Deliverance from Egypt

The Exodus story.  It has inspired and enamoured generations of people, including 20th-century America.  Most people can tell the basics of this story, even if they did not grow up in church--a prophet named Moses was called by God to bring plagues upon Egypt to get the Pharaoh to release the Israelites from slavery, and led them into the wilderness to the Promised Land of Israel.  It is popular in children's ministry as a lesson that easily translates into coloring books and various crafts.  Unfortunately, because so many of us are very familiar with this story, we tend to re-read it the same way over and over again as we were taught in our childhood.  In doing so, we often lose the key messages that the Exodus is trying to communicate to us.

1. In the Exodus, we see over and over again that God cannot stop thinking about his people.  Not only that, God has a vision that even the people do not have--escape from slavery--and moves mountains to see that vision come to pass.  In fact, we get a rare insight to God's thoughts in Exodus 13:17a--"God thought, If the people face war, they may change their minds and return to Egypt."  For the Israelites, returning to Egypt is frequently running through their minds, especially later in their journey.  We forget that we, like the Israelites, often fear the future in the wilderness and lack trust in the unseen God.  We would rather go where we have physical and earthly security than to trust in God and the vision that he has in our world.  We forget that God, since his love for us is infinite, is constantly working in this world to provide for us, because he can't get us out of his mind.  

Have you ever loved someone deeply?  Unconditionally, or as close as we can get to that in this life?  This love pales in comparison to God's love for you, for each of us.  What would you do for someone you loved deeply?  Would you support them and give them all you had?  Would you grieve with them when they were hurt and suffering?  This is how God feels on a galactic, divine scale.  But no matter how much you love and support someone, what if that person does not receive your love and support?  Does it not make your heart cringe?  Listen to the Israelites in 16:3--"If only we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by our fleshpots and ate our fill of bread".  Wow...the Israelites wanted death more than God's vision?  Sounds like...what most humans choose each and every day.  I don't have children yet, but if I had children who would rather die than allow me to provide for them, I would be crushed and disheartened beyond understanding.

2. While God can't stop thinking about his people, his people can't stop thinking about...Egypt.  They want to return to their land of Egypt where they are comfortable and eat their fill of food, despite their slavery.  (Did you remember, as you were reading Exodus, that the Israelites not once ask God for deliverance from their slavery?!)  Egypt for the Israelites was earthly security, and the wilderness was a journey where they had to rely solely upon God.  Relying upon God requires faith in God's hands working around us, and since God is invisible, and Egypt is visible, they had much more faith in Egypt. But if we think of Egypt not as a place in the ancient Middle East, but rather a motif for worldliness, we see that people today are no different from the Israelites.

Egypt for us today is the world, a place where human desires are fulfilled and God's will is forgotten or used purely to gain comfort.  For us today, Egypt is relying upon ourselves to fulfull our destiny, our own salvation--plenty of choice food, excellent education, hefty income and trips to exotic vacations in fancy automobiles.  Egypt represents all that we desire for ourselves--security, and plenty of it.  Egypt has it all!!  In the ancient world, Egypt is the bread basket of the region, which means plenty of wealth and power, and the political security that was unmatched by any other nation.  Egypt is a place where we can worship whatever gods we choose, even ourselves, so long as we also worship the leaders of the government (the Pharaoh in the case of the Exodus time period).  But Egypt comes with a cost--slavery to the forces of this world, the principalities which bring sin and death, all sorts of evil.

3. God is willing to understand the Israelites' lack of faith and forgive them their sins, but he is interested in delivering them from the slavery they don't even want to escape.  In exchange for this deliverance from slavery, God wants the Israelites to change their culture, to make a difference in the way they live their lives, away from worldliness and into holiness.  But this holiness stuff is a completely new way of life.  They must not praise other gods, just the LORD.  They aren't supposed to murder or forsake their parents.  And there are plenty of other directives, such as observing the Passover.  God is intentional that in order for the Israelites to live into holiness, they must make it part of their everyday lives to live not in accordance with the practices of this world, but in faith be set apart so that the world knows that the LORD is God, and their God.  This agreement between the Israelites and God is known as a covenant.

As we enter and live into God's covenant with us through Jesus Christ, the same type of expectations are held on our end.  We are expected to love our neighbors as ourselves, not just in mind or heart but also in action; we are expected to stop judging one another; we are called to tell the world about our God and how good he really is.  Now of course, God is always faithful on his end of the bargain, despite our many mishaps--but that doesn't negate the fact that we have our side of the bargain to work on!!  As Christians it is vital that we seek to live according to God's precepts, as Jesus Christ has demonstrated and lived out, if we are going to be God's people.  That just might mean that we lay down our investments in Egypt, and instead bet on God's will, which will carry us through much more treacherous terrain--the wilderness!!

--------------------------

The time has come for us as Christians to recognize that in our sin, we are beckoning back to Egypt.  When we seek comfort for ourselves while our neighbors go without, we are living our lives as we did back in Egypt.  When we do not tithe our church because we feel we've worked hard to earn our money and we won't have enough to go around without it, we are living like we did back in Egypt.  When we face difficult situations in life with a defeated attitude, assuming that failure is inevitable and that we will forever be victims of this world, we are living like we did in Egypt.  When we refuse to take time to read Scripture, attend regular worship services, volunteer at church to our ability or tell our friends and family about this awesome God who loves us, we are right back in Egypt.

But when we go out on a limb and give up our comforts to provide for others, we are walking with God in the wilderness.  When we tithe despite our financial hardship (or in most of our cases, despite having to forego going out to eat, or cutting the vacation short by one day), and give extra as often as absolutely possible, we are walking with God in the wilderness.  When we see failure but know that we are loved, and know that we have a future worth living for, we are in the wilderness.  When we spend our time and effort to do the work of the church, by fulfilling the mission of God to bring healing to our community, we are in the wilderness.  And when we tell others about our experience with God, we are living by faith in the perilous wilderness that God has lain before us.

I can't wait to live my life more and more into that wilderness...because I know that, even though I won't always have my fill, I will eternally be satisfied by God's abundant love and provision.  

Why Stewardship Matters

One of the more awkward sermons pastors preach during their tenure is on the theme of stewardship. It seems that no one enjoys talking about stewardship--not pastors, and not congregations.  And for good reason.  Talking about stewardship in a capitalist, consumer economy demands that we talk about the real issue at stake, money.  "Remember that pastor we had so many years ago...he would talk about money for a month straight in his sermons!  What business does he have about my personal life?  What I do with my money is my business."  This sentiment is totally normal and is considered acceptable in United Methodist churches all over the country, not to mention churches of all denominations.  This sentiment is why stewardship is such a headache for pastors as well; we know we need to talk about it, but we're afraid to infringe upon the strongly-held beliefs of our parish, and we understand that unity of the Spirit is more important than discussing details of money management.

Or is it?  

It seems that all of us are to blame, including myself, when it comes to this "unmentionable topic".  I'd rather have a sex talk with my (future) kids than face preaching a sermon series about stewardship, and I know I'm in good company.  And of all issues that the pastor brings to the pulpit, issues about stewardship tend to be one of the least-enjoyed topics by congregations everywhere.  This must be why so many books are being published today that center on congregational stewardship.  The Cokesbury catalogue even dedicates two to three pages in every issue to stewardship resources.  Why do we never see a section on "Holy Spirit resources" or "social justice issues"?  Not only do we loathe the issue of stewardship--it's one of our biggest struggles as a church, as a people of God.  The fact is, laity and clergy alike, our wallets has become a sacred space that we declare off-limits to God, and therefore the topic of stewardship falls on deaf ears for another year.  

The problem is one of enormous consequences, and we've already felt these consequences for some time now.  In America, we typically spend one hour twice per month (or more, if we're especially devout) at church, and much of the rest of our time engrossed in service and worship to the almighty Dollar.  We work hard to earn more dollars, we spend time exchanging those dollars for goods, and we save dollars for the future.  Many of us borrow more dollars for more power to buy more goods, and we have a lot of places we'd like to see those dollars being put to good use.  A bigger home; a new car; trendy clothing; more entertainment options; advanced technology; eating out more frequently; the list goes on, and it never seems to end.  All the while, "essential" spending has increased to include all kinds and types of insurance, greater and greater education savings, bigger and better stock portfolios, and naturally enough "mad money" to spend on whatever strikes us in the moment.  

Entire seasons are dedicated to Dollar worship.  Christmas, which in theory is a Christian holiday, has become overwhelmed with a spirit of mass consumption.  Easter is no longer complete without plenty of chocolate, an Easter egg hunt and cute pastel decorations.  Valentine's Day gifts are bigger and more expensive, and restaurants have doubled their incentives for you to come and dine to celebrate the fact that it's a Friday.  Every day of the year is a celebration for America, calling for ever-increasing consumption which is literally clogging our arteries, bankrupting our grandchildren and destorying the earth.  

If money remains a topic which is sacred and off-limits in the pulpit, then how will we ever be able to address our dangerous system of endlessly increasing consumption?  If we can no longer talk about stewardship of our resources, given that most of our resources can be monetized, how will we ever be able to work towards social holiness and healing of our communities where thousands upon thousands of people live in dire poverty?  If we cannot allow Jesus Christ to enter into our finances, why on earth would we trust him with our salvation?

At this point, we could talk about how often Jesus speaks about money and stewardship of other resources (such as food, valuables, etc.).  Certainly we could see some good fruit from such a discussion, because Jesus talks about money a lot in the four gospels.  And, perhaps unbeknownst to the majority of Christians, Jesus incessantly urges us to be generous to the point of total self-sacrifice with our money.  Yet, as pastors, our knees begin to knock when we think about preaching the concept of the tithe, or an offering of 10% of income.

Since most Christians--scholars, pastors, and congregations alike--will agree that Jesus was radically generous and challenges us to be more generous in his footsteps, I will not digress into a Scripture discussion here.  We need to talk about why we're holding back and how we can move forward to allow this Scripture to truly change us and how we live our lives.

1. First and foremost, everyone needs to understand the simple fact that money is not a personal matter where God is unconcerned.  I think most people would agree, but many do not act upon it.  Some people are only interested in their personal benefit, like guaranteed salvation or a nurturing environment for their children, but as Christians we are called to live a life of personal sacrifice in accordance with the will of God.  The Bible is very clear in both the Old and New Testaments that God is very concerned with the proper cultivation, collection and use of all resources which we possess, and goes so far as to claim that all of our possessions belong to God.  They do not belong to you; you did not earn them (from God); they are merely entrusted to you to use properly.  

2. Next, we all must embrace the fact that in our baptism, through Jesus Christ, we have become one body, one family, and we are no longer our own person.  Now that Christ has paid everything for us to be restored and reconciled to our Father in heaven, we are God's own; our identity, our self, our person, and yes, our resources are all fully God's.  What's more is that because there is one baptism, because there is one loaf which we break together at the Lord's table, there is one salvation through which we all receive, together.  Therefore we are to be like-minded; we are all to conform to the one will of God; and we are called to pull our resources together to carry out God's mission here on earth.  To be fair, it's not the same as socialism, but you might think it looks similar.  Socialism is a form of human-inspired government where all members of society are required to pool resources together to ensure the welfare of all.  Christian stewardship properly understood is a God-inspired plan whereby all members of the body of Christ together pool resources together to help carry out God's mission to show love to a broken world.  Whereas socialism is motivated by fear for survival, Christian stewardship is motivated by hope for the kingdom of God.  As Christians we reject the idea of limited resources because we have faith that God provides in incredible ways; if only we allowed ourselves to live without all of the comforts of modern America, we might see God's miraculous works more often.

3. Stewardship of our resources is properly connected to our calling as Christians to love one another and our neighbor as ourselves.  I Peter 4:7-11 provides a brief "recipe" of holiness in the Christian life, with three basic summarizing principles: to love one another, to show hospitality without complaint, and to share resources.  If we say that we love one another and offer hospitality, but we do not give with a heart of total trust in God and a spirit of generosity, then we are making claims without following through.  God's call for us to love one another deeply and unconditionally includes providing for one another's needs, whether they be financial, emotional, spiritual, educational, etc.  As one example, imagine a parent who claims he or she loves their child, but then does not provide the child with the support he or she requires, as best as that parent is able to provide.  It would sound like the parent is speaking on one hand but dishing out something completely different on the other.  Non-believers are especially attune to this discrepancy among Christian people.  They are keenly aware that Christians claim to love people unconditionally, but then use their resources to effectively judge the world through withholding and targeted offering.  It is critical for the church in America and around the world to be a salty witness to Jesus Christ through sacrificial giving as we have been called rather than the attitude of "I'll give what I have left over" to those in need.  God has NOT called us to give our leftovers; we are called to give our firstfruits.

4. Generous stewardship is a lesson which the church must teach in order to remain relevant, fruitful and on fire for God.  As I've stated earlier, pastors generally loathe preaching or teaching on the topic of stewardship because it is seen as a fundraising campaign rather than a fundamental part of our lives as Christians.  As pastors, we must teach stewardship with a deeply-held conviction that there is no holiness without social holiness, and there is no holiness without stewardship.  All areas of our life need and must come into the conformity of God's will, by the cross of Calvary.  When we engage in debates over tithing and giving of money, too often we are pushing back asking ourselves, "how little may I give to God to maintain a minimally desired relationship in good standing?"  No matter how we respond to these debates, whether we accept the tithe, a portion thereof, or even if we claim a larger amount of giving as "mandatory", we have completely lost the point of stewardship and therefore are not pursuing true holiness.  The proper amount of money, time, knowledge, wisdom, love and service to give is as much as you are able to give, with the goal of giving more whenever possible.  Our entire lives need to be given as an offering to the Lord, just as our Lord gave us everything he had to save us from the shackles of sin.

5. Finally, it's worth mentioning the church as the place to give to God, or not.  For too long Americans in particular have been suspicious of the church's power or authority and have been nervous to give their full gifts through the church.  Many pastors, they fear, seek greater financial offerings in order to increase their own salaries and leave an unforgettable legacy in the churches they serve, as a boost to ego and career prospects.  I do not deny this as a possibility, or that fact that it has happened in churches before; but in the United Methodist Church, we do have courses of action against such leadership, for we have episcopal oversight that can eliminate much of this drama.  Even if this may be the case in isolated scenarios, the proper course of action when you feel there is financial mismanagement in your church is not to withhold your offerings, but rather to hold the leadership accountable as brothers and sisters in Christ.  When we withhold our offerings to God because we fear the church, then we are as guilty as anyone we might be accusing, rightfully or wrongfully.
If we believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then we affirm the presence of the church as evidence of the Holy Spirit in our midst, for the church cannot exist without the Holy Spirit.  It's true that some churches may "have" the presence of the Holy Spirit more than others, but that does not mean they are unfruitful churches necessarily.  God's ways, movements, ebbs and flows are constantly mysterious to us, and are based on our "performance" or good or for ill.  Rather, God's presence in a church is based entirely upon God's own will and not our works or desire for God to be with us.  Quite frankly, God is going to be close to those who are weary, brokenhearted, alone, and lacking whether we like it or not, whether we choose to accept it or not.  So if you know of anyone in this situation in your church on Sunday, you can rest assured that God is with you, and that your church is truly a place fitting to give offerings to God.
While I absolutely affirm the validity and fruitfulness of many other places to give offerings to God outside of the church, it is essential for our work together as saints in the church that we pool many of our resources in our local congregations, where the majority of our prayers, presence, witness and service take place.  These ministries require financial and other physical resources, and withholding financial giving is almost always out of fear, spite, anxiety or greed--none of which are gifts of the Holy Spirit.

I pray that you take time to examine how you exhibit stewardship in your life.  You may take the Wesleyan model as a beginning guide by considering your prayers, presence, gifts, service and witness and critically examining how you are giving--or not--everything unto Christ.  But this is only the start; remember that all resources are to conform to the will of God, including our spiritual gifts, our secular education and skills, our wisdom, our worldviews, our time, our bodies and our minds, to name only a few.  What a fantastic gift it will be to you if you were to consider each area of life and analyze your giving to grow more deeply in the Spirit!  I pray that in doing so you would gain assurance of the peace of Christ, the love of the Father and the mission of the Holy Spirit.

Unfortunate preaching

Something very strange has occurred in my first appointment here at Moriah UMC.  More and more frequently, people give me positive feedback on my sermons.  This is nice!  But you might not guess the reason.  Is it because I was fully clear and concise?  Was I entertaining, with the ability to draw listeners into the sermon?  Was it simply because I have original ideas?  No, these are not compliments I have ever been given.  Which is good, because I don't think full clarity is ever possible with Jesus running around making things complicated; I am not always entertaining because that is the furthest thing from my mind; and I really don't have an original idea in me, for there is truly nothing new in this world we haven't already seen a million times.  

Did you guess why I am so often complimented?  By far, the most common compliment I receive is that I preach from the biblical text.  I know, I know, if only all churches were so loving and forgiving!  If only everyone had such a simple standard!  Perhaps I'm living in some strange paradise, but the folks who say that aren't referring to only one pastor before me--some of these people have been at Moriah for decades, and some of these people have only ever known me as their pastor.  So I know they aren't making specific comments about any specific pastor, at least not as a group.  What is going on?!

I must admit that I do not fully have an answer, but I have suspicions and I welcome further discussion into the topic.  

My first suspicion is that pastors, as they preach for years and years, run out of steam and begin to delve into the secondary literature that is so readily and oft ordered from the various retailers.  Now I admit I love to read such books; I have probably read 20 to 25 books since I became pastor, completely aside from my assignments at school.  And I use these texts sometimes in teaching and even preaching--but I do not use secondary literature as the basis of any sermon.  Rather, I preach the biblical text in conversation with other Christians who came before me.  This includes people who are alive today, such as William Willimon; ancient Christians such as Tertullian or Origen of Alexandria; or other key theologians such as John Wesley and Karl Barth.  No sermon has been thoughtfully prepared if it does not take into some kind of consideration the larger conversation at hand, incorporating discussions from many of the world's greatest Christian theologians, past and present.  But our problem is that pastors are preaching from secondary sources first and foremost, and only make casual reference to the biblical text during a sermon.  It's not as if doing this is inherently wrongdoing, but Christians who come to church are hungry for God, not us, and not other people.  We as preachers have the task of proclaiming, interpreting, heralding the Truth, the Truth being Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh who dwelt among us.

My second suspicion is that pastors use the biblical text in order to point to humanity.  That is, they do in fact preach directly from the Bible, but they use it as a tool for humans to understand themselves and what they should do, exclusively.  For these pastors, God is an ideal, a superhero, worthy of worship but some distant, irrelevant Person.  And for these pastors, the primary goal of Christianity is to guide and direct us rather than to reveal more of this God to us.  We do not read the Bible to learn more about humanity; the Bible is about God first and foremost, and only by understanding who God is can we learn about who we really are.  So often we "go" to the Bible in order to search for some hidden truth, a pancea for our earthly problems.  We feel that the Holy Spirit's purpose is to be with us when we need, and otherwise we're not interested.  As pastors, I feel that sometimes we feel that we can interpret the text just fine without God, and only when we have writer's block Saturday evening do we clamour for the power of the Holy Spirit to inspire our preaching.  But even if this is not true, and pastors are indeed looking to the Bible as their primary source for inspiration, they are largely doing it in reverse.  We do not "go" to the Bible looking for anything; the Bible comes to us, and tells us who we are.  Someone might say, "Eric, what do you mean by that?  That's what we do every day."  I agree that we believe we do, but our actions might prove otherwise.  Do we approach Scripture in search of something, or do we allow Scripture to move and change us?  Do we appeal to Scripture when it proves our point, or do we hunger for Scripture to prove us wrong?  We as preachers have the task of knowing the difference, and modeling this for our congregations so that they have any chance at all of being able to be part of the wider conversation, of God's incredible works in our midst.

My third suspicion is that pastors believe their congregations need us to "dumb down" the text so that they can understand it.  That is, the theological concepts are too difficult for the "average Joe" to be formed in new and significant ways without cheesy illustrations that slush their way into irrelevance.  For these pastors, because they know very personally that the people in their congregations are full of sinful tendencies, they assume that these people are unable to comprehend the greater, more radical messages of Jesus' teachings.  I Peter 2 comes to mind, when, at the beginning of the chapter, the apostle tells the congregation to first start on "pure, spiritual milk" in their journey, suggesting that greater things are to come, but only if basics can be lived out.  I find this interpretation of spiritual milk to be completely false.  God's truth is far beyond any human comprehension; that which we are able to preach is only the simplest, tiniest sliver of God's incredible magnitude.  Nothing that we understand as preachers is all that much more complicated than the simplest commandments.  My point is that why would we hide or shield our congregations from difficult topics of Scripture, or break down the truth so much that it is a sad, boring glop of nothing?  God's people are hungry for a challenge, a deeper truth which pierces through them and challenges them to see the world in a completely new light.  Our congregations know that all is not right in the world, and they know when you are holding back from proclaiming that truth.  We as preachers have the obligation to share the deepest insights which God has entrusted to us, that the entire congregation might share in the gift of knowledge, wisdom and revelation that we have been gifted.  I Corinthians 12 anyone?

My last suspicion is that pastors still believe that the Reformers, the original Protestants from the early 1500s, were right about the importance of preaching.  Moving away from Catholic tradition, the Reformers insisted on the centrality of the preaching during worship, and in fact all of Christian life.  To this day in America, we often think of the sermon as the most important function or part of a worship service.  But this simply is not true.  Many have argued that prayers and liturgies are the most important; still others argue that the Lord's Supper (Communion) is the center of worship.  I would agree that communion is highly important, and prayers and music and everything has its place.  As bad or obvious as this may sound, the most important part of a worship service is the God we have come to encounter.  You may say, "Eric, that was given.  Obviously, our primary reason is to worship and encounter God; we are arguing which part of the service offers us this encounter primarily."  And I understand this argument, because I believe that you believe this to be true.  But think about the last time you went to a worship service.  I will use myself as an example.  The last time I went to worship, outside of the church I serve at Moriah, I was not remotely thinking about an encounter with God.  As a pastor, I was busy thinking about the layout of the room, the leadership up front, the music choices, how communion was administered, etc.  You may not be a pastor, but do you truly come to worship Sunday with the first and foremost thought being, "I can't wait to see how God pops up today!"?  My guess is no, and we pastors are to blame.  Pastors have slipped into the assumption that we have to make sure worship goes well so that people may encounter God.  I do think that it's important for us to be aware of our movements, word choices and leadership, or else we as pastors will send the wrong signals.  However, we need to think less about ourselves and more about the God we claim and believe we are worshipping.  We need to think about how we can better help others encounter God through our sermons, through the liturgies, through the Lord's Supper, through any and all element of the worship service.  We as preachers are responsible for making sure that the Trinity--one God in three persons--is the forefront of everyone's mind, not the sermon, not the music, not the prayers, not the announcements.  

All four of these suspicions are simply the beginning of the conversation.  My guess is that parts and pieces of all of these, as well as other items I have not mentioned, are potential problems in differing amounts for all of us.  They are all certainly challenges we must face each week as we stand before the assembly, given charge for the care and delivery of God's word.  It is no small task!

And my guess is that, because I tend not to slip into these items too often (I am still a very, very new pastor, and praise God for this), I am told by the congregation that I am a good preacher because I stick closely with the biblical text.  The fact is that our congregations are highly intelligent and very much want to encounter God--they know when they are not being challenged, when the whole truth is not being told, or when we are not faithfully using the Bible in a right manner.  But that does not mean that they know how to explain their thoughts and feelings, nor does it mean that they want to spend all day analyzing it!  As pastors, it is our responsibility to be sensitive to and listen for these types of comments on Sundays and throughout the week so that we may gauge what happened in those pews, so close yet so far away, that Sunday morning.  

Their comments, while not always perfect or golden, can teach us so much.  Perhaps the most important sermon on a Sunday morning is not the proclamation of the word to the congregation, but the response of the congregation to the one who is giving the proclamation.  How else will we pastors be kept in check, dutiful and mindful to the incredible task of preaching God's truth week after week?  How else will we know what to say or not to say next week, if no one corrects us from spewing the boring, irrelevant and pop-psychological mess that we default to when we find ourselves with writer's block on Saturday night?

The Itineracy of the United Methodist Church

What is itineracy?  It is the practice of moving pastors from church to church by the bishop and cabinet's oversight.  The United Methodist Church practices itineracy, and we are one of the few denominations that does.  This means that as a pastor, my bishop has the authority to move me to a different appointment, within the conference, at his decision.  This practice, however, has come under fire in the past few years as a possible problem for the UMC.  People cite problems from all around, and they have good intentions and reasonable observations.  Let's look at the itinerant system's pros and cons, and then see if we can think about where we ought to stand in relation to this subject.

The cons of itineracy

Since the more recent discussion has alluded to the problems of itineracy, let's start here.  A starting point for local churches, especially smaller churches, is that the itinerant system undermines stability in the local congregation.  In most other denominations, pastors are hopeful to stay in one church for ten to fifteen years.  The average for a United Methodist is around seven, with many pastors leaving a church after one to three years.  I know here at Moriah UMC of Greensboro, NC, if we analyze the history and statistics over the past thirty years, church growth and flourishing almost always coincide with a pastor who remained for more than one or two years.  Stability of leadership is difficult to maintain when the bishop and cabinet have plans for clergy to move to other charges after short periods of time.  Also, since we are guaranteed appointments in the church, if a pastor does not like his/her appointment, he/she may request a move in any given year, and frequently such a request is honored in a timely manner.  For small churches to thrive, the intinerant system sometimes works against them as pastors seeking to "move up" in the world, to move to a more desirable location, or simply to move to a church better suited for them, are able to be replaced easily.

Itineracy can be very difficult for pastors and their families.  If a pastor moves five to fifteen times during his/her career, you can imagine the stress, expense and change the family must deal with.  Especially when pastors have school-aged children, uprooting from one school system to another can be very challenging indeed.  In today's world spouses are unable to stay at home without working, and while the future shows that spouses may be able to work from home via technology more easily, this has not yet become the norm with UMC clergy families.  Packing and unpacking, never knowing if the church secretly wants to get rid of you, and the annual looming of a future move add uncertainty and instability to the clergy and his/her family.  And with fewer churches opting for building parsonages, more pastors have to buy their own homes, which adds another layer of difficulty for those frequently moving.

The General Conference of 2012 narrowly approved a vote to end "guaranteed appointment" for clergy, which is a counterbalance to itineracy to ensure some stability for clergy.  However, this has recently been attacked as a source of complacency and lack of excellence among clergy in the UMC.  While the judicial council voted this down as unconstitutional, and we still have guaranteed appointments, we can see the issue of itineracy and appointments being at the forefront of our minds in the UMC.  If our system has a bit of instability so that we need guaranteed appointments as a counterbalance, perhaps we ought to rethink the entire system and allow local churches to hire (as in a "call system")?  This way mediocrity would be kept in check as the "best" might naturally rise to the top, as merit-based thinking dictates.

Finally, anti-establishmentarians who distrust the bishops and their cabinets feel that the itinerant system simply neglects the needs of the local church, since a bishop who may be hundreds of miles away cannot possibly know the ins and outs of each and every church, even with help from the District Superintendants.  In the past, many appointments were made based on ranking, merit or other career advancement logic, not based on the gifts and graces of the pastor and local church.  Today the cabinets do strive to "match" clergy with churches more to prevent frequent shifting, but still many churches, especially smaller ones, feel that they are dealing with clergy "leftovers" because they are not big and flashy appointments.  Besides, what value does the bishop bring to the table anyways?  How could he/she know best for so many churches?

The pros of intineracy

Many would argue that oversight from the bishop and cabinet is critical for the local church to thrive.  In a "call system", where pastors are hired locally by the church members, you might have the choice of three to five applicants; whereas in the itinerant system, each clergy could be placed at any church, thereby opening the door to hundreds of possibilities for any given church.  This allows for much greater consideration of the gifts and graces of clergy and churches, even if they are not known as intimately as the local church knows themselves.  And with the many years of experience between the bishop and his/her cabinet, they are likely to know a lot about compatibility between pastors and churches, since they themselves have participated in this system for decades.  Another key is that the bishop and his/her cabinet have theological training and years of study, allowing them to make selections (potentially) based on deeper insights from God.

The itinerant system protects against a very common trend in American religion, known harshly as the "cult of personality".  That is, in many churches here and around the world, a particular charismatic pastor might be sought out more than God due to his/her preaching, teachings, care, etc.  In churches, however, where clergy move around every few years, this "cult of personality" is never really able to take off to dangerous levels.  Sure, a church might adore their pastor, but they know that before too long, their pastor will be called to shepherd others, and the local church is never able to deify one particular person.  Often we in the UMC do not realize how big this problem is in megachurches today, especially among those labeled "evangelical" in persuasion.

For the families of pastors, itineracy can be exciting!  Some people prefer geographic stability, but not everyone!  For children to have stability in their formative years, it is far more important that there be a cohesive, stable family life where the parents are loving, nurturing and promote all-around health.  It seems no one is having this debate among military families, and despite the hardships on transfer every four or fewer years, no one seems to question whether "military brats" are able to grow into healthy, functional and productive adults.  Moving every few years can add tremendously to a family's life together, weaving a narrative of places and people that almost no one else will ever be able to experience.  For a family in this intinerant system, they must realize that no matter how much they love (or hate!) their current context, it is not going to last forever--and the opportunity for God to work in new ways in a new place is always on the horizon.

Finally, many have argued that the itinerant system provides greater justice and equality for minority groups of pastors, including women.  Our "guaranteed appointment" system with oversight means that female pastors, African-American pastors, Hispanic pastors, etc. will always have a ministry, even if local churches are reluctant to accept change.  Theologically this is a solid argument for the bishop's oversight, forcing churches to be formed in the vision of Revelation 7:9-10: "After this I looked, and there was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and languages and peoples, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, robed in white with palm branches in their hands."  The idea that churches should be of one ethnicity, led by a married man with a family is not healthy; and sometimes, churches need that extra push to see the biblical vision of equality among God's people.  God has called some people into ministry, and in the UMC this calling is more heavily scrutinized than perhaps anywhere else in Christian history!  We can be certain that God is doing something with this pastor, even if it is not apparently or readily obvious to us.

The reality of our debate

All of these issues above are real issues with the itinerant system.  They are cited by God-fearing people, typically discussed in depth by clergy.  These folks have their hearts set on Jesus Christ, no doubt, and they are trying to figure out the future of the UMC where we can be a church of salt and light once again (since 1968 we have declined in membership across the USA, every single year).  However, the problem with our debate is the evidence we bring to the table to support both sides.  If you notice, with all of the above arguments, there is very little mention of Scripture or theological conviction.  Even I had a hard time citing Scripture writing the above list of pros and cons; even though I could cite Scripture, if I forced it, biblical convictions on the nature and mission of God are rarely central in the debate over itineracy.  More often than not, we are missing the mark by discussing itineracy's gifts and pitfalls in a more tangible, earthly way.  That is, we are considering how itineracy has actually manifested in the past rather than keeping sight on where God is taking us in the future.

Now I don't want to get into the theological discussion over the itinerant system and the call system; both systems appear to be biblically sound, and in the UMC we are itinerant due to our tradition and heritage.  Sure, itinerancy developed out of practical concerns, but these were concerns for the kingdom of God and the good of the mission, not concerns for either the churches or the clergy.  Most of our debate, as you can read above, deals with what is "best practices" for churches or for clergy.  And most people, when they defend their views, cite real-life experiences as evidence of their particular persuasion.  As Methodists we allow experience to shape our theology, but not prior to Scripture and the tradition!  For our discussion to advance beyond mere lists of personal preferences based on such-and-such church a long time ago, we need to restructure the debate in terms of God's kingdom, rather than churches OR clergy.  Our debate must be firmly grounded in biblical principles, specifically eschatology (the study of the consummation of this world; the "end").  Only then should the practicality and utility of certain strategies be fleshed out, in light of these theological principles.

Either way we go, we have to make absolutely certain that we are supporting a system that serves others for the sake of Jesus Christ rather than serving ourselves.  We all do it--we slip into a pattern of acting upon self-interest or the interest of those close to us, rather than acting upon self-denial and the interest of those who are furthest from us.  Not to sound too harsh, but clergy in the UMC accept itineracy upon their ordination, and have made a covenant to continue this tradition, both its theological foundation and practical implementation.  We clergy need to own up to our vows and serve where we are sent, without complaining, for the harvest is very ripe, and we harvesters are fewer and fewer.  The other side of the coin is also true: churches need to come to grips with the fact that they do not and cannot know who the "best" clergy for them will be.  In fact, there is no such "best" person for the job, ever; this is why we move around, so churches may have many clergy over time!  It is possible that you will have a pastor that turns out not to be the best "match" for your congregation--but our system DOES allow for churches to request new pastors and provide input for those incoming.  These are resources at your disposal; the bishop is also called to serve you, and the cabinet will do their best to plan for an upcoming change.

If we are to be salty again, if we are to shine the light of Jesus Christ in our world, we must base all of our discussions and decisions in the Truth, the Word made flesh, and the testimony to him found in the Old and New Testaments.  We must practice, not merely preach, the virtue of self-denial as we seek holiness and renewal.  My guess is, whether we have an itinerant system, a call system, or any number of hybrids in between, we can still be the salt and light of the earth, and work with God to bring justice and mercy to the land.  

Hidden Transcripts in the Bible

This post has been inspired by my Romans professor Dr. Douglass Campbell.  I am sharing his insights on the Romans text I am analyzing, and I am making these connections with I Peter.

When we approach Scripture, when we sit to read the Bible, we must understand a few points that are essential to healthy reading:
1. We cannot remove anything from the Scriptures.  They contain 66 different 'books', some of which are truly books and others which are letters, poems, etc.  All of Scripture is Christian Scripture and must be understood as such for a healthy reading.
2. Areas of problem within Scripture, specifically paradoxes, are areas of particular opportunity!  When we see something that doesn't add up, we are forced to dig deeper within to find God's wisdom, which means we are close!
3. We must not assume that we can interpret Scripture fully on our own.  We must read Scripture in community with other Christians--theologians and scholars, pastors and deacons, along with people of different races, backgrounds and social class.  No one person will see everything correctly; all of us together will see something much more profound than any one of us.
4. We affirm the high value of Scripture as "God-inspired".  This does not, however, mean that Scripture is "inerrant" as is defined by fundamentalism.  But liberal Protestantism, fundamentalism's opposite, also employs some poor methods--Scripture is not merely a reflection of human thought and universal morals.  We cannot say Scripture is "inerrant" because doing so we destroy its context and assume that we know what it means; we cannot say Scripture is merely a reflection of humanity because we affirm the divine inspiration of its contents.  Therefore, we approach the Bible in a "moderate" fashion, as most Christians through most of history.
5. Scripture must be read in context.  No two texts should be approached in exactly the same way because each is unique and is in a unique context.  The words, paragraphs and expositions are in a particular order for a reason, to communicate a particular message.  All of Scripture is in conversation with all other parts of Scripture; this means that all Scripture is in context with all other Scripture in diverse and varying ways.
6. There are multiple interpretations in different Scriptures, some of which are good, and others which are less good.  Good Christians of all types interpret Scripture in many ways, and we need to accept that we are never perfect with our interpretation nor are those with whom we disagree "evil" or "lacking" in faith.

Romans 13:1-7 is an excellent example of a problem text for Christians.  This text tells us to obey earthly authorities as if instituted by God.  Taken on the surface only, we would assume that this Scripture wants us to revere earthly authorities as if God.  But something smells fishy here...let's read further.

If we read Romans 12:9-21, we see Paul making a transition.  In 12:9-13, we have a short list of items that Paul exhorts us to undertake--"let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good, love one another with mutual affection", etc.  Then in 12:14-21 we see a change of vocabulary.  In each sentence, Paul is urging us to "repay" evil with good.  He lists those who might rise against us: those who "persecute", those who would make us want to "avenge" ourselves, and "enemies".  Paul is drawing division between two types of people: "we" who do good and "they" who do evil to us.  But who are "they"?  Who are these people upon whose heads we are called to heap burning coals?!  "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."  What is the "evil" we are to overcome?

Then Paul immediately shifts gears, suddenly and surprisingly.  He begins: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."  Paul is using language of "them" vs. "we", but now "we" have switched places with "them", and we are now the targets of judgment, should we resist authority!  Something strange is going on here--verse 4 says "If you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain!"  Wait, isn't this the same God that brought the Messiah who was to beat swords into plowshares?!  Why all of a sudden has God changed his mind about so much, acting against his people with a swift and mighty sword at the hand of Caesar?!

Dr. Campbell claims that what Paul is writing in this section is a strategy in his letter-writing against the authorities he claims to uphold.  Paul, who is creating upset in the Mediterranean and is soon to be imprisoned for his strange new gospel, is seeking to ensure that the authorities who censor the mail for the empire are not suspicious of his work.  Much like people writing from jails today, or like those whom the government deems dangerous, his letter would possibly have been intercepted, which would have put himself and the congregation at Rome in jeopardy.  This is especially true given that the city of Rome was the heart of the empire.  This paragraph, Dr. Campbell proposes, was inserted in order to divert the attention of authorities, while functioning as a subtle, underlying resistance to the same authorities.

Think about people of the lower class in any society and the ways they speak their language.  Often, people of the lower and/or servant classes speak very differently than those who are wealthy, educated and powerful.  This was true in Victorian England (Downtown Abby anyone?!), this was true among African-American slaves, and the same is true today among modern-day gang members and drug traffickers.  These people develop a subtle "subtext" with their language in order to divert the attention of the ruling class, especially by making them believe that they are supportive of the current order.

So when Paul is telling the Romans to be subject to the governing authorities, they would have understood that this is not in his character, and he does not actually want them to act in this way; rather, as early Christians who were primarily of lower-class and servant-class people, they would have understood that this insertion of text was functioning both to protect them against the government and acting as a mini-resistance to the authority.  Dr. Campbell's theory can easily be supported by a closer look at the evidence.

The last part of 13:4 reads: "It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer."  But out of the entire Old Testament, Paul cites this particular verse back in 12:19: "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'"  Here Paul is citing Deuteronomy 32:35.  Now, if you were a Roman Christian receiving this letter, you might be clever to go back to your Bible (which was still only the Old Testament) and look up the context of that verse.  Here is a selection of the passage from verse 28 through 38:

28 They are a nation void of sense;
    there is no understanding in them.
29 If they were wise, they would understand this;
    they would discern what the end would be.
30 How could one have routed a thousand,
    and two put a myriad to flight,
unless their Rock had sold them,
    the Lord had given them up?
31 Indeed their rock is not like our Rock;
    our enemies are fools.[k]
32 Their vine comes from the vinestock of Sodom,
    from the vineyards of Gomorrah;
their grapes are grapes of poison,
    their clusters are bitter;
33 their wine is the poison of serpents,
    the cruel venom of asps.

34 Is not this laid up in store with me,
    sealed up in my treasuries?
35 Vengeance is mine, and recompense,
    for the time when their foot shall slip;
because the day of their calamity is at hand,
    their doom comes swiftly.

36 Indeed the Lord will vindicate his people,
    have compassion on his servants,
when he sees that their power is gone,
    neither bond nor free remaining.
37 Then he will say: Where are their gods,
    the rock in which they took refuge,
38 who ate the fat of their sacrifices,
    and drank the wine of their libations?
Let them rise up and help you,
    let them be your protection!

Fascinating!  "They" are a nation void of sense, and the LORD alone will vindicate his people.  God is not apt to use Sodom and Gomorrah as his source of judgment upon his own people, as the Lord vindicates, not Rome.  This connection of texts is critical for understanding the background, underlying current which Paul is subtly conveying to the Christians in Rome.

Romans 13:7 and 13:8 are possibly the most convincing pair of verses, however, for us to examine and compare with this claim.  Read them together, without the paragraph break found in most Bibles: "Pay to all what is due them--taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.  Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law."  Either Paul has a multiple-personality disorder, or is using his language to subtly communicate his gospel which rejects authority of Caesar in favor of God's singular authority.  Suddenly, Paul returns in verse 8 to the "they" vs. "we" language, with "they" being sources of evil or wrongdoers.

The key message here is how Paul uses his words not to merely advise or convince the Roman Christians to act in a certain way; rather, his language is powerful through its subtleties and its hidden transcript.  The language he is using would be foreign to those outside of the Jewish/Christian world, those who did not possess the Scriptures and therefore had no context to base his letters from.  You see, lacking in context when reading Scripture is very misleading indeed!  But to the Christians at Rome, this small paragraph would have been a red flag for this secret way of speaking that would have been common among them before authorities.

Now let's look at the Book of I Peter.  This is another epistle, attributed to the apostle Peter, (probably) written after Romans to churches in another part of the Roman world.  In I Peter we find more troublesome texts with similar issues to the text we found in Romans.  However, this language use will be much more subtle and complicated!  We are lucky indeed to be studying such a complicated and rich set of texts.

First, read I Peter 2:1-12.  We see typical language of an epistle, addressing the Christians that they might act in new ways now that they are in Christ.  The language of comparison between "they" and "we" returns in a dichotomy.  "But you" (not them) "are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness" (like "they" are in) "into his marvelous light."  But now look at verse 13 and forward: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme..."  Wait, Peter--is this the same God who gave the first commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"?!  How is it possible to consider the emperor as supreme is God is supreme, and we cannot serve more than one master?!  He continues: "...or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."  Like in Romans, we have language here of submission to authorities, who are apparently given the authority to enact God's will upon others.  And just like in Romans, Peter is using subtle language which would raise a red flag for the reader, indicating that he is subverting his own text with a deeper message.

But Peter's use is a bit different from Paul's language.  Peter doesn't just insert a simple paragraph of clear falsehood: he interweaves the subversive text naturally with the truth, and the reader would be expected (reasonably!) to differentiate.  Verse 16: "As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil."  A Roman authority might interpret "evil" to be that against the Roman emperor; a Christian would likely understand the phrase "live as free people" to mean that Roman authority is nothing before God.

But Peter is not stopping with governmental authority; his gospel is going to target social structures that are a foundation for the Roman empire.  In verse 18, he writes: "Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference"!  But Peter just said to "live as free people"!  This, to a people who claim the story of the Exodus as God's word and Scripture!  Our God is a God of liberation, a God of freedom, a God who frees slaves from the grip of slave masters, a God who hears!  This text was never meant to imply that slavery was a righteous institution; this text radically proclaims its absurdity before our God.  The Scripture Peter quotes in verse 22 is from Isaiah 53, which is a prophetic text, proclaiming the coming of the Messiah; it speaks about how the Messiah will suffer for us, and Isaiah 54 speaks about how God will not bring his wrath against us!!  If Christ suffered for us, then why would Peter insist that we must suffer for Christ as he does in 21?  Christ does not suffer so that we suffer in his footsteps; he suffered out of his undying love for us, as a God who will go to any length to save and rescue us, and our suffering, although something we can count on in this life, is not necessary as a condition of our covenant with God.

I Peter 3:1a reads: "Wives, in the same way, accept the authority of your husbands"!  "In the same way" is clearly speaking in relation to the preceding verses which talk about slavery!!!  This section deals with the similarities between slavery and wifehood!  So if we have thoroughly understood slavery to be evil, and Peter's use of language to be clever and a deceptive subtext for the truth, then we understand him to be using the same types of language about wives.  Without going into great detail, I like to go to verse 6: "Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord."  If there was any doubt, then the Christians who received this letter might flip through their Old Testament Scripture to Genesis, to find.....that there is no instance where Sarah calls Abraham her lord!  In fact, Sarah appears to wear the pants in the relationship!  Why on earth would Peter cite Sarah as an example of female submission, given that just about any other woman in the Bible would have been more appropriate for the example?  Because Peter is drawing from this irony to make the point that such relationship dynamics are absurd.

The Roman Empire thrived for hundreds of years due to an incredible detail of bureaucracy, social stability and eliminating all enemies of the state.  The Roman pantheon of gods was critical in the social stability of the empire, as was the institution of slavery, as was the patriarchal society in which men were considered fully superior to women.  Peter's problem is that his teachings are in direct contrast with this society.  Again, as his mail would possibly have been intercepted, either upon first delivery or as it was circulated throughout the Christian world, he needed to ensure that those intercepting his mail would read it and be assured that Christians are nothing to fear.  This deception is not a form of wickedness; it is a mechanism for survival, not so much for Christians' sake, but for the sake of the gospel!

I Peter 3:8 appears to revert to a "typical" language, language and assertion which does not contradict Roman values directly and therefore poses no threat to Roman stability.

What we see in these two examples is the harm of losing context in reading Scripture and the importance of reading all of Scripture in conversation with all other Scripture.  It does indeed appear that in these two texts we have a problem reconciling Paul and Peter with other Scripture; but deeper within, we see a much more powerful subversion of the society at large which seeks to harm God's people and God's creation.  Social justice was not invented by liberal Christians, and social holiness was not invented by John Wesley; all of this is built into Scripture directly!  How cool is that?!

I love and covet your comments and questions.

The Wisdom of God's Kingdom

The Book of Proverbs speaks volumes on the nature of the wisdom of God.  Translated into today's language, "wisdom" is typically something we think about as a mental activity.  Someone who is "wise" is defined as capable of navigating difficult or ethically tricky situations in life, often capable of serving others with this ability.  While there is nothing wrong with the English definition of the word "wise", it perhaps is not the best definition when we consider the Old Testament use of the word "haham" (חכמ).  When we think about the wisdom of God's kingdom, we see that the use of this word has a much larger range of meaning than mental capacity, such as in the story of Solomon in II Chronicles.  Let's examine the use of this Hebrew word and take a look into the depth of the wisdom of God's kingdom.

In the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the word "haham" appears in greatest concentration towards the end of the Book of Exodus, centered on the construction of the tabernacle.  Here are the places where this root appears, translations mine:

Exodus 28:3  "And you shall speak to all who have ability, whom I have endowed with the spirit of 'haham', that they make Aaron's vestments to consecrate him for my priesthood."

Exodus 31:3  "I have filled [Bezalel] with the spirit of God, 'haham', intelligence and knowledge of every kind of craft."

Exodus 31:6  "And in the hearts of all those 'haham' in heart I have given them 'haham', that they may make all that I have commanded you."

Exodus 35:10  "And every one 'haham' of heart among you shall come and make all that the LORD has commanded you."

Exodus 35:25a  "And all the women who are 'haham' of heart in their hands spun and brought..."

Exodus 35:26  "And all the women who were stirred in their hearts with 'haham' spun goat hair."

Exodus 35:31  "[God] has filled [Bezalel] with the spirit of God, 'haham', in understanding and in knowledge in every kind of craft."

Exodus 35:35a  "[God] has filled them with 'haham' of heart to do all manners of work..."

Exodus 36:1  "Bezalel and Oholiab and all men 'haham' of heart to whom the LORD has given skill and understanding to know how to do any work in the construction of the sanctuary shall work in accordance with all that the LORD has commanded."

Exodus 36:2  "Then Moses called Bezalel and Oholiab and all men 'haham' of heart and whom the LORD had put 'haham' in heart..."

Exodus 36:4  "And all those 'haham' came who worked all the work of the sanctuary..."

Exodus 36:8  "And all who were 'haham' in heart and in doing the work of the tabernacle made ten curtains..."

Exodus 36:10-38:20  [Details of the construction of the tabernacle, under supervision of Bezalel, confirmed in 38:22]

So, why is this word 'haham' not translated as "wisdom" in your Bible, you ask?  Because the full meaning of the word 'haham' includes several ideas for which we have a variety of words in English.  The full range of significance of the word 'haham' includes "skillfulness", "wisdom", and even "dexterity".  Let's explore further by using the examples above.

1. "Haham" is a gift directly from God, connected to a spirit of God, intelligence and knowledge.  Exodus 31:3 in the example above is our best example of this claim, but we can see it is very consistent throughout all of the examples.  "Haham" is something which is bestowed by God, by the LORD, and is listed here as part of a series of gifts that include a spirit of God, intelligence and knowledge.  What it interesting is that because these other three gifts are included separately, they show that 'haham' cannot be reduced to be merely synonymous with any of them.  If 'haham' were limited to "intelligence", then this phrase would be redundant.  Rather, we see that these four items are inherently connected, with at least two facts in common: they are a gift of the LORD and they are needed for construction of the tabernacle.

2. The primary location of "haham" in the human being is the heart, not the head.  The phrase "haham of heart" is translated into English as "skillful", which is not false, but again it does not give us the fuller, more complex meaning of the words.  In many of the examples above, we see that the 'haham' that God is bestowing upon his people is located squarely within the heart of the individual.  In fact, it "stirs" within the heart in Exodus 35:26.  I do not suggest that 'haham' is limited to the heart; but the Scripture is clear in that its location within the human being is in the heart rather than in the brain.  I do not have the time to go into detail here about the biological understandings of the head vs. the heart of ancient Israel, but throughout Scripture the heart is consistently an epicenter of passion and spiritual inclination, whether for better or worse, which is not dissimilar from our modern symbolic imagination.

3. "Haham" manifests through the individual's hands.  So while we see that 'haham' is placed into a person's heart, its fruit is borne through skillful labor of the hands.  Exodus 35:25 gives us an explicit example of this, claiming that the 'haham' of heart is in the women's hands.  However, reading through the other examples, such as Exodus 35:35, we see that the 'haham' is the primary agent of enabling the Israelites to perform the duties necessary to fabricate the materials and construct the tabernacle.  'Haham' is not merely a mental state, nor is it merely adjectival; it manifests through the labor of one's hands, leading them into action.

What does this mean for us?  If we are to consider the Old Testament as Christian Scripture to be read in unison with the New Testament, then we can see a variety of parallels with the life and witness of Jesus Christ.  To be sure, Jesus speaks volumes and gives a lot of parables; but even more often, Jesus simply shows us what we are to learn, and the wisdom is proclaimed by his actions.  John 13 is one of many examples, where Jesus washes the feet of his disciples.  John 13:3 specifically verifies that the Father "had given all things into his hands", which is interesting because the next thing he does is put his disciples' sweaty, dirty feet into them and washes them with his hands.  Since the evangelist in the Book of John tends to explain Jesus' actions more than in the other gospels, we are given some explanation to his actions in verse fourteen: "So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet."  With his hands, he shows the very wisdom that he has been given by his Father.  The idea of wisdom from the Old Testament perspective of 'haham' transforms the way we read the New Testament, for we are better equipped to explore and recognize Christ's wisdom and teachings: not only was Christ capable in good decision-making, but he was given the skill and ability to work with his hands in powerful ways!

Perhaps you still are not convinced that the vision of the Book of Exodus and wisdom, 'haham', is not viable and in sync with the remainder of the Old Testament.  Perhaps you recall the verses from I Kings 4:29-31: "God gave Solomon very great wisdom, discernment, and breadth of understanding as vast as the sand on the seashore, so that Solomon’s wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the people of the east, and all the wisdom of Egypt.  He was wiser than anyone else, wiser than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, Calcol, and Darda, children of Mahol; his fame spread throughout all the surrounding nations."  This Scripture is often used to claim that Solomon was the wisest man of the Bible, but this Scripture merely claims that he was wiser than anyone else, listing only contemporaries, leading us to consider the possibility that he was not declared the wisest man to have ever lived, but rather the wisest person in his own lifetime.  The truth is that Bezalel, the humble builder of Exodus 28-36, is actually described as 'haham' more times directly by God than Solomon!

This is not a debate over who is wisest, Bezalel or Solomon.  The point of this matter is that both of these men are declared to be very wise, gifted directly by God.  However, as we have already discussed, it appears that Bezalel's 'haham' stems primarily from his skill with his hands and his artisanal capacities.  Meanwhile, if we read the stories of King Solomon, his wisdom appears to conform much more in our traditional sense of the word "wisdom", that is, the capacity to reason, understand and make ethical decisions on behalf of himself and others.  At this point, we might think that I have simply misunderstood the word 'haham' for there is no connection between Bezalel and Solomon's wisdom in Scripture.

...or is there?  Is it possible that the Scripture connects these two men intentionally together, recognizing the importance of 'haham' as manifesting in various yet interconnected ways?  It appears so.  If we turn to II Chronicles 1, we see the scene unfolds with Solomon going up to the tabernacle to meet God in front of it.  There he gives an offering.  God asks Solomon what he desires, and in verse ten, he replies that he wants 'haham' and knowledge.  God grants his request, seeing that this request "was in his heart".

But verses five and six establish the connection between the wisdom of Bezalel and the wisdom of Solomon.  After Solomon has gone up to the high place, verse five reads: "Also the altar of bronze that Bezalel, son of Uri, son of Hur had made, was there in front of the tabernacle of the LORD.  And Solomon and the assembly inquired at it.  Solomon went up there to the bronze altar before the LORD, which was at the tent of meeting, and offered a thousand burnt offerings on it."  Here the chronicler has juxtaposed the two wisest men of the Bible together through the altar of the LORD.  This might appear to simply be a needless detail, but the Hebrew text does not have room for excess; the reductionist nature of Hebrew Scripture is well-documented, and every word counts.  Why would the chronicler mention the man who was responsible for the construction of this altar be mentioned if it were of no significance to the story?

It appears that Solomon's offering was very generous indeed, a thousand burnt offerings!  This meant that the meat of the sacrificed animals was not consumed, but was fully burned by flame, representing one of the more demanding offerings of the Israelites' sacrificial buffet.  Three elements have come together in one time and place: Bezalel's 'haham' which generated the altar; one thousand offerings; and Solomon, whose heart of sacrifice to God appears unparalleled.  Again, we see that Solomon's wisdom originates from his heart of sacrifice and manifests through his actions and deeds.  God gave Solomon incredible wisdom after his conversation, but Solomon does not appear to the LORD an idiot; he demonstrates that his heart is ready for even more wisdom, as he has been skillful and wise in his actions, in his offerings.  It's no wonder that God bestows upon Solomon unparalleled riches--he has already demonstrated amazing stewardship through offering sacrificially to God through his hands, stemming from his heart, which God identifies specifically in verse eleven.

The wisdom of God's kingdom is not merely a set of anecdotes or soundbites that fit on a meme, posted on Facebook for our friends to see.  God's wisdom is something much deeper than knowledge and understanding; it penetrates our hearts and our spirit, and manifests in our entire way of life.  Wisdom is constructive and fruitful.  Wisdom calls us into action as God's people on earth.  Wisdom does not allow us to confine our search for God through our brain, but challenges us to seek the LORD through our hearts and our labors.  Sunday services with great preaching, and Sunday school with great teaching, these are key portions of the life of today's Christian.  But they are not enough; we are called into being a people of God's wisdom, and until we think of wisdom as a verb rather than a noun, we will not experience the true wisdom of God's kingdom.  

The (poor) question of homosexuality

The issue of homosexuality in the church has ignited more passion and division than any other issue since slavery in the antebellum period.  Whether or not the church may bless or marry same-sex couples, and whether or not the church may allow "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" to pursue ordination are the two more specific issues rocking the United Methodist world.  In fact, there are pastors (albeit a small number) who feel that leaving the UMC is the only solution, given that many American members of the UMC are in favor of reversing the status quo.  Currently, the UMC does not allow blessing same-sex unions of any kind and does not allow "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" to pursue ordination as pastors or deacons, and does not allow them to practice as local pastors with a license.  This issue has torn apart the Anglican communion, and we are in jeopardy as well of a great schism.  What is the problem at hand?  How can millions of Christians on both sides be wrong?  I propose that the problem is not the answer we are arriving at; it is the question.

I will get into some deeper discussion of Christian ethics, but please continue reading, as I try to put this into plain language.  When we discuss ethics, we are discussing decisions for the way the church lives out our mission in the world.  The category of "ethics" is fairly broad; some topics might include ecological ethics, or economic ethics.  Ethics deals with social issues in the wider world as well as issues pertinent only to the church, such as virtue ethics of the Bible.  Whenever we discuss how we should live in community with one another, we are talking about ethics.

All ethical discussions use a particular method of discourse in posing the question.  One method is known as "teleological ethics" which emphasizes the end result of a particular course of action.  In other words, these ethical decisions are made based on asking ourselves, "what is the likely outcome of our decision?"  If you use teleological ethics, then you might favor someone like Robin Hood, who steals from the rich because the end result is favorable.  The course of action is understood to be good, or in our case, "righteous", based solely on the ending result.

Another method for ethics is known as "deontological ethics" which emphasizes whether the decision is "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad", "lawful" or "unlawful".  In a nutshell, this method asks whether the action in question is permissible.  If you favor deontological ethics, you would not favor someone like Robin Hood because his method of stealing is inherently "wrong" or "unlawful".  You would much rather ensure that all decisions and actions in a particular course are lawful based on what you consider "law".  In Christian discourse, we will assume Scripture as our primary source of determining what is "lawful".  

A third proposal for Christian ethics, proposed by R. Niebur and accepted by ethicist Stanley Hauerwas, is known as "character ethics" which emphasizes the character of the Christian as becoming holy during a lifetime through Jesus Christ.  This particular proposal is a unique solution for the Christian community, although it could perhaps be used by people of other backgrounds.  In a nutshell, rather than asking ourselves what is the desired outcome, or what is the most lawful course of action permissible, decisions are based on who we are becoming in Christ Jesus.  Instead of responding to the ethical dilemma, we instead ask ourselves, "who are we?" and seek to arrive at a result which is fitting for our character and our identity as Christians.

With this in mind, we turn to our discussion of homosexuality.  First, I recognize that as I am not a homosexual, I am limited on how I can speak to this issue; just as I cannot speak for women or for people of a particular race/nationality other than my own, I cannot give certain answers as to how the homosexual community has experienced this discussion, although I imagine it has been painful at best for millions of Americans to be so passionate about their very personal decisions.  I continue with the prayer that homosexuals reading this will understand that I am not attempting to put words in their mouth; I am merely adding my voice to the conversation as one of many.

I propose that one of our biggest stumbling blocks in the homosexuality debate is how we have launched our ideological campaigns based almost entirely upon deontological ethics, our second option found above.  It is interesting because in most situations, teleological ethics are used in America today, both by liberals and conservatives.  One example is the war in Iraq which was launched eleven years ago.  Those in support of the war, largely conservatives, argued that bringing peace and stability to the country and removing Saddam Hussein from power would benefit the people by improving human rights and quality of life.  Furthermore, a democracy in a Muslim country would have been a model for other countries to follow.  Those against the war, largely liberals and some libertarians, argued that a war would result in loss of life of coalition forces, cost trillions, and would not bring about peace or stability in the region.  What is fascinating is that very few people argued for or against the war based on the very principle of war--is war permissible to bring peace?  Deontological ethics were for the most part thrown out the door in favor of considering the end result.

Now church politics are much different than national politics; this is merely an example of a situation that you most likely recall clearly.  Church politics are similar in the fact that we rarely look to deontological ethics for regular decision-making.  Why is this true?  Probably because very few things in God's creation are black and white, cut and dry.  When we as God's people use the Law in such a way where everything is clear and absolute, then we are guilty of legalism no differently than the Pharisees of Scripture.  But that doesn't give us an excuse to throw out the possibility of ethical decision-making.  In other words, we can't simply allow an ethical free-for-all either.  

The question of homosexuality has been debated as a deontological question, because nearly everybody has the deontological question in mind: "is homosexuality permissible?"  Whether you say "yes" or "no", this is your implied question, and this is true for nearly the entirety of our American society and the whole of the Methodist world.  Lord help us, for we know not what we do.  

Our current debate about homosexuality is going nowhere because we have selected the wrong question, as an entire society, to ask ourselves.  We need a new question, and we need to let go of our old ways of thinking and debating the issue.  We need a mass repentence from this debacle, and it will take quite a while to do this.  However, it is possible through Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom all good things are possible.  Rather than deontological ethics, which have grievously failed us in this debate, we need to consider character ethics as the Christian alternative.

Character ethics asks us this question: "who are we becoming in Christ Jesus?"  It may not at first appear to be the question we need to ask ourselves in association with the homosexuality debate, but without answering this question we are doomed to repeating ourselves until we are completely irrelevant.  What kind of church are we becoming?  If we are repenting of our sins, and we are moving towards deeper sanctification, and we are moving onward to Christian perfection, what course(s) of action would we take on this issue?  What course(s) of action might we not take?

If you are reading this post looking for my silver bullet to the debate, then I apologize as I do not have it.  Rather than focusing on what courses of action we ought to take, I would like to list some courses of action I recommend we not take as the United Methodist Chuch, and as individual members thereof:

1. We must no longer accept the dangerous view that homosexuality has one "right" answer in any direction.  Scripture is complicated, and the church is a testimony to the nature of ethics as messy and diverse.  Currently in 2014, among mainstream Christianity, many people affirm very different ethical views.  Many denominations ordain women into ministry, while some do not.  Most Christians are perfectly fine with divorce, even though it is not permissible except in a few situations in Scripture.  And we have no problem as a church fighting wars to bring peace, which is condemned throughout the Scripture in both circumstance and Christ's ministry.  These are all messy debates, and homosexuality is one of those.  Anyone who can come up with a solid, black-and-white answer is not using responsible ethics.  Of course, I am not damning these people; all of us are in this boat together, and none of us is specifically to blame.  We have stumbled into this false debate unintentionally, and it's simply time for us to repent, turn away from our old ways, and be made anew in Christ Jesus.

2. We must no longer consider our stance on homosexuality as a litmus test for one's faith and adherence to Scripture.  Time and time again, online and in person, those on both sides of the debate claim to have the answer to interpreting Scripture correctly to the exclusion of the other side.  The fact is that both liberal Protestants and fundamentalists are probably not using Scripture the way John Wesley used Scripture, and certainly not the way the early church used Scripture.  However you interpret Scripture, you do not hold the only keys to the heart of God.  We believe in a God who loves all of God's children on earth, and seeks a deeper relationship with them.  To say that someone who feels one way or another on the issue of homosexuality is a heretic is rather judgmental and is certainly not in the character of moving towards sanctification.  Yes, we are using the same Bible to reach different conclusions.  Rather than hate one another, we ought to thank God for making Scripture so rich and full of wisdom, truth and direction, and work together to find answers to our challenging questions.

3. We must not allow the possibility of schism to enter into our hearts, especially in response to the homosexuality debate.  If we are to ask ourselves, "who are we becoming in Christ Jesus?" then "a divided church" is certainly not the correct answer.  We must accept the tension that stirs in a church of faithful believers who stick together as a family, as the Body of Christ, despite differing views.  In the American Protestant churches, schism, division, and splitting has been the answer for far too long.  Christ instructed his followers to be "like-minded" in all things, not necessarily "same-minded", but alike as a healthy family is like-minded.  We are a community together, and in the UMC, we are connected to one another deeply.  Anyone who seriously walks down the path of schism ought to be reprimanded at the very least, and ought to repent publically and decisively.  However we interpret Scripture, schism appears to be a far worse fate for the church than any decision surrounding human sexuality.  No, the entire world and heaven are not at stake in the discussion of homosexuality; the world will continue to spin and God will continue to be God no matter what decisions are made.

4. We must never forget that all homosexual people are people, and homosexual Christians are just as worthy to have a seat at the discussion as non-homosexuals.  This may sound like I'm targeting those who are against homosexuality in the church, but it's a key point for our discussion.  If God loves all of his people and Christ is capable of forgiving all sins and all sinners, then why should we ever consider discussing homosexuality without "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" at the table?  The grim truth is that far too often homosexuals are not even consulted through these debates. The result is that homosexuals are even more marginalized, which is silly because they are the focus of the conversation.  They are not the "naughty children" at the dinner table--they are Christians!!  And it's very possible that they hold the best answer to the debate, and certainly they can add much to the conversation.  But we aren't listening to them, and that is the problem.  We need to listen to one another, regardless of how different we believe or interpret Scripture.  We need to remember that the purpose of listening is to understand someone else, not to better be able to attack them soon after.

I urge us all to pray unceasingly for this issue, because it will not simply go away.  We need more than ever a single voice of peace and love to the world, even if that voice responds in millions of different ways to the issues that we deal with.  Jesus Christ has called us to be his disciples, his people of earth, that the gospel might resound in all nations and among all peoples.  We have so much more to do, and the time we spend on this issue has already diverted much of our energy and witness.  We must remain united and "like-minded", we must repent of our past, and embrace the future which is God's kingdom here on earth.  May God grant us the courage and wisdom to swallow our pride and allow conversation where difficult and two-sided, black-and-white, cut-and-dry debates have left us hollow and starving for Jesus.