the other side of hope

new year's.

2005-12-31T17:52:00.000-08:00

i know that in Christ, we can start every day new, live every day in the promise of God's forgiveness and grace. maybe it's foolish, and maybe it's culture, but there's something about watching the 'odometer' roll over and beginning a fresh calendar year. a year that so far, i haven't managed to screw up yet. a year with endless possibilties. maybe this will be the year that i finally _______. a year of hope. before the year starts, i'm sitting with the computer playing tunes, contemplating songs that have meant much this past year, praying over the past, and offering the future up to God. this past year has been marked by heartache: the loss of my grandfather, and almost losing my older brother. but it has also been marked with joy: almost losing my older brother is nowhere near actually losing him; by God's grace he continues moving farther along on the road to recovery. his son, my nephew was born just a few weeks ago, and we continue to rejoice for his healthy delivery. new jobs, pregnancies, babies, marriages, relationships, and homes have graced the lives of my family of friends. there has been much change and growth at Quest, and my new role here begins with the new year as well. there is much to be thankful for. as i pray, today i have also been burdened by the lessons not learned, the times i have fallen short. God, grant me a teachable spirit that i might learn how to not make the same mistakes over again. teach me repentance, and how to become more like you with each day that passes. imprint upon my heart the concerns of yours. help me to love as you do. use me as you see fit, for your glory and not for my own selfish gain or notoriety. may this new year be filled with more of you and less of me. songlist for the new year: blessed be, matt redman the tide, newsboys on fire, switchfoot let mercy lead, rich mullins no regrets, jennifer knapp everything, bebo norman my hope is you, third day testament [remix], george song this day, five oclock people medication, damien jurado everything is everything, lauryn hill if you let me love you, smalltown poets counting blue cars, dishwalla you alone, koo chung scripture on the eve of the new year: psalm 118 1 Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever. 2 Let Israel say: "His love endures forever." 3 Let the house of Aaron say: "His love endures forever." 4 Let those who fear the LORD say: "His love endures forever." 5 In my anguish I cried to the LORD, and he answered by setting me free. 6 The LORD is with me; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me? 7 The LORD is with me; he is my helper. I will look in triumph on my enemies. 8 It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man. 9 It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes. 10 All the nations surrounded me, but in the name of the LORD I cut them off. 11 They surrounded me on every side, but in the name of the LORD I cut them off. 12 They swarmed around me like bees, but they died out as quickly as burning thorns; in the name of the LORD I cut them off. 13 I was pushed back and about to fall, but the LORD helped me. 14 The LORD is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation. 15 Shouts of joy and victory resound in the tents of the righteous: "The LORD's right hand has done mighty things! 16 The LORD's right hand is lifted high; the LORD's right hand has done mighty things!" 17 I will not die but live, and will proclaim what the LORD has done. 18 The LORD has chastened me severely, but he has not given me over to death. 19 Open for me the gates of righteousness; I will enter and give thanks to the LORD. 20 This is the gate of the LORD through which the righteous may enter. 21 I will give you thanks, for you answered me; you have become my salvation. 22 The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; 23 the LORD has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes. 24 This is the day the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it. 25 O LORD, save us; O LORD, grant us success. 26 Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD. From the house of the LORD we bless you. 27 The LORD is God, and he has made his light shine upon us. With boughs in hand, join in the festal procession up to the horns of the altar. 28 You are my God, and I will give you thanks; you are my God, and I will exalt you. 29 Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever. amen. happy new year.

waxing exegetical

2005-09-27T17:57:00.000-07:00

an interpretation of the new testament as inspired by green day. .................................................................................................... Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even life itself—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their own cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, saying ‘This person began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples. Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.” -Luke 14:25-35, TNIV Disciple What is it to follow Christ? There are as many answers to that question as there are Christians, and yet is there some standard we are called to keep, something beyond our contextualized United States of America style hermeneutic of comfort and individualism? If there is no transformative post-conversion change in our lifestyles, have we really made the decision to follow Someone outside of ourselves? One general message to be gleaned from this passage is one of warning: count the cost. If you suspect you cannot complete the journey, do not start. Much like Yoda, the Jesus of this passage is advocating a “do or do not, there can be no try” approach to Christianity. In light of the extreme attitudes conveyed, alongside the sometimes extreme past historical interpretations of the text, what is Jesus saying to us today? What does being a contemporary disciple of Christ look like? On the surface, Luke 14:25-35 appears to be an extreme call to asceticism. Give it up, give it all up, and only then will you be worthy to be considered a disciple. Much like a military pep talk, the voice of Jesus in this passage encourages the listener to weigh the cost, because starting this journey and not carrying it through is death. Many times verse 26 has been interpreted as an excuse for Christians to neglect familial responsibilities in the name of piety, the ultimate sign of devotion to God abandonment of mother and father. I liken the attitude generally conveyed by these words to punk rock band Green Day’s new song Boulevard of Broken Dreams, whose melancholy lyrics glorify a solitary life. I walk a lonely road, The only one that I have ever known Don’t know where it goes, But it’s only me and I walk alone I walk this empty street On the boulevard of broken dreams Where the city sleeps And I’m the only one And I walk alone, I walk alone, I walk alone, I walk alone, My shadow’s the only one that walks beside me My shallow heart’s the only thing that’s beating Sometimes I wish someone out there will find me ‘Till then I walk alone… While the lyrics do not advocate giving up Christ to ‘walk alone’, these words are a prime example of taking the leaving of “father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even life itself” to a level resulting in an intentional wallowing in misery purportedly for the sake of the Gospel. In this hermeneutic, whoever sacrifices the most, and is the most miserable, is the most spiritual. This is not a spirituality of joy, but rather a carefully disguised competition of self-achieved holiness. Racking up bonus points in heaven, not a sense of sacrifice out of love, can too easily become the normative lifestyle. At the same time, it would be foolish to dismiss these claims to sacrifice altogether. Upon pondering the words of Christ, what should be given up for the sake of the Gospel? Early monastics responded literally to this call to discipleship, leading lives of desert solitude and, in an era preceding e-mail and telephones, left biological family forever in choosing to answer the call. In these cases the monastic community became an idealized family unit. “Ascetic Christians did not argue against family per se, but for a hierarchy of the spiritual family—the Christian community—over its fleshly counterpart—the biological family.” This prioritizing of the spiritual did not absolve one of all responsibility to biological family, at least not in the eyes of one of the early church fathers. In instructing monastics, St. Augustine advised Laetus, a man considering the monastic life but with strong ties to family, to leave his mother out of obligation to his larger, better spiritual family. At the same time, in his communication with married men and women seeking to live out their faith through taking vows, St. Augustine called for faithfulness to familial obligations as a necessary component of faithfulness to Christianity. If a wife or husband did not fulfill the other’s sexual needs, even if that denial was due to a spiritual desire for chastity in service to God, the refusing partner was deemed in error to both God and spouse. Faithfulness to vows toward family came before faithfulness to individual vows to God. The same held for Augustine’s interpretation of the vow of poverty in the context of family: giving away possessions and wealth without the consent of family members was not an act of faithfulness, but a sin. If in his conversion Laetus did not care for his mother and sisters, he would have been in error. The same also held true in cases where such sacrifice negatively impacted one’s family members. Within the balance of responsibly caring for family members, what radical claims is this gospel message making upon our lives? In Bock, the issue becomes one of priority. “Jesus’ call requires more, even everything, in terms of priority from the disciple.” Caring for one’s family is biblical; valuing those familial ties over the tie to and relationship with Christ is not. In an ancient world context this was “a call to set aside the relationships, the extended family of origin and inner circle of friends by which one has previously made up one’s identity…here Jesus is calling for the reconstruction of one’s identity, not along ancestral lines or on the basis of one’s social status, but within the new community oriented toward God’s purpose and characterized by faithfulness to the message of Jesus. Family ties were one’s identity in biblical times. In our current context, the degree to which this was true is difficult to grasp, but an indicator can be found in how people identified themselves to one another. Jewish last names generally associated one with family, i.e. Jesus bar Joseph was literally “Jesus, son of Joseph”. Without locating oneself within a family unit, there was no context for others to know who you were, what your status was within the community. Announcing an allegiance to Christ was in that day a much more costly choice; it is probable that by claiming Christianity in a Jewish context, one would be essentially severing family ties. This could be no casual choice. The call to value God over family meant for many opening themselves to rejection by family when choosing to honor God. If that is the case, we are called to be faithful. What then is the cost of not following, not prioritizing Christ over relationships, family, life? In simple terms, the text states “such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” This is absolute language. Luke is linking salvation to the willingness to sacrifice life and family, take up the cross of Christ and “follow”. This makes the discipleship not only open to all, but required by all. You cannot be a disciple if you are unwilling to “bear the pain of persecution as a result of following Jesus.” Weighing the cost of this, we are given two examples through which to carefully consider the commitment of discipleship. The first of two practical examples involves a monetary parallel. In basic language, if you’re going to build a tower, make sure you have the money to build it. Plan ahead. If you don’t, and you can only afford to finish halfway, not only will you have an eyesore in your yard, you’ll look like a dumbass and all your neighbors will point and laugh. Taken allegorically, “don’t start if there is not a willingness to expend all one has, including life itself.” It would seem that “the wise decision involves reflection, not reaction.” This parable reinforces the message of previous verses, concretizing the absolute claim of Christ. The cost of discipleship is such that one must carefully consider its feasibility prior to committing. Perhaps preparation is required; in the case of the parable, one may have to save money in order to build the tower. In our individual lives, what qualities must be cultivated in some way to make the endeavor possible? Perhaps not stockpiling monetary resources, but spiritual resources is in order. Perhaps cultivating a dependence upon the “heavenly” treasures of trusting not in yourself but in Christ, being open to the strengthening and gifts of the spirit, practicing spiritual disciplines and actively engaging the scriptures would be part of equipping oneself for the journey of discipleship, enabling us to finish. The second parable is a very different example. Set in military terms, the typical Jewish literary tradition of repeating an example in order to emphasize its importance is at work here. Restating the parable in contemporary common language, if you want to fight someone, but know you’re outnumbered and have no chance at succeeding, won’t you send someone to ask to resolve the conflict peacefully? The choice here seems commonsensical: of course one would not choose to fight a losing battle. The classic language of kings is also illuminating. In considering what this passage must mean, I embarked on a non-verbal, pictoral interpretation of the text. In sketching this scene, a new thought arose: if the allegory can be read with Christ/God as the king we are up against—whose forces are so massive we have no hope of victory—our surrender equates to a realization of the superiority of Christ. While Bock reads this text as simply another weighing of the cost with the results of miscalculation being death in place of humiliation, there is something deeper here. In deciding whether to follow Christ there is the question of “can we do it”, but there is also the question of “is there an alternative”. To one who has reached the point of surrender and waived the white flag, surrender to Christ means survival. Choosing to be a disciple at times arises out of the stark acknowledgment that we have not the resources, the strength to continue fighting a claim we have realized as true: Jesus is Lord. It is only in light of that realization that the decision of discipleship becomes unavoidable. Discipleship in this passage is expanded even further with verse 33. Here the follower of Christ is commanded to relinquish “everything”, commonly interpreted to mean material possessions. This verse may be referencing back to verses 18 and 19 of the same chapter, when those invited to join the wedding feast excused themselves to see after their oxen and fields. Clearly, for those individuals allegiance to material possessions superceded allegiance to Christ. For the disciple, this is not permissible. “[T]he call of God issued by the prophet must relativize all other claims on life.” The disciple must be singleminded: any interpretation of life centered around family, possessions, or self disqualifies one from Christ’s discipleship. While necessarily sounding harsh and exclusive, the remainder of the passage sheds some light into the necessity of such an extreme view. Here the commentaries find the need to extol the virtues of Palestinian salt, and its probable gypsum-laden sources at the shores of the Dead Sea. Salt as it was found in Israel at that time was contaminated with impurities that would be “thrown out” after the salt had been extracted from the substance, thus a literal interpretation of salt losing its ‘saltiness’. An interesting alternative posed by ancient Jewish rabbinical wisdom likened salt losing saltiness to a mule bearing a foal-both are absurd commonsensical impossibilities. In both interpretations, the bottom line remains the same: unsalty salt is worthless. Indeed the text points out “it is fit for neither the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out.” What does this allegory mean to the Christian? We have already established the call to discipleship as essential to all, as well as the costly nature of responding to that call. In the example of the salt, we are reminded again of the necessity to give all to follow Christ: the one who does not is ‘thrown out’. The disciple who gives up, who is unfaithful, who ‘loses’ saltiness is no good for any purpose of ministry. This is a serious admonishment with serious consequences; scholars interpret it as a warning regarding final judgment, or as taking “something potentially useful and mak[ing] it useless”. The former view is horrible, the latter tragic. That one could be used by God, and instead choose, out of the unwillingness to respond to the call with faithfulness, to be thrown out is a rejection of life as a disciple. This rejection occurs on two levels: our rejection of God’s call, and God’s subsequent rejection, or “throwing out” of us. This underscores the gravity and necessity of each person to respond. The final verse in this passage could be seen solely as a formality, a signing off: “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear” . Indeed, it was said to be a common phrase of Luke’s time. However, it is significant because it opens the preceding verses to a more inclusive reading. The call to discipleship is not open primarily to Jews, or the wealthy, or the physically able. It is open to “whoever has ears to hear”. While it would be nonsense to literalize it by considering those who are deaf to be excluded from the claim, it is valid to take seriously the ‘whoever has…’ claim. All are called to answer the call to discipleship, all are worthy, commanded, and invited to become followers of Christ. If this inclusionary view is to become commonplace, we must also acknowledge the validity of interpretations of the call to discipleship that are more radically inclusive than the traditional methods employed thus far. Speaking in terms valid less in our society of plenty than in a more globally common society of need, an alternative interpretation of the ‘counting the cost’ metaphor present throughout this text would focus not upon giving up all the resources one has, or attempting to calculate if one can have “enough” to be successful. Instead, “the point is that, no matter what calculus one uses, no matter what resources one believes one can bring to bear, those assets will be insufficient to secure one’s status before God. Alternative and decisive action is thus required for everyone.” This equalizes the playing field and takes the emphasis off of what one does have, and shifts it validating that we cannot possibly have enough to be disciples of Christ on our own power. We are all in desperate need of Christ to even attempt to respond to the call to discipleship. All this talk of responding to a call, but what does discipleship mean? What should our response look like? If we are attempting to emulate Christ, our common Western self-centered interpretations cannot be used here. “To be drawn into the New Testament world is not to take a brief vacation in a fantasy land before returning to the “real world.” Reading and interpreting the New Testament must be transformative for the person of faith. “To really enter the world before the text…is to be changed, “to come back different,” which is a way of saying that one does not come “back” at all but moves forward into a newness of being.” In our own Western, privileged context, what would it mean to be changed, to be salt, to count the cost? Here I turn to theologian Dr. Marva J. Dawn who has done much work on what it means to be a Christian weighing both a global and local consciousness. In speaking of global disparity of resources, Dr. Dawn outlines what global poverty means on an understandable scale. Statistically, more people have died in the past 50 years from starvation and poor sanitation than all the wars fought in the 20th century combined. Just as alarming is what it would cost to change this: $13 billion in annual aid money could meet these needs for the world’s poorest people—citizens of the United State and Europe spend more money on pet food every year. As part of the wealthiest one-fifth, we also consume 86% of the world’s resources, while the poorest fifth consumes a mere 1%. To put it in a different perspective, if we naïvely wished for equality, that all the earth could live as we do today, we would need FIVE planet Earth’s to support such a rate of consumption. Being a disciple of Christ must mean these statistics hit us at a level deeper than numbers. Salt to the world does not sit idly as injustice occurs, but rather recognizes the gross injustice that can only be seen as a sin against God, and speaks out. The cost of discipleship is choosing to live a life that does not perpetuate the myriad inequalities of our world, but fights against them. Last month, I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Dawn in a seminar offered by my denomination. As she shared her story, I could not help but be struck by the literal manner in which she interpreted the call to discipleship. Dr. Dawn is the author of at least a dozen books on various aspects of theology from social justice minded volumes, to discourses on the theology of worship and prayer as well as research on the theology of ministering to children. By all accounts worldly and Western, she is a successful woman. She should be wealthy, driving a fancy car and living in a multimillion dollar home overlooking some enviably scenic vista. She is a successful professor at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia, and is regularly invited to speak all over the globe. There’s just one hitch: Dr. Dawn is not wealthy. By appearance, one would rightly assume that her shopping takes her to Value Village more often than Nordstroms. After writing her first book, Dr. Dawn realized that the money from the royalties was tempting. So tempting, in fact, that if she continued to keep this money, she would always need more. At this point, she established a foundation to care for the proceeds of her work. Each book’s profit goes not to her bank account, but to various causes. For example the money from the book about children’s education goes to fund inner-city educational programs in impoverished urban areas of the United States. A book about the AIDS crisis funds AIDS awareness efforts in Africa. She gave it up, the wealth and prestige and lifestyle, to live simply and attempt to affect change with whatever means God has put in her grasp to use. Could we do the same? Could we allow the gospel to change and transform us in radical, countercultural, life-affirming ways? Could we be disciples? Part of the learning process for me has been a restatement of the text in what my friends commonly refer to in Bible studies for people who haven’t read the Bible as “the New Revised Leah Version” of the scripture. I include below my unofficial, prayerfully not heretical, interpretation of the text. Tons of people were hanging out with Jesus, so he turned around and started talking to them. He said, “If you love anyone more than you love me, your mom and dad, sisters and brothers, friends, or even yourself, you can’t be with me. If you won’t go through hell on earth as I did, if you chicken out and give up, you can’t be with me. It’s like if you wanted to build a house, you’d sit down and figure out if you had the money because if you started building it, got halfway done and ran out of money it would suck. Your friends would point and laugh, and you’d just have this pile of crap in your yard you couldn’t even live in. You’d have to go live with your mom. Or it’s like if you were totally pissed at someone, got your friends together and figured you’d better go beat the crap out of them. Only halfway there you got a call on your cell phone that the other person had a bigger group of friends and there was no way you could win: you were going to get your ass kicked. So you call them up, tell them you were wrong, and you want to call it off. If you’re not willing to give up everything for Jesus—house, money, cars, boyfriend/girlfriend, whatever, it’s not going to work. If gas stopped making your car run, what would you use it for? Nothing. Nobody would buy it, it would be worthless and you’d dump it out. Listen up, this applies to everyone. -Luke 14:25-35

christology...

2005-05-25T21:04:00.000-07:00

so...thought i'd post something that i'm learning...the things you think about when you're drinking coffee at 2 am... ---------- Toward a Postmodern Christology: Critiquing the Lens of Anselm Kyongsuk Min What exactly is a postmodern Christology? For that matter, what is postmodernism? For years bandied about as the philosophical buzzword of our times, much ink has been spilled over whether or not such a nebulous term can by nature be defined, never mind establishing a universal definition. It is within this current social atmosphere of deconstruction and rhizomatic spirituality that Anselm Kyongsuk Min posits his unique theology. While considering himself a liberation theologian, Min claims theologies of feminism, liberation, and postcolonialism are essentially theologies of difference whose time of insight and influence have passed. The infinite definition and critique characterizing postmodern philosophy bled into theology a sense of fierce delineation resulting in this theology of difference which birthed a new theological paradigm for every need. In marked contrast, negative theology a la Derrida’s difference followed to its end eventually brought about a homogenous lack of identity. It is in response to these polarities, the identity assertions of liberation theologians juxtaposed with the deconstructionism of postmodern theology, that Min proposes his own theology of the “solidarity of others”. In the course of this critique we will discuss how the solidarity of others relates to the mission and teachings of Christ. To Min, “solidarity of others has…been of the very essence of the Christian faith.” Christologically, the centrality of this doctrine is reflected in Min’s claim that the entire “life, ministry, passion, crucifixion, and resurrection” are embodiments of Christ’s participation in Min’s theological claims. Min’s theology can be crystallized in the understanding “that the times call for a change in our paradigm, not for a theology of difference but for a theology of solidarity; not the solidarity of the same but precisely the solidarity of the different, the solidarity of strangers, the solidarity of those who are other to one another.” Borrowing from Hegelian philosophy, Min further unpacks these claims of “deconstructing and sublating postmodernism” through defining Otherness as “critically negated in its absolute claim, transcended into the solidarity of others, and preserved in its proper meaning in that solidarity.” Moreover, it is helpful to clarify the term “solidarity of others” is used in place of “solidarity with others” because the former phrasing places all in the position of others without privileging one group as the center from which all others are defined: we are all other to one another. It is this position of equality from which Min constructs his Christology. From this vantage point, a Christology of unity is formed. “In Christ there is a primordial, divine solidarity of all humanity and indeed of all creation both with God and among themselves.” Our sinful humanity had disrupted this initial balance established by the Divine, and it was the mission of Christ to “re-create and reestablish the original solidarity of all creation by justifying, reconciling, and uniting all things…” For Min, this includes a dissolution of the “oppressive distinctions—religious, ethnic, social, political, and economic…” The solidarity of the other is essentially a solidarity that at once affirms and negates difference. Christ came to overcome our individual differences, to bring us into relationship with one another in an atmosphere that celebrates our unique identities while maintaining focus on Christ as the ground of this unity. For Min, it would follow that the tenets of Christian teaching necessarily reflect the centrality of social justice through care and concern for one another, as well as a Spirit-led oneness in Christ. While these represent the heart of Jesus’ teaching and mission for Min, they do not necessarily reflect a holistic view of Christology. While the reconciliation of humanity to both God and one another is included in Min’s definition of the mission of Christ, the concept of salvation seems to play a supporting role to this “solidarity of others”. In an understanding that emphasized not only an eschatological view of salvation, but a working out in the daily life of the believer the manifestation of a redemptive salvation, this solidarity would make more sense. As it stands in his theology, the personal or philosophical take precedence over the spiritual. I agree that justice and compassion are integral to an understanding of the mission of Christ; indeed I would agree with Min’s unstated valuation of social justice as inseparable from life as an obedient follower of Christ. That said, scarce are mentions of the necessity of personal and corporate spiritual development as part of Jesus’ teaching. Included in the same Sermon on the Mount blessing the poor in spirit, the weak, the hungry, and the persecuted are teachings on prayer, fasting, and discernment. An integral part of our reconciliation to God comes through the spiritual disciplines practiced in community and individually. While I enjoy Min’s philosophically postmodern approach, the lack of practical application creates a distance not found or espoused in Jesus’ mission and teaching. While I cherish excellent theological and philosophical discussion, understanding Christology by virtue of Jesus’ teachings—the colloquialisms presenting theology in a format accessible to his contemporaries—is not elitist. Indeed while this point is peripheral, it rankles that a theology of solidarity and inclusion is couched in language and philosophies understandable by an educated few. Format aside, I must return to the absence of a more holistic view of Christ’s teachings emphasized by Min. While “the liberation of the oppressed from the power of evil, and the…critique of the ruling classes of the day…” is part of Jesus’ teachings, it is only part. Such an emphasis speaks to a world dealing with great disparity of wealth, power, and privilege, however it also neglects other essential elements of Christ’s teachings and mission. That Christ came to show us how to live a holy life, that he modeled prayer and fasting, and a faithful devotion to the Father above all else creates a paradigm characterized first by this relationship and secondly by our relationship to one another. Min has these relationships equal at best, reversed if one were to weigh the two in terms of the prioritization given both in his theology. Indeed, it is this relationship with God through Christ that creates within us a motivation for developing a consciousness of social justice, an ability to see “solidarity of others” as something we are called to in Christ. This is not to say that a personal relationship with God through the salvific nature of Christ is not mentioned in Min’s work, but to say it is not given the prominence found in the Christology of the Gospels. The message of the Gospels is to highlight the “good news” of Christ as savior. This message is first to our reconciliation with God, both as humanity and individual. While crucial, the resulting love and concern for one another cannot occur without first grounding oneself in relationship with Christ. Jesus’ teaching can be summarized in Matthew 22:37-40, the two greatest commandments—“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…[and] Love your neighbor as yourself.” Min’s solidarity of others falls into the second category. Likewise the mission of Christ was to redeem humanity through his death and resurrection. Again while this is mentioned in Min, it is not the pivotal element of his Christology. The radical, self-giving love of Christ as an exemplification of how we are to treat one another should be emphasized and expounded first in order to provide the groundwork for a call to social justice. The postmodern theology of the solidarity of others utilizes this as an informative background concept rather than a foreground definitive. Overall, I agree with and would advocate Min’s theology; we differ in the emphasis rather than the message. In light of Min’s work, I postulate a simple Christology of my own. Accessing the heart of Jesus’ teaching and mission one must first look at his relationship with the Father. If one is to take the Lukan account, the identity of Jesus as Son of God is established very early with the story of the boy Jesus at the temple. While we might debate the historicity of this account, its importance lies in Jesus pointing not at himself or others, but at the Father. This theme is consistent throughout the Gospels to varying degrees, from the early temple stories to the prayer in the Garden, the declarations on the cross, and the resurrection. It was Jesus’ obedience to the Father, “the one who sent me” , that led to our salvation. The identity of Christ as Messiah, as Savior is central to his mission: to reconcile us to God. This is also reflected in his teachings and continual calling to repentance and return to a right relationship with God found throughout the Gospels. The love of people, the calling to justice and an accurate reflection of the radical love of God in our own lives is secondary; it is impossible to reconcile to one another without first reconciling to God. Our commitment to Christ will be evident in the transformation of our lives: if we love God, if we are obedient, if we believe in the role of Christ as Messiah, we will reflect his love toward one another. But the relationship with God through Christ predicates social action. The emphasis upon social action in Anselm Kyongsuk Min’s The Solidarity of Others in a Divided World is a postmodern twist on his understanding of what he calls “theologies of difference”. In holding a theology with a single, liberationist emphasis while touting a greater solidarity of viewpoint, religion, and people is at once postmodern and deconstructionist. This tension surfaces in the overemphasization of solidarity of other in comparison to reconciliation with God through Christ. A more thorough Christology would propose a stronger framework of salvation and the radical love of Christ as the crux of Jesus’ mission and teaching resulting in a greater awareness and personal call to justice. I would propose that we cannot hold the elements of salvation and justice as separate, it is in the tension between the two that we begin to understand a more practical Christology, that we begin to allow it to inform our lives and actions.

meditations on worship...

2005-04-18T12:45:00.000-07:00

a couple months ago a friend posed an interesting question: what is worship? the thought has been nudging at the back of my brain since, and i've meditated on it a few times. here's today's thought... 4.18.2005 throughout history your people cry out “Jesus Save me” but save me from what? today I need you to save me not from the mouths of lions or fiery furnaces, the judgment of Roman emperors and Sanhedrin conclaves, but from the mind numbing glow of ESPN and Sarah Jessica Parker I need to be saved from Banana Republic and 50 hour workweeks that leave me numb and chase away any thought of the presence of God beside me in my SUV next to me in line at Starbucks speak to me in Hebrew evoke ancient mystery of incomprehensibility the inability to utter your name a sacred holiness leaving humanity too awestruck to profane through crass familiarity a Deity we relegate to our context never realizing you are different from we closing our minds to any attempt to ponder the holiness of God Someone we could never comprehend so immense our feeble minds will never be able to take it in so vast our eyes can never hope to see the horizons of your glory it will take eternity to begin to know you and yet in our greeting cards and our theologies we pretend to take you in to break you down into five easy steps forty days of recitations and rituals whose formula will equal the sum total of knowing who you are and what you have done forgive us Lord, our trivializations of your majesty our dethroning of your Lordship our inability to imagine what life could be like if we relinquished the American Dream and lived Discipleship forgive us Lord, when we are too comfortable to be like Christ

the waters of grace...

2005-03-14T06:53:00.000-08:00

been meaning to post some thoughts on baptism.. Baptism then is a lifelong expression of grace, something worked out continually in the life of the follower of God, and cannot be pinned to one specific moment. The work of the Holy Spirit throughout one’s life and calling serve also to join those who are baptized into a greater communion; the Spirit cannot be claimed by any one tradition, thus ecumenically we are part of one body. “Those baptized are called upon to reflect the glory of the Lord as they are transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit, into his likeness, with ever increasing splendour (II Cor. 3:18). The life of the Christian is necessarily one of continuing struggle yet also of continuing experience of grace.” Baptism, contrary to my prior understanding, is about the lived experience of being a Christian. Prior to my own baptism by immersion, I recall the pastor explaining that when we came up out of the waters, we would be seen by God as the cleanest we had ever been, or ever would be. Rather than encourage, this comment made me a bit reticent. I knew myself, knew that I would continue to need God’s grace. I had no illusions that the waters would magically grant me some sort of divine nature that made sin a thing of the past, and to know that I would somehow sully that moment of perfect cleanliness was disheartening. In its desire to access not traditional but scriptural foundations of baptism, BEM radically calls churches to task in developing a discriminate theology of baptism, one that, regardless of specific mode, would emphasize the life altering nature of baptism. This approach focuses instead upon the call to maturity and development in the Christian life. If churches motivated their believers to follow this, “baptized believers demonstrate that humanity can be regenerated and liberated. They have a common responsibility, here and now, to bear witness together to the Gospel of Christ”. It is through our faithfulness and witness that the grace and power of God are evidenced in the world.

the economics of meat

2005-02-14T18:33:00.000-08:00

i ran across the statistics in a liberation theology book for class that first set me on the "veggie path". "...due to the consumption of grain-fed livestock by residents of the United States, enough food is consumed by them to feed over a billion people in poor countries. According to Oxford economist Donald Hay, a mere 2 percent of the world's grain harvest is sufficient, if shared, to eliminate world hunger and malnutrition. Yet, ironically, in a world where over thirty-four thousand children die each day of hunger and preventable diseases, the number of overweight adults in the United States increased from 26-34% between 1988 and 1991...In fact, the dollar value of the food thrown into North American garbage cans each year equals one-fifth of the total annual income of all Christians living in Africa. This self-centeredness believes in its moral right to accumulate while others go hungry, never connecting the relationship between having and not having. The accumulation of wealth is understood as the product of hard work." -Miguel de la Torre, Reading the Bible From the Margins

amendments...

2005-02-05T01:51:00.000-08:00

alright. i'll admit it, i was a bit off. during the two days since my last posting, i have been challenged enough by certain events at midwinter to print at least a partial retraction. cases in point: 1. michael emerson and dr rodney woo were the all day thursday speakers for the entire covenant body of pastors. for those of you not acquainted with these two, emerson is the author of divided by faith and one of the authors of united by faith. the focus of their presentations was on building multiracial congregations, and, for sociologist emerson at least, on pointing out how diverse and how NOT diverse the ECC church body really is. their presentation was mostly excellent, but one telltale sign of how ready the denomination as a whole is to accept these teachings came when looking out at the crowd: it was the least attended large group seminar of the conference. 2. reverend eugene rivers III was the thursday evening speaker. his session was well attended, and his work as an african-american pastor in boston is amazing. he's working with at least three non-profits: the ella j. baker house, co-chair of the national ten points leadership foundation, and one linking churches in the u.s. to churches in africa to help fight the AIDS pandemic. basically, this guy rocks, and was pretty much right on at the conference. 3. jim wallace. he was the closing speaker, and was also great. in some ways, it was frustrating seeing him give much of the same information given earlier in the week by marva dawn, and as an able-bodied, credentialed and much consulted white male receive a standing ovation from the audience that only two days earlier hadn't all given a standing ovation to a disabled white female. indeed, around half the audience claimed to be quite offended by dawn's speech, calling it "too political" when she hadn't mentioned george bush, and had instead talked of "our government", meaning both democrats and republicans. wallace was nowhere near as cautious in his language. don't get me wrong, i agree with both speakers, but i don't agree with the reactions. so, i amend my comments, and give the covenant props for having the guts to book the speakers. do we have a long way to go? with only 4.5% of our denomination being composed of multi-ethnic churchplants, and the covenant leadership openly admittingn there aren't enough resources out there to educate pastors on the role the church plays in contributing to racism, YES! are we moving? slowly, yes.

travelogue...

2005-02-02T18:09:00.000-08:00

the past few days have been spent in chicago at the midwinter conference of the evangelical covenant church. our pace has been hectic, katey, deanza and i have met more people in the past couple of days than we can remember, and we've connected with some friends we haven't seen in awhile. what's great is while we're relative newbies to the covenant people make you feel like family. like any family, it has its quirks, but we've definatley felt welcomed by those we have met. a couple things i wonder about, though...katey is our fabulous children's director @ quest. she does an amazing job, and has an interest in going back to school...one problem: seminaries aren't offering graduate courses in children's ministry. why is that? why aren't there more children's pastors here at the conference? i honestly don't think she's been able to connect with one honest-to-goodness children's pastor yet. another thing: we don't know much about the covenant. as we're meeting up with people and trying to figure out what we're doing, and more specifically, how our roles within quest relate to the larger covenant, we are left wondering how to mesh the two. to explain, we're all in various ways pastors at quest. within the covenant we have the opportunity to be licensed for our various ministries, but we had no clue about the nature of the process, the details, or the opportunities for further education within the denomination until coming here, really. kinda sad. another thing: we've met some women pastors within the covenant, which has been great. but i've heard also that there are a lot of unemployed women pastors, that it can be hard to find work within the covenant, that many churches are supportive and affirming, but, well, it's still a growing process of "education" regarding a significant portion of covenant congregations... :T also, walked into a churchplanters dinner tonight, and out of around 30-40 people, we doubled the women population when the three of us walked in the door. there was one person of color present, which may have been due to the fact that the african-american dinner, and the asian-american dinner were both taking place at the same time in different locations. regardless, it's possible to go into workshops, look around, and realize it's an all white crowd. it's also possible, as in the forum i was in today, to find that only men ask questions at the discussions, although a significant number of women are present (until i couldn't take it any longer and said something, and then another woman spoke up as well). it breaks me to see the church, my church, working in a way that is against what the church is called to be... on a very positive note, a speaker named marva dawn was the main speaker last night and spoke at one of today's seminars. she gave an amazing sermon last night addressing the systemic evils in our society and church mainly of economic ineqality, social injustice, and racism. naturally, turns out today many were offended, and so her seminar perhaps wasn't as well attended as it might have been otherwise. however, there was so much truth in what she was saying so much to be affirmed and challenged by, and she spoke with such a spirit of humility...it was inspiring. anyhow, check out the link and buy some of the amazing books. all the royalties go to various charities, whether providing medicine and housing to the homeless to funding inner-city education efforts. be educated and empowered. be the body of Christ. peace of Christ to you.

out of the overflow of the heart...

2005-01-25T09:35:00.000-08:00

...the mouth speaks. (matt. 12:34) over the past few weeks, faith communities, nations, individuals, and organizations have all been responding to the SE Asia disaster in one way or another. while compiling these responses, i ran across an interesting thread of discussion regarding how our current leadership are framing the motivation of america's aid to the region. former president bill clinton went on record stating that the global response to the tragedy would "strengthen religious unity and reduce terrorism." huh? while trying to decode that one, i found this statement by secretary of state colin powell: Powell told reporters that, although the United States doesn't care about the religion of aid recipients, its $350 million for the victims of last week's earthquake and tsunami ''does give the Muslim world and the rest of the world an opportunity to see American generosity, American values in action." His comments were made as he and President Bush's brother began a four-day trip aimed at demonstrating US concern for victims of the disaster. while i'm excited that the u.s. has stepped up to the plate in giving aid to the area, the idea of using aid as a strategy game, especially coming on the heels of reported incidents where people were denied aid because they would not convert to chrisitianity, is a bit unsettling. not that powell and co. are requiring those receiving aid to sign a "hey i won't ever be a terrorist" statement, but that humanitarian efforts would be seen as a tool to be used in manipulating goodwill out of our "enemies" in the face of extreme tragedy and loss...how crass that powell and clinton are publicly equating the muslim people of this region with terrorists, not to mention the paternalistic attitude of "we'll help you, so now you'll like us"...why can't we give aid and shut up about it? why does there have to be this motivation of putting someone in our debt by helping them, thus obligating them to us? maybe i'm crazy, or maybe i just can't understand why these statements have been made, but true giving or help would not ask for something in return, especially not in front of the whole world.

martin luther king jr., circa 2005

2005-01-19T16:59:00.000-08:00

disclaimer: this is a cross-posting, also posted on seattlequest.blogspot.com he rally started small. two of us left from quest at 10 am monday morning while most of seattle slept late. this was my second time attending the citywide rally, now in it's 23rd year. it was to be her first. arriving at seattle u, we ran to catch up with eight or so undergrads en route to garfield high school. as we walked together in the rain, we talked of many things, and soon drumbeats filled the air. roosevelt high school's african drum circle was opening the rally. alongside others coming from around the city and around the state, we entered the gymnasium. the program was much the same as last year: the singing of the black national anthem "lift every voice and sing", the calling of all clergy present to the front to share what congregation they were from. out of more than 2,000 people crowded into the auditorium, i counted seven pastors, mostly methodists and baptists. the labor unions were present again, as this year's theme was "speak truth to power". alongside teamsters in matching jackets sat college students, businesspeople, members of black sororities and fraternities from the university of washington and seattle university. speeches were punctuated with performaces by gospel church choirs and local groups. as we were given our marching orders, the benediction came from a methodist woman pastor: "consider the rain today your baptism together", she said. instead of ending with "go in peace to love and serve the Lord", her prayer was "go and work for peace. go and work for justice." permeating the entire rally was an atmosphere of song and prayer. continually, we were admonished to remember the God Dr. King served. continually, we were encouraged with music. and then we were sent out. news reports later numbered the marchers at 4,000. as we marched we were alternately becoming representatives of montessouri schools, an anti-facist marching band, seattle jewish day schools and zeta phi beta. moving in rhythm to footsteps of thousands, we were both together and separate. we marched for a common cause and shouted the prerequisite slogans "what do we want--unity, when do we want it? now!" "no justice, no peace; no justice, no peace" and when police presence was more evident "no justice, no peace, no racist police". holding our signs aloft, we sought to show all of seattle that this day meant something other than sleeping in and staying out of the rain. at the end of the day, i could say that the verses from amos meant something, "but let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream" (amos 5:24). it would be easy to make the connection between the baptismal quality of the rain and our corporate desire for justice and righteousness. but i must ask myself, what will i do the other 364 days of 2005? will i stand and speak against injustice i see? will i work for social equality and an end to racial division? will i speak truth to power when it costs me something? will we as the church? i honestly don't know. happy martin luther king jr. day. leah

the smell of the emergent church...

2004-12-27T13:30:00.000-08:00

it's nothing new, over the past few years as the 'emergent church' label has faded from revolutionary to merely trendy in a sunglasses-and-black-tshirt kind of way, it has been coopted as the next big conference and speaker generating machine by mostly mid-life crisis aged white men. in many cases these are the same folks who rode the 'willow creek' wave and are hoping to surf this one through another round of lectures and book tours. the problem is this movement is just as marginalizing as the one before. urban churches, ethnic churches, multiethnic churches, poor churches, woman pastors, are still part of the professed market for the emergent church movment, but they're not the ones invited to conferences or asked to contribute to new books. they aren't asked to teach or lead, and so are not given any more of a voice than they were before. the old power games still apply here: this is a makeover, not a movement. the new powersuit is composed of black t-shirts and jeans, but the ponytail sporting players gracing the stage at a recent atlanta area emergent church conference attended by a multiethnic church planter were all middle aged white males. no people of color. no women. no young people. what the hell are we thinking? who are we? is this what the church should look like? is this what we want the church to become? notes from a few folks speaking out against this trend: local pastor karen ward and jonny baker. interesting stuff. definately not what you'll find marketed by zondervan.

nomenclature

2004-12-27T13:06:00.000-08:00

as i showed this blog to a friend the other day, he responded by saying "the other side of hope? what's that? hope doesn't have another side!" besides thanking him for the positive affirmation, i realized it may be useful to explain. have you ever been to that place where you lose all sense of hope? when things have gone a certain way for so long that you feel your senses are dulled, your outlook on life grays around the edges, and you have lost the strength and courage to believe in the possibility that things could become better? in that space, on the other side of hope, i found faith. the droplets of grace placed amidst my life led to a deeper understanding of the sovereign nature of God: no matter the circumstance, God is. no matter the situation, God is good. no matter how i rebel, how i protest, how i personally feel, God continues to be God. the perspective change led to an increased awareness of how small my place in this world is, that in a more global perspective, we all suffer. we are all broken, but we are all loved and valued by God. words that can ring empty, but continue to be true nonetheless. God is great, i am small. it is as it should be and yet, in this Christianity the distinctive piece is the redemption, the God who loves enough to continually seek after us and seek after our love. the God who would choose to give everything to find each of us, personally, and wish only to give us love. to grant us hope. to shower mercy upon us.

responding...

2004-12-26T23:52:00.000-08:00

i'm sure by now we've all seen the news reports or read the papers, at least i hope we have. this morning southeast asia experienced one of the worst earthquakes of the past hundred years...at least 28,000 are confirmed dead, scores more are missing and displaced, and the numbers only continue to rise. one report said the magnitude of the earthquake was so great it disrupted the rotation of the earth. in the aftermath of all this, and of hearing little on the news, i sat at my computer to read reports of the situation as one of my housemates walked in. her family is from india, with much of the family still living near where her parents were raised. as i asked if she knew how her family was, she hadn't yet heard of the quake, and so i searched for news reports and maps of the area as she called her mother to ascertain how her family members were doing. i can't imagine the waiting, as they are even now waiting to hear from someone near a working telephone to be sure everyone has survived...thus far all the news has been good, everyone is okay. thank God. one of the missionaries from our church released an email that shared what his company is doing and hoping to do in the area, while calling for prayer from those at home in the states. here are more specifics to pray for: we need to have a two pronged approach... one is the short term relief work... a. food - kitchen b. medicine c. clothing d. clean water e. safe place to stay on a temporary basis f. helping families clean, helping in burial... g. trauma counselling...govt may not focus on this... long term relief work... a. reconstruction of homes... b. rehabilitation of widows...self help projects... c. counselling for those who lost family members... d. repair of boats... e. childrens educational fund for those who have lost their fishermen fathers f. longterm disaster relief coordinator we are trying to gather information from different places...i tried getting to some of the worst hit areas and those places were cordoned off by the police...we will be going out again tomorrow morning to see what r the areas we can focus on... will u think and pray as a city or base or as a church how u can all pull together to respond on a long term basis to this crisis... let's keep praying... a concrete way to help: mercy corps is gathering resources and aid for the region.

evangelizing whom?

2004-12-18T14:56:00.000-08:00

this morning a good friend called me up to chat about missions. in past conversations we have pondered the efficacy of u.s. churches sending missionaries to countries that are statistically more 'christian' than the u.s. technically, if my addled brain has the figures correct, the united states has the fifth largest population of unchurched folks. for the large part, where do u.s. churches send domestic missions workers? to the inner cities. to the poor. to the marginalized. i won't take time to dispute the motivations of those sending resources, but he postulated that perhaps the face of our country could be changed if we also poured our efforts into obtaining an mba alongside that mdiv, to evangelizing wall street and unocal. if the forces that currently sway the decisions made in our country are fueled by finance and business, where is the church in this? how are we to create a fusion of morality and business, and is this something we, as christians, are called to respond to? for those involved in 'secular' enterprises of business, finance, and corporate culture, who is calling for a move beyond faith as something shown on sundays and in not cheating on your spouse, and into an all pervading relationship with Christ? is it time to start comissioning ceo's and boardroom executives as the key players of this new mission field?

inaugural address

2004-12-17T21:36:00.000-08:00

this is to be my first *real* blog posting. wish me luck.