Taylor and Zambia

I wanted to share some more pictures from our recent Zambia trip. So below you will find some pics that are significant to me. You will quickly see the common theme - they all have Taylor, my son, in them.

One of the most meaningful events of this trip was that my son was able to go with me. He did a great job. I am very proud of him! By the way, he is the one with the long frizzy hair - I told him to get it cut.......

Taylor, Nick and Memory

Taylor and the Sunday School Class

Taylor Trying Shema in Zambia - Yum, Yum

Zambia

Another trip to Zambia.... this year was even better than last year's trip. I think it was because I knew the ropes a little better. But even more certainly, it was because I knew the people in Zambia better. It was great seeing some of the Bible College students from last year, and seeing pastors from last year's visit. Here are some pictures of my heroes from Zambia - young men and women who are answering the call to serve the church, with very little financial compensation, but with heart and passion.

Pastoral students at Pilgrim Wesleyan Bible College - Zambia

Pastor Geoffrey and Wife - Zambia

Pastor Benjamin -Zambia

WillowCreek Leadership Summit

I attended the Willow Leadership Summit a few weeks ago. I need to be honest. I have always kind of avoided the Willow Leadership Conference. I am not certain why. I think it is because I have the nagging suspicion that most Christian leadership books and conferences nowadays understand leadership principles as being neutral, something that we can learn from business, corporate CEO's, and heads of state - because leadership is leadership. I think we need to think critically through that issue. Is there a really not ANYTHING different about being a Christan leader?

However, by the way, I really enjoyed myself at the Willow Conference. While I did see some things that I would like to think through more thoroughly - I did sense the Lord doing some really cool stuff there. The speakers, by and large, were thoughtful and inspiring. I learned a great deal.

I want to end with this comment. I noticed that many of the speakers, and much of the emphasis this year (I don't know about years past - because I wasn't there) was on huge issues such as poverty, AIDS, missions, and even (dare I say it) - peacemaking. Wow! Way to go Willow. Times are a changin'.

Here is my final puzzler. I noticed that when Jimmy Carter was introduced to talk about his work for peace, justice, and poverty - that Bill Hybels had to spend about 10 minutes explaining to the crowd why he was there!!! Why was that? Was it because he is a Democrat? Was it because he was an unpopular president? Was it because he has taken an unpopular position regarding the Israeli/Palestinian crisis? Why did Bill have to explain so feverishly why Carter (who is working tirelessly for peace and is a major spokesperson for Habitat for Humanity) was invited to join our little conference.

I noticed that Bill Hybels explained very little of why a Harvard (agnostic) professor was addressing us - or a filmmaker (seeker). But he had to explain profusely to our evangelical crowd why Jimmy Carter deserved to be listened to....why is that. Please tell me ... why is that?

Must Have Been on Vacation

After about a two month hiatus from blogging, I am now considering getting started again. Over the last two months I have visited Istanbul, Turkey; attended the Wesleyan Doctinal Symposium, and taken a 8 day vacation trip to Florida. It seems like a lot to post about, but so little time I am afraid.

By now, I am sure that most people tuned in regularly to my blog have grown tired of waiting for a new post as well. The question is: is anybody still out there? And what shall we post about next? Any suggestions?

Why Post-Modernism is Good for the Church

The title of this post was the title of a seminar that I recently attended at Northern Seminary near Chicago. I thought I would break from my previous topic (The case for non-violence), and write a few notes on the seminar. The seminar was led by David Fitch, author of "The Great Giveway" and professor at Northern.

Let me just make a few observations. First, post-modernism is a terribly broad idea, and there is no cut-and-dried consensus on what the movement is all about. Consequently, the range of opinion between Christian theologians runs from enthusiastic embrace, to mild tolerance, to outright charges of heresy. That is part of what makes studying the movement and its followers in the church so entertaining - you know there will always be a spirited debate!

The second observation is that I was amazed at how little many pastors know about the movement. Even those in attendance at the seminar were not very well prepared for the discussion.

So - in a nutshell - here is why David Fitch says that postmodernism is good for the church. Postmodernity allows for a critique of the way modernism has captured the church. In essence it frees the church to be the church. We are free from the attractional model of church - producing goods and services for people shopping for services - to embrace a missional paradigm - that we are participating in the mission of God. It frees us from the mega-church mania - and allows us to embrace more organic movements. It frees us from apologetics based on scientific evidence - to embrace hospitality as the way to touch the world.

Here is an illustration David used to outline some of the changes from modern church to the post-modern church.

Gone (Modern)

Must be relevant

Coercive arguments

Consumerism

New and improved

Here (Postmodern)

Compelling ways of living

Hospitality

Deep spiritual formation

Oganic community and ancient traditions

Love to hear some comments. What is your take on the post-modern movement? Why do you like or not like about what you have heard? Will it allow the church to be more like the church, or is it a fad that will soon wither away like other movements?

Peace in the Hebrew Bible

I want to continue my line of thought that I have been on for a few more posts. In my last post, I described a way of reading Scripture so that the conquest narratives of the Old Testament do not have the last word on violence. Let me fill out this picture on the Hebrew Bible before I go on to Jesus - and show that peace is a major theme in the Old Testament. Some may be shocked by that statement - so here goes.

We must start with Genesis - particularly with the creation account in Chapter 1. Notice that God speaks the world into existence without violence. He simply speaks and an ordered creation comes into being. We sometimes overlook this. There were other creation stories in antiquity. The Enuma Elish is a early Babylonian creation story - its story tells us how human life came about. In the story, the Gods war for supremacy. In the midst of the slaughter of one another Marduk rises to power and decides to create the earth and humans out of the blood of one of the other executed Gods. Thus, this ancient story sees the beginning of the world and human life being born in violence. Violence is the norm of human existence. But as I said, this is not so for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He simply speaks and brings about a peaceful garden where man and woman, created in his image, are to dwell in shalom.This vision of peaceful existence with God and with one another is set as the backdrop for the biblical story. Even though humankind finds living in peace difficult - it is the state of which God's redemption draws us.

This vision of peace is picked up again by the prophet Isaiah.

Isaiah 2:2-4
It shall come to pass in the latter days
that the mountain of the house of Yahweh
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
and shall be raised above the hills;
and all nations shall flow to it,
and many peoples shall come, and say:
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of Yahweh,
to the house of the God of Jacob;
that God my teach us His ways
and that we may walk in His paths"
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
and shall decide for many peoples;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more.

That is a vision of where God's spirit is leading us. The prophets of old were leaning into this vision of redemption, righteousness, and peace. As I said in the beginning, the horizon of the Old Testament is one of God bringing us back to peace - His original intention. And amazingly, breaking in the dawn of Jesus' birth is the announcement of the angels - "...peace on earth...(Luke 2:14) In the next post I will note how the message of peace is lived and proclaimed by Jesus.

Tip-Toeing Through the Conquest Narratives

One of the major stumbling blocks of a "peaceful reading" of Scripture is "what do you do with the conquest narratives" in the Hebrew Scriptures. Joshua was told to take the land - and the Israelites violently took control over the land promised to them. How can we make sense of this?

I begin by admitting that this is not an easy topic. But first, we must realize that much of the Western tradition of Christianity has used the Hebrew Scriptures as the theoretical backdrop for a Christian nation. The concept of "just war" is conceptually tied the Scriptures where "God's people" are to fight in order to establish a righteous nation. These injunctions in the Hebrew Scriptures are then believed to carry over to the necessity of fighting evil and establishing God's rule.

The pacifist seems hemmed in at this point. One can deny that God really told the Israelites to fight, but this seems to violate what Scripture tells us. Or one can give in and agree that God used violence to establish the kingdom of Israel ....but are these the only options?

Let me suggest a different way of reading these Scriptures, a nuanced way that makes all the difference in the world. One hermeneutical turn can change the way the conquest narratives are read. And it is a simple suggestion, but makes a huge difference.

Here it is - one major reading strategy that may change your view. READ THE BIBLE AS A NARRATIVE STORY. Read the Bible as the story of God's redemption unfolding first through Abraham, Moses, and the people of Israel, but then moving forward to Christ. The story changes, God reveals himself more and more, and the plot is advanced toward the centerpiece of Christ. Read the Bible christologically, with Christ as the center, the fullest expression of God's will. When you read this way - you can see that God may have used violence in the conquest of Canaan in order to establish his people, but the story develops more fully in the incarnation of Christ.

We do this all the time in other areas. Why don't we as Gentiles eat kosher? Because we believe that Christ advanced the story to include Gentiles without them having to eat like Israel. Why don't we practice circumcision as a sacrament in the church? Because we believe Christ advanced the story so that Gentiles do not have to practice circumcision as a mark of their belief. If we read this way in most other areas - why do we insist that the Hebrew Scriptures are the last word that God speaks about violence. Why don't we take seriously Jesus own words about "loving our enemies". And when Jesus could have "called ten-thousand angels" to rescue him from the powers of the world, he instead refused to come down from the cross.

I believe Jesus now sets the example of interaction with the world. Instead of violently taking control of the world, Jesus shows what suffering looks like. Again, not passivity - he suffered because he stood up to the powers of the world - knowing that the cross is the world's answer for those that dare unmask the hidden structures of the world.

There it is - that is my answer so far. It may not satisfy everyone, but I believe that it is a sensible answer that makes a big difference. I believe taking Jesus seriously will change the way that we read the conquests of Canaan.

Pacifism: What is in a name?

Let me start with a short post about the name "pacifism". I like the term because people associate it with a tradition of peace. But I don't like the term because most people misunderstand it. What comes in mind when people here the word pacifism?......passive!

Actually, the root word for pacifism is the Latin word, "pacis" which means "peace". There is really nothing in the word that connotes passivity. But what about Jesus words in Matthew 5:39 where he says, "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person...". Some pacifists have taken and still take this verse quite literally - that we should not stand in the way of evil. But the Greek word translated as do not "resist" is a strong word that is used in other contexts as violent warmaking. So the verse really means don't use violence as a tool against violence. It does not preclude standing up in other ways!

I love how Ted Grimsrud describes this in his article in the book, "Transforming the Powers". Grimsrud says:

"As a Christian, I argue for a different, biblically oriented understanding for peace - "shalom". I see peace as a holistic concept best understood in relation to a constellation of concepts such as the well-being, wholeness, and health of the entire community on all levels. We may think of respect and harmony in relationships among human beings and between human beings and the rest of creation. Pacifism, then, is a positive concept, reflecting a vision for how life can and should be. For pacifism, nothing is as important as love, kindness, restorative justice, and healthy relationships with all of creation. "

Pacifism then, is a positive concept that means "working and standing for peace without using the world's violent means of bringing about peace". Jesus himself was not passive, yet stood against the structures of the day that kept people oppressed. Ultimately, Christian pacifism stands on this example of Jesus - standing strong with the oppressed and testifying of a new way to live. But more about that in another post.

Pacifism: A New Frame of Mind

I have had several people ask me recently about some of the theological changes in my life. I have had several changes in my 20+ years of ministry and study. Some might regard my changes as theological mood swings, not to be trusted. I would hope others see my shifts as attempts to think through my faith, not as reactionary whims, but as honest, soul-searching inquiry to know the heart of God better.

One of the most abrupt changes in the last few years has been my support of a pacifist way of life. I say "abrupt" only in the sense that it seemed not to be on the radar screen and then all of a sudden it was there. But that is not really the case. I have been reading and studying a particularly vexing problem for several years: religion and violence. Why does it seem that "love of God" seems to have created a lot of hatred of neighbor over the centuries? But a bigger question yet, "What should a follower of Jesus think about violence"?

I hope to spend the next several blogs trying to decipher my own thoughts on these issues. As the title of this blog already states - I have tipped my hand that I am now in the pacifist camp. Even as I say it, I know that is makes little sense to some people. Here are some of the questions that will come to mind:

1. What about the Old Testament - didn't God order Israel to make war?
2. What about Hitler? How would you have responded to that crisis?
3. What if everyone was pacifist? The US would surely be take over by others if everyone thought like me.
4. What about Jesus - was he really a pacifist?
5. Isn't pacifism just another way of saying - "chicken"? You let others die for your country, while you enjoy the benefits. Isn't pacifism cowardice?
6. Isn't pacifism unrealistic? There are bad guys out there wanting to do us harm, how are we to respond?

These are some of the questions that I will be attempting to work through over the next few weeks. Wish me luck - this is an attempt to think out loud - usually a dangerous thing.

Iraqi War Defined by November 19,2005

The "60 Minutes" episode that aired Sunday, March 18 gave me that sinking feeling in my stomach that speaks of anger, sadness, confusion - all rolled together. I have tried to be virtually silent on my blog about the war, mainly because I know of so many wonderful people whose sons and daughters are in Iraq. I pray for them constantly. However, the "60 minutes" interview from last night sent me over the edge. They interviewed Marine Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterick, who was in charge of the group of Marines at Haditha.

Let me refresh your memory. On November 19, 2005 as a small Marine convoy rolled through the streets of Haditha, an explosive device demolished one of the humvees. The Marine driver was killed immediately and others in the vehicle were wounded. Here is the story (as best we can tell) that happened next.

A white car with 4 Iraqi college students that were returning from school and a taxi driver, happened on the scene of the burning wreckage. They were ordered out of the car, but instead they took off running - they were all shot in the back and killed. A search of the car turned up no evidence of weapons or anything suspicious. Wrong place at the wrong time. Now dead.

Minutes after the explosion, the Marines thought they heard shots being fired. They hustled to the closest house off the street assuming that the shots may have come from there. Staff Sergeant Wuterick gave the command to shoot first and ask questions later. At this house, an elderly man, his wife and children were shot. The Marines were engaged in what they call, "clearing the house".

They moved to a second house because the back door was open in the first house - and they assumed someone may have run out the back. They followed the same procedure at a second house - throwing grenades into the house first, then breaking down the door, shooting whomever is inside. A family including husband, wife and 4 young children were killed in this second house. Then, they move to a third house.

They clear the third house - killing four brothers inside. One of these brothers had a rifle - the only weapon found during this whole episode. And it has not even been determined if that brother with that rifle had even fired it that day.

Total - 24 Iraqis killed that day in Haditha. I wish that the craziness ended there, but it doesn't.

That day, we are told, the Marines dropped 24 bodies, including men, women and children at the Haditha hospital and left with no explanation. The next day a Marine spokesman releases the statement that 1 US Marine and 15 Iraqi civilians were killed in a roadside blast. As the convoy was attacked after the blast, the Marines killed 8 more insurgents. NOT QUITE THE TRUTH. As a matter of fact, if photos had not been discovered almost 2 months later - with the bodies with massive gunshot wounds - this story would have never been challenged...

We later have learned that the Marines have paid families of 15 of the victims $1500-2500. It has also been speculated that fires were started in the houses and air strikes were conducted later to make it difficult to investigate what really has happened.

That is the first part of the story. An equally sad part happened last night as I listened to Marine Staff Sergeant Wuterick, the 26 year old young man, that we put in that position as he talked on "60 Minutes". He is now facing "court marshal" for 15 deaths on that day.

Listen to this carefully - Wuterick said in the interview that he was sorry for the women and children - but that is the way a "house is cleared". He stated under those conditions he would make the same decisions again. His job was to protect the rest of his fellow Marines from dying and they were just doing what it took in that situation. That he said, is the way that we have been trained......

Here is the truth...I don't ultimately blame this young man - it sounds as if he used poor judgement, and he should be held accountable - but the truth is - this is what war does. It puts people in gut wrenching life and death positions. Kill or be killed positions. It turns young men and women into fearful and angry fighters. The irony is that the "higher ups" in the military, who put Wuterick in this position, now get to sit in judgement of him.

Here is a sadder note. I feel that our country has taken this path in a multitude of ways. Whether it is political issues, economic issues, or military ones - it seems our policy now is "take out anyone who is a threat".

Consuming Passion

"Consuming Passion: Why the Killing of Jesus Really Matters" edited by Simon Barrow and Jonathan Bartley is a fascinating book coming from a serious debate within evangelicalism in the UK. Both Barrow and Bartley are part of "Ekklesia" - a theological think-tank in Britain.

This book represents the reconsideration going on in the UK and other parts of the world that is suffering from the cultural meltdown of Christendom. Basically, the majority of the writers in this book attempt to expose the faulty logic of Christendom (the amalgamation of church and politics) and then re-think some of the detours caused by it. More specifically, the writers challenge the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement from Anselm through Luther and popularized by Calvin. Much of evangelicalism is defined by the belief in penal substitution: that God's law is violated by disobedience and He requires a sacrificial payment for sins in order to justify sinners. Hence, God is the one who requires a sacrificial death of His Son as a substitute in order for our sins to be forgiven. This book challenges this way of telling the story of the importance of Jesus' death.

There are several reasons for this challenge:

1. Penal substitution, the writers say, is a late development in Christian theology. As noted above, before Anselm, Luther, and Calvin, the early church spoke of Christ's death and resurrection in terms of victory over the devil's hold on us.

2. Penal substitution arose during the Christendom context, where oppressive rulers required the death of those that dishonored their authority. Some of the articles challenge whether this is the appropriate Biblical view of God and really what was really happening in the death of Jesus.

3. Some of the writers suggest that the view of God suggested by the penal substitution view presents a violent God and that this view has been responsible for some of the Christian violence in the modern era.

This is a very brief review - and it doesn't do justice to many of the fine articles in this book. This is a very readable book - also quite challenging to many evangelicals who have never questioned the penal substitution story of the cross. It requires looking at Christ's death from a different angle, and for that reason alone, I say it is a book that should be read by thinking evangelicals.

The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture

I thought I would write a few reviews of the books that I have been reading lately. I tend to keep a few books going all at once, and this practice has the tendency of deadening the effects of the book. I rarely take the time to process one book before I go to the next. So this reviewing exercise will help me slow down a little and take at least a few minutes to process.

"The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture" by Shane Hipps is a fascinating short read for those interested in cultural issues as they relate to the church. Hipps is the pastor of Trinity Mennonite Church in California. I know what you are thinking...."how could a Mennonite write a cutting edge book about electronic culture??? Hipps, however, was trained in corporate advertising and spent his early career in jobs studying consumer culture. He later left the corporate setting and trained for ministry at Fuller Seminary.

Hipps goal is to understand the balance between cultural relevancy and faithfulness to the gospel, especially as it relates to electronic communication. Using the work of communications theorist, Marshall McLuhan as a guide, Hipps investigates the gains made by electronic media, but also the "unintended consequences" of media in the church.

One of the "myths" that Hipps hopes to dispel is the belief - in Rick Warren's words, that "the methods always change, but the message stays the same". In fact, Hipps states that "whenever methods or media change, the message automatically changes along with them". It is better to think through carefully all the effects, intended or not, that media creates - because media is not the unbiased carrier of the message like so many Christians assume. Part I of the book then seeks to demonstrate how the church has been affected, for good and ill, from media changes such as printing, the telegraph, television, etc.

Part II of the book seeks to demonstrate what the church might look like as it thinks through the questions of media culture. There are chapters on community, leadership, and worship in the electronic culture. Far from debunking all electronic media - Hipps actually seeks to find ways that the church can faithfully engage the culture, yet with its eyes open to the effects of the church's use of new media.

The last chapter on "Worship in Electronic Culture" is especially thought-provoking as Hipps points out some negative effects that media can have on congregational worship. For instance , he talks about the use of "media spectacles" designed to grap consumers attention instead of leading toward authentic worship. He also has a few interesting paragraphs on the new wave of church growth methodology - video venues.

While I do not agree with all of Hipps conclusions - it didn't take a lot of convincing me that electronic media forms are not innocent tools. Many churches, in a rush to be relevant, have been asleep to many of the unintended effects of the tools that we use. Even with some of my questions about all of Hipps statements, I believe he has done well to point out that "we must probe our media and methods with the right questions" - and not just - "does it work to attract people"? Just attracting people is not even close to the fullness in which the church is called.

Comments??? In what ways have you seen church media used well or used poorly?

Who Am I? Anabaptist

This is the third installment of streams of theological thought that have influenced my current theological state. I am evangelical, Wesleyan, and Anabaptist.

Few people have connection to the anabaptist movement in our culture, so I will spend a little time explaining the movement. The anabaptist movement arose during the reformation period and was quickly dubbed the "radical reformation". They were persecuted both by Luther's reformtation churches and the Roman Catholic Church. They protested the connection between state politics and the church. They also believed that people should make a conscious decision to join Christ's church and not be "forced" to be a part by the state church which expected infants to be baptized as a sign of the Christian nation.

The anabaptist movement today is known best through the denominations known as Mennonites, or Brethren churches. I came in contact with anabaptist thought through the writing of John Howard Yoder, J Denny Weaver, Alan Kreider, and secondarily through Stanley Hauerwas, who is a Methodist theologian that has been influenced by Anabaptist thought.

Here are the points of Anabaptist thought that I find particularly helpful:

1. Anabaptists have always had a strong view of the church and community. Because they were so persecuted during the reformation and afterwards, they have a deep sense of community. And since they believed theologically that the church is made up of people that profess Christ and meet to be discipled in His ways (not just infant baptized at some point in the past) - they see church as the locus of God's activity in the world. The church's gathering becomes an outpost of God's reign in the midst of a world that is yet to be redeemed. For anabaptists, the church is not a building that individual Christians meet together in order to sing and hear a sermon. No, the church is the gathering of the spirit-filled community coming together to worship and disciple one another in how to live faithfully as Christ-followers.

2. Anabaptists have always led the way in caring for the poor, looking out for the outcast, etc. Possibly as a effect of their own persecution, Mennonite churches have always had a stong sense of connection with the poor and disenfrachised. For such a small denomination, the Mennonites have an incredible amount of influence in prison work, poverty issues, peace issues, and justice issues.

3. Anabaptists have a strong sense of discipleship in the way of Christ. The early anabaptist objected that discipleship is not a function of becoming a good state citizen, but is about following Jesus in his manner of life and his way of death. Therefore, they have an incredible way of reading the Gospels and accepting Christ's life as normative for Christian discipleship. Hence, they have a wonderful correction to many evangelicals that effectively believe that what is important about Christ is that he died to save us from sins. Anabaptists believe that Christ lived in order to show us how to live. Very inspiring...

4. Anabaptists have also led the way in peace witness. This peace witness comes from their reading of Christ's life and death. Christ lived as a servant and when he could have called ten thousand angels to defend himself, He chose to suffer as a servant to the world, and let God the Father vindicate him. Anabaptists believe that Jesus, in the way he lived and died, teaches us that suffering servanthood is a way of witness to our world. Trying to take control of the world through violence is contrary to Christ's life and to Christian discipleship. I must admit I have been profoundly enriched by this reading of Christ's life and death.

5. Finally, Anabaptists have been critical of the relationship between church and state. They are aware how discipleship in the way of Christ can be challenged by state citizenship - where the most important role of the individual is to be a good American and support the country's policies and war-making. Anabaptist believe that our primary allegience is to Christ and His church, and sometimes this demands a prophetic challenge to the culture.

Well enough for now. But hopefully, you can see how enriching Anabaptist thought can be, especially in conversation with evangelical and Wesleyan thought. I would love to hear comments about evangelicalism, Wesleyan, and anabaptist streams of thought. What streams are enriching you?

Who Am I? Wesleyan

My latest thread of posts have been digging into the meaningful traditions that feed my theological makeup. I am evangelical, Wesleyan, and anabaptist.

Following up on my recent posts, I now want to outline some of the Wesleyan strengths that I have come to appreciate. I have been a part of Wesleyan churches now for 10 years - and I am finding keen theological insights from this heritage more and more.

I have spent more time in the past year intentionally looking into the theology of John Wesley and the heritage of Methodism. Three books of particular note have been extremely helpful:
-John Wesley's Moral Theology by D Stephen Long
-Rethinking Wesley's Theology for Contemporary Methodism, ed by Randy Maddox
-Responsible Grace: John Wesley's Practical Theology, by Randy Maddox

"Responsible Grace" is an especially helpful book. I recommend it to anyone interested in Wesley or in ministry in a Wesleyan church.

Here are the streams of Wesleyan thought that I have come to appreciate:

1. When it comes to a view of salvation, Wesley blends Eastern Orthodox thought of "healing our diseased sin nature" with Western Christian thought of absolution from guilt. Wesley didn't collapse salvation into a moment in time where sins are forgiven (as many evangelicals tend to do). Instead, Wesley saw salvation as a "recovery of Holiness" (p. 25, "Responsible Grace) Thus, salvation is bigger than a one-time decision, but entails a life lived in discipleship.

2. Wesley's view of sanctification (even though how it happens and when it occurs is still debated) represents a positive expectation of discipleship and change in a believers life if he cooperates with the grace of God. This view is so refreshing, especially in light of many traditions that expect little can be done about our sin-soaked ways in this life. But Wesley expected change in this life - and I like that view of discipleship (some similarities with anabaptist expectations)

3. I am also intrigued by Wesley's insistence on helping the poor, educating children, and ministering to those in need. If one is interested in social issues, one will find a conversation partner in Wesley, even if Wesley didn't tend to have a well worked out theology of social action.

Like all movements, Wesleyan thought has its weaknesses. For instance, because Wesley never intended to start a new church, he doesn't work much on the theology of the church. And many Wesleyan churches have tended to be hijacked by conservative evangelicalism, where salvation (and sanctification for that matter) is seen as a moment in time when I gave my life to Jesus.

My commitment over the next year is to read more of Wesley's sermons. I believe that his legacy as a churchman and a theologian is well worth investigating. I am surprised that so many "Wesleyans" know so little about Wesley...

Who Am I? Evangelical

My last post attempted to name the theological streams that I feel refreshed by. Let me say first that the three terms - evangelical, wesleyan, and anabaptist are not in any particular order of importance. I don't list evangelical first because it is my primary descriptor that I read the other two through. I believe actually that all three of these streams complement and challenge one another in interesting ways.

First, evangelical. What does it mean? I almost gave up calling myself this a few years ago, because the term is so elusive. Several scholars have suggested that the term suffers from overuse and should be discontinued. But I still see value in the term used a certain way. Here are the things that I am still refreshed by in the evangelical stream:

1. Evangelicals tend to take the Word seriously. While some other streams of Christianity are backing away from the Bible - evangelicals have generally stood their ground in saying that the Word is the touchstone of Christian theology and practice. I have learned from the evangelicals to take the Word seriously.

2. Evangelicals have stressed the importance of a personal decision to follow Jesus. I believe this is an important point when we live in a culture with so much nominal Christianity.

3. Evangelicals have always emphasized the need to share our faith with others. I believe that a passionate witness for Christ is important.

All three of these evangelical points still nurture me. I believe these three points are part of an evangelical heritage that I cannot get away from. However, I have struggled with other evangelical weaknesses and have had to fill out my thinking from other streams.

Here are some of the weaknesses that I have had to wrestle with from within evangelicalism.

-Evangelical commitment to a personal relationship with God has sometimes discounted the importance of the church. We have given the impression that "me and Jesus" is all that really matters - and that belonging to a community of Christians is less important.

-Conservative evangelicals tend to have a very naive understanding of church, society and politics. Many seem to believe that the U.S. has always been a Christian nation and that we now have to fight to win it back. This has led to short-sided political stances, support of militarism, and lack of substantive critique of the role of church and state.

-Evangelicals still have (I believe) a small dose of anti-intellectualism, and we struggle to convince pastors and congregations of the necessity of robust theological thinking. Church lite seems to be winning the day.

-Many evangelicals still tend to see salvation as a point in time when we accept Christ and then we are ready for heaven. Evangelicals have done a poor job talking about what it means to live in the kingdom now.

-Evangelicals are getting better - but they have been slow in understanding social issues, such as poverty, war, and environmental issues. We have also been slow to develop a mature understanding of structural sin.

So why - if I list all these objections (and I could list more) do I still accept the term "evangelical". I guess because I believe the term is still worth fighting for. The emphasis of Word, conversion, and witness that I mentioned earlier - the strong suit of evangelicals - they are still worth believing and living.

Who am I?

Over the past couple of years I have had several people ask about who I am - theologically. Most of them know that I had a past life - in a Pentecostal church. Few of them know that as a child I frequented churches from the Assembly of God, FreeWill Baptist and Church of Christ variety. Theological mutt, you might say.

So who am I now? At this point in my life I have found three streams of thought that are important to me. They have formed me, nourished me theologically, and make up most of what I read and study besides the Bible. So here it is....

I am (today, anyway) an EVANGELICAL, WESLEYAN, ANABAPTIST. That is it - these are the three streams of thought and practice that have and continue to form my thinking.

I know better than to make empty promises over my blog - I have already been chided for making post promises and not fulfilling them - so - no promises about frequency. However, I plan on spending the next few posts going over each of these three influences and explaining why they are important to me.

There you have it... that is who I am. So who are you?