“You better free your mind instead”

May 24, 2013
What a great single this was!

What a great single this was!

The Beatles’ “Revolution” will receive some theological reflection this Sunday as we finish up our Beatles-themed sermon series. The Vinebranch band will also, of course, perform it, along with “Let It Be.”

“Revolution” was controversial when it was released in 1968. In an era in which many young people believed they could make the world a better place, this song was a wet blanket: “Well, you know, we all want to change the world,” John Lennon sang. But show me the plan first. How do you know your efforts won’t end up making things worse? “If you talk about destruction,” count me out. Also, don’t ask me to support causes whose leaders have “minds that hate”—like Chairman Mao, for instance. Violent means don’t justify supposedly peaceful ends.

Both the song and the Bible share a similar pessimism about human nature. In a published response to a radical student who wrote an “open letter” criticizing Lennon and the song, Lennon wrote:

You say ‘in order to change the world, we’ve got to understand what’s wrong with the world and then destroy it. Ruthlessly.’ You’re obviously on a destruction kick. I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it—people. So, do you want to destroy them? Ruthlessly? Until you/we change your/our heads—there’s no chance.[†]

I couldn’t have said it better myself. As the song says, “You better free your mind instead.”

Easier said than done, I guess!

In fact, both “freeing your mind” and creating a world in which love, peace, and justice hold sway—a desire that the Beatles often sang about—is impossible apart from a radical and miraculous intervention from God. But I’ll say more about that this Sunday.

Here’s the White Album version, “Revolution 1.” A more aggressive version was later recorded and released as a single.

Steve Turner, A Hard Day’s Write (New York: It Books, 2005), 169.


The Rt. Rev. Wright doesn’t mince words, does he?

May 23, 2013

wright on bible reading

When we Christians think of salvation, we often think it means “going to heaven” when we die. Isn’t this the way we often—or usually—speak of it? This Sunday I’m preaching on heaven. Sort of. With the qualification that  ”heaven” refers to that place where heaven and earth—a transformed earth—become one on the other side of resurrection. If that’s what heaven is, however, then salvation means much more than we usually think. N.T. Wright puts it this way:

And if God’s good creation—of the world, of life as we know it, of our glorious and remarkable bodies, brains, and bloodstreams—really is good, and if God wants to reaffirm that goodness in a wonderful act of new creation at the last, then to see the death of the body and the escape of the soul as salvation is not simply slightly off course, in need of a few subtle alterations and modifications. It is totally and utterly wrong. It is colluding with death. It is conniving at death’s destruction of God’s good, image-bearing human creatures while consoling ourselves with the (essentially non-Christian and non-Jewish) thought that the really important bit of ourselves is saved from this wicked, nasty body and this sad, dark world of space, time, and matter! As we have seen, the whole of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, speaks out against such nonsense. It is, however, what most Western Christians, including most Bible Christians of whatever sort, actually believe.[†]

N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope (New York: HarperOne, 2008), 194-5.


Sermon 05-19-13: “The Word Is Love, Part 6″

May 23, 2013
As a child, John Lennon played on the grounds of Strawberry Field, a Salvation Army orphanage near his Liverpool home.

As a child, John Lennon played on the grounds of Strawberry Field, a Salvation Army orphanage near his Liverpool home.

Both John Lennon and the apostle Paul agree that life in the “real world” is filled with pain and suffering. John longs to escape to “Strawberry Fields,” the heavenly place of his childhood memories. Paul, however, knows better: by grace God is always working to transform suffering into something deeply beneficial for his children. Among other things, it can strengthen our trust in God, make us more dependent on him, and awaken our conscience to sin. The good news is that there’s no evil or suffering that’s beyond God’s ability to redeem. 

Sermon Text: 2 Corinthians 12:1-10; Romans 8:28

The following is my original sermon manuscript.

My birth mother, Linda, whom some of you have met, lives near Mt. Airey, North Carolina, hometown of the late-great Andy Griffith. There’s a shop there that I love, which sells second-hand merchandise. It has a sign out front that reads: “Remember all that stuff you had when you were a kid that your parents got rid of? It’s all in here!” And I’m like, “I got to go in there!” The store had old comic books, and magazines, and paperbacks, and baseball cards, and records, and tapes—along with old lunchboxes, toys, games, and memorabilia. You get the idea, right? The store exists for people like me!

It just so happens that about a dozen years ago, I had a fight with Mom. I was feeling nostalgic, so I decided to rummage through the basement and attic and closets of the house I grew up in and retrieve some of these priceless artifacts from my childhood—comic books, Matchbox cars, baseball cards, Superhero records, and my library of Hardy Boys books. To my shock and horror, I discovered that most of these things were gone—vanished, missing! My mom explained that she and Dad had sold them in garage sales over the years. And I was really angry. And I said, “Mom, I can’t believe you sold my childhood? How could you do it?” And she’s like, “I didn’t know I was ‘selling your childhood’!”  Read the rest of this entry »


Olson asks a good question about Satan

May 22, 2013

In this post, theologian Roger Olson explores a question I’ve been thinking about for many years now (as recently as last week, in fact): Where the Devil is Satan (in Contemporary Christianity)?

He explores some reasons we Christians (by which he says he mostly means his fellow moderate evangelical Christians; but it goes without saying that his words apply even more to many United Methodists) avoid talking about the devil. In my experience, this reason resonates:

A second, related reason, I think, is our moderate Protestant craving for cultural respectability. Belief in a literal Satan and demons seems, however nuanced, guaranteed to bring scorn from sophisticated people living under the influence of the Enlightenment.

Having been someone who previously didn’t believe in a literal Satan and demons (at least through seminary), this reason resonates with me. I used to be embarrassed by those quaint descriptions of demon possession and exorcism that are so prevalent in three of the four gospels. Satan was merely the personification of impersonal, undirected evil. He was symbolic, not literal.

The first chink in my armor of unbelief began to appear in an Augustine theology class taught by an English lay Catholic theologian named Lewis Ayres. We were discussing a passage from Augustine that allotted to the devil a greater share of responsibility for evil in the world than I could reconcile with my liberal Satan-as-symbol belief.

I said, “Wait a minute, Dr. Ayres. I hardly need Satan to explain why I do evil. I sin just fine without resorting to ‘the devil made me do it.’ I don’t get it. I don’t understand the role that a literal Satan would play in human sin.”

Dr. Ayres replied, “Just because you don’t understand what he does doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist!”

“Fair enough,” I said. But I was thinking, “Lewis Ayres believes in a literal Satan?!”

I can’t tell you how important this exchange was: here was a very smart, intellectual Christian—a professor at Candler of all places—who believed in Satan. I’m sure many other profs did, too, but Dr. Ayres was the first one to say so out loud.

Why was Satan such a taboo subject?

I blame it on Enlightenment thinking, which reasons that since believing in one invisible something that we can’t access directly through our senses (namely, God) is hard enough, why make Christianity that much harder by adding hundreds, thousands, millions(?) of invisible somethings called angels and demons?

This is silly, of course. If you believe that one thing outside of time, space, and matter (who isn’t really a thing, but you know what I mean) created everything, including us humans, how much harder is it to believe that he also created invisible angelic beings, some of whom, like humans, chose to rebel against God?

My point is, once you’re over the hump of believing in God—assuming that’s a hump to be gotten over—believing in Satan and demons is easy. And if you ask me, there certainly seems to be ample evidence for his existence, especially given the history of the 20th- and 21st-centuries.

Our modern skepticism about Satan, therefore, corresponds to modern skepticism about the resurrection. What do those very liberal Christians who want to reduce Jesus’ resurrection to a spiritual experience within the hearts of his disciples think they’re gaining? If we already believe in a God who intervened in the universe at least once (to call it into being), how much harder is to believe that he intervened on other occasions?

My point is, whether or not Christianity is an intellectually “respectable” thing to believe in, it won’t be because you’ve gotten rid of the bodily resurrection or angels and demons. So you may as well believe in those things, too.


Sermon video from May 12 now online

May 22, 2013

Technological glitches have been solved. You can watch it below or in the original sermon post. I’ll post last Sunday’s sermon tomorrow.


It’s not that complicated

May 22, 2013

great_commission
Last year, my favorite football team, the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets, fired their defensive coordinator in the middle of the season. An assistant defensive coach took over as interim DC. He was quoted at a press conference as saying, “Defense… It’s not complicated.”

I thought, “Not complicated? What is he talking about?” It seems incredibly complicated to me—between 3-4, 4-3, nickel and dime packages, cover one, cover two, zone blitzes. I don’t know what most of these things are—and an objective observer might conclude that the Yellow Jackets don’t know what these things are, either. That’s the problem!

Still, what this coach was getting at is that defense is pretty straightforward when you boil it down: either prevent the guy from getting the ball in the first place or tackle him when he does.

Think of how this relates to our church’s mission. While I know firsthand that our mission difficult, it’s not complicated. God has entrusted us with this amazing gift—the gospel of Jesus Christ. It’s genuinely good news for the world because it communicates how we human beings can be in a saving relationship with God. It’s true that some people won’t recognize their need for this relationship at first. After all, sin makes us strangers to ourselves.

But remember: this is the relationship we are designed for. Many people, upon hearing the gospel, will respond to it. They are waiting to respond to it—if only someone will bring the message to them.

That’s the mission: People are waiting for us to bring this good news to them so that they can joyfully receive it. How will we bring it to them?

Again, it’s difficult but not complicated. To make matters easier, the Holy Spirit does all the heavy lifting for us. He has already prepared the hearts of people to receive the gospel.

“The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.”


Decide what you think before tragedy strikes

May 21, 2013

“When possible, don’t wait until something goes terribly, tragically wrong until you decide what you think about it.”

This sound advice comes from a Christian apologist and theologian from New Zealand named Glenn Peoples, who was writing at the time in response to the Sandy Hook tragedy. It applies to many issues. For example, some time last year I was arguing with a friend in the comments section of this blog about homosexuality—specifically, my support for the United Methodist Church’s traditional position on the subject. My friend said, “Yes, but what if you had a child who were gay?” Surely I would change my tune if that were the case.

I said, “Maybe I would, but I shouldn’t. If I changed my convictions because the thing about which I’m convicted suddenly affects me personally, how would I be a person of integrity?” Am I currently unaware that many parents’ children are gay—and that that reality can be deeply upsetting? And that many Christians would be understandably tempted to believe that there’s nothing wrong with homosexual behavior, especially in light of pressure from contemporary culture? Have I not considered these things when I agree with my church’s convictions about human sexuality? How shallow and unreflective do you think I am?

I didn’t quite put it so strongly in my response.

But I did say: “It’s like asking, ‘Would you still believe that God is good, loving, and just if your child died in a tragic car accident?’” I hope I would!” My understanding of God as good, loving, and just shouldn’t hinge on the health, safety, or welfare of my own children. Why? Because I’ve already accounted for the fact that we live in a world in which millions of children are unsafe, unhealthy, and in constant danger of dying tragic deaths at every moment—as, indeed, many of them do. To put it another way: If God weren’t good, loving, or just, I shouldn’t need the death of my child to convince of that! Because I’ve already thought it through.

So, when we hear about the tornado that struck Moore, Oklahoma, yesterday—91 deaths so far, many of them children—how can we think clearly and Christianly about this crisis?

Here are thoughts that help me:

1. Every moment of life is purely a gift from God. In other words, we are not entitled to a moment of life. That God enables us to enjoy even a single moment of it is gratuitous on God’s part and worthy of praise. I know we’re tempted to think, “These victims had so much of their lives in front of them!” No, they didn’t. None of us does. All we have—which, again, is pure gift—is this moment. Will we make the most of it?

2. The scale of suffering is irrelevant to the question of God’s justice. If we’re going to be indignant over the deaths of 91 people from a tornado, we need to be equally indignant over the death of just one. For all I know, there could be 91 tornadoes that strike the midwestern United States this year. If each one killed one person a piece, would that be any better than what happened yesterday? Would it be more just? Would it raise fewer questions about God’s justice? Of course not—although it certainly wouldn’t attract media attention. C.S. Lewis deals with this question in a sober-minded way in The Problem of Pain.

Suppose that I have a toothache of intensity x: and suppose that you, who are seated beside me, also begin to have a toothache of intensity x. You may, if you choose, say that the total amount of pain in the room is now 2x. But you must remember that no one is suffering 2x: search all time and all space and you will not find that composite pain in anyone’s consciousness. There is no such thing as a sum of suffering, for no one suffers it. When we have reached the maximum that a single person can suffer, we have, no doubt, reached something very horrible, but we have reached all the suffering there ever can be in the universe. The addition of a million fellow-sufferers adds no more pain.[†]

3. Natural disasters are the price we pay for living in a predictable universe. I’m writing this on a sunny, warm spring day. It’s “chamber-of-commerce” weather in Atlanta, one reason so many people from colder climes settle here. Regardless where we live, however, about 99.99 percent of the time our planet does an exemplary job sustaining life, human or otherwise. We can complain about the exceptions, but those exceptions do not result from a suspension of the laws of physics. In other words, the same physics that create this beautiful day that I’m currently enjoying also produce things that no one enjoys—like tornadoes.

Is it possible to have sunny, warm spring days without also having tornadoes? It’s hard to see how—unless God routinely suspended the laws of physics to prevent human suffering. As I’ve said before, gravity works out well for us when we get out of bed in the morning and put our feet on the floor; when we’re on the wrong side of a fast-approaching boulder, not so much. We may ask God to suspend the law of gravity in the latter case, and maybe God will. But… if he did this very often, suddenly we wouldn’t live in a predictable universe. And we could no longer count on gravity at all.

4. Death, no matter how tragic, does not have the last word. Without final judgment and resurrection—without heaven and hell—then our concerns about God’s justice will never be satisfied. Our hope for heaven, therefore, is at the heart of the Christian faith. Heaven isn’t the cherry on top of a live well-lived: it’s essential for the sake of justice. We can trust that on the other side of eternity, justice will be done and suffering will be redeemed.

C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: HarperOne, 1996), 116-7.


God “stoops to conquer” us

May 17, 2013

One very difficult truth that C.S. Lewis communicates in The Problem of Pain—which I suppose makes this profoundly poignant and sensitive work an object of scorn to a few high-minded people—is that the suffering we face is often good, necessary, and, most troublingly, God-ordained—not merely for the really bad people, but for “decent, inoffensive, worthy people,” too. Lewis asks, “How can I say with sufficient tenderness what here needs to be said?” He can’t. There’s no nice way to put it.

Let me implore the reader to try to believe, if only for the moment that God, who made these deserving people, may really be right when He thinks that their modest prosperity and the happiness of their children are not enough to make them blessed: that all this must fall from them in the end, and that if they have not learned to know Him they will be wretched. And therefore he troubles them, warning them in advance of an insufficiency that one day they will have to discover. The life to themselves and their families stands between them and the recognition of their need; He makes that life less sweet to them. I call this a Divine humility because it is a poor thing to strike our colours to God when the ship is going down under us; a poor thing to come to Him as a last resort, to offer up ‘our own’ when it is no longer worth keeping. If God were proud He would hardly have us on such terms: but He is not proud, He stoops to conquer, He will have us even though we have shown that we prefer everything else to Him, and come to Him because there is ‘nothing better’ now to be had… It is hardly complimentary to God that we should choose Him as an alternative to Hell: yet even this He accepts. The creature’s illusion of self-sufficiency must, for the creature’s sake, be shattered; and by trouble or fear of trouble on earth, by crude fear of the eternal flames, God shatters it ‘unmindful of His glory’s diminution’… And this illusion of self-sufficiency may be at its strongest in some very honest, kindly, an temperate people, and on such people, therefore, misfortune must fall.[†]

Before we disagree, let’s ask ourselves: How has God used pain and suffering in our own lives?

Days after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami killed hundreds of thousands in one fell swoop, then-Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams wrote an op-ed in a London paper saying that when we see death and destruction on this scale, it causes us to question our faith in God, or in God’s goodness.

Williams meant well, of course, and we clergy always say these sorts of things after tragedy strikes, don’t we?

But a commentator in another paper ridiculed the archbishop: “What is he talking about? Did he not notice that churches were packed this past Sunday?” His point is well-taken. After all, did Americans abandon God in droves after 9/11? Quite the opposite: churches enjoyed a strong uptick in attendance for weeks or months afterward. Far from turning us away from God, suffering often brings us closer to God. God knows this better than anyone: God pours his blessings on us, and we ignore him. God takes them away, and we’re on our knees.

Even as I write this, I want to be careful: God isn’t the author of evil, even the evil whose consequences ultimately bring us back to God. But God is constantly at work in the midst of evil to bring good from it—even the good suffering that shatters our illusion of self-sufficiency.

As Lewis said, this is an example of Divine humility: Sure… we gladly come back to God when we feel like our lives are threatened. Why not before? Why should God have us back on those terms? Why should God be moved when we “strike our colors” after the ship is going down?

I’m not sure. God wants us to come home, and he isn’t picky about the means by which he gets us there. Suffering is one of those means.

I said in an earlier post about the Frankl book that we need to be “worthy of our suffering.” One way we make ourselves worthy is by learning from it, repenting of the sin that it awakens our conscience to repent of, and letting it shape us into the people God wants us to be.

C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: HarperOne, 1996), 95-6.


Sermon 05-12-13: “The Word Is Love, Part 5″

May 17, 2013
The Beatles got up and danced to "a song that was a hit before your mother was born" in this memorable scene from Magical Mystery Tour.

The Beatles danced to “a song that was a hit before your mother was born” in this memorable scene from Magical Mystery Tour.

A church that focuses more on “helping” people than on saving people is a church that has lost its focus. I hate to pit these two tasks—service and evangelism—against one another, but isn’t it easy to see how the United Methodist Church is really good at one and not so good at the other?

Want to help people rebuild after a hurricane? Call the Methodists. Want to get rid of malaria? Call the Methodists. Want to fight for justice in the world? Call the Methodists. Want to tell someone how they can be saved? Hmm… Doesn’t Billy Graham still do that? Or the Baptists? Or maybe the community megachurch down the street? Are the Methodist just supposed to outsource that part of the job?

Like Jesus in today’s scripture, this sermon challenges us to stay focused on what’s most important.

 Sermon Text: Mark 7:24-30

The following is my original sermon manuscript.

When I read today’s scripture, my first thought is, “I have a defective dog.” After all, my dog, Neko, refuses to do the very thing that even JesusGod in the flesh—says that dogs are supposed to do: which is to eat crumbs and scraps that fall from the table—or the couch or the recliner—onto the floor. Jesus knows that’s what dogs are supposed to do; you know it; I know it. It’s like their only job around the house! Cats are responsible for catching mice and bugs and creepy-crawly things that get in the house; dogs are responsible for eating food that falls on the floor. Neko doesn’t eat human food! She never has.

I love my dog, but she is not normal when it comes to eating table scraps!

I love my dog, but she is not normal when it comes to eating table scraps!

We had a normal dog named Presley—an English springer spaniel—when my kids were babies. Presley would park himself underneath the high chair in the morning, waiting for every little Cheerio that would fall to the floor—which would be a couple of handfuls before all was said and done. Spill a bag of Goldfish on the floor? No problem! Presley was on it! But not Neko! Crazy! Read the rest of this entry »


C.S. Lewis: learning to eat “the only food that the universe grows”

May 16, 2013

lewisIf you subscribe to this blog, I’m sorry to pester you with so many emails in one day. You can tell I’m excited to have read Man’s Search for Meaning. I agree with my theologian friend John who just told me it was a Top Ten book for him. I’m pretty sure he would agree with me that that other great book on suffering, C.S. Lewis’s The Problem of Pain, also belongs near the top. For me, it’s the best book I’ve ever read.

I was reviewing it just now in preparation for Sunday’s sermon, and I stumbled across the quote that Timothy Keller used to such devastating effect in his book on marriage. It brought me to tears in Keller’s book; it brings me to tears now.

Lewis’s point is that the happiness for which we often strive isn’t the happiness that’s available to us as creatures of God. The happiness that’s available is far better, but the path to it is one that we would rather avoid.

George Macdonald, in a passage I cannot now find, represents God as saying to men, ‘You must be strong with my strength and blessed with my blessedness, for I have no other to give you.’ That is the conclusion of the whole matter. God gives what He has, not what He has not: He gives the happiness that there is, not the happiness that is not. To be God—to be like God and to share His goodness in creaturely response—to be miserable—these are the only three alternatives. If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows—the only food that any possible universe ever can grow—then we must starve eternally.[†]

† C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: HarperOne, 1996), 47.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 101 other followers