Why Rock the Boat? -- Guest Post

This is a guest post from an author I really like:  my wife, Kaye Sims,  who asks some of the questions she has been wondering about lately.  This one is addressed to church leaders who encourage cutting edge ministry... and then fail to support their pastors who actually implement innovative methods, some of them ultimately losing their jobs as a result.

...

Why do you encourage missional thinking?  Why do you bring in innovative thinkers with their radical and transformational ideas?  Why do you invest so much time and energy getting pastors fired up to lead their churches into organic, refreshing, authentic ways of doing ministry?  Why do you push these amazing, wonderful, life-changing concepts and encourage pastors to implement them?  Why do you convince people that disciple-making is not a program, but that it is a radical way of thinking and living, a fresh but ancient wave of spiritual reproduction?  Why do you challenge church leaders to dismantle their fortress mentality and to learn instead what it means to unleash the church - to BE the church outside the institutional walls?

But the real question is this:   When pastors follow these principles and find themselves and many of their people invigorated and becoming more effective in reaching their community, and then when the local power brokers get up in arms about the inevitable break from tradition, why, oh why, do you refuse to stand with those pastors?  Why in the world do you stand instead on the side of the status quo as yet another pastor gets kicked to the curb?  Why do you blame him and the people who followed him into the new Spirit-led ministry that you introduced?  Why do you label them rebellious - those who dared to venture out and live out these transformational disciple-making principles?  

Why indeed do you encourage such innovative thinking that violently upsets the apple cart?

Innovative thinkers blow up the status quo.

Wouldn't it be better to promote ways to keep things running smoothly?  Wouldn't it make more sense to invest your leadership resources and energy in training pastors how to avoid making waves?  Why don't you bring in speakers and organize conferences around the principles of compliance to authority?  Forget finding the "man of peace" in a community who might be instrumental in welcoming a move of God that would transform that town.  Instead why not train each pastor how to quickly recognize the "man of power" in the local congregation - the one who pulls the strings or at least holds them?  Wouldn't a pastor benefit from learning the steps of how to keep that person happy?  

Instead of challenging pastors and people to resist the status quo, maybe it would be smarter or safer to train them to submit to it.  Wouldn't that be the way to keep the machinery oiled and running smoothly?  The way to avoid church splits and to keep the statistics steady and the monthly reports rolling in on time.  Isn't that what matters?  

....

Kaye Sims very much enjoyed serving in church ministry for pretty much all her life until suddenly finding herself on the outside.  She has since discovered glorious freedom and loves to  watch for opportunities to be involved in reconciliation, redemption, and restoration.  She still finds herself wondering about lots of things and writes about some of them at her blog,  Wondering Journey.

Evolution - On Steroids

  On my previous post, My Problems with Evolutionary Theory, I complained about the unbelievability of the essential foundation of traditional evolution: natural selection.  In this post I am going to answer my own questions and satisfy my skepticism by describing what I think is the most sensible scenario for the origins of life.  This is all about what makes the most sense to me - and it has nothing to do with faith.

  My current belief in a supreme being is mostly based on logic.  In fact, it could be a product of my doubts about evolution.  The deal is that, as I explained earlier, I don't think natural selection is a powerful enough mechanism to produce the amazingly complex organisms that nature presents throughout the world.  It is incapable of even imagining the many intricate organs or systems or higher forms of life, let alone making them appear from the original protozoans - even with the generous time framework of billions of years and as many alleged chance mutations.

  The apparent impotence of natural selection makes some sort of miraculous intervention essential.  There had to be strategic upgrades between every major life form and the next most complex organism.  According to natural selection, these were the products of random mutations that allowed species to improve over time.  Darwin ventured that enough of these progressive adaptions would eventually accumulate to change a plant or animal so much that it could be classified as a new, different organism.

   But probability says that's a stretch.  That seems so improbable to me that I might as well call it what it is: impossible.  The only way these significant changes could have occurred is with the activity of some outside creative source.  Charles Darwin drew his hypotheses in part from his observation of different varieties of finches in the Galapagos Islands, saying that a long series of minor changes could add up to the next distinct species.  To say this happened two or three times would be daring, to maintain that it happened thousands of times is nothing short of outlandish.

Differing food sources result in beak adaptations.

  Just a cursory study of the human body or the wildlife in the tropical rain forest or the miracle of a newborn baby is enough to make one suspicious of the notion that these things could come to exist by chance.

  So natural selection isn't ultimately about chance.  Because so many coincidences would have to take place in such a fantastic sequence that the whole process ends up being nothing short of miraculous.  It's way beyond chance.  If I flip a coin and it comes up heads, I could call it chance.  But if I flip it a thousand times and it comes up heads every time, it is not chance, it is a miracle.

  My skepticism of natural selection is the if-then operative that makes me conclude there must be a creator.  This stuff could not have happened without some sort of intelligent help, and lots of it.

  But I don't subscribe to the young earth creationist stuff either.  I don't think God was in a hurry to get the entire universe and everything assembled in six earth days.  I understand that this theory comes out of the desire to interpret the Bible literally, but it is not necessary in my thinking.  (Actually, nobody interprets the whole Bible literally.)

  If the universe is at least 13 billion years old, as astronomers say, and if the earth is at least 4 billion years old, as geologists say, then the creator is at least that old.  Why would he wait until just 7000 years ago to start putting together the solar system and the plant and animal kingdoms on the earth?  This idea is man-centered and earth-centered.

  There are many creation theories, and my favorite is one called the Day-Age Theory.  The premise is that the six days of creation described in Genesis 1 are not actual earth days, they are long ages of time, epochs, when a lot of adaptation could have taken place.  I can keep my scientific integrity intact with this theory, because it allows for the universe to be billions of years old and the earth to be really old too - without dethroning God.  It even allows for the possibility of prehistoric ancestors of homo sapiens (mankind), since it introduces the possibility that the creation account set forth in Genesis was really a re-creation ("...the earth became without form and empty..." Gen.1:2).  Maybe the account has a huge gap after the creation of the universe and then picks up again at the end of the last ice age for the re-creation (creative upgrading) of mankind and the plant and animal kingdoms.

Man and dinosaurs co-exist in displays at the creation museum.

  The Day-Age Theory also allows for the literary nature of scripture, the possibility that Moses' creation account was figurative, more like legend or folklore and was not meant to be scientific - or even historical for that matter.  This helps me with the discrepancies in the account, like the fact that the sun was formed on day four of creation.  Tell me what kind of "days" were the first three?  Earth days can't happen without the sun.

  So the more practical scenario I have settled on is a hybrid: Bob's Creationist - Evolutionary Theory.  And it is mostly based on logic and science but not without regard for the Bible.
  Because evolution needs to be turbo charged to get the job done.  And because creation doesn't need to be rushed.

  If you haven't done so, you really need to read the previous post for more scientific explanation about my problems with evolution.

My Problems with Evolutionary Theory

  I have a logical, scientific mind, and I have trouble with some of the assumptions made by evolution scientists.  Maybe I haven't read the right stuff yet and maybe I will happen upon some sensible explanations at some point, but here's where I am right now.

  First let me say that I don't have a problem with energy and matter and physics and astronomy and geology.  I believe the universe is really old.  Just last month astronomers reported the discovery of the farthest away, oldest galaxy (named z8_GND_5296) at the other side of the cosmos.  It is 13 billion light years away, making the universe at least that old.  The Big Bang that apparently started it all is entirely logical to me and consistent with what I see when I look up into the sky at night.  I am fully aware that what I see is not current but rather a snapshot of the universe the way it was millions and billions of years ago.

  Similarly, while I was in college my geological studies led me to conclude that the earth is millions of years old.  I could see it in the fossils and strata that I was digging up with my little rock hammer in the strip mines of southern Indiana and in the cut-away cliffs of the Rockies.

  So my problems are not with the physical sciences.  I am not a young earth theorist;  that doesn't make any sense to me.  At this point my fundamentalist creationist friends and I part company.

  But I'm also having trouble with some of the foundational biological premises of evolution.  Here's where my evolutionist friends and I part scientific company:

Problem #1:  You can't evolve if you can't reproduce.  Evolution requires time.  Lots of time.  Millions of years of evolutionary process must take place to deliver any noticeable change in a species.  And evolution also requires reproduction - lots of it - and right from the outset.  But if you can't reproduce, how can you evolve?  You don't have the luxury of millions of years to grow a male penis and then millions more years to develop a female vagina, and then millions of millennia to produce reproductive cells and everything else that goes with the reproductive systems, male and female.  It all has to be working in the first generation in order to have a second generation, if you know what I mean.  Excuse my explicit logic here, but if you can't procreate, you're screwed...  in a manner of speaking.  It doesn't require a whole lot of thought to arrive at the obvious conclusion that it is not possible for reproductive systems to evolve.  There must have been some creative point of origination when everything was suddenly working.  But is that still evolution?

  In the evolutionary sequence (called the Tree of Life) there is a huge gap between the slime molds and the duckbilled platypus, early ancestors of humans.  Somewhere in that gap sexual reproduction had to develop, and it had to show up all at once, along with a lot of other things.  This is a big problem, because natural selection does not have the balls for this; it is not a viable operative here.  Biologically speaking, natural selection can't get 'er done.

Problem #2:  Mutations can't close the gaps.  Natural selection (sometimes called the survival of the fittest) assumes that the positive adaptations of nature will live on to further evolve and the negative mutations will die out.  That's fine within species, but it seems pretty farfetched when trying to evolve from one life form to the next.  It is counterintuitive for me to concur with an evolutionary timeline that is a virtual continuum of development from lesser to greater, from simple to complex, from dumb to smart.  In my view, there's an insurmountable gap between every major family and the next higher life form. (See Hillis' completely sequenced genome Tree of Life here or Darwin's and several other early models here.)

A simplified version of evolutionary sequence called  Tree of Life

  On the contrary, a more panoramic observation reveals a slow decline of the biological world.  There are fewer species of plant and animal life on the earth now than there were last year or last epoch.  So the dinosaurs are gone, along with the dodo birds and a bunch of other cool stuff, gone forever.  Occasionally a scientist discovers a new butterfly in the Amazon jungle, but it is not really a new insect, just a newly discovered insect.  Many species are lost every year.  The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) reports in their latest update to the Red List of Threatened Species, which reviews more than 60,000 species, that 25 per cent of mammals on the list are at risk of extinction.
In my mind, this points to a grand beginning and a slow diminishing of biodiversity.  Natural selection and the tree of life standing on its head, if you will.

Problem #3:  The Missing Links are still missing.  There should be transitional forms of every kind of organism in the fossil record.  But there aren't.  150 years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species (1859), they are still missing.  300-million-year-old fossils of the sea turtles show no significant variation from those alive in the ocean today.  Fossils exist of plants and animals that are now extinct, amazing things we have not seen before, but there have been found no viable transitional forms between the frog and the cat, the cat and the dog, the dog and the horse.  And there should be.  In fact, there should be millions upon millions of these "in-between" specimens embedded in the earth's crust, and with the thousands of archeologists who are on the job around the world, these should be emerging from the soil every day to be displayed in our newspapers, our science classrooms and our museums.  But they're not.

  Logically, this makes me think there was a definite point in time for the origination of each plant and animal group.

Problem #4:  DNA lacks creativity.  Adaptation falls short.  Adaptations can be the results of external forces applied on a particular life form.  So humans who lived in the tropics for many generations developed dark skin for their own protection.  And when they migrate to temperate climate zones they continue to birth babies with dark skin for many generations following, because of an essential change in the DNA when they lived in the tropics.

  But the original adaptation was a mutation, an adjustment to the DNA in response to an outside stimulus: sunlight.  This is the normal modus operandi for adaptations.

  But DNA do not have a mind of their own.  They are a reliable code or program that is automatically followed, usually without variation, a consistent phenomena called genetic homeostasis.  They cannot originate new body parts.  They cannot convene a committee and collaborate to develop an organ, a system or a sense, like the sense of sight, for example.  They cannot initiate a group effort to form an eyeball with a cornea, retina, optic nerve and eventually a center in the brain that interprets sight from nervous impulses - even though their blind host organism would certainly benefit from it if they could.  DNA are oblivious to the needs and wants of their host; they are not able to initiate these necessary monumental changes; they are barely able to react and adapt to outside stimuli and only do it infrequently and reluctantly through an occasional mutation.

  What I'm getting at here is that complex systems like digestion and breathing and circulation and the senses of sight and smell and so on, could not be generated by ignorant DNA.  Without the help of some miraculous, creative outside force, they cannot cause the countless improvements that are essential for the evolutionary process.

   Many evolutionists give examples of adaptations as proof of evolution, and indeed, it is essential to the entire scheme.  But adaptations never have and never will change one type of animal into another as evolutionary processes require.  Thousands of miraculous mutations - strategic upgrades - would have to take place for this to happen.  Yet this remains the foundational core of evolutionary theory.

  So I think that much of evolution science rides along on the backs of some very hopeful but unlikely hypotheses.  I have talked to some of my evolutionary friends about these fundamental gaps, and no one has offered explanations for any of this.  I guess maybe Charles Darwin could be excused for his optimism, hoping that science would eventually fill in the gaps, but I'm a bit more skeptical.  I am not comfortable with the cognitive dissonance that natural selection creates for me; it's just too fantastic.

  When my daughter came home from her first year at university she told me that her professor had said that, "Evolution has pretty much been proven by now."  My first thought was, "Really? When did that happen?"  Scientists don't even agree among themselves about the classifications of the simplest life forms.  In their search for the earliest universal ancestor evolutionary biologists are discovering that "...the emerging picture is far more complicated than had been expected, and the ancestor's features remain ill-defined.... Five years ago we were very confident and arrogant in our ignorance; said Dr. Eugene Loonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information.  'Now we are starting to see the true complexity of life."*
  It seems that the more information that scientists gather, the less there is that they are certain of. (See also, Oldest Human DNA Reveals Mysterious Branch of Humanity for more speculation on human ancestry.)

  Post Script:  There is a battle continuing between creationists and evolutionists that is as unscientific as it is polarized.  I think part of the problem is the "package deal" that both sides are expected to embrace.  The creationists have a complete platform that they promote including an actual 6-day creation and a young earth (7000 years old) theory turned to dogma.  The evolutionists do the same, driven by the prerequisite that there be no intelligent creator in the equation.  And both sides have made their platform into a political and an emotional campaign.  Both sides overlook the obvious.

  When it comes to the origin of species, I am a man without a country, so to speak.   As you can see in this post, I do not subscribe to either traditional platform.  I think it is more reasonable to take an objective approach that is based on observation and real scientific evidence and without initial bias.

  My study and interest in this will be on-going, and I'm looking for facts. Conjecture is fine at the start.  That's where the scientific method begins.  But when reliable results aren't forthcoming after 150 years of study, it may be time to look for other answers.

  Also, please notice that I wrote this entire post in the first person.  That is an attempt to keep my friends from becoming offended and disowning me.  I respect the right of everybody to have their point of view, and I haven't made suggestions about what anyone else should believe about evolution; I have simply stated my own opinion.

Thank you for reading!

To make a comment or to suggest the next expert that I should study on the subject, click on "Post a Comment" below.  (There will be a delay before it is posted as I have to moderate all incoming comments.)  Thanks again!

* Nicholas Wade, The New York Times, article "Tree of Life Turns Out to Have Complex Roots".
   --Cartoons by Mueller and Ham, in The Funny Times, December 2013, Volume 28, Issue 12

I Went Back To Church Today

  I am happy to meet with my friends in their home - or the park or the ice cream shop - a couple of times a month and call it church.  I feel that my life is in pretty good balance with that level of involvement in spiritual gatherings.

  But today my wife and I took advantage of an opportunity to attend "regular church" with some of our family.  We went to a large suburban Baptist church where the music was trendy and loud, the atmosphere was informal, and the preaching was positive and encouraging.

  And I had a good time.  It was a positive experience for me, which is really saying something, because the first few times I visited a church after my traumatic exit from my local parish, the experience made me sick to my stomach.  Really.

  

  If you have read more than a couple of my blog posts you are aware that I am a critic of conservative evangelical institutions in America.  I think that much of what happens there is way off the mark of what God had in mind for his Body of believers.  You could probably randomly click on any selection in the left sidebar of this blog page and get an eyeful of my candid truth-telling assessment of denominational religion, based on my understanding of the New Testament.

  But today I saw the other side, the side that I haven't focused on much, the side that is not offensive to the culture and not offensive to the scriptures and most importantly, not offensive to Jesus.

  If you decide to go back to church, I suggest you look for a place like this:

• The atmosphere is relaxed and friendly, but not in-your-face welcoming.  They leave you alone to be a non-participating spectator if you want.  Nobody makes you raise your hands or say "Amen".  The apparel is a mix of faded jeans and 3-piece suits as if nobody really cares what you wear - or whether you have tattoos or body piercings, for that matter.  Nobody asks you to remove your hat if you wear one inside.  Little kids run back and forth and nobody stops them and scolds them about their irreverence for "God's temple."
• A church that respects the US constitution and its provision for the separation of church and state.  There is no mention of politics or the government, no alarmist warning about liberal politicians or the ubiquitous slippery slope.  No hyped-up challenge to somehow "take back America for God" (the "how-to" is always absent).
• There is no haranguing about giving.  Tithing is not forced, you are free to give or not to give without any expectation either way.  Finances seem to be handled responsibly and without a lot of waste.
• The property is modest and practical and is used efficiently by scheduling the same facilities for several different activities during the week (the church that I attended today has 1 worship service on Saturday night and 3 on Sunday morning and a variety of other venues during the week). Even better if the building is open to the public for walking and exercise, dance or karate classes, family reunions and other community events.  Stretch your donated dollar by using the resources as much as possible.
• The sermon is presented in a friendly and non-condemning manner.  It is not a dissertation on scriptural doctrine or denominational dogma, but rather a simple explanation of a spiritual idea leading to a practical application that is easily applied to the listener's everyday life.  It is grace-filled.
• The presenter is humble and an ordinary guy (or lady) who does not come off looking superior to the others in the room.  Even if he has an education and a divinity degree, his sermon is not grandiloquent or complicated.  The truths are not empowered by shouting or finger-pointing.  People do not leave the room feeling belittled or humiliated but rather encouraged.
• There are home groups or smaller venues that are conducive to discussion where you can ask questions.
• The essential hierarchy is invisible to the constituents.  Leaders don't seem to be in competition with each other or with the neighboring churches.

  Let me be clear about something:  The personality and demeanor of the pastor will make or break a church.  If he/she is mean and vindictive and uses the Bible as a weapon of mass destruction, there will be an abusive and toxic environment.  If you have experienced this at your local assembly, if you leave the meetings feeling a sense of condemnation, you should get yourself free immediately.

  On the other hand, if the leader is humble and grace-filled and magnanimous and servant-like, there will be health and spiritual vitality, and he will automatically be endowed with spiritual authority, much like Christ.  This is a good person to be around and from whom to receive spiritual food.

  Some of my acquaintances have said of me that I was "burned by the church".  Not so.  The church is made up of people.  I was burned by people.  People who had been my friends for decades, placed a higher value on the institution than they did on their relationship with me and with other individuals.  

  People are what's right with the church, and people are what's wrong with the church.

  There are at least two things about people that make them good or bad for the church:  One is bad doctrines that they believe and which govern their actions.  Bad doctrine can make good people do bad things.  The legalistic practice of the "submission to authority in the church" orthodoxy is an example of a bad doctrine that enables thousands of well-intentioned leaders to inadvertently construct environments of abuse and oppression.

  The other is bad character.  There are some people who simply should not lead others, because they have issues themselves that cause them to seek power and to dominate others.

  Add bad character to bad doctrine and you have a recipe for disaster (domineering men empowered by the doctrine of "submission to authority" wreak havoc throughout the Christian world).  Sadly, this is the norm in a lot of places.

  Fortunately, the church that I visited today was not like this.  It is led by a very intelligent but very down-to-earth young man who has a winsome personality and whose default interaction with people of all kinds is to declare their great worth by building them up and encouraging them, both through the fixtures of the local church and by his own respect for them as individuals.  He does not use the Bible as a bludgeon.

Ernesto Alaniz of Faith Baptist

  He was educated at Moody Bible College in Chicago, he is a big, lovable Tex-Mex-American named Ernesto Alaniz, and he is my son-in-law.  He is the campus pastor at Faith Baptist Church in Waterford, Michigan.

  If you want to go back to church, you should look for a non-condemning place like Faith Baptist that is led by an unassuming servant-type guy like Ernesto.  You should be safe there.

  Also, this is an independent church with no denominational alliances that can precipitate bad dictates from powerful characters in ivory towers.  Remember, power tends to corrupt.

   One other thing.  Pastors aren't the only ones who can set a poisonous tone in a local church.  The last four churches that have blown up in my neighborhood over the last four years were taken over by one or two power brokers, usually sitting on a governing board, who simply didn't like the pastor or the direction he was taking the church.  In most of these cases the district leaders caved in and sided with the dissidents, eventually ousting the pastors.  Hey, these folks are usually the ones holding the purse strings, like Judas, so the denominational leaders have little choice but to let them prevail ("If I don't get my way, I'll withhold my tithe or leave the church").  District leaders' livelihoods are dependent on the flow of funds from the local churches, so money steers logistics.

  There's good and there's bad in everything.  Seek a place with an abundance of good.  Good people and good practices.  Look for grace, love and respect.  If you don't see it in the leaders, don't go near the place.

Jesus was a Liberal

  Liberal means generous.  Jesus was generous.  His prevailing first reaction to a sinner is forgiveness.  Not judgement.  His response to the woman who was caught in the act of adultery was, "I don't condemn you," (John 8:11)  even though the Old Testament law ordered an execution by stoning.  Mercy prevailed over judgement.  Always.  This should give us a clue that, though it never came up during his ministry on earth, it's likely his reaction to gays would have been the same.  And to evolutionists, and abortionists - and politicians for that matter.

  As followers of Christ our prevailing approach to sinners should be the same.  "I don't condemn you."  And then pour on the love and the respect - and leave any follow-up admonition to the Lord through the Holy Spirit ("Now go and stop sinning").

  I have wondered what church or denomination Jesus would be the most likely to join if he lived on the earth again today.  Would he be a Presbyterian or a Baptist, a Wesleyan or a Catholic?  Would it be a group that we consider conservative?  Or liberal?

  I have concluded that he would be none of the above.  He wouldn't likely be part of a denomination of any kind.  He disdained the religious organization while on earth and reserved his most pointed criticisms for the religious leaders of the day, calling them sons of their father, the devil (John 8:44).  He might do the same if he were here now.  He would not be part of your church.  The institution of the church was not his idea (It was the emperor Constantine's idea).

  Jesus complained that the priests and Pharisees were using the scriptures to keep people out of heaven. (Matt 23:13)  Today's evangelists are no different: they use the scriptures to keep people out of heaven.

  He clearly banned the hierarchical structure for his disciples , telling them that they must not lord it over their people (Mark 10:42) but rather lead from behind (Matt 23:11, Mark 9:35).  And what do church leaders do today?  They lead from the front, lording it over their people through their hierarchical structure, claiming that a chain of command in the church is "God-ordained".  Nonsense, the only hierarchy ordained by God is that every member of the Body is answerable directly to the Head, which is Christ.

  Jesus clearly said we should not call any leader "pastor" or "father."(Matt 23:8-10)  Yet that's the accepted practice every time we address one of our clergy, feeding this idea that they are above us in some way.

  He said that his kingdom would be comprised of "living stones being built up into a spiritual house,"(I Peter 2:5)  but instead, we think God still dwells in temples made of brick and mortar and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on grand church buildings and meeting halls in every local parish, and then we hire "pastors" and "fathers" to lead us in style while we pay them salaries and provide them free housing and benefits.  I guess we are pretty liberal (generous) after all, since this scenario is entirely unbiblical.

  Jesus was  not interested in politics and rarely said anything about the government, and when he did, he showed respect toward civil authority.  (Wish some of your Facebook friends could be more like Christ in this way?)

  

  Well, maybe our contemporary Jesus, if not a denominational man, would be part of an independent house church.  After all, they have no hierarchy and no central leader - no pope or general superintendent.  They have no affiliations with any religious organization and don't even try to write up doctrinal statements and ordinances or bylaws.  Hmm, that sounds a lot like the New Testament house churches.  But Jesus was a predecessor to all that.

  Jesus was out and about all day every day, visiting from house to house and from town to town.  Of course there is no modern day counterpart, but if there were, I think he would be doing the same things as the original Jesus.

  His ministry would be characterized by humility, love and compassion.  He would help the poor and the hurting and pray for the sick wherever he found them.  He would provide food for the hungry - perhaps thousands at a time - out of concern for their welfare.  Yes, welfare.

  Yes, Jesus would be a liberal if he walked the earth today.  And he is walking the earth today, within you and me.  We are his dwelling place.

  So I want to be like Jesus:  I will be generous; I will be a liberal.  I will not judge, but only love people.  And I will help my needy neighbors when possible, and keep the main thing the main thing.  Love is the main thing.  Not righteousness or morality or conservative values.  Love.

  Oh, and since I really do seek to be like Jesus, I will criticize the religious institution and expose religious pride and the anti-Christ of legalism and oppression whenever and wherever I see it.  (I've been doing it for almost 3 years on this blog.)

  Thank you for reading.

  

  Have you ever thought about whether Jesus would want to be part of your church or denomination if he were here today?  What are some more reasons he would  or would not?

  

Backyard Baptism - The House Church Way

  My friends baptized their kids in a backyard swimming pool this afternoon and in my mind I couldn't help seeing visions of ancient New Testament believers being dunked in fountains and reflecting pools and rivers all across the middle eastern world as the gospel quickly spread across the region two thousand years ago... minus the cell phones and pocket cameras snatching their digital images instantly uploaded to the Cloud (gives new definition to the "cloud of witnesses").

A circuit-riding house pastor oversees the baptism of 2 kids by their parents in a backyard pool.

  But my visions were not only reminiscent of the past, for I also saw into the future as I was struck by the durability of the house church movement, the modern version being around since the 1800's but exploding with growth over the last ten years as the institutional church continues its God-ordained decline.

  My own exodus from the church is only four years old, but I am already aware of some of the long term benefits that the backyard festivities today brought to mind:

Freedom Reigns

  By far the most dominant characteristic of the movement outside the walls of the church is the freedom that dawns so brightly as the sun comes up the morning after another church refugee leaves the empire.

• Freedom from denominational dogma.  Liberated believers are free to shed the traditions and ordinations of the church.  There's no licensed legalist to tell them not to practice communion and baptism without an ordained minister on hand (although many house churches are attended by an abundance of former pastors).  I've even seen Mountain Dew and Ding Dongs used as communion sacraments and I don't think Jesus was the least bit upset about it.  Denominational doctrines are up for discussion in the home group.   It's just us, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit... and the internet.  No credentialed big shots telling us what we must believe.  If we want exegesis we go on line and read the latest blog from the scholars at Asbury or Moody or Wheaton.  In an instant we can learn and evaluate doctrines from the great theologians... if we care to know what any high-minded stuffed shirt thinks (because many of them don't seem to know much about grace).
• Freedom from condemnation.  Although it can take many years to purge the legalism and guilt out of one's soul, most freedom exiles start to loosen up as soon as they realize that there is nobody looking over their shoulders with a pointing finger or a disapproving  look (that is, after the fallout from the initial explosion has subsided a bit.  There is an inevitable sifting of friends and family members that follows an exodus, but it subsides with time).  Grace is the pervading attitude in the home group.  Non-condemning, nonjudgmental, let-me-be grace.
• Freedom from liturgy and protocol.  Would you like to have church at the ice cream shop?  Our group has done it several times.  We have also met at the park where we went for a one-hour run/walk before sitting down and dialoguing.  We don't meet on Sunday mornings, and we don't have worship time if we don't feel like it, and we don't have prayer before or after the offering... because there's no offering.  People get up and leave the discussion for more coffee or pizza and then come back a few minutes later... if they're not in the back yard leaning over the fence talking to the neighbor.  The institutions of the church vanish into the distance over time.  And the altar call?  What is that?
• Freedom from rhetoric.  Pious platitudes are a thing of the past.  The talking head (the sermon) is long gone.  Seminars and conferences don't exist.  We are all about conversation.  When's the last time you tried to interrupt your pastor's sermon with a question from the floor?  How did that work out for you?  It happens all the time in the home group.  Oh, the freedom of it all!

  A few years ago I heard a critic of the emerging church predict that the movement would be dead inside ten years.  The only problem with his statement was blind ignorance of the facts.  Recent studies indicate that it is the institutional church which in fact is declining and at faster rates every year.  Last month I heard a researcher report that the number of believers outside the church now outnumbers those still attending.

  Demonizing the movement won't stop the trend.  God will stop it when he wants to.  For the time being, it looks as though he wants to keep it going, perhaps until enough of us have been dumped outside the salt shaker and into the world where we he can finally do some good with us.

  

And the Band Played On...

  While the Titanic was sinking the band kept playing, even though there were people needing assistance getting into the lifeboats.  So it is today in the institutional church.

  My suggestion to my friends still playing in the band is to leave your post and help somebody escape.  Do it in small increments at first if you need to.  Miss church on one Sunday per month and hang out with a neighbor.  Go boating or fishing with a fellow employee at work.  Take your family on a Sunday adventure at the arcade or the movie theater.  Take a sabbatical from daily devotions for a month.  Give yourself a break from the fixtures of the institution.  Baptize your kids in the swimming pool.  Serve Mountain Dew and Ding Dongs (are they back on the market yet?) for communion at your next home Bible study.  Do something unconventional.  

  And just see if you feel a bit freer.  If not, go back to what you were doing if you want.  No problem.  No worries.  No condemnation.

  The work of Christ is freedom (Gal 5:1).  I love you, and I want you to be free.

You'll See Better if You Step Outside

  It's been four years since I was booted from the religious empire of the institutional church, and I marvel every day about the difference it has made in my life.  The sense of freedom and well-being that I feel now is like nothing I knew before.  I feel like scales have fallen off my eyes as well.

  I'm an outsider now, and I feel like I can see better; there's more light out here away from the shadows of contrived doctrines and orthodoxies.  I am living now in wide open spaces with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness... and a whole lot of grace.

  I have left legalism and judgementalism back there in the shadow of the steeple, along with obligation and guilt.  I am traveling a road with an infinite stretch of freedom on the horizon in a land where there are no clouds of dictated doctrine and tedious traditions blocking the sun.  Ah, rest and relaxation, just what the Doctor ordered!

  There is no more condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1)... and who have made it outside the church!

  My sister and brother-in-law went ahead of me and told me it would be like this, but I didn't believe them.  I stayed and stayed longer and longer, trying to change the old wineskins from within.  But Jesus was right;  He said it couldn't be done (Matt. 9:17), but I didn't believe him.  I kept trying to bring some balance to an off-balance system.  I persisted in attempting to moderate the extremism, mitigate the dogmatism, and truthify the evangelical platform, but I couldn't ultimately make much difference.

  And not only were my spiritual eyes sensing a pervading darkness there, but then my nose started to take notice.  My sniffer became more sensitive as the years passed and the traditions prevailed.  I started smelling doctrinal dung everywhere.

•   I smelled it on Sunday morning when the pastor spoke on tithing, a practice that is certainly Biblical...  it's just not Christian.  And it is absolutely not obligatory as he seemed to indicate.
•   The smell was there at the holiness camp meeting when the evangelist delivered the required dissertation on the holy life and it became evident that he didn't have a good grasp of this very nebulous doctrine... or hadn't yet realized it himself.
•   I smelled something fishy every time a seminar speaker got going on the structure of the hierarchy and "God-ordained authority" within the church, another late-coming idea stretched to infinite levels of rank and echelon by licensed theological extrapolators (always male).
•   And the odor grew worse during every election year when the right-wing Republican pastor got going on which candidate was God's choice to lead God's country for the next four years.  Yep, God's choice always seemed to stand in direct contradiction to Jesus' teachings on peace and loving our enemies - although he loved unborn babies.
•   And the poop seemed pervasive when the lovers of God and of their neighbors in the assembly started expressing their condemnation for gays and lesbians whom they had never met... while blindly persisting in their own indulgences that are banned in the scriptures, like gossip and lying and divorce and overeating.  What hypocrisy.

  But that's only the beginning.  There are much deeper fundamental problems with the institution of the church.  Let me paint with broader strokes:

  Practically and philosophically speaking, every believer is positioned at a certain spot on a continuum that ranges from Grace to Law, and the evangelical church is far over on the side of Law.  I ceased to be a conservative evangelical many  years ago while I was reading the book of Galatians (long before Rob Bell came along).

Where are you on the Grace - Law Continuum?

  Paul's first letter to the churches is a challenge to the never-ending inclination that humans have toward wanting to earn their salvation.  He claims that it is for freedom from the law that Jesus came (Gal 5:1).  He says the law never saved anybody (Gal 2:16).  He states that the entire law is summed up in a single command: Love your neighbor (Gal 5:14).  He says we are saved by Grace, not by good behavior (Eph 2:5-8).  Then he asserts that those who are led by the Spirit are not under law (Gal 5:18).
   If we are living in the book of Galatians then there are no rules but the law of love.  No obligations, no expectations, no have-to's, no long list of required moral behaviors.  And as a result, no guilt and no condemnation.  We are free to live without feeling that anybody is looking over our shoulders with demands and expectations.  Not even the pastor.  Not even God, actually.
  Yet much of the environment in the church is all about expected behavior.  It is about law.  This is a serious and widespread foundational flaw in the church.
  Pastors in this realm manifest schizoid behaviors on this matter, preaching grace on the first Sunday of the month and law on the other three.  Or, more often, they start out a sermon on grace at point one and move to law for points two and three... followed by the altar call.
  And I think I know where this comes from.  Paul himself - and Peter and James and John and a bunch of other NT writers - had trouble themselves with grace versus law.  So when you study the New Testament you see that Jesus replaced the Old Testament (and the entire legalistic culture that came with it) with redemption and freedom, and Paul understands this when he is writing to the Galatians and the Romans.  But later, when he is writing to the Corinthians and others, he has to pull back because they have carried their freedom too far and have ruined their testimony, so he gives them boundaries.  He summarizes this dynamic in I Cor.6:12 when he states, "Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial."   And pretty soon, when you start qualifying grace with: "Yeah, but what about this and what about that?", the law prevails.
  It's a difficult tightrope to walk.  Law versus grace, and humans are inclined toward law.
  I have concluded that everything in the New Testament needs to be read and understood through the filter of Christ and the cross.  
  So when Paul says gays will not inherit the kingdom of God (I Cor 6:9), we must immediately filter his comment with the grace of the cross and the forgiveness of Christ.  Apparently all that one needs to be part of God's kingdom is to believe in Jesus (Romans 10:9).  Like every other sinner, gays are forgiven and need not worry about their place in the kingdom; their sin is no more special than the sin of the bigot, the self-righteous hypocrite and the typical American going after the American dream without regard for the poor next door -  since the greedy are included in the same list as the gays (I Cor 6:9-10).  "For there is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:23-24).  According to this verse, all have sinned, and all have been saved.  It seems that the evangelical world is forever stuck in Romans 3:23 - the fallen-ness of mankind - and never finishes the sentence: Romans 3:24 - the restored-ness of mankind.
  A Christo-centric dynamic should be present throughout biblical interpretation and Christian practice and ought to permeate the whole of Christian culture.  Christianity must be about the grace of Christ.
  The work of Jesus is freedom, and the work of the law and legalism is bondage.  And how we tap into grace and law affects every scripture we study and every way we live our lives every day.  Will we live in freedom or oppression?  Most people within the church will live in oppression to some extent, based on what they hear from their leaders who generally have more to say about righteous living - through living up to a host of noble expectations - than they do about living in grace and freedom.  Shoot, it's hard to speak on grace and love every Sunday and never challenge your listeners to behave better.  But the product of the gospel of self-improvement is self-righteousness and imagined self-redemption and it flies in the face of the cross.

  Okay, I realize I have made some grand generalizations in this post, so just let me say that nobody has this figured out.  And those who say they do are not to be listened to or trusted.  The Bible is full of apparently contradictive stuff like I have touched on above, and we all must choose what we will focus on.  We must prioritize.
  Some will put a high value on 10 commandments in the Old Testament, while ignoring the other 604 similar commandments in the same scriptures - and the New Testament words stating that the old laws no longer apply.
  Some will put the 5 references on homosexuality at the top while ignoring the 50-60 teachings condemning adultery - and the 600 verses on helping the poor.
  Some will place a high value on Paul's directives to the troubled churches at Corinth and thus put limits on what women may do in the church, while ignoring the counter-cultural gestures that both Jesus and Paul implemented lifting women from cultural oppression.
  Again, I am barely scratching the surface when it comes to the inconsistencies of the religious empire.  Jesus said not to judge (Matt. 7:1), but judgement, rather than grace,  has become the  banner under which Christians march to war.

  The church is a man-made institution that works great good and great evil in the world, depending on who - or what doctrine - is in charge in a given time and place.

  All right, this is getting too long.  Anyway, though I didn't do it voluntarily, it turns out that the easiest way for me to free myself from the pervading darkness within the religious system was to exit to the light of day - where, as it turns out, the air is fresh too, but with a rather strong aroma of redemption.

  When you step outside you can see the truth better.  And you can breathe better too, because there's nobody here piling the unholy crap higher and deeper every Sunday morning.
  With the help of the Holy Spirit and the Word - and in the company of open-minded friends - think for yourselves, folks!

  I know this is provocative stuff for a lot of my friends and family.  Thank you for reading with an open mind!  I believe in Jesus.

  

Fans, Followers, and Fanatics

  Jesus had several kinds of people following him when he was on the earth:  There were thousands who came to believe in him, there were 120 who followed him around the countryside during his ministry, and there were twelve apostles who were part of an inner circle, committed to his cause... eventually to the point of martyrdom.

  Today these three groups still exist:

• 1. Jesus Fans:  There are approximately two billion believers in the world today, people who self-identify as believing in Jesus or who say they are Christians.  They don't necessarily go to church or read the Bible or pray.  They may have been simply born under a Christian "flag" - into a family or country that is mostly Christian.  Or they believe in Jesus but, because of their location in the world, they don't have access to a church or a Bible.  They are like the thousands who listened to Jesus' sermons and believed, but did not follow him from town to town.
• 2. Jesus Followers:  Perhaps one in ten believers is a follower, someone who is devoted to following the teachings of Christ and testifying to his gospel.  They seek to apply his truths to their lives on a daily basis.  They often are church-goers, and read the Bible and pray.  They are the modern counterparts to the 120 followers.
• 3. Jesus Fanatics:  Perhaps one in a hundred could be called a modern day apostle of Christ.  These people are full-timers who live and work within the framework of the Christian empire.  Pastors and missionaries - those who have made it their life's work - are examples of Fanatics.
• Martyrs are not a separate, more devoted group; they can come from any of the groups above, depending on the circumstances.  That is, even a Fan can be martyred if he or she is in the wrong place at the wrong time.  (Further, even non-believers can be mistakenly martyred as Christians if they happen to be in a mostly Christian neighborhood that is being persecuted.  This has happened many times in the Sudan and other dangerous places where ethnic Christianity is under attack.)

    Okay, so if you believe in Jesus, into which of these three groups do you fall?  The Fan, the Follower, or the Fanatic?  Take a minute to place yourself in the appropriate group.  And then I will surprise you with my next paragraph.

My Next Paragraph:

  IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH GROUP YOU ARE IN.  You may be more spiritual if you are a Follower than if you are a Fan, but you are essential to God's kingdom, whichever kind of believer you are.  And here's the thing:  Despite what you have heard all your life at church, you should not necessarily strive to be in a more committed group than you currently are.  Not everyone will be a Fanatic.  Some will only be Fans.    

  The Bible says that we (all three kinds of us) are like living stones being built up into a spiritual house.(I Pet. 2:5)  Each stone is just as important as the others; together they all make the house strong.  Jesus is the Cornerstone, but their is no other ranking of the stones, no hierarchy that makes one stone more important than another.  The wall of the house will not necessarily be stronger if all of the stones are Followers or Fanatics.

  Remember this the next time someone challenges you to be more spiritual, to read your Bible more or pray more or give more money to the cause.  Remember this when your pastor makes you feel that you are not as spiritual if you do not attend that Saturday morning prayer breakfast (at 6:30 am!) or teach that Sunday School class - or vote a certain way in the next political election.

  I realize that this is a radical departure from what you have probably heard for most of your life in Christian circles.  Every pastor wants to inspire his constituents to move from Fan to Follower or Fanatic in Ten Easy Steps over the next Forty Days... or forty years.

  But for the most part, it simply doesn't happen, not two thousand years ago in Jesus' day, and not in our day.  And it shouldn't.  Because it takes all kinds of stones to build a spiritual house where God can dwell.  

  You should have confidence in the redeeming work of Christ on the cross for you.  We are saved by faith, not by performance, lest anyone boast. (Gal. 2:8)  Beyond that, let God's Holy Spirit be the one to prompt you to pick up the Bible and read it or study it - if He wants you to.  Let Him invite you to be more spiritual by praying for and loving your unbelieving next door neighbor - if He wants you to.  If the Lord wants you to move from one group to the next - and back again - let Him speak to you about it, and obey Him if it seems like the right thing to do.  Spiritual growth should be prompted and timed by the Lord, not by your professional Sunday cheerleader.

  Don't let anyone heap guilt on you for not being a Follower or a Fanatic.  The ratio of Fans to Fanatics is just about the same today as it was back in Jesus' day.  I guess that's about the way it should be.  I have lived for over 60 years and have never seen the ratio change much.  

  Now a word to pastors.  Spiritual appetite should be the motivator in your church, because it is initiated by God.  "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him." (John 6:44). Your Bible classes and prayer meetings should be populated only by those who have a curiosity or a desire to attend.  No one should ever feel compelled to attend out of obligation or guilt.  People should give to the church if they want to, not because you have compelled them to do so out of some contrived sense of responsibility.  Though you yearn for your people to pursue a deeper relationship with the Lord, you cannot force it.  They will be ready to move to the next level IF and when God says so.  So relax.  Let go and let God.  There are no real gains that come out of guilt or condemnation anyway, so those are tools you should never implement.

  One more thing, pastor.  It may be in your job description that you devote a certain number of hours to Bible study and prayer every week - and it's essential for the construction of your next sermon, but you should not expect a Fan or a Follower to do the same.  People will seek greater depth as the Lord naturally draws them to himself, and according to His timetable, not yours.

  It takes all kinds to build a Kingdom.  Or to build a spiritual house.  Everybody is important, regardless of spiritual depth or devotion.  Whether you are a Fan, a Follower, or a Fanatic you are needed and loved by God.  Just the way you are!

 Oh, and for the Faithless who don't fit one of these categories, you are loved by God as well, and bring glory to Him simply by existing.  Thank you for being!

The Greatest of These Is... Guilt?

  It's been said that guilt is not a good motivator.  But that hasn't stopped the church from dishing out unhealthy doses of it every week.  In the most common setting, I think it is usually an unfortunate by-product of the noble efforts of every well-meaning spiritual cheerleader, from pastors to Sunday School teachers to summer youth camp speakers.  But in the worst case scenario it is piled on intentionally to elicit desired behaviors, from tithing to daily devotions to regular church attendance - to taking a turn in the church nursery.

  A young friend stopped over a couple of days ago for a visit and he got talking about the previous twelve years of spiritual defeat that he had experienced starting at age 14 when a youth leader challenged everyone to sign on to a 30-day Adventure that would include a daily quiet time of Bible reading, prayer, and journalling.  He never got past day 4, and if you missed a day you had to start over, so he dreaded each Sunday's meeting when the successful few would be awarded a pop tart or a music CD while he received a challenge to start over and do better.  He never did better, and he's had trouble motivating himself to read the Bible ever since.

  Obviously, his mentor didn't mean to cause him a lifetime of defeat; it was just a nasty consequence of an under-developed and adolescent spiritual appetite found wanting in a zealous spiritual environment.  He lately reviewed one of his journals from those days and found several entries that ended with a sleepy scribble off the edge of the page where he had fallen asleep while journalling.  Defeat after defeat.  Guilt.

  I think this guilt that so widely pervades the realm of Christian experience is a result of a works-based gospel.  Salvation is supposed to bring freedom, but then it is followed by this burden of holiness.  Though intended to be an encouragement toward a closer relationship with God, the Sunday sermon ends up being a challenge for us to pull ourselves up by our own boot straps - in five easy steps that spell an acronym.

  I think the church needs a reboot to a grace-based gospel.  An author and online pastor, John Fischer, says that "When you get close to God you don't become more spiritual, you become more loving."  Love is the outgrowth of our own gracious redemption.

  The true test of spirituality is not in your quiet time or your devotional life, it is in your loving behavior.  Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love the Lord, and He never mentioned it without connecting the second greatest commandment, to love your neighbor.  The apostle Paul even consolidated them, skipping the first and going directly to the second when he said, "The ENTIRE law is summed up in ONE command, love your neighbor as yourself."(Gal. 5:14)  He somehow left out daily devotions and a whole bunch of other stuff.

  I've often asserted that the first commandment is fulfilled through the second.  In other words, we demonstrate our love for God by loving our fellowman.  We may develop a closer relationship with the Lord through Bible reading and prayer, but we carry it out by expressing the love of Christ to others.

  The fruit of a dedicated life may not be in how many Bible verses we can quote, but in how many of our friends and neighbors are having a better life because of us.

  So being spiritual can be as simple as carrying the groceries in for the neighbor lady.  But if you miss that opportunity, don't feel guilty about it; you might get to help another time; there are a million ways to express the love of God in the world.  

  Don't let me or any preacher guilt you into anything - not even about being more loving.  If you are more loving next week, that will be good.  And if you are not, your salvation is not in danger.  God still loves you.  You can't be bad enough for God to stop loving you, so relax.  And if you want to read the Bible, do it.  And if not, don't.  You're not any farther away from heaven when there is dust on your Bible.  Not only that, but you would probably be much more spiritual if you'd spend your tithe on new tires for your poor neighbor's car than to give it to the church.

  "For we are saved by grace through faith... it is the gift of God, not of works (behavior) lest anyone should boast."(Eph.2:8-9)  Augustine once said, "Love God... then do as you please."  I would adjust that to say, "Demonstrate your love for God by loving your neighbor... and then do as you please."  So there's no long list of things you must do to be more holy, only the law of love.

  The next time your spiritual coach makes you feel defeated or guilty, go out and buy your own pop tarts.  You will always deserve it.  And then if you want to be spiritual, share them with some other undeserving soul.

  "Now these three remain: faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is love." (I Cor. 13:13)  According to this, our love is even greater than our faith in God.  Wow.

  What makes you feel guilty or defeated in your spiritual walk?  Where does this guilt come from, and how can you stop it?