Did you know that today is Ascension Day -- the recognition of the day that Jesus rose to heaven in view of his disciples?

I realize that readership of my blog is pretty evenly split between Europeans and North-Americans (with a few other international readers on the side) -- thus often one person's "Oh really?!?" is another person's "No duh!!" -- but I think it's ironic and interesting to notice which group is likely to know the religious significance of this particular date on the calendar.

By and large, I would absolutely say that North America (and especially the United States of America) is considerably more "religious" and more "Christian" than Europe (well, at least the Netherlands).  Considering everything from church attendance figures to popular music to political debate to bumper stickers and T-shirts seen on the street -- I think it's pretty clear to see God, Jesus, the Church, and Faith in general are much more public and prevalent on the west side of the Atlantic.

And yet, when it comes to celebrating holidays, Europeans are much more "Christian" than Americans.  Eight out of ten national holidays in the Netherlands are Christian holidays:  Good Friday, First and Second Easter, Ascension Day, First and Second Pentecost, and First and Second Christmas.  The only "secular" holidays are New Year's Day and Queen's Day (with an official recognition of Memorial Day thrown in every fifth year)... Oddly enough, when looking at the list of American holidays, the percentage of religious observances is almost exactly the opposite (depending on how you count, i.e. depending upon whose list of holidays you might be looking at).  Employees of the U.S. Federal government get eight secular holidays (New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Junior Day, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, and Veterans Day) and only two religious holdays (Christmas Day and Thanksgiving -- the second of which is only implicitly/historically religious).  Some employers in the United States give extra time off for Good Friday or Christmas Eve or the day after Thanksgiving -- but even so, the point remains that the observance of holidays represents an unusual flip-flop of cultural priorities, when it comes to the subject of religion and Christianity.

I'm sure there are rational explanations for why the holidays have developed as such in Europe and North America... But I don't understand it.  And in any event, I find it ironic.  I'm not saying that one culture's take on things is more or less correct than another's -- but it's definitely interesting to notice.

Courage and strength.  Courage and strength... I remember this anthem from the beginnings of the Book of Joshua -- but I never really realized that these refrains were being instilled all the way back at the beginning of Deuteronomy as well.  God must have known that these would need to be important armaments for the people of Israel (and particularly the leader of the people of Israel), as they set out on their great campaign to claim the Promised Land.

Courage and strength.  Courage and strength.  In Deuteronomy chapter 1, Moses is told to build up Joshua's courage, in light of the fact that it would be he who would claim Israel's inheritance (Deuteronomy 1:37-40).  In chapter 3, soon after reminding Moses that a glimpse from the top of Mount Pisgah would be the closest that he'd ever get to the Promised Land, God commands Moses to command Joshua:  "Give him courage.  Give him strength.  Single-handed he will lead this people across the river.  Single-handed he'll cause them to inherit the land at which you can only look" (Deuteronomy 3:28).

Courage and strength.  Courage and strength.  It's so necessary for leadership.  It's so necessary for life.  The reiteration of these themes -- summed up in Joshua's "inaugural address" and its repeated charge to "Be strong and courageous" -- has been a powerful encouragement to me throughout the years.  I remember reading the first chapter of Joshua just after I had initially made the decision to go into full-time ministry.  I was facing the intimidating process of raising funds to cover the costs of my ministry in Bowling Green -- and those words from Joshua were life and hope and power to my weak and trembling body.  Courage!  Strength!  I felt empowered by those reminders, and incredibly, God showed up in those days of fund-raising -- enabling a gangly, green, college-graduate to complete the process in about five months.

The encouragements toward courage and strength again came into play some four years later, as I was preparing to move to Amsterdam.  The Atlantic Ocean felt like such a wide and impossible barrier (probably because it was, on the practical level!) -- but then, again "coincidentally" reading through the stories of Joshua's conquest of the Promised Land, I was freshly reminded of God's miraculous interventions to help His people cross the Jordan River (which was, to the Israelites, just as impossible a barrier as my Atlantic Ocean).  Courage and strength!  Courage and strength!  I felt my blood pump faster and more fully through my veins, as I read those words.  Eating up those words from the first chapter of Joshua was like Pacman munching on a power pellet, or Popeye popping a can of spinach, or the Gummi Bears gulping a vial of Gummi Berry Juice.  Somehow, reading the command to be strong and courageous actually made me stronger.  I actually became more courageous.  And then God showed up again, and the Mission Impossible suddenly became the Mission Accomplished.  We raised another boat-load of support.  We sold our house.  We crossed the Atlantic, quite literally, and settled down in the city of Amsterdam.  Again, God supplied all the courage and strength that I needed -- along with all the other more practical stuff to boot.

And now I find myself reading through the Conquest accounts of the Old Testament again -- and as I read the reminders toward courage and strength (in places from the text where I never really noticed them before), I again feel my adrenaline pumping stronger, the timpanic drum beat growing louder, the courage and strength filling my system anew.  The feeling is not unlike my memory of rides on a big yellow school bus, on my way to a high school football game in Norwalk or Bellevue or Upper Sandusky, listening to "pump-up" music on my walkman headphones.  I feel like I'm on the cusp of a great, epic battle.  I'm getting prepared.  I'm ramping up.  I'm rip-raring to go, like a race-horse at the gates.

Could it be mere coincidence that these passages from the Bible are speaking so strongly to me again at just the time when I'm getting ready for another significant stretch of support-raising in the USA?!?  I did not plan my personal Bible study with the current situation in mind -- but it's crazy how such words of encouragement supernaturally fill me for just such a time as this!  Courage and strength!  Courage and strength!  And just when I need it...

I especially appreciate the fact that I'm noticing these anthems further back in the text than what I've previously observed.  Joshua was repeatedly steeped in words of strength and encouragement, apparently, going back years before the First Battle of Canaan ever took place.  That means that it wasn't just some blind rush of psychosomatic chemical responses to an impassioned speech at a particular moment of crisis.  It wasn't some special, one-time, "unique" experience of God's courage and strength.  It was, doubtless, a mix of God's supernatural voice, the encouragement of others, and self-talk reinforcing an acquired belief.  But if anything, this makes the message of courage and strength even more meaningful!  It's something sustained and and repeatedly spoken into cognizance.  It's something that can charge us now, and something that can stay with us into the future.

As long as we remember -- and remind each other -- to be strong and courageous.

It is obvious what kind of life develops out of trying to get your own way all the time: repetitive, loveless, cheap sex; a stinking accumulation of mental and emotional garbage; frenzied and joyless grabs for happiness; trinket gods; magic-show religion; paranoid loneliness; cutthroat competition; all-consuming-yet-never-satisfied wants; a brutal temper; an impotence to love or be loved; divided homes and divided lives; small-minded and lopsided pursuits; the vicious habit of depersonalizing everyone into a rival; uncontrolled and uncontrollable addictions; ugly parodies of community. I could go on...

But what happens when we live God's way? He brings gifts into our lives, much the same way that fruit appears in an orchard—things like affection for others, exuberance about life, serenity. We develop a willingness to stick with things, a sense of compassion in the heart, and a conviction that a basic holiness permeates things and people. We find ourselves involved in loyal commitments, not needing to force our way in life, able to marshal and direct our energies wisely...

Since this is the kind of life we have chosen, the life of the Spirit, let us make sure that we do not just hold it as an idea in our heads or a sentiment in our hearts, but work out its implications in every detail of our lives. That means we will not compare ourselves with each other as if one of us were better and another worse. We have far more interesting things to do with our lives. Each of us is an original.

*     *     *     *     *

I'm not usually one for posting quotes -- much less quotes of text from the Bible -- but these words really struck me today in a fresh way.  Can you guess from which part of the Bible they come?

Let it be said that I trust God's character, as revealed through the Bible. But I have to admit: I have a bit of a hard time with the way Moses was treated at Meribah.

Why did God react so strongly to Moses striking instead of speaking to the rock? Why was that particular incident such a big deal? Couldn't Moses have simply misunderstood the assignment? After all, wasn't it God who put the staff in Moses' hands to begin with that fateful day? What if Moses was just having a bad day? And even if it was willful disobedience, why would that one little act cancel out all the great faith-filled things that characterized the rest of Moses' life? And if Moses was going about things the wrong way at Meribah (regardless of the reasons), why didn't God just withhold the water so Moses could go back to his original instructions and get it right? Why did this become the rope that was used to hang Israel's great leader and deliverer? I really don't get it.

As I read through the story of Moses at Meribah, my primary emotional response is one of anger. Am I going to get busted on some sort of technicality like this, too? And if so, what's the point of even trying to be a good leader? I already know that I have bad days -- even bad weeks, and bad months -- in the course of walking the path of faith, following God as closely as possible. So I have to wonder: Should I even step out across the mine-field, if I know that my chances of being dismembered are so great?

Why would God give us the story of Moses at Meribah? What am I supposed to do with that?!?! 

At Zolder50, we've recently been studying Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Matthew, chapters 5-7) -- and in particular, over the last month, we've been studying Jesus' directives on sexuality, marriage, and divorce. If that wasn't enough information on the topic, our home group has been studying -- in a separate study -- the book of 1 Corinthians, and it just so happened that yesterday evening was a discussion about marriage and sexuality, from the 7th chapter of the book. Earlier this year, on this blog, I also spent some time studying out the issue of Sexuality and Spirituality... and I've definitely been challenged to closely consider some of the complex issues relating to sexuality and relationships in our culture today. Over the last couple of weeks, I've been chewing on one question in particular:

Is there room in the community of Christ for (non-sexual) same-sex covenant relationships?

I still haven't completely settled my own mind on these issues, but I guess I'm just asking: Do we as Christians need to be opposed to same-sex civil unions -- perhaps as a means of protecting ourselves from treading into dangerous regions of the slippery slope leading to unabashed worldliness? Or do we need to get creative when it comes to making allowances for our Christian brothers and sisters desiring to strive for lives of celibacy? I've been wondering about this a lot lately...

Now, I'm not naive. I realize that the vast majority (if not the entirety) of those choosing for civil unions in the Netherlands (or advocating for acceptance of civil unions or "gay marriage" in the USA or other parts of the world) are (homo-)sexually active. And I honestly don't know how successfully we could ever divorce the idea of sex from covenant relationships (particularly those originally instituted to mimic marriage). But could it be worthwhile to try to walk this fine line?

The rise of homosexuality in Western culture is truly remarkable. And while I believe that this certainly has something to do with our culture's idolization of Eros -- I also happen to believe that it's about much more than sex (I might even dare to say that the sexual aspect of homosexuality is a relatively small part of the equation). From my experience, it seems like some of the biggest felt needs of the homosexual community are belonging, acceptance, companionship, and family (I should also note that this likely holds true for all people who don't fit into the "standard" mold of the "married-with-children" crowd)... I suspect that a lot of it comes down to questions like, "Who will I spend Christmas with? Or New Year's Eve? Or Valentine's Day?" "Who will take care of me in my old age?" "How am I ever going to travel to see the Great Wall of China or the grasslands of Africa or the quays of Paris -- if I don't have a traveling companion?" Or perhaps a bit more macabre: "Who will organize my funeral?" "To whom will I pass along my family heirlooms?" Maybe it's offensive for me (one of the "married-with-children" crowd) to speculate so broadly about this, but I genuinely wonder...

And while I certainly believe that we need to encourage each other to cast down our idols and find hope from its True Source, I wonder if we could still benefit from considering ways to care for the practical needs of people within our community who choose to embrace a life of singleness.

My thinking here is not so dissimilar to the way that the Catholic church has historically taken care of those who have taken vows of celibacy (i.e. priests and nuns). Certain orders of sisters or brothers have had group living arrangements, group activities, group missions (i.e. taking care of orphans, feeding the poor)... Perhaps such a concept needs to be revisited for post-"Church-Era," post-modern, Western society... Yes, maybe establishing new "orders" of brothers and/or sisters is, in fact, the way to go. Adapt the antiquated, not-so-cool ways of dressing, naming, and stereotyping these groups of people (the idea of "becoming a nun" or "becoming a priest" may just have too much accumulated cultural baggage)... And voila! A lot of those most urgent felt needs and most pressing questions about life as a single person have answers! But then again, maybe -- in a more post-modern, decentralized, "organic," anti-institutional, missional ministry- (and life-) context -- maybe it makes sense to think about covenant friendships and civil unions...

There is some biblical precedent for this. 1 Samuel 18 and 20 talk about the covenant friendship between David and Jonathan, which was solemnly and repeatedly sworn in the presence of God and each other. (Some have suggested that David and Jonathan were, in fact, homosexual -- though the Hebrew verbs chosen for their "love" and other factors surrounding their relationship make this highly unlikely, in my mind). The closest biblical parallel to David and Jonathan's relationship (at least, etymologically-speaking, according to the commentaries I've referenced) would be the relationship between Jacob and his son Benjamin (Genesis 44:30 uses some of the same terminology to describe how Jacob's "life is closely bound up with (Benjamin's) life") -- but my mind also wanders to relationships like Ruth and Naomi (Ruth 1:15-22) and Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego's less formal partnership to support each other through times of testing (Daniel 1:6-20). Even so, I'll admit that the idea of covenant friendships / "life partnerships" for celibate believers is a bit of a leap for contemporary contexts. Especially considering the fact that we don't want to set up stumbling blocks for people who may struggle with feelings of attraction toward people of the same sex, I realize that we need to be sensitive and perhaps build in some protections for people in these situations (like choosing to establish a covenant between a group of three people, instead of just two). In any event, this idea of a covenant friendship is an interesting point of consideration...

Now, I'm going a little bit further out on a limb here (again, remember that I'm still more or less thinking out loud) -- but coupled with the current cultural allowances for (or aims toward allowances for) same-sex civil unions, doesn't it seem that such an idea could have some extra practicability? Why not take advantage of the opportunities presented by the current political system and allow those individuals who are committed to God and to lives of purity and celibacy to have the same tax benefits, immigration benefits, health benefits, and death-and-disability benefits that married couples enjoy?

Now, I have long been (and will long continue to be) an ardent supporter of God's definitions for marriage, family, and sexuality -- but I see a clear distinction between these things and the concept of "civil unions." God joins man and woman together in marriage and blesses their physical, emotional, and spiritual union; the government chooses how it will recognize this union and work out the economic and political implications for society. The Dutch system of marriage and civil unions has helped me to understand this. In the Netherlands, any two people wishing to formally join their lives together (Christians, Hindus, secular humanists, homosexual couples, heterosexual couples) must first report to City Hall and make their solemn pledges and process their paperwork for the government. Then, after the civil ceremonies are completed, the spiritual significance may (or may not) be independently observed. A Christian couple, then, will typically get all dressed up, go to City Hall and do the civil thing, then go get some pictures in the park, then go to the church and say their wedding vows betfore God and each other, then have a big party (or a series of parties) with their friends and family, and then consummate the marriage in the privacy of their bedroom that night. A secular couple, though, will get dressed up, go to City Hall and do the civil thing (if they're the sentimental / romantic / traditional type, they may even do this with the long white dress and pick the script that calls it all a "marriage"), then go get some pictures in the park and follow it all up with a big party (or series of parties) with their friends and family (the "consumation" part of their relationship has probably already happened much earlier -- though, again, if they're the sentimental / romantic / traditional type of couple, they may maintain all the trappings of a special wedding night and a honeymoon... on a more "optional" basis, of course). So you see how it works? The spiritual part of things is skipped or substituted based on the desires of the couple. From the secular government's point of view, it doesn't matter! They just want to have it on file that "Person A" and "Person B" now apply for exclusive status as a recognized couple -- and that's it. It actually makes a lot of sense to me (though it's certainly different from the traditional American way of doing things, which also makes sense to me).

So if we have Christian brothers and sisters who want to formally commit themselves to a life of celibacy and sexual purity -- but who would be aided and supported by having someone else (or a couple of other friends) in the same situation to do life together with them -- then why wouldn't we want to consider the advantages of covenant friendships (on the spiritual level) and civil unions (on the societal level)? Think about it: How cool would it be to celebrate a day with two spiritual siblings (I suppose it could be a brother and sister, just as much as a brother/brother and sister/sister) as they formally commit to a life of serving God wholeheartedly, without the distractions of marriage (like Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 7)?!? I mean, we could do the big party and the special pictures and special clothes and all that -- with all the practical benefits besides -- and it could be a cultural statement to deepen the respect for love and marriage and sexuality and family...

I don't know... Am I talking crazy here?!?! Have I become too influenced by the liberal Amsterdam way of thinking? Would something like this compromise the image of the church or the sanctity of marriage and family? Would anyone actually choose to make such a statement with his or her life? I guess I'm externally processing more than anything... but it is interesting to wonder...