Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Children of Men, End of Time, and Speaking in Tongues
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?
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
Monday, June 11, 2007
Evangelism by Being Evangelized
This past weekend in our Epicenter class we discussed evangelism (again!) in light of Galatians 3 and 4, with reference to Samir Selmanovic's chapter about Finding God in the Other in Emerging Manifesto of Hope, and incorporating a few ideas from Rollins' How (Not) to Speak of God.
Here is how it came together for me. If we agree that God is bigger than our church, denomination, and religion, then we must admit that God is at work among others outside of those areas. I envision God's work in each life and community as a process of breaking through barriers and thus enabling us to know/see God more clearly. There is a distinct possibility then that each of us in one way or more will have a clearer picture of God than others. These windows of connection with the divine would likely be more dissimilar and therefore potentially more synergistic and complementary between individuals from more dissimilar backgrounds.
Traditional methods of evangelism which seek to bring others to our own perspective with little or no consideration for their own perspective insinuate that we have the only valid window on who God is. This ignores the fact that there are barriers to our own vision of God which others in their journey may have overcome. Perhaps by following the advice that Paul gave to the Philippian communities of Euodia and Syntyche we could come together and mutually benefit from a two way evangelistic conversation. "Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."
In How (Not) to Speak of God, Rollins describes the evangelistic activities of Ikon, a nontraditional monthly Christian gathering in Ireland, as they go out to be evangelized. In the process of asking others to evangelize them, they open themselves up for the opportunity to be edified. In addition, the others are respected and valued (i.e. loved), opening a relationship to foster conversation. Then, everyone involved in the conversation is stimulated to think about and share their own experience with God. Ideally, this leads to communities of questioning, seeking, and growing disciples.
I find this vision of evangelism inspiring and it dovetails with the concept of a faith based media discussion group that some of us have talked about starting in our area -- more on that later. For now, if anyone wants to evangelize me, comments would be welcome.
Here is how it came together for me. If we agree that God is bigger than our church, denomination, and religion, then we must admit that God is at work among others outside of those areas. I envision God's work in each life and community as a process of breaking through barriers and thus enabling us to know/see God more clearly. There is a distinct possibility then that each of us in one way or more will have a clearer picture of God than others. These windows of connection with the divine would likely be more dissimilar and therefore potentially more synergistic and complementary between individuals from more dissimilar backgrounds.
Traditional methods of evangelism which seek to bring others to our own perspective with little or no consideration for their own perspective insinuate that we have the only valid window on who God is. This ignores the fact that there are barriers to our own vision of God which others in their journey may have overcome. Perhaps by following the advice that Paul gave to the Philippian communities of Euodia and Syntyche we could come together and mutually benefit from a two way evangelistic conversation. "Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."
In How (Not) to Speak of God, Rollins describes the evangelistic activities of Ikon, a nontraditional monthly Christian gathering in Ireland, as they go out to be evangelized. In the process of asking others to evangelize them, they open themselves up for the opportunity to be edified. In addition, the others are respected and valued (i.e. loved), opening a relationship to foster conversation. Then, everyone involved in the conversation is stimulated to think about and share their own experience with God. Ideally, this leads to communities of questioning, seeking, and growing disciples.
I find this vision of evangelism inspiring and it dovetails with the concept of a faith based media discussion group that some of us have talked about starting in our area -- more on that later. For now, if anyone wants to evangelize me, comments would be welcome.
Labels: community, diversity, Epicenter, evangelism, Galatians, religion, spirituality
Monday, March 19, 2007
Apathy and Ardor: Acts 22 and Ellen White
Paul's address to the crowd who had just nearly beaten him to death is one of the more surreal moments in Acts. The previously irate Jewish crowd is hushed listening to Paul give his personal testimony regarding Jesus Christ. Perhaps they are lulled into apathy hearing the familiar Hebrew inflections and hopeful discussion of a Messiah. The brief moment of apathy quickly reverts to the former zeal when Paul claims to be sent with a message of hope to the Gentiles. Their Messiah would come to free them from oppression. Their Messiah would direct curses not blessings toward their oppressors. They acted according to the God and Messiah of their own understanding.
Our understanding of God dictates so much of the life that we live -- the life that we live dictates so much of our understanding of God.
There are a few topics which consistently have the potential for evoking similar ardor and zeal within our Adventist community and Ellen White is one. There seems to be agreement that we all desire to keep Ellen White as a conversation partner as we continue to define ourselves in relation to God. Disagreement arises when we come to the issue of her human faults.
Many of the anti-Ellen White websites engage in the very worst forms of hyperbole and misrepresentation. However, those websites in support of Ellen White often attempt to claim too much and in the process do even more damage. The internet is a sketchy place to look for objective research based information (this blog included!). Unfortunately while level-headed research has been done on the issue of Ellen White's use of sources and some of her other personal issues, even the eggheads disagree on the interpretation of many facts! Here is a link to some excellent research from the General Conference archives with a rather long and detailed article dealing with issues of how we as a church relate to Ellen White entitled Ellen White and the SDA Church: Sligo Series. (I am biased because I know the author and have a great deal of respect for him.)
It seems likely that we will never come to a unified homogeneous consensus on this issue within the Adventist community. Just like the Jews of Paul's day created a messiah of their own understanding, we have created an Ellen White of our own understanding. In his review of the play Red Books Julius Nam writes, "The truth is, we make White what we need her to be. I certainly do. It’s a temptation that Adventist preachers, teachers, scholars, students, parents, and the White Estate have failed to resist successfully over the years. Perhaps it’s time to embrace it—not just our individual iconographies of her, but a collective, mosaic one."
It is encouraging that more open conversations are occuring and perhaps a beautiful collective mosaic of Ellen White and her meaning for Adventism is just around the corner. In order for this to happen though, we must not allow our opinions to eclipse love and reason degenerating into the mob brutality of the Jews in Acts 22. We must also avoid being lulled into a state of apathy by disregarding difficult issues and only seeking the familiar. Instead, we need to follow Paul's example as he followed Christ. After being beaten by the enraged mob of Jews, Paul begins his address to them by saying, "I became very zealous to honor God in everything I did, just as all of you are today." He affirmed their best intentions and expressed empathy with the very crowd that nearly beat him to death! If he could do that by the grace of God, perhaps we could extend the same grace and understanding to those who have very different perspectives from our own.
What will this say about our understanding of God -- what will this do for our understanding of God?
Our understanding of God dictates so much of the life that we live -- the life that we live dictates so much of our understanding of God.
There are a few topics which consistently have the potential for evoking similar ardor and zeal within our Adventist community and Ellen White is one. There seems to be agreement that we all desire to keep Ellen White as a conversation partner as we continue to define ourselves in relation to God. Disagreement arises when we come to the issue of her human faults.
Many of the anti-Ellen White websites engage in the very worst forms of hyperbole and misrepresentation. However, those websites in support of Ellen White often attempt to claim too much and in the process do even more damage. The internet is a sketchy place to look for objective research based information (this blog included!). Unfortunately while level-headed research has been done on the issue of Ellen White's use of sources and some of her other personal issues, even the eggheads disagree on the interpretation of many facts! Here is a link to some excellent research from the General Conference archives with a rather long and detailed article dealing with issues of how we as a church relate to Ellen White entitled Ellen White and the SDA Church: Sligo Series. (I am biased because I know the author and have a great deal of respect for him.)
It seems likely that we will never come to a unified homogeneous consensus on this issue within the Adventist community. Just like the Jews of Paul's day created a messiah of their own understanding, we have created an Ellen White of our own understanding. In his review of the play Red Books Julius Nam writes, "The truth is, we make White what we need her to be. I certainly do. It’s a temptation that Adventist preachers, teachers, scholars, students, parents, and the White Estate have failed to resist successfully over the years. Perhaps it’s time to embrace it—not just our individual iconographies of her, but a collective, mosaic one."
It is encouraging that more open conversations are occuring and perhaps a beautiful collective mosaic of Ellen White and her meaning for Adventism is just around the corner. In order for this to happen though, we must not allow our opinions to eclipse love and reason degenerating into the mob brutality of the Jews in Acts 22. We must also avoid being lulled into a state of apathy by disregarding difficult issues and only seeking the familiar. Instead, we need to follow Paul's example as he followed Christ. After being beaten by the enraged mob of Jews, Paul begins his address to them by saying, "I became very zealous to honor God in everything I did, just as all of you are today." He affirmed their best intentions and expressed empathy with the very crowd that nearly beat him to death! If he could do that by the grace of God, perhaps we could extend the same grace and understanding to those who have very different perspectives from our own.
What will this say about our understanding of God -- what will this do for our understanding of God?
Labels: Acts, community, diversity, Epicenter, religion, unity
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Exclusion and Embrace in Acts 19
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.
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
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Progressive Adventism at Corinth
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.
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
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]