Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Two Years of The Theophilus Project

Friends, Romans, Countrymen (and women),

As you may have garnered from yesterday's post, I am about to put another year of full-time ministry at FCC Longview in the books, which means another year of writing here at The Theophilus Project has likewise been completed since I started this blog in August 2011.

What follows (in italics) is, verbatim, the initial post here at The Project from August 2011, where I briefly offer my vision and hope for this new blog in light of the call I had just accepted (and now currently serve in).  I hope that I have lived up to these--and your--expectations in going about this ministry of writing and blogging.

The past two years have truly been a terrific ride.  While I write first and foremost, as the Jesuits would say, ad maiorem Dei gloriam, for the greater glory of God, I also write for all of you.  And over the past two years, the "you" has grown tremendously.  The Project receives literally over ten times as many monthly hits as it did at the time of its inception, and from this increasingly diverse variety of eyes and voices have come some fantastic comments and wonderful dialogues as a result of what y'all have had to say to me.  I am extremely thankful for your perspectives and for the investment of your time that you have put into The Theophilus Project.

It has been a pleasure writing for you these past two years.  God willing, I'll continue to do so for many, many more.

Yours in Christ,
Eric

Friends, Romans, Countrymen (and women),

After having let my old blogspot site languish for the better part of a year or two, I'm back at it in the blogosphere, and for a really great reason--I just recently accepted a call to serve as the pastor of First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Longview, Washington. My first Sunday there is September 25, but in the meanwhile, I'm laying the groundwork for my ministry there by doing things such as...well, starting a new blog.

The primary purpose of this blog will be to serve as a place to house all of my sermons, columns, and other written materials I'll be creating over the course of my ministry, but a significant secondary purpose will be also to simply talk about the life of a young and (hopefully) up-and-coming pastor. Our vocation is a little bit different than, say, being a doctor or a lawyer, and while you can get your impressions of living in those occupations from House or Law & Order, we pastors do not as of yet have a blockbuster television show that makes our lives seem more exciting than they are. Hence that second goal of this new blog.

In any case, and however you have found this particular corner of the internet blogosphere, thank you for stopping by. I plan to have a steady stream of new material from this point forward for the frequent visitors among you, and it is my hope and prayer that this blog might serve as a spark, and a home, for dialogue across any number of religious ideas. Look for the first of such posts in the next few days.

With that, back to the real life move--boxes, suitcases, and extreme amounts of whatnot. I love my shelves and shelves of books, but boxing and moving them is perhaps the best argument ever for just buying a Kindle instead.

Yours in Christ,
Eric

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Letters from the Soul: This Week's Newsletter Column + Preaching Schedule

September 2013: "Two Years"

Dear Church,


It's hard to believe, but this month will mark end of my second year with all of you and the beginning of the third. I realize that you who are older will likely scoff at a whippersnapper like me saying this, but seriously, where did all that time go?! It feels like only yesterday that my knees were shaking underneath my robe as I delivered that first sermon on Joseph's commissioning by Pharaoh in Genesis.

In any timeframe that we measure in years rather than days, weeks, or months, there will be some ups and some downs, but, I truly believe that our ups have far outnumbered our downs. You have allowed me to teach you, pray with you, counsel you, and lead you forward; and, know that this has not been a privilege that I have taken lightly. I continue to give thanks to God every day that God--through you--has called me here to be your pastor; and, I feel as blessed to be here today as I did on Day One!

But, our work together is also far from done. We are not out of the woods yet. We must continue striving to live out our "Big Faith for a Promising Future" motto. There remains great need in our community--not only materially, for mission and outreach, but also spiritually, for the Good News that God loves all and calls all to a relationship with Him.  And, as we grow stronger as a church, we also become better poised to rise to help meet those needs.

As we look to meet those needs, we do so while also paying honor to the past. This summer saw the passing of two stalwarts of our congregation: Berniece Hill and Dean Bridge. Their families have thanked me for all of your prayers and well wishes, and I pass that thanks on to you, knowing that this church has served as a loving community to us all for over 80 years, and, God willing, will continue to do so for many, many years more.

Yours in Christ,
Pastor Eric

Ordinary Time 2013: “Seeking God Anew: Faith, Doubt, and Other Lines I’ve Crossed”

September 1: Rev. Carole Elizabeth, guest preaching
September 8: “Dying and Rising With Christ,” Romans 6:1-11
September 15: “Recasting Eternity,” James 1:12-16
September 22: “Rediscovering Grace,” Galatians 1:13-20
September 29: “Becoming the Outcast,” Mark 2:13-17

Sunday, August 25, 2013

This Week's Sermon: "Behold the (Digital) Man"

John 19:1-5

Then Pilate had Jesus taken and whipped. 2 The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and dressed him in a purple robe. 3 Over and over they went up to him and said, “Greetings, king of the Jews!” And they slapped him in the face. 4 Pilate came out of the palace again and said to the Jewish leaders, “Look! I’m bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no grounds for a charge against him.” 5 When Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, “Here’s the man.”


“The Gospel Gone Viral: If the Bible Had Been Written Online,” Week Five

It sounds silly, really, that this time of year, huge NFL fans will show up to exhibition games and first practices and training camp.  That behavior isn’t limited to us, though—European soccer fans do it, too, but this time, it meant a little bit more.  Here’s how England’s Daily Mail told it:

A terminally ill Feyenoord fan was given the greatest surprise of his life when he turned up to watch his side being put through their paces ahead of the new season.  Fans of the Dutch side traditionally turn up in numbers to watch the club’s first pre-season training session, but this time there was a difference.

Lifelong fan Rooie Marck was told he had terminal cancer and had days to live, and his dying wish was to see Feyenoord again.

His friends brought him to the training session in his bed, but little did he know that the huge crowd would be chanting his name, lighting flares, and unleashing a huge banner of him.  In floods of tears, Rooie met his heroes before being helped to meet the crowd, who were singing, “You’ll Never Walk Alone.”

Now, it is difficult to describe the banner itself, but if you can imagine a swath of material stretching from the very front row all the way up to the upper deck of the stadium, and now imagine that banner with a colossal, uncannily accurate likeness of a man who, though dying, was portrayed as a superhero—cape and all—by friends and strangers alike, you could see how such an image would move a dying man to tears.  They saw him not as the feeble young man wheeled into the grounds on a hospital bed, but as a hero for courageously enduring his illness.  Imagine if you were dying, and your friends saw you not as what you looked like at the moment of death, but what you looked like in your prime.  That’s what happened here.

Three days later, Rooie Marck died.

This is a sermon series designed to take us through to this point: the end of August, and it has been a slightly different series from many of the sermon series we have had here in the past, which often revolve around a theme, a chapter of Scripture, or a book by a contemporary author.  This sermon series isn’t about a substance so much as it is about a style: the style of communication that has taken the world by storm within the past 15-20 years via the internet.  And I adamantly believe that online communication and social media represent a tremendous opportunity for us to offer the Good News of Jesus Christ to a lot of people.  Which is exactly the same way, I think, that the writers of the New Testament viewed their Gospels and Epistles.  With that supposition, we will be spending these five Sundays tackling how we might write the message today, with our modern-day tools, and we began with perhaps the most basic: email and text messaging, before graduating last week to Twitter, and the we turned to a platform that I know is familiar to many of you because I am friends with you on it—Facebook.  Last week, we arrived at blogging, and this week we conclude the series by moving from the realm of words into the realm of images: pictorial blogs like Instagram, and video blogs like Youtube channels.

And I promise you—especially if you feel overwhelmed by all the digital jargon and technical terminology I have been throwing at you the previous four weeks—things like Instagram are very similar to the tools you already use, because, essentially, we are talking about online photo albums here.  Only instead of taking pictures with a traditional camera and taking the negatives to be developed (and yes, I am old enough to remember such a thing, don’t tell me I’m just a whippersnapper!), you take the pictures with a digital camera that works basically the same way—trust me—and then you post those pictures to your online photo albums, the way you would arrange film photographs in a traditional album or scrapbook.

And videos like those on Youtube work pretty much the same way, but instead of traditional cameras and digital cameras, we’re talking camcorders and media players.  You film something with a digital recorder—which you can find on most smartphones, or even digital cameras now—and you upload it to Youtube as though you would pop a videotape into your VCR.

And these two technological advances really have done incredible things for the world, and for the church, because for every person out there like me, who is completely word-oriented and a verbal thinker and who absolutely loathes having his picture taken, there is another person who thinks not verbally but visually, who thrives off of visual stimulation, and who loves being able to see, in the most literal sense, whatever is being spoken of at the moment.

Which is why this passage from John’s accounting of the Passion narrative is so striking.  At this point in the story, Jesus has been “tried” (if perfunctorily) by Annas, the high priest Caiaphas, and the Sanhedrin, and they have bound Him over to Pontius Pilate because only the Roman prefect can issue a death sentence.

But bear in mind that this is the Passover festival as well, and the Pharisees are fastidious for upholding their laws regarding ritual purity.  As such, they cannot actually be present in the Roman viceroy’s residence whilst he questions Jesus.  They bring Jesus to Pilate, but after that, they must sit outside the palace gates and wait…which, with Jerusalem being a packed public city and all, is quite a visible gesture.  And so the trial of Jesus, much like prominent trials today, takes on a massively political dimension, one that Pilate is keen to emerge victorious from.

And so Pilate has Jesus beaten.  He has Jesus mocked, slapped, and crowned with thorns.  And THEN he has the cheek to step back outside to the Jewish leaders and say, “I find no grounds to charge him with?”  Well, yes, but that isn’t really the point from Pilate’s perspective.  The point  for him comes in verse five, where Pilate declares to the assembled Pharisees, in Greek, “Idou ho anthropos,” in Latin, “Ecce homo,” and in English, “Behold the man!”

It is one of the most famous images in all of Christianity, with artists as talented and renowned as Caravaggio painting portraits of the scene, of Pilate proffering a beaten Jesus and screaming out, “Behold the man!”  And it was done in Scripture because…do you remember what charge was, in fact, brought against Jesus?  That He was the King of the Jews.  And Pilate is saying to the Pharisees, “Look…I am so powerful that I can do this to your “king,” with impunity.”  And he is right, in a sense—the Pharisees cannot do a damn thing about it (even if they wanted to).

But it is that image, along with the image of Pilate symbolically washing his hands of Christ’s blood, that consigns him to the dustbin of the loathed in history.  Pilate won the battle but lost the war: he used imagery and theatricality to score a short-term PR victory over the Pharisees whom owed him their positions, but in the long term, Pilate would be rightly villainized, for, as it is written in the Apostle’s Creed, Christ “suffered” under Pontius Pilate.  Not under Caiaphas, the high priest, mind you, or Annas, or Herod, or any other of His political enemies.  Under Pilate.

That is the true power of imagery.  That is the true power of the visual sphere.  We can take an image, witness it, have it register in our minds, and be inspired by it or be repulsed by it.  And just like with words, we can be touched by fiction and non-fiction alike when it comes to images and art and video.  The banner of a young man dying of cancer, depicted instead as a caped hero, need not be nonfictional for its commentary to deliver a simple, powerful truth: we are, in many senses, what we see ourselves to be.

If you see yourself as a hero, you can act heroically.  If you see yourself as worthless, you might give up on yourself.  And if you see yourself as a Christian, you can work to act Christ-like.

And this isn’t me trying to get all New Age-y on you, either.  I’m a pastor, not a life coach.  But this is me saying that what you might see in the mirror is not what everyone else sees, that your image is not the same as other peoples’ images of you.

Because that is the underlying lesson behind this part of John’s Passion narrative: that even as Pilate and the Pharisees engage in this very public tug-of-war in which Jesus is the rope, who they see Jesus as is quite plain in Pilate’s “Behold the man!” exclamation: they see him only as a man, and a dangerous man at that.

But we know better.  Because the images and portraits of Jesus do not stop with the “Behold the man” scene.  They continue, with the march out to Calvary, the Crucifixion, the final words, being sealed in the tomb, and finally, with the tomb being discovered empty on the third day.

The images that others have made of Jesus Christ throughout the centuries are part of what move us in our own faith, because they depict the story that we have already been redeemed by: that there was a man to behold, but not just any man: a man who was more divine than any other who has come before or since, one whose divinity threatened everything about the established order of things that had led to the hurt and oppression of the vast majority of Israel’s people.

And so God decided to do something about it.  He sent His Son.

And how we tell that story—in word and in image alike—still matters a great deal.  Precisely because it can, and does, still move us to new heights.

Thanks be to God.  Amen.

Rev. Eric Atcheson
Longview, Washington
August 25, 2013

Thursday, August 22, 2013

One One-Hundredth of One Percent

To my recent spate of readers and commenters from the Church of Christ who were directed here by my exchanges with Doug Harvey: you might want to cover your ears for this one.

There is news out of Chattanooga, Tennessee, that a local Church of Christ congregation has delivered an ultimatum to the family of a local police detective who is in an openly lesbian relationship: the family can repent and publicly ask the church for forgiveness for their "sin" of publicly standing beside their police detective daughter during a legislative process ensuring equal protection for same sex couples...and if they do not do this, the family must leave the congregation that they have been members of for over 60 years.

Predictably, it was more than enough to send me oozing into a righteous fury.

Look.  I get it.  Scripture says that same-sex intercourse is sinful.  It says so in a grand total of six verses.  Those verses are Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26 and 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10.  (I'm not counting the story of Sodom and Gomorrah here, because Ezekiel 16:49 makes it very clear that Sodom was destroyed for far more than sexual immorality.)

Six verses.  Now, out of idle curiosity during our weekly Skype date earlier this week, Carrie and I calculated just how much of the Bible is taken up by those six verses.  According to this count, there are 31,103 verses in the Old Testament and 23,145 verses in the New Testament, for a total of 54,248 verses.  Divide 6 by 54,248, and you get 0.0001106, or a little over one one-hundredth of one percent (since one percent in decimal form is 0.01).

So, roughly one one-hundredth of one percent of the Bible addresses same-sex intercourse.  Let's compare that count, to, say, poverty.  Now, this is a little more translation-dependent, but this source puts that count at roughly 2,000 verses in the Contemporary English Version (CEV) translation.  2,000 divided by 54,248 roughly equals 3.7%, which may not sound like a lot, but it means that poverty is addressed by over 333 times more Bible verses than homosexuality is.

How about something a bit more general, like money as a whole, or stewardship?  This count puts that number at 2,350 verses, or roughly 4.3%, or over 391 times more Bible verses than the six verses that address homosexuality.

I could do this all day.  Divorce?  58, or nearly ten times as many as on homosexuality.  Adultery?  190, or over 31 times as many as on homosexuality.

Or...dare I say it, how about love?  450.

You get the idea.  And I haven't even touched the nature of God, or of Jesus, yet.  I'm just talking about what Scripture says about Christian behavior here.

So when I read about a church that decides to take an all-or-nothing stand on the basis of one one-hundredth of all of Scripture, I immediately think of what Jesus said to the Pharisees in Matthew 23: "You blind guides!  You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!"

I asked this of Doug Harvey in one of our subsequent conversations, but at what point did homosexuality become a "here I stand, I can do no other" non-negotiable for conservative churches?  The Bible says more about slaves obeying their masters than it does about homosexuality, and we are perfectly fine with discarding those instructions (at least, on a literal level) because we know slavery to be morally wrong.

So why are we not doing the same thing here when we know that homophobia is also morally wrong?  Or, since when did "teaching the whole counsel of God" mean super-sizing these six verses at the expense of the other 54,242?  

And if you do believe same-sex intercourse is sinful, why would you try to kick out a family for standing by their lesbian daughter?  Aren't churches supposed to be in the business of teaching people, not exiling them?  If you believe someone is doing wrong, you don't throw them out, you hold them in fellowship and try to help them (Mark 2:13-17).

What on earth could it possibly be about these six verses that have caused us to lose sight of the larger themes of God's own Word as revealed to us in Scripture?

I just don't get my own religion sometimes.

Yours in Christ,
Eric

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

The Necessity of Grace

A couple of weeks ago, the hashtag #ConfessYourUnpopularOpinion was trending hard on Twitter, and I indulged in that trend by sending out the following tweet:
(For those of you who do not geek out on religious studies quite as much as I do: penal substitution atonement is the Christian doctrine that says God's wrath against humanity required satisfaction or appeasement, and that Jesus' death represents said payment for our sins or debts because He died in our place.  This is a fairly common belief in Western Christianity, as it crops up in all sorts of hymns and songs (think "Jesus Paid It All") in addition to our own theological discussions and colloquial expressions (ie, "Jesus took my place").

Penal substitution has largely been taught in the church only over the last millennium, after St. Anselm wrote Cur Deus Homo.  Anselm lived in the Feudal era of Europe, when people were tied to the service of a lord or monarch above them, and he projects that relationship onto Christianity, arguing that our relationship with God is like that with a feudal lord or monarch.  Which I always found sort of ironic, since feudal lords tended to be rather brutal to those underneath them, whereas Scripture is pretty clear that God is on the side of the poor.)

A couple of my pastor colleagues questioned me on Twitter on what theory I adhered to instead (more on that later), but this week, one of them, a buddy of mine here in town, followed up by asking me how I thought God appeases Himself for our sins.  I tweeted back:


It is difficult to convey in a 140-character tweet, but Erik got me thinking about why this is precisely the reason why I adhere to the theory of sola gratia (that we are saved by God's grace alone).  Grace is not something we can obtain by trading or bargaining for.  It is given.

I'm not the most systematic theologian out there, so please bear with me here: we, in our short-sightedness and oppressive evilness, killed Jesus.  To me, grace is the only possible source of authentic forgiveness for something as big as killing someone else's child, and if atonement is all about how we can become reconciled to God, forgiveness is perhaps the biggest step towards that reconciliation.

Herein lies the rub: if forgiveness is made possible by appeasement or satisfaction or repayment, then what need is there for grace?  More to the point, how can forgiveness of a debt that has already been paid be considered forgiveness?

Or, to put this in a more mundane example: MasterCard does not "forgive" my credit card debt, I pay off my MasterCard debt.  MasterCard is not showing me grace by allowing me to repay my outstanding balance, it is expecting me to honor the agreement we made when I obtained a credit card from them.

We are left, then with one of two options: that Jesus's death represents the debt being paid in full, and so forgiveness of the debt is no longer necessary--eliminating the need for grace.  The other option is that Jesus's death does NOT pay the debt in full, which creates all sorts of problems if you believe that Jesus was divine.  If God's own infinite divine substance is not enough to appease God, what possibly could be?  And if this God can never be appeased, then why bother worshiping Him?  We might as well all stay home on Sunday mornings and do the crossword--it'll have the same net effect on this God.

Ergo, I have come to believe that God--especially through what Jesus teaches in Gospels--is nowhere near legalistic enough to adhere to a framework of contractual obligation.  Instead, the Crucifixion represents God taking that contract and feeding it to the shredder: He tears up the contract that demands compensation for our transgressions, and He decides to err on the side of forgiveness, offering grace to all those who choose to accept it by following the example and teachings of the Son we had just killed.

In other words, God acts less like the judge interested only in ensuring our sentence is served, and God acts more like the father in the prodigal son narrative, who, despite being wronged by his son (note the lowercase "son," ie, us, not Jesus), welcomes him back into the fold with open arms.  After all, as the parable says, the father ran out to meet the son--before the son could explain to his father his change of heart and his humbleness in declaring himself unworthy of his father's name.

And all of this is possible because of grace.  If payment is what saves us from divine wrath, then what is the point of grace?  We might as well worship a God who is capable only of wrath, if we are fine for as long as that God continues to be appeased.

Yet Scripture tells us over and over again that God loves us dearly (most famously in John 3:16)  And because Scripture also tells us that mercy triumphs over judgment (James 2:13), it can still be righteous for God to forgive and extend grace without being sated by payment.

And all of this is so because God possesses something we do not--incredible grace.  It is what puts God above us.  We may want satisfaction for wrongs done to us, like St. Anselm's feudal lord, but I have to believe that God is above that.

Yours in Christ,
Eric

Sunday, August 18, 2013

This Week's Sermon: "The Blog of Luke"

Luke 1:1-4

Many people have already applied themselves to the task of compiling an account of the events that have been fulfilled among us. 2 They used what the original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed down to us. 3 Now, after having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, I have also decided to write a carefully ordered account for you, most honorable Theophilus. 4 I want you to have confidence in the soundness of the instruction you have received. (CEB)


“The Gospel Gone Viral: If the Bible had been Written Online,” Week Four

The CT scan confirmed what might have been the worst possible news for the mother of a little two-year-old girl: this was not simply a stomachache, or a case of the flu, but a neuroblastoma tumor in the abdomen, pushing down on the kidneys and liver.  It meant months of chemotherapy and hospitalization for her little daughter, Hazel: months of worry and joylessness with no end immediately in sight.  Until they made a “send pizza” sign out of masking tape for the window in Hazel’s room.  Here, I’ll let Hazel’s mother, Lauren, tell the rest of the story:

This sign was up for several days without even a single phone call asking to send up a pizza (which we completely expected!).  Then, on Saturday, it all changed.  Aaron (her husband) had left the hospital, while my father-in-law stayed with Hazel, to go home and spend some time with me and our other children.  I would return later that night.  While at home, we began hearing news that several pizzas were being delivered to the hospital.  After only a few short hours, we were told that someone had taken a picture on the street of our sign, had posted it to Reddit.com, and it had reached #1!  Then, someone ended up posting a link to our Blog, Facebook, and donation page, which then all went bananas!  Hazel woke up from her nap to the smell of pizza and wa so excited to chow down!  Several other children and nurses came into the room, with music playing, and had themselves a wonderful pizza party.  As of yesterday, there were more than 20 boxes delivered and more was coming!  We had such a great time!  However, due to the sheer number of pizzas and inquires from the media, the hospital has asked that the pizza deliveries end and thank everyone for their support…

We’ve been absolutely humbled and surprised by the outpouring of love and support from the online community and can only hope and pray that this brings awareness to Neuroblastoma and the childhood cancer community.  Awareness and funding is severely lacking, and to help get better treatments and outcomes for our children, we need all the support we can get!  I truly felt that God used this wonderful day to help life, not only our families’, but everyone on the 4th floor’s spirits.  We all need a little hope up here.

This is a sermon series designed to take us through the month of August, and it is a slightly different one from many of the sermon series we have had here in the past, which often revolve around a theme, a chapter of Scripture, or a book by a contemporary author.  This sermon series isn’t about a substance so much as it is about a style: the style of communication that has taken the world by storm within the past 15-20 years via the internet.  And I adamantly believe that online communication and social media represent a tremendous opportunity for us to offer the Good News of Jesus Christ to a lot of people.  Which is exactly the same way, I think, that the writers of the New Testament viewed their Gospels and Epistles.  With that supposition, we will be spending these five Sundays tackling how we might write the message today, with our modern-day tools, and we began with perhaps the most basic: email and text messaging, before graduating last week to Twitter, and last week, we turned to a platform that I know is familiar to many of you because I am friends with you on it—Facebook—but now we arrive at another platform that you may perhaps follow, but not indulge in participating in yourself: blogging.

Blogging is itself an abbreviation—though not much of one, because it only drops two letters—for writing on a “weblog,” or a “blog,” an online diary of sorts that is typically public, but can on some platforms be made available to only a select audience.  Which really is  all there is to it: a blog is a public, online diary, except instead of the limitations of a traditional pen-and-paper diary, your online diary can also include music, videos, links to other websites…the sky really is the limit.  And unlike platforms like Twitter that include a strict word count on entries, entries to your blog can be as long or as short as you like—which has meant that for many people, blogs have become a terrific source of in-depth conversation on a particular subject matter.

And that is probably the biggest substantive difference between keeping a traditional diary and keeping a blog: instead of being a recounting of the day’s events, a blog will often recount events (both personal and public) with a tilt towards a particular subject matter: there are blogs devoted to sports, cars, politics, art, you name it.  Just as the sky is the limit for what you can put on your blog, so too is the sky the limit for blogs that specialize in reflecting on a particular subject.

And this seemingly infinite list of subjects most certainly includes Christianity and other organized religions.  There is a proverbial boatload of Christian blogs out there online, waiting for you to read them, and this is where Luke comes into play as a model for us to follow today.

Unlike Matthew, Mark, or John, Luke begins his Gospel with a formal preface to the Gospel’s original recipient: an otherwise unknown man named Theophilus, whose name literally means “lover of God.”  Luke, then, is not trying to write to a hostile audience, but to someone who already knows God and loves God, but perhaps does not yet know the truth about Jesus Christ.

Or, rather, perhaps Theophilus knows about Jesus, but only in incomplete and inadequate ways.  The first words of Luke’s Gospel are an acknowledgement that many others have undertaken to create this narrative of the events of Jesus’ ministry, yet Luke sees the need to create his own record, a record that, as he puts it, has been “investigated carefully from the beginning.”  Luke follows this Biblical seal of quality assurance by saying that he wants Theophilus to know the real truth about everything that has just happened in Israel in the years and decades prior.

Which, let’s be honest: speaking as a preacher, this really isn’t that innovative of Luke to do.  He is pulling the oldest trick in the book for fleshing out a sermon: outline the ways in which those who came before you got it wrong, and then proclaim how you have gotten right.  That’s Preaching 101.  It’s also a not particularly humble way of proclaiming the Gospel, but it is still an easy trap to fall into, because we want to be right.  If we felt we were wrong, we would get different opinions and different beliefs.  Luke is no different from us in that regard.

But speaking as a historian, which Luke in so many words claims to be—by noting that he is not himself an eyewitness, but a documenter of the accounts of eyewitnesses—what Luke says is absolutely clutch.  Luke is saying that he wants nothing but the truth for Theophilus…well, that implies that there are some less-than-accurate accounts of what really happened floating around.

And in this singular way, the internet—and the world of social media, and of blogging—is not unique in the slightest.  Wack-a-doodle theories and delusions will exist regardless of the era.

Put a different way: if Luke is the orderly, reputable scholar or journalist attempting to get his findings peer-reviewed and published in a journal of repute, then who he is warning us against is the crackpot End Times fanatic who listens to too much late-night televangelism while writing on his blog that we have to return to only coining money, lest the Antichrist use ATM cards to brand us with the Mark of the Beast after the government unleashes the Four Horsemen that they have been secretly hiding in Area 51 along with evidence of extraterrestrial life.

And plenty of theories abounded about Jesus after He ascended—the Romans, of course, had geo-political motive to discredit Jesus entirely, but even within the nascent Christian movement, there were different theories: that Jesus was never actually dead because one cannot kill a God, or that the Resurrection had been staged to cover up a tomb robbery, and so on.  Luke is aware that such theories exist, and is saying, in so many words, “Please.  I did the work.  Trust it.”

That is the test that we need to apply to our own writing, whether it is in a traditional pen-and-paper diary, whether it is in a letter to the editor, whether it is in an online blog, or whether it is not writing at all: but simply speaking the Gospel to one another.  Because as the story of Hazel and her impromptu pizza extravaganza demonstrates, word moves faster than ever these days.  The words we say, the words we share, on behalf of the divine Word, these are words that must be offered with care, just like Luke, because after all, what right do we have to tell others to trust us, when we ourselves and our words are not yet trustworthy?  How can we claim to offer hope to people who are worried that Christians are out to deceive or manipulate them instead?

Speaking of Hazel, there is an epilogue to the story of the joy in her internet-inspired pizza party in the midst of a childhood cancer ward…the joy continues.  About ten days ago, her mother posted on their blog that Hazel’s latest blood cultures came back negative, and so she was able to go home.  This is not the end for Hazel’s healing: she will be undergoing another surgery this Wednesday, the 21st, because the tumor, though shrunken dramatically, is still present and they need to remove the rest.  And so the “orderly account,” as it were, of Hazel’s odyssey continues, at least for the moment unabated.  You can follow her at ourlittlehazelnut.blogspot.com.

And so I, my dear fellow Theophiluses—fellow lovers of God—have sought to share with you my own account of one girl’s life and struggle as a microcosm of something far bigger than ourselves: that in pain, there can still exist relief; that in illness, there can still exist joy; that in weakness, there can still exist strength; and that in trials, there can still exist salvation.

These are all truths that are easy—sometimes too easy—to lose sight of.  We get distracted just as easily by our own hurts as we do by a harmful interpretation of Scripture because both prey on the same thing: our own short-sightedness.  In exhorting Theophilus, the lover of God, Luke so too also exhorts us all as lovers of God to look beyond our own narrowness for the Christ who taught us and healed us and died for us.  And we receive with each passing moment newer and more exciting ways to fulfill that charge.  The world may be growing smaller, but the ways of hearing God’s message are getting only bigger.  Thanks be to God.  Amen.

Rev. Eric Atcheson
Longview, Washington
August 18, 2013

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Rev. Dr. Doug Harvey's Response to My Letter

(Yesterday, Doug Harvey replied to me with a lengthy and thoughtful reply to the concerns I raised to him in the letter I posted here on Monday.  I thanked him for taking the time and courtesy to reply, and I engaged several of the points he raised.  He then proposed the idea of the DHF linking to my letter on their website, while I also published his response to me here.  I was--and am--happy to do so, and so below you will find Doug's response to me, which I have not edited in any way.  -E.A.)


Eric,

Thanks for your e-mail in response to the DHF postcard. At the risk of sounding disingenuous again, I appreciate thoughtful input at any time, and you provided it.

For just the reasons you outline, I wrestled with the statement about not trying to get churches to leave the DoC. I left it in because it reflects an important reality. DHF grew out of the Disciple Renewal movement. For the first ten years of our existence, we were strictly a renewal movement within the DoC, and strongly encouraged churches to remain in the DoC in order to lift up a clear evangelical voice. We found that churches often ignored our pleas and left the DoC anyway. Many of those churches had major issues down the road because they had made a hasty decision about who they "weren't" without giving enough thought to who they were. 

We saw a need for a fellowship that could include DoC and non-DoC churches without distinction, so those churches could remain connected with more than themselves. Of course this began to look more and more disingenuous as we continued to try to be a voice within while hosting a fellowship outside the structures. Frankly, I understood the frustration of the DoC folks who saw this as manipulative and I helped lead DHF to step entirely away from the vision of bringing evangelical renewal in the DoC.

You may find this hard to believe, but I don't even know whether or not some of our churches are still in the DoC. I do know some have left because I was in touch with them through the transition. And I know a couple that have remained in the DoC because of property reversion clauses. But in the middle are churches whose relationship with the DoC is not known to me, nor do I much care. DHF is about providing relationship and resource to those churches who desire it, regardless of their connection or lack of connection to the DoC. I purchased a DoC Yearbook in Orlando, and have noticed several churches listed there that I assumed had left long ago.

I readily agree that some of our materials reflect a bias that may look like we're trying to get churches to leave. Those materials were prepared to help churches sort through the issues, and the decisions of the DoC are pretty hard to spin positively from an evangelical perspective. We've had to be pretty blunt in order to penetrate the fog of obfuscation that is generally put up when evangelicals raise questions. The recent vote on sexual identity and ministry leadership is a great example. At my first General Assembly in 1977, the issue first arose and the resolution calling for civil rights for gays was clearly an attempt to grease the skids toward an eventual decision for an open and affirming position. For thirty-six years since then, the leadership of the denomination played a game of deception with the larger church, knowing full well they would pay a terrible price in membership and money if they pursued their desired agenda. When we tried to raise the issue, they invented a category of business called "items for reflection and research," and used it to derail any honest dialogue on the issue. 

When it became apparent that nobody was reflecting and researching, they created the "Discernment Process." As you surely know, that process was half-heartedly pursued for a couple of years, then simply abandoned. It never was intended to lead to discernment, but to stall open dialogue and decision until they felt they had the votes to do what they had decided to do years before.

All this to say we have to be pretty blunt to get past the dodges the General and Regional folks use to avoid telling the simple truth. "It's inappropriate to call for any decisions on this issue because it is being discerned." And "It's a decision for the Regions to sort out." And "Don't worry about it, it won't have any effect on your local church."

At the same time, the number of Regions granting standing and ordination to openly gay candidates kept growing. Even those with express prohibitions in their policies played "Don't ask, don't tell" and ordained people they know perfectly well were gay, and then told evangelical questioners that they had never knowingly ordained any gays because no one said anything in the commission on ministry interviews.

So, yes, our materials do reflect a bias toward stating our concerns about the DoC in strong terms. But the effort is not to prescribe a particular decision, but to ask churches to quit averting their eyes and face the honest truth about the DoC. Of course, facing that truth will often lead evangelicals to the exits, but our issue is simply to put the truth out there while the denominational leaders use rhetorical dodges to avoid stating things they know are true. Good decisions (which go both ways) can only be made with facts on the table, not spin.

So, why did we send the postcards at all? Whether DHF exists or not, there is going to be a major exodus from the DoC over the next several years. After 12 years out of the DoC processes, a lot of people do not know we are here to offer our resources as they struggle with their future. We don't have a way of sorting out which congregations are aware of us, or interested in us, so we chose this shotgun approach. I did go through the mailing list and remove quite a few churches where I knew there would be no interest, but beyond that I didn't know how to target the mailing to evangelical-leaning churches and/or pastors.

Well, enough said. I hope this clarifies some of the issues you (rightly) raised. I know what something like that postcard can look like at first glance. I hope this gives a bit more clarity to our motives. I'm comfortable knowing you won't agree with everything I've said, but want to try to keep the communication lines open and as clear as possible.