Merry Happy Christmas Holiday

It's that time of year.  The time when everyone gets a little kinder, when people seem to be a bit friendlier and when all the world falls in love.  It is that wonderful time of year when people begin protesting the phrase "Happy Holidays."

I am not sure when it was exactly that "Happy Holidays" fell on such hard times.  I remember, with some nostalgia, Perry Como crooning "may the merry bells keep ringing, happy holidays to you..." from somewhere back in the '50's.  It seemed to have been okay then.  Why is it suddenly such a bad thing?  Is it because we believed some talking head who told us that it was anti-Christian?  Is it because we truly believe there is a war on Christmas in this country?  Are we somehow trying to "keep Christ in Christmas" by saying only "Merry Christmas" and not "Happy Holidays?"

As a historian, and as a church historian, allow me to correct our perceptions, if I may.  The phrase "Happy Holidays"is actually rooted in Christian tradition, and is, in fact, in its origin, Christian.  That's right.  It began as a Christian tradition and cannot be divorced from Christian faith simply because we do not remember its origins.  In the early church, when Christmas was still celebrated for twelve days (yes, the song is historical in its origins as well - so, too, is Santa Claus, whose beginning is like wise Christian, but that's another blog), the greeting of Merry Christmas was only used up until the actual arrival of Christmas.

For the next twelve days, from Christmas day up to Epiphany, which is still celebrated in many churches, and which marked the end of the holy tide of Christmas, a different wish and greeting was extended.  During that season the greeting and wish was for Happy Holy Days.  Holy Days was eventually contracted into the more modern form, holiday, or holidays.  The wish was extended that one might have a happy season of holy day celebrations, or that they might have blessed holy days.

Writing in his blog, Lew Rockwell says, "Holiday is not only a religious word; it is a Christian word. Its derivation is from the Old English through the Middle English. Holy might somewhat predate Christian England from the Angles and Saxons, but in its persistence down through Middle English holy very much has brought down its Christian associations, both Roman Catholic, then Church of England. The reader doesn't have to believe, just acknowledge."

Eventually the phrasing crossed from Middle English into more modern vernacular and we end up with the modern greeting "Happy Holidays." This greeting, by the way, can be documented in common usage during the holiday season in the U.S. in newspapers and magazines going back about a hundred years.  It is by no means new and by no means secular.  One cannot, in fact, deny its roots in Christianity even if one intends it to be a less religious greeting.  By definition and derivation, holy days, cannot become secular simply by contracting the word.

And finally, I would suggest that if we want to keep Christ in Christmas, it is not the greeting that does it, but rather our participation in church and our own faithfulness to the Lord.  We cannot influence anyone else to be religious, except by our own participation and through our own example.  So whether the store clerk wishes you "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" know that both are a nod to the Christian origins of this most blessed of holy days and take comfort in your own faith practices as the example to others of God's love in Christ that we celebrate at Christmas.

Merry Christmas, and Happy Holidays!

Where does God go when we turn out the lights?

"We seldom, if ever, allow the Holy Spirit to interrupt our plans and lead us to worship so that we might see Jesus." Max Lucado in When Christ Comes

A friend shared a thought with me the other day. He suggested that the mark of a deepening spirituality was allowing things to happen instead of making them happen. I think this is an excellent understanding for us to embrace as the people of Christ. Too often we are intent on a purpose defined and goal driven life. Even in our faith, we live with a goal: get to heaven. Now I am not saying that it is wrong to desire a place in heaven. I am not suggesting that it is somehow inappropriate to set goals or to work with purpose. It is not. But if we truly embrace the grace filled love of God that we claim as followers of Jesus, then do we need to pursue heaven? Is it not freely given as part of the grace we receive upon our confession of faith in Jesus?

Goal oriented, purpose driven faith is counter productive to a deeper spirituality. "Wait a minute, Pastor Al, what about books like Purpose Driven Ministry and Purpose Driven Life?" I believe these have value to us as we shape the way we live, and I am not suggesting that either goals or purpose are bad. Rather, I suggest that there must also be a time and place when those are set aside to further our spiritual growth - a place and time where we allow things to happen instead of striving to be in charge and to create events. If we go full throttle all the time, with our eyes fixed on the goal, then what do we do when the Spirit interrupts our plans and our purposeful path? Do we allow the Spirit to distract us so that we might encounter God in a real way, or do we begrudge the distraction from our own goals.

Do we stop and interact with the God who has overtaken us, or do we relegate his Spirit to some attic corner of our spiritual house in order to stay focused on our own goals, desires, and purposes?

As you read the gospel writers' accounts of Jesus it is difficult not to notice that Jesus goes away by himself from time to time. He goes to the quiet places to pray, we are told. And while none of these writers actually say it, it is not difficult to infer that the quiet places are where God overtakes him, where God speaks into the depths of his Spirit.

We have all heard the old saying, "Stop and smell the roses" or Lennon's admonition that "Life is what happens when you are busy making other plans." We learn from a very young age to set goals and fix priorities and to focus on achieving our goals. This is defined as success. But do we understand that faith suggests that we must also take time to stop and to find the secret, quiet place so that we allow God to overtake us?

Our modern fast paced world makes it easy to put on spiritual blinders so that we can stay focused on our own goals, objectives, and plans. Lucado's statement should haunt us. Do we allow the Holy Spirit to interrupt our plans and lead us to worship, at home, at school, at work, at the stop light on Main Street or waiting in the checkout lane at the big box store, so that we might see Jesus? Do we find a quiet place where God can overtake us and the Spirit can speak to us?

One of my daughters once asked, as I was turning out the lights to the sanctuary after the Sunday service, "Where does God go when we turn out the lights?" I think the question is a good one for us to reflect on. Does God go to sleep in the darkened sanctuary until the next worship session, or does God go with us into our lives? Do we relegate him to the dark corners until next week, or do we allow him to tap us on the shoulder from time to time so that we might truly worship God with our hearts and our lives?

I pray that we will allow God to overtake us and the Spirit to distract us as we strive to live our lives each day. I pray that when we turn out the lights in the sanctuary on Sunday morning that the Lord will accompany us into the world so that we let Jesus lead us to worship in a variety of ways, every day.

Interpretation: Jacob-wrestling God

When I was doing my undergrad work, I had a fellow student in one of my religion classes who was a purported Biblical literalist (purported because, in my opinion, no one truly reads the Bible literally, we pick and choose what texts we want to use literally and which we don't - but that's a topic for another day). He struggled through much of the semester because the instructor was not a literalist. Additionally, he struggled with the fact that she was female and an ordained minister (see 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for his dilemma). I began a discussion with him, that was extracurricular to class, regarding the role of women and the probable interpretive influences on some of the language, as we looked specifically at Romans 16:1 where Phoebe is declared to be a 'diakonon' (in Greek) in the church. The KJV (and the NIV still) translates this as servant or slave, where in other places when used for males it is translated "minister." Now the word is, at times, translated servant or servants, but when used as an adjective for a man, it is translated minister. So why, when used as an adjective for a woman, is it translated "servant"? My point for him, was that this was an interpretive choice. Someone chose how to interpret this word "diakonon" which has multiple interpretations into English, including, yes, servant, but also deacon, minister, and administrator. Why is Phoebe a servant, while Paul and Apollos in 1 Corinthians are ministers when described with the same word? It is an interpretive overlay based on the bias of the interpreters.

In his recent blog, my e-friend Christian Piatt, writes about the blow back being created by the new bible translation called "The Voice" because the interpreters have chosen not to use the word, 'Christ' but instead to translate the Greek word as "the Anointed One" - a perfectly acceptable interpretation of the Greek text. This is an interpretive choice made by the person or persons who are creating the translation; the word in Greek, Christos, can be interpreted as Christ or Messiah, or as Anointed One.

Several years ago, the newest translation receiving attention was "The Message." It was from Eugene Peterson, a minister for many years, as well as a linguist and a seminary instructor. I am a big fan of Peterson's books, of which there are many, and I am constantly impressed by the depth of his faith, the strength of the Spirit's Presence in his life and writing, and by his ability to tease out the meaning and context of so much of the original biblical texts. One of the criticisms from some, as I recall, was his use of the phrase, "Jacob-wrestling God." It is a phrase the speaks to me and it is a reference to Genesis 32 where Jacob wrestles with a "man" who turns out to be the angel of the Lord. Jacob actually wrestles a blessing from the Lord and because he does he receives a new name: "Israel - one who strives with God." So while the term is not one that we see in most mainstream translations there is something to the idea that the God of Israel is Jacob-wrestling God. Additionally it speaks to me in the metaphorical sense that we, too, at times wrestle with God. It is an interpretive overlay that is a choice made by the translator(s).

I remind people in Bible studies and in sermons on a regular basis that we are reading translations and therefore interpretations. The translators made choices and often the choices grew from their own biases. This is not a bad thing, but is simply the way it is. Marcus Borg suggests in the book he co-authored with N.T. Wright, "The Meaning of Jesus," that all of us have a lens that we look through. We cannot remove the lens, we simply need to recognize it is there. Piatt suggests in his blog that the King James Bible translators "had a specific human agenda" and that is true. It does not make the translation invalid, but we need to recognize that it exists. I agree with Piatt's conclusion that even if we read it in the original texts (assuming the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic are the original texts - many scholars suggest that Matthew, Mark, and Luke used a common source that they dub "Q" - indicating the possibility that there are texts we do not have), we would still be interpreters, by virtue of the fact that we speak English (mostly) and have been raised in a culture that is completely foreign to what their cultures were like.

I again quote Piatt's conclusive thoughts, that for "some, these agendas folks brought (and bring)...are problematic and should be eliminated.... For me, the agendas are, in many ways as important as the word's on the page." I agree. We need, like Jacob, to wrestle with the Divine presence. We need to reject the notion that every answer has already been revealed and laid out in perfect order. The value of the journey lies in the journey and not in the arrival at the destination. Like Jacob, I believe that we receive the blessing when we have to wrestle with God - when we have to wrestle with the text and not just accept a literal reading of an interpreted text.

When we wrestle with the text, we also wrestle with our own agendas that we bring to the text as well. Like Borg, I believe that all of us have a lens we look through and it is important to understand what that lens is - not to simply deny its existence. When we read other translations and interpretations, it can give us opportunity not just to wrestle with God, but to wrestle with our preconceived notions of the text, of God, and of what we understand ourselves to be as followers of the Way. It is my belief that God is big enough to endure our questions, to withstand our challenges, and to wrestle with us as we strive to find our place in the world and in the body of Christ and to understand our relationships to one another and to the Divine.

Like Israel, we should welcome a Jacob -wrestling God and wrestle as well.

The Beat of Hope

The death of Davy Jones of the Monkees had a much greater impact on me than Whitney Houston's death, or some of the other losses to the music industry in the last year or two. Perhaps, as I told one friend on Facebook, that is because my age is showing. Certainly that 60's pop sound is what I grew up with, and it has helped shape who I am. The Monkees, the Beatles, the Stones, the Animals, and many others. They sang love songs, yes, but they also sang of social ills and addressed issues that needed to be changed. It could be very dark music, but it also could be light-hearted and even when offering a social critique, it could be upbeat.

Since Jones' death, I have found myself revisiting much of this music that speaks nostalgically of my youth and my formative years. I have dusted off old CD's, LP's (vinyl records for those who do not know the term) and found myself hitting old presets on my radio to visit stations I haven't been to in a while (yes, they call them 'oldies' stations).

And while we were very aware of racism, the Red Scare, nuclear threats, Viet Nam, drugs, and other issues, there is still something to this music that is uplifting. I believe it is hopeful. It speaks of the fact that we can overcome our problems, we can learn to love one another, we can build a better world. It encourages us to dream of what is possible, even when it seems to be patently impossible. It was the rhythm of change and it was set to the beat of hope. It challenged us to dream about possibilities and called on us to envision a better world and a new tomorrow that we could create if we could only all get together. It didn't deny the problems, but in naming the issues, it often suggested that there was hope. I admit that I don't listen to a lot of contemporary music and perhaps it does this as well. But as I look at the landscape of contemporary culture and modern politics, I am not so certain that the message of hope is still present. In fact one political person asked the President in a speech some time ago about how the hopey changey thing was working out.

I was disturbed by that remark. It almost suggested that hope is somehow not part of the process. Unfortunately, in the modern political process that might be true. I listen to the political hopefuls and the incumbents suggest all the things that are wrong and then add all the things that the other party is not doing to fix them. We get a laundry list of the problems and the ills, we get a recounting of the broken promises and broken issues, but I am not hearing positive solutions - I am not hearing hope.

There is a growing presence on the internet that promotes fear - fear of the President, of his politics, his ideology, and of his faith beliefs, and fear of the liberals who align themselves with him. There is fear of the conservatives, of their ideologies, policies and faith beliefs. But where is the hope?

As Christians we are called to be a people of hope. Does that mean we bury our heads in the sand and ignore what's wrong? No, but it does mean we are called to work for hope in a world lost in hopelessness, to work for peace in a world filled with war and violence, and to work for wholeness in a world that is broken by racism, poverty, ignorance, and oppression. We cannot do this by spreading fear and hopelessness. We must recognize that these things are the antithesis of God (reference 1 John 4:18ff). We are called to be agents of love and hope in the name of Jesus Christ.

I continue to be drawn to the music of my youth, not because it avoided the difficult challenges and problems (and today's music may confront them as well), but because even as it identified the issues, it sought to be hopeful. I would welcome a political process that avoided fear and hopelessness and offered ways to embrace positive and hopeful change. I would welcome a political process that stopped drawing lines and picking sides and sought compromises that would promote social change and economic growth and unity. I would welcome a politician who stood up and said, "I don't agree with _________'s agenda, but I see promises of hope in it" instead of one who denigrated the very idea that we can hope, or who opted for repressive social policies that solve economic problems but belittle people.

And I would welcome my brothers and sisters in Christ who would put aside their party loyalties and ideologies long enough to quit spreading fear and embrace our calling to be a people of "faith, hope, and love." No, we don't need to ignore our problems, racism, economic struggles, pollution, greed, violence, and war, and on and on, but we need to work together, as followers of the Way of Jesus, to build compromise, love, and above all, hope. I believe it was Tony Campolo who said, "It's Friday, but Sunday's coming!" As we approach Easter it is time for those of the Way to reclaim it's promise to build hope. Sunday's coming - let's march toward it to the beat of hope.

Corn Nuts

When I was eleven or twelve I went on my first Boy Scout camping trip. The Patrol Leader for my patrol was a young man named Marty Dyer. Marty was about three or four years older than me and I looked up to him - not only because he was older, but because Marty, in my eyes, embodied the ideals of scouting. Part of what makes that first trip so memorable was we ended up being tent mates for that outing.

We were in our sleeping bags after 'lights out' and so, of course, we had our flashlights working overtime, talking and laughing and having fun like boys do in that situation. At one point he reached into his pack and pulled out some snacks. "Have you ever tried these?" he asked. I confessed that I never had and he ripped the bag open and we began to partake. Food of the gods! I thought. They were "Corn Nuts" and I was hooked. For the past forty plus years, I have indulged in "Corn Nuts." I am unabashedly and unashamedly a fan of this wonderful food. Yes, I realize it's probably not good for me - deep fried and loaded with salt, they are nevertheless my idea of a what a snack food should be. And I will continue my true confessions by saying that I still indulge my "Corn Nuts" habit. Especially on a long drive, at that point when you just begin to fight drowsiness - white line fever sets in, and I combat it with - you guessed it - "Corn Nuts." The crunchy texture of this deep fried delicacy is just right for popping sleepy eyes open.

Now the makers of "Corn Nuts" have attempted to expand their market by offering different flavors. They now offer, I believe, ranch flavored and salsa flavored. There may be others though I don't know, because I am a "Corn Nuts" purist - I am hooked on the original. This wonderful snack food that was introduced to me more than forty years ago by a someone I admired and felt a kinship with - he opened my eyes to something that has stayed with me ever since.

Faith should be something like this I think. Faith, fellowship, church should by when someone you love, admire, care for, or have a kinship with introduces you to the wonderful love and grace of God that comes to us in Jesus. That first taste, and that exquisite experience of an encounter with God in Christ should open our senses to a whole new world of flavor and texture and colors. Faith is not about doctrine or dogma or even theology - these things are a reflection of our faith but they are not what's in the bag. They are like different flavors of the same snack - all of them are good and have value. But ultimately what's in the bag is Jesus, in whatever flavor we envision him. Our faith, our lives, and our churches should be the bag that once opened and shared invites others into a wonderful new experience that will not only change their lives, but stay with them for years.

Do we have a "Corn Nuts" faith? Do we have a passion for it, so that, we offer it to others with enthusiasm, inviting them to share? I am not refering to denominations, doctrines, or theology, but simply our faith - "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God and my savior and Lord." Are we excited about the fellowship or community we are part of, so that, we cannot wait for others to experience it? Will we reach into the backpack of our lives and pull out our bag of faith, ripping it open for others?

The interesting thing about something as simple as "Corn Nuts" was that it in all the simplicity of the moment, it has stayed with me for my entire life. I don't know where Marty is today, but the "Corn Nuts" habit is still mine. Who introduced you to Jesus? More importantly who do you know that needs what our belief in Christ offers? Maybe it's time to ask them, "Have you ever tried this?" One warning though, it will almost certainly be habit forming.

A Valentine's Heart

I see a certain connection between Christmas and Valentine's Day. In one we celebrate the love of God for us, and in the other we celebrate our love for each other.

But love takes different shapes and forms. We love our spouses and significant others in a different way than we love our children, parents, siblings, etc. So while Valentine's Day is a time when we celebrate love for one another we often focus on love as it is manifested romantically or in shared affection in family. But Jesus calls us to a different love for each other. It is a love that takes form in a different word (in Greek) and in a different way.

The love Christ calls us to is sacrificial. It is a love that is given even when there is little or no chance for a return. Agape (the Greek word) is often referred to with definitions such as unconditional, but I prefer this definition: agape does what is best for another, whether or not there is any emotional bond or any hope for a return.

The love that we, as humans, tend to share most easily is based in emotion and is most often reciprocal. I love someone who loves me back. It is instinctive. I would qualify that, though, by saying that this kind of love must include the sacrificial elements of agape if it is going to be successful. But to love those who don't love us, or even more, to love those who hate, betray or are our enemies? This is not as easy. Jesus moves us to a higher calling - love your enemy, pray for those who persecute, and for those who demand something from you, do that and then do more. "For if you only love those who love you what reward do you have? Even tax collectors and sinners do the same" (Mt. 5:46, Lk 6:32).

In the past weeks we, as a church, have had many of our family in the hospitals or struggling with other issues and I have seen amazing acts of love from many of those in our church family. Today we will celebrate the love we share in our own families. As we continue to share love for each other in our families and in our church families, I encourage us to remember that there are hurting folks in our world who need the kind of love that only those who follow the Way of Jesus can give. I encourage us to continue to strive to reach out in love to bring people to faith and to give them hope. It is love that has called us in Jesus, love that binds us as family, and love that is the greatest thing we offer to the world. Love is the Way of Christ, and it must be the way of those who follow. Happy Valentine's Day!!