Friday, February 06, 2009
Joshua fought the battle of meta-narratives
I am sitting here with my 4 year old son who asked “What are you typing?” I told him, “I am typing about Joshua,” to which he replied, “Joshua won the battle of Jericho because he listened to God.” With a smile I nodded, “That is what the book of Joshua says.” And, that may be all that really matters. The rest of what I am going to write is probably just so much filler that should be prefaced with the phrase “lean not on your own understanding.”
The story goes that God was interviewing for a people. (I read this story in a book a while back and I can’t remember which one in order to offer credit where it is due. Suffice it to say, this story is not original to me.) God met with the Greeks and they said, “We are a nation of philosophers, poets, and artists. If you make us your people, we will expound upon your attributes at length, put your beauty on display, and disseminate knowledge of you far and wide.” He came to the Romans and they said, “We are a nation of warriors. We will expand your kingdom over the entire world converting the nations as we conquer.” He went down to Egypt and they said, “We are a very superstitious nation of builders. If you make us your people we will build great monuments in your honor which will last as a legacy to your name for millenia.” Then on his way up out of Egypt, God found a small group of peasants on the Sinai peninsula. They said, “We are not a great nation of profound thinkers, powerful warriors, or precise builders. We are a group of storytellers and if you make us your people we will remember and tell your story.” God responded, “At last, I have found my people.”
Appropriately enough, the book of Joshua contains some great stories. The fact that my 4 year old remembers the story of Jericho and got the essential message of the book is proof. Yet, there is a dark side to the familiar stories. After the walls of Jericho fell, the Israelites went in and slaughtered the entire population. At least that is what I have always thought the story said since I read the text in light of modern total warfare culminating in atrocities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki and with a modern understanding of genocide informed by places like Auschwitz, Cambodia’s killing fields, Rwanda, and Darfur. Instead, perhaps I should have been informed by more ancient forms of warfare. In ancient times it seems the general population was more or less incidental. They may or may not become involved but the goal was really to capture the leaders. (I can't help thinking that if this was still true today there would be a lot less war.) The spoils of war included the livestock, belongings, and other treasures of the ruling class, even including the slaves, wives, children, and kings themselves. (e.g. Nebuchadnezzar ordering Ashpenaz to bring in some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility at the beginning of Daniel.) So, perhaps the statements in Joshua to kill all men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys refers not so much to the general population but rather more specifically to the spoils of war and the rulers of each city in recognition that God is the victor and not the individual Isrealites. If this is the case, Joshua could be read as a liberation campaign with the Israelites freeing the local population from oppressive regimes.
I find this explanation for the problem of genocide in Joshua a bit more palatable to my postmodern sensibilities. And yet, even though some of the cities which were supposed to have been cleared of every living thing early on in Joshua still have inhabitants which must be faced again later in the book, I am not sure the text supports my reading between the lines. The premodern author of Joshua seems to have had no qualm with genocide when practiced in devotion God. In the author’s mind, slaughtering entire people groups was a spiritual act of obedience in response to the mercy God had shown Israel by bringing them out of slavery, renewing the covenant, and giving them the Torah.
I really struggle with this. God’s name has been used to support all sorts of horrible atrocities committed by the professed faithful in Jericho and Medina, Rome and Seville, Berlin and Afghanistan. In each instance, the assumption that God exclusively blessed the aggressors and condemned the victims was used as justification for appalling violence. This attitude reached its zenith in Germany during the early 20th century. When coupled with a national sense of injustice, modern rationalism, Darwinian influenced philosophy, and scientific progress, Hitler’s religious rhetoric culminated in the terrifyingly efficient extermination of Jewish, homosexual, handicapped, elderly, and other such undesirable and excluded people. Reaction against these and other atrocities led to a postmodern rejection of modern meta-narratives (religious or otherwise) which had been used by those in power to transform entire societies into killing machines. When I bring this perspective back to Joshua I am appalled and yet I need to remember that the perspective of the Israelites is not that of the powerful aggressor. Instead, their perspective is almost invariably that of the outnumbered and excluded outsider – David facing Goliath.
At the same time, exclusivity is the ideal which the author of Joshua would have the Israelites attain. If, as some believe, the book of Joshua was written near the end of the Babylonian exile, the point may have been to maintain Jewish purity after returning to the promised-land with the book of Joshua serving as a reminder to maintain devotion to God and avoid contamination by the larger surrounding culture. The purpose of the book of Joshua may have been to maintain the community in response to and in order to continue within God’s blessing. What is lacking is the second part of God’s original covenant with Abraham, the part about extending the blessing to others. Israel was meant to be a lighthouse to bless the nations and instead they replaced the windows with mirrors, thus keeping the blessing to themselves.
This tendency toward exclusivity is inherent in every religious system but none more so than my lifelong love, the Seventh-day Adventist church. Since we first heeded the call out of Babylon over 150 years ago, we have sought to build ourselves a sanctuary and insulate ourselves from society. We have accomplished this by demonizing ‘secular’ culture, suspecting all other religions and denominations, and creating a structure separate from and similar to the surrounding society with our own elaborate denominational hierarchy, school systems, and even our own hospitals. In the process, we have often succeeded in recapitulating the error of the Israelites. Too often, we have forgotten that we have been blessed to be a blessing.
I may not like the way Joshua took the promised-land by force, but at least the Israelites were actively engaged in their local context even while maintaining their exclusivity. This is a lesson for modern and postmodern readers to take to heart. Maintaining our exclusivity is not equivalent with disengaging from society. Rather, seeing the Israelites as engaged in liberating the promised-land from oppression and remembering the great prophetic voices of our faith community from Isaiah and Jeremiah to Ellen White and Martin Luther King, may we become inspired to find our own voice and reengage with society in order to speak truth to power. God is still looking for a people of storytellers who will remember and tell the stories that undermine and cut the giant meta-narratives of our day down to size.
The story goes that God was interviewing for a people. (I read this story in a book a while back and I can’t remember which one in order to offer credit where it is due. Suffice it to say, this story is not original to me.) God met with the Greeks and they said, “We are a nation of philosophers, poets, and artists. If you make us your people, we will expound upon your attributes at length, put your beauty on display, and disseminate knowledge of you far and wide.” He came to the Romans and they said, “We are a nation of warriors. We will expand your kingdom over the entire world converting the nations as we conquer.” He went down to Egypt and they said, “We are a very superstitious nation of builders. If you make us your people we will build great monuments in your honor which will last as a legacy to your name for millenia.” Then on his way up out of Egypt, God found a small group of peasants on the Sinai peninsula. They said, “We are not a great nation of profound thinkers, powerful warriors, or precise builders. We are a group of storytellers and if you make us your people we will remember and tell your story.” God responded, “At last, I have found my people.”
Appropriately enough, the book of Joshua contains some great stories. The fact that my 4 year old remembers the story of Jericho and got the essential message of the book is proof. Yet, there is a dark side to the familiar stories. After the walls of Jericho fell, the Israelites went in and slaughtered the entire population. At least that is what I have always thought the story said since I read the text in light of modern total warfare culminating in atrocities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki and with a modern understanding of genocide informed by places like Auschwitz, Cambodia’s killing fields, Rwanda, and Darfur. Instead, perhaps I should have been informed by more ancient forms of warfare. In ancient times it seems the general population was more or less incidental. They may or may not become involved but the goal was really to capture the leaders. (I can't help thinking that if this was still true today there would be a lot less war.) The spoils of war included the livestock, belongings, and other treasures of the ruling class, even including the slaves, wives, children, and kings themselves. (e.g. Nebuchadnezzar ordering Ashpenaz to bring in some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility at the beginning of Daniel.) So, perhaps the statements in Joshua to kill all men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys refers not so much to the general population but rather more specifically to the spoils of war and the rulers of each city in recognition that God is the victor and not the individual Isrealites. If this is the case, Joshua could be read as a liberation campaign with the Israelites freeing the local population from oppressive regimes.
I find this explanation for the problem of genocide in Joshua a bit more palatable to my postmodern sensibilities. And yet, even though some of the cities which were supposed to have been cleared of every living thing early on in Joshua still have inhabitants which must be faced again later in the book, I am not sure the text supports my reading between the lines. The premodern author of Joshua seems to have had no qualm with genocide when practiced in devotion God. In the author’s mind, slaughtering entire people groups was a spiritual act of obedience in response to the mercy God had shown Israel by bringing them out of slavery, renewing the covenant, and giving them the Torah.
I really struggle with this. God’s name has been used to support all sorts of horrible atrocities committed by the professed faithful in Jericho and Medina, Rome and Seville, Berlin and Afghanistan. In each instance, the assumption that God exclusively blessed the aggressors and condemned the victims was used as justification for appalling violence. This attitude reached its zenith in Germany during the early 20th century. When coupled with a national sense of injustice, modern rationalism, Darwinian influenced philosophy, and scientific progress, Hitler’s religious rhetoric culminated in the terrifyingly efficient extermination of Jewish, homosexual, handicapped, elderly, and other such undesirable and excluded people. Reaction against these and other atrocities led to a postmodern rejection of modern meta-narratives (religious or otherwise) which had been used by those in power to transform entire societies into killing machines. When I bring this perspective back to Joshua I am appalled and yet I need to remember that the perspective of the Israelites is not that of the powerful aggressor. Instead, their perspective is almost invariably that of the outnumbered and excluded outsider – David facing Goliath.
At the same time, exclusivity is the ideal which the author of Joshua would have the Israelites attain. If, as some believe, the book of Joshua was written near the end of the Babylonian exile, the point may have been to maintain Jewish purity after returning to the promised-land with the book of Joshua serving as a reminder to maintain devotion to God and avoid contamination by the larger surrounding culture. The purpose of the book of Joshua may have been to maintain the community in response to and in order to continue within God’s blessing. What is lacking is the second part of God’s original covenant with Abraham, the part about extending the blessing to others. Israel was meant to be a lighthouse to bless the nations and instead they replaced the windows with mirrors, thus keeping the blessing to themselves.
This tendency toward exclusivity is inherent in every religious system but none more so than my lifelong love, the Seventh-day Adventist church. Since we first heeded the call out of Babylon over 150 years ago, we have sought to build ourselves a sanctuary and insulate ourselves from society. We have accomplished this by demonizing ‘secular’ culture, suspecting all other religions and denominations, and creating a structure separate from and similar to the surrounding society with our own elaborate denominational hierarchy, school systems, and even our own hospitals. In the process, we have often succeeded in recapitulating the error of the Israelites. Too often, we have forgotten that we have been blessed to be a blessing.
I may not like the way Joshua took the promised-land by force, but at least the Israelites were actively engaged in their local context even while maintaining their exclusivity. This is a lesson for modern and postmodern readers to take to heart. Maintaining our exclusivity is not equivalent with disengaging from society. Rather, seeing the Israelites as engaged in liberating the promised-land from oppression and remembering the great prophetic voices of our faith community from Isaiah and Jeremiah to Ellen White and Martin Luther King, may we become inspired to find our own voice and reengage with society in order to speak truth to power. God is still looking for a people of storytellers who will remember and tell the stories that undermine and cut the giant meta-narratives of our day down to size.
Labels: Adventist, community, Epicenter, Joshua, meta-narratives, postmodernity, Sanctuary
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
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
Sunday, December 09, 2007
The Collection, Tithing Controversy, and Christmas Commercialism
The collection is one of Paul's most intriguing projects. Paul walks on eggshells through II Corinthians 8 and 9 as he seeks to inspire the church in Corinth to part with their material goods in order to send them to a group of people in a far off country, who they probably would never meet, and who likely would not have entered their church much less sat down to eat with them. Despite other considerable obstacles including traveling with large sums of money, risking the appearance of mismanaging funds, and the very real possibility that the Christian church in Jerusalem would refuse the tainted though badly needed money, Paul pressed forward with the collection. His reasons for proceeding with this risky and thorny project have implications for our own practice of tithing and our celebration of Christmas
There is an ongoing debate in Christianity over tithe. The Biblical precedent for tithing is circumstantial and nearly exclusively based on the Old Testament. Within Adventism, the debate is not generally over whether or not to tithe, but how and where our tithe money should be used. Those of us who have a more congregational bent would like to see the majority of our tithe kept in our own church for local mission. On the other hand, combining our collective 10 percent with the money from other churches in our area provides financial support for smaller churches, schools, camps, and other ministries, thus effectively expanding our local mission to a larger area. In addition, some of the money then goes up to higher levels of the organization, eventually supporting the international church. Although Paul's collection does not exactly correspond to our practice of tithing, the principle of giving to expand our limited world view and to unite a growing, diverse, global community applies well in both cases.
Always a hot topic around the holidays, Christmas commercialism is gaining in both attention and condemnation this year. Many of the comments in a recent article in the religion section of The Birmingham News suggest the answer is to simply stop giving gifts at Christmas. This may work well for some families. However, there are many who find meaning in the giving of gifts and to deny them this pleasure would only serve to diminish their holiday cheer. For Paul, the collection was never about the money. Instead, it was about the motives inspiring the gift and the relationships revealed and formed in the giving and receiving. If this perspective is carried into our Christmas giving this year, perhaps we can continue our holiday traditions with our humanity intact.
In II Corinthians 10:5, Paul writes that every thought should be taken captive in Christ. Rather than reading this as just another example of Christian elitism, expecting everyone to become like us and accept our point of view, could we live this text out in our experience of the Holiday Season and with intentional thought and Christlike humility seek to bless our family, friends, and the rest of the least of these? The God who became man and moved into the neighborhood has shown us how to be a good giver. This Christmas will you consider with me the way our giving expands our world view, enhances relationships, and helps us become a part of the Kingdom of God?
Here are a few links to websites that may stimulate ideas to enhance our giving this year. If you've got some other ideas, post them below in a comment. Thanks!
Fair trade?
http://tradeasone.com/
Tree hugger?
http://www.treehugger.com/giftguide/
Want a guide for what's good?
http://www.unclemark.org/unclemark2008.pdf
Pass on the gift?
http://www.heifer.org/
Really useful gift?
http://www.adra.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cat07_Ecommerce_home
There is an ongoing debate in Christianity over tithe. The Biblical precedent for tithing is circumstantial and nearly exclusively based on the Old Testament. Within Adventism, the debate is not generally over whether or not to tithe, but how and where our tithe money should be used. Those of us who have a more congregational bent would like to see the majority of our tithe kept in our own church for local mission. On the other hand, combining our collective 10 percent with the money from other churches in our area provides financial support for smaller churches, schools, camps, and other ministries, thus effectively expanding our local mission to a larger area. In addition, some of the money then goes up to higher levels of the organization, eventually supporting the international church. Although Paul's collection does not exactly correspond to our practice of tithing, the principle of giving to expand our limited world view and to unite a growing, diverse, global community applies well in both cases.
Always a hot topic around the holidays, Christmas commercialism is gaining in both attention and condemnation this year. Many of the comments in a recent article in the religion section of The Birmingham News suggest the answer is to simply stop giving gifts at Christmas. This may work well for some families. However, there are many who find meaning in the giving of gifts and to deny them this pleasure would only serve to diminish their holiday cheer. For Paul, the collection was never about the money. Instead, it was about the motives inspiring the gift and the relationships revealed and formed in the giving and receiving. If this perspective is carried into our Christmas giving this year, perhaps we can continue our holiday traditions with our humanity intact.
In II Corinthians 10:5, Paul writes that every thought should be taken captive in Christ. Rather than reading this as just another example of Christian elitism, expecting everyone to become like us and accept our point of view, could we live this text out in our experience of the Holiday Season and with intentional thought and Christlike humility seek to bless our family, friends, and the rest of the least of these? The God who became man and moved into the neighborhood has shown us how to be a good giver. This Christmas will you consider with me the way our giving expands our world view, enhances relationships, and helps us become a part of the Kingdom of God?
Here are a few links to websites that may stimulate ideas to enhance our giving this year. If you've got some other ideas, post them below in a comment. Thanks!
Fair trade?
http://tradeasone.com/
Tree hugger?
http://www.treehugger.com/giftguide/
Want a guide for what's good?
http://www.unclemark.org/unclemark2008.pdf
Pass on the gift?
http://www.heifer.org/
Really useful gift?
http://www.adra.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cat07_Ecommerce_home
Labels: Adventist, Christmas, Corinthians, giving, Jesus, religion, tithe
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Self Promotion, New Covenant, and War
Accusations of self promotion seem to be one of the stimulating factors that lead Paul to write another letter to the community in Corinth. His response is to discuss the new covenant in what we know as II Corinthians, chapter 3. What is the connection? Is Paul blowing a smoke screen, bringing up a deep theological discussion to distract us from the sensitive issue of his self congratulatory comments? Just what is the significance of the new covenant?
That is the question. I have friends who have left Adventism over the new covenant and the perception that we Adventists have totally missed the mark. The perception is that since under the new covenant we are saved by Jesus Christ and His grace, Adventist's continued overemphasis on archaic, legalistic laws like the sabbath constitutes an effort to earn salvation. Unfortunately, there are enough legalists in every religion, Adventism included, that this view finds plenty of evidence for corroboration. However, it seems to me that this evangelical perspective grounded in the Biblical (though limited) substitutionary model of atonement and focused on personal salvation also misses the point of the new covenant.
Some background may be helpful. The old covenant has been described as a marriage document(1)between God and the Israelites consisting of some core commandments written by God on tablets of stone and numerous other laws written down separately. Jack Rogers gives this covenant context in his book, Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality.
He writes, "The Israelites had been slaves in Egypt; they had wandered in the desert, subject to attacks from other tribes, starvation, and infectious diseases. The needed cohesiveness, cleanliness, and order in every aspect of their lives. They wanted to keep pure their manner of worshiping God, who had brought them to this land. They were struggling for their own identity. Failure to form a tight knit community could threaten their long-term survival. They needed a code for living.
In response, they developed a Holiness Code to define their religious, civic, and cultural identity. The Holiness Code’s function was to achieve the “holy purity” they sought. Its underlying theme was that they must be separate, different from the Egyptians from whom they had escaped and unmixed with the Canaanite into whose land they had now come. How were they to achieve holy purity?" 2
This raison d'etre resonates with my own appreciation of the 10 commandments as primarily designed to maintain a community in relationship with God and one another. The old covenant then was an agreement between God and Israel dealing with community and relationships.
Then, moving us into the present, God incarnate lives, teaches, dies, and lives again and this changes everything, or does it? Jesus inaugurates the new covenant and sends the Holy Spirit. The results are seen in the gospels, especially Luke, and become increasingly evident in Acts. The narrowly defined holy community of Jews has the doors blown off and the line of demarcation between those in and those out keeps expanding until nobody is excluded.
The new covenant is not so much a change in substance as it is a change in dimension. The law previously written on tablets of stone for the Jews is now written on human hearts for the world. This good news prompts Peter Storey to write, "When Christ was nailed to the cross, he nailed us to our neighbors, breaking down the divisions between us. All Christians, whether pacifists or proponents of the "just war" theory, are bound to acknowledge that for those who follow Jesus, all wars are civil wars. All wars, everywhere, are a form of fratricide."
Every war whether fought for freedom, over borders, across pews, or from competing ideologies is a sibling rivalry. Those who we like to consider "other" (elderly, muslim, female, homosexual, black, etc.) could better be described as "brother" and "sister," possibly estranged but related non-the-less. This is the good news and the big change in the new covenant.
When there is genuine unity amidst diversity in a community, this is evidence of God's life-changing grace. Paul recognizes that and responds to accusations of self endorsement by pointing to the community in Corinth struggling with sin and fighting over theology yet growing in love and he says, "You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all; and you show that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." (3)
1. Rob Bell, Sex God
2. I found this insightful quote in a discussion on the Spectrum Blog about a new documentary, "For the Bible Tells me So." Thanks Stephen!
3. II Corinthians 3:2-3 (NRSV)
That is the question. I have friends who have left Adventism over the new covenant and the perception that we Adventists have totally missed the mark. The perception is that since under the new covenant we are saved by Jesus Christ and His grace, Adventist's continued overemphasis on archaic, legalistic laws like the sabbath constitutes an effort to earn salvation. Unfortunately, there are enough legalists in every religion, Adventism included, that this view finds plenty of evidence for corroboration. However, it seems to me that this evangelical perspective grounded in the Biblical (though limited) substitutionary model of atonement and focused on personal salvation also misses the point of the new covenant.
Some background may be helpful. The old covenant has been described as a marriage document(1)between God and the Israelites consisting of some core commandments written by God on tablets of stone and numerous other laws written down separately. Jack Rogers gives this covenant context in his book, Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality.
He writes, "The Israelites had been slaves in Egypt; they had wandered in the desert, subject to attacks from other tribes, starvation, and infectious diseases. The needed cohesiveness, cleanliness, and order in every aspect of their lives. They wanted to keep pure their manner of worshiping God, who had brought them to this land. They were struggling for their own identity. Failure to form a tight knit community could threaten their long-term survival. They needed a code for living.
In response, they developed a Holiness Code to define their religious, civic, and cultural identity. The Holiness Code’s function was to achieve the “holy purity” they sought. Its underlying theme was that they must be separate, different from the Egyptians from whom they had escaped and unmixed with the Canaanite into whose land they had now come. How were they to achieve holy purity?" 2
This raison d'etre resonates with my own appreciation of the 10 commandments as primarily designed to maintain a community in relationship with God and one another. The old covenant then was an agreement between God and Israel dealing with community and relationships.
Then, moving us into the present, God incarnate lives, teaches, dies, and lives again and this changes everything, or does it? Jesus inaugurates the new covenant and sends the Holy Spirit. The results are seen in the gospels, especially Luke, and become increasingly evident in Acts. The narrowly defined holy community of Jews has the doors blown off and the line of demarcation between those in and those out keeps expanding until nobody is excluded.
The new covenant is not so much a change in substance as it is a change in dimension. The law previously written on tablets of stone for the Jews is now written on human hearts for the world. This good news prompts Peter Storey to write, "When Christ was nailed to the cross, he nailed us to our neighbors, breaking down the divisions between us. All Christians, whether pacifists or proponents of the "just war" theory, are bound to acknowledge that for those who follow Jesus, all wars are civil wars. All wars, everywhere, are a form of fratricide."
Every war whether fought for freedom, over borders, across pews, or from competing ideologies is a sibling rivalry. Those who we like to consider "other" (elderly, muslim, female, homosexual, black, etc.) could better be described as "brother" and "sister," possibly estranged but related non-the-less. This is the good news and the big change in the new covenant.
When there is genuine unity amidst diversity in a community, this is evidence of God's life-changing grace. Paul recognizes that and responds to accusations of self endorsement by pointing to the community in Corinth struggling with sin and fighting over theology yet growing in love and he says, "You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all; and you show that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." (3)
1. Rob Bell, Sex God
2. I found this insightful quote in a discussion on the Spectrum Blog about a new documentary, "For the Bible Tells me So." Thanks Stephen!
3. II Corinthians 3:2-3 (NRSV)
Labels: Acts, Adventist, community, Corinthians, Epicenter, Jesus, law, religion, unity
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Children of Men, End of Time, and Speaking in Tongues
The overt religious presence in the recent movie Children of Men is small and disappointing. There is a passing comment about a woman who became a penitent, flogging herself for the sins of mankind. Then, a visual image is presented of placard-bearing repent-proclaiming isolationists. Additionally, there is a demonstration by immigrants that conjures images of recent fundamentalist Islamic uprisings. 18 years of worldwide sterility has broken down the rest of society as well with rampant terrorism, distrust of foreigners, and imprisonment or worse for anyone unlucky enough to look, act, or speak differently. As the movie progresses, even those who claim to fight injustice utilize the same fear mongering, manipulation, and coercion they despise in the ruthless British government.
In contrast, the presence of God is revealed in Clive Owen's reluctant former activist appropriately named Theo and Pam Ferris' spiritualist out-of-work midwife evocatively called Miriam. These two individuals empty themselves of everything in order to bring the hope of a child into a world of chaos. Even while running from violence, they demonstrate true courage in standing up for good in the face of overwhelming evil. This selfless love leads to a sublime moment where the Angel's song, "Peace on earth, good will toward men," is given flesh by a crying child who hushes a brutal gun battle to a reverent though momentary standstill.
The blatant religious zealots are irrelevant or worse while the presence of God is demonstrated in those who care for the 'least of these'. This contrast is reminiscent of our proposed response to the breakdown of society predicted in Adventist eschatology. When all hell breaks loose will we perpetrate injustice, preach doom, decry evil, shrink back and isolate, or seek to do good? Chris Blake offers a vision of how we might react in his book, Swimming Against the Current. He writes, "In the midst of imminent collapse, Adventist homes open to the dispossessed and fearful. Adventist churches and schools become cities of refuge and outposts of mercy. Sanctuaries house the homeless. Playing fields plow up into gardens. As a world self-destructs, chapter 2 of Acts emerges before our wondering eyes."
A community of selfless love is infinitely more compelling than a group of individuals seeking self preservation. In I Corinthians, Paul sandwiches his eloquent description of selfless love between chapters discussing Spiritual gifts and speaking in tongues in particular. The significance of this placement points the selfishly arrogant Corinthians beyond charismatic religious demonstrations and into a more excellent way of loving one another. In the end, glossolalia is nice but agape is essential.
In Children of Men, an unexpected child provides hope for a lost world. As Christians we claim to follow One who did this very same thing. Will we join the injustice as society deteriorates? Will we become irrelevant, speaking in language nobody comprehends? Or, will we enter the Kingdom of God strengthening, encouraging, and comforting our neighbors?
In contrast, the presence of God is revealed in Clive Owen's reluctant former activist appropriately named Theo and Pam Ferris' spiritualist out-of-work midwife evocatively called Miriam. These two individuals empty themselves of everything in order to bring the hope of a child into a world of chaos. Even while running from violence, they demonstrate true courage in standing up for good in the face of overwhelming evil. This selfless love leads to a sublime moment where the Angel's song, "Peace on earth, good will toward men," is given flesh by a crying child who hushes a brutal gun battle to a reverent though momentary standstill.
The blatant religious zealots are irrelevant or worse while the presence of God is demonstrated in those who care for the 'least of these'. This contrast is reminiscent of our proposed response to the breakdown of society predicted in Adventist eschatology. When all hell breaks loose will we perpetrate injustice, preach doom, decry evil, shrink back and isolate, or seek to do good? Chris Blake offers a vision of how we might react in his book, Swimming Against the Current. He writes, "In the midst of imminent collapse, Adventist homes open to the dispossessed and fearful. Adventist churches and schools become cities of refuge and outposts of mercy. Sanctuaries house the homeless. Playing fields plow up into gardens. As a world self-destructs, chapter 2 of Acts emerges before our wondering eyes."
A community of selfless love is infinitely more compelling than a group of individuals seeking self preservation. In I Corinthians, Paul sandwiches his eloquent description of selfless love between chapters discussing Spiritual gifts and speaking in tongues in particular. The significance of this placement points the selfishly arrogant Corinthians beyond charismatic religious demonstrations and into a more excellent way of loving one another. In the end, glossolalia is nice but agape is essential.
In Children of Men, an unexpected child provides hope for a lost world. As Christians we claim to follow One who did this very same thing. Will we join the injustice as society deteriorates? Will we become irrelevant, speaking in language nobody comprehends? Or, will we enter the Kingdom of God strengthening, encouraging, and comforting our neighbors?
Labels: Adventist, community, Corinthians, diversity, Epicenter, Jesus, religion, unity
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Will the Real Adventist Please Stand Up?
With boards looming large next month I have not been updating the blog as regularly as I would like. In our Epicenter class we are currently discussing I Corinthians. Here are some ideas to consider for next week when we look at I Corinthians 11-13.
Will the real Adventist please stand up?
I have engaged this fruitless question more often than I would like to admit. Mostly these thoughts rattle around inside my head, only rarely making a synapse with cranial nerves to give them voice.
A real Adventist is (make your choices), in agreement with all 28 fundamental beliefs, ready to seek present truth, conservative, liberal, legalistic, grace-centered, rich, poor, smart, ignorant, short, tall, black, white, tan, etc...all of which insinuate that a true Adventist can be broken down into a single ideal prototype. No.
A real Adventist is an individual who chooses to join themselves to an Adventist community. Period.
It is imperative that we define ourselves through belonging rather than by behaving or believing. (1) I have heard influential Adventist leaders state bluntly that those who hold errant beliefs and eschew other vital beliefs should leave. I have read about Adventist churches that resisted outreach because it might bring imperfect sinners who would disrupt the otherwise sterile purity of their desolate church. I long for an Adventist church which recognizes that the strength of unity in diversity is more than just skin deep. (2)
But, you say with furrowed brow, Jesus prayed that we would be one. (3) Yes, he prayed for unity but not manipulative coercion to conform to some prototypical, imaginary, ideal human. Never unity by force.
The issue is illustrated in the stories of Babel and Pentecost. The tower of Babel was built through unified human effort that had no room for diversity. Minority voices were oppressed as humans struggled to save themselves. As soon as diversity was introduced, the whole project failed. Pentecost, some say, was a reversal of the loss of unity at Babel. (4) Miroslav Volf contends that this interpretation does justice to neither story. (5) Pentecost occurred in a humble prayer meeting as humans struggled to understand God. The result was not a conformed community that spoke with one homogeneous voice, but a reformed community who spoke and related to every tongue, tribe, and nation, causing diverse passersby to exclaim, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language?" (6)
John records Jesus' prayer that we would be unified in the same way He was unified with His Father. Unified in love. (7)
Love is not license. There may be times when we should do as Paul says and expel the immoral member. (8) When the actions of one are to disrupt the community, their choice is clear. The cancer of arrogance whether in flaunting errant ideas, unrepentant debauchery, icy legalism, or dangerously narrow theological understanding should be carefully excised. Occasionally this may even involve removing a member of the community. In that case, we love that individual we have lost. We work and pray for healing and reunion in the same way that you would carefully pack up a severed member from your own body and rapidly present it to a surgeon for reattachment.
The body of Christ functions best as Paul described it. Christ is the head and we are a diverse group of individual parts performing our unique functions in a coordinated, communicating miracle of life. (9)
Will the real Adventist please sit back down and join the community?
1. Richard Rice's book Believing, Behaving, Belonging is a brilliant and persuasive call for the primacy of belonging.
2. I am in no way attempting to minimize the need for unity among racial diversity. Living in Birmingham, Alabama, I realize we have a great deal of growth ahead of us in this area as well. What I am attempting to highlight is the fact that issues of diversity run much deeper than the amount of melanin in our skin. Think of the rich diversity along the spectrum of traditional to progressive Adventists. Assuming we have achieved unity in diversity because we have bridged the racial divide ignores the rich depths of experience awaiting us as we dialogue with many different cultures, traditions, backgrounds, and ideas.
3. John 17:20-22
4. Genesis 11:1-9
5. Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace
6. Acts 2:1-9 (NRSV)
7. John 17:23
8. I Corinthians 5
9. I Corinthians 12...
Labels: Adventist, community, Corinthians, Epicenter, religion
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]