« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 »

It was hot here in San Diego yesterday. It has been 12 years since it was hotter downtown. We've celebrated Carl's graduation from high school, and I'm scurrying to get a paper done for an upcoming trip to Scotland. Mike Valentine seems to be doing amazingly well following his surgery. It's a full week already!

This coming Sunday's bible study is interesting because it lines the OT reading up with the Epistle, rather than Gospel reading. These are powerful reminders for us that the temporal things given to us by God in this world are not our true end, but are given for the sake of loving God through loving our neighbor, not merely in word, but in deed.

Just a quick word about some of the language I use in the Bible study: the difference between an "external good" and an "internal good". An "external good" is something physical that takes place in the world. For a soccer player, scoring a goal is an external good. An "internal good" is the appropriate attitude, disposition, virtue, experience of one's emotions or passions that lead to human flourishing. Thus, the internal good of joyous celebration experienced within oneself and shared with one's teammates is the internal good that comes with the external good of scoring a soccer goal. If one scored a soccer goal to win the World Cup and then in anger pushed a teammate aside and flipped off the national crowd, that would show how an external good and an internal good had become separated.

Deuteronomy 15:7-11

To understand the passage, one has to remember the narrative setting of Deuteronomy. Here Moses addresses the people of Israel before they are to enter the promise land. The whole book has the form of a covenant so that Israel might live in the land as a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. To keep the commandments are to flourish and live long in the land; to ignore them is to accept seige, tragedy, and exile from the land. The command is given for Israel in the land on the basis of their election by God.

What is the basic commandment? Why does the text recognize that "there will never cease to be some need on the earth"? Why is that given as part of the command? How much does the command concern the actual practice of an "external good"? How much attention does it pay to "inner attitude" or avoiding an "internal evil" and making sure one experiences an "internal good"? What do you think is the relationship between the external good of supporting those in need and the internal good of doing it willingly and becoming generous? What would be the consequence of such a practice with its inner good? What would happen if the external good and the internal good become separated?

2 Corinthians 8:1-9,13-15

Paul spent much of his time in his churches collecting an offering for the church, the poor, in Jerusalem. He saw this as a fulfillment of God's word to the prophets, an indication that the Messianic age had begun in Jesus because the wealth of the nations was pouring back into Jerusalem. According to Acts, authorities in Jerusalem arrested Paul while he was delivering this offering personally back to the Temple -- using Gentile money to buy the freedom of a Jew from slavery. Paul was accused of slipping a Gentile into the Jewish section of the Temple courts.

This Corinthian passage, of course, takes place before all this. Paul here is begging on behalf of this offering for the poor. We know that the Corinthian church had some wealthier folk within it -- in distinction from some other churches. He speaks of other churches to them, trying to use the example of the saints for the encouragement of other saints.

Why does Paul begin talking about the Macedonian churches? What is it actually about them that Paul commends? What is the external good in which the Macedonians had participated? What is the internal good? What is the result of having these together? Who benefits from participation in sharing external goods with the saints who are poor? Notice that Paul's request is not merely for the local environment, but for brothers and sisters outside the local area. Why does Paul want the Corinthians to excel in this undertaking?

Why does Paul not command them? How is their participation in such activities a test of the genuineness of their love? Why does Paul refer to "the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ"? Is this "generous act" necessary for the Corinthian church to accept the practice, or is it a cheesy appeal of Paul to raise money? Why would Jesus accept voluntary poverty? Is voluntary poverty a bad thing for Christians?

Does Paul want to bring hardships on people through the voluntary re-distribution of wealth? What is the goal? How is Paul exhorting them to order the goods of the church as a whole? What is the consequence of the Corinthians engaging in the external and internal goods of the offering for the whole church and its mission in the world?

Mark 5:22-24,35b-43

The economics of the Gospel passage is very interesting in light of the other readings. Jairus is a wealthy person, a leader of the synagogues. What, however, can his wealth not provide? Does Jesus shirk away from his need because he is wealthy? For whom is Jairus appealing to Jesus for help? Why would Jesus go with him?

Why would Jesus limit the number of people after the announcement that the girl had died? What is the significance of the death while Jesus was on the way to her? What is Jesus' instruction to Jairus? Why? What is the relationship between the external good of the raising of the girl and the internal good of her father and others? What is Jesus' attitude when he arrives at the house? How is he received? How does he take into the girl's room with him? Why these? For whom does he raise the girl? Why would Jesus tell those with him not to say what had happened? What sort of relationship does Jesus have between the external good resulting from his action and the internal good for those who received this gift? How does this relate to the Deuteronomy and Corinthian passages?

All three of these passages involve the people of God in direction action in response to the poverty and need of others around them? The concern seems to be the immediate need, not the underlying causes of the needs. Why would this be so? Why is direct action important for believers in response to the needs and poverty and mortality of the world around them? How do these passages related to the works of mercy? Is the goal merely to have the works of mercy done? Who benefits from the works of mercy? What would happen if the eternal goods are abandoned? Can the internal goods really emerge without participating in the eternal goods? Because one engages in the external goods, do the internal goods automatically follow? Can engaging in the external goods damage internal goods? When is it appropriate to move from the immediate need to the underlying causes of the situations?

Posted by johnwright at 8:13 AM | Comments (4)

As we continue to read through the Gospel of Mark, one of the best commentaries is Ched Meyer's, Binding the Strong Man. It combines literary sensitivity with a grasp of the social and political dynamics that often operate behind the Gospel of Mark. I think of it because of the dynamics of the "Legion" story in Mark. It is a powerful story; of course, the Epistle reading is extremely profound in its own way; the Job passage reminds of the Mystery that God is -- a very important reminder amidst a culture that wants to make God so familiar.

I want to just focus questions and discussion on each passage, a bit disjointed from each other. Each one is important. At the end, the Spirit can make known to you in your study the common good to which the Word of God calls us. There certainly is much in the passages to reflect upon, not only for the evening, but for life.

Job 38:1-11,16-18

Have you every had a tornado speak to you? How does the whirlwind provide a setting for the words that follow? What is the function of the form of the passage as a series of rhetorical questions? What is the answer to all the quesitons? What is the function to shift to a simple command at the very end?

Who is God? Why is this important for our lives to know God as unknowable? Can we even compare our selves to God? What implications does this have for us?

2 Corinthians 5:14-21

There is an old Protestant evangelical saying that "the ground is level at the foot of the Cross," a very simple, yet profound saying. It provides a context to enter this passage from Corinthians.

Why would the passage begin with the "love of Christ"? The phrase seems ambiguous -- what is the relationship here between "the love that Christ had" driving us and "the love that we have for Christ"? How has Christ died for all, and how is our death in his? The key here is that Paul sees the death of Christ as the worst thing humanity could do to God, and as the outcome of all humanity's, past and future, yours, mine, and others, sinful rebellion against God. There is a solidarity of humanity that is sin and understood in Christ -- a solidarity that does not eclipse the individual, absorbing into a greater whole so that the individual doesn't matter, but paradoxically, makes the individual really significant as an individual. Having died with Christ, for whom do believers now live? Why would it be that one would live "for Christ" within the logic of the passage? How is all of this related to "the love of Christ" urging us on?

The passage continues with socioal and political implications from the love of Christ urging us on. Here the translation becomes important. What the NRSV translates "from a human point of view" actually means "according to the perspective from a sinful, fallen world" ("according to the flesh")? From the perspective of a sinful, fallen world, Christ was a failed Jewish rabble-rouser, insignificant human flotsam that was rightfully removed by justice in order to keep peace -- a threat to the smooth operation of the world around. Paul here speaks of the switch that has determined his life, a switch of faith, of allegiance.

Having seen Christ different, how does this then shift how Paul sees others? Why? Why does the death of Christ, and faith (passionate allegiance) to Christ cause this perceptual shift for how the believer sees each and every human being -- not humanity as a whole, but as particular bodies?

Why is one who is in Christ "new creation"? Who has reconciled whom and how? Here again "ministry" needs a better translation -- it is language taken from ambassadorial language. How are we representatives of reconciliation? What is reconciliation?

Why is Christ, the messiah, so important here? Is Christ dispensable, able to be replaced by some sort of quality such as "relationship" or "intimacy" or "community" or "individual responsibility" or "justice"? Why or why not? How do we become the "justice of God"? Is "God's justice" (ie, "righteousness" -- the Greek word for righteousness and justice is the same) separable from what has taken place in Christ and our participation in Christ? Why is Paul's appeal made on the basis of Christ?

Mark 4:35-41;(5:1-20)

It is interesting that the disciples accuse Jesus of not caring for them. What would Jesus' care look like that they want from him? What does Jesus' care look like in the passage? Why are they filled with awe? What is it the Jesus brings and how does he bring it to pass?

This provides an interesting link to the story of Legion. How does Jesus perceive this man? Of course, legion is the name for the Roman army unit; the area of the Gerasene had several violent Roman legion conquests. One way of understanding the demoniac is through the contemporary experience of "cutters". The demonic trauma of the man's life inscribed into his body. Why would he be removed to the outskirts of the village? Does Jesus make this an issue? Where does Jesus go? Why transfer the demons to pigs? Why does Jesus' Jewishness make this matter more? What is Jesus destroying in this man? Is it destruction?

Why the reaction of the swineherds? Why do the village respond the way they do? How is this person significant to them and their lives? What does Jesus see? What do they see? Why is Jesus the issue?

Here it seems to me that we meet the radical "personalism" of the Gospels. How does this relate to the Job passage and the Corinthians passage?

Posted by johnwright at 7:36 AM | Comments (3)

After Trinity Sunday, our readings now take us into "normal times" -- what in the medieval world was called the "saeculum" -- the time between the times of Christ's comings. If you look in that world, one understands that the contemporary English word, "secular", is embedded in the earlier Latin term. It is interesting how the logic of "the secular" has come into dominate us, even in the church. Our passages for this Sunday are interesting to read in light of this difference.

As Christians, we believe that the "secular", a realm of pure nature that humans can understood without reference to God,does not exist. All things find their beginning and end in God, including ourselves. This does not mean that we collapse God into the world to measure our significance by our impact in the world -- 'co-writing history' with God. This is the mistake of all "relational theologies" -- and as we will see in the passage, it leads us to very profound difficulties -- and pulls us into the secular, rather than living in faithful live in the saeculum.

Ezekiel 31:1-6,10-14

A little background on the literal background that provides the basis for the spiritual sense of this passage. In the 8th through 7th centuries, Assyria had stretched out into the first real empire that the world had seen. In the later 7th century, Assyria weakened, and Egypt joined with them to form an alliance. Assyria fell to the Babylonians -- its populace and superstructure was utterly destroyed. Egypt hoped to become the one "big stick" on the block.

What does the prophet think about these aspirations? To what and whom does he compare Egypt? What is the lesson from the images? Are these images something for the Egyptians to imitate? Why or why not? What was the ultimate significance or meaning of Assyria? Is it in its accomplishments, its ability to be "significant" or "make history"? If Assyria plays a certain "type" found in the world today, both for human groups and individuals, where is it found? How is it a danger for us as individuals and a congregation?

2 Corinthians 5:1-10

In this passage, we find a fascinating glimpse about the relationship between our life in this world -- what Paul calls "the earthly tent" and our eternal end in God. Can you discuss the relationship between this earthly tent and our heavenly dwelling? Which is more basic, important, fundamental? Does this make the "earthly tent" insignificant -- should we wish to be "unclothed"? Is our heavenly end, the Triune God, a movement into or away from life? What does that say about the life we live now? Is it important? Is it the most important? How does that free us to live now?

What then is our goal, our end, our purpose or significance or meaning? Concerning what is the judgment of Christ? What does that mean about our life in the body? Why then must we walk in faith, not sight? What is significant about our lives? What is significant about others?

Mark 4:26-34

Why is the kingdom of God like someone who scatters seed but does not know how it grows? Does this person take control of the situation? What type of farmer would you call such a one? Responsible or irresponsible? How is bringing about the harvest?

How big is the mustard plant? How does it compare to the image of the tree from Ezekiel? Whom lives in it? How significant is the plant?

Now,looking at these passages, is it the believers responsibility to "take control" to make the world a "better place"? Are we called to withdraw from the world? Are these the only two options? What is our calling? Where is our meaning, our significance? In the secular world, where is ones significance? What happens in we accept life in the secular rather than in the saeculum?

Henri de Lubac in the work, A Brief Catechism on Nature and Grace writes, "Jesus did not come to establish a social program that would result in 'a better world'; not that he condemns the search for such a program, but his mission belongs to a different order, and whoever rejects that mission will in th eend make the former search vain" (p. 166). What do you think about this quote as an interpretation of these passages? Why would that "different order" make the "former search vain"?

Posted by johnwright at 1:03 PM | Comments (3)

I've spent much of my summer reading and teaching from Henri de Lubac. John Milbank calls his book, Surnaturel, one of the three most important texts in the twentieth century, along with Heidegger's Being and Time and Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. Yet unlike the high visibility of Heidegger and Wittgenstein, the significance of de Lubac's work remains largely subterranean, especially to those outside the Roman Catholicism in which he lived and flourished -- though at times painfully. Moreover, whereas Wittgenstein and Heidegger's publications are all highly abstract and inaccessible except to those initiated into the mysteries of their text, de Lubac, able to write obscure and learned prose, also exercised a pastoral task in his writing. His volumes on Paradoxes of Faith are little clips, vignettes, that provide profound insight into the Christian tradition and the concrete Christian life to which we are called. On this Saturday night, I'd like to post a couple of quotations from his work, Paradoxes of Faith, originally written in 1945, but translated and published (and inexpensive) from Ignatius Press in 1987.

"Faith is surrender. The believer does not have to encumber himself with theories. Should he make use of them, nothing better. If he wants to reflect on his faith, theories are indispensable to him. He wants them sound and true. But he should keep himself from remaining attached to them as to the own good of his intellect. Faith must share the privilege of charity; it does not seek to lay hold of its object, to monopolize; it pours forth in it" (p. 18).

"Just as 'bourgeoise morality' is not the true Christian morality, and the intellectuality of a lot of so-called good thinkers is not intelligence, so a conformist 'orthology' cannot suffice for a true believer" (p. 20).

"Having charity, we have God in us. So the life of charity, the life of union with God, is no different from eternal life. Charity is a value in itself; that is to say that it will last forever. It is not something relative and incomplete; neither is it, therefore, something provisional" (p. 24).

Posted by johnwright at 8:06 PM | Comments (13)

My computer melted down over the weekend; the hard disk more corrupt than Duke Cunningham. Today, however, I finally feel like I'm crawling out of the past several months of finals, ending the church year, and just a lot of 'stuff.'

Last week we had our District Assembly for the Southern California District of the Church of the Nazarene. In good Methodist tradition, pastors have to report to the district concerning the past year. Yet to make things move, we now videotape our reports with pictures in the background. Maybe Eric can teach me how to do this, because the slides were wonderful. Yet I did have a 60 second report to give.

I'll place this brief report in the extended entry. I don't know if a report in the Church of the Nazarene has previously quoted an encyclical from an encyclical of the Bishop of Rome before, but there has been one now!

How might we summarize the year amidst the English-speaking congregation of the Church of the Nazarene in Mid-City? Benedict XVIth in his encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, articulated our convictions about our, and all congregations true mission:

"The Church's deepest nature is expressed in her three-fold responsibility: of proclaiming the gospel, celebrating the sacraments, and exercising the ministry of charity. These duties presuppose each other and are inseparable. For the Church, charity is not a kind of welfare activity which could equally be left to others, but is a part of her nature, so indispensable of her very being."

Thus, we have spent the year proclaiming the gospel, in our worship, in our bible studies, downtown as we gather with the hungry at the Salvation Army; we continue our weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper and baptized three into the newness of life in Christ on Easter Sunday morning; we continue to engage in works of love, feeding the hungry downtown, offering shelter to those without homes in our neighborhood and downtown when it rains. We have begun distributing baked and other goods from our building, and sorrowfully, buried the dead, our brother Mike Patterson. We give thanks to God for the threefold responsiblity of participating in the church's deepest nature.

Posted by johnwright at 7:48 PM | Comments (6)

The church catholic has traditionally called the first Sunday following Pentecost, the "normal times" that celebrate the time between the giving of the Spirit to the church and the preparation for the return of Christ in Advent, the time in which we know live, as Trinity Sunday.

The Triune God is the only God, we confess. There is no God behind the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the One God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To celebrate Trinity Sunday is very important today. "In a world where the name of God is sometimes associated with vengeance or even a duty of hatred and violence" (Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est, 1), we recognize that the Triune God, The Lover, Beloved, and Love, does not merely love as an act of the will, but IS Love in God's very nature as Triune.

We must remember this so that we don't get confused when someone drops the G word (God) on us to think that they are necessarily speaking of Triune God -- remember that early Christians were called atheists because they did not confess the gods of the Roman empire. The passages therefore take us into the particular universal, the Mystery, that is God as God has revealed Godself for our salvation.

Exodus 3:1-6

It might be fun to trace the story of Moses before Exodus 3. How much instruction does he have in the traditions of the sons of Israel? For whom is he working? Why must the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" reveal God's self to Moses? Could Moses know this God just by "thinking himself" there? Why the location, both in general and in the particular? Why is the ground holy? Most importantly, whom does God reveal God's self as? Why? Why would Moses hide his face and be afraid?

Romans 8:12-17

Go through the Romans passage. Who is the Holy Spirit? What does the Spirit "do"? To whom do we cry out? What is the relationship between the One to whom we cry, and the Spirit? Whom is Christ? How does Christ relate to the "Abba" and to the "Spirit"? What role does Christ play for us in our salvation? How is God revealed to us for our salvation?

John 3:1-16

In relationship to the specific Sunday, let's again not focus on Nicodemus or even the sayings of Jesus in this passage as we usually do. Let's look at the characterization of God. What is the relationship that Nicodemus sees between Jesus and God? To be born from above, Jesus says, is to be born of the Spirit -- whose Spirit? What is the relationship between the Spirit and God and Jesus in the passage? Whom did God "send"? If God sends the Son, what does this make God? What then is the role of the Spirit in the kingdom in bringing about belief? Belief in whom? When one believes in Christ, in whom does one believe? By whom? What is the goal of the sending of the Son and the Spirit?

Now this can all be terribly confusing, but let's try and pull this stuff together to understand that Christians confess God as Triune because God has revealed God that way for our salvation. The Trinity is not about speculating about God, but about God's own revelation and the relationships within God's own Life that IS God. The Oneness of God is confessed clearly in the Exodus passage, but still the God who speaks God's Word from the bush to call Moses to the God of the ancestors of Israel. In the NT passages, whom is the Source? Whom does the Source send as the Revelation of the Source? How is the One sent from the Source as Revelation made known as the revelation of the Source? Do these Three that are One differ as God? What does this tell you about the nature of God?

Finally, if God is Triune Love, what is it to participate in God's own Life? What would eternal life be? Is the Christian life chiefly about life in this temporal world? What do we learn about the termporal world as the creation of this Triune God?

Wow, if this doesn't give Kaz something to talk and think about for awhile, nothing will!!!!

Posted by johnwright at 11:29 AM | Comments (0)