Our Greatest Desire Put to Words

One of my favorite poets is Christina Rossetti. Below is a poem called Paradise. Here she beautifully puts to words every Christian's deepest longing: to be with God and to experience the last things. The new Heaven and Earth that Rossetti dreams of experiencing is taken primarily from Revelation 21.

Once in a dream I saw the flowers
That bud and bloom in Paradise;
More fair they are than waking eyes
Have seen in all this world of ours.
And faint the perfume-bearing rose,
And faint the lily on its stem,
And faint the perfect violet
Compared with them.

I heard the songs of Paradise:
Each bird sat singing in his place;
A tender song so full of grace
It soared like incense to the skies.
Each bird sat singing to his mate
Soft-cooing notes among the trees:
The nightingale herself were cold
To such as these.

I saw the fourfold River flow,
And deep it was, with golden sand;
It flowed between a mossy land
With murmured music grave and low.
It hath refreshment for all thirst,
For fainting spirits strength and rest;
Earth holds not such a draught as this
From east to west.

The Tree of Life stood budding there,
Abundant with its twelvefold fruits;
Eternal sap sustains its roots,
Its shadowing branches fill the air.
Its leaves are healing for the world,
Its fruit the hungry world can feed,
Sweeter than honey to the taste,
And balm indeed.

I saw the gate called Beautiful;
And looked, but scarce could look within;
I saw the golden streets begin,
And outskirts of the glassy pool.
Oh harps, oh crowns of plenteous stars,
O green palm branches many-leaved---
Eye hath not seen, nor ear hath heard,
Nor heart conceived!

I hope to see these things again,
But not as once in dreams by night;
To see them with my very sight,
And touch and handle and attain:
To have all Heaven beneath my feet
For narrow way that once they trod;
To have my part with all the saints,
And with my God.

What is God Really Saying?

This has been taken from a Wikipedia article on SpongeBob SquarePants:

In 2005, a promotional video which showed SpongeBob along with other characters from children's shows singing together to promote diversity and tolerance, was attacked by an evangelical group in the United States because they saw the character SpongeBob being used as an advocate for homosexuality. James Dobson of Focus on the Family accused the makers of the video of promoting homosexuality due to a pro-homosexual group sponsoring the video.

The incident led to questions to whether or not SpongeBob is homosexual. Creator of the character, Stephen Hillenburg, had previously denied that SpongeBob was gay in 2002 when SpongeBob's popularity with gay men grew. He clarified that he considers the character to be "almost asexual". After Dobson made the comments, Hillenburg repeated this assertion that sexual preference was never considered during the creation of the show. Tom Kenny and other production members were shocked and surprised that such an issue had arisen.

Dobson later asserted that his comments were taken out of context and that his original complaints were not with SpongeBob, the video, or any of the characters in the video but with the organization that sponsored the video, We Are Family Foundation. Dobson indicated that the We Are Family Foundation posted pro-homosexual material on their website, but later removed it. After the controversy, John H. Thomas, the United Church of Christ's general minister and president, said they would welcome SpongeBob into their ministry. He said "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we".

Did it ever occur to anyone that SpongeBob is just a silly cartoon? Certainly, there is a lot of trash on television, but I can honestly say that SpongeBob is one of the few clean shows available for all people, young and old. I think that this controversy brings up a pretty important issue. Many groups and organizations, it seems, want to find support for their agendas in everything they see or experience. Why?

In my opinion, SpongeBob was barely the issue for any of the different groups mentioned in the passage above. There were three groups with three agendas, and these three groups wanted reasons to bring attention to themselves. Firstly, the Focus on the Family spokesman saw the SpongeBob ad as a way of promoting his organization. I don't doubt that he was worried about the moral statement the advertisement seemed to be making, but he was more interested in bringing attention to himself. He later even said that he wasn't even criticizing the show. He just wanted to find a way to attack the gay community and promote his own organization. The gay community was of course trying to find a way to get its agenda across: acceptance of homosexuality. None of this would have been an issue if the gay community was not trying to find a "gay" character to support its cause. And finally, the UCC minister was trying to advertise his denomination. In 2005, the general synod of the UCC officially recognized gay marriage. Rev. Thomas probably did not care much about the SpongeBob ad, but since the issue arose he used the controversy as a way of promoting his church. 

But why is this important? Often, when we read and interpret the Bible we become guilty of eisegesis, defined by wikipedia as "misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas". The issue in the SpongeBob controversy is not who was right or wrong, but the reason behind the controversy in the first place. Obviously, no one, except the creator of the show, pointed out that SpongeBob was merely a sponge and that promoting homosexuality was not the intention of the maker . There would have been no controversy if the show was seen the way it really was intended to be seen. 

So when we read the Bible we must ask the right question. What was the intention of the Creator? What is God trying to tell us, and not what can we find in the Bible that will support our cause? I sometimes find that I am looking for something in the Bible to support my belief and prove it to others instead of allowing the Bible to speak for itself--- instead of allowing God to speak. Let's open our hearts to what God has to say. You may be surprised at what you hear.

Why We Can Pray: the Uniqueness of our Trinitarian God

I am in the process of reading a collection of writings and speeches by Joseph Ratzinger from his years as a university professor to his present position as pope of the Catholic Church. I recommend this book to anyone interested in Benedict XVI; it’s called The Essential Pope Benedict XVI and is edited by John F. Thornton and Susan B. Varenne.

In an excerpt from his book The Feast of Faith: Essays in the Theology of Worship, Joseph Ratzinger discusses the importance of prayer in an era which has come to replace faith in a Trinitarian God with self-transcendence which is the essence of most Asiatic religions. In the latter religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, the ultimate goal of man is to become united with the Creator; to accomplish this, individuality is abandoned and replaced with collectivism. In other words, each person must see his/herself as united with all others, with all of creation in fact. In Hinduism, the ultimate goal is for man to escape samsara (the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth) and achieve moksha (complete unity with the Brahman who is God). Thus, nirvana (eternal bliss) is gained only when a person denies his/her individuality and become one with God. This concept of the afterlife is not Heaven, and the relationship Hindus have with the Brahman is different from the relationship Christians have with their God. At first glance, Hinduism and Christianity may seem very similar. In Christianity, there was on incarnation, Jesus Christ. In Hinduism, there have been many incarnations; these are the many deities worshipped by Hindus. Both religions believe in one God. A Hindu priest I interviewed told me that God is “form-full and formless.” In a sense, Christians believe this as well. But Ratzinger points out well the great difference between the two religions.

Ratzinger writes, “In a nutshell one could say that the goal of Asiatic contemplation is the escape from personality, whereas biblical prayer is essentially a relation between persons and hence ultimately the affirmation of the person.” Let’s look at the Trinity for a moment. Christians believe that God who is One is present in three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three Persons retain their individuality in that they have their own distinct personalities, but they are all One God. In the upper room Jesus prayed, “that all of them may be one Father, just as you are in me and I am in you…May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me” (John 17:21a, 23b). A Christian’s relationship with God and with other fellow Christians parallels the Father’s relationship with the Son. There is in fact a relationship. When we pray to God, He answers us individually. Yet, the universal Church is the body of Christ. Thus, there is a harmony between the individual and fellow believers because there is a perfect harmony between each Being of the Trinity and the One God whom they make up. In Hinduism, there is not much dialogue between the Creator and His creation; there is no such thing as a personal relationship with God because that is precisely the opposite of the goal.

Joseph Ratzinger beautifully shows the uniqueness of our faith. Even in religions like Islam and Judaism there can never be a personal relationship with God because He is so transcendent. But Jesus came as a human and thus has a unique relationship with His people. It is because of this relationship that we can pray and have a conversation with Him. We must pray together though. Ratzinger stresses the importance of Church because Christians must be united as the Father, Son, and Spirit are united. The Our Father requires Christians to say, “Our Father” and “give us our daily bread” because the Church is the one body of Christ. In Christianity, unlike any other religion, neither individualism nor collectivism sums up the faith. Both are mysteriously present in the Godhead and are present in Christians and their relationship with each other and with God.

Time and Sacrifice in the Gospel of St. John (Part2)

Then, in the upper room, he tells his disciples, that he must leave them. He knows who will betray him and who will deny him. Jesus tells Judas that he will be Christ’s betrayer, and he tells Peter that he will disown his Master. Evidently, the time is near because Jesus tells Judas to go ahead and do what he has to do. There is no aggression in Jesus’ voice. Judas thinks that he has everything under control, but John will remind us soon that this is not at all the case. At the right time, as predicted by Jesus, before the rooster crows, Peter does in fact deny Jesus three times.

Finally, Jesus prays, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.” (17:1b). The time finally has come. Before, when people tried to trap and kill him, he escaped from their grasp. Now, though he knows that Judas will betray him, he does not resist. When he is arrested, he does not try to escape, but submits. Judas thinks that he has shortened Jesus’ life, but in fact, he has not decided this, but the Master. It is the Son who has decided when he will die, not Judas.

Before he breathes his last, Jesus proclaims, “It is finished” (19:30b). Jesus was in complete control of time as he has been from the very beginning of the world. Peter reminds us that “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8b). God’s time is not our time. Although Jesus came into the world, he was not of the world in that he did not see the world the way we do. He urged others to see the world the way he did, and many did. Many became Christians on Pentecost which we celebrate today.

After Jesus’ death, while still on the cross, “one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water” (John 19:34). This reminds one of the wedding at Cana when Jesus transfigured water into wine. Now, this wine (his blood) flows out of his body with water. The communion imagery is not imagery anymore but reality. Christ has died and he has sacrificed himself for the sins of the world.

John brilliantly notices the connections between God and time. Jesus' coming, ultimately, was to proclaim the Kingdom of God and to die for humanity, and no one could dictate for him when he would do these things. 

Time and Sacrifice in the Gospel of St. John (Part 1)

Have you ever thought about the relationship between time and God? One morning it suddenly dawned on me (no pun intended) that God has complete control over time. Certainly, you say, everyone knows that, but I wonder if we have ever noticed this when reading scripture. I love all the gospels but my favorite is the Gospel of St. John. Here, the evangelist shows us this truth in the actions and life of the incarnation, Jesus Christ. In addition, the whole of the gospel is centered on Jesus’ sacrifice although the Last Supper is never mentioned. By weaving together communion imagery and time, though, John attempts to impress upon us the power and significance of the Sacrificial Word made Flesh.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning (John 1:1-2).

At the start of the gospel, the first thing the evangelist does is speak of Christ in relation to the history of the world. In the beginning was the Word. Of course, we can compare this line to Genesis 1:1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Thus, when the heavens and the earth were being created, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jesus is seen from the onset as there in the beginning, before the world was created, before time had any significance. But, what makes this Word truly special is that He came into the world, and subjected himself to the limitations of this world. However, what John will go on to show us throughout his gospel is that time, as seen from a solely human perspective, never has a hold on Christ. Christ controls time because He was created before time; in fact, He created it with the Father and the Spirit.

At the start of Jesus’ ministry, he changed water into wine at a wedding. Here is the passage:

When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.” “Dear woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied, “My time has not yet come.” (John 2:3-4)

The wine that Jesus is speaking of is his blood that will be poured out for the sins of the world. Here, Jesus reminds his mother that it is not his time to die yet. He knows when the time is right, and at the wedding when his ministry has just started, there is much that he still needs to do before he is sacrificed. His time has not yet come.

Only in the gospel of John is the feeding of the five thousand shown to be almost sacramental in nature. Here, the people do not understand Jesus, and come back for perishable food, and not for the eternal food that Christ wants his people to consume. Once again, communion is shown to be central to Jesus’ message. Although, the Last Supper is not celebrated in this gospel, in chapter 6, after the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus says, “I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (6:48-51). Jesus, again, points to his death which will come. He desires to correct everyone’s erroneous beliefs that material goods are the only things necessary for survival. He corrects them by reminding them that eternal life is found only in God through His Son. As a result, of Jesus’ radical proclamation, followers are confused and angered. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus’ response to this angry outburst is even more enigmatic. So, everyone gets into an argument over the nature of this Jesus of Nazareth, and once again, John reminds us of time as seen through the eyes of God.

Who is this Christ anyway? Jesus replies, “Before Abraham was born, I am!”(8:58b). Jesus is not just a prophet or a good man; he is YHWH, the great I Am. Immediately, John writes, people “picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds” (8:59). I believe this is a clear indicator that Jesus' time has not yet come. Though people have surrounded him, and are trying to stone him to death, he escapes. Humanity wants to kill him, to control time, but Jesus has complete control. Jesus will die when he is ready, and not only when others want him to die.

At the end of chapter 10, Jesus continues to explain his identity, and again, people “tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp” (10:39). His time has not yet come. 

The Uniqueness of YHWH

In 1959, the Protestant theologian Walther Eichrodt did a comprehensive study on the Old Testament in his book Theology of the Old Testament. I am in the process of reading the first volume and I must admit that it is quite challenging for me. I can’t stop reading it though because he is absolutely brilliant. In his book, he explores all aspects of ancient Judaic life and ideology. He sees the Old Testament as not only leading to the New Testament and essential in understanding the latter but also finds that the New Testament gives us a better understanding of the Old Testament as well. For the ancient Israelites, Eichrodt argues, the covenant was the central focus of the nation and explains all the actions of the Jews. Even though the Israelites often borrowed customs from the pagans around them, they always adapted these customs to their understanding of YHWH. In other words, although their liturgical celebrations, law, or lifestyle sometimes seemed to be the same from the outside, from the inside, the way the Jews perceived their God was very different from the way the pagans viewed their gods. For the pagans, the gods served man and not vice versa. Baal did not need man, but man needed Baal if he wanted healthy crops. In comparison, YHWH needed the Jews because after all, He had created a covenant with them; both sides needed each other for there to be an agreement. The Jews would follow their God and God would protect His chosen people.


 In war, the pagan gods were always on the side of the Canaanites, Hittites, and Jebusites. However, by the covenant established between YHWH and the Hebrews, He only helped the Israelites when the latter held their portion of the covenant. Over and over again, YHWH, it says in the OT, abandoned the Jews and supported their enemies when the Jews were unfaithful. Nothing like this happened in the pagan world.

And it is not only amongst the pagans that the Jewish God stands out. Eichrodt compares Moses with other great religious prophets like Zoroaster and Mohammed. While Islam and Zoroastrianism are centered on the life of one particular prophet, Judaism is not centered on Moses. Rather, it is not Moses himself who is exalted but God. It is God who spoke through Moses and he is only seen as a mediator. After Moses, there were other, equally important prophets who emerged like Elijah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. The lives of these prophets were not as important as the message they gave. The Passover is a celebration of what God did for the Hebrews and not a celebration of the man Moses and his great accomplishments. Once again, YHWH was the sole being who was deserving of praise. 

Canned Sermons: The Truth About the Sermons Given on Sunday

Have you ever felt as if you have heard your pastor/priest give a particular sermon before? You might find the article below interesting. Remember: the lectionary cycle starts over every three years. There are of course those, in addition, who reuse their own sermons from year to year. 


Nice Sermon, Pastor-Who Wrote It?

by Hal Gordon

Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal ran a front-page story on members of the clergy who buy sermons off the Internet. The Journallisted five websites that offer sermon ideas, and even entire transcripts, for modest fees. One of these sites, amusingly titled, desperatepreacher.com, offered this comforting quote of the day from Henry David Thoreau: "Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life."
Indeed, the morality of using canned sermons does not seem to weigh heavily on some of those who labor in the Lord's vineyard. One clergyman quoted in the article, the Rev. Steve Sjogren of Cincinnati, actually advised his fellow preachers to "get over the idea that we have to be completely original with our messages, each and every week." Instead, they should recycle the best material they can lay their hands on. "Don't be original," says the good reverend. "Be effective."
As a speechwriter, I readily agree that if someone else can get a point across more wittily, more profoundly, or more effectively than I can, it makes sense to use that other person's words. But I also believe that I should attribute those words to their author and not try to pass them off as the speaker's.
Yet, astonishingly, some of the ministers quoted in the Journal's article don't see anything unethical about quoting without attribution in a sermon. According to Rev. Sjogren, it doesn't count as plagiarism. "Real" plagiarism, he says, "is taking stuff out of a book and putting it into another book." But "taking people's material and putting it into a speaking forum, is not plagiarism."
Then what is it, pray?
I once worked for the CEO of a major corporation who scrupulously removed quotes from speech drafts, even when they were properly attributed, because, as he put it, "I don't quote authors whom I haven't read." This man—who graduated "with distinction" from the U.S. Naval Academy—thought it was dishonest to appear more learned than he actually was. Maybe he should be lecturing divinity students on the ethics of rhetoric.
Fortunately, the Journal article quotes other preachers who are disgusted by the casual attitude toward attribution displayed by Rev. Sjogren and his ilk. They worry, with good reason, that parishioners will feel betrayed if they find out that their pastors have been passing off canned sermons as their own. When this happens, the erring shepherd is sometimes driven from his pulpit by his outraged flock.
Thomas G. Long, a preaching professor at the Candler School of Theology at Emory University in Atlanta, suggests that too many preachers have succumbed to the sin of pride. They want to be clerical superstars, like the ones who attract millions of viewers on television. "Our churches have turned into theatres," sighs Mr. Long, "and our preachers have turned into witty motivational speakers with high entertainment value.
"Call me old-fashioned, but I think that if a preacher can't find the inspiration he needs to preach the gospel without surreptitiously borrowing from the sermons of others, he ought to find another line of work. As St. Paul—no slouch as a preacher himself—once said: 'Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels and have not charity, I am become as a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.'"