When the Earth Gives Way

For our wedding, my bride chose a psalm to be read that has had much meaning to us as a couple over the years. Happens to be Psalm 46, which doesn't sound much like a text for a wedding, lamenting as it does about the world falling apart. There are, for sure, sweet verses in the psalm that sound very wedding-like, but surely not ones like these: "Nations are in uproar, kingdoms fall, the earth melts."

Reminds me of a song sung at a Christian wedding in Taiwan: "Home, Home on the Range," the old cowboy ode about deer and antelope playing. For our local friends, it had sweet meaning as they crooned, "Where seldom is heard a discouraging word and the skies are not cloudy all day." But for us few foreigners present, all we could think of was sweaty ranch hands and cow dung.

Yet Number 46 is a surprisingly fitting scripture on which to start a life together. We all want to live "happily ever after." But life is more often filled with sorrow and pain, chaos and confusion, twists and turns we couldn't have anticipated in a thousand years. While there are those moments of unrestrained joy, there are also those times of agonizing heartache. It is in the midst of all this chaos, the sons of Korah write, that God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble.

I think about this and the modern world in which we believers find ourselves. We long for peace and security without the panic and turmoil. But God has promised us peace and security in the midst of natural and social upheaval of the nth degree. It is the God of Jacob, a man who led a very complicated and frustrating life, who is "our fortress." Jacob grew up and fled from one very dysfunctional family to another and then started his own, which proved even more of a mess. There was no end to heartache in his life. And yet his God was his anchor, an anchor he found only while fleeing for his life from his own brother.

We want life to go one way and it goes another, so we adjust to that new way, only for it to take yet another turn and go in a third unplanned direction. We keep waiting for that "home on the range" which we think of as a ranch house in the 'burbs of Dallas only to discover that we are homeless in Seattle or helpless in Detroit. In all this chaos of life, slowly it dawns on us that our "home" is -- as I wrote for a school assignment at the age of 13 -- "the presence of God."

I have pondered these thoughts in #46 at various stages in my own life and I have often reflected on them concerning the Church, particularly in America. Unlike most of the rest of the world, we as the American Church are not used to upheavals. Even 9/11, as traumatic as that was, did not really destroy the American dream we have come to accept as our God-given birthright on this earth.

Do we fight for issues like pro-life (meaning anti-abortion) or pro-marriage (meaning anti-gay) because we want to fulfill our role of being salt and light in the world or because we are fighting hard for a certain type of status quo lifestyle, a '50s-style (white) dream world in which all is well with God and the universe? How much we forget that every period in history has been heaven for some, but hell for others and there is no ideal world, in this life at least, we can hold onto.

So what if America goes to hell in a hand basket? I am not saying to go out and tear down the nation ourselves. I am saying that if the world as we know it collapses, it may not necessarily be the much anticipated apocalypse. It may only be the next opportunity for God to prove that God alone is our refuge and strength.

Taste Testing God

A custom common to many folks is to use the changing of the calendar as a moment to take stock of life and set goals for the coming year. We often call these goals "resolutions" as in "I resolve to" lose weight or clean out the garage. The standard New Year's joke is that such "New Year's resolutions" last shorter than the proverbial New Year's Eve hangover.

Perhaps the short-lived nature of these goals is because they are given too minimal a gestation period, coming as so many of them do in the closing hours of the old year or even during the lingering hangover the next day. And perhaps goals so conceived are best left at the party anyway.

I've tended to avoid New Year's resolutions precisely because of their sordid reputation. But I have been known to set a lot of goals in my life. Some I've achieved, some I've exceeded, and many others I've failed miserably at, even leaving a few behind the moment I've written them down. I'm not setting goals or resolutions this New Year, but I am continuing a process begun many months ago -- that of sorting through and taking stock of the essentials in life.

I've experienced something the past three years I thought I was going to avoid -- a mid-life crisis. It had to be one, occurring as it did at midlife (I guess) and it was a crisis (without a doubt). I won't go into the gory details, other than to say that I walked through a period of deep depression in which all the realities of life as I'd perceived them were vigorously shaken to the extent that what has come after is hard to connect with what went before.

And yet, I come to the other side of that dark valley in life amazed at how intact some of the most closely held values remain and have deepened -- such as my devotion to God, my love for my wife and kids, and my commitment "to reconcile the alienated, free the oppressed and embrace the misfit" (as I've phrased it on my website). Oh, and my quirky humor (sorry, folks).

What I've also determined is that I'm not going to let presumptions stick just because they already exist. It is too easy in life to believe that something is true merely because you always thought of it that way and were too lazy or too afraid to examine it and see if it really is as true as it purports to be. No exceptions. Not even God.

It is that "not even God" that makes people nervous, especially religious types who depend on there being a god in order for them to remain religious. But if God really exists and He/She really is God, then my thinking is that He/She can stand up to all the scrutiny the world can muster. And, surprise, surprise, God is not intimidated by our scrutiny. In fact, the God I know actually welcomes it.

Where is that line that says "taste and see that the Lord is good"? Happens to be in a Psalm of David, Number 34. Interesting note at the head of the psalm. David wrote it when he was pretending "to be insane before Abimelech, who drove him away." Actually while the Psalm is as upbeat as they come, even when it talks about suffering saints and struggling sinners, it was a very low time in David's life, coming as it did when he was fleeing for his life from Saul and living as a man without a country -- and without a friend.

In the midst of that dark hour in David's life, he penned a song about checking God out to see if He is made of the real stuff or is just the sort of fake gods that Abimelech kept around his house.

I've eaten a lot of exotic foods in my time, being a guest to many a host ready to share his or her favorite concoction you've never heard of. They generally, being gracious hosts, only want you to try it and then smile and tell them how good it is before you tuck the rest of it under the cleaned-off chicken bones. It's what you tell your kids when you want them to eat that stuff out of the baby jar, the stuff you wouldn't eat in a million years. "Just taste it," you say.

And that is what David says. Taste God. Just check Him out and see if He really is all He's trumped up to be. If I get this psalm's context right, the time to do that taste testing is not when you're flying high in the good life. It is when you are either acting insane or doing it for real. Any old god can taste good when life is good, but only a true God will come through for you when you are caught between your arch enemies, Abimelech and Saul, who'd kill you first and then each other.

The nice thing about going through depression is that ever after you have an excuse for whatever it is you've ever wanted to do. "Poor thing, he's out of his head," they say. I've decided that, as with David, I'm going for broke. I'm taste testing God.

Beyond Right and Left - Part IV

This afternoon I met with a local pastor friend at his invitation to talk about the tensions between church and politics. We wound up talking mostly about evangelism and pondering how to help people develop relationships in order for communication of the Good News to occur. But before we parted, we got back to the original question as to how we keep the doors of the church open to people of all political orientations without making the Good News so public-forum-averse the Church has nothing to say at all about concerns like blessing the poor or rescuing the pre-born. It is much like the tension often found between a focus on evangelism and a focus on discipleship, a tension harder to balance than it first appears.

There is a tug of war going on inside American Evangelicalism between declaring the Good News and demonstrating the Good News. It is not a new skirmish. In fact, it has been a struggle for over a hundred years now -- ever since Finney's and Moody's 19th Century Evangelicalism splintered at the dawn of the 20th Century. Living the life of faith can sure be complicated at times. Which is exactly what Jesus said we would discover if we take this life of faith seriously.

Earlier today while attending a meeting of the Human Services Coalition of Oregon, a panel was reviewing the plight of society's most vulnerable in light of the economic downturn and subsequent funding cuts. At one point as they digressed, my mind wandered to this tension between demonstrating and declaring the Good News. We as Believers feel other tensions as well, such as how the Gospel is to be declared (relational evangelism vs. proclamation evangelism). And demonstrated (what part should the church play, if any, in individual or corporate acts of compassion and justice?). We may say our answers to concerns about demonstrating the Gospel should be kept separate from our mandate to declare the Gospel, but in reality the two are inseparable.

For example, during the 1950s, Evangelical and Pentecostal church leaders worked to stay out of the Civil Rights movement and at times even voiced opposition to the movement, while at the same time warning that the evangelism of African-Americans would impede the evangelism of White Americans. Such crass attempts at triage -- to say we cannot reach one group or we won't be able to reach another -- are, sad to say, not isolated lapses in the Church's commitment to follow Christ at all costs. And then there are churches who get so activized they forget the One whom they worship.

Sitting in that morning meeting I thought about how important it is that no one ever feel unwelcomed at church meetings because of political orientation. One friend, who once pastored in a Latin American country torn by civil war between the government and communists, shared with me how he had leaders of both sides of the conflict sitting in his congregation Sunday after Sunday. How much that contrasts with a church I recently visited in the States where snide remarks were made from the pulpit about our current American President. Never mind whether or not that was appropriate toward the President. How does that make visitors feel who think differently than the pastor? Either way, it made me less inclined to go back.

And yet, what happens if we go to great lengths to make the church inclusive as some have attempted to do in making the church politically neutral for the sake of avoiding divisions or alienating seekers, or out of concern for protecting their non-profit status? In so doing, are we creating a false dichotomy in the life of faith? Does such an avoidance of all things socio-political lead to a sense among Believers as well as outsiders that faith and justice have nothing to do with each other? Does such neutrality inadvertently legitimize a politically centrist approach as the most spiritually valid position? Does avoiding the causes and concerns of society and the world lead us as Believers to a purely internalized faith devoid of relevancy to life on earth? Do we conclude that we can declare without demonstrating God's love?

A friend sitting next to me in the morning meeting whispered at one point that perhaps as we have become less of a Christian nation, we have become more individualized, meaning we are less concerned about the communities around us and even less concerned about the poor. I'm still not sure what to think of his observation. But I do recall the Apostle Paul saying he could go along with the particular priorities of the Jerusalem church about worship and life styles as long as the Believers did not forget the poor.

If you are wondering where I am headed with all this, I am just asking questions, wrestling with thoughts I have had for most of my life and wondering if I will ever find conclusive answers. Maybe you are blessed with easy answers, but I'm not sure how satisfying or how true to the Gospel such easy answers can be.

Beyond Right and Left - Part III

A key influence in my life half a lifetime ago was Ron Sider's Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (1978). I haven't read more of his writings since, though I assume he is still producing thoughtful works on the Christian's responsibility to live the life of faith and fight for justice on behalf of the world's oppressed. The other day I checked out the internet to see what he has been doing more recently. Particularly he's come out with an update (2005) of this earlier seminal work that has been so widely read and discussed.

A main theme of Sider's writings, particularly in a more recent book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience (2008) is that there is within evangelical Christianity a great inconsistency between Christian beliefs and Christian living. Anecdotally, I wholeheartedly agree, which for me is the reason the field of Ethics is so essential. Ethics, to give it my sound-byte definition, is "living out what we believe." Francis Schaeffer once asked, but never fully answered, the question, "How Shall We Then Live?" It is an answer Sider continues to pursue.

An ongoing theme in Sider's writings and in the organization he founded, Evangelicals for Social Action, is that the Evangelical political agenda refuses to embrace the poor. In stark contrast, there is extensive evidence that Evangelicalism (worldwide as well as with its American version) is on the frontlines in ministries of compassion. Historically, Evangelicals were agitators for political change on behalf of the poor during the 19th Century - everything from abolition of slavery to child labor laws. But since what David O. Moberly has called the "Great Reversal" (1972) at the beginning of the 20th Century, white American Evangelicalism, in particular, has focused almost exclusively on the individual poor and resisted becoming involved in systemic change (thus the preponderance of the word "conservative" in Evangelical political discourse). The most glaring example of this is the Civil Rights movement of mid-century in which, unlike the abolitionist movement of 100 years earlier, Evangelicals either sat on the sidelines or, more accurately, pushed back against the cause for racial justice and equality.

I think about that. Does Christian social and political involvement extend only to the personal? The role of government plays heavily in political discourse among American Christians. The size of government -- which seems to be a key defining point in American politics -- may be an important issue to grapple with, but how does it play out biblically speaking?

Which brings up another point, just what biblical issues are there that we as Believers need to devote our lives to? How are we to be involved with God in fulfilling the prayer Jesus taught his disciples? "Your Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven." Whatever our beliefs about the "end times", we as Evangelicals wholeheartedly assert that God does indeed have a preferred vision for this world and that we as Believers are called to execute that preferred vision, not just wait for the "by and by."

As I've studied the Good Book over the years, I keep running into foundational themes - themes like justice and righteousness (which so often go hand in hand); mercy and compassion for the most vulnerable; the value of human life at every stage and in every diverse form; God's love for His created order; and the (sometimes grotesquely abused) gifts God wills His children in the forms of prosperity, health, wholeness, and freedom for all peoples.

God's Word doesn't have a lot to say about forms of government, but it has tons to say about how any government should behave. And I don't find the kinds of distinctions we moderns make between personal and systemic justice and righteousness, only that it is God's will that every last person, every last government and social unit, and even all of creation receive and extend all the goodness God desires to bestow -- which is a whole lot.

What I also notice is that God does not distinguish between worthy and unworthy recipients of His blessings. God is said to send rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous, to be no respecter of persons, which means He treats us all alike. There is, in God's eyes, no odd distinction such as "worthy" poor. We are all unworthy -- that is why God's blessings are filed under the category of "grace."

So, I come to the conclusion, once again, that God's preferred vision lies far beyond our left-right continuum. And it is out there in the "far beyond" that we are called to as well. Stick that in your political pipe and smoke it.

Beyond Right and Left - Part II

In an engaging column in the 2009.11.16 print edition of Time magazine, James Poniewozik raises some thoughtful questions about our right-left take on politics: "Categories like Pew's 'liberal,' 'conservative,' and 'neither' imply that our society is as simplistic about media bias as we are about politics (when in fact both involve nuanced positions)."

Poniewozik goes on to speak of the unspoken bias of the moderate or centrist position and he concludes that when we speak of bias, there is a whole plethora of biases in society, right, left and even center. Moreover, there is, he says, no one conservative bias or one liberal bias or even one centrist bias, but all kinds of ranges and variations. Which makes the rantings of talk show hosts sound all the more incredible (as in absurd). Particularly disturbing in all the present polarization is the demonization of the opposition. If someone can never find anything good to say about those "on the other side", then I immediately question the rationality of the speaker's "reflections." (I put reflections in quotes because the word implies something far quieter than ranting provides.)

Which brings me to the point that there is little room in our current world for nuance of thought. And yet no two people are ever going to agree on everything, unless one of them is a master of mind control. But we generally do not acknowledge the existence of nuances or at the least assume that any differences are immaterial.

However, as I advance on what I trust is an authentic journey of faith, I realize that these subtleties do make a big difference. Friends have encouraged me to watch this video claiming that Obama is a Muslim. I guess it balances out videos friends on "the other side" have sent me. Otherwise I find nothing in it of value or truth. But I do note that the video makes a big deal of apparent nuances, such as word choices and posturings. It is what I wrote of a couple postings ago in this blog about "where there is smoke, there is not necessarily fire." Nuances are tricky things to differentiate.

This past weekend I got into a fun scrap with some FB friends over some political ramblings and one of those friends said that some position I had or he claimed I had was an oxymoron. My oldest son read that later and clarified that it was a paradox more than an oxymoron because too many words were involved. My investment in his education is proving useful.

What makes something oxymoronic or paradoxical (depending on how many words are involved)? Really it comes down to perspective. From one person's viewpoint a pro-life Democrat or a pro-environmental Republican is an oxymoron. If we look at these things on a right-left continuum, we are forced to conclude that the truth must lie somewhere on this continuum and the truth is that truth cannot therefore be oxymoronic.

Or can it? I take a fresh look at faith and realize that faith is always oxymoronic, paradoxical from a human perspective. God exists beyond the realm of human perspective. Somehow God the Infinite through Jesus the Revealer has invaded and inhabited our finite time-space dimension, but this God is not confined by that continuum as we are. Thus the biblical writer speaks of Jesus as being yesterday, today and forever the same. He is beyond our 3D universe.

If we can, in the same way, see the relationship between God and our finite world of politics and faith, then it gives us a fresh perspective. If there is a right-left continuum, there is no one point on the continuum that embodies truth. Truth is beyond our human reasoning, be it right, left or middle. Truth, in Jesus Christ, invades and inhabits our right-left continuum, but Truth is not confined by that continuum as we are. The truth, therefore, does not, as the saying goes, lie somewhere in the middle any more than it does on the right or on the left. It is much richer, more nuanced and far more dynamic than that. But what the truth of Jesus Christ reveals to us is that it can be known by us mere mortals, even in our one-dimensional political universe.

Beyond Right and Left - Part I

"Moderates do not have principles." Time to switch back to the station I usually listen to. I was on my way home from a fundraiser breakfast in Salem and had stopped by to see my son at college. As the favorite station was getting a bit fuzzy, I had moved over to AM. A famous radio talk show host was bombasting away, explaining to the world why there was only one way to think. At the least, he kept me awake.

Yesterday was election day in a few places across the country, places like New Jersey where I grew up, local and state elections that I hadn't been following. Limbaugh was attacking moderates who advocated for the Republican "big tent" concept. Moderates like the big tent idea in the two main parties, otherwise they'd have to be independents and independents don't usually fare too well in this nation, especially moderate ones.

I take what Rush was saying to mean that people on the political right and left (as we Americans traditionally define right and left) have principles. But those in what is called the middle are compromisers. They lack principles. He did use those terms that way.

I'm not sure my political beliefs line me up in the middle -- or on the right or left for that matter. Which is why I put "unique" as my political persuasion on both my website and on my Facebook info page. I find it a very arduous task to sort out Biblical and Kingdom principles in this human life -- a task nonetheless worth pursuing.

In the life of Faith, there are no neat categories of actions to be taken or positions to be staked. The Bible is not a one-answer fits all catalog of dos and don'ts. It is filled with principles and parables and perspectives that cover all areas of life -- along with some very specific commands, some of which are for all times and all peoples and some of which are very time and people specific. If the Bible were more catalogish and specified, we would not need faith's other two anchors -- the Holy Spirit and the Community of Faith -- to help us sort out life.

So I don't feel totally comfortable with any one position on the traditional left-to-right line on which we tend to paint political, moral and religious persuasions. I like better the idea that, at the least, this line is more a circle in which the most liberal libertarians and the most conservative libertarians meet somewhere on the other side, opposite those big tent moderates who hang between the Republican and Democratic parties. (Every country has its own variations on these themes, so to my non-USA friends, please pardon my culturally specific applications.)

Even at that, I am not sure such a circle captures the heart and passions of God. Make it into a sphere and you get closer. But God is so beyond our three-dimensional world, the sphere would have to have an unlimited number of dimensions.

However, we mortals don't live in more than three dimensions, at least not on an ordinary basis, though I think that is what the Ancient, Paul, was referring to by being caught up to a higher level. Still, it is hard to bring those dimensions into everyday life -- witness the intense and passionate controversy surrounding applications of John's book known as "Revelation".

I don't think God purposed that life be all so complicated for us earth-bound humans. The complications are what we theological and philosophical types call "sin" and "evil". Which is why God sent Jesus, to help us rise above sin and evil and complications, and why Jesus said he'd come back and why many Believers talk about something called the Millennium, a futuristic time when he would show us what God intended all along, a time of living uncomplicatedly in the unlimited dimensions of God here on earth as human beings.

Most Christians agree to some degree with this notion of God's Kingdom on earth. Where we really disagree is how and how much God's multidimensional intentions and expectations impact our here and now. It is what theological types have called the "Already but not yet" of God's reign on earth, something people like Rush and other Righties and Lefties don't quite get.

Where there’s smoke – Part III

A newcomer to digital social networks like Facebook, I’ve noticed how people spout and move on. Occasionally I subject myself to bombastic talk radio. Even more rarely do I tune in to people shouting at each other on the TV. What I see and hear and shy away from are people freely expressing generalized sound bytes that come across more like rants than invitations to further discussion. They are throwing up regurgitated hash and leaving a foul smell in their wake.

These same people get lost, confused or defensive if you respond in a way that attempts to open up the discussion. What is missing, sadly, in so much of our modern world is thoughtful dialog. Is it lack of time or just lack of interest?

One of my favorite pastimes when we lived in China was stopping by to visit a friend in the open market or dropping in on a friend at his or her work post. In much of the Asian culture, two rules of social intercourse are paramount. One, you don’t just jump into business, you slide into it after taking time to catch up on life a bit and inquire after one’s parents and ask, “have you eaten yet”. Two, you don’t shove an issue in another person’s face; you slide into it as delicately as you can.

This sliding approach sounds far too indirect to us Westerners given to in-your-face Jerry Springer style relating. But the social slide is a multi-millennial habit formed to preserve a bit of mutual social respect and courtesy in even the most heated of conflagrations. The goal of dialog is making or keeping a friend, not winning an argument.

I think about this as I switch off an AM radio talk show and seek a moment of quiet on a local classical music station. The Chinese have a saying, which basically means you purposely go down your friend’s path with him for a while so that he will be willing to return the favor and walk down your path with you. The idea is that I listen to what my friend is saying and seek to understand where she is coming from, and then that friend will be willing to do the same with me, listening to my point of view. We both gain out of it.

One of my favorite books is E. Stanley Jones’ Christ at the Round Table. The book is hard-to-read by easy-reading modern standards, filled as it is with the dialogs Jones had with a variety of thinking people – Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, Nonbelievers even – in a setting where the playing field was leveled and everyone was given full opportunity to express ideas and ask questions.

I don’t fear for our modern civilization as long as priority is given to thoughtful insights and honest probing. The truth is that truth, given a fair and equal hearing, will in the end win out. The person who has the truth is not afraid of truth being lost as long as it can be expressed.

As a Believer I am confident that when all views are given equal opportunity of expression the Jesus I know will shine brightest. I don’t need to shout him; I just need to allow him to be revealed.

Share ideas that are contrary to politically correct speech whether you be in church or in the country club and there are sure to be those who will question your credentials. “Where there is smoke, there is fire,” they say. “Surely you are one of Them.”

And yet, long before modern democratic ideals welcomed open discourse, Jesus provided a safe place for just such an openness. Too many moderns fear compromise. They exaggerate the effect of open investigation. The enemy is not the opposing view; the enemy is a closed mind.

Where there’s smoke – Part II

One of my favorite parables is the one where Jesus contrasts the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. What strikes me every time I read this story is how things are not always as they seem.

I’ve described the story before like this: Which of the men is closer to God, the Pharisee who is very religiously devoted and is always at the temple praying; or the Tax Collector who stands way outside, because he is so bad and such a stranger to houses of worship? Jesus’ surprising answer is the tax collector. This guy that everybody loves to revile and isn’t even clean enough to get close to in the temple is actually closer to God than this Pharisee who has worked hard all his life to be just what God expects!

Why do I like this story? Because, I think, it is much more real life than what we generally assume. We’re always looking at resumes and outward appearances. We’re always checking what the best references have to say. And all that background checking shows us nothing about what is going on inside someone, what we call the heart, the core of a person.

But it is not position, it is direction. When the Pharisee stands up and proclaims, “God, I thank you that I am not like…,” his face shifts from wherever he thinks God is to faces in the crowd, and particularly to the face of the Tax Collector, who is presumably way in the back, behind him. So this Pharisee ends up facing away from God (metaphorically speaking since God is supposedly everywhere). Meanwhile, the miserable, evil Tax Collector who is way far off is actually facing toward wherever God is supposed to be, presumably meaning toward what they called the “Holy of Holies” in the Temple.

While the Pharisee is facing away from God, the Tax Collector is actually bent toward God, albeit with his head bowed but in the general presumed direction. The one who is closer, then, Jesus is saying, is not the one who has positioned himself nearer to where he presumes God to be, but the one who is bowing in humility in a direction that moves him closer to God.

It is direction not position. Jesus says the tax collector is the only one of the two who goes home justified. Theological types refer to positional justification, by which they mean that we are justified (meaning made good) in God’s sight, not by what we have or haven’t done, but by our position in Christ. What they are getting at is that we are justified by what Christ as done, not what we have done. Which is true.

I prefer to think of it more as directional justification. Which way are we headed? What is our bent?

You see a lady of the night. She’s a mess. But inside with whatever last clearheadedness she can muster, she’s crying out, “God if you exist, help me.”

You see a real classy lady who is in church all the time, gives loads of money to help the church with this or that project, volunteers for everything and prays and reads her Bible all the time. She’s a perfect wife and mother to boot. But inside, in the midst of all that busyness for God, she’s telling God what to do about everyone and everything else and yet not really noticing God.

Which one is closer to God? The one who is moving toward God, no matter how far back she starts. That is directional justification.

There is a lot of talk these days about politically correct speech. Whether it is on TV or in church or … just about anywhere. It’s an abominable vice of both the political and religious right and the left (or whatever other forum of life you are talking about). But as much as we want to judge the speech of those around us, we can never tell what is going on inside the heart of our neighbor. Only God can do that.

I think about that. Just because there is smoke does not mean there is fire. Good or evil.

Where There’s Smoke – Part I

Our home has two seasons – deck and fireplace. In the warmer (and drier) weather of summer, the deck becomes our family hangout, especially in the cooler evenings. When cold (and wet) weather sets in, the hangout spot is the family room fireplace in the pre-dawn mornings as kids sleepily get ready for school.

This year’s fireplace season started this week. Fires each morning warm up our cold, dark house. I sat working the wood and the flames early today, waiting until the fire was burning on its own so I could go and prepare everyone’s tuna fish lunch sandwiches. Then a log caved in where smaller pieces had turned to ash and billowing smoke spewed out. I shifted the logs with the poker, causing flames to shoot up, instantly dispelling the smoke.

As I watched the flames eat the smoke, the expression, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” came to mind. And I realized how inaccurate that statement can be. The opposite is what was playing out in my fireplace this morning – as it does every morning. Smoke is more often a sign there is no flame – or at best a very weak one. Once the fire flares up, the smoke (as a visible, choking cloud) disappears.

What that expression, “Where there’s smoke…”, speaks to is the notion that one thing obviously leads to another. If A is true, then B must be true. But that is not necessarily the case. In fact reality may very well be the opposite of what we presume.

Waiting for this morning’s fire to combust, I thought about how much misperceptions play a role in society, even among people of Faith, people who are called to consider all possibilities and “give the benefit of the doubt” (otherwise known as “grace”).

One prime place for Illogic 101 is on Facebook. I’m a newcomer to this social phenomenon and as much as I check it to stay connected, I find myself wearying of the free flow of verbal smoke. Today someone wrote about how common sense is such an oxymoron in our society. And while in this statement the writer proved astute about the lack of common sense, I am not sure that our society is any more oxymoronic or nonsensical than any other in our present world or in generations before.

The tendency that social networkings do foster, be they internet-based or the more traditional face-to-face kind, is the inclination to spread common nonsense. A favorite writer of mine is Hans Christian Andersen and I’m particularly fond of his tale, “It’s Absolutely True,” starring some very silly barnyard hens. Often, as I look after to our own hens, Andersen’s word pictures come to mind.

The story is how a hen loses a feather and how that ordinary moment turns into a supposed frenzy of self-plucking cacklers that even the original feather-loser doesn’t recognize. As with Andersen’s barnyard inhabitants, very intelligent people with a lot more smarts than my own fowl start jumping to conclusions about fires when all that can be found is some choking smoke. I’m aware that conclusion-jumping is as old as the stories of Abraham’s lot in Genesis. Making assumptions is a trait common to all mankind.

I think about this, how much we assume about life, faith, politics, our neighbors, even ourselves. And I wonder how little of life really is what we think it is. I’ve been troubled by the emotional frenzy of American political life, be it on the right or on the left. I’ve become more and more amazed at the truncated perspective people have about other people’s views on God and faith. And I wonder, just wonder, sometimes as I sit and tend my early morning fire, what God thinks of all this human smoke.

God made mankind, both male and female, so that they (God and people) could share in relationships, where they really, truly get to know each other. Not just assume that A leads to or means B, or presume that if there is smoke, then there must be fire. In the mornings, I don’t even dare assume that if there are flames that I then can walk away from an actual fire. “It ain’t over until it’s over” is another common saying. Jesus put it in terms farmers of the day could understand: “Don’t separate the wheat from the tares until harvest time.” Or as we fowl-tenders say, “Don’t count your chickens until they hatch.”

Absolute Essentials – X

So what does it mean to have a relationship with Jesus? Having a relationship with Jesus involves both revelation and faith. Both are provided by the Holy Spirit. They speak of something that happens in us as we start realizing something very real about Jesus and his significance. We may not understand very much at first, but we are aware that there is something more to Jesus than was meeting the eye.

A relationship with Jesus is all about responding to his initiatives. These promptings come through the Holy Spirit whether we are aware of the Spirit’s involvement or not. We really only have a very simple choice at each of these promptings. We either reject the impulse of faith and revelation we are experiencing or we accept it. The more we accept it, the more we can accept. The more we reject, or to put it another way, the less we accept, the harder it is for us to accept. Kind of like answering your alarm clock in the morning.

Now, just because the Holy Spirit prompts us and we push away that prompting does not mean we’ve blown it once and for all. God is far too gracious with us for that. But we can continue to reject that prompting long enough that we no longer feel any promptings by the Spirit. Again, kind of like ignoring your alarm clock so much that it is a totally useless sound except as a frustration to your neighbors.

But, conversely, as we do respond to those promptings, we begin growing in our relationship with Jesus. There is no set pattern or timing to that process. It is not a science that can be programmed. Relationships defy such structuring. But things will begin to evidence themselves as that relationship grows.

A growing desire to do God’s will. A hunger to know God more. An interest in connecting with others who have these same promptings. And an urge to share about this relationship with others and to spread some of this love and grace around.

The more we are with Jesus, the more we want to be with Jesus and his people. The more we receive his love, the more we want to pass it on. The more we respond to Jesus, the more we want to respond to Jesus.

A relationship with Jesus is not about how much you pray or even how you pray. It is not about how much you read or study your Bible or how often you go to church or do this or that, like witnessing or feeding the hungry even. The more we know Jesus the more we will be drawn to do these things. But it is not a quantifiable thing. Nor is it something we should quantify as a sign of our spirituality. That is the sin of the Pharisees that Jesus so vehemently rejected in the 1st Century.

But a relationship with Jesus will come out, will show itself in that we are drawn to know more about God, to spend time with God, to connect with God’s people, and to be about the Father’s business, just as Jesus so clearly articulated at the tender age of 12.

Closeness to an infinite being like God is less defined by position than by momentum. Justification is position and it is something God provides for us. Through the death of His Son, Jesus, God declares us justified, something we accept simply by faith. God through His unfathomable grace declares us to be righteous in His sight, not by what we have done, but purely by what Jesus has done on our behalf. So this closeness is not about justification.

The closeness is an ongoing responsiveness to God through Jesus Christ. How do you get closer and closer to a God who is so infinite He has no end? It is by giving in to that hunger, that urge (that prompting) inside of us that says I desire more of this Jesus. Maybe that is what I mean by momentum – ongoing responsiveness, continuously giving in to the desires inside of me to connect with Jesus.

In this, a relationship with God is not unlike a relationship with another human. It makes sense that our human relationships are patterned after our relationship with God. And, Jesus tells us, that that relationship (the one we can have with God) is patterned after the relationships God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit share with each other. As theologians tell us, God as Three-in-One is a relational God and so that relational aspect defines the interpersonal universe as we know it. We are, after all, created in the image of this relational God.

How do we know how to relate to this God? By realizing that the best in our human relationships is a mirror reflection of relationship with God. It comes out of an inner desire to connect. That inner desire is planted in us by the Holy Spirit. God loves us so much that He initiates and all we have to do is start responding.

Absolute Essentials – IX

What I understand of Jesus and what he has revealed to me through his Spirit, his Word and his Church is that he calls me into relationship with him, with his people, and that out of those relationships I am called to serve him in the world. It is not about gimmicks and programs and lists. Faith at its core is all about relationship.

So for me, the question I pose to someone else is not, “Did they follow certain steps in getting to a faith in Jesus”, but do they at this time have a dynamic (which means living and growing) relationship with Jesus. They can’t have that relationship with Jesus unless they trust/believe in him. And if they have that relationship, then Jesus is working in their lives. He may or may not call on me to come alongside them and help them grow in their relationship with him, just as they would surely help me grow. At the minimum I am called to bear witness in word and deed to everyone I encounter that Jesus is the Christ.

I have met many people who had already encountered Jesus, but who could not articulate that encounter in words that are politically correct to other Believers. And yet their faith is more real than some of those who speak with the tongues of angels and yet lack that vibrancy of relationship that cannot merely be intellectualized or processed.

The book of Acts is a funny book, funny because it is used by all of us Restorationists of all stripes who want the Church to get back to its roots, its essentials, as we understand it. But at the same time, as much as it points to those essentials, the book refuses to be trimmed to fit our specific agendas, leaving this or that odd thing to hang out blowing in the wind and making us uncomfortable. (In this, Acts is no different from the Bible as a whole.)

I think of that time when Peter was at the Gentile Cornelius’ house. It was an awkward visit, what with all those forbidden foods and uncircumcised heathen around. And then on top of that, as Peter was explaining the Gospel to those who were gathered, the Holy Spirit came on them. Now Peter’s team knew this for sure because these people started speaking in tongues and that could only happen if it was of the Spirit. So Peter recognized that if they had the power of God, which was demonstrated by the tongues speaking, they were obviously now believers. He didn’t go through some silly exercise to make sure they did believe. He simply ordered that they be baptized in water as it was clear they were now Believers.

More often than not, the Holy Spirit doesn’t follow procedures as we understand them. Because they are not important other than as a guide to us. I ask you, if the Holy Spirit doesn’t think them that important, then why do we? Did the Holy Spirit make a mistake or get ahead of Himself?

The important thing at that moment was that these people had had a revelation of Jesus as the Christ and so the Holy Spirit proceeded to make sure the Circumcised believers understood that uncircumcised, pork-eating Gentiles could believe in Jesus without being circumcised, giving up pork, praying the sinner’s prayer or even being baptized in water. In fact, they didn’t even wait for Peter to finish or give an invitation or for the organ to start playing.

What also strikes me about this story is that Peter was simply bearing witness of who Jesus is. Take a look at what we have of Peter’s speech. It is a very simple, very straightforward declaration of who Jesus is and what he has done. Cornelius, a Roman Centurion, was not totally ignorant of the stories about Jesus and he certainly was somewhat familiar with the Jewish faith, being what the Jews called a God-fearing Gentile. So maybe what Peter said would have been different in another context, as Paul’s message was on the day he spoke in Athens. It helps to understand your audience and where they are coming from.

But the point is that Peter got right to the point. It was about Jesus. Not lifestyle. Not creeds or doctrines. Certainly not procedures. As Peter spoke, the people believed in the One of whom he was speaking and the rest took care of itself. Procedures can be helpful for those who are insecure. But they never dictate to God how He should operate in a given situation.

Absolute Essentials – VIII

So I ask you, what things in faith are so absolute that without them your faith crumbles? What is the unshakeable foundation of your faith?

This week I have connected with a wide variety of Christians, people who believe in Jesus and who all believe that this Jesus is our God and Lord. Some of these Believers call themselves Pentecostals or Charismatics. Others are Evangelicals who hold to a (slightly) different understanding of the workings of the Spirit in our lives. For some, the doctrine of eternal security is as essential as “tongues as the initial evidence” is for the Pentecostals in my corner. And I have one friend who celebrates her Evangelical faith in the pageantry of the Catholic tradition. For another friend, the day of worship is Saturday. For still others, no one day is different from any other.

Some Christian friends champion conservative social and political causes. Other Christian friends champion peace and justice issues which put them to the “left” of many of their fellow Believers. I even have a few Believer friends who are still members of the Communist party.

Some Christians have a creed of 5 or 16 or 24 points. Other Christians say their only creed is the Bible (and how they interpret it, of course).

Most of us can get beyond these basic differences to the point that we can see these other people in heaven someday, albeit in a different part of heaven. We joke, a bit awkwardly, about this and cling to what we know, trusting that we are right and that somehow the other person will come into the fuller light.

But I wonder at that. Don’t we all need to come into the fuller light? Isn’t that what the walk of faith is all about, never assuming we have arrived, always moving forward, pursuing truth to the nth degree? Why do we compare ourselves with each other as if we have arrived more than they have, instead of urging each other on with the truth that maybe, just maybe, God speaks to each of us and we have much to learn from one another and, of course, from God?

I think about my own faith. What is the foundation on which it rests? Is it a faith that is safe only if scientific inquiry and discovery is kept at bay? Is it a faith that is secure only if politically correct thought and speech is maintained? Is it a faith that is sound only if protected from contact with the world?

Can my faith survive if evolutionary theory is advanced as a scientific model for understanding the natural world? I wonder, does my faith require exactly 2 million children of Jacob exiting from Egypt through the Red Sea? What if God works in my friend differently than He has in me – does that make one of us suspect? I’m sorry if these questions unnerve you. I ask such questions because long, long ago I discovered that my faith was not based on either these questions or their answers.

I do believe that there are some essentials to the Christian faith, the defining line being what you do with Jesus – is he or is he not the Christ, our risen Lord, and the revealer of God to us? I do believe that Jesus has given us the Holy Spirit of God as a guide and as the One who empowers us to trust and obey God. I do believe that the Scriptures as we have them today are trustworthy and are useful, as the Apostle Paul says, for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” And I do believe Jesus has provided the Community of Faith – the Church – to strengthen us in our faith and to help us fulfill our destiny in Christ.

Start there and hang on to that core and you won’t go wrong, no matter what questions come up.

What I’ve been saying is not meant to be an exhaustive study of what is truth. Nor does it mean that other Believers will necessarily agree with me or that I am not a true Believer if they don’t. It only means that the Word, the Spirit and the Church all point to Jesus Christ as the center of our faith, on which everything else rests. And that all too often we worry about things which are not of real concern.

Which is more important, that our children close their ears to evolutionary teaching or that they open their eyes to Jesus? Which is more important, that we keep our nation and our churches free of gays and abortionists or that we point everyone, including them, to Jesus? Which is more important, that Christians vote a certain party line or that they ask themselves what Jesus wants them to do at this moment in time? In the end, simple as it sounds, Jesus defines my faith.

Absolute Essentials – VII

Won’t people lose their faith if they ask too many questions? If they start examining what people who think differently have come up with?

How fragile, I ask, do we think our Christian faith is? That it cannot stand to be examined? That it can’t face the challenge of exposure and confrontation?

Are we afraid of the answers we might find? Or are we afraid that we won’t be able to find our way back to our uncomplicated childlike faith that made it all seem so simple?

The New Testament writers talked about this. They were concerned that the believers in their day would settle for the uncomplicated “milk of the Word” as they called it, that these infantile believers would want to remain small in their understanding of God. So these giants of the Faith challenged this small-mindedness and urged their readers to exercise their faith to its limits.

My father-in-law worked for Boeing for many years, building airplanes. When my kids were younger, they would check out the type of plane they were flying on for they knew Grandpa would ask them what kind of plane it was. Chances were it was a plane he had had a part in building.

He told them how they tested those planes. How they put them through the most rigorous of ordeals. If the plane could stand up to the most intense winds engineers could produce, it would survive anything in the natural it would face in its lifetime of flying. My kids never feared to fly, trusting the plane builder they knew.

Recently one of my sons was learning how to drive. He asked why the speedometer went up to 140 miles an hour if you weren’t supposed to drive any faster than half that. Out of my only slightly deeper understanding of such things, I told him that if the car was going to do 70 well, then it would need to have a limit far beyond 70.

Such is the nature of our faith. This faith, which is in the One who can contain all the known and unknown universes in the palm of His anthropomorphically pictured hand, should be able to be put to the most stringent of tests. What kind of a god would be afraid of any questions posed by the most advanced of (mere) mortal minds?

Since coming back to America, I’ve been surprised at how some American Believers often hang on to the puniest of faiths. They are afraid of the challenges that might come to their children in public schools. They are afraid of the confusion that might come because they discover there are Believers who think slightly different from them. They are afraid. For them, faith is so fragile, it must be sheltered at all costs.

This is not the robust faith of the 1st Century. Nor is it the robust faith I saw in the lives of friends in China. And to clarify the point, this is not the robust faith that is also very much alive and well in America, in spite of what sometimes appears to be the case.

That robust faith is evident in my son and daughter who joined in a Day of Silence at their public high school on their own initiative, not afraid of what others – Believers or not – might think. For them, the Day is not about affirming certain lifestyles, it is about saying that no one should be put down for any reason, not even homosexuality, and they were willing to remain silent the whole day as a testimony of their faith in Jesus Christ.

That robust faith is evident in my friends who risk joining causes deemed questionable because they are not causes sanctioned by their religious or political authorities even though these causes ring true in my friends’ understanding of the Scriptures. Since when is championing the cause of the poor or of peace or of justice or of equality evidence of a skewed faith?

That robust faith is evident whenever Believers sincerely question what they think they already know to make sure they are not missing something more of God. I think of the Apostle Peter. All the Believers were so sure that Moses had it right when he said "No!" to certain types of food. Looking back from modern Gentile Christian America, such ideas seem ludicrous, but they were no more silly to Peter and his fellow believers than our modern sensitivities are to us.

When that blanket with all the forbidden foods came down from heaven, it was God’s invitation to question everything they held true in order to pursue truth. This is the kind of faith I long for. It is the only kind worth calling faith.

Absolute Essentials – VI

What does it mean to be a Believer in the 21st Century in Portland, Oregon, USA? [Happens to be when and where I live.] What shapes my faith? Obviously, the Word of God does. I am what they call a person of the Book. And I study that Book both for what it can tell me about what was intended for the original audiences and for how it is to be applied or contextualized in my own modern world.

Such study takes skill. It is fascinating that the Word can speak to the simplest of minds, whether untrained or untrainable. Jesus’ parables, understood by the unlearned and simple-minded, were nonsense to the wise and scholarly. And yet, the Apostle Paul says it is necessary for us, as we are able, to be trained to correctly discern the Word. To learn how to hear the Scriptures as they spoke to those first hearers. To learn how to hear it for ourselves in our own context. Ignorance is no excuse under the law or before God.

So we study not only the Word itself, but also the history and cultures out of which it came so that we can better understand the Word. And we study our own world and cultures and ourselves so that we can better understand how to apply that Word.

Such skill is not achieved in a vacuum. It comes through being connected with the larger Community of Faith. No generation of believers has ever been so blessed by such interconnectedness, both with other contemporary Believers around the globe and with resources that can put us in touch with generations dating back into the dim past.

Much of this connectivity we owe, surprisingly, to secular and non-Christian scholars who help us shed light on the original texts and contexts, as well as on our own contemporary world and ourselves. We do ourselves and our world a great disservice when we dismiss those outside of the Faith as having nothing to contribute to the conversation about faith. Jesus recognized greater faith in a Roman Centurion than in all of the people of Faith in his day.

We not only learn our skills in Community. We execute those skills in Community. We practice our faith in the midst of a great cloud of witnesses, to borrow a word picture from the ancient writer of the Book of Hebrews. A company of witnesses made all the stronger for its human and cultural diversity today and its human, cultural, and historical diversity through the ages.

Can we not hear individually and directly from God? Most definitely yes. Then why do we need all this other stuff? Because we are not God. We are human and fallen human at that. And because revelation is relational. God speaks to us directly by and through His Spirit, but He also chooses to speak to us through His Community of Faith and through His Word again by that same Holy Spirit.

A skill we learn as we “study to show ourselves approved, rightly dividing the word of truth” is to ask questions and to question. Many Believers are afraid of questions. Odd then that all restorationist movements from before Luther and Calvin on down to the more recent Adventists and Campbellites and Pentecostals and Charismatics have all gained their blazes of insight precisely through raising questions and doubting what was then understood.

As with the pigs in Animal Farm, the reformers become more close-minded than the original masters once they have reformed themselves into power. Some argue that now we have all the understanding we need – now that we have the written Word or the Holy Spirit (the emphasis depending on which restorationist strain you claim). So, they imply, we don’t need to have any more doubts or ask any more questions. But such close-mindedness has more in common with the rankest of unbelievers than it does with sincere seekers.

Only those who continue to hunger and thirst and ask and question and doubt and wrestle will be satisfied. For a static relationship – whether with God or man – is a dead one. God, who is infinite, invites us to know Him and what we discover is there is no end to knowing Him. Just when we think we’ve cornered the market on revelation and understanding, we discover that there is far more that we don’t know about God than we do.

Some say we don’t need to probe all that, that we have eternity to explore, that in this life it is best to remain safe in limited understanding. But such Limiters confuse God with a rock. God is a Being, a person. He is dynamic, deep and vast and He invites us to plunge in and never give up knowing Him more and more. That infinite God is the One I long to worship.

Absolute Essentials – V

I am what is called a Restorationist in the sense that I like to get back to what was originally intended as far as the practice of faith is concerned. For me, that means looking at what Jesus originally intended when teaching his disciples or what the book of Genesis is trying to tell us about what God intended in the Creation before the fall. What did this or that passage in Scripture mean to those who first heard it?

Sometimes a restorationist approach leads to something idiosyncratic like those signs in front of some 60-year-old church buildings in 100-year-old towns that read, “Founded A.D. 33”. There is no way for us to go back before the Fall to what God intended in Creation. We cannot get back to innocence in the Garden of Eden any more than we can return lock, stock and barrel to the culture of First Century A.D. Palestine. So I am also what is called a Contextualizer, meaning someone who tries to take the original intent and put it into a context that makes sense in the present.

Sometimes when reading Jesus, you hear him say something like “I didn’t come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it” and you wonder if Moses would actually recognize what Jesus was doing any more than Peter and Paul would recognize our modern Christian communities. Even so, Jesus calls us to follow his example in taking what was written long ago and applying it to the present.

But we can’t approach Scripture with the same authoritative analysis as Jesus did. He obvious had an inside track we don’t have, being the Word Himself and all. Which is why, he said when he was on earth, that he was leaving us the Holy Spirit as our guide. And not only the Spirit, but also the Community of Faith otherwise called the Church. And the Word. Jesus was/is the Word, come in bodily form. But what he then provided for us is the written Word, something we can carry around with us.

Now we didn’t get that Word just by having it drop out of the sky all King Jamesish and such. No, it took about 30-70 years to get written by human authors and then another couple of centuries first for the Jewish leaders to settle on what the Old Testament looked like and then for the Christian leaders to settle on what the New Testament looked like. And it is that very set of books that says that the Holy Spirit helps us understand what the this Book of Books is trying to tell us.

So it is through the triple combination of Spirit, Community and Word that we have a guide to find out what God really meant way back then. And we have the same Spirit, Community and Word as our guide to help us understand how we contextualize that meaning into our own world and culture.

Travel just about anywhere in the world – go through what tourists call “culture shock” and all – and you will be less “shocked” than if you travel back in time 2,000 years to Galilee and walk alongside of Peter, James, and John. And yet, the Book we ascribe to as our foundational articles of faith – I’m talking about the Bible here – speaks to us out of that dim and culturally distant past.

The Community of Faith – the Church Universal – goes back just about as far. When we all get to heaven and start hanging out with other Believers around the Pearly Gates, we will probably be quite taken aback by how diverse a lot we all are. And that diversity is reflected as highly variegated in how we worship and live out our lives as people of faith.

Any 21st Century American Evangelical who thinks he or she would have no problem jumping into a gathering of the New Testament church in its opening days in post-Pentecost Jerusalem is in for some real surprises. We may think we are closer to Peter, Paul and Mary of the 1st Century than we are to some obscure monks in the 11th, but it only takes a generation or two in human time to open a very wide gap.

So when Believers bemoan changes in the church and how the church is adapting to culture, they don’t understand that this has been a necessary part of the walk of faith from the very beginning. In fact, it is a struggle that Believers of all ages and places have grappled with from Abel and Enoch on down to you and me. This is in part what we mean by walking by faith.

Check out my newest blog

While I am taking a break from blogging this week, feel free to check out my newest blog -- "2GC@PDX". The address is http://2gcatpdx.blogspot.com/. I'll be back next week with more thoughts from Luke.

Absolute Essentials – Part IV

I am sure there are people reading my most recent postings and thinking I am buying into a modern easy-believism. Just believe in Jesus. That is all there is to being saved, to being a Christian. Easy-believism or not, I firmly believe it.

One day riding a long distance bus between Missouri and North Carolina, I sat next to this fellow teenager. We got to talking. I shared that I was a Christian and he said he was, too. He pulled out a cigarette – this was back before antismoking campaigns. I probed him a bit on his response, not because he was smoking, but because I wanted to make sure he understood what it meant to be a follower of Jesus.

An older woman sitting across the aisle from us suddenly went ballistic (this was the Bible Belt). A stranger to both of us, she challenged the boy: “You’ve gone down the aisle at church, right? You’ve been baptized, right?” Both to which he quickly agreed, either because he really had done so or because he was afraid to answer any other way.

“Well, then,” she said, “that settles it. You’re a Christian.” End of discussion.

This kind of thinking is what people fear in what they call easy-believism. I know, because I’ve preached against it and used this very story as Example Number 1. And I still believe that something WAS very wrong with that woman’s response.

According to James in the New Testament, even the demons believe – and tremble. Even the demons believe there is one God, he wrote. He was talking about how you can’t have faith without deeds to prove it. The demons believe and are not saved. So what do they believe? They believe that there is one God. They believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God. But this is not saving faith. It is intellectual ascent, to the extent that it can be said that demons have intellects.

So don’t we run the risk of folks getting off easy if we tell them that there’s nothing more to being saved than believing in Jesus? No, because that is the heart of our very powerful Gospel. One of my favorite expressions during the Cold War years was “Just because Communists brush their teeth is no reason for us to stop (brushing our teeth).” Now having close friends who are members of the Communist Party (is McCarthy still around?), I can honestly say that they DO brush their teeth.

Just because someone else who we don’t like or who is wrong on other things also believes or acts as we do on certain things is no reason to abandon what we know to be true.

Once while listening to my car radio, I heard a very agitated discussion going on among callers who all also happened to be fellow Believers, at least as far as I knew. The animated debate was over what is known as the doctrine of “eternal security”. Opinions ranged from being able to fall out of grace like falling out of bed to being eternally secure no matter what you said or did or believed after you got saved, period. As I listened to the discussion, mostly to stay awake on a long trip, I wondered why no one posed this as the question to ask, “How is your relationship with Jesus right now?”

In China, a close friend and I would get together regularly to drink hot chocolate (on cold mornings) and act as “iron sharpens iron” with each other. Regularly he would ask me how I was doing at loving my wife. He wasn’t asking whether or not I was married or would I ever contemplate divorce. He was just asking me how I was treating my wife at that point in time.

Someone who can talk about their relationship with Jesus in the now doesn’t need to be asked if they’ve ever been saved or what they are doing to stay saved or whether they could ever become unsaved. If you don’t have a relationship with Jesus, it is as easy as believing in him. And if you do already, then how are you relating to him right now?

Absolute Essentials – Part III

We’ve been talking about the idea that there is not much to faith – simply believing one step at a time that Jesus will save me and keep me. I may have doubts, but those doubts are not the same as unbelief. Having doubts simply means I am continuing to ask questions which implies I am seeking the truth. Unbelief is when I stop asking questions and no longer seek the truth. So becoming a Christian is believing that Jesus will save or rescue me, simply putting my trust in him.

But there are those who will say that being a Christian involves much more. What about going to church? What about doing God’s will? What about discipleship and growing in spirituality and becoming more like Christ?

Let me ask you a question. Say this friend believes in Jesus today. We say she is saved when she believes. If she starts going to church, reaching her lost friends, reading her Bible, praying, helping the poor, does she become more saved? No. She will never be more saved than she is the moment she believes. A missionary in the most remote corner of the earth is not more of a Christian than an old man who has just said yes to Jesus and then dies and goes straight to heaven.

It’s like a boy who is drowning in a lake and a lifeguard goes out to rescue him. Once the lifeguard has rescued him he is saved from drowning. Does he become more saved because later on he thanks the lifeguard or takes swimming lessons or writes a book about the experience? No. There aren’t degrees to being saved from drowning. You either are or you are not. And there are not degrees to being a Christian. The difference is whether or not you believe in Jesus.

Some people say you can’t sin and be a Christian. I don’t know any Christians who no longer sin. In fact, anyone who say they no longer sin is committing the sin of pride.

Okay then what about those who sin worse kinds of sin. What does that mean? Are you more likely to go to hell if you kill someone than if you think in your heart, “I wish that person were dead”? Jesus says one is the same as the other. What kind of sin will separate you from God? Any sin, no matter what kind or degree or how much you do it. Doesn’t matter. Any and all sin separates us from God, meaning we are lost and in need of a savior.

What about a Christian who struggles with sin? Try as they might they are still tempted. First of all, no matter how much temptation you have, that is still not sin. Sin is not the desire or temptation to do something you shouldn’t do. Jesus himself was tempted – and tempted as we are. Sin is dwelling on that desire or temptation and following through with it – either in thought or action. So temptation is not a sign that you are less spiritual, let alone less saved.

But what about the person who keeps sinning even after they are saved. They keeping failing and falling, try as they might. Sounds like an addiction. Our faith says that Jesus frees us from addictions. If I believe in Jesus and still am addicted to nicotine, for example, a very hard addiction to break, does this make me less saved than if I did break that habit or never had it in the first place? No. Believing in Jesus is not the same as achieving perfection.

Try as we might, we cannot put any more conditions on becoming a follower of Jesus than Jesus does. A Christian means so many different things these days, I prefer the appellation "Believer", though I guess some could quibble with me and say “Believer” doesn’t specify in what. Originally the word “Christian” meant someone who believes in or follows the teachings of Jesus. Such a belief does not have any direct connection with whether they are American or Thai, whether they are politically liberal or conservative, whether they smoke or don’t smoke.

The only factor is whether or not they believe in Jesus. Jesus makes it so simple, it is hard for us to accept.

Absolute Essentials – Part II

If all we need to do to be saved is to believe in Jesus, what happens after we are saved and we start to have doubts? Do we stop being saved as soon as that happens. I’m not just talking about the doubts that often come right after you believe, kind of like buying a car and having immediate second thoughts.

I’m talking about someone who has known Jesus for a long time and they start to struggle in their faith. Maybe they don’t doubt God exists, but they doubt God’s ability to rescue them even while they are still trusting God. In other words, they struggle with God, but they don’t give up on God. They are filled with doubt if not unbelief. Or maybe they struggle even worse.

What happens after we are saved and we fail miserably? I mean really blow it big time? What happens if we keep blowing it, even after we are supposed to know better?

As I said in the last posting, when a person first believes in or trusts Jesus, they don’t know everything there is to know about God. They don’t even believe everything the Bible or the Church teaches. But they believe enough to know that Jesus will save them, in spite of all their own doubts and fears.

The same is true 5 weeks or 5 years or 5 decades later. We are not more “saved” because we believe more of the Bible or know more about God. So when doubts or worries start to flood in like a tsunami, we don’t suddenly get to the point where we are unsaved. Faith is not like some quota that you have to keep from dipping below a certain level.

That’s why Jesus uses that famous comparison with faith being the size of a mustard seed. A seed which is so miniscule – you’ve probably seen one hanging around someone’s neck in a glass ball – seems hardly worth anything at all. It is such “worthless” faith that is all that is needed to save us and to keep us saved. And such faith God’s Spirit provides – in fact, only God’s Spirit can provide and provide He does through revelation, meaning we can’t try to get it through our own efforts.

Even when I doubt. Even when I fail. Even when I am tempted by unbelief. As the great old hymn, “Our Great Savior” concludes, “I am his and he is mine.”

So when Peter denies Jesus and Judas betrays Jesus on the night before Jesus is crucified, are they both lost at that point? In short, no. When later Jesus talks with Peter, the question Jesus phrases is, “Peter, do you love me?” It is not a question of whether Jesus loves Peter – that is never in doubt as a fact. Jesus never gives up on Peter. All that Jesus wants Peter to admit is that he (Peter) has not given up on Jesus. Not that Jesus has any doubts, but he wants Peter to face up to his own faith, that he still has faith.

Judas never gives Jesus that chance. He takes his own life, robbing himself of any opportunity to hear Jesus ask, “Judas, do you love me?” What? After all that Judas has done? What Judas did was no different than what Peter did. Except that Judas then gave in to unbelief and denied himself the opportunity to be restored by Jesus.

Saving grace is a truly amazing thing. We don’t earn it. We don’t walk in and out of it like the children’s song, “Go in and out the window.” We can’t get more of it, like accumulating brownie points. It is a gift to us that we receive by faith and by faith keep, moving ahead in life one step at a time.

Absolute Essentials – Part I

I started this series by talking about doubts that are wrestle worthy, but I’ve decided I want to change the title and talk about absolute essentials of faith. This makes sense, especially because I’ve already said that everything is wrestle-worthy. Surprisingly, when it comes to faith, there are very few absolute essentials.

What do I mean by absolute essentials? When people talk about theological doctrines, they often call such doctrines “essentials” or “fundamentals” or some such name by which they identify a certain set of truths as bottom line when it comes to being a part of their particular community of faith. Generally they teach that you have to believe all of their doctrines in order to become a member of their church. But most evangelical Christians, at least, have a lot lower threshold when it comes to understanding what it means to become a Believer. What is it that the Bible says? “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.”

It is a very interesting verse, this one in Acts 16:31. Surely Luke is being cryptic in describing what Paul and Silas were saying to the jailer in this story. Or is he? Because when the jailer, who has just had his jail shaken by an earthquake, asks Paul and Silas, his prisoners, what he has to do to be saved, all that Luke records is this one sentence. Luke does go on to say that these two prisoners expounded the word of the Lord to the jailer right then and there.

But it couldn’t have been very long, not like the time that other guy fell asleep and fell out of a window because Paul preached so long. No, for Luke says that it wasn’t long before the jailer and his entire household were being baptized in water, meaning they had already come to believe in Jesus, just by what little Paul and Silas had already shared with them.

I have a feeling that whatever else Paul and Silas said that night, most of it was a blur to these new believers. Like the guy who was healed by Jesus and some religious leaders tried to mess with his head and the guy finally said, “Look all I know is that I was blind and now I see.” Here’s the jailer saying, “I believe Jesus has the ability to help me out tonight.”

Some people point to other passages where it says that we are to believe and be baptized and then we will be saved. So which is it? Just believe or believe and be baptized? Taking Paul and Silas at their word here, the only thing needed to be saved is believing. Believing what? Believing in Jesus. Believing what about Jesus? That he can save you. What do we need saving from? Apparently the jailer knew, because that is how he phrased his question.

An earthquake had just torn apart his jail. If any prisoners escaped he was in a heap of trouble, so he might as well take his own life right then and there. But Paul and Silas stopped him and said that everything was all right as no one had escaped. So the question the jailer asked wasn’t necessarily related to “how can I get to heaven” or have eternal life. It really had to do with “how do I get out of this mess I am in right now.” Nothing more. And Paul and Silas said that all he had to do was believe in Jesus, that Jesus would get him out of this mess.

So what is saving faith? If we take an honest look at this jailer’s experience, all that matters is that the man trust that Jesus has the ability to get him out of the mess he is in. And after he believes that much, more things will start to make sense.

When it comes to absolute essentials, there aren’t very many.

Wrestle-Worthy Doubts – Part II

This present series of musings was inspired by a reader who asked me to describe some of my wrestle-worthy doubts. I’m not inclined to bear my deepest and darkest secrets to the unseen masses – be they one or a million – who read this blog. But I will not hide my doubts or struggles either. The truth be told, all doubts are wrestle-worthy.

Doubts do play a role in moving us away from our presuppositions about God and toward a point of truly examining the Scriptures. Yet some Believers grow uneasy with doubts that linger or reoccur. In their understanding, doubts (about God in particular) should be settled once and for all. If that were the case, we’d have only one Psalm written by David that questions God and His actions. Instead we have many, for David wrestled with God all his life, as did all the Bible greats.

Even post-Pentecost pillars of the faith such as Peter and Paul. You see this in Peter’s wavering in Antioch. He has heard clearly from God that, contrary to everything he understood about Mosaic law, there is nothing “unclean” when it comes to eating, including with whom you eat. And yet he struggles to eat with Gentiles with whom he ate before the Judaizers arrived from Jerusalem. This struggle on Peter’s part may be dismissed as a lower-level cultural dilemma rather than an issue of faith. But Paul makes it clear that such “cultural” waverings strike at the heart of the Faith.

As I’ve written in another weekly blog, “Ethics in the 21st Century,” ethics is living out what you believe. Show me your behavior, the New Testament writer James claims, and I’ll show you what you believe. The implication in all this is that when our behavior deviates from what we profess to believe about God, it is a reflection of some internal questioning or confusion about what we believe about God.

E. Stanley Jones, a Methodist missionary in India and a great writer, was a close friend of Gandhi’s. Apart from the rare faith he found in Jones, Gandhi was deeply distressed by Christians. It is said that he greatly admired Jesus, but had little time for Jesus’ followers. There is a significant reason for this response on Gandhi’s part. As a law student in South Africa, Gandhi thought to visit a church to learn more about Christianity until he was stopped at the church door by a sign which read “No dogs or Indians allowed.” And, of course, his treatment as a native of India at the hands of a “Christian” colonial power did little to correct this lesson in the ways of the Christian faith.

As believers, we tend to scoff at the idea that “hypocrites in the church” are valid excuses for doubt. And yet, both the Bible and common experience do not take such hypocrites or hypocritical behavior lightly. Our behavior as followers of Jesus is our strongest witness. Contrary to common thinking however, inconsistent behavior is not the real offense. Pretending we have no struggles or inconsistencies is.

The world (as with God) will take any imperfection over the claim of perfection. While the Scriptures do not teach a hierarchy of sins, the sins of pride that block us from receiving God’s grace may be seen as far more deadly than “mere” sensual sins.

The sin that is least understood is what is called the “unpardonable” sin, what Jesus refers to as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. In a short answer, I favor the interpretation that sees Matthew 12:32 as referring to the work of the Holy Spirit of convicting men and women of sin. If, in pride, we shut out this Voice of God and “harden our hearts” in unresponsiveness, we remove ourselves from God’s grace. Interesting how Jesus reserves his strongest words for those who lead others away from that same Voice.

So, as with most people who are honest about their doubts, I think my doubts about God start with what I see in the inconsistencies of faith in us human beings, including myself. The occasional acts of God that arbitrarily kill innocent babies aside, God is easy to believe in. It is when we get to people that faith runs into trouble.

Wrestle-Worthy Doubts - Part I

In recent months, word has come that a friend of many years has died. I don’t know the circumstance of her “passing,” as we say, but I do know that she suffered much in this life and wrestled in a very authentic way with what the next life offers. Not all may have found her answers acceptable, but what concerned me more were those who questioned her right to wrestle.

Nancy Arnold Eiesland suffered much in this life, particularly physically, but it was the wounds of fellow Believers which pained her – and me – most. I recall her telling me how when she was in Bible college her teacher grew tired of her questions and told her she could no longer ask them in class, lest they confuse her fellow students. She thought this odd, as do I to this day. Those students were preparing to minister to multitudes of Believers and unbelievers in our society and in cultures around the world and yet the teacher was afraid to let them wrestle with the very questions those multitudes wrestle with every day. Where better to wrestle than in a school devoted to the study of the Bible?

After graduating with honors from that very school (in spite of or because of her questions, I do not know), she went on to continue to ask questions, questions which led her to fall out of favor with her circle of fellow Believers who, like that teacher, chose to discredit her questioning rather than wrestle beside her. She was no longer welcome in the midst of the “Faithful” because her questions made her appear unfaithful to them.

I have my own doubts, but one thing I do not doubt: the Master does not disparage my or anyone else’s doubts. Doubt is not the enemy of faith. Unbelief is. Unbelief says don’t ask questions, don’t think, don’t wrestle. Any such wrangling is useless. As if God or faith were not up to the challenges. Doubt says there must be something worth striving for, something worth investigating. What we already know is not the sum of God. So doubt leads us away from unbelief toward faith.

At the same time, grace makes ample room for doubt. Grace understands that doubt is not the enemy, but is a part of the process through which we embrace faith. The Apostle Thomas is Example Number One. People often label him “Doubting Thomas” as if he is a bad model. Thomas’s moment in the Gospel limelight shouts to the world that those who doubt, those who question are very much welcome into the inner circle of Jesus. In fact, who is the only disciple not present the day Thomas posed his questions? The one who had stopped asking questions, the one known as Judas Iscariot.

Questions and doubts and wrestlings are a sign of God’s presence. As we used to say to our team in China, a mind that begins to ask questions is taking its first step toward the Cross. God welcomes the child who probes, who questions, who wrestles, who thinks, who engages, who challenges. On the other hand, a nonquestioning mind is asleep, comatose, dead – even lost.

At a moment of deepest despair in my own life, a close observer noted that though I was full of questions and anger and challenges for God, I had not given up on faith in God. Apparently at that dark moment in my life, I had not let go of life – or God Himself. Rather than flee God’s presence, I chose like Jacob to wrestle with God until I found his blessing (or favor). Jacob, who wrestled with God until God blessed him had his name changed to Israel, which means “struggles or wrestles with God.” He, who could find no favor on earth, found favor in heaven because he refused to quit wrestling.

Though I haven’t seen Nancy in years, she remains a beacon of faith to me, of a faith that is not afraid of the dark or of doubts, but a faith that embraces all that God places in our lives and says that though there is something of God very difficult for me, I will not let God go until He favors me. Nancy, like Jacob, suffered severely in her hip. That suffering was caught up in all her questions. But all her questions led her toward and not away from God. And that is the profound secret of wrestle-worthy doubts.

Authenticity, Idols and Profanity – Part VII

Just what is an idol? Not merely a physical object, an idol is anything that assumes the role of God in our lives, whether we call it a god, an idol or otherwise. An idol is anything that cannot be questioned, challenged or protested. Anything that cannot be turned away from or rejected in our lives. Anything that controls us, orders our priorities or dictates our preferences.

An odd thing happens when we create idols. We make them untouchable. Take the Ten Commandments themselves. Some Believers would have us putting them up on walls everywhere, even in government buildings. Far better that we take them down off the walls and argue and wrestle with their implications. Far better that we question what they really mean and seek to go through the harder work of living them out. Much harder than posting them, but much safer than by posting them, turning them into idols and profaning the name of God in the process.

Now we can and should prioritize values in our lives, such as God first, then, say, our spouse, if we have one, and so on. But when we say, God first, then what we are saying is that everything is judged by that one supreme value.

Even what I believe about God must be open to reexamination and reevaluation on an ongoing basis. For my beliefs about God are not the same as God Himself. Christian Scriptures and doctrine are not to be worshipped, they are to be examined and wrestled with.

Otherwise we risk falling into the sin of the Pharisees and the Teachers of the Law, who in Jesus' day had made their religious belief system so idolatrous, so above touching, that they missed God Himself when He passed through their midst. Interestingly, Jesus is not afraid to question everything taught by Moses even while saying he has come to fulfill the law of Moses. With Jesus, nothing sacred is left beyond the reach of mankind. When Jesus dies, the Holy of Holies itself, that most sacred of places, is opened for all to see and enter, signifying that God is now that much more approachable.

I am fascinated when I read where Jesus encourages Thomas to touch the wounds in Jesus’ hands and side. It is as if he is saying to this friend of his, torn in the conflict of doubt, that he wants Thomas to test both his doubts and his beliefs. Sometimes we get the idea that worship is the opposite of questioning or doubting. Doubt is not the opposite of faith, unbelief is. Unbelief is when we get to the point where we refuse to ask questions, to challenge, to wrestle with truth. Only then is faith impossible.

So it is that only by touching the Divine as Thomas did, only by putting truth to the test, only by questioning and challenging do we come to the place where we can truly worship. As Jacob the Patriarch discovered, we are invited to wrestle even with God Himself. God welcomes our questions, our arguments, our anger even. Only our stony or indifferent silence does He reject.

For to worship God means that we cast aside every pretender to the throne, we throw down every idol and false god and we come to terms with who the true God really is. Then and only then do we truly begin to worship our Maker.

Authenticity, Idols and Profanity – Part VI

Occasionally I pick up a free copy of a “Christian” newspaper published in our region of the country. Inside are articles and editorials and advertisements that supposedly are all tied in with its definition as a Christian publication. I assume the publisher means the newspaper is written for Christians or is from a Christian perspective, since a newspaper has no soul and cannot become “Christian” per se.

Invariably there are things I find in the newspaper with which I disagree. Naturally. Personally I find the letters to the editors espousing the flat tax as the only biblically sanctioned form of taxation as appalling as I do the advertisement for the “Christian Social Dance Association.”

When the label “Christian” is applied to this or any other newspaper, we run the risk of assuming by slapping a label on it that everything in that paper is “Christian” and everything written in so-called secular papers is non-Christian. This particular paper’s motto is “Where the (location) gets the news that matters most.” Does it indeed? Odd then that I find this particular newspaper quite lacking in areas I feel are dear to the heart of God. Of course, that is only my own humble opinion.

To take God’s name in vain or misuse it, to profane the name of Jesus, these are serious actions. But we fool ourselves if we think that such misuse applies only to casual expletives. I wonder, do more people go to hell because people swear or because things labeled as “Christian” bring disgrace to the name of God?

The same is true to building images out of wood or stone and then assigning those images supernatural or divine powers. While living in Taiwan, I discovered that a certain figurine became an object of worship only after a ceremony was performed in which a spirit entered that object. Otherwise, it was not an “idol”, to slap a Judeo-Christian label on it. But the general consensus was that the true god in those parts was the local currency, because that is what people really put their faith in. Funny how in recent days our own currency idols have been cast down.

Most things that are labeled idols don’t start out as idols. They become so because over time people begin to ascribe transcendent significance to them. This happens with governments be they Communist or Republican. And it happens, too, even with Christian objects, entities and ideas, be they some saint’s robe or a biblical value like “family.”

I flinch when I see an American flag placed on a pole above a Christian flag, not because I think the “Christian” flag as we know it is particularly sacred any more than the American flag is, but because of what it symbolizes. That somehow our allegiance to nation is above our allegiance to God. We may say “God and Country”, but often we get the two mixed up in order in our lives, just as easily as we do the flags on our poles.

And when we do, have we then crossed over into idolatry? For isn’t that what idolatry means? That idolatry has to do with allegiance, with giving some one, some thing, some idea in our lives ultimate priority or at least a higher priority than is biblically appropriate?

In this, the movement in our day away from traditional religious language is a good thing, for it causes us to reevaluate everything we hold sacred to make sure it deserves to be held sacred. In parts of Asia Believers wrestle with when their esteeming Confucius or their parents moves beyond appropriate honoring to worship. In countries like my own, we wrestle with when our patriotism or our belief in a certain form of government moves beyond honoring to worship.

In any case, we do well to use “Christian” as an adjective only sparingly. All that is called sacred is not and all that is labeled secular is not necessarily.

Authenticity, Idols and Profanity – Part V

In the last post, I was talking about how we tend to put people into categories when people don’t easily fit categories. This applies particularly to understanding where we are in relationship to God or whether we even have a relationship with God.

I find very curious the whole debate over what some people call “once saved always saved” or “eternal security,” referring to the idea that you cannot fall from grace, as opposed to the idea that you can keep falling in and out of grace. What’s odd about all the arguments on each side of the debate is that they are asking entirely the wrong question. We don’t need to be asking can we or have we fallen from grace as much as we need to be asking where we are in our relationship with God right now.

A similar question is whether you can do such-and-such and still be saved. It is a silly question, to say the least. It would be like a man asking his wife, God forbid, “how far I can go in committing adultery and we still be happily married.” Duh! If you have to ask, you’re in the doghouse already.

The walk of faith is not a category, like a club membership or some such. Either I am moving toward God or I am not. And the walk of faith is always a process that exclusive emphases on crisis decision-making or on experientialism denies.

Such is the dilemma of using the term “Christian” as an adjective, as in a Christian businessman or a Christian nation or Christian music or a Christian school. When we label something we do two things.

First, we arbitrarily define it in ways that may not apply. For example, what makes a businessman or a nation or a selection of music or a school “Christian”? I am not even talking about defining the world “Christian.” I am talking about defining these other things.

Take music. Does the style make it Christian, as in “gospel” music? What about “Christian” hymns written to old drinking songs? Is it Christian only if it refers to God or Jesus? The book of Esther in the Bible does not refer to God, whereas some “secular” literature talks about God a lot. Does that make Esther non-Christian in this sense? What about whether it espouses Christian values? Then we have to make sure we agree on what those values are, how they are to be espoused and so on. Oft times national or cultural values are confused with “Christian” in the larger world. Gets downright confusing.

Is a song “Christian” only if it is sung by a Believer in Jesus Christ? Does that make a Christmas carol sung by a nonbeliever a non-Christian song? What about a “secular” song like, say, “America the Beautiful” sung by a Christian in church on July 4 Sunday? I once heard of people in an international church in Taipei “getting saved” through a Filipina singing “White Christmas”. Does that also make Bing Crosby a Christian just because he wrote that song?

Second, and more importantly, we run the highly likely risk (which makes it less of a risk if it is highly likely) that we will dilute the term “Christian,” thus profaning it. For example, some people call America a “Christian” nation. What then happens when that nation does some very unchristian things? In such a case, the name of Christ is taken in vain, meaning we have profaned the name of Jesus just as much as if we were the proverbially drunken sailor stumbling down the street crying out “Jesus Christ this” and “Jesus Christ that.”

There are all kinds of things labeled as Christian these days that have nothing to do with Jesus and there are all kinds of things not labeled as Christian that have everything to do with Jesus. I may call my school or my club or my newspaper or my song or even myself “Christian.” But if I do so, I better be sure I am not breaking the 3rd Commandment.