“You’ve got to draw the line somewhere.”  “A line in the sand.”

Conventional wisdom, to be sure.  But is it Biblical?

Over and over again Jesus seemed to cross lines rather than draw lines.  Casting first stones, eating with unclean and outcasts, welcoming prodigals home against all conventions.  “No one comes to the Father but by me” might be considered a line, but there are many ways to understand those words of Jesus.  Really — there are.  I suppose hating my mother and brothers might also be a line that Jesus suggests.  Cross-bearing seems to be one, too.  Selling possessions, taking only one coat, and not storing up treasures probably qualify too.  Or do we consider those open to interpretation?  Which begs the question, why interpret those lines but not others?

I’m baiting the conversation, of course.  I am suspicious of certitude and those who are willing to claim to know the mind and heart of God.  There are lots of examples of line drawing on God’s part, but most of those lines seem to get blurred — by God.  “Don’t eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for the day you eat of it you will die.”  They did eat.  They didn’t die.  God blurred that line.  “So the Lord said, ‘I will blot out the human beings I created…’”  But then God had a change of heart (or was it mind?) and remembered Noah.  Noah wasn’t blotted out.  Noah and his family were human beings.  God blurred that line.  I could go on and on, but the point has been made.  God might draw lines, but God also blurs lines.

So when people make absolute claims about what God will do and what God won’t do, I am suspicious of those claims.  I’m not sure that we can draw a line around God like that.

And if Jesus (or any other person of the Trinity) DOES draw a line, I wonder what shape that line is?

I am tired of the name calling by “Evangelicals.”  Many “conservatives” within the Presbyterian Church (USA) claim that we as a denomination are “apostate.”

Reluctantly, and with deep sorrow, we conclude that current renewal efforts within the Presbyterian Church (USA) are not capable of reversing the denomination’s plunge into apostasy.

– Board of Directors, The Presbyterian Lay Committee  July 4, 2006

Apostasy refers to an abandonment of the essentials of Christian faith.  Basically, they are saying that we in the PC(USA) are no longer Christian.  They are saying that I am no longer Christian.  They claim that the Bible is no longer authoritative for us (me) and that Jesus is no longer our (my) Lord and Savior.  They claim that we (I) have abandoned these essentials of our (my) faith.

Interestingly, these claims of “apostasy” always have come in the form of proclamation, publication, blog, or speech in front of an assembly.  Never once has a Presbyterian “Evangelical” said those things to me personally.  I have sat at dinner, at coffee, and even on long road trips with those who make these claims about our denomination, but they have never said it to ME.  Clearly I am a member of the “mainline” in the PCUSA.  I am not “Evangelical” as they use the word.  (I have been putting “Evangelical” in quotes because it is simply not fair that Christian “Conservatives” — whatever that means — have claimed a word that literally means “Gospel.”  I am “evangelical” in that I am saved, transformed, guided, and inspired by the Gospel.  But they don’t mean it that way…  Still, I’m not willing to give them the word, so it is in quotes to designate a particular use of the word as a self-ascribed title for conservative Christians.)  “Evangelicals” won’t tell ME that I am no longer Christian, but they will say that “the PC(USA)” has plunged into apostasy.

The boogie man doesn’t exist, dear “Evangelical” friends.  I AM a Christian.  Jesus IS my Lord and Savior.  I believe that the Bible IS the Word of God.  And you know that.

So stop calling us names.  Stop writing about “the Presbyterian Church (USA)” as apostate.  Stop making assertions about what we in the mainline of the PC(USA) believe when your claims are false.  It hurts not only us as individuals, it hurts the body of Christ.

There are lots of other Christians who do not believe exactly as you believe.  Jack Van Impe, Rod Parsley, Paul & Jan Crouch, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen, and most likely the Baptist Preacher down the road.  And yet I have not seen your vitriol directed at them or their beliefs.  You don’t assert that they are “plunging into apostasy” or claim that they have wrong beliefs.  Sure, they’re not part of the “Presbyterian family,” but they ARE part of Christ’s family. 

And yet you somehow claim that I am NOT part of Christ’s family.  Or at least that because I believe that in God’s sovereignty God can call whomever God chooses to call into ministry (even if it’s not someone YOU would call) you assert that I am apostate (which is only a breath away from saying I am not a Christian).  Or that I am “plunging into apostasy” because I believe that Christ’s death on the cross was sufficient for ALL of God’s children and that it is up to God to choose who to welcome into God’s kingdom (even someone that does not profess faith in Jesus if God chooses to do that).

I can believe differently than you and still be part of the body of Christ.  I can believe differently from you and we can still be part of the same Presbyterian family.

Please, as my brother or sister in Christ, please stop calling me names.  Please stop this abusive plunge into the kind of division of the body that Paul spoke against over and over again… together we are the body of Christ.  As the body we need one another and simply must learn how to behave well with one another.  I don’t agree with your interpretaiton of Scripture, nor you with mine.  But as Christ’s own, we must clothe ourselves with compassion, kindness, humilty, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another…  (Col. 3:12f).

One of the things I like best about teaching in the local church is the wisdom and insight that comes from the gathered community.

Today’s discussion centered around two texts:

Romans 12:2 – “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds…”

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 – “…I have become all things to all people…”

The focus was the relationship between church and world/culture.  On one hand Paul posits pretty clear distinction from the world, warning the Romans to not conform.  On the other hand, Paul demonstrates that being as a Jew or being as a Gentile, being as one who is weak or one who is strong — it is all good as long as one is “conforming” for the purpose of the gospel.  Of course we had fun poking fun at Paul as the ultimate “flip flopper” who would never make it in today’s political realm.  ”All things to all people…”  Can you imagine?!?

But if Paul’s purpose in being all things to all people is to lead them to conversion to Christian faith, do we make the leap that Paul “poses” as something he is not in order to draw someone into becoming something they are not?  Is it inauthentic?  And isn’t it “conforming,” albeit for a grand purpose?

We then talked about the difficult reality that not all people of Christian faith look like “us” (whatever that is).  Not all Christians are middle/upper-middle class, highly educated, suburban, etc.  And while there is some racial diversity in the group, we are overwhelmingly white.  Do we assume that Christians will be like “us?”  Of course that’s not the case, but often our “default” setting for what a Christian looks like is, well, something oddly like ourselves.

So we recalled that there are lots of different people who claim the “one” thing — Jesus is Lord.  That’s it.  That’s enough.

Really?  What about gay people who affirm “Jesus is Lord?”  What about fundamentalists?  Evangelicals?  Liberals?  Conservatives?  We affirm that women can lead us, but certainly not all Christians would agree.

Then he said it.  One of the most wonderful insights of the morning was Chad’s assertion that “salvation is not limited to a single demographic.”

That is a statement about not only a recognition of the reality of the Church, it is a fantastic affirmation of the sovereignty of God.  God’s gift of grace, gift of salvation is given to any and all that God chooses, not limited by our conceptions of who ought to be “in” and who ought to be “out.”  The limits of God’s grace that we assume or might desire are not God’s limits.  Thanks be to God!

I love the gift of theological reflection as a practice of the church.  Well done, Chad and the class this morning!

I posted an item on my facebook profile earlier today.  It is an article on McCain’s VP choice with the headline “McCain’s Palin pick is the epitome of tokenism.”  (Read article here)

I have been fascinated by the responses to that facebook posting.  As of this writing there are more than 20 posts in response to it.  Each response makes serious claims about why the choice of Palin was absurd or brilliant.  The comments are mostly reasoned, certainly passionate, and very partisan.  One cannot read a single post without being able to identify the writer as “Democrat” or “Republican” (at least in allegiance).  In the words of one writer, “Game on!”

What I am mostly intrigued with, though, is that all of the people writing are FRIENDS of mine — at least Facebook friends.  A few are college classmates, a few are parishioners, a few are colleagues from around the Presbyterian Church.  I know it’s not unique to me, but what is it about REAL LIFE (at least MY life) that we find ourselves in communities with people of such widely differing opinions and convictions?

Here is my mid-stream post in the ongoing facebook conversation:

Jeff Peterson-Davis at 7:58pm August 30
Game is on, for sure, and I definitely have opinions and convictions that place me on one “side” in the game. More on that in a moment…

What is most surprising to me in the “experience” arguement is that it has NOT been an argument that the Democratic party has used — it has been an arguement from the McCain team. They have been critical of O… Read Morebama claiming that his experience is insufficient to run the country. To further make their point, McCain has, on the record, talked about how significant the role of VP is and to have someone ready to take on the leadership of the country if something should happen to him. That’s where the rub comes… McCain has made the “experience” arguement, not Obama. To lay this back in the laps of the democrats is, well, simply silly.

I personally think Obama has the qualifications to be President. I would not have voted for him if I didn’t (be he black, white, green…). I like most of his platform, I like his convictions, I like his charisma, and I like the depth of his experience. Yes, experience. Not executive, but community organizing and legislative. That matters to me.

But something else that matters to me (and this is back to the beginning) is that there is enough space within our political system and within our community of “friends” (you’re all posting here because you are my Facebook Friends, after all) to have differences of opinion and have convictions that are different from one another. In facebo… Read Moreok and real life, I have FRIENDS of many different political ideologies. I consider that a gift — my life, my mind, my heart are all richer because of it.

So thanks for being friends engaging in conversation with one another. These things matter. They really do. We SHOULD take them seriously and have strong feelings and thoughts about these things. And as FRIENDS we can engage one another with respect, love, and good will.

Peace, friends…

–Jeff P-D

Politics are important.  I am very Calvinist here — politics simply must matter to people of faith.  But along with that is the conviction and understanding that when we engage in politics and any matter over which our opinions differ, we do so from within the place of community.  Respect, love, and forbearance are more than words — they are practices for our life together, particularly when we disagree.

It is a gift, indeed, to be friends with people who care enough to think and engage.  I wonder if perhaps this diversity of opinion, not just diversity of ethnicity, gender, etc., might be part of the very image of God (in which we were created).  If we consider that possibility, I wonder how it might shape the ways we relate to one another when we disagree…

Of this I am certain:  we will have many opportunities in this political season to put this into practice!  I wonder if we will…

Words, words, words.  So much of this presidential political campaign is words, words, words.  At some point it begins to sound like Charlie Brown’s school teacher.  Wah wah, wah wah, wah wah.

So I wonder, what about the words we utter in our proclamation of The Word each time we climb into the pulpit?  Do we become cartoon teachers as well?  Or is there something different about our words?  It frightens me a bit to think about the church in terms of words, particularly the words of its preachers.

So I wonder a bit more.  Do our words matter only insomuch as they lead us to practice our faith?  Words with a purpose?  Is that, perhaps, the way God’s Spirit inspires the Word in us each time we hear the words?

As the presidential candidate speaks, I wonder how important the words are unless some of the hopes, dreams, and promises find feet and become enacted in the corporate life of our nation.  The practice of being citizens together?

We are people of words.  Words describe who we are, what we believe, and what matters most to us.  Words shape and form our identities and our communities.  And yet when my daughter skins her knee she is comforted more by my cuddles than my words.  Perhaps that’s why the Word became flesh…

Just some musings while listening to the political rhetoric of the day…

With the space limitation of 1500 characters (that is LETTERS, not words!) we are supposed to be able to clearly articulate the “key theological issues of our church and society that are reflected in the ministry of your congregation.”  It’s impossible, yet we have to try in order to get our CIF (Church Information Form) posted to Church Leadership Connection (which I think should be called “church harmony dot com” since it’s the PCUSA’s online match-maker service).

So we’ve tried to come up with something terse yet significant, proufound yet not so much so that it frightens away prospective candidates for our Director of Christian Education and Youth Ministries position.

I’ll post our attempt here.  It reflects some musings that make sense to our congregation in suburban NE Ohio.  I wonder what YOU might identify as the key theological issues in your context of ministry.  Ok, and to be fair, think of this in terms of 1500 characters written for a CIF — that’s part of the context!

What are the key theological issues of our church and society that are reflected in the ministry of your congregation/organization?

What does it mean to be a follower of Christ in our cultural context?
Our Christian faith makes deliberate and specific claims on our lives. At the same time, the world in which we live competes for our allegiance and asserts its own claim on us. Living as faithful disciples of Jesus in the midst of these sometimes opposing influences can be difficult. Pioneer seeks to be a church in which we are aware of the multiplicity of forces calling to us, and provide a community in which living as faithful disciples is nurtured.

What does it mean to be Presbyterian in our denominational context?
In 1951 Pioneer Memorial Presbyterian Church was formed out of two non-Presbyterian congregations that united and chose to become Presbyterian. Since that time Pioneer has been active in participation and leadership in the PC(USA). With the current divisions in the denomination, Pioneer is firmly grounded in the PC(USA) and the Reformed tradition. Pioneer has learned well how to be a congregation that values differences of opinion while remaining in covenant fellowship with each other, and we value our connections with our sister congregations in the PC(USA).

What does it mean to be the Church in our world?
The Church has a unique witness in and to the world. Peace, justice, healing, reconciliation, and compassion are words taken from the lexicon of Christian faith and which, when enacted, become the foundation for the Church’s place in the world. The life and ministry of Jesus demonstrated for us how to care for those most in need. The call of Christ moves us into the world to be the incarnation of God’s love to neighbors near and far. From hands-on local mission projects to working for peace and justice in the world, Pioneer seeks to be a congregation making a difference in the world.

I have been praying off and on most of today, feeling the weight of the conflicts in our Presbyterian denomination.  But my prayers are not just despair, there is much hope in my thoughts and utterances.  I am confident that in all of this God is much larger than any of us, and that Christ’s Church will survive even our most difficult disputes.

There is further reason for hope.  Our Presbytery, under the leadership of our Moderator and our Executive Presbyter, has set out to build bridges with the leadership and congregation of the Bay Presbyterian Church.  Part of the bridge building is providing a response to the inaccuracies of the church’s documents (see today’s earlier post).  But the biggest part of this effort is to have conversation and time together — leaders of the Presbytery with leaders of Bay.  In my mood this morning I failed to hold up this wonderful effort.  Regardless of the outcome, both Bay and the Presbytery have committed to work with one another in the process of Bay’s discernment.

So my prayers continue.  I pray that Christ would be at the center of it all — the center of Bay Presbyterian Church as they discern their future, the center of the Presbytery as we care for and work with one of our sister congregations, the center of us all that we would be faithful, compassionate, and Christ-like in all we do.  I pray for the leaders of Bay Church, and for the leaders of our Presbytery.  They are fine people — all of them.  And I confess my own impatience, my own frustration, my own complicity.

I still feel strongly that our relationships as congregations and Presbytery simply must be relationships of love, trust, integrity, and authenticity.  We must be Christ-centered and Christ-like as best we can, even in the most difficult of circumstances.

May the peace of Christ be with us all…

I’m in a foul mood.  I’m disheartened and I’m angry.  My spouse even brought me coffee this morning, but that didn’t salve my troubled soul. 

Presbytery meetings.  As a pastor, I am not a member of a local congregation but of the “Presbytery” — the regional grouping of Presbyterian churches and the “governing body” for the churches within its membership.  To be honest, most of these bi-monthly meetings are pretty-much snoozers.  Mostly administrative.  Mostly reports of the various ministries and missions of the Presbytery.  And the coffee is always bad.  We did get to meet Rev. Vilma Yanez-Ogaza, moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Colombia (South America).  That was cool.  And the best line of the evening:  (in Spanish) “I’m from Colombia — we grow the best coffee in the world!”  I’m sipping a nice Colombian blend right now.  Cheers to you, Vilma!  The best part of these meetings is always the connections — seeing people who serve and are members of other congregations in the area.  We don’t get together enough to kindle the friendships and professional relationships between pastors and churches.  But at least we can count on seeing each other every-other month at these 4-6 hour gatherings.  And I usually leave tired from the tedium, but energized by the fellowship.  But not last night.  I was frustrated and disheartened.

There is a church in our Presbytery, Bay Presbyterian Church, that is in the final stages of their plans to leave our denomination, the PC(USA).  Yada yada.  One more church that has become disillusioned by the theology and polity of our denomination.  It’s boring news these days, and makes us Christians seeem even more irrelevant to the world around us.  I can’t blame people for not wanting to become part of an “institutional church” if all they know about us is that we can’t get along.  Bay Presbyterian is one more church in a string of congregations in our denomination that is packing up their marbles and leaving.  It might be the first congregation in this Presbytery (Presbytery of the Western Reserve) to leave, but they are just one of a few dozen churches across the country who can’t stand how “liberal” the Presbtyerian Church has become.  So they want to figure out where to go — to the EPC (Evangelical Presbyterian Church), the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America), or a new collaboration of like-minded conservatives within the PC(USA) who have arranged with the EPC to allow them in AND to allow them to keep ordaining women — the New Wineskins Association of Churches.

If Bay Presbyterian Church decides to leave the denomination it will be a sad thing, one more demonstration that we truly have yet to figure out how to live in the wide embrace of God’s grace.

On the other hand, if they don’t think they can faithfully serve Christ from within the PC(USA), then I bid them a heart-felt farewell.  Better for them to be able to focus their attention and resources on ministry rather than on being contentious with the rest of us.  And while it is less of a demonstration of the unity of the church, it will frankly be easier for the rest of us, too — we can get on with being the Church rather than fussing with each other all the time.  I don’t like divorce at all, but when the inevitable comes it is best to get on with it…

HOWEVER.

Using the divorce metaphor might be helpful.  While there is no “good” divorce, the WORST breakups are when one of the partners viciously attacks the other with false accusations, untruths, and other distortions — ususally to justify their actions to the kids and the neighbors.  Unsuspecting children and friends can be deceived by the accusations, particularly when the other partner does not attack back.  The one-sided vitriol makes the situation not only ugly, but pitiful.  Well, the leadership of Bay Presbyterian Church has become that unsavory, unenviable bitter spouse who seeks to discredit the other at all cost.  This document was given to us last evening by the group that is attempting to provide some last-ditch-effort marital counseling.  It is a document that was distributed by the leaders of Bay Church to its members:

   click on the thumbnail to read the document

It is a chart provided by the leaders of Bay Church to its members.  My hand-written note at the top of the page is my simple evaluation of the content of the document:  “Propaganda doesn’t have to be true.”  I could go line-by-line through the chart and offer a counter-point to virtually each of the questions raised and distorted answers given, but I won’t.  But I must address two points and the overall tenor of the document:

Question:  Who Is Jesus?

According to this document, the NWAC (New Wineskins), EPC, and PCA denominations answer the question:  “God/”The” Way” (which, actually, is heresy… but that is another matter).  The PC(USA) answer to the question?  “Debatable” is what the document posits.

Question:  Authority of Scripture

NWAC and EPC:  Inspired/Infallible, PCA: Inerrant, Inspired/Infallible.  The PC(USA) answer?  “Debatable.”

Give me a break.  We in the PC(USA) have 11 (eleven) Confessions that are part of our CONSTITUTION.  These are foundational confessions, creeds, and statements that express who we are as Presbyterians and how we understand and interpret Scripture.  All of us who are leaders in the Presbyterian Church (USA) — including the pastors and elders of Bay Presbyterian Church, I might point out — take vows at our ordination including the following (the first three vows):

• Do you trust in Jesus Christ your Savior, acknowledge him Lord of all and Head of the Church, and through him believe in one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

(<start sarcasm> that’s pretty ambiguous now, isn’t it?  <end>)

• Do you accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal, and God’s Word to you?

(such ambiguity again!)

• Do you sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and will you be instructed and led by those confessions as you lead the people of God?

(and a third time…)

If by “debatable” the leaders of Bay Church intend to be educating their congregation in the long history of the Reformed Tradition to be “Reformed and always being reformed,” then I commend them.  We DO have healthy debates about Jesus, Scripture, issues facing the church, etc.  If we didn’t engage in these conversations, we would not have ELEVEN confessions of faith.  Each of these magnificent expressions grew out of confidence that who God is and what God is about is bigger that we can imagine or capture in words.  Each of the confessions are the result of faithful discernment.  So in this sense, “debatable” is a cornerstone value of the PC(USA).

But that’s not what they mean.  They are falsely accusing the PC(USA) of not having a Christology or an understanding of Scripture’s authority.  Hogwash.  And shame on those leaders for lying to their congregation and distorting the truth about the PC(USA).

To the leaders of Bay Presbyterian Church:  shame on you.  You are engaging in behavior that violates your ordination vows.  You are being like the divorcing spouse who makes up lies and false accusations to demonize your partner.  Please don’t treat the “kids” and our “neighbors” this way, even if we are divorcing.

I wish you would not leave the PC(USA).  But if you do, I wish you all of God’s grace and peace.  But I also wish that you would not distort who I am and who WE are in the Presbyterian Church (USA) simply to make the divorce feel better for you.  We are sisters and brothers in Christ.  That’s not debatable.

I just posted this reflection in my wine blog, WineMinistry.  I thought it might spark some conversation here.  There are more reflections like this on the WineMinistry blog.

Are “Varietal Wines” a reflection of individualism?  Are “Blends” an embodiment of community? 

A quick wine education:

Varietal Wine.  A varietal wine is one made primarily with a single type of grape.  Cabernet Sauvignon, Pinot Noir, Syrah, Chardonnay, and Sauvignon Blanc are a few examples of the plethora of specific grape varieties that are made into wine.  In the U.S. a wine must be made from at least 75% of the primary grape to be labeled with that grape varietal name.  Different grapes have unique flavors and aromas.  A Zinfandel (NOT the pink variety), for example, is characteristically peppery along with its wild fruit flavors.  Sauvignon Blanc is usually herbal with citrus overtones.

Blends.  In contrast to wines made from a single varietal, a blend is made from several different grape types.  There are a couple of different types of blends.  Varietal Combinations are made from two or three grapes and labeled according to the identity of the components:  Cabernet Sauvignon-Shiraz or Charonnay-Semillion are two popular combinations from Australia.  Another type of blend is the artisan blend which turns the winemaker into artist whose palate includes various types of wines that can be combined into a unique blend with a creative name to match.  “Meritage” is one of these blends that is reflective of the style of winemaking from the Bordeaux region of France.  It is interesting that some of the cheapest wine and some of the most expensive wines are blends.

New World and Old World.  There are a lot of differences between “Old World” and “New World” wines, including the basic issue of what to put into the bottle.  Wines from the “New World” (unpacking that could be another blog post!) are typically made and labeled according to varietal.  These include wines from the United States, Australia, Chile, South Africa, Argentina, etc.  In contrast, “Old World” wines from the classic wine making regions of Europe (France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Spain, etc.) are labeled by Appelation and contain a blend of several different grapes grown in those areas.  Bordeaux, for example, is a geographic area, not a type of grape.  But Bordeaux wines are among the most famous in the world — and are made by blending grapes like Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Cabernet France, Petit Verdot, and a few others.  The characteristic is that these grapes are grown in the appelation.  Some wineries within these areas are producing “Varietal Wines,” but that is mostly a response to market trends.

I like both Old World and New World wines.  I like both “varietal wine” and “blends.”  I am quickly growing in my appreciation of blended wines.  Bringing the various unique flavors of varietals into a new mix creates some exquisite flavors.  More about this in a later post.

Varietal and Blends, Individualism and Community

As I reflect on this fundamental aspect of wine I am intrigued by the metaphor of “varietal” wines as an expression of individualism and “blends” as an embodiment of community.  The approach to single-varietal wines is to “be the best that you can be” by emphasizing an individual grape’s strengths and uniqueness.  Isn’t it interesting that this is the “New World” approach to winemaking?  We in the United States have been shaped in ways we can’t even imagine by our fundamental commitment to the individual.  So it’s no wonder this is the predominant wine-making style in the U.S.  It is also no surprise that varietal wines sell better in the U.S. than blended wines.  The market drives the artistry of wine making.  And the market is shapes the popularity of wines.  Remember when Zinfandel was THE wine to drink?  We’re on the downward slope of Pinot Noir’s popularity, whose meteoric rise to fame was driven largely by the movie Sideways.

In contrast to the “star-in-the-spotlight” approach to varietal winemaking, blending intentionally combines the unique character of the individual components into a communal expression.  The individual varietals are significant, to be sure, but primarily in their ability to add to the complexity of the whole.  It’s perhaps a more difficult task to craft these wines as it involves creation of both the individual varietals and the skillful artistry of bringing the flavors together.

The metaphor has limits to be sure, but doesn’t this offer a glimpse into our human ways of being individuals and communities?  I am afraid that much of our modern world exploits the “varietal” approach.  We seem to value the achievement of individuals rather than the complexity of blends.

It would be easy to label this as the difference between Capitalism and Socialism.  To be sure, that is one expression of the difference.  But it goes deeper than economic or political ideology.  For me it goes to the heart of who we are.  On one hand personal achievement is a good value.  But it cannot be an end in itself.  There is a lot about me that is pretty good.  I have been crafted into a person whose gifts and talents are used in some good ways.  But I know that not only am I better when I am part of an interconnected community, I am intended to be connected.  My wife and I together are better than either of us individually.  The same is true for the office in which I work.  And it is true for the church community I serve.  And I would suggest that the same is true of all of our human communities.

The problem is that “the market” of our individualism keeps us separated.  We are divided around so many differences — gender, race, sexual orientation, economic level, education, national loyalties, etc.  So many systems and institutions in our world work very hard to keep these divisions in place.

I have a vision for our world and for each of us in it.  I imagine a world in which I can enjoy BOTH a fabulous Cabernet Sauvignon AND a Bordeaux (a varietal and a blend).  Where I can open a bottle of dark, jammy Syrah and be seduced by its oppulence AND where that same Syrah can be part of a complex, multi-layered Chateauneuf du Pape.  We don’t have to live in a world defined by either-or, New World versus Old World, varietal or blend.  There is room in my cellar for all of it…

Today’s Category:
The top seven comments overheard at the last church potluck/covered dish dinner

7.  Oh, what an interesting texture!

6.  Really, you say missionaries gave you this recipe?!?

5.  Oh, Fred, don’t get worked up, she told you it was a new Band-Aid! Besides, you love potato salad!

4.  Jim, saying, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” doesn’t excuse your double dipping!

3.  Trudy, your egg salad sculpture of the preacher is very, um, uh, er…creative!

2.  If Jell-O and vegetables were meant to exist together, Bill Cosby would have been a vegetarian!

And the number one comment overheard at the last church potluck:

1.  Was that SUPPOSED to be crunchy?