How about a movie about a man who makes great sacrifices to help those in need. I mean huge sacrifices. And he makes these sacrifices to atone for one mistake that he made--a mistake that had horrible consequences. This is the story in Seven Pounds, a new movie in theaters now, starring Will Smith.
This film may be worth seeing if only as a conversation starter to talk about things like redemption and sacrifice. I wish I could say more but, as one reviewer said, the less you know going in, the better with this movie. I will, however, point out one major flaw in the philosophy revealed in this story--at least from a Christian perspective.
Early in the movie, Ben (Will Smith's character) goes about evaluating a limited number of people that he is able to help in a significant way. He wishes to make his sacrifices for those who are deserving according to his standards. At one point he angrily refuses to assist a nursing home administrator after he finds out the terrible way that the administrator treats the residents.
Ben's approach seems pretty logical. Most of us, if we are going to make significant sacrifices for a few people, would want to help good people. The problem with this thinking from a Christian perspective is that Jesus died for that sleazy nursing home administrator too. According to 1 Tim 1:15 Christ's great sacrifice was for the worst of sinners. According to Romans 5:6 Jesus died for the ungodly.
The sacrifice that is the pattern for Christ-like living was made for those who were and are undeserving. This is what grace is all about.
But you see. even with this philosophical weakness Seven Pounds has now given me an opportunity to highlight the nature of Christian sacrifice, which, again, is why this movie may be worth seeing. There are a slew of conversations that Ben's sin and his sacrifices could spawn.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Hopeful Thanks
It has long bothered me how quickly we turn the page on Thanksgiving to the Advent season. I know, in the retail business they are playing Christmas songs in the stores before Halloween, never mind Thanksgiving. But the shift from Thanksgiving to Advent is a quick one on the liturgical calendar too with the first Sunday of Advent usually (always?) falling on the Sunday after we have stuffed ourselves with turkey and dressing.
I like Thanksgiving and I would prefer that we pause just a little longer there. But, at the conclusion of our Thanksgiving Eve service on Wednesday, members of our Flower Ministry were getting out wreaths and other Advent supplies in preparation for the Hanging of Greens service to take place tomorrow. I'm not complaining about that--a lot needs to be done in order to get ready for that service. Hey, I was making my own Advent preparations well before Thanksgiving week. It just seems a bit of a shame that, to some degree, we look past Thanksgiving to Advent.
But this morning as I meditated for a few moments on the theme for tomorrow I decided that the quick shift is not all bad. On the first Sunday of Advent we light the candle of hope. Our culture's understanding of hope is often different from that of New Testament culture. When we say that we hope for something we are often referring to wishing for something that is unlikely to happen like winning the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes. New Testament hope is not like that.
The Greek word translated "hope" is about confident anticipation. It is about a wonderful future that is secure and a glorious, ongoing transformation that is already underway in believers. The hope we celebrate tomorrow is not about something that might be, but about something that is and that will be.
As I pondered all of this just after eating some leftover Thanksgiving ham, a question crossed my mind. Can hopeless people be thankful? Can thankful people be hopeless? In some ways they can when hopes and thanks are misguided. When, for example, we place our hopes in Black Friday specials and we are thankful for them we are only anchoring our hope and offering thanks to the god of consumerism.
But when our hopes and thanks are properly focused on God, then it seems to me that there is a link between thanksgiving and hope. So, on second thought, maybe its not so bad to have a day of offering thanks so close to a day of celebrating our hope.
"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope ..." (1 Peter 1:3, TNIV)
I like Thanksgiving and I would prefer that we pause just a little longer there. But, at the conclusion of our Thanksgiving Eve service on Wednesday, members of our Flower Ministry were getting out wreaths and other Advent supplies in preparation for the Hanging of Greens service to take place tomorrow. I'm not complaining about that--a lot needs to be done in order to get ready for that service. Hey, I was making my own Advent preparations well before Thanksgiving week. It just seems a bit of a shame that, to some degree, we look past Thanksgiving to Advent.
But this morning as I meditated for a few moments on the theme for tomorrow I decided that the quick shift is not all bad. On the first Sunday of Advent we light the candle of hope. Our culture's understanding of hope is often different from that of New Testament culture. When we say that we hope for something we are often referring to wishing for something that is unlikely to happen like winning the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes. New Testament hope is not like that.
The Greek word translated "hope" is about confident anticipation. It is about a wonderful future that is secure and a glorious, ongoing transformation that is already underway in believers. The hope we celebrate tomorrow is not about something that might be, but about something that is and that will be.
As I pondered all of this just after eating some leftover Thanksgiving ham, a question crossed my mind. Can hopeless people be thankful? Can thankful people be hopeless? In some ways they can when hopes and thanks are misguided. When, for example, we place our hopes in Black Friday specials and we are thankful for them we are only anchoring our hope and offering thanks to the god of consumerism.
But when our hopes and thanks are properly focused on God, then it seems to me that there is a link between thanksgiving and hope. So, on second thought, maybe its not so bad to have a day of offering thanks so close to a day of celebrating our hope.
"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope ..." (1 Peter 1:3, TNIV)
Monday, November 3, 2008
Before Election Day ...
It was quite a few years back that I was in some church that used a video series featuring Herschel Hobbs in a study of the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message. Hobbs served as the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Oklahoma City for many years. In one of those video installments he said that it was his practice in worship on the Sunday following a presidential election to make the following announcement: "Our nation has elected a president and he is my president."
That might be a good word on the eve of Election Day. I have heard many dire predictions from both sides of the political aisle if this or that candidate is elected. So, to paraphrase Hobbs, tomorrow our nation will elect a president and, whoever that person is, he will be my president.
I know, offically the new president will not be selected until the Electoral College meets in December, but you get the idea. I think it is good that we all, no matter our political preferences, strive for unity after this historic election is over.
That might be a good word on the eve of Election Day. I have heard many dire predictions from both sides of the political aisle if this or that candidate is elected. So, to paraphrase Hobbs, tomorrow our nation will elect a president and, whoever that person is, he will be my president.
I know, offically the new president will not be selected until the Electoral College meets in December, but you get the idea. I think it is good that we all, no matter our political preferences, strive for unity after this historic election is over.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
The bailout afoul with the free exercise clause?
A few days ago I saw an article by Ruth Moon at Christianitytoday.com that raises an interesting question about the recently enacted financial bailout legislation. Based on a Howard Friedman blog entry, Moon wonders about the government buying back failed church mortgages. Would the government then be entangled with religion? Both Friedman and Moon link an August article in The Deal reporting that "a surprising number of churches are behind in mortgage payments." So the possibility of the government owning church property as a result of the bailout appears to be more than theoretical at this point.
Moon approaches the possible problems created by this scenario from the standpoint of the Establishment Clause and several law professors agree that the legislation is "unlikely" to create problems in connection to that part of the First Amendment. But Moon does not mention the Free Exercise Clause which seems to be more problematic to this legal layperson.
The First Amendment says in part that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." Suppose a church that has defaulted on a loan is forced to move out of its building. If the government holds that mortgage then isn't this a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion for that congregation?
Sure, some may say that congregations that fail to pay their debts deserve to get booted from their building, but that's not the point. There is no qualifier on the applicable language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law" that prohibits the "free exercise" of religion. It is one thing for a bank to foreclose on a church and evict the congregation from its place of worship but it is another thing for the government to do so thanks to the Bill of Rights.
At least that's the way it looks on the surface to me. What do you think?
Moon approaches the possible problems created by this scenario from the standpoint of the Establishment Clause and several law professors agree that the legislation is "unlikely" to create problems in connection to that part of the First Amendment. But Moon does not mention the Free Exercise Clause which seems to be more problematic to this legal layperson.
The First Amendment says in part that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." Suppose a church that has defaulted on a loan is forced to move out of its building. If the government holds that mortgage then isn't this a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion for that congregation?
Sure, some may say that congregations that fail to pay their debts deserve to get booted from their building, but that's not the point. There is no qualifier on the applicable language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law" that prohibits the "free exercise" of religion. It is one thing for a bank to foreclose on a church and evict the congregation from its place of worship but it is another thing for the government to do so thanks to the Bill of Rights.
At least that's the way it looks on the surface to me. What do you think?
Friday, October 3, 2008
Troubling attitudes on religious freedom
The First Amendment Center released its annual "State of the First Amendment Survey" on September 17, 2008 and some of the results related to religious liberty are troubling.
I was astounded to learn that 29% of those surveyed believe that the "freedom to worship as one chooses ... was never meant to apply to religious groups that the majority of the people consider extreme or on the fringe." To those 29% who answered this way I say, "Wrong!" It was thanks in no small measure to the persecution of a religious group that the majority of the people considered extreme that James Madison presented the First Amendment guarantee of complete religious liberty. His memory of the mistreatment of Baptists in his home state of Virginia (where there was an Anglican majority at that time) was a large part of the inspiration that led Madison to be one of the foremost advocates of religious freedom for all.
This number seems to be heading in the wrong direction in the survey. The First Amendment Center shows the results of this question for three other years: 1997 (24%), 2000 (19%), and 2007 (27%). Now it is up to 29%. What is happening to cause apparently more and more Americans to believe that the right to worship freely should not necessarily be extended to those in the minority?
On another note, 55% of those surveyed believe that "The U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation." This is simply not true. Indeed, the language of the First Amendment applies broadly to all religions, not just to the Christian religion. Yet a rather strong majority of those surveyed somehow got the notion that the Constitution establishes this as a Christian nation.
In a question related to the freedom of speech but that has a connection to religion, 42% disagree with this statement: "People should be allowed to say things in public that might be offensive to religious groups." So does that mean that if I decide to preach or write in a blog that the so called "health wealth gospel" is a load of garbage that I should be arrested or what? Why do more than 4 in 10 in this survey believe that our freedom to speak freely should be limited when we are speaking about religious groups?
For the first time the First Amendment Center asked whether respondents agreed or disagree with this statement: "Religious leaders should be allowed to openly endorse political candidates from the pulpit without endangering the tax-exempt status of their organizations." Would you believe that 40% of those surveyed agreed with that statement? Setting aside my perception that, thankfully, most church goers do not want for their pastors to endorse political candidates, the recently challenged regulation preventing religious leaders from endorsing candidates while their organizations maintain tax exempt status makes sense. Charitable organizations are tax exempt because they do charitable work, not political work. Churches are free to campaign for any political candidate they wish, but they should pay taxes if they take that step.
This year's annual State of the First Amendment Survey reveals ongoing troubling attitudes and beliefs concerning religious liberty. How do we reverse this trend?
I was astounded to learn that 29% of those surveyed believe that the "freedom to worship as one chooses ... was never meant to apply to religious groups that the majority of the people consider extreme or on the fringe." To those 29% who answered this way I say, "Wrong!" It was thanks in no small measure to the persecution of a religious group that the majority of the people considered extreme that James Madison presented the First Amendment guarantee of complete religious liberty. His memory of the mistreatment of Baptists in his home state of Virginia (where there was an Anglican majority at that time) was a large part of the inspiration that led Madison to be one of the foremost advocates of religious freedom for all.
This number seems to be heading in the wrong direction in the survey. The First Amendment Center shows the results of this question for three other years: 1997 (24%), 2000 (19%), and 2007 (27%). Now it is up to 29%. What is happening to cause apparently more and more Americans to believe that the right to worship freely should not necessarily be extended to those in the minority?
On another note, 55% of those surveyed believe that "The U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation." This is simply not true. Indeed, the language of the First Amendment applies broadly to all religions, not just to the Christian religion. Yet a rather strong majority of those surveyed somehow got the notion that the Constitution establishes this as a Christian nation.
In a question related to the freedom of speech but that has a connection to religion, 42% disagree with this statement: "People should be allowed to say things in public that might be offensive to religious groups." So does that mean that if I decide to preach or write in a blog that the so called "health wealth gospel" is a load of garbage that I should be arrested or what? Why do more than 4 in 10 in this survey believe that our freedom to speak freely should be limited when we are speaking about religious groups?
For the first time the First Amendment Center asked whether respondents agreed or disagree with this statement: "Religious leaders should be allowed to openly endorse political candidates from the pulpit without endangering the tax-exempt status of their organizations." Would you believe that 40% of those surveyed agreed with that statement? Setting aside my perception that, thankfully, most church goers do not want for their pastors to endorse political candidates, the recently challenged regulation preventing religious leaders from endorsing candidates while their organizations maintain tax exempt status makes sense. Charitable organizations are tax exempt because they do charitable work, not political work. Churches are free to campaign for any political candidate they wish, but they should pay taxes if they take that step.
This year's annual State of the First Amendment Survey reveals ongoing troubling attitudes and beliefs concerning religious liberty. How do we reverse this trend?
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Though the earth give way
"God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea ..." (Psalm 46:1-2, TNIV)
We read those words when times are good and we find them beautiful and encouraging. I wonder if we can believe them when times are not so good. "We will not fear though the earth give way ..." What about when markets, banks, insurance giants and retirement accounts give way? What about when business slows to a standstill and savings dwindles to nothing?
Someone who I know very well works for a company that has a very large Lehman Brothers bond. Bonds, of course, are supposed to be safer than stocks and Lehman Brothers was supposed to be one of the safest companies in the world, but they filed for bankruptcy earlier this week. My friend is not sure his company will survive the loss of those funds.
I was talking to a church member yesterday who owns a business in a sector deeply affected by the recession. I asked him how things are going. He said that he and his wife are very concerned: "We are
b-r-o-k-e."
Daily people around here express to me how hard these times are.
I don't have any easy answers for the uncertainties of these days. But I wonder if we can proclaim a protest of hope when times are tough. I wonder if we can join with the psalmist in saying that we will not fear no matter how bad the times get. Can we say that God really is our refuge and strength? If we can then maybe we will be less fearful.
We read those words when times are good and we find them beautiful and encouraging. I wonder if we can believe them when times are not so good. "We will not fear though the earth give way ..." What about when markets, banks, insurance giants and retirement accounts give way? What about when business slows to a standstill and savings dwindles to nothing?
Someone who I know very well works for a company that has a very large Lehman Brothers bond. Bonds, of course, are supposed to be safer than stocks and Lehman Brothers was supposed to be one of the safest companies in the world, but they filed for bankruptcy earlier this week. My friend is not sure his company will survive the loss of those funds.
I was talking to a church member yesterday who owns a business in a sector deeply affected by the recession. I asked him how things are going. He said that he and his wife are very concerned: "We are
b-r-o-k-e."
Daily people around here express to me how hard these times are.
I don't have any easy answers for the uncertainties of these days. But I wonder if we can proclaim a protest of hope when times are tough. I wonder if we can join with the psalmist in saying that we will not fear no matter how bad the times get. Can we say that God really is our refuge and strength? If we can then maybe we will be less fearful.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Chasing and eating bees
Maxie It was clear and 65 degrees here this morning so I decided to go outside and do a little reading before going to the office. Our three dogs, Earl, Maxie and Pickles, were enjoying the beautiful morning with me, although not with books in their paws. As the experience unfolded Maxie engaged in and interesting activity.
She is on the small side of medium size as dogs go and she is ugly. Oh, don't misunderstand, our family loves Maxie and she knows it but she is ugly. One of our church members once asked for a photo of Maxie. When we asked why he wanted it he explained that there was an "ugliest dog" contest going on at his workplace and he was certain that he could win first prize with a picture of her. Maxie is a mixture of unknown breeds with gray wiry hair and legs that seem a little long for her small body. One family member once said that she looks like "a Chinese sewer rat" whatever that is.
This morning Maxie attempted chasing and eating some bees. There is some sort of ugly grass in many yards in this area that seems to spring up overnight to about a foot high. The green stems are topped with mostly black seed heads. Flitting between blades of this annoying grass was a sizable collection of what appeared to be bumble bees. I am not an insect expert, but that's what they looked like.
I noticed that Maxie watched the bees with keen interest. One came within a few feet of her and she chased it and tried to bite it. She missed but then went on a mission catch a bee in her mouth. In short order she succeeded. However, upon accomplishing her goal, Maxie immediately appeared to regret it and she spit the bee out and it flew away apparently unharmed.
I figured that Maxie had learned her lesson but I was wrong. Moments later she began chasing another bee and again imprisoned the insect in her mouth. Again Maxie made a face of discomfort, shook her head and released the second bee which also flew away. Still not satisfied she chased and captured yet a third bee with the same result.
At this point Maxie took a position some distance away from the bees in the grass apparently abandoning the pursuit. But she continued to watch them with what appeared to be longing. It looked like she had decided that chasing and eating bees was not good for her, but she still had the desire to do it anyway.
Maxie's behavior seems foolish, but I wonder if we engage in any bee chasing in our own lives. Are there behaviors that we know to be bad for us that we continue to pursue? "Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise" (Ephesians 5:15, TNIV).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
