As a son, I love Mother's Day. I have a great mother and I love her and I will tell her these things on the second Sunday in May. As a pastor, however, I confess that I don't like Mother's Day because it is a day that is more hurtful than joyous for many.
I think it was 21 years ago when I was an associate pastor in Texas that I had to handle the recognition of mothers in worship on Mother's Day. The senior pastor was absent and I had been told specifically how to handle the task of honoring mothers in keeping with the tradition of that church. Each mother was to receive a flower and I was to read a sentimental poem about the greatness of mothers.
As instructed, I asked the mothers to stand and the flowers began to be distributed as I began to read the poem. But, only seconds into the flower distribution and the reading of the poem, the church organist on the front pew sat back down and began to sob uncontrollably. Her obvious grief could be heard all through the sanctuary. Her son had died a little less than a year before. Smiles evaporated and tears began forming in the eyes of many in that place of worship as we all connected with the sorrow of one mother.
In my faith tradition many churches, on Mother's Day, recognize the oldest mother, the youngest mother and the mother with the most children. I've never quite understood what was being honored in this practice. Why do these mothers deserve to be singled out above others? How does the age, youth or number of children of a mother merit special recognition? And what about the mothers like that church organist for whom Mother's Day, rather than being a day of celebration, is a day of intense sadness? Should these mothers be ignored?
As a senior pastor I have never followed the typical pattern of recognition on Mother's Day. For many years I asked worshippers who were either mothers or who were born of a mother to stand. Of course everyone stood. I then pointed out that all of us were touched in some way on Mother's Day and for many it is a very difficult day for a host of reasons. I always encourage the congregation to be sensitive to and supportive of those for whom Mother's Day is hard. Often I have made available copies of articles written by mothers and others who had a tough time on Mother's Day.
Over the years I have known numerous regular worshippers who make a point not to go to church on Mother's Day because it is just too hard for them. I am well aware that the second Sunday in May is a joyous celebration for many families. But I also know that Mother's Day really hurts for many. The family of God must attempt to effectively and equally "rejoice with those who rejoice and mourn with those who mourn" (Romans 12:15, TNIV).
It is interesting that the mother who inspired the creation of Mother's Day, Ann Maria Reeves Jarvis, was a crusader for positive social change. As an expression of her love for Christ she organized Mother's Day Work Clubs that raised money to help needy people obtain medications they could not afford and promoted peace during the Civil War and healing between the North and South after the war. When her daughter succeeded in establishing Mother's Day as a national observance, the younger Jarvis was appalled that the day established in honor of a woman devoted to social change quickly became a day of profit for flower retailers and greeting card sellers.
I wonder if recovering some of the spirit of Ann Maria Reeves Jarvis in our Mother's Day observances might make them a little less painful for many.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Reasonless love
Above is a picture of Maxie, a dog belonging to my wife, Terri. I read an article by Mark Galli entitled "Love Needs No Reason" at christianitytoday.com and it reminded me of Maxie. The above picture may not do this dog justice—she may be even, um, less pretty than this photo indicates. Frankly the consensus of Terri’s friends and family members is that Maxie is, well, ugly.
One of Terri's friends, Bruce, works at Brunswick Hospital. Some years back he asked Terri if he could have a picture of Maxie. Terri asked why he wanted such a photo and Bruce explained that the hospital were having an ugliest dog contest and he was pretty sure that he could win with a picture of Maxie.
I think it was sometime last year that my father called Terri and expressed his sympathy to her. Terri wanted to know why he was expressing sympathy and he explained that he had seen a news story that the world’s ugliest dog died and so he was sorry to hear that Maxie passed away. (Maxie was and is fine, by the way.)
Let me tell you how Terri came to have Maxie. This dog wasn’t a stray that showed up at the house and hung around. Terri chose this dog on purpose. She even paid good money for it. A few years ago she took a notion that she wanted a lapdog and she went over to the pound. Maxie was a puppy then and she came over and peed on Terri’s foot. So Terri kept her.
Obviously she did not pick Maxie because of her great beauty. She did not pick her because she was nice to her when they met. Yet, even though she had no apparent reason for it, Terri loved and still loves Maxie. That dog sleeps curled up against Terri.
God’s love for us is sort of like that. God doesn’t love you because you are really pretty or smart or for any other fine attribute that you possess. God even loves us and sacrificed himself for us in spite of the fact that we have all peed on his foot as it were. God loves us for no reason at all. God’s love does not need a reason.
And that’s the way it’s supposed to be with our love for others. Our love must be reasonless because God’s love is reasonless.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
'The Blind Side' and 'The Soloist'
I did not get to see The Blind Side in theaters. I know, I know, I missed out. I'll definitely check it out when it is released on DVD.
I did hear the basics of the true story of The Blind Side in an interview with the family at the center of it. In a nutshell, Leigh Ann Touhy and her family take in a homeless young man named Michael Oher. They lovingly raise Oher as part of the family and he becomes a college football All-American and a first round draft pick in the NFL. It is a great, inspirational story.
There was another movie released in 2009 based on a true story of someone attempting to help a homeless person. This one is entitled The Soloist and it did not do as well at the box office nor did it generate the buzz of The Blind Side. A few weeks back I picked up a previously viewed copy of The Soloist for $1 at a video store that was going out of business. I watched it last night and it too is a great story.
The story begins with Steve Lopez, a writer for the L.A. Times, encountering a homeless man named Nathaniel Ayers who was playing a violin with only two strings. It turns out that Ayers was once a student at the famed Juilliard School but he was living on the streets when Lopez found him. From there a friendship develops that takes many twists and turns. It is a relationship through which both men are transformed for the better.
I'm guessing that The Soloist did not generate the hoopla of The Blindside mostly because it does not have a storybook ending. Oh, don't get me wrong. It is a great ending--an uplifting ending. But Ayers does not move from the streets to become a successful musician in an orchestra somewhere. However, he does move to a much better place than he was when Lopez first found him. But then, in a very real sense, Lopez was also moved to a better place than where he was before he met Ayers.
From what I experienced in viewing The Soloist and from what I heard in an interview of the Touhys both of these movies are worth seeing. They both remind those of us who are not poor that genuine, loving friendships with those who are poor can make a difference for the better in our world. And that's a great lesson.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Even if we lose everything
It hit me afresh last night. I noticed that I was a couple of items short for a crock pot recipe that I wanted to do today. So I drove to Wal-Mart at 8:00 p.m. and found a parking lot that was jaw-droppingly empty. Inside there were virtually no customers in sight. I did not expect the place to be booming at 8:00 on a Thursday night, but you would have thought it was 3 in the morning. It was truly surreal.
I continue to hear story after story from business owners whose business is way off. I continue to notice the unprecedented length of the foreclosure listings in the local paper. Our food pantry continues to run out of food hours sooner than it used to in the monthly distributions.
The economy continues to be really, really bad in these parts.
The conventional wisdom is that a resort community like this one is the first to go into a recession and the last to come out of it. Much of our economy is dependent on people taking vacations, buying beach houses and retirees adding a deck or a sun room to their place. When people are worried about the future they don't spend much if any money on such things. We've been feeling the pinch in a serious way for several years now.
The empty parking lot and vacant aisles at Wal-Mart last night made me think of Habakkuk 3:17-19a:
In the agrarian culture in which these words were written they depicted a situation of losing everything, economically speaking. It would be sort of like someone saying today:
I continue to hear story after story from business owners whose business is way off. I continue to notice the unprecedented length of the foreclosure listings in the local paper. Our food pantry continues to run out of food hours sooner than it used to in the monthly distributions.
The economy continues to be really, really bad in these parts.
The conventional wisdom is that a resort community like this one is the first to go into a recession and the last to come out of it. Much of our economy is dependent on people taking vacations, buying beach houses and retirees adding a deck or a sun room to their place. When people are worried about the future they don't spend much if any money on such things. We've been feeling the pinch in a serious way for several years now.
The empty parking lot and vacant aisles at Wal-Mart last night made me think of Habakkuk 3:17-19a:
Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the
vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though
there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice
in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Savior. The Sovereign LORD is my
strength ... (TNIV)
In the agrarian culture in which these words were written they depicted a situation of losing everything, economically speaking. It would be sort of like someone saying today:
Though my bank account and my wallet are empty, though my
cupboards are bare and I can't buy any food, though the bank repossesses my car and forecloses on my house, yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Savior. The Sovereign LORD is my strength.
Can we join Habakkuk in such a statement of faith? I do not mean for a moment to diminish the very real pain that many in this area are experiencing in these days. But it is precisely because of such pain that it is a good time to ask ourselves, is the Lord truly our strength? If so, then is it possible for us to be joyful even in these days?
While he was in chains, Paul wrote, "I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do all this through him who gives me strength" (Philippians 4:12-13).
These are hard times in these parts and there is much heartache associated with them. And it is in these times that we must draw on the deep resources of our faith for strength. Through the mysterious wonder of our connection with Christ the Bible indicates that we can be joyful in our Savior even if we lose everything.
Do we believe this?Saturday, February 20, 2010
Someone(s) tried hard to hide this story from you
It really bugs me that I can't find it. I thought I knew where it was but I was wrong and I just don't have time to hunt anymore. If anyone actually reads this entry maybe you can help me find it.
I was looking for the portion of Timothy B. Tyson's book entitled Blood Done Sign My Name in which he recounts how he had a really tough time time obtaining the historical documents that would help him to tell the story of a very dark chapter of North Carolina history. I don't remember all the details now, but I remember enough to say that it is obvious to me that someone or some group does not want for this story to be told.
If I remember correctly, Tyson went to Oxford, North Carolina, where this bloody episode unfolded, and discovered that the documents had been removed from the spots they should be. Newspaper issues for the period in question were missing from the library and, as I recall, from the newspaper office as well. At the state archives in Raleigh the pertinent documents were gone.
He went to the police department in Oxford and inquired about the documents and he was told they were lost or destroyed. If I have this right, as he was leaving, he noticed some stairs leading to a basement at the police department. He went down them and found the door unlocked and entered. In the room behind that door he found some old files, including one containing the newspaper clippings of the period in question. He took the file, copied the documents and returned it. Later he returned to that basement and the file was gone. After he completed a Masters thesis on this story and donated it to the public library in Oxford, he returned and found that someone had torn out the pages recounting the ugliest part of the story.
Again, I am obviously fuzzy on the details and I am sure that someone out there can point me to the page number of Blood Done Sign My Name that can help me to get it right. But it is abundantly clear that some individual or group does not want for you to know this story, which is exactly why you should read Blood Done Sign My Name. The movie based on the book was released yesterday and you should see that too. But you need to read the book. There is a lot more in the print version and this story needs to be known and remembered so that we might learn from our mistakes.
I was looking for the portion of Timothy B. Tyson's book entitled Blood Done Sign My Name in which he recounts how he had a really tough time time obtaining the historical documents that would help him to tell the story of a very dark chapter of North Carolina history. I don't remember all the details now, but I remember enough to say that it is obvious to me that someone or some group does not want for this story to be told.
If I remember correctly, Tyson went to Oxford, North Carolina, where this bloody episode unfolded, and discovered that the documents had been removed from the spots they should be. Newspaper issues for the period in question were missing from the library and, as I recall, from the newspaper office as well. At the state archives in Raleigh the pertinent documents were gone.
He went to the police department in Oxford and inquired about the documents and he was told they were lost or destroyed. If I have this right, as he was leaving, he noticed some stairs leading to a basement at the police department. He went down them and found the door unlocked and entered. In the room behind that door he found some old files, including one containing the newspaper clippings of the period in question. He took the file, copied the documents and returned it. Later he returned to that basement and the file was gone. After he completed a Masters thesis on this story and donated it to the public library in Oxford, he returned and found that someone had torn out the pages recounting the ugliest part of the story.
Again, I am obviously fuzzy on the details and I am sure that someone out there can point me to the page number of Blood Done Sign My Name that can help me to get it right. But it is abundantly clear that some individual or group does not want for you to know this story, which is exactly why you should read Blood Done Sign My Name. The movie based on the book was released yesterday and you should see that too. But you need to read the book. There is a lot more in the print version and this story needs to be known and remembered so that we might learn from our mistakes.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Females preach in the Bible so they should preach in our churches
"Now Deborah, a prophet, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites went up to her to have their disputes decided." (Judges 4:4-5, TNIV)
"Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Akbor, Shaphan and Asaiah went to speak to the prophet Huldah, who was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. She lived in Jerusalem, in the New Quarter." (2 Kings 22:14, TNIV)
"In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy ..." (Acts 2:17, TNIV cf. Joel 2:28)
"Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied." (Acts 21:8-9, TNIV)
In the biblical sense, prophesying is proclaiming a message from God. Preaching is all about proclaiming a message from God. Prophesying is preaching. Above are some of the biblical instances of females being called prophets. In other words, we have passages in the Bible that identify females as preachers. Because females preach in the Bible they should be allowed to preach in our churches.
It really is that simple. I am convinced that those who still bar females from preaching do so based on cultural norms rather than biblical teaching. There is just no getting around the fact that the Bible says women proclaimed the word of God and that's preaching.
I once heard a leading evangelical who opposes female preachers say that there is some debate about what exactly the biblical concept of prophecy is all about. I found his analysis terribly flawed. While the exact expression of biblical prophecy varies widely, at a basic level, the fact remains that prophecy is the proclamation of the word of God and that's preaching.
But there is a larger issue. Even that leading evangelical goes so far as to say there is a debate about the meaning of the biblical concept of prophecy. Again, I find his analysis flawed, but even he acknowledged there is a debate.
Okay, we have gifted and dedicated females in our society who believe God has called them to preach. Should those females be disqualified from responding to that calling based on an acknowledged debatable point of biblical interpretation? Again, I don't consider the matter debatable--prophecy is preaching and so females in the Bible preached. But for those who take the other side of this issue I think it is dangerous to bar a whole class of humanity, comprising half the population of the planet, based on a "debatable" point.
It is a serious thing to interfere with a calling from God. Better to let each person answer to God for his or her own calling.
I bring this up because Baptist Women in Ministry is promoting the Martha Stearns Marshall Month of Preaching this month. You let your sons preach. How about following the rest of Acts 2:17 and let your daughters preach too.
"Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Akbor, Shaphan and Asaiah went to speak to the prophet Huldah, who was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. She lived in Jerusalem, in the New Quarter." (2 Kings 22:14, TNIV)
"In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy ..." (Acts 2:17, TNIV cf. Joel 2:28)
"Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied." (Acts 21:8-9, TNIV)
In the biblical sense, prophesying is proclaiming a message from God. Preaching is all about proclaiming a message from God. Prophesying is preaching. Above are some of the biblical instances of females being called prophets. In other words, we have passages in the Bible that identify females as preachers. Because females preach in the Bible they should be allowed to preach in our churches.
It really is that simple. I am convinced that those who still bar females from preaching do so based on cultural norms rather than biblical teaching. There is just no getting around the fact that the Bible says women proclaimed the word of God and that's preaching.
I once heard a leading evangelical who opposes female preachers say that there is some debate about what exactly the biblical concept of prophecy is all about. I found his analysis terribly flawed. While the exact expression of biblical prophecy varies widely, at a basic level, the fact remains that prophecy is the proclamation of the word of God and that's preaching.
But there is a larger issue. Even that leading evangelical goes so far as to say there is a debate about the meaning of the biblical concept of prophecy. Again, I find his analysis flawed, but even he acknowledged there is a debate.
Okay, we have gifted and dedicated females in our society who believe God has called them to preach. Should those females be disqualified from responding to that calling based on an acknowledged debatable point of biblical interpretation? Again, I don't consider the matter debatable--prophecy is preaching and so females in the Bible preached. But for those who take the other side of this issue I think it is dangerous to bar a whole class of humanity, comprising half the population of the planet, based on a "debatable" point.
It is a serious thing to interfere with a calling from God. Better to let each person answer to God for his or her own calling.
I bring this up because Baptist Women in Ministry is promoting the Martha Stearns Marshall Month of Preaching this month. You let your sons preach. How about following the rest of Acts 2:17 and let your daughters preach too.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
The biggest betting day of the year
Here is the first definition of the word gamble at dictionary.com: "to play at any game of chance for money or other stakes." In this sense of the word I consider gambling a violation of biblical teaching. No, there is no verse in the Bible that specifically says, "Thou shalt not gamble." But betting on games of chance is about placing one's faith in a jackpot rather than Jesus and he said that you cannot serve both God and money (Mat. 6:24).
This is why I have never bought a lottery ticket and I hope you never do. I have never gambled at one of the Sweepstakes places that are becoming as prevalent as grains of sand in our area. Super Bowl Sunday is upon us, the biggest betting day of the year, and I will not be putting any money on the game. Playing games of chance for money is a poor investment that can become addicting and the practice cuts against the grain of biblical teaching.
But there is another sense in which we are all gamblers. Here is definition number five of the word "gamble" at dictionary.com: "to take a chance on; venture; risk." In this sense we all place our bets every day. We bet the moments of our lives on a way of living. On the verge of the biggest betting day of the year it is a good time to ponder where we are betting our lives because we are all placing that bet in every moment that we draw breath.
In Luke 5:11 we learn that the first disciples to follow Jesus "left everything and followed him" (TNIV). They bet it all on following Jesus. Is he worth that sort of gamble?
Yes, he is.
This is why I have never bought a lottery ticket and I hope you never do. I have never gambled at one of the Sweepstakes places that are becoming as prevalent as grains of sand in our area. Super Bowl Sunday is upon us, the biggest betting day of the year, and I will not be putting any money on the game. Playing games of chance for money is a poor investment that can become addicting and the practice cuts against the grain of biblical teaching.
But there is another sense in which we are all gamblers. Here is definition number five of the word "gamble" at dictionary.com: "to take a chance on; venture; risk." In this sense we all place our bets every day. We bet the moments of our lives on a way of living. On the verge of the biggest betting day of the year it is a good time to ponder where we are betting our lives because we are all placing that bet in every moment that we draw breath.
In Luke 5:11 we learn that the first disciples to follow Jesus "left everything and followed him" (TNIV). They bet it all on following Jesus. Is he worth that sort of gamble?
Yes, he is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
