Jesus is not my Snuggie

Remember last year when Snuggies were on everyone's Christmas list? I know...I didn't get it either. Twenty million Snuggies were sold by January of 2009 and four million were sold in 2009. They were a cultural phenomenon that were initially mocked and parodied on TV, yet come Christmas time everyone wanted one. My mother even knit Snuggies for all my nieces. Personally, I was repulsed by this marketing gimmick that infested us like a plague. It's a blanket with ARMS!!!

I think what makes these Snuggies so attractive is they are a comfort blanket. When we've had a bad day or there's horrible weather outside we love to curl up in a blanket and escape into a book or TV show. They are our "safe place." My comfort blanket is a blanket I've had since I was an infant. I affectionately call it my "cold blanket."

In a recent coffee conversation with a friend I made the statement "Jesus is not our Snuggie!" The problem is that we tend to treat him that way. We keep Jesus neatly folded up on the shelf of our life and reserve him for those bad days. On those bad days we haul him down and wrap ourselves in the promises of "God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble" (Psalm 46:1) or "...in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28). Both of these promises are true and need to be anchors of our faith, however, we cannot reduce Jesus to our Snuggie, to our comfort blanket.

When we look at Scripture we do see that Christ is our source of comfort and strength. We also see that life in Christ is not safe. When we look at the lives of Christ and his Apostles where did we ever get the idea that life in Christ is comfortable let alone safe? Christ was born into a world with a bounty on his head, he was led into the desert to be challenged by satan. Eleven of the Apostles were killed for following Christ. For the first 3 centuries of our faith the church met surrounded by corpses in the catacombs under the city of Rome. So why are we surprised when our lives are uncomfortable, or when we experience more than we can bare? These are the times that we learn what it truly means for Christ to be our comfort and our strength. It is in these times that we come to know the truth of Christ's promises.

Finding God in a Forrest

Flipping through the channels last night I stumbled across the tail end of Forrest Gump. It made phrases such as "Life is like a box of chocolates," "that's all I got to say about that," and "stupid is as stupid does" were made famous. As I turned to the channel Jenny, Forrest's childhood friend and lifelong love, was laying on a bed dieing from AIDS, while Forrest sat at her bedside retelling the tales of his adventures during their time apart. It was at this point I was struck with how Forrest's love for Jenny parallels God's love for us.

The uniqueness of this relationship is that Jenny was one of the first people to demonstrate kindness to Forrest. While it is clear that Jenny is the only girl for Forrest, it is also clear that Jenny never even entertains the idea of being with Forrest. Through a series of events Jenny begins to fade in and out of Forrest's life. Until, one night Jenny tells Forrest to stay away from her then...as Forrest says, "just like that, she was gone."

Jenny's life is full of poor choices and circumstances that lead her into a downward spiral. Later on in life Jenny contacts Forrest and asks him to come see her. He does so and we discover Jenny is dieing. Forrest moves Jenny into his home and they eventually get married, despite her impending death.

Many of us are like Jenny in one way or another. For some of us, we see God as a nice guy, but we would never entertain the idea of entering into a intimate relationship with him. Others, we have told God we want him to stay away from us. There are those of us who are friends with God, but we don't always treat him the way he deserves to be treated. Then some of us are going down a self-destructive path.

In whatever way we may identify with Jenny, God's response to us is the same as Forrest's response to Jenny; unwavering devotion and love. Throughout the movie Forrest is faithful to Jenny and we never see his love for her falter, regardless of how long she's gone, what she does, or how she treats him. Forrest embodies the agape of God, whose love for us is totally independent of our actions, but is an outpouring of his being.

Heaven: Transitional Housing

In researching for my thesis I have been thinking about heaven and humanity. At Christ’s return he will usher in what is known in theological circles as the eschaton.

While some believe that Christ will reign on earth for a 1000 years and then take all the Christians off to heaven and leave the earth to be destroyed, I have come to believe that when Christ returns all of creation, including the earth, will be redeemed and heaven and earth will be married together as one. The distinction between heaven and earth will be no more. Thus, humanity’s ultimate destination is not heaven, but heaven and earth.

One interesting observation I am indebted to NT Wright for is how little is mentioned in scripture about heaven, and how much is mentioned about the new heaven and new earth (which some have translated as referring only to heaven). One of the few verses that does refer to just heaven is John 14:2-3; this is the infamous “Behold, I go to prepare a place for you” passage. The Greek word (monai), which is often translated as “mansions” or “rooms”, communicates a temporary dwelling rather than a long time or eternal. The inference we can draw from this is that these rooms are transitional housing for humanity, as we wait for the eschaton to be ushered in and heaven and earth to become one. Consequently, we need to stop dreaming of heaven as our escape to an eternal paradise, and recognize it as a foretaste of the glorious paradise that will be inaugurated with Christ’s return. When, as David Crowder sings, “Heaven meets earth like an unforeseen kiss.”

Family

In light of my recent blogs that have critiqued the contemporary evangelical church culture, I thought it would be prudent to affirm my loyalty to the evangelical church. As my previous posts have indicated I do have concerns regarding our worship of the system, our passivity in society, and our condemnation (I use this in traditional sense of "damning people to hell") of others. Despite these disagreements I remain committed to the evangelical church.

I have grown up in the evangelical church, it has been my ecclesiological family of orientation for 20+ years. Over those years I have been exposed to other Christian traditions and have developed a deep appreciation for the faith in Christ that they have emulated in their lives and theology. It has been a joy to engage in cross-traditional dialogue. There are many things within these various traditions that are appealing and that we, as evangelicals, can learn from. As a result of this exposure I have found myself having to avoid two extremes of the reactionary pendulum. At one end of the pendulum is an evangeocentrism (evangelical ethnocentrism), where I reject anything that is not common in our evangelical community. At the other end is an unquestioning embrace, where it does not matter what someone believes, as long as they believe something. At one end we find rigidness and 0stracizing, while at the other we find a nebulous of ambiguity.

As I attempt to avoid these extremes I live in relationship with my family. My extended ecclesiological family is much bigger than the evangelical church. My family includes, liberals, conservatives, fundamentalists. It includes Protestant, Mainliners, Catholics, and Orthodoxs. At family reunions I will see this extended family, and in the everyday I live with my ecclesiological family of orientation. As with most families, there will be arguments, perhaps shouting matches. I might even at times storm off to my room and slam the door, but the evangelical church is my family, disagreements and all; and you don't give up on family.

The Christless Church

One of the critiques I hear regarding Seminary is that it puts God in a box, or that it reduces God to a set of principles and theories. I have to admit that, unless we guard ourselves, this can become a very immanent hazard. The exposure to various theologies presents the temptation of constructing our own system that enables us to justify what we want. As my brother often says, "The truth is what suits your purpose."

What I continually find myself coming back to is the need to be in relationship with God, not apart from my studies, but through them. I am continually reminded of Brother Lawrence, who made every aspect of his life an opportunity to be in conscious relationship with God. Our Eastern Orthodox brothers have a form of prayer that embodies this concept very well. In this form of prayer one repeats the same prayer in one's head until that prayer becomes so much a part of one's thinking that it is subconscious, like breathing. The premise of life being a continual conscious relationship with God seems to constantly emerge in the various generations of the Church. I was first acquainted with this idea through Richard Foster's Celebration of Discipline and I've seen it most recently in the writings of culturally savvy Rob Bell with his emphasis on "Everything is Spiritual."

While Seminary, or Christian educational institutions, have bared the brunt of these critiques, I have seen the same hazards permeating in our Church cultural. It is so easy to allow the routine of ritual to become our relationship with God. We go to church every Sunday. We attend bible study. Perhaps we're involved in some other ministry. We even get up an hour before work so we can pray and read our bible. None of these are inherently "bad," just as Seminary is not. The problem emerges when the method replaces the person. Prayer becomes an activity to get through or a gauge for my spirituality. It's as though, we no longer need Christ to be Christians. We just need our system or routine that we walk through each week. This is the Christless Church. While such a possible reality grieves me to the core, I think we need to be introspective about this and ask ourselves: Why do I go to church on Sunday? Why do I pray? What is my motivation for ministry? Is it to be a "good Christian"? Is it to get what I want? In the Old Testament when God's presence left the temple, the people saw the cloud of God's glory leave. I wonder if Christ left our church would we even notice?!

Ironically, one of my greatest lessons in Seminary has been that there is no box that God fits in, or any system that will fully encapsulate God and our relationship with him. There is no equation by which if I do A God will have to do B or if I do Y then X will occur. Our faith is not a sytem , the essence of our faith is us in relationship with YHWH, the one true God.

May our means of relating to God never become our God.

Transforming Culture

A few years back I read an article by Richard Niebuhr entitled Christ and Culture. Niebuhr looks at how the relationship between the Church and the culture has traditionally been viewed. We've all faced this question in some form in our journey. I have to admit that I've adopted a range of responses over the years. Recently, I've come to settle on the position that we, the Church, are immersed in our culture and no matter how hard we may fight it, in one way or another we are an intrinsic part of culture. The question for me then became what does it mean to be in culture. Are we simply mindless sponges absorbing our culture? Are we at war with this culture we live in? Both of these questions represent extreme positions on a vast spectrum of positions. On this spectrum I have found myself becoming more and more firmly planted in the position that the Church is a transforming agent in culture.

How the Church acts and reacts toward those who share this culture with us has had a profound impact on defining the perception of the Church and her relationship with others. I have found those who have adopted the "at war with culture" approach have produced significant damage to culture and to the Church. Conversely, I have found those who unquestioningly embrace everything our culture embraces have only perpetuated the goods and evils of culture. I have found those who have adopted the position of being transforming agents in culture, however, have produced significant beneficial growth in our culture. John Wesley, John Newton, William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, and Granville Sharp were all members of "The Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade," This committee was the vocal voice in society that changed the cultural perspective of slavery, which applied the necessary political pressure to abolish the slave trade. William Booth, and other members of the evolving Salvation Army, bought the freedom of hundreds of teenage girls who were being victimized in the 19th century European sex slave trade. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has been iconisized as the person who mobilized millions to peaceably pursue civil rights in America. The list goes on and on.

What I notice about this list, besides that they're all "Christians," is that for the most part these transforming agents in culture brought about the change through peaceful action. Rather than being passive members of culture or militant aggressors towards culture, they pursued these changes by being active members of their cultures. The second thing I notice about these examples is that they are a voice for the silent victims of society. This would come as no surprise for those of us familiar with Wesley's famous quote, "there is no holiness apart from social holiness." Those of us who are not familiar with this quote, are likely familiar with the words of Isaiah, "Learn to do good. Seek justice. Help the oppressed. Defend the orphan. Fight for the rights of widows" (Isaiah 1:17).

As I consider these historical examples, I am left wondering how we, the Church, are seeking social justice. How are we being a voice for the marginalized, and oppressed? This question has become even more personal for me as I prepare to go back into full time ministry. When I look at my old philosophy of ministry I notice that it is primarily inward focused, and consumeristic. I gave a great deal of attention to giving teens "the answers" while they have fun. Realizing how my perception of who the Church is and who she is to be, I am now thinking through: How can I ensure that in my life I am being a transforming agent and encouraging others to do the same?

Cosmic Conversation

Over Christmas I read Peter Rollins' How (Not) to Speak of God. It gave me some things to think about, one of which is the nature of theology. Rollins is a continental or postmodern philosopher and one doesn't have to spend much time reading in this field before they come across the terms "object" and "subject." An object is acted upon and the subject acts (i.e. Bill [subject] poured the water [object]) . A great deal of postmodern philosophy is spent turning objects into subjects and subjects into objects.

Rollins writes about how in the Enlightenment God was treated as an object that we dissect and categorize. In this era, theology was all about defining God and getting all the answers. With the dawn of postmodernity theology a new way of "doing" theology has emerged. Now humanity has become the object that is being acted upon. Theology is humanity experiencing God acting upon it. As limited begins, we must recognize that our experience is not necessarily the way it is or the way God is.

I'm not content with either of the views Rollins offers. The first one puts God in a petri dish to be examined, while the second view does the same thing to humanity. I think our relationship with God is so much more than a scientific experiment. Thanks to Rollins I have come to refine my view of theology. I have come to understand theology as a cosmic conversation that spans history. Throughout history God has been speaking to us through revelation and we have been speaking back to God, and speaking to each other, what we understand him to be saying through religion. In turn he responds back to us and we respond back to him. In this cosmic conversation no one is solely object or solely subject but we are all both. For when God speaks to us he is the subject and we are the object, but when we speak to God we are the subject and he is the object.

The purpose of the cosmic conversation is for us to enter into a more intimate relationship with God, by coming to know him more fully. This knowledge is not the kind of knowledge that comes by memorizing the facts. It is birthed out of relationship. The most intimate marriage was born out of and nurtured through long conversations and time spent together. The french language makes a strong distinction between "head knowledge" and "relational knowledge." In french there are two forms of "to know." The first one, "savoir," is a head knowledge, like knowing 2+2=4. The second one, "connaitre," is a personal knowledge, like knowing your best friend. Both of Rollins definitions of theology views are focused on the the savoir knowing, expecting it to lead to the connaitre knowing. However, I believe it is only through the connaitre that anyone (Christian or non-Christian) knows anything about God. Although we may not realize it, God is speaking, revealing himself, to all humanity, and it is through responding to his speaking that we become an active voice in this cosmic conversation. True theology is not birthed out of a petri dish it is birthed out of our relationship with God.

Falling Forward

I was hanging out with a friend this past Friday, and during this time we were recounting the events that had led us to where we are today. Thinking over the past... none of your business years of my life, I realized a few things, one is that comparatively to some, I haven't experienced "substantial suffering" in my life, and the other is that through the suffering and mistakes that have occurred God has used it for good.
Many times we read Romans 8:28 (God works all things for the good...) in isolation and presume that whatever happens to us God wanted to happen (and possibly made happen) because he wants to do some thing great through it. I have a hard time swallowing this interpretation because it seems to adopt an attitude of "the end justifies the means." However, when I read this in conjunction with verses like Genesis 50:20 (God turned into good what you meant for evil). I see Romans 8:28 as more likely meaning that even though things happen in life that God does not desire for us, he still is able to use these things for his good. It is here I begin to see The Beauty of Mistakes and The Beauty of Suffering.


The Beauty of Mistakes
I forget where I first heard the expression "Falling Forward," but I've felt that most of my life has been a beautiful mess of falling forward. Looking over some decisions I've made in my life I can confidently say I've made many mistakes. I do not consider all my decisions to have been mistakes. I've made some pretty good decisions too. However, as I look at some of my "biggest mistakes" I also see some significant decisions that have altered the course of my life. Whether it be decisions in ministry, decisions in dating, decisions in education, or some other decision, I can see how the decisions I have made have influenced where I am now in life. Some of these decisions have produced some of the greatest friendships, taught me how to make better decisions in the future, and produced character in me that I have long been lacking. In making mistakes, I've definitely realized as much as I think I know it all, I know very little. Perhaps not coincidentally, my mistakes have also resulted in many times of suffering.


The Beauty of Suffering
I can usually correlate my times of suffering with decisions I have made. As I said earlier my life has not been full of much suffering, but the times that I would say I have suffered, I have learned a great deal about myself and others. I've also learned how small my faith is, and how big God is, allowing me to question and accuse him (which I'm pretty good at) without striking me with boils or deep-frying my face. It is in this context of mistakes and suffering that I have come to discover who I am, who God is, and as a result loved us both even more.

The last thing I want to do is turn this into a cliche "just trust God" blog, or minimize suffering. To be honest..SUFFERING SUCKS!!! I think the suffering of creation tears the heart of God and that is the very reason he enters into our suffering and suffers with us. Yet, amidst suffering and mistakes there is intrinsic value and beauty. These are not just dark times in our lives that we should repress or forget. There is beauty in our mistakes! There is beauty in our suffering! In our ugliest hours of inadequacy there is value and beauty.

Renovating my Faith

As a pseudo-existentialist I tend to think we are constantly in a state of becoming who we already are. Or to put it in a less postmodern way, we are by the sanctifying power of God becoming who God intended us to be and who we already are positionally before him in eternity. The past three years of Seminary have been a journey of growth and self discovery, as I become who I already am. During this time there have been 3 classes that have been extremely challenging and extremely beneficial in this journey. These three classes are Christian Theism, Postmodern Philosophy, and Current/Contemporary Theological Issues. The latter of the three being the most recent.

This journey with God has been a time of constantly "renovating my faith". These classes have challenged my biases, my assumptions, and my presuppositions regarding God, theology, resulting in a firmer conviction to God, with some beliefs being reaffirmed and some being altered. The most recent renovation that I am experiencing is unfolding my arms of acceptance.

In the past if I were asked if Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Open Theists, Homosexuals, Mainline Feminists, Fundamentalists...(the list could go on) who profess faith in Christ were Christians; I would have likely given some qualifying statement followed by an affirmation that they are. All of this was my way of saying, "Yes, but not really" or "Yes, but barely". This renovation that I am going through is changing my response. It's leading me to a place of Ecumenicalism. In this journey I am remaining committed to affirming the essence of the Gospel, which is "believe in the Lord, Jesus and you will be saved" and to pursuing an understanding of what it means to live in relationship with God. It is here that I, as well as many others, fight the tension between being Ecumenical and being Emergent.

Both Ecumenicalists and Emergentists recognize that there are many ways to interpret Scripture. The difference is the Emergentist would say, "I don't know, and you don't know, so let's not know together," while the Ecumenicalist would say, "There are things I'm not sure about, but here's what I'm sure about". The Emergentists are content to live in the dark for the sake of being able to hold hands with everyone. The Ecumenicalists maintain conviction to what they believe to be true, yet recognize those who disagree on issues not essential to salvation as family and co-labours for the Kingdom or in the mission of God.

The difficulty of being an Ecumenicalist is the necessity to dig beyond the surface and scrutinize one's own beliefs and put these beliefs through the fire, while attempting to understand the beliefs of others within their proper context. The "danger" that is always at the doorstep of the Ecumenalist is apathy. The weight of the difficulty makes slipping into apathy tempting. Apathy does not require one to evaluate or think about faith. It just requires one to be ambiguous or ambivalent regarding beliefs. Thus, an Ecumentalist must always be on guard of the "I don't know and you don't know, so let's not know together" attitude.

Am I Evangelical?

This semester I am a Teacher's Assistant for a class called Theology of Believer's Church Tradition. While the title of the class is problematic, as it begs the question what should we consider those outside of this tradition. BCT (as we call it) is a strand within "Evangelicalism" (a term that is slowly beginning to have its definition restored) holds to what we call the "four sola"s. The irony being that sola is Latin for "alone". The four "sola"s are sola gratia (Grace Alone). sola fide (Faith alone), , solus Christus (Christ Alone), sola scriptura (Scripture alone). So salvation is granted by grace alone to those who have faith alone in only Jesus Christ, which is revealed by Scripture alone.

I thought the veneration of scripture was unique to BCT, until recently I was reading Clark Pinnock's Most Moved Mover. In this work he writes that "as an evangelical, my primary commitment is to Scripture, not to tradition, reason, or experience because I believe that any authentically theological model must have biblical backing and resonance" (p. 19). I am unclear as to whether Pinnock means that because he is an evangelical, or that because of his understanding of a theological model he must venerate scripture above all else.

Let us presume he means that an authentic theological model that is biblically based must venerate Scripture above reason, tradition, and experience. It appears self-evident to me that such a model is possible without venerating scripture, as a base can have four corners. If it is not self-evident then that me show how this definition of what it is to be "biblically based" is inherently faulty. The scripture that we use today has been copied over the ages millions of times. In this copying we have been reliant on the reason of the scribes (guided by the Spirit) to take the manuscripts and discern what was editorial comments from the previous scribes and what was original content (hence the multiple ends of Mark). Furthermore, because of our Evangelical tradition we hold the 66 books of the Bible as scripture. If we were Catholic we would have more books that we would include as scripture.

Is it then that one must venerate scripture above reason, tradition, and experience? If this is what he means and it is true can those of us who use the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to engage in the discipline of theology consider ourselves Evangelical? My understanding of the WQ is that scripture, reason, tradition, and experience are considered the four primary modes that God reveals himself (the four corners of our foundation). These four modes are not fit into some sort of hierarchy, but are equal in authority and each mode must adhere to the assertions of the other 3 modes. This four way system of checks and balances is to ensure that one mode is not venerated above the rest.

This leaves me asking: If Pinnock is correct about what it means to be an Evangelical and I am correct about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, then should I continue to consider myself an Evangelical or have I become orphan?

Goodbye Glam God

For those of us who remember the 80's, we would no doubt remember Glam Rock that was all about looking good. Ok, so maybe it was more about being flashy and extravagant, rather than looking good. Truth be told most of the artists looked like second rate comic book characters.

Seemingly unrelated, I have been reflecting on who God is and his relationship to us lately. When I consider how we depict God I feel as though in our attempt to convince people of how "cool" and "awesome" God is we have gone to the extreme of losing who God is in the flashiness of communicating his message. In our desire to share God we have been making him a flashy, over the top Glam God. I can understand the immediate objection being "God is so awesome that we can never over do it with God"! While I agree that God is beyond our ability to describe, in trying to emphasize God's "holy other"ness we often fail to emphasize his intimate relationship to his creation.

This failure to recognize that this infinite being, who is the source of all that is, has entered into his creation out of his longing to be in restored relationship with his creation, results in us reducing YHWH to the cold, distant, God of Aristotle. He's not wanting to make us a club member or make us "behave". He's wanting us to be in an interactive and intimate relationship with him. Although this may mess with some people's definition of immutable (I question how much our definition of immutable is scriptural & how much is a result of Greek philosophical indoctrination), I will say that our relationship to God is such that God is changed (not in character) by being in relationship with us. I do not mean that some how God is deficient, in himself, by not being in relationship with us. I am merely stating that God experiences joy and love that is unique to the relationship he has with the individual that he would not experience in any other relationship.

In our communication of who God is we need to say goodbye to the Glam God and embrace and emphasize God, the "holy other",who took on flesh and dwelt for awhile among us and knowing no sin became sin for us, so that we can live in intimate relationship with him.

In the words of Bonhoeffer, "Our relation to God is not a 'religious' relationship to the highest, most powerful, and best Being imaginable- that is not authentic transcendence- but our relation to God is a new life in 'existence' for others' through participation in the being of Jesus."

Roaming in Romans

At my church, we are working our way through the book of Romans and yesterday we briefly looked at Romans 12:1, and as we read it some thing hit me for the first time ever. When we think about the Roman culture of the time, what Paul is suggesting to the Romans was very counter culture.

At this point in history, the Romans have been heavily influenced by Greek philosophy and would have likely been dualists, viewing the physical world as evil, and awaited the release of their "soul" from its physical prison, then they read this letter from Paul, and it says:

....offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship (NIV).

I wonder how "weird" or insane this would have seemed for them to be told to offer their "evil bodies" as living sacrifices to God. It may have been more understandable to them for Paul to tell them to kill their bodies as a sacrifice to God so their souls would be free, but for them to give their "bodies" as a living sacrifice?!

Then Paul tells them that this living sacrifice of the body is holy, pleasing/acceptable to God. I would think this would only further confound them as it goes against their basic understanding of the body being evil. Paul is telling them that living in this "evil" body for God is actually a holy and pleasing act of worship to God. Not only is this an act of worship, but Paul takes it a step further and contrasts the physical against the spiritual. Stating that this physical act of living in the body as a sacrifice to God is a spiritual act of worship.

This is all well and interesting, but what application does it have for our lives? It leaves me wondering what presumptions and biases in my own worldview have hindered me in my pursuit of truth.

Divine Inspiration?

This past week I was able to sit in on the Septuagint Conference that was held at Trinity Western. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah/Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Bible) and ,depending on your tradition, some other biblical texts. At the conference the topic of multiple manuscripts came up and the reality that we do not have any original manuscripts of the Septuagint or any other books in the Bible. Furthermore, when we trace back as far as we can the manuscripts we do have contain variants (differences in the text). Discovering this can be a faith shaking experience or at the very least cause one to question their view of Scripture. This is likely more challenging if we think that the 66 books of the Protestant Bible were compiled by the Apostles and handed down from generation to generation (in the KJV, of course).

Realizing that we do not have the original manuscripts has actually increased my appreciation for Scripture because amidst the variants the message remains intact. The consistency of the message amidst the variants has done two things to me. One is it has made Scripture more "real" to me, as it is more believable to me that over centuries of coping copies that changes in the text would occur. Two is increased my awe of God, who has maintained his message to his creation through fallen humanity.

Losing My Religion

Most of us can think of a time where we have been hurt by an individual or a group who represent Christ. For some of us that has been enough to walk away from the Church, stating "They're all a bunch of hypocrites". Bob Dylan, a folk philosopher and spiritualist (more known for his unique music), rejected Christianity after his "conversion" in the 80s because of the "hypocrisy he experienced in the church".

I think this charge of hypocrisy many times is birthed out of hurt that results from us adding on to salvation requirements. People are introduced to this Jesus of love and compassion, who died for their sin and overcame death so that they could have a relationship with him. However, it's not long after they start to come to church and spend time with other Christians that they start to get told how horrible they are and how if they "have not done this" or if they "have done that" then they aren't really "saved" or they have "lost their salvation". Before long this yoke that is easy and burden that is light has had a check list piled on. This relationship they entered into has been turned into religion that they have been buried under.

When I look back to the Jewish religious culture Jesus was born into and compare it to the Church culture of today I see many similarities. Primarily, I see a people who have taken the revelation of God and formed it into religion. In James letter to "the twelve tribes" he is very clear that "true religion" leads to action. He does not, however, say it is our responsibility to "fix people" because they do not act the way we think they should or believe exactly the same things we do.

We add on to "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31) for us to consider someone a brother or sister. We create divisions within our family pitting brothers and sisters against each other. When people look at our family they see the Hatfields and McCoys. People still love Jesus, but when they meet his bride, they think she's a real........."piece of work".

As I have read some Emergent Church people, I have found their benefit and contribution to the Church has been in their Ecclessiology. In their simpleness they have gotten back to the heart of God, which is to be in relationship with his children and for his children to be in relationship with others. Going to an Ecumenical School (lots of different churches working together) began to open me up to a "simple Gospel", and the Emergent Church has blown the doors wide open on this. When we begin to add requirements onto "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved", I believe we begin to add to the Gospel and turn this relationship God desires into a structured religion of rituals that serve to distance us from God.

This is not an assault on theology. I believe theology is crucial to our relationship with God and that it is through God revealing himself to us by various means that we enter into more intimate relationship with him. This is not a call to "abandon the church, and start our own "church". This an assault on the religion we have formed and a call to speak this "Simple Gospel" through the life we live as the Church. I have lost my Religion and I have grabbed hold of the "Simple Gospel".

Is God Blind?

In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David Hume asks the question regarding the nature of God, "Is he willing to prevent evil but not able? Then is he impotent? Then is he malevolent? Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" Picking up on this train of argument one of the more prominent atheists of the 20th century, J.L. Mackie, wrote an article entitled, Evil and Omnipotence. In this work Mackie argues that the presence of evil in the world requires that God must either not be wholly good or all powerful. In this work he explains that many theologians attempt to redefine the words omnipotence (all powerful) or omni-benevolence (wholly good). Two of the examples he gives is that some theologians define omnipotence by either asserting God is as powerful as is possible or that the Bible does states that God is good, not wholly good.

Is it possible that these definitions of omnipotence and omni-benevolence that Mackie and most of us use are actually constructs formed out of the Enlightenment and Modernity? Perhaps the open theists are right and God only has knowledge of everything that has happened up to the present moment in time and therefore is not all powerful in the modernist sense, but is as powerful as possible given the conditions. Perhaps God is Blind. Perhaps there is magic (space and time) that even God, himself, is subject to.

God is Blind?

During the height of the "open theist" controversy that coincidentally coincided with the suspension of Clark Pinnock & John Sanders (open theists) from the Evangelical Theological Society, I had a conversation with a "gun shy" open theist who attempted to explain his "version" of open theism. This individual would be what I'd call a "conservative" open theist. He described a middle knowledge understanding of God's knowledge, which asserts that God knows not only every decision we will make, but every possible decision we could make and its potential outcome (leading to an infinite number of possible outcomes).

The difference this individual made was that he believed when we made those decisions God would "temporarily" cover his eyes so that he did not know the actual decision we would make. He asserted that there are certain "unavoidable" events that God has prophesied in Scripture would occur and despite what decisions we make, he would bring these events to pass.

Given the massive amount of decisions that are made each second of every day, in this perspective I have a hard time understanding how God would not be blind. If this be the case, then would God be able to bring these "unavoidable" events to pass , only knowing what has happened and not what is happening? He would be blindly acting based on an understanding of reality that only knows the past. Furthermore if in eternity, we remain free beings then it would seem that God would have to be blind in eternity as well.

Oh Judas!!

I've been reading through Mark and I recently read through Mark 14 which records the account of Judas of Iscariot agreeing to betray Jesus. In the Life Application Bible I own and use for devotions (I'm thankful to my parents who gave me this bible for Christmas. It's been in 5 different countries numerous states and provinces and God has revealed himself to me and drawn me closer to me many times through this Bible) the commentary on Judas is primarily negative. Probably the most positive thing I've read is that Judas thought he was helping Jesus out in order to bring about a political reign (depending on one's theology one might agree that Judas was "helping" Jesus out").

As I read this commentary, I reflected on the information we have available about Judas and it baffled me that Jesus would choose him to be one of his Apostles, one of those in his "inner circle" of followers. I racked my brain over why Jesus would choose Judas, knowing he would betray him. If Jesus emptied himself of, or limited, his divine rights to omniscience or "foreknowledge" then perhaps he was not aware that Judas would betray him. By the time of the Last Supper though, it appears Jesus is aware that someone will betray him.

When we read about all the other disciples there always seems to be some quality about them that despite their failures they have attributes that we can appreciate. When I thought about this in regards to Judas I could not come up with a single attribute. In frustration, I finally said to God, "why did you choose him?!", "What did you see in him?!" Shortly after asking this what happened after the betrayal came to mind. I remembered Judas being so grieved that he had betrayed Jesus that he went out and hung himself and that he only did that after trying to undo what he had done. When I thought of this I realized that Judas betrayed Jesus publicly, and he was the only one who stood up for him when in the darkest hour. Peter swore to follow Jesus even to death. He cut off a soldiers ear in the garden when he was surrounded by the J-Crew, then denied Jesus three times while Jesus was on trial. After Jesus' resurrection Peter did eventually die for Jesus. We know that John and Mary were at the cross, but we know of no action they took to stop the crucifixion (perhaps they caught on).

Amongst all the followers and the disciples, Judas was the only one who went to the Priests and tried to stop the ball that he had started rolling. In the darkest hour, when everyone was against Jesus, Judas was the only one to stand up for Jesus. I do not want to minimize what Judas did, Jesus considered it so serious that he said on the Day of Judgment it would have been better that he had never been born.

Luther once said something to the effect of : If you remove the promise of heaven and the threat of hell, the way people act is who they really are (if someone knows the actual quote I'd appreciate having that). In the darkest hour, with nothing to gain, we see the redeeming quality of Judas. We see possibly what Jesus saw in him.

Why I am Moving Beyond Missional

To be missional, as I understand it, is to say: the heart of God is to be restored to his creation. We are told that from the beginning of Scripture God has been on a mission to be in relationship with his creation. Abraham has been cited as demonstrating this when God initiates a conversation with Abraham in Genesis 12. God creating the universe and humanity in order to be in relationship, God seeking out "Adam and Eve" in the garden, and his speaking to Noah to warn about the flood, do not always get the attention they deserve, even though they support the concept of God on mission because some family members hold that Genesis 1-11 are not historical (by any means). They hold that these chapters, as well as others, are similar to the parables Jesus told, or allegories that prophets used. Thus, in order to appeal to a large audience, the missional camp often begins with Genesis 12. For this those who wave the missional banner should be applauded. Furthermore they should be applauded for bringing to light that God wishes for the Church (some may cringe at using such an "institutional word") to participate and be a means through which God restores himself to the rest of creation.

Where I break with the missional camp is in the assertion that God's most primary desire is to be restored to his creation. I would argue that God's primary desire is to express love through relationship. Before God formed the universe (however, you feel that happened) the triune God (3 persons, 1 being) was in relationship with himself. Before God sought "Adam & Eve" in the garden God was in relationship with them. More than I am missional, I am Love-oriented.

As I look at scripture I see a God who is driven by a fundamental love, which is foundationally relational. It is this desire that motivated God to create, and motivated God to pursue his creation. I would contend that creating and pursuing stem out of God's love which is expressed in relationship. Thereby, God being missional is merely a bi-product of God's love.

Perhaps, the missional camp would agree with me on this, if this is true then there title is rather misleading, as it puts mission in the forefront and love in the background. Missional also puts the emphasis on action what we are to do, rather than who we are to be. From what I know about Missionals love is to be the primary means by which the mission is progressed, yet making mission the focus leaves Missionals open to the same critique many express regarding the church. The critique of being focused on doing Christianity and not being Christians. Consequently, I would rather focus on God's foundational love and let mission be its outpouring.