Bren Hughes Blog

A Return to Blogging

2011-11-17T23:07:00.003-06:00

This blog used to be a theology weblog called "Piercing the Membrane." I was a very active blogger in 2005-06, until I took a campus ministry job in Florida. At that time, I deleted most of my Piercing the Membrane posts because I discussed a lot of controversial topics and did not want anything I'd said on my blog to interfere with my important work among college students across multiple campuses and congregations.

Since then, I've had three kids and returned to Tennessee, where I am finishing up a law degree at Vanderbilt. I am hoping to work in some sort of prosecutorial or judicial clerkship capacity.

Now, I'm keeping the same URL, but I'm focusing my comments on the world of law and politics which I now occupy. Among other things, this is a way for future employers and colleagues to get a feel for who I am and what I like. I will do my best to keep my posts interesting and brief!

I feel that in moving from ministry to law, I am stepping out from the inner world and trying to make a difference on a larger scale and in more direct ways. Please pray that I will stay the course and make a real difference wherever the Maker puts me.

Your humble blogger,

Brennan

Law Enforcement and Legal Services Roundtable at VULS

2011-11-17T12:21:00.006-06:00

Yesterday I, along with about 70 others, attended an all-day roundtable at Vanderbilt Law School. The event was hosted by the Federal Trade Commission. Its purpose was to foster cooperation among various agencies (state legal aid, state AG's office, FTC, federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, U.S. Attorney's Office, TN Division of Consumer Affairs) to combat consumer fraud. The topics ranged from internet scams to I.D. theft to abusive debt collection practices. The entire event was a great crash course on this area of law, and I feel that it helped prepare me to be a better white collar crime prosecutor. I think I was the only student in attendance for most of it.

The current recession has made desperate people easy targets for scams that promise what they can't deliver. The elderly and immigrants are also frequent targets of too-good-to-be-true schemes. Did you know that the TN Attorney General's Office was a player in the lawsuit against the Dannon yogurt company for deceptive advertising concerning the health benefits of Activia yogurt?

During the break, I went to a meeting that featured Alicia Hilton, a former undercover FBI agent who described her undercover experiences. This former law professor once posed as a cocaine dealer who also busted government employees who sold fake IDs to terrorists and smugglers. Pretty cool. Several times in the presentation, she basically said, "Have you all seen Silence of the Lambs? It was just like that." I would be interested in becoming a special agent (many of them are lawyers), but the problem is that the bureau will move you around wherever they want you, and I'd like to get rooted somewhere. I'd have to act fast, too, because the Bureau won't take anybody over 37.

New Blog on Campus Ministry

2008-05-30T09:22:00.003-05:00

Okay. So I thought I'd find the time to blog again. But the ministry just doesn't slow down. And now I have a toddler AND twin infants in my life.

I have, however, started a new blog where I discuss the ins and outs of campus ministry in my context in Tallahassee. It's www.metaministry.blogspot.com. My intended audience is other ministers, plus those who watch over me (like my elders and ministry board) and my student leaders.

I still hope to post occasionally here at Piercing the Membrane as more theologically-oriented ideas come up. But my cloister time is becoming rarer and rarer.

God bless you, dear readers!

I Will BLOG Again!

2007-02-08T10:24:00.000-06:00

So. . . It's been since July that I last logged into this blogger thing. I've missed writing (and reading other blogs), but life's been busy with my new kid, new ministry, and (very soon) new home. But I plan to return soon and share some interesting stories about this unusual campus ministry experiment I've found myself shepherding.

Transform!

Introducing. . . Dexter Wilson Hughes

2006-07-10T22:41:00.000-05:00

So. . . our kid finally popped out at Vanderbilt Hospital in Nashville at 9:39 p.m. on Saturday, July 8. He weighed 9 pounds, 2 ounces. We're all thrilled to finally get to meet him after having him kick us incessantly through Lydia's abdomen these past few months. Behold!The midwives at Vanderbilt were great. The good memories of this weekend will surely overshadow the hours and hours of pain.

Here's the first not-so-fuzzy-it's-illegible picture of the spud, right after Lydia pushed him out with me holding her leg back and watching the whole thing.

Here's the new mom, not long after little Dex pierced the amniotic membrane!

Our friends Kevin and Rhonda White made Dexter his own MySpace page. You can check it out here, and even be his friend. Kevin took the picture below:

Thanks again for all the prayers and well-wishes! We're on top of the world!

Back in the Ministry Saddle

2006-06-22T17:21:00.000-05:00

Those who keep up with my life or this blog know that this has been a year of searching and praying for what to do next. As I finished my M.Div. and Lydia said goodbye to her teaching job (in order to become a full-time mother), we frequently asked God to show us where to go from here.

For a while I expected that more graduate studies were in my immediate future. I had such a great time studying at Lipscomb, I thought surely that my calling was to be a college Bible professor. And to qualify for this job, I needed a Ph.D.

Yet my Ph.D. applications failed to bear fruit. Perhaps my biggest problem was that my Lipscomb transcripts went out with only half my credits on them. I chalked this boo-boo up to providence, and commenced sending out resumes.

Now, the wait has ended and I find myself with a new role. It's time to set aside my more academic pursuits and launch full time into the battleground of ministry. Ministry is where the action is, where the rubber meets the road in the battle against the forces of darkness. Ministry scares me to death, but I know it's an opportunity to serve God like no other.

Before the summer ends, I'll be moving to north Florida to begin full-time work as a campus minister, heading an organization which serves three college campuses. My role will be to administer, to teach, and to train believing college students in personal evangelism and church leadership. I feel uniquely qualified for a job such as this, and thus have a powerful sense of calling to this role.

Compared to this opportunity to service the immediate needs of emerging adults, academia has lost much of its luster. I no loger have the patience to read endless articles about the Dead Sea Scrolls or the grammatical tenses of ancient Hebrew -- not now that I have embraced the urgent responsibility for souls.

The excitement in my spirit is almost unbearable. I'm overjoyed about my new job, about moving to Florida, and about my first child who could arrive any day now. I have asked God for all these things, and he has given beyond my ability to comprehend.

I want to thank all of my regular readers for being my internet friends and dialogue partners. I'll still blog when I can. But I'll now consider PTM to be an extension of my main ministry. The tract posts of this past weekend were intended as an exercise in pleasant nostalgia, to leave this blog on a light note as I took time off to tie up my affairs in Middle Tennessee (like next week's Bible Camp). Little did I know. . .

So thanks for the prayers, Kent, Mike, Monk-In-Training, and all the others. The Lord has been mindful of me.

The Church Should Be More Like a Street Gang

2006-05-05T09:00:00.000-05:00

I had happened on Thursday. But the thirteen-year-old kid was still pretty shaken up on Sunday morning when he told me about it. He was riding his bike near the park in his neighborhood when shots started ringing out. A young man was firing a handgun at random, emptying the clip in all directions. My young friend dropped to his belly behind a car until the coast was clear. Then he hurried home to his frantic mother. My friend says he could hear the bullets whizzing by his head. Fortunately, no one was hurt. The police are still hunting the perpetrator.

Why would this young man start shooting randomly across a park and neighborhood? It was a gang initiation. To get into a gang, you have to perform certain dangerous tasks like thefts and drive-by-shootings. The point is to prove your loyalty and trustworthiness. Everyone in the gang has made a great sacrifice, taken a great risk, to get into the group.

Being in a gang gives you protection. It gives you a new family and a place to belong. This security is so valuable, young men are willing to risk getting sent to prison for life. Those who make it into the gang know that their posse will always watch their back. They've risked their lives to join the gang, and every day they live in danger from the cops and other gangs.

It reminds me a lot of the early church. Before Constantine, joining the underground sect known as "the way" was a life-imperilling propisition. Becoming a Christian often meant being rejected by your family. It meant getting on the wrong side of the law. You could be arrested simply because of your association with the group. The government posed a threat, and so did other religious groups, such as the zealous Jewish leadership of pre-A.D. -70 Judea, and (later on) some groups of Muslims.

The same situation exists today in parts of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. We've seen in the news recently an Afghani Christian who faced possible execution for his beliefs.

In underground churches, as in gangs, there must be an extraordinary level of trust. There is extraordinary comraderie because the members have all sacrificed so much to join the group. The intimacy and solidarity are outstanding, because in such a situation it's your small group against the world.

Western Christianity no longer experiences this type of cohesiveness. In the church, we are supposed to be a new family, the family of God. We are "the body of Christ and individually members of it" (1 Cor. 12:27). But in our churches, do we really feel bound to each other, or do we feel free to leave? Do we really depend on each other, or do we feel that our church family is optional? Do we really trust each other with our own lives, or do we treat each other with suspicion?

If our churches fostered the same type of solidarity and interdependence found in street gangs, would people need the gangs anymore?

It seems to me that in modern churches, we tend to leave each other alone. We all have our own private lives, and the church is just one more social group. What would it be like if my brothers and sisters really were my posse, who watched my spiritual back, who gave me cover as I battled the devil, who gave me a heads-up when they saw sin or apathy creeping into my life?

I wonder whether in supersize churches it's possible for the family of God to be more than a social group of loosely-connected individuals who stay mostly out of each other's personal business. Could we be more effective in our spiritual turf war against Hell's Angels if we were de-centralized like the New Testament churches or the churches in Muslim and Communist countries? Or are we just too comfortable to realize that we're at war?

I don't have the answers. I just often wonder whether my religion is too easy to be real.

Gallatin Tornado Aftermath 3 - Sumner Academy, con't.

2006-04-12T21:55:00.000-05:00

Shards of glass and other debris are scattered over the children's drawings in my wife's art classroom at Sumner Academy in Gallatin, TN. A marionette puppet which formerly hung from the ceiling appears dazed and displeased. During the storm, a board flew through the two-pained window and collided with the overhead projector. Glass fragments covered every surface, even to the opposite wall.

Lydia's car also suffered some scrapes. This nail was wedged into the seal around the rear window. The school van also took a beating.

Gallatin Tornado Aftermath 2 -- Sumner Academy Gym

2006-04-12T21:38:00.000-05:00

Here are some photos I shot on Saturday of the storm damage to the gym building at Sumner Academy, where my wife Lydia teaches.

Gallatin Tornado Aftermath 1

2006-04-10T09:24:00.000-05:00

Here are some pictures I took of the houses that were destroyed on Nichols Lane in front of Sumner Academy on Friday, April 7.

Click here for a photo album of Tennessee wreckage from News Channel 5's website.

Gallatin Tornado Ground Zero

2006-04-08T21:38:00.000-05:00

The following images are helicopter photos of the three-mile path of destruction left by Friday's tornado. The building at the top left is Sumner Academy, where my wife Lydia was teaching at the time. In the foreground you can also see some houses that are severely damaged.

In this next shot, the camera has moved slightly up and to the right. You can now see the entire three-building campus which was once noted for its large beautiful trees. You can also see that the two houses adjacent to the school's driveway have been completely obliterated.

About half of the teachers' cars were totalled. A section of roof was blown off the computer lab (Elementary building far left). The far corner of the gym collapsed, and you can see sections of the front side which are missing. Several doors and windows were busted in all three buildings, including a window in Lydia's room which was smashed by a flying board. Fortunately, all the children and teachers were safely huddled in the restrooms.

Meanwhile, I was across town at our house, sitting in the floor of the coat closet with my cat Pedro and two pillows -- praying for Lydia, the kids at school, myself, and my house.

One of the elders at my church was in the same position, but when he emerged from his closet, the house around him had been destroyed.

I was proud of our church for offerings its facilities to be a Red Cross shelter and staging area. But I wasn't at the building today because Lydia and I went to Sumner Academy to help clean up there. It ended up well because we were able to communicate with the church building and make arrangements for some food delivery to the area.

There were glass fragments all over every surface in Lydia's classroom. After we cleaned that up, we helped set up the computers in their new location and moved some library books where the ceiling had collapsed from the rain the night after the tornado.

Next, I'll post some ground-level shots from in and around the school.

Hail the Size of Ceramic Frogs!

2006-04-08T09:26:00.000-05:00

My hometown of Gallatin has become the focus of national media attention since Friday's tornado which killed seven and created lots of photogenic carnage. Lydia and I are fine, athough the school where she teaches art was right next to the tornado's path and suffered some damage. More on that later.

Anyway, here are some pictures I took of the hail in my yard after the stom cell passed over.

The hail was really loud, but it didn't seem to have damaged anything. More likely explanation: everything I own is already damaged, so I wouldn't have noticed anyway.

Some of them were smooth, but some of the hailstones were really spiky.

I'll be back later with a helicopter image of the area around my wife's school. Be safe!

Deconstructing "War Churches"

2006-03-18T01:04:00.000-06:00

I hope my readers felt stimulated by yesterday's provocative, complicated article on Christians and nonviolence. In many ways it was a counterpoint/companion piece to my paper, "The Lord is a Man of War: A Theological Rationale for Pacifism," which uses sounder methodology and comes closer to explaining my true views of what the Bible seems to be saying about human violence.

"War Churches" was intended as a complex piece of literature dealing with both ethics and hermeneutics through the instructive use of satire, exaggerated polemics and questionable scripture application.

Some of my regular readers noticed that this post was quite different from my usual tone and style. My rhetoric-o-meter was set on "polemical" and my exegete-o-tron was set on "proof text."

As I noted in my paper, the NT's instructions to the first-century churches on peacemaking are notoriously difficult to apply to secular governments and modern geopolitics. In what way is my relationship to the United States analogous to Paul's relationship to Rome? Or Christ's to the Jewish establishment? Who is my neighbor in a world at war?

By simply taking passages on Christian attitudes and ethics and trying to extrapolate them onto secular institutions, we run the risk of mis-interpretation and mis-application. That's not to say that mis-application is definitely taking place. My call for a "high view" of the authority of Christ (i.e., that governments are obliged to follow his teachings, just as individual Christians do) is a concept ripe for additional deliberation. The Bible knows no separation between the religious and secular realms, between public and private life.

By adopting a polemical, proof-texting style, I was (in my own way) lampooning the style of religious journalism which I grew up reading. In the right-wing heretic hunter magazines, the message is just as vitriolic, if not more so. And most doctrinal or ethical statements are backed up by a brief quote followed by a scripture quotation which might or might not truly support what is being asserted in the article.

Growing up as an aspiring teacher, I taught myself this method of rhetorical one-two punch (scripture quotation -- verse citation -- WHAM!). If you want church people to listen to what you say, just follow it up with a scripture that sounds superficially to be saying the same thing. It's the lazy man's way of sermonizing, and it's a method which false teachers can so easily use to make their teachings sound orthodox. Remember, the Devil's pretty good at quoting scripture himself.

So, by mastering the use of proof-texts, I simultaneously learned how to egregiously misuse and misapply the Scriptures. The proof-text method makes the Bible into a tool, a weapon, something you use to support what you want to say. It places you above the biblical text, asking, "how can I use this Word to prove my point?"

This has things backward. The way to read the Bible is to come in submission and subjection, eager to be rebuffed and rebuked by its soul-searching mysteries. The Bible is not a tool with which I prove my point, but a mirror by which I critique myself.

We Christians must not settle for scripture citations thrown around like exclamation points. Doctrinal and ethical assertions must be built humbly and delicately from the text. We must allow Scripture's deep truths to arise from the stories the Bible tells and the laws which flow from those stories, ever watchful for the divine movement of truth flowing from the Torah all the way to Revelation.

I cringe whenever I hear people gush over a preacher because of the sheer volume of scriptures he cites or the quantity of texts he can spout from memory. To paraphrase Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka, this is all just a parlor trick. Anybody with the skills to prepare a lesson, commit it to memory, and present it effectively can take an extra hour and memorize the scriptures he plans to cite. When I first started preaching, I made it a habit to always memorize my texts and recite them when I was standing away from the pulpit and my Bible. But I eased away from this practice when I realized I was just showing off.

Those who read my work carefully will notice that I'm constantly quoting and alluding to Scripture, yet I don't feel the need to stamp it with a parenthetical notation every time. I expect my readers to know a scriptural allusion when they see it, to be able to use a concordance, and to grow to trust that my mind is full of the Word and my heart is full of God's Spirit.

This is not to say that my use of scripture in "War Churches" was completely invalid. It is instructive to note just how much material in the New Testament seems to preclude Christian involvement in warfare. It is not the case that one could round up an equal number of texts that disprove my argument and support Christians in combat. Well, I guess one could cite hundreds of texts from the OT, but I doubt that many pro-war COC'ers would go that route (I reckon most of them are pretty dispensational).

What do I believe, then? To sum up my paper, the warrior God of the OT is the same loving God who is the Father of Jesus Christ. The disconnect between the blood-soaked Old Covenant and the nonviolent New Covenant is bridged by the presence of the "kingdom" prophecies in the OT. The coming of Christ signaled the (proleptic, incipient) inauguration of the Kingdom of God -- a new spiritual reality in which violence (the ubiquitous lot of the fallen cosmos) is obsolete. Christians have been transferred from the kingdom of death and decay into the kingdom of life and peace. Our "new wine" in Christ cannot coexist with the blood-diluted old wine of the fallen world and the temporary Mosaic system. Read my paper in full to see this theme developed through a narrative, canonical approach.

In praxis, this means that we kingdom people remain aloof from the demon-incited conflicts of this world which is passing away. Our time allotted to do God's bidding here on earth is too short to be wasted on something which might very well be the antithesis of Christian teaching (i.e. reliance upon human governments, rather than God's providence, to solve human problems).

I do think that Christians need to re-think their practice of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. In his On the Crown, Tertullian (the first Latin church father) argued against Christian participation in the military, but not primarily on the basis of Christian nonviolence. He argued that all soldiers betray Christ when they swear their allegiance to Caesar.

I also pray that we in the churches of Christ will not continue to be left behind when the Spirit is stirring up positive changes in the world, such as abolition, the civil rights movement, the war on world hunger, and the struggle for equality of the sexes. I'm afraid these were some "weightier matters of the Law" that passed us by while we were busy straining gnats.

I could continue on this topic all day, but there's no need to drone on and on. I often question myself as to whether I could be off-base on this whole subject. But from childhood I perceived that Jesus was a pacifist, and I've been unable ever since to prove things differently. I do often read new literature on both sides of the issue, and find strong arguments on both sides (take, for example, this post on Contratimes).

What I want is to live in God's Kingdom now. And when the world looks at the church, I want them to see a body of people who truly think, feel, and act like Jesus.

Grace and peace. God bless you all. Maranatha.

War Churches?

2006-03-17T11:10:00.000-06:00

I feel it is my blog-masterly duty to call Daniel North on the carpet for blatantly false and slanderous statements he has been making against the churches of Christ. I meant to address these issues immediately, but was distracted by other concerns. Now I hope to set things straight.

In his response to my "Leaving..." post last week, Daniel insinuated that his hostility to the churches of Christ was in part because of widespread support of the war among the churches he attended. In one of his personal emails, he also told me that he visited a certain COC in Montana twice, and both times the sermon consisted of a "pro-war" Power Point presentation.

As a life-long member of the churches of Christ, I can attest that pro-war sentiments among Christian people is an absolute impossibility.

You see, the churches of Christ are based on the supreme authority of the teachings of Jesus Christ as found in the New Testament. Our motto is "back to the Bible," and our slogan is "we speak where the Bible speaks." Our praxis in worship and ethics is based on the "pattern" of Christian living taught in the New Testament, which is derived from the teaching and example of Jesus himself.

It is for this reason that no member of the churches of Christ ever has, or ever will, support (or participate in) any carnal warfare, especially a war based on un-Christian principles such as retaliatory vengeance or pre-emptive violence. Our young men would rather face imprisonment or death than give their allegiance and their bodies as weapons to the American Caesar.

As true followers of Jesus, the Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6), we understand that we were saved in order to be peacemakers (Matt. 5:9), to pursue the things which make for peace (Rom. 14:19), and live peaceably with all people (Rom. 12:18; 2 Cor. 13:11), for God has called us in peace (1 Cor. 7:15). We know that we are commanded to love fellow-Christians (1 Thess. 4:9), love our neighbors (Gal. 5:14), and love our enemies (Matt. 5:44). There is no one on earth whom we are permitted to not love. Unconditional love, in fact, is the mark of a true Christian (John 13:35). This is why we in the COC never utter a prayer on behalf of American servicemen (that they may repent and turn to God, of course) without also praying just as fervently for the health, safety, and salvation of the Iraqi insurgents and our poor Muslim neighbors in terrorist cells around the world.

We know from God's word that "love does no harm to a neighbor" (Rom. 13:10), and we must love in deed and in truth (1 John 3:18). Because of the intensity of our Christian love for other people, it would be unthinkable for any of us to condone any activity that would harm or kill another person.

This is why churches of Christ have always been at the forefront of protest against our country's wars. Though we love our president (as we do all people and all world leaders -- and pray for their repentance), we have been unanimous in condemning his hasty decision to shed blood and wreak vengeance against a foreign people (even though those men who perpetrated the actual violence against our countrymen are long since dead).

As the Lord's Bride, we are fully confident that our God Christ is in control of his creation. If we (as Christians and -- secondarily -- Americans) remain faithful to his teachings on nonviolence, he will deliver us from evil if it is his will. It is the Lord who fights for us, so we would never lift a hand against another of our precious human brothers or sisters, unless it was in immediate self-defense. Only God has the right to execute vengeance (Rom. 12:19-21).

We as Christians also understand the spiritual benefits of suffering and mourning (1 Pe. 412-19). We would rather be persecuted by other countries than descend to the Devil's level and persecute them in return.

You see, God's word commands us to be gentle toward everyone (1 Tim. 2:24), kind, tender-hearted, and forgiving (Eph. 4:31-32), compassionate, loving, humble, and courteous (1 Pe. 3:18), merciful and pure in heart (Matt. 5:7-8). We long to be characterized by lowliness, meekness, patience, and love (Eph. 4:2, 3; 1 Tim. 6:11; Titus 3:2), being wise as serpents, but harmless as doves (Matt. 10:16).

I am happy to say that we Christians have internalized these qualities to such an extent that the thought of inflicting violence for any reason leaves us with nothing but a perplexed look on our faces. The idea of using carnal weapons just isn't part of our mental vocabulary.

Because of the magnitude of our admiration of Jesus and devotion to his teachings, we believe that no person or power is exempt from Christ's teachings on nonviolence and love. Every individual, every church, every organization, political party, and government body is bound to obey the words of Jesus Christ, the Lord, Maker, and Sustainer of the universe. Thus, we expect our government to show the same unconditional love of enemies that we expect from ourselves. We hold our elected representatives to Christ's obligation that they do no harm to others, and that they treat other nations with even greater honor than their own (Phil. 2:3).

To us, the lordship of Christ is so all-encompassing, we demand that even the U.S. government must follow the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12). Christ sits "far above all rule and power and authority and dominion" (Eph. 1:21). He trumps them all, and we answer only to him! We do not derive our identity from our country or race. "Our citizenship is in heaven" (Phil. 3:20). Thus, "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal" (2 Cor. 10:4). Christ's kingdom is not of this world, so his servants do not fight (John 18:36).

Our unshakable allegiance to Christ is also the reason why we in the churches of Christ teach our children to refuse to say the "pledge of allegiance" in their godless secular schools. We would rather have our boys and girls face ridicule and ostracization at school than see them deny the lordship of Christ by pledging allegiance to any person or entity besides the Lamb of God. Is this not the reason why many of our people were martyred in the first and second centuries? If the saints of old chose to die rather than pledge allegiance to Casear, then certainly we would rather see our children thrown to the lions and receive the crown of life in the world to come than see them swear an oath to the new Caesar of the U.S. Government and shame their Lord who died for their sins ("no man can serve two masters" – Matt. 6:24). Such is the depth of our gratitude to God!

So, Daniel. I don't know what kind of "church" you used to visit and attend which promoted pro-war, pro-America, or pro-military ideas, but it certainly wasn't a church of Christ. As citizens of the kingdom of God, we are pro-Jesus and nothing more!

You see, we kingdom people understand that war originates from lust and covetousness (James 4:1,2). War engenders and is fueled by hatred, jealousy and vengeance -- all feelings which are forbidden to people of the Book. Those who practice such "works of the flesh" will not inherit the kingdom (Gal. 5:20-21). We have all "put off" and "put to death" our ungodly attitudes like bitterness, passion, evil desire, anger, wrath, and malice (Eph. 3:5, 9; 4:31). Without these feelings, we have no will to fight. We know that we are not to return evil for evil, but instead we respond to evil with a blessing (1 Pe. 3:9; 1 Thess. 5:15; Rom. 12:21). We are enjoined to agree with our adversaries quickly (Matt. 5:25). We "abstain from every form of evil" (1 Thess. 5:22), including support of war. We bless those who curse us, do good to those who hate us, and pray for those who exploit us and persecute us (Matt. 5:44).

So you see, Daniel, the Lord Christ was plain in his teaching that violence is sinful, and so are the attitudes which lead to violence. Our allegiance to the Spirit of Christ and the ethical pattern of the New Testament precludes any involvement or approval of carnal warfare. Having been transferred from the powers of the world into the kingdom of God's Son, we stand as a prophetic counter-cultural community against the Devil's secular American culture.

That is also the reason why members of the churches of Christ have historically not only been the key leaders in the peace movement, but we have also been the loudest voices calling for the abolition of slavery, integration, civil rights for minorities and immigrants, and (of course) equality among the sexes. You might say that Galatians 3:28 has been our rallying-cry since the beginning of the Restoration Movement.

So Daniel, unless you've just been pulling my leg (satire and sarcasm are certainly possible with you), you're either mistaken (and I hope I've set you straight) or spreading falsehoods for which you need a stern rebuke. In the Church of Christ, our King of Kings and Lord of Lords is the Prince of Peace, whose refusal to retaliate led to his violent atoning death "as a lamb to the slaughter," so that we might follow in his peaceful, suffering steps (1 Pe. 2:20-23). As members of the kingdom prophesied by Isaiah, we have beaten our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks. In our world, nation no longer rises against nation, nor do we learn war anymore (2:4). Among us, the wolf can dwell with the lamb. We do not hurt or destroy in all God's holy mountain (11:6-9; cf. 60:18).

The Ideal New Testament Worship Service

2006-03-16T23:55:00.000-06:00

I hope that no one has gotten the impression from my last two posts that I'm arguing that worship ought to be more "entertaining." Quite the contrary. I think it should be more painful. Allow me to explain. . .

In the churches of Christ we have done a great deal of work in the field of ecclesiology. My own recent written output is obviously no exception. We comb the New Testament in search of patterns which we can replicate so we can travel the safe, old paths and not offend our Lord.

I think a key "pattern" text which has been overlooked has been 1 Cor. 12-14. Admittedly, this section is difficult because of the emphasis on speaking in tongues, which is something we don't tend to do. But there is one verse from this section which has remained popular in our ecclesiological repertoir, and that is the last verse (14:40) -- "But all things should be done decently and in order." In popular hermeneutics, this passage is often applied to mean "all things should be done exactly the way we've always done them -- anything emotional or new is indecent!"

But as all exegetes know, context determines the meaning -- especially with a vague, open statement like this one.

So the question then becomes, based on the context of 1 Cor. 14:40, what would a decent and orderly New Testament worship service look like? 1 Cor. 11-14 is the longest section in the NT dealing with Christian worship. Surely, if a pattern for ideal worship exists, we could find it here.

Now, let's survey the entire section and pick out some key details of what a first-century Pauline worship service was like. Remember, according to the command-example-inference "pattern hermeneutic" of the Restoration Movement, these features are all practices which we ought to restore and reduplicate in our churches today.

First, women prayed and prophesied in NT worship services (11:2-16). In the context of ancient Corinth it seems that decency and order meant that the women ought to cover their heads. Fair enough.

Second, it's clear that in the early church the Lord's Supper was part of a full-fledged fellowship meal (much like the original Lord's Supper of Christ's passion week) -- 11:18-34. Paul argues in this section that decency and order require that the people taking the supper must not be factious. Also, those who arrive at the meal early are to restrain themselves to avoid being gluttonous and drunk (imagine getting drunk and bloated with food at a modern COC communion -- that'd take a lot of bread pellets and plastic shot glasses!). If necessary, hungry people should eat before they come so there'll be enough food for everybody (it seems that wealthy people sharing their food with the poor was an important aspect of these early communions).

Third, we see that in early church worship, there were opportunities for lots of people to use their spiritual gifts. Paul argues in this section that decency and order requires that gifted people be charitable, thoughtful, and selective as they address and lead the church. Tongue-speaking for one's own self-aggrandizement, for example, was not acceptable. The things spoken should be intelligible, and the presenters should take turns.

Notice how Paul brilliantly balances formality and informality. On the one hand, when they assemble, each person (ch. 11 suggests this includes women) "has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation" (14:26). This truly is corporate worship! Yet, form must follow function: "Let all things be done for building up." In order to facilitate this function of edification, Paul recommends a particular order of worship: all tongues must be interpreted (14:27-28), speakers should be limited to two or three, with each lesson being subject to criticism from the other prophets (14:29-31).

People should not speak out-of-turn, Paul says -- especially women (14:34-35). Judging by the severity of Paul's language, this had become a big issue for the Corinthian church. The words in this section cannot possibly mean, however, that women are absolutely forbidden to speak in church, for this would blatantly contradict the situation described in 11:2-16, as well as the principle of Christian sexual equality in the one baptism of the one Spirit taught in Gal. 3:26-28 and the example of Jesus, who broke social taboos to elevate women into the circle of his closest disciples.

All of these forms, all of these directions are given, of course, so that Christian worship can fulfill its function of glorifying God and building up the saints. Thus, in the middle of chapter 14 we see Paul's true picture of an ideal worship service. It is an ideal that is not defined by its form, but by how it impacts the people present. Let's focus in on 14:24-25 where Paul paints a picture of this ideal service through the eyes of a visitor:

"But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you" (ESV).

Here is the true test of whether our worship fits the New Testament pattern, of whether it is truly "decent and in order" in the eyes of God. True worship hurts. It crushes the conscience of the sinful. It creates a powerful emotional jolt. True worship strips bare the reality of our own sinfulness and lands us facedown on the floor, hurling praise at God for his indescribable grace.

Did your worship this week convict you and call you to account? Were the secrets of your heart laid bare before God and (perhaps) his saints? Did it make you weak in the knees? Is this how visitors feel when they come to your church? Do they leave slack-jawed, baffling at the power with which "God is really among you?"

This is the standard toward which we reach. This is the New Testament pattern. It is a pattern of function, which can be achieved through a variety of forms. The undercurrent which moves worship concerns participation (not passivity), unity (not factiousness), inclusiveness (not a gender-based quenching of the Spirit), and a reasonable sense of order (which in Corinth involved veils for women, restraint at the Lord's banquet, interpreters for tongue-speakers, limitations on the sermonizing prophets, and a stern rebuke for some ladies who were causing people to talk badly about the church).

I grew up thinking that "decency and order" meant playing it safe. The Bible has shown me in so many ways how I was wrong. The truly "old path" of the New Testament pattern is not safe at all. There's nothing safe about Jesus (unless you're safe in his arms). He always stirred things up, broke the molds, and offended as many hearts as he won. If he truly lives among us today, I believe, the results will be much the same.

Unhewn Stones

2006-03-14T10:59:00.000-06:00

In response to my previous post on "Formality in Worship," James wrote:

In Ex. 20.25 God gives instructions about building an altar for Him. "...do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it." We look at dressed stone as an improvement while God looks at it as defilement. Any form of worship will become old hat soon enough. I believe it takes faith to believe that an all powerful God would be satisfied and even pleased with plain stones used for His altar. What we might consider plain, God might consider obedience.

Am I looking to worship God for my own pleasure and experience or to worship God to please Him? I have often wondered why there is not a "worship" chapter as specific as the "love" chapter is in 1 Cor. 13, telling us the importance of worship in relation to faith, works and knowledge; what worship is and isn't, what is done in worship and what isn't.

I believe the answer is found in the conversation with Jesus in Mark 12.28-34. The conclusion drawn by one of the teachers in verse 33 was that, "To love (God) with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

Jesus' reply in verse 34 is "...You are not far from the kingdom of God."...

Good thoughts there, James. I'd like to riff on them for a while, starting with your third paragraph and working my way up from there.

Christ's teachings on "the greatest commandments" is one of my favorite passages of Scripture. I taught on it two weeks ago in my teen class, and I'll teach it again next week in my adult class. I often remind my students and friends that our brief hours of corporate worship and Bible study are only a small part of our Christian life. The true test of a disciple is one's loyalty to God and love for one's neighbors. Being able to get together and worship is just gravy.

In regard to formality in worship, I'm sure you would agree that form cannot be divorced from function. Certain forms of music, prayer, and instruction are more conducive to helping us worship in spirit and truth. God gave us Scripture reading, singing, and the supper so that worship could be an immersive auditory, visual, olfactory, culinary, and relational experience. All I'm arguing for is that our worship leaders could often stand to be more thoughtful, creative, and deliberate in how they plan to lead our spirits before God's throne.

I don't desire or expect anyone in the COC to go "high church" in the ways that Bill Gnade describes. What I do respond to is his observation (which is quite biblical, I believe -- read all 5 articles) that worship in spirit and truth is inherently formal (to a degree). Formality is our natural reverent/fearful response to our awesome God.

So, to finish up your third paragraph, it is certainly true that love is exponentially more important than "burnt offerings and sacrifice" (i.e., the forms of worship). But that's not to say that "burnt offerings and sacrifice" aren't still terribly important. Cf. Matt. 23:23 -- Jesus tells the Pharisees that justice, mercy, and faithfulness are more important than tithing their herbs. . . but they still need to keep tithing!

James writes, "Am I looking to worship God for my own pleasure and experience or to worship God to please Him?" I've heard this so many times, and I think it sets up a false dichotomy. To me it gives the unintended impression that I can either choose bland worship (which pleases God) or pleasing worship (which God doesn't like). I think that worship done right should please us BOTH. Remember that the Sabbath was given for man, not man for the Sabbath. When we encounter God properly, it leaves him glorified and leaves us spiritually and emotionally enriched.

"God is the audience," as my friend Owen Olbricht likes to say. But at a good perfomance, the audience and performers both leave satisfied.

I'm glad you also recognized in your second paragraph that there is no detailed pattern for worship given in the NT. God leaves it up to us to experiment (within his word's broad boundaries) and find meaningful ways to approach him that both honor his divinity and nourish our souls in a way that is appropriate to our own personal and cultural needs. This freedom that we find in the Bible's silence obliges us to continually question and re-evaluate our worship practices.

The catch-phrase today is "relevance" in worship -- a concept that often makes me uncomfortable. Yet I do believe that our worship ought to be relevant to God and relevant to how we communicate praise and contrition. To paraphrase Jesus again, we ought not do one to the neglect of the other.

Now for something a bit more negative. . .

I'm sorry about your first paragraph because I think it's a very selective use of OT typology. Sure, Ex. 20:25 makes a point about unhewn stones, but in contradiction to this isolated example I could stack up dozens if not hundreds of OT passages that point to the formality and fanciness of Jewish worship. In the following chapters of Exodus we read about Israel's golden box (ark), golden table, golden lampstand, golden utensils, elaborate tabernacle, bronze altar, fancy outfits for priests, rituals of ordination and sacrifice, etc. Could I not much more easily point to any of these features from Exodus as typological examples of how we ought to approach God in formality, surrounded by fancy, expensive things? That's the typological move the Catholics and Orthodox have always made.

It's not that I disagree with what you're saying. I come to worship as an unhewn stone surrounded by other unhewn stones. I just couldn't let a use of sloppy hermeneutics slide by without comment. In my readings on the subject, it seems like there's something of a taboo in the OT against the use of metal instruments at places of worship (for example, the components of Solomon's temple were constructed at another location and then brought to Mt. Moriah).

Please forgive me if I've been too harsh or presumptuous in using your post as a teaching moment. I really appreciate thoughtful responses such as yours, because they give me an opportunity to clarify what I wish to say. "As iron sharpens iron, so one friend sharpens another." In short written texts, it's so easy to be misunderstood.

It's clear that worship was rather informal in the NT. And our restorationist impulse draws us to imitate that informality (though it hasn't stopped us from building cathedrals and gymnasiums and hiring highly polished professional preachers, but I digress. . .). The question remains, though. If the earliest Christians were not poor and persecuted, would they have worshipped differently? Would they have built buildings and hired church staffs and shopped for Sunday dress shoes? Or would they have theologically objected to such things as inappropriately "old wine?"

Finding the answer to that question is our interminable, God-given struggle.

Formality in Worship

2006-03-10T00:37:00.000-06:00

I frequently hear from people who are dissatisfied with the worship experiences at their church. Sometimes they leave the services dissatisfied, frustrated by what seems like a missed opportunity. But what is really wrong? Why is it so difficult for some of us to feel a connection to God in our singing, prayer, and sermonizing?

Is the modern American spirit of equality and informality to blame in any way?

Follow the links for a multipart discussion by Bill Gnade of Contratimes: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5. And, the discussion carried over to this post at the Sunshine Church of Christ site. Keep in mind that Gnade himself is an Episcopalian.

Some manifestations of the post-evangelical "emerging church" (including some in the younger Church of Christ set) are moving toward more high-church-type liturgical worship services. At the same time, others are moving toward even greater informality in worship. The latter is a continuation of our culture's current trajectory. Reading Bill's posts might help us get a grip on why some young people are going against the grain and looking for more structure, more pomp, and more formality in their corporate church experience.

I have found myself bemoaning the formality of traditional Southern COC worship services at times, but Bill's post has caused me to realize that what I had mislabeled as "stiff formality" was actually more of a bumbling informality.

In the churches of Christ, we tend to be militantly "low church," meaning basically that our worship is no-frills, stripped down to its most basic elements. This situation comes both from a theological preference for simplicity and a Southern rural cultural ambivalence toward fru-fru.

Sometimes I have heard friends complaining about the lack of spontanaeity in our worship. But in fact, our problem may be too much spontanaeity (or the wrong kind of spontanaeity). We have, for example, a different song leader each week, who is given no direction on which songs to lead. Some will get with the minster or otherwise plan in advance, while some just seem to pick from their favorite songs at random. Likewise, our public prayers can sometimes be unfocused, repetitive, or rambling.

If our worship was more directed, more structured, more formally integrated, then the songs, prayers, reading, and sermon could be planned to build upon each other. Our worship experience might be more "in spirit" if its elements had a clearer thematic link, or if they followed a logical progression of emotions before God's throne.

For example, many worship services in Christendom begin with awe and doxology toward God, then move toward contrition and repentance (in the sermon), and finally end on a note of thanksgiving. In this way, our conversion experience is recapitulated week after week, bringing us back to the life-affirming moment of our baptism.

So, our services may be somewhat "stuffy," but it's not necessarily because they are too formal. It's our lack of formality in the absence of thoughtful planning, direction, and training which leaves us wishing for a more vibrant experience in the assembly.

Read more on this topic in my follow-up posts ("Unhewn Stones" and "The Ideal NT Worship Service"), and at Sunshine Church, where Jason Coriell graciously accepted my challenge to "discuss."

The Psychology of Sin and Redemption

2006-03-09T07:58:00.000-06:00

I've been reflecting on my previous post about Luke 7:36-50 (read it first), and wanted to follow-up on the idea of sin-consciousness. As a Christian teacher, I don't want to leave the impression that God's people should feel utterly filthy and miserable all the time.

Skeptics sometimes caricature "true believers" as being miserable self-loathers, constantly grovelling before their angry, stingy God. Nietzche likewise attacked Christianity for making people feel weak and helpless, for disempowering believers rather than freeing them to maximize their power. I believe this is a serious distortion of the Gospel message, and of the story of the weeping woman in Luke 7.

In my last post I extolled the spiritual benefits of facing the full brunt of one's sinful unworthiness before the Holy God. Jesus said that the woman in the story was forgiven because of her faith, which led her to crawl to Jesus in worshipful sorrow. But I don't think the story leaves her in that condition. When Christ announces her sins are forgiven, he then tells her to "go in peace," and I believe she does. The woman's contrition is a model for all, yet I am confident that once she received the Lord's blessing, a weight was lifted from her shoulders, and she went away redeemed, refreshed, and empowered.

I am convinced that true faith and conversion requires a kind of ego death. The Gospel message has to assault our psyche and tear it down before it can build us back up again in the image of Christ. The message that we are sinners before God is not a burden that we carry for the rest of our lives, but rather it's a call to action. When we follow the sinner woman to the feet of Jesus, we can then walk back into the world with a confidence that comes from outside ourselves.

To state it differently, the true path to self-actualization is ego death through acceptance of our own flawed smallness, followed by tranformation/regeneration/sanctification by the power of God into a life of confidence and courage, through the power of the Spirit.

Romans 7-8 is one of the key texts relating to Christian psychology. In chapter seven, Paul explains how exposure to God's law creates frustration and sorrow. God sets the bar high, and in our weakness we can never live up to the perfection that the Bible demands of us. When we face the existential crisis of internalizing our own helplessness, our souls become open and malleable to influence from God's word.

Paul doesn't remain the "wretched man" he describes in chapter seven. The old, "wretched" Paul knows what he ought to do, but he fails to do it. He comes to understand that he is not in control of his own life. He is a slave to the hostile, invisible force called "sin." Once he realizes that he is not in the driver's seat of his own life, he is capable of pushing the "ejector" button and letting someone else take the wheel.

Some Christians read Romans 7 and identify Paul's struggle as their own. But this is not how it ought to be. For in chapter 8, Paul, now redeemed by Christ, is freed from his own psychological bondage. Because now, there is "no condemnation." By letting God tear him down, Paul is then able to be lifted up. Paul now lives by the Spirit, and by its divine power he is able to overcome temptation, he is able to keep the Law -- something humanly impossible. It's not because he has gained self-mastery, but because he has died to himself. Paul's "over" himself. He no longer tries to run his own life, no longer strives for perfection under his own power. He knows it's God who works in him, and thus Paul gives the Spirit of his Son all the glory and all the credit.

The sad thing in Luke 7 is that the Pharisee never went through this process of psycho-spiritual death and rebirth. If he had ever felt the radical wormliness that the sinner woman experienced, then he would have looked at her with compassion and understanding rather than condemnation.

We need to come crawling to Jesus from time to time. But we don't stay that way. By dying to ourselves, we are raised to walk by the Spirit's power, freed from the bondage of sin -- not only in the eschaton, but also in the here and now.

Sunday worship ought to be our weekly dose of ego death. As we gather in awe before God's throne, we re-enact, week after week, our own life-cycle of sinfulness, contrition, and redemption. First, we check our egos at the door. In worship we approach God like the woman in Luke 7, cognizant of the full brunt of our broken creatureliness. As the worship progresses, we confess our sins and plead for mercy. Then we marvel at God's grace, and by the time service is over our hearts are filled with gratitude and praise. We leave re-assembled and re-charged.

Real Christianity is life-affirming and world-renovating. It tears down the strong and empowers the weak. In the words of our Lord from his theological exegesis on the Law in Matthew 5, blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are those who mourn, blessed are the meek. The kingdom, and thus the (reconstituted "new") earth is their inheritance. God's strength flourishes in human weakness (2 Cor. 12:7-10)

What Kind of Sinner Am I?

2006-03-08T14:49:00.000-06:00

Lately I've been getting a kick from reading the Gospel of Luke. One thing that's struck me this week concerns the conflicts that keep happening at Pharisees' dinner tables.

It's not that Jesus and the Pharisees are mortal enemies from the very beginning. In fact, Luke records three different times when Pharisees invite the Lord over for dinner (7:36-50; 11:37-52; 14:1-6). They're curious about him, and hospitable to this new rabbi. But somehow, it always goes badly. The Pharisee always ends up saying something that sets Jesus off.

I think the Pharisees are a lot like me and people at my church. They're good, religious people with strong values. They're respected in their communities, but they're not the big movers and shakers in society (the Sadducees would be the Jewish bigwigs). Yet, in spite of their moral convictions and their wealth of biblical knowledge, the Pharisees are eminently capable of saying really stupid stuff. They know the word so well, yet so often miss the point.

The first of these three Pharisee dinner table stories is in Luke 7:36-50. This is the one where the woman who's a "sinner" comes inside and starts putting ointment on Jesus' feet. In verse 39, the Pharisee objects. But he doesn't even say anything out loud. He says to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner" (ESV).

Jesus, being psychic, calls the Pharisee out by name and tells the parable of the two debtors whose debts were forgiven. Of course, the one with the biggest debt was most grateful. He (the parabolic equivalent of the "sinner" woman) was the one who was most aware of his indebtedness.

By paying attention to the plot in this pericope (short section of scripture), we see that Luke sets up the Pharisee as the villain, and exalts the sinner woman as a paradigmatic figure for the readers. This is a radical reversal of what one would expect. Wouldn't the religious man who invites Jesus into his home be the hero of the story? Not in Jesus' world! The Pharisee is scolded, the sinner woman is congratulated and blessed. Contrary to all expectations, Christ accepts the woman over the man, the sinner over the saint.

Luke accomplishes a number of things in this story. Here are just a few.

First, he shows Christ's power (and willingness) to forgive sins (vv. 47-50). This is even more impressive to the dinner guests than his mind-reading abilities.

Second, Luke links faith to forgiveness -- "Your faith has saved you," says Jesus, "go in peace" (v. 50). The thrust of the story also suggests that we ought to link faith to contrition. The woman's faith was a faith that mourned and begged for mercy. A self-righteous faith is no faith at all. The woman's devotion and trust toward God are inseparably linked to her awareness of being a sinner in need of redemption. By faith, I know that I am guilty, weak and unworthy. The only appropriate response to this knowledge is to crawl toward the Savior in worship.

Third, Luke explains why the "sinners" were more receptive of Jesus than the so-called saints. Sometimes those of us who appear to be righteous or good people (God have mercy on our souls) get to thinking that God owes us something, rather than the other way around. Numerous times in the Gospels, Jesus explains that heaven is much more delighted in the conversion of a rebellious sheep than in the consistency of those who walk a middle road, doing nothing either radically good or radically bad.

"He who is forgiven little, loves little" (7:47). This is a very hard saying. I want to love Jesus as much as possible. Is he saying here that I need to go sin in a major way before I can truly experience the reciprocal love of God? I don't think that's his point. Instead, let's remember that: (1) We Pharisee types are still debtors, and (2) Our hearts ought to be open to "sinners," just as Jesus' was. It makes me wonder which of these two individuals would be held up as an example of true Christianity in our churches?

Fourth, Luke shows the appropriate response to Jesus. In our worship, are we, in our spirits bowing to the ground and sobbing at Jesus' feet? Or is our worship more like the predictable, informal gathering of friends that the Pharisee set up?

I imagine that most of us would be like the Pharisee in this story. We'd invite Jesus over for lunch. We'd be interested in what he thought about the latest news, the new programs at church, and so on. But would we still want him around when he started saying offensive things, like asking us why we didn't wash his feet, kiss him, and anoint him with oil when he came in (vv.44-46)? Would we invite him back if he started calling us fools and hypocrites (11:37-40), or if he brought a leper along with him and started bullying us about our religious beliefs (14:1-6)? Jesus is often a hard man to get along with, but he's always right.

So my question today is, what kind of sinner am I? The truth is that the Pharisee and the woman were both sinners. They both were equally in need of Jesus' blessing.

What would my dinner with Jesus be like? Would I maintain my civilized decorum in the presence of the Lord, satisfied in my own righteousness? Or would I crawl to him, gushing with tears over my own unworthiness and the awesome goodness of his own forgiving heart?

My prayer is that I will never forget how broken I truly am, or how wonderful God is to reach out and pull me up.

Check in tomorrow for more reflections on this theme. . .

Know Your Enemy -- Dark Powers in Heavenly Places

2006-02-10T18:43:00.000-06:00

The Bible gives us two explanations of how God's good earth became so messed up. First of all, human sin brought about the curse. Secondly, there are dark spiritual forces which conspire against God and his creation.

Exousiology is the subset of angelology which studies how events in the human world are shaped by the machinations of invisible spirit beings. For example, the book of Job pictures the satan ("the accuser," or prosecuting attorney) appearing in the heavenly courtroom and making a wager against Job's faithfulness. Other Old Testament texts speak of the "angels" (or "princes") of the nations (e.g., Daniel 10:13). The idea is that different people-groups have their own representatives in the heavenly realm. Intertestamental Jewish literature became quite fascinated with speculation on the various types of angels and demons, and how they influenced natural events, individual decisions, and human institutions.

In the New Testament, Paul uses the language of "powers and principalities" to describe the spiritual forces which influence human social institutions. Although churches, governments, polical parties, civic organizations, and educational institutions are seldom bad in themselves, Satan and his minions are able to infiltrate these structures and turn them into idolatrous forces that oppress God's free people.

The book of Revelation paints this picture very vividly, as the Roman government and its religious infrastructure are envisioned as twin beasts rising from the sea to persecute God's chosen ones.

The tendency in modern studies of Paul's "power" language is to interpret the apostle as a "de-mythologizer" who re-interpreted the Jewish supernaturalistic world-view into something more akin to Karl Jung's concept of "archetypes." In other words, to these interpreters, Paul wasn't very concerned with angels and demons, if he believed in them at all. Instead, he identified the social structures (powers and principalities) that hindered the church, and encouraged his readers to convert these institutions through social change.

In my latest research paper, I deal with demonology/exousiology in the writings of Luke and Paul. First, I show that Paul's friend Luke (like the other Gospel writers) depicted a Jesus who believed in and engaged a literal Satan and literal, personal demonic beings. Furthermore, in Acts, Luke portrays Paul himself as an exorcist and miracle-worker. Paul affirms his supernaturalism and his belief in Satan, angels and demons in his own writings, if one will look hard enough. Thus, I challenge the notion that Paul de-mythologized the "powers" at all, and encourage the reader to consider the notion (scandalous to modernistic thought) that the powers of the world are still under the control of malevolent spiritual beings.

But these "powers" are not inherently evil. Indeed, they are necessary to give structure to human society. Paul hints that the powers themselves will one day be redeemed, in part because of the continuing witness of the church.

The way to remain aloof from the influence of the "powers" that work through human "structures of existence" is to remain wholly devoted to Christ himself. No nation, political party, social organization, or religious group is worthy of the devotion we should reserve for God alone. None of them offer us redemption or salvation, though they often promise ultimate truth or future deliverance. The true Christian way is to "actively wait" on the Lord, the one who truly saves and truly judges.

Click this link (or right-click and "save target as...") to see my full paper in .pdf format.

Eph. 4 and the Role of Church Leaders

2006-01-14T21:34:00.000-06:00

The book of Ephesians is a celebration of diversity in the midst of unity. The great mystery of God's plan is that Gentiles and Jews can now be one in Christ.

In Eph. 4:4-6, we find the "seven ones" which form the basis of Christian unity. Then, later in the chapter (verses 11ff), Paul speaks of four specific church leadership roles (apostles, prophets, evangelists, and shepherd-teachers), and why these diverse roles were given.

An "apostle" is literally "one who is sent on a mission." I suspect here that Paul is not talking about the original Twelve, but rather those like himself, Silas, and Barnabas, who were sent by the Spirit, via the Antioch church, to preach Jesus in the Diaspora. In other words, I would equate this with modern missionaries.

Prophets are those who have an urgent message from God. Often in the Bible this message came directly, but we can still act like prophets today if the word of God in scripture ignites a similar fire in our bones. Biblical prophets often had a message of judgment. The prophets among us today are the ones who call our culture and its institutions to task for doing the work of the Evil One.

Evangelists, of course, are "proclaimers of good news." They have a talent for making converts, without necessarily being ordained for a specific service.

Shepherd-teachers are those whose focus is on the flock, in helping Christians grow in their graces.

Notice in verse 12 that these church leaders have been provided by Jesus himself "to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God - a mature person, attaining to the measure of Christ's full stature."

The thing to notice here is that church leaders were not given so that they could do all the church work. Instead, their job is to train and encourage others to become ministers themselves.

Too often in our churches, it is the leaders who have the training and experience, while the rest of the congregation is rather passive, listening to lessons and participating in worship, but rarely engaging in ministry to those outside the church.

So if you are a church leader, your job is to raise the "laity" to the same level of skill, spiritual maturity, and involvement in ministry that you enjoy. If you are part of the "laity," this passage doesn't let you off the hook. You still have the responsibility yourself to find your own unique ministry job and to pursue spiritual maturity and conformation to the image of Christ.

Theological Meditation: The Mission of the Church

2006-01-11T09:20:00.000-06:00

As the body of Christ, the children of God, and the temple of the Holy Spirit, the church must reflect the values, goals, and character of the Triune God who calls it into being. The doctrines of the Trinity, creation, and image of God as previously discussed in these meditations give shape to the divine reality which is shared among God and his remnant.

First, we have observed that the Bible describes creation, the Trinity, and the image in functional terms. This implies that the church (like the creation, Trinity, and image) is not defined by structure, but by purpose and function. Thus, the operative question is not "of what does the church consist," but "what does the church do."

We have seen that God’s purpose is to create a community to enter into loving fellowship with his Triune reality. His eschatological goal is to bring this community to its fullest possible expression in the renewed heaven and earth, purged of sin and death, and populated by those whose love for God and humankind has endured the test of fallen existence.

Thus, the purpose of the church is to facilitate the arrival of this ideal reality. To this end, the church must do two things. First, the church must draw people into its circle of fellowship, which is also the circle of fellowship with God. The church must use its God-given gospel to woo the world toward falling in love with the Creator. Secondly, the church must work to help make the world a more conducive place for glory and fellowship. This is the work of reversing the curse. The work of God is not only conversion of sinful hearts, but also the work of justice and alleviation of suffering. God’s people have a mandate for making the earth more like heaven, or, in other words, helping the kingdom come.

According to this ecclesiology, a true church is one which is fulfilling its function - one that is active in promoting peace, justice, and health, and in teaching the world to love God. Like their Lord, Christians must be actively outward-focused, and not oriented inward toward their own perceived needs.

This has some highly pertinent implications for Stone-Campbell churches. First, our movement was begun with Christian unity as its goal. Such a unity movement could not but fail. One who makes unity the ultimate goal suffers the same tragic flaw as the person who wants to find happiness. Happiness and unity are not goals that can be attained, but are rather by-products - the natural outgrowth of fulfilling one’s purpose. When Christians are focused on doing their work (especially serving those outside the Christian fellowship), there is little energy to devote to the things which divide us.

Second, our recent history has been characterized by an endless discussion on boundary-setting. Who is in, and who is out? Where do we properly draw the line of fellowship? God’s missional character, however, prods us to demolish boundaries. The New Testament especially carries the banner of unity among diversity - the integration of the races, nations, sexes, and social classes. The nature of holy love is to attract, not to repel. Circling the proverbial wagons is an indicator of digression from our function and purpose as salt and light.

Now, the Bible does a great deal of boundary-setting. I do not want to abandon moral and doctrinal holiness. But our defining of boundaries must serve the ultimate purpose of bringing more souls into relationship with the Life-Giver. Our intentions are key. The contemporary task in examining our traditions, programs, and institutions is to always be asking "why." What is the purpose, function, and goal of any given practice, and does it serve the purpose, function, and goal of our Lord?

A key text for meditation on this topic is Luke 4:16-21. Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel and pattern for this church. Thus his mission should be our mission. He states his mission in this text as a proclamation of good news - liberty, sight, and God’s love. The focus of this activity is the poor, the oppressed, and the blind. Like God, his people must reach down to pull others up. And like Christ, the church’s orientation must be theocentric. Our mission is not to glorify ourselves, but to put people in touch with the ultimate source of all there is - to give to the Father all praise and glory and honor and devotion.

Theological Meditation: Providence

2006-01-09T07:40:00.000-06:00

The biblical God is not the god of the philosophers, but a God who gets his hands dirty. As discussed in a previous meditation, God’s purpose for creating was to bring others into his holy loving community. This purpose presupposes some interaction with his created reality. It is not the case that God is "that being greater than which nothing can be conceived," if one’s conceptions are based on Greek philosophical speculations more than the biblical/Hebrew functional and relational understanding of reality.

In other words, God is not so transcendent that any interaction with material creation would defile him. In fact, the material universe is perfectly in harmony with his nature and purpose. To him, it is all "good." The Greek idea, which influenced much classical Christian theology, was that God had to be perfect, and to be perfect he had to be unchanging and impassible. Matter, with its flux, was ontologically polluted. On the other hand, the biblical world-view suggests that the goal of humanity/creation is not a static perfection, but is rather a glorious dynamic relationship with the passionate Triune God. The biblical telos is not a state at which one hopes to arrive, but is rather a trajectory, an orientation toward God and his divine purpose. Sin, in this sense, can be conceived as something that diverts one from the proper path.

The Greek idea, combined with the modern mechanistic understanding of the universe, led to Deism. Science came to view the world as a predictable machine operating in accordance with natural laws. The world became less mystical, less mysterious. As more theories arose to explain the weather, the motion of heavenly bodies, disease, the evolution of life, etc., there became less need to rely on providence and the will of God as explanations for the phenomena of creation. In many minds, God lost his function, his usefulness. Many who still believed clung to a "god of the gaps," a deity whose chief usefulness is to explain those few phenomena which remain inexplicable. Thus, the god of Deism is one that creates the cosmos, and then withdraws from interaction to watch as his marvelous machine executes its programming.

Many Christians have adopted a view of divine activity which is basically a Deism that allows for exceptions. According to modern supernaturalism, the world almost always operates on its own according to natural laws. There are rare occasions, however, when God intervenes. These occasional bursts of transdimensional activity - miracles - are understood to be instances when natural law is violated or overruled.

This view posits too much of a disconnect between the creator and his handiwork. The biblical writers saw God’s hand in everything. Lightning was fire from God; tornadoes were winds from God. It is God who sends rain on the just and the unjust, who feeds the birds, clothes the flowers, and notices when sparrows die. This is not simply a primitive, premodern viewpoint which can be discarded as superstitious. To shift from a world which pulsates with the glory, purpose, and activity of God to a world which runs like a cosmic clock is to undermine an important feature of the biblical world-view.

Some theologians who realize this have shifted toward panentheism - the idea that the world can be analogously conceived as God’s body. The panentheist’s criticism of the modernistic world-view is welcome, yet their theology swings a bit too far in the opposite direction. God does not need the world as a human needs a body. Rather, he relates to it more as a parent to an infant - God is different from and prior to the universe. He does not depend on its existence. But he loves his creation and must nurture it to help it grow.

Twenty-first century Christians need to re-connect with the creation. This will mean a greater appreciation for nature as God’s handiwork, his delight, and his constant nurturing activity. We need to learn to sense him, to smell him, everywhere we go. The world will brighten with possibility as we learn to attribute the falling of every leaf not to random chance or blind natural law, but to the will of God. Semi-Deism gives us a god who is distant. I believe what we have is a Father who is closer to us than we are to ourselves. His omnipresence is not just spectatorial, but animating.

There is a dark side to this view of immersive providence. A happy implication of the mechanistic universe was that it absolved God of responsibility for when things went bad. Natural disasters, for example, were no longer divine judgments, but things that "just happened." God could have intervened, but he rarely does that sort of thing and needs a really good reason to do it. Deism functions in this way as a sort of theodicy. A return to the pre-modern view of providence where God holds the birds in the air (as Mohammed put it) doesn’t just bring poetry back into to the world. It also makes God responsible for everything, even the things we don’t like. It is here that the believer enters into the world of Ecclesiastes and Job, the messy world of discerning hidden purposes among pain and chaos. Yet I suspect that such wrestlings, if handled properly in the community of faith, will serve to draw us closer to the invisible Sovereign who is already here.

Theological Meditation: The Trinity in Creation

2006-01-06T18:11:00.000-06:00

The Bible begins with "in the beginning. . ." Yet it is obvious from the outset that this beginning is not absolute. There is a reality that exists prior to the creation story. Genesis chapter one may very well be the beginning of matter and time as we know it (depending on one’s views of creatio ex nihilo and the nature of time). But it is not the beginning of God. And it is unclear whether other "supernatural" beings enjoyed existence before God formed the heavens and earth.

What is clear is that God exists. He is prior to the creation, and he is something other than the creation itself. More surprisingly, God is not strictly alone. Perhaps the Hebrew word for God is itself (bearing a plural ending, but used with singular verbs) suggestive of a plurality in his nature. Certainly his "let us make man in our image. . ." is pregnant with possibility. Is Yahweh addressing his heavenly court, simply talking to himself, or something else? And what is that wind of God moving over the waters anyway?

One of the major theological contributions of the New Testament is to bring such questions into the foreground. In their experience of Jesus, the earliest disciples felt that they had encountered God in an unprecedented manner. He was a "son of God" in a new, unique (monogenes) way. His intimate bond with his heavenly Father, the God of Israel, was such that it could be said that to see Christ was to see the Father.

The early ecclesia also had the experience of an immanent divine presence - linked to Jesus and the Father, yet different. This prophesied Holy Spirit was an undeniable, empowering reality. The trinitarian experience of the new Jew-Gentile covenant people required a new name with which to describe this mysterious God of creation, providence, and redemption.

Although no doctrine of the Trinity is systematically worked out in the New Testament, the confessional statements sprinkled throughout reveal a Deity conceived as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The "one God" of Jewish monotheism was in some way actually three (while remaining one). Through revelation, the apostles had come to sense that the divine reality was something of a mutually-indwelling community. This has significant ramifications for the behavior of the covenant community, as we will see in a later meditation.

Typical of Jewish thought, the structure or ontological essence of this triune being is left unexplored; its paradoxes are not unraveled. Instead, just as the aspects of creation are depicted in Genesis one in terms of their function as they relate to God’s purpose, the three persons or manifestations of the Trinity are also described in functional (or "economic") terms. Each of the three has certain work to do, both in creation and redemption.

In terms of the original creation, it can be affirmed that the Father creates through the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit. These are the implicit "we" of Genesis 1:26. Already, in the second verse of this chapter, the Spirit is the one who proceeds, the one whose presence clings tightly to the earth. The Spirit is even the source of the life force which animates all living things.

Several passages in the New Testament shed further light on the triune activity in creation. John one posits a pre-incarnate word, a source of life who is both divine and "with" God, through whom all things were made. Colossians 1:16-17 agrees, as does Hebrews 1:2-3. First Corinthians 8:6 contains a similar thought. All things come from and exist for the Father (the "one God") while all things exist through Jesus (the "one Lord"). Again, notice how these credos reflect functional, rather than ontological, Trinitarianism (or, one might say, they describe the "from below" economic Trinity rather than primarily the "from above" immanent Trinity).

Of course, these functional roles for the Trinity flow from the divine purpose for creation, which is perhaps most beautifully articulated in Christ’s prayer in John 17 (especially verses 1-5 and 20-26). Here, Jesus refers specifically to his experience of togetherness with the Father in glory before the creation. Their relationship is described in terms of mutual indwelling or inner-penetration ("I in you, you in me," etc.). Jesus also reveals that the purpose of his mission is to draw his disciples into this reality of unifying love. The disciples are to be united with each other, and through Jesus to be ultimately united with God in the same sort of glory which the Trinity shared before creation.

This is perhaps the key unique theological insight of Christianity: that God, whose essential nature is loving community, creates (through an act of benevolent self-sacrifice) a community of free beings external to himself for the purpose of drawing them into his own divine matrix of self-giving fellowship. God did not create out of necessity, loneliness, or a need for entertainment. He wanted friendship. All of history is thus a spiral of love - a vortex spinning God’s chosen people ever closer to the center - an ingrafting into the divine reality itself. Our purpose is to brave the Valley of Shadow in order to return to the arms of the God who made us. Eschatology is the "happily ever after" at the end of a long, tumultuous love story.

Theological Meditation: The Image of God

2005-12-31T16:35:00.000-06:00

The Native American teenager who visited my Bible class that night was appalled by the idea of animal sacrifices in the Old Testament. How could Christianity be a good religion when its Scriptures sanctioned the slaughter of animals? Are not men and beasts equally God’s creatures? I had to admit that I sympathized with her feelings. But as a Bible teacher, I also had to show her that the Bible presents humans as unique among the created beings.

The God who prohibited man-made images of deity reserved the right to fashion his image himself. The creature that he sculpted from the dust and animated by the power of his Spirit (or breath) was consecrated to be his image (Gen. 1:26). Man-made idols that could neither talk nor think nor move were inadequate representations of Yahweh the creator. The Architect of All There Is could only be represented by an image that could speak and move and create and reason and grow and love and reproduce.

As such, the human being is the ultimate embodiment of natural theology. Who God is is in many ways analogous to what we are. On one level, the "image" concept invites us to imagine a Creator, who like us who is motivated by passion, who frolics in history, who longs to express himself through the act of creation. Our nature projects a picture of a God who longs to love and be loved, a Deity who thrives in community and speaks so that he might be understood.

And yet we know that this Being whom we image is beyond us - beyond our shortcomings and imperfections, beyond our limitations and vulnerability and mortality. The fact that we are but the image of God also highlights our inherent inferiority. We are but his mediators.

The image concept also creates an orientation. To be the image is a task, a goal, a calling. To image God is to perform a lifelong movement toward perfection, holiness, community. "Be holy as I am holy," thunders God’s Torah. The command is a call to disappointment, for we cannot ascend to this status on our own. But the command is also a call to hope - to an optimistic vision of our human potential when our lives flow parallel to the stream of God’s will.

Genesis 1:26ff invites us to think in certain directions when contemplating the imago Dei. First, the image is linked to the idea of "dominion." Man is king of creation. Human reproduction serves the purpose of filling the earth in order to "subdue" it. This highlights the functional aspects of being Yahweh’s image. God’s kingdom is mediated to creation through humankind. Like God, we must be benevolent rulers. Our activities affect not only ourselves, but the created order around us, the creation whose stewardship has been entrusted into our hands. Thus, all our decisions must be made in the best interest of what God has created and blessed and called good. As the promises to Israel demonstrate, the earth thrives when God and humans dwell together in harmony.

Second, verse 27 highlights that we are created in God’s image as "male and female." One without the other is inadequate for the full functionality of the imago. The inherent sexuality of the terms used invites us to think that perhaps the image finds its fullest expression not in the solitary man or woman, but in the mutual dependence, the cooperation, the inter-penetration, the psychological, social, and sexual one-fleshness of the marital union. The sacred intermingling of husband and wife is a reflection of the mystery of the multifacetedness of the Godhead. God himself is a community, the divine reality a circle of love. The assertion that "God is love" describes not only his benevolent disposition toward creation. It sums up the dynamic perichoresis of the Father, Son, and Spirit, the eternal dynamic of begetting and proceeding, and indwelling - a love that encompasses not only agape, but also storge, philos, and eros. Paradoxically, we become most like the Divine when we become the most vulnerable, when we open our hearts and expose our destinies in subservience to another. Only at the moment where the social and spatial barriers between the man and woman are removed - even the barrier between one body and another - do we accomplish that which God has done: create another being in our own likeness (see Gen. 5:1-3).

To be in the image of God means that people are valuable. To take another human life is to forfeit one’s own (Gen. 9:6). Because of the imago, even cursing another person is a serious offense (James 3:9). And this intrinsic value is universal, as the image is our inherited birthright from our primeval foreparents.

In its fullest sense, though, the imago Dei is a future reality. Only with divine help can fallen humanity reach its full potential and function. It is Christ himself who is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4). It is as God’s Spirit transforms us into the likeness of the Son (a process to continue to the eschaton and beyond) that we come to fully fulfill the social and relational reality of being like God, loving what he loves, and doing the kind of things he does.

Is Your "Christian" T-Shirt the Mark of the Beast???

2005-12-12T07:31:00.000-06:00

I always thought "Christian" T-Shirts were creepy. Now I know why.

The "Watch Unto Prayer" website has an interesting expose of "Uth Stuph," the country's largest Christian T-Shirt company. Apparently, much of the symbolism on these shirts' logos is actually occult in origin. In other words, "Watch Unto Prayer" has uncovered a satanic conspiracy to dupe Christian kids into covering their bodies with the Marks of the Beast:

"Occultists the world over believe that, once a symbol is created, it acquires power of its own, and more power is generated when such symbol(s) are created without the profane [uninitiated] knowing about it. And, the greatest power of all is created in the symbol(s) if the uninitiated NEVER discover that the symbol exists..."

At one point, the report even accuses the comic strip character Dilbert of being a representation of the Philistine god Dagon.

You be the judge!

It's a five-page report. Check it out here.

Starting at the beginning...

2005-11-04T08:26:00.000-06:00

I used to go on a lot of short-term evangelistic campaigns, so I was trained in several different home Bible study curricula. Most of them were focused on getting people to renounce their own religions and being baptized as soon as possible.

As our culture changes, I feel that the old approach to home Bible studies becomes less and less viable. First off, these studies generally assumed a certain level of biblical knowledge on the part of the student. Fewer and fewer secular individuals now know the concepts and stories of Scripture, so we jump ahead to the "good stuff" at our peril.

I like to start at the very beginning -- the creation story in Genesis. I think that what many people in my generation are looking for is meaning and purpose in their lives. And that's what the Genesis story gives us. In contrast to the meaningless universe of random chance and survival of the fittest found in the secular worldview, the Bible begins by telling us that the world is "good," and that humans are made with a purpose and goal and a job to do.

Scripture teaches that God created humanity in order to expand his circle of fellowship beyond the eternal Trinity. He created us so that he could draw us into the circle of his love. He also gives us a job to do on earth. This involves being the "image of God," which the context of Genesis 1 suggests includes "ruling the earth" (using the creation responsibly), "filling the earth" (being creative beings like God through reproduction as well as through arts and crafts), and forming intimate relationships (it is "male and female" together which constitutes the image of God).

While so many of my peers live aimless lives under the spectre of nihilism, Scripture from the very start speaks of our worth, responsibility, and destiny.

Christian is as Christian does.

2005-11-03T13:44:00.000-06:00

The modern worldview is preoccupied with structure, while the Biblical narrative is more interested in purpose and function.

This is a concept we've noted in my Sunday morning Advanced Torah Studies adult class. The modern study of the cosmos is obsessed with the materials and mechanisms of the universe. But the Genesis story instead takes time to tell us why the heavenly bodies were put there (to mark times and seasons) and why humanity was created (to be the image of God/rule the earth).

This biblical emphasis on function should be carried over into our teaching about the church. The Campbell movement, coming from a very philosophically modernist background, was best known for its focus on church "forms" (organization, names, and worship practices). Campbell's thesis was that the New Testament contained a pattern for church organization and worship which could (and should) be extracted from the biblical narrative and reproduced in the modern church.

Thus, our teaching on the church has focused on structures (elderships, congregational autonomy, etc.), names (who's really a "pastor?"), and duties (worship, edification, and benevolence). Many of our fights with our friends of other faiths have revolved around the "marks of the true church." The question has been framed as if the church which in structure and ritual most resembles the first-generation church is the only one which is valid.

The problem is that the New Testament devotes very little time to the structure and ritual of early churches. Such details are only mentioned in passing, and it has become clear that the earliest congregations were by no means identical.

I think that our questions about the true church, while certainly addressing structure and ritual, must focus primarily on purpose and function. God has called the church in order to do something with it. God's people are identified primarily by how they behave.

Thus, in my view, the true church must be one which effectively fulfills its function. How do we know the function of the church? The answer is in the Gospels. These four stories were written for the edification of the church (to worship and imitate Jesus). The church is the body of Christ. Our ministry is an extension of his ministry.

Thus, like Jesus, we preach "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (evangelism). Like Jesus, we carry out a ministry of healing (service and benevolence). Like Jesus, we take our culture to task for its failure to live up to God's values (social justice). In short, we must be focused on reaching out and serving others (not ourselves).

If these functions are not being carried out, then God's purpose for the church is not being served. Even if the "pattern" of organization and worship is being followed to a T, something crucial is missing, and such a church isn't being "true" at all. Our structures and rituals must serve our function, or else they are vain.

So how about your church? Is it fully functional, or is it sitting in idle, taking care of its own needs with little thought for the suffering, sin, and oppression around it? Does your church's organizational structure help every person to minister effectively, or does it sometimes get in the way?