Dear Santa

Dear Saint Nicholas,

First, I want praise your tireless efforts in this ministry. You have become a world-wide symbol of generosity. Children and adults worldwide are made glad by your giving.

You also deserve recognition for your cutting-edge “green” transportation methods. And with the voucher money you are receiving from Al Gore, you can keep the PETA people at bay.

I do have a couple of minor concerns, however.

My first is about what seems to be showboating. The public appearances are growing incessant and coming earlier and earlier every year. I mean, parades? Are they necessary? When do you get any work done? Or are the under-sized workers doing everything while you hoard the accolades?

Also, it seems odd for a saint, one set apart for God, to be sitting enthroned on stages while people wait in line for just a moments interaction. The photo fee does not sit well either.

However, my biggest complaint is a matter of justice. Why do you give so much more to the wealthy children than the poor? This makes no sense whatsoever, and it just seems cruel. Do you take pleasure in the widening disparity between the haves and the have-nots? Where is your heart?

Truly, for this you should feel great shame. Your disregard for the poor is despicable. I beg you to change your ways.

Your Brother in Christ,
Shannon Caroland

p.s. This time get me a docking system for my mp3 player that isn’t totally lame.

Loving Even When it is Tough

Here is a little parenting story that taught me about love. After writing it, it makes me feel like my house is out of control. But this does not happen too often - at least I hope.

We reward Eli with candy any time that he poops in the potty. If he poops right before his nap, we make him set the candy aside until he wakes up. That is what happened yesterday.

We also give Isaac a candy whenever Eli poops in the potty. This is to spur on some peer pressure to encourage Eli to poop in the potty. Yesterday, Isaac threw a fit after lunch over the fact that we were out of applesauce and he could not have any for dessert; therefore, we sent him to bed early. This caused him to not be awake when we had the poop candy celebration.

When Eli and Isaac were both back awake, Eli went to get his candy. Isaac started to complain that he did not have a candy. I told him that he was punished for throwing a fit and would not get a candy. He then became angry and started yelling, "Eli is mean! Mean! Mean!" If there was any anger, it should have been directed at me. Eli was innocent. All he did was poop in the toilet.

Eli responded by immediately going over to the candy, picking out a sucker (Isaac's favorite item) and bringing it to him. I was not about to take it away. I did not want Isaac to be rewarded for the bad behavior, but I did not want to rob Eli of participating in a loving act after being treated wrongly.

I hope I can be as loving to those who treat me wrongly.

Congratulations...

to the Clem family on the addition of a baby girl, on Thanksgiving Day and everything. My suggestions for a name is Shannon.

You can leave your suggestions and conratulations in the comments.

a vacation

I am on vacation this week and am taking a break from writing.

Have a good week.

Love is Suicide

I was listening to “Melancholy and the Infinite Sadness” album by Smashing Pumpkins the other day and there is a song called “Bodies”. It includes a very startling phrase – “Love is suicide.” The juxtaposition of these words makes little sense. Love – which carries the ideal of society – equated with suicide - considered a coward's way out and often the product of mental instability. But as I think about discipleship, these combined words can make sense.

Matthew 16:25 “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.” Or, as the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote in The Cost of Discipleship, “When Jesus bids a man come, he bids him come and die.”

Following Christ means dying to self. It means killing off many of the selfish expectations one might have for one’s life. If we desire to rise to the heights of politics, social standings, or career advancement, our hands are not fit for the plow. At the same time, to take seriously Christ’s call to follow Him leaves little room for the things the world holds dear. A life of discipleship will not endear or engender us to the world.

Lets face it, having standards is political suicide. Extending the hand of fellowship to the freaks and losers is social suicide and probably will cause us to end up in such a group. Considering others better than ourselves and putting them first is career suicide and will not advance us up the corporate ladder.

True discipleship that is based on love for God and others is suicide. And yet, that is the message of the gospel. But proclaiming this aspect of the gospel has become less and less popular as time goes on. Why? Because sacrifice and death are not marketable. How can we expect to make converts if the cost could mean our very lives? That concept is not easy to spin and market.

Yes, love and discipleship are costly. But as usual, our selfish mindset causes us to focus on what we are missing out on instead of what we gain. In addition, we see Christianity as just a blessing for the next life and miss out on the blessings of discipleship in this life. Richard Foster looks at this issue in the following way:

“Nondiscipleship costs: abiding peace, a life penetrated throughout buy love, faith that sees everything in the light of God’s overriding governance for good, hopefulness that stands firm in the most discouraging of circumstances, power to do what is right and withstand the forces of evil. In short, it costs exactly that abundant life that Jesus said He came to bring.”

Yes, love is suicide. But living a mediocre spiritual life causes us to miss out on some of the greatest blessings that God is dolling out. Giving one’s life up to gain a better one – seems crazy. But maybe there is something to this whole discipleship thing.

The job

I have a friend who is looking for a new job. He is a truck driver. If he was offered a job that would pay more, was easier, and would somehow bring more prestige, what would you suggest? You would probably at least suggest that he look into it more.

You probably would not chastise him for wanting to earn more doing an easier job. Even as shallow as prestige is, you would not begrudge a truck driver from seeking it. Would you?

These are some of the many differences between ministry as a career and other careers. Most are very critical of ministers who chase money, ease, and prestige.

Those things are me-centered. We want spiritual leaders devoid of pride. Going without is heroic. We want heroes.

There is a difference, a big one. Most people go to work, not because they really want to lend a hand to Corporation X, but because they need income. The earning goal, then is “as much as I can get”. And that’s fine, I’d say, as long as you are doing so honestly.

Pastors have the privilege of working toward what they love and believe in most. The pay goal, then becomes “as much as I need to be able to do this.” You do not want to be paid so much that it hinders the church’s mission, because you care more about the church’s mission than about making money.

In the secular fields a Christian often gets as much as you can in as little time as possible so that she can devote as much time and money toward the Kingdom as possible. Logically, that same Christian, if she were employed by a church, would give as much time for as little money as reality would allow. There are still bills to pay and families to shepherd.

Of course, what works best is when a church generously gives their workers as much as they can afford while the workers keep giving back as much as possible.

I’m guessing Regan will have something very interesting to say about this.

The Anabaptist tradition and the Amish-Mennonite Split

An Anabaptist is someone who is committed to "adult voluntary baptism, separation of church and state, non-violence in all of life which included not taking part in the military, and the Bible (N.T.) as final authority threatened the unity of church and state." That sounds a lot like the church of Christ/Christian church. A popular Anabaptist belief statement can be found here. The Anabaptist were persecuted and killed by both the Protestants and Catholics throughout Europe.

What is amazing to me in reading the story of the Anabaptist split in the 1600s that brought about the Amish is how similar the whole debate is to the one that goes on within church of Christ/Christian churches in regards to baptism and the salvation of those not baptized. Hans Reist led a group of believers in a heavily persecuted area. He considered his neighbors around him who were Protestant and members of the state church as saved despite not being baptized as adults. This salvation was shown through their kind and loving actions towards the Anabaptists during times of persecution. Jakob Ammann believed that all outsiders should be shunned, along with any church member that also strayed. It was these two individuals that led the Anabaptists down a course of division. In the end, their personalities prevented the two groups from being able to discuss the doctrines in a friendly and rational manner. The result was a splintering of the Anabaptists into two distinct groups: Mennonites and Amish.

Here is an excerpt from the A History of the Amish by Steven Nolt.

For Ammann, the danger the church faced was compromise. The Anabaptist reformers of 150 years earlier had given their lives for a church that would be a visible alternative to sinful society. Now some Mennonites were resorting to outward compromise, agreeing to attend state church catechism or even have their infants baptized to avoid exile. Relations with the True-Hearted were especially problematic, Ammann charged, because of the half-commitment of such folks only mirrored lack of full-fledged conviction on the part of many Anabaptists themselves. He also believed that Mennonites were willing to sacrifice humility and simplicity in their efforts to fit in with those around them. In contrast, Ammann required male members to wear untrimmed beards and forbade "haughty clothing." Fashionable styles represented frivolous spending, and the use of buttons to fasten coats suggested the ornamental style of military uniforms; neither stood the test of the biblical injunction to avoid even the appearance of evil.

Moreover, if the Anabaptists had really believed that salvation was given by grace through faith, then the True-Hearted (state-churched neighbors of the Anabaptist who helped them during times of persecution), who had not publicly accepted such grace and submitted to its accompanying symbol of water baptism, could not be saved. The same was true for what Ammann saw as the clear New Testament teaching of social avoidance: there was no middle ground. In those regions where persecution was relatively light and compromise was a greater threat--Alsace, parts of the Palatinate, and the mountains south and west of Bern--Ammann received most of his support. He championed strict doctrinal interpretations and an activist approach that appealed to Mennonites who desired a strong group identity in an atmosphere of relative tolerance.

For Reist and the old Mennonite communities in the Emme River Valley and parts of the Palatinate, the threat was anything but lost identity. Their identity as outcasts and the targets of state persecution was all too clear. For the Reist group, the threat to the church was a cold legalism. They already faced enough external threats. Shunning or stricter dress standards that would divide them from within were the last thing they needed. Nor were they keen to receive lectures on faithfulness from those who lived in relative safety outside of Bern.

Additionally Reist could claim--probably quite accurately--that the Swiss Anabaptists had never practiced social avoidance, even if they had agreed to it in principle during unity discussions with their northern European Mennonite cousins years before. Ammann's insistence on implementing it now only stirred up trouble. Physical avoidance was simply not taught in the New Testament, as Reist read it. And as for the True-Hearted, Reist thought that it was presumptuous for humans to declare whether or not a person was saved, baptism notwithstanding. Yet despite their emphasis on openness and opposition to avoidance, it was the Mennonites who seemed to practice shunning when opportunities for reconciliation arrived.

After reading through this story and looking at the present state of the church of Christ/Christian churches I am left with a few questions: Why does baptism always become an instrument of division? Why can we not view things from other people's perspectives? How do we decide what is and is not a biblical issue? How do we have unity?

Theodicy and the Kingdom

In the Old Testament Survey Class that I teach at King College, we discussed Job this past week. I have taught this lesson many times and my view of theodicy (the theology that reconciles a loving, good God with the human experience of evil in the world) is pretty well established. To summarize: bad things happen to good people because we live in a world of choices and consequence. Though I do not buy into retribution theology as dogmatically as Job’s friends did, I do see that God has ordained a system in which our free decisions and actions affect ourselves and others.

For example, why does a nice family of four die while the drunk driver who killed them lives on? Because it was in God’s will to take them? No, because the drunk driver chose to become inebriated and then attempt to drive. God’s hand was not in that decision and humanity suffers the consequence. Can God redeem that situation? Yes, but I do not believe he preordained it. Thus, we see that our actions affect this world (far beyond ourselves) for good or bad.

But this week I think my off-the-cuff remarks in class belied a refinement of my thought. God would have us make decisions and choices that do not result in the awful consequences we see all around us. As these proper choices are made based on love of God and neighbor, we would see a world that perhaps would not expose “good people” to “bad things.” This world would see less of the atrocities that are far too prevalent. And as I reflected on this concept I could not help but be drawn back to the Kingdom of God. Is this the basis of the Kingdom? That as we let the reign and rule of God pervade our lives God transforms the world and attempts restoration? I think so.

The Kingdom comes as humanity enfleshes the gospel and becomes united with one another and the King for the common purpose of reconciling creation. Perhaps then we would not have to explain why bad things happen to good people, because it would be evident that their decisions are not in line with the Kingdom.

May God’s Kingdom come. May His will be done.

Chase 23

It is a challenge to read a portion of the Bible that we have heard/read hundreds of times. But that is what I was attempting to do with the Twenty-third Psalm.

I have read this passage a billion times, give or take a hundred million, so this was difficult. I had always read this Psalm as a comfort, reminder that God is taking care of things. This is, of course true, and a big reason it is by far the most-read passage at funerals.

But as I read this passage over and over again, a new theme rose from the page. I began to see them as the words of a believer who had returned from rebellion. A song for the soundtrack of Luke 15, if you will.

YHWH is shepherd: the one who gathers me from wayward wanderings.

I don’t need (lack, want) a thing: perhaps a confession of someone who had gone searching from something more.

He renews my strength, leads me in righteous paths: the words of someone who had exhausted himself on the path of unrighteousness.

Even walking through the valley of Death’s Shadow, I’ll not fear for you are with me: There is no place that he won't go in order to find us and bring us home.

Your rod and staff comfort me: The jab of his rod and the yank of his hook are a comfort, because it is his discipline which keeps me from returning to such undesirable places.

You feed me right in my enemies' faces, anointing my head, overflowing my cup: Not a bad place for a guy who had recently strayed from God into Death Shadow.

Without doubt, goodness and mercy will never let off my trail: Good news for a proven wanderer. And this is the kind astounding realization someone might have if they have had their relationship with God restored.

I will live in the house of the Lord all the days of my life: Thanks to his sheepdog-like pursuit, I’m not ever leaving again.

The Amish

Over the next few weeks, I am going to share some of the information that I am learning in regards to the Amish. I hope you find it as interesting, challenging, and inspiring as I did.

This information is from the book Amish Roots edited by John Hostetler, a collection of various original writings from Amish or about Amish over a variety of topics. It was Hostetler's intention “to enable the reader to comprehend the lifeways of the Amish people. Reading the literary works of the Amish instead of the generalizations made by others about them has its rewards (xi).

"The Amish emerged 168 years after the founding of the Swiss Anabaptists, and in the social context of decadent Swiss congregations that were surviving in remote rural areas. Jacob Amman's confrontations with fellow elders called for greater separation from the world, more stringent dress and grooming practices, and the expulsion of apostate members. No record is left of any Amish leaders who had ever attended university or had ever been pastors in state churches. The leaders were farmers and craftsmen who lived in the hinterlands wit the Bible, the hymn book , and the martyr book as their main sources of inspiration" (xii)

On of the letters in the book stood out from the rest. "Ninety-five percent of the Amish who were drafted chose conscientious objector status and were assigned to Civilian Public Service camps to 'perform work of national importance'...A minority of the Amish refused to report for civilian work. To accept governmental orders to work in 'worldly' places away from their family and community was as threatening as military service." The following excerpts are from a letter written by one of those who went to jail for refusing to serve in civilian work during World War II.

"When I was a boy, one bit of advice was branded in my conscience. It was this: 'In case of doubt, it is best for a Christian to choose the course that goes hardest against his nature or desires.'"

"While I was in the gym one day watching others play a game, an inmate came over and slapped me across the face. It took me by surprise and I didn't know why it was done. At once the prisoner was ashamed of himself. We had always been friends. He told me that some of the men were betting that I would strike back, so they decided to test me. There were other times when they tried out my faith by betting with each other. It made me feel quite small."

"Soon after I was at the first honor camp, a homosexual approached me. I had already been given warnings. At times I hardly knew what to do but each time they would leave me alone. From then on I learned to listen them out, and I was more careful. There were some who said they would protect me if I got in trouble. They threatened to beat up anybody who would molest me.
One of my brothers also served his time in prison. He has had a lot of experiences that cannot be valued in money. The experiences are not pleasing to human nature at the time. But if the trials are met in a righteous way, it can be rewarding and help us toward our goal for a heavenly home in eternity."

"The responsibility is upon us to lay a solid foundation of faith for the future generation. To do that, we will have to lead a life in which God can help us."

Racism Overreaction?

Something has been bugging me lately and I have to get it off my mind. It revolves around racism, sexism, and perhaps bigotry in general. It seems that everywhere I turn someone or someone’s action is being labeled a “racist”. Imus brought huge headlines a few months ago by calling the Rutgers’ women’s basketball team “a bunch of nappy headed hos.” The Revrends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson lead a thousand person march against the little town of Jena, TX to rally against what they claim is racism in the treatment of 6 African American boys charged with assault against a Caucasian boy.

And then there is this article that again puts Rutgers in the racism spotlight as a professor is under fire for saying that it would be better to give a scholarship to a minority that is willing to use his or her mental faculties rather than a “functional illiterate.” His words were branded by the president as a “blatantly racist statement.” This professor is of course the same guy who was arrested in the South in the 1960s for work in the civil rights movements. He also retaliated by calling the president a racist for exploiting minorities through the athletic programs.

Now here is my problem – “racism” has emerged as the latest buzzword in media and political circles. Basically, if you do something of which someone else disapproves, especially if different races are involved, you will be labeled a racist, sexist, or bigot. I don’t deny that such things happen, even if unconsciously. But the labeling and over reactive responses have gone too far.

Let’s face some facts – men and women are different. White, black Asian, Indian, whatever – races and nationalities are different. We do not just look different – at times we do different things better and worse. Sure, some may be cultural, but they are still different. I don’t deny that many of these differences tend to be stereotypes, but as my brother used to say, “They are stereotypes for a reason.” And it is not racist or sexist to observe these differences.

The bigotry comes in when we use these differences as a basis for denigrating others and removing their God given value and worth to society. When it goes from observations to ridicule then we do live up to the labels. But for a person to “call a spade a spade” should not brand them something that they are not. If we are truly going to live in a united world – an “equal” world – then we need to embrace our differences and realize that equality does not lie in what we can or cannot do, but in who God made us to be. Our equality stems from our worth in God’s eyes – not each others’.

Am I wrong here? Am I too steeped in racism to see the issue clearly?