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.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
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.....
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.....
Sunday, October 26, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, October 3, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)