Olives, Wineskins, White Bread, & Jesus

January 21, 2008 - 11:39am

I ate a whole can of olives the other day. Is that bad? It doesn’t seem bad. They’re fruit, right? I’ve never heard anyone refer to olives as fruit, but they're plants and plants are generally good for you. They are very salty, which I think might not be good. Salt is one of those things they used to say was good for you and they even handed out salt tablets to athletes. But then I think they said it was bad for you and everyone was trying to cut down on salt. But now I don’t hear so much about salt anymore. I think its maybe bad but not as bad as, say, eating nothing but fast-food all the time. Compared to that, eating a can of olives might even be kind of good for you.

One would think so anyway.

I can’t keep up with this stuff, to tell you the truth. When I eat I have to look over at my wife and say, “Is this bad for me?” She seems to know about these things.

Take bread for example. Years ago bread was fattening and a thing you had to watch out for. But then everyone said it was red meat you had to avoid. Red meat would clog up your arteries. So bread wasn’t that bad. But then suddenly they said meat was okay as long as you avoided bread completely. And there were those diets where you ate no bread at all or anything even remotely resembling bread.

So bread has been sometimes good and sometimes bad for us. I don’t mean white bread, of course. I think white bread became bad for us sometime back in the 70s and has remained bad ever since. I think it has stayed bad the whole time. That’s okay because Jeanene got me used to wheat bread years ago, and now white bread gives me the creeps. The way you can roll it into little balls and it turns a kind of gray if your hands weren’t all that clean. I never liked that about white bread, even when I was a kid, even before it was bad for us.

Anyway, it seems to me that a guy ought to be able to eat a can of olives and it not be all that bad for him. Not with all the white bread and fast food and sweat shops overseas and the horrible stuff they’re putting all over the internet.

But none of this really matters because when I ate that can of olives, it wasn’t nearly as good as I thought it was going to be, so I probably won’t do that again anyway.

When it comes to food, I should probably just move my fork slowly toward things and watch Jeanene for cues. She could give me a nod or or a wince or a strong, stern shaking of the head. Then I would know what things are currently bad for me because, like I said, somehow she just seems to know this stuff.

I’ll tell you another thing I can’t keep straight is the Church. And I went to seminary and even graduated from it. I don’t know how you non-seminary folks are keeping up with what’s good and bad in church.

I remember when I was a kid and taking care of your Bible was a good thing. You got a Bible for a present or something and you wrote your name in it. And you never put things on top of it because that didn’t show respect. And you kept that Bible for a long time because that was YOUR Bible. You kept it for years and it would get all worn and everything, which you were sort of proud of because it showed you were reading it.

But then there were new translations coming out every month or so, and Bibles got cheap to buy and you can even get them in grocery stores now. And also some people said that if you were too devoted to one copy of the Bible it was its own kind of weird idolatry. So now people can pretty much do whatever they want to their Bibles. Toss them around. Lose them and just buy a new Bible. Whatever.

And I remember when all we sang in church were hymns, except at church camp where you could sing all these other cool songs with guitars around the campfire. And then some people started singing some of the campfire songs right in church, which seemed okay. But then others said it wasn’t good because those camp songs supposedly aren't as theological deep and sound as the old hymns. But then the people who liked the camp songs said that they are mostly made of words right out of the Bible, so you can’t exactly say they shouldn’t be sung in church. And then the hymn people grumbled, and the campfire people grumbled, and this is the truth - I don’t know what we should or shouldn’t be singing in church if anything.

To be honest, I don’t think anyone knows quite what to do in church anymore. For years church people told us that homosexuality was evil and not just a sin but a very bad sin. They had us all scared of homosexuals, that we might even become one or something if we were around them. And you just assumed that the Bible was chock-full of commandments about homosexuals and them even going to hell for being that. I mean, you just assumed that because the church people were so sure of themselves and talked about it like it was a fact.

But then some people started reading the Bible very carefully, all the parts people said were about homosexuality. And some of them said, “Oh shit! The Bible hardly says anything about homosexuality at all. And what it does say is pretty hard to understand.” So those people said we should just leave homosexuals alone and let them come to church and let their relationships be between them and God, like all relationships are.

But now, see, the ones who thought homosexuality was a really bad thing were getting tired of the changes. It seemed like you hardly heard a hymn in church anymore, and people were dressing sloppy on Sundays, and women were preaching, and you could hardly find a King James Bible anywhere. So I think they just decided to dig their heels in on this whole homosexuality thing. And it became like a religious war, and it’s gotten so bad that even the Episcopalians are fighting over it. And that’s scary because you expect the Baptists will make fools of themselves over stuff like this, but we’ve always counted on the Episcopalians to keep their wits about them and be careful and never ever allow themselves to get so divided over something that they might actually split their church in two.

I mean, the Episcopalians can be kind of stuffy and all, and who knows what the hell they’re doing with all the chants and walking up and down the aisles before church and what with the banners and all the different colors all the time. But my goodness, they’re the smartest ones of all of us, and if they can’t figure this homosexual thing out, what hope is there for the rest of us?

And all the while people who aren’t in the Church are just standing there watching it all, and they have no idea what all the fuss is about and neither do a lot of us who’ve been in the Church all of our lives. We don’t know either.

Maybe in a few years the Church will be all busted up and the only thing left will be people gathering in small groups here and there, and it might not be anything like it is now.

That’s what Jesus was saying with that stuff he said about the wineskins. How the truth about God cannot be held in old wineskins because they will just burst. And sometimes that’s what happens with the Church. It bursts like a dried-out wineskin and you have to find a new wineskin.

And it’s always hard for the church people who live in a time when the wineskins are bursting. It’s hard on that generation, but there’s nothing you can do about it. Nothing at all but just wait and try to be as true as you can and keep your eyes open for what comes next.

rlp

Mark 2.22 - And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but new wine is for fresh skins."

 

Submitted by Larry Vaughan on January 21, 2008 - 12:55pm.

Gordon,
A truly beautiful piece! I don't even like olives, but I'm going to eat some tonight. Just for you.

Submitted by Heather on January 21, 2008 - 1:49pm.

This made me laugh.
Which is good.
I will say this about bread: if it's the type of bread, say Wonder, that's been in your pantry since, say 1988, and shows no signs of mold or staleness, than you probably don't want to eat it.

Submitted by Heather on January 21, 2008 - 1:50pm.

Oh, and unlike Larry, I'm not eating the olives. I don't care what you say.

Submitted by Scog Blog on January 21, 2008 - 2:02pm.

Gordon,

this is thought provoking and a little scary but you have captured what Church feels like at the moment. I am an english anglican and sitting in the pew i feel like something momentos is happening but it is slow like the building up of mountains and the seperation of continents. Maybe we will still be watching when the catastrophic event finally bursts upon us and I wonder what the landscape will look like then?

Submitted by Kim Q on January 21, 2008 - 2:12pm.

Gordon, I have a sneaking suspicion that if we all focus on becoming more like Christ, our doctrine is going to become more alike. My wife and I frankly do not attend a church for some of the reasons you point out in your post, but have never felt more connected, closer to Christ, more involved in "ministry." George Barna's book, "Revolution" pretty accurately describes our motivations for stopping attending church. I'm a little frightened by the "emerging" church, but it is thought-provoking and a little exciting as well. Blessings to you. Kim Q

Submitted by mattman on January 21, 2008 - 2:39pm.

Kim, when you say that you do not attend a church, do you simply mean a formal communion? I'm trying to think of how to put this in a non-confrontational way, but how can you be "connected" to Christ if you are not connected in some way with those who make up the body of Christ?

Submitted by phlipside on January 21, 2008 - 3:18pm.

As a cradle Episcopalian I had to laugh out loud at your post. Also as someone who eats olives like snack food (although never a whole bottle, usually just 6-8 at a time. As with anything it's fine in moderation)

Funny you should mention the wineskins passage. I recently attended a retreat with a bunch of Lutherans led by Loren Mead who wrote "The Once and Future Church" (a good read that I recommend to anyone who is trying to figure out where the church is headed these days). Our scripture passage was the wineskins. What leapt out at me was the line in several translations about "preserving" or "saving" the old wineskins. Prior to this I always assumed that the old just got pitched into the trash, its time over and done. Instead it seems that we must respect what has gone before even as we move forward. It's an interesting way of looking at the questions facing all of us.

Mead by the way believes that we are seeing the end of denominationalism. That creates a challenging future for those of us who love at least parts of our denominational culture. It becomes much more about us and our personal communion with Christ. Too often it seems that institutional church comes before faith. I'm increasingly coming to believe it should be the other way around.

Peace
Jay

Submitted by rlp on January 21, 2008 - 3:46pm.

First, I had nothing in mind when I wrote this except some true statements about the church from the perspective of the voice of the essay. Whether or not the Church is transitioning, what that means, what form it takes - these are not subjects of the essay. The voice of the essay just notices some confusion around him.

Part of my writing this in a different voice (um, straight shooting observant guy who sort of stumbles into wisdom) was to drive that home. This is not a prescriptive or moral piece. It's descriptive.

What is going to happen to the Church is already in motion and not stoppable, in my opinion. Whether or not it is caring of older forms will vary from place to place. Again, none of it is in our control.

Submitted by HisDaveness on January 21, 2008 - 3:22pm.

That's interesting about the wineskins. Where in the Bible is that? I'd like to look that up.

Have you tried olives stuffed with garlic? That's the stuff. 8^)

Submitted by rlp on January 21, 2008 - 3:56pm.

Olives stuffed with bleu cheese...yum. I put one of the references at the bottom of the piece. Matthew and Luke also have it. Virtually the same in all three places.

Submitted by Simian Farmer on January 21, 2008 - 3:45pm.

Through much I this piece I was left to wonder whether it was green olives (and with or without pimentoes?) or black olives? And were they pitted or not? Ahhhh!

Also, in response to mattman up above there a little bit, I will argue that one need not attend an organised church to be part of what makes up the body of Christ. Is it only church-goers who comprise His body? What of people of other faith? Even those who hold to no specific religious doctrine are part of this swarming mass of humanity, and I think that to call some portion somehow less connected to Christ is to separate us along lines that do not really exist.

That's my interpretation, and probably fairly poorly worded. It comes, too, from one who attends no formal church, like Kim, and I really rather prefer it that way.

Best,
Simon

Submitted by mattman on January 22, 2008 - 1:47pm.

Simon, my question is directed to this troubling (to me) notion that one can be Christian without having to attend to other Christians (mostly because they can be so annoying). Jesus did not call people to individual salvation, he called a group of disciples who did not always get along, but who nontheless were the seeds of a new community.
As the pastor to a church community, I understand all too well the attraction of faith practiced without other people- particularly when the kind of fights RLP references in this piece break out. I'm just not sure that is a faith that accurately reflects the call of Jesus and the gospel. I'm not saying it has to be organized in institutional ways, but who do you pray with, who do you sing with, who do you read scripture with and puzzle over its meaning; how it speaks to your life and lives of those around you?
Again, I'm asking about community, not doctrines or denominations.

Submitted by TellingTruth on January 21, 2008 - 4:07pm.

Wow, Gordon, great reflection. It IS remakably uncomfortable to live in a time when the wineskins are bursting and to figure out how to be faithful to one's journey and one's church. May I use this (with attribution) in my church newsletter?

Submitted by rlp on January 21, 2008 - 4:12pm.

Of course. with my blessing

Submitted by administrator on January 23, 2008 - 11:02pm.

Telling truth - the reference for this blog post will change in about 2-3 days as this site gets archived - do you want to wait until then before referencing it?
There will be a post about linking to the archive once we finish the upgrade.

Apologies
Tim

Submitted by Emote on January 21, 2008 - 4:22pm.

Hmm...this makes it look like you've been looking at Pagan Christianity, the book by George Barna and Frank Viola that takes apart the practices of the modern church and shows their origins, apparently also says the modern church keeps believers from realizing the full potential of their relationship with God. I became aware of the book through the comments on a post at Growing Up Goddy about another Barna Research book, unChristian, and it's on my Amazon wishlist.

I completely agree about the current state of the church...the wineskins have worn out, and we've got new wine that has to go somewhere. The church I attend, a medium-sized Presbyterian congregation, is starting to see some of this. And it is painful, though for us it appears that it's barely started. It will be an interesting journey.

Submitted by revscott on January 21, 2008 - 4:52pm.

Wow, Gordon, this is great. There are definitely moments when I think the old wineskins NEED bursting - the fear, of course, is losing all the wine when it happens. I'll confess that, like you, I'm often unsure about what exactly is happening for a lot of us in the church, which sucks because people tend to think the pastor is the guy who knows EVERYTHING that's happening in the church.

Thanks for this piece: it's certainly thought-provoking. Might read it tonight for our board meeting.

Submitted by Keith on January 21, 2008 - 9:35pm.

I think that's the widest turn I've ever seen you make.

Submitted by Chestertonian R... on January 21, 2008 - 9:55pm.

Good post. Have you, by any chance, been reading Huck Finn lately? As in, over and over? (It certainly seems to be the voice you're channeling.)

We live in interesting times, when my PCA minister speaks of our "postchristian" environment in a way that emphasizes the positives as well as the negatives of our time. But I still think that organized religion will remain, just as the Roman Catholic Church survived the reformation. I pray that, if this emergence of home-unchurch-"churches" continues, the two developing traditions will learn to look at each other far more charitably than has happened between Protestants and Catholics. In any case, I think for some continuity with the past (and not a sudden "rediscovery" of 100 AD) will remain valuable that they will be drawn to the established structures and debates of internationally-organized Christianity (be it Methodist, Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist, or Anglican.)

(Unrelatedly, I'm not sure that I've ever seen a convincing argument that homosexuality is not a sin, based on Scripture. Lots of arguments (and it seems so obvious it saddens me that the claim must be made) about the need to love those identifying themselves as homosexuals, and the equality of all before God. And lots of non-Bible-based arguments about the importance of identity and such, which certainly resonate rather strongly with me.)

Submitted by rlp on January 21, 2008 - 10:24pm.

I think the question must be, have you seen a convincing argument that all forms of homosexuality are sinful. Because the burden of proof for any sort of blanket exclusionary statements is huge.

I don't think you'll find it.

Further, the important question is a different one. When a gentle, clearly serious-minded homosexual Christian says to you, "I think God is okay with my sexuality. Can we serve Christ together?" How will you respond to that? That's the real question.

Here are some further thoughts from me on the matter, specifically a look at the Bible passages in question.

http://www.reallivepreacher.com/node/633

Submitted by Chestertonian R... on January 22, 2008 - 2:18pm.

Thanks.

I admit, I'll still have to think about your post, and see if I can find more evidence.

The question, for me, has traditionally been how far ought one's moral conscience, based on the life and teachings of Christ, to be held in check by the (then, and seemingly) clear commands of a few Bible verses.

I.e. it makes SENSE to welcome those who claim a homosexual identity into the fold, as a sort of extension of the "every tribe, tongue and nation" thing. And it makes a lot more sense to affirm loving, committed relationships between homosexuals rather than reducing such to the same level as adultery or promiscuity. But the point of Scripture is to tell us that some things that apparently make sense are still wrong.

And in response to the "real question," I'd like to think that I would encourage him/her to seek out God, admit my perceptions of Scripture openly but charitably (i.e., if they've heard something a thousand times, they probably don't need to hear it again), and work from there. But that's the cop-out I'm allowed (I feel) as a layperson rather than a part of a church's leadership.

(I'd also, in the specific circumstances, read a lot of those books on the background of Paul's culture that you were talking about.)

Submitted by hughman on January 21, 2008 - 10:26pm.

i love olives. especially the cured ones you get from big bins.

fresh bread is the best, nach.

homos like me will never be understood by the church. it's like being an alien. until you are born on another planet...

Submitted by rlp on January 21, 2008 - 11:42pm.

lol

Submitted by JoKeR on January 21, 2008 - 10:39pm.

Walter Wink has written a brief, cogent analysis of biblical citations used to discuss gay/lesbian issues. I think he shows that the arguments used against homosexuality are a house of cards, frequently taken out of context and held high while completely ignoring other verses which are clearer about condemning actions which folks don't want to take seriously as sinful. Google "Walter Wink homosexuality" and you'll find it easily.

For myself, this is a timely posting which I will also probably be sharing with others. First my congregation is in an uproar because some church members hung a gay pride flag at church in hopes of showing members of the GLBT community that they would be welcome. The ever present "they" got upset, fearing that if friends of theirs see that their church displayed a gay flag then that might make them think that "they" were lesbians! Oh my! Follow that immediately Sunday night by attending worship at my wife's church led by Bishop Gene Robinson who has been the focus of international controversy for being openly gay and in a committed relationship. It certainly has me wondering if maybe I'm a member of the wrong congregation. If only Episcopalians didn't use those awful wafers!

Peace,
JoKeR

Submitted by Jom86 on January 22, 2008 - 1:14am.

Hey Gordon (Or is it Mr. Gordon? Pastor? RLP?)

If you can't tell, this will be a first post for me on your site :) I've been reading for years and thought it was high time I told you I've really enjoyed reading. I can't begin to tell you how much some of your pieces have affected me. ...OK, fanboy gushing over, I swear

Anyhoo, I know what you mean about that 'ready to burst' feeling that's in the air. It's a feeling that has been welling up on my campus for two years now. I'm not sure what it's building up to... but honestly, I'm stoked! I just finished reading the book Irresistible Revolution which tells of the emerging 'red letter' Christianity movement (for those who don't speak Christianese, a red letter Christian is someone who asks, "What if Jesus actually meant all those crazy things he said???" To quote Shane Clayborne, "Love God. Love people. Follow Jesus."), and I feel that if things do change, it would be no bad thing if Christianity moved more in that direction. Less of a religion, and more of a lifestyle.

Later gator,
Josh

Submitted by Episcopilot on January 22, 2008 - 2:01am.

Gordon,

Another gem.. And rest assured that while we Episcopalians may be bright, we are also as human as the rest of the flock, prone to getting feathers ruffled mostly because we sometimes see change as inherently an evil threat. I doubt that it will bring a complete splitting of our house because we can also be tenacious in our deeper loyalty to what has fed us in the past. We will see a splintering of sorts , and even that is sad to me because I thought as Easter people we could find a "middle way" to stay in community even when tensions ran high. We really need to save our energy for important issues like the debate over white wine vs. milk punch at the Epiphany jazz brunch, or how often to use incense, or the mortal sin of using a salad fork for the main course. But seriously, even the preface of our prayer book speaks to the obvious necessity of change and we only stick out like a sore thumb because we tend to face some difficult issues maybe a decade or two before some of our fellow travelers.

Maybe on some distant Sunday we can all live into the reality of that sign out fronts that does proclaim. "All Are Welcome". It could happen.

And also with you,

Richard

Submitted by Melinda on January 22, 2008 - 2:36am.

Dude.

Excellent post. I'm in Austin, and I go to a radically inclusive church (Journeyifc.org). Even so, we don't yet have throngs of gays who attend. I think the more we (meaning those of us are in disagreement with "gay = sin") begin to speak up and talk like you're talking, the better. If I were gay, I'd be reticent to show up to most churches. Why would I want to spend a Sunday running the risk of being castigated?

I'm so happy you went there on this important issue. Thanks!

Submitted by Breeze on January 22, 2008 - 8:55am.

Gordon,

Wow, what a great piece! Sadly, it shows how we as humans tend to want to be "right".

My church's vision here in Flagstaff is that we gather inclusively and we do have several gay couples who attend. It is also our vision as someone above said to be "red-letter Christians", although I've never heard it put that way.

When I first started going back to church, I, too thought that my ideas would not be welcomed and I had to check out several before I felt comfortable being me there. Because the love of Christ and others was so palpably present. And who doesn't want love?

Anyway, thanks again Gordon.
Brenda

Submitted by Gene on January 22, 2008 - 1:42pm.

Another great essay.

Maybe in a few years the Church will be all busted up and the only thing left will be people gathering in small groups here and there, and it might not be anything like it is now.
And this would be a bad thing why? As long as Christians are meeting, worshiping and working together, the size of the group and whether it's a "church" building don't matter.

ELCA Lutherans are likely to split over the questions of homosexuality, same-sex unions and the role of homosexuals in the church. The Lutheran church in the U.S. has split and merged a number of times before over other issues.

On the question of food, learn a bit about glycemic index. It's an oversimplification, but basically your body and process white bread (especially Wonder Bread and its ilk) too quickly. Wheat and other heartier breads take longer, but also have more fiber and other stuff that's good for you.

Wonder Bread isn't without it's uses, though. If you've ever sweated (soldered) copper pipes, you know it's hard to do if there's a trickle of water in the pipes. A wad of fluffy white bread makes a wonderful temporary plug to stop it, which will dissolve after you've closed up the pipes and turned the water back on :-)

And pitted black olives are the best. But a whole jar?!?

Submitted by Gene on January 22, 2008 - 3:41pm.

I meant to include the following, too. Understanding what's good and what's bad in the church is at least as confusing as understanding what's said in the Bible. So I use my personal BBSF (Bible b-s filter) when anyone says I should believe thus-and-such. If it doesn't pass Jesus answer to the question about the greatest commandment ("love God, love your neighbor*" *and everyone is your neighbor), then it's suspect.

Submitted by Stephen on January 22, 2008 - 2:35pm.

MMMMMM olllivvvvves.

I thought I was the only person with an olive obsession. Good to know I'm not alone. And just what's the point of a pimento anyway?

If you really want to read a book that'll knock your socks off and take that whole new wine, old wineskins metaphor to a new level, I highly recommend Michael Frost's "Exiles: Living missionally in a post-Christian Culture." Fabulous stuff! Thought maybe not as fabulous as olives stuffed with bleu cheese.

Peace, Brother Gordon,

"The only thing we can do for others is to love them." Dorothy Day

Submitted by rbarenblat on January 22, 2008 - 4:23pm.

I was just saying to a friend last night that if I still lived in your town, I would so totally go to your church some Sundays, even though that would mean not making it to Panchito's for Sunday brunch. This here essay is a fine reminder of why I would do that, if I could.

***
"Why write unless you praise the sacred places?" -- Richard Howard

Submitted by Kathryn on January 23, 2008 - 7:21am.

Thank you, Gordon...I've not commented for ages, but this was outstanding, even by your high standards and I simply had to cheer loudly.
I'm fond of olives too. How about stuffed with almonds? ;-)

Submitted by dont eat alone on January 23, 2008 - 10:04am.

It seems to me the heart of the church should be about how we being everyone in rather than who we should keep out.

And I like the olives with the pimentos inside chopped up on a friend bologna sandwich. (Is that bad for me?)

Peace
Milton

Submitted by rlp on January 23, 2008 - 11:15am.

sounds pretty bad man. Bologna has a bad name these days. But I grew up eating it.

I once ate spam with grey poupon on it. I was aware of the irony.

Submitted by godguy on January 23, 2008 - 9:25pm.

godguy
This is my first reading of realivepreacher. I really enjoyed the message and all of the comments. I am a Presbyterian and like the others on the site, I am concerned about how poorly we treat homosexual people. For us the flash point has been in the ordination of practicing homosexuals for church offices (clergy, elders, and deacons). The problem from my perspective is multi-faceted and complex. When the Bible speaks of homosexuality, it is general negative, yet Christ teaches us to love our neighbors as ourselves, which should take precedence, but some Christians don't read their Bibles that way. Another level is the cultural problem of how straight America views homosexuals - again negatively. Finally, Freud did not help stressing that homosexuality is more a matter of nurture than nature. i think that the prevailing opinion now favors the nature side of the argument, but old habits of mind are hard to break. In the process I struggle with how to preserve the church with being an institution that is open to all of God's children. I am hoping that the new wine that is bursting the old skins is the love of God for all humanity.

Submitted by Jason Rhodes on January 24, 2008 - 8:25am.

I've really only read you for the past 6 months or so, but this could be the best thing you've ever written that I've read. I love this style of discourse -- it's unique to the blog and makes the blog actually have a purpose in the writing world, I think.

And yes, new wineskins. I'm excited and terrified.