Giving away my Google+ invites

I’m giving away my Google+ invites to whoever wants them. Follow this link and you can get set up.

https://plus.google.com/i/Jw6rOpG9Wsw:LPI9BupG0hw

Who will you be?

Scene: Two people from the same religion but different walks of life are visited by an angel. In both situations, the angel tells the person that they will miraculously become parents. Both people ask similar questions regarding the miracle. One person is punished for the question; the other is not.

These are the circumstances surrounding the angelic visitations to Zechariah – the father of John the Baptist – and Mary – the mother of Jesus. Zechariah asks a question about how he will become a dad and is punished. Mary, however, asks a similar question and receives a very polite answer. On first glance, the different ways the angels respond to Zechariah and Mary seem unfair, maybe even cruel, but if we look a little closer we realize there is something going on under the surface.

Zechariah’s Encounter

Zechariah and his wife have never had children. They are old, and she is barren. Zechariah is a priest, and he and is wife are “both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statues of the Lord” (Luke 1:6, ESV). They are good, righteous Jews going about their lives and doing their jobs.

The angel who visits Zechariah comes as Zechariah is doing his job, performing his priestly duties inside the Temple. Zechariah is frightened (as most people are when they are visited by angels), but the angel says, “Do not be afraid Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son” (1:13). The angel then gives him some instructions on how to raise his kid and what to name him.

Then, Zechariah asks his question: “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years” (1:18).

Seems like a pretty harmless question. One that we would all probably be asking, right? The angel didn’t seem to think so.

The angel answers him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled int heir time” (1:19-20).

Ouch! Zechariah receives a stinging rebuke from Gabriel and is made mute until his son is born. Now let’s look at Mary’s visit from above.

Mary’s Encounter

Mary is about to be married to Joseph and minding her own business, probably day-dreaming about the life she will have with Joseph, when all of a sudden an angel appears to her and says, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you” (1:28)! Despite the friendly greeting, Mary is scared and the angel consols her: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High” (1:30-32).

Now Mary asks her question: “How will this be, since I am a virgin” (1:34)?

Mary asks, “how will this be?” Zechariah asked, “How shall I know this?” They seem pretty similar. It seems reasonable that we can assume similar responses from the angel right? Not so much.

Instead of rebuking Mary as he did with Zechariah, the angel explains to her just how she will conceive her son, AND he gives her a glimpse into his identity. Furthermore, in the midst of a seemingly impossible feat, he encourages her by sharing the story of Zechariah and Elizabeth, finishing by saying, “For nothing will be impossible with God” (1:37).

What’s the Difference?

Now we must deal with the question: why? Why did the angel punish Zechariah and answer Mary’s question so politely? Why be so harsh with Zechariah? Why the apparent double standard?

I would suggest that the angel’s response was not a reaction to the words said but to the heart behind them. Zechariah was sarcastic and doubtful. Mary was submissive and expectant.

The angel’s first words after Zechariah’s question were a declaration of his identity: “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news” (1:19). As a priest and mature follower of God, he would have known the significance of this statement. He would have known how God gave Abraham and Sarah a son, Isaac, when Sarah was barren, and they were well beyond childbearing age. He would have known that when God says something is going to happen, it happens! He also would have known that when you stand in God’s presence, a certain level of respect is expected and required.

Zechariah acknowledged none of these things when he spoke to the angel. I suspect that he instead acknowledged the bitterness that formed after many years of praying for a son and never receiving one. I suspect he acknowledged the anger that was rising in him for having his prayers answered years after he stopped praying them. He acknowledged only what had happend to him, not what God could do for and through him. His heart was doubtful, angry, bitter, and sarcastic. God knew that.

The state of Mary’s heart was something completely different. Her question arose from curiosity, not doubt. Even though, perhaps because, she was young, she immediately acknowledged that because this message was from God, it would come to pass. The angel’s response was a reflection of Mary’s heart. The most telling verse in the story is Mary’s final response: “I am the servant of the Lord. Let it be to me according to your word” (1:38).

Mary had faith in God’s truthfulness and power. After years of assuming God wasn’t listening, Zechariah did not.

Conclusion

I realize that much of this blog is speculation. I do not know with any certainty what was going on in either Zechariah’s or Mary’s heart. Though speculative, I have witnessed and experienced the states of heart that Mary and Zechariah exemplified. I cannot count the times in which I have focused not on how God has answered my prayers but rather on those times in which I did not get my way. I continually forget what God has done in my life and throughout the story laid out in Scripture. I forget, and that leads to doubt. I doubt God’s ability. I doubt God’s goodness.

Zechariah forgot. Then he doubted.

Mary remembered. Then she trusted.

Who are you going to be? Will you be like Zechariah who forgets and doubts because he doesn’t get his way when he wants it? Or will you be a Mary who, in spite of enormous challenges that lie ahead, stands firm in her faith to God proclaiming, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”

The Heart of Generosity

Before I begin this post, I want to give all of the glory to God for my personal story revealed below. When talking with the pharisees and other religious leaders in John 8, Jesus said, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing.” If that applies to Jesus Christ, the savior of the whole world, how much more does that apply to me! The only reason I can write about these things is because God worked it out in my life, and that IS something in which to boast. If something you read today strikes a chord in your life, then praise God and God alone because the Holy Spirit just showed himself to you!

The Heart of Generosity

The title of this post is somewhat of a double entendre.  The heart of generosity can refer to a person who is very generous. It may be said of that person that she has a “generous heart.” Also, though, and more relevant to this post, the heart of generosity may refer to that place from which generosity, true generosity, originates.

I was talking with a friend the other day and she was telling me about a book that she is reading for her Christian ethics class. Written by Miroslav Volf, Free of Charge is a book calling Christians to live out the forgiveness and generosity that God has shown them throughout their lives. As we discussed the premise of the book, we confessed to each other how hard it is to follow.

Then, I was reminded of one of the few moments in my life in which generosity seemed easy. I was on a plane reviewing the financial details of a job offer I just received (and later accepted). As a relatively fresh college grad looking for my first full-time youth ministry position, I expected to be paid very little. The generosity of this offer, though, took me by surprise, but how I reacted was even more surprising. Instead of daydreaming about how I would spend the money on myself as I usually did, my heart welled up with a level of thankfulness that I have never before experienced, and almost simultaneously, my mind focused on people to whom I could give my money. I was more excited about the size of my tithe check than the size of my paycheck. It was as if God had just wiped away all of the muck that was preventing me from seeing how truly blessed I was. God showed me what it was like to give from the heart of generosity: thankfulness.

First John 4:19 says, “We love because [Christ] loved us first.” In light of this, my experience on the plane makes perfect sense. If generosity is one expression of love, how can we expect to be generous without recognizing Christ’s generosity toward us? Thankfulness for Christ’s generosity is the heart of true human generosity. In order to be generous, we must first be thankful.

Lord, open my eyes to the ways you have been gracious to me. Forgive me for taking advantage of your gifts. I take and I take without much thought of giving. Change my heart of selfishness into a heart of generosity. Take my pride and break it. Take my selfishness and reverse it. Give me eyes to see how you have been gracious to me and how I can be gracious to others. Reveal to me my abundance and others’ lack so that you can pour out your love through me. Transform me into someone marked by your generosity. Amen.

So Sexy, So Soon

So Sexy, So Soon is a book that I just picked up today about the sexualization of children. It is written by psychologists who focus on the influence of media, culture, and advertising on the development of children. This particular book focuses on how media and culture influence the development of relationships, identity, and sexual identity.

So far I have only read the section of the book that relates the problem of sexualization. I have not read the section concerning the solution to the problem. Below are some blurbs from the book so far. As you read them, ask yourself some of these questions and enter into a dialogue by commenting:

Do you agree that sexualization is an issue in our culture today? Why or why not?

How big of a role do you think the media and advertising play in sexualization of children?

What are some personal examples of how you have seen sexualization of children?

How does the gospel of Jesus Christ figure into this situation?

Here are a few blurbs from the book:

Children growing up today are bombarded from a very early age with graphic messages about sex and sexiness in the media and popular culture . . . Children are paying an enormous price for the sexualization of their childhood. Girls and boys constantly encounter  sexual messages and images that they cannot understand and that can confuse and even frighten them. Gender roles modeled for children have become increasingly polarized and rigid. A narrow definition of femininity and sexuality encourages girls to focus heavily on appearance and sex appeal . . . And boys, who get a very narrow definition of masculinity that promotes insensitivity and macho behavior, are taught to judge girls based on how close they come to an artificial, impossible, and shallow ideal (4-5).

According to the Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls published by the American Psychological Association in 2007, sexualization has to do with treating other people (and sometimes oneself) as “objects of sexual desire . . . as things rather than as people with legitimate sexual feelings of their own.” When people are sexualized, their value comes primarily from their sex appeal, which is equated with physical attractiveness. (7)

I read this report last year for my senior thesis. The report goes on to explain their definition with examples such as 6-7 year old girls wearing clothing that say “sexy” or “cute” on the chest or buttocks.

Meghan recounted with obvious distress that her seven-year-old daughter, Eva, had come home from school the day before and asked, “Mom, what’s a blow job?” . . . You might think that Meghan’s experience was an aberration. Initially, we thought so too. But when we shared this story with a group of parents at a workshop, a father excitedly (and seemingly with relief) raised his hand and said, “The same thing happened with my son. He’s eight and last week he came home from school asking, ‘What does it mean to “suck your d*** [censoring mine]“?’ (21-22)”

The problem isn’t that our kids are learning about sex. The problem is what they are learning, the age at which they’re learning it, and who is teaching them. (31)

Two monumental things happened after deregulation of children’s television that point the way to where we are today. First, children became a separate marketing group, with corporations treating children as consumers for the very first time . . . Second, . . . sex and violence became primary marketing tools to capture children’s attention and create voracious consumers (37-38).

Under the age of eight, [children] have trouble understanding that the purpose of an ad is to get them to buy something . . . Young children believe what they see, so that when sexy behavior or appearance is connected to happiness, they believe it will be like that for them too (48).

Children need supportive adults more than ever to help them interpret what they see and learn alternative ways to see themselves and the world (53).

Plugged in children [children who regularly use electronic and media devices] are having secondhand experiences rather than direct involvement with the real world. They also are engaging in a process that his being controlled by someone else’s “program” (65).

“Age compression” is a term used by media professionals and marketers to describe how children at ever younger ages are doing what older children used to do (69).

The Missional Church

A couple years ago I started to hear a new word around Christian circles: missional. Missional is not a real word. At least, it didn’t used to be. It has become a term commonly used in conversation by anyone from church planters to lay leaders to senior pastors. In fact, there is even a church movement by the same name.

Since first hearing the word, I have gained a  very general understanding of the term. Recently, though, I have decided to dive in and learn more about what it means to be missional and live missionally. Fortunately, my apprenticeship supervisor is Alan Briggs, king of trendy words. He knows a lot about what it means to be missional and even played a large role in planning and executing the Missional Leadership Conference in November of last year. He has taught the apprentices quite a bit about the missional movement.

After expressing more interest in the missional movement and the missional church, he suggested I start reading. One of the books he suggested is called The Missional Church, which is edited by Darrell L. Guder. I just started reading this book and thought blogging about it would help me process what I’ve been reading. The blog your are reading is the first of several blogs to come on this book and covers chapter one.

Summary of Main Points

Religiosity in the United States is becoming more pluralistic, individualistic, and private. Many churches and church leaders have attempted to solve the problem through methodological means that take advantage of the latest demographic, psychological, and sociological insights. These attempted solutions do not successfully solve the problem because the problem with Western churches is not methodological; it is theological and spiritual.

A major theological issue in the Western church is missiological. The Western church has for too long perceived missions as a program within the church. The church is sending people all over the world to do missions, but it has misunderstood what it means to be the “sent people of God.” Missions should not be defined by programs within the Church. The Church ought to be defined by missions as Christians live as the sent people of God.

The Church is God’s instrument for God’s mission, which is centered on the hope, the message, and the demonstration of the in-breaking reign of God in Jesus Christ. The members of the Church carry the gospel into a culture to challenge the dominant cultural dynamics such as materialism, self-absorption, and extremem individualism. Interestingly, as the gospel challenges and shapes the assumptions, perspectives, and choices of a society, the culture will shape the gospel. The author explains:

The church knows to expect a life full of ambiguities because it is shaped by its context as the gospel reshapes the context. Such a calling never leaves the church in a finished, settled, or permanent incarnation. . . The gospel of God is never fully and finally discerned so that no further transformation can be expected. The interaction between the gospel and all human cultures is a dynamic one, and it always lies at the heart of what it means to be the church (14).

This understanding of the Church comes from a reading of the Scripture through the lens of a missional hermeneutic, which leads to a missional ecclesiology. A missional ecclesiology is biblical as it makes biblical perspectives explicit and views Scripture as a witness to God’s mission and the formation of God’s missionary people. A missional ecclesiology is historical since it is guided by the historical church traditions that precede us and that are contemporary with us. A missional ecclesiology is contextual because each specific ecclesiology is derived from that church’s particular context. A missional ecclesiology is eschatological as it is continually moving with God toward consummation. Finally, a missional ecclesiology is practiced because its end goal is to equip believers to be faithful witnesses in their particular places.

Concepts I Like

At one point in the chapter the author states, “We do not approach the theme of the church with any objectivity. . . Our purpose is the church’s missional renewal” (12). This level of transparency is refreshing. The authors of this book are not hiding the fact that their goal is the “church’s missional renewal,” and this is the lens through which their research and writing has been done.

I also appreciate their assessment of the problem within the Western church. Pragmatic solutions to dwindling numbers and half-hearted devotion to Christ will not suffice. The solutions that will lead to renewal and revival are theological and spiritual in nature. We can’t simply give ourselves a pep talk. We must reevaluate our theology and rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance and transformation.

Questions and Push Backs

My main question and concern centers around the circular interaction of the gospel and culture that is described by the author. I agree that the gospel ought to be contextualized to specific cultures in order to speak directly to the hearts of those in that culture. However, the author does not describe boundaries or limits for this contextualization. Contextualization of the gospel needs to be done very carefully and thoughtfully in order to prevent watering down of the gospel.

Also, shouldn’t the goal of contextualization be to reshape the values and presuppositions of a culture? Instead of a circular relationship between the gospel and culture, it seems that a linear progression is a more accurate representation of the relationship. As the gospel invades a society, the cultural values should diminish in importance as gospel values increase in importance. Perhaps, this progression starts over at times as the culture continues to change, but a circular understanding of the relationship seems dangerous to me.

Experiential Prayer

I’m a naturally skeptical person. God has helped me make huge strides with regards to this over the last several years, but I am often still taken aback by new things (new to me at least) of faith. The most recent example comes from my brother. As I was preparing to leave my hometown after Christmas, he prayed for me and gave me a piece of cloth. He told me I should hold it while he prayed for me. I somewhat reluctantly did it.

After he prayed, I asked him what it was all about. He said it was a prayer cloth that was anointed with incense. I smelled it and sure enough it smelled like incense (I’ve let a few friends smell it and they said it smells like old man. While I somewhat agree, it is the best smelling old man I have ever smelled.). He told me I could keep it and use it in my prayer time. I took it and thanked him without ever really expecting to use it.

On my way back to Colorado the cloth seemed to burn through my pocket to my mind (as an aside, it also caused me to be frisked by a TSA agent. Another story for another day). I couldn’t stop thinking about it and trying to figure out how it could fit into my theological schema (yeah, I just dropped some Piaget on you). I considered passages like Psalm 141 that talk about incense being used in prayer time. I remembered that burning incense was thought to represent the prayers of God’s people rising to his ears. I couldn’t think about any Scripture regarding cloth in prayer time, but I decided to give it a shot.

Since then, I’ve used the cloth in several of my prayer times and here are some of the thoughts I’ve had:

• While the cloth has been anointed, it has no special power or effect. My prayers are no more powerful or effective when I use the cloth, and God is no more likely to hear my prayers because of the cloth. The cloth is just that, a cloth.
• While the cloth does not effect my prayers on God’s end, my prayer times have  been enhanced as a result of cloth. That is because it engages several senses that I do not usually engage during prayer. I touch the cloth, I look at the cloth, and I smell the cloth. None of these senses are usually engaged during my private prayer times. Throughout Scripture it is clear that God appreciates our physical body and our senses. He commands his people to engage in many multi-sensory experiences that have spiritual significance (think setting up stone pillars, burnt offerings, feasts and festivals, baptism, communion, etc.). Multi-sensory experiences allow us to engage God with our whole body, not simply our mind and emotions. While I don’t fully understand why God does this, it is pretty cool how certain sensory experiences remind me of him. Every time I drink grape juice, for example, I think if communion and thus Christ’s sacrifice. I suppose now every time I smell an old man, I’ll think to pray for something.
• Lastly, the smell of the incense serves, for me, as a reminder of God’s presence. When I place the cloth to my nose and inhale, it seems as though my body and room are filled with the incense, just as God’s spirit has indwelt me and fills my room with his omnipresence.

So in summary, if someone ever offers you a prayer cloth, take it and use it. Your prayer times just might turn out all the more experiential.

Judgment for All

“Everyone will be judged.” This thought came into my head as Pastor Kelly spoke and my thoughts started running wild. I do not remember exactly what he said that sparked the thought. The prompting comment must have only been a side note to his sermon, but it spoke to me right where I needed it.

As I thought about the judgment at Christ’s return, I began to realize how seldom Christians actually think about the reality of judgment. As Christians, we are saved. Our salvation is true and nothing will take away our salvation, but it is also true that Christians will be judged. In 1 Peter 4:17, Peter expresses how judgment actually begins with believers when he says, “it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God.” Paul, in Romans 14:10, explains that “we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.”

Clearly, Christians will be judged, but if their judgment is not regarding their eternal home, what will their judgment be deciding? In 2 Corinthians 5:10, Paul explains, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” All believers will be judged for what they have done while on earth, or as Paul says it “in the body.” It appears that we will either receive a reward or punishment regarding what we did while on earth.

Paul explains it a little more deeply in 1 Corinthians 3:13-15. He writes,

For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has build on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

The gold, silver, wood, hay, etc. all represents work that Christians do in order to serve with God. These works are above and beyond the initial acceptance of Christ. They are the works that James talks when he says, “be doers of the word, and not hearers only” (1:22). Some of the work of believers will be like gold and silver and stand the test of fire. Such work will remain and be rewarded. Other work will burn up and not be recognized. Notice, though, that even those whose work is burned away are still saved. They are just not rewarded as the others.

The 1 Corinthians passages shows that some work will be rewarded and some will not be recognized, but it goes no further. It does not give examples of, say, wood-like work versus gold-like work. How will our work be judged? We must look to other passages for this information.

You do not have to go far to begin discovering the answer. First Corinthians 4:1ff discusses how people have no right to judge one another. People are unaware of “the things now hidden.” Only Christ knows how well each individual has stewarded the “mysteries of God,” and our stewardship of the mysteries is how Christians will be judged in the end.

Thoughts of stewardship remind me of the parable of the ten minas in Luke 19. In the parable, a nobleman gives a mina (i.e. about three months worth of wages) to ten of his servants and commands them to do business with the money. The nobleman clearly expects each servant to earn additional minas from the one given to each of them. The nobleman then leaves to officially take the reigns of a kingdom. When he returns, he checks to see how much money each servant made with what they had been given. The passage gives the account of three of the servants. The first servant earned ten minas from his one. The nobleman responds by saying, “Well done good servant! Because you have been faithful with very little, you shall have authority over ten cities” (19:17). The second servant earned five minas. He also was called a good servant and rewarded with authority over five cities. The third servant, though, did not earn any money. In fact, he did not even try to earn money. He hid the mina in a handkerchief. The nobleman responds by calling him a “wicked servant” and chastises him for not doing something. The nobleman then takes the mina from the third servant and gives it to the first servant.

There are several nuggets of wisdom that we can glean from this passage. First, we will be given great rewards for managing well what Christ has given us. The two servants who earned more minas were rewarded with authority over cities. These rewards are beyond the reward that was deserved for the task that they completed. Second, the amount we will be rewarded will be based on how well we manage what Christ has given us. Just as the first and second servants were rewarded proportionally to their stewardship of the minas so will we be rewarded proportionally for our stewardship of what Christ has given us. Third, not managing well what Christ gives us will result in those gifts being stripped away from us. Notice, though, the thrid servant is no worse off than he was before he was given the mina. If at our judgment we are found to be bad stewards of our gifts, we will not be punished, per se, but we will be rewarded less or not at all.

Let me sum up what I have written so far. Everyone, whether they are a believer or not, will be judged. When Christ judges Christians, the judgment will not determine their eternal home but, instead, will determine the reward that they are due based on how well they have stewarded the gifts that Christ has given to them. Those who do not steward their gifts well will lose their gifts but will not lose their salvation.

These passages that I have presented are both terrifying and motivating for me. I fear God because he has the authority and power to reward or punish me as he sees fit at the final judgment. I am motivated by his promise of rewards to those who serve with him well. These passages cause me to ask these questions, questions that you may want to also ask yourself:

• What are the gifts that God has given me? The gifts may be spiritual, financial, or natural gifts. Some of the gifts I have seen God bless me with are leadership, teaching, pastoring, and financial prosperity.
• Am I trying to develop the gifts that God has given me or am I letting them remain stagnant? Gifts from God are just like any other skill. If you work at getting better, you will become more skillful. If you do not intentionally develop the skill, it will wither away.
• Am I using the gifts (financial, spiritual, natural, etc.) that God has given me to serve?
• How can I better use my gifts to serve others with God?

I pray that when I come to the judgment seat of God he looks and me and says, “Good done my good and faithful servant.” What do you think he would say to you?

A New Box A – Part I

Box A. It was the first and one of the most difficult sections of my senior paper paper, which is called the PSTRAT. The difficulty rested in what we were to try to accomplish in a 3-page section: define and describe the ultimate purpose of humanity and of ministry. As our class discussed our sections, I heard a plethora of ideas such as knowing God;reconciliation with God, others, and creation; loving God and others; and being in relationship. My section focused on the ultimate purpose as glorifying God and sharing in his glory.

I was satisfied with my section, and I do believe that God’s glory is one of the most significant concepts in Christendom. However, if I were to write that section again, I would alter the ultimate purpose for a couple of reasons. First, while God’s glory is an important concept, it is difficult to define how to live it out practically in ministry. For instance, it is easy to build a motivating purpose statement around reconciliation. People, even non-Christians, can hear or read such a  purpose statement and have an idea what that ministry would look like and how to jump onboard. People, even Christians, hear a purpose statement like, “to glorify God and enjoy him forever,” and they scratch their heads wondering how they practically live that out.

Second, glorifying God is very “churchy” language, and because I graduated from the Taylor CE program, I know to avoid “Christianese.” There is a lot involved in defining the glory of God and what it means to glorify him. There have been volumes published on this topic. It might just be a good idea to avoid using it to make the purpose as clear as possible to those who read or hear it.

If the ultimate purpose is not to glorify God, then what? I propose that the ultimate purpose of humanity is to be in God’s presence. Therefore, the ultimate purpose of a ministry ought to be to provide environments in which students (in the case of youth ministry) may come into the presence of God. I say “provide environments” because it is clearly impossible for one person to take another into the presence of God. That is an act solely up to God. We can, though, bring others into a “place,” physical or otherwise, in which they are more likely to encounter the presence of God.

Being in God’s presence as an ultimate purpose avoids the two issues surrounding the glory of God. It is much easier to define practically what it means to be in God’s presence. Hopefully all Christians have experienced being in God’s presence. Personal experience makes definition much easier. Also, everyone, non-Christians included, know what it means to be in someone’s presence. Being in someone’s presence is a common human experience. This commonality of presence clears up much of the confusion surrounding the glory of God.

In Part II, I will defend (hopefully) my stance from a biblical position, but don’t hold your breath. It could be awhile.

The Call to Justice

Early this morning a lady named Brandi from Children’s Hope Chest came and led a discussion for Summer Leadership Track. She talked about justice and much of the conversation regarded third world missions, sex trafficking, etc. Alan asked us to take some time to debrief so this is how I chose to debrief.

I have heard so many chapel speakers who have come to Taylor in an attempt to pump up the student body to serve in third world or inner city missions. They spoke of these destinations, what Alan Briggs calls “sexy” ministry*, as the only places a person can “do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8). But the question I always have to deal with is, “What if I’m not called to inner city or foreign missions?”

I sat with one of Vanguard’s elders, Dave Bair, and his wife at SLT. Dave said something that I think is very true of many in some Christian circles. He said that people are tempted to view those who do “sexy” ministry as more spiritual. Those ministers and missionaries are unnecessarily elevated onto a pedestal. I agree, and those Taylor chapels I discussed above made me feel like a lesser Christian because I do not have a call to those places (at least as of this moment). Elevating these people is simply misguided. The Church universal is to act like a body. Some members of the body will do “sexy” ministry. Some of us will do suburban ministry. Neither is lesser. Both are necessary.

No matter where we do ministry, though, we are called to justice, “to loose the bonds of the wickedness . . . to let the oppressed go free” (Isa 58:6). So the question is not, “Am I called to promote justice and to fight injustices?” The question ought to be, “Since I am called to promoting justice and fighting injustices, what does that look like with respect to my call and my location?” So often speakers leave an audience wrestling with the first question, which is a real pitty. People often come to the conclusion that since they are not called to foreign or inner city missions, then they must not be called to promoting justice. At least, this is the conclusion I was tempted to come to.

So now I am wrestling with the latter question. What does it look like to stand up for the oppressed and promote justice in Colorado Springs, through Vanguard, and in high school youth ministry. I jotted this down in my journal:

I do feel called to those who are sexually used. That might be a child in sex slavery in Uganda, but it might also be a high school girl who is coerced into having sex with her boyfriend. Both are injustices. Both are what we are called to . . . We may be called to injustices at our doorstep. We may be called to work that no one will see and say, “Great job rescuing that person from injustice!” We must do our works of righteousness before God our Father, not before men (Matt 6:1-18).

There are injustices all around us. Not all of the work to free the oppressed appears glamorous or glorious. In fact, I’m sure most of it isn’t. But where is the injustice, and how do I fight it? This is the question I’m asking, and it should be fun (and probably painful) to see where God leads me from here.

*Alan calls these ministry locations “sexy” because they are the locations people most often view as “real ministry” or glamorous.

The Incarnation. A New Perspective (to me) and Its Implications

Last weekend my fellow MAPers (Ministry Apprentices) and I traveled to Denver for the UnConference. Organized by the church planting organization called “Ecclesia,” UnConferences are small weekend conferences intended to act as hubs for missional church planting ideas and information. I only attended the first night of the conference, but that was plenty to walk away with things to think about.

One speaker, especially, stood out to me. Norton Hebst is one of the pastors at the church plant in Denver in which the conference was held. He began his time by asking the questions: Why did the incarnation happen? What was God’s primary purpose for the incarnation? and What was Jesus’ mission in the incarnation? My interest was not initially piqued because he steered the conversation in the same direction almost everyone takes this conversation. He put up slides and read quotes from the “old guys:” Aquinas, Augustine, and others. With the help of these master theologians he came to the conclusion that Jesus was incarnated in order to save us from sin and defeat death forever. Pretty orthodox right?

Then he threw a curve ball. He asked the question, “Would Jesus still have come to earth if humanity had not sinned?” This piqued my interest. I have come across this question before but never wrestled with it so I was interested in what he had to say. He explained that the usual “old guys” answered “no” to this question, but there are dissenters. Old guys such as John Duns Scotus, a medieval theologian, and not-so-old guys such as NT Wright hypothesize that Jesus would have been incarnated even if humanity had not sinned.

Scotus referred to the incarnation as the “Summum Opus Dei” or “God’s greatest work.” God’s primary function, purpose, and mission of the incarnation was to unite himself with humanity. Regardless of human sin, God intended all along to send Christ to earth in human form. The incarnation was not a reaction to sin but a “free action” of God’s self-giving love. It was the supreme manifestation of God’s love. Only after the fall did the incarnation take on a secondary purpose of salvation from sin and death. Not as orthodox but really intriguing!

Herbst asserts that this dissenting view is more in line with God’s character and sovereignty. Those who support the first view must wrestle with the unsettling detail that human decisions changed God’s plans in enormous ways. God had to come up with a plan B to fix what humanity had screwed up. At least, this is how Herbst and other proponents of the dissenting opinion view the orthodox position.

But the dissenting view still has to deal with the same question. Yes, Christ would have come to earth regardless of human sin, but the incarnation took on a very different shape after the fall. I doubt that Jesus would have died a miserably painful death had the fall not occurred. No sin, no need to defeat it, right? Then again, Satan would still exist even if Adam and Eve had not sinned. Perhaps Christ’s death was necessary to defeat him. Perhaps not.

I still have many unanswered questions regarding the dissenting view, but I have seen some interesting and exciting implications of this view. The Western perspective of the orthodox view of the incarnation places enormous emphasis on personal salvation. This perspective has created a phenomenon, which Mike King in Presence-Centered Ministry calls decisionism. Westerns’ emphasis on the moment a person decides to follow Christ has created an unhealthy tension between evangelism and discipleship in many Evangelical circles. When decisionism occurs, evangelism is prized over anything else and individuals are often left to figure things out on their own after they “pray the prayer.”

The dissenting opinion does away with much of the tension between evangelism and discipleship. Since the incarnation’s primary purpose was not to save humanity from sin and death but to bring humanity into the full presence of God, the emphasis on the “decision” is lessened greatly. Until we are reunited with God in heaven, everyone experiences an infinite gulf between the presence of God we experience on earth and the presence of God we will have in heaven. This puts everyone on the same playing field. The pastor and the prostitute both have an infinite amount of growth possible. The decision is no longer prized  as the culminating moment. Deeper intimacy and experiencing God’s presence to a greater degree is the new desire. This mindset prevents people from evangelizing to a person and then cutting them off as soon as they accept Christ. I like this a lot.

I am still thinking through this view of the incarnation and its implications. I would love to get your feedback and reactions to this view. Leave some comments!

Links:
Ecclesia’s Website: http://www.ecclesianet.com/
New Denver’s Website (the conference host): http://newdenver.org/