Is justice "just?"

I have not blogged for a long time mostly because I have been busy. However, I will make a renewed attempt to keep writing and hopefully, can also get some responses. Recently I was asked to participate in a blog for the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches and I wrote a piece on how we view justice. Find link here. A short discussion followed and I invite you to reflect and participate.

Parallels of struggle

Here is a recent video from one of my favorite bands (As I Lay Dying)...I apologize if you don't like really heavy music but I think they helpfully wrestle with the parallel lives of hopelessness that we struggle to be set free from. Below you will see the lyrics.

PArAllels

we are all comatose

we are over fed and undernourished

yearning for something more

never starving yet never quite satisfied

carnal but without useful flesh or mind

i am a walking contradiction

that's found consistency

consuming everything

all without producing sustenance

in the parallels we struggle to upkeep

there is a better way for us to be set free

from all it is we crave

there must be more to life than to simply stay alive

we are not the same as i hope to show

there is a better way if we just let go

we are not the same... let go

in the tension between devouring want or simple need

it's clear the only lines between ones we preserve

we are not the same as i hope to show

there is a better way if we just let go

we are not the same... let go

in the parallels we struggle to upkeep

there is a better way for us to be set free

Anabaptist Distinctives

What are the distinctives of an Anabaptist theology? How are (or are) Anabaptists any different from "evangelicals?" These are the questions that I have been asked to wrestle with in an upcoming sermon in June. Since it is the 150 anniversary of the MB conference this year, we at Urban Journey (the community we are involved in) have decided to explore what it means to belong to an Anabaptist tradition. So, what does it mean to belong to an Anabaptist conference? What are some theological "fundamentals" that make are indispensable to us? to you?

To start, I see two main distinctions between Anabaptist theology and what could be called "mainline evangelicalism." I realize that is a loose term but I'll leave it at that for now. To start, it seems a healthy Anabaptist theology will take seriously an ecclesiology that embraces the Christian as part of a peoplehood, a community (although that is an overused buzzword). Although faith in Jesus Christ is a personal decision, it is not made in isolation. A follower of Jesus Christ is always a part of a larger work of God through his people. This people is committed to following Christ individually in specific situations: vocations, entertainment, labor, witness etc. However, it is never divorced from the corporate interpretation of Scripture, mutual exhortation, teaching, celebration, and ethical deliberation of the peoplehood of Christ. This is in distinction from the main evangelical view which sees the church as a collection of saved individuals that come together periodically. In the Anabaptist view, the follower of Christ cannot maintain an identity that is divorced from the peoplehood she is a part of. Being grafted into the body of Christ is indeed part of being his follower and life in Christ cannot be experienced apart from it. Thus, through the act of dying to self and rising to new life as seen in baptism the adult believer becomes grafted into the body of Christ.

Secondly, although there are churches in several different traditions that hold to it as well, the Anabaptist church almost unanimously teaches that the way of Christ must always be the way of peace. For centuries now, Anabaptists have looked at Jesus as the initiator of a way of peace, a way of bringing God's way (his kingdom) to earth. Jesus showed and taught that in his kingdom all are loved, all are treated as image bearers. This includes the oppressor as well as the victim, the evil as well as the good. Thus, the follower of Christ does not use violence to bring about good but rather puts and end to the oppressive myth of redemptive violence by actively and creatively bringing peace and reconciliation into hostile situations. This is a value that Anabaptist hold dear and I think needs to be listened to by our friends in other traditions.

So, thoughts? Am I right that these are Anabaptist distinctives? Are there more very important things I have missed?

Your Inner light and peace work

During my long-anticipated break from school, I have been thinking a lot about the buzz of our culture surrounding religious tolerance and exclusivity. Interestingly, shortly after I had written a piece on it, Dr. John Stackhouse, a faculty at Regent, wrote a thought-provoking blog on it as well (click here.) Please read his blog for some thoughtful exposure of the less-than-impressive argument that "all religions are in essence an attempt at morality or religious experience". John has a much better understanding of world religions than do I and I would encourage a quick read of his thoughts.

Here are some of my own. Most of us have probably heard this type of thinking in some form and have either been attracted to it or vehemently opposed to it. It seems attractive to take and assemble my own custom-tailored version of faith. Why can't I take the best parts of all faiths? Is this not much better than being an exclusivist that ultimately leads only to fundamentalist naivety and exclusivism and that leads to Crusades or 9/11? This type of thinking has completely infiltrated popular thinking. Take a quick look at the Oprah-endorsed writing of Deepak Chopra or Eckhart Tolle and you will see that indeed that is their attempt. Jesus, according to these writers, actually pointed to the same "inner light" that did many other positive religious thinkers. So why would we not take Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha, Mother Teresa, and the Cookie Monster at their best and simply all get along as followers of some type of "buffet religion?"

Of course, they wouldn't put it that bluntly but that is in essence what they are getting at. (Except of course they put a much more narcissistic twist on it. Life is about me after all.) But we need to debunk this lie for what it actually is. To believe that all religions are essentially the same is to believe in a perpetual lie. Each of these religions is, in fact, different. Each of these religions does, in fact, make different (and often contradictory) claims. Jesus did not (contrary to Chopra) tell us to look to our inward divinity. So, the reality remains, we must choose what we will believe. To profess that "all religions are the same or equally true" is simply to profess a complete paradox.

That being said, I think I have just described a fear that most people have about "inter-faith bridge building". Many people fear that inter-faith peace work for example, is the same thing as professing that "all religions are equal." Let me suggest a fundamental difference between those two views. Now, those of you familiar with Mennonite Central Committee will know that they have been accused of this very thing. Some believe that their stance toward bridging gaps between people of different faiths is a commitment to a heretical popular complacency. However, it is crucial to see a difference here. If we believe that bringing peace and stability to all people (not just in order to keep me or Canada or the USA safe) is a positive good, then we must also realize that MCC is not in a position to evangelize. Their role (along with others) is to create stable, nurturing, self-sufficient cultures. Again, if we believe that this is a common good for all people, then MCC must work alongside Muslims (and people of any other faith) to make that happen.

I think that is where the distinction needs to be made. If we see our call (as Christians or as generic humans) as simply to evangelize madly so that we can save as many souls as possible, then MCC is most certainly wrong to not do that. But, if our call is to make peace, wholeness, goodness, and love in the world, then we should commend MCC for going and doing that in very difficult circumstances. And if there are Muslims, Hindus, New Agers, and others that have a similar vision...PRAISE GOD!! Let's work alongside them to make it happen.

It seems to me there is a profound difference here that needs to be distinguished before the word "tolerance" gets uttered from our lips. I am not an expert on the peacemaking affairs of MCC by any stretch, but from what I gather, that is the trajectory of some of their work. We must be clear about what kind of a conversation we are having before we plug our ears and say "la la la la."

A Hero of War?

Here is a powerful music video by a band named Rise Against. WARNING: This is a gut-wrenching video and may contain material that is not suitable for all audiences. Let this video disturb you deeply...it should do so. Let it challenge you to think about how you treat others and what you stand for. Although this band is American and they are very directly challenging their own government, please don't take this as anti-American propaganda. That is not the point. Ask yourself, what do I stand for? How am I loving the neighbor that I don't necessarily want to love? How do I resolve conflicts? Is my life a living irony? Is violence (verbal or physical) really going to solve anything?

Am I really an individual?

If there is anyone that reads my new blog regularly, I apologize for the lengthy delay. It seems the holidays and the new semester have consumed more time than I anticipated. I want to post some thoughts on what I see as an unhealthy individualism in our culture. First, I should be clear that when I refer to "culture" in this specific article, I am merely referring to a prevailing trend. This trend has influenced both those that associate themselves with the church and those that do not. Secondly, much of what I am speculating about in this post is closely linked to my previous one. The question I ask is: is anyone really an individual? Is life really an abstraction of my own personal choices on what I eat, what I drive, what I buy, and what kind of faith I possess? That is what our minds have been warped to believe. "Stand up for yourself", "you can believe that if you want to but that does not mean its true for me", "fulfill your dreams, be all you can be", and "I don't need the church to love Jesus, I have made a personal commitment, what more do I need?" All these and others are so common in our language that we do not realize the obsession we have with me! So I ask again, am I really an individual? More specifically, is a commitment to Christ a personal thing?

To begin, I think the Bible is clear that individuals are morally responsible for their actions. Each person will have to give an answer for their actions. Philosophically and theologically, it seems clear in both the Jewish and Christian narrative (which should not be separated) that we find in the Bible that humans have a responsibility to choose how to live, to choose whether to obey the will of God or dismiss it. That makes us all free agents; we can choose whether to follow God or not. We are not simply pawns in a grand scheme of a divine mind. We are free agents of a personal God. In that sense...yes we are individuals.

However, we are buying into an illusion of individualism that is not only unhealthy but leaves us clinging to ourselves as our destiny. The idea of faith as an individual choice has its root in the 16th century Reformation ideas that gave birth to the scientific Enlightenment. Luther's emphasis on sola Scriptura and sola fida (Scripture as authority alone; justification by faith alone) along with the later Wesleyan movement of Piety eventually gave birth to the individualistic view of salvation that is not only prevalent but assumed in most North American churches. Hence, we have huge evangelistic crusades (an interesting word to use for evangelism) where we are taught that we all as individuals need to make a personal commitment to Christ. We don't realize that taken to its conclusion, this view results in what is commonly called the postmodern mindset: namely that truth is relative to me individually. And the church grieves because people are walking out the door claiming they have no need for the church any longer. And why should they need the church? Why, if faith is really about me and God, do I need those outdated, superstitious ceremonies or people to follow Jesus? Besides, most of them don't really live any different than anyone else anyway! I will follow Jesus on my own because ultimately thats what I will have to answer for right? whether I raised my hand and made that commitment?

That type of thinking is very common today. But maybe in this case, the church has dug its own grave. If faith in Christ, along with every other aspect of our lives, is really just about I do with it, if it's just about a personal commitment, then I believe we have no choice but to follow the relativism of postmodernity. I should clarify that I do not believe all aspects of postmodernity (whatever that even means) are negative or futile. However, we cannot be surprised to find many people today claiming that all that matters is how I interpret reality, faith, or anything else. This is the logical conclusion of the personalizing brought about by much Reformation theology and the elevation of humanism in the 14-19th centuries.

So, what's the point of all this? Well, frankly, maybe our view of what faith is, what Christ calls us to, and what the church's role is, have all been misguided. It is clear that in the teachings of Jesus, he points people away from themselves and toward others. Most people are familiar with the words of Jesus "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your strength. And love your neighbor as yourself." So we automatically think, "If I love myself more, than I can love others more!" Wrong. Jesus never told anyone to love themself more. In fact, recent psychology shows that by far the majority of people are consumed with themselves; even those that appear to have absolutely no self-esteem. In fact, the ones that struggle the most with self obsession are the people that are arrogant and parading of their own abilities, and those that are socially awkward because they appear to have no "self-esteem". Both these kinds of people are so consumed by self that they need professional help! In Christ we see the heart of God, for he was God on earth. And in him we see a life committed to serving others, not self. Although Jesus addresses individuals, he never speaks to them as isolated. More clearly in Paul and the early church, we see that a commitment to Christ is a commitment to be part of a "called out" community, a community that is committed to the way of Christ.

What this means for us is that the church is not just a group of saved individuals. Again, if it is, then we simply have no very good reason to keep our churches open except maybe to pool our resources so we can "save more souls". But if that is how we view the Christian life and calling, then we should not be surprised or upset when Christianity does not change people and when people isolate themselves and still claim to be Christian. I guess the whole point is that following Jesus is not about ME! Being a Christian is not just a type of spiritualism that makes me a nicer or better person. That indeed is how many view Jesus (Look at Oprah and Eckhart Tolle or Deepak Chopra). To say that is to radically miss the entire point of Jesus teaching. To follow Jesus Christ is to make a commitment to be a part of a community called out to a different way of life; a life of love, peace, and self-sacrifice. This is radical. It requires a careful evaluation of the value system of our culture and many times, it takes a different route. If faith is really just a personal thing, then we are left with a hopeless cycle of relativism that taken to its conclusion leads only to despair for in it we are merely individual organisms thinking thoughts relevant to know one but self. That is not the world God created. Thanks for reading some of my scramblings!

The Brain Gap

In the past few years, I have spent a great deal of time thinking about the apparent gap between the academy and our church congregations. Many churches have professionals as members and, as such, are very educated. However, a little bit of probing often reveals a profound ignorance of the gospel message and how it relates to the culture. Many (not all) church members are quite content with an unrooted theology that topples over upon any dissension of any sort. As a result, there is a steady flow of people, from all walks of life, exiting the church. Their thinking goes something like, "this old-fashioned church thing just doesn't seem to hold a lot of water in a capitalist, technology-driven world. Everyone around us seems to be doing just fine without "religion" of any sort. All those pat answers the church teaches do not really make sense anyway. Even if they did, are they not simply that specific pastor's understanding of truth?" And the church watches in dismay as people either exit and do not return or maybe come back infrequently to renew old acquaintances.

Now I want to be clear on a few things. Firstly, I am not suggesting that all pastors preach "pat answers" and are the source of the discontent. There are many good pastors out there doing a marvelous job pastoring, including teaching. I also do not want to come across as a doom-commentator with the answers to all the problems. However, I believe there is a dichotomy that has developed (and is growing) in much of the church. We are, indeed, a relatively educated population in the West (relative to much of the rest of the world anyway). But, we are sometimes ignorant to the point of naivety when it comes to our faith. Why is this so? Is our faith not supposed to define all we are and do? Is the Holy Word of God not a sacred revelation of what we believe is the epitome (God) of all that is true, real, and good? If so, then why are we so content with not understanding it? Why is an understanding of proper exegesis and theology not valued as highly as something that will bring "results" such as a "good foundation for a career"? And why is church often nothing more than a voice of condemnation or a perpetual A.A. meeting?

To some extent I identify with those that have left the church because they see it as merely a crutch that has been carried on from ancient times. I also have been very perturbed by the unthoughtful and narrow responses I have received many times. We don't seem to understand how faith really makes any difference in how we live. If the point of Christianity, or the Bible, is to help people have a conversion moment in order to save them from hell, then maybe all this stuff actually doesn't matter. Maybe it doesn't matter that we do not understand even the most basic theology and doctrine or proper exegesis. Let's leave that for the pastors to learn in seminary as long as people come to a "saving knowledge of Jesus Christ" right?

Well if that truly is Christianity's big answer, then yes, let's leave theology and all that other stuff to those "called" to do so. But is that really the point, to "save souls"? Jesus' mandate to his disciples was not to get people to pray a "sinner's prayer" but to "go make disciples...baptize them...and teach them to obey." If we are not just called to "save people from hell" or even "get them into heaven", but rather to "make disciples," then we must approach this a little differently. Then following Christ is a distinct shift in thinking from the culture around us. Christ then becomes the goal or telos toward which our lives are transformed or discipled (if that's a word). Our entire understanding of reality has been re-shifted. This is much more than a crutch, old-fashioned tradition, or wholesome entertainment. It very much changes how we live, act, and think because it is the goal of our entire lives!

When we view Christ as the centre of our understanding of reality, then we cannot simply resort to fluffy answers because our goal is not merely to "be saved" and then in turn to "save others". The church is the one to disciple and train believers with this diametrically different purpose in view. Although I am not proposing that all Christians get a degree in Biblical studies or theology, I do believe many Christians are attending our churches and are starving to hear how or why all this stuff matters. Why are we only "drinking milk" in church when we eat "pure steak" the rest of the week? Many of us have a presupposition of church that allows us to leave our brains at the door when we enter and then we pick them back up when we leave. The result is inevitable: Christians end up with the exact same value system as the rest of culture. The consequences are obvious: Christianity simply doesn't really matter. That seems to be how many inside and outside the church view Christ and the Christian life.

I am not proposing any answers here. What I do want to do is challenge those who claim Christ as Lord of their life to be thoughtful. Think deeply and graciously about God, how you live your life, and the "big" questions people ask. Although human knowledge has many limitations, Jesus said to "love God with your mind". Being a disciple of Christ is not just one aspect of our lives that is different from others. It is an entirely different telos; a different end or goal. The church must help people to understand how to be "discipled" in Christ. In a culture that for the most part embraces education, let's not be the arrogant voice of ignorance but a community of discipleship. That will entail a passionate devotion to learning about the truth, wherever it is found. Just some thoughts...