A Quote

"We start with Jesus, as we saw him earlier, at the head of a movement through which, he believed, the long-awaited kingdom was dawning. He regarded his own work not simply as pointing forward to this kingdom, but also as actually inaugurating it: his actions make sense only if he believed that through them the kingdom was in some sense present, not simply future. Yet, these two cannot be played off against each other. The strange presence of the kingdom during Jesus' lifetime points forward to a crisis event through which it will come in a fuller reality. Bar-Kochba, like other would be messiahs, aimed to defeat the Romans and rebuild the temple. Jesus was bound by a similar vocation.

But what weapons could he use to fight such a battle? As we saw, he denounced the use of military action, and he advocated the deeper revolution of loving one's enemies, taking up one's cross, losing one's life in order to gain it. This, it gradually appears, was not simply a way of life he urged on his followers, an "ethic" to be implemented at any time and place where people felt bold enough to do so. It was, more sharply, an agenda and vocation to which he knew himself called, and one that he announced as the way of being God's true Israel. It was his own fresh construal of the law and prophets, the controversial way by which, he proposed, Israel's God would make Israel at last what it had always been called to be, the light of the nations. Like other Jewish would-be leaders and messiahs before and since, Jesus believed himself called to go ahead of the people and fight the battle on their behalf. Like David taking on Goliath, he would face the enemy of God's people alone, choosing the strange weapons that matched his own vision."

-- John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Je

oops. wait a minute. I mean...

-- N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus, p. 96.

Dance of the Trinity

an excerpt from today's sermon:

The theologians in the early church tried to describe this wonderful reality that we call Trinity. If any of you have ever been to a Greek wedding, you may have seen their distinctive way of dancing. There is a Greek Orthodox Church in Charlotte, and possibly some of you have been to a Greek festival. There is a particular term in Greek that they used to describe a dance. It's called perichoresis. There are not two dancers, but at least three. They start to go in circles, weaving in and out in this very beautiful pattern of motion. They start to go faster and faster and faster, all the while staying in perfect rhythm and in sync with each other. Eventually, they are dancing so quickly (yet so effortlessly) that as you look at them, it just becomes a blur. Their individual identities are part of a larger dance.

The early church fathers and mothers looked at that dance (perichoresis) and said, "That's what the Trinity is like." It's a harmonious set of relationship in which there is mutual giving and receiving. This relationship is called love, and it's what the Trinity is all about. The perichoresis is the dance of love.

But it's not like much of the dancing we see so often. Have you watched Dancing with the Stars lately? In ballroom dancing, there are only two people involved. When only two people are involved, there is a certain exclusivity to their dance. No one else is invited to be a part. They are so intent on each other that there is no room for anyone else.

But the dance of Trinity is not like that. The dance of the Trinity is more like square dancing. We have some square dancers here in our congregation. When one is square dancing, one is dancing not with just one person, but with the whole group. That's more like the dance of the Trinity.

When I was in 5th grade, our music teacher (Mrs. Parlor) was determined to teach us how to square dance. She asked us for volunteers. I breathed a sigh of relief because some of the kids volunteered, which meant I could sit on the sidelines and be a spectator. But as they began square dancing, they looked like they were having so much fun, that more and more kids started to get involved. Not me. I remained frozen in my chair. Finally, I was the only kid still sitting down. All of a sudden, someone (I don't know who) grabbed my arm and pulled me out of my seat. Before I knew what was happening, I was in the middle of the square, dosey-doing with the rest of them. And after a few minutes, I started to enjoy it too.

That's what salvation is: when God jerks us out of our complacency and makes us part of his dance: perichoresis. Thank you, Mrs. Parlor, for giving this reluctant music student his first lesson about the Trinity, this invitation to share in God's life.

What about you? When was the last time God jerked you up and made you part of something so wonderful that you could never have asked for it on your own?

Proud to be a whacked Evangelical

I always suspected that Marvin thought I was whacked, and now I finally know! But you know, since I refuse to surrender the term to the Mark Driscolls of the world, I'll proudly take my stand with other whacked evangelicals like Miroslav Volf, Ron Sider, Adam Hamilton, Alvin Plantinga, Jim Wallis, David Gushee and others who signed the recent Evangelical Manifesto.

And just in case there were any questions about the fact that I am one of those whacked evangelicals, I will post this youtube video of Keith Green, just to remove all doubt:

Meme Combo

I've been double-tagged by Marvin:

Movie Meme

1. One movie that made you laugh
The gods must be crazy!

2. One movie that made you cry
Brian's Song

3. One movie you loved when you were a child
The Empire Strikes Back

4. One movie you’ve seen more than once
The Princess Bride

5. One movie you loved, but were embarrassed to admit it
Shrek

6. One movie you hated
The DaVinci Code

7. One movie that scared you
Poltergeist

8. One movie that bored you
The Polar Express

9. One movie that made you happy
Forrest Gump

10. One movie that made you miserable
Dead Poets Society

11. One movie you weren’t brave enough to see
?

12. One movie character you’ve fallen in love with
Betty Sizemore, played by Renée Zellweger in Nurse Betty

13. The last movie you saw
Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium

14. The next movie you hope to see
Prince Caspian


Book Meme

1. One book that changed your life:
The Peaceable Kingdom by Stanley Hauerwas

2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
Simply Christian by N. T. Wright

3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
The United Methodist Hymnal

4. One book that made you laugh:
Walking Across Egypt, by Clyde Edgerton

5. One book that made you cry:
Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith, by John Krakauer

6. One book that you wish had been written:
Reflections on my Eight Years in the White House, by Jimmy Carter

7. One book that you wish had never been written:
anything by John Shelby Spong (unlike Marvin, I am a firm believer in censorship and book-burning)

8. One book you’re currently reading:
Holy Abortion? A Theological Critique of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, by Michael J. Gorman

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace, by Miroslav Volf


Consider yourself double-tagged: Kevin, Carol, Rev J, Donna, Dan Trabue

More on Methodism and War

I wrote in a previous post that the 2008 General Conference strengthened the Social Principles' stand against war. In celebration, I am posting this clip of some of John Wesley's thoughts on war. It should be noted that Wesley was not a pacifist, but as you can see from the clip below, he didn't look too favorably on war, to say the least. This clip comes from his sermon, Original Sin. (Yes, Wesley believed in that too!)




ht: Gavin

Renewal or Ruin?

Below, you will find a video entitled, "Renewal or Ruin?" produced by Steven D. Martin to inform people about the nature and mission of the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). The video presents some good information, but it is also not free of bias. I believe that the truth of the matter is that the IRD is not as sinister as this video would lead us to believe, AND that the General Boards and Agencies of the United Methodist Church are not as corrupt as the IRD would have us believe.

The IRD is wrong to demonize Jim Winkler, who is an honest Christian man with whom I have shared in some good discussions. Jim is a person of Christian faith who is seeking to live out his faith and to lead the church in its social witness. The same is true of Neal Christie, another GBCS staff person whom the IRD has vilified. Jim Winkler and Neal Christie are sincere Christians who do a good job in representing the United Methodist Church on social issues. I have some differences with Jim and Neal on some of the work they do, but that has not diminished my respect for them or my appreciation of them.

That said, I believe that this video mirrors some of the IRD's tactics and games of demonization. Is it really the case that the IRD is motivated primarily by political goals? Could it not be possible that they actually have some genuine theological problems with the general agencies' work for the support of abortion rights and acceptance of homosexual activity?

I must say that I agree with what Bishop Kenneth Carder said on this video. The IRD's fundraising letters do seem manipulative, as if they were trying to create an unnecessary sense of crisis in the church, as if they were preying on our fears.

However, I do not appreciate the anti-Catholicism implicit in this video. The IRD was started by Ed Robb, a faithful, evangelical United Methodist who also worked with Albert Outler to start a Foundation for Theological Education. This fund has made it possible for some of the brightest and best United Methodist scholars in the world to pursue their studies as John Wesley fellows. John Wesley Fellows have included D. Stephen Long, Amy Laura Hall, Richard Hays, Ben Witherington, Dan Bell, Greg Jones, Bp. Scott Jones and many other OUTSTANDING United Methodist scholars. To portray an organization founded by Ed Robb as if it began as a sinister Catholic right-wing organization is misleading.

It is also true that Richard John Neuhaus played a significant part in the founding of the IRD. What this video neglects to mention is that Richard John Neuhaus was active in the Civil Rights Movement and was a friend of Martin Luther King, Jr. Although Neuhaus has unfortunately aligned himself too much in recent years with the Republican party, it is unfair to paint him as a right-wing manipulator. By the way, when Neuhaus wrote the founding document for the IRD, he was a Lutheran, not a Roman Catholic.

The "Renewal" of the UMC would be more likely if the IRD recognized that there are many good things that the general agencies do, and if the General Agencies would acknowledge that the IRD's criticisms are sometimes on target. The "ruin" of the UMC will be more likely if these two groups continue to tear each other apart as if there were no middle ground between the two.


"Renewal or Ruin?" from Steven D. Martin on Vimeo.

UMC Strengthens Stand Against War

The 2008 General Conference of the United Methodist Church has strengthened its stand against war in its Social Principles, according to this petition, which passed as ammended.

Until the 1996 Discipline, the Social Principles has simply said that "war is incompatible with teachings and example of Christ," plain and simple. However, in 2000, Mark Tooley of the IRD along with his liberal friend Philip Wogaman, managed to weaken this statement, making it instead say that war is rejected as the "usual" instrument of foreign policiy. In 2004, the "usual" was dropped by the legislative committee, but another statement was added, "to be employed only as a last resort in prevention of such evils as genocide, brutal suppression of human rights, and unprovoked national aggression." This latest statement (also submitted by J. Philip Wogaman) was understood by some as a basic outline of just war thinking, a move some interpreted to be a shift away from pacifism to just war doctrine.

Well, now in 2008, the 'just war' statement has been deleted! We have returned to the earlier statement, which simply calls war "incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ," period. The new statement also adds, "As disciples of Christ, we are called to love our enemies reject the use of violence, seek justice, and serve as reconcilers of conflict. " This makes it an even stronger rejection of war. And if that is not enough, just to make sure there are absolutely no misunderstandings, the legislative committee added, "We oppose unilateral first / preemptive strike actions and strategies on the part of any government." The motion was adopted 834-33 in the pleneary session, an almost unheard of level of agreement.

The new statement on war in the Social Principles has been made explicit here by our friends at the Methodist Federation for Social Action. (Thank you, MFSA, for your good work in this regard). The new statment now reads:

We believe war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ. We therefore reject war as an instrument of national foreign policy. We oppose unilateral first / preemptive strike actions and strategies on the part of any government. As disciples of Christ, we are called to love our enemies, reject the use of violence, seek justice, and serve as reconcilers of conflict. We insist that the first moral duty of all nations is to work together to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among them. We advocate the extension and strengthening of international treaties and institutions that provide a framework within the rule of law for responding to aggression, terrorism, and genocide. We believe that human values outweigh military claims as governments determine their priorities; that the militarization of society must be challenged and stopped; that the manufacture, sale, and deployment of armaments must be reduced and controlled; and that the production, possession, or use of nuclear weapons be condemned. Consequently, we endorse general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Historical and Doctrinal Footnote:

The United Methodist Church, in its highest level of doctrinal standards, has always maintained that "war and bloodshed are contrary to the gospel and spirit of Christ." (Article XVI of the Confession of Faith). This has always been the teaching of the United Methodist Church. It is protected by the second restrictive rule (see Paragraph 18, Article II of Section III found on page 27 of the 2004 Discipline), meaning it has not changed, and it cannot be "changed, altered, or revoked" (without an ammendment to the Constitution, which would require a 3/4 majority of the aggregate number of delegates voting from each of the annual conferences present at the General Conference. see pp. 38-39). I am aware that Wesley's Sermons and Notes are also listed as doctrinal standards, but according to the late Dr. Thomas Langford, they function in different ways than the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith. Dr. Langford saw this as a compromise worked out by the Wesleyan scholars Dr. Thomas Oden and Dr. Richard Heitzenrater before the 1988 General Conference -- see Doctrine and Theology in the United Methodist Church, edited by Thomas Langford, p. 180. Anyway, the 2004 Discipline states that "Within the Wesleyan tradition, then as now, the Sermons and Notes furnished models of doctrinal exposition." (p. 54). The fact that the Restrictive Rules specifically cite the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith, but they do not explicitly mention the Sermons and Notes means that the Articles and Confession are the highest levels of doctrine and the Sermons and Notes are 'models of doctrinal exposition.'

Typically United Methodist

It's 11:00 p.m. Eastern Time. We just had a motion at GC to limit the speches to two minutes each so that time could be saved. Now remember that we did this in order to save time. But by the time we had dealt with this motion, all of its substitutes, and amendments, and substitute amendments, we had spent 15 minutes -- in order to save time. Pictured here is Bishop Scott Jones who was presiding at the time, but there was nothing he could do about it.

A New Hymnal

The General Conference just passed plans for the development of a new United Methodist Hymnal. A commission will be formed that will report back to the 2012 General Conference. Here is a picture of Andy Langford speaking in favor of this motion. Some people spoke against the motion because by the time a new hymal is formed, it will already be outdated. Opponents also suggested that most new, contemporary churches would be using projectors and screens, not hymnals. Andy acknowledged the emerging technology and how it is changing the way we worship, but he still argued that a new hymnal was needed. The motion passed with 57% of the delegates voting in favor of it.

Threaten the World with Resurrection

That was a line from this speaker (Bishop Sharon Brown Christopher) at 2008 General Conference in Fort Worth, Texas. I don't know much about Bishop Christopher, but I sure liked that line. It reminds me of Wendell Berry's line about practicing resurrection, only better:











Other Photos from General Conference (these are pictures I took while watching G.C. online and using the "print screen" key):

Here's Kim Ingram to the left:











And here's Denny White: