Just Say Yes!

Standard

Many of my readers may be too young to remember Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” anti-drug campaign.  But, right off the bat, I want to make sure that y’all know I am not encouraging experimentation with drugs. 

What I do intend to share is a choice, a basic philosophy change, that is key to faith and spiritual growth for those who share my personality type.  If you are one of those confident types who go charging headlong into everything, this might not be the blog post for you.

Anyhow, most of my life has been defined by my cautious restraint and some deep feelings of inadequacy.  I have been reluctant to start off in a direction without knowing that I will stay committed, fearful of failure, etc.  Who wants to waste time and effort on something not your true ‘calling’ in life, right?

Well, this is an approach, taken to an extreme, is completely faithless and ultimately results in endlessly spinning your mental wheels trying to decide what is yours to do or not to do.  Which is ironic, because this effort to be focused and directed can actually be the thing that keeps many from finding a greater vision.

But I decided recently, within the past few years, that my last excuse for waiting to be ready (passing the age when Jesus started his ministry) was gone.  Now was do or die time—time to stop making excuses.  I needed to step out more boldly in faith.  The first part of that has been for me to start using a word difficult to use: Yes.

That three letter word “yes” or rather my newly minted use of it has been transformative.  No, I don’t use it for everything (sorry, Kevin, maybe some other time) and I’m not advocating going across to the other extreme of over-commitment either.  But generally I have decided that “yes” will be my answer when asked.

What I am referring to in particular is my participation in my local church body, but to pursue things beyond that and find the spiritual vision out there waiting for me.  I have, despite my feeling unqualified, begun to say “yes” when asked to teach, to give devotionals, or otherwise step outside of my comfort zone.

I must admit, this is not easy for me, public speaking is not my forte and that might surprise those who know I’m quite capable of speaking when there’s a small and safe audience.  Running your mouth is quite a bit different from trying to find something substantive and worthwhile for a congregation of those who might not be impressed.

However, the experience has been rewarding.  First, I have proved that I am marginally capable despite my reservations.  Second, I have been encouraged by positive feedback, I am learning something new every time about how to prepare and am starting to find my voice.  Overall my fears were overstated.  Nobody picked up stones to kill me yet.

I’m also in good company for my feelings that long held me back.  Moses didn’t feel he was able to speak.  Jonah ran from the prophetic duty God had given to him.  And even Jesus struggled “take this cup away from me” before he submitted to God’s will and started a painful journey.  It is that willingness to say “yes” that leads to the greater vision of our life to be fulfilled.

So, for those fearful, for those cautious to a fault, to all you over-thinking people and analytical types.  To you folks I encourage saying “yes” and, not just once or twice, make it a new habit.  Make it your philosophy of faith and see what happens.  May you find the same blessings I have in my deliberate choice to be more available.

Perhaps vision is not something decided in advance, but something that intersects our path when we start off walking.  As a friend recently told me “it is easier to steer a ship that’s moving.”  And, at very least, doing something rather than nothing might give us helpful experience for when we do find *that* something.

Now, for those of you on the extreme other end and full of big ideas, for those of you who are routinely over-commitmented and sometimes frustrated, I recommend something else.  Have you ever considered that you are so full of yourself that you are like Martha, too busy in your religious duty and missing out on really hearing God? 

It seems the key to success in ministry is not having your own ability, your own ambition or you own agenda.  It is depending on God as your strength, stepping out in courage despite fears and being available when asked.  It is saying faithfully “yes” when your mind has a million reasons for saying no.

The church could do with far fewer self-described visionaries and self-important missionaries. The arrogant should stay home where they do less damage.  Instead what is needed is humble and ‘incapable’ men who earnestly seek to do God’s will despite their known weakness, present fears or past failures. 

The church needs more faithful examples like Isaiah who, seeing God’s glory, exclaimed, “Woe to me!  I am ruined!  For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”  But later answered the call soon after and said, “Here am I. Send me!”

Or leaders like Paul…

“I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.” (1 Corinthians 2:3-5)

God doesn’t need the qualified.  It is not about our being extraordinary or special in the eyes of our religious peers.  It is about being humble, generally available to others and ready to accept an opportunity to serve.  God wants those who simply say ‘yes’ when asked. 

Willingness to serve is a habit and a good habit.  It starts with our learning to use a three letter word when called upon.  So, take courage my timid friends, put your faith in the one who asks, and just say yes!

Courting Disaster: Why Mennonites Are Afraid To Date

Standard

Secular society, in many quarters, has moved in a direction of sexual promiscuity and too often young women bear the brunt of the consequences.  Single mothers are much more likely to live in poverty regardless of race.  Children without two-parent homes often suffer from neglect that leads to behavioral problems and this creates a problem for society.  Men too, for their own part, have to deal with the unwieldy burden of child support and it is far-far from ideal.

However, on the other side, in the opposite ditch, is the religious ‘purity culture‘ dominated by patriarchal men (or controlling parents) and fear-based reasoning.  As secular culture has abandoned traditional mores there have been those on the other end who are adding precaution and increasing the burden of requirements.  Young people, young women in particular, are manipulated by those in positions of authority over them and driven to unreasonable expectations.  The result is a growing rank of unmarried singles and deep disappointment.

Clearly, there is a balance between both cultural extremes.  Unfortunately, the consequences of the overbearing purity culture are often not as obvious as a crying baby and an exhausted single mother.  The pain of the girl never being asked on a date or the suffering of the young man being rejected time and time again is very real. Yet, complaining about the current state of affairs could be perceived as weakness and drawing attention adds an additional penalty of shame—failure is often carefully concealed out of embarrassment.

Too Guarded, Too Superficial…

The logic of ‘guarding heart’ is great when applied to an already established dating relationship and holding back on sexual intimacy until the commitment of marriage.  But when it is a reason not to even attempt a first date it is no longer helpful.  It is a Hollywood myth that relationships should be built off of some kind of magical initial feeling. That is a shallow ‘eros’ love at best. Feelings can come and go.

Love, real love, cannot develop without a relationship.  Love is a product of commitment to love. Commitment to love requires a relationship and starting a new relationship requires a seed of faith.  Faith is a commitment to act in love even before the feelings exist. Faith provides a better foundation for a successful long-term relationship to develop than the shallow feelings-based alternative.

The purity culture, as I have experienced it, is motivated primarily by fear rather than faith.  Young people are encouraged to be absolutely sure before even a first date. Communication between genders (outside of dating) is discouraged as potentially harmful. And the result is an impossible quagmire for many. Only the most superficially attractive or socially adept have a chance.  Be a shy guy or a too-average girl and you don’t have a snowman’s chance in the Florida heat.

I know young women who say (evidently with complete sincerity) that they will only date a guy they are sure they would marry and seemingly turn down every guy who doesn’t ride in on a white horse  It is an absolutely absurd expectation and yet not uncommon in the religious culture of my birth.  Many never take a half step of faith to ask for or accept a date.  Many who do start dating feel pressured into marriage because they have this false idea that turns a dating relationship into an engagement.

Of course, the insanity is promoted by cherry-picked success story anecdotes (sanitized of impurities to make them more compelling) and thus the fairytale myths perpetuated to a new generation.  Ignored is the wreckage, the many many stories of those who did everything right according to the purity culture, and now lay bloodied in the ditch as the successful cross to avoid contact.  I believe if both sides were told there would be an impetus to encourage a more balanced faithful approach to courtship.

Finding Our Balance Between Extremes

The religious of today have seemed to have picked the worse parts of the two systems.  They copy secular society and the idea that feelings of immediate or superficial attraction are a basis for relationships.  But then they take on the most onerous requirements, practically betrothal, before even being willing to talk with a young woman and take seriously a suitor.  It is not a faith-based system.

We do not find the purity culture standard in the Bible.  In Scripture, we don’t see the promotion of the silly notion of secular ‘love at first sight’ or the preeminence of feelings of initial superficial attraction as a basis for relationship.  We don’t see a ‘one size fits all’ template.  We do not see ‘perfection’ either. Instead, there is diversity of experience in the examples, and faith (not fear) as the driving force.

Fear has caused the religious to overreact and only faith can correct the course.  We in the community of faith need to stop comparing ourselves to our to secular neighbors and deal squarely with the shortcomings of our own side.  If we want leaders we must quit treating young men in the church (in good standing) as not worth a first date and basically untrustworthy.

No harm comes from a date.  In fact, my grandparents dated many different people and have been married faithfully for nearly sixty years.  Had my grandma governed herself by the current paradigm there may have never been the opportunity for her relationship with Grandpa to even get started—I would not even exist today.

We need to recognize that our current standard is often based in fear and overreaction rather than faith.  We do not need to fall in the same ditch as secular society to be as off-base and faithless.  Love can triumph if we commit to loving faithfulness in relationships rather than live in fear of failure.

False And True Knowledge

Standard

I am dismayed when fellow Christians (especially those claiming to speak for the church) make definitive statements that are unsupported in the evidence.  There are many who take a dogmatic black and white stand on ideas not supported logically, scientifically or in appropriate understanding of Scripture.

I am dismayed because we stand to hurt our credibility when we make our stand on things we do not actually know and with reasoning that falls apart under closer scrutiny.  It is too often the case that those who think they are defending the Gospel truth are actually destroying it in their stubborn obstinacy and inability to see past their own presuppositions about the evidence.

This is a problem in the fundamentalist circles I am most familiar with.  Instead of simply taking a stand on faith or sticking to the text of the Bible as they claim, many add their own assumptions.  They go another step off the firm ground of what is truly known and onto the quicksand of over-interpretation, unsupported inference and baseless speculation.  It is sad because it is unnecessary, it too often is the bathwater that conceals the true baby of Christianity, and drives critical thinking people away.

Two examples (often given in opposition to Evolution theory) is the idea that there is a clean break between living and non-living things.  The other is a misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the word “entropy” to mean something that it does not.  Both of these ideas originate in extrapolation from Biblical language, but neither one of them is actually as definitive in the Scriptural record as some might assume.

Postulate #1) Life cannot originate from non-life.

It seems obvious enough at first glance, doesn’t it?  I mean, have you ever seen mud materialize into human form, then suddenly become animated, walk and talk as a human would?  I have not.  We do not typically see dead organisms come back to life without a miracle.

And yet, under the microscope, it is interesting that the line between life and non-life is actually blurrier than one might imagine.  Viruses are considered dead because they do not have the ability to reproduce without a host cell and do not replicate themselves in the typical way of cell-division.  However, a virus can reanimate a dead cell, take control of it and use it to replicate.

Cells themselves are not ‘living’ in their individual components any more than a car is alive when you start it.  Yes, in one sense there is life, but it is the ‘life’ of chemical reaction (albeit in a complex system) and in physical processes not considered as living taken independent of each other. 

Think about it: The sun (due to gravity and other forces) is orderly, it takes hydrogen and, through a process of fusion, creates light energy and heavier elements.  Cells likewise, take one form of matter and through chemical process convert it to something else.  The difference between the sun and a cell, when we cut past the descriptive language to the actual material substance, is one of complexity and size rather than living or dead.

Our physical body is basically a complex machine comprised of individual self-replicating cells that work in concert with other different cells to produce organs, tissues and a body.  At the smallest level it is all chemical reaction and a sort of mechanical process that usually considered non-living.  But, at some point, taken together, these dead parts become something considered a living organism.  It is bit of a both/and paradox rather than an either/or dichotomy.

The difference between life and non-life seems to be a continuum more than a black and white line.  We do not consider a bacteria as equal to a plant or an animal equal to ourselves and the difference is probably the amount of ‘life’ each organism represents.  Likewise, I do not know if we can consider an animated universe something ‘dead’ with all the creative processes at work.  All, to me, are expressions of a creative and living God.

Postulate #2) Entropy is corruptive and not a good thing.

Lay people often misunderstand the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time) as some kind of moral statement.  This misunderstanding is understandable.  Entropy is associated with decay and the universe is (by appearances, because of entropy) like a wind up clock that will finally someday be exhausted.

However, the increase of disorder or entropy in the universe is not an entirely bad thing.  In fact, entropy is how we get the energy and substance we need to survive.  When a man enters an ‘orderly’ forest, cuts a swath out to build a cabin and cultivates the space created, he has increased entropy.  Our favorite star (aka: the sun) taking ‘orderly’ hydrogen and turning it into a mix of heavier elements and light is increasing entropy.  Entropy is what makes the universe work and allows something as complicated as biological life exist.

Another way to understand entropy is to see it as an increase in complexity.  A stack of lumber is an orderly arrangement and has a relatively low state of entropy.  Hire a carpenter and turn the orderly stack into a house and, with addition of work to cut the lumber to different lengths, along with the contamination of nails, drywall, windows, doors, plumbing, and other building materials, you have increased entropy.

A pile of rocks is at a relatively low state of entropy.  People, one the other hand, represent a very high level of entropy.  We are arguably the pinnacle of disorder in the universe with our complexity and creative abilities.  Our turning orderly raw materials into complex creations, the process we use involving the dispersal of energy, is creating a higher level of entropy.  A 747 is a product of entropy as much as human engineering.

Entropy is like the sun or rain.  The same sun that produces the energy we need to survive can also cause skin cancer and kill us.  The rain cycle that we depend on for fresh water is also capable of producing floods and destruction.  Entropy is not exclusively creative or destructive, it is not something moral or immoral, it just is, and it is necessary for life to exist as we know it.

If life is an emergent property of physical complexity or entropy, then what?

The idea of life being an emergent quality of complex physical processes is unsettling to some.  There are serious philosophical questions and potentially big theological implications.  Nevertheless, if honest use of terms is our concern, we must be fearless and follow the evidence where it leads.

One idea at stake is our human exceptionalism.  In the book of Genesis we read an exceptional account describing the creation of man.  In it we both see humanity as being “in the image of God” and also that God ‘breathed’ the “breath of life” directly into man.  This is directness in the creation of humankind is unique in the Genesis narrative, but what does it really mean? 

We are not exceptional to animals in our physical body.  A human heart can be patched with a valve from a pig.  Human insulin can be created with bacteria and our genetic code is not too significantly different from other animals of our level of complexity.  It would appear that other animals also have consciousness at some level.

So clearly, for the Genesis account to be true, we are somehow special, touched uniquely by God, yet not in a physical sense.  When defining the terms used in Scripture, it is good to compare different accounts and see how similar language is used elsewhere.  In the case of breathing we are not without another reference for sake of comparison.

Genesis is not the only time in the Biblical canon that the divine breathed on men and gave them life:

“Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’  And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.'”  (John 20:21-22)

The disciples of Jesus were clearly already physically alive.  But they were not yet ‘born of the Spirit’ and therefore could not understand the things of God.  Read John 6, Jesus talks about the “living bread” he represents and understand that he is not speaking about physical bread nor about physical life. There are many cases in Scripture like this one where a completely ‘literal’ (physical reality) interpretation is incorrect.

So, perhaps what many have been taught and think they know about the book of Genesis is wrong?  Perhaps the book is less about physical reality and more about a greater spiritual truth?  I believe that is possible, even probable, and leads to less conflict with what is known through scientific inquiry.

Knowing what we need to know…

I believe many Biblical fundamentalists confuse the bathwater of their own established interpretation, traditions and dogmas with the baby.  The baby or fundamental truth of Christianity is not found in historical documents nor proved with scientific evidence.  The truth of Christianity is found in knowing what Paul knew:

“For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.” (1 Corinthians 2:2-5)

The truth of Christianity is Jesus.  And, by Jesus, I do not mean the historical figure who’s words we read in a book and the religious traditions that borrowed his name.  I mean the Jesus that we live out daily and our having the mind of Christ today. The church must represent Jesus to the world presently, the power of the Spirit must be our reality now or our religious words only perpetuate a fraud.  Jesus must be experienced in our lives today and his will expressed through us or the truth is not in us.

When we find our answers in Jesus (rather than Genesis) and should have spiritual experience in our lives.  What makes us unique is the emergent quality of faith and the breath of God’s own Spirit in us.  We are in the image of the divine because we have the mind of Christ.  These are things revealed by faith and not products of mere human knowledge.

We need not know more than the way of Jesus.  If we live that out our lives will reveal the truth of Christianity without our need of superfluous or false knowledge to bolster our case.  Let the proof of faith be in the truth of our actions and the image of God found in our divine love.

Missionary Or Imposter? Pitfalls and Potential of 21st Century Evangelicalism.

Standard

If any of my travel companions shared my disquietude it was not outwardly evident. It was an exciting break from routine and adventure, a chance to travel with a group of peers. Better yet, the ‘missions trip’ label gave it full religious sanction.

However, my guilt started weeks before. We had raised a large sum of money through fundraisers. In fact, we probably had enough cash to employ a team of Haitians for a year. But, to my dismay, most of it would go out the tailpipe as burnt jet fuel used to ferry us in and out. It seemed to me obscene that we were flying into that earthquake ravaged nation for only a few short days.

When I expressed my concern I was assured that this exposure would be a good opportunity for the young people to grow in awareness and compassion. I tried my best to accept that answer. But, finally on the ground in Port-au-Prince and throughout the trip my pangs of guilt would return, my concerns verified.

The most notable experience was when a young Haitian man, seeing our enthusiastic labors to paint a church interior, beckoned for my attention. In our short conversation he pled for work to feed his belly and said the obvious: “I can do that!”

It was true.

We were doing menial tasks. We did work almost any Haitian could do with a bit of supervision. We could have sent two people for a year and had a far bigger impact. Yet, here we were, playing in the paint, doing unskilled labor in front of pleading eyes, as if to taunt them with our privileged position.

What is Christian ‘missionary’ service about?

Young people in my church are encouraged to serve as missionaries. What this often implies is travel to some exotic locale to do work projects and possibly to share a Christian witness with the indigenous population before jetting away to the next big thing. Some commitments are longer, they stay years as teachers, nannies and doing a variety of other things.

We celebrate those who go elsewhere with prayer cards featuring their picture, a “serving in [insert location here]” tagline and a favorite Bible verse. When they come back there is often a report to the congregation; which usually includes some humor about cultural oddities, maybe an expression of how blessed they were through the experience and many pictures.

I have little doubt of the sincerity of those who have embraced this idea of Christian service. Images of men like Hudson Taylor or Jim Elliot have been impressed upon their young minds, reminders of the 10-40 window fill their thoughts and they go with strong feelings of obligation. To many church raised people the ultimate Christian example is doing something over there somewhere.

I am, on one hand, happy for enthusiasm and dedication to the cause of Jesus Christ. And still, on the other hand, I question the effectiveness and wisdom of the current effort. I also suspect there is a deeper problem, a fundamental difference between the Spirit that motivated the early church to act and attitude that propels many today.

There are many reasons why a person may travel the world. But, according to Scripture, not all who claim to represent God truly do and not everyone who does wonderful things in the name of Jesus is actually saved. In fact, Jesus warns specifically about those whom he will not recognize for their efforts:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.“ (Matthew 23:15)

And it was not just the non-Christian religious leaders and Pharisees whom Jesus warned:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’“ (Matthew 7:21-23)

How can it be? How is it that some missionary efforts are flawed beyond mere ineffectiveness and are actually destructive? Why is the work of some rejected despite the outward appearance of faithfulness?

These are questions we should ask. I do believe this severe criticism and warning from Jesus applies to us today. I believe someone can spend their life in missionary work, can profess to have faith in Jesus, and—despite their dedicated religious effort—still not be doing the will of God.

Too often missionary efforts go unquestioned. It is easy to remain silent, because we know we ourselves should be doing more, and take a position: “Well, at least they are doing something…” But this reluctance to be involved is unfortunate and is what leads to wasteful or even counterproductive effort.

#1) True Missionary Service Must Be Spirit-led

I’ve talked to a young person who is determined to be a foreign missionary. I asked them how they knew it was God’s calling for their life and the reply (or lack thereof) did not convince me that they truly knew. It was simply something they wanted to do.

Others referenced Scripture, they quote the “go ye into all the world” of Jesus commissioning the disciples, dutifully applying it to themselves without considering context or chronological order. A case of proof-texting where a person can find whatever they want.

But this is not how Jesus started his ministry nor the way he told us to determine God’s will for our lives. We see instead that in his ministry Jesus was led directly by the Spirit:

“As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.’ Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.” (Matthew 3:16-17, 4:1)

Jesus was led by the Spirit. And that this is the exact same Spirit that was promised and is now made fully available to those who believe in him:

“On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: ‘Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promise which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.'” (Acts 1:4-8)

It is easy to skip around the Bible to defend an established dogma and find what suits our own particular religious agenda. But we should always remember that the Pharisees also diligently studied Scripture. Yet, without the Spirit to guide them in their study, they were way off base and seriously misled.

If we do things our own way we end up like Abraham who had two sons, one of the bondwoman and his own human effort, the other of the promise God had given. (Gal 4:21-31) We are the same, we do not trust God, we get impatient and take matters into our own hands.

Instead, rather than go out on our own understanding and effort, we must wait on God’s timing and Spirit.

#2) True Missionary Service Starts Here, Not There

It is interesting to note, the author of a popular quote about every Christian being either a missionary or an impostor spent his years preaching in his native England and not overseas. So was he, by his own words, an impostor?

The full quote, from a sermon Charles H. Spurgeon preached, sheds light on what Spurgeon actually meant in his usage of the term missionary:

“Every Christian here is either a missionary or an impostor. Recollect that you are either trying to spread abroad the kingdom of Christ, or else you do not love him at all. It cannot be that there is a high appreciation of Jesus, and a totally silent tongue about him. Of course I do not mean, by that, that those who use the pen for Christ are silent; they are not. And those who help others to use the tongue, or spread that which others have written, are doing their part well; but I mean this,—that man who says, ‘I believe in Jesus,” but does not think enough of Jesus ever to tell another about him, by mouth, or pen, or tract, is an impostor.“

What Spurgeon is actually saying is that everyone who truly believes in Christ will share that with other people. He is not saying that we need to travel further than our next-door neighbors and hometown to do that. He is saying that a person is missionary wherever they are or they are an impostor.

It is true that some men in the early church traveled far and wide to spread the good news. We can read much about Paul’s missionary journeys and of other men sent out. But not all went. Not all traveled over land and sea. In fact, few probably did. Many others were needed to establish and serve in their local congregations.

All missionary work is local whether it takes place here, over there or in Jerusalem:

“…repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:47)

The idea that Christian missions is a trip overseas and something over ‘there’ is plain wrong. In our age of internet connectivity and social media, a person can be an evangelist—literally speak to people on the other side of the world—from their bedroom. So start in your own Jerusalem, stay busy where you are and then if you are called elsewhere you will be ready to serve.

We must be faithful where we are, because changing addresses will not change who we are and the need is everywhere. We need to start serving our neighbors here where we are or we are an imposter.

#3) True Missionary Service Glorifies God, Humbles Us

Many parachurch organizations exist today to support the evangelical efforts of others. American missionaries to foreign countries are often well-supplied with their own plans and material support. But in this there careful planning can be a dependency on ourselves and our own efforts rather than God.

Sending people out as Jesus did would be unthinkable. Try to imagine this:

“He told them: ‘Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra shirt. Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town. If people do not welcome you, leave their town and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.’ So they set out and went from village to village, proclaiming the good news and healing people everywhere.” (Luke 9:3-6)

It was total dependence on God. There are no five year plans. There’s no walled in compound or institutional support structure—not even so much as a change of clothes, a bag of personal hygiene supplies or packed lunch for the journey.

These men went out literally with nothing but the clothing on their back and the message of the Gospel. I can imagine that there was a bit more urgency to get to know people and make friends when your next meal depended on it. I wonder also if their total dependency and vulnerability is what was required for miracles to happen.

We can make Christianity look more like a profitable enterprise than a walk of faith. When we go out with obvious advantage over those we are trying to reach it should be no surprise that some seek our wealth rather than our Jesus and ‘convert’ for the wrong reasons. When we go out with our big checkbook or provide for needs (based in our own abilities to raise funds) it quickly can become about us rather than God’s glory.

Jesus gave a different example:

“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” (Philippians 2:5-7)

If we wish to present ourselves as entitled recipients of American prosperity then we ought to bring it with us. If we are cultural imperialists selling Capitalism then we need to display those wares. But, if we want our faith in Jesus to be be the focus then we must live it and leave everything behind.

People are not completely dumb and many can see through a religious act. If we wish to be effective we must “become all things to all people” (1 Cor 9:22) and lower ourselves. Our hiding behind walls (necessary to secure our possessions and keep people at a safe distance) will likely speak louder than our words when or if we finally do get around to speaking.

Jesus left his privileges behind. If we are to be of the “same mindset as Christ Jesus” we should mimic that example.

#4) True Missionary Service Is About Them, Not Us

Seems obvious, doesn’t it? Why else would someone travel besides love for those they seek to reach?

If you don’t see a reason why a person would choose to be a missionary besides sincere faith here are some alternative explanations:

  • They love adventure. You do know that the millennial generation prefers experience and travel, right? It has nothing to do with faithful sacrifice and everything to do with seeking pleasure.
  • They want to escape. We do not send missionaries like the early church. Sure, those who wish to go may get a rubber stamp blessing from a church. But, in this age of individualism, people today decide for themselves and might do it to be further independent from accountability.
  • The ‘cool’ people do it. Positive peer-pressure is good, right? Well, yes, assuming that going into missions is merely a group bonding experience, a chance to be with age-group friends and maybe find a mate. But, if that’s not the missionary position we want to produce, it could be a concern.
  • It is self-gratifying. Some people really feel good about themselves and simply like to crow about it to vulnerable people. A missionary, especially supported by others, has power over those who are needy and can enjoy a near celebrity treatment as a foreigner.
  • They are duty-driven and fearful. I recall this guy named Jonah. He finally did what God said because he didn’t like being fish food. But, despite the grace he received getting spit out alive, he lacked any love or compassion for the people he was told to reach.
  • We like praise. Who doesn’t want a few feathers in the cap and ‘mission accomplished’ signs to welcome them home? Well, Jesus told us that those who act righteously for the praise of others have their reward.
  • We like projects. It takes some discipline and focus to do missionary work. Unfortunately, real love is something that does not fit a formula or schedule and people do not like being your project.

All of those things aren’t necessarily bad in their right place. We should enjoy ourselves with good friends. The less materialistic focus of the millennial generation is one positive thing about them and a potential strength. Confidence is great too and so is a sense of accomplishment or being recognized for the right things and encouraged.

Yet the purpose of missions is not our own pleasure. If it is not primarily for the good of those we claim to serve then we might be better staying home until we mature spiritually and love genuinely.

My caution is that our priorities be in the right order. Missions is about having true love for our neighbors. If you are not willing to serve your next-door neighbor, then you probably have no business traveling over land and sea on a religiously sanctioned trophy hunt. We need to go in genuine love for the people we are serving or it is going through the motions and it is spiritually empty.

#5) Missionary Service Is About Faithfulness, Not Dogmatism

In the book of Acts we have the interesting account of Philip and an Ethiopian. We are told Philip was promoted by an angel to take a walk. It was on that walk Philip encountered an Ethiopian eunuch on a chariot (the Bentley or Rolls Royce of their day) and an important man. Philip was directed by the Spirit to go stand near the chariot.

So Philip obeyed.

The man was perplexed about a passage from the book of Isaiah the prophet. Philip asked the man, “do you understand what you are reading?” The Ethiopian admitted his need for help interpreting the meaning of the passage and Philip explained. The result was an on-the-spot Baptism (no mandatory background check or ‘young believer class’ waiting period) and the two never crossed paths again.

Philip was faithful. He was willing to adapt to circumstances and do what needed to be done without much hesitation. Faith is creative, it is free, it adapts as need be, and motivates us to become all things to all people, like Paul:

“Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.” (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

Religious dogma, by contrast to Spirit-led faith, is rigid and inflexible. It tries to make every situation conform to a predetermined ‘cookie cutter’ mold or established mode and becomes easily frustrated when things do not fit the prescriptive ‘one size fits all’ solutions. It is confining rather than empowering and is often confusing or confounding in practice. It is limiting of full potential.

The front lines of evangelicalism have shifted dramatically. The internet has opened a new front and can get us beyond ‘enemy lines’ much like the invention of the airplane revolutionized warfare. Unfortunately many Christians are stuck slugging it out in the trenches, too fixated on established fighting methods, blinded by missionary dogmas built in the 1800’s, and unable to take advantage of the opportunities right in front of them.

Likewise the Pharisees did everything right outwardly, in their own minds (and that of their religious peers) they had righteous living all figured out to the last detail, but they lacked the mind of Christ. Nothing in their religious devotion or diligence in studying Scripture revealed the truth of God’s word (John 5:31-40) to them. They thought of themselves as gatekeepers and in reality they themselves would not enter in.

We have been warned about the false security of religion, but do we have the faith to change where need be? Do we have the imagination or vision for today? Are we like Philip who followed the Spirit and improvised? Or are we stuck fighting trench warfare in an age that may require a different approach?

Biblical Faith vs. Bible-based Religion

Standard

Two different religious traditions use the same Scripture.  One tradition says the text points to a man named Jesus who preached in Roman occupied Judea a little over two millennia ago and was God’s only begotten son came to save people from themselves.  The other tradition rejected these claims and still waits on Elijah to return as a prelude to the arrival of the Messiah.

“See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.  He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction.” (Malachi 4:5-6)

Note the choices in the passage above.  There’s option a) repentance and changed hearts, or option b) face total destruction.  And, depending on perspective, there might be an option c) both. 

We know that Judaism was split in two because of Jesus (some believing him, others rejecting him) and also that Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70CE.  The glorious temple, the very center of Jewish worship, was completely dismantled as Jesus had foretold and has never been rebuilt.

Temple #1: Symbolic, representation of truth, built out of stone and sweat of men, located in Jerusalem:

“As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, ‘Look, Teacher!  What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!’  ‘Do you see all these great buildings?’ replied Jesus. ‘Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.'” (Mark 13:1-2)

Clearly Jesus is referring to the destruction of buildings that the disciples were admiring and that destruction literally happened.

But, there’s more…

Temple #2: Figurative, fleshed out truth, the life work and example of Jesus, located in history:

“The Jews then responded to him, ‘What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.’  They replied, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?’  But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.” (John 2:18-22)

Jesus also used the temple as a metaphor for himself, predicts his own death and promises to resurrect his body.

Then at the trial of Jesus…

“Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.  Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: ‘We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.'” (Mark 14:56-58)

Note, in the third passage, we are told that the witnesses at the trial of Jesus spoke falsely.  However, we see in the prior two Gospel accounts quoted above that the words they spoke were half-true—It is indeed true that Jesus spoke about the destruction of the temple and probably said something about a new temple not built with hands—The false part is where they claim he would do it by his own hand.

Jesus foretold his own death using a metaphor of himself or his body being the temple.  But he was also prophesying about the literal building of stone in Jerusalem.  His words a double entendre, one meaning of the word “temple” was figurative about his own death and resurrection and a second concrete meaning about the literal destruction of the temple built of stone.  However, there is a third use of temple and not the temple of the body of Jesus or the temple in Jerusalem built of stone.

Temple #3: Spiritual, a truth experienced, lived practically and today, located in the heart of believers:

“Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.” (1 Corinthians 3:16)

“Jesus replied, ‘Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.'” (John 14:23)

“Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.” (1 Corinthians 12:27)

That is a radical message.  It takes us from a man-made building of stone and religion.  It takes us to the man named Jesus “the stone the builders rejected” (Psalm 118:22, Matthew 21:42, Acts 4:11) and then finishes with us being the place where God dwells and being Jesus.  It is the message that got Stephen killed:

“After receiving the tabernacle, our ancestors under Joshua brought it with them when they took the land from the nations God drove out before them. It remained in the land until the time of David, who enjoyed God’s favor and asked that he might provide a dwelling place for the God of Jacob.  But it was Solomon who built a house for him.  However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands.  As the prophet says: ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me? says the Lord. Or where will my resting place be?  Has not my hand made all these things?‘  You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!” (Acts 7:45-51)

I can imagine why that was insulting.  Stephen basically just invalidated the entire religion of his audience using their own Scripture. 

The destruction of the temple in Jerusalem marked the end of a religious system.  The life, death and resurrection of Jesus was the beginning of something very different: A chance to be a dwelling place for God, and an opportunity to be a true child (adopted, not begotten) of God.

Jesus, talking to a woman who asked about the proper place to worship, said:

“Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.  God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” (John 4:23-24)

Oddly enough, many professing Christians today are waiting on a literal temple of stone and a literal bodily second coming of Jesus.  They seem to me like those who wait on a literal Elijah, who did not recognize John the Baptist as the spiritual Elijah, and rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  They have a Bible-based religion, they diligently study Scripture, yet they seem to be missing something as far as understanding and faith.

Bible-centered religion and regulation is false security.  Jesus never told anyone that Scripture would replace him as teacher.  Jesus did, however, promise that the Spirit would “teach you all things” (John 14:26) and will come to all who believe.  I believe many have been deceived and believe their ‘Biblical fundamentalism’ will save them.  What they actually have is fundamental misunderstanding, they are relying on their own human religious traditions.  They have a Biblical religion only and not the true faith described therein.

“The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, for, ‘Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’  But we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 2:14-16)

It is the Spirit that makes the Bible discernable.  Those who place their security in the Bible itself (or their fundamentalist book-based religion) are not fully submitted to the Spirit and cannot fully understand the things of faith that are described in Scripture.  They bind themselves up in “false humility,” create “regulations” that have “appearance of wisdom,” (Colossians 2) yet they are false and—like those who “study the Scripture diligently” (John 5:36-40) that Jesus rebuked—they do not have the word of God to discern truth from it.

“Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” (2 Corinthians 3:15-18)

The truth that brings freedom is of the Spirit.  Religions give adherents false security, but true faith that originates from the indwelling Spirit gives freedom and ability to experience God first hand.  Bible-based religion leads men to talk about Jesus.  Spirit-led faith allows men to *be* Jesus and bring salvation to a lost and hurting world. 

Religion relies on rituals, one size fits all prescriptions and manipulation through fear.  Faith is dynamic, applies grace as liberally as necessary and motivates by being an example of a love that transcends.  Religion hides behind a veil of human inadequacy and attempts to legislate morality into existence without ever changing hearts.  Faith overcomes fear and produces fruit out of passion that comes from true unity with God.

The Bible is a book that can only be understood properly by those with the “mind of Christ” and Spirit.  Knowing when the language of Scripture is figurative, metaphorical, spiritual, concrete, literal (or some ‘all of the above’ combination) requires the indwelling of the word.  Discernment through any other means but a mind renewed in Christ (be it be an old tradition or a new commentary) is incomplete.

“…without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6)

No amount of religion finagling or diligent study can replace the indwelling word.  Jesus made it possible to remove the veil of religion and experience the full presence of God.  Seek after Spirit-led faith, not Bible-based religion.

Have you experienced the promise and freedom of faith?

Or, are you still waiting on Elijah to return?

Performance Anxieties and Worship

Standard

The Mennonite culture I am a part of has had a tradition of music that spans a few generations.  The tradition is acapella congregational singing (typically in four parts: soprano, alto, tenor, bass) and hymn music.  It is my preference, it is what I am accustomed to and comfortable singing in a church worship service, but some conservatives would have it as the only right way.

The other night, as is not uncommon, we had a choral program at my church. A group of a few talented individuals (dressed with matching outfits and practiced) sang together in front of an audience of family and friends.  Their selection of music had meaningful lyrics focused on distinctly Christian themes and the Christmas season.  It was a beautiful presentation.

Afterwards, the pastor (asked to give the benedictory prayer) went to pains to explain that the presentation that preceded was not a “performance” or “entertainment” and was worship.  I understood what he meant.  However, is it actually truthful to say that a presentation to an audience is not a performance?  Are concepts of worship and performance mutually exclusive?

Mennonite Tradition, Progressive Evolution and Lingering Guilt…

Mennonites have historically avoided elevation of some in the group.  Leaders were expected to be servants to all rather than a privileged hierarchy.  In fact, even raised pulpits were a controversial topic because of the potential for pride and spiritual inequality they represented.  Traditionally there was a table for those who preached to put their Bibles on and no pulpit.  Preaching was not to be done flamboyantly or in a way that drew special attention to the presenter.

Music in worship was ordered likewise.  There were no solo instruments or vocals in worship services because it was believed that would draw too much attention to the individual(s) performing.  In the church service singing was strictly congregational and in unison rather than divided into parts.  Four part singing only became part of Mennonite practice in the late 1800’s and special singing groups likely followed some time after as Mennonites adopted more mainline practice.

But it is an uncomfortable position to the conservative Mennonite mind.  There is still an urge to distinguish between performance for entertainment and worship of God.  In my own congregation we allow solos and special singing groups.  However, we are also dutifully reminded that the point is the worship God rather than recognize those presenting and (except for a few occasional outbursts by rebels) we do not offer any applause.

It is this careful avoidance of applause and tendency towards the over-wrought explanation that makes me wonder what is truly amiss—It seems too anxious.  If nobody else but God is getting the attention, shouldn’t that just be self-evident, why the need for an explanation? Why the contrast and comparison?

Our Worship *IS* Imperfect, Be Honest…

I believe the reality is that a special group singing before an audience is obviously a performance and for entertainment.  No, this does not nullify the reality it is intended as worship for God either.  What we do for others is an expression of our worship for God and that can certainly include wholesome entertainment.  Our performance for the good of others is ultimately what brings God honor and glory, is it not?

Furthermore, we aim to be perfect expressions, but we are not and might as well be honest about it.  Of course there is potential for pride in performance.  Did anyone on the stage not want to please the audience they sang to?  It would be utterly absurd to claim otherwise and with that the danger of self-aggrandizement. 

Yet, denial of that potential for self-centered worship doesn’t get us any closer to perfection of worship either.  If anything it is the same fatal error of Ananias and Sapphira who were judged instantaneously for dishonesty in their claiming to give all while secretly withholding some for themselves. Their deception, likely rooted in their wanting to maintain appearances of perfection or religious pride, was their downfall.

We are imperfect even at our best. Yes, even in our worship we can have mixed motives. We enjoy being talented, we often keep some of the praise for ourselves, and that’s okay if we are honest about it.  We are saved by God’s grace and not by our own perfect efforts.  It is this admission of our own imperfection that leads us to be more gracious towards others and a more true expression of the worship Jesus described.

“Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” (Matthew 25:40)

In conclusion, we should do as Jesus instructed and learn what it means in Hosea 6:6 where it says God desires mercy not sacrifice.  This is a reference back to the religious sacrificial rituals observed as worship in the Old Testament.  Sacrifice is an impractical expression of worship whereas mercy is not. 

Our better worship is not having the right mode or music style as much as it is in our expressed in our genuine love for each other. 

Truth and Hypocrisy

Standard

In the midst of this age of information overload is it any surprise that deep thinking people give up on the idea of discernable truth?

Competive and contradictory claims assail us from all angles. Advocates on all sides are seemingly equally convinced that they see more clearly than those who of a different perspective. 

We would be persuaded, they say, if we just opened our minds, examined the facts fairly and were honest with ourselves.  But, despite their confidence, to me often all sides seem to lack a clear perspective and bring a bias that is only obvious to those on the other side.

Hypocrisy in Action

How is it the same people who want to string up leaders as war criminals are the same who demand only compassion and understanding for a woman who aborts a life because pregnancy is inconvenient?

How is it that gun owners and passionate pro-lifers are some of the same saying that we should judge all Syrian refugees as a potential terrorist and protest to keep them out rather than value them as individuals as they demand for themselves?

Everyone is convinced in their own minds.  Everyone believes that they think rationally and most can give reasons for what they believe.  But somehow everyone, including some very smart people on both sides, cannot agree on everything and oftentimes we vehemently disagree.

Even those who claim the same religious texts as their guidebook to life arrive at vastly different conclusions about what it says—often with perspective each claiming they are authentic and the others are the imposters.  Both come with carefully crafted theologies and neither side shaken from the moorings of base assumptions that lurk somewhere outside the realm of their conscious thought.

Muslims see terrorism as the result of western intervention.  They can point to the fact that terrorist organizations like Islamic State and al-Qaeda were nurtured to life or a direct consequence of foreign policy decisions of the United States of America.  Many Americans, by contrast, see radicalization as a genetic flaw of Islamic faith and downplay their own responsibility.

We tend to see only the noble intentions of those who share our own particular ideological alignment.  The same people who demand absolute accountability for others are often the most creative at manipulating the evidence in order to absolve themselves of even shared guilt.

Meanwhile, with a smug satisfaction (that I cannot know is genuine or facetious) I sit here thinking I know something and maybe I do?

Could it be that none of us can claim to have a complete picture of the truth and that all of us share some in creating this flawed reality?

I know it is more comfortable to assume our perspective is infallible and the we ourselves have no major fault.  It is easy to outsource blame for the problems of the world, wash our own hands of responsibility, and pretend it is moral to distance ourselves sanctimoniously.  However, isn’t that exactly what is wrong with the other side?

I say we all resolve all the more to clean our own side of the street.  Lead the world by making no excuses and being an example.  If you wish for people to be open to your own perspective try to see theirs.  If you do not wish to be judged wholesale by the actions of a few bad actors then do not judge others that way.

Truth in Action

I believe there is truth to be found, but it is not something we profess so much as what we practice.  The truth is the love that we live and not a proposition that is only possible when others do our bidding.  Truth is our walk in consistent love not our words in hypocritical judgment.

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged.  For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.  Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?  How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?  You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”  (Matthew 7:1-5)

Do we give up on describing truth?  No.  I believe that there is some value in trying to put truth into words and arguing for what we believe is right and good.  However, we must always speak in humility and be as brutal to ourselves as we are to those who see things differently.

A Tempest in a Coffee Cup?

Standard

One may think from the news coverage that Christians are out, torches and pitchforks in hand, looking for coffee shops to burn.  The story is that Starbucks isn’t exploiting Christmas enough and this lack of proper capitalization for a profit of holiday has offended the sentiments of the unwashed religionist hoards.

This fury seems to have originated with a humorous poke at a bland Starbucks holiday cup design.  It was escalated by a fuddy-duddy blowhard extraordinaire (aka Joshua Feuerstein) who, apparently not seeing the joke, posted a video that urged a movement to trick hapless minions of secularism (aka Starbucks employees) into saying Merry Christmas.

And, since then—like that bar fight where nobody knows which drunken idiot started it or why they are fighting to begin with—the story of angry Christians has exploded into a media fiasco.  But strangely the two main characters in this brawl do not seem to exist as much more than mythological creatures and that has led some to wonder if the whole ordeal is a fabrication.

Where are these offended Christians?

In my cadre of conservative Christian social media commentating friends, I have yet to see one who is offended by the Starbucks design.  In fact, of my coreligionist friends voicing an opinion, I have observed two main camps:

1) The Apologists, or those annoyed by other Christians who are offended by Starbucks cups and have taken to social media to scold these theoretical entitlement-minded embarrassments to the Christian cause.

2) The Sanctimonious, or those who are suspicious that this controversy is created by the liberal irreligious media and take their high horse to condemn those annoyed as being pawns in this imagined nefarious plot.

Then there’s one last group made of non-religious friends:

3) The Amused, or those who watch with a little gleefulness, are not overly suspicious of the media and have little trouble imagining Christians that feel they are entitled to special treatment or would become outraged over something as silly as Starbucks cup.

My own opinion is that the whole thing has gotten blown out of proportion.  It has likely only gained traction because we are already accustomed to the cultural wars that take place over issues similar to this.  There is usually a skirmish or two this time of year (whether arguing for and against nativity scenes or some other cultural expressions of Christianity) and this has primed our pumps to expect it.

I also do contend, again, that Joshua Feuerstein represents a small segment of the general Christian population.  There’s always those who are perpetually offended on behalf of their own tribe (look at the Halloween costume controversy at Yale and the chaos at Mizzou as examples) and yet whether or not these outspoken activists represent much more than themselves is an open question.  My own anecdotal evidence suggests that those outraged by the cups are, at the most, a fringe element even amongst fundamentalists.

What’s with the media coverage, anyhow?

If one wants to study the interplay of the media echo chamber and social media viral phenomena they should start here.  There seems to be a positive feedback loop at work in this where a one-man movement on YouTube, picked up by the mainstream media, was then sifted through the amplifier of social media and each step promoting more to add their own opinions.  This has gone through several cycles of growing in magnitude.  Even Donald Trump weighed in suggesting a boycott of the mermaid logo brand.

I do not think this is a media reporting this ‘controversy’ is a coordinated attempt to discredit Christians.  Professional journalists are not any different from the rest of us and will report on what is the latest buzz as we do.  In the age of social media the feedback loop is faster and the amplification quicker than ever.  By the time people start breathing again, we all feel a bit duped and start to wonder how the insanity got started.

Newsflash: All news is manufactured!

And, furthermore, we all participate in manufacturing news when we share about events that interest us.  We present a product of our own perspective whenever we tell other people about anything.  As a professional news reporter, we also select the facts we believe are relevant and omit those that seem inconsequential.  We carefully craft our words to reach our target audience and create a narrative based in our own worldview.

The adage “if it bleeds it leads” holds generally true.  We are drawn to controversy and this latest fracas over Starbucks cups has struck a cord or we wouldn’t be talking about it.  There are evidently enough perpetually outraged Christians like Feuerstein to make a premise of widespread butthurt believable.  He may be a crude caricature of us, but there’s a reason that he’s not taken as parody and that’s likely because he’s representative of a type of person we know does exist.

My decaffeinated analysis of the issue…

Yet, the bigger story is that most people (Christian and secular alike) are seemingly more offended by the controversy itself than the plain red cups that started it.  So maybe we should be careful not to get too carried away in our own outrage over the outrage that may or may not be an outrage at all.  There are plenty of people sharing dumb opinions (Bill Nye on abortion for example) and this is probably a good reason to reserve judgment until the facts are spoken.

Anyhow, for the record, the only problem I have with Starbucks is the inferior quality of their brackish liquid.  I prefer my coffee with milk, sugar, in a Dunkin Donuts cup and agnostic.  If that offends you, then please, by all means, do complain and start a movement or something—I will sip away amused as my blog views climb.

“…whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,  and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:26-28)

“Threescore Years and Ten”

Standard

Last Saturday I stood reflecting in the autumn foliage at the place where my uncle Fred drew his last breath.

I looked at the nondescript patch of dirt where he had been found the day before. I looked up towards the forest canopy and felt the warmth of the sun on my face.  I breathed in the crisp fall air.  I pondered the beauty for a moment.

Like dried leaves blowing, my mind swirled with thoughts about what happened and what it meant—Fred was dead and with that a jarring reminder of the incessant march of time.  The season was changing whether I was ready for it or not.

The words of Psalm 90:10 were not forgotten:

“The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.”

I was not alone contemplating.  I was surrounded by a crowd that had gathered.  We were together in our somber reflection about the events a day before.  Fred was struck down in the very spot where we—his friends, family, wife, and children—stood.

I thought about my dad who I had accompanied on the journey back the trail through the woods.  His hair seemed grayer today than my memories of that wiry hammer swinging construction worker who was once as invincible to me as the mountain under our feet.

I thought about my aunt Rhoda who would grieve this long after most of us by necessity moved forward.  I thought of Fred’s children, his sons in particular, who now carried the legacy of their father and spiritual mentor.  I felt their tears.

We surveyed the scene together—connected by our faith and love for each other.  We remembered a man with an angular face, a rugged frame, and gentle spirit.  He was a man who loved his family, was loyal to his wife and enjoyed his work.

He died with his boots on as I would imagine would suit him—he was seventy years old.

Fred F. Stoltzfus

May 21, 1945 — Oct. 31, 2015.