Wondering

Sometimes I wonder if there are people who are bothered by my presence in their general vicinity. For instance, when I go to celebrations or parties, people clam up. They either stop their conversations or they significantly muffle them. And then the person throwing the party offers me something to drink, and it's usually a soft drink. This, while the beer and booze is freely flowing.

And then I occasionally hear someone say, "Oh oh! Pastor's here! We better behave ourselves." They say this with a joking tone, but they turn out to be completely serious because... they behave! It's like they were having a blast... until I show up. Inevitably the conversation turns to congregational matters: "How's so-and-so?" "The choir sounded wonderful, didn't they pastor?" "How are we doing with the fundraiser?" Etc.

Parties are supposed to be fun, right? Don't let me spoil it. Carry on as you usually would. I will not be offended, put off, or insulted. I just might enjoy myself. I like having fun just as much as anyone else. I like to laugh, talk, dance, drink, eat, joke around, etc. In other words, I'm a regular flesh-and-blood person. I guarantee that I will not condemn you to the outer regions of Hades. I will not call down lighting bolts to strike you down. I won't call the cops and have you arrested. I won't even tell Jesus on you.

And don't be worried about what I might think of you. I can tell you confidently that I will not think badly of you at all. Who cares what I think anyway? I don't even care what I think! Why should you? So, if I'm around, lighten up and enjoy yourself. You might even discover dimensions of me that you haven't seen before. I'm okay with that if you are!

Going To

I was going to change the title and subtitle of this blog, but I changed my mind after I typed them out and looked at them.

We do have the prerogative to change our minds, don't we?

Tea Parties and Rallies (and what to do about them)

I'm not against people gathering and protesting what they see as great wrongs that need to be righted. I'm just one of those people who believe that such gatherings are colossal wastes of time. They're merely adventures in buffoonery and character assassination, and they accomplish nothing except raise ire. And the media thrives on Us vs. Them scenarios!!

Look, if you don't like bloated government then do something that has real and lasting effects, like befriending poor people and acting as a mentor, demonstrating to them how they can get on track for a more decent life, sticking with them for the long haul and showing that you believe in their potential. The vast majority of people refuse to do that (it's the "I can't be seen with them" syndrome, and it's more widespread than you think), and that's why government takes it upon itself to lead on this. It steps in in places we won't go because we're too concerned about personal safety (which is an illusion) and our wallets.

Just think what would happen if everyone "adopted" (for lack of a better term) at least one poor family and showed them what's possible in this country and how to attain a better quality of life. You don't need a government grant, nor do you have to work for a government agency to do this. All you need is a little bit of love and compassion for fellow Americans (yes, poor people on Welfare are your fellow Americans). They'll go a long way in creating an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust, limiting the places where the government needs to intervene.

It's a helluva lot better than standing around at city hall dressed like a Minuteman or Betsy Ross, carrying a picket sign, and protesting government largess. You have gifts and talents that can be better utilized elsewhere.

Easter and Resurrection

I would be amiss if I didn't have a post about Easter. Besides, what else would I post about today except for what I know?

Modern people have a problem with resurrection. Many people I know have adopted a very scientistic worldview and consider scientific discovery as the omnicompetent institution of our time. Celebrating the resurrection for them amounts to no more than going through the motions and having egg hunts. But there are things that science can't even begin to touch-- things that cannot be put into a test tube. No one can ever bottle up a thought. No one can put feelings in a can and subject them to a catalyst. And no one will ever be able to do that. I know people have said that about things before until science made the appropriate discoveries. And I think that's wonderful!! But we know for a fact that no one will be able to fully understand causation of a thought. We could say that thoughts emerge from the chemical impulses of the brain. But the term emerge isn't a causal term. It's descriptive. There are depths to everyday reality of which science will never be able to determine causality-- consciousness, love, honesty (to name a few).

But what about the resurrection of Jesus? Shouldn't we be studying the biological sciences on that? In short, no. It isn't a scientific question. It's a historical one. Huston Smith wrote recently that modernism made a fatal mistake. It equated absence-of-evidence with evidence-of-absence, and if you think about it for a moment the two are not the same. How many times have we heard people say, "There isn't any evidence!"? Well, of course there isn't. Why would we expect it in the first place? And it doesn't mean that, therefore, it didn't happen. I would say that it's because of a worldview that has been adopted-- a worldview that says that matter is all there is. Anything that isn't matter is derived from matter. But where's the proof of that? Is love merely a learned response? Are thoughts the result of electrical impulse? It would seem that way, but truth is stranger than fiction. You can stick probes in a skull and measure the amplitude of the brainwaves as the person reacts to stimulii. But if you want to know what the person is thinking, you have to ask them. There's no other way.

Keith Ward presents the argument that we have everything backward. We figure causation from the bottom up, when in reality causation is from the top down. This is the Christian worldview. It presents a more thorough picture of human experience. And in that experience we could, historically speaking, say that Jesus rose from the dead. We have accounts of an empty tomb and appearances of Jesus. For the many ways the resurrection accounts are different, all four of them have those two aspects in common. People saw an empty tomb. People saw Jesus. The task of our day is work out the implications of that resurrection by asking, "If I don't believe it happened, what would be the difference if it really did happen as an actual historical event?" Those with a scientistic worldview should ask themselves that question. They might be surprised by their answers.

Light

And God said, "Let there be light," And there was light. (Genesis 1:3)

I caused quite a stir this morning after suggesting that this passage is not talking about physical light. I know we've been accustomed to interpreting Genesis 1 in that way, but I think there's much more going on here than meets the eye.

It's interesting to me that light is not used in the physical sense through the rest of Scripture. It's used more as an action of God to bring the knowledge of God to the nations. He gathered a people (created them) to be bearers of that light to the nations. If we're going to stick to the hermeneutical principle of "Scripture interprets Scripture", then a re-interpretation of Genesis 1 is necessary.

(A quick aside: The ancient rabbis said that the first thing God created was the Torah. Genesis 1 says that light was the first thing created. Looks to me like the rabbis equated Torah with light. Very interesting indeed!)

Certainly the New Testament doesn't use the word "light" as referring to particles and waves. St. John begins his gospel account with the same three words that Genesis begins with: In the beginning. In reading the rest of John 1, we get the sense that the light was lost among humanity, who loved the darkness rather than the light. But it was not enough to squelch the light. In the person of Messiah Jesus the light shone once again to enlighten both Jew and Gentile. This is John's claim, and the rest of his gospel account is an expanded exposition of this claim. He patterns his writing after the number 7 (the number of completion and perfection), which can be seen in the miracle accounts (there are seven), the "I am" statements (of which there are seven). What's fascinating here is that Genesis 1 has creation taking place in 6 days with the seventh day as a day of rest. The Israelites patterned their work week based on this numeration. Or, perhaps Genesis 1 was patterned based on the work week. You decide.

But here's the point: John is saying, through symbolism, metaphors, and archetypes, that creation is made complete (perfected, if you will) by the coming of Jesus. The world has finally come into its holy rest, the very thing it was seeking. It has finally entered the seventh day! St. Paul picks up on this in 2 Corinthians 4:6-- For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," (notice: that's Genesis 1:3!) has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Why do I say all of this? I'm finding that the arguments in the creation vs. evolution debates are becoming increasingly shrill and beside the point. The discussions get bogged down and tiresome, with one side defending a literal, six day creation of the universe and the other side holding on to scientism and a 15 billion year formation of the universe. And then there are the theistic evolutionists who make a valiant attempt at reconciling the two sides by saying that God took 15 billion years to create everything, just like it says in Genesis. Gadzooks!

Could we at least entertain the possibility that the Genesis creation account(s) have very little, if anything, to do with the formation of the universe and our planet, and that it has something entirely different in mind? Could Genesis be telling us that God set out on a mission to win the hearts of humanity?