Frederick Buechner On The Issue Of Abortion

I found this quote on my friend Justin's response to the violent murder of Dr. Tiller: A Noggin' Full Of Noodles: On Abortion And Murdering Abortionists:

I value Frederick Buechner's thoughts on abortion, and I think they really ring true with what I have seen and heard today:

Speaking against abortion someone has said, "no one should be denied access to the great feast of life," to which the rebuttal, obviously enough, is that life isn't much of a feast for children born to people who don't want them or can't afford them or are one way or another incapable of taking care of them and will one way or another probably end up abusing or abandoning them.

And yet, and yet. Who knows what treasure life may hold for even such children as those, or what treasures even such children of those may grow up and become? To bear a child even under the best of circumstances, or to abort a child even under the worst-- the risks are hair-raising either way and the results are incalculable.

How would Jesus himself decide, he who is hailed as Lord of life and yet who says that it is not the ones who, like an abortionist, can kill the body we should fear, but the ones who can kill body and soul together the way the world into which they are born can kill unloved and unwanted children (Mt. 10:28)?

There is perhaps no better illustration of the truth that in an imperfect world: there are no perfect solutions. All we can do, as Luther said, is 'sin bravely', which is to say, (a) know that neither to have the child nor not to have the child is without the possibility of tragic consequences for everybody, yet (b) be brave in knowing also that not even that can put us beyond the forgiving love of God. (Beyond Words: Abortion Entry. Emphasis his)

Here are some other responses to Dr. Tiller's violent death:

Shuck and Jive: Condolences for the Tiller Family

Laura Barclay, a fellow CBF Blogger posted this entry to The Fellowship Portal Blog: The Stain of Violence

Same-Sex Marriage And Separation Of Church And State

My friend Justin and I are having an interesting discussion on thoughts from this video:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Douglas Kmiec
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Gay Marriage Commercial

over at his Blog. (Justin and I have been friends ever since our days at Campbell and through the years have had interesting discussions). Here are some of Justin's thoughts on the subject at hand:

Should Clergy Perform (LEGAL) Marriages?

I am ordained clergy and one of my favorite parts of being ordained is the unique role that I can play in officiating a wedding. I've already done 2 this year, and there's more to come. There is something so holy to me to when I walk a couple through the vows that they chose/wrote for each other as they look lovingly in each others eyes.

However, as of late there has been an interesting point being pointed out by many in the church. The latest is found on Tony Jones' blog entitled: Doug Kmiec Is Right: Clergy Should Not Perform (Legal) Marriages.

In this Tony points out some interesting and thought-provoking observations about clergy and marriage. He says:

In no other fuction as a clergyperson did I function as an extension of the government -- not when I was baptizing, burying, counseling, or communing. Only when performing a wedding did I, with the stroke of a pen, make official a legally binding contract that, in the eyes of the state, allowed that couple to enjoy certain privileges like the ability to file joint tax returns, visit one another in the hospital, and receive joint health care benefits from one of the partner's employers.....
I do find it odious that clergypersons are called upon, in this one instance, to act as agents of the state.

He goes on to conclude:

Clergy and churches, on the other hand, should have no part in legally-binding contracts. Instead, religious professionals should bless and sanctify unions and partnerships that fit within their religious traditions as part of their sacerdotal functions.

Of course part of this is brought on by the issue of same sex marriage. Douglas Kmiec on The Colbert Report, points out that "the state has an obligation to treat all of its citizens equally and to preserve the principle of equality." In essence, he is saying that by allowing the polemic Church to decide who can and can't be married that the State is not upholding its role of equality for all citizens. This is something of which I had not considered, but has been thought-provoking to me.

By watching the video and reading all of Tony's blog, you will see that what they are suggesting is a separation of the two roles. This allows the state to practice equality, while allowing the Church to decide according to their own convictions and traditions. That would mean that different traditions would bless and marry same sex couples, and others would not. If a couple would not be recognized/blessed by their own church/tradition, then they could seek out another tradition. Either way, they would still have equal rights as heterosexual unions, because according to the State, all couples would have to go through the state for the legal union of marriage. (Read Full Post: Here).

Here are some of my thoughts from my comments on that post:

TheoPoet said...
Interesting post. I agree with all you said and I am sure officiating marriages is a joy. However, I would tend to think that officiating over sham weddings wouldn't be so joyful and by that I mean people getting married for all the wrong reasons. Lets face it same-sex marriage isn't a threat to the institution of marriage but divorce and people getting married for all the wrong reasons are. I wonder how much this plays into Kmiec's views. It seems that we spit on marriage when we allow sham weddings to happen but same-sex marriage is fought over and homosexuals with a genuine love for each-other are denied the right to marry. Isn't it amazing how marriages of convenience are always granted such as Britney Spears' 24 hour marriage or even weirder the woman who married the Eiffel Tower but not for homosexuals who are committed to each-other with genuine love.

I also wonder how literally we take the phrase: "Into this holy estate these two persons present now come to be joined. If any person can show just cause why they may not be joined together – let them speak now or forever hold their peace." from the Traditional Wedding Vow is taken. As for me I've never seen any wedding where anyone dared to take the phrase to heart and answer it---perhaps out of fear of being labeled "jealous" or a "hater" or some other insult---although, I do know of instances where perhaps the phrase should have been answered honestly and thereby preventing messy divorce or some other form of violence.

TheoPoet said...
Bringing my comments back to the issue of separation of church and state, I believe that those who oppose same-sex marriage don't understand the concept. It involves exactly as you said:

This allows the state to practice equality, while allowing the Church to decide according to their own convictions and traditions. That would mean that different traditions would bless and marry same sex couples, and others would not. If a couple would not be recognized/blessed by their own church/tradition, then they could seek out another tradition. Either way, they would still have equal rights as heterosexual unions, because according to the State, all couples would have to go through the state for the legal union of marriage.

Also, interestingly enough our Puritan fore-bearers believed in separation of marriage and church:

The English Puritans who founded Massachusetts in 1630 formed a society as committed to religion as any in history. But for them, marriage was a civil union, a contract, not a sacred rite.
...
Early Boston’s Puritans would not have sanctioned gay marriage, because they would not have had the conceptual categories to make sense of the idea. They condemned and occasionally punished homosexual behavior as a sin, a deviation from the procreative function of sexuality. But in this light, homosexual behavior was not categorically different in their eyes from other forms of sexual transgression, from premarital sex to masturbation. Sexual behavior was something a person did, an action of the moment, not a form of identity or a defining characteristic of a person’s nature. Race, by contrast, was a category that New England’s Puritans often did regard as a form of identity, a defining characteristic that separated Europeans from Africans or Native Americans. In this respect, they were no different from most people of that era. And yet Puritans like Samuel Sewall, a judge on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and author of the first antislavery pamphlet in America, abhorred the laws barring interracial marriage. He fought to grant legal recognition to the marriages of slaves and free people of color. Sewall stands at the beginning of a proud tradition in which Massachusetts judges used the court’s power to decide cases in favor of equal rights for all. In Sewall’s view, all people "are the Sons and Daughters of the First Adam, the Brethren and Sisters of the Last Adam, and the Offspring of God; They ought to be treated with a Respect agreeable."

Massachusetts history reminds us that what we commonly call marriage today was initially, and quite deliberately, constructed as a form of civil union. Although marriage was a fundamental aspect of these highly religious people’s lives and the foundational element of their social order, its regulation was separate from the church. The Puritan founders understood marriage as a social institution that needed adjustment according to changing circumstances, and they left the state to do this important work.

In every region of colonial North America, devout believers fought over how to define true religion, and where to draw the line between church and state. In some of the smaller and initially more homogeneous colonies like Massachusetts and Connecticut, religious uniformity was enforced by the state. But taken collectively, no single religion in colonial America ever had the power to decide for everyone, everywhere, what was sacred. As a practical matter, the traditional practice of state-enforced religious uniformity proved to be unworkable in the new American republic. It was this de facto diversity that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enshrined in federal law.

Different religious communities have long maintained different standards governing who can marry, whether interfaith marriages are permissible, what the obligations of marriage entail, and when or if divorces can be granted. We should not forget that the English Reformation began in 1529 with a conflict between Henry VIII and Pope Clement VII over whether Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon could be annulled. Henry said yes, Clement said no, and in that dispute a new religious tradition, with new ways of defining the relationship between church and state, was born. The idea of legalized homosexual marriage is no doubt innovative. Some religious traditions reject it, while others support it. But the same was true of past adjustments to the legal definition of marriage, such as the recognition of interracial marriage. The traditions pioneered by Boston judges–a legacy that removed marriage from church control–have made these legal adjustments to social changes possible. A policy wherein all marriages are considered as civil unions would be consistent with America’s strongest traditions regarding civil liberties, equal rights, the separation of church and state, and the freedom of religion. (Read full article: Here).

It wasn't until later when theocratic Calvinism took over that marriage became entrenched in a blend of church and state language as it had always been in the Catholic/sacradotal traditions.

For all those interested, join the conversation over here: A Noggin' Full Of Noodles: Should Clergy Perform (LEGAL) Marriages?.

Why Biblical Criticism Is Important For The Church

Here are some quotes from James F. McGrath's recent post: Exploring Our Matrix: Review of Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted:

In his latest book, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them), Bart Ehrman seeks to introduce a wider audience to important aspects of the New Testament. The contradictions, tensions and diversity of viewpoints in the Bible which Ehrman highlights, and the historical-critical approach he outlines, are common knowledge to Biblical scholars, as well as to anyone who had studied in a mainline seminary in the past half century or so. Yet more often than not, such information seems to fail to filter through to the wider populace. The information Ehrman presents is not at odds with Christian faith, although it is at odds with the claims that some Christians make about the Bible. Yet ironically, those Christians who affirm the Bible’s importance seem to put no greater effort into familiarizing themselves with the details of the Bible’s contents, much less scholarship that might aid in understanding it.

Ehrman recounts in the book how he entered seminary as a conservative Christian, ready to resist the attacks liberal scholars would wage against the Bible. Instead, he discovered that this scholarly way of viewing the Bible in fact made better sense and did more justice to what one actually finds in the Bible (p.6). And so Ehrman, like many other students of the Bible from conservative backgrounds (including myself), found his view of the Bible being challenged by the evidence itself (p.xi).

Because of his experience of conservative Evangelicalism, Ehrman is able to address not only the New Testament and other ancient writings from the same period, but also the strategies some Christians have developed for avoiding the natural implications of the Biblical evidence – for instance, “harmonizing”, which usually involves creating one’s own Gospel out of the four found in the New Testament, combining them so that one ends up with a version that isn’t what any of the canonical Gospels say (pp.7, 69-70).

Through the chapters of his book, Ehrman shows how the view of Jesus evolved with time in early Christianity (pp.73-82, 245-247, 260), showing in the process what is wrong with C. S. Lewis’ famous “trilemma” that Jesus must be either “liar, lunatic or Lord”: it assumes that Jesus made the claim to be divine attributed to him in the Gospel of John and only there among the canonical Gospels. A historian cannot have this confidence, and thus must add a fourth option, namely that this claim attributed to Jesus is a “legend” (pp.141-142). The nature of historical study, and its inability to affirm miracles as probable since they are by definition improbable, is also explained (pp.175-177).

In relation to this here is a post by Tony Cartledge: Baptists Today Blogs: Biblical criticism, when the new becomes old. My friend Justin's comment is of particular interest here:

Joshua Brown said...
Dr. Cartledge,

I'm looking forward to class today to hear how you handle the issue of biblical criticism. Those of us fortunate enough to study Religion, specifically Christianity, are well aware of the true nature of biblical criticism. However, as you stated, today's negative connotation of "criticism" makes it difficult to bring such scholarship into the church. Perhaps today's church often feels that scholars desire to tear down their faith instead of enlightening it. Whatever the reason, it's clear that the "older" (and newer)critical methods are lost on the largest population of Christianity: the congregation members. In a time where we give the people in the pews such power by telling them they can read and interpret the Bible for themselves, many ministers have made our congregations fear the very tools meant to help them in their task. Shame, shame, shame.
January 12, 2009 12:02 PM

Justin said...
Joshua said:
"it's clear that the "older" (and newer)critical methods are lost on the largest population of Christianity: the congregation members."

You have captured perfectly why I have feel called to the Church and to education (in the broadest sense of the word). There needs to be more and more people helping bridge the gap in responsible Bible Study!!! You've hit the nail on the head. Its not that they CAN'T do it, its that no one has (will) teach them how!

good comment!
j
January 12, 2009 1:43 PM

Anyways, while I agree with my pastor that from a pastoral level---historical criticism isn't helpful when dealing with congregational needs---however, I do believe that on an instructional level that pastors that are aware of biblical critical methods should at least make clear how these critical methods are of no danger to the congregations' faith and how biblical criticism can inform our faith. Also, I believe this is necessary to prevent the kinds of bibliolatry and abuses of the bible that is rampant in all types of churches, nowadays. This is also one of the reasons that I like Justin "have feel called to the Church and to education (in the broadest sense of the word)" and another reason why I started blogging. Also like Joshua, I have experienced first hand how "today's negative connotation of "criticism" makes it difficult to bring such scholarship into the church" when I tried to inform a small group I participated in about biblical critical methods. Most wouldn't hear of it as they believe the bible is clear and literally says what it means in a literal/face value sense. Most in the laity are also unaware of all the complexities and subtle nuances of the transmission/collation/translation/interpretation processes within an academic/scholarly hermeneutical framework of the bible. I think this all goes back to something Justin once said that there seems to be a disconnect between academic theology and the church. I agree and that's why we need more people like William Barclay and Bart D. Ehrman to make academic theology accessible to the church.

Blog Action Day 2008 : Increasing Poverty Awareness

See: A Noggin' Full Of Noodles: Below The Line, Blog Action Day 2008 Round-up and Blog Action Day: Poverty and Biblical Economics and rlp's blog for starters.


Blog Action Day 2008 Poverty from Blog Action Day on Vimeo.---thanks, Justin for the link to this video---I found it on your Blog post.

-Appropriate Scripture Verses To Read Over:

Matthew 6:24-34-NRSV

24“No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.
25“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? 28And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, 29yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. 30But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’ 32For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34“So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today.

And: Mark 14:7
7For you always have the poor with you, and you can show kindness to them whenever you wish; but you will not always have me

And: Luke 18:22
22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."

And here are some of my earlier posts on poverty:
TheoPoetic Musings: Relationships needed to break poverty cycle

TheoPoetic Musings: Justice of jubilee in Luke

TheoPoetic Musings: Thousands turn to online prayer during economic crisis

TheoPoetic Musings: Increase In Homeless Families

Here are some more of my offerings for Blog Action Day 2008:

Here is an article about the CBF's contribution to poverty relief.

Anyways, I like Dr. Queen and the New Baptist Covenant believe that relationships are needed to break the poverty cycle. Secondly, education is key as in:

Mentors, who build relationships with and help guide those seeking to improve their lives, are an essential part of the decade-old Christian Women's Job Corps and its counterpart, Christian Men's Job Corps, said Cara Lynn Vogel of Woman's Missionary Union of North Carolina.

The job-training ministry sites are separate by gender and vary in emphasis by location, Vogel said of the WMU ministry efforts in which "women mentor women and men mentor men."

"The issue of poverty can be overwhelming," said Vogel. "But more importantly, we need to talk about solutions."

The solutions found in the Christian Jobs Corps efforts are built on mentors encouraging and enabling participants to develop through spiritual nurture, health and nutrition, education and job skills training. (See my post: Relationships needed to break poverty cycle---for full context).

Another thing that is needed is farming/gardening/technical agricultural skills need to be taught as a way of self-providing food. Affordable land for growing goes along with that.

Here are some thoughts from an interesting article:

THE PROBLEM OF POVERTY

With the saying in the Bible that the love of money is the root of all evil…and many strong words against the rich and powerful, it may seem strange to some that God would be concerned about economics.

But the evil is not in the money or wealth itself. As with many other things, it is the way that money is used that causes it to be productive or destructive. One writer said it this way:

When we choose the Lord as our sole master, He does not remove our money. In fact, He takes the money and transforms it into an ally. The same dollar that places a bet, pays a prostitute, or purchases "crack" cocaine also buys a Bible, digs a well, or supports a missionary. The same dollar the shrewd manager uses to pave his way into a golden future, a shrewd disciple uses to invest in eternal friendships. But the difference is the product of a choice of masters.

I have written in my e-mail list some about the extreme unfair trade policies among nations currently and issues that are similar. I said economic principles are an integral part of the Bible. This article shows in some detail some of the Biblical principals of economics and why they are critically relevant for us here and now today. They are NOT just ancient ideas that were a nice idea at one time. They are the ONLY way to solve many of the serious problems that our world has today!!

Unfortunately, many people and even some Christians and Christian leaders don’t think that these principles can work today. To answer this doubt, I have collected quotes and thoughts from philosophers and thinkers of many persuasions ranging from the Bible and Christians, to atheists to people like Confucius to show as clearly as possible why the Bible’s economic principles are part of the most basic human rights that each person on this planet deserves and why they will resolve the problems that we face. There are very few other concepts that have such wide acceptance among people of such differing philosophies. This makes it all the more critical to understand and implement these principles.

When God’s principles are ignored the serious problems that we have today such as terrorism, crime, starvation and others are inevitable. After you read these, you will no longer be ignorant about the main cause (but by no means the only cause) of some of the most serious problems in our world.

Today, poverty is at one of the worst points in history. There are a very few extremely rich people and millions of extremely poor. And some of us who are the privileged wrongly in a way live in a “matrix” of our own way of life and we cannot or do not wish to see the extreme suffering that is going on worldwide to the majority of the world’s people. This little thought is illuminating:

If you have food in the refrigerator, clothes on your back, a roof overhead and a place to sleep ... you are richer than 75% of this world.

If you have money in the bank, in your wallet, and spare change in a dish some place ... you are among the top 8% of the world's wealthy.

If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation... you are ahead of 500 million people in the world.

If you can attend a church meeting without fear of harassment, arrest, torture, or death ... you are more blessed than three billion people in the world.

If you can read this message, you just received a double blessing that someone was thinking of you, and furthermore ... you are more blessed than over two billion people in the world that cannot read at all.

It is doubtful if the gap between the rich and poor in the world has ever been larger than it is now on a world wide scale. And this is not at all by accident. It is inevitable because of the rejection of God’s economic principles outlined in the Bible and practiced to some extant by many ancient cultures which did not have the destitute poverty like we see so commonly today.

Here are some songs which speak to the issue of poverty:

---This Land Is Your Land-Bruce Springsteen

---Only A Pawn In Their Game-Bob Dylan

---The Boxer-Simon And Garfunkel

---Badlands-Bruce Springsteen

---The Ghost Of Tom Joad-Bruce Springsteen

---I Wish We'd All Been Ready-Larry Norman

---Camel Through A Needle's Eye-Larry Norman

---Letter to the Church-Larry Norman

---The Great American Novel-Larry Norman

---Where The Street Have No Name-U2

Continued in next post: TheoPoetic Musings: Together We Can Make A Difference: Song Lyrics About Poverty#links#links.

It's Time! October 5th

The reason I linked to Justin's Blog post for my last post is because on Oct. 5th we begin our church-wide missional study.

This Summer, I participated in an intensive Gospel study on the Book of John as part of the prep work for that and came to similar results as Justin's post.

I've already posted most of my John study on Facebook and will start posting it on my Blog in Oct. and finish, where I left off.

A Noggin' Full Of Noodles: TRUE<

A Noggin' Full Of Noodles: TRUE<

Coldplay's Revolutionary Christianity

On the heels of Justin's excellent post from---Wednesday, August 20, 2008---Cartoon Of The Day. I'd like to share this interesting bit from a Wikipedia article:

The magazine Q asked Chris Martin about the line "I know Saint Peter won't call my name" sung in "Viva la Vida". Martin replied: "It's about… You're not on the list. I was a naughty boy. It's always fascinated me that idea of finishing your life and then being analyzed on it. And this idea runs throughout most religions. That's why people blow up buildings. Because they think they're going to get lots of virgins. I always feel like saying, just join a band (laughs). That is the most frightening thing you could possibly say to somebody. Eternal damnation. I know about this stuff because I studied it. I was into it all. I know it. It's still mildly terrifying to me. And this is serious."[1] When asked about the song, bass guitarist Guy Berryman said, "It’s a story about a king who’s lost his kingdom, and all the album’s artwork is based on the idea of revolutionaries and guerrillas."[2]

This seems to tie in nicely with some of Doug Pagitt's thoughts from his Way Of The Master radio interview:

---(Part 1)


---(Part 2)


And for those of you who have yet to hear Coldplay's new song here are the full lyrics:

I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning I sleep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own

I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy's eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing
"Now the old king is dead, long live the king"

One minute I held the key
Next the walls were closed on me
And I discovered that my castles stand
Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand

I hear Jerusalem bells a-ringing
Roman cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can't explain
Once you'd gone there was never
Never an honest word
That was when I ruled the world

It was a wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People couldn't believe what I'd become

Revolutionaries wait
For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh, who would ever want to be king?

I hear Jerusalem bells a-ringing
Roman cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can't explain
I know St. Peter won't call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world

Ohh...

Hear Jerusalem bells a-ringing
Roman cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can't explain
I know St. Peter won't call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world

Ooh...

You can also watch the music video:



Coldplay's new song also reminds me of John Lennon's "Imagine." So here is a thought that came to my mind: the question is although, eternal life and the afterlife are important to our Christian beliefs, shouldn't we as Christians focus on living the life of Christ in the here and now rather than turning Christianity into one more punishment and rewards religion among the many others?