Theological Musings of a Lutheran Prairie Pastor

Bad Luck

2011-01-29T07:57:00.001-08:00

For the Christian, there is no such thing as bad luck; there is only following Christ to the cross.

Doubts

2010-08-10T17:23:00.000-07:00

Play-Doh

2010-07-19T14:14:00.000-07:00

Jesus Christ is not Play-Doh. We cannot simply mold him into whatever we want him to be. He is who he is...and thank God he is.

The End is Here

2009-05-17T07:27:00.001-07:00

Today I am to be graduated from Seminary and back into the "real world" (whatever that is). This, I believe, I am ready for. It has been an interesting four years to say the least. From learning Greek in the summer of 2005 to barely passing Clinical Pastoral Education the next summer; from Hebrew to Systematic Theology and Internship to Preaching, the entire process has been marked by a number of significant highs and much struggle. My candidacy committee through the Nebraska Synod, ELCA has been wonderful and helpful for my preparation. I am also very thankful to the professors at Wartburg Theological Seminary who, despite whatever early misconceptions I may have had of them, have been nothing but supportive and collegial to me. I hope to get to work with some of them in future years on congregational and synodical projects.

For most of the previous 17 years of schooling in my life, I lived a life marked by the law. I struggled with trying to get good grades, with competing with fellow classmates, with the demands of professors and teachers, and with behavioral expectations - few of which I truly lived up to well, given all of the "potential" I was repeatedly told I had. But at WTS, I experienced for the first time in my life, a place truly rooted in grace. I didn't feel the demands listed above; somehow, I was able to get past the law of having to learn and experience instead the grace of getting to learn. What a joy that has been! I hope to carry this with me into my first call and beyond. Grace to you and peace from the God the father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

The End is Near

2009-05-12T04:35:00.000-07:00

T-minus 5 days and counting until graduation. Yep. My four years of seminary studies are nearly complete. The notion of mixed feelings might be cliche, but there is truly much ambiguity for me with all of this. On the one hand, I'm excited about getting started in my first call. On the other, I will miss the safety of this place - a place where we can discuss ideas and theology and not have to worry about congregational ramifications (i.e., people holding fast to traditions or folks getting upset over whatever else might happen in the wake of such things happening in such a setting).

So sometime after this Sunday, I will be opening a new blog. I'll post on here beforehand so that the one or two of you faithful followers can make the switch with me. :) See you on the other side...

Is the Cross of Christ American?

2009-03-21T11:40:00.000-07:00

As a project for a class, I did some research on e-cards. I went to the Thrivent Financial for Lutherans website (http://www.lutheransonline.com/) and found a couple of interesting cards. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I'll offer a few and then invite you to offer some of your own regarding this picture:

I find this particular image disturbing because of the blatant mixing of the United States and the military with the cross of Christ. I do believe that Christ died for all - including soldiers. I am also very grateful to every soldier, airman and sailor who has served and risked life and livlihood to protect us. But the image of the battle helmet at the top of the cross signifies to me superiority over the cross. Are we to believe that the US Military has greater power to subdue foes than the death and resurrection of Christ?

The word 'remember' etched into the cross: are we to remember the soldiers? Christ? To raise our hands before speaking in class?

The mixing of the military with the cross confuses salvation. Are we to look to the military for our salvation? I suppose an argument can be made in the affirmative in the context of the temporal, but that only works - it seems to me - if we in this country were being oppressed and had something to be delivered from that only the military could accomplish. But the cross is the true source of all salvation - both temporal and eschatological.

Finally, I don't even know where to begin with the juxtaposition of the cross over the US flag. This has become so common for us (many of us see it each week in worship at our local church) that we don't even think about it. I've been thinking about it, and there are too many thoughts to put down here, so I'll just point it out and ask you to consider the ramifications of such a thing.

It's Official

2009-03-06T06:14:00.000-08:00

We're headed to Western North Dakota. We received word last evening that we've been assigned to the Western North Dakota Synod of the ELCA. This is perfectly fine with me, as it was among the places we preferenced in our paperwork last December. I have a passion for rural (to me, open spaces) ministry and there are few places in this country more rural that western North Dakota! The next step is to meet with the bishop next week and hopefully soon thereafter begin receiving paperwork on some potential congregations for us. There is finally a light at the end of the candidacy tunnel - and I can see it!

Who is Jesus?

2009-02-24T17:39:00.001-08:00

Interesting conversation in a class today. We were asked to talk with a colleague about who Jesus is to us, today. Being as I'm an intentional thinker and responder and was caught off guard by the question, I had to take some time to think about it. Life has been good of late - we have another beautiful daughter, Clara Joan Garton, who was born Feb. 16. Two days after her birth, we learned that we're headed to Region 3 of the ELCA for my first call (North Dakota, South Dakota or Minnesota) - a region we'd like to be. So for now, I'm of the mindset that I'm seeing/experiencing Jesus post-resurrection right now. I don't feel strongly called to the cross today. That's not to say that I don't make many trips there when I'm struggling - but I am feeling good in my current empty tomb experience.

So I wonder: who is Jesus for you today? Is he a close friend, an enemy, a superhero, something else? How does Jesus fit into your life now?

The Emerging Rural Church?

2009-01-10T07:39:00.000-08:00

It's been quite awhile since I last posted, but I'm still around. I'm working on a project for my January interim class, a self-directed study to examine ways in which the emerging church might positively influence rural/small town churches. My idea is that there are things that rural churches can learn from that way that emerging church communities live and worship together. There is a vibrancy in these emergent communities which seems unequalled in most rural congregations. Many of our ELCA congregations are struggling to keep their doors open - not just open to welcome members, but open to send members into mission in the world. It seems there are two primary areas which the emerging church movement can address which might help rejuvenate these stale rural congregations: 1) worship, and 2) vision for mission. Many traditonal congregations get stuck in a worship rut that has no root in the people. Worship isn't about us, but we are the ones doing it. It seems to me that worship ought to be a place where people actually feel called and gathered by God for the purpose of being sent out into the world.

Often, we don't allow ourselves to get out of our comfort zones and worship (and thus mission) becomes static and becomes a place where people go to simply be part of a club or a place to feel comfortable. Worship and what results from it is so much more than simply a way for our comforts and needs to be met. It's about being energized by God's Word of salvation and grace for the purpose of sharing that Word with others outside the church walls. If what is done on Sunday mornings (or evenings or Saturdays or whenever) in worship is an outgrowth of that excitement or even if it helps to facilitate that excitement, all the better it seems to me. If, however, what is done in worship simply harkens back to some tradition which few know the origins of or which simply serves to be a familiar "thing" for people, then I believe it actually gets in the way of who we're called to be and what we're called to do as the people of God in the world.

The church is fundamentally mission. If a local church only serves as a social club or a place of comfortable hibernation for its members, then the church isn't heeding its call. The church must not be static; it ought to be in motion, sending people outside to those in need - whatever that looks like.

How might we regain vitality and excitement for worhsip and mission in our rural congregations?

Sanctification...it's NOT a Bad Word!

2008-10-02T17:26:00.000-07:00

Sanctification. It is a word that often scares Lutherans, yet many Lutherans don't even know what it means! Sanctification is an event, not a process. We spent a few minutes discussing this as an aside during my theology class today. Usually, we look at sanctification as the process of becoming holy or righteous. In reality, the earliest church fathers and even Martin Luther understood the sanctification of Christians as ocurring in Holy Baptism.

To be sanctified is to be cleaned. In the Old Testament, Israel couldn't keep the spoils of a war victory until they were cleaned. Items would be run through fire to sanctify them. If they couldn't be put through fire (i.e., clothing), they would be run through water. Sound familiar?

When we're Baptized, we're sanctified and the new reality that Jesus ushered in is a reality in which we then participate. This new reality is one of blessing all people in the name of Jesus Christ and to live a life of forgiveness. Failure to forgive and to live in this new reality (sin) means that we are denying the power of God; that is, we essentially say that the sin of the other against us is more powerful than God's ability to forgive. If we don't forgive, we make the claim that God cannot forgive. Logically we know this to be untrue. Thus, to be baptized and to live a life wherein we do not forgive and live in the new reality, we are living in unrationality.

We're already sanctified and therefore free to live in that new reality. Or not. So, what are the consequences of deciding to not live in that new reality? Something to ponder...

Heresy, Hysteria & Hyper-apocalypticism

2008-04-23T08:58:00.000-07:00

It's been awhile, but I'm back now. Many things have been going on in my life the last several weeks. My last grandparent, my paternal grandmother, died the 3rd of this month and we were fortunate enough to be near her when that happened. But that's not the focus of this post.

There's a guy who has been coming to our men's weekly Bible study of late. Nice enough fellow, but he kind of gets under my skin. We're doing a study on Isaiah, so obviously there are many potential pitfalls. He seems to be an apocalypticist of sorts; that is, he views Isaiah through the lens of it is referring to events happening today or about to happen and which, when coupled with Revelation, point to the end of the world and the second coming of Christ. Along with this, he seems to be a Zionist of some sort - very big on modern Israel and how we need to watch our backs and ally ourselves (the United States) with them because if we don't, we're going down with all their other enemies. Wow.

I, being in a pastoral role of sorts as an intern, have remained pretty quiet about it, as I don't want to be confrontational. But I'm wondering if I need to be somewhat confrontational. If we get into discussions on missions and ministry, his take is one of looking out specifically for the Israelis first and others second, if at all. Is this type of teaching harmful for individuals and for the church? Or, is it just good enough that he's involved in a Bible study and who knows what will happen?

Technically, I can't dispute a couple of things he says. Chiefly, that we are, in fact, in the end times...insofar as Jesus birth 2,000 years ago marked the beginning of the end times (the breaking in of the kingdom of God); see Hebrews 1:1-2. Also, it is important to remember our Jewish roots and to recognize that we do have a sort of kinship with Jews. But if there's a line that is being crossed, where exactly is it? Why does this fellow bother me so? Ideas?

Is Acceptance Antinomianism?

2008-03-05T07:20:00.000-08:00

Antinomianism: big word, short meaning. It means simply anti-law. It's a heretical Christian movement that has popped up many times in 2,000 years in various forms. It basically holds that there is no effect of sin because Jesus died for me; the logical result being something like 'thus, I can do whatever because my sins are already forgiven.' In short, it's a cheap-grace movement. The reason I'm bringing this up is because of a series of conversations I've been having at Bible studies and with my internship supervisor about seemingly different topics, but which are converging within the expanse that is my mind.

First, my supervisor and I have had conversations about the difference between acceptance theology and redemption theology. There is a concern among some pastors in the ELCA and other denominations that blind acceptance of everyone without being critical or at least remindful of their sins negates the answer to the question 'why did Jesus have to die?' (The answer, of course, is because of the state of sin in which we live and our own individual sins). If we don't do a decent job of acknowledging sins when welcoming people, the argument goes, than we're rendering Jesus' death meaningless. In other words, if our sins aren't something to be fully aware of and reminded of daily with an urge toward repentance, than there's no reason for Jesus to have been alive, let alone crucified.

Second, I was reading through the Epistle of Jude with a Bible study group last night and we learned that much of it was written in response to early Christian leaders teaching antinomianism. These leaders would openly swap wives, participate in orgies, get drunk on a regular basis and engage in other forms of "licentiousness" as Jude describes it in sum.

So, I got to thinking about it and began to wonder if blind acceptance of everyone without being critical of their sins is akin to antinomianism or cheap grace. I tend to think that it is, but what do you think?

Another Stewardship Sermon?!

2008-02-14T12:09:00.000-08:00

This probably isn't a huge revelation for most of us, but I felt compelled to share anyway. We in the church talk alot about stewardship and money. Often, we hear that money (or the love of it) is the root of all evil. We try to focus our listeners on trying to make sure we give to the church and people in need. But we rarely talk about it as a matter of doing that first. That is, we don't encourage people to make their stewardship contribution the first check that they write each month or payday. Rather, I think we ourselves often get caught up in some notion of using "leftovers" for the church. Even if we acknowledge that people ought to contribute as the first thing they do with newly acquired money, we tend to be OK with just settling for what the church can get. Stewardship, I believe, is counter-cultural. We spend our entire lives in this country being taught to look out for ourselves first: buy lots of stuff now to "compete" with the Joneses and try to save for retirement. That's all fine and good, but along with that is tied a notion that giving to the church or a charity is to be secondary, tertiary or worse. It seems to me that all too often, we simply stand back and allow people to just give using what's left: "take care of yourself and your family first, then come to the church." We do this instead of pointing out that we are obligated to give back to God first, and that we can trust God will provide what we need out of what is left. I don't know if it's fear, a defense mechanism or simple idolatry, but whatever we call it, it's not putting our full trust in God. In short, it's sin because we are denying God to take care of us and telling him to "shove off because I can take care of myself; then I will give you some later to take care of others."

In contrast to what we learn in this culture, we see in the Bible many stories of putting others first by giving to them. In the story of the rich young man (Matt 19:16-22; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:18-23), Jesus tells the man to sell his possessions and give to poor - even before the man is to follow Jesus! Again, in the story of the widow's mite (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4), Jesus praises the widow who gave the only 2 coins she had, compared with the other people who gave out of their abundance.

I know that in many respects this blog post is much the same thing we preach about and hear in sermons on Sunday; but I do think that too often we lose sight of the 'stewardship first' idea and we tend to settle for whatever the church can get because "at least they're giving something." Where's the redemption in that?

Is 10 Minutes too Short for a Sermon?

2007-12-20T11:04:00.000-08:00

We had a discussion yesterday at Ministerium (surprise!) about the length of our preaching. I told the group my sermons are typically 8-10 minutes. They seemed shocked by this and even teased me about it a little. This surprise came primarily from the Assembly of God pastors and the Methodist pastor. Their thought seemed to be that if it isn't around 25-30 minutes, the sermon can't be any good. I countered by saying that if I can't do it in 8-10 minutes and make my point, then I should just sit down because I'm apparently not good at cutting to the chase as it were. Then they expressed some fear that parishoners might complain because "what do we pay you for if you only preach 10 minutes?" I wanted to say something like, "then maybe you need to get out and do more stuff that they're aware of if you're so worried about that" - but I didn't say anything.

I'm venting a bit because I'm not sure I enjoy going to ministerium anymore. There isn't much respect for what we do as Lutherans - i.e., liturgy, short sermons, emphasis on communion, etc. It's not that they're mean about it - they do sometimes ask questions in an attempt to learn about some of these things, but when I tell them how we do it, I sometimes get smirks and/or smart-alec responses. Not often, but just enough to drive a person semi-bonkers. It seems like when we get on these topics, my only ally is the RCA pastor. Maybe ally is a bad word, but he is good about helping me to explain things to them and to try to temper their negative responses.

But the whole thing is getting a bit frustrating, and I'm wondering if I should minimize my attendance. What do you think?

Cleanliness is next to godliness

2007-12-01T12:23:00.000-08:00

This blog idea arose from a conversation last Wednesday at our ministerium (I have a feeling those meetings will be the breeding ground for many of these topics in the weeks and months to come). One of the pastors had visited a parishioner and was complaining to us about their level of cleanliness (or lack thereof) and that we needed to pray for them to clean up their house. I know I'm not innocent of having had similar thoughts about "dirty" people before, but as I think more about it, I'm not sure I necessarily agree with this thought - at least not entirely. I do think it is important for us to take care of ourselves and the possessions that we've been blessed with to the best of our abilities. However, the more I think about who God is and how God relates to us, the more convinced that the notion of cleanliness being next to godliness is wrong. I even question whether or not it is possible.

Our God is a dirty God. That is, he is a God who gets his hands dirty and associates with the people we like to call dirty or "unclean." We see this in Genesis 2 with the creation of people from dust. We see this in John 9 when Jesus makes mud to heal the blind man. We see this in God's passion for the poor, the widow and the orphan throughout the Bible - people who are dirty. We see this in Jesus' birth in the (presumably) dirty stable and placed in a dirty manger. We see in when Jesus washes the disciples' feet (John 13). We see this in Jesus' interaction with (and sometimes even touching) lepers & the sick (Matt. 8, Matt. 12, Matt. 14, Mark 1, Mark 6, Luke 5, Luke 13, Luke 14), menstruating women (Matt. 9, Mark 5, Luke 8), & the dead (Matt. 9, Mark 5, Luke 7, Luke 8) - all people presumed by his contemporaries to be dirty.

We see continually how the Pharisees are scolded by Jesus for their obsession with cleanliness - be it literal or symbolic. I think this can help us as we evaluate what is truly important as God's people: is it to be clean and free from dirt and the poor, or should we too get dirty once in awhile and live/work/play/help the "dirty" among us? Afterall, we're all dirty in some way: we carry disease, we're made of earthly elements which when considered alone are dirty, and we're sinners - the ickiest dirt. I think when we judge others based on their level of cleanliness, we're actually bringing judgment upon ourselves. I think we need to get our hands dirty like God and leave worries about cleanliness to the Pharisees. What do you think?

Joy or Happiness?

2007-11-28T09:21:00.000-08:00

At our weekly Bible study last night, we were presented with the question of what our "joy" level is right now. I explained that for me, I define the term joy differently than many other people probably do. I see joy as a constant in my life. I equate it with a sense of contentment, peace and comfortableness - in fact, I like to think of the Hebrew term shalom here. For me, the joy I have comes from God and it's the knowledge that Christ is my redeemer and that in him, I have an advocate. I get a sense of completeness from this and I know that ultimately, "things will be alright" because of this. I believe it is the sort of peace that Paul writes about which surpasses all understanding and which guards our hearts and our minds in Christ Jesus (Phil. 4:7).

I think this is different from many people who equate joy with happiness. I see happiness as an emotion - something that comes and goes depending on circumstances. But the joy that I have in knowing Christ is the savior of the world in ongoing and cannot wax nor wane. It's true that I might not always be happy, but I am always joyful because Christ is always part of my life - and nothing can take that away. I always have a sense of joy, whether I'm happy or not. Joy is a state of being, not simply an emotion - at least, that is what I think.

I'm not sure this is easy to understand - some in the Bible study group grasped immediately to the concept and understood well, while others couldn't quite wrap their minds around this differentiation. What is your sense of joy and happiness?

How Often Should we Commune?

2007-11-20T06:36:00.000-08:00

The frequency of Holy Communion has come up more than once within discussions among layity that I've witnessed or been a part of. Some people are open to having it every week, while others think that once a month or (gasp!) even once a quarter would suffice. I have some thoughts and questions regarding this "issue":

*In Holy Communion we receive God's forgiveness of sins. Why wouldn't you want to receive God's gift of forgiveness as often as you can?

*In Holy Communion we are met by Christ. Why wouldn't you want to be in Christ's presence as often as you can?

*Some people say that Holy Communion gets cheapened if it is done "too much." I would argue that Holy Communion isn't about us, or how we feel, or what we want from it. It's finally about what God does in the sacrament for us. If we say we have to be "of a certain mind" to receive, then we make it about ourselves and our righteousness - Holy Communion becomes a work rather than a gift given to us by God.

*To go further, if we deny God's offering of Holy Communion, we deny God, his grace and his forgiveness.

*People who feel they're just going through the motions probably need Communion more than the people who feel they're "of the right mind." That is, the unrighteous need it more than the righteous.

*Why do we make it a point for young people to "be ready" for Holy Communion? What does that mean, anyway? We have to be ready to accept forgiveness? If so, doesn't this make it about us again? How come we don't have to "be ready" for Holy Baptism? Aren't both sacraments which function the same way for essentially the same purposes? This is perhaps oversimplification, but both are gifts from God to forgive sins, right?

Is our Salvation a Result of God's Love, or God's Jealousy?

2007-11-09T11:20:00.000-08:00

Here are a series of questions with very few answers that were spawned by a pamphlet produced by Augsburg Fortress (the ELCA's publishing company) entitled "It's all about Love." You'll notice that the questions sometimes eminate from previous questions - but not always. I hope they're not too heretical. I don't think it's heresy to ask questions - at least not if you don't already presume the answers to be heretical...

Why did Jesus have to die? Because we’re sinners and there was no other way out. Okay, so what? What is in it for God to wipe out our sins? Is it because God wants to be in relationship with us? Is it because God is jealous and wants us to be focused on him? Is it both?

What does sin do? It separates us from God. This means we cannot be in a right relationship with God. It also means we cannot be focused on God and thus we focus on other gods which makes God jealous.

Why did God create humans? Are we here because God has such an abundance of love that he needs to share it? Are we here because God is egotistical and needs or strongly desires someone to worship him? Is it both? Can it be both?

What is idolatry? It is the worship of something/someone other than God. It is also the love of something/someone other than God.

Is Christ’s death a result of love or idolatry? That is, did God send his Son to die to show us love so we will love him back? Or, did God send his Son to die to show us our sinfulness (mostly idolatry) and “shock” us into going back to him by doing something so seemingly absurd that we have to pay attention to God? Is it both? Can it be both?

Did God offer us salvation because he wants to spend eternity with us? Or did God offer us salvation because he knows we’re afraid of death and this is a way of giving us some type of hope so that we can avoid idolatry and keep our eyes focused on him (if it’s given as a gift, we should be free to focus on God rather than ourselves or others, right?)? Is it both? Can it be both? Is it something else?

Can God put his love for us first? If so, doesn’t this contradict 1 John 4:19 – “We love because he first loved us.” If he does, put us first, does it mean he’s worshiping an idol? Doesn’t it make sense for God to put himself first? Doesn’t God really love himself first?

When it’s finally said and done, isn’t it really all about love? When it’s finally said and done, isn’t it really all about idolatry? When it’s finally said and done, isn’t it really about both?

Reformation Day & All Saints' Day

2007-11-06T12:40:00.000-08:00

An observation. I had never thought of it before last week, but Reformation Day (Oct. 31) and All Saints' Day (Nov. 1) are explicably linked. Not only in their timing of one day apart, but in their meaning and significance for the church (and specifically Lutherans). The story goes that Martin Luther posted his 95 theses on the Wittenburg church door on Oct. 31, 1517. These theses discussed, among other things, the nature of salvation, who is authorized to grant it, and what we do (if anything) to gain it. A key component of Luther's argument during the reformation and for Lutherans everywhere afterward, is simul justus et peccator (Latin for something like 'simultaneously justified and sinful'). This is the sinner/saint language many of us are familiar with. I had never before thought of how this theme from the reformation - the notion that all are both sinner and saint (or some close equivalent of that) - and the Holy Day recognizing all saints were so closely related. This holiday was designed to recognize those saints who didn't have a specific date associated with them for commemorations or feasts. But Luther's language changed the notion of a saint so that all people could be viewed in that light. We only recognize on November 1 those saints who have died the last year because of Luther's concerns which sparked the reformation on October 31. I don't know if it was divine providence, coincidence or Luther's intention that these two dates be located next to each other, but I do believe it is a rather remarkable occurance.

Another Judgment?

2007-11-06T11:57:00.000-08:00

Okay, so I was thinking, what with this being the end of the church year and lots of talk about Jesus' coming (again) and the final judgment, why would we be judged again? Afterall, we believe that on the cross, we were all judged and found guilty (of our sins) and then through the resurrection we were given reprieve. But, we confess in the creeds that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead. Why is this final judgment necessary and what will we be judged on? So I thought some more, and the best I can come up with is this:
Judgment is about salvation, right? The only "power" we have in determining our salvation is to deny God's offer of it to us. According to Luther, we cannot by our own power come to God's gift of salvation. But, we can say 'No!' and turn our backs on it. So given this, I am wondering if the only thing to be judged on might be whether or not we've denied God's gift to us. Otherwise, why else would there be a necessity for a final judgment and a need for us to profess it in the creeds? Sins have already been judged and forgiven. What else is left regarding salvation? It seems to me that whether or not someone believes the promise and the gift is "accepted" (in so far as we can simply accept something by not denying it) is potentially the only thing left that might result in an eternal separation from God.
We cannot fully know what the final judgment will entail, but I suppose this is as good a guess as anything else I've heard. What do you think?

Lies, Damn Lies and...the Bible?

2007-10-31T13:50:00.001-07:00

At our community ministerium prayer group today (this ministerium is a multi-faith group of pastors who engage weekly to bring prayer concerns from ourselves and our churches to each other for support), a discussion occurred in which the question was something like 'could people have existed before Genesis 1:1?' That is, we can deduce from the Bible that this would have happened about 6,000 years ago. So, could people have existed before that time? My first thought is, 'does it really matter?' I mean, if it is proved that creation didn't occur exactly as it is spelled out in the accounts of Genesis or that maybe the timeframes listed there are off even thousands of years, would that be enough to shatter our faith? In speaking for myself, I would say 'no.' As a Christian, my faith is dependent upon one thing: the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. As St. Paul writes in his first letter to the church at Corinth: "When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God." (1 Cor. 2:1-5 NRSV)
I think this passage applies well to this discussion. Paul goes out of his way to explain that the primary thing for him, and furthermore the only thing he really knows, is Jesus Christ and him crucified. He does this so that their "faith might rest not on human wisdom..." What is human wisdom? I think it (partly) has something to do with the notion that we have it all figured out (or that we can have it all figured out). This pertains even to Biblical texts and the stories contained in Genesis. We assume that because something is written in the Bible that it must have happened that way - no questions asked. It also means that we look to the Bible and if something isn't there, we have to assume it didn't/can't/won't happen. We put our own understanding of something (our wisdom) above God's wisdom (Christ and him crucified) in which case it becomes idolatry - yes, the Bible can be an idol! (sounds like a good topic for another post).
It begs the question: what is the truth? Is it the Bible? I think a good theologian would say something like 'sort of' to that question. In John's Gospel, Jesus says "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (14:6a). Jesus is the truth?! Yes, and the Bible speaks to that truth - but it ought not come before it. Therefore, if we understand Christ as the truth and that everything else is ancillary, it wouldn't necessarily matter if Genesis 1 occurred exactly as written. Besides, it seems to differ in many ways from Genesis 2, so how does that get reconciled? This is an instance, it seems to me, that you can't have two vastly different stories and claim them both as the one truth.
Does this mean the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 aren't important? By no means! These are accounts from people thousands of years ago based on how they understood the world and how it might have come to be. It does speak to God as creator and that God cares for creation and it sets the stage for original sin and how we have messed things up by our own wisdom and yearning for that wisdom to be like God's wisdom. So, they are important stories for us as Christians.
So, could people have existed before the time period we can estimate from Genesis 1 (6,000 years ago)? Maybe. If so, and we can learn about that, good for us! If not, no big deal. Either way, I don't think the result would be enough for me to have to give up on the creed that 'Jesus is Lord!'

Welcome!

2007-10-31T09:18:00.000-07:00

Welcome to my blog! I am a Lutheran (ELCA) seminarian currently on internship in Western Iowa. Here I will from time to time present thoughts/ideas/ramblings on theological issues as they arise in my day-to-day life of learning and being. I've never had a blog and wasn't sure I would like to have one, but thought I'd give it a try anyway - I like challenges and am even beginning to enjoy trying new things (sometimes). Be sure to check back from time to time to see what is meandering through my mind. Oh, and leave comments! When I post a theological musing, it is intended to spark discussion.