Inflexion Point? (8/30/2005)

Currently I am on a journey through the Gospel of Matthew, a book that was so very influential on my path toward deconstruction so many years ago in Honduras.  Back then, in our fledgling church, I taught the Sermon on the Mount to our small congregation.  At the time, I was troubled by how poorly our Evangelical churches were doing at living out the Sermon.  I saw outward concern for rules, but love, forgiveness, and peacemaking were often hard to find.

When I read through Matthew, especially then, I could only read it from my Fundamentalist Evangelical paradigm and mindset.  Reading about the two roads in Matthew 7 was obviously about receiving Christ as your personal savior or not.  The two houses, one on the rocks, and one on the sand, were similarly about the eternal state.

Still today, as then, the passage haunts me where Jesus says that not everyone who calls him “Lord” and does “spiritual” works will be counted among those known by Jesus.

However, as I considered these passages again this month, to my surprise, my first thought about these passages was not about eternal salvation, but about current life in the world, as we seek to work out the kingdom here and now.  I saw these passages as “Wisdom”, much as I now read Proverbs.  I don’t see hard and fast “promises” for life from God, but general guidelines, where exceptions can always be found, as they were in the days of the prophets who complained bitterly that the wicked were thriving while the just perished.  We could discuss that in much more detail.

The point of this reflection, however, is not what these passages actually mean, but that my default reference point has now changed.  The process of change has been gradual, over time.  But this may be the first time I can clearly recognize the new primary point of view I know sit in.  My Fundamentalist Evangelical baggage is still there, for sure, but it is not the first bag I open on my journey any longer!

The Journey (7/22/2010)

I am on a Journey, a pilgrimage.  It is difficult to determine the starting point of this journey. The end point is likewise vague: to know God, and what he desires from me.  This may sound somewhat familiar to Pilgrim’s Progress, but don’t try to make too many comparisons.  It may also sound a bit like the parable of two roads in Matthew, but again, don’t try to keep to that paradigm or it will appear that I am terribly lost! (Maybe I am?)

 

It is as if I am on a path, climbing a mountain.  The top of the mountain is enveloped in a cloud, hiding the peak, the ultimate destination.  The path generally progresses upward, but at times moves around the mountain, and even occasionally dips back downhill.  It is generally bordered by tall trees and bushes, which obscure the view even a few hundred feet ahead, so that it is impossible to predict where the path is leading until I am there.  Occasionally it breaks out into an open field where sun, sky and the clouds enveloping the summit of the mountain are clearly visible.  At times the overgrowth is so thick the path is barely distinguishable.  At times it is level and easy to walk, at times very steep and slippery.

 

Unlike the Matthew roads, there are several branches to this path.  Some diverge, possibly to converge again later on, possibly going another way, possibly up the mountain, possibly back to the base.  It is impossible to tell where any branch may ultimately lead without taking it!

 

I have found many companions on the path.  Some remain seated at a comfortable place along the way, pointing a direction they would or would not take.  Others are resting after a particularly difficult stretch.  And yet others are moving along the same path for the moment, some having joined from another branch that just converged, some having returned from scouting out the way further along, to give guidance to those that follow, but many traveling the same trail that I am on.   Some walk ahead of me, some behind, and some beside me.  Our relative positions sometimes change.  When some of my companions reach terrain specifically suited to them, they sprint ahead.  At other times, they may lag behind, or even sit down for a rest.

 

My companions are an interesting mix of people, some living, some dead; family, clergy, authors, teachers, and “ordinary” people.  The list is long, but some of the more recently influential ones include Don Miller, Brian McLaren, N.T. Wright, my wife Becky, Ed Cardwell, Wes White, Fred Ramsey, some of my students, Oscar Romero, Miroslav Volf, Jürgen Moltmann, Paul Risler, Keith Wasserman.  The list could go on and on.

 

The top of the mountain beckons, although obscure.  I believe there is something worthwhile, wonderful, awaiting there.  I have read about it and heard about it all my life.  Some of the stories sound a bit exaggerated or use metaphorical language that leaves me scratching my head.  But in faith I proceed, yet with some apprehension.  I can’t see clearly the destination, nor even the path ahead of me!  And I have invited and encouraged others to follow!  Where am I going?  Where am I leading them?

 

In a way that seems familiar, yet vague, unclear, incomplete, I hear a voice from the mountaintop beckoning, encouraging, calling to come and see, come and rest, come and eat, come and know.

 

Dave Drozek

Thoughts from Athens

 

PS: in response to a reader who felt I was confused and lost, I wrote:

“Actually, I don’t feel confused, but feel as if I see more clearly than I have for many years!  Part of the problem was I thought I could see in the dark!  Now that there is more light, I realize how poorly I was seeing!  I am re-asking questions that no longer seem to fit the answers I once knew so well!

 

Christ and the cross is solidly before me as the hope, the goal, the example, the redemption.  I am simply discovering A New Kind of Christianity!”

Peace and Forgiveness (4/4/10)

Later on that day, the disciples had gathered together, but, fearful of the Jews, had locked all the doors in the house. Jesus entered, stood among them, and said, "Peace to you." Then he showed them his hands and side.

 

The disciples, seeing the Master with their own eyes, were exuberant. Jesus repeated his greeting: "Peace to you. Just as the Father sent me, I send you." 

 

Then he took a deep breath and breathed into them. "Receive the Holy Spirit," he said.  "If you forgive someone's sins, they're gone for good. If you don't forgive sins, what are you going to do with them?"

 

John 20:19-23

(from THE MESSAGE: The Bible in Contemporary Language © 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson. All rights reserved.)

 

 

What is the meaning of this last phrase about forgiving sins?  Another version says, “if the sins are not forgiven, they are retained.”  Is Jesus talking about something we do for others, or is he referring to something we do for ourselves?  

 

The context is one of Jesus having been through the worst man can inflict on another.  Many men would have been ready for revenge, to pick up the sword, or at least begin some insurgent type of movement to subvert those responsible.

 

Jesus disciples, elated at seeing their Messiah alive, now may be thinking the time for the sword has arrived, the time to overthrow Rome, the time to establish the Kingdom!

 

But Jesus greets them with “Peace to you. Just as the Father sent me, I send you.”  Jesus followers were to follow his example, his pathway.  Did this mean humility, sacrifice and even death?

 

Then, in the next breath, Jesus talks about forgiveness.  In the context, it is obvious who he is speaking about; all those responsible for his painful death: the religious leaders, the Romans, the population at large who turned their backs on the one who had fed them and led them with this new teaching.

 

“Forgive their sins, and they are gone for good.”  The sins will no longer be festering, crying for revenge within the disciples’ hearts and souls.  This is reminiscent of Jesus’ earlier teaching on prayer, that the basis of our forgiveness from God is our forgiveness of others.  If we fail to forgive the sins of others, then their sin is retained.  Retained where? In them, or maybe in us?  Maybe this is referring to the memory of their sins abiding in our hearts, preventing us from finding forgiveness for our own sins, preventing us from finding the Peace that Jesus offers?

 

Happy Resurrection Day!

 

Dave Drozek

The Overstuffed Box (3/30/10)

Have you ever tried to carry a soggy, overstuffed cardboard box?  It tends to not go too well, the bottom falling out, and the contents escaping uncontrollably onto the ground before you, which if not careful, you will tread upon.

 

 My theology was like that.  When I graduated from college with a minor in Bible, I had a nice neat box for my theology.  As I moved into the world, the box became rumbled and worn, as I often found myself forcing it into spaces where it didn’t fit too well.  It also seemed that the contents actually grew, making the box insufficient to maintain them.  The sides of the box bulged.  Little bits of the content pushed out at the corners and at the strained top edges that were unfolding, unable to hold things in.

 

The experiences of life added humidity to the box, at times even raining down upon the box, which I desperately tried to shield from damage.  Even though I valued the box and its contents, I found I could no longer carry it with me everywhere I went.  The box was threatening to fall apart if moved too much, so I left it in a secure location, sheltered, always with the memory of it close at hand.

 

But I found that I too often needed the box, or at least its contents, which were inconveniently stored safe at home, free from the influence of a harsh environment.  Finally, I gave in to the need and carried the box with me everywhere I went.  It was really awkward, as the bottom threatened to give way if I did not support it just so.  I had to keep a weight on the lid to keep it closed.  I actually found myself so preoccupied with maintaining the integrity of the box that I forgot about the contents!

 

Finally, one day, the box disintegrated and left me with an amorphous blob of content that I could not make sense of.  I tried to pick it up, but it flowed out of my arms, back onto the floor.  I simply could not contain it or manage to carry it with me.

 

Then I discovered a duffle bag; soft, malleable, changeable depending on the outward demands for space and size, and much more convenient to carry.  The contents easily fit, and could comfortably bulge here or there without the rigidity of walls.  Now I can easily carry the duffle bag with me, slung over my shoulder, no need to apologize for its awkwardness or unsightly condition.  It also serves me well as a pillow or prop when I am tired, and even allows me to enter and use it as a sleeping bag or shelter when it is inclement. 

 

 

Is there room in the church? (Palm Sunday 2010)

 

Jesus went straight to the Temple and threw out everyone who had set up shop, buying and selling. He kicked over the tables of loan sharks and the stalls of dove merchants. He quoted this text:

 

My house was designated a house of prayer;

You have made it a hangout for thieves. 

 

Now there was room for the blind and crippled to get in. They came to Jesus and he healed them. 

Matt 21:12-14

(from THE MESSAGE: The Bible in Contemporary Language © 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson. All rights reserved.)

 

 

As I read this passage this morning, I was struck with the way The Message put this.  It changed my whole thinking about what Jesus did in the temple.  Maybe he wasn’t so upset about what was being done as he was about what was NOT being done in the temple.  Business and organization had pushed out those in need, those who were inefficient, those who drained our resources, rather than serving them!

 

Is this what we do today?  Are we all about expediency?  Do we really want “those people” in the church who are emotionally needy, who want to monopolize our time and conversation?  Do we want those who are on the margin of society to sit next to us, to require that we smell them, maybe even to help them in some way?  Don’t we rather prefer to sneak in, talk to our friends, and leave quickly, avoiding eye contact with the unlovely?

 

What would Jesus do if he came to our church today?  Hmm….

 

 

Dave Drozek,

thoughts from Athens

Response to a comment that was generated by Other Stories! (2/15/2010)

 

Well Dave I guess I will be the black sheep with the traditional churchly answer. I strongly believe that Athanasias hit it on the head with the Nicene Creed. I feel strongly like those are the essentials and if the church is ever to experience unity it will be over those words. (posted on blog by a reader)

 

Andrew, I have been thinking about your comments, and have been slow to respond in writing as I have been preoccupied in setting up a team to go to Haiti.  Here are my thoughts:

 

I think the Nicene Creed is great, and agree with it, but what happened for the first three centuries before it was agreed upon?  If people then, and today, don’t agree with all the points, through ignorance or through false teaching, are they then rejected by God?

 

And why the Nicene Creed?  What is the authority, the evidence, that this is “it”?  Is it your personal judgment or sense of correctness?  Is it a pragmatic decision?  Is it a faith based on the collective wisdom of the church throughout the ages?   Is the church infallible? Many of my Evangelical friends would want to avoid a creed, and would simply cling to “the Word”?  But what interpretation and whose list?  What version of the Bible is correct?  What books should be included?

 

Things are too gray and murky for us to be so sure of much.  I think Jesus was trying to give us some direction when he said, “Love God; love your neighbor: all the commandments are wrapped up in these.”  This, I believe is the common denominator; recognition, submission and dedication to the Creator (Jesus, whether we know his name or not), and the practical out flowing of service to the image of the Creator in our fellow man.  This works for Noah, Abraham, Nebuchadnezzar, Cornelius, and for those around the world without the knowledge that we have.

 

 

A Different Paradigm, Part 2 (~Dec 2009)

Part II: What is the gospel?

With the help of this paradigm (described in Part 1), let us ponder another situation.  Acts 4:12 tells us that there is no other name than that of Jesus by which we must be saved.  If we, as Christians, accept this as true, what does it really mean?  Does everyone need to know certain facts about Jesus to be saved?  Or, maybe, does this mean that Jesus is the agent of salvation whether we know it or not? 

 

What about Abraham?  He didn’t know Jesus.  He had faith in the Creator God (Jesus) whom he knew through creation and revelation, and submitted himself to him (a living faith that responded, i.e. repentance, a change in direction).  Cornelius also prayed and helped the poor as an outflow of his recognition of, and service to a Creator (Acts 10).  Of course he was eventually taught additional truth about Jesus, which he gladly received.  But, he was pleasing to God even before knowing about and “receiving” Jesus!

 

Is there a framework active today where people who don’t know about Jesus recognize and submissively serve a Creator? (Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc.?)  What does God do with these folks?  Does he have a framework of truth that fits them that differs from the Christian framework?

 

Or, what about the person who rejects a greatly distorted image of Jesus presented by well meaning “Christians”, but goes on to live in submission to the Creator (Jesus) without embracing a particular theological formula?

 

If we take the traditional Evangelical approach that says without a “saving knowledge” of Jesus Christ, the “lost” are condemned already to an eternity without God, I then have to ask, “How much does someone need to know about Jesus to be ‘saved’?”  

 

The disciples, who carried the good news of Jesus into the surrounding villages during the ministry of Jesus on earth didn’t know anything about the death and resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 10).  They weren’t even sure Jesus was the Messiah. Yet, they spread the “gospel”.  What was their message?  What good was it (in modern Evangelical terms) if it didn’t tell the people that Jesus had died for their sins?

 

The message was one of a new kingdom, a different way of relating to others, as taught by Jesus during the Sermon on the Mount.  The call was to change directions in life and serve God and others.  The call was to be part of God’s kingdom, not the kingdom of man.  The call was to return to the way Adam and Eve lived and communed with God before the fall.  This was the call that Abraham accepted, apart from “knowing” the name of Jesus or about the resurrection.

 

Even after the resurrection, the early church couldn’t agree for quite a while whether Jesus was God, or simply the Messiah. The Nicene Creed affirming that Jesus was God was written in 325 CE, after centuries of debate on the topic.  Were those early “believers” not believers if they followed Jesus only as Messiah, even though they didn’t recognize him as God?  If we agree they were true believers, then how about the sincere people today who are involved in groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons, who diligently seek to serve God, and to follow Jesus and apply his teachings, but yet don’t believe Jesus is God, but rather that he is the son of God, a distinct entity?

 

I am glad I am not the judge!  God judges the hearts and intents of each man.

 

But what then is the message that we are to spread around the world in our effort to make disciples of all nations?  

 

What is the gospel?

 

I find that the narrative approach to the Bible makes more sense when I try to decide what my role is as a Christian.  I am to tell God’s story by my life and with my words.  He created the world perfectly.  Man messed it up, and God has been working toward putting it back the way he intended ever since.  He sent Jesus to show us the way to live, and to die for all of creation.  There was something beyond our comprehension accomplished in the death and resurrection of Jesus that opens the way to restoration.  Our job now is to live out and tell God’s story, to invite others to be part of the restoration process, to take on the hard work of living life according to God’s rules, not the world’s rules, for Jesus is the true King, who is eventually coming again to finally put everything  “to rights”.

 

So how do we do this in practice?  We need to be living our life with Kingdom values as our rule and practice.  We need to approach others, as Paul did in Athens, at the point of intersection of their worldview and ours (assuming ours is more correct; with more truth and less error than theirs), and invite them to follow the Creator, to participate in his counter cultural Kingdom, which he revealed and established through Jesus.  This is an invitation to change directions, to take up the hard job of living differently than those around us, to be a peculiar people, and to serve the real Ruler of the universe.  This is not accomplished through a simple prayer, or accepting the applicability of a few verses of Scripture juxtaposed in a linear analytical manner presented persuasively.  It requires a change that takes place over time, a lifetime; one of ups and downs.  

 

A well-prepared verbal or visual presentation of “the gospel” may “hook” a few people into a “decision” to follow Jesus, which may or may not be real or lasting.  But more likely, our life of consistent (not perfect) application of Kingdom truth will attract the interest of those who notice a difference, and recognize in their conscience (as the Holy Spirit works) that there is some truth in what we live and speak.  When they decide to follow Jesus, it will more likely be thought out, and with greater conviction and duration.  They will already have an idea of what being a disciple is by observing the sacrificial, serving and loving life of the body of Christ, which they now too desire to be a part.

 

So, I probably have raised more questions than answers.  I welcome the thought and input of others who can give me counsel and direction, to help me weed out my error and find the truth for our time.

A Different Paradigm, Part 1 (~Dec 2009)

Part I: What is truth?

As I strive to better understand God and my place in his plan, I have been reading current ideas in theology pertaining to the struggle between modernism and postmodernism.  I find that I can’t totally turn my back on modernism despite its faults, being, myself, a product of its teaching; my profession finding its success through the application of the scientific method, which is the basic tool of modernism.  Yet, I find much appeal and value in the postmodern argument that modernism has failed to produce its anticipated utopian results: the world is still at war, poverty abounds, people still suffer and die needlessly.  

 

In considering theology through the modernist and postmodernist approaches, I find neither adequate to explain what I see, experience and read in scripture.  Therefore I am shaping a new paradigm so that I can at least have a point of reference from which I can direct my life.  Any paradigm must start with presuppositions.

 

Presuppositions

 

1)     There is universal truth.  We receive glimpses of this truth through creation, scripture and via illumination from the Holy Spirit.  

 

2)     (Modern) man has overestimated himself and his ability to grasp and understand this truth.  This is a result of the enlightenment (most recently) and man’s pride.  It is in effect, the sin of Adam and Eve (and Satan); the desire to be the master of one’s own fate, or in essence, to be like God.

 

3)     (Modern) man has underestimated God; his attributes, his limitlessness, his eternality.  Man has tried to limit God, placing him in an anthropomorphic box of systematic theology, making him conform to a human image.

 

4)     Segments of truth are within our ability to comprehend, but we fail to see truth in its totality and in its proper context.  (Modern) man has attempted to systematize his glimpses of truth.  His pride has led to using his systems as tools for exercising dominion over others, and has led to divisions, judgementalism and power struggles.

 

5)     Time is a dimension in which we can capture a portion of absolute truth, as it is framed in a specific context. (More about this in a minute!)

 

6)     Faith reaches beyond our human limits as we seek to relate to God who is beyond the limits within which he created us.

 

7)     All worldviews of human origin and the spiritual realm likely are a mixture of truth and falsehood (our versions of Christianity included!).  Some essence of God’s truth can likely be found in all religions.  Our problem comes in trying to sort out the truth from the error.

 

Let’s try to put truth into a visual paradigm.  Let‘s use a parabola to represent absolute truth, which progresses to infinity on either end, but has specific defined points on a graph.

 

Let us first look at scientific truth on this paradigm.  We know from physics, for example, that Newtonian mechanics, which for years seemed to be the correct way of explaining our universe, is really inadequate, and in essence in error outside of specific circumstances.  We now have quantum mechanics, string theory, etc., which apply to conditions where Newtonian mechanics break down.  Newtonian mechanics however, served man quite well, and appeared to be true.  Newton’s laws actually work in a segment of the continuum of truth in which we live, and are in essence true under certain conditions.  Let’s illustrate this region of applicability as the segment of truth framed in a context of time and circumstances bordered, or framed, by the two lines on the parabola.  

Physicists tell us that outside of this segment, this framed context, Newtonian mechanics no longer work, and that we need a better description of the truth; thus we have quantum mechanics.  But even quantum mechanics fail to explain what happened during the milliseconds of time that occurred at the moment of the Big Bang, or, if you will, the initial creation event.  Quantum mechanics encompasses a bigger segment of the parabola, but yet has its limits, and fails to contain the entire parabola of truth.  Man’s understanding of truth is incomplete, and will likely remain so.

 

Let us look at this in the realm of theological truth.  There appear to be conflicting ways in which God has dealt with people throughout history.  We see this clearly in the Bible.  For example, God told King Saul to exterminate the Amalekites; man, woman, child and even their animals.  This seems to be in clear contradiction with the teaching of Jesus to love our enemies.  Yet, we believe that God never changes.  How can this be?  Are they both “true” expressions of the will of God?

 

Let us use our paradigm.  We can see that we have two sets of lines dividing the parabola into segments.  There is the segment between the lines with arrows, and another segment between the lines without arrows.  These two segments overlap, and also have portions that are unique.  Both segments contain truth, but neither contains all the truth (the entire parabola).  They do share some truth in common (the overlapped segment).  

 

When God told the Israelites to exterminate their enemies, was this truth framed in a particular context of time, culture, etc.?  Was it truth that applied to that situation?  (This is not situation ethics!  This is God’s absolute truth for a particular setting, a part of God’s continuum of truth that is beyond our ability to see and comprehend!)  This is one unique portion of one segment of truth along the continuum.  Maybe Jesus’ command to love our enemies applies to a different frame along the continuum, another unique portion of the other segment?  Yet there is much in common between the times of Old Testament Israel and the new Testament Church (the common, overlapped segment).  

 

If this is an accurate paradigm, this does not afford us the liberty to say to one another, “What is true for you is not true for me!”  We have the hard job of discovering what God’s truth is for our particular setting.  But we need to be careful because (presupposition #7) each of us has mixed into our worldview truth and error.   Discovering and weeding out that falsehood is our task, with the help the Holy Spirit, and in the context of the faith community, the church.  There is an individual component to that process, but we must be careful to avoid the enlightenment error of assuming that each of us can independently, for ourselves, decide on truth.  Truth needs to be discovered and defined in the context of the faith community as directed by the Holy Spirit.

 

Does this framework of truth find itself defined only in time, or are there cultural elements as well?  Can different frameworks coincide during the same point in time?  Can truth appear to be different in different cultural settings?  If we look at the book of Acts, we see quite a mix of truth frameworks within a short time period.  We see the apostles, fully aware of the resurrection of Jesus.  We see the disciples of John, not yet aware of Jesus, nor the resurrection.  And we see Cornelius, the gentile, recognizing and serving the God of creation apart from his knowledge of Judaism or Christianity.  All of these frameworks were active at the same time and contained truth that was apparently acceptable to God in their specific contexts.

 

Does the same apply today?  Are there cultural frameworks (Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, various forms of Christianity, etc.) where people have portions of truth, to which they are faithful, and are therefore acceptable to God?  To be sure, each of those systems is mixed with some error (as is ours), and none of them contains all the truth.

Pondering Authority (12/2009)

Christians consider The Bible as authoritative.  But how does that work?

Growing up in a fundamentalist Baptist tradition, we believed every word had significance.  Systematic theology was taught, grouping together “proof texts” from various locations scattered throughout the Bible to use as evidence to back up the listed doctrines of the system.  I often wondered if at times we were missing the forest for the trees, concentrating on the details, but missing the framework.  

 

The argument for authority of Scripture seemed a bit strained at times.  We referred to Scripture’s own claim of authority.  And we referred to the pain staking process of selecting the proper books to include in the Bible.  This perplexed me, as we accepted the decisions of the early church “Fathers” in selecting the books of the Bible, yet we rejected any other authority of their decisions, and even ignored most of their teachings, lest we be too much like the “Catholics”!

 

N. T. Wright in The New Testament and the People of God presents a different paradigm on authority.  He likens the Bible to a five-act play.  He uses the example of a Shakespearean play that has been discovered with four acts complete, but only an outline and a few pages of the fifth act present.  The bulk of the play is present, the plots and subplots are established, but the ending is still a bit of a mystery, represented by a few signs visible in the fog.

 

If some expert Shakespearean actors were sought out and invited to complete the play in a way that would be consistent with the first four acts, in accordance with the outline of the fifth act, and yet faithful to all they knew about Shakespeare, how would they proceed?  To do their job well, they would have to be directed by that which they already have available.  The first four acts and the parts of the fifth act are their authority to refer to as they complete the play.

 

This, N. T. Wright suggests, is what the authority of Scripture is all about!  We have the first four acts clearly before us; Creation, Fall, Israel and Jesus.  We have bits of the next act, which we can call “Church”.  We are the actors who have to complete the play under the authority of that which we have already available, so that we do a job consistent with and faithful to that which is intended.

 

This approach to Scripture requires an understanding of the story of Scripture; the forest, not just the trees, the big picture, not disjointed pieces.  The over arching story, or metanarrative, is then our authority.

 

Something to ponder!

 

Dave Drozek

December 2009

Human Cloning (Nov 28, 2001)

(Note from 2025: I wrote this as a missionary in Honduras back in 2001)

 

What does God think about a human clone?  How does He see him?  Is the clone a being that bears the image of God?  Does it have a sin nature and a spirit that requires salvation?  On the answers to these question hinges our response.

 

What is the purpose of human cloning?  It appears to me that there are no good reasons to do so.  It circumvents the usual means of producing a human being that God has established.  It fulfills the selfish desires of individuals to have “organ banks” of compatible tissue for future use.  It lets scientists feel like they are gods.

 

Let’s for a moment assume that cloned human beings are not human; they merely represent an off growth of the donor, a cell that has been induced to reproduce into an identical image, an identical twin, removed in time.  How shall we treat this being?  If it is to be saved for organ donation, we certainly don’t want to become attached to it!  But someone needs to care for this future donor. Do we need to raise it somewhere away from us, maybe on a farm, where it can be fed and kept healthy until the day it is needed?    Do we educate it?  Do we keep it as a pet?  Does it have rights?  Does it receive a birth certificate and citizenship?  Can it vote?  Can you insure it?  Will it be covered by your health plan?  

 

Maybe someone will vainly want an image of himself to raise as a child; to grant it a better life than they had and to somehow attain a sense of immortality in so doing; to see their own image in a better light.  Certainly in this case it would be desirable to grant the clone full human rights and protection!  If it were killed, it would be murder.

 

Can we have it both ways?

 

Let’s for a moment again think about what God may think.  To be safe, to avoid the problems of the past that we had thinking that people who were Jewish or black were not human, or that unborn babies were not human, let’s assume that indeed this cloned human is fully human in God’s eyes, just like two identical twins are both human with a unique soul and spirit; a unique personality and ability to learn; a unique future in which they deserve the right to seek life, liberty and happiness.  We must assume that this cloned being, since in reality it is created from and resembles a being that God created in His Image, has a sin nature and a spirit in need of redemption.  This cloned being then needs a family; needs to be loved and educated; needs to be granted full protection as a human being, and can not be treated simply as an animal waiting to be slaughtered for consumption by its owner.

 

Therefore, why bother?

 

It appears that human cloning is our modern Tower of Babel, in which man seeks to exert his will over the Will of God.  Man is exalting himself into the heavens in an attempt to make and sustain a name for himself.  Nothing about man has changed, only the time and place.

 

Dave Drozek, with

 

Thoughts from Honduras

Give us the bread we need for today!

Give us the bread we need for today. 

Matthew 6:11 CEB

Such a short verse, but so much to think about!  This verse is nestled in the middle of The Lord’s Prayer.  I too often have quickly moved past this verse, having food security, having much more than I need.

This takes on new meaning, new emphasis today as people are literally starving to death in Gaza due to man made and man sustained famine.

How does this verse, this prayer, work?  Elsewhere, Jesus teaches that if we pray with faith, all things are possible.  Are the people starving in Gaza not praying with enough faith?  If, you think, they are praying amiss because they pray to another god, what about us who are Christians and are praying for them? Are we lacking faith?

Just prior to this verse, we are to pray for God’s kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven.  Starvation is certainly not part of God’s kingdom plan.  Again, are we praying amiss?  Are we lacking faith?  What is this prayer about?

I am guilty of complacency, having never worried about if I would have a meal.  I have been “wise” according to my culture, and am fortunate to have an ample retirement income.  I wrestle with the question of where my faith is placed.  Do I have confidence in what I have “earned” more than confidence in God who has provided generously for me?  

Why me? Why am I so rich?  Why not, instead, the people who are living in poverty?  At least partly, maybe mostly, I was born in the “right” country at the “right” time with the “right” color of skin and the “right” gender.  I did work, but do I take too much credit for myself?  What would I do if I lost it all, like Job?

So back to Gaza.  Is God failing?  Is he not responding to prayer, as he said he would?  

His kingdom has not come, yet!  Why not?  

Is God’s body failing? (The Church! Us!) Is God’s body not prevailing against the Gates of Hell?

The world has the resources, the daily bread, sufficient for everyone to have enough.  The “haves” are not sharing with the “have nots”!  Some “haves” are even forcefully resisting the distribution to those in need even as many who have excess seek to provide what is needed.

What can be done?

Pray?  I am, as, I am sure, are many others.  Yet…

Give? To whom?  It seems that many have given, and the delivery is blocked?

Go?  This is not an option for me currently, but many are going and sharing their valuable stories and eyewitness accounts.

Political activism?  Vote?  Contact our government authorities?  Protest (peacefully)?  

With the psalmists and prophets, I cry out, “Why, oh Lord, are the poor suffering injustice?”  Why do the wealthy sit back in their ease and fail to lift their fingers to stop it?

Why?