RhodesNetwork

As part of a class last semester, I had to describe what has become known as Wesley’s Quadrilateral to a current issue facing the church.  John Wesley – founder of Methodism – would view the things going on in his time through the lens of his quadrilateral: scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.  Be warned.  This is a long read, but (in my opinion) worth it…  Here is the question and my response:

The United Methodist Church holds that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason.  What is your understanding of this theological position of the Church?  Demonstrate its application in at least one current issue of the Church.

As one who grew up in the UMC, I don’t have a memory of a specific time that I chose this practice of Wesley’s theology over another tradition.  Even having gone through confirmation and the variety of congregations and faith traditions visited as part of that class, I felt aware of other possibilities; but none seemed as perfect a fit for me as the UMC.  In hindsight, I think the reason has a great deal to do with the way United Methodists approach scripture and the application of scripture to the world.  In short, my comfort at the earliest stages of faith with the UMC has a great deal to do with the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral stresses scripture as the primary source for all we know about God, the life of Jesus Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit and about faith.  The way I understand this is that the scriptures contain everything that I need – and that we as a community of faith need – in order to lead a life according to God’s call, and so the difficulty lies not in where to find God’s message but how to understand God’s message.  The texts we read today come from a long line of storytellers and scribes who have painstakingly and prayerfully worked to share this message, even across social, cultural, temporal, and linguistic boundaries.  The difficulties in bringing such a message lies not in the scriptures themselves, but in our own human limitations.  In light of these limitations, what a wonder it is that God – who has given us all that we need to know through the scriptures – speaks to us even beyond those scriptures.

Through the tradition of generations of Christians, we can be in dialogue with a community across time.  As an individual, I think it is foolish and even narcissistic to think that I alone – even with the guidance of scripture – am able to discern all there is to know about God and God’s wishes for humanity.  Instead, reading from ancient and contemporary theologians and following the example of traditional practices offers a broader perspective for the Christian faith and experience.  It is important to note that part of being in dialogue is the understanding that we may not always agree with every member of our community.  Rather than seeing this as troubling, I find this to be a sign of God’s grace and God’s infinite ability to relate to humanity and to creation.  I don’t mean to say that God is different depending on individual human perception, but instead that God responds to us according to our needs and relates to us each independently and completely.

It is the nature of God’s intimate relationship with each person that makes it possible for us to experience God, and there is no shortage of written accounts of these kinds of personal experiences from the scriptures to Augustine to Wesley’s strange warming of the heart.  My own experience began – in a sense – with the understanding that I was called to ordained ministry.  This experience did more than open my mind to Christian service, and an equally important affect was that I began to become more aware of God’s movement in my own life.  As I continued forward from that time, I was able to experience more fully God’s specific presence and call on my life.  I was also able to look back to memories from before my call experience and – with newly opened eyes – could see that God had been actively present far longer than I had been paying attention.  Collectively, these experiences draw me forward to God and to what God calls me to do.

The way I find most effective to tie together these aspects of scripture, tradition, and experience is through the gift of reason.  As children of God, we have not been created to blindly love God, but to choose to love God, and I think the only way for us to come to this choice is to use reason to put together scripture with tradition and reason in a way that makes sense for us individually.  Using this gift of reason, we can assess whether our experiences fall in line with what we read in scripture; we can discern whether the traditional practices of our faith make sense in our current context and our own experience; we can examine our reading of scriptures in light of our tradition and experiences.  In this way, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral helps us to more fully experience God’s divine lure in our lives.

One way to apply the Quadrilateral to a current issue of the Church is in relation to the immigration bill recently signed into law in Arizona.  This law will require all immigrants to carry documentation and will give local law enforcement officials wide-ranging power to interrogate or even arrest anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.  While I am sensitive to the ongoing national debate about immigration in the United States, this application will focus on the specific law itself rather than the broader issue of immigration reform.

When Jesus was asked about the most important commandment – written in the canonical Gospels – he cites Leviticus 19:18, saying that we should not only love God but that we should love our neighbors in the same way that we love ourselves.  In Luke, Jesus follows with the parable of the Good Samaritan – who reason and tradition tell us would have been considered in that context to have been an immigrant and an outcast – who acts out of love and compassion.  In the Gospel of John, Jesus gives the disciples a new commandment: to love each other just as Jesus has loved them.  As I reason through these scriptures, I think the core of the Christian faith is love!  Is it possible to love our brothers and sisters in Christ if we are more concerned with their immigration status than their wellbeing?  I don’t think so.  To add to the scriptural support, the same chapter of Leviticus that Jesus quotes when he says we are to love our neighbors says, “When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien.  The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19:33-34, NRSV).

This passage reminds readers of the Israelites in Egypt and I also think of the Babylonian exile.  The people of God have been aliens in strange lands, and tradition reminds us of inhumane treatment, murder, and the unyielding injustice of those who have been under such oppression.  I think of Peter’s vision in Acts, and his experience that followed preaching to the Gentiles.  Though the early Christian leaders questioned his motives, his vision and the presence of the Holy Spirit silenced the critics.

I also think of the North American slave trade of the eighteenth century, and addressed directly by John Wesley who wrote, “If, therefore, you have any regard to justice, (to say nothing of mercy, nor the revealed law of God,) render unto all their due. Give liberty to whom liberty is due, that is, to every child of man, to every partaker of human nature… Be gentle toward all men; and see that you invariably do unto every one as you would he should do unto you.” [John Wesley, “Thoughts Upon Slavery,” http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/wesley/thoughtsuponslavery.stm, 1774.]

And finally, experience tells me that I have been invited into a community of God.  In my experience, community is not only a place for dialogue and friendship, but is a place for safety; it is a place of sanctuary.  I do not see community as a place where everyone looks or thinks or acts the same, but I do see community as a place for unity and our common connection to our creator and redeemer.  Reasoning all of these together, I see no way that this law in Arizona is a showing of love, a recognition of the immigrant as citizen, or an invitation to community.  In that light, this is a law that I cannot – as a person of faith and good conscience – support or follow.

So yesterday I preached on Acts 11:1-18 (Peter’s vision that prompted him to preach to the Gentiles) and John 13:31-35 (Jesus gives the disciples a new commandment: to love one another). In it, I applied the idea of “love in action” to the new immigration law in Arizona.

I have to admit that I was very nervous bringing something political into a sermon. Mostly, I’m worried about alienating people. Ok, really, I’m worred about pissing someone off and making them leave the church. I’m not sure I want that kind of responsibility!! And yet, I feel strongly about talking about faith and I think God calls all persons to speak boldly, to speak the truths that we understand from God.

So how do we reconcile this? How can we do ministry boldly? How do we do it without driving people out of our congregation, without excluding voices that do not echo our own?

Or should we be less bold? Should we smooth out the rough places so that all persons feel welcome and at home?

This is a difficult challenge, and I don’t think for a second that I have the answers. And so I ask the community to participate in this dialogue. To be cliche for a moment, what would Jesus do? What would you do?

Here’s a conversation I had with three UMC clergy from the Cal-Pac Conference on the upcoming Lectionary scripture.  The verses can be read at the Vanderbilt Divinity Library.  Voices heard are Rev. Krista Givens, Rev. Molly Vetter, Rev. J. Dan Lewis, and me!  This is a ”first-attempt” episode, so if you like it please forward a link to others and comment to let us know!

For those reading this on readers that don’t support media, you can view the original post here.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

I’ve had some ongoing dialogue with an atheist (I’ve also heard the phrase non-theist) friend of mine.  Yesterday he posted on my Facebook page a Daily Beast article quoting Orange County Pastor Wiley Drake who appears to be calling for the deaths of Congress members – and perhaps others – who support health care reform in the United States.

My own views on reform are clear in a post here, and so I wish to be clear that my point with this point is not to reiterate what I’ve already shared.  Instead, I wish to dialogue on dialogue!  I want to highlight this ongoing conversation, because I understand the perception of Christians today and I think the perception must change.

So the link to the article was posted with the comment from my friend: so, um, yeah…

My thoughts:  Wow. Sounds like a real wacko!! [Edit: 'Wacko is, as you know, a technical term.]  This is one of the many who give the Christianity that I affirm a bad name…

At this point, my friend pushed back: But that passage is in the bible, he is simply stating the intent of gods plan as detailed in that book. Are you implying that there are somethings about gods words that can be incorrect? The passage is pretty clear, I don’t think there is alot to interpet there. Is he wacko or is he following true to the un-erroring word of god better than your cult?

That’s when I suddenly had a lot to say.  So I share the following text hoping to further this conversation.  I invite conversation here, knowing that there are many different perspectives.  I differ from Drake in many ways, and one of those is the claim that I am right and everyone else is wrong.  So here are my thoughts, and I look forward to yours:

So, I don’t have much with me right now in terms of study resources. I’m shooting from the hip here. So let’s see what we come up with.

Many of the Psalms were written by King David, but I don’t know whether Psalm 149 (the Psalm Drake quotes) is a Davidic Psalm. It kinda sounds like it, so I’ll roll with that assumption.

So with that in mind the entire sentence in that part of the Psalm (verses 6-9) is, “Let the high praises of God be in their throats and two-edged swords in their hands, to execute vengeance on the nations and punishment on the peoples, to bind their kings with fetters and their nobles with chains of iron, to execute on them the judgment decreed. This is glory for all his faithful ones.” And to be honest, I’m not sure what it has to do with the healthcare bill. To me it looks like he took something out of context. Again, that’s what many people do that give the Christianity I prefer (or choose) a bad name…. See More

So I argue that the the passage isn’t clear. With that said, let’s continue with the assumption that this is a Psalm written by David. The same David who sent a guy to the front lines of a battle to die ’cause he wanted the guy’s wife. Not always a stand-up character, and something that indicates that he was clearly influenced by the world around him. And what was appropriate in his world? Violence and war, especially for a king.

Even if I took that text to mean what Drake says it means (which I don’t), I would choose instead to look at some of Jesus’ sayings and would put more weight there. Jesus (whether or not you believe in his divinity) had some profound ideas about serving the people around you regardless of their social station. He encouraged hanging out with the social undesirables, the sick, the poor, women and children (who were second-class during that time period), the disabled. And in my mind, passing healthcare reform fits right into that message.

With that in mind, do I claim that the bible is the complete inerrant word of God? Nope. There are contradictions in the bible itself, so how could that be? I do say that there are profound ideas, and I do believe that that the bible was inspired by God; and it was written by the hands of men who were influenced and pressured by the social norms. Then it was translated by people who had their own interpretations!

And finally… Cult? Come on… The faith I affirm is an idea, and it’s an idea that works for me. It’s an idea I share sometimes, but – as I hope you know by now – it’s not one that I say is the end-all-be-all Truth-with-a-capital-T. Is it true for me? Yup. Does that mean it has to be true for everybody? I don’t think so.

And those ideas may get me labeled a heretic. And have, honestly. And to that I say, bring it on!

I’m struggling.  It’s been over a month, and I still don’t understand how we as humans – we as Christians (and yes, there are many different “versions” of Christians) – could take a class of people and send a message of “less than equal.”  You aren’t living your lives correctly, so you can’t have the freedoms that others have.  That’s what Prop 8 says.  How does that “protect” marriage?  If “marriage” isn’t ok, but “civil unions” are ok – if “they” shouldn’t complain because it’s “just a word” – what if nobody get’s the word “marriage?”  What if we’re all engaged in “civil unions?”

But to be honest, I don’t want to talk about that right now.  I want to talk about the backlash.

I’m beginning to hear more and more about the anger at the faith-based organizations that actively and even financially supported Prop 8.  The cry I’m hearing more and more is to “take away their tax-exempt status!”  Or, “what happened to the separation between church and state?”

I’ve only done a little research on the separation clause in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  How I read that is that there won’t be a nationally established or declared or financially supported religion.  I don’t read it as a law that faith-organizations don’t get to have a voice.  I don’t read it as saying that persons of faith can not or should not be guided by that faith even if they’re in elected or appointed positions in government.

So what might the founders have thought?  Keep in mind that all the founders were Christian and even Protestant, and – although they were rebelling against a nation that had proclaimed a national religion – I’m not sure they ever envisioned divisions beyond the various denominations within Christianity.  And even in that context, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their “legislature” should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

If we look even deeper into history, I argue that even Jesus himself spoke out politically.  I think that in speaking out against the scribes and pharisees he was making political statements.  I think that in setting aside the purity laws when he ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, he was making political statements.  I think that in preventing the murder of a woman for committing adultery – completely appropriate according to Jewish law of the day – he was making a political statement.

Now, some would argue that this had nothing to do with government but with religion.  But remember, at this point in Jewish history, the secular and political structure were combined!  Yes, the Romans occupied the area, but much of the social and political decision-making was left to the Jews themselves (which was common throughout the Roman empire; it’s how they maintained control).

So with this in mind, do we argue that faith-organizations should not have voice in politics simply because we disagree with their theology, because we disagree with their conclusions, because they’re flat-out wrong?  Keep in mind that shutting down all political voice shuts down both sides of the conversation.  I myself attend a church that organized phone banks and had a sign out front all that spoke against Prop 8.  Should this church lose tax-exempt status too?

I don’t have an easy answer to this.  I invite dialogue.  Please share your thoughts…

Tonight, citizens of these United States voiced themselves in record numbers.  Tonight, an idea expressed by some has been embraced by many.  Tonight, the winds of change have swept in from the windy city through a mighty nation.  Tonight, a country has been called to begin anew, to begin together, to begin with courage, to begin.

This young nation, just 221 years old, a nation that has been divided over issues of slavery and segregation, elected its first African-American President.  I’m so proud to have been part of this.  I’m so proud of these United States.

And I’m inspired.

In John McCain’s speech congratulating Barack Obama’s victory, I saw the John McCain that caught the attention of so many in 1999 and 2000.  I thought it was his best speech of the campaign, not because he was conceding defeat but because he spoke of unity and hope.

And in his speech tonight, President-Elect Barack Obama spoke to a nation that has been brought down by financial crisis.  He spoke to a nation that has become crippled by the politics of fear.  He spoke to a nation that has too long been focused on its differences.  He spoke to a nation that had been brought to its knees and called us to get on our feet.

He called all Americans to look forward at the work to be done rather than at the victory won in this relative short-term.  He called us to remember that a nation that is truly led by its people must depend on the work of its people.  And to that end, its people must work.  Its people must sacrifice.  Its people must sweat.  Its people must rise to every challenge, must rise above the mire, must rise as the shining beacon that has not been  – nor will it be – extinguished by these past years of darkness.

So, let us all – of every race, every creed, every sexual identity, every political affiliation – work together toward the betterment of this great nation.

Yes we can.  Yes we can.

On the way home today, I told Cameron - my four-year-old - that I wanted to listen to the radio.  When he asked why, I told him that there were two men who wanted to be in charge of the country and that tonight was the night we’d find out who it would be.

I wanted to know what he thought, so I gave him the names of the two leading candidates:  Barack Obama and John McCain.  I gave him the names in that order because most agree that order can influence a toddler’s choice.  Generally, a toddler will choose whichever is the choice heard most recently – the last one.  So I gave him the names in that order and asked him who he thought should be in charge.

His answer:  Barack Obama.

Turn off your televisions, shut down your computers.  This is the only metric you’ll need.  It’s done.

Here’s live election results for tomorrow.  I hope you have voted already or plan to!  And vote smart!!!

I’ve already voted.  Have you?

Ok.  I hope you’ve read Beth’s post.  Pretty slick for her first post, huh?  Let’s talk about this bail out.

My question is pretty simple.  Why are we (the taxpayers) bailing out Wall Street?  Here are three quotes from W’s speech last night (you can read the full transcript here):

Easy credit, combined with the faulty assumption that home values would continue to rise, led to excesses and bad decisions.

Many mortgage lenders approved loans for borrowers without carefully examining their ability to pay. Many borrowers took out loans larger than they could afford, assuming that they could sell or refinance their homes at a higher price later on.

As a result, many mortgage-holders began to default. These widespread defaults had effects far beyond the housing market.

In today’s mortgage industry, home loans are often packaged together and converted into financial products called mortgage-backed securities. These securities were sold to investors around the world.

Many investors assumed these securities were trustworthy and asked few questions about their actual value. Two of the leading purchasers of mortgage-backed securities were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk.

The decline in the housing market set off a domino effect across our economy. When home values declined, borrowers defaulted on their mortgages, and investors holding mortgage-backed securities began to incur serious losses.

Before long, these securities became so unreliable that they were not being bought or sold. Investment banks, such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, found themselves saddled with large amounts of assets they could not sell. They ran out of money needed to meet their immediate obligations, and they faced imminent collapse.

Now, is it just me or does it seem like there were some pretty lame decisions made?  I get that many consumers got into some mortgages that they couldn’t afford.  If we leave out those that were victim to predatory lending, then we can follow what some have suggested by allowing those who got into the wrong loan to deal with the consequences.

So shouldn’t we let the businesses do the same?  If “investors assumed these securities were trustworthy” and if they “believed they were guaranteed by the federal government” – an assumption at best which I’m sure could have been checked out by calling their CPA – shouldn’t these companies suffer the consequences just like the consumers?  Are we really going to put the welfare of a company over the welfare of the people?

Here’s what W says about that:

I’m a strong believer in free enterprise, so my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention. I believe companies that make bad decisions should be allowed to go out of business. Under normal circumstances, I would have followed this course. But these are not normal circumstances. The market is not functioning properly. There has been a widespread loss of confidence, and major sectors of America’s financial system are at risk of shutting down.

To be frank, I don’t really believe he would do that.  But let’s say for argument that he’s being sincere here (no laughing).  Let’s say that bailing out these corporations is really the right thing to do.  Should the taxpayers really be the ones to foot the bill?  How ’bout a great big NO!

Progressive talk show host Thom Hartmann offered an interesting idea on his show yesterday.  Spurred by an article written by Dean Baker, Hartmann suggests bringing back Section 31 fees.  What are these?  These are a tax (don’t get excited yet…  hear it out) on stock transactions.  According to Hartmann, Section 31 fees were originally put in place in 1933 to fund the SEC and were repealed in 2007.  When they were originally instituted, the tax was 1/300th of one percent.  In other words, a transaction of $100 resulted in a tax of $.03 (that’s 3 cents).  Hartmann suggests a Section 31 fee of .25%.  Using the same illustration, a transaction of $100 would result in a tax of $.25 (a quarter).  This is in place in other countries today.  Here’s a quote from Baker’s article:

In fact, we should look to borrow another policy from the United Kingdom that can help set our financial markets in order. The U.K. imposes a modest stock transfer tax of 0.25 percent on every purchase or sale of a share of stock. This sort of tax would make almost no difference to a typical middle class shareholder. However, a tax of this size, with comparable taxes on various other financial instruments, like options and futures, would put a serious crimp in the money shuffling business that has wrecked so much havoc on the U.S. economy.

Furthermore, such a tax could raise a great deal of money, easily in the neighborhood of 1.0 percent of GDP or $150 billion a year. Imagine that we could finance national health care insurance with a financial transactions tax, or provide quality child care and pre-school education, or build up a green 21st century infrastructure, or maybe just have a nice middle class tax cut of $1,000 per family.

There is no shortage of good uses for the money that could be raised through a financial transactions tax. This is the conversation that the country should be having. Instead of funneling tens or hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to the failed wizards of Wall Street, we should be talking about what they can do for us.

Sounds good to me!  Let’s let Wall Street bail out Wall Street and not the taxpayers, not you and me.