How to pronounce "Israel" - My Christmas Wish for a Revolution

Though my wife will tell you that I do not have much of a Christmas Spirit, I have always enjoyed worship at Christmas. When Dr. Tim Lovett became pastor of my home church, Huffman Baptist (Birmingham, Alabama), he introduced our church to Advent worship. Celebrating the virtues of Advent - Hope, Peace, Joy and Love - has enhanced the already special worship experience of the Christmas Season.

And, though I am musically challenged and somewhat tone-deaf, I am moved by the Christmas Carols sung in the context of worship. Some of my favorites include "O Come, All Ye Faithful," "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing" and "The First Noel." Which brings me to my biggest gripe!

How do you pronounce "Israel"?

I think most southerners say something like "Izz-real" or "Izz-re-al" (like cereal).  However, when we sing "The First Noel" or "O Come, O Come, Immanuel" we pronounce "Israel" something like "Iz-rye-el". It sounds like rye bread or rye toast. And, it is painfully annoying. Yet,everyone, from Josh Grobin and Amy Grant to the most skilled, classical musicians, does it.

Have you ever heard someone take their fingernails and scratch a chalkboard? Or, have you ever scratched a pizza stone? Those screeching sounds give me the heebie-jeebies. They make me cringe. And, I cringe the same way when I hear these classic songs, sung beautifully, played beautifully, and even emotionally, and then hear: "Born is the king of 'I-iz-rye-el'" Ooohh! Yuck!

Why do we pronounce Israel in these carols "Iz-rye-el"? For one thing, Is-ra-el is a three syllable word, not a two-syllable word. In the hymnal, Is-ra-el is correctly divided into three syllables, probably by the author or the composer of the tunes. Because we usually pronounce it with two syllables, seeing it written out in the hymnal with three syllables leaves us to guess the pronunciation. But, how did the pronunciation decision stick with "rye"?

My guess is that we are more familiar with Latin and Greek than we are Hebrew. Classical education once involved the study of Greek and Latin. Much of our English vocabulary owes its origins to Greek or Latin. As the father on "My Big, Fat, Greek Wedding" boasted, "Every word in the English language can be traced to Greek! You give me the English word and I give you the Greek root!" Spray some windex on that, why don't you!

In Latin the dipthong "ae" is always pronounced with a long "i" sound. In Greek, the alpha and iota (ai) combine to make the long "i" sound. In many cases, we carry the pronunciation over into English, or, in the case of the name Michaela, it is pronounced with a long "a" sound, like "mi-kay-la." (The name Michael, and the feminine are also Hebrew, not Greek or Latin).

However, when it comes to Hebrew, we are like Earnest T. Bass - ignorant (in the words of Sherriff Taylor). In Hebrew "ae" is not a dipthong. In other words, it should be pronounced with two syllables. It should never, under any circumstances, save my own ignorance and tradition, be pronounced "Iz-rye-el".

Thus, when we say the word "Israel" it should not come out "Izz-real" or, when we sing it, "Iz-rye-el" The correct pronunciation of "Israel" is "Is-rah-el." The "a" should be pronounced like an "a" in father or water. Furthermore, the 's' should be pronounced as a short 's' and not a long, drawn out, 'z'.

Each year my Christmas wish remains unchanged. I pray that God answers the prayer Jesus taught us to pray in its fullest. If God decides to wait another year, I pray that God allows my life to be someone's answer to the Lord's prayer and provides the means to do so. This year, He may not do the former, and He always does the latter, if I am watching and waiting.

But this year my third wish is that we Christians start a revolution in our churches. Let's sing with joy "Born is the king of "Is-rah-el"!

(Forgive the cynicism, and have a blessed Advent and Christmas season! Too, if I am wrong, I always stand to be corrected....thanks!)

Cheap or Costly?

“Cheap Grace is the preaching of forgiveness without repentance, baptism without church discipline, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

“Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.”

“Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.”

“Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: ‘ye were bought at a price,’ and what has cost God so much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the incarnation of God.”

(Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995, p. 44-45)

Eight Years Ago Today

I have recounted at this time last year my thoughts on the Christian's appropriate response to 9/11. I was disappointed then, and still am even today, at the failure of Christians to explain the tragedy of this day in light of God's gospel. This event has been a driving source for reminding me the importance of my vocation to speak clearly the message of Jesus Christ before the church so that the church may possess the necessary spiritual resources to speak the truth regarding events such as as 9/11.

One of the most important things in my life is to be prepared for tragedy. Paul reminded the church that we should not mourn as those without hope. Jesus was moved by his friends' mourning over the tragedy of their brother Lazarus' death. Even for Christians, in times of tragedy, our ultimate hope can seem so distant. This is evident in the symbols we turn to in times of tragedy. Our hope is distant when we are unable to articulate a tragedy such as 9/11 in terms of the Biblical narrative, particularly the gospel. We fail to see the connections between our faith and the problem that our faith dealt with.

The essence of our faith is that in cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ, death, evil, and hopelessness have been defeated. They have no power over the faithful ones. We remember those symbols in the bread and in the cup. We express that faith in the posture of prayer, in the songs we sing on days of tragedy.

How we respond to tragedy is a witness to the world. The symbols we turn to are a witness to the world. They might just be a witness to our selves about who we really are.

Being the Church

Check this out:

http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/post/2009/09/03/Do-church-Or-be-church.aspx

What do you think?

Jesus, Justice and the Kingdom of God

I read a post on Tony Cartledge's blog regarding President Obama's universal health care plan. I am not writing to debate whether or not government health care is a good thing. On a side note, I am amazed how something so important as government health care is being sloppily handled. Misinformation, no thought-out plan, and the urgency to run this thing through congress ought to concern you as it does me, regardless of what side you are on. It does not help that Republicans and Democrats are not working together on such an important topic. (I thought that was supposed to change this time around?) When will we ever learn?

However, on Dr. Cartledge's blog a friend of mine commented that he disagreed with covering illegal immigrants under the government health care reformed. Subsequently, a distinguished gentleman attacked my friend regarding his faith and whether or not he had done some serious reflection on the compassion of Jesus.

I want to ask whether or not you or I have done some serious reflection on the life, ministry, and the purposes of Jesus, justice and the kingdom of God.

First, justice is the concept of things being fair for everyone. We believe that the world is not fair, but God's plan with the coming kingdom of God is to create a world that is fair. All that is unfair will be eliminated. God is good, knows what's best, and his absolute sovereignty (the answer to the Lord's prayer) would benefit God's people, and ultimately the world, if its children would submit to his reign. Right now, things are not fair. One day, things will be.

At the heart of Jesus' ministry was the proclamation of the Kingdom of God and his role in bringing the Kingdom of God about. During that ministry, Jesus ate with the marginalized, healed their sicknesses, cast out demons, raised some of the dead, and exhibited compassion with those who were in need. He welcomed children. I would not argue that compassion for the marginalized is at the heart of Jesus' message.

Yet, somewhere in the middle of each of the Synoptic Gospel messages, Jesus sets his eyes on Jerusalem and a destiny of crucifixion. Followers, including many who received miracles at the hands of Jesus, and scores of those who witnessed them, began to fall away. Jesus was going to his death and they did not like this.

Why did Jesus go to die? I am sure that you have your church answers for Jesus' death. It was through the death of Jesus, and subsequent events on a mysterious "third day" that God would demonstrate the power of his kingdom, by defeating death itself. Things would be different for those who "trusted" Jesus. Things would be different in the world. Things would be different for the community of followers that would form following the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Now, let's look at a few things. There are some who believe that the mission of the followers of Jesus is to bring justice to all people of the world. They believe that the mission of the church is to make sure that life is fair for everyone. They believe that justice must be meted out in this life. When Jesus pointed his face to Jerusalem and revealed to his dull disciples the purpose for His coming, Jesus left behind many poor people, many children, many sick, and many hungry people. He did not achieve justice by removing Roman occupation, by equally distributing the wealth, or using his power and connections with the Father and the Spirit to make things right.

Why? The ultimate problem that the Kingdom of God manifested in the ministry of Jesus came to deal with is death. The Book of Ecclesiastes laments that kings and paupers, good and evil, inevitably all life, ceases to be. The Book of Job exemplifies that those who may deserve justice (from a human perspective) do not always get it in this life.

Let me say this: while Christians do bear a responsibility to work for justice, justice for all simply will not happen this side of eternity. Only through the fulfilment of the coming Kingdom of God can life be fair for all who benefit from God's reign. Justice will not eliminate the fact that there will be many who die before that justice can be distributed. Furthermore, health care can never answer the quandry of why one became sick in the first place, and the other did not.

No, our response to the message of Jesus, and the eventual coming of God's kingdom is compassion. If justice is equity without compassion, then give me injustice mingled with compassion. We cannot put the world to rights. God can. God will, in His time. However, we can demonstrate the compassion of Jesus to those who are suffering. Those of us who are not, are called to bear the cross of those who are. We are called to love people through relationships. We do not feed the poor from behind a soup kitchen shelf, but at their table where the dinner is steak. We love as equals, not as a project. We love not by providing a cheap health care system for the poor, but by gathering the sick as a community of faith, and taking them to the doctors, and providing for their care through compassion, not as a project.

Yes, we can work to make the world better, but that comes through Jesus' compassion infecting His followers by the Holy Spirit, and in turn infecting others with an unmeritted compassion. That compassion will include meeting real needs, learning to related to all kinds of people, and breaking down barriers. But the hallmark of that compassion is in the sharing of our motivation - we have experienced the love of God and a taste of His good future in Jesus Christ.

If this health care bill works, then great. I would be its supporter. If it does not, then so be it. But my compassion for others does not depend on legislation, but something deeper - the experience of God's love, the hope of a New Day in which many will participate, and trust in Jesus' message and method of compassion.

So, to the critic on Dr. Cartledge's blog, is universal health care the ultimate expression of Jesus' compassion? Those under that care will still die. Then what is next? My hope for the world, my community and family is in the God who has defeated death and sent the church as messengers to live out the gospel of Jesus Christ in deed and word.

The Bottom Line?

Is it really OK to agree to disagree?

Unity amidst diversity sounds nice, but in reality it is easier said than done.

Why?

Coming from divinity school to the 'real world' of ministry has not been an eye opening experience, but I cannot help but notice the difference between theory and practice in church. In divinity school, I was educated to look at both or all sides of a position, delimma or doctrine. Knowing the arguments for each position, it was up to me to weigh the arguments against scripture, reason, tradition and experience. Then, I had to make the choice of where I stood. However, my personal position was not as important as knowing how I arrived at the position. Divinity School taught me to think. That's good. Church history is primarily a history of thought and subsequent practice.

However, it also devalues the importance of the final position. For example, I believe that God calls women to ordained capacities in the church. That is not a position that the church has historically embraced. Furthermore, those like me, who hold to a high view of scripture often come to different opinions as to what the Bible says. Paul seems to limit ministerial roles in 1 Timothy to males. Yet we have other passages that indicate women had a greater role in ministry vis-a-vis the role of women in society. The Bible narrative gives evidence of progress in the role of women when compared to the role of women in First Century Greco-Roman culture.

Yet, many people ask whether or not I believe a certain thing, like women in ministry, and expect a direct answer: "Yes, I believe women can serve in ordained capacities" or "no, they cannot" without appreciation as to how I came to that conclusion.

To illustrate that point, there are some that believe women can serve in ministry regardless of what the Bible says. They read scripture differently. They interpret differently. They believe that the Bible contains the word of God and they must pick and choose what parts of the Bible to embrace. That oversimplifies their position, but I must for sake of brevity. I cannot side with these people who "pick and choose" their scripture as opposed to the whole of the Bible.

Furthermore, I feel more akin to those who believe that women cannot serve in ordained capacities if their position comes from an honest attempt to read scripture. Though I do not agree with their final answer, their theological understanding of scripture I embrace.

Thus, for me, how I arrive at the final answer may be more important than the final answer and its applications. Too, I may appreciate how others come to that final position, even if we disagree.

However, in the 'real world' of church ministry, the final answer and its applications are more important than the process of how to get there. People want simple answers to run with. And, this is understandable. If my church agrees that women may serve in ordained capacities, then that, in turn, affects how the church does ministry. It affects the church's relationship with those churches that disagree. It affects whether or not people may feel they can attend that particular church. The catch-22 then becomes whether or not the church aligns with other churches that embrace the particular practice or with churches that embrace the method that comes to the conclusion. Therefore, to many, the final answer matters most, without thought given to the process of arriving at the final answer.

I fondly remember watching the famous Duke-Kentucky regional final in 1992. The two teams played what many consider to be the best basketball game ever played. Regulation ended with a 93-93 tie and the teams went back and forth throughout overtime. Kentucky led 103-102 with two seconds left. Christian Laettner hit the game winner at the buzzer for Duke's 104-103 win. They went on to win the national championship. Though we can admire the game, that Kentucky played their best basketball of the season, perhaps ever, in that one game, the result still stood. Duke won and advanced. They would have done the same if the game was ugly and the final score was in the 50's or if they blew Kentucky out. The tournament brackets showed no appreciation for the greatest game ever. It merely advanced Duke to the next round and Kentucky was labeled a loser.

The world is a bottom line world. But does this always work in Christianity, especially "organized" Christianity? What is most important, the end result or how the game is played? Does Christianity have a place for both? Can we work with those whom we disagree, yet share common values that led to differing practices?

These are just thoughts, but important thoughts for considering how to think theologically and for practical theology.

"Providing for the Poor"

http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/providing.pdf

Here is a link to one of the best sermons on the Christians responsibility to the poor that I have ever heard/read. Dr. Allen Ross is an Old Testament Professor and Biblical Theologian at Beeson Divinity School. As far as exposition of the Old Testament, I know few, if any, who are better. The sermon is posted in a PDF format, so you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the document. If you rather hear the sermon, the link is the following:

http://www.beesondivinity.com/templates/System/details.asp?id=25215&PID=515498

Click on the September 16, 2008 sermon.

What do you think?

Regarding Abortion

Following the murder of an abortion doctor in his church lobby on Sunday Morning, please consider the quotations below. Though I oppose abortion on demand, I have often questioned inconsistencies in the so-called "pro-life" position. It is these inconsistencies that led Scott Roeder to murder abortion doctor George Tiller. Though I assume that few abortion opponants actually applaud Roeder's decision (Souther Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler has openly denounced Tiller's murder), former SBC Second Vice-President, Wiley Drake, has applauded his death:

http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4119&Itemid=53

Many churches claim a staunch "pro-life" stance, meaning they oppose abortion. However, when the child is born, they hardly lift a finger to stand for the spiritual needs of the child, much less the child's position of powerlessness before the world. It is contradictive to belong to a church that claims a pro-life stance, if that church cannot find enough volunteers for the church nursery. Such a church must consider whether or not it is ready, as a community, to embrace the needs of children - spiritual, physical, mental, emotional and social. Yes, the church is responsible for all these areas.

Though I intend to write no comprehensive article below, I ask that we consider the following:

1. What kind of a community is sincerely a community that welcomes children?

2. What is the coherent moral logic, or better yet, moral vision, that undergirds a church's stance against abortion?

3. What is the church's duty toward the innocent and the victim? Do we merely create a state in which there is no possibility that an unborn child is aborted? Is that the extent of our responsibility as a community of faith?

4. What action would really demonstrate a vision of a community that welcomed children, that opposed abortion, and that assumed responsibility for the needs of the innocent and the victim?

Below are some thoughts toward such answers:

"Let me ask you: Which has greater power? Ten thousand people who fill the streets in front of abortion clinics and shame those seeking abortion, or ten thousand people...who take to the state capital a petition they have signed stating they will take any unwanted child of any age, any color, and physical condition so that they can love that child in the name of Jesus Christ?"

- Bill Tibert, Presbyterian Minister (Quoted in Richard Hays' The Moral Vision of the New Testament, p. 458)

"We must begin by recognizing that we cannot coerce moral consensus in a post-Christian culture. The United States is deeply divided over the question of abortion because there is no consensus about the cultural logic that ought to govern our decisions about this matter. We should recognize the futility of seeking to compel that state to enforce Christian teaching against abortion. This is neither because we advocate a dualistic seperation of sacred and secular spheres of life nor because we acknowledge an alleged sacred right of individual conscience; rather, it is because we recognize that the convictions that cause us to reject abortion within the church are intelligilble only within the symbolic world of Scripture. The church's rejection of abortion is persuasive only in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ...Thus, the primary task of the Christian community on this issue is to form a countercommunity of witness, summoning the world to see the gospel in action."

- Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, p. 457-58.

"...I think that we will be wise as Christians to state our opposition to abortion in a manner that makes clear our broader concerns for the kind of people we ought to be to welcome children into the world."

- Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character, p. 229

What do you think?

Does God Cause or Allow Evil?

http://www.gregboyd.org/popular/the-35w-bridge-collapse-and-the-book-of-job-blog-post-from-8-29-07/

When I created this blog it was primarily for the purpose of discussing Theodicy, which is commonly known as the so-called "Problem of Evil." Actually, "theodicy" is a word derivved from two Greek words Theos and dikaios. Theodicy, therefore, is best translated righteousness of God, or God's justification. In Romans 1:16-17, Paul indicates that the gospel reveals God's righteousness. The Gospel reveals the answer to theodicy!

The above link is to Greg Boyd's response to the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis nearly two years ago. Boyd's response is to a pastor that said God caused the bridge to collapse to demonstrate his glory. What do you think?

Romans 1:16-17 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, 'The one who is righteous will live by faith.'"

Clergy Sex Abuse in Baptist Life

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/

http://www.tiffanycroft.blogspot.com/

http://stopbaptistpredators.blogspot.com/

The above are links to blogs dealing with the topic of clergy sexual abuse Baptist Life. The first, is Wade Burleson's blog, which is covering the story of disgraced former SBC pastor Darrell Gilyard and his plea deal in a sexual abuse case. The others are the blogs of Tiffany Croft and Christa Brown, who were victims of clergy sexual abuse in their own churches as children and students. When they had the courage to report these acts, they were humiliated into forced "apologies" while their perpeptrators moved on to other churches, usually larger churches.

In the case of Darrell Gilyard, his sexual misconduct had a history of nearly 25 years. Only the late pastor E.K. Bailey dared to tell the truth about Gilyard's nature, and he was rediculed by other denominational officials for doing so.

The only way that clergy sexual abuse will end in any denomination, including Baptist life, is to tell the truth, stand for the innocent, and leave the results to God.

Matthew 18:5-10: "5 Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. 6 "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling block comes! 8 "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or two feet and to be thrown into the eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into the hell of fire. 10 "Take care that you do not despise one of these little ones; for, I tell you, in heaven their angels continually see the face of my Father in heaven."

Human Trafficking...in North Carolina!

http://www.biblicalrecorder.com/post/Human-trafficking-a-growing-NC-problem.aspx


Micah 6:8: "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

Christians and Torture (again)

http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4052&Itemid=9

I have written before that I cannot believe that support for torture is greater among Christians than it is among those who are not active in church or who do not go at all. David Gushee's prayer is a masterful call to consider the contradiction between our faith and support for torture.

Dr. Gushee's prayer is incredible. I hope that you will take the time to read it, and, if you dare, to pray it. I appreciate what he said about torture, the corralation of support for torture and church attendance. It is interesting how through the history of the church, Christians have supported forms of torture and cruel punishment for their/our opponents.

However, the most important thing that Dr. Gushee noted is that we should not worry about churches being empty in the future. They already are. Our faith as a whole is empty. We do not have the Spritual or Moral Vision that a follower of Jesus Christ must possess in order to see injustices purported in the world. Our faith lacks consistency and substance.

I tend to be overly critical of the church, after being raised in Alabama and seeing first hand the effects of racism and hearing stories of how "Bible believers" responded, or failed to respond. I realize that when I point fingers, I have three pointing back. I merely want to ask, "Are you reading the same book that I read? Are you hearing the same Word that I am hearing? Are you praying to the same God that I pray to?

However, what are we missing that spurred on the disciples in the book of Acts? What are we missing that empowered the martyrs of the early church? What are we missing that fueled the writings of early church fathers like Augustine? What are we missing that motivated the Radical Reformers to abandon state supported religious institutions and reject their baptism, at the cost of their lives?

What are we missing that fuels the fire of Christians in Africa, Asia and South America?
Too me, we can no longer say that this empty religion is a symptom of "liberalism" or "fundamentalism." It is not something characteristic of only conservatives or moderates. It is not something symptomatic of denominations.

It is across the board. We are inconsistent in our applications of faith to real life. We are comfortable. We fail to think for ourselves. When we do, we are afraid to stand up for things that really matter. Furthermore, do we really believe it when Jesus says that for those who want to follow him, there will be a cross waiting for us, too?

Consistency Please!

In wake of another horrific massacre, this one in Carthage, North Carolina at a nursing home, I want to ask for some consistency regarding gun control.

Norman Jameson, the editor of the North Carolina Baptist Newspaper, The Biblical Recorder, took heat when he suggested that lawmakers who allowed Arkansas church-goers should receive the Darwin Award (for stupidity). Those who objected to Jameson's article suggested that civilian hand-gun possession actually deterred millions of crimes in comparison to 30,000 who were killed accidentally by hand-guns in one year. Therefore, gun control is not something that we should pursue.

Consider the "Liquor by the Drink" referendum in Taylorsville last summer. Of course I am thankful that alcohol is not readily available in the county. Having come from Birmingham and seeing the numerous amounts of damage done by alcohol, I am thankful to live in a county that limits sales and consumption of alcohol. I guess that since I don't drink, I don't feel deprived of anything significant either.

However, the logic of the opposition to the referendum argued that limiting alcohol availability might save lives. It was worth opposing, even if establishments able to serve alcohol could bring needed revenue to the county, if one life was saved.

Yet, the outrage over availability of fire arms is noticeably missing. What about: "If it could save one life, then it would be worth it?"

Today, I just talked to a family whose daughter was shot through the head as she was riding in a car on the interstate. This happened five years ago. After surgeries and years of rehab, she is doing better, but not fully recovered. The shooter was an unsupervised teenager who got a hold of a gun. How did he get a gun? How are so many available that people acquire them illegally? What about legal possession? What are the limits?

What if this Robert Stewart was unable to get his hand on the several firearms he carried into the Carthage nursing home? Or what if the man who shot Fred Winters, the pastor of FBC, Maryville, IL, had been screened prior to sales? What if we worked so hard to save just one life? What if we, like Jesus, laid down our rights to take up our responsibilities to our brothers and sisters?

What if we were consistent in the application of our moral logic?

Violence, Self-Defense and Matthew 5:38-48

Recent events in the news raises a question that I have struggled with for some time - violence in defense of justice.

First, a pastor, Fred Winter, was murdered in cold blood Sunday Morning during his church's 8 AM worship service in Maryville, Illinois. Second, a shooter went on a rampage in South Alabama towns, killing ten people, mostly family but some were random victims, before taking his own life. Third, general thoughts about inherent evil in the regimes of North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Sudan have raised questions for me. Furthermore, fundamentalist Islam, along with various sects of Mormonism, white-supremiscist Christianity and many other religious organizations that promote domination and violence cannot be ignored. Evil is all around. Violence is the weapon of choice (a cowardly means of coercion). Death is the creator of fear.

However, in response to this, the Bible teaches these things:
1. God is in control and is all powerful.
2. God loves the whole world and has demonstrated his love in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection for the benefit of all who would trust in Him.
3. God is a God who defeats evil through death and resurrection. As Revelation 5 indicates, when John turned to see the Lion of Judah, instead of a magnificent figure, he saw a Lamb, having been slaughtered.
4. God has the power and capacity to raise the dead. He has done this in Jesus and will do this for all who believe.
5. Jesus taught his followers, trusting these things above, to turn the other cheek and to love their enemies.

However, does this preclude defense of the other who is in need? I raise this issue in response to an article in the Biblical Recorder in which the editor, Norman Jameson, wrote that it would be crazy to allow concealed weapons in churches. I symapthize with this position. What message are we communicating to allow concealed weapons in a house of worship in which we profess to believe in an all-powerful and all-loving God? However, can we stand idly by when another is attacked and endangered by an assailent?

Critics of Jameson's editorial called Jameson's article and position "idiotic." (Interestingly enough, that violates Matt. 5:21-26). We should be thankful that only 30,694 people died in the United States to gun-related accidents as opposed to the 4 million estimated crimes foiled by fire arms. But what is the Christian to do?

One extreme is the position of the pacifist. A pacificist says that there is no room in the teachings of Jesus for violence in defense of justice. Matthew 5:38-48 is the primary scripture for such a teaching. Because a follower of Jesus is commanded to turn the other cheak in the face of injustice and to love one's enemies, violence is automatically eliminated as an option of retaliation for the Christian. This includes violence for self-defense, defense of another, and participation in war.

Regarding war, most Christians have held to a theory of just war. For a war to be just, there must be just cause for the war and justice in strategy and practice of war. These practices include negotiating surrender, limiting civilian casualties, etc. While many wars could fit under the heading of just cause (World War II is a prime example), no war in the history of the world has ever been practiced under completely just means. (I do not make this statement to criticize military. I appreciate their sacrifice and would never dishonor their legacy.) However, reading the criteria of a just war is like reading the rules for a basketball game. Just get an open field, a couple of referees, and make sure that everyone is nice and respectful as they are killing one another. And, by the way, make sure none of the innocent bystanders are hit with a bullet or sword. It really has more of a "pie in the sky" outlook than pacificism. It is unrealistic not only in the modern world, but in the pre-modern eras as well.

Matthew 5:38-48 at the very least calls Christ-followers to expect opposition and embrace suffering. It discourages self-defense and the right to retaliate. However, does it discourage using force to come to the aid of one who is in danger? I am not so sure. How can a Christian say that refusing to defend the life of an innocent victim is an act of love? Yet, how can killing the enemy fulfill this passage of scripture?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who wrote The Cost of Discipleship as a convinced pacificist later became involved in the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler. As Hitler continued to incarcerate Christians and commit genocide against the Jews, and as he continued to invade neighboring nations in Europe, Bonhoeffer felt that the only thing that he could do as a Christian was to work for the eventual defeat of his country. Bonhoeffer's change of heart resulted in his arrest in 1943 and death two years later. His change of heart also demonstrated that pacificism as a rule is a difficult position to maintain in a world full of evil perpetraitors and innocent victims.

If life has taught me one thing, then it is the observation that it is easier to suffer than to watch someone else suffer and feel unable to help.

As a Christian, I believe at the very least:
1. Churches should use available means of security, including locking the doors during office hours, and silent alarms for after hours.
2. Churches should use security volunteers to patrol during services.
3. Churches should take whatever means of precaution necessary to ensure that potential criminals realize that the church is aware of potential threat.

As a Christian, I believe at our very best:
1. We should prepare ourselves to demonstrate love to our enemies, whoever they are and whatever their intentions might be. We must pray for them and be prepared to serve them.
2. We should not be so anxious to protect ourselves that we feel the need to bring concealed weapons into church. With the increasing technology for "stun" guns and tasers, we ought to consider these as alternatives to handguns.
3. Realize that we are at risk for violence. Violence happens. We can do things to deter it, to defend against it, but we will never eliminate it.
4. Pray for the end of war and work to reduce violence in the world.
5. Trust in the core values of our faith, that God's kingdom is imminent, and we will be a part of God's future regardless of the present.
6. Defend the innocent.
7. Pray for forgiveness for our inability to find the right answer to every situation. God loves us and knows whether or not we faced a moral dilemma, or that we were just trigger happy for our rights.

I would appreciate any feedback on any of these thoughts.

Tim

What Should We Buy?

Last night I saw on TV that the NBA is borrowing millions of dollars to bail out 15 NBA teams that are suffering budget shortfalls. While I hold to John Wesley's admonition to "earn all you can" I believe that Christians, including me, have failed to consider Wesley's complete maxim on wealth. He also said to "save all you can and give all you can."

Consider with me extraordinary salaries of professional athletes, actors and entertainers. While I love to hear the voice of a professionally trained musician performing songs which I can relate, as opposed to karaoke, are we spending way more on their albums than they are actually worth? Though I prefer movies to children's theater, must we buy the DVD? Though I love the book, do I need to own it? Could I not enjoy a high school football game as much as a BCS college football game.

During this economic crisis the University of Alabama has pledged millions to add 9000 seats to Bryant-Denny Stadium, the NBA is borrowing money, someone at an unamed university is requesting $60,000 to go find Noah's Ark, companies continued to pay millions for 30 seconds of air time during the Super Bowl, and the children who starred in Slumdog Millionare have been returned to the slums.

Have you considered that the bulk of our economy is based upon extravagance?

Have we learned our lesson in the United States? We cannot expect the economy to be fixed overnight, yes. However, can we and should we expect our country to remain stable if we return to the same "keeping up with the Jones's" and "hear we are, now, entertain us" attitudes of the last 30 years?

As I reconsider my own habits, I wonder if the following has any bearing on how I, as a Christian, should manage the wealth God has given to me.


"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need." (Acts 4:32-35, NIV)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

"What is the Extraordinary? It is the love of Jesus Christ himself, who went patiently and obediently to the cross - it is in fact the cross itself...The Extraordinary - and this is the supreme scandal - is something which the followers of Jesus do." (From The Cost of Discipleship, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1995, p. 153)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a young Lutheran pastor whose life has left a lasting impression on many Christians, including mine. Born February 4, 1906 in Germany to wealthy parents, the son of a psychologist, Bonhoeffer received two doctorates before his 25th birthday. A talented scholar and teacher, Bonhoeffer aspired to study and teach theology. He came to the United States in 1930 to study and teach at NY's Union Theological Seminary. While in the United States, his life changed dramatically. He attended church in Harlem, learning many of the Negro Spirituals. Though a promising teaching career awaited him, Bonhoeffer returned to Germany, about the time of Hitler's rise to power. He served churches as a minister as Hitler's swastika and Nazi influence spread to the churches. Bonhoeffer was one of a minority group that declared itself to be the Confessing Church of Germany, and opposed Hitler through preaching, writing and teaching.

In 1937, Bonhoeffer's opposition to Hitler led him to the opportunity to lead an underground seminary, to train young Lutheran ministers in theology and practice of Christian spirituality and ministry, specifically in opposition to Hitler's state-run churches (The image of the swastika on the German church's paraments is haunting). It was at Finkenwalde that Bonhoeffer wrote perhaps his two most influential works, Discipleship and Life Together, at the young age of 31. Discipleship (or The Cost of Discipleship, as it is known in its English translation), is a call to the church to be the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world" through following the teachings of Jesus, rather than relying on the sacraments of baptism and communion, to guarantee salvation. Life Together was written to provide a pattern of devotion for his seminary student's as they lived as one in a nation that hated him.

Later on, after the Gestapo shut down the Finkenwalde Seminary, Bonhoeffer, a pacifist, came under the conviction that the only thing that a Christian could do in response to Hitler was to work for his defeat. Bonhoeffer, along with his brother-in-law, Hans Von Donnanyi, was arrested for conspiracy to kill Hitler. It is this conspiracy on which the movie Valkyrie is based, though Bonhoeffer was not written into the film. On April 9, 1945, Bonhoeffer was hanged as an enemy of Germany and Hitler, but as a true Martyr to the Christ he followed with his life. Two days later, the prison in which he died was liberated by Allied forces.

I first read Discipleship as a college student. It changed my life, and the way I understand Christianity. Thus, I no longer understand Christianity as a religion, but as a way of life. For those who dare to imagine what Christianity would look like if the words of Jesus were actually taught, practiced, and followed, I heartily recommend this masterpiece as a beginning.

On this day I pray to wish a Happy Birthday to Bonhoeffer, whose witness, whose martyrdom, left an impression on the life of many, including mine.

A New Day

(Luke 12:29-34, NIV) 29 And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. 30 For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. 31 But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well. 32 "Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. 33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.


As a youth, the only poem that I memorized was this anonymous poem that Alabama's legendary coach Paul Bryant kept with him, and read daily:


This is the beginning of a new day.
God has given me this day to use as I will.
I can waste it or use it for good.
What I do today is very important because I am
Exchanging a day of my life for it.
When tomorrow comes, this day will be gone forever.
Leaving something in its place I have traded for it.
I want it to be a gain, not loss - good, not evil.
Success, not failure in order that I shall not forget the price I paid for it.


Each year, I am challenged by the thought of New Year's resolutions. Each year I hope to develop good habits and get rid of the bad ones. I do hope to blog more, pray more, exercise more, spend more quality time with family and friends, and eat less (yeah, right). Somehow, I break these by the end of January, sometimes as early as January 2.


However, Jesus calls us not to worry about the needs of the day. Rather, prioritize the God's plan to bring the world back to himself and let the chips fall where they may. We may be surprised that we could not have planned things better ourselves.


I pray that according to God's plan for the world that you would make the most of 2009 and have a blessed New Year!


Tim