Pastor Scott's Thoughts

Why White Christians Should Read Easu McCaulley's "Reading While Black"

This morning I finished Esau McCaulley's rich and helpful book, Reading While Black: African American Biblical Interpretation as an
Exercise in Hope (InterVarsity Press). Dr. McCaulley is Assistant Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College and his book was recently selected by Christianity Today as "The Beautiful Orthodoxy Book of the Year" (for 2021).

The book not only deals with reading the Scripture from a Black historical perspective, but it uses that hermeneutical lens to tackle a number of critical contemporary questions. There are chapters devoted to each of the following questions:

• Does the Bible have a word to say about the creation of a just society in which Black people can flourish free of oppression?
• Does the Bible speak to the issue of policing - that constant source of fear in the Black community?
• Does the Bible provide us with the warrant to protest injustice when we encounter it?
• Does the Bible value our ethnic identity? Does God love our blackness?
• What shall we do about the pain and rage that comes with being Black in this country?
• What about slavery? Did the God of the Bible sanction what happened to us?

Each of these chapters are really well done. They are rich and thoughtful, yet they are written at a level accessible to most readers and they invite healthy, constructive conversations to come out of them.

There are lots of reasons why every person of faith would be edified by reading this text. However, let me just mention two reasons why many of my white sisters and brothers might want to wrestle with a book on African American readings of the Scriptures.

First, in paying attention to Black readings of the Bible, it not only helps all of us to hear the texts in a new way, but it makes those of us from majority cultures aware of our own lenses of interpretation. As McCaulley writes, "...everybody has been reading the Bible from their locations, but we are honest about it" (p. 20). What gives the African American reading of Scripture such power is that it reads the Scripture from the same social location of hostility, marginalization, and oppression from which the texts emerged and to which the voices of the Bible speak. Social location matters in our interpretation, and if we are not careful, our social location can cloud the Truth the gospel reveals. In one of my favorite quotes from the book, McCaulley writes,

The question isn't always which account of Christianity uses the Bible. The question is which does justice to as much of the biblical witness as possible. There are uses of Scripture that utter a false testimony about God. This is what we see in Satan's use of Scripture in the wilderness. The problem isn't that the Scriptures that Satan quoted were untrue, but when made to do the work that he wanted them to do, they distorted the biblical witness. This is my claim about the slave master exegesis of the antebellum South. The slave master arrangement of biblical material bore false witness about God. This remains true of quotations of the Bible in our own day that challenge our commitment to the refugee, the poor, and the disinherited (p. 91).

It isn't that a Black reading of the Bible avoids having its own particular lens (nor is that reading monolithic). None of us can fully escape our lenses. However, the similarity of social locations between the African American community's history of enslavement and discrimination and the history of oppressed Israel offers a reading of Scripture - in particular an understanding of the liberating character of God - that resonates more truthfully to the transformative intent of God's Word than readings that are shaped from social locations of power (and the desire for that power to be retained).

Second, it helps us pay attention to the potentially transformative nature of the Bible both historically and in the present. One of the things that has happened, in part because the Bible has too often been used in the hands of authorities to fight for maintaining the status quo, is that the Scripture is often viewed in the culture as a continuing source of oppression. Tragically (and ironically), the same Bible that is and was the primary source leading to not only the abolition of slavery but the elevation of the dignity of all people, is also the source often used by others to justify slavery and it inhumane atrocities. That has led to a cultural moment where not only the Bible but Christianity is often viewed not as a source of life and liberation for people, but rather as part of the oppressive problem that needs to be overthrown.

As McCaulley acknowledges early in the book, this tension over the Bible itself often put him in an awkward and unfortunate position, as a young Black scholar, of having to choose between progressives working for justice while essentially setting aside the authority of the Bible, and those on the other side who held to the authority of the Bible but also used it as a way of maintaining forms of inequity. As he put it, "In my professor's attempt to take the Bible away from the fundamentalists, he also robbed the Black Christian of the rock on which they stood" (p. 8). What McCaulley and a Black hermeneutic rightly offers the church is a way of taking the authority of the Word (and the nature of the God we meet there) seriously, and allowing the Bible itself to be the source of the work of justice and liberation. This is a perspective the whole church desperately needs.

 

The 3 Challenges (Besides Keeping Their Job) Every Pastor Faces in the Next 9 Months

With the event previously known as the Iowa Caucus having taken place this last week, the US presidential election season is officially upon us. I think this is my fifth such cycle to live through as a lead pastor, and each time I am just happy to still have my job - and the majority of the congregation still speaking to one another - at the end of it.

As we get started on this nine month gauntlet of congregational danger, I decided to reflect on three reasons this is such a potentially challenging time for pastors. Here they are:

First, the church is political. Some will survive the next few months by assuming that the church is "spiritual" and not political. In fact, many lay-people will encourage pastors to stick to the spiritual and ignore the political. This view, that the spiritual and the political can be bifurcated from one another, has many similarities to the Gnostic heresy that posed such problems for the early church. Gnosticism essentially taught that the spirit (or soul) and not the body mattered. The early church opposed this view passionately. It is part of the reason the birth and death of Christ, as well as the resurrection of the body, were included in the creeds. The gospel is not a set of instructions about how to transcend the physical, it is the proclamation that God became flesh in order to redeem every aspect of the material created world, including its systems and structures. Jesus was not crucified for being a misunderstood spirit guide, he was killed for offering a politic (a "kingdom" way of living with both the neighbor and the enemy) that ran counter to the principalities and powers.

The weekly proclamation of the church that "Christ is Lord" is profoundly political (subversively so). Therefore, the first challenge of the next nine months is that the church can't help being political in its preaching. It just happens to embody a politic that the world cannot comprehend, nor embody, on its own terms. Which leads to the second problem. 

Second, the church is prophetic. Because the church embodies a largely foreign politic, as it enters the world it finds that there are places it fits and places where it doesn't. Especially in America's two-party system, it finds things in both parties to celebrate and affirm and also things it must prophetically reject. The church cares for the life of the unborn, but it also cares for peacemaking and reconciliation with enemies. The church is called to protect the vulnerable, but also called to welcome the stranger.

I find this to be where much of the danger lies for pastors. Eventually, people must cast a vote one direction or another. And they will always do so imperfectly. Christians cast votes knowing that they have had to choose some core faith values and likely overlook other significant kingdom values in the process. For this reason, personally, I never fault a believer for choosing to vote one direction or the other.

However, the church must not shy away from being willing to speak prophetically to even those parties or candidates it supports. I think it is very dangerous when any critique of one side or any affirmation of another side is heard as some kind of betrayal and lashed out against. Nathan has to be willing to say, even to the divinely anointed David, "You are the man!" or God's people fail to be uniquely holy. Blindly justifying immoral behavior or overlooking unjust policies of any leader can become a kind of idolatry. The church can and should be gracious. Judgment begins with the house of God, but its prophetic voice does not stop at the boundaries of the church property.

Third, the church is transformational and contextual. Perhaps the biggest challenge is not the tensions that the next nine months of politics creates, but the way it shifts much of our energy and focus away from our immediate context and those in need within it. The political world today has become a form of "reality" television. Once news programs started selling advertising and having 24-hour broadcasts, the focus became less on informing the public and more on keeping our attention. Unfortunately, the best way to keep our attention is to scare us and keep us angry.

Personally, I have felt convicted this week at the amount of time and energy the national political drama has taken up in my mind and spirit. It is not that the decisions before the public are unimportant. Public policy and the symbolic representation of our collective leadership do have profound effects on our life together. However, the vast majority of the transformational work of the church in the Spirit will be done within the local context where God has planted it. I must confess I know more right now about the machinations of the Senate trial than I know about my neighbors. That is not healthy for me or for the church's mission.

Voting in November is very important and it has important repercussions. However, casting a vote for the right candidate is not even a fraction of the church's political and transformational mission in the world. And so we must constantly work to keep it within a divine perspective.

Blessings on my fellow sisters and brothers in Christian pulpits over the next nine months. Preach the kingdom, be graciously prophetic, and seek the welfare of the broken at your gates.

The Challenge of the Americanist Heresy - Reflections After Reading Between Babel and Beast: America and Empires in Biblical Perspective by Peter Leithart

Twenty-five years ago, I heard Walter Brueggemann say that he believes the Scripture tells one story, it just repeats that story over
and over again. The singular biblical story is this: God is calling a people out from the world to live in relationship to him and be a reflection of his nature and character in the world (to be the imago Dei), the problem is that they also live in an “Empire” which is trying to form and mark them in its own image. According to Brueggemann, empires can go by a lot of different names (Egypt, Canaan, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Rome, etc...) but they always embody an idolatrous counter-story to the reign of God and the eternal kingdom he invites the faithful to enter.

I have shared this idea regarding the kingdom v. empire often in sermons and lectures. I think most Christians would agree that this is a very important theme in the bible. The question that is difficult to deal with in our context is the next logical one: is America an empire in the biblical sense? And if it is, what kind of empire is it? Is it a good one or a bad one? Is it the kind of empire that helps people live as reflections of the Lamb or is it a beast that wants to mark us in its image?

Peter Leithart is my new jam. I recently finished reading his book Between Babel and Beast: America and Empires in Biblical Perspective. In it, Leithart does an amazing job of surveying the theme of empires in the Scripture and thinking about their purpose. Some empires in the bible are used by God and others are judged by the Lord (most are both). Some empires operate in ways that God honors and blesses, while others are beasts that are destined for destruction. God’s people encounter some empires (namely Babylon) that are not beastly and oppressive, but they are alluring and seductive “whores” slowly absorbing the faithful into their life and values. All empires are the children of Babel and operate in ways similar to the Genesis 11 city that caused the nations to fracture. All empires, like Babel, are tempted to make for themselves a great name by self-sufficiently building a tower to supposed transcendence. Every empire is bluffed into believing (and thus convincing their people to also believe) that they are eternal.

Again, the question is, where does America fit among these descriptions of empires? In this book, Leithart argues that, although the United States is one of history’s great nations, our unique history, success and global impact have seduced us into believing we are something more – God’s New Israel, the new order of the ages, the last best hope for humankind, a redeemer nation. The problem for Leithart is not patriotism or a love for America by its citizens, but a placing in the nation a hope reserved only for the kingdom of God. When the two (the nation and the kingdom) get confused or blended, as they often do, Leithart believes Christians have moved from faithfulness to the gospel to a form of heresy he calls “Americanism.” This is a problem the church must take seriously, and one it must call people to leave behind. As Leithart writes,

Against this American mythology, I contend that “American faith,” though unthinkable without the heritage of Christendom, represents a heretical departure from the political heritage of the church. American Christians need to assess our past accurately if we are going to act faithfully in the present. Until American churches actually function as outposts of Jesus’ heavenly empire rather than as cheerleaders for America – until the churches produce martyrs rather than patriots – the political witness of Christians will continue to be diluted and co-opted. xi

There is so much to wrestle with in Leithart’s book. But here are three reflections:

First, God has given an important role to authorities (like nations and empires) and has given important roles to his people living within those principalities and powers.

Authority is ordained by God. It is good that children have parents, churches have pastors, students have teachers, cities have mayors, states have governors, and nations have leaders. Order is a good thing. Chaos (tohuand bohu) is not the way things are supposed to be.

But I would argue that, although authority and order itself is ordained by God, not all authorities and keepers of order have been chosen by God or act in ways consistent with the way God intends those placed in such positions should act. (See my blog on how to read Romans 13 Blog). I believe that, from a biblical perspective, empires or nations (and those placed in any position of authority) are to act in ways that bring life, security, blessing, nurture, protection, and freedoms to those under their care. Principalities and powers act most like the God who has granted to them dominion when they lead in the servant-hearted way modeled by Jesus. God raises up empires and nations to serve, not to be served, and to orient their existence for the well-being of as many as possible.

In this sense there is much in American history and even in the American imagination worth honoring and venerating. I do think it is in this sense of proper acting authority that we can rightly think of America as a “Christian nation.” In its commitment to the rights, freedoms, and dignity of individuals it operates in ways that God wants authorities to act. And it is in these aspects of America that we rightly recognize (and honor) the fingerprints of the Christian faith in its founding.

And I agree with Leithart that Christian people should be encouraged to serve in all kinds of roles of leadership within and for the nation. He writes, “Yahweh scattered citizens of His empire among the nations for a reason, not just to teach Israel a lesson but to begin forming a martyr-people whose faithful resistance would remake Gentile empire” (p. 22). In the words of Jeremiah, God’s people should “work for the welfare of Babylon.”

Because I speak so often about the ways I am convinced the gospel – and the cross in particular – invite disciples of Jesus to live non-violently, I am frequently asked if I think Christians can or should serve in the military, in the police force, or in government roles that command both. My answer is always, “Yes… but prayerfully and carefully.” I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who willingly give their lives to protect the vulnerable and oppressed. As a professor of mine used to say, there was something godly happening when the fences of concentration camps were taken down and the allied forces released those suffering and dying from such evil oppression. There is something deeply divine when the onslaught of evil is checked and subdued by properly acting authority.

Just last week a military chaplain asked me what kind of prayer he could pray with troops as they prepared for battle. I suggested that he might pray something like the following prayer: “Almighty God, we lament our inability to make peace without making war. We pray today that you would guide us as we attempt to re-establish peace. We not only pray for our physical protection but also that you would protect us from abusing the incredible power you have placed in our hands. We pray that you would help us limit the destruction to what is necessary for the goal of peace and that whatever we are called to do today or in the future brings us closer to a permanent peace and does not continue the cycles of violence that have plagued the world for too long. Amen.”

The chaplain thanked me and thought that was a very Christian way to pray. However, he wasn’t sure he could use it, because he was very uncertain about how that prayer would be received. Which leads to my next reflection…

It is very difficult to break free from the “Americanist heresy.” It is woven deeply into fiber of who we are as a nation. (It is particularly woven deep into we evangelical types).

My sense is the reason my new chaplain friend really liked but wasn’t sure he could use my suggested prayer was because it makes peace and not triumph the goal. My suggested prayer also raises subtle questions about the redemptive nature of violence, and it raises the possibility that God’s purposes and our national purposes may not always be aligned. For Leithart, most of us aren’t heretics because we are bad people. We have come by our Americanist heresy quite naturally. Here’s how Leithart describes it,

[The phrase God’s American Israel] was a fundamental paradigm to help early American settlers understand their role in God’s history. The Puritans who settled Massachusetts Bay Colony believed that God had providentially guided them to the new land and that He had great intentions for them. The parallels with Israel’s history were too numerous and too precise to be accidental. They had faced persecution and oppression of various sorts in Europe, now characterized as an old Egypt. The Lord had led them across a dangerous and deadly sea… America was an uninhabited and uncivilized wasteland, the desert of Israel’s testing… Alternatively, the new world was new Canaan, not a land of cities and cultivated vineyards, but a raw natural world that lay before the colonists for their conquest and dominion. Of course, this placed the Indians in the unfortunate and unenviable position of latter-day Canaanites… The American colonists were a chosen people who had relived the history of God’s earlier chosen people. (p. 67)

This innate sense of American divine destiny also leads to a unique kind of Messianic complex in which American liberty is the hope for humankind. We believe that we are in some sense “saving” other nations if we are able to remake them in our image. “America is the already…the rest of the world is the not yet” (p. 75). In this way of thinking it is America (and not the church universal) that is the light to the nations.

With this belief woven deep within our bones it becomes very difficult to be objective (let alone prophetic) about how the nation sometimes operates. One of the most important but difficult chapters in the text is Leithart’s survey of many of the unjust actions America has committed in her history, and many of the ways we not only overlook but support some of the most beastly empires in the world (especially some who do commit atrocities against Christians) out of self-interest. The problem is not just that the nation has done and continues to do unjust things, it is that we have very little ability to name them as unjust and to repent of them. The Americanist heresy assures us that everything the nation does must be right because we are God’s nation. Through this lens, no matter how we act, we are always the global good guy. This is very problematic, and it keeps us from understanding why other nations often view us not as redeemers, but as oppressors. “Americanism distorts our self-image: If we see ourselves as God’s gift to the world, we will have a hard time acknowledging our blemishes” (p. 86).

The American church has to find practices that honor what is best about America when it acts in ways God desires authorities to act. But it must have practices that locate our primary identity and imagination within the kingdom of God.

Here is an especially troubling quote from Leithart, “…Americanism distorts even orthodox religious convictions because, in the absence of the metapolitics of Christendom, Americanism is the de facto political theology for most American Christians. American churches cannot critique and confront American power because promotion of Americanism is what American churches stand for. Individual Christians do not have the virtues necessary to function as citizens of God’s imperium because American churches have discipled them to function as citizens of the American imperium instead” (p. 111).

I find it hopeful these days that many in the Christian community are recognizing how deeply woven these two contrary forces are in many of our imaginations and in our practices of worship.

Again, as I speak and teach about these issues, I’m frequently asked about keeping the American flag in the sanctuary. My standard answer (especially to young pastors) is that having the flag in the sanctuary is not my favorite practice. But I would not remove it until the people know (a) how much you love them and (b) that you value many of the same virtues that flag represents for them. I saw a church recently that, rather than removing the American flag, displays prominently the flags of all the nationalities of the people who make up their church. I kind of like what that says. It proclaims that all of the nations are gathered today under the lordship of Jesus Christ.

But the practices go way beyond where to place flags or how the church celebrates and acknowledges various national holidays. It shows up in how we pray, the way we preach, the way we baptize, and the ways we gather around the Lord’s table. I often like to laugh about “we confusion.” The church has to constantly find ways to remember that the “we” that is gathered in Christian fellowship is not the nation but the holy, universal, and unified global church. However, remembering that takes lots of practice.

I had a church member ask me recently if I was trying to make people un-American. I responded with an emphatic "no." I love this nation. I pray that God will help it operate the way he desires nations to bring order in an often fragmented and violent world. I told him my goal was not to make him un-American but just a little less American and a lot more Christian.

Leithart says it a lot better than I can:

My main practical message is a simple one: Remember who you are, and to whom you belong. Remember that you belong to Jesus first and last; remember that the church, not America, is the body of Christ and the political hope of the future; remember that no matter how much it may have served the city of God, America is in itself part of the city of man; remember that the Eucharist is our sacrificial feast. It is good for Christians to be salted throughout our polity – in the White House and bureaucracies, in the military, in international institutions. But Christians in those positions are called to be salt. American churches have too long discipled Christians in Americanism, and that makes Christian involvement in the American polity far smoother than it ought to be. Churches must repent of our Americanism and begin to cultivate martyrs – believers who are martyrs in the original sense of “witness” and in the later sense of men and women ready to follow the Lamb all the way to an imperial cross. xiii

Amen.

An Ode to the Virtuous Layman

Today at Nampa College Church we held a memorial service for Gene Clark. Over the last two years, Gene has been a blessing in my life as a pastor. Each time I saw him at church, at home, or in the hospital, I was always greeted with a smile, with warmth, and usually with a reminder that I am his favorite pastor.

I struggled to find the right text to describe Gene and his love of God and his care for the church. And so I wrote something a bit theologically risky – perhaps even borderline heretical. I rewrote a well-known biblical text in Gene’s honor.

Historically, the church - although more often than not led by men - has found its day-to-day life sustained by the presence of its faithful women. Every church has a long list of saintly women who have been the lifeblood of every congregation. Pastors know that the second most important Sunday of the year - after Easter - is Mother’s Day. Father’s Day on the other hand… is not so important. People come to worship with their mothers. People skip church and go to the baseball game or go play 18 holes with their fathers.

Nevertheless, every great church I have been a part of or led has had at least one great layman – a man who is or was faithful, persistent, and steady. I promise you that every pastor can name that key layman who kept the church going before you arrived, supported the church while you were there, and kept the church moving after you left. The names of those men were always revered in my house: names like Paul Hill, John Wordsworth, Norm Hagen, Dave Peterson, Mike Bell, Rusty Williams, Phil Lindquist, Neil Rimington, Larry Rench, Chuck Young, Henry Yu… and now most recently Gene Clark.

So I’d like to take one of the great odes in Scripture – Proverbs 31 - and reframe it in Gene’s honor and in the honor of the great laymen I have known in my life. The great sage of biblical wisdom is correct; every husband desperately needs a virtuous wife. But I’m here to tell you: every pastor desperately needs a virtuous layman.

An Ode to a Virtuous Layman (Based on Proverbs 31)

A virtuous layman, how does one find him?

His value is far above pearls.

His worth is far above gold.

His pastor trusts him with all the church’s secrets.

In him the pastor has a spiritual wingman, a holy sidekick, a righteous partner-in-crime.

A virtuous layman fills a pastor’s ministry with many blessings and few headaches.

A virtuous layman always rounds up when they tithe.

He always shows up for church work-days.

He never forgets pastor appreciation month, and he cares for the pastor like they are part of his family.

He is the first to arrive on Sunday morning to make sure the lights and heat are on.

When the big snow comes, he shows up before dark with his gloves and his shovel.

You never have to worry about leaving him in charge of the resources;

His integrity, honesty, and stewardship are never questioned.

The virtuous layman is always thinking about the church’s wellbeing.

In board meetings he consistently brings the right balance of caution and faith.

He doesn’t always need to be heard, but when he speaks people listen because they know it will be with wisdom and courage.

He doesn’t expect others to do things he won’t do.

The virtuous layman offers his back and his sweat and not just his checkbook.

His heart is sensitive to God.

He says “amen” in the right places.

He’s not afraid to kneel at the altar.

He prays with authority.

The virtuous layman always keeps a good seat ready for the poor.

He is eager for the church’s resources to be extended out in mission.

He keeps a watchful eye on the church building. He maintains God’s house with the same care and concern he gives his own.

He has keys to every room in the church. He knows how to set up tables, turn on the lights, work the vacuum, and run the sound system.

He maintains a commercial license so he can drive the youth to camp.

The merchants in town honor and respect the virtuous layman.

They all know which church he belongs to; he invites his friends regularly.

The civic leaders respect him and wish there were more men like him in town.

The virtuous layman loves and nurtures his family.

His children think of the church as a second home.

They have heard him talk regularly about his love for God.

His grandchildren honor the legacy of faith he has given them.

His children are blessed by his faithfulness

His wife knows he is a person of integrity.

Although things aren’t always run the way he would like, the virtuous layman has a positive word to say about what’s happening at the church.

Even in troubling times, he refuses to be a source of division.

The church is full of all kinds of people,

But faithful laymen - like Gene Clark – you surpass them all!

Church hoppers are fleeting.

Senior pastors will come and go.

But a virtuous layman who fears the LORD is to be most highly praised.

Let him enter into his rest in Christ’s presence.

Let his deeds be honored in God’s courts.

May he hear from the Lord’s mouth: “Well done, my good and faithful servant.”

Merry Subversive Christmas

The Christmas story has never seemed so relevant to me… and so subversive.

Over the weekend people of faith will gather in churches and living rooms – around altars and evergreens – and read the Christ birth narrative from the second chapter of Luke. The story begins with these words: “In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered” (2:1).

I wonder in this year filled with the rhetoric of politics if the church will be able to hear and be disturbed anew by Luke the insurrectionist?

Luke’s story of Christmas is set up in chapter one by two highly revolutionary songs. Mary, the mother of Jesus, sings about how this one she carries not only will but already has, “brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty” (1:52-53). His relative Zechariah sings about how God has, “raised up a mighty savior for us in the house of his servant David” (1:69).

With these songs of rebellion still ringing in our ears, Luke begins by naming the days as those belonging to Emperor Augustus. Of course, Emperor (or Caesar) Augustus wasn’t his real name. His given name was Gaius Octavius. Caesar and Augustus are titles of honor and authority given to a great ruler who for forty-one years brought stability, prosperity, and peace to the empire. The adopted son of Julius Caesar, Augustus had become the model of leadership. From his time in glorious power on, all Roman emperors would live in the shadow of Augustus. The days of their reign would always be compared to the majestic “days of Emperor Augustus.”

These were such good days for the average Roman that they bestowed “god” status to Julius Caesar and conferred such titles to Octavius as August, son of a god, savior of the nation, lord of the world, and prince of peace.

As is the case with all empires, their glory days weren’t glorious for everyone. This empire had exiles, an underclass, people who existed at the margins – today we would call them refugees. The Jews of the first century were perceived by the empire as a problematic group of people who practiced an odd and sometimes violent religion. The Hebrew people’s strict monotheism made them appear to be quaint and anachronistic compared to the modern, progressive, and more intellectual forms of polytheism that had led the state to such heights of military power and economic prominence.

Of course the Jews themselves were not unified. Some wanted to tone down the more demanding edges of faith and find ways to thrive within the civil religion of the empire. Some wanted to find secure places in the desert – away from the paganism of the urban centers – in hopes of being left alone to practice holiness in isolation. Some lived openly pious lives – dressing oddly, praying publically, demanding their religious liberty – expecting that God would see their faithfulness and undo the power of Rome. Others took their zealousness to extremes and used any measures and methods available to create terror for the empire.

When empires don't understand a people they tend to paint them with a broad brush and simply deal with them generically. Usually the best way for an empire to handle religiously odd refugees is to make decrees and laws that register them, destabilize them (keep them moving), control their population growth, violently make an example of zealous rebels, and reap whatever benefits you can from them through labor and taxation.

It is into this marginalized camp of refugees that a child is born. It is to this distrusted conglomeration of religious misfits that a Son is given.

Don’t miss all the seeds of insurrection in Luke’s story: a miraculous birth, messengers brining divine validation, politically stirred up peasants (shepherds), and all kinds of seditious language – a savior, a messiah, a Lord, the world’s true instrument of peace.

For Luke, in Bethlehem a cosmic battle has begun. Unlike Matthew, who makes the birth narrative of Jesus a fight for kingship and lordship among the Jews with Herod as the antagonist, Luke places the significance of the Christ child in the context of “all the world” and makes the antagonist not just a regional governor but he pits king Jesus against the greatest emperor in the history of the civilized world.

Of course, Luke’s Gospel will not only undermine allegiance to the empire, but as the story goes on, Jesus will also subvert the subverters.

Jesus will never shy away from the language of “kingdom.” It is a mistake to say the gospel is not political. Augustus cannot be the emperor of our bodies and Jesus the king of our soul. The world and our lives within it (body, soul, and spirit) can have only one true ruler.

But the way of Christ’s kingdom is unfamiliar and peculiar. Augustus redeems through conquest. Jesus redeems through sacrifice. Augustus enacts swift retribution on Rome’s enemies. Jesus invites disciples to love their enemies and pray for their persecutors. Augustus remakes the world through power. Christ brings a new creation through love. Augustus makes peace through the threat of the sword. Jesus brings through embrace of the cross.

This is hard news for refugees and exiles to hear. Not just hard but perhaps even unfair. After watching a special report on the indiscriminate bombings taking place in Aleppo and the intentional targeting of civil relief workers who come in to try and find those trapped in the remaining rubble, I found myself physically sick and emotionally enraged. I even found myself partially sympathetic to the young Turkish assassin who killed the Russian ambassador in an act of futile revenge for the thousands of children who have died in the devastated Syrian city. Overcoming evil with good is not in our nature. It is something that only the Spirit of God can empower a people to do. As Luke will go on to tell the story, it requires a people to make their hero Stephen and not Samson.

My fear for those like myself, who are more closely connected to the empire than to its refugees, is not that the subversive message of Christmas is difficult or hard to hear, but that it is impossible to hear. It’s not that we who dwell in places of relative privilege don’t want to hear it. It’s that we simply are unable to hear it.

I fear that my imagination has been so immersed in and shaped by words like “bigly” that I don't know how to imagine a savior who emerges from Bethlehem. The subversiveness of Christmas is hard to grasp when you live in a nation led by millionaires and billionaires on both the left and right (not because they take power but because they are given power – which by the way says more about us than it does about them).

There is for me, however, a slight glimmer of hope.

Most scholars date the writing of Luke between 80 and 90 CE (some as early as 60-65). If that is the case, then the original readers no longer had Augustus as their emperor. The readers at the end of the first century had not experienced the glory days of Augustus. Instead they had lived through the reigns of such legends of insanity as Caligula (37-41 CE) and Nero (54-68 CE); and they were now living in fear of the narcissistic persecuting zeal of either Titus (79-81 CE) or Domitian (81-96 CE). In other words, whatever hopes the first readers of Luke had placed in the emperor as a global savior and prince of eternal peace certainly had to be severely cracked if not utterly destroyed by then.

Maybe in a strange way at the close of 2016 that’s our hope also. Perhaps at the end of this year of divisive politics and ugly political rhetoric, even those of us who have been more formed by empire than by marginalization are exhausted and ready to place our hopes in an unexpected Lord with a revolutionary political agenda. Perhaps we are so worn-out from the inability of war to bring peace that we might be ready to embrace the cross. Perhaps we are so burned out from the divisiveness of Babel that we are ready to pursue the unity of Pentecost.

I am not optimistic. But I am a prisoner of hope.

As we prepare to gather around altars and evergreens, may the Spirit of God break through our holiday trivialities and give us the ability to hear anew the familiar revolutionary birth story that overturns us all.

Merry subversive Christmas!

Before You Quote Romans 13 One More Time…

Several people, during this tumultuous week, have asked me how they should read and understand Romans 13. I have been glad that they asked because in just these handful of days I’ve heard Paul’s instructions on obedience to civil authorities misused three or four times. So how should Christians read and understand these words from the 13^th chapter of Romans?

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good…

It seems to me that there are two or three things that Christians ought to clearly affirm from this text.

First, God ordains authority. My favorite two Hebrew words are tohu and bohu. They are those two twin words found in Genesis chapter one that are often translated “formless” and “void.” (In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was tohu and bohu). However, they can also be thought of as the embodiment of chaos. In the Hebrew imagination God has from the beginning been opposed to the forces of chaos. Order is always preferable to anarchy.

For that reason, the existence of positions of authority (including civil authority) is a very good thing. From a biblical perspective it is good that children have parents, students have teachers, churches have pastors, cities have magistrates, nations have kings… etc.

Second, God can bring about his purposes through leaders of various kinds – whether or not they worship or honor him. It is true that the Scripture often interprets God’s working his will through sometimes unwitting vessels. The most significant example is the way the people of God interpreted Babylon’s Nebuchadnezzar as an instrument of God in reforming Judah through the experience of exile. Without question the Scripture often interprets the painful experience of living under the bumbling, arrogant, and idolatrous king Nebuchadnezzar as something God redeemed for the sake of his mission through is people. So just because a leader isn’t expressly Christian doesn’t mean that God can’t be using he or she for his purposes.

Third, Paul’s discussion throughout Romans regarding freedom in Christ from the “law” does not mean that Christians are exempt from the civil law. It would be easy to imagine folk hearing “freedom from the law” and thinking that means all law. Paul wants to be clear that although Christ has set believers free… it might be a good idea to keep paying your taxes.

That being said, the popular interpretation of Romans 13 as somehow commanding Christians to follow the civil authorities as though directly obeying God or exempting Christians from the possibility of civil disobedience and resistance against evil authorities lacks historical and exegetical support. Here are a handful of things to think about when preaching or teaching Romans 13.

First, there are a couple of contexts to consider – cultural and biblical.

Paul’s cultural context was one of constant political resistance and rebellion. It is clear that many of the early Jewish followers of Jesus had started out as zealots. These were people more than willing to commit violence against the civil authorities in an attempt to secure political freedom. Of course, the problem is eventually the Romans tired of the rebels and would stomp out the rebellion as happened with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. So Romans 13 could and probably should be read in part as Paul saying to the potential Christian extremists of his day, “Stop creating unnecessary trouble for us with the authorities. It is damaging to the church’s reputation and relationship with them and it is getting people killed needlessly.”

Which leads me to the Scriptural context. I have often considered it unfortunate that a chapter break was placed between the end of chapter 12 and the beginning of chapter 13. Here is the end of Romans 12:

Love should be shown without pretending. Hate evil, and hold on to what is good… Bless people who harass you – bless and don’t curse them… Don’t pay back anyone for their evil actions with evil actions, but show respect for what everyone else believes is good. If possible, to the best of your ability, live at peace with all people. Don’t try to get revenge for yourselves, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath. It is written, Revenge belongs to me; I will pay it back says the Lord. Instead if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink. By doing this, you will pile burning coals of fire upon his head. Don’t be defeated by evil, but defeat evil with good. Let every person be subject…

It seems clear to me that Paul’s words about obedience to civil authority are set in the context of moving away from violence as the means through which not only resistance but transformation happens. It doesn’t exclude resistance to authority but it redefines what resistance looks like in the light of the cross.

Second, it seems clear in the broader witness of the Scripture and to some degree even in Romans 13 that a distinction needs to be made between God’s establishment of authority and God’s ordaining of particular authorities. Because God has established the role of authority it is critical that particular leaders or authorities themselves operate in ways that reflect God’s life-giving care or it is right that they are resisted.

Think of all the examples in the bible (beginning with Pharaoh in Exodus and ending with “the Beast” in Revelation) of God’s people recognizing that their primary call is to obey God rather than a particular ruler. Don’t forget, the same apostle who wrote Romans 13 spent an awful lot of time in prison for resisting and disobeying the authorities.

When particular people who become rulers or authorities act in ways that God has ordained authority to operate then they rightly should be honored and obeyed. But when those same rulers cease to use their God-granted authority for his creation ordering purposes it is not only okay to call them to repentance but they should be disobeyed because the believer’s highest obedience is to God and not to any person. Romans 13 should always be read in the light of Revelation 13 - sometimes powers become beastly.

Third, Christians should be careful to distinguish when the bible is dealing with leaders inside God’s people and those on the outside. This is a challenging hermeneutical point, but there is often a difference between the way the Scripture imagines God’s interaction with Israel’s kings on the one hand and his dealings with the rulers of “the nations” on the other. It’s not that God pays no attention to the rulers of other nations, but the majority of the Scripture thinks about the unique responsibilities of those who lead and represent God’s people.

In the light of my last blog on God’s action and human freedom, I’ve had lots of people quoting passages from the Old Testament to me about God raising up and taking down kings. Thanks for all the proof-texts, but I would argue two things about those passages. On the one hand, those texts are primarily warnings to the leaders of God’s people that they had better align their purposes with God’s purposes because they are accountable to him. Those texts are the biblical equivalent of the old comedy line about parenting: “I brought you into this world and I can take you out…” God is saying, “I gave you this authority. I can take it away.”

On the other hand, those texts are specifically directed to the leaders of God’s people. Today I would be much more apt to read them and apply them to God’s interaction with the leaders of the global Body of Christ than with the leaders of any other particular secular nation. There is a lot of what I call “we confusion” in the use of the Scripture. When the kings of Israel are addressed the “we” is God’s people – which today aligns with the “we” of the church and not with the “we” of America. Getting the right “we” may change the way some of those texts are preached and taught.

Finally, Christian history does not support a simplistic reading of Romans 13. Significant theological voices including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and Bonhoeffer have read and interpreted Paul’s instructions about obeying civil authorities with important interpretive caveats. They each recognized that, in the wrong hands, Romans 13 could be used to validate oppression and sanctify evil. The German Church unfortunately misused Romans 13 in ways that Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church had to correct.

Many of the people in the last few days who have tried to offer me a simplistic and de-contextualized reading of Romans 13 are from more Reformed Christian traditions where a great deal of theological weight is placed on God’s sovereignty. For that reason I would offer John Calvin’s interpretation of Romans 13. Calvin concluded his commentary on Paul’s great passage this way:

But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of rulers, we must always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their scepters must bow. And, indeed, how preposterous were it, in pleasing men, to incur the offense of Him for whose sake you obey men!

The Lord, therefore, is king of kings. When He opens His sacred mouth, He alone is to be heard, instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command anything against Him let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates – a dignity to which no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God.

It would appear to me that some of my Calvinist friends are more Calvinist than Calvin.

I’ll conclude with this final thought. Because I have heard Romans 13 quoted so frequently these last few days I would ask those who are quoting it to examine their motives. I could be wrong, but it is my sense that many Christians are running to that text today as a way of validating their own political position. Again, my memory could be faulty, but I don’t remember a whole lot of American evangelicals offering devotionals and sermons from Romans 13 in 2008 or 2012. (Few of the people whom I’ve heard use the text lately would be willing to admit that their use of the text invalidates the legitimacy of the American Revolution).

When the Scripture is proof-texted to fit our own agenda then it’s not God’s voice we are trying to hear but it is our own voice that we are making divine.

In the days to come all Christians in America (and elsewhere) will continue to have to wrestle with the honor due to the authority that God ordains for the sake of order and peace. But that does not exempt Christians from reminding those authorities that they are servants of the one who has granted all authority. And it does not exempt believers from the commitment to obey God rather than any person.

Proclaiming “Christ is Lord” is NOT Declaring “God is in Control”

As a pastor I am keenly aware that what I think I preach is not always what the congregations hears. I’m sure the Spirit of God has at times used this for good. But I have been uttering a phrase a lot lately that I want to make sure is being heard rightly.

Several times in the months leading up the presidential election – and dozens of times in the last two days since – I have found myself saying, “No matter what the results of America’s presidential election. The Church proclaims that Christ is Lord.” Usually that declaration is met with a resounding “amen” or even applause. When friends post that affirmation on social media it is rightly given dozens of “likes” - which I suppose is a cyber-amen.

However, I have also noticed in the wake of Tuesday’s stunning election results lots of Christian friends posting or stating publically various versions of the phrase, “God is in control.” I would like to be clear that declaring, “Christ is Lord” is not the same thing as proclaiming, “God is in control.” (At least it isn’t what I intend to say).

I would even be so bold as to argue that saying, “God is in control” is not only bad theology but it is a morally dangerous thing for the Church to believe.

I think it is bad theology because it fails to acknowledge the gift and responsibility God has granted to humankind by giving them freewill. Most Christians rightly believe that God has given to all people freewill. That creational gift from God is not only the reason people can and often do act in all kinds of evil ways (and are thus held accountable), but it is also the only way people can truly love God and one another.

But more than being theologically questionable, I think it is a morally dangerous thing to believe. Those Christians in the evangelical community who decided to vote for Donald Trump and help him take up residence in the White House have permission to take credit if over the next four years choosing a former casino owner for a president turns out to be an unusually prescient act inspired by divine wisdom. But if frequently – or even only occasionally – that decision turns out to be a moral and national disaster, those same people don’t have the freedom to throw up their hands and say, “Well, God’s in control.”

I hate it when people throw Hitler into a conversation… But having recently read a history of the German church entitled Arian Jesus, I am reminded that it was that same kind of bad theological rhetoric of God’s deterministic sovereignty that aided otherwise godly people to not only fail to stand up to the Reich’s atrocities but too often to also validate them.

On a side note: I also find the “God is in control” rhetoric really offensive politically and spiritually – no matter which political perspective uses it. One prominent evangelical leader, who over the last several months has been encouraging Christians to support Trump, has been frequently quoted over the last two days declaring things like, “Remember… According to Daniel chapter 2, God chooses the leader.” I don't have space to unpack all that is hermeneutically wrong with that statement, (although it makes me laugh to think of Trump as the new Nebuchadnezzar) but even so, I do find it unbelievably offensive. Because what this person is really saying is, “Hey, you Christians out there who think this was a bad decision… Get over it… Get in line… God has chosen Trump.” (I would by the way be saying the same things to people who would be using the same language to celebrate if Hillary Clinton had won and wanted all the disappointed folk on the right to get with the program).

First of all, it is still really bad theology. But second of all, that same Christian leader has said quite contrary things for the last eight years. For two presidential terms that same pastor has gotten angry at and has encouraged their congregation to resist those on the other side politically who were saying, “God chose Obama.” Apparently, when my team wins God is in control. However, when my team loses, it is due to the wiles of the evil one and all of the world’s principalities and powers.

“God is in control” has the potential to be a theologically manipulative thing people whose party, cause, or perspective happens to be “winning” in the moment say to the disgruntled to try and get them in line. Or it is what believers say when they are unwilling to take responsibility for their part in bad decisions and want to absolve themselves of any negative consequences.

That’s why the church should declare instead: Christ is Lord!

Proclaiming Christ Lord is very different than saying he controlling all the events happening in the world. Here are some of things the Church means when she declares the continued Lordship of Christ:

• No matter what good or bad decisions leaders or nations make, the Church believes that Christ will not stop working until all creation has been redeemed. (For my friends Stephen and Todd: it is in this sense that we can say "God is in control." God will not quit until he has brought all things to his glorious conclusion. But that is different than saying, "God is controlling all things.")
• All earthly leaders have penultimate power and are subject to the judgment and authority of creation’s one true Lord.
• The global Body of Christ exists within many nations. Thus Christians have citizenship responsibilities and obligations wherever they may be located. But their ultimate allegiance has been pledged to Christ and to his kingdom.
• A nation and its leader may place a ban on refugees entering a country, but the Church will always welcome the stranger and believe hospitality is what divides the sheep nations from the goat nations (Matt 25).
• A nation and its leader may work to create various systems of health care and welfare, but the Church will always feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and bring healing to the wounded.
• A nation and its leader may declare war on opposing countries and forces, but the Church will always love enemies and work at overcoming evil with good.
• A nation and its leader may work at protecting and solidifying the somewhat historically arbitrary boundaries drawn between countries, but the Church will always live as though we are all one in Christ Jesus.
• A nation and its leader may legislate various practices pertaining to birth, death, and judgment, but the Church will always value and honor life in its beginning and in its end as a sacred gift. And it will view the goal of justice as reconciliation and not just retribution.

I could go on and on… But the point my is, to declare that Christ is Lord is not saying that God is in control of every decision – good or bad – that nations and their people make. That is (I believe) simply bad theology and morally dangerous because it has the potential to absolve each of us of our responsibility as people created in God’s image and given a divine mandate to have dominion.

To proclaim the Lordship of Christ means that no matter who lives in the White House or which political party controls the Congress, the Church’s allegiance, worship, and obedience belongs to the One seated on the throne and to the Lamb.

Why the Last Week of December is Destroying the Church

As a pastor, I hate the pressure associated with year-end giving.

These last few Sundays of the calendar year are like the climactic ending of a mystery novel for pastors. No one knows what’s going to happen next. Every pastor (including me) will know at the end of the next three days whether or not the ministries of their church can continue as normal (or expand) as they had hoped and prayed; or if they are going to have a very challenging board meeting in January and have to start cutting personnel and programming.

I am pastoring a church that is in the midst of sweeping generational and cultural changes. The changes are exciting and nearly killing me at the same time. At PazNaz we are constantly talking about being intergenerational and multi-cultural. For decades First Church has worked hard at being a place where people of different economic standing discover that they are brother and sister. And I think this flagship Nazarene church is learning to love its denominational connection and heritage without making that identity an impediment to people seeking first the kingdom of God.

I also think the church is in the midst of sweeping theological change. In particular, I hope our ecclesiology is changing. I hope that people at PazNaz are beginning to not think of the church as some place that they go but as something that they are.

But this is why year-end giving is killing the church. Let me try to explain…

There are lots of books that have come out over the last few years trying to help pastors and churches deal with the “new normal” of giving. One of the most popular and helpful is Not Your Parents’ Offering Plate: A New Vision for Financial Stewardship by J. Clif Christopher.

Christopher is a former pastor who has now set up a ministry to help churches with fund raising and stewardship. His book is very helpful and I have been given copies of it at several pastor’s meetings.

Like every book of this nature I have read, Christopher quickly addresses the challenge and change that every pastor is experiencing:

In 2006, for the first time in recorded history, gifts to religion fell below 33 percent of charitable giving. Just twenty years ago, gifts to religion amounted to nearly 60 percent of all charitable giving. Not so any longer. Every year, religion continues to get a smaller piece of the charitable pie because church leaders simply do not know how to compete for the charitable dollar.

Christopher is absolutely right. More and more great and worthy organizations are competing for the charitable giving of parishioners and while those agencies and organizations have “stepped up their game” in getting those dollars, the church has lagged behind. He rightly and helpfully suggests that pastors and churches begin to operate differently. Here are some of his suggestions:

• Invite the executive director of one of your community’s first-rate nonprofits to come by and talk about your stewardship committee about how they do fund-raising and how they relate to donors.
• Recognize that donors are different and give and different levels… So send different messages to different levels of givers.
• Spend more time with major donors.
• Think like a college president or the director of advancement for a Christian university: promote the mission, plan for estate giving, and craft compelling capital campaigns.
• Preach directly on money at least four times a year.
• Pay close attention to the giving records and write personal notes of gratitude to faithful givers.

At the bottom-line, his argument can be summed up this way:

• Giving patterns have (and are continuing) to change radically for people in the church.
• People are giving to organizations that match their own missional and transformational concerns and interests.
• The church had better learn quickly from those organizations and copy their practices (and hopefully do them even better) or they will find themselves without any financial support.

Again, I think Christopher on so many levels is really correct and resisting his advice may be like howling at the moon. There are many things that churches need to learn from these kinds of books – especially about expressing gratitude to faithful supporters. I am sure he so absolutely right that if the church doesn’t figure out how to compete for the finances of the faithful that ministry will continue to suffer.

But I am also convinced that putting in the practices (even the “best practices”) of the most Christian, missional, and transformational non-profit organizations may destroy the church.

Here’s the problem: You are what you practice to be. If you spend the day dribbling and shooting a ball you will be a basketball player. If you run around kicking a ball into a goal you will become a soccer player. If you chase a little white ball around, hitting it with funny shaped sticks and trying to get it into a small round hole, you will be a golfer. And If the church starts practicing like it is another in a long list of non-profit organizations, it will become another in a long list of non-profit organizations.

The church is not another charitable organization; it is the Body of Christ.

The church is not just a 501(c)(3) devoted to a common social cause; it is a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation witnessing in its life together to God’s new creation.

The church is not some place we go; it is something that we are. 

Here is what I am convinced is true theologically:

• The church is not one more charitable organization but a distinct new creation people in the world.
• Giving for the Christian is a spiritual practice (a spiritual discipline) that is simply one expression (of many) of being part of that new creation people.
• Practicing giving as a discipline within the church helps to form the identity that we are the church. We give to the church as part of the church not because we have been persuaded that it is a good mission investment but because it expresses who we are and reflects that where our treasure is our heart is also.

I know that is idealistic. And I know fewer and fewer people think that way. But maybe they don’t think that way, in part, because the church stopped practicing that way. Perhaps we have become what we have practiced to become. 

So this is why I think the last week of December is destroying the church. It’s not that some people give much of their tithe at the end of the year. I know that the complexity of the economic life of some in the congregation makes year-end giving a necessary habit.

But our practices reflect what we believe. And our current practices - that include having to compete with all of the other great and worthy non-profit organizations for year-end dollars - make the church just one more non-profit organization. I know that as a pastor I will have to heed much of the advice of experts like Christopher (primarily because I feel the tremendous weight of keeping the pastoral staff employed). But I fear it could be part of the church’s undoing.

My Top 10 "Friend of the Show" Guests on the Last Episode of the Colbert Report

Last night was the last episode of The Colbert Report. I will admit to being a huge fan and diligent viewer of the show. Because Stephen played a caricature of a conservative pundit he could poke fun at - while at the same time exposing - the silliness and the "truthiness" of what today often passes for television "news". (I think Neil Postman would have adored Colbert).

I am a little bit sad that the show is over. If you caught the last episode you know that it ended with an ever increasing ensemble of guests joining Stephen, Jon Stewart and Randy Newman singing "We'll Meet Again." As Noah and I were watching the show, and more people were added to the song, we were pushing the pause button and  trying to name all of the celebrities we could while also laughing about their connection over the last nine years to Colbert.

Many who were in the studio for the last show are huge celebrity figures. But here are my ten favorite cameo guests from the last episode of The Report...

10. Trevor Potter: Colbert had an amazing ability to find powerful people and make them famous. Trevor Potter served as the show's attorney - in particular during the 2012 election cycle, Potter helped Colbert set up a 501(4)(c) SuperPac – called "Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow." Potter would make somewhat regular appearances to  describe all of the ways a SuperPac - and  Stephen's in particular - could operate to shape an election with little or no regulation.

A study done by Pew Research at the time revealed that regular viewers of Colbert were better educated about the campaign finance law and the implications of the "Citizens United" U.S. Supreme Court ruling (allowing the formation of SuperPacs) than the viewers of more traditional news outlets.

It was Colbert's ability to blur the lines between comedy and reality while at the same time educating and revealing the inner-workings of government (especially for my kids generation) that was genious.

9. Nate Silver - perhaps the world's most well-known statistician appeared on the show three times. Nate was launched into notoriety for predicting almost precisely the 2012 presidential election results. But what I love about his relationship to Colbert is (a) he illustrates the way the "Colbert Bump" could make household names out of nerds and (b) although Colbert's character lauded "truthiness" and trusting his gut over his head - the frequent appearance of nerdy intellectuals like Nate Silver demonstrates how much the show actually wrestled with facts.

8. Toby Keith - Colbert was amazing at pointing out the way faith and nationalism get merged into an often unholy relationship in America. He could especially point to the frequent siliness of the rhetoric involved in the "culture wars."  Every year he would rant about the "War on Christmas." But probably the most over-the-top moment was in the Colbert Christmas Special when Toby Keith - in the style of his famous Statue of Liberty shaking her fist after 9/11 song - sang about the War on Christmas. Here are some of the lyrics:

Oh say can you see this Christmas - Baby Jesus, 'tis of thee - I'm placing 50 shining stars atop - The Statue of LiberTree - Then I'll go and jingle the Liberty Bell - Host Old Glory with an elf - If you say I can't deck my halls - Then I'll deck you myself!

Well, there's a War on Christmas - It's under attack - But this year old St. Nicholas is taking it back - He's firing guns from his reindeer -Dropping bombs from his sled...

Like a song from a Christopher Guest "mockumentary" Keith's song about the war on Christmas is just bad enough to be ridiculous and yet just real enough to sound like some of your friend's Facebook posts. For most of us it was funny and cringe-worthy at the same time.

7. Emily Bazelon - another example of a very thoughtful, articulate, (real) journalist whose work was elevated because of the "Colbert Bump." One of the things that I will most about the Report is the way it introduced thoughtful people into important cultural dialogue. Cable news tends to invite people at the extremes of an issue to appear because that generates conflict and ratings. But rather than insight, the folks at the margins just create noise.

My fear is that on CBS Colbert's new show will mostly be another show that parades beautiful celebrities who are in promotion mode. It was the introduction to America of people like Emily (and others on this list) that will be an unfortunate consequence of the show being done.

6. Neil deGrasse Tyson - I apologize for being a broken record... but only Colbert could turn a pysicist and cosmologist into a star (pun intended). Dr. Tyson made eight appearances on the Report which made him the second most frequent "friend of the show." 

Atlhough Tyson is openly atheistic (he is sometimes described as an apathetic rather as an aggressive athiest), I loved to hear him come on to describe the complexity and beauty of the universe and to get to sit in while he and Colbert debated how the work of science relates to Colbert's Catholic faith.

5. Bryan Cranston - one of the most memorable Colbert moments was when the group Daft Punk was not allowed to appear on the show because they were making a later appearance on the MTV Awards. It was clear if you saw that particular episode that Colbert was not happy that his StePhest Colbchella '13 Song of the Summer was not going to happen.

Instead he put together a music video of the Daft Punk song with all kinds of people - including Henry Kissinger (who also made an appearance on the last show - he was my #11). But the highlight of the video was Stephen and Bryan Cranston roller disco dancing. It was the perfect contrast to Cranston's Walter White alter-ego and just a very funny moment.

4. Peter Jackson and Smaug - any Colbert fan knows that Stephen is perhaps the world's most formidable JRR Tolkein expert. His Lord of the Rings knowledge is so vast that Jackson gave him a cameo role in one of the Hobbit movies. On one of the last episodes Stephen had the dragon Smaug on as a guest.

I think this is one of the things that endeared nerds - like me - to Colbert. You had this sense that his quick wittedness largely came from the fact that he had spent much of his childhood and young adulthood as a literature geek. In recent months his battle with Amazon.com trying to protect new authors pointed to his love of literature. Even if his character on the show frequently talked about how much he didn't believe in books, you knew it was one aspect of the fake Stephen that was a polar opposite of the real Stephen.

3. Francis Collins - if you caught the final episode, Francis Collins was in one of the first groups to join the closing song. He was also one of the most passionate singers. He was really into it.

I find it funny that when I looked at many of the print and on-line lists of the final episode guests, Dr. Collins is left out of almost every one of them. I guess few people recognize the physicist who led the human genome project.

I not only love that Colbert would have a scientist like Collins on the show. But I appreciate that Colbert recognizes that Collins (also) is a person of devout Christian faith.

2. James Martin - if you know Colbert at all, you know he is Catholic. He regularly would talk about teaching Sunday School. He could quote the creeds - and often did - by memory. Perhaps the most popular moment in the nine year history of the Report was Stephen's tribute to his mother after she died. (Look it up on YouTube and good luck not crying). In his eulogy to his mother he referenced with adoration the way that she prayed for her children.

Often when faith issues came up he would have his friend and priest, Jim Martin, on the program. Father Martin is the author of The Jesuit Guide to (Almost) Everything. When he was on the show, rather than being defensive of faith he could smile and talk thoughtfully about the Pope, about social issues, about the changing nature of the church, and about the significance of Jesus.

1. Doris Kearns Goodwin - far and away my favorite guest was the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. You could tell that Stephen looked forward to talking with her about the significance of Lincoln or the Roosevelts. She is so cute and so sharp - she could always hold her own with Stephen. Frequently her name would come up in jokes or bits as a "love" or an "affair" reference that on the one hand would be hysterical in its oddness, but on the other hand would point to his genuine affection (and ours) for her.

We are used to seeing people like Dr. Kearns Goodwin make appearances on CSPAN and Meet the Press. It was wonderful and unusual to see genuinely thoughtful, delightful, and meaningful people pulled into the heart of everyday issues - even if it took a fake newsman to pull them into it.

I will miss the Colbert Report, but I will also miss the people it introduced into the American conversation. 

The Church, Pentecost, and Ferguson, Missouri

I have been watching the news and paying close attention to news reports and social media chatter since the announcement of the decision not to prosecute the officer involved in the shooting of Michael Brown sparked violent protests in Ferguson, Missouri and elsewhere.

Although there is much that is cloudy and chaotic in trying to interpret these kinds of violent tragedies, one thing seems fairly clear. As Robert Jones points out in an article in The Atlantic, the responses to the events in Ferguson fall across lines of race http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/self-segregation-why-its-hard-for-whites-to-understand-ferguson/378928/

I was praying early this morning about what my response, as a white evangelical Christian leader should be. My sense from the Spirit was that what is needed most - at least in the immediate - from most white Christians is not so much our mouth as our ears.

The segregation of the church in America has always been a source of sadness for me - and I am sure even more so for Jesus. I understand the history and the reasons why we are divided, but I am still a prisoner of hope that even this side of the eternal kingdom the Body of Christ can find ways of reflecting the unity in diversity that ought to be a primary mark of the Church and a witness to the new creation.

What I love about the Pentecost narrative in Acts 2 is that the multiple languages present in Jerusalem on that day were not eradicated but, by the power of the Spirit, the diverse people present that day understood each other and were baptized into one new and holy nation.

As I often like to point out to people, the real miracle of Pentecost is not that people spoke differently but that people heard differently. Peter preached a sermon and each heard it in their own language. The hope of Pentecost is that God's new creation people would hear and understand one another.

And so my encouragement to the Church this morning is that, especially where the racial issues surrounding Ferguson are involved, believers should be "quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger" (James 1:9).

This is not a call for Anglo church leadership to stay silent or fail to stand with our brothers and sisters of color in the Body of Christ. But my own sense today is that before I start talking I need to try and listen well to the sufferings, the fears, and the experiences of those in the Body whose experiences are so different than my own.