|
| 
A Feudal Existence Sleeping With the Enemy, Part I Recently my friend Jon, who is the pastor of a small house-church community that my wife and I are falling in love with, drove past an impressive, medieval-inspired stone structure. This beautiful building is adorned with vaulted ceilings, magnificent stained-glass windows, ramparts (that, for the moment were not gallantly streaming), and a sturdy, monolithic double door. Jon was with his four-year-old son, Lloyd, who was obviously overtaken with awe. Romantic visions of valiant knights in shining armor, apparently gleaned from night-time readings of fairy tales and repetitive viewing of the Lord of the Rings trilogy had left a lasting impression. Lloyd, with big wide eyes, turned to his father and exclaimed, “Look, Daddy!...a castle!...where are the dragons?” The reason I find this humorous is because Jon and Lloyd were not in Scotland, or France, or Austria, and they were not on European excursion touring great palaces constructed by prominent medieval kings and lords throughout what is left of Christendom. They were in downtown Saint Charles, Missouri, a suburban step-child of the burgeoning micro-metropolitan community that blesses the world with Anheuser-Busch and baseball’s Cardinals (locals feel free to insert timely Tony LaRussa joke here). So the question is begged, if it’s not a castle, then what is it? For those of us raised in and around what we in America call “traditional” faith communities, whether Catholic or Protestant, mainline or evangelical, the answer may be obvious. For Lloyd, whose family has chosen a more intimate community wherein they express their faith, our answer would seem very puzzling. Lloyd feels no pressure to call this building a “church”. The word church to him, means sharing a meal, hearing stories about how acts of love can change the world, and helping people in need. So, what is this building? Is it really just a castle? If so, what are we trying to keep out? Or keep in? Then there’s the question of dragons. | | |
| 
Winning By Losing
The Way of Jesus, Part IV “The things you own end up owning you…It’s only after you’ve lost everything that you’re free to do anything…Hitting bottom isn’t a weekend retreat…Only after disaster can we be resurrected..” -Tyler Durden Eventually, I plan to write an essay entitled, “The gospel according to Tyler;” for now, his words and example provide choice fodder for our current discussion. Here’s the scene: Tyler Durden, the Savior of the disillusioned, emasculated, blue-collar, post Gen-X male, has amassed a motley collection of disciples and followers in the basement of a dingy tavern. Tyler proceeds to disseminate an antiestablishment message over the crowd that bears a stark semblance to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, content which is familiar to most, if not all, New Testament writers (I call this scene “The Sermon in the Basement”). Lou, the tavern owner, crashes the party; Tyler attempts a civil discussion and gets punched. In textbook obedience to “turn the other cheek,” Tyler provokes Lou into beating him to a pulp, yelling, “That’s right, Lou, get it out!” In the heat of the beating, Tyler again tries to persuade Lou into letting them use the basement, only now, Tyler is bleeding all over Lou. At this point, Lou concedes, screaming “F-ing use the basement, Christ!” Tyler’s followers pick his mangled body off the floor. While being carried, Tyler’s limp pose is notably reminiscent of a crucifix. After catching his breath, Tyler instructs: “This week, each one of you has a homework assignment. You’re gonna go out, you’re gonna start a fight with a total stranger. You’re gonna start a fight, and you’re gonna lose.” (NOTE: This is the only moment in the movie where Tyler’s behavior can be described as ‘passive’, so the metaphor wears thin.) Pick a fight…and lose? Why? What good can possibly come of this? This approach to conflict resolution seems absolutely bogus, at least on the surface. So why did Jesus do it? Why did He provoke his enemies, on many occasions, to heated anger, and eventually, earn his own death sentence? Why did He walk this path? Why was this the way? Are we actually supposed to learn something from His example? Are we supposed to follow Him in this way? Is losing the path to victory? How? (Next entry The Practice of Devaluing) | | |
| 
Inverted Living
The Way of Jesus, Part III “You teachers of religious law, you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn him into twice the son of hell as you yourselves are.” -Rabbi Y’shua Maybe we’ve got it all wrong. Maybe something has been lost in translation. Maybe we’ve missed the point. Maybe it’s time to rethink…everything. C S Lewis once said that we’ve been standing on our heads so long that when Jesus comes on the scene, we think He’s the one who’s upside down. So if everything that we think we know is backwards, what kind of implications does this realization carry with it? Maybe it’s time to wipe the slate clean and start from the beginning. Maybe it’s time to be born again. So, up is down, and first is last, rich is poor, and death is life; comfort is dangerous and pain is our friend; fortune is illusion and faith is security; we see with our mind and hear with our heart; there is delusion in certainty and clarity in metaphor. Nothing is what it seems. Time and time again, Jesus eludes to the fact that the irreligious will “get it” before the experts in religion do. In fact, Jesus goes so far to say that the way these experts “do religion” is destined to perish, and that the treasures of God’s way have been reserved for the simple. Has the kingdom of God always been this way? Will it continue to be? Has it remained hidden and will it always be hidden from those who seek to “master” it? Perhaps less is truly more. Perhaps the less we can explain it – whatever “it” may be, Truth, “the kingdom,” enlightenment, etc. – the more we understand it. Perhaps in seeking to become an expert, we have become the enemy. We have been invited to walk in an inverted reality that turns cheeks and loves enemies. What does it mean to be last? What does it mean to be everyone’s slave? What does it mean to embrace my cross? (Next entry Winning By Losing) | | |
| 
The Message and the Method
The Way of Jesus, Part II
What good is it to gain the whole world and forfeit our soul?
The twentieth century saw greater advances in technology and communications than perhaps all previous centuries combined. One can hardly imagine a corner of the globe not yet touched, tapped into, or mapped out. As the worldwide Church continues to plot its global domination, thoughtful students of Jesus have to begin to wonder, “What does Jesus think?”, - or better still – “Who does Jesus love?”
In recent memory, the American “Jesus Movement” of the 1970s and beyond, properly stretched our ecclesiology to consider alternative liturgies and expressions of ceremonial worship, which in turn, has given us poor children of God something new to argue and divide over. Typically, battle lines are drawn by the practitioners of old tyme religion toward the exclusion and persecution of the heathen out-of-the-boxers, who plead their case by insisting that while the message stays intact, we have a myriad of methods at our disposal from which to relay said message.
The tragedy of either side of this point of contention is that it completely dismisses a larger reality, and ignores the way of Jesus almost entirely. More on this, momentarily.
…returning to the spreading of “the message.”
One might be tempted to compare our task of spreading the gospel to the advancement of a political regime acquiring more territory or a sports dynasty reigning supreme and proving its dominance. If the task feels like a war where there is an enemy to be vanquished, or a game where the most important thing is to win, participants might be encouraged to adopt any practice necessary to reach said goals – even things like exclusivism, hatred, execution, torture, terrorism, war – all of which have been employed in the name of God, and are equally unbecoming of his children.
If our discussion is reserved for the examination of message and method alone, if we are content to separate the two as if they operate independently, we are conveniently left with the option to dismiss their synergy in the way of Jesus: the messenger.
Consider the fact that we did not receive the words of the New Testament faxed into first century Palestine (as some might assume), but rather our gracious Father sent us something – or SomeOne – infinitely more precious. This idea of Incarnation, of Immanuel, of God-with-us, is the essence of the good news of Jesus. This idea of God’s Law, His Word, His Will, taking on flesh first in the person of Jesus, and then writing this law on the hearts of His people is scandalous, but careful students of the way of Jesus cannot afford to miss the example of our messenger.
…and as He was sent, so He is sending us, to be his witnesses, to demonstrate His Truth by our love, to be living epistles, to practice a faith and way of life that is selfless and humble, to be truly different.
To follow Jesus is to embody His essence, to be a mini-messiah (lit. Christian). To fully embrace the way of Jesus requires that the messenger be transformed into God’s own likeness and live redemptively among the wreckage.
(Next entry Inverted Living) | | |
| 
Whatever happened to Truth?
The Way of Jesus, Part I
With the inauguration of this new logo, being sported by U2’s Bono and spawning a clothing line, the message of religious tolerance has reached arguably never-before-seen levels of publicity, support, and disgust. A quick survey of articles and blogs reveals that we, as a culture, are quite divided as how to perceive the reception of this gospel of peace, as well as its newest preacher, the iconic Bono. (For those who would like a little more backstory, Google the word “CoeXisT”.)
I assume all of us want peace in the Middle East (or at least would like the ‘right’ people to be in charge), but is this, the creation of a logo that seemingly assimilates the best and worst of the Big Three, the best course of action? I mean, what goes forth as an apparent message of reconciliation could, in fact, inspire more division and hatred?
What should my response, as a believer in the Truth of Jesus, be toward leveling the doctrinal playing field?
Should I be enraged?
Should I be encouraged?
Should I be tolerant?
I must admit that I was a bit perplexed at first to discover not the creation of the logo, but to find Bono’s embrace of it. I found it strange that a man who so clearly has demonstrated one of the best living versions of Christianity in our time could be so cavalier as to bend the knee this far for the sake of relational harmony, world peace, popular opinion, etc. This action alone has moved some to begin using Bono’s other nickname, originally given to him at an early age by friends and family: antichrist. (Non-dispensationalists Google “Man of Peace” at this time).
Does it take the validation of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity as equal expressions of faith to achieve amnesty, unity, and harmony? If so, is it good? Does it make it right?
…or is there another law at work?
In an attempt to reconcile Bono’s possible motives and give him every benefit of the doubt as to what could have possibly possessed him to champion the cause of “CoeXisTence”, I engaged myself in the divine dialogue through prayer, study, and meditation. It didn’t take long for God to speak:
Don’t think of it doctrinally…
…think of it relationally.
Then it hit me. If militant Islam is willing to pick up the sword, and zealous Judaism is willing to pick up the sword, and popular Christianity is willing to pick up the sword, but the way of Jesus says, “Put your sword away!”, perhaps Bono is on to something.
Perhaps there is another way to be faithful to the Truth.
Perhaps there is a better way to be faithful to the Truth.
(Next entry The Message and the Method) | | |
|
