Monday, July 30, 2018

WEEKLY COMMENTARY: Reasons To Reach Out To God ---- Or To Not Reach Out


I seldom travel into New York City to meet someone for lunch, but I had been invited by Richard, a good friend from college days, and I was eager to see him again.

We had planned to meet at a restaurant near Union Square, and while waiting for our food and drink to be served, we tried to give each other a quick story about what we had been doing since we had last met.  I learned that Richard, his wife and their two kids now live in New York City, and seem to be enjoying city life and its many diversions.

Later, Richard mentioned that he had become a member of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan.  The Senior Pastor of that church, he said, was a man named Timothy Keller.  Rev. Keller had been preaching recently on the subject of one's relationship with God.  Richard paraphrased Pastor Keller as saying,

          "Our identity is not built on our earthly record or our daily performance,
            but on God's love for us in Christ.  Our main purpose is fellowship
            with God.  Our self-view should not be based on our mortal achievements.
            In Christ, we are simultaneously sinful and lost, yet accepted by Christ.
            We are so bad that Jesus had to die for us, and we are so loved that 
            Jesus was glad to die for us."

Richard stopped to take a breath, and then continued to paraphrase Pastor Keller.

           "This leads us to deep humility, but also confidence, at the same time.
            Our identity and self-worth are centered on one who died for us. 
            We are saved by sheer grace, so we should not look down on those
            who believe or practice something different from us.  Only by God's
            grace are you and I what we are."

Frankly, I knew all of this, so I was a little surprised that Richard found it so astonishing.

Then Richard reminded me that in his college days, he had always been his own boss, and that he had not believed there was a God who cared about mankind.  So, Richard had believed he needed to be his own Savior.  Later, after college, Richard said, after seeing a bit more of the world, he had looked upon God as his helper and teacher, and thought of Jesus as the model for his daily behavior.  Richard claimed that in those years he had always tried to obey God's law derived from Scripture (that is to be really righteous and really moral), but he was still the boss.

I wondered to myself whether this had been just so Richard could be his own Savior and bargain better for his own salvation.  I was thinking that if Richard had given thanks to God merely in the hope that it would earn Richard blessings in heaven, then he was not actually doing anything at all for God?  It would be for Richard's benefit only.  I was remembering the Pharisees of Jesus' time, who were so fixated on just obeying the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law in their hearts.

Richard seemed to be admitting that he had been obeying God in order to get things from God.  He said that when circumstances in his life would go wrong, he was angry at God, as he believed that anyone who is "good" deserves a comfortable life.  In those early days, he said, if he were criticized, he would become furious or devastated, because it was critical that he think of himself as a "good person."  He said that his prayer life had consisted mainly of petition, and prayers that he would employ only when he was in a "time of need."  Richard admitted to me that in those days his main purpose in prayer was to control his environment, not to develop a relationship with God.

Richard said of himself that his motivation then was based on fear and insecurity.  "If and when I was living up to my standards," Richard continued, I felt confident, but then I was prone to be proud and unsympathetic to failing people.  If I was not living up to my standards, I felt humble but not confident ---- I felt like a failure.  My identity and self-worth were based mainly on how hard I worked, or how moral I thought I was ---- and so I had to look down on those I perceived as lazy and immoral."

I thought hard about where Richard said he had come in seeking a compass for his life.  It seemed that before hearing Pastor Keller, Richard was avoiding God as our Savior and Lord.  He was trying to keep control of his life by looking to something besides God for salvation ---- HIMSELF.  It occurred to me that perhaps "religious legalism and irreligious relativism" are just different strategies for "self-salvation."

Now I needed to react to Richard's description of his path to spiritual discovery ---- his personal discovery of a relationship with God.

"Only our attempts to bring joy to God," I said, "can change us so we do not forget Jesus Christ as our Savior.  That leads to receiving God's grace.  What is this grace?  It is not fundamentally an invitation to become more religious.  Though we often fail to obey the moral law, the deeper problem is ---- why are we trying to obey it?  Even our efforts to obey it may have been a way of merely seeking to be our own Savior.

In my opinion, I said, the way to live does not involve only an attempt to repent.  (Richard's earlier way to live had involved repentance of his sins.)   But followers of the way to live as described by Pastor Timothy Keller, repent both their sins and their self-righteousness.

"So," I concluded, "we must change not so much the amount, but the object of our faith.  We have to do more than just subscribe to a set of doctrines about Christ.  It is more than that ---- we must transfer our trust from our own work and record, to Christ's work and record."

Having said that, I felt obliged to pick up the tab for lunch.
___________________________________________________________________________

These thoughts are brought to you by CPC's Adult Spiritual Development Team, hoping to encourage you to pursue some personal growth this summer at CPC.
___________________________________________________________________________

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

WEEKLY COMMENTARY: If You Are A Person of Faith, Just How Freely Was Your Faith Chosen?


The New York Times once published a story about how some geneticists had quietly made a study of the DNA of Adam Lanza, who had killed 20 school children and 7 adults in Newtown, Conn.  They were seeking biological clues to this extreme human violence.  Their plan was to look for some mutations that could be associated with mental illness ---- genetic mutations that might increase the risk of violence.

The idea that our genetic inheritance sets the stage or strongly influences our behavior, is not new.  But this got me thinking.  If our particular genetic structure and possible mutations might push us into violent behavior, could another combination of genes and mutations give us a bias for emulating Jesus and living as Jesus taught?  I wondered ---- if there are such encouraging biological structures among some of us, perhaps we should be using genetic analysis to identify such gifted people, and focus our educational and evangelical efforts primarily on them!

As I thought about this question, gradually some other questions began to surface.  Could such research eventually stigmatize people who had never openly accepted Christ, but turned out to have a genetic structure similar to known believers in Christ?  Did this suggest that something was wrong with them?

But what about the environmental influences, like family of origin, teachers, Christian friends, non-Christian friends?  And there are probably at least hundreds of genes involved, as well as the environmental factors, and all of these interact in complex and unpredictable  ways.  Perhaps it says something significant about us, that we are seeking some simple, science-based predictor of receptivity to the Christian faith and way of life.  Are we hoping for "effortless" salvation for ourselves ---- one for which we do not need to do the hard work of sometimes denying ourselves.

Imagine if scientists did discover genes that favored easy adoption of the Christian faith and related ways of living.  This would increase a person's chance of becoming a faithful Christian, but would not guarantee it.  Until such gifted persons confirm their faith and actually show that they are living by their Christian faith, isn't this just empty conjecture?  Indeed, the social environment could well overcome any genetic advantage.  Suppose  they have "bad" parents, "unhealthy" friends, etc.

And there are folks who purposely choose to follow a particular faith, but not because of generic or environmental influences.  For example, perhaps you know of a married couple where each partner grew up in a different faith tradition, so when they had children of Sunday School age, they had to make a choice between two Sunday morning destinations.  For the important purpose of family unity, perhaps one spouse agreed to realign to the faith of the other spouse, "for the sake of the kids."  (They might also say they are doing it "just to retain family sanity.")  This is certainly a perfectly rational choice ---- and it might be the accommodating parent's permanent path to a different faith!

The rationales and emotions for why each of us chooses a particular faith and related life style are such a unique combination of factors!!

Ultimately, it might be great if we understood the genetics of a biological tendency toward faith in Jesus, so as to enable researchers to find ways to intervene and particularly encourage such receptive people to faithfulness.  But the pursuit of this goal risks jeopardizing their personal liberties, and their ability to freely use our God-given free will.

My conclusion is that one's faith and our actions based on that personal faith, ultimately must be determined by how we use our personal free will.  But our "free will" seems to be something like a kitchen cooking pot filled with many savory ingredients.  We each control the timer and the heat under the pot.  Genetics simply sets the stage for each of us.  Then, on top of that come all kinds of personal and environmental factors that impact us as we each mature.

Sure, many outside factors influence our faith choices, but God did not design us as programmed robots.  We have the freedom to define our own faith and related actions, or not define them ---- it's our call!
___________________________________________________________________________
These thoughts are brought to you by CPC's Adult Spiritual Development Team, hoping to encourage you to pursue some personal spiritual growth this summer at CPC.
___________________________________________________________________________

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

WEEKLY COMMENTARY: Bible Readers May Bring Some "Blinders" To Their Bible Understanding


Consider the origins of Scripture.   Some of it is more than 2,000 years old.  Some was written in various languages by authors who may not have compared notes very carefully.  Furthermore, some Scripture has been translated for us by people of different cultures and different eras.  Should we be surprised that the Bible text is sometimes confusing, or even beyond our belief?

Nevertheless, many of us believe that Scripture is divinely inspired and contains very important guidance and truth on how we should live our lives.

But, some "outside" factors may also affect a reader's interpretation of the Bible.  Let's examine four such "outside" factors, to keep them in perspective.

1.)  Failure to distinguish between the Bible's major themes and message, and its 
      LESS primary teachings.

Some people say, for example, that they cannot accept what the Bible says about gender roles or politics, so they disbelieve other things the Bible tells them.  However, Christians all agree that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day.  But, are some doubters saying that because they do not like what the Bible says about gender roles, let's say, that it is false that Jesus could have been raised from the dead?  If Jesus is the son of God, then we must take his teaching seriously.  If he is not whom he says he is, then why would we care what the Bible says about anything else?  In short, people should not worry about such things as gender roles in the Bible, until they have decided whether they believe that Jesus' teachings are central to our faith.

2.)  Forgetting that the New Testament is all about Jesus ---- not directly about us.

If you think the Bible is only about you ---- what you must do and how you must live ---- then you do not need Jesus.  All you need are the rules.  Actually, there are only two ways to read the Bible:  a.) you can read the Bible as if it is all about you and what you must do to please God, and thus be a good person.  OR  b.) you can read the  New Testament as if it is all about Jesus and what he has done for us.

3.)  Jumping to conclusions that may be false, about what a Bible passage is actually teaching.


Be patient with the text.  Many of the things people find offensive can be cleared up with a decent commentary reference book that puts the issue into historical context.  The Bible text may not be teaching what you first thought.

4.)  The culture in which one grows up may uniquely shape how we "hear" what the Bible teaches.

This can be the source of some misunderstanding.  Perhaps one is offended by certain Biblical texts because of an un-examined assumption of the superiority of our own cultural moment.  The Disciples traveling on the road to Emmaus misunderstood the Messiah because as Jews they were thinking of the redemption of Israel, and not the redemption of the world.  It is so easy to unconsciously read a Bible passage through one's cultural "blinders" and therefore misunderstand what the text really teaches.

Some people may say that a certain passage is regressive and offensive because it creates a conflict with principles in their particular culture, but other cultures may think the same passage is perfectly acceptable.  For example, in some cultures, what the Bible says about sex is a problem, but there are no issues with what it says about forgiveness.  In other cultures, there may be acceptance of what the Bible says about sex, but what the Bible says about forgiveness is considered ridiculous.  Why should one set of cultural sensibilities prevail over everyone else's?

If the Bible really is the revelation of God and not the product of any one  culture, why wouldn't it be inevitable that someone's cultural sensibilities will be offended at some point?  Could the interpretation problem with some Biblical texts simply arise from an un-examined belief in the superiority of one cultural moment over all others?  Furthermore, if the Bible was authored by persons inspired by the Holy Spirit, could the spiritual message be clouded to some extent by the "blinders" of today's readers?

Many of us believe that Jesus spelled out the basic interpretive principle by which we are to understand the the Bible.  When he was asked to identify the greatest commandments, Jesus said it is loving God and loving our neighbor.  If we read the Bible from that point of view, it gives us greater perspective on the cultural boundaries that color our Scripture reading.  This would be true for us today, but also for reading the writers of the original Scriptural texts. 

So, here's a suggestion.  Might there be value from re-reading, discussing and pondering, a Scriptural passage over and over, in hopes of weakening out reader "blinders".  Through the use of such "cultural humility", gradually the truer meaning of the Scriptural meaning may become more clear.  For many Bible students,  part of the thrill of reading and studying Scripture is precisely wrestling with the text and pondering the questions which it leaves with us.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
These thoughts are bought to you by CPC's Adult Spiritual Development Team, hoping to encourage some personal growth this year  at Central Church.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

WEEKLY COMMENTARY: How Far Do You Extend Yourself To Help Another Person?


I have a friend with a large house on the Jersey Shore, and a 45-foot boat on which he invites friends to go fishing.  He mentioned the other day how his cleaning lady had asked him for some help to pay the medical bills of her sick mother.  The mother has no medical insurance, and she had already been in the hospital for three weeks.  My friend said he was glad to help 
---- "My cleaning lady has so little and I have so much," he said.  He gave her $200.

My friend said he realized that his gift would cover only a small part of the hospital bill, and now he felt guilty that he had not given more.  But, he said, at first he was not inclined to give her anything, and then guilt induced him to give the $200.

There was no spontaneous generosity here.  He seems not to have been moved by compassion.

What kind of mercy do you think God requires?  Showing mercy is commanded both by Jesus and often in Scripture.  But shouldn't it be initiated by a willing heart, and not just be in response to a Bible command or a feeling of guilt?  What is the right magnitude of response, given that each of us always has many concurrent demands placed on us ---- for our money, our time and our emotional support?  How do we make the choices for how much of us to give, and to whom?

And don't we have a legitimate claim to some of these resources?  If we give away all of our food, for example, are we not going to starve, and thereafter be unable to help anyone else? 

One extreme way to look at this is to ask ---- "How selfish are we if we eat steak and drive two cars. while many in the rest of the world are starving?"  This may create some emotional conflict in the hearts of those Christians who hear such questions.  They may feel a little guilty!!  However, all sorts of defense mechanisms are quickly engaged:
-----  "Can I help it if I was born into this rich country?"
-----  "How will it help anyone if I stop driving two cars?"
-----  "Don't I have the right to enjoy the fruits of my labor?"   etc.
Soon with anxious weariness, we may turn away from books or speakers who simply make us feel guilty toward the needy.

There is another way to approach this dilemma.  Think of showing generosity to the needy as our "sacrifice of praise" for God's gift of Grace to us.  What is this Grace?  It is unmerited divine assistance given by God to sinful mankind, thereby freeing us from the curse of our sins.  We believe we have received this God-given Grace free of charge.  It is a huge benefit we have received, but have not earned.

It is truly a "sacrifice" on our part, because whatever we give to others ---- be it money, time or our emotional support, we have given it away, so we do not have it any more for our own use.  But, perhaps such a sacrifice is the best way we can show our thanks for the God-given Grace which we have not earned.  Jesus, the Risen Lord of our salvation is not here bodily for us to anoint his feet.  Instead we have the opportunity to help the needy as our sacrifice, to show our love of Jesus, and to honor Christ.

True compassion is spontaneous ---- it is an expensive love inspired by our gratefulness for the Grace of God.  Hopefully, the deeper the awareness of this free Grace from God, the more generous we might become to others.  One measure of a Christian may be how much he or she loves to give.  How regularly are we aware of God's gift of Grace to us?  Is it something we regularly repay by passing our compassion on to others?

A sensitive social conscience, grateful for God's free gift of Grace to us, will lead us to deeds of compassion for the needy.  Guilt should not be the main motivation for helping the needy.
___________________________________________________________________________

These thoughts are brought to you by CPC's Adult Spiritual Development Team, hoping to encourage you to pursue some personal growth this summer at CPC.
___________________________________________________________________________

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

WEEKLY COMMENTARY: He Told Me: "I'm Spiritual, But Not Religious"


Recently I had a phone call from a neighbor, inviting me out for a golf date.  I don't really play golf, so I had to decline, but we had not spoken for a while, so I extended the conversation to ask about his summer plans and what his kids would be doing in the fall.  Then, I suggested that he and his wife might find some interest  in some of the things we are doing at Central Presbyterian Church.  I offered to take them to one of our church services and to introduce them to our Senior Pastor.

"Jim, thanks," said my neighbor, "but you have to understand that I am spiritual, but not religious, and my wife feels the same way.  But, thanks for asking."

Later, I wondered about my neighbor's response.  What does it mean to be "spiritual, but not religious"?  Does it just mean not being denominational?

I remembered that my neighbor once told me that he finds God in the sunsets, in walks on the beach, in vistas from mountain tops.  Clearly, for him, God is in nature.  But does that mean that people who do go to church ---- the people who are "religious", like me, are sort of like monastic hermits who never see beyond their church building?  Does he think we don't see God in the sunset.  Perhaps that he does not think we recognize God is in nature when we read the Bible's Psalms and Creation stories.

Being privately spiritual but not religious just seems like eating only snack food.  There is nothing very challenging about having deep feelings of inspiration from viewing a beautiful sunset or viewing the countryside from a mountain top.  For some folks, spirituality also can arise from gratifying relationships with other people, perhaps just from helping them!

These experiences are wonderful and satisfying, but do they feed our rational side?  I think that life with God becomes rich and profound when we dig deeply into a religious tradition that we did not invent emotionally ourselves, merely for our own delight.

Could one say that being only privately spiritual is to be a bit self-centered?  Such people may find ancient religious doctrine dull, but find their own emotional lives uniquely fascinating.

So, what difference would it have made if my neighbor had said that he is religious. not merely spiritual?  In my view he would be saying he had been shaped by "a mighty cloud of witnesses," sharing the wisdom and faith of many generations.  That he is someone brave enough to also encounter God in a real, human community.

Aware that when we least expect it, any of us can suddenly wonder why we are here and where we are going.  Church can give us a way to work that out.  And when life gets scary, my neighbor might want the company of someone "religious" holding his hand, saying a prayer and simply putting up with him, just as many church people try to do.

I know that some people are not going to be comfortable entering traditional church buildings or theological traditions.  To understand the ritual of worship in a traditional church setting requires some prior learning ---- some familiarity with Scripture and basic theological concepts.  But, perhaps one of the benefits of adding some "religion"  to one's "spirituality", is that we move closer to discovering God's purpose for us ---- not just being a spectator of beautiful sunsets.

Nearly 30% of Americans say they have no religious affiliation, according to a Gallup survey.  But, more than 90% of Americans still believe in God, or in a universal spirit, according to Gallup research, even as fewer claim a particular religious "brand" or denominational identity.  While more people seem to be opting not to align themselves with a particular religious denomination or tradition, their interest in faith of some kind remains keen.  Some folks just don't like the aura of past-founded religious denominations, where the church appears to outsiders to be like a private club.

This growing disinterest in theological dogma and abstract tradition, reminds one of earlier cycles in American religious practice.  For example, consider the 19th century Transcendentalist Movement, which some of us remember puzzling over in college literature courses.

"Transcendentalism" is a cluster of ideas in literature and philosophy that developed in the 1830's and 1840's.  The Enlightenment had come to new rational conclusions about the natural world, mostly based on experimentation and logical thinking.  However, the pendulum began swinging to a less rational, more intuitive, more-in-touch-with-the-senses, way of thinking.  As one of the thought-leaders of the day said, "God gave humankind the gift of intuition, the gift of insight, the gift of inspiration ---- why waste such gifts?"

Among the core beliefs of the Transcendentalists was an "ideal spirituality" that transcends the physical and empirical and is realized only through the individual's intuition, rather than through the doctrines of established religions.  Transcendentalists longed for a more intense spiritual experience.  Some of the major figures in the movement were Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson.  They were strong believers in the power of the individual ---- they were champions of individualism.  They believed in the ability of mankind unassisted to realize almost anything.

Transcendentalism, in fact, is said to really have begun as a religious movement, an attempt to promote the idea that humankind is capable of direct experience of the holy.  It was a reaction to the Unitarian rationalist view that the truths of religion are arrived at only by a process of empirical study and by rational inference from historical and natural evidence.  William Henry Channing (1810 - 1844) viewed Transcendentalism as a pilgrimage from the "idolatrous worlds of creeds and rituals to the Temple of the Living God in the soul."

However, Orestes Brownson, a contemporary of Emerson thought he saw "transcendental selfishness" in such views.  "Are all things in the universe to be held subordinate to the individual soul?  Shall a man take himself as the center of the universe, and say all things are for his use, and count them of value only as they contribute something to his growth or well-being?  According to this system,  'I am everything; all else is nothing, at least nothing except what it derives from the fact that it is something to me."

In the end, don't we need to be both spiritual and religious?  I find that each strengthens the other.  But they both take some work.  Some people may think the heavy lifting is just in the theology of church participation.  However, being "spiritual" isn't always easy.  Sometimes finding God in Nature is a struggle.  Do you remember Hurricane Sandy?!!  Did you find God in that event?
___________________________________________________________________________
These thoughts are brought to you by CPC's Adult Spiritual Development Team, hoping to encourage you to pursue some personal growth this summer at CPC.
___________________________________________________________________________