The musings

Pastor or Prophet?

2011-09-30T11:06:00.001-04:00

Asa pastor, I worry that I have failed. As a prophet, I believe thatI have received a prophet's reward -persecution. And those whoembrace those prophetic messages with me are marginalized as well. But the thing is this: My entire ministry has beenovershadowed by this nagging feeling that we are preaching a doctrinethat promotes Empire instead of the gospel of the Kingdom.

And,Calvinism has made it much more palatable to our consciences. If onehad to draw a line in the sand, I am going to end up on the Calvinistside, but that isn't the point. The point is the doctrine of theelect, combined with the doctrine that no works can purchase oursalvation can lead to a whole group of people who do not believe thatJesus was serious when He said that he would deny the Kingdom of Godto those who refuse to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit theprisoner and etc. In their opinion, Jesus couldn't have been seriousbecause that would lead to a “works” based righteousness.

AndBrother Paul, and the book of Romans, enters into this debate. Jesussaid: “I have more truth to tell you, but you cannot abide it now,but the Holy Spirit, when He comes will reveal to you more truth.”Many have said that Jesus was intentionally incomplete in His teaching of the gospel. Others have said that this establishes two different gospels.

Here is what we agree on: Jesus'words force us to combine works with faith. Here is what we disagree on: Jesus' words debunk theconcept that Jesus couldn't have been serious in Matthew 25. There are those who say that Paul's concept of “no works can saveus” trumps Jesus words in Matthew 25. And, that this is what Jesuswas referring to when He said that there was more to this to be laterrevealed.

Ofcourse, I am saying nothing new here when I say this: “shouldn'tPaul be interpreted in the light of Jesus rather than Jesus in thelight of Paul?”

Before I get attacked, let me clear this up. DoI believe that salvation is by faith? Of course I do. Do I believethat if a work could save me then Jesus would have died in vain? Ofcourse I do. But I also believe that apart from works, faith is dead.

Ifone holds to a strict interpretation of justification by faith alone,without works, then one throws out the three years of Jesus teaching.Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would come and convince people aboutHim. That must mean about Him and His teaching and His atonement. Wecan't throw out His teaching in favor of His atonement.

AndI know the concept that if we are truly born again, our response willbe good works, out of gratitude, not compulsion. But the thing is,good works are not just acts of gratitude, they are commands placedupon us.

Pauldoes not trump Jesus. And that was never Paul's intention. Rememberwhen he met with the elders in Antioch? They agreed on every pointabout Paul's gospel, a gospel that required none of the Jewish lawreligious rules. The only thing they spoke of was this: “That Paulremember the poor, the very thing that he was eager to do.”Paul made it clear of his commitment to the poor. And yet, somehowthis concept of election and faith alone has indeed worked itselfinto a doctrine where the poor are not as important to the faith asthey were to Jesus.

Whatdo we do?

Dikaios, the right word, translated the wrong way. Part of my journey toward a more just form of NT Christianity

2011-06-01T10:48:00.006-04:00

It's the right word, but it is used the wrong way. Here is how the Church begins to divorce itself from the life and ministry of Jesus Christ: just change the way we translate one word. Justice, Righteousness. Dikaios.

So what is the right word used the wrong way? The translation of the word Dikaios. It can be translated either as Righteous/Righteousness or Just/Justice. Are we to be known more by the fact that we are righteous, or by the way we do justice? I loved studying the doctrine of salvation, I got to take an entire course in it when I was preparing for ministry. We looked at salvation from what I thought was every possible angle. We leaned big words like harmatology (the doctrine of sin) and pithy phrases like “Justified means `just as if I'd' never sinned.” I remember learning how, in Romans 4&5, the written decree of our own sin was canceled by the blood that Jesus shed on our behalf. One good man, the perfect man, died for sinners. He describes how these sinners were actually enemies when Jesus died for them. I remember the incredible sense of gratitude I felt toward God when, not only did the Holy Spirit give me a sense of personal assurance that yes, indeed, my sins were forgiven. But I also understood it. I felt privileged that God was giving me a glimpse into His mysteries. It seemed to me that when the mystery was explained to me I had a complete picture of theology because I felt it; I sensed it by the power of the Holy Spirit and now I also knew it. What joy to experience that level of trust from God, to me! I wanted to shout it from the rooftops! I couldn't wait to get into the pulpit and proclaim not only the mystery, but also the knowledge of God's salvation. Dikaios! I knew that word! I understood it. I imagined Paul writing these chapters under the power of the Holy Spirit and experiencing the same, almost drunk feeling of being overwhelmed by the intimacy and glory He was experiencing. I wondered if that is what it must have felt like for Moses to be coming down from the mountain after hearing the Word of the Lord first-hand.

I was the righteous. I don't ever remember feeling condescension toward those who were not “the righteous.” When I considered their fate, most often it was with a sense of sadness. Not the sadness that I was the righteous and they weren't, or the sadness that I was going to attend a party upstairs while they were burning in the basement. I never had the thought that they were getting what they deserved. My only real gut feeling was a profound sense of worship because I was lucky enough to have believed the message. I never felt like I was “the elect” as if God for some unknown reason had given me the faith to believe the report about Jesus.

I felt guilty that I was the elect if “the elect” were chosen by God. Who am I that God should love me? I know my heart and its quick ability to deceive me. I know how far from deserving I have ever come. I have never gotten close to earning it. So why me? I confess a lingering doubt, nagging in the corners of my mind where unknown fears can somehow take root that maybe something was missing from this “complete” construct of theology. The complete construct didn't allow for the unfairness that somehow God gave me the faith to believe and then excluded someone else.

There were some theological underpinnings that worked for a while to assuage that doubt, or guilt. Thinks like: the people who question the fairness of God do so only because they love the darkness rather than the light and this is their excuse to keep on sinning. Or: when a person chooses to reject God, then there is a good chance that they will not teach their children and those children won't teach their children and that initial person's rebellion has consequences for generations.... That almost works. Except. God loves every one of those children as much as He loves me and I am still lucky. So, what do I do with this nagging sense in the corners of my mind? What do I do with this concept that the God of love, God, God who defines justice, God who defines unconditional love can allow something unfair to happen? “The Soul that sins will die,” but what about their children? What sin did they commit? Ezekiel makes it clear that righteousness is imputed to the one who acts with justice. Righteousness and justice cannot be divorced.

So, lets get back to the translation of the word: Dikaios. Then next five paragraphs are for the theologians and Bible scholars out there. The rest of you can ignore them if you care.

In the NASB, OT, the word root word for righteous is also translated both ways. However, in the OT, only 4 out of 41 is it translated as righteous in the New Living Translation. It is almost always translated as some form of Just, and a few times, as a form of vindication. See here.

In the New Testament, the word Dikaios is used 79 times in the NASB. See here. 8 times it is translated with a form of justice, 71 times as righteousness. I submit that for the most part, in Romans, righteous/righteousness is clearly the preferred word usage (14 times). But in the gospels, by the standard of context, just/justice as a translation makes sense more often than not. This isn't Paul's fault because of the doctrine set forth in Romans. It is the interpretation of the translators.

How does it change our perspective of justice when we substitute the word “just” or “justice” every time we can? In so doing, we keep faith with the three years of Jesus' teaching, the witness of the prophets and the theology of justice behind the OT law. It is important to do so because it keeps faith with the rest of scripture.

What actually is the historical and literary uses of the word? Dikaios' root word is Dike. Dike was the name of the goddess of Justice, the goddess of revenge. Dike is never translated as righteous in the NT. But because it is a legal term dealing with retribution for evil in the Greek/Roman world, and the rendering of Romans 4 and 5 that God wiped out the legal decree against us through the death of Jesus, translators preferred righteous over justice. However, a Dikaios person, in Greek culture was a “just” person. Matthew 1:19: Joseph was a just (Dikaios) man so he had mercy on Mary. Matthew 5:45, God causes rain to fall on the evil and the good (Dikaios). Matthew 13:49*, God will separate the wicked from the good (Dikaios). Matthew 20:4, you also go into the vineyard and work and whatever is right (Dikaios) I will give you. The culture translated the word as people who do the right thing to others.

*This is a great example of interpretative translation. The contrast in almost all translations is wicked verses righteous. But “wicked” should be contrasted by “good,” or “just” when we let the context do the translating. Here is the problem if we follow that logic, we could twist it to mean that everyone who is not righteous (saved) is wicked. I know some very moral and just non-Christians.

So, consider the word Dikaios to be a coin. On one side, the head if you will, we have the word translated as "Just," on the other side, we have the word translated as "Righteous." They cannot be divorced from each other. They are inseparable. And the anomaly is, we have been using a mis-struck coin. For the most part, Western Christianity has a coin that is struck with two tails.

Jesus spent three years teaching His disciples how to be just. He confronted the injustices done by the religious leaders and by so doing declared them unrighteous people simply because they were unjust. Jesus spent three days making us righteous. Three years teaching justice, three days doing righteousness.

From Jesus' teaching, one could easily say that an unjust person cannot be a righteous person. The two go hand in hand. The recent evangelical push toward justice, social justice, is a work of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 25 makes it very clear that if justice is not synonymous with righteousness, then there is no righteousness. Unjust Christians will be separated by the angels at the end of the age and thrown into the fire.

So what has that done to my joy? It makes it greater. No longer do I have this nagging doubt about the fairness of it all. I still believe in Jesus. But Jesus gave this parable, and I hang God's perfect fairness on Jesus' own words:

Matthew 21:28-32

The Story of Two Sons

²⁸"Tell me what you think of this story: A man had two sons. He went up to the first and said, 'Son, go out for the day and work in the vineyard.'

²⁹"The son answered, 'I don't want to.' Later on he thought better of it and went.

³⁰"The father gave the same command to the second son. He answered, 'Sure, glad to.' But he never went.

^31-32"Which of the two sons did what the father asked?"

They said, "The first."

Jesus said, "Yes, and I tell you that crooks and whores are going to precede you into God's kingdom. John came to you showing you the right road. You turned up your noses at him, but the crooks and whores believed him. Even when you saw their changed lives, you didn't care enough to change and believe him.

God is and always will be just and fair. It is no longer my problem to worry about who is in and who is out of His family. God wants everyone back.

You may be asking the question: Why bother pointing all this out? Are you speaking of universal restoration? Are you saying that Jesus is not the only way?

Maybe, and nope. Neither is my point at all. I point it out because the way we translate that word informs the way we do justice. I am more interested in this question: Did the King James Translators deliberately use righteous/righteousness instead of just/justice in order to rationalize Imperialism? Does that distortion still affect the NT perspective on Justice?

When a nation sees itself as a righteous nation because it is called Christian, does that excuse whatever impact they have on other nations? Do we believe in American Exceptionalism because we are the righteous -and therefore God's favored, or because we are just?

It happens both as a collective as well as individuals. If my righteousness makes me more just, then my decisions will not be about what is good for me, but what is good for all. The impact of my decisions both on future generations and my neighbors is just as important as the impact on me. That is justice. But if I am merely the righteous (and not also the just), and therefore God's favored person, then the impact it has on me is more important than the impact it has on others. And that can lead to me attempting to justify unjust actions.

We do indeed try to be just, but our language needs to change in order to accomplish NT justice. Language affects our actions. What if, in consistency with Jesus teaching, we also translate the word as just/justice as often as possible? How would that begin to affect our for actions?

Here is just one example of language influencing justice: In 2008, Senator Bob Casey ran against the incumbent, Senator Rick Santorum. It was a race between two strong Christians. Casey is a pro-life Democrat and a Roman Catholic. Santorum is a pro-life Republican of the more Evangelical Protestant faiths. At a ministerial alliance meeting, one dear colleague of mine was begging us to vote for Santorum. In defense of Santorum he said: When the righteous rule, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan. Proverbs 29:2. (Notice again how the opposite of “wicked” is righteous instead of “good,” or “just.”)

His statement was given in the form of a prayer request and as it turned out, I was the one leading in prayer. So, when I prayed, I translated the passage he referred to without the imperialistic interpretation and prayed: “When the just rule, the people rejoice, when the wicked rule, the people groan.”

Casey ended up winning that election. And I am not angry at my colleague for his subtle confusion of scripture. (The Roman Catholic priest was not so happy with his implication that because he wasn't an evangelical protestant, he was wicked.) We remain good friends. I point this out to see how subtly the Good news of God's Kingdom has been misshapen for by the language used.

The campaigns were, as usual, a battle of sound bites designed to appeal to the constituencies. Santorum was running on a Christian values platform. He had three main items to work with, pro-life, anti-terrorism and illegal aliens. Since every one is anti-terrorism, he couldn't distinguish himself with that cause. Since his opponent was also pro-life, he couldn't distinguish himself with that cause. So, he chose “illegals.” But that is not a Christian value. The Bible is clear in Leviticus 19:33-34 that the alien is to be treated as our neighbor and we know that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. He choose to call people who are undocumented as "illegals." Jesus calls them "neighbor." Language changes the way we think.

Enter into that debate with someone and ask them, are they "neighbor" or are they "illegals?" I would guess that one who is more comfortable translating dikaos as Just would also call them neighbor. What would Jesus do?

I made you hungry in order that you may learn.... ...to love and forgive.

2011-03-16T11:25:00.003-04:00

I am musing on Jesus' temptation in the wilderness. What are the nature of the tests we receive?

In the first two tests Satan introduces them with the words: "If you are the Son of God..." Part of Satan's trick is for Jesus to prove Himself, or defend Himself. Why would Jesus need to defend Himself in front of Satan? Jesus knows who He is.

Jesus' answer for the first test, to turn the stones into bread, comes from Deuteronomy 8:3. "I humbled you... ...I made you hungry... ...mankind lives by God's Word."

God tested the Israelites. First He humbled them. Second, God made them hungry.

Perhaps one of the first things that must go, if we are to overcome a test is our pride. We will not pass if we are not willing to let go of our pride. Do we need to be proven right in the eyes of man? Or in the eyes of God?

But also, God made them hungry. At the time, they were really hungry. They were three days without food. The people were wondering if this plan to escape slavery into the desert was a good idea. They complained against God and Moses.

But, they really were hungry. Their complaint was legitimate. They had a real grievance.

The point? A test is not a test unless it is real. A soldier who is learning to craw on his belly and accurately return fire is not going to develop the discipline to do that unless the training involves live fire. This was said of the Emperor Tiberius when he was general over his troops: "His drills are bloodless battles and his battles are bloody drills."

So what about the test of loving one another? Loving one another above anything we say, above any creed we confess, above any doctrine we espouse, above any spiritual gift we manifest, above any singular -or lifetime of- religious activity is the only legitimate proof of our Christian faith. (Also 1 John 4:7-21)

Right now, there is a real test going on as to the discipline of loving one another, both here on my blog -as we discuss church politics- and also on my listserve -as we discuss evangelism in post-modernity and modernity. Just as God made the Israelites hungry in the wilderness, God has placed us in positions where we feel that we feel we have been legitimately wronged.

It is a test. And just like Jesus in the wilderness and the Israelites in the desert, we need humility first, and then obedience:

I am a sinner who still needs a Saviour. I want to be forgiven by God. And, in order to do that, I must forgive. Without condition. I do forgive. "Lord Jesus, for my part, do not hold anyone guilty on my behalf. Love and forgive them, I pray, just as You love and forgive me."

Some suggested that I go to people that I have forgiven and tell them that I forgive them. I believe that action would be an insult to them. Forgiveness of others is a transaction between God and me, not them and me. All I can do is ask for forgiveness. For my part, please forgive if I have harmed you. What people do with that request is also a transaction between God and them.

"I thank you Lord God that you made me to be offended in order to give me the chance to forgive and prove that we live by Your Word above anything else. May the name of the Lord be praised forever."

Why Good Pastors Get the Boot

2011-02-16T12:18:00.011-05:00

My journey since last Easter. Pray for me.

I used to get angry when I heard the rhetoric "He is more of a missionary to the community than our pastor." However, I now take that as a compliment.

In my current pastoral post, the first priority was to rebuild the first service. (The traditional service). My leadership style worked well. I involved people. I refused to take the responsibility on myself. When we worship, it is the congregation worshiping God, not the Pastor providing a show. I patiently worked with a group of people who took on that ownership. And then I introduced different elements. These new elements were not components of traditional worship, instead, they were components of what the new contemporary worship looks like. The two -new contemporary and traditional- are not that far apart. I was building the future and the migration of some of the younger families to the first service indicated the success. (And perhaps was perceived as a threat to the second service, a service my kids, while trying to explain to me why it didn't work for them, called: "80's traditional.")

I tried to make some changes to the second service early on. I wanted to add this "mystical" element, but I felt resistance. So I let it's leadership keep on. And then one of the leaders became very busy and left. The time and energy necessary to make it work were not available to the family. The other leader was getting burned out and wanted me to take over planning the service. But that goes against my principle that WE WORSHIP, and the worship service can only be good if it is owned by the worshipers. Last Spring, we solved the problem with monthly Friday night meetings and people taking ownership of the services. I remember one Wednesday night, during prayer, when the woman who planned the service was crying with joy over how the Holy Spirit had led her to the different songs and elements. This was exactly what needed to happen. Things were going better. I did not violate my principle, and people got involved. People started doing their own ministry. People started using their own gifts and experiencing the presence of the Lord in planning.

Last Easter was beautiful. I was on top of the world. A parishioner was listening to the call that if we are going to be a 21st Century Church, then we need to become missional minded instead of maintenance minded. She actually took me with her, in front of a judge, and convinced the judge to let a woman in jail out into her custody. The woman was not being released into a Christian home, so to speak, but into a home where Christians cared. She was not brought there in order to be forced into Christianity. She was brought there because Jesus loves her and my parishioner could see it. And then God got to her in His slow and patient way. She was baptized on Easter. I thought to myself: "This is exactly how it should work. They go out on mission. They don't wait for me to give them something easy or convenient, something that will take a little bit of their time, but something that actually required time and sacrifice. This is huge." I realized that now, my role as pastor, was doing spiritual formation with these people who were babes in Christ. And the body of Christ, the long time members of this Church, were accepting their responsibility to do this relational evangelism. I knew that my job would be full doing the mentoring, counseling, nurturing of these new babes in Christ. I knew that the sheepfold, the 99, were strong enough to care for issues while I was helping them work with the one who strayed. It is biblical and it is what I am gifted by the Holy Spirit and trained to do.

Who cares if my desk wasn't neat when God trusted you enough to send His very weakest babies into our presence?

But no one invited that woman into their house.* No one took her and her boyfriend out for lunch after Church. I should have noticed. The courageous parishioner was dismayed by the lack of support from the congregation. I recognize that many did not know the need, and confidentiality on my part hindered disclosure. However, reaching out by others is between them and God and it should come naturally, automatically. I wonder, does pastor driven mean that people get to pay me to do the messy stuff? Do people get to blame me when the messy stuff gets in the way of a feel good, wholesome, safe, g-rated place and they are not willing to do exactly what Jesus did when He, by example, hung out with the same kind of sinner? I wondered, even feared, that people did not invite her into their house because she was not "the right kind of person." There are many of those right kind of people who tell me that when they came here, they were invited into the homes of members, brought out to dinner. Do we exclude and bring down sin upon us as James mentions?

Does good pastoral leadership provide an "out" for genuine Christian discipleship by calling small works as big ones? Does good pastoral leadership excuse people from sacrifice by doing it for them? Can people pay someone else to use their gifts given to them by the Holy Spirit?

No. Good pastoral leadership confronts cheap grace, commitment without sacrifice, 10% instead of 100%

The fact that I refuse to be a surrogate for what God called another to do is good leadership, not bad. I am here to help bring out spiritual gifts and then experience what God is doing in and through people. If I do it for others, then I have done them a disservice. A pastor is not a luxury who makes the Christian life easier for others. I am a coach who spurs believers on to more and more. A good coach makes the team run laps and stretches them. A bad coach sets a low bar to jump over and then praises the team for jumping over that bar. Everyone feels good, right up until the time they get into the competition.

*Feb 17, 2011. The parishioner who took the woman into her home informed me that 3 ladies did spend some time trying to help her. And what is significant is that those three ladies were probably the poorest women in the church.

PS. 2/18/2011 I should point out that there are some very dedicated and hard working believers at the Church without which, the church would not exist. They work tirelessly cleaning, preparing, calling, teaching, giving, encouraging and leading. These people are indeed using and living out their own gifts of the Holy Spirit. These are valid and important. They are as important as Pastoral Leadership and evangelism. God places them there, and I apologize if any people using those gifts who are offended by this post. I do believe in you. I did not intend for that outcome. I can even see some sort of judgmental attitude by me in this.

For me, the same pain and the same problem comes from those who would make up this stuff against my strong and effective leadership because... ...I honestly don't know why. Loss of control? Fear of the future? Anger over changes in the past and an unwillingness to go forward? Gossip and roots of bitterness because of the criminal case we are saddled with?

I do love pastoral ministry. And I do love the people I get to pastor. I love every one of them. I don't comprehend why it is okay in this culture to express such vitriol against leadership. Why is it okay to mock the President on Late Night TV, whether he be Republican or Democratic? Why do we value that? Why is it okay to rant and rave with hatred and even violent metaphors against elected representatives? Why is it okay for coaches and parents to rant and rave against the referee, umpire or official? Why is that behavior valued? Why is it okay to criticize the teacher when the child is the one acting out? And worse, why is it as common in the Church as it is in the culture?

The H Question, remix

2010-11-02T14:19:00.007-04:00

Okay, maybe what I have to say isn’t important enough to restate it. But I just re-read the previous blog, and even I didn’t get it anymore. It was wordy. It could be expanded to a book, or reduced to some principles. When I wrote it, I was full of it. So here goes with the simple attempt:

Our denomination is fighting over the question of Homosexuality in respect to the question, can H people be in significant roles of leadership?

And to answer that question, we have to answer a whole slew of other questions: Is H practice sin? Does God love the H person? Is it fair, or Christ-like, to single out the actions of H people over the actions of others? Can we learn anything by the lack of any reference to H in the gospels?

And underneath those questions are some classic battles defined by these questions: Does Sin exist, and if so, what is it? Is there absolute truth? Is the Bible authoritative? Is God, or the idea of God, dead? Can Science and Reason answer our questions of morality? Does “not standing against” H activity mean we are condoning it? How can we stand FOR “good news, redemption and transformation” while we are standing against a GROUP of people?

I believe the argument about the H question is one we shouldn’t be having because it no longer makes a real difference. The point is moot. Yep, I said it. And here is why:

When Nietzsche said “God is dead” he declared that humankind didn’t need the superstitious notions of God anymore. He believed that science and reason could solve the problems of the world. Evangelical, and the more conservative bible-believing theologians reacted strongly to those words. I reacted.

For me, I asked Jesus to come into my heart and save me from my sins. And He did. In ministry, I have seen demons cast out, I have seen the blind receive their sight, I have actually seen the dead raised back to life. One day, I felt this burning sensation at the back of my throat, and afterwards, I started speaking in an angelic tongue. When I pray in that tongue, I see mountains move. I can attest, God is not dead.

So here was Christianity, with its back up against the wall, the Cold War was raging and those “godless commies” threatened our very existence and faith. We had a fight on our hands.

We had to prove that God existed to those who rejected him in favor of Science and Reason ONLY. And one of the biggest arguments used was the fact of sin, the Biblical declarations of it, and the Atoning sacrifice of Christ to free us from the curse of sin.

In order to prove the fact of God, we proved the fact of sin, and Christianity as the sole refuge for sin.

All of those arguments were statements, propositions, designed to win the battle against the statements, propositions, of “science and reason are all we need.” It was a battle of words and ideas. Both sides became further and further entrenched in their propositions.

And then, the vast majority of the culture realized that science and reason did not provide all the answers. Without discarding the value and importance of science and reason, we admitted that we needed some sort of spiritual guidance to help us. We became students of our own history. We realized that just because we could do something, it didn’t mean we should. We question: “Should be have used the A-bomb?”

So, the culture changed and as it turned out, God wasn’t dead after all. Culture admitted that science and reason alone cannot provide moral guidance.

The Church has a chance to get back to the table as a partner in forming culture. We lost our seat when the Church reacted to its loss of significance by creating its own sub-culture. That sub-culture became so entrenched in the arguments that it didn’t notice the world wasn’t listening. Instead of trying harder to influence culture in a way that would make a real difference, it shouted out louder and louder, to itself -against one another, its propositions. The culture reacted with a reinforced view that it had become less and less relevant. They stopped listening.

But then, in spite of us, culture confesses its need for God and yes, what we call sin. Some even call it sin. Some call it brokenness. Some call it “influenced by evil” and some may reduce it to “a lack of evolutionary altruism.” But the overwhelming majority recognizes that we need spiritual as well as scientific guidance.

So here is the solution for us: We need to realize that the H question changed along with the culture. The questions are no longer: “is there really such a thing as sin?” “Is H sin?” Those questions addressed the proposition: “we no longer need God.”

Today, however, the questions are: “How does God love the H?” “How does God want us to love the H?” These questions place the emphasis on God’s loving relationship to humankind instead of the propositions of the culture. It is almost as if we have to change from defending “the fact of God” to defending “the love of God.”

Brethren, can we forgive each other the passions of the past, look beyond who won or lost the argument and get back to being God’s Kingdom ON EARTH and heaven instead of just in heaven?

Author's note: I don't substitute the word Homosexual or Homosexuality lightly. For some, the substitution may seem as if I am trying to take away the very human face of Homosexual persons. I assure you, I am not. A big part says to me: "leave the entire word(s) in so that people can realize that we are talking about real people, people whom we know and love." But I find that too many other people use the Homosexual and Homosexuality as a derogative. So, when ever you see "H" in this blog and it refers to Homosexuals, try replacing it with "someone else that Jesus gave His life for -just like me."

The H Question:

2010-08-18T13:18:00.001-04:00

Homosexuality, the H Question.

Because of the current levels of debate, there is no short answer to this question, especially for preachers.

But, I am going to put my perspective down in bullet points because I think you will get most of it in that framework. And, these are merely my theological, psychological and physiological understandings.

But before that, there are 4 terms I am going to use:

Secular Modernity: The world view that only science and reason can answer our questions, religion is a form of naiveté that the age of science and reason will eventually conquer. It includes Secular Humanism and allows for Social Darwinism.
Christian Modernity: The World view and apologetics that contrasted and strove for Christ and against Secular Modernity and its attempt to deny the existence of God. On the evangelical side the scripture behind it is Romans 10:14-15 or 2 Timothy 4:3 –both scriptures emphasize the importance of preaching true to the Word.
Secular Post-Modernity: The predominant current world view that distrusts the Church, and most dominant faiths (by dominant, I mean “in power” like Islam and Christianity) because of their domination of others. It includes pluralism, neo-pluralism (My term –in my opinion it is actually part of the neo-pagan movement, which is not an “in power” religion, but a resurgence of Druidism. It is called Wicca. For a good look at its history in developing European culture, read the novel “That Hideous Strength” by CS Lewis.) and syncretism. It values relationship above anything else. It sees humanity as a Community in various degrees, according to the individuals “taste.”
Christian Post-Modernism: (My view) A world view that is highly Christocentric, even its description of salvation through Jesus Christ, but is less interested in taking a stand against Secular Modernity and all its propositions and is more interested in bringing people into a relationship with God, who reconciled us to Him through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The defining scripture is the “gentleness and respect” of 1 Peter 3:15.

It is important to note that the imperative behind Modernity is propositions. The propositions of Secular Modernity and Christian Modernity clubbed each other over the head with their truths as they wrestled for domination in the ideological views of the Western Culture. The problem was, the clubbing each other over the head didn’t work at all, nations continued to fight, the Cold War ensued. Then the Church itself fell into this mindset and began attacking each other in its own subculture and became culturally irrelevant because it stopped doing the Work of Jesus. It was easier to argue than it is to sacrificially serve. Peter said: “Arm yourselves with a willingness to be like Christ.”

In my opinion, this paved the way for Post-Modernity whose imperative is relational over propositional. This world view is not as fractured as the world view of Modernity, but then, it is just beginning (and some say is already dying in favor of Nihilism).

All of that is important for me to explain where I think the debate on the H word is currently at:

Modernity versus Post–Modernity on the question of Homosexuality. There is a fundamental difference in what the question even means:
- Modernity, Is there a God?:
  - In modernity, the “propositions of truth” and “taking a stand for the truth” was necessary because Secular Modernity denied the existence of God, the moral judge.
  - In Secular modernity right and wrong, morality, was made up by the consensus of society.
  - Only in Modernity is the question asked: Is Homosexuality a sin?
  - Therefore Homosexuality from Christian modernity is described as sin.
  - Evangelism was propositional instead of relational and the Holy Spirit blessed the propositional preaching. It fit the need for the time.
- Post Modernity, Who or What fills this spiritual space we all feel? (Notice, the fundamental difference in the question):
  - In Post-Modernity, we are no longer arguing (in apologetic fashion) the existence of God, we are discussing the nature of God.
  - It may be a fundamental understanding of the difference between whether or not God is a God of wrath, or a God of love?
  - The concept of right and wrong, or sin, are in context of “since there is a Spiritual reality what does and doesn’t describe sin, or moral verses immoral actions?”
  - And the question is not so much: “Is homosexuality a sin?” but rather “What does God do and think about the homosexual person?”
  - My answer is three-fold:
    - Jesus loves everyone so much he died for all, including me AND people with same-sex attractions (notice the name change).
    - Sin is either and both (at different times) a result of the fall (brokenness) and deliberate choices for disobedience.
    - Given the stigma and pain involved, I don’t believe that a person would choose a same-sex attraction as an act of rebellion toward God. (In that case, I would describe their “sin” as “brokenness.”) I can imagine a sinful choice to be bi-sexual as an act of rebellion, or a purely hedonistic desire for pleasure. In that case, I would call the action sin. Note: Brokenness is not God’s ideal or desire for humanity, it is a result of the fall.
  - To be clear, in my post-modern understanding of where the Holy Spirit is leading evangelicals like me, in most cases, same-sex attraction does not make one an unbeliever –you understand the difference being either a direct act of rebellion (sin/hedonism) or a result of brokenness (same-sex attraction).
  - Those who have same-sex attractions are loved even more by God, because He knows their hearts.
  - Evangelism is now relational instead of propositional, and the Holy Spirit is blessing those who do relational evangelism, it works according to His plan.
  - (I believe the only people arguing the question of whether or not homosexuality is sin are the people who are still addressing and reacting to evangelism from the mindset of the culture of modernity. But we are now in a culture of post-modernity.)
Does sin exist?
- I believe the answer, in both Modernity and Post-Modernity is very similar, with maybe a “lesser state of sin” (brokenness) in Christian Post-Modernism.
- In the debate over Homosexuality, the real question, and the reason why it is such an inflammatory issue is because it is a culture war between the concept of the inherent evil inside all of us, or the inherent good in all of us.
- Modernity’s answer to “inherited and corrupt sinful nature” was Secular Humanism. In that concept the more a society progresses, it will have greater ability to address social problems and bring out the good in everyone.
- However, most of Secular Post-Modernity seems to have accepted this Secular Humanism dogma as a working principle (probably because that question really hasn’t been discussed yet). It is a principle that is contrary to atonement theology.
- The debate has been going in Western theater.
  - The iconography of science fiction movies seems to support both future scenarios. Contrast Star Trek (Secular Humanism) with Avatar (an inherited corrupt human nature). The narratives are polar opposites. The pre-industrial Native Americans lived in harmony with the world as they do in Avatar and the industrialized society refused to allow their moral compasses to mitigate their use of power. Essentially, if they can do it, then it it must be moral. This is the aspect of Social Darwinism that threw New Testament morality under the bus. Sadly, in Civil Christianity, when Christianity is the “in power” religion, the question of whether we can, or whether we should is asked less often, or asked only in the areas that justify ourselves. (I.E. Slavery, US border policy, the use of Nuclear weapons, the plight of Native Americans…)
  - This is contrasted with Star Trek’s invention of a WARP drive that ushered in an age of human prosperity that seemed to perfect us. Every civilization they visited that was less advanced had worse moral ethics and every civilization that was more advanced had better moral ethics.
  - Of course, Avatar leaves out the Christophanys of ET, Cool Hand Luke, and Braveheart where the protagonist is crucified and comes back to life in one form or another.
  - Star wars has a personal redemption theme without the atonement. Its perspective isn’t Christian, it is actually Wiccan in the way Vader redeems himself.
- That brings us to atonement theology.
- We cannot forgo the importance of the cross (the last three days of Jesus’ incarnation) and we cannot forgo the importance of Jesus’ teachings (the first three years of Jesus’ teaching). BOTH are equally important. John 17:4, Jesus prays “I have accomplished the work you sent me to do…” This is before the cross. Jesus, as God’s representative finished the imperative of His teaching. But then, as the representative of Humanity, He became the sacrifice for our sins.
- Because of the questions: “does God exist?” and “is there such a thing as sin?” Christian Modernity focused mainly on the last 3 days of Christ’s mission on earth.
- The culture of Post-Modernism sees the inequitable balance in Jesus ministry and begs the question: “Is the Church genuine and authentically following Jesus?” Many rejected Christianity, but not Jesus, or at least the idea of Jesus.
- So, in Christian Post Modernity, the narrative of atonement hasn’t changed, but the narrative of Jesus’ life on earth as the representative of God, His passion for justice, love, mercy and compassion has been added. Praise God! It is a step away from Civil religion into NT Christianity.
- Peter Gomes, in his book “The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus” describes, in the eight chapter, what I call the “neo-social justice gospel.” During the height of modernity, Christians were either into social justice (the first 3 years) or saving souls (the last 3 days), but now, Gomes himself holds to the gospel of Jesus that includes social justice and personal salvation.
So, from this perspective of Post-Modern Christianity, is Homosexuality a sin?
- Yes and no. (And I am not waffling on the fence).
- Same sex attraction is not a choice made as an act of rebellion against God, therefore it doesn’t fall into the category of “not loving God with all our heart, and not loving our neighbor as ourselves.” In the case of the deliberate choice to go against heterosexual attraction, then yes it is a sin.
- What about same-sex attractions? Are they a sin? No –not in the concept of rebellion against God. But it is brokenness. It is less than God’s ideal. But for those who have it, and didn’t want it, it isn’t sin to them. It is similar to my diabetes. I didn’t choose it, but it is less than God’s design. Does that mean that Homosexuals are diseased? Not quite. I wince at the pejorative implication in my metaphor, but I just don’t have a good metaphor except the brokenness of the fall. (Help me, please!) Except maybe in the concept of cancer (which is not a sin). Cancer is excessive production of the wrong kind of cell. Cancer is amoral. But the point is, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, ulcers, skin problems and even obesity are all a result of the fall AND THEY AFFECT BELIEVERS AND UNBELIEVERS ALIKE.
So, how do we answer the question is homosexuality a sin?
- To the Secular Modernist and Post-Modernist: “I am a sinner. H, if you want to, you may call it sin. But in this context I will call it part of the universal brokenness. It is no less or no more than my brokenness and sin. I need a Savior. Jesus loves H as much, if not more, than He loves me.” (Because He is specially tuned to the outcast and marginalized in society.)
- To the Modern and Post-Modern homosexual: Jesus loves you and wants you in His family. He is the one who will walk with you either in, or out, of your lifestyle. It starts with Christ.
- To the Christian Modernist: “I am going to deal with people who have same sex attractions exactly the way Jesus did, I am going to treat them as a neighbor.” When they press me for a definitive answer on whether or not they are sinners, I will walk away. (Because, in my view, it is the propositions of modernity clubbing one another and that has proven to be ineffective.)
- To the post-modern Christian: “Open your arms and invite them into the family of God; enjoy their presence in this great adventure!”
- To the Homosexual Christian Post-modernist: “what can I learn from that will help me on my own journey?”
- To the Homosexual Secular Modernist: “I am sorry for the way you have been marginalized, I hope you can see in me, the Jesus that loves you and accepts you just the way you are.”
Taking a Stand –how the propositions of modernity failed (and are still crippling our forward progress). I alluded to this in the introduction:
- Because Modernity was a propositional argument about the nature, source and even existence of absolute truth (Secular Post Modernity is still wrestling with that), both sides did well in delivering their propositions. And every proposition was a reaction to the other side and the propositions became more and more insular and divisive.
- Today, the pro-H groups are doing a very good job of making it a relational issue and are moving away from the propositional arguments. They are making people think about whether or not God loves the H.
- The worse part of this, is that in Christian Modernity, verses all three other categories (Secular Modernity, Christian PO-MO, Secular PO-MO) the propositions became so important they were “an end unto themselves.”
  - The preacher, church, or denomination that had the stronger stand against “equated themselves to be more righteous than others.”
  - So, denominations divided, argued over forms of baptism, tongues, versions of translation, eternal security, and etc. All of this was to prove to God they were faithful.
  - It became a sort of Christian competition, and the secular world laughed, ridiculed and worse, ignored the Church as irrelevant.
  - In fighting Modernity, we fought amongst ourselves in order to prove something to somebody (who?).
  - We fell victim to our own significance and lost our seat at the table in Modern World view.
  - I believe that since the last election, provocateurs have resurged some of that old debate in order to manipulate POLITICS with fear and rhetoric. How sad. The more this goes on, the more we all will be marginalized.
  - I believe this is the biggest reason why youth are leaving the Church.
What about the fact that Jesus didn’t mention H?
- The Modernity debate has used that as one of its clubbing points.
- One side says: “Since Jesus didn’t mention it, is must be okay.”
- The other side says, “Of course He did: `A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife…’” as a proposition for hetero relations only. And then, of course, there is Sodom and Gomorrah, Romans 1 (a result of judgment, not the cause as Conservative Christian Modernists claim –same with Sodom and Gomorrah, Ezekiel 16:49-50).
  - The argument from Conservative Christian Modernity –that God will judge us for allowing the gay agenda- has it backward.
  - Materialism and Consumerism are the sins, and terminal sexual deviations (which results in the failure of a society to reproduce and survive) is the judgment.
  - And again, I am not saying that H people are under a special and worse curse. They share with everyone in the broken nature of this world. And I believe this: “At the point of our brokenness, the place where we are the most afraid that Jesus would appear, is exactly the place that He loves us the most.” We are saved by grace.
  - So, the “gay agenda” rhetoric published by the religious right is merely the work of provocateurs who exploit our fear in order to raise funds for their “righteous defenses” of God. It isn’t a slippery slope to perdition, it is grain elevator pumping more and more money onto their piles of gold.
  - When Jesus didn’t mention it, it wasn’t because He was endorsing brokenness. No. Jesus didn’t mention it because it wasn’t important enough to fight over.
  - He was soon to provide the atoning sacrifice to restore the broken to Him.
  - Jesus was and still is about redemption, restoration, healing, and reconciliation between God, man and each other.
- Then there is the whole imperialism, kingdom to come instead of the Kingdom here and now issue.
  - Post-Modernity distrusts “in power” faiths because of the way they have achieved and maintain control.
  - That is why Nihilism is emerging.
  - Nihilism is a reaction to the abuse of authority. It is: disestablishmentarianism taken to the up to the level of politics and national leadership.
  - Post-modernity perceives (whether or not it is true is still a debate, the perception is real to those who hold it) an historical connection between religion and the abuse of power. I suppose in the Christian context, it began with Constantine and his refusal to allow his sword arm be baptized when he “converted.”
  - He believed that his religion gave him the power to subdue others, after all they were/are merely pagans whose destiny is perdition.
  - I think the controversy right now about the “Ground Zero Mosque”, and the systemic perceptions behind 9/11 –right or wrong- indicate the fallacy of having a civil religion (like American Evangelical Christianity, or the theocratic nature of some of the more radical Muslim countries).
  - How does this relate to the H question?
  - If we are allowed to marginalize the H people, then we can also marginalize and abuse “the other” -anyone who isn’t like us.
  - Post-Modernity wonders if Christian endorsement (from the beginning of the slave trade to the election of President of Obama and beyond…) of racism and the current increasing-in-popularity evil Christian Identity movement is any different from the reaction to the gay agenda? Without the framework of scripture, it appears to them to be the same imperialistic viewpoints.
  - And here is the worse part about it: Taking a stand against the SIN OF OTHERS to prove your righteousness while you allow suffering, injustice, marginalization of others is a far cry from the righteousness that Jesus described by “taking up your cross and following Him.”
  - “Taking a stand against” is a sacrifice that costs us little in comparison to taking up our cross. In the mega-church hysteria and manipulation for profit by the national Christian media, that “supposed sacrifice” is actually a benefit because it gains the applause of others in the Church and increases the coiffures by creating an enemy out there. In essence it is no different than Goebbels demonizing the Jewish race in order to garner support for National Socialism.
  - It is not a real sacrifice- not while believers continue a life of over-consumption and going to church to get a commodity instead of taking up our crosses to follow Christ. Remember, that was the downfall of Sodom and Gomorrah.”

So, if you ask me “is H a sin?” My response is “why do you ask?”

That is nor a pejorative response. If you truly want to know how I think the Holy Spirit is leading the church in its reaction to this debate, then praise God! I applaud your willingness to seek God instead of merely listening to the rhetoric. Search yourself and inform me as well. I don’t have all the answers.

However, if one wants to prove to himself or herself that I am either less or more biblical or spiritual than them in my ability to take a stand… …well, I won’t say it and I will repent for the temptation to think it, instead I will say in complete sincerity, without mockery: “God bless you.”

Phil Reynolds is an ordained minister in the Church of the Brethren. He considers himself Bible Believing and still identifies as an Evangelical, but has distanced himself from the American Evangelical movement because he perceives that it has become a Political entity, manipulated by provocateurs, that has exchanged New Testament Christianity for Western Civil religion.

I have two people who I have to apologize to because I realize that I have left you completely out of my categories. I just don’t know what to do with you yet. One is a good friend and I love her dearly: SQM: “You have taught me more than you can imagine. I deeply respect the sincerity by which you have achieved your world view. I am sorry I haven’t figured out a response to the Christian Post-modern who does not see the atonement as crucial to their faith. So, I ask you to forgive me for leaving you out of my categories. When I figure out how your integrity and sincerity fits into my narrow world-view, I’ll figure out a way to include you in the categories. Again, please forgive me.

And to another man, JWB: “I deeply respect your perspective. I have learned a lot from you. I see you as moving from Modernity to Post-Modernity in the way that you speak more of the human cost that the H controversy creates than the propositions that kept us all divided. I hope to someday visit with you and become your friend. I hope you know that I love you. Really. I just want to hug you, and figure out a way to get through this together.”

I mentioned Gomes Book: “The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus?” Gomes, an H person writes of what I call neo-social justice Christian. He decries the lines that separated the liberals from the conservatives in the age of modernity and sees a genuine revival taking place that is both Christocentric and also Just. It is a Kingdom here, and a Kingdom to come, enjoined together.

Technorati Tags: homosexuality,post modernity,modernity,imperiallism,post-modern christianity,pluralism,biblical authority,gay agenda

The Theology Of Libertarianism, OR “On The Origin of the Speci… …al Interests.”

2010-08-10T14:10:00.001-04:00

Last September NPR ran a tribute to Charles Darwin on the celebration of his 200th birthday. I greatly appreciate his work and the scientific nature of his studies. He was a brilliant man and I believe he was a non-biased scientist. He himself was amazed by the impact of his book “On the Origin of the Species.” It seems to me that he was just as surprised as others by his conclusions. I am not going to vilify him. He is a fact of history.

The tribute interested me as they described the levels of impact his publication had on British/Western culture. I read that Darwin was “reluctant to publish” because of the way he thought it would negatively influence the status quo of the Church/State relationship in England. The biggest surprise being that he was buried in Westminster Abbey, right next to Sir Isaac Newton. Three years before, when I saw that stone in Westminster Abbey, I wondered: “just why he would be buried here? Didn’t he offend the Church?” Apparently not. There was a hint to why in the NPR account as they showed how his theory of the survival of the fittest resonated with the British Culture on a subconscious level.

In my opinion, Westminster Abbey is not focused on worshipping the God of the Bible. Although, there is a recent addition directly above the Western Entrance (the primary entrance) of the abbey that has statues of 20th Century martyrs. One is not a Christian at all. One is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and one is a woman. Kudos for that! But that is not what the Abbey seems to be about. In my opinion, it is a tribute to, and and attempt at justifying, British Imperialism “in the name of Christ.” The oldest tomb is of King Edward. It dates back to the 11th Century. King Edward, The Confessor’s legacy was as a Saxon, displacing the indigenous population with brute force. To me, Westminster Abbey proclaims “The Doctrine of the Empire” not “the gospel of the Kingdom.” Luke 4:18-19 explains The good news of the Kingdom. They killed Jesus for preaching this message.

So, the tribute confirmed a suspicion that I had been researching since I went to Westminster Abbey. I contacted NPR and asked the question; “Did the concept of (Social) Darwinism resonate with the Imperialistic, Colonial mindset of the British Empire? Did it justify Imperialism?” (No answer).

In the 5th edition, Darwin changed the title of his work to: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured (sic) Races in the Struggle for Life.”

You know where that went. The title change tells it all. The Eugenics and Aryan propaganda of the Hitler regime was based on the concept of Social Darwinism, the concept that society also evolved. If you want to be truly alarmed, follow this link and the links at the end of it. You will see how the Aryan race ideology is resurfacing in the American so called white identity movement and its ties to Tea Party people. (But wait until after you finish this.) It will scare you as to where the current political rhetoric is heading.

To be fair, John Hoogland does discuss the evolution of altruism as a benefit from natural selection. But the fact is, it has never been played out in human society. Human society has almost always denigrated to the justification of the survival of the fittest. It is humanity in its worse context.

So, the theology behind Libertarianism is Social Darwinism. if you want to imagine how it plays out, read Robert Heinlein’s science fiction series. Read especially “Friday” and “The Cat who walks through walls.” Or, some more recent books from the Political Science Fiction genre: William Z. Williamson: Freehold. Libertarianism contradicts NT Christianity in the fact that it sides with the Pharisee who says to Jesus: And just who is my neighbor?” (The parable of the Good Samaritan.)

I posit this question to believers: How can we reject NT Christianity in favor of a political system that justifies ignoring the plight of the poor? When Paul sought to reconcile his gospel to the Gentiles with the Gospel to the Jewish people, and the Jewish leaders of the Christian faith, didn’t they say only one important thing: “Remember the poor.” Libertarianism believes that the free market will always correct itself. (Of course, it has no explanation for slavery, the need for unions, child labor laws etc.) The free market cannot be trusted. The free market creates Oligarchies and Monopolies that control the supply and demand of a society. Just look at the $5 per gallon gas prices in 2008 and Sub-prime mortgages scandals (I know they say the Democrats forced them to lend to the poor –there is a clinical term for that).

The fact is, we need a government big enough to protect us from special interests whose conscience is “if it is good for me, then it is good, regardless of how it affects others.” I love the principles of business given in Proverbs. You can sum it up in one statement: “Just business practices must be a “win-win” for both parties.

Competition in the market place does drive us to excel. But when competition is designed to destroy the other, it is harmful. Let business compete ethically by doing good, by doing better, by improving product, not by figuring out ways to control the market for ourselves or harm the competition, the poor, the planet, the third world and the infidels.

To end this rant. Isn’t it ironic that the Conservative right, citing the Christian religion, uses Darwin to justify their politics? Isn’t it sad that these politics are so unlike the teachings of Christ?

People who love me dearly are concerned that I am leaving Christ behind in my advocacy on behalf of the poor. I want to remind everyone that Jesus spent 3 days redeeming humanity so that they can be reconciled back into God’s family and 3 years teaching the religious folk to be kind to the poor and marginalized. Which is more important to Jesus? Neither. The good news must include both. Remember, Jesus gave His life as the atoning sacrifice for our sins, but THEY TOOK HIS LIFE to silence Him because He confronted their abuse of the poor.

So ask yourself: Do you believe in the Good News (Gospel) of the Kingdom of God, or do you believe in the Doctrine of the Empire?

Come Holy Spirit

2010-05-25T11:41:00.001-04:00

Praise God for Pentecost, the birthday of the Church. Several people have commented and questioned me about what a genuine move of the Holy Spirit looks like. Thank you!

One man told me that before the Vietnam war ended, he went with Pastor Liechty to Virginia to join in a circle of prayer around the Pentagon to pray for peace. He told me that when he came back here to Bear Creek, he felt a very strong urge to write Senator John Glenn to help stop the war. He said, “I am no writer; I am very shy, but I felt something stirring inside me when I wrote that letter and the end result was something much more than what I have the ability to do myself.”

Senator Glenn personally responded to his letter, told him he was moved by what he read and secured a three day moratorium on the war. Jesus told us that if we speak to a mountain, it will be cast into the sea. This brother, from right here at Bear Creek was moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke truth to power, and God did a miracle. God touched the heart of the Senator. With God all things are possible.

I know that this man’s story is one of many from here in this church. The interesting thing is, this man really wants to be incognito about what God lead him to do. Why? Because it isn’t about his ability to hear from God, it’s about God bringing glory to Jesus by sending His Holy Spirit into him. I like that approach.

My mom and I were talking about revival yesterday. God is leading her to pray for it. She asked me: “What do you think needs to happen to have revival?” My answer was simple, “God has to do it.” The questions: Is it a result of a lot of prayer? Is it a result of faithfulness of the people? Is it a result of our self-sacrifice? Is it a result of forgiveness? Is it a result of our humility? Is it a result of our repentance? Those are all good questions, and I think I can point to an historical revival somewhere when one or several of those actions by the church community were involved in the revival.

But, all of those actions are the result of revival, not the cause. The cause is God. Revival is about God, not about us. I say this: “Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of faithful and kindle in us the fire of your love. Send your Spirit and we shall be created and you shall renew the face of the earth.”

Come Holy Spirit.

2010-03-28T08:45:00.004-04:00

An Open Letter to Glenn Beck about Jim Wallis.

2010-03-24T15:30:00.002-04:00

Beck's perversion of truth has tried to distort the meaning of what Social Justice. He is trying to imply that it means Marxism. Marxism is Godless Socialism. Socialism is not illegal, immoral or even unconstitutional. It is even partly Biblical. Acts 4 gives the description of an early Christian commune. But, I don’t think a purely socialistic society could work. Even the Early Christian commune had its own problems with the human sin of greed. It probably will never work this side of heaven. Jim Wallis, me and Social Justice Christians are not advocating socialism. The Bible is full of passages exalting the need and necessity and rewards for hard industrious work. The claim that we believe in “forced redistribution of the wealth” is a lie. But, forced redistribution of the wealth every 50 years itself is in itself a Biblical concept Leviticus 25:8-55. Beck’s claims are merely inflammatory distortions of the truth. Wallis has been asking him to have a public forum for a long time now. All Beck wants to do is yell.

Many sincere believers who are trying to sort out this issue say that social justice is the responsibility of the Church, not the government. I agree with the ethos behind that statement. I will even take that farther: The third century Church abdicated that responsibility to the government when the the Emperor Constantine, “got saved.” Until that time, 95% to %100% of the tithe went to the poor. Look at this link. That is one of the biggest reasons why Christianity grew so fast in those early centuries. Outsiders saw the sincere and sacrificial love of believers and converted to a faith that proved itself to be truly just.

But when Constantine had his conversion experience, he funded the Church, and then the Government indirectly funded Social Welfare. Unfortunately that has been the SOP handed down to the Church ever since. It got worse: the Church became wealthy and the means to political power, so it attracted less than sincere converts. With the wealth, and the way the government took over the welfare, believers were more and more isolated from the poor and their early roots. As the wealth of society grew, Christians became more and more dependant on their wealth and much less willing to share it. The cycle goes on. People accuse the poor of being lazy, and some are, but if one goes to an impoverished nation, or even the poor in the US and most of the time they will find, in the poor, the most generous people they ever met. They share an empathetic bond. I have witnessed it many times. Their generosity puts me to shame. We need to break that cycle.

So, the sincere believers who are trying to sort out what is right in this debate realize the mistake made by the State Church. They do not want to encourage sloth, but at the same time, their hearts have genuine compassion. So, the kindest statement made by those who oppose Social Justice Christians is that it should have been done by the Church. I agree that Social Welfare is the responsibility of the Church. The earlier link gives us an action plan for making that happen.

But it grieves me that too many believers have expressed nothing less than hatred toward the President that God gave us. Glenn Beck is dead wrong and is trying to confuse the issue. So, in order to take away his dishonest representation, we will have to change our language for a moment to help him see. let me break it down into two categories. Social WELFARE is the blessing of ministry that God lets the Church do. Social JUSTICE is mandated by God for the government to enact. Christians have responsibility in both arenas. (For those following me on Facebook, I started this week saying that Social Justice is the responsibility of the Church. But that was BBIR {Before Beck’s Ignorant Remarks}. I expect you to understand why I had to break down the issue.)

I am not condoning laziness, just ask my children. According to Isaiah 58, Social welfare is to be enacted by believers without the accusations of sloth, embezzlement, etc. But the arguments against health care reform that come to the front today, even from Christians, are primarily arguments about liberty, freedom, patriotism, the Constitution, and good ol' American resolve. These are noble things and I dearly hold those truths to be self evident, but they are second place to the teachings of Jesus. The bulk of the attacks against the Christian Social Justice position comes in the guise of Patriotic slogans.

On Thursday, March 11, I had the privilege of hearing Brother Jim Wallis at Cedarville College in Ohio. It was a debate between Rev. Wallis and Marvin Olasky the founder and Editor of World Magazine. The theme was: “A Critical Evaluation of Christian Responses to Poverty and Affluence.” Jim Wallis said: The Church should feed the poor, but the Church cannot build the levies.” I would add, the Church couldn't pass the laws that ended slavery. Among the student body, a fairly conservative Evangelical school, there were a few times that clapping broke out in support of one or the other. Most often, the clapping that broke out was in favor of Jim Wallis. It was supposed to be a "Biblical" debate. However, Marvin Olasky made a weak case for "trickle down" recovery (Isn't that what Bush41 called "Voodoo Economics?) based on Micah 6:8. His point was that the government was less than humble in its aspirations to help the poor and therefore violated the Spirit of "walking humbly." That, my friends is bad Hermeneutics. The rest of the substance of his arguments were patriotic sound-bites (one of those got the loudest and longest clap). Those sound bites implied that if you disagreed with him you were un-American and therefore, probably unchristian as well. All the while those “America is Great statements” were said, he ironically mixed them with the claim "you can't trust the government."

In my opinion, what little Scripture he used was out of context. His substance came from emotional sound-bites, some positive and some very negative. Of course, he can’t make a Biblical case against Social Justice; one simply cannot take Social Justice out of the Bible. Jim Wallis told us the story of how his study group at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois (one of the more conservative Seminaries in the nation) did an academic study of Biblical passages that referred to Social Justice, helping the poor, caring for the least of these and found at least 2,000 Biblical references.

I know that the extreme right's position states that in order for it to be Christian it must be voluntary, not compulsory. And the believers referred to in the first paragraph who think that it is "only the responsibility of the Church" are correct in the fact that the Church dropped the ball when Constantine "got saved" and Christian Social Welfare became a function of the State Church. (BTW, Christians Social Welfare by the State Church in England works very well. Jim Wallis' Spiritual advisorship to our President has mainly to do with ways that we can maintain constitutional freedoms and still support "faith based initiatives." Isn't it ironic that the Red Party, who decried the limitation of Faith Based initiatives during their won administration is now in effect lining up AGAINST THEM?)

Likewise, the church cannot pass the law to provide health care to the 30+ million Americans who do not have it. The government has responsibility for social justice, and it is Biblical. Look at this scripture about the greedy of King of Judah as Jeremiah compares him to his Father and talks about why God blessed his father: Jeremiah 22:15-16 "Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar? Did not your father have food and drink? He did what was right and just, so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" declares the LORD.

Christians, do you want to see revival? Then embrace God’s Word:

Amos 5:24 (The Message)

^21-24"I can't stand your religious meetings.
I'm fed up with your conferences and conventions.
I want nothing to do with your religion projects,
your pretentious slogans and goals.
I'm sick of your fund-raising schemes,
your public relations and image making.
I've had all I can take of your noisy ego-music.
When was the last time you sang to me?
Do you know what I want?
I want justice—oceans of it.
I want fairness—rivers of it.
That's what I want. That's all I want.

And:

Isaiah 58 (The Message)

Isaiah 58

Your Prayers Won't Get Off the Ground

^1-3 "Shout! A full-throated shout! Hold nothing back—a trumpet-blast shout!
Tell my people what's wrong with their lives,
face my family Jacob with their sins!
They're busy, busy, busy at worship,
and love studying all about me.
To all appearances they're a nation of right-living people—
law-abiding, God-honoring.
They ask me, 'What's the right thing to do?'
and love having me on their side.
But they also complain,
'Why do we fast and you don't look our way?
Why do we humble ourselves and you don't even notice?'
^3-5"Well, here's why:

"The bottom line on your 'fast days' is profit.
You drive your employees much too hard.
You fast, but at the same time you bicker and fight.
You fast, but you swing a mean fist.
The kind of fasting you do
won't get your prayers off the ground.
Do you think this is the kind of fast day I'm after:
a day to show off humility?
To put on a pious long face
and parade around solemnly in black?
Do you call that fasting,
a fast day that I, God, would like?

^6-9"This is the kind of fast day I'm after:
to break the chains of injustice,
get rid of exploitation in the workplace,
free the oppressed,
cancel debts.
What I'm interested in seeing you do is:
sharing your food with the hungry,
inviting the homeless poor into your homes,
putting clothes on the shivering ill-clad,
being available to your own families.
Do this and the lights will turn on,
and your lives will turn around at once.
Your righteousness will pave your way.
The God of glory will secure your passage.
Then when you pray, God will answer.
You'll call out for help and I'll say, 'Here I am.'

A Full Life in the Emptiest of Places

^9-12"If you get rid of unfair practices,
quit blaming victims,
quit gossiping about other people's sins,
If you are generous with the hungry
and start giving yourselves to the down-and-out,
Your lives will begin to glow in the darkness,
your shadowed lives will be bathed in sunlight.
I will always show you where to go.
I'll give you a full life in the emptiest of places—
firm muscles, strong bones.
You'll be like a well-watered garden,
a gurgling spring that never runs dry.
You'll use the old rubble of past lives to build anew,
rebuild the foundations from out of your past.
You'll be known as those who can fix anything,
restore old ruins, rebuild and renovate,
make the community livable again.

^13-14"If you watch your step on the Sabbath
and don't use my holy day for personal advantage,
If you treat the Sabbath as a day of joy,
God's holy day as a celebration,
If you honor it by refusing 'business as usual,'
making money, running here and there—
Then you'll be free to enjoy God!
Oh, I'll make you ride high and soar above it all.
I'll make you feast on the inheritance of your ancestor Jacob."
Yes! God says so!

Can’t we have a conversation?

2010-01-01T17:23:00.003-05:00

A facebook friend of mine, the president of the Republican Party Toastmaster club in Dayton Ohio posted on her facebook page and I responded. Not only is she an avid Republican, but like me, she is an avid Christian. On most days, she posts a “scripture of the day” reference that is always a blessing to me. However, one day she posted this on her wall and I responded with another scripture for her to consider. One fellow, a kind hearted individual named Greg showed that some people can have a conversation, but others cannot.

A man named Mark took me to task privately afterwards. So, I posted the initial wall dialogue and then posted his intercourse with me.

When we get to the place where I post the inbox messages, I did a spell check and cleaned up a couple of wrong words on my end (wrong words indicated with a bold, italic text in parenthesis). I started changing the way he spelled democrats, than then realized that he was intentionally leaving out the c.

Text of orignial wall post.

Deborah Mulholand OBAMA WATCH CENTRALPresident makes Top 10 list of corrupt politiciansBelieves he 'can violate privacy rights of Americans' without legal consequence
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=120407

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.wnd.com%252Findex.php%253Ffa%253DPAGE.view%2526pageId%253D120407&h=74e46a23c5af73f4ff095fee1d50172b&ref=mf

www.wnd.com

President Obama has been named to a Top 10 list he'd likely be grateful to avoid: Judicial Watch's Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians. The Obama White House believes, said the report from the organization that monitors government for corruption,

Wed at 8:17pm · Comment ·LikeUnlike · View Feedback (12)Hide Feedback (12) · Share

3 people like this.

Phil Reynolds

Scripture for the day: 1 Timothy 2:1-4, the good news is, as believers, we have the power to bless.

Wed at 8:49pm ·

Gregg Nicholl

Romans 1- and "God gave them over . . ." God's wrath of abandonment: a nation turns its back on God and God simply lets them go, reaping the natural consequences of their actions. Better go the 2 Chr. 7:14 route ASAP.

Wed at 10:10pm

Phil Reynolds

So, Romans 1 trumps 1 Tim 2:1-4 as if it isn't scripture? Or, does Romans 1 have to do with a lack of concern for the poor and the idolatry of materialism: Ezekiel 16:48-49? Maybe 2 Chr 7:14 has to do with GOD's people in relationship to Isaiah 58. Maybe that is how revival is won. Maybe the "giving over" from Romans 1 has to do with Leviticus 19:33-34 when God says "I will judge you for calling not calling "illegals" the term Jesus used: "Neighbors."

Wed at 11:12pm ·

Gregg Nicholl

Phil:
I was not responding to your Scripture quote but the text of the article posted by Deborah. I apologize if I have somehow offended you.
Romans Chapter 1, in my opinion, is the locus of control for the malaise we are experiencing in the present age. This is the root cause of our societal problems- a hardness of heart begotten from turning the back on God in a macro or national sense. I wasn't trying to "trump" your Scripture quote. I am not interested in playing "silly church games." Lord knows there have been way too many people who twist Scripture for their own aims. There have been way too many church folk who seek to assert their superiority in the church pecking order through the throwing out of Scripture quotes verbatim and using clever "Christian" catch phrases like bumper stickers for life in order to impress the bretheren And God knows how many people continue to use Scripture to cut the hearts out of their brothers and sisters. I am NOT that way and if I would ever drift into such nonsense, I would trust that someone would correct me, confront me, or hit me over the head with a ballbat. It is indeed sad and it is one of the many reasons that the contemporary American Church has had such a minimal impact upon the greater culture.... See More
Chronicles 7:14 was taken out of context. It specifically applies to ancient Israel. However, it does serve as a good example of what to do in these trying times. Humility and prayer are always good things. Additionally, It shows how God spared a nation that turned its back on Him in the past; a nation that had many years of kings that adopted the evil ways of the other nations. Granted, it was ancient Israel, God's chosen people, however,it shows how He responded in the past to a people that were His own. In New Covenant times, Christians would be considered as God's people. America was founded on Christian principles and (until recently) considered itself a "Christian nation". Hence, the illustration. God is immutable- He never changes.
Once again, Phil, I was not trying to respond to your Scripture quote, but only to the article as posted by Deborah. I am sorry if this has caused any offense to you or anyone else. It was certainly not my intention and, as stated before, I don't play games with the Word of God. I was merely attempting to illustrate a possible causation for the madness that has taken hold in this country. I am sorry and I do apologize for my comments.

Yesterday at 5:38am

Deborah Mulholand

Greg: I'm not sure what your ASAP was all about, but my purpose in posting is that the Obama Administration is pretending to be "Christian" but our dear Prez won't darken the door of a church and hangs out with his Muslim friends and loves reading Harry Potter books to his daughters more than reading from the Bible. Obama says that we're NOT a Christian nation any more. Oh, Really?????????????

Yesterday at 9:18am

Gregg Nicholl

ASAP? (As Soon As Possible?) I don't understand. I explained my initial posting above, along with an apology to all concerned. There was no offense meant. it was just a reaction to continued examples of what happens when a nation turns its back On God as we have done in the past. Corruption permeates every level of government. There is no ... See Moreshame either. Consider Mary Landrieu's comments (D-Louisiana) referencing the amount of money it took to buy her vote on healthcare, "It wasn't 150 million, it was 300 million." This, to me, exmplifies Romans 1. And, as I have repeated, I am sorry for causing offense. It just made sense to me. Thanks. Take care.

Yesterday at 2:05pm

Deborah Mulholand

Greg: I'm still confused about those "Bumper Stickers For Life"! I've always felt they were a proclamation of loyalty to those "least among us" who need our protection. Those who are proudly pro-life, are fellow believers I can trust and call my friends.

30 minutes ago

END of wall posts, now Mark Buse asks me a question in my inbox. At the beginning of the conversation, his picture was visible and there was always a “reply” button. But after his last post, he deleted any access by me to him, his picture disappeared and the reply button did not exist anymore.

I weep for our nation:

Mark BuseDecember 31, 2009 at 2:43am Report

' So, Romans 1 trumps 1 Tim 2:1-4 as if it isn't scripture? Or, does Romans 1 have to do with a lack of concern for the poor and the idolatry of materialism: Ezekiel 16:48-49? Maybe 2 Chronicles 7:14 has to do with GOD's people in relationship to Isaiah 58. Maybe that is how revival is won. Maybe the "giving over" from Romans 1 has to do with Leviticus 19:33-34 when God says "I will judge you for calling not calling "illegals" the term Jesus used: "Neighbors." '

So are you furious that the nation doesn't treat invading thieves better? Or is this a statement of judgment against all of the home nations that abused their poor so thoroughly that they came to America to escape conditions that are far worse?

Phil Reynolds December 31, 2009 at 10:00am

Mark,
God bless you.
I am a conservative theologian and a pastor. I try not to begin a dialogue with accusations of self-righteous and angry L******* or angry C***********. It kind of makes it hard to have a conversation. What this country needs is a conversation instead of rhetoric. If a kingdom is divided against itself, it cannot stand. It seems to me that the politicians are more interested in politics than in healing our nation. I would love to elaborate further, as long as we can have a conversation.
Having said that, I don't see any evil in the word liberal. Liberal means "generous" and conservative means "to conserve" or to "hang (hand) on to." Of course, the ability to be generous most often begins with wise financial decisions that conserve wealth by eliminating irresponsible spending. When I see the call of God on the life of Abraham (Genesis 12) I read a spiritual principle, that apparently you also agree with (from your response on Deb Mulholland's page), that principle is that God blessed Abraham for the express purpose that he could be a blessing to others. I believe that principle is what you are saying when you say that we need to build up other nations so that people aren't so desperate to flee here. If we can do that, then we can eliminate a brain drain on the resources of those other nations.
I pause at your question "are you furious....?" I hadn't thought about it that way, that I am the one who is furious. Generally, the way to tell who is furious in a conversation has to do with their rhetoric, accusations or use of derogative or prerogative terms about the person they are taking with. Sometimes, I consider that debate tactic -attacking the character of those we disagree with- as an admission of defeat.
But, you are right, I am angry with the way the conversation has become to mean-spirited. I am angry that the name calling isn't going to move us from point a to point b. I believe there are sincere, honest thinkers on either side of the debate. If we, people like you and I, can model a respectful conversation, then perhaps that attitude will spread like leaven in a loaf of bread. It seems to me that our politicians are not interested in healing the land and it is up to us to start a grass roots conversation that will lead the way.
My comment on Deb's post was a reaction to the link. A knee jerk reaction and I am sorry for that. I do not know if you consider yourself a believer in Jesus Christ or not, but I know that Deb makes it clear that she has a deep and abiding faith. She deliberately represents Christianity on her facebook page. And, I was showing her from scripture that Christians are called to bless, and pray for, their government. God made it clear to Daniel and the Babylonian kings that God is the one who sets governments in power. If we represent Christ, then we need to reflect a biblical response over a political/national response.
I mentioned that I am a conservative theologian, and that means that my first allegiance is to the Kingdom of God. I am patriotic and I love the USA. But I am first and foremost a citizen of God's Kingdom and that Kingdom knows no national borders.
So, I believe, and this is just my opinion and faith, I am not asking you to adopt it for yourself. But I believe that although the nations that exploit their poor are reprehensible for their actions, their actions do not preclude us from obeying the scriptures. I believe the command in Leviticus 19:33-34 is a standard by which God will judge a nation as either righteous or evil. I believe that our national/political/financial interests do not take precedence over clear commands in scripture. I believe that our restrictive border policies are in direct violation of God's commandments for a just society and that by ignoring them, we place ourselves in a position to lose the blessing of God. I am not asking you to believe what I believe.
So, yes I am angry. I am also angry that both political parties are beating each other over the head with scriptures and obfuscating the (that) conversation that will heal our land. I am angry that Christianity is suborned by politics on both sides of the issue. And I am on a mission to ask people to have respectful conversations with each other instead of name calling.
I believe in the sincerity and integrity of those who disagree with me and I hope they can believe in the sincerity of my beliefs as well.
Mark, we can change the world.
Phil Reynolds

Mark BuseDecember 31, 2009 at 3:54pm Report

We can change the world as faithful witnesses to the Gospel. That includes an honest representation of what we support in the political aspects of life. I cannot believe that anyone can be a 'conservative' from a theological standpoint and in any way approve the legion of evil constituencies and policies that are bundled together in the modern Dem party or its leader, Odrama.
While I hope that every Christian prays for evil actors in politics every day, it is not our job to publicly bless their evil policies or behavior.
For example, I believe that it's quite proper and correct to pray openly for the salvation of BHO, Pelosi, etc, that they might turn from their destructive and damning evil.

Mark BuseDecember 31, 2009 at 3:59pm Report

The example of Daniel AND Esther are excellent ones to use in this context. While Daniel was properly respectful toward the despot Nebecudnezzar, he was NOT blindly obedient to his evil policies. In fact, the Lord turned the evil despot to Himself and I believe eventually to salvation because faithful believers did take a defiant stand against overtly EVIL policies and commands. That behavior was repeated by the Apostolic Church and the Lord Himself in their defiance of the evil Jewish leadership of their day. That continued throughout Church history as righteous believers defied wicked leaders and paid with their lives as martyrs.
And did Esther BLESS 'that vile Haman' and did her uncle bow to that vile man as protocol demanded?? Certainly not.

Mark BuseDecember 31, 2009 at 4:00pm Report

So I repeat, are you one who votes by proxy for the mass-murder of abortion through the one political party and its truly evil leadership the keeps that form of murder common, profitable, and legal?

Phil Reynolds December 31, 2009 at 4:56pm

Mark,
Again, God bless you in the name of Jesus. Can I assume that your statement "being witnesses of the gospel" and knowledge of the OT minor prophets means that you too are a follower of Christ Jesus?
The short answer to your question is: I vote according to the principles revealed to us by God in the book we commonly refer to as "the Bible." I vote the Bible and I take its morals, values and definitions of righteous and just activity as a standard whereby I vote my politics. I believe that the creation of the US constitution is a miracle given to us by the same God of the Christian faith. Although it is not scripture, it seems to have had divine help in its construction. It is a gift from God. I do not vote political party lines. I don't bite "hook, line and sinker" the claims of either political party. And again, I am disgusted at the childish level of rhetoric perpetrated by people who call themselves Christians. It is as if those people are still saying: "Lord, is this the time you are going to restore the kingdom of Israel?" Jesus made it clear, the Kingdom of God is in the hearts of men and women and transcends national borders. It seemed to me that He was frustrated with the fact that the apostles didn't "Get it" when He kept telling them that politics is not the answer to the world, He is.
Now the long answer. I marched in the "right to life march" in January of 1981. It was 18 degrees below zero when we started the march. I came across a Southern Baptist pastor who was a friend of my twin brother. I was studying at Bible College in preparation for pastoral ministry and wanted to make a good impression on every preacher I met since I could gain advice, help, mentoring and insights into my calling by cultivating those relationships. In other words, I was listening instead of speaking. The preacher said something to me near the end of the route. He said: "I wonder where all the black people are? Why aren't they concerned about stopping abortion?"
I found his question odd. I found his question to be racially biased in an unchristian way. I remember thinking "why notice? Why single out this other race as being less since they didn't join our cause?" But, I took his question to heart and investigated the reason why the defeat of abortion was not as important to the African American community AT THE TIME as it was to the Caucasian American community. My investigation lead me to this answer: "While we were wondering where they were during the right to life marches, they were wondering where we were during the civil rights marches." I am sure there are many other reasons, but the consensus of my investigation is that this was the primary reason.
The same passion that the American Evangelical Christian Community of which I am a part of that has fueled our passion against abortion also fuels my passion for human rights in every area. I believe that access to health care is an human rights concern. I believe that compassion toward our neighbors who are at worse called "illegals" and at best called: "undocumented residents" should extend to the words of Jesus and we should call them: "neighbor." Remember, the Pharisee "wishing to justify himself" asked Jesus: "who is my neighbor?" And Jesus launched the story of the good Samaritan. What would Jesus call the undocumented resident? Would He call them anything less than "neighbor?" So, I vote the bible. There is a lot more to being just, caring and loving toward our fellow man than stopping abortion.

Phil Reynolds December 31, 2009 at 5:29pm

We have a favorable court, and unless something drastic happens, Obama's presidency will not change that court. I remember my Republican vote for Reagan in order to get a favorable court and he gave us Suiter. The party line vote did not stop it. Abortion will not stop by legislation, it will stop by revival. We need the 2 Chronicles 7:14 promises to come true and it starts by the believers being HUMBLE. This spite filled rhetoric is certainly not reflective of the humble nature of Jesus.
I appreciate you picking up on the Daniel prophesy and strong stands against evil and for righteousness. Remember when Daniel interpreted Nebachanezzar's dream? God is judging the tyrant because of his arrogance and unwillingness to acknowledge God's sovereignty over all nations. So, Daniel tells him to repent and perhaps God will stay His hand of judgment. What does he say repentance looks like? He says, "stop sinning by making sure the poor get justice." Daniel says nothing about his idolatry, his drunken (drunker) party, his huge harem, etc. He tells him this: repentance is making sure human rights are not violated. Haman wanted to violate the human rights of the alien (Jews) living in the land.
John the Baptist says the same thing. He criticizes the people who are coming to get baptized because they want to look righteous, religious and good. He tells them that they have no intention of repenting and that if they don't: "The axe is laid at the trees..." So, some of them hear and are convicted and decide to genuine repentance and they ask John, "What does repentance look like?" John says: "if you have two coats, give one to someone who has none. If you have extra food, share it with the hungry." John said nothing about taking a stand against socialism, big government. As a matter of fact, in today's current political climate, John's answer would probably be criticized because "it smacks of socialism and that is un-American (unamerican)."
Listen, God gave Sodom and Gomorrah over to their perverted pleasures because they "were proud, arrogant, had a lack of concern for the poor and were lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God." (Ezekiel 16:48) God judged them twice. The first time, He gave them over to their perversions (proven as a method of judgment by God on a culture in Romans 1) and the second judgment, because they didn't repent when He exposed their materialism was the hellfire and brimstone. God judged Abhimilech when he took Sarah as his wife when Abraham lied. God kept all the women in the land from getting pregnant. Terminal sexual deviations -the lack of a culture to reproduce- is the judgment of God on a culture. Abortion is not the reason we will be judged, it is God's judgment. And the repentance must start in the house of God. The whole 2 Chronicles 7:14 ASAP comment is true. But, the repentance that God calls for is one of justice for everyone. Justice for our "neighbors" who flee to this land in ORDER TO LIVE. Justice for the marginalized cultures who live within our land, justice for those who cannot get healthcare, justice for those who do not have the chance to get a viable education. "With liberty, freedom and Justice FOR ALL"
Final question: Isn't the debate between "big government" vs. "small government" actually a debate between restrained vs unrestrained capitalism? Hasn't this debate gone on since Hamilton and Jefferson dialogued back and forth? Couldn't we have the same civil discourse instead of all this mean-spirited rhetoric?
Mark, you can I can change the world.
Phil

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:34am Report

The debate is between voluntary relationships, including the economic ones, among the people working together Under God, or an authoritarian state worshiped by the people in idolatry, as the Lord condemned roundly at the time of Samuel as a sign that the people had rejected HIM.
In that sense, all statist-minded liberals, who worship the power and fantasy benevolence of an all-consuming state have rejected God's way most thoroughly.
In a sense, you use 'capitalism' as an epithet and curse against the free will that is the Lord's gift.
Generally, I like the way you have discussed Scripture, but you also read a wrong conclusion from Daniel. Remember how in the narrative, Daniel himself sternly lectures Nebecudnezzar's son/successor for failing to turn from evil and acknowledge the Lord as his predecessor/father had done. The Lord had provided that wicked leader a representation of His very hand to write out his condemnation on the wall. In a sense, what many Christians are doing is calling out to our present vile, anti-God leadership that the 'hand-writing is on the wall' and we shall bring down their vile governance using our higher law of the constitution.
Your proposition that we are in rebellion against God-ordained government is dead wrong because we are the ones following the highest God-ordained law for our nation, our Constitution. We are condemning the vile usurpers who trample that Constitution no less than when the evil King Ahab and Queen Jezebel trampled God's Law and murdered God's prophets.
Abortion is not the Lord's Judgment that we have not been socialistic or communistic enough, because those of us who are neither are the ones who are personally generous in helping the poor and needy as the liberals, and especially liberal Dem constituencies are not.
Illegal aliens are not the same as legitimate foreign guests within a nation, who are to be treated as equals. They made a decision, usually an entirely selfish one on which their lives did not depend, to steal access to a nation against God's ordained government for both our nation and their nation of origin. What you are advocating is that it's ok to flaunt the law because you want MORE for your life whether it's legal or not. You turn morality on its head.
So I ask you again, are you voting for the mass-murder of abortion? You claim that Reagan gave us Suiter when he did not. That was Bush41, who was deceived into that mistake. What we get instead from Democrats is a hard-line pro-abortion litmus test for their appointees, and the most vicious attacks on good men like Thomas who made it through their evil torture, and Bork, who did not. Had Democrats not been so vicious, the Federal mandate for abortion would have ended long, long ago.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:38am Report

Notions of "social justice" the modern leftist code-word for economic equalization, can NEVER trump mass-murder, even if it were true that one party was thwarting economic justice---in which case it would be the Dems who are systematically GUILTY of that crime. Their endless abuse of generous business people, their endless demonizing lies against every successful person and venture are an abomination before the Lord who provided those blessings. They are the party of Coveting everything, stealing from others, lying as they claim to be benefactors, and murders of the unborn. No Christian should have anything to do with such systematic evil.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:45am Report

The Lord's kingdom is indeed always coming; let it come through His people rather than in spite of them.
Since we have to make real choices, I choose Conservatives for now since they are far more inclined toward the Lord and His kingdom than the other side.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:52am Report

Luke 22:24-28
24Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
This is such a direct REBUKE to those who attempt to RULE over others as false benefactors.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:55am Report

And this passage from Mark 10 (also in Luke)
The Rich Young Man/Ruler
17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’d”
20“Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
21Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
I've never met a poor redistributionist Demorat politician. They are all the worst kind of greedy, hypocritical, self-enriching LIARS while ripping the righteous people of our society as 'extreme'. We have had enough of their evil.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 5:05am Report

I don't believe that our views are reconcilable because your sect seems to have heretically chopped out major sections of the OT and Revelation parts of Scripture to come up with a generalized 'anti-war' philosophy that is premature at best.
Only with the new Heaven and Earth, when evil and death have been destroyed shall there be total peace.
Until then, anti-war means lying down for despotism, a vile repudiation of the role that the Lord has provided for government to protect its citizens.

Phil Reynolds January 1 at 9:46am

Mark, again, God bless you.
After 9/11, I found an Inman (Imman) who was willing to respond to people who might be interested in the Islamic faith. After several discourses I asked him: "What would it take for there to be peace between Israel and the Arabs?"
He answered: "They kill our children, they steal our homes, they bomb our cities. There can never be a peace until we destroy them completely."
I posited back to him: "Consider this scenario, Jesus was hanging on a cross looking at the men who murdered Him and said, `Father forgive them, they don't know what they are doing?'" Sooner or later, one side is going to have to be the bigger person and seek a means for peace and a respectful dialogue because during the process, too many innocents will be destroyed.
What is it about Jesus nature, His command to turn the other cheek, His passion for the poor, His statement that a kingdom divided itself cannot stand, His command to bless those who curse us -to bless and curse not-, to treat people the way you want to be treated instead of the way you have been spitefully treated, and His nature conveyed to Peter who tells us to try to convince other people "with gentleness and respect" that so called Christians like you don't see? Do you really think this hard line of stopping everything the other political party does, twisting the Word of God by implying things like undocumented residents are not our neighbors, and obfuscating the truth of God's word by implying the US constitution is more important than God's Holy Word is acting in Christian love?
Mark, if you and I could have a conversation, then there is hope. We could change the world.
Phil

Phil Reynolds January 1 at 12:38pm

God bless you, Mark.
I am using the question of undocumented residents as a metaphor for our "Christian" nation but there are many other issues we could use as well.
You imply that our constitution implies that undocumented residents are "illegals." I am saying that the Bible calls them neighbor. You say, the US constitution is the highest authority in our country. And I agree. However, the Bible is the highest authority for me and if we are going to call ourselves a Christian nation, then we cannot pick and choose those passages that Augustine used to justify Roman imperialism. We need to accept and live by the whole council of scripture.
I have not tried to change your politics in this debate, I have only asked you and others like you, who name Christ as Savior to conduct yourselves in a manner that honors the Savior. I mentioned that I although I am a patriotic US citizen who believes in the good that we can do, I am first and foremost a member and citizen of the Kingdom of God. The apostles asked the question: "Should we obey God or man's laws?" I believe that I have a purpose and that is to help this nation get back into favor with God so that abortion, pornography and other terminal sexual deviations will be removed and the proof of our excessive materialism will stop.
Mark, we need the dialectical discourse to keep ourselves in balance. There is no reason why we as Christians cannot do it in a Christian manner?
Do you agree? Can a conversation help us to heal the land or is the only solution the elimination of one political party over the other? Where would America be if Jefferson AND Hamilton hadn't carried on a respectful discourse and shaped our values? Why can't we do the same?
Mark, We, you and I, can change this world.
Phil

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 2:36pm Report

As I mentioned before, you are so steeped in your heresy and folly that the best I can do for you and others like you is pray for you before you destroy our nation and tens of millions of other people around the world.

End of posts:

I guess a conversation is not possible with some. How sad.

How a Tattoo saved a man's life -From prison to freedom

2009-05-18T11:43:00.030-04:00

I spent last weekend in prison. I spent with a group of guys who I came to love like my own brothers. I served on the team of a prison ministry called KAIROS. In order to protect the life of the principal in this story, I cannot share who I was with or where I was.

We sat inside the chapel area in "family groups" at five different tables to discuss impressions on what is known as "a short course in Christianity." During some "down time" on Saturday, I asked if anyone wanted to explain the significance of any of their ink. A brother, who is serving a life sentence, quickly jumped in. His tattoo was a view of Christ on the cross. At the foot of the cross, he had a gang symbol for the gang he had been “representin’” since 1983. He told us: “My religion is ****** (his gang) but my faith is in Jesus.” Now the fact that this man was intelligent was obvious. He had a real gift for writing and he gave incredibly insightful summaries to our table discussion talks.

But this statement bothered me. How can he consider faith as something different from religion? When I asked him, he said: “religion is what you practice but faith is what you believe in.” I thought I understood his perspective, but for some reason the misuse of the words bothered me. And it isn't that I am that concerned about abuse of the English language (keep reading my blog, that will become obvious). Something didn't set right in my spirit. He said that even though his gang is known for violence, enslaving people to drugs, and coercive recruiting, originally they intended to be a positive group. His desire was to restore them to a positive perspective. That, he said, was why he had the tattoo of Jesus on the cross mixed in with his gang symbol. It was then that he then told us that he was trying to make his gang "way of life" an official religion so that he and his fellow gang-members can wear their colors, just like the Muslims wear the Kufe.

Gang colors would cause a powder keg to erupt on the prison campus. Sitting on my left were two Hispanics. As soon as this gang leader mentioned the name of his gang they withdrew and became quiet. The tension soared at the table. There are subtle power struggles going on in the prison beyond what we outsiders can easily see. I started praying!!! I remembered that the ethos of approach to the men in the prison during the weekend was to be: “Listen, Listen, Love, Love and never judge." So, I didn’t directly challenge his statement, but I questioned his use of words in order to help him consider that faith in Christ is a way of life.

I could hardly sleep that night. In the course of the conservation on Saturday, he told us that converting to Christianity would cost him his life. He told us that he would defend his fellow gang members to the death and that in the course of his defense; he had already been shot with 6 bullets on three different occasions. But the fact was: the Holy Spirit was calling him to Jesus. Joel, my table leader asked me to “step up” and be a little more direct. We all prayed about the situation, the fact of gang violence and the cost of discipleship.

God was calling him to Jesus. And for this man, that wasn't a simple call. God’s call reminded me of those early Jewish followers who died for their faith. It reminded me of the early Roman converts who were slaughtered in the arenas. It reminded me of the Brethren and Mennonite farmers who gave their lives and farms in order to create the underground railroad and stop slavery in the US. It reminded me of the courage that believers had in WWII when they hid our Jewish brothers and sisters, sometimes at the cost of their own lives. These were people who rejected the doctrine of the empire and the false forms of Christianity that mix politics with religion in order to justify racism, extensive materialism, oppression and war. They are people that Charlotte, a beautiful Jewish woman who is my friend and next-door neighbor, would call “sincere Christians” because their faith isn’t about domination, but serving humanity like Jesus did. As God was calling this man to Himself, our table looked at Jesus’ words “if anyone seeks to gain (maintain control of) his or her life, they will lose it. If they lose their life, they will gain eternal life.” That man was faced with a real hard choice. He was faced with physical life and spiritual death or physical death and spiritual life.

At the closing, he went to the microphone and said, “You all know what I have been representin'. I have been representin’ since 1983, but now, I represent Jesus.” Pray for Him. I won’t give his name, because I don’t want to paint the bull’s-eye on his back, but the Lord knows who he is. Pray that God use this man to bring the peace of Christ to that campus. Those prisoners became the Lord's freemen. They were set free from sin, from prejudice, and from unforgiveness.

Liberal verses conservative verses emerging

2009-04-06T10:29:00.005-04:00

So, I was at the National pastors retreat for the Sustaining Pastoral excellence program November 2008.

We were having a good time together, until the last session of the last day. My cohort did an emerging church study in which we looked at leadership principles for disciple-making in a post-modern culture.

Brian McLaren (who leans a little to the left side of the emerging church movement) has a great mission statement for his church: "To make disciples of Jesus Christ in authentic Christian Community for the good of the world." (Emphasis mine).

I think everyone, (liberal/conservative/fundamental/emerging/emergent/missional)
agrees with these statements: 1) The Church is the Kingdom of God on earth and it exists for the good of the world. 2) It is the only organization that exists to serve those who are not members. (N'est pas?)

Those two statements incorporate every facet of the COB. Yet I ask the question, why can't we get along better?

At the national pastors retreat, one other group was doing an emerging church study. They played a quote by Michael Frost which they titled "Fishing With Lesbians."
I appreciated the journey and context of this quote. Michael Frost is speaking at Calvary Pentecostal Church in a Youth For Christ Rally. In that Rally, he tells the audience a story about a fundamentalist preacher who is starting to get it. The minister, without any criticism, but with genuine warmth and love sees beyond the sexuality of two lesbian women, befriends them and fishes 3 times a week with them. He refers to the fact that Jesus has called him to make friends with sinners.

At this point, the National Pastor's conference erupted. I mean erupted! People were offended that these women were called sinners. The day before, in 6 small group settings (rotating) so that I had an interpersonal environment with everyone at the conference, I told a similar story of a baby shower for a lesbian couple with whom my wife and our praise team leader worked. Excuse my stereotyping, but when I shared my story, all the "liberals" were happy for me. Some even wept. I guess they thought they had converted a conservative. What I said was "The mother of one of the women told us that we were the first Christians to show any love to her daughter." and we told the one woman my wife works with: "We are sinners. Jesus came to save the world from its sin and brokenness. We have found that He loves us as we are and we love you as you are."

Now, we clearly stated that she was a sinner. But the second day, when the words came from a "conservative" (like me) the place got HOSTILE. I felt unsafe, judged, attacked, condemned and marginalized. And I discovered something that I hadn't understood before.

I already understood that conservatives feel called to propositional rhetoric because they believe that it is up to them to declare sin to be sin. (The danger may be that they are more interested in the propositions than the gospel). What was new to me was that liberals are just as propositional and self righteous about their liberality. To the liberals there, it was a terrible sin and offense to say that such and such is sin.

It was enlightening to realize that propositional theology, a construct of modernity, is as much of a stumbling block for conservatives as it is with liberals (but then didn't the Pharisees and Sadducees have the same problem?).

Then there is the temptation to comfort myself with a feeling of superiority since I recognize that God is not impressed with how well I know the propositions. He blesses me for sharing good news about Jesus. Period. But that is the real dilemma, that feeling of superiority. I can get proud when I see how wrong conservative and liberals are and get into the same cycle of self-righteousness. God deliver us from ourselves. Is there any hope this side of heaven?

Phil

God of Wrath or God of Love?

2008-12-30T13:48:00.003-05:00

I have been shaken to the core of my eschatology through the book “Everything Must Change” by Brian McLaren. McLaren deconstructs evangelical Christianity and I can’t argue with his conclusions. I can sum it up with saying that he does a good job of relating evangelical Christianity with the doctrine of the Empire instead of the gospel of the Kingdom. He reminds the reader of the Jewish (oppressed by the Romans) context of Jesus’ ministry. However, it does change how we interpret certain parables and miracles. For example, the feeding of the 5,000 was Jewish and there were 12 baskets left over. The feeding of the 4,000 was Gentile and there were 7 baskets left over. The 12 baskets for the 12 tribes and the 7 baskets refer to the 7 Canaanite nations displaced by Israel. It happens right after Matthew refers to the Syro-Phoenician woman as a Canaanite. It is the only reference to Canaanites in the entire NT. They were displaced by the Jews and the use of Canaanite means that God was no longer punishing, or calling for a separation of, the Jews and the Canaanites. The parable of the unjust steward finally makes sense when we see the steward as a minion of a landlord with sharecroppers who have lost their land due to the taxation system of the Romans. The land barons augment the oppression by making an almost feudal system. All of a sudden Jesus praises a steward for giving justice and appeasing the oppressive landlord at the same time. I never understood that parable before and could never justify the lying until I saw it in this context.

That brings me to eschatology and the “shaken to the core” statement. I have always been suspicious of the wrath and anger of God in Revelation, but have been afraid to mention it because “if any one adds to this book….” Here was my dilemma: If the wrath of God against humanity was satisfied on the cross, against Himself as the incarnate God, then why is there more wrath at the end of the current human existence? McLaren verbalized my fear in bold language when he says: “the cross then, is a fake-out and God really is a God of wrath.” I guess he verbalized a fear that I have. The fear being that I can’t reconcile Revelation with the rest of the Bible. (I have no problem reconciling the destruction of Canaan with the NT when I recognize how evil the Canaanites were. God was making an example out of them after He gave up on convincing them to repent.) Why Revelation? Why this second judgment? Wasn’t the cross enough? Isn’t the unfairness of the cross, the Innocent One dying for everyone else the most pure form of justice? Somewhere justice wasn’t going to be fair, so God took the unfairness oh Himself. What love! But then Revelation shows God getting revenge for it. I had this dilemma.

Then I understood it from the perspective of the oppressed. I am not buying into all of McLaren’s explanation that Jewish Apocalyptic literature was merely a Jewish liberation theology technique designed to give hope to the Jewish people in the form of a coming judgment against the Imperialists and their collaborators. (A point he makes in the book “The Last Word, and the Word After That.”) In that book, he deconstructs the doctrine of hell. And I did change my theology of hell after reading it. My theology of hell, as you know is: “Hell is the divine act of Love by the righteous judge of all the earth on behalf of the oppressed.” Hell is important. Without hell, the oppressors go free. That could be mercy, but it isn’t love on behalf of the oppressed. Sure, they can, and have to forgive. But the loving parent gives justice to all of his or her children. Brian alludes to his belief that Jewish apocalyptic literature is merely oppressed people seeking hope, I tend to believe that Daniel and Revelation are supernatural visions from God. All that aside, I am still relived to have an answer to my dilemma. The answer comes in Revelation 19. This chapter takes place after all 21 judgments are meted out. In the chapter, the saints of God and the oppressed are praising God for giving them justice. It changes the whole book from Angry God to God of Justice (who loves the oppressed). It certainly explains the soteriology of Lazarus and the statement by Jesus about the rich man who was in torment: “You had your leisure on earth; he now has his in heaven.” (Lazarus never answered an altar call -it appears he was saved merely because he was poor.). It explains Luke’s telling of the beatitudes: “Blessed are the poor (without the words “in spirit”), for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.”

However, the question of imperialism and current eschatology comes to play here as well. I think from reading Brian McLaren that he resists current eschatology because it isn’t green. I am not a tree hugger. But I concur. As a registered theologian for over 30 years, I have always wondered just what would happen if Jesus didn’t return in my lifetime. I mean we all expect it and hope for it. But honestly, so did Paul and Peter. So did those who died in concentration camps in Germany. So did Christians during the reign of Communism in the USSR. So did the Huguenots during the mini-ice age when it snowed in July and they were being oppressed. Realistically, we could be wrong and I don’t think any sincere Bible scholar disagrees. Brian’s problem then is this: If we believe this is the final generation, then a PASSION for caring for the earth is not important and that could have terrible ramifications for our children. As a matter of fact, if the earth falls under the manifold problems of pollution, then perhaps the plagues in Revelation have the impudence to happen, (And, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy). Brian’s point is that we should care. I would say that even if we believe that it will happen, we must live like it won’t happen. The book of Genesis makes it clear that God entrusted the earth to us to care for, not exploit.

But that isn’t the imperialistic problem with current eschatology. The symbol of the cross was pretty significant to any Jewish person. The Empire of Rome made it clear that if you did not accept their peace, then you would be tortured into submission. If God is a God of wrath who will torture and burn his enemies, then Empires who use torture are partners with God in the way they treat the people they have conquered. McLaren’s point is that we have justified aspects of our warfare based on this incorrect eschatology. Amen. That is the difference between the good news of the Kingdom of God and the doctrine of the Empire. God has called Christians to another way of living. Jesus said it like this: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.”

My thoughts on the election so far

2008-10-15T10:29:00.003-04:00

As to the candidates being Christian. I watched Jeremiah Wright's interview on Bill Moyer and wept for joy that a Christian pastor was speaking the truth about injustice. What impressed me in the Rick Warren/Obama/McCain discussion was the way Obama said "evil exists out there AND in the United States. We have to confront evil everywhere." His implication (I believe) was that confronting certain evils of our own, in foreign and national polity will have a positive effect in addressing some of the root causes of terrorism directed against us.

For example. I get these "Christian" scorecards about the candidates. Clearly spoken is an issue: Candidate A is against giving Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants. Candidate B is for giving said SS benefits. Which is the Christian response?

Leviticus 19:33-34 "Do not take advantage of foreigners in your land; do not wrong them. They must be treated like any other citizen; love them as yourself, for remember that you too were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am Jehovah your God."

I want to remind Christians that this is just one chapter removed from Leviticus 18:21-22. A passage that we take our stand on about righteousness blessing a nation or lack of righteousness cursing a nation. I want to ask why it is not a Christian viewpoint that we care for illegals as much as we care for ourselves? US border policy is just as big an issue as abortion and gay marriage. It is a Christian issue because it elevates the Word of God over the Constitution, national security or hoarding our resources for ourselves.

It seems problematic to me that one side is carping on a few issues, making up others, and ignoring other important biblical concerns. Well, probably both sides. But at least one Candidate is willing to say "the problem is with US as well." I see one candidate being very Christian in his confessional humility. I see another candidate doing what some evil despots have done in the 20th century by creating a following through focusing on a common enemy.

Why do people ignore border policy when it is one chapter away from the strongest indictment against homosexual behavior? It seems to me that fingers are pointed in one direction in order to distract us.

I disagree with Obama's stand on abortion. Abortion, except in the case of the survival of the mother is murder. Period. But, the court is already favorable. Yesterday (October 13) CNN was making an issue of how important the court nominees would be and they made it clear that in the 4-8 years of an Obama presidency, 3 liberal judges will probably be replaced. But it won't change the court because there is a 5-4 majority. I voted Republican for the last 20 years in order to get this court. Reagan appointed Suiter, who is described as one of the liberals who will probably go off during this next presidency.

My vote for Reagan was wasted on that issue (I still think he was a great president and am glad I voted for him in spite of his failure to fulfill that promise -and I know, he had a Democratic senate to work with).

But one final thing. One side tries to build support by rallying against terminal sexual deviations (abortion, homosexuality). I agree that these are issues of righteousness. But terminal sexual deviations are not the reason we will be judged, they are the judgment. Ezekiel 16:48, Romans 1. Why are we judged? Ezekiel 16:48, again. Lack of concern for the poor. Which candidate will help us win revival? The one who places concern for the poor over concern for the rich.

Do I really believe that one candidate cares that much for the poor? Nope, I am realistic. Both candidates are politicians Our political system is designed to serve the interests, whether it be the "gay agenda," "abortion mills," or insurance companies who want to continue to deny or restrict health care to the unhealthy, to the oil/energy concerns, Wall street, or any other group with enough financial clout to buy votes and influence in order to create an unfair advantage over others with political power and legislation.

SO, I know how I am voting, because I know what is happening isn't working. Being truly Biblical, having the values of Jesus expressed in Mathew 25, is bigger than the narrow issues that one side is making them out to be. I am voting that way because of my deep commitment to God's Word and my Christian faith. But my hope is not in either candidate, my hope is in the Lord.

Phil Reynolds

My Story So far

2008-06-09T13:21:00.002-04:00

I have learned the most about me. I discovered that my worldview is Post-Modern. What a freeing discovery! Although I do not embrace the concepts of syncretism and pluralism as part of my theological understanding, I do embrace them socially and politically.

I find that my many years of pastoral ministry have exhibited this journey. My first years could simply be defined as ministry born out of “a reaction to modernity.” This was fleshed out through a passion for apologetics, memorization of most of the New Testament, study in the original languages, and the history of the Church and its development of theology. The passion for this gnosis became a polemic because it was reactionary. My own personal experience was that the importance of orthodoxy was elevated over orthopraxy in Western Christianity. This happened across Western Christendom but especially within my own camp: American Evangelicals. The Evangelical community became a Christian sub-culture that is good at cursing the darkness of modernity. However, the world moved on into post-modernity. The “cursing of the darkness” became an embarrassment to me. It is irrelevant to our culture. Therefore, although it might create disciples of the Christian sub-culture, it is no longer an effective means of proclaiming the good news to the post-Christian world. When I began to evaluate the rhetoric of the Christian sub-culture I decided I needed to compare it to the value system of the post-modern world. I finally admitted that even my passion for apologetics, during my “fighting modernity” stage of my ministry, was merely me trying to assuage the guilt of arrogance by trying to show that believers are not kooks. I did that by emphasizing the teachings of Jesus Christ and the prophets –especially those dealing with justice and mercy.

This journey was freeing because I realize that the Christian Sub-Culture in the West had abandoned the most important teachings of Jesus and the prophets. (I actually get regular email from a group describing itself as “right Christians” that directly oppose Leviticus 19:34 and call it a Christian value to make stricter US border policy.) I find the missional concepts of evangelism that are designed to reach the post-modern world are much more in line with the teaching of Jesus. Story-telling in my preaching is more in line with the way Jesus taught. But more than that, it reconnects me with the good reasons why I became a hippie in the 70’s in an holistic, Christ-centered way. It feels like a full circle with real purpose and meaning. More than that, it helps me deal with the painful experiences I have faced in 22 years of pastoral ministry. It re-connects me to our Anabaptist roots.

It seems to me, that every time we arrive at a central position in dialectic, it becomes a new extreme and a new dialectic is formed. Then the new dialectic moves us to another center, which in turn becomes another extreme; and then an even newer dialectic is formed and so forth. In other words, emphasis on orthodoxy was the correct response to modernity. However, we got so wrapped up in it that it led to what I call Neo-Gnosticism. The dialectic created is leading us into the emerging church movement. I need to remember that some day it will become an extreme, and another dialectic will form and another new center will be created. (Hopefully I will be in heaven by then and not have to learn it all over again!) As it is right now, the Church has in many ways become irrelevant. There are millions of Christians in the West who will get to heaven, but it seems they have forgot that the Church exists for the good of the world.

So, there are general principles, perceptions and practices that I feel the church needs in order to be invited back to the table. This list is not exhaustive or a comprehensive answer to all of Western of Christendom, but personally developed out of my passions and understanding. I believe this is what God is leading me to focus on:

Principles:

Orthodoxy is irrelevant if it does not create Christ-like behavior.
Jesus came to save the world from its sin.
Jesus will always be with the Church, empowering her to preach good news.
The Church exists for the good of the world.
The Church is called to reflect Jesus to non-Christians.
We do not have the privilege of bringing our world back to Jesus as if we were like the early believers preaching in the streets of Jerusalem. Instead we are more like the early believers preaching in the streets of Rome or Corinth, where the good news is not generally known.
Jesus is the only way to the Father.

Perceptions:

To Prevent:

· Christians hate homosexuals

o Racism used to be taught from conservative pulpits, if they were wrong about racism, are they also wrong about homosexuals?

· Christianity is Imperialistic:

o God is a Republican.

o America has a manifest destiny

§ Emphasized in the Religious Right’s decrying of UN involvement

§ The erroneous view that if we did it, it must be right

§ The erroneous view that the Constitution is as divinely inspired as the Bible

· Christianity is irrelevant.

To Proclaim:

· Jesus loves the homosexual as much as us.

o Just as Christianity was instrumental in overcoming slavery, Christianity was instrumental in overcoming racism.

§ We need to confess our own part in racism as sin.

o We need to confess our creation of homophobia as sin.

o We are all sinners and singling out homosexuality is merely cursing the darkness.

o God is the one who sets people free, and sometimes it may not be until they get to heaven.

o Jesus never taught that homosexuality was okay, normal or a viable option. But on the other hand, He never bothered to elevate it as a litmus test of true spirituality or biblical authority.

o We cannot judge another servant of the master, because in the Master’s eyes (not ours) they stand or fall.

o Terminal sexual deviations will not bring the judgment of God on our society; they are the judgment of God (Romans 1).

§ Just as we understand disease to be a judgment, we never hate the person infected with that disease.

§ Disease is often non-specific in who it attacks.

§ Let us be as merciful to the homosexual as we are to the cancer patient.

· God loves the whole world, no exceptions:

o We need to be about a 2 kingdom theology that overcomes the political belief in the manifest destiny of America.

o Jesus is not a Republican or a Democrat.

o We need to admit that Columbus was probably more interested in gold than sharing Jesus.

o Even though Israel does have a manifest destiny, its destiny, along with ours is to be a blessing to the entire world.

o America needs to confess its sin of dominating the world economy for its own welfare instead of the good of the entire world.

o American Christians need to influence the government to do justice.

· Christianity is still relevant

o It is still the only world religion doing good works in almost every area of deep poverty (for example the caste system of Hinduism actually sanctions the poverty of the poor).

o The teachings of Christ Jesus still inform us how to live.

o When Christians are acting like Christ, good things happen.

Practices:

Do justice.
Be humble.
Love Mercy.
Work with other faiths and religions to overcome injustice.
Expect the power of the Holy Spirit to draw people to Jesus.
Create authentic community centered on our mission.
Be unapologetic about justice.
Distance myself from the arrogance of the Religious right.
Be more open-minded than the liberals.
Explore more of the mystery of God.
Have Faith

Pray in faith
Do not be afraid of evildoers
Do not fear the rhetoric of the Religious Right
My ministry is at God’s privilege, therefore hold it with an open hand.
Be anxious for nothing, but in everything with prayer and supplication, let my requests be known to God.
Trust in the fact that God is leading me to know Jesus, and the fellowship of His suffering.

Remember the leaven of the Pharisees (for me this is important).

2007-07-18T15:05:00.000-04:00

2007-07-18T15:04:00.000-04:00

Are you being served?

2007-06-21T10:22:00.001-04:00

My dad and me

I said to many men, "May I serve you?"

But to a man, who because of pride is my adversary,

I would say, "Will you be served by me?”

I have asked the man to let me be the one in control and Power.

Jesus stops by me.

I AM says to me, "Will you be served by me?"

I say “No.”

He says,

"Then you may have no part in me."

Thinking I have Jesus' point

I turn to this man and say. "I will be served by you."

But Jesus looks at me with love

Eventually, I say. "You may serve me"

The musings

Pastor or Prophet?

Dikaios, the right word, translated the wrong way. Part of my journey toward a more just form of NT Christianity

The Story of Two Sons

I made you hungry in order that you may learn.... ...to love and forgive.

Why Good Pastors Get the Boot

The H Question, remix

The H Question:

The Theology Of Libertarianism, OR “On The Origin of the Speci… …al Interests.”

Come Holy Spirit

An Open Letter to Glenn Beck about Jim Wallis.

Amos 5:24 (The Message)

Isaiah 58 (The Message)

Isaiah 58

Your Prayers Won't Get Off the Ground

A Full Life in the Emptiest of Places

Can’t we have a conversation?

Text of orignial wall post.

Deborah Mulholand OBAMA WATCH CENTRALPresident makes Top 10 list of corrupt politiciansBelieves he 'can violate privacy rights of Americans' without legal consequencehttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=120407

How a Tattoo saved a man's life -From prison to freedom

Liberal verses conservative verses emerging

God of Wrath or God of Love?

My thoughts on the election so far

My Story So far

Are you being served?

Deborah Mulholand OBAMA WATCH CENTRALPresident makes Top 10 list of corrupt politiciansBelieves he 'can violate privacy rights of Americans' without legal consequence
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=120407