Ecclesial Dreamer…the ramlings of an ecclesial dreamer

Importantly, paul does not speak here of any need for mutual reconciliation. “The world” is estranged from God and needs to be brought back into relationship with God.  God, however, is not estranged from “the world.”  For this reason, Paul has no need to show how God can be appeased, how God might be empowered to love again, how God might overcome having been so often scorned and so on. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself”  this affirmation demonstrates that God’s love has the upper hand in divine-human relations and that the work of Christ has as its effect the bringing of “the world” back to God (and not vice versa).  wherein it is evident that the death of Christ has as its further effect the miracle of new creation.  God has not been “made over,” for the difficulty does not lie at his feet.  Rather, “the world” needs this “make over,” and this is what the cross accomplishes.

from Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament & Contemporary Contexts.  Joel B. Green & Mark D. Baker

A final thought for Holy Week comes from Richard B. Hays’ remarkable book, The Faith of Jesus Christ:

However, it should be beyond dispute that the “righteousness” in question in (Romans) 3:21-22 ¹   There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,is God’s own righteousness (subjective genitive), just as in 3:3-7 and 3:25-26. Paul is framing an argument concerning theodicy, insisting that God’s way of dealing with humanity through the gospel is a manifestation of his justice, not an arbitrary dissolution of his promises to Israel. Romans 3 is a defense of God’s justice. Once that point becomes clear, the objective genitive interpretation of pistis Iesou Christou becomes virtually unintelligible. What would it mean to say that God’s justice has been made manifest through our act of believing in Jesus Christ? This, if it means anything at all, verges on blasphemous absorption in our own religious subjectivity. God’s eschatological justice can only have been shown forth by an act of God: Paul’s claim is that the death of Jesus is just such an apocalyptic event.

1. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. ²² This righteousness is given through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe. [back]

This quote comes from my favorite missiologist, Vincent Donovan, and can be found in his book, The Church in the Midst of Creation:

Everywhere I have gone I have heard the same question in one form or another: “We see quite plainly the church as it is, but what should it be like?” If you had it in your power to see that church as it ought to be, how would it appear? Not the church in the distant future of science fiction but in the foreseeable, possible future, as we move toward the end of the twentieth century and into the third millennium of Christianity.

It will be a church come of age, under the direction and control of the unpredictable Spirit. It will be a risen church born anew out of the death of the one we now know. The pilgrimage along the road to that church will not be a serene and painless journey. Before we reach the end of that road to a church refounded for our age, there will lie a cross, a crucifixion, not for others but for us.

The thought below was provided to my by my great friend, Scott. Thanks, Scott.

This is a great quote by an Anabaptist theologian named C. Norman Kraus.  The book is called Jesus Christ our Lord:  Christology from a Disciple’s Perspective:

The cross involved no equivalent compensation or payment of penalty demanded by God’s just anger.  God is justified in forgiving us on the basis of his own holy love and not on the basis of an equivalent penal satisfaction which has been paid to him through the death of Jesus.  The Cross itself as an act of solidarity with us is the divine ethical justification for forgiveness, and the resurrection of Jesus demonstrates the effectiveness of God’s love in Christ to forgive and cleanse us from sin.”

Love it!

Another  excerpt  for thoughtful reflection during Holy Week. This lengthy quote comes from Jurgen Moltmann’s contribution to the book, Cross Examinations: Readings on the Meaning of the Cross Today. (click the link to read the whole chapter.)

At the beginning of Christianity there are two crosses: One is a real cross, the other a symbol. One is a murderous gallows of terror and oppression, the other a dream-cross of an emperor. One is for victims of violence, the other for violent conquerors. The one is full of blood and tears, the other empty. The first stands on Golgotha, and Jesus hangs on it, the other is the victorious dream of the Emperor Constantine in the year 312 C.E. What has the second to do with the first? How could the memory of a victim of injustice and violence be changed into a symbol of victorious injustice and violence?

When Emperor Constantine saw a cross at night and heard the voice, “In hoc signo vinces” (In this sign you shall conquer), he ordered his soldiers to paint a cross on their shields, and lo, they fought and won the battle at the Milvian bridge and conquered Rome for their Lord and master. This –and not Golgotha—was the beginning of the Christian Empire, destined to conquer the world for Christ and his anointed Caesar. One can still see the cross associated with military victory depicted on the ceilings of old Byzantine churches: There is Christus Pantocrator (Christ the Almighty Ruler) in heaven, and here is the anointed emperor as Christ’s representative on earth. And because there is only one God and one Christ in heaven, there can be only one ruler and one empire on earth. This Christian Empire claims that it will be the kingdom of peace that will never end (in reference to the book of Daniel, chapters 7, 14, and 27). Salvation is inside this Christian Empire, damnation outside. In the Crusades and Holy Wars, non-Christian people were confronted with only two alternatives: baptism or death.

…The triumphal dream-cross of Constantine continued as the symbol of Christian Empires: Charles the Great subjugated the Saxons with cross and sword; Otto the Great did the same with the Slovenians. Knights of the Cross, St. George’s Knights, Temple Knights, Knights of Malta, and other Christian conquerors set up this cross in “barbarian” countries and brought the “heathen” peoples into a supposedly saving kingdom, or Heilige Reich. Their intended world domination was also later called “the Christian Civilization,” “the realm of freedom,” and multiple other titles. One can find the imperial cross in the orders and medals of most of the Christian nations: The Iron Cross in Germany, the Victoria Cross in Britain, the St. George Cross in Russia, the Cross of the League of Honor in France, and so forth. You can see the victorious cross on most of the flags of Christian nations. The decorative golden crosses on the necklaces of beautiful women are banal remnants of the holy triumphant cross. Decorative and military victory crosses, however, don’t depict and actual crucified person—ever since Constantine’s time, they are empty.

May our reflections turn our thoughts and hearts toward Golgotha…

As I enter in to this year’s Holy Week, there are several things that are percolating in my mind that are shaping my posture as I prepare to  live into this redemptive story. One is this excerpt from S. Mark Heim’s book, Saved From Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross:

Is this God’s plan, to become a human being and die, so that God won’t have to destroy us instead? Is it God’s prescription to have Jesus suffer for sins he did not commit so God can forgive the sins we do commit? That’s the wrong side of the razor. Jesus was already preaching the forgiveness of sins and forgiving sins before he died. He did not have to wait until after the resurrection to do that. Blood is not acceptable to God as a means of uniting human community or a price for God’s favor.  Christ sheds his own blood to end that way of trying to mend our divisions. Jesus’ death isn’t necessary because God has to have innocent blood to solve the guilt equation. Redemptive violence is our equation. Jesus didn’t volunteer to get into God’s justice machine. God volunteered to get into ours. God used our own sin to save us.

May we all keep in step with the Liberating King as we follow the way of Jesus Christ.

I like Jamie Oliver. My wife and I became familiar with him on his television show, the Naked Chef. We have been looking forward to his new show, Food Revolution, which started last night. The show was brilliant.

Oliver is on a monumental quest to change the way American’s eat. And he is starting in a place that at the time of the filming was the unhealthiest city of America. Oliver has several strategies in mind. He sees that this is a gianormous systemic issue. So he is working with an elementary school, individual families, has a store front kitchen in the center of town and is attempting to use popular media. The first two episodes show that he meets significant resistance and unexpected obstacles at every step.

The local radio show host is hostile and aggressive. The school’s kitchen staff and the districts policies and processes are stacked against him. The family he is working with is openly in agreement but reverts back to their old ways when he is not around. The children in the school cannot recognize basic vegetables. This is going to be no small task.

But the best part for me was when he brought a smaller group of kids into his kitchen for a demonstration. He speaks of doing this experiment in the UK to help kids see all the unhealthy stuff that goes into making the processed foods they love, hoping that when they see what goes into it, they won’t want to eat it anymore.¹ To his surprise, even after the children see what is in the processed nugget, they still want to eat it. He says he has never seen that experiment not work and it is at that point that he realizes what an effective job we have done to educate indoctrinate our children to consume things even when they know it is not healthy.

And it is here that I think the show most touches on things that ecclesial dreamers see. A similar thing is happening in many American churches. Still, the number one indicator that is pointed to by those in contemporary church leadership paradigms when they are trying to measure the “success” of their church is the size of the congregation. A large and growing church is seen as a blessing from God. In this sense, the systems and structures are no different than the school board who determines what kind of food to bring into an elementary school. No one seems to care that the choice brings numerous health problems as long as it is cost effective and efficient at meeting the needs of large numbers of consumers.

I have said before that the church growth addiction leads to Manuel Uribe churches and I still hold that conviction. The church I used to be a part of is growing to the point that it believes it needs to find a new location. There are just too many people attending to fit in their small building. The solution that their leadership team unanimously feels God is calling them to is to build a larger building.² They are against adding more services because it “burns out the leaders” and those who have to do the work in the nursery, kid’s classes and worship team.

I find it ironic that the larger this church grows they don’t have enough people to share the load in these tasks. I do not know if the structures in place prohibit people from volunteering or if they just have a lack of volunteers, but in either case, the size of the congregation has reached a point where they can no longer sustain the spiritual nurture of the congregation with the resources they have. While some, like me, would see this as an indicator of ecclesiastical undernourishment, others see the solution as creating a larger space for more consumers. I guess it is easier to put on buffets that satisfy the consumers, even if it leads to ecclesiastical obesity than it is to create opportunities to exercise and practice the faith. Why try to help the morbidly obese man get out of the bed when we can reinforce it at put wheels on it?

I can imagine how Jamie Oliver must feel when he sees young children choose pizza, and chicken nuggets while they throw their fruits and vegetables in the garbage day after day. Meanwhile the systems, structures and people who are in place to educate them not only allow it to happen but stand in the way of healthy change.

My hunch is that most people in a typical, evangelical church (the kind that are really successful in my neck of the woods) could not define church in a way that would distinguish it from an Elks Club, 12 step program, or book club. The majority probably think Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, The Left Behind series is “biblical” and have no idea how –or why –the current translations of the Bible differ from one another. Many probably believe that heaven is “up there” and hell is “down there.” But if we can pack more of them into a building on Sunday morning who really cares?

Oliver had several great lines in his new show about being a pain in the back side and being a professional sh*t stirrer. It will be interesting to see how this first season of his show ends. I hope it is successful beyond measure. And I hope when he is done with the food revolution it inspires people to become revolutionaries in other areas as well.

God be with you, Mr. Oliver.

1. He does briefly explain that chicken nuggets in this country are not made the way he demonstrates, but the point of the experiment should still be quite effective. [back]
2. It was posted on a huge banner titled Declaration of Dependence, hanging in their lobby the last time I was there. [back]

Today was an interesting day. I met a friend for lunch. He is a displaced, ecclesial dreamer, too. He has a community that he is connected with but the connection is more with people in the community than it is the institutional structure. We had a great chat about those kinds of things. It made me miss church in ways that hurt.

Lucky for me, when I got home I found a cure. I checked my mail and found this flier invitation from a new, local church plant:

The mailer let me know that I was invited to “come as I am” and had quotes from people who are part of the church to let me know what the “vibe” was like:

“no judgments”

“positive message”

“music rocked”

I have no doubt that this mailer may appeal to some people and may even inspire some people to visit this church. I am not one of them.

It seems to me that too many of the churches in my neck of the woods are caught in a highly competitive game of ecclesiastical limbo where they are all trying to see how low they can go (and still call themselves a church) in order to attract the most amount of people to their place to consume the show on Sunday. They try so hard to be relevant to an nonreligious target audience (even though 95% of their members are not nonreligious) that they become irrelevant to The Way of Jesus Christ.  And at the moment they reach their mark, I wonder why would anyone want to go there at all? I am quite certain I could find a more efficient way to consume rocking music, positive messages, and no judgments then staring at the back of someone’s head for an hour.

To be honest, I cannot figure out what any of the stuff on the flier had to do with the Resurrection. Maybe I am missing something. I am sure that when this church launches its new series on “the office” it will be made more clear. Too bad I won’t be around to hear it.

I know that I am several weeks late but I just got around to watching my favorite Advent film and while I was watching it I realized something.

At some point over the past 2-4 years I have evolved. I used to think of myself as pastor Kevorkian because it seems that any faith community I find myself involved with died. I figured that there could be a calling in that — going to evangelical churches that don’t realize they are dying and helping them make the transition with dignity and grace.

But after watching the film tonight I feel that I at this stage of my ecclesial journey I am much more like Viktor Navorski. Maybe I need to come to terms with the reality that I am unacceptable.

Today I went with the family to the Douglas County Martin Luther King Jr. unity walk. It was a short, 2 mile walk with a bunch of other people to celebrate and remember the life of MLK. At the end of the walk there was a short presentation where an actor performed two of Kings most famous speeches.

There were two things that hit me while I listened to these performances. First, I could not help but imagine the power these words must have carried the first time they were delivered in 1963 and 1968. It is hard for me to picture how different the world was then. Even though I was born in 1968, I did not grow up in the world King and his companions did. I grew up in a world that was changed by them. Second, I could not help but think that some 40 years later the best we can do is re-enact these speeches from a different time.

Don’t get me wrong. I think these were amazing speeches. But I cannot help but wonder, where are these voices today? I know they are there and numerous. But we live in a time where powerful oratory ability does not seem to make much of a difference. Maybe in our multimedia culture our attention spans have become too short to listen–really listen–to an hour long speech. Especially, the speech of a dissident. Today it is easier to consume and regurgitate sound bites and slogans. But to put your life on the line in the pursuit of a dream is costly. I fear that I don’t have the ability to do it. And that is not a pleasant thing to think about.

When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”
Martin Luther King Jr. — 1963