Sunday 30 June 2013

June 30 sermon - Living Between Good And Evil: To Resist Evil!

All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.” Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that He may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on Him because He cares for you. Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings. And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast. To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 5:5b-11)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

     I was amused (or perhaps it might be better to say that I was amazed, because the two words can often be interchangeable) when I discovered a while back that the powers that be in Hollywood had decided to remake the movie “Red Dawn.” I was amused and/or amazed for a couple of different reasons. First, the original “Red Dawn” was released when I was 21 years old, which means that Hollywood is now re-making movies that were released when I was an adult! Setting aside whatever that may say about my age, I was also amused because - to be honest - the original “Red Dawn” wasn’t that good. Still, while it may not have been a great movie, it fit the tenor of the times. On March 8, 1983, in a speech to an evangelical Christian group in Orlando, Florida, US President Ronald Reagan had denounced the Soviet Union (remember it?) as “the evil empire.” All of a sudden evil had a face - a face that revolved around politics and ideology and nationalism, which means that spiritual considerations had been effectively drowned out. This was the Cold War, of course. The enemy had to be identified - and it was the Soviet Union, and Communism in general, and Hollywood took up the cause. “Red Dawn” was released a year later. It was the story of a vicious and sadistic Soviet invasion of the United States, where, high in the mountains of Colorado, a group of high school students formed a resistance movement and played a leading role in bringing the evil Soviet aggressors to their knees. A year later, Hollywood stayed on the Cold War theme, as Rocky Balboa came out of retirement in “Rocky IV” to take on the very personification of evil - the Soviet boxing champion Ivan Drago, a machine like, cold as ice, apparently unbeatable mountain of a man. I remember Drago and Rocky meeting at the centre of the ring as the fight was about to start, with Drago looking at Rocky and saying “I must break you!” You have to admit, the Cold War gave Hollywood script writers some great opportunities.

     Well, it might have been a glorious opportunity for screenwriters, but the Cold War unfortunately lent itself to developing a “good vs. evil” mentality in all the WRONG ways. The point of the Cold War and the associated trappings and propaganda (and really, of any war of any kind) is that “we” (whoever “we” might be) become the good guys, and that means we let ourselves off the hook. The “evil” in those situations is always “them” - it’s the other; it’s the one who threatens us; it’s the one we fear. And because “we’re” good and “they’re” evil, then we allow ourselves to act in evil ways every now and then, because (of course) in those circumstances, the ends always justify the means. So along with some laughable Hollywood scripts, the Cold War also lent itself to the “Red Scare” and the “McCarthy hearings” where the reputations of totally innocent people were ruined and sometimes their lives destroyed because they simply knew the wrong people, and that was enough to make them suspicious. And it still happens today. Who are the evil ones today? Radical Islam, and that’s given rise to Guantanamo, and to what’s euphemistically called “Enhanced Interrogation” - a kinder way of saying torture. It’s justified because those who are doing the enhanced interrogations are the “good guys” and doing evil can be justified because the evil is being done by the good guys and directed against the evil ones, thus making the evil acts of the good guys actually good, even though they’re evil, because they’re directed against evil, so they must be good. Get it? You see how easy it is for those who think they’re on the side of “good” to fall into “evil.” It doesn’t take much. In fact, it’s so easy, it should make us all nervous! Perhaps, as Peter discusses the nature and reality of evil in our passage this morning, it explains the way the passage starts: with a call to humility. “Clothe yourselves with humility,” he says. So, don’t be proud and don’t even look proud. Be humble, and let humility be what defines you. In other words, the message seems to be, “we’re just as susceptible to evil as anyone else, so let’s not fall into the trap of thinking that only ‘they’ do evil.” That’s prideful, and it’s dangerous, because it sets us up for failure by making us complacent in our daily lives and walks with Christ.

     Peter wants to make the point (if we ever doubted it) that evil is a very real and powerful force in the world around us, and therefore in our lives. “Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour,” is how he puts it. Whatever you think of the personification of evil as “the devil” the point is clear - we shouldn’t take evil for granted, and we shouldn’t assume that we’re not susceptible to it. The truth is that some of the most evil things I’ve ever heard of were committed by those who claimed to be Christians - and who, at one time in their lives, may well have been very good Christians, but they took evil lightly, they became proud perhaps, they thought that they couldn’t be tempted, and they fell. And sometimes they fell hard, and sometimes a lot of people got hurt in the process. No, let’s never assume that we’re too “good” for “evil” to ever be a temptation. Lots of “good” people have fallen before its power. Peter wants us to be aware that evil is not only present - he wants us to know that it’s a threat to us, and he wants us to know that no matter how “good” we think we are - and no matter how “good” we’ve been up until now - we’re not so good that we can’t fall! And so, Peter says, “Resist him, standing firm in the faith ...

     I suppose, in a way at least, this brings us back to “Red Dawn.” Whatever its’ flaws - and it WAS a bad movie (and I’ve heard that the new version is even worse) - it highlights the need to resist evil. In the movies, of course, (and too often in everyday life) you resist evil by adopting the end vs. the means type of attitude; so you can justify doing evil in order to resist evil. But while that might be a human response, it’s not a Christian response. You can’t resist evil by becoming as evil or more evil than the evil you’re fighting against. It doesn’t work that way. Fighting evil with evil only leads to more evil. Jesus did away with the “eye for an eye” mentality in the Sermon on the Mount. “You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I say to you - love your enemy. Do good to those who persecute you.” “DO GOOD.” There’s the key. Peter said that we should “resist evil [by] standing firm in the faith.” How do we “stand firm in the faith?” By doing good! Paul said in Romans 12:21, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” The point here is not to be good - because none of us can be perfectly good and without fault or failure 24 hours a day 365 days a year for our entire lives. As Jesus said, in some words I reflected on at the beginning of the month, “Only God is good.” Only God is good by nature. Only God cannot be tempted by evil. But if we can’t “be” good, then Scripture tells us that we are to “do” good. And that’s our way of resisting evil. We resist by drawing close to God, praying for strength, always building up our faith, and letting that built up faith express itself in “doing” good - and the opportunities to resist evil by doing good are all around us all the time.

     Our United Church’s “New Creed” tells us that as Christians we are to “seek justice and resist evil.” And the good news is that resistance is NOT futile! Evil can be beaten. The fight is not hopeless. We don’t see Cold War movies anymore, because the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed. That’s a human way of understanding evil, as I said, but it makes the point. Evil never wins, no matter how strong it seems, as long as we commit ourselves to doing good. Edmund Burke said in words that are now famous that “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” We don’t have to “do nothing.” Even if we can’t be perfectly good, we can still do good. Ultimately, good will always triumph over evil - because God will always triumph over evil! That’s our faith; that’s our hope; that’s our assurance. As Peter wrote, “To Him be the power for ever and ever. Amen.

Monday 24 June 2013

A Thought For The Week Of June 24

"This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all." (1 John 1:5) Deep in our hearts there is probably nothing as terrifying as darkness. Think about it. What's the first thing most people are scared of? The dark! I've known adults who sleep with the lights on because they're uncomfortable with darkness. Darkness can be ominous and overwhelming. I once got caught in the midst of a tornado warning in Chicago. No tornado struck in the end, but the wind was howling, rain was pelting down, tornado sirens were blaring. That was bad enough - but the most disconcerting thing was how dark it became, and how ominous that made all the other things seem. The primitive parts of our brain, I think, tell us that darkness is not our friend. Darkness is threatening, and it's full of dangers. Maybe that's why the Bible is so consistent in linking God and Jesus with light - a light that no darkness can extinguish, John's Gospel tells us. Another way to think of it might be to say that thanks to God there is nothing that should be so frightening or so discouraging that it should cause us to lose hope. Eventually - sometimes in ways we can't understand - light wins out over darkness. Let's also not forget that as those who believe in Jesus, we're called to be lights for the world - taking away people's fears and introducing them to the light of a good God who will never abandon them.  We know that, because God has never abandoned us in the tough times. Have a great week!

Sunday 23 June 2013

June 23 sermon - Living Between Good And Evil: Totally Depraved And Yet Abundantly Good Too!

“No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.” (Luke 6:43-45)

 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

      As we continue our look at the reality of both good and evil around us (and, admittedly, sometimes even doing battle within us) I’ve taken some time to discuss the fact that our natures are a combination of both. In our original design by God, we were created for good; in many of the choices we make we choose that which is closer to evil. Both goodness and sin, in other words, are simply a part of who we are. To deny our innate goodness is to fall into the trap of either false modesty or self-hatred; to deny our innate sinfulness is to fall into the trap of either self-aggrandizement or false pride. I think it’s better to avoid both traps! If we take this concept seriously - that there are elements within each of us that can choose either good or evil at any given moment then the question becomes how we allow goodness to flourish from us and sinfulness to decline within us, and that’s essentially what I want to talk about today. It isn't just a matter of making a choice - because I suspect (I hope) that all of would would make goodness our choice. But beyond making the choice, the challenge is living the choice in a world where the temptation to choose the other way is very strong, indeed - and sometimes those temptations (sometimes small, sometimes gigantic) seem all around us. Making a choice is easy; living the choice is hard work. Sometimes it can seem like a lost cause - and sometimes (probably more often than we would like) it’s Christians and the church that make it seem like a lost cause!

      Far too often over the centuries the church has drummed into our heads the fact that we’re sinful creatures. That’s why, when I started speaking on this theme I started by discussing goodness - the goodness of God, and then our own innate goodness with which humanity was created. Goodness is an integral part of who and what we are. So we have no reason to be overwhelmed by evil or sin. We have, indeed, the potential to overcome evil or sin - with a little help and guidance from God along the way. But sometimes we get stuck, and I wonder if the reason we get stuck is not because we misunderstand a term that’s entered Christian lingo (one that goes all the way back to Augustine in the 4th) - and that’s the idea of humanity being “totally depraved.” Martin Luther said it; John Calvin said it. It still gets thrown around today, and I suspect it turns a lot of people away because we interpret it through a modern, colloquial filter. To say that something is “depraved” today means that it’s horribly evil, or morally sick or ethically bankrupt. But those things are just extreme examples of what totally depravity can do to us. Really, the phrase means that we’re totally helpless or totally dependent. To say that humanity is totally depraved is to say that we are completely dependent on God to bring forth both salvation within us and goodness from us. In other words, both salvation and goodness are the result of the Holy Spirit working within us and transforming us. The presence of the Holy Spirit assures us that we do not face a hopeless battle!

      I find myself quite taken with the Psalms on this point, which assure us over and over again that thanks to God we can in fact choose goodness in ever greater abundance in our lives! Psalm 34:14 tells us to “Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.” Psalm 37:3 tells us to “trust in the Lord and do good,” and then later on in v.27 it tells us once again to “turn from evil and do good.” The point, to me, is that even if we’re totally depraved in the sense of being totally helpless and totally dependent on God, we nevertheless have it within ourselves to choose goodness no matter how much evil might seem to tempt us, and the end result of the choice is that we not only choose good or evil, we choose the kind of life we have. Jesus said, “seek and you will find.” Now, that’s a little out of context, I admit. He wasn’t talking about “goodness” and “evil” - but the principle works. You generally find what it is that you’re looking for. I’ve heard it said that when you buy a new car you’re suddenly amazed as you drive around in it at how many other people drive the same kind of car. It’s not that your purchase set a trend; it’s just that now that you’ve made the purchase you’re more inclined to see the car that you purchased. In the same way if you commit yourself to goodness (both showing it yourself and finding it in others) you find it. If you look for the worst, you’ll probably find it as well. And so often people choose the latter. A person does all sorts of good things, but they screw up once and that’s all we focus on and we never let it go. It’s also why forgiveness is so important to a Christian life, but that’s another story for another day. The point is that we see what we look for and what we expect to find. Proverbs 11:27 puts it this way: “He who seeks good finds goodwill, but evil comes to him who searches for it.”

      So if we want goodness in ever increasing abundance to be the mark of our lives, then we have to seek it out and sometimes we have to seek it within - which is where the Holy Spirit dwells: within us, touching us, moving us to deeper faith, calling us to greater love, encouraging us to works we never dreamed possible. And as we seek goodness, we eventually find it. “A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart,” said Jesus. It is stored in our heart - in the very depths of our being - because this is where the Holy Spirit dwells within each of us; because we are made in the image of God. As we search our hearts, and as we search for God, we find that godlike goodness within, and we bring it forth in ever increasing abundance, touching the lives of those around us. That’s what happens if we seek good.

      Unfortunately, we don’t always seek good. There are those who seek something other than good.  There are those who possess what you might call a critical spirit, who see the worst in everything and everyone and fixate on that worst. No one gets the benefit of the doubt; everyone is a suspect of some sort. There are those who are indeed depraved to the point at which they seek only their own well-being and their own pleasure and to fulfil their own desires at the expense of others, not matter how many get hurt as they do so: “ … an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart.” 

      I suppose all of us to some extent fall into that trap. We’re all selfish at times. Sometimes we look to ourselves more than other. But essentially, if we have the reservoir of goodness with us that I spoke of a couple of weeks ago, then I believe that if we seek it out and tap into it, it ultimately reaps goodness from our lives and back into our lives. That’s why our faith calls us to be guided by God’s Spirit in our daily lives. When we allow that to happen, the Spirit leads us to goodness in abundance, even if we are “totally depraved” - which is to say, totally helpless and totally dependent on God.

Wednesday 19 June 2013

Just Some Thoughts On Church Governance

A couple of weeks ago I noted with some degree of delight the unexpected opportunity to actually share some theological "stuff" with members of my church council. In that entry I shared what my thoughts were on evangelism in the modern world. Today, I'm going to the other issue I had the chance to talk with my Council about - ecclesiology.

I admit right off that this is somewhat denomination-specific. The United Church of Canada is currently engaging in what's being called a "Comprehensive Review." Put simply, in the light of challenges related to finances and membership, we're thinking about how to be and do "church" in the 21st century. One of my criticisms of the United Church over the years is that it often doesn't do ecclesiology (the theology of the church) very well. In fact, I'd be so bold as to say that we often don't do it at all - which is a problem, because if you set out to reform the church without relation to what the church is supposed to be with reference to Scripture and broader theological disciplines, then, well, you're probably not going to accomplish very much. I'm not actually going to discuss the Comprehensive Review. Our congregation has expressed a willingness to participate; now, we await the invitation. I am aware of the fact, though, that as the "crisis" approaches, there are a number of things already being done which could well change the nature of the United Church, all of which relate in one way or another to the structure of church governance we use. By "church governance," of course, I mean the system by which the church makes its decisions. Broadly speaking there are three options: congregational, conciliar and episcopal. A congregational form of governance is one in which each congregations governs itself completely. A conciliar system essentially is a federated system of governance, where there are specific people called to leadership at various ascending or descending (depending on where you begin and how you see the system operating) levels of church governance, who make decisions specific to their level. An episcopal system is governance by bishops. There can be variations. A congregational system can also be conciliar (so the congregation is governed by elders, essentially, rather than by the congregation as a whole) and an episcopal system can be either limited (with bishops working in tandem with various "councils" and/or having mostly moral authority to offer guidance or it can be absolute, where the bishop makes the decisions.

I've argued for years that the United Church is sliding toward a congregational form of governance - a slide accelerating as time goes on. Based on my experience with congregations, I would say that 90-95% of the people sitting in United Church pews on an average Sunday (and that might be a conservative estimate) don't especially care about the higher courts of the church or what they're doing. They might be oblivious to them, they might be disinterested in them or they might be antagonistic toward them - but one thing most people sitting in the pews would agree on is that they don't want these "higher courts" interfering in the life of the congregation. I also believe that eventually the United Church will adopt a congregational system of governance - or else it will die - for the simple reason that the church can't continue to exist when its members simply don't support its structure. Most councils are already finding volunteers in short supply. But there's a pushback. The higher levels of the United Church in some cases are starting to establish what look very much like episcopal systems.

I'm aware of one of our Conferences, for example, which is requiring that applications for vacant ministry positions be sent to the Conference Office for confidential matching with vacant pastoral charges. That, of course, shifts the balance of power very much toward the Conference Office, making the Conference Officer the gatekeepers for ministers wanting to apply to vacant pastoral charges. It also seems to me to violate the polity of the United Church, which states in the newest edition of our Manual: "The Joint Search Committee [a committee made up of members of the pastoral charge and the presbytery] is responsible for setting the process that it will follow." Hmmm. What if the Joint Search Committee wants to set a process that DOESN'T involve the Conference Office dealing with those who are sending applications for the vacancy? Seems to me based on that section of the Manual that they have the right to say to the Conference Office, "butt out. We'll involve you in the process we set at the appropriate time." Personally, I hope some Search Committees say that - because what we see here is structural change to the church (which is more important than it might sound) being made not on the basis of ecclesiology, but more likely on the basis of "efficiency" and "fear" - fear that some legal mistake is going to be made by the Search Committee. Efficiency and fear are not legitimate grounds for making changes to how the church governs itself. And that's optimistic. Of more concern is the possibility that this particular structural change is a control issue! No. Not in the United Church. It couldn't be.

For what its worth, I think that limited episcopacy is an arguably biblical form of church governance. Paul's letters clearly demonstrate that there are those who are recognized as being in a position to be sought out for advice and to offer that advice (and perhaps to give even unsolicited advice.) The tenor of some of Paul's letters also suggest that this was a limited episcopacy, as it's clear that not all the churches he wrote to actually abided by his wishes! I'm unconvinced that the type of governance we have right now (the multi-layered conciliar system) is biblical at all. I see no warrant in the New Testament for churches that turn over areas of responsibility to joint decision-making. I also think that congregational governance is biblical - perhaps the most biblical form of church governance that we have.

My concern is that this will turn into a battle over power - who gets to control what in other words - and that there will be precious little theological reflection done on the very complex question of "what is the church?" That's a question I think we have to come to terms with before we even think about reviewing our governance structures or mission. It's work that I don't think we do anywhere near well enough!

Monday 17 June 2013

A Thought For The Week Of June 17

Thought for the week: "Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’" (Matthew 6:31) We spend so much of our time worrying. I once heard a speaker say that we could get rid of most of our worries if we'd just stop worrying about things we can't change or things that are probably never going to happen, because most of the things we worry about fall into those two categories. I've not done exhaustive research on what people worry about, but I kind of suspect that's true. Worry does a lot of damage to us. It causes stress and a variety of related health problems. But it's spiritually unhealthy as well. Those who spend an excessive amount of time worrying are really showing a lack of faith and trust in God. In this passage from the Sermon on the Mount, that was Jesus' point: worrying accomplishes nothing. That isn't to say that we shouldn't take normal precautions like fastening seat belts, but it does mean that we have to let go of irrational worries. Faith in God helps us to do that. This was the direction Jesus was pointing us to: let go of your fears and worries and have faith in God to help you through the tough times. Have a great week!

Sunday 16 June 2013

June 16 sermon - Living Between Good And Evil: The Problem Of Original Sin

You know the story of how Adam landed us in the dilemma we’re in—first sin, then death, and no one exempt from either sin or death. That sin disturbed relations with God in everything and everyone, but the extent of the disturbance was not clear until God spelled it out in detail to Moses. So death, this huge abyss separating us from God, dominated the landscape from Adam to Moses. Even those who didn’t sin precisely as Adam did by disobeying a specific command of God still had to experience this termination of life, this separation from God. But Adam, who got us into this, also points ahead to the One who will get us out of it. (Romans 5:12-14, The Message)

 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

      Having spoken last week about what I called “original goodness,” but also having acknowledged that one of the problems we can have is falling too far on the side of goodness and ignoring the whole issue of sin, it seemed appropriate that this morning I’d try to offer the necessary balance by following my discussion about original goodness with some thoughts on what’s commonly called “original sin.” It’s the idea that the so-called original sin of the Book of Genesis (the choice of Adam and Eve to eat the fruit off the forbidden tree) has effectively tainted human nature so that we’re all “sinners by nature” so to speak. That’s the very traditional way in which it’s spoken of. But as I was reflecting upon the idea of “original sin” one of the things I started thinking about was the definition of “sin.” What exactly is “sin?”

      Most people probably think it’s a very simple thing. The kneejerk reaction if asked the question is probably to say that “sin” is breaking the rules that God has laid down for us. And yet, if we think about Scripture as a whole, we might discover that sin is both more than that and less than that all at the same time. Clearly, it’s not just about breaking rules. Setting aside the fact that we as Christians believe that Christ came to set us free from the law (which are the rules, if you will) there’s also the fact that Romans 5:14 refers to “those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam.” The point here isn’t that there were those who never sinned, but rather that there were those who sinned even though they did not break a command. So, obedience to what God wants of us appears to be more than just slavish devotion to a bunch of rules and regulations, and sin itself has to be more than simply breaking the rules and regulations. As usually happens, when we start to think deeply enough about any topic related to faith we find that it’s a lot more complicated than it might appear at first glance. One thing that I have reflected a lot on over the years is how to interpret Scripture. Most people “interpret Scripture” so to speak through a very narrow lens. They pick and choose their favourite Bible verses, and they make those Bible verses the be all and end all of what Scripture says - both in terms of what it promises and what it condemns. But the Holy Spirit has been suggesting to me, especially over the last few months for some reason, that there’s a different way of interpreting Scripture. Scripture - God’s Word - is about more than the words on the page. Even Jesus acknowledged that, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount, when He discussed the law with the repeated refrain “You have heard that it was said … but I say to you …” In other words, Jesus was saying that you can’t just recite the words; you have to go a little deeper than just the words on the page. God’s Spirit has to guide you into what Scripture is saying. You might say, then, that properly interpreting Scripture has less to do with the letter of Scripture and rather more to do with the spirit of Scripture. 

      When we think about sin, the mistake we most often make is to choose the letter of Scripture over the spirit. When we do that, the problem is that we usually start with ourselves and our own biases rather than with discerning God’s will. So we decide what we like or don’t like, and then we search the Bible to find verses that support our position, and we ignore anything that doesn’t fit with our pre-conceived notions. But the spirit of the gospel goes beyond the letter of the gospel. As an example, let’s consider Adam. What was his sin?

      Is that a silly question? I mean, it’s kind of obvious, isn’t it? After all he did violate a commandment. God said, “don’t eat the fruit off that tree,” and Adam (and Eve) did it anyway. But is that really the point? Was that really the sin? Or, at least, was that really what led to the consequences? Think about the story. “When they heard the sound  of God strolling in the garden in the evening breeze, the Man and his Wife hid in the trees of the garden, [they] hid from God.” The issue in Genesis isn’t so much the eating of the fruit; it’s the destruction of the intimate relationship that humanity had enjoyed with God up to that moment. Adam and Eve ate the fruit, but what was far more important was that they chose to try to hide from God. From that, I believe that the spirit of the word is that “sin” isn’t so much violating rules (which we all do, and which God is willing to forgive) it’s doing anything that so damages our relationship with God that we’re unable to believe that God can forgive, or it’s anything we do that damages someone else’s relationship with God in that same way. That also seems to be Paul’s point when he speaks about the Genesis story: “... sin disturbed relations with God in everything and everyone …” 

      We sin when we deliberately close ourselves off from God; we sin when we decide that breaking a rule places us beyond the ability to be reconciled with God; we sin as well when we damage other people’s relations with God. That comes right out of the Gospels. When you think about the life and teachings of Jesus, and how He related to those around Him,  you discover that He was always harshest not on those whom we would normally consider the sinners (you know who I mean - the adulterers, the prostitutes, the thieves, whom Jesus was always willing to associate with and forgive) but rather on those (such as the Pharisees) who set themselves up in judgment against those with whom Jesus associated, those whom Jesus loved and those whom Jesus forgave. It seems to me that those today who rely on the letter of Scripture and take it upon themselves on the basis of that letter to judge and condemn others for their actions and to tell them how sinfully they’re acting really need to do some soul-searching of their own. 

      As I seek to immerse myself in the spirit of the gospel (in the spirit of God’s Word) it seems to me that at its heart real sin (the dangerous kind that leads to all sorts of negative consequences) is that which we do that holds us back from loving God, or that which we do that holds others back from believing that God loves them. That’s the original sin of Genesis - Adam deciding to hide from God; humanity deciding to cut itself off from God - which sometimes we do simply by ignoring the spirit of God’s Word and its ability to change us and instead relying on the letter of God’s Word and changing it to suit our biases and prejudices.

      We all do that sometimes. Being humble requires us to admit that we all do it sometimes. So, if that’s true, then where’s the good news in all this? Paul shared it at the end of today’s passage: “... Adam, who got us into this, also points ahead to the One who will get us out of it.” The good news is Jesus, Who came to bring us back into a true, grace filled, loving relationship with God, summed up by the word “salvation.” We’re not being saved from sin; we’re certainly not being saved from God. Mostly, we’re being saved from ourselves. Jesus came to do that for us. Jesus came to be “Emmanuel” - God With Us - and that tells us something important. We can’t hide ourselves from God - whether we try to do it out of our own feelings of shame or guilt, or whether we try to do it because of the feelings of shame or guilt that others have heaped upon us - we can’t hide ourselves from God. No matter how broken and irreparable our relationship with God might seem to us, God is still seeking us out. “Where are you,” God called to Adam. Not because God didn’t know where Adam was, but as an invitation to Adam to come out in the open and re-enter the  relationship. That invitation is there for all of us all of the time!

Monday 10 June 2013

A Thought For The Week Of June 10

"Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive." (Colossians 3:13) This may be the toughest part of living as a follower of Jesus Christ: forgiving. Let's be honest - who among us really wants to forgive. After all, if you're in the position of forgiving someone, it's probably because either they've hurt you or they owe you something - or possibly both. And, often, the last thing that comes to mind is forgiveness. All too often, what we want to do is hold on to the grievance or the debt, hold it over the other person's head, or at least let it gnaw away at us to the point that it eventually destroys our soul - because that's really what unforgiveness does. It doesn't hurt the person you can't forgive. The very fact that they need to be forgiven probably means that they don't particularly care if you can't forgive them. Our example, as always, is Jesus. "Father, forgive them," he cried from the cross. Think of the forgiveness he offers to all of us, even though so many of us turn away so often. So must we forgive those who hurt us or turn their back on us in a time of need.  By not doing so, we only hurt ourselves. After all, how can we, who have received forgiveness in such abundance from God, refuse to offer it to others? So, if there are hurts in your life inflicted by others, let them go, move on and forgive. That really is the gospel way. Have a great week!

Sunday 9 June 2013

June 9 sermon: Living Between Good And Evil - A Doctrine Of Original Goodness

So God created humankind in His image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them. God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. God saw everything that He had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Genesis 1:27-31)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

     Here’s a statement from Scripture that perhaps we don’t reflect upon often enough: as God finished the work of creation, He declared everything to be good. The earth and the heavens, the land and the sea, the plants and the animals - and even us! All declared good by the power and authority of the divine word! Surely that should tell us something about our nature. And so I wonder why it is that Christians - and the church - have a tendency to focus far too much on the negative side of things. So over the course of the centuries, the church has made great play out of the doctrine of “original sin” but the church often seems to gloss over the fact that Scripture speaks also of what I’m calling “original goodness.” There’s been an imbalance, in other words. Sometimes to compensate, some churches go too far in the other direction, and simply ignore anything even remotely challenging about either our faith or our Scriptures, and some seem to give the impression that God’s only work is to wrap us all in a gigantic, cosmic bear hug and snuggle fest! I don’t want to fall on that side of things either. But we do need balance. We can’t deny that human life is inter-woven with sin (with the obvious fact that we as humans continue to do things that God would surely not approve of) - and I’m going to be offering some balance with some reflections on this concept of “original sin” next week - but if we take the creation story of Genesis seriously, then we can’t deny that we were created in a state of “original goodness." In a sense, then, goodness is at our centre, it’s in our origins and it’s at our base. Goodness (perhaps more than sin) is the chief characteristic of humanity. Given those origins, maybe it’s fair to say that - as often as any of us may screw things up - each one us nevertheless has a reservoir of goodness within us that we can tap and use as a source of refreshment and even new life for the world around us. Maybe, in fact, that’s what it means to be created  “in the image of God.” It’s not that we resemble God in appearance. It’s rather that, at our best, we’re able to act just a little bit like God in the love we can show, the compassion we can extend and the forgiveness we can offer.

     In Galatians 5, Paul says that followers of Jesus are to “live by the Spirit,” and he goes on to say that “the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.” But he goes on in the same passage to suggest that it isn’t inevitable that we’ll simply continue to do what we don’t want to do. There’s a process of growth involved in a spiritual life, so that eventually God’s Spirit brings forth from us the qualities that God wants us to display in abundance. Paul goes on to say, “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” These are things that are brought forth from within us. They’re not foreign to us; they’re not imposed upon us. God’s Spirit brings these things forth from deep within us, from our very nature as those made “in the image of God,” just as the warmth and sunshine eventually bring forth fruit from a tree. These qualities are within us, waiting to come out, ready to burst forth, as long as we allow God’s Spirit to guide our lives. Now, we don’t always let the Holy Spirit be in control do we? We stifle the Spirit, we close our eyes and ears to the Spirit’s presence, we choose our way even when conscience is telling us to choose a different way. Or am I unique in my rebelliousness? I really doubt that I am. I think we all do it. But because of the presence of God’s Spirit within us, and because of the fact that humanity was originally created in such a way that God could declare us “good,” then we continue to have that goodness within us, and it can burst forth from us. You can’t get rid of that which is buried deep within you.

     Evolutionary theory says that neanderthals and homo sapiens are two completely different species. For a long time it was assumed that neanderthals went extinct, and we homo sapiens simply took over in their place. But with the advent of genetic testing, apparently many scientists are now of the opinion that neanderthals didn’t really go extinct. Apparently there was at least some inter-breeding between neanderthals and homo sapiens somewhere along the way (about 30 or 40 thousand years ago) and the current theory is that any modern human with European or Asian ancestry has a small amount of neanderthal genes. That’s fascinating stuff. I don’t know why so many people try to set faith and science up as being in opposition to each other. I find that the more science discovers, the more in awe I am of what God created. But the point is that what’s within you doesn’t go away and it can be brought out. Some scientists believe that because there are neanderthal genes in us, it might be possible to clone a neanderthal baby one day. It’s ethically questionable, but it might be possible. What’s not ethically questionable is that if we have this reservoir of goodness within us (and I believe we all do) that goodness should be brought forth - not by scientists but by God’s Spirit. And if we could do that, what a difference would it make to our life, to our faith and to our world?

     If we could tap that inner goodness, and bring it forth in ever greater abundance, then it seems to me that in our own lives we would be freed to always be able to strive to do our best, without ever giving up in discouragement or being overwhelmed by failure. If we could tap that inner goodness, and bring it forth in ever greater abundance, then it seems to me that in our faith, we could begin to truly love God rather than fearing God, and we could better reflect a God of love to the world rather than the God of judgment Who so often seems to be reflected from us. If we could tap that inner goodness, and bring it forth in ever greater abundance, then it seems to me that in the world around us, we could change the lives of those we encounter for the better by our actions, and only by changing the lives of those around us for the better are we going to be able to make a positive difference in the world.

     All these things we can do. In fact, we can do far more than that. We can do far more than we can possibly imagine thanks to God - the God Who created us in goodness, and Who gave us His image. We may not always choose the good, and God’s image coming from us isn’t a perfect image - but we can choose to let God’s Spirit have free reign in our lives to bring forth the goodness that’s simply a part of who we are - because that’s how God made us!

Wednesday 5 June 2013

Evangelism Through The Ages To Today

It's not a regular occurrence that - even as the minister - I feel the need to speak in overtly theological terms to my Church Council, but this happened at our meeting last night. In the course of the report that I offered, I shared brief reflections on a couple of theological topics of interest that I thought I'd expand upon here. Today - evangelism.

For a lot of Christians, it seems that "evangelism" is a dirty word. We don't like to think about it. Even more, we don't like to do it. It has overtones of fundamentalism, it makes us think of Bible thumping preachers who threaten people with hell unless they believe what the preacher believes, perhaps the word conjures up images of Jehovah's Witnesses going door to door, disturbing people's peace. (Actually, I rather admire the JWs for that devotion!) But as much as we might be nervous about evangelism, we also can't deny that it's a part of our faith. Ephesians 4:11 tells us that some are called to be evangelists, and 2 Timothy 4:5 tells us that apparently even if we're not called to be an evangelist (presumably meaning devoting our lives to the work) we're still expected to do the work of an evangelist (presumably as time and life allows and as God raises up opportunities.) Yes, I realize that both passages are likely pseudo-Pauline, but they're still in the New Testament. Evangelism is a part of what we're called to do.

But what is it? And how has it changed over the centuries? And what does it look like today? That's what I want to reflect on. I don't claim any scholarly authority to be engaging in this process of reflection. I'm no expert on evangelism, and I'm not called to be an evangelist. But I do have thoughts to share, based on a lot of years of study and pastoral ministry and trying to get churches to engage the world around them (sometimes successfully, sometimes not, and usually not without a certain amount of resistance.) First, though, I want to mention what evangelism is NOT. Let go of this whole concept of "lifestyle" evangelism. It sounds so good, I know. But frankly, I think it's an excuse to avoid doing the hard work of evangelism. It's basically saying "I don't want to talk about God or Jesus; I just want to do good things for people and live a good life." I have no objection to doing good things for people and living a good life - but give up on the idea that this is "evangelism" of any sort. If you do good things or live a good life without referencing God or Jesus, that's not evangelism - it's just doing good things and living a good life! I hope everyone tries to do that. It would make the world a better place. But evangelism it ain't! Sorry! Evangelism is, at its heart, some type of proclamation of the good news that God has given that we as Christians have found in Jesus. You can't do "evangelism" without reference to good news, to God and/or Jesus (preferably "and").

There are, I suppose, a lot of ways of defining the "good news" that we're to share. To put it into a modern context with a word that modern people can relate to and that has little if any baggage - I define the good news as "freedom." Jesus said "the truth shall set you free." Jesus identified himself as "the truth." Evangelism is proclaiming freedom in and through and because of Jesus. Evangelism is inviting people to experience that freedom in and through and because of Jesus. Yes - evangelism is inviting people to faith in Jesus. So, "lifestyle evangelism" really doesn't cut it, because it really isn't invitational. It might get you a lot of credit for being a really nice and good person, but it's not invitational in terms of Jesus. I'm going to suggest that as we look over the history of the church there are four discernible periods of evangelism that we find, where evangelism has looked and felt quite different. This isn't an exhaustive list; it's just my broad perception of how the Christian community (or the "Jesus Movement" - I kind of like that better) has defined and lived out its call to be evangelists or at least do the work of evangelism.

The first period I would suggest was a period of essentially "no evangelism." It was the very beginning of the movement. Post-crucifixion, post-resurrection, before the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It was characterized either by hopelessness (post-crucifixion) or aimlessness (post-resurrection and pre Pentecost.) When you're hopeless, you have no good news to share. When you're aimless, you don't know what the good news is supposed to be. For a few weeks, that was the Jesus Movement. Gathered together, huddled against the world, wandering without any clear sense of direction, doing a lot of talking but not taking a lot of action. If that sounds familiar, keep reading!

That period only lasted that few weeks. Pentecost was a virtual explosion that blew the fresh wind of the gospel into the world and that motivated the followers of Jesus to share it. I'm going to call this period "evangelical evangelism." Redundant? Not really. This would be an evangelism that's totally focused on the proclamation of good news. It's committed to "walking the walk" - and it's committed to walking the walk with those around you, and sharing their lives. It's the Antioch model of Christianity, where Paul went to Antioch to preach and stayed in Antioch for a long time. This kind of evangelism can't be inconsistent with your proclamation, but it's not lifestyle evangelism, because it's focused on teaching and preaching; public proclamation that proclaims the good news - and always in the name of Jesus. And it's committed to sharing the lives of the people who you're sharing the good news with. You're not approaching them from above; you're simply coming alongside them. This type of evangelism characterized the Jesus movement for a few centuries.

Then came what I'm going to call "conversion evangelism." Although conversion was always central to evangelism - why share the story if you don't want people to believe the story you're sharing - now it became central to what was happening. This happened around the same time that the church began to amass power - secular and not just spiritual power. Converting people to Christianity (rather than simply sharing the good news) became the goal. This period lasted over a millennia, until the mid-20th century I would say. Now, as a convert myself, I don't deny the ability of the gospel to "convert" people. The problem with conversion being the primary goal rather than the delightful outcome is that it can easily take the focus off the person being evangelized and on to the evangelizer. So, "how many people have you converted" or "I led Harvey to Christ last night" becomes the way of measuring "success." Faithfulness to God and gospel eventually becomes secondary; getting some "notches" on the conversion belt is what counts. Ultimately, this too easily becomes a prideful, self-centred form of evangelism. It may, indeed, bring people to faith in Christ - which is a gift to them - but at what cost to the heart and soul of the evangelist?

Beginning in the mid-20th century, we entered a period of what I would call "institutional evangelism." This wasn't so much a change in the "how" of evangelism, but rather was a subtle change in the "why" of evangelism. Society changed. Culture changed. And the church (which had been striding like a colossus over the Western world forever, it seemed) was suddenly threatened. The signs began appearing. Membership started to decline. Attendance started to decline. The culture stopped taking it upon itself to promote the gospel (no prayer in schools anymore!) and the church found itself pathetically ill-equipped to respond. As numbers went down, so did dollars go down. Churches struggled to pay salaries, to pay bills, to maintain buildings. In the midst of the struggle, mission became secondary - or at least the mission became, essentially, "save the church." We desperately tried to find ways to reach people - which sounds good, except that the motivation was bad. We wanted to reach them for our sake, not for theirs. Basically, we wanted something from them. We wanted their behinds in the pews, their dollars in the collection plate and their hands helping to keep the building standing and open. And in the midst of the desperation, we forgot that living the the gospel is about giving - not getting. People are smart. They realized that the church wanted something from them. And the more we wanted something from them, the less inclined they were to give us anything. It's a vicious cycle. It's hard to get out of. Because too many of us honestly believe that being a Christian is about having your behind on the pew, and putting your money in the plate and helping keep the building open. Increasingly I suspect, congregations couldn't explain what their purpose or place in the community was. They were just there, and they wanted to stay there. As a corollary to this, suspicion began to develop toward newcomers (because they don't have the same level of commitment to the building) and especially toward the poor and less fortunate (because they don't have much to give.) The church had become a frightened few. Some call it a "faithful remnant" - I'm not convinced about the "faithful" part to be honest, because I believe that, increasingly, those who remain are motivated not by faith but by fear. That isn't to say that they don't have faith, but their motivating factor is fear over the changes that are happening and the losses that are coming. What evangelism does get done is done for the purpose of maintaining the status quo for a little while longer.  Institutional evangelism accomplishes nothing for the church. Its primary accomplishment has probably been the rise of the "spiritual but not religious movement." "I believe in God and I believe in Jesus, but I don't want anything to do with that church." And that's basically where we sit now, perhaps even having gone back to the beginning. Increasingly without hope for the future, we've entered the "no evangelism" state. We're hopeless and aimless. The future is bleak, and we don't know what we can do to change it.

Except that God is always leading us to something new. And I think there's a new style of evangelism on the horizon. Maybe this is a cycle. I've argued that the church moved from "no evangelism" to "evangelical evangelism" - from being hopeless and aimless to suddenly understanding the good news and sharing it with people, for no reason other than that those early followers of Jesus believed it was valuable for others to know it. The focus was on proclamation supplemented by relationship. I think we're in a similar shift now, with a bit of a twist. I think the successful evangelism of the 21st century will be what I'm going to call "relational evangelism." It's going to be about meeting people, taking care of their needs, helping them with their trials, journeying with them through life. Some might call this the "missional" or "emergent" church. The idea being that the "new" and "contemporary" church is about more than buildings and liturgy - it's about people, and it's not really about "us" - it's about "others." It's about those who don't know Jesus. This will be similar to "evangelical evangelism" but the priority will shift. Evangelical evangelism was focused on proclaiming the good news to others while also walking the walk with them. Relational evangelism will be focused on walking the walk with others, while also proclaiming the good news. It will be about the church getting out of the building and to the people, or at the very least it will be about using the building for the sake of others and to meet their needs, and not just as our own little clubhouse where we focus on our own needs and wants. It will be about building completely unselfish relationships with those around us. Asking nothing of them, but offering everything to them.

There's a challenge in that. If our focus isn't on bringing people into the institution but is on meeting their needs while they're outside the institution, then the institution may well die. That's a risk. And those who love the institution (as I do for the most part) and those who are dependent on the institution (as I am to a large extent) are going to find this unnerving, and maybe even frightening. But it may also be the church's salvation. There's an old saying - "Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care." If we show people that we care about them - with no ulterior motive, asking nothing from them, and for no reason other than that we care about them - perhaps we may even find resurrection and new life! That is, after all, what Jesus did!

Monday 3 June 2013

A Thought For The Week Of June 3

"Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses." (Proverbs 10:12) As the old saying goes, there's a fine line between love and hate. There's even a connection between their consequences, as this verse from Proverbs points out. Falling into hatred toward a person or a group leads to all sorts of troubles, but living in love is what can overcome the hatred that we too often see around us. Hatred is an emotion, of course - but it's not a good one, and it's one I hope we can avoid for the most part. As I search my conscience I think I can honestly say that there's no one I hate. There are those I dislike; those I choose to have little to do with; those who irritate me. But no one I can think of that I actually hate. That doesn't make me any shining example. I'd like to think that real hatred is a rare thing. It's just that the consequences of real hatred are so obvious and so dramatic that hatred seems so powerful. Love, however, conquers all! I think that's true. Or, as Paul put it in 1 Corinthians 13, "love never fails." To truly live in love is to conquer hatred - it's to eliminate it from our own lives, and it's the only worthwhile response to it when we encounter it. "Love your enemies," Jesus said. In other words, offer love to those you would be most inclined to hate. Love is powerful, and love can change the world. The love of God already has! Have a great week!

Sunday 2 June 2013

June 2 sermon - Living Between Good and Evil: Is God Really Good?

Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good; His love endures forever. Cry out, “Save us, O God our Saviour; gather us and deliver us from the nations, that we may give thanks to Your holy name, that we may glory in Your praise.” Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting. (1 Chronicles 16:34-36)

 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

      These words were spoken by Sharlene Bosma, and as some of you may have noticed from some of my recent writings, they moved me very deeply and touched a chord: 

 "On May 6 our lives changed forever. What happened to him was not God's doing. I know that if it wasn't Tim it could have been another man and another man's family. What if they didn't have the support that we have. I couldn't be here without all of you. Evil came to pass. We have seen there is far more good on this earth. I believe, especially in this case, good will overcome the evil." 

      Sharlene Bosma is, of course, the widow of Tim Bosma, who was apparently kidnapped and murdered on May 6. She spoke them at the memorial service held in his honour. When I first heard the words on video, and then read them again later in print, they literally sent shivers up and down my spine. The words express such faith in both God and in goodness, in the light of such a monstrously evil act. And they made me wonder how we can even begin to deal with questions of good and evil when most of us at least (I hope) haven’t been face to face with evil in this direct a way. How do we live between good and evil? How do we interpret and understand and come to terms with the concepts of good and evil? That’s going to be my theme for the next month: “Living Between Good And Evil.” Life between two such contrasting things is, at the very least, interesting. When I was in university, in my late teens and early 20’s, we lived in a bungalow in Scarborough on the east side of Toronto. On one side of our house was a nice, friendly, quiet family who would do anything for their neighbours. On the other side was a family who stuck to themselves and we saw rarely, aside from their teenage son - who insisted on playing drums (usually with their windows open) at all hours of the day and night. That may not be a classic example of living between good and evil, but it helped me understand the dilemma of living in an environment where you have contrasting forces on either side of you!

      Today, to start, I want to consider the question of God’s goodness. “Is God Really Good?” It’s a question that’s been around for a very long time. Centuries before Jesus was born, the Greek philosopher Epicurus offered a series of questions and answers that still cause people to question or even lose their faith. I hear this quoted by atheists all the time:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then where does evil come from evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

      Others find the depiction of God (especially in the Old Testament) to be problematic - and those who wrote the Hebrew Scriptures certainly attributed a lot of unpleasantness to God. So I wanted to show, by using an Old Testament passage, why I believe God is good, even in the face of a world that does sometimes seem to have too much evil - and too much evil sometimes committed by those who claim to be followers of God! The people of God in the Old Testament surely had more than enough reason to have given up on God. 300 years of slavery in Egypt, followed by 40 years of seemingly aimless wandering in the wilderness of Sinai, followed by never-ending wars as they sought to settle the land they believed should be theirs, defeat and exile at the hands of Babylon. They could have given up on God. They still could. If you remember the movie “Jakob the Liar,” set in the Jewish Warsaw Ghetto during the Holocaust, Robin Williams’ character of Jakob says at one point, “I still believe we’re God’s chosen people. I just wish He had chosen someone else.” This is the reality of being the people of God, living between good and evil - on the one hand, faith; on the other hand, doubt. But then I come across this little verse in 1 Chronicles - written after the exile, so after most of the horrendous experiences God’s people had in Old Testament days at least: “Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good; His love endures forever.” And in those 13 words, I learn a lot about the goodness of God.

      Understanding God’s goodness first results from our actions. “Give thanks to the Lord.” Some might find that strange. Why should we begin with giving thanks, if we’re not convinced that there’s anything to be thankful for? Basically, it’s because I believe that our actions open us to fuller and healthier relationships with others and with God. Sometimes, when I talk to people who for some reason are carrying a burden of unforgiveness (meaning that someone has done something to them and they can’t let it go; they can’t forgive the person) I suggest that they begin a regular pattern of praying for blessings to come to that person. It sounds odd, and it certainly sounds hard. Praying for someone who’s done something terrible to me? Why? It’s because it lets you go; it lets you move on with life. It’s very difficult to stay angry with someone if you’re actively praying for them. Praying frees you from anger; praying has the potential to bring reconciliation. I think that’s why the verse begins not by speaking of the goodness of God, but by telling God’s people to give thanks. Expressing thanksgiving to God, even on those occasions when we may feel little to be thankful for, breaks down the barriers that we sometimes erect against God even without realizing it, it builds our relationship with God and it helps us to see and understand God more clearly. Psalm 34:8 tells us to “taste and see that the Lord is good,” and in reflection on that concept, 1 Peter 2:3 says that we will get rid of all sorts of bad and evil things in our lives if we taste “that the Lord is good.” Psalm 135:3 tells us that praising God is both good and pleasant. Praising God and giving thanks to God opens us to goodness, even in those hopefully rare occasions when we feel ourselves surrounded by evil. Jesus exorcised demons according to the Gospels not with magic spells or incantations, but by approaching those possessed not in judgment, but in love and compassion and in the name of God. In prayer and thanksgiving, we discover the power of God, and we discover the power of good over evil. In other words, in prayer and thanksgiving, we discover, as 1 Chronicles 16:34 goes on to say, that God “is good.

      But what is goodness? Jesus Himself said that “only God is good” but what is goodness? Is it just the absence of evil? It has to be more than that, because if you simply take something away then all you have left is a void. Goodness is active. Our contemporary society tends to define goodness simply in terms of doing nice things, being inoffensive, not challenging or disagreeing, putting on a sometimes false veneer of friendliness. And sometimes those things might be helpful and worthwhile. A false veneer of friendliness, for example, might be better than an open display of hatred and hostility! But I don’t think any of that is what’s meant when we call God “good.” In the Gospel passage when Jesus spoke of only God being good, it was in combination with his teaching to a rich young man who wanted to know how to gain eternal life - how to be close to God, in other words. Jesus equated goodness in this case with giving to those in need. We’re not talking here about tithing, or contributing to the offering, or giving to charity. Jesus spoke about giving everything and holding nothing back. The rich young man went away sad, and most likely we would too, because probably none of us can do that. The reality is that life in this world requires certain things. Food, at least a little bit of money. Something. If you don’t have certain things, you have to find a way to get them. True goodness means being willing to give up everything for those in need. And that has to be a choice. True goodness can’t be coerced, because coerced goodness isn’t good. Coercion itself would be evil on the part of God, and so God gives us the right to choose, even though some will make the wrong choice, and some will even choose evil. We can’t choose perfect goodness. But God can. And God does. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son,” and, in Philippians we’re told that Jesus “being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing.” There we see true goodness - giving without counting the cost. And God’s goodness is reflected by God’s love, which, we’re told by the last part of our verse, “endures forever.”

      God’s loves perfectly. God’s love is God’s nature, and it’s a reflection of God’s goodness. God is able to love perfectly and freely and completely because God has no needs. God loves us because God chooses to, and not because God has a need to do so. Without needs and being completely self-sufficient, God is also freed from worry about being rejected. Isn’t that what so often holds us back from truly loving others? It’s the fear of being rejected. It’s the fear of perhaps being embarrassed. God has no such fears. God is simply free to love. God simply is love. God simply loves. That’s what makes God good.

      If we define goodness a simply making all the bad things go away, then I suppose God doesn’t qualify. I don’t think goodness even means simply doing nice things - not even for God. Bad things happen. Evil exists. But if we define goodness in terms of living rightly - completely unselfishly and always for other? Well - that’s real goodness and - THAT’S GOD!!!