A Vengeful God

Recently, someone asked me why the God of the Old Testament was so violent and went around smiting people and all sorts of stuff.  It's not the first time I've heard that question.  And, more than once, it's passed from my lips, too.  But, I've been reading Brian McLaren's new book, "A New Kind of Christianity" and I found something interesting.  Part of it, I'd already come up with on my own, but McLaren fleshed it out and added a concept I hadn't thought of.  My idea was that the wrathful God of the Old Testament was what the people of that time could accept.  As religious thought and language progressed, a different picture of God emerged.  One of the loving Father that Jesus taught about.  What McLaren proposes that I hadn't seen before is that this progression is evident in the scripture if you're willing to look for it.

Before I get into this, I want to relate something I picked on in McLaren's writing.  First, one must understand that McLaren is a controversial figure in religious circles right now, due his involvement in the emergent conversation and his post-modern take on the Christianity (to explain, we say a lot of the same things).  So, much of what he writes is in the form of an apolgetic (defense of his view).  Second, from things I've read, I believe his early religious background is that of a fundamental, Calvinist bent.  Which colors his slant on many things.  That said, on with the show.

I think God revelation of himself doesn't so much change as our perception of that revelation evolves with our growth of understanding.  Although, he does tell Moses in Exodus that he revealed himself to Abraham and the other Patriarchs as God Almighty (Elohim), but not as The Lord (Adonai).  In the earliest parts of the Bible,  God is First among many.  Later, He is the only one, the lesser gods being shown to be pale shadows of Him.    In those same early passages, God seems tribal.  He favors the Jews over eveyone else.  Later, that changes and I like the way McLaren puts it.  "Choseness, we realize, does not give one people privileges over others as God's favorites, but rather responsibilities on behalf of others as God's servants and as channels of blessing."  God chose the Israelites, and later through Jesus, Christians to be his people, not to set them over others, but to show His love to everyone else in the world.  Pretty heavy stuff.  As we read more, God's presence seems to change with our understanding of the world around us.  Early on, God doesn't seem to be involved all the time but steps in when things get out of hand.  Later, especially in Matthew, it seems like God is everywhere with his Hand in everything.  Later, that view moderates in Paul's writings, as expressed in Romans 8:28, "In all things, God works for good".  Finally, there's God's character.  In the Old Testament, especially early on, God seems violent, callous, retaliatory and just plain mean.  As things progress, he morphs into a gentle, caring being who's concerned for the entire world.  And, that's the way we see Him today. 

As I said earlier, I don't think God has changed at all.  Our perception of him has evolved with our understanding of ourselves and our use of language.  It's vital to remember whenever we try to talk about God, words fail.  And, they always will, because as Rob Bell said "The moment God is figured out with nice neat lines and definitions, we are no longer dealing with God." 

Bigger Fish?

On Wednesday, Dumbarton UMC, in Washington D.C. announced that will celebrate same-sex weddings. Here is the press release:
"(Washington, D.C.) A United Methodist congregation in Washington, D.C., has vowed to celebrate same-sex weddings, putting itself at odds with other Christian churches protesting the District of Columbia's new marriage equality law.

The pastor and 12 other ordained clergy who attend Dumbarton United Methodist Church in Georgetown said they would conduct such ceremonies after Congress failed to override D.C.'s new law on March 3. The larger United Methodist Church does not permit same-sex weddings, and no other Methodist congregation in Washington has taken the same step.

"As a pastor, I am called to extend care and grace to all people even as Jesus did," said Rev. Mary Kay Totty, pastor at the 238-year-old church. "We celebrate love and loyalty wherever it is found."

Dumbarton church's stand is poles apart from the protests by other Christian churches that same-sex marriages are against Biblical teachings. Catholic Charities has announced that it will close its adoption and foster care programs in the District, rather than provide services to gay and lesbian couples. Some Christian ministers have rallied against the marriage equality law.

But Dumbarton's Church Council, in a 28 to 0 vote February 10, pledged "to honor and celebrate the wedding of any couple, licensed in the District of Columbia, who seek to commit their lives to one another in marriage."

Totty said the church is aware the clergy are at risk by performing same-sex weddings in a denomination that does not sanction them. "However," she said, "marriage equality is about justice and civil rights. The District of Columbia acknowledges that it is wrong to discriminate against people based upon sexual orientation."

Recognizing such marriages is a logical step for the District's oldest Methodist congregation, she said. In 1987 Dumbarton publicly welcomed lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their families into full participation in the life and ministries of the congregation. With the new policy, couples wanting to be married will meet with the pastor to discuss the church's marriage guidelines and to discuss counseling. "We rejoice that at this point in history, the arc of justice now bends toward equal recognition of marriage for all couples," said Totty."

It's about time somebody stepped up and said "This is a ridiculous rule and we're not putting up with it anymore". You may not agree with me, but I don't think a committed relationship of any kind is what any of the writers of the Bible were talking about. Personally, I think those references were about prostitution. Actually, temple prostitution. Except for adultery, everywhere the admonitions against sexual sin come up, they are related to areas where people worshipped Ishtar, or Astarte, or Aphrodite. All different names for the same goddess. A goddess who represented fertility and sexuality. Worship of Ishtar included sacred prostitution. A religion whose goddess required you to have sex as part of worship had more heck of lot more appeal to folks than one based on service to God and neighbor. And, I'm sure, the people strayed in droves. The Canaanites practiced this religion, and Rome and Corinth were major centers of worship for the Aphrodite cult, to say nothing of the rampant commercial prostitution in both cities. Mosiac law was written when? That's right, when the Israelites were moving into Canaan. Who else comes out against sexual sin? Paul does, in Romans and, you guessed it, 1 Corinthians. The word used for sexual sin in the original Greek is "porneia", meaning sexual immorality or perversion. However, the word used in English translations of the Bible is "fornication". That word comes from the Latin word "fornix", meaning arch. What does an arch have to do with sex, you ask? The prostitutes in Rome used to ply their trade in the archways under the city and "fornicatio" (literally "done in the archway") became slang for seeing a prostitute. Eventually, around 1303 it picked up its current meaning of sex between two unmarried people. Now, scholars say that it's a slight mistranslation, but I find it interesting that the word used for sexual sin was originally a euphemism for prostitution.

What it all boils down is this: as long as we make homosexuality (or sex in general) something dirty, something to be hidden and ashamed of, people are going to get hurt. Not just those who practice it, but those around them. Their friends, their family and even us, the people who ostracize them. Nothing good can come of the continued paranoia about homosexuals and same-sex marriage. I keep hearing that same-sex marriage is a danger to the whole institution of marriage. I'd like someone to tell me how? Every problem I've seen with homosexuality doesn't arise from the act, it comes from how society views it. As I said just a few lines earlier, something dirty, disgusting and unworthy of the light of day. If we accepted it instead of fearing it, many of the problems would melt away. Not all, of course, I'm not naive and I realize we're dealing with human beings, imperfect as they are. As for the Biblical or religious objections, as long as it's two consenting adults and no is getting hurt, I really don't think God cares who we're sleeping with. Don't you think he has bigger fish to fry?

Are We Really That Bad?

Ever since I returned to the church, I've been intrigued by certain doctrines. One of those is Calvinism. Now, anyone that knows me knows that I'm not about to go out become a hard-core Presbyterian. My interest is more in the vein of "Where did that idea come from?" One the aspects of Calvinism that I struggle with the most is that of Total Depravity. This is the idea that,due to Adam's fall in the garden (original sin), we are, on our own, unable to love God. Instead, we are drawn by our sinful nature to serve our own ends and desires. The only way we are able to pull ourselves out the muck and mire of that way of life is through God's grace. If you listen to the hard cases describe our condition, it's terrible. Things like "vile, corrupt creatures" and "completely unworthy of God's love", that sort of thing. I've never liked that characterization. If we're God's children and he created us, why would he make us like that? I'm a father, and I would never hamstring a child of mine that way? And, if I see that, why can't God?

Once, I spent a good deal of time happy about being a Wesleyan and Arminian because I thought they were diametrically opposed to Calvinism. Or so I thought. Then, I did a little reading. It turns out old Jacobus (Arminius, that is. Founder of the doctrine Wesleyanism built on) was a student of Calvin's hand-picked successor, Theodore Beza. If that wasn't bad enough, Arminius even agreed with Calvin about total depravity. In fact, the first tenet of Arminianism states that we are naturally unable to make any effort to move toward God. That kind of shook me and I began think I wasn't such great admirer of Arminius after all. The more I thought about this, the more it bothered me, so I spoke to my pastor about it. When I explained my reluctance to embrace original sin, she said to think of it this way: since the Fall, our condition is one that's predisposed to sin. I can buy that. I can also buy that I can't give up sin without help. I don't believe that we're totally unable to do so because we're tainted as a result of Adam's fall. I realize the hard-cores would call me a Pelagian (a 5th century priest who built a theory of salvation based on works and morality), I'll take it a step farther. I think prevenient grace, that grace that helps us see we need God's help, doesn't so much engage our free will and allow us to accept God's justifying grace as it helps the better parts of our nature to overcome those parts that want to continue wallowing in sin. Maybe that's radical and maybe it's not. It is how I see the situation.

To answer the question in the title, I'm reminded of something Rob Bell said in the "Dust" video from NOOMA, "God has an incredibly high view of people. God believes that people are capable of amazing things. I have been told that I need to believe in Jesus. Which is a good thing. But what I am learning is that Jesus believes in me. I have been told that I need to have faith in God. Which is a good thing. But what I am learning is that God has faith in me." If that's true, I can't all that bad, can I?

Theology Lite?

I've noticed that certain popular "spiritual" programs, books, etc. have a few things in common. One, they don't require a lot of serious thought. Case in point, Sunday school lessons based on television shows of the past. There's the Andy Griffith Show, The Beverly Hillbillies, Bonanza, the list goes on. Don't get me wrong, these were great shows and there were lessons galore in them. Unfortunately, I don't see them as great theological teaching material and, as a rule, they're not. They tend to be pretty fluffy. There's very little challenge to step outside your comfort zone while watching Andy and Barney deal with Aunt Bee's kerosene cucumbers. In fact, that's pretty the definition of my comfort zone. Give me a recliner and some cookies and I'd never leave the church. In his blog "Jesus, The Radical Pastor", John Frye writes about "The Fortune Cookie Bible" saying "Pithy, little positive sayings that perk up your life and create a little, fun curiosity, that’s what fortune cookies do. And that’s all that many Christians want from their Bibles." Whenever I mention some new subject of study I'm engaging in, I have an acquaintance that always responds with "Oh, I don't understand all that. I just listen to my pastor so he can explain it". I don't understand how someone can so blithely abdicate all responsibility for their spiritual education like that. Digging into something new and pulling the meat out is one the reasons I go to church. Fluffy lessons just irritate me. And, I'm to way rebellious to blindly follow anyone.

Another common denominator in these things is the "feel good" factor. Joel Osteen is a big name these days and he preaches something called "prosperity gospel". Prosperity Theology (or gospel) believes that God bestows material prosperity on those whom he favors. They base this on certain passages in the Bible which are, at best, misunderstood or, at worst, quoted out of context to lull followers into sending them money. Because, you see, the way you become prosperous under this system is through a seed faith offering. That's right, you send the preacher some money and he'll pray for you and God will bless you and you'll have wealth and health and happiness. From what I can see, the only person getting prosperous here is the dude on TV or the radio, getting gullible folks to send him money. But, that's not all. In addition to a message that runs counter to everything I've ever read in the Gospels, there is a ton of self-esteem building on Osteen's website. It's all about what a wonderful person you are and how you can feel better about yourself, yadda yadda yadda. This is a fantastically me-centered "theology" (I use the term loosely) and, unless I've been misunderstanding it, Christianity is focused outward, not inward. But, I can see why this stuff is popular. Who wouldn't like being told God was going to send them a ton of money and they were just the most wonderful thing ever? Yes, Jesus did say that if God would take care of the flowers and the animals, He would certainly take care of you (Matthew 6:26). But, He also told the rich young man to sell everything he had, give the money to the poor and follow Him (Matthew 19:20-21). How many people plan on receiving this promised blessing only to give it away?

Last, I'll talk about lists. We all love lists. Some are good, like Wesley's 3 rules or the ones that help structure your work day or study time. Others, not so much. For years, I've wanted a checklist for being a good Christian. You know, feed the hungry? Check. shelter the homeless? Check. That kind of thing. Except, I don't want to be that hard. I'd rather it be things like reading my Bible or starting a new study. If I have to help people, I'd like it to be people I at least don't mind being around. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Being a good Christian is about stepping outside the box and doing stuff you may not necessarily want to do. But, you know what? Every time I do, I kinda like the result.

What is a Christian?

Why am I writing this? Because so many people who profess to be a Christian don't act like one. Or, at least how I think one should act. I figured the best place to start would be with an official definition of the word "Christian". Now, according to Merriam-Webster, a Christian is "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus". While true, it doesn't really tell us anything. So, I did a little more digging and came up with this: "Different people have defined a "Christian" as a person who has:
1.Heard the Gospel in a certain way, and accepted its message, or
2.Become "saved" -- i.e. they have trusted Jesus as Lord and Savior), or
3.Been baptized as an infant, or
4.Gone to church regularly, or
5.Recited and agreed with a specific church creed or creeds, or
6.Believe that they understand and follow Jesus' teachings, or
7.Led a decent life." (religioustolerance.org)


As you can see, instead of narrowing the scope, this just widened it. So, next, I tried a historical approach. The Roman Emperor Constantine is credited with advancing the cause of Christianity throughout the world, but it wasn't until 380 CE that Emperor Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thessalonica and declared Christianity the state religion. At that point, it can argued, that all citizens of the Empire became Christians. Again, not helping. At this point, I went to the Bible (I know, should have been my first resource). The word "Christian doesn't occur very much and when it does, it's not saying what it means to be one. Of course, it wouldn't that easy; it never is. At that point, I realized why the definitions are so diverse: there's not any one set definition. I was going to have to do what everyone else had done: read, study and put it together myself.



In the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16-20), Jesus told his followers to "make disciples of all nations". So, we're supposed to disciples. Okay, that's something to work with. But, what is a disciple? This time, I went to the Bible first. Unfortunately, it's not a dictionary and didn't lay out a nice pat answer like I wanted. I realized other definitions I found wouldn't really work because they're from our time and culture. And, to understand this, I needed to see from a 1st century Hebrew point of view. Now, in 1st century Galilee (and Galileans were the most religious of all Jews at the time), a young man started his religious education at the age of 5 and spent the next 5 years or so learning the Torah, memorizing it. That's right, all 5 books memorized. If he excelled at that, around the age of 10, he spent the next 5 years learning and memorizing the rest of the Hebrew Bible. After that, say at 15, if he was really good, he could become the disciple of a rabbi. But, he had to prove his worth to the rabbi and show that he was capable of following in the rabbi's footsteps. Because, in those times, that's what a disciple did. He followed his rabbi around everywhere he went, listening to what the rabbi said, observing what the rabbi did, learning what the rabbi knew in an effort to be just like his rabbi. There was a blessing of the time that roughly translated "May you be covered in the dust of your rabbi". In the blog "Standing Out in the Cold", the author tells us "This was meant to say that you followed your rabbi so closely that you were covered in the dust his sandals kicked up. Basically, you learned what it meant to be a rabbi and a true follower of God by learning to be exactly like your rabbi in every way. You emulated him completely. You literally learned by following his example." Not exactly how we view discipleship today, is it?



What does this say about being a Christian? Well, Jesus called us to follow him and be his disciples. In the preceding paragraph, we see what being a disciple meant to him. In a nutshell, being a Christian means living the life of Christ. Or least trying to live the life of Christ. It's definitely not something you get right on the first try. The original disciples didn't. They didn't really get what He was about until He was gone. Fortunately, we don't have to have all figured out to follow him. We just have to try. And, we have to believe in our rabbi. Otherwise, what's the point?

Gay and Christian?

I'm probably going to regret this, but I'm tackling this subject anyway. First things first: no, I'm not gay. I say this because the issue is divisive enough without extra distractions. I'm writing this due to another blog I read. It's called "Jesus, The Radical Pastor", by John Frye. There's some interesting stuff on there. One is an entry titled "Jesus Goes Postal", in which Frye contends it was never Jesus' intent to clear the vendors out of the temple when he went off, he was sending a message that the exclusion inherent in Judaism and displayed in the the Temple was over. Frye makes his point best:
"Exclusion in the Name of faith. The Temple in Jesus’ day maintained a rigid hierarchy of who was closest and farthest from God. God-seeking Gentiles? Hey, let’s build a flea market in their spot. Never mind there are all kinds of markets already available on the Mount of Olives. Competition is good. Who cares that the traditional laws forbid carrying your wallet into the Temple area? This is AD 33! Get with the times. Your wallet: don’t leave home without it. But, keep the women out. Keep the cripples out. Keep the Gentiles out. Keep the am ha’aretz out! We are Jewish, well-bodied, well-educated, righteous men. We’re in! By his unexpected drama, Jesus declared that the days of exclusion were over. Are Christian gays welcomed into our ’sacred space’?"



It was that last sentence that caught me. Not too long ago, the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina amended their Articles of Incorporation to say that a church was not in "friendly cooperation" with the Convention if they "knowingly act, approve, endorse, support or bless homosexual behavior" That's verbatim from their website, by the way. What happens to churches not in friendly behavior? Ask Broadway Baptist Church in Texas. The Texas convention terminated a 127 year relationship with that congregation because they were too lenient with homosexual members. The Oklahoma convention passed a resolution that asked businesses, organizations and government to restrict their grants to two types of families: those with a headed by one man and one woman and those with single parents. Doesn't sound all that welcoming, does it?



Why all the hubbub about homosexuality? According to those opposed to it, it's based on scripture. Not that there's a lot of scripture on the subject. In fact, Jesus himself never mentioned much about sex in general outside of adultery. Most of the condemnation comes from the Old Testament. Mosaic Law seems pretty harsh about the subject. But, it's also pretty harsh about other things . Like stoning adulterous women (but, not men), forbidding divorce, that if a man dies childless, his widow is to sleep with his each of his brothers in turn until she becomes pregnant so that the dead man's line continues and others even more outlandish by our standards. We don't any of these things anymore. Why? Culturally, we have progressed from such draconian ideals. Yet, if you apply the same measures to homosexuality, you're accused of "moral relativism". Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice (from moral-relativism.com). Morally relative or not, the current view on homosexuality marginalizes a large group of people and that's contrary to the Gospel.

Think about this: Who did Jesus spend most of his time with? The elite, chosen Pharisees and devout Jews or the dregs of society, including prostitutes, tax collectors and lepers. You know the answer without even looking it up. And, when confronted about who he was with by the Pharisees, Jesus responded that these were the people he came for. The poor, the disenfranchised, the outcast. In His words, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick". If he was here today, who would he be hanging around with?

Finally, I come to the question posed in the title of this entry: Gay and Christian? That is, can you be a practicing homosexual and be a Christian also? Some would argue not. That continuing the sin of homosexuality somehow supersedes belief. I notice, however, that any sins these folks might be complicit in aren't mentioned. Funny how that works, huh? For myself, it's not my place to say who's in and who's out. That's God's job and he's welcome to it.

Rethinking Church

The United Methodist Church (of which I am a member) has started a new ad campaign aimed primarily at people aged 18 to 34. In it, they pick up on many of the tenets of the emerging Christianity (hereafter referred to as E. C.) conversation and present them in a Methodist setting. I've looked at the websites involved, watched the promo video and I have to say I'm impressed. Well, let me hedge that a bit. I'll be impressed if this is embraced by the congregations as a whole and it becomes more than an ad campaign.

The question is how do we do that? Make it more than a series of commercials, that is. I think our focus has to be on making this a better world and bringing the Kingdom of Heaven to fruition right here on earth, right now in our time. As soon it becomes about filling pews or "saving souls", it will become a dismal failure. The people we're reaching out to with this are smart folks and can smell a fake a mile away. We have to present ourselves as people with a better way to live. Not the only way, just a better way. That attitude could well be what drove them away or kept them from getting involved in the church. You'll notice I said "getting involved" instead "attending church". That's one of those things we have to rethink for this to work. Get involved in the church on a personal level and live out our faith on a daily basis. In whatever form that takes for you. Find your gifts (we all have them, you know) and use them. That's what they're for.

Some people in this movement that's not really a movement (E. C.) think that advertising is wrong. Or, at least the wrong way to go about things. Rob Bell said that when they started Mars Hill Bible Church people wanted to put up a sign. He said no, that they wanted people that took the time to seek them out. I understand where he's coming from on this. I even agree..., to a point. I, myself, don't particularly like the idea of a sign out front. Especially those with the pithy little sayings on them. Partly, because I heartily disagree with the theology behind the statements. But, also because I think it cheapens things a bit. It's church and it's wonderful and mysterious and fulfilling and I could go on and on about it. Advertisement, to me, wipes all that out and brings to down to the level of selling used cars. On the other hand, how are people going to find us if we don't put our message out there? The fundamentalists haven't shied away from that and make sure everyone knows where they stand. I think they're so wrong it's not funny, but at least I know where they're about. We Methodists haven't done so well in that respect. How many times have you told someone you were a Methodist and were asked "What's that?" or "What do you guys believe?" I'm hoping that we'll rectify that oversight with "Rethink Church". I also hope we truly do "Rethink Church".

Evangelism vs Evangelicalism

Evangelism has gotten a bad rap lately. In fact, in some circles it's almost a dirty word. I can understand this, some of the "evangelism" that I've seen over the years bordered on coercion. A lot of it could also be considered offensive. Ann Coulter's comment that Christians want Jews to be "perfected" is an example. I think part of what's going on here is that people are confusing "evangelism" with "evangelicalism". Evangelism is merely spreading the good news of Christ throughout the world. Evangelicalism, to me, is a horse of a different color. Micheal Spenser, of the InternetMonk blog qualifies Evangelicalism as the following:

1. Protestant, even strongly anti-Catholic

2. Baptistic, even in its non-Baptist form

3. Shaped by the influence of Billy Graham and his dominance as an symbol and leader

4. Shaped by the influence of Southern Baptist dominance in the conception of evangelism

5. Influenced by revivalism and the ethos of the Second Great Awakening

6. Open to the use of technology

7. Oriented around individualistic pietism and a vision of individualistic Christianity

8. Committed to church growth as the primary evidence of evangelism

9. Committed to missions as a concept and a calling, but less as a methodology

10. Asserting Sola scriptura, but largely unaware of the influence of its own traditions

11. Largely anti-intellectual and populist in its view of education

12. Traditionally conservative on social, political and cultural issues

13. Anti- Creedal, reluctantly confessional

14. Revisionist toward Christian history in order to establish its own historical legitimacy

15. Attempting, and largely failing, to establish a non-fundamentalist identity

16. A low view of the sacraments and sacramental theology

17. A dispensational eschatology, revolving around the rapture and apocalyptic views of immanent last days



While not perfect, this is a pretty good list and hits most, if not all, of the high points. Evangelicalism tends to run most strongly in fundamentalist circles, most especially (from what I can see) Calvinist ones. I'm not trying to point fingers..., well, yeah, I am. I have a real problem with this kind of stuff. First of all, I don't understand the idea behind Calvinist thought. I mean, why would God choose for some of his children to accept him and not others? Especially, when not accepting him means being forever separated from God. That said, these folks, well-meaning though they may be, are the ones doing the very things I mentioned earlier and more. There is an undercurrent of arrogance and superiority running through the Evangelical line of thought. They never say it and would vociferously deny it if you asked them, but it certainly sounds like they believe that, as Christians, they're above everyone else. And, much of what they do crosses the line and moves from evangelism into proselytizing. Many evangelical defend their stance with an almost fanatical devotion. Unfortunately, as James Jordan said " Those who want to bang the drum for a 450-year old tradition are dooming themselves to irrelevance."



Many emerging Christians would call themselves "post-evangelical" if asked. Now, I'm sure you're asking "What's post-evangelical?" Good question, let's see if I can answer it. Post-evangelicalism involves people who have stepped away from evangelicalism, but not the Christian faith. Some of their complaints with Evangelicalism include:

1) a focus on individualism instead community

2) anti-intellectualism

3) narrow or partisan political views

4) lack or engagement (almost a rejection) of art and society

5) insensitive of homosexuals

6) rigid reliance on doctrine, especially Scriptural Inerrancy

There are more, I'm sure, but I think you get the idea. There is a growing group of young folks out there that are looking for God and a place to learn and worship. And, they're not satisfied with the status quo. They want a church based on community, one that uses it's missions to make the world a better place and not to proselytize. A church that respects other religions and beliefs. A church that practices evangelism in the everyday lives of it's members and not by putting up a sign or street-corner witnessing. Whether we can live up to that standard remains to be seen.

Progressive Christianity

I've taken the conservative side of the Christian faith to task several times here. Not without good cause, I believe. The other side of that equation is Progressive (or Liberal) Christianity. Before I go any further, I should voice a disclaimer. It's going to be retroactive too, and cover those things I've already said. On all sides of this discussion are good people, trying their best to live like Christ. I just disagree with the ways that some of them do it. Now, onto today's subject. First of all, Progressive or Liberal Christianity are actually two different things. Liberal Christianity grew out of the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century. This was a time of great cultural change, helped along by the successful rebellion in the United States against the British Empire. This affected everything and religion was no different. Some the tenets of Liberal Christianity include: a) rejection of the inerrancy doctrine of the Bible; b) non-traditional views of heaven and hell; c) wider scope of views about salvation (including universal salvation) ; personal view of God. There are more, but I think you get the picture. Progressive Christianity is a bit more like the accepted view of the word "liberal". One of it's most identifying aspects is social justice. I've got nothing against social justice, in fact, I try to support it whenever possible. In fact, Wesley was almost a fanatic on the subject. The problem is that it can be the first step onto the proverbial slippery slope. All to often, Liberal or Progressive morphs into the Social Gospel. The Social Gospel takes Christian ethics to social problems. Nothing wrong with that, in on of itself. Unfortunately, it can on a life of itself and you stop attending church and end up going to social activism meeting. I've seen that happen in the youth group I work with. We did a lot of things for the homeless, the hungry and those in need and very little religious education.

Worship tends to get a little stale with this model, especially with young people. Add in the reluctance of some adults to listen and reach out to those younger than themselves and you'll see young people either leaving the church or sitting around bored because someone else made them come. Not good. Combine this with the fundamentalism of the conservatives and it can really get ugly. It was only matter of time before someone stood up and said "This ain't workin, we need to find a new way". That's what this is about, finding a new way. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to change everything, that would be stupid. There are so many good things we're already doing on both sides. However, the current model has it's flaws. I see it in my own church. We've just moved to a new building and are experiencing a growth like I've never seen before. But, that growth is all families in their 30's and 40's, mostly with young children. Now, this is normal. Folks that haven't been to church in a while start a family and gravitate back toward the church because they want their children to be brought up the way they were. While that's good, why don't we try and reach them before they get to this point? That's going to require changes of us, the old farts; something we're not that good at. But, I think the result will be well worth it. Who knows, we might even find we like it.

Yesterday

Saturday, I took part in a church service project. A family in the area suffered a house fire and the insurance company, in all it's wisdom, wasn't allowing the woman anywhere near enough to make the necessary repairs. Now, the actual fire and heat damage was confined to the living room and kitchen and normally, those would be the only rooms that would have to gutted and rebuilt. Areas that were just sooty from the smoke could be cleaned and repainted, carpet replaced, that sort of thing. Unfortunately, this isn't a normal case. The woman's teenage daughter has a respiratory ailment, so the entire house has to gutted and rebuilt. To help stretch her money, the lady turned to Wake County Health and Human Services who, in turn, called our church to see if we could help. Help we did. At around 10 am yesterday morning, 18 people descended on the house and began cleaning it out. By noon, when I had to leave, the entire 1st floor was all but done. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if those who stayed on didn't finish the job.

Now, I don't relate this story to blow my horn or that of my particular church. Or Christians in general, frankly. No, I brought this up to highlight another tenet of Christian life: missional living. I'm talking living the missionary lifestyle in order to bring the gospel message to others.
There are lots of ways to do this. Service projects like the one above only scratch the surface and, truthfully, are the easy way out. I mean, really, you can go out and spend a Saturday doing home repairs, serving food at a homeless shelter, visiting shut-ins, etc. Then, the rest of the week, you go back to a "me first and screw everyone else" attitude. If you spend all week calling yourself a Christian, but acting like a selfish ass, you might as well stay home on Saturday. Maybe you can spend the time getting a clue, because it sounds like you don't have one. The whole point of doing this stuff is to spread the love that God has for us and let others in on the deal. If you're pissing off everyone you come into contact with because your attitude sucks..., well that kinda defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it? Another thing about the idea of missional living is that it's not just for Missionaries (I use the caps to denote the professionals), all of us are Christ's missionaries everywhere we go. People that know us and know we profess to be Christian are watching to see what we do and how we do it. There are a lot people out there who've never been inside a church and many others who haven't been in a long time. We can be the deciding factor as to whether they ever step foot inside a church for the rest of their lives. As a my brother's pastor once said "You're the only Bible some folks will ever read".