Thursday, October 02, 2008
Some Conversation Food
I ran across a couple interesting posts recently. So, if anyone is reading Epicenter, check these links and leave a comment with your deepest thoughts.
Abraham Piper (in 22 words or less) asks "Why'd You Quit Your Church?". There's a theme in the comments that's worth paying attention to.
Bill Maher has a new movie coming out, and Teri Gross interviewed him on Fresh Air. Most interesting to me is his thought in paragraph 7. Isn't this the beauty of the Christian message? It's not the structure, the hierarchy, the fancy evangelism, or the tithes, it's the simple message of Jesus . . . saving a world from it's own selfishness.
Abraham Piper (in 22 words or less) asks "Why'd You Quit Your Church?". There's a theme in the comments that's worth paying attention to.
Bill Maher has a new movie coming out, and Teri Gross interviewed him on Fresh Air. Most interesting to me is his thought in paragraph 7. Isn't this the beauty of the Christian message? It's not the structure, the hierarchy, the fancy evangelism, or the tithes, it's the simple message of Jesus . . . saving a world from it's own selfishness.
Labels: community, Jesus, Movies, religion
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Sanctuary 2.0
What is your ideal church? We have been considering this topic in our Epicenter class while studying Ephesians. The soaring theology of the first three chapters culminates in a "therefore" in chapter 4 verse 1 which leads to a description in the last three chapters of a revolutionary community. Some feel this is Paul's, or one of his student's, articulation of an ideal church. But, what is your ideal church?
I have had visions of everything from small house churches to massive mega-churches as I considered this question in the past. But until recently, I thought only of my local congregation. If the concept of church reached global proportions, what would your ideal church look like?
The latest issue of Spectrum magazine includes the Sabbath sermon that Kendra Haloviak gave at the 2007 Adventist Forum Conference. Her visionary redefinition of sanctuary is as challenging as it is beautiful. Conceptualizing the sanctuary not only as a distinctive end-time doctrine to accept but as a place of safety and rest to create for all people is as inspiring in its inclusiveness as it is daunting in application. If you didn't hear the sermon or haven't read Kendra's article, beg, borrow, or steal to get it. Situational ethics definitely apply here. Breaking the 8th commandment is of course less than ideal; however, the transforming influence of an inclusive view of the Sanctuary will surely enable you to keep all the commandments more faithfully. And then, you can always return the article later. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should proudly mention that through no fault of her own I am related to Kendra since I married her cousin.)
This morning I lay in bed considering just how radical a transformation would result from large numbers of people buying into this expanded concept of the Sanctuary when it struck me. That would be my ideal church. Here then is my ideal church, conceived as an extreme makeover of my actual church, Seventh-day Adventism. I will of necessity speak from my own local context. Other perspectives and voices you will see are desperately needed.
The strengths of the Adventist church are a passionately committed core of world wide believers along with a centralized financial and power structure. Adventism has been creeping toward a congregational model, a move which I have supported in the past. Not any more. I think the conference should take ownership of the local church buildings. Unfortunately, these church buildings are inefficient and generally house warm, cozy, omphaloskeptic congregations interested in attracting visitors rather than engaging with society. Therefore, the faithful conference officials when faced with a new understanding of Sanctuary would need to evict the members and sell the churches, all of them. I can feel the conference treasurers palms itching at the influx but they shouldn't get too comfortable with the fullness of their coffers. We will get to that in a moment.
The church members suddenly finding ourselves without a church building would be forced to find a new church home which would likely literally be in one or more homes. House churches were an ancient necessity whose time has come again. Meeting together in one another's houses is the best and perhaps only way to foster community. In addition, this has the added benefit of efficiency since local members could gather within neighborhoods decreasing gas costs, lessening environmental impact, and removing the overhead of maintaining so many empty buildings for use only a few times a week.
The trauma of this dramatic change could be lessened by laying some groundwork first. The Sabbath School quarterly could be redesigned as a small group/home church study guide with Russell Burrill as the editor. (Clifford Goldstein's sharp tongue and piercing intellect would be in great need elsewhere. For instance, see the Adventist Peace Commandos below, they will be needing a General.) Pastors could be provided with internet training and a website on which to put their sermons and other materials to supplement the study guides. Local church members could be trained in small group ministry in preparation for home church leadership.
After selling off all the church property, what would the local conferences do with all the extra cash? They would go to city council meetings across the nation and request permission to by up entire city blocks in areas of severe urban blight where land can be had on the cheap and ministry opportunities abound. The conferences would then build city Sanctuaries wide open to all people from every nation, tribe, religion, and orientation. The specific functions of each Sanctuary would be planned according to the city and local needs. In Birmingham, our Sanctuary would have a fleet of vehicles to transport the sick and elderly to and from medical appointments as health care access is a real local need given the poor public transportation system. Our Sanctuary would also have ongoing cooking classes, exercise programs, smoking cessation classes, and other classes/group support meetings as preventative healthcare and education are a real community need. In addition, with our city's history of bitter racial division, a goal of our Birmingham Sanctuary would be to provide a location for the entire diverse community to dialogue together about our past, present and future. The location and facility would have to be chosen and designed with these goals in mind.
The issue of race brings up another big change that would have to occur. Regional conferences for black churches would have to integrate. The regional conferences would rightly be wary of this change since their distinctive voices have the potential to be lost in the merger. This would be equally tragic for members of both local conferences. Therefore, all involved would need to ensure that the regional conference leaders concerns were listened to, addressed, and that they had an equal share in the planning, building and implementing of the city Sanctuary. It wouldn't work any other way.
While we are doing away with regional conferences, we should go ahead and dissolve the union conferences. The Seventh-day Adventist church is second only to the Roman Catholic church in its hierarchical structure. In our new high tech global economy, top-heavy institutions are hopelessly out of date and some if not all of the bureaucracy needs to go. In the process, jobs will be lost, but there will be many new jobs created in the local sanctuaries, at the local conference level, as well as at the general conference level.
Some of the jobs created might be rather unique for the Adventist church. Just consider the security needs for a Sanctuary block planted in the middle of a neighborhood affected by urban blight. The home churches in the surrounding communities would understandably want to gather together regularly, perhaps once a month, and the inner city Sanctuary should be designed to accommodate just such gatherings. But, if families are going to bring their loved ones to the gathering, there needs to be a peace keeping force to maintain security. Can you imagine an Adventist peace keeping force armed to the teeth with non-lethal technology and working in conjunction with the local police force not only in the local sanctuary but also out in the local community, providing a safe place to worship, play, live, and grow? These Adventist Peace Commandos could be our new urban evangelists (with Goldstein at the helm).
While the Adventist peace keeping force may be a little tongue in cheek, the opportunities for translating the gospel into action in poverty stricken inner city areas are endless. Along the Sanctuary block, the church could open a restaurant, health club, florist, dance studio, job placement agency, trade school, movie theater, clinic, bakery, day care, grocery store, dentist, laundromat, art gallery, and housing. So, we might spill over a few blocks. These facilities would provide needed jobs and the rates of some or all of the venues could be based on income level.
The false dichotomy between spiritual and secular would fade as homeless vagabonds wandered into full out worship services, business owners volunteered time to tutor disadvantaged kids, saints laundered their clothes next to former crack addicts, and then they all sat down together to watch a movie, all in the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary would provide a safe place to bring the wealthy and the poor back into contact. This, according to Shane Claiborne, is the answer to the current injustice of our financial system. Redistribution as described in the early church happened as a natural result within the community not as a means to form that community and not as just another ministry of the community. Redistribution will occur spontaneously today when rich and poor get reacquainted in a Sanctuary where fear and condemnation are held at bay.
To some this may sound less like faithful dreaming and more like deconstruction, and ideally that is exactly what it is. In his book, What Would Jesus Deconstruct, John Caputo concludes that Jesus would deconstruct the church since it is 'plan B' and will one day give way to the full realization of 'plan A' the kingdom of God. So, with a nod to Peter Rollins and his new book, The Fidelity of Betrayal, I ask, how many of us are prepared to betray the current context of Adventism in order to remain faithful to the spirit of the early Adventist pioneers? Who will join us in a move to a Christianity beyond the confines of current religion? I feel a song coming on. "You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." There are surely others with better, more radical, and more faithful ideas than me. Let's hear them. "I hope some day you'll joint us, and the world will be as one."
I have had visions of everything from small house churches to massive mega-churches as I considered this question in the past. But until recently, I thought only of my local congregation. If the concept of church reached global proportions, what would your ideal church look like?
The latest issue of Spectrum magazine includes the Sabbath sermon that Kendra Haloviak gave at the 2007 Adventist Forum Conference. Her visionary redefinition of sanctuary is as challenging as it is beautiful. Conceptualizing the sanctuary not only as a distinctive end-time doctrine to accept but as a place of safety and rest to create for all people is as inspiring in its inclusiveness as it is daunting in application. If you didn't hear the sermon or haven't read Kendra's article, beg, borrow, or steal to get it. Situational ethics definitely apply here. Breaking the 8th commandment is of course less than ideal; however, the transforming influence of an inclusive view of the Sanctuary will surely enable you to keep all the commandments more faithfully. And then, you can always return the article later. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should proudly mention that through no fault of her own I am related to Kendra since I married her cousin.)
This morning I lay in bed considering just how radical a transformation would result from large numbers of people buying into this expanded concept of the Sanctuary when it struck me. That would be my ideal church. Here then is my ideal church, conceived as an extreme makeover of my actual church, Seventh-day Adventism. I will of necessity speak from my own local context. Other perspectives and voices you will see are desperately needed.
The strengths of the Adventist church are a passionately committed core of world wide believers along with a centralized financial and power structure. Adventism has been creeping toward a congregational model, a move which I have supported in the past. Not any more. I think the conference should take ownership of the local church buildings. Unfortunately, these church buildings are inefficient and generally house warm, cozy, omphaloskeptic congregations interested in attracting visitors rather than engaging with society. Therefore, the faithful conference officials when faced with a new understanding of Sanctuary would need to evict the members and sell the churches, all of them. I can feel the conference treasurers palms itching at the influx but they shouldn't get too comfortable with the fullness of their coffers. We will get to that in a moment.
The church members suddenly finding ourselves without a church building would be forced to find a new church home which would likely literally be in one or more homes. House churches were an ancient necessity whose time has come again. Meeting together in one another's houses is the best and perhaps only way to foster community. In addition, this has the added benefit of efficiency since local members could gather within neighborhoods decreasing gas costs, lessening environmental impact, and removing the overhead of maintaining so many empty buildings for use only a few times a week.
The trauma of this dramatic change could be lessened by laying some groundwork first. The Sabbath School quarterly could be redesigned as a small group/home church study guide with Russell Burrill as the editor. (Clifford Goldstein's sharp tongue and piercing intellect would be in great need elsewhere. For instance, see the Adventist Peace Commandos below, they will be needing a General.) Pastors could be provided with internet training and a website on which to put their sermons and other materials to supplement the study guides. Local church members could be trained in small group ministry in preparation for home church leadership.
After selling off all the church property, what would the local conferences do with all the extra cash? They would go to city council meetings across the nation and request permission to by up entire city blocks in areas of severe urban blight where land can be had on the cheap and ministry opportunities abound. The conferences would then build city Sanctuaries wide open to all people from every nation, tribe, religion, and orientation. The specific functions of each Sanctuary would be planned according to the city and local needs. In Birmingham, our Sanctuary would have a fleet of vehicles to transport the sick and elderly to and from medical appointments as health care access is a real local need given the poor public transportation system. Our Sanctuary would also have ongoing cooking classes, exercise programs, smoking cessation classes, and other classes/group support meetings as preventative healthcare and education are a real community need. In addition, with our city's history of bitter racial division, a goal of our Birmingham Sanctuary would be to provide a location for the entire diverse community to dialogue together about our past, present and future. The location and facility would have to be chosen and designed with these goals in mind.
The issue of race brings up another big change that would have to occur. Regional conferences for black churches would have to integrate. The regional conferences would rightly be wary of this change since their distinctive voices have the potential to be lost in the merger. This would be equally tragic for members of both local conferences. Therefore, all involved would need to ensure that the regional conference leaders concerns were listened to, addressed, and that they had an equal share in the planning, building and implementing of the city Sanctuary. It wouldn't work any other way.
While we are doing away with regional conferences, we should go ahead and dissolve the union conferences. The Seventh-day Adventist church is second only to the Roman Catholic church in its hierarchical structure. In our new high tech global economy, top-heavy institutions are hopelessly out of date and some if not all of the bureaucracy needs to go. In the process, jobs will be lost, but there will be many new jobs created in the local sanctuaries, at the local conference level, as well as at the general conference level.
Some of the jobs created might be rather unique for the Adventist church. Just consider the security needs for a Sanctuary block planted in the middle of a neighborhood affected by urban blight. The home churches in the surrounding communities would understandably want to gather together regularly, perhaps once a month, and the inner city Sanctuary should be designed to accommodate just such gatherings. But, if families are going to bring their loved ones to the gathering, there needs to be a peace keeping force to maintain security. Can you imagine an Adventist peace keeping force armed to the teeth with non-lethal technology and working in conjunction with the local police force not only in the local sanctuary but also out in the local community, providing a safe place to worship, play, live, and grow? These Adventist Peace Commandos could be our new urban evangelists (with Goldstein at the helm).
While the Adventist peace keeping force may be a little tongue in cheek, the opportunities for translating the gospel into action in poverty stricken inner city areas are endless. Along the Sanctuary block, the church could open a restaurant, health club, florist, dance studio, job placement agency, trade school, movie theater, clinic, bakery, day care, grocery store, dentist, laundromat, art gallery, and housing. So, we might spill over a few blocks. These facilities would provide needed jobs and the rates of some or all of the venues could be based on income level.
The false dichotomy between spiritual and secular would fade as homeless vagabonds wandered into full out worship services, business owners volunteered time to tutor disadvantaged kids, saints laundered their clothes next to former crack addicts, and then they all sat down together to watch a movie, all in the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary would provide a safe place to bring the wealthy and the poor back into contact. This, according to Shane Claiborne, is the answer to the current injustice of our financial system. Redistribution as described in the early church happened as a natural result within the community not as a means to form that community and not as just another ministry of the community. Redistribution will occur spontaneously today when rich and poor get reacquainted in a Sanctuary where fear and condemnation are held at bay.
To some this may sound less like faithful dreaming and more like deconstruction, and ideally that is exactly what it is. In his book, What Would Jesus Deconstruct, John Caputo concludes that Jesus would deconstruct the church since it is 'plan B' and will one day give way to the full realization of 'plan A' the kingdom of God. So, with a nod to Peter Rollins and his new book, The Fidelity of Betrayal, I ask, how many of us are prepared to betray the current context of Adventism in order to remain faithful to the spirit of the early Adventist pioneers? Who will join us in a move to a Christianity beyond the confines of current religion? I feel a song coming on. "You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." There are surely others with better, more radical, and more faithful ideas than me. Let's hear them. "I hope some day you'll joint us, and the world will be as one."
Labels: Adventist, community, Ephesians, Epicenter, giving, gospel, Movies, passion, Sabbath, Sanctuary, smoking, unity
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
"It Is Well" Legacy
Recently, the wife of the grandson of Horatio Spafford passed away. Horatio Spafford is widely known as the author of the beautiful hymn "It Is Well With My Soul" (number 530 in our hymnal if I'm correct in guessing).
Having never heard anything more than the moving story of the tragic event that gave him the hymn prose, I was interested to read this article about the legacy he and his family left in the Middle East.
After such painful life-events, what a beautiful story his children and grandchildren have created, all because of a dedicated father & follower of Christ.
When peace, like a river,
Though Satan should buffet,
My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
For me, be it Christ,
But, Lord, ’tis for Thee,
And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
Having never heard anything more than the moving story of the tragic event that gave him the hymn prose, I was interested to read this article about the legacy he and his family left in the Middle East.
After such painful life-events, what a beautiful story his children and grandchildren have created, all because of a dedicated father & follower of Christ.
When peace, like a river,
attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot,
Thou has taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.
Though Satan should buffet,
though trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.
My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross,
and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!
For me, be it Christ,
be it Christ hence to live:
If Jordan above me shall roll,
No pang shall be mine,
for in death as in life
Thou wilt whisper
Thy peace to my soul.
But, Lord, ’tis for Thee,
for Thy coming we wait,
The sky, not the grave, is our goal;
Oh, trump of the angel!
Oh, voice of the Lord!
Blessed hope, blessed rest of my soul!
And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;
The trump shall resound,
and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul.
On a slightly different but mildly related subject (that being: living our lives inside Christ's shadow) I found this post very interesting. Wouldn't it be great if we all behaved with this approach all of the time? He did leave quite a legacy didn't he?
Labels: boldness, spirituality, unity
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Why Sabbath?
A few weeks ago in our Sabbath School class we got into a discussion regarding the Sabbath. Why do we keep the Sabbath? Why is it important?
The traditional Adventist explanation is that God commanded Sabbath observance on the 7th day and so we do it. In addition, there is the eschatological understanding which maintains that the Sabbath will be the final test for who is in and who is out of God's remnant people. However, these explanations no longer resonate with postmodern society. At least, I no longer find these reasons particularly compelling. So, why do I keep the Sabbath?
I grew up keeping the Sabbath with my Seventh-day Adventist family and the Saturday Sabbath is my cultural heritage just as much as it is for the Jews. I like the history of the Sabbath and the connection it demonstrates with our Jewish spiritual forebears. In A Day Apart, Christopher Ringwald (not an SDA) makes the point that the Sabbath offers a unique place in time for the three great monotheistic religions to come together and 'meet in the middle'. I really like the idea of the Sabbath as facilitating unity rather than a demonstration of separation as it is so often portrayed.
It seems to me that those who want to do away with the traditional Jewish Sabbath (e.g. New Covenant Christians) generally have an understanding of the 10 commandments very similar to legalistic Adventists, they view God's law as being restrictive. Instead, I believe the 10 commandments were meant to allow the Israelites the freedom to enjoy community. (Imagine camping out with a bunch of people who attempt to follow vs. break all the commandments and you'll see what I mean.) When the Sabbath commandment was given, the Israelites were fresh out from slavery and the big 10 functioned at Kohlberg's baseline level of moral development to maintain unity and foster community. The rest of the law then expands on the basic concepts and propels us forward in moral reasoning. I see this continuing in the Prophets and culminating with Jesus in the sermon on the mount which I believe pushes us to function at Kohlberg's highest level of moral reasoning. But then, just because I have been transformed by grace and begin to live based on Christ's universal principle of love, it doesn't automatically mean that I should begin to break the speed limit, give up the Sabbath, or lie. Although, it might mean that I would do one or more of those things occasionally as the most loving thing to do (e.g. My child is bleeding out from a severe trauma, do I go 55 to the nearest hospital? Absolutely not. A patient is crashing and it is 15 minutes after sundown Friday night, do I wash my hands and go home? Of course not. I think the story of David eating the shewbread in the temple is an illustration of this same concept and was used in this very way by Jesus.)
But, I digress. I think that what the Sabbath is essentially about is not an arbitrary rule to test us but a gift to give us time to enjoy relationships with God and others.
Ex-adventists I have had contact with say that they don't keep the Sabbath because Jesus is our Sabbath. I can see how Christ is the embodiment of all the anti-types in the Old Testament including the Sabbath. And, I see no reason why my enjoyment of the Sabbath has to end because it is fully embodied in Christ. Taking time to rest on the Sabbath only further enhances my appreciation of what it means to rest in grace.
There are many other facets to the Sabbath as well. For instance, many Christians, Adventists included, understand the first few chapters of Genesis as poetic theology and not literal science. Traditional adventists are terrified at what this might do to our Sabbath foundation. But, in the second recording of the Sabbath commandment (Deuteronomy 5:12-15, the reason given for remembering the Sabbath is not creation but freedom from slavery. This aspect of Sabbath keeping (social justice) really resonates with me and I think it resonates with many people, especially those with postmodern sensibilities. The weekly Sabbath was tied to the yearly Sabbaths as well as to the 49th year Jubilees in which slaves were to be set free and land was returned to the original owners to prevent hoarding. The concept of allowing people to rest, the land to rejuvenate, and wealth to be redistributed are beautiful concepts and serve as important reminders in light of global warming, resource depletion, rising food costs, increasing socioeconomic inequity, and modern day forms of slavery.
Observing Sabbath on Sunday may encompass some of these concepts, I realize that, but it does not have the same continuity that I appreciate about Saturday. In addition, my community (local Seventh-day Adventist church) keeps Saturday and so it makes sense for me to do so as well. I realize an emphasis on community means a case could be made for transitioning to Sunday worship since that is what the majority of Christians do, but I consider Jews as much fellow travelers in this journey of faith as I do Catholics and Baptists. (I know, I know, when was the last time I had community with a Jew? But for that matter if we started meeting on Sunday would I really have community with the Catholics and Baptists too?) I think community has got to be smaller in order to be a real community.
I find so much meaning in our tradition of Sabbath keeping (traditionally on the 7th day of the week) that dropping the Sabbath all together or beginning to keep the Sabbath on some other day makes as much sense to me as stopping to observe my wife's and my anniversary or deciding to celebrate it on another day. There is no legal reason I could not do either of those things, but there is a very real relational and historical reason why it would make no sense and probably would harm rather than enhance our relationship.
There are many other facets of Sabbath keeping that we could explore such as the Greek/Hebrew influences on Christianity, the lack of biblical mandate for any change in Sabbath observance, and the concepts of holy time and sacred space. Maybe we will revisit these aspects later on. For now, why do you keep the Sabbath?
The traditional Adventist explanation is that God commanded Sabbath observance on the 7th day and so we do it. In addition, there is the eschatological understanding which maintains that the Sabbath will be the final test for who is in and who is out of God's remnant people. However, these explanations no longer resonate with postmodern society. At least, I no longer find these reasons particularly compelling. So, why do I keep the Sabbath?
I grew up keeping the Sabbath with my Seventh-day Adventist family and the Saturday Sabbath is my cultural heritage just as much as it is for the Jews. I like the history of the Sabbath and the connection it demonstrates with our Jewish spiritual forebears. In A Day Apart, Christopher Ringwald (not an SDA) makes the point that the Sabbath offers a unique place in time for the three great monotheistic religions to come together and 'meet in the middle'. I really like the idea of the Sabbath as facilitating unity rather than a demonstration of separation as it is so often portrayed.
It seems to me that those who want to do away with the traditional Jewish Sabbath (e.g. New Covenant Christians) generally have an understanding of the 10 commandments very similar to legalistic Adventists, they view God's law as being restrictive. Instead, I believe the 10 commandments were meant to allow the Israelites the freedom to enjoy community. (Imagine camping out with a bunch of people who attempt to follow vs. break all the commandments and you'll see what I mean.) When the Sabbath commandment was given, the Israelites were fresh out from slavery and the big 10 functioned at Kohlberg's baseline level of moral development to maintain unity and foster community. The rest of the law then expands on the basic concepts and propels us forward in moral reasoning. I see this continuing in the Prophets and culminating with Jesus in the sermon on the mount which I believe pushes us to function at Kohlberg's highest level of moral reasoning. But then, just because I have been transformed by grace and begin to live based on Christ's universal principle of love, it doesn't automatically mean that I should begin to break the speed limit, give up the Sabbath, or lie. Although, it might mean that I would do one or more of those things occasionally as the most loving thing to do (e.g. My child is bleeding out from a severe trauma, do I go 55 to the nearest hospital? Absolutely not. A patient is crashing and it is 15 minutes after sundown Friday night, do I wash my hands and go home? Of course not. I think the story of David eating the shewbread in the temple is an illustration of this same concept and was used in this very way by Jesus.)
But, I digress. I think that what the Sabbath is essentially about is not an arbitrary rule to test us but a gift to give us time to enjoy relationships with God and others.
Ex-adventists I have had contact with say that they don't keep the Sabbath because Jesus is our Sabbath. I can see how Christ is the embodiment of all the anti-types in the Old Testament including the Sabbath. And, I see no reason why my enjoyment of the Sabbath has to end because it is fully embodied in Christ. Taking time to rest on the Sabbath only further enhances my appreciation of what it means to rest in grace.
There are many other facets to the Sabbath as well. For instance, many Christians, Adventists included, understand the first few chapters of Genesis as poetic theology and not literal science. Traditional adventists are terrified at what this might do to our Sabbath foundation. But, in the second recording of the Sabbath commandment (Deuteronomy 5:12-15, the reason given for remembering the Sabbath is not creation but freedom from slavery. This aspect of Sabbath keeping (social justice) really resonates with me and I think it resonates with many people, especially those with postmodern sensibilities. The weekly Sabbath was tied to the yearly Sabbaths as well as to the 49th year Jubilees in which slaves were to be set free and land was returned to the original owners to prevent hoarding. The concept of allowing people to rest, the land to rejuvenate, and wealth to be redistributed are beautiful concepts and serve as important reminders in light of global warming, resource depletion, rising food costs, increasing socioeconomic inequity, and modern day forms of slavery.
Observing Sabbath on Sunday may encompass some of these concepts, I realize that, but it does not have the same continuity that I appreciate about Saturday. In addition, my community (local Seventh-day Adventist church) keeps Saturday and so it makes sense for me to do so as well. I realize an emphasis on community means a case could be made for transitioning to Sunday worship since that is what the majority of Christians do, but I consider Jews as much fellow travelers in this journey of faith as I do Catholics and Baptists. (I know, I know, when was the last time I had community with a Jew? But for that matter if we started meeting on Sunday would I really have community with the Catholics and Baptists too?) I think community has got to be smaller in order to be a real community.
I find so much meaning in our tradition of Sabbath keeping (traditionally on the 7th day of the week) that dropping the Sabbath all together or beginning to keep the Sabbath on some other day makes as much sense to me as stopping to observe my wife's and my anniversary or deciding to celebrate it on another day. There is no legal reason I could not do either of those things, but there is a very real relational and historical reason why it would make no sense and probably would harm rather than enhance our relationship.
There are many other facets of Sabbath keeping that we could explore such as the Greek/Hebrew influences on Christianity, the lack of biblical mandate for any change in Sabbath observance, and the concepts of holy time and sacred space. Maybe we will revisit these aspects later on. For now, why do you keep the Sabbath?
Labels: Adventist, community, postmodernity, religion, Sabbath
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Iron Man: Conversion on the Road to… Afghanistan
On a wilderness road a powerful man is knocked to the ground in a blinding flash of light and after a dramatic change of heart he begins to live for the very thing he had formerly treated with disdain. Does this sound familiar? It should. This is not only the conversion experience of the "chiefest of sinners" who became the greatest of Apostles, it is also the opening plot twist of the highest grossing film of 2008 (so far) with the tenth-biggest movie opening weekend of all time, Iron Man.
While Saul the "Pharisee of Pharisees", student of Gamaliel, and persecutor of Christians became Paul a joyfully suffering apostle of Jesus Christ, Iron Man is the story of Tony Stark a multi-billionaire playboy, engineering genius, and "merchant of death" who becomes Iron Man an impenetrable dealer of redemptive violence. Robert Downey Jr. delivers a knockout performance as the lead character in this modern tale of conversion which is similar to Paul's story only on a good dose of Hollywood steroids and with the blood-bought and fleeting Pax Romana of the Roman empire mirrored in the war profiteering of our current military-industrial complex.
The writers and producer of Iron Man walk a fine line between social commentary on the violence inherent in the current system and glorification of the proper use of our current system of power. In the process, liberals cheer as Tony commits to stop making weapons after he faces the stark reality of how his weapons are being used to kill American soldiers and subjugate powerless Afghan villagers. While at the other end of the spectrum, conservatives nod approvingly at the larger theme of consolidating force into the hands of a responsible few who will dole out violence on the rest as needed to maintain an illusory peace.
As in so many movies, violence is glorified and the answer to violent injustice is... more violence. This allows for some incredible special effects and uber-cool moments such as when Iron Man confronts a handful of terrorists holding hostages and kills the bad guys all at once. So, in combating the perceived problem of corruption and misuse, Stark operates under the same assumptions he held before his conversion and yet he naively hopes to bring about a different end. In the process, he creates a weapon which he wields to crush the corrupt and shift the balance of power but his invention is also prone to be misused as his nemesis derisively points out – leading to ever greater harm. Instead, when Paul picked up the cross of Christ it wasn't to bludgeon his Jewish opponents and crush his Roman oppressors. Rather, Paul preached Jesus Christ is Lord, a deceptively simple message that implied a complete restructuring of the power system of his day under which Caesar was widely proclaimed as Lord. Paul's Christ centered message was anti-imperialist and bottom-up with love as the highest ideal and unity amidst diversity the goal. Stark's response was more of the same shock-and-awe with top-down power as the highest ideal and homogeneous conformity the end result.
Shane Claiborne maintains in An Irresistable Revolution that it is vital to put a human face on the big issues of our day such as war, poverty, and injustice. In fact, the two stories we are comparing exemplify this concept. Saul repents only after he recognizes that his persecution is not only against the faceless hordes of a deluded break-away sect but against the very person of Jesus Christ himself. In the same way, it is only after seeing young American soldiers killed and experiencing first hand the terror of his own weapons that Tony Stark seeks to atone for his past.
I wonder what Iron Man would have looked like if Tony Stark’s philosophical change of heart had been as complete as was his reliance on the arc reactor which kept his physical heart beating. What if his eyes had been opened not only to the humanity of the persecuted but also to the value of the persecutors? Can you imagine a superhero taking a vow to protect life everywhere, flying around in impenetrable armor not only to free the persecuted from persecution, but also to liberate the persecutors from persecuting? Can you picture capturing weapons and using limitless wealth and engineering genius to convert the machines of war into medical equipment, food production tools, and sustainable energy sources? Do you ever wonder what our world would be like today if our national response to 9/11 had been less about shock-and-awe and more about love and compassion? Have you considered the transforming power of a person of peace confronting the coercive might of the principalities and powers with nothing but love, and thereby exposing the destructive force of the empire while simultaneously demonstrating a better way?
While Saul the "Pharisee of Pharisees", student of Gamaliel, and persecutor of Christians became Paul a joyfully suffering apostle of Jesus Christ, Iron Man is the story of Tony Stark a multi-billionaire playboy, engineering genius, and "merchant of death" who becomes Iron Man an impenetrable dealer of redemptive violence. Robert Downey Jr. delivers a knockout performance as the lead character in this modern tale of conversion which is similar to Paul's story only on a good dose of Hollywood steroids and with the blood-bought and fleeting Pax Romana of the Roman empire mirrored in the war profiteering of our current military-industrial complex.
The writers and producer of Iron Man walk a fine line between social commentary on the violence inherent in the current system and glorification of the proper use of our current system of power. In the process, liberals cheer as Tony commits to stop making weapons after he faces the stark reality of how his weapons are being used to kill American soldiers and subjugate powerless Afghan villagers. While at the other end of the spectrum, conservatives nod approvingly at the larger theme of consolidating force into the hands of a responsible few who will dole out violence on the rest as needed to maintain an illusory peace.
As in so many movies, violence is glorified and the answer to violent injustice is... more violence. This allows for some incredible special effects and uber-cool moments such as when Iron Man confronts a handful of terrorists holding hostages and kills the bad guys all at once. So, in combating the perceived problem of corruption and misuse, Stark operates under the same assumptions he held before his conversion and yet he naively hopes to bring about a different end. In the process, he creates a weapon which he wields to crush the corrupt and shift the balance of power but his invention is also prone to be misused as his nemesis derisively points out – leading to ever greater harm. Instead, when Paul picked up the cross of Christ it wasn't to bludgeon his Jewish opponents and crush his Roman oppressors. Rather, Paul preached Jesus Christ is Lord, a deceptively simple message that implied a complete restructuring of the power system of his day under which Caesar was widely proclaimed as Lord. Paul's Christ centered message was anti-imperialist and bottom-up with love as the highest ideal and unity amidst diversity the goal. Stark's response was more of the same shock-and-awe with top-down power as the highest ideal and homogeneous conformity the end result.
Shane Claiborne maintains in An Irresistable Revolution that it is vital to put a human face on the big issues of our day such as war, poverty, and injustice. In fact, the two stories we are comparing exemplify this concept. Saul repents only after he recognizes that his persecution is not only against the faceless hordes of a deluded break-away sect but against the very person of Jesus Christ himself. In the same way, it is only after seeing young American soldiers killed and experiencing first hand the terror of his own weapons that Tony Stark seeks to atone for his past.
I wonder what Iron Man would have looked like if Tony Stark’s philosophical change of heart had been as complete as was his reliance on the arc reactor which kept his physical heart beating. What if his eyes had been opened not only to the humanity of the persecuted but also to the value of the persecutors? Can you imagine a superhero taking a vow to protect life everywhere, flying around in impenetrable armor not only to free the persecuted from persecution, but also to liberate the persecutors from persecuting? Can you picture capturing weapons and using limitless wealth and engineering genius to convert the machines of war into medical equipment, food production tools, and sustainable energy sources? Do you ever wonder what our world would be like today if our national response to 9/11 had been less about shock-and-awe and more about love and compassion? Have you considered the transforming power of a person of peace confronting the coercive might of the principalities and powers with nothing but love, and thereby exposing the destructive force of the empire while simultaneously demonstrating a better way?
Labels: Conversion, Epicenter, Movies, Paul
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Boxes
I came across the poem online today and I really liked the message. I didn't write it, so you can comment all you want without fear. :)
I had to laugh at myself today
For thinking about how I had it made
And day after day just slips away
As if I’ve got it figured out
I’m so used to being comfortable
To life being uninterruptable
But that’s not what I’m about
I’m gonna live outside the box today
And capture everything around me
Thank the Lord for what surrounds me
Maybe I’ll just throw the box away
‘Cause it’s so much better out here anyway
I’m tired of my life being typical
Why should it have to be predictable?
Life can be irresistible
And that’s what I’m finding out
I’m seeing things from a different view
Closing my eyes and trusting You
‘Cause that’s what I’m all about
Thank You for the life You’ve given me
Thank You for the way
You make me free to be
Someone who can look at every day
Seeing all the beauty You have made
(Alli Rogers, “Boxes”)
I had to laugh at myself today
For thinking about how I had it made
And day after day just slips away
As if I’ve got it figured out
I’m so used to being comfortable
To life being uninterruptable
But that’s not what I’m about
I’m gonna live outside the box today
And capture everything around me
Thank the Lord for what surrounds me
Maybe I’ll just throw the box away
‘Cause it’s so much better out here anyway
I’m tired of my life being typical
Why should it have to be predictable?
Life can be irresistible
And that’s what I’m finding out
I’m seeing things from a different view
Closing my eyes and trusting You
‘Cause that’s what I’m all about
Thank You for the life You’ve given me
Thank You for the way
You make me free to be
Someone who can look at every day
Seeing all the beauty You have made
(Alli Rogers, “Boxes”)
Sunday, March 02, 2008
What lenses do we use?
I just read this post on a site that I frequent called Doable Evangelism. It's an interesting site that Randy Siever and Jim Henderson run. They give seminars on finding simple, practical ways to reach others for Christ, and I'm usually happily surprised by the suggestions they give.
Randy's recent post about re-reading Oswald Chambers My Utmost for His Highest
and coming out with a very different meaning was interesting to me. It made me wonder what kind of "lenses" I use to view the things I read. How has our church affected our reading of other spiritual material? What does God really want us to learn?
Here is the beginning of his post:
Forgive my obsession with Oswald Chambers. I have read My Utmost For His Highest fairly regularly for over 25 years. I’m now seeing things he said that I honestly don’t remember, despite the fact that I’ve likely read this exact passage at least 20 times over that span. Part of this is just where I am right now, but part of it is the filter I saw everything through in my little well defined evangelical lens. If it didn’t appear in that lens, it either didn’t exist or it was not worth considering. I read and taught scripture that way, through that smallish lens, and I apparently read Oswald Chambers that way.
Keep reading the rest, including the Oswald Chambers quote over here.
What do you think?
Randy's recent post about re-reading Oswald Chambers My Utmost for His Highest
and coming out with a very different meaning was interesting to me. It made me wonder what kind of "lenses" I use to view the things I read. How has our church affected our reading of other spiritual material? What does God really want us to learn?
Here is the beginning of his post:
Forgive my obsession with Oswald Chambers. I have read My Utmost For His Highest fairly regularly for over 25 years. I’m now seeing things he said that I honestly don’t remember, despite the fact that I’ve likely read this exact passage at least 20 times over that span. Part of this is just where I am right now, but part of it is the filter I saw everything through in my little well defined evangelical lens. If it didn’t appear in that lens, it either didn’t exist or it was not worth considering. I read and taught scripture that way, through that smallish lens, and I apparently read Oswald Chambers that way.
Keep reading the rest, including the Oswald Chambers quote over here.
What do you think?
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]