Contemplating Wisdom

Well, been off visiting youngest daughter who has a new coffee pot you’d have to see to believe. So while drinking fancy coffee I started thinking about why all of my contemplations of the past few months have been so important, i.e., the ideas of evil and forgiveness and how these things are represented in the life and death of Jesus. When I look at what I see and hear of Christianity in our modern world it seems to be dominated by the idea of judgment and violence. Old ways of thinking about why Jesus died and how that suffering has set things on the proper road towards rescuing all of creation paints a violent, helpless picture of God held hostage by a vaporous power of evil. In such I find little redeeming value. If Jesus is the symbol of God’s love and compassion how can we say then that such a God would require suffering and violence? Thinking that violence can in anyway lead to peace now or eternal peace later just doesn’t equate in my thinking. The violence committed against J

Wow, that's a big cup you have? Okay, back to the why question. Darwin’s theory identifies in the evolution of species the idea that suffering is an integral part of creation’s development. We know that when DNA replicates there often occurs gene abnormalities and mutations referred to as “errors”. From these, amounting to no more than slight differences, comes either better fitness for survival or lesser fitness prone to extinction. The better fitted characteristics survive, the lesser suffer against their environment and eventually perish. The evil we call suffering is literally part of the process of survival. It is important to make note of this insight because it negates a long standing, primitive human trait to feel that when a disaster happens it is because some deserving judgment has been rendered on the guilty. Knowing suffering is part of the process of life refutes the assumption such suffering is the result of mistakes in a previous life, a parent’s sins becoming the

Grab your cup and buckle in. This part of the ride is a bit bumpy. The question of how it is that Jesus saves leads to another puzzling question: if there is a God who is good, why is there evil from which we need to be saved? Even if we conclude there is a god responsible for creation then what kind of god is it that designs a world fraught with danger? And if god is indeed responsible for the design and is in control of keeping that design working then it is not hard to conceive of god as being vengeful, unjust, or just plain fickle. Considering the world’s chaos and suffering it is not illogical to conclude there is no reason, no good, and no god behind the working of creation. But first, let’s identify what we mean by evil. We humans create tremendous evil for ourselves and for others by the self-serving, shortsighted choices we make. A child is killed by a drunk driver and we say, “Why did God allow that to happen?” If God has culpability the culpability is limited to giving hu

Now the problem is that coffee has caffeine and caffeine makes your heart rate go up, the flow of blood to your brain increases and the brain generates thoughts that weren’t there before. So, caffeine is good right? Yes, but then there is always the postulate that too much of a good thing can go the other way. Too much caffeine can result in too much blood pressure, wear you out, challenge your other organs, or worse case scenario lead to explosion in some part of your brain. So watch it! Me? In spite of my bravado I try to limit myself to one cup in the morning spread over three or four refills. That way my brain thinks I’m drinking more than I really am. Have another cup? I not only write early, with cup near by, but I read more than I write. In doing so I ran across this in one of my latest reading adventures by Robert Wright, The Evolution of God . Near the end (p. 440) Wright draws a conclusion on the idea of salvation and how its meaning has varied through history and in various

Now where was I? Oh, yes, pour another cup, I remember, it was about the progress of human redemption and how the change in our thinking is transforming our whole state of being. We don’t always get it right but we know, for examples, that human slavery is not acceptable, the helpless are not to be exploited, that violence and war are not to be waged for acquisition of that which belongs to another, and, in general, there are certain inalienable rights bestowed upon humans that we believe are endowed by the Creator. Converting our knowledge to universal practice takes longer but the mechanisms for achieving these higher principles are clearly revealed to us in a variety of religious traditions. For those who choose to be Christians we see these truths revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus. In Jesus we are challenged to follow more than just the letter of the law. He sets for us a higher ideal that transcends the old ways of setting values in concrete or writing them in stone. F

Careful, this cup is hot. This is a new blend and it’s really smooth. So…if you ask me, “Why Jesus?” here is my answer: first, to show in the life of Jesus and his teachings the potential we have in how we live and that we have denied the very best of the potential God has placed in us. Second, in Jesus we see the ultimate picture of God setting right our relationship through love and forgiveness offered without price. Third, in the crucifixion of Jesus we see our human nature that blindly rejects and denies that God’s way will get us where we desire to be. And fourth, the power of goodness witnessed in the resurrection is an emphatic statement that nothing in life or death can defeat God’s desires to achieve for creation the highest good. Now if you were to ask of me, “What would you like to see in the Church of tomorrow?” I’d say for starters, let’s seriously rethink some key elements of what church goers hear sung, preached and taught in most churches every Sunday. Anselm’s 11th cen

Well, its Sunday morning, coffee pot is brewing, and I’m getting ready for church. What better time to talk about “evil”. Evil has always been a sticky question for people of faith. From where does evil come and, if God is good, why does evil exist? There’s much to be said about happenings that we deem to be destructive evil but for this cup of coffee let me stick with some of our more antiquated ideas. Ancient thinkers have pictured God as having an adversary, a competing power, often called Satan or The Devil. I like the insightful Star Wars designation as “The Dark Side”. The anthropomorphic (human-like) attributes we apply to evil are quiet natural in the history of religious development. We project human qualities onto God even though we know that God is not limited or bound by such features. Communication about God in metaphoric terms that parallel our human experience helps us connect with God. The same need for metaphoric images is at work when envisioning evil. We give evil

I see you already have your cup. Good. Where did I leave off? Oh, yes, that question about why Jesus and was it really necessary for his life to turn out the way it did? Around the middle of the last century, noted British preacher Leslie Weatherhead wrote an insightful little book entitled The Will of God. The book has served as an excellent answer to that question for many years. Though I think Weatherhead’s answer needs updating his premise is still strong. Jesus’ rejections and death was not God’s intention, desire, or will. Rather, like so many of the prophets before Jesus, it was God’s desire that the people accept him and his teaching. The purpose of Jesus is the same as many prophets before him, to show us a Creator who loves us, who created us to love sacrificially, and including forgiving others as we have been forgiven. Though we as disciples consider Jesus to be unique in revealing God’s nature, some of his most poignant teachings are actually taken from earlier writings i

Grab your cup I’ve made a full pot this morning. We’re going to need it. Some years ago it dawned on me there were some things about the understanding of faith I grew up with that no longer seemed reasonable. I was in disagreement with Anselm, even though I didn’t know it was Anselm’s at the time. Along with the growing crack in the wall of my faith came the question, “When exactly in the story of human history did God’s saving act take place?” If, as Anselm suggests, the death of Jesus was the key to balancing the scales of injustice, tilted because we dishonored God through our self-center disobedience, when exactly was the moment justice restored spiritual equilibrium? Was it at Jesus’ birth, the moment of his death, the dawning of his resurrection, at the point in which we ask forgiveness, or is there another time? In searching for that answer I realized that the most important moment for me in the Jesus story is when he utters from the cross, “Father, forgive them. They do not kno

Glad you didn’t give up on me. Coffee’s still warm so let’s push on. When in my memory I see that neon cross bearing the words “Jesus Saves” it serves to remind me of something I reluctantly admit: I need help. For no matter how hard I’ve tried I have not lived up to my own expectations, much less God’s. The humbling truth to which I have reluctantly arrived is: my efforts at making myself ‘good enough’ have and will always fall short. Spiritually speaking, I concluded a long time ago that if it is all up to me, I'm toast. Like the climbers plucked from the mountain peak in a snow storm, being "saved" is the sudden awareness that we've reached a point where we can't manufacture our own rescue. It means we can in no way, with whatever strength of character or amount of good deeds dig ourselves out, pull ourselves up, or re-create ourselves in a fashion that would measure up to the image intended at creation by the Spiritual Being from which all of life flows. T

Ummm. That coffee really smells good this early in the morning. Grab your cup. Let’s take a new look at that old adage, “Jesus Saves”. You realize, of course, my reason for writing is to see how my understanding works with those of you who are involved in the same search for making sense of this in a fast changing world of reason. I should warn you that in no way am I in the same game with some of the theologians and writers I’ve cited. In fact, most of my own understanding has come from reading and hopefully absorbing a tiny amount of their wisdom. And, I keep reading and searching for better ways to understand and express my faith. My understanding is in a constant state of evolution. Along the way I realized that the expression, “Jesus Saves” was raising other questions for me: “From what exactly is it that Jesus saves?” And, “What does Jesus provide that makes this happen?” Other issues and questions surface as well but these will likely take us to the bottom of this pot of cof

Nothing smells quite like freshly ground coffee. The aroma makes it taste even better, don’t you think? I do my best thinking along side a cup; early in the morning. Which was a good thing this morning as I realized I inadvertently used a word last posting assuming you would know what I meant. Not an unusual word but a choice that might leave some scratching their heads. Allow me to take a short side trip. Unless you’re an English major you probably haven’t used the word “metaphor” in conversation since getting out of school. When we speak of something spiritual—that which we cannot see, taste, touch, hear—whether it refers to a being or an experience, the only way we can have such a conversation is to use ‘words’ that are descriptive. The problem with spiritual matters is: how do you describe something you can’t see, hear, or touch? Answer: we use words that compare the ‘spiritual’ with those things that we experience as concrete, material, or, if not, at least common to our knowledg

Sorry to take so long. Grab a cup and let’s talk a bit about where all this might be going. When a theory has been around for as long as Anselm’s we make it almost sacred. And, in the life of the church, that is what has happened. Anselm’s substitution theory is steeped in our hymns, our theology, and literally so deep in our vocabulary that we cannot speak Christian without it. Most folks in the church would be surprised to learn that the metaphor for interpreting how Jesus’ death saved the world did not appear until the middle centuries of the current era. It seems almost heresy to acknowledge that Anselm’s theory was not part of Jesus’ own teachings. That’s how difficult it is for us to see past this idea of Jesus’ suffering and death being the punishment he absorbed for our sins. Now there is a positive side to Anselm’s metaphor and that is the love of God Jesus portrays by putting himself in our place. But for modern thinkers can that image balance the injustice of a God who woul

Thank you, it is good coffee. Comes from Central Market; Dallas Blend. I try to stick with decaf myself so one cup's my limit. But you’re welcome to more. Where was I? Oh, yes, there is a long list of well respected theologians, as well as atheist, who have recently published books attempting to understand the human condition and our relationship to the universe. The late, highly respected theologian William Placard summarized his view recently in an essay, that served as a guide for this series of blogs, but admits that none,including his own, are sufficiently perfect. What some find as inspiring others simply say doesn’t work for them. Girard’s theory, cited in the previous column, has indeed redirected the conversation but if Jesus was to be the ultimate scapegoat, Placard points out, the past 2000 years have not lessened our human ability to perpetuate this destructive process. Granted, a number of folks will say, “Hey wait. Why fix what isn’t broken?” These obviously find An

We can talk while the coffee's brewing. Not quite a century later Peter Abelard objected to Anselm’s 12th century interpretation of how it is that Jesus’ death saves the world. Abelard thought he had a better idea and believed what Jesus did was show that we could live at a higher level of human kindness than previously accepted. The love of Jesus portrays not only the supreme love God has for us but becomes the inspiration for the love we can have for God and for our neighbor. Abelard’s “moral influence” theory has been judged by history as being a bit too optimistic as the following centuries did not produce the inspirational change in lives it proposed. So even though Anselm’s theory of Jesus being our substitute was slightly wounded it lived on as the most prevalent view of how Jesus saves. Not until the 19th and 20th century when cultural influences from the enlightenment spurred renewed debate have other weighty theories begun to emerge. Swedish theologian Gustaf Aulen challe

Grab a cup I want to tell you about one of the most influential preachers in Church history. Anselm of Canterbury goes back to the 1100’s, born in Italy, educated in France, and appointed by the Pope to England. Well traveled this theologian and preacher engaged the hot religious topic of his day: How does the life and death of Jesus save the world? Anselm’s new thinking not only made sense to his listeners but is still the most dominant theory in evangelical Christianity. The question for today is will this 900 year-old theory remain relevant for the 21st century? In Anselm’s day there was a rigid social order. You were born into a social class that ranged from royalty to peasantry and that class determined your role in society. Behavior, respect and honor were given to the upper class and those below were expected to be gracious. If a peasant, slave or commoner were to offend someone above them there were certain retributions encountered in order to repay or re-balance this dishonor

Mom and Dad Wisdom lived near the buckle of the Bible belt; drove us to Sunday school every Sunday right passed that church with the neon cross flashing the truth known to all, “Jesus Saves”. There was no debate about “how” just that it was an unquestioned fact. Little did mom and dad suspect they were part of a society raising a generation that would question everything. Even the church’s sacred orthodoxy would not be safe in an increasingly scientific, modern world. The Apostle Paul was the first published writer of the early church and clearly his calling was to take Jesus to the Gentiles—the Greek/Roman communities of the Empire. Paul translated the life and thinking of this Semitic prophet to a community more familiar with Greek philosophy than Jewish theology. The early church fathers were from these same communities, long familiar with wrestling the ancient questions regarding the world, the universe, from where it all came, and who was in control, if anyone. Most modern schol

“Hmmm, haven’t done that in a long time,” was the first thing that popped into my mind. It was in response to a request to preach, or teach, a series on how to understand the Christian doctrine of The Trinity, i.e., One God in Three Persons. My guess is that most of us have wrestled with this image of God and either come away with an analogy that works for you, or have been left totally confused or have decided to just accept this on faith while leaving the details to heavier thinkers. But in a modern world were the fastest growing segment of our population is prone to find fault with any concept of God and where people of other faiths want to know our understanding of God, leaving the sticky details to someone else can be problematic. As far back as the first century the Church has struggled to explain Jesus’ divine nature, his connection to the "One" God found in the Hebrew Scriptures, and the profound evidence of God’s work in the world that continues in Jesus’ absence. A

If you'd like to follow the search for wisdom, sign up. I'll log in several times a week to publish thoughts and ramblings. Some will reflect books I'm reading, sermons on which I'm working, and even ask for help with the above. --GW