Reading Plan Text for June 30: John 20:11-18
Angels here. Angels there. Angels everywhere. Paging Dr. Suess!
They just appear in the tomb. They even sound a lot like Jesus: "Woman," just like Jesus addressed his mother. "Woman, why are you weeping?" What is it with Marys and angels? Just like Jesus' mother when Gabriel shows up unannounced, Mary Magdalene doesn't seem fazed in the least. They show up out of thin air, and she simply tells them why she's crying.
And once she turns around, the angels disappear from the story. Was there even a purpose for them to be there? If they are messengers, they have remarkably little--to announce. Or maybe they are the heralds with their trumpets announcing the arrival of the king.
And there he is, although Mary first mistakes him for a gardener. Jesus whole and and alive, standing before her. He sends Mary to tell the other disciples what has happened. She becomes his messenger, the first bearer of the good news to the world.
Peace,
Jeffri
Monday, June 30, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: Seeing For Ourselves
Reading Plan Text for June 27: John 20:1-10
Mary Magdalene arrives to find an open tomb. She does not look inside but runs immediately to Peter and the Disciple "whom Jesus loved," telling them that "they" have taken Jesus' body. There are two "theys" who would have done this, and possibly three. The first they that this little group would have thought of was the Jewish religious leaders. The second would be grave robbers. The third possible "they" was the Roman officials, perhaps Pilate tweaking the noses of the Jewish leaders.
The two men race--literally--to the tomb. The Beloved Disciple arrives first. Burridge reminds us that if this individual is the witness writing, or telling, this Gospel, the he is quite a bit younger than Peter. However, when he arrives, he waits respectfully just outside the tomb waiting for Peter. Peter enters first and sees the empty linen wrappings. The Beloved Disciple follows, sees the wrappings and believes. The possibility that there is no "they" begins to dawn on the Disciples. But neither Disciple really understands, and they return to their homes leaving Mary at the tomb.
Some theories claim that Mary Magdalene was the Beloved Disciple. Clearly, according to John, that is not the case. These theorists will go on to claim that because she was a woman, the writer of the gospel created another male disciple to fill that role. That seems far fetched given the role Mary Magdalene plays in the resurrection stories of all four gospels. Nor does John show the other disciples disbelieving Mary's story. I don't think John is telling us that Peter and the Beloved Disciple disbelieve Mary. A disaster has happened. Mary has gone to the most obvious people to inform. Their teacher's body has been stolen. The human need to see the scene of the crime, so to speak, kicks in, and the two men race to the empty tomb.
Peter and the Beloved Disciple did what most of us would have done. We all have the need to see for ourselves. Over two thousand years later, we still have to rely on their reports as recorded by those who heard it second, third, fourth, and even fifth hand.
And we still wish we could see it for ourselves.
Peace,
Jeffri
Mary Magdalene arrives to find an open tomb. She does not look inside but runs immediately to Peter and the Disciple "whom Jesus loved," telling them that "they" have taken Jesus' body. There are two "theys" who would have done this, and possibly three. The first they that this little group would have thought of was the Jewish religious leaders. The second would be grave robbers. The third possible "they" was the Roman officials, perhaps Pilate tweaking the noses of the Jewish leaders.
The two men race--literally--to the tomb. The Beloved Disciple arrives first. Burridge reminds us that if this individual is the witness writing, or telling, this Gospel, the he is quite a bit younger than Peter. However, when he arrives, he waits respectfully just outside the tomb waiting for Peter. Peter enters first and sees the empty linen wrappings. The Beloved Disciple follows, sees the wrappings and believes. The possibility that there is no "they" begins to dawn on the Disciples. But neither Disciple really understands, and they return to their homes leaving Mary at the tomb.
Some theories claim that Mary Magdalene was the Beloved Disciple. Clearly, according to John, that is not the case. These theorists will go on to claim that because she was a woman, the writer of the gospel created another male disciple to fill that role. That seems far fetched given the role Mary Magdalene plays in the resurrection stories of all four gospels. Nor does John show the other disciples disbelieving Mary's story. I don't think John is telling us that Peter and the Beloved Disciple disbelieve Mary. A disaster has happened. Mary has gone to the most obvious people to inform. Their teacher's body has been stolen. The human need to see the scene of the crime, so to speak, kicks in, and the two men race to the empty tomb.
Peter and the Beloved Disciple did what most of us would have done. We all have the need to see for ourselves. Over two thousand years later, we still have to rely on their reports as recorded by those who heard it second, third, fourth, and even fifth hand.
And we still wish we could see it for ourselves.
Peace,
Jeffri
As The Teapot Turns
I'm back from spending a week with my brother's family. For the first part of the week it was just me and my nephews, as my brother and sister-in-law were away for a few days. My niece stopped by one evening for dinner. It was a lazy week. We spent afternoons at the pool, played Carcassonne, watched TV, and read books. Well, the boys watched TV. I read a lot.
And I spent nearly an entire week away from the Anglican Tempest in a Teapot. The oldest nephew's laptop couldn't hold its wireless connection, and the desktop has a very slow modem connection. With two teenagers and a ten-year-old in the house, "Uncle Older Guy" didn't have much of a chance to get online to check email, the blogs, or news of things Anglican after the "GAFCON 8" story.
Not much has changed. Well, a statement was issued by the GAFCON participants--or at least their leaders. The statement has been dissected, parsed, and rehashed by just about everyone. Bishop Bennison has been found guilty. And Anglican bishops around the globe are preparing to depart for the Lambeth Conference.
Before I left for my brother's, I wrote four of the Lambeth Bible Studies and scheduled them to be published. It's a neat feature of Blogger. I didn't finish the one for last Friday, figuring I could finish it during the week. I guess it's a good thing I wrote the other four ahead, given the computer situation...
So now I will finish Friday's Bible Study, write today's and tomorrow's. Then I'll take some time and look at the blogs to catch up on the tempest in the teapot.
Maybe...
Peace,
Jeffri
And I spent nearly an entire week away from the Anglican Tempest in a Teapot. The oldest nephew's laptop couldn't hold its wireless connection, and the desktop has a very slow modem connection. With two teenagers and a ten-year-old in the house, "Uncle Older Guy" didn't have much of a chance to get online to check email, the blogs, or news of things Anglican after the "GAFCON 8" story.
Not much has changed. Well, a statement was issued by the GAFCON participants--or at least their leaders. The statement has been dissected, parsed, and rehashed by just about everyone. Bishop Bennison has been found guilty. And Anglican bishops around the globe are preparing to depart for the Lambeth Conference.
Before I left for my brother's, I wrote four of the Lambeth Bible Studies and scheduled them to be published. It's a neat feature of Blogger. I didn't finish the one for last Friday, figuring I could finish it during the week. I guess it's a good thing I wrote the other four ahead, given the computer situation...
So now I will finish Friday's Bible Study, write today's and tomorrow's. Then I'll take some time and look at the blogs to catch up on the tempest in the teapot.
Maybe...
Peace,
Jeffri
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: Coming Out
Reading Plan Text for June 26: John 19:35-42
The Disciples, with the exceptions of Judas and the "one whom Jesus loved," are nowhere to be found. Jesus is dead. The one disciple is comforting Jesus' mother, not to mention trying to deal with his own grief and shock. The Jewish leaders still hover--they asked that the crucified men's legs be broken to hasten their deaths. This is not a particularly safe time to be identified as one of Jesus' followers.
Yet two who have remained hidden to a great extent come forward.
And then
As a gay man--an Out gay man--I understand what it took for these two men step out into the open and publicly identify themselves as followers of Jesus by word and action. I know the feeling of liberation when the hiding is over. And like these two, I learned that not every reaction to Coming--and being--Out is negative or violent. Pilate gives Joseph permission to take Jesus' body for burial. Joseph and Nicodemus prepare the body and place it in the tomb unmolested. That is not to say that others will not experience the violence and hatred, as we see when we read about the stoning of Stephen in Acts.
Joseph and Nicodemus have entered a new life, and not because Jesus died, and will rise, for them and all of us. They have entered a new life of freedom in part because of their own actions. Even as we grieve with them, I rejoice for them.
Peace,
Jeffri
The Disciples, with the exceptions of Judas and the "one whom Jesus loved," are nowhere to be found. Jesus is dead. The one disciple is comforting Jesus' mother, not to mention trying to deal with his own grief and shock. The Jewish leaders still hover--they asked that the crucified men's legs be broken to hasten their deaths. This is not a particularly safe time to be identified as one of Jesus' followers.
Yet two who have remained hidden to a great extent come forward.
Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one because of his fear of the Jews, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission; so he came and removed his body. (19:38)In spite of that fear, Joseph approaches Pilate. For whatever reason, he has decided that he can no longer remain hidden. It is time to declare himself publicly.
And then
Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. (19:39)We have seen Nicodemus speak up for Jesus at a meeting of the Jewish religious officials, but he did not exactly declare himself a follower. Yet now he comes openly to assist Joseph with the burial of Jesus.
As a gay man--an Out gay man--I understand what it took for these two men step out into the open and publicly identify themselves as followers of Jesus by word and action. I know the feeling of liberation when the hiding is over. And like these two, I learned that not every reaction to Coming--and being--Out is negative or violent. Pilate gives Joseph permission to take Jesus' body for burial. Joseph and Nicodemus prepare the body and place it in the tomb unmolested. That is not to say that others will not experience the violence and hatred, as we see when we read about the stoning of Stephen in Acts.
Joseph and Nicodemus have entered a new life, and not because Jesus died, and will rise, for them and all of us. They have entered a new life of freedom in part because of their own actions. Even as we grieve with them, I rejoice for them.
Peace,
Jeffri
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: Interpretations
Reading Plan Text for June 25: John 19:31-35
After talking a little bit yesterday about interpreting Scripture, I am going to quote the third section of Burridge's commentary for today in its entirety.
All of that out of four short verses of Scripture (19:31-34)!
Peace,
Jeffri
After talking a little bit yesterday about interpreting Scripture, I am going to quote the third section of Burridge's commentary for today in its entirety.
As often, there are many interpretations of John's deeper meaning for the blood and water. Since Jesus dies as the true Passover lamb, blood recalls how the lamb's blood was sprinkled by the priests (2 Chron. 35:11). On the other hand, water recalls Jesus' promise that out of his koilia, heart or chest, will flow 'streams of living water', which John interpreted as the giving of the Spirit after he had been glorified in death (7:38-39). Some early Fathers saw here the two-fold baptism of water and baptism of blood, or martyrdom, faced by their people in the persecutions. Others interpret it as the Lord's gift of the two sacraments: water for baptism, and blood for the wine of communion. We have noted the connection of water with baptism and the Spirit before (e.g., 3:5; 7:38-39), while blood comes only in the discourse about eading his flesh and drinking his blood (6:53-56). After the hints of bread and wine, vines and cups through John's account of Jesus' last night and day, another reference to the sacraments here is very possible.
The mystery of Jesus' death on the cross for us is so deep that none of these interpretations will ever fully exhaust it. We can only stand at the foot of the corss, like the disciple who witnessed it (19:35)--and marvel. From that messy, all to human death pours a flood of spiritual benefits of forgiveness and new life in the Spirit, freely given to us and to all God's people. (p. 225)
All of that out of four short verses of Scripture (19:31-34)!
Peace,
Jeffri
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: Jesus Loved
Reading Plan Text for June 24: John 19:25-30
Only in John do we have this conversation between Jesus and those gathered at the foot of the cross. It is another one of those little details John likes to include without a great deal of explanation. Jesus loved all his Disciples, but these words indicate a special fondness for the unnamed one “whom Jesus loved,” who later is also identified as the writer of this Gospel. The bond was special enough that he gave his mother (who is never named in John’s Gospel) into this particular Disciple’s care.
Over the past few decades some commentators have taken this passages to indicate that Jesus had a same-sex relationship with the Disciple whom he loved. Predictably, this brings howls of outrage from conservative Christians—and even some liberal ones. And even if these two men did have a physical relationship, I’m relatively certain it was not writer’s intention to indicate that they did. It is much more likely that this description has to do with validating the writer’s witness and authority in the Johanine community. And perhaps the community’s tradition was that Jesus’ mother was one of their own, and this scene at the cross tells them how that came to be.
However, one cannot escape the conclusion that a special relationship existed between these two men. If nothing else, it is one of the few purely human attributes John gives his characterization of Jesus. Jesus loved another human being, an individual human being. Can we read a sexual component into it? People have been interpreting things from Scripture that are not explicitly in the text probably since before it was in written form! Jewish Midrash is a tradition of interpretation. Engaging Scripture in this way enriches our understanding of Scripture. It brings us into the story. It gives us the opportunity for new insights.
Jesus loved someone special. Amen. Amen.
Peace,
Jeffri
Only in John do we have this conversation between Jesus and those gathered at the foot of the cross. It is another one of those little details John likes to include without a great deal of explanation. Jesus loved all his Disciples, but these words indicate a special fondness for the unnamed one “whom Jesus loved,” who later is also identified as the writer of this Gospel. The bond was special enough that he gave his mother (who is never named in John’s Gospel) into this particular Disciple’s care.
Over the past few decades some commentators have taken this passages to indicate that Jesus had a same-sex relationship with the Disciple whom he loved. Predictably, this brings howls of outrage from conservative Christians—and even some liberal ones. And even if these two men did have a physical relationship, I’m relatively certain it was not writer’s intention to indicate that they did. It is much more likely that this description has to do with validating the writer’s witness and authority in the Johanine community. And perhaps the community’s tradition was that Jesus’ mother was one of their own, and this scene at the cross tells them how that came to be.However, one cannot escape the conclusion that a special relationship existed between these two men. If nothing else, it is one of the few purely human attributes John gives his characterization of Jesus. Jesus loved another human being, an individual human being. Can we read a sexual component into it? People have been interpreting things from Scripture that are not explicitly in the text probably since before it was in written form! Jewish Midrash is a tradition of interpretation. Engaging Scripture in this way enriches our understanding of Scripture. It brings us into the story. It gives us the opportunity for new insights.
Jesus loved someone special. Amen. Amen.
Peace,
Jeffri
Monday, June 23, 2008
GAFCON: Blowing Smoke
This evening I logged on to check email and found the Anglican Blogosphere had exploded with the news that eight people had been banned from GAFCON by its organizers. Apparently, Ruth Gledhill first reported this news. It has since spread like wildfire. It has even prompted the creation of a Facebook page.
The banned individuals are Bishop Robert O'Neill of Colorado; Mr. Davis MacIyalla, Director of Changing Attitude Nigeria; The Rev. Colin Coward of Changing Attitude in England; the Rev. Susan Russell, President of Integrity USA; the Rev. Scott Gunn; Mr. Louie Crew, founder of Integrity; Mrs. Deborah Edmunds, the personal assistant of Bishop Suheil Dawani of Jerusalem; and the Rev. Robert Edmunds, Bishop Dawani's chaplain.
As yet, there is no mention of the banning on the GAFCON website.
Here is The Guardian's report on recent happenings at the conference... ummmm...pilgrimage. Take a look at Archbishop Akinola's opening remarks. He doesn't seem to have anything new to say. Not enough real news, or nothing really newsworthy? Maybe we can create some buzz if we ban some people from the...ummm...pilgrimage. As I read through the multitude of blogs and news stories I found that this idea also occurred to Jim Naughton of The Lead.
On the other hand, as any good magician knows, distract the audience's attention with one hand while the other hand does the mechanics of the magic trick. Here is Mark Harris' analysis. Let's not be distracted by the smoke being blown.
Peace,
Jeffri
The banned individuals are Bishop Robert O'Neill of Colorado; Mr. Davis MacIyalla, Director of Changing Attitude Nigeria; The Rev. Colin Coward of Changing Attitude in England; the Rev. Susan Russell, President of Integrity USA; the Rev. Scott Gunn; Mr. Louie Crew, founder of Integrity; Mrs. Deborah Edmunds, the personal assistant of Bishop Suheil Dawani of Jerusalem; and the Rev. Robert Edmunds, Bishop Dawani's chaplain.
As yet, there is no mention of the banning on the GAFCON website.
Here is The Guardian's report on recent happenings at the conference... ummmm...pilgrimage. Take a look at Archbishop Akinola's opening remarks. He doesn't seem to have anything new to say. Not enough real news, or nothing really newsworthy? Maybe we can create some buzz if we ban some people from the...ummm...pilgrimage. As I read through the multitude of blogs and news stories I found that this idea also occurred to Jim Naughton of The Lead.
On the other hand, as any good magician knows, distract the audience's attention with one hand while the other hand does the mechanics of the magic trick. Here is Mark Harris' analysis. Let's not be distracted by the smoke being blown.
Peace,
Jeffri
Bible Study With The Bishops: Jesus On The Cross
Reading Plan Text for June 23: John 19:19-24
The Crucifixion. John’s account lacks many of the details found in the Synoptic Gospels. Burridge reminds us “John stresses that Jesus is in control throughout the Passion..” (p. 220). Pilate, however, is able to have the last word with the Jewish religious leaders. They object to what he wrote, in three languages, on the placard: Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.
Here is the kind of depiction we're accustomed to in most artwork.
Here is Carivaggio's ECCE Homo. Note how calm and serene Jesus is, showing none of the effects of his flogging.
Clothing on the crucified Jesus appears even in early depictions, as in this 8th century icon.
This poster shows a Jesus who looks like he works out at least three times a week!
Poking around on the internet, I actually found a naked Jesus on the cross--a little known work by Michaelangelo.
This next "sculpture," done in 1801 by James Legg, is rather gruesome. It was
The Crucifixion. John’s account lacks many of the details found in the Synoptic Gospels. Burridge reminds us “John stresses that Jesus is in control throughout the Passion..” (p. 220). Pilate, however, is able to have the last word with the Jewish religious leaders. They object to what he wrote, in three languages, on the placard: Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.
“Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but, ‘This man said, I am King of the Jews.’” Pilate answered, “What I have written I have written.” (19:21-22)In his discussion of the soldiers dividing up Jesus’ garments, Burridge tells us, “Part of the humiliation was being executed naked in public view.” (p. 221) Naked? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a naked Jesus on any crucifix I’ve encountered so far. Usually he is depicted wearing some sort of loincloth. And speaking of depictions of Jesus on the cross, have you ever really looked at them when you see them? The guy looks pretty good for someone who spent the last three years of his life wandering and then just endured a beating before being crucified. Clean, well fed, not a hair out of place… Clearly, some crucifixes show us the risen Christ, and others have different messages, but rarely do you see the full agony of crucifixion in them.
Here is the kind of depiction we're accustomed to in most artwork.
Here is Carivaggio's ECCE Homo. Note how calm and serene Jesus is, showing none of the effects of his flogging.
Clothing on the crucified Jesus appears even in early depictions, as in this 8th century icon.
This poster shows a Jesus who looks like he works out at least three times a week!
Poking around on the internet, I actually found a naked Jesus on the cross--a little known work by Michaelangelo.
This next "sculpture," done in 1801 by James Legg, is rather gruesome. It was
cast from the corpse of a murderer, taken straight from the gallows to be nailed to a cross and flayed in order to settle an artistic debate. Three Royal Academicians... conducted this experiment to prove their belief that most depictions of the Crucifixion were anatomically incorrect. " --The Royal Academy of Arts Website
And finally, here is Edwina Sandys' 1975 Christa.
All of these images are worth reflection and meditation.
Peace,
Jeffri
Friday, June 20, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: Who Was Pilate?
Reading Plan Text for June 20: John 19:9-15
At every turn throughout this entire encounter Pilate finds resistance and frustration. The Jewish religious leaders do not want Jesus released and stir up the crowd so that the threat of rioting looms. Jesus refuses to defend himself against the charges brought against him. Finally, Pilate tries one last time:
These last three posts have followed a similar theme. But no matter who the historical Pilate was, or who we think we see in the Gospels, the character of Pilate has a role in the drama John lays out before us. His actions in the story are as carefully and skillfully plotted as Peter's, Thomas', Judas', and those of everyone else who appears. John is not concerned with recording historical facts. This is the story of the Good News of Jesus the Christ as told to a particular community many years after the events recorded took place.
And now Pilate has one last action to take in this drama before he disappears from the stage.
Peace,
Jeffri
At every turn throughout this entire encounter Pilate finds resistance and frustration. The Jewish religious leaders do not want Jesus released and stir up the crowd so that the threat of rioting looms. Jesus refuses to defend himself against the charges brought against him. Finally, Pilate tries one last time:
"Shall I crucify your king?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but the emperor." (19:15)We have only three sources from which to draw a portrait of Pilate: the Gospels, the Jewish historian Josephus, and Philo of Alexandria's copy of a letter from Herod Agrippa to the Roman Emperor Caligula. None of them show Pilate in a good light. Essentially, Pilate was a political appointee serving at the whim of Caligula, who was notoriously cruel and unbalanced. The Jewish leaders know this and make an implied threat, saying
If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor." (19:12)Whether or not Pilate was a good or bad person, the deck is effectively stacked against him. He has run out of options.
These last three posts have followed a similar theme. But no matter who the historical Pilate was, or who we think we see in the Gospels, the character of Pilate has a role in the drama John lays out before us. His actions in the story are as carefully and skillfully plotted as Peter's, Thomas', Judas', and those of everyone else who appears. John is not concerned with recording historical facts. This is the story of the Good News of Jesus the Christ as told to a particular community many years after the events recorded took place.
And now Pilate has one last action to take in this drama before he disappears from the stage.
Peace,
Jeffri
Thursday, June 19, 2008
GAFCON Overload Has Begun
As we knew it would, stories about GAFCON are increasing exponentially in the Anglican blogosphere and religious (though primarily Anglican) media. My Google Reader GAFCON Google Blog Search has had as few as one post per day over the past couple of weeks. That started growing slowly beginning this week. Today it jumped to more than 30 blog posts found during the course of the day. It will only increase over the next week and a half as the so-called Pilgrimage gets underway on Sunday.
The rejectionists' spin, which began as soon as GAFCON was announced at the end of last year, now moves full speed ahead. Bloggers across the entire Anglican spectrum now parse every document, speech, and press release coming out of Jerusalem. Every time something comes up that I want to sit down, look through, and perhaps write about, has been sufficiently analyzed--and even shredded--before I have the chance. How does one compete with the likes of Elizabeth Kaeton, Father Jake, Mark Harris, Susan Russell, Matt Kennedy and Sarah Hey (not to mention countless others)?
Who knows, maybe some original inspiration will strike. Stay tuned, the tempest in the Anglican teapot just got a bit choppier!
Peace,
Jeffri
The rejectionists' spin, which began as soon as GAFCON was announced at the end of last year, now moves full speed ahead. Bloggers across the entire Anglican spectrum now parse every document, speech, and press release coming out of Jerusalem. Every time something comes up that I want to sit down, look through, and perhaps write about, has been sufficiently analyzed--and even shredded--before I have the chance. How does one compete with the likes of Elizabeth Kaeton, Father Jake, Mark Harris, Susan Russell, Matt Kennedy and Sarah Hey (not to mention countless others)?
Who knows, maybe some original inspiration will strike. Stay tuned, the tempest in the Anglican teapot just got a bit choppier!
Peace,
Jeffri
GAFCON SNAFUs
Actually, there are a couple.
First, the blogosphere is abuzz with the news that Archbishop Akinola was denied entry into Jordan.
The first report that came across my email lists seem to have been from this article on David Virtue's Virtue Online. Be aware that David puts a particular spin on his writing that is often disrespectful and quite frequently venemous. Nor is he the most reliable source for news.
The other early report was Ruth Gledhill's, which quoted Virtue Online as her source. In this case, David's story was backed up to a degree by this post on the GAFCON website.
With the pre-"Pilgrimage" planning meeting moved to Jerusalem, Thinking Anglicans provides a good overview of the whole story. They also point out an interesting scheduling glitch. It seems that Jerusalem Pride takes place on June 26th while all those good and faithful orthodox Anglicans are there. All those bishops who are boycotting the Lambeth Conference next month because of the "homosexual issue" are going to be face to face with a whole lot of lbgt folks. Will they be wearing special clothing to protect themselves from gay cooties?
Peace,
Jeffri
First, the blogosphere is abuzz with the news that Archbishop Akinola was denied entry into Jordan.
The first report that came across my email lists seem to have been from this article on David Virtue's Virtue Online. Be aware that David puts a particular spin on his writing that is often disrespectful and quite frequently venemous. Nor is he the most reliable source for news.
The other early report was Ruth Gledhill's, which quoted Virtue Online as her source. In this case, David's story was backed up to a degree by this post on the GAFCON website.
With the pre-"Pilgrimage" planning meeting moved to Jerusalem, Thinking Anglicans provides a good overview of the whole story. They also point out an interesting scheduling glitch. It seems that Jerusalem Pride takes place on June 26th while all those good and faithful orthodox Anglicans are there. All those bishops who are boycotting the Lambeth Conference next month because of the "homosexual issue" are going to be face to face with a whole lot of lbgt folks. Will they be wearing special clothing to protect themselves from gay cooties?
Peace,
Jeffri
Bible Study With The Bishops: What Would We Do?
Reading Plan Text for June 19: John 19:1-8
For the third time Pilate attempts to release Jesus. He has Jesus flogged, which according to Burridge is not the more serious scourging indicated in Matthew and Mark, and then mockingly dressed as a king. Perhaps he thought this would satisfy the Jewish leaders. The only thing it accomplishes is to draw the truth from them:
I wonder what one of us might do if we were Pilate?
Peace,
Jeffri
For the third time Pilate attempts to release Jesus. He has Jesus flogged, which according to Burridge is not the more serious scourging indicated in Matthew and Mark, and then mockingly dressed as a king. Perhaps he thought this would satisfy the Jewish leaders. The only thing it accomplishes is to draw the truth from them:
An interesting reaction, considering their statement clearly makes this an internal matter in which he need not involve himself. On the other hand, if he does not do what they ask, he will have a riot to contend with, or the Jewish leaders will tell Rome of his inaction, or both. What's a governor to do?We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God.
Now when Pilate heard this, he was more afraid than ever. (19:7-8)
I wonder what one of us might do if we were Pilate?
Peace,
Jeffri
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: Pilate's Choice
Reading Plan Text for June 18: John 18:29-40
The Jewish leaders bring Jesus to Pilate. They are being disingenuous when they tell Pilate "We are not permitted to put anyone to death." They plotted to kill him several times and were unsuccessful. Now that they have him in custody, they are reluctant to do the deed themselves. Instead, they put Pilate in an awkward position.
Pilate's first priority as the Roman Governor of Judea is to keep the province under control. Here he faces the possibility of unrest if he does not do what the Jewish leadership wants. On the other hand, if he executes Jesus, he could still have a rebellion on his hands. So he questions Jesus carefully, trying to find out what sort of man this is that the Jewish leaders are so afraid of. As Annas found before him, he does not get particularly helpful answers. Except that Jesus tells him one important fact.
Pilate's hands are tied. Faced with the choice of releasing a man innocent under Roman law or inciting open rebellion in Jerusalem, he chooses what he sees as the only path to keeping the peace in Judea. In the long run, he made the wrong choice both for himself and for Rome.
For centuries Christians have blamed Pilate for making that choice. Yet, like Pharaoh in the book of Exodus, his choice played an important role in our salvation history. Where would we be, if he had chosen differently? Would Jesus have died later at the hands of a different governor? At the hands of the Jewish leadership? Or would he have simply vanished into the mists of time like so many other long forgotten prophets? Would God have tried again someplace among the Jews of the diaspora?
The answers to those questions belong to the realm of alternative history fiction writers. For the world as it is, the results of Pilate's choice continue...
Peace,
Jeffri
The Jewish leaders bring Jesus to Pilate. They are being disingenuous when they tell Pilate "We are not permitted to put anyone to death." They plotted to kill him several times and were unsuccessful. Now that they have him in custody, they are reluctant to do the deed themselves. Instead, they put Pilate in an awkward position.
Pilate's first priority as the Roman Governor of Judea is to keep the province under control. Here he faces the possibility of unrest if he does not do what the Jewish leadership wants. On the other hand, if he executes Jesus, he could still have a rebellion on his hands. So he questions Jesus carefully, trying to find out what sort of man this is that the Jewish leaders are so afraid of. As Annas found before him, he does not get particularly helpful answers. Except that Jesus tells him one important fact.
If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here." (18:36)Obviously, Pilate received no reports of rioting or other armed uprising in the wake of Jesus' arrest. Over time he may have heard rumors or reports of an itinerant preacher and healer with a large following, but clearly this man before him is not the military Messiah so many expect. In fact, he tells the Jewish leaders that he finds no case against Jesus. He even tries to release him as a gesture of goodwill at Passover. The Jewish leadership, and the crowd they brought with them, will have none of it. They ask for the release of a bandit instead.
Pilate's hands are tied. Faced with the choice of releasing a man innocent under Roman law or inciting open rebellion in Jerusalem, he chooses what he sees as the only path to keeping the peace in Judea. In the long run, he made the wrong choice both for himself and for Rome.
For centuries Christians have blamed Pilate for making that choice. Yet, like Pharaoh in the book of Exodus, his choice played an important role in our salvation history. Where would we be, if he had chosen differently? Would Jesus have died later at the hands of a different governor? At the hands of the Jewish leadership? Or would he have simply vanished into the mists of time like so many other long forgotten prophets? Would God have tried again someplace among the Jews of the diaspora?
The answers to those questions belong to the realm of alternative history fiction writers. For the world as it is, the results of Pilate's choice continue...
Peace,
Jeffri
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: Two Verses
Reading Plan Text for June 17: John 18:28-29
Today Burridge gives us just two verses.
John tells us nothing about what happens at Caiaphas' house and then tells us that they took Jesus to the Roman governor, where the coming proceedings will take place in the courtyard. This is because, as John tells us, the priests cannot enter the gentile building because it would make them ritually impure and thus unable to participate in the Passover commemorations. In verse 29 Pilate comes out to speak with the Jewish officials and asks the first question of the civil trial.
That's it. Burridge manages to pull two pages of commentary out of these two verses by giving us some cultural, political and historical context. He also uses more than a third of the commentary to set up the coming scene.
Not much in these two verses to really discuss.
Peace,
Jeffri
Today Burridge gives us just two verses.
John tells us nothing about what happens at Caiaphas' house and then tells us that they took Jesus to the Roman governor, where the coming proceedings will take place in the courtyard. This is because, as John tells us, the priests cannot enter the gentile building because it would make them ritually impure and thus unable to participate in the Passover commemorations. In verse 29 Pilate comes out to speak with the Jewish officials and asks the first question of the civil trial.
That's it. Burridge manages to pull two pages of commentary out of these two verses by giving us some cultural, political and historical context. He also uses more than a third of the commentary to set up the coming scene.
Not much in these two verses to really discuss.
Peace,
Jeffri
Monday, June 16, 2008
New Resource For Bible Study With The Bishops
I happened to take a look at the Lambeth Conference web site during lunch today and found that they have posted the booklet of Bible studies that
All-in-all, pretty standard stuff. The appeal here is that you would be participating along with other Anglicans around the world and praying with them for the bishops meeting at Lambeth.
The booklet is available as a download, which can be found here.
Peace,
Jeffri
are designed to complement the Bible studies which the bishops of the Anglican Communion (and their spouses) will be participating in during the Lambeth Conference 2008. (from the Introduction, p. 1)Titled Signs on the Way: Bible Studies for the Anglican Communion in the Year of the Lambeth Conference, the booklet focuses on the signs in the Gospel of John. The bishops and their spouses will study the "I am" sayings in John's Gospel. The same team of people wrote both studies. In their introduction they say
We hope that they will be used by clergy and lay people throughout the Anglican Communion to join in spirit with their bishops as the bishops prepare for, and engage in, and return from the Lambeth Conference... They can be used in a number of different ways. Perhaps a local church group might wish to work through them, perhaps one or more of the studies might be explored at a diocesan meeting, or perhaps individuals might like to use them for their own personal devotion and as a way of praying for and supporting their bishops. (p. 1)The introduction ends:
So we invite you to travel with these Bible studies through the Gospel of John using the signs as signposts for your own journey. As you do we would ask you to pray for all bishops and others preparing for the Lambeth Conference, with its particular focus on enabling bishops as leaders in God's mission in the Church. Such a vocation is both awe-ful and joyful. Such a calling, John's Gospel suggests, requires us to be willing to follow Jesus closely, and through following to discover our true home in him. (p. 2)The design of the studies themselves is fairly standard.
- Open with prayer
- Read the passage
- Reflect silently
- Discuss some questions
- End with prayer
All-in-all, pretty standard stuff. The appeal here is that you would be participating along with other Anglicans around the world and praying with them for the bishops meeting at Lambeth.
The booklet is available as a download, which can be found here.
Peace,
Jeffri
Bible Study With The Bishops: God Believes
Reading Plan Text for June 16: John 18:22-27
Today's passage begins with the end of Jesus' interrogation by Annas and then moves to Peter denying Jesus twice. I'm not quite sure why Burridge broke up the readings this way. The first two verses belong to the scene in Annas' house. The remain four are what my NRSV calls "Peter Denies Jesus Again." Burridge spends the first portion of his commentary on Friday's reading, and then says
The final third builds on the image of the cock crowing. The night is ending, and Good Friday is dawning.
Poor Peter. His courage fails him at the last minute. Yet he is still remembered as the rock upon which the church is built. Peter's courage fails over and over again. Yet he perseveres. He continues God's work in spite of his faults. Or perhaps, because of them. And God does not stop believing in Peter.
What does it mean for us that God believes in us, even when our courage and our faith fail?
Peace,
Jeffri
Today's passage begins with the end of Jesus' interrogation by Annas and then moves to Peter denying Jesus twice. I'm not quite sure why Burridge broke up the readings this way. The first two verses belong to the scene in Annas' house. The remain four are what my NRSV calls "Peter Denies Jesus Again." Burridge spends the first portion of his commentary on Friday's reading, and then says
The oscillation between Jesus and Peter continues: while Jesus is being taken to Caiaphas and questioned there, the director turns the cameras back into the courtyard to see how Simon Peter is getting on. (p. 210)Burridge uses the middle third of his commentary to discuss Peter's denial. He notes this particular difference between John's version of these events and those of the Synoptic writers:
Significantly, John omits any reminder here of Jesus' warning nor does Peter go out into the dark to weep. (p. 211)One wonders why John even bothered to include it, except that it is one of the important stories about this particular disciple.
The final third builds on the image of the cock crowing. The night is ending, and Good Friday is dawning.
Poor Peter. His courage fails him at the last minute. Yet he is still remembered as the rock upon which the church is built. Peter's courage fails over and over again. Yet he perseveres. He continues God's work in spite of his faults. Or perhaps, because of them. And God does not stop believing in Peter.
What does it mean for us that God believes in us, even when our courage and our faith fail?
Peace,
Jeffri
Saturday, June 14, 2008
GAFCON Not About Sexuality?
GAFCON starts on June 22nd, and as expected, things are picking up in the media and the Blogosphere.
Here is a June 13 press release from the Church of Uganda posted on Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream. It is also posted on the GAFCON website. It starts with GAFCON's three purposes:
Right below the Church of Uganda release on the GAFCON site is an article from the Daily Nation, a Kenyan newspaper. Note what Archbishop says:
While the Archbishop does not say that GAFCON is a result of the sexuality issue, the implication is pretty clear. And he is clear that the decision to boycott the Lambeth Conference IS due to the issue of sexuality.
Then there is the gem of a paper posted by The Lead. Nicholas Knisely, who posted it, gives this introduction:
Peace,
Jeffri
Here is a June 13 press release from the Church of Uganda posted on Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream. It is also posted on the GAFCON website. It starts with GAFCON's three purposes:
Reading a little further, we find this little tidbit:1. To provide an opportunity for fellowship as well as to continue to experience and proclaim the transforming love of Jesus Christ
2. To develop a renewed understanding of our identity as Anglican Christians.
3. To prepare for an Anglican future in which the Gospel is uncompromised and Christ-centred mission is a top priority.
It seems to me that if authority is the issue, then the good archbishops of Nigeria, Uganda, and the Southern Cone should not be crossing provincial lines in clear violation of one of the oldest "rules" of the Church.Is the crisis in the Anglican Communion about homosexuality?
No. The crisis is about authority. Homosexuality is only the presenting issue. All four Instruments of Unity in the Anglican Communion – The Archbishop of Canterbury, The Lambeth Conference of Bishops, The Primates Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council – advised against the American Church approving homosexual relationships. Yet, the American Church openly defied these resolutions and there was no disciplinary action taken against them. That is a crisis of authority in the Communion. Furthermore, the apparent lack of resolve to take
action manifests a deeper crisis, namely a crisis of confidence in the authority of the Word of God as the ultimate standard of faith and moral living.
Right below the Church of Uganda release on the GAFCON site is an article from the Daily Nation, a Kenyan newspaper. Note what Archbishop says:
The decision to boycott the Lambeth conference was due, he said, to the church’s failure to resolve the issue of the ordination of homosexual bishops within the Episcopal Church in the United States.
The worldwide Anglican Communion has been the focus of considerable controversy with its ordination of openly gay clergy, including the bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson, sparking outrage from some of its members.
“We have made other plans to travel to Jerusalem to reflect on how best we can do the work of the Lord,” Archbishop Nzimbi said by telephone on Saturday.
The cleric said that for the past decade he and his African colleagues had tried to persuade the church’s leadership to revoke the ordination of gay bishops as the actions was not compatible with the Scripture.
While the Archbishop does not say that GAFCON is a result of the sexuality issue, the implication is pretty clear. And he is clear that the decision to boycott the Lambeth Conference IS due to the issue of sexuality.
Then there is the gem of a paper posted by The Lead. Nicholas Knisely, who posted it, gives this introduction:
He highlights what he feels are a couple of key quotes and then posts the paper in its entirety. For me, the most telling piece is this paragraph found almost at the very end (the emphasis is mine):The Lead has been passed along an essay entitled "Our Journey Into the Future" that is reportedly to be presented to the Global Anglican Futures Convention (GAFCON) which occurs later this month in Jordan. This is a new document and not the paper published by SPREAD that appeared a few weeks ago.
The essay attempts to explain why it is that GAFCON has been called, why it is at cross-purposes with other Anglican meetings such as Lambeth, and what the hoped for outcomes might be.
GAFCON identifies an area of public life today which is challenged to its heart by the gospel of the Lord Jesus. GAFCON is a statement that the truth of God can be known; that it is the gateway to fulfilling and fruitful life for men and women, in marriage or celibacy, and that obedience and witness to that truth cannot be confined to the space or the form that is offered by the powerful.There it is in black and white--no shades of gray here. GAFCON is about the expression of sexuality in a Christian context.
Peace,
Jeffri
Friday, June 13, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: What Justice?
Reading Plan Text for June 13: John 18:19-21
Now begins the trial phase, although, as Burridge points out, it can't be all that official at this stage because it is Annas doing the questioning. He has no official status to pass judgment. As with the rest of Chapter 18 that we've read so far, Jesus remains firmly in control. He does not answer Annas' questions. Instead he manages to instruct the "retired" high priest in Jewish law. "Why are you asking me?" he asks Annas. "Ask those who heard what I said to them; they know what I said." Again, Burridge:
Not that we would know anything about that in our current society...
Peace,
Jeffri
Now begins the trial phase, although, as Burridge points out, it can't be all that official at this stage because it is Annas doing the questioning. He has no official status to pass judgment. As with the rest of Chapter 18 that we've read so far, Jesus remains firmly in control. He does not answer Annas' questions. Instead he manages to instruct the "retired" high priest in Jewish law. "Why are you asking me?" he asks Annas. "Ask those who heard what I said to them; they know what I said." Again, Burridge:
...there is no need to ask him; there are plenty of witnesses who heard what he said. It was against Jewish law to convict a person on their own testimony. (p. 209)The rule-keepers' fear of Jesus is so great that they do not follow their own rules as they work to get rid of him. They are more concerned about their own power than about justice--not to mention God's Justice.
Not that we would know anything about that in our current society...
Peace,
Jeffri
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: Details, Details, Details
Reading Plan Text for June 12: John 18:10-18
Each of the gospel authors writes details into their accounts of Jesus that the other three do not. For the Synoptic writers, this usually means including stories, or bits of stories, which do not appear in the others. Not surprising, given that they all appear to be using a common source, and the later writers use the earlier ones' texts. John, the last of the canonical gospel authors, does as well, but his approach to Jesus' story is different than the synoptics, so we should not be surprised at how much "new" material appears in his account.
What is surprising, however, are the details John adds to those stories from the other three accounts that he includes in his. For instance, John alone names the woman who anoints Jesus. Only in John's account do we see soldiers and temple police rather than a crowd coming to arrest Jesus. We even have a specific number of soldiers who arrive and what they do:
We also get two additional details not seen in the synoptic accounts. John specifically names Peter as the Disciple who drew a sword and cut off the ear of the high priest's slave. John also gives us the slave's name--Malchus. Perhaps John's community considered Malchus one of its forbears, an important one because he was an eyewitness to the events surrounding Jesus' final hours. John also picks up a detail from Luke not found in Matthew or Mark. He specifies that it was Malchus' right ear that Peter cut off. I wonder why John did not also include Jesus' healing of the slave's injury that is included in Luke's account?
In this particular passage, John shows another interesting deviation from the Synoptics. After arresting Jesus, the soldiers take him not to Caiaphas, who is the high priest, but to his father-in-law Annas. It is clear that Annas questions Jesus first, because later we learn that Annas then sends him to Caiaphas. What appears confusing is that during the scene in Annas' house, John says that a disciple of "the high priest" admitted Peter to the courtyard and that "the high priest" questioned Jesus. Is it because Annas is the real power behind the Jewish religious leadership? Burridge tells us
The details in this chapter take John's account--an account filled with mysticism and mystery--and ground it firmly in the real world. Whatever else Jesus is and was, John is telling us that he was present in the world, with real people, in real places, and in a specific time in history. He wants his community to remember.
He wants us to remember.
Peace,
Jeffri
Each of the gospel authors writes details into their accounts of Jesus that the other three do not. For the Synoptic writers, this usually means including stories, or bits of stories, which do not appear in the others. Not surprising, given that they all appear to be using a common source, and the later writers use the earlier ones' texts. John, the last of the canonical gospel authors, does as well, but his approach to Jesus' story is different than the synoptics, so we should not be surprised at how much "new" material appears in his account.
What is surprising, however, are the details John adds to those stories from the other three accounts that he includes in his. For instance, John alone names the woman who anoints Jesus. Only in John's account do we see soldiers and temple police rather than a crowd coming to arrest Jesus. We even have a specific number of soldiers who arrive and what they do:
John uses the technical term chiliarch for the 'officer' in charge of a cohort of a thousand men (18:12). The use of so much superfluous force is also seen as only John says that they 'tied him up'... (Burridge, p. 206)John is writing after the Jewish uprisings and the destruction of the temple, in a country still occupied by Roman troops. The inclusion of these particular details of Rome's power may be a political statement as well as a theological one. And they set the stage for what comes next.
We also get two additional details not seen in the synoptic accounts. John specifically names Peter as the Disciple who drew a sword and cut off the ear of the high priest's slave. John also gives us the slave's name--Malchus. Perhaps John's community considered Malchus one of its forbears, an important one because he was an eyewitness to the events surrounding Jesus' final hours. John also picks up a detail from Luke not found in Matthew or Mark. He specifies that it was Malchus' right ear that Peter cut off. I wonder why John did not also include Jesus' healing of the slave's injury that is included in Luke's account?
In this particular passage, John shows another interesting deviation from the Synoptics. After arresting Jesus, the soldiers take him not to Caiaphas, who is the high priest, but to his father-in-law Annas. It is clear that Annas questions Jesus first, because later we learn that Annas then sends him to Caiaphas. What appears confusing is that during the scene in Annas' house, John says that a disciple of "the high priest" admitted Peter to the courtyard and that "the high priest" questioned Jesus. Is it because Annas is the real power behind the Jewish religious leadership? Burridge tells us
[Annas] was high priest from AD6 [sic] to 15. Although the Romans then deposed him, he was followed as high priest by his four sons--and now by Caiaphas, his son-in-law! (p. 206)So what is John's purpose in telling the story this way? John has a reason for everything. Sometimes we can figure it out, and sometimes, like this particular scene, we can't.
The details in this chapter take John's account--an account filled with mysticism and mystery--and ground it firmly in the real world. Whatever else Jesus is and was, John is telling us that he was present in the world, with real people, in real places, and in a specific time in history. He wants his community to remember.
He wants us to remember.
Peace,
Jeffri
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: I Am
Reading Plan Text for June 11: John 18:1-9
After praying, Jesus goes with his disciples to a garden they must know fairly well, since that is where Judas leads the Roman soldiers and the temple police to meet them. Burridge points out that what is translated into English as "a detachment" of Roman soldiers was at minimum 200 soldiers. Two hundred, and this does not include the temple police, to arrest a single man and perhaps subdue eleven others. I wonder if this extreme show of force is the result of the Jewish religious leadership feeding the fears of their Roman overlords?
In spite of the overwhelming military presence, Jesus takes charge immediately. In fact, he was already in charge when he went to the garden in the first place. I get the feeling that Jesus and the Disciples arrived at almost the same moment as Judas and the soldiers. Once all the players are in place, Jesus doesn't wait for the officials to seek him out. He steps right up to them and asks who they're looking for.
Three times he asks, and each time they say, "Jesus of Nazareth," Jesus replies, "I am." The NRSV actually reads, "I am he," but the footnote tells us that in Greek his response is "I am." The powerful name has been spoken as it was to Moses before the Exodus. The response of the soldiers and the police shows that they understand all too clearly what Jesus has said. First they back away, and then they fall to the ground. Burridge writes
Peace,
Jeffri
Peace,
Jeffri
After praying, Jesus goes with his disciples to a garden they must know fairly well, since that is where Judas leads the Roman soldiers and the temple police to meet them. Burridge points out that what is translated into English as "a detachment" of Roman soldiers was at minimum 200 soldiers. Two hundred, and this does not include the temple police, to arrest a single man and perhaps subdue eleven others. I wonder if this extreme show of force is the result of the Jewish religious leadership feeding the fears of their Roman overlords?
In spite of the overwhelming military presence, Jesus takes charge immediately. In fact, he was already in charge when he went to the garden in the first place. I get the feeling that Jesus and the Disciples arrived at almost the same moment as Judas and the soldiers. Once all the players are in place, Jesus doesn't wait for the officials to seek him out. He steps right up to them and asks who they're looking for.
Three times he asks, and each time they say, "Jesus of Nazareth," Jesus replies, "I am." The NRSV actually reads, "I am he," but the footnote tells us that in Greek his response is "I am." The powerful name has been spoken as it was to Moses before the Exodus. The response of the soldiers and the police shows that they understand all too clearly what Jesus has said. First they back away, and then they fall to the ground. Burridge writes
However, as so often in John the deeper level indicates that falling prostrate is the proper reaction to a divine appearance or the pronouncement of God's name. (p. 205)Is there anything more Jesus really needs to say?
Peace,
Jeffri
Peace,
Jeffri
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: For The Church?
Reading Plan Text for June 10: John 17:20-26
Burridge titles his section on this passage "Jesus Prays for the Church." For the CHURCH? The church did not even exist when Jesus said this prayer! The roots of the church can be seen in Jesus' words, because he is praying for those who believe, and who will believe, without a direct encounter with him, but because his Disciples share the good news.
Peace,
Jeffri
Burridge titles his section on this passage "Jesus Prays for the Church." For the CHURCH? The church did not even exist when Jesus said this prayer! The roots of the church can be seen in Jesus' words, because he is praying for those who believe, and who will believe, without a direct encounter with him, but because his Disciples share the good news.
Peace,
Jeffri
Monday, June 9, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: In The World
Reading Plan Text for June 9: John 17:13-19
Here, as Jesus continues his prayer for his Disciples, we see very clearly that he is not suggesting that they withdraw from the world. (Not all monastic communities do, but some are cloistered.) They may not belong TO the world, but they are not to be withdrawn from it either. Jesus is his own best example of this. His entire ministry has been spent IN the world.
This is something we need to remember as Christians. Our ministry is not just what we do at church. It is out IN the world. Gather for prayer and community support, but then get out there and DO ministry.
Is it easy? No. Will it make us popular? No. Will it make us rich? No. (What was that about a camel and the eye of a needle?) Is it what we're called to do? Yes.
Go. The world awaits.
Peace,
Jeffri
I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one The do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. (17:15-18)Once in a conversation about discernment with a priest I like and respect, he suggested that perhaps I might consider a monastic vocation. When I told this to a couple of friends who had been monastics earlier in their lives, they just looked at me and laughed. So did my spiritual director.
Here, as Jesus continues his prayer for his Disciples, we see very clearly that he is not suggesting that they withdraw from the world. (Not all monastic communities do, but some are cloistered.) They may not belong TO the world, but they are not to be withdrawn from it either. Jesus is his own best example of this. His entire ministry has been spent IN the world.
This is something we need to remember as Christians. Our ministry is not just what we do at church. It is out IN the world. Gather for prayer and community support, but then get out there and DO ministry.
Is it easy? No. Will it make us popular? No. Will it make us rich? No. (What was that about a camel and the eye of a needle?) Is it what we're called to do? Yes.
Go. The world awaits.
Peace,
Jeffri
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Education for Ministry Sunday
In late April Episcopal Life posted inserts for Education for Ministry (EfM) and suggested they be used the first Sunday in May. I emailed the link to Lois and asked we should include them in our bulletins that Sunday and announce that if we had enough people, we would have a group at Grace Church. Even though I was going to be away that Sunday, I thought it was an important message to get out. Lois emailed me back and said she'd been thinking along the same lines but wanted to really "do" an EfM Sunday. I could preach. We'd use one of the historic liturgies from the EfM materials. Graduates and current participants from our parish could be available during coffee hour to answer questions, etc.
So that's what we did. Lois planned the liturgy using the "Romanized Gallican (Celtic) Eucharist" from a previous version of the Supplemental materials (it's not in our current edition). I preached:
Fourth Sunday After Pentecost, Proper 5: Genesis 12:1-9
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable in your sight, O God our strength and our redeemer. Amen.
People are by nature storytellers. We’ve been telling stories from the beginning of time. We’ve recorded them in many different ways: the 32,000-year-old cave paintings in the Grotte Chauvet, the Celtic High Crosses of the 9th and 10th Centuries, the 11th Century Bayeux Tapestry, or movies, radio and television of the 20th Century. The roots of modern theater can be found in the acting out of Bible stories for the “common people”—the uneducated masses who could not understand even the reading of Scripture in church, because the texts were in Latin. Even with all the newfangled technologies progress keeps throwing at us, we still find ways to tell our stories using them. If you doubt me, take a look at all the blogs on the web, or all the stuff on Facebook, or podcasts, or… Well, you get the idea.
As Christians we have what we sometimes call capital T The capital S Story, which is recorded in our Scriptures. We also call it God’s Story. But the Scriptures aren’t just God’s Story, they are also people’s stories and the story of how God and people have responded to each other. In today’s reading from Genesis we see a shift in The Story from the world in general to the story of those who call themselves God’s people.
And what a story it is. Dr. Burton Visotzky, rabbi and noted professor of ethics, calls it a 3,000-year-old tawdry soap opera. In a lecture I attended he told us you could think of it in tabloid headlines: “Brimstone Rains On Sodom, Man Sleeps With Daughters.” Or, and this was a thought I’d had long before I went to Dr. Visotzky’s lecture, look at it as a family story—a large, dysfunctional family. As a Christian, I’d even taken it a step further. This is Jesus’ large, dysfunctional family.
So how is it that we call this tawdry soap opera, this dysfunctional family history, how is it that we call it our sacred story? Capital T The capital S Story?
Well, it’s not. Not unless we engage it. Laugh with it. Cry with it. Argue with it. Scream at it. Wrestle with it. And not unless we do these things not only by ourselves, but also with others. Dr. Visotzky puts it this way. “When we discuss it in community, that’s when the revelatory process happens. The ability to hear God happens in the discussion and debate. When I pray, I talk to God; when I discuss, God talks to me.”
When we actively engage our Scriptures, we become part of a long tradition of people of faith struggling to live as God’s people in the world. We find ourselves sharing our stories. We start to see how our stories interact with each others’ and with God’s, how we are all part of capital T The capital S Story.
In many ways, it all boils down to two key questions. “What is my God story?” and “What is your God story?”
Part of my God story is that I’m a learner. I want to know who, what, when, where, why, and how. Where did these stories come from? Who wrote them down? When were they written down? Who interpreted them this way? Why are they so important to us? Why do we have only these ones? Why don’t we have any first-hand records of Jesus? Why? Why? Why? I suppose you could say I’m a perpetual two-year-old when it comes to Scripture. Every time I get an answer, I find myself asking why. For a long time, I wrestled with my questions and looked for answers on my own. I read a lot of books. I had occasional conversations with other folks. I kept asking questions.
Then about 12 years ago, Mom enrolled in Education for Ministry, or EfM as most of us call it. For four years she’d come to me and ask questions about what she was reading. Sometimes I had an answer, sometimes not, but we always had interesting discussions. The more I learned about the program, the more I thought it would be great to participate in it myself. So I patiently waited for Mom to graduate, so I could join the group here at Grace. The time came, and I signed up with six other members of our parish. Then for one reason or another, we found out that the group couldn’t meet at Grace. We scrambled and found a group in Westport that had room for all of us. At which point I realized, gee, I could have joined a different group a long time ago! On the other hand, I would have had a completely different experience than I did.
What can I tell you about EfM? A group of six to 12 people and one to two mentors meets once a week over the course of the “school year”—usually September to June. Year One participants study the Hebrew Scriptures, or the Old Testament. Year Twos study the Christian Scriptures, or the New Testament. Year Threes study Church History, and Year Fours Theology. Part of each seminar session is spent discussing the readings. Sounds like a prescription for a weekly nap, doesn’t it? At least until you put six or eight people in a room who feel safe enough with each other to share their views and opinions!
That’s the second key piece of EfM, and probably the most important. It’s not just a classroom of students discussing what they’ve read. Each group is a gathered community. We share our stories with each other—both the everyday stuff and our God Stories. We worship together. In the group I currently co-mentor we even share a meal, which is a blessing for those of us who arrive directly from work. Okay, sounds good, but really not much more than an in-depth bible study combined with abridged classes in Church History and Theology. Except that in EfM we don’t just study theology, we DO theology.
In his book Faith Seeking Understanding, Daniel Migliore writes
So what does doing theology look like? In Education for Ministry it takes the form of what we call Theological Reflection, or TR for short. The program has a handful of different methods for doing Theological Reflections, but the essential ingredients are looking at our stories, looking at God’s Story—usually in the form of a passage from capital T The capital S Story—and seeing where they intersect, or don’t. We engage the Scriptures fully, in community, often using an image or a metaphor familiar to everyone in the group. We look at what our contemporary culture has to say about what we see in the Scriptures, and we talk about what we believe personally. Finally, we share any insights we have had and look at the implications of our beliefs and our insights in terms of decisions we make and actions we may or may not take.
Serious stuff, this doing theology, isn’t it? But believe me, when a TR moves from someone’s story about standing up for themselves for the first time, to Dorothy realizing that the Ruby Slippers will take her home to Kansas, to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego walking out of the blazing furnace, it is not a dull conversation!
So we have education, and we have theology. Where’s the ministry part? We find it with each other in the gathered community of our EfM group. We practice it when we take the insights and implications from the TRs out into the world. We do it when we listen to others’ God stories and share ours with them. It is the daily effort we make to live as faithful people of God in the world around us.
It’s not easy, and it is the journey of a lifetime. It is a journey we make one step at a time. It has been that way from the beginning, just as Abram’s journey from Haran did not happen in a single move. As his descendants continued to travel throughout their lives. And like Abram, who is initially given only limited information about the ways in which God will bless him, we don’t always have the whole picture. Not even capital T The capital S Story tells us everything.
So we make the journey with others in a variety of ways. I hope I’ve been able to give you taste of how EfM helps some of us on our journeys. If you want to talk some more about the program, I encourage you to talk to those members of Grace Church who have graduated from EfM and those who are currently involved. Let us share our stories with you.
And even if EfM is not for you, I encourage you to learn how to share your God story and to listen to others’ God stories. For it is in the sharing of these stories we begin to see how our story is part of Abram’s story, of Jesus’ story, of The Story. It is how we learn what it means to be human, to be people of God, to be Christian.
May we hear and share our stories over and over again. Amen.
So that's what we did. Lois planned the liturgy using the "Romanized Gallican (Celtic) Eucharist" from a previous version of the Supplemental materials (it's not in our current edition). I preached:
Fourth Sunday After Pentecost, Proper 5: Genesis 12:1-9
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable in your sight, O God our strength and our redeemer. Amen.
People are by nature storytellers. We’ve been telling stories from the beginning of time. We’ve recorded them in many different ways: the 32,000-year-old cave paintings in the Grotte Chauvet, the Celtic High Crosses of the 9th and 10th Centuries, the 11th Century Bayeux Tapestry, or movies, radio and television of the 20th Century. The roots of modern theater can be found in the acting out of Bible stories for the “common people”—the uneducated masses who could not understand even the reading of Scripture in church, because the texts were in Latin. Even with all the newfangled technologies progress keeps throwing at us, we still find ways to tell our stories using them. If you doubt me, take a look at all the blogs on the web, or all the stuff on Facebook, or podcasts, or… Well, you get the idea.
As Christians we have what we sometimes call capital T The capital S Story, which is recorded in our Scriptures. We also call it God’s Story. But the Scriptures aren’t just God’s Story, they are also people’s stories and the story of how God and people have responded to each other. In today’s reading from Genesis we see a shift in The Story from the world in general to the story of those who call themselves God’s people.
And what a story it is. Dr. Burton Visotzky, rabbi and noted professor of ethics, calls it a 3,000-year-old tawdry soap opera. In a lecture I attended he told us you could think of it in tabloid headlines: “Brimstone Rains On Sodom, Man Sleeps With Daughters.” Or, and this was a thought I’d had long before I went to Dr. Visotzky’s lecture, look at it as a family story—a large, dysfunctional family. As a Christian, I’d even taken it a step further. This is Jesus’ large, dysfunctional family.
So how is it that we call this tawdry soap opera, this dysfunctional family history, how is it that we call it our sacred story? Capital T The capital S Story?
Well, it’s not. Not unless we engage it. Laugh with it. Cry with it. Argue with it. Scream at it. Wrestle with it. And not unless we do these things not only by ourselves, but also with others. Dr. Visotzky puts it this way. “When we discuss it in community, that’s when the revelatory process happens. The ability to hear God happens in the discussion and debate. When I pray, I talk to God; when I discuss, God talks to me.”
When we actively engage our Scriptures, we become part of a long tradition of people of faith struggling to live as God’s people in the world. We find ourselves sharing our stories. We start to see how our stories interact with each others’ and with God’s, how we are all part of capital T The capital S Story.
In many ways, it all boils down to two key questions. “What is my God story?” and “What is your God story?”
Part of my God story is that I’m a learner. I want to know who, what, when, where, why, and how. Where did these stories come from? Who wrote them down? When were they written down? Who interpreted them this way? Why are they so important to us? Why do we have only these ones? Why don’t we have any first-hand records of Jesus? Why? Why? Why? I suppose you could say I’m a perpetual two-year-old when it comes to Scripture. Every time I get an answer, I find myself asking why. For a long time, I wrestled with my questions and looked for answers on my own. I read a lot of books. I had occasional conversations with other folks. I kept asking questions.
Then about 12 years ago, Mom enrolled in Education for Ministry, or EfM as most of us call it. For four years she’d come to me and ask questions about what she was reading. Sometimes I had an answer, sometimes not, but we always had interesting discussions. The more I learned about the program, the more I thought it would be great to participate in it myself. So I patiently waited for Mom to graduate, so I could join the group here at Grace. The time came, and I signed up with six other members of our parish. Then for one reason or another, we found out that the group couldn’t meet at Grace. We scrambled and found a group in Westport that had room for all of us. At which point I realized, gee, I could have joined a different group a long time ago! On the other hand, I would have had a completely different experience than I did.
What can I tell you about EfM? A group of six to 12 people and one to two mentors meets once a week over the course of the “school year”—usually September to June. Year One participants study the Hebrew Scriptures, or the Old Testament. Year Twos study the Christian Scriptures, or the New Testament. Year Threes study Church History, and Year Fours Theology. Part of each seminar session is spent discussing the readings. Sounds like a prescription for a weekly nap, doesn’t it? At least until you put six or eight people in a room who feel safe enough with each other to share their views and opinions!
That’s the second key piece of EfM, and probably the most important. It’s not just a classroom of students discussing what they’ve read. Each group is a gathered community. We share our stories with each other—both the everyday stuff and our God Stories. We worship together. In the group I currently co-mentor we even share a meal, which is a blessing for those of us who arrive directly from work. Okay, sounds good, but really not much more than an in-depth bible study combined with abridged classes in Church History and Theology. Except that in EfM we don’t just study theology, we DO theology.
In his book Faith Seeking Understanding, Daniel Migliore writes
What is theology? It is neither mere repetition of church doctrines nor grandiose system building. It is faith asking questions, seeking understanding. It is disciplined yet bold reflection on Christian faith in the God of the gospel. It is the activity of "taking rational trouble over the mystery” of God revealed in Jesus Christ as attested in Scripture. It is inquiry yoked to prayer.” (p. 19)It is faith asking questions, seeking understanding. In other words, theology is not the work of a group of dead Church Fathers, nor of a group of professors in a seminary, nor the clergy leading their churches. It is everybody’s work—you, me, Lois, those academics in their ivory towers, and yes, even those long dead Church Fathers whose writings make us crazy when we read them.
So what does doing theology look like? In Education for Ministry it takes the form of what we call Theological Reflection, or TR for short. The program has a handful of different methods for doing Theological Reflections, but the essential ingredients are looking at our stories, looking at God’s Story—usually in the form of a passage from capital T The capital S Story—and seeing where they intersect, or don’t. We engage the Scriptures fully, in community, often using an image or a metaphor familiar to everyone in the group. We look at what our contemporary culture has to say about what we see in the Scriptures, and we talk about what we believe personally. Finally, we share any insights we have had and look at the implications of our beliefs and our insights in terms of decisions we make and actions we may or may not take.
Serious stuff, this doing theology, isn’t it? But believe me, when a TR moves from someone’s story about standing up for themselves for the first time, to Dorothy realizing that the Ruby Slippers will take her home to Kansas, to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego walking out of the blazing furnace, it is not a dull conversation!
So we have education, and we have theology. Where’s the ministry part? We find it with each other in the gathered community of our EfM group. We practice it when we take the insights and implications from the TRs out into the world. We do it when we listen to others’ God stories and share ours with them. It is the daily effort we make to live as faithful people of God in the world around us.
It’s not easy, and it is the journey of a lifetime. It is a journey we make one step at a time. It has been that way from the beginning, just as Abram’s journey from Haran did not happen in a single move. As his descendants continued to travel throughout their lives. And like Abram, who is initially given only limited information about the ways in which God will bless him, we don’t always have the whole picture. Not even capital T The capital S Story tells us everything.
So we make the journey with others in a variety of ways. I hope I’ve been able to give you taste of how EfM helps some of us on our journeys. If you want to talk some more about the program, I encourage you to talk to those members of Grace Church who have graduated from EfM and those who are currently involved. Let us share our stories with you.
And even if EfM is not for you, I encourage you to learn how to share your God story and to listen to others’ God stories. For it is in the sharing of these stories we begin to see how our story is part of Abram’s story, of Jesus’ story, of The Story. It is how we learn what it means to be human, to be people of God, to be Christian.
May we hear and share our stories over and over again. Amen.
Friday, June 6, 2008
It Works Both Ways
Episcopal Cafe's The Lead reports that Bishop Smith of North Dakota has provided an alternative Episcopal presence for those congregations in the diocese that disagree with his views on the issues of sexuality. Bishops of Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, and even Nigeria, take note.
Peace,
Jeffri
Peace,
Jeffri
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Who Needs PowerPoint?
Or: Getting Out Of My Left Brain
This afternoon I finished reading Dan Roam's The Back of the Napkin, subtitled "Solving Problems and Selling Ideas with Pictures." A couple of weeks ago I saw it in the local Barnes & Noble and picked it up to read while I enjoyed a cup of coffee in the cafe. After reading the first few pages, I knew it had to come home with me.
I spent most of my checkered professional life in "corporate America," so I understood the business applications immediately. But what sold me on the book was a corporate management tool--the "elevator speech"--that Dan wrote in the first chapter:
Here's a podcast of a VizThink conversation with Dan that covers many of the book's basics. And take a look at Dan's blog.
Actually, PowerPoint can be a valuable tool, but after reading The Back of the Napkin, I'll never use it the same way again.
But, being the left-brain type that I am, it will take some practice. But then, I've been using stick figures for years to draw metaphors for Theological Reflections in Education for Ministry!
Peace,
Jeffri
If you have trouble figuring out why I tagged this post with "Storytelling," you're more left-braned than I am!
This afternoon I finished reading Dan Roam's The Back of the Napkin, subtitled "Solving Problems and Selling Ideas with Pictures." A couple of weeks ago I saw it in the local Barnes & Noble and picked it up to read while I enjoyed a cup of coffee in the cafe. After reading the first few pages, I knew it had to come home with me.
I spent most of my checkered professional life in "corporate America," so I understood the business applications immediately. But what sold me on the book was a corporate management tool--the "elevator speech"--that Dan wrote in the first chapter:
Visual thinking means taking advantage of our innate ability to see--both with our eyes and with our mind's eye--in order to discover ideas that are otherwise invisible, develop those ideas quickly and intuitively, and then share those ideas with other people in a way that they simply "get." (p. 4)While Dan's book can be looked at as primarily a business tool, it's really more about visual thinking and problem solving. Those are skills you can use in many different places. Before I finished the book I found myself sketching something out for a meeting at church. The drawing spoke volumes about one of Lois' recent sermons, so we posted it on the sermon page of our parish website.
Here's a podcast of a VizThink conversation with Dan that covers many of the book's basics. And take a look at Dan's blog.
Actually, PowerPoint can be a valuable tool, but after reading The Back of the Napkin, I'll never use it the same way again.
But, being the left-brain type that I am, it will take some practice. But then, I've been using stick figures for years to draw metaphors for Theological Reflections in Education for Ministry!
Peace,
Jeffri
If you have trouble figuring out why I tagged this post with "Storytelling," you're more left-braned than I am!
Six Words
Everyone has a story. Can you tell yours in six words?That's the challenge given by Smith Magazine. SMITH magazine celebrates the joy of storytelling.
SMITH is a home for storytelling of all forms and kinds, with a focus on personal narrative. We believe everyone has a story, and everyone should have a place to tell it. Storytelling has never been easier, more democratic, and, on the good days, interesting. It’s an amazing time for media makers, one in which content is often bottom up rather than top down, aspirational, populist, forward thinking, and most of all, participatory. SMITH is both a place for professional and never-before-published writers, artists, and photographers, bound together by a passion for storytelling.Some special six word challenges include A Life in Bites and Six Word Memoirs on Love & Heartbreak.
Here are a couple I came up with this evening:
Gas up. Rent up. Salary stagnant.
Project Runway; Top Chef; guilty secrets.
These are not as simple to write as they might sound. They're harder than writing Haiku! Have fun.
Peace,
Jeffri
Bible Study With The Bishops: Time To Pray
Reading Plan Text for June 5: John 17:1-5
Jesus has finished his lecture. Now it is time to pray.
Burridge writes today's section of the commentary as an introduction to Chapter 17, giving us the basic structure and themes of the prayer that takes up this entire chapter:
Note that Jesus has not gone off to pray alone as he does in the Synoptic Gospels. He stays with the disciples to pray with and for them. Here John portrays Jesus as one who, even in the midst of his greatest trial, puts others needs before his own. Not for John a Jesus asking that the cup be taken from him. Not for John a Jesus who doubts. Here is Jesus living the example he has been teaching all along. His time has come, and his first concern is for his friends.
What do we learn about prayer from this passage?
What do we learn about leadership?
What do we learn about ourselves?
Peace,
Jeffri
Jesus has finished his lecture. Now it is time to pray.
Burridge writes today's section of the commentary as an introduction to Chapter 17, giving us the basic structure and themes of the prayer that takes up this entire chapter:
[A]t its heart there are three simple petitions all addressed by Jesus to God his Father:
'Father, glorify your Son' (17:1)
'Father, protect them in your name' (17:11)
'Father, may they be with me' (17:24)These three simple prayers are developed into three sections of this
chapter when Jesus prays for himself (17:1-5), for his disciples (17:6-19) and
for the whole church (17:20-26). (p. 196)
Note that Jesus has not gone off to pray alone as he does in the Synoptic Gospels. He stays with the disciples to pray with and for them. Here John portrays Jesus as one who, even in the midst of his greatest trial, puts others needs before his own. Not for John a Jesus asking that the cup be taken from him. Not for John a Jesus who doubts. Here is Jesus living the example he has been teaching all along. His time has come, and his first concern is for his friends.
What do we learn about prayer from this passage?
What do we learn about leadership?
What do we learn about ourselves?
Peace,
Jeffri
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: Dial Direct
Reading Plan Text for June 4: John 16:25-33
Jesus flat out says he will no longer speaking in metaphors and tell the disciples things plainly. Well it's about time! Even so, it's clear that the disciples do not fully understand. Or maybe they don't want to understand. Major change is hard to process, even if it's something good.
Already, Jesus has given them something new:
But there's an even bigger implication, one that could be pretty scary. God hears us, and even answers us.
God answers questions?
I have a list...
Peace,
Jeffri
Jesus flat out says he will no longer speaking in metaphors and tell the disciples things plainly. Well it's about time! Even so, it's clear that the disciples do not fully understand. Or maybe they don't want to understand. Major change is hard to process, even if it's something good.
Already, Jesus has given them something new:
On that day you will ask in my name. I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf (16:26)You will be able to ask directly. God is accessible to all of you. Wow! Can you imagine the uproar this caused with the religious leaders in Jerusalem? And remember it did cause an uproar during the Reformation--you don't need a priest to get a message to God, you can talk to God directly! Direct dial, no operator!
But there's an even bigger implication, one that could be pretty scary. God hears us, and even answers us.
God answers questions?
I have a list...
Peace,
Jeffri
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: Trust
Reading Plan Text for June 3: John 16:16-24
I'm with the Disciples here. I'm confused, uncertain, and sitting in the mysterious darkness. The not knowing and not understanding frustrates me. The potential loss of a friend scares me. The fact that Jesus holds all the cards and doesn't seem willing to share angers me. Just how the h-e-double-toothpicks does Jesus ALWAYS know what they're talking about? (Yeah, yeah, I know, fully human and fully divine, but for heaven's sake, you'd think he'd be more HUMAN sometimes!) And that birth analogy comes right out of left field.
It all comes down to change. We don't handle change very well, especially big change. And the impending change is one of the biggest these folks will ever know. Jesus promises new life with the change.
But promises count for nothing. Show me. If you can't give me what I need NOW, then it's time for me to move on. If you can't be open and above board, why should I trust you?
Now there's the crux of the whole matter: Trust. Do we really trust God? Do we really trust Jesus? We're constantly asking for more signs, more information, more, more, more. At what point do we simply accept what we've already been given? Where is our faith? When do we learn, "in our gut," so to speak, that God's time and God's ways are not our time and our ways?
Oh, God, "I believe; help my unbelief." (Mark 9:24)
Peace,
Jeffri
I'm with the Disciples here. I'm confused, uncertain, and sitting in the mysterious darkness. The not knowing and not understanding frustrates me. The potential loss of a friend scares me. The fact that Jesus holds all the cards and doesn't seem willing to share angers me. Just how the h-e-double-toothpicks does Jesus ALWAYS know what they're talking about? (Yeah, yeah, I know, fully human and fully divine, but for heaven's sake, you'd think he'd be more HUMAN sometimes!) And that birth analogy comes right out of left field.
It all comes down to change. We don't handle change very well, especially big change. And the impending change is one of the biggest these folks will ever know. Jesus promises new life with the change.
But promises count for nothing. Show me. If you can't give me what I need NOW, then it's time for me to move on. If you can't be open and above board, why should I trust you?
Now there's the crux of the whole matter: Trust. Do we really trust God? Do we really trust Jesus? We're constantly asking for more signs, more information, more, more, more. At what point do we simply accept what we've already been given? Where is our faith? When do we learn, "in our gut," so to speak, that God's time and God's ways are not our time and our ways?
Oh, God, "I believe; help my unbelief." (Mark 9:24)
Peace,
Jeffri
Monday, June 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)