Very Busy

I have not had a lot of time to attend to this blog lately. That's a shame, because I'd been hoping to comment on General Conference stuff, not to mention the NFL Draft. I'm just too busy, but I hope to get some time soon.

I'm busy in a good way, I think, since things are well with my family, and JUMC continues to be blessed and to be a blessing, to me and to our community. I continue to be in prayer for all that's happening in Fort Worth, and hope that God's Kingdom is furthered by the decisions which are made.

Another Prayer for General Conference

Almightyand everlasting Father,
you have given the Holy Spirit
to abide with us forever:

Bless, we pray,
with his grace and presence,
the bishops and
other clergy and laity
now assembled in your Name
in Fort Worth, Texas,

that your Church,
being preserved in true faith and godly discipline,
may fulfill all the mind of him who loves her
and gave himself for her,
your Son Jesus Christ our Lord;

who lives and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and forever. Amen.

- adapted from The Book of Common Prayer

A Prayer for General Conference

Almighty God,
your Son promised
his disciples
that he would
be with them always.

Hear the prayer we offer
for your servants
who will begin meeting
this week
in Fort Worth, Texas
as the General Conference of
The United Methodist Church.

May your Holy Spirit rest on them:
a spirit of wisdom and understanding,
a spirit of counsel and power,
a spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord.

Grant them vision and courage;
unite them in love and peace;
teach them to be trustworthy stewards
of your truth.

And so guide them in all their doings
that your Kingdom may be advanced,
your people confirmed in their most holy faith,
and your unfailing love declared to all the world;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

- adapted from The Book of Common Order
of the Church of Scotland

Amending the Mission of the Church

"The mission of the church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ."
(Book of Discipline - 2004, ¶120)

At JUMC, we make sure that the mission of the Church is in our bulletin every week. Everything that we do ought to be viewed through the lens of our mission. Hopefully, it's something upon which every one who participates in our worship and ministry reflects; I know that the pastor tries to drive it home regularly!

One of the proposals to be considered by our General Conference in a few weeks will alter our mission. The proposal has been made that our mission be changed to "The mission of the church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world."

Many United Methodists have been citing this as our mission (incorrectly) for some time. The truth is that the proposed amendment originates not in our Discipline, but in the Council of Bishops. We need to remember, though, that the Bishops cannot change our mission. Our mission remains the sentence stated at the beginning of this post.

Should we change our mission statement? The truth is that I believe GC2008 will approve the change, if for no other reason than many UMs seem to think that the new version is already in place. And transforming a world so in need of transformation is certainly not a bad thing.

But Stephen Taylor over at NitroRev raises some good points. Stephen is a GC delegate from South Carolina. Concerning the new version, he writes,

"It’s definitely a 'Methodist' statement, which means it is sufficiently ambiguous. It leaves wide open for interpretation 'how' we are going to transform the world and what such transformation would look like. That’s the perfect scenario for any cause group to argue that their issue deserves priority attention since it is part of our 'mission'."

The problem, as I see it, is that some UMs might shift their focus from the making of disciples to the transformation of the world. Transforming the world might then become our measure of success; we may not do well when it comes to baptisms or professions of faith, but as long as people are getting health care in Africa, human rights in Tibet, or just immigration laws into the USA, we may determine that we're being faithful.

Please don't misunderstand...getting health care in Africa, human rights in Tibet, and just immigration laws into the USA are all worthwhile projects. None are necessarily antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ. But these ministries should not be seen as ends in themselves, but rather as a response to the saving work of Jesus Christ.

Our mission is a concise adaptation of Jesus' Great Commission in Matthew 28, in which our Lord commands, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." He said nothing about transforming the world in this passage.

Our reason for making disciples, then, is not to transform the world. We make disciples because Jesus commanded us to do it. Transforming the world is a secondary concern; it's not a bad thing, but it's not part of the commission given us by Jesus. The official mission statement of the Church should not obscure Jesus' command. A more faithful change, then, might read, "The mission of the church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ, for Jesus commanded it."

Lots to pray about in the coming weeks...

Farewell Charlton Heston

God bless Charlton Heston (1924-2008).

Charlton Heston, one of filmdom's most illustrious actors, passed away yesterday after a long battle with Alzheimer's Disease. He won an Oscar for 1959's Ben Hur, the definitive Hollywood epic. He is also well known for his larger-than-life roles as Moses in The Ten Commandments, Taylor in Planet of the Apes, Michelangelo in The Agony and the Ecstasy, John the Baptist in The Greatest Story Ever Told, General Gordon in Khartoum, Neville in The Omega Man, Cardinal Richelieu in The Three Musketeers, El Cid in El Cid, and Thorn in the underrated Soylent Green.

Heston has been one of my favorite Hollywood actors for some time. Like many in my generation, I was first exposed to his work every Easter, with the annual showing of The Ten Commandments on network television. Later, as a teenage oddity steeped in sci-fi geekery, I marveled at Planet of the Apes and, eventually, Soylent Green (which remains one of the most sophisticated sci-fi movies ever filmed). It was only as an adult that I learned to love Ben Hur, a masterful film with one of the best portrayals of Jesus in Hollywood history, which featured a tour de force performance by Heston.

But Charlton Heston was more than just another star; he was a Christian activist fighting for what he perceived to be right...long before it became chic in Hollywood to lift up one's favorite cause. Best known today as a conservative stalwart who headed the National Rifle Association (which, in my opinion, was his all-time scariest role), he also marched with Martin Luther King and was an early Hollywood opponent of racism and segregation (along with, it may surprise some, John Wayne). He opposed both Marxism and McCarthyism as threats to liberty. As an elder statesman, he spoke out against abortion and political correctness, to which he referred as "tyranny with manners".

In 2002, Heston was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease, the tragic condition which eventually claimed the life of his close friend, Ronald Reagan. His appearances in recent years were rare.

I'm thanking God today for the work of Charlton Heston. I'll be able to enjoy his movies with my children and (someday) grandchildren for years to come. If you're not familiar with his film work, I commend it to you.

I'm also thanking God for Charlton Heston's example as a Christian activist. My opinions may differ with Heston on some issues, but he never shied away from standing up for what he believed was right, even if it meant being ridiculed by some of the cultural elites. He stood up for basic human rights in a very confusing era, in a very confusing place. We can all learn something, I think, from this very gifted man.

So you want to be a rock 'n' roll star?

In a few days, I'll be participating the in Western PA Congress on Evangelism. Because I'll be gone for a few days, I'm trying to get a load of work done, including putting the finishing touches on next Sunday's sermon.

I'm preaching on the lectionary reading from Acts 2...sort of. The Acts reading stops at verse 41, with the rest of the chapter in the readings for April 13. But, since I'm focusing on Psalm 23 on April 13, I've combined the two Acts readings for use on April 6 (I'm sure you find this fascinating).

At any rate, it's been a good exercise for me, since much of the passage from which I'm preaching deals directly with evangelism.

In January 1967, one of my favorite bands, the Byrds, released the song "So You Want to Be a Rock'n'Roll Star". GREAT song. The first part of the song chronicles what one needs to do in order to become a rock star. "If you want _____, then do _____."

"So you want to be a rock 'n' roll star?
Then listen now to what I say
Just get an electric guitar
Then take some time
and learn how to play
And with your hair
swung right
And your pants too tight
It's gonna be all right
Then it's time to go downtown
Where the agent man
won't let you down
Sell your soul to the company
Who are waiting there to sell plastic ware
And in a week or two
If you make the charts
The girls'll tear you apart"

- McGuinn/Hillman, 1967

I've loved that song for years. But, like this legendary Hall of Fame band can teach us what steps we need to take to become stars, so, in my view, the Acts 2 passage can teach us the steps we need to take to evangelize.

"...they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved."

- Acts 2:42-47 (ESV)

The end of this passage shows the remarkable success of the baby Church regarding evangelism. We Methodists, who at one time prided ourselves on approaching things methodically, can learn much from this passage. Indeed, once we did, I think. I personally need a reminder of that...and often.

What were some of the key elements in this evangelistic success?

* DEVOTION TO THE APOSTLES' TEACHING - We may not have direct access to Paul, John, and Peter, but we have the inspired Holy Scriptures, and 2000 years of interpretive tradition, including doctrinal standards which Methodist pastors have taken sacred vows to uphold. How often do we refer to Wesley's sermons, our General Rules, or our Articles of Religion in our preaching and teaching? It seems to me that inasmuch as we embrace, obediently teach, and faithfully embody our doctrine, the Spirit just might bless our evangelistic efforts.

* FELLOWSHIP - Just being together and hanging out with our sisters and brothers in the faith is a tremendous blessing. Last night was "Spirit Night" for JUMC at our local Chick-fil-a, and we gathered together for dinner and had a joyous time (and were probably a little too loud for some of the other patrons!). In fact, just hanging out with my sisters and brothers is, for me, the highlight of Annual Conference. Inasmuch as we seek fellowship with one another, the Spirit just might bless our evangelistic efforts.

* THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD - Gathering for worship is an essential part of our Christian life, and we ought to be regularly celebrating the Eucharist. General Conference 2004, in its adoption of This Holy Mystery as an official Eucharistic statement of the UMC, encouraged congregations to move to weekly celebration. To my knowledge, the only community in our Conference which celebrates every week in every service is Hot Metal Bridge. Shame on me. Inasmuch as we break the Bread and share the Cup, the Spirit just might bless our evangelistic efforts.

* PRAYER - Certainly we all agree that we need to be a people of prayer. The congregation that sent me out into ministry, Trinity UMC in Indiana, PA, held weekly prayer meetings. During that hour, they didn't gather primarily for Bible study or fellowship; they gathered to pray - for one another, for the Church, for this broken world. What a wonderful practice! We need to say our prayers, individually, as married couples and families, and communally. Inasmuch as we faithfully pray, the Spirit just might bless our evangelistic efforts.

* SIGNS & WONDERS - My charismatic friends have specific views on what these things are. God bless them; they're one up on the rest of us...who generally have no idea what the writer of Acts means by these words. But we do know that these things were present in the infant Church. My own view is that "signs" and "wonders" are, among other things, seeing lives transformed by the gospel...and being a part of that transformation. Inasmuch as we are seeking the signs and wonders of transformation, the Spirit just might bless our evangelistic efforts.

* SHARING - No one in the Church should ever go hungry, go without health coverage, or not have access to quality education. In spite of what politicians believe (appealing to our own self-centeredness, in my opinion), it is not the government's job to provide those things...it is the job of the Church. When we celebrate the sacrament of baptism, I make it clear that when the congregation takes their vows, they are making a promise to God to see that the needs of the child are met. If the child needs food, it's the congregation's responsiblity to provide. Shelter in the storm? Heat in the winter? Clothes in the cold? Camp in the summer? School supplies in the autumn? A ride to worship or Vacation Bible School? We need to be a people of sharing and responsibility, who take our vows seriously. If a member of our congregation is lacking any need, we should take it personally. Inasmuch as we care for one another's needs, the Spirit just might bless our evangelistic efforts.

The end result? "The Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved." So, it's a wonderful thing to learn new ways of telling the old, old story, but evangelism begins, it seems to me, with the Church being the Church.

"O gracious God, we pray for your holy Church universal, that you would be pleased to fill it with all truth, in all peace. Where it is corrupt; purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it; where it is right, establish it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of him who died and rose again and ever lives to make intercession for us, Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord. Amen."

- The United Methodist Book of Worship (1992), #501

Caravaggio's Gruesome Treasure

"Jesus said to Thomas,
'Put your finger here and see my hands.
Reach out your hand and put it in my side.
Do not doubt but believe.'
Thomas answered him, 'My Lord and my God!'"
- John 20:27-28 (NRSV)

As I've been praying and preparing for worship this Sunday, I have been pondering Caravaggio's famous depiction of "Doubting Thomas". It's a pretty grisly painting. The notion of poking around in someone's abdomen is not a very attractive idea for me.

Thomas could see his Risen Lord before him, and certainly Jesus offered to allow him a closer examination of the wounds. But the Bible never tells us if Thomas actually explored the wounds of Jesus' resurrected body. I'm not sure I would have done so. It's a pretty grotesque proposition.

And yet, perhaps Caravaggio's depiction is correct. Though Thomas could in fact see the Resurrected Jesus standing before him, and surely recognized the tenor of his master's voice, the tilt of his head, and the slant of his smile, perhaps the disciple needed something else confirmed: this was no ghost. This Jesus was flesh and blood, a crucified messiah actually resurrected, not simply a vindicated martyr permitted to roam the earth as an ethereal spirit.

In the Resurrection of Our Lord, the Kingdom of God had truly arrived. In Jesus, God had even conquered Death, that great enemy. A new age had begun.

With that realization, Thomas had no problem in excitedly proclaiming Jesus as Lord and God. Indeed, he truly is.

I am in the midst of reading N.T. Wright's new book Surprised By Hope, a challenging explication of the Doctrine of Resurrection. It's an exciting read, both affirming and agitating. The first thing it's doing for me is forcing me to ask the Easter question, "What does the Resurrection of Jesus and our Doctrine of Resurrection mean in my every day life and ministry?"

I hope it means more to me than simply the promise of "pie in the sky by and by when I die". I want this essential affirmation to inform and dominate all I do for Christ's Kingdom. My fear is that I've not allowed the full implications of resurrection to saturate every aspect of my theology and practice.

So, maybe I can learn from Carvaggio's masterpiece. Maybe I, too, need to "poke around" the flesh of my Risen Lord's body, not only to dispel any doubt, but to reinforce the notion of "resurrection" (as opposed, I presume, to any intrinsic "immortality"), to allow the Spirit to teach and re-teach me, and to allow this doctrine to more fully inform and direct my ministry and life.

Easter Sunday 2008

"Christ the Lord is risen today, Alleluia!
Earth and heaven
in chorus say, Alleluia!
Raise your joys
and triumphs high, Alleluia!
Sing, ye heavens,
and earth reply, Alleluia!

"Love's redeeming work
is done, Alleluia!
Fought the fight,
the battle won, Alleluia!
Death in vain forbids him rise, Alleluia!
Christ has opened paradise, Alleluia!

"Soar we now where Christ has led, Alleluia!
Following our exalted Head, Alleluia!
Made like him, like him we rise, Alleluia!
Ours the cross, the grave, the skies, Alleluia!"

- Charles Wesley, 1739

Good Friday 2008

"O Love divine, what hast thou done!
The immortal God
hath died for me!
The Father's coeternal Son
bore all my sins upon the tree.
Th' immortal God
for me hath died:
My Lord, my Love,
is crucified!

"Is crucified for me and you,
to bring us rebels back to God.
Believe, believe the record true,
ye all are bought with Jesus' blood.
Pardon for all flows from his side:
My Lord, my Love, is crucified!

"Behold him, all ye that pass by,
the bleeding Prince of life and peace!
Come, sinners, see your Savior die,
and say, 'Was ever grief like his?'
Come, feel with me his blood applied:
My Lord, my Love, is crucified!"

- Charles Wesley, 1742

Holy Thursday 2008

"Come and partake the gospel feast,
be saved from sin,
in Jesus rest;
O taste the goodness
of our God,
and eat his flesh
and drink his blood.

"See him set forth
before your eyes;
behold the bleeding sacrifice;
his offered love make haste to embrace,
and freely now be saved by grace.

"Ye who believe his record true
shall sup with him and he with you;
come to the feast, be saved from sin,
for Jesus waits to take you in."

- Charles Wesley, 1747

Rerun: Was Jesus "punished" for us?

"...he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the suffering that brought us peace,
and through his wounds we are healed."
- Isaiah 53:5

This wonderful verse is crucial in Atonement theology, yet it is often, in my view, mistranslated and misunderstood. This can lead to some views of the Atonement which are not Wesleyan and, perhaps, not even Biblical.

The misunderstood word is the Hebrew word "musar". This is a word that traditionally has meant
"correction", "chastisement",
"instruction", "suffering", "rebuke", or "discipline", as from a loving father. In fact, "musar" is used 50 times in the Old Testament, and the King James Version always utilizes one of these English words. The ASV followed suit, as did the RSV about 50 years later.

According to Isaiah 53:5, then, and assuming a messianic perspective, Jesus suffered for us. The verse does not teach that Jesus was punished for us; "punishment" comes from an entirely different Hebrew word which is not used in reference to atonement.

This is an important distinction, because punishment and forgiveness are not synonomous, and salvation hinges on forgiveness in Wesleyan theology. When a person is found guilty of a crime, they are sent to prison, the imprisonment being their punishment. Let us assume that they have been sentenced to two years in prison. At the conclusion of those two years, they freed from their cell, having served out their punishment. It would be inappropriate for a judge to then s ay, "You have been in prison for two years; now, you are forgiven." The criminal was not forgiven; he took his punishment. The same would be true if a person received a fine for a parking violation. If they pay the fine, they have received their punishment, they have paid their debt.

Conversely, if a judge were to say to the criminal, "You don't need to serve two years; you are forgiven", or to the parking violator, "You don't need to pay the fine; you are forgiven", then there would be no punishment. Punishment and forgiveness are not the same thing.

In the 1970s, the Good News Bible (also known as "Today's English Version") appeared, translated quite loosely, a style known as "dynamic equivalence" (as opposed to the more literal KJV and RSV). In this translation, "musar" was rendered in Isaiah 53:5 as "punishment". Still, this can be forgiven, since the Good News translation itself was fairly paraphrastic and not really intended for academic or theological use.

The New International Version (NIV) emerged in 1978 as a legitimate translation alternative to the KJV and RSV. This wonderful translation made the mistake of translating "musar" as "punishment". Why?

Calvinists have held to a particular view of Atonement theology which states that Jesus, on the Cross, received our punishment. Thus, the demands of divine justice were satisfied by the death of Christ. The NIV was translated primarily by Calvinist scholars, so it is only natural that Isaiah 53:5 reflects their theological bias, even if translating "musar" as "punishment" was truly innovative, and without real precedent in the history of the English Bible. Surprisingly, the NRSV followed the NIV upon its release a decade later, as did the HCSB in 2004. I am grateful for the ESV (2001), which renders "musar" as the more traditional "chastisement".

Wesleyans should not forget the actual meaning of the verse. Jesus suffered for us, thus reminding us of the importance of suffering and the terrible pain inflicted upon our loving Lord...not that any debts would be paid through punishment, but rather that we might be truly forgiven. Jesus' suffering was substitutionary in that his suffering, "...became a substitute for something else that would otherwise occur" (in the words of the late J. Kenneth Grider). In other words, Jesus' suffering served as a substitute for our punishment.

In the words of Gordon Olson, "The sufferings and especially the death of Christ were sacrificial, were not the punishment of the law but were equivalent in meaning to it, were representative of it and substituted for it. The demands of the law were not satisfied by it, but the honor of the law was promoted by it as much as this honor would have been promoted by inflicting the legal penalty upon all sinners. The distributive (or vindictive) justice of God was not satisfied by it, but His general (or justice for the public good) as a responsible Moral Governor was perfectly satisfied."

This is more than simply a "moral influence", intended to show God's love and break our hearts, as much of traditional Protestant Liberalism maintains. Jesus suffered and died for a reason...to uphold God's moral sovereignty and to make real forgiveness possible, that we might know salvation. This is truly good news. We can know real forgiveness! Without question, due to our sinfulness, we deserve punishment - but are forgiven, because of the faithful suffering of Our Lord.

I urge my Wesleyan brethren to ponder this perspective as we approach the darkness of Good Friday and the glories of Easter Sunday.

Pick Your Jesus Stereotype

"Just War" Jesus







OR

"Pacifist" Jesus

Food for thought?

"One reason why we Christians argue so much about which hymn to sing, which liturgy to follow, which way to worship is that the commandments teach us to believe that bad liturgy eventually leads to bad ethics. You begin by singing some sappy, sentimental hymn, then you pray some pointless prayer, and the next thing you know you have murdered your best friend."

- Stanley Hauerwas

Studying Jesus with N.T. Wright

"I have argued that the historical quest for Jesus is necessary for the health of the church. I grieve that in the church both in England and in America there seem to be so few - among a church that is otherwise so well-educated in so many spheres, with more educational resources and helps than ever before - who are prepared to give the time and attention to these questions that they deserve. I long for the day when seminarians will again take delight in the detailed and fascinated study of the first century. If that century was not the moment when history reached its greatest climax, the church is simply wasting its time.

"This is not a task simply for a few backroom specialists. If church leaders themselves spent more time studying and teaching Jesus and the Gospels, a good many other things we worry about in day-to-day church life would be seen in their proper light. It has far too often been assumed that church leaders stand above the nitty-gritty of biblical and theological study; they have done all that, we implicitly suppose, before they come to office, and now they simply have to work out the 'implications'. They then find themselves spending countless hours at their desks running the church as a business, raising money or working at dozens of other tasks, rather than poring over their foundation documents and enquiring ever more closely about the Jesus whom they are supposed to be following and teaching others to follow.

"I believe, to the contrary, that each generation has to wrestle afresh with the question of Jesus, not least its biblical roots if it is to be truly the church at all - not that we should engage in abstract dogmatics to the detriment of our engagement with the world, but that we should discover more and more of who Jesus was and is, precisely in order to be equipped to engage with the world that he came to save. And this is a task for the whole church, especially those appointed to leadership and teaching roles within it."

- N.T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus:

Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is (1999)

While recuperating, I've read some things and watched some movies. I enjoyed my annual viewing of the William Wyler / Charlton Heston classic Ben Hur (1959) and I've almost finished N.T. Wright's book The Challenge of Jesus (1999).

Together, these works have challenged me. Ben Hur is, for me, one of the best "Jesus movies", because we magnificently see how Jesus' work...his mercy, his hands, his Cross...intersects and transforms the life of a man in need of redemption.

In his book, Bishop Wright argues that we need to focus more on Jesus...not just in a prayerful, devotional way (though that's crucially important)...but as a subject for serious, ongoing study by church leaders worldwide. We ought to be studying more about Jesus and his times than we do; we ought to spend more time studying Jesus and trying to better understand who he was and is and what his mission is truly all about.

Most church leaders I know would agree with that; certainly, all evangelicals would agree with that, definitionally.

Then why do so many of us (myself included) read book after book about emerging trends, leadership development, worship practice, dogmatic theology, or "how to build your business into something really neat"?

Don't get me wrong: none of that is bad. And we need to read that stuff as well. But how often do we read about Jesus and the first century? How often do we blog about these things? And yet, Bishop Wright is correct: that was "when history reached its greatest climax".

Maybe, if we are to really "believe again", we should delve more deeply into Jesus, into finding out who he was and is. I'm not talking about antiquated pursuits like the so-called "Jesus Seminar", which are fascinating but ultimately fruitless. There is excellent Jesus research out there today, and I, for one, have been lax in my attention to it. I think we've gotten lax, actually, as a Conference - remember when we engaged in Bible study at Conference each year? Whatever happened to that?

At any rate, I'm hoping to read more of this stuff in 2008 and see where the Spirit takes me. I want to find out more and more about Jesus and the world in which he walked. If anyone wants to join me on this "quest", feel free. And if you'd like to suggest any particular books which challenged you in this area, I'd love to hear about them. Maybe a "Jesus Book Club"...

Bronchitis

Ugh. I've been struggling for almost a week now with what I thought was a chest cold, but turned out to be bacterial bronchitis.

I haven't been out too much, but did manage to get to worship and preach today. Not my best; I was more than a little crispy. I found myself wishing I'd made other arrangements. Nevertheless, I am now on an antibiotic and a strong cough syrup and hope to be on the mend soon.

Thank God I haven't had any trouble relieving myself.

Farewell William F. Buckley, Jr.

God bless William F. Buckley, Jr. (1925-2008).

William F. Buckley, Jr. died this morning, at his desk, in his study, at his home in Stamford, Connecticut. Buckley was one of the most fascinating political figures of the 20th century, and he is largely responsible for founding the "modern conservative movement". His work, along with Russell Kirk's brilliant 1953 book The Conservative Mind, gave political conservatism in America an intellectual foundation which had been largely lacking previously. Buckley's impact on American politics simply cannot be overstated.

I first encountered Buckley's work in college, reading his brief 1961 book Up from Liberalism. I found the book intriguing not only because of Buckley's famed masterful use of the English language, but because he engaged the political opinions held by Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the patron saints of 20th century American liberalism, without attacking her personally. It occurred to me that Buckley was a true rarity in today's world; he was a gentleman.

Through books (like 1951's God and Man at Yale, a prophetic indictment of American higher education which has only been proven more correct in the ensuing years), magazine commentaries (he founded National Review in 1955), and television appearances (such as PBS' Firing Line and frequent guest spots on The Tonight Show with his friend Johnny Carson), Buckley spread his brand of political conservatism from coast to coast, becoming a tremendous influence on important figures such as Irving Kristol, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Rush Limbaugh, among others. He believed in giving as much power as possible to people rather than the state, and that in every meaningful area of life, one's character and personal integrity matters.

Four things have always impressed me about William F. Buckley, Jr.

First, I was always dazzled by his eloquence, both onscreen and in print.

Second, he was apparently a devoted Roman Catholic who faithfully attended Mass, and whose political beliefs sprung from his faith, not simply from his own experience. I wish we had more Americans who took their faith as seriously.

Third, his basic political opinions helped form my own. I believe wholeheartedly in having "checks" on institutions in order to prevent too much concentrated power, and keeping taxes low and people of integrity in place seem excellent ways of doing just that.

Fourth, he was a real "renaissance man". Though best known as a political philosopher, he was a talented musician, a best selling novelist, CIA agent, and a first rate celebrity, who was always able to laugh at himself. I love the idea of being involved in - and perhaps even good at - several things.

America is better for having had William F. Buckley, Jr. as a citizen; the Church is better for having him as a servant and a model of piety. His legacy will last for decades to come.

Farewell Myron Cope

God bless Myron Cope (1929-2008).

Myron Cope died this morning in Mt. Lebanon, PA. Western Pennsylvanians will surely know Myron as the longtime radio "voice of the Steelers", the man who created the "Terrible Towel", and a man who was as much a fixture of the "Steelers Nation" as the Rooney family and the old steel mills.

Myron was an award-winning journalist for Sports Illustrated but really rose to fame announcing Steelers games in the 1970s. He was an integral part of the Steelers mythos as they won four Super Bowls in that era, becoming the greatest dynasty in NFL history. He is as important to the pride of Pittsburgh as Gene Kelly, Fred Rogers, Andy Warhol, and August Wilson, and (almost) as important a figure in Pittsburgh sports as Terry Bradshaw, Mean Joe Greene, Chuck Noll, Roberto Clemente, and Mario Lemieux. He was inducted into the National Radio Hall of Fame in 2005, the same year he received the Pete Rozelle Award from the Pro Football Hall of Fame for his contributions to the game.

"He doesn't play, he doesn't put on a pair of pads, but he's revered probably as much or more in Pittsburgh than Franco, all the guys," said Jerome Bettis. "Everybody probably remembers Myron more than the greatest players, and that's an incredible compliment."

Like many Steelers fans, I often watched the TV broadcast of the games with the volume turned down, turning to Myron on the radio to get a more "authentic" Steelers experience. His retirement a few years ago was a sad day. I'm glad my kids got to hear Myron a bit before he retired; his voice, antics, and personality are a part of my childhood I'll treasure. Hearing his voice still takes me back. Today is a sad day for the Steelers Nation.

New Banner by Kate

On the left of my image:
Marvin Gaye, Martin Luther King, Johnny Cash, Chewbacca, John Wesley, Thomas Oden, John Howard Yoder, Jack Ham, Hawkman, The Beatles, Albert Outler, Theodore Roosevelt, Athanasius, William Shatner

On the right of my image:
Richard Allen, Augustine, Fanny Crosby, Charles Wesley, Bob Zilhaver, The Monkees, Bob Dylan, Cornelius, Bono, Francis Asbury, Hugo Grotius, John Wayne, Thomas Coke, Marva Dawn, N.T. Wright, William Willimon, Thomas Cranmer, Ronald Reagan, Stanley Hauerwas

Thanks, Kate. Nice Sunday afternoon project.

A Valentine

"An excellent wife who can find?
She is far more precious than jewels.
The heart of her husband trusts in her,
and he will have no lack of gain.
She does him good, and not harm,
all the days of her life...
She opens her hand to the poor
and reaches out her hands to the needy...
Strength and dignity are her clothing,
and she laughs at the time to come.
She opens her mouth with wisdom,
and the teaching of kindness
is on her tongue.
She looks well to the ways of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
Her children rise up and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
'Many women have done excellently,
but you surpass them all.'
Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
Give her of the fruit of her hands,
and let her works praise her in the gates."

- from Proverbs 31:10-31 (ESV)

One Kind of Folks

I have been disturbed by some of the political coverage regarding the Democrat presidential nomination. I haven't followed it all very intently, but as I write this, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem to be in a "virtual tie", with Sen. Obama holding a slight edge in the number of delegates needed to claim the nomination.

Sen. Obama is a decent man with a sincere faith in Christ; he also overflows with charisma and is one of the most inspiring American politicians perhaps since Ronald Reagan. I disagree with his stated positions on several issues, but I think he might make a fine national leader (as I've posted before, a candidate's personal character ought to be a key reason for support or non-support, and Sen. Obama seems be a man of integrity). I may well end up voting for him in November (I haven't yet decided; November's a long way off).

What bothers me is the way in which "the race issue" has been portrayed in the media.

Some analysts have said that many are voting for Sen. Obama because of his race; some may be rejecting him for the same reason. Some analysts have been echoing familiar words, saying that people are (or should be) voting for the Illinois senator because "it's time" to have an African-American president.

In short, their data suggests that some people are voting for Sen. Obama just because of race.

Hearing that, I was reminded of Annual Conference last year. As we were getting near the end of the voting for General Conference delegates, it occurred to some attentive folks that our delegation was - so far - all white. It seemed that clergy were voting for representatives largely based on theology, rather than race. More than once, I heard well meaning sisters and brothers say, "We need to have a person of color on our delegation."

While I certainly support diversity, the questions in my mind became:

"What if the only candidates of color have theological commitments with which I'm uncomfortable?"

"What if we have no appropriate candidates of color?"

"Should we vote for someone just because of their race?"

"Is inclusiveness now such an important theological issue that it may even trump historic Wesleyan doctrines such as, for example, Incarnation or holiness?"

I posted these words last June:

"If we fail to be racially inclusive, we fail to be the Church. This is not a political matter; it is a spiritual and theological matter. But, is inclusivity a greater concern than, say, doctrinal faithfulness, or effective leadership, or relational gifts? Inclusiveness is a part of orthopraxy; it surely does not comprise the totality of orthopraxy."

Mind you, the sisters and brothers who were concerned about race are good people. They are fine pastors who do excellent work. But, I still wondered if it was appropriate to vote for someone just because of race.

Isn't that the same sin as rejection because of race?

"Racism: Discrimination or prejudice based on race."
- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

So, to discriminate based on race is, by definition, racism.

"Discrimination: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit."
- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

The problem becomes obvious. In our well-meaning efforts to fight institutional racism, which is very real, and exists both in secular government and in the Church, we may sometimes act in ways that could be deemed racist.

In our efforts to fight this sin, in both Church and society, have we made the mistake of practicing the sin?

That's my fear.

I often think about and refer to the great words of Martin Luther King:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Do we dishonor King's legacy when we judge someone - well or poorly - by the color of their skin? Shouldn't character (and, in the Church, theology) have more to do with it?

One of Robyn's favorite books (and it's a favorite for our son Christian, as well) is the classic To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee. There's a quote in the book that sticks with me as I think about judging or voting based on race:

“I think there's just one kind of folks. Folks.”

A beautiful statement. How true it is. Can we get past the politics of race and judge by character (and, in the Church, theological commitments)? Should we? Or does the notion of "inclusiveness", which isn't bad or incorrect, eclipse the imperative to judge based on merit, character, and, when appropriate, policy or theology?

My prayer is that Americans ask themselves these questions throughout this election year. I'd like the next president to be elected because he or she is viewed by the people as having the highest integrity and best ideas of all the candidates in the field. I'd like our Conference in the future to vote openly, without anonymous letters crafted out of fear of bureaucratic reprisals, without "discernment processes" designed to elect any particular delegation. I'd like us to have the confidence and assurance and love to openly talk about "hot button issues" like theology and sex, trusting one another to practice prayerful discernment when we cast our votes.

My prayer is that we can celebrate race without fear. I am proud of my Scottish heritage; I am certain that Sen. Obama is equally proud of his own heritage.

I remember the words of Bishop Thomas Bickerton at our Annual Conference last June:

"I love you. I love you when I like you, and when I don’t like you. I love you when I agree with you and when I don’t. I love you when you lift me up and when you make me hurt. This is at the center of my theology.”

May these words resonate in the Church in 2008, regarding race and other equally difficult issues. And, through love, may we finally come to the place where we recognize that there is truly only "one kind of folks".