kingdom grace

I don’t typically post on Saturday, but this post at The Paris Project caught my attention, and it reminded me of a passage from Consuming Jesus that I wanted to share.

This baseball analogy is credited to John Perkins:

Two teams have been playing baseball. After seven inning, it comes out that the team that is ahead has been cheating the whole game: as a result, the score is 20 to 0.

This team makes apologies, but they don’t change the score going into the final two innings. Obviously, the team that is down 20-0 is still in an unfair, severely disadvantaged position.

A history of disadvantage does carry over into the present.

The situation is far too complex to attempt to alleviate the problem without addressing structural issues of disadvantage.

Concerning the gender issue, I hear the frustration on both sides. Does this analogy help to clarify the point at which women have entered the game?

There are many men who are willing to embrace the full participation of women. They do not understand why their stance of acceptance isn’t adequate.

Why are women still crying out for inclusion and empowerment?

What can be done?

As in can’t leave the house, school’s called off, hope there’s enough bread and milk to last until tomorrow.

Note the date, May 2.

Crazy!

The nature of the trinity is at the center of the debate and discussion of a couple of topics of interest to me. It is an area of disagreement between egalitarians and complementarians. It is also the source of the controversy and claims of heresy surrounding the book, The Shack.

Admittedly I stand on the side of an egalitarian relationship among the trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are our example of unity in relationships. They model perfect mutual submission and deference to one another.

As Papa said in The Shack, “Hierarchy would make no sense among us.”

In regard to the portrayal of the trinity in the book, Wayne Jacobsen said this:

One of the concerns expressed about The Shack is that it presents the Trinity outside of a hierarchy. To look at the Trinity as a relationship without the need for command and control is one of the intriguing parts of this story. If they walk in complete unity, why would a hierarchy be needed? While in the flesh Jesus did walk in obedience to the Father as our example, elsewhere Scripture speaks of their complete unity, love and glory in relating to each other.

So many of the accusations of heresy that are thrown around - scary sounding words like modalism, arianism, monarchianism, and tritheism - are all rooted in misunderstanding and differences of opinion about the trinity.

The orthodox idea of the Trinity, as established in the early councils and creeds during the fourth century, is that God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit are simultaneously three distinct beings, and all the same being, none subserviant to another, all three with complete equality and a single will.

Until recently subordinationism was also considered a heresy of the trinity. It is only within the last few decades that the idea of hierarchy within the trinity has been promoted by complementarians within evangelical circles. Their teaching “equal in being, unequal in role” states that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father.

I attempted to explain my theology of the trinity on the earlier post about Driscoll’s Doctrine Versus The Shack:

Most of my understanding of the trinity is from John 14-17. The 3 are too distinct to not be acknowledged in being, yet too interrelated and united to be completely dissected.

The Spirit is both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. Jesus is the Son, yet He is the being of God in flesh. God is the Father, yet he chooses to reveal Himself in Flesh and in Spirit. It is all beyond my understanding, yet a real part of fully knowing God through my relationship with Him.

I am united with the Father and Jesus through the Spirit living in me, revealing to me the Father’s love and His will. By the Spirit, I am in Christ and He is in me, and usually, I don’t try to separate it all out.

It doesn’t seem too far off from the position of Athanasius. Maybe I’m not a heretic.

Athanasius declared that it was acceptable to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as “one substance” as long as this was not understood to mean an obliteration of distinction between the three persons, and it was acceptable to speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as “three substances” as long as this was not understood to separate the three as three individual gods.

It is really interesting to me that conservative christians have taken the more unorthodox position on this particular issue.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

I love conversation. Whether it is over coffee, wine, dinner, pizza, beer, e-mail, or blog comments, I love conversation. I am not usually the biggest talker in the group, although I do contribute. I just really like listening to the thoughts and ideas of other people.

Since I started the blog, I have always enjoyed the interaction in the comment section. I believe that every comment is worthy of a response. It surprised me how much I have learned in the process of articulating responses to the many comments over the years.

You may have noticed the new comment disclaimer in the sidebar. It is with a sense of loss that I make this change. It is hard for me to imagine reading a comment and not responding to it or responding to some comments and not to others.

But the reality is that I simply can no longer do that. Due to personal circumstances, my blogging time must fit in a smaller window. That leaves time for some writing and some reading and less time for commenting.

I may be biased, but I believe that over the years, some of the best conversations have happened here. It is because of you, the wise and interesting people who take the time to share your thoughts. Your input is what makes the blog interesting to me.

As much as I value the conversation, my voice will be a smaller part of it. Of course you are still free to converse with and respond to one another. I honestly hope, perhaps unfairly, that many of you will continue to share your thoughts here.

Please know that as my response to comments becomes more random, I still value the individual comments as much as I always have. If I were able, I would prefer to respond to every single one.

Hopefully, you will agree with my friend Peggy who said, “a little bit of grace is better than no grace!”

I hope you enjoy this conversation from the Missional Journey…

Craig Van Gelder: “What is God doing in this world? This requires discernment to recognize what God is doing in our neighborhoods, schools, businesses, etc.”

Larry Chouinard: It is this aspect of a missional vision that needs more development and training to enable the church to discern God’s missional presence in a cultural context. Are we looking for explicit expressions of Kingdom values that signal the Divine presence? I don’t think Western churches are accustomed to looking for God in the every-day-ness of life.

It would seem such a way of “seeing” demands a radically different lens through which we see the world. I know how Jesus trained his disciples to see the world through a different lens, how do we do that today. “Joining God in mission” sounds incredibly compelling, but identifying with certainty “what God is doing in my neighborhood, schools, and local businesses” is not as easy as our rhetoric implies.

Jonathan Brink: “Much of our discipleship is simply Bible study which is the learning of Scriptural content. It’s not bad but it doesn’t prepare the individual to follow the Holy Spirit in the moment to where God is already working. Jesus didn’t leave us with the Bible to memorize. He left us with the Holy Spirit to follow.

I would suggest that we’re afraid to follow the Holy Spirit into mission because it might just change our world. And that could be painful. ‘-)

Demonstrated in this video posted by Fred Peatross:

It has been a subversive week!

Thank you to my subversive friends who included me in your links to this meme.
Mak
Jamie
Pam
Rose
I am a little late in the game to continue the meme as I have seen it already pass on to second and third generation lists with many well-deserving blogs already included.

Just a reminder that I keep a current list of interesting posts that I have read in my sidebar under “Conversations to Watch.” Whenever you click through to the site, be sure to check out what has caught my attention. It changes daily.

My Favorite Post Of The Week…

This post at Once A Youth Pastor brought back memories of our first too-big garden - from the starry-eyed dreaming over the Gurney’s catalog to the endless hours of weeding and way too many encounters with icky bugs and creepy-crawly critters. The post brilliantly illustrates the point that bigger isn’t always better.

This just in…hopeful changes in the christian publishing industry?

Losing My Religious Security Blanket is an article in the April issue of Next-Wave. Thanks Editor Bob.

Greg Boyd did an intelligent and thorough review of Eckhart Tolle’s book, A New Earth. His conclusion:

Better yet, if you’re interested in a Christ-centered way of learning how to live “in the present moment” — and we all should be — forget about Tolle and read Brother Lawrence and Frank Laubach, Practicing the Presence of God and/or J. De Caussade, The Sacrament of the Present Moment. Yes, live in the now! But do it in loving relationship with God rather than believing you are God.

Putting traditional tithing teaching on trial.

Fun site, Stuff Christians Like.

Post-charismatic Stuff

Brother Maynard shared a little of the back story about the book Post-Charismatic and included a link to an interesting previous post of his describing 6 types of post-charismatics.

Cynthia shared her post-charismatic experience.

A great review by Jason Clark. It looks like there is new interest in the term charismissional. Robby said I should have copyrighted it. He emphasizes it as descriptive of a necessary movement forward for those detoxing from charismatic hype.

The links to a series of Charismissional articles are on my recommended page.

This seems like an appropriate ending…

Postman Pat and his Charismatic Cat
Postman Pat the evangelist - See how Pat tackles Rev Timms, Mrs Thompson, the knife-wielding Atheist, and Ted Glen with his nasal hair problem.

A couple of my favorite lines…

“Pat, what’s happened? You’ve been Toronto’d!”

“Oh, no, I just fell over.”

and…

“Keep praying for Mrs. Thompson.
She’s nearly a Christian.
I keep speaking to her.
She nearly knifed me today.”

I don’t listen to news very much. It feeds my tendency to fear and worry about the wrong things. It seems that even without following the news, I hear enough of what’s happening to stay somewhat current.

In the gloom-and-doom, sky-is-falling landscape of today, what is the future of the church?

Mark VanSteenwyk has compiled a thorough summary of a conversation about this topic, with links to the full conversation.

If the industry of church collapses, what will become of the church? Will the bride be declared dead, or will she perhaps recover her identity and purpose?

There is a major shift already occurring within church systems. I don’t believe the economy is the direct cause of the changes we will see. If anything, I believe the economy will simply be a factor in hastening the shift.

Mark says, “we have inherited Christendom tools for doing a post-Christendom job.” The pastors of today already feel the tension that occurs with changing paradigms.

As these changes continue, I believe that those who respond by circling the wagons in an attempt to protect what is theirs will ultimately seal their demise. If there is any prospering to be had at this time, it will be in giving away and investing outside the circle of our own territory.

Church can exist without all of the bells and whistles. People can grow and be discipled in relationship with non-professionals. It is possible to serve in the kingdom without being legitimized by the stamp of institutional approval.

If McDonalds shut down, people would realize (or remember) that they too can make a sandwich.

Something a little lighter…

(The picture isn’t actually my daughters.)

My (little) girls happened to both have a day off of work and went to lunch together the other day. When they got home, I asked about their time together.

“It would have been fine if the waiter wasn’t hitting on us.”

“Hitting on you?! What does that mean?”

“It’s the same as flirting mom. Haven’t you heard of that?”

(Yes, I actually know what “hitting on” means, but it makes absolutely no sense in the context of my little girls!)

Aye, aye, aye! I’m going to need some deeper sand to keep my head in.

Maybe we can have a family movie night soon. I’m thinking Veggie Tales, Bob the Builder, cheerios and apple juice.

Just a reminder, the thoughts, feelings, ideas, and opinions on this blog are simply a reflection of this moment in time in said blogger’s journey.

The church we left behind was the church we poured ourselves into. We gave completely of our time, money, energy, and heart. We frequently left our young children with sitters to attend meetings. We were available to people whenever they wanted to see us. All of our tithes plus substantial offerings went to the church. In spite of relational conflicts, our support of the “vision” of the church was 100 percent. In fact, if anything, we were over-invested.

When we left, we intentionally chose to not attend anywhere for 6 months. We were incredibly raw and isolated at that time. We then started attending this WC church which at the time was meeting in a gymnasium. We were in the process of grieving and detox. We had no relationships left from our CLB and were literally shunned by the people we had known so intimately.

The people at the WC church were friendly, and this was a safe and healthy place to be. Their vision of reaching the community with the gospel was such a healthy contrast from our CLB where the vision was to create an elite remnant. Being with and among this congregation was a healthy step in our growth. We were trying to start over.

After 2 years, the WC church completed their building. We were happy for them to have a building, and we did contribute to the building fund. Shortly after they moved into the new building, our CLB blew up and many of our “church family” were suddenly also attending the WC church.

While they were also hurt and angry about what happened at the CLB, most of them jumped right in at the new church. They took the 101, 201 classes, joined small groups, volunteered for children’s ministry, coffee shop duty, drama and music roles.

The past year and a half has been very healing for us with many of our relationships being reconciled. It has also stirred up things that I had put to rest and contributed to my confusion about where and how we fit.

Many of my closest friends are already “in leadership” at the WC church. Yesterday I got a phone call about inviting us to attend a “special reception” for couples who are considered “leaders.” (It was for the capital campaign, and I am fairly certain that considered leaders means making above minimum wage.)

In the past 6 months we have grown increasingly disillusioned. We are trying not to blame the church for our disillusionment. It is not their fault.  I haven’t been there since Easter. My kids occasionally attend there.

I struggle with the idea that I will likely once again walk away from the church where my friends are. I don’t necessarily expect the same relational fallout as last time, but it is a painful unspoken narrative of always being the outsider.

Right now, what we need in our life are people that truly care about us in spite of the fact that we have nothing to offer. Maybe that’s unrealistic.

The church that we have been attending since leaving our CLB is a franchise of Willow Creek. The people are friendly but not intrusive. They have the anonymity thing down pat. We have attended 3 years with a very minimal level of contact from anyone at the church.

We chose our level of engagement, back row and uninvolved. We declined involvement in programs and ministries and in doing so have not involved ourselves in the community beyond a surface level. That was our decision. We understand the response (or lack of) it produced.

It was interesting to me to read these thoughts from Greg Hawkins:

For years the value people appreciated most about the seeker-oriented weekend services was anonymity. This is what all their research showed. People didn’t want to be identified, approached, confronted, or asked to do anything. But those days are over.

And they are!

We get something in the mail almost every day now from the church - postcards, letters, 8×10 mailers, a dvd, fancy brochures, all with a catchy new logo and letterhead.

We have also received several phone calls in the last couple of weeks inviting us to special meetings and receptions. Wow, we are being courted. Suddenly they want to know us!

Oh never mind. I was wrong.

It’s a capital campaign.