Thursday, November 29, 2007

Great Advent Calendar


This is an advent calendar passed on to me by Wezlo (see links on right) which was made by one of his church members. Her name is Anne Goodrich, is a graphic designer and website is http://www.goodrichdesign.net/ and if you would like to print out this wonderful Advent Calendar for free (Thanks Anne!!!) you can do so at http://goodrichdesign.net/AdventGivingCalendar.pdf
The creative idea behind this calendar is to give gifts instead of recieving gifts. On December 3, you give 5 cents for every pair of jeans you own and on December 8, you give 3 cents for every light switch and on December 25, you are asked to give 15 cents for every gift you recieve. This idea is awesome. I hope my readers will print one out and comment on (at the end of the season) how much they have given. Let the giving begin!

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Trying to stop being so selfish...

In the last week or two of every month, I find myself in the church secretary's office helping her (Mary) fold, staple and address the monthly newsletter. Today, we were halfway through the approximately 240 newsletters and our discussion turned to a homeless man who came to our door earlier in the month. Most of the time, anyone looking for food or shelter or just help in general are sent to the Lutheran church down the street, as they hold the money for our local ministerium to give out, but instead, Mary called me and asked me to talk to him.

Tom hadn't eaten in a day and decided to ask for help because it was the first day of the year it had gotten really cold. He was looking for money to catch a bus to the shelter a few towns away. I took Tom in my car to the local McDonalds (his choice). We chatted over the meal, and I asked him for a little bit of his life story. I asked him about how he survives, how he finds food, how he finds money, the things I deemed important to someone who has no place to live. Before we left, I bought him a $25 gift card for more food and as we were leaving (he refused to let me give him a ride) he said he might stop by the church on Sunday. I then said something rather stupid. I said no. I said I didn't want him to come back.

I didn't say it because I didn't want him in the building. I never got around to saying why, cause he started to walk away after shaking my hand. I meant to say I didn't want him to come just because he felt obligated from my generosity, I wanted him to come because he wanted to. It is a shame this moment of stupidity came across to Tom, but that is that and we have not crossed paths since.

Upon coming back, I had the brilliant idea that something needed to be done for people like Tom. He needed a way to make more than $10 a day by asking for spare change. He needed a place where he would be fed, keep warm during the day, and I think most importantly, a job which would work to accomadate his schedule.

I spoke to my supervior, and he agreed that ideas need to be looked at. I spoke to another pastor about the idea, and he gave me a lead or two. I also asked the husband of a friend in Seminary who I thought might know something about this type of thing. I was given a few places to look, but I realized something about myself which I really don't like. I realized that I want the credit for the idea. I want to be the one who gets the glory for the concept, for the work...and it feels awful. I've guarded my idea from many others because of my selfish pride and would have given only lip service to God for the idea had it ever been developed more.

I hope that will change. I hope I start broadening my idea out a little more. One to give others an opportunity to help me in the creative challenges of working on this idea. I also hope that by offering up my ideas, it helps me to release some of the selfishness that I have within me. If I truly believe in community, I really ought to give the community of God the credit for the idea. And hopefully the 7 or so people who read my blog will be able to give insight from their own God given perspectives.

So here is to being less selfish and hoping ideas will come from the communities I belong.

Monday, November 26, 2007

A conversation I had about my last sermon.

The following conversation is between me "Tjenafitta" and another pastor in NJ. It started as a comment to my last sermon, which is below this post, entitled "I AM" It was a conversation filled with a lot of learning which will hopefully make me read some stuff I had not considered.

baptistwes: nonononononononononononononononono
baptistwes: the Trinity has no "parts"
TjenaFitta: What do mean the trinity has no parts?
baptistwes: I read in your blog - Father, Son, Holy Spirit are different "parts" of the Trinity
baptistwes: my prof at college would scream, NEIN!!!! at anyone who said that
baptistwes: freak people out
TjenaFitta: as opposed to?
baptistwes: Persons
baptistwes: there's no parts in the Trinity, as that would divide the ousia
baptistwes: 1 ousia, 3 hypostasis
TjenaFitta: I don't know greek
baptistwes: roughly interpreted, "1 essence of being, 3 centers of personality"
baptistwes: It sounded like what your friend was doing was modalism
TjenaFitta: Thats what I said. They are all part of the same essence. I don't like the word persons because it implies that they are actual persons and I don't believe them to be
baptistwes: nonononononononononoooo
baptistwes: they are persons
baptistwes: just not (with the exception of the incarnate Son) human
baptistwes: parts means that the Trinity can be divied up
baptistwes: it was one of the huge fights in the early Church
TjenaFitta: So different persons means it can't be divided up, but parts can?
baptistwes: yup
TjenaFitta: don't buy it
baptistwes: that's why the language came down the way it did
TjenaFitta: Yes well, language is a bitch and doesn't always work out the way we hope
baptistwes: because if you have "part" of something, you don't have the something - you have part of something
baptistwes: but if you're encountering the Son, you're not encountering part of God - but God
baptistwes: that's the reason for the language
TjenaFitta: Well see...now thats the first time you made sense
baptistwes: sorry, needed to work to get there
baptistwes:
baptistwes: but that's the reason for the langauge
baptistwes: it's also why modalism doesn't work
TjenaFitta: modalism?
baptistwes: umm
baptistwes: saying that God isn't truly tri-une - he just interacts with Creation in different "modes" we call "Father, Son, and HOly Spirit."
baptistwes: Your statment here is why I was saying "parts" divides the divine essence: "And Tony told me that when we look at the Greek text, we see that the Holy Spirit and Jesus are things belonging to God. It is similar to saying my arm is its own separate thing, but it is still a part of my overall body."
TjenaFitta: eh, I don't know. I mean, I can't remove my arm as a part
baptistwes: Rigth
baptistwes: but the Holy Spirit isn't a part - the Holy Spirit is God
baptistwes: The metaphor of applying "parts" to the Trinity is incorrect, for exactly that reason - an arm isn't human - it's part of a human
baptistwes: that's not True for the Trinity
TjenaFitta: right, but my overall point is not that at all. I'm saying that God isn't any of these names. Any of the words we attempt to use are not really discriptors of what God is
baptistwes: right, but when you're dealing with Trinitarian and Incarnational issues you have to be REALLY careful with language
baptistwes: Because "God the Son" is a fundamentally different metaphor than "God is peace"
baptistwes: or "I AM justice..."
baptistwes: One is a descriptor of essence, the other is a descriptor of an attribute
TjenaFitta: perhaps. But at this point, I would switch your positions. I would say that justice is essence and son is an attibute
baptistwes: Yah, the jumps language
baptistwes: it goes back to the term "hypostasis" when the Trinitarian formula was developed
baptistwes: "essence" is how God his relational nature to us in the persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
baptistwes: "justice" is an abstract - The Holy Spirit is a communicative hypostasis
baptistwes: a person
TjenaFitta: My entire hope is that we as humans do not do that. If we are "doing unto the least of these" and God is within us, then justice, peace, love, etc are the essence of God by which we are doing them
baptistwes: again, you're using language different
TjenaFitta: Well of course I am
baptistwes: OK, switch "essence" to "nature" in your sentence, then it works
baptistwes: when you're talking about the Trinity - you do NOT want to use the term essence loosely
baptistwes: I'm drilling you on this because this is at the very heart of what makes Christianity distinctive from other religions...
baptistwes: when we're talking about the Trinity - it's best to play the language game with the rules the Church worked out over it's history
TjenaFitta: Ok...well, I can totally say that I just used a wrong word on the 'parts v. persons' cause I have never heard that argument, but I agree with it. How I work out for others that they are not actually humans is not going to be easy, but ok...
baptistwes: say "personalities"
TjenaFitta: but otherwise, I don't think God gives a hoot over essence or nature
baptistwes: my Orthodox friends would cringe but say, "OK"
TjenaFitta: if God is omni-everything, then it all works
baptistwes: eh
baptistwes: God is Shiva?
baptistwes: nah
TjenaFitta: Thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if God is essence and nature, then what difference does it make in how it's said?
baptistwes: Soteriology
baptistwes: what Protestantism seems to have forgotten is that the language of the Trinity and the Incarnation took play entirely in the context of "How has this God, revealed in Scripture saved us?"
TjenaFitta: ok
TjenaFitta: So all I'm saying, in the long run, is that God saved us because God loves us.
baptistwes: sure
baptistwes: but that love is Revealed in the very essence of the Trinity
TjenaFitta: And I would still argue that the essence of love is revealed in the nature of Christ
TjenaFitta: I realize that the pervious comment is either mind blowingly genius or mind numbingly stupid, but it's all I've got
baptistwes: yes, but the nature of Christ is contingent on the Trinity too
TjenaFitta: But we just got done discussing that the nature of Christ and the nature of God and the nature of the HS are all the same thing
baptistwes: essence are the same
baptistwes: or...well nature too depending on how you're using it
baptistwes: Jesus is the Incarnate Son - the idea that he's fully God is dependant on Trinitarian theology
baptistwes: the Trinity is "one essence/three centers of Personality" the Incarnate Son is "two essences/one center of Personality"
TjenaFitta: First, I really like this idea of personality over person
baptistwes: k
TjenaFitta: and none of the things I believe seem to be contridictory to the ideas you've described...
baptistwes: that's get's weird too - say "center of personality"
baptistwes: what's that?
baptistwes: I'm describing Calcedonian orthodoxy - it's the theology of the creeds
TjenaFitta: but I want parishioners (as well as myelf) to focus more on doing Godly things for others, not worry about the nature or essence of God
baptistwes: Matt, orthodoxy and orthopraxy have to be intertwined - if you don't have them together you veer off into various culdesacs and heresies
TjenaFitta: I agree completely, but right now, I don't see much orthopraxy, which I deem to be the more important of the two
baptistwes: Think about it, "Godly things for others" is a command which comes from Jesus - the Incarnate Son - who demonstrates that calling by doing what? Taking on human flesh and not considering equality with God as something to grasp on to
baptistwes: You don't have orthodoxy either - ask someone in your church is Jesus' soul was human or divine...
baptistwes: braid them together
baptistwes: Orthodoxy is the boundary-markers of the Church....we let it go at our own peril and we make it into something else (intellectual spirituality) at out own peril
baptistwes: Part of the problem is that when we hold on to the Trinitarian language loosely, or pick it apart to figure out "how it works," we loose the mystery of God.
TjenaFitta: Ok. I get that. But I don't think I loosened the boundaries of orthodoxy by saying God is love or God is peace by asking people to remove human constructs like father, shepherd, lamb, etc. I think God being truth or love enhances the mystery of God, not the other way around
baptistwes: Right, but you equated it with Trinitarian language - and that's where you loosened up
baptistwes: it's different
baptistwes: put it this way
baptistwes: when you're dealing with Justice, are you dealing with the fullness of God?
TjenaFitta: I think so
baptistwes: (actually, that's a bad one because "Justice" is actually a greek goddess...)
baptistwes: Really? then what about mercy? or forgivness? or love or hope, or creativity or...
TjenaFitta: Yes to all of those
baptistwes: but creativity isn't the fullness of God
baptistwes: becuase God is also just and loving and kind and vengeful
TjenaFitta: exactly
baptistwes: but when you deal with the persons of the Trinity you deal with the fullness of God...
baptistwes: Because the Son is just and loving and kind and vengeful
TjenaFitta: No, when we deal with the fullness of God, we put them in the persons of the trinity
baptistwes: right
baptistwes: because the persons of the Trinity are each all those things as they are in eternal relationship with each other
TjenaFitta: wait...you can't agree with what I said because I meant it to be contradictory to what you said
TjenaFitta: let me rephrase
baptistwes: go ahead
baptistwes: Have you read Pelikan?
TjenaFitta: I mean that when we deal with the fullness of God, which is all joy, peace, vengence, love, etc, all bundled up...We just happend to put them in the persons of the trinity because that is easy for us to do.
TjenaFitta: No
baptistwes: no
baptistwes: that's not what we do
baptistwes: Because mercy and vengance and love and justice don't each describe the fullness of God
TjenaFitta: wait
TjenaFitta: I'm not saying that one individually does at all
baptistwes: but when you start talking about "fullness" in conjunction with the Trinity - that's what you end up saying
baptistwes: The Father is "fully God"The Son is "fully God"
baptistwes: the Holy Spirit is "fully God"
TjenaFitta: No
baptistwes: justice is....an attribute
TjenaFitta: love is fully God, justice is fully God, vengence is fully God...plus all other "attributes"
baptistwes: no, see you're using the langauge like, "Love is fully of God"
TjenaFitta: no, there is not a "of" in my statement
baptistwes: love is fully God....no - love is a descriptor of God
TjenaFitta: In your way of thinking yes
TjenaFitta: but not mine...
TjenaFitta: because I am saying that God is both fully love and vengence and joy and fustration
baptistwes: but you're talking about attributes again
TjenaFitta: I don't think so. I think father is the attribute
baptistwes: "fully God" in Trinitarian language deals with the persons
baptistwes: I want you to pick up Pelikan's history of the Christian Tradition series...I'll read it with you
TjenaFitta: Oh wait...I did read part of that...but it's in PA
TjenaFitta: Sorry, I read your name wrong
baptistwes: The problem is that I'm playing the language game according to the rules the Church has set out - you're playing a new game
TjenaFitta: I realize that and that is part of what I wanted to highlight
TjenaFitta: I think God cringed when the fathers first started to describe who God is
baptistwes: Yah, see - the only way I can say that is if I didn't think the Holy Spirit has guided the Church
TjenaFitta: In my mind, I can balance the two. I believe they were acting out of intelect and not love. Otherwise, they wouldn't have had those conversations
baptistwes: Don't cringe at the Fathers - they weren't the abstractors sitting in ivory towers that the West has imaged them
baptistwes: No, that's not a fair reading of them at all
baptistwes: not at all
TjenaFitta: Well, I would have had to read them a lot more to give them a fair anything
baptistwes: These were people who make our piety, love, and charity to the world look like plastic jewelry - they did what they did because they believed in the in-breaking Kingdom of Jesus and wrestled with the Scriptures as they did so
TjenaFitta: All I'm saying is that they were doing unto others because that is what God calls us to...but then they stopped and tried to figure out the nature of such things, and got lost from actually doing the things that got them there in the first place
baptistwes: No
baptistwes: see that's exactly what they didn't do
baptistwes: that's a modern division
baptistwes: the statement you made can't be historically supported
TjenaFitta: of course not. I just said I can't treat them fairly
baptistwes: but then why make the statment?
TjenaFitta: Cause you're trying to bring in stuff I have no reference to and I'm only trying to work with what I know of the scriptures and how I feel God wants us to act
baptistwes: But the only way to read the Scriptures is within the communion of Saints - you gotta spend time with them before you dump them
TjenaFitta: Ok...let me type a bit...
baptistwes: k
TjenaFitta: The fathers had piety, love, charity... and then got together to figure it all out in terms for everyone to understand. Yes?
baptistwes: no
baptistwes: The two were concurrent, always, even the New Testament reads that way
TjenaFitta: Ok, even better actually
baptistwes: why?
TjenaFitta: All I'm trying to say about what I understand about myself and the people in my congregation via my sermon is that they need to actually realize that God is those things and that is how we need to start living if we really want to figure out the nature/essence/personality of God
baptistwes: sure, but what I'm trying to point out is that part of that discovery has to be a deliberate process of looking back through history and listening to the folks to did this before us
TjenaFitta: Yeah, but I have this insane idea that we can all be church fathers and mothers by traveling the same path. Instead, I feel as if we (people in my congregation) act as if we need not take the journey because it has already been walked
baptistwes: Yah, but I'm not sure your "cure" is any better than the "disease"
baptistwes: we're not all church fathers and mothers, but we're still on the same journey - and the rituals and sacred language of the Church are supposed to bind us to that path - the problem is that somewhere in the 20th century the Church kept doing all the same stuff and yet no longer had a clue WHY...
baptistwes: dead ritual
baptistwes: the best cure is to reinvigorate, concurrently, a passion for being the hands and feet of Christ and a passion for being incorporated back into story through the ritual practice of the Church
baptistwes: with things like...the labyrinth
baptistwes: or communion, or catechism, or baptism, or the church year, or feasts...etc...
baptistwes: but you gotta do them both at once.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Christ the King Sermon

Anyone care to guess at the most well known Shakespeare quote of all time? “To be or not to be” is one of the questions which seem to speak to the very nature of who we are. It speaks about life itself.

This week is Christ the King Sunday. During worship, we are to celebrate the reign of Christ. It can be celebrated in a number of fashions. One might understand this celebration in the future tense, that Christ WILL BE king after Armageddon or whichever end times scenario one might chose to believe and then a new world is created. Or you can celebrate this day as Christ was the King of the Jews… giving place and power to what he accomplished during his lifetime on earth. Or perhaps you can celebrate the day as it is written, without a tense…Christ THE King. Just leave it at that and not give it much thought.

But to simply do any one of these is an offense to the Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of life.
My roommate during my second year of Seminary is one of my best friends. One afternoon while we were writing papers, he frantically called me into his room. As I rushed down the hall, I saw him jumping up and down at his window, looking at the sorority house across the street. Two Jehovah’s witnesses, dressed in their traditional white shirt and black pants, were on our neighbor’s porch talking to four or five girls. You could tell by their body language that they were not looking to convert that day, and we presumed that these two men would be stopping at our house next.

We rushed downstairs to the living room to our big bay window and peered excitedly out the window. If you haven’t caught on already, this is a seminary student’s dream… Two unsuspecting people trying to convert you walking into the home of two theologically trained students. It’s the thing dreams are made of. Never in my life have I been so excited about a theological conversation. When we saw the two men leave the sorority house without getting past the porch, my roommate and I fixed the curtains and pretended to watch a TV that wasn’t on, waiting patiently for the knock on our door. Tony was frantically tapping his foot and I had already chewed off three fingernails in the excitement. A minute passed and still there was no knock at our door. We both looked out the window only to find that they had crossed the street and were getting into their car and driving away. Tony and I were heart broken. We had, in two short minutes, prepared for the biggest event of our seminary careers. Neither of us got any work done the rest of that day and we never brought up the moment again.

Then, in early September of this year, I called my former roommate, who had moved back to North Carolina, to see how he was doing. He told me that a few days ago; two other Jehovah’s witnesses had come to his door. It didn’t turn out to be as exciting as what we had originally hoped for that afternoon, but it did make him stop and do a bit more research about the trinity. (In case you didn’t know, Jehovah’s witness’ believe that Jesus was not God, but just a holy man.) Well, Tony looked up in his Greek bible one particular verse from Matthew 28. Verse 19 says “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” And Tony told me that when we look at the Greek text, we see that the Holy Spirit and Jesus are things belonging to God. It is similar to saying my arm is its own separate thing, but it is still a part of my overall body. A different part of the same essence. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are different parts of the same thing.

Now, the question you must all ask yourself is why did I just spend the last five minutes explaining the concept of the trinity on a day which should focus mainly on Christ the King? Every English teacher knows the answer to this question. It is because Christ the King is not a complete sentence. It needs a verb…it needs action.

I told you that story because calling Christ, and by proxy, God, a king severely limits the true essence of the divine. Calling Christ merely a king usurps the power of the Holy. One whose power is displayed in weakness; glory in humility and exaltation in transforming suffering[1]. Instead, there is only one time in the whole Bible where we learn the true essence of the trinity and the answer, surprisingly, does NOT come from Jesus, but instead it is God speaking to Moses. When Moses speaks to the burning bush and asks the name of God, the reply is simply “I AM.” The answer that humanity first receives from God is not Father, King, servant, lamb, or shepherd. Those are all useful names, but they are not the true being of God. Instead of using names, nouns, if you will… we must realize that we belong to a God of action. We belong to a verb. God says “I AM” because it opens up an infinite amount of possibilities to which we have very few words for. When we speak of God or Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit, we are speaking to all that is within the realm of possibility. When we say God is love, God responds with “I AM love.” When we say God is hope, God replies with “I AM Hope.” When we say God is justice, God replies with “I AM Justice.” When we say God is peace, God exclaims “I AM Shalom”.
What action do you associate with when you are in the presence of the Holy? When you take off your shows and stand in front of the burning bush, what words does your heart place in your mouth?

Right now, I would like you to stand if you are able and as I speak the words which God spoke to Moses, I invite you to then fill in the rest with the responses that your heart gives. Feel free to repeat a response if that is what you feel called to respond with as the same word for a different person has many different meanings. If your heart doesn’t lead you to any words, it is always acceptable to stand quietly in humble adoration.
I AM...
I AM...
I AM...
I AM...
I AM WHO I AM says God.
So be it.
[1] Otto Dreydopple Jr. Back of Moravian Bulletins for Sunday, November 25, 2007.