Epicenter Conversations

I ran across a couple interesting posts recently. So, if anyone is reading Epicenter, check these links and leave a comment with your deepest thoughts.

Abraham Piper (in 22 words or less) asks "Why'd You Quit Your Church?". There's a theme in the comments that's worth paying attention to.

Bill Maher has a new movie coming out, and Teri Gross interviewed him on Fresh Air. Most interesting to me is his thought in paragraph 7. Isn't this the beauty of the Christian message? It's not the structure, the hierarchy, the fancy evangelism, or the tithes, it's the simple message of Jesus . . . saving a world from it's own selfishness.

Labels: community, Jesus, Movies, religion

The collection is one of Paul's most intriguing projects. Paul walks on eggshells through II Corinthians 8 and 9 as he seeks to inspire the church in Corinth to part with their material goods in order to send them to a group of people in a far off country, who they probably would never meet, and who likely would not have entered their church much less sat down to eat with them. Despite other considerable obstacles including traveling with large sums of money, risking the appearance of mismanaging funds, and the very real possibility that the Christian church in Jerusalem would refuse the tainted though badly needed money, Paul pressed forward with the collection. His reasons for proceeding with this risky and thorny project have implications for our own practice of tithing and our celebration of Christmas

There is an ongoing debate in Christianity over tithe. The Biblical precedent for tithing is circumstantial and nearly exclusively based on the Old Testament. Within Adventism, the debate is not generally over whether or not to tithe, but how and where our tithe money should be used. Those of us who have a more congregational bent would like to see the majority of our tithe kept in our own church for local mission. On the other hand, combining our collective 10 percent with the money from other churches in our area provides financial support for smaller churches, schools, camps, and other ministries, thus effectively expanding our local mission to a larger area. In addition, some of the money then goes up to higher levels of the organization, eventually supporting the international church. Although Paul's collection does not exactly correspond to our practice of tithing, the principle of giving to expand our limited world view and to unite a growing, diverse, global community applies well in both cases.

Always a hot topic around the holidays, Christmas commercialism is gaining in both attention and condemnation this year. Many of the comments in a recent article in the religion section of The Birmingham News suggest the answer is to simply stop giving gifts at Christmas. This may work well for some families. However, there are many who find meaning in the giving of gifts and to deny them this pleasure would only serve to diminish their holiday cheer. For Paul, the collection was never about the money. Instead, it was about the motives inspiring the gift and the relationships revealed and formed in the giving and receiving. If this perspective is carried into our Christmas giving this year, perhaps we can continue our holiday traditions with our humanity intact.

In II Corinthians 10:5, Paul writes that every thought should be taken captive in Christ. Rather than reading this as just another example of Christian elitism, expecting everyone to become like us and accept our point of view, could we live this text out in our experience of the Holiday Season and with intentional thought and Christlike humility seek to bless our family, friends, and the rest of the least of these? The God who became man and moved into the neighborhood has shown us how to be a good giver. This Christmas will you consider with me the way our giving expands our world view, enhances relationships, and helps us become a part of the Kingdom of God?

Here are a few links to websites that may stimulate ideas to enhance our giving this year. If you've got some other ideas, post them below in a comment. Thanks!

Fair trade?
http://tradeasone.com/

Tree hugger?
http://www.treehugger.com/giftguide/

Want a guide for what's good?
http://www.unclemark.org/unclemark2008.pdf

Pass on the gift?
http://www.heifer.org/

Really useful gift?
http://www.adra.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cat07_Ecommerce_home

Labels: Adventist, Christmas, Corinthians, giving, Jesus, religion, tithe

Accusations of self promotion seem to be one of the stimulating factors that lead Paul to write another letter to the community in Corinth. His response is to discuss the new covenant in what we know as II Corinthians, chapter 3. What is the connection? Is Paul blowing a smoke screen, bringing up a deep theological discussion to distract us from the sensitive issue of his self congratulatory comments? Just what is the significance of the new covenant?

That is the question. I have friends who have left Adventism over the new covenant and the perception that we Adventists have totally missed the mark. The perception is that since under the new covenant we are saved by Jesus Christ and His grace, Adventist's continued overemphasis on archaic, legalistic laws like the sabbath constitutes an effort to earn salvation. Unfortunately, there are enough legalists in every religion, Adventism included, that this view finds plenty of evidence for corroboration. However, it seems to me that this evangelical perspective grounded in the Biblical (though limited) substitutionary model of atonement and focused on personal salvation also misses the point of the new covenant.

Some background may be helpful. The old covenant has been described as a marriage document(1)between God and the Israelites consisting of some core commandments written by God on tablets of stone and numerous other laws written down separately. Jack Rogers gives this covenant context in his book, Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality.

He writes, "The Israelites had been slaves in Egypt; they had wandered in the desert, subject to attacks from other tribes, starvation, and infectious diseases. The needed cohesiveness, cleanliness, and order in every aspect of their lives. They wanted to keep pure their manner of worshiping God, who had brought them to this land. They were struggling for their own identity. Failure to form a tight knit community could threaten their long-term survival. They needed a code for living.

In response, they developed a Holiness Code to define their religious, civic, and cultural identity. The Holiness Code’s function was to achieve the “holy purity” they sought. Its underlying theme was that they must be separate, different from the Egyptians from whom they had escaped and unmixed with the Canaanite into whose land they had now come. How were they to achieve holy purity?" 2

This raison d'etre resonates with my own appreciation of the 10 commandments as primarily designed to maintain a community in relationship with God and one another. The old covenant then was an agreement between God and Israel dealing with community and relationships.

Then, moving us into the present, God incarnate lives, teaches, dies, and lives again and this changes everything, or does it? Jesus inaugurates the new covenant and sends the Holy Spirit. The results are seen in the gospels, especially Luke, and become increasingly evident in Acts. The narrowly defined holy community of Jews has the doors blown off and the line of demarcation between those in and those out keeps expanding until nobody is excluded.

The new covenant is not so much a change in substance as it is a change in dimension. The law previously written on tablets of stone for the Jews is now written on human hearts for the world. This good news prompts Peter Storey to write, "When Christ was nailed to the cross, he nailed us to our neighbors, breaking down the divisions between us. All Christians, whether pacifists or proponents of the "just war" theory, are bound to acknowledge that for those who follow Jesus, all wars are civil wars. All wars, everywhere, are a form of fratricide."

Every war whether fought for freedom, over borders, across pews, or from competing ideologies is a sibling rivalry. Those who we like to consider "other" (elderly, muslim, female, homosexual, black, etc.) could better be described as "brother" and "sister," possibly estranged but related non-the-less. This is the good news and the big change in the new covenant.

When there is genuine unity amidst diversity in a community, this is evidence of God's life-changing grace. Paul recognizes that and responds to accusations of self endorsement by pointing to the community in Corinth struggling with sin and fighting over theology yet growing in love and he says, "You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all; and you show that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." (3)

1. Rob Bell, Sex God

2. I found this insightful quote in a discussion on the Spectrum Blog about a new documentary, "For the Bible Tells me So." Thanks Stephen!

3. II Corinthians 3:2-3 (NRSV)

Labels: Acts, Adventist, community, Corinthians, Epicenter, Jesus, law, religion, unity

The overt religious presence in the recent movie Children of Men is small and disappointing. There is a passing comment about a woman who became a penitent, flogging herself for the sins of mankind. Then, a visual image is presented of placard-bearing repent-proclaiming isolationists. Additionally, there is a demonstration by immigrants that conjures images of recent fundamentalist Islamic uprisings. 18 years of worldwide sterility has broken down the rest of society as well with rampant terrorism, distrust of foreigners, and imprisonment or worse for anyone unlucky enough to look, act, or speak differently. As the movie progresses, even those who claim to fight injustice utilize the same fear mongering, manipulation, and coercion they despise in the ruthless British government.

In contrast, the presence of God is revealed in Clive Owen's reluctant former activist appropriately named Theo and Pam Ferris' spiritualist out-of-work midwife evocatively called Miriam. These two individuals empty themselves of everything in order to bring the hope of a child into a world of chaos. Even while running from violence, they demonstrate true courage in standing up for good in the face of overwhelming evil. This selfless love leads to a sublime moment where the Angel's song, "Peace on earth, good will toward men," is given flesh by a crying child who hushes a brutal gun battle to a reverent though momentary standstill.

The blatant religious zealots are irrelevant or worse while the presence of God is demonstrated in those who care for the 'least of these'. This contrast is reminiscent of our proposed response to the breakdown of society predicted in Adventist eschatology. When all hell breaks loose will we perpetrate injustice, preach doom, decry evil, shrink back and isolate, or seek to do good? Chris Blake offers a vision of how we might react in his book, Swimming Against the Current. He writes, "In the midst of imminent collapse, Adventist homes open to the dispossessed and fearful. Adventist churches and schools become cities of refuge and outposts of mercy. Sanctuaries house the homeless. Playing fields plow up into gardens. As a world self-destructs, chapter 2 of Acts emerges before our wondering eyes."

A community of selfless love is infinitely more compelling than a group of individuals seeking self preservation. In I Corinthians, Paul sandwiches his eloquent description of selfless love between chapters discussing Spiritual gifts and speaking in tongues in particular. The significance of this placement points the selfishly arrogant Corinthians beyond charismatic religious demonstrations and into a more excellent way of loving one another. In the end, glossolalia is nice but agape is essential.

In Children of Men, an unexpected child provides hope for a lost world. As Christians we claim to follow One who did this very same thing. Will we join the injustice as society deteriorates? Will we become irrelevant, speaking in language nobody comprehends? Or, will we enter the Kingdom of God strengthening, encouraging, and comforting our neighbors?

Labels: Adventist, community, Corinthians, diversity, Epicenter, Jesus, religion, unity

The Israelite community was learning to crawl out from under hundreds of years of slavery and oppression.   In order to facilitate their progress, God met them where they were at and blessed them with the law.   Or, as Paul puts it in Galatians 3:21 and 3:24 "Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made.... Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith."

The disciplinarian referred to by Paul was a slave who would follow a child to school and keep him in line with a rod.   Paul then is asking, "Now that you have developed to a higher level of moral reasoning and spiritual understanding why would you ever want to go back?"   This is similar to asking an adult who grew up with a stick wielding Roman disciplinarian, "Now that you are a responsible adult with a job and a family, why would you ever want to go back to having a disciplinarian follow you to work and keep you in line with a rod?" (Not that there aren't a few adults who might actually need and benefit from this!)

A few years ago my friend Yung Lau introduced me to the concept that much of the law (including and perhaps especially the 10 commandments) functions at the base level of Kohlberg's stages of moral development.   As we proceded to read through the Pentateuch with this thought in mind it became apparent that there were statements dealing with every stage of moral development all the way up to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" which correspond to the most advanced level of Kohlberg's stages.

Paul goes on in verses 25-28, "But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."   Jesus came and declared the Kingdom of God is here with its basis in the universal ethical principle of love.   Paul ran with that good news and encouraged everyone else to keep up and run with him in God's new universal community.

Labels: Epicenter, Galatians, gospel, Jesus, law, religion

Since we have begun to study Paul's letters in our class the topic of the gospel has inevitably come up again.

What is the gospel?

"Simple question," says my evangelical friend with feet firmly planted in a forensic model of salvation, "Read John 3:16..."

Not so fast says an insightful emergent pastor, "The gospel is not an 'it' that can be merely explained in abstract, intellectual propositions. The message must be contextualized and actively applied in each community and situation."

When Jesus talks about the good news He uses the phrase, "The Kingdom of God is here." But, more often He shows what that means.

Paul on the other hand says in effect, "Jesus Christ is Lord and everyone is invited to be a part of the family of God."

My traditional Adventist grandparents told me, "As Adventists we follow Christ's example in all things." So, that is why accepting Christ includes keeping the Sabbath. This idea of Christ plus something else brings down the same vitriol from evangelical and former Adventists that Paul showered on the Galatians for adding legalism to the gospel.

Yet another pastor responds by preaches that the gospel is, "Christ is enough." Enough for what I wonder. Enough to get my sinful backside off this currupt earth and through the pearly gates? Enough to transform my troubled heart? Enough to do justice on the earth, show merciful love to others, and walk humbly as a community with God?

I don't know about you, but that simple question has my head spinning. So, forgive me if I muse a bit.

I am beginning here by proposing ideas. Therefore, there does seem to be a propositional aspect to the gospel. However, if the gospel begins and ends in abstract concepts, it really is not good news at all. To be good, the concepts must bear fruit. The gospel is a word spoken ('The Kingdom of God is here,' 'Jesus Christ is Lord,' Christ is enough') or a deed done (the blind see, the lame walk, the lonely are loved) which opens minds and hearts and leads to freely chosen responses which verify the spoken words and gracious acts.

Some will say, "you are making this too complicated." My response would be to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes, "I would not give a fig for the simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."

An overly simplistic description of the gospel with a one size fits all mentality might lead to an interaction like this. A preacher comes upon a woman crying in the street and proclaims to her, "God loves you so much that He gave His Son Jesus for you," pressing a tract into her hand. Confident this will help he goes on humming "I once was lost, but now am found. Was blind but now I see...."

A more nuanced view of the gospel which takes into account the local context and personal issues might lead to a simple but more appropriate response like this. A homosexual man comes upon a woman crying in the street and asks her if she is okay. The woman dries her blind eyes and says that she was just mugged and lost her cane and bus fare in the process. The man retrieves her cane out of the gutter and as he helps her to her feet he slips a few coins into her hand saying, "This is all I have, I hope it is enough."

Which of these displays the gospel? Obvious, yes? But, what is really cool is imagining them coming together. That would be some really good news.

Labels: Galatians, gospel, Jesus, religion

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