More Than Stone

There are both spoken and unspoken rules in Christianity. The laws that we often pick up via the culture of the church. Tithing is mandatory, and the tithe goes to the church. Strong and vocal women are not being “subject to their husbands.” Certain types of music are sinful. Tattoos are unbiblical. There is something slightly “unredeemable” about a girl that loses her purity. The list goes on. I’m sure that we could add dozens more.

I’m ashamed to say that for much of my adult life, I lived by many of these laws. Unfortunately, law does not truly impact personal thinking, except to control behavior. We act or don’t act based on external controls. Judgment or Reward. If I behave this way, there is a price to pay. If I behave in that way, I will get some type of reward, (usually praise, or a sense of virtue).

Every one of my children has lied to me. When they were young, the law was simple. “We do not tell fibs, young lady!” As my children grew in maturity, our interactions became more nuanced. “Sweetheart, when you lie to me, it breaks trust. Trust is essential in our relationship. I want you to trust me, and I need to trust you. Do you understand the damage that happens in our relationship when trust is broken?” The focus was not on the law, but on the fidelity of relationship. Certainly law is useful when awareness is limited. Over time and with maturity, “I am not allowed to hit” becomes “I will not resort to violence, because violence is damaging to relationship. I love this person and do not want to violate our relationship.”

I wonder why we so often never move beyond the 2, or 3, or 5 year old comprehension of God. “I’m not allowed to lie” doesn’t become “Lying damages relationship.” We often do not move beyond “legal” statements to relational fidelity. I am convinced that if we approached God with our eye on fidelity instead of law, we might just find that our laws become unnecessary. Fidelity to Him, fidelity to each other.

Derek Webb A New Law Lyrics
(vs. 1)
don’t teach me about politics and government
just tell me who to vote for
don’t teach me about truth and beauty
just label my music

don’t teach me how to live like a free man
just give me a new law

(pre-chorus)
i don’t wanna know if the answers aren’t easy
so just bring it down from the mountain to me

(chorus)
i want a new law
i want a new law
gimme that new law

(vs. 2)
don’t teach me about moderation and liberty
i prefer a shot of grape juice

don’t teach me about loving my enemies

don’t teach me how to listen to the Spirit
just give me a new law

(pre-chorus/chorus)

(bridge)
what’s the use in trading a law you can never keep
for one you can that cannot get you anything
do not be afraid
do not be afraid
do not be afraid

Ok, I was not going to post anything about “The people formerly known as the congregation”, because everyone in the blogosphere was talking about it.

Then came, TPFKAC Part 2 or “The Penguins Formerly Known as the Waddle”

And then TPFKAC Part 3 or “The Community Coming To Be Known As Missional.”

And now, TPFKAC Part 4 or “The People Formerly Known As “The Pastor.”

I realize that not everyone who reads my blog is a big “blog reader”, so I post these for you, my dear non-bloggers…..

Ten propositions on political theology

1. The doctrine of the ascension is the basis of all political theology – and why there can be no such thing as apolitical theology. The church cannot be a cultus privatus because Jesus of Nazareth, “crucified under Pontius Pilate,” reigns and his edict is public truth. Remove Christ from the forum and it does not remain empty: nature abhors a vacuum; idols love one and soon fill it.

2. God is political. Cut the political bits out of the Bible – as Jim Wallis and some friends once did – and you’re left with “a Bible full of holes.” God is political – and God takes sides. In the Old Testament, Yahweh’s exodus and covenant “bias / preferential option for the poor” is now a well-worn phrase – but an undeniable fact. And the New Testament – Luke in particular – doesn’t drop the ball: the Magnificat and the Jubilee Manifesto suggest the game plan.

3. In my view it is legitimate to speak of an “epistemological privilege” of the excluded and oppressed. Bonhoeffer, writing in prison, was avant la lettre of liberation theology: “We have for once learnt to see the great events of world history from below, from the perspective of the outcast, the suspects, the maltreated, the powerless, the oppressed, the reviled – in short, from the perspective of those who suffer.” Here is the “more rewarding principle for exploring the world in thought and action than personal good fortune.”

4. With a shrug of their shoulders, conservatives love to quote the text, “You always have the poor with you” (Mark 14:7), as if poverty were an order of creation (cf. “the rich man in his castle, / the poor man at his gate”), and there is nothing we can – or should – do about it. But Jesus was not being cynical, or even realistic, about the inevitability of an excluded underclass, rather he was reminding his disciples where they will be found if they are faithful – among the poor and oppressed.

5. The point is not that the poor and oppressed have a monopoly on virtue, let alone that they are an elect group, rather it is simply that they are the ones who get screwed – and God doesn’t like people getting screwed. So God sends his servant Moses, his spokesmen the prophets, and finally his Son Jesus, their Big Brother, to take care of the bullies, though he fights with his mouth not his fists. Not, of course, that God loves the oppressor any less than he loves the oppressed; indeed his rescue mission is to liberate them both, the latter from their humiliation and suffering, and the former from their pride and violence.

Read the other 5 propositions….

Here are some more links for the talks by N. T. Wright

St. John’s

Church Of The Holy Spirit

Have fun!

Technorati Tags: N.T. Wright,

So, Through a series of discussions here, here, and via email, the question seems to be “what are Jamie’s eschatological beliefs?” Well, well, wouldn’t we ALL like to know the answers to this question.

I have taken to reading blogs that are written by well trained theologians. A theologian I am not. Theology has only recently grabbed my interest and boy, I’m hooked. I am fascinated. Why have I not been taught this before? Why is that the average Jane (or Joe) in the pew isn’t encouraged to explore the width and breadth and beauty of the different interpretations of Scripture? Why have I always been taught that people who hold different interpretations of Scripture are just wrong, (and probably going straight to hell) instead of being taught the scriptural basis for WHY they believe the way they believe.

Thanks to Virgil, I am exploring preterism. (And Virgil, I think I’m leaning towards a partial preteristic view….but that remains to be seen). Thanks to TA for enlightening me to the beauty of reformed theology (even when I pushed back hard). Thanks to Scot McKnight for putting brilliant, sensitive and thoughtful words to my current frustrations with the evangelical church. Thanks to Rob Bell to helping me understand the Gospel in a more holistic sense. Thanks to NT Wright for helping me understand that “Heaven’s nice, but it’s not the end of the world.” Thanks to people like Phil, John and Molly for showing me what it looks like to come out of one set of theological beliefs, into another. Perhaps not unscathed, but stronger and loving Jesus more. To Brian McLaren for showing me what a generous orthodoxy might look like.

There is so much to learn about why people believe these different views. The Church Universal is exciting and intriguing. All this to say, that I’m still not sure what my eschatological beliefs are, BUT I’m questioning people, I’m searching the Scriptures, and I’m seeking God for the answers. While I’ve been frustrated and hurt by the local church, I’m discovering that the Church (both visible and invisible) is beautiful.

HT JR Woodward

To quote Bono…

“His Truth is Marching on….And to those in the Church who still sit in judgment on the AIDS emergency, let me climb into the pulpit for just one moment. Because whatever thoughts we have about God, about who He is, or even if God exists, most will agree that God has a special place for the poor. The poor are where God lives. God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes where the poor play house. God is where the opportunity is lost and lives are shattered. God is with the mother who has infected her child with a virus that will take both their lives. God is under the rubble, in the cries we hear during wartime. God, my friends, is with the poor.”

Technorati Tags: bono, AIDS, Africa, NAACP

Ok, now I know that John Smulo is listening in on my conversations. (Hey, John…stop it!)

My husband and I were talking last night about…well…I guess in the broadest sense…God. And our theology. And where our theology comes from. And how often we don’t think about where our theology comes from. Many Christians wouldn’t categorize their beliefs as theology or doctrine… but it is.

Though I never would have categorized it as such, up until a few years ago, my doctrine was something like this:

I believe in penal substitution. (OH-and if you can’t name the exact time that the substitution took place, well….perhaps you had better think again)

I believe in voting Republican. (GET behind me, DEMOCRAT!)

I believe in voting anti-abortion.

I believe that homosexuality is wrong. (Remember the SODOMITES!)

I believe in Quiet Time. (Insert angelic choir sounds here)

I believe moralism=good Christianity.

I believe in avoiding hell at all costs.

I believe that Scripture is the AUTHORITATIVE WORD OF GOD. (And useful for teaching and beating people with.)

I know this seems ridiculous, and frankly, asinine. However, it’s the truth. Much of my belief system was rooted in the NO’s, as John points out in his post. Could it be that much of the negativity that we see in Christianity, the focus on behavior modification is because our theology is rooted in the fall? I’ve been mulling this over for a couple of months now, and at least for me, it has some traction. If my theology ceases to be rooted in the fall and is now rooted in redemption, doesn’t that change everything? It does for me. Though I’m still working things out in my mind (just ask my good friend TA), I think my doctrinal statement would look a little more like this:

I believe that Jesus died for my personal sins, but the gospel is SO much more than Jesus coming to die for my sins. It was the inauguration of the redemption of the whole world.

I believe that the Church should NOT be partisan. We should be purple. We should be calling both sides to justice, honesty and morality.

I believe that as a citizen of the new Kingdom, I cannot withdraw from society, huddled into a bible-study bunker. We, as citizens of the new Kingdom, are to live in a way so as to work alongside of God to achieve that redemption.

I believe that how I live is as important as what I believe. The power of my life is my best apologetic.

I believe that I have no business talking about hell in the life while ignoring hell in the here and now.

I believe that all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Many thanks to both Scot McKnight and N. T. Wright for my burgeoning suppositions.

Oh, and to the aforementioned TA, for so graciously listening to my rantings and being patient, loving and NON-judgemental when I go off track. TA-it ain’t over yet.

Technorati Tags: Scot McKnight, NT Wright, religious right, republican, democrat, theology, doctrine

Wouldn’t it be ironic if Western Christians were more excited about what God did through William Wilberforce to fight slavery in 1807 than about what God wants to do through us to fight slavery in 2007?

Read more from Gary Haugen….

According to the website, Internet Evangelism Day has a two fold purpose:

What do you think of this? Perhaps I’m just being cynical, but it strikes me as just another method of reducing the Gospel to information to be consumed. How likely is it that someone is going to come to Jesus through a website? IED is encouraging those who are participating to implement evangelistic websites and outreach blogs, among other techniques. Shouldn’t we be encouraging people to get out of their house, office, and churches and build relationship?

Thoughts?