Close Encounters

In 1977 Steven Spielberg made the term "Close Encounters" popular. It was not until doing some superficial research that I discovered there are Close Encounters of the First Kind; Close Encounters of the Second Kind; and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. All of these deal, in some way, with unidentified flying objects. For those who want to do some superficial research on their own I refer you to Wikipedia.

I do not know why, but the idea of close encounters came to my mind as I reflected on a recent happening in my life. My close encounter had nothing to do with UFOs. My close encounter had to do with people, real, living human beings. Further, my close encounter involved three of the world's living faiths: Christianity; Islam; and Hinduism.

A few nights ago a Muslim friend introduced me to a young man from India. I sat down with the young man and we talked. We talked about many things. We talked about his being away from home for the first time in his young life. We talked about how difficult it is for him to not only be away from family and friends, but how difficult it is for him to get food to eat. He is a vegetarian. While India may be an easy place to live if you are a vegetarian, Malaysia is not. We continued to talk about his life, his difficulties living here, his longing for his family and friends. I asked him where in India he was from and learned he was from Punjab. This has particular relevance to me as our son-in-law's parents are originally from Punjab. We talked about many things that evening. I asked him if he was a Sikh. "No." He said. "I am a Hindu." I asked him if he had found a Hindu Temple yet. Again, he said "no." I told him I would help him find a Hindu Temple where he could go for prayer. I also gave him my card which had my name, phone number, and my responsibility for theological education in the Asia Pacific Region.

A couple of days later my new acquaintance came to talk with me in my room. As we talked, almost out of the blue, he asked, "Do you believe in God?" I said, "yes." He reached out his hand to shake mine and said, "So do I. I believe that we all believe in the one true God, although we have different understandings of this one God." We continued to talk. He asked me another question, "Do you believe in reincarnation?" I told him "No. I believe in the incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ." Then my new acquaintance said, "I have never been to a Christian service. I would like to go some day." I told him I would take him.

Why do I tell this story of a Christian, a Muslim, and a Hindu? Because I think it reflects something very important, at least about me. As I understand Christian evangelism, it does not begin with trying to convince people to become Christian. It begins by becoming a friend, someone who will share with the other person their life, their story, their hopes and dreams, and allow the other person to do the same. Those of us who are Christians believe that God has created all creation, and in a very real sense we are all sons and daughters of God, sisters and brothers to each other. As Christians we believe that for the sake of all God's creation Jesus lived, died, was raised from the dead, and ascended. In the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, Christians believe that God has inaugurated God's reign, God's kingdom, which will be brought to fulfillment and completion in a material new heaven and a new earth. Indeed, as John 3:17 reminds us, "God sent the son into the world not to condemn the world, that in order that the world may be saved through him."

The questions I have been thinking about, and which I invite you to think about as well are: "Are we interested in being friends with those who are different from us; different religiously; different socially; different in whatever way?" "Are we interested in being friends with others, not in order that we might change the other person, but that in our being together we both will, by God's actions, be changed, transformed, made new?" As Christians, we have a story to tell, a story which brings meaning to our lives, and which integrates all that we do. However, non-Christians also have a story which brings meaning to their lives, and which integrates what they do.

When I was teaching in the seminary I usually asked the students about to graduate, "How difficult would it be for you who are Christians, to give up being a Christian and become a Buddhist; Hindu; Muslim; Sikh, or something else?" Invariably, they would answer that they could not give up being Christian. Being Christian was what gave meaning to their life. I then asked, "What makes you think that it is any easier for a non-Christian to give up the story which gives meaning to them and integrates their life?"

Glimpses of Hope

This morning I was invited to bring greetings, and to say a few words at Bangsar Lutheran Church in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. I told the pastor and congregation that it was a very dangerous thing to ask a retired pastor, and a retired seminary professor to say a few words. Pastors and seminary professors do not know what a few words are. I did, however, try to keep what I had to say short. If there was a theme to what I said it was, "Glimpses of Hope."

Little did I know that my thoughts would be so appropriate, with songs sung which underscored the theme. One of the songs had in it the words,

Open our eyes, Lord, we want to see Jesus....
Open our hearts, Lord, that we might receive you.
Open our spirits, Lord, and teach us to worship.
Open our lips, Lord, and teach us to praise you.

Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright, in his book, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church, reminds Christians that we are a people of hope. Our hope is not for a heaven beyond the sunset, where we sit on clouds, and play our harps. Our hope, based on the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, is that the reign, the rule, the kingdom of God which was ushered in in Jesus Christ will come to fulfillment in a new heaven and a new earth. In the meantime, Wright suggests, we are a people who both give glimpses of this future hope in our present life, we also look for glimpses of hope in the here and now.

I told the people at Bangsar Lutheran Church that I wanted to tell them of four glimpses of hope I have seen in the last three months that I have been in SE Asia. Two of the glimpses of hope have taken place in Malaysia. Two of the glimpses of hope have taken place outside of Malaysia. I then told them of the three Thai women who had become HIV/AIDS positive from their husbands, and how that they were not angry, and furious at their husbands. They harbored no animosity. I said that the women accepted their husbands and forgave them. I told the people gathered the fascinating thing was these women were not Christian. They were Buddhist. I went on to say that I did not know too many Christians who would have been as forgiving. The three Buddhist ladies were glimpses of God's forgiveness. I said the women reminded me of what is said in the scripture, "While we were yet sinners, Christ Jesus died for us."

The second glimpse of hope was the recent election of Barack Obama as President of the United States. I said that while I was an Obama supporter, the glimpse of hope came not as a result of his election, but because of something else. I said that as late as 1967, sixteen states in the United States of America said interracial marriage was illegal. Here, in the recent election a man was elected President of the United States, and whose parents' marriage would have been illegal in those same sixteen states. I went on to say that there was hope for me in that. I told the people that when we moved to South Carolina in 1996, my wife and I had been married for over twenty-nine years. Nonetheless, as late as 1996, our marriage was still illegal in the state of South Carolina. The law against interracial marriage was still on the books in South Carolina at the time of our moving there. While my wife is 100% German, maybe 200%+, my great grandmother was Native American. A glimpse of hope that things might be changing.

The third glimpse of hope, as well as the fourth glimpse of hope have happened here in Malaysia. I arrived here on the 22nd of August. In September some people were arrested under the ISA law for speaking against the government, destabilizing it. I reminded the people that the ISA law had its roots in the former British rule when under that law people of Chinese heritage were put into "new villages" (concentration camps) for fear that the Chinese were working with the communists to overthrow the British government. I said that while a few people had been arrested, at least there were not new villages being set up to put people into. A small, perhaps, but still a glimpse of hope.

The fourth and last glimpse of hope happened a couple of Sundays ago. The Lutheran Church in Malaysia and Singapore dedicated and opened a new congregation. What was unusual about this was this was the first ministry of the Lutheran Church in Malaysia and Singapore which was not started in a rural area. This new ministry is in the heart of the city, in the Golden Triangle, within sight of the Petronas Twin Towers.

Glimpses of hope and reassurance. God is active. God is alive. God is active and alive in and through the lives of God's people. What glimpses of hope have you seen, and where?

Open our eyes, Lord, we want to see Jesus....
Open our hearts, Lord, that we might receive you.
Open our spirits, Lord, and teach us to worship.
Open. our lips, Lord, and teach us to praise you.

Prepared or Unprepared: What Does It Mean?

I was just reading on Yahoo news an Associated Press article about Billy Graham. In an interview with Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son, Franklin is quoted as saying, "He's always been ready to die. But nobody's prepared him for getting old." That set me thinking about life, death, being prepared, or unprepared. I am not sure I really know what it means to be prepared or unprepared about living, getting old, or dying.

A few years ago my wife and I did taught some parenting classes. One of the things we often said about parenting was that it is one of the most important roles we will ever have in life, and one for which we have so little preparation. Most of our parenting skills, or lack of them, has, for good or for ill, come from our own experiences of having been parented. We may read books about parenting, but reading books about parenting, even participating in parenting groups, is different from being a parent. We can learn some things from others, things to do; things to avoid doing. Yet, at the end of the day, it is in parenting that we learn what it means to be a parent. Is it similar in being prepared to live, grow old, or die?

Is it in the living of life that we are being prepared to live? Is it in the growing old that we are being prepared to be old? Is it in the dying that we are being prepared to die? There was a time which I could answer with some degree of certainty what it means to be prepared to live, to grow old, or to die. I can do that no longer. I'm not sure that means I have grown any wiser through the years. I think it is more a willingness to admit I do not know.

When I talk about being an old man, I think, in part, this is my way of working through my feelings about aging. Whether I feel it or not; whether I like it or not, I am seventy years old. This is fact. I am no longer a young man. I am no longer a middle aged man. I am chronologically an old man, even if I don't act my age! Given the life expectancy of men in the United States today, I am about thirty years past middle age. For me growing older, or even growing old, is not a bad thing. It is a normal, God-given reality that I am powerless to change. The only thing I can do is decide how I will live my life as fully as possible, given the constraints that being seventy brings. Believe me, I do live my life to the fullest extent possible, willing to try some new things, willing to avoid others and not feel guilty about it.

I cannot say with Billy Graham that I am ready to die. I'm not ready to die. At this point in time I will fight death all the way to the death. I will die. I know that. I do not know when. I do not know how. I do not know where. I only know some day, some where, in some way, I will die. If acceptance of this as reality is being prepared, I guess I'm prepared. And, after death, then what?

Bottom line is that after death I do not know with absolute certainty what follows. I believe, I teach, and I confess, that whether I live or die, I am in the hands of a good and gracious God who has claimed me and named me, and who has promised to never let me go -- not in life; not in death. Is this what it means to be prepared to die? If so, I am prepared to die.

Prepared or unprepared: What does it mean?

Contrasts

It has sure been a couple of days of contrast. In the United States there was the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States. The election brought joy and elation to many; sorrow and dejection to others. Here in Malaysia it was greeted with joy. Yesterday morning when I saw the front page of The New Straits Times it read, "CHANGE HAS COME. Now for the hard part....NOW Barack Obama must validate the hope and deliver the change he promised." By contrast, this morning's front page read, "THE BIGGEST & MOST EXPLOSIVE BOND OF ALL! Gritty & Spectacular Action! JAMES BOND: QUANTUM OF SOLACE 7."

In North America the contrasts were almost as radical as the headlines in the newspapers here. On the one hand, Barack Obama, cast by many people as a liberal, some even suggested a socialist, won the presidential election by a healthy majority. On the other hand, the states of California, Arizona, and Florida all passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as heterosexual only. Change? Yes. But, not too much? What to make of the contrasts? I do not know.

On the one hand, I can tell you that what I heard around this part of the world is people are very happy about the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections. I can also tell you that, given the religious and political context here, most of the people would agree with the actions taken by the electorate in California, Arizona, and Florida.

The actions taken in these states set me to thinking. Who defines what marriage is? Does the church, if you are Christian? Does the political system? Do both? In the United States, in 1862, the Morrell Anti-Bigamy Act was passed. This Act made bigamy a punishable federal offense. The passing of this Act was followed by a series of federal laws which worked toward ending polygamy in the United States, in spite of the fact that polygamy was practiced by one religion. What about the separation of religion and state? In 1877, in a US Court ruling, Pennoyer v Neff, it was declared, "[T]he State...has absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relationship between its citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may be dissolved." (cf. Wikipedia article on polygamy)

It appears, at least in the United States, marriage is a legally defined entity, more than a religious one. Thus, the voters in the states of California, Arizona, and Florida had the authority to define marriage. At the same time, just because a relationship has legal standing does not mean the church has to bless that relationship. For example, as once happened to me, if a clergyperson believes the relationship will be an abusive one, does she or he have to officiate in the ceremony, even if the couple has a valid marriage license? It seems to me a clergyperson has the responsibility to refuse to participate in a marriage which she or he believes is not consistent with God's desires, even if the couple shows up with a valid marriage license.

In the denomination of which I have been a member for the past forty-six years it has been said that while the government has the power to define marriage, the church has the responsibility to say what relationship could be blessed, and what relationship could not be blessed. The issue becomes muddied in the United States when a clergyperson officiates at a marriage. At such a service the clergyperson is wearing two hats, that of the church, and that of the state. It is the state which determines who allowed to officiate at a marriage.

With respect to the state, the clergyperson is to determine whether the marriage is in accord with the state laws. This is a fairly easy one to determine. At the same time, the clergyperson wears the hat of the church, praying the prayers of blessing on the relationship, and for the two who have become united in marriage. Is it possible to bless a relationship which has no legal standing? Is it possible to refuse to bless a relationship which has legal standing? Um....what to make of it all.

This and That

Many things are going on in the world today. There were the recent elections for President of the United States in which Barack Obama was elected. There continues to be fighting and killing, sometimes of innocent civilians, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world. Fighting has once again come to the Congo. At a hotel here in Kuala Lumpur, Lutheran theologians from SE Asia have gathered to talk about "Marriage, Family, and Sexuality." Unfortunately, because I got sick, I have not been able to attend.

As I have thought about these, any many more things, including things I've written in the past, I have begun to ask if we have started our thinking in the wrong spot. There has been a tendency for some Christians to begin their discussions by asking either, "What does the Bible say about such and such?" or, "What would Jesus say, or do?" Those are not irrelevant questions. However, I am not sure they really help all that much.

First, I am not sure these questions help because to ask "What does the Bible say?" implies that there is only one thing the Bible says about marriage, family, sexuality, war, or whatever. If that were the case, it would be easy to answer questions which arise. Open the Bible. Read what it says. However, it is not that simple. All of us go to the text with our own set of ideas, our own ways of interpretation, our own questions, together with those of the religion, or religious affiliation we espouse. There are varieties of ways in which texts can be read and interpreted. Second, I am not sure to ask, "What would Jesus say, or do?" helps. We can only speculate; read back into the texts, draw tentative conclusions to what Jesus might say, or do. About many things Jesus is silent. He never addresses, for example, the issue of polygamy. What then might we do?

I would suggest that it might be more fruitful for Christians to ask, "What does it mean to be a baptized Christian and to try and live out my life faithfully in relationship to _____?" What gives identity to the Christian is our baptism. The response to the question, "Who am I?" is, "I am a baptized child of God. My name is Christian."

What does it mean to be a baptized child of God who happens to be heterosexual and married to one woman? What does it mean to be a baptized child of God who happens to be heterosexual, and married to several women? What does it mean to be a baptized child of God who happens to be an ordained clergyman, or clergywoman? What does it mean to be a baptized child of God who is trying to faithfully raise children in a context where sexual behavior during teenage years is the cultural norm? What does it mean to be a baptized child of God who is trying to understand what to do in relation to birth control; abortion; capital punishment; same sex marriage; war; or any of a host of other things?

What does it mean to live my life as a baptized child of God who is trying to be faithful to the God who has claimed me, and named me? In answering this question, there is no easy, quick answer. Yet it is the question with which we all need to wrestle. Good wrestling.

Clarification

Yesterday I was sitting in Starbuck's, drinking coffee with a young twenty-something friend. I mentioned that I had started a blog. He asked what he had to do to have access to it. I told him the way to open the blog. My friend said that people who did not know me might think I was saying things I really wasn't saying. He was referring to the piece I wrote about wondering why sexual behaviors stirred so much emotional fervor in us. I thought about what my friend said, and decided he might well be correct. While most of you who read what I write know me, there may be some who do not. So, let me clarify some things.

First, there are sexual behaviors which I consider wrong. I am against all kinds of abuse and/or abusive behavior whether physical, emotional, and/or sexual. Thus, I am against things like pedophilia, and rape.

Second, even within marriage, not all sexual behaviors are appropriate, right, or justifiable. One can commit adultery without every having a sexual relationship with anyone, other than one's spouse. Even within marriage, there can be adultery, and I am not talking about one's mind. Any time one party in the marriage forces a behavior, sexual or otherwise, on their marriage partner, it is adulterous. Why? Because it breaks the vow of faithfulness to treat the other person as a person of dignity and worth, deserving of respect. Any time one uses one's partner to simply satisfy their sexual desires, without respect to the wants, needs, and desires of their partner, they are treating them as an object, not as an equal partner, and it is adulterous. Adultery is not so much a sexual behavior as it is a breaking of a covenant relationship, thus in the Old Testament the people are sometimes called an adulterous generation. It was not because they were "bed hopping." It was because they had broken covenant with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and went chasing after other gods.

So much for this time.

Live and Let Live: Good? Bad? Neither? Both/and?

I continued to think today about my experiences in Thailand. Several thoughts came to mind. First, I thought of what appeared to be a "live and let live" attitude. Buddhists and Christians live side by side with each other, with little apparent difficulty. Baptists and Presbyterians work beside each other in the Church of Christ in Thailand without seeming difficulty, even though they have different understandings of sacraments. Heterosexuals and homosexuals live, work, and socialize together in what appears to be great acceptance. Is this good? Is this bad? Is it neither good nor bad? Is it both good and bad?

That started me thinking again -- and not in a condemnatory way. What it got me to thinking about is why such a high value is placed on sexual behavior. If one goes down through the Ten Commandments, sexual behavior doesn't rank very high on the "don't do" list. Yet, sexual behavior and misbehavior seems to be of more importance than having other gods; not keeping the sabbath holy; misusing God's name; lying; or cheating on one's income tax. Why is that?

I cannot remember ever knowing, or hearing of a pastor being put under church discipline for misusing God's name. I cannot remember ever knowing, or hearing of a pastor being defrocked for failure to worship. I cannot remember ever knowing, or hearing of a pastor being removed from the clergy roster for lying. Nevertheless, for sexual misbehavior, whether heterosexual or homosexual, clergy are disciplined; defrocked; removed from the clergy roster. Is this good? Is this bad? Is this neither good nor bad? Is it both good and bad? Um.....

Thinking About Lots of Things

As some of you know, I have just returned from spending the last two and a half weeks in Thailand. This was my first trip there and was full of learning experiences for me. I went to Thailand for two meetings, and while there a third meeting was added.

The first meeting I attended was a joint meeting of the Asia-Pacific Forum, of Church World Service, and the Christian Council of Asia. This was the first time the two groups had ever met together, and the first time for the AP Forum to be in the AP Region. Both groups learned from each other, and I learned much about both. While at this meeting I was asked if I would like to attend the National Workshop on Theology in Thailand, which was being sponsored by Payap University, McGilvary College of Divinity, and the Christian Council of Asia. I quickly said yes to the invitation.

For two days, mostly students from McGilvary, met together to discuss issues related to the "kingdom of God," "wellness," "reconciliation," in the Thailand context. We discussed issues like sex trade and "kingdom of God," and the need for reconciliation even within the church, and between ministries of the church.

It was at this meeting that I was surprised to learn something about prostitution, which I did not know before. While there had been prostitution in Thailand for centuries, it was more quiet and subdued. It was not yet a big industry. However, the big industry came into being with the advent of U.S. military bases in Thailand during the Viet Nam Conflict, and the need of a place for tired, stressed out military people to come to be "relieved of their stress and tension." Thailand became the place for all the "needs" of the military personnel to be met. There is a direct relationship, said one of the speakers, between the U.S. military presence and prostitution becoming a big industry. Wondering if the speaker was making things up, I did an internet search. What he said had basis in fact. I wonder if there were voices of the religious conservatives speaking up? Did anyone speak up, or out about this? Did any of the churches speak out, whether "liberal," "conservative," Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox? Um..... I really don't know.

The third meeting I attended was the 30th General Assembly of the Church of Christ in Thailand. There were two exposure times for those of us who had come from outside of Thailand and the Church of Christ in Thailand. One afternoon we visited the McKean Rehabilitation Center. The Center started out as a place to which people with leprosy were sent. Over the years, with better treatment of the disease, and an understanding that people responded to treatment much better if they were kept in community, the Center has moved into areas of rehabilitation issues beyond leprosy.

The next day's exposure was to the ministry of CCT with and among people with HIV/AIDS. One of the things which stood out to me was what was said by a panel of three women who spoke to us. Each one of them had become HIV positive from their husbands infidelity. What came as a shock to me was that two of the three women said they were not angry with their husbands and saw no reason to burden their husbands with any sense of guilt. I thought that to be "interesting," and particularly in light of the fact that all three women were Buddhist. I thought to myself how unlike what I would expect from Christian women in North America.

Christians have a great tendency to lay guilt trips on people. In a situation like the women in Thailand experienced, I suspect that many, maybe most, Christian women would have been incensed and infuriated by their husband's behavior, and even if he showed remorse, would still have difficulty forgiving him. I suspect the reverse would also be true, if it was the woman who became HIV positive. Yet, here were three non-Christian women, two of whom were not angry, and saw no good coming from anger, and the third who was at first angry, all three forgiving their husbands for both having had sexual relations with someone else, and for giving them the virus.

Sometimes Christians think that forgiveness is predicated on repentance; that before forgiveness comes the human being has to act. What about that passage, "While we were yet sinners, Jesus Christ died for us."? It gives one pause to think, be silent, reflect. Were the Buddhist women more reflective of forgiveness than many Christians? Um....

Out of this experience I came to appreciate something said by Ambedkar. For those who do not know who Ambedkar was, he was the primary person behind the Indian Constitution of 1948, which outlawed the caste system. Why the caste system still has its effects sixty years later is another story. Anyway, Ambedkar was raised a Hindu. He became convinced that the caste system was wrong, and decided to convert from Hinduism. Ambedkar talks about having studied the Christian faith, and then became a Buddhist. He said that while the Christians taught the right things, they did not live it.

Prophetic -- Heretical -- and...

I have had some interesting experiences, and some fascinating conversations in the past two weeks. Some of what has been said reminded me to do as my parents taught me when I was young. When you come to a railroad track: "Stop! Look! Listen!"

At one of the meetings I attended a biblical theologian asked about seminaries in the United States. He said it seemed as though the seminaries had become more mouthpieces for the institution than they were places where a prophetic voice was raised and heresies aired. Um.... That comment caused me to think both about seminaries where I have been a student, and seminaries in which I have taught.

I remember that when I went to seminary - granted a long time ago (1964-1968) professors challenged us as students to "try out" our heresies in the context of the seminary; to challenge and question "tried and true" beliefs, and not accept them simply because the institutional church said they were true. My professors challenged us to remember that theology, like everything else, was in need of repentance. Theology was subject to all the same conditions of humanity, and especially sinfulness. So the professors said the seminary was the place to try out different ways of understanding and different ways of formulating doctrine. One professor, our professor of systematic theology, reminded us that the problem with heresy was not that what was said it was untrue, but that it took a truth and made it the entire truth.

I also remember in the early 1960s there was a new book brought out with a title something like, "Bible -- Book of Faith." Some of my professors had written chapters in that book, and as a result were "under fire" for being heretics. One professor, a Professor of New Testament had been "under fire" for several years by one particular District of the then American Lutheran Church.

As I thought about what the person had raised at the meeting, and as I thought about my experiences at seminary, and as I thought about seminaries and seminary professors in many of our institutions I wondered, was the person was correct in saying the seminaries often seem to be mouthpieces for the institution? I don't hear of too many seminary professors in my denomination being charged with heresy. Are there still prophetic voices in seminaries which call the institution into question? Are there still prophetic voices calling for a repentance and renewal in the doctrine, and in the institutional church itself? Um.... As I said to a friend in an email the other day: "Thinking -- Dangerous and Causes Headaches."

Yes. Thinking can be dangerous. It can be disquieting. Yes. Thinking can cause headaches. Yet, the scripture does say that we are to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our mind, and with all our strength. Our minds are God given gifts to be used to challenge, and to think anew. Those of us from that side of the Christian faith which might use the word Protestant need to remember that the word not only means to "protest against" something, or someone. Protestant also means to "stand for" something, and more importantly someone. That someone in the Christian tradition is Jesus Christ.

Hong Kong

In September I went to a meeting in Hong Kong. This was a gathering of Lutheran bishops, and seminary presidents, from Hong Kong, East Malaysia, West Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and United States. All of these churches have been, and continue to be involved China ministries. The time together was a time in which all the participants could share openly about their China ministries, their hopes, the goals, the things which have gone well, and things which have not gone so well. It was the first time such a gathering had taken place, and was sponsored by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and organized by Rev. Dr. Peter Shen.

I was privileged to give two presentations focusing on the theme of unity and gift sharing based on 1 Corinthians 12:1-31. In addition to focusing attention on unity and gift sharing, I also lifted up how the church can move forward when threatened by disunity and dissension.

In the two presentations I chose to do two things which I had never done before. First, I chose to use a missiological hermeneutic, asking what the text had to say about God's mission in, to, and for the sake of God's world. Second, I chose to look at the gifts spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12 as gifts given to particular church bodies, and not simply to an individual. What are the gifts which God has given to the Lutheran Church in Malaysia and Singapore, or the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hong Kong, or any other of the churches in the region? How are these gifts to be exercised and shared in common ministry in the region?

The first focus was on God's mission, not on the church's mission. The church's mission is always, and will forever be, secondary -- important, but secondary to, and derivative from God's mission made known in Jesus Christ, a mission in God's world, for the sake of God's world, or better yet, for the sake of God's entire creation. The second focus was on the gift giver. Who gives the gifts -- God. God is the subject of the active verb. The object of God's actions is the people of God. The third focus was on the reason for the gift, which according to St. Paul is the common good - again God's mission.

But, what about dissension and threatened disunity? St. Paul leads the Corinthian congregation, and we in the 21st century up to the answer as he closes 1 Corinthians 12: "I will show you a more excellent way." The entire 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians is a response to how to deal with dissension and threatened disunity.

I was thankful to hear the discussions which followed each of the presentations. I was pleased to hear the risk taking on the part of church and seminary leaders, admitting to their shortcomings, rejoicing in the gifts given, sharing the needs they personally had, and the needs of their churches and institutions. Some of what happened in Hong Kong showed up a week later in a meeting in Hong Kong. But, that's another blog.

Travels in General

Over 10,000 miles in a month and a half. Grass doesn't grow under my feet, nor under the airplane's wings. In a month and a half I have been in West Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and back to West Malaysia. Monday I leave for Bangkok. I will be collecting my thoughts on my travels and sharing them with you if you are interested. Take care.