Did Thomas Get it Right?

We all remember the story of Doubting Thomas. He was, of course, the one apostle who refused to believe in Jesus' resurrection until he saw it for himself. As it says in John 20:24-25 "But Thomas (who was called the Twin), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, ‘We have seen the Lord.’ But he said to them, ‘Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe." While it's not the only instance of doubting God that occurs in the Bible, it's probably the best known. It's also one I can certainly relate to. I mean, how often do you hear about someone you know dying and coming back to life? Thomas' raised eyebrow at the news that a man he'd seen die on a cross a few days earlier was up and walking around is understandable. Even in the light of everything he'd seen up to that point, all the miracles, (including the resurrection of Lazarus), I can still see where he was coming from. I mean, the man was dead! You can bring yourself back from the dead, can you? In Thomas' defense, he never said it was impossible, just that he wouldn't believe it until he saw it. And, to his credit, when he did see it, his response was "My Lord and my God!". Jesus answered "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe." Which is the definition of faith, stripped down to the bone.

So, doubt and faith: diametrically opposed? Or, is doubt a normal, healthy part of our faith? I'll let the author of one my favorite blogs answer. John Frye, from Jesus, The Radical Pastor said "Doubters have their place in announcing and practicing the unexpectedly loving reign of God. Old, stale thinking pitted doubt against faith (as Scot McKnight points out). More discerning thinking sees doubt as an ally to faith.
A skewed triumphalist Christianity erased doubt as a legitimate aspect of the Christian journey. In its heated sense of victory, it boiled doubt away as some sort of sin. As a matter of fact, a serious sin: unbelief. This only caused doubters to go underground and live with the agony in their souls. Who wants to be branded a pagan unbeliever in the tight-assed evangelical community? Those who live constipated Christian lives don’t want any uncertainty to be voiced at all…ever. They don’t really trust in the Christ of the cross and resurrection; they trust a system of belief that keeps their tidy little self-centered worlds together.
This is the time for doubters to arise. Take your place in the Great Commission task of the church. Voice your doubts. Ask your questions. Carry your honest inquiries into the communities where you live.
For God’s sake, doubters, upset the apple cart!"
So, yeah, I think Thomas got it right. What about you?

Who's it all about?

If you haven't picked up on it yet, I'm a big Rob Bell fan. I like the way he approaches things and I rarely read or listen to him without being challenged to look at something in a new way. The latest was the result of one of the NOOMA videos, entitled "Luggage". This particular video is about forgiveness and what it can mean to us. One the eye-openers for me was the idea that revenge is about distrusting God. That in seeking revenge, we're not willing to trust God to handle the situation. In fact, it's a control issue. We want to be the one who determines what retribution happens to the person who wronged us. That in pursuing revenge, we're telling God we think we can do His job better than he can. We showed this video in both the college student's Sunday school class and Sunday night at MYF. On the second viewing, and again in the discussion, one of the things that jumped out at me was the words used in talking about revenge. I'll get you, you'll find out not to mess with me; or in talking about why we pursued it and how it made us feel: It makes me feel good, I got even and other statements. Notice the common denominator? Revenge is all about ME. And, one of the main tenets of Christianity is that it's not about me. As the Apostle Paul said "And he died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and was raised for them."(2 Corinthians 5:15)

One of the other interesting things came from a question Sean (the Director of Youth and Young Adult ministries, also my friend and reluctant mentor) asked both groups: How do you feel when you get revenge? The adults, Sean and myself, said that it left us unsatisfied and unfulfilled. The younger folks, however, were just the opposite. They wholeheartedly supported the idea of revenge, saying that it made them feel good afterward. This was not a view that made me particularly happy. Especially when my own daughter said it. But, later, as she considered the subject, she said that the early euphoria didn't last and was usually replaced by feelings of guilt or even shame. You know, I don't want her to feel bad, but as a parent, it is nice to know your offspring feels remorse after a less-than-good deed. I'm not sure about why this difference exists though. Maybe it's the fact that teens and early twenty-somethings still believe that it's all about them. At first, I thought we viewed it differently because we're older, more mature, etc. Then, it dawned on me what the real difference between us is. Sean and I are both parents. Nothing shows that life is not about you quicker than having a child. But, if that what it takes for these kids to change their idea about revenge, I'll live with the current conception a while longer. But there is one thing that is about us.


If you've ever looked at my facebook page, you know that I post a different quote each day. Sometimes, it's inspirational, sometimes funny. Yesterday's was "“To forgive is to set a prisoner free and discover that the prisoner was you" from Lewis B. Smedes. Regardless of what my young charges think, grudges, revenge and other such things are damaging. Another Smedes quote says it much better than I can: "Vengeance is having a videotape planted in your soul that cannot be turned off. It plays the painful scene over and over again inside your mind... And each time it plays you feel the clap of pain again... Forgiving turns off the videotape of pained memory. Forgiving sets you free.” The way these things consume us is not good. If we're obsessing about a wrong, where does that leave us with God? Certainly not trying to be closer to Him. Very little is further from the life of Christ than withholding forgiveness. When asked how often to forgive, Jesus said "Seventy times seven" (or "Seventy-seven" depending on which translation you read). He didn't mean a literal 77 times or even 490 times. No, He's telling us to always forgive those who do us wrong. Why? I'll close with one of His parables to explain that.

"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. The servant fell on his knees before him. "Be patient with me," he begged, "and I will pay back everything." The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. "Pay back what you owe me!" he demanded. His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, "Be patient with me, and I will pay you back." But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt.
When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened. Then the master called the servant in. "You wicked servant," he said, "I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?" In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."

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?

Absolutely?

"The passion for truth is silenced by answers which have the weight of undisputed authority"
Paul Tillich

A lot of Emerging and Post-Modern Christians are accused of having no hard moral limits. That their entire sense of right and wrong is driven by the culture they exist in. The fundamentalists throw around the term "moral relativism" for anyone that doesn't agree with their particular hard line. The thing is, everyone's idea of right and wrong is colored by culture. It would be impossible to not to be influenced. I wouldn't point that out unless you're looking for a fight, however.

I started to talk about how culture influences our morals, but, really, I covered most of that ground in the previous post. Suffice it to say that there are a lot of things the Bible tells us to do that we don't do anymore. And, one of the reasons we don't do them is because a) we've learned things since they were written that tell us they're discriminatory, b) they're no longer required for our relationship with God or c) they require more drastic consequences than we believe fits with a Christian life style (i.e. stoning). We don't do these things anymore and that's all right, but all of society is threatened if a same sex couple wants the same legal rights as a straight one. This doesn't make sense. Why slavishly hold to one aspect of Mosaic Law as an absolute truth and throw out the rest. Sounds more arbitrary than absolute to me.


I don't presume to speak for anyone else, but I have read some other writers and leaders ideas on this subject and I believe I have some insight on what the issue is. It's so much that we don't have hard moral limits, because almost everyone does. Those that don't have a name: sociopath. It's just that our limits are different from some others that appear more mainstream because they're very vocal about their morals. I have limits: if it doesn't show and spread God's love then, to me, it's not moral. Personally, I believe a committed, monogamous homosexual couple has infinitely greater morals than a church member who shows up at a funeral and marches around chanting, holding a sign that says "God Hates Fags".


I believe the attitude of some of my more fundamental brothers and sisters springs from their belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. This is the belief that the Bible, in it's original form, is free from any error or contradiction; "referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture, including the historical and scientific parts"(Geisler & Nix (1986). A General Introduction to the Bible). This is the cause of a lot of controversy in (and out of) theological circles. And, much of the intolerance comes from it too. With this basis for belief, it's easy to see why some folks can see things in such black and white starkness. Unfortunately, the world we live in is colored in shades of gray and such starkness can lead to a rigid application of Biblical principles that, whatever the person applying may intend, are devoid of the love that Jesus was all about.

So, can a truth be absolute? Read the quote at the beginning of this post and you'll see what I think.

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.