My blog has moved! http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/
|
 |
Twitter Feed for My Recent Blog Posts and Other Tweets |
My blog has moved! http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/
|
Sunday Inspiration from The High Calling
By Mark D. Roberts | Sunday, August 31, 2008
Who Was Responsible for the Death of Jesus?
Pilate saw that he wasn’t getting anywhere and that a riot was developing. So he sent for a bowl of water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood. The responsibility is yours!”
For centuries, many Christians have hated Jews, partly because “the Jews killed Christ.” Not only is anti-Semitism contradictory to the call of Jesus to love others, but also it falls prey to Pilate’s own cleverness. You see, Pilate was the only person in Jerusalem who had the authority over crucifixion. No matter what he said about his innocence, Pilate bears full blame, on human terms, for the death of Jesus. His claim to innocence was only an attempt to “spin” matters in his favor. The tiny percentage of Jews in Jerusalem who called for the death of Jesus had no power over Pilate, but they did provide a convenient excuse to protect him from the masses of Jews who supported Jesus.
At a deeper level, however, Pilate wasn’t responsible for the death of Jesus. Jesus himself chose the way of the cross in obedience to his Heavenly Father (see Matthew 26:36-46). As Jesus said in the Gospel of John: “No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded.” So anti-Semitism is not only a moral mistake and a historical mistake, but also a theological mistake. Though certain Jewish leaders did conspire to have Jesus crucified, and though Pilate did approve of his crucifixion, what matters most is that Jesus chose the cross.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: Have you ever witnessed anti-Semitic actions or heard anti-Semitic words? How do you understand the reasons for Jesus’ death?
PRAYER: Dear Lord, today I’m reminded to pray against the scourge of anti-Semitism. For centuries we Christians have rejected your call to love our Jewish neighbors. We have contributed to their persecution, or stood idly by while others did the dirty work. Forgive us, Lord.
Anti-Semitism is growing in our world today. Jews continue to be victims of violence and hatred. May such bigotry be rooted out and destroyed. May your justice prevail.
Gracious Lord, though human beings contributed to your death, they didn’t make it happen by their own choice. Indeed, you chose the cross out of obedience to your Heavenly Father and out of love for us. Thank you, Lord Jesus, for your faithful sacrifice. Amen.
A P.S. from Mark
I have written an extensive series on my website on the topic: Why Did Jesus Have to Die? In this series I examine historical and theological reasons for the death of Jesus.
Daily Reflections from The High Calling.org
This devotional comes from The High Calling of Our Daily Work (www.thehighcalling.org). You can read my Daily Reflections there, or sign up to have them sent to your email inbox each day. This website contains lots of encouragement for people who are trying to live out their faith in the workplace.
Topics: Sunday Inspiration | 1 Comment »
Police Blotter Update
By Mark D. Roberts | Saturday, August 30, 2008
I haven’t been updating my local police blotter for a while. So, here are some recent highlights . . . .
May 19
10800 block of Highway 87, Comfort, 7:24 p.m., A caller reported that someone ran through his fence. [MDR: With a car? Or with superhuman strength?]
May 20
100 block of Sunflower, Comfort, 9:49 p.m., A caller reported several people were standing outside her house and drinking. [MDR: If you throw a party and people won’t go home, you can always call the Boerne police. They’ll handle it.]
June 21
539 mile marker of Interstate 10, 12:36 a.m., A caller reported seeing a woman riding topless on the sunroof of a Jeep. The caller reported that she almost fell off when the vehicle turned towards Ranger Creek. Police searched the area but were unable to find the truck. [MDR: No mention of whether the police were able to find the woman or not.]
June 17
200 block of Bandera, 3:35 p.m., Police and EMS were called when an employee at a dry cleaners got his head stuck in a pressing machine. The man had gotten out by the time police arrived. [MDR: Note to self – Don’t ever put head in a pressing machine.]
June 12
100 block Flintrock Drive, 8:45 p.m., A caller reported that his 21-year-old son took his wife’s debit card and used it to take money from their account without permission. [MDR: Now that’s what I call effective parenting . . . call the police!]
June 21
8500 block of Raintree Woods Drive, 9:08 p.m., A caller reported that someone had thrown shoes in the roadway. Police found four pairs of shoes and located four teens hiding in nearby bushes. The teens were told not to throw shoes in the road and sent home. [MDR: Not much to do here in Boerne but throw shoes in the road.]
June 23
29000 block of Ralph Fair Road, 4:45 p.m., Police stopped after seeing two women on the side of the road arguing. One woman reported that the other had come to pick her up after her car broke down. However, the women began arguing and the one with the broken car decided she did not want a ride. She later agreed to ride with her friend. [MDR: Where is Condoleeza Rice when you need her?]
June 25
300 block of Rosewood, 8:31 a.m., Someone entered the church during the night, rummaged through the offices and played basketball in the gym. [MDR: Okay, that’s it. Playing basketball without permission!]
300 block of Fifth Street, Comfort, 4:52 p.m., A caller reported that someone came by their house the previous night selling tamales for a church. The caller purchased the tamales and found out the next day that the church was not selling tamales. [MDR: Now there’s a way to get people to buy your tamales. Claim you’re from a church.]
Topics: Police Blotter | 4 Comments »
Presbyterian Exegesis Exam Changed: Section 4
By Mark D. Roberts | Friday, August 29, 2008
Part 18 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
So far I’ve put up three posts on recent changes in the exegesis exam of the Presbyterian Church (USA). If you haven’t been reading along, I’ll summarize by saying that the PC(USA) no longer requires candidates for ordination to pastoral ministry to demonstrate knowledge of biblical language (Greek and Hebrew). Moreover, candidates do not have to try to show the “principal meaning” of a text. Now they can simply offer a “faithful interpretation.” (Check out Jim Berkley’s commentary on this “Attractive Nonsense.”)
The Presbyteries’ Cooperative Committee on Examinations for Candidates, the group responsible for the exam changes explained their intentions this way:
We believe that these changes will make it possible for the seminaries to do what they do well, namely to teach Greek and Hebrew and to train students in the art of exegesis, and not have the examination repeat an academic exercise that students have already experienced. At the same time, the changes in the requirements of the exam will allow presbyteries, who know their inquirers/candidates in a way the exam graders cannot, to use the exam as a tool in determining one’s readiness for ministry, including a working knowledge of the biblical languages.
First of all, the exam in no way makes it possible for the seminaries to do what they do well, since the exam is independent of the seminaries. This is bluster. It is true, however, that the exam in its new form does not have students repeat an academic exercise they have already experienced. But why have an exegesis exam at all, then? Students have taken exegesis and preaching already. So why have an exegesis exam with a preaching component? According to the committee’s logic, the exam in its new form is still redundant and unnecessary. If what the committee has done remains intact and becomes part of the PC(USA) practice, I predict that this is the beginning of the end of ordination exams, period. Think about it. Right now we require candidates to pass ordination exams on Presbyterian polity. But we also require students to pass seminary courses on Presbyterian polity. Isn’t it redundant and unnecessary to have a polity exam, if we accept the committee’s logic? Ditto with theology and worship exams.
Second, the changes in the exam will not give presbyteries any greater ability to determine a candidate’s readiness for ministry, except that they will receive comments about the candidate’s language ability. But this was true in the past as well, so there is nothing gained here. In fact, the new exam will take away from presbyteries the chance to have tested a candidate’s ability to use the tools of biblical study to determine the original meaning of a text. Presbyteries will now be able to know only that candidate can produce a faithful interpretation of a passage.
And so, once again, we see evidence of the end of the PC(USA). Up to now, the PC(USA) has been distinctive (though not unique) among denominations and churches in expecting its ordained pastors to have a basic knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, and to be able to use language and other skills to discover the “principal meaning” of a biblical text. When so many churches and denominations allow people to be ordained as pastors without seminary training or instruction in biblical exegesis, the PC(USA) continued to affirm the importance of such training. Behind this affirmation was a conviction about the importance of the original meaning of Scripture. The new PC(USA), even if it continues to exist into the future, will not be like the old PC(USA), a denomination committed to the right interpretation of the Bible. The PC(USA) we have known is ending right before our very eyes.
I want to close with a story and a word of encouragement for candidates and seminarians. A good friend of mine, a candidate for ordination in the PC(USA), is in the midst of taking the biblical exegesis exam. When I mentioned to her the changes in the exam, she almost became unglued.
“What is my denomination saying to me?” she asked, angrily. “Why did they require me to take so many classes in Greek and Hebrew if I didn’t need to use what I had learned? Why did I have to take exegesis classes if I need only to come up with a faithful interpretation? Why has the PC(USA) wasted my time this way? I am really angry.”
“I understand your anger, and share it,” I replied. “But don’t despair. Yes, the PC(USA) isn’t interested in whether you can use Greek and Hebrew. And it isn’t going to ask you to find the original meaning of a passage. But you didn’t take so many classes just to pass your exegesis exam. You took those classes and learned those skills so you could be an effective interpreter of Scripture. You did those things so you would be a better pastor. And you will be because of your efforts. So, forget about the PC(USA). What you have learned will help you know with greater accuracy what Scripture means. It will make you a better teacher and preacher of God’s Word. And it has been and will be honoring to God, who chose to reveal himself through a Greek and Hebrew, the original meaning of which is hugely important, no matter what the PC(USA) thinks.” (Photo: I’m presenting Bibles to children at Irvine Presbyterian Church. I loved giving children their very own copies of God’s Word.)
I preached weekly sermons and taught weekly Bible studies for over 20 years as an ordained pastor, at the First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood and at Irvine Presbyterian Church. During those years I prepared more than 1,000 sermons and studies. I will admit that there were some occasions when I was just too busy to pay close attention to the original languages or even to seek out the original meanings of the biblical passages. But, for the most part, I tried every single time to go back to the Bible to discover, not what I thought it meant, but what it really meant. And, believe me, there is a difference between these.
On literally hundreds of occasions, I would come to a biblical passage with what I thought was a fairly good idea of what it meant. Sometimes I’d even have planned a sermon on the basis of my own faithful interpretation. But then, as I studied the text, going back to the original language, I would discover that the text actually meant something different from what I had presupposed. Because I was committed to careful exegesis and to the authority of the biblical text itself, I sometimes had to change the main point of a sermon. My faithful interpretations, however well-intended and reasonable, turned out to be wrong.
Now you may want to object that I was able to do this sort of exegesis because I had unusual training. I agree that the average pastor did not take the number of language classes I had to take for my Ph.D. in New Testament: five years of Greek, two-and-a-half years of Hebrew, plus many exegesis courses. Indeed, there was a time when average seminary graduates were mostly unable to use the ancient languages they had learned in seminaries. But this has changed drastically because of the computer. Now people with a solid year of biblical Greek can use that Greek well. To be sure, they will miss some of the nuances. But, with a decent computer and a fairly inexpensive computer program, they can use their Greek with competence. I know this for a fact because I taught Greek to dozens of seminarians. I also helped most of them prepare for the PC(USA) exegesis exam. I’m not aware of any who were unable to pass that exam in its earlier form, at least on their second try.
So, if you’re a candidate or seminarian or pastor, don’t let the PC(USA) mistaken change discourage you. Continue to learn and use the biblical languages. Continue to seek the original meaning of a biblical passage. These disciplines are precious, and will help you know and communicate God’s truth with greater accuracy and impact.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 7 Comments »
Presbyterian Exegesis Exam Changed: Section 3
By Mark D. Roberts | Thursday, August 28, 2008
Part 17 of series: Presbyterian Exegesis Exam Changed
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In my last two blog posts I have commented on recent changes in the exegesis exam of the Presbyterian Church (USA). In a nutshell, the PC(USA) no longer requires candidates for ordination to pastoral ministry to demonstrate knowledge of biblical language (Greek and Hebrew). Moreover, candidates do not have to try to show the “principal meaning” of a text.” Now they can simply offer one “faithful interpretation,” whatever that means.
If you want to see why I’m critical of these changes, please read what I’ve already written. Today I want to add some final comments before I finish my diatribe about the exegesis exam changes.
The Presbyteries’ Cooperative Committee on Examinations for Candidates, the group responsible for the exam changes, offered little by way of defense of its actions. It did reproduce some questions or comments that it received from folks outside of the committee. They were meant, I suppose, to provide some sort of rationale. So let me respond to these.
Does the format of the exam truly allow inquirers/candidates to demonstrate a working knowledge of Greek and Hebrew?
No, it doesn’t. In the past, candidates could pass the exam with much less than a “working knowledge” of Greek and Hebrew. But they would have needed at least a basic knowledge of one of these languages.
Is this examination the appropriate vehicle through which to judge one’s facility with Biblical languages?
No, by itself, it was not the appropriate vehicle. But it was an essential part of this judgment. It showed that candidates could do more than pass exams in Greek and Hebrew. They needed to have some ability actually to use one of these languages.
Is it reasonable to expect readers who may not have had training in Greek and Hebrew, or who themselves have not maintained a working knowledge of these languages, to determine if an exam adequately demonstrates facility in these languages?
No, it is not reasonable to expect readers who don’t know biblical languages, or who have once studied them but have since forgotten them, to grade exams with respect to their use of Greek or Hebrew. So, if we think it’s important for candidates to know Greek and Hebrew, then readers (at least of certain sections of exams) should be people who have some facility with these languages. The choice of graders, as well as the content of the exam, should reflect our values as a denomination. [Many thanks to Jim Berkeley for helping me see that my original answer to this question was based on wrong exegesis of the question! Jim, apparently, wasn’t satisfied with my faithful interpretation. For some reason it mattered to him what the original questioner actually meant. How modern of him!)
Examinations which are otherwise well written cannot receive a passing grade without demonstrating a working knowledge of the biblical languages.
Yes, that is right. And that’s because the PC(USA) used to believe that a working knowledge of biblical languages was something a pastor should have, and that a candidate for ordination should be able to demonstrate.
The language requirement in the biblical exegesis exam seems to duplicate, or call into question, academic work that students have already done in their language and exegesis classes in seminary.
Yes, in a sense that’s true. But this is true with almost every kind of examination or credentialing for the professions. The bar exam, more or less, duplicates what law students did in law school. Etc. etc. etc. I don’t think, however, that requiring the use of Greek or Hebrew in an exegesis exam necessarily calls into question the academic work students have done. It does require all students, no matter which seminary they have attended, to demonstrate similar ability, and this seems fair. But it also helps students to retain their biblical languages, knowing that they’ll need to use them for the exegesis exam.
Rich passages of Scripture contain more than one “principal meaning”, and may lend themselves to several interpretations which are valid.
I’ve already commented on this at length.
Tomorrow I’ll wrap up this series within a series on the PC(USA) and its exegesis exam.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 13 Comments »
Presbyterian Exegesis Exam Changed: Section 2
By Mark D. Roberts | Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Part 16 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
Yesterday I began commenting on recent changes in the exegesis exam of the Presbyterian Church (USA). For the first time in ages, the PC(USA) will no longer require candidates taking the exegesis exam to demonstrate a knowledge of ancient biblical languages or to find the “principal meaning” of a passage. Now, candidates can pass the exegesis exam without showing that they know the original language of the text. And instead of trying to explain what that text originally meant, they need only to offer a “faithful interpretation” of the text.
What does this mean, exactly? Who’s to say whether an interpretation is faithful or not? In the end, who can say those who have injected their personal faith into a text that their interpretation is not faithful? I suppose if one defined “faithful” as “faithful to the original meaning of the text and to the use of the original language,” then we could argue about the faithfulness of an interpretation. But this is clearly not what the PCUSA means by “faithful interpretation.”
Let me offer an example of one reason why I have a problem with “faithful interpretation” as the new standard. When I was teaching New Testament Exegesis for San Francisco Theological Seminary (Southern California), I would assign a biblical passage to my students. In 15 pages or so, they were to provide an exegesis of the passage, showing their understanding of the passages’s linguistic basics, context, theology, etc. One year, I had a student from an ethnic minority write a paper that showed almost no attention to the original language, context, history of interpretation, and so forth. What he wrote was a “faithful interpretation” from his ethnic perspective. To that extent, his paper was fascinating and insightful and full of his own faith. But it had very little to do with what the text actually meant, or what the text’s author intended. When I gave this student a low grade, he was incensed. How could I suggest that his interpretation was wrong? It was, after all, his interpretation. It reflected his experience, his insights, his worldview, his feelings. The fact that he failed to deal with the experience, insights, worldview, or feelings of the original author was irrelevant, as far as he was concerned. To use the language of today’s PC(USA), his interpretation was certainly “faithful.” It reflected his faith journey and relationship with God. But it had little to do with what biblical exegesis is all about, which has to do with digging out the original meaning of the ancient text. Once one has labored to discern that “principal meaning,” then one is free to make all sorts of “faithful interpretations” in the work of teaching and preaching.
What the PC(USA) is saying, in effect, is that the original meaning of the text doesn’t matter nearly as much as one’s personal, faithful interpretation. Now I’m 100% in favor of personal, faithful interpretations. But I also believe that the principal meaning of a text matters. In fact, it is the principal meaning of a text that allows us to determine whether a purportedly faithful interpretation is, in fact, faithful to the text. For years, many Christians offered faithful interpretations of Scripture that were racist. Yet these were not faithful to the text of the Bible, when properly understood, even though they reflected the faith of the interpreters. Once we make faithful interpretation the measure of exegetical skill, we have lost the ability to critique those who get it wrong. We’re left simply with competing faithful interpretations, but no common ground upon which to discover a truthful interpretation.
The committee offers almost no rationale for their choice to jettison “principal meaning” in favor of “faithful interpretation.” They supply one comment from someone who said: “Rich passages of Scripture contain more than one ‘principal meaning’, and may lend themselves to several interpretations which are valid.” Well, that’s a theory worthy of debate, to be sure. But it’s certainly not so obviously true that it deserves to be accepted without argument. Nor is it consistent with what most Presbyterians have believed for centuries. We have traditionally affirmed that even rich passages of Scripture do contain one principal meaning, though this meaning may have many nuances and multiple applications. Moreover, we have not affirmed that biblical passages may have several valid interpretations. Several interpretations, to be sure, but not several valid ones. We have admitted that we may not be able to interpret a passage correctly. And we have realized that our best interpretations do not fully represent the text’s original meaning. But, nevertheless, we have sought to discern the original meaning as accurately as possible, using the tools of historical-critical exegesis, including knowledge of the original languages. Now the PC(USA) officially expects its pastoral candidates to come up with faithful interpretations, nothing more.
These changes in ordination exams are indicative of much larger issues in the PC(USA). They show how biblical interpretation has moved from a scholarly, relatively-objective discipline to a subjective matter of experience and feeling. They show how the original meaning of Scripture has lost its authority, since it either cannot be accessed or isn’t relevant if it can be accessed. “Faithful interpretation” is enough. The changes in the exam show precisely why the PC(USA) is in such a mess over the gay/lesbian issue. While some of us continue to believe that the Bible’s original meaning is still discernable and authoritative, others in our denomination do not feel the need to anchor their theology in the bedrock of the Bible’s original meaning. So, then, while some of are saying that the Bible reveals homosexual activity to be sinful, others are not especially moved by this claim, or even eager to engage with it. They are satisfied with their own “faithful interpretations” of Scripture, in which they take their particular faith in God and read it into the text. Their loving, accepting God would never expect gay and lesbian people to be celibate. So, in spite of what the Bible actually says about homosexual activity, they are willing to endorse gay and lesbian behavior, and to ordain those who practice it, and even to claim that their position is biblical. It is biblical if, by “biblical,” we mean “according to my own faith.”
I expect that nobody on the exam committee of the PC(USA) meant to make such a monumental statement about biblical authority and interpretation. And I’m quite sure that nobody on this committee believes that their two changes to the ordination exam are contributing to the demise of the PC(USA). But, in my opinion, what we have seen is indicative of why this denomination is reeling, well on its way to oblivion. We have lost touch with the common ground of biblical truth on which the PC(USA) was founded. And we no longer have any reliable way of getting back to that common ground in a denomination filled with equally-valid faithful interpretations. The changes in the ordination exam add up to a placard that reads: PCUSA . . . the end is near!
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 21 Comments »
We Interrupt This Regularly Scheduled Blog to Bring You a Special Report: Presbyterian Exegesis Exam Changed
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Part 15 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
I just became aware of a couple of major changes in exegesis exams of the Presbyterian Church (USA). I want to offer some comments on these changes. This may seem like a detour from my series on The End of the PCUSA? Revisited, but, in fact, it is not. The changes in the grading of the exegesis exam illustrate why the PC(USA) is struggling to stay alive.
Let me offer a brief word of background for those who aren’t familiar with PC(USA) exegesis exams. For decades, candidates for ordained pastoral ministry in the PC(USA) were have been required to pass an exegesis exam. This required careful, well-informed, accurate interpretation of an assigned biblical text in the original languages (Greek or Hebrew). Moreover, the candidate prepared a sermon outline, so as to demonstrate the ability to use scholarly exegesis in a practical, pastoral context.
When I took the exegesis exam in the 1980s, it was a four-hour “open book” exam. Candidates were allowed to use any tools or helps they could bring, including dictionaries, grammars, concordances, commentaries, etc. At some point during the last twenty years, the exam was changed to a “take home” exam, in which candidates were given several days to finish it. I actually thought this was a positive change, since it did not place a premium on academic speed. Moreover, it provided candidates with a situation that was similar to that which they’d face as pastors, with a few days to work on a sermon.
Now, the exam itself and the way it will be graded have been changed in a couple of crucial ways. Here’s what I have learned from the PC(USA) website:
1. The demonstration of a working knowledge of Greek and/or Hebrew will no longer be a requirement in order to complete the examination successfully. When exams are graded, the readers will comment on the language facility which is demonstrated in the paper. Such comments will be offered as guidance for Committees on Preparation for Ministry in determining readiness for ministry.
2. The wording of the instructions for the Biblical Exegesis examination have been amended. Inquirers/candidates will be asked to offer “a faithful interpretation” of the assigned text, rather than “the principal meaning” of the text.
Why have these changes been made? The website explains that the committee in charge of the exams has completed a two-year evaluation process. Their goals in making the changes are stated as follows:
It is the sincere hope of the members of the PCCEC that these changes in the Biblical Exegesis examination will free students to focus on the larger issues of interpretation and practical application of Scripture, as well as to use the biblical languages as tools in that process.
We believe that these changes will make it possible for the seminaries to do what they do well, namely to teach Greek and Hebrew and to train students in the art of exegesis, and not have the examination repeat an academic exercise that students have already experienced. At the same time, the changes in the requirements of the exam will allow presbyteries, who know their inquirers/candidates in a way the exam graders cannot, to use the exam as a tool in determining one’s readiness for ministry, including a working knowledge of the biblical languages.
My Reaction to These Changes
You will probably not be surprised to learn that I’m not happy with these changes. I say this, in part, as one who has taught both Greek and Biblical Exegesis in seminaries, including the PC(USA)’s own San Francisco Theological Seminary. But my unhappiness with the changes in the exegesis exam has less to do with my seminary teaching experience and more to do with what the changes imply about the PC(USA)’s understanding of Scripture, its authority and interpretation.
First of all, notice what the committee hopes will happen because of the changes in the exam. They hope that the changes “will free students to focus on the larger issues of interpretation and application of Scripture, as well as to use the biblical languages as tools in that process.” Now I’m all for getting people to focus on the larger issues of interpretation and application of Scripture. But let’s do a careful exegesis of the phrase: “will free students to focus.” From what will students be freed? Here’s what’s implied. They’ll be freed from:
• From using original languages in their exegesis.
• From knowing what the original words really meant and
how they were used.• From trying to discern “the principal meaning” of text.
In other words, students will not be expected to know what the original language of the text said, or what the original author of the text intended to communicate. They will be set free from these disciplines to offer simply “a faithful interpretation” of the text.
Wow! What a watershed moment in the history of Presbyterianism! For the first time, as far as I know, we are officially rejecting a traditional understanding of biblical interpretation, one in which the text has a principal meaning, one that takes seriously the intentions of the author, and one that requires the student to wrestle with the original meaning on the way to creating some “faithful interpretation.” Now we are allowing “a faithful interpretation” of a text to suffice, even if this “faithful interpretation” is not in sync with the original language or meaning of the passage. What a monumental move for the PC(USA)!
If you know anything about the study of textual interpretation in the last few decades, you’ll immediately recognize what’s happening here as a postmodern view of textual meaning. The notion that a text has a primary meaning has been rejected by many in our day, in favor a more subjective approach. Some theorists would even say that the real meaning of text inheres, not in the text or in the intentions of the author, but in the responses of the reader.
I certainly recognize that different readers respond differently to the same text. Moreover, I acknowledge that I can learn a great deal from the way other people respond to a text. Further, I’m willing to admit that my own readings, however much they are based on relatively objective criteria, like Greek or Hebrew definitions and grammar, are nevertheless impacted by my own subjective biases. A purely objective reading of a text is impossible.
But, in spite of these admissions, I, along with the PC(USA), have always believed that it was still possible to get fairly close to “the principal meaning” of a text. One way to access that meaning was by translating from the original language of the text. This was assumed by the PC(USA) . . . until now. Apparently, as a denomination we no longer believe that a principal meaning exists, or that it can be found even if it does exist, or that it matters even it exists and can be found. We’re satisfied only with a faithful interpretation. And this opens up a Pandora’s box of subjectivity.
I’ll have more to say about this tomorrow.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 19 Comments »
Where Do We Go From Here? Section 1
By Mark D. Roberts | Monday, August 25, 2008
Part 14 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
So far in this series on The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited I have argued that we members of the PCUSA cannot get along as a unified denomination because of our deep theological divisions about many issues, most pointedly the issue of gay ordination. I have also argued that a denomination is not “the church” or even “a church,” but rather an organization of churches that share enough in common to be committed to each other. This “in common” part should surely include core theology and sense of mission. If my two main arguments are true, then it’s not out of bounds for Presbyterian individuals and churches who are at odds with the PCUSA’s affirmations and practices to consider leaving the PCUSA. Every option is on the table as far as I’m concerned.
So, then: Where do we go from here?
Before I begin to answer this question, I want to make a couple of preliminary comments. First, I direct your attention to an outstanding discussion of this very question that appears on the Presbyterians for Renewal website. This newly-revamped website is full of helpful material for Presbyterians. I highly recommend it in general. But, specifically, I want to point you to Part One of a three-part series entitled: What Way Ahead? It is written by Michael Walker, Theologian-in-Residence at Highland Park Presbyterian Church, and former Executive Director of PFR. Michael’s approach to this issue is outstanding: thoughtful, careful, fair, measured. In fact, I had considered simply copying his piece and putting it up on my site. It’s a must read. (While I’m recommending websites, let me once again draw your attention to Presbyweb, which is by far the best place to keep up with what’s going on in the PCUSA, as well as in the religious world in general.)
Second, I want to define “we” in the question “Where do we go from here?” For me, “we” means “members of the PCUSA who are deeply concerned about and in disagreement with many of the recent actions of the 2008 General Assembly, including but not limited votes related to gay ordination.” For the most part, “we” includes evangelical Presbyterians who are committed to the full authority of Scripture. (There are a few in this category who are not opposed to the GA actions, however.) So, I am not asking “Where should the PCUSA go from here?” as if I were a part of the national denominational leadership. I’m speaking from my own perspective within the denomination.
So, then: Where do we go from here?
Wherever we go, I believe there’s no need to rush. Or, I might better say, we should not rush. It’s not as if the PCUSA suddenly, as if out of nowhere, voted to ordain gays and lesbians. This issue, and a host of related theological issues, have been with us for a long time. Haste is neither required nor wise because, as Michael Walker explained after the 2006 General Assembly, we are still “free to be faithful.” At this very moment, nobody is telling me I have to affirm something I don’t believe or do something I think is wrong. If this were to happen, I would promptly leave the PCUSA rather than deny my conscience before the Lord. But at this time I am free to believe and act according to my sense of biblical righteousness and truth. (I’m aware that this time might be coming to an end in the PCUSA, however.)
Moreover, there’s no need to rush because the issues of grave concern are still filled with uncertainty. Yes, the GA voted to change the Book of Order to allow for the ordination of gays and lesbians. But this has happened before, and so far the presbyteries have voted to reject such GA votes. It’s quite possible that the presbyteries will do this again in 2009, leaving the Book of Order intact. Furthermore, though the intention of the 2008 GA was to install a new “Authoritative Interpretation” that allows local governing bodies to act contrary to the Book of Order’s current prohibition of gay ordination, it’s questionable whether this GA vote was consistent with the PCUSA Constitution. It may well be thrown out by church courts. Therefore, it’s quite possible that, in spite of the actions of the 2008 GA, the PCUSA will not end up approving of the ordinations of active gay and lesbian people. If, at the end of next year, the presbyteries have voted to allow gay ordination and the PCUSA courts have agreed, there will still be strong arguments made by some evangelicals for staying in the denomination, but many will be unconvinced by them, I think.
I should qualify my view that there’s no need to rush, however. I’m aware that some Presbyterian churches find themselves in presbyteries that are both liberal and hostile. I have heard stories about how some evangelical churches have been harassed and hampered by their presbyteries. Such churches are not “free to be faithful.” Thus, for these churches, it may well be the right time to leave the denomination. Yet, even for these, I would recommend against rushing. A careful, thoughtful, prayerful process is always best, and rarely happens quickly.
As an aside, I want to note, once again, that the real substance of a denominational connection is not the relationship of members and churches to the national body, but rather the relationship to the local body, which in the case of the PCUSA is the presbytery. The local, tangible, face-to-face relationships are what really matter in practice. Larger denominational connections are mostly irrelevant to most churches most of the time.
Yet, even if at the end of 2009 the PCUSA, by votes of presbyteries and church courts, has upheld our longstanding prohibition of gay ordination, it would be naïve to think that we’re back to business as usual. The last GA has revealed just how divided our denomination is, and not just about homosexuality. We differ on many matters of basic theology, including the authority of Scripture, how to interpret Scripture, how to relate to the culture, and even the substance of the good news. Evangelical PCUSA must not put our heads in the sand and assume that we can go on just as we have in the past. Pay attention to these wise words from Michael Walker:
Though the technical implications of the Assembly’s decisions on sexuality remain unclear, the number and consistent character of those decisions speak with a clear voice. When the misguided statement on interfaith relations is added to the mix, not to mention the embarrassing lack of attention to Christian faith exhibited in the discussions leading up to these decisions, this GA has successfully pulled back the veil, so to speak, enabling us to see more clearly the situation we’ve been facing for quite some time.
And what is this situation? Here’s how Michael describes it:
What we experienced at this last GA was an advancement of a trajectory that shows no sign of abating. It’s not about the “liberal groups,” whose true effectiveness is, honestly, unknown. Rather, the actions of the San Jose Assembly reflect the power of western culture generally to shape the ethos of a denomination that does not have a clear sense of its mission to the culture. Unchecked and unchallenged, the “default” pattern of the PC(USA) will be to continue moving along with the prevailing spirituality of western culture (“moralistic therapeutic deism,” as it has been dubbed recently), and with its embrace of the culture’s obsession with variant forms of sexual expression.
I have described certain aspects of this “default” pattern in some detail in this series, pointing to the way it has divided our denomination. The PCUSA is profoundly divided on many things, centrally the issue of gay ordination. These divisions mean that we simply can’t get along peacefully as a denomination, not to mention engage in common mission. We can stay together institutionally. But we will continue to fight over many things, not only the ordination issues. We will use our dwindling resources as a denomination in internal squabbles, proving that Jesus was right all along when he said that a “house divided against itself will not stand” (Matt 12:25). If the PCUSA stays together with the same structures that are currently in place, we will look like a boxing match between Rocky Balboa and Apollo Creed. One boxer might end up winning the match, but both boxers will pummel each other nearly to death. That might make for good drama in a film, but it cripples the mission of the PCUSA churches, and therefore of the PCUSA as a whole.
I believe that the health and mission of the churches of the PCUSA require us to rethink the nature of our relationship so that we might alter that relationship in a way that is theologically-sound, practically-wise, and, perhaps, even God-honoring. If this is going to happen, several things are needed. I’ll spell these out in my next post in this series.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 4 Comments »
Sunday Inspiration from The High Calling
By Mark D. Roberts | Sunday, August 24, 2008
Faithfulness in Small Things
“The master was full of praise. ‘Well done, my good and faithful servant. You have been faithful in handling this small amount, so now I will give you many more responsibilities. Let’s celebrate together!’”
In this familiar parable, the master praises his servant for being “faithful in handling this small amount” (v. 21). Literally, the Greek reads, “You were faithful over few things” or “small things.” Because of such exemplary faithfulness, the master rewards the faithful servant by giving him greater resources and responsibilities.
Sometimes it’s hard to be faithful over few things. If we’re given important assignments, we’re apt to try our hardest. But when our tasks seem piddling, or when what we’re doing promises to go unnoticed, we easily lose heart. This is true in all of life, including our daily work. We see some Christians making a big difference in the world and figure that our contribution won’t amount to much. Thus we’re tempted to stop living for the Lord. How will caring for my colleague matter? Why should I make doubly sure my expense account is accurately reported when nobody will ever know?
We are called to be faithful in every aspect of life, even in things that seem not to matter. Often, this apparently trivial faithfulness is preparing us for greater things in the future. As we use well the opportunities and talents God entrusts to us, he will give us even more.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: When are you tempted to be less than fully faithful? Do you sometimes devalue your labors for the Lord? What helps you to be faithful even in small things?
PRAYER: Dear Lord, I want to serve you with all that I am, to devote my whole life to you. But there are times when my tasks seem so unimportant. I wonder if what I do really matters. I’m tempted to cut corners or even to fail to do what has been given to me. Forgive me, Lord, when I am a poor steward of your gifts.
Help me to see my life as filled with opportunities for serving you. Whether the task before me seems big or small, may I do it with faithfulness, knowing that you see everything. May I be a faithful servant, honoring you in all I do. In your time and according to your wisdom, give me even greater opportunities to make a difference for your kingdom. Amen.
Daily Reflections from The High Calling.org
This devotional comes from The High Calling of Our Daily Work (www.thehighcalling.org). You can read my Daily Reflections there, or sign up to have them sent to your email inbox each day. This website contains lots of encouragement for people who are trying to live out their faith in the workplace.
Topics: Sunday Inspiration | No Comments »
Chet Edwards: Potential Vice-President and Poster Child for Denominationalism in America
By Mark D. Roberts | Saturday, August 23, 2008
As my regular readers know, I don’t tend to do serious blogging on Saturdays. But today I do want to put up something that is vaguely related to my recent series on the PCUSA and denominations.
I’ve been watching with interest the hype surrounding Barack Obama’s imminent announcemet of his running mate. One of the leading candidates is Congressman Chet Edwards of the 17th Congressional District in Texas (not my district). I hadn’t heard of Rep. Edwards before, so I went to his website to learn more about him. I scanned his impressive bio, the last paragraph of his reads:
Chet is a lifelong Methodist. He and his wife, Lea Ann, along with their sons, J.T. (12) and Garrison (11) attend the Calvary Baptist Church in Waco, and the McLean Baptist Church in McLean, Virginia.
I had to read this twice to make sure I understood it. “Chet is a lifelong Methodist.” I got that part. But he attends two Baptist churches. What a curious inconsistency!
I’m not suggesting anything negative about Chet. It may well be that his wife is a Baptist, and that he has chosen to go to the churches of her choosing. There are lots of reasons why Methodists might end up at Baptist churches. I don’t have a problem with this sort of transition. Indeed, I’m glad to see the Rep. Edwards is a faithful churchgoer. (By the way, John McCain grew up as an Episcopalian, but now attends a Baptist church.)
It is telling, however, that a lifelong Methodist ends up worshiping in a Baptist church. This illustrates the fact that most American Christians aren’t especially limited by or even committed to their denominations. For the most part, denominations mean something to those who are greatly involved in them (clergy, denominational officials, etc.), but relatively little to their members. Any conversation of denominations and their future must take seriously the fact that denominational brand loyalty is dying. Some would say it’s already dead.
What I find even more curious in the description of Rep. Edwards’ church affliation is the fact that he is called a “lifelong Methodist” even though he’s not attending Methodist churches. It would seem more accurate to describe him as a former Methodist who is now a Baptist. The odd inconsistency in this paragraph bears further testimony to the way most Christians think of their denominations. Denominational labels just aren’t a big deal. Period. Lifelong Methodist in Baptist churches. Lifelong Baptist in Methodist churches. Who cares?
Well, I just did a bit of digging, and found a partial explanation to the riddle of Rep. Edwards’ denominational affiliations. In an 2003 interview with the Baptist Standard, he was asked about the importance of faith in his life. His answer included the following:
It is a central part of my life and of my family’s values. I was born and raised in the Methodist church, but 10 years ago I married a Baptist preacher’s daughter, and though I am still a Methodist today, our family has attended Baptist churches in Virginia and Texas the last 10 years.
So I guessed right! A lifelong Methodist who marries a Baptist preacher’s daughter would be wise to attend Baptist churches. Give Rep. Edwards ten points for his commitment to and respect for his wife. It is telling, though, that he still calls himself a Methodist, even though he has been part of Baptist churches for the last ten years. I’d love to ask him why he hasn’t joined one of his Baptist churches.
In his interview with the Baptist Standard, Rep. Edwards added,
One of the challenges is trying to set a good Christian example in public office without wearing religion on my sleeve. I think it is sacrilege when politicians use religion to their own political ends. That demeans religion. It is a constant struggle trying to set a good Christian example and trying to reach out to others with my faith while not showing disrespect by furthering my own political ends.
If he ends up as Barack Obama’s running mate, I wonder how he’ll do in an election that seems to want candidates to wear their religion on their sleeves.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 5 Comments »
What’s Good About Denominations? Revisited
By Mark D. Roberts | Friday, August 22, 2008
Part 14 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
Two years ago, in the aftermath of the debacle of the 2006 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA, I wrote a blog series on the topic: What’s Good About Denominations? In this series I listed several benefits of denominations, including:
• Denominations establish hospitals and schools.
• Denominations plant churches.
• Denominations provide accountability for churches and church leaders.
• Denominations provide guidance for congregational worship.
Since I wrote this series, I experienced some of the rich benefits of being part of denomination. It came as I was considering a new call to Laity Lodge, and then as I made my transition from being Senior Pastor of Irvine Presbyterian Church to Senior Director of Laity Lodge. The benefits to which I’m referring came in the form of personal wisdom and support from members of Los Ranchos Presbytery in Southern California. I was in a covenant group with several other pastors from this presbytery, and they were a great help to me as I wrestled with God’s will for my life. Moreover, Steve Yamaguchi, the Executive Presbyter of Los Ranchos helped me as I sought to discern God’s call, and then offered valuable wisdom as I finished up my tenure at Irvine Presbyterian. Steve helped me avoid many of the traps that snare pastors on their way out of a church, even as he helped me do many things to ensure that my leaving the church would be a positive experience both for me and for the church.
The fact that Irvine Presbyterian Church is part of a denomination has also helped that church thrive after my departure. The presbytery helped the church secure the services of an outstanding interim pastor. It has also encouraged the church in its extensive mission study, a precursor to calling a new pastor. The corporate wisdom offered by the presbytery can be a tremendous help to a church in transition. This sort of thing would not be as readily available to an independent church.
So, one of the things that’s good about denominations is that they help churches, or at least that should be the case. In my experience, sometimes denominations and denominational officials get it backwards. They see the work of the denomination as primary, with churches providing support for the denominational mission. To be sure, there are certain denominational efforts that are worthy of help from individual churches. But denominations and denominational bodies (presbyteries, synods, judicatories, assemblies, councils, etc.) exist primarily to help churches. Mostly, they exist to help churches do their mission more effectively and faithfully.
Los Ranchos Presbytery got this right. The presbytery saw its primary purpose as supporting churches in their mission. Everything else was secondary. Here are the Vision and Mission statements of the Presbytery:
Presbytery of Los Ranchos VISION Statement
Responding to a rapidly changing and complex cultural environment, the Presbytery will empower our congregations:
• To experience spiritual renewal,
• To grow in their passion for Jesus Christ,
• To become missional churches within their local communities, and
• To join in Christ’s mission throughout the world.
Presbytery of Los Ranchos MISSION Statement:
The Presbytery works in partnership with local congregations, the primary agents of ministry and evangelism, empowering them to fulfill the mission of Jesus Christ by:
• Encouraging congregations to make disciples who are sent,
• Nurturing reconciliation, communication, cooperation and connectionalism,
• Supporting congregations in development, revitalization and mission as together, we prayerfully receive empowerment from the Holy Spirit, instruction from the Scriptures and guidance from the Book of Confessions and the Book of Order.
Notice in the Vision Statement that the Presbytery “empowers” congregations. Congregational health and mission is the point. Similarly, in the Mission Statement, the presbytery “works in partnership with local congregations, the primary agents of ministry and evangelism, empower them to fulfill the mission of Jesus Christ.” There you have it. The churches are primary; the Presbytery is secondary. Its mission is to support the primary mission of the churches.
If the main value of a denomination is to support and encourage the mission of individual churches, then this gives us a way to evaluate a denomination’s job performance: Is the denomination actually helping its churches to do their mission better? How? Such things should be demonstrable, even measurable. Moreover, if a denomination exists primarily to undergird the mission of its churches, then this would allow individual churches to evaluate the usefulness of their denominational connection. Every denominational church might ask: Is our involvement in our denomination supporting and strengthening our mission? If I had been asked this question when I was Pastor of Irvine Presbyterian Church, my answer would have been: “Yes, through our partnership with our Presbytery.” What we received from our denomination as a whole, apart from our Book of Confessions and Book of Order, was rather minimal. But we were richly blessed to be part of Los Ranchos Presbytery.
Of course one might object that I haven’t really offered a rationale for denominations so much as for regional bodies of churches united in faith and mission. That’s true, to an extent. If the Presbytery of Los Ranchos were to separate from the PCUSA, the Presbytery would still be able to do its basic mission. Yet, the Presbytery draws wisdom and guidance from the larger denomination of which it is a part, especially through the creeds, confessions, and established church order. And there are some denominational missions that exceed the scope of a regional body (such as starting seminaries). Still, I sometimes wonder if national (or international) denominations will, before too long, be eclipsed by smaller, local bodies.
What does all of this mean for the PCUSA? I’ll offer a few thoughts in my next post in this series.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 12 Comments »
Vacation Fun at the Beach
By Mark D. Roberts | Thursday, August 21, 2008
I just got back from vacation. As is my tradition, I’ll put up some photos. In a day or two I’ll get back to more substantial blogging.
Our vacation began with a few days in the Sierra Nevada mountains of central California. I put up some photos from this part of our vacation a few days ago. Following our stay in the mountains, we headed for the beach, where we housesat for some friends for a week.
One of the highlights of our coastal stay was a boat trip with some other friends. My children enjoyed tubing behind the boat. In the photo to the right, my son gets some “big air” as he is tubing in choppy seas.
We did a bit of ocean fishing. Most of our catches were not quite large enough to take home and eat. The photo to the right shows a 24-inch barracuda. That sounds pretty big if you’re used to freshwater fishing. But a barracuda has to be at least 28 inches long, otherwise you’ve got to catch and release.
The photo below shows Dana Point harbor at sunset. What a restful spot!
Topics: Vacation | 2 Comments »
Recommending Another Outstanding Album
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Today I want to recommend another outstanding album. This one is for children (or children at heart), and it’s a real winner.
First, a little background. If you’re a Christian parent with children under 12, or if you work with children in a ministry, you know how hard it is to find great music for kids. There are plenty of fun songs out there, but often their theology is weak or even bad. And then there are lots of theologically-solid songs that are simply inappropriate for children. In my experience, it is not easy to find songs that kids will love and that help them to grow in authentic Christian faith.
When I was pastor of Irvine Presbyterian Church, I was blessed to have in my congregation a Christian singer known as Junko. She and her family were active in the church. In fact, for several years I worked closely with Junko as we led worship together. Her husband, David, was an elder in the church. Junko had produced several fine albums for adults. But she always had great interaction with children, who dearly loved her. For years I kept bugging Junko about writing music for kids because I thought she’d be great. Finally, Junko began writing Christian songs for children. The results were fantastic: great songs, singable, theologically-sound, loved by kids in our church, across the country, and beyond. Her first songs for children were collected for the CD Big and Small. At one point, my daughter helped Junko with hand motions for her performances . . . a big moment in Kara’s life (see photo)!
Now Junko has just released another CD for children: Special Forces Kids. This collection, like the first, is fun, energetic, and fully based on Scripture. Several of the songs from Special Forces Kids were written for Vacation Bible School at Irvine Presbyterian Church. They were “demoed” with 250 kids who absolutely loved them.
So, if you’re a parent looking for great Christian music for your children, you can’t do better than Junko’s recordings. And if you work with kids in church, you’ll find her CDs to be a rich resource. Junko’s target audience is children from 2-12, but her songs are loved by older kids and kids-at-heart as well.
You can purchase Special Forces Kids online, or download it from iTunes. Either way, you’ll be glad you did. For more info on Junko, or if you’re interested in having her do a concert for your church or organization, see her website.
Oh, by the way, if you think I’m hopelessly biased in recommending this album, I should mentioned that three of Junko’s songs were featured on a recent Kids Discovery CD. (Kids Discovery is a branch of Song Discovery, a ministry that features the finest in new contemporary Christian music for worship.) I am biased because Junko is a friend, but the excellence of her music stands on its own.
Topics: Recommendations | 2 Comments »
Sunday Inspiration from The High Calling
By Mark D. Roberts | Sunday, August 17, 2008
Who Is My Audience?
“Everything they do is for show. On their arms they wear extra wide prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside, and they wear robes with extra long tassels.”
Jewish men in the time of Jesus wore teffilin when they prayed: boxes that were attached to one’s left hand and forehead during daily prayers (see Deut. 6:4-9). They also attached tassels (zizith) to the edges of their robes in obedience to the Torah (Deut. 22:12 and Num. 15:38-41). Jesus was not criticizing the fact that the scribes (religious teachers) and Pharisees followed the law, but rather their intentions in doing so. They were making a show of their religion in order to impress others with their piety.
Though we don’t wear teffilin and zizith, we can easily be tempted to practice our faith for the sake of human approval. Indeed, we can turn the people around us into an audience for our “show.” But God looks upon our hearts. He knows if we’re living to please him or if we’re seeking applause from elsewhere. This passage from Matthew reminds us to live for God’s delight, rather than to get caught in the web of living for human approval.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: Have you ever done religious things for the sake of human approval? What are some of those things? What helps you to live with God as your primary audience?
PRAYER: Dear Lord, I’m struck today by how much I seek the approval of others. Not that it’s wrong to receive such affirmation. Indeed, your delight in me is often communicated through others. But there are times, too many to count, I’m afraid, when I am living more for the applause of people than for your applause. Forgive me, Lord, for getting the priorities of my heart so confused.
May I live for your delight today, and every day. May I seek your approval above all, whether I’m at work or at home. As I go through this day, I will make you my primary audience. I’m living for you today, Lord. Amen.
Daily Reflections from The High Calling.org
This devotional comes from The High Calling of Our Daily Work (www.thehighcalling.org). You can read my Daily Reflections there, or sign up to have them sent to your email inbox each day. This website contains lots of encouragement for people who are trying to live out their faith in the workplace.
Topics: Sunday Inspiration | 1 Comment »
Recommending an Outstanding Worship Album
By Mark D. Roberts | Wednesday, August 13, 2008
One of the many things I loved about Irvine Presbyterian Church was the diversity of our worship. Two of our Sunday morning services featured a wonderful choir with music in a more traditional vein, as well as more contemporary praise music. Our Sunday evening Evensong service included traditional anthems and selections from the Book of Common Prayer. Our Veritas worship service was led by an incredible worship band called Shine Like Stars. Though I’ve never been a big “rock and roll” guy, I deeply appreciated Shine Like Stars.
When we moved to Texas a year ago, one of my losses was being led in worship by “Shine Like Stars.” I missed their music and their heart. Now I can have a good bit of their music, and even their heart. And so can you. Shine Like Stars has recently released their first CD, See You There.
If you like energetic, high-quality rock music, then See You There will be right up your alley. But, if you’re like me, you’ll be especially drawn to the lyrics of this album. The songs were written by Dale Huntington, the acoustic guitarist and vocalist of Shine Like Stars. Dale, in addition to being a fine musician, is an excellent poet and budding theologian. He works very hard on his lyrics, making sure that his words are true and inspiring. Let me provide a few examples from See You There:
From “God of Rembrandt”
Now we’ve come to worship only You,
God, You’re whom we praise.
You’re creative, made the heavens,
The oceans and the waves.He is the one who made creation
Awesome is His name
Our God formed the world with pleasure
All so we might say:
That “We love you.
You made life beautifully.
Painted skies reveal your artistry.
The ocean song inspires our melody
We’ll reflect your art.
All the world will see.
So take our offering.”From “Bound to Be Holy”
Here, in the light of Your mercy, we offer You our all.
Here, we devote to You our bodies, a breathing sacrifice.
We devote to You our lives.
We are bound to be holy, as You are holy.
Let Your grace transform our hearts and our minds.
For we long to be holy, for You are holy.
Set apart and purified in You.From “Not Only in a Song”
Lord, we come before You broken servants in this place.
How could sinners just like us, one day see Your face?
And Lord we fail You every day and often does our faith,
Though when our sin abounds, so abounds Your grace.Help us, Lord, to worship You not only in a song
But how we live our lives, God of our Salvation
And help us Lord to worship You for You’re our sacrifice
The only Lamb of God, our Savior Jesus Christ.
These lyrics show the quality of theological integrity you’ll find throughout See You There.
You can purchase this album from several sources, including: iTunes (download), Amazon (download), and CD Baby (CD). I hope you do. Also, be sure to tell others, especially your church worship leader(s) about See You There.
Topics: Recommendations | 3 Comments »
A Fantastic Hike
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Though I’m still on vacation, I just returned to civilization from several days camping in the Sierra Nevada mountains of California. One of the highlights of this trip was a fantastic hike to Dinkey Lakes. It was the first time I’ve done this hike, which has entered my “top five all-time hikes” list. Others on this list include: The Narrows in Zion National Park, Utah; Angels’ Landing in Zion; Chocolate Lakes Loop out of Bishop, California; and Treasure Lakes in Little Lakes Valley, California.
The Dinkey Lakes hikes is almost a perfect short hike, easily done in a half day. It’s a seven-mile trip, two-thirds of which is a loop. Though you hike up from the trailhead to several lakes, the uphill climb is very gradual, especially for a High Sierra hike. This would be an outsanding introductory hike for folks who aren’t sure they want to brave the challenges of high mountain trails.
You might expect such a wonderful hike to be awash in people. It’s not. In fact, we saw relatively few people along the trail, and those we ran into were quite friendly. But there’s a good reason the Dinkey Lakes trail is uncrowded: the drive to the trailhead. You don’t get to start this hike without a major investment in wear and tear on your car . . . and your body. First of all, you have to drive from Fresno, California (in the San Joaquin Valley) to Shaver Lake, an hour-long drive, the last stretch of which is very curvy. From Shaver Lake, you drive for about 9 miles on a two-lane mountain road until you get to a sign that points in the direction of Dinkey Lakes. From the sign, you have 9 miles of a paved, single-lane road with hundreds of hungry potholes. Then you take a side road for 4.7 miles of a very rocky, bumpy, mostly unpaved surface. Finally you’ve got 2 more miles on a narrow, steep, tortuous dirt road. You can make this drive in a passenger vehicle (if it doesn’t have low clearance), but it’s one of the toughest drives I’ve ever made. The good news about this drive is that it protects Dinkey Lakes from the littering crowd who ruin so many Sierra trailheads. You don’t drive to this trailhead unless you really love nature!
The first section of the hike wanders along a creek through pine forests and verdant meadows. Though we hiked after the main flower season, there were still lots of wildflowers decorating our path. The trail works its way uphill along the creek, but the grade is easy and the path free of rocks and horse manure.
We took the left trail at the first fork, about a mile and a half in. Before long we came to First Dinkey Lake, a pristine lake from which there were stunning views of the Three Sisters peaks. (Photo below: An inlet of First Dinkey Lake with the Three Sisters in the background.)
After a brief rest at First Dinkey, we made our way along the shore until another trail junction. Taking the right fork, we made our way to South Lake, where we paused for lunch. It doesn’t get much better than sitting beside a High Sierra lake, enjoying the view and a Cliff Bar for lunch.
After lunch, we headed to the next lake. Swede Lake was the high point of our journey at 9224 feet, or about 700 feet above our starting point. At Swede Lake my son and nephew decided it was time for a swim. They said the water a surprisingly warm for a Sierra lake. Sometimes the high ones can be well under 50 degrees. But Swede Lake, no longer snow fed, had plenty of time to absorb the High Sierra sun. My guess is that it was at least 67 degrees. (My son has been known to swim in lakes that are virtually frozen. I don’t know how he does it! Photo below: jumping into Swede Lake.)
From Swede Lake we made our way to Mystery Lake, which wasn’t especially mysterious. There we found some campers from Orange County, where we used to live. They explained that they camped there every year. I can see why!
The hike from Mystery Lake back to the trailhead, about two and a half miles, was delightful . . . a gentle, downhill run through forests and meadows illumined by the late afternoon sun. Sigh!
The Dinkey Lakes hike is a winner, even if getting there takes a toll on your car. It’s an especially fine hike for people who want to enjoy High Sierra beauty without taking on a Herculean hike. I recommend it highly.
Topics: Recommendations | 4 Comments »