the Eclectic Soul

Why I Love This Man...

Back in the early nineties I was introduced to the writings of Brennan Manning when someone gave me a copy of the Ragamuffin Gospel.  Needless to say, that book transformed my life to such a degree that when my first son was born, I named him Brennan.

If you haven't ever read anything by Brennan Manning, I suggest with everything that I am that you go and buy everything that he's ever read!

Listen to what he writes in his latest book, The Furious Longing of God:

"Jesus said you are to love one another as I have loved you, a love that will probably lead to the bloody, anguished gift of yourself; a love that forgives seventy times seven, that keeps no score of wrongdoing. Jesus said this, this love, is the one criterion, the sole norm, the standard of discipleship in the New Israel of God.  He said you're going to be identified as his disciples, not because of your church-going, Bible-toting, or song-singing.  No, you'll be identified as his by one sign only: the deep and delicate respect for one another, the cordial love impregnated with reverence for the sacred dimension of the human personality of the mysterious substitution of Christ for the Christian...if we as a Christian community took seriously that the sign of our love for Jesus is our love for one another, I am convinced it would change the world.  We're denying to the world the one witness Jesus asked for: Love  one another as I've loved  you (John 15.12)."

--Brennan Manning, The Furious Longing of God, pp. 86, 89

New Toy...

Just got a new iPhone.  Yep, been saving my pennies for months now and am just getting into all amazing things that this little gadget can do.

Just wondering for all you iPhone users out there: What case do you use?  I've really had good luck with the Agent18 line for my iPod.  

What say you?

Share the joy!

Peace,

E

All I Can is say Oooooo - Ahhhhhhhhhh

I will not lust
I will not lust
I will not lust
I will not envy
I will not envy
I will not envy
etc...

The Blue Parakeet Takes Flight...

I recently volunteered to review Scot McKnight's latest offering, the Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible.  I must say, so far Mr. Mcknight hasn't disappointed yet!

We all, to one degree or another, pick and choose when it comes to biblical interpretation and application; that is to say that we all approach the text with a bias and and list of presuppositions that we believe about any given text or even the Bible as a whole.  The problem, McKnight suggests, is that we don't often understand why we do it, or even that we do it.  He cites in his opening introduction the pithy statement that I too share a great disdain for and yet it appears on many a car's rear bumper as it chugs down the highway [often at speeds exceeding the local speed limits]: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"  To be sure, we may have our own rationale for approaching the text like we do, but it often simply reinforces our own biases. 

McKnight lets us in on his primordial journey into the Christian faith as along the way he encountered people who "said" that they "believed" that the Bible should be taken literally.  The problem was for McKNight, and for many of us, that many people who hold this stand don't back it up with how they live their lives.  Simply the fruit wasn't ever brought to bear upon their belief.

McKinght cites example after example of how we approach the Bible with certain assumptions about what we believe is applicable and why.

For Mcknight, the solution is twofold:  1.  Admit our biases and accept them for what they are.  2.  As the deeper question of how it is that we should live out the Bible today. 

I would call this endeavor a movement towards a authentic and consistent hermeneutic. 

In the second part of the intro, McKnight unpacks for us the metaphor for the book's title:  his backyard encounter with a once tame but now wild blue Parakeet that is reeking havoc on its unsuspecting species-mates the sparrows.  For McKnight, this blue Parakeet at first is an anomaly and then becomes an influence that changes the dynamic of the entire pecking order around the bird feeder [pardon the pun].  Foe becomes friend, but only forever under a cloud of anxious suspicion as the sparrows are never quiet sure they can trust their new found friend.  Yet the parakeet is allowed to be true to who he [or she] is.

While there are numerous ways to read the Scriptures, McKinght suggests that there are three that servve as a good starting point to begin discussion.  He suggests that we as readers might: Read to Retrieve; Read Through Tradition; Read With Tradition.  Let me explain.

Read to Retrieve:
McKnight states on page 25:  "Some of us have been taught to read the Bible in such as way that we return to the times of the Bible in order to retrieve biblical ideas and practices for today"  He goes on to suggest that we do this as a whole or in select parts that we the reader believe to be important.

I liken this to doing an autopsy on a living being.  We strip mine the Scriptures to find the "essence" of a given text simply so that we can take it and attempt to make it fit into our day, time, and culture.

Reading Through Tradition:
McKnight states on page 29 that they Reading Through Tradition folks feel that, "ordinary people need to learn to read the Bible through tradition or they will misread the Bible and create schisms in the church."  The caution he suggests is that we need to make sure that we are not simply reading the Bible with a "whatever I believe the text says is what it says" mentality. 

Biblical interpretation is not done in a vacuum and we need to make sure that we test our hypothesis with the history of ecclesilogical interpretation.  But the other danger is that we can make one tradition "truer" than another.  Tradition therefore trumps interpretation and we end up reading the Scriptures solely through the lens of our tradition which leads to what McKnight calls traditionalism: "the inflexible, don't-ask-questions-do-it-the way-it-has-always-been-done approach to bible reading." [p.31]

Reading With Tradition:
Again, McKnight: "We dare not ignore what God has said to the church through the ages, nor dare we fossilize past interpretation into traditionalism.  Instead we need to go back to the Bible so we can move forward through the church and speak God's Word in our days in our ways." [p. 34]

For McKnight, although the Bible is written within the context of a given culture and time period, it is not bound and limited.  That is to say that although we need some element of reading to retrieve and some element of reading through tradition to grasp the full bodied meaning of the Scriptures, we must allow the Bible the freedom to speak to our day and time in a way that is authentic, true, consistent, and yet fresh.

Rob Bell, in my opinion has said something similar in his book Velvet Elvis when he uses the metaphor of doctrine [read tradition] as "springs" or "bricks."  One is dynamic and the other static.  How we interpret those two will say a lot about how we interpret Scripture.  Does the past great tradition of the church serve to propel us forward like springs.  Or does it serve as firm unmovable fossilized traditions that don't have the flexibility for us to build upon them.

Make no mistake, McKnight, in my opinion, is not one who takes a low view of the Scriptures at all.  In fact like most orthodox [small on the "o"] followers of Jesus, the Scriptures are for him still awarded primacy in all things.  Yet there is a sense in which we must approach them with a freshness and humility if we are to do justice to what the Scriptures actually say.

Well, those are some thoughts.  More to come as I move through the chapters.

Peace,

E

Book Review: Blue Parakeet

Just got my advance copy of Scot McKnight's latest offering, the Blue Parakeet [it's slated for a November release but you can pre-order here].  In the coming days I'll be reviewing it chapter by chapter.  Stay tuned...

Peace,

E

Do You Believe In Miracles?

Well do you? 

In an AP article entitled, Many Think God's Interventions Can Revive the Dying, Lindsey Tanner explores the nebulous and sometimes tenuous landscape of faith and medicine. 

Of course to the post-Enlightenment rational mind miracles are largely disavowed since they cannot be explained scientifically.  Yet there have been plenty of recorded medical miracles that would seem to assert that on specific occasions the science will just not add up.

Part of the challenge is that I think that we often define a miracle much to narrowly.  For many a miracle is a person who lost a limb growing a new one, or someone who had been declared dead in every way suddenly reanimating back to the land of the living.  But how about the single parent who gets up every day and plays both mother and father to three children, works two jobs and volunteers in a variety of civic or religious institutions and manages not to curse God for their life's circumstances.  I think miracles happen every day but we have just become so sedated to life and so consumed with our own ability to do and be.

I remember the day I found out that my 30-year-old brother had died.  I rushed to the hospital praying all the way that perhaps his death was a mistake.  Upon arrival I was taken back to the room where he was laid out.  I remember wanting to beat on his chest and tell him to get up, and then screaming internally to God, "You can do this God!  It's easy for you!  Bring my brother back to life!"

Do I believe that God could have done it?  With all my heart. 

I remember last August when the phone call came that informed me that my best friend died at the ripe old age of 36.  Oh how I anguished and shook my fists at God.  Could God have saved him.  I believe it without a doubt.  It seemed so senseless.  Then a few weeks later his youngest son came down with the same [treatable disease].  It was his father's sickness and eventual death that might have well been the key to saving his son's life.  Could God have saved both of them?  I believe without a doubt!

I think part of our western struggle comes not from a belief in the miraculous but from our sense of entitlement.  After all, we are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, aren't we.  The truth is: we are entitled to nothing.  Life is a gift.  A gift to be used to serve and love our neighbor and the marginalized.  Yet most of our lives are fixated on consumption and self gratification.  Perhaps the reason that we don't see miracles more is that we have forgotten how to live humbly. 

Have you ever wondered why we hear of so many miracles happening in 3rd world countries?  It's hard to be too proud [and I am using the term proud in an negative prideful way] when you are looking up from the bottom.  The poor and the marginalized are hungry, desperate, and willing to risk being misunderstood.  Perhaps that's why the majority of Jesus' miracles were done among the poor, disenfranchised and marginalized of his day.  They we're hungry for something that the rest of the power brokers of Jesus' had largely lost their appetite for awed by the miraculousness of their own ability to self-sooth and self-medicate with wealth, position, and power.

The Associated Press article quotes Pat Loder of my home state and locale.  Pam went through the mind numbing and soul wrenching agony of losing two small children to a freak accident; something I cannot imagine enduring.  While she clung to the belief that God could heal her children, sadly and tragically both of them ended up succumbing to their injuries.  When asked about her belief in miracles now, Pat says something incredibly insightful. " I have become more of a realist....I know that none of us are immune from anything."  Friends, I don't take that to mean that Pat has lost her faith.  Perhaps through her encountering with an unimaginable suffering she has encountered the One who suffered unimaginably for her and her two beautiful children.

Do I believe in miracles...without question!  In fact I'm praying right now for a young man named Todd.  And, I would ask you to please join me in praying for him.  I've been playing the song "Healer" all afternoon in the background on iTunes.  It is one of the most powerful songs I have heard in a long long time.

Peace,

Eric

Fixed Hour Prayer....

For a while now I have used multiple methods to keep my spiritual life alive and flourishing.  Usually it involves spending sometime reading the Scriptures daily and making use of a prayer journal.

Over the last several years I've become increasingly aware of this practice of fixed hour prayer.  Guided by a prayerbook, alone or preferably in community, an individual or group of individuals marks time throughout the day with "fixed" short periods of prayer. 

There are a good number of excellent prayer books out there and my good friend Alan has recommended some helpful ones on his blog.  For me though, I wanted something beefy; something with bulk and muscle.  Over the last year I used the Episcopal two-volume Daily Office, which was pretty good.  This year I made the switch to using the Catholic four-volume Liturgy of the Hours.  Structured by the liturgical seasons the LOH offers both readings form the Scriptures and the early church fathers and mothers all in one portable volume [you only use one at a time].  Sure there are some places where you are asking to pray for the Pope and Bishops, but what I find myself doing, in addition to praying for them, is to pray for my own denominational leaders.

So I've been experimenting with guided prayer at 6 a.m., noon, and 8 p.m. [after my kids go to bed].  Actually, with fixed hour prayer, the ideal is to prayer every 3 hours: 6, 9 [a.m.], noon, 3, 6, 9 [p.m.] and then if you're truly spiritual wake up you wake up in the middle of the night to pray [guess I'm not truly spiritual].

If you haven't tried it let me encourage you to check out some of these really helpful resources.  Since my good friend Alan has already made the effort to compile a fine list, just link to his blog to get started.

Peace,

E

The Center of God's Will

Was sitting at the local St. Arbucks today enjoying a great cup of coffee and reading Tony Jones' The New Christians [if you haven't bought it, stop reading this post now and purchase it here] when one of the baristas that I've gotten to know over the last few months sits down with me on his break.

He recently graduated from the local University and is currently hanging around in the area working for Starbucks and investing heavily in his church.  We talked about the usually post-graduation stuff like what he's going to do and where he might want to do it, when he talked about wanting to be in the center of God's will for his life.

I've always wondered where the center of God's will is, what it looks like, and why people feel as though its so narrow.  Somtimes I get the feeling that people are so afraid to act because if they don't "hear" from God directly and correctly, they might miss "God's Best" for them, another phrase that has puzzled me frankly.  I always was under the impression that God had already given us God's best in the gift of his son Jesus.

Maybe I'm just mincing words, but sometimes I wonder if people in the Beloved Community called the church simply embrace their own fears, anxieties or apathy by spending more time waiting for the "center of God's will" instead of joining God in what God is already doing in the world. It seems to me that the "center of God's will" seems to anywhere and anytime we as God's followers join in the mission of God in the world by living the Kingdom in Hope in front of a world that by and large feels hopeless; by loving the unloved, and clothing the poor and naked and advocating for the marginalized, and living into our role as God's image bearers.

Peace,

E

Doin' Business At Communion...

 Today in my denominational tributary we celebrated the sacrament of Holy Communion.  As those who harken from the tribe of United Methodists, we believe communion to be just that a sacred moment.  It's often amazed, saddened, and frustrated me by the way I've had so many people attempt to do "business" with me during this sacred moment.

Here are just some of the examples; mind you all of these are prefaced by my, or another officiants saying; "the body and blood of Christ, broken and shed for you that you may have life..."

..."I won' t be at Monday's meeting."

..."we're going on vacation, see you in a week or so."

..."did you know ______ is in the hospital?"

..."there's a burgundy van in the parking lot with the door left open."

..."would you like to do lunch after the service?"

These are actual things I've heard, or at least heard of, during the sacrament of Holy Communion.  All this to say is this:  I wonder what  [not to mention who] it is that we are thinking about as we approach the table of Jesus?  Are we remembering his great sacrifice for us?  Are we pausing to be grateful for all that God has done for , in, through, us because of Jesus?

I'm not against doing business in the church, in fact, I would suggest that there is indeed business that we need to be about as we prepare ourselves to receive the sacrament, but perhaps we should reserve other business for other times than the Eucharist.

Peace,

E

I Don't Agree With Mr. Colson

Chuck Colson in his latest BreakPoint commentary reviews William Young's The Shack. If you haven't heard about the book yet, you soon will.

The story is a powerful journey through one man's grief in the midst of a relationship the Triune God.

Now mind you, I thought some of the dialogue was a bit hokey and when God appeared as an Aunt Jemima type figure I had to pause for just a minute. This is one of the things that Colson reacts to.

In the western mind God "The Father" has always been understood with masculine stereotypes and there is much scriptural warrant for this. But we must understand that gender is specificially a "creature characteristic." That is to say that God, whom we address as "Father," transcends and is in and of Godself not limited to gender. I still use the term "Father" for God. I think it is important for several reasons: 1. It's personal; 2. It's the term Jesus used; 3. It's support by the majority of the canon and orthodox church history. When Colson reacts so strongly to God "the Father" being revealed as a motherly figure I believe he feels it is an attack against Christian orthodoxy. I do not believe it to be so.

We must understand that for God to interact with human beings God has chosen to limit Godself in order that we might relate with God. We see this most clearly of course in the incarnation. For those who don't agree see Moses encounter with God on the mountain.

To be sure God isn't our buddy or pal, but God is an intimate friend. Too often I fear God gets depicted as a stern authority figure who is perpetually ticked off and whose son Jesus begs him to give his kids a break . And, God can only do this by unleashing all hell on his son. Let me be clear. The Scriptures are unified in their understanding that God takes no pleasure in wrath. But on the same hand I understand that there are consequences that come from arrogance and disobedience [again lets leave room for multiple understandings of atonement because multiple understandings are both Scriptural and needed].

But like any parent, I think we need to remember that this comes as a last resort. In Matthew 7.10-12 Jesus compares God to human parents thus implying, "if you broken and evil people know how to care for your children and love them. Don't you think your heavenly father can do at least as good as you?" [I'll grant you here that the context of the conversation is prayer. But if this is representative of how God loves those who ask, does his love extent any less to other areas of how God relates?].

Colson also goes on to say that he believes the author has a low opinion of the Scriptures and cites two entries that I found puzzling as to how they relate to his point. Then he says this:

The Bible, it seems, is just one among many equally valid ways in which God reveals Himself. And, we are told, the Bible is not about rules and principles; it is about relationship.

That's exactly the problem with how modernism has handled the Scriptures: as a rule book to mine for principles. The entire narrative of the Scriptures is about a God who purses a broken and rebellious humanity precisely TO have relationship with them. Come on Chuck!

What Colson in my opinion leaves out of his review is the insightful treatment of what theologians have called theodicy or the problem of pain and the goodness of God. There are some incredible insights in this book about the grace of God and God's steadfast love.

Colson goes on to suggest that we not be comfortable with The Shacks depiction of God and our presumptions about God either. He writes: "As Papa warns Mack, God is not who Mack expects He is. But He is also not what our creative imaginations make Him to be either." But I cannot help but wonder if Mr. Colson feels that he has God all too figured out himself.

Is the book great? Well, no. Frankly I didn't care for some of the writing and some of the depictions of God were a bit hokey. Is it heretical? In my opinion no. No more than Pilgrims Progress anyway. It's a book that's definitely worth the read and the discussion.

I'm not about being controversial but my dander goes up when we simply begin boycotting things because of our own personal opinions. This book is not going to destroy any ones theology any more than reading the local newspaper. I guess I'm on day two of laryngitis and I'm getting irritable.

Peace,
E