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
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Melchizedek - International Man of Mystery
For those of us 'pomo' believers who like to embrace the mystery around us, there is no bigger 'international man of mystery' than the enigmatic Melchizedek. Popping up in the middle of Abraham's story in Genesis, he gives a blessing, receives a tithe, and other than his significant titles that is it. The preacher in Hebrews takes this scant information and runs with it, creating a robust theology out of the paucity. And yet, recently discovered (in the last 50 years) ancient texts from the Qumran community shed some interesting light on the context in which Hebrews may have been written.
Professor Barry Smith at Atlantic Baptist University offers some insight into the understanding of Melchizedek as an angelic high priest held by contemporaries of the early Christians in his web post entitled, Melchizedek in Second-Temple Interpretation. The Qumran community had a rather elaborate understanding of Melchizedek as God's ruling angel and Heaven's high priest. They also seemed to have held an eschatological (dealing with endtime events) understanding of Melchi-zedek/Michael/Prince of Light as one who would one day become judge and remove the right to rule from Melchi-resha/Belial/Prince of Darkness. This understanding of Melchizedek may have been widely known and perhaps even accepted at the time and if so, this provides an interesting and helpful context for the statements made by the preacher regarding the supremacy of Christ in relation to angels and the type/anti-type discussion of Melchizedek and Jesus in Hebrews.
The opinions on who Melchizedek actually was are rather diverse ranging from a theophany of God himself, to the Qumran communities ruling angel, to a local Caananite ruler, the King of Salem (Salem would eventually become Jerusalem, demsonstrating another level of significance). My favorite theory is that he was a local ruler who Abraham knew and apparently respected. Whoever he was, we do know the titles applied to him: Priest and King. The Aaronic line of priests was just that, priests. Although at times the priests and especially the high priest wielded power and influence, there was a separation of religious leadership and secular rulership. These were brought together once again in Jesus who is a "Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek".
The significance of all this for us today is a bit obscure until we go to Peter for some help. He writes in I Peter 2:9, "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." As a 'pomo' believer, I get really excited right about now because I see in this text a call for us as a royal preisthood to drop the false dichotomy between the secular and sacred. On a personal and relational level I see this as necessary to understand what it means to be fully human in community (see Rob Bell's presentation Everything is Spiritual). As followers of Christ, we are all about proclaiming, realizing, living, and sharing the Kingdom of God which is here.
Rob Bell re-tells the story of the Good Samaritan and uses it to make the following point. The Priest and the Levite couldn't touch the dying man because of their Holiness Code. They had spent a lifetime ministering to God and man but they were useless in a time of great need. The Samaritan on the other hand takes the very same tools the Priest and Levite used in their temple rituals, Oil and Wine, and he uses them to do good for another human being. The scorned and hated outsider breaks the priestly ministry out of the temple and takes it into the street, blessing one in need. The Kingdom of God is here.
Professor Barry Smith at Atlantic Baptist University offers some insight into the understanding of Melchizedek as an angelic high priest held by contemporaries of the early Christians in his web post entitled, Melchizedek in Second-Temple Interpretation. The Qumran community had a rather elaborate understanding of Melchizedek as God's ruling angel and Heaven's high priest. They also seemed to have held an eschatological (dealing with endtime events) understanding of Melchi-zedek/Michael/Prince of Light as one who would one day become judge and remove the right to rule from Melchi-resha/Belial/Prince of Darkness. This understanding of Melchizedek may have been widely known and perhaps even accepted at the time and if so, this provides an interesting and helpful context for the statements made by the preacher regarding the supremacy of Christ in relation to angels and the type/anti-type discussion of Melchizedek and Jesus in Hebrews.
The opinions on who Melchizedek actually was are rather diverse ranging from a theophany of God himself, to the Qumran communities ruling angel, to a local Caananite ruler, the King of Salem (Salem would eventually become Jerusalem, demsonstrating another level of significance). My favorite theory is that he was a local ruler who Abraham knew and apparently respected. Whoever he was, we do know the titles applied to him: Priest and King. The Aaronic line of priests was just that, priests. Although at times the priests and especially the high priest wielded power and influence, there was a separation of religious leadership and secular rulership. These were brought together once again in Jesus who is a "Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek".
The significance of all this for us today is a bit obscure until we go to Peter for some help. He writes in I Peter 2:9, "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." As a 'pomo' believer, I get really excited right about now because I see in this text a call for us as a royal preisthood to drop the false dichotomy between the secular and sacred. On a personal and relational level I see this as necessary to understand what it means to be fully human in community (see Rob Bell's presentation Everything is Spiritual). As followers of Christ, we are all about proclaiming, realizing, living, and sharing the Kingdom of God which is here.
Rob Bell re-tells the story of the Good Samaritan and uses it to make the following point. The Priest and the Levite couldn't touch the dying man because of their Holiness Code. They had spent a lifetime ministering to God and man but they were useless in a time of great need. The Samaritan on the other hand takes the very same tools the Priest and Levite used in their temple rituals, Oil and Wine, and he uses them to do good for another human being. The scorned and hated outsider breaks the priestly ministry out of the temple and takes it into the street, blessing one in need. The Kingdom of God is here.
Labels: community, Epicenter, Hebrews, Melchizedek, postmodernity, religion
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Some Conversation Food
I ran across a couple interesting posts recently. So, if anyone is reading Epicenter, check these links and leave a comment with your deepest thoughts.
Abraham Piper (in 22 words or less) asks "Why'd You Quit Your Church?". There's a theme in the comments that's worth paying attention to.
Bill Maher has a new movie coming out, and Teri Gross interviewed him on Fresh Air. Most interesting to me is his thought in paragraph 7. Isn't this the beauty of the Christian message? It's not the structure, the hierarchy, the fancy evangelism, or the tithes, it's the simple message of Jesus . . . saving a world from it's own selfishness.
Abraham Piper (in 22 words or less) asks "Why'd You Quit Your Church?". There's a theme in the comments that's worth paying attention to.
Bill Maher has a new movie coming out, and Teri Gross interviewed him on Fresh Air. Most interesting to me is his thought in paragraph 7. Isn't this the beauty of the Christian message? It's not the structure, the hierarchy, the fancy evangelism, or the tithes, it's the simple message of Jesus . . . saving a world from it's own selfishness.
Labels: community, Jesus, Movies, religion
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Sanctuary 2.0
What is your ideal church? We have been considering this topic in our Epicenter class while studying Ephesians. The soaring theology of the first three chapters culminates in a "therefore" in chapter 4 verse 1 which leads to a description in the last three chapters of a revolutionary community. Some feel this is Paul's, or one of his student's, articulation of an ideal church. But, what is your ideal church?
I have had visions of everything from small house churches to massive mega-churches as I considered this question in the past. But until recently, I thought only of my local congregation. If the concept of church reached global proportions, what would your ideal church look like?
The latest issue of Spectrum magazine includes the Sabbath sermon that Kendra Haloviak gave at the 2007 Adventist Forum Conference. Her visionary redefinition of sanctuary is as challenging as it is beautiful. Conceptualizing the sanctuary not only as a distinctive end-time doctrine to accept but as a place of safety and rest to create for all people is as inspiring in its inclusiveness as it is daunting in application. If you didn't hear the sermon or haven't read Kendra's article, beg, borrow, or steal to get it. Situational ethics definitely apply here. Breaking the 8th commandment is of course less than ideal; however, the transforming influence of an inclusive view of the Sanctuary will surely enable you to keep all the commandments more faithfully. And then, you can always return the article later. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should proudly mention that through no fault of her own I am related to Kendra since I married her cousin.)
This morning I lay in bed considering just how radical a transformation would result from large numbers of people buying into this expanded concept of the Sanctuary when it struck me. That would be my ideal church. Here then is my ideal church, conceived as an extreme makeover of my actual church, Seventh-day Adventism. I will of necessity speak from my own local context. Other perspectives and voices you will see are desperately needed.
The strengths of the Adventist church are a passionately committed core of world wide believers along with a centralized financial and power structure. Adventism has been creeping toward a congregational model, a move which I have supported in the past. Not any more. I think the conference should take ownership of the local church buildings. Unfortunately, these church buildings are inefficient and generally house warm, cozy, omphaloskeptic congregations interested in attracting visitors rather than engaging with society. Therefore, the faithful conference officials when faced with a new understanding of Sanctuary would need to evict the members and sell the churches, all of them. I can feel the conference treasurers palms itching at the influx but they shouldn't get too comfortable with the fullness of their coffers. We will get to that in a moment.
The church members suddenly finding ourselves without a church building would be forced to find a new church home which would likely literally be in one or more homes. House churches were an ancient necessity whose time has come again. Meeting together in one another's houses is the best and perhaps only way to foster community. In addition, this has the added benefit of efficiency since local members could gather within neighborhoods decreasing gas costs, lessening environmental impact, and removing the overhead of maintaining so many empty buildings for use only a few times a week.
The trauma of this dramatic change could be lessened by laying some groundwork first. The Sabbath School quarterly could be redesigned as a small group/home church study guide with Russell Burrill as the editor. (Clifford Goldstein's sharp tongue and piercing intellect would be in great need elsewhere. For instance, see the Adventist Peace Commandos below, they will be needing a General.) Pastors could be provided with internet training and a website on which to put their sermons and other materials to supplement the study guides. Local church members could be trained in small group ministry in preparation for home church leadership.
After selling off all the church property, what would the local conferences do with all the extra cash? They would go to city council meetings across the nation and request permission to by up entire city blocks in areas of severe urban blight where land can be had on the cheap and ministry opportunities abound. The conferences would then build city Sanctuaries wide open to all people from every nation, tribe, religion, and orientation. The specific functions of each Sanctuary would be planned according to the city and local needs. In Birmingham, our Sanctuary would have a fleet of vehicles to transport the sick and elderly to and from medical appointments as health care access is a real local need given the poor public transportation system. Our Sanctuary would also have ongoing cooking classes, exercise programs, smoking cessation classes, and other classes/group support meetings as preventative healthcare and education are a real community need. In addition, with our city's history of bitter racial division, a goal of our Birmingham Sanctuary would be to provide a location for the entire diverse community to dialogue together about our past, present and future. The location and facility would have to be chosen and designed with these goals in mind.
The issue of race brings up another big change that would have to occur. Regional conferences for black churches would have to integrate. The regional conferences would rightly be wary of this change since their distinctive voices have the potential to be lost in the merger. This would be equally tragic for members of both local conferences. Therefore, all involved would need to ensure that the regional conference leaders concerns were listened to, addressed, and that they had an equal share in the planning, building and implementing of the city Sanctuary. It wouldn't work any other way.
While we are doing away with regional conferences, we should go ahead and dissolve the union conferences. The Seventh-day Adventist church is second only to the Roman Catholic church in its hierarchical structure. In our new high tech global economy, top-heavy institutions are hopelessly out of date and some if not all of the bureaucracy needs to go. In the process, jobs will be lost, but there will be many new jobs created in the local sanctuaries, at the local conference level, as well as at the general conference level.
Some of the jobs created might be rather unique for the Adventist church. Just consider the security needs for a Sanctuary block planted in the middle of a neighborhood affected by urban blight. The home churches in the surrounding communities would understandably want to gather together regularly, perhaps once a month, and the inner city Sanctuary should be designed to accommodate just such gatherings. But, if families are going to bring their loved ones to the gathering, there needs to be a peace keeping force to maintain security. Can you imagine an Adventist peace keeping force armed to the teeth with non-lethal technology and working in conjunction with the local police force not only in the local sanctuary but also out in the local community, providing a safe place to worship, play, live, and grow? These Adventist Peace Commandos could be our new urban evangelists (with Goldstein at the helm).
While the Adventist peace keeping force may be a little tongue in cheek, the opportunities for translating the gospel into action in poverty stricken inner city areas are endless. Along the Sanctuary block, the church could open a restaurant, health club, florist, dance studio, job placement agency, trade school, movie theater, clinic, bakery, day care, grocery store, dentist, laundromat, art gallery, and housing. So, we might spill over a few blocks. These facilities would provide needed jobs and the rates of some or all of the venues could be based on income level.
The false dichotomy between spiritual and secular would fade as homeless vagabonds wandered into full out worship services, business owners volunteered time to tutor disadvantaged kids, saints laundered their clothes next to former crack addicts, and then they all sat down together to watch a movie, all in the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary would provide a safe place to bring the wealthy and the poor back into contact. This, according to Shane Claiborne, is the answer to the current injustice of our financial system. Redistribution as described in the early church happened as a natural result within the community not as a means to form that community and not as just another ministry of the community. Redistribution will occur spontaneously today when rich and poor get reacquainted in a Sanctuary where fear and condemnation are held at bay.
To some this may sound less like faithful dreaming and more like deconstruction, and ideally that is exactly what it is. In his book, What Would Jesus Deconstruct, John Caputo concludes that Jesus would deconstruct the church since it is 'plan B' and will one day give way to the full realization of 'plan A' the kingdom of God. So, with a nod to Peter Rollins and his new book, The Fidelity of Betrayal, I ask, how many of us are prepared to betray the current context of Adventism in order to remain faithful to the spirit of the early Adventist pioneers? Who will join us in a move to a Christianity beyond the confines of current religion? I feel a song coming on. "You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." There are surely others with better, more radical, and more faithful ideas than me. Let's hear them. "I hope some day you'll joint us, and the world will be as one."
I have had visions of everything from small house churches to massive mega-churches as I considered this question in the past. But until recently, I thought only of my local congregation. If the concept of church reached global proportions, what would your ideal church look like?
The latest issue of Spectrum magazine includes the Sabbath sermon that Kendra Haloviak gave at the 2007 Adventist Forum Conference. Her visionary redefinition of sanctuary is as challenging as it is beautiful. Conceptualizing the sanctuary not only as a distinctive end-time doctrine to accept but as a place of safety and rest to create for all people is as inspiring in its inclusiveness as it is daunting in application. If you didn't hear the sermon or haven't read Kendra's article, beg, borrow, or steal to get it. Situational ethics definitely apply here. Breaking the 8th commandment is of course less than ideal; however, the transforming influence of an inclusive view of the Sanctuary will surely enable you to keep all the commandments more faithfully. And then, you can always return the article later. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should proudly mention that through no fault of her own I am related to Kendra since I married her cousin.)
This morning I lay in bed considering just how radical a transformation would result from large numbers of people buying into this expanded concept of the Sanctuary when it struck me. That would be my ideal church. Here then is my ideal church, conceived as an extreme makeover of my actual church, Seventh-day Adventism. I will of necessity speak from my own local context. Other perspectives and voices you will see are desperately needed.
The strengths of the Adventist church are a passionately committed core of world wide believers along with a centralized financial and power structure. Adventism has been creeping toward a congregational model, a move which I have supported in the past. Not any more. I think the conference should take ownership of the local church buildings. Unfortunately, these church buildings are inefficient and generally house warm, cozy, omphaloskeptic congregations interested in attracting visitors rather than engaging with society. Therefore, the faithful conference officials when faced with a new understanding of Sanctuary would need to evict the members and sell the churches, all of them. I can feel the conference treasurers palms itching at the influx but they shouldn't get too comfortable with the fullness of their coffers. We will get to that in a moment.
The church members suddenly finding ourselves without a church building would be forced to find a new church home which would likely literally be in one or more homes. House churches were an ancient necessity whose time has come again. Meeting together in one another's houses is the best and perhaps only way to foster community. In addition, this has the added benefit of efficiency since local members could gather within neighborhoods decreasing gas costs, lessening environmental impact, and removing the overhead of maintaining so many empty buildings for use only a few times a week.
The trauma of this dramatic change could be lessened by laying some groundwork first. The Sabbath School quarterly could be redesigned as a small group/home church study guide with Russell Burrill as the editor. (Clifford Goldstein's sharp tongue and piercing intellect would be in great need elsewhere. For instance, see the Adventist Peace Commandos below, they will be needing a General.) Pastors could be provided with internet training and a website on which to put their sermons and other materials to supplement the study guides. Local church members could be trained in small group ministry in preparation for home church leadership.
After selling off all the church property, what would the local conferences do with all the extra cash? They would go to city council meetings across the nation and request permission to by up entire city blocks in areas of severe urban blight where land can be had on the cheap and ministry opportunities abound. The conferences would then build city Sanctuaries wide open to all people from every nation, tribe, religion, and orientation. The specific functions of each Sanctuary would be planned according to the city and local needs. In Birmingham, our Sanctuary would have a fleet of vehicles to transport the sick and elderly to and from medical appointments as health care access is a real local need given the poor public transportation system. Our Sanctuary would also have ongoing cooking classes, exercise programs, smoking cessation classes, and other classes/group support meetings as preventative healthcare and education are a real community need. In addition, with our city's history of bitter racial division, a goal of our Birmingham Sanctuary would be to provide a location for the entire diverse community to dialogue together about our past, present and future. The location and facility would have to be chosen and designed with these goals in mind.
The issue of race brings up another big change that would have to occur. Regional conferences for black churches would have to integrate. The regional conferences would rightly be wary of this change since their distinctive voices have the potential to be lost in the merger. This would be equally tragic for members of both local conferences. Therefore, all involved would need to ensure that the regional conference leaders concerns were listened to, addressed, and that they had an equal share in the planning, building and implementing of the city Sanctuary. It wouldn't work any other way.
While we are doing away with regional conferences, we should go ahead and dissolve the union conferences. The Seventh-day Adventist church is second only to the Roman Catholic church in its hierarchical structure. In our new high tech global economy, top-heavy institutions are hopelessly out of date and some if not all of the bureaucracy needs to go. In the process, jobs will be lost, but there will be many new jobs created in the local sanctuaries, at the local conference level, as well as at the general conference level.
Some of the jobs created might be rather unique for the Adventist church. Just consider the security needs for a Sanctuary block planted in the middle of a neighborhood affected by urban blight. The home churches in the surrounding communities would understandably want to gather together regularly, perhaps once a month, and the inner city Sanctuary should be designed to accommodate just such gatherings. But, if families are going to bring their loved ones to the gathering, there needs to be a peace keeping force to maintain security. Can you imagine an Adventist peace keeping force armed to the teeth with non-lethal technology and working in conjunction with the local police force not only in the local sanctuary but also out in the local community, providing a safe place to worship, play, live, and grow? These Adventist Peace Commandos could be our new urban evangelists (with Goldstein at the helm).
While the Adventist peace keeping force may be a little tongue in cheek, the opportunities for translating the gospel into action in poverty stricken inner city areas are endless. Along the Sanctuary block, the church could open a restaurant, health club, florist, dance studio, job placement agency, trade school, movie theater, clinic, bakery, day care, grocery store, dentist, laundromat, art gallery, and housing. So, we might spill over a few blocks. These facilities would provide needed jobs and the rates of some or all of the venues could be based on income level.
The false dichotomy between spiritual and secular would fade as homeless vagabonds wandered into full out worship services, business owners volunteered time to tutor disadvantaged kids, saints laundered their clothes next to former crack addicts, and then they all sat down together to watch a movie, all in the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary would provide a safe place to bring the wealthy and the poor back into contact. This, according to Shane Claiborne, is the answer to the current injustice of our financial system. Redistribution as described in the early church happened as a natural result within the community not as a means to form that community and not as just another ministry of the community. Redistribution will occur spontaneously today when rich and poor get reacquainted in a Sanctuary where fear and condemnation are held at bay.
To some this may sound less like faithful dreaming and more like deconstruction, and ideally that is exactly what it is. In his book, What Would Jesus Deconstruct, John Caputo concludes that Jesus would deconstruct the church since it is 'plan B' and will one day give way to the full realization of 'plan A' the kingdom of God. So, with a nod to Peter Rollins and his new book, The Fidelity of Betrayal, I ask, how many of us are prepared to betray the current context of Adventism in order to remain faithful to the spirit of the early Adventist pioneers? Who will join us in a move to a Christianity beyond the confines of current religion? I feel a song coming on. "You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." There are surely others with better, more radical, and more faithful ideas than me. Let's hear them. "I hope some day you'll joint us, and the world will be as one."
Labels: Adventist, community, Ephesians, Epicenter, giving, gospel, Movies, passion, Sabbath, Sanctuary, smoking, unity
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 23, 2007
I Am Legend, Advent, and Light
"This is the crisis we're in: God-light streamed into the world, but men and women everywhere ran for the darkness. They went for the darkness because they were not really interested in pleasing God. Everyone who makes a practice of doing evil, addicted to denial and illusion, hates God-light and won't come near it, fearing a painful exposure." -- John 3:19,20 (from The Message)
(Warning! The following review contains many plot spoilers and is written for either those who have seen I Am Legend or are definitely not planning to see it.)
In the opening scenes, Robert Neville (Will Smith) the hero in I Am Legend is living the rugged, individualistic, American dream -- cruising the deserted streets of New York city in a fast car with his companion at his side and a high powered rifle at the ready. Then, haunting vacant New York facades, banal banter with sightless mannequins, dreams of lost loved ones, and nights of terror, expose the hallow emptiness of existence without community.
Quickly enough, the horrific darkness is pierced revealing others in the city. Stripped of their dignity and seemingly deprived of reason and empathy by a mutated virus, these 'darkseekers' exhibit hyper-aggressive behavior, a severe light allergy, and superhuman strength. Medical and scientific implausibility aside, these hideous vampire like creatures present a counterpoint to Robert's lonely existence with their hive like social network and hierarchy. The community structure, companion loyalty, and even logical planning, all escape Neville's notice as he comments, "Social de-evolution appears to be complete." As he searches for a cure, Robert's desire to differentiate himself from the hairless vestiges of humanity who share his city clouds his otherwise brilliant scientific insight. Ironically, when he finally meets two other immune humans, a young woman named Anna and a quiet child, his own social de-evolution is evident, though not complete.
The cure for the virus is found in Robert's own immunity -- his blood. It is by passing his blood on through two others that a cure is achieved. Finally, Robert lives up to the 'Savior' title given to him on a TIME magazine cover taped to his refrigerator when he gives his life in sacrifice to prevent those who need the cure from destroying it.
The question of God is confronted as He often is in the setting of great tragedy. As a scientist, Neville takes responsibility for the tragic virus exclaiming, "God didn't do this, we did." In the same exchange, Anna tells Robert that it was God's will they should meet. "If we listen, you can hear God's plan," she says." "There is no God!" he shouts. "There is no God!" Then, at the proper time, Robert hears and listens to that quiet voice.
The movie has come under some criticism for resolving the conflict in a deus ex machina type solution in which God appears seemingly out of nowhere in a still, small voice to clean things up. However, God is present in spiritual markers embedded throughout the film. Posters pasted onto vacated buildings read, "God still loves us." Robert's family prays together when they separate. Anna's cross is evident on her rear view mirror when she rescues Robert from the 'night walkers'. And yet, the most spiritually revealing aspect of the film is also the very aspect most likely to offend, the vampire-like subhumans.
In these monstrous creatures, we catch a glimpse of the repulsive, dehumanizing, rage of sin. Their unchecked aggression and primal rage are evidence that they are less than human. Or, are they? Considering our current wars, murders, violence, poverty, illness, and apathy, perhaps we are not so different as we would like to think. From God's perspective we surely must not be. The horror we feel for the creatures in I Am Legend makes their need for a savior evident. Recognizing our own depravity in those same creatures and attempting to view things from a divine perspective makes the incarnation inconceivable.
But, here we are in the season of Advent and the incarnation is precisely what we have been reflecting on and will be celebrating on December 25th. Luke records an old Jewish priest reflecting on the coming of the Messiah in chapter 1:76-79. Through the "kind and compassionate mercy of our God," the old priest says, "a new day is dawning: the Sunrise from the heavens will break through in our darkness, and those who huddle in night, those who sit in the shadow of death, will be able to rise and walk in the light, guided in the pathway of peace" (from The Voice).
If there is a spiritual sage in the movie, it is Bob Marley, the late reggae artist. Robert quotes him as saying, "Light up the darkness." And Marley's "Redemption Song" plays as the credits roll. Redemption certainly comes for the few remaining humans; but, what of those left in outer darkness? Does the poster proclaiming, "God still loves us" apply even to monsters hell-bent on their own destruction? Does God still love even us?
Advent reveals God's unchanging, "Yes!" in a brilliant flash of ever expanding incarnate light.
(Warning! The following review contains many plot spoilers and is written for either those who have seen I Am Legend or are definitely not planning to see it.)
In the opening scenes, Robert Neville (Will Smith) the hero in I Am Legend is living the rugged, individualistic, American dream -- cruising the deserted streets of New York city in a fast car with his companion at his side and a high powered rifle at the ready. Then, haunting vacant New York facades, banal banter with sightless mannequins, dreams of lost loved ones, and nights of terror, expose the hallow emptiness of existence without community.
Quickly enough, the horrific darkness is pierced revealing others in the city. Stripped of their dignity and seemingly deprived of reason and empathy by a mutated virus, these 'darkseekers' exhibit hyper-aggressive behavior, a severe light allergy, and superhuman strength. Medical and scientific implausibility aside, these hideous vampire like creatures present a counterpoint to Robert's lonely existence with their hive like social network and hierarchy. The community structure, companion loyalty, and even logical planning, all escape Neville's notice as he comments, "Social de-evolution appears to be complete." As he searches for a cure, Robert's desire to differentiate himself from the hairless vestiges of humanity who share his city clouds his otherwise brilliant scientific insight. Ironically, when he finally meets two other immune humans, a young woman named Anna and a quiet child, his own social de-evolution is evident, though not complete.
The cure for the virus is found in Robert's own immunity -- his blood. It is by passing his blood on through two others that a cure is achieved. Finally, Robert lives up to the 'Savior' title given to him on a TIME magazine cover taped to his refrigerator when he gives his life in sacrifice to prevent those who need the cure from destroying it.
The question of God is confronted as He often is in the setting of great tragedy. As a scientist, Neville takes responsibility for the tragic virus exclaiming, "God didn't do this, we did." In the same exchange, Anna tells Robert that it was God's will they should meet. "If we listen, you can hear God's plan," she says." "There is no God!" he shouts. "There is no God!" Then, at the proper time, Robert hears and listens to that quiet voice.
The movie has come under some criticism for resolving the conflict in a deus ex machina type solution in which God appears seemingly out of nowhere in a still, small voice to clean things up. However, God is present in spiritual markers embedded throughout the film. Posters pasted onto vacated buildings read, "God still loves us." Robert's family prays together when they separate. Anna's cross is evident on her rear view mirror when she rescues Robert from the 'night walkers'. And yet, the most spiritually revealing aspect of the film is also the very aspect most likely to offend, the vampire-like subhumans.
In these monstrous creatures, we catch a glimpse of the repulsive, dehumanizing, rage of sin. Their unchecked aggression and primal rage are evidence that they are less than human. Or, are they? Considering our current wars, murders, violence, poverty, illness, and apathy, perhaps we are not so different as we would like to think. From God's perspective we surely must not be. The horror we feel for the creatures in I Am Legend makes their need for a savior evident. Recognizing our own depravity in those same creatures and attempting to view things from a divine perspective makes the incarnation inconceivable.
But, here we are in the season of Advent and the incarnation is precisely what we have been reflecting on and will be celebrating on December 25th. Luke records an old Jewish priest reflecting on the coming of the Messiah in chapter 1:76-79. Through the "kind and compassionate mercy of our God," the old priest says, "a new day is dawning: the Sunrise from the heavens will break through in our darkness, and those who huddle in night, those who sit in the shadow of death, will be able to rise and walk in the light, guided in the pathway of peace" (from The Voice).
If there is a spiritual sage in the movie, it is Bob Marley, the late reggae artist. Robert quotes him as saying, "Light up the darkness." And Marley's "Redemption Song" plays as the credits roll. Redemption certainly comes for the few remaining humans; but, what of those left in outer darkness? Does the poster proclaiming, "God still loves us" apply even to monsters hell-bent on their own destruction? Does God still love even us?
Advent reveals God's unchanging, "Yes!" in a brilliant flash of ever expanding incarnate light.
Labels: Advent, Christmas, community, incarnation, Movies, religion
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
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Thessalonians: an 'Adventist' Epistle
Happy 4th of July!
This past weekend at Epicenter, we read I Thessalonians, the whole book. I enjoyed the the broad overview and hearing some common 'sound bytes' in context such as, "But I would not have you be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope" and "The day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night."
Primarily because of these two themes and the enigmatic apocalyptic language in II Thessalonians, it struck me that the message of Thessalonians is very 'Adventist.' Then came my moment of conviction.
Paul is thrilled with Timothy's glowing report from the church in Thessalonica not because they are proclaiming Christ's soon return or because they understand the finer points of the nature of man but because of "the good news of your faith and love." He affirms them not for their doctrinal purity or their evangelistic zeal but for that same love saying, "Now concerning love of the brothers and sisters, you do not need to have anyone write you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another."
Why did this focus on love not cause me to think of this as an 'Adventist' message? Some may say that is because we lack love; and, this may be true. However, it seems to me that a lack of love may simply be the result of how we define community. Our community tends to be based on intellectual beliefs and correct doctrines rather than relational love and practical actions.
For this reason, I am very excited about Campmeeting 2.0: Bloggin' the 28 Adventist beliefs sponsored by the Spectrum Blog. This series of posts hosted on various blogs seeks to answer a simple question: how do each of our Seventh-day Adventist fundamental beliefs translate into habits or actions today? I see this as a way to help us move beyond theory and into praxis. Maybe Thessalonians is 'Adventist' after all.
Here are links to the first three posts:
Ron Osborn on The Life, Death and Resurrection of Christ
Johnny Ramirez-Johnson on Applying Trinity to human relationships
Johnny Ramirez on The remnant and its mission
Enjoy!
This past weekend at Epicenter, we read I Thessalonians, the whole book. I enjoyed the the broad overview and hearing some common 'sound bytes' in context such as, "But I would not have you be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope" and "The day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night."
Primarily because of these two themes and the enigmatic apocalyptic language in II Thessalonians, it struck me that the message of Thessalonians is very 'Adventist.' Then came my moment of conviction.
Paul is thrilled with Timothy's glowing report from the church in Thessalonica not because they are proclaiming Christ's soon return or because they understand the finer points of the nature of man but because of "the good news of your faith and love." He affirms them not for their doctrinal purity or their evangelistic zeal but for that same love saying, "Now concerning love of the brothers and sisters, you do not need to have anyone write you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another."
Why did this focus on love not cause me to think of this as an 'Adventist' message? Some may say that is because we lack love; and, this may be true. However, it seems to me that a lack of love may simply be the result of how we define community. Our community tends to be based on intellectual beliefs and correct doctrines rather than relational love and practical actions.
For this reason, I am very excited about Campmeeting 2.0: Bloggin' the 28 Adventist beliefs sponsored by the Spectrum Blog. This series of posts hosted on various blogs seeks to answer a simple question: how do each of our Seventh-day Adventist fundamental beliefs translate into habits or actions today? I see this as a way to help us move beyond theory and into praxis. Maybe Thessalonians is 'Adventist' after all.
Here are links to the first three posts:
Ron Osborn on The Life, Death and Resurrection of Christ
Johnny Ramirez-Johnson on Applying Trinity to human relationships
Johnny Ramirez on The remnant and its mission
Enjoy!
Labels: community, Epicenter, evangelism, gospel, Thessalonians
Monday, June 11, 2007
Evangelism by Being Evangelized
This past weekend in our Epicenter class we discussed evangelism (again!) in light of Galatians 3 and 4, with reference to Samir Selmanovic's chapter about Finding God in the Other in Emerging Manifesto of Hope, and incorporating a few ideas from Rollins' How (Not) to Speak of God.
Here is how it came together for me. If we agree that God is bigger than our church, denomination, and religion, then we must admit that God is at work among others outside of those areas. I envision God's work in each life and community as a process of breaking through barriers and thus enabling us to know/see God more clearly. There is a distinct possibility then that each of us in one way or more will have a clearer picture of God than others. These windows of connection with the divine would likely be more dissimilar and therefore potentially more synergistic and complementary between individuals from more dissimilar backgrounds.
Traditional methods of evangelism which seek to bring others to our own perspective with little or no consideration for their own perspective insinuate that we have the only valid window on who God is. This ignores the fact that there are barriers to our own vision of God which others in their journey may have overcome. Perhaps by following the advice that Paul gave to the Philippian communities of Euodia and Syntyche we could come together and mutually benefit from a two way evangelistic conversation. "Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."
In How (Not) to Speak of God, Rollins describes the evangelistic activities of Ikon, a nontraditional monthly Christian gathering in Ireland, as they go out to be evangelized. In the process of asking others to evangelize them, they open themselves up for the opportunity to be edified. In addition, the others are respected and valued (i.e. loved), opening a relationship to foster conversation. Then, everyone involved in the conversation is stimulated to think about and share their own experience with God. Ideally, this leads to communities of questioning, seeking, and growing disciples.
I find this vision of evangelism inspiring and it dovetails with the concept of a faith based media discussion group that some of us have talked about starting in our area -- more on that later. For now, if anyone wants to evangelize me, comments would be welcome.
Here is how it came together for me. If we agree that God is bigger than our church, denomination, and religion, then we must admit that God is at work among others outside of those areas. I envision God's work in each life and community as a process of breaking through barriers and thus enabling us to know/see God more clearly. There is a distinct possibility then that each of us in one way or more will have a clearer picture of God than others. These windows of connection with the divine would likely be more dissimilar and therefore potentially more synergistic and complementary between individuals from more dissimilar backgrounds.
Traditional methods of evangelism which seek to bring others to our own perspective with little or no consideration for their own perspective insinuate that we have the only valid window on who God is. This ignores the fact that there are barriers to our own vision of God which others in their journey may have overcome. Perhaps by following the advice that Paul gave to the Philippian communities of Euodia and Syntyche we could come together and mutually benefit from a two way evangelistic conversation. "Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."
In How (Not) to Speak of God, Rollins describes the evangelistic activities of Ikon, a nontraditional monthly Christian gathering in Ireland, as they go out to be evangelized. In the process of asking others to evangelize them, they open themselves up for the opportunity to be edified. In addition, the others are respected and valued (i.e. loved), opening a relationship to foster conversation. Then, everyone involved in the conversation is stimulated to think about and share their own experience with God. Ideally, this leads to communities of questioning, seeking, and growing disciples.
I find this vision of evangelism inspiring and it dovetails with the concept of a faith based media discussion group that some of us have talked about starting in our area -- more on that later. For now, if anyone wants to evangelize me, comments would be welcome.
Labels: community, diversity, Epicenter, evangelism, Galatians, religion, spirituality
Sunday, May 06, 2007
A Moment of Clear Spirituality
This past weekend our class met in the boat house at Aldridge Botanical Gardens next door to the church. I arrived early and reflected on Galatians with terms of 'justification' and 'gospel' swirling through my mind as red-eared sliders, bluegill, and carp rippled the glassy surface of the pond. The morning sun burned away the early haze and things became clearer. The sharper focus revealed a beautiful unity in the vibrant pond community and for a long moment I enjoyed becoming part of something greater than myself.
Justification and gospel are generally preached and conceived in modern terms of personal intellectual salvation. Recently, theologians such as N.T. Wright have insightfully proposed that Paul would have viewed those concepts in a more experiential communal way -- as a description of the unified and active community made possible in Christ. What if these perspectives are two of many integral facets in the complex concepts of justification and gospel? Perhaps our comparison of the modern and ancient perspectives should be both/and rather than either/or. Things are taking shape and a pulse quickening picture is appearing, but there is no one to share it with.
Disrupting the calm surface, a stone sinks to the bottom and stirs up the mud. The fish scatter. The turtles dive. I turn back to Galatians and the momentary clarity is replaced by muddled questions. What is the gospel? What does it mean to be justified? These are spiritual things we must discern together.
Justification and gospel are generally preached and conceived in modern terms of personal intellectual salvation. Recently, theologians such as N.T. Wright have insightfully proposed that Paul would have viewed those concepts in a more experiential communal way -- as a description of the unified and active community made possible in Christ. What if these perspectives are two of many integral facets in the complex concepts of justification and gospel? Perhaps our comparison of the modern and ancient perspectives should be both/and rather than either/or. Things are taking shape and a pulse quickening picture is appearing, but there is no one to share it with.
Disrupting the calm surface, a stone sinks to the bottom and stirs up the mud. The fish scatter. The turtles dive. I turn back to Galatians and the momentary clarity is replaced by muddled questions. What is the gospel? What does it mean to be justified? These are spiritual things we must discern together.
Labels: community, Epicenter, Galatians, nature, religion, spirituality, unity
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Seeing Beyond Modernity and Postmodernity
The Adventism of my youth was rooted and established in modernity. As a child, my mind was filled with the heady imagery of the grand narrative of God's people culminating in the ultimate end time showdown between us the Sabbath keeping remnant and the raving, depraved, even demonic others. Ellen White's writings were referred to as "The Spirit of Prophecy" as if they contained all encompassing, infallible truth. My elders spoke of having "the truth" as if we had reached the zenith of modern Biblical sholarship and theology with nothing more to learn and certainly nothing to revise. Evangelism was accomplished through extended lectures where this truth was expounded to all important individuals. I came of age in the last towering heights of modern influenced Adventism.
The Adventism of my young adulthood is undermined and deconstructed by postmodernity. Emerging as a critique of the arrogance and violence inherent in the meta-narrative of modern progress and colonialism which led to horrible injustice and outragous atrocities in the 19th and 20th centuries, postmodernity has functioned as an effective chemotherapy against the cancer of unchecked modernity.* In the process, foundations have been demolished. Ellen White has been knocked off of the precarious pedastal we placed her on by intellectuals who failed to be awed by modern apologists. Truth is recognized as relative and a claim to have all of it has become ridiculous if not overtly evil. Evangelism is a dirty word to many people and more important than intellectual truth for individuals is practical results for humanity. In Europe, where postmodernity ignited and took off, the fallout for Christianity and Adventism in particular has not been pretty. Along with the rest of North America, I seem to be rocketing along the same trajectory.
The Adventism of our future is open before us and the way is now cleared for new improvisations of ancient faith. In looking back to our premodern foundation as articulated by Paul, I find a hopeful way forward through the rubble. With postmodernity's deconstruction of the proud, modern, self-reliant, fully-informed individual, the way is open for a new way of being human. As N.T. Wright puts it, "If anyone is in Christ -- new creation! Not 'Cogito, ergo sum' but 'Amor, ergo sum': I am loved, therefore I am." Now that modernity's claim to be able to know all things objectively is shown up as a power-play, Paul's method of knowing in part and loving the other while respecting their 'otherness' becomes possible. Since the exploitative, power-based underbelly of modernity's grand narrative of scientific progress and intellectual enlightenment has been revealed, there is room for the counter-intuative epic that Paul proclaimed based on love not power with the Cross of Christ at the center.** I'm seeing the future of Adventism through Paul's eyes, and it looks good!
* For more on this concept, see Brian McLaren's chapter in the new book, Emergent Manifesto of Hope.
** These thoughts are quoted from and inspired by N.T. Wright's book, Paul In Fresh Perspective.
The Adventism of my young adulthood is undermined and deconstructed by postmodernity. Emerging as a critique of the arrogance and violence inherent in the meta-narrative of modern progress and colonialism which led to horrible injustice and outragous atrocities in the 19th and 20th centuries, postmodernity has functioned as an effective chemotherapy against the cancer of unchecked modernity.* In the process, foundations have been demolished. Ellen White has been knocked off of the precarious pedastal we placed her on by intellectuals who failed to be awed by modern apologists. Truth is recognized as relative and a claim to have all of it has become ridiculous if not overtly evil. Evangelism is a dirty word to many people and more important than intellectual truth for individuals is practical results for humanity. In Europe, where postmodernity ignited and took off, the fallout for Christianity and Adventism in particular has not been pretty. Along with the rest of North America, I seem to be rocketing along the same trajectory.
The Adventism of our future is open before us and the way is now cleared for new improvisations of ancient faith. In looking back to our premodern foundation as articulated by Paul, I find a hopeful way forward through the rubble. With postmodernity's deconstruction of the proud, modern, self-reliant, fully-informed individual, the way is open for a new way of being human. As N.T. Wright puts it, "If anyone is in Christ -- new creation! Not 'Cogito, ergo sum' but 'Amor, ergo sum': I am loved, therefore I am." Now that modernity's claim to be able to know all things objectively is shown up as a power-play, Paul's method of knowing in part and loving the other while respecting their 'otherness' becomes possible. Since the exploitative, power-based underbelly of modernity's grand narrative of scientific progress and intellectual enlightenment has been revealed, there is room for the counter-intuative epic that Paul proclaimed based on love not power with the Cross of Christ at the center.** I'm seeing the future of Adventism through Paul's eyes, and it looks good!
* For more on this concept, see Brian McLaren's chapter in the new book, Emergent Manifesto of Hope.
** These thoughts are quoted from and inspired by N.T. Wright's book, Paul In Fresh Perspective.
Labels: Acts, community, Epicenter, evangelism, postmodernity
Monday, March 19, 2007
Apathy and Ardor: Acts 22 and Ellen White
Paul's address to the crowd who had just nearly beaten him to death is one of the more surreal moments in Acts. The previously irate Jewish crowd is hushed listening to Paul give his personal testimony regarding Jesus Christ. Perhaps they are lulled into apathy hearing the familiar Hebrew inflections and hopeful discussion of a Messiah. The brief moment of apathy quickly reverts to the former zeal when Paul claims to be sent with a message of hope to the Gentiles. Their Messiah would come to free them from oppression. Their Messiah would direct curses not blessings toward their oppressors. They acted according to the God and Messiah of their own understanding.
Our understanding of God dictates so much of the life that we live -- the life that we live dictates so much of our understanding of God.
There are a few topics which consistently have the potential for evoking similar ardor and zeal within our Adventist community and Ellen White is one. There seems to be agreement that we all desire to keep Ellen White as a conversation partner as we continue to define ourselves in relation to God. Disagreement arises when we come to the issue of her human faults.
Many of the anti-Ellen White websites engage in the very worst forms of hyperbole and misrepresentation. However, those websites in support of Ellen White often attempt to claim too much and in the process do even more damage. The internet is a sketchy place to look for objective research based information (this blog included!). Unfortunately while level-headed research has been done on the issue of Ellen White's use of sources and some of her other personal issues, even the eggheads disagree on the interpretation of many facts! Here is a link to some excellent research from the General Conference archives with a rather long and detailed article dealing with issues of how we as a church relate to Ellen White entitled Ellen White and the SDA Church: Sligo Series. (I am biased because I know the author and have a great deal of respect for him.)
It seems likely that we will never come to a unified homogeneous consensus on this issue within the Adventist community. Just like the Jews of Paul's day created a messiah of their own understanding, we have created an Ellen White of our own understanding. In his review of the play Red Books Julius Nam writes, "The truth is, we make White what we need her to be. I certainly do. It’s a temptation that Adventist preachers, teachers, scholars, students, parents, and the White Estate have failed to resist successfully over the years. Perhaps it’s time to embrace it—not just our individual iconographies of her, but a collective, mosaic one."
It is encouraging that more open conversations are occuring and perhaps a beautiful collective mosaic of Ellen White and her meaning for Adventism is just around the corner. In order for this to happen though, we must not allow our opinions to eclipse love and reason degenerating into the mob brutality of the Jews in Acts 22. We must also avoid being lulled into a state of apathy by disregarding difficult issues and only seeking the familiar. Instead, we need to follow Paul's example as he followed Christ. After being beaten by the enraged mob of Jews, Paul begins his address to them by saying, "I became very zealous to honor God in everything I did, just as all of you are today." He affirmed their best intentions and expressed empathy with the very crowd that nearly beat him to death! If he could do that by the grace of God, perhaps we could extend the same grace and understanding to those who have very different perspectives from our own.
What will this say about our understanding of God -- what will this do for our understanding of God?
Our understanding of God dictates so much of the life that we live -- the life that we live dictates so much of our understanding of God.
There are a few topics which consistently have the potential for evoking similar ardor and zeal within our Adventist community and Ellen White is one. There seems to be agreement that we all desire to keep Ellen White as a conversation partner as we continue to define ourselves in relation to God. Disagreement arises when we come to the issue of her human faults.
Many of the anti-Ellen White websites engage in the very worst forms of hyperbole and misrepresentation. However, those websites in support of Ellen White often attempt to claim too much and in the process do even more damage. The internet is a sketchy place to look for objective research based information (this blog included!). Unfortunately while level-headed research has been done on the issue of Ellen White's use of sources and some of her other personal issues, even the eggheads disagree on the interpretation of many facts! Here is a link to some excellent research from the General Conference archives with a rather long and detailed article dealing with issues of how we as a church relate to Ellen White entitled Ellen White and the SDA Church: Sligo Series. (I am biased because I know the author and have a great deal of respect for him.)
It seems likely that we will never come to a unified homogeneous consensus on this issue within the Adventist community. Just like the Jews of Paul's day created a messiah of their own understanding, we have created an Ellen White of our own understanding. In his review of the play Red Books Julius Nam writes, "The truth is, we make White what we need her to be. I certainly do. It’s a temptation that Adventist preachers, teachers, scholars, students, parents, and the White Estate have failed to resist successfully over the years. Perhaps it’s time to embrace it—not just our individual iconographies of her, but a collective, mosaic one."
It is encouraging that more open conversations are occuring and perhaps a beautiful collective mosaic of Ellen White and her meaning for Adventism is just around the corner. In order for this to happen though, we must not allow our opinions to eclipse love and reason degenerating into the mob brutality of the Jews in Acts 22. We must also avoid being lulled into a state of apathy by disregarding difficult issues and only seeking the familiar. Instead, we need to follow Paul's example as he followed Christ. After being beaten by the enraged mob of Jews, Paul begins his address to them by saying, "I became very zealous to honor God in everything I did, just as all of you are today." He affirmed their best intentions and expressed empathy with the very crowd that nearly beat him to death! If he could do that by the grace of God, perhaps we could extend the same grace and understanding to those who have very different perspectives from our own.
What will this say about our understanding of God -- what will this do for our understanding of God?
Labels: Acts, community, diversity, Epicenter, religion, unity
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
It Takes A Church--Some Ideas from Me
This is my first foray into actual blogging, so there might be a learning curve for me here. This blog is in regards to something that has weighed alot on me in the last few years: "Why are so many young people leaving the church?" Each person has a story, and varied reasons for leaving, but I'm sure that it really comes down to a personal relationship with Christ, and a comprehension of His personal compassion for each one of us. I do have some theories about how we might change the rate of young (teens to mid twenties) people leaving our church though.
Here goes:
The "It takes a village" theory that Hillary Clinton spawned in regards to children and education is even more relevant in church. It's obvious that not every child attending church has a spiritually supportive home where not only is their earthly education valued, but their spiritual lives and souls are cared for. Given this, each child, no matter what their home is like, needs a spiritual mentor. This is especially possible in smaller churches. In huge campus churches it seems almost impossible to implement a program like this, but in small home churches, it's a necessary plan that could save children. Just having ONE person who cares about a child, prays for & with them, asks them about issues they're dealing with, and just loves them spiritually, can make a life changing effect! I really believe this. If some of my friends from childhood had someone from their church who always checked up on them, prayed for them, and cared for them through life issues (parents divorces, public schools, private schools, breakups, meltdowns, all the things that happen that make life so tumultuous) I'd venture to guess most would still be attending at least SOME church today.
The other thing I think is important is making our church a community. Not only should we have fun social events, and get togethers, but including kids in church responsibilities. Not a begrudging DUTY type thing, but including them in the processes of the church. Taking up offering is simple, but doing a work-bee requires a little bit more out of us, and it ties us to our church and church members because we've sweated together. I grew up helping out my church and it made me feel like I made a difference, even when I was 9 or 10. When kids get back from mission trips, we need to hear their stories & see their pictures. And if they want to go on a mission trip, we need to make sure they can afford to go. They should have the opportunity to actually "run" the church, and be included. (of course, that means that not everything might be done "just right" but with a mentor, they would get the chance to become a real part of the church functions)
The third thing that I feel is really important and so VERY VERY under rated, is our church's impact on the world. Fortunately, my parents are, and have always been overly involved in the world church. They were missionaries, they have done evangelism, and they always keep their finger on the pulse of the church's involvement in other countries. Kids need to know how massive, far-reaching, and important our church really is. Sometimes SDA's are the first missionaries to come to a country and teach them about Jesus. SDA's also work with other Christian religions in a variety of ways that are very cooperative and world-changing. ADRA is an example that we hardly EVER hear about anymore. AFM is full of missionaries that aren't really "missionaries". They're everyday people who live and learn among a country and slowly and carefully teach them about Jesus. Many in dangerous places that are closed to proselyzation in any form. Our church really cares about PEOPLE. Not just making our church numbers bigger. We care about schools, communities, about hospitals and clinics, about rebuilding, about making life better for people who can't care for themselves. There are SO many things that our church (and in turn, our very own tithe & offering) does for the world. Every child in church would WANT to be involved and passionate about our faith if they really knew all the things our church is doing. Why do we not have some kind of feature every single week in church where we highlight something amazing that has happened in the world church that week?
The three things I mentioned are the three things I feel would connect people to the community of church. They all involve RELATIONSHIPS and they all involve people who care. Without that, there isn't a sense of community anyway. Duh! I was blessed to have caring parents who prayed for me ALOT!, especially when i really needed it, but I was also blessed to know how amazing our church is. It's not just politics, and debates about jewlery and steak. There is so much more to our church that it makes everything else pale in comparison. I was blessed to be able to see the forest for the trees and I think that's why I've stayed. I love my church (not every single thing about it) but I love how special and unique we are, and I love that we want so badly to share the incredible gift Jesus with everyone on earth!
That's my two (three) bits! Please blog me a river . . . I'd love to hear your thoughts and ideas!
Here goes:
The "It takes a village" theory that Hillary Clinton spawned in regards to children and education is even more relevant in church. It's obvious that not every child attending church has a spiritually supportive home where not only is their earthly education valued, but their spiritual lives and souls are cared for. Given this, each child, no matter what their home is like, needs a spiritual mentor. This is especially possible in smaller churches. In huge campus churches it seems almost impossible to implement a program like this, but in small home churches, it's a necessary plan that could save children. Just having ONE person who cares about a child, prays for & with them, asks them about issues they're dealing with, and just loves them spiritually, can make a life changing effect! I really believe this. If some of my friends from childhood had someone from their church who always checked up on them, prayed for them, and cared for them through life issues (parents divorces, public schools, private schools, breakups, meltdowns, all the things that happen that make life so tumultuous) I'd venture to guess most would still be attending at least SOME church today.
The other thing I think is important is making our church a community. Not only should we have fun social events, and get togethers, but including kids in church responsibilities. Not a begrudging DUTY type thing, but including them in the processes of the church. Taking up offering is simple, but doing a work-bee requires a little bit more out of us, and it ties us to our church and church members because we've sweated together. I grew up helping out my church and it made me feel like I made a difference, even when I was 9 or 10. When kids get back from mission trips, we need to hear their stories & see their pictures. And if they want to go on a mission trip, we need to make sure they can afford to go. They should have the opportunity to actually "run" the church, and be included. (of course, that means that not everything might be done "just right" but with a mentor, they would get the chance to become a real part of the church functions)
The third thing that I feel is really important and so VERY VERY under rated, is our church's impact on the world. Fortunately, my parents are, and have always been overly involved in the world church. They were missionaries, they have done evangelism, and they always keep their finger on the pulse of the church's involvement in other countries. Kids need to know how massive, far-reaching, and important our church really is. Sometimes SDA's are the first missionaries to come to a country and teach them about Jesus. SDA's also work with other Christian religions in a variety of ways that are very cooperative and world-changing. ADRA is an example that we hardly EVER hear about anymore. AFM is full of missionaries that aren't really "missionaries". They're everyday people who live and learn among a country and slowly and carefully teach them about Jesus. Many in dangerous places that are closed to proselyzation in any form. Our church really cares about PEOPLE. Not just making our church numbers bigger. We care about schools, communities, about hospitals and clinics, about rebuilding, about making life better for people who can't care for themselves. There are SO many things that our church (and in turn, our very own tithe & offering) does for the world. Every child in church would WANT to be involved and passionate about our faith if they really knew all the things our church is doing. Why do we not have some kind of feature every single week in church where we highlight something amazing that has happened in the world church that week?
The three things I mentioned are the three things I feel would connect people to the community of church. They all involve RELATIONSHIPS and they all involve people who care. Without that, there isn't a sense of community anyway. Duh! I was blessed to have caring parents who prayed for me ALOT!, especially when i really needed it, but I was also blessed to know how amazing our church is. It's not just politics, and debates about jewlery and steak. There is so much more to our church that it makes everything else pale in comparison. I was blessed to be able to see the forest for the trees and I think that's why I've stayed. I love my church (not every single thing about it) but I love how special and unique we are, and I love that we want so badly to share the incredible gift Jesus with everyone on earth!
That's my two (three) bits! Please blog me a river . . . I'd love to hear your thoughts and ideas!
Labels: community, Jesus, passion, youth
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]