CCBlogs thinking critically, living faithfully

 
This is a part of my loose series about food which started with this introduction, and continued with this

Never heard of Michael Pollan?  Read this, and this, and this.

1. We spend an enormous amount treating chronic illnesses caused by our diet choices.  Conservative estimates are in the 500 Billion range.  The food industry in a symbiotic relationship with the health industry–our food makes us sick, our healthcare system treats us and sends us home with a bill.  Why isn’t this a more prominent part of the health care debate?

2. For various complicated reasons having to do with the cold war (see Larry Norman’s Great American Novel), food prices rose exponentially in the ’70s causing that political-social genius known as Richard Nixon to restructure our agriculture system, setting up the modern subsidy system, which pays farmers to a) develop a monoculture of either soy or corn, and b) dump that soy and corn into a bad market causing food prices to plummet.  The problem being that monoculture goes against 10,000 years of agricultural wisdom and has devastated our environment. 

3. As a result of #2 above, food corporations must process food to give it value in order to maximize profits.  Processed food is at best less healthy and at worst very, very unhealthy, which explains why we have the healthcare problem stated in #1, and why diseases such as type 2 diabetes and obesity have skyrocketed since the ’70s. 

—–

2. It takes 10 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef.  This is unethical for two reasons: 1) In consuming it 1lb of beef we are stealing 9 lbs of grain from someone who needs it more than us. 2) The greenhouse gas emissions from the process is killing our planet.  Cows that eat grass do not compete with humans for crops that we can eat, and are less harmful on the environment, and may actually reverse the effects of greenhouse gasses (carbon fixing).  Looks like my beef stew recipe needs amending.

3. Swine flu is not caused by eating pork.  However, swine flu came into existence in a pork processing plant as a result of the way that we process pork (think back to the first outbreak of H1N1, there were multiple report of how UN health officials traced the origin of the flu to a pork processing factory in Mexico).

4. Holy Shit!  The Bible was right!  Which animals were the Israelites allowed to eat?  The ones that chewed the cud i.e. ATE GRASS.  Which animals weren’t the Israelites allowed to eat?  The one’s whose production and processing is harmful to the well-being of humans and the planet.

On Friday, Charles Darwin turns 201.  Yes, he's dead, but his shadow still hangs over us!   So, this week we'll celebrate Darwin Day, talk about science and faith, and even observe Evolution Weekend.
David Crumm, a former religion writer for the Detroit Free Press, and now a blogger of some renown, has provided a nice set of resources and conversation pieces on the topics that are forthcoming this week at Read the Spirit.
Here's his opening paragraphs, may it be an invitation to explore this important conversation (and the picture of the Beagle is from David's site:


Happy birthday, Charles Darwin! Darwin Day is coming and so is Evolution Weekend, when many churches make an effort to demonstrate that faith and science aren't enemies.    At least two major American institutions—the Pew Forum and National Geographic—marked the earlier bicentennial of Charles Darwin's birth on Feb 12, 1809, with extensive reports on Darwin, evolution and the spiritual reflections surrounding Darwin's discoveries.    For 2010, National Geographic added a fascinating report on the evolutionary journey of Darwin's own family! No kidding. Science shows that Darwin's family actually migrated out of Africa thousands of years ago. Click to read the whole story.    The Pew Forum material focused on Americans' understanding of faith and science. And you'll also find links below to the ever-growing Clergy Letter Project that helps with resources for Evolution Weekend in many congregations. (Scroll down on this page to learn more.)

I posted yesterday my thoughts on testimony by the Chair of the Joint Chiefs concerning Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  Admiral Michael Mullen testified that it is time to allow gays to serve openly in the military, and that the current system encourages deceit and secrecy.
As it was with civil rights advancement, the military (as conservative an institution as it is supposed to be) took the lead in society.  That is, it integrated before  society did.  Indeed, the military is more integrated today than the church is.  
As we ponder this question of lifting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," it is helpful to look at a document prepared by three retired military chaplains, people working directly with the members of the military, and they call for an end to the policy, and again note that it is an inappropriate encouragement to deceit and secrecy.  What is important is that they answer the critics with the facts.  And the facts say that most members of the military have no problem with serving with gays and that gays serving openly in the military does not impede unit cohesion -- point in case -- the Canadians, Brits, and Israeli's all include openly gay members of their military with no problem.  
The experience of our foreign military allies is unequivocal proof that the presence of known gays in the military has no negative effect on combat readiness.  Our British, Canadian and Australian allies, currently fighting with us in Iraq and Afghanistan, allow gays to serve without restriction.  They report no negative impact on military effectiveness.  Furthermore, the Israeli Defense Forces, charged with defending a country that is constantly threatened by its neighbors and virtually always in a state of war, have long allowed known gays to serve. Each of these allies has reported that when they lifted their bans on gay military service, contrary to the fears of negative impact on good order and discipline of some in the military and their supporters in the public, the result was a "non-event."  Most importantly, the U.S. military clearly has the leadership and professionalism to manage this issue, as it did when African Americans were fully integrated into the military and as it did when the roles of women in the military were expanded. When the facts are looked at, they tell us that this is a policy that should be overturned, for the good of society and the good of the military!  Remember, one of the codes of the military is honor -- surely this policy undermines that code of honor.  And for my pacifist friends, even if not pro-military, I'm sure this is a cause that you can support, for it is a call for equality and fairness in society.
H/T to Pastor Dan's piece at Bold Faith Type (Faith in Public Life). 

Next Sunday may be Valentine's Day, but its also Evolution Sunday (now Weekend). We will be again observing this event at Central Woodward Christian Church. In preparation for that observance, I'm republishing last year's sermon, which commemorated Charles Darwin's 200th birthday.
******************************************


Colossians 1:15-20

I want to begin this morning by giving a big Happy 200th Birthday cheer to Charles Darwin. In case you missed it, on Thursday Darwin joined Abraham Lincoln in celebrating his 200th birthday. Now neither of them was around on Thursday to share in the festivities, but we can recognize and celebrate their legacy anyway.

Now, one of my more famous predecessors as pastor here was a big fan of Abraham Lincoln. As I understand it, Edgar DeWitt Jones hosted an annual Lincoln Lecture, because the study of Lincoln was one of his passions. So in the spirit of my predecessor, I invite you to share in one of my passions by observing Evolution Weekend on the Sunday following Charles Darwin’s birthday. This year the number of churches, synagogues, and mosques participating has grown to about 1000.

This event was born four years ago as an outreach of the Clergy Letter Project. That project produced a letter, which you will find in your bulletins this morning. The letter, which was written by Dr. Michael Zimmerman and then signed by over 11,000 clergy and theologians, including me, is entitled “An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science.” By signing this letter we declared our belief that Christians can believe in God and also affirm the scientific truthfulness of evolution.

I realize that many Christians would disagree with that statement, and I’m sure they would find it not only odd but sacrilegious for a church to observe the birthday of Charles Darwin. After all, in the minds of many he was the spawn of Satan, and an enemy of the church. Obviously, I don’t share that sentiment. It’s true that Darwin’s theories have posed a challenge to our faith, and they have forced us to reconsider some of our traditional readings of the Bible, but even though Darwin was an agnostic at his death, he was never an enemy of Christianity or of the church. In fact, he remained a member of his family’s church and contributed to it until his death – in honor of his wife’s deep faith.

The reason why I introduced this observance to the Lompoc church, and now here, is that I believe that something very important is at stake in this debate over the relationship of faith and science. Indeed, I believe that the intellectual integrity of our faith and our witness to the world is at stake.


1. Jesus, Darwin, and the Spiritual Mind

Although the gospels record Jesus saying that we should love God with our heart, soul, and mind (Mt. 22:37), there is much anti-intellectualism within the Christian community. Many Christians seem to be afraid of what they’ll discover if they start asking too many questions about the meaning of the bible or their own faith tradition. Better not to ask questions, and if people start asking questions, it’s best to change the subject.

The reason why I’m so passionate about this issue is that I believe very strongly in the principle that “all truth is God’s truth.” If this is true then I believe we must, as Christians, be willing to pursue that truth no matter where it takes us, even if it takes us down paths that we find uncomfortable or challenging. The good news is that we don’t have to take the journey alone. We can go on this journey together in the company of God’s Spirit.

By taking this pathway, we will be true to our heritage as Disciples of Christ. The Disciples have been, from the beginning of our movement , committed to the life of the mind. Sometimes we can be overly rational, but the point is, as important as the mystical and the experiential may be to our spiritual welfare, our minds are important as well. Indeed, when we come to church we shouldn’t have to leave our brains at home!

The problem we face today as Christians is that there are too many partisans on both sides of the issue telling us that we have to choose: It’s either God or Evolution. You can’t have both. As for me, I reject that demand. Like many Christians, who unfortunately have been quiet of late, I want to declare my firm belief in God the Creator and at the very same time affirm the teachings of modern science concerning the manner in which this world emerged.

2. Interlude: Jesus Loves Darwin

There’s this bumper sticker, which features two fish kissing. Maybe you’ve seen it. On one fish the name of Jesus appears, and on the other one, the one with legs, you’ll find the word Darwin. If you go to our church Facebook page and then check out the invitation I sent out for today’s service, you’ll be able to see it. I used that symbol because I think it’s very appropriate for what we’re trying to do today.

That bumper sticker has a very ancient lineage. You see, the fish has been a Christian symbol since the first century CE. The fish reminds us that some of the earliest church leaders were once fishermen, and Jesus himself invited them to join him in fishing for humans. Of course, there’s another reason they used the fish – it makes for a very nice acrostic that carries with it an important theological message: You see, the Greek word for fish is ichthus, and if you take each letter of that Greek word you can get this statement of faith: Jesus Christ, God, Son, Savior.

In recent years lots of fish decals have sprung up. When you see one you expect that the person driving the car is a Christian. So, because Jesus and Darwin are supposed to be at war, it’s not surprising that the “other side” came up with their own similar decal. Their fish, however, has legs, reminding us that the first land animals descended from fish, and instead of Jesus’s name, you’ll find Darwin’s name on it. By bringing these two fish together, we declare our belief that religion and science aren’t enemies.

I realize I can’t speak for everyone here today, but I would like to affirm this three-part premise: As followers of Jesus, who believe firmly that God is our creator, we can also affirm three important scientific premises: 1) Our universe is very old; 2) Humans share a common ancestor with all living things; and 3) natural selection is the currently accepted scientific explanation for how all of this has taken place. I realize that there’s a lot more that can be said here, but I think that’s a good start for now.

3. Jesus, Creation, and Redemption

You might wondering – what about that scripture text that we read today – where does it come in? That passage, the one from Colossians 1, speaks clearly and powerfully of Jesus’ role in creation. It is, in fact, a hymn, a song of praise to Jesus, declaring to all that he is God’s partner in the work of creation and redemption.

As to the first point, this hymn boldly declares that Jesus is the first born of creation, and that in him, and through him, and for him, all things, whether in heaven or on earth, have been created. Not only that, but he is before all things and in him all things hold together. Indeed, he is the beginning and the end, the alpha and the omega. And then the hymn moves on to the second point. In Jesus, God chose to dwell and in him and through him God has reconciled all things. That is, in and through the cross of Jesus, God has brought peace to earth and to heaven.

The language of this hymn not only soars, but it’s cosmic in nature. Everything, not just our existence, is taken up into Jesus, so that everything that exists might find its purpose in God.

This passage, whether written by Paul or not, reflects in hymnic language the biblical confession that God is creator and that what God creates is good and has purpose. At the same time, it reflects the biblical confession that brokenness has crept into this creation. Indeed, as Paul himself writes in Romans 8, the whole of creation is groaning in labor pains, anticipating the freedom and the wholeness that it will gain together with the children of God at the appointed time (Romans 8:22ff). Now that’s not a scientific statement. It’s poetic and theological, but nothing in that statement is at odds with science.

It’s my belief that both science and theology have something important to say to us. Each bears witness to important truths, but they do so from very different perspectives. We get into trouble when we try to turn the Bible into a science book. And, while science has much to say to us as Christians, there are truths that are beyond even it’s insights. It doesn’t make either of them deficient – just different. We can learn from both and celebrate both. And that, I believe is the point of Evolution Weekend! So, since Jesus loves Charles Darwin, we can wish him a very happy birthday!


Preached by:
Dr. Robert D. Cornwall
Pastor, Central Woodward Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Troy, Michigan
Evolution Sunday
February 15, 2009

I have to stop for a moment and pay homage to the Super Bowl Champs -- the New Orlean's Saints.  I'm old enough to remember when the Saints were called the Ain'ts and where the fans wore paper bags over their heads to cover their identities.  If the Cowboys were America's team (not mine, as I was a Steeler fan -- due to the fact that the 49ers were not up to par), then the Saints were the team America forgot.
Last night that team, in its first Super Bowl, took the prize from the favored Colts, whose famed QB was the son of the QB of some of those really bad Saints teams.  I know that Archie was rooting for his son, but I expect that he felt at least some solace in the fact that the winning team was his old team.
As to the game itself:   Often Super Bowls are blow outs or just not very exciting.  In normal years, the commercials stand out above the games themselves, but last night a game that early on looked like a Colts blow out, turned out to be quite a game.  The Saints took control of the 2nd quarter, and while only scoring two field goals, they kept Peyton Manning on the bench (the best defense is a ball control offense).  And then, as the second half started, the Saints surprised everyone by kicking an onside kick and getting the ball back -- and scoring!  Of course, the Colts answered with a TD of their own.  That didn't keep the Saints down, for they added a TD of their own (Drew Brees, the QB the Chargers considered expendable, was near perfect).  Finally, its the 4th quarter, the Colts are marching, and just after the commentator says that the Saints shouldn't blitz, but instead hold back, they blitz, force Manning to throw an errant pass, which CB Terry Porter grabs and carries in for a TD that seals the deal.  The second half made this a game to remember.
I should add a coda to this story -- the General Manager of the Saints, Mickey Loomis, was a fellow student at Northwest Christian College (University).  He was a few years a head of me, so we weren't friends or anything, but hey, I can say, I knew him when!  
Now, if only the Lions can follow the Saints' script . . .  

Martin Marty opines today on the ways in which we view and experience our culture -- especially the idea that we are at best terrible, but are we not more?  Do we not have better natures?  Take a look, offer your thoughts.
******************************

Sightings 2/8/10

Cultural Disruption -- Martin E. Marty

This week we reflect on issues posed in a thoughtful piece by Leon Wieseltier in the February 18th New Republic, titled “Aftershocks.”  A question it inspires:  Is there a framework in which to place the fights-of-the-week that made news on the “religion and public life” front in recent days?  We refer to publicized fights over suspect sponsors of prayer breakfasts, trafficking of children in Haiti, pop-culture churches that sponsor “extreme fighting” in the name of Jesus who is billed as an extreme fighter, and the religious fight of the century, don’t ask, don’t tell (about sex, of course).  All of these disturb and disrupt the healing messages of religious bodies of all sorts everywhere.
Wieseltier finds a framework in talk about realism, which can help counter the mere fatalism that is so culturally current and widespread.  He takes off from responses to the Haitian earthquake, which include silly and cruel theodicies like one voiced by the Reverend Joseph Lejeune in a tent city at Port-au-Prince:  “Life is not disaster.  Life is joy!”  On the other hand he is suspicious of more serious attempts to avoid the questions of theodicy among those who fault only the human causes of Haitian misery.  The new-atheist uses of the event to “prove” the non-existence of God are also unconvincing.
Wieseltier’s conclusion relates to humanisms:  “It is just not the case that the less you believe in God, the more you believe in man…Whether or not God exists, we do, and much of the time – though not now, as the planes clog the runways in Port-au-Prince – we are terrible.” We are terrible.  Give Wieseltier credit for wrestling with the bigger questions of the human story.  He is at least focusing properly.
It is time to haul out the passage from José Ortega y Gasset that has guided my own cultural-religious inquiries through the decades.  Reporting on wars, after earthquakes, financial crisis, et cetera is one thing, but “decisive historical changes do not come from great wars, terrible cataclysms, or ingenious inventions:  ‘It is enough that the human heart incline its sensitive crown to one side or the other of the horizon, toward optimism or toward pessimism, toward heroism or toward utility, toward combat or toward peace.’”  We can substitute other terms for Ortega’s “optimism,” “heroism,” and “peace,” so long as they signal alternatives to the presently dominating nihilism, political “no”-saying, polarization, cynicism, and pop-cultural escapism
Stories of positive alternatives tend to be overlooked and even buried.  Wieseltier finds one of these exceptions symbolized by the planes bringing relief to Port-au-Prince.  Those who look closely can also see how many humanizing and healing efforts are rooted not in the publicized contributions of celebrities, though there are good reasons to applaud even their short-lived efforts, but in sacrifices and gestures made by people in overlookable places such as local voluntary associations, congregations, parishes, synagogues, scout troops, and families who regularly go about their business.
Those who make up these bodies and units and agencies do know, as Wieseltier reminds us, that “we are terrible,” but terribleness is not the last word.  Politicians, broadcasters, bankers, and marketers often disdain those who help “incline the sensitive crown of the human heart” toward longer visions, incentives, and actions that might profit us and our not-always and not-only terrible contemporaries.  But Lincoln’s birthday Friday might call to mind a leader who invoked “the better angels of our nature,” or, if talk of “human nature” makes us uneasy, then the better angels of our story.

Reference: Ortega is quoted in Karl J. Weintraub, Visions of Culture (University of Chicago Press, 1966).   Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, publications, and contact information can be found at www.illuminos.com. 
----------
 
In this month’s edition of the Religion and Culture Web Forum, Sarah Imhoff introduces us to the Hasidic reggae musician Matisyahu, who weds reggae music with strong pronouncements of Jewish faith and identity.  Imhoff notes that a common concern for music critics and Matisyahu's coreligionists alike resides in issues of authenticity.  Music critics ask if he's "reggae" enough; Orthodox Jews debate whether he's "Jewish" enough. By troubling categories of identity and their relationships with artistic form, Imhoff explores the limits of "authenticity" in aesthetic and religious performance.  With invited responses forthcoming from Melvin L. Butler (University of Chicago), Judah Cohen (Indiana University), Annalise E. Glauz-Todrank (University of California, Santa Barbara), Elliot A. Ratzman (Swarthmore College),and Nora Rubel (University of Rochester).
http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/index.shtml 

----------Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Transfiguration SundayExodus 34:29-35; 2 Corinthians 3:12-4:2; Luke 9:28-36 (37-43)by Adam ThomasIn this week’s epistle reading, Paul gives us what is perhaps the most alarming sentence in all of scripture: “But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.”I don’t know about you, but to me wearing a veil sounds pretty appealing. What could be more comforting than a nice piece of tulle hiding Steve Thorngatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010733362797501049noreply@blogger.com2http://theolog.org/2010/02/blogging-toward-sunday-mirror-mirror.html

Tomorrow the book releases! Thanks to all who have pre-ordered it, and to all who will venture out to your local Barnes and Noble, Borders, or other bookseller tomorrow ...
We’ve gotten ourselves into a mess with the Bible. First, we are in a scientific mess. Fundamentalism again and again paints itself into a corner by requiring that the Bible be treated as a divinely dictated science textbook providing us true information in all areas of life, including when and how the earth was created, what the shape of the earth is, what revolves around what in space, and so on. (68)

From A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith (available February 9, 2010)

Back in the 1990s the phrase "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" became part of our vocabulary.  Hopefully this ill-begotten phrase will become history in the near future.  As President Obama pledged to do in his campaign, he has laid the foundations for just such a move.  
The policy was developed in 1993 as a compromise between then President Clinton and then Chair of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell, who did not believe that gays and lesbians should serve openly in the military.  And a phrase and a policy was born.
This past week, in testimony before Congress, the Secretary of Defense (by party affiliation a Republican) and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, called for an end to this policy.  Admiral Mullen straightforwardly declared the reason why this should end:
“No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”
This is gets to the heart of things -- the current policy encourages deceit, and its dangerous to those forced into the closet.  And what happens if people are found out, well they are court marshaled -- and as a result the military often loses very skilled individuals -- we've seen this recently as the military has lost translators and intelligence officers, it has sorely lacked.
It is sad that John McCain, who once said he would consider supporting a change in the law if the military leadership called for it, now is backtracking.  For some reason, the Senator once known for crossing the party lines has become one of the most resistant to do such a thing. Anyway, its time that this policy be revoked by Congress -- and they must take that step, before it can be moved forward.
Oh, and then a word back to the church -- if the Military is getting ready to end this odious policy, maybe we should drop this phrase from our vocabulary as well!  No need encouraging deceit in the church!

by James M. Wall

The politics of Hope smashed into the Iron Wall that Israel continues to build to enclose Zionism in its own security blanket.

What happened when the Politics of Hope hit the Iron Wall of security?

Settler settlement growth increased; an Hamas leader died under suspicious circumstances in Dubai; more targeted Israeli Defense Force attacks struck West Bank citizens; Gaza still lies in ruins, its people unable to rebuild.

Meanwhile, the Gaza blockade is made even stronger with Egypt’s cooperation, reducing the flow of food, medicines, and building supplies into Gaza from the south.

Israel’s security blanket remains a prison wall surrounding all of Palestine.

The Goldstone Report is slowly disappearing. Once considered a serious theat to Israel, given the careful manner in which the Report was assembled under the leadership of the respected Jewish Judge Richard Goldstone, the Report languishes in UN file cabinets.

How do we know the Report is no longer a threat? We have that reassurance from a reliable source, David Horovitz, editor of the Jerusalem Post. (See spelling correction below.)

Horovitz spoke with “insider friends” in Washington, you know, those folks who are oozing with love, admiration and support for Israel (the Israel Lobby for short) and Horovitz was assured, as he wrote in a recent Post editorial, that the Goldstone threat is fading, thanks to Israel’s staunch ally, Barack Obama:

They stress that the administration has been rock solid on the Goldstone Report – voting in vain against its adoption in the United Nations Human Rights Council in October, and again in the General Assembly in November.

While countries from which we might have expected better failed to stand up for what amounted to Israel’s right to self-defense, and while certain European nations have now become no-go zones for Israeli leaders facing a genuine fear of arrest for purported war crimes, they point out, the US is firmly in Israel’s corner.

Why should readers of the Jerusalem Post worry about a little thing like the United Nations?  Ethnic cleansing continues to run rampart over every UN resolution adopted since 1948. The politics of Hope cannot touch ethnic cleansing.  It cannot even dent the Iron Wall behind which Israel lives in his secure military enclave.

True enough, the minority Republican party in Washington remains, in Time magazine’s Joe Klein’s terms,”paralyzed by cynicism and hypocrisy”, but that is just fine with Horovitz, so long as the Republican paralysis remains, again, in Klein’s words, “undergirded by inchoate ideological fervor.”

It is because of this Washington political paralysis, and the Republicans’ “inchoate ideological fervor” that Israel is able to fend off the Goldstone Report, and ignore angry world opinion outside the US.

Should Jerusalem Post readers worry about American voters who are facing “financial strains more acute than they have been for decades”?

No problem, Horovitz’ DC insiders assure him: Foreign aid to Israel will remain “untouched, secure and considerable – in the familiar region of $3 billion this year.”

Of course, Horovitz adds, there is still that pesky matter of those idealistic young protestors on American campuses.

A ferocious assault on Israel’s legitimacy is under way at innumerable American university campuses – the disease of British academia spreading across the pond. But the administration is robust. We’ve really only got one significant partner in this particular aspect of the battle against our delegitimation, they add, but if you’ve only got one ally, thank goodness it’s America.

In her review of M. Shadid Alam’s new book, Israeli Exceptionalism: The Destabilizing Logic of Zionism, political analyst and author Kathleen Christison traces the changing understanding of Zionism.

Until recent years, the notion that Zionism was a benign, indeed a humanitarian, political movement designed for the noble purpose of creating a homeland and refuge for the world’s stateless, persecuted Jews was a virtually universal assumption.

In the last few years, particularly since the start of the al-Aqsa intifada in 2000, as Israel’s harsh oppression of the Palestinians has become more widely known, a great many Israelis and friends of Israel have begun to distance themselves from and criticize Israel’s occupation policies, but they remain strong Zionists and have been at pains to propound the view that Zionism began well and has only lately been corrupted by the occupation.

Christison writes that the essential point of Alam’s book is made clear in the inscription in the frontispiece.

From the Persian poet and philosopher Rumi, the quote reads, “You have the light, but you have no humanity. Seek humanity, for that is the goal.”

Alam, professor of economics at Northeastern University in Boston . . . follows this with an explicit statement of his aims in the first paragraph of the preface.

Asking and answering the obvious question, “Why is an economist writing a book on the geopolitics of Zionism, he says that he “could have written a book about the economics of Zionism, the Israeli economy, or the economy of the West Bank and Gaza, but how would any of that have helped me to understand the cold logic and the deep passions that have driven Zionism?”

Alam demonstrates clearly, through voluminous evidence and a carefully argued analysis, that Zionism was never benign, never good—that from the very beginning, it operated according to a “cold logic” and, per Rumi, had “no humanity.”  Except perhaps for Jews, which is where Israel’s and Zionism’s exceptionalism comes in.

Jerusalem Post editor David Horovitz, did not use the term exceptionalism, when he wrote that his colleagues in Washington had reassured him that one year into the Obama administration, nothing had changed  on Israel’s other “home front”.

But there is certainly something exceptional about the undying loyalty US elites and leaders feel for Israel.

Israel’s loyal teammates in the US include the Congress, the media, and the ever faithful military-industrial complex.

Essential for the US-Israel axis, carefully cultivated in each new generation, are the cautious, excessively civil and reliably timid, American churches. Lets face it, Israelis are smart. They know it never hurts to have God on your side.

Over time, this could begin to change. Increasingly of late, courageous and aggressive Protestant activists have stepped up their travel to, and personal interaction with, Palestinians. They have returned home shocked at what they have seen and experienced.

A scene at the end of the highly effective DVD produced by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is a vivid testimony from one traveler, spoken to his fellow travelers on the last day of a trip to Palestine/Israel.

The study book, which includes the DVD, is Steadfast Hope: The Palestinian Quest for Just Peace, produced by the Israel/Palestine Mission Network, part of the denomination’s education program.

The speaker is the Rev. Andrew Rosencranz, a Presbyterian pastor. With barely restrained anger and frustration, Rosencranz, says: “I did not know that I did not know”.

This, of course, is Israel’s greatest nightmare, American pastors and laity discovering the Palestinian narrative.

Among all the American denominations, and I am not revealing secrets here, it is the Presbyterians, bless their orderly Reformed hearts, who have taken the lead in the effort to push a Palestinian justice and peace agenda.

This is still a minority movement. Church leaders are especially slow to even acknowledge the issue. The harsh reality remains, as the old saying goes, “the higher the steeple, the more timid the church below will be.”

Every church member or pastor who has taken an all-expenses-paid trip to Israel knows, perhaps hidden deep inside, that Zionism has successfully targeted Protestant circles of power for a very long time.

They are still at it, of course. Look for Zionism’s representatives at judicatory meetings. They will be pushing for “fair and balanced” resolutions.

Could that be where Fox News got its operative slogan?

Then there is the silence of the American media. Forget about the overt Zionists like Friedman, Goldberg, Will, and the Fox crowd.

As in the church and the Congress, you will find an abundance of PEPs in the media. (A PEP, in case you did not get the memo, is a Progressive Except on Palestine.) You know who they are, especially if you watch MSNBC.

There will always be well meaning folks in both the media and in the churches, who will respond to earthquakes in Haiti, and hunger in America. But these same folks quickly shy away from the “complications” involved in discussing the “Palestinian issue”. These are the people who can’t afford to “offend” others or harm “fragile” relationships.

Uri Avnery, the veteran Israeli peace agitator, activist, and author,  recently called out Israelis who support worthy causes, but who have allowed themselves to become Israeli PEPs, Progressive except for Peace.

He is speaking to Israeli Jews, of couse, but if American progressives will just lift their sights a bit, they will find that the shoe fits here as well.

Avnery starts by listing the good causes that Israelis embrace, especially the younger activists.

The struggle for preserving the environment and the future of the planet.

The struggle for democracy against fascist trends.

The struggle for human rights and civil rights.

The feminist struggle.

The struggle for the rights of gays and lesbians.

The struggle for social justice and social solidarity.

The struggle for equal rights for Israel’s Arab citizens. The struggle against the discrimination of Oriental Jews.

The struggle for the separation of religion and state.

The struggle for animal rights. Etc. etc. etc.

What do all these causes have in common?

All of them belong to the liberal, “progressive” world view. Each and every one of them deserves full-hearted devotion, especially of young people. But after all, all of them serve today as substitutes for the main battle – the struggle for peace with the Palestinian people.

There is a danger that all these struggles will become something like “cities of refuge” for young idealists, who desire to devote themselves to a noble cause, but have no desire to take part in the main struggle.

Since every one of these struggles is indeed important and is for a good cause, no one can argue with these activists. Scores of organizations are now active in these fields, and thousands of wonderful people – male and female, old and young – are devoting themselves to these causes.

I, too, would willingly join every one of them, were it not – – - Were it not for the fact that all of them – all together and each of them separately – are now draining the life out of the struggle for peace.

Avnery has lived in Israel since before the modern state was created.  He was, as a young man, a soldier in the Israeli Defense Force. Later, he was active in forming a political peace party and was elected to the Knesset.

His love for Israel is that of a Jew who wants only the best for his land and his people.  So it is understandable that he sets the mark higher than an American might. But we who live on this side of the Atlantic, far from the daily struggles in Israel-Palestine, have to acknowledge the prophetic wisdom in his conclusion:

As I see it, peace stands above all other aims, not least because the success of all other struggles depends on the outcome of this fight.

The unending war creates a reality of occupation and oppression, of death and destruction, brutality and cruelty, moral degeneration and general bestiality.

Can any ideal be realized in this situation? Can feminism, for example, achieve its aims in a country that is in the throes of an unbridled chauvinist militarism?

Avnery knows all about what M. Shadid Alam describes as the “cold logic and deep passion” of Zionism. He also knows that an unchecked Zionism will be the ultimate downfall of Israel as a democratic state.

A Correction: An earlier version of this posting misspelled Post Editor’s David Horovitz‘ name as David Horowitz, leading readers to mistake him for the David Horowitz who is a well-known American conservative writer and activist who recently wrote critically of Howard Zinn.  My apologies to both Davids.

The picture at the top is by Jim Watson, an AFP/Getty image. The picture of Uri Avnery is from Wikipedia

Transfigure © Jan L. Richardson

Reading from the Gospels, Transfiguration Sunday, Year C (Feb. 14): Luke 9:28-36 (37-43)

I was nearly finished with the collage before it occurred to me that the design perhaps owes as much to the snow I was recently in as it does to next Sunday’s gospel text. Gary and I have returned from Minnesota, and although we (and they) joked about the wisdom of importing Floridians at this time of year, it was a great gift to be in a lovely winter’s landscape and to receive wondrous hospitality as we shared a morning at Hennepin Avenue United Methodist Church (including a worship service that takes place in their art gallery, what a concept) and in events at Wisdom Ways Center for Spirituality and United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities.

Along the way, I had occasion to share images of some of my artwork from the past 15+ years. It was the first time I had brought these images together in quite this way, from early work such as Wise Women Also Came (made when I was still using construction paper!) to the more recent collages I’ve created for this blog and The Advent Door. Looking back over this body of work prompted me to do some reflecting on how my style has changed. Although paper collage remains my first love, my technique and my style have both shifted considerably, taking an increasingly abstract turn since I began creating artwork for my blogs more than two years ago.

When it comes to the creative process, I can’t say I have a lot of control. Trying to wield too much control, in fact, is one of the worst things an artist can do (which doesn’t always keep me from trying). I didn’t exactly set out to do abstract work. The technique, which involves painting tissue paper, emerged from creative necessity as I was working on The Welcome Table: the scale was so large (4.5 x 6.5 feet) that I couldn’t snip the characters’ clothes out of magazines; I had to fashion them myself. I can’t explain the ensuing turn toward abstraction, except in part: once the painted papers showed up, that’s the path they took me down. That, and these lectionary texts that take me to places that so often resist traditional depictions. I experience abstract art as being more like poetry in the space that it creates. “Tell all the Truth but tell it slant,” Emily Dickinson wrote. I’m not trying to explain these passages, but to evoke, to invite, to sidle up alongside the texts and offer a doorway into them amidst line and shape and color.

Along the way, what I keep working and hoping to do is to give myself to the mysteries involved in the process of making: to pay attention to what emerges among the papers and to follow where they lead; to keep clearing out a space within myself that leaves enough room for something new to show up; and to avoid growing so attached to a particular style or technique that it becomes overworked and ossified.

In my artful work and elsewhere, the challenges that the disciples encounter in this passage from Luke are my own challenges. Like Peter, John, and James at prayer with Jesus on the mountain, I sometimes struggle to stay awake when it’s easier to be lulled into sleep and to miss the thin places, the meetings of heaven and earth, that open up in the midst of daily life. And when those thin places come—when a burst of inspiration opens a new world, say, or, after hours or months or sometimes years of experimentation, something finally comes together at the drafting table, and both the work and I myself are transformed—it can be tempting to want to set up shop there, to preserve the moment, as Peter longed to do. I recognize his impulse in my own self, his desire to want to linger in the wonder. And why shouldn’t he? Yet the persistent invitation of Jesus is to take what we have seen, what we have found, down into the trenches of everyday life.

It’s not a new message; I’ll wager that the greater percentage of the sermons preached on this text will offer a variation on the theme of navigating the transition from the mountaintop to the flatlands. And yet we need to keep practicing that transition, to keep rehearsing the journey that moves us from being recipients of wonder to becoming people who, transformed and—shall we say it?—transfigured by what we have received, can then offer these wonders to a broken world.

When the disciples come down from the mountain, they still have plenty of struggles ahead. They’ve hardly gotten their feet back on flat land when, Luke tells us, they encounter, and fail to heal, a boy in the grip of what Luke describes as an unclean spirit. In juxtaposing the stories, Luke suggests that the disciples’ own spirits are still struggling between holding on and letting go, are still struggling to leave a space for the wonders that Christ seeks to do within and through them. It will take rehearsing, and practicing, and rehearsing some more. In my own life, cultivating this space is something that, quite literally, I keep going back to the drawing board to learn.

This is a great passage to lead us toward Lent, a season that is all about discerning what it is that we cling to, and what we need to practice letting go of in order for Christ to become more clear in us. But Lent will come around soon enough. In the meantime, where does the story of Peter and John and James connect with your own? How are you navigating the journey that their own feet trace between the mountaintop and the flatlands? What do you find yourself tempted to cling to, and how do you practice letting go of it? Do you have habits and spaces that invite you to cultivate an openness to the new ways that God desires to work in and through you? Where and how do you rehearse the transfiguration that God seeks to bring in your life?

As we move toward Transfiguration Sunday, may we keep awake to the wonders in our midst, let ourselves be transformed by them, and follow the path they open to us. Blessings.

[For an earlier reflection on the Transfiguration, please see Transfiguration Sunday: Show and (Don't) Tell. To use the "Transfigure" image, please visit this page at janrichardsonimages.com. Your use of janrichardsonimages.com helps make the ministry of The Painted Prayerbook possible. Thank you!]

I'll be focusing on the book release for the next several weeks, but I wanted to include this note I just received:
Rev. McLaren - thank you for your wonderful report/response to your time in the Occupied Territories. Christians have, for too long, been complacent in the treatment of the palestinian people. As a Christian whose circle of friends include several muslims and a future rabbi (as well as having an MA in theology my self and a wife who loves anything to do with the Hebrew Bible) I am very pro ANYTHING that allows the diversity of human beings to work together for peace.

I don't know if you met with them during you time in the territories but can I point you and your readers to Sabeel? Sabel is the 'Ecumenical Palestinian LIberation Theology Center'. It is a training center for clergy and lay people alike to engage in non-violent liberation theology in a palestinian context.
http://www.sabeel.org/

Thanks - yes, I am a big fan of Sabeel, and encourage folks to read everything that they produce, especially books by Naim Ateek. I'll be coming back to speech and action on Palestine in the weeks and months ahead ...

While we're on the subject of Call (thank, Matt and Laura, thanks lectionary and thanks Kittamaqundi Community for never letting this topic drop) I'd like to raise a question which has been on my mind for years:  Who is called to do the laundry?

And not just the laundry.  Who is called to do all the mundane, scut work of the world.  You know, collecting garbage and cleaning the bathtub and proof-reading the latest version of the church directory?  I know that I'm not called to do these things.  But is anyone?

There is a conversation that happens at churches with great frequency which goes like this:  "We need to fill four more slots on the Christian Education committee.  Let's think of all the people who aren't already on a committee who are free on Tuesday nights."  Then, someone in the conversation responds, "Shouldn't the people on the Christian Education committee be called to that work?  We need more people to feel a call to serve our youth!"

Which is the more "spiritual" response?  The second comment certainly sounds more spiritual--it uses the word "call" after all.  But is it really true that God arranges our communities in such ways that there is a person in the community who is really, truly called to each essential task?  I would certainly like to believe this.  I would really like to think that there is someone genuinely called to do all the work I don't feel like doing.  But are they?

In my experience, this is how a great deal of the work of running a church gets divvied up:  The church cultivates a clear expectation that everyone will take their turn to pitch in and do their share of the work.  People either understand this and therefore volunteer when it seems like "their turn" or they don't don't understand this and are therefore asked quite directly to take a turn.

Is taking your turn, doing your share, acting out of a sense of duty distinctly different from following a divine call? 

A couple of weekends ago, the 2010 Church Council spent Sunday afternoon together, our annual team-building retreat.  Rick Miller led us in an exercise in which we all drew a picture describing our "call" to serve on the Council.  I was struck by the answer so many of us gave: "I love our church, and I realize that a lot of people have put their time into running it, and I feel called to take my turn and do my share of the work." 

People didn't say they felt called to administrative work.  They said they were willing to do administrative work because they felt called to be part of a community.

Now, don't get me wrong.  I agree that there are all sorts of ways to be Called.  God doesn't just need ordained ministers and missionaries.  God needs every one of us to build the Kingdom, in small and big ways.  Last night my neighbor told me about her bus driver, Mr. Mike, who has touched her deeply with the caring and attentive way in which he does his work.  "He really is like Jesus," she told me.  "He shepherds us with such love."

But maybe the issue is not that we haven't valued calls to small acts of caring and inglorious jobs enough.  Maybe the issue is that we have imagined calls to be much more specific and defined than they really are.  God may not call each person to a specific job--big, little or in between.  Rather, God has work to do in the world, and invites us to join in, however we can on any given day.  "Pitching in" may be as worthy a response to the invitation as any.

1 Corinthians 15:1-11
Those of you who’ve been part of the God is Green study know that we’ve been talking about the ways our lives impact the environment. Although God may have given us a beautiful world to live in and the job of being good stewards of this gift, too often we’ve muddied the waters and trampled down the pastures (Ezk: 34:18). As we’ve been talking about our impact on the environment, a troubling question has emerged: “How much is enough?” That is, if our pursuit of bigger and better has a negative impact on the environment, what am I willing to live without? What would I be willing to sacrifice?
That’s one way to ask the question of priorities, but we could ask it in other ways. For instance, since we seem to be in an ongoing economic crisis, one that grips our nation, our state, and our local communities, including the city of Troy, we might ask the question: what services do we consider important and essential?
1. Back to Basics
I’m not sure that Paul’s letter to the Corinthians answers either our environmental or our economic questions, but it does raise the question of which beliefs and practices are essential. In this chapter of his letter, Paul focuses on what defines the Christian faith?
Now, Paul is writing to a congregation that he founded, and so he feels a certain sense of ownership and responsibility for them. From the letters he’s been getting from church members, he’s concluded that they’ve gotten off track. Since his last visit they’ve become embroiled in bitter disputes over matters of sexuality, food, idolatry, spiritual gifts, worship, and more. You name it and they’ve raised the question? And so in his attempt to get them back on task, he calls them back to basics.
Two hundred years ago, a Presbyterian pastor living on what was then the American frontier – Washington, PA – encountered people without a shepherd, who seemed hopelessly divided over what this pastor considered minor issues. You see, as people crossed the mountains from the East, they left behind their spiritual homes, but brought with them their spiritual baggage. Now, living on the frontier, they often found themselves without a community like the one they left behind, and so many of them simply gave up on their faith. Thomas Campbell decided to help them, but in doing so, he got in trouble with his superiors. That’s because he tried to provide this very diverse lot a place to call home, by going back to basics. He decided to emphasize what he believed where the common threads of the Christian faith, and no more. It was on the basis of this simple faith that he invited people to the table of the Lord.
2. Paul’s First Things.
Paul was trying to do something similar with the Corinthians. In trying to respond to their questions, he laid out for them what he believed were first principles of the Christian faith. This was the gospel that had been delivered to him, and it’s the gospel he had passed on to the Corinthians, so now it made sense to call them back to these basics.
Paul’s gospel has three basic elements: The death, the burial, and the resurrection of Jesus. He tells the Corinthians to hold firmly to this confession of faith that focuses on events that transpired over a three-day period – from Good Friday to Easter Sunday.
Now you might disagree with Paul’s list of essentials. You might think it’s a bit too narrow. Maybe you’d like to add some points between Christmas and Good Friday. And that’s okay, but remember Paul is dealing with a very conflicted bunch, and he needs to get them on the same page. If they’re going to tackle all of these divisive issues that were confronting them, then they would need to agree on some first principles, and these are the ones Paul had laid out for them from the beginning.
At the heart of his message is the risen Christ. It might be worth noting that this passage could be the earliest written witness to the resurrection tradition. He wanted them to know that the one who had died on the cross was alive and present in and with the church. He goes on in the verses that follow to emphasize how important the resurrection is to his gospel. If Christ is not raised, he says, then their faith and their hopes are in vain. Paul was writing this because, some of the people had gotten the impression that this life was all there is, and so you could live however you pleased. And, of course, things had gotten a bit ugly. Hoping to bring them back together, he reminded them of the basics, that simple straightforward faith that he had passed on to them at an earlier time.
So what does Paul’s gospel have to say to us? What are our first principles? What binds us together and guides us when things get difficult? While we might disagree on the color of the carpet, the styles of music, or what goes up on the walls of the sanctuary, at the end of the day it is our faith in God as revealed to us in the risen Christ that binds us together.
As we consider this question of what is essential, consider for a moment the story of the one whom Brennan Manning calls the Man of Sorrows in his book Patched Together. We first meet the man of sorrows when a young Mexican boy named Willie Juan tries to give water to a figure hanging on a crucifix in the church. He quickly discovers that this is a carving, but he will reencounter this Man of Sorrows many more times in life, and in those encounters this boy, whose body and spirit are scarred, finds hope and healing. He discovers that it is the Man of Sorrows who bears our griefs and our scars, and in return offers healing. The healing that he receives is a gift freely given, and it is life changing, but it also requires something of him and of us – a willingness to put our lives into the hands of another.1 Paul offers the risen Christ to us as the basis of our oneness, so that we might find wholeness. If we can do this, then perhaps we can boldly sing the words of Brian Wren that are found in our opening hymn:
Christ is risen! Raise your spirits from the caverns of despair,
Walk with gladness in the morning. See what love can do and dare.
Drink the wine of resurrection, not a servant, but a friend;
Jesus is our strong companion. Joy and peace shall never end.(Chalice Hymnal, 222).
3. Our Witness: The Practice of Faith
As Paul shares his gospel, he invites the Corinthian church – and us – to share in his witness. As you listen to his invitation, you may get the sense that there have been other voices claiming their allegiance, and its these voices that have gotten them off track. In defending his own mission, he starts with an apology. He is, he writes, one who is untimely born. Unlike the twelve, he’d never had the opportunity to walk with Jesus in life. He wasn’t among the five hundred, nor was he James, who by then led the Jerusalem church. In fact, while those he named were receiving visitations from the risen Christ, he was trying to destroy this new faith that he now proclaimed. He was, by his own admission, the least of the Apostles. And yet, despite all of this, he too had received a visitation from the risen Christ, and it was out of that revelation of grace that he now wrote these words to this congregation.

This morning we gather as servants of the risen Christ. We come as those who have been called to bear witness to the Man of Sorrows, who has born our griefs and brought wholeness to our lives. It’s out of this encounter with Christ that we’ve become, like Paul, apostles. We are now witnesses of God’s love, mercy, and grace.
Therefore, as followers of the risen Christ, how should we bear witness to his presence in our lives? Is it simply believing the right things? Or does it involve the way we live our lives? Last Sunday we spoke of the power of love, and as we left the building we sang – “they will know we are Christians by our love.” In what way are we living out this affirmation?
In deciding to follow Jesus, we’ve embrace a way of life. As John’s gospel puts it, Jesus said to the people “I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly” (Jn 10:10). That is the message of the resurrection, and so as we ponder the question of what this means to our lives, I’d like to add a note from Dorothy Bass’s book Practicing our Faith:
A way of life abundant: this is God’s gift in the midst of the ordinary stuff of existence. This way of life – abundant not in money and possessions but in mercy and hope – is given not only for the sake of those who are its members. It is given that these might live for the sake of others, and indeed for the sake of all creation. The challenge is to discern how to live this way of life within a specific context, at your moment in history.2
So, how shall we live, as we embrace the call to follow the risen Christ? In her book Dorothy Bass, along with a series of other writers, introduces us to twelve practices that range from hospitality to dying well. Each of these practices can help us live fully into God’s grace.
Another way to live into our witness to the gospel of the risen Christ, is to be begin making ethical consumer decisions. As Julie Clawson puts it, in her book Everyday Justice, this involves the principle of ethical consumption. Ethical Consumption “implies that we will apply our moral values and ethical standards to our consumer habits. We don’t opt out of a necessary system, but we redeem it by trying to live by a more consistent ethic.”3
So the questions of the day are these: Who is the Risen Christ, and what does it mean to be his follower?
1. Brennan Manning, Patched Together: A story of my story, (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2010).
2. Dorothy Bass, Practicing Our Faith: A Way of Life for a Searching People. 2nd ed., (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2010), p. xiii.
3. Julie Clawson, Every Day Justice, (Downers Grove, IVP, 2009), p. 26. 
Preached by:Dr. Robert D. CornwallPastor, Central Woodward Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)Troy, MichiganFebruary 7, 2010Fifth Sunday after Epiphany

My friend Alan Ward created a super-helpful study guide for Everything Must Change, which you can download for your group or for individual study here.

On Thursday I had a novel experience - at least, new to me, anyway: a Diocesan Council meeting that I actually enjoyed. Partly, it was because the meeting was very well chaired by our dean, Trevor James. We got through the agenda precisely on time, made crisp and recognisable decisions, and nobody felt harried or rushed. Partly it was because there was a great deal of goodwill around the table, amd people seemed, genuinely, to want to listen to each other. Mostly, for me, though it was the fact that we looked forward, and made some significant choices about the road we might take together as a diocese. This wasn't a regular meeting of the council, bur was rather, a sort of brainstorming session and the recommendations will need to be presented to a proper meeting of the council at the end of the coming week; but it was encouraging. Exciting, even, to see that there is a way ahead and to catch a glimpse of what it might be.

Friends - just two days until the book releases! Thanks for your interest in following these daily quotations.
But my quest for a new kind of Christianity has required me to ask some hard questions about the Bible I love. There will be no new kind of Christian faith without a new approach to the Bible. (68)

From A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith (available February 9, 2010)

A FAITH OF YOUR OWN: Naming What You Really Believe.  By Ronald J. Allen.   Louisville: WJK Press, 2010.  x + 144 pages.

    It would appear that even progressive Christians didn’t get the message Harvey Cox put out in last year’s Future of Faith (HarperOne, 2009).  Cox insisted that we are entering a new age of the Spirit where belief will give way to faith.  Like Philip Clayton, whose Transforming Christian Theology for Church and Society (Fortress, 2010) has called for a theological conversation that involves the laity, Ron Allen believes that it’s important that you be able to name what you believe.  As to why it’s important to know what we believe, Allen notes that “what we believe determines not only how we see God, ourselves, others, and the world, but also what we expect from God and from ourselves and from the world” It influences our worship, our prayers, and our actions (pp. viii-ix). 

    The author of the book is a New Testament scholar and homiletician (he teaches preaching at Christian Theological Seminary), and not a historian, philosopher, or a systematic theologian.  Therefore, in his presentation the biblical interpretation tends to be stronger than the historical.  He’s a Disciple, which means he comes from a non-creedal tradition.  That may be one reason why he seems comfortable with presenting a wide perspective on theology.  He’s also a progressive, with an affinity for Process Theology – and despite trying for a sense of objectivity, that affinity does show, which he does acknowledge at points.  

    With a strong sense of the importance of what one believes, Allen sets out to provide an introduction to Christian theology for laity.   His hope is that once readers finish the book, they’ll be able to articulate a faith of their own.  In the course of nine chapters, he introduces the reader to the resources for doing theology (this includes Scripture, as well as the other important sources that we draw upon), God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, “God’s Ultimate Purposes” (eschatology), the Church, Evil, and Christianity’s relationship with other religions.  In order to introduce the reader to these basic topics, which are similar to the seven core Christian questions that Philip Clayton highlights, Allen breaks the discussion of each topic into three parts – the biblical witness, the historic church, and the contemporary church.   Concluding each chapter is a series of discussion questions that can be used both for individual reflection and group study.

    In rather brief compass, the author introduces readers to a fairly broad spectrum of viewpoints.  This occurs at each historical level.  Noting that both the Bible and theology require interpretation, he intends for the reader, whom he assumes are laity, to “recognize possibilities, to compare and contrast them, and to select the one(s) that are most promising” (ix).  As one can quickly see, with a method such as this, there is a lot of overlap and redundancy in the presentation. 

    The book concludes with a very helpful “Final Exercise,” which is designed to help the reader formulate a faith of their own.  Pointing back to the journey they have undertaken to this point, Allen suggests four criteria for formulating one’s faith.   Our faith professions should: 1) show “continuity with the core of the Bible and Christian tradition.” Even though we might reject parts of the witness, there needs to be continuity.  2) This faith should be “logically coherent.  3) It should be “seriously believable.”  That is, God should be able to do what we say God does. 4) Finally, this faith should be one that “calls for the moral treatment of all people and elements of nature” (pp. 128-129).  With this set of criteria, one can set out to discern one’s belief system, a conversation that is best undertaken in the company of others.  As one does so, they might choose to write a “credo,” a belief statement that can take a variety of forms.  To help the reader reflect on what they had read, Allen also provides a listing of statements on each of the nine areas of consideration, so one can see what one might believe.         

    Ron Allen is to be commended for putting together a resource that individuals and small groups can use to discern their belief systems.  By laying it out in such a way that both the biblical and the historical perspectives can be seen, one is able to see both the diversity of beliefs and their implications.  Of course, in a book this brief, not every aspect of a doctrine can be rehearsed.  Because it is designed for a broad readership, one also does not get a deep sense of any one tradition.  Perhaps understanding that readers might feel the need to go deeper, he provides a brief annotated reading list that gives some of the possible theological resources. 

    This is a very useful book, but it’s not perfect.  Although the method of presentation is quite useful, sometimes the redundancy is overly apparent.  In addition, while the biblical portions are quite strong, the historical presentations are occasionally weak.  A couple of examples should suffice – at one point he attributes the Heidelberg Catechism to the Lutherans though this catechism is Reformed in origin (an error that seems a bit odd considering the publisher is Presbyterian).   In his discussion of the Trinity, it might have been helpful to note that the primary issue at Chalcedon wasn’t the Trinity but the two natures of Christ.  Finally, while Anselm’s atonement theory is substitutionary, it might have been useful to speak of it as a satisfaction theory so that a distinction can be made with penal substitution.  With these few caveats, only one of which is a true error, I would suggest its use for moderate to progressive laity, seeking a means toward better articulating their faith. 

I had three dreams early Saturday morning before my last Sunday as the pastor of Covenant Baptist Church.

Salting the Edwards Aquifer

In the first of three dreams I had this night, there was a big controversy in San Antonio regarding the Edwards Aquifer, our city’s source of water. Some, mostly conservatives, wanted to add massive amounts of salt to the aquifer. They claimed the salt would create a “salt pan” and preserve the aquifer in some way, insuring us of a supply of water in the future.

I tried to make a guess at what this meant. I asked their expert if the salt would sink to the bottom and form a crust, preventing the water from seeping deeper into the earth. Their expert said that, in fact, the presence of salt would serve as a catalyst to form a salt pan on the top of the aquifer chamber. He did not explain how this would preserve the water.

The position held by mostly liberals was that the salt would get out into the land and be an environmental disaster. I attended meetings, listening to experts on both sides, trying to decide what I thought. Everyone else seemed very sure of themselves. I just wanted the facts and couldn’t see any way of deciding apart from those facts.

Mike Huckabee was the spokesman for the conservatives, leading their campaign. In the dream he knew me and wanted my support for their position. He talked with me numerous times. I liked him but his “expert” turned out not to be a scientist at all, making me immediately suspicious of him and the whole "Salt the Aquifer" group.

Lost in San Antonio. Can’t find my way home

In my next dream, I left our home and went for a walk. I ended up near downtown San Antonio. I got turned around and couldn't remember how to get home. I looked up and down the streets, hoping to see something familiar.

It was as if I had amnesia and couldn’t remember how I had gotten there. I couldn’t retrace my steps and go home. I wandered into a massive Orthodox church. Beautiful. Classic, with a domed roof. I remembered that Paul Soupiset had told me about their worship, which was esoteric and strict, even by Orthodox standards. I entered, peeked into the worship service which was happening at the time, then left.

I still had no idea how to find my way home. Then I remembered that my phone had GPS on it. I turned it on, plugged in my home address, and began to follow the instructions. Comforted by the fact that I didn’t have to know the way home but could just follow the simple instructions, I began to walk.

Suddenly I remembered how I had gotten downtown and how to go home. I even remembered why I had gotten turned around and lost in the first place. While walking from my home toward downtown, I had crossed the street at some point. From the other side of the street, my perspective had changed entirely.

Driving the ambulance with Reggie Freakin Regan

In the third of my dreams, I had bought an ambulance. I thought it would be fun to have an ambulance as my car. The back was empty, containing no medical equipment. Still, I thought it was cool.

This ambulance had been broken down for some time and left standing outside on the street. John McJilton (Member of our church) appeared in my dream and reminded me that for all the months the ambulance was broken, the street sweepers had to negotiate around it, and had been unable to clean the street, so that under the ambulance the street was filled with leaves and trash.

But now I had repaired the ambulance and was driving it around. Suddenly I had what I thought was a great idea. I would contact Reggie freakin Regan, who is a nurse with a specialization in emergency medicine. I thought Reggie and I might go into business together. We would have an ambulance service. I could drive and Reggie could handle taking care of people.

The idea of being the driver and leaving the care of the people in Reggie’s hands was very comforting. I did realize that it was going to be very expensive to stock the ambulance with all the medical equipment and wondered how we would get the money to do that.

Three Dreams. There you are. Have at it. My own approach to understanding dreams is Jungian. As such I find these three dreams, coming in quick succession last night, to be very interesting.

rlp

 

This is part of a loose series of mine entitled: Toward a Theology of Food

  

Proof of Beer’s Overall Culinary & Nutritional Superiority above all other Food & Beverage

Brewing Up a Civilization – Spiegel Online

  

General Guidelines for Cooking with Beer

1. Good beer makes good food.  Conversely, bad beer makes bad food.

2. Never use all your beer for cooking.  Save some for more traditional purposes.

3. Ne Quid Nemis.  Balance and Counterpoint is key (see the note about prunes in the recipe below).

4. The darker the malt the fuller the flavor imparted to the dish (this is a general rule of thumb, sure to have exceptions).

  

Guinness Beef Stew

I can’t take full credit for this recipe, it is merely my adaptation of about seven of the dozens of recipes for this delectable dish that you can find on the internet. 

2 lb. lean stew beef (I’ll bet lamb or mutton would be good as well, but they would make the whole thing a lot greasier and fattier).

1/2 cup (or so) flour

3 tablespoons (give or take) of olive oil.  The use of canola oil will doom the whole project to failure, so don’t.

1 bullion cube- chicken or beef (I actually like chicken bullion in this recipe.  Go figure.) Alternatively, you can make your own broth or stock.

4 carrots

1 white onion

2  1/2  cups water

1   12 oz. bottle of Guinness Extra Stout- do not use the draft cans or bottles. 

1/2 cup of pitted prunes.  This is seriously the key to the whole thing.  The first time I made this stew I was like, “Prunes are for old people!  That’s stupid!” And I didn’t put them in.  The resulting stew was nasty.  It tasted like pieces of meat floating in three day old stale beer.  You couldn’t eat it.  This is a part of the recipe that one should definitely experiment with, however; less prunes will give you more bitterness, more prunes make it sweeter.  I feel like 1/2 cup or so provides a balance: the flavors of the beer, including its bitterness, can be fully tasted and enjoyed, but are not overpowering.  You could also try raisins or dried apricots, or dried cranberries.  Just don’t forget to add some sort of dried fruit.

1 bay leaf

1 sprig of rosemary (maybe wrapped in cheesecloth)

1/2 cup of chopped parsley (for garnish)

 Salt and pepper to taste (don’t be too stingy with it)

1.Mix the flour in with the little cubes of beef.  If the beef is really fatty, you may want to cut some of the fat off before you do this.  In a fry-pan, brown the beef on all sides using about two tablespoons of oil or so.  In your big stew pot, boil the water and add the bullion cube.  My feeling is that a copper pot would be ideal for this stew, but if you haven’t robbed a Williams & Sonoma lately, or if you’re not rich, you’ll probably have to use stainless steel like me.  

2. Chop carrots and onions.  When the beef is done throw the beef and carrots in with the water.  Add the beer, slowly, reverently pouring it down the side of the pot.   As it flows out of the bottle, sing the Gloria in your best angelic voice.  This is essential for continued success.  May I suggest you use the setting arranged by William Byrd?  Of course, my dream kitchen would be outfitted with a choir loft and a full-time, three voice choir, but, believe it or not, that hasn’t happened for me…yet.  Alternatively, one may want to always have among one’s dinner guests someone with a fine voice.

3. In the same pan that the beef was in, put some more oil, and fry the chopped onions for a few minutes (not too long), making sure to shake them around plenty.  Then throw them in your pot as well.  Go ahead and throw your bay leaf and rosemary in there, too.  Salt and pepper.  Bring it all back to a boil, then turn the heat down to low.

4. Pit your prunes and cut them up into little pieces.  Add these last, once everything else is comfortably simmering and you’ve turned the heat down.

5. Simmer covered for an hour or so, until the meat is tender; also, you shouldn’t have any little bits of prunes left, they should have all melted. 

5 1/2. I almost forgot: Before serving, take out the bay leaf and rosemary.  If you don’t,  I’m not liable if someone chokes and dies.

6. Serve it up on top of potato pancakes or mashed potatoes, and sprinkle with chopped parsley.  With the meal, either finish off the six-pack of Extra Stout (if you haven’t already) or have the draft cans available, according to your preference.  Make sure you pour them into the appropriate glassware, if you don’t the food will taste awful.  Don’t touch the draft bottles, either, they will ruin everything.

Serves 4-8 depending on a) how hungry you are; b) how many potatoes you eat with it; c) how many Guinnesses you drank while cooking.

Let me know what you think.