The Problem With Christian Holidays

Whew.

The roller coaster of the Christian calendar is over.  It's a lot of work, especially if you are in church leadership.  You get prepped for Advent, work hard through Christmas, get a month or so of planning for the next season and then it's Lent and Holy Week and the big event, Easter.  It's pretty exhausting. 

If you are exhausted, please take a deep breath. You deserve it.

All the church work for a few events in Jesus' life.  Important ones, though.

• Jesus; birth and the incarnation.
• Jesus' forty day temptation in the wilderness.
• Jesus' victory parade into Jerusalem.
• The last supper.
• Jesus' crucifixion.
• Jesus' resurrection.

These are certainly times to remember and celebrate.  But I wonder about the things we are missing.

• The baptism of Jesus
• Three years of ministry, healing and comforting the poor.
• The transfiguration.
• The bulk of Jesus' teaching.
• The cleansing of the temple.

I'm sure that pastors teach on these subjects occasionally.  But they are outside the "main events" of church life.  Jesus' healing and teaching is brought out most Sundays in the gospel readings of the annual liturgy, for churches that use that tool.  But still, it seems that we can focus on the "big three" of events-- birth, death and resurrection-- to such a degree that we can forget about the other, equally important events.

Certainly Timothy Keller thinks that we can easily forget:
"Jesus’ teaching was not the main point of his mission. He came to save people through his death for sin and his resurrection." 
I don't think Rev. Keller is saying that we should just forget about Jesus' teachings.  Only that, if you were going to forget something, forget about the teachings and keep the death and resurrection.

This makes sense if you think that Jesus' death magically eradicated sin.  But that isn't why Jesus died.  Jesus died and was brought back from the dead to establish the kingdom of God.  Entrance into the kingdom eradicates sin and puts us all under a different system of justice, one based on repentance and mercy. 

When we see the death and resurrection of Jesus as the establishing of Jesus' kingdom, then we can see their proper place in the whole of what Jesus was accomplishing.

• Jesus' incarnation showed the kind of person who could do the work.
• Jesus' ministry showed the heart and power of the kingdom, or, as Jesus says, "The kingdom of God is upon you."
• The teaching of Jesus is the constitution of the kingdom, the principles and laws which provide the building blocks of the kingdom.
• Jesus' death is what was necessary to set aside the old kingdom and to establish the new.
• Jesus' baptism, transfiguration and resurrection shows that God is displaying the choosing the right man for the job, certifying Jesus' kingdom.

It seems to me, if we put Jesus' ministry and teaching on a second or third rung on the Christian ladder, we are left with an outline without a heart.  If we celebrate Jesus, and declare him to be Lord, but we do not live out Jesus lifestyle of supporting the poor or celebrate the poor and outcast in our teaching, then we have the semblance of a people of Jesus, but not the reality of it. 

A Living Church

Do we want to see a revived church? Easy.

• Every time a church staff works with a stranger, on the phone, online or in any way represents the church they should reflect the love that God has to all people.
• Every time a pastor decides something for a church member, she should base it on this basis: "Does this reflect Jesus?"
• Every time a new ministry is created, instead of the decision makers deciding for the church membership, they think of what would benefit the most needy of their broader community.
• Every time a church board or denomination makes decisions for their church, they should consider, "Does this decision reflect the generous, embracing, sacrificial nature of God?"

We should be more concerned about helping the needy than the liability of helping the needy.
We should be more concerned about loving than about a balanced budget.We should be more concerned about taking chances for caring than our fears.

Then we will see our churches opened again, not just because people want to worship our God-- although they will-- but because they will be necessary, cornerstones of our communities.
Because what our communities need more than anything is a center of compassionate, generous, all-encompassing love.

Being a Real Church

It is so wonderful how many churches provide a Thanksgiving meal somewhere, and will go to a central location to help the poor. Did you know, though, that in the early church, if a congregation didn't have an active ministry to the poor in their community, they couldn't be called a "church". They could be a meeting, or a prayer group, but they couldn't be a church unless they had a regular work in their church for the poor.

Is your church involved with the poor? Perhaps you are wondering what ways a church can get involved? It really is about looking at your church's resources and making them available.

Here are some ways that I've helped our church and other churches-- whether alone or in network-- reach out to the needy in our communities:
-Offer showers to the homeless
-Community meals inside a church
-Cook a meal to deliver to a soup kitchen
-Cook and serve a meal at a soup kitchen or senior center
-Free clothing closet
-Art studio for the poor
-Transportation for the homeless to services
-Making canned food and produce available for families
-Opening our kitchen for the homeless to cook the food they get from food stamps
-Providing day shelters so the homeless can get out of the weather and the community eye for a few hours a week.
-Offering space in our church facilities for community gardens
-Having a warehouse for items to be given to the poor and homeless
-Overnight shelters on the coldest nights of the year
-Provide haircuts at a soup kitchen
-Provide bike repair at a soup kitchen
-Allow some people who sleep in vehicles to stay in the church parking lot for a period of time.
-Arranging an agreement for one or two responsible homeless folks to stay on church property.
-Gather blankets, socks, sleeping bags, breakfast bars, fruit, individual containers of food, hygiene items, hand warmers and hand them out to the homeless
-Have a trained volunteer church worker who will recommend services to those who call in need.

I haven't done this myself, but I know churches that do:
-Provide bus tickets for the poor
-Offer motel vouchers for the homeless
-Organize lunch and hygiene items and socks in sacks to hand out to the homeless at their camps
-Provide rent or utility assistance to prevent people from becoming homeless
-Provide a social worker to obtain birth certificates and ID for those who have lost theirs

Each of these things require a bit of organization, but they are basic and often provide a huge need for the community. In Gresham, almost all services are provided by churches, doing just what was described above.

A Letter to a Partner Church about the Homeless

Anawim Christian Community is a community church among the homeless and mentally ill.  Our partner church is an immigrant church that shares the managerial duties of our facility. 

It has been an interesting four years, hasn’t it?  We have been sharing this church facility, and despite the cultural differences, and ministry differences, it has pretty much worked.  It hasn’t been perfect, God knows that we both understand that.  There has been miscommunication, occasional false accusation, and sharing the facility between us hasn’t always been easy. 

So when you said to our denomination that our ministries, our congregations were incompatible, I understood that and I knew that it was coming.  There has been an increased dissatisfaction on your part that the homeless are around the church property at all.  And when one homeless couple were caught by you having sex on our porch and another homeless man threatened me on the property, that just increased your fear and disgust.   Finding a knife in the sanctuary didn’t help, either.  These are not issues that you expected to have to deal with in the United States with your children around.  But here they are, and you’d rather not have to deal with them anymore.  I understand that.  I would rather not as well.

But a couple things we need to remember: that not all the homeless are having sex or being violent on the property, only a very few.  And we are inviting those who cause problems to change or to not come on the property.   The homeless are not the problem, but only a few people are.  Admittedly, most of the homeless carry knives, because it’s useful to have, just like a knife in the kitchen. 

When you folks came from central Africa, most of you left a desperate situation full of war and violence.  You came to this country and started your church to be at peace, to provide security so that you could pray and see God change your people and your nations.  But instead, you find yourselves in the midst of another war, another area of violence and pain.  I’m not sure you know this, but this very neighborhood our shared church facility is in is the poorest, most violent neighborhood in Oregon.  And it is becoming poorer every year.  I am afraid that you have moved from your desperate situations in Africa to a desperate neighborhood in America.

Yes, there have been some homeless staying on our property occasionally, but we made sure that they weren't dangerous.  And there are people who walk through our property at night, but we have little control over that.  There used to be drug deals and difficulties on our property, but we put a stop to that.  Occasionally, you have found that our janitor has allowed some folks in the church building to get warm or to use the bathroom, and you found that unacceptable.  We are trying to work together in all of these issues, but we don't find them to be irreconcilable. 

The problem is not the homeless.  Rather, our homeless are a symptom of a bigger problem.  It has been discovered that most homeless people, when they are seen by the average American, they are seen as disgusting, lazy people, who brought their own poverty on their heads.  And many people, if not most, are afraid to speak to or approach homeless folks.  I have heard from neighbors that they want us to ask the homeless not to walk down their public streets, or to hang out in their public parks.   Some neighbors have gone around to harass and threaten people of my congregation.  They have called the police and the city, complaining about our people, when our folks have done nothing to harm them, and they come and live in peace.

Who are the homeless?  They aren’t those without jobs, because many of them have jobs.  They aren’t all, or even mostly, addicts.  They aren’t all mentally ill, although a few are.  The one thing all the homeless have in common is that they have no network of family or friends to support them when they faced a personal crisis.  Some of them lost their jobs, some of them lost their marriages, some of them lost themselves, and there was no one to support them.  Some of these folks have family that not only don’t support them, but they actively pull the rug out from under them.  I have seen a father drive his sober 16-year-old daughter to our overnight shelter instead of taking her home.  I know of at least two families that take the check of their disabled family members, use it for their own expenses and keep them out of their house, with none of the money that is rightfully theirs.  I know of people who have been falsely accused and persecuted by their friends, so they have no one to turn to.  I also know of some folks who have brought their homelessness on their own heads, and their families will have nothing to do with them because they don’t want to be hurt.  But none of them have anyone to turn to.

Once you have been turned away from your own people and place, then you are targeted by society.  If you sleep in a sleeping bag in public, or in your car, then your neighbors assume you are a criminal.  If you look like a homeless person, then strangers will assume you are a criminal.  And they will call the police on you, because you are in their area, which they consider safe… or they used to consider safe until the homeless person showed up, loitering.  And the police will ask the homeless person to move on, or perhaps they will give the homeless person a ticket, or, if the homeless person refuses to cooperate, then they might arrest them.  There are a few police officers who believe that all homeless people to be criminals, and they will abuse and attack them with their dogs and their taser guns.  They might give the homeless person a command to leave the city, or the county, and to not come back.  This is despite a person having grown up in this community.

In our city this year the homeless have been particularly harassed.  It used to be that the police would be told to move the homeless folks a few times every year.  This year, it has been continuous since June.  There is no park, no private space, no woods, no empty house where the homeless can remain for more than a few days or a few hours before they are woken by the police and told that they have thirty minutes to move on or be ticketed or arrested.  No place, except one.

That’s right.  Our facility.

The city police have called our property a “bubble” where the homeless are safe.  They won’t bother street folks if they are on our property, day or night. The police have even driven people to our facility in our off hours because they knew the homeless would be welcome here for a few hours to rest safely.  Most of the police have no joy in arresting the homeless.  They just want to do their job.  And they see our property as partnering with them to keep peace in the neighborhood.

It is unfortunate that the city doesn’t see it that way.  The city has sent inspectors, encouraged by some of the neighbors, to clear everyone out, even our security people.  We acquiesced, because we cannot afford seven hundred dollars a day.  I guess the city hasn’t let the police know, because they are still bringing the homeless here.  And they get upset when we tell them that we can’t allow anyone to stay on the property.

Meanwhile, our church of the homeless is growing and becoming more fruitful.  I wish you could have seen our emergency overnight shelters last week.   We had groups of people cleaning the church facility all night, others cooking for the community, and others keeping people calm and others caring for the sick among us.  I wish you would come on any Tuesday and see about a dozen homeless folks care for this property, almost all of them without pay, simply because they care for the community that has been built here.  Because they are grateful for an opportunity to stay for as long as they do.  I wish you had come early this Sunday morning seeing the ten or so people who slept under the awning of the Red Barn, cleaning up and raking and expressing their gratitude that they had one more night of safe sleep. 

As far as that person who threatened me?  He realized that he couldn’t do that here and has been on the property actively controlling himself and keeping the peace.  He’s changing, but slowly.  Because that’s the pace at which change happens.  The couple who had sex on the front porch?  They realized that wasn’t acceptable and apologized. 

When I see our homeless community, I consider what Jesus sees when he looks at them.  I believe that he doesn’t see them as disgusting or criminals.  He has compassion on them as “sheep without a shepherd”, and he walks among them, healing their wounds, both inner and outer, giving them an opportunity to follow Him.  Not all make that choice, but many do.  But Jesus allows the crowd to remain, because, over time, a new context will create change and establish the Kingdom of God in the midst of our poor, violent neighborhood.

But these folks aren’t really without a shepherd.  Jesus has called me and my companions to be their shepherds.  Some of us shepherds are even homeless, destitute, overworked, oppressed.  We are doing the best we can with what Jesus has given us.  We are here to bring peace in the midst of the war we find ourselves in.  We are here to love those whom the world despises.  We are here to eat with the sinners and tax collectors.

And in the midst of our work, we want to be a blessing to you as well.  We want to provide a facility that you can bless and be at peace and build up your own corner of the Kingdom of God.  We want you to thrive and be joyful.  We want you to live as a community of peace.

But we cannot participate in your peace if you insist that the cost of that is to oppress our people.  If you want to bless your oppressed people by taking away the blessings of our oppressed people, we cannot participate in that.  We will not call our people “unholy” because they smoke or carry knives, because that is not how Jesus sees them.  We will not tell our people that they are not welcome here (unless they do violence or steal).  We will not give our people less hope than they already have.  We will not take away their healing.

We are not asking you to do the ministry God has called us to.  Rather, we only ask that you give us, and our partners, the opportunity to fulfill the command of the Lord: “When I was hungry, you fed me.  When I was thirsty, you gave me drink. When I was a stranger, you gave me shelter. When I was sick, you visited me. When I was in prison, you came to me.”  We affirm that to not do these actions to our homeless who come to us is denying our Lord and Savior.  This we cannot do.

Thank you for listening.

Pastor Steve

In Praise of Segregationism

All church is culture.  Church isn’t primarily spiritual.  There are spiritual elements to be sure, but all of those elements are dipped, covered and sometimes overwhelmed by a culture of our choice.

And this is how it should be.  Even as Jesus became a human being he also became a cultural being and every word he spoke reflected the culture that he was drenched in from before the time he was born.  He spoke Aramaic, probably knew Hebrew and Greek, quoted the Hebrew Scriptures. He also was Galilean, which had a different perspective on Judaism than the temple/priesthood-oriented Judaism of the Jerusalemites.  He had a different view on Gentiles than the southern Jews.  His was not just a Jewish viewpoint, but a sectarian Jewish viewpoint.  That was the culture he chose in his incarnation.  And he was changed by that culture, he spoke both in and through that culture.  And he challenged the mainstream cultures of his day through the viewpoint of the culture he was raised in, as well as his unique perspective.

What mystifies me is the demand for cultural unity in the church.  Yes, I agree that we need to have a limited amount of doctrinal and ethical unity.  Jesus is Lord and love is the law.  But cultural unity? As if we should all be in the same worship service, worshiping the same way.  As if unity can only be accomplished if we are all in the same worship service, singing the same songs.

My first problem with that is that the Jesus who walked on earth wouldn’t be comfortable with any of our worship.  First of all, he didn’t speak the same language.  Also, his manner singing would be more like a chant than our modern melodic songs.  Some of the ideas might be familiar, but our theological language would be foreign to him. 

But in an ideal of a universal worship service, which culture will we be communicating in?  Some say that we will be communicating in all cultures.  But there’s too many cultures for a single worship time.  Thousands of languages, tens of thousands of people groups, each with their own style of communication, and a variety of rhythms and rhyme schemes.  Not practical.

Certainly we could have a service with a variety of worship styles but that’s just another worship style.  Multi-culturalism works for some, but not for others.

My real issue is cultural colonialism. Because when cultural unity is discussed, it is the minority cultures that get the back seat, that have to be relegated to a cultural ghetto.  African music is “special” music, not the normal mode of worship as it would be in an African service.  Whether Mennonite or Presbyterian, youth or seniors, Aboriginal or Indian, each of these groups have a mainstream form of worship, a cultural norm in which they can connect to God.  And they deserve to have their opportunity, not just to be relegated to a single song or reading.  For some cultures, worship needs to be three hours just to get going.  Others have lost the sweet spot after an hour.  And each should have their time with God, with others who appreciate that culture.

I am concerned about cultural colonialism when I hear a white person say, “Why do we have so few black folks in our congregation?  We are a segregated church.”  The reason you have so few black folks is because you have a white-culture worship.  And that’s fine.  Enjoy it.  But don’t think that having more “ethnic” folks in your congregation makes you more spiritual.  If an African American appreciates your culture of worship, great.  But don’t expect them to.  Don’t think there’s something wrong with your worship because it is mono-cultural.  Here’s a secret: all worship is.  Because all worship is embedded in culture, because we all are.  And different people are a part of different cultures.  And being multi-cultural is just one more representation of culture.

I have a church which is homeless culture.  I don’t expect you to be comfortable there.  People use foul language without thinking and take a break in the middle of worship for a smoke break.  We eat around tables in the middle of service. They interrupt the preaching, and the sermons often go on rabbit trails off the text, being more of a discussion than a monologue.  Sometimes a fight breaks out and we have to interrupt church to break up the fight. That’s our culture.  That’s how we connect with Jesus and show love for each other.  It’s not for everybody.  But it works for those of us who are a part of this particular homeless community. 

If you’d really like to experience multi-cultural worship, we’d be happy to have you come and join us.  But don’t think that we are participating in a more “spiritual” worship if you have us join you in your service.  Sure, your singing is nice, and your people are friendly, but you see, our culture is different.  We can appreciate your style of worship, but we have a hard time connecting with God there.  Frankly, some of you are too stuffy.  And some of you are uncomfortably loud.  And some of you think you should wear really uncomfortable clothing.  And that’s great, for you.  I’m not judging you.  The most important thing is that you connect with God, and give him what you’ve got.  We want to give Him what we've got.  In a way we understand and is emotionally resonate to us. 

But please don’t think that we’d be better off if we worshiped in your church, in your style. We’d be less distracted in your church, that’s true, but we can’t hear God above all the things that’s “wrong” with your church.  Of course, there’s probably nothing wrong.  But it’s different.  And we just want to get back home, in our own culture, where God speaks to us in our own language.  Maybe we’ll visit another time.  If you thought that if you made a couple changes for us so we could be more "comfortable", we really wouldn't.  We would just feel trapped in your culture.  Peddled in.

We will be unified.  We will serve together, we will support each other, we will stand up for our brothers and sisters who are outcast, no matter what culture, no matter what viewpoint.  We will mourn with those who mourn and rejoice with those who rejoice.  And we will also meet God with those who understand our way of meeting God.  That doesn't mean we don't love you, just because we aren't in your church.  It means you respect us enough to give us the opportunity to be ourselves. 

Don't Run: A Letter to a Fellow Conservative Pastor in the MCUSA about Same Sex Marriage

My friend, I want to apologize to you for not responding to your paper right away.  It is true I have been busy and my rational mind somewhat distracted from big issues to everyday issues.  But I have spent a lot of time thinking about this issue and have considered it seriously since you sent me the letter on Feb 6.  Now that MCUSA is seriously debating the issue, I guess it’s time for me to give my firm opinion, even if still in the formation stage.  So I will do my best.  I wish I was as straightforward and brief as you, but as you know, my thoughts tend to wander and get a bit large at times.

1.       First, I need to say that I am in agreement with your exegesis of the text.  Paul, in interpreting Jesus, firmly stated that the act of same sex intercourse is a sin, and characterizing one’s life this way keeps one from the kingdom of God.  As Paul is bringing in his idea of porneia from Leviticus 18, this includes same sex marriage.  As such, the church should not be involved in same sex marriages, either creating them or participating in them.

2.       However, this is not the point of view of everyone.  What I stated above is what can be understood from standard exegetical practices. But there is another way of looking at the texts.  If the idea of fornication (porneia) is not based on Leviticus 18, but is based rather on contemporary cultural standards, then we might see the texts on homosexuality differently.  Because Romans 1 has a unique place in its book (which I will discuss in a bit), I’d like to look at the other Pauline passage on homosexuality—I Corinthians 6:9-10.  Paul is listing the characters (habitual, unrepented actions) that cause one to not enter God’s kingdom.  In that list, Paul gives two terms: malakoi and arsenosoitai, a pair of terms that are used to speak of those who participate in same sex intercourse.  Malakoi is a curious term, literally “the soft”, which is not used for homosexuals anywhere else in the NT or the LXX, but possibly connected to wealth in Matt 11:8/Lk 7:25 and perhaps Prov 25:15.  The second term is used also only in I Timothy 1:10 in another, shorter, vice list.  Both terms are understood as referring to homosexual acts.  If so, it could be that the pair of terms refers to the common practice of sexual immorality in patronage, in which a homosexual bond occurs between an older patron and a younger ward.  Paul would be implying that both the aggressor (patron) and the one who agrees to such a sexual arrangement (ward) would be denied entrance into God’s kingdom.   Another passage that has to be looked at is Jude 1:7, which condemns Sodom for their “fornication” and “going after strange flesh.”  This is understood to be about pursuing homosexual intercourse.  It might also, however, be understood to mean sexual acts outside of a committed relationship.  These passages are interpreted in such a way by some NT scholars, and so not speaking of a committed relationship within marriage.  In other words, they would say that the NT does not declare same sex marriage a sin.

3.       Because of this, I think that the argument in MCUSA is not between those who study the NT and those who don’t but between two different interpretations of the NT.  While the purpose of seeking an alternative understanding of these NT passages could be suspect (seeking an excuse to accept those currently outcast due to sinful practice), the result points out a weakness in NT scholarship about homosexuality.  Not that there is anything wrong with what was previously stated, but that it could be interpreted differently.  I am sure that after all your study and hard work you don’t see these two points of view as being equal at all.  And I certainly agree that the connection between Leviticus 18 and these passages is stronger than the cultural arguments.  However, this becomes an argument about scholarship, not about the question of who is in and who is out of the church, which is what the discussion should be about.

4.      

Ultimately, looking at both sides, I see this whole argument to be a question of epistemology. How do we know one interpretation of scripture is true and another is not?  I don’t mean how do we study or interpret, but how do we realistically accept one point of view and reject another.  I know that you, W-, study hard and accept truth through hard-won principles and hours of study.  Most people, however, do not.  They leave the hours of study and analysis to people like you who do the work.  And the “scientists” of the church sometimes disagree.  When they do, the majority of people accept the point of view that makes sense best to them.  Not because they don’t care about the truth, but because they do.  Most people don’t have the skills to do in-depth exegesis.  And they certainly don’t have the wherewithal to make a fully informed choice between two different schools of interpretation. They “go with their gut” based on instinct and relationship and what limited information they have.  Will God condemn a person because he or she disagrees with Him on a point of view that he doesn’t have enough information?  Does not God look at the heart and judge based on their mercy?

5.       Same sex marriages are a hot button issue both in and out of the church and emotions are deeply involved.  It is easy to characterize the side we disagree with as the enemy, as people who are opposed to morality and God’s true will in this broader cultural context.  In a counselling situation, when emotions are high and black-and-white thinking is likely, a counsellor would suggest to put the decision on hold until after a “cooling down” period.  Because rational, informed decisions cannot be made in such a context.  There was a less than informed decision made about divorce and remarriage in the 50s and the 60s, but conservative churches weren’t leaving, no one was making an uproar.  I think the question should be revisited, but the question is… should we really be making a demand of our churches and our society to stand firm on one side or another in this age of partisanship and wild accusations?

6.       What is MCUSA really doing?  Are they being cowardly?  Or are they waiting?  What should a church do when there are differing points of view, both of which is based on an interpretation of Scripture? In a situation like this, the Orthodox church has a saying, “Let’s wait a couple centuries and see how it pans out.”  You say that thirty years is enough to make a decision on such a hot-button issue, but as a historian, you should know that this isn’t true.  Neither Athanasius nor Arius saw their hot button issue of the trinity resolved by the end of their lives, let alone by the end of their century.  The issue of spiritual gifts seem to be winding down after a century of debate, but there are still naysayers.  In all probability the issue of same sex marriages will still be debated in fifty years’ time.

7.       The probability is strong that MCUSA will this week allow individual conferences to make their own choices about same sex marriages, and many conferences will pass that decision down to congregations.  And many churches will find this decision unacceptable and leave the Church, like what you are talking about. However, I suggest that you not do that. 

8.       In the NT, there are clear defining principles as to what is true teaching and false teaching.  But it isn’t so clear what to do with the false teachers.  There are many passages that tell the disciple not to listen to the false teacher, and a church is not to “welcome” such a false teacher, and in Revelation it says that Jezebel would be judged for her encouragement of immorality in the church.  But we are never told to leave a church, nor even to kick the false prophets out.  Rather, even in Revelation, we are told that Jesus would judge himself.  We are to hold to the truth, teach the truth and speak out for the truth, but why separate ourselves from others?

You say that I Corinthians 5 says to separate from the sexually immoral, but the debate is not whether to forgive or to accept the sexually immoral, but what is the definition of sexual immorality.  This is not a discussion to run from just because it is being held.  Romans 1 has a discussion about who is judged by God.  The argument is made that Gentiles are sinners and deserve condemnation.  But Paul is not making that argument in Romans 1:18 to the end of the chapter for himself.  Rather that is the standard anti-Gentile argument about why Gentiles should not be allowed in the Church.  Paul immediately responds to that argument, which includes a clear condemnation of homosexuality, "You have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgement, for in that which you judge another you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things." We allow sexual immorality in our churches in other ways, but not homosexuality?  We allow people to hate and to gripe and to gossip and to argue, but we do not allow a point of clarification from people who want to love and accept?  Is there something wrong with this?

9.       I am in disagreement with the 16^th Anabaptists in an area: I do not believe that it is possible to have a pure, undefiled church.  We can aim for it, work for it and imagine it, but in the end the earthly Church is a number of weak, semiscient, human organizations.  If all those who have the truth leave the Church to form another, then they are leaving one human organization for another.  They are no longer discussing, no longer convincing, no longer evangelizing, no longer encouraging. They are leaving that institution to be bound for hell, which seems like one of the worst kinds of judging.

11.   Even so, recognizing how much this Church (both as MCUSA and as MC and GC) has given you, is it time to leave because they are allowing congregations make decisions on a debatable point of view?  Even if you do not see it as debatable, can you not remain and make your points?  Personally, I think that the prejudices of the church against the poor are more important issues than the issue of homosexuality, but you have already put in the work, on the salary of congregations of MCUSA.  Why leave the church when they have paid you to come to the conclusions you have come to?  Is it not your responsibility to remain in the Church and to share what the Church has granted you—your time, your studies, the opportunity to share?  Now is not the time to run, but to stand and to speak.  The Church will not stop your speech, but rather encourage it.  Perhaps you will not get a book in Menno Media, but there are many other venues.  Take them.  Don’t fail the Church by leaving it, but change the Church from within.

EDIT: I've received some notice that perhaps my point isn't clear. I am not telling conservatives to change their viewpoint, nor am I telling liberals to change theirs.  I am saying that the Church is about peace and love under Jesus, and that we haven't really listened to each other past the shouting.  I am saying that none of us should leave the church, but keep paying attention to each other until we reach consensus on this point of view.  Yes, people's lives and souls are at stake.  So much so that we shouldn't walk away from them.

Long Live the Riff Raff

All the homosexuals and the homeless and the drug dealers and sex workers and meth addicts and convicted child pornographers came to Jesus to listen to him. And the conservative evangelicals and the Bible scholars denounced him, “He is opening the door of the church to the wicked.”

But Jesus told them this story, “Look, if you had a hundred cars and one of them was stolen, wouldn’t you forget about all the other ninety nine and just focus on the one until it was found? You’d call the police, call your neighbors and be generally freaked out—not about the ninety nine, but for the one that was lost. Then, when it is found, you would drive it home proudly and happily. And you’d call your neighbors and the police and say, ‘Praise God! My stolen car was found!” It is this very joy that God has when a single sinner repents and comes back to God, away from his sins. He loves that more than ninety nine church-goers who only ever say the right things.

“Suppose there was a woman with ten coins, worth a thousand dollars each and one of them came up missing. Wouldn’t she take out her flashlight and turn all the furniture upside down until it was found? Then, once it’s found then she calls up her neighbors and say, ‘Yeah, I had lost this expensive coin, but praise God, now I’ve found it.’ Even so does God rejoice over one sinner who turns back to God away from his sin.”

Child pornographers?  Really?
Okay, so we know that Jesus hung out with tax collectors, but do we have to go so far as to say he hung out with drugies and child pornographers? Oh, yes, these are exactly the kind of folks Jesus hung out with. He welcomed those whom the Standard Religious Society (SRS, or, if you please, the church) didn’t want to have anything to do with. These were the ones that the SRS called “sinners”, but many of them really weren’t, or at least no more than anyone else. The tax collectors were folks who worked for the Romans to collect tolls for their roads. While some tax collectors DID cheat the Romans and others (like Zaccheus in Luke 19), but these toll collectors did no such thing. They didn’t make much, but they didn’t collect enough to cheat the Romans. So they had a job, just a job. But because they worked for the Romans they were automatically rejected by the SRS (i.e. the church).

So Jesus, were he here today, he would hang out with those who were “unacceptable” in the church’s eyes today. He would hang out with the homeless who are often excluded from the church simply because they don’t have good enough hygiene. He would hang out with those who belonged to cult groups like Samaritans (or like Mormons today) and explain to them the heart of God’s truth. He would hang out with the homosexuals and drunks who are unsure of their reception, even if they repent. He would hang out with the druggies and tell them about the gospel, welcoming them, eating with them, hoping to bring them—or to keep them—in God.

Who are the Riff-Raff?
Jesus targeted three groups that were set outside of the church. He welcomed the ones who were just not good enough to be in a “proper” church—Samaritans, the lame, the blind, women, the Gentiles. All of these groups were people who could be in right standing with God, but they were set out of the Temple for one reason or another. The church, like the Temple of old, has a pretty strict idea of who belongs to it. No, they don’t set up rules for it, but they set boundaries through their subtle but negative reactions to those who are poor, of different beliefs, or of a different culture. The church today is as cultural as it is spiritual—sometimes it is more culture than Spirit. And those who do not belong to the culture is outcaste.

Another group that Jesus targeted is the sinner. Some of these are professional sinners, such as prostitutes and tax collectors—those whose very profession excluded them from good graces in God’s community. Some are sinners by what they did—adultery, theft, rebellion—and they are painted as such for the rest of their life for one sin. These are like those who are in jail or prison for crimes done. While some churches might accept them, they certainly don’t allow them near their children. Again, the welcome is only partial.

The other group Jesus specifically targeted is the judged. These are people who were judged by God or by people and they have the mark of judgment against them. In Jesus’ day they are the demon possessed or the lepers. Today, they may be sufferers of AIDS or those going through withdrawal from drugs or alcohol or some other addiction. They may be people who have chronic mental illnesses. At first they might be welcome into today’s church, but then they would be rejected because they are “too difficult” or “cause too many disruptions.”

Should the church Welcome the Riff Raff?
Absolutely. If it was good enough for Jesus, then it is good enough for the church. If God sees sinners repenting as more important than a bunch of people who go to church regularly, then maybe we need to stop growing our churches and getting out on the street. Jesus didn’t just sit in the temple, looking for the riff raff to come to him. He didn’t just have a seeker’s service. Rather, he went out and established a party in every village he went to, and shared the gospel at the party. He attracted the riff raff with the kind of gathering they liked, in their area, and then spoke a message that wasn’t easy for them to hear, but it was the truth. Not everyone believed, but it was important. So the church doesn’t just need to welcome the riff raff, they need to go out where they live and give them a party.

Why should we do this? Because these riff raff—even if they’ve been following Jesus for years, they feel that they are second class Christians, or that they have no chance of being right with God at all. They think that their lives are apart from God and there is no acceptance for them. How is this? Because the church has separated themselves from the riff raff. As long as the church will have nothing to do with the riff raff, the riff raff figure that they don’t need God, either.

Yet Jesus focused his ministry on the riff raff. Jesus loves the riff raff. And Jesus’ first church was full of the riff raff—more than the “normal” folks.

How are the Riff Raff saved?
This is the easiest question to ask, but the hardest one to live out. We know that everyone is saved by faith in Jesus, by their devotion to God, their repentance from sin and their reliance on the Holy Spirit. That’s how everyone is saved, without exception, forever and ever, amen.

But the church doesn’t act that way. Rather they act like the homeless are saved by pushing through paperwork to gain homes. They act like the addict is saved by going to some anonymous group and never relapsing. They act like the homosexual is saved by getting married to someone of the opposite sex. They act like the mentally ill person is saved by taking medication. Now, there’s nothing wrong with these things. But they aren’t THE answers for people with these problems.

The only way anyone is saved is through Jesus and reliance on the Holy Spirit. And Jesus and the Spirit will lead the outcast person to the things they need for their lives. Sometimes the answer will be homes, marriage, medication and dishwashers and everything that makes up a middle class life. But for many people, it won’t.

Jesus, in calling the riff raff, chose to be homeless. He chose to be rejected. He chose to be without a family. And many of his followers went the same way. Jesus became homeless to welcome the homeless. He became familyless to welcome the familyless. He became penniless to welcome the penniless. He became rejected to welcome the rejected. And so we cannot insist that the outcast—or even the middle class—to be a part of the church must have homes, families, money and acceptance.

If the Riff Raff aren’t in the church, the church isn’t of Jesus

Great song by Casey Neill, "Riff Raff"

True and False Teachers

If there is one thing that Christianity produces a lot of, it is teachings and teachers. In a way, this is as it should be—the Great Commission of Jesus to the church is to “teach”, “proclaim” and “evangelize.” However, everyone agrees that not all teaching is equal, and some teaching is acceptable, while others are not. But how are we to evaluate teaching? How can we determine what is “good Christian teaching” and what needs to be rejected as false?
The primary understanding we have of anything “Christian” is whether they follow the teaching and example of Jesus and the apostles. This is not to say that there might not be many models of Christian education, but it is on the basis of Jesus’ principles that we can call something “Christian” or not. Here are some principles that Jesus taught was characteristic of teaching that represents Jesus:

1. Jesus’ teaching and life is the basis of the content of the teaching
Jesus alone is the one who explains the teaching of God and helps us know what we are to believe and how we are to live. Jesus alone is our teacher (Matthew 23:10), and whether a teaching’s content is true or false is based on whether it is in agreement with the teaching of Jesus or not (I Timothy 6; II John). The commands we are to teach are the commands of Jesus.
Signs that a teaching ministry is not Christian:
 Is Jesus only one source of many equals that one gains knowledge from?
 Is Jesus’ teaching secondary to a theology, philosophy or practice?
 Is right or wrong determined by community standards, not the New Testament?

2. Only well-trained disciples should teach.
Jesus said that a fully trained teacher is one who acts like the Teacher, Jesus (Luke 6:40). The main characteristic of a teacher should be Christ-likeness. A teacher should not only teach well, but have a life to back it up.
Signs that a teaching ministry is not Christian:
 Is the main requirement of a teacher their education?
 Is the main requirement of a teacher that they be popular?
 Is the main requirement of a teacher that they have a particular philosophy?

3. The teaching encourages disciples to enact righteousness
The content of Jesus’ teaching was to “repent” and the disciples taught that right belief was represented by right action. Even as teachers should provide an example of proper living, they should also teach this in line with Jesus’ teachings.
Signs that a teaching ministry is not Christian:
 Do teachers encourage people to act in opposition to Jesus’ commands?
 Does the teaching never talk about correct action or righteousness?

4. Teachers have control over their speech at all times
A person’s action and speech reflects who they really are. A teacher of Jesus would take care over every word they speak, not just while they are teaching. Jesus taught that we would be judged for every “careless word” we speak (Matthew 12:33-37)—and this is especially true for those who claim to be speaking for God.
Signs that a teaching ministry is not Christian:
 Does the teacher say foolish, hurtful or rude things on a regular basis?
 Does the teacher use humor as excuse to use evil speech?
 Does the teacher participate in gossip?

5. Teaching is offered to everyone, especially the lowly.
Jesus specifically sought out the outcast and needy to receive his message. Jesus said that God has chosen the poor and foolish to accomplish his purposes in the world. Disciples are specifically to be made up of the lowly, as well as others.
Signs that a teaching ministry is not Christian:
 Does the ministry exclude some because of economic or social inabilities?
 Does the teaching specifically put down or exclude people based on economic or social lowliness?
 Does the ministry show favoritism for the wealthy or popular?

6. The teaching is in a context of mercy, not judgement
Jesus said that we would know true or false teachers by whether they were focusing on condemning others or if they are interested in showing mercy to all, offering God’s forgiveness and grace to everyone (Luke 6:36-42).
 Is the teacher only interested in condemning people?
 Does the teaching offer hope for everyone?
 Is the teaching prejudiced against some social groups?
 Does the teaching refuse forgiveness for some sins?

7. The teaching is given without cost.
Jesus said, “Freely you have received, freely give.” Jesus gave his teaching without cost to all who wanted it, and insisted that his disciples do the same. Anyone who charges for their teaching up front is opposed to Jesus’ methods of teaching.
Signs that a teaching ministry is not Christian:
 Is money required up front before you can receive the teaching?
 Does the teacher have an extravagant lifestyle?
 Does the ministry give to the needy of their excess or do they keep the money for its own benefit?

8. Teachers are supported by the people of God.
Jesus said in reference to his teachers, “the laborer deserves to be paid.” (Luke 10:7). A teacher gains his livelihood from the people of God in gratitude for the message he or she is giving. This is offered by donations.
Signs that a teaching ministry is not Christian:
 Does the teacher receive a commission for sales of his teaching?
 Does the teacher require a salary, payment and/or benefits package?
 Is the teacher not allowed to receive gifts or donations from those who benefit from the teaching?

9. The goal of the teaching is to create disciples of Jesus
Jesus said that the purpose of the ministry of the disciples is to “make disciples of all nations”. (Matthew 28:18-20). This is the only work that builds the kingdom of God, and the work Jesus wants us to do.
Signs that a teaching ministry is not Christian:
 Does the ministry have goals other than building a community of disciples?
 Is the heart of the ministry other than making disciples, such as a building program, a political agenda, etc.?
 Does the ministry do anything, which discourages believers from being disciples?

10. Teaching is to be done with authority.
Jesus’ teaching was accompanied by healings and exorcisms. He said that the teaching of the disciples would be accompanied by healings and greater works.
Signs that a teaching ministry is not Christian:
 Does the ministry or teacher try to stop works of the Spirit?
 Is there opportunity given for prayer for the sick or exorcisms?
 Is there evidence of the power of the Spirit among those in the ministry?
 Does the teacher speak with authority, or on the basis of scholarship?

11. Teaching is to be done in humility
Jesus taught against the Pharisees who loved titles and wanted the best places at the banquets. The true teacher of Jesus is humble, not seeking praise of men, but looking for God’s approval and reward alone.
Signs that a teaching ministry is not Christian:
 Does the teacher allow his titles to be emphasized?
 Is the teacher trying to be popular?
 Does the teacher try to give himself positions of power?


12. Teaching is done in the context of service
Jesus said that the leaders of His church are to be servants, not "lords". This means that all in leadership need to be focused on the needs of the people and all leaders-- including teachers-- need to be participating in the lowly service of ministry.
Signs that a teaching ministry is not Christian:
Does the teacher refuse to do service because it isn't his "job" or "gifting"?
Does the teacher hold the poor in disdain?
Does the ministry not offer any real help to the needy?

Down and Out Leadership

The disciples had an argument, there at the Last Supper. They were debating which of them would be the most important ruler beside Jesus when His kingdom comes. Jesus calmly said to them, “It is presidents and kings of the world that are concerned about authority and power. These wield great authority over all men and everyone must call them ‘gracious’, as in ‘gracious lord,’ or “Wow, you are the greatest thing since Oprah”. But if you want rule in my kingdom, you can’t act like that. The ones who will have the greatest authority in my kingdom must prepare themselves for it by acting like the least important. If you want to be important, then be like a waiter. In a restaurant, who is in charge, the waiter or the customer? Isn’t the customer who orders the waiter around, telling him what to get and how much and sending something back because it isn’t quite right? And doesn’t the waiter have to run around, doing the bidding of the customer? Now look at me—I am the waiter. I am here to serve others, not to tell others how to serve me.

“Look, guys, you are great already. You have stayed with me during my most difficult days, though all the struggles and trials. Because of this, you will rule with me because the Father has given me His kingdom to rule. So you will be feasting at my side—even as we are feasting here!—in my kingdom. And then I will give you authority to rule all of God’s people. Each of you will sit on a throne, and you will rule the twelve nations of Israel.

Everybody Wants To Rule The World…Sometimes
Well, this is kinda embarrassing. After all, Jesus is the one who is always talking about lowliness, about humility. Yet, here He is, encouraging arrogance. You see, even though he is correcting the disciples about some things, he is in agreement with them about the thing most of us are uncomfortable with: It is a good thing to want to be in charge of the world.

Most of us feel that this is inappropriate. After all, its just too lofty of a goal, and it is straight hubris—blatant pride to think that we should rule the world. That’s God’s job, isn’t it?

Well, in fact, its not. God gave the job over of ruling the world to human beings way back in Genesis 1. It is our job and we should want to do the job that God has given us. So when Jesus answers their question, He doesn’t deny that we should want to rule the world. Frankly, we should.

And even if ruling the world seems distasteful to you, we all have a hint of it in ourselves. We all want to be respected by the people who know us. And we all want a certain measure of control to make things “right” over our lives. And we get angry when we see that something isn’t right, either in our lives or in the lives of those around us. These are God-given characteristics to everyone in humanity so that we can do the job that God gave us, namely, to rule the world.

The Wile E. Principle of Leadership
The problem is that we take the characteristics that God has given us and go too far with it. Waaaaay too far. God gave us anger at injustice and we have turned it into anger against anyone who irritates us for any little reason, without regard to what is really right. God gave us the desire to make things right and we have turned this into control-freakishness or harshly punishing those who are different than us. God gave us the desire to be respected and we turn this into a hunger for fame or a fear of negative responses. This is not the kind of world-leadership Jesus is looking for.

So when Jesus responded to his disciples, he didn’t correct their desire for world leadership. In fact, He affirmed it. He said that they would be world leaders in the kingdom. And desiring it is a good thing. What he needed to correct was their methods in achieving it.
Most of us think of obtaining leadership like Wile E. Coyote. Wile E. is on one cliff and he is running as fast as he can to the other side, but he doesn’t realize that there is a canyon between him and the other cliff-top. So he runs out.. and there he is, standing on thin air. And then he falls…. Bam!... at the bottom of the canyon and we next see him wrapped in hospital gauze.

Even so, we often think that leadership—as well as wealth and popularity— is a straight line. If we want it, we just go get it. And although we must work hard to achieve success, we will get it if we just take it by the throat. But what we don’t realize is that there is a huge canyon between us and our goal. And if we just try to achieve success in a straight line, then we will be the one in hospital gauze.

The Power Broker
Jesus helps us realize that the only one who can give us success, or power or popularity or wealth— in any positive, permanent way—is God. He is the one ultimately in charge of all things and He gives these things to whom He wills. And while the power-hungry may be in charge now, it will not be that way forever. God will come down to kick out the power hungry and instead welcome a different kind of person.

But to obtain that kind of position, we have to be that different kind of person. God is looking for the lowly, the Anawim, to be in charge of the world. God can’t have the control freaks, the judgmental, the quick to anger or the anxious be in charge of the world. So for world leadership, God is looking for a the lowly and righteous. For the Anawim. God is looking for the people who will act as Jesus said they should—People who are repentant of their sins; people who will sacrifice their life, family and possessions to love Jesus; people who will endure in Jesus through persecution. People who will set aside their comfort in order to serve others. God is looking for faithful disciples.

Jesus Leadership
But not just disciples. Different disciples will obtain different levels of leadership in the final kingdom. And those in charge won’t just be the good disciple—the whole world will be filled with those. But the world leaders will be those who have certain characteristics of leadership
To be an anawimic leader, we have to follow certain principles of leadership now:

• Hang out with the down and out—To be a leader in Jesus’ methodology, we cannot be shy of having the outcast be our friends and companions.

• Live like the down and out—To be in charge, we have to remain lowly, not seeking wealth or power, but constantly giving to those in need. A godly leader doesn’t think how he can benefit from a resource, but how the whole community can benefit from it.

• Get used to taking orders—To be in charge, we have to listen to other’s needs and act on them, rather than our own ambitions. When we see someone’s need, we take that as an order from them to act. If we act in accordance with the other’s need, then we are living out Jesus’ leadership.

• Lead by example—It isn’t enough to tell others to do good, to repent, to live purely—we have to do it ourselves. We must show the life of Jesus and not just teach it to others.

• Encourage, don’t demand—To be Jesus leader is to be gentle and to recognize other’s freedom to do as they please. If we give others freedom and opportunity to live for God, then they can have a relationship with God. But if we end up controlling others, they have no relationship with God, only us, which defeats the purpose of trying to get people to live for Jesus.

So to be a leader in Christ is to be the Anawim. It is to live as a waiter, a servant of others, only living to act for others and not for our own ambition. If we attempt to get our own ambition, then we end up like Wile E.— Falling to our doom.