Stained Glass Theology

We have this great stained glass window at the front of our church with a glittering bible ensconced at the very center point and the words "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path" arrayed around it.  And while is is beautiful to look at and makes the best use of the prevailing sunlight, I wondered how the Bible became the central focal point of our Protestant worship?  Why has the written word of God displaced the living word of God, Jesus?

I think that if we were Jesus centered rather than word centered (and I know that there are some who would accuse me of splitting hairs), our churches would look different in practice.  Our prayers might have a real power to them as we prayed to and with Jesus, rather than praying theologically correct "in the name of Jesus."  I don't think we would spend much pulpit time expounding deep theological mysteries, or the relationship of law to grace, or correct doctrine.  I think we would spend most of our time in the gospels, telling again the marvelous story of Jesus and His love. And I think we would spend much more time contemplatively, listening at His feet as Mary did, rather than making much ado about nothing as Martha did.

I get the sense that this is the right thing to do.  It says in Hebrews that God spoke to us in many times and ways, but in these last days spoke by His Son.  Jesus said that if we have seen Him, we have seen the Father, and warned that we search the scriptures because we think that in them we have life, but it is the scriptures that bear witness to Him.  I already have significant heartburn about how evangelicals have taken the word of God and put it in the place of God Himself.  If that printed bible was so vital to the life of the church, I wonder how Christianity survived that first 1500 years when people did not have access to a printed bible, when even if they did many might not be able to read and understand the archaic languages.  I would tend to think that their faith was placed in a person, not a page, that right relationship was more important than right doctrine, and that made all the difference in their lives.

The Proverbial Tree without Fruit

For some reason or another I found myself reading that section of the gospels where Jesus seeks fruit on a fig tree, and when there is none, he curses it and the tree withers away.  It reminded me of the counterpoint made in the story where the owner of a fig tree comes seeking fruitfulness, and finding none, tells his gardener to cut it down because it is wasting space and is useless.  The gardener takes a slightly different tack and asks for one more year of special care to coax the tree to fruitfulness.  Now there are enough examples of dry and dead trees being burned up in the fire in the Scriptures and I am not going to be drawn into an argument about the fairness of these examples.  God is God, and I am not, and if He wants to wither fig trees even when they don't bear in the wrong season that is His business.

But I will apply the story as if I was the one seeking fruit.  What is my response to be when finding none?  Am I quick to condemn, to lay the ax to the root, to cast the tree on the pile to be burned?  Is fruitfulness or usefulness the measure I use to judge another's spirituality?  Is my spiritual discernment to be kingdom production oriented?  I wonder if we have not misread the intent of these gospel accounts and taken the wrong view of how God views the human soul.  Judging on fruitfulness does not seem to express the miracle of grace.  After all, if God saved us when we were separated sinners under condemnation, will He be so quick to cast us off if we fail to show forth the fruits of righteousness?  That's as far as I can take this train of thought.  On another note, check out some of the commentaries on this passage if you want to see a bunch of evangelicals doing contortions and back flips to defend the justice of God against His mercy.

Amen and Church Peer Pressure

I have fallen into a bad habit in church recently, I count Amens, and that includes requests for Amens.  But my real question is, "When did Amen become a question?"  For instance, it is not unusual to hear someone declare "God is good!", and then, when no response from the congregation is forthcoming, adds "Amen???"  You can almost hear those multiple question marks, the inflection of the voice, the prolonging of the final syllable, drawing it out until someone answers.  At that point someone in the congregation usually feels compelled to respond and that ends the issue until the next Amen gauntlet is thrown down.

From what I know of the etymology of the word, Amen means "so be it", and is sometimes translated as "truly".  In this form it is a declaration of assent, as if we were acknowledging something heard to be "the gospel truth" and bringing our own internal response in full agreement with the spoken word of truth.  We might say "Let it be done even as you have declared!", or "From your lips to God's ear."  But if something in a church services does not elicit a response, why do we have the habit of pushing the issue until we get a response?  It is nothing more than a Christian form of peer pressure and I refuse, curmudgeon that I am, to give in to it.

If you want a response from me, say something that reaches down into my soul and grips me there, something that puts eternity in my heart (as the book of Ecclesiastes says).  I am not made of stone, I will respond to such a declaration.  But don't force me by peer pressure or the power of the pulpit to make me say or do something that does not spontaneously move up from within me.  That only hardens me to stone and makes me resent the moment, not embrace it.