Thursday, July 17, 2008
Sanctuary 2.0
What is your ideal church? We have been considering this topic in our Epicenter class while studying Ephesians. The soaring theology of the first three chapters culminates in a "therefore" in chapter 4 verse 1 which leads to a description in the last three chapters of a revolutionary community. Some feel this is Paul's, or one of his student's, articulation of an ideal church. But, what is your ideal church?
I have had visions of everything from small house churches to massive mega-churches as I considered this question in the past. But until recently, I thought only of my local congregation. If the concept of church reached global proportions, what would your ideal church look like?
The latest issue of Spectrum magazine includes the Sabbath sermon that Kendra Haloviak gave at the 2007 Adventist Forum Conference. Her visionary redefinition of sanctuary is as challenging as it is beautiful. Conceptualizing the sanctuary not only as a distinctive end-time doctrine to accept but as a place of safety and rest to create for all people is as inspiring in its inclusiveness as it is daunting in application. If you didn't hear the sermon or haven't read Kendra's article, beg, borrow, or steal to get it. Situational ethics definitely apply here. Breaking the 8th commandment is of course less than ideal; however, the transforming influence of an inclusive view of the Sanctuary will surely enable you to keep all the commandments more faithfully. And then, you can always return the article later. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should proudly mention that through no fault of her own I am related to Kendra since I married her cousin.)
This morning I lay in bed considering just how radical a transformation would result from large numbers of people buying into this expanded concept of the Sanctuary when it struck me. That would be my ideal church. Here then is my ideal church, conceived as an extreme makeover of my actual church, Seventh-day Adventism. I will of necessity speak from my own local context. Other perspectives and voices you will see are desperately needed.
The strengths of the Adventist church are a passionately committed core of world wide believers along with a centralized financial and power structure. Adventism has been creeping toward a congregational model, a move which I have supported in the past. Not any more. I think the conference should take ownership of the local church buildings. Unfortunately, these church buildings are inefficient and generally house warm, cozy, omphaloskeptic congregations interested in attracting visitors rather than engaging with society. Therefore, the faithful conference officials when faced with a new understanding of Sanctuary would need to evict the members and sell the churches, all of them. I can feel the conference treasurers palms itching at the influx but they shouldn't get too comfortable with the fullness of their coffers. We will get to that in a moment.
The church members suddenly finding ourselves without a church building would be forced to find a new church home which would likely literally be in one or more homes. House churches were an ancient necessity whose time has come again. Meeting together in one another's houses is the best and perhaps only way to foster community. In addition, this has the added benefit of efficiency since local members could gather within neighborhoods decreasing gas costs, lessening environmental impact, and removing the overhead of maintaining so many empty buildings for use only a few times a week.
The trauma of this dramatic change could be lessened by laying some groundwork first. The Sabbath School quarterly could be redesigned as a small group/home church study guide with Russell Burrill as the editor. (Clifford Goldstein's sharp tongue and piercing intellect would be in great need elsewhere. For instance, see the Adventist Peace Commandos below, they will be needing a General.) Pastors could be provided with internet training and a website on which to put their sermons and other materials to supplement the study guides. Local church members could be trained in small group ministry in preparation for home church leadership.
After selling off all the church property, what would the local conferences do with all the extra cash? They would go to city council meetings across the nation and request permission to by up entire city blocks in areas of severe urban blight where land can be had on the cheap and ministry opportunities abound. The conferences would then build city Sanctuaries wide open to all people from every nation, tribe, religion, and orientation. The specific functions of each Sanctuary would be planned according to the city and local needs. In Birmingham, our Sanctuary would have a fleet of vehicles to transport the sick and elderly to and from medical appointments as health care access is a real local need given the poor public transportation system. Our Sanctuary would also have ongoing cooking classes, exercise programs, smoking cessation classes, and other classes/group support meetings as preventative healthcare and education are a real community need. In addition, with our city's history of bitter racial division, a goal of our Birmingham Sanctuary would be to provide a location for the entire diverse community to dialogue together about our past, present and future. The location and facility would have to be chosen and designed with these goals in mind.
The issue of race brings up another big change that would have to occur. Regional conferences for black churches would have to integrate. The regional conferences would rightly be wary of this change since their distinctive voices have the potential to be lost in the merger. This would be equally tragic for members of both local conferences. Therefore, all involved would need to ensure that the regional conference leaders concerns were listened to, addressed, and that they had an equal share in the planning, building and implementing of the city Sanctuary. It wouldn't work any other way.
While we are doing away with regional conferences, we should go ahead and dissolve the union conferences. The Seventh-day Adventist church is second only to the Roman Catholic church in its hierarchical structure. In our new high tech global economy, top-heavy institutions are hopelessly out of date and some if not all of the bureaucracy needs to go. In the process, jobs will be lost, but there will be many new jobs created in the local sanctuaries, at the local conference level, as well as at the general conference level.
Some of the jobs created might be rather unique for the Adventist church. Just consider the security needs for a Sanctuary block planted in the middle of a neighborhood affected by urban blight. The home churches in the surrounding communities would understandably want to gather together regularly, perhaps once a month, and the inner city Sanctuary should be designed to accommodate just such gatherings. But, if families are going to bring their loved ones to the gathering, there needs to be a peace keeping force to maintain security. Can you imagine an Adventist peace keeping force armed to the teeth with non-lethal technology and working in conjunction with the local police force not only in the local sanctuary but also out in the local community, providing a safe place to worship, play, live, and grow? These Adventist Peace Commandos could be our new urban evangelists (with Goldstein at the helm).
While the Adventist peace keeping force may be a little tongue in cheek, the opportunities for translating the gospel into action in poverty stricken inner city areas are endless. Along the Sanctuary block, the church could open a restaurant, health club, florist, dance studio, job placement agency, trade school, movie theater, clinic, bakery, day care, grocery store, dentist, laundromat, art gallery, and housing. So, we might spill over a few blocks. These facilities would provide needed jobs and the rates of some or all of the venues could be based on income level.
The false dichotomy between spiritual and secular would fade as homeless vagabonds wandered into full out worship services, business owners volunteered time to tutor disadvantaged kids, saints laundered their clothes next to former crack addicts, and then they all sat down together to watch a movie, all in the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary would provide a safe place to bring the wealthy and the poor back into contact. This, according to Shane Claiborne, is the answer to the current injustice of our financial system. Redistribution as described in the early church happened as a natural result within the community not as a means to form that community and not as just another ministry of the community. Redistribution will occur spontaneously today when rich and poor get reacquainted in a Sanctuary where fear and condemnation are held at bay.
To some this may sound less like faithful dreaming and more like deconstruction, and ideally that is exactly what it is. In his book, What Would Jesus Deconstruct, John Caputo concludes that Jesus would deconstruct the church since it is 'plan B' and will one day give way to the full realization of 'plan A' the kingdom of God. So, with a nod to Peter Rollins and his new book, The Fidelity of Betrayal, I ask, how many of us are prepared to betray the current context of Adventism in order to remain faithful to the spirit of the early Adventist pioneers? Who will join us in a move to a Christianity beyond the confines of current religion? I feel a song coming on. "You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." There are surely others with better, more radical, and more faithful ideas than me. Let's hear them. "I hope some day you'll joint us, and the world will be as one."
I have had visions of everything from small house churches to massive mega-churches as I considered this question in the past. But until recently, I thought only of my local congregation. If the concept of church reached global proportions, what would your ideal church look like?
The latest issue of Spectrum magazine includes the Sabbath sermon that Kendra Haloviak gave at the 2007 Adventist Forum Conference. Her visionary redefinition of sanctuary is as challenging as it is beautiful. Conceptualizing the sanctuary not only as a distinctive end-time doctrine to accept but as a place of safety and rest to create for all people is as inspiring in its inclusiveness as it is daunting in application. If you didn't hear the sermon or haven't read Kendra's article, beg, borrow, or steal to get it. Situational ethics definitely apply here. Breaking the 8th commandment is of course less than ideal; however, the transforming influence of an inclusive view of the Sanctuary will surely enable you to keep all the commandments more faithfully. And then, you can always return the article later. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should proudly mention that through no fault of her own I am related to Kendra since I married her cousin.)
This morning I lay in bed considering just how radical a transformation would result from large numbers of people buying into this expanded concept of the Sanctuary when it struck me. That would be my ideal church. Here then is my ideal church, conceived as an extreme makeover of my actual church, Seventh-day Adventism. I will of necessity speak from my own local context. Other perspectives and voices you will see are desperately needed.
The strengths of the Adventist church are a passionately committed core of world wide believers along with a centralized financial and power structure. Adventism has been creeping toward a congregational model, a move which I have supported in the past. Not any more. I think the conference should take ownership of the local church buildings. Unfortunately, these church buildings are inefficient and generally house warm, cozy, omphaloskeptic congregations interested in attracting visitors rather than engaging with society. Therefore, the faithful conference officials when faced with a new understanding of Sanctuary would need to evict the members and sell the churches, all of them. I can feel the conference treasurers palms itching at the influx but they shouldn't get too comfortable with the fullness of their coffers. We will get to that in a moment.
The church members suddenly finding ourselves without a church building would be forced to find a new church home which would likely literally be in one or more homes. House churches were an ancient necessity whose time has come again. Meeting together in one another's houses is the best and perhaps only way to foster community. In addition, this has the added benefit of efficiency since local members could gather within neighborhoods decreasing gas costs, lessening environmental impact, and removing the overhead of maintaining so many empty buildings for use only a few times a week.
The trauma of this dramatic change could be lessened by laying some groundwork first. The Sabbath School quarterly could be redesigned as a small group/home church study guide with Russell Burrill as the editor. (Clifford Goldstein's sharp tongue and piercing intellect would be in great need elsewhere. For instance, see the Adventist Peace Commandos below, they will be needing a General.) Pastors could be provided with internet training and a website on which to put their sermons and other materials to supplement the study guides. Local church members could be trained in small group ministry in preparation for home church leadership.
After selling off all the church property, what would the local conferences do with all the extra cash? They would go to city council meetings across the nation and request permission to by up entire city blocks in areas of severe urban blight where land can be had on the cheap and ministry opportunities abound. The conferences would then build city Sanctuaries wide open to all people from every nation, tribe, religion, and orientation. The specific functions of each Sanctuary would be planned according to the city and local needs. In Birmingham, our Sanctuary would have a fleet of vehicles to transport the sick and elderly to and from medical appointments as health care access is a real local need given the poor public transportation system. Our Sanctuary would also have ongoing cooking classes, exercise programs, smoking cessation classes, and other classes/group support meetings as preventative healthcare and education are a real community need. In addition, with our city's history of bitter racial division, a goal of our Birmingham Sanctuary would be to provide a location for the entire diverse community to dialogue together about our past, present and future. The location and facility would have to be chosen and designed with these goals in mind.
The issue of race brings up another big change that would have to occur. Regional conferences for black churches would have to integrate. The regional conferences would rightly be wary of this change since their distinctive voices have the potential to be lost in the merger. This would be equally tragic for members of both local conferences. Therefore, all involved would need to ensure that the regional conference leaders concerns were listened to, addressed, and that they had an equal share in the planning, building and implementing of the city Sanctuary. It wouldn't work any other way.
While we are doing away with regional conferences, we should go ahead and dissolve the union conferences. The Seventh-day Adventist church is second only to the Roman Catholic church in its hierarchical structure. In our new high tech global economy, top-heavy institutions are hopelessly out of date and some if not all of the bureaucracy needs to go. In the process, jobs will be lost, but there will be many new jobs created in the local sanctuaries, at the local conference level, as well as at the general conference level.
Some of the jobs created might be rather unique for the Adventist church. Just consider the security needs for a Sanctuary block planted in the middle of a neighborhood affected by urban blight. The home churches in the surrounding communities would understandably want to gather together regularly, perhaps once a month, and the inner city Sanctuary should be designed to accommodate just such gatherings. But, if families are going to bring their loved ones to the gathering, there needs to be a peace keeping force to maintain security. Can you imagine an Adventist peace keeping force armed to the teeth with non-lethal technology and working in conjunction with the local police force not only in the local sanctuary but also out in the local community, providing a safe place to worship, play, live, and grow? These Adventist Peace Commandos could be our new urban evangelists (with Goldstein at the helm).
While the Adventist peace keeping force may be a little tongue in cheek, the opportunities for translating the gospel into action in poverty stricken inner city areas are endless. Along the Sanctuary block, the church could open a restaurant, health club, florist, dance studio, job placement agency, trade school, movie theater, clinic, bakery, day care, grocery store, dentist, laundromat, art gallery, and housing. So, we might spill over a few blocks. These facilities would provide needed jobs and the rates of some or all of the venues could be based on income level.
The false dichotomy between spiritual and secular would fade as homeless vagabonds wandered into full out worship services, business owners volunteered time to tutor disadvantaged kids, saints laundered their clothes next to former crack addicts, and then they all sat down together to watch a movie, all in the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary would provide a safe place to bring the wealthy and the poor back into contact. This, according to Shane Claiborne, is the answer to the current injustice of our financial system. Redistribution as described in the early church happened as a natural result within the community not as a means to form that community and not as just another ministry of the community. Redistribution will occur spontaneously today when rich and poor get reacquainted in a Sanctuary where fear and condemnation are held at bay.
To some this may sound less like faithful dreaming and more like deconstruction, and ideally that is exactly what it is. In his book, What Would Jesus Deconstruct, John Caputo concludes that Jesus would deconstruct the church since it is 'plan B' and will one day give way to the full realization of 'plan A' the kingdom of God. So, with a nod to Peter Rollins and his new book, The Fidelity of Betrayal, I ask, how many of us are prepared to betray the current context of Adventism in order to remain faithful to the spirit of the early Adventist pioneers? Who will join us in a move to a Christianity beyond the confines of current religion? I feel a song coming on. "You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." There are surely others with better, more radical, and more faithful ideas than me. Let's hear them. "I hope some day you'll joint us, and the world will be as one."
Labels: Adventist, community, Ephesians, Epicenter, giving, gospel, Movies, passion, Sabbath, Sanctuary, smoking, unity
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
"It Is Well" Legacy
Recently, the wife of the grandson of Horatio Spafford passed away. Horatio Spafford is widely known as the author of the beautiful hymn "It Is Well With My Soul" (number 530 in our hymnal if I'm correct in guessing).
Having never heard anything more than the moving story of the tragic event that gave him the hymn prose, I was interested to read this article about the legacy he and his family left in the Middle East.
After such painful life-events, what a beautiful story his children and grandchildren have created, all because of a dedicated father & follower of Christ.
When peace, like a river,
Though Satan should buffet,
My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
For me, be it Christ,
But, Lord, ’tis for Thee,
And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
Having never heard anything more than the moving story of the tragic event that gave him the hymn prose, I was interested to read this article about the legacy he and his family left in the Middle East.
After such painful life-events, what a beautiful story his children and grandchildren have created, all because of a dedicated father & follower of Christ.
When peace, like a river,
attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot,
Thou has taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.
Though Satan should buffet,
though trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.
My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross,
and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!
For me, be it Christ,
be it Christ hence to live:
If Jordan above me shall roll,
No pang shall be mine,
for in death as in life
Thou wilt whisper
Thy peace to my soul.
But, Lord, ’tis for Thee,
for Thy coming we wait,
The sky, not the grave, is our goal;
Oh, trump of the angel!
Oh, voice of the Lord!
Blessed hope, blessed rest of my soul!
And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;
The trump shall resound,
and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul.
On a slightly different but mildly related subject (that being: living our lives inside Christ's shadow) I found this post very interesting. Wouldn't it be great if we all behaved with this approach all of the time? He did leave quite a legacy didn't he?
Labels: boldness, spirituality, unity
Sunday, 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, 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
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
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Exclusion and Embrace in Acts 19
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.
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
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
