Categories
Photography and Music Spirituality

Hope for Families of Children with Disabilities: A Sermon (Part III)

(Part III of my “sermon”):

We should pause for a moment to recall the significance of eating at someone’s table in the ancient near eastern cultural world of the Bible. This is more than tolerance; it is deep acceptance. Mephibosheth is accepted as a member of the King’s own family. The social stigma and practical barriers of his disability have been erased by the King’s gracious act.

This scene of the lame man eating at the King’s table is a picture or type of the Kingdom of God. In the Gospels, over and over again, we see Jesus healing the lame and eating at table with sinners. Jesus’ power over physical disabilities often is presented in the Gospels as clear evidence that the Kingdom of God has arrived. Matthew chapter nine, for example, presents a remarkable succession of such Kingdom-events: in the space of that one chapter, Jesus heals a paralyzed man, eats a meal with tax collectors and other sinners, heals a woman of internal bleeding, raises a girl from the dead, casts out a demon, and travels, as verse thirty-five summarizes, “through all the cities and villages, teaching in [the] synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness.”

At first blush, this kind of blitzkrieg of Jesus-miracles seems just as unhelpful as the rest of our triumphalistic theology and practice. I know that many of you have prayed ardently for the healing of your children, and we have prayed for you and with you and over you, yet the disabilities remain. But here we must try to place the Mephibosheth story and the Jesus stories into the Bible’s “big picture.” These things are only glimpses of that which is yet to come.

It’s as though we’re backstage on the opening night of a master playwright’s great creation. The curtain is down and we can’t see the front of the stage. The playwright has given us some lines to learn, some movements to practice, some marks to hit, so that when the curtain goes up, we’ll be ready to fulfill our roles. Every now and then the curtain parts a bit and the playwright brings some bit of scenery or lighting or costume or music or choreography to the rear of the stage, which is slowly, painstakingly being transformed into the world the playwright has envisioned. As that world begins to take shape, we realize that even now we are participating in the playwright’s work, and we anticipate with excitement the great performance to come.

The scenes of acceptance and healing we see in scripture are like bits of the future performance that we have been able to rehearse and preview. The lame will walk; the outsider will be brought in to the King’s table; the wounded will be healed; the sinner will be forgiven. This is the storyline. We often experience the excitement as pieces of the story unfold before us, as we’re drawn into the drama even now.

Maybe you haven’t seen Jesus heal your child miraculously, but I have little doubt that you have known a moment or two in which the curtain has opened a bit in a smile, a sparkle of recognition, a laugh. One of you even mentioned to me the grace you receive each night as you clean up your child after she goes potty. She can’t learn how to help herself in this task that most of us take for granted. Yet she recognizes your help with a grateful smile. This child, in this way, is the embodiment of God’s grace.

The God who suffered on the cross is the author of the narrative of your child’s circumstances. I believe with the certainty of faith that this God has not failed and will not fail your little one. I believe with the conviction of this God’s acts in history, His words in the scriptures, and His testimony in and through the Church, that our prayers for these little ones — yours and mine, and those all around the world — are more than empty words. God hears, God acts, God has saved, God will save.

I imagine that the first royal banquet attended by Mephibosheth in David’s palace caused a stir among the courtiers. One who was excluded for being lame, one who deserved death as a member of Saul’s defeated household, received honor. Many who dismiss or conveniently ignore our sons and daughters today will likewise be surprised at the great wedding feast of Christ.

At this point, perhaps you’re ready to tune out this sermon as more “pie in the sky.” I don’t blame you. Here is where we must work hard to recover the sense of both the flesh-and-blood immanence of Mephibosheth’s story and of the mysterious transcendent spirituality inherent in Jesus’ idea of the Kingdom of God.

When you hold that baby with her broken body and misfiring neurons in your arms now, she is sitting with you, right now, at the King’s table set by Jesus. When you pray for the orphans of the world, those precious little ones are seated with you, right now, at the eschatological feast. When you do what you can to send material aid and to declare the good news of the Gospel, you are participating, right now, in God’s own work of bringing the story to a right, good, just, wholesome completion.

I know that Mephibosheth’s story doesn’t answer all your questions or resolve all your heartaches. Somehow we’ve learned to think of “faith” as something always instant, always obvious, always dramatic. We need to unlearn this view of “faith.”

Don’t give in to the despair, the limited vision, which would reduce the victory of the Cross, the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and the work of the Church, only to that which is obvious and evident to our human senses. The drama God is choreographing is much bigger. Yes, this is a time for you of testing. It requires patience and perseverance. Yes, there is opposition, often fierce opposition, to the work of the Kingdom, and many refuse to participate, and so are fostering and inheriting wrath. But we now pledge our help to you, in the company of the Saints throughout the ages, as you continue in your good work of caring for the very least of the least, until Christ appears and we sit at his table together.

Categories
Photography and Music Spirituality

Hope for Families with Disabled Children: A Sermon (Part I)

(This is part I of a “sermon” I had to write for an Old Testament class.  I hope some of you find it helpful).

Jonathan son of Saul had a son who was lame in both feet.  He was five years old when the news about Saul and Jonathan came from Jezreel.  His nurse picked him up and fled, but as she hurried to leave, he fell and became crippled.  His name was Mephibosheth. — 2 Samuel 4:4

One of my most vivid and horrifying memories is the day seven years ago when my son Garrett had his first epileptic seizure. The sound of his labored breathing woke me. At first I thought he was choking. Then I saw his little two-year-old body contracting in spasms that I recognized as a grand mal seizure. He had many more seizures after that first one. The area of his brain that is affected by his epilepsy controls speech, and as a result he lost the ability to process language. Today, as a nine-year-old, Garrett understands very little spoken language. He gets by with a mix of words, signs, and pantomime.

Although Garrett is otherwise intelligent, his loss of speech affects his emotional and cognitive development. We have no idea whether Garrett will ever be able to live independently — to go to college, hold a regular job, get married, have a family of his own. And we have no idea whether Garrett will ever really be able to understand the message of the Gospel and what it means to follow Jesus. For now, thankfully, Garrett is happy and content in his own world. We as his parents, however, live every day with uncertainty that gnaws at the hope we want to have for his future, as well as with the stress and burdens of constantly dealing with his unique issues.

I know that there are many of you here today with the same sorts of concerns. Some of you have children with Autism, Down’s Syndrome, Tourette Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, or other ailments that limit or destroy your beloved little one’s potential. A few of you, I know, understand that your child’s condition likely will limit his or her life expectancy severely. And on top of this emotional stress, you are often simply physically exhausted. For you, there is no such thing as a “simple” morning or evening routine. While other children, by the time they are out of diapers, become increasingly self-sufficient, you must continue taking care of your child’s basic needs — getting dressed, eating, cleaning up after themselves, even using the bathroom — long after they should be taking care of themselves.

Your children are extensions of yourselves, so all of you who care for special needs kids know something of the pain of being “other,” of living in a limbo that is rarely acknowledged or appreciated, of adjusting your expectations for the future in ways that, if you are honest, are deeply disappointing.

I’m afraid that some of your disappointment must be with the Church. I know this is true even for me. Many times we celebrate the healthy babies and able children of our congregation. When we dedicate a baby, or send a group of kids out on a summer missions trip, we often unconsciously present a narrative of ability and success to our families: you will nurture and train your children, and a time will come when they, too, will follow Christ exuberantly.

Of course, it is good and right that we remind ourselves of our responsibilities as parents, and that we commission and celebrate young people who go out from us to serve Christ in the world. Yet, we seem to ignore the inconvenient realties of children with disabilities. The very presence of such children challenges to the core how we think about God and about our mission as the Church. The Church, we seem to think, is not supposed to be filled with people who look strange, who make unexpected noises, or who can’t comprehend a sermon.

And I’m guessing that many of you have asked – or have been afraid to ask – questions that the Church seem ill-equipped to answer – because I know I have:

“Why did this happen to my little one?”

“What did I do wrong? Why are you angry with me Lord?”

“God, why don’t you afflict me instead? Just let my little one be healed.”

“What will become of my child when I’m too old to care for him, or when I’m gone?”

“How could a God who is ‘loving’ and ‘good’ let this happen to an innocent baby?”

“If my child is mentally incapable of understanding the Gospel, can he be saved? If not, of if I can’t be sure one way or the other, how is it ‘good news’ for him or for my family?”

“How can I bear the weight of caring for this child’s needs over the long term? It’s not fair. It’s too much.”

“What about the tens of millions of other disabled, impoverished, hungry, orphaned, diseased, broken children in our world today? Are they any less valuable to you than my little one? God, do you take any delight in or gain any glory from their suffering? What kind of God is glorified by such a weight of destruction? Is there no justice for them at all?”

At this point, I’d like to walk methodically with you through the historic theological principles that will answer these questions.  But I cannot.

In part, this is because I fear that we have lost the resources to do so in any meaningful way. To be sure, there are flickerings here and there in the Christian tradition of efforts to respond to questions like these. In general, Christians have focused on the Church and its sacraments as the means by which the faith of the Christian community is imputed to and absorbed by those who are not able to comprehend and correlate their lives to the Gospel. It has often been acknowledged, in fact, that even the “able” among us are incapable of conforming to the Gospel. We all need the Church’s communal faith in some sense. The presence of disabled children among us should remind us that genuine Christian faith is always a corporate faith and never just an individual one. Perhaps the honest airing of your questions will help to correct our distorted individualistic concept of faith.

In another sense, I cannot answer these concerns methodically because they simply occupy a space in which all analytical methods break down. There in some important ways are no “answers” here; there are only some paths of “acceptance.” “Acceptance” isn’t a logical reason, it’s a relational status, it’s the act of a character in a human drama. Perhaps this is one reason why the Bible doesn’t give us a systematic theology of disability. What it does give us is a story. . . .

Categories
Ambient Books and Film Photography and Music

Ambient: Chasing Leviathan

Here’s my latest ambient / experimental music composition, Chasing Leviathan.

Categories
Photography and Music

Autumn

One of my brother’s photos on JPG:

Categories
Academic Culture Interviews James K.A. Smith Photography and Music Spirituality

Conversation With Jamie Smith: Part 2

This is Part 2 of my conversation with James K.A. Smith (Part 1 is here).  The occasion for this conversation is the introductory essay to Jamie’s book The Devil Reads Derrida, “The Church, Christian Scholars, and Little Miss Sunshine.”  Thanks very much to Jamie for doing this!

Dave: It’s interesting that you mention finding your way into the Reformed tradition starting with “Old Princeton.” So where did you go from there? The Evangelical mainstream — if there is such a thing — as well as the intellectual leaders of the Evangelical mainstream, remain rooted in Old Princeton, at least concerning epistemology and scripture. This can be a significant tension, which I think is commonly experienced. A big part of the community holds pretty strongly to the belief that common sense realism, combined with B.B. Warfield’s concept of Biblical inerrancy, are vital and sufficient for Christian intellectual engagement. Often this is coupled with a very strong sense of cultural antithesis, so that opposition to these ideas is viewed as opposition to the Kingdom of God. But for many people, myself included, the more you poke at it, the more Old Princeton starts to look moldy and crumbly. It may have been an important for its time in the Nineteenth Century, but the paradigms it offers don’t hold up very well against many advances in learning from other fields of inquiry. What alternative paradigms exist for Christian scholars who hope to remain within the historic stream of Christian thought and belief?

Jamie: When I started my graduate studies, I landed at the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto. I knew this was a philosophical graduate school “in the Reformed tradition,” which is why I was attracted to it. But given my formation to that point, “Reformed” for me just meant Edwards, Warfield, Hodge and gang. Little did I realize that ICS was rooted in the Dutch philosophical tradition of Kuyper and Dooyeweerd–and that they’re philosophical framework constituted a trenchant critique of the “common sense realism” of Old Princeton! In fact, when I was at ICS we started with a week-long “boot camp” that was basically a baptism into Dooyeweerd. And already in that week I saw the prim, tidy edifice I had erected crumbling around me.

Perhaps one could just say that the Old Princeton paradigm does not stand up to the critique of rationalism that was articulated in the 20th century, whereas Kuyper and Dooyeweerd were articulating a critique of the idols of reason well-before Heidegger, Derrida, et. al.

So “where did I go,” you ask, after Old Princeton? Amsterdam! Now, I didn’t exactly settle down there, but the Dutch side of the Reformed tradition offered a model of the Christian scholarly project that seemed much more nimble and attuned to contemporary challenges. It’s this tradition that would later produce folks like Nicholas Wolterstorff, Alvin Plantinga and George Marsden. And if I recall correctly, Kuyper makes a significant cameo in Mark Noll’s Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Indeed, Andy Crouch’s new book, Culture Making is kind of “Kuyper for Evangelicals” (and much preferred to Colson’s rendition of the same in How Now Shall We Live?).

If anyone wanted to follow up on this, I would still recommend Kuyper’s Stone Lectures at Princeton, published simply as Calvinism. But I might also recommend a little-known book that looks at classic figures in Christian thought (from Clement up to Gutierrez) from within this paradigm: Bringing into Captivity Every Thought: Capita Selecta in the History of Christian Evaluations of Non-Christian Philosophy (University Press of America).

Dave: I really appreciated “The Secret Lives of Saints: Reflections on Doubt,” which is included in The Devil Reads Derrida. But I’ve had trouble distinguishing “doubt” from “unbelief” from “scholarly skepticism,” and I wonder if you could comment about that. Academe is all about asking questions. Some think this results from relativism in the universities, a belief that there is no ultimate truth, but that hasn’t been my experience at all. Most of my academic colleagues, at heart, are passionate truth-seekers, though they might believe that ultimate knowledge of the truth is humanly unobtainable — or that Christianity simply isn’t true. Offer them a pile of steaming apologetic skubala and they’ll throw it right back at you. I’ve been covered in it more times than I want to admit. So this mindset forces us to ask questions: “who says,” “why,” “why not,” “where’s the evidence,” “what about this,” and so on. I might even say that this is our job as scholars. Yet an important part of our faith as Christians is confession — “I believe….” How can a Christian scholar start to integrate these apparently competing postures of “question” and “confession”?

Jamie: Well, this probably won’t make you happy, but I’m going to deflect this question a bit. While I don’t at all want to denigrate truth-seeking (!), I sometimes think the questions of skeptics are a cover for deeper, more affective issues they not articulating. I think there’s a place for evidence and demonstration and argument, but I also think there can be times (quite often) where this amounts to casting pearls before swine–not that our interlocutors are swine, but that they’re not really in a place to receive the arguments because, ultimately, it’s not the evidence that’s at issue. It’s love. I still think Christian scholars are doing their apologetic best when they model love–not by defending their beliefs but by living a peculiar life of love that is winsome, attractive, alluring. The fact of the matter is, despite all my philosophical proclivities, I was loved into the kingdom of God. And while skeptical interlocutors amongst are academic colleagues might be (sincerely) articulating questions and concerns in our debates with them, it might just be the case that what’s at issue is not really “intellectual.”

In this respect, I’m reminded of Augustine’s conversion in Book VIII of the Confessions. By that point, it’s not at all a matter of knowledge or conviction. Augustine knows what’s right; you might even say he believed it. What was holding him back was the will–he wasn’t willing to pursue a way of life. Christianity is not an intellectual system; it’s a way of life.

Dave: If you had to identify three books that Christian thinkers should read this year (besides the Bible or your own books), what would they be?

Wow. Tough question. By “this year,” do you mean new books that have just come out? That’d be tough to say. Let me stall by suggesting three classics that I think every Christian, not to mention Christian “thinkers,” should read at some point: Augustine’s Confessions, Augustine’s De doctrina christiana (“On Christian Teaching”), and Augustine’s City of God. Yeah, I think Augustine’s pretty important. Whether you could read those “this year”–well, that’s another question.

If you meant new books out this year, I’d recommend Graham Ward’s forthcoming book, The Politics of Discipleship (Baker Academic), D. Stephen Long’s new book, Speaking of God: Theology, Language, and Truth (Eerdmans), and Eric Gregory’s Politics and the Order of Love (U of Chicago).

Dave: Can I just ask one follow up on the question you deflected?! So I understand and agree for the most part with what you’re saying about responding to external non-Christian critics — though I might cite something like Merold Westphal’s “Suspicion and Faith” for the notion that we need to learn from our critics. What I meant to get at a little more is the “internal” check. As you describe your experience at ICS, you met with skepticism about the Old Princeton paradigm, for example. As Christian Scholars, these teachers of yours were asking skeptical questions of competing Christian paradigms in order to encourage you to develop what you’ve come to believe are richer Christian paradigms. This is part of the discipleship of the mind, as I see it — asking hard questions, and taking hard questions seriously, in ways that help refine our thinking in the process of (or as part of the process of) every thought being taken captive by Christ. But this can result in the tension between question and confession. Your confession of some Reformed distinctives won’t mean exactly the same as the confession of someone within the Old Princeton paradigm, for example, because of the questions you’ve asked. Some people who disagree with how you think of some issue of theology or Bible interpretation will suggest you fail to believe the Bible or God against those questions. Maybe my (long winded) question is this: how do you, as someone who is a bridge between the questioning world of Christian scholarship and the confessing world of the Christian Church, distinguish between “faithful” questions and questions that represent affective problems of the will?

Jamie: Oh, OK: I better appreciate what you’re asking now. I guess I would be hesitant to set up these two different worlds–the “questioning” world of Christian scholarship and the “confessing” world of the church. I think there’s inseparable intermingling here. Or let me put it this way: every question is its own kind of confession. Even our questions are articulated from somewhere, on the basis of something–however tenuous. And some of our best confessions are questions: Why, O Lord? How long, O Lord? My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? As I think about it, the confessions are not boundaries that mark the limits of questioning; rather, the creeds and confessions are the guardrails that enable us to lean out and over the precipice, asking the hard questions.

I sometimes suggest that the Reformed tradition is like a Weeble. Do you remember those toys? “Weebles wobble but they don’t fall down!” These were egg-shaped toys with a heavily weighted bottom. You could press the toys in any direction and they could lean out, but then return to center. I think of the church’s creeds and confessions as the weighted bottom of my theoretical questioning: they provide a center of gravity that enables me to lean out into the hard questions. Granted, our churches often are not comfortable with fostering an ethos of curiosity and questioning, even though God is not at all frightened by such things. Again, I think it’s important for Christian scholars to model what faithful questioning looks like.

Categories
Photography and Music

Song Remix: Wind and Waves

This is a song I wrote at Long Beach Island a couple of years ago. I’ve remixed it a bit.

Categories
Books and Film Photography and Music

New Song: "Beautiful"

This is a song I’ve been working on for my wife — our 18th anniversary is next week!

Categories
Law and Policy Photography and Music

MLK

Watch this, then listen to Richie Haven’s new version of We Don’t Get Fooled Again.  ‘Nuff said.

Categories
Photography and Music

Photo Commons

A very cool new feature from Flickr:  a collection of public domain photos from various museum and other archives.

Categories
Photography and Music Uncategorized

New Ambient Tune

Here’s a new ambient tune, “Harp,” using a pedal steel virtual instrument I just acquired. Enjoy.