December 23 is my favorite day of the Advent season. The expectation for Christmas is thick in the air and the anticipation is heavy on my heart. Something magical will happen tomorrow. We just have one more day to wait.
Growing up December 24 was the day Baba and Dido would drag us around to friends and family, singing Christmas carols and handing out tins of cookies. The trunk of their Chrysler was always full of Christmas tins and the tins were full of at least eight different kinds of cookies. We'd dress up in our Christmas finery, load up and spend the day driving from house to house. Though it sounds like torture, it was actually a lot of fun.
Somewhere towards the end of the day we'd end up at Grandpa and Grandma Lubovich's house. They weren't my grandparents, but we called them Grandpa and Grandma. They were the cutest little Ukrainian couple ever and kind of reminded me of gnomes. Grandma's voice was high and sweet and her accent made it hard to understand her. She'd hold my chubby face in her hands and kiss me, saying sweet things and telling me she loved me. Grandpa had a warm, deeper voice and his English was better. And he'd hug and kiss us too. Their home smelled of moth balls and pickles. Not an appealing description, but I smile when I think of it. We'd sing songs and exchange gifts and then we'd eat. Pickled everything: onions, mushrooms, and even pickled fish. I never ate the fish.
I'm not sure when our Christmas Eve visiting stopped. I think I was in junior high. I don't know if it's because most of the people we visited were gone by then or maybe we just didn't all fit into that old Chrysler any more. But then Christmas Eve was the day my sister and I would walk around our neighborhood and give Christmas treats to all the neighbors. Sometimes, they'd give us treats back. The best treats were the homemade spring rolls from Mrs. Quintong.
Later, after Baba died, we celebrated Christmas eve in true Ukrainian style for a few years. I was in college and spent a lot of time researching the traditional celebration and trying to recreate it. I'd make three loaves of braided bread, coiled into a wreath, stacked one on top of another. And there were to be twelve dishes, most of them pickled items. The food was nothing special but I think it gave me sad heart comfort.
Eventually I met Scott and Christmas eve morphed again. Blending his family traditions with mine was hard. Christmas Eve lunch on the boat with his dad and step-mom. Then dinner at a Mexican restaurant with his mom followed by aebilskivers with his grandparents. I loved Scott's Grammie and PopPop. And after we got married, they changed again. Christmas Eve supper was now at our house and then family friends would come and while the night away.
Our celebrations still start on Christmas Eve. Tomorrow, we will have a "fancy" breakfast on the good china. We will make aebilskivers and drink apple cider like we did with Grammie and PopPop. Then we'll open presents. Later in the evening, my family will come for a luau.
The anticipation and expectation of all the goodness and fun that will come tomorrow is stored up in happy memories and missing loved ones. And that bittersweet feeling makes me think back to the first Christmas Eve when Mary was anticipating a baby and Israel was expecting a Messiah. And something magical happened. The King of the Universe was both the baby Mary anticipated and the Messiah Israel expected born in a barn, laid in a trough, heralded by angels, worshiped by shepherds and rich men. A baby born to make all sad things come untrue. And that makes me anticipate the day He will return for us. What a glorious day that will be! And I will get to celebrate my King once again with all my grandparents!
Monday, December 23, 2013
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Why I'm Not Cheering for Phil Robertson
I commend Phil and the cast of Duck Dynasty for proclaiming their Christian beliefs and viewpoints. I applaud them for standing up to A&E when the station wanted them to stop praying in Jesus' name. I herald them for being bold and real. I salute them for professing biblical truth that is not politically correct.
But I've read the GQ article and I'm not cheering him on for his crass comments.
Before I explain why, I want to be crystal clear: I believe the Bible is very clear that sex and marriage are for one man and one woman. If you ask me my opinion my answer will be clear. It is not easy for me to state my beliefs because there are people I love dearly who are gay and/or believe it's okay and that the Bible is irrelevant on its teaching about homosexuality.
My disgust isn't because of his stance on homosexuality. Did you read that? I do not disagree with his interpretation of the Bible nor his beliefs. And I agree that he has his right to "freedom of speech" and can state his opinion. So, just to re-cap, I agree with his biblical stance on homosexuality and condone his freedom of opinion/speech. We're clear on that, right? Good. Then I can continue.
My problem is he was vulgar. He was distasteful. His words were more along the lines of being "of the world" than being "in the world." Read the article for yourself. It's the quote about male and female anatomies that turns my stomach.
We know, from other quotes, that Phil reads his Bible and quotes it. He paraphrased 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 and Revelation 21:8. And his paraphrase is not incorrect. The Bible indeed condemns sexual sins as well as deceit, idolatry, greed, slander, pride, hate, murder, gluttony, sloth, jealousy and more.
The Bible even condemns vulgar talk. Ephesians 4:29, Colossians 3:8, Ephesians 5:4.
And, I'm sorry Phil Robertson fans, his talk was vulgar, crude, and obscene. That I cannot endorse.
So, some of you reading this are thinking, "Well, Kristy, yes this was offensive. But Jesus was offensive. So it's okay." I'm glad you said that. Yes, Jesus was offensive. He was quite off-putting. To whom? To the Pharisees, to the religious leaders, to those taking advantage of and abusing the citizens they were supposed to be serving, leading, loving, protecting, guiding.
Let's take a look at the interaction Jesus had with an adulterous woman. Adultery is also a form of sexual immorality according to the Bible. John 7:53-8:11 gives us the story of the Pharisees presenting an adulterous woman to Jesus hoping He would condemn her. Jesus answers them, "Let you who has not sinned throw the first stone." Then when they all left, presumably humiliated or infuriated, He said to the woman, "Neither do I condemn you. Now go leave your life of sin."
Let me ask you, who was offended by Jesus in this passage? Was it the woman caught up in sexual sin? Or was it the self-righteous who'd hoped Jesus would make them feel better about themselves by condemning someone else?
Now you're thinking, "Okay Kristy, you have a point, but 'love the sinner, hate the sin.'" This idea is likely founded in the interpretation of Jude 1:22 which says, "Try to help those who argue against you. Be merciful to those who doubt. Save some by snatching them as from the very flames of hell itself. And as for others, help them to find the Lord by being kind to them, but be careful that you yourselves aren't pulled along into their sins. Hate every trace of their sin while being merciful to them as sinners."
The words that stick out to me here are: "help them to find the Lord," "being kind to them," and "being merciful." Did you read help, kindness or mercy in Phil's vagina-anus comparison? No. His response to A&E's resultant suspension which you can read here is more in line with the command to help, be kind and show mercy. And perhaps that is the statement he should have made to GQ in the beginning.
You see, Phil Robertson, like all of us, has the right to freely express his opinion according to the U.S. Constitution. I support him 100% in that right. But he has the responsibility, according to the call given in the Bible to all Christians by Christ, to love others. To love them as he loves himself. That responsibility does not come with the right to condemn or to judge. It includes the right to exhort someone who is sinning, but it does not come with the right nor the freedom to condemn. Jesus himself did not condemn the adulterous woman. He told her not to sin anymore, but he didn't call her names, he didn't tell her how evil she was. He didn't say she was illogical or point out how silly and defeating her sins were.
In his vulgar comparison Phil pointed out how illogical the practice of homosexuality is and he said that sin is not logical. Correct. Alcoholism is not logical. Stealing is not logical. Lying is not logical. Gluttony is not logical. Sloth is not logical. Jealousy is not logical. Adultery is not logical. Pride is not logical. Murder is not logical. Hate is not logical. Boasting is not logical. Hypocrisy is not logical. Slander is not logical. And yet we are all sinners and we all do some of these illogical things.
Logic does not explain why Christ, ruler of the universe, Savior of the world, was born in a trough so that He could die on a cross for all those illogical sins you and I commit every day of our lives. Logic would have let each of us pay our own price for the sins we committed. But God LOVED us too much to let logic rule the world. So He illogically sent His son as a baby who offended the self-righteous religious and political leaders and then endured torture and death so that we could be SAVED from our sins forever.
The world around us already knows what the Bible says is wrong. They already know we Christians have a long list of things that we are against. They already see us saying one thing and doing another. What they don't know is that we are just broken, screwed up sinners ourselves who have found mercy and grace at the foot of the cross. They don't know that they can find that same mercy and grace in the same place because we're too busy telling them how messed up they are. We're too busy hating the sin. We haven't spent enough time loving the sinner. So they don't know. They don't know. And that, is just illogical.
So, I don't condemn you for sticking up for Phil. I don't condemn Phil for speaking his opinion. I don't think he should be suspended from A&E. I don't think he should be forced to stop praying. I don't agree with people who think his interpretation of the Bible is wrong. I think you should write letters to A&E if you feel led. I think you should defend your beliefs.
I'm just not sure how much of this has won hearts to Christ and introduced a broken person to mercy and grace.
But I've read the GQ article and I'm not cheering him on for his crass comments.
Before I explain why, I want to be crystal clear: I believe the Bible is very clear that sex and marriage are for one man and one woman. If you ask me my opinion my answer will be clear. It is not easy for me to state my beliefs because there are people I love dearly who are gay and/or believe it's okay and that the Bible is irrelevant on its teaching about homosexuality.
My disgust isn't because of his stance on homosexuality. Did you read that? I do not disagree with his interpretation of the Bible nor his beliefs. And I agree that he has his right to "freedom of speech" and can state his opinion. So, just to re-cap, I agree with his biblical stance on homosexuality and condone his freedom of opinion/speech. We're clear on that, right? Good. Then I can continue.
My problem is he was vulgar. He was distasteful. His words were more along the lines of being "of the world" than being "in the world." Read the article for yourself. It's the quote about male and female anatomies that turns my stomach.
We know, from other quotes, that Phil reads his Bible and quotes it. He paraphrased 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 and Revelation 21:8. And his paraphrase is not incorrect. The Bible indeed condemns sexual sins as well as deceit, idolatry, greed, slander, pride, hate, murder, gluttony, sloth, jealousy and more.
The Bible even condemns vulgar talk. Ephesians 4:29, Colossians 3:8, Ephesians 5:4.
And, I'm sorry Phil Robertson fans, his talk was vulgar, crude, and obscene. That I cannot endorse.
So, some of you reading this are thinking, "Well, Kristy, yes this was offensive. But Jesus was offensive. So it's okay." I'm glad you said that. Yes, Jesus was offensive. He was quite off-putting. To whom? To the Pharisees, to the religious leaders, to those taking advantage of and abusing the citizens they were supposed to be serving, leading, loving, protecting, guiding.
Let's take a look at the interaction Jesus had with an adulterous woman. Adultery is also a form of sexual immorality according to the Bible. John 7:53-8:11 gives us the story of the Pharisees presenting an adulterous woman to Jesus hoping He would condemn her. Jesus answers them, "Let you who has not sinned throw the first stone." Then when they all left, presumably humiliated or infuriated, He said to the woman, "Neither do I condemn you. Now go leave your life of sin."
Let me ask you, who was offended by Jesus in this passage? Was it the woman caught up in sexual sin? Or was it the self-righteous who'd hoped Jesus would make them feel better about themselves by condemning someone else?
Now you're thinking, "Okay Kristy, you have a point, but 'love the sinner, hate the sin.'" This idea is likely founded in the interpretation of Jude 1:22 which says, "Try to help those who argue against you. Be merciful to those who doubt. Save some by snatching them as from the very flames of hell itself. And as for others, help them to find the Lord by being kind to them, but be careful that you yourselves aren't pulled along into their sins. Hate every trace of their sin while being merciful to them as sinners."
The words that stick out to me here are: "help them to find the Lord," "being kind to them," and "being merciful." Did you read help, kindness or mercy in Phil's vagina-anus comparison? No. His response to A&E's resultant suspension which you can read here is more in line with the command to help, be kind and show mercy. And perhaps that is the statement he should have made to GQ in the beginning.
You see, Phil Robertson, like all of us, has the right to freely express his opinion according to the U.S. Constitution. I support him 100% in that right. But he has the responsibility, according to the call given in the Bible to all Christians by Christ, to love others. To love them as he loves himself. That responsibility does not come with the right to condemn or to judge. It includes the right to exhort someone who is sinning, but it does not come with the right nor the freedom to condemn. Jesus himself did not condemn the adulterous woman. He told her not to sin anymore, but he didn't call her names, he didn't tell her how evil she was. He didn't say she was illogical or point out how silly and defeating her sins were.
In his vulgar comparison Phil pointed out how illogical the practice of homosexuality is and he said that sin is not logical. Correct. Alcoholism is not logical. Stealing is not logical. Lying is not logical. Gluttony is not logical. Sloth is not logical. Jealousy is not logical. Adultery is not logical. Pride is not logical. Murder is not logical. Hate is not logical. Boasting is not logical. Hypocrisy is not logical. Slander is not logical. And yet we are all sinners and we all do some of these illogical things.
Logic does not explain why Christ, ruler of the universe, Savior of the world, was born in a trough so that He could die on a cross for all those illogical sins you and I commit every day of our lives. Logic would have let each of us pay our own price for the sins we committed. But God LOVED us too much to let logic rule the world. So He illogically sent His son as a baby who offended the self-righteous religious and political leaders and then endured torture and death so that we could be SAVED from our sins forever.
The world around us already knows what the Bible says is wrong. They already know we Christians have a long list of things that we are against. They already see us saying one thing and doing another. What they don't know is that we are just broken, screwed up sinners ourselves who have found mercy and grace at the foot of the cross. They don't know that they can find that same mercy and grace in the same place because we're too busy telling them how messed up they are. We're too busy hating the sin. We haven't spent enough time loving the sinner. So they don't know. They don't know. And that, is just illogical.
So, I don't condemn you for sticking up for Phil. I don't condemn Phil for speaking his opinion. I don't think he should be suspended from A&E. I don't think he should be forced to stop praying. I don't agree with people who think his interpretation of the Bible is wrong. I think you should write letters to A&E if you feel led. I think you should defend your beliefs.
I'm just not sure how much of this has won hearts to Christ and introduced a broken person to mercy and grace.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Silly Sayings not fit for a Savior
Recently I've seen a lot of "Merry CHRISTmas" and a few "Keep Christ in Christmas" and a couple "Jesus is the reason for the season." Frankly, it kind of irritates me.
Christmas is about celebrating Christ's birth. That I am not denying. I don't think that should be down-played or minimized at all. I think we should be able to say "Merry Christmas" without fearing we might offend someone. I think we should keep Christ in Christmas. But I don't think that slapping a catchy little phrase on the birth of the Messiah brings Him even the slightest bit of honor. I actually think it trivializes it even more than the fat guy in the red suit. I don't think that these sayings actually keep Christ the focus of anything. I think they just put a band-aid on a broken world and make us feel good about ourselves.
Some Christians think that by using those catch-phrases they are somehow sharing their faith and spreading the gospel. Um, no. These messages are mundane and insincere. They don't capture the depth and breadth of what happened in that cave two thousand years ago. Instead they just put a nice, palatable, simplistic, sweet-tasting smile at a moment that wasn't nice, wasn't palatable, wasn't simple and sure as heck wasn't sweet-tasting.
Let me re-cap. Jesus, God's only son, became human. Became a baby. His parents were poor. His mother was an unmarried teen. He was born in a cave/stable/outbuilding surrounded by animals and his first bed was a feeding trough. He came as a baby because that's how WE needed Him to come so that we would accept Him because we cannot grasp how magnificent and holy He actually is. From the second He was born until the second He died, people wanted Him dead. And yes, that baby came to this world for one purpose: to die. To die for you. To die for me. To be tortured and hung on a cross.
That is not a sweet moment. That is not palatable. That is off-putting. That is something that a cute little rhyme cannot convey.
And, as if that's not enough, when these words are written, they're in a big happy font. Or when they're spoken, they're spoken with a Dr. Seuss voice. And then the writer or the speaker GOES RIGHT BACK TO THEIR REGULAR DAILY LIVES LIKE NOTHING HAPPENED. As if saying "Jesus is the Reason for the Season" somehow excuses or explains why there's Christmas shopping and baking and wrapping and caroling to do. It's like a commercial.
I don't have a problem with Santa. I don't have a problem with Christmas shopping or baking or card-sending or any of the rest of it. It's all good. But when you take a sacred event like the incarnation and dumb it down with "Merry CHRISTmas" I throw up in my mouth a little bit because Jesus didn't come to earth so that we can make ourselves feel good about over-spending or be self-righteous because we know the "reason" for the season.
And here's the real coup de grace: most of the world -- certainly most of America -- already know that Christmas has something to do with a baby in a manger. What they don't know is why that matters to them. They don't know why they should care. They don't understand why that's important. And no amount of patronizing, puerile mottos will explain that.
So yes, Jesus is indeed the most important part of Christmas. He is Christmas. But can we give that a little more respect than a trivial, mindless saying?
Christmas is about celebrating Christ's birth. That I am not denying. I don't think that should be down-played or minimized at all. I think we should be able to say "Merry Christmas" without fearing we might offend someone. I think we should keep Christ in Christmas. But I don't think that slapping a catchy little phrase on the birth of the Messiah brings Him even the slightest bit of honor. I actually think it trivializes it even more than the fat guy in the red suit. I don't think that these sayings actually keep Christ the focus of anything. I think they just put a band-aid on a broken world and make us feel good about ourselves.
Some Christians think that by using those catch-phrases they are somehow sharing their faith and spreading the gospel. Um, no. These messages are mundane and insincere. They don't capture the depth and breadth of what happened in that cave two thousand years ago. Instead they just put a nice, palatable, simplistic, sweet-tasting smile at a moment that wasn't nice, wasn't palatable, wasn't simple and sure as heck wasn't sweet-tasting.
Let me re-cap. Jesus, God's only son, became human. Became a baby. His parents were poor. His mother was an unmarried teen. He was born in a cave/stable/outbuilding surrounded by animals and his first bed was a feeding trough. He came as a baby because that's how WE needed Him to come so that we would accept Him because we cannot grasp how magnificent and holy He actually is. From the second He was born until the second He died, people wanted Him dead. And yes, that baby came to this world for one purpose: to die. To die for you. To die for me. To be tortured and hung on a cross.
That is not a sweet moment. That is not palatable. That is off-putting. That is something that a cute little rhyme cannot convey.
And, as if that's not enough, when these words are written, they're in a big happy font. Or when they're spoken, they're spoken with a Dr. Seuss voice. And then the writer or the speaker GOES RIGHT BACK TO THEIR REGULAR DAILY LIVES LIKE NOTHING HAPPENED. As if saying "Jesus is the Reason for the Season" somehow excuses or explains why there's Christmas shopping and baking and wrapping and caroling to do. It's like a commercial.
I don't have a problem with Santa. I don't have a problem with Christmas shopping or baking or card-sending or any of the rest of it. It's all good. But when you take a sacred event like the incarnation and dumb it down with "Merry CHRISTmas" I throw up in my mouth a little bit because Jesus didn't come to earth so that we can make ourselves feel good about over-spending or be self-righteous because we know the "reason" for the season.
And here's the real coup de grace: most of the world -- certainly most of America -- already know that Christmas has something to do with a baby in a manger. What they don't know is why that matters to them. They don't know why they should care. They don't understand why that's important. And no amount of patronizing, puerile mottos will explain that.
So yes, Jesus is indeed the most important part of Christmas. He is Christmas. But can we give that a little more respect than a trivial, mindless saying?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)