The Challenge of Derek

“Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.” – Colossians 3:16

Many of you know, either by following me around on Twitter or Facebook, or even here, that I am a huge encourager of Derek Webb. I’m not going to be shy about it: if many of our generation believe that musicians are the voices to heed, then Derek may be a true prophet. That position of mine has not been without its larger consequences, as Webb has often been questioned heavily by the more, well, entrenched Christian culture. Questions are very good to figure him out, but not to discredit him when that is unnecessary. He’s obviously not Jesus, but Jesus was questioned almost the same way (“fraternizing” with “outcasts” comes to mind especially), and I think that says that he is at least trying to challenge us to move forward with Kingdom stuff in a wholistic way. One question I think has a serious weight to it has been with his latest artistic product, namely the album Feedback. I once read something that questioned his moral integrity, because the release is entirely electronic and instrumental. There are no words, let alone “Christian terminology.” How can one worship without explicit Christian words? A valid question. 

But initially, when I was given a copy of this release for free by Derek himself, I confess that kind of a challenge never crossed my mind. One of the reasons for this is actually something Derek and I strongly agree on, which he puts in a statement when you hit his homepage: worship is a 24/7 lifestyle; it is the way we have been formed as human beings; it is an immutable part of our nature. The only thing that changes is who/what you worship. To go along with this, it may be spiritually true that Derek and I also hold Psalm 24:1 as a foundation to worship. Everything is the Lord’s, and there is no “not God’s” in existence. So really, the question of “Christian language” is moot. You are either worshipping God in everything, or you are not. You do not need to say “Praise Jesus” after everything to somehow make it holy, since that would imply that what you said was unholy before. Why do we need to “say the right words” to worship God? Why are we not already worshipping first, and then speaking later, as the Spirit will not be contained? The fact is that if you are worshipping, everything you do is worship, whether it has the right “labels” or not. Christians are Christians; no one can change that, and everyone will see it if they want to. And all of that…all of it…is Derek’s point. Quite a challenge, and a right use of the perception of an artist.

Worship of God is definitely deliberate, and that should be reflected in our words, if we are so moved to use them. But as a Christian culture, we have become so committed to the right language, that we think the right language is all that matters. Does it matter at a certain point? Absolutely. Every pastor, including me, will pay attention to the words; but we will pay attention to them to understand the true spirit and meaning, not just to ramble about the form of the words themselves. Likewise, in theological understanding, Jesus is wholly divine and wholly person. But do we really need to constantly go around saying that? In turn of fact, as Christians we already are “saying that,” by being in existence. As believers, we too demonstrate that a fully human and fully divine person truly exists, because we have the Spirit in us as proof of that. Anyone who has ever tried to spread the gospel in a hostile area knows that what matters most (in terms of both efficacy and safety) is character and action, not words. The wisest man once advised worshippers of God to “draw near to listen” instead of being “hasty” with words and therefore foolish (Eccl. 5:2). It is in focusing on the words alone that the words become “external” to us, not intimate and natural. Jesus himself warned against “empty words” (Matthew 6:5-8), and it is not unintentional that Derek’s tracks for the Feedback album are titled as each piece of the Lord’s Prayer that follows such warning. And honestly, Jesus would not warn against anything if the opposite were not so much more healthy for us: worshipping in Spirit and truth first is far better for us, and our experience of God, than worshipping with the right “words.” 

The point is this: when we are joining in with Derek as the fruit of the Spirit unfolds, are we truly worshipping God and interacting with his love within our hearts? Because there exists no luxury of covering up a “no” to that with our words.   

+MSH

The God We Worship…

…is the person we become.

Without hesitation, I need to say that no examples here are meant out of anything but love, and a heavy concern for those who follow the very same Jesus with me. And I have taken many steps to ensure that what I say now is measured against myself, so that I am not found disqualified or arrogant. As a preacher might preface: May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O God. 

When the post came up on my feed, my immediate reaction was a seriously tongue-in-cheek, “Uh oh.” Part of this was due to the title, because I know that some will always mis-typify well-known Christian leaders. I should have meant what I said, because soon I did mean it. In this post by my cyber-friend Peter, Mr. Kirk is rather explicit about pointing out what came as a huge shock to me: John Calvin, extremely smart theologian and influencer of so many (especially now), was in fact a violent man. The evidence is there, and cited. I can’t argue with it, and you can check it out, openly.

Now I’m not saying Calvin (or any other believer) can ever be perfect, or even that a believer can never commit such a grave sin – though I do admit it difficult to imagine circumstances where this kind of behaviour would be deliberate. But I couldn’t help but think…is this what happens to us when we get so entrenched in our theology that God himself could not cause positive results by speaking any differently to us? Is this what can happen to me, to any of us? Quite possibly.

It should not be a shock to those of us who are more “seasoned” that the God whom we worship influences greatly and in all forms of consciousness the person we become: 

“Put on your new nature, and be renewed as you learn to know your Creator and become like him.” – Colossians 3:10

“I want to know Christ and experience the mighty power that raised him from the dead. I want to suffer with him, sharing in his death, so that one way or another I will experience the resurrection from the dead!” – Philippians 3:10

But those two verses seem to establish very clearly the need for deliberate action, not passive influence. The truth is that if we are not in some fashion deliberate about Christ personally (not overworking, but still intentional), we stand to not just be “conformed to the world” (that is, naturally less glorious and enjoyable systems, attitudes, actions and beliefs), but to actually be conformed to the confines of our own destructive impulses, instead of the selfless, giving, loving will of God. The fact is that Calvin became this man because he had spent his entire life in Geneva until that point constructing a doctrine, both political and theological, that was to constrain and rule a whole physical location. I do apologize for the challenge this might present, but Calvin’s Geneva is not the Kingdom, and it was not going to be the Kingdom even as written. The Kingdom is Jesus reigning in redemption, freedom, and love – not behaviourist control. 

For now, let us leave it at this: just as we ponder God, so we reflect him. What values do you truly believe are born of love? As Paul said, “think on these things” (Philippians 4:8), and do not let any other trust intrude. For God’s character can indeed become the values we exude.

+MSH

A Holy Heritage

‘For you, God, have heard my vows; you have given me the heritage of those who fear your name.’ – Ps. 61:5

This post is a little different than most. I simply felt the desire to express some thoughts on the verse above. I do at least a decent amount of Scripture reading, but this particular verse felt a little deeper, personally, than usual. Why? Well, maybe these things to follow.

I find it interesting that “heritage” is penned here. Heritage is something very much centered on tying together the future and the past; one’s “heritage” is both your ancestors and your children. Why that interests me is that this person’s “heritage” is apparently tied to faith, not necessarily physical lineage. For the most part, collectively we take a great deal of importance out of our heritage — this, I think, is justifiable, because it is a source of encouragement, confidence, education, personal growth, goal-forming, etc. What, then, when those things are not just physical but spiritual? Surely this verse is a gifting reminder that all of those things are far greater in God.

But at the same time, while God is our chief source and relationship (as an old pastor of mine consistently reminds, “God is the chief discipler”), this verse makes it clear that community is important. We as believers in God are part of one group; this is nothing new to some of us, but what of the idea that such a group actually has a heritage? Something of immense value to pass on, dwell in, find safety/security/encouragement in? And something that we all will share in and contribute to…whether we do so willingly, aware, and desirably or not? In less than a week’s time from this post, one of my best friends in the world will experience this, as he is moving near my hometown and might now be going to my old hometown church on top of it. Those who have loved me, whom I see as family, now can give that same love to him. He has, practically, immediate standing in the position of blessing God gave me within the community, now that he comes after me. This heritage of God is spectacular, mysterious, and completely grace-bound.

It is not as if everyone in our “family line” will be model examples, or likeable people, or easy to own as family, and it is certainly not that we can hope to be entirely good or bad within the family of God, either. God is the one who loves, adopts and raises us in his family. He is the primary responsible party. But it is true that we do have a greater family than our physical one, people that provide prods to growth or humble guidance, and in every case another opportunity to increase in our ability to love. This should be especially encouraging to those of us who have lost family members, or have no family to speak of, or have no family members willfully taking interest in us, etc. The value of God resides not just in how he relates to us individually, but how he offers, sustains and works through a provision of an entire population, tied together lovingly, for the sake of wholeness. 

+MSH

The Purpose of “Predestination”

Last post, I think I laid out what could be at least a minor case for a new, fuller understanding or theological position: namely, the idea that God transcends human categorization when it comes to his “choosing,” whether of people or purpose, and simply does what he sees fit for any given time. This is not Covenant Theology. This is not Dispensationalism. This is not Libertarian Free Will Theology. But this seems to be God in his nature. He is not an arbitrary God. But he is a very deliberate, mysterious, elusive and selfless God, for his will does seem to follow a certain pattern: a unchangeable decision to enact a plan once the decision is made, an unchangeable choice of one person/group out of many to begin that plan, and the blessing of that plan which those around that chosen person/group may be included or excluded from. But he is a very deliberate, mysterious, elusive and selfless God.

What does such a pattern mean for this time, though? How can/should/will God’s people engage his purpose properly? Let’s look at the pieces:

The people chosen were those who “first put hope in Christ,” namely those who would also later spread the initial glory of Christ’s life, death and resurrection to redeem such a world, the purpose therefore certain as well. There is no doubt from the passage last time that the purpose is now redemption of the world, including the people within it. To “be holy and blameless” is not just to reside and trust in Christ, but to contribute to those surrounding us in tangible, Christian ways. Just as Abraham was a “messenger” to those around him of God’s will, just as Jacob/Israel was a group chosen to demonstrate God to the surrounding world, and just as any who wanted could join in such a divine purpose, so the Church: 

Jesus and the Apostles were chosen to call a blessed people who would in turn be demonstrating and blessing the surrounding world, whether those in the world chose to receive that blessing or not. The question of “choice” must center on God alone, that much is true. But God’s choices have already been made. His irrefutable choices, from Scripture, seem to be as follows: He has appointed prophets, apostles, teachers, and other leaders. He has appointed Jesus as the only redeemer of the world, and the head of the Church. He has appointed that those in Christ would be “holy and blameless.” He has desired “all people to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4). All of this is consistent with the notion that God simply chooses, irrefutably, the beginner of a purpose, whether large or small, and not necessarily every individual who would exist within that purpose later. 

What does this mean? Simply that obedience is good, and that God is sovereign. Sovereign to make choices, sovereign to refrain from them. Sovereign to choose someone, sovereign to let someone choose. What has God done? Ask him and see, on his own merits, not on preconception or past. Do we wish to categorize and insulate, out of hesitant fear? Or do we wish to listen, freely and intimately, out of pure trust? 

+MSH

An (Extremely Small) Examination of “Predestination” in Ephesians

May not like this. That is, if you’re already firmly committed to a position.

The word “predestined” is one of the stickiest theological terms today. Say it, and one gathers kindling for people to start a fire. So I’m well aware of what I’ve started. But I truly would not write about this if I didn’t feel something illuminating and, ironically for this topic, peace-giving existed in the passage. So: Ephesians 1:3-14.

A little context first? The word “predestined” or variants of it happen four times. Twice here, once in Romans, and once in Acts. I don’t know about you, but that low usage doesn’t suggest “stake your whole spiritual life on the concept.”  Seriously. This is a point I think is worth making from the beginning: any of us who choose to put more weight on this term than it can hold are going to be frustrated when it breaks under that weight. If we did a word cloud of even just Pauline texts, this would reside shoved in a corner, in six-point font, on the cork board. But how many of us point to it and think or act as if everything in the Christian life is based on this concept? So, just to get that out of the way, “predestination” is not the entirety nor foundation of the gospel. Or is it?

See, rightly defined, the term means to “decide to do something beforehand.” God decided beforehand to save the world in Christ. Without that decision, no salvation is enacted. None. So perhaps there is some due heaviness in our attention to the term, just only as the beginning of a process that we are now embraced in. It is not the action of salvation, it is not the continuation of salvation, it is not the life or finality of salvation. So maybe not the entirety, and not the foundation, who is God himself. However, it is the beginning of what we now enjoy, and as such deserves to be mentioned.

Another misconception I noticed while searching the passage is that “predestined” does not necessarily refer to people uniformly (as Calvinists may so often imply or believe), or a plan uniformly (as Arminians so often imply or believe). It can refer to both, and not necessarily what we expect from both, either. 

Take our lexical definition above, in italics. Now take verse 4: “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.” Did God choose “us”? Yes, but who is “us”? Because that is unclear (it could be “us [who are] in him” or “us, in [his choice of] him”), it’s hard to say that’s the full intent of the sentence. If it were, the sentence would end, “For he chose us.” So what was “decided beforehand”? Is there a verb? Yes, there is:  to be holy and blameless. So we have an affirmation of an ultimate end (which is explicit), as well as people (which is ambiguous, at best). There’s no reason to err on the side of selection of individuals from that sentence alone, yet. And I believe Paul’s focus for the choice of people actually develops later in the passage. But there is plenty of reason to see God’s overall choice as Christ being the agent for holy and blameless people. 

Now, there are two other verses that do develop the choice of people, but as we shall see the chosen people may not be who readers expect, and there is still a purpose. Ironically, it is focusing on that purpose which reveals who might be the subject of God’s decision.

“¹¹ In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, ¹² in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.”

In verse 11, we have the word “chosen,” but it can also be interpreted “made heirs.” Hmm. So the choice is a purpose, again. Even if we take that as an explicitly choosing people, which is highly warranted even if we do translate the word “made heirs” (because those made heirs had to be chosen for such an action anyway), who is chosen?

“We.”

OK…who is “we”? Looking further, the text says “who were the first to put our hope in Christ.” Uh-oh. The first? And the first who did something, not people who did nothing and were chosen anyway? So the chosen are not individuals throughout salvation history? They are people particular to a time and place? The first to hope in Christ were either the people who listened in the gospels when Jesus was walking through Israel/Samaria, or the apostles themselves, or both. Either way, those people are not even Gentiles in the church at the time of Paul’s writing. Those people are referred to as “you” who “were included” as a separate group at a later time! That makes the typical modern predestination arguments (either one, actually) pretty hard sells, at least from this text. 

Now wait a minute. Is there even a precedent for this choosing of particular people, where God puts a choice for one person or first group of people? … time ticking … time ticking … Biblical scholars at least may readily realize that there is, in fact, a precedent for that kind of choice. The first is that of Abraham. He was one person. His descendants were chosen, yes, but not as though they were individuals separate from Abraham. He was a “first choice,” one chosen to pass on God’s blessing to those who followed. The choice was irreparable for Abraham, because he was the beginning, chosen for the blessing of others to come later. Then there was the choice of Israel in comparison to the rest of the world. Was that a choice of every individual? Only in so much as an individual was from Jacob. Again, one person is chosen as a first indication of a later blessing to others. All the prophets were chosen individually, but again for the purpose of blessing others (I actually do believe God’s correction is a blessing). And of course we know that Mary was chosen, as an individual at the beginning of an unfolding action for the purpose of blessing others. 

In absolutely all of these cases, there is an irreparable choice of only one individual, at the beginning of a process, for the purpose of spreading blessing to others who may receive or reject that blessing. This is not the irreparable choice of all individuals as individuals. But this is choosing some people for a certain irrefutable purpose within which all others may be included. 

In the next post, I’ll try to discuss what I think are the implications of this understanding of “predestination.” It’s definitely a weighty subject matter, after all. 

+MSH

Spiritual Gifts…in The “Unchurched”?

“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.”  - Mark 9:39-41

This is a bit of a side-post related to some questions I’ve been receiving about what ended up being a mini “series” on the gifts. Namely, that question was as follows: What is your position on the role of spiritual gifts with those who “unchurched”? Fantastic question.

Now, I will admit that I can take that question, in my perception, a few different ways. (1) Can those who are “unchurched” receive and exercise the gifts? (2) Should the gifts be used among those who are “unchurched”? I’ll address each one, actually.

First, an illustration. I was interning at a church long ago, and of course as part of being with this church I organized and implemented leadership conferences with the pastor, as well as informal church “family meetings.” This particular “family meeting” he said he would handle from the bottom up, because he had a specific idea and plan for it stretching over a few weeks. The topic turned out to be “gifts of the church,” and I wasn’t surprised with what happened without any feedback. But initially, all looked well: a sermon he had heard was an inspiration for the meeting, as was 1 Cor. 12 (an appropriate text). The problems began when the pastor encouraged each of the members to determine what their gifts were; why is this a problem? Because many of the “gifts” he stated for discernment were not actually Spirit-given gifts at all. And on top of this, many of the people in the church were not actually true believers yet, or at least mature enough to understand the use of gifts. Now, I am all for encouraging a congregation; my life verse is Colossians 2:2. But doing it based on misunderstanding led only to worse things, not better. Naturally, following this meeting no one knew what they were supposed to do, force-chose things that I would say are better natural abilities than spiritual gifts, and never really did understand the role of spiritual gifts in the church.

The points of the illustration are as follows: (a) Those who are in the “churched” category may not have gifts, because they don’t get the gospel. (b) Those who are “unchurched” but actually do have community with the Spirit may really have gifts. (c) The existence of gifts relies solely on the indwelling Spirit, and the Spirit’s choice – not the choice of a person or their presence in a building, or even presence among believers. The question then is “How do you know what or who is ‘Churched’ or ‘Unchurched’?” To which I would most probably respond: You have seen it written, “by their fruits you shall know them.” In other words: the clear existence of faith and the Spirit. One of the reasons the blog is titled “Churched, Unchurched” is precisely because of the false distinctions that a believer exists only in a building, rather than a community, and that everything in “church” culture is completely consistent with the gospel. “Ekklesia” means “assembly/gathering”; it does not mean “building structure,” and this is an issue I have written about before.

Now, a question I think that probably lay underneath those concerns about the “unchurched” is the right exercise of spiritual gifts. For better or worse, the best gift to focus on for right use is actually tongues and prophesy, and that’s because Paul addresses it directly in 1 Corinthians 14. In that passage, Paul makes it clear that tongues is an individual speaking to God (v. 2), and prophesy is speaking to people for “their strengthening, encouraging and comfort” (v. 3). In other words, those not “churched” but still believing in Christ can clearly do either one, and should if the gift exists. Those who are “churched” need to understand that such gifts should be used properly, if the gift exists. Notice that the condition for the use of the gifts is not being “churched” or “unchurched,” but the defined purpose of the gift itself and its existence within that believer, which is determined only by the Spirit of God.

Also, as one can tell from these last few paragraphs, there’s no way I would claim unbelievers have spiritual gifts. That claim is rightfully ludicrous. Weeds don’t grow fruit. (Though I do find it interesting that Paul claims tongues is actually a sign for unbelievers, but that may be another post.)

That qualified, those whom we may judge as “unbelievers” may in fact have access to the Spirit in ways we don’t understand. God moves where he wills, and has mercy on those whom he will have mercy. Do you have to believe in Jesus? Perhaps. Will the person who receives a taste of the Spirit become a believer? Most likely. Will the person who believers always receive gifts? Not always, but perhaps the case could be made that gifts are more likely than not. Again, the very definition of “gift” is that it is not “a ‘given’.” We cannot presume God to do anything, as if we are entitled to it. We may ask, and we may receive. We may not ask, and receive anyway, for such is grace. We may not ask, and not receive. God is not obligated to do anything that is inconsistent with him, and he is especially not obligated to feed our selfishness or unloving motives. We are not his masters. Let’s not flip it around, right?

So then, the point is mainly this: the Spirit is in charge, and the gifts come from the Spirit. It does not matter who we think the person is; God knows the heart, and frankly, we should hope all people came to a free and saving assurance with God, even if that is in experiencing the grace of spiritual gifts. 

+MSH

Naming The Middle

‘It is good to grasp the one
and not let go of the other.
Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.’ — Ecclesiastes 7:18

As we close out American Independence Day and its weekend, I started reflecting once again about the worth of identity, action, and purpose. Surely being part of a nation rouses these concepts without much effort for most of us; how could we feel anything less about the even stronger bond of faith? Perhaps the first place to start would be what makes a faith group a faith group, as opposed to any other. How do we clearly demarcate the family of God? For better or worse, though, I then became a bit passionate about what I’m perceiving as a system of labels and judgements, instead of a natural way of being. But don’t worry, I’m only rambling about misnomers today.

The beginning of the Reformation, as we all were taught, rightly begins with Martin Luther and his challenges to what he perceived as misbehaviours with no legitimate recourse to adjust. He embodied many things we Evangelicals take as our own now, such as the acknowledgement that freedom from wrongdoing must come from God, that conscience is high on God’s priority list to be respected within the Church, that the Church itself needs to be “reformed, and ever reforming,” that grace is the foundation for all that occurs in God’s economy, etc.

Until I had learned of the more nuanced theological underpinnings during the Reformation period, I had thought for a good long time that the Christian virtue of “moderation” came from Mr. Wesley and our friends in the Anglican tradition. Now, of course, there’s been quite an emphasis of that from such a corner of Christendom, a high furthering of it, worthy of a lot of commendation. And to those traditions and people I owe an incalculable spiritual “debt.” But that is not where the idea started, apparently.

Icons. Do you have them? Do you abhor them? Do you think they are actually something other than icons? Not recent questions, let me say. Prefaced much by the iconoclasm controversy in the first millennium of the Church, that issue was again revisited once Luther’s ideas gained unexpected steam among the commoners of Germany. In finding a new freedom to question authority, seek God in a fresh way, and employ natural language to praise God, much of the peasant enthusiasm directed itself towards icons in the Catholic sanctuaries. Many of Martin’s own disciples (the more radical of which, of course) actually encouraged riots and breaking of religious imagery.

Reform! … Revival! … Removal! … Repugnant. The conduct left Martin appalled, to say the least. He defended as much as he could, before he was driven to pursuing God in solitude. I am sure people wondered what caused this surprising response in him — that icons were not actually idols. But the idea persists that Martin was actually the first demonstrator of rational moderation, balancing two extremes, reforming for the purpose of revival, not removal based on repugnance. To this day, positive tensions remain in the Lutheran tradition such as the balance between God’s sovereignty and a person’s will, or between the measure of a sermon and the practice of the Eucharist, or between the beauty of music and the heart of a hymn (Luther insisted both that music was beautiful, and that more than the Psalter could be sung — balancing tension between the austerities of the original Calvinist and Anabaptist approaches).

Where in the world are we going at this point? To the balance currently perceived as necessary in the Christian Church between “liberal” and “conservative,” or on issues such as the nature of Scripture, the role of homosexual orientations in the Church, personal vs. social conversion, etc. There exists an baffling need for some of us to bandwagonize the Church, such that one side claims that the other has no place. But this is false dichotomy at its ugliest, for it takes a name meant to unify and makes it divisive.

What’s in a name? Take “Evangelical.” Many would read that and say, “Oh, yes, the at-once homophobic, neo-conservative, blindly propagandist, literalist, judgemental types. I’ve had quite enough of them, thank you.” But this is not the case for the name “Evangelical.” Evangelicals, by nature, represent God to people and vice-versa, and that means being on neither side of a conflict, but for the Lord apart from such a conflict.

Do we hold reason or Scripture more important? False dichotomy, for Scripture and reason are not opposed.

Do we need expressive physical signs of worship, or do we abandon them for their (at least potential) idolatry? Neither: physical signs of worship are not “necessary” but “healthy,” and icons are not idols.

Do we identify ourselves as ‘sinners’ or ‘saints’? Both, for the same God that rescued the sinner now restores that person as saint.

Do we interpret the Bible literally, or take it to be pure allegory? Again, a false notion: the Bible means what it says when understood in genre, history, intent and context. And often, it means far more than either literal or allegorical interpretation would suggest.

Perhaps this question I am pondering about the meaning of “Evangelical” vs. “fundamentalist” is moot. Perhaps it is true that there is nothing we can truly accomplish by arguing over terms. But without a shared understanding of meaning, it is impossible to move forward as a group. As Luther understood, a name is only as good as it represents the whole cause, and for us that means the cause of Christ: “I ask that men make no reference to my name; let them call themselves ‘Christians,’ not ‘Lutherans.’  What is Luther?” And certainly as Christians, we are of necessity called to march on as a physical representation of the Kingdom as one body, splitting the middle, braving to embrace the great Godly mysteries that contain unresolved tension, paving a path for Jesus.

+MSH

The Storehouse Gospel

‘With the loyal you show yourself loyal;
   with the blameless you show yourself blameless; 
with the pure you show yourself pure;
   and with the crooked you show yourself perverse.’ -Ps. 18:25-26

When in childhood, one of my favorite character groups was that of “PEANUTS.” I’m sure I spent a decent amount of time watching the television specials, like most of us. And I even had a large comic strip book called Peanuts Festival, which I’m pretty sure I at least shared with my sister. Since then, the book has been passed on to my own son, and he at least thinks it’s hilarious. 

Well, whether it’s his expectations or my age, I have to confess with tongue-in-cheek that I don’t find the majority of the strips very funny any more. A fair point to make is that I’m not curious about that because the strips were never funny; I’m curious because they were funny, and then stopped. And I wouldn’t be nearly as curious if Cole laughed at most of them, because I would chalk it up to age difference. But the fact is, he doesn’t. I remember seeing a lecture on Humour Noir a while back, and as far as I can recall, there was a hint that humour actually has a lifespan. I hate to say it, but I think Schulz’s sense might slowly be dying out. 

This isn’t unrelated to the gospel. The talk of the “relevance” of the gospel has been questioned on both believing and non-believing sides for some time. Some, like Dawkins, say it has a lifespan. Others, such as those in more, what I will call “megachurch-friendly” congregations for lack of a better term, find it needs to become more relevant. The danger to the first might be more obvious; the danger to the second is that it communicates the first may have a point. 

Henri Nouwen, someone I learned to respect through my days in InterVarsity, gives a striking contrast. In his work “In The Name of Jesus,” Henri states that to even debate the question of relevance misinterprets the main aim of the gospel itself. The gospel is not deliberately “constructed” to be “relevant.” It is narrated in order to restore. It is not a sense of humour, but a sense of divinity. Not that Jesus is a staunch, stoic, unfeeling person, but he is definitely not out to tell jokes.

In other words, the gospel is about as “relevant” as having food in the house. Sometimes, honestly, food is neither “relevant” nor “irrelevant”; no one is hungry 24/7. But when someone is hungry, they’ll be glad to have that food already in the house. The gospel is not a matter of being relevant; it is a source of nourishment, or what people need, when they need it. And so that seems to be at least the most widespread error on those that call Jesus “irrelevant”: they assume the bible is something that can be irrelevant in the first place. In other words, the belief that the gospel is not believable has to exist already before arguing that it is unbelievable. That’s presumptuous, fallacious and ironic.

A little disclaimer: I am in no way saying that everything in the bible is relevant “on the surface” or “as literally written.” I am only arguing that the bible, if understood in context, cannot and does not lose relevance. Counter arguments to that stance might point to the instances of what some call “total war” in the early Hebrew Scriptures. But for example, I would argue that, in context, such instances actually show a number of “relevant” lessons (the need for grace, humility or preparation; the success that the Lord may grant to followers if he is willing; the choice of flawed human beings to accomplish greater plans so that those people do not gain more power than God in the eyes of others; etc.), none of which would be anywhere close to “if today you or your nation feel like killing thousands of people simply because you don’t like them, it’s quite all right to do so.” Just because the bible can be irrelevant when taken out of context does not mean any part of the bible needs to be more relevant.

If you’re willing to believe it, the story of God maturing humanity as a father attempts with his child is exactly as “relevant” as it needs to be.

+MSH

The Spirit’s Gifts

‘All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses.’ – 1 Cor. 12:11

Don’t look a gift-Spirit in the mouth.

As mentioned in the last post, the argument negating the existence of any gifts so named in the Scripture, biblically speaking, seems a rather arduous and unnecessary case to make. Nevertheless, one question then is: what counts as a “gift”? And in that I think we may find something well worth discussing.

Part of the reason, I feel, for the continuing division over the existence of gifts in the first place is an overemphasis on a few gifts over all the others. And this kind of undue emphasis does not just create impropriety among churches and believers, but imbalance. On a micro-level, an overemphasis on more “exciting” gifts tends to enable a dependence on “higher” experiences, so that not only are more higher ones manufactured, but much lower ones are just as common. Yet a de-emphasis on some gifts over others leads, as we mentioned on Monday, to a lax attitude towards the value of what we simply don’t like to see in Scripture, or what we feel is uncomfortable to us, perhaps at the expense of others — even though there is, at least more often than not, a rational explanation for what exists in the text. And yet also on a macro-level, we see an imbalance in church identity. In a voice I humorously think would sound much like Tom Wright’s: a church community existing with the gifts is proper, a church community existing because of the gifts is not. Gifts are given ‘individually,’ not to groups who exist to emphasize or highlight some of them at the expense of others. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, to use a trite expression. Once the gifts are not exercised, if the identity of the church ceases, we have a grave identity crisis that may even threaten the authenticity of those gifts. Biblically, though, the identity of the Church resides solely in the particular person of Christ, and not in any particular practice of gifts.

The key of finding root in a vine rather than the fruit is also important when considering the biblical assertion that God gave gifts to the Church, and that he apportions them “just as the Spirit chooses.” There are more than the gifts that cause so much controversy in the Church: roles for people (Eph. 4:11) are gifts as much as any particular sign (1 Cor. 12:1-11). In other words, God is in the business of giving abilities, and not identities. There is only one supra-Identity, if you like, and that is Christ himself. As quickly as we acknowledge the existence of gifts, we must be likewise quick to acknowledge that gifts are not identity, and that gifts can come and go as God sees fit. In other words, I believe the effective position to guard against the misuse and misunderstanding of gifts is not that they do not exist. Rather, the effective position is that gifts are not intended to be, nor ever have been, a form of identity or worth.

Once that position is truly understood, I believe we can expect to see a lot of positive results. First, it is to be expected that more true ecumenical unity in the Spirit flows, since there is naturally less cause for division (of both the micro and macro kinds, mentioned before). Second, gifts traditionally argued about become more readily acceptable across denominational lines. Third, gifts are more readily sought and practised responsibility, resulting in more actual, lasting, internal Spirit work, instead of temporary, superficial experiences sought merely to be maintained for its (or our) own sake.  Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, members of the Church, on either side of this false dichotomy, find an ever-increasing meaning and peace by resting in who their saviour is, and not what he gives them–not how much he accepts them by what they know, but how much he accepts them regardless of what they have.

+MSH

The Spirit of Gifts

“But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it is said,
‘When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive;
   he gave gifts to his people.’” – Ephesians 4:7-8

Gracefully floating back down, your cape waves majestically. The ground is honored to host your presence. All is calm…but what, an evil master rushes out from behind your vision. If it were not for super-speed, the menace would have you in a headlock. As you stare down your opponent, your decision is made: in the stare you release lasers from your eyes. Vanquished lay your nemesis. All is well. Lucky for you, the powers are yours for keeps, no one else’s.

But now you’re bored.

There exist countless debates over spiritual gifts, and I will probably start another by using the analogy above, but the comparison between superheroes and Christians is a lame one. I would argue that in our “normalcy,” we actually prove that humility trumps strength. Nevertheless, humility also receives gifts, far more than arrogance, and to save time today we ought to grant that spiritual gifts do in fact exist. Because the question today is not “yes/no,” but “how so?”

To go back to our beginning anecdote, I doubt many of us survived childhood without imagining up some kind of superhuman ability. And rightly so, this kind of exercise is rather good for things like imagination, creativity, even psychological fortitude (picture the kind of help, for example, it provides a child to make up a power on the spot to solve a sudden problem in the face of which they would otherwise have no control). But has it happened that the Church rather unwittingly applies this kind of imagination to spiritual giftedness?

There seems little to suggest otherwise: Often the gifts are “demonstrated” publicly, for show, in a confrontation that seems to be conveniently timely for the said gift to be used; sometimes, these gifts are somehow almost manufactured on-the-spot, where hitherto the participants may have not known they were necessary until, otherwise, they’d have no control without them; and sometimes, the claiming of such gifts help validate one’s spot in the social group, making them “for keeps.”

Disclaimer Central: I am in no way, nor have I ever, been a cessationist. Biblically, linguistically, rightly understood, I see no reason for any gift to “cease.” I believe such thinking is mainly borne of fear, or caution against spiritual abuse, or a right distaste of “showmanship” and immorality. But for whatever reason that blanket barricade against gifts is constructed, it has negative consequences of its own: a blindness to a facet of God, a neglect of such virtues as moderation or reason (a neglect of which, strangely, is some of the cause for the cessationist position in the first place), and perhaps most deadly, a practice of Scripture twisting that can only wreak spiritual havoc of much the same kind as practicing fake gifts.

No, I am not a cessationist. I am not even a charismatic. I am just someone who wishes not to go “beyond what is written.” And what is written is neither our childhood games nor our childish oneupmanship. Gifts simply are gifts, not powers, nor status symbols, nor shows, nor even righteousness. Gifts are gifts, unearned tokens of love, to be shared not shunned, to benefit not harm, to be enjoyed not expelled, to be measured not uncontrolled, to be personal not self-righteous, not to put down but to uplift.

For the gifts of the Spirit are a sign of the Spirit, and the Spirit is not an object to be removed, but a person to embrace.

+MSH

The Spirit of Giving (Pastors for The Poor)

‘Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.’ – James 1:17

Churched Unchurched has always had a heart of biblical, social concerns. Those who cannot afford a decent standard of living are certainly one. And certainly one of the most influential organizations for that concern is Sojourners. Late last week, I received an email that I’d like some of our clergy readers to take note of. CU doubts that if you’re interested in reading this blog, you think helping the poor in whatever proper and responsible ways possible a bad idea. 

So if you might consider signing a petition to Congress, our friend Jim Wallis is asking for 1,000 pastors to sign an open religious letter on behalf of government-supported programs for the poor.

Helping the poor is certainly a church concern. There is no doubt concerning that. However, many times we seem to think that service to the poor on their behalf stops at the church door. The church is one of the few institutions, if not the only one on earth, that can legitimately and powerfully reach beyond itself to influence others for good. As Ephesians 2:10 reads, we are intentionally created to do good works that were prepared in advance for us; surely, as Wright once said, that is not just that we ‘behave ourselves.’ That has wide-ranging impact for the good of the world. As the old Pietist saying goes, ‘If Jesus is not Lord of all, then he is not Lord at all.’ And frankly, if we cannot encourage others to do good in the world, what kind of role are we truly exercising, and what kind of Lord do we believe? An objectifying, keep-it-to-yourself, strict disciplinarian; or a socio-personal, Kingdom-revealing, deliberately measured Father? Acquiescing to the desire that caring for the world should rest solely on religious efforts allows others to shirk responsibility, communicates to others that God has not instituted government authority as rightful and good stewards (an idea which texts such as Romans 13:1-7 explicitly refute), and actually controls the Kingdom instead of exhausting all possible means to reveal it…none of which the Church should encourage. The thought persists: ‘If you want us to take care of the entire issue, give us the entire previously budgeted money to do it.’ But perhaps the far greater issue with resistance to care for the poor is how decisively it takes the now non-giver out of the process of blessing. As James says, “Every generous act of giving…”; so giving and blessing are, somehow, just like God’s sending rain on the just and the unjust: the blessing of giving is not, perhaps ironically, the Church’s to horde. This again ties into the theological concept of the Church as a parish system, encompassing communities for their benefit and God’s glory. Certainly we want the whole of God’s world to be blessed — therefore, others should be encouraged to take part, for their own benefit at the least, whether part of the Church or not. The resistance to give when able (and the government is certainly able, with wiser budgetary decisions) is actually the resistance to bless and enjoy. Do we honestly seek that kind of authority in the form of the state?

Nevertheless, there is also resistance on the ecclesiastical side. Many of us believe that since the poor will always exist, there is no need to waste our efforts. Yet the gospel is one of waste: God’s gracious and extravagant outpouring of provision, sustenance, comfort, and love. More than we would ever need. So in point of fact, it might be more true to the gospel to act out of the true belief that God himself provides more than we need, as we give it to those who do in fact live in greater need than us. Indeed, is it not more to the point that if “the poor always exist among us,” then we have from God a continual test to bless, believe and serve? A continual gift of relationship, humility and human identity? 

Yes, we will always have the poor among us. Let’s enjoy that, instead of ignore it.

+MSH

Hope The Hopeless Haven’t Heard

‘And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone…’ – 2 Tim. 2:24

It’s been a long day for you. You’re exhausted, and want to reconnect with your friends, because authentic relationship renews you. Meeting them at a pub, perhaps, you ask a collective question: “How’ve you been?” Some individually, some in pairing dissonance, they answer: “I’m upset, in anguish over all this recent world behavior.” And…the soul recoils like a wound spring.

Now, I’m not bagging on honesty, or global perspective, or keeping up on news. But wouldn’t you rather hear a specific and kind word at first, than a generalizing, negative one? Recently, after not talking to a friend of mine for a while, I asked that same kind of question above. Light, connective, unimposing. In response I heard…much the same as above. Basically, months of a lack of communication had boiled down to a single, heavy, wearied and almost judgemental synopsis of everything outside of oneself. It’s good to know that such a response could be given so readily. It’s encouraging to see someone paying attention to something other than oneself, and so thoroughly. It’s at the same time concerning for what the response does not extend.

Is it not a better thing to take the opportunity to reflect positives, based on hope? Consider the idea that first impressions last. If our audience is a Christian we know well, perhaps it makes sense to start with something particularly important to us. But that is at least personal, and not generalized, negatives. There remains a very real attempt at Christian connection. That said, very often the audience is not necessarily Christian, or a Christian whom we do not know very well. A negative summary of broad behavior tends to be off-putting at best, and risks turning people away from what we have to offer our neighbor. What we have to offer, namely, is a harvest of positive, internal peace at-best, and an honest, internal reflection (the freedom to speak of which is still borne out of a sense of spiritual security) at-worst. 

A more alarming state may occur if the audience is actually not Christian. True, to be sure, immediate honesty can endear a few people. But a lack of social ease would put away much more. Also, talking negatively about broad truths can communicate two things to the non-believer: (1) there is no concern about being personal, (2) the state of Christianity may in fact be more concerned with rules and behavior, than with joy and grace. So in anything but a charitable (or at least stable and measured) first response, we somewhat risk communicating that our faith is some kind of divisive, shaky, legalistic depression. That “beneath the surface” impression, especially to a transparent generation, would certainly not be likely to interest many. But in a world where all the sad, horrible, distressing things might be known in an instant, a positive response brings at least a slight relief; and even if the audience is likely to annoy us, that same kind of “unusual” response from the reserve of patience is refreshing. The fact is, negativity is very easy, and those who are non-believers will know about general, broad, macro-bad things on their own quite readily if they are paying attention; they may not know internal, positive hope, or a deep concern for them as a person. And that hope, I would argue, is so deeply etched in the soul of the believer that whether we are aware of it or not, by it we actually live. 

What I am not trying to think about aloud here is being dishonest. Clearly that does more damage than not. And certainly there’s no reason to be overly happy (which is in itself disingenuous), or co-dependent on random strangers’ attention. The intent is not us being merely casual, either; deliberate interest furthers what avoidance cannot. But with no focus on friendliness, individual attention, or an actual positive reflection of what the Christian faith is about, what will would anyone have for understanding any of the more general problems we perceive with the world? In other words…

If we are so rightly concerned about the world, should we not base it first in being charitably concerned with our neighbor? 

+MSH