What Would You Do If...Pruning Hooks & Plowshares

It's been along time between posts here...

The following is a response about the question of Christian non-violence posed by friends at Beyond the Box.

Wow! There have been so many comments since I last said anything. I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to get back with you guys. First off, let me say that I really appreciate each of you and your tone throughout not only this conversation, but all of them! I love this community and I am so thankful to have people like you guys to talk these things through with.

There have been so many things said and questions asked that I don’t think I can address them all right now, but let me lay out a few points hopefully in an effort to clarify where I (and I think Steve) am coming from. Once again, please hear my tone here. My words here are not meant to “call anyone out” or “correct” anyone. I definitely don’t claim to have everything figured out. I simply want to be clear about WHAT I am saying and WHY I am saying it. Hopefully you guys can hear my heart here…

One of the first things that strikes me in this whole conversation is that there seems to be a disconnect between the material and spiritual realms. Let me explain. I think that Gnosticism has been and remains one of the greatest threats to the Body of Christ. Early Gnosticism clearly rejected the fusion of God and man in the person of Jesus. They could not believe that God could be united with something as evil as the material world. The Church has rejected this idea for almost 2000 years (in word anyway). I think one of the potential pitfalls of the Reformation (and simultaneously the Enlightenment) was a focus on the individual as opposed to society. Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” became for the Great Awakening “Jesus is my PERSONAL Savior”. Instead of seeing Jesus redemption as a shift in society at large (a new creation), Protestants began focusing on the salvation of individuals. This has been true on some level since Augustine’s “Just War Theory” (allowing one to love enemies while killing them), but I believe that it has possibly run amuck since the Reformation.

What does all of this have to do with anything? Well, I think when we talk about the ability to love one’s enemies, while (or after) shooting them, we are dipping a bit into Gnosticism and once again trying to separate the spiritual and material realms. The problem is we can’t do this without doing violence (pun intended) :) to both the Scriptures and Jesus Himself. I think that Jesus made it pretty clear that you can’t call Him “Lord” without doing the things He says. James also talks about faith and works as being two intertwined realities.

So the real question here becomes: “What did Jesus say?”. To answer this we have to appeal to more than our own experience, practicality, or common sense. Jesus not only gave the Sermon on the Mount, He LIVED it. It would be meaningless for Jesus to teach one thing and then live out a different reality. Jesus WORDS and ACTIONS were consistent and coherent. This means that we can actually discern from Jesus life what His teachings meant.

 Shane, when you say that Jesus did not turn the other cheek before the Chief Priest, I have to disagree. Walter Wink explains, that in the culture of first century Palestine, a master would strike a slave with the back of his hand. This was his way of saying “You are beneath me; so much so that I will not even hit you as an equal.” Two men on equal footing would have struck each other with the front of the hand. By turning the other cheek, Jesus is telling His followers to subvert the cultural norm and “fight back” so to speak; only not with violence, but with service, love, and an alternative vision for the world. Jesus DID turn the other cheek. The fact that He said “I could call twelve legions of angels to deliver Me”, and yet didn’t, should mean something. Jesus, the most innocent of all victims refused to defend Himself using violence and instead entrusted Himself to the Father’s care in the midst of the greatest crime (deicide) in the history of humanity! Did He turn the other cheek? Absolutely! Did this mean that He was PASSIVE? Absolutely not!

Pacifism and passivity ARE NOT THE SAME THING! Passivity refuses to get involved in a dangerous situation. Christian love and peace-making refuses NOT TO GET INVOLVED. It’s not that I should stand idly by why helpless persons are being threatened. Rather, I should willfully stand between those who are victimized and their perpetrator. The difference between what I am saying and what you guys are advocating is that I don’t believe we are given space to fight violence with violence. Throughout the prophets the LORD continually reprimands Israel for seeking fleshly defense from enemies. “Some may trust in horses, some may trust in chariots, but we will trust in the name of the LORD our God”. (Psalm 20:7) He continually tells them that HE wants to be their Rock and Defense, but they do not trust and instead run to Egypt, etc. for help. Some may trust in Smith, others may trust in Wesson, but we will trust in the name of the LORD our God. :)

Here is the crux of the matter for me: I don’t believe that Jesus came only to “save our souls” or deliver us into heaven.

Throughout the prophets we are given promises and imagery from the coming Messianic kingdom. Isaiah, Joel, and Micah all talk about swords being “beat into plowshares” and spears being transformed into “pruning hooks”. When will this happen? During the Messianic age, right? I think we all agree that the fulfillment of God’s Kingdom will result in world-wide peace and an end to violence. “They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.” (Isaiah 11:9) When will destruction end? When God’s kingdom comes in fullness, right?

For me this is the heart of where I think some of the confusion comes from surrounding non-violence. Most Christians see God’s Kingdom and the Messianic Age as a future promise yet to be fulfilled. Yet, Jesus comes proclaiming “Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven IS HERE”. Jesus says, “The Kingdom of God doesn’t come with observance. The Kingdom of God IS WITHIN YOU”. So, for the believer, when is the Kingdom of God coming? NOW. When will the Messianic Age arrive? NOW.

Paul says that we are RIGHT NOW “ambassadors” for Christ. “Ambassador” is a very political word. It means that we live our lives under the domain of another nation while we are in the midst of a foreign land. It means that we play by different rules—the rules of our homeland. I think this is what Peter meant when he said that we are “foreigners and exiles” in this world. Paul said that “our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20). Again, citizenship is a very political word and this is a very political statement. The very phrase “Jesus is LORD” is a political statement. How so? Because for the early Christians to confess that Jesus is LORD meant that they were in the same breath confessing that Caesar ISN’T. With this confession came the idea that Caesar’s ways were not necessarily divinely sanctioned or inspired.

Much of early Christian terminology came straight from the heart of the Roman Empire. The word “Gospel” was taken from the heart of the empire. The “gospel” of Caesar was the “Pax Romana” –the “Peace of Rome”. How did Rome bring peace? By striking its enemies into submission until there were no more enemies to strike down, thus bringing peace. But Jesus said “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives.” Jesus is saying “I don’t give you peace like the world gives it. My peace looks different.” The confession of Jesus as LORD meant that one ceased trusting in Caesar and his “good news” to set the world straight, and instead trusted in the counter-intuitive wisdom of Jesus; the wisdom of the Cross which is foolishness to the natural (practical) man.

So if the kingdom of God is NOW and HERE among us (believers), why do we continue to live as if nothing has yet changed? If Jesus is LORD NOW, and the Kingdom is HERE already, it would seem to me that we should act like it and demonstrate to the world what the fullness of this Kingdom will one day look like. We are the foretaste to the world of the coming Kingdom. We are the first-fruits of the new creation!

Chris, I actually DO believe that verses 38-42 are just as literal as the rest of the Sermon on the Mount. Is it practical? No. Did Jesus and the early disciples live this way? I think so. For starters, Jesus and His disciples seem to have had a community purse. It seems like Judas was their “treasurer” and responsible for the money that came into the community of disciples. However, this didn’t stop with Jesus. Acts 2:44-45 says “All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.” Here’s one that’s even more pointed: “All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. “ (Acts 4:32-35) Whew! As a middle-class, consumerist, capitalist this kicks me in the teeth! I don’t think that Jesus or the early disciples would be tame enough for suburbia. Am I living this reality out? Not as much as I want to. But, with the help of the Holy Spirit I am learning…

To sum up, I think that we have been so affected by our westernized mind-set that we tame the words of the New Testament by internalizing them and making them about either an “inner” reality or something to look forward to when we die. This allows us to act differently in the material world than the beliefs or ideals that we profess.

So back to the initial question: What would you do if someone attacked your loved one? Actually I think there are a lot of possible options, but since I don’t live in the hypothetical future I am limited in the ability to give you point-blank (there’s another pun!) answers. Hypothetical situations are always set up by the questioner to maximize the potential for evil. (That is, it’s always the worst of all scenarios: ie. The questioner asks, “If you had a gun would you shoot the perpetrator?” I ask, “Am I a good shot?” “Yes” comes the reply. “Then I would shoot the gun right out of the perpetrators hand!” “No, you’re not THAT good of a shot!”…Do you see where I am going here?) I would rather focus on maximizing the potential for God’s love in ANY situation. (I am not trying to cop-out here—just speaking from my heart). I don’t think the choice in the future matters near as much as the choice I make right now. Will I make the decision to believe what Jesus says (even when it contradicts all of my logic), and thus be prepared for handling a future situation like the one you describe? I can’t tell you what I would do in that situation, but I can tell you what I HOPE I would do. I hope I would trust the Father to deliver me and my family by giving me a word or action in season, or by giving me the grace to witness to His love no matter the outcome knowing that death has no sting and that resurrection is my assured reality. Does this sound insane? Maybe. Do I believe its faithful to my confession of Jesus as LORD? Yes.

I know that you guys say that you see non-violence as a side issue that can distract from Jesus. I love you brothers, but I completely disagree. How can Jesus words distract from His person? Again, I think this is a case of separating the material and spiritual realm. I don’t need you guys to agree with me to love you or to be friends (I’m gonna do that anyway;)), but I genuinely believe that this is a vital part of the Gospel itself. I don’t see the Gospel as only a “spiritual” issue anymore. I believe that the Gospel is actually an alternative vision for God’s world that is to be proclaimed by word and deed through Jesus followers until the day when it is established in all its fullness.

Whew! Sorry for the LOONNNGGG reply. I just wanted to help you guys hear where I am coming from. I hope this help! I love you all!!!

Good Books from 2009

I thought that I would share with you some of the books that have been speaking to me over the last year. So without further adieu...

Mere Discipleship


This might be the best book I read all year (and maybe top ten all-time). Lee Camp points us to the fact that discipleship is not something that simply consists of reading your Bible, praying, etc. Rather, discipleship is a radical stance of nonviolent resistance that believers take toward a world lost in rebellion. With a large emphasis on the nonviolent nature of the Kingdom, Mr. Camp talks about Christian discipleship as a life of revealing God's coming Kingdom in the now. Mr. Camp studied under John Howard Yoder at the University of Notre Dame. This book is sort of an overview and expansion of John Howard Yoder's teachings. After reading this book I have bought a copy of The Politics of Jesus by Mr. Yoder that I intend to read in the new year. I believe that Mere Discipleship is a must read.

Jesus for President

This is probably the most enjoyable read I had all year. The layout of this book is an artistic creation in itself. Shane Claiborne & Chris Haw speak in this book of the radical subversive nature of the Kingdom. Once again with a large chunk of the book dedicated to understanding the call of Jesus to a life of nonviolence, the authors talk about the Kingdom of God's upside down nature when compared to the empires of our world. One of the things I appreciate so much about Shane is his radical life that demonstrates the message he shares. There are some radical examples of Kingdom living shared in this book and I believe that it does well to shake us into seeing just how topsy-turvy God's Kingdom really is...or is it this fallen world which is topsy-turvy...Hmmm. I loved this book and recommend it highly.


The Myth of a Christian Religion

If you have discussed theology with me in the last year, you probably have heard me mention Greg Boyd's name. I love Greg Boyd's take on things. His book The Myth of a Christian Nation is one of my favorite books of all time. It was the first book that I read that really addressed the call of Jesus to nonviolence. Well as a sequel to that book, this one doesn't disappoint. In this book Mr. Boyd talks about how, as believers, we are called to rebel against all of the things in this world which are not in line with God's Kingdom. For example, we rebel against greed by sharing with those in need. We rebel against racism by viewing people of all ethnicities as fellow members of God's House. We rebel against a world of violence by choosing intentionally to love our enemies. This is a great book on understanding what our true spiritual warfare is to look like. We don't fight people; instead we fight systems and corruption that hurts those for whom Jesus died.


The Divine Commodity

This is an eye-opening book about how our consumer culture has conditioned us both in our day to day lives and our faith. Mr. Jethani uses the life of Vincent VanGogh and his art to teach about faith as uncluttered from greed. He shows how not only our individual lives have been negatively impacted by consumerism, but also how the Western Church as a whole has bought into the lie of bigger is better. This book should be required reading for any believer living in the western hemisphere. The chapter that talks about Christmas is worth reading the whole book for.


What Would You Do?

This is the first John Howard Yoder book that I have read. Mr. Yoder was a Mennonite theologian who is best known for his teachings on Jesus' call to nonviolence. In this book Mr. Yoder attempts to answer the hypothetical question that is often asked of pacifists "What would you do if someone were to attack you, your spouse, or your children?" This book is broken up into three parts. In the first Mr. Yoder makes his case for why one should respond to such a situation in a nonviolent way. In the second section he uses the writings of others (everyone from Joan Baez to Leo Tolstoy) to show the rationality of a nonviolent response especially for those who believe in Jesus. The last section of the book is composed of 10 retellings of actual situations where someone who was threatened responded in a nonviolent way. This is a great book for those who are interested in Christian nonviolence or pacifism.

Well, this helps me to remember some of the books that have impacted me over the last year. Hopefully you will be ministered to by some of these as well. Some of the books on my list to read are: The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder, ReJesus by Michael Frost & Alan Hirsch, The Subversion of Christianity by Jacques Ellul, and The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky. What are some books that God is using in your life?

Quotes and Thoughts Being Used to Shape Me

Well, as you can see I don't tend to use this blog near as much as I once did. Maybe that is about to change though. For a while now I have thought about heading in a new direction (if only temporary) with this blog. Instead of just discussing topics that are running through my mind (which I am sure to continue to do), I would like to bring you quotes that have or are stimulating me. Many of these quotes are thoughts that I continue to wrestle with. Usually these will be quotes that, I believe, are being used by the Spirit to shape me. I'm not exactly sure how this is going to work. With some of these quotes I will probably give my own commentary and others I will simply leave alone. So here goes with quote no. NumBer # 1 oNe:

"In the kingdom of God, we descend into greatness."*

To me, this means that the Kingdom of God seems to be isradically different than any of the kingdoms that this world has ever seen. In this kingdom the King doesn't rule with a sword or an iron fist. Instead, Jesus rules with a towel and self-sacrificial love. To be a citizen of this Kingdom means that we imitate His example. Instead of trying to seek power over people through legislation or coercive influence, we come under them and serve them, living before them and for them the change that we want to see in them.

What does this quote mean to you?

*(Shane Claiborne & Chris Haw, Jesus for President(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 123.

Resurrection Response (Continued Discussion About the Resurrection of Jesus)

Wow, it's been a long time since I used the blog! My comments were getting kinda long, so I decided to blow the dust off and post my thoughts here. These are my thoughts related to a response by sidfaiwu on his blog regarding a recent episode Steve Sensenig and I recorded over at our podcast, Beyond the Box. I would recommend that you listen to the episode before reading all of the dialog that has happened since.

Hi Sid! I have really enjoyed following the conversation on your blog. I hope that this lengthy post can give you more of an idea of where I am coming from. I don’t like to look at this as a debate, but rather as a discussion. In a debate, there are only winners and losers and usually, everyone goes out of their way to make sure they are on the winning team. In a discussion, everyone can contribute something valuable and the point is simply to further our understanding of each other while possibly giving some food for thought. I would like to ask for your forgiveness in advance if my passionate tone in this discussion ever sounds preachy, etc. It is hard to express in written form what is in my heart regarding this subject. Well, I don’t know the best place to start, so I’m just gonna give it a go!

As we stated in the podcast, historical events are not repeatable and therefore, as you stated, first-hand accounts are one of the single greatest evidences we have to verify that something actually happened. As you noted, multiple sources are preferable as well in that they add weight to the claim that an event happened. I believe that you are incorrect Sid in saying that we have second-hand sources at best. Not only do we have first-hand eyewitness accounts contained within the Bible, but we have multiple eyewitnesses who attest to the same story (ie. Peter & John). As to an antagonistic witness testifying to the same events, we have the account of Saul of Tarsus later known as Paul the apostle after encountering the risen Christ on his way to arrest followers of Jesus in Damascus. Now, some would say that these accounts can only be seen as a singular, monolithic witness to the resurrection, but this is where our modernistic view of the Bible needs to be challenged.

The 21st century concept of the Bible as a single book written by a single author is simply not correct. Instead, the New Testament alone contains 27 different eyewitness accounts and letters written by multiple authors over a period of 40-50 years. As to the veracity of these books I believe that we need to apply the same level of criticism that we do to any work of antiquity. However, it seems that the Bible has a tendency to be the most scrutinized book in human history. For example, we only know of 643 manuscripts of Homer’s “the Iliad” which is among the most famous of Greek works. In addition, we only know of 10 copies of Juluis Caesar’s “Gallic Wars” and the earliest copy we know of is from 1,000 years after it was written. In comparison, we now have over 5,300 manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek alone which date back as early as the second century. Why is it that we are so easily convinced of the preservation of Homer’s words and yet so quick to dismiss the writings of the disciples in the first-century?

As stated in an earlier comment, it is true that written history is subjective and people do have a tendency to spin events in the direction that they choose. But, to get to the heart of an historical happening, we endeavor to separate the actual events from the author’s own private interpretation. I believe that we can also do this with the biblical record. Setting aside the notion of inspiration and simply looking at the gospel accounts at face value, I believe that we can still arrive at many of the same conclusions. For instance, there are several points on which most, if not all, historians and scholars would agree.
1. Jesus really died the death of a crucified criminal.
2. The tomb really was empty.
3. The disciples actually believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead.
4. Female followers of Jesus were the first of His disciples to discover the empty tomb.
5. The apostle Paul had at one time been a Pharisee within the Jewish religion who was bent on the destruction of the new “Jesus movement”.

I will try to speak briefly about each point. 1. Jesus really did die as a crucified criminal; of this there is little doubt. Not only do all four gospel writers tell us this, but so does the Jewish historian Josephus. 2. The tomb really was empty. This is pretty easy to accept given that, had it not been, the display of Jesus’ body would have been more than enough evidence for the Jewish leaders to squelch this new movement. 3. Jesus’ disciples actually believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead. If they had stolen/hidden the body, why would they be willing to give up their earthly lives in spreading and ultimately dying for this message? This was the point I was trying to make in the podcast. I don’t believe that martyrdom alone brings any veracity to a truth claim. As Snurp stated earlier, martyrdom is simply proof of devotion, not of truth. However, what makes the martyrdom of the disciples unique is that they died not just for a belief, but for a claim that they had seen the empty tomb AND the resurrected Jesus. If this was not true, then we would have to say that they either died for something that they knew was not true (if they stole the body for instance), or that they had simply been deceived in masse into believing. For me, the second explanation is as problematic as the first. For the disciples to have all been deceived would mean that each of them were first of all lying, for they had not after all seen the resurrected Christ. This is highly unlikely given that each of these men/women went on to spread a movement which held at it’s foundation the highest ethical and moral standards. Wouldn’t at least one of them crack under the pressure? Also, if the disciples were deceived, what happened to the body? If the Jewish authorities did, why didn’t they produce the body when they wanted to stamp out the Jesus-movement? It is highly doubtful that the Romans would have stole the body. What would they stand to gain? 4. Female followers of Jesus were the first of His disciples to discover the empty tomb. This fact to me is simply brilliant! There is something known in biblical study as the “criterion of embarrassment”. This is the idea that if something occurs in the document in question that would be embarrassing to the author, or case that the author proposes, it’s probably true. In the first century women were not even considered as credible witnesses. From what I have heard, a woman’s testimony would not have been admissible in a court during this time. If the disciples were fabricating a legend of Jesus’ resurrection, why would they report that the first witnesses of the empty tomb and subsequently the resurrection of Jesus, were women, unless it were true? This would hardly have been preferable to a Gospel author who was trying to concoct a myth of Jesus’ resurrection. 5. The apostle Paul had at one time been a Pharisee within the Jewish religion who was bent on the destruction of the new Jesus-movement. Why would a man who was out to destroy the fledgling Jesus-movement have given up his identity, life, and the comfort of being a respected Jewish leader to wander around the Roman empire as a persecuted preacher of the resurrection of Jesus? He says it was because he encountered the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus. What did he or any of the disciples stand to gain by living and dying for a myth that they had invented?

I believe that these statements, taken together, produce a convincing case for the resurrection of Jesus. I understand why you disagreed with my statement in the podcast that skepticism is a position of faith just like Christianity. However, I still believe that this is true. Snurp asked what, then, this faith would be in. I believe that it is an expression of undying devotion to human reason as the only mediator of truth. I believe that human reason is a valuable tool, but it is only one fallible tool at our disposal to help us determine what is or is not true. I like what Snurp said, “I am also very much of the belief that there are untranslatable parts of the human experience”. I believe that this gets to the heart of the difference in our conclusions. I try to use reason to arrive at the most logical conclusion, but as far as it can take me, I always find myself arriving at a precipice at which point I must make a decision. Either I step out, not against but beyond where my reasoning has led me, or I continually remain skeptical, always looking for that one definitive piece of evidence that always seems to elude me. I believe that my faith is not illogical, but rather alogical—that is, not against, but beyond logic.

Finally, as to Sagan’s Balance, I don’t believe that this is a full-proof idea; not that I think you do either though. How did Sagan determine this? After all, if something supernatural happens, wouldn’t it be beyond our ability to apply the laws of reason and therefore beyond our ability to make the rules for? If God did something beyond our natural ability to comprehend, is He then obligated to leave us definitive, sensory evidence? However, I would like to introduce what, for me, has been an interesting idea in regard to Sagan’s Balance. Have you heard of the "Shroud of Turin"? It is believed by many that this is the actual burial cloth of Jesus. After decades of scientific study we still do not know how the image on the shroud got there or how to replicate it. What if the shroud is authentic, and therefore a supernatural “proof” of the resurrection of Jesus? My faith neither rises or falls on the shroud’s authenticity, but I have enjoyed watching multiple documentaries and reading articles on the internet about this enigmatic object, and am personally convinced of it’s authenticity. Could it be that we have had what Sagan demanded all along right under our noses? Food for thought?!?

Anyway, thank you everyone for putting up with my lengthy ramblings. One thing that I have never been accused of is being at a loss for words! Sid and everyone---I am grateful for your interaction and look forward to our continued dialog!

Theology: Defense For or From the Bible?

I am reading a book right now entitled "The Irresistible Revolution" by Shane Claiborne. In it he had a very interesting quote that has both stirred and convicted me. Here it is:

"The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church's prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament."

--Soren Kierkegaard--

What do you think?

Mandorama!

Well, I finally did it! After about 4-5 years of enjoying it's sound, I finally gave in to the mandolin bug! I just bought a mandolin within the last few weeks and am excited about learning to play it. So far I have taken it a couple of different places with a little group that my wife's father has put together. Last weekend we played at an old fashioned wagon train and a birthday party. I have been looking alot on-line at YouTube, etc. to find free lessons and tips on playing. I ran across this site called "Music Moose" which offers free on-line video lessons for learning different folk instruments. I have been very impressed with the video lessons so far, and so I wanted to let everyone know about the site. You will find a "Music Moose" link on the side of the blog that will take you there. If you ever wanted to learn to play one of these instruments, but have put off trying because of time or money, this just might be for you. I love the fact that I can rewind any part of a lesson, and also that I can watch them at 1 o'clock in the morning(not many instructors keep those hours!). Hope you enjoy!

"Christian Nation" = Oil & Water

I have noticed several blogging conversations lately taking place discussing whether or not the United States is a Christian nation. I, myself, have been thinking alot on this subject and would like to take some time to talk about it here.

Sometimes I believe we ask the wrong questions. For instance, who would ask what color the number 4 is, or what is the nationality of the letter H? To me, this question belongs in the same category.

Is the United States a "Christian nation"? Can any country be a "Christian nation"? I don't think so. Someone might ask, "What about Israel? Were they not God's chosen nation?" Yes, at one time. But, I don't believe that the continuity of this line of reasoning is valid. Let's retrace a bit of history...

After the fall, and years of adverse effects thereafter, God made a covenant with a man named Abraham. God promised him that "all peoples on earth will be blessed through you". God's intention for Abraham was to bless him and, through him, to bless everyone else. This was the beginning of a distinction known as "God's chosen people".

God chose to bless and redeem the world through a vehicle known as the nation of Israel. God Himself would guide her and she would show His love and blessing to the world. Israel was never to be an end in herself. She was a means to an end; that is the redemption of the whole world. However, the problem manifested itself when Israel began to take pride in her election. Rather than using her blessing to bless others, she began to aspire to be like, and even superior to, every other nation on earth. Rather than allowing God to manifest His Lordship through Israel, the nation chose to be led by human kingship. Israel's pride and political aspirations continued for years.

Enter Jesus.

Jesus didn't fit into the Israelite mold that had been developed by His ancestors. He did not concern Himself with the interests of the Herodians, the Zealots, the Pharisees or the Saduccees. Instead, Jesus came to embody Israel's hitherto unfulfilled mission; the redemption of the world. Jesus spoke parables, such as that of the vineyard, indicating God's intention to replace the political entity Israel had become with one new humanity, consisting of people from every nation, summed up in Himself. He told the religious leaders

"Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."
Matthew 21:43-44 NIV

The importance of this quote cannot be overstated. I believe that Jesus was here prophesying the cessation of national Israel as God's chosen people.

God, Himself, fulfilled Israel's comission in the person of Jesus. Then, he gave that same comission to His now elected people; the Church. The things that Jesus "began to do and to teach" were now entrusted to believers "from every tribe and language and people and nation".

Paul went on to say that, in the person of Jesus, God tore down the wall that once divided Jew from Gentile. God's election was not to be based on ethnic, cultural, or nationalistic boundaries. God's chosen people no longer consisted of those who were born into the right family, but instead of those who have been born-again from above.

So what does all of this have to do with the question of whether or not the United States is (or even should strive to be) a Christian nation? Everything. If God's people are no longer defined by national borders but instead by those who are "in Christ", how can we go on believing that God favors the United States any more than Iraq, or even Israel over Palestine?

I believe that America as a "Christian nation" really just ends up being a distraction. Rather than seeking to bless, serve, and redeem the people for whom Jesus died and rose again, we try to legislate unbelievers into the Kingdom of God. Thinking that God has comissioned the United States as His vehicle of blessing and redemption we wrongly expect the government to uphold Christian ethics, enforce morality, and oh yeah, take care of the orphans, the widows, and the poor. We fight to keep God on our money, the Ten Commandments in our courthouses (which still baffles me), and prayer in our schools, all the while failing to realize that these are things that only give us a form of godliness without delivering the power we long to experience. Maybe we should stop trying to coerce Christian character out of unbelievers and instead start exhibiting some ourselves (me included!). Would this actually result in our acting like the children of God that we were really recreated to be? Would that in turn result in the fulfillment of the Great Comission, therein fulfilling God's promise to bless the entire world? What do you think?

The Privelege of Being Me

Over a week ago I saw a church sign that has stirred my thinking ever since (no it wasn't "What's missing in ch__ch?"!). It simply said "Be yourself; everyone else is taken." What simple but profound words.

Be yourself.

Selah.

It seems like those words role easy off the tongue, but have a hard time making headway into the lives of believers in Jesus. It seems that we have settled for a version of Christianity that prefers to clone it's members rather than take the time to guide them into a discovery of their unique identity in Christ. Ironically, cloning is rampant within the Church. Many "leaders" (even with good intentions mind you) expound a "Christian" way of life that includes practices and ideas that they hold firmly as the truth, all the while conforming people to their own image instead of helping God's people to uncover the image of God already present within them. Creeds, spiritual disciplines, and systematic theologies are used as a "short-cut" to true spirituality. All the while the image of God is inside of us...

waiting to be uncovered.

A lady that I work with has introduced me to a phrase that I have grown fond of. "Christ in us, as us". What a loaded statement. What a dangerous idea. What a profound insight. Christ manifesting Himself through me in an entirely unique way. Jesus shining His light through my personality as one of many facets of Himself. This is the antithesis of group-think. This is the death of creedal servitude. This is life indeed.

Jesus living through me as me...

Selah.

In the name of truth we have missed the heart of what Who truth really is. Truth cannot be summed up in 4 spiritual laws, 10 creedal statements or even 10,000 systematic theologies. It He is not so tame. Truth can only be known through relationship.

What if we let go of all of our attempts at conforming to someone elses revelation? What if we were actually able to celebrate the expression of God through someone else without feeling either insecure or defensive? What if I was actually able to enjoy being me?

I thoroughly enjoyed a good breakfast with three dear brothers in the Lord this morning. As I was reflecting back this evening on our time together I realized that whereas in the past I had felt confronted by others' experiences of Christ that differed from my own, today I went away strenghtened by koinonia with fellow members of the Body whose part to play in it differed from my own. Their stories neither threatened me nor confronted me, but rather edified me and helped foster in me a desire to be more of who I truly already am.

Instead of trying to play everyone elses part maybe I should just stick with the part I was meant to play. Maybe I just have to GET TO be me!

Discipleship: Quality Precedes Quantity

In the institutional model of church, bigger usually means better. Leaders are always looking for programs, formats, buildings or anything else that can be used to reach more people. It's a very noble goal. The problem happens though when quantity, rather than quality, becomes the measuring stick of success. In the eyes of many, more money, bigger buildings, and most importantly, more people are the earmarks of a "successful" church. But how many of those people actually translate into true disciples of Jesus?

I don't know if we have ever really heard the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19-20:

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Matthew 28:19-20 (NIV)

Notice that Jesus says nothing about converts. He says nothing about getting people to repeat the "Sinner's Prayer". Rather, He says that the job of the Church is to make disciples. Now here is the interesting part; how many disciples did Jesus make Himself? (hum the Jeopardy theme with me) That's it! Only 12! Now if anyone understood the importance of disciple-making, surely Jesus did. But, by modern church standards, Jesus would have been considered a pretty big ministry failure! So, even though Jesus ministered to crowds of people at various times throughout His ministry, we only find Jesus completely replicating Himself in 12 other people.

What does this tell me? Well, it seems like Jesus cared about quality above and beyond (but not to the exclusion of) quantity. Obviously, Jesus wanted a world filled with disciples as He stated in Matthew 28:19-20. But, He realized something that the Church at-large has yet to grasp; quantity does not necessarily lead to quality, but quality will eventually lead to quantity!

If every present-day believer knew that they only had 3.5 years to make an impact on the unbelieving world, what would they do? Well, from best I can tell, they would probably go all over the world, renting stadiums and coliseums, to proclaim the Gospel message to as many people as possible. Noble as it sounds, this is not what Jesus did. Having a total of 3.5 years of "public ministry", Jesus chose to invest most of His time in a few social outcasts who would later be known as "those who have turned the world upside-down".

What did Jesus understand that we don't? Maybe that the impact of one true disciple is greater than the influence of a thousand converts.

So how can we best promote effective discipleship? I think that one decision we can make is to completely invest our lives in a few people rather than investing sparingly in many. (Multiplication Ministry and Maturity makes for some interesting reading on this subject.)

Are our efforts driven by effectiveness, or by a paradigm that makes us feel more important about "our ministry"? What do you think?

Believing The Best About God

A discussion I had with some friends last night, including Steve at Theological Musings, and Christy at Until My Last Breath led to this post. Steve or Christy, please feel free to chime in with any additional thoughts or clarifications that you would like to add to this post. And of course, I would like to hear everyone else's input as well:)

Do we love God?

Love is...

"always eager to believe the best" 1 Corthinans 13:7 (Moffatt)

Are we eager to believe the best about God?

It seems to me that this is usually not the case. When natural disasters happen, when evil seems to prevail, when children suffer, most believers tend to think that it's all part of God's sovereign will. When pressed further on how one can reconcile the idea of an all-loving God with suffering and evil, most Christians fall back on the idea that "God is in control", and therefore this all must just be a part of His will for us. But is this true?

Most believers seem to derive their understanding of the character of God more from Job than from the One who's purpose it was to reveal the Father to us; namely Jesus. While Job declares "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away" (Job 1:21), Jesus says that it is "The thief" who "comes only to steal and kill and destroy;" but that "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." (John 10:10)

Jesus seems to paint a very different picture of God for us than we have come to know. Many Christians see God in the same light as do eastern religions; as a yin-yang of sorts--both blessing and cursing those whom He loves (even if it is as some say "for our good"). It is as if we have embraced a Christian form of Karma, which limits God to acting like us--operating only by the laws of tit-for-tat and reciprocity. What of grace? What of mercy?

While, admittedly the Old Testament gives us examples of the judgement of God being poured out on sinful people, and of hard-to-understand passages such as the story of Job, Jesus reveals to us a loving Father who "did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

So what do we do with these seemingly contradictory depictions of God? Well, in my mind, no matter what we believe we understand about God from the Old Testament, Jesus' ministry, life, death, resurrection, and ascension is the "trump card" for our previous understandings (or misunderstandings) of God. The writer to the Hebrews says as much:

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,  but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son... The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being" Hebrews 1:1-3 (NIV)

Jesus, Himself, said the same:

"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." John 14:9 (NIV)

To me this means that any biblical passage that seems to contradict what we see in the ministry of Jesus is either being misinterpreted, misunderstood, or possibly has been completely... replaced.

At this point, many people want to run to the idea of God's immutability, or the idea that "God never changes". But just listen to how Jesus deals with the very words of God:

"you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all" Matthew 5:33-34 (NIV)

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" Matthew 5:38-39 (NIV)

Who said the original statements? God! Yet, Jesus totally replaces something that God had previously said with a "new and improved"--if not totally contradictory--teaching! Wow! In other words, something radically changed when Jesus stepped on to the earth.

During the Christmas season one of the things I was thinking about was the annoucement of the Savior's birth to the shepherds. I love this part of the Gospel story:

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!" Luke 2:14 (NKJV)

I love that! "Goodwill toward men!" With the coming of Jesus, God was expressing his goodwill toward all of humanity! No matter what we see under the Old Covenant, God is forever making a statement that His intentions are only good for all mankind!

So what of passages that tell of God's wrath and judgement? They must be interpreted using a new hermeneutic...Jesus!

Instead of running to ambiguous passages to try and discern God's character and will for us, now we simply need to look to Jesus. When faced with circumstances that seem to tell us anything but that God's intentions toward us are good, we must once again focus on the perfect representation of the Father...Jesus!

So when we are confronted with the decision to either believe that God is somehow causing us harm (even if it is said to be "for our good") or that God is only ever going to be merciful and good to us, what will we believe? Will we look to the ministry of Jesus, or will we look to ambiguous passages that we feel help us "make sense" of our current circumstances? Will we believe that God is the source of our problems--somehow both our persecutor and deliverer--or will we "believe the best" of Him? Will we choose to love God as He has "first loved us" and therefore, believe the best of Him too? What do you think?

What Are You Going To Do About It?

"What are you going to do about it?"

This question was posed to me by RC in the comments section of the last post. Great question RC! It is relatively easy to pose the right questions, but it requires more of us to actually answer them. I appreciate someone being willing to look beyond good sounding ideas to practical implementations of the same.

There are two different ways to take this question. Within this one question I actually see two:

1. What are you going to do to help the Church make the shift from an obsession with orthodoxy to an out-working of orthopraxy?

Or...

2. What are you going to do personally to bridge your own gap between your beliefs and actions?

I hope that at least one of these represents RC's question to me.

First, I would like to answer question number one. For myself, I would like to think that my interaction with other people (believers and non-believers) would be characterized by love rather than by cliquishness brought about by doctrinal exclusivity. I am making the decision to "love without a hook". That is, I want to love others unconditionally just as my Father has loved me.

In the Church, love is said to be unconditional, but alot of the time I do not find this to be the case. Many times "love" is only given when one chooses to tow the party-line, or submit to whomever is in charge.

Evangelism is one area that I believe could benefit from more unconditional love. I am reminded of an example from my own life; I used to go "witness" on the streets of my local town at least once a week. While I would be "sharing the Gospel" with people, I would often say "the reason that I'm sharing this with you is because I love you." The truth, however, was that I was out there "sharing the Gospel" with them because I thought that I had to in order to keep God happy with me. I would preach, call for a decision, and then walk away. My evangelism was not motivated by love; rather, it proceeded from a guilty conscience.

I believe that as the Body of Christ, we need to grasp the fact that God loves us unconditionally prior to trying to "share" the Gospel with others. Most of what I see within the Church is a bunch of people doing good deeds (evangelism, teaching Sunday School, cleaning the church building, etc.) to try to keep God "off of their backs." As long as we are not receiving God's unconditional love, there is no way that we can give it to others. Our good works end up proceeding from a heart that is trying to please God instead of a heart that rests in a constant state of experiencing God's pleasure. This is not a peripheral problem, but rather a fundamental one. We either believe that Jesus' sacrifice placed us into a right relationship with God, or we don't. If we are constantly trying to measure up, trying to earn God's favor or love, then it seems to me that we are not trusting in what Jesus did and therefore refuse to believe that "it is finished".

If we help people only to ease our conscience, then once we feel that we have "done our part", we will drop the ball and go back to life as usual. This reveals that our good works really were more about us than about the person in need. But, if we really love people as a result of God's having first loved us, then we are willing to stick with that person as long as it takes. One question I have to ask myself is: "If I knew that this person would never respond to the call of Christ for his/her life, would I still be willing to show them the same amount of love and service?" If my answer is no, then I am really manipulating them instead of showing them love. Love is not about getting people to jump into my boat, rather it is about meeting that person's needs without regard to their response.

In response to question number two, I would like to say that while I am not doing everything I can to bridge that gap, I believe that I am on my way. My wife and I have been discussing what we can do to live this out. We are currently making active plans to impact the lives of hurting people in real ways. I wish I could go into more detail, but I don't feel that I am at liberty to do so at this time, and in reality, it isn't about "tooting my horn" for Jesus anyway. On a practical level, I believe that, as ded said, each of us has to wrestle with this question personally and hear from God for ourselves. The same mission exists for us all, but our specific directions for carrying it out can only come from the mouth of the Father. What do you all you think?

Are We Missing The Point?

Lately I've been wondering if we, as believers in Jesus, are really missing the point. I've been seeing alot of coverage of Oprah Winfrey's funding of a $40 million dollar school for South African girls who have been sexually abused, neglected, orphaned, etc. Also, I've seen coverage of Hollywood star Angelina Jolie adopting orphans from impoverished countries and trying to educate people on the great need of orphans in third-world nations. These are two people who would definitely be considered "outside of the fold" in Christian circles, yet here are two persons who are giving of themselves to help others in need. Meanwhile, many in the Body of Christ are too busy debating theology, sharpening apologetic skills and preaching to people to actually be Jesus to hurting people.

Sometimes I wonder just how important having all of our "doctrinal duckies" in a row really is. While much of the thrust of the contemporary church is on understanding, mentally assenting to and defending the right doctrinal positions, the thrust of Jesus' ministry (both then and now) seems to be more focused on helping and healing hurting people. In speaking of this, James said

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. James 1:27 (NIV)

Pure religion...not characterized by having it all together doctrinally speaking, but rather determined by our actions toward our local and worldwide neighbors. At times, we have interpreted the phrase "and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" to mean "don't cuss, don't drink, don't chew and don't run with those who do". But, could it be that not allowing ourselves to be polluted by the world rather means refusing to play the worlds game of "loving those who love you", and instead choosing to give to those who can't give back and choosing to love those who would even be considered our enemies? Have we really bought into the pollution of the world while seemingly refusing to give into it?

Tonight, while thousands of children have been orphaned because of the AIDS pandemic in Africa, while many more are suffering from malnutrition and disease, and while thousands of people don't know where their next meal is going to come from, we American Christians are preoccupied trying to prove pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib; Calvinism or Arminianism; etc. Are we missing the point?

Tag...I'm It!

Well, something just happened to me for the first time in a long time....I got tagged! Steve at Theological Musings tagged me to answer 5 questions. (You know I have a bad memory of playing tag. I broke my ankle playing this silly game once. Well, I guess there's no real threat of breaking anything just typing, huh?) So here goes...

0) What’s your name and website URL? (optional, of course)

Easy enough. Raborn Johnson. www.raysxchange.blogspot.com So far, painless.:)

1) What’s the most fun work you’ve ever done, and why? (two sentences max)

Well, I enjoy the job I currently have a whole lot. I work at a Christian bookstore which allows me to talk about God and theology alot without repercussions. I get to help people find things that, hopefully, will help draw them closer to the Father.

2) A. Name one thing you did in the past that you no longer do but wish you did? (one sentence max)
B. Name one thing you’ve always wanted to do but keep putting it off? (one sentence max)

A. Play basketball a couple of times a week. I loved playing basketball and benefited alot from the excercise. Basketball is greeeaaat!
B. Read more. I have shelves of books that I have never read, but some that call out my name..."Raborn, read me Raborn"

3) A. What two things would you most like to learn or be better at, and why? (two sentences max)
B. If you could take a class/workshop/apprentice from anyone in the world living or dead, who would it be and what would you hope to learn? (two more sentences, max)

A. I would love to learn Greek. I would love to get better at playing the piano and the bass...and of course I would love to get better at basketball.
B. Hard to say; I have a whole lot of interests (no chance at two sentences). I would love to shoot some hoops with Raymond Felton, throw some football with Steve Smith, ride to outer space with NASA, talk to NT Wright,...I think I would rather just hang out with these guys instead of taking a workshop or class. I think learning comes more from time spent together than from formal classroom type settings.

4) A. What three words might your best friends or family use to describe you?
B. Now list two more words you wish described you…

A. Silly, funny, sportsnut
B. slow to speak, punctual, taking initiative...okay, it's more than 2!:)

5) What are your top three passions? (can be current or past, work, hobbies, or causes– three sentences max)

Okay. The obvious answers here for me would be 1. God 2. My wife 3. Theology
But...I would like to skip over those obvious answers and give you the next three.
1. Sports 2. Music 3. Video Games--Yes Video Games!:)

6) Write–and answer–one more question that YOU would ask someone (with answer in three sentences max)

My question is usually "Why?". My second favorite question would have to be "How's it working for you?"

[Bonus: What is one question you wish people would ask themselves?]

Why do I do what I do, believe what I believe.....basically "Why?". And, "How's it working for me?"

Well, that is the easiest post I've ever written! Good to be blogging again...thanks Steve!:)

Now let's tag someone who's answers I really want....my wife! Her answers never cease to amaze me!!!

Pumpkins, Pew-Sitters & Paganism

It's late October again and you know what that means....more preachers bashing halloween!:) I was driving home last night, listening to good ole' Christian radio and hearing the ever-so-familiar "pagan roots of Halloween" talk. According to this radio personality, the celebration of halloween should be avoided at all costs due to it's evil connection to pagan roots. Don't send your kids "trick or treating", send them to the "harvest festival" instead!:) (You can laugh there!):)

Now, I am in no way defending the demonic symbolisms, etc. that are attached to halloween. I just think that the whole thing is a bit paradoxical. After all, pagan traditions are pretty common throughout the institutional church system. Much of what we have come to expect from our Sunday services actually finds it's roots in pagan culture and ritual. Everything from the Aristotelian three-point sermon to the elegant chairs on the stage demonstrates the willingness of the traditional church to embrace pagan traditions and ideas.

Many believers go from service to service without ever stopping to think about what they are doing. While being scared to question or simply failing to do so, many believers simply partake of whatever the system serves up. Eventually, someone stops to ask why. Oftentimes, this person is neither popular nor welcome.

One such person was Martin Luther. It just happens that on October 31st (of all days), Luther nailed his "95 Theses" to the door of the church at Wittenberg, thus declaring his distaste for and disagreement with the "system" of his time, the Roman Catholic Church. At the time, Martin Luther confronted a machine that had been steadily rolling downhill for over one-thousand years. Of course, the cry of the institutional church of his time was "How dare you?", or "This is the way we have always done it!". But, for Luther, tradition was simply not enough. He had tried everything from performing acts of penance to worshipping relics, but nothing seemed to cleanse his conscious. Finally, he discovered that wonderful passage from the book of Romans, "the just shall live by faith", and thus was the formal beginning of the Protestant Reformation.

Think of it. The Reformers were willing to stand against long-held traditions and practices that had preceded their own lives by a multitude of years. I feel that in many cases, we should do the same.

What bothers me about many of our current church practices is really not so much that they are steeped in paganism. Rather, it is the inability of believers to distinguish such from biblical teaching. Instead of simply recognizing a tradition for what it is--either a past way in which the church tried to contextualize a biblical teaching or simply a case of getting it wrong--, we use "proof texts" from the Bible in order to read our practice(s) back into the Scripture. The danger in this is apparent; one can no longer distinguish between biblical teaching and someone's continued misapplication thereof.

Which is worse, someone's participation in a purely pagan custom with full acknowledgment of it as such, or the church trying to pass off long-held pagan traditions as sacred? What do you think?

Simple Church...Simply Reactionary?

We have been having a great interaction in the comments section of the recent post, "Our church...God's intention?" My new friend, Tony Sisk, has been asking some very good questions in regard to the concept of what I, and several other commenters on this blog, call "simple church". Instead of responding to these questions in the comments section, I decided to create a post out of my comments. I would love for us all to continue this great discussion. For anyone else who has been reading these posts/comments and has not yet responded, please feel free to do so. Your comments are welcome and would serve to enchance our dialogue!

Previously, Tony said:

As I remarked in my previous comment to ded, from someone on the outside looking in, the house church does look like it has formed in response to obscured ideals or unmet expectations.

I do not doubt that this is true for many people. However, I can only speak out of my own experience. While, of course, I had issues with various things inside the traditional church that I was in (like anyone else), no hurt feelings, etc. led me to "strike out on my own". The main reason that I left was because, after examining the Scriptures and Church history (as well as some great dialogue with other believers), I came to believe that the traditional church model was not God's ideal. As a matter of fact, I have come to believe that there is no right way to "do" church. Rather, I believe that we are called to "be" the Church.

I think that this is the concept that Jesus was introducing to the Samaritan woman in John 4. In Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman, a question arose from her as to where or how true worship was to be performed. Today, we might ask "How are we supposed to 'do' church?". Jesus' answer is revealing. Instead of giving the woman a solid answer of "on this mountain" or "in Jerusalem" as the true place of worship, Jesus instead shows the woman that she is altogether missing the point. Worship is not confined to a place or form. Rather, worship transcends time and space, so that true worship forms from a heart attitude instead of as the result of being in the right place at the right time.

Jesus said,

"Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem...a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
John 4:21-24 NIV

If my move to a simpler concept of church is at all reactionary, I believe that it is no more so than the reaction of the Reformers to what they saw as unscriptural practices within the Roman Catholic church. Or, the reaction of the early disciples to the Grecian widows, which led to the formulation of deacons. In both instances, people saw a problem and reacted with what they perceived to be a solution.

Tony, you also said:

If the simpler church concept takes off and you have a large group of people attending your meetings, what then? You wouldn’t cast them away for the sake of preserving intimacy and fellowship, would you? This is where it seems to get problematic to me and even more insular than traditional church, that once you reach a particular number either you must grow out or just simply refuse to let other folks in. This is where, in my mind, someone then must come in to exercise leadership and say we need to split into separate groups and where I see potentially that problems could arise. So it seems a “cap” must be placed to keep the house church from growing past a particular number. That seems troublesome to me.

Very good questions! I would like to attempt to respond to them in the same way that Jesus responded to the Samaritan woman. I think that while your concern is valid Tony, it really misses the point.:) I think that you are trying to superimpose your concept of the traditional church and how it functions on to the simple church paradigm. A question: "How often would you invite more than 20-30 people into your home?" Now granted, you probably know and have friendships with more than this number of people, but how often would all of the people that you currently have a spiritual connection with meet within your home? If you were to invite all of these people into your home at once, would it not limit the amount of interaction you had with each one? While everyone would feel as if they had been included by the initial invitation, would the gathering truly tend toward intimate fellowship? I doubt it. In other words, there does not have to be a specific time or place in which all of us must gather. At times this can be helpful, but I believe that it is to be the exception and not the rule. Just as Jesus only had 12 disciples with whom He was intimately acquainted, yet found time to minister to many, many others, so it is with our concept of simple church. Just as Jesus informally hung out with the twelve without a certain agenda, so it is with us.

I personally experience "church" in homes, in restaurants, at work, etc. Church is not a place. Church does not "happen" only as the result of certain people gathering at certain times. Rather, Church is an identity. Church is who we are. When we begin to try to figure out how to "do" it, it seems that we are in danger of ceasing to simply "be" it.

When institutional churches begin to grow higher, it seems that many struggle to grow deeper. This is usually combated by the emergence of small groups within the larger body. Isn't this simply an institutionalized version of simple church that attempts to foster intimacy while still seeking to maintain control over the group? I think that your question more readily applies to a small group setting within a traditional church.

Thank you Tony for your willingness to question, and to truly think-out subjects that usually get "canned" answers. I look forward to everyone's continued interaction on this and other topics. While we might not come to a concensus, I believe that we still can serve to strenghten each other as we walk in Christ. What do you think......?

Our church...God's Intention?

Lately, I have been having a great discussion with a new friend, Tony Sisk. Tony has exhibited lots of patience and love toward me in our dialogue on the nature of the church and the ministry/ministers thereof. I would like to here continue this discussion in greater length than really can be given in the comments section of another post.

In the comments section of a post I wrote a while back entitled "Who's the Priest", Tony pin-pointed my responses to him by saying, "It seems that you are arguing for the abolition of the traditional church model as we know it." This is a correct assessment. While this may sound harsh and a bit over-the-edge, I would like to ask you to consider the following brief overview of the situation as I see it.

As I see it, God's original intention was to have a people who could and would commune with Him. He created Adam and Eve and it seems He enjoyed walking with them "in the cool of the day". As we know, Adam and Eve (and thus the rest of us) fell and, as a result, broke fellowship and intimate communion with God. Even after all of that, God's intention did not change. As a matter of fact, God's intention has never changed. Even after the Fall, and the emergence of fallen man, God's intention still did not waver. God wanted relationship with the crown of His creation, man! The record of the Bible is the record of God bringing man back into intimate relationship with Himself.

Let's begin in the Old Testament. After the exodus, the Israelites settled into the promised land. At this time, the people denied God the pleasure of intimate relationship and instead opted for a human institution; a king. "We want a king!" was the cry heard throughout the land. While God wanted to be Israel's only king and leader, the people wanted someone else to look to when times got tough. In comforting Samuel, God said that the people had "rejected Him" as their king. Rejected Him...Wow!

Simply stated, the rest of the Old Testament is the record of the failure of a system that was set up because of man's rejection of God as her Friend and King! This system was based, not on personal, intimate fellowship with God, but instead on the mediatoral role of mere men.

Enter Jesus.

The first words out of Jesus' mouth at the onset of His public ministry were "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand." What did Jesus mean by this statement...repent, and you can go to heaven when you die? I don't think so. Instead, Jesus was saying "There is a new order emerging in which God is the only King. Change your minds and trust Him as your Friend and Lord." While seemingly receptive to this idea, many people view the Kingdom of God as something that is to be, instead of something that now is. However, Jesus said that the "kingdom of God is among (within) you."

What does all of this have to do with the way we do church? Well, I believe that the current model of church (mostly unknowingly) downplays the real Lordship of Jesus and instead reduces Him to a figurehead. For all intents and purposes, the modern church has become a constitutional oligarchy. Much as the Queen is the figurehead of England yet lacking real power, Jesus is praised and spoken of as Lord, but in reality, the "head" of the local church is the "pastor" or "ministry team". While we give lip-service to the Headship of Jesus, the truth is Jesus would not even need to "show up" for most church services to function. Two fast songs, two slow songs, take up the offering, sermon, invitation, prayer...and out the door!

My friend Tony asked a good question to which I would here like to reply.

"Do you discount the qualification passages for leadership in the Pastoral Epistles? If there are no positions of leadership in the church, then what is their purpose?"

No, I do not discount the qualification passages for leadership found in the New Testament. These are valuable exhortations that, by the grace of God, we should all aspire to. However, I do not believe that there are "positions" or "offices" of leadership within the Church. Here is where I believe we have diverged from the biblical model. Instead of interpreting the passages on leadership in light of other Scripture, I believe that we have received a watered-down version of what that same leadership is supposed to be.

Jesus, in contrasting the Kingdom of God's method of operation with the contemporary religious system said:

"you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
Matthew 23:8-12 NIV

I believe that here, Jesus is establishing the rule for the Kingdom of God. That is, God is King and you are all brothers (equals). Therefore, bringing instruction into another believer's life does not necessitate one ascending to the position of "teacher". Just because God uses you at one point in time to show the Father's love to another brother does not necessitate you being their "spiritual father". This idea is echoed by John when he says:

"As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit-just as it has taught you, remain in him."
1 John 2:27 NIV

Does this mean that no one will ever instruct us in the way of the Lord. I don't believe so. Instead, I think that the point of John's encouragement is that we need to learn to trust the Lord as our Teacher as opposed to relying only on our fellow brothers/sisters.

In the current model of the local church, the pastor is seen as "bringing the Word of God" to the people. Much like Moses, the pastor is supposed to seek God as to what He wants to say through the pastor to the people. The people are expected to attend at least one service each week in which they are "taught the Word" or "fed". The pastor is expected to act as the "spiritual father" to anywhere from 10-20,000 people. It is as if the temple veil was not completely torn in two. Instead of viewing pastoral ministry as one gift among many, most of the church sees it as an office that one holds; a position of spiritual authority.

This is why I think it is so critical to examine Scripture in light of other Scripture. Ephesians 4 is used many times to show the "need" for the ministry of the local church pastor. The gift of "pastor" is referred to in the same breath as "apostle, prophet, evangelist, teacher". I have heard this passage used over and over again as a proof for the existence of the five-fold ministry. Yet, when we look at 1 Corinthians 12:28-31, we are given a different, yet seeminly equal list of ministry gifts. Apostolic and prophetic ministry are mentioned, but only in the same sentence as "workers of miracles", "gifts of healings", "gifts of administration", "those able to help others", and "different kinds of tongues". Guess what's missing...the gift of pastoral ministry. The emphasis in Ephesians 4 is not the individual gifts, but instead, that everyone is gifted by God! He wants to use the whole Body!

In 1 Corinthians 14, speaking of what a typical meeting of believers should look like, Paul states that when we come together:

What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.
1 Corinthians 14:26 NIV

In other words, everyone has something to give! A gathering of the church should never be a one-man show!

I believe that Tony hit it on the head when he said

"The Greek makes clear that elders are those who are “out front” leading by teaching and manner of life (cf. 1 Pet. 5:1-5). Their role is to enable the congregation to make decisions that are necessary to help the body grow into maturity (Eph. 4:11-12). Jesus Christ is the only Head of the church. Leaders are “foot-washers” and servants, not only of Christ but of others. Each and every member of Christ’s body is equally important since each has been given a gift and a strategic place of ministry (1 Cor. 12-14). All competition for rank is therefore eliminated! As Jesus put it, we are all brothers, and becoming “great” means becoming a servant of all, with Christ as our example (Matt. 23)."

Leaders are not those who instruct others to do God's will. Instead, I believe that leaders are those who are caught doing God's will, and whose contagious joy in doing such causes others to do the same.

God's intention is to have a family. In this family there is only one Father (God), and only one Head (Jesus). To set up a system that tries to send one man into the Holy of Holies to bring out the word of God for the people is to deny the truth that there is only

"one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"
1 Timothy 2:5 NIV

What do you think?

Camp Orthodoxy

My friend Steve has been hosting a good conversation lately on his blog "Theological Musings". The topic: orthodoxy. I don't want to repeat what has already been said there, but I do encourage you to read the posts and comments from "Why Such A Short List", "But What About Those Mormons?", "Orthodoxy: Starting A New Thread", and "Thoughts On Sound Doctrine". (Wow! That sure is alot of "required reading" for my post huh?...but well worth it!) What I would like to do here is expand on/respond to the previously mentioned posts in a little more depth than I can go into in the comments section of "Theological Musings".

There seems to be a reoccurring theme that runs throughout the history of God's people. That theme? Camping! Now what do I mean by camping? What I am referring to is the process of receiving something from God as revelation and then camping on or stopping at that revelation. As far back as the time of Moses, we find God's people receiving His provision and then desiring to stay in that moment where they "met God". The children of Israel were led by God in the desert for some time before Moses sent spies into the promised land to see how they would go in and possess it. Notice that Moses did not send the spies to see if they would possess it, but how. The result of this expedition? The children of Israel determined that what God was calling them to do was too hard, and they became satisfied to just remain in the place that they believed to be "safe".

The Pharisees are another example of a group of people who were caught holding on to stale bread that had once been "manna from heaven". (Rabbit trail: Isn't it interesting that God instructed the Israelites that they were to only use the manna for one day before it rotted? Was God setting a precedent here that yesterday's sufficiency can become today's corruption?) The Pharisees were quick to point out the Law of Moses (which was at that time the "word of God") to Jesus in order to correct Him or condemn Him of sin. Jesus, contrary to the ideas of many an evangelical, actually superceded the "word of God" though by, for all intents and purposes, saying that some things that Moses said no longer applied. One such case was that of divorce. The Pharisees used a quote from the Torah to prove to Jesus that it was acceptable to divorce as long as one followed the Mosaic command of providing a certificate thereof. Jesus, however, superceded the Law of Moses by saying, "Moses gave you this command because of the hardness of your heart, but from the beginning it has not been so." In other words, "There was a time when this was true, but a new day has dawned, and now there is a higher standard; the standard of love."

We find Jesus doing this kind of thing alot. He really seems to like the phrase, "you have heard it said...but, I say unto you." I believe that Jesus is trying to show us something very important. "And what would that be", you ask? Maybe that revelation is more dynamic and less static. Maybe that our theology should be less about the head, and more about the heart. Maybe that God just doesn't like the box that we have built for Him? Sound dangerous? It just might be:)

I think that the author of Hebrews give us some interesting insight into the nature of God's revelation:

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
Hebrews 1:1-2 NIV

Notice the progression. At one time, God, in a limited way, revealed Himself through the words and writings of people. But now, God has chosen a living Person by which to reveal Himself. Hmmmm. In other words, simply a record of good rules and regulations was not enough. In order for God to completely reveal Himself, He had to transcend doctrinal statements, prophets and spokespersons, and even the writings of the Old Testament, and instead, simply live among us as the revelation. Now, this idea by itself is awesome! So, understandibly, once again, this is where many people decide to set up camp. "Brother, we have the Bible to show us how God revealed Himself in Jesus. That's all we need." Contrary to popular belief though, this is still not enough! It's not just about how God revealed Himself in Jesus, but how He is now revealing Christ in us! Paul said:

it pleased God...to reveal His Son in me
Galatians 1:15-16 NKJV

Written revelation is wonderful, but it has it's limits. Words can only go so far in explaining who God is. Words can only go so far in grasping the riches of His grace. It seems to me that our theology must be impacted by living fellowship with the Son, and not only by a book. I love the Bible. I thank God for the Bible, but the Bible is only the record of the Word of God, not the Word itself. That title belongs to Jesus alone. The Bible was simply meant to point us to the Word of God, which is Jesus. Our understanding of God must come from our encounter with the Living Word, not only from the record thereof.

Now, how does this tie into the question of orthodoxy? I think that when it comes to the idea of orthodoxy, we need to take care not to put God "in a box". If God has now chosen to reveal Himself in Jesus and continues to do so through us, then we must be careful that we don't try to convey the idea that creedal or doctrinal statements can contain this revelation. If the record of the Bible itself is not sufficient to completely grasp the revelation of God, what makes us think that a confession or creed can? I do understand that there are certain essential beliefs that one must embrace in order to consider themselves a member of the Body of Christ, but I believe that sound doctrine cannot be contained simply in the mind. Following Jesus, at the heart, is not about knowing the right doctrinal verbage or having a polished theology as much as it is about daily living in Christ, and allowing God to reveal the Son to me and in me. My question is this; by nailing down our entire belief system in something such as a creed, are we becoming static and stagnant, and therefore, in the name of truth, closing ourselves off from any further revelation that God might want to give us? Are we drawing a line in the sand that even God Himself cannot cross? I sure hope not. Hmmmmm?!?!?!? Maybe we need to stop camping on the "truth", and instead start walking with the One who is the Truth. What do you think?

Quantifiable Christianity

It seems that the modernistic world we live in is in love with measurements. Of course we all have measuring cups in our kitchens for measuring ingredients, measuring tapes in our toolboxes for measuring walls and spaces, and odometers on our vehicles for measuring the miles that we travel. But, it just can't stop there can it? No, it seems that our rational minds just have to dominate every area of our lives. We have IQ tests to measure how "smart" we are, travel services to measure (in stars) how comfortable a particular hotel is, and even letter and number grades to measure the cleanliness of our restaurants. But, once again, it just can't stop there. We need Food Network competitions to decide whose dessert is the "best", just as we need Randy, Paula, and Simon to tell us whose voice is the most pleasing to the ear. Can everything be so neatly compared and tightly packaged?

My wife and I just got back from our 10th anniversary vacation in which we went hiking in Rocky Mountain National Park. While there, we purchased a little book called "Best Easy Day Hikes--Rocky Mountain National Park" by Kent & Donna Dannen that that gave us some tips on good places to hike within the park. In the front of the book was a section that we both found humorous entitled "About the Cranky Authors". Here is an excerpt:

"For a quarter century, guidebooks by Kent and Donna Dannen have been the standard reference for the trails of Rocky Mountain National Park. Therfore, many reviewers of their trail guides have accused the Dannens of being "experts". This accusation offends the Dannens, who maintain that experts should never write guidebooks. For example, experts write user guides for VCRs, fax machines, and computers. Experts lack ignorance and, therefore, lack the perspective of the ignorant, which is essential to explain anything. Because experts really do know all the answers, they have no clue about the questions. Guides written by experts are understood only by other experts, who rarely read them because they do not need to."

Wow! I could hardly have said it better. This reminds me of conversations that I have had with computer techies in which I was led to feel pretty stupid. In this age of experts, of professionals measuring and quantifying everything for the rest of us, little creedance is given to someone actually experiencing something for themselves. Instead, we prefer to have someone else pre-process any kind of abstract knowledge for us and then deliver it back to us in chunks of steadfast, absolute, and pre-measured answers.

While I believe that these prepackaged measurements can sometimes be detrimental when measuring things like music and food, I think that they can be downright dangerous when used in reference to our relationship with God. I, for one, am growing tired of things like systematic theologies and creedal statements being used to determine who's "in" and who's "out". Many times I have had a good conversation with someone about the things of the Spirit interrupted by the question "And where do you go to church?", or "What do you think about ________?". As a matter of fact, this very thing happened to me twice today. As many of you know, I work at a Christian bookstore. Just today, I was helping a customer find a Bible. He was wanting some information on various translations, so I began to tell him about some of the differences and tried to help him find one that would be beneficial to him. About half-way through our conversation, he just had to ask, "What denomination are you?"...Why??????...What does it matter???? Well, best I can tell, this was the measuring rod to determine whether or not it was "safe" to continue listening to what I had to say.

One area that I have struggled with myself, is the way in which we, as believers in Jesus, seem to measure our spirituality or the validity of our walk with God. The daily "quiet time" is a perfect example. A "good" Christian reads the Bible at least once every day and spends time everyday in "prayer". What this has boiled down to for me is feeling okay about myself on days in which I read one chapter of the Bible and prayed through certain mental checklists, and feeling that I was displeasing to God on days when I failed to do so. This is a Scripture that I have not been able to shake for a long time though:

"When you pray, don't babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered only by repeating their words again and again. Don't be like them, because your Father knows exactly what you need even before you ask him!"
Matthew 6:7-8 New Living Translation

That sure doesn't sound like the ritual that I have become oh so familiar with. What is prayer anyway? Is it a time or times throughout the day when I stop to talk to God, or is it the very atmosphere I live in as I continually walk (even into the bathroom) with God?

It seems like the reason we like formulas and rituals is because they are so easy to measure. It's more quantifiable to "spend time with God" than it is to embrace Christ as your very life. It's easier to measure your time in the written word than it is to measure your life as influenced and impacted by the Living Word (Jesus). It's more appealing to the flesh to go to the "house of God" than to actually be the house in which He dwells.

I think that the main reason we seek to measure our spirituality is because of a lack of security in our idenitity in Christ. If Christ really is my identity, then I don't need to rely on religious rituals to make me feel "safe". I know that I am safe because of His finished work as well as knowing that I am in Christ, and Christ is in me.

I, myself, used to feel like I had all of the answers. Now I feel like I have many more questions than answers. I am beginning to embrace "the perspective of the ignorant" which truly does seem "essential to explain anything." It seems that only when we know what the questions are can we begin to uncover an answer. What do you think?

It's in the game!

Well, you may or may not have been wondering where I have been lately. Have I been preparing for a really deep post? No. Have I been too busy commenting on the blogs of others to write a post of my own? Not exactly. So where have I been? :)Playing the new John Madden football of course! :)

What time is it? It's almost football season, and I can't wait. I can smell it in the air....oooooooo......ahhhhhhhh. This is by far my favorite time of the year. The leaves are falling, the air is cooling, and grown men are getting paid to knock the stuff out of each other! Can it get much better than that?

As for my favorite team, the Carolina Panthers, everyone is picking us to make it to the Superbowl, and to win it! Wow! What an exacting season must lie ahead. But, until then, I continue to make the presence of my Panthers felt in the world of XBOX Live, as the intimidating "Newman Ray"!(Okay, maybe a 7-14 record is not exactly intimidating, but I have only begun to fight!)

I hope you enjoy the fall season, and may the best team (the Carolina Panthers:)) win!