One of my elders brought the following blog to my attention yesterday: www.graceconversation.com. It's a pretty interesting idea - four guys write the posts - two from the Conservative wing of Churches of Christ (Greg Tidwell - hey, he's a Columbus guy . . . at a church here in town . . . that I've never even met in nearly six years of ministering here . . . only about twenty minutes away from here . . . (there's about 10 Churhes of Christ of any size here in Columus) and Phil Sanders, who used to preach at the Concord Rd. Church of Christ in Brentwood, TN where my wife went before we were married and where we were married) and two guys from the Progressive wing of Churches of Christ (Jay Guin, an elder for the University Church in Tuscaloosa, AL (a church we stayed at on the way to New Orleans a few summers ago) and Todd Deaver (the only guy I can't play two degrees of separation with - but I bet I could get him in three!!)- all four falling within the spectrum we could probably look upon as "mainstream congregations" (read: no extremists).

So, anyhow, I ventured over there and the site has gotten quite a flury of action in the few months in been up and running (putting our conversation here to shame! :-) The idea behind the site seems noble - bring folks - who share a similar heritage - from differing ideological backgrounds together to have civil dialogue on important matters in regards to the Churches of Christ. So I spent a few minutes perusing the comments today over lunch. I'm curious if other contributors to our Post-Restoration site have been there, but I wanted to make a few reflections based on what I read there.

I applaud their efforts at bringing a converstaion that is often riddled with inflammatory and slanderous language to the point of being counterproductive to a format that promotes mutual edification and respect. Now, I feel totally ridiculous having to point that out since we are all Christians, you'd think it'd be a given . . . but I think we know our flesh better than that!

And while applaud their efforts and hope that they are blessed, I cannot help but read the conversation as an outsider. To me, the dialogue seems riddled in modernly constructed arguments and logic, and frankly, I have difficulty following them - or even caring to. I may just be using all this post-modern stuff as a way to wash my hands clean of some really important stuff, I don't know, but I'm not certainly not trying to take some high and mighty ground here. It may very well be that I have become numb to much of these kinds of discussions - something I would count as another of my many personal flaws. But, I can't help but wonder it if it is something more.

I believe the "Progressive" response to the often-oppressive and legalistic tradition that many in Churches of Christ grew up with 20 and 30 years ago was a purely (for the most part) modern response. And that response, rooted in a thoroughly modern epistemological thought-structure has sown for many of us in the next generation of leadership, some major problems. The dialogue that ensues between these groups seems to be pretty linear (from what I can see in the responses I read on this blog). Point - counter-point kind of stuff. I find myself, however, coming from a totally different thought-structure that doesn't catch much in these circles.

From my perspective, conversation at-large has greatly changed for those outside the church and for those connected at an arm's length, but we, in our churches, continue to muddle through so many archaic and unrelated minuteia. I still believe it is important. I still believe it is necessary. I just don't think that it is as central as we have made it. Making it central has made it divisive, something that has become our identity more than even Christ, himself. It's almost like we feel we need to get our in-house stuff figured out before we can allow our conversations to venture outside into the "real world." Unfortunately, I think we would be much better served by taking these conversations to the streets and allowing those outside the church to help form our understandings, instead of the inbred group think we seem to be better equipped to promote in our current structures.

I, personally, am interested in the relationship the Christian faith as to other faiths of the world. I believe there is salvation found in those other faiths . . . just not sure how, or why, or to what extent. I'm interested in the redeeming qualities portrayed in the arts and how we can better incorporate them into our identity as a redeemed people. I have a great interest in ecology and its connection to faith and theology . . . an area of theology that has been dormant for so long in the halls of academia. I have an interest in being part of a community that is diverse and hetergeneous so that I can learn from people who are different than I am.

And yet, I find in my own tradition (both macro & micro) a people who are consumed with making a homogenous, uniform reality built on stoic mantra and stodgy, esoteric -ologies. Certainly, I think the aforementioned blog is a positive move toward dialogue, but I find the coversation morose and overly internal. I find a people who would rather ramble on ad naseum (myself included!!) about God, instead of meeting Him in the realities of the world around us - this is a message to me!

I suppose, as a means to promote discussion, I'm asking you reading, is this a personal character flaw. Am I being some kind of academic snob claiming "no one gets me"? Certainly, that is not my intention. Looking ahead at things in Churches of Christ, where is postmodernity taking us? A pressing question that lingers since my days with Dr. Hicks is, How does a tradition "born and bred" in a thoroughly modern intellectual construct survive the desconstruction of that base without losing its identity altogether?

Cross Posted from my blog

Obviously, the big talk for the last couple of weeks is the release of the torture memos by the Obama administration, as well as the waffling that the President and his administration have done about the prosecution of individuals who either participated in the practice of "enhanced interrogation techniques" or the people who wrote legal opinions justifying it.

I'm not going to talk about the dissembling and fracturing of language participated in by the Bush administration because of these legal opinions ("these documents say that what we're doing isn't torture so I can go in front of America and say we don't torture.") or the waffling by the Obama administration ("No, we won't prosecute the people who did this. Um... when I said 'we,' I meant the White House. Anyone else can do what they want.")

What I will say this. If we claim to follow a Jesus who told us not only to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:39), but also to love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-45), if we claim to have the same attitude of Jesus and put others needs ahead of our own (Philippians 2:5-11), if we claim to follow a Savior who was tortured to death by the most powerful empire at the time, then as those followers we cannot condone or support this activity.

I honestly don't care what having committed torture says about America. I'm much more concerned that there are people who would view America's use of torture as a tantamount approval by Christians that torture is acceptable.

It's not.

Can torture gain information about potential terror attacks to prevent the loss of innocent life? Maybe. But the truth is that if we resort to tactics that those we consider evil use, then we are saying the (good) ends justifies the (evil) means. Here's the clue though. Almost everyone that we would consider evil, considers themselves good. A dictator typically thinks that he or she is doing what is best for their people and the means to accomplish that are unimportant.

If we claim to follow Jesus, we cannot be people who support torture. We simply cannot.

"So it is impossible to speak of an incarnation of God without keeping this conclusion in view. There can be no theology of the incarnation which does not become a theology of the cross. 'As soon as you say incarnation, you say cross.' God did not become a man according to the measure of our conceptions of being a man. He became the kind of man we do not want to be: an outcast, accursed, crucified...

This note is for those who have doubts, who have struggles, who have fears and questions; and for those who have been left behind from their faith communities because their thoughts and views are considered to be taboo, heretical, lofty, or just plain crazy. Maybe together we can discover a new depth to our faith…maybe, together in our journey we will find that there is more to God than we have ever imagined.

For many, the Christian faith has become equivalent with leading a moral lifestyle, a lifestyle which is rooted in 1950 America. Faith is less about adventure, conflict, and freedom and more about pious abstinences; such as abstaining from alcohol, controlling the radio station and popular music, and removing ourselves from anything or anyplace that bears any semblance to a secular culture. This is not a new concept or habit, but has been lived out from the foundations of organized religion.

While this may seem like a harmless practice, and may even have some roots in good intentions, the fact remains that those who buy into this system of faith are completely missing the point of the Jesus life. To reduce faith to a culturally moral lifestyle is to remove Jesus from the equation in two ways: (1) I can lead a moral lifestyle without God’s counsel, intervention, or discipline, and (2) this reduction automatically makes the teaching of Jesus elementary at best, and irrelevant
at worst.

There is within us all a hunger to taste a grand scheme to life. All of us have a yearning for life to be effective – for our breaths to make a difference, our hands to create a lasting thing, our minds to produce lasting results – all to say that our lives have not been merely lived out, but that they have been experienced, important, and meaningful. The message of Jesus while on this earth was a direct relation to that yearning. His message was there is more to this life than just existing. There is more to religion than just ritual, tradition, and new styles of worship. There is more to sin than just doing something bad. There is more to forgiveness than just a relieved feeling in our guts. There is more to sacrifice than just giving something up. There is more to relationships than just surface level conversations. There is more to conflict than just arguments. There is more to compassion than just mission trips and service projects. There is more to holiness than abstinence.

The message that sentenced Jesus to death, the message that brought humiliation to the dark forces when Jesus arose from the dead is: There….is….so….much….more.

There is so much more because there is God. The King has come and made His home among the dying. He is here. He is present. And He is able. So then, the answer for those who are entrapped in the ritual of their tradition, the answer isn’t to quit the faith or find a new one, but rather to awaken their hearts to a new perception and understanding of their Creator. The answer for churches who are struggling and declining in this new season isn’t to create new programs and logos, but to journey together into a new understanding of the Father and His dream for creation. The answer for the searching unbeliever isn’t to just join a faith community in the hopes that a magical transformation will alleviate all their fears, doubts, and concerns, but instead the answer is to authentically pursue God and follow His leading.

May we all awaken to the glory of God in such a way that we are completely satisfied in only Him.

I hadn’t been to this particular place in a very long time and I knew what to expect, but it was worse than I thought. Its’ tiredness had become exhaustion and its’ usualness had become a grind. My little ten minute speech earned some smiles, handshakes and a “thanks for that”, but the weight of that room seemed to cloud around me with an “is that all you got” smirk on its’ face. I went away a little different, it stayed the same.

I am not looking for hype. Hype is easy to find, but somehow in some Christian circles (churches, universities, camps…) it seems that creativity, expression and ingenuity have become suspect. While we could undoubtedly compile a long list of theological and ecclesiological conclusions that have fostered this distrust, here is my take on one.

We have more than compartmentalized that which is spiritual by saying it is only these “things” and not “those.” We have taken it hostage and placed it in a secure location guarded by men in suits, with high walls and typically a steeple. I believe this has sincerely been born out of our desire to control it. We want to control it because we can’t trust others with it. We fear that if what we call spiritual were to be open-ended to some degree then anyone could do with it as they pleased at anytime. So it has been stripped down, disarmed and assessed. Some have got it down to 5 acts while others go a little further adding in sub-points, but the distinction between what is “spiritual” and “everything else” is made clear. In this type of environment, creativity, expression and ingenuity are the exact things that could corrupt a sterile, hushed and controlled spirituality. Those things are fine when it comes to the “everything else”, but in regards to “spirituality”, creativity, expression and ingenuity create concern and apprehension. That day in that room, I felt the heaviness of human beings fed a regular and bland dose of so-called spiritual practices.

In the midst of Paul dealing with more “missing of the point” from some early followers, he makes a statement that is packed with freedom and possibility. He tells them that neither side of their argument has any value. He tells them that the only thing that avails, has value, or matters is “faith expressing itself (or working) through love.” That statement is bursting with potential. Those that would rather keep spirituality tied up are afraid that a free spirituality is a dangerous one destined to foolishly slide down a “slippery slope.” Conversely, I truly believe that anyone with honest intentions in following this way of Jesus can with some time and work find their way in it. They will undoubtedly make mistakes, but the power of their mistakes is not like the power of His grace (Romans 5:15-16) and the piling up their mistakes cannot overtake the piling up of His grace. (Romans 5:20) The fear we often articulate of allowing each of us the freedom to “express his or her faith in love” is not one I am buying into.

Jesus calls us into this new beautiful way of living full of graciousness, mercy, redemption, sacrifice, and justice. These things have no boundaries and are not only found in church. As I have said in a previous blog, His goal for us is not to hold worship services according to some preordained pattern. We are called to something much bigger than what is typically included in “going to church.” We are called to live in a new kingdom now finding ways to bring graciousness, mercy, redemption, sacrifice, and justice to this world full of bitterness, revenge, selfishness and injustice.

Yet we will never even begin to move in the direction of this goal if people are not freed to explore it…freed from restraining conclusions that serve better as reference points in the past instead of “periods” marking the end of discussion…freed from our current paradigms that teach us how to be observers rather than engagers…freed from overemphasizing bible classes, worship services and church programs to the neglect of bringing the solutions of the kingdom of God to the problems in the kingdom of men. We are created beings made by a Creator and given the ability and responsibility to create. Yet we are not following our own whims on this exploration. We believe in His Spirit, His essence in us moving. Maybe His creativity through us can dream up that possibility. Maybe His expression through us can communicate that love. Maybe His ingenuity through us can solve that problem.

I often wander what Jesus would say to those limiters of freedom who leave no room for individual faith expressing itself through love outside of their predetermined acceptable practices. Probably the same thing he said to the Pharisees who were concerned by the actions of the sinful woman who through her creativity gave even more meaning to the tradition of washing feet and expressed her faith through love by doing it with her tears and hair.

Last week, Zondervan sent me a book in the mail to consider for review. I'd never heard of the book, but the title grabbed me immediately. It's called, The Sacredness of Questioning Everything, by David Dark. I have heard of the author, but I've never really read anything by him before and really didn't know that much about him. Imagine my surprise when I read the following in the first chapter:

"In no small way, I think I owe my ability to hear and interpret stories to my Granddaddy Dark, a farmer, minister, and a math professor with precise ideas concerning the way the parts of the Bible all add up into the irrefutable, always logical word of God. He saw no use of musical instruments in the New Testament accounts of the early church, so worship services he conducted did not use them. It was rumored that he once broke with a congregation when a kitchen was added to the church--there was no mention of attached cooking facilities in his King James Version.

But near the end of his life, my grandfather spake unto my father a saving word that was handed down to me. Seated in the car with my father, he observed that all the straight lines he'd drawn in the sand concerning what God wanted and What the Bible said were drawn because, as far as he could tell, this is what the Lord had spoken. 'But,' he told my father, 'if it ever turns out that I'm wrong about these things, any of it, move on.'" pg. 15

I do not know for certain that Dark has roots in the Restoration Movement, but it certainly "walks and talks like a duck", doesn't it? (UPDATE: I got a chance to ask Dark about this via facebook. His grandfather was a math professor at Lipscomb once upon a time!). I'm only about a chapter into the book, and I plan on posting a full review on it later. I am, however, already finding a ton of resonance with the thinking that Dark is presenting here. Here are a few snippets for you to mull over and interact with (if you like):

"It is only when we're blessed by a feeling of finitude that we can begin to perceive the holy, that sense of a whole before which our limited understanding is dwarfed." pg. 22

"Religion is born out of questions, not answers. Only a twisted, unimaginative mind-set resists awe in favor of self-satisfied certainty." pg. 22

"More humility might characterize our talk of God if we believe that the whole truth can never be entirely ours and that our attempts to nail God down are always well-intentioned human constructs at best, and idols at worst." pg. 23

"When we don't speak agreeably to someone with whom we disagree and don't know how to ask questions because we think we already possess most answers, we're practicing bad religion." pg. 23

Please feel free to interact with any of the above quotes, as I'd love to hear your thoughts on them. I'm not sure where else Dark is going in this book, but the first chapter, in many ways, is a beautiful articulation of where I feel I "am" right now.
AE