
Friday, April 4, 2008
Church and State--According to Barth

Friday, March 28, 2008
Are we to follow the Law?

I have heard the book. I have not read it, but I did see his interview on the Today show several months back. Your question about the Law and Christianity is a great one, one that the church has been discussing for thousands of years. For the answer to this, we must look at Jesus and Paul. Jesus picked grain on the Sabbath. He did not stone a woman who was caught in adultery. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not to abolish the Law. The trick is understanding what fulfilling the Law means.
Christ was born under the curse of the Law . . . the Law was originally a blessing for the Ancient Israelites. In Deuteronomy, Moses warned that if they did not follow God’s Law that the Law would become a curse to them. It was either going to be a blessing or a curse. It was their choice (much like money or sex or status or celebrity, in a way). Instead of having theocratic Rule with God as Israel’s head, the people wanted a King (See the book of Samuel). God obliged, but warned that this was not what the people truly want. Now that the Israelites had a King, it was the King’s responsibility to follow the Law on behalf of the people as their representative before God. The Kings failed, the Torah was now a curse, and Israel was sent into exile.
Upon returning from exile the Isrealite people rebuilt the Temple and they picked up right where they left off . . . failing at following the Torah, which was still a curse. Jesus (God) was born under the Law as a curse so that the Law could once again become a blessing for the people. Throughout his ministry, Jesus redefined the Law . . . “You have heard it said . . . but I tell you . . .” Jesus was obedient unto death on a cross (He who is hung on the tree has been cursed by God). Essentially, God died under God’s own rule so that the Law could be completed and fulfilled.
Now, in walks Paul, who helps us understand what it means to love God in the post-Torah world (and eventually the Post-Temple world. The Temple was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70). Paul says things like, the Law is death and Christ is life, and we are to be circumcised with the heart not with the flesh. Paul also says that we know that we can eat “unclean” foods because we know that all things are clean, but if your brother does not think the same as you, you should abstain from eating so that your brother will not stumble (kind of like the age old question—Do Methodists drink. To which the answer is “some do.” In other words, it’s ok to have a drink, but if you are in the presence of an alcoholic, you should abstain. The basic answer of Christian ethics is, “It’s ok, unless it’s not ok.”)
So, what part of the Law are we to follow? Jesus said it himself—Love God with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. It is the Christian ethic of love (Ecclesial Ethic). Paul, through the experience of Christ, tries to break us out of our binary understanding of the world (black and white, Jew and Gentile, Male and Female, homosexual and heterosexual). In the realm of ethics, most feel that ethics are either Universal (applies to everyone) or situational (only applies to context). Paul’s point is that in Christ we should follow an Ecclesial Ethic, or an ethic of love which is both universal and situational. Like in Romans, folks have asked Paul if Christians can eat meat which have been sacrificed to Pagan Gods. Paul’s answer is sure, unless you shouldn’t. Yes you can because we know that the Pagan God’s don’t exist, but if your brother thinks you are committing a great sin, than don’t (Do Methodists drink . . .).
In conclusion, as far as the book is concerned, following the Law as strictly as you can without any kind of love ethic is missing the point. Likewise, living by love without any type of justice element is also missing the point. We are to love both God and neighbor. AJ Jacobs is a self-avowed Atheist. Following every jot and tittle of the Law without a love of God is nothing but damning. Conversely, loving God without loving your neighbor is equally so, at least, you can't do one without the other. Can you really love God and hate your neighbor?
To answer your question. Jesus fulfilled the entire Law, transforming the Law into a blessing through the power of the Spirit. Transforming the Law into an ethic of love which we can only follow in the power of the Spirit.
What does an ethic of love look like within some of the Church's most heated debates? Abortion? Homosexuality? Aids? Immigration? . . . etc. Let me know what you think.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Dreams?

What are your dreams for Broadmoor United Methodist? I'm not asking for "If . . .then" statements here, like "if we had the money, then . . ." or "if we had enough volunteers, then . . ." I'm asking for your dreams. Big dreams. How do you see Broadmoor building the Kingdom of God five years from now?
Here are the rules.
1. There is no such thing as a bad idea. Ideas that don't come to fruition only gets us closer to what WILL work.
2. No negative words. We're thinking big here. "Can't" doesn't exist yet.
3. Accept all ideas as gifts with which we can work. Nothing is thrown away. That will come later.
4. There is no such thinga s a bad idea. I'm serious about this one.
What are your dreams?
Friday, March 21, 2008
God Bless America?

Before forming an opinion, I would stongly encourage you to read or listen to Rev. Wright's sermons with more context. It is dangerous to form an opinion by listening to a single sentence out of context. You can find more of his "God Damn America" sermon here: http://www.videosift.com/video/The-full-Rev-Wright-sermon-God-damn-America
Listening to the sermon in more context might not change your opinion, but it will at least help us further discern what he is trying to say without the help of media editing.
Does God damn some of the things America does and has done? Is Wright taking this too far? After hearing the sermon with more context, did your opinion change?
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Holy Thursday

Monday, March 17, 2008

Tuesday, March 11, 2008
General Conference Petitions
Monday, March 10, 2008
Stewards of Creation

Friday, March 7, 2008
Caterpillars and the UMC

Wednesday, March 5, 2008
What is a sacrament anyway?

So, what is a sacrament anyway? The Greek word used in the early church for sacrament is mysterion, usually translated mystery. It indicates that through the sacraments, God discloses things that are beyond human capacity to know through reason alone. We when say that Holy Communion is a sacrament, we need to understand that when participating in Holy Communion, we are living into an experience which is fundatmentally a mystery.
In the United Methodist tradition, we refer to a sacrament as an outward and visible sign of an inward invisible grace. The bread and the wine are physical, visible symbols of the grace that God, revealed in Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, is pouring out upon us within the context of Christian community. Communion is the cheif means of grace whereby we receive the real presence of Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. In other words, Holy Communion gives the Church her identitiy. In the act of receiving the bread and the wine, we experience everything we need to know (not everything we want to know) about God's salvific work in Christ.
So, if in communion we experience everything we need to know about God's saving work in Christ, why bread and wine? Why not fish and loaves? Why not lamb and bitter herbs? What do you think?
Monday, March 3, 2008
Holy Communion

Wednesday, February 13, 2008
What Are Your Dreams?

Friday, February 1, 2008
An Awful Church full of Awful People
