Preacher, Soldier … and out of a job when Jesus comes

In Tactical Assembly Area, Kuwait, March 2003

From time to time I receive an appeal from Campus Crusade (via Christianity Today) to help provide Bibles for deployed Soldiers. The latest message contained this quote:

“I am a chaplain in the Army preparing to deploy with my infantry battalion of approximately 800 soldiers. I have no Bibles or resources as I have just taken over this battalion. They just returned from Iraq this past November and are already returning again . . . Whatever you can do to help in resources would be greatly appreciated.”

While Campus Crusade is a fine organization and I appreciate what they are doing for the troops, I’m afraid that some people may receive a mistaken impression about military chaplains and religious resources.

No Need to Beg for Bibles

At least in the active duty Army, commanders may use appropriated funds (your tax dollars) from their operating budget to purchase Bibles, the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price, Jewish prayer books, the Book of Common Prayer, the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, missals and other essential resources actually required to support the religious practices of their assigned troops. Chaplains manage the religious support of the unit for the commander and should ensure that every Soldier has access to the essential elements of their religion. When it comes to Bibles, then, that means the chaplain should provide the RIGHT Bible for the right soldier - Catholic Bibles for Catholic Soldiers, KJVs for Soldiers with “KJV only” faith requirements, the TANAKH for Jewish Soldiers, etc. Hymnals, bulletin stock rosaries, icons, vestments, hosts, wine and grape juice are among the other essential items that can be purchased with appropriated dollars for use in the field. Even religious education material and devotional material can be purchased. The bottom line, however, is that procurement - by whatever means - is based on the religious requirements of the Soldiers assigned, not on the chaplain’s desire to convert the battalion to his or her own brand of faith. Unit chaplains can order a number of these items directly from the government supply system, but purchasing commercially available items “on the economy” is also allowed. These items constitute a miniscule sliver of a commander’s budget. Of course the commander’s budget is limited and chaplains don’t have a blank check, but Army chaplains do not have to beg for Bibles.

[Read the rest →]

I always look at the bookshelves of the pastors I visit. You can tell a lot about a pastor’s thinking by the books he/she reads. Even if I’m not familiar with the book, the identity of the publisher tells me a lot. Starting with the name that most frequently appears on the dust jacket, here are the publishers whose books you would find in my office:

1. Intervarsity Press (by far my favorite publisher)
2. Harper Collins (and its predecessors and subsidiaries)
3. Abingdon (no duh, for a United Methodist pastor)
4. Eerdmans
5. Fortress Press

Up & Coming: Smyth & Helwys

Who publishes the books on your bookshelf?

Genesis 28:10-19
John 1:43-51

Surely the LORD is in this place–and I did not know it! How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.

The House of God

What do you think of when you hear the phrase, “House of God.” In your mind, what does the house of God look like?

For me, me the quintessential house of God is the Gothic cathedral with its stone walls, vaulted ceilings, large stained glass windows and vertical sense of space. I don’t know how it works for a worshiping community, but there is a sense of holiness that you experience before you even walk in the door.

The recent trend in mega church sanctuaries has been away from “churchy” architecture toward utilitarian “econoboxes” with large open spaces that can be used in a multitude of configurations. Useful, but not very inspiring.

I read the results of a recent survey conducted among young Christians. It seems that this new generation of Christians favors a return to a more reverent form of church architecture, so that the worship space itself becomes part of the experience of God. Good on them. I agree with them.

At the opposite end of the spectrum from large cathedrals and mega churches are the little country churches built with love by their parishioners. These little wood frame churches often convey a tremendous sense of reverence toward God despite their small size.

Our Old Testament reading today concerns a very different kind of house of God.

Jacob’s Journey

It’s a long way from Beersheba to Haran - about the distance from Savannah, Georgia to Richmond, Virginia.

Jacob had been on the road only a few days. The trip would take 10 times that long. He had been traveling the ridge road through the Judean hills, and he came to a place called Almond Tree – or Luz, in Hebrew.

When he got to Almond Tree, the sun was going down. He had been walking – fast – all day. He was in a hurry. He was hot. He was tired. He was thirsty. He was hungry. He was alone. His future didn’t look very bright. He laid down in the dust and literally pulled up a rock as a pillow. And he laid down.

This is not how he pictured things turning out.

[Read the rest →]

For Independence Day, Christianity Today republished two online articles by Mark Noll on Christians in the American Revolution. Noll mentions early Methodist leaders in both articles.

In Tory Believers: Which Higher Loyalty Noll discusses the Wesleys and Mr. Asbury:

It is not surprising that Loyalism existed among Methodists, who at the time of the Revolution were still a fledgling body in America. From England, American Methodists received word of Charles Wesley’s openly stated belief in the doctrines of divine right and passive obedience. John Wesley, for his part, expressed public sympathy for the inequities inflicted upon the colonies. But he also criticized American Whigs for their highly exaggerated prattle about the “slavery” resulting from British policies and for their disobedience of the clear scriptural injunction to be subject to the powers that be. In seeking to put British wrongs in their proper light, Wesley reminded his American friends that the true slaves in the colonies were the Negroes. He also cited himself as an example of an Englishman who, because he did not meet the property qualifications, was not able to vote in parliamentary elections and who therefore paid taxes without representation. Because of the wide publicity given to the Wesleys’ opinions on the conflict, Methodists in America were suspected of Toryism. Indeed, many of the Methodist missionaries in America probably shared their leaders’ political sentiments. Whether they agreed or not, all the English missionaries except Francis Asbury returned to the mother country during the war. Asbury, who shared a patriotic sense of outrage at British imperial policies, did not hide his displeasure over Wesley’s comments on the political crisis. Owing at least in part to Asbury’s rejection of Wesley’s Toryism, Methodists were able to resume their rapid advances in America after the war while other Loyalist bodies, particularly the Anglicans, suffered long under the stigma of Toryism.

In Was the Revolutionary War Justified, Noll revisits the issue of slavery and Methodism:

Only one population in the colonies clearly was justified by classical Christian reasoning in taking up arms to defend itself—the half-million or so enslaved African Americans who were held in bondage as the result of armed attacks upon peaceful noncombatants. When it comes to the British actions toward the colonies in the decade before 1776, almost all historians concede those actions were insensitive, based on lamentable misconceptions of colonial life, and often simply stupid. … But were the admitted abuses serious enough to warrant an armed revolution? Patriot leaders thought so, but there is a problem with why they thought so. They were troubled less by actual evils (like the tax on tea, which, ironically, had made tea cheaper in the colonies than in England). Rather, they interpreted the bumbling British actions as a conspiracy to exterminate liberty in the colonies…. In short, it was the patriot fear of what Britain intended to do that led them to take up arms. Some British Christians thought this fear ludicrous. John Fletcher, a leading Methodist, wrote sympathetically in 1776 about the plight of American slaves, “whose groans upbraid the hypocritical friends of liberty [in America], who buy, and sell, and whip their fellow men as if they were brutes; and absurdly complain that they are enslaved.” But patriot colonists saw things very differently indeed. They thought they were menaced by a comprehensive plot to violate their rights and property, and so they went to war.

My own Revolutionary War ancestor was a Scots-Irish Presbyterian who immigrated to the colonies shortly before the war began. He was in one of hundreds of thousands of Ulster Scots who fled poverty and tyranny in Ireland during the 18th century.

[Read the rest →]

Genesis 22:1-14

Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.”
(Genesis 22:2 NIV)

Joe Versus the Volcano

In Joe versus the Volcano, Tom Hanks plays Joe Banks, an unhappy office drone whose pitiful life takes place mostly in an immense, soulless factory.  Joe’s day consists of mindlessly managing an inventory of trivial merchandise, barely connecting with his coworkers and kowtowing to a mean spirited boss. Understandably, Joe is beset with headaches and other physical complaints by living this way.

When Joe visits a doctor to seek a cure for his ailments, the doctor tells Joe that he has a brain cloud, an incurable disease that will kill him in a matter of months. Shortly after receiving the news of his impending doom, Joe is visited by Lloyd Bridges, a businessman looking for a volunteer to jump into a volcano. It seems that the businessman is trying to negotiate an mineral rights contract with the residents of the island of Waponi Woo, but all they want is someone to jump into their volcano to appease their volcano god. Bridges offers Hanks the opportunity to “live like a king, die like a man” – however briefly.

Joe accepts the offer and suddenly finds himself spiritually liberated. He lives more courageously in every way. He is more honest and direct in his relationships with people and quickly establishes real connections with others (including three characters each played by Meg Ryan). Joe’s trip to the island is something of an Odyssey in reverse, and along the way his boat sinks. Joe survives by using his luggage as a raft.

In one very moving scene, Joe stands on the luggage, looks at the moon rising over the water and prays, “Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life.” Somehow, this timid, sick little man who was previously filled with squashed anger and resentment now experienced overwhelming gratitude. Having survived a shipwreck, now lost at sea and clinging to a steamer trunk, on his way to jump into a volcano, Joe thanked God for his life.

Somehow, being willing to let go of your life gives it back to you in a whole new way. You let go of fear and find courage. You let go of self-preservation, and find life. I think there’s someone else I know who made that same point about 2000 years ago. Whoever wants to hold on to his life – to cling to it – will lose it, but whoever is willing to let go of it for my sake and for the gospel, will find it.

Human Sacrifice in the Bible

Of course the volcano worshipers of Waponi Woo are nothing but a literary device. They don’t exist anywhere except on screen. There was a time in history, however, in which human sacrifice was common. A few thousand years ago, for example, many of Israel’s neighbors practiced human sacrifice and Israel itself was sometimes tempted to adopt the practice. The Bible, however, takes a dim view of it. Israel’s temptation to follow the ways of its neighbors shows up in several places in the Old Testament.

[Read the rest →]

The United Methodist News Service reports that delegates to the 2008 General Conference voted Dietrich Bonhoeffer to be “the first martyr officially recognized by The United Methodist Church.” I wish they hadn’t.

It’s not that I have anything against Bonhoeffer. I think he was one of the most significant Christians of the 20th century. Some of his writings among the most profound ever produced by the Christian church. Charles Sigman, the Arkansan pastor who authored the resolution, said, “During a time of grave darkness in Nazi Germany, Bonhoeffer shined the light of Christ all the way to a hangman’s noose.” Indeed he did. That’s not the problem.

Rather, I fear that we have just created another category of things about which to argue. The category of “officially recognized martyr” has all the earmarks of yet another political football. “I hope it will start a precedent,” Sigman said. I’m afraid that it will.

[Read the rest →]