Epicenter Conversations

A major theme in Acts is unity. Chapter 19 introduces Demetrius, a silversmith in the artisan community at Ephesus. This dynamic leader played on the fears of the Ephesians and villified Paul and the Christians, saying "there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be scorned, and she will be deprived of her majesty that brought all Asia and the world to worship her." The unity thus achieved in defense of the Ephesian god led to confusion, chaos, threat of violence, and further exclusion.

In his recent article, It's Not About Demetrius Lael Caesar quotes General Conference President Jan Paulsen who said, "In his message on the last Sabbath of the 2005 St. Louis General Conference, "It is important to know that God is not owned by anyone." "Including Demetrius," we might add, and including all our favorite groups, theologically Adventist, genetically Abrahamic, or otherwise."

Fear based unification has been all too common in the Christian tradition, most recently evident in the tactics of the Christian Right as explored in Margaret M. Mitchell's article, How Biblical is the Religious Right. Sadly, this method of exclusion, demonizing those who are different, is the antithesis of Jesus' example of loving our enemies and Paul's message of radical inclusivity. The New Testament method of creating unity is beautifully described by Miroslav Volf in his metaphor of Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation.

In an embrace we first extend our arms to the other, opening a place within us to receive the other and inviting the other to come. Then, we wait. Invading the others personal space would become aggression. If the other responds, the embrace is realized as our arms enfold one another each of us receiving the other into our own self. However, the embrace is not complete. Without the final step of re-opening the arms, the embrace would degenerate into oppressive assimilation. With arms re-extended we are allowed to maintain our individual identities, altered though they may be by having experienced the other's perspective. The final posture then demonstrates respect and offers an open invitation.

Promoting unity through fear mongering and exclusion leads to a divisive, violent, chaotic, superficial, and tenuous unity. Any difference arising within the community is then dealt with by further exclusion. (See the reaction of the Ephesian mob to Alexander and the current reaction of some within our own community to those with different ideas). On the other hand, beginning with opening ourselves to the other in a welcoming posture of embrace leads to a healing, loving, peaceful, generous, and lasting unity. In following the example of Christ we will then be prepared to maintain unity in diversity within our own community.

Labels: Acts, diversity, religion, unity

Ash Wednesday begins the season of Lent and seems an especially appropriate day to begin our smoking cessation seminar. Lent is a 40 day (not including Sundays) build up to Easter -- a time to give up something we desire to remind us of our sinful state and provide opportunity to reflect on what the incarnation of Christ means to us. The Greek Orthodox church calls this the season of "Bright Sadness," as it is a time of both celebration and mourning. Lent serves to highlight the reality of our human existence in which we face darkness and suffering as well as joy and exultation. This season of shadow which inspires a longing for the brilliance of the resurrection resonates with our Adventist notion that things will get worse on this earth before they get better. Fasting of whatever type highlights our mortality and makes our presence in the eternal Kingdom of God all the more poignant. Those who choose to give up a cherished addiction can experience this dark time of withdrawal with our community for support, the promise of freedom to light the way, and the power of God to bring completion.

"Almighty God, you have created me out of the dust of the earth: Grant that these ashes may be to me a sign of my mortality and penitence, that I may remember that it is only by your gracious gift that we are given everlasting life; through Jesus Christ my Savior. Amen" -- Book of Common Prayer.

Labels: Lent, religion, smoking

This past weekend we looked at Acts chapter 18. Since Apollos is introduced in this chapter, it was a perfect time to explore Alden Thompson's interesting ideas in, The Adventist Church at Corinth.

Although Thompson's sermon was originally given about 18 years ago, the themes resonate just as well in 2007 as they did in 1989. We discussed the way Paul, Peter, and Apollos each correspond to a stream of thought within Adventism. Then, we related Paul's call to unity amidst diversity in I Corinthians to our current and surprisingly similar diversity today.

Thompson describes these streams by listing some prominent Adventists,

"Peter & Co. are inclined to say that you must obey and you can obey. Kenneth Wood, Tom Davis, Herb Douglass, Mervyn Maxwell, Robert Brinsmead, early in his experience.

Paul & Co. say you must try to obey, but you never really can. Jesus pays the price for you. LeRoy Froom, Roy Allan Anderson, H. M. S. Richards, Robert Spangler, Richard Fredericks, Desmond Ford, Robert Brinsmead, at an intermediate point in his experience.

Apollos & Co. say that the important thing is to try. Love is what matters. If your heart is in the right place, that will do. Graham Maxwell, Malcolm Maxwell, Jack Provonsha, Dick Winn, and very briefly Robert Brinsmead at a later point in his experience."

For a further exploration of Thompson's important ideas please click on the link to his sermon, The Adventist Church at Corinth.

From my perspective, there is one stream of thought within Adventism that Thompson did not address -- progressive Adventism. In my own personal journey, I have been immersed in each of these ways of thinking and I have recently found my thoughts flowing most naturally with progressive Adventism. This viewpoint may not have been addressed by Thompson because it was not around 18 years ago. I don't know how recent a phenomenon it is.

My first thought in relation to "The Adventist Church in Corinth" is that progressive Adventism encompasses the best of each stream of thought. This could of course simply represent my personal bias and experience along with Thompson's assertion that, "Most Adventists can and do profit from all three perspectives." However, if I were to try to fit my understanding of progressive Adventism within the categories as defined by Thompson, I would have to use all of them. Everything that follows then must be prefaced by, in my opinion...

Progressive Adventists affirm along with Paul & Co. that salvation is by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ. However, the definition of some terms would differ. Salvation may be as much or more about justice and mercy to transform lives here and now as it is about landing in heaven someday. The perceived extent of that salvation might also differ ranging from a select few who have heard and accepted Jesus in evangelical Adventism to near universalism inspired by a deep appreciation for God's love at the other end of progressive Adventism.

These differences would then lead to progressive Adventists affirming along with Peter and Co. that you must obey and can obey. However, the motivation for obedience would differ. Obedient actions (i.e. justice, mercy, humility) are a result of grace and are vital for extending the Kingdom of God through practical examples of God's difference making love (or is that love making difference?). Obedience has nothing to do with earning grace, getting ourselves into heaven someday, or justifying God's character.

Progressive Adventists would also affirm with Apollos and Co. that love is essential and all of our doctrines must affirm and be grounded in the fact that God is love. The caveat would be that Christ must be central to this as the clearest representation of God and our actions can and must authenticate this love as well. In fact, we must burn with righteous indignation when we perceive injustice and then do something about it!

This undoubtedly says much more about me and my understanding than it does about the reality of progressive Adventism. So, more important than a depiction of progressive Adventism is a description of how the three streams can critique one another and merge into a unified whole. As we each integrate the best from the other's perspectives, our view of God becomes more complete and our many disparate streams join to form a great river bringing life, freshness, and healing.

Labels: Acts, diversity, Jesus, religion

This is my first foray into actual blogging, so there might be a learning curve for me here. This blog is in regards to something that has weighed alot on me in the last few years: "Why are so many young people leaving the church?" Each person has a story, and varied reasons for leaving, but I'm sure that it really comes down to a personal relationship with Christ, and a comprehension of His personal compassion for each one of us. I do have some theories about how we might change the rate of young (teens to mid twenties) people leaving our church though.

Here goes:

The "It takes a village" theory that Hillary Clinton spawned in regards to children and education is even more relevant in church. It's obvious that not every child attending church has a spiritually supportive home where not only is their earthly education valued, but their spiritual lives and souls are cared for. Given this, each child, no matter what their home is like, needs a spiritual mentor. This is especially possible in smaller churches. In huge campus churches it seems almost impossible to implement a program like this, but in small home churches, it's a necessary plan that could save children. Just having ONE person who cares about a child, prays for & with them, asks them about issues they're dealing with, and just loves them spiritually, can make a life changing effect! I really believe this. If some of my friends from childhood had someone from their church who always checked up on them, prayed for them, and cared for them through life issues (parents divorces, public schools, private schools, breakups, meltdowns, all the things that happen that make life so tumultuous) I'd venture to guess most would still be attending at least SOME church today.

The other thing I think is important is making our church a community. Not only should we have fun social events, and get togethers, but including kids in church responsibilities. Not a begrudging DUTY type thing, but including them in the processes of the church. Taking up offering is simple, but doing a work-bee requires a little bit more out of us, and it ties us to our church and church members because we've sweated together. I grew up helping out my church and it made me feel like I made a difference, even when I was 9 or 10. When kids get back from mission trips, we need to hear their stories & see their pictures. And if they want to go on a mission trip, we need to make sure they can afford to go. They should have the opportunity to actually "run" the church, and be included. (of course, that means that not everything might be done "just right" but with a mentor, they would get the chance to become a real part of the church functions)

The third thing that I feel is really important and so VERY VERY under rated, is our church's impact on the world. Fortunately, my parents are, and have always been overly involved in the world church. They were missionaries, they have done evangelism, and they always keep their finger on the pulse of the church's involvement in other countries. Kids need to know how massive, far-reaching, and important our church really is. Sometimes SDA's are the first missionaries to come to a country and teach them about Jesus. SDA's also work with other Christian religions in a variety of ways that are very cooperative and world-changing. ADRA is an example that we hardly EVER hear about anymore. AFM is full of missionaries that aren't really "missionaries". They're everyday people who live and learn among a country and slowly and carefully teach them about Jesus. Many in dangerous places that are closed to proselyzation in any form. Our church really cares about PEOPLE. Not just making our church numbers bigger. We care about schools, communities, about hospitals and clinics, about rebuilding, about making life better for people who can't care for themselves. There are SO many things that our church (and in turn, our very own tithe & offering) does for the world. Every child in church would WANT to be involved and passionate about our faith if they really knew all the things our church is doing. Why do we not have some kind of feature every single week in church where we highlight something amazing that has happened in the world church that week?

The three things I mentioned are the three things I feel would connect people to the community of church. They all involve RELATIONSHIPS and they all involve people who care. Without that, there isn't a sense of community anyway. Duh! I was blessed to have caring parents who prayed for me ALOT!, especially when i really needed it, but I was also blessed to know how amazing our church is. It's not just politics, and debates about jewlery and steak. There is so much more to our church that it makes everything else pale in comparison. I was blessed to be able to see the forest for the trees and I think that's why I've stayed. I love my church (not every single thing about it) but I love how special and unique we are, and I love that we want so badly to share the incredible gift Jesus with everyone on earth!

That's my two (three) bits! Please blog me a river . . . I'd love to hear your thoughts and ideas!

Labels: community, Jesus, passion, youth

In our discussion regarding the essentials of our faith we explored the gospel as we continued our survey of Acts in chapter 17 -- one of my favorites. The Bereans are my heroes and I can really relate to the people of Athens who were into good art, good food, living a good life, and hearing the latest ideas.

Paul's response to the pleasure seeking Epicureans and ascetic Stoics at the end of the chapter is a perfect example of Paul becoming 'all things to all people.' I just noticed this past week that Jesus name and divinity never come up in the segments of the address to the Areopagus that Luke records. We discussed some possible reasons for this: Paul was getting there but got cut off when they jumped on his resurrection statements, Paul was addressing a polytheistic audience and bringing Jesus into the discussion at that point as the "Son of God" might have introduced confusion rather than bringing clarity, Paul recognized that a discussion of Jesus as Messiah would hold no common ground with his listeners, etc... I mention it here because I found it intriguing that Paul's presentation of the gospel changed based on his listeners.

This leads back into the question above. What is the gospel? We discussed in class that the gospel is very simple. Jesus died for our sins and if we accept the gift of salvation we are saved or something like that, right? That's simple enough. Except when Jesus talked about the good news (gospel) He proclaimed the revolutionary perspective that the Kingdom of God is here. Then, Paul translated that into his proclamation of radical inclusiveness -- Jesus Christ is Lord (implying not the Roman Caesar) and everyone is now invited to be a part of God's elect (not just the Jews). Things are becoming a bit more complex. I think it is really cool that there are all sorts of levels and perspectives to this theology stuff with many different ways to explore who God is and what God is doing.

Yet, regardless of how deeply one mines the riches of the gospel if intellectual stimulation is the only result we will be left, "having a form of godliness but denying its power.... always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth." My own understanding of the gospel is often dangerously similar to the gnostic assumption that knowledge is pure and better than experience which is tainted by the 'evil flesh'. This eviscerated gospel is a detached 'it' which one can know, explain, and accept so that salvation is primarily based on intellectual assent.

If knowledge was truly all sufficient, the incarnation of Jesus would not have been necessary. God knows what it is like on this earth and could simply have told us what God is like. But, knowledge is not everything. Experience is necessary. So, Jesus came and experienced this earth and showed us what God is like. (For an interesting discussion on the implications of the incarnation for community see Ryan Bell's article Pitching Our Tents.)

This invasion of the Kingdom of God into the world was the gospel Jesus showed through loving, healing, forgiving, exhorting, and story telling -- each at the right time and place. The gospel just isn't good news unless it is re-incarnated in practical ways in every community. This means the gospel experience will invariably change from one community to the next and leads us back to Paul's dialogue with the Athenians. A different gospel? Never. Different presentations, applications, experiences, and results? Every time.

Now, the question for us is how is the gospel playing out in our community? Or as Ryan Bell puts it in his post The Gospel is not an "it" What is God asking us to be and do as the people of God in Birmingham?

Several weeks ago we watched a clip from the emotionally wrenching short film, The Most (most means bridge in czech). The acting, cinemetography, and original story line contributions by Bobby Garabedian and William Zabka make this one of the most compelling short films I have seen even though the plot is based on a familiar Christian "urban legend" and prolific sermon illustration.

For those of you who haven't seen the film. The plot is based on the story of a bridge operator whose son falls into the gears of the elevated bridge just as a train is coming. The father is then faced with the agonizing choice to lower the bridge and save the people on the train or to leave the bridge up and save his son. This popular sermon illustration has always troubled me because by analogy it places God within a classic Greek tragic moral dilemma. Greek story and play writers seemed to love to place their protagonists between 'Scylla and Charybdis' -- presenting them with moral dilemmas and a few bad options any of which would lead to troubling outcomes.

However, in The Most a new character is developed. She is a young woman in the process of losing her life to drugs. We see her about to shoot up as the train rushes past the gutted father. She alone on the train notices him and as the drugs fall from her hands she seems to realize the weight of what has happened, perhaps sensing the selfless act of the grieving man. At the end of the movie, the transformation is complete as we see her again. She is clean with a smiling baby who is waving to the bridge operator. Salvation is here.

Who does or does not get into heaven is none of our business. Many people who claim to follow Jesus will emphatically maintain that only those who know Jesus by name through a personal relationship will be in heaven. However in the analogy above, everyone on the train was saved and reached the station whether or not they knew the name or anything about the son who gave his life. One person on the other hand recognized at least a portion of what occurred that day and was transformed in that moment. The rest survived -- she began to fully live.

Could it be that life has come to the entire world through Jesus Christ regardless of whether they have heard the name? Is it possible that everyone will survive by the selfless act of God who loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten son that whoever believes in him should be saved? (I intentionally juxtaposed survive with saved in this sentence to highlight the point that perhaps saved is as much or more about a transformed life now than where one spends eternity. Intimately interrelated though they may be.)

I don't want to get bogged down in a debate over universalism so I will admit that some people may have jumped off the train before it got to the station and there may be some people who would choose to refuse such a great salvation. Instead, I want to focus on the transformation of the lost woman. She was transformed by a self-giving act -- a true act of love. Her recognition of the heartrending action undertaken for her had immediate and very practical results.

This seems to me the best reason for evangelism. I do believe that there will be a second Advent and only then will God's kingdom come into its fullness. And yet, my opinion is that evangelism should focus more on the present reality of a relationship with God than on the intangible future benefits of heaven. If in presenting the gospel we can help ourselves and others to more fully realize that the kingdom of God is here (if only in part) and that the self-giving God of love has provided a way for all to enter it (even now), perhaps we could all begin to more fully live and be transformed by the renewing of our hearts. The moral imperative for evangelism is therefore the desire to help humanity become more fully human through a glimpse of God's character as revealed by Jesus Christ. Salvation is here.

This coming weekend we will look at Acts chapter 16 and probably 17 as well. (We will see how many tangents our conversation takes this week!)

I enjoyed the conversation this past weekend and I hope it was profitable for those of you who were able to attend.

Our root question was again how would we update the Jerusalem Council's admonition to the early church to abstain from meat offered to idols, meet that is strangled, blood, and sexual immorality -- with the understanding that these recommendations all would have served to maintain unity in diversity. Our conversation ranged broadly from our current understanding of baptism all the way back to the Jerusalem council and right back to the question of whether higher standards of behavior should apply to Adventist leaders with many diversions in between. These are the thoughts I keep coming back to.

The discussion on Baptism may have been more related than we initially thought. Is it possible that the baptismal vow and commitment serves a function similar to the Jerusalem Council's opinion for new believers? (If you have no idea what the vows and commitment are you can read them in the Seventh-day Adventist church manual.

In other words, the Adventist church officially does not have a creed. However, the 28 fundamental beliefs (which are intended as a viscous description of the commonly held beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists rather than a concrete list of required beliefs for membership in the church) are often treated as if they were a creed. The baptismal vow and commitment then are often treated like a check list to ensure that new members are theologically sound and meet certain standards before entering Adventist fellowship.

What if, on the other hand, the baptismal vow and commitment are instead recommendations to maintain unity in diversity as new members with diverse opinions and backgrounds enter? This perspective changes my own opinion a bit.

However, my next question is this. In Acts 15:19 James said, "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." Therefore, are there portions of the baptismal vows and commitment that could be trimmed in order to make joining our fellowship less difficult? Or, as was suggested last week should we increase the recommendations (requirements?) in order to encourage full and total commitment to Christ? (Or, anyone for making Baptism into the Body of Christ and membership in the Adventist movement two separate things?)

This leads into my final thought (for now). A theme we kept returning to is succinctly summed up in the Moravian motto "In essentials, unity; In non-essentials, diversity; In all things, love." What things are essentials? Is this a topic that would be useful to explore this coming weekend?

Maybe a better question would be, does any of this relate to Acts 16 and 17? Come this weekend and find out!