Nick Maddix Says:

October 9, 2008 at 4:06 pm

I'd like to see what others put too! I'll start off with a list…

1. Sugar Bottom Road - http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.762221,-91.54006&spn=0.01767,0.055275&t=p&z=14

Just past Jordan Creek Rd & Poplar Ave

The one before it is quite a challenge too, and the one before the turn to Newport is tough on the way back. Depends which way you are going!

2. Cemetery Rd/CR-W38 - http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=p&ll=41.752553,-91.785021&spn=0.017673,0.055275&z=14

3. Jefferson / Washington / Burlington etc. Hills, in downtown Iowa City

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=p&ll=41.662717,-91.536155&spn=0.008849,0.027637&z=15

4. "Dill Hill" - Dill Street, Iowa City

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=p&ll=41.666532,-91.555896&spn=0.008848,0.027637&z=15

5. Benton Street Hill (near Orchard / Miller St), Benton Street, Iowa City

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=p&ll=41.650341,-91.54727&spn=0.00885,0.027637&z=15

That's all I can think of…for now!

B.J. Smith Says:

October 9, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Linn County

From a couple of guys on the HBA Forum:

For me, it's the hill on County Road E2W from Center Point to Urbana.

BikerHawk

------

Some Sunday morning take a spin up Edgewood Rd starting at Ellis. Not the steepest but very long. That should get the old heart a pumpin'.

I would also vote for the ride through the state park in Anamosa in either direction. Definitely a b**l buster.

Don't forget about Rosedale Dr SE.

One of my favs is Hall Rd off Tower Terrace. Nice little climb. Do a couple of laps around for maximum effect.

Just about any gravel road in or around CR will eventually have a really tough hill. They don't shave 'em down on the gravel. Try heading west out of Ely towards the Presbyterian church. It's actually tougher headed the other way as it is gravel. Once you get to the church head north to Spanish Rd.

Have fun!

Big Dog

jim says...

If I make what I think may be a controversial statement from the pulpit, I usually try to preface it with a 'this is my opinion.'

If I think it's a statement that might be challenging to people, but I think is pretty well based from scripture or a text, I might say something like "this is what I think this scripture might have to say to us." or "Jesus might have this to say to us."

I'm not sure that as preachers its possible to avoid controversial statements. I'm sure I've said plenty of things from the pulpit that people don't like to hear (those are the sermons, I fear, where no one responds 'nice sermon' pastor.) But it we aren't challenging people and their faith then I would suggest we aren't really doing our jobs.

Commented on: 08 Oct, 9:16 am

Carol Howard Merritt says...

I preach about controversial stuff a lot. The economy included. Luckily, I'm at a church where they expect it and welcome it. A lot of people in the congregation readily disagree with me, but they appreciate the spirit of the discussion.

Our sermons become utterly boring and irrelevant when we don't talk about the stuff that matters.

Commented on: 08 Oct, 10:02 am

Pancho88 says...

Hey Pastor Sean, I believe people do not want pastor's to have a public opinion because it reminds them that they are sinners and want to have our earthly forum without spiritual tongue lashings. God is good in church and bedtime when saying prayers. After that, he/she has no place in man's screwed up world. It just puts some people's mind at ease that way. God FTW!

Commented on: 08 Oct, 10:49 pm

Drwe says...

Church has become a place of rose-colored glasses in a world where such a view does not correspond much to reality in most places. I have never owned a pair of those glasses and I am not in the market for a set - but I am also not a pastor!

What I think we can do is get to the issues through education. What we should do is explain to people with a sense of trust what we do believe without fear that things would be taken personally which tends to be the source of problems.

But I do think that we need not be afraid of teaching each other about what and why we believe. That is a conversation missing in my church and I would think that it is similar in many other churches as well.

I also will never say that something is only my opinion. But I will say that I have done my homework and I think that based on my judgment that this is the most reasonable conclusion. I also welcome challenge and disagreement. We are so worried about offending each other that we cannot get past some of these social barriers that prevent deeper and richer growth. Not being a pastor gives me some freedom with this, but I wonder if what we need to do is look at the social assumptions of our congregations and then find ways to negotiate these assumed boundaries through education and discourse to effect change?

Commented on: 09 Oct, 6:49 am

Mike says...

I think as long as it is not done in the context of preaching or teaching (but especially preaching, since that moment has near-sacramental quality [supposedly] for Presbyterians), pastors should be able to hold and express personal opinions. As long as it is done honestly and with love and respect for others, it seems like it should be part of what incarnational ministry is all about. As you point out, surely Jesus had personal opinions about all sorts of things, including the political issues of the day.

But we should always take the lesson from Paul: "About XYZ, I say - I, and not the Lord…" He distinguished between his opinions/judgment and the Word. And so should we.

Commented on: 09 Oct, 11:32 am

What are your thoughts on the Pulpit Initiative? An Arizona-based front group for the religious empire of James (Focus on the Family) Dobson, the Alliance Defense Fund, is encouraging en masse violation of the IRS rule that prohibits clergy from endorsing political candidates. They're asking ministers of kindred spirit across the country to endorse presidential candidates on Sunday, September 28.

Given the group organizing this, I can pretty much bet WHICH candidate they will be endorsing. Many did this in 2004 for our current president. Thoughts?

Posted by: Ann G. | September 26, 2008 at 10:09 AM

Ann, I had to think about this for a moment. I suppose pastors should be free to say what they want from the pulpit without fear of recrimination from the government.

However, the pulpit is the place where we proclaim the truth of scripture. Therefore any pastor who would "endorse" a candidate from the pulpit would be making the statement that they believe this is God's choice, a very dangerous position to take no matter which side of the spectrum you fall on.

Even when there is agreement on the issues that matter to Christians, there is often disagreement on the best way to solve the problem and that can lead to Godly people voting against one another.

As a pastor I would never endorse a candidate from the pulpit!

Posted by: Neil | September 26, 2008 at 10:32 AM

Fabulous response, Neil. Whether I agreed with a pastor's endorsement or not, hearing one from the pulpit would create a feeling of uneasiness in me - and others I'm sure.

PS - I don't really have a response on the yard sign issue. We don't have one in our yard because we live at the very end of a "dead end" street with minimal to no traffic. I suspect if we were in a more traveled location I may have put one up. Then again, neither my husband or I are pastors ;-)

Posted by: Ann G. | September 26, 2008 at 01:48 PM

I saw somewhere in the media that the vast majority of endorsements from the pulpit so far this year have been in churches where the pastors and a majority of the congregation are African-American.

The theory behind the Pulpit Initiative, as I understand it, is that the enforcement arm of the IRS actually is fairly small. If pastors en masse endorsed candidates and that generated thousand of complaints to the IRS, there is no way all could be investigated. They might pick off a few churches for enforcement action, but not many. Even if investigated, the initial enforcement action likely would be a fine, rather than a church being stripped of tax-exempt status.

Not saying I agree with that.. There is the Romans 13 issue.

Also, I have not heard anyone refer to a presidential candidate as the devil incarnate. Antichrist or son of perdition perhaps, but so far no devil incarnate:)

Posted by: Bob | September 27, 2008 at 06:53 PM

OK so I don't have a yard sign! I do have a bumper sticker that reads, God isn't a Republican or a Democrat. Perhaps a statement of the obvious, but also an important reminder!

Posted by: Neil | September 27, 2008 at 07:52 PM

on 20 Aug 2008 at 7:20 pm # stushie

Carol, religious people, along with gays, have also been persecuted, tortured, and horribly killed. All of it is wicked, evil, and unecessary.

I made a video about how intolerant ( myself included) that we are as Christians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz6whQRXyzk

on 21 Aug 2008 at 12:44 am # Ruth

Carol, I was going to weigh in with a self-care suggestion and offer you the name of my facialist. She is amazing. She has a shop in her basement, and uses excellent products, and has a wonderful touch. The experience of getting a facial from her is incredibly nurturing. Put it this way: I do my own cleaning, and don't spend a lot on clothes, but I get facials! Now this comment seems lightweight in light of your discussion with Stushie. Stushie, if you're reading, I wonder: why does the word homophobia rankle? It's rather straightforward from the Latin.

on 21 Aug 2008 at 3:35 am # stushie

It rankles because it causes division. If some people are homophobic, does that mean that others are heterophobic? Classifying and categorizing people desensitizes us to the struggles that all people experience. Matthew Shepard was tortured and murdered because someone labelled him "homosexual," instead of human being. Li Ying is tortured and cast into prison because she is labelled Christian dissident.

I'm not criticizing the lifestyle choices that people make. I'm contesting our inhuman capacity for labelizing others, in order to separate ourselves from them, making it so much easier to afflict harm upon them.

on 21 Aug 2008 at 11:43 am # Ruth

I guess there's a counterpart to every word. At my house, I am frequently told I'm "heteronormative" (by my college age daughters). At first it irritated me, then it amused me. Now I see that they're right. I am gradually learning to see the world through a different lens that doesn't think heterosexuality is the only norm. I just share this to say, difficult words like this can be helpful.

(Carol, sorry to hijack!)

on 21 Aug 2008 at 12:43 pm # john

Categorizing and classifying also clarifies at times. Anti-semites are anti-semites. Sexists are sexists. Homophobes are homophobes. Surely we need to be careful who what people we include in these categories that most definitely exist. But exist they do. Naming evil is the first step toward dealing with it.

Comments

No comments exist for this entry.

on 13 Aug 2008 at 12:09 pm # Shekinah Glory

I almost always post my sermons online (except when I am saying something that is in family). I am not sure that I believe that I have ever had an original idea in my life, but I try to be careful not to borrow ideas from others. At some level I think that we would all be lying if we didn't admit that our own ideas rely heavily on mentors, teachers, experience with others and research. I am also not sure that our modern/postmodern obsession with fair use and copyright laws should be what guides us homiletically when it comes to the importance of conveying truth. I am not for stealing sermons (I personally think that it shows an incredible lack of curiosity on the perp's part). Yet, I am not sure that it is as sinful an offense as most. I have a hard time getting too worked up over it.

on 15 Aug 2008 at 5:07 pm # Kim

I myself do not post sermons. I believe that they are truly contextual - written and discerned in a certain context of time, place, people, circumstances (thanks Hank). That's God's word - living, breathing, growing, going…

I have however wandered over other's sermons and images, etc…and when moved will use some images. If I use something that is "word-for-word" or exact, I generally try to contact the person and get permission. If I use an idea or image, I generally note that in the text (eg - "While reading a sermon on this same text one pastor, Pastor so-and-so pointed to…")

Credit is due along with simple collegial respect, so word-for-word "borrowing" without permission I find quite depressing and rude. But in the end it is supposed to be God's word, which is a word for all - so if you hear something in my preaching that grabs you for your context, your people, your time run with it - but be sure to give me a nod, buy me a beer the next time we are at a hockey game, or tell a friend that you found a great image in a sermon I wrote.

on 18 Aug 2008 at 10:04 am # Danny

I often post sermons… not always because they make for long blog posts (I script) but sometimes if there was a good response (however we define that) or if I would like some comments (I am a probationer in Church of Scotland doing my final pre ordination training).

I am glad people post sermons because I like to Google a topic/Bible verses as part of my sermon writing preparation to see what other people have preached … I find that inspiring and often I find helpful illustrations.

Great blog btw found it by accident… will stop by again.

on 18 Aug 2008 at 10:09 am # Carol Howard Merritt

Thanks, Danny!

on 19 Aug 2008 at 10:50 pm # Robert Easter

Sad update- Since my earlier post here, the second preacher mentioned seems to have stopped visiting by blog. Guess he likes this site, too! Well, bro, if ya see this one, know I love ya!

on 03 Aug 2008 at 2:09 pm # Carol Howard Merritt

Sorry, I haven't been engaged in the conversation much. My family came into town, so we've been theme-parking.

Quickly…I did see Rob Bell's The God's Aren't Angry tour. It was very interesting. He seemed to take the idea of sacrificial atonement, and seemed to say that the need to atone comes from humanity rather than from God. It's our continual need to pay for what we've done wrong that created the system in our culture and context.

There are multiple views of atonement in the Bible, and I do think you can read the Bible with integrity without holding to that specific one. Abelard did when he held up the moral exemplar view. And (as I remember…) the early church councils never held up particular view of atonement as orthodox.

There is a long, consistent pattern in the OT of God NOT wanting human sacrifice. So, how does it make sense that a human sacrifice would solve the problem, once-in-for-all? That's where Abelard (and the GO view that Huw points out) makes a lot of sense. He sees the life and death of Jesus as an act of love.

I like how that takes us into the realm of gift, rather than a payment or an exchange.

on 04 Aug 2008 at 2:04 am # Shekinah Glory

I should try and talk about the absence of Penal Substitutionary Atonement in my personal belief system since it is in this post. I will not even try. There have been a lot of good things already said previously and I would not want to repeat them.

Carol has pretty much summed up my other issues and defenses against a view of atonement that I personally find to be morally troubling. Yet, having spent most of my ministry in ecumenical settings and ministering at an ecumenical church has helped me to understand why psa is such an important part of other's belief systems. I would never want to change something that brings such meaning to another person's faith. Yet, I will say that one thing always bothers me. It is the tendency to glorify suffering. Christ's, ours and martyrs. I understand that some of this is Biblical, some of it is cultural and some of it is part of our family systems. I think I would rather be on the hope side of Paul's discussion of suffering.

Jim~

I am more than willing to allow that there are NT passages that talk about a sacrificial view of atonement, but for me to admit that they are the entire atonement theme of the NT would mean that I must believe that there is a unified text. Since I do not believe in a unified text (nor do I think that the early church practiced out of unified texts) that opens up for me multiple readings. I personally think that a person can read the NT and the OT with integrity admitting that there are multiple views of atonement by differing voices. So, I will affirm your view as biblical if you can affirm mine.

on 04 Aug 2008 at 5:18 am # Ann

I do not buy atonement at all. I accept it as a teaching of the church, but still don't really believe it. I will continue to wrestle with it, because it is so important - contained in the creed, for instance. I do believe that Jesus died "because" of our sins - because of the inherent sinfulness of humankind - but not "for" them. His example of radical obedience may "save us" from slavery to fear. But I haven't yet seen an atonement theory that I can buy in any way, shape, or form.

on 04 Aug 2008 at 1:33 pm # jim

Brian,

What I clumsily meant to say was that you have to account for it in the scriptures some how…which I think is what you have done. I really do like the pluralities of interpretation idea which you present; various texts questioning and re-interpreting one another…at the same time I also like the biblical narrative interpretation of scripture, seeing the bible as an overarching narrative of God's redemption…it's hard at least for me to reconcile the two.

I don't like the glorification of suffering either…but I do like this: Jesus identifying with us so fully that he descends to us not just in the incarnation, but in his suffering death on the cross, even to the depths of hell….a God that goes with us to the lowest, darkest, deepest point that as humans we can go to redeem us.

on 05 Aug 2008 at 2:02 pm # Shekinah Glory

Jim~

I pretty much gave up on the idea of a biblical narrative interpretation of scripture. Too much dispensationalism in my diet from youth. "Hey, if the Sermon on the Mount doesn't seem to be practicable it is because it isn't. That text isn't for us it was for a different dispensation." I found too often that overarching narrative conformed to a particular ideology that individual's espoused. For my faith to thrive I have found that I must believe in complexities with contradictions and accept that they exist. I feel more comfortable with fragmentary themes in scripture. Yet my own personal faith has to be fairly simple or it doesn't exist. I however understand the powerful benefit to having an overarching narrative that unifies the entire old and new testament. Sometimes I opine for those days of old. Alas, as an evangelist I heard once said when talking about blasphemy, I have passed the point of no return.

To your second paragraph. I am in total agreement of the vital importance of Jesus participating in death as a human. I have no practical experience at being divinity, but humanity is something I am bound to understand on some level. It is of great comfort to me to know that Christ was not Superman, but fully human. He experienced the ultimate human experience, death. That is why I can lustily affirm the descended into sheol part of the confessions. Unfortunately, that does not usually sate a presbytery's idea of an acceptable amount of blood in my atonement. Thanks for responding.

jbonewa // July 22, 2008 at 8:51 pm

Mike, here's what I want to know…why doesn't the NCAA have more of a say in these types of matters?

I personally think if a program can get the 'death penalty' for recruiting violations and the such, why can't a program get the same thing for these types of infractions?

Especially when 1.) there seems to be a repeated pattern (thinking back to Pierce) across the entire athletic department, and 2.) the football program seems to be in complete meltdown mode in terms of student discipline.

If the NCAA really cares about student athletes, as it claims it does, there ought to be more policing and regulations on this type of stuff.

Religious profiling is just as evil as racial profiling. Surprise, surprise that I think that way. In my opinion, such profiling is not only wrong, it is ineffective. All the energy you spend investing Muslims (or whoever) because they are Muslim just takes time away from seeking out individuals who are terrorists.

Do some particular churches or mosques or synagogues (or whatever) have a history as nests of violence and terror? Probably, but that becomes clear on the basis of actions, not mass profiling. Profiling is just another kind of discrimination.

Posted by:Joe Barone | July 18, 2008 at 09:20 AM

Jim, as a non-PC(USA) member I don't know what those statements were, but in general I second what Bill says above about interfaith dialogs (and the particular gathering mentioned above): "It's exactly the sort of gathering that needs to happen..."

Posted by:Joe Barone | July 18, 2008 at 09:24 AM

Who are the Bad 'Guys' today? Who is Killing their Brothers/Sisters of Life? Some religious rebels, or Humans with weapons of massive destruction and Nuclear Bombs?

Who is Killing their Eco System of GODs Earth? Bad Guys? Of, Humans with Pollution, and nuclear waste on land and sea.

When did the Bad 'Guys' start? 'In the beginning', did the Male Clones, not made by Body Birth, fertilize the Female Clones made from their rib, and reproduce Inbred Human Bad 'Guys' by Body Birth?

We need to Solve the Mystery of the Lord God, Our High Tech Human Ancestors, and, how the Perfect Peace Humans they made, turned into Killer Humans on our Home Planet.

We again have the High Tech Science Knowledge, that was recorded in Genesis and Revelation as Supernatural.

We do Know how to Colonize a Planet, and Reproduce Without Body Birth. But, we make Nuclear Bombs instead of a High Tech Womb.

The Original Sin of Pure-bred Humans reproducing Mis-bred Humans, caused Division, Disease, Greed, Inequality, and a High Tech Planetary Noah/Atlantis Flood that destroyed most of the Life.

After the Flood, Primitive Life started over on Earth, up to our Population and High Tech Science Explosion, for the past 100 years, that Will cause the Second Destruction of Earth by Fire, to our Home Planet.

What do we do now? At least we should put a Stop to any more Bad 'Guys' Body Birth reproduction.

Eternal Life is for the Living, with Good 'Guys' Balanced High Tech Science, and Pure-bred Birth.

Posted by:Dolores Lear | July 18, 2008 at 09:52 AM

Our government and our media have done a beautiful job of downplaying the role of religion in terrorist attacks, especially on 9/11. They're afraid we'll end up in a religious war if we concentrate too much on the fact that 911 was a jihad, a Muslim holy war declared against the United States.

Should we simply ignore the fact that people were mobilized against the United States because of a radical Muslim sect that was so self-righteous as to declare holy war against us? No. We'd be fools to ignore the underlying radical religious zeal that caused 911, and to ignore how religious zealots were enlisted to give their lives in suicide missions against us. We'd be even bigger fools to think that this is just going to go away if we ignore the religious aspects of what happened.

We are (and we should be) internationally tracking radical Muslim sects because they are violent and direct threats to this country. This is what links all followers of Osama bin Laden. We should not end up in a holy war against Islam, but it is absolutely stupid to ignore the radical Muslim beliefs that brought us 911.

Posted by:Just Thinking | July 18, 2008 at 11:42 AM

Islam authorities and scholars wrote an Open Letter to Pope Benedict XVI.

Under the Heading "God's Transcendence": "There is no thing like unto Him. He is the Light of the Heavens and the earth. We are closer to him than his jugular vein. He is the First, the Last, the Inward and the Outward. He is with you wherever you are. Wheresoever you turn, there is the Face of God."

It is time for Humans to accept, GOD is not a Human He/Him. Otherwise this description does describe, the Source of LIFE, visible and invisible, in the Universe. As long as we are Alive, we see GOD's LIFE. But no one walks and talks to this GOD, face to face.

We Know today, Life is made of Atom and Electro-Magnetic Elements. No 'He' could make the Elements. GOD is the Source of Elements that make LIFE, not a Human He.

The Lord God, that does have a Face, is a Human male and female. They Colonized Earth and Reproduced Human male and female Clones in Genesis. We are in their Image.

They did talk face to face with Humans, and did fly up in the air, and out into Space in fiery chariots. We do this today also, so that God is not supernatural anymore, and is not the GOD of Elements. They use GODs elements to Travel in Space and Colonize Planets.

So it is Time for Humans to Unite under GOD, and Take Care of GOD's LIFE, instead of destroying it, with all types of Inequality, Weapons, and Pollution on land and sea, a result of Man-made Religions.

Asexual Male and Female Clone Helpmeets, with Equal High Tech Science Birth, can have Eternal Life and Peace, on Planets and in Spaceships.

Posted by:Dolores Lear | July 18, 2008 at 01:55 PM

Todd said...

4

07/16/08 10:42 AM | Comment Link |

Dan, good stuff! especially the prison thing. I like the continued help you are offering the women after they get out. very, very cool.

Josh said...

5

07/17/08 9:21 PM | Comment Link |

Todd -

Interestingly mission in the post is centered around service or economics…but what about getting people 'missionally minded' in their everyday relationships. If you link the idea of 'mission' and suburbia one of the greatest things we can do (and what I attempt to do) is simply connect with those around me who are different and establish relationship with them.

So I mow my neighbors lawn because he's got allergies or I watch other neighbor's kids or my wife and I befriend those who were considered outcasts when they moved into the neighborhood because of lifestyle choices.

I know consumerism is a huge issue that makes economical decisions and decisions to give of oneself in service as some of the things to do to be missional, but I would also suggest we just look at our context (work, neighborhoods, places we daily are) and see how we can break out of isolation(ism), which I think is something else both the church and culture deal with in a suburban environment that leads to more of an anti-missional mindset.

Todd said...

6

07/17/08 11:28 PM | Comment Link |

Josh, right on. Most definitely! I have found that the financial and economic and time issues often (not always) make it harder to do the things you jsut described. Meaning: we're so strapped with debt we're working extra long hours and just "have no time" to do these things. Or, at least we're so stressed with life that we think we don't (Even though we really do).

But, yeah, great examples.

Malcolm said...

7

07/18/08 5:51 AM | Comment Link |

Josh and Todd… good points. This same thing happens within churches. As the summer goes longer, as tithes and offerings go down because of the economy or because of the holidays… churches have a tendency to want to circle the wagons and want to take care of those that are coming to the church, they become inward focused and instead of being missional, they become focused on maintaining what they have.

Which takes the church away from it's calling within the neighborhood or community in which they live. Churches also are straddled with debt, or put their money in things that they think they need, which in both cases takes resources away from living out their missional calling.

I know when I was on a church staff, my best and most creative ministry happened when the church cutback my operating budget. It forced me to not do so many outreaches that cost money… but it forced me to do low cost outreaches that ended up being more relational, more fruitful and became more missional. Things like starting a jail Bible study, going out and hanging with the homeless, working more at the homeless shelter and soup kitchen.

Gary said...

8

07/19/08 10:26 PM | Comment Link |

I knew a guy in Denver who took in a street kids who had been abandoned by his parents. Where did he meet this kid? At Burger King, where the kid worked. He learned his situation because he actually talked to the kid who worked at Burger King. I'm not sure that being missional calls for something dramatic. It's about realizing that we are sent at every moment. It's about bringing the most mundane moments (i.e. going into Burger King) into the Kingdom of God.

on June 14, 2008 at 10:24 pm1 jbonewa

Having lived in New Orleans for nine years pre-Katrina, having worked at Tulane Univ. and with FEMA on Hurricane Planning, and now living in Cedar Rapids Iowa where I am a Presbyterian minister, while the affect of the storms here in Iowa are certainly tragic and will take significant time and resources to recover from I absolutely object to anyone who dare to compare what has happened here with Katrina. There is simply no point of comparison.

on June 15, 2008 at 8:07 am2 Jim

I'm sorry that you imagine that the suffering of the people of New Orleans and along the Gulf coast is somehow worse than the suffering of the people of Iowa. For those folk, in their own words, 'this is OUR Katrina' simply meaning 'this is a horrific devastation that will take a very long time to get over.'

It's funny how we guard with pride even our disasters though. "You don't know how I feel…" is often heard from people in distress, but you know what? LOTS of people know exactly 'how you feel' and to assume that your pain is greater is nothing less than thinly disguised hubris and arrogance.

The nuns weren't accused of SEX with the man, JT (the women were 73 and 79). They were accused of giving the man convent funds.

Posted by: Patricia | June 09, 2008 at 09:46 AM

Patricia,

"The ANSA news agency cited articles from local media claiming the two women were evicted after an inspection by church authorities revealed the presence of a man in the convent." The issue was finding a man in the convent. Everything about money was just a later rumor, a "suggestion."

You missed the point of my remarks. What was the big deal about having a man in the convent? It broke their little rules. It endagered people? You can insinuate whatever you want at that point because the whole thing is ridiculous. What? Were they worried about the nuns having sex? No doubt that would be enough: the mere thought of a consenting, adult heterosexual relationship would be enough for pervert priests to hike up their skirts and go running and screaming back to the rectory.

It is absolutely absurd that finding a man in the convent or even having some of the funds extorted would exile elderly nuns. A priest can diddle with the children and squander millions through lawsuits, but still retire in the Vatican. When was the last time a priest was thrown out like that? The whole picture of that Church and the way it wields its power against women and children is repulsive, especially when contrasted with how it will defend at all costs its high-heeled-boys priesthood. Everyone except priests are mere canon (or cannon) fodder who can be marginalized and dismissed with one flick of a Papal wad. There was no compelling reason for them to do what they did, but they were "just nuns," lesser beings on the Catholic scale. Children also rank low on the canon fodder scale.

Posted by: Just Thinking | June 09, 2008 at 10:52 AM

As someone once told me who had significant experience with the church in europe, the Iona community is a beacon of hope for the future of the church in europe. If the church is going to thrive in a post-christian context it's going to do so in the way of such communities like Iona and others.

You really should go to Iona and stay with the community. It is a blessed experience.

Posted by: jim | June 09, 2008 at 04:41 PM

Until Genesis is Accept as Literal High Tech Science Knowledge, Sexual Orientation of the male as the dominant gender will continue. Genesis shows Adam and Eve were Equal Male and Female Gender Clones, the female made from the male rib. They were Brother/Sister Helpmeets, not mates.

Today we call that type of Reproduction, Cloning. The Other Half of a couple that Body Birth males and females are looking for in a Mate, cannot be found, with each male and female reproduced by Unequal Heterosexual Body Birth.

So Fallen Human Mates have reproduced all the Genetic and Physical Mis-bred Humans ever since. And Humans have looked for their Equal other half ever since. And Sexual Gender has been argued about ever since, the Asexuals reproduced Heterosexuals, Bisexuals, Homosexuals and Transsexuals..

Religion started, after the Fall to Body Birth Reproduction, and male and females were separated in separate housing, for their God/Lord. Celibacy was as close as they could come to the Original Asexual Clones.

Now we again have the High Tech to make Pure-bred Asexual Human Clones, but Heterosexuals reject this, as not the Way God made Humans. They say God made Humans for Body Reproduction, when God did not used Body Reproduction to make Humans.

So Original Sin made a Population explosion, that is smothering the Planet with Mis-bred Human, and Inequality Rages on and on, with Nuclear Bombs as the Answer to destroy this Evil.

Eternal Physical Life is for the Living, not the Dead.

Posted by: Dolores Lear | June 09, 2008 at 10:47 PM

Oh Lord, I hate to agree with Patricia, but she nailed this one!

"The fact that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is male, speaks to its lack of concern regarding human rights. Period."

Posted by: a theist | June 09, 2008 at 11:05 PM

>>>We were doing so well with this discussion. Is it necessary to drag us through the mud again?<<<</p>

I don't believe that truth is mud. If so, then Jesus dragged people into the mud all the time; so did the prophets. The truth makes us all uncomfortable, including me. However, if we are claiming to belong to the Way, the Truth and the Life, we'd all better get a grip on what He means.

Progressives have traded the truth for a lie and follow a gospel that is no gospel at all. They are bringing people down with them.

Call it mud if you want. But Christ will reign and will rejoice when anyone, no matter what our sinful inclinations may be , comes to him in repentance, and leaves in joy.

Mud is it?

JJ

Posted by: JJ | May 06, 2008 at 06:08 AM

JJ,

Do you believe that their are progressive Christians that are sincerely trying to discern God's will, follow the Scriptural witness, use the intelligence God has gifted them with, and live a life with Jesus as their Lord?

Do you believe that someone can honestly seek to follow God and God's Word above all else, yet still think homosexuality is equal in God's sight to heterosexuality?

Do you believe that people with whom you disagree on this issue can still be operating from genuinely Christian motives, but have arrived at wrong conclusions?

If you do, I don't hear that in your comments, and that makes me sad.

I believe and think that homosexuality is OK. But I know many Christians who don't. I disagree with them, and I disagree with their conclusions. But I am not willing to questions their genuine desire to follow and please God. And they feel the same about me. They think I am as wrong as wrong can be on this matter, but they know I am trying to seek God's will and not my own in this matter.

If we can't have that mutual understanding of one another, then we may need to split. But the split won't be over homosexuality, it will be over not being able to treat one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Posted by: Shawn Coons | May 06, 2008 at 11:27 AM

>>Do you believe that their are progressive Christians that are sincerely trying to discern God's will, follow the Scriptural witness, use the intelligence God has gifted them with, and live a life with Jesus as their Lord?>Do you believe that someone can honestly seek to follow God and God's Word above all else, yet still think homosexuality is equal in God's sight to heterosexuality?>Do you believe that people with whom you disagree on this issue can still be operating from genuinely Christian motives, but have arrived at wrong conclusions?>If you do, I don't hear that in your comments, and that makes me sad.>they know I am trying to seek God's will and not my own in this matter.>But the split won't be over homosexuality, it will be over not being able to treat one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.<<

I agree completely that the issue is not homosexual behavior. It is a small behavioral issue that belies the iceberg. Homosexual people are merely being used by progressives to further a larger ungodly agenda. They are not being loved or helped in any way by progressive thinking.

-JJ

Posted by: JJ | May 06, 2008 at 02:50 PM

Alright, who leaked a copy of our ungodly agenda? At least nobody has a copy of our ungodly minutes yet.

*hoping a little humor helps*

(I doubt it)

Posted by: Shawn Coons | May 06, 2008 at 04:02 PM

What happened to "God alone is Lord of the conscience?" * Scholars have helpfully traced the origin and meanderings of this slogan. For example, William E. Chapman examines conscience not only in the Westminster Confession of Faith but also in the Book of Confessions, Calvin and Scripture. See his "Beyond Jiminy Cricket: Notes Toward a Reformed View of Conscience" in The Register of the Company of Pastors, 3/2 (Fall 2001): 16-33. And "Historic Principles, Conscience, and Church Government," 1983 Minutes of the General Assembly, pp. 141-158.)

http://www.pcusa.org/today/believe/past/mar03/balancing.htm

Posted by: Ryan Pappan | May 06, 2008 at 11:11 PM

<\/a>

I’d get rid of Revelation - not because it’s a bad book per se, but because of the way it’s been manipulated and misused throughout Christendom. Having the Left Behind books “erased from human history and memory” would not necessarily be a bad thing either. :)<\/p>

<\/div>

Posted by Erik U.<\/a><\/strong><\/span> on May 1, 2008<\/a><\/span> <\/div>

<\/div>

<\/a>

Song of Solomon… sex is bad.<\/p>

<\/div>

Posted by david<\/a><\/strong><\/span> on May 1, 2008<\/a><\/span> <\/div>

<\/div>

<\/a>

What a great question…First, I love the book of James so that is out. My first thought was Revelation but that’s just our fault for not interpreting it better and i think the bible and our faith would be missing something without that as a book end. <\/p>

I might lean toward Hebrews. It’s way too archane, hard to get, and it addresses issues and draws together themes that may have been important for the early Jewish believers but today it gets applied in universality in ways I think that stretches things.<\/p>

<\/div>

Posted by jbonewald<\/a><\/strong><\/span> on May 1, 2008<\/a><\/span> <\/div>

<\/div>

<\/a>

Erik<\/strong>: I agree about the LB books.<\/p>

david<\/strong>: So that’s<\/em> what Song of Solomon is about…<\/p>

jbonewald<\/strong>: Hebrews is a good choice… I hadn’t even considered it myself.<\/p>

<\/div>

Posted by Jake<\/a><\/strong><\/span> on May 1, 2008<\/a><\/span> <\/div>

<\/div>

<\/div>

Leave a comment<\/h3>

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML<\/acronym> allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> <\/code><\/p>

Name<\/label> (required)

<\/p>

E-mail<\/label> (required)

<\/p>

URI<\/acronym><\/label>

<\/p>

Your Comment<\/label>

<\/textarea>

<\/p>

Stay in the know! Click here to be notified of follow-up comments via e-mail<\/label>

<\/p>

<\/p>

<\/form>

<\/div>

<\/div>

Subscribe via RSS<\/h2>

<\/img><\/a><\/a><\/p> Want the content featured on JakeBouma.com without all the hassle of actually visiting? Just click the orange icon to your right and subscribe using your favorite feed reader! What is RSS?<\/a>

<\/div>

<\/img>

No feed reader? No problem! Subscribe by email to receive daily updates featuring the freshest content from JakeBouma.com!

<\/form><\/p><\/div>

<\/div>

At the movies ?<\/h2>

Baby Mama (2008)<\/a>

3<\/span>/5<\/span><\/span>

<\/p>

2008-05-01 13:20<\/acronym>

<\/div>

0.3<\/span><\/div>

<\/li>

Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007)<\/a>

2<\/span>/5<\/span><\/span>

<\/p>

2008-04-28 14:00<\/acronym>

<\/div>

0.3<\/span><\/div>

<\/li>

<\/ul>

<\/div>

Movie ratings archive ?<\/a><\/div><\/div>

twitter<\/a>: <\/ul><\/div>

1

Petrus says:

April 29th, 2008 at 1:33 am

More here:

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/04/bill-moyers-interviews-jeremiah-wright.html

2

Gary Novak says:

April 29th, 2008 at 7:12 am

I think the main problem is the personal attack on Jeremiah Wright. Christ said, do not judge, and you will not be judged. There is no way to respond to subjective value statements in ridicule. It's like calling someone ugly. Objective criticism could be countered with evidence. Subjective value statements cannot. Yet the "mainstream media" just ridicules and degrades instead of providing objective explanations with evidence.

3

rikyrah says:

April 29th, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Wright broke my heart yesterday at the National Press Club. He was 'clowning'. I could literally hear my heart tear into pieces with every question, because he did it on purpose. He's an old Black Man - he knew how White folk would spin it. He had gone 2 days without providing soundbites; so today he clowned, stabbed Obama in the heart, and everyone else who had defended him, and threw Obama under the bus. I'm so mad STILL.

I wrote passionately about why Obama couldn't disown Wright, when this first went down.

As my Mama said last night, ' He clowned for them White people on purpose - to hurt Barack'. Indeed he did, Mama, which is why Obama needs to divorce himself from Wright IMMEDIATELY.

After Wright's performance yesterday, Black folk shouldn't come down on Obama anymore. They would have when this first shook out because those were soundbite snippets.

At the NPC was a full-on 'shock' performance of the highest order. And since we saw that he can do better (Moyers and the NAACP Dinner), what conclusion could one come to, other than this was done ON PURPOSE TO HURT OBAMA. He displayed Crab-in-a-barrell to the nth degree, and I am hurt as hell.

BTW, I'm Black, from Chicago, and have known about Wright, Trinity, taken pride in both of them for years.

4

jim says:

April 29th, 2008 at 9:46 pm

I've been thinking about this for a while now. I defended Wright publicly at first, but now I've got to say a far better man would have kept his hubris in check and would have just kept quiet.

What on earth is Wright thinking? Here's the first legitimate chance ever for a black man to become president, to potentially change the course of this nation's history, and because of his hubris the whole thing is about the implode.

5

Aaron Krager says:

April 29th, 2008 at 11:23 pm

I have got to say that I know Rev. Wright has the freedom to say as he pleases and I am fine with him speaking to the media in a nice little traveling speaking engagement. It was the Q&A that was the killer and would enrage me if I was Senator Obama. Its obvious that it has too from his speech given today.

Still a long way till November though. Let's just get past Indiana and North Carolina.

thechurchgeek said...

Well, I'd have a few points to argue, but the worst omission here is this...saying absolutely nothing about our gas consumption...surely, as Christians we can do better than that!

7:44 PM, April 23, 2008

For Sale By Owner said...

The WORST omission?? ...man, here I thought I'd done a pretty good job of listing simple ways to lower usage and thechurchgeek just lowers the boom. Wow.

No, man. You're right, we do need to lower gas consumption, but unfortunately it's not something everyone can do equally, which is what I was shooting for in the examples. I've considered buying a new car or going diesel, but I just don't have the money and my wife and I, once we move to GA, won't be able to do much about our gas consumption on a daily basis. So I understand the dilemna on that one for most people. But the suggestions I gave can be done by most people and, as I said, that is really what I was aiming to present.

Thanks again for your comment and you're welcome back anytime.

9:19 PM, April 23, 2008

thechurchgeek said...

I guess I just know too many Christians who drive around in huge gas guzzling SUVS, but maybe sky rocketing gas prices will help them reform their ways.

Your other suggestions were very good by the way.

9:33 AM, April 24, 2008

Adam, I agree with this critique, but with one exception: the book would be strengthened by more thought on what it looks like for people to 'emerge' from the liberal left, by that I mean 'traditonal' liberalism.

I'm not sure that 'everyone' on the left, would in fact agree with all of the dispatches Tony highlights. The hope of emergent, as I see it, is sort of a melding of both the left and the right at some sort of center point.

Comment by jbonewa - April 18, 2008 #

Thanks Tony, and Jim. I wondered how long it would take Tony to find the review-I'd say about 12 hours is pretty darn good!

Jim: that's a really good way to put it, "emerging" from the traditional liberal left. I've certainly done that more than I realize.

And I didn't mean to suggest everyone, or even many, of the traditional liberal left would agree with many of the dispatches. Just that several mainline churches I know-particularly liberal, perhaps-are all over much of what emergent is about. I take Tony's point, though, that many would be thrown by plenty of his message.

Comment by adamjcopeland - April 18, 2008 #

I need to read this book…and need to buy my next three books for class…will it ever end?

One thing I'm intrigued about is the "young" tag you bring up, Adam. I started to "get" things Emergent as soon as I started to be aware of them (thanks largely to classmate/colleague Troy B) and I am chronologically older than that "young" crowd. I tend to think there are more of us over 50s who do/can/will "get it" than we imagine at present.

GREAT post and very helpful - I'll keep it in mind when I do get to read the book.

Comment by Sarah - April 18, 2008 #

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for saying what I've suspected. As a former conservative evangelical who now attends an Episcopal church, and now have been reading emergent stuff, I too have gotten the sense that what is groundbreaking and revolutionary is the very same thing that most mainliners have been doing and are trying to do now.

I look forward to reading Tony's book, but would suggest to him and many others in the conversation that perhaps they should spend a little more time attending mainline churches before they use such lofty terms as "Total re-examination," particularly because there are a lot of things they aren't and won't reexamine.

Comment by David - April 22, 2008 #

Adam - Good stuff. Your affirmations and critiques seem to be what I expected and have heard from the previous conversations, presentations, etc.

Comment by Bruce Reyes-Chow - April 26, 2008 #

jledmiston said...

Hi Roy -

I agree that all are at fault. But my concern was the ad campaign for the

60th anniversary of Israel. Not a peacemaking move, imho.

11:31 AM

revkpd said...

Hi Jan

I recently returned from 2 weeks in Israel/Palestine... it is a mess of a problem. I have a stack of books I'm reading (including Chacours) from a variety of perspectives. I'm reading a book by Shlomo Ben Ami (who was an Israeli diplomat during a number of peace efforts) and has a fascinating take on the history and what not... I'd highly recommend it... Scars of War, Wounds of Peace.

Looking forward to joining the club for the next go-round.

Kerri Peterson-Davis

11:44 AM

Roy said...

About the ad campaign, it's similar to the various readings of ads in the current political campaign. Neither player seems to get it right for all ears and eyes. Probably similar to any country, including our own, that seeks to honor its anniversary. We are still trying to figure out how to acknowledge the historical wounds inflicted by our founders. We are a work in progress. So is Israel and one hopes every nation.

The current Atlantic Monthly has an incisive essay by Jeff Goldberg about the current splits in Israel with regard to the way forward with the Palestinians.

11:58 AM

Purechristianithink said...

Yes, the synogogue in our town-- with whom our church has a long history of cooperation and collaboration--sent us an invitation to its Gala Thanksgiving for 60 years of Israel celebration. Lots of discussion about how best to respond. Can we participate without appearing to be gung ho, Israel-can-do-no-wrong types? Tough one.

2:13 PM

thechurchgeek said...

I read J-Ls book and was both impressed & convicted. In fact I think I need to read it again, because here's my concern regarding what I've been struggling with since I read it:

Following much of the emergent church/NT Wright line of thinking I've taken up seeing the bible as more narrative, AND you can't really see the bible in that way without seeing it as a comprehensive over-arching story of God's continuous work encompassing both the new and old testament; Seeing it as a somewhat seamless story, from the call of Abraham to the rise of the church.

Levine's book reminds me though to be much more careful about the ways I tell that story...which is not an easy thing to do...and probably why I need to read it again.

2:31 PM

on 25 Mar 2008 at 7:55 pm # Tim

As a husband I would love this scenario, but I agree that it isn't very realistic and maybe not very constructive either. I think that you may be missing the mark a bit when you talk about rights. I think in marriage we have to talk about duties.

I know some couples where they agreed that the wife can never say no. I think that this is a fair starting point if the husband is willing to let his love be sacrificial and not demand that his "right" or "privilege" be fulfilled, but defer to the desires of his bride. If my wife give herself to me in a stingy or resentful fashion it is not emotionally satisfying for either of us.

I have often wanted to use this verse and proclaim my "rights", but my duty in marriage is to love her sacrificially, as Christ loved the Church.

The problem I had with the program is that the pastor acts like premarital sex is tolerable and that they should only give it up for 30 days, not permanently. Sometimes you need to call something what it is, sin. I have plenty in my life. When it becomes known to one of my friends I hope they will point it out (lovingly) to me that I might repent.

Already Justified,

Being Sanctified,

Waiting to be Glorified,

on 26 Mar 2008 at 12:56 am # Diane

Only a man would think that a woman would "let herself go" simply because her husband is "trapped into fidelity." Are there any men who let themselves go after they are married? Used to be a sign of their wife's good cooking. sighsighsigh….

on 26 Mar 2008 at 3:40 am # David Williams

Yeah, I'm happily married to a woman who still floats my boat in that special marital way. But maybe we don't feel like doing the humpty hump every night. If she's had a tough day at work, and I'm dead tired, and the kids have yet another cold, insisting on this seems just plain daft.

Sure, sex talk from the pulpit is "provocative." But..to echo the prior comments…I can't see how this gets at anything that matters in our relationships.

on 26 Mar 2008 at 11:02 am # tribal church

Tim,

I'm really glad you stopped by. Most of my friends can't believe that anyone would think that a wife never saying no would be a fair starting point. I'm glad you proved my case.

And I'm relieved that you've realized that resentful sex is no fun.

I don't think of my body and having sex in terms of a duty. Taking out the trash is a duty. Folding the clothes is a duty. Cleaning out the toilets is a duty. Having sex with my husband is a wonderful thing. It's not a duty. (And I'm imagining a good ol' Beavis and Butthead, "huhuhu" coming from Brian as he reads this….)

It sounds like the wives are much more "trapped into fidelity" in these scenarios.

Diane,

That's a very interesting point. And I think it goes to the heart of what I'm trying to express. It doesn't matter what the men look like… but it matters for women. There's a danger that a wife could be thought of as an accessory. Or (if she has no rights to her own body) something much, much worse.

I know when I went to Bible school, the divorce rate for our graduates was much higher than the national average. This sort of thinking could be one of the main reasons.

But we're living in the 21st century. If a wife's not allowed to say no, if a marriage isn't built on mutual consent, well, she's not trapped any longer. It's pretty simple. She can get a job, get out of the marriage, and find someone who respects her.

on 26 Mar 2008 at 4:14 pm # WaynO

I stop by here occassionally because I like the discussion. This one makes me laugh and then I got scared and almost cried. I am a man, happily married (I hope) and I personally can't have sex everynight/day. My body does not do that anymore.

Sex with my wife is fabulous and I ask more often than I get but I sometimes worry that if I don't ask there will be suspicion, there will not be an offer, I might forget that I want sex.

I still can't believe a pastor would make such a statement from the pulpit. I am a pastor and would not likely do that but who knows.

Great discussion,

WaynO