The Problem of Death

It may be that the reason that God so obviously needed to send Christ was for a reason that we have yet to discover.  Of course, most people would suggest that it is because God can't be near sin, but then God has been near us the whole time, as well as Satan.  The question then remains, what was it about Jesus's death and ressurection that is such a powerful aspect of the salvation message?
This is just a musing, but I wonder if it has more to do with the power of death over us than about our sin per se.  Death is, almost without a doubt, the primary driving force in our lives (the underlying cause of the basic drives that we have).  Food, shelter, water, companionship, all of these are to drive away death.  Death, as the Bible ventures is the result of sin, therefore is in a sense not natural to humans.  In sin, we lose our connection with the divine and thus are brought more into the realm of nature, which does include death. 
With death reigning over us, it is impossible for us to overcome this drive and restore God to his rightful place in our lives.  With God, our needs are met, balance is restored, and joyful reflection is ours in its fullest.  But the need to avoid death clouds all of this.  We recognize we were not meant for the grave, but helpless to avoid it, thus our lives are caught in the hopeless cycle of avoiding the unavoidable, which distracts us from our true purpose.
Enter Christ.  By dying, he enters into death, accepts all that it entails, braves the final frontier and is able to prove that God's power stretches even beyond the grave.  His is a path we are meant to follow and in the knowledge that we will follow that path we are set free.  We now know in part, but then we will know fully and so we will be able to fully overcome death, even as Christ did. 

Tolerance

Tolerance is a popular word right now.  Given the events of the last ten years or so, it is no surprise that this key value of our culture should come so vividly to the forefront.  The problem with our approach to tolerance though, is that we misunderstand it.  When it boils down to it, tolerance actually means that we allow others to believe/practice (within limits) what they wish without fear of repercussion or persecution.  Tolerance does not mean that we validate others' beliefs.  We do not have to agree, we are not barred from trying to change others' beliefs.  We are allowed to think someone is wrong.  We are allowed the notion that of all possibilities, only a limited few can possibly be correct.
Our culture tries very hard (and succesfully I might add) to tell us that each person's path is equally valid.  The reality is that if each person's path was equally valid, then truly, there would be no validity to any path since so may paths stand in direct opposition to one another.  An atheist says there is no god.  Others say there is a god.  Both are not equally valid.  To say both are equally valid is to ignore and minimize the claims of each.  (see wakabayashi)
Oddly I find myself agreeing with Richard Dawkins (a devout Atheist) who says that it makes no sense for our religious beliefs to be beyond the scrutiny of others.  Given that the nature of God is so central to our experience as humans, it only makes sense for our beliefs to be up for public debate.  If you are a Christian, you have absolutely no business making your faith a merely private affair.
But tolerance does not mean that we cannot seek to change someone's mind.  It only means that we cannot force our views upon another.

DeLong on Trial

So this woman DeLong is on trial for her activities involving homosexuality.  Rather, the trial is over, verdicts reached, and sentences handed down.  I have to say, shame on the United Methodist Church on nearly all accounts.  First of all, I will say that though I agree with the basic teaching that homosexual behavior is incompatible with Biblical morality, I think nearly all aspects of this trial were ridiculous.
1.) Apparently the UMC feels itself bound to the point of ridiculousness to proceed in internal legal matters with the same legal incompetence as the American legal system.  Perhaps I misunderstand the facts of the trial, but it seems that to come to the verdict that she was not a self-avowed practicing homosexual is absurd.  I understand the rationale for self-avowed being the criteria since it defuses witch-hunts.  But to be legalistic in this matter to the point of saying, "She didn't actually say the relationship was sexual within the scope of the trial" is, again, absurd.  It would seem from this logic that a person could be flamboyantly outspoken about their homosexual activities outside of the courtroom, but upon entering the courtroom becoming silent would thus acquit them of all wrongdoing. 
2.) They did find her guilty of performing same-sex marriages.  duh.  Did we really even need a trial for this?
3.) The sentence handed down was 20 days of suspension during which time she needs to write a paper.  This is commonly referred to as a sabbatical. 

The Methodist Church, unfortunately, is not in the business of preaching the Gospel, it is not in the business of following God at all costs.  The Methodist Church is in the business of not offending anyone so that it may prop up a dying, antiquated, bloated hierarchy.  Now to be clear, the Gospel is not about homosexuality.  I cannot be clear enough on that.  It isn't, at least not directly.  But what are we telling the world about our beliefs?  We hold fast to our beliefs, unless someone has a different opinion, and then we'll compromise.  Compromise is terrific, except when we are so willing to compromise that our own beliefs hold very little weight in our actions.
When it comes down to it, I believe that this sentence has more to do with avoidance of the issue than anything else.  Both sides can claim a victory.  Sure she's guilty, but it's not really that big of a deal.  Either way this goes, it is a big deal.  For the UMC to hold its own views so lightly seems to indicate that pretty much all of its views are up for grabs.  I have to say that this doesn't surprise me though.  For the UMC to make a tough decision and then truly stand by it would mean that some people would be offended enough to leave the church.  And therein lies the greatest horror: a drop in apportionment monies.

O the church.

O the Church, where have you gone astray?  The church in culture, the church outside of culture, the church transforming culture, but the culture transforming the church?  If we take an honest look around us, the church is becoming increasingly secular.  Jesus consistently spoke of the kingdom of God having a completely different value structure than the culture that surrounds it.  There are touchstones certainly, certain moments where the desires of God run vaguely parallel with the desires of the world.  But those moments are rare.  We live in a fallen world, a world which we cannot expect to align itself with God's purposes.  Yet increasingly our churches take their cues from the culture at large in every facet of life.  Sexuality, money, power, structure all have given over to what the world thinks is best.  Whether you call it progressive, inclusive, or enlightened, the idea is the same--the church should bow to the values of our culture.
Since the church's values now so easily intertwine with (at least American) culture, what is the point of being a Christian?  is the church really just another social organization designed to meet the physical needs of humanity?  Or is the church meant to be the agent of God in the world--filled with people who have given up everything they hold dear to follow after the man from Galilee?  We are in danger of creating a Christianity in which people have no need for repentance.

I've been away for awhile

I have been away from blogging for awhile but there is too much happening in the world to be silent.  But let me start with a confession.  I am a messy, inconsistent disciple of Jesus the Christ.  For all of my faults, I really do believe, even though my actions may at times indicate otherwise.  Despite my faults, it is my sincere desire to proclaim the message of Jesus to the world.  Immediately we run into a wall.  What is the message of Jesus?  Well, that's difficult to say in a few short words, perhaps I will post a long list of seemingly unrelated musings on the subject.  I could call it a web journal, perhaps a wournal.  But I am a seeker on a Journey, so maybe I should call it a log, like on a ship.  I could call it a a Log-Web or a Loeb.
Point being, I don't have any easy answers.  I do have a lot of questions, which I may share from time to time.