Among the many intriguing characters of Holy Scripture is the
Northern Kingdom prophet Hosea(circa 8-7 century BC).  He’s the man God called to marry a “prostitute” named Gomer as radical form of prophetic performance art.  It’s a tragic relational story.  Gomer is regularly found in beds and the arms of other men.  All the while, Hosea continues to pursue her and redeem her, even paying a type of pimp for her to come home.  “Their” children are named: Jezreel, (as a comment on King Jehu’s dynasty), Loruhamah (not loved), and Loammi (not my people).  The story of Hosea makes it pretty clear that the children are not all Hosea’s.

There has been so much talk within the protestant world about loving Jesus Christ but not being too crazy about the church.  At times the suggestion is made that bride of Christ frequently whores herself, sleeping with other partners; i.e. the state, modernity, “the will to power”, economics, the church’s own dogma about God, etc. There is no doubt that we, as followers of Christ, are prone to wander, our eyes often search the horizon for more immediate gratification.  We are modern-day Gomers.  And those moments of pleasure produce real children, which forever flavor our stories.

In addition being part Gomer, I find that I am simultaneously part Hosea.  I love the church and keep running after her, and trying to buy her back.  While I also carry hurt, disappointment, even embarrassment regarding my love for whoring-bride (which includes me).  At times I feel the fool for believing that “this time it will be different.”  And am shocked to discover that my best intentions at wooing her back create still more children; they too flavor our stories.

I am both Gomer and Hosea.  Part of me would like to say that the calling of the pastor is the calling to be Hosea – and it may be – but every bit as much the calling of the pastor is to own one’s Gomer-heart and surrender to the wooing of the Groom. 

What might it mean for us – as both Hosea and Gomer – to pursue each other and to serve “our” children?  Does the world need more children bearing names like “not loved” or ”not my people”? 

Peace, dwight

For many, if not most people, today’s observation of “St. Valentine’s day” has come to underscore some of the deepest pains and greatest longings of our lives. 

The day is also one of the very few days on our calendar which specifically highlights and celebrates relationships.  Thus it is no wonder that so many people dread this day.  Maybe you’ve heard about the Oregon man who was organizing a mass suicide earmarked to take place today, (police are still trying to figure out whether this was serious or a hoax, but 32 people were involved).  For those in romantic relationships the day provides a great excuse for intrafixation (I’m not sure that’s a word).

As it happens I will be facilitating a discussion of the Holy Spirit in a theology class today.  You may remember that Augustine is credited with giving us the language of the Spirit as the “bond of love.”  So it feels both fitting and potentially disconcerting to theologically engage the bond of love when so many are aware of their need for love and their failure in love, to love, with love . . . even for those in romantic relationships this day often serves to invite the persons back to love.

It always amazes me that the things we desire most we can not fabricate. 

For all of us who are love hungry,

I pray satisfaction. 

For all of us who are relationship thirsty,

I pray overflowing cup.

Lord, I confess my inability to love, and I confess that You love me. 

What Men Live By

by Leo Tolstoy

“I knew before that God gave life to men and desires that they should live; now I understood more than that.

“I understood that God does not wish men to live apart, and therefore he does not reveal to them what each one needs for himself; but he wishes them to live united, and therefore reveals to each of them what is necessary for all.

‘I have now understood that though it seems to men that they live by care for themselves, in truth it is love alone by which they live. He who has love, is in God, and God is in him, for God is love.”

This reading is from the conclusion of Tolstoy’s short story.  The whole text is available here.

Peace, dwight

In a recent conversation with some friends who are engaged to be married (congrats Thomas & Kelly) we got to talking about themes for their upcoming wedding.  We batted a few ideas around the one that seemed to generate the most conversation was:

 “If you try to keep your life for yourself, you will lose it.

But if you give up your life for me, you will find true life.”  

- Jesus, (Luke 9:24)

These two sentences may be the key to Christ’s relational hermeneutic.  I can’t help wonder what our world might look like if our churches were to consistently use this hermeneutic to interpret: “and the gates of hell will not prevail against it,” or “Therefore go and make disciples…” etc.

peace, dwight

Who am I? 

Arguably, one of the great gifts modernity offered humanity has been the gift of “the self”; and like all gifts it cloaked a curse.  So much has been said in critique of the modern idea of the self-made, autonomous individual that one almost dreads bringing it up for fear a reader’s gag reflex may activate. 

I wouldn’t have wanted to live with the pre-modern understanding which rendered most of humanity pawns in life’s chess match.  A match in which the only players “of worth” carried special titles – and none more so than the King. 

The discovery of the individual was an important corrective.  Thanks Søren K. et al. 

The postmodern loss of self is huge.  What is a self? 

I believe we need new language to describe self.  “Person” and “Individual” have been useful terms; but both terms have been used in the modern project to highlight individuality as part of the modern corrective to the pre-modern.  In postmodern writings hyphenated terms are often used as a corrective for the modern. Terms like: social-self, communal-being, relational-self, etc.  Yet, hyphenated language rarely gains cultural traction.

I’ve been playing with the term “Codividual.”  Codividual would be an alternative to “social-self.”  Consider the term individual; “In” often suggests something like “toward”, thus in-dividual suggests a movement toward dividuation; toward being separated from the rest of humanity.

In my proposal, codividual still highlights the unique personhood through the use of the idea of “dividaul” but “Co” suggests a constitutive community making up the person.

Where Kierkegaard claimed to have been an individual, I think I would claim to be a codividual.  Notice the that photo of me is made up of hundreds of photos of family, friends, teachers, pastors, theologians, and figures from history, etc, (if only I had a picture of everything and everyone, I might be less piculated).  Click here to enlarge the photo.

peace, dwight

In the seemingly unending stack of theology papers I am privileged to be engaging, a quote from Albers’ Interaction of Color caught my heart (thanks Ed).

“In musical compositions, so long as we hear merely single tones, we do not hear music. Hearing music depends on the recognition of the in-between of the tones, of their placing and of their spacing.

“In writing, a knowledge of spelling has nothing to do with an understanding of poetry.

“Equally, a factual identification of colors within a given painting has nothing do with a sensitive seeing nor with an understanding of the color action within the painting…

“Our concern is the interaction of color; that is, seeing what happens between colors…

“Colors present themselves in continuous flux, constantly related to changing neighbors and changing conditions”  (Josef Albers, 1975, p. 5).

peace, dwight

Today I head out for Newfoundland, off Canada’s eastern coast. I will be officiating at my brother’s wedding. Dallas and Leanne will be declaring before God, family and friends on Wednesday; very exciting.

One of the things I enjoy about weddings is that the wedding is one of the few – celebrations that focuses almost entirely on a relationship; on the “Us” of an “I/Thou.”

The very fact that marriage is held as such a strong commitment to each other, before God, the “Us’s” community, and the state, helps reinforce the fact that marriage maybe the closest human relational image we have to the Holy Trinity. The “marriage is a living spirit” embodying the selfless-love of the two persons. Plurality and oneness.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer once wrote to a young relative on her wedding day. Saying that, “Your marriage is your private possession but it’s also much more than that.” And then he said, “from this day onward it will not be your love that keeps your marriage alive but your marriage that keeps your love alive.”

I’ll have very limited web access while I’m away so it may be a few days before I’m back. If you reading this, offer a quick prayer for Lynette and Pascal as they are home without me for these days. Thanks.

Peace, dwight

On Friday night Lynette and I had dinner with Jacob & Tania Bailey. It is such joy to connect with friends, to wrestle together, to sharpen one another, etc. Sat. Sam, Jackie & Sammual, followed by party over at Jason & Keri’s.

Thanks for an encouraging time guys.

Peace, dwight

All the senses are vital in relationship.

Yet the eye is easily deceived; slight of hand, smoke and mirrors create illusions that think are true. Vision only takes a person so far.

Why are counselors and relational theorists so concerned about hearing/listening in communication? Vision plays a vital role in hearing, think of the non-verbal communication of body language. In this sense vision is a type of hearing.

Why is it that a person can not understand a culture without understanding its language?

Listening requires the submission of my will to hear the other. Vision is about self determining and interpreting what self sees.

The whole person is needed in relational leadership, and vision (I would argue) is the weakest of all the senses interpersonally.

Peace, dwight

It’s funny but I don’t always know how honest to be on this site.

I am the pastor of a fellowship of Christ-commons dubbed “quest“, since we began to gather and do life together some seven years ago our constant continues to be change.

We’re in the midst of morphing again. A significant morph, a change in perspective that could impact the kingdom of God and/or could be the death of the very community that we helped birth.

I have been feeling scared. I don’t know what to do. Apart from my wife I have been feeling more alone than I ever have. And do you know what God did?

He lit up my Instant Messenger with life giving conversations with Earl, and Peter. My phone rang with Heather and then Len, and I shared a cup of coffee with Sky and had lunch with my wife. My shoulders are shacking and tears are streaming, as I am sitting here in my studio thinking about the way God has been loving me.

But I still don’t know what to do.

Peace, dwight