I have been wondering what I believe. Not that I don't have ideas, I simply haven't written it out extensively. Part of this is out of my commitment to change and evolution of my understanding as I continue to grow and change. But I am faced with an assignment for a class in which I am required to write a page on what I believe on certain topics. So I believe that over the next few weeks (months, years, decades) I will be posting some of my working definitions of what I believe.
Here are some of the categories I hope to address:
God- God as Triune, community of God, Nature of God
Jesus- Incarnation, redemption, humanity and divinity, revelation of God
Kingdom of God- church, discipleship, mission, eschatology
Relationships- love, war, peace, marriage, family, evangelism
Ethics- justice, society, interaction with empire
I'd love to hear from others about these issues.
Peace,
Daniel
12.06.2007
11.15.2007
Some reflections on my experience of grace
Grace is…
…free
…transformational
…surprising
…costly
…grossly inefficient
…beautiful
…God’s overtures of justice
…humbling
…unwavering
…bold
…impractical
…relentless
…without prejudice
...fully informed
…an invitation into a dance with God
…mysterious
…compelling me to action
…re-incarnational
…stunning
…alarming
…disarming
…active
…groaning as in the pains of childbirth
…expectant
…courageous
…
Please feel free and add your own reflections
11.01.2007
Neighbors and Enemies
In an increasingly global world, we continue to have our understanding changed. When the drought plaguing the southeastern United States causes the city of Atlanta to develop a water usage plan, there is outcry from neighboring cities and states downstream, demanding that their voices be heard. This is their water too.
When we buy food from our local grocer, we are not just paying her bills, but we are putting bread on the table of the truck driver who brought it in, the distribution plant workers, we even contribute in a tiny way to the farmer in New Zealand who grew our apples and kiwi.
So who is our neighbor? How am I to love my neighbor as myself? Do neighbors speak hte same language? Are they members of the same ethnic group? I live in Washington state. Can I have neighbors across the Canadian border? Across the Pacific ocean? Across the planet?
So what makes an enemy? If someone wrongs me? Okay, my sister wrongs me, is she my enemy? No, I forgive her. My neighbor downstairs smokes pot with his windows open, forcing me to either get buzzed, or close my windows. Should I go to war with him? I don't think so, he's my neighbor. I disagree with his choices. They even limit my choice, they infringe on my rights, they can even damage my body. What should I do?
Okay, so you get the idea. We forgive our neighbors and bomb our enemies. But what makes someone an enemy instead of a neighbor?
Neighbors wrong us and get forgiven, so why when someone I don't know--someone I don't have a face and voice and story for--why when they wrong me, do I get angry and say, "No, I will not forgive them!"?
I think it is just that--I don't know their face. If I did, I wouldn't blow them up.
I just recently heard a story about the Catholic priest who blessed the plane that carried the bomb over Nagasaki in WWII. He talks about the number of Catholic children in Japan who were killed, the number of Catholic clergy, how many orders of nuns were killed in the genocide that took place. He asks why he didn't think of them. If he had been thinking of them, would he have blessed the mission?
How do we as Christians, believing that all humans are created in the image of God, endorse political systems and parties that are committed to killing other human beings? What makes the life of a man in Afghanistan less valuable than the life of a man in Seattle?
I say, nothing.
We are neighbors. What do national lines, religious affiliations, language, color, ideologies, citizenship, economic value, or geography have to do with defining who my neighbor is? Nothing.
I, next to any other human being on the planet, no matter how good or evil, am confronted in their face, with the face of God.
As a Christian I am called to something higher than the pursuit of national security. Moreover I am called to something higher than personal security. I am called to reconciliation. I am called to extend the welcoming, redemptive, and restorative love of God to all humanity. How do I do this immense task? With one person at a time.
I do this with my neighbor, the one downstairs who smokes pot, and the one across the world who believes I should die.
I am first a child of God, any alliance with country that asks me to be anything that would contradict this first calling must be abandoned. I see no other path for one who claims to follow Jesus Christ.
Peace,
Daniel
When we buy food from our local grocer, we are not just paying her bills, but we are putting bread on the table of the truck driver who brought it in, the distribution plant workers, we even contribute in a tiny way to the farmer in New Zealand who grew our apples and kiwi.
So who is our neighbor? How am I to love my neighbor as myself? Do neighbors speak hte same language? Are they members of the same ethnic group? I live in Washington state. Can I have neighbors across the Canadian border? Across the Pacific ocean? Across the planet?
So what makes an enemy? If someone wrongs me? Okay, my sister wrongs me, is she my enemy? No, I forgive her. My neighbor downstairs smokes pot with his windows open, forcing me to either get buzzed, or close my windows. Should I go to war with him? I don't think so, he's my neighbor. I disagree with his choices. They even limit my choice, they infringe on my rights, they can even damage my body. What should I do?
Okay, so you get the idea. We forgive our neighbors and bomb our enemies. But what makes someone an enemy instead of a neighbor?
Neighbors wrong us and get forgiven, so why when someone I don't know--someone I don't have a face and voice and story for--why when they wrong me, do I get angry and say, "No, I will not forgive them!"?
I think it is just that--I don't know their face. If I did, I wouldn't blow them up.
I just recently heard a story about the Catholic priest who blessed the plane that carried the bomb over Nagasaki in WWII. He talks about the number of Catholic children in Japan who were killed, the number of Catholic clergy, how many orders of nuns were killed in the genocide that took place. He asks why he didn't think of them. If he had been thinking of them, would he have blessed the mission?
How do we as Christians, believing that all humans are created in the image of God, endorse political systems and parties that are committed to killing other human beings? What makes the life of a man in Afghanistan less valuable than the life of a man in Seattle?
I say, nothing.
We are neighbors. What do national lines, religious affiliations, language, color, ideologies, citizenship, economic value, or geography have to do with defining who my neighbor is? Nothing.
I, next to any other human being on the planet, no matter how good or evil, am confronted in their face, with the face of God.
As a Christian I am called to something higher than the pursuit of national security. Moreover I am called to something higher than personal security. I am called to reconciliation. I am called to extend the welcoming, redemptive, and restorative love of God to all humanity. How do I do this immense task? With one person at a time.
I do this with my neighbor, the one downstairs who smokes pot, and the one across the world who believes I should die.
I am first a child of God, any alliance with country that asks me to be anything that would contradict this first calling must be abandoned. I see no other path for one who claims to follow Jesus Christ.
Peace,
Daniel
10.15.2007
Sabbath
So, this is far more personal reflections than deep theological consideration, but it's what's been rolling around my heart for a while.
As I look back at the creation narrative in Genesis (and here's where my theological lens will come in), I see it far less as a story of how the world came into being, and far more a story of how God is always manifesting in the world, and initiating relationship with each of us.
The original narrative of God's creating in our lives is one of goodness. It is not perfection. This is important. I don't see any implications in the text for a theology of original perfection. God creates us, and sees us as good.
God creates us in a context. There is a world going on around us. Specifically there is a world created out of the imagination of God, that is filled with wonder and excitement. Moreover, we are created for and in communion and community with other people, with God, and with nature.
The original story is one of hospitality. God invites us to celebrate in creation. We are born not perfect, but good. We are dependent on the hospitality of others to care for us in our deep neediness.
In the grander scale, we are to care for others, for creation, to give and receive in harmonic interdependence.
The challenge and struggle is in the breaking of community. The betrayal of our desire for acceptance and trust. In the Genesis story, there is a breakup of trust. Deception and isolation lead to shame that causes us to think we can care for ourselves.
I believe that In Christ, and indeed, from the beginning, God seeks to continually bring us into the tension of community (watch for more on this phrase "tension of community" and how it relates to a Contra Dancing metaphor for trinitarian theology in a later post). This restoration takes so much courage and pain. It involves God (and us, as extensions of God's body in the world) reaching out to speak honestly about the places of depravity that are in all of us.
God called to Adam and Eve in the Genesis story, asking deep questions that revealed their shame, and fear. Their return to relationship with God, and the continuing story of redemption in the whole Bible, was based on God deepening their sense of shame, through the dramatic loving-kindness of God's merciful justice. God spoke to their violation of community, set boundaries, and offered them reconciliation.
God invites us back into community. We are to invite others back into community. This is not supposed to happen through ignorance (ignoring what is in front of us) or through denial of the shame and great need for forgiveness. Instead, we are called to enter into the shame and brokenness that exists between us. This requires courage to enter into our own shame and deal with our own need and desire for community with God and one another. Only then can we press into the hurt, shame, and defensiveness of those who most need our hospitality and welcome back into community.
So, what does this have to do with Sabbath?
Great question. I think there is something here. Some connection. I am going to try to outline a few ways that I think these ideas are related, and then I'd like for some other folks to help me put flesh on these ideas.
1) I think that there is something important about God creating Sabbath as a part of the original model of hospitality, relationship, and community.
2) There seem to be elements of celebration and hope in Sabbath.
3) It seems that the theme of reconciliation pulls up the cyclical nature of God's establishing a pattern of creation and celebration/rest (rest-oration?), and this may be connected to the continual tension of the dance of community as moving in and out of the goodness and depravity of our humanity.
4) Sabbath seems to be a recognition and building in of the idea of our neediness. We need rest, celebration, hospitality, and communion with God, other people, and nature.
I'm sure there are more categories that you can identify, so please feel free to branch off of this.
I'm interested in fleshing these ideas out, and also in incarnating them. The difference being one of discussion vs. implementation. I think we need both.
I honestly don't participate very often in a Sabbath that looks anything like this. When was the last time your regular Sabbath was restful, restorative, brought you into true communion with God, nature, and other people, led you into an experience in which your shame was openly confronted with hospitality?
Just some thoughts.
Grace and Peace,
Daniel
As I look back at the creation narrative in Genesis (and here's where my theological lens will come in), I see it far less as a story of how the world came into being, and far more a story of how God is always manifesting in the world, and initiating relationship with each of us.
The original narrative of God's creating in our lives is one of goodness. It is not perfection. This is important. I don't see any implications in the text for a theology of original perfection. God creates us, and sees us as good.
God creates us in a context. There is a world going on around us. Specifically there is a world created out of the imagination of God, that is filled with wonder and excitement. Moreover, we are created for and in communion and community with other people, with God, and with nature.
The original story is one of hospitality. God invites us to celebrate in creation. We are born not perfect, but good. We are dependent on the hospitality of others to care for us in our deep neediness.
In the grander scale, we are to care for others, for creation, to give and receive in harmonic interdependence.
The challenge and struggle is in the breaking of community. The betrayal of our desire for acceptance and trust. In the Genesis story, there is a breakup of trust. Deception and isolation lead to shame that causes us to think we can care for ourselves.
I believe that In Christ, and indeed, from the beginning, God seeks to continually bring us into the tension of community (watch for more on this phrase "tension of community" and how it relates to a Contra Dancing metaphor for trinitarian theology in a later post). This restoration takes so much courage and pain. It involves God (and us, as extensions of God's body in the world) reaching out to speak honestly about the places of depravity that are in all of us.
God called to Adam and Eve in the Genesis story, asking deep questions that revealed their shame, and fear. Their return to relationship with God, and the continuing story of redemption in the whole Bible, was based on God deepening their sense of shame, through the dramatic loving-kindness of God's merciful justice. God spoke to their violation of community, set boundaries, and offered them reconciliation.
God invites us back into community. We are to invite others back into community. This is not supposed to happen through ignorance (ignoring what is in front of us) or through denial of the shame and great need for forgiveness. Instead, we are called to enter into the shame and brokenness that exists between us. This requires courage to enter into our own shame and deal with our own need and desire for community with God and one another. Only then can we press into the hurt, shame, and defensiveness of those who most need our hospitality and welcome back into community.
So, what does this have to do with Sabbath?
Great question. I think there is something here. Some connection. I am going to try to outline a few ways that I think these ideas are related, and then I'd like for some other folks to help me put flesh on these ideas.
1) I think that there is something important about God creating Sabbath as a part of the original model of hospitality, relationship, and community.
2) There seem to be elements of celebration and hope in Sabbath.
3) It seems that the theme of reconciliation pulls up the cyclical nature of God's establishing a pattern of creation and celebration/rest (rest-oration?), and this may be connected to the continual tension of the dance of community as moving in and out of the goodness and depravity of our humanity.
4) Sabbath seems to be a recognition and building in of the idea of our neediness. We need rest, celebration, hospitality, and communion with God, other people, and nature.
I'm sure there are more categories that you can identify, so please feel free to branch off of this.
I'm interested in fleshing these ideas out, and also in incarnating them. The difference being one of discussion vs. implementation. I think we need both.
I honestly don't participate very often in a Sabbath that looks anything like this. When was the last time your regular Sabbath was restful, restorative, brought you into true communion with God, nature, and other people, led you into an experience in which your shame was openly confronted with hospitality?
Just some thoughts.
Grace and Peace,
Daniel
10.02.2007
October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month
As we move into this month, let us not just remember and be aware of the problem of domestic violence, but I invite us to contemplate how our values, beliefs, and action work together to conspire against victims of abuse by silencing them, and denying them voice and options to free them from their situation.
Please take a moment to follow the link below, or click on the title of this post. It is a statement drafted by the Faith Trust Institute, that I believe is valuable for people of all faiths.
http://www.faithtrustinstitute.org/petition/petition.php
Grace and Peace,
Daniel
Please take a moment to follow the link below, or click on the title of this post. It is a statement drafted by the Faith Trust Institute, that I believe is valuable for people of all faiths.
http://www.faithtrustinstitute.org/petition/petition.php
Grace and Peace,
Daniel
10.01.2007
Go in peace...
For about the past year, I have become consumed with a few central ideas. These things have taken hold of me, wrestled me to the ground, and in the process, I have come to find some new names for myself...(borrowing on the theme of Jacob as he wrestled with the angel). A few of these themes that have become central in my life are listed below. I feel like they are being expanded, exploded, and put to the test as I wrestle through what life means in the context of marriage, grad school and so much more.
These aren't in a particular order, they are just in the order that I happen to be writing them down.
1) Grace.
I can't seem to shake this. God's grace is overwhelming. As of yet, I have no idea the extent of it, or the implications on my theology, but I know for certain that God's lovingkindness, compassion, and grace are becoming/must become the centerpiece of my understanding of God, and thus my relationship to God and others.
2) Incarnation.
Beyond my own experience, beyond what I have heard, beyond the words written in scripture, I cling to the person of Jesus Christ as God's self-disclosure to us. I do not want to worship a book, a community, a religion, or any number of other idolatries that I commit daily. I seek a relationship with the God who takes on flesh.
I am convinced that God continues to create and incarnate among us and in us every day. As a community of believers we are, and are becoming, the body of Christ in the world. The incarnation, like the creation, was not a one time event. Instead it is in the nature of God to create, to reconcile, and to take on flesh.
3) Communion/community
I cannot sort these two words out. They are linked. There is something essential to the nature of the Eucharist (communion) that demands serving one another the elements that represent the body of Christ. If the incarnation today is found in the living people who compose the body of Christ, perhaps communion is found in the offering of this body of people in service to the world.
The church has held many positions on what "happens" at communion. Most of the divergence of opinions centers on the physical properties of the elements of bread and wine (or juice for some). The problem is that people have trouble with Jesus' words: "this is my body broken for you... this is my blood poured out for you." If we look at this passage in light of Jesus calling us to be the body of Christ in the world, then perhaps it has very little or even nothing to do with the bread and wine, which happened to be the simplest, least ceremonial elements at a very elaborate religious feast. Maybe this means that the very simplest among us can go forth in the the grace of God and embody the love of Christ in a real way to the world.
Further, the church has long held that communion is a certain means of grace. That is to say, various groups in the church believe, to differing degrees, that participating in communion is a way to receive an impartation of the rescuing grace of God.
So then, if we are the body of God in the world, broken and offer in service and community to those who need God's grace, then we are able, through loving others, to embody the love of Christ and participate in and with God in the act of redeeming the world.
That is to say, we can, through yielding to the work of Christ in us, become the incarnational body of Christ, and not through proselytizing, but through loving and extending community, we offer the redeeming grace of God through the means of inclusion in the community of God.
4) Peace.
This one has been building in me for a long time. I cannot shake the notion that if God is about grace, redemption, and love; that if God loves all equally; that if we are all created by God; that if Christ came to reconcile all, then we must work and strain and hope for peace.
I am so tired of trying to defend this to others. I believe wholeheartedly that if we are to immerse ourselves in the gospel of Christ and truly be people who live the difficult life of sacrifice in order to love well, then we must conclude that no one is more worthy of love than another. Beyond this we must let go of the desire for possessions that weighs so heavily on us that it drives us to live beyond our means, to horde, to deny the rights of others, and to kill for what we think should be ours at the cost of another's life.
Peace and pacifism do not equate with doing nothing. That is absurd. There is a spectrum. Imagine an arc. The at the base of the arc is the word "active" at the peak of the arc is the word "passive." These two words mark two opposite poles which influence the spectrum. On one end of the arc is violence. As you travel up the arc, at the very peak you find passivity (nearest the "passive" pole) and traveling down the other side of the arc, back toward the active pole, you find pacifism, or, a term I am more fond of, Peace-activism.
You see then, that the opposite of violence is not passivity, but the active pursuit of peace. It is indeed reprehensible to do nothing in the face of violence, but it is even worse to perpetuate more violence.
5) A Gospel-centric reading of scripture
As you might have guessed from the other 4 categories, this has probably been the source of most of my new ways of thinking/being. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever prioritizing the gospel accounts and reading them as the primary interpretive lens for scripture as a whole. There is a lot in scripture that cannot be explained, that contradicts the message of God's grace and redemption, and that points away from the positions that I have outlined. I have no problem embracing this.
As I said before, I do not worship the text of the Bible. It is not God. Period. I have committed that idolatry far too much already in my life. No, if God could be nailed down to what is in scriptures, then God would not be alive, powerful, or graceful enough to be given even a second thought. Instead, the scriptures are a collection of really wonderful accounts of how some men have understood God in specific contexts in history. But that is not who God is.
No, God reveals who God is to many people throughout history. We could combine all humanity's encounters with God and compile them into the most sophisticated matrix of a text imaginable, and it would still not amount to who God is.
I believe that God is essentially creating and incarnating. We see life continually in a process of creation and renewal all around us. The most important act of God's incarnational nature is in the person of Jesus Christ. It is in taking on flesh and walking around and living with us, that God reveals the most of who God is. In the life and death and resurrection of Jesus, we see the God that we should worship.
All the problems I have with the scriptures as a whole, do they disappear when it comes to the gospels? Certainly not, but I hold that the gospels are the closest written account in scriptures to who Christ is and continues to be among us. I believe in the text of the gospels because I believe in the God who has been alive in the community that compiled and preserves those texts as living accounts of the ongoing living God who is personally and transformationally at work in our community today.
Some might question my view of the text. I say that I have the highest view of the text that I could possibly hold. It is alive, and breathing among us, and should never be studied as a concrete document from which propositional truth can be drawn and applied in a way that isolates and excludes. Instead it is a living text that must be wrestled with and seen for what it is, a text, and a testimony about, but ultimately not, God.
SO..... that's where I find myself in the past year or so. I find so many of these ideas captured in a song performed by Derek Webb. I have included it below.
These aren't in a particular order, they are just in the order that I happen to be writing them down.
1) Grace.
I can't seem to shake this. God's grace is overwhelming. As of yet, I have no idea the extent of it, or the implications on my theology, but I know for certain that God's lovingkindness, compassion, and grace are becoming/must become the centerpiece of my understanding of God, and thus my relationship to God and others.
2) Incarnation.
Beyond my own experience, beyond what I have heard, beyond the words written in scripture, I cling to the person of Jesus Christ as God's self-disclosure to us. I do not want to worship a book, a community, a religion, or any number of other idolatries that I commit daily. I seek a relationship with the God who takes on flesh.
I am convinced that God continues to create and incarnate among us and in us every day. As a community of believers we are, and are becoming, the body of Christ in the world. The incarnation, like the creation, was not a one time event. Instead it is in the nature of God to create, to reconcile, and to take on flesh.
3) Communion/community
I cannot sort these two words out. They are linked. There is something essential to the nature of the Eucharist (communion) that demands serving one another the elements that represent the body of Christ. If the incarnation today is found in the living people who compose the body of Christ, perhaps communion is found in the offering of this body of people in service to the world.
The church has held many positions on what "happens" at communion. Most of the divergence of opinions centers on the physical properties of the elements of bread and wine (or juice for some). The problem is that people have trouble with Jesus' words: "this is my body broken for you... this is my blood poured out for you." If we look at this passage in light of Jesus calling us to be the body of Christ in the world, then perhaps it has very little or even nothing to do with the bread and wine, which happened to be the simplest, least ceremonial elements at a very elaborate religious feast. Maybe this means that the very simplest among us can go forth in the the grace of God and embody the love of Christ in a real way to the world.
Further, the church has long held that communion is a certain means of grace. That is to say, various groups in the church believe, to differing degrees, that participating in communion is a way to receive an impartation of the rescuing grace of God.
So then, if we are the body of God in the world, broken and offer in service and community to those who need God's grace, then we are able, through loving others, to embody the love of Christ and participate in and with God in the act of redeeming the world.
That is to say, we can, through yielding to the work of Christ in us, become the incarnational body of Christ, and not through proselytizing, but through loving and extending community, we offer the redeeming grace of God through the means of inclusion in the community of God.
4) Peace.
This one has been building in me for a long time. I cannot shake the notion that if God is about grace, redemption, and love; that if God loves all equally; that if we are all created by God; that if Christ came to reconcile all, then we must work and strain and hope for peace.
I am so tired of trying to defend this to others. I believe wholeheartedly that if we are to immerse ourselves in the gospel of Christ and truly be people who live the difficult life of sacrifice in order to love well, then we must conclude that no one is more worthy of love than another. Beyond this we must let go of the desire for possessions that weighs so heavily on us that it drives us to live beyond our means, to horde, to deny the rights of others, and to kill for what we think should be ours at the cost of another's life.
Peace and pacifism do not equate with doing nothing. That is absurd. There is a spectrum. Imagine an arc. The at the base of the arc is the word "active" at the peak of the arc is the word "passive." These two words mark two opposite poles which influence the spectrum. On one end of the arc is violence. As you travel up the arc, at the very peak you find passivity (nearest the "passive" pole) and traveling down the other side of the arc, back toward the active pole, you find pacifism, or, a term I am more fond of, Peace-activism.
You see then, that the opposite of violence is not passivity, but the active pursuit of peace. It is indeed reprehensible to do nothing in the face of violence, but it is even worse to perpetuate more violence.
5) A Gospel-centric reading of scripture
As you might have guessed from the other 4 categories, this has probably been the source of most of my new ways of thinking/being. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever prioritizing the gospel accounts and reading them as the primary interpretive lens for scripture as a whole. There is a lot in scripture that cannot be explained, that contradicts the message of God's grace and redemption, and that points away from the positions that I have outlined. I have no problem embracing this.
As I said before, I do not worship the text of the Bible. It is not God. Period. I have committed that idolatry far too much already in my life. No, if God could be nailed down to what is in scriptures, then God would not be alive, powerful, or graceful enough to be given even a second thought. Instead, the scriptures are a collection of really wonderful accounts of how some men have understood God in specific contexts in history. But that is not who God is.
No, God reveals who God is to many people throughout history. We could combine all humanity's encounters with God and compile them into the most sophisticated matrix of a text imaginable, and it would still not amount to who God is.
I believe that God is essentially creating and incarnating. We see life continually in a process of creation and renewal all around us. The most important act of God's incarnational nature is in the person of Jesus Christ. It is in taking on flesh and walking around and living with us, that God reveals the most of who God is. In the life and death and resurrection of Jesus, we see the God that we should worship.
All the problems I have with the scriptures as a whole, do they disappear when it comes to the gospels? Certainly not, but I hold that the gospels are the closest written account in scriptures to who Christ is and continues to be among us. I believe in the text of the gospels because I believe in the God who has been alive in the community that compiled and preserves those texts as living accounts of the ongoing living God who is personally and transformationally at work in our community today.
Some might question my view of the text. I say that I have the highest view of the text that I could possibly hold. It is alive, and breathing among us, and should never be studied as a concrete document from which propositional truth can be drawn and applied in a way that isolates and excludes. Instead it is a living text that must be wrestled with and seen for what it is, a text, and a testimony about, but ultimately not, God.
SO..... that's where I find myself in the past year or so. I find so many of these ideas captured in a song performed by Derek Webb. I have included it below.
| "Take To The World" |
| words and music by Aaron Tate |
go in peace to love and to serve chorus go, and go far Grace and Peace, daniel |
9.24.2007
Our First Conversation! -- Discipleship
So, I'm just a little bit excited to be posting the first ever actual conversation on this blog. This is exactly what I wanted this to be about, so it is nice to see it actually happening.
This started as a conversation between my Dad and I via email. I've edited down the emails a bit so they have a broader appeal here. My Dad has graciously allowed me to use his experience here, and I hope that he will continue contributing to this conversation.
Here it goes:
From Chris (my dad):
This started as a conversation between my Dad and I via email. I've edited down the emails a bit so they have a broader appeal here. My Dad has graciously allowed me to use his experience here, and I hope that he will continue contributing to this conversation.
Here it goes:
From Chris (my dad):
I wanted to run something by the two of you and see if you'd every thought about or heard of discipleship being taught in this way.
We've always talked about needing to have discipleship and we've kicked around the idea of a discipleship class, but none of the ideas have really felt "right" to me. All the discipleship curricula has seemed to be missing something or just too sterile.
In reading through the book that I spoke to Daniel about on the phone, I really felt an urging that this is the foundation of the right discipleship model for the church. Their ideas, in "Simple Church", are to really focus why we do what we do in the church to make sure that we are making disciples. That IS the ministry of the church. The second part of their idea is that vibrant churches' discipleship models follow their "programs" sequentially through the week. All this is backed up with statistical data from vibrant churches and comparison (non-growing) churches.
Sunday morning, I rolled out an idea to our congregation of what a discipleship process at Cornerstone Fellowship of Monroe (CFM) could look like. This is something that we've not really had a good grasp on since day-one at CFM. I correlated the acronym for our name, CFM, with the steps of the our proposed discipleship process (Connect, Follow, Model); each step of which corresponds to a specific service throughout the week.
While in the midst of preaching/sharing this process with our congregation, I used the scripture from Matthew 4:18-20:
18As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 19" Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men." 20At once they left their nets and followed him.
18As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 19" Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men." 20At once they left their nets and followed him.
Each of the three steps that we have corresponds to Jesus' call of His first disciples; "come" (Connect), "follow" (Follow), and "I will make you" (Model). While I was preaching, it hit me like a brick that we, in the church, may have been guilty of doing discipleship all wrong.
First, we wait until someone to get "saved" before we start the discipleship process. Jesus didn't do that! He call His disciples-to-be to begin the process before they were saved, before they were following, and before they were modeling. They weren't disciples during the process but that didn't stop Jesus.
In the middle of my sermon I felt God opened my eyes to the fact that we in the church are guilty of thinking that someone has to get saved and then sit through a bunch of classes where we as "spiritually mature" leaders proceed to throw wet blankets on their new-found faith, hope and excitement until they settle down and become "mature" like us. I think that the word is "luke-warm" like us!
What we need to do is to invite them to come on the journey with us. They won't be saved at first but we must Connect with them to connect them to Christ. Then we need to invite them to follow and they still may not be saved but we teach them to follow nonetheless! Finally, we invite them to come with us as we Model the love of Christ in servant leadership ways. The real epiphany for me is they may not be saved even when they enter the Model stage, but when they do trust Christ, they will be able to plug in what they have already connected to, followed and seen modeled.
I was sharing this with R. and S. after the service and R. really set him to thinking about the concept. I kidded him that I was going to write a book called "RAW Discipleship" about what I felt God had opened my understanding (revelation?) to.
So, all this being said, I was wondering whether you two had heard/read anything along these lines with regards to this almost backwards Jesus-model of getting people involved in the discipleship process before salvation?
Daniel's response:
Sounds really great. It encourages me that you guys are moving this direction. You might check out what's commonly called "The Celtic Way of Evangelism." There is actually a book by that name, and here's a link to a summary of some of the basic ideas of the book: http://i.b5z.net/i/u/696577/h/krueger/newsletter/archive/0402/index_files/page0003.htm
It encourages me to see you guys and a lot of churches rethinking the whole evangelism scheme. I think that this direction is far more biblically sound and more in keeping with the character of how Jesus interacted with his followers. The confrontational/ proof method of evangelism where Jesus is presented as an argument seems to have come out of the Enlightenment period when the church felt like it had to compete with science, and thus started using scientific methods to go about turning the faith into a formula for conversion. What Jesus taught wasn't a method at all, in fact, the earliest name for Christians was "followers of The Way."
It's more than interesting that The Way of Jesus predates Modernism and the enlightenment methods of evangelism, and that now as we shift into a post-modern world, it is this non-modern way of being that is still the heart of Jesus' message.
I think that there are a few fundamental claims/ base assumptions that have to be in place for people to get on board with this idea.
The first is a philosophical claim of embracing the cultural shift into postmodernism. You can call this whatever you like, but basically it means that ever since seeing the tragedy of the holocaust, the world has decided that scientific objectivity cannot create a perfect world. Seeing Europe shattered in the peak of the modern period burst this bubble. As a result whether people claim the tag or not, people who have come of age are postmodern in their thinking; that is to say, they believe more what they have experienced to be true than what science or an outside authority tells them is true. They don't reject objective truth altogether, they just believe that no individual human being can have the whole truth in its entirety. Funny, but this is very similar to the claims of the Eastern orthodox church and most of pre-enlightenment Christianity. Truth is never completely objective when it comes to human's ability to know things. That is the realm of God alone. That is why finding the truth about God must come in community with other believers, we each have a bit of the truth, a piece of the Imago Dei in all of us, and we come and submit ourselves to the word of God and to the community of God in order to learn from, correct, and balance one another out.
With this philosophical beginning, we can better see why "becoming a Christian" is a part of a process in community and not an event that happens as the result of proselytizing.
Next I believe that the Theological underpinnings of this way of discipleship are rooted solidly in a deep sense of mystery as to the depths of God's grace. It requires a complete rebuilding of some of our doctrines. What I mean by this is that many evangelical Christian doctrines (Atonement, Justification, Salvation, Evangelism... to name a few) seem to have deep roots in the power of sin. This method of evangelism assumes something opposite. It assumes a deep rootedness in the power of God's grace. If we begin with the strength of God's grace, and build from there, then our view of "saved" and "unsaved" gets completely screwed up. If we assume that God in infinite wisdom and love intended to create us each with the propensity to make choices that move away from God, then we can read in scripture that the power of sin is only powerful if we allow it to drive us to fear it, and to turn farther from God. The immense grace of God reaches out for us from the very beginning of scripture's narrative and chases us through the incarnation. God initiates relationship with the fallen Adam and Eve, and Jesus sought out dinner at the homes of tax collectors and prostitutes. If God's grace is not strong enough, if God's love not great enough, if the work of the incarnation of Christ is not model enough for us to base our doctrines, then we ought not waste our time on this faith.
If we view the foundation for our doctrines as God's grace, then we believe God is reaching for us before we reach for God. So, it becomes imperative for us, as we become more like Christ, to reach out to bring others into community before we convert them, not after. We should mirror Christ and reach out in grace and compassion, and we will find that the straight and narrow path of Christ is not a legalistic command but a metaphor for how difficult it is to come in love alongside those whose lives do not yet reflect the hope of redemption that God has for them.
The practical question will arise, how do protect ourselves/children/new believers from the bad influence of all these people we are inviting into our community. Once again we must rethink our doctrines. What does community look like based on sin? It is a fearful place where people are trying hard not to do wrong and isolating themselves from anything that might taint them. What about a community based on the strength of the grace of God? This kind of community cannot draw such distinctive lines of "saved" and "unsaved." Instead this kind of community does not have walls, but is ever expanding outward welcoming into community all who come in its path. It is not scared of sin, instead it openly admits that sin infects us all. We all bear the stain and the disease of sin, but we live in the greatness of God's grace. Yes this kind of community is dangerous. It doesn't have clear lines to provide comfort and security, and people get hurt, but, again, this is why Jesus calls it a way that only a few find.
The last area that I think must be fundamentally altered in this method is that we must change the practical way in which we mark the journey of faith. Right now most evangelical churches have a doctrine of salvation, followed by baptism--both as distinct events. Pentecostals mark a third arena of baptism in the Holy Spirit, and holiness churches mark a further arena of sanctification.
What I would view as a more Biblical model is that all who are invited to share in the fellowship of the church are disciples. It might scare new people to call them this, and so I'd suggest starting with something more inviting, like "friends" or "neighbors." beyond this, when your friends and neighbors find themselves walking in the way of Christ and they become convinced of the shared testimony of scripture, the life of the community, and their own experience with grace (through inclusion into your community), then they ought to be encouraged to make the Biblical profession of their faith in water baptism. By returning to this sign of outward commitment, we have not done away with the understanding that some are lost and some are securely in the grip of Christ, but instead drawing a line of saved and unsaved, we have returned to a way of being as a community that embraces grace. We don't decide who gets in or doesn't on the basis of conversion. Instead we extend open arms to everyone we encounter and let God determine the Extent of God's own grace (how benevolent of us to let God be God).
These are just some initial thoughts, and I'd love to see how this plays out for you guys.
END
So, that's what we have so far. You can definitely see the difference in our approaches to the topic. Together I think we are wrestling with the questions and tensions of bringing together the theology and praxis of the church.
It is my hope that we can all find ways to marry our belief and our action into the active love of Christ in the world.
I'd love to hear from some other folks on this stuff.
Peace
Daniel's response:
Sounds really great. It encourages me that you guys are moving this direction. You might check out what's commonly called "The Celtic Way of Evangelism." There is actually a book by that name, and here's a link to a summary of some of the basic ideas of the book: http://i.b5z.net/i/u/696577/h
It encourages me to see you guys and a lot of churches rethinking the whole evangelism scheme. I think that this direction is far more biblically sound and more in keeping with the character of how Jesus interacted with his followers. The confrontational/ proof method of evangelism where Jesus is presented as an argument seems to have come out of the Enlightenment period when the church felt like it had to compete with science, and thus started using scientific methods to go about turning the faith into a formula for conversion. What Jesus taught wasn't a method at all, in fact, the earliest name for Christians was "followers of The Way."
It's more than interesting that The Way of Jesus predates Modernism and the enlightenment methods of evangelism, and that now as we shift into a post-modern world, it is this non-modern way of being that is still the heart of Jesus' message.
I think that there are a few fundamental claims/ base assumptions that have to be in place for people to get on board with this idea.
The first is a philosophical claim of embracing the cultural shift into postmodernism. You can call this whatever you like, but basically it means that ever since seeing the tragedy of the holocaust, the world has decided that scientific objectivity cannot create a perfect world. Seeing Europe shattered in the peak of the modern period burst this bubble. As a result whether people claim the tag or not, people who have come of age are postmodern in their thinking; that is to say, they believe more what they have experienced to be true than what science or an outside authority tells them is true. They don't reject objective truth altogether, they just believe that no individual human being can have the whole truth in its entirety. Funny, but this is very similar to the claims of the Eastern orthodox church and most of pre-enlightenment Christianity. Truth is never completely objective when it comes to human's ability to know things. That is the realm of God alone. That is why finding the truth about God must come in community with other believers, we each have a bit of the truth, a piece of the Imago Dei in all of us, and we come and submit ourselves to the word of God and to the community of God in order to learn from, correct, and balance one another out.
With this philosophical beginning, we can better see why "becoming a Christian" is a part of a process in community and not an event that happens as the result of proselytizing.
Next I believe that the Theological underpinnings of this way of discipleship are rooted solidly in a deep sense of mystery as to the depths of God's grace. It requires a complete rebuilding of some of our doctrines. What I mean by this is that many evangelical Christian doctrines (Atonement, Justification, Salvation, Evangelism... to name a few) seem to have deep roots in the power of sin. This method of evangelism assumes something opposite. It assumes a deep rootedness in the power of God's grace. If we begin with the strength of God's grace, and build from there, then our view of "saved" and "unsaved" gets completely screwed up. If we assume that God in infinite wisdom and love intended to create us each with the propensity to make choices that move away from God, then we can read in scripture that the power of sin is only powerful if we allow it to drive us to fear it, and to turn farther from God. The immense grace of God reaches out for us from the very beginning of scripture's narrative and chases us through the incarnation. God initiates relationship with the fallen Adam and Eve, and Jesus sought out dinner at the homes of tax collectors and prostitutes. If God's grace is not strong enough, if God's love not great enough, if the work of the incarnation of Christ is not model enough for us to base our doctrines, then we ought not waste our time on this faith.
If we view the foundation for our doctrines as God's grace, then we believe God is reaching for us before we reach for God. So, it becomes imperative for us, as we become more like Christ, to reach out to bring others into community before we convert them, not after. We should mirror Christ and reach out in grace and compassion, and we will find that the straight and narrow path of Christ is not a legalistic command but a metaphor for how difficult it is to come in love alongside those whose lives do not yet reflect the hope of redemption that God has for them.
The practical question will arise, how do protect ourselves/children/new believers from the bad influence of all these people we are inviting into our community. Once again we must rethink our doctrines. What does community look like based on sin? It is a fearful place where people are trying hard not to do wrong and isolating themselves from anything that might taint them. What about a community based on the strength of the grace of God? This kind of community cannot draw such distinctive lines of "saved" and "unsaved." Instead this kind of community does not have walls, but is ever expanding outward welcoming into community all who come in its path. It is not scared of sin, instead it openly admits that sin infects us all. We all bear the stain and the disease of sin, but we live in the greatness of God's grace. Yes this kind of community is dangerous. It doesn't have clear lines to provide comfort and security, and people get hurt, but, again, this is why Jesus calls it a way that only a few find.
The last area that I think must be fundamentally altered in this method is that we must change the practical way in which we mark the journey of faith. Right now most evangelical churches have a doctrine of salvation, followed by baptism--both as distinct events. Pentecostals mark a third arena of baptism in the Holy Spirit, and holiness churches mark a further arena of sanctification.
What I would view as a more Biblical model is that all who are invited to share in the fellowship of the church are disciples. It might scare new people to call them this, and so I'd suggest starting with something more inviting, like "friends" or "neighbors." beyond this, when your friends and neighbors find themselves walking in the way of Christ and they become convinced of the shared testimony of scripture, the life of the community, and their own experience with grace (through inclusion into your community), then they ought to be encouraged to make the Biblical profession of their faith in water baptism. By returning to this sign of outward commitment, we have not done away with the understanding that some are lost and some are securely in the grip of Christ, but instead drawing a line of saved and unsaved, we have returned to a way of being as a community that embraces grace. We don't decide who gets in or doesn't on the basis of conversion. Instead we extend open arms to everyone we encounter and let God determine the Extent of God's own grace (how benevolent of us to let God be God).
These are just some initial thoughts, and I'd love to see how this plays out for you guys.
END
So, that's what we have so far. You can definitely see the difference in our approaches to the topic. Together I think we are wrestling with the questions and tensions of bringing together the theology and praxis of the church.
It is my hope that we can all find ways to marry our belief and our action into the active love of Christ in the world.
I'd love to hear from some other folks on this stuff.
Peace
9.20.2007
hello...is this thing on???
So, I'm going to attempt to revive this little site. Much has changed in my life since the last post, and so I will do a brief filling in "about me.
In April of this year I got engaged to Jocelyn Jones, who has become my closest friend and co-creator in this journey called life. In May we both graduated from Lee University in Cleveland, TN. I had been accepted into the MDIV program at Mars Hill Graduate School (mhgs.edu) back in December. Around February Jocelyn was accepted into the JET program teaching English in Japan... This led to several months of turmoil and decisions, concluding in our engagement and decision to get married on August 4th.
Throughout the summer we worked, and searched for jobs and housing in Seattle, after deciding that a move across country would probably be better for us as newlyweds than a move across the world. Jocelyn quickly found a job working through Americorps with a great literacy program in the city.
Our wedding day came and went, and was absolutely wonderful. I can't imagine a more joyous celebration. We were so blessed to be among a great many wonderful friends and family members.
After our wedding we left for our honeymoon in the southwestern U.S. where we soaked up as much sun as we could prior to our arrival in the city of rain.
Three days before flying into Seattle we managed to secure an apartment in Seatac, WA. This was a great relief, as I started school at Mars Hill two weeks after our arrival.
Since moving in, all of our worldly possessions finally arrived on a truck from TN (Much thanks to some dear friends for facilitating that process). I started classes and found a job working mornings at a French bakery at Pike Place Market. Jocelyn has been training with her job and Americorps, and we are adjusting to the bus system of Seattle (we sold our car in TN).
So needless to say, life is moving at a breakneck pace. We are learning what it means to be married, to adjust to a new city and a new community, and what it means to hold onto dear relationships from thousands of miles away.
Our life is a journey of grace. Each day I am learning new expressions of God's great love for all humanity. There are so many ways that we are learning to participate in the incarnational love of God, and so many opportunities we miss each day.
Yesterday as Jocelyn and I were walking to the bus stop, a man who appeared to be homeless made eye contact with me on the street. We were walking toward each other and his body language made it clear that he was going to initiate some sort of interaction. Not unused to this, I felt myself literally draw away from the man as I walked. I'm not sure if it was out of fear, or simply desiring to not be inconvenienced by another human being at the end of a long day, but I noticed my move away from him.
As we came alongside one another, the old man smiled broadly, bent low, tipped his hat at us, and went on his way humming a merry tune to himself. I was shocked. I was humiliated. I was caught up in the act of grace that he had just extended.
We continued walking up the street and moving farther from the man, and I told my wife the reaction I had observed in myself. I had tried to withdraw. I attempted to act like he wasn't there. I didn't plan on rejecting him if he asked for help, I simply planned to not give him the opportunity.
I am constantly awed by the way God graciously pierces into my heart and wrestles with my selfish desires. I wanted to protect myself. To avoid "that man." God had other intentions.
At the end of a long day. As I left a class in which we had discussed reconciliation, relationships, and the light of God in all humanity, I showed by my actions that I intended to keep these ideas in the realm of the theoretical.
God decided to incarnate them.
Incarnating himself into the smile and nod of an old black man on the streets of Seattle, God's grace struck into the center of my ingrown soul. Sloughing off my piety, God saw me naked, in the street, seeking to withdraw from an old man that I never thought to give a chance to express himself as the image of God. And in that moment, the reminder I got from God was not a harsh rebuke, fire eyed conviction, or deep shame.
No, it was the grace that I needed to understand. It was a smile, a gentle bow, and a joyful song. These are the things that rendered my heart helplessly exposed to experience something transformative from God. It was great grace in the commonest of places--grace in the face of a fellow human being.
I am left speechless by the tender love of God, who seeks to call us all as children.
God's grace is boundless. God's kingdom is bursting forth from all the loose seams and broken places and cracked edges of this world. All our faith and hope collide in this entangled mass of human suffering and joy that is found in the incarnation of the love of Christ each time we choose to embody the grace so freely given to us.
Peace.
P.S. Tomorrow is the International Day of Peace. The nations of the U.N. have agreed to cease fire for one day as people the world over pause to celebrate the hope of peace for our world. Let us all take part in this day and join with creation in groaning and straining each day to bring about the already/not yet shalom of God's dream for our world.
In April of this year I got engaged to Jocelyn Jones, who has become my closest friend and co-creator in this journey called life. In May we both graduated from Lee University in Cleveland, TN. I had been accepted into the MDIV program at Mars Hill Graduate School (mhgs.edu) back in December. Around February Jocelyn was accepted into the JET program teaching English in Japan... This led to several months of turmoil and decisions, concluding in our engagement and decision to get married on August 4th.
Throughout the summer we worked, and searched for jobs and housing in Seattle, after deciding that a move across country would probably be better for us as newlyweds than a move across the world. Jocelyn quickly found a job working through Americorps with a great literacy program in the city.
Our wedding day came and went, and was absolutely wonderful. I can't imagine a more joyous celebration. We were so blessed to be among a great many wonderful friends and family members.
After our wedding we left for our honeymoon in the southwestern U.S. where we soaked up as much sun as we could prior to our arrival in the city of rain.
Three days before flying into Seattle we managed to secure an apartment in Seatac, WA. This was a great relief, as I started school at Mars Hill two weeks after our arrival.
Since moving in, all of our worldly possessions finally arrived on a truck from TN (Much thanks to some dear friends for facilitating that process). I started classes and found a job working mornings at a French bakery at Pike Place Market. Jocelyn has been training with her job and Americorps, and we are adjusting to the bus system of Seattle (we sold our car in TN).
So needless to say, life is moving at a breakneck pace. We are learning what it means to be married, to adjust to a new city and a new community, and what it means to hold onto dear relationships from thousands of miles away.
Our life is a journey of grace. Each day I am learning new expressions of God's great love for all humanity. There are so many ways that we are learning to participate in the incarnational love of God, and so many opportunities we miss each day.
Yesterday as Jocelyn and I were walking to the bus stop, a man who appeared to be homeless made eye contact with me on the street. We were walking toward each other and his body language made it clear that he was going to initiate some sort of interaction. Not unused to this, I felt myself literally draw away from the man as I walked. I'm not sure if it was out of fear, or simply desiring to not be inconvenienced by another human being at the end of a long day, but I noticed my move away from him.
As we came alongside one another, the old man smiled broadly, bent low, tipped his hat at us, and went on his way humming a merry tune to himself. I was shocked. I was humiliated. I was caught up in the act of grace that he had just extended.
We continued walking up the street and moving farther from the man, and I told my wife the reaction I had observed in myself. I had tried to withdraw. I attempted to act like he wasn't there. I didn't plan on rejecting him if he asked for help, I simply planned to not give him the opportunity.
I am constantly awed by the way God graciously pierces into my heart and wrestles with my selfish desires. I wanted to protect myself. To avoid "that man." God had other intentions.
At the end of a long day. As I left a class in which we had discussed reconciliation, relationships, and the light of God in all humanity, I showed by my actions that I intended to keep these ideas in the realm of the theoretical.
God decided to incarnate them.
Incarnating himself into the smile and nod of an old black man on the streets of Seattle, God's grace struck into the center of my ingrown soul. Sloughing off my piety, God saw me naked, in the street, seeking to withdraw from an old man that I never thought to give a chance to express himself as the image of God. And in that moment, the reminder I got from God was not a harsh rebuke, fire eyed conviction, or deep shame.
No, it was the grace that I needed to understand. It was a smile, a gentle bow, and a joyful song. These are the things that rendered my heart helplessly exposed to experience something transformative from God. It was great grace in the commonest of places--grace in the face of a fellow human being.
I am left speechless by the tender love of God, who seeks to call us all as children.
God's grace is boundless. God's kingdom is bursting forth from all the loose seams and broken places and cracked edges of this world. All our faith and hope collide in this entangled mass of human suffering and joy that is found in the incarnation of the love of Christ each time we choose to embody the grace so freely given to us.
Peace.
P.S. Tomorrow is the International Day of Peace. The nations of the U.N. have agreed to cease fire for one day as people the world over pause to celebrate the hope of peace for our world. Let us all take part in this day and join with creation in groaning and straining each day to bring about the already/not yet shalom of God's dream for our world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)