What is the Church?

So what the heck was I trying to say with my little epic in the last post? My hope was to begin laying a foundation that helps us understand where the church began, and where it has come from those beginnings.

For three centuries, these bands of brothers and sisters flocked in informal communities, sharing in common their love, their lives, and their worship of God. For some, the patterns of their lives changed drastically. Paul, for example, went from the up-and-coming Sandhedrin leader (the Sanhedrin was the ruling council of Jewish leaders) helping expose and eliminate "followers of the Way" to one who travelled the known world to share the message. But there were many others, perhaps even the majority, whose normal patterns, their daily comings and goings, didn't change so much, because God didn't call everyone to be like Paul and travel the world for the gospel. For those folks, what changed was how they saw God in those daily patterns, and how the eternal kind of life, the life that is experienced only in obedience to God (note that Jesus' early followers were not followers of a theology, or even followers of Jesus, but followers of the Way--it was a way of life) became their normal experiences as they went to work, raised their kids, and loved their neighbors.

So, for our discussion here, I'm saying that the church is a group of people who are committed to one another in their relationships and are together trying to follow the Way of Jesus in the world.

What else is required to be a church? What is the church's mission; why are we here? Check out future posts!

My Ecclesiology

At the risk of getting myself into trouble here, I want to spend a few posts talking about ecclesiology, or views of the church. As I set this up, keep in mind that I believe every follower of the way of Jesus, when confronted with what s/he believes are the shortcomings of his/her tradition, has two broad choices: leave for something more aligned with your beliefs or stay and play the prophetic role in your tradition. God calls people to do both at various times, I think, depending on his purposes at that time. The truth is that all of our traditions have shortcomings, and while some may be worse than others, all communities of Christ-followers can reflect that which is best and worst about mankind. For the time being, I believe God has called me to stay in my tradition.

Once upon a time a holy man came and showed his followers how to live as God intended, in the pattern of the alive life. He told those followers to stay bonded together in communities of close-knit, sacrificial love and service for each other. "When you are going about your daily lives," he said, "invite others whose path you cross to join us in the pattern of the holy life."

So these people, who had been taught and were still learning about the alive life, went about their living. And in their living life they loved people. They loved each other, they loved those outside their communities, and they especially loved those who were the not-loved of their societies. These incredible little life-communities would grow, then regroup into new communities, then grow. In a short 3 centuries they went from a few hundred people to more than 10% of the world-conquering empire of that time, always in these alive communities.

Then one day the king of the empire saw the possibilities of the alive life. He also saw that the people of the alive life communities could be valuable allies in the rules of the empire. So the king declared the alive life communities to be the true religion. And the people rejoiced.

Now some of the alive life communities began to be run by the by the bureaucrats, the king's leaders in the empire. The bureaucrats knew that there had to be a way--a more efficient way--to teach others about the alive life. So they created standardized curricula and standardized buildings and standardized sermons. And the people rejoiced.

Some bureaucrats became very good at the standardized sermons. They were given special places as kinglets of the alive life communities. And some of them began to institutionalize the standardized rules. Spiritual guides were now kinglets, and the gentle ways of the first holy man were turned into institutionally protected and enforced laws. And the people...well, they didn't rejoice.

Over the centuries the institutionalized, standardized communities have tried to find and teach the alive life. The institutions have been destroyed and rebuilt, better than they were, better, stronger, faster. The standards have been enforced, debated, deleted, bought, sold, split over and ignored. Pockets of the alive life communities are still found, but the institution has become, well, institutionalized. Sterilized. Anesthetized. Deadetized. And the people have forgotten.

But not all the people. No, the alive life communities are still there. They are harder to find, tougher to nail down. But they are there. The destruction of death and hell can not--will not--fully keep down the ones who follow the way of the first holy man.

Where are those alive life communities today?

Urban Revolution

I preached at CrossBridge Community Church in San Antonio on October 1...here's a link to the audio file if you're interested. The basic story was that Jesus came to create a revolution--a new way of thinking and living. He called it the kingdom of God. I like Dallas Willard's definition: "the effectual reign of God." Evangelism, an overused, misunderstood Christianese word, is really an invitation into the life you always wanted (borrowing from John Ortberg, whose book by the title "The Life You've Always Wanted" says that it is "Dallas for Dummies", since Dallas Willard is so deeply philosophical--but I digress), not asking the question "if you were to die tonight, where would you spend eternity?" There may be a time for that tired question, but there is at least one better--"If you were to live for another hundred years, how would you want to live?" That's the kind of question Jesus asked, I think.

Anyway, here's a link to the sermon as an mp3 file. Hope you enjoy it.

http://www.crossbridgecommunitychurch.com/sermons/ArnieAdkison.mp3

Team Moroni

Last night my brother and I were at the TCU/BYU football game. Because an old friend and teammate of ours is an assistant coach for BYU, we sat with their fans during the game and mingled with them waiting for him after the game. (As a side note, this was really hard for me, having played football at UTEP in the old WAC with BYU!). I happened to notice a guy wearing a shirt with a similar pattern as the Nike Swoosh with the phrase "Team Moroni". I have to say, my initial reaction was one of "that's funny!" But then I realized, and even said to my brother, "that's probably what non-Christians think of our goofy t-shirts."

Have we sold out to merchandising theology or what? So called "christian" gear is a huge industry now (think "WWJD", "Prayer of Jabez" stuff, t-shirts and so on--googling these brought up millions of websites hawking the gear, everything from shirts, hats, beanies, backpacks, hacky sacks, flip-flops, bracelets, necklaces, rings, earrings, nose rings, and on and on, ad nauseam). Of course my favorite is the WWJD offering at Landover Baptist, a parody website.

We deserve to be parodied! I cannot imagine any scenario by which Jesus would be happy about us hawking wares with pithy slogans of shallow theology.

Christians and War

Crosswalk.com recently posted an article from Salim Munayer called "Is There a Christian Attitude Toward War?" that I thought did a wonderful job of tackling this difficult issue. Munayer outlines three broad attitudes that can describe Christian thought. The first is to adopt an "in war as in war" approach, which means that "the reality of war necessitates a change in our moral understanding and behavior." Honestly, I can't believe how many Christians I know who take this tack. Believing that the end justifies the means, Christians promote war as a necessary good for God to accomplish his purposes in the world.

Now it can clearly be argued that God often directed the Hebrews to attack cultures and civilizations around them, even commanding that they be destroyed and punishing the Jews when they didn't destroy them. But it is a big leap to say that we should be promoting any kind of "war as a solution to evil" in our world today, declaring God to be on our side. I would suggest two reasons for this, one of which Munayer make a great case for; namely that Israel was under the theocratic rule of God, and no nation today can claim that status. To quote Munayer: "the particularity of our context makes it difficult and extremely dangerous to abstractly apply the principles of Joshua to the present conflict." My second reason would be that it seems to me to violate the way that Jesus taught us to live in the New Testament. He made it clear that his kingdom was not of this world, i.e. not obtained through normal political or military processes. Yes, he said that he came to bring not peace, but a sword (see Matthew 10.34), but he was talking specifically about the interpersonal relationships that we sometimes value over truly following his way of life. He's here talking about priorities, not war. He later in Matthew tells Peter not to use his sword trying to protect Jesus from arrest, because "all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Mt. 26.52).

I am especially concerned with certain dispensationalist leaders who promote some version of the "Left Behind" eschatology that re-promotes modern day Israel to covenant-nation status with God and teaches that anyone who disagrees with them--or by default agrees with their "enemies" --sets themselves up against God himself. I believe this to be bad hermeneutics; there is no geo-political nation-state that can today claim status as God's chosen nation (see Romans 9-11). Certainly not all dispensationalist leaders teach this, but several prominent ones have so bought into the end times scenario of the position that they see Israel and the US as God's arm of destruction on evil. This is a dangerous position for anyone to take--acting on God's behalf--especially when it involves the taking of another human life!

A second approach is pacifism: the idea that all war is unjust by definition, and that killing of another human is wrong in any context. I have to admit, this position seems to more closely fit the teachings of Jesus and of the early church. It has looked more palatable to me in that past few years. But I have come to believe that it looks that way because I don't believe that the war in Iraq met the demands what Christians have long called "just war" theory.

Munayer calls this third position a "selectivist" approach. This approach argues that it is dangerous to make any absolute decisions about the morality of war. Some should be fought. Others should not. Just war theory, as stated by Constantine and then expanded by others through the centuries, promotes the idea that there are certain inalienable criteria that must exist before a war is considered just. See http://www.justwartheory.com/#INTRODUCTION for an overview of the idea from philosophical standpoint.

I hope that the key component in any Christian's view of war--and any other issue--is critical biblical and prayerful thinking.

9-11

Like most other Americans, I have not been able to escape the reflections on that day 5 years ago. Has it really been 5 years? As I watched the President speak, and then the special docudrama on ABC, several thoughts overwhelmed me:

Life is fragile.

People are capable of extreme heroism.

People are capable of horrific evil.

There is a fine line between pride and arrogance.

Evil must be overcome with good.

Can there ever be peace on earth?

Have Americans learned anything?

Is the war on terror really happening because some people don't like democracy? Don't like us?

God of peace, Father of the Prince of Peace, may your kingdom come and your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Prescribed Plagiarism

MacKenzie ends "Orbiting the Giant Hairball" with a little section on the artistry of life. God hands every person a blank canvas and asks us to create a masterpiece.

But then in steps people.

People aren't sure that you have what it takes for the masterpiece creation. People will tell you that you can't quite get it right. They want to draw the lines on your canvas within which you "have" to paint. And your masterpiece moves from work of art to "paint by numbers".

Gordon calls this "prescribed plagiarism." I love this phrase. Way too many of us have caved in to the public hairball and decided that we have to follow the rules, paint inside the blue lines with only the color that the number represents. We become copies, following the prescriptions of others.

Orbits and Hairballs

I just finished Gordon MacKenzie's jewel, "Orbiting the Giant Hairball." Gordon worked for 30 years at Hallmark Cards, retiring with the title "Creative Paradox". As a writer and illustrator, he leaned toward the creative side of life, and struggled with all things corporate and bureaucratic, i.e. the hairball. The hairball represents all the stuff of an organization--policies, processes, rules, etc.

As the hairball grows, it creates mass. That mass has gravitational pull. People in the organization--especially creative people--have two options that they should avoid. First, they can give in and collapse into the hairball. I know I've seen (and been) the creative person who suddenly gets a whiff of corporate power then becomes a hair in the hairball. Before I know it, I'm the bureaucrat that I hated! It is so easy to do this. We see it in not just in organizations, but in churches, parachurch organizations, and denominational groups. Someone moves into a position where creativity is downplayed, where following the rules and making others follow them becomes your job, and it's so easy to play it safe.

But the second option is not any better. Many creative people so resist the gravitiational pull of the hairball that they float off into space, totally free to be their creative self, but totally irrelevant and ineffective in changing the world at any significant level. If I can't do it my own way, I'm going to take my creative ball and go home.

The third option is the best: allow just enough of the hairball's influence on you to balance your own trajectory and enter into orbit around the hairball. Maintain a loyalty to the organization, utilizing the resources there to at once harness, channel and then unleash your creativity with the power of the organization behind it. What a balance, but when it is achieved, it makes success so much easier.

Postmodern Attractions

I'm really a little too old to be Gen X.

I turned 40 this summer, meaning I was born in 1966, the "tween" years between Boomers and Gen X. But throw in the fact that all of my formative childhood years were spent in tiny Texas towns in a pre-internet age, and you could probably peg most of my life in the Boomer or even pre-Boomer worldviews.

So why have I been attracted to the theological implications of postmodernity?

I don't want to pretend I'm an expert theologian or philosopher, but as I understand some of the ideas in the emerging "postmodern" worldview, what I like is the idea of deconstruction. As an introductory caveat, I'm not a total deconstructionist--I do think that words can have meaning as they truly represent truth and ideas (yes, one of my many paradoxes is that I tend to think in terms of both truth and postmodernity). But I believe that Christianity's dominant position in Western society has made it weak in terms of evaluating our contructs that explain everything from church to politics to relationships to morality and pretty much everything else you can imagine.

Humans like constructs. They give us something tangible to "see" mentally and spiritually. But trouble brews when the construct becomes equal with the intangible truth they were built to represent. When our form of church government or policital position or moral stance (assuming these are not clearly dilileated in the Bible, but even that is very challenging, since we all use the Bible to prove our constructs) becomes equal to God's truth in our own minds, it becomes a sacred cow. We tend to protect it at all costs. Eventually we even lose sight of the actual truth that the contruct was built to represent, and our lives and worldviews become powerless shells, devoid of life and spirit.

That's where the part of deconstruction that I like comes in. It is good and healthy for growing followers of Jesus to deconstruct our constructs. We should take a look at the points of view we hold, boil it down, look at it from different angles, read others' thoughts about it, and most importantly, check to make sure it flows from the Scriptures. So many of our beliefs come from what someone other than a biblical author originally penned, but we have to look at those beliefs very closely and authentically to recognize where we have allowed our constructs to add to or push out the actual truth.

Middle East Madness

Boy did I pick the wrong time to be planning and promoting a donor trip to Israel...

The middle east has flared up again, as it seems everyone knew it would and no one can do anything about. I wish I knew some great answer, some incredible piece of wisdom that would promote a lasting peace in that region. God knows that He wants peace!

Today's Christianity Today online piece had a story from Martin Accad, academic dean of the Arab Baptist Theological Seminary in Lebanon. The CT editors preface the article with a disclaimer about their disagreements with some of Accad's points, and I wonder why. Are we so convinced of the "need" for "wars and rumors of wars" because of the prevailing eschatological madness in the US that we don't condemn atrocity, even (especially!) when our friends are committing it? Check out the article, whether you agree or not it will help you see a different point of view from another follower of Jesus--always a good thing.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/129/42.0.html