living amidst power, but not driven by power?

Upper Room Daily Reflection for June 19, 2007:

TEACH US, O GOD, not to live in a community driven by power. Settle our flurry of activity and talk, and create a community where all are close to you and to one another. Amen.
- Richard Morgan, Settling In
From page 98 of Settling In: My First Year in a Retirement Community by Richard Morgan.

Today’s Scripture Reading
Paul wrote, “Now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian (the law), for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith.”
- Galatians 3:25, NRSV

Jessica's never-ending questions without answers, in response to the Upper Room Daily Reflections:

How do we balance the need for a certain amount of structure for stability/sustainability and realize that power dynamics are always at play – but also remember that our community should not be driven by it? Kind of an “in the world but not of it” kind of thing.

Another question, coming from the interfaith and/or postmodern/post-colonial perspective – is a “community not driven by power” the ideal/goal of many other religions? Is a “community not driven by power” mainly a Christian ideal? or an ideal of the core of peace-oriented, socialist-leaning sector in a variety of traditions, maybe?

It seems to me that Islam, as I’ve come to understand it, has everything to do with submitting to power – the power of God, of course – but nonetheless, the way I view God, the world, etc. just doesn’t really gel with that idea (I'm a little sold on the idea of co-creation with God and each other, God's omnipresence, etc.) – maybe it should, and I’m thus 1) a bad Christian and 2) less able to relate to my Abrahamic brothers and sisters and have effective dialogue (or at least less deep understanding). So be it. If I should change, let it happen. If I should stick my head in a hole and not talk to the rest of the world because I don't agree with them and they don't "get" me, let that happen as well - I have a feeling I'd never let that happen, my ears itching too much to stay there.

Prophesying, seeing visions, dreaming dreams

This past Saturday's Upper Room Daily Reflection:

PEACEMAKERS ARE THOSE who see that the world and its people are broken but also hold a dream, a vision, that God can and does reach out to heal our world. And God does it through the acts of those who live by the values of this new kingdom where God’s will is being done.
- Mary Lou Redding, The Power of a Focused Heart

Today’s Scripture Reading
“In the last days,” God says, “I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.”
- Acts 2:17, NIV


During our spiritual formation seminar this past Friday, before we walked a labyrinth at a church in Dupont Circle, we read the lectionary readings for this Sunday, which included this passage from Acts. I came across this passage when Katie and I were first looking at inspiration for bumper stickers in February-ish - and then it came back to me in the lectionary readings, and now again in Saturday's Upper Room. I think this is one of my new favorite scriptures - I want to prophesy, to see visions, to dream dreams - I think these things are essential to feeding our souls, to bringing into reality a new kingdom (whatever that means) - we must create, and re-create, envision, and re-envision, as time passes, things change, as history haunts us and blesses us, as new history enfolds, new light is shed upon the past, new revelations are discovered for the way the future could be, as we are present to this very moment. It's all in process - the past, the present, the future - and we have to continually find ways to touch every part of it that we can.

I hope to eventually piece together all these little thoughts, anecdotes, quotes, ideas, questions, and meddlings that I've been throwing around - on ideas of brokenness, sin, new kingdom, etc. But in the meantime, this is what you get.

Kiss and make up

This week's "On Faith" question from the Washington Post is the following:

In light of recent high-profile public apologies by Don Imus, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Nifong, the Pope and others, what is the relationship of apology (repentance) to forgiveness?

You can view the question and panelists' responses here.


I think this is especially pertinent, in light of our intern retreat this past weekend, which involved asking for and receiving of forgiveness as a part of a reconciliation service. People may or may not find that lens a helpful one to speak to the "On Faith" question. I also think our previous discussions about sin would also be interesting to bring into this - though they may take us barreling in another direction.

Resurrected, wounds and all

Thurs., April 12's Upper Room Daily Reflection quote:

I DO NOT BELIEVE that … our inner wounds, once healed, will be forgotten and wasted. God’s spirit wastes nothing! We are told in the twentieth chapter of John that the risen Jesus showed Thomas and the other disciples his wounds. I used to wonder why those wounds remained on his risen body of light. Why weren’t those earthly marks of suffering swallowed up, forgotten, in glory? Was it so his friends could identify him? Partly. But I think there was a more important reason. I think all his friends through the ages to come were being shown that wounds, especially when healed, can become sources and signs of new radiance of life. No longer the sources of pain and despair, the wounds now healed can become the channels of healing for others.
- Flora Slosson WuellnerPrayer, Stress and Our Inner Wounds


It's really crazy how things come together liturgically - at worship on Friday at all-staff retreat, Rose mentioned something about being "resurrected, wounds and all," then I go to church on Sunday and hear about the "doubting Thomas" story and how it was not just Jesus' spirit that was resurrected, but his very body and what that means for us, etc. - and then I come back from retreat and read this reflection.

For now, I just want to share this reflection and offer how this struck me - later I want to connect it back to our kingdom debate, because I think it has great implications for it.

I do hope to go back and reflect on all of the kingdom dialogue soon, now that I've had a few months break from it. Somehow, even though I think I may end up in a marginal-ish camp on this theological point - a point which I think is a very critical one in Christianity - I still don't doubt my likely future official role in the church - be it in a community-based non-profit, or as a pastor of a church, etc. Even if I deny an idea possibly essential to Christianity, I can't divorce myself from this family, this body of Christ. This whole being resurrected wounds and all thing gives me hope that I can come to some kind of conclusion about a new kingdom that looks something like Christian doctrine, though - so that's good news. I hope to be able to be more specific in my reflections later on.

"i had sex with him to save him from being gay" and other such portrayals of religion on tv...

To help spark some engagement and good discussion over on the sojo myspace and facebook, here is the On Faith question we'll be posting in sojo cyberspace. Please discuss amongst yourselves so that I have some rousing conversation to submit to Deanna come Wednesday.

"Does the mass media, especially television, treat religion fairly in news and entertainment programs? Explain."

Here's the link to the page in case you want to read up on what the professionals are saying:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2007/03/religion_in_the_media/

Seattle pseudo punksters aim for world domination...

Tim forwarded this ever-so moving article from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer to me today: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/238406_marshill29.html

The topic is the church I used to go to, Mars Hill (of Mark Driscoll, woman-hating fame), and contains quotes from my conservative yet not falling for it alma mater. What do you all think? Reactions? From such an offensive pastor and church, in a movement that we all seem to be abhorrently against, do you see anything that is truly good or attacked for reasons that it shouldn't be?

I personally know that I can defend some of his sermons...at least to some degree, because when taken out of context they look worse than they are. The sermon cited in the article makes it sound like he thinks rich people are good and we don't need to help the poor. Now, maybe that is his official position, but when I attended it was rarely a one-sided thing on most issues. He always presented both sides fairly well (which I found appealing) and would have usually countered such a sermon with another on the importance of seeing the sins and pitfalls of money or something. Also, is it wrong to integrate culture of an area into the church service or church community? I really liked the art in the church, different music, and that it did indeed feel more Seattle-like rather (especially as opposed to the traditional "suburban" church that I was used to). Anyhow, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Ash Wednesday

In a move to transplant some of our thought streams about the "radically new kingdom" and human trafficking to a new post, I wonder if any 'terns have thoughts about the Ash Wednesday service and related remembrances today, especially as regards the language of humility, repentance, and sin. I wonder if this adds to our discussion about evil, brokenness, sin, etc.

I especially wonder how folks feel about Rose's words about original sin and the Psalmist's statement that we are sinful since birth, even in the womb. I guess I am just seeking to understand this distinction between brokenness and sin and the perceived avoidance of what seems like pretty orthodox and biblical language about the human condition.

And in response to Betsy's last post under "human trafficking," I don't think our 2 options are brokenness , which leads to nonviolence and empathy, and sin, which = us vs. them and entails inevitable violence. Maybe we are just talking about the same thing with different words, but as was evidenced today, an orthodox and biblical understanding of sin should take us to our knees, not cause us to pick up a sword. I am not sure the aversion to simply saying that we - individually and as a human race - are sinful and need some serious redemption and reconciliation. I appreciate that "brokenness" feels softer and nicer, but I worry that in our effort to erase "sin" from our lexicons we are losing the very real idea that people - willingly and knowingly and spitefully - do bad things that they are culpable for, whether that is the Janjaweed killing civilians in Darfur or me hating or envying or coveting or lusting in my heart. If we take Jesus at his word, they are one in the same, and at the end of the day, I am RESPONSIBLE and I know better. And again, I think the Bible, my observations of the world, and my knowledge of my own heart all confirm to me that default for us (and me) - esp. separate God's grace - is selfishness, pride, violence, etc. The miracle is not when someone does something wrong, but when someone does something good, right, just, and other-focused. It is entirely possible, yes, but it is not the human default, and we need grace to even make the slightest move to the Other. I think that if anything should breed humility, it is that (aka, robust understanding of sin), not a watered-down notion that makes us all kinda okay and doesn't really want to acknowledge our own culpability and the depraved condition we're all in.

Also, I think that a proper Christian understanding of sin doesn't mean there are then good guys and bad guys (like in a B movie), but rather, it means that the line of good and evil runs through the heart of every person.