Wandering Elder

As a student of scripture, I find that I am increasingly concerned with the fact that Christianity has so embraced the book, “The Message” created by Eugene Peterson.  In and of itself, the book “The Message” is merely a more modern paraphrase than the Living Bible.  And while Peterson has done a vastly superior job of turning the language of the New Testament into the vernacular, we read it at our own risk and we accept it as authoritative at our peril. The book has been around for around a decade, but I find that it crops up in curriculum, studies, and sermons more and more.  I find that troubling. When on reads “The Message,” one is basically reading a stylized narrative based on the texts of the New Testament.  A good first page of this work might read, “Based on the New Testament,” in much the same spirit as movies that are loosely based on a true story begin with "Based on a True Story."  Perhaps a more accurate opening page would read, “Inspired by the New Testamen

I am worried with the lack of civility that seems to be gaining momentum in so many facets of life.  We have people making racist comments about the president who are celebrated because they won't apologize.  We have 24 hour news channels that focus less and less on news and more and more on particular partisan comments that border on incendiary so as to gain or retain favor with their particular political patrons.  We have churches who, in the name of Jesus, will talk about who God hates and thank that same God for dead soldiers. There are plenty of other examples, and I am not here to write about the examples so much as I wish to offer a word of concern.  The lack of civility leads to a loss of middle ground conversations.  The lack of civility draws lines in the sand rather than working to erase them.  It also enhances the view of the "enemy" or the "villain."  Like the popular zombies of today's fiction, once they are de-humanized, then you don't h

Last week I said I would speak to the idea of those who are convinced they are right and the dangers associated with that point of view.  It is one thing to believe you are correct.  It is another to insist and force that belief on others, or state that if they do not comply, they will be excluded or perhaps worse. Fundamentalism will likely always win out.  I don’t say that because I find it a comforting idea or because I believe in the inherent truth or right-ness of fundamentalism.  And fundamentalism isn't limited to conservatives.  Either end of the spectrum has fundamentalists.  I say that because I believe fundamentalism is easy.  Perhaps, next to atheism, fundamentalism is the easiest path of belief (assuming the idea that no belief is easier than some form of belief). Think, for example, of water.  Or electricity.  The path these two will take is always the path of least resistance.  Belief systems are like dams, rock formations, or in the case of electricity, condu

I was at a meeting yesterday in which a colleague of mine had a slip of the tongue.  He was saying that people in churches don't want to hear all the theological nuances of particular passages.  They just want to know that you love them as a pastor. The trouble was - first - I disagree with that idea.  I think you need both.  As another friend said, "Exegesis, study, and the theological nuances are like your underwear.  People don't need to see them, but they need to be there." Second, his wording slipped up and instead of nuance he said "nuisance."  People don't want to hear all the "theological nuisances" of a passage.  While that isn't what he meant to say, I would have to actually agree with it.  Theology can  be a nuisance.  Reading scripture with an analytic eye can  cause problems, especially when you begin to realize that parts of the Bible don't always sit well with other parts.  That is certainly a nuisance. Perhaps, in