Category: Theoloical Thoughts

Organized Religion

On October 26, 2021

Organized Religion

“I just don’t believe in organized religion.” I have heard that statement dozens of times. My wife quipped, “So you believe in unorganized religion?”

It is no wonder that people would be disillusioned with various expressions of the church, especially with the scandals of so many high-profile Christian leaders of late.

However, many people who decry organized religion want organization in every other area of their lives. They expect organization from their employers, their banks, and even their sports teams. As a matter of fact, all human beings crave organization.

In scripture, it seems that Jesus anticipated the church’s organization. After all, he chose twelve disciples, which symbolized a renewed faithful remnant of Israel.[1] As God designated the twelve tribes, so Jesus reconstituted them. After Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, the Apostles sought to continue the tradition of Jesus to select someone to take Judas’ place after his betrayal and suicide (Acts 1.15ff).

One scene early in Acts points to the benefit of organized religion – effective ministry. In Acts 6, a dispute developed between the Palestinian Jews and the Greek-speaking Jews concerning the daily distribution of food for the widows. The dispute was settled by organizing a group of people to oversee the matter so the apostles could continue their teaching ministry. Without this organization, many widows would not have received the food they needed.

This kind of organization has enabled many benefits throughout church history. For example, organized religion gave us various charities, Bibles in many languages, trained leaders, and universities. In addition, organized religion has enabled recovery ministries like Alcoholics Anonymous, Sunday School materials, hospitality, hospitals, the abolition of slavery in Europe and the United States, and literacy training.

So, what is the real problem with organized religion? The first is sin. Where there are people, there is the possibility that people will misbehave. But that is true of any organization. In the church, people can give into the lure of power and prestige and use their positions for personal gain or glory. Even a cursory glance at the gospels will reveal that is not the kind of organization Jesus had in mind. For example, Jesus said:

“You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. ⁴³ But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, ⁴⁴ and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. ⁴⁵ For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:42b–45, ESV)

Second is the western ideal of individuality – we don’t want to be accountable to anyone. Since the beginning of time, we have wanted to make our own choices and rail against anyone suggesting that there might be a standard of proper behavior. Organized religion poses a threat to those who want complete autonomy in their lives. Some bristle against any message that calls any of their behaviors or attitudes into question.

Thirdly, is our desire to make God in our image. Organized religion, by which I mean the tradition of the church, reminds us that there are proper ways to think about God and relate to God. To some, organized religion is seen to dictate what a person should believe.

However, if we accept the Bible as the authoritative source from which we learn who God is and what God expects of us, then there is a standard by which all ideas, behaviors, and relationships are judged.

I have known of people who defined God in such a way as to excuse or allow any of their behaviors and attitudes. They have constructed a god who agrees with them in every way. In that way, they have followed the example of the Israelites in the wilderness:

⁴ And [Aaron] received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden calf. And they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” ⁵ When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord.”(Exodus 32:4–5, ESV)

Now, the Lord was reduced to an idol under their control and was made to look some a familiar Egyptian god. All of this happened while Moses was on the mountain receiving the Ten Commandments from the real Lord of the Exodus.

In sum, the reason many detest organized religion is self-centeredness; we want to be the center of the universe and not submit to any outside authority outside. The problem with that notion is that we are all wrong about many things in the world. I may be wrong about a great deal when it comes to God and the life God expects of me. Thankfully, I have the Scriptures, the Church community, and 2,000 years of Church history to correct my wrong notions. If I am humble enough to submit to God and God’s means of grace and instruction, I can learn and live a better life.

Organized religion has often allowed sinful people to do hurtful things, but so have many other organizations. Given the fallenness of humanity and our own participation in that fallenness, we can be grateful for the gifts of the organized church while at the same time pushing toward reform.

[1] E. J. Schnabel, “Apostle,” ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Second Edition (Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; IVP, 2013), 43.

Theological Cohesion and the UMC

By admin

On December 17, 2018

In Bible, Observations, Theoloical Thoughts, United Methodist Church

Dr. Kevin Watson, Assistant Professor of Wesleyan and Methodist Studies at Candler School of Theology, recently posted a series of tweets in which he posited that, among other things, theological coherence is a vital part of the unity of the United Methodist Church. Earlier in that series of tweets asserted that “the purpose of polity is to protect the unity of the church in the midst…of disagreement.”

I could not agree more!

When I first came to the UMC and started the process toward licensure and ordination, I was not at all interested in joining an institution. I was enamored with the theology and its coherence with Scripture.

I joined a Charismatic UMC after rededicating my life to Christ. I did so, knowing nothing about the UMC or its theology, I merely saw the authenticity of the people in the church and their relationship with Christ.

Later, as I was preparing for my own calling at an independent Bible Training center, I was assigned to research a denomination or a leading figure in church history. Since I knew nothing about the UMC, I did my paper on John Wesley.

I visited the library of Oral Roberts University, at the time a UM approved seminary, and checked out some books on Wesley and his theology. I was utterly captivated by what I read. I resonated with Wesley’s ideas and how they corresponded to my understanding of Scripture. Upon my return to my home church, I made the decision to pursue ministry in the UMC, not because of the institution, many things troubled me about that, but with its theological coherence with Scripture. Since that day, over 30 years ago, I have only grown in my appreciation of the core of Wesleyan theology. I consider myself a follower of Christ in the Wesleyan tradition.

I remember well answering the historical questions put to all candidates for ordination by the bishop from the Book of Discipline, particularly these:

(8) Have you studied the doctrines of The United Methodist Church?

(9) After full examination do you believe that our doctrines are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures? (¶330.5.d Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, 2016)

As I understood these questions, I was to examine the doctrines of the church, in light of the Scriptures and determine if, in my mind there was coherence. I did that and found wonderful harmony.

Now, in the current debate over human sexuality, I am told, that actually the institution can change the doctrine and coherence. Scripture is no longer a standard, except when it comes to loving others (whatever that means). It seems then that we are asked to accept institutional wisdom or political expedience as the core of our doctrines.

Instead of the Scriptures, interpreted throughout Christian tradition, reasoned by comparing text with text, and the lived experience of the church through the ages, we are asked to bow to the Magisterium of the institutional church.

This approach places the church on the shifting sands of an ever-changing culture and give us no solid place to stand. In contrast, the church of the first three centuries stood over against the prevailing culture in a number of ways and transformed the world as we know it as Larry Hurtado, professor of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology at the University of Edinburgh has demonstrated in his book, Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World.

I am grateful to a new generation of UM scholars, such as Kevin Watson, David Watson, Matt O’Riley, and others who are calling the church back to a unity based on theological and biblical coherence.

A Pastor’s Honest Reexamination of Homosexuality

By admin

On November 25, 2018

In Bible, Church Life, FUMC Eufaula, Interpretation, Observations, Theoloical Thoughts, United Methodist Church

In my conversations with people about homosexuality and the Scripture, I have come across several people who challenged me, claiming I always preach against homosexuality and no other sins. They have also claimed I had taken verses out of context to support the view I endorsed beforehand. The most strident of these came from two friends who objected to a blog post I wrote a few years back. I took these challenges seriously and went on a quest to discover if there were things I was not considering. I approached this question with the attitude that my views could be wrong.

First, in thirty-one years of ministry I have only preached one sermon on the issue, it was a series I taught dealing with complicated and messy problems in the church. However, I have preached numerous sermons against greed, unforgiveness, bitterness, sexual immorally, and other sins.

The first thing I did regarding the charge of taking things out of context was to read the entire book of Leviticus, paying particular attention to the overall themes and settings of the various laws. I discovered two overarching themes: 1) God told the people you shall be holy because I am holy, and 2) Do not be like the nations around you.

In the immediate context of the primary passages on homosexuality in Leviticus, God tells the people:

Leviticus 18:1–5 (NRSV) — ¹ The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: ² Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: I am the Lord your God. ³ You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes. ⁴ My ordinances you shall observe and my statutes you shall keep, following them: I am the Lord your God. ⁵ You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the Lord.

In other words, the laws which follow are given so that God’s people would not be like the people with which they have had close cultural contact: the Egyptians and the Canaanites. Immediately after the list of prohibited sexual relationships, we find a restatement of the primary reasons:

Leviticus 18:24–30 (NRSV) — ²⁴ Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for by all these practices the nations I am casting out before you have defiled themselves. ²⁵ Thus the land became defiled; and I punished it for its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. ²⁶ But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and commit none of these abominations, either the citizen or the alien who resides among you ²⁷ (for the inhabitants of the land, who were before you, committed all of these abominations, and the land became defiled); ²⁸ otherwise the land will vomit you out for defiling it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. ²⁹ For whoever commits any of these abominations shall be cut off from their people. ³⁰ So keep my charge not to commit any of these abominations that were done before you, and not to defile yourselves by them: I am the Lord your God.

The clear warning here is for God’s people to not be like the nations around them. Apparently, homosexual behavior was known and practiced openly among the Egyptians and Canaanites, and God did not want the people of Israel drawn into those behaviors. In other words, because the people were in close cultural contact with people who practiced such things, they were explicitly told not to emulate them.

Skipping over the Gospels and Jesus for the moment, I looked at the passages in Paul’s letters.

1 Corinthians 6:9–11 (NRSV) — ⁹ Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, ¹⁰ thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

In this passage, the word translated sodomite (ἀρσενοκοίτης), in some contexts refers to the active person in the sexual relationship in contrast to the word translated male prostitute (μαλακός) the passive participant. As with the passages in Leviticus, Paul most likely mentions this in his letters because the gospel is being proclaimed to Jews and Gentiles in close cultural contact with nations who practice such things.

Why did Jesus not mention homosexuality? It is a fair question and one that deserves an answer. There are of course indirect prohibitions where Jesus lifts up the ideal of heterosexual marriage as God’s ideal (cf. Matt 19:3-9). Recently, Scot McKnight wrote that when Jesus permitted divorce for unchastity (πορνεία) his hearers would have had in mind the sexual prohibitions of Leviticus 18 (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/04/04/what-is-porneia-to-a-1st-century-jew/)

I think Jesus did not mention homosexuality specifically because he was a Jew speaking to Jews. In their cultural context, the prohibition against this kind of sexual immorality was a given, just like idolatry. Jesus never gives an explicit prohibition against idolatry, except where he plainly states there is only one God. Of the seven occurrences of the word translated idolatry they all appear in Paul’s letters and never in the Gospels. Jesus also never mentions another strictly Jewish practice such as circumcision. However, he does mention the food laws, but only to cancel them out and declare all foods clean (Mk 7:18-23).

It is instructive to look at the so-called Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 when navigating the cross-cultural requirements for Gentiles coming to the faith. As the elders listened to voices from both sides of the argument of how much of the Law of Moses should be compulsory for Gentile converts, James remarked,

Acts 15:19–20 (NRSV) — ¹⁹ Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, ²⁰ but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.

All the laws of the Old Testament were boiled down to two: refrain from association with idolatry and sexual immorality (πορνεία).

Some people claim I reject homosexual behavior because I have had no friends who were homosexual. That too is wrong. A young man who was in the youth group I attended when I was younger, came out as a homosexual after his marriage failed. He was one of the people who challenged me on my views, and we exchanged a few emails. He spoke of his desire to fight against the urges he had, but a few days later posted an inappropriate message to another friend hoping for a sexual hook-up. He apparently didn’t know his message was public. Eventually, because of his severe depression and anxiety, he committed suicide.

Also, in a previous church, there was an elderly gay couple that I regularly interacted with on Sunday mornings and even visited in the hospital when they were sick. Eventually, I preached both of their funerals.

Recently, a former staff member at another church graduated from seminary and later wrote me to say he had identified as gay. This young man was a stellar staff member, and in conversation with him, I assured him of my love for him and reminded him that although he identified as gay, his true identity was in Christ.

Some years ago, I heard about a professor from Duke Divinity School, Richard Hays, who had written a book on Christian ethics entitled The Moral Vision of the New Testament. After laying out what he sees at the ethical gird of the New Testament – community, cross, and new creation, he then applies that framework to various modern issues in the appendices. He tackles the issue of homosexuality in one appendix and concludes that homosexual behavior is inconsistent with the moral vision of the New Testament and further goes on the say those who practice such behavior should not be ordained. He came to these conclusions even while having a lifelong friendship with a gay man. They regularly discussed the issue, and his friend remarked how he felt the pro-gay Christian movement were misleading many in the church.

My search over the past few years has been earnest and humble. I realize I could be wrong, however, what I found was a consistent witness across the church and throughout time. The interpretive ideas set forth by pro-homosexual scholars and other advocates are just wrong and misleading.

In the past year, I have discovered that many, if not most of the people I know who are in support of the ordination of homosexuals and advocating for the church to allow same-sex weddings in their facilities do so for two main reasons. First, socio-political reasons. They see this issue in the same vein as racial issues or women’s issues; this is just the next social issue we need to address. As a colleague remarked in a recent meeting, “We got it wrong with slavery and women, we need to get this one right.” Second, personal reasons. They support removing restrictive language in the Book of Discipline because they have a close friend or family member who is gay. They want things changed because it will somehow be more affirming of their friend.

What I have yet to see is a sound scriptural argument for changing our church’s stance. In groups whenever I bring this up, people say well the scriptures can be interpreted many different ways – and this from seminary-trained individuals. I agree that while different interpretations of scripture can be put forward, the accepted principles of biblical hermeneutics rules some of them out as implausible.

I personally believe that the current debate in the United Methodist Church is more about biblical authority than homosexuality. I pray that Scripture would once again be put in its rightful place and that we would learn to love as Jesus loved.

A Covenant and a Hope

By admin

On October 9, 2016

In Church Life, Leadership, Observations, Theoloical Thoughts

I have just finished a full day at the inaugural meeting of the Wesley Covenant Association (WCA). Before the meeting, there were all kinds of rumors and speculation about the purpose of the meeting. I knew that this was going to be a pivotal moment in the life of the denomination, so I decided to attend and hear it for myself.

What I heard in the various talks was a celebration of our covenant as United Methodists and especially clergy in the church and a message of hope. This hope is not based on organizational effort, but the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit.

Covenant

As an Elder in the United Methodist Church, I agreed to participate in a covenant with the rest of the Elders of the church and the church itself. I declared that I knew the general rules of the church and would keep them. I affirmed that I had studied the churches doctrines and found them in harmony with the Scriptures. I professed that I had studied the discipline and polity of the church, approved them and would support and maintain them (cf. The United Methodist Book of Discipline, ¶330.5.d).

This is the covenant I accepted and affirmed. If I come to the place where I can no longer abide by this covenant, then it behooves me to surrender my credentials and step out of the covenant. I expected that other clergy members would hold the covenant with the sincerity I have, but it does not seem to be the case. I fully expect to be held accountable to this covenant, such that if I violate it those appointed over me should confront me and, if possible correct me. As a matter of fact, not holding to this covenant is a chargeable offence in the Church (¶ 2702).

The WCA upholds this understanding of our covenant as clergy and as members of the Church. Upholding this covenant creates a bond of trust between the various members of the clergy and between the clergy and the church. This is what I long for. This is what I signed up for. For some, however, they expect to violate this covenant with impunity and a covenant that can be violated without consequences is no covenant at all. As the apostle Paul reminds us, “And in the case of an athlete, no one is crowned without competing according to the rules” (2 Timothy 2:5).

It seems that in many cases, national and international sports authorities care more about the rules of a game than many pastors and bishops care about the pledges of our covenant.

Hope

Hope is a central aspect of the Christian faith. It is our hope of salvation (1Th 5:8) that sustains us in difficult times (Heb 10:23). But we need to remember that hope is not in a political process, even one in the church. Our hope is set on God, God’s work through Jesus Christ and the ever dwelling presence of the Holy Spirit (1 Pe 1:13, 21).

We do not place our hope in bureaucratic policies or institutional pronouncements but in God. Because of this, I don’t pull out all the stops to protect the institution or imbue the ecclesiastical structure or the Book of Discipline with god-like status. It is simply a tool used by God for a season. It is a wonderful tool filled with the seeds of promise. I love this tool and appreciate all of the opportunities and privileges I have received because of it, but it is not the end all and be all of the kingdom of God.

In Luke 21 people commented to Jesus about the beauty and adornment of the temple, but he told them, “the days will come when not one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down” (Luke 21:6). Jesus didn’t completely denigrate the temple; he called it his “Father’s house,” and “a house of prayer for all nations.” Jesus emphasized the purpose of the temple, not the structure itself.

Likewise, John Wesley, an Anglican priest, knew that God was much bigger than the institution he knew and loved. He went about trying to renew the Church of England but trusted God’s work even when it took him outside the bounds of the institution. Eventually, the institution barred him from preaching in many of its churches, but the poor and working class people listen and came in droves.

For those of us who follow Jesus Christ in a Wesleyan way, we understand that about the institutional church. My hope and prayer is that the denomination called the United Methodist Church will renew its primitive devotion to God and the dedication of its founder. I long to see that day. But if it doesn’t happen, God is not handcuffed. God will raise up another tribe who will pray, proclaim and work for the kingdom of God.

Far Right

By admin

On June 9, 2016

In Church Life, Navarre UMC, Observations, Theoloical Thoughts

The other day I was reading one of the hundreds of articles posted during the United Methodist General Conference. As I read the article, I frequently ran across the term “far right.” The more I read and tried to understand the writer’s perspective, I discovered he was referring to me; not by name but generally.

Why did the author use the term “far right?” It was clear that it was employed in a pejorative sense to label certain people who had not just a differing opinion, but an opinion which, in that writer’s view, was out of touch and extreme.

So what does it mean to say that I and many others are “far right” in our views?

I believe the in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. I think that they contain everything the is necessary for faith and godliness. I would not say that I believe everything in the Bible is true, but that what it contains is the truth when interpreted in the way the author(s) intended it to be understood.

I believe a person who has submitted themselves to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, has an obligation to read and understand the Scriptures and to receive those words as binding. That implies that I do my best to interpret the passage in light of the historical and cultural context of the time and translating that to our own time.

In that way, we can appropriate the Scriptures of our faith in a way that is consistent and brings glory to God. If that makes me “far right,” then I guess that is where I will stand.

I also believe that when I became an elder in The United Methodist Church took vows to uphold the doctrine and teachings of the church; that pledge meant something. The bishop asked if I had read and studied the doctrines of the church and agreed that they were in line with the teachings of Scripture. I promised to keep those rules, not because I feared punishment, but for the sake of my conscience.

If that understanding of my vows and commitments to the church makes me “far right,” again here I stand.

In reality, I don’t see those positions as far right, except as people try to distinguish people from one another in a political way. I see them as standing in the center of faith and practice.

In that sense, to be “far right” means I make Scripture speak to things it never intended to address and expect people to adhere to rules or laws that go beyond the plain sense of Scripture (among other things). It also means I expect people to believe more doctrine than our Articles of Religion say, and that violators should be held accountable for any infringement, intentional or not.

In the same way, I believe far left means that I put little stock in what ancient writings say. They are mere suggestions about how to order our lives. Our polity and promises, likewise are simple ideas on how to get along in big tent of Methodism. My vows just state my intentions up to that point, and I am free to break them if I deem them unjust (or inconvenient).

Maybe I am naive, but I think we should limit labels like far right and far left and faithfully live and teach the Scriptures we have received and the vows we took.

Grace

By admin

On March 24, 2016

In Church Life, Navarre UMC, Newsletter Articles, Theoloical Thoughts, Uncategorized

Later this month, I will have the privilege of teaching at our Conference Licensing School. This is a multi-day school which prepares people to receive their first appointments as pastors in our Conference. In fact, Navarre will host one day of the school.

I will be teaching the class on Wesleyan Theology. In preparing for that class, I was reminded of one of the significant contributions of John Wesley to Evangelical theology; the doctrine of grace.

To be sure every denomination and system of theology has an understanding of grace, but Wesley’s unique contribution has stood the test of time and continues to inspire people.

Grace has been popularly defined as “God’s unmerited favor toward us.” That definition deserves to be pondered over and over. By unmerited we mean that this grace is given without regard to any action or achievement on our part. To merit something is to deserve or be worthy of something. God’s favor is bestowed with complete disregard to the recipient’s worth; you might even say, in spite of the recipient’s worth.

To have favor is to show kindness toward someone. When we stand in someone’s favor we stand in a
privileged position. We could be in that position because we have supported the person or because we have benefited the person in some way.

The idea of grace is that through no worth in ourselves God has bestowed his favor on us. There was (is) nothing in us or about us that would cause God to owe us anything. I like to tell people grace means God likes us and there is nothing we can do about it. John Wesley put it this way:

All the blessings which God hath bestowed upon man, are of his mere grace, bounty, or favour; his
free, undeserved favour; favour altogether undeserved; man having no claim to the least of his mercies.[1]

The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, which is the one official guide of United Methodist doctrine says,

“By grace we mean the undeserved, unmerited, and loving action of God in human existence through
the ever-present Holy Spirit.”[2]

That, however, is only the first aspect of grace from a Wesleyan perspective. Wesley said that grace give us the ability to respond to God as well. In other words, God’s favor gives us the ability to do what God requires. Randy Maddox, of Duke Divinity School, calls this “responsible grace.” God gives us the ability to respond and that in turn makes us responsible before God.

Some of the more popular aspects of Wesley’s understanding of grace are found in the ways we experience that grace.

Wesley said that God’s grace works in our lives even before we are conscious of him. We experience this as God’s prevenient grace, the grace that comes before salvation. This grace restores a measure of our free will and a measure of conscience as well. It gives us our first desire to please God. As Randy Maddox would say, it gives us the ability to respond to God.

When we respond to this grace in repentance, God’s grace continues to work in our lives as forgiveness and moves us to accept his pardoning love. Responding to this justifying grace produces a real change in our hearts, we are born again and begin a new relationship with God. We are also given an assurance that we are, in fact, God’s children.

Immediately after the reception of this grace, the Holy Spirit begins to work in our lives leading us to grow in maturity through sanctifying grace. Our experience of grace from this point on leads us to do good works and serve God’s mission in the world with the aim of becoming mature or prefect in
love.

Grace comes to us through many different channels, but some of them Wesley deemed “ordinary means of grace.” These were the normal ways God uses to convey his grace. They included prayer, reading scripture, Holy Communion, Christian fellowship, worship, and fasting. God uses these ordinary means to convey his grace to us. To be sure God is limited in the ways his grace can come to us, but these are the ordinary ways.

We shortly celebrate the resurrection of our Lord and Savior, so what do afterwards? I would urge to settle into the ordinary pattern of life by drawing on God’s grace to be come a fully developing follower of Jesus Christ. Seek God out, for if we do he his promise,“You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the Lord…” (Jeremiah 29:13–14a [ESV]).

Pastor Alan

[1] John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, Third Edition., vol. 5 (London: Wesleyan Methodist
Book Room, 1872), 7.

[2] United Methodist Publishing House (2013-01-01). The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2012 (Kindle Locations 1806-1807). United Methodist Publishing House. Kindle Edition.

The Blueprint Myth

By admin

On May 13, 2013

In Navarre UMC, Theoloical Thoughts

Blueprint

Several years ago I noticed a tendency among many in the church to mix elements of American idealism, home-spun wisdom and biblical phrases in a concoction I called “folk religion.” Years later, I ran across a book by Dr. Roger Olson entitled Questions for all Your Answers, in which identified a similar tendency.

One of the hallmarks of this folk religion is the old cliche, “Everything happen for a reason,” or God has a plan for everyone’s life.” Recently Dr. Olson took this adage to task as he address a group of young people. Follow the link below to read his address and insights.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/04/what-is-gods-will-and-how-can-one-find-it/

The Other Side of God

By admin

On April 9, 2013

In Navarre UMC, Observations, Theoloical Thoughts

A few weeks ago I have the privilege of meeting with several people seeking ordination in our denomination. My team’s responsibility was to review their doctrinal statements and ask questions around doctrine and theology.

For the most part, they did well in expressing the core Wesleyan doctrines of grace, salvation and other topics. However, one issue that was evident in almost all of them was as lack of understanding of certain aspects of God’s nature and attributes – theology proper.

We asked them to describe what God was like to a curious seeker who had no knowledge of God, they did a good job of talking about God’s grace, love, mercy and forgiveness, but that was where it stopped.

I asked, “What about God’s other attributes, what attributes make God’s mercy and grace necessary?” They were stumped. It seemed that the attributes of God they could relate to were on God’s “good side.” When pressed and coached, one candidate said, “Oh you mean God’s vengeance.”

The first class I took in seminary was a class on Systematic Theology and one of the first books we read was the devotional classic by A.W. Tozer, Knowledge of the Holy.

This book, along with the other textbooks in the class introduced us to the attributes of God, among many other things. The class taught us about God’s love, mercy, grace and forgiveness, but also about God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, eternity, omnipotence and omnipresence and others.

Many people pit these attributes against one another as if God were one or the other―that is not the case. God is all of these at the same time. H. Ray Dunning sums up many of God’s attributes in the term holy love. God is holy and loving, God is just and merciful. God is transcendent and imminent. God is omnipotent and compassionate; and all of these at the same time.

What is most disturbing is the characterization of God’s righteousness, holiness and justice as vengeance. Let’s draw some analogies: Are parents vengeful when they do not allow one of their children to play in the street and physically stop them from doing so? Is a civic club vengeful when it establishes a code of conduct and then holds its accountable for it? Is a teacher vengeful when she catches a student cheating and gives her/him a zero for the test? Is a judge being vengeful when he sentences a defendant to life in prison for killing someone?

I think we as pastors and “theologians in residence” have an obligation to help people understand the nature of God and not divide God up so that we can pick and choose the parts we want. We must teach and preach a God who is whole, holy and loving.

Homosexuality and Hermeunitics

By admin

On June 29, 2012

In Discipleship, Interpretation, Theoloical Thoughts

I have taken a long break from posting, but I am ready to begin again.

One of the things that has been quite disturbing to watch in my beloved UMC is the way Scripture has been handled in the debate over the issue of homosexual behavior.

People who know better often throw out scriptural red herrings in an effort to cloud the point. For example I have hear people say things like, “Well if you are going to take Leviticus literally, you will have to kill your teenager when they back talk you.”

Many of the people who make such statements ought to know better. For the most part, these people have theological Master’s degrees and have had training in biblical interpretation and yet they make statements which clearly demonstrate they lack even a basic understanding biblical hermeneutics.

The same people point out that Jesus never said anything about homosexual behavior and use that to justify that behavior. then when Paul explicitly forbids that behavior they claim he was not referring to committed same sex relationships.

Here are the problems I see with such arguments:

Leviticus speaks to a particular context. In this context, God is attempting to bring a people a little further down the road than they were. God wanted them to be a holy people – not like the people around them. In the chapter which forbids homosexual behavior, God also forbids incest, bestiality and child sacrifice. In addition, the admonition to stone a son who curses his parents refers not to profanity, but to invoke a foreign god’s name to curse his parents.
Jesus, indeed, never said anything specifically about homosexual behavior – he didn’t have to! he was a Jew speaking primarily to Jews. They had a common morality. When Jesus opponents tried to circumvent that morality with elaborate legal schemes he called them on it. By the way, Jesus never said anything about incest, bestiality or child sacrifice, does that mean these are acceptable?
Paul mentions homosexual behavior, because as he spread the gospel to the Gentiles, he needed to talk about it because this behavior was acceptable and even celebrated in the Roman world. So, just has God had tell the people, “don’t be like the nations around you,” Paul had to say the same things to the Gentiles who were responding to the message of the gospel.

The gospel – the good news of Jesus Christ – is open to “whosoever will” but for those who accept the invitation a commitment is required. Commitment is to align their lives with the life of Jesus Christ. That means that sinner – liars, gossips, adulterers, murders, those involved with pornography, slanderers, those who practice pre-marital sex and homosexual sex have a choice to make: do I choose to follow my own desires or those of my Lord and Savior?

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

– Matthew 7:13–14 (ESV)

Do people struggle with behaviors which lead to sin? Of course, we all do. but the answer to that struggle is not to baptize it and call it acceptable, but to speak the truth and support those who are trying to align their lives with the life of Jesus Christ. Except, perhaps those who are struggling with rape and murder.

Dr. Ben Witherington, III has an excellent video which addresses the biblical material on this matter.

…and heaven too!

By admin

On March 20, 2011

In Observations, Relationships, Theoloical Thoughts

I had an interesting conversation with a physician on Saturday. I went in for some help with my allergies. As I always do I took a book with me to read while Ia waited.

My conversation with this physician lasted all of 1 minute (you know what it is like in the examining room). After he gave me some prescriptions he asked my why I was a Christian since there were all kinds of religions out there. I said that I had come to believe that Christianity was true. He asked, “How can you say that when people of other religions claim that their way is true, after all they are all just people who think they something about God"?

I said that a lot of people have notions about the world and God, but they can’t all be true. Some people think you can cure diabetes with roots and herbs, but that doesn’t mean it is true. I have come to see that the worldview of the Bible is the only one that makes sense out of life and if you always seek the truth you will find it leads you to Christ.

He asked another question which is the motivation for this post: “Why do you want to go to heaven, when you get there, there is nothing to do?”

That is the one thing that most people boil Christianity down to, going to heaven. We go to heaven, preach the gospel and spend all kinds of money so we can get people into heaven.

Don’t get me wrong, I want to go to heaven and I agree with Paul that, “If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor 15:19).

But I am a Christian not just because of heaven. I am a Christian because of what Christ has done in me and because of what he makes possible in this world. I am a Christian because

I have been freed from the guilt of my past and given a new life
Through Christ every relationship in my life can be better
Through Christ I can offer hope to others
Through Christ I can be healed in many spheres of my life
The Christian worldview makes the most sense of the world
It lifts up the dignity of every human being
Because it is true

I am a Christian for all of these reasons and more and in addition to all of this there is heaven too!!

WordPress Tags: heaven,conversation,physician,allergies,room,prescriptions,Christian,kinds,religions,notions,Some,herbs,Bible,life,truth,Christ,motivation,money,Paul,guilt,Through,relationship,spheres,addition,worldview