Pastor Scott's Thoughts

Why So Much Talk About Violence?

I apologize in advance for a lengthy blog today. I have sort of been pushing the envelope a bit the last couple of weeks in sermons (even for me). I find it very difficult to take Paul's argument about grace seriously without getting fired.

I received a very kind letter today that had many nice things to say, but it also came from a concerned attender that raised several good questions that I think many people struggle with and that I should address. The letter was lengthy and I will write the person back personally, but I would like to anonymously share some of the person's questions here and give some response.  Here is some of the letter:

Last Easter... our lenghty responsive readings kept talking about VIOLENCE... saying NO to our violence and saying YES to the cross. I'm thinking, I still struggle with various sin in my life, but I wouldn't say that violence was one of them. Doubtful that many of us here actually struggle with violence. What? He is talking about our country... All last Easter, and yes, ever since, I have picked up your subtle innuendoes about our country. And I am grived, I would have to say...

Last Sunday, you were more direct about your convictions. You mentioned that people say you should be more patriotic. You said you hated war. You said that our country thinks we're privileged with some sort of blessing by God that makes us (collectively) feel we can do no wrong. And in your blog this week you said you were now very interested in politics. Many times recently after a wonderful sermon where I was personally enlightened, challenged and convicted, I know that there were "national overtones" and wanted to just ask you the simple question, "Do you feel this text applies to a person or also to a country?" Last week you were saying people are a foot "ethnic" and 6 inches a Christian or a foot "American" and "6 inches a Christian." To which I wholeheartedly said "AMEN" and was challenged by that. But I do not think you can make the leap to that we should call our country to "lay down its arms."

...Our country has never initiated a war, only retaliated. This retaliation has many times been nothing other than blessed by God and an attempt to STOP the terrible treatment of people or the aggression of countries... May not God say "I even gave you 'the new promised land' and you sat by and gave it away to those who would persecute you and worship false gods?"

...Taking the thought of "turning the other cheek" as a collective group... why should we have a local police force then? Why should we arrest someone and even jail them for stealing? Why should we impose our laws... why HAVE laws... why not live our own Christian life doing good to all and turning the other cheek and letting God take care of the rest? Our military is to our country what our police force is to our neighborhood. It's called making sure evil does not flourish.

...I'm wondering why you would not teach us what the Bible says, to understand what it says about Jesus' radical die-to-self teachings, let us try as we can to follow the Lord and become more like Him, and leave it to Him to see where we all individually go politically? I am with you, I am hearing you, I am seeing my own sin, I am recognizing that Jesus is calling us to something we cannot do on our own, that we are very much like the Pharisees... that we are to give up self, to serve, to have no walls etc. But I feel I need to implore you to leave the national implications to God, please!

I really do appreciate the honesty of this letter, and I appreciated most the fact that it was not sent anonymously - so thank you.  I'm sure that there are several other folk who pick up some of the themes this letter mentions in my preaching and share many of the same concerns, so let me address some of them in two or three points.

1. I've never killed anyone, I don't own a gun, I haven't been in a fist fight since 8th grade, and I even rescued a skunk from under my patio and released it - but I still think I have a violence problem. I think violence includes any act of trying to hurt or destroy another person. In that sense I believe gossip is wrong in the eyes of God because it is an attempt to do damage to another person. The "silent routine" I go into when I'm angry with my wife is in a sense a violent act because it is my attempt to make her feel as badly as I feel. Over the last several months I have received chain emails about all four remaining presidential candidates from supporters (I assume) of one of the other candidates that were complete fabrications. To me, those are a subtle form of violence. In that sense we all still have a violence problem.

But I also have a problem with violence because it has so captured my imagination. Like most people, after 9/11 all I could feel was a desire for vengeance. People who for some reason or another consider me their enemy and a target of their violence call me by certain names: infidel, capitalist pig, honkey, yuppie... (some I can't list here). They call me those names because their hate is dependent upon categorizing me but not truly knowing me. In response I give them names: terrorist, fundamentalist, extremist, gang-banger, criminal, etc. I also give them those names because it is easier for me to categorize them, have my people "deal" with them, then to know them, know what drives them, and try to address their needs and hopes. My imagination is trapped by violence because it believes that violence is the only way to deal with these enemies. In that way my enemies and me are identical we both think violence is the solution to the problem of "the other."

BTW, I believe that the Bible, and Jesus in particular does deal with all forms of violence as the main human consequence of sin. The Pharisees saw people in categories such as "sinners, tax-collectors, prostitutes, Romans, etc." Jesus instead saw Levi, the woman at the well, Zachaeus, a particular Centurion all in need of grace. I believe violence is still something the Christian community has to keep confessing, because we have so easily accepted it as just the way the world is. I believe we are called to imagine a place where the lion and lamb lay down together.

2. Regarding police and the military: I have tremendous respect and nothing but admiration for those who are called to any peace keeping ministry. I will admit to having the heart of a pacifist and the brain of a realist. (I hope eventually my heart wins). I realize that in this fallen world there are times when all attempts to overcome evil with good seem to fall short and we must respond with force to curb evil. Those who take up this call take up an honorable and difficult call. I believe we need these people desperately and we should honor them frequently, but I also believe when we live in a super-power that if we are not careful we will "put our trust in chariots and horses" (to use Biblical language).

One of the critiques in the letter (and again I appreciate it) is that I fail to pray enough in our worship services for our military and police personnel. I will grant that this is probably the case. I pray quite frequently privately for the folk I know from church and as former students who are in Iraq, and my wife and I both pray regularly for the police chief from the town we live in who is a member of the church. We have especially prayed for him lately because of the rise in gang violence in our area and the huge responsibility he carries in the midst of it all.

But honestly, I have not prayed in church for them as much as I should have because I take criticism for always praying for soldiers on both sides of the line. Part of my Christian conviction struggle is that as Americans we count the number of US soldiers who have been killed in this war (a tragic number) but rarely will the US press give the number of Iraqi soldiers and civilians who have been killed (an even more tragic number). When I lead the community of faith in prayer I believe in that moment I am praying as a Christian and not as a US citizen and therefore I feel I have to pray for all involved. I apologize that I have allowed my fear of criticism to keep me from praying about the war in church more often, I will try to do better in the future.

3. I can't apologize for being political. I don't believe it is my role to promote one American political party over the other. In our current situation I believe that both parties represent some things that Christians would want to get behind and both parties neglect areas that we care about. So to me it's a win-win or lose-lose no matter who you vote for. I doubt I will ever be political as a pastor in that kind of way.

But I can't help but be political in terms of trying to help the people of God see themselves as just that - the people of God. When I talk about being a foot deep as a Christian and 6 inches deep as a citizen of a particular country, I'm sort of fibbing. I believe that we have to be a foot deep as a Christian and nothing else. I believe that we are called to be a people who desire to beat swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks; who embody the reality of the lion laying down with the lamb; who work for overcoming evil with good by learning to turn the other cheek and go the second mile; and who like Jesus they take up their cross (refusing retribution) daily and live into the Kingdom he proclaimed. I am truly convinced that the Lion is for all eternity the Lamb that was slain and that the loving Lamb wins. It is  hard for me in this day and age when the powerful and mighty always seem to win to imagine how the Lamb is going to do it, but I believe somehow or another love wins.

All that to say, I apologize for some of my "violence rhetoric" during Lent, but every time I look at the cross I'm reminded of our continuing history of trying to overcome evil with evil (and our history of trying to justify our violence), but I'm reminded that Jesus is trying to teach us another way.

Shalom.

The Hope (and Humility) of Transformation

I have had several great comments and questions via email this week.  I asked one person permission to share a part of their question because I am asked this question from time to time.  Here is the person's question:

I liked what I heard today, but am scared that I'll sign up and then find out I need to be "circumcised."  I don't understand too much about the "holiness" movement, but am uncomfortable with the idea that people can be perfect on earth, if I understand that correctly.  I'm uncomfortable with that because I've been around those people who feel they're "holy"--I disagree with their assessment.

Here is part of my response:

Thanks for the question.  I believe that Wesleyan traditions – like the Church of the Nazarene – have been at our best when we walk in a certain tension between hope and despair.  What I mean by that is that Wesley believed that “perfection” (which he meant as Christian maturity not perfect actions or thinking) could be possible in this life with two conditions: (1) he seriously doubted that any one would ever really reach a place where there was no further maturity still to be attained and (2) if you claimed to have attained complete maturity your self-pride demonstrates that you really aren’t there yet.

If you understand all of that, then it sort of sounds like he didn’t believe that anyone can really be completely mature in Christ.  However, the reason he wanted to avoid that belief is because he didn’t want people to be able to say: “Well, I’m never going to be what God wants me to be in this life, so I’ll just let my character and faith stay right here where it is.”  For Wesley, to give up the idea that God can make us what he wants us to be in this life allows us to accept defeat and despair as the final answer.  But to be overly optimistic about Christian perfection and believe we can easily attain it leads to the kinds of spiritual fallacies, Christian pride, and church destructiveness that you have mentioned.

That’s why I say, we are at our best when we find ourselves caught between the tension of hope that we can really be what God wants us to be and honest confession that we are a long ways from being there.

I think it is very important for us to find that balance between hope and vulnerability that keeps us from spiritual pride.

Holiness Conference Day 2 and 2 1/2

I apologize for not blogging a bit on Friday night about the conference.  The day went late and then I ended up having to fly home on Saturday afternoon and so I haven't had a chance until now to do some reflecting.

On Friday there were several panel sessions, Brian spoke in chapel, Alan Nelson (editor of REV! magazine) presented a nice session on giving ministry away to the laity, and Brian started his Everything Must Change "Tour" which began in the evening and ran through the day on Saturday.

In chapel Friday, Brian spoke about a "third way" of being Christian.  Brian argued that for most young people their options for faith have felt like (1) to serve the God (represented by the way religion was used by the colonizers) who wants to get us to heaven but doesn't really ask us to do anything about changing the world as it is.  Or (2) reject faith altogether and just give themselves over to life as it is. 

But there is another option.  The (3) third way is to decide to become a follower of the one who taught us to pray that the Father's kingdom would come and his will would be done on earth as it is in heaven.  This third way is not oriented toward getting to heaven (although eternal life is a bonus) as much as it is about becoming part of God's revolution for transformation and redemption that Christ called God's kingdom - although it is different in almost every way from the kingdoms of human history.

I'm sad that I only got to be part of the first session of the Everything Must Change presentation.  (Everything Must Change is the name of his new book).  There is no way for me to fairly describe the first "Change" session held Friday evening (for much of it had to do with reflection and contemplation in various ways) but the main idea was that there is a major shift that needs to take place if (1) the church is going to speak to the most pressing issues of our day and (2) if we are going to be part of the transformation that God wants to have happen in his creation.

Honestly, I found just the first session of "Change" extremely convicting and more than I can chew on as a pastor.  I'm not sure I'm ready - let alone the church I serve - to make a shift to what are certainly God's and the world's greatest priorities and concerns.

If you are interested in exploring some of what Brian was introducing, obviously you can read his new book, but you can also go to www.brianmclaren.net or www.deepshift.org.  I would be interested to know some of your thoughts.

BTW - I found Brian to be one of the kindest and gentlest persons I have met.  It is always pleasant to meet someone you have admired from afar and like them more after being with them.  And second, I'm fully aware that both Brian and the emerging church have critics in the Christian world, but I'm not going to get into an argument over Brian or the emerging church with anyone who has only read some of his/its critics without reading any of Brian's books or hearing him speak. 

Also BTW - the two harshest critics of Brian and the emerging church that I am aware of don't like the Church of the Nazarene nor the Wesleyan movement either because (1) we are not biblical inerrantists (2) we believe that grace is universal [not limited] (3) we believe that grace invites a response [not irresistible] (4) we think the Christian life is relational and thus a person can walk away from this relationship and (5) we believe that sanctification of life is God's desire for this life and (6) we ordain women for ministry.  I probably can think of about ten other things they don't like about us also, but that's enough to let me know that I'd like to hear what some other brothers and sisters in Christ have to say on the matter.

If you are interested in reading about the emerging church movement (which is really more of a renewal movement across many denominational lines than a new denomination itself) I recommend Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures by two Fuller professors Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger [Amazon link] http://www.amazon.com/Emerging-Churches-Christian-Community-Postmodern/dp/0801027152/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202694739&sr=8-1 or this Christianity Today article by Scot McKnight entitled "Five Streams of the Emerging Church" linked here http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html.

Blessings - SD

Furtherness: Holiness Reoriented in a Changing World Conference - Day 1

Keegan and I flew from LAX this morning to attend the Holiness as Furtherness conference at our alma mater NNU in Nampa, ID.  In many ways the conference is centered around the relationship between the Holiness movement and some of the themes rising out of the emerging church movement.

There were three primary speakers today.  The picture is of me and Dr. Tom Oord - professor of theology here at NNU (click on the picture to see what a nice looking guy Tom is and how crooked my nose is).  Tom and I graduated from Nampa together in 88 and have become good friends over the last few years.  He has done some great work - I especially appreciate his book Relational Holiness written with PLNU professor Michael Lodahl.  Tom spoke first today on various forms of postmodernism and how (although there are plenty of aspects of postmodernism to be wary of) there are many aspects of postmodernity that are beneficial to theology.

Brian McLaren is the special guest of the weekend and it is a real privilege to get to spend time with him.  I will confess that I am a huge fan of his books - especially The Secret Message of Jesus but I think they are all great.  Brian did a magnificent job of talking about the kinship between John Wesley and several emerging themes.

I spoke tonight on how some of the emerging sensibilities  are compatible with the Holiness movement in particular and how those themes fit closely with some of our founding values and are becoming relevant to current ministry.  I'm not sure I did that well.  Honestly, I was pretty intimidated, but at least now I can relax and serve on a few discussion panels for a couple of days.

On a side note, there is snow everywhere here.

Book #4 - Imagining Religion

Thanks to a combination of busyness and my new-found obsession with politics I'm lagging behind on my 50 books in 08 resolution.  But I did recently finish number 4.

I just finished David H. Kelsey, Imagining Redemption (WJK, 2005).  This is a very nice theological reflection that was recommended to me by a professor friend.  The key idea is that when we talk about "redemption" as Christians we have to wrestle with the question, "What difference (in this world) does redemption make?"  Kelsey does a masterful job taking a tragic real-life situation and using it as the context to wrestle with what we can truly hope for and imagine to be made new through Christ's redemptive power.

My favorite quote is: "Jesus does not come promising that God will turn back history, restoring our innocence in the garden of Eden as though nothing bad had happened in the interim.  Rather, as the Gospels present what Jesus proclaims by word and deed and what Jesus undergoes, he simply is the promise that something radically new is about to break in.  Jesus' ministry... is the concrete presence of God's wild and unpredictable power to create new life-worlds in the mist of living death...  The challenge for us is to conceive of Jesus' 'wild and unpredictable power' and to imagine what counts as its creating a 'new lived-world'" (p. 33).

I often like to site my favorite episode from the first season of Joan of Arcadia.  With no explanation or further instruction, God comes to Joan and asks her to remove the sculpture her friend Adam had created for the school art show.  After a couple of failed attempts at talking Adam into removing it, in frustration she takes a crow-bar and utterly destroys the work of art.  This act gets her into trouble at school and severely fractures her relationship with Adam.  When God shows back up, she expresses her frustration that following God's command only created more trouble for her.  God responds by saying, "Joan, what you have had is a failure of imagination.  Destruction is never an option."

Kelsey's book reminded me of our need for a sanctified imagination that can envision the new life God wants us to have in the today, even when we are coming through great suffering.  Although language of heaven is appropriate, part of what I took from Kelsey is that we tend to jump to hopes for the life to come because we don't have the faith or faith-full imagination to hope for redemption.

Good stuff...

Losing Our Salvation

I wrapped up another set of membership classes yesterday and it looks like PazNaz will have another great set of new members.  If there is one question that I am asked consistently by not only folks exploring membership but from people unfamiliar with PazNaz, it is, "Do Nazarenes believe that people can lose their salvation?"  Usually the question is asked because someone outside the Wesleyan tradition has told them that Nazarenes like other Wesleyan-Arminian traditions have historically rejected the doctrine known as eternal security or perseverance of the saints.

Although I understand why people ask it, I really don't like the question.  I usually make a joke and say, "Well, it's not like we believe that you can just misplace it or leave it somewhere and forget where you put it..."  But beyond the joking, I think the need to ask the question (on both sides) is shaped by at least two mistakes that Western Christianity tends to make regarding Christian faith.  They are two mistakes I think we need to get over. 

The first mistake is that we have tended to equate the idea of salvation with going to heaven.  So that when the question of eternal security is asked, what is really being asked is, "Do I still get to go to heaven if I sin after I've been saved?" This isn't an unimportant question, but I don't think it is a question that the biblical writers take very seriously.  For the writers of scripture eternal life is sort of the fringe benefit for those who have joined God's kingdom and are experiencing God's life today.  Or to say it another way, the biblical writers rarely think of salvation as being saved from hell after death, rather they understand salvation as being redeemed from a false and destructive way of living today.  This way of redeemed living so powerful in destroying the ways of destruction today that it includes the destruction of the enemy of death giving to us the assurance of eternal life.

None of us knows who will be given the gift of eternal life and who will not (nor even what eternal life fully looks like).  What Christ desires for us is that we live in such a way today that we live have the confidence and assurance of eternal life tomorrow.  So does the person who continues in a life devoted to and captured by sin after they have invited Jesus to be their Lord and Savior get to go to heaven?  I honestly have no idea.  But for Wesleyan Christians (like Nazarenes) our response would be, "Why would you want to live that way when you have to opportunity to live the abundant life of God's kingdom today while having the assurance of God's gift of eternal life in the tomorrow?"

The second mistake that Western Christians tend to make that then leads to the eternal security question is that we tend to make Christian faith a legal transaction and not a relationship of covenant.  The "once saved" question is judicial in its focus.  Another way to ask the question would be, "Once God has declared us not-guilty because of the sacrificial death of Jesus, will he ever really declare us guilty again?"  Western Christians have tended to think of salvation as a pronouncement made about us in a heavenly courtroom by God the righteous judge.  Certainly if that is the case then once we are declared innocent it seems strange for our Father and judge to keep going back and forth in his verdict.

The scripture, however, tends to think of the Christian walk in relational or covenant terms rather than in legal ones.  We are the bride of Christ, the body of Christ, God's adopted children, etc.  Those are all relational categories.  So maybe a better question would be, "Once we have married or covenanted our lives to God, can we ever leave that relationship?"  For me the answer would unfortunately be "yes."  Like a marriage it is not as though our everyday failings eliminate us from that covenant relationship, but it is possible for us to willfully leave that commitment.  I believe the affirmations of eternal security in the scripture that folk rightly site are assurances that God will always keep his part of this marriage covenant.  His faithfulness is not in question, it is our faithfulness that is at issue.  (Maybe we should think of our courtroom metaphors as judgments made in family court).

I find the parable of the Prodigal Son instructive at this point.  Like the wayward son, it is possible for us to shake our fist at the Father, escape with our inheritance, and head back to the "big city" of sin and destruction.  The Father who invited us to enter into this relationship with him freely gives us the permission to freely leave home.  The good news of the parable is obviously that the Father lovingly and graciously awaits our return home.

I know the next question will be, "But if the prodigal had died in the big city before going back home, did he get to go to heaven?"  To which I would respond that thankfully the scripture doesn't deal with that question.  Those judgments belong only to God (and a gracious God at that).  But isn't the point of the scripture an encouragement for people to live at home with the Father experiencing the life of salvation (life at home) in their today so that they can have the assurance of continued life with the Father in their tomorrow?

I think Wesleyans and non-Wesleyans are closer than we think on this question.  The scripture never questions the faithfulness of God.  God does not move, the question he keeps asking us is, "Adam (humankind), where are you?"