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
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]