We have all heard the news by now about the alleged death of Osama bin Laden. We have also heard the many and varied responses to this event. The social media (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) was rife with comments, many of them from Christians. I found it troubling that Christians made comments in a tone of celebration and victory. In no way do I condone terrorism. I remember the events of 9/11 vividly. But the many issues related to this event should remind us that we need to be very clear not to mix our Christian faith with the actions of our government. If we say “justice has been done,” then we need to ask a series of other questions: How was justice done in killing thousands of innocents that led up to this killing? How was justice done when billions of dollars have been spent while children have not had adequate healthcare, food or education? If it was justice, what kind of justice was it? What is an appropriate Christian response to vengeance? How long will this so-called “perpetual war on terrorism” last? (as a perpetual war, it can never be considered just in the just war tradition w/in Christianity). And what do we make of the missing corpse, supposedly buried at sea? This sounds very fishy to me, albeit conspiratorial (it leaves open too many questions and I don't trust governments). These are just a few issues that emerge with this event.
I think we need to be very careful not to get caught up in this nationalistic fervor. Our allegiances, our focus and our ethics are not those of the U.S. government; we are citizens first of the kingdom of God. So if many Christians join in with the dominant voice of our nation and celebrate a killing of a human being (even one we deem so reprehensible as bin Laden), then it should give us pause. As we continue to sort out all the implications, and the subsequent questions that will still need to be resolved, we will have a lot of work to do, both as Christians and as a nation.
The work of the church, as I see it, is not about celebrating killing, vengeance or war. Our work is to follow Jesus, share God’s love and seek first this kingdom over and against any earthly kingdom, even our own. So as we go through this week, I hope we can temper the fervor with reason and caution.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Beer in a glass
Drinking beer in a glass is better than from a bottle or a plastic cup. It just is. And it needs to be good beer, not cheap, foul-tasting, mass-produced beer. A good microbrew will do. Drinking beer from a glass makes sense on several levels. It is appealing aesthetically. When you see the foam, the bubbles, and the color (based on the variety of brew) it just looks good and it's pleasing to the eyes. And good beer--like good wine--has distinct aromas. Hoppy beers have different floral or woodsy smells. Malty beers have their unique aromas. Dark beers have smokey, burnt odors depending on how much or how long the malts have been toasted, roasted or smoked. Add to these complexities with other ingredients (like fruit) and you have a virtual olfactory smorgasbord that is near orgasmic (okay, maybe not orgasmic but it is damn good smelling! I think my nipples got erect once when I was smelling a good IPA!). So when you drink beer out of a glass, these are the things that can be experienced and noticed.
The other reason why beer should be drunk from a glass is because it is just the right thing to do; it is a good thing to do. Life is too short to miss out on drinking beer any other way. It is a time when a person can be mindful of what they are doing--drinking beer--but it is not just drinking beer. To borrow from a soliloquy in the film "Sideways," drinking beer can take mindfulness to a new level: When enjoying a good IPA, what kind of hops were used? Hops from Oregon, Washington state, or Germany? What kind of floral fragrances are detected? Rose? Daffodil (a famous flower in the Pacific Northwest)? And who was the brewer? What was she thinking when she was crafting this beer? What circumstances in her life brought her to craft this particular brew? Why was this kind of hops chosen? Who tilled, cultivated, tended and harvested the hops? How much were their wages? And then you finally get to sample a glass of this good IPA, and you see a frothy, thick foam head develop at the top of the glass, and you see the bubbles pulsating from the bottom up. You raise your glass and take a huge inhalation and whiff of all the complexities of this good brew. But the most important thing to ponder when sipping a good IPA: Notice how oh so damn good it tastes?
Perhaps this experience is not for everyone, but it is for me. I like to drink beer from a glass--a good beer, and a good glass--when I am pondering life with friends. I like to do this when theology is the topic at hand and deep, difficult issues and questions are raised to and about God. And I like to drink beer from a glass with friends and family over a good meal that has been created with as much forethought and creativity as the beer that I am sharing. Life is too short not to ponder these things. And good beer is too good to be wasted in mass production, silly ad campaigns or fancy packing. Just drink beer and appreciate life, and good company, and think often of all the things about good beer. It mirrors life, because it is itself life. End of story.
The other reason why beer should be drunk from a glass is because it is just the right thing to do; it is a good thing to do. Life is too short to miss out on drinking beer any other way. It is a time when a person can be mindful of what they are doing--drinking beer--but it is not just drinking beer. To borrow from a soliloquy in the film "Sideways," drinking beer can take mindfulness to a new level: When enjoying a good IPA, what kind of hops were used? Hops from Oregon, Washington state, or Germany? What kind of floral fragrances are detected? Rose? Daffodil (a famous flower in the Pacific Northwest)? And who was the brewer? What was she thinking when she was crafting this beer? What circumstances in her life brought her to craft this particular brew? Why was this kind of hops chosen? Who tilled, cultivated, tended and harvested the hops? How much were their wages? And then you finally get to sample a glass of this good IPA, and you see a frothy, thick foam head develop at the top of the glass, and you see the bubbles pulsating from the bottom up. You raise your glass and take a huge inhalation and whiff of all the complexities of this good brew. But the most important thing to ponder when sipping a good IPA: Notice how oh so damn good it tastes?
Perhaps this experience is not for everyone, but it is for me. I like to drink beer from a glass--a good beer, and a good glass--when I am pondering life with friends. I like to do this when theology is the topic at hand and deep, difficult issues and questions are raised to and about God. And I like to drink beer from a glass with friends and family over a good meal that has been created with as much forethought and creativity as the beer that I am sharing. Life is too short not to ponder these things. And good beer is too good to be wasted in mass production, silly ad campaigns or fancy packing. Just drink beer and appreciate life, and good company, and think often of all the things about good beer. It mirrors life, because it is itself life. End of story.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Retired Bishops speak
The recent statement issued by 32 retired United Methodist Bishops is hugely significant! These retired bishops (though 'retired' they are bishops for life) issued a statement that calls for change of the language in our current Book of Discipline: “…The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.” ¶304.3 We all know that this statement is not these Bishops speaking "for" the Church, but I am so glad they are speaking "to" the Church!
There are several reasons why this language should be changed. For one, it is inconsistent with the language in our Social Principles. There the language is "since we CONSIDER . . . " It is absolutely inconsistent for us to claim in one place that we 'consider' something and then in another place we definitively say 'it is.' This is double-speak and it is untenable. This glaring inconsistency is evidence of our ambiguous and divisive positions.
Second, this language should change because it is not indicative of our wider Church's views. To be sure, there is a vocal (and fiscal) majority in certain regions where our current language is not problematic. Sadly, for some this language is not strong enough. For too long we have allowed fundamentalist voices in our denomination to hold sway in our legislative processes. This stronghold is more about political power than it is about responsible, historical hermeneutics. The vote at the 2008 General Conference was the closest ever and surely within the next two quadrennial periods, this position to change the language will become a majority.
Finally, in a denomination that continues to bemoan decline in membership, it just makes good sense not to exclude a segment of our population with tremendous resources (not just money). We all know that for decades, we have already had countless members (both lay and clergy) who identify as GLBTQ who have served effectively and faithfully in our churches. It is high time that we remove the shroud of secrecy and shame and allow our sisters and brothers to live in the fullness of their calling and identity. We already affirm that all persons are created in the imago dei, so why should we continue to exclude? Inclusiveness makes good sense and our church would be enhanced if we truly included all persons ("all means all").
I am very grateful to our retired Bishops for taking this stance. Hopefully many more active Bishops will follow suit and speak out for justice and inclusion. In times when our denomination is going through many changes--some of which are eroding our connectional, episcopal system--this is something that makes me both proud and hopeful to be a United Methodist!
There are several reasons why this language should be changed. For one, it is inconsistent with the language in our Social Principles. There the language is "since we CONSIDER . . . " It is absolutely inconsistent for us to claim in one place that we 'consider' something and then in another place we definitively say 'it is.' This is double-speak and it is untenable. This glaring inconsistency is evidence of our ambiguous and divisive positions.
Second, this language should change because it is not indicative of our wider Church's views. To be sure, there is a vocal (and fiscal) majority in certain regions where our current language is not problematic. Sadly, for some this language is not strong enough. For too long we have allowed fundamentalist voices in our denomination to hold sway in our legislative processes. This stronghold is more about political power than it is about responsible, historical hermeneutics. The vote at the 2008 General Conference was the closest ever and surely within the next two quadrennial periods, this position to change the language will become a majority.
Finally, in a denomination that continues to bemoan decline in membership, it just makes good sense not to exclude a segment of our population with tremendous resources (not just money). We all know that for decades, we have already had countless members (both lay and clergy) who identify as GLBTQ who have served effectively and faithfully in our churches. It is high time that we remove the shroud of secrecy and shame and allow our sisters and brothers to live in the fullness of their calling and identity. We already affirm that all persons are created in the imago dei, so why should we continue to exclude? Inclusiveness makes good sense and our church would be enhanced if we truly included all persons ("all means all").
I am very grateful to our retired Bishops for taking this stance. Hopefully many more active Bishops will follow suit and speak out for justice and inclusion. In times when our denomination is going through many changes--some of which are eroding our connectional, episcopal system--this is something that makes me both proud and hopeful to be a United Methodist!
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
God did not win a national championship
Last night Auburn University's football team won the BCS National Championship. After the game, their coach, Gene Chizik, said, "God was smiling on us tonight." Once again, sports personalities make these kinds of comments, and once again, we theologians have to come in and clean it up. Obviously, God was not smiling on Auburn football: What Chizik saw in the sky was a quarter moon!
But obviously God was not smiling because God does not have a face, God does not have human emotions, and God is likely not even a personal being like us humans. In this regard, we have done the opposite of what our sacred texts tell us: We have created God in our own image. From what I read in the OT, God is anything but recognizable. God is not even nameable. God is elusive and mysterious. Of course, I realize that making these claims in some way violates everything I just said about God.
Let's imagine for a second that God indeed has these kinds of human emotions (like smiling for a particular team in football). There are many problems with this claim. If God was smiling on Auburn, why was God angry at the team that lost? They played well; they worked hard, too. And why would God be concerned with a game rife with ethical dilemmas? The winning quarterback was the center of much contraversy when his Pentecostal, preacher father was caught trying to "sell" his son to Mississippi State. He claimed throughout that he knew nothing of this. And Auburn and the NCAA allowed the quarterback to remain eligible and he eventually won the Heisman Trophy and now has won a national championship. So would God really favor a team with so many ethical inconsitencies? Wouldn't God be more concerned about other more important matters like the shooting in another part of the state where this game was held?
I wish sports people would not use God-talk after winning. It makes theology look bad, it makes God look bad, and it makes themselves look bad. Leave the God-talk off the field. It does not belong there and even if God really could smile, I doubt very seriously it would be about such a trivial thing as a college football game. Maybe the moon was smiling on Auburn, but not God. I am already preparing for more damage control: The Super Bowl is just weeks away!
But obviously God was not smiling because God does not have a face, God does not have human emotions, and God is likely not even a personal being like us humans. In this regard, we have done the opposite of what our sacred texts tell us: We have created God in our own image. From what I read in the OT, God is anything but recognizable. God is not even nameable. God is elusive and mysterious. Of course, I realize that making these claims in some way violates everything I just said about God.
Let's imagine for a second that God indeed has these kinds of human emotions (like smiling for a particular team in football). There are many problems with this claim. If God was smiling on Auburn, why was God angry at the team that lost? They played well; they worked hard, too. And why would God be concerned with a game rife with ethical dilemmas? The winning quarterback was the center of much contraversy when his Pentecostal, preacher father was caught trying to "sell" his son to Mississippi State. He claimed throughout that he knew nothing of this. And Auburn and the NCAA allowed the quarterback to remain eligible and he eventually won the Heisman Trophy and now has won a national championship. So would God really favor a team with so many ethical inconsitencies? Wouldn't God be more concerned about other more important matters like the shooting in another part of the state where this game was held?
I wish sports people would not use God-talk after winning. It makes theology look bad, it makes God look bad, and it makes themselves look bad. Leave the God-talk off the field. It does not belong there and even if God really could smile, I doubt very seriously it would be about such a trivial thing as a college football game. Maybe the moon was smiling on Auburn, but not God. I am already preparing for more damage control: The Super Bowl is just weeks away!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
