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?

Grandma is home now

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

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"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.