The kids all lined up with eager expectation, baskets in hand, to listen to the rules of the contest. There were plenty of eggs for everyone. In fact, the adults have calculated that each kid could have 30-35 eggs of their own. So be nice. Share. And don't fight over the Easter eggs. Now, go!
The kids scrambled out into the yard and the fastest and strongest outpaced the slow and the weak. Kids old enough to know better stuffed their baskets full of eggs while the toddlers struggled to find four or five without having them swiped from under their feet. It was a dog eat dog world out there.
After the 15 minutes of chaotic avarice, the children were called together. The adrenaline of the competition waned and some of the older children, coming to their senses, were a bit embarrassed by the plenty of their own baskets compared to the scarcity of the younger children's baskets. I witnessed as one of the older girls came and offered to my little daughter some of her own candy. "It's not really fair," she explained, "for me to have so much and for her to not have enough." We smiled and thanked her warmly, commending her for exhibiting the better qualities of humanity.
Odd, isn't it? Children seem to understand. Those who have more than they need share with the ones who don't have enough. The unwritten rule that each child understands is that fairness is equality. Justice demands that the big kids watch out for the little kids. If only the adult world worked the same way...
"In reply he said to them, 'Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.'" - Luke 3:11
Sunday, March 23, 2008
The Day that Makes All Other Days Matter
Today is the day that makes all other days matter. It is Easter. Today we celebrate the fact that life conquers death, that hope conquers despair, and that our lives are now hidden with Christ in God. In honor of this day, I'm posting a speech that I wrote on the subject of hope 11 months ago on April 23, 2007 shortly after the shooting at Virginia Tech.
----
In light of last week’s shootings at Virginia Tech, some might find it almost sacrilegious to speak about hope. And yet it is in times like these that the Christian message of hope which is rooted in the resurrection is perhaps more pertinent than ever. You and I all watched the television coverage last week of the deadliest school shooting in our nation’s history. We saw the crying students, heard experts psychoanalyze the shooter, cringed as pundits used the disaster to refuel the debate over gun control, and read reports of strained relations between our country and South Korea of all things. We saw the best and worst of our own faith – some Christians rallying to the side of the hurting and offering a word of comfort, others organizing an anti-gay parade to be held near the funerals of the victims (yes, it’s true). But in the wake of the tragedy, it seemed that the best the world had to offer were sentimental sound bytes about “how he was a great guy” and the need of the “human spirit to rise above this.” I don’t know about you, but if my brother had been shot last week, I would have wanted more than hollow platitudes about how “everything is going to be alright.”
Last week a vigil was held in the honor of the victims at Virginia Tech. Students came together for a night of remembrance and solidarity, hoping to bring comfort to one another. Listen to this account of the event as reported by the school newspaper of the nearby University of Virginia:
“Thousands dressed in maroon and burnt orange, not to support a team but to support one another. They gathered in Cassell Coliseum and Lane Stadium to mourn and to begin the process of healing. It was fitting that at the conclusion of the ceremony, the crowd chanted "Let's Go... Hokies," as they do when athletic teams take the field. That athletic cheer was a symbol not only of an intention to eventually move on, but an effort to band together and carry one another through such a heartbreaking reality.”
Let’s go... Hokies?!? This is the comfort that the world has to offer to families who have just lost a loved one? We gather together in order to remember the deceased and the best we can come up with is... “Let’s Go Hokies”?!? Now I’m a college sports fan. My parents live in Champaign, IL the seat of the University of Illinois. I like sports and school spirit as much as the next guy. I confess that I even spent a little too much money to buy a nice hooded U of I sweatshirt for myself last fall. But I’ll be honest with you. If the best word of comfort you could give me when I experience tragedy in my life is a pathetic school slogan, I would give up hope. I would find myself in utter despair. Wouldn’t you?
I believe there are two wrong ways that Christians might respond in the midst of loss and pain. The first is, as we have all talked about over the last few weeks, to give in to despair – to throw up our hands and just give up. The second, sometimes even more common and perhaps even more dangerous reaction, is what I’d like to call “bland moral optimism.” We’ve all run across this before. They are the people who pat us on the shoulder and tell us “It’s not all that bad.” “Chin up.” “Things will look better in the morning.” And the worst is when they couch it in biblical language – “Where is your joy in the Lord?” My wife told me about a little children’s song she was taught in her rural UM church (which I will not sing for you):
I’m inright, outright, upright, downright happy all the time (2x)
Since Jesus Christ came in, and cleansed my heart from sin.
I’m inright, outright, upright, downright happy all the time.
Thank God the writers of the Bible were not so flippant about the trials we face in this world. No, there must be an extreme between these two reactions of despair and bland moral optimism. And there is. It is what our faith calls “hope.”
Hope is not optimism. Hope looks tragedy straight in the eye and makes no attempt to sugar-coat it. Hope reminds us that there is a time in life to laugh and a time to weep. Optimism ignores the reality of life and it foolishly claims that “everything is getting better” even when all the evidence tell us that actually things are not getting better. In the nineteenth century, philosophers like Hegel taught us that everything is going to get better. Through a dialectical process, human progress and technology will one day evolve human society into a glorious utopia. Human nature isn’t bad, it told us, it’s good! We’re all deep down inside of us really good people! And this general optimism about the future pervaded western thought through the nineteenth and even into the twentieth century. And then, in 1914, all our bland moral optimism came crashing down with WWI when we learned that we can use our technology to create machine guns and chemical weapons in order to kill each other on a scale never before possible. This is where Hegel’s optimism led us and, guess what, it failed.
No, hope is not optimism. Hope runs much deeper. So what’s the big difference? How do we live as hopeful people and not as petty optimists? Listen to the words of the theologian John Macquarrie: “Hope is humble, trustful, vulnerable. Optimism is arrogant, brash, complacent. Hope has known the pang of suffering and the chill of despair. Only one who has cried de profundis can really appreciate the meaning of hope. Optimism has not faced the enormity of evil... What drives some to atheism is not a genuinely biblical hope but an insensitive optimism masquerading as such hope.”
We Christians are a people of hope because we are absolutely convinced that God is in control of history and that he is working to defeat evil. More than that, we hold that God will defeat evil – yes, even death and the grave itself. The great liberation theologian Gustavo Gutierrez reminds us, “Hope is based on the conviction that God is at work in our lives and in the world.” We hold on to hope, as St. Paul says, because “the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints” belongs to us (Eph 1:18), because we will once day inherit glory (Col 1:27) and eternal life (Titus 1:2), because, we know with John the Revelator, that soon we’re going to see Jesus riding on a white horse. We mourn and long and yearn alongside of all of creation for that day, but in the meantime “we do not mourn like those who have no hope.”
As followers of the resurrected one, we have more to say that “Let’s Go Hokies.” No, we say: “Jesus Christ is risen! He is risen indeed!”
----
In light of last week’s shootings at Virginia Tech, some might find it almost sacrilegious to speak about hope. And yet it is in times like these that the Christian message of hope which is rooted in the resurrection is perhaps more pertinent than ever. You and I all watched the television coverage last week of the deadliest school shooting in our nation’s history. We saw the crying students, heard experts psychoanalyze the shooter, cringed as pundits used the disaster to refuel the debate over gun control, and read reports of strained relations between our country and South Korea of all things. We saw the best and worst of our own faith – some Christians rallying to the side of the hurting and offering a word of comfort, others organizing an anti-gay parade to be held near the funerals of the victims (yes, it’s true). But in the wake of the tragedy, it seemed that the best the world had to offer were sentimental sound bytes about “how he was a great guy” and the need of the “human spirit to rise above this.” I don’t know about you, but if my brother had been shot last week, I would have wanted more than hollow platitudes about how “everything is going to be alright.”
Last week a vigil was held in the honor of the victims at Virginia Tech. Students came together for a night of remembrance and solidarity, hoping to bring comfort to one another. Listen to this account of the event as reported by the school newspaper of the nearby University of Virginia:
“Thousands dressed in maroon and burnt orange, not to support a team but to support one another. They gathered in Cassell Coliseum and Lane Stadium to mourn and to begin the process of healing. It was fitting that at the conclusion of the ceremony, the crowd chanted "Let's Go... Hokies," as they do when athletic teams take the field. That athletic cheer was a symbol not only of an intention to eventually move on, but an effort to band together and carry one another through such a heartbreaking reality.”
Let’s go... Hokies?!? This is the comfort that the world has to offer to families who have just lost a loved one? We gather together in order to remember the deceased and the best we can come up with is... “Let’s Go Hokies”?!? Now I’m a college sports fan. My parents live in Champaign, IL the seat of the University of Illinois. I like sports and school spirit as much as the next guy. I confess that I even spent a little too much money to buy a nice hooded U of I sweatshirt for myself last fall. But I’ll be honest with you. If the best word of comfort you could give me when I experience tragedy in my life is a pathetic school slogan, I would give up hope. I would find myself in utter despair. Wouldn’t you?
I believe there are two wrong ways that Christians might respond in the midst of loss and pain. The first is, as we have all talked about over the last few weeks, to give in to despair – to throw up our hands and just give up. The second, sometimes even more common and perhaps even more dangerous reaction, is what I’d like to call “bland moral optimism.” We’ve all run across this before. They are the people who pat us on the shoulder and tell us “It’s not all that bad.” “Chin up.” “Things will look better in the morning.” And the worst is when they couch it in biblical language – “Where is your joy in the Lord?” My wife told me about a little children’s song she was taught in her rural UM church (which I will not sing for you):
I’m inright, outright, upright, downright happy all the time (2x)
Since Jesus Christ came in, and cleansed my heart from sin.
I’m inright, outright, upright, downright happy all the time.
Thank God the writers of the Bible were not so flippant about the trials we face in this world. No, there must be an extreme between these two reactions of despair and bland moral optimism. And there is. It is what our faith calls “hope.”
Hope is not optimism. Hope looks tragedy straight in the eye and makes no attempt to sugar-coat it. Hope reminds us that there is a time in life to laugh and a time to weep. Optimism ignores the reality of life and it foolishly claims that “everything is getting better” even when all the evidence tell us that actually things are not getting better. In the nineteenth century, philosophers like Hegel taught us that everything is going to get better. Through a dialectical process, human progress and technology will one day evolve human society into a glorious utopia. Human nature isn’t bad, it told us, it’s good! We’re all deep down inside of us really good people! And this general optimism about the future pervaded western thought through the nineteenth and even into the twentieth century. And then, in 1914, all our bland moral optimism came crashing down with WWI when we learned that we can use our technology to create machine guns and chemical weapons in order to kill each other on a scale never before possible. This is where Hegel’s optimism led us and, guess what, it failed.
No, hope is not optimism. Hope runs much deeper. So what’s the big difference? How do we live as hopeful people and not as petty optimists? Listen to the words of the theologian John Macquarrie: “Hope is humble, trustful, vulnerable. Optimism is arrogant, brash, complacent. Hope has known the pang of suffering and the chill of despair. Only one who has cried de profundis can really appreciate the meaning of hope. Optimism has not faced the enormity of evil... What drives some to atheism is not a genuinely biblical hope but an insensitive optimism masquerading as such hope.”
We Christians are a people of hope because we are absolutely convinced that God is in control of history and that he is working to defeat evil. More than that, we hold that God will defeat evil – yes, even death and the grave itself. The great liberation theologian Gustavo Gutierrez reminds us, “Hope is based on the conviction that God is at work in our lives and in the world.” We hold on to hope, as St. Paul says, because “the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints” belongs to us (Eph 1:18), because we will once day inherit glory (Col 1:27) and eternal life (Titus 1:2), because, we know with John the Revelator, that soon we’re going to see Jesus riding on a white horse. We mourn and long and yearn alongside of all of creation for that day, but in the meantime “we do not mourn like those who have no hope.”
As followers of the resurrected one, we have more to say that “Let’s Go Hokies.” No, we say: “Jesus Christ is risen! He is risen indeed!”
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Nothing to Do But Save... People
I once read a book by Robert Coleman, a former professor here at Asbury, entitled "Nothing to Do But Save Souls." This phrase comes directly from the founder of Methodism, John Wesley. Unfortunately, the church has forgotten about the Hebrew meaning of soul and instead replaced it with the Greek understanding of soul. For the Hebrew, a person does not have a soul; a person is a soul. There is no distinction between soul and body. The spiritual needs of Greg Coates are intimately related to the physical needs of Greg Coates -- a fact that modern science in confirming. Oftentimes the answer to spiritual depression is as "earthy" as exercise, good sleep, a nice meal, and some sunshine. Conversely, a sick soul can lead to physical sickness as well. Our bodies and souls are intimately connected and cannot be separated from one another.
This is the problem with much of 20th century evangelicalism. Somewhere along the line we became convinced that the church is called to heal sick souls... and nothing more. We ministered to an invisible, interior world of feelings, guilt, psychology, etc. My own Free Methodist Church even adopted as its slogan "One More Soul" to describe our mission and focus. But a gospel sent to minister to people's souls alone is a truncated and diluted gospel.
A close reading of the Bible will not allow us to fall into this dualistic thinking. We have more records of Jesus healing people from blindness, from demon-possession, and from sicknesses than we do of Jesus ministering to people's "souls" (in the Greek sense of the word).
This is why I found Viv Grigg's call for holistic ministry so refreshing. By refusing to divide body from soul, Grigg sums up the natural progression that takes place for a pastor who is concerned about the well-being of his people:
"1. Proclamation leads to disciplemaking.
2. Disciplemaking leads to pastoral issues.
3. Pastoral issues result in building a new social structure where economic needs can be discussed and enumerated.
4. A new social structure involves dealing with politicians and seeking changes in public policy or political personnel."
I once believed that the pastor of a congregation must be decidedly unpolitical. I can no longer affirm this now that I accept the fact that Christ ministers to the whole person. And in this I have once again become a good Methodist. John Wesley and B. T. Roberts were incredibly active on the political scene. I guess at least I'm in good company.
This is the problem with much of 20th century evangelicalism. Somewhere along the line we became convinced that the church is called to heal sick souls... and nothing more. We ministered to an invisible, interior world of feelings, guilt, psychology, etc. My own Free Methodist Church even adopted as its slogan "One More Soul" to describe our mission and focus. But a gospel sent to minister to people's souls alone is a truncated and diluted gospel.
A close reading of the Bible will not allow us to fall into this dualistic thinking. We have more records of Jesus healing people from blindness, from demon-possession, and from sicknesses than we do of Jesus ministering to people's "souls" (in the Greek sense of the word).
This is why I found Viv Grigg's call for holistic ministry so refreshing. By refusing to divide body from soul, Grigg sums up the natural progression that takes place for a pastor who is concerned about the well-being of his people:
"1. Proclamation leads to disciplemaking.
2. Disciplemaking leads to pastoral issues.
3. Pastoral issues result in building a new social structure where economic needs can be discussed and enumerated.
4. A new social structure involves dealing with politicians and seeking changes in public policy or political personnel."
I once believed that the pastor of a congregation must be decidedly unpolitical. I can no longer affirm this now that I accept the fact that Christ ministers to the whole person. And in this I have once again become a good Methodist. John Wesley and B. T. Roberts were incredibly active on the political scene. I guess at least I'm in good company.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
5 Years of War - Part 2
As promised, here are my favorite quotes from Stanley Hauerwas' book The Peaceable Kingdom. On this, the fifth anniversary of my country's unprovoked invasion of another country, I pray for God's forgiveness. May He have mercy on those who suffer as a result of our own arrogance and may He also have mercy on my own land for the selective listening that took place in the run up to this war, the greed that has infused our every move since it has begun, and the violence in which we are willing to participate in the name of preserving "the American way of life."
----
“The truth that moves the sun and the stars is that which is so sure in its power that it refuses to compel compliance or agreement by force. Rather it relies on the slow, hard, and seemingly unrewarding work of witness, a witness which it trusts to prevail even in a fragmented and violent world.”
“Christian ethics is not first of all an ethics of principles, laws, or values, but an ethic that demands we attend to the life of a particular individual – Jesus of Nazareth. It is only from him that we can learn perfection – which is at the very least nothing less than forgiving our enemies.”
“Christians cannot seek justice from the barrel of a gun; and we must be suspicious of that justice that relies on manipulation of our less than worthy motives, for God does not rule creation through coercion, but through a cross. As Christians, therefore, we seek not so much to be effective as to be faithful – we, thus, cannot do that which promises ‘results’ when the means are unjust.”
“I was also slowly coming to see that there was nothing very passive about Jesus’ form of nonviolence, rather his discipleship not only allowed but required the Christian to be actively engaged in the creation of conditions for justice and peace.”
----
“The truth that moves the sun and the stars is that which is so sure in its power that it refuses to compel compliance or agreement by force. Rather it relies on the slow, hard, and seemingly unrewarding work of witness, a witness which it trusts to prevail even in a fragmented and violent world.”
“Christian ethics is not first of all an ethics of principles, laws, or values, but an ethic that demands we attend to the life of a particular individual – Jesus of Nazareth. It is only from him that we can learn perfection – which is at the very least nothing less than forgiving our enemies.”“Christians cannot seek justice from the barrel of a gun; and we must be suspicious of that justice that relies on manipulation of our less than worthy motives, for God does not rule creation through coercion, but through a cross. As Christians, therefore, we seek not so much to be effective as to be faithful – we, thus, cannot do that which promises ‘results’ when the means are unjust.”
“I was also slowly coming to see that there was nothing very passive about Jesus’ form of nonviolence, rather his discipleship not only allowed but required the Christian to be actively engaged in the creation of conditions for justice and peace.”
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
5 Years of War
Tomorrow marks the 5th anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq. Still holding tenaciously to our belief that we are God's greatest gift to mankind (thank you, John Winthrop), we have set out on our holy jihad to reshape the world into our own image. More than this, much of the Christian community has rejected that radical cross-bearing, non-violent love of Jesus Christ and instead chosen to mimic the hallow rhetoric of our politicians. We have adopted a new language -- the language of war -- rather than remaining faithful to the language of the gospels.
Two of the voices that have cried out in the wilderness against this travesty, calling the church to repentance through a return to the cruci-centric faith of the early church, are John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas.
Today I will share some of my favorite quotations from Yoder's earth-shaking book The Politics of Jesus. Hauerwas quotes are on their way for tomorrow.
“It is the good news that my enemy and I are united, through no merit or work of our own, in a new humanity that forbids henceforth my ever taking his or her life into my hands.”
“Jesus was so faithful to the enemy-love of God that it cost him all his effectiveness; he gave up every handle on history.”
“Christ renounced the claim to govern history. The universal testimony of Scripture is that Christians are those who follow Christ at just this point.”
“The point is not that one can attain all of one’s legitimate ends without using violent means. It is rather that our readiness to renounce our legitimate ends whenever they cannot be attained by legitimate means itself constitutes our participation in the triumphant suffering of the Lamb.”
“A social style characterized by the creation of a new community and the rejection of violence of any kind is the theme of New Testament proclamation from beginning to end, from right to left. The cross of Christ is the model of Christian social efficacy, the power of God for those who believe.”
“Jesus was not just a moralist whose teachings had some political implications; he was not primarily a teacher of spirituality whose public ministry unfortunately was seen in a political light; he was not just a sacrificial lamb preparing for his immolation, or a God-Man whose divine status calls us to disregard his humanity. Jesus was, in his divinely mandated prophethood, priesthood, and kingship, the bearer of a new possibility of human, social, and therefore political relationships. His baptism is the inauguration and his cross the culmination of that new regime in which his disciples are called to share.”
Closing prayer: Oh God, forgive my nation for thinking it alone can dictate to other peoples the proper way to live... and this at the end of a sword. Forgive your church for silently watching as innocent lives are destroyed or, worse, for participating in the very engine which destroys those lives. Make us instead instruments of your peace. Give us the courage to suffer and die out of love for our enemies and to imitate your Son who refused to retaliate. Send your Holy Spirit upon your people and renew us with a vision for your peaceable kingdom in which the lion lays down with the lamb. And make us suffering witnesses who live and die believing this to be the ultimate reality. Amen.
Two of the voices that have cried out in the wilderness against this travesty, calling the church to repentance through a return to the cruci-centric faith of the early church, are John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas.
Today I will share some of my favorite quotations from Yoder's earth-shaking book The Politics of Jesus. Hauerwas quotes are on their way for tomorrow.
“It is the good news that my enemy and I are united, through no merit or work of our own, in a new humanity that forbids henceforth my ever taking his or her life into my hands.”
“Jesus was so faithful to the enemy-love of God that it cost him all his effectiveness; he gave up every handle on history.”
“Christ renounced the claim to govern history. The universal testimony of Scripture is that Christians are those who follow Christ at just this point.”
“The point is not that one can attain all of one’s legitimate ends without using violent means. It is rather that our readiness to renounce our legitimate ends whenever they cannot be attained by legitimate means itself constitutes our participation in the triumphant suffering of the Lamb.”
“A social style characterized by the creation of a new community and the rejection of violence of any kind is the theme of New Testament proclamation from beginning to end, from right to left. The cross of Christ is the model of Christian social efficacy, the power of God for those who believe.”
“Jesus was not just a moralist whose teachings had some political implications; he was not primarily a teacher of spirituality whose public ministry unfortunately was seen in a political light; he was not just a sacrificial lamb preparing for his immolation, or a God-Man whose divine status calls us to disregard his humanity. Jesus was, in his divinely mandated prophethood, priesthood, and kingship, the bearer of a new possibility of human, social, and therefore political relationships. His baptism is the inauguration and his cross the culmination of that new regime in which his disciples are called to share.”
Closing prayer: Oh God, forgive my nation for thinking it alone can dictate to other peoples the proper way to live... and this at the end of a sword. Forgive your church for silently watching as innocent lives are destroyed or, worse, for participating in the very engine which destroys those lives. Make us instead instruments of your peace. Give us the courage to suffer and die out of love for our enemies and to imitate your Son who refused to retaliate. Send your Holy Spirit upon your people and renew us with a vision for your peaceable kingdom in which the lion lays down with the lamb. And make us suffering witnesses who live and die believing this to be the ultimate reality. Amen.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Obsessive Introspection
"Is there not quite too much danger, dear Brother, of Christians absorbing themselves with their own experience, to the exclusion of zealous efforts for the salvation of others? I fear that this is a snare of Satan, even with some who would be fully devoted to God." - Phoebe Palmer, Letter to Rev. George W. Woodruff, 1846.
Like Palmer, I have noticed a tendency within myself which I believe I have inherited from the holiness movement. It is a tendency to obsessive introspection -- a constant and persistent focus inward on my own spiritual pulse. Indeed, when I weigh the amount of time, thought, prayer, and energy I spend upon the improvement of Greg Coates in comparison to the time, thought, prayer, and energy I spend on the reformation of society, I am ashamed.
But perhaps, as St. Francis suggests in his famous prayer, "It is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; and it is in dying that we are raised again to eternal life." Or as St. Paul declared, "I wish that I myself were cursed and cut off for the sake of my brothers, the nation of Israel!" I'm thinking that it is high time I stop caring so much about the state of Greg Coates' soul and started caring even more for the condition of my family or church or friends or country. And perhaps I will find within that shift to a focus on the Other that my own salvation is thrown in on the side.
How much time did Jesus devote to enhancing his own character, his own soul, his own personal relationship to the Father? Undoubtedly, it was an important element in his life as we can see evidenced by his frequent retreats to mountainsides. But my initial impression is that the gospels are focused much more on his self-giving, Others-centered life. I believe the holiness churches of my day need to realize this. We must turn from our inwardness and instead strive for the perfection of the Other. This is what Lewis calls "the weight of glory." Only in such "others-centeredness" can individual sanctification ever take place.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Running and Not Running
I'm not much of a runner, but I went for a short one-mile jog the other night. As I ran, I meditated on how the Christian life is a lot like a race. It takes long-suffering and patience and pain. Following Jesus is not a sprint, but a marathon. Coming up the final hill on my run, I started to feel the pain and prayed to God, "You know that I cannot do it. I am not strong enough. You have to do it for me." I was talking not about the little jog, but about my Christian journey.
Then it happened.
I can't quite explain it, but I felt as though my legs were carrying me up the hill with very little effort of my own. I knew that if I wanted to stop, I could. I was still in control. And yet, I also knew that I was being empowered to climb up the hill. It only lasted for a few seconds, but I have no doubt that it happened.
God graciously revealed a mystery to me. The Christian life does indeed require my participation, but God is the One who does it. God provides the power. Salvation belongs to our God... and to our God alone. From first to last, He is the one saving me.
And so I am trying to live in this reality: I have been saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved. And I'm not the One doing it.
Then it happened.
I can't quite explain it, but I felt as though my legs were carrying me up the hill with very little effort of my own. I knew that if I wanted to stop, I could. I was still in control. And yet, I also knew that I was being empowered to climb up the hill. It only lasted for a few seconds, but I have no doubt that it happened.
God graciously revealed a mystery to me. The Christian life does indeed require my participation, but God is the One who does it. God provides the power. Salvation belongs to our God... and to our God alone. From first to last, He is the one saving me.
And so I am trying to live in this reality: I have been saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved. And I'm not the One doing it.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Ups and Downs
My life is filled with ups and downs. I would gladly exchange all of my ups to eliminate all of my downs. I just want some shalom.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Counter-Intuitive Holiness
Quote of the day comes from Charles Finney: "Too long has the church been in the habit of thinking that the great design of the gospel is to save men from the punishment of sin, whereas its real design and object is to deliver men from sin."
As I have been reading from the great figures of the nineteenth century holiness movement lately, I have had a burning question in my mind: Why is the experience of entire sanctification so rare in my own context? I live in the heart of holyland -- Wilmore, Kentucky -- and yet do not hear testimonies of this experience. So far in my three years here, I've only heard one person claim to have been entirely sanctified. Why is this so rare?
I know that I too need this experience and I seek it eagerly. I do not know for how long I must cry out to God for him to take away my corruption. But I do know that I cannot find it by merely trying harder. It is a gift of God given in His own time. The quotes below speak to this.
"You must not say or write down a resolution in your journal that 'I will pray more.' You cannot force it. But let the axe come to the root of the tree; cut down the carnal mind. How can you cut it down? You cannot, but let the Holy Spirit of God come with the condemnation of sin and the Cross of Christ, and give over the flesh to the death, and the Spirit of God will come in." - Charles G. Finney, Sermons on Gospel Themes, 1876
"If one expects to become holy by his own efforts... the thought of arriving at such a state is one of the most fantastic ideas that ever entered the human mind. If there is no means of being sanctified but by forcing my way, by dint of personal effort... I may as well give over the struggle first as last. Whatever my natural powers may be, I shall never obtain victory in this manner. But if, on the other hand, I am permitted to hear the voice of Christ... entering into a covenant with me, it is an entirely different circumstance." - Asa Mahan, Christian Perfection, 1875
Oh God, help me to let go, stop striving so hard, and learn to simply hear your voice. This alone can bring me salvation.
As I have been reading from the great figures of the nineteenth century holiness movement lately, I have had a burning question in my mind: Why is the experience of entire sanctification so rare in my own context? I live in the heart of holyland -- Wilmore, Kentucky -- and yet do not hear testimonies of this experience. So far in my three years here, I've only heard one person claim to have been entirely sanctified. Why is this so rare?
I know that I too need this experience and I seek it eagerly. I do not know for how long I must cry out to God for him to take away my corruption. But I do know that I cannot find it by merely trying harder. It is a gift of God given in His own time. The quotes below speak to this.
"You must not say or write down a resolution in your journal that 'I will pray more.' You cannot force it. But let the axe come to the root of the tree; cut down the carnal mind. How can you cut it down? You cannot, but let the Holy Spirit of God come with the condemnation of sin and the Cross of Christ, and give over the flesh to the death, and the Spirit of God will come in." - Charles G. Finney, Sermons on Gospel Themes, 1876
"If one expects to become holy by his own efforts... the thought of arriving at such a state is one of the most fantastic ideas that ever entered the human mind. If there is no means of being sanctified but by forcing my way, by dint of personal effort... I may as well give over the struggle first as last. Whatever my natural powers may be, I shall never obtain victory in this manner. But if, on the other hand, I am permitted to hear the voice of Christ... entering into a covenant with me, it is an entirely different circumstance." - Asa Mahan, Christian Perfection, 1875
Oh God, help me to let go, stop striving so hard, and learn to simply hear your voice. This alone can bring me salvation.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Gold Cord
Hast thou no scar?
No hidden scar on foot, or side, or hand?
I hear thee sung as mighty in the land,
I hear them hail thy bright ascendant star,
Hast thou no scar?
Hast thou no wound?
Yet I was wounded by the archers, spent,
Leaned against a tree to die; and rent
By ravening beasts that compassed me, I swooned:
Hast thou no wound?
No wound? no scar?
Yet, as the Master shall the servant be,
And pierced are the feet that follow Me;
But thine are whole: can he have followed far
Who hast no wound or scar?
- from Gold Cord by Amy Carmichael, 1932
Danny
Sitting in a hotel lobby, a stranger from Pittsburgh engaged me in conversation. He asked me about my daughter, advised me to enjoy every moment with her at this young age, and we chatted about sports. But it wasn't long before the conversation turned more serious. He alluded to the fact that his wife just threatened to leave him and, when I asked more specifics about it, he proved to be quite open to conversation. He talked for over thirty minutes about his wife, his two teenage children, and the suffering that has been caused by the impending divorce. Danny confided in me that he is not perfect, but that he loves his wife and wants to be reconciled with her. He listed his many attempts to bring her back which had all ended in failure. I could tell that he was not a Christian, but I spoke to him a few words about the loving, forgiving posture of Jesus Christ who models for us the only way to reconciliation... humility, patience, and a willingness to suffer for the sake of the one you love. My words were accepted with gratitude and he seemed genuinely open to my advice from the Scriptures. As we ended the conversation, I promised to pray for him. He thanked me for my listening ear and sound advice and gave me a firm handshake before parting ways.
A few observations about this encounter: 1) I am amazed at the openness and intimacy that was formed in such a short time between myself and Danny. This simply must have been the work of the Holy Spirit. 2) I wondered about how relevant the gospel is to Danny and his situation. I must reflect on this question: "What does Jesus' life, death, and resurrection have to say to a man whose wife stubbornly refuses to return to him?" 3) I regret that I did not hug Danny as we left. He needed it. Probably because of my own homophobia, I resorted instead to a firm handshake. I am resolved to give out hugs from this point forward to those who are open to it.
A few observations about this encounter: 1) I am amazed at the openness and intimacy that was formed in such a short time between myself and Danny. This simply must have been the work of the Holy Spirit. 2) I wondered about how relevant the gospel is to Danny and his situation. I must reflect on this question: "What does Jesus' life, death, and resurrection have to say to a man whose wife stubbornly refuses to return to him?" 3) I regret that I did not hug Danny as we left. He needed it. Probably because of my own homophobia, I resorted instead to a firm handshake. I am resolved to give out hugs from this point forward to those who are open to it.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Finney, Weld, Booth -- Radicals for Christ
Charles Finney and Theodore Weld were two prominent revivalists of the early 19th century -- both committed to spreading Scriptural holiness over the land as well as bringing about social reform. These men were progressives and "liberals" in their day -- they were strong abolitionists, feminists, and opponents of war in all of its forms. I was inspired by the following quotes which I cannot help but believe are quite prophetic in our own day:
"There is among the professed ministers of Christ such connivance of cherished sins, such truckling subserviency to power, such clinging with mendicant sycophancy to the skirts of wealth and influence, such humoring of pampered lusts, such cowering before bold transgression when it stalks among the high places of power with fashion in its train, or to sum up all, such floating in the wake of an unholy public sentiment, instead of beating back its waves with a ‘thus saith the Lord’ and a ‘thou art the man’ – that even men of the world who are shrewd discerners, regard them rather as the obsequious cooks and confectioners who cater for a capricious palate, than as the faithful physician who administers the medicine demanded by the disease, however much the patient may loathe it, and steadily pushes the probe to the core, whatever his struggles or upbraidings” - Theodore Weld
“Is it not time for us, brethren, to repent, to be candid and search out wherein we have been wrong and publicly and privately confess it, and pass public resolutions in our general ecclesiastical bodies, recanting and confessing what has been wrong... – our want of sympathy with Christ, our want of compassion for the slave, for the wretched prostitute, and for all the miserable and ignorant of the earth?" - Charles G. Finney
One more quote from the great co-founder of the Salvation Army, Catherine Booth:
"It is a bad sign for Christianity of this day that it provokes so little
opposition. If there were not other evidence of it being wrong I should know it from that."
All three of these comments are pertinent critiques of my own denomination, the Free Methodist Church, as well as of the larger evangelical church in the U.S. Perhaps we should be hated because we are so vocal in our advocacy for the equal rights of homosexuals. Perhaps we should be shunned in the public square because we refuse to bow the the gods of economic prosperity, blind nationalism, and the drum of war. Perhaps we should be crucified by our fellow Americans because we preach the good news that God loves Osama bin Laden and wants to redeem Moqtada al-Sadr. But we are not persecuted. We are not called "fools." And this indicates to me that we are not the true church.
"There is among the professed ministers of Christ such connivance of cherished sins, such truckling subserviency to power, such clinging with mendicant sycophancy to the skirts of wealth and influence, such humoring of pampered lusts, such cowering before bold transgression when it stalks among the high places of power with fashion in its train, or to sum up all, such floating in the wake of an unholy public sentiment, instead of beating back its waves with a ‘thus saith the Lord’ and a ‘thou art the man’ – that even men of the world who are shrewd discerners, regard them rather as the obsequious cooks and confectioners who cater for a capricious palate, than as the faithful physician who administers the medicine demanded by the disease, however much the patient may loathe it, and steadily pushes the probe to the core, whatever his struggles or upbraidings” - Theodore Weld
“Is it not time for us, brethren, to repent, to be candid and search out wherein we have been wrong and publicly and privately confess it, and pass public resolutions in our general ecclesiastical bodies, recanting and confessing what has been wrong... – our want of sympathy with Christ, our want of compassion for the slave, for the wretched prostitute, and for all the miserable and ignorant of the earth?" - Charles G. Finney
One more quote from the great co-founder of the Salvation Army, Catherine Booth:
"It is a bad sign for Christianity of this day that it provokes so little
opposition. If there were not other evidence of it being wrong I should know it from that."All three of these comments are pertinent critiques of my own denomination, the Free Methodist Church, as well as of the larger evangelical church in the U.S. Perhaps we should be hated because we are so vocal in our advocacy for the equal rights of homosexuals. Perhaps we should be shunned in the public square because we refuse to bow the the gods of economic prosperity, blind nationalism, and the drum of war. Perhaps we should be crucified by our fellow Americans because we preach the good news that God loves Osama bin Laden and wants to redeem Moqtada al-Sadr. But we are not persecuted. We are not called "fools." And this indicates to me that we are not the true church.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Questions
1. If God is that which nothing greater can be conceived, as St. Anselm teaches us, then surely He cannot be subject to the authority of anything outside of Himself. In other words, God is not restricted by any laws since He Himself is the Creator of those laws. Why, then, must sin be punished? Why did God pronounce condemnations on Adam and Eve after their disobedience if he was not forced to? Or did he take delight in doling out such punishment? Does he take pleasure in the woman's pain during childbirth? Or is God somehow ontologically bound to punish sins? If so, what does the binding? And is it greater than God? To ask this question another way, when Jesus died to pay the penalty for sins, to whom did he pay? And if the answer is "God," then what obligates God to demand sacrifice for sin? Why couldn't he just wink at it? Or if the cross was payment to Satan, then how is it that Satan has power over God and can make demands of God?
2. Leviticus 21:16-23 says: 16 The LORD said to Moses, 17 "Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy. '" This seems completely inconsistent with the character of God as revealed in the New Testament through the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus welcomed the deformed, maimed, and imperfect. He came as a doctor to the sick, not the healthy. Indeed, the New Testament points us to the fact that God celebrates such misshapen and defective people. So what can I make of these verses in Leviticus? Is such a God even worthy of worship (pardon the sacrilege in asking such a thing)? How can I praise and adore a being who excludes from his presence those who were born with a defect not of their own choosing?
3. Leviticus 25:44-46 says: 44 "'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. How very progressive of you, God! But seriously, what on earth are you thinking here? I know that you contextualize yourself into human culture in order to communicate, but the cynic in me thinks you are not really the One writing this -- this comes from the hand of a power-hungry Hebrew. I thought we were agreed that human beings are not property. I thought we agrees that one nationality is not superior to another. You sound more like Adolf Hitler here than like the Jesus I know and love.
4. What relevance does the gospel message have to Nanook of the North?
5. How much of Christian spirituality is tied up in me being literate? We extol the virtues of Bible reading, study, knowledge of the classics, etc. But shouldn't an illiterate person have just as much access to the living God as a literate one? What do you say to the mentally retarded or the socially disenfrancised who cannot read -- "First, learn your ABCs and then come to the fountain"? In a related question, how much knowledge is required for salvation? By knowledge, I mean intellectual information. Must propositional statements be grasped and intellectually affirmed? Is that the point at which salvation occurs? I sincerely hope and pray not. What a petty system that would be.
2. Leviticus 21:16-23 says: 16 The LORD said to Moses, 17 "Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy. '" This seems completely inconsistent with the character of God as revealed in the New Testament through the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus welcomed the deformed, maimed, and imperfect. He came as a doctor to the sick, not the healthy. Indeed, the New Testament points us to the fact that God celebrates such misshapen and defective people. So what can I make of these verses in Leviticus? Is such a God even worthy of worship (pardon the sacrilege in asking such a thing)? How can I praise and adore a being who excludes from his presence those who were born with a defect not of their own choosing?
3. Leviticus 25:44-46 says: 44 "'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. How very progressive of you, God! But seriously, what on earth are you thinking here? I know that you contextualize yourself into human culture in order to communicate, but the cynic in me thinks you are not really the One writing this -- this comes from the hand of a power-hungry Hebrew. I thought we were agreed that human beings are not property. I thought we agrees that one nationality is not superior to another. You sound more like Adolf Hitler here than like the Jesus I know and love.
4. What relevance does the gospel message have to Nanook of the North?
5. How much of Christian spirituality is tied up in me being literate? We extol the virtues of Bible reading, study, knowledge of the classics, etc. But shouldn't an illiterate person have just as much access to the living God as a literate one? What do you say to the mentally retarded or the socially disenfrancised who cannot read -- "First, learn your ABCs and then come to the fountain"? In a related question, how much knowledge is required for salvation? By knowledge, I mean intellectual information. Must propositional statements be grasped and intellectually affirmed? Is that the point at which salvation occurs? I sincerely hope and pray not. What a petty system that would be.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
$600
Actually written on January 25th, 2008. Since this time, 20 people have been inspired to pledge their entire rebate to charity. That's a pledge of about $12,000 total.
If our politicians and newspapers are telling the truth, most of us will be getting a $600 check in the mail come late May. For those of us who pay our taxes and make between 3 and 75 grand per year, the check is practically on its way. And our patriotic duty is, of course, to go out an blow it on stuff... most of us on stuff we don’t need or even know that we want yet. And of course everyone loves this idea. How could you be against it? For the first time in what seems like years, the Republicans and Democrats actually came together. I mean, how could you be opposed to Christmas in June?
But I’m not too keen on it.
I (for one) have had about enough of this nonsense about doing your “patriotic duty” by spending money on yourself. What kind of a narcissistic culture praises such uninhibited materialism?
Has anyone stopped to think what the United States of America (aka God’s Greatest Gift to Mankind since Jesus) could do with $150 billion? I mean... do we really even care that while the government is sending out checks so that we can splurge on a new Ipod, there are people in the world who can’t seem to scrounge up a bowl of rice?
According to Bread for the World, 850 million people on earth go hungry each day. 11 million children die annually from malnourishment. And although we’ve all heard such figures before, it seems like there is nothing we can do.
So I have a question. How much money do you think it would take to feed the entire world for one year? Assuming that we kept our current levels of giving the same, how much more money would be required of us, the Christian Nation, to make sure that food was provided for every single mouth on earth for the rest of 2008 and into 2009? Keep in mind that our government is giving us $150 billion for our new Ipods.
Answer: $13 billion. Yep. If our country wanted to, it could eliminate world hunger this year simply by reducing this “economic stimulus package” from $150 billion to $137 billion. So if those wonderfully unified Republicans and Democrats had decided to give me a check of $548 instead of $600, they could have thrown in the elimination of world hunger on the side. But no. I live in a land that doesn’t give a damn.
(Oh, and, by the way, many economists agree that an economic stimulus package like the one being given to us this year will do “little” or “no” good for the overall American economy. Don’t take my word for it... I heard it tonight from David Brooks of the New York Times).
Most of our country will delightfully open their mail some May morning and find that the government has given them a $600 shopping spree. I, for one, refuse to do it. I serve a different God. I’m going to proudly and boldly do my very unpatriotic duty and immediately dump the cash overseas where it belongs.
Ha! Imagine. If only 10% of the recipients of these rebates donated their money to www.bread.org or similar organizations, we’d feed every hungry person on earth. I’d love to see the look on our politicians faces if that happened. In fact, I’d pay $600 just to see it.
If our politicians and newspapers are telling the truth, most of us will be getting a $600 check in the mail come late May. For those of us who pay our taxes and make between 3 and 75 grand per year, the check is practically on its way. And our patriotic duty is, of course, to go out an blow it on stuff... most of us on stuff we don’t need or even know that we want yet. And of course everyone loves this idea. How could you be against it? For the first time in what seems like years, the Republicans and Democrats actually came together. I mean, how could you be opposed to Christmas in June?
But I’m not too keen on it.
I (for one) have had about enough of this nonsense about doing your “patriotic duty” by spending money on yourself. What kind of a narcissistic culture praises such uninhibited materialism?
Has anyone stopped to think what the United States of America (aka God’s Greatest Gift to Mankind since Jesus) could do with $150 billion? I mean... do we really even care that while the government is sending out checks so that we can splurge on a new Ipod, there are people in the world who can’t seem to scrounge up a bowl of rice?
According to Bread for the World, 850 million people on earth go hungry each day. 11 million children die annually from malnourishment. And although we’ve all heard such figures before, it seems like there is nothing we can do.
So I have a question. How much money do you think it would take to feed the entire world for one year? Assuming that we kept our current levels of giving the same, how much more money would be required of us, the Christian Nation, to make sure that food was provided for every single mouth on earth for the rest of 2008 and into 2009? Keep in mind that our government is giving us $150 billion for our new Ipods.
Answer: $13 billion. Yep. If our country wanted to, it could eliminate world hunger this year simply by reducing this “economic stimulus package” from $150 billion to $137 billion. So if those wonderfully unified Republicans and Democrats had decided to give me a check of $548 instead of $600, they could have thrown in the elimination of world hunger on the side. But no. I live in a land that doesn’t give a damn.
(Oh, and, by the way, many economists agree that an economic stimulus package like the one being given to us this year will do “little” or “no” good for the overall American economy. Don’t take my word for it... I heard it tonight from David Brooks of the New York Times).
Most of our country will delightfully open their mail some May morning and find that the government has given them a $600 shopping spree. I, for one, refuse to do it. I serve a different God. I’m going to proudly and boldly do my very unpatriotic duty and immediately dump the cash overseas where it belongs.
Ha! Imagine. If only 10% of the recipients of these rebates donated their money to www.bread.org or similar organizations, we’d feed every hungry person on earth. I’d love to see the look on our politicians faces if that happened. In fact, I’d pay $600 just to see it.
Reflections on Free Methodism
What do these things have in common? Fairs, movies, dancing, eating ice cream, ice skating, eating oysters, wearing lace, wearing a wedding band, playing basketball on Sundays, playing cards, drinking wine, listening to secular music, wearing neckties, and not wearing neckties. If you said, “Things that Free Methodists have, at some point in their short history, considered sinful,” then you would be right.
I am currently taking a course in the history of the holiness movement and, of course, as a life-long Free Methodist my mind always perks up when I come across some little tidbit about my own beloved church. One such blurb appeared in David Bebbington’s recently published The Dominance of Evangelicalism:
“As the National Camp Meeting Association of America grew in influence, it established state and local bodies to carry on its work. Gradually they developed a life of their own and tendencies toward separatism began to emerge especially in the Midwest and Southwest. Already there existed a vigorously independent Free Methodist Church, founded in 1860, which maintained a firm adherence to the doctrine of a clean heart. Like the would-be separatists in the National Association, the Free Methodists kept up a steady critique of the worldliness of existing denominations. A Free Methodist group holding revival services in Algonquin, Illinois, was disgusted that members of a congregation in the town held a frivolous church fair. ‘The next morning,’ according to the revivalists, ‘they filled a basket with fragments and sent them to us, but we wrote them a kindly note and returned the same, as we did not care to eat the refuse of the sacrifice offered to Dagon’” (205).
I must admit that as I read this account of my church by David Bebbington (a non-Free Methodist), my heart sank. Evidently, this refusal to break bread with a fellow Christian congregation in the community represented my spiritual ancestors’ notion of “heart purity” and “perfect love.”
I am currently taking a course in the history of the holiness movement and, of course, as a life-long Free Methodist my mind always perks up when I come across some little tidbit about my own beloved church. One such blurb appeared in David Bebbington’s recently published The Dominance of Evangelicalism:
“As the National Camp Meeting Association of America grew in influence, it established state and local bodies to carry on its work. Gradually they developed a life of their own and tendencies toward separatism began to emerge especially in the Midwest and Southwest. Already there existed a vigorously independent Free Methodist Church, founded in 1860, which maintained a firm adherence to the doctrine of a clean heart. Like the would-be separatists in the National Association, the Free Methodists kept up a steady critique of the worldliness of existing denominations. A Free Methodist group holding revival services in Algonquin, Illinois, was disgusted that members of a congregation in the town held a frivolous church fair. ‘The next morning,’ according to the revivalists, ‘they filled a basket with fragments and sent them to us, but we wrote them a kindly note and returned the same, as we did not care to eat the refuse of the sacrifice offered to Dagon’” (205).
I must admit that as I read this account of my church by David Bebbington (a non-Free Methodist), my heart sank. Evidently, this refusal to break bread with a fellow Christian congregation in the community represented my spiritual ancestors’ notion of “heart purity” and “perfect love.”
To return to the list at the top of this article, I note that we have slowly, gradually dropped most of these shibboleths from our identity. In 1860, the average Free Methodist would have considered each and every one of them evil. Fast forward a century to 1960 and the list (by my unscientific studies) would have been reduced somewhat. By this time wearing lace, eating ice cream and oysters, and attending fairs were no longer issues. Now jump to 2008 and most Free Methodists will go to bat against alcohol, and a few of us might still put up a fight over dancing or secular music. But other than that, the list at the top of this page makes us laugh under our breath and maybe roll our eyes. I note a simple historical fact: gradually, these pet sins have, one by one, been scratched off our list. Is this fact something to be lamented or welcomed?
I attend Asbury Seminary and across the street from my apartment is a tennis court owned by the school. On a little white sign at the gate to the court, the sign reads, “No tennis playing on Sundays.” No one follows this rule because the sign looks like it is about thirty years old. In fact, since I’ve been here in Wilmore, the seminary has decided to open the campus gymnasium on Sunday afternoons from 1-5pm for anyone who wants to worship God through exercise. What a contrast to the policy of the 1970s at Asbury College which required all students to stay in their rooms for the duration of Sunday afternoon in order to “rest”! Times are changing, our church is changing, and we do not know who we are.
B. T. Roberts and his friends were not fools. They did not merely think to themselves, “What arbitrary laws can we make up to give ourselves a sense of identity as a people?” No, these were women and men with fire running through their bones. They were passionate about two things: holiness unto the Lord and preaching the gospel to the poor. And upon examination of the historical context of these early zealots we find that their “pet sins” were not so unreasonable after all. The reason behind many of these prohibitions such as wearing fancy clothes, eating expensive dinners, and hobnobbing with the well off was simple: they were so fanatical about living in solidarity with the poor and providing their material resources to meet their needs that it would be sinful for them to waste their precious money on Red Lobster and Versace (forgive the anachronism).
So here is my thesis: we, as a denomination, have two options ahead of us. We can chose to return to ministry among the poor and, hence, have a foundation for simple living (i.e. stop eating oysters). Or we can choose to no longer be a sect and embrace our role as yet another middle class, generic evangelical institution (in which context most of our shibboleths make absolutely no sense at all). In other words, if we aren’t going to be a church that is filled with alcoholics, our stance against alcohol will only be demonic legalism. Such a ban makes no sense outside of its context. In my opinion, the statement in our Book of Discipline that “Because Christ admonishes us to love God with all our being and our neighbor as ourselves, we advocate abstaining from the use of alcoholic beverages” is absurd unless we are a church filled with alcoholics and former alcoholics. But, as it is, our teetotalism has become an empty shibboleth as we conveniently forget that John Wesley drank wine (not to mention Jesus and his first embarrassing miracle).
Who are we? Are we a sect or are we a denomination? Where do we go from here? Do we really want to become a movement among the poor again and embrace our history? Or are we comfortable where we are? And if our mission is to reach middle and upper class whites (which is a viable and important mission), then let’s please agree to drop these hallow legalistic rules which only cheapen our faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)