What does it mean to be a "good Christian?"

A friend of mine told me the other day that she had been told by a co-worker that she was a "good Christian." She said the reason for the remark was her willingness to help out a co-worker during a time of great distress and need. Certainly her actions at the time were those that any Christian would have been proud of. This comment for me however raises the question of what does it mean to be a "good Christian." Is anyone who does a good act a "good Christian?" Taken at face value, the concept of a being a good Christan would seem to be some who does a good job of following Christ. After all, that seems the classic definition of a Christian. I think what I am wondering is whether there is something more to be a good Christian than just being a good person. If we were to follow Kant's Categorical Imperative and only do those things that we would want everyone to do, that would seem to at least be a good way of living, but is that sufficient for being a good Christian.

Is there more required to being a good Christian than simply doing good works. An obvious aspect would be the a belief in Christ. If I am doing good works only for my own benefit, or based on the idea that it is better for the whole community, that is not really enough to be a Christian. Part of being a Christian is doing these things because Christ command us to do them. Now, this does make it harder to judge the difference between a good person and good Christian. Unless we are wiling to take the time to question a person's motives, we cannot judge purely from the good deed whether this is the actions of a good Christian or not. In fact it is probably easier to tell a bad Christian, because we can easily point to a number of things that are wrong, but it is much harder to show that a good act is being done for the right reason.

Even if we could find a way to judge someone as a good Christian or not, I still question the value in such a judgment. Where does salvation do to grace and not works fit into the concept of a good Christian. Is a good Christian one who simply believes in God and tries their best to follow God, rather than a someone who actually does a good job of following? Is the only way to be a good Christian to trust that God and God only will make your actions good?

I think in the end I want being a good Christian to mean more than just doing good acts. At the same time I am aware that none of us can be a good Christian all of the time, our own tendency to sin seems to great. I think a good Christian is someone who realizes this, and yet in spite of that still works tries to follow Christ, knowing they are never going to be that good at it.

The Human Side of Scripture

I love numbers and theoretical thinking. But yet at some level I think my favorite parts of Scripture are the human parts. While it is interesting to parse out theology from the sayings of Jesus, what speaks to me the most are things like the Psalms, the Book of Job, and the Epistles. I think this is because the human side of things comes through most plainly. While theology is thick in the Book of Job, it comes straight from the mouth of a human in the midst of suffering. Most Psalms cover a range of human emotion. They seek less to carefully define God and more to express an intimate relationship with the Divine. Connecting to that deeper spiritual side is something I love to do, but something I struggle to make real for others. I can teach logic, I can explain complex ideas, but I am not sure something like this can be taught. I think the Psalms are not meant to be read, but are meant to be said. We should cry out loud our needs as we read the Psalms, give thanks to God for being glorious and admit our own failings. While I have a lot of theological blogging topics swirling in my head today, I wanted to just pause for a bit and leave this space as a reflection on the beauty of the intensely personal nature of theology, the core of what I do.

Dueling Ideologies

I read somewhere, though I cannot recall where and I am not sure I trust the source, that the Pope had recently taken a step back from ecumenical conversations and restated the position that the Catholic church was really the only correct approach to the Christian faith. Earlier today I heard President Bush talking about the challenge facing our world today. As he saw, the key issue were two different ideologies, represented in his eyes by the U.S. and Al Qaeda.

Both of these perspectives got me to thinking again on the challenging with dueling ideologies. People have been highlighting once again the part of the historic Latin mass which prays for the Jews and their conversion. Certainly based on the tone of the language used it is easy to see how it might be considered anti-semitic, but at the same time, for many Catholics and Evangelicals, without Christ, the Jews are doomed to Hell like anyone else.

I raise these examples not to try and critique them or agree with them, but because I think they raise a major problem facing all of us at present. How do we deal with ideologies that are completely at odds? How do we tolerate the idea that something is both true to some people and false to others? There are some things that seem like we can find a compromise on. For example the endless debate between big government national government and leaving things to the states or private sector has room for compromise. What compromise can there be between some of the ideologies present today. How do we deal with ideas such as Catholicism, Islam, and global warming, that all seem to assert things that are true 100% of the time, that there is no way but Christ, or Allah, or that global warming is fact and not some theory.

I think what we really need to be looking for is new ways to deal with these issues. In the past these have been settled by the sword, or the gun, or just by shouting down the other side. But today we need to find new ways that such radically different ideas can live side by side. We need to find ways to hold in tension that X is both true and false. We need to find some non-combative metaphors for discourse.

The Theology of "Evan Almighty"

I went to see the movie "Evan Almighty" with my youth group on Sunday. In almost every way it was a very entertaining and I thought well done movie, but one small theological statement in the movie caught my attention. the basic plot is that Evan, a congressman is tapped by God to build an ark, just like Noah. At one point in one of their conversations God says that everything "he" does is because "he" loves Evan. This statement intrigued me and so I want to break it down for a moment.

My initial reaction to such a statement is concern. After all, a great many evils have been done in the name of love. Even such acts as spousal abuse can be done under its aegis. To say that what God does is done for love while touching on the one hand invokes some poor justifications in my mind. Now, if you accept that God, unlike the abusive spouse is perfect being, then the argument could be made that such concerns, while well founded for humanity, are not applicable when it comes to God.

It also struck me that this statement seemed a bit of a truism. Socrates brings up a similar point in discussing what is holy with Euthyphro. He raises the question of whether something is holy by virtue of being loved by the gods, or is something loved by the gods because it is holy. So is whatever God does an act of love because it is done by God, or does God only do things if they are acts of love?

I think where this becomes challenging to me is understanding God's place in the world. In this movie there is considerable strife between Evan and his wife Joan because even once he tells her what is going on she still struggles to believe and to understand what is going on. Evans actions, which are a direct result of God's commands/requests, seem to cause a great deal of harm. Now, the argument could be made that this harm is temporary and that it leads to the greater good of bringing the family closer together, but that is a whole different post.

Does this theology preach is my underlying question? I have raised a variety of objections, but ultimately does this theology come to the heart of what our faith should be/is that God is good all the time? Following God means that we are willing to make the assertion that what is good is good because God does it. Then again, maybe trusting in God would be easier if I had not been taught to be skeptical and question authority as a child.

As I continue to ponder this I am opening to people's thoughts ...

Preaching to the Choir?

I had an interesting experience a few weeks ago of preaching to a group of 10, I think that includes me and my wife in that count. I have preached to small groups like this before, at nursing homes and even at small services, but something struck me about preaching this time. Part of it was that this preaching experience was coupled with preaching the same sermon and hour before to 150 people. In many ways I felt I gave a far better sermon to the smaller group than the larger one, but what was most striking to me was how it felt to talk about "you" or "some of you" in reference to the congregation. Suddenly you meant something more, like I was actually asking something directly of people. I often want to ask something of people as I preach to them, but this time it was as though I was asking people directly, face to face. I was preaching about the need for us to give first to God and count on God to provide for the rest. Implied in the sermon was the idea that in general we tend to give to God after we first provide for ourselves, something I know I am often guilty of. I wanted to challenge people to change how they thought about giving and work instead on giving to God first and foremost, but when preaching to ten people it felt very different. Suddenly it was as though I was implying that each person in the group needed to change how they were living. I do not know the giving patterns of that group and do not know therefore if the sermon applied to them. I felt a temptation to soften the language of my sermon to this smaller group. The only reason I can give for these feelings was that I felt like I was actually asking something of people directly, like I expected them personally to change because of my message. Oddly enough that would seem to be one of the points of a sermon is to affect change in individuals, but when given the chance for that, I felt uncomfortable. I am still struck by the experience of actually feeling I was asking something of people personally. So my question in all of this that I am musing on, and still pondering, is whether a sermon is meant to be general, providing a topic for thought that people can take or leave as it strikes them, or whether it really is meant to be a call for personal transformation in people's lives. I am not sure yet how I feel about it, but I feel that challenge echoing inside as I reflect upon my weekly messages.

Trees of Hope

A little over a month ago Light of the Lakes UMC, the small church I serve at planted a series of trees along the part of its property that borders houses. It was done both in an effort to improve the neighbor, but also in response to the excessive and unintentional logging that occurred when the church was built two years ago. There is something powerful to me about planting those trees, watering some of them, and watching them grow. These trees are here for the future. As we planted them we talked about what the trees would look like twenty years from now when the six year old in the group might be getting married. It was fun to look that far into the future.
The reality of churches in general today, but this church in particular is that the future is very much uncertain. Who can say who will still be a part of the church then, or if the church will even still be around, and if it is if it will still be at its present location. I recently walked along the line of trees we had planted and saw all the new life that is apparent in the bright green shoots of new growth that each pine tree exhibits. It is a powerful statement of hope and faith that we planted these trees. They will not have a noticeable effect for ten or twenty years on the landscape, and the church may not last three, but trusting in God, we plant the trees, symbols of our commitment to the neighborhood, and our faith that God will find ways to keep us growing one way or another.

Bless be the tie that binds

The ideas behind this post have been building in my mind for three years. While reading about the 2004 General Conference of The United Methodist Church I discovered wonderful picture. It was off Bishop Ott picking up the pieces of a broken communion chalice. The chalice had been broken in frustration/protest of a vote that as taken during the conference around the issue of homosexuality. For some reason the image of the broken chalice connects in my head with the image of a broken church. I had the honor of taking a course with Bishop Ott while I was at seminary and the idea of him helping to pick up the broken pieces of the church is particularly fitting.
Anyone who has ever tried to pick up broken glass knows how easy it is to get cut. I think the chance of getting cut is just as great in the church. Homosexuality is not the first issue to divide the church, all the way back to Paul and Peter, there has been a struggle between who we should let be a part of the church and on what terms. The climax of the 2004 General Conference was the a resolution of church unity that came in response to much of the hurt and talk of separation that took place that year. The statement did not try and gloss over the differences in the church but instead focused on the greater value people felt in unity.
How do we stop the pain that occurs around these issues of division? How do we find a way to live into unity in the midst of diversity without hurting someone too much. I felt the tension again this year as the church prepares for another General Conference. How do find a way to end the conflict without more people getting hurt? It is easy to talk about unity and working towards a time of peace, but are we able to do that now? The Presbyterian church is considering legislation during its national session that would call for a end to legislation seeking to change ordination. The hope is that this would but an end to usual struggles around homosexuality and ordination. It is not meant to maintain the status quo, but instead to let people find a way to heal before continuing the conversation.
I see great deal of pain in the church around this issue and wonder if this might be the best thing for all of us. At the same time however I know there are people who are already hurting, pain that is already being caused by people who are being excluded from their call to ministry because of their sexual orientation. No matter what we do, people are being cut on the jagged edges of our broken church. I don't know the answer to all that is at stake in this. The image I am still left with, is of a Bishop, kneeling on the floor, picking up the pieces of a sacred vessel, working to repair or lives, just as God does.