A word on my thesis...

While it's fresh in mind, I want to get this on paper for myself and for anyone who might be reading. I'm writing a 25,000 word undergraduate thesis this year and I think I now have some clarity on the outcome of my findings.

I'm studying a 2nd century "heretic" named Marcion of Pontus. He wrote a gospel and the people at the time accused him of taking Luke's gospel and reworking it to his pleasure. In other words, not only did he steal someone else's work, but he perverted it to his own ends and then disseminated it about. Recently, scholars have argued that perhaps it was Luke who copied and reworked Marcion's gospel. Perhaps Marcion was first.

What does this mean?

Well, Marcion was a docetist, which means he had a different view about Christ than the modern church would condone. He believed Jesus was only and fully divine. No humanity, no flesh. Although Jesus came to earth, it was only as a spirit. Thus, his ideas of the death and resurrection of Jesus are quite different. Because of this belief and some other beliefs he had, his gospel looked different from Luke's in a few places. No crucifixion narrative, no birth story, among other things. Also, not very many references to Jesus' physical lineage. He also did not write of Jesus performing many miracles since miracles were largely focused on a person's body, a shriveled hand or broken leg. Marcion believed that God wanted us to focus on the spirit and not the body. He believed that, since the body only leads to sinful pleasures and eventually decays anyway, its not important and actually evil. There's more to his theology but that's the skinny of it.

So, Luke gets a hold of this gospel and makes minor changes. If this is the case, then we have to assume that Luke at least had some kind of agreement with Marcion's views. Why would he grab a gospel of his opponent and use it as a source, while not even changing that many passages at all? So, under this hypothesis, Luke held similar theological ideas to Marcion.

What? A different opinion outside the "orthodox?" That cant be right. Well, what about different authors of the OT that emphasize different attributes of God? Certainly Moses may have held slightly different views than the author of Ecclesiastes or Joel different views than Hosea. We know from events recorded in Acts that some of the disciples had differing ideas. Can the Bible be said to be the Word of God and still contain a wide variety of theologies that all represent the Trinity that we believe to be God? I think so. I think that, despite Paul and Peter's differing understanding of Christ's justification, they both did amazing things for God. In fact, God used them beautifully in their own ways. Despite Paul and James' possibly different understanding of grace and works, they both did ministry together and both loved God. Does it make one of them wrong? Does it mean we have to meld them both into 1 view, doing herminutical gymnastics to make them say the same thing? I don't think so.

So, many different authors with one purpose: to glorify God. But, did they do this in different ways? Maybe God equipped each one for specific words and a specific ministry. Maybe Paul's particular theological understanding led him to courageously plant churches in many cities that Peter wouldn't have even felt were important. Maybe John understood God's love differently than Mark or Matthew. Even in Christian scholarship, historians separate the "synoptic gospels" and "John" and claim they have different perspectives.

What does this say to us today? Maybe our distinctions of denominations and doctrines and theologies are good as long as they lead to unity. The kind of doctrines that claim absolute authority and universal adherence, damning all others, may not be what Paul had in mind when he said "one gospel, one truth." Maybe the Gospel is multi-faceted and God works in different ways across different cultures of different generations. Maybe God reveals a particular part of his character more to one man while another comprehends a different part. Maybe God can be both predestining and will giving, not in the sense that both fit into one particular version of doctrine like the Reform definition of free will, but in the sense that many ideas from many doctrines point towards Jesus the Christ and his salvation.

The Gospel of Guilt

I've been reading C.J. Mahaney's "Cross Centered Life" recently and it has raised some questions. In the book Mahaney lays out what he believes to be some major roadblocks in the way of Christians truly centering their life on God. He doesn't talk so much about lack of devotion or not leaving enough time for prayer and bible reading. He doesn't point to lust or hatred. He doesn't even bring in the verses in Romans and the like that talk of our tendency as humans to pervert God's truth, to trade God's grace for human wisdom. No, he talks about guilt, condemnation, and legalism. These are the things, in his opinion, that most quickly suck our spiritual lives dry and de-center us from God.

He goes on to talk about how we might be free of these things, but I wonder how they got there in the first place. I'm sure there's a theological answer that can solve everything systematically with certain truths and scriptures, but I guess I'm wondering more practically (if that's not a wrong distinction). How is it that Christians have come to the place where guilt and condemnation guide our thought patterns? How is it that we've missed the deep essence of the gospel, freedom, and instead remain shackled to our past and present failings? How is it that this is the issue above everything else? (And it is the issue. Find me a Christian book store that isn't covered with more self-help books than Oprah's home library.)

I found an inkling of a possibility of a chance of a hope of an answer yesterday in John Piper's "50 Reasons Jesus Came To Die." Piper finds that we have a problem truly understanding the picture of a suffering savior that stands at the center of our gospel. We make movies and write books about Jesus on the cross, but we don't truly understand the complexity of the situation and, therefore, we don't understand the gospel that is to set us free and show us God.

This is what he says: "Let us not trifle with God or trivialize his love. We will never stand in awe of being loved by God until we reckon with the seriousness of our sin and the justice of his wrath against us."

Unfortunately, I found the inkling of an answer in refutation of this idea. You see, I think that it's this very idea and all of the sociological formations that have stemmed from it that have stifled the faith of many Christians, good Christian men and women that love God and long to understand his ways. Maybe this is not the way that Piper meant it, but this idea seems to convey to me that we must truly, deeply understand our great offense to God before we can begin to experience his love and grace towards us. In other words, it is our recognition of sin that brings us to a place of humility by which we may understand and accept God's grace.

To me, this sounds a lot like a seed from which guilt and condemnation naturally sprout. What is positioned here as the cornerstone of Christian freedom, for a proper understanding of God's love, seems more like rich soil for a dismal understanding of our hopelessness and unsalvageable depravity. Not that God's wrath and our own sin should be dismissed, certainly not. We must come to understand man's depravity and God's righteousness for us to in any way grow in sanctification, in purity and truth. BUT, to ground Christian faith and love in this grave sense of depravity seems to be the wrong move.

This idea doesn't start in Piper's small book. It can't even be localized to any man, church, or culture, because it's everywhere. The idea pervades every hymnal, every theological structure, every version of the sinner's prayer, sunday school education from kids to adults, etc. And, I believe it is the extensiveness of this idea and its formulation as the "Gospel," the "path to salvation," that encapsulated us such that we cannot escape from the guilt and self-hatred of our hearts and minds.

In my own experience, and certainly in my experience with others, it has been the exact opposite of this idea. Oh, how beautiful the world became when I realized that God loves me, purposefully and specifically. It was as if everything before were shadows, empty reflections of some false doctrine. I began to drink deeply in God's grace, to find joy in the simple faith of song and prayer. God was once a distant king to which I payed homage. Enthroned on a high hill past my eye's view, he made decrees and I followed for fear or hope of his justice. Suddenly, I was the maiden of his desire. As Kierkagaard explains it, despite my lowly status and his infinity, I was his heart's sole longing. Then, as if it were nothing, I joyously began to trust this king. Fully and continuously I surrendered myself to his leadership. From this began a process of purity, of understanding my depravity and allowing God to work righteousness into my brokenness. To daily trade in the filthy rags of a lost identity for white robes of my true nature, the man that God had been forming from the beginning. Although I speak in emotional rather than theological terms, I fully believe that this should be the image of sanctification that we proffer (and desire) as Christians.

Is this not the true nature of the Gospel? That God has called us beloved, beautiful, glorious, holy. That from this understanding of our true identity as his beloved, we can begin to understand our depravity, this false nature we carry around. Is it not trust that gives way to the process of God's sanctification? Should we desire God's love and grace or our own purity and holiness before him as of first order? What if we, as a church, sought out God's love as the pearl of great price, as the treasure hidden in the field, as the bread of life? And what if this became the center of our journey rather than a more grounded understanding of the "facts of the case" that have so distanced us from grace and entrenched us in guilt? Certainly I say this with great fear. Oh how I do not want to lose sight of God's disdain for sin, of his wisdom and truth...but I fear it far less than I do the loss of my identity as his beloved.

I pray that we would be set free from guilt and condemnation, from the legalism that so easily dominates our minds, by allowing God to love us. By truly accepting his love and adoration and by grounding our identity firmly in that first and before all else. That we would allow God to romance us, allow him to pursue us instead of making that our responsibility. Instead of, "God I love you so much that I'm changing everything for you", let us first say "God I accept your love, I swoon to your romance, I'm captivated by your grace and I can't get enough." That we would focus on God's love first and our depravity second. How clear our lenses for viewing and understanding the mysterious truths of the Gospel might become if we truly began to realize, culturally, globally, our identity as the beloved of God.

Seminary Essay

Tuesday nights are wild here at New College. Smoke and drink, Funk and funky wardrobes usher in the second half of the week. It’s 10 pm. Students crawl from various studying nooks about campus to the central Promenade for the mid-week ritual. Tuesdays are Drunk Funk. The mass invites to neighboring colleges, the smell of the substances, and the thumping bass beckon any and all to rest from work and join our community in clamor and revelry.

It’s not that classes don’t start at 9am and it’s not that we don’t have plenty of work to be doing (because we’re at one of the top liberal arts colleges in the country). It’s not even so much about the booze and weed, because those can be had individually and many of us don’t even partake in the substances. It’s because New College recognizes two things: the need for rest and the joy of community.

While students at Harvard and the like are drilling away at equations and provocative literature without reprieve, we party. Because of our hippie persuasion, we have found a deeper need than simply toil and spoils.

We need rest. We need to just be sometimes for the sake of being. Rest reminds us that we are not success, we are not our goals or our society’s goals. It reminds us that there are greater things; things like love, passion, purpose, joy.

New College (with a 80% agnostic or atheist population) has taught me that God is all about rest. God created us to be and by just being we glorify him. Why? Because God made us in his image. Because, before the fall, before “original sin”, there was original glory. Because, far beyond the work of our hands, we were made to be God’s beloved creation.

This reminds me of the countless meetings I’ve attended and heard about at New College; the food drives, the tomato picker’s rights campaigns, immigration reform, picketing for better treatment of the Sarasota homeless; Earth Justice Squad meetings, the All Power to the Imagination Conference, signing petitions for better waste management in our cafeteria, brainstorming sessions for ecological reform on a national level.

New College students get things done, God things, because of rest, because of choosing being over succeeding. And because of community.

Back to Drunk Funk. Amidst the ambiance of smoke and sound, there is a fraternity, a commonality. I’m a Christian, many are not. But we are all human. We’re all sojourners of this life. We talk, eat, and live together. We even pray together on occasion. Tonight we rest together.

Community. No agenda. No Stereotypes. No divisions.

This is my testimony. It has become my vision and desire for the church. Not that we sacrifice the Truth of Jesus the Christ, because he is and forever shall be the only hope for creation. But that we truly embrace eachother. That we love.

Glory to Glory

"But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit."

- 2 Corinthians 3.18

I was reminded again yesterday of how this whole God relationship to humanity works. So much ink is spent emphasizing God's greatness in comparison to our fragility, and rightly so. I don't think that God's true grandness can be captured in one phrase or book or speech. It must be said over and over and over again. How beautiful it is, though, to be reminded that God is so great that he has imbued his own glory upon us, fallen humankind.

It's so easy for me to read the Bible and listen to preachers and never get that. I get that I'm super-sinful. I can see that without any help, though the occasional reminder is good. I get that I need to turn from evil intentions to God's truth. But, so often, that becomes my identity. I take on the image of a whore, of a hopelessly blind man, of dust and ashes.

"from glory to glory." That's how this thing works. Because of God's great love for humanity, my identity is glorious. It is as though, to found my identity, I am to look daily "beholding in a mirror the glory of the Lord..." It is from this starting point, the mirror, that I can attempt the other side of the equation. With a proper understanding of my Justification, that I am glorious because of Jesus, I can see where Sanctification, molding and changing my character to fit God's, leads.

I only hope that, as a church, we will continue to uphold this image of "Christ in us." That we would found our identity not in the temporal man, the broken and weak self that we experience daily. That we would not embrace the shifting shadows of our wants and fears. Instead, that we would hold to the truth that our true self is in this person changing "from glory to glory." That we would embrace, in the mirror of God's greatness, the radiant image God has created in us.

Don't destroy the good seed.

"The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed a good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared...

"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'

'No,' he answered 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "

Matthew 13.24-30

How often do we uproot the weeds with the wheat? How often do we take judgement into our own hands and, in so doing, harm the good seed that was planted in the lives of those around us?

I certainly do not understand the manifold meanings of this text, but I'd like to take a stab. I think Jesus is telling us that it is God who harvests. It is God who cuts away the weeds from amongst the wheat. Not only is God the one who decides our fate, but it is God who continually calls us to uproot the weeds in our hearts. Both in the world as a whole and in the individual.

I do not mean to disregard rebuke and accountability all together, but to raise awareness to our role as the "servants" in this parable. Our role is to go into the garden daily and cultivate the soil. To make sure the wheat grows, to nurture it and refresh it with water and fertilizer.

On a world-level, it is our job to proclaim the good, to encourage and enrich the good that exists. To ground and grow the wheat in culture and society. Human rights. Environmental justice. Restoration.

On an individual level, it is our job to draw attention to the truth and the good in peoples lives around us. Not only to enrich their lives by giving all we have, by fighting for their justice. But also, to choose love and support over disgust and admonition. That we would encourage more than we condemn. That we would be advocate and not judges.

This means that, on the flipside we have to trust God to continue his work of restoration as well. To continue calling humanity to himself. To continue to convict and destroy evil. To uproot greed and hatred. We have to trust that he is as jealous for the removal of evil as we are. To trust that he will judge justly as he promises to do.

Oh, that we would not be judges. That we would not confuse holiness with pride. That we would take care not to uproot the wheat that God has planted in the hearts of those around us. How beautiful it would be for the church, for the world to make compassion and encouragement the first response. To place our trust in God. To release the burden of condemnation that is not ours to carry. To instead gird ourselves in peace, hope and love.

Job and the Church

Job. What an intense book. 42 chapters of straight misery. Not only is the guy deprived of everything, covered in boils, and left to die, but he spends his time around 4 guys and his wife that offer him no consolation. Or do they?

I mean, sure they say a lot of good things. They talk about God's kindness. They speak doctrinal truths about God being righteous and human beings fallen. They try their best to lead Job to "repentance" and to a happier life.

Then you've got Job. He does nothing but curse and yell. He demands answers from God, declares his innocence a thousand times over and condemns his friends for their words. He sulks and screams.

But, in the end, God honors Job and dismisses his friends. God states that Job was righteous through this whole thing and that his friends were wrong. In the end, it was Job's sacrifices and prayers that spared his friends from God's burning anger.

Does this seem strange? It might. It certainly did to the people of the time. I mean these people were taught that God punishes sin and wickedness, that those born with handicaps and those inflicted with diseases were so because of their own evil. Further, there was cultural stigma to evil. Sin, evil was unclean and affected the surrounding area of its stead. You've heard "bad company corrupts good morals" but this was just the beginning of the cultural stigma of sinful people.

Even to our eyes, though, it seems a bit strange that the guy who complained and cursed God would be uplifted in the end as righteous. Meanwhile, his good friends who preached to him, quoted scriptures, and did their best to convict him and guide him to God are condemned.

I think there's an incredibly important message here. Putting myself in Job's shoes, I realize exactly what he's saying. Here I am feeling forgotten by God, having everything torn from me...I'm pleading with God to give me some kind of response, to restore me, to just throw me a bone. Then, my friends chime in and say, "You know, Troy, God only punishes people because they're evil. That's obviously the problem. You should repent." I can imagine my response being pretty similar to Job's in saying "How long will you torment me and crush me with words?" or "Indeed, I know that this is true. But how can a mortal man be righteous before God?"

I see myself, covered in boils, grabbing these guys by the collar and screaming "You think? I've spent the last week, day and night, pleading with God, begging God to show me my error so that I can repent. I suppose you're right though, maybe I should try being a better person. Maybe I've missed something in my straight 40 hours of praying...since I can't sleep with the pain of the boils."

Then, how do the friends respond? They give him proverbs and promises. They tell him that he doesn't really understand God and if he just understood what they got so perfectly, he would be saved...because God saves those who repent and remain righteous. "If you return to the Almighty, you will be restored: If you remove wickedness far from your tent...the Almighty will be your gold...then you will find delight in God." It's like they're saying "Troy, John 3:16...Troy, read Romans 8 again...Troy pray more and learn to trust in God....Troy Corinthians says that you have to rejoice all the time, despite your trials....Troy Jesus said that if you seek you will find, so just seek."

Then Job replies, as I'm sure I would "I have heard many things like these; miserable comforters are you all! Will your long-winded speeches never end?" It's like he's saying "No crap, Sherlock! You think I don't know this stuff? Stop with the endless, empty platitudes and just listen to me, just sympathize with me. Love me. Pray for me."

Does any of this sound familiar? Interestingly enough, Job is supposedly the first recorded book of the Jewish Scriptures. So, long before God saw any need to explain beginnings or the Israelite nation, wars, floods, any of that...God wanted people to understand this story.

I get 2 distinctive messages from this story. The first is that God loves our questions. He wants us to scream out, rather than close up; to pour out our hearts, rather than sit still in silence and reverence. Part of "seeking God with all our hearts" is laying everything on the table, holding no emotion or thought back regardless of its apparent "holiness" or "wickedness" in our eyes.

The second message is equally important and I truly believe it is one of the biggest issues in the church today. How do we relate to people in love? We are called to many things: to disciple, to love, to serve, etc. But, how? What is our role in this whole process?

I think we can learn from Job, that our role is not conviction, our role is not to judge and convict people. That is God's position. I believe that in desiring to convict people, we not only screw up something that only God can do right but we steal from and interfere with God's doing it. Certainly we are called to discern, to be wise. We are also called to counsel, to confront people in love. But, that is not by spouting verses or by giving mini-sermons on how God works. First, we should have the humility to know that we truly cannot know the mind of God. That being said, our approach should be as fellow struggler, as partner, as equal. Not that we can't offer advice and wisdom, but that we should be ever so careful not to interfere, ever so careful to not mix loving advice with judgemental pride.

Our main priority, I believe, our main responsibility is to compassion. God convicts hearts. God restores, God awakens, God regenerates. Our job is to come alongside. To aid in whatever way possible. Whether our friend is a Christian or an atheist or...whatever...the response should be the same: honest, humble, and loving compassion. A love that seeks to understand and sympathize. A love that truly seeks restoration. A love that admits shortcomings, honestly and openly. This means that my first response to a person who says they feel disconnected from God or that they're angry at God, or any number of other spiritual or emotional crises, should be to understand. To remember when I was in that place, to know that I probably will be in that place again in the near future. Not to grab for a doctrine or verse, but to really listen before saying a word.

I believe God will break open our influence, enlarge our ability to love and help people as we listen to the words of Job. As we seek compassion and benevolance, God will not only gift it to us in overwhelming amounts, but will teach us how to act in love. Not that we forsake the extreme value of these tenets and Scriptures, but that we listen first, that we understand and embrace, so that God may have the victory in convicting, in romancing, in calling all of us to himself.

How do I read the Bible?

I've been researching for the past few months for a big honkin paper I have to write and it's all centered around the Bible. That being said, I've spent hours looking at biblical texts, seeking out answers to various academic questions. Am I, then, using the Bible to my own end of writing a defendable paper?

I'm searching for "truth" but not necessarily the kind of truth that's going to form me into a better person, that's going to place me more in line with biblical morality. Rather, I'm trying to write a strong paper and make defendable points.

People do this all the time in academia, art, business. Pastors do it when they write sermons to an extent.

What about the marketing of Bibles? Christian bookstores sell a Bible for just about everyone in every circumstance; "Teen Study", "Nursing Mothers", "Men Who Eat Chocolate On Tuesdays." What about biblical iconography? Or the protestant Bibles of the 18-19th centuries with more bling than T-Pain's cadillac?

Is it right? Is there a "proper", "God-honoring" way to read the Bible? Are there lines and boundaries to be drawn (and where)?Or, can the Bible be manipulated and used to yield certain results without the necessary intent of transformation and TRUTH (with a capital 'T')?

You know you're a Hipster if...

you have an existential experience every time the power goes out.

Just wanted to relay that truth from my own reflection on said experiences, including the 5 minute power-outage at my restaurant last night.

Born Again?

Nichodemus said "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
- John 3.2-3

This little dialogue goes on to talk about what it means to be "Born of the Spirit", to be born again. What does this mean?

In the church (in general), we take it to refer to that Moment when a person first turns their attention to Jesus and makes a decision, whether it be by altar call or tract or personal conversation, to "give their lives to Jesus" or "get saved." I think this comes from a desire to see salvation as a secure decision.

If salvation is a momentary decision, then we can know "beyond a shadow of doubt that we'll go to heaven when we die." We can, further, understand the faiths of others and help guide them to that moment for themselves.

But, what if this isn't what Jesus meant? What if Jesus was talking about this being "born again" as a process in which a person changes his/her entire lifestyle, entire reality, entire way of thinking of themselves and others? What if Jesus was talking about a new set of eyes and ears, a new method of perceiving everything, a completely new personhood? What if being born again is that conflict that Paul talks about in Romans, where flesh fights against spirit, where the old person is constantly at war with the new?

Or, maybe Jesus is talking about birth itself, the process from conception, through all the phases of the fetus, to baby. What if Jesus is referring to re-birth as a development? What if he's referring to the common ideal of birth in which it takes 9 months, proper nutrition, much turmoil, etc. to produce a new being?

This makes me think of theology (duh..right?). It makes me think of a "first birth" as our birth in Adam (and Eve), as God's image bearers, as perfect crown of creation. However, as Scripture reads, there was then a Fall, a crisis that, in essence, killed the original creation; as God promised "if you eat of this fruit, you will surely die." So, if we are dead, then we must be reborn.

But, when does this re-birth, this being "born again" occur? Is it after a short prayer, after accepting some doctrinal truths, once we make an initial decision to seek after God? If our first birth was into perfection, then the new birth should follow suit. If this is the case, then I have not truly, fully been "born again." Certainly I am growing. God is nourishing me and I'm forming into the man he once created (Adam), I'm learning how to view reality as it truly is, learning how to have an interactive relationship with God.

But, have I yet been born? Or will I one day see "then" in full what I see "now" in shadows and glimpses? Will I one day know fully, as compared to my current state of partial knowledge? Should I, then, be seeking the position of "born again" or the process? Should I be seeking a deeper security or a closer sync with the re-birth perspective?

Can I both live in the "kingdom of God", the "fullness of life" that Jesus promises is here, at hand, and remain unfinished or still unborn to the "born again" identity?

Book of Life

So, I was reading in Revelation last night...you know, like people do...and I noticed the phrase "blot you out of the Book of Life". In this case, Jesus was saying that he wouldn't blot out the faithful ones. Nevertheless, I started wondering about this whole Book of Life business. I proceeded to look up (on Google, of course) the several other places where "Book of LIfe" is mentioned and found a similar tone throughout the Scriptures. So, this is what I'm thinking:

If Christ is blotting out names at the end of days, when he's coming to judge the world, then that would tell me all names are in this Book and some are removed for different reasons. In other words, it's not as though this eternal book was written outside of time with only the names of certain people that would remain in the Book forever. If this is the case, if everyone is written in the Book, couldn't it also be the case that Christ truly did die for everyone and that God truly does want everyone to come to Himself? Can this logic co-exist with Reform doctrine? In other words, can God still be a calling, predestining God while maintaining an incomplete Book of Life? I think so. I certainly can't explain how, but I think so.

I mean back in the day with the golden calf ordeal, God pretty straightly says that disobedience equals death...and proceeded to kill people. Then we learn through the eyes of Christ that the death was ultimately a spiritual one. So, sinners are, then, as in Exodus, blotted out of the Book of LIfe. But Christ's justifying death, once and for all (for all people?) allows us to maintain a stance in the Book of Life despite sin.

Anybody have an opinion on all this? I welcome any thoughts.

Bread and Wine = Jesus

I'm in line waiting for food. The people that surround me either wear somber faces or dramatic smiles. Both symbolize their response to this act of communion. The somber face indicates a regret and conviction of sin and a sorrowful remebrance of a bleeding savior. The smile indicates a joy of salvation, a joy that such a man died for sin many years ago so that the masses may live in freedom and family with God. As I step up for my turn in line, the men distributing the foodstuffs whisper "body of Christ broken for you, blood of Christ spilled for you" in an eerily serious tone. As I return to my seat, I try hard to understand this truth and to love God better because of it. I try to thank God, to admit wrongdoings, to...form some sort of makeshift meaning.

The preacher tries to help me understand this meaning. He recites passages from Corinthians and Mark, he explains that I am to remember Jesus. He sometimes uses historical symbols to reveal the meaning of the bread and the wine. He then proceeds to guide me through the consumption of these foods through prayer and scripture.

But, I still don't understand. I'm stumped...and a little wigged out by the whole thing. I feel as though the whole thing is forced, as if I'm not truly making contact with God but rather just simply eating with a strange ritual attached. Plus, after skipping breakfast this morning, I'd really rather eat a steak instead of a thimble of cheap wine and a mouse-portion of bread. So, it's not even really eating either.

And, honestly, as I plan to be a pastor, I'm wondering how I can continue this necessary, mandated-by-Scripture practice when I can't seem to muster up any kind of authentic feeling or appreciation.

It got me thinking about Catholics. Catholics get so much out of the stinking Eucharist, its like the bread and butter (no pun intended) of the ecclesiastical structure. What does Catholocism teach regarding the Eucharist? Well, to be perfectly honest, I don't know much (because I've grown up in a protestant church) but I do know that there's this word, Transubstantiation. In my understanding, transubstantiation is the "process" by which simple bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ. Not that the bread and wine take the form of body and blood, but that they are, by the Priest's blessing, acting "en persona Christi".

I believe this practice comes from (well many places, but primarily) John 6. In John 6:32-60 or so, Jesus talks about himself being the Bread of Life. Shortly after Jesus "feeds the 5 thousand", some of them find him and ask him to perform more signs and miracles to show that he truly is God. They say "like Moses, you know, God gave him bread in the desert so that the Israelites could live" and Jesus goes "woah woah woah now, you don't get it...I AM the bread of life, I'm the only bread you'll ever need...that bread in the desert was purely physical...I'm the bread that doesn't spoil, that can't be devoured, that fully and eternally satisfies the soul." Then he says "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

So, what he's saying is...unless you drink me, eat me...you got nothing. Now, I believe, Catholocism practices the Eucharist (a tradition passed down from the church fathers) by saying, "we're gonna take this bread and wine and ingest it as the body and blood of Christ because apart from Him there is no eternal life, no salvation, no nothin". And so, literally, Catholics partake in the ritual, acknowledging that without it there is nothing good in their own mortal bodies to bring about the righteousness that God requires.

But, what about a figurative interpretation? Is it possible? I believe so. Now, I'm not arguing "figurative vs. literal" because I'm just not qualified to do so. What I am saying is that IF we are going to participate in a figurative interpretation, we may want to heed these verses.

What I see in these verses, what I see in Communion, is a symbolic acknowledgement of the whole gospel. Not just the cross, not just the death of Christ...but the whole package, that the death and ressurection of Christ means that we are called chosen and beloved, means that we are called righteous because of Him. We are no longer dependent upon our own nature to live righteously, but rather upon Christ and his perfect nature. So, when Christ says "I am the Bread of Life, unless you eat it you're dead and can't truly live", I think he's talking about Communion. I think he's alluding to this future "last supper" act, and I think the words in these verses directly mirror those found in Luke 22 or Paul's instructions in Corinthians.

I think that when Christ is inviting us to remember Him, to eat and drink, He is inviting us to remember once again that "Christ in me is the hope of righteousness, the hope of life and truth", he's inviting us to actively partake in the gospel through this symbolic meal. So, I believe that when we take Communion, we reflect upon the gospel and we ask Christ, through the symbolism of the elements, to continue to reveal to us his power in us, his status as the Bread of Life. That we might remain in Him, that we might see Him as our only hope...and, at that, the supreme hope.

So, I guess communion just became a lot less ritualistic to me and a lot more meaningful. I don't feel the pressure to cry while thinking of the cross or to feel disgusting about my sin. I don't have to explain it away with metaphors about Christ's cup sharing as a marriage symbol or his napkin folding as a symbol of justification, etc. I can just eat and drink, abiding in the truth of the gospel, that God has given Himself for us that we might have life, His life in us, His strength and purpose in us.

Anyway, probably nothing new to others, but for me its powerful. For me, this view of "figurative transubstantiation" has changed the way I view communion.

Tinkerers: Blessing or Curse?

I've been reading this book on "millenials", which are basically people who are currently in the age bracket of 20-45. We're called this quite obviously, because we were growing up around the turn of the millenium...Y2K, internet, september 11th, stuff like that are said to impact our lives and distinguish us from other generations such as the Baby Boomers of the 50-70s.

Why am I reading this book? Because I've recently found that generations are interesting. I used to think we were all pretty similar and that, as a 20 something, I'm supposed to just rebel and want to be different and then I will one day gain maturity and wisdom like my parents and grandparents. I used to understand life as a pretty linear concept in this regard. At the same time though, I've always had this strong conviction that there is more, that there are new things to be done and that rebellion and heterdoxy are not necessarily bad things. Then, as I started reading sociological surveys and psychological studies, I found that maybe it's true. Maybe different generations come along and accomplish different things. This would mean that not only am I justified in challenging norms and trying new methods, but that I should likewise see the previous generation's work as good and profitable, not out-dated and weak.

This realization gives me a whole new dimension in which to view God. God is a God who calls people into different generations to accomplish different things. God has specifically created me to live within this generation, to be influenced by these particular circumstances, to experience spirituality in new ways, so that I might continue the work of creating and restoring. God could have put me in the 1920's; I could have made a great Jazz musician. I could have been born in the middle ages. You get the idea. Point is, I'm here now and I'm learning, both spiritually and academically through these books, that God purposed this generation for something new. Not that we cut ties with previous ideas and methods, but that we embrace them and move.

Anyway, little tangent there. Here's what I really wanted to talk about.

This guy, Robert Wuthnow, says that we are (millenials) a generation of 'tinkerers'. Rather than going to the store and buying the exact part that is needed to complete a task, we will ask advice, use the skills we have and piece something together that is functional for our purposes. We thrive on an element of creativity, of ingenuity. Certainty is boring to us, the definitional nature is not enough. We want to tweek and tinker it to fit what makes rational, emotional and experiencial sense to us.

There is a bigger trend this comes from, which scholars call post-modernism. Quite simply post-modernism is re-modernism, in the sense that modernism is enlightentment-styled logic and formality. However, our tinkering generation has gone beyond the "norms" of post-modernism itself.

Take, for example, Sam Harris. He spoke a few months ago about science determining morality. He spoke against the post-modern view of relativity and subjectivity, the view that says "what's right for me is different than what's right for you." He claims that there are moral absolutes and that they can be found in biological and sociological scientific norms. So, it's not as simple as lumping our generation in with all the rest of post-modernism. Rather, our generation accepts things like an atheist claiming absolute morality.

Why? Why doth we tinker thus?

We tinker because we're able. Our generation gets married, finishes school, has kids, and starts a professional career decades later than previous generations. The ideal of an 18 yr old finishing college by 22, having a career by 24 and getting married by 26 is no longer the way of life. More likely is a single 28 yr old who is in school part time and works as a bartender. More likely is a single mom at 31, getting married around 35. This being said, the idea of "adulthood" has changed drastically. The coming of age that most people associate with the mid-20s, doesn't really occur until the late 30s or 40s. So, the first reason we tinker is because we make time for tinkering.

The second is that we don't have social pressures. Society focuses its efforts on youth and the elderly. Pre-school, grade school, aftercare, sports, youth group, parachurch ministries, on and on (I'm sure you can name 5 more, try)...all focused on the 5-18 age group. The same for elderly groups, communities, rotary clubs, boards, commissions, etc. So, the middle bracket of 20-50s are left out. And, this used to be ok. When people started families and professional careers in their 20s, there were plently of natural social networks in place to moniter and encourage the maturation and happiness of these age groups. But, with adulthood coming in one's late 30s, this is no longer a safe bet. Instead, young adults (again, 20-45) are left alone. We spend our time as individuals. We meet at clubs, online, we spend time with our parents...because, really, there isn't much else available. Not that these are bad sources of community, but they are not deep and intentional like those society provides for youth.

This is evidenced by statistics that show young adults deeply in-debt, raising kids alone, paying for chatrooms, etc. But, it does allow us to tinker. We don't have anyone telling us what is right and wrong, what we can and cannot think. We have no sources for wisdom, but also none for condemnation. So, we are free to tinker and create perspectives and worldviews, free to indulge what we choose and reject what we don't.

So, is tinkering a blessing or a curse? Is it good or bad? I guess I don't have a firm answer to that. Certainly we are fortunate on the one end in that we are not trapped by standards and ideals that act as fences and chains. But, on the other, we have no foundation, no community, no guidance. I think that, although there are positive effects to be had from this tinkering, society, specifically the church, needs to step up in respect and love of this age group and find ways to guide, commune with, and learn from us. I think there needs to be conversation between pastors, church leaders, elders...and young adults who hold these tinkering perspectives. Not a dialogue of wise one to foolish one, but of brother to brother, sister to sister. I think this not only for the church but for the society as a whole. Both sides need it, both sides will grow and be challenged as they engage in dialogue. Wouldn't it be beautiful if these young adults could be fostered and guided through the trials of adulthood by a loving community as they enrich it with the wisdom of a tinkerer. I think that society would stop stifeling tinkering such that all would feel free to tinker while remaining firmly grounded in wise truths and principles. Yea.

Ignorance vs. Rebellion

What is the difference between ignorance and rebellion?

In our culture there seems to be more of a similarity than a difference. Ignorance is equated with some form of naive stupidity, "ignorant fool", and rebellion with a similar notion of naive defiance. Actually, I think, the only difference between the two is a level of respect that we hold for the rebel, who at least fights for his individuality and perspective, over and above the ignorant man who's blind to any kind truth or view.

Social constructs aside though, there is a strong difference between these two words. Ignorance, as we know, is actually lack of knowledge, which is different from stupidity or foolishness. For example, I am ignorant about the mechanics of rocket science. In fact, I know so little of the subject that the previous sentence probably doesn't even make good sense. Does this make me a fool? Does it make me stupid? No. Although so scientists may snub their noses at us non-educated folk, the lay ignorance of rocket science is not stupidity at all. Rather it is just immaturity in a specific subject, lack of illumination, of education. Rebellion, on the other hand, has to do with purposefully rejecting or revolting against a particular knowledge. Whether it be the rebel against government, societal norms, proper grammer, or against one's own friends and family. Rebellion may be characterized as purposeful ignorance, in that it is a type of ignorance and, in fact, it appears similar to plain old, garden variety ignorance, but it is an ignorance with agency and diliberation.

It may make sense, then, to fix the modern understanding of ignorance. It may serve us to view ignorance as a stance of humility and rebellion as pride. If this were the case, would we not have more regard and compassion for ignorance and more of a willingness to nurture and accept, rather than outcast and admonish? Might we even see the apparent rebellion in a person as possible ignorance, to the extent that we would not react in hatred or offense, but in understanding and love?

You may be wondering where this is going. Well, I'll show you. This is a bit of a long passage, but please read through it and meditate on it before moving past.

1 Timothy 1:5-15

The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and purjurers- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in IGNORANCE and UNBELIEF. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners- of whom I am the worst.

Forgive my interpretation of this if you think it flawed, but I see a dramatic paradigm shift here that needs to be accepted and revamped in the church and in society. How is it that we (the church and the entire culture) have become these "teachers of the law that don't know what we're talking about?" How have we become so elitist and condemning to see ignorance as a thing to be discriminated against and admonished? Especially within the church, we tend to treat everyone as a rebel, as if the "sin" that they are involved in is completely purposeful and curable by a slap on the wrist. What is Paul saying here?

I think he's saying, STOP. Stop holding people under this law as if they are not called righteous and faithful by thier God despite thier (and your) ignorance. Not that law and doctrine are not valid entities, though I would question the extent to which we use them today. But that law is for the "rebels". I hope you're catching what I'm throwing here, not that there isn't a serious sin problem in our hearts and not that we don't transgress God's law of perfection every single moment. BUT, that is not our identity. Our identity is, as Paul's was, "faithful". Paul thanks God that, despite his sin, God saw him as faithful. He thanked God for mercy shown to him in his ignorant sinfulness.

What if we did this? What if we stopped assuming rebellion in eachother (whether it's Christian to Christian or person to person) and started loving people in their ignorance....ESPECIALLY since we're in ignorance ourselves, since we don't have it all figured out and we certainly have our "bad days" where we are in ignorance to the very things we were so sure about a couple months ago. Praise God that he does not hold us to a law or creed or doctrine. Praise God that, when we come to him broken, he doesn't refer us to a list of "5 steps to recovery" or, worse, condemn us for our sin and turn us away. What does God see? God sees a broken and incomplete heart trying to place things in order, trying to gather the scattered pieces, in complete ignorance of how they go together. God sees ignorance, not rebellion. This is why he can call us beloved and not lawbreaker, son and not outcast, faithful and not wicked.

Again, for those with sensative ears, I'm not advocating a rejection of rebellion at all. No, rebellion exists. I rebel, you rebel, everyone rebels. Everyone does things they know are wrong. Rebellion is alive in our culture and in our church and it needs to be dealt with as Paul describes in other letters, lovingly and with great conviction. We need to be a holy people, because we serve a holy God and he calls us to be holy, to live up to our calling as sons and daughters. But, rebellion should not be the first and only thought. Rebellion should not be the form that all sin takes. Therefore, sin should not be treated, no matter the case, as a symptom to a rebellious heart. Sin should be treated gently and in complete love, having a great respect and hope for the person's good. Sin should be treated, first and foremost, as immaturity. Not the type of immaturity where we are "the mature ones" and the sinner is "the immature", but the type that has compassion (suffering with another).

My prayer for us, for the church and for culture, is that we would embrace eachother in humility and in a desire to see our lives illuminated and changed by the glorious love and character of God. I pray that we would not treat the sinner, the unbeliever, the doubter, the adulterer, the (you fill in the blank) as such, but as beloved, as fellow struggler, fellow beggar, as ignorant and not rebellious. That we would stop trying to fix people with our doctrine and law and, instead, love people where they're at and compassionately point them toward the Gospel of hope, of a God that redeems us in our sin and unfaithfulness.

So, don't get caught up in the meaningless talk, in the divisions and controversies, in the condemnation, in further damaging people who are already damaged. Instead, get caught up in restoration, in the celebration of a gloriously broken and redeemed creation and the God who loves it without measure. Get caught up in grace that sees ignorance and not rebellion, that sees love and not hate, that hungers for reconciliation not abomination. Love.

Prayer: The Vehicle for Christian Unity

I was reading through Thessalonians today and couldn't help but notice how often prayer appeared. Then, like a good college student, my next thought was to context. This brought me to see that prayer has some connection to community, to unity within the church. Ephesians seems to echo this refrain; be unified, love, be peaceful...pray without ceasing. What about the famous Acts 2, the starting point for many a church or christian community? What did the church do? They ate together, they gave to all who had need, and, well, they prayed. It says they went to the temple every day to pray and praise God together.

In fact, what about prayer FOR unity. How important is that? Well, the Lord's Prayer that is so often quoted as the "way to pray", has unity, forgiveness and love throughout. Then, there's Jesus' "prayer" in John 17. One of the few(2,3 maybe) times the Scriptures quote him praying...its saturated in a plea for unity and love for creation and, specifically, for the church. Paul prays for unity and peace in Romans, Timothy, Philippians...forget it, he ends and begins every letter with some form of plea for unity in the church. And, although this post is mainly about Christian scriptures, these themes run the length of the Jewish Bible as well.

I've had the joy of seeing this idea in practice here at New College. At other schools, where the numbers are in the thousands, there may be various clubs for each sect of Christianity. But, here at New College, because the Christians make up about 5-7% of a 800 student population, ecumenicalism is nearly forced (blessed) upon us. In a room full of baptists, pentacostals, presbyterians, catholics, episcopalians, lutherens, methodists, and probably 3-4 more that I'm missing...there is a beautiful union in prayer. Certainly we have different ideas about how God works exactly and how the church is supposed to function, we find in prayer that we actually hold pretty similar beliefs. Whether it's a Hail-Mary, a recited prayer from a hymnal, speaking in tongues, or a simple hallelujah uttered...we're all praying to the same glorious God, needing God's love and desiring that he work in us as the church.

Prayer is the language of ecumenical unity. Might we all pray more and plan less. Might we all embrace eachother. Might we set our eyes on Christ. That difference may be celebrated, but overshadowed by glorious unification. That intellectual dissent would not distort spiritual solidarity.

Trees

"God has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor and the day of vengence of our God, to comfort all who mourn and provide for those who grieve in Zion- to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair. They will be called oaks of righteousness, a planting of the Lord for the display of his splendor..." Isaiah 61.1-3

I want to be a tree. I want to bind up the brokenhearted, proclaim freedom for the captives, bring gladness and light to the people God has put in my life.

There are these times when we are just dry and feeble, we can't see God and don't qutie understand where we are, much less the next step. And we wonder, why? Why this, why me? What is the purpose in suffering? I think God wants to make us into trees.

What is it that makes trees such a great metaphor? What drives Jesus himself to say "I am the vine and you are the branches" (John 15)? I think it has to do with endurance. I remember being a little kid and being shocked to find out that the trees around my yard were 50, 60, 80 years old. Trees remain. Trees go through countless season changes, storms and disasters and yet, they endure. They endure and, in fact, they grow stronger over time. They grow tall and stout and their branches extend further and further. They provide shade, shelter, and fruit.

God wants us to be trees. He wants us to withstand trials, dry seasons and storms and grow stronger and more adaptable because of them. He wants us to grow fruit and provide nourishment and life for people who are hungry and dilapidated. He wants us to "rejoice in suffering because we know that suffering produces endurance and endurance produces character and character produces hope." He wants us to provide shade for people when the sun is blasting away at their lives and they themselves are restless and dried up. God desires for the trials in our life to draw us closer and more tightly connected to the "vine", to him and to his strength, and so to grow that we might give restoration and hope to others.

I pray that as you endure, that you would not be easily shaken and blown off course but that you would remain as a tree. God will grow us, he longs to.

"They will be my people and I will be their God...I will rejoice in doing them good and will assuredly plant them in this land with all my heart and soul." Jeremiah 38.41

Am I really a Christian?

Just thinkin....hope this note doesn't come off harsh...just thoughts...I love the church and fellow Christians and I don't consider myself better....just thinkin.

When were you saved?
-This seems a problematic question....and it reflects many issues with the system. Is every person in a category of saved and not-saved to such a degree that a person is made to have one “testimony” (singular) and some sort of evidence for their salvation? Or is there some sort of continuum, a process-faith that's full of many, momentary encounters with God and with the truth of the gospel?

-This whole idea causes so much panic. Teenagers go to camp year after year and “re-commit” their lives year after year after being questioned rigorously about their moment of salvation, causing them to dig deep within themselves and put their “salvation experience” to the litmus test. There is almost this implicit idea that if you were saved you’d know it completely without doubt or question and if you don’t know it, then maybe you’re not saved, maybe that moment didn’t happen like you thought it did. Maybe you need to 'really' be saved.

Division and Judgment
-This notion of being saved causes a divide in the way we view people. People are no longer just people, they are Christians and non. Even within the Body this arises to the effect that some people truly are saved and others, well, we’re not really sure and we have to “pray for Tim.” Outside of the Body is even worse. We categorize people and squeeze them into a spot. It affects the way we speak, the way we act, the places we go with this person and the amount of ourselves we share with this person.

-People are terribly afraid of “talking about God” with their lost friends. They can’t bring themselves to speak about the one thing that is supposed to mean the most to them. Is this because they are terrible Christians and don’t really love Jesus or is it possibly due to this divide that we, as the church, place upon people. Sure, we love everyone. I’m not challenging that. But, is the way in which we express that love, the most loving. Shouldn’t we instead be willing to treat everyone the equal. Equally created, equally struggling and questioning, equally trying to live the best life possible, equally not knowing fully the deep complexities of God. Whether its Pastor Dave or our atheist friend Jim and all the Christians and others caught in between. What if Jim is really searching for God and wonders why, if God's so important, no one talks about his importance, not even the church (to his face)? Or, what if our buddy Steve that we sit next to in church has heard enough of the religious jabber and is about ready to free-fall and leave the faith, but we continue to preach and talk to him as if nothing else mattered? So, we don't talk to Jim about God because we don't want to offend him or rehearse the same "you're a sinner and Jesus died" speech that he's heard a thousand times as an American. And whether in church or at the grocery store or at a card game, we talk nothing but Jesus stuff with Steve and treat him as though he ought to understand and be excited about engaging in dialogue about his savior every moment...when really he's disenchanted and wants to be treated like a real person instead of a "Christian". What if we instead just treated people as people no matter where they are in realtion to Christianity and spoke of God as the God of everything, every circumstance and every reality? God can talk sports and doctrine, he's just that cool.

-At least we accept people and don’t try to convert them. Sure, at least our relevant, accepting church is no longer accused of the exclusivity and fire-and-brimstone interactions; we don’t shove our beliefs down our friends’ throats. Are we then better than our predecessors or perhaps we struggle in a different way? Perhaps our struggle is extremely similar. They put people in categories and persecuted them, we put them in those same categories and then decide which ones are more deserving of what part of us. We talk naked chicks with Jim because he’s an atheist and it shows that we’re not a Christian zealot and then we talk doctrine with Pastor Dave because that’s what he likes to talk about, but we’d never share our interest in Hockey with him because he’s in the religious category. Are we really any more loving? Are we truly loving either of those two?

-What about our big churches these days? Have we finally evolved to the point where we understand the market and know how to advertise? Have we finally found our target audience and can now start selling Top 20 CD’s till the cows come home? Is there a problem here? What if I, you, millions don’t fit this “target audience”? What if I’m not reached by pop rock, cool toys, quick meditations on life, and a room full of Izods and flip flops? Am I screwed out of this kingdom deal? I feel like this is the message that our 'corporate' church is projecting loud and proud. Then pastors ask, why is there no diversity? Why can’t we reach the unlovable? Why is it only re-converted Christians and soccer moms coming to the baptisms?

Alter calls
- What is the “gospel”? Is it the 5 minute shpeel that starts with an unexpected baby and ends with a bloody tree and an empty tomb? Isn’t the gospel supposed to be the whole of the Christian faith? Isn’t it unquantifiable, expansive and mysterious? Does the gospel encompass every truth claim ever or is it simply a slice of the pie? Does it have to start with baby Jesus being vomited on by donkeys or can it start in a bar, when we were wasted and watching strippers and God awakened us for the first time, the first of many times?

- What is it about the gospel that attracts so many 3 line prayers about wanting to hold Jesus’ hand and tickle his belly? Why is it always followed by this infamous “alter call”? Did Jesus, Peter, and Paul do these (maybe)? Why do we feel it so necessary to reel people in after sharing this divinely-mandated truth? Are we afraid that somehow theyre going to run away and it will be all our fault? Are we scared or faithful? Do we trust the sovereignty of God or our ability to talk about it? Does God call people or do we? Is an alter call a necessary part of a healthy church, a Godly pastor? Or, is it something we've created and devlops all sorts of relgiosity from....something that has become an entity of tradition that has to stay because...instead of something virbrant with purpose and authenticity? Is it really this emotionally charged moment where a person is walked through a general and impersonal prayer from a distant stage that creates a regenerated, saved spirit within a person or is a series of lived out prayer and experiences that a person goes through alone with God and corporately with close friends and eventaully a church body that grows salvation within a person? I'm not questioning the idea of momentary salvation as much as the idea of the alter call and what positive purpose it holds in our church. Can a pastor never speak an alter call or a sinner's prayer and still invite people to know God through speaking the truth of the gospel each and every sermon? Should salvation be treated as an event or a lifestyle? (or both)

A solution, a story, real life
- Maybe we need to stop this concept dead in its tracks. Maybe all people everywhere need to be loved with the open arms of Christ, such that we shed all barriers and do life with each and every person in ours. Maybe we, as the church, need to step up to bat and live the gospel instead of making it a program, a speaker, a checklist, a fairy tale. I think we’re all on a journey. There is no end target. Maybe God wants to meet us here, now, today and let tomorrow and yesterday worry about themselves. Maybe God wants to meet the church, here, now, today. Maybe it’s not our job to program and plan, but rather to seek and wait, to rest. Maybe we need to shed preconceptions and boundaries and truly walk in faith, loving faith. Maybe we don’t have to follow paradigms that work and traditions that hold, but rather live in the moment and allow God to live with us. Maybe we shouldn’t be afraid of doubt and questions, of not having everything crystallized into a 10 point vision and mission statement with all the tacked-on do’s and don’ts. Maybe our only responsibility as the church visible is to listen, wait, and watch as God works through us. Maybe we should question and be hesitant to accept a short answer. Maybe God’s vision and mission is a story. Maybe the gospel is all of existence through God’s eyes. Maybe the gospel is different to every person. Maybe it’s a new and vibrant answer every day. Maybe the gospel is a process…salvation might be a process. Maybe we need change.

The Natural

What does the word "natural" mean? What do we intend when we speak of human "nature" or when we say that "it was in his nature to act this way?" When we discuss environmental issues and the like we talk about nature, nature infringed upon by civilization, unnatural forces and substances. We have the notion that nature is something original, something left untampered. Trees are not by nature, paper. Dirt, not by nature buildings. Stones, not weapons. Humans...?

Are we natural? In other words, is the collection of traits and attitudes that make up "me", really me? Maybe. Was there a "me" that once existed but has been tarnished by societal influences? Is the true, natural "me" intangible? Is the me that I conceptualize, really me, or is that a false view of reality?

Extremists on one side would say, "I am fully natural and should celebrate this nature by living out each and every emotion, desire and action that I encounter." This view seems beautiful at first glance, because there really is this beauty of humanity, this beauty of nature that exudes and flourishes all around us. How can one deny the deeply-laden glory of the arts we have created, the music, the dance, the poetry, visual pieces, philosophy? The tears that are had over lyric and verse; do they not attest to the power of human passion? How about the depth of human interaction; love, union, joy? Is the budding of a rose any more radient than the first-kiss of lovers? There truly is a magnificient rhythm within this human soul, whether wrought through the labor of social justice campaigns, the movement of a skateboard along a rail, the beat of a snare, stroke of a brush, ink on a notebook canvas, words spoken in privacy, or in a silent walk through a crowded forest.

But, what about the evil that seems to pervade all the more? What about the mass-murderings, war, slavery, poverty, drug-addictions and alcoholism, bigotry? How can I celebrate the "natural" when it is so full of dirt? Certainly there are campaigns for a celebration of the natural in moderation with a deep conviction for compassion and social-uprightness...but, how are those even determined? How is pro-social behavior or compassion drawn from the grayness of human morality? How do we do what feels right when we've more than determined, sociologically, anthropologically, religiously, that those feelings fluxuate relatively, subjectively? What about those situations where you have to decide between acting "compassionately" or acting "loving", where what is "good" isn't necessarily best? Plus, is it not the action but the internal patterns that really matter? Are we to believe that as long as we act in accordance with these ideals that we are in the right or is there a sense that intention matters? Is not intention a part of morality? If so, then are not the hateful musings, bitterness, deceit, envy...are not they too broken? If this is "human nature", then should we really be celebrating it? Is it worth esteem? Maybe.

Then, of course, there's the other extremists. We are told that human nature is entirely evil and that there is no good. Because of "original sin" we are completely incapable of any good whatsoever. Again, this is easy enough to see with the ethnic cleansings, gang violence...it's easy to see that human society, left unmoderated, will self-destruct. Without some sort of guide, some hint of moral seasoning, we tend to be given over to a great sense of selfishness at the complete expense of everyone and everything else. However, this mode of thinking doesn't satisfy the commonsensical view that sees goodness throughout humanity. Anyone can tell that humans are more than capable of good and, in fact, many times these are wrought by religiously-unafilliated means. So, to say that there is no trace of good in humanity, to say that everything and everyone without the religious tag on it is evil, seems silly.

So, is there a "natural" in humanity? The Buddhists solve this issue by pretty much saying, well, no. There is no natural, there's no selfhood. It's an illusion. Therefore, making any kind of graspings at a nature is deceptive and false. In fact, they go further to say, it is suffering...that evil and disturbing emotions corrupt our thinking to see a selfhood of phenomena. Hmmmm. Maybe.

What about this...what if there is a nature...what if there was a nature but it died? What if it was originally 100% glorious and, therefore 100% worthy of being celebrated and enjoyed? And, what if the good that we so blatently see in modern culture is but faint memories, whispers of a past of radience and perfection? And the evil, what if that's due to the smell of the decaying corpse that we hold on to so tightly because it seems the only thing tangible and real? So, it's both. Human nature is both gloriously beautiful and terribly awry.

Meditate on this with me for a moment:

"Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory." Colossians 3.2-4

Is it possible that there is an identity that was created for celebration and joy but that it has died? Does that explain the world we live in? That we are neither ashes, nor flames...but some mixture of both? Could it be that God, a being with an indispensible love for humanity, creation, has decided to gift it with remnants and memories of a glorious identity? What purpose would this serve? Well, it would let us retain some measure of beauty and find joy and fulfillment out of life. It would let us create and be as we were intended to be. But, because of the brokenness, it would leave us hungry for more. It would have us see the disparity between the two and seek out a wholeness and peace.

Maybe what we percieve to be natural, the here and now, our ligaments, marrow, flesh, our emotions, maybe those are not the truly "natural" and so appeals to human nature would, then, be empty. Not that there is no human nature....but that it died. It died at a point called "the fall", when humankind decided that it no longer needed the wisdom of something bigger than itself. It looked inward upon itself and realized such a glorious character, that it found better solace in self-trust, than in God-trust...it found truth in what seemed good rather than what they had been told was good...a shift from dependence and trust to independence and self-reliance. So, perfection was not based upon independent moral living, but upon dependant trust and love. And, once humankind refused that, there was a fall and a brokenness.

With this logic, Buddhism and similar worldviews that see human nature as being a falsity and a non-existent, would align directly with Christianity. If selfhood had died and stayed dead with "the fall", then we would not ever have any hope for a future self, a reconciliation and wholeness, a reunion of human body with human Nature. We'd be caught in a cycle of hungering for something more, something beyond the limits of our own self, with no reprieve, no end.

This isn't the view of Christianity though, is it? There is a self in Christianity. But, it's not here, it's not visible, it's not the collection of Troy experiences, traits and desires. The dead self has been brought to life, the fallen identity has been raised. Years ago, a light entered the world to abolish the darkness. Because Jesus the Christ came died and, by dying, put to death the evil and brokenness of humanity, the identity we once had as "fallen" is no longer available. No, because of the cross of Christ, there has been a cancellation of "the fall". Not only was there a death, but Jesus raised from death. In this symbolic and literal rising, because of the ressurection, there is not only a death of "fallen nature", this false nature that we have been carrying around for centuries, but there is a ressurection of the glorious nature that died at the fall. The glorious nature, the original nature, the true nature of humanity that died with humankind's fall into self-dependence and the glorification of human logic over divine knowledge....that nature has arisen. It is alive. So, humankind is no longer without hope of ever regaining identity, because it's alive. Alive in God. Not only that, but there will be a day when we truly embrace that identity and once again celebrate the full beauty of human nature wrought by God.

What, then, should we do? Do we continue living as though this present human nature that we percieve is our full identity and, as such, embrace it and glorify it? Do we condemn it completely? Do we reject the idea of a nature altogether and lose hope in a restoration of true nature? Or, do we, embracing the grace of God in allowing us to retain goodness, traces of a glorious nature, trust God completely to define our true nature and help us decipher it from the false one that 'comes so naturally'? Do we forsake a complete self-reliance for a trust in something beyond our own ability and understanding? Do we live as though our identity has been redeemed and, thusly, look forward to a future glory while maintaining a clear vision for our own agency in creation and restoration on behalf of this saving, creating, restoring God?

Is it possible to reconcile both our current, unfinished nature with our future, glorious nature? To both celebrate humanity and the beauty within all of creation, while holding to a conviction of a greater nature that we could and should be conforming to by looking to and trusting in God and the redemption of Jesus the Christ? To affirm people, arts, philosophies that are not directly "Christian", while maintaining the desire for wholeness and restoration for all of creation? Is that a proper worldview?