love feasts: we have potlucks upon occasion, or other dinners. I think it would be helpful to our community to gather together to eat far more often. Make potlucks, dinners, seders, etc worshipful.

Okay there you have it. A few notes that explore Sensory Worship (not worship of the senses, but worship by and through the senses).

Yours, PETE

Check out Churchrater.com

2006-11-25T19:40:00.000-08:00

I recently discovered a website entitled Churchrater.com . Check it out. It is directed or managed by a friend of mine, Pete Walker, who's a George Fox Seminarian. There is some real interesting dialogue going on concerning all sorts of things affecting congregations: Gays in the Catholic Church, how Hospitable (or not) Churches are towards Children, a number of comments about various churches--often first time visits--across the country, etc. There's also a new movement a foot: BICBW. It stands for "But I Could Be Wrong." Membership to this movement of one's willingness to admit, and submit, to one's finitude and the possibility of error when pontificating, is totally FREE, and one needs only to end one's communication with the following postscript: BICBW.

Sins of omission and commission

2006-11-06T19:26:00.000-08:00

There are a few variations to The Lord’s Prayer, particularly in the section about asking God to forgive our debts/trespasses/sins. Our new pastor has been leading us in the Lord’s Prayer, over the past few weeks, by using the phase “forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us” rather than the phrase “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” that had been used by our congregation for many years.

When I think about the differences between debts and trespasses, I am reminded of some differences between various types of sins. Most often, I suppose, we think of sin as an active transgression: something that we do that is wrong. Theft, murder, adultery, deceit, arrogance, violence, etc. All those things are included in the broad umbrella of trespasses. Trespassing has come to mean something rather narrow: namely stepping onto someone else’s property without permission (quite often to do harm or appropriate something that doesn’t belong to oneself.) But what of debts? Our pastor pointed out the limiting connotations associate with debts in which our mind thinks in financial terms. Forgive us our debts sounds like a college student reneging on a student loan that he owes and had made promises to pay. However, I think that the whole idea of debts deals, rather, with what we owe people in terms of basic human transactions: love, compassion, generosity, the fruits of the Spirit. Our prayer, “forgive us our debts,” is an acknowledgment that we often fail to share these fruits of the Spirit with others. Sin is not just an active transgression, at times like this, but also a passive inaction when we should have acted: something that we did not do that would have been right. The Book of Common Prayer captures this in the confession: “Most merciful God, we confess that we have sinned against you in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done, and by what we have left undone.”

These sins have been called sins of omission (debts) and commission (trespasses). When we “commit” sins of omission we aren’t really committing anything at all. We actually are omitting to perform something that God would have us do. We fail to do something we ought to do through apathy, carelessness, lack of conviction, laziness or selfishness. If we consider the fact that God has given certain spiritual gifts, we actually sin if we fail to employ those gifts, practice and use those talents. In Jesus’s parable about the 5, 2 and 1 talents, it is the person who buried his talent and didn’t use it even slightly that was censored, punished and removed from the community or a relationship with his master. Burying his talent was a sin of omission: he had a debt to his master and refused to “pay” it by employing his talent.

If the sins of commission are more obvious, the sins of omission are more insidious. They lull us into a false sense of sinlessness. We can imagine someone objecting, “But I haven’t done anything wrong!” The question isn’t always whether or not one has done something wrong. More importantly is the question: What have I done that is right? How have I intentionally, deliberately and passionately embraced my calling? How fervently have I strained my ears to hear His voice, His whisper? How much have I expended myself to fulfill the one debt remaining (Romans 13:8), the love of one another, or “the carrying of each other’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2) which is the fulfillment of the law of Christ? The sins of omission are so often linked with that cankerous spiritual malady, indifference. When we withhold grace, forgiveness, compassion, or mercy, we rob our neighbor of his very breath, we deny him food, drink, hope, friendship, meaning. This is no small insignificant thing. It is truly insidious because we will not find ourselves throw in jail because of it. There are no laws of the state that threaten us with imprisonment if we turn a blind eye to a neighbor in need. No, we may not be thrown into prison, but there is a Place we may very well be thrown out of. “And between us and you a great chasm has been fixed” (Luke 16:19-31).

It is best to pray that God would forgive us all our sins: both debts and trespasses.

Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy.

Spiritual Gifts: Our Spiritual DNA

2006-10-22T20:30:00.000-07:00

Our church congregation (McMinnville Covenant Church) has started a two-month-long emphasis on spiritual gifts. Our pastors are preaching and leading worship with that emphasis in mind, and our small groups are exploring the topic. I’ve done this before: the scriptural passage from 1 Corinthians 12 is rather familiar. It’s used in either talking about spiritual gifts or likening the Christian Church (and all its scattered, dispersed congregations) to a Body. A Body of Broken Bones, in the words of Thomas Merton, deeply in need of healing, a body of fractured bones in need of being set in order.

I guess that these two things have a lot in common, really. Our spiritual gifts exemplify the way we flesh out our part or function in the Body of Christ. Our spiritual gift is our particular gene on the whole DNA genetic code of the Body of Christ. Our human DNA is made up of billions of genetic markers, genes along the many strands of chromosomes. I would liken our spiritual gifts to one of those genes that carry the biological information that leads to the specialization/specification of a particular body part, particular body tissue that performs a particular function for the mutual benefit of the entire body. Our spiritual gift is that specific purpose or function for which we are designed by God, to fulfill a unique, particular, and specific work in the Body of Christ, which is the Church. But not just for the edification of believers and fellow sojourners with whom we agree. No, much more we are given specific gifts for the redemption and health of the whole earth. Earth: meaning both Nature and World. Nature: meaning God’s Creation of the natural world including the environment and ecosystems that balance the interrelationships between plants and animals, fungi and protists. World: meaning Humanity’s creation of societies, civilizations and cultures in cooperation with or rebellion against God’s intended purposes and Will.

Today our pastor used the image of a beautifully wrapped gift. It lay on our altar: wrapped in spangled gold and silver paper, bound by gilded thread and bow. It looked like the kind of gift you’d eagerly open first, or expectantly save for last. Yet what if you gave such a gift to someone dearly beloved: an aunt or grandmother you wished to especially honor and they decided not to open it, not to actually receive and use the gift hidden within? How your heart would ache with rejection and sorrow.

Our pastor reminded us that Gifts are given in order to be opened. Opened and put to use. God has carefully—essentially even—given us gifts that are at the center of our being. They are at the center of our identity and character, making up the spiritual DNA of our souls. We are given at least one gift to be developed like a gift of paint brushes, paints and canvass. Such spiritual gifts are useless lying within a box. But taken out and held within the hand of the painter, they begin to bring color, form, mystery and marvel to those who will behold the painting that is generated. Each painting is impossible without the brushes, oils and canvass. Our spiritual gifts are just such tools or instruments. Our gifts or talents are meant to be seen and utilized, for what use is a Sundial in the Shade? (as Ben Franklin once quipped). God’s gifts are carefully chosen according to how He has shaped us. Our gifts are unique. We are each one of a kind. Are we using our gift precisely as God would like it used for the best benefit of all other people?

We aren’t just supposed to look at the pretty ribbon and crisp paper on the outside of the box. We must (our sanctification depends upon it) unwrap our gift and employ it for God’s glory and the world’s most desperate needs.

Perhaps the question for each of us is this: is there a gift that God has given us that we have left unwrapped, adorning the living-room coffee table of our lives? Perhaps we think that the wrapping paper, ribbon and bow are just “too nice” to unwrap or rip apart. We need to realize that the gift is inside. The wrapping is just for show, for the presentation of the gift. WE MUST GET ON WITH IT! Rip away the glitz of that giddy reception, the magic and mushiness of that moment it touched our fingertips, and we felt the heft of it in our hands. The paper must come off! The ribbon be discarded! And then we must use it. Let it get worn, dented, scuffed, dirtied, torn, used and abused in service (oops, …um … at least used real well).
God’s spiritual gift to us is tied in with our calling, our vocation. Perhaps we first recognize that gift or set of gifts when we first perceive God’s calling to us in our vocation. In the best of all possible worlds, God’s vocalization is our vocation. God’s calling is our life’s work, gift, purpose and finally, consummation.

Exploring Intelligent Design in the Church.

2005-12-29T21:36:00.000-08:00

Recently I purchased a book by Lee Strobel entitled The Case for a Creator. The book features various interviews with scientists in various fields: biology, biochemistry, astronomy, cosmology, etc... What struck me is the great amount of scientific evidence for the existence and action of a Creator. Perhaps Christians have been going about it all wrong, trying to get Intelligent Design to be taught within public schools. Frankly, most of the evidence is quite recent, and quite above the heads of most high schoolers. In fact I was having trouble comprehending the cosmological evidence. What it comes down to, however, is that there is a great deal of evidence out there that makes the most logical sense in the context of creation by an Agency outside of nature.

One of the most convincing arguments is found in the Big Bang theory, and another has to do with all the fine-tuning there is in physics for the existence of life, but the arguments most appealing to me have to do with how suitable the Earth is for us. There are so many various ways that the Earth is completely ideal for the sustaining of life, and how many things that could have been different that would have simply made life impossible. Obviously the naturalists just say that we got lucky, or that all the happy coincidences just came together here, so enjoy it--or exploit it--while you're alive in your pitiful, meaningless existence.

When it comes down to it, the intelligent design debate is about interpretation. How do you, or I, or any given scientist interpret the data, the evidence. Naturalists and Evolutionists will simply refuse to grant intelligent design because they a priori dismiss anything supernatural. If you start off saying that God is impossible, you will have to invent hypotheses and theories in order to account for the Big Bang evidence, or the evidence from the complexity of cells, of the genetic information packed in DNA, or the astronomical improbability of having a terrestrial planet 93 million miles from a medium sized yellow star in the safest position within a spiral galaxy (hundreds of light years away from black holes, supernovae, high concentrations of cosmic rays, etc...), a planet with the right balance of air to sustain life, covered with water that not only permits life by regulates the temperature of the whole planet: a planet, furthermore with an appropriate tilt of the axis and rotation period that allows with seasons, night and day within a span of hours that neither superheats or supercools one side of the planet.... Each of these aspects could very well be different: completely and radically more hostile and devastating to life. Yet all these ideal conditions coincidence: the number of individual conditions is staggering. Given only ONE condition awry, and life would be impossible as we know it. Impossible for probably any life outside of bacterial existence.

I believe the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to a Creator who literally thought of everything in order to make a world that not only supports life, but enables an astonishing diversity of life, filled with beauty, depth, meaning, and purpose. It is mind boggling thinking that there are people who not only are unimpressed by the countless ways our world is balanced and life-friendly, but also refuse to acknowledge that all of this is a gift from God. People like Betrand Russell have long lamented our pitiful existence and embraced a meaningless nihilism and though they don't believe in hell either, they fashion their own lives in such a way that they only know hell: that of their own despair and alienation.

Intelligent Design does need to be taught. In the churches. Adults need to learn these things.

Reflections on “Imago Dei” (The Image of God) and Evolution: The Naturalist versus The Super-naturalist.

2005-10-23T15:43:00.000-07:00

Not long ago a couple events coincided within the span of one week: an article on Naturalism and Intelligent Design written by my brother (a pastor) in his church’s newsletter, and a challenge from a fellow small group member who is working on an article on what it means to be made in the image of God. Perhaps to some people the issues seem unrelated, but I think they are related. An excerpt from Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Creation and Fall, as well as a few excerpts from C. S. Lewis’s Miracles have formed some of my thinking, as well as a sincere desire to address the ongoing debate within public schools whether to allow Intelligent Design theories to be taught within our Science classes. I hope this hasn’t scared you away, as a reader. Perhaps you’re wondering which camp I’ll land myself in. I hope that is enough to keep you interested.

The first couple chapters of Genesis are considered the Creation chapters. In much abbreviated language the Creation of the Earth is depicted, along with the especial Creation of humanity as residents of Earth. Some people might hope I would say figurative or metaphorical language instead of abbreviated, but I don’t think those words would be accurate. A metaphor is figurative language that compares two quite different things by mentioning one particular quality they both appear to possess. To say: “Zach is a cheetah on the track” would be to use a metaphor indicating Zach is a fast runner, not to imply he’s a great cat. However to say that “God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind’ and it was so.” (Genesis 1:24) is not to use a metaphor. It is to say, however, that these creatures: namely the entire Animal Kingdom (and all subsequent phyla, genera and species), were created intentionally and specifically by someone outside of Nature. I say that the Genesis narrative uses abbreviated language because it doesn’t intend to be scientific in the least. Indeed the order of events is highly suspect as well. The creation of plants (on day three) could hardly have preceded the creation of planets (on day four) as well as another particularly important celestial sphere, the sun, in so far as we are knowledgeable that plants manufacture their own food through photosynthesis, a process entirely dependent on light: particularly sunlight. Immediately the reader might surmise that I am fully entrenching myself in the Naturalist/ evolutionary camp as I call into question the scientific soundness of the Genesis account. To which I would wholeheartedly assent that the Bible in no way purports to be a scientific manual. But I do not think it meant to be metaphorical here either. It was simply stating, in massively abbreviated form, that there was and continues to be an intelligent design behind Nature and the things that have come into being. To that I likewise wholeheartedly concur.

The Genesis account goes on to say that humanity is created in the image of God: Humanity is the Imago Dei. “Then God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Genesis 1:27) Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes: “There is no transition here from somewhere or other, there is new creation. This has nothing to do with Darwinism: quite independently of this man remains the new, free, undetermined work of God. We have no wish at all to deny man’s connection with the animal world: on the contrary. But we are very anxious not to lose the peculiar relationship of man and God in the process.” (Creation and Fall, McMillan Co., 1959, p.36) The Genesis story tells about the purpose of humanity’s creation, not biologically how it came about. The Genesis passage speaks of humanity as being given originally a unique gift by God, unique among all the creatures. We are granted a relationship and responsibility “to rule” over the rest of creation, and we are created in His image. What that “image” is exactly, has been debated for years: our freedom of will, our ability to create, our ability to love sacrificially, our possessing a soul or spirit are among various interpretations, none that are exclusive of one another.

But not long after receiving this gift of creation and formation in His image, being God’s reflection, humanity decided to reject the gift and grab a position, a power, an ability. We said we will be like God “knowing good and evil.” This acquisition of knowledge was and continues to be a usurpation—a desire to be equal with God. It is a desire to wrest our future from the Creator so that we might establish an alternative based on our ambition. We act as if we are like God and act as if God does not exist, or is inconsequential at best. In some primordial past we became “sicut deus”: like God by our own power, lifting up the acquisition of knowledge, and judging between good and evil. Nonetheless, our original creation in the image of God was/is something unique among the created order, something that sets us apart and now, unfortunately, (through a primal estrangement called “the Fall”), at odds with the rest of the natural order.

The issue of “imago dei” (being created in the image of God) leads inevitably to the present controversy in our society between a creation-centered view of the Earth and a naturalist-evolutionary-based view of the Earth.

Within our schools and universities we have two competing world views currently embroiled in the science debate: intelligent design versus naturalism/evolution. Both of these viewpoints or positions of inquiry begin with certain presuppositions. The naturalist scientific community has denounced intelligent design as pseudo-science that is being used by fundamentalist Christians to push a literal interpretation of the Bible. The creationist supernaturalist scientific community has denounced evolution as a presumptuous, anti-religious theory rife with gaps in proof and logic that flies in the face of the facts that cry out evidence that there is order and design, balance and benefits, cooperation and complexity within Nature, on the Earth, throughout all living creatures. Such complexity, interdependence and balance cannot be adequately explained without the presence of a Creator Whose purposes aren’t simply random.

I will be frank in stating I find myself apparently with feet in both camps. Some might say my heart dwells in the Creation camp and my analytical mind in the Evolution camp. I could be denounced as a fence sitter. Biblical literalists might ask how I can believe dinosaurs lived 160 million years ago and uphold scientific theories dating the Earth’s age at over 3 billion years. You see, I’m not a Young Earth adherent. But at the same time I am a supernaturalist, not a naturalist. In other words I don’t believe that all that is in Nature (the evident world comprehended empirically through our five senses) came about by itself, randomly, haphazardly, accidentally, only by chance and through an interminably lucky process of natural selection.

A Naturalist believes that every finite thing or event must be explicable in terms of the Total System (which we call Nature.) In other words only Nature exists. Any cause happens from within the system. “The Naturalist believes that a great process, or ‘becoming,’ exists ‘on its own’ in space and time, and that nothing else exists… The Supernaturalist believes that one Thing (Being) exists on its own and has produced the framework of space and time and the procession of systematically connected events which fill them. This framework, and this filling, he calls Nature.” (C.S.Lewis, Miracles, p. 14). Now it may be argued that I have taken my thoughts completely away from Science and dove head first into Philosophy. This is true, but so have many scientists, because they cannot succeed in doing their work in a “vacuum.” To be an evolutionist, for example, is to be a philosopher, of sorts. One may find many separate fossils that show various bone structures, impressions of feathers or scales, and unwittingly—or very wittingly—desire to fill in the gaps with assumptions of mutations, gradual change and natural selection of the most efficient mutations, that most fortunately keep getting passed on to subsequent progeny. Finding and describing the fossils is science, while speculating and prescribing a necessarily blind, unguided chance randomness that links two separate fossils is philosophy, just as speculating and prescribing a necessarily intelligent design guided not by chance but by a purposeful Designer is philosophy. I would submit that the desire of scientists to exclude philosophical wrestling with the implications of fossil records diminishes scientific inquiry rather than purifies it.

Much of the reading I have done on Intelligent Design (particularly by Michael Behe) is not original research, but a description of multiple biological processes that must necessarily coincide in order for a function, such as vision, to occur. He calls this irreducible complexity. Although I don’t think these interpretations of scientific findings proves intelligent design in any definitive, undeniable way, yet I do affirm they are enough for me to nod my head in agreement: life remains a mystery, but there are enough fingerprints strewn across the Earth to point to the Culprit of Creation, Who dodges us, hides behind the Periodic Table and crouches within Relativity and Entropy.

Is Intelligent Design Science? It all depends on what individual scientists will allow into the dialogue. So long as scientists see inquiry as a linear, lock-step process of question, hypothesis, plan, observation and analysis, then perhaps no. But once scientists allow questions of purpose, as well as reflections on complexity, balance, and intuition, then perhaps the evolutionists won’t fear the proponents of intelligent design. It can not be denied that many scientists do believe in God, but do they believe in Creation? Do they believe that evolutionary processes may be an explanation for how an ageless God tweaks His Creation over time, much like an artist’s style my ‘evolve’ or change over time, simply because the artist desires to try something new. Conjecture? Most definitely, but it makes more sense to me than assuming every change is random and accidental simply because I’m not allowed to mention God.

For instance, how could an eye just blindly evolve? Evolutionists say that it started with photosensitive cells that mutated to primitive depressions in the head near the simultaneously evolving brain. From there successive mutations added increasingly beneficial components (while not having any other component lost through unfortunate mutations…) Consider, however, that is it possible for this to happen over countless millions of years, creatures holding onto the possibility that eyesight will eventually be achieved once some random cells mutate into the lens, and others mutate into the iris, the cornea, the vitreous humor, and the retina complete with rods and cones. All must coincide, exist at once, simultaneously for vision to occur. The evolutionists insist that successive stages of “improving vision” must have occurred as successive beings needed differing degrees of vision. But such reasoning is philosophy. It’s assuming that accidental mutations have left us with so many benefits, and every other mutation (those involving literally millions of dead-ends) must have all died off, without fossil records. Where are the fossil records of millions of botched mutations: those with a tenth of an eye, or those that made it a bit further with an eighth of an eye, or those lucky mutations that lasted 500 million years with a half an eye? Or how about the creatures that had the lucky chance to have the eyes evolving right, but unfortunately didn't have the digestive system evolving at the same time, so they died out? And how did the eye evolve? How did the body ‘know’ that things could be perceived visually, that there are things out there worth seeing, in focus, and in color? To be bombarded with photons does not mean one will evolve eyes. Earthly creatures have been bombarded with cosmic rays, x-rays, infrared rays, radio waves and a broad assortment of electromagnetic radiation for just as long (say a billion years) and no cells have ever mutated to perceive these things. Such belief in the beneficence of the purely accidental and capricious takes a leap of faith that the theist has no trouble taking because the theist believes there is a Designer, a Creator, a God Who desires and intends vision for some of His creatures—especially all the moving ones that aren’t microscopic. In all of this I have only considered one organ. Imagine all the organs together, which must simultaneously work together: circulation system, neural system, lymphatic, skeletal, digestive systems, and so on. It is from these reflections that the theory of irreducible complexity arises. This doesn’t even begin to tackle the grand questions: How did life begin? How does it continue? How does the arrangement of four molecules in DNA lead to textures of skin, colors of hair, the heart that pumps, the bile that oozes, one’s ability to laugh, the tone of a singer, or the wrath of a despot?

Science in itself can be simply an intellectual discipline used to efficiently discover the way things work in the natural world. Obviously Science isn’t meant to discover the way things work in the supernatural world. Scientists, however, get into trouble when they disavow the supernatural world, and say that only the empirically perceived natural world exists, ala our five senses, then try to relegate to the natural world all cause and effect, building systems to explain how things work while implying they have figured out why things work. If evolution (as a theory of gradual change over time) can simply be used by scientists as a descriptive, heuristic device that outlines biological adaptations within species and genera, and how creatures are related to each other, then well and good. But once scientists begin imagining a planet (unique within the cosmos) in which this all necessarily happened by accident, and that ‘happy coincidences’ for the mega-trillionth time keep occurring that are not ever intended or designed by a Maker, leaving us with a most remarkable, but completely accidental Earth, then evolution ceases to be a descriptive theory and becomes a prescriptive theory. Naturalism takes the place of theism as a belief system that drives and prescribes knowledge, filling in all the blanks and gaps with assumptions that somehow continuing evolution weeded out all the bad mutations (called natural selection) and kept only the good mutations.

C. S. Lewis wrote: “No, it is not Christianity which need fear the giant universe. It is those systems which place the whole meaning of existence in biological or social evolution on our own planet. It is the creative evolutionist….who should tremble when he looks up at the night sky. For he really is committed to a sinking ship. He really is attempting to ignore the discovered nature of things, as though by concentrating on the possibly upward trend in a single planet he could make himself forget the inevitable downward trend in the universe as a whole, the trend to low temperatures and irrevocable disorganization. For entropy is the real cosmic wave, and evolution only a momentary tellurian ripple within it.” (C.S.L., God in the Dock, W.B.Eerdmans, 1970).

But that is enough for now. Just some random ramblings in the continuing dialogue? Or did I design them that way? Someone might quip, it doesn’t matter, they aren’t intelligent anyway. To which I smile, and reply, “Perhaps.”

New Wine

2005-05-29T21:48:00.000-07:00

Our Worship Pastor, Ted Yuen, preached this morning. "Fasting, Feasting, and Fermentation." Hmmm, sounds like a Good Friday/ Easter Vigil juxtaposition. The long and short of it is this: We all yearn for more in a church experience.

When I was younger I often heard that Christians were hypocrites: saying one thing and doing another. I now do not think that most Christians are hypocrites, or at least the vast majority of those in my congregation, but I do think that most of us only go just so far in our Christian walk. We are timid Christians. A bit more than Sunday-only-Christians, but not radical Christians. The word 'radical' comes from the Latin root 'radicalis' and 'radix' that means "root". To be a radical means to get to the root of a problem, an issue, the core of humanity. So we shy away from radical Christianity. A radical faith. It would demand too much. And I share that fear.

Pete Walker, a friend of mine, gave me the honor one day of calling me a radical. I only wish I deserved the accolade. Perhaps I may be becoming one. I think that my problem (that stops me short from becoming at my very roots the truest of Christ-followers) is fear and my sense of propriety. As our worship pastor preached and talked today, I wanted to stand up (literally!) for him, stand beside him and invite others to stand up beside him when he was preaching about new wine in new wineskins. But I remained in my seat, voicing a muted "Amen" at times because I didn't want to stand out or be conspicuous.

We have a very basic problem as Christians in America: Comfort. We want to be comfortable and we like being comforted. One of the congregations in town invites people to its services with the promise that they will find it 'fun, relaxing and inspiring.' Now when I saw this invitation (that one may guess might include an espresso bar in the foyer, and an upbeat band weaving harmonies together on the front stage) I thought that I never recalled hearing that discipleship, as presented by Jesus or any of His apostles, was supposed to be "fun." Fun: we worship it. Every kid in school will lament and deem their cause just that what's wrong with school is that it isn't fun enough. Fun has become the chief contemporary virtue: indeed the litmus test of a viable and valid experience. If something isn't fun, it isn't okay.

You see, fun is something that happens outside of us. It happens to us. Like Disneyland: we pay an admission and want to experience fun: entertainment, diversions, surprise and excitement. And in our church experience we desire the same thing. So much of worship has become performance based. We come into the sanctuary to the uplifting beat of drums, strumming of guitars and the jingle of tamborines. It's a love-in. It's groovy. It's comfortable. Everyone pours themselves a cup of java, saunters in with their blue jeans and polo shirts, relaxes in their cushioned pews, laughs and chats with their neighbor and then has the worship team do music to them and for them. One song flows seamlessly into another song, even prayers have background music. It's nice, no denying it. And very comfortable. And...maybe...just maybe too comfortable.

I don't know. What am I arguing for? Less comfort? Wooden pews within drafty, cold sanctuaries where hellfire-and-brimstone sermons are pounded (not expounded) from the pulpit? No coffee, no praise band, and a cappella hymns? No. I'm not. I'm not saying that contemporary praise songs deaden a living faith. But I believe I am saying that a performance based worship (that is increasingly more pervasive throughout evangelical churches) may be more insidious, or at least dangerous to our maturation as Christians, than has been heretofore granted.

Our problem is that we want things outside of us to change and improve. But change only really occurs if it takes place within us. We want more out of the church, but too often we refrain from putting more into the church. We want to receive, but withhold our whole-hearted giving.

We want God to perform or change things, but would really rather not be the instruments of his transformation. We want to be "done to" but not "done through." Too often our cry is this: "Do something to me, Lord, but please don't try to do something through me."

Fermentation

Jesus is putting new wine into new wineskins. The new wine is His Spirit, His sovereign salvific will. New wine is too potent for old wineskins. If the new wine is His Spirit, indeed, Himself, what are we to say is meant metaphorically by wineskins? Jesus cautioned about old wineskins, by which we can guess He meant the old way, the old rituals, the law and its rigid structure, or perhaps the traditions of the Pharisees that kept people oppressed. But what do old wineskins mean for us today? Century old rituals? Rites and Creeds? or perhaps church structures, hierarchy and organization? Are these old wineskins outside of us, or are they us ourselves? Are the old wineskins the church or religion at all? Perhaps all these things need renewal...most importantly ourselves. Nonetheless, unless I am renewed and consent to His making me a new creation, I will burst once His Spirit dwells within me. Perhaps I must burst and be destroyed. Every old wineskin must be discarded for a new wineskin.

God wishes to ferment within us His Spirit and Power and Purposes. He doesn't so much want to do His will to us, act on us, but wants to use us as New Wineskins to hold His fermentation process (called sanctification) in and through us. He wants to expand us and transform us. Our problem is we don't really want enough. We don't want God to go far enough. We've placed humility in the wrong location. It should be in our egos, but we've placed it in our wills: the place of our volition. We aspire too little. Instead of desiring to have ferment within our oaken souls the choicest of Pinot Noirs we settle for Welches grape juice cocktail: not even 100% unfermented juice.

And so I am reminded of some lines from T. S. Eliot's poem, "Little Gidding":

The one discharge from sin and error,

The only hope, or else despair

Lies in the choice of pyre or pyre--

To be redeemed from fire by fire.

We must burst. We MUST be destroyed. WE MUST DIE. And be consumed by the Fire that is Inexorable. There can ultimately be no comfort in that, or at least at first. Death precedes Life Eternal. "For our God is a consuming Fire." All that is shakeable MUST be shaken so that only the unshakeable can remain. (Hebrews 12: 27--29) We are called to a much more dangerous, exciting, upsetting and resetting life of discipleship. To follow Jesus is a summons to war, to battle the forces of evil and redeem the people of God. To follow Jesus is the challenge of a lifetime, the mountain unscaleable, the depths unfathomable. Jesus demands, extols, admonishes, exhorts, woos, confuses, upholds and lays low, revolts and redeems, and only when we need it, comforts. But only He knows if we need comforting. Most times, I think we don't.

New wine in new wineskins. Yes. Amen.

Christian Unity: More thoughts

2005-05-25T21:48:00.000-07:00

One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism…
Is this only wishful thinking, a pipe-dream, or is it an eternal truth, a reality that is grounded in the eternal nature of the Logos? The question that makes many Christians blush is this: When will there be Christian Unity?

I believe that questions about Christian Unity are intricately tied to questions and responses to Christian Community. There can be no Christian Unity without a Christian Comm(on)-unity. Our unity as Christians arises out of our ability and calling to enflesh and practice Christian Community. In his book, Gemeinsames Leben (Life Together) Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes:

“Christiliche Bruderschaft ist nicht ein Ideal, das wir zu verwirklichen haetten, sondern es ist eine von Gott in Christus geschaffene Wirklichkeit, an der wir teilhaben duerfen.”
(Christian brotherhood is not an ideal that we must somehow make happen, but rather it is a reality, created by God in Christ, that we are allowed to participate in.)

Christian Unity, like Christian Community, exists in and through, because of and for Jesus Christ as the Living Logos and Son of God. He is the mediator of all our lives. He is the purpose and end of our hoping and striving, discipline and worship. Though outwardly we have signs that present evidence to the contrary, yet there exists out of time as well as couched within time One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism. There is not one Jesus for the Church of Rome, and another that visits Canterbury. There are not many Jesuses, one each for the Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians and Assemblies of God. No, He is whole and not split into pieces. He is the Only One through whom we relate to each other and love each other. “Der einzige Mittler” (the only mediator)

What we need to do, therefore, if doing is the proper perspective, is to allow Jesus to do in us and through us all that He has planned for us. The One-ness of the Body of Christ, the Universal Church through all ages, exists although we close our eyes to it, or act against it.

There is One Body, but as Thomas Merton pointed out: It is a Body of Broken Bones:

“As long as we do not permit His love to consume us entirely and to unite us in Himself, the gold that is in us will be hidden by the rock and dirt which keep us separate from one another.
As long as we are not purified by the love of God and transformed into Him in the union of pure sanctity, we will remain apart from one another, opposed to one another, and union among us will be a precarious and painful thing, full of labor and sorrow and without lasting cohesion.
His physical Body was crucified by Pilate and the Pharisees; His mystical Body is drawn and quartered from age to age by the devils in the agony of that disunion which is bred and vegetates in our souls, prone to selfishness and to sin.
As long as we are on earth, the love that unites us will bring us suffering by our very contact with one another, because this love is the resetting of a Body of broken bones. Even saints cannot live with saints on this earth without some anguish, without some pain at the differences that come between them.” (New Seeds of Contemplation)

Visible and viable Christian Unity is thwarted by sin that comes in a multitude of forms: arrogance, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, among others. Christian Unity is also being thwarted by our reluctance to really listen to each other, hear each other’s words, liturgy, theology, concerns, music, prayers, hopes and frustrations. We also are failing to value the same things. There are numerous issues on which we have not come to agreement: abortion, capital punishment, involvement in war or pacifism, environment stewardship, economic responsibility and which system of economics is most just. Obviously, we also haven’t come to agree on the essentials of theology: doctrine about the Trinity, about Christ, His atonement for our sins, how he saves us, whether we need saving, how depraved we are, or whether we can speak of an original blessing. We disagree on baptism, whether we think one can be baptized in the ignorance of one’s infancy or must wait for a personal decision as a youth or as an adult. We don’t even agree on the amount of water! (Thankfully we are not concerned with its temperature or its clarity!) We disagree on the rest of the sacraments as well, or even if they are sacraments. Some of us refer to them as ordinances. What about Communion/ the Lord’s Supper/ the Eucharist/ the Breaking of Bread? We find no consensus on its name, let along the mystical nature of the Event. How is Christ within the Elements: are they transubstantiated, consubstantiated, or just blessed by human hands and remain a memorial to His vicarious suffering? In the baking of the bread, must we use wheat flour or may a wafer of rice suffice? Should we pour wine into the chalice or stick to grape juice? These are just some of the issues that divide us, and push us away from embracing more fully our Christian Unity.

But there are things that we can do, and ways to broaden our understanding of what other Christians value. We must each endeavor to begin an ongoing dialogue with as many brothers and sisters of other denominations and expressions of Christianity as possible. We must talk with, worship with, pray and sing with Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Protestants of all traditions: Methodists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Evangelicals, Charismatics, and Fundamentalists, among the many I could name. Dialogue is essential. All sides sharing, desiring to understand and grant that other persons may have legitimate differences that are based on taste, past experiences or viewpoints that do not exclude them from membership in the Kingdom of God. Each of us may hold a particular belief or doctrine that falls within the boundaries of orthodoxy that our brother or sister does not understand or find necessary to embrace.

I would propose that each of these areas of concern be included in our ongoing dialogue, a dialogue that will resemble increasingly less a debate:

Abortion: Is abortion immoral in all cases, or are there some instances that would make it allowable. Is it a matter of choice of a woman’s sovereignty over her body and womb, or is it a matter of God’s sovereignty over all our bodies and the bodies that we carry within our bodies?

Capital Punishment: Do we further violence or discourage violence by killing someone who has killed someone? Are we consistent in our message? Does the execution of a notorious murderer, rapist or traitor help bring about the Kingdom of God, or help the greatest number of people? Does it perpetuate a culture of violence? Does it teach forgiveness, or does it teach natural consequences of one’s actions? Or can it do both?

Environmental Stewardship: The Psalmist proclaims that the Earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. What is our responsibility to the conservation of earth’s natural resources, the environment, the land and soil that we farm, cultivate, plant and harvest from? What is our responsibility to preserving species, do as little harm as possible and preserve the habitats to as many creatures as God has created? Are creatures created that can justifiable be driven to permanent extinction so that we may harvest more forests just so we can have bigger houses or more land for temporary crops? What about our insatiable need for oil and other fossil fuels? Can we do without SUVs and Hummers, vans and monster pickups and seek out others to carpool with in order to save gasoline and keep costs in line for each other?

Consumption, Economics, Materialism, Capitalism or Socialism: Most of this issue comes down to concerns about needs and wants and how those are supplied.

Wendell Berry upholds and practices what I would call a Pro-Creation philosophy. This Pro-Creation ethic and practice includes elements from what are commonly called Pro-Life, Social Justice, Environmental Conservation, and Agrarian/Rural-based values. His approach, boldness, wisdom and depth as an authentic American statesman and philosopher give us a model towards bridging the issues that separate and bifurcate our society.
Wendell Berry writes in Citizenship Papers:

“The confusion between needs and wants is, of course, fundamental. And let us make no mistake here: This is an educated confusion. Modern education systems have pretty consciously encouraged young people to think of their wants as needs. And the schools have increasingly advertised education as a way of getting what one wants; so that now, by a fairly logical progression, schools are understood by politicians and school bureaucrats merely as servants of ‘the economy.’…. How do we know when we have passed from needs to wants, from necessity to frivolity?”

Such a statement serves as only a springboard for further thought. As the Body of Christ we are obligated to seek answers, not so much to definitively describe a lifestyle that uniformly will dictate needs and wants to all individuals, for that would be socialism at its best, and totalitarian communism at its worst. Uniformity is not Unity. Community leads to Unity, and Community embraces diversity. Differences of taste and of aesthetics. But Community also expects, even necessitates, sacrifice, sharing of resources, generosity, and interdependence.

These thoughts must suffice for now. Beginning thoughts in the dialogue towards Christian Unity.

Christian Unity: Some Beginning Questions

2005-05-10T21:55:00.000-07:00

And they will know that we are Christians by our love. And so we used to sing during church camp song times, linked arm in arm, swaying to the rhythms of love and solidarity.... But we were all United Methodists.

What is Christian Unity? Why are there so many denominations within Protestantism? Why do so many of us "shop around" for a new congregation when the one we are in doesn't quite suit us? Why do we switch? Why are some Protestants becoming disillusioned with the results of the Reformation and heading to Rome (converting to Roman Catholicism)? Is there a true Church? Is there a difference between the church I attend and the Universal Church, the Body of Christ that transcends two millenia? What makes a Christian? What is the basis of our belief? Our faith? What is meant by one Lord, one faith, one baptism? Is there a mother church/Mother Church? What do I mean by sometimes capitalizing, sometimes leaving in lower case, the word "Church/church?" Why isn't there just One Church...or is there? Why are there many churches within the One Church? Should there be, or should there not be? Is God offended? Grieved? Relieved? Peeved?

Okay, those are some beginning questions....

Feel invited to write some reflections. More will follow......

Sermon Notes, chiefly on Forgiveness

2005-05-10T21:51:00.000-07:00

Here are some sermon notes from John Notehelfer’s sermon, Sunday, May 8th, 2005:

What are the telltale signs of someone who is faithful, that is, full of faith? (Check out Luke 17: 1—19)

Those who are faithless are also prayerless.

One of the telltale signs of faith, is a life of prayer. Those who pray daily with power and conviction are those rooted in God. What is faith? It is trust in God. A handing over to Him all that we are, hope to be, and have been. It is a radical trust that reaches to the roots of our being that says: “No matter what happens to me, I trust that God wills the absolute best for me. This doesn’t call for me to alter, correct or meddle with that will. I believe that God desires only and profoundly good for me, no matter the pain, the confusion, the ‘not-knowing’ I may experience as I walk in faith.”
To be faithful we acknowledge that God rewards those that diligently seek Him. That is what is meant by Him willing only our absolute good. He doesn’t care if we are successful, only that we are faithful. “Success” (in the world’s idea of success) slips like dry sand through His fingers. It flows fleetingly. No house can be built upon it.

The Apostles asked: “Increase our faith / Give us more faith.” This sounds as if they perceived that it was a commodity. It was stuff: quantifiable and multipliable. Yet this is not so. Faith more properly mirrors only our relationship with God: the degree in which we trust ourselves to God and His purposes on the earth.
We always want more faith, but we must be willing to trust more. Faith isn’t a case of shouting more loudly: I believe! Faith consists in turning your life, your plans, your wealth and means of making wealth, decisions, likes and dislikes, free time, entertainment, career, relationships, hobbies, interests and politics all over to God, placing those things in His hands, increasingly without reservation or retrieval: what is handed over to God remains with God.

Another telltale sign of someone who is faithful lies in one’s ability to forgive and receive forgiveness. John Notehelfer asked: “What is harder: to repent and ask for forgiveness, or to continually forgive those who sin against you: seven times, seventy times or even seventy-times-seven?”
Those who are faithful are forgiving persons. If we fail to forgive and continue to harbor bitterness we can become icy and paralyzed inside. If we are forgiving and we don’t nourish or nurture grievances we find ourselves free.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This reminds me of one of the maxims I gleaned from George MacDonald: Don’t take offense even if it is given.
One of the problems with humanity is our over-extended notion of “rights.” We think we have a right to this and a right to that, and if our rights are abridged or taken away, or infringed upon, then we have a “right” to be offended. So we find each other offensive, we are offended, people give us offense and we take offense at remarks and actions directed towards us. We don’t forgive because we have a “right” to be injured: After all, the other person OFFENDED us.
But it is this very idea of taking offense that betrays us. You see, we are not obliged in the least to TAKE offense, even when it is GIVEN. And think of how often we take offense when none was intended! We imagine our right to be offended, that indebts the other to us….We imagine they “should have known better.” Oh, really? How in the world do we think that keeping a score of wrongs, a ledger of offenses is anyway remotely linked to the Kingdom of God? It surely is not. No, quite on the contrary, we are called to forgive each other. We are called NOT TO TAKE OFFENSE no matter what the intention of the other person. We should begin dismissing the long list of “rights” we have mistakenly imagined were granted to us as our birthright. Thomas Jefferson kept his list of inalienable rights to a minimum in the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps, changed and humbled by the message of grace, we too, should shorten our list, and see that life, health, happiness, hope, family, career, location, food and drink, and a host of other things are GIFTS, not rights.

Forgiveness cannot be underestimated. Not only are we commanded to forgive, but we find out that forgiveness enlarges and blesses us, allows us to breathe more deeply, run faster, laugh more heartily, sleep more soundly, smile more broadly and enjoy the antics of children more eagerly. Even food and drink taste and satisfy more completely when we forgive others, and live out of a state of mutual forgiveness.

Forgiveness grants liberty. We are freed from our self-built prisons of resentment and self-deception. If we don’t take offense at or from others, we add no burden to our shoulders. Instead we discover gratitude.

Gratitude transforms our attitude.

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

The Holy Spirit Stamp of Approval

2005-04-02T22:51:00.000-08:00

“Now you too, in him, have heard the message of the truth and the good news of your salvation, and have believed it; and you too have been stamped with the seal of the Holy Spirit of the Promise, the pledge of our inheritance which brings freedom for those whom God has taken for his own, to make his glory praised.” Ephesians 1: 13-14 (JB)

There was a short period of time, years ago, when I wondered if I “had” the Holy Spirit within me. I was pretty sure it was a prerequisite to really being a Christian: a believer who was wanted and chosen by God. At that time I imagined that a lot of so-called Christians had come to the Lord very much like applicants—standing in a line before the altar. Their sinner’s prayer, repentance, and/or confession of faith served as their application form to the Kingdom of Heaven or the Family of God. The problem was most people (including myself) had scanty or shady references, and a pretty poor “work experience” morally and religiously. So once you had applied for Christian membership (at the altar or the front of the stadium) you waited to be chosen. The proof of your citizenship in Heaven, or adoption into the Family of God, was the presence of the Holy Spirit in undeniable terms: “You believed in Christ, and God put his stamp of ownership on you by giving you the Holy Spirit he had promised. The Spirit is the guarantee that we shall receive what God has promised his people…”

There were some Christians who made a big deal about this Holy Spirit guarantee and stamp of approval. They spoke in tongues, fell backwards at revival meetings ‘slain in the Spirit,’ and they could heal people and speak of God in a mighty way. Awesome testimonies abounded. The bigger the gift—or rather the flashier—the better the Christian. Or that’s how it seemed to me. I wanted to heal someone. I had always wanted to be God’s instrument in a matter of healing. I used to pray that God would chose me to directly lay my hands on someone sick, or injured, or someone that had cancer or were deaf and that they would be healed miraculously. I’m not sure if it was to witness a sign or miracle so I wouldn’t doubt ever again, or that I just wanted to make sure I was part of the club, that I really belonged to the Family of God. I figured that healing someone would be far more practical and useful than babbling incoherently—righteously and religiously, no doubt—but still incoherently. (I’ve tended towards pragmatism for quite sometime). Even then I figured that the Holy Spirit must feel delightful in those charismatic, tongue-speaking Christians—all tingly and electric inside. So I searched my heart for that euphoria. I prayed secretly for someone’s illness or disability and waited for them to say they’d been healed the next day. I was far too self-conscious to offer to lay my hands on them. That would be too presumptuous, not to say embarrassing, when/ or if the prayer wasn’t answered as we would inevitably hope. But these wonder signs never came.

I have met some people who have said that God “told” them something—at one time or another. Some of them will admit it wasn’t exactly audible ~ but the message was clear—sometimes to the exact words (usually only a short phrase). I’ve never heard God in that manner. So I wondered, for awhile, whether I was chosen yet—one of the elect. There is the hymn: "Blessed Assurance Jesus is Mine." I didn’t exactly feel any blessed assurance (in that tingly, electric sort of way), so when the grace-oriented Christians (versus the gift-oriented charismatic sort) quoted scripture they would smile and nod their assurance that I was saved despite my doubts or lack of assurance ~ it almost felt patronizing. I identified (and still do) with the grace-oriented evangelical Christians more than the charismatic ones, but I didn’t like the feeling of ambiguity that persisted. I was told that I needed to rest assured: Jesus loved me. It was all because of His grace. Yet I longed for something more dramatic, more unmistakable.

Well, I’ve never been very content with the ambiguity actually, but I do believe that the Holy Spirit is within me. So how is it that I finally became convinced that I know that I am saved and continue in the process of being saved?

First, I know that I desire God, and that I love Him, and trust that His will for me and those I love, is undeniably, comprehensively GOOD. His will IS the BEST plan for us, bar none. We cannot better it with fretting, planning, contriving or interfering.

Second, I love others and this agape love derives from God. 1 Corinthians 13, and 1 John, teaches that love is the greatest of gifts, and the very essence of divinity. I do not need ‘second-tier’ gifts to boost my assurance quotient. I just need to love more people—more deeply and thoroughly, more sacrificially and unconditionally—more like Christ Jesus my Lord.

Third, I know (and have been told) that I have affected people positively (again through love) and they respond in such a manner that it appears God is working through me—through my words, my presence, my touch, my humor, and my convictions. Students and their parents testify to this fact. It humbles me, and probably because I do feel humbled (and red-faced, at times) I know and acknowledge that it is not because of something inherently ME: it’s because of something inherently HIM.

For these reasons, and others (such as my appreciation of the beauty of nature’s poetic and aesthetic design), I no longer doubt the stamp of God’s approval, and the fact that His Holy Spirit dwells within me. Life is always going to be filled with ambiguities. It will also be filled with glitz and people who specialize in the Capitalization of Glitz. God’s grace is neither. God's grace whispers to me in a still small voice, or roars as the Consuming Fire. It is testified by the sweeping, flowing ribbon of geese in flight, as well as by the gilding of cloud curtains suspended on the wind’s wings at dusk. God’s grace sings to me through the prominent blue eyes of Luke, a particular eleven-year-old boy, smiling impishly at a joke we’ve shared in class. God’s grace announces itself, and pronounces its blessing through the handshake of a friend, or through the constancy of our men’s group at the Sage. I no longer need to speak the tongues of angels or other creatures unearthly, now knowing the generosity of those being redeemed. It is enough.

What I have received up to this very day shall forever be sufficient for assurance: Jesus is mine and I am His.

"Watch your mouth, boy."

2005-03-07T21:52:00.000-08:00

“Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen… Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” –(Ephesians 4: 29, 31, 32)
“Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.” (Ephesians 5: 4)

* * * * * * * * *

Once long ago when I was a boy I got my mouth washed out with soap. It didn't taste good. I can't remember what I said, but I distinctly remember being taught a lesson. I came very near to throwing up. Maybe some crusading child rights activists would wag their heads proclaiming it was abuse, but I wouldn't. It taught me a lesson. I never took up swearing, nor lying or smart-mouthing. It must have worked. So in that sense a minute of soap in my mouth really did clean it out. I cleaned up my act, and my words, at least.

James must have had the ability to see far into the future when he wrote: “All kinds of animals, birds and reptiles are being tamed and have been tamed by man [consider Shamu, the orca!], but no man can tame the tongue.” (James 3:7-8) Our society is filled with words that simply are out of control. Like feral cats: our words roam the gutters and back alleys, dis-sing a person here, putting down a person there. We use profanity as if those words were included in the first hundred most essential core words of a beginning vocabulary. For some people, sadly enough, cuss words were probably among the first hundred words they learned or heard when they were but infants. Fortunately my parents ran a tight ship without resorting to the salty language of sailors.

Paul knew that people grow up with foul language, lying and slander when he helped the Ephesians remember their former selves, before they had received the good news of Christ Jesus. It probably wasn’t hard for them to recall the sharp, biting, condescending words that had laced their speech. How often had they tried to manipulate others, lying to get someone in trouble or in attempt to avoid responsibility? How often had they sworn and cussed their way into a rage, throwing gasoline on a fire, a heated conversation that exploded into violence, hatred and loathing? Jesus had taught that it wasn’t what went into your mouth that made you unclean, but what came out of your mouth. Our words simply mirror our hearts, who we are inside. We are only as clean inside as the words that come out. Paul knew this. He also knew that since the Ephesians, like us, are being changed into Christ’s likeness (that’s what we are becoming: like Christ, “Christ-ians”), we must “put away the old nature.” It takes our conscious effort. God’s Holy Spirit eagerly waits for our cooperation in this matter: He will do it if and when we let Him. He will make foul language taste sour and bitter like vomit on our tongues if we think about Him and how gracious He has been to us. But we must do our part and turn our thoughts, desires, hopes and words towards Him.

Today, offer God your language. God has already offered His language to you in Jesus, His Word. He has also offered His language to you in the words of the scripture. If you have trouble today, and this week, keeping your language clean, upbeat, positive, supportive and gracious, simply practice God’s language out loud. Read Ephesians 4: 17—32 and 5: 1—21 today. Let the words taste like honey. Read them slowly, even if you don’t understand every last verse.

Remember the way kids used to sing-song back to a bully’s taunt: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” The Bible teaches us that this isn’t true, and we know it very well. Words can and do hurt. They can wound far worse than thrown stones. They can be like a forest fire, out of control. They can burn, sting, slice, and bruise. But James says that this should not be allowed among those of us who have been saved, and are being saved each day. “Out of the same mouth comes cursing and blessing. Brothers and sisters, this should not be so!” (James 3: 10)

Today, let your words be as beneficial to others as you possibly can speak them. Think before you speak. Calculate words that bless, uplift, humor, and encourage others. The idea of “wholesome” language means words that help you and others to become more whole: More wholly (completely) you and more God’s idea of you.

Bartimaeus: Former Blindman

2005-03-06T23:00:00.000-08:00

After visiting Jericho, on one occasion, Jesus left with his disciples and a large crowd. At one point they passed a beggar, a blind beggar in particular, who was sitting by the side of the road. He must have heard the commotion and overheard that it was the Jesus from Nazareth that had lately become famous for his teaching and healing. The curious thing is, we know his name: Bar-Timaeus, the son of Timaeus, whoever that was. (Mark 10: 46—52). (I’ll return to that later. Just keep in mind that normally blind beggars remain in the background, as just statistics in the healings of thousands. Ponder this: Why do we know his name?)

What does Bartimaeus do? He begins to shout: “Son of David, have mercy (pity) on me.” The crowd tries to shush him up, but he only shouts louder, “Son of David, have pity on me.” And Jesus hears him. “Call him here,” he responds. He wants a word with this detractor. Suddenly the crowd changes its tune. “Courage. Cheer up,” they say where moments earlier they’d tried to silence him. How like a crowd: From “shut up to cheer up” in 30 seconds, the crowd switches its chant. I’m sure that Jesus wasn’t impressed. Jesus wasn’t moved or convinced by a majority opinion: he focused on the blind man. Of all the things I’m sure he found disgusting, “popular opinion” was at the top of his list: it was as stable as a sandcastle against a tsunami. One could never count on a crowd. It could switch its chant in a heartbeat. Later a crowd would switch from a Sunday’s ‘Hosanna’ to a Friday’s ‘Crucify,’ without so much as batting an eye or shedding a tear. From cheering to jeering in five short days. No, you couldn’t count on a crowd.

Fortunately Bartimaeus wasn’t swayed by popular opinion. He only shouted louder. When Jesus calls him he responds. Actively. “So throwing off his cloak, he jumped up and went to Jesus” (Mark 10:50) Bartimaeus seizes his opportunity. It had to be now. He jumps and throws; he springs up and flings away: it was his last chance for the rumor of Jesus’s power had reached his ears.

“What do you want?” Jesus asks. Stop. Wait a minute. Umm, ah, Jesus, isn’t it obvious. That vacant gaze isn’t because he’s been getting stoned. Check out his eye-sockets. Those sickly-pale, festering marbles he’s got staring off into oblivion ain’t your ordinary pearly whites. The dude’s blind. He can’t see. What do you think he wants?

Well, I really think Jesus knew that. I really do. He already knew what a blind man would want, but he asks anyway. Why? Because it’s part of the deal. God likes to be asked. He wants a relationship with us. He’s not a fix-it man. He’s a Father, and Jesus is our Brother. The Lord of Life wants us to ask.

When we voice our wants we reveal our desires, and they indicate the orientation of our core values, our center. “I want to see!” Sight instead of blindness, Light instead of Darkness: now that’s not a bad thing. “I want to see you Lord. If only for a moment so that like Simeon I can proclaim before I die: “For my eyes have seen Your salvation, which You have prepared in the sight of all people.” (Luke 2: 30,31). Sight is central for with it we can walk in the Light. John Newton wrote: “I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see.”
So Bartimaeus got what he asked for, and Jesus called it faith.

Now why do we know his name? I think it is because he responded in faith: He sprang up and flung his cloak away. He left his old self behind and, after receiving his sight, he followed Jesus along the road. The last thing we know about Bartimaeus is that he was following Jesus. And probably was still a member of that fledgling church in Palestine so that he could tell the gospel writer: that was me: Bart. I was blind, and now I see.

Bartimaeus was known by the early Christian community not because there was something particularly memorable about a statistic: another blindman gets healed. No, he was known because “he followed Jesus.” He followed after: Nachfolge. The German word for disciple is literally “he who follows after.” Bartimaeus is remembered because at that moment he became Jesus’s disciple. He belonged to the Lord of Life, the Light of the World, forever.

Conversion: Being Born Again, or What Does the New Life Imply?

2005-02-24T20:49:00.000-08:00

Recently our men's group (which meets at the Sage Restaurant) discussed the second "affirmation" of the Evangelical Covenant Church, namely "the necessity of the new birth." Tonight it reminded me of a visit I had from a couple of men who were allegedly taking a survey that they promised would appear in our newspaper about religious views. One of their questions had to do with how does a person become a Christian. Honestly, I can't quite remember how I exactly replied, but I did mention that it started with God initiating through His grace, and our responding through faith.

One of my concerns arises from what I perceive is a legalistic understanding of conversion. I'm not a great fan of a step-by-step to salvation approach. Some evangelical groups train their troops to recite and propagate four spiritual laws, which supposes that an agreement with those formulations guarantees that a person has salvation wrapped up tidily in a bag, and they can get on with their lives in middle-class America because their "retirement plan=heaven" is a past tense done deal.

I have been asked: Are you born again? When I assure the asker that I am, or I have been, they smile and give me the equivalent of a spiritual high five, and they move on.... It is as Ken in our small group remarked: Too often the problem presents itself: We treat the starting line as if it is the finish line. I am far less interested in the question: "Are you born again?" I am far more interested in the question: "Are you following Jesus NOW, and what have you to show that Jesus is your Lord, and not merely just your Savior?" You see, if we ask the latter question, the former question is moot. There is no need at all to ask it, for only the truly born again can possibly follow Jesus. Yet if we ask the former, we may merely tap into a person's earlier experience at a Billy Graham Crusade, a tent revival or a teen-age altar call. What good does an inquiry into a past event accomplish if a person's present life, committment, faith and actions no longer have any connection with a former/previous "decision?" If we ask the latter question, and sincerely are concerned with discipleship, obedience, faith-in-action, viable-and-nutritious fruit of the Spirit, then we will truly show an interest in a person's spiritual health. No pat answer will turn the person away ignorantly satisfied. If a troubled frown creases the forehead, then you've hit home. You might need to compassionately backstep and ask about their new birth or relationship with Jesus, but at least you haven't begun the conversation with a blithe, formulaic and rather legalistic question that has reduced the person to a spiritual statistic. You've allowed the person in need to remain a person indeed, not become a religious project.

So what is conversion? What is meant by "being born again?"

First, it does not just mean "making a decision" or reciting a sinner's prayer. Decisions are a dime a dozen. To me it sounds like nothing more than a New Year's resolution. True decisions are only made at a time of action. You don't decide to go on a diet, for instance, until you have the donut in your hand, or cheese cake on your plate. Then you either act or fail to act. At that point a decision is being made. We don't decide to believe in Jesus until we are confronted with real temptations. There is no decision to invite Jesus into your heart, for instance, until you've been given too much change at the grocery store and you respond by giving it back promptly and humbly, kindly tell the clerk that they were overly generous. There is no decision to follow Jesus until you have an opportunity to tell the truth and lose an "advantage" over someone else. There is no "being born again" until you rise with gratitude in your heart, mercy in your attitude, joy in your trials, and patience in your dealings with your colleagues, clients and children.

The Covenant Church Affirmations are deliberately non-creedal in form. They read: "New birth is more than the experience of forgiveness and acceptance. It is regeneration and the gift of eternal life. This life has the qualities of love and righteousness as well as joy and peace... God's purposes entail the transformation of persons, as well as the transformation of God's world into a place of truth, justice and peace." To be born again means we are enlisted into God's service. We sign onto His agenda for life, forever. There is no salvation without following Him and doing what He tells you to do, discernable through the Holy Spirit's leading and invasion/intervention in your life. Regeneration affects every facet of your life: your relationships, taste in music (especially lyrics), choice of or abstinence from watching t.v., how your drive a car (and let others turn in front of you), what you buy, how you earn and spend money, whether you embrace your children or ignore them, how you vote and how you emote. Regeneration touches and transforms/reforms/ and rearranges every aspiration and acquisition; it electrifies and electrocutes you spiritually, consuming you like fire and leaving you gold and immortal diamond. Nothing Less.

Let me quote from a man's work that I admire greatly, namely Creation in Christ by George MacDonald: "Do you ask, 'What is faith in Him?' I answer, the leaving of your way, your objects, your self [and your agenda], and the taking of His and Him; the leaving of your trust in men, in money, in opinion, in character, in atonement itself [or any other formulated doctrine or plan of salvation], and doing as He tell you. I can find no words strong enough to serve the weight of this necessity--this obedience. It is the one terrible heresy of the church, that it has always been presenting something else than obedience as faith in Christ." (CIC, p.98)--brackets mine.

Being Born Again implies that we have been and are continuing to be transformed, from a sin-filled or sin-oriented, broken, rebellious, self-serving life to a sin-rejecting, God-embracing, gracious, trusting, obedient, neighbor-loving life. Sometimes when I'm asked, "Are you saved?" I choose to respond that I haven't so much been saved, as I am being saved. Salvation is not a static event, it is a dynamic relationship with the Lord of Life, Creator of the Cosmos, the Advocate of Mercy, the Chief Instigator of Joy. Salvation does not end with, nor is it summed up in, our Justification. It only is worthy of the name "Salvation" if indeed we are daily being saved-- made safe--from our sins or even the temptation to sin. For that reason Jesus teaches us to pray that we should be delivered from evil and lead from temptation while we also are continually forgiving others their debts and trespasses. Salvation is all about the destruction of sin: the ending or even annihilation of brokenness, alienation, rebellion and disobedience. Sinners are forgiven; sins aren't forgiven: they are destroyed. Now that is a salvation worthy of the name.

Freedom

2005-02-14T21:59:00.000-08:00

“You were called to be free—but not to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.” (Galatians 5:1, 13.)

Freedom captivates the American imagination and yearning. We enshrine the ideal within in our songs. Our national anthem extols our country as the home of the free and the brave. Martin Luther King Jr. concluded his most famous speech with the words: “Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty we’re free at last.” What exactly is the freedom we yearn for, sing of and fight for?

Freedom remains for many chiefly the hope for opportunity. Opportunity to act and be as one wishes. Freedom is viewed as the release from responsibility, or better from duty, from obligation, from servitude and slavery (in that descending order.) From slavery certainly, but notice how slowly by degrees responsibility is equated with slavery. Yet the differences are profound. Here freedom is seen as releasing us from something, but not yet for something. Freedom from oppression and tyranny; the exemption from control. So first, but not foremost, the freedom Christ calls us into or lifts us into is the freedom from the powers of sin and death, of servitude to our lusts and desires. Freedom and Salvation are synonymous. We are called out of darkness into light to be whole, saved, right, holy, and active and finally able to respond to other people’s needs. Second and foremost, you see, we are called out of servitude for or to responsibility: the ability to respond.

The purpose of freedom isn’t for ourselves to live unto ourselves. We are freed from other chains than just those of another’s making. We are supposed to be freed from the chains of our own making as well: narcissism, pride, self-aggrandizement, and egotism. God wants us to freely choose Him, not to have to choose Him as if it is an expectation based on law or force. Contemporary chains yet conspire to bind us: the false gods of food, stuff, sex, drink, inebriation, fast cars, fast music, fast internet download times, the tyranny of the immediacy of acquisition and possession. Perhaps this is what Paul meant when he warned: “Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds on earthly things.” (Phil. 3:19) I consume therefore I am. The new Cartesian lie. The modern slavery.

God wants us to want Him, for He is the foundation of our one true need.

Freedom from the slavery to ourselves and our earthly, sinful nature—whatever are our besetting sins and fatal flaws—will only be effected when we willingly seek to be freed for service, for praise and action on God’s behalf and our neighbor’s good. There exists no true freedom “from” without a freedom “for or to”. One only leaves Egypt in order to enter the Promised Land, not to just wander aimlessly in the desert. One must leave slavery in order to serve as God’s people. There is no leaving darkness without entering into light. Yet imagine how often people desire to leave the darkness of obligation without eagerly entering the light and clean air of service and responsibility. If we focus on what we are freed from we won’t ever leave those chains because we are looking in the wrong direction. We need to keep our eyes on what we are freed for: where we are going to. There God waits for us to embrace the truest freedom of all: where we will gladly proclaim that we are bondservants to Jesus Christ, whose yoke is easy, and burden light.

Renunciation

2005-02-06T20:26:00.000-08:00

"Then Jesus said to His disciples, 'If anyone wants to follow me he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.' " (Matt. 16:24)

Our Human Nature rebels in a very basic, fundamental way against the notion of self-denial. Many modern philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Ayn Rand and Bertrand Russell scornfully assailed this ancient Christian principle. They said that self-denial was what was keeping humanity back from self-fulfillment, from becoming bolder, wilder, better and stronger. What they meant, however, was that Christianity was keeping them from becoming more "in-your-face," more me-versus-you, more competitive and more a proponent of survival of the fittest, shrewdest, most cunning and most ruthless.

Jesus said: "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it." (Matt. 16:25) A paradox explodes into consciousness here. To live we must die, when we die for Christ, we live. To cling to life leads to us slipping into death. To renounce life--give it up--hearlds one's first birth cries.

Twenty-five years ago when I was at college, a particular guy used to heckle me--good naturedly, in an odd way. You see this guy, Shep, was a Christian, and in his own somewhat peculiar, confused way, he was a friend.
One day, as I walked a path under the shade of some broad, leafy horsechesnut trees at Willamette University, Shep called across the Quad in a loud voice: "Give it up, Strobel." I shouted back something like: "Never. I will never surrender." Shep was always into pushing others (and himself) out of their comfort zones. I think he knew I wasn't as bold as I wanted or needed to be. By heckling me, he tried me and toughen me in a safe way for a Christian brother. When he cried out his challenge I imagine he looked forward to my reply, "Never surrender," echoing Winston Churchill's defiance against Nazism during World War Two.

But Jesus calls us to surrender, to "Give It Up." Maybe Shep had said what he did for a different reason. Paradoxes often have many levels, that seem to mutually exclude each other. In either way I hear a call to Life.

Long before Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings had been taken over by Peter Jackson, I had fallen under the magic of Middle-earth. The epic renunciation tale of Frodo Baggins worked in my heart and imagination in ways that formed and transformed me. The Lord of the Rings relates a mythic quest in which the protagonist, a half-sized hobbit, must take a great treasure, a ring of power, and cast it to its unmaking in the bowels of a volcano. Instead of going to find some kind of treasure and win great renown, Frodo journeyed into darkness in order to lose something, and in the process he loses all joy in remaining in this world. He tells Sam, his closest friend, at the end: "I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them."

Renunciation bites. But it gives birth to eternal life. I know of too many people, often myself included, who refuse to renounce their desires and purposes. Marriages are shipwrecked on the insistence to build up oneself at the expense of one's spouse or one's family. Narcissism reigns far and wide, elevating Self over God or others. Yet, as Jesus foretold: this only leads to our death and alienation. Ayn Rand's philosophy of The Virtue of Selfishness is fundamentally flawed in eternal regards. The idea of Enlightened self-interest only works so far as it is tempered by society, the police, laws, and a government of checks and balances. And even then, it is only temporary: this (wrong) side of the tapestry where only criss-crossing threads and bundles of knots give vague hints to the astonishing design we will be blessed to behold once we die and can see the right side of the tapestry from God's perspective.

I choose Frodo as a better example for me to learn from than any Ayn Rand would offer in The Fountainhead. It is true: there are those who must give things up, lose them, so that others may keep them. We are those called to such a renunciation for the sakes of our families, our spouses, our children, our students and clients, our patients and customers, our neighbors and friends, and even the ungrateful and undeserving. Ultimately we do it for Christ's sake that He may make all things new.

Secret Disciples

2005-01-30T21:15:00.000-08:00

"Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night." (John19:38)
"Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea and he was waiting for the kingdom of God." (Luke 23: 50,51)

Here are two people who show up at the end of all things---it seems---when all the forces of evil have succeeded. They've been a part of the establishment--the Council of the Sanhedrin. Up until now they've been a part of the inside, the ruling parties, both Pharisees, I believe. Jesus, on the other hand, had always been an outsider, the challenger of the status quo. These two had absolutely nothing to gain politically, economically or socially by asking for the body of Jesus. Up until then it appears they had been secretly at sympathy with Jesus. Indeed it says they (or at least Joseph) was secretly "a disciple," not just a sympathizer. This should astonish us.

Here Joseph and Nicodemus are deliberately associating with the losing side, like someone at the closing bell of a boxing match suddenly stands up and roots for the guy who's just been knocked out. Sure Joseph had objected to the Council's decision to have Jesus arrested and tried, but wasn't he still the loyal opposition, just the minority voice which still belongs? Didn't Joseph still drink wine with them, dress up in fine garments, and belong to the group that had Jesus killed?
It makes me wonder how he'd gotten chosen to be part of the Council. Elected by the populace of Arimathea? No, I highly doubt that. It appears he was rather wealthy. So here's a rich man, well landed, a good-ole-boy with a family that had roots and branches in Judea: a mover and a shaker. But then, somewhere at sometime he's surprised and undone by the words of a ragtag Galilean preacher from out of town. Out of town and out of touch with the powers that be. What could have been so inviting about Jesus to the likes of Joseph? He was so out of touch with power and how to win and influence those that really counted, according to the established authorities. "Turn the other cheek, give up your cloak, hate your mother and father in comparison to loving me" weren't words that would get you a seat on the Council. And saying that while kissing lepers, letting prostitutes rub your feet, and bad-mouthing the pillars of society.

But somehow Joseph and Nicodemus were drawn to him. In Secret. At night, unseen by others, Nicodemus slunk through the streets, furtively slipping behind pillars and buildings, clumps of boulders and olive trees, until he could slip into the presence of Jesus.
At night the Lord heard a hiss. A whisper. "Psstt. .... Over here." Jesus saw a shadowy robed figure out of all lamplight.

That's the setting when we first meet Nick. A secret disciple. One that follows the Light of the World while keeping in the shadows.

It makes you wonder what happened to Nick and Joe after the Resurrection. Did they ever join the Church in Jerusalem and let James be their bishop? Did they bankroll the newly founded Church, and help Peter, John and James (the Lord's brother) get the Church going in Judea?
I don't know. I don't think anyone really knows. What I want to know is: Did Nick and Joe ever stop being disciples in secret?

How can we be truly disciples and yet keep it secret? Was that really all right? When I sit down with the scriptures I don't read any words of admonition or shame. Joe and Nick aren't chided or turned away for being secret disciples...

I identify with Nick and Joe so well. I feel like I'm a secret disciple. Flitting from shade to shadow so no one sees me, that I might meet Jesus alone somewhere: in my room at night or on a deserted road in the fog...just so we can talk. At school I'm surprised and humbled or shamed when a student or a parent will "find out" that I'm a Christian. You mean it wasn't blatantly obvious, a glaring truth that no one could have overlooked? No, it wasn't and hasn't been that obvious. Somehow like too many others of us, I've kept it secret. I belong to Jesus. He's my Lord. But who knows that? Where's the evidence?

Shhh.. ... It's time to disappear. Someone's coming. I can hear their footsteps. I'll see you later, Jesus.... maybe at the cross?