mea culpa

Something every preacher should know before they teach or preach the first time is that we often need to take a dose of the medicine we dish out - in other words, we often need to hear what we preach.

Tonight I preached (taught - I don't think it was preaching) on the two kingdoms and why we shouldn't confuse the two. I made very strong statements about the church not officially endorsing candidates and keeping the institution of the church out of the political sphere. I believe it and don't think I have ever gotten political from the pulpit, other than to say we shouldn't get political from the pulpit. However, I don't know that I've practiced what I preached so well recently.

I haven't endorsed anyone from the 'pulpit' (we don't even use one at Connexion); however, I recently posted a few articles on the election and some issues, particularly one that is important to me, in which I made it very clear who I was voting for and why. I stand by the content, but repent of posting them. I was posting as a private person believed his blog was read by freinds and family. However, someone today told they had read the posts and questioned whether I should have posted them because I am a pastor. I didn't think I was wearing my pastor's hat when writing those, but that distinction probably wasn't clear to the people who read the blog. When I write on the Connexion site, I am very conscious that I am writing as the pastor, but didn't think I needed to be on my blog. However, I think my friend who suggested that I was blurring a line was probably right. In any case, I have removed those posts and any/every other posting that is remotely political.

I'll do better in the future.

Painfully flawed,
Dan

more from "The Mission of God"

Wright's book is really good. Really, really good. Here's another short quote:

"God's mission is to bless all nations through this people whom he has chosen, redeemed and bound to himself in covenant relationship. But that divine purpose calls for human response. All three pillars of Israel's faith and identity (their election, redemption, and covenant) are connected to God's mission. The ethical challenge to God's people is, first, to recognize the mission of God that provided the heartbeat of their very existence and, the, to respond in ways that express and facilitate it reather than deny and hinder it"

His writing raised another question for me yesterday. This is gonna come as a shock to those of you who know me as a 7 point Calvinist. Israel's election was for the nations - they would be a beacon that would draw others, the nonelect nations, into relationship with God. Wright does a wonderful job of showing how each covenant had a particularizing element to it (choosing Abraham, Israel, David, etc), but alongside this there is a universal elemnt to each one as well (they were chosen to be a blessing to the nations, the whole earth, all peoples, etc.). Just got me thinking about election in terms of service and not salvation. The nations were'nt elect, only Israel. Yet the nations will be saved through the elects witness to God. Need to think more about how this translates to the individual level. Also, even assuming election has more to do with service and not salvation (which I'm not ready to concede), it still wouldn' t necessarily move me far from my 7 points.

hmmm, could it be, the devil?

So this year the Rays dropped the word 'devil' from their team name and are in the world series. I thought I took baseball seriously. Check out the article.

Maybe Duke should consider dropping it too?

the eternal life of money?

Change of topic for a while. I read this today in Christopher Wright's excellent book The Mission of God. He quotes Geiko Muller-Fahrenholz at length (Jubilee Challenge, pp. 104-111). I thought it was timely given the financial instability of the past few weeks:

We enjoy time, we are carried along in the flow of time, everything is embedded in its time, sot the very idea of exploiting the flow of time to take interest on money lent seemed preposterous. It does so no more because the sacredness of time has disappeared, even before the sacredness of the land vanished from the memories of our modern societies. Instead capitalist market economies have been elevated to global importance'; they are enshrined with the qualities of omnipotence that border on idolatry. So the question arises: does it make sense to attribute to money qualities that no created thing can ever have, namely eternal growth? Every tree must die, every house must one day crumble, every human being must perish. Why should immaterial goods such as capital - and it's counterpart, debts - not also have their time? The capital knows no natural barriers to its growth. There is no jubilees to put an end to its accumulative power. And so there is no jubilee to put an end to debts and slavery. Money that feeds on money, with no productive or social obligation, represents a vast flood that threatens even large national economies and drowns small countries...But at the heart of this deregulation is the undisputed concept of the eternal life of money.

things I'd like to post about, if I ever finish the mountain of reading

There a truck load of things I'd like to post about, if I find the time. Here's a few:
1. What I'm learning from my readings! One of the things I've been reading about recently is how the NT uses the OT. Sounds boring, and at times it really is. Really. But, my imagination is being stirred to see Jesus in ways, especially in the OT, that my hermeneutic has not freed me to before.
2. My impression of the new ESV study Bible. I think its awesome. But I'll try to say more later.
3. Thoughts on abortion. I know its not the only issue, but it seems like it has been a neglected issue in this election. Honestly, everything but the economy has been, at least of late. I've only heard one question on education.
4. Another thought from the readings I've been doing, especially in Conversion of the Imagination by Richard Hays, that I'd love to reflect on and write about is the ways Paul used rhetoric to convert the imagination. Specifically, he used language to help his readers imagine themselves a part of the OT story of Israel, even though many/most were Gentiles. That has implications of us in that 1) we're also heirs to that story, and 2) we can/should preach in a way to help people feel this, 3) this would have implications for our ethics/morals that is far reaching.

Ok. Now back to reading.