How a Christian song turned me into a humanist...

Well, sort of.

I was randomly singing my favorite song yesterday, which is "Micah 6:8" by Charlie Hall. For reasons I don't fully understand, the lyrics that I have always loved and admired suddenly struck me as not just a powerful call to living right, but as a musical embodiment of a powerful truth, the implication of which came rushing into my brain all at once. Here is the first verse and chorus:

You could feed the whole world with the crumbs of old bread
Spread the good news through dreams and stones
With a breath of the wind You could raise up the dead
But You ask us to go

chorus
Help us love mercy, help us do justly,
Help us walk humbly with You God

I had previously resonated most with the call to action and simplicity of the message. But it suddenly struck me - the song is right. God could have done those things, but instead chose to give us the responsibility. God has shifted the focus of activity from himself (best seen in the 'Creation' account) to humanity. We are not only the focus of activity, but the source of the activity.

That's not to say that I believe God isn't actively involved; I believe that he is. But the ring of 'truth' in the song is impossible to ignore. We, as humans, are called to help our fellow Man become what God has modeled for us in Christ.

While some may bristle at this theological humanism, a few others (often spurred by Jared) and I have been exploring theological humanism for a while now. It doesn't make me abandon God (in a personal, relational way), or even distance God (in a deistic sort of way). In fact, it makes me feel more alive and connected to God to realize the honor and power he has given humanity... and "with great power comes great responsibility."

True, there are huge implications about this thought that has been so succinctly embodied in this Charlie Hall song and that pierces my soul; but I don't shy away from them. I don't feel that I'm abandoning God, only perceptions of God that are not really justified, by the Bible or otherwise. For me, pondering this doesn't make God less real, but actually makes him more real.

I wonder if I will ever start living what I am being convicted of. I wonder if I will ever fully comprehend the implications of the 'truths' embodied in thoughts like this. I wonder what is realistic for me to achieve in my life.

I simply pray to God, daily now, "Help us love mercy, help us do justly, help us walk humbly with you God."

Formational Message

Formational Message Summary from Sunday, August 19, 2007

This is a summary of what I shared at our Sunday gathering. We have been sharing regarding the broad topic of “the Good News.” I prefaced this talk by saying that it was prompted by a deeper (and still developing) thought process, but that today I would present two somewhat unrelated “seeds” that I hope will germinate more later.

I recently came across a verse that, though I have read dozens of times if not more, I had never really seen. It is a statement that John makes in the middle of a totally different topic, and is found in 1 John 3:

7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is
right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful
is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The
reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. 9 Those who are
born of God will not continue to sin, because God's seed remains in them; they
cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know
who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Those who do
not do what is right are not God's children; nor are those who do not love their
brothers and sisters. (TNIV)

Verse 8 states that “the reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.” What a great way of describing the work of the Christ! (I am told by Jared that the thought of atonement situated in this understanding is called the Christus Victor –Christ the Victor- understanding.) So, what are the “works of the devil?” Since John refers back to “the beginning,” it makes sense to look there too. In the Genesis account, the serpent (the Adversary, ie, the devil) is seen as the instigator or cause of at least three main consequences of Sin: 1) Death; 2) Hard labor; and 3) Broken relationships (between Man and God, and man and woman).

At different times in history, and in different locations with varying societal wealth, different parts of Christ’s victory over the works of the devil have been appealing. In our current, fragmented, yet fairly wealthy 21st Century America, many are looking to the restoration of relationships. Indeed, the restoration of relationships between ourselves and others, within ourselves, and between ourselves and God is truly Good News.

But what does that look like? Why doesn’t that seem to fit with the common picture that contemporary Christianity presents? What does it mean that Christ came to undo the works of the devil? To understand that, and be able to share it as “good news” and not just religious psycho-babble, we have to become better story tellers, story tellers that can take the stories everyone “thinks” they know from Christianity, and retell it in a different, captivating way.

In fact, this is exactly what Jesus did on the road to Emmaus. You can read the account of the interaction between Jesus, Cleopas, and another disciple (possibly his wife, Mary? See John 19:25) in Luke 24:13-35. The story that Cleopas, and really all the early disciples, had been told for generations was centered on several key prophecies, like the one of the Servant in Isaiah 42, that promised justice (read that as freedom from oppressors with punishment) for the world and that Israel would be a “light to the Gentiles.” The story of the Messiah was one of a military leader who would bring final and complete freedom from oppressors (In the days of Jesus, that was the Roman Empire) and make Israel great again, like in the days of Solomon, when the whole world came to bring tribute and seek wisdom from Israel. In the stories of right and wrong, and who was approved of God, anyone who hung on a tree was cursed; in other words, God’s favor was not with that person. The Messiah was to bring sight to the blind, proclaim freedom to the oppressed, etc. Luke’s account says that Cleopas had hoped Jesus was the Messiah, but that his cruel and final death on a cross (tree) showed God’s hand was not with him. And now there were rumors of a missing body. According to the way the stories had been told to Cleopas, there was no hope; Jesus was not the Christ. But Jesus appears to the disciples, and starts speaking to them. They were “prevented” from recognizing him. I tend to think that the stories of the Christ, as well as life and death, had prevented them from recognizing Jesus. But as they walk, Jesus starts telling the story a different way. He used the same Scripture, but told it differently, so that when Jesus was breaking bread (a symbol of the New Covenant), suddenly everything fit together, and they recognized him, and apparently began to see how it could be that he was in fact the promised Christ.

Many think that the Scriptures are “self-evident.” That there is some “obvious, objective” way to understand them. That is total non-sense. We can never divorce the Scriptures from the stories that birthed them, nor from the stories that shaped them. Sharing the Good News, like the idea that Jesus came to undo the works of the devil, can most effectively be shared when a person sees how the story has built up to that point, and that they are a part of that story.

To share the Good News of the Victory of Jesus, we need to learn other people’s stories, and tell the story of God in a way that makes them a part of it.

Postmodern Prophet?

Many will be familiar with Kahlil Gibran (1883-1931), a Lebanese philosopher, writer, and painter, who wrote "The Prophet." There is a compilation of some of his thoughts, proverbs, and parables called "Sand and Foam." I share several quotes that I find really heralded many postmodern concepts and struggles. Perhaps there were more "postmodern prophets" in modernity that we realize.

*"How can I lose faith in the justice of life, when the dreams of those who sleep upon feathers are not more beautiful than the dreams of those who sleep upon the earth?"

*"I am ignorant of absolute truth. But I am humble before my ignorance and therein lies my honor and my reward."

*"Should you really open your eyes and see, you would behold your image in all images. And should you open your ears and listen, you would hear your own voice in all voices."

*"Many a doctrine is like a window pane. We see truth through it but it divides us from truth."

*"Inspiration will always sing; inspiration will never explain."

*"There is no struggle of soul and body save in the minds of those whose souls are asleep and whose bodies are out of tune."

*"Only great sorrow or great joy can reveal your truth. If you would be revealed you must either dance naked in the sun, or carry your cross."

*"Please do not whitewash your inherent faults with your acquired virtues. I would have the faults; they are like mine own."

*"Long ago there lived a Man who was crucified for being too loving and too lovable. And strange to relate I met him thrice yesterday. The first time He was asking a policeman not to take a prostitute to prison; the second time He was drinking wine with an outcast; and third time He was having a fist-fight with a promoter inside a church."

*"Pity is but half justice."

*"Should we all confess our sins to one another we would all laugh at one another for our lack of originality. Should we all reveal our virtues we would also laugh for the same cause."

*"If it were not for our conception of weights and measures we would stand in awe of the firefly as we do before the sun."

*"There is neither religion nor science beyond beauty."

*"A fact is a truth unsexed."

*"There lies a green field between the scholar and the poet; should the scholar cross it he becomes a wise man; should the poet cross it, he becomes a prophet."

*"They say to me, 'You must needs choose between the pleasures of this world and the peace of the next world.' And I say to them, 'I have chosen both the delights of this world and the peace of the next. For I know in my heart that the Supreme Poet wrote but one poem, and it scans perfectly, and it also rhymes perfectly.'"

Two Poems To Ponder

My time at the Truth Voice Conference in Springfield, Ohio, and at the Emergent Theological/Philosophical Conversation in Philadelphia has left my head spinning, my heart racing, and my faith stretched. There is far too much to share in brief posts on a blog. However, there are two poems that have come to mind that explore some of my thoughts.

The first is Harlem, by Langston Hughes:

What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore-
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over-
like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?

The second poem plays with the concept of Truth. It is by Emily Dickenson:

Tell all the Truth but tell it slant-
Success in circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind-

Update from Orlando, and excitement about Kierkegaard

My time here in Orlando is nearing its end. (As a side note, while it is 26 degrees and snowy in northeast Ohio, it will be 70 degrees and sunny when I go to Clearwater Beach tomorrow to see my first sunset over the Gulf!) I had intended to download some pictures and blog about my experiences, but despite paying $10 for 24 hours of Internet, I am simply too tired to do so.

I finished my most recent read, "Philosophy and Theology" by John D. Caputo, and I hope to share some things from that book, as well as "Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?" But both have piqued my interest in Soren Kierkegaard, a 19th Century Danish philosopher. He and Nietzsche represent two early starting points for postmodern thought (the former the religious, the later the secularist), at least according to Caputo. In any case, I bought a book today to start reading on the way home. It is "The Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard." I have not started it, but the introduction page certainly makes me excited to read more:

Few thinkers have been so consistently misunderstood as Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). Amongst the many myths that have attached themselves to his work is the belief that Kierkegaard was an irrationalist who denied the value of clear and honest thinking. The truth is that Kierkegaard did deny the power of reason to uncover universal and objective truth in matters of value, but in the current philosophical climate there is nothing irrational about that.

The contributors to this companion probe the full depth of Kierkegaard's thought, revealing its distinctive subtlety. The topics covered include Kierkegaard's views on art and religion, ethics and psychology, theology and politics, and knowledge and virtue. Much attention is devoted to the pervasive influence of Kierkegaard on twentieth-century philosophy and theology.

I know, I know, far too exciting for most people to read... But I think that the above summary of Kierkegaard's thrust is a great starting point for describing Postmodernism, or at least Postmodern thinking.