My partner, Kihwan, and I went to a Jazz Festival in Jarasum, Korea this past weekend. We had some time to spare on Sunday morning, so we went to some gardens to eat lunch and take some pictures. These are some of the pictures that Kihwan took - I think he's a wonderful photographer, but perhaps I am biased:)

Peace & Blessings.

Where is the Love?

Thomas' Role Model

Luke 7

18 John's disciples told him about all these things. Calling two of them, 19 he sent them to the Lord to ask, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?" 20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, "John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, 'Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?' " 21 At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. 22 So he replied to the messengers, "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. 23 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me."

This passage is from Luke 7, after Jesus had been performing many miracles and even claiming the Sonship of God. In Luke 3:22, a voice from heaven (presumably God's) calls Jesus his Son outright. The first chapter of John's gospel shows John giving assent to Jesus' divinity. Yet, in chapter 7, we encounter John's crisis of faith, going so far as to question the messiahship of Jesus. John had seen or heard of the miracles, and most likely had even heard the voice of God during Jesus' baptism. So why did John doubt the messiahship of Jesus?

I think a major part of understanding John's question is to recognize the circumstances John was in. He sent his disciples to ask Jesus this question while he was in a prison cell. Also, John was asking this question, not in spite of Jesus' miracles, but because of them. If Jesus was powerful enough to perform all those healings, why was He not powerful enough to rescue John from prison?

Jesus did not seem too upset by the question. In fact, he blesses those who follow God in spite of His ministry: "Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me." In essence, Jesus is saying, "Yes, I show the way to God for some, but I may make it harder for others." This is the paradox of Christ's life. Depending on where we are in life, and what circumstances we are undergoing, Jesus either makes it easier or more difficult for us to connect to God. John didn't have a problem with Jesus’ messiahship while he was preaching in the desert; in fact, he welcomed it. But when he found himself in prison, the way wasn't so easy, and doubts naturally came to the surface.

There are so many things I love about this story (I know, it's a strange story to love), a few being:

John, whether asking from frustration or a real desire to discern truth, was bold enough to ask THE question. This was not the equivalent of an inerrancy debate - this was what Truth depended on. Is Jesus really God? If that discussion is a biblical precedent, then I think we can handle anything in the emerging church conversation.

Jesus didn't answer the question. He treasured John's ability to decide by the Spirit's leading. Jesus presented His track record, and gave John the freedom to decide for himself.

Jesus recognized the frustration and pain of John, and blessed (blesses) those who ask tough questions. Sometimes, I think Christians are afraid to diminish God's honor or offend His sensibilities by asking point blank questions. At least in this story, Jesus not only recognizes John's right to ask the question, but his courage to get to the point.

Peace & Blessings.

The Barbarian Way (Erwin McManus)

I just pray that I can eventually hear God's voice so clearly, and share it so eloquently, as does Erwin McManus. Let this sermon "barbarize" you.

Peace & Blessings.


powered by ODEO

The Gay Christian Forum

Not sure what's up with the music at the beginning (I hate patriotic songs), but the panel discussion is a blessing. Enjoy!


powered by ODEO

(Re)Defining Sin

Ok - I can imagine that the title alone has already raised some red flags for some readers, and rightly so. It's one thing to talk about re-interpreting scripture, re-structuring the Church, etc. But don't mess with sin! I agree. Sin is a serious topic. Hang in a while, and I think you'll see that I treat it just as seriously as any evangelical would. My purpose here is not to reason away the seriousness of sin, but to do it more justice than is traditionally done.

One thing that all Christians should be able to agree on is the centrality of Christ and his teachings. In regards to spiritual law, Christ gave assent to two commands that sum up his view on how sin should be judged: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and love your neighbor as yourself." (Luke 10:27). So often, Christians bring to the "sin discussion" various do's and dont's from throughout scripture. Christ simplified it for us. He gave us a love command to measure what is sinful and what is not. In Mark 12:31, Christ tells us there is no other command that supercedes these two love commands. So how should these words of Christ help us to redefine sin?

1. Sin is the absence of loving relationship with God and people. Sin is not first and foremost an act of commission, but an act of omission. Sin can be decided based on the lack of presence of love.
2. Sin is failing to love God, neighbor, and self. Loving God is basically living in the presence of God, or having our being in His Spirit. Loving our neighbor, at least in Luke's gospel, is loving the other (i.e. those we would traditionally have nothing to do with). A lover of neighbors is one who has mercy on the outcast/other (v.37). Loving ourself is first self-identifying with the other, then loving the self. In other words, loving the self is recognizing that we have as much standing in the experience of grace as the person we consider most different from ourself, and that we love ourselves as much as we love the other person. Most Christians get the "love your neighbor as yourself" command backwards, because they start with only loving what is easy to love about themselves. Starting the neighborly love process from the foundation of the other stretches the command to a new, and more difficult level.

Sin, therefore, is not about a list of do's and dont's, but about acts of love toward God, others, and self. Therefore, rather than the person who follows the most rules, the most sanctified Christian is the one who loves the most.

Peace & Blessings.

Called to Inclusiveness

9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

Acts 10: 9-16

This wonderful story of inclusion has been interpretatively reduced as an inclusion of Gentiles into the family God. This, of course, is a comfortable interpretation because most believers are Gentiles. Few people, however, go beyond their own characteristics (i.e. being Gentile, being straight, being doctrinally correct, etc.) when it comes to inclusion in the Church. This vision of Peter's prompts me to ask some questions of myself, which, in answering, lead to fuller inclusion within the Community of God:

Q: What can God NOT make clean?
A: Nothing.

Thank God we are not the gatekeepers. The visible fellowship of believers would be so tiny if we had control of who's in and who's out. The grace of God is sovereign, and whoever (that a powerful word) comes to Him is accepted by Him. Human standards of "cleanliness" notwithstanding, God arms are open wide enough for full inclusion of all who come to Him.

Q: How do the animals shown by God in the vision equate to humanity?
A: Levitical laws of purity are done away with.

Legalists love to quote the verse, "I (Christ) did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." For some reason, they think this quote of Christ re-inforces a system of rules and regulations within the Church. Whether the law is destroyed or fulfilled, the point is that it doesn't exist anymore. By encouraging Peter to eat formerly unclean animals, God is giving the Church a new spirit of openness and acceptance. In effect, God is saying He accepts more people in His family than we'd ever consider accepting into ours.

Q: Why did Peter have to be told three times to accept the vision?
A: Conversation is everything to God.

The more I read scripture, the more I see how much God values conversation with His creatures. Even though Peter's exclusivism initially bothered me, it also taught me something: God withdrew the vision before Peter gave agreement. Peter was left to formulate his own decision on the matter of inclusion, and ultimately came over to God's side of the argument. This wasn't a necessary conclusion though. Peter just as well could have disagreed and continued being exclusive. God values freedom and conversation over acceptance and rote obedience.

Peace & Blessings.

Approaching the Bible as a Conversation

With all the examples of great fathers and mothers of the faith conversing, arguing, and fighting with God, I've always thought it strange that some people approach scripture as if God is finished speaking. What kind of relationship is so one-sided that for nearly two thousand years, only one side gets to speak, and the other must simply listen? The Bible is littered with examples of faithful people in real conversation with God. However, most modern Christians only address God in prayer, and then mostly with petitions.

If the Bible is a significant part of God's word to us, then why shouldn't we address it as we would a real conversation with any other of our friends? In real conversations, one participant doesn't just sit back and agree with everything being said. There are tensions and resolutions, and some questions are simply left unanswered. I know many people are uncomfortable with unanswered questions, but I cannot think of any real relationship in my life in which there is not a certain amount of ambiguity.

Apart from prayer, I see the Bible as God's biggest offering of conversation to us as His followers. It is so plain to me that scripture is simply a means to an end, that being a walk with God. Of course, I am not suggesting a biblical buffet, where each person just picks and chooses what they want to accept. This is an all-too-typical straw man argument against those who are really seeking to find truth through conversation. In fact, I believe conversing with the biblical witnesses treats scripture more highly than simply claming the Bible as petrified truth. It is so refreshing to start reading passages of scripture knowing that God wants a response, not just a nod in the affirmative.

Peace & Blessings.

The Practice of Centering Prayer

The Guidelines for Centering Prayer:

1. Choose a sacred word as the symbol of your intention to consent to God's presence and action within.

2. Sitting comfortably and with eyes closed, settle briefly, and silently introduce the sacred word as the symbol of your consent to God's presence and action within.

3. When you become aware of thoughts, return ever-so-gently to the sacred word.

4. At the end of the prayer period, remain in silence with eyes closed for a couple of minutes.

For me, beginning Centering Prayer was a “coming home" experience "to a place I should never have left" (see Thomas Keating's Meditation below). I only wish someone had told me 15 years ago contemplative prayer was for everyone and introduced me then to Centering Prayer.

Centering Prayer is normally practiced for 20 minutes twice a day, usually after rising in the morning and again before the evening meal at the end of the day.

"Centering prayer is a method designed to deepen the relationship with Christ begun, for example, in lectio divina and to facilitate the development of contemplative prayer by preparing our faculties to cooperate with this gift. It is an attempt to present the teaching of earlier times (e.g. the Cloud of Unknowing) in an updated form and to put a certain order and regularity into it. It is not meant to replace other kinds of prayer; it simply puts other kinds of prayer into a new and fuller perspective. During the time of prayer, we consent to Cod's presence and action within. At other times our attention moves outward to discover God's presence everywhere else." (Thomas Keating, Open Mind, Open Heart, p.139)

-http://www.kyrie.com/cp/guidelines_for_centering_prayer.htm

A Call to Deconstruction

4 The word of the LORD came to me, saying,
5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

6 "Ah, Sovereign LORD," I said, "I do not know how to speak; I am only a child."

7 But the LORD said to me, "Do not say, 'I am only a child.' You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. 8 Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you," declares the LORD.

9 Then the LORD reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, "Now, I have put my words in your mouth. 10 See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant."

The first chapter of Jeremiah has always been meaningful to me. But like all scripture passages we fall in love with, the Spirit speaks new life at different times in our lives. I first fell in love with Jeremiah 1 specifically for verse 5. In my own journey as a gay Christian, the words "before I formed you in the womb I knew you" were always especially meaningful to me. For years, verse 5 was the focal point of chapter one in my life.

As I've encountered the emerging conversation within the Church, and realized that I identified with a lot of that conversation, a different part of Jeremiah 1 has come alive to me. Though verse 5 is still dear to me, I was recently led by the Spirit to refocus on the last part of verse 10: "to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant." A significant role that the emerging conversation plays in my spiritual life is the responsibility to "deconstruct" certain meanings and interpreations of biblical passages. Far from being violent to the text, I believe this deconstruction helps me understand, in new ways, the leading of the Spirit. It also helps me see others where they are, and the valid interpretations of life (and scripture) they bring with them to the conversation.

As Jeremiah was called to uproot and rebuild geographical and political structures, I see a deeper meaning of the word "kingdoms" in verse 10. Walter Wink is famous for his association of evil with faulty social structures, and I see that association in Jeremiah as well. As postmodern Jeremiahs, I believe it is the joy and duty of Christians to tear down faulty structures within the ecclesial and interpretative communities of the Church. But deconstruction is not the final responsibility we have. We are also called, as Jeremiah was, to "build and to plant" structures that bring vitality, health, and hope to the community.

Peace & Blessings.

Technorati Profile

Brian McLaren: Power, In Ways We Don't Understand

powered by ODEO

Christian Improvisation

I discovered jazz during my seminary years in New Orleans. Ah ... the Big Easy, the Crescent City. Of course, I had heard jazz before, either played well on compact disc, or played poorly by live bands in my hometown of Pensacola. But nothing prepared me for the spiritual encounter that was live jazz in the clubs of New Orleans. It was not just an auditory experience, but a whole body involvment. I found my legs and hands moving to the zig-zag rhythms without conscious thought, my astral body merging with those of the performers, feeling their heartbeats played out on the drums, guitars, piano, sax. My love affair with jazz wasn't a simple tango with the music, but a surrender to the culture surrounding the music: all types of people, from all walks of life, actively participating in a common mystical union around the players.

Recently, I've begun thinking about the relationship of jazz culture with the Christian life. Rather than Christianity being a set of creeds to which assent is expected, I think a more real Christianity will look like a hodge-podge of people gathered around a common Person experiencing life in so many different ways. So, how is Christianity like improvised jazz to me?

1. Real Christianity isn't boring! Who knew? It's an active, full-body experience to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and physicality.
2. Real Christianity is rhythmic, but in myriad ways. In other words, it ain't just done one way. The person is my brother who prefers easy listening jazz, though I prefer funky, innovative jazz. The rhythms all lead to the Performer. Please do not think I'm talking about worship styles here:)
3. Real Christianity is about community. The joy of joining others in mututal worship of the Performer, whether by foot-stomping, hand-clapping, or crying is so much more fun than just listening all by myself. Yes, I said FUN (see # 1).
4. Real Christianity is about people. Jesus ate with everybody - usually with the people Christians won't even talk to. He didn't prefer the Samaritans over the Jews; the prostitutes over the married women; the dishonest government workers over his disciples. He welcomed every single person to His table, or asked if He was welcome at theirs.
5. Real Christianity is about imagination, about telling a story. The story is the greatest one ever told, and it's told in so many different ways. The story characters have different faces, different voices, different lifetsyles. But the story is always told, and the Performer is always recognized.

Live an improvised, invigorating Christian life. Follow the rhythms into the gracious arms of Christ. Don't let your journey with God grow stale.

Peace & Blessings.

Sola Christos

The traditional mantra of evangelical Christianity since the Protestant Reformation has been sola scriptura, or scripture alone. Whether or not the original intention of this idea was to make an idol of the Bible, that has too often become the case in modern evangelicalism. Truth, as an objective reality, has been equated with the actual words of the Bible. Was this ever the intention of God, or has Christianity become a book-based spirituality rather than a person-based spirituality?

Whenever I think of Truth, I think of it in terms of relationship, not in terms of propositions and doctrines. To me, Truth is a Person, Jesus Christ. Otherwise, how can we possibly understand the many verses of scripture referring to Jesus (a person) as the truth? Take a look at the following verses while trying to reconcile the modern idea of truth as right propositions.

"For me, to live is Christ."

"I am the way, the truth, and the life."

"I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified."

"You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life."

To live is Christ. How can this make sense in any other context than truth as relationship? It makes much less sense to say, "To live is the virgin birth." People do not live by propositions, but by relationships. Everything that is anything is bound up in a series of relationships, without which there really is no meaning. I ... am the truth. This is the most plain biblical statement of the person of Jesus being equated with actual truth. Christ does not precede "the truth" with statements of dogma - He begins the sentence with a proper noun, Himself. There is no full truth outside the person of Jesus. A book cannot be perfect truth. Only a Person can accomplish that. The third verse gives Christians a clear view of what the Bible is: a witness to the Truth. Jesus encoutnered the same problem in his day, with religious people wanting to make the scriptures the end all of truth. Life is found not in religious texts, but in a personal relationship with Christ.

Robert Webber asks a relevant question: "Do we believe in a book or a person?" It is an either/or question. Either there is one, perfect true direction of worship, or there is not. Only God can be perfect, and perfection deserves our worship. Leonard Sweet has written a wonderful book dealing in part with this subject:

http://www.randomhouse.com/waterbrook/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781578566471

Peace & Blessings.

Beyond Gender

Most of us are aware, particularly our gay, lesbian and transgendered brothers and sisters, of the church's track record on the issue of homosexuality and other trans-barrier sexualities. Instead of being welcomed into the family of God as vitally contributing participants, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons have traditionally been ostracized and vilified as perverts - those not capable of entering into the kingdom of God. The letters of Paul (assuming traditional authorship assignments) have been central in this program of vilification. Conservative readings of the opening chapters of Genesis, and legalistic readings of Leviticus, have also played a major role in the pogrom.

Most traditional biblical scholars and church leaders have proclaimed that Jesus was silent on the issue of trans-barrier sexualities. However, a new insight from Matthew 19:12 has recently come to the fore in biblical scholarship circles. For those not familiar with the passage in question, Jesus speaks of the acceptance of eunuchs, both natural and self-made, into the kingdom of heaven:

12For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."

Because of cover-ups in interpretation stemming from traditional ideas of man/women gender roles, the revolutionary aspect of Jesus' words have long been lost to the Church. In order to dilute the powerful message of Jesus in this passage and continue in the promulgation of traditional gender roles, biblical scholars have felt the need to view the eunuch as a non-sexual creature. After all, if sexual roles were divinely instituted for the sole purpose of pro-creation, what sexual role could a eunuch possibly have? The sexual options available to eunuchs are unthinkable to those entrenched in traditional heterosexist gender roles.

History, however, has a different story to tell concerning the sexualities of eunuchs. Any surface reading of ancient histories will show that eunuchs were not only servants of imperial courts, but enjoyed a wide-spread reputation as sexually active participants in a variety of roles with men and women. Because the phallus was of utmost importance during ancient times in conferring the status of manhood (i.e. personhood), eunuchs were despised as well for their state of castration. In other words, though they were politically powerful, they were moral and social outcasts. As is the case with all phobias, "eunuch-phobia" was a result of fear toward something not understood (or understood all too well). Men feared eunuchs because of the sexual and social power they exhibited in spite of their lack of phalli. Men of the time felt the need to vilify eunuchs because their power was derived from non-heterosexist gender roles: eunuchs performed the bottom role (i.e. being mounted) traditionally assigned to women and slaves.

It is in this context of ostracism that Jesus spoke acceptance to eunuchs, and to modern persons of trans-barrier sexualities. It is interesting to note that Jesus prefaced Matthew 19:12 with the words, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given." Times have not changed so much. Certainly, everyone has not received this saying with the openness in which Jesus himself said it. Hence, the divisions in many denominations centering on controversies of sexuality. How much more beautiful the body of Christ would be if every person were accepted with the grace and love of Christ Himself.

Peace & Blessings.

Rediscovering Christus Victor

Christus Victor is a view of the atonement taken from the title of Gustaf Aulen's groundbreaking book first published in 1931 where he drew attention back the early church's Ransom theory. In Christus Victor, the atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. Aulen argues that the classic Ransom theory is not so much a rational systematic theory as it is a drama, a passion story of God triumphing over the powers and liberating humanity from the bondage of sin. As Gustav Aulén writes,

"The work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil" (Gustav Aulén, Christus Victor p 20).

The Ransom Theory was predominant in the early church and for the first thousand years of church history and supported by all Greek Church Fathers from Irenaeus to John of Damascus. To mention only the most important names Origen, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom. The Christus Victor view was also dominant among the Latin Fathers of the Patristic period including Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great, Caesarius of Arles, Faustus of Rhegium, and Gregory the Great. A major shift occurred when Anselm of Canterbury published his Cur Deos Homo around 1097 AD which marks the point where the predominate understanding of the atonement shifted from the ransom theory to the Satisfaction Doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church and subsequently the Protestant Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church still holds to the Ransom or Christus Victor view. This is built upon the understanding of the atonement put forward by Irenaeus, called "recapitulation". (see below and Theosis)

As the term Christus Victor (Christ the Victor) indicates, the idea of “ransom” should not be seen in terms (as Anselm did) of a business transaction, but more of a rescue or liberation of humanity from the slavery of sin. Unlike the Satisfaction or Penal-substitution views of the atonement rooted in the idea of Christ paying the penalty of sin to satisfy the demands of justice, the Christus Victor view is rooted in the incarnation and how Christ entered into human misery and wickedness and thus redeemed it. Irenaeus called this "Recapitulation" (re-creation). As it is often expressed: "Jesus became what we are so that we could become what he is".

Peace & Blessings.

Biblical Mantras

Sometimes, I think it would be good to borrow methods from other faith traditions in the ways of spiritual discipline. I live in Korea, and am surrounded by many Buddhist co-workers. On a recent visit to a Buddhist temple, I was drawn into the chants of the monks, though I had no idea what they were actually saying. What drew me were not the words, but the rhythm and level of concentration. From that experience, I have developed a method of scriptural meditation that works really well for me - I call it "Biblical Meditation." There are some methods, such as Lectio Divina, that implement certain scriptural meditation practices along with other personal or communal rituals. The type of biblical mantra ritual I have developed consists solely of breathing techniques for relaxation and repeating a certain scriptural passage out loud in a "Buddhist"-type tone.

As an example, today I took the biblical reference, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will receive the kingdom of God." I developed a personal sing-song tone and rhythm, and after practicing controlled breathing for about 5 minutes, I simply chanted that passage for about 15 minutes. Why do I practice this type of biblical meditation rather than simply reading the Bible as a daily routine?

There are two reasons I do this: (1) in my experience, repeating a scriptural passage over and over again allows the meaning of that passage to seep deep into my subconscious, so that I continually think about that meaning throughout the day without consciously calling it to remembrance; (2) concentrating on a single, simple passage of scripture instead of an entire chapter, allows a powerful point to make mental and spiritual impact on me, rather than trying to receive many useful points within a wider, longer passage.

If you are interested in trying this form of biblical meditation, here's how I do it. I hope you can get some ideas here and re-arrange them to your circumstances for maximum effect:

1. I always do the meditation at a particular time of the day at which I am most aware and awake.
2. The environment must be comfortable and quiet. No disturbances should interrupt this time of meditation.
3. I choose a short passage (no more than 15 words) concerning something I want to improve in my life, or something God has moved me to implement.
4. Before the meditation, I develop a chant rhythm and tone, so that I do not have to experiment with this during the actual meditation time.
5. After I am ready to begin, I take 5 minutes to breathe in and out deeply, calming the mind, and attempting to empty it as much as possible.
6. When I feel relaxed and receptive, I begin chanting the scripture I chose beforehand.
7. I stop chanting whenever the Spirit moves me, or lacking that feeling, whenever I feel the passage is sufficiently implanted into my subconscious mind.

I would encourage you to try this type of scriptural meditation. It may feel strange at first, as most of us are not used to treating scripture in this way. However, I assure you the effects from this spiritual exercise will bless and strengthen you.

Peace & Blessings.

Almost Orthodox +

I am so tired of theological labels, "emerging" included. I don't really mind them as a reference point, but it irritates me when the first question a person asks within a religious discussion is "are you conservative or liberal?" Labels seem to be used to box people into one point of view, and a person adopting a certain pre-made label feels constricted in the amount of room they have to maneuver. Even if a "conservative" wanted to hold a "liberal" belief, they would feel hemmed in by their conservative friends and communities. Likewise for a "liberal."

Maybe I dislike labels so much because there's not one for me, except "emerging" of course, but "emerging" implies a destination at some point in the future. Most of us in the emerging conversation don't like to think about that, but it's an obvious assumption. However, our labels will be something new, neither liberal nor conservative. I imagine we'll have to create some kind of new vocabulary to define ourselves, if we even want to define ourselves. No matter how "emerging" I am, I always have an innate desire to identify my beliefs. This is at least necessary for genuine conversation to occur between two persons.

So my new self-designed theological identity is "Almost Orthodox +." I know it sounds clumsy and contradictory, but it at least gives a framework for others to work with in approaching conversations. In all my theological questioning and re-adjusting, I've surprised myself in coming almost full circle back to near orthodoxy. I believe in the virgin birth, the perfect life, and the bodily resurrection of Christ. I believe in the Trinity. But..... I don't believe the Bible is inerrant, that Christ's death was substitutionary, or in a literal heaven or hell. I know it's strange to see a self-proclaimed emergent identifying himself theologically. It's so systematic! But we all believe something, and not being upfront about that doesn't erase the fact. There have to be things to converse about.

So, I believe almost enough to make me orthodox, not quite enough to be considered conservative, and then there's a +. The "+" is the most important part of my label. I believe in the virgin birth, perfect life, the resurrection of Christ, and the Trinity + I believe a person doesn't have to believe in those things to be a Christian. I don't believe in inerrancy, the substitutionary atonement, or a literal heaven or hell + I believe you can believe those things and still be a Christian. In other words, my new label isn't a one size fits all label. It leaves room for the other that isn't quite or at all like me.

I suppose the biggest problem I have with labels is their exclusivity. Traditionally, according to labels, a person is either in or out of the club. I am tired of man-made barriers to building the kingdom of God on earth. Are you an inerrantist? Fine by me - partner with me to welcome people into the Kingdom. Do you believe in a literal hell? Whatever - partner with me to welcome people into the Kingdom. It's natural to build communities around likenesses. It's supernatural to build them around differences.

Peace & Blessings.

Surface Christianity

I suppose dogmas have always been a part of the organizational church since the times of the Church Fathers. Though there is much controversy surrounding the formation and use of the following passage from Philippians, it is considered by many scholars to be one of the first hymns used in the early church, and may also have served as a type of creed:

6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! 9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

As a hymn, this is beautiful, and there is not much in it to ruffle the feathers of orthodox Christians. However, it is a product of Pauline theology, and it should be noted that Christ never promoted or suggested creeds of any kind. He usually taught in parables which were (and are) constantly subject to various interpretations. It seems that the teaching style of Christ, and most other teachers of his time, was designed to make people come to their own conclusions. I am not saying there was no point of truth in the teachings of Christ, but that the truth was multi-layered and relative to the hearer's progress on life's journey. Unlike Paul and other NT writers, Jesus rarely presented a statement of doctrinal truth as necessary belief. His whole ministry was designed to attract followers, not doctrinally correct theologians.

I think two portions of the gospels present this side of Jesus better than any others: Matthew 11:28-29, and John 21:15-19.

28 Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." 16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep." 17The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." 18Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"

Following Christ is the focus of the gospel. Some of his disciples did not really know who Jesus was. Matthew 16 tells the story of Jesus asking his followers who they thought he was. Some said John the Baptist, some said Elijah, and some said Jeremiah. Peter eventually says that Jesus is Christ, the son of God. Jesus blesses Peter for his answer, but does not scold the others for their answers. Though this passage is often used by preachers to proclaim the divinity of Christ (and I have no argument with that), a deeper point is that Jesus accepted followers who were not aware of his divinity.

So what about creeds and dogmas? What purpose do they really serve in light of Jesus' acceptance of followers not aware of his divinity? From a human standpoint, I think dogmas serve to massage the ego, to place certain people within a community, and to place others outside the community. It's really all about a reversion to law vs. grace. People with correct answers are in; people who are passionate disciples but don't believe the dogmas are out. This may be a Pauline way of doing things, but it certainly isn't a Jesus was of doing things. [Don't get me wrong, I love Paul, but I am a disciple of Christ]

Surface Christianity depends too much on right belief, and too little on right action. It seems that Jesus was more concerned with conversion as process (i.e. following him) than conversion as belief. When Christianity becomes a set of beliefs, a series of creeds, it diminishes into something Christ never intended. He desires zealous followers who love him, no matter what idenity they assign to him. No doubt, there are myriad more zealous "Christians" who've never heard the name of Christ, than those who claim the name "Christian" and have all the correct answers.

Peace & Blessings.

Limited Atonement?

Ever since my first encounter with the story of Christ, I have been a proponent of universalism. Even during the time I claimed to be atheist, I could not understand how Christians could limit the amazing grace that Christ offered through his death and resurrection. I use the word story intentionally, because I cannot view the gospel as a set of propositions. The way Christ lived his life on earth, the teachings that are likely his, and the passion he had for people all lead me to accept that his willing sacrificial example covers all faults and accepts every person.

As far as my Christology goes, I could not be more conservative. To me, Christ was God in the flesh. However, I do not see his sacrifice as atonement for sins. He did not die to appease an angry God, but to show us the way of love. In his death and resurrection, we see the true character of God - as a loving Father/Mother who accepts even the most vile person into the family. When I voice this opinion, most Christians respond by quoting scriptures referring to "the narrow way" or "substitutionary atonement." This is futile in my opinion, since scripture suggests many different views of God, Christ, and salvation. As a Quaker, I rely on the Spirit for truth, and the Spirit witnesses to the all-encompassing love and reconciliation of God in Christ.

I do not claim to know how this works out. How does Hitler get into the family? I am not concerned with a systematic theology that makes me feel better about the "justness" of universal salvation. I know my own faults, and I am overwhelmed by the grace of God in the face of these faults. The more evil a person is, the more powerful the grace of God is in accepting that person, and the more Her love shines. Often, the most senseless thing is true when speaking of God and Her character. Why should we understand such wonderfully mysterious workings?

The grace of Christ is knowledge of belonging. The salvation of Christ is the recognition of His presence within us. The true anathema of limited atonement is salvation for the few, whether by their choice or God's. As Christians, we have watered down the good news of universal salvation with rules, regulations, and propositions. We have, in effect, become "white-washed graves", full of our own theologies, and limiting the freedom available by with-holding the knowledge of Christ's work. How much more joyful communities of Christ would be if we only accepted the unlimited grace of our Savior for all people.

Peace & Blessings.

Good vs. Evil, Part 2

If you know anything about open theism, you already know the main points I'm going to flesh out: (1) God is not omnipotent, (2) God is not omniscient, and (3) God is engaged in real war. Of course, most of the open theists within evangelicalism tend to want to keep the traditional terminology while re-defining what that terminology means. I think it's better to just discard the terminology for the sake of clarity. I have claimed what I believe God is not. It follows that I should try to attempt to explain what God is, at least in my experience of Her. Let's take it point by point.

God is not omnipotent, but powerful.

Traditional Christians are scared silly when they see this sentence, which is why there is such an uproar in evangelical communities surrounding open theism. Of all the open theistic writers I've read, Clark Pinnock does the most justice to this idea. [Disclaimer: just because I mention Clark Pinnock doesn't mean he wants to be mentioned in the vicinity of my writings]. However, as I mentioned before, he tends to want to keep the traditional word while re-defining it. Omnipotence, in its traditional reference to God, means He is able to do anything that does not contradict His own nature. In other words, He is able to stop the rape of the afore-mentioned 9 year-old girl if He so chooses. For any thinking Christian, it is easy to see where the problem arises. If God is good, and also omnipotent, then why would She allow such horrible, senseless things to take place? Now, I use the word senseless for a very good reason. Most traditionalists would argue that there must be some unrecognized good purpose to come of the girl's rape. That is why God allows it. Can such a rationalization, as much as it grates against everything we know of God, be true? Wouldn't the Spirit give some kind of assent to that view if it was in fact, correct? What do we feel horrible when defending God with this excuse?

I think the answer lies in its inherent falsity. As Christians, we all know God is good by our experience of Her. She doesn't give a stone when we need bread. She loves us more than our earthly parents love us. Would any earthly parent allow their child to be raped? Is there any good future thing that could come of that? No. God is completely loving, and limited in Her actions. There are some things She simply cannot interfere with. This has nothing to do with man's free will, but everything to do with real spiritual warfare (see # 3).

God is not omniscient, but learning.

Traditionally, God's omniscience means that He is able to know everything in the past, present, and future. Current open theists re-define omniscience to mean that God knows everything that can be possibly be known, then proceed to discuss what can truly be known vs. what cannot be known. I do not see the sense in sticking with the term omniscience. It's just confusing. For too long, the term has been used to mean that God simply knows everything. In other words, before the girl's rapist was born, God knew he was going to be a rapist, yet went ahead and allowed his birth. If omnipotence and omniscience are true as traditionally believed, then God is directly responsible for the girl's rape because He had the power and knowledge to put a stop to it. How could a loving God, who is also all-knowing and all-powerful, not put a stop to it? Yeah, yeah - the free will thing. But if God had prevented the birth of the rapist, free will would not have even been an issue.

Therefore, along with omnipotence, I also believe omniscience should be discarded. Because God loves freedom, and freedom requires real choices, God creates the universe in a way that She cannot possibly know the real possibilities that can occur in Her universe. She has to work with the things that happen. The rapist could have been a humanitarian with good character, but he chose to be a rapist. This occurred from an infinite number of possibilities, none of which God knew beforehand. God only knows the present reality, and a limited amount of future choices which she deduces from the current actions of free beings. This is basically what current open theists teach, though most of them insist on keeping the tricky work, omniscience.

God is engaged in real war.

Though I've already discarded two major traditional Christian beliefs, I think this third point is the most important. It also satisfactorily answers (at least to many pre-modernists and postmodernists) why God cannot be omnipotent as traditionally believed. Satan is a real being, and he has legions of real demons that follow his rebellious lead. I dare you to tell a friend you believe Satan is a real personality, and see the response you get. It's not a popular belief in our modernist-entrenched culture. However, it fits well with the entire biblical story (not that that's a prerequisite for truth), and makes sense of evil.

Think about the facts of war in our physical reality. There is rarely a winner or loser at the outset, though certain factors may give a side some advantage. Fighting must occur, losses and wins experienced, for a victor to emerge. Why would it be any different in the spiritual realm? Why would biblical writers describe battles of evil and good forces with such detail and life likeness if there was not some truth to it? More to the point, why would a young girl be raped if there was not some evil force fighting off God's protective hand?

Evil exists, not because God is capricious or ordains evil, but because She is involved in a real battle with the forces of evil, with free creatures of immense strength who want nothing less than to rule this world. Scripture and the Spirit give us hope that good will eventually prevail, but in the meantime, we as humans are in the crossfire. Not only that, but we are also called to participate by bringing love and grace into our own relationships and communities.

All of this doesn't answer every question concerning the existence of evil. It may raise even more questions. However, it does give us a congruent feeling with the Spirit that God is pure love, and only wants the best for all Her children.

Peace & Blessings.

Good vs. Evil, Part 1

In my opinion, there are three options to make sense of the existence of evil in the universe: (1) there is no good deity; (2) there is an omnipotent evil deity; (3) there is a real war between a good deity and rebellious creations. I say in my opinion, because there are myriad ways within traditional Christianity that have been attempted to explain away the problem of the existence of evil. The most common of the three options is number 3, but the Christians proposing this option often do not take it to the obvious conclusion of all-out spiritual war.

That there is no good deity would pose a problem for the existence of goodness in the universe. The most often asked question among those who choose not to follow any god(s) is, "why is there evil in the world?" However, a more pressing question in the absence of a good deity would be "why is there goodness in the world?" The same objection is true for option number 2.

I often wonder about an extra option: perhaps there exists either a capricious deity, sometimes behaving well and sometimes not, or either a still morally-forming deity who sometimes makes bad choices. Of course, in the arena of metaphysics, all these options are just as good as the others unless one thing holds true for the individual: experience of a good, loving deity. But the problem of bringing experience into the equation often alienates those who claim only to rely on reason for judgments of truth. And, after all, some people experience the same event differently. Whereas I might experience a certain struggle to be the workings of a loving God vs the real forces of evil, others may identify that struggle as evidence that a good God is not omnipotent within that "evil" situation, or that nothing exists except the forces of nature.

Buddha (paraphrased) said, "Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true." Ultimately, how we address the problem of evil is a result of what we, as individuals, test and judge to be true. Our beliefs are the result of how we sift and process experiences. Therefore, my purpose is not to reason out an argument for the existence of evil. This has been tried, and better minds have only come to a standstill at best. I will only speak of what I have tried and tested, and why it makes sense to me. This is sure to make worshipers of reason nauseated.

I have never been able to fully understand how evil can exist without something opposite with which to compare it. In other words, how can something be evil unless its opposite can be good? The following question, then, is what is the source of good? By what (or whom) do we compare actions in order to call them good or evil? Although I can never completely understand what I choose to call God, my experience of Her is as a good and caring personality. Perhaps this is just because I need a crutch, or perhaps it's a relatively accurate picture of reality. The sure thing in my mind, however, is that my experience of God as good makes me strive to also be good in my relationships with others. I do not see God as good because some scripture tells me to, but because in the quietness of my moments with Her, I sense love and grace. Direct experience with God, without scriptural descriptions, is often richer and less filtered through other's experiences. Seeking God in scripture can produce schizophrenic pictures of Her character. That is why, in my opinion, many biblical literalists act less good than Christians for whom tradition and experience play a larger role.

So, my first assumption is that a good God exists, if for nothing else than my direct experience of Her. The problem then becomes, if a good God exists, and if She is omnipotent as traditionally thought, then why is there evil in the universe? I think it become necessary to re-work some traditionally held beliefs, because none of the positions currently held do the problem justice. Some say God is omnipotent, but has given us free-will to do evil. I would agree with this; however, I think "omnipotent" needs to be redefined (as open theists have begun so well), and "free-will" needs to be given the authority it deserves. Some say that God ordains everything that happens while maintaining that God is still good. Experientially (i.e. out of the realm of academia), this is ridiculous. If you want to believe that God ordains the rape of a nine-year old girl, go right ahead. But don't tell me that's a good God. So far in the academic discussion, I think open theists have done the most justice to the experience of a good God in a not-so-good world. In the next post, I will flesh out the version of open theism that most jives with my experience of God.

Peace & Blessings.

Quotable Quotes

I'm having a bad case of "mind-farts" today, so I'll let the experts speak for themselves:

I won't take my religion from any man who never works except with his mouth. - Carl Sandburg, US biographer & poet (1878 - 1967)

For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the-not-worth-knowing. -H.L. Mencken, US editor (1880 - 1956)

Those who seek consolation in existing churches often pay for their peace of mind with a tacit agreement to ignore a great deal of what is known about the way the world works.
- Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, 1990

Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child.
-Waiter Rant, Waiter Rant weblog, 06-21-05

In reality, there are no biblical literalists, only selective literalists. By abolishing slavery and ordaining women, millions of Protestants have gone far beyond biblical literalism. It's time we did the same for homophobia. - William Sloane Coffin

Toleration ought in reality to be merely a transitory mood. It must lead to recognition. To tolerate is to affront. - Goethe, Maxims and Reflections

Peace & Blessings