I am entering Holy Week in a monastery. Matthijs and I are spending 4 days doing bibliodrama. I am full of delightful expectation and am hoping to be surprised by God and learn much.
The only complaint I have is that it it is hard to concentrate on Christ's suffering this week, journeying towards Good Friday to finally be delighted and overjoyed by Easter. The problem is that it feels like Easter has already come. After all, I am home by Matthijs. I have seen loved ones I have missed. I biked through 3 parks in Amsterdam this afternoon and am spending a whole week with Matthijs focusing on the Bible - in a former castle (surrounded by a moat! and around that a forest to walk in). Everything is green because spring arrived here before I did. And I am adventuring with Matthijs, one of my most favourite things to do!
I am expecting this week to be holy; but like Lent, it will be different.
13 April 2014
10 April 2014
Hermeneutical difficulties related to not believing in the creation of the world
Just as I have argued that there are hermeneutical difficulties with claiming that the formation of the world necessarily happened through the six days of creation, I would also argue that there are hermeneutical difficulties in not believing that the world could have been created without evolution.
The biggest challenge relates to how much we as Christians ought to be able to explain things (scientifically). Those advocating for evolution make it sound almost like one has to have a logical explanation for how things were formed. This makes it sound like it's not okay to claim that there is much we do not understand (i.e., mystery) in the formation of the world. Furthermore, some things in the Bible are not scientifically explainable: the biggest, most obvious one being the resurrection. The resurection of Christ is fundamental to Christian belief (1 Cor 15). There is no scientific explanation for Jesus being really dead and then rising again. The Bible thus seems to make the claim that some things cannot be explained and must simply be taken by faith.
I also don't know how understanding the world (and humans) as being formed through evolution explains how sin and death came into the world. Although I don't have an answer for this question, I find this a less difficult hermeneutical issue than the above, partly because I know that not all Chistian traditions hold to the same teachings with regard to original sin and because I believe some have already been addressing this question. (If you do have an explanation, please do let me know! update: one possible explanation can be found here: http://blog.calvinincommon.org/2014/06/27/the-fall-of-historical-adam-and-eve/)
When I said that I think Christians can't believe that the world had to be created in 6-days, I can see how that might be interpreted as me saying that I believe that the world had to be formed through evolution. Except that's not really what I believe.
I want to honour and respect the God-given gifts of the intelligent science folk around me who do believe that evolution is very much part of the process of how the world has been formed, especially as Christianity often gives those advocating for evolution the hardest time. At the same time, I also believe that all we can definitely say about the issue on the basis of the Bible is that God was very much involved in the world's formation. I believe that to claim to know exactly how the world came into being - or to say that those holding more to the creation side OR to the evolution side are obviously wrong or, worse yet, not even Christians - is a mockery to faith and makes our God too small.
The biggest challenge relates to how much we as Christians ought to be able to explain things (scientifically). Those advocating for evolution make it sound almost like one has to have a logical explanation for how things were formed. This makes it sound like it's not okay to claim that there is much we do not understand (i.e., mystery) in the formation of the world. Furthermore, some things in the Bible are not scientifically explainable: the biggest, most obvious one being the resurrection. The resurection of Christ is fundamental to Christian belief (1 Cor 15). There is no scientific explanation for Jesus being really dead and then rising again. The Bible thus seems to make the claim that some things cannot be explained and must simply be taken by faith.
I also don't know how understanding the world (and humans) as being formed through evolution explains how sin and death came into the world. Although I don't have an answer for this question, I find this a less difficult hermeneutical issue than the above, partly because I know that not all Chistian traditions hold to the same teachings with regard to original sin and because I believe some have already been addressing this question. (If you do have an explanation, please do let me know! update: one possible explanation can be found here: http://blog.calvinincommon.org/2014/06/27/the-fall-of-historical-adam-and-eve/)
When I said that I think Christians can't believe that the world had to be created in 6-days, I can see how that might be interpreted as me saying that I believe that the world had to be formed through evolution. Except that's not really what I believe.
I want to honour and respect the God-given gifts of the intelligent science folk around me who do believe that evolution is very much part of the process of how the world has been formed, especially as Christianity often gives those advocating for evolution the hardest time. At the same time, I also believe that all we can definitely say about the issue on the basis of the Bible is that God was very much involved in the world's formation. I believe that to claim to know exactly how the world came into being - or to say that those holding more to the creation side OR to the evolution side are obviously wrong or, worse yet, not even Christians - is a mockery to faith and makes our God too small.
07 April 2014
Lent, just different
Lent is more than halfway over, and it feels like my lent has been a a bit of a disaster.
In years past, I have joined in on the community's meals, meatless meals eaten with 20+ people silently listening to music playing in the background.
This year, I have eaten alone more often than not. At the same time, I have eaten meat more often than I have in ages. And my attempt at fasting for a day ended late in the afternoon when I decided that I needed to accomplish a few things more than I needed to learn (more) about my difficulties with self-discipline.
In years past, I have attended the chapel services in the community multiple times a week - last year during lent even trying to attend daily. Each service spoke of Lent, whether through the reading or the songs or through the familiar purple curtains which were long my responsibility. And even in the days when my attention was elsewhere, the liturgy's lack of a praise song - present throughout the rest of the year - would gently remind me that this season was different.
This year I have church only on Sunday, in a church that I am not familiar with enough to know how this season of Lent has been different than other seasons. All I know is that it has taken me awhile to realize that I have been missing the familiar songs of Lent from my childhood. I have also become less diligent in attending local Catholic services and regret not doing 'daily prayer' more often.
The hardest part of Lent, though, has been Matthijs' absence. The day before Ash Wednesday marked the end of almost 40 days of not seeing him - an odd way to start Lent, which is known in Dutch as the 40-day time. Lent is a time of giving up, but how was I to enter a time of sobriety when I had been given back that which I had found hardest to give up in coming here? But the sobriety has returned, and the short 4 weeks of absence feel like another 40 days.
It feels like I have done a lousy job this year of using Lent to re-order my life by looking at my brokenness and sin more closely. Yet, God has graciously poked at me to expose my brokenness: how I have too often taken for granted those I love (both here and in Amsterdam), how often I don't open myself up to how God can work through me (I have much to learn about being a pastor!), and how desperately I need God's help in ordering my life (as a visit to monastery reaffirmed to me). Most importantly, this Lent has very much helped me to long for Easter: for being re-united with those I love and for being awed by the power and might of the resurrected Lord.
In years past, I have joined in on the community's meals, meatless meals eaten with 20+ people silently listening to music playing in the background.
This year, I have eaten alone more often than not. At the same time, I have eaten meat more often than I have in ages. And my attempt at fasting for a day ended late in the afternoon when I decided that I needed to accomplish a few things more than I needed to learn (more) about my difficulties with self-discipline.
In years past, I have attended the chapel services in the community multiple times a week - last year during lent even trying to attend daily. Each service spoke of Lent, whether through the reading or the songs or through the familiar purple curtains which were long my responsibility. And even in the days when my attention was elsewhere, the liturgy's lack of a praise song - present throughout the rest of the year - would gently remind me that this season was different.
This year I have church only on Sunday, in a church that I am not familiar with enough to know how this season of Lent has been different than other seasons. All I know is that it has taken me awhile to realize that I have been missing the familiar songs of Lent from my childhood. I have also become less diligent in attending local Catholic services and regret not doing 'daily prayer' more often.
The hardest part of Lent, though, has been Matthijs' absence. The day before Ash Wednesday marked the end of almost 40 days of not seeing him - an odd way to start Lent, which is known in Dutch as the 40-day time. Lent is a time of giving up, but how was I to enter a time of sobriety when I had been given back that which I had found hardest to give up in coming here? But the sobriety has returned, and the short 4 weeks of absence feel like another 40 days.
It feels like I have done a lousy job this year of using Lent to re-order my life by looking at my brokenness and sin more closely. Yet, God has graciously poked at me to expose my brokenness: how I have too often taken for granted those I love (both here and in Amsterdam), how often I don't open myself up to how God can work through me (I have much to learn about being a pastor!), and how desperately I need God's help in ordering my life (as a visit to monastery reaffirmed to me). Most importantly, this Lent has very much helped me to long for Easter: for being re-united with those I love and for being awed by the power and might of the resurrected Lord.
29 March 2014
Really? Don't we have better things to get excited about?
For those of you outside of the United States you might have been oblivious to the World Vision controversy this week. A brief synopsis: World Vision said they were willing to employ gays in committed relationships, a huge uproar came from the evangelical community (with appropriate countervoices), and World Vision changed its views.
Really? Don't we have better things to get excited about?
I don't believe that homosexual relationships are part of God's good order. However, I also believe that God can use people, irrelevant of their sexual preference. I also believe that promiscuity - whether it be homosexual or, even more common, heterosexual - is sin, and the consequences of it are often pain and difficulties. Nonetheless, despite believing these things I still think there's a lot better things that we as Christians ought to be getting excited about and, more importantly, being known for in the public eye.
I think the Canadian branch of World Vision responded to the situation well, so I will link that here: http://churches.worldvision.ca/our-christian-identity-responding-to-world-vision-us-hiring-policy-change/
Really? Don't we have better things to get excited about?
I don't believe that homosexual relationships are part of God's good order. However, I also believe that God can use people, irrelevant of their sexual preference. I also believe that promiscuity - whether it be homosexual or, even more common, heterosexual - is sin, and the consequences of it are often pain and difficulties. Nonetheless, despite believing these things I still think there's a lot better things that we as Christians ought to be getting excited about and, more importantly, being known for in the public eye.
I think the Canadian branch of World Vision responded to the situation well, so I will link that here: http://churches.worldvision.ca/our-christian-identity-responding-to-world-vision-us-hiring-policy-change/
28 March 2014
Women (and children) Suffering (II)
A Catholic church near my house has been participating in 40 days for life during Lent. Each day people from the church stand at the corner - a main intersection - displaying signs against abortion and for life/birth. They have been using our porch as a storage place, so each day I am confronted with their cause. It is a cause that seems foreign to me, separate from my Amsterdam life, even if the doctors in the community's medical crisis center were counselled to send those seeking abortion to the social workers in the hopes of finding a way to save the unborn child.
Yet, I am thankful that I have somehow become a part of this 40 days for life. I am thankful for those praying for the unborn children and for those struggling with an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy. And I want to join my prayers to theirs.
At the same time, my prayers include praying that women might have access to contraceptives in the hopes that less unwanted pregnancies (and abortions) will happen and less children will be born only to be subjected to neglect and pain. I am thankful to be part of a church who sees contraceptive as being a technological development that can be used to honour and glorify God, even as it also can be used in a way that ignore any claim God might have on one's life or sexuality.
I also mourn that too many children have been born into situations in which they become incredibly hurt and vulnerable to harm.
In light of that, I wanted to post a few links:
- Hobby Lobby's petition about not providing their workers with access to contraceptive drugs is a skewed understanding of Christianity. http://thinkchristian.reframemedia.com/hobby-lobbys-high-horse
- Children in foster care, often children who have been born in less than ideal situations, have been shown to be very susceptible to trafficking: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malika-saada-saar/stopping-the-foster-care-_b_4170483.html
Yet, I am thankful that I have somehow become a part of this 40 days for life. I am thankful for those praying for the unborn children and for those struggling with an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy. And I want to join my prayers to theirs.
At the same time, my prayers include praying that women might have access to contraceptives in the hopes that less unwanted pregnancies (and abortions) will happen and less children will be born only to be subjected to neglect and pain. I am thankful to be part of a church who sees contraceptive as being a technological development that can be used to honour and glorify God, even as it also can be used in a way that ignore any claim God might have on one's life or sexuality.
I also mourn that too many children have been born into situations in which they become incredibly hurt and vulnerable to harm.
In light of that, I wanted to post a few links:
- Hobby Lobby's petition about not providing their workers with access to contraceptive drugs is a skewed understanding of Christianity. http://thinkchristian.reframemedia.com/hobby-lobbys-high-horse
- Children in foster care, often children who have been born in less than ideal situations, have been shown to be very susceptible to trafficking: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malika-saada-saar/stopping-the-foster-care-_b_4170483.html
26 March 2014
Women suffering (I)
This is one of the things that I think the church should be getting excited about and praying about.
Being female makes it more obvious for me to be concerned about women's rights. Having visited prostitutes these past few years has only increased that concern: so many of the women have stories of how they've been judged, condemned, and mistreated. How can we, as a church, be okay with this happening, even if we believe that prostitution is not good? How greater should our concern not be since the judgements, mistreatment and condemnation usually started long before the women entered into prostitution?
The following article presents what the covers of women's magazines might look like if they focused on "women who are invisible to society": http://msmagazine.com/blog/2014/03/08/we-heart-fake-magazine-covers-that-expose-real-inequality/
It is worth a look simply to put into perspective the usual concerns of women's magazines: they seem so trivial when applied to women who are child brides, sex workers, or slaves.
Being female makes it more obvious for me to be concerned about women's rights. Having visited prostitutes these past few years has only increased that concern: so many of the women have stories of how they've been judged, condemned, and mistreated. How can we, as a church, be okay with this happening, even if we believe that prostitution is not good? How greater should our concern not be since the judgements, mistreatment and condemnation usually started long before the women entered into prostitution?
The following article presents what the covers of women's magazines might look like if they focused on "women who are invisible to society": http://msmagazine.com/blog/2014/03/08/we-heart-fake-magazine-covers-that-expose-real-inequality/
It is worth a look simply to put into perspective the usual concerns of women's magazines: they seem so trivial when applied to women who are child brides, sex workers, or slaves.
25 March 2014
Hermeneutical difficulties with a 6-day (young) creation
From a hermeneutic perspective, I don't entirely get why Christians
would need to believe in a 6-day creation with the world being only 10,000 years old. I mean, why can't one take
the Bible seriously while also believing that God used the evolution
process to bring the creation into being? Genesis 1 emphasizes, through using God's name 32 times in 30 verses, often followed by
an action verb, that God did it. As for the how, that's less clear:
a truly literal interpretation is problematic. After all, how many people believe the world is flat, an obvious literal conclusion of there being
waters belows and above, just one of the challenges you're faced with in order to take it literally?
The Bible talks a lot about us being created, but that doesn't require a world creation in 6 days 10,000 years ago. Psalm 139 talks about us being formed in our mother's womb. We don't usually talk about God physically shaping a baby in a womb (like putting a hand out or something), and we know about a lot of the scicence of procreation. At the same time, understanding the science behind it does not make God any less active in the wonder of a birth of a child or in our being fearfully and wonderfully made. So why can't we apply that to creation? Why can't we, knowing more the science of how the world was brought into being, see God as being less active in the process of the world coming to being?
I wanted to articulate some of the things about creation that I've been thinking about lately, as it's important for me to have them more clear in my own head because of the ministry I'm going into (ministry to grad students at a research university heavily focused on science). Yet, I still hold to the question of my last post: don't we as Christians have more important things to get excited about? Perhaps it's also time that I start sharing more about things I think we should get excited about.
The Bible talks a lot about us being created, but that doesn't require a world creation in 6 days 10,000 years ago. Psalm 139 talks about us being formed in our mother's womb. We don't usually talk about God physically shaping a baby in a womb (like putting a hand out or something), and we know about a lot of the scicence of procreation. At the same time, understanding the science behind it does not make God any less active in the wonder of a birth of a child or in our being fearfully and wonderfully made. So why can't we apply that to creation? Why can't we, knowing more the science of how the world was brought into being, see God as being less active in the process of the world coming to being?
I wanted to articulate some of the things about creation that I've been thinking about lately, as it's important for me to have them more clear in my own head because of the ministry I'm going into (ministry to grad students at a research university heavily focused on science). Yet, I still hold to the question of my last post: don't we as Christians have more important things to get excited about? Perhaps it's also time that I start sharing more about things I think we should get excited about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)