Thursday, October 14, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Tolerance rather than hypocrisy
Any public performance taking place in a pluralistic milieu presents one with the challenge of coping with differences of opinion concerning what is to be affirmed or opposed. Intolerance cannot stand opposition; the consequence is inevitably social conflict, that is, unwholesome relationship. Tolerance acknowledges opposition without causing social conflict, giving one the opportunity to remain in wholesome relationship with another who may not affirm that which one affirms oneself.
“If possible, on your part, live at peace with all.” This scriptural injunction (Romans 12:18, New American Bible) emphasizes how one, professing to be Christian, is to live with others. One continually considers how one is to be with another now. Such consideration demands that one decide whether or not one will remain with another or not; love answers, “yes, I will remain with you in peace.” Toleration is a loving way for one to remain with another when the other holds to different affirmations and oppositions. Others are to be “… accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives … .” This particular excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which happens to be taken from section 2358 giving the Roman Catholic teaching on the nature of homosexuality) may be considered an apt definition of tolerance that any Christian is called to follow.
Such relationship has risks involved, as any relationship will; one may influence the other over time so that one’s affirmations or oppositions are less firm than at first. This riskiness then requires that one remain in careful communication with the other so that both can come to a fuller understanding of what is being affirmed or opposed. In my own experience presently in the theatre community, I have had ample opportunity to practice tolerance in that I find myself at odds with dear friends whose lifestyle choices do not square with my Christian conscience; by being open in communication with them, I believe I have proven myself tolerant without being a hypocrite. I understand tolerance to be the ethical alternative to hypocrisy. To publicly affirm some virtue and oppose some vice without privately practicing that virtue or abstaining from that vice is hypocrisy.
The way of love (the way taught in Christian Ethics) involves toleration in that love hopes for what can be better in a relationship and works to bring what is better to pass. Intolerance terminates wholesome relationship, presuming that one’s own judgment is final, pronouncing a verdict one has no authority to make. Toleration opens the opportunity for something better to come to pass. One’s faith defines what one believes, one’s hope looks forward to that belief becoming reality, and one’s love enables one to tolerate life in the meantime.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Reflecting on "Borges and I"
In a brief piece entitled "Borges and I," the writer points out how the other self turns one's own preferences "into the attributes of an actor." What is it, however, that one prefers?
The problem is not the acting but the objective of one's action - we are called to become "imitators of God." Without God's grace to breathe life into what we do, our imitative action is an empty performance, essentially absent rather than present. To say "I am" is presumptuous. There is only One who can truly utter those words. Rather we are called in Scripture to imitate the Pauline self-identification by saying, "By the grace of God I am what I am."
Truth may be the key. Perhaps when what one writes is true, than that which has been written may have been inspired by the Spirit of Truth which proceeds from God. All truth being God's truth, even the atheistic writer whose words are true may be breathing the Word of God, albeit unwittingly.
Fiction need not be falsehood. One’s story of seeing a sparrow may still carry truth in its telling even if one is pretending to have seen the sparrow. The pretense is problematic if one’s intention is to lie rather than to tell the truth. Consider the difference between acting in theatre and hypocrisy in personal presentation. Is one concealing rather than revealing what is true? This is what matters.
In the case of "Borges and I," the writer is careful to remain mindful of the difference between his person and his persona, the "me" of one's self and the "not-me" of the mask his words may have made from this same self. The confusion comes when one is confronted with the "not-not-me" created over time when the multitude of words remaining in one's memory begin to define one's personal image of oneself. This is where intimate relationship with others becomes very significant; those who know one best are most beneficial for revealing who one really is apart from who one may present oneself to be.
Truth identifies itself. One either recognizes truth or not. Truth may be concealed and then must be revealed in order to be known.
The elemental property of truth is coincidental with the ultimate authority of the Creator Himself. All truth is derived from what is ultimately and absolutely true. (The same can be said for all that is good, all that is beautiful, etc.) I do not mean some Platonic Ideal though it may seem like it. Right relationship with God really matters in making one's ideal correspond with what is real. Yet even when one may not be in right relationship, one may still, by the grace of God, express what is true.
The problem comes when one and others do not recognize why it is true. The consequence that may very well follow from this misrecognition will be something less than true. Thus is it possible that the quality of what one creates is commensurate with one's perception.
I believe truth is that which does the defining. What is the purpose of definition except to truly describe something so that it may be known? If a definition fails to describe something well, there is something false about the definition. Perhaps this has something to do with recognition – a definition makes most sense to us when we recognize it as describing something we have perceived/conceived ourselves. This object upon which I sit is a chair, a chair being an object designed/used for sitting.
Consider one's own face – each of us carry some idea of what we look like as an individual. Seeing oneself in a mirror presents one with as exactly true an image as one can have; representing that image becomes more and more problematic depending on the medium of representation, whether posed photograph, candid snapshot, painted portrait, quick sketch, or cartoonish caricature. One may more or less recognize the representation of oneself as being true. Others may agree or disagree with our assessment of the representation depending on how well they know us – again we see the significance of relationship in regard to truth.
Perhaps I am too taken with the idea of mimesis. Our call to become imitators of God is to be understood in the light of our being created in the image of God. This ultimate truth about ourselves defines who we are and who we must strive to present ourselves as being.
Disguise often depends on socially recognized conventions – even if one is unconventional. Social convention is often why someone may be presented as someone else; to discover the truth about such an imposter can be quite difficult (consider the movie CATCH ME IF YOU CAN). In this way it is interesting to re-read the essay writers complaint, "... my life is a flight and I lose everything, and everything belongs to oblivion, or to him."
Truth may be the key. Perhaps when what one writes is true, than that which has been written may have been inspired by the Spirit of Truth which proceeds from God. All truth being God's truth, even the atheistic writer whose words are true may be breathing the Word of God, albeit unwittingly.
Fiction need not be falsehood. One’s story of seeing a sparrow may still carry truth in its telling even if one is pretending to have seen the sparrow. The pretense is problematic if one’s intention is to lie rather than to tell the truth. Consider the difference between acting in theatre and hypocrisy in personal presentation. Is one concealing rather than revealing what is true? This is what matters.
In the case of "Borges and I," the writer is careful to remain mindful of the difference between his person and his persona, the "me" of one's self and the "not-me" of the mask his words may have made from this same self. The confusion comes when one is confronted with the "not-not-me" created over time when the multitude of words remaining in one's memory begin to define one's personal image of oneself. This is where intimate relationship with others becomes very significant; those who know one best are most beneficial for revealing who one really is apart from who one may present oneself to be.
Truth identifies itself. One either recognizes truth or not. Truth may be concealed and then must be revealed in order to be known.
The elemental property of truth is coincidental with the ultimate authority of the Creator Himself. All truth is derived from what is ultimately and absolutely true. (The same can be said for all that is good, all that is beautiful, etc.) I do not mean some Platonic Ideal though it may seem like it. Right relationship with God really matters in making one's ideal correspond with what is real. Yet even when one may not be in right relationship, one may still, by the grace of God, express what is true.
The problem comes when one and others do not recognize why it is true. The consequence that may very well follow from this misrecognition will be something less than true. Thus is it possible that the quality of what one creates is commensurate with one's perception.
I believe truth is that which does the defining. What is the purpose of definition except to truly describe something so that it may be known? If a definition fails to describe something well, there is something false about the definition. Perhaps this has something to do with recognition – a definition makes most sense to us when we recognize it as describing something we have perceived/conceived ourselves. This object upon which I sit is a chair, a chair being an object designed/used for sitting.
Consider one's own face – each of us carry some idea of what we look like as an individual. Seeing oneself in a mirror presents one with as exactly true an image as one can have; representing that image becomes more and more problematic depending on the medium of representation, whether posed photograph, candid snapshot, painted portrait, quick sketch, or cartoonish caricature. One may more or less recognize the representation of oneself as being true. Others may agree or disagree with our assessment of the representation depending on how well they know us – again we see the significance of relationship in regard to truth.
Perhaps I am too taken with the idea of mimesis. Our call to become imitators of God is to be understood in the light of our being created in the image of God. This ultimate truth about ourselves defines who we are and who we must strive to present ourselves as being.
Disguise often depends on socially recognized conventions – even if one is unconventional. Social convention is often why someone may be presented as someone else; to discover the truth about such an imposter can be quite difficult (consider the movie CATCH ME IF YOU CAN). In this way it is interesting to re-read the essay writers complaint, "... my life is a flight and I lose everything, and everything belongs to oblivion, or to him."
Thursday, May 20, 2010
THE DRAMA OF DOING WHAT CAN BE DONE ... HOPING IT OUGHT TO BE DONE
I do what I can, hoping it is what ought to be done – therein lies the drama. This is what I posted as my FACEBOOK status on May 15, 2010. It sparked a number of comments from others.
I said in reply to a friend who asked about “the comedy” that the comedy can be seen in the folly of my ridiculous acts of self-righteousness. He responded, “hey – me too!”
A student then posted the following: “Who decides what ought to be done?” I found this to be an interesting question. My reply: If something OUGHT to be done, is such ought-ness defined prior to the deed or at the moment of the deed?
Priority implies order - toward what end is the deed to be done ordered? Christian moral philosophy contends that all moral action must be ordered to God. So one who would do what ought to be done will have decided to act in accordance with God's will. However, given one is a free moral agent, the one who decides what ought to be done is the one who wisely does the rightly-ordered deed or unwisely does otherwise. The actual deed will then be judged accordingly.
One's conscience comes into play as one considers what is just about to be done, what one is now doing, and what one has done already. Ideally, conscientious consideration will be critically consistent with the ultimate judgment to come to pass on the Last Day after all is said and done.
My son, Vincent, wrote, “I agree with you metaphysically, but my poor human brain doesn't think like that on a daily basis. ‘Ought’ is really more mundane. It seems that it's based on relationships. If we're honest with ourselves, we can see what the best thing to do is. And we know that if it isn't, then there is grace and we are ready to talk it out. Our conscience is wiser than we give it credit. Also, I find that it's important to be ready to admit that we, too immature, might not be able to decide and seek help in decisions. I mean, I only feel at peace when I feel my decisions are centered on Christ."
My immediate reply: “Exactly, Cenzo.” I think he have expressed it very well.
What we ought to do is indeed based on relationship.
The basic relationship to being human is, of course, one's relationship to God. Basic as well, however, is one's relationship to others; as I have often said before, there is always way to have a right relationship with anyone. What ought to be done depends on what is right for one's relationship with another.
Our conscience is wiser when well-formed. Relationships with others form who we become. One's conscience strives to conform one's actions to one's being. As one relates rightly with others, one will discover one's conscience is more consistently wise. Making wise decisions makes one more mature, more able to do what one ought to be done.
The student wrote that he agreed “nearly completely.” He wondered, however, whether we can “interpret His will without bias?” Going on, the student asked, “How can we know what He wills as the flawed beings that we are?” Then a qualified question, “can we assume to know the will of God?” The qualification, “barring divine intervention,” provoked this response from the first friend who responded to my original post, “Good thing barring divine intervention is unnecessary.” He continued, “You can't barr it or except it. Having a fallen human nature, knowledge of the will of God comes only through divine revelation – often through the mechanism of his Word and always through the intervention of the Holy Spirit.”
I answered that we can, by means of each one's conscience, always know our own will. Will we or will we not want to follow God's will? Being willing to do God's will puts us in the right mind to know God's will. We then trust God to help us discover what His will might be for us who are so willing. (Scripture speaks of this in a variety of ways - cf. John 3:21; 7:17; 8:43; also Daniel 12:10; Psalm 25:9; Hosea 14:9.)
One way to discern God's will is to seek the wise counsel of others. This helps counter whatever bias one may have in the effort to interpret what is right. God's grace keeps us alive despite the deadly folly towards which we are prone – that is sufficient intervention, don't you think? Expecting divine intervention to be the means of prevention is irresponsible. Flawed as we may be, we are still responsible for each thing we freely choose to do.
The student clarified his question by writing, “how can we do God’s will in the times when there is no obvious intervention?” Then he went on to write, “Seeking wise consul and being true to oneself, while also being true to the scripture ... this is the best route through which we flawed beings can attempt to do His will?”
To which I stated that God's will be done. That is a given without exception.
We have the opportunity to participate in doing God's will. That is grace. Without the intervention of the Holy Spirit, our participation is impossible. Sin sets the bar before us, blinding us from seeing the way we ought to go; the crucial part Christ plays is essential to breaking through that sinful barrier so that we can play with Him before the throne of God. This is what the Word of God reveals and what we need to know so that we can live.
I said in reply to a friend who asked about “the comedy” that the comedy can be seen in the folly of my ridiculous acts of self-righteousness. He responded, “hey – me too!”
A student then posted the following: “Who decides what ought to be done?” I found this to be an interesting question. My reply: If something OUGHT to be done, is such ought-ness defined prior to the deed or at the moment of the deed?
Priority implies order - toward what end is the deed to be done ordered? Christian moral philosophy contends that all moral action must be ordered to God. So one who would do what ought to be done will have decided to act in accordance with God's will. However, given one is a free moral agent, the one who decides what ought to be done is the one who wisely does the rightly-ordered deed or unwisely does otherwise. The actual deed will then be judged accordingly.
One's conscience comes into play as one considers what is just about to be done, what one is now doing, and what one has done already. Ideally, conscientious consideration will be critically consistent with the ultimate judgment to come to pass on the Last Day after all is said and done.
My son, Vincent, wrote, “I agree with you metaphysically, but my poor human brain doesn't think like that on a daily basis. ‘Ought’ is really more mundane. It seems that it's based on relationships. If we're honest with ourselves, we can see what the best thing to do is. And we know that if it isn't, then there is grace and we are ready to talk it out. Our conscience is wiser than we give it credit. Also, I find that it's important to be ready to admit that we, too immature, might not be able to decide and seek help in decisions. I mean, I only feel at peace when I feel my decisions are centered on Christ."
My immediate reply: “Exactly, Cenzo.” I think he have expressed it very well.
What we ought to do is indeed based on relationship.
The basic relationship to being human is, of course, one's relationship to God. Basic as well, however, is one's relationship to others; as I have often said before, there is always way to have a right relationship with anyone. What ought to be done depends on what is right for one's relationship with another.
Our conscience is wiser when well-formed. Relationships with others form who we become. One's conscience strives to conform one's actions to one's being. As one relates rightly with others, one will discover one's conscience is more consistently wise. Making wise decisions makes one more mature, more able to do what one ought to be done.
The student wrote that he agreed “nearly completely.” He wondered, however, whether we can “interpret His will without bias?” Going on, the student asked, “How can we know what He wills as the flawed beings that we are?” Then a qualified question, “can we assume to know the will of God?” The qualification, “barring divine intervention,” provoked this response from the first friend who responded to my original post, “Good thing barring divine intervention is unnecessary.” He continued, “You can't barr it or except it. Having a fallen human nature, knowledge of the will of God comes only through divine revelation – often through the mechanism of his Word and always through the intervention of the Holy Spirit.”
I answered that we can, by means of each one's conscience, always know our own will. Will we or will we not want to follow God's will? Being willing to do God's will puts us in the right mind to know God's will. We then trust God to help us discover what His will might be for us who are so willing. (Scripture speaks of this in a variety of ways - cf. John 3:21; 7:17; 8:43; also Daniel 12:10; Psalm 25:9; Hosea 14:9.)
One way to discern God's will is to seek the wise counsel of others. This helps counter whatever bias one may have in the effort to interpret what is right. God's grace keeps us alive despite the deadly folly towards which we are prone – that is sufficient intervention, don't you think? Expecting divine intervention to be the means of prevention is irresponsible. Flawed as we may be, we are still responsible for each thing we freely choose to do.
The student clarified his question by writing, “how can we do God’s will in the times when there is no obvious intervention?” Then he went on to write, “Seeking wise consul and being true to oneself, while also being true to the scripture ... this is the best route through which we flawed beings can attempt to do His will?”
To which I stated that God's will be done. That is a given without exception.
We have the opportunity to participate in doing God's will. That is grace. Without the intervention of the Holy Spirit, our participation is impossible. Sin sets the bar before us, blinding us from seeing the way we ought to go; the crucial part Christ plays is essential to breaking through that sinful barrier so that we can play with Him before the throne of God. This is what the Word of God reveals and what we need to know so that we can live.
Monday, May 3, 2010
RIGHTS OF RELATIONSHIP
To speak of rights is to bring into consideration relationship. Being human is to be in relationship with another. The responsibilities of relationship define the rights each person in that relationship can expect to have. Such expectation becomes the basis for demands one makes on the other in a particular relationship. Right relationship considers rights and responsibilites adhering to living in the same world with another living person. All power must be directed at promoting life lived well. The less well another is able to live, the more those more able to live must consider how well they are able to respond. The healthier a society, the more able all can share in acting responsibly toward those less able to live well.
Coming to a common understanding of marriage and the family must be a priority for anyone hoping to comprehend human rights. Human rights are much less abused in a society which does not fail to foster healthy marriages and families. Families function best in such a healthy society. Humans living together as a family have more intimate expectations of one another than will be found in other relationships found in human society; healthy families bond through how well these expectations are communicated and met. Marriage is central to human family - healthy society will have the best environment possible for any marriage to flourish.
Ethics is the way one lives with others. Christian Ethics is the way one lives beyond one's own ablity in living with others. The demands of Christian Ethics require one to be more responsible in relating rightly with others; one may even forego one's own rightful expectations in order to live well with others. Such self-sacrifice imitates the sacrifical life of Jesus Christ, who gave Himself up for the life of others. The Christian hope is that a life lived sacrifically for the sake of Christ will bring satisfaction beyond what can be expected from a more self-indulgent life that is much less considerate of others. The expectation of Christian ethics is that this way of life leads beyond death to eternal joy in the presence of God, in whom all humankind has been created.
Coming to a common understanding of marriage and the family must be a priority for anyone hoping to comprehend human rights. Human rights are much less abused in a society which does not fail to foster healthy marriages and families. Families function best in such a healthy society. Humans living together as a family have more intimate expectations of one another than will be found in other relationships found in human society; healthy families bond through how well these expectations are communicated and met. Marriage is central to human family - healthy society will have the best environment possible for any marriage to flourish.
Ethics is the way one lives with others. Christian Ethics is the way one lives beyond one's own ablity in living with others. The demands of Christian Ethics require one to be more responsible in relating rightly with others; one may even forego one's own rightful expectations in order to live well with others. Such self-sacrifice imitates the sacrifical life of Jesus Christ, who gave Himself up for the life of others. The Christian hope is that a life lived sacrifically for the sake of Christ will bring satisfaction beyond what can be expected from a more self-indulgent life that is much less considerate of others. The expectation of Christian ethics is that this way of life leads beyond death to eternal joy in the presence of God, in whom all humankind has been created.
A PERSONAL PAUSE FOR PONDERING
Here he sits --
hat in hand,
heart on sleeve,
foot in mouth,
-- and hopes for grace ...
STANDING NEXT TO ONE ANOTHER YET REMAINING APART
A friend wrote that he was re-organizing his library and put Where We Stand, an Assemblies of God's textbook on doctrine, next to Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed. He figured I would enjoy the humor in that shelving juxtaposition.
I responded:
Nice juxtaposition! I am mostly familiar with Freire through my study of August Boal (THEATRE OF THE OPPRESSED) - Paulo Freire was a major influence on Boal’s teachings.
It is interesting to note that the A/G and Freire worked with very similar populations of people. The main difference was the perception of oppression. The A/G insisted and insists still that the major source of oppression was/is neither political nor educational but spiritual. I happen to agree and thus continue to prefer the A/G over other more politically-oriented institutions.
Why I like Boal's THEATRE OF THE OPPRESSED is the practical approach to working with oppressed populations. I can apply my theological theory of theatre using his program of workshops and interactive performance. It is challenging not because of Marxist theory behind Boal's theatre but the "Marxists" who put Boal's program into practice - in working with these practitioners I have to call on God's grace to help me not be the one who brings too much friction into our working relationship. I have come to appreciate what they can teach me and hope that they have learned something reflecting God's grace from me.
My friend commented:
While I agree with elements of Freire's "praxis," I don't necessarily agree with his world-view. I found his concept of teacher as facilitator and fellow student quite profound. The symbiotic relationship of student and teacher as co-learner and co-educator is, in my opinion, a better philosophy of education than the teacher as expert.
I responded:
I, too, find the cooperative nature of teaching and learning to be profound. Willi Marxen, commenting on Philippians 3:17 [in which is found Paul's Greek coinage summimetai from which I coined symmimesis to describe my theology of theatre],considers mimetes as "one who shapes further" and reasons the "only people who have been shaped themselves and pass on their received shape through their own acts of shaping are mimetai." This idea is behind my concept of symmimesis, performance in the company of one another whereby one's performance shapes the persona of the other while becoming shaped personally by the other's performance, the whole peformance being done before an audience of One who shapes all things according to His own will.
Perhaps this is the difference between a mimete and a hypocrite. Both Greek words could refer to an actor but the latter word came to be associated with deception, action which concealed rather than revealed character. Might one's willingness to be shaped by another matter in how one acts in the presence of another? The less I am willing to be open to you knowing/forming/reforming who I am, the more I will tend towards hypocrisy. Teachers unwilling to learn from students or stubborn in refusing to step aside while another teaches may well be the worse for it.
I responded:
Nice juxtaposition! I am mostly familiar with Freire through my study of August Boal (THEATRE OF THE OPPRESSED) - Paulo Freire was a major influence on Boal’s teachings.
It is interesting to note that the A/G and Freire worked with very similar populations of people. The main difference was the perception of oppression. The A/G insisted and insists still that the major source of oppression was/is neither political nor educational but spiritual. I happen to agree and thus continue to prefer the A/G over other more politically-oriented institutions.
Why I like Boal's THEATRE OF THE OPPRESSED is the practical approach to working with oppressed populations. I can apply my theological theory of theatre using his program of workshops and interactive performance. It is challenging not because of Marxist theory behind Boal's theatre but the "Marxists" who put Boal's program into practice - in working with these practitioners I have to call on God's grace to help me not be the one who brings too much friction into our working relationship. I have come to appreciate what they can teach me and hope that they have learned something reflecting God's grace from me.
My friend commented:
While I agree with elements of Freire's "praxis," I don't necessarily agree with his world-view. I found his concept of teacher as facilitator and fellow student quite profound. The symbiotic relationship of student and teacher as co-learner and co-educator is, in my opinion, a better philosophy of education than the teacher as expert.
I responded:
I, too, find the cooperative nature of teaching and learning to be profound. Willi Marxen, commenting on Philippians 3:17 [in which is found Paul's Greek coinage summimetai from which I coined symmimesis to describe my theology of theatre],considers mimetes as "one who shapes further" and reasons the "only people who have been shaped themselves and pass on their received shape through their own acts of shaping are mimetai." This idea is behind my concept of symmimesis, performance in the company of one another whereby one's performance shapes the persona of the other while becoming shaped personally by the other's performance, the whole peformance being done before an audience of One who shapes all things according to His own will.
Perhaps this is the difference between a mimete and a hypocrite. Both Greek words could refer to an actor but the latter word came to be associated with deception, action which concealed rather than revealed character. Might one's willingness to be shaped by another matter in how one acts in the presence of another? The less I am willing to be open to you knowing/forming/reforming who I am, the more I will tend towards hypocrisy. Teachers unwilling to learn from students or stubborn in refusing to step aside while another teaches may well be the worse for it.
A post that looks at "e-books" and real books ... e-vil vs. good?
I am one who likes the looks of books,
is amused by amazing music,
and finds fellowship
with friends and family
refreshing!
How can anyone who does love books consider the faddish phenomenom of
"e-books"
a good thing?
Let's resist the lure of "convenience" and "portability" and "capacity"
with which we are being tempted
to go and buy into
this bibliotechnical masquerade.
I know my quest is quixotic (even my own brother has succumbed to e-vil e-books), but I am ever hopeful that the practice of buying real books at real bookstores will not become extinguished by the convenience of buying "books" bit by bit so that some screen becomes one's illusory "library."
As a public service, I offer the following link:
MOBYLIVES » Do ereaders harm your eyes?
mhpbooks.com
Consider this as well:
Devices like the iPad and the Kindle are a wholly new kind of thing—they function like bookshelves that reject all books except those the manufacturer has blessed. Publishers today worry that retailers like Wal-Mart might control too much of their business—and rightly so. But imagine how much more precarious things would be if Wal-Mart sold bookcases that were programmed to do what the iPad and Kindle do—refuse to hold books bought in other stores, and by canceling Wal-Mart's account, your publishing house would lose access to any customer who didn't have the desire to throw out their Wal-Mart bookcases or Wal-Mart–approved books, or room to add another brand of bookcase. http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/456751-Can_You_Survive_a_Benevolent_Dictatorship_.php
A friend responded by writing:
"Totally agree. I hate reading books on screens, not only can I feel my eyes slowly falling to pieces, but I love the feel of having a book in my hands... cracking the spine for the first time or the smell of a well-loved favorite... all necessary parts of the book-reading experience in my opinion."
I found interesting the phrase "book-reading experience." Also interesting to consider -- what is necessary to be part of "the book-reading experience"?
Anyone who has visited anywhere I have ever lived knows how books figure prominently in my life; the house where my family now lives is certainly no exception (as my witty wife -- long-suffering as she has been for 25 years putting up with my book habit -- likes to quip, "We need no insulation in our walls - the bookcases lining every wall in the house have enough books to do the job just as well!"). I cannot imagine some "e-book" kindling in my heart the joy real books bring to me. My experience of books goes beyond reading, so my response to the cybernetic simplification of "the book-reading experience" comprehends much more than merely "reading" the written word. I understand how some are thrilled by economic convenience, but is there not more to life than that?
Friday, April 30, 2010
INSPIRATION & THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION
Visit this web-site, then post your response here. I challenge you, however, to be charitable in what you write.
www.mcnaughtonart.com
"US" & "THEM"
The "us" and "them" mentality troubles me.
We have got to come to grips with
the relational implications of being "in the world, but not of it."
To be friends with sinners yet not sin was exemplified in the life of our Lord Jesus Christ. What it means to be a friend is as significant to faithful doctrine as anything else in theology; we are foolish to think we understand the word "fellowship" if we fail to comprehend "friendship."
I wonder if the "holiness" movement suffered from this sociological flaw, being so intent on teaching separation from sin that it sowed seeds detrimental to healthy society. The proper pursuit of holiness challenges us to consider personal relationship with God AND others - we are to love the One God in Heaven AND the many others God has created to be in the world with us.
One result is that we, who may participate in some faulty concept of holiness, group ourselves together apart from "worldly" society, then are faced with the human task of ordering the society of our separated group. We may speak about the Spirit moving us to order ourselves to God, but the politics involved in our particular polity sure seem similar to how politics play out in the world. I am sickened by this apparently inevitable process that has played itself out throughout Church history.
Will we never learn? I do not want to play by the rules of this world, but we must figure out a better way to participate in the political ordering of our society. It is not "us" versus "them" but all of us before God who loved the world in coming among us to live, die, and be resurrected to new life so that we can be with Him to live without death determining our destiny.
My brother quipped:
"How far did Jesus chase that rich young man?"
My reply:
Cute, Nick. However, consider how Jesus behaved while the young man was with Him.
Why must every human encounter be viewed from the perspective of what happens after people leave? Should we not rather study what is going on while people are together? Society is not made up of a group of strangers because any number of persons stop being strangers once they encounter one another. This encounter then begins the relationship of which society is the consequence.
We fail to keep a coherent society because we operate from a position of estranged enmity rather than friendly fellowship. This is not good.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
POLITICAL POTSHOTS
A friend’s recent post on FACEBOOK caught my attention, (as such postings usually do). I followed the link (http://foxnewsboycott.com/glenn-beck/rush-limbaugh-questions-glenn-becks-objective-in-keynote-speech/) and discovered the following posted under comments to the article and post it here because the writer articulates better than I can a frustration I have with the Democratic Party (I am uncomfortable with using the word "hatred" on such a public forum, but I must admit that I have spoken like this in private, so I leave it unedited - please forgive me any offence):
Azarkhan says: February 23, 2010 at 10:51 am
For those on the left who “can’t figure out the point” Rush and Mark Levine are making, let me explain it to you.
Like me, they have a deep and abiding hatred of the Democratic Party and its sympathizers. Over the years we have seen the Democratic Party lie, cheat, deceive, and exhibit outright contempt for the law, all the while exhibiting a sanctimonius, “holier then thou” attitude. In their arrogance, the Democrats refuse to even entertain the notion that perhaps, just perhaps, some of their prescriptions for
The words of a professor who witnessed the 1968 student takeover at
“Again and again one is struck by the posture of complete self-righteousness and of unyielding moral absolutism in the attitudes and actions of the radical leaders. “I am totally right and completely moral, and you-if you disagree with me-are absolutely wrong and wicked….You have no rights that I must respect, and you must agree to accept everything I demand….” ”
These same radicals later disrupted the Democratic convention in
This is why many conservatives do not agree with Glenn Beck’s attack on Republicans. While the Republicans may indeed be corrupt, they are not a threat to the Constitution or our individual freedoms.
On the other hand, the Democrats are “true believers” who will stop at nothing in their drive to impose their values on American society. For the Democrats, the Constitution is a hindrance, a mere scrap of paper to be ignored whenever circumstances dictate. And the only individual freedoms they recognize is their “freedom” to do whatever is necessary, legal of illegal, moral of immoral, to impose their will on the majority.
My friend, in reply, wrote:
“… it truly amazes me, how similar both sides rant at each other. Liberals "fee" that Conservatives are the ones who try to ram their moral, "holier than thou" beliefs on the rest of us. I find the comment almost satirical, though I realize it was meant to be serious.
I seldom meet a Liberal or Progressive who is sure of anything, that is the problem, there is no "one" way, opinion or any kind of "group think", unlike the litmus test being touted by Conservatives.
It is the Democrats who insist on preserving our personal liberties and rights. Republicans preserve the liberty and rights of those they agree with or want to change.
To clarify, I was not confused by what Limbaugh was saying, but HOW he said, the sentence lacked substance, was confusing and seeemed to use circular syntax.
To feel "hatred" for a political party seems to me a very sad thing. I may disagree with conservative politics, and I certainly dislike bush, cheney and the rest, and feel they were disrespectful of the American people and our Constitution, but I blame each of them for their personal actions not the "party".
There is no room for conversation across a chasm, and beck, limbaugh, rove and the rest have no interest in building a bridge, it is their way, or no way. That is why they spend all their time spreading falsehoods and attempting to discredit the logical and diplomatic efforts of our President.
President Obama is the repudiation of 8 years of conservative politics. The economic collapse is the culmination of "small government, less taxes". I hope that enough Liberals will stop sipping their chardonny and remember that and get out and vote. Unfortunately, history tells us that the mid-term election after a Presidential election almost always goes to the opposition.
You and I seem to agree on the common goal of "preserving our personal liberties and rights." We, without doubt, disagree on which political party is more insistent on doing so. Hypocrites and fools populate all parties, so all can be targets of satiric critique.
Personally, I would rather our discussion be more focused on coming to a better understanding of what is implied in "preserving our personal liberties and rights." Sniping at political opponents muddies the waters. Caring conversation calls for clarity rather than discombobulative wisecracks and ad hominem attacks.
My point in posting the previous comment regarding my frustration with the Democratic Party was to give some historical perspective to my contemporary views. You continually complain about the last 8 years prior to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. My complaint comprehends a time beyond that back to the 60's when I first became involved in the political process with my parents in Richard Nixon's first presidential campaign (it is interesting to note that the catch-phrase at the time to describe "us" was "the Silent Majority"). I went through a hyper-conservative phrase in the '80s while serving as an Army officer under President Reagan while he led the world against the evil of communism and shook up the political establishment with his popular conservatism; at the time I was an avid suscriber to the National Review and even had very close connections to those in the Christian Reconstructionist movement whose Dominion theology dominated much Evangelical political thought.
What happened, however, was that, while stationed in
I can go on, but let me just say that I like to think I am still undergoing reformation. I am very hopeful that my desire for right relationship disciplines my drive for righteous society. Athough sometimes my sympathy for certain political viewpoints may seem repulsive to you, please realize that I DO NOT allow politics to be the grid according to which I live and move and have my being. I hope I am always ready to reform myself according to what is right rather than remain rooted in some wrong-minded reputation of my own making.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
WikiCatachism
This idea of a WikiCatechism fits well with the Catecatch-as-you-can theological chaos of contemporary society. I continuously challenge my students to consider carefully a "me-oriented" magesterial mindset that insists on following a malformed conscience.
www.splendoroftruth.com
WikiCatechism is a collaboratively edited catechism to which you can contribute your own theological viewpoint. Wiki is a piece of server-based software that allows users to create and edit catechism pages using any web browser.
Monday, April 26, 2010
JUDGMENT = GRACE/TRUTH
In class today we discussed some of the ethical issues which students found provacative. I reminded the class before-hand to keep in mind that all judgment must incorporate both truth and grace. Our class discussion did well in modelling this - everyone showed one another friendly respect in considering all that was said.
The intended end of judgment is joy. Gracious truth/true grace infuses all aspects of righteous judgment. According to Revelation 20:11-15, at the Last Judgment when all humanity appears before the Great White Throne with One sitting there ready to judge everyone from the great to the lowly, there will be two books. All will be judged according to their deeds as recorded in the Book of Deeds; however, anyone whose name is not found written in the Book of Life is to undergo what Scripture calls "the second death." Consider the Book of Deeds as a record of Truth which discloses all things with nothing remaining hidden from being known; consider the Book of Life as a guarantee of Grace which is made possible through the Crucified Christ now resurrected to sit on the throne of judgment (cf. Revelation 3:5; also Matthew 10:32-33).
We carry the power of judgment with us in living now. When face to face with another, the subseqent relationship must reflect the righteous judgment to come - gracious truth must define the interaction that takes place and true grace must remain foremost in provoking one another, not to wrathful wickedness, but to loving-kindness.
[See Hebrews 12-13 for one way Scripture describes such a lifestyle.]
The intended end of judgment is joy. Gracious truth/true grace infuses all aspects of righteous judgment. According to Revelation 20:11-15, at the Last Judgment when all humanity appears before the Great White Throne with One sitting there ready to judge everyone from the great to the lowly, there will be two books. All will be judged according to their deeds as recorded in the Book of Deeds; however, anyone whose name is not found written in the Book of Life is to undergo what Scripture calls "the second death." Consider the Book of Deeds as a record of Truth which discloses all things with nothing remaining hidden from being known; consider the Book of Life as a guarantee of Grace which is made possible through the Crucified Christ now resurrected to sit on the throne of judgment (cf. Revelation 3:5; also Matthew 10:32-33).
We carry the power of judgment with us in living now. When face to face with another, the subseqent relationship must reflect the righteous judgment to come - gracious truth must define the interaction that takes place and true grace must remain foremost in provoking one another, not to wrathful wickedness, but to loving-kindness.
[See Hebrews 12-13 for one way Scripture describes such a lifestyle.]
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Fool of Wisdom
MOROSOPHIA
When one's world is found empty,
God's word proves itself full.
Was one ever so wise to not fail as a fool?
(foolosophy: foolish wisdom of God)
This fellow's wise enough
to play the fool.
TWELFTH NIGHT, IIIi:61
I turned my mind to understand,
to investigate,
to search out
wisdom
and the scheme of things.
I turned my mind to understand
the stupidity of wickedness and
the madness of folly.
Applying myself to the understanding of wisdom
the stupidity of wickedness and
the madness of folly.
Applying myself to the understanding of wisdom
as well as of madness and folly,
I learned that
this is a chasing after the wind.
this is a chasing after the wind.
My mind still guiding me with "wisdom,"
I tried cheering myself with wine,
and embracing folly.
Loose laughter, however, is foolish.
What does such pleasure accomplish?
I tried cheering myself with wine,
and embracing folly.
Loose laughter, however, is foolish.
What does such pleasure accomplish?
wisdom.
OUTWEIGHS
A little folly Was ever one wiser than one's own weak wit?
Why would one ever dare to think, "Try it?"When one's world is found empty,
God's word proves itself full.
Was one ever so wise to not fail as a fool?
There is more hope for a fool
than one wise in one's own eyes.
A proverb in the mouth of a fool
hangs limp.
Answer not a fool according to his folly
lest you become
like a fool yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly
lest, in his own eyes,
he become wise.
Wisdom reposes in the heart of the discerning
and
even among fools
she lets herself be known.
Folly is loud
undisciplined
without knowledge.
Sitting at the highest point in the city,
Folly calls out to those who pass by:
"Let all who are simple come here! "
To all who lack judgment,
Folly says,
"Stolen water is sweet;
food eaten in secret is delicious!"
But little do they know
that the dead are there;
the guests of Folly
are in the depths of the grave.
The wise in heart accept commands,
but a chattering fool
comes to ruin.
The wise store up knowledge,
but the mouth of a fool
invites ruin.
Whoever conceals one's hatred
has lying lips,
and whoever spreads slander
is a fool.
The lips of the righteous nourish many,
but fools die for lack of judgment.
The one who brings trouble on one's family
will inherit the wind,
and the fool will be servant to the wise.
The way of a fool
seems right to him,
but a wise man listens to advice.
A fool shows his annoyance at once,
but a prudent man overlooks an insult.
A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself,
but the hearts of fools blurt out folly.
Every prudent man acts out of knowledge,
but a fool exposes his folly.
A longing fulfilled is sweet to the soul,
but fools detest turning from evil.
He who walks with the wise grows wise,
but a companion of fools suffers harm.
The wise woman builds her house,
but with her own hands
the foolish one tears her house down.
A fool's talk brings a rod to his back,
but the lips of the wise protect them.
Stay away from a foolish man,
for you will not find knowledge
on his lips.
The wisdom of the prudent
is to give thought to their ways,
but the folly of fools is deception.
Fools mock at making amends for sin,
but good will is found among the upright.
Even in laughter the heart may ache
and joy may end in grief.
A wise man fears the LORD and shuns evil,
but a fool is hotheaded and reckless.
The simple inherit folly,
but the prudent are crowned with knowledge.
The wealth of the wise is their crown,
but
the folly of fools yields folly.
A patient man has great understanding,
but a quick-tempered man displays folly.
A fool spurns his father's discipline,
but whoever heeds correction shows prudence.
The lips of the wise spread knowledge;
not so the hearts of fools.
Death and Destruction lie open to the LORD
- how much more the hearts of men!
The discerning heart seeks knowledge,
but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.
Folly delights one who lacks judgment,
but a man of understanding keeps a straight course.
Understanding is a fountain of life
to those who have it,
but folly brings punishment to fools.
For a fool
HONOR
is unfitting.
A longing fulfilled
is sweet to the soul,
yet the fool is determined
to return to his folly.
Monday, March 29, 2010
PLAYER IN THE WAY
(written July 1984)
touch their eyes, player
let them see the truth
watch their mouths
to see they understand
stand up there and wave
draw their full attention
be jealous, player
grab them 'til they have no choice
they want to pay for pain or pleasure
make them wait in line
tell them what they think they want
then give them what you have
stand in front now, player
they're already watching you
they would chase you if you ran
you lead them either way
you die at either end
player, tell the people what you know
what they don't yet understand
what words have made seem obvious
as though the truth was simple
yet when the time comes to decide
all the choices trip them up and so a player acts it out
showing how its done but not quite why
player, you are different
what you say and do is new
people are surprised to hear this news
and shocked to watch you act it out
the others never bled before
the others never died like that
but that was then, not now
not after one man died and lived like God.
you're the player now
they're watching you
words are not enough for them
there's too much noise to hear them
not that they matter
you have a new priority
its in the script
this new play starts with death
what you play has been done before
but always by somebody else
this time, the act is yours
your play starts with death ...
that's where life comes in.
ARE YOU WILLING TO SUFFER EVIL RATHER THAN DO IT?
Jesus "suffered evil rather than do it" (as William Mays comments in the chapter on VERITATIS SPLENDOR in his book AN INTRODUCTION TO MORAL THEOLOGY). The emphasis is on how one's moral act, what one actually chooses to do, defines one's moral being, who one really is. Deciding to suffer evil is morally superior to deciding to avoid suffering. One who enjoy's doing God's will is always conscientiously willing to do ONLY what is good given one's hope to remain in the joy of the Lord on the Day of Judgment (cf. Hebrews 12:1-29). Such joy is evident in how Jesus overcame ANY temptation to not go through with the crucifixion by consistently praying to his Father God, "Not my will, but Thy will be done" (see the Passion Narratives in the Gospels).
We read in Acts 17:16-34 how Paul preached Jesus and the Resurrection among the idolatrous Athenians. It is especially interesting to note that Paul quoted a pagan philosopher to make his point that "In him [God] we live and move and have our being." This God is unknown apart from the person and work of the resurrected Christ (cf. Acts 17:22-23, 30-31).
Given who we are in God ("created ... in his image," Genesis 1:27), we ought to do what is consistent with such a character. Christians consider the character of Christ to be the perfect example to which we can conform by faith enacted through each thing we decide to do. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ makes it possible for us to enjoy God's grace, being and doing that which is pleasing to God.
We read in Acts 17:16-34 how Paul preached Jesus and the Resurrection among the idolatrous Athenians. It is especially interesting to note that Paul quoted a pagan philosopher to make his point that "In him [God] we live and move and have our being." This God is unknown apart from the person and work of the resurrected Christ (cf. Acts 17:22-23, 30-31).
Given who we are in God ("created ... in his image," Genesis 1:27), we ought to do what is consistent with such a character. Christians consider the character of Christ to be the perfect example to which we can conform by faith enacted through each thing we decide to do. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ makes it possible for us to enjoy God's grace, being and doing that which is pleasing to God.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
CHRISTIAN ATHEISTS? or rather "IGNOSTICS"?
Recent discussion has considered the phenomenon of "Christian Atheists," described as those whose professed belief has little or no bearing on how they actually live.
Rather than labeling them "Christian Atheists," perhaps one might call those who profess to be Christian yet ignore this leading of the Spirit "Ignostics."
Monday, March 22, 2010
SURELY NOT I?
RATHER THAN BEING FOUND FULL OF FICKLE FOLLY,
LET US BE FORTIFIED BY THE FULNESS OF THE SPIRIT
TO FOCUS ON BECOMING
A FAITHFUL FOOL FOR CHRIST
Maundy Thursday
April 1st, 2010
[Narrator tells what is taking place,
quoting the account of the Last Supper in Matthew’s Gospel (26:20-25)]
NARRATOR: Now … [Several robed figures enter to take places around altar table.]
when evening came, [Last figure enters, hooded in white, centered before the table with back to congregation.]
Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples.
As they were eating, He said, [HOODED FIGURE gestures toward others.]
HOODED FIGURE: "Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me."
NARRATOR: Being deeply grieved, they each one began to say to Him,
"Surely not I, Lord?" [This same line is spoken by each one in turn.
Figures on stage then exit, except hooded figure. ]
HOODED FIGURE: [Turns to face congregation to reveal MINISTER wearing red nose.]
"Surely not I?" [MINISTER removes red nose before continuing.]
What a strange form of question!
A negative answer seems not only hopefully expected, but fervently requested.
The disciples each appear to plea, “Please, Lord, assure me of my faithfulness!”
Such sad disbelief!
The deep sense of vulnerability surrounding this question was tragically exposed as true in the last hours of Jesus’ life.
No disciple of Jesus was much of a model for faithfulness.
Each disciple failed in some way to follow faithfully.
Judas betrayed Jesus.
Peter, having boldly boasted with such bravado about his fervent faithfulness, denied knowing his Lord three times.
Not one of the Twelve even attended to Jesus’ body after the crucifixion!
All of them had fled from the
These fallen followers had yet to realize their utter need for the fullness of the Spirit.
"Surely not I?" Was this a faithful question … or a foolish boast?
[Suddenly someone wearing a jester’s cap appears in the back of the sanctuary.]
CLOWN: "Surely not I, Lord?"
[CLOWN continues, sometimes humming on kazoo, marching about energetically.
MINISTER responds at will.]
He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
[Throughout the following, there will be interplay between CLOWN & MINISTER]
You may call me Laz, or even Lazzi, if you like. My given name is Lazarus – yes, the same Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead. Ever since that day, it seems to me that God has put me on theatrical display. I have been made a spectacle to the whole universe!
MINISTER: Why?
LAZ: Because I was foolish enough to give a true account of what Jesus did for me. People were going over to Jesus because I told them that he had raised me from the dead. You may think I am a fool and so I am. I am a fool for Christ! Whose fool are you?
[MINISTER may respond.]
LAZ: I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness.
MINISTER: But, we are already doing that.
LAZ: You, however, are looking only on the surface of things.
MINISTER:* Some here are saying, as wordy as you are, you really are unimpressive in person; even if you are Lazarus, all your talk doesn’t amount to much.
LAZ: I may not be a trained speaker, but I do know what is what.
Don’t deceive yourselves: If anyone of you think you are wise, by what standard are you making such judgment? If by the standards of this age, then you, too, should become a “fool” so that you may become wise!
The wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight.
MINISTER: So what are you doing here? It surely looks like some boastful masquerade.
LAZ: What I am doing here is not intended to be some boastful masquerade. I make no deceitful claims; this is no mere act. Let no one take me for a fool.
MINISTER:* It’s way too later for that.
LAZ: But if you do, then receive me just as you would a fool, so that I may do a little boasting myself.
MINISTER: You’re starting to sound a bit worldly as well as wordy.
LAZ: Since so many out there are boasting in the way the world does, I’ll boast, too.
MINISTER: You expect us to put up with that?
LAZ: You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise!
In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the face.
To my shame I admit that I am too weak for that!
MINISTER: Point well taken.
LAZ: Yet, what anyone else dares to boast about – I am speaking as a fool – I also dare to boast about.
MINISTER: Do you know what you are up against?
LAZ: Whatever they say they are, I am more.
MINISTER:* You’re out of your mind!
LAZ: I am out of my mind to talk like this.
MINISTER: But look what they have going for them.
LAZ: Are they servants of Christ? Are they “Christ’s ambassadors”? I am.
[CLOWN breaks into song.]
We are Christ’s ambassadors, and our colors we will unfurl.
We all wear a spotless robe, clean and righteous before the world.
We know we’ve been cleansed from sin, and that Jesus dwells within.
Proving duly that we’re truly, Christ’s ambassadors!
Proving duly (slap knees, snap fingers, clap hands) that we’re truly (repeat slap, snap, clap),
Christ’s ambassa -, Christ’s ambassa-, Chri-i-i-i-st’s am-bas-sa-do-o-o-o-rs!
[Pause for applause … or not.]
MINISTER: So, what else can we expect from a true ambassador of Christ?
LAZ: You can expect me to be BOLD, … especially toward those people who think it’s fine to live by the standards of this world.
MINISTER: Don’t forget that you still live in this world.
LAZ: However, just because I live in this world, I don’t go about waging war as the world does. No, the “weapons” with which I fight are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, I have the power to demolish strongholds! I demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God; I take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
MINISTER: You sound like a fool.
LAZ: If I sound like a fool, so be it. And do you know why?
MINISTER: Because you are a fool?
LAZ: No! Because of the Gospel message! The message of the cross!
MINISTER: So that’s your excuse?
LAZ: The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God. God was pleased through the foolishness of the gospel to save those who believe, since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom cannot know him.
MINISTER: You are beginning to sound a bit ant-intellectual.
LAZ: Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? Did not God say, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, the intelligence of the intelligent will I frustrate”?
MINISTER:* What about those who came here expecting to be shown something?
LAZ: Some of you may demand something spectacular, some demand a witty show of wise words. But what I have to say is simply this:
death is overcome through Jesus Christ.
MINISTER: That sounds simple enough.
LAZ: This simple message is a stumbling block to those demanding miracles, foolishness to those wanting wisdom.
MINISTER:* But what is it to us?
LAZ: To those of us whom God has called, just as Jesus called me from the grave, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.
MINISTER: That’s not fooling around!
LAZ: Indeed – for the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
MINISTER:* So we go around looking like weak fools and that’s supposed to be good news?
LAZ: It is good news, because in our weakness God is strong.
MINISTER:* And we end up troubled on every side!
LAZ: Yet not distressed.
MINISTER:* We become perplexed!
LAZ: But not in despair.
MINISTER:* We’ll be persecuted!
LAZ: But not forsaken.
MINISTER:* Cast down!
LAZ: But not destroyed.
No, while we live we can expect to always face death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus might be manifested in our own mortality. I know that, just as the Lord Jesus raised me from the dead, God raised Jesus after dying on the cross, and so shall all who receive His Spirit, as my sister Martha confessed, be raised up in the Resurrection.
MINISTER:* So folly and death becomes a daily part of life?
LAZ: It already has. Now, however, because of the life and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, instead of expecting deadly folly, everyone of us can fully experience His Resurrection as a Way of Life.
[singing] I am the resurrection and the life. He that believeth in me though he were dead,
Yet shall he live, yet shall he live; For whosoever liveth and believeth in me
Shall never, never die!
Do you believe this? [CLOWN exits. Further remarks per speaker’s discretion.]
MINISTER: Paul wrote to the church in
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. …
…consider your calling, brothers and sisters, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God.
But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."
Surely not I, Lord? [Pause.]
“Surely God is my salvation;
I will trust and not be afraid.”(Isaiah 12:2)
Amen.
The presentation should be playfully performed with serious intent. The theme is FOLLY & FOLLOWING JESUS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)