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 The last time we experienced war up close was 1865 - and maybe the horror of that experience has been replaced by the myth that the second world war brought peace.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!