Be good for goodness sake!

Local Washington, D.C. buses proclaim "Why believe? Just be good for goodness sake!" -- an ad funded by a humanist group who purportedly desire their members 'not to feel alone during a dominant holiday time.' (See the CNN report here.)

So, is it true? Can one 'just be good'? One humanist's answer is this: "In other words, you don't need a spiritual or supernatural foundation to be kind, generous or to enjoy the company of each other, especially, during the holiday season. Religious tenets should not get in the way of human behavior or relationships. We cultivate our relationships personally with each other." (from Mike Cubello in the Greenville News Online.)

Goodness is defined here as doing right for yourself and then later in the article as moral acts on behalf of others. It is linked hand in hand with ethics and morality.

Wouldn't it be nice to think that everyone behaved well? How much goodness in a person's actions does it take before we label them "good"?

Barbara Brown Taylor notes this: "'Responsible' sounds so conscious, so free and powerful. On the contrary, many of us upon reflection would say that when we engaged in wrongdoing we felt bewildered, scared, and weak. We did the awful things we did because at the moment they offered us our best shot at survival. In a pinch, hurting is preferable to being hurt, having to not having, and staying alive by any means is preferable to dying. Because such decisions seem driven more by necessity than by choice, we may opt for the language of self-defense. I did not mean to. I had to. Anyone in my position would have done the same thing. ... Either way, the point is to shift responsibility for failure elsewhere . . ." (p. 35-36, Speaking of Sin: the Lost Language of Salvation, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cowley Publications, 2000)

Taylor's point is that our default operation is pride over humility, lying over truth, or addiction over freedom, if we can preserve what we want to preserve. We can see this in our own experiences of life.

However, the "sin" word has been used as a bludgeon rather than as an instrument of detecting harmful and disobedient responses in ourselves. The word "sin" has been used to make sure people's "guilt meter" is maxed out. God used the word "sin" to bring us back into relationship with true goodness.

Goodness is not a meter of relationship. Goodness is the very essence of God moving in us and across the world for salvation. Taylor describes salvation, "that is, a transformed way of life in the world that is characterized by peace, meaning, and freedom . . . [where people are] involved in turning toward a new way that promises them more abundant life."

Goodness is short lived in this world. I remember how much I loved my children and enjoying them immensely when they were little and innocent of the dangers in the world around them. I remember watching over them and trying to keep them safe. I remember with joy the times of getting down on the floor with them and playing house. And then I remember replaying their Fisher Price tape recorder and listening to my voice reprimand them in the background. They are laughing and playing and I'm mad that they have taken out their toys everywhere right before company comes. It sounded so harsh. I was the one who had broken their innocence.

'Let's be good' is a great reminder about Christmas actually. We have a part in the Christmas story. But the story is because we absolutely needed a God for help in being good. God comes to save us. God with us in reality. Our part? To thank Him for coming. To follow Him for that perfect world. To rely upon Him for goodness and transformation. To seek Him with others. To worship Him with a local congregation of others 'trying to do good to all like Jesus.'

Creativity and Advent for worship planners

How does the worship planner make ready for Christmas? We do the shopping. We get excited about all of the Advent activities. Long before "the day" arrives, we also are doing our best to listen to God in order to bring God's fresh message among us: the word made flesh. Here are some resources and thoughts I've collected today:

Mary . . .
A wondering question: I wonder what it was like to be Mary ... 13 or 14 y.o., hearing from God in such a surprising way?

"Our strategy was simple. Each service, entitled “Thirteen and . . .”, would feature a monologue presented by Mary. A teenaged girl (a different one each time) would come up the aisle dressed as Mary and dramatically recite a monologue. As she left, I would pick up my sermon where she left off. On the Sunday after Christmas, a woman representing Mary at an older age would present the monologue. Each worship service would include an instrumental or sung version of the Magnificat.

To avoid the pitfall of “psychologizing” Mary and making her the focus, we reminded each other that the sermons had to focus on what God was doing by using Mary. That helped us set the direction for the whole series."
From: accessed on 11/15/08.

Somebody's Coming!
"Imagine standing in the arrivals area at the airport, your heart pounding. Your beloved has been away on a long trip, and any second he or she is going to walk through those doors. In your mind you can already see the dear, tired face lighting up as your eyes meet. . . .

But there’s also another kind of waiting, and it’s the kind that evokes not anticipatory joy but rather a prick of anxiety or even of naked fear:

“Somebody’s coming! Run!”

“Somebody’s coming! Quick! Clean up!”

“Somebody’s coming! Hide!”

“Somebody’s coming! Get back to work!”

Jesus is coming. There’s definitely a “Look out!” element to the imminent arrival of Jesus as well."
From: accessed on 11/15/08.

What to expect when you're expecting.
"Advent is the time that both ends and begins the Christian calendar. So often the focus during Advent is Jesus’ first Advent—his coming as a baby born in Bethlehem. As a preaching group we wanted to focus on Jesus’ second Advent—his soon-expected return. As we discussed what such a series of sermons might look like, we came up with the idea of “expecting,” drawing a parallel to the expecting that a couple does while awaiting the birth of their child. In this way we drew a close parallel between the first and second Advent of Jesus. What to Expect When You’re Expecting (by Arlene Eisenberg) is the title of a popular handbook for parents expecting the birth of a child. We borrowed that title for this series of six sermons. Our plan was to draw on some Scripture passages that compare the second coming of Christ to the pain and joy of childbirth."
From: accessed on 11/15/08.

Psalm 80 for Advent?
This site, www.workingpreacher.com, gives a brief but deep exegesis for each of the lectionary scriptures by date, and the week for preaching that lectionary piece, there is an audio blog from 3 or 4 professors on what they would preach.

"Three verbs dominate the refrain: Restore (Hebrew shub), shine ('ur), save (yashab). The psalm exploits a dual meaning of the first word (shub). In the refrain, the word means "restore," and is a plea that God would change the circumstances of the people. But in v. 14, the word means "turn," or "repent" (cf. Psalm 90:13), and is a plea for God to change God's will concerning the people's situation. The poetic play on these two meanings of the word amounts to a faith assertion by the community—the solution to the people's situation rests in the heart of God. The people cannot change their own circumstances, but God can—simply by willing that the situation be reversed."
From: accessed on 11/15/08.


May the words of Advent come quickly, for we need the words; but may we drink deeply in that quickness, and not miss the freshness of our Savior.

Biden and Palen Debate

The debate and the pundits' spin has been interesting. I'm not sure that we learned a lot we didn't already know. I've been reading up a bit on economic philosophies and Obama and McCain take two very different tacks. All men (and woman) claim to be "for the little guy." Yet, they approach how to be "for the little guy" in very different ways.

Obama stresses re-distributing wealth through the way taxation is applied to those with salaries over $42,000 - according to the debates. The philosophy is that increasing taxes on higher incomes will pay for services (social welfare, health care) for those with lower incomes.

McCain stresses reducing taxes, apparently especially with businesses, according to the debates. This philosophy believes that by decreasing taxes, businesses have more capital to put into producing product, and therefore work for workers.

There are problems with both of these philosophies, as I understand them. I am not an "economics person."

With Obama's, critics will say that by increasing taxes and redistributing wealth you will essentially do something similar to the economics of Marx. In other words, you take away the "will of the worker" to create more wealth - because it's taken away in taxes anyway. There is little reward "for doing well." The reliance is upon the government to play judge and jury over who should get money rather than workers who made it.

With McCain, the critics will point to the "rich are benefiting while the middle class suffer" thought. Does giving the rich the tools to do well in business really mean they will do well in business and trickle down that "wellness" to other workers? How much a part does greed come into play? If the government doesn't 'regulate' will people play fair? Current history (loan shysters) has proven that they don't necessarily deal honestly and fairly with others.

Commentary on the Denver Post explains our current economic quandary: "It's the fault of those on the left who pushed the seductive idea that everyone should own a home whether or not they could afford it. And it's the fault of those on the right who didn't care that people were losing their homes until the dominoes fell all the way to Wall Street." (from http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_10539732, accessed on 10/3/08)

Doesn't anyone have a third way?

Working on Sermon Series: Jesus and the Goddess

"After years of studying the inner workings of Hollywood and its effect on American culture, movie critic Richard Schickel concluded, 'Celebrity is possibly the most vital shaping force in our society.' The late Peter Jennings concurred: 'No country in the world is so driven by personality, has such a hunger to identify with personalities, larger-than-life personalities especially ... as this one.' . . .

Vanity Fair said, 'Oprah Winfrey arguably has more influence on the culture than any university president, politician or religious leader except the Pope,' and Christianity Today lamented, 'To her audience of more than 22 million mostly female viewers, [Oprah] has become a post-modern priestess--an icon of church-free spirituality.'"

From a good read: The Culturally Savvy Christian: A Manifesto for Deepening Faith and Enriching Popular Culture in an Age of Christianity Lite by Dick Staub. (quote from pages 9- 10)

What do you think? Is Oprah a new goddess for spirituality?