We hear a lot today from the media or from the pulpits about the so-called war on traditional families and the destruction of traditional family values. This is usually associated with the undefined political liberals and the ongoing issue of gay marriage, or the equally undefined “homosexual agenda.” What we do not hear so much, or at least I don’t, is, what exactly are family values, traditional or otherwise? For that matter, how do we, as a culture or society, accurately define “family”? If you’re like me, you grew up in a traditional family setting. We had two parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and so on. There were annual family reunions (one for each of my parents) where we met with distant relatives that we only saw once a year or less, but what about those who were not so lucky, by my standards at least, to have had the blessing of growing up in such a traditional fashion? In other words, what standard or model do we use to define what family is?
I had friends that came from severely broken homes. Divorced parents, siblings split between parents, custody given to a grandparent or distant relative, etc. Would these people be willing to admit that they did not have a family, or would they just define it differently than I did? There are also people without the benefit of blood relations that would have quite a different definition of family too. For them, it may be a close network of friends. I, for one, have a friend of many years that I consider as much family as I do my own siblings. Many of our elderly live in retirement or assisted living facilities where family is defined as those with whom they live with and rely on daily.
Still, many hold fast to the idea that the ideal family is constructed of two adults of different sexes that have one or more children between them. Does that mean that couples who are unable, or choose not, to have children are not families? How about couples who are living together without the legality of marriage, either with or without children? Is marriage required to define family? As we can see, the definition of family, traditional or otherwise, is as varied as there are individuals who define it. Likewise, “tradition” is equally hard to pin down. Therefore, I would conclude that “family” cannot be defined by its physical construction since it is built differently for each of us, and yet still remains “family” for each of us.
So, what is the unifying thread that runs through families that causes us to call them that? Is it family values? Again, I find “family values” equally hard to apply to “family.” How do we define something as intangible and subjective as a value? While we value our family members, they are not, in of themselves, a value. Maybe value is not the right word. May we, perhaps, use the term “quality” instead? Now we have something we can work with. What qualities do our families possess that we place value on? I would suggest things like; mutual love and respect, acceptance (in spite of differences), or comfort, as in offering a safe place to be, be from, or return to. They likewise offer us a place to turn to for acceptance, sympathy, empathy, and affirmation. This is not to say that all families are of like mind or are in total agreement. We all know that’s not true, but we also know that the differences do not outweigh the qualities that we deem so valuable.
I believe, now, we can safely say that both “family” and “family values” can be defined in such a way as to apply those definitions in a universal fashion. We can define family as two or more people who are in agreement on the fact that every member of the group is considered a member of their family. Family values, then, are the aforementioned qualities that the individual groups possess that the members value.
Which brings me back to my original question, what is it about gay marriage or the homosexual relationship that is claimed by so many to devalue or break down family values? Perhaps it is the inclusion of the word “traditional” that causes the problem. This is an obvious argument fallacy since traditions vary and cannot be applied universally. It is my belief that when people say “traditional” they really mean “Christian” family values, which is to say that only Christians are capable of possessing qualities such as love, respect, acceptance, and so on. This is a false assumption. These qualities can be found in families of all faiths as well as in families of no faith at all.
For the sake of argument, let us turn to the Bible and see what, if anything, Jesus had to say on the subject of family. We know that Jesus was raised by two parents and that he had siblings. However, Joseph was not his biological father and his siblings were only half siblings, so there goes any notion that traditional Christian families must have complete biological connections. Likewise, Jesus was (probably) not married and (also probably) had no children, which throws the notion that marriage and children are necessary in a traditional Christian family right out the window. There is, however, one passage of scripture where Jesus does address the concept of family. It can be found in Mark’s gospel (how convenient for me), chapter 3, and verses 31-35. When Jesus’ mother and brothers come to get him from the crowds, Jesus was told that they were looking for him. His reply was this, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking at those who were sitting around him in a circle, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.”
So, for those who wish to apply Christianity to family and family values, it might do you well to first understand what Christianity has to say about it.
As always, your comments are welcome and encouraged.
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
The Legend of Philip and the Eunuch: A Sermon
Originally written as an assignment for Campbell. It received such high praise from the professor I thought I’d share.
Acts 8:4-8; 26-40 (NRSV)
I would like to look at our scripture reading today as a story. As in all stories, there is first and foremost a teller of the story followed by a number of characters of greater or lesser parts. There is a setting, or stage, where the story takes place and at least some description of the surrounding area, or props if you will. Finally, there is the purpose of the story; that is, what point our storyteller is trying to get across to us.
Let’s start with our cast of characters. Our main character is Philip, and he is the only one actually named in the story. Philip is a disciple of Jesus of which we know little of. He is not one of the three favorites (Peter, James and John) nor did he have a gospel named after him (Matthew and John). We first meet him in the John’s gospel when Jesus finds Philip in Galilee and asks Philip to follow him. We are told that he was from Bethsaida, the city where Peter and Andrew were from and we are also told that Philip found Nathanael and told him that the Messiah had been found in the person of Jesus. John also makes it clear that Philip did not hesitate to follow Jesus, unlike his friend Nathanael.
Philip next appears with Jesus and disciples prior to the feeding of the 5000. Jesus asks Philip about buying bread for the crowd and Philip answers him that there is no way they had enough money to buy bread for a crowd that size. Next, Philip appears in John’s gospel after Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem when two Greeks approach him to ask to see Jesus. Philip then gets his friend Andrew and together they ask Jesus for these men to speak to him. As we can see, Philip does not play much of a talked about role during the ministry of Jesus and we don’t see him again until this passage from Acts.
Our next character in our story today is an unnamed eunuch on his way home from Jerusalem. We are told a few things about this man. First, he is a Jew. We know this because we are told that he has been to the temple in Jerusalem to worship and he is reading a scroll of Isaiah. Apparently this man was of high standing for we also know that he was in charge of the entire treasury of Queen Candace of Ethiopia, which would have made him also very trustworthy. What else can we discern about this man? I would venture to guess that he was humble. He is approached by a stranger, Philip, admits that he doesn’t fully understand what he is reading, and then invites this stranger into his chariot with an open and questioning mind to hear what Philip has to say.
Minor characters in our story include an unnamed angel, the Holy Spirit, and a crowd of Samaritans whom we are told listened to Philip with one accord. There is, however, one more very important character here. Any professor of literature will tell you that the narrator of any story is also a character in the story. In this case we have the writer of both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts (originally written as one document) whom we will call Luke out of convenience even though we do not know for sure who actually wrote it. Luke is the most important person in the story because he is the one that reveals to us exactly what he wants us to see and hear. He knows ahead of time what is going to be said by the other characters and how they will respond. Our story teller is not recording history here, he is giving instruction. He is an evangelist with an agenda.
So, you may be asking yourselves why I say that this is story, not history. Do I believe that this did not actually happen and that Luke just made it up? Not necessarily. But, I do believe that Luke embellished the story for his own purposes. Let me explain what I mean. First, and most importantly, our two main characters, Philip and the eunuch, are behaving very out of character as we might expect knowing what we know about them already. Based on prior knowledge about Philip, we might conclude that he was not a very assertive individual. He follows Jesus without question, unlike his friend Nathanael. He has little to no faith in Jesus’ ability to feed the masses in spite of having seen miracle after miracle performed by Jesus. And, he is apparently too timid to approach Jesus with the request of the Greeks without first getting support from Andrew. Does this sound like the same man who could preach to great crowds in Samaria of all places? Does this sound like someone that would approach a high official of the queen in his chariot?
Likewise so is our eunuch. Here is a man of high social standing, probably educated, with servants at his command. Are we to believe that he would allow a stranger of lower rank to get that close to his chariot, much less invite him in, not to mention asking him to baptize him? No, in my mind all of these things sound very unlikely. But that is not the point. Perhaps something similar did occur, but that in retelling it exactly the way it happened served no purpose or was so boring that no one would bother reading it twice, much less remember it and reflect on it later. Enter the story teller. Now we have an event worth noting.
For many of us, at least for myself, when we read a story, be it fiction, history, the Bible, or any other work that includes characters, we are invited by the author to put ourselves into the minds and places of the characters we are reading about. If a character is thinking something, we are told what they are thinking. If they are feeling something, again the author tells us what that feeling is so that we can share in it with them. This is what good story telling is about. And, often times, if the author is very good, we learn a little something about ourselves by experiencing others, even if for a short moment.
So, with that in mine, let us immerse ourselves into the story and live out the plot from “within” the characters minds. Let us imagine that it is we ourselves reciting the lines, viewing the scenery, acting according to the script. How well can we relate to what is being said and done? Are we like Philip? Are we usually pretty timid when it comes to our faith in Jesus; following the same routine without question, not asking hard questions, reading about miracles without actually believing that those kinds of things actually happen anymore, just in Bible stories, never really approaching Jesus on our own without first relying on someone else to go with us? Do we believe in angels? Do we listen to the direction of the Holy Spirit? Do we step out of our comfort zone or social class to tell someone the good news about Jesus? How does it make us feel when we read about that person (ourselves) in this story turning into the great hero Christian? Through the story we get to feel what it is like to take action and fulfill our duty as missionaries for Christ. We get to teach the scripture, win a new soul for Christ, and be protected by the Spirit. Feels good, doesn’t it?
Are we like the eunuch? Are we successful and educated, secure in our position within society? Do we wear a badge of importance and hold a high income job? Do we show our faith in the same way, going to church in a big fancy car with an entourage of underlings? Do we avoid associating with those of lower class than ourselves for fear of how we would be viewed by our peers? Do we read the Bible and claim to understand it when in fact we are just too proud to admit we don’t? Perhaps we have never let Jesus in our lives because we never allowed anyone to get close enough to us to share him with us. How does it feel now from this perspective to read about this hero eunuch? Here’s a man we can relate to that allowed himself to be open to a stranger of lower class without fear of social rejection. Here is a man that is willing to admit that he doesn’t know everything in spite of his position and education. Here is a man that could humble himself to step out of his comfort zone and admit that he needs Jesus and be baptized. Feels good, doesn’t it?
We need story tellers like Luke. We need people to give us a glimpse of how things could be if we just let it happen. Is the story true or fiction; historically accurate or highly embellished? I don’t know and I don’t think it matters. I think what does matter is that it serves the purpose of the evangelist well and gives us a chance to give pause and reflect on our own lives. No matter how we view our real-world lives, either boring and unremarkable or important but lacking, perhaps this little story should give us hope; hope that with the help of the Holy Spirit we too can be heroes for Christ and tell others our story.
Amen
Acts 8:4-8; 26-40 (NRSV)
I would like to look at our scripture reading today as a story. As in all stories, there is first and foremost a teller of the story followed by a number of characters of greater or lesser parts. There is a setting, or stage, where the story takes place and at least some description of the surrounding area, or props if you will. Finally, there is the purpose of the story; that is, what point our storyteller is trying to get across to us.
Let’s start with our cast of characters. Our main character is Philip, and he is the only one actually named in the story. Philip is a disciple of Jesus of which we know little of. He is not one of the three favorites (Peter, James and John) nor did he have a gospel named after him (Matthew and John). We first meet him in the John’s gospel when Jesus finds Philip in Galilee and asks Philip to follow him. We are told that he was from Bethsaida, the city where Peter and Andrew were from and we are also told that Philip found Nathanael and told him that the Messiah had been found in the person of Jesus. John also makes it clear that Philip did not hesitate to follow Jesus, unlike his friend Nathanael.
Philip next appears with Jesus and disciples prior to the feeding of the 5000. Jesus asks Philip about buying bread for the crowd and Philip answers him that there is no way they had enough money to buy bread for a crowd that size. Next, Philip appears in John’s gospel after Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem when two Greeks approach him to ask to see Jesus. Philip then gets his friend Andrew and together they ask Jesus for these men to speak to him. As we can see, Philip does not play much of a talked about role during the ministry of Jesus and we don’t see him again until this passage from Acts.
Our next character in our story today is an unnamed eunuch on his way home from Jerusalem. We are told a few things about this man. First, he is a Jew. We know this because we are told that he has been to the temple in Jerusalem to worship and he is reading a scroll of Isaiah. Apparently this man was of high standing for we also know that he was in charge of the entire treasury of Queen Candace of Ethiopia, which would have made him also very trustworthy. What else can we discern about this man? I would venture to guess that he was humble. He is approached by a stranger, Philip, admits that he doesn’t fully understand what he is reading, and then invites this stranger into his chariot with an open and questioning mind to hear what Philip has to say.
Minor characters in our story include an unnamed angel, the Holy Spirit, and a crowd of Samaritans whom we are told listened to Philip with one accord. There is, however, one more very important character here. Any professor of literature will tell you that the narrator of any story is also a character in the story. In this case we have the writer of both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts (originally written as one document) whom we will call Luke out of convenience even though we do not know for sure who actually wrote it. Luke is the most important person in the story because he is the one that reveals to us exactly what he wants us to see and hear. He knows ahead of time what is going to be said by the other characters and how they will respond. Our story teller is not recording history here, he is giving instruction. He is an evangelist with an agenda.
So, you may be asking yourselves why I say that this is story, not history. Do I believe that this did not actually happen and that Luke just made it up? Not necessarily. But, I do believe that Luke embellished the story for his own purposes. Let me explain what I mean. First, and most importantly, our two main characters, Philip and the eunuch, are behaving very out of character as we might expect knowing what we know about them already. Based on prior knowledge about Philip, we might conclude that he was not a very assertive individual. He follows Jesus without question, unlike his friend Nathanael. He has little to no faith in Jesus’ ability to feed the masses in spite of having seen miracle after miracle performed by Jesus. And, he is apparently too timid to approach Jesus with the request of the Greeks without first getting support from Andrew. Does this sound like the same man who could preach to great crowds in Samaria of all places? Does this sound like someone that would approach a high official of the queen in his chariot?
Likewise so is our eunuch. Here is a man of high social standing, probably educated, with servants at his command. Are we to believe that he would allow a stranger of lower rank to get that close to his chariot, much less invite him in, not to mention asking him to baptize him? No, in my mind all of these things sound very unlikely. But that is not the point. Perhaps something similar did occur, but that in retelling it exactly the way it happened served no purpose or was so boring that no one would bother reading it twice, much less remember it and reflect on it later. Enter the story teller. Now we have an event worth noting.
For many of us, at least for myself, when we read a story, be it fiction, history, the Bible, or any other work that includes characters, we are invited by the author to put ourselves into the minds and places of the characters we are reading about. If a character is thinking something, we are told what they are thinking. If they are feeling something, again the author tells us what that feeling is so that we can share in it with them. This is what good story telling is about. And, often times, if the author is very good, we learn a little something about ourselves by experiencing others, even if for a short moment.
So, with that in mine, let us immerse ourselves into the story and live out the plot from “within” the characters minds. Let us imagine that it is we ourselves reciting the lines, viewing the scenery, acting according to the script. How well can we relate to what is being said and done? Are we like Philip? Are we usually pretty timid when it comes to our faith in Jesus; following the same routine without question, not asking hard questions, reading about miracles without actually believing that those kinds of things actually happen anymore, just in Bible stories, never really approaching Jesus on our own without first relying on someone else to go with us? Do we believe in angels? Do we listen to the direction of the Holy Spirit? Do we step out of our comfort zone or social class to tell someone the good news about Jesus? How does it make us feel when we read about that person (ourselves) in this story turning into the great hero Christian? Through the story we get to feel what it is like to take action and fulfill our duty as missionaries for Christ. We get to teach the scripture, win a new soul for Christ, and be protected by the Spirit. Feels good, doesn’t it?
Are we like the eunuch? Are we successful and educated, secure in our position within society? Do we wear a badge of importance and hold a high income job? Do we show our faith in the same way, going to church in a big fancy car with an entourage of underlings? Do we avoid associating with those of lower class than ourselves for fear of how we would be viewed by our peers? Do we read the Bible and claim to understand it when in fact we are just too proud to admit we don’t? Perhaps we have never let Jesus in our lives because we never allowed anyone to get close enough to us to share him with us. How does it feel now from this perspective to read about this hero eunuch? Here’s a man we can relate to that allowed himself to be open to a stranger of lower class without fear of social rejection. Here is a man that is willing to admit that he doesn’t know everything in spite of his position and education. Here is a man that could humble himself to step out of his comfort zone and admit that he needs Jesus and be baptized. Feels good, doesn’t it?
We need story tellers like Luke. We need people to give us a glimpse of how things could be if we just let it happen. Is the story true or fiction; historically accurate or highly embellished? I don’t know and I don’t think it matters. I think what does matter is that it serves the purpose of the evangelist well and gives us a chance to give pause and reflect on our own lives. No matter how we view our real-world lives, either boring and unremarkable or important but lacking, perhaps this little story should give us hope; hope that with the help of the Holy Spirit we too can be heroes for Christ and tell others our story.
Amen
Friday, February 24, 2012
My newest project
Well, it’s been awhile. Years in fact since I began my academic journey (and no foreseeable end in sight I might add). My original goal of obtaining a four year degree so that I could qualify to work for the church was all I had expected to achieve. What I hadn’t counted on was an unshakable addiction to knowledge and the learning process. I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes from the movie, Oh Brother Where Art Thou which I will paraphrase here by saying that my degree in religious studies has only aroused my appetite without properly bedding it down. My first semester in divinity school likewise did little to satisfy me and much to increase my addiction.
I now find myself in the very uncomfortable position of having to take off from formal studies while I take care of my Aspersers son. Here I sit with all the training and tools to pursue and further my career in biblical studies and not a classroom or professor to guide me. So, I have decided to self-study and in the process (hopefully) I can improve my knowledge and perhaps help others with similar addictions. I have begun to write a book. Oh, not just any book, but a reference book. (Non-academics would call it dry and boring, serious egghead scholars would call it mind candy).
My wife told me I should pick a narrow subject and make it an assignment. As an advocate for the underdogs in life and the overlooked and underwhelmed members of society, I began to look at some of the lesser known figures in the scriptures where I finally landed on a fascinating creature that is rarely discussed; woman. Therefore, I am currently compiling a list of all the women in the Bible and will hopefully soon be making it available to the public in book form.
I would appreciate and encourage any thoughts or input any of you may have on the subject. What would you like to know? What kind of reference would be helpful to you? Which women in the Bible are your favorites or would like to know more about? Feedback on these or any other thoughts are welcome and helpful.
During this process I will be blogging on my progress and on some of the more interesting women I run across in my research. Please visit often and leave you comments.
I now find myself in the very uncomfortable position of having to take off from formal studies while I take care of my Aspersers son. Here I sit with all the training and tools to pursue and further my career in biblical studies and not a classroom or professor to guide me. So, I have decided to self-study and in the process (hopefully) I can improve my knowledge and perhaps help others with similar addictions. I have begun to write a book. Oh, not just any book, but a reference book. (Non-academics would call it dry and boring, serious egghead scholars would call it mind candy).
My wife told me I should pick a narrow subject and make it an assignment. As an advocate for the underdogs in life and the overlooked and underwhelmed members of society, I began to look at some of the lesser known figures in the scriptures where I finally landed on a fascinating creature that is rarely discussed; woman. Therefore, I am currently compiling a list of all the women in the Bible and will hopefully soon be making it available to the public in book form.
I would appreciate and encourage any thoughts or input any of you may have on the subject. What would you like to know? What kind of reference would be helpful to you? Which women in the Bible are your favorites or would like to know more about? Feedback on these or any other thoughts are welcome and helpful.
During this process I will be blogging on my progress and on some of the more interesting women I run across in my research. Please visit often and leave you comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)