Church Bulletin

Ok everyone, I have been posting and unposting things on some of my blogs lately, but I think this is a nice safe post.  It is simply a thing I have been wondering as a person who is mostly a Protestant and worries about other people's salvation and sometimes thinks like a Catholic.  It actually has to do with the new testament section where the believers get called "A Royal Priesthood." So here is my question:  If all believers are priests, and I do think that is the idea, then who are the parishoners?  People can say that it means we are priests for each other, but I actually think people do not usually use the term "priest" that loosely in the Old or the New Testament.  David was told he could not be a priest because he killed people, and the whole book of Hebrews is about how qualified for priesthood Christ is.  So I think the concept of the "priesthood of the believer" is a big deal and a very exciting thing, but I also am wondering if it means that there could be another exciting role for people who haven't latched onto Christianity in the ways that make me not worry about them. Sometimes everything hinges on the "laypeople," of churches, and I am wondering if all the people who have signed up for church are getting trained to administer grace in more substantial ways than we realize for anyone in our world, including people who might be participating in God's kingdom more than we are allowed to believe after putting so much stock in official sinner's prayers for salvation. There seem to be a lot of verses that have to get ignored for people's mechanical systematic theology to take shape from a survey of the Bible, and I personally think that this Royal Priesthood idea is one of them.

Not All Talk

Sometimes people will say stuff about other people "talking a good game," and sometimes people are concerned about their own ability to deliver on promises and their professed ideals.  And avoiding hypocrisy can actually become a tormenting obsession for people who are trying to live up to high standards.  But I have thought sometimes that maybe some of the people who seem to be all talk might actually have some kind of communication gift and for them to actually do what they believe in would mean being a speaker of some kind and focusing their energy and strength on talking or writing and being the people to say all the stuff that might be hard to do.  Maybe for some people talking the talk is also the walk that is expected of them.  And maybe that is why preachers get blamed for hypocrisy so often.  Maybe their job really is to tell everyone else what to do and people should be more understanding that for them, speaking is action.

Eels and Seals

I recently was thinking about staying out of touch with some people so I would not be grieved by problems that I did not want to know about, and I also have been thinking about how Jesus told his disciples to shake the dust off their feet when they left the houses of people who rejected the faith in Christ that was offered to them.  I wondered if Jesus told them to do that with their feet because there could be demonic snake spirits trying to hurt them and maybe they could be physically flung off.  I really have wondered if there are all kinds of warnings about that stuff in the Bible that is not that obvious so as not to scare everyone.  But anyway, both of these trains of thought made me think about something from when I was a kid, which is my consistent policy of never wearing goggles when I am swimming in the ocean.  I simply do not want to know what is lurking in the waters. And I think it is something to think about when there are all kinds of things we do not understand or do not know.  It might be that one of the purposes behind simple faith and a flashlight in life that only shows part of the path is that we are better off just getting through stuff and then later watching the movie that shows the giant dragons and monsters and leeches that wanted to hurt everyone, or even the kind angels and angel pets whose love would have distracted us from getting to all the goals ahead of us, which sometimes might include calling some kind of pest control.

Patron Atheists of Saints

Well everyone, I am writing this blog post in the middle of the night and I think that it will be kind of condensed compared to what it could have been with a little more thought.  But now is when I feel like writing it.  It is about something that I have known for a long time and only think about occasionally, and it has to do with the frequent greatness of atheists.  Well people might immediately detect some evangelical flattery like here I am trying to butter up the atheists so they will convert.  But that is really not what I am doing, precisely because I have learned that so many atheists truly are so great the way they are and are helpful not just to people in general but to Christians, and especially Christians with religion problems. I could share my testimony about this sometime in a church, which might not really be welcome, but I actually think it would still match the Christian teaching about all humans being made in God's image and therefore all having the potential or maybe even guaranteed destiny of reflecting his greatness.  I used to want to write a book called "The Heathens Declare the Glory of God," but gave up after a google search that did not list that many good deeds by atheists.  But there are a lot of good deeds, and I think that their honest confessions of atheism can be some of the good that they do.  It does provide instant intellectual accountability to all the so called theologians, and it also is an acceptance of responsibility to get stuff done without waiting for prayers to be answered.  That could seem like such a sin, but I am thinking that it often could be less of a sin than leaving stuff undone because of either a belief that it wasn't up to us or a lazy decision to convince people that something was God's responsibility apart from humans.

    I also think that there can be a purity of motives among atheists who are not seeking rewards from heaven from their friendships and who are not deliberately trying to advance an ideology they have limited knowledge of during every single interaction with people.  As much as not having a conscious Christian purpose might really be a waste for a lot of people, it can also free them to fulfill potential in other ways that still benefit humanity, including church people, who might have had to give up some otherwise very worthwhile endeavors to live their whole lives guessing what a fisherman from 2000 years ago wants them to do.

   The fact is that the atheist souls and minds can be such a relief to be around, and for all the times Christians have used "unbelievers" to improve our own stats, so many atheists' forgiveness and service and unyielding promotion of the good news of God's patience and mercy should also be acknowledged as a very uncommon grace and special revelation.

Is glory something different from recognition, and much less stealable?

   Well everyone, I have thought of a little blog post idea that I think actually is theological, and it is about glory, what it is, and what it means to try to glorify yourself and take credit that does not belong to you.  I am actually truly wondering something that might have more to do with the definition of glory, and whether it is some kind of greatness, or instead, some kind of acknowledgement of greatness.

    What I am wondering is whether glory is an objective thing that belongs to God no matter what and "trying to take the glory for yourself" is a matter of trying to take credit for the glory, and possibly deceiving others so that people's perception, and only their perception, is erroneous.  To look at it this way could still mean that whatever is glorious, like a touchdown or a well cooked meal, is still glorious and the glory still belongs to God, but that people's acknowledgement of that reality is what is the problem.

   To me, the other possibility is that the glory is the credit, and when people glorify themselves, they actually have truly taken the glory itself away from where it belongs and have acquired something that was up for grabs in some way.  So they now possess something that was not supposed to be theirs. 

     A third possibility is that there is still some glory outside of the credit and recognition and it is stealable, kind of like the blessing that Jacob in the Bible got so sneakily.  That sounds confusing, but in another story, which is the Mt. Sinai story in the Bible when Moses or someone has to hide in the cleft of the mountain as God walks by, there is some kind of glory that is dangerous to behold, and it seems a little different than the kind of "giving credit where it is due" recognition that so many people talk about today.

    I think there might be Bible verses that support either view, but I lean toward thinking that glory is some aspect of reality that happens because of God's goodness, so it already belongs to him, and the credit is something different that also belongs to him, and any problem that the humans are having with recognition, no matter on what kind of scale it is, is just some weird mind trick that leaves people being fooled but can't take any actual glory away from anyone in reality or in the view that most matters, which is God's continual accurate perception of all that he has created and made great.
    It may be that simple dictionary definitions could clear this up, or that this is something basic that all pastors learn in seminary and have talked about while I have been at Starbucks, but to me it seems like what people usually talk about when they talk about glory has to do with kneeling in football endzones, and I feel like there might be something else that is, thankfully, unstealable, and knowing this could take some pressure off people.  It could also help people focus on doing truly great things instead of doing mediocre things while spending their real concentration on making it all an ad campaign for Christianity.

AA Post

A story that really affected me in a profound way and something that I think of pretty often is one of the stories behind the beginning of Alcoholics Anonymous, which is an organization that I find heroic and miraculous.  It is a story about part of the experience of Bill W., who had terrible problems as an alcoholic, and who one day reportedly said, "If there is a God, let him show himself."  And soon after that, Bill W started Alcoholics Anonymous, which has helped thousands of people overcome addiction and find support during tragic suffering.  People in the group rely on their "Higher Power," and while many people take a conspicuously great effort to point out that Alcoholics Anonymous is not the church, it seems pretty obvious that God himself has intervened continuously through AA from the very beginning.

    That utterance or something like a prayer that is so out of bounds for most people is so amazing to me, and the story inspires me, because it seems just like God to answer just that kind of "prayer," and maybe even to wait for that kind of request that so much reflects the desperation of someone suffering from alcohol addiction.  I could go on and on about it and I am tempted to just translate all my prayers into that format.  Like... if God wants me to do my impossible chores, let him show himself.  And if God wants me to stop cursing at people, let him show himself. 

    But this blog post is about something entirely different, and it is a topic where I really have decided that I might adopt that Bill W prayer mindset about something that has been driving me crazy quite literally for many years.  It has to do with Presbyterian Theology, and how much I do and don't believe it, and what exactly I am supposed to take into the world as a mission when I can't quite be certain of almost everything anyone has ever said to me. 

    I said in another post that I have some Catholic leanings, and some of that is from wanting to believe that there is a more specific application of an all inclusive mercy and justice for people and an ongoing opportunity for anyone to know God personally instead of an all or nothing theology test where if you pray a certain prayer then you escape eternal torture.  I change my mind a lot and actually have learned to just keep myself from obsessing about it and try to be productive in other ways, but I can't quite ever fully escape the ideas I have been taught, and the belief that it must be resolved and might even be the only thing that matters for anyone. Even as I say that, it sounds so absurd, and yet many books in the New Testament support some of that teaching, along with the idea that everything has been predetermined with a good God behind everything that happens. I do find myself thinking that people are pretty stupid to try to do everything good except ask God for Christ's forgiveness.  I mean, how insulting to someone who died to save people from their sins.
    But I still waver all the time and thought recently that I might be able to find some temporary peace and another segment of time where I can keep living life without all the answers if I officially shrug off the burden of being responsible for everyone else, and if I shrug off the pressure of having to believe something that I can't go that long of a time believing.  I think that Bill W's prayer could be the key, and I could just say even after all the revelation from church and time, if the Presbyterians were ever right, let God be the one to say it, and let the Protestant theology show itself. God can make the sky plaid if he wants, or drop a stone tablet on my head that has the Westminster Confession carved into it, or drop stone tablets on the people who are mean to me at the grocery store, or send an alcoholic missionary to help me decide that I do not have to be the one to save everyone.

Disclaimer

I feel like writing a little disclaimer on this blog, because I have recently ventured into theological territory that really does matter for people and can be controversial not in a random political conversation way but in a way where I really don't want to mislead people about stuff that can affect their whole lives. So my disclaimer is to say that I really think some sermons and ideas from the Bible are medicine for people's souls, but that this blog is really more like food and not medicine.  It is a leftover squash casserole from Thanksgiving, and not a potent dose of healing medicine which people might really get from a church with people who have not had as many thoughts so muddled by entire bookstores of other ideas and conversations with people who believe other stuff and who I wanted to like me.  I called this blog the Worldly Monk Theology Blog because my life is a mix of very strict religious loyalty and prayer but also a very liberal participation in a messy world and a filthy, lost, abused and abusive culture.

The Twelve Doofuses

Sometimes when the disciples of Christ messed up in the Bible, Jesus would say stuff like "Are you still so dull?" and the equivalent of "How can you be so stupid?" and I think a lot of people see it and find it to be a surprisingly gruff manner from someone who would eventually forgive people while being tortured on a cross.  In fact, I even read a book where an important theologian practically called Jesus a jerk for talking to people that way.  But we know that he wasn't a jerk, so what does it all mean?  Well I had an idea yesterday while imagining myself helping people not miss out on Christianity which is that his emphatic rebukes to people who were already so rich as to be in the company of Christ himself and have since then inherited an eternal honor almost beyond comprehension is that one of the reasons he was tough on people is because the stakes were so high and there was a great reward that he did not want them to miss out on.  And it is an indication to everyone, including people now, that we should not be stupid and constantly promote our own greatness in a way that makes us miss out on greater glory and love. I also think that it is an example of how to live, much in the same way that all his kinder words were, and that when we think things like, "Why would anyone do drugs instead of working?" or "How can people be so stupid to think all the planets just appeared out of nowhere and all the animals invented themselves through mutation?" that there may be some occasions where this exasperation should be expressed in full.  And that the main goal is not our own vain desires to be known as people who are generally right about everything, but that there is some blessing available that we would not want anyone to miss out on, especially if we have any influence over them, even as persecuted people who don't have the greatest media power.

With a Vengeance

    Ok everyone, I thought of a theological question that I think is one of my most interesting wonderings.  You know how people always say that one of the reasons to forgive and not seek retaliation about things is because God says "Vengeance is mine. I will repay."  People quote that a lot and sometimes use it to encourage people not to seek some kind of justice or revenge, and people make it sound like those are the same things.  But yesterday I was thinking about it and don't people also spend their whole lives trying to be "Godly" and do everything according to how God himself would do it?  That is the idea of following Jesus Christ, and of being "imitators of God."  So my question is this: wouldn't that mean sometimes saying "Vengeance is mine, I will repay?"  I just know everyone is saying, "Of course not," but isn't the real answer "Of Course?" I am genuinely wondering because I definitely in recent years have found more of an appreciation for people who stand up to evil and abuse and make reputation sacrifices to be the ones to say we are not going to tolerate scams and abuse. 

    I think that is really almost enough to say but it makes me pause to think about the cross again, which is such a symbol of forgiveness, but also was a deliberate act that was defended by the presence of swords in the garden of Gethsemane.  Why did the disciples have swords if it was all about letting people abuse Christ?  To me there is a case that Christ went to the cross deliberately for a lot of reasons, and there might have been more of an offensive (like basketball offense) strategy not just against evil itself but against specific evil people throughout all of history who have been and still are very defeated by the cross and by all of the believers who learn to literally fight for all kinds of salvation and freedom.

A winning war strategy is to have already won.

    There is a verse in the Bible that I think Jesus says, which is to be "shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves." It is a clear instruction for everyone to think smart and deliberately participate in the outwitting of the demons. However, I think that in a society that is even remotely fair, people should not have to be geniuses to do what they are supposed to and live a decent life. If basic honesty and kindness are thwarted at every step, then the bad people's evil schemes are embarrassingly complicated and they are the ones with the problem. In situations where a general and faithful goodness is not allowed, then a certain martyrdom or partial martyrdom will characterize the lives of those who are disappointed to not be their best selves, and we will be surprised at the end when the blame we expect turns to credit.

    Another thought I have about how much strategy it should take to obey God is that when people do what they are supposed to and live according to the Holy Spirit, then our normal actions and words become apt and fitting in a way that is backed by God's authorial genius and take on a quality of cleverness that can be a thousand times what we would imagine on purpose. With all of God's literary devices and engineering of physical laws, when we tell the truth and merely agree to follow the command to "let your yes be yes and your no be no," our simple words can instantly be the wittiest sayings imaginable and our deeds become part of an unstoppable and unprecedented master plan.

Ideas

    I think that when things really get bad in a country, and there is mass stupidity on a scale that threatens to take the whole country down, one option is for the country to divide itself into two countries and let people choose whether they want to be in "The Good Country," or "The Bad Country." Well who would want to be in a bad country?  Only stupid people. So they can make their choice, and our work is done here.  That is kind of how heaven and hell works, and the strategy might work well on earth sometimes, too.