Ninth Tuesday after Pentecost

For the first time in a long while, I set my alarm clock to play the radio to wake me up instead of the usual fog-horn that greets me each morning. This morning, I woke up to the strains of some contemporary Christian song with which I am absolutely unfamiliar.

I don't remember the exact wording of the song, much less the title, so all I'm working with is this paraphrased idea that has stuck in my memory.

Here come the questions. What is this song trying to convey? I think it seeks two things simutaneously, those two being 1) to compare the modern day Christian experience with that of the first disciples whom Jesus called to leave everything and "follow" him, and 2) to imply that it is our love alone that causes us to follow Christ.

I can understand the first "thing" well enough: Jesus calls us to follow him, to step out on faith when we can't exactly see what our foot is going to land on next (much like Indiana Jone's experience on his quest to find the holy grail as he steps out across the chasm immediately preceding his discovery of the room housing the grail). Many times as I read a Gospel passage, I believe Christ is present, speaking the Words he once spoke over again, to me and to those with whom I am reading, if there are any others present (the necesity of the public reading of Scripture is another post). Christ's call is real and lays hold to our modern day lives, regardless of the gadgets and entrapments we have devised that dehumanize our daily experience.

I stop completely understanding, much less believing, when we arrive to the second "thing:"

2) it is our love alone that causes us to follow Christ.

I might be heretical in what I'm about to say, but here goes, regardless.
You may very well can hold thing #2. But I think it is nearly impossible to hold both things #1 and #2 simutaneously. For though it very well may be that some people who claim Christ today also claim that it is "love" that impels them to follow him, I sorely miss this "mark" of discipleship when I read the Gospel accounts of Christ calling the first disciples. Images of Matthew leaving the tax-collecting booth, Peter leaving the fishing-nets and boat, and various others telling siblings about the One from Nazareth and their personal experience with him, followed by a comitment from those with whom they were sharing fill my head.

Yes, there are images of love and devotion, like the woman washing Jesus' feet with her tears and drying them with her hair, and John resting his head against Christ's breast at the Last Supper, but these come later. These come after personal experience with the One whom they have chosen to follow and who has changed their life. Ironically, it is a kiss-a sign of love, right?-that promts these words from Jesus: "You would betray the Son of Man with a kiss?"

Don't get me wrong; I'm not claiming that love has nothing to do with the Christian life, I'm questioning whether or not it is in fact the case that "all we need is love." Actually, I'm positing that it is, in fact, not the case that "all we need is love." God is love, and God is a bunch of other stuff, too. I believe it has been said that people can better say that "God is not..." than "God is..." Because when we say "God is..." our conclusion always ends up being deficient in our attempt to describe the indescribable.

I think many today are attempting to do just that: describe the indescribable. And when they fall short, they fall away. Maybe that's why God left it open ended when Moses asked him who, in fact, God was. God responded "I AM." Or something like that. God is (not conclusively) the source of love, and God is also the source of truth, and justice, and mercy, and righteousness. Maybe if we saw God as more than love, we would see our commitment to him as being more than a loving response. When Christ called Levi-Matthew from the tax-collecting booth, Levi-Matthew didn't say: "I love you, Jesus." He got up and followed.

So back to the song. And thing #1, and thing #2.

For me, it's a non-issue whether I have enough love to follow Jesus. He has called, and I'm gonna get up and do my best to follow. My efforts won't measure up, and I don't expect them to. Jesus doesn't either. He loves me, and over time, I will grow to love him more and more.

At this point in time, I would say that the initial decision to follow Jesus is a whole lot more about faith and action, acceptance of grace and the works that follow suit, and commitment, than the emotional high which our society has come to label love.

Hmm, maybe that's where the problem lies. Love is not an emotional high. In fact, love is not an emotion. Love is not a feeling. Jesus said that you can tell who loves him; they will do what he says.

So maybe thing #1 and thing #2 are related, but just not in the way this particular song, or our culture, would have them to be.

A far cry from a well-thought out argument, this post is simply a record of me questioning what I see as a popularly held, mistaken belief. If by reading this, you come to question our culture as well, then this post will have achieved my purpose.

May the God of hope steel you for the coming trials to come,
that you may find the love of Christ made evident even in horrible, terrible situations,
and may you be made able by God's Holy Spirit to "give thanks in all things" and follow in the Way of Christ regardless of circumstance or emotion. Amen.

*I do need to give credit where credit is due. The use of the word "steel" as a verb has come to me via the Book of Common Prayer, or the liturgy book for the Episcopal Church in the United States. The specific prayer that uses this phrase is located after the Psalter, in the "Prayers and Thanksgivings" section, entitled, "For Sunday..." or something like that.

Ninth Sunday after Pentecost

So, this is new.

I have a blog, after much inner turmoil and debate.

I didn't want to get a blog at first, and I don't really want one now. It would be a more accurate reflection to say that even though I probably do want one, I question its necessity.

Here we go. Let me describe how my blog posts will look if I write them stream-of-consciousness style: ramblings describing inner thought-processes, clarification of intent, a brief "I guess what I'm really trying to say is..., and finally, closure.

When I think about it, that's usually how a conversation with me goes. And should it be any different on a blog? I'm all about being intentionally real in our age of fakeness, or at least I would like to think that I am. And in my attempt to be real, and use technology, not letting it use me, I will continue to write blogs as if I were talking to you, the reader. Whoever you are. This will inevitably lead to mistakes in syntax and argument construction. I'm not writing a book, however. (But what is the purpose of a blog? and of a book? I guess that's another post. Oh dear, I might change my mind about how I write these rather quickly...but that's what happens when you start thinking, isn't it?)

So here it is. My first blog post. The world isn't saved, and your life is not completely changed. But maybe some of what I have to say is edifying for someone. That's my prayer. And that's my assumption in creating a blog (and why we create blogs is another post).

Happy Sabbath and a Growthful week of Ordinary Time in this Season after Pentecost! May the God of hope fill you with peace and Joy in believing through our Lord, Jesus Christ, and may the Spirit sustain you through the coming week.