Category: reflections

Posted in ecclesiology & sacraments, reflections

Christian traditions: the commendable practice of things not forbidden

Posted on by Gregory Crofford

“Here I stand. I can do no other.” So said Martin Luther, the 16th century German monk now considered the father of the Protestant Reformation. When it came to doctrine, particularly the doctrine of salvation, he stood boldly before Church councils, insisting on the supremacy of Scripture. On Luther’s correct reading, only the Bible can show us how to be saved. Pardon of sin and reconciliation to God come only through faith. We can do nothing to earn heaven’s favor.

While Luther was clear that the Bible is the basis for theology, he was less clear when it came to the question of Church tradition. Traditions are time-honored practices that have grown up in the community of faith. One example is the practice of Lent, the forty day period preceding Good Friday and Easter. While some Christians wanted to eliminate this annual period of solemn reflection, since Scripture does not mandate it, Luther argued that it should be maintained as a practice that strengthens faith. Luther was willing to keep as part of worship or the life of the Church meaningful practices that – while not taught by the Bible – neither were they forbidden.

Continue reading “Christian traditions: the commendable practice of things not forbidden” →

Posted in reflections

Jesus saves, but what does he save?

Posted on by Gregory Crofford

If you’re over thirty, chances are you have trouble reading the text language. What’s all this BTW, LOL, IMHO and POS stuff anyways? Parents look at their child and say: “English, please!”

Yet how often do we as followers of Christ use insider language? How strange would it be for a first-time visitor to church to hear someone pray for “traveling mercies” or in Sunday School to listen as another insists that she wasn’t “angry,” but  “righteously indignant”? Visitors might as well turn to us and demand: “English, please!”

There’s another common expression that falls into the same lingo category. It’s the word “saved.” A “personal evangelist” may ask: “Are you saved?” When he receives a blank look, he tries again: “Have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior?” He’s digging himself in deeper, piling jargon upon jargon, as the hapless victim looks for any excuse to escape.

But let’s suppose that an individual is truly curious. We’ll call her Ashley. She listens politely, and with time begins to piece together what the church teaches about “good news.”  The irony is not that the church is saying too much. Rather, the church is saying too little.

Continue reading “Jesus saves, but what does he save?” →

Posted in Christian ethics, reflections

Is the death penalty Christian? (part 2)

Posted on by Gregory Crofford

Any argument against the death penalty sooner of later must stare-down the “tough cases.” None is tougher than Timothy McVeigh. On April 19, 1995, at 9:02 a.m., he detonated a truck bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building in downtown Oklahoma City. The explosion killed 168, including 19 children in an on-site daycare center. When all was said and done, more than 680 were injured. Damage to buildings, vehicles and other property was estimated at $ 652 million dollars. McVeigh was executed by lethal injection on June 11, 2001, never having shown any remorse for his heinous act.

The purpose of this essay is not to cause grief or pain to the many who lost loved ones on that tragic day. Rather, it is to question whether any punishment meted out by authorities could ever be sufficient in such cases. Can the execution of one man ever balance out the scales of justice in the face of such suffering? Surely it cannot. If this be true, then the door is open to asking a Christian question: What other form of response can speak a word of Gospel without at the same time condoning sin of the highest order, or taking the grief of the grieving lightly?

Continue reading “Is the death penalty Christian? (part 2)” →

Posted in Christian ethics, reflections

Is the death penalty Christian? (Part 1)

Posted on by Gregory Crofford

Extremism is loose in the land. On May 15, 2010, a Christian punk rock group from Minnesota, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide, caused a stir when their front man, Bradlee Dean, opined that Muslims who execute homosexuals “…seem to be more moral than even the American Christians…” The full context of his on-air radio comments – via audio clip – is available here.

Bradlee Dean’s remarks have been roundly condemned, and none too soon. Exodus International, a Christian ministry to gay individuals seeking another path, characterized his comments as “powerfully irresponsible” and “incomplete theology.”  While most Christians – including my own denomination, the Church of the Nazarene – interpret the Bible as prohibiting sexual acts between those of the same gender (Romans 1:26-32), the apostle Paul also holds out the possibility of a God-given new start for those wanting one, including the gay individual (1 Cor. 6:9-11). On the other hand, Dean’s rant knows nothing of gospel, of good news. Instead, his version of Christianity is bad news, singling out one class of persons for special judgment, misusing Leviticus 20:13 as a none-too-subtle call to target gays.

Continue reading “Is the death penalty Christian? (Part 1)” →

Posted in Bible, reflections

Is the Cross our ‘Mizpah’? – Gen. 31:49

Posted on by Gregory Crofford

“Mike,” a friend of mine in the youth group, was head-over-heels in love with “Brenda.” They’d gone out together for several months when Brenda learned that her family was moving out-of-state. Before she left, they went to the mall together and bought his-and-her necklaces. She wore the left side of a jagged heart, and he the right side. Engraved on each of the half-pendants were these words, taken from Gen. 31:49 — “The LORD watch between me and thee, when we are absent one from another” (KJV).

Love will do funny things, but it’s doubtful that verse was exactly what they had in mind. In its context, Gen. 31:49 has nothing to do with romance, and everything to do with mistrust. The employer/employee relationship between Laban and his nephew, Jacob, had been anything but positive — see Gen. 29-31 for the whole debacle. Through a series of shrewd flock breeding techniques, Jacob had prospered at Laban’s expense. Jacob took off  in the middle of the night with his own wives, children and flocks, not even saying goodbye, but Laban eventually caught up with him.  That sets the stage for a final confrontation between uncle and nephew. Laban begins:

The daughters are my daughters, the children are my children, the flocks are my flocks, and all that you see is mine. But what can I do about these daughters of mine, or about their children whom they have borne? (v. 43, NRSV).

In short, Laban knows he’s been beat, but he doesn’t trust Jacob any further than he can throw a stone. So he resorts to stones. They cobble together a pile of boulders as a “witness” between them, then share a meal. This pile of rocks is a Mizpah, a “watchpost.” Laban explains:

If you ill-treat my daughters, or if you take wives in addition to my daughters, though no one else is with us, remember that God is witness between you and me (v. 50).

Every time Jacob passed by that pile of stones in the future, it would remind him of his promise to be faithful and kind to Leah, Rachel and Laban’s grandchildren.

What Laban and Jacob did on that day was an attempt – however unsuccessful – at reconciliation. In the New Testament, that’s an important theme. If Jesus had died on a pile of stones, like Aslan at the end of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, then perhaps we’d have a Mizpah at the front of our churches. But Jesus died on a cross, and so we find pieces of wood hanging there.

Yet the Cross goes far beyond what Laban and Jacob were able to hammer out that day. The Genesis 31 account gives no hint of true reconciliation. They left each other with a cloud of suspicion still hanging over their heads. But at the Cross, we are reconciled to God. When we look at its beams, we are reminded that heaven and earth embraced on a hillside overlooking Jerusalem. The Mizpah of mistrust yields to a different kind of Mizpah, a “watching” motivated not by suspicion but by love.  Jesus promises:  “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matt. 28:20, NIV).

Now that’s the kind of Mizpah we can all celebrate.

———————————-

Reflection based on Scripture reading for Day 33, Cambridge Daily Reading Bible, 1995

Posted in reflections

Binary thinking and the “Third Way”

Posted on by Gregory Crofford

Note: This blog was originally published in 2011. However, it’s worth reading again in our polarized world, and attempts to describe a philosophy of the “middle way.”

________________________________________________________________

On the popular talent show, American Idol, David “Archie” Archuleta was faced with a choice. On the stage to his left stood several co-contestants, and to his right an equal number of singers. The emcee directed him to join the group that he thought would advance to the next level of the competition. He had friends in both groups. Which group would he join? All eyes were on Archie. The stress was apparent on his face as he stood immobile, then he did what no one predicted. He joined neither group. Archie slowly lowered himself to the stage, and he sat.

That night, Archie earned my respect. His courage resonated with me, because too often we’re hounded to decide between only two options, as if only two existed. In at least three areas, we are presented with a false choice, an insistence that we must choose one or the other.

Misguided partisans, with a rising level of urgency, call out to us:

“Is it creation or evolution?”

“Are you a conservative or a liberal?”

“Is it faith or reason?”

And to each question, my simple response is: YES.

Continue reading “Binary thinking and the “Third Way”” →

Posted in book reviews, reflections

Gregory Boyd’s ‘God of the Possible’

Posted on by Gregory Crofford

Controversy swirls around Open theism. Whenever someone brands a theologian a “heretic,” that’s bound to turn some heads, so before reading Gregory Boyd’s God of the Possible: Does God Ever Change His Mind? (Baker Books, 2000), I was prepared for the worst. When done with the book, I was pleasantly surprised. Boyd makes arguments that – though he’s a Baptist – sit comfortably with Wesleyan-Arminians.

The bottom-line question for Boyd is this:

Is the future already exhaustively settled?

Some think of the future like a DVD. I can skip ahead using the “scene selection” feature on my remote control. Does God have that kind of a feature, where he can fast-forward and see exactly what will happen? Is every detail of the future already set-in-stone, in the same way that every scene of my favorite movie is already digitally engraved on the DVD?

Continue reading “Gregory Boyd’s ‘God of the Possible’” →

Posted in Bible, reflections

‘dikaiosyne’ – to translate is to betray

Posted on by Gregory Crofford

David Bosch’s Transforming Mission (Orbis Books, 1991) continues to stretch my thinking. In a section entitled “God’s Reign and Justice-Righteousness” (pp. 70-73), he studies the Greek word, dikaiosyne. Bosch (p. 71) observes that this noun can be translated three ways:

1) justification, which is “God’s merciful act of declaring us just” – N.B. – John Wesley rarely spoke of justification, i.e. forgiveness, without pointing beyond it to sanctification, but that is another discussion;

2) righteousness, which is “an attribute of God or a spiritual quality that we receive from God,” and –

3) justice, or “people’s right conduct in relation to their fellow human beings”.

What Bosch rightly points out is that English translations of the Bible uniformly translate dikaiosyne as “righteousness.” A  quick look at five or six English translations on Biblegateway.com validates Bosch’s observation.

Why is this translation point important? Bosch (Ibid.) explains:

If, on the other hand, we translate “set your mind on God’s kingdom and his justice before everything else, and all the rest will come to you as well” (NEB), it may mean that Jesus asks us not to be concerned with our own desires and interests but with the practice of justice in respect to those who are the victims of circumstances and society, that this is what God’s reign is all about.

And so Bosch invents a term that doesn’t exist in English, a homely, hyphenated expression, i.e. justice-righteousness. In doing so, his logic is clear. You simply cannot say that you are “righteous” on the one hand, then turn around and practice injustice toward your neighbor. The two go hand-in-hand.

As a speaker of French, I find it fascinating that all three French translations that I own (Bible de Jérusalem, la Bible Semeur, and La Colombe) for dikaiosyne in both Matthew 5:6 and Matthew 6:33 translate with the French noun, « justice. » According to the  exhaustive English/French Harrap’s Unabridged Dictionary (2001), the word “righteousness” in English translates into French as « vertue » or « rectitude. » Yet no French translation that I’ve seen uses these words! They keep the broader « justice, » which can encompass the personal realm, but doesn’t rule out the social aspect of dikaiosyne. So, my hat’s off to French Bible translators. They’ve done far better than almost every English Bible translator, with the except of the New English Bible (1961), as cited by Bosch above.

And so, the French proverb proves true: « Traduire, c’est trahir. » To translate is to betray.

For students of biblical Greek, wondering if it’s worth it, David Bosch proves the worth of studying the original. Let’s all keep at it.

Posted in Bible, reflections

A sectarian spirit – Mark 9:38-41

Posted on by Gregory Crofford

It’s one of the biggest rivalries in college football. Every year, Army officers-in-training from Westpoint square-off against their Navy counterparts from Annapolis. The competition is intense, as feelings ride high. For those few hours on the gridiron, the opponent is clear. But when the last touchdown is scored, and the contest moves to the theatre of war, old rivalries melt into unity. Army and Naval officers join forces to battle a common enemy.

A rivalry gone-too-far threatened unity in Jesus’ day. John, one of the “sons of thunder,” complained that someone else was casting out demons in Jesus’ name. “We tried to stop him,” said John, “because he was not following us” (Mark 9:38, NRSV). The Lord gives a long response, but the take-away line comes in v. 40 – “Whoever is not against us is for us.”

One of the saddest phenomena of our time is division of the Body of Christ. The Army would never fight the Navy, yet many are the casualties of “friendly fire” between churches. Denominational rivalries risk morphing into something ugly. Sometimes, we even turn our “guns” on other believers, simply because they are not “with us.” We forget that – whatever our theological differences – we have a common enemy, the devil.

John Wesley held out hope for church unity. In his sermon, Catholic Spirit, he urged: “If your heart is as my heart, give me your hand.” At the signing of the “Declaration of Independence,” Benjamin Franklin cautioned: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” Let’s rid ourselves of a sectarian spirit.

Prayer

“God, your word teaches us that the hand needs the foot, and the eyes need the ears. Forgive us when we have sown seeds of division, then denied that the bitter harvest was of our making. Show us today how we can be instruments of harmony and cooperation in your Church. Through Christ our Lord we pray, AMEN.”

————————-

Reflections from Scripture for Day 26, in Cambridge Daily Reading Bible, 1995

Posted in book reviews, reflections

To BE it, DO it: Thoughts from C.S. Lewis

Posted on by Gregory Crofford

What comes first, being or doing?  In an age conversant with genetics, the answer seems obvious. What one does often reflects what one first isby constitution at birth. For example, in our family, men have a distinctive shuffle, what someone has dubbed the “Crofford walk.” We hunch our shoulders slightly, and walk with purpose. Strangely, even male members of the Crofford clan who have grown up apart on different coasts in the United States share this conspicuous genetic trait.

But how often do we consider whether the formula can be reversed? Rather than being determining doing, can doing shape being?

C.S. Lewis tackled this question in his celebrated 1952 collection, Mere Christianity. The series of radio broadcasts included a fascinating chapter titled “Let’s Pretend.” The broader question he addressed is what it means to be a Christian. Lewis came at his topic indirectly, using an example of a man who is unfriendly (p. 188):

When you are not feeling particularly friendly but know you ought to be, the best thing you can do, very often, is to put on a friendly manner and behave as if you were a nicer person than you actually are. And in a few minutes, as we have all noticed, you will be really feeling friendlier than you were. Very often the only way to get a quality in reality is to start behaving as if you had it already.

One might summarize Lewis’ argument in this way: To BE it, DO it.

Continue reading “To BE it, DO it: Thoughts from C.S. Lewis” →