I do not condemn you

In John 8 we see a story unfold in which Jesus has just retured from the Mount of Olives and goes into the temple. He is greeted by a group of pharisees who are dragging in a woman who was caught in the act of a sexual sin.They throw her on the ground before Jesus and then they remind him that their religious laws require that they stone her to death. According to John they are trying to trick Jesus.

At this point I imagine Jesus looking down at the humiliated, and likely still naked woman who is on trial for her sexual sin.

Then Jesus does something amazing,

He bends down next to her.

Now any one who knows much about communications will tell you that non-verbal communication speaks much more than what we say. And by bending down right next to this broken, sinful outsider Jesus is saying a lot.

Now Jesus could have stood tall and proud against this sinful woman. After all sexual sin is an abomination to the Lord right? The religious laws that the Jews followed gave them every right to stone her.

Jesus could have stood defiant against this sinful woman.

He could have made a bold and clear statement that God hates sexual sin and the law is there to enforce God's will.

But Jesus does things all wrong doesn't he?

He doesn't stand tall... he lowers himself. With his physical posture he places himself on the side of the outsider. He finds himself shoulder to shoulder, eyes down, hands in the dirt with a sexually sinful person.

But the religious law-keepers keep pushing the issue, so Jesus stands up. But at this point when he stands up it's not against the sinful woman is it?

He stands up for her!

Jesus stands up against the people who are supposedly on God's good side, and he stands up for the sexually sinful person who is supposedly not on God's good side. And then he reminds the religious law-keepers that they are just as messed up as she is and that they have absolutely no right to be so harsh.

And then, as the law-keepers are walking away Jesus looks down out the woman and says something truly amazing:

I do not condemn you.

Once again Jesus has a chance to stand firm against this sexually sinful woman but he doesn't. I imagine as he is saying this he reaches out his hand to help her up.

And then (and only then) after he has

lowered himself to be by her side,

stood up for her,

and made it clear that he does not condemn her,

does he look her in the eye and invite her to leave her old ways behind.

Now I don't know what happened next with that woman but I have to imagine that she took Jesus up on his invitation.

Why?

Because Jesus loved her.

He earned her trust.

He didn't try to threaten her with wrath or punishment.

He didn't even condemn her.

It's that kind of love that has unbelievable power to change people's hearts.

It's that kind of radical love that allows people to get to a place where they can accept God's grace and allow God to transform them.

It's that kind of love that we, as followers of Jesus, are called to embody.

Lately I've heard a lot of people talking about defending God and standing up for God. We are very insistent that we stand up and exercise our political power and privilege as the people on God's good side.

But Jesus says the way we treat outsiders is the way we treat Jesus himself.

And all of this is critically important right now because there are people all around us that have been hurt by Christians in our state exercising their immense political power. Most notably the lgbt community.

These people are not going to come seek us out. They are not going to come to our churches or show up at our campus ministry meetings. There is just to much pain and tension standing in the way.

But Jesus calls us to GO make disciples of ALL people.

Which means now is the time that we have to go to them. Sitting back and doing nothing is simply not enough. We have to go and reach out to them.

Be with them.

Love them.

Stand up for them.

Not condemn them.

Be Jesus to them.

We can no longer view them as enemies who are against us and our way of life. We have to see them as God's children (just like us) who need Jesus (just like us). Because God loves all of us.

grace & peace

Emptying of the Divine (the Predicament of Belief blog, pt. 2)

"Human reason inevitably finds itself confronted with questions it cannot answer empirically. One cannot prove that these broader questions are answerable, of course. But nor can one prove that they are meaningless or inherently unanswerable, since trying to do so entails resorting to the very kind of arguments one is trying to place off limits." (pg. 27)

Like my last one this post is a part of a blog tour through Philip Clayton and Steven Knapp's the Predicament of Belief, which I am taking part of with the guys at Homebrewed Christianity who on March 15th will be hosting a "Theo-nerd book party" with Philip Clayton, giving readers and listeners a chance to throw some tough questions about the book and the Emergent village podcast (which can be found at the Homebrewed website) to Philip.

In this chapter the authors take upon themselves the task of establishing a minimalist understanding for what they call an ultimate reality or "UR". They do so in a way that tries to maintain a position of respect for the scientific advances of the modern era. They go about establishing there arguments in a sequence of building blocks, so far not unlike a more postmodern version of  C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity". 

They make it very clear that they are not trying to establish a sort of empirical apologetic set of evidence that proves the existence of some sort of divine or ultimate reality. Instead they are using philosophical questions to argue that the existence of the before mentioned is minimally more likely to be true than false. This approach leaves room for doubt as well as committed faith (at it's best, of course.)

The authors pose the question of "Why even ask about the ultimate?", and then go about saying that these kinds of questions are worth asking and worth trying to find the answer to. Science, while having made vast progress of late, cannot answer every single question and is not infallible. "It doesn't take much reflection, however, to realize that precise empirical results are achievable only if the investigator makes certain assumptions about the nature of the reality being studied." (pg. 26)

They first propose a "mind-like" UR that could be coherent with a singular universe theory or the multiverse theory.

If this is the only universe then the largely improbable odds of the universe being governed by fundamental laws that allow for the expansion of life as we experience it. This approach (I'm assuming) is still arguing for a minimalist approach that says that theories about a mind-like UR are slightly more likely to be true than false, as opposed to an argument like intelligent design which says (according to an end-note from the authors) that the evidence supports that idea that a mind-like UR must exist.

Their response to the multiverse theory is similar in that it relies on some fundamental governing laws in the universes that could best be described by a mind-like UR.

From there the authors propose that the mind-like UR is probably an agent of action, in that (if my understanding is correct) it acts intentionally. This argument of intent is not hard to see from the singular universe theory, and they make the argument for the multiverse theory as well.

And this is where it gets interesting...

So if (the authors propose) this UR is mind-like and agent like and created this universe with some intention then wouldn't the creation of finite persons from an infinite being require a limiting of the infinite self or reality? They point to the Christian concept of kenosis, which is a Greek term for "an emptying" and is employed in Paul's description of Jesus in Philippians 2:7.

And what reason would an infinite (therefore lacking nothing) reality have of emptying or restricting one's self to create something finite? The authors argue that it must be something similar to the Christian concept of agape love.

Finally they close the chapter with a discussion of what they call the "divine lure" and what sociologist Peter Berger called "signals of transcendence" that, while providing no empirical evidence, seem to at least point in the direction of an ultimate and benevolent reality.

From this philosophical ground they have created the framework for a not less than personal and benevolent ultimate agent, which they admit still has a long way to go before being truly consistent with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and further still to the strictly Christian God that acted, in some way, through the person of Jesus. But that's saved for the next chapter.

Doubt, Agnosticism and Christian Minimalism (the Predicament of Belief blog , pt. 1)

"This is a difficult era for those who find themselves committed to the the values of scientific rationality and yet moved by the claims of  religious tradition... it is hard to decide what parts of one's tradition it makes sense to reject or retain." (pg. vii)

For the next couple of weeks I will be blogging through "the Predicament of Belief" by Philip Clayton and Steven Knapp". But before I jump into that a few quick words:

Big thanks to Trip Fuller and the guys at Homebrewed Christianity for my introduction to Philip Clayton and hooking me up with the book. I want to encourage anyone who's curious to check out the blog and podcast here, which includes Clayton's talk at the Emergent Village Theological Conversation. On the blog you will also find information about a live streamed "theological nerd book" party on March 15th.

Also, I want to admit something: I am in over my head here. I know this based off of reading the comments on the blog and listening to the podcast talk. I've never been to seminary and I'm certainly no scholar ( I attended one year of Bible College fresh out of high school, but that's it). So as I blog through the book don't expect in groundbreaking insights, just my struggle with this book. And by the way, when I say blog through the book I mean I will be posting as I am reading. I'm not reading ahead I'm posting at the end of each chapter I read, which means I may occasionally pose questions that will (hopefully) later be answered.

And now to chapter 1: Reasons for Doubt

In the first chapter the authors outline what they suggest are the five best reasons to doubt traditional Christian claims today. They are as follows:

1. Science: We now understand natural reasons for phenomenon that in per-modern times would have been attributed to the divine.

2. Evil: "this is the problem of reconciling the hypothesis of a good and powerful God with the experience of bad things that such a God , if this being really existed, would be expected to stop or prevent." (pg. 8)

3. Religious plurality: Since other religions claim knowledge and experience of the divine and have led to achievements in art, individual moral behavior and social reform how can Christians claim to be correct?

4. The state of historical evidence: How do we know we can trust our later manuscripts of ancient writings that seem to contradict each other and make outlandish claims regarding the gospel story?

5. The claim of resurrection: This one to me seems to actually embody the previous four reasons for doubt in a singular incident. Why should one affirm resurrection considering advances in our understanding of the way the human body works (1), lack of current evidence to support the traditional claim that God was setting the world right or achieving justice and victory over death in that specific act (2), questions over why the divine would act decisively in one human from one religious tradition and claims of resurrection from other traditions (3), and the lack of what moderns would consider definitive evidence to support such a claim (4). This makes this crucial claim one of the most troubling of all.

The authors pose these doubts as an attempt at honesty. Why shouldn't Christians engage the serious questions that relate to our faith without dismissing them as attacks on our faith? In my personal experience even when I try to dismiss them they have a haunting effect (especially number 2) in my mind. Even when I don't want to ask these questions I still do. So why should I run from them? 

From what I have gathered this book sets out to do just the opposite...

It attempts to engage these questions...

I want to engage these questions.

But in the light of these reasons to doubt another important question surfaces. Why not just be an agnostic? But, that would assume that we cannot, and should not try to answer these questions so why engage them?

I couldn't be an agnostic even if I wanted to, I think, because these questions would still haunt me.

Maybe the doubts are worth engaging, but in a more honest and thereby humble way...

Which is why the authors propose "Christian minimalism" or the idea that the beliefs we affirm or only minimally more likely to be true than false. In other words what changes is not whether you hold the beliefs or not but the certainty with which we hold them.

For me the first and most obvious implication of this is that it doesn't allow for the "tight fisted" holding of dogma that is a common trait in many fundamentalist types. This means you can believe in something without holding it in a way that makes you want to use violence against those who would disagree with or challenge your beliefs. I like that...

But another implication is what keeps this from being practically agnosticism? As the author points out it's basically similar to saying we can't really know with any certainty if these claims are worth affirming. Why would I act on a conviction that is only slightly more likely to be true than false? How could that conviction transform me?

I'm not saying that it can't but how would that work?

I appreciate the attempt to find a middle ground between the extremes of blind fidelity and agnosticism ( as well as the other alternative of outright rejection) but what does that look like for me? What does it look like for my engagement in my faith community? What about in a leadership role?

That's what I'm working through right now. Listening to the podcast talk helped a little but it raised a lot more questions than it answered (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can be a little frustrating).

Anyway, that's all for now but be on the lookout for more posts soon ( I can't say when because my reading schedule is basically whenever it fits into my work and school schedule).

Grace and Peace

becoming human

"God created humanity in God's own image, in the divine image God created them, male and female God created them."
-Genesis 1:27

"From the very beginning, we humans have wanted to escape this world, to become like gods. We have wanted to escape the limits we feel and gain a gods-eye view of the universe. Yet what do we find in the Gospel narratives? We find the unique idea that God became human and dwelt with us. The desire to escape our humanity and become like God is twisted and turned on its head, throwing us back into our humanity. The incarnation tells us that if we want to be like God, then we must be courageous enough to fully and unreservedly embrace our humanity."

-Peter Rollins, "Insurrection"

.          .          .

I have said it before and I will say it again:  It's time for us evangelical Christians to redeem our view of humanity. 

Because I have to admit that I occasionally grow weary of much of the language and ideology that has infected the evangelical church when it comes to this subject. And it seems to be everywhere. One of my good friends not long ago made that statement that people are "trash in the sight of God."

To which I responded, "but God created us... and in God's image!"

As Michael Card points out when we are first introduced to God in the Bible it is as the creative artist. 

And people are an integral part of the artist's masterpiece. One part fertile soil from God's good earth, and one part breath of the creator God.

So where did we get this idea that saying people are trash somehow brings glory to God? Wouldn't that be a bit like telling a master painter that you think her paintings are trash and expecting her to take it as a compliment?

And I bring all this up because I think it's not only a incorrect idea but a dangerous one.

When we refuse to see the inherit worth in all of God's handiwork - when we see people (or any other part of God's good creation) as trash then it can lead to oppression and abuse.

.          .          .

One of the prominent ways this surfaces itself is in the way the Evangelical church (and many other faces of the Church throughout her history) thinks about women. When we refuse to see all people, male and female, as inherently valued on the grounds of being created in the image of God then we end up trying to  devalue some people in order to feel better about ourselves. We put up barriers to separate "us" from "them". We end up spending a lot of time focusing on figuring out what God's planned role is for different genders.

Now at this point someone always ends up pointing out that men are different from women.

Which is true...

But isn't it also true that men are different from other men, and women different from other women?

In my experience all people are different.

.          .          .

I'm not interested in constricting myself to a sort of one-size-fits all role for being a man. I am interested in what God's role is for being Ryne. I want to be the Ryne that God created me to be!

So I'm okay with having some characteristics that would traditionally be considered feminine. In fact I've never met a single person that didn't have both masculine and feminine characteristics. Which comes as no surprise to me considering that I believe we are all created in the image of a God who the Bible describes in both masculine and feminine terms.

.          .          .

It is my sincere prayer that we will figure out how to work together in the journey God brings us on.

And along the way we will all stumble and fall and knock each other over, then we will cry together and then laugh together, and help each other up just to fall down again.

And we will recognize the journey, with all its ups and downs, can be deeply beautiful and sacred if we only allow it to.

And somehow, through God's transforming grace we will learn what it means to be the people that God created us to be.

Then we will be human again!

Grace & Peace,

Ryne

when wine turns to water (poem)

Seagulls flock,

or doves,

which ever you prefer.

-this is,

after all,

Your story

isn't it?

I won't lie

but, even then

the truth

can be creative.

You can only

really

do one miracle

when you are dead.

Rosary (Poem)

The dancing god lights up,

Hot and heavy, towards the ceiling

And the flickering light

 On the off-white...

I fight the thick air-
In and out,
In and out...
Deeper now, in...
And out.

Beads and a cross
And I recite the ancient
(W)holy (heretical) words
Lying to myself.

Be quiet...

.      .      .

Put out the lights.
The dancing god goes wild:
Spinning, swirling, swimming
Goes the dancing aroma god.

Linger with me scent,
I'll dance with you tomorrow.
Make haste to help me.
Amen

a father and his sons (part 3)

In my last two posts I talked about the story Jesus tells in Luke 15 about a son who runs away, wastes all his money and then comes home.

A father who is very generous and throws a huge party.

And a jealous older brother.

So when the older brother comes home from working in the field to find this big party being thrown for his younger brother he refuses to go in.

So his loving father comes out to plead with him. He basically tells him that he loves him just as much as the younger brother and that if he wanted a big party he could have asked for one at any time. He is after all a very generous man.

At this point in the story Rob Bell says in his book Drops Like Stars,

"The older brother then has a moment of profound enlightenment. He puts his arm around his father and says, "you're right, Dad. I'm sorry I've been such an ass. Can I get you a beer?"

... wait what?

Now, of course we know that he is joking. That isn't how the story ends is it?

The father goes out to plead with his son, he gives his speech and that's it.

We don't get to see what happens next.

It ends with a cliff hanger.

If this were a movie I would be really annoyed.

I can almost imagine his disciples being like, "How is Jesus ever going to start a movement telling stories like this?"

This story doesn't wrap up nice and neatly...

No condensed summary...

No three points of application all beginning with the same letter...

It just sits there... unresolved.

The most troubling thing about this story is not what it says. But what it refuses to say...

As I said in the last post I feel like I can really relate to the older brother in this story. But because Jesus leaves this story open ended it demands something of me. This story demands that I ask the question: what kind of son am I going to be.

Just like the older brother the choice lies before me. It happens every day.

I can choose to participate in what God is doing or I can be selfish, insecure and judgmental.

I enter into this story and I live in it on a daily basis... and every time I decide how this story ends.

Grace & Peace