The H Question, remix

Okay, maybe what I have to say isn’t important enough to restate it. But I just re-read the previous blog, and even I didn’t get it anymore. It was wordy. It could be expanded to a book, or reduced to some principles. When I wrote it, I was full of it. So here goes with the simple attempt:

Our denomination is fighting over the question of Homosexuality in respect to the question, can LGBTQ people be in significant roles of leadership?

And to answer that question, we have to answer a whole slew of other questions: Is LGBTQ practice sin? Does God love the LGBTQ person? Is it fair, or Christ-like, to single out the actions of LGBTQ people over the actions of others? Can we learn anything by the lack of any reference to LGBTQ in the gospels?

And underneath those questions are some classic battles defined by these questions: Does Sin exist, and if so, what is it? Is there absolute truth? Is the Bible authoritative? Is God, or the idea of God, dead? Can Science and Reason answer our questions of morality? Does “not standing against” LGBTQ activity mean we are condoning it? How can we stand FOR “good news, redemption and transformation” while we are standing against a GROUP of people?

I believe the argument about the LGBTQ question is one we shouldn’t be having because it no longer makes a real difference. The point is moot. Yep, I said it. And here is why:

When Nietzsche said “God is dead” he declared that humankind didn’t need the superstitious notions of God anymore. He believed that science and reason could solve the problems of the world. Evangelical, and the more conservative bible-believing theologians reacted strongly to those words. I reacted.

For me, I asked Jesus to come into my heart and save me from my sins. And He did. In ministry, I have seen demons cast out, I have seen the blind receive their sight, I have actually seen the dead raised back to life. One day, I felt this burning sensation at the back of my throat, and afterwards, I started speaking in an angelic tongue. When I pray in that tongue, I see mountains move. I can attest, God is not dead.

So here was Christianity, with its back up against the wall, the Cold War was raging and those “godless commies” threatened our very existence and faith. We had a fight on our hands.

We had to prove that God existed to those who rejected him in favor of Science and Reason ONLY. And one of the biggest arguments used was the fact of sin, the Biblical declarations of it, and the Atoning sacrifice of Christ to free us from the curse of sin.

In order to prove the fact of God, we proved the fact of sin, and Christianity as the sole refuge for sin.

All of those arguments were statements, propositions, designed to win the battle against the statements, propositions, of “science and reason are all we need.” It was a battle of words and ideas. Both sides became further and further entrenched in their propositions.

And then, the vast majority of the culture realized that science and reason did not provide all the answers. Without discarding the value and importance of science and reason, we admitted that we needed some sort of spiritual guidance to help us. We became students of our own history. We realized that just because we could do something, it didn’t mean we should. We question: “Should be have used the A-bomb?”

So, the culture changed and as it turned out, God wasn’t dead after all. Culture admitted that science and reason alone cannot provide moral guidance.

The Church has a chance to get back to the table as a partner in forming culture. We lost our seat when the Church reacted to its loss of significance by creating its own sub-culture. That sub-culture became so entrenched in the arguments that it didn’t notice the world wasn’t listening. Instead of trying harder to influence culture in a way that would make a real difference, it shouted out louder and louder, to itself -against one another, its propositions. The culture reacted with a reinforced view that it had become less and less relevant. They stopped listening.

But then, in spite of us, culture confesses its need for God and yes, what we call sin. Some even call it sin. Some call it brokenness. Some call it “influenced by evil” and some may reduce it to “a lack of evolutionary altruism.” But the overwhelming majority recognizes that we need spiritual as well as scientific guidance.

So here is the solution for us: We need to realize that the LGBTQ question changed along with the culture. The questions are no longer: “is there really such a thing as sin?” “Is LGBTQ sin?” Those questions addressed the proposition: “we no longer need God.”

Today, however, the questions are: “How does God love the LGBTQ Person?” “How does God want us to love the LGBTQ Person?” These questions place the emphasis on God’s loving relationship to humankind instead of the propositions of the culture. It is almost as if we have to change from defending “the fact of God” to defending “the love of God.”

Brethren, can we forgive each other the passions of the past, look beyond who won or lost the argument and get back to being God’s Kingdom ON EARTH and heaven instead of just in heaven? 

Author's note: I don't substitute the word Homosexual or Homosexuality lightly. For some, the substitution may seem as if I am trying to take away the very human face of Homosexual persons. I assure you, I am not. A big part says to me: "leave the entire word(s) in so that people can realize that we are talking about real people, people whom we know and love." But I find that too many other people use the Homosexual and Homosexuality as a derogative. So, when ever you see "H" in this blog and it refers to Homosexuals, try replacing it with "someone else that Jesus gave His life for -just like me."

Author’s note: In finding community with LGBTQ people who have accepted me, a former enemy to their civil rights, I learned to replace what was originally posted as “H people” with LGBTQ. That might explain my previous author’s note!

The H Question:

Homosexuality, the H Question.

Because of the current levels of debate, there is no short answer to this question, especially for preachers.

But, I am going to put my perspective down in bullet points because I think you will get most of it in that framework. And, these are merely my theological, psychological and physiological understandings.

But before that, there are 4 terms I am going to use:

1. Secular Modernity: The world view that only science and reason can answer our questions, religion is a form of naiveté that the age of science and reason will eventually conquer. It includes Secular Humanism and allows for Social Darwinism.
2. Christian Modernity: The World view and apologetics that contrasted and strove for Christ and against Secular Modernity and its attempt to deny the existence of God. On the evangelical side the scripture behind it is Romans 10:14-15 or 2 Timothy 4:3 –both scriptures emphasize the importance of preaching true to the Word.
3. Secular Post-Modernity: The predominant current world view that distrusts the Church, and most dominant faiths (by dominant, I mean “in power” like Islam and Christianity) because of their domination of others. It includes pluralism, neo-pluralism (My term –in my opinion it is actually part of the neo-pagan movement, which is not an “in power” religion, but a resurgence of Druidism. It is called Wicca. For a good look at its history in developing European culture, read the novel “That Hideous Strength” by CS Lewis.) and syncretism. It values relationship above anything else. It sees humanity as a Community  in various degrees, according to the individuals “taste.”
4. Christian Post-Modernism: (My view) A world view that is highly Christocentric, even its description of salvation through Jesus Christ,  but is less interested in taking a stand against Secular Modernity and all its propositions and is more interested in bringing people into a relationship with God, who reconciled us to Him through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The defining scripture is the “gentleness and respect” of 1 Peter 3:15.

It is important to note that the imperative behind Modernity is propositions. The propositions of Secular Modernity and Christian Modernity clubbed each other over the head with their truths as they wrestled for domination in the ideological views of the Western Culture. The problem was, the clubbing each other over the head didn’t work at all, nations continued to fight, the Cold War ensued. Then the Church itself fell into this mindset and began attacking each other in its own subculture and became culturally irrelevant because it stopped doing the Work of Jesus. It was easier to argue than it is to sacrificially serve. Peter said: “Arm yourselves with a willingness to be like Christ.”

In my opinion, this paved the way for Post-Modernity whose imperative is relational over propositional. This world view is not as fractured as the world view of Modernity, but then, it is just beginning (and some say is already dying in favor of Nihilism).

All of that is important for me to explain where I think the debate on the H word is currently at:

• Modernity versus Post–Modernity on the question of Homosexuality. There is a fundamental difference in what the question even means:
  • Modernity, Is there a God?:
    • In modernity, the “propositions of truth” and “taking a stand for the truth” was necessary because Secular Modernity denied the existence of God, the moral judge.
    • In Secular modernity right and wrong, morality, was made up by the consensus of society.
    • Only in Modernity is the question asked: Is Homosexuality a sin?
    • Therefore Homosexuality from Christian modernity is described as sin.
    • Evangelism was propositional instead of relational and the Holy Spirit blessed the propositional preaching. It fit the need for the time.
  • Post Modernity, Who or What fills this spiritual space we all feel? (Notice, the fundamental difference in the question):
    • In Post-Modernity, we are no longer arguing (in apologetic fashion) the existence of God, we are discussing the nature of God.
    • It may be a fundamental understanding of the difference between whether or not God is a God of wrath, or a God of love?
    • The concept of right and wrong, or sin, are in context of “since there is a Spiritual reality what does and doesn’t describe sin, or moral verses immoral actions?”
    • And the question is not so much: “Is homosexuality a sin?” but rather “What does God do and think about the homosexual person?”
    • My answer is three-fold:
      • Jesus loves everyone so much he died for all, including me AND people with same-sex attractions (notice the name change).
      • Sin is either and both (at different times) a result of the fall (brokenness) and deliberate choices for disobedience.
      • Given the stigma and pain involved, I don’t believe that a person would choose a same-sex attraction as an act of rebellion toward God. (In that case, I would describe their “sin” as “brokenness.”) I can imagine a sinful choice to be bi-sexual as an act of rebellion, or a purely hedonistic desire for pleasure. In that case, I would call the action sin. Note: Brokenness is not God’s ideal or desire for humanity, it is a result of the fall.
    • To be clear, in my post-modern understanding of where the Holy Spirit is leading evangelicals like me, in most cases, same-sex attraction does not make one an unbeliever –you understand the difference being either a direct act of rebellion (sin/hedonism) or a result of brokenness (same-sex attraction).
    • Those who have same-sex attractions are loved even more by God, because He knows their hearts.
    • Evangelism is now relational instead of propositional, and the Holy Spirit is blessing those who do relational evangelism, it works according to His plan.
    • (I believe the only people arguing the question of whether or not homosexuality is sin are the people who are still addressing and reacting to evangelism from the mindset of the culture of modernity. But we are now in a culture of post-modernity.)
• Does sin exist?
  • I believe the answer, in both Modernity and Post-Modernity is very similar, with maybe a “lesser state of sin” (brokenness) in Christian Post-Modernism.
  • In the debate over Homosexuality, the real question, and the reason why it is such an inflammatory issue is because it is a culture war between the concept of the inherent evil inside all of us, or the inherent good in all of us.
  • Modernity’s answer to “inherited and corrupt sinful nature” was Secular Humanism. In that concept the more a society progresses, it will have greater ability to address social problems and bring out the good in everyone.
  • However, most of Secular Post-Modernity seems to have accepted this Secular Humanism dogma as a working principle (probably because that question really hasn’t been discussed yet). It is a principle that is contrary to atonement theology.
  • The debate has been going in Western theater.
    • The iconography of science fiction movies seems to support both future scenarios. Contrast Star Trek (Secular Humanism) with Avatar (an inherited corrupt human nature). The narratives are polar opposites. The pre-industrial Native Americans lived in harmony with the world as they do in Avatar and the industrialized society refused to allow their moral compasses to mitigate their use of power. Essentially, if they can do it, then it it must be moral. This is the aspect of Social Darwinism that threw New Testament morality under the bus. Sadly, in Civil Christianity, when Christianity is the “in power” religion, the question of whether we can, or whether we should is asked less often, or asked only in the areas that justify ourselves. (I.E. Slavery, US border policy, the use of Nuclear weapons, the plight of Native Americans…)
    • This is contrasted with Star Trek’s invention of a WARP drive that ushered in an age of human prosperity that seemed to perfect us. Every civilization they visited that was less advanced had worse moral ethics and every civilization that was more advanced had better moral ethics.
    • Of course, Avatar leaves out the Christophanys of ET, Cool Hand Luke, and Braveheart where the protagonist is crucified and comes back to life in one form or another.
    • Star wars has a personal redemption theme without the atonement. Its perspective isn’t Christian, it is actually Wiccan in the way Vader redeems himself.
  • That brings us to atonement theology.
  • We cannot forgo the importance of the cross (the last three days of Jesus’ incarnation) and we cannot forgo the importance of Jesus’ teachings (the first three years of Jesus’ teaching). BOTH are equally important. John 17:4, Jesus prays “I have accomplished the work you sent me to do…” This is before the cross. Jesus, as God’s representative finished the imperative of His teaching. But then, as the representative of Humanity, He became the sacrifice for our sins.
  • Because of the questions: “does God exist?” and “is there such a thing as sin?” Christian Modernity focused mainly on the last 3 days of Christ’s mission on earth.
  • The culture of Post-Modernism sees the inequitable balance in Jesus ministry and begs the question: “Is the Church genuine and authentically following Jesus?” Many rejected Christianity, but not Jesus, or at least the idea of Jesus.
  • So, in Christian Post Modernity, the narrative of atonement hasn’t changed, but the narrative of Jesus’ life on earth as the representative of God, His passion for justice, love, mercy and compassion has been added. Praise God! It is a step away from Civil religion into NT Christianity.
  • Peter Gomes, in his book “The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus” describes, in the eight chapter, what I call the “neo-social justice gospel.” During the height of modernity, Christians were either into social justice (the first 3 years) or saving souls (the last 3 days), but now, Gomes himself holds to the gospel of Jesus that includes social justice and personal salvation.
• So, from this perspective of Post-Modern Christianity, is Homosexuality a sin?
  • Yes and no. (And I am not waffling on the fence).
  • Same sex attraction is not a choice made as an act of rebellion against God, therefore it doesn’t fall into the category of “not loving God with all our heart, and not loving our neighbor as ourselves.” In the case of the deliberate choice to go against heterosexual attraction, then yes it is a sin.
  • What about same-sex attractions? Are they a sin? No –not in the concept of rebellion against God. But it is brokenness. It is less than God’s ideal. But for those who have it, and didn’t want it, it isn’t sin to them. It is similar to my diabetes. I didn’t choose it, but it is less than God’s design. Does that mean that Homosexuals are diseased? Not quite. I wince at the pejorative implication in my metaphor, but I just don’t have a good metaphor except the brokenness of the fall. (Help me, please!) Except maybe in the concept of cancer (which is not a sin). Cancer is excessive production of the wrong kind of cell. Cancer is amoral. But the point is, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, ulcers, skin problems and even obesity are all a result of the fall AND THEY AFFECT BELIEVERS AND UNBELIEVERS ALIKE.
• So, how do we answer the question is homosexuality a sin?
  • To the Secular Modernist and Post-Modernist: “I am a sinner. H, if you want to, you may call it sin. But in this context I will call it part of the universal brokenness. It is no less or no more than my brokenness and sin. I need a Savior. Jesus loves H as much, if not more, than He loves me.” (Because He is specially tuned to the outcast and marginalized in society.)
  • To the Modern and Post-Modern homosexual: Jesus loves you and wants you in His family. He is the one who will walk with you either in, or out, of your lifestyle. It starts with Christ.
  • To the Christian Modernist: “I am going to deal with people who have same sex attractions exactly the way Jesus did, I am going to treat them as a neighbor.” When they press me for a definitive answer on whether or not they are sinners, I will walk away. (Because, in my view, it is the propositions of modernity clubbing one another and that has proven to be ineffective.)
  • To the post-modern Christian: “Open your arms and invite them into the family of God; enjoy their presence in this great adventure!”
  • To the Homosexual Christian Post-modernist: “what can I learn from that will help me on my own journey?”
  • To the Homosexual Secular Modernist: “I am sorry for the way you have been marginalized, I hope you can see in me, the Jesus that loves you and accepts you just the way you are.”
• Taking a Stand –how the propositions of modernity failed (and are still crippling our forward progress). I alluded to this in the introduction:
  • Because Modernity was a propositional argument about the nature, source and even existence of absolute truth (Secular Post Modernity is still wrestling with that), both sides did well in delivering their propositions. And every proposition was a reaction to the other side and the propositions became more and more insular and divisive.
  • Today, the pro-H groups are doing a very good job of making it a relational issue and are moving away from the propositional arguments. They are making people think about whether or not God loves the H.
  • The worse part of this, is that in Christian Modernity, verses all three other categories (Secular Modernity, Christian PO-MO, Secular PO-MO) the propositions became so important they were “an end unto themselves.”
    • The preacher, church, or denomination that had the stronger stand against “equated themselves to be more righteous than others.”
    • So, denominations divided, argued over forms of baptism, tongues, versions of translation, eternal security, and etc. All of this was to prove to God they were faithful.
    • It became a sort of Christian competition, and the secular world laughed, ridiculed and worse, ignored the Church as irrelevant.
    • In fighting Modernity, we fought amongst ourselves in order to prove something to somebody (who?).
    • We fell victim to our own significance and lost our seat at the table in Modern World view.
    • I believe that since the last election, provocateurs have resurged some of that old debate in order to manipulate POLITICS with fear and rhetoric. How sad. The more this goes on, the more we all will be marginalized.
    • I believe this is the biggest reason why youth are leaving the Church.
• What about the fact that Jesus didn’t mention H?
  • The Modernity debate has used that as one of its clubbing points.
  • One side says: “Since Jesus didn’t mention it, is must be okay.”
  • The other side says, “Of course He did: `A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife…’” as a proposition for hetero relations only. And then, of course, there is Sodom and Gomorrah, Romans 1 (a result of judgment, not the cause as Conservative Christian Modernists claim –same with Sodom and Gomorrah, Ezekiel 16:49-50).
    • The argument from Conservative Christian Modernity –that God will judge us for allowing the gay agenda- has it backward.
    • Materialism and Consumerism are the sins, and terminal sexual deviations (which results in the failure of a society to reproduce and survive) is the judgment.
    • And again, I am not saying that H people are under a special and worse curse. They share with everyone in the broken nature of this world. And I believe this: “At the point of our brokenness, the place where we are the most afraid that Jesus would appear, is exactly the place that He loves us the most.” We are saved by grace.
    • So, the “gay agenda” rhetoric published by the religious right is merely the work of provocateurs who exploit our fear in order to raise funds for their “righteous defenses” of God. It isn’t a slippery slope to perdition, it is grain elevator pumping more and more money onto their piles of gold. 
    • When Jesus didn’t mention it, it wasn’t because He was endorsing brokenness. No. Jesus didn’t mention it because it wasn’t important enough to fight over.
    • He was soon to provide the atoning sacrifice to restore the broken to Him.
    • Jesus was and still is about redemption, restoration, healing, and reconciliation between God, man and each other.
  • Then there is the whole imperialism, kingdom to come instead of the Kingdom here and now issue.
    • Post-Modernity distrusts “in power” faiths because of the way they have achieved and maintain control.
    • That is why Nihilism is emerging.
    • Nihilism is a reaction to the abuse of authority. It is: disestablishmentarianism taken to the up to the level of politics and national leadership.
    • Post-modernity perceives (whether or not it is true is still a debate, the perception is real to those who hold it) an historical connection between religion and the abuse of power. I suppose in the Christian context, it began with Constantine and his refusal to allow his sword arm be baptized when he “converted.”
    • He believed that his religion gave him the power to subdue others, after all they were/are merely pagans whose destiny is perdition.
    • I think the controversy right now about the “Ground Zero Mosque”, and the systemic perceptions behind 9/11 –right or wrong- indicate the fallacy of having a civil religion (like American Evangelical Christianity, or the theocratic nature of some of the more radical Muslim countries).
    • How does this relate to the H question?
    • If we are allowed to marginalize the H people, then we can also marginalize and abuse “the other” -anyone who isn’t like us.
    • Post-Modernity wonders if Christian endorsement (from the beginning of the slave trade to the election of President of Obama and beyond…) of racism and the current increasing-in-popularity evil  Christian Identity movement is any different from the reaction to the gay agenda? Without the framework of scripture, it appears to them to be the same imperialistic viewpoints.
    • And here is the worse part about it: Taking a stand against the SIN OF OTHERS to prove your righteousness while you allow suffering, injustice, marginalization of others is a far cry from the righteousness that Jesus described by “taking up your cross and following Him.”
    • “Taking a stand against” is a sacrifice that costs us little in comparison to taking up our cross. In the mega-church hysteria and manipulation for profit by the national Christian media, that “supposed sacrifice” is actually a benefit because it gains the applause of others in the Church and increases the coiffures by creating an enemy out there. In essence it is no different than Goebbels  demonizing the Jewish race in order to garner support for National Socialism.
    • It is not a real sacrifice- not while believers continue a life of over-consumption and going to church to get a commodity instead of  taking up our crosses to follow Christ. Remember, that was the downfall of Sodom and Gomorrah.”

So, if you ask me “is H a sin?” My response is “why do you ask?”

That is nor a pejorative response. If  you truly want to know how I think the Holy Spirit is leading the church in its reaction to this debate, then praise God! I applaud your willingness to seek God instead of merely listening to the rhetoric. Search yourself and inform me as well. I don’t have all the answers.

However, if one wants to prove to himself or  herself that I am either less or more biblical or spiritual than them in my ability to take a stand… …well, I won’t say it and I will repent for the temptation to think it, instead I will say in complete sincerity, without mockery: “God bless you.”

Phil Reynolds is an ordained minister in the Church of the Brethren. He considers himself Bible Believing and still identifies as an Evangelical, but has distanced himself from the American Evangelical movement because he perceives that it has become a Political entity, manipulated by provocateurs, that has exchanged New Testament Christianity for Western Civil religion.

I have two people who I have to apologize to because I realize that I have left you completely out of my categories. I just don’t know what to do with you yet. One is a good friend and I love her dearly: SQM: “You have taught me more than you can imagine. I deeply respect the sincerity by which you have achieved your world view. I am sorry I haven’t figured out a response to the Christian Post-modern who does not see the atonement as crucial to their faith. So, I ask you to forgive me for leaving you out of my categories. When I figure out how your integrity and sincerity fits into my narrow world-view, I’ll figure out a way to include you in the categories. Again, please forgive me.

And to another man, JWB: “I deeply respect your perspective. I have  learned a lot from you. I see you as moving from Modernity to Post-Modernity in the way that you speak more of the human cost that the H controversy creates than the propositions that kept us all divided. I hope to someday visit with  you and become your friend. I hope you know that I love you. Really. I just want to hug you, and figure out a way to get through this together.”

I mentioned Gomes Book: “The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus?” Gomes, an H person writes of what I call neo-social justice Christian. He decries the lines that separated the liberals from the conservatives in the age of modernity and sees a genuine revival taking place that is both Christocentric and also Just. It is a Kingdom here, and a Kingdom to come, enjoined together.

Technorati Tags: homosexuality,post modernity,modernity,imperiallism,post-modern christianity,pluralism,biblical authority,gay agenda

Can’t we have a conversation?

A facebook friend of mine, the president of the Republican Party Toastmaster club in Dayton Ohio posted on her facebook page and I responded. Not only is she an avid Republican, but like me, she is an avid Christian. On most days, she posts a “scripture of the day” reference that is always a blessing to me. However, one day she posted this on her wall and I responded with another scripture for her to consider. One fellow, a kind hearted individual named Greg showed that some people can have a conversation, but others cannot.

A man named Mark took me to task privately afterwards. So, I posted the initial wall dialogue and then posted his intercourse with me.

When we get to the place where I post the inbox messages, I did a spell check and cleaned up a couple of wrong words on my end (wrong words indicated with a bold, italic text in parenthesis). I started changing the way he spelled democrats, than then realized that he was intentionally leaving out the c.

Text of orignial wall post.

Deborah Mulholand OBAMA WATCH CENTRALPresident makes Top 10 list of corrupt politiciansBelieves he 'can violate privacy rights of Americans' without legal consequence
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=120407

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.wnd.com%252Findex.php%253Ffa%253DPAGE.view%2526pageId%253D120407&h=74e46a23c5af73f4ff095fee1d50172b&ref=mf

www.wnd.com

President Obama has been named to a Top 10 list he'd likely be grateful to avoid: Judicial Watch's Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians. The Obama White House believes, said the report from the organization that monitors government for corruption,

Wed at 8:17pm · Comment ·LikeUnlike · View Feedback (12)Hide Feedback (12) · Share

3 people like this.

Phil Reynolds

Scripture for the day: 1 Timothy 2:1-4, the good news is, as believers, we have the power to bless.

Wed at 8:49pm ·

Gregg Nicholl

Romans 1- and "God gave them over . . ." God's wrath of abandonment: a nation turns its back on God and God simply lets them go, reaping the natural consequences of their actions. Better go the 2 Chr. 7:14 route ASAP.

Wed at 10:10pm

Phil Reynolds

So, Romans 1 trumps 1 Tim 2:1-4 as if it isn't scripture? Or, does Romans 1 have to do with a lack of concern for the poor and the idolatry of materialism: Ezekiel 16:48-49? Maybe 2 Chr 7:14 has to do with GOD's people in relationship to Isaiah 58. Maybe that is how revival is won. Maybe the "giving over" from Romans 1 has to do with Leviticus 19:33-34 when God says "I will judge you for calling not calling "illegals" the term Jesus used: "Neighbors."

Wed at 11:12pm ·

Gregg Nicholl

Phil:
I was not responding to your Scripture quote but the text of the article posted by Deborah. I apologize if I have somehow offended you.
Romans Chapter 1, in my opinion, is the locus of control for the malaise we are experiencing in the present age. This is the root cause of our societal problems- a hardness of heart begotten from turning the back on God in a macro or national sense. I wasn't trying to "trump" your Scripture quote. I am not interested in playing "silly church games." Lord knows there have been way too many people who twist Scripture for their own aims. There have been way too many church folk who seek to assert their superiority in the church pecking order through the throwing out of Scripture quotes verbatim and using clever "Christian" catch phrases like bumper stickers for life in order to impress the bretheren And God knows how many people continue to use Scripture to cut the hearts out of their brothers and sisters. I am NOT that way and if I would ever drift into such nonsense, I would trust that someone would correct me, confront me, or hit me over the head with a ballbat. It is indeed sad and it is one of the many reasons that the contemporary American Church has had such a minimal impact upon the greater culture.... See More
Chronicles 7:14 was taken out of context. It specifically applies to ancient Israel. However, it does serve as a good example of what to do in these trying times. Humility and prayer are always good things. Additionally, It shows how God spared a nation that turned its back on Him in the past; a nation that had many years of kings that adopted the evil ways of the other nations. Granted, it was ancient Israel, God's chosen people, however,it shows how He responded in the past to a people that were His own. In New Covenant times, Christians would be considered as God's people. America was founded on Christian principles and (until recently) considered itself a "Christian nation". Hence, the illustration. God is immutable- He never changes.
Once again, Phil, I was not trying to respond to your Scripture quote, but only to the article as posted by Deborah. I am sorry if this has caused any offense to you or anyone else. It was certainly not my intention and, as stated before, I don't play games with the Word of God. I was merely attempting to illustrate a possible causation for the madness that has taken hold in this country. I am sorry and I do apologize for my comments.

Yesterday at 5:38am

Deborah Mulholand

Greg: I'm not sure what your ASAP was all about, but my purpose in posting is that the Obama Administration is pretending to be "Christian" but our dear Prez won't darken the door of a church and hangs out with his Muslim friends and loves reading Harry Potter books to his daughters more than reading from the Bible. Obama says that we're NOT a Christian nation any more. Oh, Really?????????????

Yesterday at 9:18am

Gregg Nicholl

ASAP? (As Soon As Possible?) I don't understand. I explained my initial posting above, along with an apology to all concerned. There was no offense meant. it was just a reaction to continued examples of what happens when a nation turns its back On God as we have done in the past. Corruption permeates every level of government. There is no ... See Moreshame either. Consider Mary Landrieu's comments (D-Louisiana) referencing the amount of money it took to buy her vote on healthcare, "It wasn't 150 million, it was 300 million." This, to me, exmplifies Romans 1. And, as I have repeated, I am sorry for causing offense. It just made sense to me. Thanks. Take care.

Yesterday at 2:05pm

Deborah Mulholand

Greg: I'm still confused about those "Bumper Stickers For Life"! I've always felt they were a proclamation of loyalty to those "least among us" who need our protection. Those who are proudly pro-life, are fellow believers I can trust and call my friends.

30 minutes ago

END of wall posts, now Mark Buse asks me a question in my inbox. At the beginning of the conversation, his picture was visible and there was always a “reply” button. But after his last post, he deleted any access by me to him, his picture disappeared and the reply button did not exist anymore.

I weep for our nation:

Mark BuseDecember 31, 2009 at 2:43am Report

' So, Romans 1 trumps 1 Tim 2:1-4 as if it isn't scripture? Or, does Romans 1 have to do with a lack of concern for the poor and the idolatry of materialism: Ezekiel 16:48-49? Maybe 2 Chronicles 7:14 has to do with GOD's people in relationship to Isaiah 58. Maybe that is how revival is won. Maybe the "giving over" from Romans 1 has to do with Leviticus 19:33-34 when God says "I will judge you for calling not calling "illegals" the term Jesus used: "Neighbors." '

So are you furious that the nation doesn't treat invading thieves better? Or is this a statement of judgment against all of the home nations that abused their poor so thoroughly that they came to America to escape conditions that are far worse?

Phil Reynolds December 31, 2009 at 10:00am

Mark,
God bless you.
I am a conservative theologian and a pastor. I try not to begin a dialogue with accusations of self-righteous and angry L******* or angry C***********. It kind of makes it hard to have a conversation. What this country needs is a conversation instead of rhetoric. If a kingdom is divided against itself, it cannot stand. It seems to me that the politicians are more interested in politics than in healing our nation. I would love to elaborate further, as long as we can have a conversation.
Having said that, I don't see any evil in the word liberal. Liberal means "generous" and conservative means "to conserve" or to "hang (hand) on to." Of course, the ability to be generous most often begins with wise financial decisions that conserve wealth by eliminating irresponsible spending. When I see the call of God on the life of Abraham (Genesis 12) I read a spiritual principle, that apparently you also agree with (from your response on Deb Mulholland's page), that principle is that God blessed Abraham for the express purpose that he could be a blessing to others. I believe that principle is what you are saying when you say that we need to build up other nations so that people aren't so desperate to flee here. If we can do that, then we can eliminate a brain drain on the resources of those other nations.
I pause at your question "are you furious....?" I hadn't thought about it that way, that I am the one who is furious. Generally, the way to tell who is furious in a conversation has to do with their rhetoric, accusations or use of derogative or prerogative terms about the person they are taking with. Sometimes, I consider that debate tactic -attacking the character of those we disagree with- as an admission of defeat.
But, you are right, I am angry with the way the conversation has become to mean-spirited. I am angry that the name calling isn't going to move us from point a to point b. I believe there are sincere, honest thinkers on either side of the debate. If we, people like you and I, can model a respectful conversation, then perhaps that attitude will spread like leaven in a loaf of bread. It seems to me that our politicians are not interested in healing the land and it is up to us to start a grass roots conversation that will lead the way.
My comment on Deb's post was a reaction to the link. A knee jerk reaction and I am sorry for that. I do not know if you consider yourself a believer in Jesus Christ or not, but I know that Deb makes it clear that she has a deep and abiding faith. She deliberately represents Christianity on her facebook page. And, I was showing her from scripture that Christians are called to bless, and pray for, their government. God made it clear to Daniel and the Babylonian kings that God is the one who sets governments in power. If we represent Christ, then we need to reflect a biblical response over a political/national response.
I mentioned that I am a conservative theologian, and that means that my first allegiance is to the Kingdom of God. I am patriotic and I love the USA. But I am first and foremost a citizen of God's Kingdom and that Kingdom knows no national borders.
So, I believe, and this is just my opinion and faith, I am not asking you to adopt it for yourself. But I believe that although the nations that exploit their poor are reprehensible for their actions, their actions do not preclude us from obeying the scriptures. I believe the command in Leviticus 19:33-34 is a standard by which God will judge a nation as either righteous or evil. I believe that our national/political/financial interests do not take precedence over clear commands in scripture. I believe that our restrictive border policies are in direct violation of God's commandments for a just society and that by ignoring them, we place ourselves in a position to lose the blessing of God. I am not asking you to believe what I believe.
So, yes I am angry. I am also angry that both political parties are beating each other over the head with scriptures and obfuscating the (that) conversation that will heal our land. I am angry that Christianity is suborned by politics on both sides of the issue. And I am on a mission to ask people to have respectful conversations with each other instead of name calling.
I believe in the sincerity and integrity of those who disagree with me and I hope they can believe in the sincerity of my beliefs as well.
Mark, we can change the world.
Phil Reynolds

Mark BuseDecember 31, 2009 at 3:54pm Report

We can change the world as faithful witnesses to the Gospel. That includes an honest representation of what we support in the political aspects of life. I cannot believe that anyone can be a 'conservative' from a theological standpoint and in any way approve the legion of evil constituencies and policies that are bundled together in the modern Dem party or its leader, Odrama.
While I hope that every Christian prays for evil actors in politics every day, it is not our job to publicly bless their evil policies or behavior.
For example, I believe that it's quite proper and correct to pray openly for the salvation of BHO, Pelosi, etc, that they might turn from their destructive and damning evil.

Mark BuseDecember 31, 2009 at 3:59pm Report

The example of Daniel AND Esther are excellent ones to use in this context. While Daniel was properly respectful toward the despot Nebecudnezzar, he was NOT blindly obedient to his evil policies. In fact, the Lord turned the evil despot to Himself and I believe eventually to salvation because faithful believers did take a defiant stand against overtly EVIL policies and commands. That behavior was repeated by the Apostolic Church and the Lord Himself in their defiance of the evil Jewish leadership of their day. That continued throughout Church history as righteous believers defied wicked leaders and paid with their lives as martyrs.
And did Esther BLESS 'that vile Haman' and did her uncle bow to that vile man as protocol demanded?? Certainly not.

Mark BuseDecember 31, 2009 at 4:00pm Report

So I repeat, are you one who votes by proxy for the mass-murder of abortion through the one political party and its truly evil leadership the keeps that form of murder common, profitable, and legal?

Phil Reynolds December 31, 2009 at 4:56pm

Mark,
Again, God bless you in the name of Jesus. Can I assume that your statement "being witnesses of the gospel" and knowledge of the OT minor prophets means that you too are a follower of Christ Jesus?
The short answer to your question is: I vote according to the principles revealed to us by God in the book we commonly refer to as "the Bible." I vote the Bible and I take its morals, values and definitions of righteous and just activity as a standard whereby I vote my politics. I believe that the creation of the US constitution is a miracle given to us by the same God of the Christian faith. Although it is not scripture, it seems to have had divine help in its construction. It is a gift from God. I do not vote political party lines. I don't bite "hook, line and sinker" the claims of either political party. And again, I am disgusted at the childish level of rhetoric perpetrated by people who call themselves Christians. It is as if those people are still saying: "Lord, is this the time you are going to restore the kingdom of Israel?" Jesus made it clear, the Kingdom of God is in the hearts of men and women and transcends national borders. It seemed to me that He was frustrated with the fact that the apostles didn't "Get it" when He kept telling them that politics is not the answer to the world, He is.
Now the long answer. I marched in the "right to life march" in January of 1981. It was 18 degrees below zero when we started the march. I came across a Southern Baptist pastor who was a friend of my twin brother. I was studying at Bible College in preparation for pastoral ministry and wanted to make a good impression on every preacher I met since I could gain advice, help, mentoring and insights into my calling by cultivating those relationships. In other words, I was listening instead of speaking. The preacher said something to me near the end of the route. He said: "I wonder where all the black people are? Why aren't they concerned about stopping abortion?"
I found his question odd. I found his question to be racially biased in an unchristian way. I remember thinking "why notice? Why single out this other race as being less since they didn't join our cause?" But, I took his question to heart and investigated the reason why the defeat of abortion was not as important to the African American community AT THE TIME as it was to the Caucasian American community. My investigation lead me to this answer: "While we were wondering where they were during the right to life marches, they were wondering where we were during the civil rights marches." I am sure there are many other reasons, but the consensus of my investigation is that this was the primary reason.
The same passion that the American Evangelical Christian Community of which I am a part of that has fueled our passion against abortion also fuels my passion for human rights in every area. I believe that access to health care is an human rights concern. I believe that compassion toward our neighbors who are at worse called "illegals" and at best called: "undocumented residents" should extend to the words of Jesus and we should call them: "neighbor." Remember, the Pharisee "wishing to justify himself" asked Jesus: "who is my neighbor?" And Jesus launched the story of the good Samaritan. What would Jesus call the undocumented resident? Would He call them anything less than "neighbor?" So, I vote the bible. There is a lot more to being just, caring and loving toward our fellow man than stopping abortion.

Phil Reynolds December 31, 2009 at 5:29pm

We have a favorable court, and unless something drastic happens, Obama's presidency will not change that court. I remember my Republican vote for Reagan in order to get a favorable court and he gave us Suiter. The party line vote did not stop it. Abortion will not stop by legislation, it will stop by revival. We need the 2 Chronicles 7:14 promises to come true and it starts by the believers being HUMBLE. This spite filled rhetoric is certainly not reflective of the humble nature of Jesus.
I appreciate you picking up on the Daniel prophesy and strong stands against evil and for righteousness. Remember when Daniel interpreted Nebachanezzar's dream? God is judging the tyrant because of his arrogance and unwillingness to acknowledge God's sovereignty over all nations. So, Daniel tells him to repent and perhaps God will stay His hand of judgment. What does he say repentance looks like? He says, "stop sinning by making sure the poor get justice." Daniel says nothing about his idolatry, his drunken (drunker) party, his huge harem, etc. He tells him this: repentance is making sure human rights are not violated. Haman wanted to violate the human rights of the alien (Jews) living in the land.
John the Baptist says the same thing. He criticizes the people who are coming to get baptized because they want to look righteous, religious and good. He tells them that they have no intention of repenting and that if they don't: "The axe is laid at the trees..." So, some of them hear and are convicted and decide to genuine repentance and they ask John, "What does repentance look like?" John says: "if you have two coats, give one to someone who has none. If you have extra food, share it with the hungry." John said nothing about taking a stand against socialism, big government. As a matter of fact, in today's current political climate, John's answer would probably be criticized because "it smacks of socialism and that is un-American (unamerican)."
Listen, God gave Sodom and Gomorrah over to their perverted pleasures because they "were proud, arrogant, had a lack of concern for the poor and were lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God." (Ezekiel 16:48) God judged them twice. The first time, He gave them over to their perversions (proven as a method of judgment by God on a culture in Romans 1) and the second judgment, because they didn't repent when He exposed their materialism was the hellfire and brimstone. God judged Abhimilech when he took Sarah as his wife when Abraham lied. God kept all the women in the land from getting pregnant. Terminal sexual deviations -the lack of a culture to reproduce- is the judgment of God on a culture. Abortion is not the reason we will be judged, it is God's judgment. And the repentance must start in the house of God. The whole 2 Chronicles 7:14 ASAP comment is true. But, the repentance that God calls for is one of justice for everyone. Justice for our "neighbors" who flee to this land in ORDER TO LIVE. Justice for the marginalized cultures who live within our land, justice for those who cannot get healthcare, justice for those who do not have the chance to get a viable education. "With liberty, freedom and Justice FOR ALL"
Final question: Isn't the debate between "big government" vs. "small government" actually a debate between restrained vs unrestrained capitalism? Hasn't this debate gone on since Hamilton and Jefferson dialogued back and forth? Couldn't we have the same civil discourse instead of all this mean-spirited rhetoric?
Mark, you can I can change the world.
Phil

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:34am Report

The debate is between voluntary relationships, including the economic ones, among the people working together Under God, or an authoritarian state worshiped by the people in idolatry, as the Lord condemned roundly at the time of Samuel as a sign that the people had rejected HIM.
In that sense, all statist-minded liberals, who worship the power and fantasy benevolence of an all-consuming state have rejected God's way most thoroughly.
In a sense, you use 'capitalism' as an epithet and curse against the free will that is the Lord's gift.
Generally, I like the way you have discussed Scripture, but you also read a wrong conclusion from Daniel. Remember how in the narrative, Daniel himself sternly lectures Nebecudnezzar's son/successor for failing to turn from evil and acknowledge the Lord as his predecessor/father had done. The Lord had provided that wicked leader a representation of His very hand to write out his condemnation on the wall. In a sense, what many Christians are doing is calling out to our present vile, anti-God leadership that the 'hand-writing is on the wall' and we shall bring down their vile governance using our higher law of the constitution.
Your proposition that we are in rebellion against God-ordained government is dead wrong because we are the ones following the highest God-ordained law for our nation, our Constitution. We are condemning the vile usurpers who trample that Constitution no less than when the evil King Ahab and Queen Jezebel trampled God's Law and murdered God's prophets.
Abortion is not the Lord's Judgment that we have not been socialistic or communistic enough, because those of us who are neither are the ones who are personally generous in helping the poor and needy as the liberals, and especially liberal Dem constituencies are not.
Illegal aliens are not the same as legitimate foreign guests within a nation, who are to be treated as equals. They made a decision, usually an entirely selfish one on which their lives did not depend, to steal access to a nation against God's ordained government for both our nation and their nation of origin. What you are advocating is that it's ok to flaunt the law because you want MORE for your life whether it's legal or not. You turn morality on its head.
So I ask you again, are you voting for the mass-murder of abortion? You claim that Reagan gave us Suiter when he did not. That was Bush41, who was deceived into that mistake. What we get instead from Democrats is a hard-line pro-abortion litmus test for their appointees, and the most vicious attacks on good men like Thomas who made it through their evil torture, and Bork, who did not. Had Democrats not been so vicious, the Federal mandate for abortion would have ended long, long ago.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:38am Report

Notions of "social justice" the modern leftist code-word for economic equalization, can NEVER trump mass-murder, even if it were true that one party was thwarting economic justice---in which case it would be the Dems who are systematically GUILTY of that crime. Their endless abuse of generous business people, their endless demonizing lies against every successful person and venture are an abomination before the Lord who provided those blessings. They are the party of Coveting everything, stealing from others, lying as they claim to be benefactors, and murders of the unborn. No Christian should have anything to do with such systematic evil.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:45am Report

The Lord's kingdom is indeed always coming; let it come through His people rather than in spite of them.
Since we have to make real choices, I choose Conservatives for now since they are far more inclined toward the Lord and His kingdom than the other side.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:52am Report

Luke 22:24-28
24Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
This is such a direct REBUKE to those who attempt to RULE over others as false benefactors.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 4:55am Report

And this passage from Mark 10 (also in Luke)
The Rich Young Man/Ruler
17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’d”
20“Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
21Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
I've never met a poor redistributionist Demorat politician. They are all the worst kind of greedy, hypocritical, self-enriching LIARS while ripping the righteous people of our society as 'extreme'. We have had enough of their evil.

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 5:05am Report

I don't believe that our views are reconcilable because your sect seems to have heretically chopped out major sections of the OT and Revelation parts of Scripture to come up with a generalized 'anti-war' philosophy that is premature at best.
Only with the new Heaven and Earth, when evil and death have been destroyed shall there be total peace.
Until then, anti-war means lying down for despotism, a vile repudiation of the role that the Lord has provided for government to protect its citizens.

Phil Reynolds January 1 at 9:46am

Mark, again, God bless you.
After 9/11, I found an Inman (Imman) who was willing to respond to people who might be interested in the Islamic faith. After several discourses I asked him: "What would it take for there to be peace between Israel and the Arabs?"
He answered: "They kill our children, they steal our homes, they bomb our cities. There can never be a peace until we destroy them completely."
I posited back to him: "Consider this scenario, Jesus was hanging on a cross looking at the men who murdered Him and said, `Father forgive them, they don't know what they are doing?'" Sooner or later, one side is going to have to be the bigger person and seek a means for peace and a respectful dialogue because during the process, too many innocents will be destroyed.
What is it about Jesus nature, His command to turn the other cheek, His passion for the poor, His statement that a kingdom divided itself cannot stand, His command to bless those who curse us -to bless and curse not-, to treat people the way you want to be treated instead of the way you have been spitefully treated, and His nature conveyed to Peter who tells us to try to convince other people "with gentleness and respect" that so called Christians like you don't see? Do you really think this hard line of stopping everything the other political party does, twisting the Word of God by implying things like undocumented residents are not our neighbors, and obfuscating the truth of God's word by implying the US constitution is more important than God's Holy Word is acting in Christian love?
Mark, if you and I could have a conversation, then there is hope. We could change the world.
Phil

Phil Reynolds January 1 at 12:38pm

God bless you, Mark.
I am using the question of undocumented residents as a metaphor for our "Christian" nation but there are many other issues we could use as well.
You imply that our constitution implies that undocumented residents are "illegals." I am saying that the Bible calls them neighbor. You say, the US constitution is the highest authority in our country. And I agree. However, the Bible is the highest authority for me and if we are going to call ourselves a Christian nation, then we cannot pick and choose those passages that Augustine used to justify Roman imperialism. We need to accept and live by the whole council of scripture.
I have not tried to change your politics in this debate, I have only asked you and others like you, who name Christ as Savior to conduct yourselves in a manner that honors the Savior. I mentioned that I although I am a patriotic US citizen who believes in the good that we can do, I am first and foremost a member and citizen of the Kingdom of God. The apostles asked the question: "Should we obey God or man's laws?" I believe that I have a purpose and that is to help this nation get back into favor with God so that abortion, pornography and other terminal sexual deviations will be removed and the proof of our excessive materialism will stop.
Mark, we need the dialectical discourse to keep ourselves in balance. There is no reason why we as Christians cannot do it in a Christian manner?
Do you agree? Can a conversation help us to heal the land or is the only solution the elimination of one political party over the other? Where would America be if Jefferson AND Hamilton hadn't carried on a respectful discourse and shaped our values? Why can't we do the same?
Mark, We, you and I, can change this world.
Phil

Mark BuseJanuary 1 at 2:36pm Report

As I mentioned before, you are so steeped in your heresy and folly that the best I can do for you and others like you is pray for you before you destroy our nation and tens of millions of other people around the world.

End of posts:

I guess a conversation is not possible with some. How sad.

Liberal verses conservative verses emerging

So, I was at the National pastors retreat for the Sustaining Pastoral excellence program November 2008.

We were having a good time together, until the last session of the last day. My cohort did an emerging church study in which we looked at leadership principles for disciple-making in a post-modern culture.

Brian McLaren (who leans a little to the left side of the emerging church movement) has a great mission statement for his church: "To make disciples of Jesus Christ in authentic Christian Community for the good of the world." (Emphasis mine).

I think everyone, (liberal/conservative/fundamental/emerging/emergent/missional)
agrees with these statements: 1) The Church is the Kingdom of God on earth and it exists for the good of the world. 2) It is the only organization that exists to serve those who are not members. (N'est pas?)

Those two statements incorporate every facet of the COB. Yet I ask the question, why can't we get along better?

At the national pastors retreat, one other group was doing an emerging church study. They played a quote by Michael Frost which they titled "Fishing With Lesbians."
I appreciated the journey and context of this quote. Michael Frost is speaking at Calvary Pentecostal Church in a Youth For Christ Rally. In that Rally, he tells the audience a story about a fundamentalist preacher who is starting to get it. The minister, without any criticism, but with genuine warmth and love sees beyond the sexuality of two lesbian women, befriends them and fishes 3 times a week with them. He refers to the fact that Jesus has called him to make friends with sinners.

At this point, the National Pastor's conference erupted. I mean erupted! People were offended that these women were called sinners. The day before, in 6 small group settings (rotating) so that I had an interpersonal environment with everyone at the conference, I told a similar story of a baby shower for a lesbian couple with whom my wife and our praise team leader worked. Excuse my stereotyping, but when I shared my story, all the "liberals" were happy for me. Some even wept. I guess they thought they had converted a conservative. What I said was "The mother of one of the women told us that we were the first Christians to show any love to her daughter." and we told the one woman my wife works with: "We are sinners. Jesus came to save the world from its sin and brokenness. We have found that He loves us as we are and we love you as you are."

Now, we clearly stated that she was a sinner. But the second day, when the words came from a "conservative" (like me) the place got HOSTILE. I felt unsafe, judged, attacked, condemned and marginalized. And I discovered something that I hadn't understood before.

I already understood that conservatives feel called to propositional rhetoric because they believe that it is up to them to declare sin to be sin. (The danger may be that they are more interested in the propositions than the gospel). What was new to me was that liberals are just as propositional and self righteous about their liberality. To the liberals there, it was a terrible sin and offense to say that such and such is sin.

It was enlightening to realize that propositional theology, a construct of modernity, is as much of a stumbling block for conservatives as it is with liberals (but then didn't the Pharisees and Sadducees have the same problem?).

Then there is the temptation to comfort myself with a feeling of superiority since I recognize that God is not impressed with how well I know the propositions. He blesses me for sharing good news about Jesus. Period. But that is the real dilemma, that feeling of superiority. I can get proud when I see how wrong conservative and liberals are and get into the same cycle of self-righteousness. God deliver us from ourselves. Is there any hope this side of heaven?

Phil

My Story So far

I have learned the most about me. I discovered that my worldview is Post-Modern. What a freeing discovery! Although I do not embrace the concepts of syncretism and pluralism as part of my theological understanding, I do embrace them socially and politically.

I find that my many years of pastoral ministry have exhibited this journey. My first years could simply be defined as ministry born out of “a reaction to modernity.” This was fleshed out through a passion for apologetics, memorization of most of the New Testament, study in the original languages, and the history of the Church and its development of theology. The passion for this gnosis became a polemic because it was reactionary. My own personal experience was that the importance of orthodoxy was elevated over orthopraxy in Western Christianity. This happened across Western Christendom but especially within my own camp: American Evangelicals. The Evangelical community became a Christian sub-culture that is good at cursing the darkness of modernity. However, the world moved on into post-modernity. The “cursing of the darkness” became an embarrassment to me. It is irrelevant to our culture. Therefore, although it might create disciples of the Christian sub-culture, it is no longer an effective means of proclaiming the good news to the post-Christian world. When I began to evaluate the rhetoric of the Christian sub-culture I decided I needed to compare it to the value system of the post-modern world. I finally admitted that even my passion for apologetics, during my “fighting modernity” stage of my ministry, was merely me trying to assuage the guilt of arrogance by trying to show that believers are not kooks. I did that by emphasizing the teachings of Jesus Christ and the prophets –especially those dealing with justice and mercy.

This journey was freeing because I realize that the Christian Sub-Culture in the West had abandoned the most important teachings of Jesus and the prophets. (I actually get regular email from a group describing itself as “right Christians” that directly oppose Leviticus 19:34 and call it a Christian value to make stricter US border policy.) I find the missional concepts of evangelism that are designed to reach the post-modern world are much more in line with the teaching of Jesus. Story-telling in my preaching is more in line with the way Jesus taught. But more than that, it reconnects me with the good reasons why I became a hippie in the 70’s in an holistic, Christ-centered way. It feels like a full circle with real purpose and meaning. More than that, it helps me deal with the painful experiences I have faced in 22 years of pastoral ministry. It re-connects me to our Anabaptist roots.

It seems to me, that every time we arrive at a central position in dialectic, it becomes a new extreme and a new dialectic is formed. Then the new dialectic moves us to another center, which in turn becomes another extreme; and then an even newer dialectic is formed and so forth. In other words, emphasis on orthodoxy was the correct response to modernity. However, we got so wrapped up in it that it led to what I call Neo-Gnosticism. The dialectic created is leading us into the emerging church movement. I need to remember that some day it will become an extreme, and another dialectic will form and another new center will be created. (Hopefully I will be in heaven by then and not have to learn it all over again!) As it is right now, the Church has in many ways become irrelevant. There are millions of Christians in the West who will get to heaven, but it seems they have forgot that the Church exists for the good of the world.

So, there are general principles, perceptions and practices that I feel the church needs in order to be invited back to the table. This list is not exhaustive or a comprehensive answer to all of Western of Christendom, but personally developed out of my passions and understanding. I believe this is what God is leading me to focus on:

Principles:

• Orthodoxy is irrelevant if it does not create Christ-like behavior.
• Jesus came to save the world from its sin.
• Jesus will always be with the Church, empowering her to preach good news.
• The Church exists for the good of the world.
• The Church is called to reflect Jesus to non-Christians.
• We do not have the privilege of bringing our world back to Jesus as if we were like the early believers preaching in the streets of Jerusalem. Instead we are more like the early believers preaching in the streets of Rome or Corinth, where the good news is not generally known.
• Jesus is the only way to the Father.

Perceptions:

• To Prevent:

· Christians hate homosexuals

o Racism used to be taught from conservative pulpits, if they were wrong about racism, are they also wrong about homosexuals?

· Christianity is Imperialistic:

o God is a Republican.

o America has a manifest destiny

§ Emphasized in the Religious Right’s decrying of UN involvement

§ The erroneous view that if we did it, it must be right

§ The erroneous view that the Constitution is as divinely inspired as the Bible

· Christianity is irrelevant.

• To Proclaim:

· Jesus loves the homosexual as much as us.

o Just as Christianity was instrumental in overcoming slavery, Christianity was instrumental in overcoming racism.

§ We need to confess our own part in racism as sin.

o We need to confess our creation of homophobia as sin.

o We are all sinners and singling out homosexuality is merely cursing the darkness.

o God is the one who sets people free, and sometimes it may not be until they get to heaven.

o Jesus never taught that homosexuality was okay, normal or a viable option. But on the other hand, He never bothered to elevate it as a litmus test of true spirituality or biblical authority.

o We cannot judge another servant of the master, because in the Master’s eyes (not ours) they stand or fall.

o Terminal sexual deviations will not bring the judgment of God on our society; they are the judgment of God (Romans 1).

§ Just as we understand disease to be a judgment, we never hate the person infected with that disease.

§ Disease is often non-specific in who it attacks.

§ Let us be as merciful to the homosexual as we are to the cancer patient.

· God loves the whole world, no exceptions:

o We need to be about a 2 kingdom theology that overcomes the political belief in the manifest destiny of America.

o Jesus is not a Republican or a Democrat.

o We need to admit that Columbus was probably more interested in gold than sharing Jesus.

o Even though Israel does have a manifest destiny, its destiny, along with ours is to be a blessing to the entire world.

o America needs to confess its sin of dominating the world economy for its own welfare instead of the good of the entire world.

o American Christians need to influence the government to do justice.

· Christianity is still relevant

o It is still the only world religion doing good works in almost every area of deep poverty (for example the caste system of Hinduism actually sanctions the poverty of the poor).

o The teachings of Christ Jesus still inform us how to live.

o When Christians are acting like Christ, good things happen.

Practices:

• Do justice.
• Be humble.
• Love Mercy.
• Work with other faiths and religions to overcome injustice.
• Expect the power of the Holy Spirit to draw people to Jesus.
• Create authentic community centered on our mission.
• Be unapologetic about justice.
• Distance myself from the arrogance of the Religious right.
• Be more open-minded than the liberals.
• Explore more of the mystery of God.
• Have Faith
• Pray in faith
• Do not be afraid of evildoers
• Do not fear the rhetoric of the Religious Right
• My ministry is at God’s privilege, therefore hold it with an open hand.
• Be anxious for nothing, but in everything with prayer and supplication, let my requests be known to God.
• Trust in the fact that God is leading me to know Jesus, and the fellowship of His suffering.
• Remember the leaven of the Pharisees (for me this is important).