To be "like" Jesus...

Ever the effusive blogger, Anti-Blog provoked no small amount of thought with his most recent post (his 6th in only two years!). This is the kind of reflection that gets me out of bed in the morning - this is good stuff. So I have wrestled with Anti's thoughts for two weeks now, and I'm ready to respond with an opening salvo - hopefully something worth thinking about. I want to focus on one tenet of Anti-Blog's message: the assertion that, as human beings (qua human), we are created to reign and to rule, and called to follow the example of Christ in the exercise of this authority today.

This idea is not intrinsically unique - indeed, it is found in the very first chapter of the Bible, Genesis 1:26-28 - but it is often overlooked in more general conversations about what it means to bear the imago dei. Anti extends his idea to Jesus, invigorating Jesus as a "Second Adam" to include the idea that Jesus' authority over sickness, disease, and even the natural elements is not divinely derived (at least not immediately), but is rather a measure of his properly-ordered humanity. Anti asserts, "The authority Jesus wields is not Divine authority, in the sense of immediate Divine authority, rather, Jesus comes wielding mediated Divine authority, Adam’s authority, the authority that is the imprint, the Image of God."

Anti appeals to the famous Christ Hymn of Philippians 2 to exhort us to the same pattern - accepting our inate authority to rule and reign through an emulation of Christ and submission to the Will of God. With few qualifications, this is very standard Vineyard theological doctrine, and I myself articulate similar points in a recent paper on "loving as Christ loved." However, I was pressed by my professor to articulate more clearly what it means to "love as Christ loved," and it is this articulation that has caused me some concern. My professor's reservation is that failing to make proper distinctions between ourselves and Jesus risks blurring the distinctions between our roles and actions in the world and those of Jesus Christ. We are not Christ - we are not called to save the world from sin through the sacrifice of our blood, we are not innocent, we are not without sin, and we do not posess the Divine Word - the second person of the Trinity - in hypostatic union with our mortal flesh.

For my professor, this is not intrinsically a theological concern. As an ethicist, he is worried that we may seek to "love as Christ loved" by subverting ourselves in a manner that we are ultimately incapable of. We would be inappropriately submissive to others (a concern of feminist theologians that I share), or end up on a "cross" inappropriately and ultimately inefficaciously. Alternately, we may set ourselves up as "Christ figures," attempting to love as Christ loved, and in return, desiring the affection that only Jesus deserves.

If we are to emulate Jesus in all things, then why don't we all end up dead on a cross? I mean that quite literally. Would that be right? Why didn't all of the apostles follow Jesus in this? Why is it inappropriate for us to follow Jesus in the very act which gives us the freedom to follow him in the first place - His saving death on a cross? As I have meditated on these ideas over the past few weeks, I keep coming back to a central question: what does it mean to be like Jesus?

You see, while Anti-Blog (and many others) may be right, there are several things we must continually remind ourselves of when seeking to understand and emulate our Saviour. We are not Jesus. We will never be Jesus. We are not divine, we are not sinless. In Eden we may have been created to rule and reign, but we forfeitted our right to that crown in our disobedience in the Fall. It would be inappropriate (and likely sinful) for us to attempt to exercise authority we have ceded. Of course, part of this authority may be restored to us through redemption in Christ. But this is not following in Christ's footsteps - it is a response to Him. Jesus exercised this authority throughout His life. We may only (poorly) reflect it after the cross. As simul justus et peccator, we ought not attempt to exercise this authority until we are tranformed in the eschaton. Revelation 22:5 emphasizes this point when it speaks of us reigning with God in the end. That authority is not for today. Our theosis is only cosummated in the resurrection. While Christ reigns today and forever, only in the end will we join him and exercise the authority we were meant to have in Eden.

All of this is not to say that Anti-Blog is inherently wrong, or that the Bible does not speak in ways that suggests his assertions. But I keep running in to the concerns of my professor, and others from from my theologically conservative colleagues, who are quite concerned about the idea of attempting to literally "be like Jesus" in all things. My professor suggests an ethic that emphasizes learning to love because Jesus loved rather than constantly trying to love as Jesus loved. Since we are not God, we cannot (ontologically) loves as He does. I simply don't know how to respond to these concerns. Seriously reflection is needed to articulate an overarching hermeneutic of what it means to follow Christ. I think it is important. I think it is right. I think the Vineyard is onto something great when it emphasizes these things. But I think the concerns are right too, and I think they merit our attention and concern.

This is open call for ideas. I'm thinking about it too, but no solutions just yet. Contributions to the cause?

Grace & Peace

(You can hear Anti-Blog's sermon delivery of this piece here.)

Put this in your weblog if you know someone who is fighting, has survived, or died from pirate attacks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Today we salute you, Mr. Constant Collar Putter Upper. You, bedecked in popped collar, teach us that we no longer have to live with a cold, back of the neck. Sure, your pink alligator polo may look feminine to some, but not the 17 other frat guys wearing the same thing at the bar. Where others may see thoughtless fashion conformity, you preach a higher gospel. You preach of a world where it is okay for a man to go tanning. You ask "why can't we wear makeup, and use shampoo with lavender essence?" So crack open a fresh bottle of candy cologne, Mr. Abercrombie (or is it Fitch?), because we all know, when we really need a piece of gum, you might have one...in your man purse.

Beautiful or Cute?

The following paragraph was taken from the NYTimes article (here) about what humans find "cute." The article focused specifically on why we find certain animals (particularly infant mammals) cute, but I was struck by its potential application to our notions of intrahuman attraction as well. Read...and if you feel so moved, discuss.

"Cuteness is distinct from beauty, researchers say, emphasizing rounded over sculptured, soft over refined, clumsy over quick. Beauty attracts admiration and demands a pedestal; cuteness attracts affection and demands a lap. Beauty is rare and brutal, despoiled by a single pimple. Cuteness is commonplace and generous, content on occasion to cosegregate with homeliness."

Grace & Peace

Mother, can we trust the NFPers?

I've recently begun to wonder whether the NFPers (Natural Family Planning types) tend to promote urban legends about oral contraception in order to discourage its use among Christians. I have mostly anecdotal evidence for this, nothing hard and fast, but it causes me a certain amount of frustration. I know that NFP people are essentially working from a philosophical position that differs from my own, but I don't want to see elements that disagree with their philosophy unfairly slandered.

WebMD lists the advantages and disadvantages of oral forms of contraception. These are specifically for those forms that contain both estrogen and progestin.

The advantages that apply to most Christians include:

• Reduced bleeding and cramping with periods, which lowers the risk of anemia
• Reduced pain during ovulation
• Reduced fibrocystic breast changes
• Reduced risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID)
• Reduced risk of ectopic pregnancy
• May reduce acne
• May reduce ovarian cysts
• May reduce symptoms of endometriosis
• May reduce bone density loss
• May protect against ovarian and endometrial cancer

The main disadvantages are:

• Pills must be taken every day
• May not be as effective when taken with certain medications
• May delay return of normal cycles when heavy dosage is used.
• May cause weight gain when heavy dosage is used. (thanks to Ellen for this reminder)
  
• May cost more than other methods if used for many years
• Does not protect against sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV.

I guess I basically want a level playing field if we're going to talk about these issues. No false accusations, and let's be honest about the advantages/disadvantages of both sides of this increasingly pressing debate in Christian circles.

Grace & Peace

Whizzing in the Spirit

The following is a hysterical quote from from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It reflects the strange and occasionally circular way people discuss "new movements of the Spirit":

What if I told you that you should come with me to a church that has a brand new work of the Spirit? You say, what is it? I say, when the Spirit moves us, we stand in a circle and urinate into a big tub. We pee in a pot. We call it "whizzing in the Spirit." You say, Koukl, that's bizarre. I say, there are no verses against it. Find a verse against it. In fact, I've got a proof text: "From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water." There it is! Works for me! After all, you can't put God in a box, can you? God can do whatever He wants, can't He? So who are you to judge Him?

You gotta admit...that's pretty damn funny.

Grace & Peace

Defending Luke (or, "Quirinius, we still love you!")

I am undoubtedly among the worst of our merry band to enter a discussion on historical issues. So, I will merely offer a few timely observations as we approach the Christmas season. (Anti-Blog, this is mostly for you.)

The Problem:
Luke 2:1-2 states that Quirinius was the Roman governor of Syria when Jesus was born. This statement occasionally puzzles historians because Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6AD, and Luke dates the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod the Great (1:5), who, according to Josephus (Ant. 17.7.1 191), Strabo, and Tacitus, died in 4 BC. This appears to render Luke's account historically irreconciliable.

Possible Solutions:
That Augustus issued a census decree is both reasonable and plausible. Augustus' propensity to count and tax is well known. According to the Acts of Augustus (see #8 therein), Augustus ordered three censuses (censi?) during his reign (27BC-14AD). Interestingly, an Antioch manuscript exists with an inscription describing a soldier who was 'legate of Syria' twice during this time frame. There are two common interpretations: one is that it refers to Q. Varus, and the other that it refers to Quirinius himself. The New Bible Dictionary (IVP:1996) says this (s.v. "Quirinius"):

The possibility that Quirinius may have been governor of Syria on an earlier occasion... has found confirmation in the eyes of a number of scholars (especially W. M. Ramsay) from the testimony of the Lapis Tiburtinus (CIL, 14. 3613). This inscription, recording the career of a distinguished Roman officer, is unfortunately mutilated, so that the officer’s name is missing, but from the details that survive he could very well be Quirinius. It contains a statement that when he became imperial legate of Syria he entered upon that office ‘for the second time’ (Lat. iterum). The question is: did he become imperial legate of Syria for the second time, or did he simply receive an imperial legateship for the second time, having governed another province in that capacity on the earlier occasion?...The wording is ambiguous. Ramsay held that he was appointed an additional legate of Syria between 10 and 7 bc, for the purpose of conducting the Homanadensian war, while the civil administration of the province was in the hands of other governors, including Sentius Saturninus (8-6 bc), under whom, according to Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4. 19), the census of Lk. 2:1ff. was held.

Perhaps Luke 2:2, "This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria" is saying that there was second census that Quirinius oversaw. Josephus documents a census taken early in Quirinius' term of office (Antiquities 18.1.1 1). In fact, Luke also mentions a second census himself in Acts 5:37.

E.M. Blaiklock, writing for Zondervan's Biblical Encyclopedia believes that Quirinius was in Syria for an earlier tour of duty, not as governor but in some other leadership capacity (s.v. "Quirinius"). It is notable that term Luke uses for Quirinius' is the general term hegemon, which in Greek can apply to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. Even in the Testament it applies to procurators--pilate, festus, felix--and to general 'rulers' (Mt 2.6). The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology gives 'leader, commander, chief' (vol 1.270) as among the possible range of meanings. Of course, this term would have applied to Quirinius at several points in his career. In the proper sense, there might also be several individuals so addressed at the same time. Justin Martyr specifically refers to Quirinius as 'procurator' in Apology 1:34.

However, even if Quirinius is not the referred legate, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (pgs 23-24) implies that Luke 2:2 "prote" can (should?) be translated 'before the census of Quirinius' instead of the usual 'first census of Quirinius.' This potentially solves the problem without requiring two terms of office for Quirinius at all.

Either way, if we admit the weakness of the historical record (Joesphus himself is often confused about dates and numbers), it appears that Luke's case, as articulated in chapter 2, has serious potential to be correct as it was originally written.

This post is the result of a few days of simple research and not a lifetime of careful analysis. Obviously, there is much more than can be said. I'm not even going to attempt to go beyond the simple issue of Quirinius here. That would just take too long. But, I hope this proves that these are still live issues worthy of examination and discussion, and that a more 'traditional' read is not outside the realm of intellectual honesty.

Grace & Peace

Props to the SJV

I'm passing out props to my people in the San Joaquin Valley - according to a yearly study by Men's Fitness Magazine, two (2!) SJV cities rank among America's fittest! My old stomping grounds, "the Fres-yes," tops out as the 14th fittest city in the U.S.ofA. How about that for unexpected?! A lot of people make fun of Fresno, and my family moved to the outlying community of Clovis (30m Northeast) when I was 8, but at least it is among the healthiest places to live. I also give out major props to the people of Sacramento, the 7th fittest city in America.

The complete results of the 2005 study are here.

Now, I'm not trying to say anything in particular to my non-Cali friends, but did any of you notice how many of the fittest cities in America are in California?! (hint: the answer is 7). Yup, that's what I thought...ya'll best step back an' recognize! (*grin*)

Grace & Peace Out!

Waiting for the Revolution

What is it that you're waiting for?

I am waiting for the Revolution to begin. I am waiting for nuclear fission to start: when all the elements are in place, the chemicals are in sufficient quantity, when the energy thresholds have been overcome and the critical mass is present. I am waiting for that uncontrolled chain-reaction that will spread out from the detonation point, igniting somthing far beyond my wildest expectations! I am waiting for the Revolution.

Did you know that Lenin was first arrested in 1895? He spent more than a year in prison, and didn't see the Soviet Revolution until 1917. More than 20 years later. I have been talking about the Revolution since 2000. I remember standing in Dwight, talking with Anti-Blog about the impending Revolution. But it never really materialized. Then 2001-2002 was supposed to be the year. Porterhouse was our critical mass - but it never spread beyond the walls. By 2003, we were moving out. People were leaving, and the spirit of revolution with it.

Somehow we were harvested back, well most of us anyway. The agony of those lost grieves me. But our Colony appears yet more promising - stronger, more mature, wiser - and I believe that the Revolution may yet break out. I am waiting, time is passing, sparks are flying and the heat is simmering. Still I am waiting...for the sparks to catch; for flame to take hold; for the reaction to begin that will sweep outward and I'll gaze in awe, throwing my strength into the fire and my back to the work, barely able to hang on because it won't come from me when it comes. From He who calls these elements together, I don't want to lose any more.

I am ready for the Revolution.

Grace & Peace

Shameless personal plug

I feel slightly famous and desire to share this with anyone interested. I preached my first official "sermon" this past Sunday at the New Haven Vineyard. As part of my internship there this year, I will preach two sermons to the congregation. I'll probably preach again in the Spring. It was pretty nerve-wracking, even for someone used to being up on stage! In all honesty, I don't remember a lot about the actual event - I think I was worried about getting through without making mistakes, making sure my points were intelligible, and hoping that it all made sense - but I got a lot of positive feedback, for which I am incredibly appreciative.

So...if you want to hear my first attempt in crystal clear, .mp3 audio, the link is here! You can listen to this sermon, and several others, at:

http://www.vineyardnewhaven.org/message/sermon.htm

If you want, just save the file to your computer and listen to it whenever you have time. I hope you enjoy!

Grace & Peace

Currently Spinning "Copland: The Music of America"

Amen

Weekly Battles

It’s not a bad place really. The AIDS center feels like something between a hospital ward and a nursing home. It always smells vaguely of cleaning chemicals, medicine, and bodies that don’t stay as clean as the rest of us. But it’s not a bad place. There is plenty of light, fun things to do, and the staff are friendly and competent.

I don’t know how long he’s been here. But visiting him is the cornerstone of my trip each week. Usually there are three of us that go and visit the folks living there. He’s probably in his early 60’s. An African-American man, who says that he used to be 6’3”, 235lbs, but a recent stroke has deprived him of the use of his arm and consistent use of his right leg, so he’s wheelchair bound. Most of the time he just lies in bed. What little body he has left is protruding with tubes beneath the sheets of his bed.

I get the impression that other folks don’t like him much. I don’t think he’s really a “good neighbor.” Although there are brightly colored paintings on the outside of the door – paintings he has created but look like a child’s – he is not very friendly with the other patients, the staff, or many other visitors. For some reason he just seems to like us. No one really knows why.

We always come about the same time in the afternoon. And like clockwork we talk to him about his week, about baseball (he’s a diehard Red Sox fan) and about how he is feeling – all while Jerry Springer plays on the t.v. above his bed. I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to concentrate on a conversation while Jerry Springer-style fights rage above your head, but it is not easy. The interesting thing about him, and about most of the patients there, is that they never talk about their HIV or AIDS. When you ask them how they are doing, they’ll say “doing alright. But my arm is hurting this week.” Or, “better this week, but I can’t get rid of this cough.” If they ever do mention it, it is ‘the virus,’ or ‘my condition,’ - but they almost never do.

This week, after 15 minutes of visiting with him, we asked if we could pray, and what we should pray for. Like always he asked for prayer for increased mobility in his arm and leg. I don’t even know if he believes in God. “Dear Heavenly Father…” and the three of us began to pray. He never prays aloud with us – just closes his eyes there on the hospital bed and listens, while Jerry Springer plays in the background. We implore God to come and heal his leg and arm, “God, you are a God who heals. Come and touch this man – make his body strong again.” I know that the three of us are all praying for ‘the virus’ in our heads, but none of us mentions it aloud. I believe that God does heal, that God can supernaturally transform this man just like Jesus did at the Bethesda pool. But after weeks of prayer, calm and orderly, usually lasting about 5 minutes, I realize that I’m not sure if I believe it for him anymore. Oh, it’s not that I lose the faith in my head, but somewhere in my heart I realize that I have begun saying the words, and even believing the concept, without really expecting anything to happen.

As I stand there beside the bed, I rationalize that there are lots of reasons why God doesn’t choose to heal through my prayers. I’m not a very good Christian sometimes. I snapped at someone the other day. I haven’t been regular in my personal devotions. But I can dismiss those in my head as quickly as they appear. Of course, that doesn’t mean I don’t believe them somewhere. As we finish our prayer, he smiles and shakes hands with the three of us. We smile and talk about the upcoming basketball season, something sure to lift his spirits after a disappointing Red Sox season. And all the while I am left in my own head, wondering why I even bother to pray. Is it for this man’s sake – this person who I don’t even know believes in God? Am I trying to accomplish something else? What good is prayer if I’m not sure that I really expect God to do anything? Maybe I should be praying for something else entirely…and we turn in our visitor badges. And the three of us walk out the door – talking about the World Series.

Grace & Peace

A Pity, We Were Such A Good Invention

A poem, by Yehuda Amichai

They amputated
your thighs off my hips.
As far as I'm concerned
They are all surgeons. All of them.

They dismantled us
Each from the other.
As far as I am concerned
They are all engineers. All of them.

A pity. We were such a good
And loving invention.
An aeroplane made from a man and wife.
Wings and everything.
We hovered a little above the earth.

We even flew a little.


Grace & Peace

Which theologian are you?

Here are my results from the "Which theologian are you?" test. Pretty fun. I am happy with most of this analysis. I even think Anselm kind of looks like me! Or, wait...
-----------------------------------------------
You scored as Anselm. Anselm is the outstanding theologian of the medieval period. He sees man's primary problem as having failed to render unto God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives God what he is due. You should read 'Cur Deus Homo?'

Anselm		87%
Karl Barth		80%
John Calvin		67%
Jonathan Edwards		67%
Charles Finney		67%
Friedrich Schleiermacher		60%
Martin Luther		47%
J?Moltmann		40%
Augustine		40%
Paul Tillich		20%

Which theologian are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

the old guard

After discussing my previous post with several people, I though a demonstration of the quintessential Vineyard style of some of the original leaders might be in order. See if you don't think I'm right:

Pictures of the "Yale School" are forthcoming.

Grace & Peace

hairbrained schemes

Something interesting is happening in the church where I work. It's not a theological shift, nor a religious awakening. We're not changing staff. We're not building a new wing. In fact, most people wouldn't notice it at all. We're simply changing...hairstyles.

Actually, it's a little more complicated than that.

For a long time I have joked that all the early Vineyard leaders appear so much alike! If you could see pictures of many of the early pastors, you would notice this strange convergence of styles. It's a particular "look:" casually dressed, slightly overweight, balding but with straight, sandy-colored hair changing to silver. And all of them have beards - John Wimber, Kenn Gulliksen, Bert Waggoner, even my pastor Bill Elander. It is somewhat uncanny.

But as I've met the younger generation, especially folks interested in diving into the Vineyard from a historical or theological angle, I notice that a lot of us have a particular style too. Maybe someday we'll be called the "Yale School" of Vineyard thought. We all tend to be casually dressed too, but instead of sandals and hawaiian shirt, we have the relaxed look of postmodern graduate students. Most of us are tall and thin, occasionally scruffy with dark shaggy hair. I can't tell you how many times I get confused for Matt Croasmun, a friend and fellow YDS student who also works at my church.

Okay, so maybe what I'm describing is simply the "grad student" aesthetic. Maybe we're not that unique. We dress comfortably because we're students, we don't shave because we were up till 1am studying. We don't get haircuts becuase we cannot afford it. Maybe we're all skinny because we don't eat well. Of course, I'm not pretending to be a social scientist in my analysis, just note something of interest that never ceases to make me laugh. But who knows? Maybe someday people will joke about those "old Vineyard guys" that all look alike. It's funny how that seems to happen.

Grace & Peace

How Rhenquist Screwed the Pooch

For his many years of service to the nation, William Rhenquist deserves our greatful admiration. He was undoubtedly a capable and beloved Chief Justice - leading the court through its conservative 'renaissnance' of the past 25 years.

But Rhenquist really screwed the pooch.

When he first became ill with cancer, Chief Justice Rhenquist should have retired. The US currently has a Republican administration committed to nominating justices in the mold of Clarence Thomans or Antonin Scalia - folks Rhenquist would have been proud of. Instead he decided to stay on at the Supreme Court until his death, and made the selection process much more difficult for the President. Now Pres. Bush is in a tough fight selling his nominee, Harriet Miers, not only to Democrats, but to conservative Republicans as well, who question not only her judicial and constitutional philosophy, but her credentials to serve as well.

But imagine if Rhenquist had resigned back in early 2005.

Initially, things might have seemed more difficult. It was certainly a tough time for the President, putting things back together after a difficult election campaign. Even in the wake of victory, there was a fragility to the national political conscience, and increasing worry about the fate of Iraq and the global War on Terror. An all-out fight over a Supreme Court nominee might have seemed a risky endeavor.

But the President would have had many tools at his disposal that he no longer has. For example, if Chief Justice Rhenquist had retired, Pres. Bush could have chosen a woman to take his place. A strong conservative in the mold of Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown. While these would have been a tough sell to liberal Democrats, the President would have had the added political benefit of nominating a women to fill a man's seat (thus increasing the representation of women on the court) and inviting this woman to be our nation's first female Chief Justice.

Assuming the success of such a nomination, the President would have exchanged one solidly conservative Justice with another of even greater political gain. This would have left someone like John Roberts available to fill the seat of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Conner. Of course, Justice Roberts was initially tapped to fill Justice O'Conner's seat, and while it would certainly have been a difficult nomination process, the benefit of not having to nominations back to back would certainly help, and Justice Roberts seemed like such a strong candidate from the beginning that he was destined to succeed.

Thus, by refusing to retire early enough, the late Chief Justice Rhenquist has unwittingly made Pres. Bush's task much more difficult, and potentially robbed the President of the ability to enact the conservative shift on the court that so many have so long desired.

So, Mr. Chief Justice, may you rest in peace...but gosh, if you haven't made things difficult!

Grace & Peace

Danish Air Force Compensates Santa

The Danish airforce are compensating Santa Claus for the unintended death of one of his raindeer. No, I'm not joking...read all about it here.

Grace & Peace

think about it...

the least I can do

I use Biblegateway all the time. It is perhaps the most useful site on the web for direct access to Scripture. The only downside is that NCC won't let Biblegateway use the NRSV on their site. But after all the use I've gotten out of Biblegateway, I figure that the least I can do is send a little linkage their way. Feel free to use this, copy the code, or use it yourself. It's pretty handy

Grace & Peace

Lookup a word or passage in the Bible
Include this form on your page

J'ai soif

Preacher and author Andrew Murray once wrote, "Wherever there is life, there is a continual interchange of taking in and giving out...The one depends on the other - the giving out ever increases the power of taking in...It is only in the emptiness that comes from the parting with what we have, that the divine fullness can flow in."

Several colleagues have recently expressed concern to me about the common analogy of the Christian as a "conduit" of God's love - directed from God to us and then out into the world. Their concern, it seems, is that this idea reduces the Christian to very little as a person - reducing his/her identity to something like a pipe and no more. "Where," they argue, "is the affirmation of the Christian's identity as a beloved child of God?"

I admit that this is something I had not considered, and am currently wrestling with...this notion of individual identity and our loving interaction with others around us. The "conduit analogy" was common in my spiritual upbringing, and I have found it useful tool in both personal reflection and apologetic discourse at various points in my life. Reflexively, I'm simply not quite ready to give it up.

There seems to be tension in Scripture as to whether we find our identity "in Christ alone" (thus implicitly subsuming our identity or possibly losing it completely), or if it is precisely Christ's message of redemption and restoration is exactly what validates us as 'individuals' (in the theological, and not socio-political sense) and calls us to be 'priests' and 'children of God.' Both analogies are frequently employed and implicitly assumed and many points, and it's not immediately apparent how these ideas are to work together.

A recent sermon on the need to serve others reminded me again of this idea. It was brought home during a moment of prayer when I Corinthians 13:3 jumped out to me as clear as day: "If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing." I want to think more about why we love, where love comes from, and what our reasons and obligations are as it regards this love. C.S. Lewis, in his book The Four Loves, discusses whether or not earthly love is actually love only insofar as it participates in the divine Love (an admittedly Platonic idea, but one that bears considering) or if love is somehow independent in each of us, and therefore succeptible to perversion and decay while still properly remaining love.

Is love ultimately something we possess or something we merely channel? Can we (really) love others as God loves us, or rather because God loves us? Can we love someone with implicit or even explicitly selfish motives (..."but have not love, I gain nothing)?

to be continued...

Grace & Peace