Monday, June 23, 2014

My Relationship Status With The Bible: “It’s Complicated”

bibleThe Patheos Progressive Christianity Channel is currently featuring a number of panelists discussing how Progressive Christians relate to the Bible. From the page, the catalyst for discussion is the following paragraph:
Progressive Christianity is moving into the 21st century with a freedom to challenge and question tradition and scripture in ways that simultaneously respect the past and look for fresh ways to live into the future. Traditional Christian interpretations of scriptures on a wide variety of issues—hell, gender, sexuality, marriage, community, atonement, social justice, and leadership—are giving way to more nuanced understandings of authorial intent, deeper explorations of the linguistic and cultural realities of the biblical world, and broader definitions of Christian identity. What is the role of Scripture for progressives? How do we define its authority? To what extent is it prescriptive for 21st-century Christians?

You can follow the discussion on their page.

For me, if the Bible and I were friends on Facebook and we were to describe our relationship status, it would most definitely be “It’s complicated.”

I love the Bible and I respect it.

I believe it contains authoritative words.

But it is not an unqualified authority.

I believe it contains the Word of God.
But I don’t accept it as The Word of God.
I believe it contains Truth.
But I don’t accept that all it contains is factual or historical.
I believe it is a product of inspiration.
But I don’t accept that it is inherently inspired.
I believe all of it can be useful in appropriate contexts.
But I don’t accept that all parts have equal value or use.

I believe it is the ancient people’s record of their attempts to understand the Divine. And as such it is very much limited by the cultural and historical contexts in which the words were written and redacted.

I accept the weight of scholarly evidence that suggests strongly that the Bible is very much a human product, that it contains ancient myths and legends spiritappropriated by the Hebrews and altered to fit their theology, that there were political and religious agendas in the compiling and editing of the text, that contradictions and errors exist and cannot be reconciled.

But these problems, and others, don’t bother me because I don’t believe a single mind wrote the words and guided the compiling.
I believe it is not a flawless product, but it is a product of good intentions.

And I have confidence that God is able to use even our flaws.

I believe it is a guide to help us grow in our understanding of God and relationship with him.
And I have confidence that the Living Word of God speaking through the Holy Spirit can and will transcend the static, written text of the Bible.
I believe the Bible contains the best description of God, in the accounts of Jesus Christ.
And I have confidence that however differently Christians look upon, read, interpret, and apply the Bible, God’s purposes will not be thwarted.

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Blind River Rapids and Wildflowers

We have a nephew visiting from Oregon. I took him out to Blind River Rapids for a few hours of photography. The weather was mixed from rather heavy rain to clouds to brilliant sunshine. It made for some interesting time outdoors. The highlight for me was when I was able to capture a bald eagle taking off with some nesting material back to its nest.

Here are a few of my images taken with Canon EOS T4i and either EF-S 18-55 or the EF-S 55-250. I used onOne Software’s Perfect Photo Suite 8 for post-processing and image manipulation.

Monday, June 09, 2014

Next study will be through Mark’s gospel

We finished up 1 Corinthians a couple of weeks ago. What next? I’ve selected Mark’s gospel. We started this a few years back but was interrupted before finishing even a chapter.

You can follow the study here.

Friday, May 02, 2014

“Noah” Movie

So the Noah movie came to town this weekend and a few of us decided to go see what the fuss is/was all about.

After seeing it, I can perfectly understand the terrible comments directed toward it. Using the Genesis text as the standard of judgment, it could be said there really isn’t much in the movie that keeps to the text. Criticism is way to easy and far too obvious.

I was more interested to see if I could identify with the perspectives of the positive reviews that I read about the time when the movie first came out (March 28, 2014). I did have to look past the mediocre elements of the portrayal. And I had to consciously set aside the idea that I was seeing a Bible Story. But then I could identify with many, though not necessarily all, positive reflections on the movie.

Here I provide a list of some of the ones to which I refer. (No point in listing negative ones since, ahem, it doesn’t take much thought to come up with them.) I suppose, not surprisingly, the positive reflections are from progressive Christianity and Jewish sources.

The Noah movie is at its strongest when it is working through the psychology of Noah carrying out what he absolutely believes to be a divine command, no matter what that means, even if it means murder in the name of God. It is at its weakest when it is trying to advance the narrative.

Friday, April 18, 2014

Father, Forgive Them…

Easter-2014-blog-synchroblog_550x332

You are John

You are John, the disciple. You were there when Judas left the Supper early. You didn’t think much of it until hours later when he came with a mob to seize Jesus. You saw Judas plant a kiss on Jesus, and then the rush of the mob upon him.

Everything turned into a blur after that. Afraid for your life, you fled the scene. But soon afterwards you turned back and followed at a distance.

You watched as the religious leaders and council members made mockery of the very laws they were sworn to uphold. You saw them beat and spit upon Jesus. You watched him in shackles being led from one place to another. You could see and hear their hate.

You spoke up for Peter and got him inside the courtyard. But then you heard Peter deny any knowledge of Jesus, as he warmed himself by the fire.

You are Mary

You are Mary, Jesus’ mother. You were awakened by frightened disciples screaming that Jesus had been betrayed by Judas and seized by the religious leaders. You wrap yourself with a cloak and rush out as quickly as you can toward Temple.

By the time you get there Jesus is in chains at the Praetorium. You hear the angry mob. The religious leaders egg them on. You hear Pilate proclaim Jesus’ innocence. Your hopes rise. But they are dashed just as quickly when he says Jesus will be scourged. You watch as the Roman soldiers strip Jesus of his clothing, tie him to a stake, and beat him with a scourge.

You would do anything to save your son. But you cannot. You are helpless.

Your hopes rise again as Pilate tries to release Jesus. But the cries of the mob grow louder. “Crucify him!” they shout and scream.

You sob. You cry. You shake.

You follow the procession out of Jerusalem. You watch Jesus stumble and fall, and fall again. He has no strength left. How can they do this to your son? Your baby? Your firstborn? The one who nursed at your breast? The one you comforted when he stumbled as a child? The one whose scrapes and bumps you bandaged?

You are at the Cross

You are Mary. You are John. You stand at a distance as the Romans pound spikes into Jesus, just another day’s work. The religious leaders and the mob cheer them on. You cannot bear to watch. You cover your ears, but the sounds of the spikes piercing into flesh and the screams from Jesus still penetrate. You hear the “thud” as the cross is dropped into its place, and the accompanying screams and cries of agony as Jesus experiences the shock of the fall.

You finally have the courage to turn around and look at Jesus. You are filled with both sorrow and rage.

Your eyes meet Jesus’. You see him take in an excruciating breath. What is so important that he endures such suffering in order to speak?

Every word struggling, strained, and pained, you hear, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they’re doing.” (Luke 23:34a CEB)


This story was presented as part of the Seven Last Words of Jesus on the Cross Community Good Friday Service at the Petersburg Lutheran Church on April 18, 2014 in Petersburg, Alaska. It is a creative interpretation of what may have been going on in the minds of John and Mary during the time period depicted.

Monday, April 07, 2014

Book Review: The Answer to Bad Religion Is Not No Religion

The Answer to Bad Religion Is Not No Religion: A Guide to Good Religion for Seekers, Skeptics, and BelieversThe Answer to Bad Religion Is Not No Religion: A Guide to Good Religion for Seekers, Skeptics, and Believers by Martin Thielen
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

If you are tired of a rigid, black-and-white religious environment, this book might be for you.

Martin Thielen draws upon his own experiences in his book The Answer to Bad Religion Is Not No Religion: A Guide to Good Religion for Seekers, Skeptics, and Believers. His is a journey that begins when his denomination makes a shift toward fundamentalism. He feels he does not belong, but stays for some time because the costs of leaving seem too high. It is hard to leave a family that has nurtured you and helped you along in your spiritual growth. But eventually he is forced to face that the costs of staying are too high. And thus he leaves to a more progressive denomination - in his case, the United Methodists.

The book is divided into three parts. The first part describes what Martin sees as characterizing bad religion. These include judgmentalism and condemnation, a spirit of negativity, arrogance, absolutism, and intolerance. At the end of this first part he lists other characteristics but does not discuss them in detail.

The second part discusses why the decision of some who have exited toxic religion into "no religion" is not the right answer. He discusses how religion, in spite of its many imperfections, has been and continues to be a force for and a motivation for good in society. He discusses how human beings seemed to be wired to need religion.

The third part discusses characteristics that Martin believes are exhibited in good religion. These include prioritization of love, engagement in service, community building, forgiveness, and integrity. At the end of this part, in similarity to the first part, a list of additional good characteristic are given.

In the Conclusion chapter Martin recommends that those who want a good religion to try some of the mainline and moderate Christian churches. He specifically recommends trying out United Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopal, Disciples of Christ, UCC, American Baptist, Cooperative Baptist, and Alliance of Baptists churches.

There two appendices. The first lists additional reading and study materials. The second is a discussion of non-literal biblical hermeneutics.

I see a fairly narrow audience for this book. Those who are happy in conservative and fundamentalist churches and accept this way of biblical interpretations will be rather unhappy with this book. Those who are happy with their abandonment of or antipathy to any religion will likely not be swayed by this book. To those who are already in moderate, mainline churches will feel like this book is preaching to the choir.

That leaves those who have been disillusioned by their conservative and fundamentalist churches, and those who are currently on their way to abandoning religion but haven't quite got there yet. To these groups, this book is a call to take a pause and take a little more time exploring religion that, hopefully, is different from their pasts.

This review is based on an ARC supplied by the publisher through NetGalley.

View all my reviews

Monday, March 31, 2014

Book Review: The Future of the Mind

The Future of the Mind: The Scientific Quest to Understand, Enhance, and Empower the MindThe Future of the Mind: The Scientific Quest to Understand, Enhance, and Empower the Mind by Michio Kaku
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Projecting advances in neuroscience based on physics.

In The Future of the Mind, Michio Kaku approaches brain science from a physicist's perspective. He evaluates predictions and possibilities using the laws of physics as his primary guide to whether or not projections are realistic or not, and how quickly they may come to fruition.

The first two chapters are a brief history of neuroscience, a discussion of brain anatomy, technologies and equipment that are used to study the brain, various models employed in explaining how the brain works, and how to define consciousness and what it means to be human.

The bulk of the book, the middle chapters, deals with various aspects of neuroscience and advancements that have taken popular imagination such as mind-reading, telekinesis, artificial improvements to the brain, mind-control, and more. With each Michio discusses a brief history of the topic, current science, various future possibilities, what physics might allow, and the legal and ethical ramifications.

The final chapters deal with the more abstract ideas of consciousness beyond attachment to a physical body, including a physical brain. He provides various scenarios in which "immortality" might one day become possible based on physics.

The book is a fascinating journey into the past, present, and future of the mind - the brain and consciousness. It is written in plain English (i.e., no heavy technical or medical jargon), though previous familiarity with the topics (medical and physics) no doubt will improve comprehension. In addition to people interested in learning more about the brain and the future of neuroscience, I think this book will be of interest to science-fiction fans. Highly recommended.


View all my reviews

Wednesday, March 05, 2014

Searching for the ecology of the gospel accounts

IMG_1689When I originally planned my trip to Ghost Ranch in New Mexico it was to attend a week-long course in coming to grips with who Jesus is to each person. Due to lack of enrollment the course was cancelled. I could have taken a refund and paid out $125 to Alaska Airlines to redeposit the airline miles. Instead I opted to continue the trip with a slightly different objective.

One of my objectives became to read through all four gospels. Not study them, but to just read them. In Christian circles that I grew up in, and probably is many others, Bible reading and Bible study are essentially synonymous. A person reads a small section of the text and studies it, whether it is for theology or for devotional purposes. I can’t recall ever encountering suggestions to just read it without any other motivation.

The other objective became to contemplate the definition of “gospel.” I think that too often, the gospel is defined in terms of Pauline writings. And/Or it is defined primarily in terms of the crucifixion, and in the process reducing the value of the rest of Jesus’ story. The common definition for the gospel is the means through which salvation is afforded to sinners, or some variant of this. Components might include steps to salvation, a “sinner’s prayer”, theories of atonement, discussions about justification and sanctification, and so on.

These two objectives came together during my time of retreat. My larger objective became a search for what the gospel writers intended when they each wrote their “Gospel according to…” I wanted to discover the forest of the gospel, rather than get sidetracked by the individual trees. I wanted to see the topography of each of the paintings of the gospel. I wanted to feel the contours and textures. I wanted to actively sense the nuances of each author’s take on what the gospel meant to him.

cebI read through the gospel accounts during a span of about three days, during each of their morning and evening periods. I read them in the Common English Bible translation, a translation involving around 120 scholars and whose intent was to render the biblical text into present-day common English syntax. I resisted the temptation to refer to lexicons, concordances, dictionaries, and commentaries. I wasn’t reading to study. I was reading to simply read. They were probably originally read aloud in one extended sitting. That’s kind of what I wanted to emulate, though I chose to not read it aloud.

During the course of my reading, it was fascinating to recognize the different emphases of each of the Synoptic gospels. I recognized the differences in ordering of stories and teachings, differences in what was included or not in each, and the huge difference between the Synoptics and John.

IMG_1687I found that for which I was seeking. I found the forest of each gospel. In the Synoptics, the gospel is that the Kingdom of God/Heaven has arrived through Jesus. Each writer has his own spin on this theme, but it is all about the Kingdom. In John the gospel is that Life has come to be offered abundantly to all who choose to accept it. At least that is what I took away from my time of reading.

I would like to encourage Christians to take the time to set aside Bible study for a few moments and take some time to just read some of these narrative books in their entirety as a work of literature. Take time to discover the forest. Discover the ecology of the work. Only then will the individual trees make sense as they were meant to be.

Monday, March 03, 2014

A few travel and photography apps I find useful

I have an iPad (3-gen) and an iPhone 5. During my recent trip I found the following apps to be useful for my needs. (In no particular order.)

Flipboard

As long as you have some kind of an Internet connection, Flipboard is one of the most efficient ways of browsing your social media feeds.

Onavo Protect

When connecting to an unprotected WiFi access point, and especially if you are going to do any kind of sensitive transactions, you really need a VPN. Onavo Protect is a free VPN app.

Google Maps

I’m sure many people already have this. I used it for giving me walking directions about Santa Fe. It performed well. Also useful for connecting to dining and entertainment reviews.

TripIt

I’ve been using TripIt for all my trips for about two years now. I find it very useful to make sure all the gaps (cars, lodging, other transportation, entertainment, etc.) are filled in by allowing me to see everything in one timeline. There is a subscription to the Pro version that provides real-time flight alerts and other upgraded features. It can be used via desktop computer at tripit.com.

AlaskaAir

It’s the official travel companion to Alaska Airlines. If this is your airline, you need it. Since Alaska Air offers free in-air WiFi access to its website, the app contents will update too, as you’re in the air. It integrates with Passbook to offer electronic boarding passes at places so equipped.

OpenTable

Easiest way to make restaurant reservations as long as the restaurant is connected to this service. It sends reminders so you don’t forget your dinner appointments.

Photogene

It reads RAW files, has plenty of global adjustments as well as many detail correction tools. It can save files to the original resolution. I found it to be all I needed to work on my DSLR files (imported via Apple’s camera connection kit). No laptop needed. And Photogene is a whole lot cheaper than desktop photo editing software.

Sol

Photographers crave the golden hour and we want to know where the sun will rise and set. Sol gives you all that plus the civil, nautical and astronomical twilight times. There is no excuse to be caught unawares once you have this app.

Snapseed

Photogene is great, but it isn’t quite as simple to use as Snapseed. For nearly all my iPhone captured photos, I sent them through Snapseed for quick adjustments. It doesn’t offer as much control or detail as Photogene.

Day One

Nice journaling app. It can automatically insert your current location and weather, and if you have an iPhone 5s it can capture activity and steps. It allows text to be fully formatted and a picture to be inserted with each entry. The journal can be accessed via Mac software, and can be exported as multi-page PDF for printing and archiving.

Moves

It is an activity tracker for the iPhone. As long as it is enabled it records all your movement using the iPhone sensors and location services. It does require a connection to its servers where movement data is uploaded in order to analyze the data. It does a pretty good job of figuring out whether you are walking, running, cycling, or moving via some kind of vehicle.

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

My adventures to New Mexico, at Ghost Ranch, and back

IMG_0664

Well, this isn’t really about Alaska, but it is about what I did this past week away from Alaska (mostly), so I’m sticking it into this site.

I spent the period of February 15-25, 2014 traveling about and taking some R&R time at Ghost Ranch in New Mexico. I stopped at a lot of airports: PSG – JNU – ANC – PDX – LAX – SAF, ABQ – DFW – LAS – SEA – KTN – WRG – PSG. Excluding my home airport, that was a stop in eleven airports of which I spent time on the ground in eight of them. Needless to say, I spent a rather large amount in the air and in airports.

I also spent the beginning and end of my stay in New Mexico in the capital city of Santa Fe. It is a mid-sized city with the historical downtown area composed of artsy shops and many fine dining establishments. At least in February, it didn’t feel too touristy. The more commercial area (which I did not go to) is located to the southwest. The historic area is quite amenable to walking. Even at night there were quite a few people walking about the city. I stayed at the Sage Inn located around a mile from the town square. It is close enough for a nice walk, or there is an hourly shuttle that runs between the hotel and the town square from morning to evening.

At the return end of my stay in Santa Fe I got to browse the Sunday arts and crafts booths at the Railyard Park’s Famers Market. There were quite a few artists offering their work: pottery, fabric, glass, jewelry, etc. The back part contained what looked like more permanent fixtures offering chocolate, teas, other foods, and a tasting room of the Vivac Winery. I picked up some teas, couple bottles of New Mexico wine, and a small clay cup.

There were a couple of shops that I particularly enjoyed. One is called Ten Thousand Villages and offers Fair Trade products from around the world. The other is Savory Spice Shop offering a huge selection of spices, herbs, and blends as well as a selection of local gourmet offerings. I purchased a few Indian and African spice blends. I put them in the suitcase for travel home and realized I should probably isolate it in a separate pocket so that the contents wouldn’t smell like spices for weeks.

The end of my trip coincided with the start of Santa Fe Restaurant Week. I took advantage of one of the special offerings to get a three-course meal at Vanessie. For $30 I chose the soup, a beef tenderloin filet, and a dessert.

Earlier in the day I went to Omira Brazilian Steahouse. It is an upscale buffet style steakhouse grilling and barbecuing various meats the Brazilian way. The miscellaneous items buffet section can be had by itself for a lower price, and even vegetarians will find a good selection here. I found this restaurant a great place to try out various types of meat during a single meal. I would almost consider coming back to Santa Fe just for this experience.

Most of my time was spent at Ghost Ranch, a Presbyterian Church (USA) education and retreat facility. It is located about one-hour north of Santa Fe in the middle of nowhere. The closest town is Abiquiu. This is the home of Georgia O’Keefe. The scenery is spectacular. With this winter being so dry and mild, it felt like spring during my stay. A few of the nights got quite cold and some of the days were rather windy, but they were still fine for the hikes that I took.

There are three main hikes directly accessed from Ghost Ranch. The first goes up toward and next to Chimney Rock. Although this ones climbs and with some steep gradients, the trail is relatively smooth (i.e., no scrambling about rocks and such) and fairly well marked. I found this one the easiest. You can start to get good vistas by going up about a third to half of the way.

The second one I hiked was the Box Canyon. This one follows a small creek for most of the way. It requires some dexterity throughout and a little bit of scrambling up boulders right at the end. Although you don’t get the wide vistas with this trail (because you’re boxed in a canyon most of the way) you get an intimate look at the rising cliff walls as well as colorful images in the stream and streambeds. The trail switches between the creek banks requiring stepping onto rocks and jumping over the water.

The third one I hiked, and the one I didn’t complete to its end, was the Kitchen Mesa. It is relatively easy for the first half before the trail hits the base of the mesa. At this point the trail becomes increasingly steep, rocky at times, and loose and sandy at other times. The trail winds up the steep incline of the mesa until it reaches the cliff face. At this point progress consists of scrambling and climbing rocks and boulders. The very last part of this first half concludes by scrambling up a crevice in the cliff face which isn’t quite vertical. I found climbing up far more difficult than coming back down the same. After reaching the top I lost the trail after about 200-300 yards. Upon examining the satellite image from Google Maps I got an idea of where the trail went afterwards. What I did instead was go to my left (to the edge of the bottom of the sideways “U”) and took in the vista from there before coming down. This was by far the most strenuous and technical of the trails.

On Saturday morning I set my alarm to awake for the sunrise. And what a great sunrise it was. I literally ran/jogged up the Chimney Rock trail until I got to a good vista. (The Moves app on my iPhone recorded me averaging 4.6 mph on a course that was at least half uphill.) And then later in the day I went up the trail again because the clouds were so fantastic.

What I learned from my hiking is that I feel like I’m still in very good physical shape. I have good strength and stamina, my speed seems to be pretty good, and I don’t seem to have any problems with agility or balance. I am still willing to tackle physically demanding challenges and take reasonable risks. So I’m not that old yet Smile.

There is no cell phone coverage here (except for a few isolated spots depending on carrier) and WiFi is limited to two buildings. You might think you would miss the always-on connection, but really, that is not the case. It is kind of refreshing to have to intentionally seek out an online connection a few times a day and just know that the world can continue to spin around while you are disconnected.

It’s been quite a few years when I’ve been really had the chance to spend hours on photography over a span of a week. I truly enjoyed the time I had. I’m told that autumn is one of the best times to be in New Mexico with the aspens changing color and the weather still amenable to outdoor activities. I would like to return here again during that season.

Because this was the off-season, it was fairly quiet at the Ranch. There were only a couple of other workshops going on at this time. The most crowded I saw was maybe 40-50 (including staff) in the dining hall at one time. I’m told that during the summer high season there can be 450-500 guests plus many more staff and volunteers. I think I’ll stick to the off-season.

Saturday, February 08, 2014

Review: Transformed–A New Way of Being Christian

Transformed: A New Way of Being ChristianTransformed: A New Way of Being Christian by Caesar Kalinowski
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Living Missionally (Without Becoming Obnoxious) in the Modern World.

When I requested this book, I expected to receive a fairly standard, traditional discipleship fare. By that I mean more exhortations to obedience to God's ways and developing the fruit (or far too often, mistakenly, fruits - plural) of the Spirit so that I, as a Christian individual, could have impact in the world while not falling to its traps. I was expecting more exhortations to introspection and corresponding guilt that accompanies it. (Oh, none of the discipleship works ever say that's their intention, but really, that's what is usually the result from my experience.) Let's just say I've had too many negative experiences with so-called discipleship books and courses and seminars.

I was very pleasantly surprised to discover Transformed: A New Way of Being Christian by Caesar Kalinowski is quite unlike that. Caesar desire to motivate Christians to get away from the hyper-individualistic mindsets and into missional communities. He wants to get Christians to stop seeing the world as a place that is utterly fallen and evil and the church as a fortress of protection from the world. He wants Christians to exit the fortress (my metaphor) and make church communities happen among the world. He wants Christians to live their lives in the world.

The first part of the book deals with who we are when we enter the family of God and call ourselves Christians. Too often Christianity is presented in a fortress mindset where the church is an escape from the world and a place to hang on until we "arrive in heaven." Whatever evangelism happens is a raid into the world to bring back "captives" for God.

One of the difficult questions that I've been hearing in the church group I'm with is how does one live a Christian life that is modeled after Jesus and the apostles? Is that kind of lifestyle only applicable to people of that time? How can we realistically live in a way where we share things, work for the common good, and reject the idolatry of individualism that is so prevalent, even in the church? Transformed goes a long way to providing a set of positive responses to these questions.

For Caesar, the answer is not found in church, but in Jesus. Christians become a part of "a family of missionary servants, sent as disciples who make disciples." He writes that this is our new identity. Along with a number of other writers that I've read, Caesar makes the point that Christians are no longer "sinners," and not even "saved sinners" in identity. Christians are saints who are part of God's family. Christians still sin, but identity is no longer "sinner." This makes all the difference in how Christians see themselves and their brothers and sisters.

The Christian's identity is not found in what "we do." Her identity is based on what Jesus Christ has already done. His identity is based on his relationship to others as a member of a family, as a missionary, as servants, and as disciples. This is part two of the book.

Too often Christianity is defined through beliefs and doctrines, by what he does in church, and by whether or not she has personally accepted Jesus into her life. Caesar describes how a Christian cannot be one unless he is in relationship to other human beings as well. Far too often this relationship is defined as something that is primarily found through church - attendance at services and participation in programs. Caesar challenges his readers to think of church as happening primarily outside of the walls of a fixed building and outside fixed schedules of worship.

Caesar suggests that Christians have misunderstood what "discipleship" means. He writes that it is usually understood as taking a series of courses, going through a book, listening to lectures (sermons), etc. on topics that are supposed to be essential and helpful to grow an individual's spirituality toward maturity. Traditional discipleship postulates that once a person has the right information, he will live a better life.

Caesar takes a look at John 8:31-32 and suggests that it is in fact the other way around. People learn a better way to live by modeling what they see as a better life. And through modeling, they begin to understand, accept, and believe the principles (truth and doctrines) underlying the better way.

It is upon this premise that the rest of the book is written. Caesar describes how he has practiced this in his Christian community (church) called Soma. He uses stories and examples from his life to illustrate and explain what he terms the "rhythms" of how Christians can live missionally in today's world. These rhythms are: telling and listening to stories; listening to God through scripture and prayer; eating together; offering blessings through words, actions, and gifts; throwing parties and celebrating with one another; and taking time to rest and re-create.

Towards the end of each chapter Caesar has a section where he acknowledges that the principles in that chapter are not always easy to live out, that there may be questions and areas that are not black or white, and provides ways of thinking through the difficulties. The end of each chapter includes questions for discussion. In the spirit of the book, I suspect it would be best to gather a group together to discuss them together.

One of the things I liked best in Transformed is toward the end of the chapter "Celebrate" where Caesar writes that if we have been redeemed, if our lives have been redeemed, instead of running away from culture and its abuses, we ought to go in there and put in the effort to redeem them. Just as Paul engaged with the culture around him wherever he went, we ought to be doing the same. When we retreat from culture and its sins (retreating into the church fortress) we are inadvertently sending the message that there are things in the world that even God cannot redeem because it has been so perverted beyond redemption - we send the message that the gospel is not big enough. And if the gospel isn't big enough, is it really big enough for the issues that I'm facing personally?

The kind of community Caesar describes is one that is very fluid and open. This is the one area where I personally had difficulties, not because I disagreed with the ideas and principles, but because I am an extreme introvert who needs a lot of alone time. I could see how Caesar's model could work for outgoing, extroverted people. I looked but didn't find discussion on good ways on how to adapt and fit the model to introverted personalities. I'm pretty sure he doesn't expect introverts to become extroverts, but I wish there was more discussion on this question.

Overall I found the contents of the Transformed to be excellent. It changes the way a Christian sees herself. It changes how a Christian approaches discipleship. It changes how he defines and practices church. In a very real way it transforms the ways of the "apostolic church" into something that can work out in 21st century Western societies. I did not find (from my perspective) anything that would be a major theological roadblock. I think it will appeal to a broad Christian audience, whatever their theological or denominational persuasion.

(This review is based on an ARC supplied by the publisher through NetGalley.)

View all my reviews

Monday, February 03, 2014

Book Review: Loveology–discussion of marriage and sex from a soft-complementarian

Loveology: God. Love. Marriage. Sex. and the Never-Ending Story of Male and Female.Loveology: God. Love. Marriage. Sex. and the Never-Ending Story of Male and Female. by John Mark Comer
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

From an Egalitarian: Some very good points and some questionable ones.

Loveology, by John Mark Comer, is a study of what the Bible teaches about love and intimate relationships from one theological perspective. I say this because the Mr. Comer writes from a soft-complementarian position in regards to gender roles. He holds to conservative positions on marriage and family, sexual practices, and LGBTQ issues. However, in my reading of the book, he does not appear quite so rigid when it comes to his hermeneutics of the Bible. He takes a position that is much open to reading text through cultural lenses, making evaluations on whether what is found is descriptive or prescriptive, and where it does not conflict with what he perceives as non-negotiable "truths" he will take into account present-day culture for application purposes.

As one who takes egalitarian positions and gender questions and as one who takes a far more progressive hermeneutic, I find it difficult to assign this book a rating. If I take the position of his intended audience - moderately conservative evangelicals - I'd rate this in the four to five (out of five) range. Rating it from my personal perspective and usefulness to me, it would fall to around three because I did not think he engaged opposing viewpoints sufficiently. Mr. Comer provides endnotes, and I wished he would have provided more counterpoints and arguments there, if not in the main body of the text.

That said, there were several good points that were made that did not rely on or connote gender roles or sexual orientations.

Mr. Comer lays a good foundation when he introduces love as both feeling and action. I think that Christians are sometimes fearful of feelings and are afraid to make positive comments about them. Here, caveats are provided, but feelings are affirmed as a good and necessary part of love. To be human is to have emotions. We were created to love, and emotions are a part of who we are.

Mr. Comers offers four reasons for marriage as it was originally intended by God: Friendship, Gardening (vocational partnership in the journey of life), Sex, and Family. There may be quibbles about some of the details that are found in the book, but overall these make good sense.

Some other valuable points he makes include
• There is no "one" person that will complete you
• Don't idolize childlessness or having children
• Don't think either marriage or singleness are God's preference
• Don't marry for the purpose of achieving happiness
• Sex is good - it's from God - it's to be enjoyed

Where things get problematic is when Mr. Comer writes about gender roles. It actually starts out well about a fifth of the way into the book. He discusses the term ezer as an equal helper, and that the term is also used of God. But just around the halfway mark in his discussion of the Song of Songs, he makes the observations that women want men to take them away and for men to chase after them, as described in the poetry. From here he draws the conclusion that it is man's job to lead things, including romance. He bases this conclusion also on the creation order found in Genesis 2. He does clarify that "to lead" does not mean to boss, to dominate, etc. He reminds readers that the Bible has been used to excuse abuses.

A few chapters later Mr. Comer devotes a whole chapter to gender differences and roles. He writes that historically women have been treated badly based on gender stereotypes, but that is no reason to throw out all the ideas about gender differentiation, including the idea that God designed and created into human genders different roles. He acknowledges that God is genderless and that feminine descriptions are attributed to God. He even agrees that "feminist" can be a good term. But based on his interpretation of the creation account, he concludes that because Adam (the man) was created first and given the command to work the earth, it is the male gender's responsibility to lead. He reads this same idea into Paul's writings. He reads the Genesis 2 account as a literal, historical even that is applicable to all subsequent marriages.

At the beginning I noted that I perceived Mr. Comer as a soft-complementarian. I say this because he specifically limits male leadership to marriage and (possibly - it is not clear from his writing) the church (although if you look up the church that he leads, you will only see men in the leadership positions). He acknowledges that the command to "rule the earth" and "to be fruitful and multiply" apply equally to men and women, but that men were created to lead.

In the following chapter he tacitly introduces the counterargument that gender roles are a result of the Fall, but dismisses it without much explanation. He writes that the curse of the Fall was not that gender roles themselves became skewed and corrupt, but that their applications became corrupt so that men began to domineer over and abuse women. In discussing Ephesians 5 and the household codes, he describes how Paul's version is different from traditional ones encountered during that time; that how radical it was in assigning responsibility to those higher on the hierarchy to care for and respect those on the lower rungs. But he continues to see the household codes and the command for submission ("Wives, submit…") as still precisely and literally applicable as it was written. He defends his conclusions by giving the traditional response that if a husband truly respects and loves his wife in a self-giving way, the wife will have no problem submitting. He acknowledges that churches have often been the worst places for women, but does not see the theology of gender roles as contributing to the problem.

The final chapter deals with sexual orientation - the LGBTQ issue. On this point Mr. Comer is far less nuanced. He acknowledges that churches have treated non-heterosexual people badly. He acknowledges that sex should not the biggest "sin" issue in Christianity. He does not view homosexual orientation as sin, but it is sin to act upon it. He differentiates between "who you are" and "what you do." I feel he does disservice to himself by parroting cliché arguments and failing to engage both the science and the complexities inherent. In his arguments, particularly in the discussion of sexual orientation, I see Mr. Comer falling into the trap of logical fallacies, especially that of the "slippery slope" in order to make his arguments.

For me, I found about the first half of the book to contain useful elements. The last half, although interesting to read the arguments for theologies of complementarianism and heterosexual-only marriages, it was something that I did not find useful otherwise.

The intended audience, as I noted earlier, seems to be moderately conservative evangelicals who hold to a more nuanced interpretation of scripture than a strict literalist reading. Those who hold to a very literal reading, and fundamentalists, will have some points of large disagreements. And likewise, as I have described, progressive and liberal Christians will have points of agreement but will likely be turned off by the gender and sexual orientation discussions.

(This review is based on an Advance Review Copy provided by the publisher through NetGalley.)

View all my reviews

Monday, January 13, 2014

God With Us

Lectionary, Year A, Epiphany week 2

Untitled-1

Untitled-2

Although John’s gospel account does not include the infancy narratives that provide accounts of how God came to dwell with humankind, the first chapter uses metaphors and allusions to provide readers with the Christology of the Incarnation.

The first part of John 1 portrays Jesus as the Eternal Word that “camps” [skenoo] with humankind. In the latter half of the first chapter, through the narrative rhetoric of John the Baptist and the first disciples, the text shows the incarnation of divinity among the daily lives of his creation.

What I see is a pair of chiastic structures where the outer envelopes and the centers highlight the identity of Jesus. In the outer envelopes Jesus is the “Lamb of God,” the “Son of God,” and the “Messiah.” In the center portions is described how first, John the Baptist recognizes the divinity of Jesus, and then how Jesus reveals himself to his first disciples. The word meno translated as remain and stay tie these two parts together. This also looks forward to John 15 and the same word used there, frequently translated as abide.

What I take from this is that God isn’t going anywhere. He dwelt physically among humankind in the person of Jesus, but his Spirit remains with us today.

When we see the world around us we often ask the same question of God, “Where are you [staying]?” His response is the same today as it was then, “Come and you will see.” Where does he take the questioners today? I believe it is to his people among whom the Spirit continues to abide.

I first thought verse 42 seemed almost like an afterthought, but upon reflection it seems key to bringing together this pericope. Maybe Peter was asking a similar question. The gospel writer is perhaps telling us that his question was heard [Simon] and as a result Jesus became the source of stable identity for him [Cephas – “rock”]. Sure, Peter’s thoughts and actions would waver and stumble through his life journey, but his trust in Jesus would remain true to the end.

How do you read this passage? What speaks to you?

Thursday, January 02, 2014

Grace and Truth is God’s Totality

Lectionary Christmas 2A

John_1_14-18

Pictured above is the last few verses of this week’s Lectionary Gospel reading.

The climax appears to be found at verse 17. The author is likely alluding to Moses’ experience on Sinai as described in Exodus 34. He contrasts the giving of the law with the coming of Jesus Christ. The law “given through Moses” implies a source, but the author chooses to omit it, giving this text a far more negative portrayal of the law than even Paul(!). Not only does law not bring salvation, it cannot even give a revelation of God. (This text could even be read that the law as given was ultimately Moses’ interpretation of God.) The way law and Jesus Christ are contrasted, the author seems to be communicating that the law, in fact, paints a picture of God that is utterly wrong.

What the author wants his readers to understand is that the only way to “see” God is through Jesus Christ. Jesus was and is with the Father – with the Father’s heart, even. This being, who is intimately familiar with the heart of the Father came to live with us.

What did the people who walked with Jesus discover? That the Father and Son share the same glory: “grace and truth.” That “grace and truth” is the “fullness,” or the totality, of who and what God is.

(The parenthetical statement from John the Baptist was likely added to argue against his followers and to counter Jewish traditions of authority figures.)

How might we apply this passage today? What strikes you as important? How do you see God?

Monday, December 23, 2013

Joseph, Jesus, Justice

Revised Common Lectionary, Advent Year 4A

In this passage, Joseph is portrayed as one who exemplifies the kind of justice that Jesus will reveal about his Father’s.

I see a chiastic (ring-composition) structure in Matthew’s rhetoric. The outer envelope (1,9) mention “Jesus,” the center section (4-6) is concerned about names, and the very center (5) is the directive to Joseph to name the child “Jesus” and gives the meaning for this name.

Matthew 1_18-25

This passage is not Matthew trying to “prove” the Virgin Birth. For Matthew he simply accepts it as true. Given the lack of scientific knowledge about childbirth and the numerous mythologies available about miraculous births and deities conceiving with humans, it probably wouldn’t have been too far-fetched for ancients to tacitly accept this as true, even if much suspicion remained about the “real” facts about how Mary conceived.

The real concern of Matthew in this passage is to show how Jesus could be a Son of David when he is clearly not biologically [1:1-17] a son of Joseph. (Traditionally Luke’s genealogy [3:23-38] has been said to be Mary’s through David’s son Nathan, but this view should not be accepted as hard fact.) Thus Matthew gives an expanded account of the genesis (translated as genealogy [v1]and birth [v18]) of Jesus. By the act of naming, Joseph makes Jesus a son according to the Law [Galatians 4:4].

This takes care of the genealogy and Matthew’s main concern, but we notice that in comparing envelope 3-7, the former is greatly expanded. We are invited to ask, “Why did Matthew feel compelled to expound upon Joseph’s thoughts and feelings?”

The word rendered as “considered” has a much more emotional connotation. We should read it as Joseph fuming and angry with the predicament he is facing. Part of it certainly has to do with what he perceives as Mary’s violation, whether of her volition or raped. His property has been violated; the betrothal contract (law) broken. But we also see his heart where he considers Mary as a person. Even though love was not a requirement for ancient Jewish marriages, I think it is right to read love in Joseph’s heart. Joseph wants to treat Mary compassionately and with mercy. But he is in a dilemma: the law says one thing and his heart says another. I read this as the main reason he is fuming. He cannot find an adequate way to resolve this dissonance.

For both Joseph and us, contracts and laws too often mediate relationships. Laws can certainly simplify relationships. Everything is spelled out in black and white.

I believe Jesus came to remove Law as
a mediator of relationships

Instead Jesus came to be “God with us.” No more mediator. We can speak with and fellowship with God directly. Paul, in Galatians 3:15-4:7, seems to be saying the same thing. Those who belong to Christ are no longer bound by law but are adopted into God’s family through grace.

What then of the angel’s explanation of the name “Jesus” as “he will save his people from their sins?”

Joseph had a distorted picture of God. He saw God pictured one way through the Torah, but his heart gave him a different picture. He couldn’t find a way to reconcile the two images. It is the same with people today. We get distorted pictures of God and our actions are influenced by the distortions. If we think God is controlling and abusive, we tend to become that way. If we think God is hateful, we think it is okay to hate. If we think God is vengeful and violent, well, we think that’s okay for us. If we think the Law defines God’s character, we become legalistic. And so on.

Wrong thinking about God is sin. Jesus came to deliver and save his people – us – from all the terrible portraits humans have painted of God. He came to show us that Law does not define him. In fact God is transcendent over the Law. The Law describes aspects of Him, but He is not a slave to it. Righteousness and justice (they’re essentially the same words) transcend the law (read Galatians again).

The angel told Joseph to break the law. Joseph was told that justice trumps law; that mercy and compassion always take priority over legal correctness. If love could be constrained by law, Jesus had no reason to become incarnate, “God with us.” But he came to show that relationships based on love are messy and unpredictable, that it cannot be codified by law.

Jesus came to save us from the
Sin of Law

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Does Jesus Offend You?

Revised Common Lectionary, Advent Year 3A

Jesus wasn’t exactly what John the Baptist expected. Or more likely, very little what he expected. When announcing Jesus, John had spoken of the Messiah/Christ as one coming in judgment against evildoers and oppressors (Matthew 3:7-12). But John had been imprisoned before he had a chance to observe Jesus. All he had to go on was what he was told and rumors that he overheard. And what he heard didn’t seem to be very good news. He may have wondered when was Jesus going to overthrow Herod and get him out of this dungeon, but Jesus didn’t seem to be in a hurry to do any such thing. The Messiah – wasn’t he supposed to “come with vengeance, with the recompense of God. He will come and save you” (Isaiah 35:4b ESV)?

John sends some of his disciples to Jesus to ask whether he (Jesus) is the Messiah, or whether he (John) should wait for someone else. Jesus doesn’t respond unequivocally but rather refers the disciples to his actions, his signs.

And Jesus answered them, "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by me." (Matthew 11:4-6)

Jesus reminds John that the same prophecies that speak of judgment also speak of signs of mercy.

Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute sing for joy. (Isaiah 35:5-6)

When we read these texts we might be tempted to interpret them as Jesus simply ministering to individuals and healing their immediate afflictions. But when the entire chapter of Matthew 11 is seen, I believe these examples of healings are symbols of his judgment against oppressive systems of power.

Let me explain. When Jesus refers to “reed shaken by the wind” (v.7) and “a man [singular] dressed in soft clothing” (v.8) he is referring to Herod Antipas[1]. Then immediately afterwards, Matthew has Jesus speaking woe against a number of cities in which he had performed signs but did not repent. We tend to read into “repentance” individual repentance, but there is nothing in this pericope about individual repentance. In its context it seems best to read it as repentance (change) of abusive systems of power, as the example of Nineveh following the preaching of Jonah illustrates.

The end of the chapter is one with which most Christians are familiar: Jesus offering an easy yoke and rest to those who come to him. What is this rest? Common people were probably living in fear of political, economic, and religious abuses of power. They were suffering under onerous obligations of traditions. They were living under a system in which the sick, the maimed, and the poor were considered less than human and under judgment from God. I believe Jesus was offering a different way. The abuses might not go away immediately, but at least they could be free from fear. They could be free from the onerous traditions to be right with God. And the system that considered some less and some better would be abolished.

I found it instructive and helpful to read Matthew 21 alongside Matthew 11. Both chapters share a number of similar themes:

  • Question: Who is Jesus?
  • Question: Who is/was John the Baptist?
  • What are the signs of the Christ?
  • Jesus’ judgment against systemic and institutionalized abuses
  • Fulfillment of OT prophecies
  • The nature of the Kingdom of Heaven/God
  • How “children” and “sinners” understand Jesus whereas the “wise” and “learned” cannot

The questions for us:

  • How are we so acclimatized to systemic and institutionalized abuses of power that we believe them necessary to maintain for our own well-being and livelihood?
  • How is Jesus calling upon us to give them up and join his kingdom?
  • Are we offended by Jesus and his priorities?

I also refer you to the post, “Jesus used to be offensive—What changed?” at Question the Text on this topic that helped me work through my discussion.


[1] Reading the New Testament Series: Matthew, section “Doubt, Indifference, and Dissent – Matthew 11:2-12:45”

Sunday, December 08, 2013

What kind of Messiah are we celebrating?

Revised Common Lectionary, Advent Year 2A

Over at Question the Text, Rev. Mark Stenberg wrote up some thoughts to help pastors think about different ways of approaching John the Baptist. What particularly got my attention was the following words:

“In our heavily revivalist, affluent, individualistic culture of success and achievement, with the all-responsible atomistic self at the center, have we not reduced this message to a word of purely personal repentance? What have you done with your life? Are you a success? Did you give your life to Jesus? Where are the fruits?

But the Bible was written from the underside. That’s what’s so hard for us to hear. These texts are a product of people who lived in fear, in anxiety, in the shadow of the empires of history.”

In preparing for our discussion at church, I flipped over to the Old Testament reading for the week found in Isaiah. What struck me in this passage was the second half:

6 The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
and a little child shall lead them.
7 The cow and the bear shall graze;
their young shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra,
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den.
9 They shall not hurt or destroy
in all my holy mountain;
for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.

In our tradition this has most often been used as imagery of what things will be like in heaven. But in the context of the chapter, this is a parable or a metaphor, of what justice and righteousness looks like when the Messiah comes. (So in a sense, it does apply to the results of the Second Advent. In our discussion we observed that even when we apply the image to “heaven” we usually omit the part about the child playing with venomous snakes. We are selective in what we read.) We discussed what this metaphor might mean, especially in the light of the reality that Christians are already partially living in the Age to Come – the Kingdom Age. What I think this means is that peoples that were once opposed to one another, in conflict with one another, oppressors and victims, in the Church, are to come together in peace and harmony. Not only that but the Church as the earthly body of the Messiah (Christ) in the world today, we are to work to promote the kind of justice that John the Baptist and Jesus preached.

This brings us back to Matthew. Did John the Baptist and Jesus preach the same message or did Jesus preach something different from John? In Matthew 3:2 and Matthew 4:17, both John and Jesus are preaching the exact same thing: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

When we flip over to the Lucan account, additional details are found about the content of John’s message (Luke 3:10-14). This was in response to John’s indictment of the Pharisees and Sadducees that had come to John the be baptized.

10 And the crowds asked him, “What then shall we do?” 11 And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” 12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” 13 And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.” 14 Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”

As this makes clear, John’s message was against the sins of systemic social injustice. He was speaking out against hoarding, the accumulation of excess wealth, and the abuse of position and power. These were behaviors considered acceptable. These were what those in privilege believed they had the right to do and had to do in order to maintain and increase their privileges.

And that brings things back to us now. The modern American Christian with our privileges, is closer to the Pharisees and the Sadducees, denounced by both John and Jesus. In our traditional readings of passages like the one we have here, we try to soften it by first, identifying ourselves with the masses, and second, by treating the message as one of individual sins and repentance (as Rev. Stenberg noted in the excerpt at the top). But I believe that does violence (by neutering) to the force and thrust of the true nature of what Matthew intended by including John’s words.

As our discussion revealed, this message against systemic injustices is a hard one for us to swallow. We do indeed like our privileges. We like the system that allows us to have it. So what does it mean to live as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, to espouse and live out its principles against social injustice? Offering compassion to the oppressed and marginalized is far easier than taking steps to change the systems that cause and perpetuate injustices. We can more easily swallow that Christians are called to the former, but what about the latter? Are we willing to go against the economic structures and civil policies, even if it means we might have to give up the very things that helped us achieve our privileges?

Many Christians punt on these questions by pointing to the Second Coming as the solution to all the world’s ills. But is that what Jesus really intended? Even if systemic injustice will never be eliminated, isn’t Jesus telling his friends – us – that part of our work is to make the effort to reduce injustice?

There are no easy answers. But these questions are ones Christians (myself included) need to really think about and digest.

In this Advent season as we are looking forward to the memory of Christmas, the arrival of the Messiah, we must ask ourselves, “What kind of Messiah are we celebrating?” A docile, inoffensive Baby? Or the Savior who has come to judge and destroy injustice and all who are support it?

Thursday, November 21, 2013

It's Good That Jesus Didn't Leave Behind Artifacts

As I watched episode two of Bible Secrets Revealed (History Channel) last night, what really struck me was how much we humans want tangible, physical artifacts of what we believe in. This could be a location - a Holy Land, a Temple, a burial site. It could be something significant to the founder - the Holy Grail, a Shroud, a piece of the Cross. Or it could be writings that connect the present generation to the past - like the Bible.

I've thought from time to time how much better it might have been if some of the writings could be shown conclusively to have come from Jesus. Or if some artifact could be shown undoubtedly to be from Jesus, how that can prove to the world that the claims of Christianity are true.

But as I watched the show last night, I realized possibly why Jesus left no artifacts and left no command to write down his words. It was for the best. Conflicts and wars have erupted over the so-called artifacts we have today. Battles continue to rage over holy places and lands. Controversy and strife continue over interpretations of words.

How much worse might all this be if these things could be shown to trace directly back to Jesus - his words, his possessions? They would consist of the ultimate proof a sect needed to establish itself over all others. Humans are always tempted by magic and magical religions. Literal words of Jesus would soon become magical incantations that must be spoken exactly (in Aramaic, of course). Artifacts would soon turn into implements for performing magic and as proof of divine authority. Conflicts, controversies and wars would never cease as one sect battled to gain control over the relics.

Which is why what we have from Jesus is that he said that locations would no longer be considered "holy" (John 4:16-26), that Jesus himself is the new Temple (John 2:18-21), and that the only artifacts he left were the command to love one another (John 13:34-35) and the Holy Spirit (John 15) - both nonmaterial and mystical.

Jesus didn't want his people to become attached to places, things, words, and rituals. Yet that's what we've done and continue to do. Jesus wants the only attachment of his people to be to him, through the Holy Spirit and by love for one another.

I wonder if this is part of what Paul intended when he wrote "flee from idolatry" (1 Corinthians 10:14)? It seems that Paul was writing to a group of believers who were becoming attached to a tangible, magical form of Christianity. Paul writes to call them back to a mystical (not magical) Christianity - where the Temple isn't a place but the body of believers; where Communion is not a magical ritual but a reminder of Christ; where spiritual gifts aren't an end but a means; where loving relationships, not words, is the Law; and where the Cross and Resurrection are events, not an object and a place.

In ABC's Once Upon a Time TV series, there is a saying, "Magic always comes with a price." In what ways does the modern church employ or teach "magic"? What price are we paying?