So I feel guilty about continuing to teach the Christmas story to children in a way that I know isn’t biblical. (See yesterday's blog.) But there’s more. Murray Abraham Pura writes...
“The popular Christmas story is familiar to everyone. Christmas cards and other modern renditions give us glimpses of a flawless Mary in pristine wrinkle-free clothing, a steady and unperturbed Joseph in an equally immaculate robe, a cheerful stable with clean straw and friendly animals, and the arrival of shepherds in newly laundered snow-white tunics with dirt-free sandals on their feet. It is a romanticized version, of course, and can cause problems for our own spiritual growth if we take it too seriously.” (From The Renovare Spiritual Formation Bible)
Problems for our spiritual growth? Sounds serious. What possible problem for our spiritual growth could this celebration of Christmas cause?
One of the largest churches in United Methodism is located right here in the city of Houston. Pastored by Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, this church is THE largest Methodist church in our city, with over 7,000 attendees each week. I’m speaking of Windsor Village UMC on the southside. Windsor Village UMC does not celebrate Christmas as a church. It’s not that Pastor Caldwell does not celebrate the birth of our Savior, or the incarnation of God in human flesh. He believes in these passionately. But he is concerned that the way we celebrate Christmas can cause problems for the spiritual growth of his flock. So Windsor Village does not celebrate Christmas as a church. Do you think Pastor Caldwell and Windsor Village UMC have over-reacted? How do you feel about what Murray Abraham Pura writes?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Bob:
I'm facilitating the group/class discussion on your sermon series in my Sunday school class. I must brag on them because as a group we scored 85 on the trivia quiz! We were having a spirited discussion of Lesson One right up to the moment when I blundered into some issues which I begged the group to place in the "parking lot" as it were, i.e. for further consideration, research and discussion.
Specifically and in some order of increasing difficulty:
1. What DOES KirbyJohn do on Christmas at Windsor Village? (Aside from saving on camel, sheep and donkey rentals that is?)
2. [DISCLAIMER: The following is my best recollection of the argument of one member of our class.] Matthew's geneology is of no value because is is not factual and therefore does serve to validate that Jesus is David's descendant. It is not factual for two reasons:
a. The generational count is not plausable (i.e. the number of generations listed contrasted to the scientifically proven timeline result in too few people for the number of years.)
b. Joseph's geneology is irrelevant because Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
I did not embark on a discussion of how the bible was written in a Hebraic Literary Style which is not the same as a Western Scientific or Archeological study. Nor did I attempt to recall prior lessons on how to properly interpret scripture according to the type of writing style, the audience and the Hebrew world view. I didn't remember the arguments and I sensed that it wouldn't have impacted the party involved anyway. So I agreed to see if Mary's geneology was listed and what light that might shed on validating that Christ was a descendant of David and therefore was fulfilling Old Testament propehcey. I scampered out of the line of fire and moved on into the next minefield.
Can you suggest an alternative response?
3. I then asked the question: What examples could the class give, besides the four women, of "Black Sheep" being used by God for Good. Well, after a moment of silence, which for whatever stupid reason I decided to fill, I blurted out my opinion that perhaps Paul could be considered a black sheep. Bang! Another dart sent my way! Paul/Saul? Gosh Saul was only doing what his society demanded of him when he persecuted the early Christians. In fact, he was a righteous man and was fully supported by the established Jewish civil and religious authorities. Regretting my hasty decision to attempt to move the discussion along, I wondered if I could have found a better example of a "traditional" Black Sheep used for good in the Bible.
Maybe if I could cite a figure whom the Jerusalem Chamber of Commerce wouldn't admit to their proceedings. Do any theives, rapists, embezzlers come to mind who could serve as good, I mean, bad examples?
Anyway, after slapping me around twice, I believe this group member took pity on me for being such a good whipping boy and just tuned me out for the rest of the lesson.
Should I show my face again or can you redeem me?
SIGNED: Lost in Translation
Dear Lost,
I'm sure you can show your face again! Most classes appreciate a good discussion! Regarding your questions, here's my take...
1. KirbyJon (no "h") and Windsor Village UMC do not celebrate Christmas as a church. I'm not sure what they do -- I think they just carry on as usual with KirbyJon's powerful, life-changing preaching. KirbyJon has taken a lot of heat for this over the years, I'm sure, but it's just part of the way they 'do church' now.
2. While it is true that Matthew's and Luke's genealogies differ considerably, I would disagree with the class member's statement that Matthew's genealogy "is of no value because it is not factual." That is a classic post-enlightenment statement which assumes that value is attached to historical. Matthew -- and Luke -- are making theological statements, which are just as "factual" as historial would be. Luke's genealogy contains many more generations than Matthews', and thus might be more plausible. But Matthew's theological point revolves around the Hebrew beliefs about numerology, the number "7" for perfection/completeness, etc. I think he wants to show that Jesus's birth was not haphazard, not just "one of the many." He is certainly trying to tie Jesus' birth to God's promise to David in 1 Sam. 7:1-17. Matthew wants to show Jesus as the fulfillment of the promise to David -- and thus to Israel. To Matthew, that point is more "factual," more important, so he's willing, I suspect, to skip a few names to make his point. Luke takes a different tack.
3. As for black sheep, the poster boy for biblical black sheep might be Jacob. He stole his brother Esau's birthright, tricked his father, deceived his uncle -- fought with God -- and became the namesake for Israel. Sounds like he fits the bill!
Hang in there. You're doing a great job.
Bob
Post a Comment