Staying in a house with the Wright stuff...

My wife is a really hard person for whom to buy gifts. She always says she doesn't need anything, and I already help her pick out clothing, as she says I'm a pretty good judge of what looks best on her. She never likes a big fuss made for her birthday, although since she was born on July 4, a big fuss is pretty much built into the scheme of things. This year was a little different.

We are both interested in the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright. I had read a lot about him when I was much younger, and then, early in our married life, we visited Fallingwater. On that same tour, we learned of another local Frank Lloyd Wright home that had just opened to tours--Kentuck Knob--and we toured it, too. SO, when I stumbled across a Frank Lloyd Wright-designed home that could be rented for a couple of nights, I jumped.

For a bit less than a small fortune, we spent two nights and three days in the Louis Penfield House in Willoughby, Ohio. Mr. Wright designed one of his "Usonian" homes (smaller and for "common folk") for Penfield, a 6'8" portrait painter. Wright had never designed a home for such a tall man, and Wright's homes tend to have low ceilings to accentuate the wider horizontal lines he designed around. So, he kind of went crazy with the Penfield house, putting a 20 foot ceiling in the living room area with an entire wall of glass looking out onto the 29-plus acres of woods behind the home. While the whole Penfield house is only about 1800 square feet, it is long and "tall," just like Mr. Penfield. It has many Wright trademarks including a suspended staircase to the second floor, hot water heat in the floors, lots of windows, and skinny doors. Wright designed small kitchen areas, as they were not meant to be "lived in." Being that the Penfield house is a Usonian home, it has a carport instead of a garage. And, of course, Mr. Wright designed all of the furniture in the house. It fits in wondrously, gives it that famous Frank Lloyd Wright "look," and is some of the most uncomfortable stuff I've sat on in a long time. Still, the aesthetics are amazing.

And just outside the entrance is the famous Frank Lloyd Wright Cherokee Red signature tile:

I have to say that staying in the Penfield House was a magical experience. If you have any penchant for arguably the most famous American architect, just sitting there and taking in his other-worldly use of space, color, form, and lighting is almost a religious moment. Like the music of Bach or Mozart, Wright's designs lead one to believe he was a true muse, like these composers. One afternoon, I sat on one of those uncomfortable chairs to page through a Weintraub coffee table book entitled "The Houses of Frank Lloyd Wright." As I opened the massive volume to the opening two-page flyleaf, I was looking at Weintraub's photo of the exact view before me! Coincidentally, I was seated about where the photographer must have set his camera to take the photo of the magnificent living room in the Penfield House. Here's what I saw:

Dara and I had a great time just drinking in this place and the genius behind it. The inspiration it brought will be with us for a long time. Here are a few things I observed in our stay:

1. Mr. Wright designed art. He was a visionary who really didn't care what others thought of his work, including his clients. Generally, clients were his "patrons" who made his art possible. He listened to their desires and needs, but then designed from a vision that was much larger than both. And in the process designed something that is timeless. That sounds like a wonderful model of effective leadership to me. As a pastor, I hope and pray that my inspiration is a combination of my vision, God's vision, and the synergy with my people and their hopes and dreams. However, if I only "design" the church to meet the needs and desires of the people I serve, we are all being cheated. 

2. Much needs to be said for inspiration. While someone has said that inspiration is two-thirds perspiration, sometimes inspiration takes wings on its own, and one has to catch the "kairos" moment and go for it. Frank Lloyd Wright designed Fallingwater in three hours. THREE HOURS, and it is considered the most significant modern period home in the world.

3. Mr. Wright designed for the context in which the home would be built. Context was everything. This also made each of his homes unique. As a theologian and preacher, I applied this to interpreting scripture. Scripture comes "alive" when its two contexts are considered: what did it mean when it was first written, and what does in mean now in this time and place. Even as is the case with Wright's architecture, awareness and use of context of the then and now makes scripture come to life and gives it a unique timelessness. A hundred years from now, people will still be marveling at Wright's designs. The same is said for the Living Word of God.

4. Mr. Wright did not "obey" many of the conventions of the architecture of his day. He stretched the limits of the materials available at the time, sometimes to the breaking point. He used different forms than others were using, and looked at the world through very different "glasses" than those who were very happy conforming to the existing "laws" and mores of his field. Maybe it is this "Wrightian" method that can bring the Christian Church back to life? Or at least the United Methodist branch of it? 

5. Always sign your work. That bright red tile is unmistakably Frank Lloyd Wright. We live in an age when many are reluctant to own--let alone sign--their vision and work, hoping then to place the blame on someone or something else should it be a bust. We are in a time when a bold, clear vision is needed, and no "design" for it should be rejected out of hand.

6. If I ever get a chance to stay again in a Frank Lloyd Wright house, I will jump, again, at the chance. I may--just may--sneak in my own comfy chair, though.

Bible Stories...-

For the Summer months, we have decided to center our worship and preaching at St. Paul's UMC around several of the famous stories of the Bible. Many of us learned these on the "little painted chairs" of a Sunday School room, but an increasing number of church attenders were not raised in this tradition, and often don't know these stories. So, when we preachers say something like, "You remember the story of Cain and Abel...", the fact is, many don't remember it, and even if they do, they will think of the story as they remember it from their childhood days. And that can be bad.

The simple moral lessons we learned as kids probably are a real short-sell of what is going on in the original story. In a recent sermon, I likened this to the two different "levels" brought to the cartoon feature The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle. When you watched the adventures of the buck-toothed flying squirrel and his goofy moose sidekick Bullwinkle J. Moose, you laughed and enjoyed the prevailing mayhem. However, when you review one of these episodes as an adult, you uncover an entirely different message. The little squirrel and his friend remind us more of the Smothers Brothers, speaking critically about the social justice issues of the day, lampooning those in power, and attacking the ethics and prejudices of the Cold War and the civil rights injustices of the day. Wow. Rocky and Bullwinkle carried out their subtle social protests and satire under the radar of the sensors, but Tommy and Dick Smothers got cancelled by CBS at the peak of its popularity for their version.

The Bible story of Adam and Eve tells us more about the human condition, human suffering, and our often failed attempts to remedy our situation than they do about sin and redemption. The oversimplification of this myth causes us to miss asking the important questions: Did God REALLY not want human beings to live without the knowledge of good and evil? Was the demonizing of the female protagonist in the story more about the prejudices of the author than a pronouncement that women are to blame for the world's problems? Did the devil really make us do it? I'm afraid many of us perpetuate childish ideas about what we can learn from Bible stories like Adam and Eve!

What we can learn from the story is that the "best design" of human beings is that we are made to need each other, and for far more than perpetuating the species. We need each other to care for the earth and to live in harmony with it. WE need each other to live what Jesus would later call "the abundant life." We need each other to create healthy communities and to share resources, talents, and abilities for the common good, as well as our own. Any strong thrust toward individual rights and power skews human society toward economic and political injustice, and creates a class of people who have not money, power, nor influence. These people will suffer unfairly. Eden, even after the "tree" incident, was a place where people needed each other and would not survive--let alone thrive--in isolation. And having a relationship with the Creator was a part of this we-need-each-other topology. Even after the murder of Abel by his brother Cain, when Cain is set to the land of Nod, East of Eden by God, he is not condemned. The seeds of his rehabilitation are sewn in God's command that no one would be allowed to harm him as retribution for his act.

And anyone who tries to use either biblical creation story to justify attacking people who are not at the extreme ends of the gender spectrum, or who are transgender, is missing the meaning of this story, and is turning it into a "clobber passage." The biblical story is about relationships, the social interaction of the human creation, the fickleness of human judgment, and how human suffering plays out while working through the difficulties of these. It is not an apologetic for hard-line, conservative ideas of gender exclusivity. Our blood should curdle when we hear someone say, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," or some other such ignorant blather as an assault against other children of God. An oversimplified, childish statement such as this misses the whole reason we even have this story preserved in scripture, and should be seen as an affront to the whole human community, not to speak of it being an offensive slur against the God who created us and loves us all.

Over the coming weeks, we will look at stories such as the Tower of Babel, Esau's Birthright vs. Jacob's chicanery, Jacob and Laban, David and Goliath, David and Bathsheba, Queen Esther, Shiprah and Puah, the Temptation of Jesus, Ananias and Sapphira, and the Conversion of Saul. Stay tuned!

Meanwhile, we suggest that if you are an adult, you start using the same mind--the same mind you use to be successful in your field of endeavor, wisely parent your children, prudently manage your finances, maintain a happy and growing relationship with your significant other, and plan well for your future--to read and study the Bible. And try not to listen to anyone who feeds you oversimplified, dismissing, or hurtful interpretations of what you read in its pages. The fact that we are all still here is the best proof that God is more about love, forgiveness, and helping us work out the challenges of human suffering than about condemnation, judgment, and retribution. This stuff is complicated! But, as Mr. Wesley said on his deathbed, "The best of all is, God is with us!"

The Irrationality of Violence...

An article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (originally featured in the Washington Post) cited a study of mass shootings which tied a great majority of them to persons who had long histories with domestic violence. Most mass shootings are perpetrated by men. That is just a fact. So, researchers began to look into the criminal histories of mass shooters, and what they found was startling. James Hodgkinson, the shooter who attacked the Republican senators and congressmen practicing for a charity baseball game, had been cited for stalking and at least one instance of striking a woman. Similar findings of violence, stalking, and/or domestic abuse were tied to: the Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho; Elliot Rodger, the Isla Vista, California shooter who killed six and wounded 13; Cedric Ford, who shot 17 people at a Newton, Kansas plant last year; and Omar Mateen, who murdered 49 people in Orlando, Florida at the Pulse nightclub. All of them had various incidents of legal citations for domestic violence.

It would be easy to demonize these people--as we typically do with sexual predators or child pornographers--and want to "lock them up and throw away the key." While some might say that these people are "deviants" who could be "cured" by having a religious conversion experience, the truth is that many of them are also religious, sometimes reaching what we would call the fanatic stage. One thing seems clear--these criminal acts are committed by people with an established pathology. Is this pathology genetic? Is it a form of mental illness?

There is no doubt that deadly criminal acts should be prosecuted by our legal system, although many of the shooters take their own life at the end of their killing spree. And there is no doubt that society should be protected from them, to the best of our ability. The NRA says the answer is to arm ourselves, even dramatizing the Virginia shooting, saying that without the Capitol Police who were present and armed, that baseball diamond could have become a killing field. Yes, but the Capitol Police are well-trained officers, not just people with guns. Had there been more citizens with weapons on the scene, there may have actually been more injuries due to untrained people discharging their firearms. If there is an answer, it is not in more citizens carrying guns.

Nor am I suggesting that those perpetrators of deadly acts--at least the ones who survive--should be simply confined to mental health facilities. While the pathology they exhibit, which according to the study cited in the Washington Post article is possibly a root cause of what can escalate to more serious acts of violence, the actual crime needs to be addressed according to the rule of law. However, the question I believe the article begs is: Should we require some kind of mandatory intervention for these individuals when they are first cited for stalking or domestic incidents? Could it be that the "secret" to getting ahead of the increasing number of senseless killings is to get persons who exhibit excessively controlling and violent behaviors HELP as early as possible?

One thing I do know, though: a recent act by the current administration and Congress to allow persons who have been treated for mental illness to buy and own firearms makes no sense. NO sense. You can cite all of the Second Amendment legal arguments you want, but in so many cases, this is just lighting the fuse. Almost all of the mass shootings have been carried out by persons using legally-owned weapons. In a perfect world, persons who run afoul of the law due to domestic violence or have court ordered PFAs because of stalking would not be allowed to own or possess firearms. We are not a perfect world, and for all of our bluster and rhetoric about this being "the greatest country on Earth," we are far, far from being a perfect country, especially on this issue.

It remains to be seen if the Virginia shooting makes a difference in Congress's views about gun violence, or whether the "bipartisanship" it has temporarily spurred, lasts. While we pray for the survival of Congressman Scalise, we might also pray for our better angels to whisper in the ears of our leaders about heading off the apparent root causes of these deadly incidents, and finding ways to stop arming those with a pathological history.

Final Questions from "Ask the Pastors"...

Since this will be my final installment from our 2017 Post-Easter "Ask the Pastors" session, I'll try to pick a couple of good ones! Here goes...

What is the significance of the "Jesus fish"?

This question is from one of our Mid-High youth. The "Jesus fish" was actually featured on an episode of Seinfeld. David Puddy, Elaine's boyfriend has one on his car, and they get into a humorous "spiritual" battle about David's Christian faith and why he doesn't seem to care if Elaine is going to hell or not. She ends up prying the "Jesus fish" from his car and retuning his car radio away from a Christian music station, in a fit of revenge. Sorry...serious questions usually take me to Seinfeld...

The "Jesus fish" is a simple symbol made of two opposing arcs, which, when overlapped, form what looks like a fish-shaped line drawing. Legend has it that it was used as a kind of code for early Christians during the time of persecution under Roman Empire rule, when it wasn't a great time to be very "public" about one's faith. If a person suspected another was a fellow Christian, they would draw an arc in the sand with her or his foot. If the other person WAS a Christian, they would draw the opposing arc, forming the fish. Without saying a word, they could confirm their common profession of faith. If the other person WASN'T a Christian, the little sand figure would be meaningless--no harm, no foul.

There is more to this fish story, however. Sometimes you will see the Christian fish symbol with several capital Greek letters contained within its belly. The letters look something like this ΙΧΘΥΣ. These are the first letters of the Greek words which mean: "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior." And when you put them together into an acronym such as shown, they form Greek word "Ichthus," which means "fish." So, as you see, the "Jesus fish" has much going for it as an early secret code and as an interesting theological word puzzle. Who knows, maybe its use saved a bunch of lives of early Christians? Now, though, it's just a "Jesus fish."

Here's one more from our youth...

What do you think is something people misunderstand about our church?

Wow. What a great question. Depending upon what "people" you are talking about, I'll bet there are a lot of things people misunderstand. Let me see if I can walk us through a few that concern me.

We have as part of our Mission Statement that we are a "welcoming" church, and each week our worship guides list our more formal "Welcome Statement," which we are very public about. This statement lists some specific marginalized groups which have been spurned by many Christian churches-and even some denominations--historically. We list them so that any guests who come here and who may be a member of one of these groups, will know specifically that they are welcome at St. Paul's. All of us, though, fit into one of the groups listed (we all have a family status, an age, a sexual orientation, etc.). Because some churches and "Christians" have disrespected or even shunned persons who are of a "different" group, many persons have developed a strongly negative view of the church and the Christian faith, in general. I fear these folk may tend to lump St. Paul's in with these less-than-welcoming churches. This is one reason why our Welcome Statement is so important, and why we put it--along with our Purpose, Mission, and Vision--on just about every thing we do! We are a welcoming church, and we aim to be an inclusive, diverse church. We want to "draw the circle much bigger," as they say, rather than build walls to shut people out who may be different than we.

St. Paul's is a church in the Wesleyan tradition, which means we have a rich theology of redemption and grace, which necessarily launch us into an ever growing myriad of social justice activities. That's what true "Wesleyan" churches are about, and this is what they do. There are some who are trying to claim the "Wesleyan" label who have a very different and confining definition of what this means, and I fear it projects a very negative witness to a lot of people who could really benefit from a loving, redeeming, and empowering relationship with Jesus. There is a real "civil war" brewing in our United Methodist denomination over the divergent views of Wesleyan Christianity. Unfortunately, this dispute is claiming more "press" than the incredible, life-changing ministry and mission being carried on by the people called United Methodists. I fear the harm this situation is doing could be long-lasting to our church. Our Purpose, Mission, Vision, and Welcome statements put St. Paul's right smack in the middle of what most serious scholars of Wesleyan Christianity would endorse, but the entropy of the "family spat" within Methodism can too easily overshadow what we are really about.

Here's one more "misunderstanding" that I hope we can overcome. Actually, it is not a misunderstanding! Our current reality is that we are a "white" suburban congregation, at present. While we certainly have several families of color and/or ethnic origin other than North American here at St. Paul's, a snapshot of our church on the average Sunday morning is pretty "monochrome." If we are to realize our Vision of becoming an "inclusive, diverse church," we have much work ahead. A good question for us to keep asking until we get an answer is, "Why are we remaining such a white church when the North Hills is becoming more ethnically and racially diverse?" I don't have an easy answer to this question. But thanks to our new Vision, we are compelled to find an answer--and a solution--to this question, with the goal to be a church that fully reflects the growing diversity of our local communities.

And, one final question from the congregation...

What's the best way to comfort someone who is hurting emotionally?

Obviously, there are many reasons why someone may be hurting. As a friend, or even just as a fellow Christian or church goer, the first thing we can do is express our sincere concern. Many people are "hurting" and no one notices. Secondly, talk with them in a supportive, loving way, listening for any cues as to how serious their emotional pain is. If you feel that they are pretty distraught, ask them if it would be OK if you shared their concern with one of the pastors, or maybe even inquire if you could personally take them to meet with a pastor. There are times when a person is in deep anguish, or possibly even on the road to more serious depression, and they may benefit from clinical help. Your pastors are sometimes more able to help determine this and then offer to refer the person to a counselor.

A majority of the time, however, the individual just needs a caring, listening presence. Any person can be "present" to a friend, neighbor, or church member at this point. The most important thing to remember is be a listener, and ask just enough questions to prompt the individual to talk. Do not try to solve the person's problem, and while launching into your own personal story (which may or MAY NOT really parallel their experience) is a strong temptation, resist it for as long as you can. Focus on the other, and try not to get "hooked" into their story to such a degree that you begin opening up your own issues, rather than being a listening ear for theirs. This is actually much harder than it sounds, by the way. The brain is amazing in its ability to connect things, but all of these "circuits" are not necessarily empowering to the person with whom you are trying to help.

Also, remember that St. Paul's has a Stephen Ministry. We have individuals trained through this program, and they are available to be assigned to a care receiver, walking with this individual through their process, whether it is grief, loneliness, or a spiritual "dark night of the soul." Pastor Karen Slusser leads our Stephen Ministers, so if you feel a person to whom you have reached out might benefit from a Stephen Minister, reach out to her.

Grace and peace, Friends!

Youth Questions II - 2017

In this series of blogs, I have been addressing some of the "left over" questions from St. Paul's Post-Easter "Ask the Pastors" service. In this edition, we'll look at a couple more of the questions asked by some of our youth at our mid-week "Club" service.

Did Jesus have a middle name?

From what I've read about he customs of the time, probably not. Middle names in our culture are often used to honor a "family" name or allow some legal and social differentiation between persons, especially if your name is John Smith or Sally Jones. We rarely use our middle name, other than our middle initial, unless your Mom or Dad used it on you when you were a kid: "John Evans Smith you are in real trouble!" In Jesus' day, such differentiation was usually created by saying where a person was from, such as "Jesus of Nazareth," or by connecting them to their father, such as "Jesus bar Joseph," meaning "Jesus, son of Joseph" (ignoring, for the purpose of illustration, that one of our Christian beliefs is that Jesus' "real" father was God!). Because it was a highly patriarchal society at the time, rarely would there be any reference to the mother. My middle name, for instance, is MY mother's maiden name--Dahle (pronounced "Dale"). That would not have happened in Jesus' day. And, of course, I am assuming that everyone realizes that "Christ" was not Jesus' last name. He claimed to be "Jesus THE Christ," or the Messiah of God, which is what Christ means.

Are the stories in the Bible real or are they just there to teach us something?

The Bible has many types of literature in it: history, wisdom writings, prophecy, letters, saga, gospels, and apocalyptic writings. Obviously, the history in the Bible is as accurate as the people who wrote it could make it, although since the Bible is not primarily a history text, even some of the history may be written through the eyes, experiences, and beliefs of those who wrote it. There are many stories in the Bible that teach us great and universal truths, such as Jonah and the Whale, the story of Job, or the parables of Jesus. These don't have to be TRUE (accurate renderings of historical events) to be true in the sense of the truth they impart. Even some of what we label history in the Bible--such as the two stories of creation, Noah and the Ark, or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah--are much more about theology than they are about chronology or history. Genesis, for example is not a science book. The stories of creation are not there to tell us how God created the world, but rather that God did create, and maybe to get at some of the theological theories as to why God created. People have always wondered about this stuff, and it makes sense that they would write about it. Trying to turn Genesis into a science book describing how God created the heavens and the earth is a fairly recent phenomenon, brought about mostly in opposition to fear of the scientific age. Clearly, the parables in the Bible are teaching tools, and it matters not whether they ever actually happened, for their truths are universal and compelling. One great parable in the Old Testament is the story of Job. This timeless story imparts many truths, has provoked questions down through the ages, and has been "retold" in thousands of secular stagings. Was there a real Job? Doesn't matter, any more than realizing that there was no "real" Obi Wan Kenobi spoils enjoying Star Wars. In fact, Star Wars meets the definition of saga--a story of the journey of a group of people, their struggle of good against evil, adversity against prosperity, war versus peace, etc. The Bible has lots of these sagas!

AND, here is one of our "left over" questions from an adult in our congregation:

What does "diversity" in our vision statement mean?

[Note: St. Paul's Vision: We will be an inclusive, diverse church, loving others according to the teachings of Jesus and working for peace and justice in our world.]

The word diversity literally means "a range of things." When talking about populations of persons, we often hear the word paired with a modifier such as racial diversity. At our most recent "Friendship Dinner" (inter-religious issues gatherings for the purpose of relationship building across racial, ethnic, religious, and organizational groups, along with discussion of common social issues), considerable time was spent at my table of eight persons talking about what all the word diversity might mean. It was observed that our "Friendship Dinner" crowd of 80 people demonstrated diversity--religious, racial, ethnic, interests, age, and gender.

In our church's vision statement, I would say that, while diversity could mean all of those things, when paired with inclusive, it probably carries a little stronger emphasis on racial ethnic diversity. I acknowledge it can mean all of what was discussed above, and at St. Paul's, it certainly does. However, in formulating our vision, I believe there was an intentional effort made, with the choice of the word diverse to cast forth the desire that our church would do what it could to become a little "less white." As a church founded in a primarily white suburb 50 years ago, we have not strayed much from these origins, while the North Hills is slowly (and yes, it I mean slowly) becoming home to more persons of color, including African American, Latino, Asian, Indian, and other nationality groups. Our vision is designed to "tug" us in the direction of making connections with these persons in our "neighborhood," providing the necessary hospitality when such persons visit us, either for worship or one of our other ministries or services, and hearing each person's story.

While St. Paul's is blessed to be well on the way to being a fully inclusive church, we are missing out on the blessings of the rich gifts, experience, and perspective that greater racial ethnic diversity could bring.

Questions 2017 - From our Youth...

Did Jesus ever make mistakes? Ever? Even One?

Great question. Of course, we don't know everything about Jesus' life, only what the Bible tells us, but I think it is safe to assume he made mistakes. Philippians 2 tells us that Jesus "emptied himself" of the privileges of being God to come among humans. Jesus was a for-real human, although our Christian beliefs are that he also had the attributes of God as well. Part of being human is you make mistakes.

Some would say that Jesus made a mistake or two in picking his original twelve disciples. They were a bunch. He was always having to correct them, especially Peter, who was impetuous--leaping before looking, so to speak. He gets angry at the Pharisees and other religious leaders, at the vendors in the temple, and at a barren fig tree. Usually, when I get angry, it's a mistake.

The Bible never says Jesus didn't make mistakes. It says he was "without sin." Mistakes aren't necessarily sins. A sin is something willfully committed, or sometimes a willful refraining from doing something you know you should do. The word willful is important here. And, from my understanding, sins are things which are called sins by the scriptures either because doing them (or not doing them) may cause harm to the "sinner" or to others, and/or has the power to harm the wider community, in some way. Certain sinful activities may cause relationships to be damaged or broken, or may make relationships impossible to be formed in the first place. Jesus did not willfully commit stuff that would fall under this definition.

Jesus did ignore or maybe we should say negate some of the rules observed within Judaism. At one point, he is called on the carpet by the religious officials for healing someone on the Sabbath, and at another time, he and his disciples are called out for not performing a certain ritual hand-washing. From the perspective of the religious leaders, these were sinful activities, but certainly not from the wider definition of sin I gave in the previous paragraph.

So, let's review: Jesus was without sin, at least according to a definition of sin based on how God views the plight of humanity. Secondly, one can make mistakes without sinning. If I make a wrong turn in my car, it is a mistake, but it is not a sin. And finally, some acts of justice--such as Jesus' healing on the Sabbath, or the protesters in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, may be labeled "sins" by the prevailing people in power, but they are answering to a higher power.

Is saying, "Oh my ___" using the Lord's name in vain?

Oh yes, the texting OMG. First of all, why does God say "using God's name in vain" is a sin in the first place, especially given my earlier definition of sin? (Oh, I forgot, I'm supposed to be answering questions, not asking them!)

Here are a couple of ideas to consider. On the surface, one might say that using God's name as a swear-word is disrespectful to God, and that is why it is sinful. Have you ever read some of those Psalms in the Bible, and how people yell at God? Psalm 22, for instance: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?!?" Or have you read how Job takes God to task for his plight? I think these actions are far more disrespectful than just using God's name profanely. And yet, God not only is okay with this, but even seems to encourage people to "vent" in this way, even as a kind of ticked-off prayer. So, I don't think it's the respect issue that makes this wrong. Maybe God listens when we call out God's "name"? How would you like it if someone just kept calling out your name and yet wasn't really talking to you? That would be irritating. If God is always listening for us to pray, and yet we keep "calling out God's name like when we say "Oh my G__!" and then not talking with God, that's really rude. Here's another thought: for those of us in the community of faith, who love God and seek to live according to Christian teachings and principles, it raises our ire to hear someone using God's name--or Jesus' name--profanely. Using God's name as a swear-word is kind of like the F-bomb to a person of sincere faith--we don't like to hear it, and someone who uses it regularly "disrupts" the community. That meets the standard of my sin definition back in paragraph three.

Have you ever noticed that people never "swear" using a figure of another religion? No one ever says when angry, "Oh BUDDHA!" or "Oh VISHNU!" There may be a reason for that.

Linguists tell us that the words we use to profane something or someone (swear-words) usually have hard "G," "K," "S," or "T" sounds in them. The "hardness" of these letters, when a word with them is spoken harshly has a certain "power"--kind of like the "venting" mentioned earlier. For example, it's much more "satisfying" to call someone a "goof" or a "putz" than a "ninny." Our language of profanity has grown to incorporate this "visceral" element when we are angry or want to call someone out for a behavior that irritates us. That's also why "Oh Buddha!" or "Oh Vishnu!" don't work.

People of the Judeo-Christian faith have many more reasons NOT to use God's name as a curse-word than justification for doing so. However, I sincerely doubt God will freak out over it. Remember, though, OTHERS might!

Is it okay if you are an atheist but a good person all the same?

I'd say it's much more than "okay"--its a good thing! Before I get theological here, let me just point out that if someone is an atheist (doesn't believe in God), she or he has at least one less reason to be a "good" person. Believing in God, and therefore learning the morals and teachings of the Bible, offer many reasons to be "good," including building up the community, engendering relationships, and also acting on a desire to "please" God. Someone who doesn't believe in God, but who lives a "good" life, is doing so just because they care about others, themselves, and the world around them. (This is presupposing that being "good" means doing positive acts of kindness, "loving their neighbor as themselves," etc., and being a contributing member of the society--stuff like that.) They should be lauded for their desire to be a "good person." People who believe in God also often believe in some kind of judgment or accountability they will face someday before God. Indeed, this can serve as an extra motivator for "good" actions or behavior!

Now, let me get theological for a moment about this question. As a Christian believer, I happen to believe God loves everybody, and in Jesus, desired to reconcile the whole world to godself and eventually to each other in loving, respectful human relationships. If I really believe that, I must also believe that this "redemption" would be for everybody, not just the ones who acknowledge it. In fact, I believe that when we DO acknowledge it, as a person of faith, we receive the "extra" benefit of being in on the deal, kind of like having a backstage pass to a great concert, or something, or getting to sit with the Penguins on the bench during the playoffs. I believe God's love is so strong, and the grace netted out to the world in Jesus Christ so extensive, that it "catches all fish," so to speak. I know that not every pastor feels that way, and I would have to go into much more theology to fully explain this interpretation of our Christian faith story, but it's where I stand.

Have you ever asked someone who is an atheist why they have made this choice? Sometimes it is because they operate with a strong "science" mind--if you can't observe it and quantify it, and/or prove it, it isn't real. I find that many of these types of atheists really do believe in the created order of this incredible universe, but just haven't yet found the signature of the artist on the canvas. We should respect their views on this. However, the church and believers have created more atheists than anything else! I have met many atheists who quote bad theology they heard in the church for from "believers," or cite unloving, even hostile views and actions perpetrated by "good church folk" in the name of their God that have really turned them off. More than one has said to me, "If THAT is what believing in God is all about, then count me out!" I do usually try to defend persons of faith, especially because we all "fall down" on our beliefs from time to time and our human "sinful" streak rears it's angry head, but I think they are mostly referring to some "Christians" who have a very self-serving set of beliefs which they ascribe to biblical roots. Bad--very bad--biblical interpretations often lead people to marginalize or even "hate" persons because of their lifestyles or their divergent views. Doesn't sound like Jesus, does it? You know, the Jesus who "ate with sinners" and hung out with adulterers, tax collectors, lepers, the poor--not the Jesus of Joel Osteen (glitz and "prosperity") or the Jesus of the Wellsboro Baptist Church (vile, hateful and judging). This latter Jesus, and his followers, have created many an atheist.

More to come in a later post--our youth had some GREAT questions!!! Peace, Yinz.

Questions 2017, Part II

Is God in the New Testament different than God in the Old Testament? Does God change?

My friend and Pastor Emeritus here at St. Paul's, Dr. Ron Hoellein, says that a key question in understanding our faith is to come to grips with how we view the nature of God. Do believe God is a heaven-borne, vengeful and judgmental deity who gave humanity rules to follow and then waits to harshly judge us as to how well we've kept them? Or do you believe in a loving, grace-giving God who forgives and loves, despite our faults? There are those who would see the former as the "Old Testament" God, and the later as the "New Testament God."

Scripture, when studied and interpreted with consistency, integrity, and in an informed manner, bears witness to a just and loving God who wants the best for God's people, and who desires that we can grow, as humans, to a point where we can "dwell together in unity." Part of an honest interpretation of scripture is allowing it to have its "human" side. All scripture, while "inspired by God," is filtered through the experience of the human community, and then redacted over the centuries by it. I can say, personally, that when viewed through my own "filters," God can sometimes appear to be in judgment of me when I do something ill-advised or sinful, and at other times, I can feel like God is celebrating life right beside me. These perceptions are more my perceptions, and are more my personal feelings, which I, as a person of faith, project upon God in these moments, sort of like the little angel on one shoulder and the little devil on the other from our Saturday morning cartoon days. In this same way, human communities have written in the Bible about a harsh and retributive God who holds them accountable for their actions, while other scriptural authors and communities have penned praises and a view of God as "Abba," or our "daddy" who art in heaven!

Our view of God may change as our circumstances change, but the ultimate issue is what we believe about the nature of God. We know most fully the scriptural view of the nature of God, in my opinion, from John 3:16: For God so loved the world that God sent the only Son into the world that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. God, like a great heavenly parent, loves us so much that God has gone to great sacrifice to see that the people of God can have an abundant life, and that we can "dwell together in unity." There is not one "nasty" God and one really "nice" God. God is God, and God continues to reveal Godself to the world. God's ultimate aim is redemption, reconciliation, and loving, according to the scriptural witness, and according to the witness of the Holy Spirit in the church.

Does God change? I think so. I believe God continues to be affected by the experiences, suffering, and joy of God's people. I believe this is what the cross was all about. The idea that God is "unchanging" is more Greek philosophy than biblical theology. When the scriptures say "Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8), it is not speaking about the nature of God, but the aim of God's presence and action among us. Jesus will always be love. Jesus will always reveal God to us. Jesus will always offer grace and forgiveness. These things will never change. However, I believe God so identifies with us, as God's children, that God "grows" to love us more and care about our welfare and the welfare of the world, with a bias toward "the least of these." What loving parent doesn't change and grow to meet her or his child's needs? What parent doesn't listen to and learn from their own children, even as they teach them the family values and set boundaries to keep them safe? What parent doesn't alter these boundaries and empower their child more as they grow and mature? I believe God, as our heavenly parent, does all of these things, too.