Epicenter Conversations

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.

Labels: community, Epicenter, Hebrews, Melchizedek, postmodernity, religion

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.

Labels: community, Jesus, Movies, religion

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?

Labels: Adventist, community, postmodernity, religion, Sabbath

"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.

Labels: Advent, Christmas, community, incarnation, Movies, religion

The collection is one of Paul's most intriguing projects. Paul walks on eggshells through II Corinthians 8 and 9 as he seeks to inspire the church in Corinth to part with their material goods in order to send them to a group of people in a far off country, who they probably would never meet, and who likely would not have entered their church much less sat down to eat with them. Despite other considerable obstacles including traveling with large sums of money, risking the appearance of mismanaging funds, and the very real possibility that the Christian church in Jerusalem would refuse the tainted though badly needed money, Paul pressed forward with the collection. His reasons for proceeding with this risky and thorny project have implications for our own practice of tithing and our celebration of Christmas

There is an ongoing debate in Christianity over tithe. The Biblical precedent for tithing is circumstantial and nearly exclusively based on the Old Testament. Within Adventism, the debate is not generally over whether or not to tithe, but how and where our tithe money should be used. Those of us who have a more congregational bent would like to see the majority of our tithe kept in our own church for local mission. On the other hand, combining our collective 10 percent with the money from other churches in our area provides financial support for smaller churches, schools, camps, and other ministries, thus effectively expanding our local mission to a larger area. In addition, some of the money then goes up to higher levels of the organization, eventually supporting the international church. Although Paul's collection does not exactly correspond to our practice of tithing, the principle of giving to expand our limited world view and to unite a growing, diverse, global community applies well in both cases.

Always a hot topic around the holidays, Christmas commercialism is gaining in both attention and condemnation this year. Many of the comments in a recent article in the religion section of The Birmingham News suggest the answer is to simply stop giving gifts at Christmas. This may work well for some families. However, there are many who find meaning in the giving of gifts and to deny them this pleasure would only serve to diminish their holiday cheer. For Paul, the collection was never about the money. Instead, it was about the motives inspiring the gift and the relationships revealed and formed in the giving and receiving. If this perspective is carried into our Christmas giving this year, perhaps we can continue our holiday traditions with our humanity intact.

In II Corinthians 10:5, Paul writes that every thought should be taken captive in Christ. Rather than reading this as just another example of Christian elitism, expecting everyone to become like us and accept our point of view, could we live this text out in our experience of the Holiday Season and with intentional thought and Christlike humility seek to bless our family, friends, and the rest of the least of these? The God who became man and moved into the neighborhood has shown us how to be a good giver. This Christmas will you consider with me the way our giving expands our world view, enhances relationships, and helps us become a part of the Kingdom of God?

Here are a few links to websites that may stimulate ideas to enhance our giving this year. If you've got some other ideas, post them below in a comment. Thanks!

Fair trade?
http://tradeasone.com/

Tree hugger?
http://www.treehugger.com/giftguide/

Want a guide for what's good?
http://www.unclemark.org/unclemark2008.pdf

Pass on the gift?
http://www.heifer.org/

Really useful gift?
http://www.adra.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cat07_Ecommerce_home

Labels: Adventist, Christmas, Corinthians, giving, Jesus, religion, tithe

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)

Labels: Acts, Adventist, community, Corinthians, Epicenter, Jesus, law, religion, unity

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?

Labels: Adventist, community, Corinthians, diversity, Epicenter, Jesus, religion, unity

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

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.

Labels: community, diversity, Epicenter, evangelism, Galatians, religion, spirituality

The Israelite community was learning to crawl out from under hundreds of years of slavery and oppression.   In order to facilitate their progress, God met them where they were at and blessed them with the law.   Or, as Paul puts it in Galatians 3:21 and 3:24 "Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made.... Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith."

The disciplinarian referred to by Paul was a slave who would follow a child to school and keep him in line with a rod.   Paul then is asking, "Now that you have developed to a higher level of moral reasoning and spiritual understanding why would you ever want to go back?"   This is similar to asking an adult who grew up with a stick wielding Roman disciplinarian, "Now that you are a responsible adult with a job and a family, why would you ever want to go back to having a disciplinarian follow you to work and keep you in line with a rod?" (Not that there aren't a few adults who might actually need and benefit from this!)

A few years ago my friend Yung Lau introduced me to the concept that much of the law (including and perhaps especially the 10 commandments) functions at the base level of Kohlberg's stages of moral development.   As we proceded to read through the Pentateuch with this thought in mind it became apparent that there were statements dealing with every stage of moral development all the way up to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" which correspond to the most advanced level of Kohlberg's stages.

Paul goes on in verses 25-28, "But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."   Jesus came and declared the Kingdom of God is here with its basis in the universal ethical principle of love.   Paul ran with that good news and encouraged everyone else to keep up and run with him in God's new universal community.

Labels: Epicenter, Galatians, gospel, Jesus, law, religion

Since we have begun to study Paul's letters in our class the topic of the gospel has inevitably come up again.

What is the gospel?

"Simple question," says my evangelical friend with feet firmly planted in a forensic model of salvation, "Read John 3:16..."

Not so fast says an insightful emergent pastor, "The gospel is not an 'it' that can be merely explained in abstract, intellectual propositions. The message must be contextualized and actively applied in each community and situation."

When Jesus talks about the good news He uses the phrase, "The Kingdom of God is here." But, more often He shows what that means.

Paul on the other hand says in effect, "Jesus Christ is Lord and everyone is invited to be a part of the family of God."

My traditional Adventist grandparents told me, "As Adventists we follow Christ's example in all things." So, that is why accepting Christ includes keeping the Sabbath. This idea of Christ plus something else brings down the same vitriol from evangelical and former Adventists that Paul showered on the Galatians for adding legalism to the gospel.

Yet another pastor responds by preaches that the gospel is, "Christ is enough." Enough for what I wonder. Enough to get my sinful backside off this currupt earth and through the pearly gates? Enough to transform my troubled heart? Enough to do justice on the earth, show merciful love to others, and walk humbly as a community with God?

I don't know about you, but that simple question has my head spinning. So, forgive me if I muse a bit.

I am beginning here by proposing ideas. Therefore, there does seem to be a propositional aspect to the gospel. However, if the gospel begins and ends in abstract concepts, it really is not good news at all. To be good, the concepts must bear fruit. The gospel is a word spoken ('The Kingdom of God is here,' 'Jesus Christ is Lord,' Christ is enough') or a deed done (the blind see, the lame walk, the lonely are loved) which opens minds and hearts and leads to freely chosen responses which verify the spoken words and gracious acts.

Some will say, "you are making this too complicated." My response would be to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes, "I would not give a fig for the simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."

An overly simplistic description of the gospel with a one size fits all mentality might lead to an interaction like this. A preacher comes upon a woman crying in the street and proclaims to her, "God loves you so much that He gave His Son Jesus for you," pressing a tract into her hand. Confident this will help he goes on humming "I once was lost, but now am found. Was blind but now I see...."

A more nuanced view of the gospel which takes into account the local context and personal issues might lead to a simple but more appropriate response like this. A homosexual man comes upon a woman crying in the street and asks her if she is okay. The woman dries her blind eyes and says that she was just mugged and lost her cane and bus fare in the process. The man retrieves her cane out of the gutter and as he helps her to her feet he slips a few coins into her hand saying, "This is all I have, I hope it is enough."

Which of these displays the gospel? Obvious, yes? But, what is really cool is imagining them coming together. That would be some really good news.

Labels: Galatians, gospel, Jesus, religion

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.

Labels: community, Epicenter, Galatians, nature, religion, spirituality, unity

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?

Labels: Acts, community, diversity, Epicenter, religion, unity

By Carmen

Being an avid reader of all sorts of books, I like to cultivate new understanding for those persons and groups with whom, at first glance, I may not share a lot in common. Yet, this was not my typical read. “The God Delusion” is an elegantly written book with bountiful references to scholarly works. It offers readable summaries of philosophers in recent and ancient history, as well as personal anecdotes and references to current events.

Dawkins was born in Nairobi, yet spent most of his formative years in Great Britain and was raised by Anglican parents. While at Oxford, he studied with Tinbergen, an eminent Danish expert on instinctive animal behavior. Dawkins went on to develop the highly interdisciplinary science of ethology, which is a mixture of psychology, physiology, ecology, sociology, taxonomy and evolution. In his earlier book, “The Selfish Gene”, Dawkins expounded on the concept of memes. This term, developed by Dawkins, refers to the process of how Darwinian principles might spread ideas and cultural phenomena.

True to the breadth of his intellectual curiosity as an ethologist, Dawkins approaches the notion of God from many angles. With his religious upbringing, he knows scripture and handily points out discrepancies as well as highlights many of the Old Testament atrocities that Christians prefer to avoid. He points out the barbaric aspect to the notion that somehow the shed blood of an innocent Jesus Christ (offered by his own father!) will atone for our sins.

Another section of the book highlights the fanaticism and hatred that through the ages has spawned from religion. How can religion have such a pitiful outcome? He notes that the “red” states in the USA, though pockets of Christianity, are not particularly known for being pockets of joy and love. He reminds us of the aggression during the Middle Ages in the name of religion. Even in recent history most churches did make a concerted effort to thwart Nazi Germany, or the Rwandan clashes.

Of course, the book offers a broad exposure to the disconnect between science and literal interpretation of scripture. In addition, Dawkins faults creation apologists for fabricating straw man arguments against evolution. He contends that many creationists ignore the natural selection process---choosing instead to base their arguments on the improbability of chance creation of complex living organisms.


My religious convictions are unmoved by Dawkins’ assertions, but wow, have we misrepresented God and misconstrued the Bible through the centuries! I believe God’s boundless love, as evidenced by His respect for our freedom, is the unifying strand throughout scripture. This becomes more apparent when one has a cohesive understanding of inspiration of the Bible. For example, if one reads the Bible using Alden Thompson’s simple construct of the one, the two and the ten, then one has a clear, practical lens with which to view difficult passages. Yet when one reads isolated passages in the Bible without such a guiding principle, one can see how people develop an unfavorable notion of God. Throughout the ages there have been varied and creative ways that God has reached out to humanity. (This is at the risk of being misunderstood1). I believe our mission is to highlight and emulate God’s character of love! For this to happen in the twenty first century, one must include an enlightened understanding of the process of inspiration.

P.S.

Dawkins offers a persuasive case that a person who calls himself atheist receives little respect and civility. This is in contrast to the special consideration under the guise of religious freedom given to all sorts of people with varying cultural mores. His writings are punctuated with samples of the hateful mail he has received. (This bolsters my determination to treat atheists with kindness and civility in the future! SDA’s are for religious freedom, right?) Anecdotally, there is a determined effort to replace the term “atheist” with the term “bright”. Perhaps that will be more palatable to society.

Labels: atheist, book, Dawkins, inspiration, religion

A major theme in Acts is unity. Chapter 19 introduces Demetrius, a silversmith in the artisan community at Ephesus. This dynamic leader played on the fears of the Ephesians and villified Paul and the Christians, saying "there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be scorned, and she will be deprived of her majesty that brought all Asia and the world to worship her." The unity thus achieved in defense of the Ephesian god led to confusion, chaos, threat of violence, and further exclusion.

In his recent article, It's Not About Demetrius Lael Caesar quotes General Conference President Jan Paulsen who said, "In his message on the last Sabbath of the 2005 St. Louis General Conference, "It is important to know that God is not owned by anyone." "Including Demetrius," we might add, and including all our favorite groups, theologically Adventist, genetically Abrahamic, or otherwise."

Fear based unification has been all too common in the Christian tradition, most recently evident in the tactics of the Christian Right as explored in Margaret M. Mitchell's article, How Biblical is the Religious Right. Sadly, this method of exclusion, demonizing those who are different, is the antithesis of Jesus' example of loving our enemies and Paul's message of radical inclusivity. The New Testament method of creating unity is beautifully described by Miroslav Volf in his metaphor of Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation.

In an embrace we first extend our arms to the other, opening a place within us to receive the other and inviting the other to come. Then, we wait. Invading the others personal space would become aggression. If the other responds, the embrace is realized as our arms enfold one another each of us receiving the other into our own self. However, the embrace is not complete. Without the final step of re-opening the arms, the embrace would degenerate into oppressive assimilation. With arms re-extended we are allowed to maintain our individual identities, altered though they may be by having experienced the other's perspective. The final posture then demonstrates respect and offers an open invitation.

Promoting unity through fear mongering and exclusion leads to a divisive, violent, chaotic, superficial, and tenuous unity. Any difference arising within the community is then dealt with by further exclusion. (See the reaction of the Ephesian mob to Alexander and the current reaction of some within our own community to those with different ideas). On the other hand, beginning with opening ourselves to the other in a welcoming posture of embrace leads to a healing, loving, peaceful, generous, and lasting unity. In following the example of Christ we will then be prepared to maintain unity in diversity within our own community.

Labels: Acts, diversity, religion, unity

Ash Wednesday begins the season of Lent and seems an especially appropriate day to begin our smoking cessation seminar. Lent is a 40 day (not including Sundays) build up to Easter -- a time to give up something we desire to remind us of our sinful state and provide opportunity to reflect on what the incarnation of Christ means to us. The Greek Orthodox church calls this the season of "Bright Sadness," as it is a time of both celebration and mourning. Lent serves to highlight the reality of our human existence in which we face darkness and suffering as well as joy and exultation. This season of shadow which inspires a longing for the brilliance of the resurrection resonates with our Adventist notion that things will get worse on this earth before they get better. Fasting of whatever type highlights our mortality and makes our presence in the eternal Kingdom of God all the more poignant. Those who choose to give up a cherished addiction can experience this dark time of withdrawal with our community for support, the promise of freedom to light the way, and the power of God to bring completion.

"Almighty God, you have created me out of the dust of the earth: Grant that these ashes may be to me a sign of my mortality and penitence, that I may remember that it is only by your gracious gift that we are given everlasting life; through Jesus Christ my Savior. Amen" -- Book of Common Prayer.

Labels: Lent, religion, smoking

This past weekend we looked at Acts chapter 18. Since Apollos is introduced in this chapter, it was a perfect time to explore Alden Thompson's interesting ideas in, The Adventist Church at Corinth.

Although Thompson's sermon was originally given about 18 years ago, the themes resonate just as well in 2007 as they did in 1989. We discussed the way Paul, Peter, and Apollos each correspond to a stream of thought within Adventism. Then, we related Paul's call to unity amidst diversity in I Corinthians to our current and surprisingly similar diversity today.

Thompson describes these streams by listing some prominent Adventists,

"Peter & Co. are inclined to say that you must obey and you can obey. Kenneth Wood, Tom Davis, Herb Douglass, Mervyn Maxwell, Robert Brinsmead, early in his experience.

Paul & Co. say you must try to obey, but you never really can. Jesus pays the price for you. LeRoy Froom, Roy Allan Anderson, H. M. S. Richards, Robert Spangler, Richard Fredericks, Desmond Ford, Robert Brinsmead, at an intermediate point in his experience.

Apollos & Co. say that the important thing is to try. Love is what matters. If your heart is in the right place, that will do. Graham Maxwell, Malcolm Maxwell, Jack Provonsha, Dick Winn, and very briefly Robert Brinsmead at a later point in his experience."

For a further exploration of Thompson's important ideas please click on the link to his sermon, The Adventist Church at Corinth.

From my perspective, there is one stream of thought within Adventism that Thompson did not address -- progressive Adventism. In my own personal journey, I have been immersed in each of these ways of thinking and I have recently found my thoughts flowing most naturally with progressive Adventism. This viewpoint may not have been addressed by Thompson because it was not around 18 years ago. I don't know how recent a phenomenon it is.

My first thought in relation to "The Adventist Church in Corinth" is that progressive Adventism encompasses the best of each stream of thought. This could of course simply represent my personal bias and experience along with Thompson's assertion that, "Most Adventists can and do profit from all three perspectives." However, if I were to try to fit my understanding of progressive Adventism within the categories as defined by Thompson, I would have to use all of them. Everything that follows then must be prefaced by, in my opinion...

Progressive Adventists affirm along with Paul & Co. that salvation is by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ. However, the definition of some terms would differ. Salvation may be as much or more about justice and mercy to transform lives here and now as it is about landing in heaven someday. The perceived extent of that salvation might also differ ranging from a select few who have heard and accepted Jesus in evangelical Adventism to near universalism inspired by a deep appreciation for God's love at the other end of progressive Adventism.

These differences would then lead to progressive Adventists affirming along with Peter and Co. that you must obey and can obey. However, the motivation for obedience would differ. Obedient actions (i.e. justice, mercy, humility) are a result of grace and are vital for extending the Kingdom of God through practical examples of God's difference making love (or is that love making difference?). Obedience has nothing to do with earning grace, getting ourselves into heaven someday, or justifying God's character.

Progressive Adventists would also affirm with Apollos and Co. that love is essential and all of our doctrines must affirm and be grounded in the fact that God is love. The caveat would be that Christ must be central to this as the clearest representation of God and our actions can and must authenticate this love as well. In fact, we must burn with righteous indignation when we perceive injustice and then do something about it!

This undoubtedly says much more about me and my understanding than it does about the reality of progressive Adventism. So, more important than a depiction of progressive Adventism is a description of how the three streams can critique one another and merge into a unified whole. As we each integrate the best from the other's perspectives, our view of God becomes more complete and our many disparate streams join to form a great river bringing life, freshness, and healing.

Labels: Acts, diversity, Jesus, religion

I didn't share these thoughts during Sabbath School yesterday because I couldn't get my thoughts together in a concise manner. Here's the last point I wanted to make.

If I've heard correctly in class, there's a general feeling that our emphasis, when it comes to evangelism, should be along the lines of “we need to respect (or is that accept?) everyone’s beliefs and lifestyles,” and that to point out truth or sin is not being nice! Our society today values “nice” and it’s not nice to believe that we have truths that other people need to hear; that’s arrogance on our part. To tell others these truths might threaten their world view, or their beliefs, and who are we to do that! I think this keeps us from evangelizing, which is what Satan wants when it comes to exposing his deceptions in these last days.

I respect people that have different beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I agree with them or should legitimize their belief systems. Am I acting in Christian love in withholding truths they need to know to inherit eternal life just to be nice and be considered open minded? I don't believe that “all paths lead to God.” Of course we don't have all the truth, but we have a lot that's worth telling! We have a responsiblity before God to tell what we know and warn people of what's coming.

Fellow Christians of other denominations are in as much danger, if not MORE, from the deceptions that are coming on the world as are non-Christians when it comes to salvation. When Satan works miracles or demons impersonate angels, won’t Christians be the first ones to herald that this is from God? Is it “sheep stealing” to warn Christians also?

I won't be in Sabbath School this coming Sabbath, but I'd be interested in reading other people's thoughts in response to my posts. Thanks, Brent for all the effort you put into our class.

Labels: evangelism, religion

I have never really thought I would like to live in New York before. But, after hearing about Samir Selmanovic's Faith House Project, I would love to be there. This is exactly the kind of community I and a few other friends (including one very vocal atheist) have dreamt of. Here is a link to Samir's blog.

Faith House Manhattan


How's that for evangelism?

Labels: evangelism, religion

This coming weekend we will be covering Acts chapters 12 and 13.

This past weekend we took a look over our shoulder at our journey through Acts so far. We did this in light of our discussion on evangelism. At it's heart, I think we agree that evangelism is sharing the gospel. The issue then is our definition of 'gospel'. Is the gospel a pure, propositional truth that we need sell? Or, is the gospel an interactive, local, relational experience that we get to share? (Just the phrasing of my questions reveals my personal bias.)

Our survey of Acts demonstrates an intriguing concept. Perhaps this separation between the spoken propositional truth and the relational experience is a false dichotomy. We looked at several examples in Acts where both public proclamation and personal meeting of needs in a community either both functioned to expand God's kingdom or where the opportunity to meet another's needs led to the right time to explain a deep truth (e.g. Peter and John heal the lame man at the temple and then have an opportunity to tell a large group of people about Jesus and the healing and refreshing found in God's kingdom.) Therefore in Acts, the two views of the gospel merge into one cohesive local gospel which is both experienced and proclaimed as the opportunity arises.

This is different from every evangelistic series I have been a part. Unfortunately, the order has been reversed with the proclamation of timeless truth followed by a hope that somehow the newly converted will find their needs met in whatever community happens to be more or less available. In addition, there was no consideration given to the community or the local context and needs. Instead a universal presentation was made intended to convince all listeners of timeless, placeless truth.

Here is a link to Ryan Bell's blog Intersections where he highlights a video about an Adventist missional community in the Pittsburgh suburb of Carnegie that has found a way to restore the order. They are attempting to meet the needs of the community which then led to a unique opportunity to speak before the city council. Here is a link to his post.

A Tangible Example of Missional Engagement

I find this story both inspiring and discouraging. It's inspiring because it offers a tangible glimpse into how evangelism can be an integral merging of the experience and proclamation of the good news that the Kingdom of God is here. And yet, it's discouraging because it reveals my own inadequate understanding and poor experience in how the Gospel could and should make an impact here in Birmingham.

Also, Carmen sent me a link to the first chapter of Reimagining Evangelism by Rick Richardson. His ideas have my own wheels turning. What is the goal with evangelism? Is it to save people or to share what we know of God's character and let them know why we are saved? The evangelism he imagines just might appeal to me. (It of course helps that he references one of my favorite movie series) How about you? Below is a link to his book.

Reimagining Evangelism

Labels: Acts, Epicenter, evangelism, religion