Marginal Christianity

  "What we would like to do is change the world – make it a little simpler for people to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves as God intended for them to do.… We can, to a certain extent, change the world; we can work for the oasis, the little cell of joy and peace in a harried world. We can throw our pebble in the pond and be confident that its ever widening circle will reach around the world. We repeat, there is nothing that we can do but love, and, dear God, please enlarge our hearts to love each other, to love our neighbor, to love our enemy as well as our friend."  

When I first became aware of the difference between “faith in Christ” (objective genitive) and “faith(fulness) of Christ” subjective genitive, and that the “righteous shall live by/in the faithfulness of Christ,”(Gal 3:11ff; Rom 3:22ff) (as expounded by Richard Hayes ‘The Faith of Jesus Christ’ dissertation) many years ago, it really illumined the depths of the role of faith in the Christian life. Not only a faith that believes in Jesus’ person and work (Rom 10:9) but a living into/being infused with a knowing presence/empowerment that is received via participating in Christ. Out of this faithfulness, the fullness of living in His presence, comes assurance over death, and a steady strength and obedience amidst the challenges of modern insecure life, and a victory over sinful forces. This kind of fullness of faith, or faithfulness, is rarely explored and invited into in churches today? Instead a bland Protestantism often transactionalizes faith and the life we receive in Christ is often

 “Yet what distinguishes the Judeo-Christian idea of love from the romantic, erotic, touchy-feely sense it has acquired in modern times is that it has nothing to do with feeling. Love for the New Testament is a social practice, not a sentiment. How you feel about the person whose place you take in the queue for the gas chambers is neither here nor there. You don’t even have to know him. Only a love of this ruthlessly impersonal kind, which couldn’t care less about the gender, rank, skin colour or personality of whoever needs your help, could prove equal to what St John darkly calls the powers of this world: Trump,  Putin ,  Bolsonaro  and their lackeys.” (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/21/dominion-making-western-mind-tom-holland-review?fbclid=IwAR1VOuWE3UrPZm7kFafvxeCnzwm0IsUCXQmz8qWSMey1qdpbhbPuhHeG3F8)    

  ​ What happened to  Brené Brown ? What happened to  Empathy ? Vulnerability? Remember how 10 years ago (or less) everyone was reading and raving about Brené Brown. We were all learning about the  courage of vulnerability , and the  power of empathy , and the  gift of imperfection . ​Where is all that now? ​“The politics of Trump happened.” Yes, but that is too simplistic. ​We now live at the  END OF EMPATHY , when  EMPATHY is a FALLACY . Empathy is only for those who already like us (the insiders), not to understand those who are different (the oppressive outsiders). The accelerants of social media and news outlets have pushed us further apart just as we were supposed to be learning the skills of leaning in. ​That “empathy” was more of a  fad  and less of the  fabric  of our lives speaks to the fact that — as a society — we are more than willing to nurture our own fears rather than help others overcome theirs, we are happy to have our own way rather than help othe

 “Every life that is preoccupied with being like others is a wasted life, a lost life.” (Kierkegaard, Søren. Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard (p. 17). Plough Publishing House. Kindle Edition) Well, uh, that is provoking. Too provoking, I think. At least for me. I’m going to get a snack . . .

  "Systems and institutions can be channels of shalom, but they can also be pipelines of pain and suffering. One of the ways we can love our neighbors is by seeking to change the systems, structures, and cultural norms that harm them. Sometimes this means that we are called to pursue good public policy that contributes to the flourishing of our neighbors and all aspects of creation. Laws cannot change hearts, but they can be instruments of God’s grace to protect our neighbors from the full effects of idolatry, injury, and injustice." #Restoration Michael Goheen, "The Symphony of Mission"  

Joe Biden wants to heal a divided America and believes he can do it. This, I believe, is “the” question that will haunt the Biden presidency and the Democratic party beyond it. Broken down into two questions, -are the divisions we currently experience fundamental or strategic? -if fundamental, can Biden be of much help? Our divisions are fundamental. What we have seen played out in the two Trump campaigns and his one term in office is we are two Americas. One America is open to a future as a multiethnic nation and desirous of extending the opportunities of the America we believe in to others. The other America is not open to such a future or to sharing the “goodies” they have gotten from their vision of America. To my mind, these are fundamental, game-changing, non-negotiable differences. Now that the Trump phenomenon has made it acceptable to go public with this second version of America, can we move forward together, without one side subduing the other (by electoral or othe

 The crucifix, a cross with the body of Jesus still on it, is a staple of Catholic and other traditions spirituality. Protestants quickly and decisively reject it because the dead body of Jesus still hangs on it signifying crucifixion whereas we believe the cross ought to be empty because Jesus has been raised from the dead and the cross is empty. The Protestant perspective is certainly legitimate and an important and crucial part of understanding God’s work of salvation. At the same time, another crucial and legitimate part of that divine work often gets overlooked, I think. Looking back at the cross from the resurrection, it makes perfect sense to insist on an empty cross and wonder if the crucifix does justice to Jesus’ work. But looking forward from the resurrection does the New Testament not put Jesus back on a cross? This time not as an instrument of torture, humiliation, rejection, and death, but rather as a throne from which he exercises his cruciform and saving rule over h

It is clear the church must find a way to help mediate the tensions and oppositions ripping or culture apart. But is there a way to do that, a way to be a reconciled and reconciling body in a time like ours? Pastor and theologian Geoff Holsclaw offers four possibilities for consideration ( http://geoffreyholsclaw.net/four-definitions-of-the-radical-middle-or-why-it-isnt-for-wishy-washy-wimps/). Option #1: Holding the Tension This kind of radical middle holds together what most people think are opposites, irreconcilable differences.  This is the practical view that comes from understanding that Jesus is fully God and fully human (not just 50/50 of each), or the reality that we “already” live in God’s new kingdom, while it is “not yet” fully realized.   Option #2: Via Media (Middle Way) This option finds the middle between two extreme, values moderation over excess. Truth be told, this way does seem to perpetuate false moderation, let’s ignore our differences by watering things d

Okay, I'm going to try to say this well (and my attempt got really long, sorry):   I think the standard, knee-jerk analyses of the recent Presidential election returns have not been terribly helpful. They are not simply without merit; it's just that they don't provide much insight into why Trump won the election last time, almost won reelection, and continues to pose a threat (there are rumors that he is planning to run again in 2024, an empty threat, I would have thought, had we not just elected someone the age he'll be then).   I do believe people voted *against* Biden and *against* Trump, despite their displeasure with the candidate they cast ballots *for*. I believe people voted from a racist sensibility (more for Trump, but for both candidates). I believe people voted because they were swayed by ads or campaign volunteers, and other one-liner-generaters. I believe people voted for candidates because of personalities (e.g., either for or against Trump's mode

  If one has only a fantastic picture of Christ, if he is not the individual human being who stands face to face with one, and his father, the carpenter, is not an actual individual human being with whom one is well acquainted, and likewise the rest of his relatives - then it is quite possible not to be offended. But if one is not contemporary with Christ in this way, then it is also impossible to become Christian.

  But didn ' t C hri s t co m e in t o the world to take s uff e rin g awa y, so t hat we s hould b e h ap p y - n o t to bring n ew sufferings[?] Doe s n ' t t a kin g it thi s way make hi s whol e coming into the world f utile? On th e co n trary . He came into the world to transform hum a n ity i n s u c h a way that all these human s uff e ring s ( p overty , penury , sickness, loss of honor, etc.) b e com e as so m ethi n g childish, something to be reckoned a s n o thing .

  Some pertinent questions we might usefully employ in matters private and personal/interpersonal. Spiritual Practices: An Examen I do this consistently. I do this inconsistently but want to do it consistently. I do this rarely (or not at all) but want to do it consistently. I do not believe this is appropriate for me.   Place a 1,2,3, or 4 in the blank space after each item. Private Solitude, Silence, Fasting I am alone (without interactive devices) for at least (a) an hour once a week or (b) this frequency: _____________. I am silent (without interactive devices, or reading or writing material) for at least (a) an hour once a week or (b) this frequency: _____________. I fast (abstain from food, with modifications for health as appropriate) for at least one mealtime at least (a) once a week or (b) this frequency: ________. Physical Exercise I train for strength and endurance, with modificat

Try this experiment: working through Paul’s letter to the Romans, when you read the word “Lord” in your NRSV or NIV, think “Sovereign” or “Ruler”; when you read “Gentiles,” think “nations”; when you read “righteousness,” think “justice”; when you read “faith,” think “allegiance” and “trust.” Try this out especially on Romans 1:1-5, 16-17 and Romans 15:7-13, the two texts that frame and determine the meaning of the whole letter. Even these few translation changes (each of them warranted in scholarship), begin to take us beyond merely “religious” and individualist readings of this most important letter. Is it possible that Romans might speak directly to questions of political authority and rule, of political allegiances and practices, of justice in personal, social and legal spheres?

  Psalm 119 (1) This longest psalm, artfully crafted as an eight-part alphabetic acrostic poem (that is, each section begins with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet and uses eight main words used for “torah” . . .   corresponding to this eight-fold acrostic; and about 176 of these synonyms for Torah occur in the 176 vv. of the psalm ( The Jewish Study Bible: Second Edition [Kindle Location 74340-74342]) has often been believed repetitive, redundant, and boring. That has changed somewhat in more recent times but still, 176 verses about the Torah , the Law of God! How much can, or needs, to be said about it? Further, in the West we tend to construe law more negatively than not religiously. The prevalent tendency to play law off against grace (as part of an Old Testament vs. New Testament dialectic) in much American Christianity is a parade example. A long, boring, repetitive, legalistic paean to Law is not likely to attract much favorable attention. Psa.119 itself, closely

  “. . . as it is in heaven,” as it is already where our thought and imagination cannot reach, as it is in mystery, as it is in our hopes and prayers . . . . “. . . Give!”—that the hope and mystery of the world *gives* is the life and breath of all the faithful, all those who pray in Jesus’s name, all those who know by name the poor whom we have with us always, the poor among whom—as whom—Jesus lived, died, and was raised . . . . “. . . us this day,” all we are is *this day,* though we are *this day* with a past and with a future, an indeterminate past and a differently indeterminate future, both at work in *this day* in ways that elude our management skills and our consciousness, a future calling upon *this day* to hope, a past calling upon *this day* to despair . . . . “. . . our daily bread,” a prayer of those who cannot assume they will eat today, who do not and have not had more than enough for today and in too many days have had nothing at all, they are the *us* of this pra

  If you’ve heard the term “theological interpretation of scripture” and wonder what it means or looks like, I submit Craig Keen’s version of the Lord’s Prayer (Part 1 below) as a prime specimen. You could read any number of books and articles on it (not necessarily a bad thing) but you’d do better to spend time immersing yourself in Keen’s work here (and in Part 2) until you discern the theological loom on which it is woven. Then you’ll understand theological interpretation. ------------------------------- “Our Father”—no father at all, no God at all, nothing at all—without “the Son” who with you was humiliated his whole life long and above all on Golgotha in solidarity with other poor, oppressed, outcast sufferers of the world, never shaking off that solidarity, not on Holy Saturday, not on Easter Sunday . . . . “. . . who art in heaven,” in mystery, outside our reach, sovereign in ways that shock, confuse, and tempt our understanding to offense, i.e., in weakness, in loneliness, in

Despite our Western bias that human beings are but “brains on a stick” (J. K. A. Smith), we are not. In biblical perspective we are beings moved to action by loving and being loved. From whom we receive that animating love and direct our responsive love and action is the decisive question of each of our lives. We are, however, beings fallen out of sync with that divine wiring, no longer responsive to truth, beauty, and goodness. God in Christ has acted, however, to reclaim and restore us to that divine design. His love penetrates even our darkness and through Christ and by placing humanity in him. We henceforth live not from who we are to who we hope to be (as we normally do) but from who we are in Christ to who we will be and, indeed, already are in him.   We traverse this path from who we are in Christ now to the full experience of that identity to come requires response and pursuit from us. God’s love given us in Christ fires in us and makes possible this pursuit just as it as