New Heights Sermon Series Starting this Sunday

Jesus once described his mission and ministry as that of a physician who has come to heal sick souls (Mark 2:17). He understood that we have certain emotional drives and psychological tendencies that can pull us away from a life of wholeness and genuine spiritual well-being. 

Part of following Jesus is being willing to listen to what he has to say about how we can best handle our inner life. Jesus very honestly and insightfully addressed some of the key issues that often send many of us looking for therapy: resentment, anger, anxiety, perfectionism, and the need to control others. In this four-part series of messages, we’ll open up our minds and hearts to be informed and transformed by the divine therapy that Christ came to give us.

June 3- Repenting of Resentment

June 10- Overcoming Anxiety

June 17- [Bishop Crutchfield is preaching]

June 24- Dropping the Masks

July 1- The Burden of Playing God

Fire and Wind

This Sunday is Pentecost. Although I will have a hard time convincing you of it, it is just as important as Easter and Christmas. Without what happened at Pentecost, we wouldn't have a church today. Because of what happened at Pentecost, the Spirit of God- the same life-giving Spirit that brought the world into being and raised Jesus from the dead- that Spirit actually lives in us. Amazing.


In my sermon this week (in the Sanctuary, just to switch things around), I will be talking about how the early church didn't have near the support that we have. They didn't have political freedom, beautiful church buildings, Bibles galore, or official leadership. I'll also be talking about how all of these good gifts we enjoy may just be blinding us to the greatest gift God has given us- the gift of God's empowering presence which can do more through us than we ever thought possible. Pentecost is the reminder that being Christian isn't about working for God. It is about God working through us. Because God is actually in us and with us. Amazing.

New Heights @ PHUMC / May 20th 2012

Flames of Love Update

https://wipfandstock.com/forthcoming_titles

Scroll down about 10 lines and... boom! I have the manuscript almost ready to send in. If things go according to plan, it should be available on Amazon by Spring 2013.


This is a tentative version of the blurb that will be on the back of the book:

Is hell for real, or will all be saved? What if both are true?

In this work, Rev. Heath Bradley explores the current debate over the reality and purpose of hell. It is tempting to settle either for the liberal option of downplaying the judgment of God, or for the conservative option of letting dominant church tradition trump fresh understandings of Scripture. This book, however, will attempt to chart a different course that both respects the main impulses behind these reactions, while at the same time offering a clearer and more compelling response to the question of what hell could be for in a universe created and redeemed by a loving God.

The book seeks to articulate a distinctively Christian universalism that highlights the centrality of Christ, coheres with early church tradition and the Scriptures, affirms the reality of divine judgment and mercy, and offers motivational grounds for evangelism and holy living. Ultimately, this work is about the Christian struggle to envision the life of the world to come in a way that is faithful to the God in whom love and holiness are forever united. 

Is the Cross an Idol?

This was a question I received last week following the sermon about "The Mother God." In the message, I talked about how any image of God becomes an idol when we literalize and absolutize it (not sure those are real words). In other words, when we assume one image can exhaustively contain the reality of who God is and what God is like, that becomes an idol. Images point towards God, while idols try to contain God.

So, is the cross and idol? Depends. If one sees the cross as containing the full truth about God, then yes, I suppose the cross could become an idol. The cross is, I believe, the clearest revelation of the heart of God. On the cross, we see God's willingness to suffer with us and absorb our sin and offer us forgiveness. However, the meaning of the cross is bound up with the resurrection to follow. The empty tomb is what reveals the cross of Christ to actually be a divine victory over all the forces of sin and suffering. The cross clearly and accurately points us to God and God's desire for reconciliation, but the cross itself does not contain the full picture of who God is.

Interestingly, the cross apparently was not a major Christian symbol in the early centuries of the faith. For more on this, check out:

Obama, General Conference, and the Homosexuality Debate

It has been an interesting past couple of weeks. At the United Methodist General Conference, our nation's second-largest Protestant denomination voted to retain our position against all same-sex relationships, and yet our nation's President has come out as officially supporting gay marriage. These two events have spurred lots of discussions, articles, blog posts, etc. I have noticed several key popular arguments from folks on both sides of the great divide that I think are worth examining under a critical light.


First, many of the blog posts I have read have addressed the protest from the LGBT folks at General Conference. Many of you probably know that they engaged in a large disruptive protest during the proceedings of the conference that forced an early adjournment. It seems that the response of many people has been something like this: "Whether you are for or against changing our stance on the issue, we should all agree that this kind of protest is unloving and disrespectful." I must confess that I do not share this intuition. If one is really convinced that our current stance and policies are in fact a great injustice, then why exactly would it be wrong to protest in this way? I wonder what people who make this argument would say about Jesus' protest in the temple. As far as I know, the LGBT protesters did not come in with whips and run everyone out while throwing over tables. When Jesus was faced with systemic injustice legitimated by religion, he got angry, disruptive, and threw stuff around to make a point. So, I am not so sure that forcefully disruptive symbolic actions are not sometimes called for.


Second, I am somewhat troubled by a line of argument that many on the progressive side seem to be employing these days. After Obama made his statement, many have taken this as a sure sign that our culture is headed towards full acceptance of gay marriage. Given the accelerated increase of such acceptance over the last decade, this may not be an unreasonable prediction. It is probably true. However, some seem to rely too much on a line of reasoning that goes like this: "History is moving in the direction of full acceptance and affirmation of LGBT people and gay marriage, and so you can either move forward with the rest of us or get left behind." The problem with this line of reasoning, as I see it, is that it is dangerous to determine morality based on opinion polls. Just because a society is moving towards greater acceptance of x, that doesn't mean that x is actually a good thing. I believe our society is moving towards numerous things that are not good. (For example, in numerous ways the sexualization of children and youth is becoming much more mainstream in our culture.) In short, we shouldn't just assume that a large social shift is necessarily progress just because a lot of people are getting on board with it.


It seems to me that in employing this "get on board or get left behind" argument, progressives make an unwarranted move very similar to the way traditionalists on this issue often argue. Traditionalists often try to pressure conformity to the conservative stance by arguing that it would be unwise to disagree with a virtually unanimous consensus from past Christian tradition that all same-sex relationships are wrong. Progressives, on the other hand, often make the argument- similar in form, though opposite in content- that it would be unwise to disagree with a perceived virtual consensus in the future. So, traditionalists urge conformity with the past, while progressives urge conformity with the perceived future. Neither mode of argument is particularly helpful in my opinion. Truth is what it is regardless of how many people believe it. It seems to me that the debate would be better served by focusing on exactly what the reasons are for denouncing all same-sex unions, and subjecting those reasons to careful and critical scrutiny. For example, in the paper this morning there was a letter to the editor saying that gay marriage should be illegal because marriage is for having children and gay people can't (biologically) do this. But the intent or ability to have children is not a part of our legal definition of marriage for heterosexuals, so why set up a standard for gay couples that we don't even set up for straight couples? I think matters of logical consistency are much more important than a supposed consensus either in the past or in the future.


Finally, this debate is at its worst when instead of real people talking to real people, we have people throwing rhetorical bombs at stereotypes. Both sides are doing this. Conservatives often accuse gays of being inherently promiscuous, excessively hedonistic, etc. Progressives often accuse conservatives of "hating" gay people. Neither stereotype is true. Yes, some gay people are promiscuous, just as some straight people are. Yes, tragically, some people do hate gay people just because they are gay. But many gay people want monogamous marriage, and most people who do not personally approve of same-sex relationships at the same time are glad to consider those folks family and friends. Many people who do not affirm the moral goodness of same-sex relationships harbor no loathing, fear, or hatred of gay and lesbian people. They are just convinced that to be faithful to God one must not approve of such relationships, even though one can (and should) accept and love gay people as one would love and accept any other person. The discussion is not advanced by accusing all people who hold a traditional view of being prejudiced or hateful. Some are, but most are not. As I said earlier, I think our time is much better spent evaluating reasons rather than assigning motives.


On that note, I would encourage you to read this blog post from Justin Lee (especially if you consider yourself "progressive" on this issue): http://gcnjustin.tumblr.com/post/22710725963/a-challenge-to-both-sides-of-the-amendment-one-debate

New Heights @ PHUMC / May 13th 2012