Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Archive for November, 2009
The Believer’s Road: Luke Chapter 7
Sunday, November 15th, 2009“Do unto others” and the Fort Hood Shooting
Wednesday, November 11th, 2009This evening one of my “Facebook friends,” Brian McClaren, turned me onto what may just be the single most intelligent article written about the Fort Hood shooting thus far. The article is written by Paul Rauschenbusch on the “Progressive Revival” blog on Beliefnet. The key insight from Rauschenbusch’s article reminds me very much of Luke 6:31 and Jesus’ command to “do to others as you would have them do to you” – a passage we will also be engaging this coming Sunday when we focus on Luke 7.
Here’s the heart of the article:
We who are White, Christian and Male (WCMs) should ask ourselves this basic question: When we heard about the Oklahoma bomber, Columbine, or the shooter at the Holocaust museum – all horrible crimes committed by WCMs did we think to ourselves – ‘oh, this will reflect badly on me?’
The answer is no. Why? Because still in this country, White, Male, Christians are considered normative and therefore the range of WCM behavior, from very good to very bad, simply represents the wide range of human behavior. I know I have nothing in common with Timothy McVeigh and so does the rest of American society. Unfortunately, people of other races and religions in America do not have the benefit of recognition that there are very good people and very bad people among them. Instead, the actions of one person of a minority group reflects upon the reputation and sense of security and worth of the entire group.
This has to stop.
Luke 6 and Compassion
Monday, November 9th, 2009Given our conversations on Luke 6 this week, with its pointed emphasis on love and compassion, it is one of those “beautiful coincidences” that November 12 marks the unveiling of The Charter for Compassion – a document created by representatives from each of the major world religions calling all people of faith to move compassion back into the center of their faith and practice. Each of these religions emphasize some version of the Golden Rule (“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”). The call, initiated by Karen Armstrong, is meant to reclaim that principle as a world-wide act for the common good.
To watch an brief introductory video regarding the Charter for Compassion, click here.
Here’s the “God Complex” episode with Dr. Elnes on Luke 1 & 3
Monday, November 9th, 2009The “God Complex” (referenced in the last post) just published the link to the radio episode today. Find it by clicking here.
Welcome to “God Complex” listeners!
Monday, November 9th, 2009Moments ago, I welcomed the listeners of a radio show called “The God Complex” to join us here on the Joy Luke Club blog for more conversation around Luke’s Gospel. If you are one of those listeners, welcome!
For those of you who are unfamiliar with The God Complex (the radio show, that is, not the actual complex!), it is an internet radio show hosted by Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow and Rev. Carol Howard Merritt and deals with a wide variety of subjects that fall under the general category of “progressive Christian.” As their byline goes, “Where the fully divine runs smack dab into the fully human.”
This is the second time I’ve been on the God Complex. The first time was to talk about my book, Asphalt Jesus and the walk across America that inspired it. This time, it was to talk about Luke’s gospel – specifically the part of Luke that appears in the Revised Common Lectionary this year (Luke 1:68-79 and Luke 3:1-6).
If you are new to the Joy Luke Club blog, here is how to utilize the resources:
(a) We’re moving at the rate of one chapter per week through Luke. I create posts once or twice in a given week and very much invite reader response in the comments section. I LOVE responding to reader questions and drawing attention to insights posted by others. Currently, we’re on Luke 6. Note that we skipped Luke 1-2 so that we can take up those chapters during Advent, starting Oct 29. Also note that this blog is NOT meant to be comprehensive! Rather, it is meant to supplement other materials that we suggest people use to more fully engage Luke’s gospel. Besides the Bible itself, these materials are listed below.
(b) An excellent commentary written by Rev. Bruce Van Blair called The Believer’s Road: A Journey Through Luke, which is available in book or Kindle format through Amazon.com, or if you’re in the Omaha area, at Countryside Community Church.
(c) A video commentary called “Roadside Conversations” produced by Ray Meints, featuring Bruce Van Blair and myself holding a conversation of approx. 10 minutes in length per chapter. For the most part, we try to cover areas that aren’t covered in Van Blair’s commentary, though the videos do not require that one is familiar with that commentary. New episodes are posted on the blog each week so people can watch them over the internet. Simply scroll down in this blog to find links to the various episodes/chapters.
(d) Each week in worship at Countryside we’re highlighting the same chapter as the Joy Luke Club Bible study groups. We just started video-streaming the sermons over the web, and and an audio version is also available. Simply click here to go to the audio/video archive. Incidentally, I have not been the preacher the last couple weeks (Nov 1 and 8), but our guest preachers have continued the practice of preaching on the appropriate chapter. Nov. 1, we had Dr. Eugene Lowry filling the pulpit, who had just come from giving the Beecher Lectures at Yale. Nov. 8, we had our own Rev. Lea Marshall (Assoc. Pastor) in the pulpit.
Again, if you are new, welcome! Check back regularly, leave questions/comments, and spread the word!
The Believer’s Road: Luke Chapter 6
Sunday, November 8th, 2009Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Rev. Lea Marshall preaching this weekend on Luke 6
Friday, November 6th, 2009What do dragonflies have to do with Luke? Find out this weekend! Rev. Lea Marshall will be preaching this Sunday, 11/6, on Luke 6. She’ll be focusing particularly on the opening verses, 1 – 16, and I understand she’ll be making a connection with dragonflies. Why not prepare for Sunday by reading Luke 6 and watching the corresponding video commentary from “Roadside Attractions”?
Meanwhile, I (Eric) will be attending the Emerging Progressive Leaders conference, sponsored by the Plymouth Center for Progressive Christian Faith and the Beatitudes Society. at Dunrovin Retreat Center outside Minneapolis. The intent of the conference is to link “emerging” progressive leaders with established national leaders in a mentoring relationship that can help ensure future leadership in the progressive Christian movement. This trip is a bit of a sentimental journey for me. Three years ago I was invited to mentor “emerging” leaders at this conference and received my first phone call from Countryside Community Church while there! Since there is scant cell reception at Dunrovin, however, the call went to voicemail, so I didn’t talk to anyone from Countryside until after my trip was over.
Videos for Luke 5-7 Posted
Friday, November 6th, 2009How are Christians different from others?
Thursday, November 5th, 2009In a few minutes, I’m leaving to give an address to physicians and other medical professionals at Children’s Hospital as part of their Many Faiths, One People forum. Representatives of a number of different faiths will be speaking for ten minutes each on what is distinctive about their particular faith, and what their faith shares in common with others. Later, we’ll speak for another five minutes on the implications for providing appropriate and respectful health care for children of our faith tradition. While my comments for this latter five-minute section are not written out, I thought some readers of this blog might be interested in what I’m saying about Christianity’s distinctiveness and commonalities. Below is the address. Bear in mind, I had to follow a STRICT ten-minute rule!
Address to the Staff of Children’s Hospital on the Occasion of their Many Faiths, One People forum, November 5, 2009
It is my pleasure to be here this morning. Having had my eldest daughter’s life literally saved by a medical professional in Omaha this past year, I am deeply grateful to those of you who have dedicated your lives to healing children.
As a representative of the Protestant arm of the Christian faith, I am aware that two of us will be speaking of the distinctive attributes of Christianity – from a Protestant and Catholic perspective. There was a time when Protestants and Catholics were quite far apart on many issues of faith. In fact, you may have heard about what transpired when a group of young school girls visited a Catholic convent of nuns. When the Mother Superior came out to the front gate to meet them, she bent down and asked the first girl she saw what she wanted to be when she grows up. The little girl responded, “I want to be a prostitute!” At this, Mother Superior fainted dead away. Upon being revived by her aids, one of them commented, “It’s unbelievable, the kids these days. Imagine wanting to grow up to be a prostitute!” “A prostitute?” responded Mother Superior? Ohhhhh. I thought she said she wanted to be a Protestant!”
I think the differences between Protestants and Catholics are a lot less severe than Mother Superior must have considered them, and I’ll get to them in a moment. But first some general remarks that apply equally to Protestants and Catholics are in order.
You cannot speak of the unique characteristics of Christianity without speaking of its commonality with another of the major religions of the world: Judaism. As an outgrowth of Judaism, Christianity’s birthplace is ancient Israel. Its parents are all Jewish, and its central figure – Jesus – was a Jewish rabbi, or “teacher,” whose intention was not to start a new religion but to fulfill the ancient one of his birth.
For many years after Jesus’ death, his followers were not known by the name “Christian” at all. Rather, they were simply Jews who happened to believe that Jesus was the fulfillment of God’s promise of a Savior, or Messiah (which means “anointed” one). In fact, Christianity was so distinctly Jewish in the First Century that the largest debate within Christian circles of that era was over whether or not to let people like me (and many of you) who are Gentile (or non-Jewish) by birth, into the faith at all.
Thus, while those who supported inclusion eventually won the debate, Christianity’s basic DNA continues to bear a strong Jewish mark. Like our elder Jewish sisters and brothers, Christianity is a monotheistic religion – one of the three great monotheistic “religions of Abraham.” Christians read and revere all three parts of the Hebrew Bible – Torah, Prophets and Writings (as do Muslims by the way), though we arrange the books in a slightly different order. And while Christians have appended the Hebrew Scriptures with 27 “new testament” books – books which are also revered within Islam – only one “new testament” writer is non-Jewish. That is, Luke, who wrote the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Incidentally, you may be interested to know that Luke is commonly believed to have been a physician!
So Christianity shares with Judaism (and Islam) many of the same stories of faith, many of the same heroes (and heroines), and largely on account of this shared heritage, Christianity in its ideal form shares very much the same passion for justice, compassion for the outcast and marginalized, and concern for the poor that is so prominent in Judaism and Islam. Like Judaism and Islam, Christianity is very much focused on working out the spiritual life through strong and vigorous engagement with the world, and in community with others.
Where we differ most significantly from other world religions is with respect to the nature and identity of Jesus. Jesus is believed by many to be the Son of God, born of a virgin, who lived without sin or blemish, who was crucified, died and was buried, and on the third day rose again to sit at the right hand of God the Father. Some believe that at a point in the future Jesus will return to judge “the quick and the dead.” Those who have put their faith in Jesus will be saved through his atoning death on the Cross. Those who do not place their faith in Jesus are thought to be damned for eternity in hell.
Now, it is extremely important to add one caveat here. While the beliefs I have just mentioned about Jesus and salvation are common to many Christians, a great many other Christians would disagree with much of what I have just said (Including myself!). In a very real sense, it is just as inappropriate to speak of Christianity as a homogenous system of belief as it is to speak about Hinduism that way. It is more accurate to speak of Christianities than of Christianity.
Many Christians do not believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, for instance. Nor do they believe that calling Jesus the Son of God means that he was in fact God, but believe instead that Jesus shows us what it means to be most fully human, created (according to Genesis) in the image and likeness of God. Many of these Christians also do not believe that they uniquely are, or will be, saved by God or that others will be damned. To these Christians, Jesus did not open a door to God that had been shut until his coming. Rather, he revealed a door that has always been open. Therefore, while they claim Jesus to be their particular path to God, they have no trouble affirming that God has created other legitimate paths as well. As is stated in John’s Gospel, “I have other sheep that are not of this fold.”
Having acknowledged this great diversity within Christianity, there is a very key point of agreement. While not all will agree that “Jesus is God,” nearly all will agree that “God is like Jesus.” That is, Jesus reflects accurately God’s character, God’s will, God’s heart. The love, compassion, and grace demonstrated by Jesus is a reflection of God’s love, compassion and grace.
Even Jesus’ agony and despair on the Cross tells us something important about God. At bare minimum, it demonstrates that God understands our deepest pain, our deepest lostness, and our deepest loneliness. And while Christians will disagree about the nature of Christ’s resurrection – whether he was literally raised in bodily form or whether he was raised in spirit only, most will agree that his resurrection tells us something more about God: that God is able to turn our deepest despair into our highest joy, and that God is able to make space for life even when death is all we see. On this note, while not all Christians believe in life after death, most find in the story of Jesus a sign and hope that the soul does live on long after the body fades, and that life in God is not only our origin but our destiny.
Now, a few remarks about what makes Protestant Christianity distinctive. Of the world’s 2.2 billion Christians, approximately one in three are Protestants. Often those who have no background in Christianity have no idea what distinguishes a Protestant Christian from a Catholic Christian, or that there even is a difference. For the most part, and especially for the purposes of what a medical professional might need to know when treating Protestants and Catholics, our differences have more to do with specific practices of the faith rather than differences in fundamental belief.
To oversimplify a bit, the origins of Protestantism can be traced back to Martin Luther, who lived in Germany in the 16th Century. Luther waged a protest against the Catholic Church, based on 95 specific complaints, most all of which have been resolved over the centuries. Nevertheless, those complaints created a split that has lasted to this day. Over the years, Protestantism has split against itself many times. So much so that today there are estimated to be some 30,000 different denominations world-wide. Many of these differ over very fine points of doctrine, or arose within specific ethnic or cultural contexts.
In terms of practices distinctive to Protestantism, Protestants do not recognize papal authority, though they may value the pope as an important spiritual leader. They also do not tend to go to “Confession” – which is the practice of confessing one’s sins privately to a priest to obtain absolution. And while most participate in the ritual of Communion, they tend to do it less often and do not believe in transubstantiation, or the idea the bread and wine are turned into the literal body and blood of Christ. Protestant clergy – who are called ministers or pastors rather than priests, may be male or female in all but the most conservative denominations. This is one reason why Protestant clergy are not referred to as “Father,” but “Reverend.” In all Protestant denominations, to my knowledge, clergy may be married. In some denominations, such as my own United Church of Christ, clergy may also be gay.
Protestants also do not recognize as many “sacraments” (or holy rituals) as Catholics. Therefore, while it may be very important for a Protestant to have a minister present at the time of death, and that minister may lead the family in certain prayers and Bible readings, there is no official sacrament of extreme unction or “Last Rites,” as in the Catholic Church. Finally, not all Protestant ministers who show up to the hospital will be dressed in a self-evident fashion. While some may be identifiable by their use of a clerical collar, many (including myself) may show up looking no different from any other “civilian” visitor. If you catch me visiting on a Saturday morning, I’m much more likely to be wearing blue jeans and a baseball cap than slacks and jacket.
[What follows is what I was hoping to add with respect to Christianity’s relation to other faiths, but it exceeded the strict 10 min. rule.]
Finally when considering what common ground is shared between Christianity and the other religions represented in this forum, most of the world religions hold some notion of the Golden Rule. That is, some form of “do unto others as one would have done unto oneself.” Beyond this basic affirmation, I usually find the quest to find commonalities to be a race to get to the lowest common denominator. Many like to claim that, “all religions say basically the same thing” or “all have the same purpose.” The truth is that they do not all say the same thing, and they have very different understandings regarding our existence and purpose.
However, I do not mention this in order to claim that there are no deep commonalities. On the contrary, I wish only to point our attention to Oneness at the HIGHEST common denominator rather than the lowest. That is to say, I believe that all the major world religions are very much the same AT THE POINT OF ULTIMATE REALIZATION OR FULFILMENT. Yet their routes to reaching that point are quite different. So different, in fact, that most commonalities tend to be only superficial ones. In characterizing the common ground shared between religions, I am very much influenced by Fr. John Martin, a Dominican monk who directs Shantivanam Ashram in India – a monastic community dedicated to exploring the commonalities between Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Martin characterizes the world religions as paths up a great mountain. At lower levels, the paths are quite far apart from one another. Some of them are so far apart that they’re on different sides of the mountain. Yet as one climbs higher, the paths come closer together. It is only at the very peak of the mountain – that point of ultimate realization or fulfillment – that the paths converge. Here, the climber on one path meets the other climbers in surprise and delight exclaiming, “Brother, sister, I had no idea you were even on this mountain!”
A funny way to write a gospel
Monday, November 2nd, 2009Someone asked me the other day about Luke’s biases. Specifically, they wanted to know what biases might “color” Luke’s depiction in a way that might reflect more on Luke’s particular background than that of Jesus.
Indeed, Luke does have biases. One of his less obvious biases is that he’s somewhat of a perfectionist when it comes to language. Luke speaks the most “literary” Greek of the gospels. We detect Luke’s literary biases regularly when he “corrects” Mark’s Greek (Mark’s gospel was one of the historical sources used by both Luke and Matthew). To take an example based on modern English usage, if Jesus were to talk into a room and ask, “What’s happening?” Mark would likely have Jesus asking, “Whaddup?” Luke would depict Jesus as saying,”What is going on?”
Another of Luke’s biases – again less obvious, and minor – is that he uses greater precision when it comes to describing medical conditions and body parts. Many scholars believe this attention to medical detail confirms the hypothesis that Luke was a physician (Paul refers to someone named Luke as a “beloved physician” in Colossians 4:14. While we don’t know for sure that this was the same Luke, it is definitely both possible and plausible that Luke the gospel writer and Luke the “beloved physician” are the same.).
Luke’s largest bias, however, stems from his heritage. Of all the New Testament writers, it appears that Luke is the only Gentile. The rest are Jewish Christians. As a Gentile, Luke often reflects in his narrative the perspective of the Outsider. He knows what is is like to have people consider him unworthy of participating in the full life of the Christian community (Remember: The greatest argument of the 1st C Christian church was whether or not to let Gentiles like [most of] us into the church.). So, combined with the fact that Luke is writing his Gospel to and for a Gentile reader (Theophilus, named in Luke 1:3), it is not at all surprising that Luke tends to pay more attention to stories that either depict Gentiles in a positive light or imply that Jesus’ mission and ministry was to more than Jews alone.
Yet Luke’s bias toward Outsiders is not restricted to Gentiles. He also shows more sensitivity and interest in women. I do not mean to imply that Luke or anyone else in his era was a champion of feminism, but in Luke’s gospel we get more information about women, and the prominent roles they played in Jesus’ ministry, than in any other gospel.
Luke also pays a lot more attention to the poor. In fact, it seems that in Luke’s view, the Good News of Jesus was greatest for the poor. A famous example of Luke’s bias toward the poor is found in the comparison between Jesus’ “Sermon on the Mount” in Matthew (Matthew 5-7) and Luke’s version of it (Luke 6). First, Luke’s version doesn’t take place on a “mount” at all. Instead of standing at the top of a hill looking down at the gathered crowd, as reported in Matthew’s version, Luke has Jesus standing at the bottom of the hill, looking up to the crowd (“… and Jesus went down with the disciples from the mountain and stood on a level place …”. This is why Luke’s version is technically called the “Sermon on the Plain.”). Second, where Matthew has Jesus saying, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” Luke’s Jesus says simply, “Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God.” There is no “in spirit” in Luke’s Gospel. While this difference could be as reflective of Matthew’s bias as Luke’s, it does provide one of many examples where Luke’s gospel tends to focus more strongly on the implications of Jesus’ ministry for the poor (Incidentally, we’ll find another example at Christmas time, where Luke has the baby Jesus being visited by poor shepherds, whereas Matthew makes no mention of shepherds and instead calls attention to the visitation by [wealthy] Magi, of whom Luke makes no mention). This is not to suggest that other gospel writers were unconcerned for the poor, or that they fail to show Jesus’ concern. It is only to note that the poor factor most prominently in Luke’s gospel.
Finally, when considering Luke’s biases and how they might color his version of Jesus’ story, I find it just as interesting – if not more so – to consider how firmly Luke seems committed to conveying details of Jesus’ story that may appear unflattering, particularly if one were trying to convince a reader that Jesus is the Messiah.
At Countryside, our Joy Luke Club groups have just encountered one significant example of this tendency toward brutal honesty. Namely in Luke 4′s account of Jesus’ visit to his hometown of Nazareth. In this account, which is Luke’s first story concerning Jesus’ public ministry, Jesus not only picks a fight with his audience but ends up angering them so greatly that they try to throw him over a cliff. If Luke were simply a propagandist trying to gain acceptance for Jesus despite “the facts” of his story, it seems like this story would be the LAST one he would want to write about. Or, if he reported it at all, he would certainly want to perform a major modification: “And Jesus preached in his hometown and they all cheered and marveled and said, ‘We always knew he was special’! Then, they carried him on their shoulders to the edge of town where they sent him on his way by showering him with gifts and pledging their undying support.”
As you continue to read through Luke’s gospel, you may want to make note of stories that you wouldn’t expect Luke to tell, or that you’d expect him to alter significantly if all he was interested in doing was supporting his own bias that Jesus is the Messiah. Something gives Luke a high degree of confidence that he can report not only on “the good,” but also “the bad and the ugly” and still persuade his readers to place their trust in Jesus. It leads one to wonder, what gives Luke that confidence … ?
