A New Contributor And A Home Movie
May 31, 2009
Please welcome our newest contributor, Darrell Vesterfelt. You can read his tweet-sized bio on our about us page or say hi to him in the comments.
I met Darrell in Bible college when we worked together on a few group projects. I found the video below (Spring 2005) buried in my archives. It’s from a Spiritual Formation class. Darrell and I were assigned a project on one of the spiritual disciplines identified by Richard Foster in the book Streams of Living Water. We chose to make a documentary video about how NOT to fast. It’s one of my first video projects so forgive its “made in one day” feel (especially since, I believe, we made it one day).
Darrell and Reed’s Excellent Fasting Adventure
Outtake 1: McDonalds
Outtake 2: The Blooper
Pentecost Reflection: A Good Day To Be Anglican
May 31, 2009
A few of us theophiliacs attend Messiah Episcopal in St. Paul, MN where a number of Anglican Karen attend.
Part of our Pentecost celebration today involved baptisms. There aren’t many Anglican Karen Priests in the USA, so when Father Samuel came to visit Messiah this morning, it was no surprise that our Karen parishioners showed up in force (they made up more than a third of our 9 o’clock service.)
The Baptism service was conducted in both English and Karen. It was a beautiful experience and one of my favorite mornings at Messiah in recent memory. I got goosebumps when I renewed my Baptismal vows in my language and then the Karen echoed the creed in theirs. It was moving to celebrate the birth of the Church at Pentecost by welcoming so many more into this Body through the Sacrament. I was once again flush with the notion of commonality in Christian faith around world. God lovingly reminded me that my Karen brothers and sisters are no mere “mission field” but equal participants in this Kingdom of God (how easy that harmful distinction can creep into my mind).
It was a good day to be Anglican. Christian.
Flux II: Why Old Stuff Matters
May 29, 2009
“Flux” is a continuing series on my year visiting churches of various Christian traditions.
|
I first experienced Eastern Orthodoxy as a 21-year-old traveling through Ukraine. Even then, the tradition enchanted me. At the time I was interning with a missions organization working in Eastern Europe. I knew that many of the churches we were helping to plant were located in heavily Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic areas. It was also become increasingly clear that these traditions were undoubtedly Christian, perhaps in some ways even more Christian than me. So why are we evangelizing Christians? I wondered.
It was the opening spark of a lesson that took me a few years to learn: old stuff matters.
By “old stuff,” I mean the bulk of the ancient practices and symbols many modern Evangelicals (both intentionally and unintentionally) learned to de-emphasize or ignore. In my studies, I realized there were a number of questions I’d never fully explored: where did the Bible come from? who first outlined concepts like the dual-natures of Christ and the Trinity? what is our modern conception of hell based on? Many of the answers to these questions were found in studying the first few centuries of Christianity, an area of scholarship sometimes called Patristics or a little more broadly, Christian Origins.
I learned that whether one recited the creeds in church or not, they were formative and part of our shared Christian heritage. Whether one appreciated liturgy or found it dull, it was influential in shaping modern forms of worship. I learned that Sacramental theology left a precedent for how we expected to experience God–even if one didn’t look for Him in Eucharist anymore. Most importantly I learned that issues like church governance, division, authority, human sexuality and the role of the Church in the world were problems as old as Pentecost.
Perhaps most poignantly, however, I was struck by how bewitching the tradional forms of worship could be. The ancient liturgies enchanted me, the Icons arrested me–I felt myself being pulled into something older and bigger and altogether more enveloping than my previous, more individualistic Church experiences had been. All my life, I had endeavored to maintain the right belief or “Apostolicity*” of my faith. But it wasn’t until my year of visiting Churches, that I was first introduced to its commanility or “Catholicity**.”
* (Apostolicity in this case, just means the faith of Apostles, or what was handed down to us.)
** (Catholic not in the Roman sense, but in it’s older meaning of ‘universal’ or ‘entirety).
Prop 8 Ruling Today: An Interesting Perspective
May 26, 2009
So I’d heard that the state senate here in California ruled on Prop 8 today. I Googled the topic to find out what had been decided. Turns out they upheld the ban on gay marriage.
During my search, I came across this interesting perspective: link. I’ve included an excerpt below, the part that really got my attention, but I encourage you to read the entire linked article. It’s really very good, and it’s not very long.
Excerpt:
“… Jehovah’s Witnesses vehemently oppose same-sex marriage on moral and Biblical grounds. Gays are not allowed to be Witnesses unless they live celibate and single lives. Members who insist on being in a same-sex relationship are shunned by the congregation. But none of the million Jehovah’s Witnesses in the U.S. supported Prop 8 because the religion mandates staying out of politics and culture wars.”
“… They don’t amend the constitution to force everyone to live their way. State laws are not needed to legitimize their moral views. Witnesses don’t see the state as an enforcer of a moral code. That’s the Bible’s job, they say. If you want to be in God’s Kingdom, simply live the code yourself – it’s not the Witnesses’ mission to enact laws to stop gays from marrying.”
“Some religious organizations are celebrating a restriction of rights for a minority they disagree with – making themselves the future target of an equally discriminatory people’s amendment. Because Prop 8 diminished the court’s protective role, there will be nothing they can do other than realize they should have been more careful about what they wished for.”
So, I wonder if, in the long run, this really *is* a win for those backing the ban. Thoughts?
Rights and Rhetoric: Refining the Conversation
May 26, 2009
This post may or may not finally finish off my recent adventure into gay-christian territory. I hope here to sort of reveal where I was going with the previous posts, which might not seem to go anywhere. But, often I’ve found that when certain restraints and convictions are asked of gay-christians, there is a knee-jerk reaction that what is being asked is nothing short of re-living slavery. This has baffled me as what is usually said is nothing extreme and is nothing that is not asked of every Christian. Which is why I wanted to start where I did, talking about Christians in general and now asking ‘gay’ questions in light of the whole Church. I hope this post will not be seen as my ‘stance’ as it really is not aiming to come to a conclusion at all on the discernment of gay people in the Christian community: Rather, it is aimed at refining the conversation. We begin with a consideration of some of the language that surrounds this debate.
“Rights”
Often those in favour of changing the Church’s historic position on sexuality claim that we are “denying the right” of ‘marriage’ as long as we refuse to proclaim blessings on SSU’s. My question is…”What Rights?” A mini political history lesson quickly reveals that the concept of individual “rights” is a very recent invention. Roughly from the birth America and the French Revolution. It’s origins are secular and political. Indeed several of our country’s “founding fathers” were reticent about using the concept with religion. Benjamin Franklin thought that using “God” to secure rights “stunk of the pulpit.” But in declaring our independence, we used to language of “God” giving every human certain “rights.”
That we should use this language in the Church is sad, but indicative of the severe difficulty in separating out nationalism (however right it is to be a good citizen, and grateful of our way of life) from our Christian loyalties. In being baptized by faith and the Holy Trinity into the people of God, we are brought down into Christ’s death, rising to new life and new citizenship (a new “Lord”). In this new citizenship, we are not all given “rights” to have whatever we desire. cf.I Corinthians 12
14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
We are all of us called and gifted to be and do specific things in the Church. And not being called to be a certain ‘member’ does not mean that we are being deprived of rights. Are monks and nuns being oppressed because they do not have the “right” of marriage? Are Roman Catholic priests also so deprived? (perhaps they should open up to Scriptural truths on this matter, but that is a side issue), are those called to lay-celibacy, et al.?
I think we can see here the language of “equality” also falls into disrepair. Such as “marriage equality.” I think that a Wittgensteinian critique of our language would show that “equality” used in this way is essentially using the language and ideas of “rights” and conflating it with a different word thereby confusing both. It seems that by “equal” we mean something like “all given exactly the same opportunities.” That this is not how the Church works should be clear by my last post where I briefly went through some of the different functions of Christians in the Body.
“Who I am:”
This can be a sensitive issue, so I hope I will be read generously here and readers will grasp what exactly I am trying to say. It is often said that “gay Christians cannot help who they are.” This seems to me to be true. It is a small percentage of people who can “change” their inclinations (I’ve said this before). Many pray and pray to be “delivered” and never are, and because they are not properly accepted in the Church this leads to depression, anger, and a great assortment of problems which really are tragic. AND, I think that this aspect of the conversation should be included in the listening and discernment process. What the Church is currently discerning is whether or not this aspect of our identity is to be affirmed. But, it is not itself a fully sufficient argument. For the simple reason that, as the desert fathers pointed out (and Rowan demonstrated in his book), we are not universally affirmed in Christ, rather we are absolutely accepted on account of grace. There are parts of us, deep parts of us, parts which seem to be irreducibly essential to who we are, which need to be turned over to transformation. We could perhaps recall in Voyage of the Dawntreader where Eustice as a dragon needs Aslan to truly shed his dead skin. Or what of the lifelong struggle of most men with lust? It certainly seems a huge part of who I am.
“Inclusivity”
Another word used to marginalize traditionalists is “inclusive.” The rhetoric implies that those who do not support SSU’s are “not inclusive.” This can be a rather serious accusation as “inclusivity” is truly a powerful part of the Gospel, whereby all who trust in Christ regardless of x,y, and z are included in his universal reign. This is at the heart of the truth and power of the Resurrection.
Now, it is absolutely true that ‘conservatives’ have simply failed to allow this truth to ring true for gay Christians. There always seems to be a yes/but message to gay people. “Yes you can be a Christian, but you better stop being gay and start believing what I tell you before you can be a real and active member of the Church.” This is sin plain and simple, and I don’t deny that.
But the conversation is not really about “inclusivity” and here again I feel that the language used doesn’t serve a proper dialectic purpose. Looking again at my last post I hope something should be glaringly obvious.
Gay people already are and should be completely included in almost the whole list! That is, without the Church changing its historic position gay Christians can already minister as laity, deacon, priest, bishop, and religious.
Refining the conversation:
If what I have been saying has any merit, and it seems to me that it does, then the conversation needs refining. The question is not whether gay Christians should be “fully included,” or given “equal rights,” or that “who they are” is inevitable and beyond the hope of transformation: Instead the conversation, I think, should ask this question:
Are those gay Christians not called to lay, clerical or religious celibacy, called then to have homo-sexual relationships? Are they to be “marrige” traditionally concieved? Or are they to be alternatively directed?
I have indicated where I find myself, but having a risen and living Lord require that I always allow myself to stand in judgement under him, so that even my firm beliefs can be transformed by his Word. Or, more simply, I will always participate in conversation.
|
In May 2008 I graduated from a conservative Bible College with a Pastoral Studies B.A. Between then and Christmas I visited: 17 Churches in 14 Traditions:
Catholic, Episcopal, Anglican (more on why I separate these later), Eastern Orthodox, ELCA, LCMS, Swedenborgian, Presbyterian, UCC, MCC, Baptist, Nondenominational, Pentecostal and Quaker.(Along the way, I looked into four seminaries: Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist and Anglo-Catholic Episcopal, plus a Catholic Grad School.)
I wasn’t church shopping, I was exploring. I’d attended the same church for my entire life. I’d volunteered with the youth group, preached, taught classes, led small groups, sang solos, acted in dramas, interned in the office and done everything else one does while growing up Christian in suburban America (I was baptized in there somewhere too). I joined the kids puppet team when I was eight-years-old and since then I’d never experienced church without somehow also activily participating in its programming.
I didn’t regret growing up this way (on the contrary I’m very thankful) but I was ready to experience different expressions of Christian faith–and to experience them as a visitor first, and eventually as a parishioner.
These posts will be a collection of thoughts on the last twelve months–what has been the most influential year of my life. Along with visiting churches, I moved to a small studio apartment downtown St. Paul, wrote a novel and spent time with new people.
I thought about God a lot too, and my place in His Church.
The Line Between Faith and Recklessness
May 23, 2009
{I’m not going to lie, this is a tough post to write, but please believe I do not take this lightly. I’ve mulled it over for hours, talked with others I trust about it, and this is where I find myself.}
* * *
I’m sure we’ve all heard of Leilani Neumann in the news recently. If not, here are a couple links to get you up to speed.
The short version is: Neumann’s 11 year old daughter got sick and eventually died while Neumann was waiting for God to heal her. The key word is ‘eventually,’ as it took quite some time for the little girl to succumb. Even shortly after the girl’s death, Neumann is quoted as saying that she expected God to bring her back to life. She said she thought the girl was under spiritual attack and that the best thing was to keep on praying.
The determined cause of death, however, was diabetes, a completely manageable illness when properly diagnosed and treated.
But such was not the case. Even at the point when the girl began losing the ability to walk and speak in the weeks and days leading up to her death, when she wet herself on the family’s couch, and even when other family members and friends urged Neumann to take her daughter to a hospital, the mother (and I use that term loosely) flat out refused, opting to rely on her faith.
Yesterday, (May 22, 2009) it took a jury just over three hours to find her guilty of second-degree reckless homicide. This case begs the question: Where is the line between acting on faith and becoming neglectful? Having faith is one thing, but not using sound judgement is quite another.
But this issue doesn’t just end here for me.
Also recently, acclaimed faith healer Todd Bentley now has a death toll associated with his name. Many of the deceased in this matter stopped medical treatment when they were convinced by Bentley that God had healed them. This link provides a fairly decent, though admittedly one-sided, summary of the case. In spite of the tone of the blog entry, facts are facts. People are dead because of Bentley’s actions.
Now then, what do these two cases have in common? To me, legal responsibility.
Neumann obviously did not act responsibly with her child. Even close family and friends, fellow believers, mind you, suggested she seek medical help for her daughter along with their prayers. She did not heed their advice, and the girl died. She has been found responsible for the girl’s death by a court of law and, pending appeals, will likely be sentenced later this year.
I believe the Neumann case should be considered a precedent, and under that precedent a guy like Bentley should be tried for the deaths of those whom he convinced God had healed. I feel there is no reason he should escape justice. He has acted irresponsibly and caused people to die.
* * *
In my opinion, Bentley’s list of ”healed people” should be thoroughly investigated. Those who are still alive should be counseled and referred to physicians, since I think it is clear by now that Bentley did not wield the power of healing. Those who still believe they have been healed in spite of evidence to the contrary should honestly be treated psychiatrically. And I believe Bentley should be charged for each and every person he claimed to have healed who turns up dead.
Think about it. What if it was your mom who died? Or your husband? Or your son or daughter. Wouldn’t you want justice? Legally, isn’t the man who told them to stop taking medicine responsible for their death?
As hard as this is to say, shouldn’t this man be held responsible? And as Christians, shouldn’t we defend our faith by holding frauds accountable?
So there it is. Can anyone give me one good reason why Bentley shouldn’t being charged with some form of homicide?
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
