I just taught my last Ecology class, one of the courses I enjoy most. Several of the students had chipped in for a giant cookie with “Best Wishes” on it. One of them got up and made a speech about how much she enjoyed the class after initial misgivings about it, and how it was a class they all looked forward to as a relief from the others they were taking. Then everyone applauded. It was all very sweet. I didn’t have the heart to lecture after that, so I answered their questions about what comes next for me – as though I know! I’ll miss being around people who never age, who look forward to the future with hope and anticipation.
On the clerical front, at the moment I’m spending every weekend at a different church. This weekend it will be a Saturday and two Sunday services eighty miles from home. A couple of weeks ago our former bishop came to my home church to preach a stewardship sermon for our Consecration Sunday. I like him a lot, so I couldn’t figure out why I was anxious about his coming. I started to understand when we processed in for the early service, at which I was presiding. I tried to go in front of him, but he corrected me: the presider goes last. (Of course!) And I discovered that it is very unnerving to be standing at the altar celebrating the Eucharist with a bishop immediately on one’s left! Fortunately, no bread or wine was spilled and Jesus showed up in spite of my nervousness.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Jesus is More Interesting than Darwin
Last week I finally made myself finish Kenneth Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God. After numerous debates with young-earth creationists and intelligent design enthusiasts, Miller knows their arguments and has the data to demolish them. Yet he can’t counter his atheistic science colleagues with anywhere near the same fluency, using mostly the strong anthropic principle (the idea that several universal constants are such that life can exist; any slight deviation of any of them, and we would not be). He also sees an opening for God to nudge things along through the inherent uncertainty of quantum physics. He affirms his faith in miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus, but without the weighty evidence and careful reasoning he uses against the anti-evolutionists. So why should his colleagues believe him? In short, Miller’s science has a lot more intellectual vigor than his faith.
Last week I also read a brief article by Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays, taken from a new book they edited, Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage. I liked what I read, so I bought the book. It’s the product of a collaborative effort called “The Identity of Jesus Project,” involving some sixteen scholars of various backgrounds who met periodically over a three-year period. Although differences remain among them, they all agree on some pretty basic issues, such as Jesus makes sense only within the context of the history of Israel, and his identity is reliably attested and known in the canonical Bible. No Jesus Seminar or Gnostic gospels (Thomas, Judas) for these people! The most intriguing statements are that Jesus is inherently a disturbing, destabilizing figure and that the identity of Jesus is something that must be learned through long-term discipline. I am very much looking forward to reading this book. Now if I can just find the time to do so in the midst of a busy semester!
Last week I also read a brief article by Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays, taken from a new book they edited, Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage. I liked what I read, so I bought the book. It’s the product of a collaborative effort called “The Identity of Jesus Project,” involving some sixteen scholars of various backgrounds who met periodically over a three-year period. Although differences remain among them, they all agree on some pretty basic issues, such as Jesus makes sense only within the context of the history of Israel, and his identity is reliably attested and known in the canonical Bible. No Jesus Seminar or Gnostic gospels (Thomas, Judas) for these people! The most intriguing statements are that Jesus is inherently a disturbing, destabilizing figure and that the identity of Jesus is something that must be learned through long-term discipline. I am very much looking forward to reading this book. Now if I can just find the time to do so in the midst of a busy semester!
Monday, October 27, 2008
Many are Called, Few are Chosen
The other day I was asked about a recent Sunday reading from Matthew. In it Jesus says that the kingdom of heaven is like a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. Those who were originally invited “made light of it” and refused to come, so the king had his servants go out into the streets and bring passersby in. Someone showed up without the proper attire, however, and the king threw him out. Jesus ends with, “For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Mt 22:14) That’s the verse that bothered my friend. Why does God call many but only choose a few?
My response was that God does indeed call many. In fact, I would say that God calls everyone, that God desires the reconciliation of everyone to himself and to one another. What is also necessary, however, is our response to that call. Only if we respond will we be chosen.
I believe that it is God who makes the first move. We cannot save ourselves through our own self-will. Yet we do have a choice. We can choose what leads to life, or what leads to death. We can respond to the call, or we can make light of it. God’s grace helps us with that decision, but grace is not irresistible, in the Reformed sense that the elect will be chosen by God no matter what. I would dearly love to believe in universal salvation, that our choices ultimately have no effect on whether or not we enter the kingdom of heaven. Unfortunately, I can’t reconcile that with what I read in the Bible. It is clear, however, that it’s none of our business to try to figure out who is allowed into the wedding feast and who gets thrown out. That’s for God to decide.
My response was that God does indeed call many. In fact, I would say that God calls everyone, that God desires the reconciliation of everyone to himself and to one another. What is also necessary, however, is our response to that call. Only if we respond will we be chosen.
I believe that it is God who makes the first move. We cannot save ourselves through our own self-will. Yet we do have a choice. We can choose what leads to life, or what leads to death. We can respond to the call, or we can make light of it. God’s grace helps us with that decision, but grace is not irresistible, in the Reformed sense that the elect will be chosen by God no matter what. I would dearly love to believe in universal salvation, that our choices ultimately have no effect on whether or not we enter the kingdom of heaven. Unfortunately, I can’t reconcile that with what I read in the Bible. It is clear, however, that it’s none of our business to try to figure out who is allowed into the wedding feast and who gets thrown out. That’s for God to decide.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
A Note on the Name
The verse from Isaiah at the right was the epigraph on my Ph.D. dissertation in botany, so it seemed appropriate to use again as I transition from teaching to preaching. I suppose that not many scientists quote Scripture in such a situation, but it suited me. There was plenty to sing about when I finally finished my degree, and I could imagine the trees clapping their hands as well.
I studied three understory tree species in Duke Forest, because that fit in with the work of my major professor. Given the choice, I would have preferred to work with one of the most magnificent of North American tree species, American chestnut (Castanea dentata). I read as much as I could about chestnuts and the chestnut blight that leveled them, discovering that my home state of Pennsylvania had led the losing battle for their preservation in the 1920s. Perhaps if I had met Sandy Anagnostakis, the "chestnut lady," thirty years earlier, my life in the forest would have been different.
I studied three understory tree species in Duke Forest, because that fit in with the work of my major professor. Given the choice, I would have preferred to work with one of the most magnificent of North American tree species, American chestnut (Castanea dentata). I read as much as I could about chestnuts and the chestnut blight that leveled them, discovering that my home state of Pennsylvania had led the losing battle for their preservation in the 1920s. Perhaps if I had met Sandy Anagnostakis, the "chestnut lady," thirty years earlier, my life in the forest would have been different.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Moses on Pisgah
The OT reading for this Sunday (Deut 34:1-12) is, on the face of it, exactly the sort of passage that would make a Marcion want to eliminate all of the Hebrew Scriptures and just stick with the New Testament. Moses goes up to Mt. Pisgah and God shows him all of the Promised Land – it must have been a very clear day – and then tells him, “I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not cross over there.” Then Moses dies “at the Lord’s command.” This is hardly the kind of God one would be encouraged to follow.
It’s not really clear why Moses could not cross over into the Promised Land. Something happened on the wilderness journey at the waters of Meribah (“Quarrel”) and Massah (“Test”), where Moses struck the rock to bring water to a grumbling, thirsty people. Whatever it was, it sure made God angry (Psalm 95 speaks of God loathing the people!) and in Num 20:12 God tells Moses and Aaron that they won’t be crossing the Jordan, either. It’s just the sort of vengefulness that makes some people question whether this is the same God of love whom Jesus revealed to us.
The nature of God is something that’s rumbling through my head at the moment. I’m almost halfway through Kenneth R. Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. So far the subtitle is a misnomer; Miller is more focused on refuting the arguments of anti-evolutionists. He does it well, if polemically and rather redundantly. He says that he will be presenting a more positive view of God later in the book, a view that readily coexists with evolution. I hope so. I’m having trouble wading through the polemics to reach that point.
It’s not really clear why Moses could not cross over into the Promised Land. Something happened on the wilderness journey at the waters of Meribah (“Quarrel”) and Massah (“Test”), where Moses struck the rock to bring water to a grumbling, thirsty people. Whatever it was, it sure made God angry (Psalm 95 speaks of God loathing the people!) and in Num 20:12 God tells Moses and Aaron that they won’t be crossing the Jordan, either. It’s just the sort of vengefulness that makes some people question whether this is the same God of love whom Jesus revealed to us.
The nature of God is something that’s rumbling through my head at the moment. I’m almost halfway through Kenneth R. Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. So far the subtitle is a misnomer; Miller is more focused on refuting the arguments of anti-evolutionists. He does it well, if polemically and rather redundantly. He says that he will be presenting a more positive view of God later in the book, a view that readily coexists with evolution. I hope so. I’m having trouble wading through the polemics to reach that point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
