I remember back to my high school civics class. The assignment was to discuss why voting was so important. One of my good friends, who was probably too smart for his own good, had sat down, playing with the numbers and came to the conclusion that statistically voting was not important, and how an individual voted made no difference what so ever, so why vote.
I am sure that most of you reading this have heard this argument, or derivation of it, before. The teacher did something interesting to counter his argument in the same way he asked a question. “How can you change society if you don’t take part in even the most basic way?” He then proceeded to give us a lecture about how many people complain about this, that or the other thing, but when they have a chance to make a change, they do not act. He expanded from just voting to everything and ended with another question, one that resonates with the church and our community today. “Every time you complain that you don’t like this or that within society, you have to first look back at yourself and ask, What have I done to make it better.” As part of my Doctor of Ministry Program we explored the issues of Gospel and Culture. In this we explored the relationship that the church has with the communities that we are in and it also showed how and why churches are often closing or marginalized. The biggest reason churches fail is that they have literally become disconnected from the communities they are in. Often they are quick to judge, but unwilling to act waiting often for someone else, be that clergy or another member, to act. The fundamental problem is that if something bothers you so much, but you are unwilling to do everything in your power to change it, even if it seems futile, how do you expect it could ever possibly change? One of the things that drew me to Westminster three years ago was that as a church there was the desire to engage the community. We are unique for a church in the Bay Area because we are seen to many as a home, even if that is not a church home. We are the gathering point and thus, we do not have a traditional ministry. When I walk the streets around the church, not a week goes by that I am not approached by various people to talk about issues from the homeless situation to some individual’s spiritual crisis. Within the confines of our buildings we have created a safe space for people dealing with a multitude of things to gather. And we have become a catalyst helping the neighborhood associations and businesses to thrive. Some would ask, “that is all nice, but how is that evangelizing for Christ.” My answer is “in the most important way possible, by showing God’s love.” You see, while many might stand on the side and condemn this or that. And others name this problem or that one, we have taking the unique stance of standing beside our community and sharing love. Moreover, we do not push any agenda other then to think what is best, and often we are willing to get our hands dirty and work just to make things better. This summer we have seen this many times, a lot at the fourth of July where our crazy Hot Dog give away made that day extra special, to our participation in this past weekend’s Stroll The Alameda. All highlight the way in which our actions show Christ’s love, and you never know how far that will go to imbedding faith within people. In the church there is always the debate on how to evangelize. I do not say this to disparage any other tradition, but I think the most important way to evangelize is to share Christ’s love and be an example to the community by showing that you are willing to get to work with them, not orchestrate from afar. Mostly we can be active in even the most basic of ways which may just be buying tickets to local event, or giving space for them to meet. We are doing this and through that we are a model for a new kind of mission to our community and the church, a church that does not stand on the sidelines or calculating our effectiveness, but active in every way showing love along the way.
0 Comments
There are phrases in the bible that seem so harsh that you have to do a double take when you read them. This Sunday we encounter one of those phrases. Even in context the harshness of the statement stands out. Peter, get out of my way, Satan get lost! That is from the message and almost seems tame compared to the NRSV version, which reads “Get behind me, Satan!” WOW, especially since this follows a moment when Peter is trying to give “comfort” to Jesus.
Setting up this passage is very important to understanding what is really going on. This is smack dab in the middle of Jesus’ ministry. He has been with his disciples for a while so they know his capabilities. One of the more recent miracles was the feeding of the Four thousand found at the end of Matthew 15. This miracle becomes a backdrop for an interaction with the Pharisees and Sadducees. As always in these interactions the Pharisees are working to trip up Jesus. So they ask for a sign to prove his connection with God. Essentially he calls them out saying that when it is things that effect themselves like the weather, they can tell the signs that it is going to change. But, he goes on to say that God will not give a sign to people who do not have faith in their hearts, moreover, even if he did they could not see it so he leaves with the parting promise that there is one sign for people like that, the sign of Jonah. This is a harsh curse. The sign of Jonah is one that says repent or die. Or better yet, you must choose to give yourself fully to God or risk complete isolation. Following this, Jesus is walking with his disciples and he gives a strong warning against listening to the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Within this context the teaching that are so wrong are the teachings about one-self and like bad yeast need to be avoided. Now we get to one of the most important passages setting up this harsh statement. Almost out of context the journey switches from understanding the place of the Pharisees and Sadducees the extent of their unfaithfulness and their teachings to Jesus asking the disciples “who am I.” I argue, as most, that this is not out of place, in fact, it is placed here strategically and exemplifies the state of faith. Some call Matthew 16:17-20 Peter’s commissioning or ordination. It is here where Christ established Peter to be the foundation of the church. But, as with a lot of what Christ does, he adds a caveat in 19b “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” While the first part of this is clearly understandable, the second half is, well, more difficult. A lot of the interpretation has to do with this crazy word “loosed.” In Greek the word is λύσῃς. Some translations will use abolished, others to dismiss or destroy. But it is also the type of word where it’s definition out of context can seemingly contradict itself let go or permit. In the case of this passage it is clear that this is being set up as a balance to the binding in heaven and thus is connected with the letting go, specifically the letting go of human things. So when Jesus begins to foretell his last days, Peter’s very human response garners this very strong rebuke. Even though as most of us read these and see that what Peter is doing is really out of compassion albeit an ignorant one. As the reformers interpreted the passage, and is seen in the way the Message translates it, it is not Peter who Jesus is calling Satan, but the part of Peter that was so bound to this world that it could not see the greater witness of what was to happen. This is flushed out in the second half of the pericope as Jesus makes it clear that here in this life we have the choice to give ourselves over to God and Live, thus dying to this world, or we can continue to live into this world and subsequently lose our connection with God, just as the Pharisees and Sadducees had. *From Matthew 16:23b To say Moses was important to the faith would be an understatement. At his birth he was seen as special and for his protection, he was given up for adoption. Granted, this is one of the most unique stories of a mother giving up her child. As we spoke last week about the passion and struggle that Abraham had with the binding of Isaac, Moses’ mother had the same type of dilemma. Only her problem was fundamentally about the protection of her child.
Thus, for her the only way to save her son was to give him over to the people who would be the ones to persecute him. But Moses was special and his mother knew that, so with a plan in motion she floated her son down the river so that the pharaoh’s daughter would find him and be unable to do anything but take him because of his looks. Moses was raised by the pharaoh’s daughter through a wet-nurse who just happened to be Moses’ natural mother. Moses’ mother had a faith that was strong and she knew he would follow the right path. Moses, to his own regard, as he got older he could have chosen to stay loyal to his adoptive mother and accept all of the power and wealth that came from royalty, but he rejected it. Scholars debate as to the specifics of why, but Moses knew there was more to the life than what the trappings of wealth and life had for him. In his time of searching he came to know God and was able to develop a faith. This faith was interesting because instead of comfort, he chose guaranteed pain and death. So the question is, why? Today we often talk of salvation as being comfort. Even televangelists and others preach a “Prosperity Gospel” but the problem that Moses realized was that comfort and wealth did not equate to life. In fact, he did as many young people do and went searching for more, and his openness brought him to God. Now it is clear that without Moses, life for the Israelites would have been very different. Most likely it would be non-existent for many reasons. So through the faith of Moses and this relationship he had with God, he was able to warn the Hebrew people and lead them away and into the Promised Land, all-be-it in the craziest manner possible! But Moses knew that there was more to his faith than what was before him. Though there was not a developed understanding of life beyond this one at the time, Moses had a real connection to the fact his life was connected to something much bigger. The writer of Hebrews suggests that this is Christ and heaven. Personally, I am always semi-skeptical about this sort of assumption. Reading Christ into the Old Testament is dubious at best since the prophecy always uses the Messiah as something being pointed to. But here it makes sense within the context of the Moses narrative and in the point that the writer of Hebrews is trying to get across. That is that Moses example of faith is something that points to something that is more than what is right in front of him. Thus, even though he did not know Christ, he believed and trusted God and knew that God would call for the salvation of all his people. Sadly, Moses did not see this new reality. But for Moses, even though he showed disappointment for taking the long journey and not enjoying its result, his faithfulness was never about himself or what he would get from it; his faithfulness was far more than that. It was a faithfulness that saw God caring for his people and pointing them to a hopeful tomorrow. I am not one to get starstruck; I have met a few over the years. Yes, I had my favorites: Mr. Rogers, Bernadette Peters, Robin Williams, among others. Obviously you can sense my eclectic taste, but all of them represented to me very real, very flawed, but very good people. When asked once why I liked Robin Williams so much in college my quick answer was always “He gives hopes of success to all short, fat, hairy guys out there.” It has taken me some time to process the suicide of Robin Williams and how I feel about it. I know in many ways it does not matter what I feel; I am not in his life and I will continue to move on with my life.
But it is hard not to think of the impact of this and its impact on my life. You see, one of the greatest challenges that I have like Robin Williams being the short, fat, hairy guy, is that I struggle with depression. Thankfully, it is not to the extremes that many suffer, but the fact that it impacts my life makes me think a lot about it and other issues of mental health. While serving in Iowa, I was introduced to NAMI (www.nami.org). This is a great group and through them I have learned a great deal. While I spent a lot of time in seminary learning about mental illness and counseling, one thing that we did not talk about was advocacy and awareness. Being in the Midwest, something that made matters worse was the stigma that people would often place on mental illness. This meant that a lot of people would not seek out help. In fact for me, even after years of schooling in psychology and counseling I had an ingrained fear of what might happen if this were found out. But the reality was I only hurt myself by not seeking help, and far more people struggle with depression and other mental illness than we even know. Yes, it is easy to see the people at the extremes. But they only represent a small fraction of people. But when it comes to receiving fair and appropriate medical care, mental illness lags far behind. I could spout the statistics, but you could go to thewww.NAMI.org for that. I will be honest and blunt here: What really is sad about Robin Williams’ suicide is that we are asking why. While I think this might be a compassionate response -- we have known the link between depression and suicide for decades and have studied it -- but to be honest, we have not devoted the resources and research to really come to understand it and what goes on within someone to feel as if this were the only answer. Personally, I feel that the question of why is wrong because we should know more, but because of stigmas and priorities we have yet to come up with an answer that might help us to find a cure to this illness. To be honest, there is no good explanation for why Robin or anyone takes his or her own life. There are the things we can point to like the sense of isolation or an incident, but there is often much more. My heart aches for Robin and his family, this is a cruel way to die, but here is my next controversial thing: I doubt he could have done anything about it. Like cancer, and suicide survivor’s recall, the sense becomes so overwhelming there is nothing you could do to stop it from happening. As a Church we respond with prayers, but we also have to respond with learning, understanding, and calling for more research and understanding. We need to stop treating mental illness as an issue of self control and begin to treat it the same way we treat cancer and other like illnesses. Think of what a difference that would make in our world! If you would like to know more about mental illness or need to find support in our community, I would recommend starting with our local NAMI chapterwww.namisantaclara.org. This week we explore the Body of Christ, as it is explained in Romans. This is an extra special passage for me, it was my first “professional” sermon, well, at least the first one I was paid for. It was back while I was at college and for the pastor at my parent’s church. He was in a bind and needed someone to do a week of pulpit supply. Having had a year of being a youth director and three years of college under my belt, my parent’s church decided that since they were going to sponsor me they should probably hear me preach.
There are good points and bad points to preaching in front of people who know you, especially those in central Illinois. While they always extend a little extra grace, they also don’t hold back with the counts of “ums” and strange pauses. I actually was surprised when they handed me a check. When I went to give it back, it was refused; the elder who handed me the check said, “you're a preacher, and preachers get paid for preaching.” Then he gave me that look that said, “didn’t you listen to your own sermon?” The background of the pericope that we are exploring this Sunday is a development that we can follow from Paul’s earliest letters to this one, which falls somewhere in the middle (around 58 AD) of all of his letters. Fundamental within Paul’s letters is an understanding that once one embraces Christianity they must accept that there is no longer a class system. This is problematic within the culture of both the Greco-Roman world as well as the Hebrew. As we know, purity and power were very important in both of those cultures. But Paul has a working understanding that there is a fundamental problem with the hierarchies. That problem is that when one elevates one person over another, the elevated individual places himself or herself in a god-like role asserting control or power over another. Thus, embarking on the most consistently denounced sins in the whole bible: elevating others or ourselves to being God. But without a hierarchy, there is huge problem that arises. How we account for differences. This is part of the genius of Paul. While the Gospels witness to Christ and share his teachings, Paul helps us with understanding how we are to live out Christ’s teachings. Granted these are not easy tasks since many of the teachings, while very scriptural and known, were abandoned for cultural traditions. So Paul needed an example to help people understand. Hence the image of the body allows Paul to use something that is well known among the people he is preaching to. The basic understanding is that every part of the body is important, and when one part of the body is missing, life is exponentially more difficult. I learned this the summer I broke both of my legs and was bound to a wheelchair. While I could get most places, it was not as easy as it would have been. You’ll have to ask me about some of the more funny stories sometime. But all I will say is that while I could overcome the loss I was glad to regain my ability to walk. The image of the body of Christ works on many levels but mostly it shows how each piece is important. Even though we might be able to get by without one or the other, it does make life more difficult. So instead of status, ethnicity, or power, the world is broken up into equally distributed gifts. Each of these gifts reflects a different part of the body. This means that while there is equality of status and ultimately salvation, that does not equate to sameness of lives. In fact, it is a realization that only in diversity of thought, understanding, and abilities that we fully live out what we are called to be as Christians. To say Moses was important to the faith would be an understatement. At his birth he was seen as special and for his protection, he was given up for adoption. Granted, this is one of the most unique stories of a mother giving up her child. As we spoke last week about the passion and struggle that Abraham had with the binding of Isaac, Moses’ mother had the same type of dilemma. Only her problem was fundamentally about the protection of her child.
Thus, for her the only way to save her son was to give him over to the people who would be the ones to persecute him. But Moses was special and his mother knew that, so with a plan in motion she floated her son down the river so that the pharaoh’s daughter would find him and be unable to do anything but take him because of his looks. Moses was raised by the pharaoh’s daughter through a wet-nurse who just happened to be Moses’ natural mother. Moses’ mother had a faith that was strong and she knew he would follow the right path. Moses, to his own regard, as he got older he could have chosen to stay loyal to his adoptive mother and accept all of the power and wealth that came from royalty, but he rejected it. Scholars debate as to the specifics of why, but Moses knew there was more to the life than what the trappings of wealth and life had for him. In his time of searching he came to know God and was able to develop a faith. This faith was interesting because instead of comfort, he chose guaranteed pain and death. So the question is, why? Today we often talk of salvation as being comfort. Even televangelists and others preach a “Prosperity Gospel” but the problem that Moses realized was that comfort and wealth did not equate to life. In fact, he did as many young people do and went searching for more, and his openness brought him to God. Now it is clear that without Moses, life for the Israelites would have been very different. Most likely it would be non-existent for many reasons. So through the faith of Moses and this relationship he had with God, he was able to warn the Hebrew people and lead them away and into the Promised Land, all-be-it in the craziest manner possible! But Moses knew that there was more to his faith than what was before him. Though there was not a developed understanding of life beyond this one at the time, Moses had a real connection to the fact his life was connected to something much bigger. The writer of Hebrews suggests that this is Christ and heaven. Personally, I am always semi-skeptical about this sort of assumption. Reading Christ into the Old Testament is dubious at best since the prophecy always uses the Messiah as something being pointed to. But here it makes sense within the context of the Moses narrative and in the point that the writer of Hebrews is trying to get across. That is that Moses example of faith is something that points to something that is more than what is right in front of him. Thus, even though he did not know Christ, he believed and trusted God and knew that God would call for the salvation of all his people. Sadly, Moses did not see this new reality. But for Moses, even though he showed disappointment for taking the long journey and not enjoying its result, his faithfulness was never about himself or what he would get from it, his faithfulness was far more than that. It was a faithfulness that saw God caring for his people and pointing them to a hopeful tomorrow. I was reading on the online community bulletin board a question/complaint about how dusty it is in the neighborhood. It is a legitimate complaint; there was actually a layer of dust outside the doors of Starbucks thick enough to write your name in! But there was something interesting behind the question/complaint.
Last week, on Thursday as they were working on Shasta on the sewer repairs, a big orange sign announced that the road was closed. But that did not stop people from going around the sign to line their cars along the side of the church. At one point, as I was walking to lunch, a construction semi had entered to drop stuff off for the job. Squeezing through the road that was supposed to be closed, an individual maneuvered himself perfectly to block the driver. I looked over at the driver of the semi and he rolled his eyes. His day was just made that much more difficult; I looked at the driver, and he looked as if he had just won a sporting match. Again, there was something interesting there. Both of these are examples of a great problem in our society. It has to do with a mix of blissful ignorance and arrogance. As you might have guessed, the dust in the community is being caused by the road construction on the Alameda. As many of you know, the state of the road was horrid. With road construction there is always a lot to complain about, but at the same time with road construction, there is not a whole lot that one can do about it. It is a process and a trial in patience. Often we are quick to complain about the temporary discomfort, but the funny thing is that when it is done and we are enjoying the fruits, we rarely go back and apologize for our complaints or even think introspectively about our attitudes at the time. In talking with the truck driver after the guy left for wherever he went, he smiled and said, “everyone will complain about how long this is going to take, but they don't see how their driving on these roads makes it take longer.” It reminds me of the pericope, Matthew 7:1-5 that speaks to this. Often this passage is translated in a very myopic way. Its focus is for us not to judge others. But the passage is much more fruitful than that. Located smack dab in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, the first two passages establish the prohibition of judging others, but it is the second half of this pericope that is enlightening. “3 Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.” Our society is laden with complaining, especially in California. I remember when I first came and saw the protesters outside of Planned Parenthood and knew at that moment I was back in California. But the problem is that complaining and judging does nothing for the community or for you. Most people cannot even say that they feel good afterwards. But the bigger problem with complaining and judging is its sheer foolishness. Take my two examples above. The first, what would the solution be? Most likely it would be something which added cost or time to the project that would inconvenience others in different ways. The second, the guy who drove it knew he should not do that, but he did, and I can guarantee that he was not thinking how his action affected the semi; I don’t think he realized it was there or needed that place. A friend of mine calls Matthew 7:1-5 the “It’s not all about you, it’s about you” passage. His play on words is to highlight the reflective nature of the passage. It is to highlight the fact that when we choose to complain or to judge, it often says more about us and our ignorance than it does about others or even the thing we are complaining about. If the goal of Christian living is to be in a community that is focused on God, where does judging and complaining really fit? Let’s be honest, there are a lot of annoying things that happen in this world, and it is really easy to live there, but really, what does that do for us, and what does that really do for you? Yours in Christ, Bryan This week we have a couple very unique passages. The first and focus of the sermon is about a mother whose daughter has been afflicted by a "demon". The second is an introduction to what we will be talking about in worship on the 24th August. Here the two passages play off each other in a very striking and powerful way.
As you know from my other writings, Roma ns is Paul's most "flushed out" letter. Written later in his life, the letter to the Romans has the most developed understandings and approaches to faith, life and works. In this particular passage, which will lead into the discussion on gifts, lays the foundation in an understanding that once someone has accepted their salvation they cannot run from it. Moreover, Paul holds our feet to the fire to say that just as we were saved, so too could others remind us that we are not the "holier then though" people we always purport to be, even though we try. In fact, Paul goes so far to say that God has bound us all into a situation that will forever cause us to be disobedient. He does this so that we can come back and receive mercy. To a novice in faith this could seem silly, or even mean. The idea that God planned a game that went back and forth between belief and disobedience. For Paul, as explained by the reformers and other theologians, we have this innate defect, which often places us in positions that are often contrary to God. This defect is our humanity and our nature that wants to put our personal comfort and safety before anything else. This is where the second passage from Matthew is enlightening. I see this as another one of the comical interactions in the Bible. As you read the text of Matthew 15:21-28 you think of what a crazy scene this must be, a desperate woman running down the road, Jesus acting as if she were non-existent and the disciples shooing her away like an annoying dog. Here is the interesting part. The woman is not Hebrew; we do not know what she is, that is not important other than the fact that she is not. Thus, she has no place asking Christ for anything. It also means that she really would not have been allowed to be in this situation and the Disciples are really asking if they can have her arrested. Jesus, finally giving in, plays up the role that she is not Hebrew, in order to further a point that it is not her ethnicity, background, or even situation that is rewarded; rather, it is her faith. Some come back and say that this was an act of opportunity for the woman, but the fact of the matter is that the woman had to have an incredible faith to risk so much. Together the passages paint a vibrant picture of faith and calling. On the one hand the Matthew passage shows that God can extend grace to all who show their faith. In the Romans passage, Paul recognizes that even when we have received God's favor, we will fall, and need to find our way back and God will accept us with open arms. I have never seen a father read the binding of Isaac in Genesis in the Hebrew
language and not get emotional. Setting the scene does not take much. Abraham has two sons who he loves very much. The Bible is clear on that. Abraham and his wife live a very long time without children and Sarah is known to be barren. Sarah, knowing the realities, encourages Abraham to have a child they name Ishmael. The Biblical story of Hagar and Ishmael is powerful in itself. I also should make note that when Hagar and Ishmael are sent away, God directly gives Ishmael a parallel birthright to what Isaac received after the episode we read this week. In one of the few examples of monogamy in the Old Testament, Abraham is faithful to his spouse (it was at her urging that he lay with Hagar). When Isaac has reached probably his early to mid teens, his father is told by God to sacrifice his son. He would have been at the age old enough to watch himself but young enough to still fully trust his father. In the Hebrew version of the binding of Isaac, trust and pain are central to that story. As Abraham takes this journey, he is reassuring to Isaac, but you can tell that is not an easy thing for Abraham, though Abraham knows it to be necessary. My interpretation here varies a bit from the traditional interpretation in that Abraham’s faith is strengthened when God calls off the human sacrifice putting a lamb in his place. I take a different view in that I see it as Abraham having the faith that God will provide and not take away his son, his heir. This is in line with the interpretation that the writer of the book of Hebrews has. Here the faith that Abraham has is tested with a trust that God will provide, even though it is inconceivable, because of the impossible pregnancy due to his and Sarah's age. But God promises, and He provides a Son. Abraham's trust was fulfilled! So it would be again when that was tested during the binding story. Again, Abraham knew God would provide, as he did. Thus, as Isaac matured, he could carry forward that faith. But it is important to note, that Abraham took a significant "risk" in his faith. Though to him it would not be a risk since he had the faith and knew, though difficult and emotional, God would provide. Often when we do not trust in God it is because we are afraid to risk and worry that God will not provide. The interesting thing that we saw last week, we see this week, and we will continue to see is that when we risk and give ourselves over to God we cannot help but see an abundance of God's blessings on us. Unlike what is commonly taught, the Reformation movement did not start with the nailing of Luther’s 95 Theses. But the 95 Theses were akin to Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott; it was a moment that marked that the protest had fundamentally changed. By the time Luther nailed his theses there were small Protestant movements all throughout Europe.
Many will note John Hus and the Moravian church (the church of the brethren) While this group did not join with the Reformation movement they predated Luther were one of the movements that really began to hold a mirror to the Catholic Church. However, many in the reformed movement will point to the Waldensian movements, a movement dating back to 1215. This movement was interesting. It’s proximity to Rome, being in the Italian Alps, and its early dating, merely 200 years after the east west split, reflected that Christendom was not the unified body that we think of when we think of the reformation. The reason I bring this up and dive into the reformation, is to highlight that where we are today, just shy of 497 years after the theses were nailed, is a church that has been made up of many different people, theologies, and struggles. This means that things change, and we know that our world has changed, the question is, how do we engage the world? In the center of all the protestant movements is the Bible. But often what separates us is how we approach the Bible. Growing up in the Midwest, learning the Bible in church was pretty much compulsory; all of my friends were learning the same things in their churches as I was in mine, though with a different perspective. When I went to San Francisco Theological Seminary (SFTS), one of the worries that was brought up was “SFTS is a liberal seminary that does not believe in the Bible.” I did not know what that statement meant (I kind of still don’t but . . .). Interestingly, when I arrived and started to take classes, I learned that the Bible was required in every class, including history, and we often spent time doing exegesis to understand how a passage was used and how that might enlighten us. We were also encouraged to read the Bible over and over from cover to cover. If you have never done this, I highly recommend it, though there are some insanely boring parts as well as violent ones. But what I learned from this experience, as well as in seminary is to live a biblical life, but as I read the Bible, that is a life which struggles with this understanding of justice and faithfulness. Interestingly, that is a big part of the foundations of the reformed movement. Whether you go all the way back to the Waldensians or just to Luther and Zwingli or even more recently in Barth, all scream against the excesses of the church and adhere stronger to the biblical mandate for us to live in just communities and faithfulness to God. Here is where we really struggle, though, when we ask “to whom are you faithful?” It is interesting. At the beginning of the summer every year I pick the focus texts from the lectionary and at the beginning of the week I sit with them again and do my exegesis. No matter how many times I have studied a particular text, something new always seems to find me. More often the not, that “something” challenges my understanding of God and how God is calling me. At times, it challenges my whole belief structure. However, I always praise God for this because it reminds me that I am not here to serve anything or anyone (that includes myself) other than God. This is what the reformers were trying to get the church to do. As a Christian Church in the year 2014, this is our great challenge to let the word of God transform us and not to be beholden to something which we have created. In Christ, Bryan |
AuthorRev. Dr. Bryan James Franzen Archives
September 2018
Categories |