Questions of Ecclesiology

I am reading a couple of books that are essentially exploring the nature of the church. One is Evaluating the Church Growth Movement, a self-explanatory title. I am interested not because I need people to explain to me the manifold deficiencies of that pragmatic and shallow diversion (I think history, which is extraordinarily patient, will prove it be to an aberration) but one of my former professors is one of those critiquing the movement.

The other book is Treasure in Jars of Clay by writers from the Gospel and Our Culture Network. A representative of this group is also a critic in the first book.

In this second work the GOCN people are attempting to respond to the criticism that their work has been too abstract by providing sketches of churches that are doing the type of things they envision as theologically founded. They want to show real-world examples of something other than the pragmatism of the Church Growth Movement and its scant theological interests.

(Here's where I had written some stuff which summarized the various theological or not-so-theological options I see being championed by some Christians . . . but I started thinking it sounded too negative. So I'll just move on to what I said next).

The biblical metaphors for the role of the people of God that I can think of offhand are:
1) ambassadors who represent and witness to a different Realm.
2) those who exist "to the praise of His glory."
3) the elect, chosen from before time to be undeservedly the recipients of mercy.
4) aliens and travelers who look for something not of this world.
5) salt and light that makes a difference in a corrupt world.
6) doers of good to all people, living at peace as much as is possible, and praying for the godless authorities and systems.

The ideas that are often popular today about the purpose of the church (you'll have to imagine your own because I'm just not going there . . . if you don't know what is lacking you'll have to find someone else to tell you) have enough of at least one of these or other biblical ideas to be partially true. But today's competing visions are in conflict because they try to elevate one biblical idea over another. One seizes an evangelical purpose, another an other-worldly vision, and another an intercessory posture for the sake of the world. Each one is right, but none is wholly right.

Last night when I was talking to Don Hill about thinking about our ecclesiology he said we start getting into trouble when we want to define it too much. He stated that we need to let it be a little ambiguous.

You know, I think he's right. If I try to be succinct and clear, I'll be reductionistic and I'll lose something. Let it be all these things - doing good on environmental and social issues, doing good by serving individual people, sharing the good news of a new reality, bringing glory to God through daily living, longing for a returning Lover . . . in other words entering into all of God's work. Let it be all these things and in no particular order. Let it be somewhat ambiguous to us so that we will be open to God's continuing revelation.

Let us also be rigorously theological and make sure that we acknowledge that everything centers on God and that we are merely invited because of His good pleasure to join in His Mission. Centered-on-God and open-to-God might be a good way to seek our ecclesiology.

A New Computer and Consumerism

I am trying to avoid being a consumer. I'm fighting an uphill battle against a horde of skilled marketing people. They attempt to create an emptiness within me (promising the product they sell will fill that need) while I am trying to nurture an inner peace and contentment.

In order to avoid being a spiritually restless consumer, I am creating my own "needs testing" for determining when to purchase something. Actually that sounds much more analytical than it is. I don't have some formal test, but I do have to question my spending from a spiritual standpoint.

There is no doubt that this is spiritual - through and through. The subject at hand for me right now is a new computer. I have a trusty iMac at home that we bought in 1999 when we returned from Africa.

I am a bit of a Mac fanatic, but the reality is that it runs great. I've never had a harddrive crash, we receive and send email, the kids do their papers on it, and it surfs the internet on a DSL connection just fine - surprisingly well for a 233 mhz antique.

I know that many might think I am nuts for thinking that purchasing a new computer is a spiritual matter. I've got news for them - it is.

The fact that it is a bigger expenditure than buying a new toothbrush isn't what makes it a faith-issue. Buying a toothbrush is a spiritual matter too. The reason I don't think as much about a new toothbrush is that there isn't fleshly lust involved in what toothbrush I use - but it enters into the computer thing.

I get a new toothbrush when the old one wears out. I'm not giving in to some consumeristic mania when it comes to dental hygiene - but I am susceptible to doing that when it comes to computers. That is why I have to be more careful about this decision.

Do I wait for my iMac to give up the ghost (that might be a lot longer than I want to wait - but maybe that is revealing)? When does it become reasonable to spend a year's wages for a third-world working man on a new computer? When I do replace my old Mac, how much should I spend?

I am forming some answers . . . for me, not anyone else. I have no compelling reason right now to buy a new computer other than desire. That just isn't good enough for my walk with Christ. So I'm not buying now. In my thinking, having a computer is a part of living life in the place where I am - so someday I will buy another one. It will be perhaps later this year. I need to pray more and want one less, I think.

Perhaps there are spiritual disciplines to preparing ourselves to acquire things we desire. If I want something too strongly, then something is wrong. This is where I come back to the consumer world around us. When someone with a vested interest in me spending money to buy his product is urging me to make purchases, I need to be wary. Maybe my desires have been too influenced. Let me turn my desire back to God. To want God and only God. That is the correct posture for my faith.

None of the this is new - I'm sure Peter had to think about whether to buy a new net or simply repair the old one.

A Community of Selflessness.

As believers, the journey we share is one of common submission rather than common understanding. We are united as Christians in submitting to God even when our thoughts about and descriptions of God differ.

The same can be said of scripture, or the historic creeds. We place ourselves under the authority of God's revealed Word and seek to live intentionally in ways reflective of the Word.

We don't and won't see all of scripture the same. Common understanding is sometimes what we enjoy, but it is not the essence of our community. Our unity isn't built on our understanding.

We can all recite the Apostles' Creed, and in doing so submit ourselves to a mystery we believe is expressed in those words. We believe that the words talk about God, but don't define God. Our understanding of the words of the creeds aren't as important as hearts that believe in the God the creeds point to.

Repeating the faith is our submission to a historical stream enlivened by the Spirit. We are saying this isn't about us, but about God.

We are together through the person of God, and what we have in common with one another in our humanity is submission. Our bond is what we acknowledge we don't have (competency, hence we submit) rather than what we might think we have (knowledge and understanding).

A community of selflessness.

Staying on Track

Last week Mark and I got to spend some time with Mike Lewis who is pastoring a new church here in Birmingham, Fellowship of the Valley.

Mike made some comparisons between the emergent stuff happening today and the Jesus movement of the 60's and 70's. One big difference he observes is the solid base of theological reflection that is going on in the current re-imagining of church, which was often lacking in the Jesus movement.

I also think that the current ties to ancient liturgies and the creeds helps keep us from simply going off into some jelly-bean and fluff kind of spirituality. The contemporary church movement which wants to make the Christian experience so relevant seems to me to want to be relevant in the wrong ways.

My missions training makes me desire relevance - but being relevant to the culture's desire for everything to be pre-packaged and microwavable (just for example) won't be the right type of relevance. Making following Jesus a self-indulgent experience for a self-indulgent culture is the problem.

We need to talk about the real areas for relevance . . .

A Visit

Today Charles walked in looking for food. Seems like another church provided him with a room last night in the motel next door . . . and he saw the "Angel Food Ministry" banner outside our meeting place and decided to come in.

I microwaved some broccoli and Swedish meatballs that were in the freezer here. We made sandwiches by putting the meatballs on hamburger buns which were left from last Sunday's fellowship meal and sat down to watch basketball.

Charles told me some about his divorce, about growing up in Jasper, several jobs he'd had . . . you know, the story isn't real clear and to ask questions to keep the conversation going seems to make the story even get more confused.

I don't care if Charles was telling me the truth. He was hungry and we enjoyed a meal. I talked about making changes in life, about relying on God because we can't do it ourselves by our own efforts.

He asked if I would give him money for a motel room. I offered to help him find a job and get a place to live . . . but he wasn't sure that he wanted to stay in Alabama. He said maybe he'd be going back to Florida, or Georgia. Wasn't sure he wanted to settle down.

Mark and I gave him a few bucks and welcomed him to come back anytime. We'd cook whatever food we have and he can watch TV or play pool. Charles said maybe he'd come to our fellowship meal on Sunday.

Looking for God

Visiting a different church is always interesting. We automatically evaluate what we see, hear, and experience. Doing that comes naturally.

A good exercise for spiritual reflection is for us to be self-aware enough in that moment to stop evaluating the new experience and look at ourselves. What is the way we are measuring this time we are spending with a group of believers who are new to us?

For many of us, because of the way we've been formed by religion, our opinion of the event of worship with others comes down to "did I agree with what was said and done?" What does this say about what we believe is the essential reality of Christian worship and community?

Obviously this shows that for us everything comes down to an orthodoxy of correct doctrine and practice. Now that sounds good . . . but the "correctness" of everything is being measured by my own understanding. My intellect becomes the arbiter of what is orthodox. I aspire to orthodoxy as much as anyone else - but I'm trying to let go of the idea that assumes I am orthodox and therefore able to "detect" all those who are not.

What if we were to let God be the judge of orthodoxy? What if my "evaluation" of the experience of worshipping with others in a new situation was centered on one question: is the Presence of God here? Forget what I think about the rightness or correctness of what they say and do! If God is present, how critical should I be?

Seems to me that Peter judged his encounter with Cornelius not on the basis of his understanding of what was correct, but on the real Presence of God. In fact, looking for God seems to be what the early Christians did . . . and it helped them out of some of the wrong-headed ideas they believed were orthodox - like 'Gentiles can't be Christians'.

Conversely, God may also be obviously present where everything isn't truly orthodox . . . and that says something to us about His grace and mercy. If God is present in the imperfect, can I stay away? Don't I become like the slave of the foot-washing Master who refuses to wash feet? If God serves I can't refuse to serve and be called His.

I know . . . if we run around following God rather than our own understandings of orthodoxy who knows where it might lead! And we can't have that.

Gospel in a Song

A talented singer/songwriter/musician, Steve Tagliere, blessed us with a powerful song written for our worship time yesterday.

"Fall So Short"
By Steve Tagliere
Copyright 2005. Steve Tagliere. All Rights Reserved.

I'm not spending enough time on my knees,
Fear of unlocked doors, reach for the key.
I keep missing You, You meet all my needs.
Get so lost.

So many idols there's no room to move.
Closer or further, every step that You choose.
Sometimes I try to make my way without You,
I get so lost.

I fall so short,
But, You've made me Yours,
I fall so short,
You've made me whole.

I'm not spending enough time on my knees,
I prayed for my friends, but what about my enemies?
Am I taking in all that's there to receive?
I get so lost.

I fall so short,
But, You've made me Yours.
I fall so short,
You made me new.

You're with me when it's rough out,
And every time that I fall down.
You've picked me up and You've called me by my name.

I fall so short.
But, You've made me Yours.
I fall so short,
You made me whole.

And, I follow You and follow You, I follow You.
Yes, I follow You, I will follow You, follow Yyou.
Yes, I follow Ya, I will follow Ya, follow You.
You made me new.

We fall so short.
You made us Yours.
We fall so short.
We're paid for.

Copyright 2005. Steve Tagliere. All Rights Reserved.

The Coming Apocalypse

I used to criticize the ghetto-ization of evangelical Christians who want to pull out of the world and create duplicate "Christian" versions of everything so they won't have to be corrupted by the world when I suggested that we would some day have Christian health clubs.

I thought I was being absurd and ridiculous. It turns out that I was being prophetic.

Birmingham now has "Lord's Gym" - with an appropriately buff Jesus adorning the wall. He's not as muscular as the "Gold's Gym" guy, but he's ripped.

I'm not going to say anything about the hearts and intentions of those people who have created a place where Christians can sweat and pump iron in a godly environment, but this is madness. No, it's beyond madness. This is theologically bankrupt.

Think I am being too harsh? What about the command to not take the Lord's name in vain? Does that mean just "don't use divine names as interjections and exclamations"??? No, it means we do not treat God in common ways. We don't demote God, Father, Son, and Spirit, from a place of glory and reverence.

Naming my business with God's name is right up there as a vain use of God's name. What if Mazda's new vehicle was named the Jesus RX7? Maybe I'll open God's Grocery and Pawn Shop. Maybe Christians need God's First Bank of Birmingham, of course to be distinguished from all those other banks that aren't God's. It's a sign of how spiritually impoverished and theologically inept American Christianity is becoming. Let me invoke God's name to do more business.

Maybe I just need to calm down - listen to Christian radio, enjoy some Christ pretzels (in the shape of a cross and sold at all truly Christian grocery stores), and kick back in my Jesus-is-the-Way office chair from God's Furniture, Inc.

Trying to write on spiritual formation has convinced me that I prefer the "medium" of conversation to that of the written word. I know it seems contradictory for me to be writing this, but that's also what is really great about blogs: they are more like conversations.

I don't feel like I have to proofread them endlessly to make sure I am "getting it right." Bascially I just "talk" out through the keyboard (trying to catch the misspellings, of course).

The other advantage is that blogs don't "end." One of the problems I am having in writing what I'm trying to write - which is for people with whom I have no relationship for the most part, who don't know me nor I them, and so we have no shared "history" for the context of what I am writing - is that the piece is so confined. It has to be the whole conversation in 2500 words (or whatever the length should be).

It's just can't be done. Let's value having the face-to-face conversations, the interaction of sharing and listening, within a relationship and shared context. What a blessing!

Thinking About Spiritual Formation

The next Wineskins issue will discuss spiritual formation which is very much in line with our recent discussions - both within our fellowship and with our guests who spoke to us in this last week: Suha Jouaneh from Amman, Jordan, and Dr. Zhai Shiwei from central China. So here I am thinking . . . with thoughts still in the initial stages . . .

Preaching in general has often been 'too few attempting to direct too many in too little time'. In general we churchmen have put too much of our hopes for spiritual formation in the delivering of sermons.

If I look at how Jesus uses the times when he speaks to the masses, he regularly employs vague parables, paradoxical teachings, and provocative assertions which are not the mainstay of homiletics. The parables are intentionally designed to sift out of the crowd those who have ears to hear, the teachings puzzle as much as they clarify, and the assertions challenge people to rethink the status quo.

Continually Jesus seems to lure out of the crowd those seeking spiritual direction (e.g. Nicodemus, the rich young ruler) or he interjects himself into the lives of others (e.g. Zaccheus, the woman at the well) to initiate the same work. When Jesus speaks to the masses it is as if he uses that as a way to call out those who want to pursue spiritual formation. Individually and with smaller groups of his disciples, those who are committed to a long regime of receiving instruction, he does the formative work.

Of course, I am not recommending the abandonment of all preaching, but rather understanding the limits. Large mixed crowds of people of varying levels of interest and commitment are difficult to address, and real spiritual direction may be nearly impossible. Invitation to spiritual formation is appropriate, and giving people a taste for deeper things might be possible. Or like the sermon on the mount, perhaps we speak to the disciples and allow the conversation to be overheard with a ready acceptance of anyone willing to join the conversation.

Unfortunately, even well-crafted oratory presentations are forgotten quickly . . . and the vital work of spiritual formation cannot be trusted to something so impermanent.

Sandwiched right up against some very good things in the last few days are some other trying things. The bad doesn't overcome the good, and the good doesn't solve the bad. Both are simply what they are.

I am who I am. I find it easy to rejoice in the good, but the bad brings out bad in me. My worrying self, my anxious self, my angry self . . . can exist right alongside joy, righteousness, and hope.

I sometimes think I am becoming more and more ready for heaven. My attachments to this existence are less than they have been. A friend of mine long ago used the phrase "homesick for heaven". Maybe that is God's slow working in us. The good news is that goodness is lasting, while the struggles of life are transitory.

I don't want to try and pretend the struggles don't exist - which would be to miss whatever grace can be found in them. I also shouldn't let genuine blessing be diminished by temporary struggles. Rejoice where there is rejoicing, and weep where there is weeping is probably a healthy and realistic way to live.

Maybe sometimes we find ourselves doing both.

Seeing Others Through Love

The bottom line seems to always be salvation - is a person 'saved'. We are obsessed with this question to the distortion of the gospel, the church, the kingdom, and spirituality. We look at the world in terms of who's in and who's out. We create an exclusive mindset foreign to God as displayed in Jesus.

I suggest a new question that will help us see the world correctly: 'is this person loved?'

Now everyone is 'in' and I ought to treat them as such. Everyone is loved, and I am to help everyone discover how to live in that divine love by discipling them. When Jesus was seeking and saving the lost was he looking for outsiders to bring on the inside, or was he seeking and redirecting those who'd wandered away from God - but who were still God's children?

Our sinful actions make us enemies and aliens to God, but God is no alien and enemy to us. He is always the loving Father, close and caring. The prodigal stopped being a son to his father, but the father never stopped being father to the boy.

From the son's perspective, he was on the 'outs' with his father, but such was not the case from the father's perspective. His son was always 'in' even though the older brother never understood it. The lesson isn't just for the older son to acknowledge the return of the younger, but to develop the kind of love the father always had for the prodigal. The father's love for the prodigal never saw him as having lost his place in the family, just his way of living in harmony as part of the family. We are the superior-feeling older brother when we banish the prodigal from the family because he's foolishly lost his way.

We do no wrong if we consider all the world 'in' by virtue of God's love. Not only are we not approving of sin, we find ourselves in a better posture by virtue of love and acceptance from which to make disciples of all nations.

The Horse Whisperer

I watched the Robert Redford movie The Horse Whisperer last night. It is the story of a mother who takes her daughter and the daughter's horse, both injured in an accident and bearing physical and spiritual scars, to a Montana cowboy renowned for his ability to communicate with horses. It is soon obvious that the "uninjured" mother is just as scarred as her daughter and the horse.

As I watched the story unfold the thought kept coming back to me that Robert Redford's character, Tom Booker, the gentle cowboy who can heal horses, is a spiritual director. His way with the horse, the daughter, and the mother serves as an example of what being a mentor, a sage who nurtures spiritual formation, is really about.

Tom listens and tries to understand first. He doesn't start with answers - but with questions. He is extremely patient, not claiming to know when or how the needed changes will take place. He admits his limitations, but points back consistently to what is true and real - even when those are painful realities most would rather avoid.

He is deliberate in pointing out to each the personal responsibility inherent in embracing inner change. His "techniques" are like spiritual disciplines, tailored to create the setting for personal decision and change. Significantly, he contradicts the language of denial - especially when the mother wants to pretend that she can't do anything about her failing marriage. Tom makes it clear that she has a choice to return home to her husband and work on their relationship - that transformation is possible.

When the mother says she has to keep trying to fix things, although it never seems to work, Tom asks why she can't just let things fail. She says she can't, and he asks again, why not? To that she has no answer.

The character of Tom is someone with clear self-understanding, and who knows who he is and where he belongs in life. There is a kind of peace he has which others want, but which requires a type of sacrifice and journey they may not want to take.

All this isn't to say that the film is without some flaws - a notable one for me is that the rural community that Tom is part of is idealized and serene - as if that rustic Montana community is composed entirely of spiritually mature people at peace with themselves, their neighbors, and the environment. That romantic contrast between rural and urban life is not realistic.

But still, I think the Tom Booker character serves as a good archetype for a spiritual mentor . . . and gives us a useful image of how spiritual maturity can be expressed in ordinary daily circumstances.

Spiritual Formation and the Arts

The heart, the inner spirit and will of a person, is the most inaccessible part of a person to try and form. The mind can be spoken to directly, the body can be dealt with tangibly . . . but the heart seems the hardest to reach.

Since the heart is connected in one person to the mind and body, there is an indirect route through those parts. Discourse that immediately engages the thinking of a person may have a deeper resonance into the heart. The actions of the body which can be disciplined may have repercussions to the spirit. But the hardest part to reach, is the most important to be shaped.

We know that out of the heart a person speaks, meaning that both the thoughts of the mind and actions of the body are directed by a person's spirit. Emotions too are reflections of one's heart. The essence of spiritual formation is focused on the transformation of the human spirit by God's Spirit -with consequences for every other part of a human being.

I wonder if the arts are a way of speaking more directly to the heart. Moving music, an engaging story, a well-directed film, evocative paintings, poetry, and many other 'arts' seem in my experience to get into a person's heart, or spirit . . . pushing beyond the mind's thoughts and body's actions.

Not every use of the arts speaks to every person's spirit, but I wonder if there is something of importance here of spiritual formation. The love for what is true, what is beautiful, what is merciful and just, what is good and hopeful - and for the practice of love itself - must be a matter of the reformation of the spirit.

The Problem with Metaphors

I am quoting someone (but forgot long ago who said it) when I say "all analogies limp." It's true. Analogies are illustrations to help us understand something, but all are imperfect and if pushed too far or taken in the wrong way they can really cause problems.

Over the last couple of years I have heard the question asked "are our churches are more like cruise ships or battleships?" In other words, are Christians looking for fun, relaxation, and pleasure while the church staff labors to keep them happy, or are we all serving selflessly a greater good? Do we whine if something isn't to our liking, or are we prepared to endure hardship because my personal comfort-level isn't what is paramount.

You get the picture . . . and in some ways this image isn't too bad. But there is a part of me of cringes anytime Christians start using militaristic analogies. I know there is biblical precedent, but my point is that there is a great danger of being misunderstood - by either those who are believers or those who aren't.

To someone leery of Christianity "battleship-talk" and the language of "spiritual warfare" fits all too easily their perceptions that Christians long to rule over the world and subdue by force nonbelievers. Of course, that's what Muslims want to do, right? Not us! How could anyone think that about Christians? Well, just listen to us sometimes . . .

Perhaps a way to modify the analogy is to ask whether being a church together with others is like "being on a cruise ship or on a hospital ship?" We keep the contrast of "here to be served and made happy" versus "here to serve unselfishly" without appearing like crusaders.

Ash Wednesday

Today is the beginning of Lent. For me this means no morning coffee.

I didn't choose to give up coffee because it will be some great sacrifice, but because it is part of my routine. Last year I chose to give up something I like, but not something I do regularly - which was missing the point. I wasn't connecting Lent with prayer, but seeing it more as some sort of duty.

I believe there is a profound difference between obedience and discipline, though both are important. Obedience does what is right, and discipline does what leads to spiritual formation. Last year I think my observance of Lent was more an obedience than a discipline.

By giving up coffee I am carving out a regular time that I will fill with prayer. The beverage is irrelevant, the discipline is the focus. That time each morning will be devoted to prayer and repentance.

Scripture as a Relational Moment

Before the invention of the printing press the reading of scripture was a relational event, something heard aloud in the company of others rather than an individual activity one experienced within oneself. We could even back up further to the oral tradition that preceded much of scripture - even more relational.

Today we carry scripture around in books, on PDA's, access it on our computers, and have the opportunity to bring ourselves to scripture constantly. Of tremendous importance is the mindset I bring to that encounter with holy writing.

I've heard many metaphors which compare the Bible to some other type of printed material: it is a blueprint, the constitution of the church, an owner's manual for human beings, the book containing all the answers (like a dictionary or encyclopedia), a road map, or something else. All of these suggest a mentality one should bring to an encounter with scripture. Come looking for a pattern or bylaws to govern things, bring your questions about life, ask your questions about anything, find out how to get where you are going, etc.

There are other metaphors that I've not personally heard people use, but they use the Bible in other ways. One is as a business model. A really bad one is that Bible is a treasure map with clues to wealth and success.

I will concede that none of these metaphors is totally without some truthful aspect, but some only have a sliver of redeeming application and in general are quite misleading. Each metaphor suggests the intention of scripture, and therefore the mindset I should bring to reading scripture.

One deficiency I see with all these comparisons is that they emphasize that the Bible is a resource of information. Our interaction with scripture is therefore primarily intellectual.

Since scripture is written, it would be easy to think like this. But if we take seriously the Hebrew writer's statement that the Word of God is living and active (4:12), and believe that scripture is the Word of God, then in a mysterious way the person of God is encountered through scripture. And so I believe that some relational metaphors, instead of informational ones, might be better to set my mind in the proper frame.

As far as the people whose stories are found in the Bible I think about the possibility of approaching them as I would a family reunion. If your family is like mine, not everyone you see at the reunion is who you'd choose if it was a 'friends' reunion. Some might seem downright strange, to my way of looking at things. Reunions are where the family history is revisited in many ways, often the good and the bad. There is information, but only in the context of relational interaction - people with people. That is different than a person with a document: a person and a blueprint.

Undoubtedly wisdom, family history, and a perspective of one's own narrative would be informational benefits of the experience. Though the metaphor is hardly sufficient, I think there may be some benefit in orienting myself in this way rather than as if I am about to read a roadmap or constitution. I am about to enter a living conversation.

When it comes to encountering God, I think the relational becomes even more pronounced. For me scripture then becomes a 'place' where I interact with God. Rather than being God's instructional manual for me (almost suggesting God has left that in place of His personal presence), scripture is more like a coffee shop - a venue for dialogue. Though the words within the books of holy scripture don't change, they are the place where God speaks and so become a meeting place of creature and Creator where new things happen (certainly not the only meeting place, by any means).

Is there something helpful about opening your Bible with the expectation of entering an ongoing conversation rather than intending to search for and extract information? What happens when we change the expectations we bring to reading our Bibles?

Room for the Right Brain

I grew up in a Christian tradition that was very left-brained and so was all about thinking. Out of a desire to avoid being ostentatious, everything about our meeting places was minimalist and plain. Any sort of art was purely functional - like the flannel graph figures or pictures used to teach children Bible stories.

There is certainly an academic part of me that can be rational - but there has always been a creative part of me as well. In other words, I had a 'right-brain' side too. In fact, for a while I dreamed of becoming a commercial artist/illustrator - but that was discouraged by more practically-minded people (well-intentioned, I'm sure).

Now I am sharing in a community of believers that has room for the right brain - which is rediscovering art, beauty, creativity, and poetry . . . for at least me and I think for others as well. I am reading Brian McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy and one point he makes is that poetry is more capable than prose when it comes to talking about God.

Now I don't want to set up a fictitious conflict between the two sides of our brains, but rather to point out that prose has its place while I agree that it is incapable alone to express faith. I am finding that I am more of a mystic than a systematic theologian - though systematic theologians have blessed me in many ways throughout my journey.

Within our community of faith we have made a place for artistic expression - without labelling such work 'graven images' . . . because the point was not in the making of things but in the worshiping the works of our hands. That is a whole other subject - and we have worshiped our work plenty, though its not been the artistic work of our hands.

In finding a new place for my creative side I have created a couple of icons of Peter and Paul which are reminiscent of Eastern Orthodox icons.

I contribute these to our community not as decorative art, but symbolic art. In the style we affirm a connection with ancient Christianity, and in the depiction of Peter and Paul we are reminded of the spiritual unity of Jewish and Gentile Christians of the first century despite all their differences. May we be inspired to a similar unity.

There are many poets among us whose creative expression of faith will enrich the whole community.

An Unmarketable Message

One of our readings yesterday was 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 where Paul states that the Gospel message is ridiculous (foolishness) to all but those who are being saved. I am afraid that too often well-intentioned Christians have tried to remove the absurdity of the message of the cross in order to better spread the Gospel. In other words, Paul obviously knew nothing about marketing. You can't sell foolishness, for goodness sake! You have to find a way to show how Christ is what they are looking for. I agree . . . we can show that Christ is what they are looking for if they are on the right journey.

Too many people want a god who will satisfy their desires . . . but what we need is for God to accompany us through life. The good news of the Kingdom of God is that such a life is freely available through Christ. This is not about having our desires met, but living in God's Kingdom under his gracious direction. Everything is redefined, even our desires. Our will becomes His Will. Unfortunately, that is not what many are looking for.

Here and now eternal life is enjoyed by anyone who enters the divine life even though we find ourselves still burdened by our earthly existence. We recognize that beyond this life there is a fuller participation where what is promised and experienced in part, will be our all in all.

As we talk about the pitfalls of trying to market Christianity (does God really need a public relations consultant?) the most obvious is the gap between what people want and Who God is. Christian faith cannot be tailored to speak to a target audience - reshaped and packaged to appeal to their desires. Another name for the results of such attempts is 'heresy.'

We all know how some promise blessings in abundance, health and wealth, to all who follow Jesus faithfully. I cannot decry the crass salesmanship of those endeavors and turn around and choose a less blatant form - but one which is essentially based on appealing to human appetites rather than trusting in the Spirit's work. Unless we understand Paul's observation that the message of Christ is foolishness, we will try and make it palatable.

Let's face it . . . someone not oriented by the Spirit's working to seek God will find our message of following a crucified Savior into suffering for the sake of the world is an insane goal. The world will accept a savior who suffered so they don't have to suffer, but the world rejects a call to submission, selflessness, and suffering. No one in the flesh follows Jesus into his love - dying to self for others.

But we do not lose hope, though our message is unappealing and unmarketable. To those being saved such a message is the power of God. That is what Paul believed . . . and what we know by grace.

Why This Grace?
We usually ask 'why this suffering?' - assuming we are entitled to goodness but suffering is somehow a travesty. Even so, sometimes we are distinctly aware of a particular grace in our lives (read grace = any loving act of God, not just those relating to forgiving sin) within the multitude of graces. I find myself then wondering "why this grace?"

Actually the question seems ridiculous since the 'why' of every grace is the love and mercy of God. That is the 'why' from God's perspective . . . if it's not too presumptuous to talk about His view of things.

But for me there can always be a 'why' - which is the 'why' I will create in reaction to that grace. In this way the 'why' of the grace of being made a child of God is gratitude and being holy as He is Holy. It is not that God graces us to get something back, for grace is truly free - predicated on nothing in my past, present, or future . . . . but only on the eternal nature of God.

Nonetheless, as children of grace we ought to reflect on each experience of goodness . . . and put our own 'whys' to them. In this way we respond to the grace of God.

You really ought to read Mark's blog from yesterday if you haven't already done so. Then you will want to read Alan Creech's blog that Mark refers to. I guarantee it.

In the past inviting people 'to church' meant asking them to come to a meeting. We encouraged people to come and sit in on our 'worship service' with the hope that they would join us permanently.

There is nothing particularly bad about offering those invitations. The problem I see is that the invitation is too limited. The Kingdom of God is so much more than church meetings, which is to say nothing bad about church meetings. If I say a car is much more than the motor, I am not being negative about internal combustion engines.

Being the people of God is about much more than Sundays. In saying that I am not trying to put down Sundays and what traditionally we do in meeting together, but to elevate the other days and our other daily activities so that we perceive we are just as much living out faith then as when we gather on Sunday.

The answer is not to stop inviting others to experience a loving gathering of believers who are engaged in worship to God and who are encouraging and teaching each other. Very good things happen when we gather to do that. We need to still 'invite people to church' - but it is a call to being the called out of God daily. Our invitations are to enter the Kingdom of God and live under his reign.

While being followers of Jesus will never be limited to Sunday meetings, experiencing authentic love and seeing it lived out in those assembled is an important way others start to see the Kingdom of God. Let's keep inviting people to church - knowing they'll not see a show, but experience a love created by the presence of God.

I've never claimed to be politely correct, or politically correct . . . however you want to term it. 'Tolerance of anything but intolerance' is often derided as some liberal, valueless, immoral notion that is corrupting our society and churches. Actually, I'd be happy to be labeled as such. Am I simply being politically correct? I am about to not be!

I am not saying that I have no convictions or fail to understand that there are definitely actions and desires that are sin. I know sin exists. I've done enough of it . . . and know how dark the recesses of our fleshly hearts are that I could never dismiss humanity's evil as just individual preference. Some tolerance today is rooted in moral ambivalence - but don't slap that label on me just because I welcome anyone in the name of Jesus. My acceptance of sinners is not due to moral laxity (seems Jesus was accused of that too).

My tolerance is an unwillingness to judge others' failures as unworthy of patience, while I overlook the severity of my own evil. Compared to a judgmental and self-righteous stance my willingness to be forbearing and caring about anyone with any struggle - and to proclaim full and free forgiveness to the awfulest of sinners - appears to be spineless to some. Take the conservative Christian bogeyman of homosexuality . . . is it sin worse than mine? Is heterosexual lust somehow more acceptable than homosexual lust?

Those hypocritical enough to censure others for sins no worse than their own are the ones who I find most objectionable because they want to force me to choose which brothers and sisters to love. It is a zero-sum game for them. My tolerance is a welcoming hope for anyone to seek Jesus. When we are deeply aware of our sinfulness we cling to grace, and seek the realization of our sanctification without condemning others who are on that same journey.

New Churches . . . REALLY New.
When Christians in the West began hearing about a huge church in Seoul, Korea pastored by Paul Yongi Cho . . . somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 people, the race was on to discover how to be a cell-based church. Not that brother Cho was after the numbers . . . but that is another matter - contrasting faithfulness and fleshly notions of success. You don't believe me? Would anyone have cared if there were 123 people meeting in Seoul? Those impressed by numbers would never have given Jesus a second look.

If Cho was talking about cell-based churches, what were the rest of us? I think the best way to describe most churches is campus based. Cho's shift was rarely ever truly embraced - a small group ministry is not the same as being thoroughly cell-based, which is about a change in the way one views the identity of church life regarding organization and communal interaction. For Cho the primary organizational unit and fundamental source of nurture is not the Sunday gathering of the greatest number of believers but the house-to-house groupings. The so-called cells were actually seen as where the real church life happens.

Okay, that is a great idea. The emphasis on Sunday meetings tends not to enrich us spiritually but impoverish us since being Christian is tied to a single place and time - where we spend a fraction of our week. Moving from super-assemblies to simple-gatherings is essential for spiritual formation to occur. I am assuming that 'Christ formed in us' is why we exist . . .

Let me suggest another, perhaps more radical change: what if we move from a church identity rooted in any meetings to an identity found in ministry? What if being the church is truly exemplified not in gatherings of believers but in living faithfully and graciously in the world? What are the implications? Let's see . . .

Can we have ambition that isn't actually selfish? Others might be confident that we can, but I'm not very optimistic on this one. Who has time for ambitions beyond seeking God, guarding one's own heart in God, and striving to be obedient to His instructions? In these our lives will be consumed, and they are all very much concentrated in the present moment. Who has the spiritual luxury of looking far ahead when the task of faithfulness in my now demands constant attention?

Maybe my obvious failures in the present are so numerous because I don't live enough in the present. Perhaps if I bring myself more into my now and seek God fully here, I will find that the Spirit is working today, not in my tomorow or yesterday. Too many thoughts of the future, too much ambition, tragically removes me from the only place I am with God . . . in the present.

After Christmas we took a trip to Texas to visit family. On I-20 between Dallas and Ft. Worth, when you are passing car dealerships, shopping malls, and other evidence of middle and upper class prosperity, I saw a magnificent and obviously new church building. The imposing structure is a sandstone beige color and sits squarely facing the highway. At the edge of the property was a banner which says "Your Tithes at Work".

Somehow, I don't think that would be something I would be proud of. Jesus was born in a stable, laid in a manger, grew up in a back-water province under foreign occupation, was persecuted and maligned during his ministry, and died on a cruel Roman cross so we could assemble in multi-million dollar edifices and call ourselves his followers????

I know . . . I'm too radical.

There is an elusive peace that nurtures contentment with the rhythms of life - even those parts that we would rather not pass through. There is an ebb and flow of health and sickness, of youth and old age, of work and rest, of tears and joy . . . and countless other experiences.

Finding that peace is in abiding with God in the inner soul. Our presence with God is His presence with us, and our rest in the place in which He puts us. We do not find this peace by looking for it, but by constantly seeking God. Looking for peace is searching for something to acquire and possess, and seeking God is discovering how to be acquired and possessed. Every spiritual blessing comes to us as we lose ourselves - will and life - to God.

A kind Christian lady who attended a memorial service we had here last week told me that we would grow. She is a member of a large community church and assured me that we would grow because they had begun in a house. I didn't really reply to that comment . . . just said that we are blessed and enjoying living in God.

She was trying with good intention to encourage me . . . predicting that our small group meeting in a humble rented location would blossom into a congregation of thousands meeting in a multi-million dollar complex. She assumed that I needed such encouragement. Obviously, I must have greater ambitions and aspirations than sharing in fellowship with a small band of believers and meeting in a building we share with others. We all know this couldn't be what we are dreaming of . . . a community of loving people who know and care about each other, who meet in modest circumstances so they might minister more to others, where relationships are emphasized and the institution is minimal.

I didn't bother to explain what she wouldn't understand . . . but no, we are not pursuing becoming a megachurch.

This week I encountered the institutional church garbage that I think makes heaven boil. It certainly makes me boil, and I too think that I have the Spirit of God!

A 16 year-old girl was wanting to plan a memorial service for her deceased mother. She went to the nearby Episcopal Church (this isn't about Episcopal Churches, but any church with this mindset) but was told to have the memorial service meant that it had to be done as an episcopal rite. She couldn't make any changes to have it like she wanted. She was turned away!!!

Woe to you churches, hypocrites! You turn away 16 year-old girls trying to bury their mothers for the sake of preserving your traditions! Your denominational orthodoxy has become a stumbling block to those who are suffering! Your institutions are a wall between God and His children. Suffer the children to come to Him and do not forbid them!!!

Too many who call themselves Christians do not know Christ. They would probably be applauded for upholding the purity of the faith.

For Christians there are no enemies - because an overwhelming love from God and for the sake of God which is directed toward all his creatures means that there are no foes. Unbelievers, those opposing our faith, and even those persecuting followers of Christ are not to be hated. Nothing anyone can do or believe can make him or her my enemy. Only the flesh has enemies; the Spirit knows only love.

Church structures. Committees, leadership, who is in charge of whom. Management styles, leadership systems. Systems analysis. Understanding the nature of human organizations and group dynamics. Models for conflict resolution. All essential stuff for building an efficient and functional church - right?

I realize that having some organizational element is unavoidable, but focusing on this stuff is poison to authentic communities where the bond is love. The mature don't need structures because they will love and serve out of who God has grown them to be, but the immature who view things organizationally instead of relationally often strive after positions of power within the institution because of their fleshly ambitions and conceptions. Their ambitions may be for the "good" of the organization as they understand it . . . but that is precisely the problem. The immature want to sit on the right hand and left hand. When there is a structure, often those who believe that wielding power through position - even out of all sincerity - often end up in those positions while the truly mature simply go about their work of serving and loving.

Though some basic level of organization is necessary, I think we do better to avoid having positions of power for the immature to quarrel over. It is almost humorous to watch those who conceive of things in a "top-down" way searching for the places of authority in a relational community quite devoid of those positions. I watched it happen in Africa where those ambitious for power could not find a place to grab hold of it, and now with the believers with whom I am priviledged to walk. I've also seen other situations where immature people desired and took hold of positions from which they planned to rule - with all good intention, but nonetheless from fleshly ideas of authority rather than self-sacrificing service. Of course, they would disagree with me and protest that what they do is self-sacrificing service . . . and in their immaturity they truly believe it. They also would resist correction and often take offense at it.

The mystery of communities of disciples of Jesus is that they operate relationally in a way that cannot be analyzed and diagrammed. Try as one might, it is hard to come up with any clear organizational chart for Jesus and his disciples, or the apostolic church. Such systems can be imposed on the textual evidence, but cannot be derived from it.

There is a major cultural shift happening in the West. Actually, the West is going back to join the rest of the world. The experiment in modernity reached its zenith but is now fading. While the West may be entering "postmodernity" . . . the rest of the world never adopted the philosohpy of modernity, though they have used some of the technological fruits of it.

There is some good news about this shift. Modernity, with its humanistic mania, is inherently rejects submission to God. The rest of the world, however, has remained much more open to faith. I observed that it was much easier to talk to pagan, idol-worshipping Africans about Jesus and see vibrant faith spring up in their hearts by the Holy Spirit than to talk to modern Americans, many of whom are Sunday-attending confessors of a civil Christianity. Those non-modern Africans are much closer to accepting the Kingdom of God in their animal-sacrificing paganism than many nominally Christian Americans basically because their worldview already tells them that they are nothing in the world and that they are at the mercy of much stronger spiritual powers. That is so different from a modern worldview that proclaims human ingenuity and strength is the penultimate power.

In the modern West, this mindset subverts Christianity. Often while fundamentalists denounce what they call "secular humanism", their theology shows that a modern humanistic view is the bedrock of their perception of faith.

The hope for the shift now occurring is that claims of human potential and sufficiency are now highly suspect. However, as the history of paganism proves, even when man views himself as being at the mercy of great spiritual powers his response can be manipulation rather than dependence. But it is much easier talk to someone about Jesus who knows he is scum as he offers animal sacrifices to appease the gods, rather than trying to convince someone who is confident that he has struck an accord with Jesus, trading his obedience and religiouslity for a seat at the heavenly table, that he is a pauper and must reach out to God in faith and humility. The gospel is an offense to the pride of this latter individual. Those who know they are refuse receive it gladly.

Self-Sacrifice
With the beginning of Advent we are concentrating again on the coming of Jesus - which raises a host of meaty theological subjects. One is the unmistakable self-sacrifice in the kenosis (emptying - Phil. 2:7) of the incarnation, which leads to the cross.

Christians have been self-sacrificing, but for the wrong thing. I believe that in recent decades believers have been called to give themselves sacrificially to the church - when they should have been been giving themselves sacrificially to the world. This has led to an institutionally-oriented and self-serving church without a meaningful redemptive witness in the world. The ministry of reconciliation occurs when the self-sacrifice is made for the world, and not for the collective identity of the Christian organization. Preachers are to blame for calling believers to support the church and for seeking to build enterprises - which has a self-serving link to their own "careers".

While I won't lay all the blame on professional ministers, a good portion belongs there. A desire for success, a tepid modern theology which is dependent on human efforts, and a institutional mindset derived from corporate models have all contributed to a Christian community that practices self-sacrifice for itself instead of the world to which and for which Christ came. Maybe this season of Advent will call us back to the incarnation as a vision for being a missionary movement for the sake of others.

Hawkish Americans tend to see the Europeans as too soft and tentative - not willing to use military might. I wonder how much this has to do with our memory of war.

Mainland Europe had two world wars fought on the ground in their countries in the last century, while for America those wars were profitable both politically and economically. America became a superpower because of those wars - building industry while other countries were destroyed. Many Americans died, but the war wasn't in our country. The last time we experienced war up close was 1865 - and maybe the horror of that experience has been replaced by the myth that the second world war brought peace. The peace in Europe after WWII had more to do with the different approach to peace found in the Marshall Plan versus the Treaty of Versailles, than with the fact that Axis powers were defeated by force.

Violence brings more violence. Only love can bring peace. Is there a "right to defend" oneself or a society against aggression? Yes, but we should never think that defending ourselves successfully is a lasting solution. We might also need to learn that there are many types of violence, and we in perpetrating one form may sow seeds for another form.

One must stop striving for heaven if one is to receive eternal life.

"God does not die on the day when we cease to believe in a personal deity, but we die on the day our lives cease to be illumined by the steady radiance, renewed daily, of a wonder, the source of which is byond all reason." - Dag Hammarskjold

"Joy is more a matter of "rejoicing in" rather than being "glad about." - Dorothee Soelle

The test of a true mentor may be whether he or she is willing to cease being one in the eyes of those they disciple.

I don't do very well when trying to think non-communally. To sit alone and attempt to conjure up thoughts of substance and truth usually doesn't do much. I get a bunch of random pieces and nothing seems worth pursuing.

However, put me in conversation with someone else, and I find myself thinking thoughts beyond myself. When I am responding to someone particular - relating through writing or dialogue - then the magical/spiritual seems to happen. The practice of our community invites an indwelling of the Spirit where God is revealed in newness.

Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." Perhaps we are when we converse, and we are because God enters into the relational moment.

Because I'm don't have time to write more . . . I'll just excerpt some correspondence from today . . . sorry to not include the letter that asked the questions, but you'll have to make do with my answers :) Proceed at your own risk! :P
----------------

With the beginning of the Enlightenment man began investigating the world in a new way – and leaving the medieval worldview which had proceeded it (which itself had supplanted the Classical worldview). In some ways the Enlightenment esteemed the Classical – and returned back to an Aristotelian approach – with some notable differences.

This new investigation included a critique of what had been formerly unassailable sacred texts. And higher criticism revealed that more was going on with the transmission and origin of these texts than was formerly believed. I see nothing inherently problematic and myself hold to many discoveries of higher and lower criticism - of textual transmission, the editing of texts, oral tradition, etc. that helps me understand in a way not nearly as romantic and naïve (as I did before) how we received the texts we have.

The problem I see is the tension expressed in the difference between Peter Abelard and Anselm: Abelard said “I know that I may believe,” while Anselm said “I believe that I may know.”

I spent too much of my life in Abelard’s way – making my rationality the measure of all things. The gift of my intellect became my god and I thought it entirely reasonable that God should be proved to me. I was the arbiter of truth. God hid Himself – or actually remained tantalizingly out of my reach – as long as I stood my ground and demanded that He become reasonable to me. Like the rich young ruler, only when I sold everything I had did I find God.

That doesn’t mean I became some fundamentalist ranter who eschews anger and hate all while claiming to be a careful adherent of the Bible. I didn’t even give up my intellect – only my use of it to measure everything.

I see the scientific analysis of any ancient texts from a hermeneutic of disbelief to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. A skeptical scientific analysis (I am not saying that is the only way to competently analyze the text) will provide ample proof for more skepticism. That approach uses only analysis and not intuition, existential truth, etc.

In my quote (why didn’t I start here?) I am not referring to scholarly work (which doesn’t have to be persistently skeptical) but to the analysis done by many conservatives where rules are deduced, arguments formulated, and positions buttressed. That type of culling the text for material to build my positions (using it as a resource) rather than encountering God through the text (only one place God may be encountered) leads to the distortion that I believe is seen in so much of current Christianity. I thought I was hearing in some of your comments evidence that you also see some absurd things being done in the name of Christianity. I believe that this handling of the Bible as prooftexts for rationally argued positions is at least one of the root causes of the phenomena we see. . .

For me those issues are any intellectual stance on any subject. The love of God is not a position – like “what is your position on . . .?” Since the rational emphasis of the Enlightenment Christianity has been dominated (but perhaps not populated) by at least some people for whom intellectualizing (the cognitive understanding) is paramount. C.S. Lewis called these people “men without chests” whose heads appear larger not because they are, but because their chests (where the heart is) have atrophied.

By human thought here I mean rational knowledge in an Aristotelian way – as opposed to a mystical knowledge – which IS the visceral and experiential. Friedrich von Huegel’s institutional (Petrine), intellectual (Pauline), and intuitive (Johannine) model seems apropos. Peter reigns in the Catholic church, Paul in the Protestant church, but John has no home though his tradition hides in the shadows of both. I don’t see these as antithetical, but all are needed. There is a place for Paul-like analysis, but without John’s intuitive love (I don’t mean to paint Paul as lacking in mysticism – his faith was formed mystically on the road to Damascus- not intellectually through debate) the analysis runs amok . . .

I don’t think all truth is equal. It is true that every life is sacred and to be valued not for its circumstance, but for its existence. It is also true that I am wearing a t-shirt today. The first truth is not scientifically attainable, but the second is. However, the scientific truth, while eradicating the error that I always wear button-down shirts during the week, has little import. The important truths of life are relational, experiential, and spiritual – all untouchable by science. Scientific analysis, when it is made the gold-standard of truth – leads to a world where the greatest things are physical. My argument is that when this scientific approach was appropriated by Christians and applied to the scriptures, the unimportant became important and Christianity was distorted.

Reconciliation is Bigger Than We Think!
That's the conclusion I came to through our discussion last night. We were following Bill Collin's suggestions about Christian community by looking at Col. 1:15-20. A careful examination of the the supremacy of Christ as described in that passage includes his reign over the heavenlies and the reconciliation of those realms to God. It seems that reconciling humans back to their Creator is only part of the picture, because the entire created world participates in that reconciliation as well as the heavenly realms - which in Paul's cosmology includes the principalities and powers of evil that exist there - what else in the heavenlies needs reconciliation to God? Is it really an surprise that God's reconciliation of His human enemies by the cross would also include a reconciliation of spiritual forces of evil by that same cross? Can it really be that big?

Then we started talking about 2 Cor. 5:16ff and our new creature-ness and how that changes our view of everyone (not just simply fellow-believers)! Here's the missional theology of the Kingdom that is all inclusive - because we start seeing the reconciliation that God has wrought and inviting everyone to discover that reality! Indeed, Jesus is the Savior of all men (1 Timothy 4:10) and we see everyone as the recipient of grace - even if they don't know it!

Sometimes we don't know where we are going . . . but the Holy Spirit does! That's what I felt about last night's discussion. I had no idea where we were going until we got into it - but what vistas of grace and God's Kingdom!

Today I was working on planning an order of worship . . . and trying to find some songs to fit with the idea of the incarnation. I know the obvious ones are Christmas songs, but I really don't want the nativity as much as the whole life of Jesus.

Anyway there was a section in the book of baptismal songs where the opening medley was "My Gift of Myself Medley." I think that sounds much too nice. It's as if I'm giving God something - namely me. It should be the "I'm Returning Stolen Property Medley."

Living in a Christian community without a hierarchy creates all sorts of new experiences. The skeptical keep looking for the "hidden" power structures . . . because, after all, you can't simply be serving each other out of love! They want to "sniff" out the power trail to see where it leads.

Still, however imperfectly it is practiced, we are enjoying a communal relationship that is devoid of clear lines of command and control. That presents an interesting question . . . who do you ask for permission? Since there is no one in particular, individually we end up voluntarily consulting with others on actions we are thinking of taking. "What do you think?" we ask someone we think is wise. Out of respect we try and speak to those who might be affected in some way or who may be doing something similar. If I do this will that affect you? When there is no designated person to ask, you just ask somebody. It's really not about getting permission anyway. It's always good to do good . . . and you don't need me to approve it. Just let love and humility lead you to seek counsel and the good of others.

Our community has been enriched by the presence of Bill Collins, a thoughtful and reflective Christian whose faith walk is formally in the Roman Catholic tradition. What do I mean by formally? Well . . . he wants his liturgical experience to be in the historic Catholic tradition, but he is not sectarian and is willing to hob-nob with protestants. Actually, I told him last night that I'm not a protestant - that is, I'm not protesting the Catholic Church. It is obvious to us all that we share in the fellowship of the one Spirit . . . which in our scriptural glimpses into the life of the early church was the way they determined fellowship.

Anyway, Bill keeps talking about how the interpersonal closeness of our community and intimacy is so different from the formality of his Catholic Church community. And while Bill keeps saying how odd it is for him to speak personally and intimately outside the confessional, he does so quite readily . . . opening up himself and his heart to us in teaching and discussion. For something he claims is so unusual for him to experience in a faith community, it is what God has brought him to offer readily.

Truly God is maturing us to a broken humilty which is self-aware in terms of our sin and transparent interpersonally. Those love-discussions which we enjoy in which our inner selves are revealled are healing experiences. May God continue to make the love of the cross our defining characteristic.

Last night in our Tues. night group (really a therapy session for screw-ups under the pastoral care of the Holy Spirit) we got to talking about being obsessive-compulsive. Actually, all night no one used that term, but that was in essence what we were discussing. Our observation was that w all tend to over-do something, some leisure activity, work, pleasure, food, or something. We do not use things redemptively. Our thinking went something like this:

1. We are all prone to obsessing over something in a desperate search for meaning and fulfillment.

2. In this way we corrupt leisure activities, relationships, and the physical world.

3. Abstinence from anything we obsess over (should we say "abscess" over?) may be a temporary remedy but learning moderation is a better long-term goal.

Today as I look back on that discussion I realize that moderation as a human balancing act is doomed to failure. Discovering the peace of God, and therefore the presence of God in that thing over which we are obsessing, leads to a moderation because we are at rest in God. Too often our attempts at moderation are stoic. Then we simply obsess over moderation.

More sin no matter how deep we go! Oh we are broken people! Only our faith in the love of God will bring a peace that finally gets us out of our rut.

Okay. . . here I enter the current discussion of the upcoming election (hopefully from a perspective of faith above every other conviction).

I like the positions Bush espouses on some moral issues more than Kerry, but I really doubt that Bush will actually do anything substantive about those issues. I know Kerry won't do anything.

I don't like the harsh, angry, judgmental attitude that conservatives often seem to have about the moral issues. Conservatives always seem to win on the "being ugly" scale over morally lax liberals. The liberals seem more condescending than spiteful . . . but is that any better? Can't one be right without being condemning or dismissive?

I don't like the way Bush seems to have sold out to big business and the wealthy, but I don't know if Kerry's concern for the middle class and marginalized will be expressed in truly helpful ways.

Bush's simple view of the world scares me. He does not seem to appreciate the complexity of issues . . . for him everything is clear-cut, black and white. He's always right and can admit no wrong. Because some good has been accomplished in Iraq, all the wrongness of how we got there is justified. Why don't we free all the other oppressed people of the world by invading their countries? Much of the world is afraid that America might decide they are wrong and invade to fix things.

Kerry seems to appreciate the complexity of things but I don't trust the basis on which he would choose to address the world's complexity. What good is it to truly understand the many issues and ramifications, and consider them all in the course of making a decision, if the decision is not an expressing God's nature? But now I'm expecting more from a worldly government than is possible.

It seems that much of the campaigning on both sides knowingly misrepresents statements and positions of the other party/candidate in an effort to score political points by instilling fear. There seems to be little generosity, good-will, grace or mercy displayed.

Bottom line - this thoroughly un-Christian system of government which is predicated on competition and conquest (the idea being that two parties fighting against each other in order to win produces good government is like thinking war produces peace) displays all the weaknesses one would expect with something so un-Christlike at the core. A Christlike core would be love, grace, mercy, hope, peace, and joy in a cooperative atmosphere - but it would never succeed in governing sinful people. A government of grace would only succeed in governing people of grace. Capitalism works because it is based on greed. You can always count on sin. An economic system based on loving your neighbor would never work - unless all the people were filled with the Holy Spirit. It is the same with government systems.

For me, I am as disappointed in my choices as I should expect to be - given that this is the world and I am a citizen of God's Kingdom. I have hope . . . but it's not in either Bush or Kerry.

Expert to Experiment
The earth is moving under the foundation of old concepts of leadership as the modern model of expertise is replaced by a new definition of authenticity. The postmodern world, the way things are and are becoming - whatever you want to call it - does not put confidence in credentials and those claiming to have the answers, but in those with whom we can join in the process of asking questions.

The call for those who would suppose to lead is to be willing to be vulnerable enough to work out their own salvation in the presence of others. Of course, the temptation of pride is to try and work it out in private, away from prying eyes, and only display that which is presentable. And so the myth of neat and tidy spiritual processes is perpetuated by those who show only end products rather than the hesitancy, confusion, doubt, and tentativeness that is truly the nature of experiencing any transformation spiritually. The myth discourages those honest enough to admit their own struggles, but who are intimidated by the apparent certainty expert leaders.

A Christian community is a group that is willing to be open enough about the journey to honestly discuss the reality of the messiness of faith as it is worked out in the presence of God. May we be bold enough to work it out in the presence of others that everyone may be blessed.

Freedom from Self
While writing a recent piece I made the statement that we have "the freedom to not be limited by what we enjoy" - which surprised me when I wrote it. It may sound weird, but I saw more meaning and truth in the statement than I had intended. It was as if the Spirit was speaking to me through words I had written, but which maybe shouldn't be called my own.

Being a slave to pleasure is a stifling existence spiritually. If we are confined to what is enjoyable, our souls will wither. Though most people would desire freedom from hardship and toward pleasure, as disciples of Jesus we value freedom from the curse of knowing only pleasure so that we may grow into the image of Christ. When I am loosed from my addiction to personal pleasure, I will be free indeed.

Responding to Persecution
Continuing my thoughts from the last blog . . . I remember my Church History professor talking about the two ways the pre-Constantinian church responded to persecution: Apologetics and Martyrdom. That seems to be the apostolic approach as well. Certainly Paul engages in apologetics as he explains himself to Roman officials. And the martyrdom . . . well, that's something that scares us.

Compare the apostolic response to the response of many Christians today. There is little true apologetic given, certainly no martyrdom, but lots of campaigning, legislative wrangling, calling for our rights, and claiming that America is a Christian nation so Christianity should be the officially sanctioned religion.

Unless Christians learn how to be aliens in America, travelers who are looking for a city whose Builder and Maker is God, their cultural faith and civil religion will continue to become more and more impotent in the marketplace of ideas.

God's People and Persecution
To suggest that American Christians are undergoing persecution would be to insult the believers around the world who know what suffering really is. I don't intend to render the word meaningless by suggesting that the American Church in being moved out of a position of governmental favor and privilege is experiencing honest-to-goodness persecution. Those accustomed to a position of dominance usually whine when forced onto a level playing field in a pluralistic philosophical environment - but that hardly qualifies as persecution. The more American Christians wail about their treatment with extremist language, the more others will be convinced that evangelical and conservative Christianity is a threat to society.

Having experienced Christendom so long some have come to believe it is the believer's birthright. Not only is it a questionable understanding of God's Kingdom, Christendom has been shown to be a poor environment to spiritual nurture.

In the midst of cultural change where Christian faith is being counted as one among the many, it would serve believers well to look at the historical response to real persecution. Maybe in that we will find a direction for reacting to the very mild situation where I am not banned from praying to God, but only from coercing others to pray to God.

More to come . . .

Neither Jew nor Greek
I think we made a big mistake when we first talked about having a ministry to Hispanics. I think it was a very honest and sincere mistake, but an error nonetheless. One of our desires was to reach out to the people in our community with love and service. That was good. We wanted to be intentionally diverse. That was good. There was an individual who had a vision for serving the Hispanic population and had the skills to do it. That was good.

The problem was that whenever we talk about having a ministry to a certain group we start thinking in a 'them' and 'us' mentality. We (the Christians in this faith community) will serve them (a distinct group not part of our community). I am not fussing over the language of describing realities. The Hispanics we were wanting to serve were not sharing life with us, and our goal was not to 'convert' them to our group. But it is almost a condescending position that we assume when we target a group in that way, though all very unintentionally.

Even though the goal was to serve and not get them to join our group, it would have almost been impossible for them to become full participants in our faith community had they wanted to do that. It would have been more like they would have always been labeled as those to whom we minister. Maybe I'm not expressing this distinction very well, but I think there is something real here.

By God's working our faith community has become more diverse, but that has been because God has brought African families into this body of believers to share in both giving and receiving. If we had a ministry to Africans I think we would be putting them at a lesser place. Instead, God has shown us how we don't have a ministry to certain groups, which presupposes they will be mainly receivers, but God has expanded our community to include more believers, who though having different perspectives and experiences than some of us, stand equal with us in ministering to one another. The differences are obvious culturally, in experience, and even the articulation of our faith, but God is showing us how to be neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female . . . as God intends. We have not put these individuals into a mental category of those to whom we minister, and so we have been blessed as they minister to the rest of the congregation in teaching, leadership, and service. I believe God is teaching us how to live as the Kingdom of God in which all peoples serve one another without worldly distinctions. Praise God!

Regular visitors to this blog will see the new format. I like it . . . but I hope to play around with it more and add more graphics.

Some little add-ons I had on the old blog were lost when I chose this new template (you didn't think I did this on my own, did you?). I lost the old add-on comments, so those gems that some of you wrote are gone. I didn't know that was going to happen! Honestly, I didn't! It wasn't that I couldn't stand the competition . . . that your comments might be more insightful than my blogging! Really! Anyway, I like the new comments format better.

I also lost the stats generator. Maybe you never noticed it, but there was a link called Go Stats or something like that down at the bottom of the page. You know what I could do . . . and what I did do all the time . . . was to click on it and find out how many "hits" my blog was receiving, what days people were visiting my blog, where I ranked among the "Culture and Relationships" blogs on Blogger (somewhere usually around 270) and a bunch of other stats. When I visited my blog to see if there were any comments, there was that little tyrannical stats generator tempting me to check the usefulness of my blogging existence. The little beast became an ego-meter. Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit . . . my existential angst wasn't that tied to the stats add-on . . . maybe the stats record is simply a good proxy for a bigger temptation.

Anyway, I've chosen not to have a statistical record anymore. What does it matter? Modernity lies deeply ingrained in my being and its penchant for measuring everything by numbers is a habit I don't want to foster. It's an addiction I've been fighting since going to Africa. I don't freakin' care anymore . . . well, honestly I do. I want to know how many people are visiting my blog. I want to be validated! I want to know someone is reading this! But I don't want to want to anymore.

The way I'm going to try and kill that little modern monster is to deprive it of nourishment. It's been on a bread and water diet for years, but still managing to stay alive. To break myself of a lingering numbers fetish I'll get rid of little counters like that one. But, of course, you know what the second question is after "So, where do you go to church?" - "How many members do you have?". And if someone already knows the answer to the first question, then question number two moves up to number one . . . even if they asked me that three months ago. If it is about numbers, why are we still worshipping one God?

When I published my last blog I got a pop-up offering me a free Dell laptop computer! How apropos!

Usually I don't pay much attention to "pop-ups" or other ads when I'm surfing the net, but one just caught my attention (while checking out my own blog). It was a banner that promised a free* copy of Halo 2, the limited collector's edition. Okay, I confess that I'm a gamer and think that Halo is about the best game ever produced - and I am counting down to November 9 when Halo 2 is released. So that was an enticing ad.

When I clicked on the banner I got a "pop-up" ad that promised a free* Halo 2 with free shipping*. You know what I kept seeing - those little asterisks. It was always free with a catch. At that point my well-entrenched skepticism took over and I didn't click on the pop-up because I knew I would have to do something like apply for a new credit card, refinance my home, or sell a child to get the "free" game. Either that, or I was going to have to buy the game and get the collector's edition upgrade for free. It really wasn't going to be free, but the ad didn't want to tell me on the front end what the real story was.

Too often God's grace has been presented as free* (with that ubiquitous asterisk). Investigation usually reveals that what the preacher meant was that the offer was freely given but the actions needed to qualify for God's free offer are extensive and meticulous. So stringent are the requirements that one begins to wonder what the meaning of "free" is. The nuanced small print is that one does not work to earn salvation but one must work to receive and keep salvation. God's grace and forgiveness is free to those who meet the qualifications. But it is free.

What rubbish! God doesn't have an asterisk by His free offer of eternal life through Jesus. Whatever one might construe as "requirements" God Himself supplies - be it faith, repentance, confession, humility, submission, or anything else. And as those who have received freely we become giveaway communities who share in God's generosity by extending it to others. The abundance of grace creates a celebratory atmosphere that is irresistible. The Gospel becomes Good News (as it should be) and life in Christ becomes joyous. Kingdom parties become common, and the invitations are thrown around with abandon. Come one and all to feast in the palace of our God!

I saw a billboard along the highway today - "You Must Be Born Again - Jesus Christ". My instant reaction was that the Gospel doesn't fare too well when put on billboards. I was also asked a few days ago to summarize our faith community's essence in a succinct phrase, one that would fit on a t-shirt. I was stumped. Ask me to take an hour and talk, but not 10 seconds. Do I talk about God's dramatic and gracious rescue of us as miserable sinners? Do I talk about how our day-to-day emphasis is to seek the transformation that God does in changing us into the image of Christ? Do I mention that our identity is in a communal relationship with the Triune God rather than assent to any doctrinal formulations? What do I say about what God is doing, how we seek His leading, and our emphasis on "roaming about the Kingdom"? The possibilities are many and varied.

Now I know that having a mission statement or slogan is considered essential to having an identity, but all the ones I've heard are virtually the same even though the churches that create them are radically different. It seems to me that the slogans, then, are not very representative. No church says "we are here to make you feel good" or "it's all about appearances". No, the churches for whom those statements are true are going to say something like everyone else - "where we love God and people so they grow to love Jesus and their neighbors in doing good." Or maybe it's "We Worship a Worthy God who Works by His Spirit to Win the World." That is a church that likes w's.

I think the problem is reductionism - both with the billboards and the mission statements. If you want to know what the community is about, live with us for a while. Let me talk to you. But I can't give you that picture in any meaningful way in 15 words or less. My family doesn't have a mission statement, and don't ask me to summarize my relationship with my wife and children on a t-shirt. My relationship with God and my spiritual brothers and sisters doesn't fit on one either.

I do believe that despite what any mission statement says, if you live with a group for even a short time, you will discover what they are about.

And the Gospel . . . it's much more than "you must be born again."

In Matthew 21 two questions are asked - one of Jesus by the religious leaders, and the other of those leaders by Jesus. The leaders' question is about "authority". They want to know the nature of the authority that is behind what Jesus is teaching and doing. Jesus asks a question about the motivations of a person's heart that lie behind one's actions.

To me this exchange exemplifies the differences between the ways of God and the ways of humanity. The same tension arises constantly in Christian churches as human legalistic views fight against the work God is doing. When it comes to actions the human concern is about the authority and correctness of them, and God's concern is for the motivations of the heart that gave rise to the actions. While the religious leaders examine the legality of things, Jesus talks about faithfulness in the heart of people who are moved to repentance.

Jesus and these religious leaders are like ships passing in the night - headed in opposite directions and talking about completely different matters. Those who talk about authority will never understand the One who came to be servant of all. In the Christian world we need less talk about who has authority and more about what is in our hearts.

We've been talking about baptism in our community. One thing which has become exceedingly clear to me is that baptism is to be a unifying experience (1 Cor. 12:12-13) both bringing people to God and to a communal oneness with each other through the Spirit. Tragically, that has not been the case in the Christian world. Baptism has been a cause for much division and the non-acceptance of other believers. Something has gone wrong.

My own thoughts concerning the root of the problem is that we Christians tend to think that the one baptism of Ephesians 4 is defined by human understandings of the rite and human ways of practicing it. We believe that the one baptism is a doctrine that must be comprehended instead of a mystery that is God's grace in us. The one baptism must be that God performs one work in all - even when our understandings and practices differ. We are bound together by a common work administered by God. This is something we must accept by faith, even as we acknowledge that our thoughts and convictions regarding the rite differ.

So last Sunday we talked about Brother Lawrence and the notion of Practicing the Presence of God. Actually, we had several meditative quotes from the lay brother, and we were encouraged to stay more conscious of God . . . and to adore and love Him constantly. Want to know how I've been doing? Well it's Wednesday, and really no better than the week before. I can't say that I've been particularly more aware of God or increasingly focused on the imminence of the divine in my life and around me.

Does that mean Sunday was a waste? No . . . because if I take a much longer view of where I am and where I have been, I would say that I am more conscious of God now than I was several years ago. But then again, last Sunday wasn't the first time I had been introduced to the practice of God's presence. Sunday was another nudge in the direction God's been leading me for a long time. Often the spiritual results aren't instantly apparent, though on rare occasions we humans are treated to an epiphany that does create dramatic change. We get more nudges than we do epiphanies.

Here I sit thinking about how I need to be more aware of God. Last week I wasn't thinking about this on Wednesday (at least I can't remember thinking this) . . . so last Sunday's meditation is having an effect.

"Judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes" (1 Corinthians 4:5)

A long time ago I came to understand that pride is the root of our spiral into deepening separation from God. Satan's pride resulted in his fall, and serves as a warning for us. If pride has a child, it must be selfishness - and an awful child it is. How do we mentor those who are so consumed with themselves that all they can think about is their personal circumstances, how they can get what they want, or what is going on with them? How do we encourage dying to ourselves and destroy that devastating tendency to make "me" the center of everything?

One solution seems to be in a discipline of helping others (getting out of exclusive self interest) - but selfish people won't do that. "Sorry, I'm too busy with myself to practice that . . ." Even if the discipline is presented as a way for they themselves to be helped, the spirit of selfishness has too tight a grip. My experience is that all my attempts seem to fail. Selfishness continues to cause those caught up in it to destroy themselves. I can't break that hold in someone else no matter how I try.

Humbled by the power of sin, and have to turn back to faith in God. If the spirit of selfishness will be driven out it will be through the Spirit of God. May God do the work that I cannot do in myself nor in others. Sola Dei!

I just got back from a two-week trip to Honduras (June 3-18). As you might imagine, the experience was rich with God's presence. There is little that can equal spending a couple weeks just doing good for others. There were no distractions and since our basic needs were provided for by workers at the place we were staying, we could devote ourselves to simply serving the Hondurans. Every Christian finds such a trip appealing because it is an intense participation in the discipline of good works.

As much as we might like to live this way always, it is not possible. When I got home there was the grass to mow, errands to be run, and work (the kind that is the source of my paycheck) to be done. Though markedly different, this too is the will of God. The truth to be recognized is that the presence of God which we sense so clearly in concentrated service like through this Honduras trip, is equally available in our ordinary daily existence. Tasting God's goodness in a special circumstance should help us find Him in more typical activities.

May our experiences of holy presence in the ordinary things increase.

What do we make of the changes in our world? There is plenty to be in despair about - economic woes, moral issues, war in our world, and all the questions that these are raising. When watching these matters unfold it seems that the participants in the debate have a desire to win at all costs rather than to engage in meaningful dialogue and a search for truth. There is an intellectual tribalization occurring and a genocidal warfare being waged against opposing viewpoints. Whether is it gay marriage, Iraq, or some other subject, so much of the rhetoric on all sides is a "take no prisoners" approach to winning against the "enemy" (those with whom we share in human society, our neighbors, who think differently). That does not bode well for a culture.

However, what is God doing in the middle of all this . . . if we indeed believe that God is still acting in the human story? One stark lesson is that we should have no hope in this world. We are only in despair if we expected this world to offer anything lasting. If we are distressed over economic woes, were we depending on economic vibrancy for our happiness? If we are disillusioned by evidence of moral weakness, is it a sign that we believed too much in the evolutionary progress of fallen human society? Does world instability and terrorism reveal that we sought a peace offered by military power and political alliances?

My personal anxiety about any of these current problems reminds me that I have not found rest and peace in Christ alone. May God lead me to unrivaled security in His love.

As we seek to participate in our life in God, one given by grace and lived through grace, we often hear a debate surface about the emotional and rational aspects of that life. Many times the discussion devolves into a competition between proponents of one or the other of these eminently human expressions of being. On one hand, some seem to associate the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit with our emotions, while other see emotions as the greatest of pitfalls, and advocate a rational approach.

Let me suggest that the debate is not between these two aspects of human personhood, but between man and God. Those who would put their trust in rationality seem to miss the declaration of God that human understanding is corrupt - they are darkened in their understanding (Eph. 4:18) and their thinking became futile (Rom. 1:21) - just to point out two passages. Those who fail to recognize that every feeling is not from God, also fail to discern adequately that fundamental sins such as pride have hefty emotional components. With so many sins being emotive in nature, no wonder rational solutions meet with failure. Knowing the right one should do is little defense against a desire to do wrong.

I believe that the true situation is that both human emotion and rational thought are corrupted and untrustworthy. The debate is not between either being emotionally centered or intellectually guided - but being human centered or divinely guided. Both human emotion and rationality are redeemable and both may be used by God to guide. We must be aware not of the dangers of either one, but of both. We must seek how God leads and guides through both. Being confident in either feelings or thoughts is flawed, but trusting in God and Him through both is a journey to being transformed.

A truly formative part of my spiritual journey has been the eight years I spent in Tanzania, East Africa. The formation came in many different ways, but one of the greatest blessings was to see the spirituality of a non-secularized people who put their faith in Jesus. I say "non-secularized" because the Africans I was blessed to know had not adopted a western worldview that elevated human capability and relegated the spiritual to the realm of superstition. Once someone asked me if those Tanzanians believed the spiritual was just as "real" as the physical - but that question betrays our bias. In my response I avoided the whole question of "real" and using the physical as the standard, but stated that they related equally to both what is seen and unseen without thinking in terms of what is "real" and what is not. For those Africans everything is a seamless whole. For this reason, there is a robustness to their faith that shows the weakness of the faith of a thoroughly modern person whose belief is formed within the boundaries of modernity's parameters.

This last Sunday I was truly blessed to help welcome a new family that last week moved here from Africa. In spending time with them and seeing and hearing their powerful faith in God expressed in everything, I was reminded again why I learned so much from those Tanzanians. I might have gone as a missionary to share with them the Good News, but they accepted and believed it in a way surpassed my own belief.

Our African friends here have come as missionaries whose mission is to be a part of a mobilization effort. They are here to earn money to send back to support Kingdom work in Africa. As one said, God provides us three meals a day and the rest is Kingdom work.

Praise God that we have some missionaries among us whose sense of calling will undoubtedly challenge us all. God may have sent them for another reason as well - to feed a revival among American churches which have become too comfortable!

Well, my long absence from this blog has ended. It is amazing to me that it has been a month already.

The reason for the sabbatical was that our faith community moved to a new leased facility. It has been a good time of seeing God provide - the renovation of the building that took only two weeks with everything happening ahead of schedule (whoever heard of that!) and new opportunities for ministry becoming evident. The other aspect that I've thought about through this month is the need to keep our focus on God.

Probably the biggest temptation during this time is letting blessings move us away from God. We could easily become exactly what we resolved not to become - that is, a church focused on itself. Maybe it is just a sign of our sinful nature that we can so quickly be distracted even when God's hand is so evident. The reassuring thought is that since God Himself is moving us into this new period in the life of this church, then we know that that there is a purpose which will be realized by Divine Grace. Our faithfulness to the directing of God and openness to unexpected possibilities must be our congregational lingua franca. When God moves, there are tremendous possibilities both for faithfulness and apostacy. May we humbly choose the former and avoid the pride that would feed the latter.