Real Brothers

Non-Violence and God

2008-02-16T12:01:00.003-06:00

Good discussion on the previous post. This is one of the reasons that I blog; (even though not as frequent as I would like) the interaction provokes deeper thinking.

As stated before, I don't know where to come down for sure. I am convinced that there is a consistent peace message in Scripture. The question that Hardin and Weaver specifically addresses is "does God use violence"? Of course Hardin and Weaver says, NO, the heart of God is non-violence.

Here are other answers that I see among writers and theologians.
1. God uses violent means to combat evil and we can as well.
2. God uses violence to combat evil, but it is a divine perogative. We are asked to be non-violent and leave God's wrath to him.
3. The heart of God is non-violent and we follow His example of non-violence.

Which option do you lean toward? Are there more options?

Non-Violent Atonement?

2008-02-01T19:23:00.000-06:00

I attended a one day seminar this past week in Iowa City, entitled, "The Non-Violent Atonement". The authors of the two books displayed here were two of the main speakers. It was enlightening, although difficult to put together how if feel about it at this point. I, on the one hand, feel compelled to discover and promote readings of Scripture that support a peace theology. Yet, on the other, I am wrestling with whether I agree with the presenters in all their details.

Let me share the premise of Weaver and Hardin. Jesus, is the center of revelation of who God is and what He is like. Jesus talks about loving enemies, turning the other cheek, and how blessed are the peacemakers. He confronted the powers of the earth, yet refused to use violence to overcome them. The powers did the worst they could - the killed him - but God raised him from the dead, victorious over the death, hell, and all powers of the world.

So, if Jesus is the fullest picture that we have of what God is like - why do we use Anselm's model of satisfaction as our leading theory for why Jesus died? Most satisfaction theories state the proposition this way - "God was angry at sin -he was dishonored by sin and disobedience - so someone had to die to appease the anger of God. God arranged for his Son to die on the cross so that his honor would be restored and our sins could be forgiven. But it required bloodshed to do this - God needed the death of Jesus in order that humankind could go free."

For Weaver and Hardin, this sets up a theological problem. Jesus, who is the image of God, promoted peace and non-violence. But we promote (through our atonement images) an angry God who required that someone be killed in order for salvation to be valid. Weaver and Hardin both fear that this sacrifical atonement thinking makes God into a pagan image - and not the image of the loving, redeeming God.

I'll stop there for now. I would love to hear comments....As I said, I have a lot of thinking to do on this one.

Taylor and Zambia

2007-11-15T07:59:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-15T07:57:00.001-06:00

Taylor and the Sunday School Class

2007-11-15T07:55:00.001-06:00

Taylor Trying Shema in Zambia - Yum, Yum

2007-11-14T20:27:00.001-06:00

Zambia

2007-11-03T10:08:00.001-05:00

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

2007-08-29T19:42:00.000-05:00

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

2007-07-21T08:42:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-20T21:27:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-06T22:16:00.001-05:00

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

2007-04-24T19:37:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-04-15T20:58:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-11T09:15:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-19T09:27:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-12T20:25:00.000-05:00

"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

2007-02-24T22:33:00.000-06:00

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

2007-02-13T20:01:00.000-06:00

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

2007-02-06T21:20:00.000-06:00

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

2007-01-29T19:49:00.000-06:00

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?

2007-01-20T18:09:00.000-06:00

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?

Grandma is home now

2006-12-19T22:41:00.000-06:00

I just received word about an hour ago that my Grandma Syble passed away in Arkansas. It is strange how some things work - we already had plane tickets bought for the whole family to go to Arkansas for Christmas. We are leaving tomorrow afternoon and will now join the rest of the family in a memorial of my Grandmother.

My grandmother contributed so much to my life. She lived to be 99 years old - and every moment of it, she lived as a Christian. I don't ever remember hearing about a time that my grandmother was out of church or that she wavered from her Christian faith. She loved well - laughed a lot - was very industrious - and out-lived her two husbands. Tonight, she was tired and needed to go home. Thanks, grandma - you have left a wonderful legacy of how to live well.

Picture from Zambia

2006-12-13T20:31:00.000-06:00

I had promised some pictures from my trip to Zambia, but had trouble getting the pictures on the blog. Anyway, here is one...me and the ladies cooking up some "shema". Tasty...

Jesus - Church ...."And the least of these"

2006-12-01T11:49:00.000-06:00

In the last post, I looked at Jesus calling a new community. This witnessing community would be drawn into deep fellowship, accountability, and ministry. They would be the people of God - people where God's spirit could be seen at work. The lines of who was a respectable member of this community were carefully constructed in Jesus day. The teachers of the law could tell who was a "sinner". Extrapolated from the purity codes of the Decalogue, those who could not tithe properly (poor), those who could not get to the temple (poor or infirmed), those who were outside the set power structure (women, the landless, gentiles) were known to be "outside" the kingdom.

Jesus, in some of the most fascinating ways, called the sick, the infirmed, the landless, the poor, women, and occasionally a gentile, and invited them into the kingdom. This up-side down order is one of the main reasons that he was marked to be killed - too radical of a redrawing of God's community.

Today's church (slowly coming to grips with our addiction to power (Christendom) is barely beginning to realize that Jesus ministry among the poor and outcasts was not coincidental to the gospel. Jesus paradigm of ministry included unmasking the ways that power, priviledge, and wealth cut against what God wants for his community. He did so by specially inviting "the least" into the joys of the kingdom community.

What grade do we, the contemporary church, get on our report card in responding to the needy and poor. Do we simply minister to them as a church program, or do we invite them into our midst. Are we conscious of the ways that we lean toward power and wealth, and discount the poor, sick and afflicted? The world is waiting to see how we will respond...

Jesus - Church.....New Community

2006-11-26T08:27:00.000-06:00

If the Kingdom of God was the driving message of Jesus, then what does that mean? Well, for Jesus it meant drawing people into new communities that would practice their lives under the reign of God. Jesus clearly went around Galilee and surrounding areas drawing together a new people of God out of Israel. Jesus choosing twelve disciples was a deliberate move to re-enact the community forming act of establishing twelve tribes in Israel. The Sermon on the Mount is nothing other than a community forming sermon to teach the new community how to read and live Torah.

Gerhard Loflink has argued that the first communities of Christ followers were developed into what he calls, "contrast societies". These believers understood Jesus' call to discipleship as a community forming event - the calling of a people - in order to live differently from the world for the sake of the world.

"Oh no", you may think, "another withdrawal from the world sect". And you would be wrong about thinking that way - because Jesus didn't withdraw from the world (he had that option available to him - he could have joined a community like the Dead Sea community) - instead he engaged the world by carving out communities in the middle in society. These contrast communities were to live differently in order to witness to the world that there is a profoundly new way to believe, behave, and belong.

So where are we now in the church? I am afraid that we are all over the map. There are some churches that withdraw from the world so far and circle the wagons so tightly that it becomes unloving and unattractive to the world. And there are some churches that long to appeal to the world so badly that they lose all of their contrast, all prophetic voice to the world. It is this latter option that seems to be gaining momentum presently.

So what keeps us from getting the right balance? Why do we as a church struggle with being a true community of believers with strong convictions, accountability, covenants, and habits of life together so that we can witness to a watching world. Why don't our folks (by and large)live any differently than anybody else?

Here are some possible culprits:
1. We really don't believe that the kingdom of God is upon us.
2. We really don't want other people that involved in our lives.
3. We really don't understand our culture and the way it has discipled us away from community. Consumerism, nationalism, individualism, democracy and freedom (these are part of the world's sermon on the mount) has formed us away from the Kingdom of God.

Jesus - Church - New community. The spirit, I believe, is calling us to deeper community - and then the world will take notice.

Jesus - Church ......The Kingdom

2006-11-19T21:52:00.000-06:00

Well, I am finally getting started. After all the abuse that I took for not posting as I intended - I hesitated to overpromise anymore.

So what animated Jesus' ministry? Clearly, the first post has to call attention to Jesus' preaching of the kingdom. It is amazing that the church lost this fact through its history - but just this century there has been an awakening that the centerpiece of Jesus' ministry was his announcement of the kingdom. And the church through the centuries has typically responded in two ways.

First, one response was that the kingdom was already present - of course it was - Rome had conquered far and wide - the kingdom of God was in the midst of political Rome. Everyone was a Christian, and if they weren't it was only because Rome hadn't conquered their land yet. Especially after the conversion of Constantine, the kingdom of God became synonymous with life lived in the peace of Roman power.

The second response was that the Kingdom of God is relegated to a future time that will only be ushered in by the return of Christ. Life now is an attempt to live as best as one can - but real living happens after we die, or after Christ comes again to establish His future reign.

Both of these views seems to miss what Jesus was doing. Jesus appears to have believed that the kingdom was already upon his hearers. They could enter the kingdom and live in its power. But at the same time Jesus taught that the fullness of the kingdom was still coming - and we must live in that tension - living within the dawning of the kingdom, yet still learning forward into all the promises yet to be fulfilled.

When is the last time you heard a message about the kingdom? A message about living in the kingdom, believing that Jesus has enacted a different way of living in this world. We must become a church that leans into the future - reaching forward in the Spirit - and acting as if Jesus really did do more than die for my sins - he enacted a way of life that becomes a visible sign of the kingdom on earth.

Zambia Trip

2006-10-30T19:54:00.000-06:00

I apologize for my absence. Things got a little crazy with work - so I had to let a few things go over the last month, and blogging was one of them. But, I think I am ready to get back into the saddle.

But before I tackle my topic that I planned, I wanted to share some pictures from my mission trip to Zambia, however, I am having difficulty in downloading the pictures into blogger. So that will have to wait until I check in with my technical staff...

Anyway, here is a brief list of things that I saw in Zambia...

1. I met a host of pastors that are crazy about Jesus and church planting... and work tirelessly without any or little compensation.

2. I learned that fences are really a waste of time and money - cows should be allowed to roam free.

3. I learned that a cart of Zambian farmers pulled by two oxen can get to town faster than four white Americans in a landrover with a flat tire.

4. I learned that in some places in the world the admonishment to "take care of widows and orphans" is still taken literally.

5. I learned that I really don't look very professional when I try to sing and dance in praise with the Zambians.

6. I learned to not dismiss places to eat based solely on names like "the Zig Zag" and the "Funky Monkey".

7. I learned that "Arkansas" is made fun of all over the world.

8. I joyfully learned that no one cared in Zambia if I wore velcro tennis shoes.

9. I learned that high schoolers in Zambia are bright and hopeful.

10. I learned what it means to be out of my culture, but at home with "brothers and sisters".

Jesus - Church

2006-09-11T13:30:00.000-05:00

Well, as you can see, my blogging has slowed over the last few weeks. I have hit a very busy spell at church and it has squeezed out blogging time. But I think I am ready for another run at it.

Here is my plan. I hope to write a short series of blogs about a topic that has fascinated and concerned me for a while. The inquiry is... how much of what we do at church (meaning particularly the North American church - even though there is much diversity even in North American) matches the ministry and concerns that Jesus had. It is a difficult topic and I know it is tricky trying to draw a straight line from what Jesus was doing to what we should be doing - I understand the cultural and historical challenges. But I am surprised at how little attention Jesus gets in most churches. Maybe you are surprised at that last statement - and that is what I hope to tease out in the next few blogs.

New shoes

2006-08-26T23:06:00.000-05:00

Can I get a witness concerning my new shoes? I would love to entertain testimonies about the "coolness" of my new white velcro tennis shoes. The velcro straps are functional and comfortable - I have my eye on a grey pair as well to round out my winter ensemble. So what do you really think?

America, Love it or Leave it

2006-08-19T18:13:00.000-05:00

On Sunday, August 6, the following piece was published in "The Dispatch" newspaper of the Quad-Cities. It was written by a person in Moline for the "Letter to the Editor" section. They wanted to submit their favorite sayings regarding the way the United States has taken on the terrorists around the world.

Here is their list - read them slowly and listen carefully to what is being said.

1. America, love it or leave it.

2. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

3. If you can read, thank a teacher. If you can read English, thank our military.

4. America, home of the free because of the brave.

5. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of anyone who threatens it.

6. Do draft dodgers have reunions? If so, what do they talk about?

7. For those who fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.

8. Marines die, so you don't have to.

9. Except for ending slavery, fascism, Nazism and communism - war has never solved anything.

10. If you can't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them!

I am not even going to comment right now - these popular statements just need to sink in a little. I just would like to ask the audience - what do you hear in these statements? What might a Christian response be?

Borders Boys

2006-08-12T17:44:00.000-05:00

I thought I would take a short break from all the madness that I have been writing about. My wife and our friend Susan will be proud that I am. Something a little more personal is in order.

Last night my son Taylor and I made a solo trip to Borders to pick up some books. Books do something for me. I can't get enough of them. But last night was special for another reason. I noticed as Taylor hung out with me (impatiently at times, mind you) in the religion, then philosophy, then government and politics sections, that we were just plain having fun together. Taylor amused himself by finding a book on sign language - and walked away from the experience with the sign for "fart". That was entertaining for the rest of the night.

This note is "kudos" to Taylor. He is not a little boy anymore - we are beginning to have discussions (short ones) about the Middle East crisis, church, and of course, girls. But the best realization that was reinforced for me last night - is that he is just plain fun to be around. I am proud of him. I can't wait to see what he is gonnabe.

The Passion of Mel Gibson

2006-08-05T18:25:00.000-05:00

The story of the arrest of Mel Gibson for drunk driving last week deserves some thought. It would be too easy for Christians to castigate Gibson for drunkenness. Way too easy to write him off for foul language. And it is tempting to throw stones at him for his horrendous statements about the Jewish people. But instead of castigating Gibson - I want to remind the evangelical church of our role in elevating Gibson to hero status not long ago because he was making "The Passion of the Christ" despite of Hollywood's inattention to it.

Gibson flew across the country visiting church after church, pastor's conference after conference, marketing his movie. Consequently, the movie brought in over 700 million dollars to date. (I grew very tired of evangelicals crying that Gibson had put up 25-50 million of his own money - you do the math on the profit margin...)

Bottom line, the movie was a success because the evangelical community made it that way. Never mind that the Jewish community reminded us that the movie tells the story in a stereotyped way that has fueled Jewish hatred down through the years. Evangelical leader after leader stated that this movie was the "greatest evangelistic tool" of the last 100 years. Many anticipated that millions would come to Christ and flood our churches. Well, none of that has happened and now we are left picking up the pieces after seeing Gibson's mugshot on CNN.

Here is what really bothers me:
1. I haven't heard any evangelical leader to date make any statement about Gibson's terrible language about the Jews. We made such a huge deal about the movie, now we are deaf and dumb.
2. I am tired of evangelicals believing that we need "tools" like Hollywood movies in order to win people to Christ. Whatever happened to living like Christ in such as way that the church itself was the "tool" for evangelism.
3. I am sad that the evangelical church can so easily be turned into a marketing machine. I suspicion that we will see more marketing efforts of Hollywood toward the evangelical church - (I now suspicion that Dan Brown is probably laughing all the way to the bank)

I pray for Mel Gibson - but I pray more for the evangelical community.

Mel Gibson Sheriff video

Subversive Christian Economics

2006-07-24T08:13:00.000-05:00

I would like to return to a subject from a few posts ago. I believe that the modern market has become one of the leading disciplers of our culture - people and institutions make decisions now based on market sense - is it productive, profitable, and efficient. This business trinity has saturated our society (and we are trying to export it to the world) and in some ways the church.

Several people have inquired about what the church can do to respond to the market idol and its minions: individualism, consumerism, and materialism. Here is a short list of suggestions:

1. Subvert the marketing madness by consciously simplifying your lifestyle. Easier said than done I know, but there is great satisfaction in reclaiming simplicity. This may show up in not always needing things that are new - not always needing name brand - not always needing bigger things. (For instance, I just saw that Panasonic is coming out with a 102 inch TV that costs $70,000 ...tempting, but is it necessary)

Simplicity has been explained primarily as a personal discipline - but I would like to see some group try it in their church body.(There are groups doing this - you just don't hear much about it) What if a church body decided that they didn't need a 102 inch TV that costs $70,000 in order to be the church? What if a church decided that they did not need 7.9 million dollars worth of facilities, but was going to invest that money in kingdom initiatives instead?

2. Can we return to some sort of "Acts 2" economics? This giving and sharing as described by the early church would truly subvert our market mentality today. Possibly a church could develop a "co-op" where things are brought and shared - this cuts against individualism and the market that tries to make us believe that we have to buy things ourselves and own it. I suspect that much of the reason that we don't practice "giving and sharing" among the body is that we have most of our money going towards building and upkeep.

3. Some have suggested that returning to a "Sabbath" can be subversive to our current economic climate. What if a church decided to reclaim the day of worship as a time of rest and relationships. Not buying and selling on the Sabbath was originally intended as a statement that "I trust God to keep me even if I don't labor today - He will provide". What if a church tried to spend the day in community, rest, and worship and subverted desire by resting in God.

Here are a few ideas. I would love to hear more about individual ideas or church practices that help us keep our balance in the market-driven world.

Why I Don't Say the "Pledge of Allegiance" Anymore

2006-07-17T09:11:00.000-05:00

I am hoping that this is not an argument starter. I don't intend it to be. And I must say from the beginning that I am not Anti-American - I am just more pro-Christ and his worldwide kingdom than I have ever been before. So here are a few points of why I have stopped saying the Pledge.

First, the pledge assumes that my highest allegiance will go to my country. Do I really pledge my "allegiance" to my country? Is this just another way of saying that "Caesar is Lord"? Does the pledge relativize my commitment as a Christian to Christ? Isn't the pledge competing for my allegiance that should only belong (in the ultimate sense) to Christ?

Second, the pledge reinforces boundaries that are nationally drawn. In other words, we are being asked to support "our" country. Doesn't this claim compete with the Christian claim that the "Body of Christ" knows no national boundaries? As William Cavanaugh points out in his great book, "Theopolitical Imagination", states tend to promote salvific myths about themselves. But it is only in the church that a truly transnational community can be developed.

Third, the pledge is used as propaganda to instill concepts of ultimate allegiance to the state. Ever wonder why the pledge is one of the first things you learn in school? I am told that after 9/11 many schools that had become complacent about the pledge in the mornings, have now redoubled efforts to make sure that the pledge is recited. This is another sign that the state is competing for absolute allegiance.

Fourth, the pledge adds confusion to the strange concept of a national God. "One nation, under God" sounds cool, but what does it mean really? Isn't it another attempt to state the myth that our nation is a Christian nation and somehow blessed of God more than most other nations? Isn't this just a step away from saying, "pledge your allegiance to our state, because we have God on our side".

Enough already..I simply want to end by restating a pledge that was written by June Yoder and J. Nelson Kraybill of Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary as an alternative.

"I pledge allegiance to Jesus Christ,
and to God's Kingdom for which he died -
one Spirit-led people the world over,
indivisible, with love and justice for all.

Worship American Style

2006-07-09T07:42:00.000-05:00

I just have to put down a few thoughts about this. Not that it surprises me - I fully expected it. As a matter of fact, a few years ago, I would have thought nothing of it. But now I am sensitive to it.

While vacationing in the great Smoky Mountains we were able to catch a few dinner shows in Pigeon Forge, TN. Great shows they were - but I had forgotten that July 4th was just last week. At both shows they obviously had added July 4th pieces. Both shows ended with Christian songs - one was "Mine Eyes Has Seen the Coming of the Glory of the Lord" - complete with military video on the screen. One shot was of an American soldier shooting a gun into a cave and leading those prisoners that were alive out in procession. It was a stunning display of American religion - Christian worship songs with the backdrop of American war planes and guns.

At the close of both shows, a huge American flag rolled slowly down across the back of the stage. You guessed it - everyone got up and gave a standing ovation. I stood there with mixed feelings - trying to feel proud of my country (which I am most of the time) yet trying to sort out the idolatry of our American religion which blends worship of the one true God that loves the whole world with American symbols that suggests that our country is somehow special to God.

Any comments? Any other stories of blended worship? (ie Christian worship with military overtones)?

New York

2006-06-24T07:39:00.000-05:00

Just a quick note. We are in New York now, taking a few days of vacation. They have asked me to speak tomorrow (Sunday morning) at the church that we served at 5 years ago. It is a thrill for me to be invited to speak there again.

The weather is beautiful. It is very relaxing as we look out over Lake Ontario. Last night we had a get together with some folks from the church. Kathy and I snickered about what would happen if nobody showed up. Do people really remember us?

Well, about 30 people showed up and we had a great time. Lots of stories of old times here, lots of jokes, lots of good friendships renewed.

That is the best part. Lots of good friendships.

Ode to Goodwill

2006-06-21T18:17:00.000-05:00

Go ahead and make fun of me. I will take a couple of days break before I post again about economics, wealth and poverty. Actually this subject may be more about the topic than the theoretical theological approach to capitalism.

Make fun if you want - but I love to shop at Goodwill. I went there yesterday to pick up a few things before I left for vacation this morning. As a matter of fact about 1/2 of my wardrobe has come from Goodwill over the last two years. Let me explain why I think I feel the way I do about Goodwill.

First, I committed a few years ago to not get caught up in the marketing of clothes. I will not pay $50 for a shirt or pair of pants if I am paying for market branding. I will not have to have the hottest brands, nor will my clothes have to be new. Consequently, I usually get by on less than $100 a year for clothes. (Some would say that they can tell how little I spend by the way that I look, but that is another subject...)

Second, Goodwill tries to support community initiatives that are good and useful. I can't vouch for all that they do (because I don't know where all the money goes), but by and large I think they try to do good with profits.

Third, (and I know this one will come off a little strange) but going into Goodwill is good for my pride. Everytime I go there I see families that are obviously shopping there because it is all they can afford. Not everybody of course, but you can tell that there is a clientele that needs the services of Goodwill. I watch folks when I go there - folks whose lives are different from mine - they are shopping there because they need to. And I want to see their faces. I want to share their joy when they find a shirt that fits their little precious third grader. I want to be reminded that I have so many choices, but many folks only have the choices they find at Goodwill.

Bottom line, for me the real reason that I shop at Goodwill is theological. I am committed to little ways of looking people in the face that are different than I am, but people nonetheless. I always want to remember God's powerful love for all people. Especially those folks that Wall Street acts as if they don't exist.

Healing of Desire

2006-06-18T21:11:00.000-05:00

In the last post I talked about capitalism and the modern market and its basis in "self interest" and "scarcity" - lack which always desires more. But why I am spending so much time on an economic system of exchange of goods and services?

There is a small but growing number of young scholars that are discerning the markets "practices and rituals" as being antagonistic to Christianity. James K A Smith writes,"...the new empire is capitalism as a global, transnational phenomenon -an empire of which states are only colonies". (Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy p. 248) Smith also declares that the market demands an allegiance that rivals our commitment to Christ.

How has the market co-opted our allegiance to Christ? By forming us into disciples of desire. In a remarkable book, "Liberation Theology after the End of History", Daniel Bell argues that the market has stolen our desire for God and twisted it into a desire of self-interest and material goods. Bell argues that Christianity has been understood in terms of positive desire based on Augustine's claim, "our hearts are restless until they find rest in thee". Human hearts are created to desire God. But the market has twisted this positive desire in accord with the whims of the market. Our desires are now disciplined by the market to acquire, compete, consume. The market teaches us that there can be no other way. Consequently, Bell considers Christianity to be a healing of the desire that the market has created. Only by setting our hearts toward the Triune God, and being renewed and sanctified by the Holy Spirit can our longing be set straight toward our created purpose - desiring more of God.

So do we overthrow capitalism? No, we can't do that- we are not called as the church to do that. Are we called to withdraw? No, we are not called to do that either, nor is that possible. This is where the church comes in. The ekklesia must be the place where folks are finding the healing of desire and the ability to resist the discipleship of the market. What are the practices of the church that heal desire? Again, creative thought and Spirit-led imagination are essential. SUGGESTIONS?

Wealth and Poverty, Part 2

2006-06-15T21:32:00.003-05:00

I was planning on moving on, but some of the comments from friends made me think a little longer. Understanding our current market culture is so important that I thought I would explain some of my thoughts more fully. I don't want to sound critical of capitalism without explaining where it comes from.

I have said privately to several people that our modern market is becoming the most serious competitor with the church in terms of offering "salvation" for people. Our culture is being formed and discipled by the market every day. As blessed as we are to live in a country that benefits from market capitalism, let me explain why I get the willies when I think seriously about it.

The modern market stage was set centuries ago by philosopher Adam Smith. Smith laid the foundation for modern economic thought with some basic principles that were fine tuned through later years. But modern economics is based on at least two principles: (I know that this is oversimplification, but stick with me)

First, self interest - every person is wired so that they should be allowed to look after their own interest. This individual self-interest is what gives people the drive to make a profit and to innovate in order to thrive. This drive of self-interest should not be hindered by political or social means, but should be celebrated as the way things are and the way that wealth is best generated.

Second, scarcity - there are never enough goods and services yet humans have a desire for more. So the principle of scarcity declares that markets should celebrate this fact; as a matter of fact "the market feeds on an infinite desire that should never be satisfied; it needs lack".(Long, The Goodness of God, p. 258)

So put these two principles together and you get something like - let's celebrate individual selfishness and let create an environment where no one is every satisfied with what they have. Now, that is putting it bluntly and simplistically, but I think it is basically true of our market system. Hence, advertising is nothing else but trying to create the illusion of lack in our lives. We can't live without this product - we are unfulfilled unless we wear these kinds of clothes etc. The marketing game is based on the two principles above and designed to create a perpetual sense of lack - that we always need to desire more. There can never be the point of enough in capitalism , the system always needs us (consumers) to need more. Here is the catch - if we stopped shopping capitalism collapses. (Hence this makes President Bush's comments after 9/11 more telling when he said, "We just need to continue shopping and going about our lives")

So - bottom line - capitalism as a system trains us to celebrate self-interest (is this a Christian virtue?) and bombards us with messages that we should never be satisfied with the things that we have.

This is getting too long, but I wanted to sketch out some of my thoughts on the basic underpinnings of market capitalism. I think I will wait before I post my next thoughts - should we as a church endorse this program? How would we opt out even if we wanted to? If we can't opt out, then what can we do? I will be talking more to this in the future. I would invite comments to this post in order to stimulate thought.

Expanding the Gospel - Wealth and Poverty

2006-06-11T17:23:00.000-05:00

It was announced in April that Lee Raymond, chair of ExxonMobil, was retiring with a 400 million dollar retirement package. That's right - 400 million - more than the average American worker would make in 175 lifetimes!

I was particularly intrigued by columnist William Buckley's comments - he called it a "lack of decorum". Since capitalism does not limit the size of bonus or wage, Buckley argues that there is not much we can do.

And what should the church call a "400 million dollar retirement package"? I know this is stretch, I don't even know if Mr Raymond belongs to any faith group. But if he is a member of a church, I hope the church would consider the correct word - "sin".

Is it possible in our culture, more attuned to the market than ever before, for the church to have an honest opinion about wealth? Are we too compromised on the issue to speak the word of the prophets that condemned wealth and power that marginalized common folks?

Jesus had a fairly consistent attitude toward wealth - while he called the wealthy to repentance and acceptance - he maintained a consistent level of disdain for wealth. Luke records in chapter 18 a story of the rich young ruler who wanted to know what else he had to do to inherit eternal life. He had done everything he thought was necessary and stood in front of Jesus fairly proud of himself - he hadn't stolen someone else's wife, he hadn't killed anyone, he hadn't stolen from anyone - or so he thought...

Jesus told him that he must sell what he had and give it to the poor. Wait, this isn't part of the Law! Why would Jesus say such a thing? In today's church we would have made the rich young ruler the chairman of the board in charge of finance and called him blessed of God...

The culture in Jesus day believed in economics as a zero sum game - meaning that there is a delicate balance in availability of resources. If someone became wealthy that meant that they did so by keeping others poor. In a advanced agrarian society about the only way one could become extremely wealthy would be taking advantage of others, such as foreclosing on their land, taking taxes, treating them as slaves and taking part of their crops as payment. Studies have shown that in Jesus day there was very small percentage of wealthy and a large poverty class from which the rich extracted their living. In other words, what Jesus seems to be suggesting in his conversation with the rich young ruler - is that he understood that you don't become extremely wealthy without stealing from others!!! Hence the rich young ruler was not keeping the Law as well as he thought.

I can hear some responding - but capitalism is a different system. Now we can create wealth without harming others. Capitalism raises all economic boats and has created an unprecedented middle class. That is true - capitalism has worked better than most systems at pulling some people out of poverty. But not all people! I fear that because capitalism is the last economic system standing, and because it does create wealth and distribute it better than other systems that the church is in danger of excepting the modern mantra - "salvation is in the market". We don't believe Jesus anymore when he says that wealth is dangerous to our spiritual life.

Can we, the church, pull ourselves awake long enough to creatively resist thinking that the market is the (invisible, Adam Smith) hand of God? Can we raise any protest? Can we shape a people that honestly believes that our hope is in the Lord and not Wall Street? Again, imagination and discernment is desperately needed...

Parent - Child Moment

2006-06-05T15:30:00.000-05:00

It is a little unnerving having your sixteen year old daughter commenting on your blog. Just doesn't seem right. "Baby, your daddy just signed up for his very own blog" - just doesn't seem right.

But, I will go out on a limb here (since I know now that my daughter is reading my blog) to go on record to say that she is one terrific daughter. Just a couple of years and she will be moving out for college (if she gets her way about it) and one season of our life and interaction will move into another. I pray that she always knows how proud I am of her.

Expanding the Gospel - Shalom

2006-06-04T21:50:00.000-05:00

Anyone that knows me well may know that the last couple of years I have come to understand the gospel to be a gospel of peace. I have moved away from the understanding of my childhood (and much of my adult life as well) that the gospel is primarily about people getting saved so that they will be ready for heaven when they die. Instead, I now see that the gospel (good news) is also about flesh and blood issues - it is about wealth, and power, and the poor, and the hungry. The biblical vision that animates the gospel is that of "shalom". The gospel of peace is more than the absence of violence - it is the shalom of God - the wholeness and well-being of every person.

Hence pacifism (a biblically oriented understanding of peace) "is a positive concept, reflecting a vision for how life can and should be." (This quote is from Ted Grimsrud in "A Pacifist Critique of the Modern Worldview".) Pacifism seeks for wholeness in every realm - economic, social, political. With this understanding of "shalom" being at the heart of what Jesus was all about - it frees the church to enact the gospel in all its forms - economic, social, political. This requires imagination... it requires discernment...it requires courage.

Postmodernism and Church

2006-06-02T23:11:00.000-05:00

I just finished reading "Who's Afraid of Postmodernism: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church", by James K A Smith. This little book (only 146 pages) has so many tastey insights that it is hard to know which to highlight. The first part of the book is dedicated to giving the post-modern philosophers Derrida (there is nothing outside the text), Lyotard (incredulity toward metanarratives) and Foucault (power is knowledge) a fair hearing. Smith shows how each philosopher adds something positive that can help the church discover its rightful mission - hence Smith suspicions that post-moderism can help the church break out of the modern iron cage (rationalism, scientism, etc).

But the most fascinating part of the book is his attempt at the end to engage the emergent church and its attempt to reform the church. There is a real danger of letting the "postmodern culture" set the stage for the gospel; in other words, just trying to update the church in postmodern form instead of modern form. "Our understanding of what it means to be the church," Smith writes, "must be shaped by the priority of revelation and the Christian tradition, not what (even) a postmodern culture needs or is looking for" (p. 126). Instead, the church needs a recovery of new ways of thinking, living, practicing the faith, basically by going behind modernism and finding the rich resources of the pre-modern church.

Hence postmodernism provides a catalyst for the church to push back past Kant (rationalism)and past Descartes (a thinking mind) and back to a full engagement with the heart. Christians, Smith says, must become "proper materialists" - that is fully engaged with "flesh and blood" liturgy that engages the hearing, sight, sound, touch, smells, etc. New forms of liturgy and arts becomes important for a flesh and blood community to sustain its worship.

Too many insights to struggle with all at once. I simply pray that God gives us the insight, wisdom, and courage to see that the church has another window of opportunity to discover herself and bring good news to a world that desperately needs it.

Friends for the journey

2006-06-01T22:57:00.000-05:00

One of the reasons that I enjoy the Ekklesia Project is because they understand how important friendships are to the Christian journey. Their statement reads "The EP is a network of Christians from across the Christian tradition who rejoice in a peculiar kind of friendship rooted in our common love of God and the Church. ..Our shared friendship is one of God's good gifts".

I deeply understand, more than ever before, how important "peculiar" friendships are to sustaining life in the kingdom. I have several peculiar friendships in my life right now - some with people much younger than I, some with people much different than I, some with people distances away.

One of those peculiar friendships is leaving this week to move to Madison, WI to work and help with a new church plant. She will be joining a couple of other "peculiar friends" that moved there last year. It is always sad to see people go, even when you know that the kingdom of God will be enhanced by it. Thankfully, I still have a few "peculiar friends" in the Quad-Cities that share a common love of God and church.

To all my "peculiar friends" I want to say - thanks for journeying with me. I count you as God's good gifts.

Ain't Studying War No More, Cont

2006-06-01T22:34:00.000-05:00

Many thanks to my googlehound friend that forwarded to me today one of the most fascinating articles that I have read in a while. The article, "War and Peace and the Wesleyan Church" tells of the peace witness of the Wesleyan Methodist Church at its inception in the mid-1800's. The organizers of the Wesleyan Methodist Church appointed a Committee on Peace in 1844 to present a report entitled "The Duty of Christians on the Subject of Peace". Their report stated..."We believe the Gospel of Christ to be every way opposed to the practice of war, in all its forms..."

The author of this historical paper suggests that the peace witness of the Wesleyan Methodist Church remained strong until the Civil War which led to a change in the "Discipline" (1864) that lacked the strong witness against war.

I also learned that the Assemblies of God church, the large evangelical, Pentecostal church of my upbringing had a peace statement as well until the World Wars called it into question.

Incredible!! Maybe it is time that we investigate why we gave up so easily on peace.

Ain't Studying War No More...

2006-05-31T20:54:00.000-05:00

That is really not true...I am studying war. As a matter of fact, I have been looking recently as some of the statements made by church denominations that are affiliated with the National Association of Evangelicals. The statements are rather surprising.

One of the largest evangelical churches in the United States contains this phrase in the by-laws, "As a movement we affirm our loyalty to the government of the United States in war and peace".

Another smaller denomination (to which I belonged for a short period of time) puts it this way in their Articles, "We recognize the sovereign authority of government and the duty of all Christians to reverence the power, to obey the law, and to participate righteously in the administration of lawful order in the nation under whose protection they reside..."

Do we really think clearly about what we believe about war in the evangelical church? Can we really use phrases like, "sovereign authority of government" and still make the Christian claim that "Jesus is Lord". I think we need a re-think....

Entering the World of Blogging

2006-05-30T00:24:00.000-05:00

It is a scary thing. When I jump into the world of blogging - you know that times are changing. I just couldn't resist the temptation.

I have a couple of fears about this. The first fear comes completely from my ego. I fear that no one will read and respond to my precious little insights. I assume that this is one of the main reasons that people write on the web; they want to be heard. So down deep inside this blogging exercise must be fulfilling some strange and hidden need that I have to be listened to - but what if no one responds or even cares about the things that I care about?

The second fear is that I will quickly be branded a heretic. Some of my crazy ideas might get me in trouble. For that reason I want to say from the outset that some of the theological ideas that I talk about and write about will be simply my groping with theological ideas. I believe that Christian theology and the church suffer when we don't use our imaginations. Lack of imagination is why the church (universal) is in some of the trouble that it is in - we simply don't know how to do ministry and how to talk about things differently than we have always done it. So many of my posts will be tentative flights of theologizing that is humbly trying to discover new pathways in how to be authentically Christian in a fragmented world.

With those fears noted - let the journey begin. I better not make any promises of frequency of posts or depth of posts. At this point, I simply don't know what to make of all of this. But, I am now ready to enter this strange blogging world. Jesus, help us all....