Stepping Into 2013

The kingdom of God is an inside-out, upside-down phenomenon. It operates on totally different principles and motivations. It is virtually diametrically opposed to this world system.

The kingdom of God eschews evil, while this world system operates on it. One portrays love for others as the primary motivating factor, the other esteems love of self. The one has a hopeful worldview, looking to flow from this life into the next, God himself dwelling with us, the other sees life as a dead-end, and esteems getting as much as it can, as fast as it can. One recognizes the spiritual reality of Christians’ involvement in a cosmic battle with the authorities in the spirit world who are in opposition to God, while the other either nebulously admits to spiritual authority of any kind, or leans on a fuzzy, universal, we-are-all-one-with-the-universe type of thingy … and on and on. Opposites. At odds.

As we walk into another year on planet Earth, maybe we should be resolute and resolve some things up-front, things that reflect this inside-out, upside-down mindset.

One that strikes me right away is spoken of by Jesus. It strikes to the heart of God himself; it smells of mercy, one of the characteristics ascribed regularly to him in the First/Old Testament. Luke 14.12-14 refers.

Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

Wild mindset! This speaks to me. Does it speak to you?

I wonder if we really lived by something like this what it would translate into for the world as a whole… I think it would be a better world, by far.

The concept is rooted in love. It invokes a freeness of life that offers my wealth to the needy and the hurting, while disregarding the common human outlook of giving for reward, giving to get. I am free enough to disengage my relatives and friends, my clique, and to make the underprivileged a priority. This mindset sets off social alarms. It is frowned upon and misunderstood. You are regarded as a freak … or a nut.

Jesus never seemed to care much for opinions. He set his mind on the kingdom of God and went in that direction, under the direction of the Spirit, head first. Let the opinions fly … He didn’t care even for the opinions of his disciples. There is a verse that speaks to this:

Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. He did not need human testimony about them, for he knew what was in them. (John 2.23-25).

A fascinating passage. These were ‘believers’. They probably thought (rightly so) him to be Messiah, and wanted to see him step out and stake his claim, is one theological view. But there must be more to it than that. The last sentence is pregnant with implications for his unique genuineness, and the lack thereof in those people, and in mankind in general. Everyone has an agenda. Jesus moved how he moved, without respect of persons.

So then, if there is any truth in that (and indeed, regardless of the truth of it), let us step outside the gate and do Jesus’ bidding. Look out for the hurting, the sick, the hungry, the clotheless, the homeless, the fatherless, the abused … there are many of them out there. 

Even though they cannot repay you, your reward will come at the resurrection, kingdom-style, Jesus-stamped for approval. What better reward is there?

Apostle Paul once said to thieves that they should give it up, and get to work so they would have enough to share with those in need – imagine the turnaround in that thought. 

My thought, then, for the year ahead is to get off my barstool and look to be a help, rather than a hindrance, an encouragement rather than a gossip and a critic, a provider rather than a user, a heart rather than a mind, a disciple rather than a church member … a lover rather than … .

In the wise words of the Word himself, ..whoever is greatest among you must become like the youngest, and whoever leads, like the one serving.

For who is greater, the one at the table or the one serving? Isn’t it the one at the table?

But I am among you as the One who serves. (Luke 22.26,27).

That attitude is the crazy mindset of the servant-king, himself King of kings, and Lord of lords.

Crazy. My kinda crazy.

Yours?

Shalom.

To doubt, or not .. . are we fooling ourselves?

[This blog post has been under construction for some weeks. I was uncomfortable with it because I felt I wasn’t communicating my thinking adequately. Then I read an interview with Greg Boyd about his upcoming book, which, coincidentally (?) is on the same topic. I decided to finish this now, and pray you get the point.
Since then I have run into the issue repeatedly.

The blog i read is  http://daviddflowers.com/2012/11/10/qa-with-pastor-greg-boyd-part-i/ ]

What do we do with our doubts? Or don't you have any? I daresay that a person of faith, living in this world of massive wrong, deception, anger and hatred, greed and abuse, injustice and downright unfairness, lies and more lies, is bound to have doubts about their faith, about what this life is all about after all. Any sensitive, sensible, honest one does. How then does that correlate to our faith?

The desire for security is one of our core motivations. It is the stuff of life. We look for it everywhere - work/career; family; social groups; political affiliation; government; church/religion - anywhere we can be confirmed in who we are and what we're doing here on planet Earth in 2012. We identify so we can belong so we can feel a-part-of so we can feel as if we're ok, we're cool, we got it made and are headed in the right direction, just like everyone else of consequence. We are sure of it …

But what of that? Some time ago a man dared to challenge the status quo, the ‘ we-are-sure-of-its ‘, on several fronts. In fact, he was such a threat to the security of one or the other group that they killed him. His legacy lies in the concept of an alternate sense of belonging, a different reality that challenges the reality we live and die for - an inside-out, upside-down reality. And he changed the world as we know it, and does so to this day. His was a most insecure circumstance.

I speak to things spiritual, and so I'm going there direct. We often see our 'church' and our religion as the place where we feel safe, where we get our convictions, our indisputable truths, our sureties on which we hang our god. We even create creeds, doctrines, dogmas and dogmatic theologies, memorialized in our hymnody, to enshrine these sureties. They serve to make us feel comfortable in our belief system, make us sure. They solidify who we are.

It’s true that we find, and should find, a sense of security in our church, a sense of belonging, of sharing, of family. We need that, for we live in a world, in a system, that runs contrary to the kingdom agenda of Jesus. As we live out life in the world as contradictions, we gather stress, and it is imperative for us to find encouragement and release among friends and family. But when we allow the church/religion to be the system by which we inculcate our sureties, our absolutes, without resolving those 'absolutely-sure' things in our own hearts and minds individually, making them our very own, we run the risk of failing to grow ourselves, losing sight of our faith, undervaluing the struggle that is so much the lifeblood of that faith. 

For faith springs out of un-surety. It is the phoenix that brings life in this confusing and dying world, in which we pose, as if we're secure, safe ... sure.

Don't swallow it simply because the preacher said so. Chase it with a heart full of desire to know for yourself. And never give up on it.

The church does not supplant or satisfy the need for doubt. As a disciple you should never feel that the questions you have, the niggling doubts you feel inside, the nagging question marks in the margins of your Bible are somehow weaknesses or disabilities, faithless, or even heretical. Do not for a moment allow yourself to be cowarded, to be made to feel as if you’re not ‘in’ because you have doubts. To question, to wrestle, to argue, to doubt… these are normal things for us as redeemed humans living in occupied territory, and we need to pursue them, to struggle with them, for in so doing we grow, we strengthen and mature. 

We are not perfect. We have doubts.

It is this struggle, this grasping for truth, this exertion of our spirit to understand, to grow, to be transformed into the likeness of the Son, that the Father wants. He wants my commitment, in the midst of doubt. This desire to walk on, regardless of the doubt, is what makes for a disciple. I trust God while in the doubt-mire. Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding; think about Him in all your ways, and He will guide you on the right paths. (Prov 3.5,6 HCSB). What need for trusting God if we are sure of everything?      What need indeed?

When we rely on a sense of security, so we can feel secure, so we can live and move and breathe with confidence, so we can divert our minds from threat, danger and possibly death, then we have created a god in whom we trust. We trust in our sureties.

See, Jesus said something strange that cuts to the quick, one of those upside-down things. He said that a person, to save their life, must lose it. We tend to interpret that to mean: a willingness to die for our beliefs; a dedication of our lives to the Christian way of life; a ministry focus/full-time work in the church. But maybe Jesus was also pointing to something more fundamental: a willingness to forego our sureties and simply trust in God. Release your refuges and allow God to take over. In this way we relinquish all of our Earth-holds - things like career and house and wealth - and we become pilgrims, journeying to a better kingdom, following the lead of our Forerunner to a fulfilling life where God is all in all.

My take on Hebrews 11.1 is that faith gives substance to hope, and provides evidence for what we, by virtue of our finity, cannot see. ( Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen. (HCSB {compare NKJV} ). 

Without faith there is no true absolute. 

Faith then is active and necessary. We need our faith to fill in the gaps of what we are unsure of, and to provide hope for our future Kingdom.

So don’t stop doubting; act on it. Don’t stop putting those marks in your Bible; put them there, determined to seek to resolve them with the Spirit's guidance. Don’t stop questioning and pleading with God for the injustices that are there, staring you in the face; ask him why, and wait for the answer. If it is not forthcoming, ask again, and again.

God is not intimidated by you or by me. His love is big enough to handle our childishness.

" God is in control! " .. .  ... . sure doesn't seem that way sometimes, ya?

Now … trust, and doubt. Doubt from within the context of trust. 

Increase your faith, while asking God to increase your faith. 

Stretch yourself, for God, for your Body, for your family, friends, for your neighbor.

Doubt me? Try it. Faith it.

Shalom.

the genuine article

There is a word that’s been dogging my trail for several weeks. Just one word. But it’s a big word. Huge. (That's not the word).

We are on the tail-end of the presidential elections. Lines are being drawn, distinctions pointed out, strategies formulated, priorities enumerated, and debates enjoined. The point of it all, presumably, is for the people of this country to make a choice as to who will take it forward.

There are accusations, allegations, confrontations, alignments, categorizations. The two camps dig for dirt and throw it in ever-increasing amounts, even if they put a soft spin on it so they don’t come across too harsh.

In the pursuit of this, mucho dollars have been donated to one or the other candidate’s campaign. According to The New York Times, President Obama has raised $687M(illion) and Mr Romney $633M (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance).  That’s over $1.3B(illion) between the two by mid-October. It remains to be seen what the final tally will be, but some estimate it at $2B.

Consider this: what does that all speak to? Perhaps the fact that the race is not to the swift or the diligent, but to the biggest fund-raiser, or even the better debater. Wow.  

So that while the posturing and pretense play on, and the money changes hands, the real-life world of reality continues to elude us as we become voters, and fall-in with all the other sheep that want to think we actually influence the running of the great USofA. Maybe. 

(I questioned myself on the wisdom of leaving this paragraph here, knowing the ire it could inspire. It’s here.)

And the peons (think pee-ons) like us are struggling to define ourselves in the definitions we see on the tele, the media houses driving our ache to be defined as Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, ass or jackass.

And then we have the ol’ reliable church, just the place to be told (advised, if you will) who you should vote for, and who you should not vote for. I have heard it said that if you vote for a particular candidate you can’t be a Christian … really? … wow… really??

The other issue that comes to mind in the pursuit of the word that’s been hounding me is abuse. A child suffers sexual abuse at the hands of some family member or guardian or babysitter or whoever, and the abuse is virtually ingrained and haunts their marriage, their relations with the children, etc.

Worse yet, far, far worse, in my estimation, is abuse at the hands of a ‘pastor’ or other church leader. A man, charged by God with the tender care of His sheep, twists his authority and uses his power to undermine the very humanity of a child and the very goodness of God. Wickedness of the first order.  It occurs to me that the anger and sense of retribution Jesus felt and expressed to the religious leadership of his day is nothing compared to what will befall those who abuse under the sign of the cross.

It takes significant effort and willpower, along with tremendous support, often including professional help, for these people to move on in their humanity dragging such a load; that’s if they ever allow themselves to confess it to themselves or, more significantly, to anyone else. That person is damaged, injured, hobbled - and this at the very core of their being. Virtually every relationship they are involved in is burdened by this baggage.

My example is Jesus, or so I claim. The upshot of that is my thinking, my belief-system, my speech, my actions, my affiliations, my ‘career’, my .. whatever, need to reflect that. Ya? In as much as they don’t speak to that I am being disingenuous.

Integrity (ah! the word!) has to do with a state of being whole, sound or complete; a state of being true to the core principles, adherent to a certain code of values, whatever they may be. Think ‘fullness’, ‘soundness’, ‘sincerity’, 'genuine' and the like. The Hebrew word ‘shalom’ speaks to this. Research it.

In the raw that means being true to myself.

When we allow our principles to be eroded and defrauded for whatever reason (even self-preservation), we defile our integrity. When we allow the principles of any group or body to which we belong to be likewise compromised without objecting, we defile our integrity, and that of the group. The ‘truth’ is we are untrue to ourselves - and there is possibly no greater lie.

How do we look the person in the mirror eye-to-eye when that person is faced with another face, a face not our own? We lie.

To walk into our world every day and face people with that other face is tantamount to outright deception, for we exhibit someone we are not - not really anyway. And that’s a lie.

So that when we pretend we are married, when in fact the marriage is dead, we lie, regardless of the legality of it. When we go along with a doctrine or practice in the ‘church’ for the sake of bandwagoning, going-along and not causing ripples or earthquakes or whatever while we are convinced that Scripture teaches otherwise, we lie, for if what we do is not done in faith, it’s a lie. When we vote for this one or that one because there is pressure on us to vote that way and not because that’s the vote we feel within ourselves needs to be cast, we lie.

When we try to convince ourselves that we are ‘ok’ with the lie, the façade, we lie to ourselves.

Integrity is everything. If the world decides to walk a road that goes against the principles I uphold as a person, or the values I esteem as a follower of Jesus, I should be looking for a different pair of shoes, taking a different trail, even if I walk alone.

Integrity is everything. It smells like being true to who you are, being real. The same person I am today at work should be the same person I am tonight at the party, or tomorrow at church, or in my home among my family. Same person wherever and whenever you meet me. I knew someone like that once, and his memory floods my soul.

Jesus was defined by his divine humanity. What defines you and I? Is it the people we hang with, the clique, the morning coffee group, the church we ‘go to’, the political label? Insomuch as I am defined by Jesus, aspire to his calling, his teaching, his example .. there I am real. 

I concern myself a little with the politics, a little. I more concern myself with being a Jesus-example to the ones I meet, helping the hurting, loving my neighbor as I love myself, doing to the ‘other’ as I want people to do to me; with breaking down the walls that separate me from my human neighbours – walls of prejudice towards colour, walls of class, walls of wealth, walls of education, walls of nationality, walls of denomination, walls walls walls … I am not often successful in this, but I'm trying.

When I learn to disconnect with the Earthly ‘issues’, to reconnect with the Heavenly priorities, to put wealth and career and power-plays and politics on the back burner, and to move the kingdom pot to the front burner, then I am moving Kingdomward and becoming the Jesus-person I aspire to be, and in that I confirm my integrity.

Integrity is everything.

When you (I) vote, vote with Jesus in mind. When you (I) speak, speak with Jesus in mind. When you work … , when you think … , when you give … , when you look in the mirror… … … …

Anything else is a lie.

shalom

Be Angry, and Sin Not ... But be Angry

The world is changing. No news there, except I refer to the world as it relates to ‘Christianity’. And that is a good thing, the changing I mean.

Someone close to me told me recently not to get caught in the church-bashing trap. And they are right, I suppose. There are enough bashers around. But then …

I think of my Example, my Forerunner, my Lord and Master, my friend. And I wonder … what was he like in his approach to the world of his day? Interesting question, methinks. I love to read/hear about Jesus and how he handled stuff. I’m not Jesus, and I don’t live back then, but I’m a follower of his, and maybe the world hasn’t changed as much as we tend to think, at least in some respects. Solomon said that there really isn’t anything new under the sun. Evil is still evil, good is still good, and wickedness is a common thing, at all levels, in all our hearts. Mankind still needs a savior and Jesus is still very much into that; he is in the business of reconciliation.

The world needs to be rescued, and that’s where Jesus-people come in. Or should. But then … What on Earth is happening? Seems to me something is wrong, has gone wrong, maybe went wrong a long time ago. Seems to me it needs fixing.

Jesus came here, Emmanuel, God with us, to strike at the heart of what was wrong, and to institute the righting of it all. He began a kingdom under the authority of God himself to reconcile and rectify and justify and make things right. And he paid for it in spades.

Before he left though he said he would build his church, and I tend to listen to what he says, and surely believe he did, at least according to Luke’s record in the Acts of the Apostles. In fact it rather busted-out in not too many years, and a groundswell of Jesus-people began to change the world, beginning in Jerusalem and spreading through Judea and outward to all parts of the Earth, just like Jesus said.

But what was he like? How did he deal with things here on Earth? As I read the gospels I am struck by some very basic things about Jesus and how he lived. One is that he went about doing good. He healed, and fed, and blessed, and taught about God … his mission in that regard was to loosen the bonds that bind humanity to sickness and starvation and demonization, and abuse at all levels. The Sermon on the Mount is hugely applicable here.

Another striking aspect of his ministry was righting the misconceptions of his people as to the Messiah’s mission and how that would pan out. He did this through his lifestyle and his teachings. His private instruction and discourses with The Twelve refers.

The third thing Jesus focused on was taking down the religious authorities of his day. He was a master at that, and very bold in doing it. The reasoning is apparent: God left his nation, Israel, in the spiritual hands of the priesthood, and they abused their authority, period. God’s people were being misdirected and his character misrepresented. And that made Jesus mad.

So then, that’s it in a nutshell, as I see it. His aim was to undo the consequences of the Fall and its effects on humanity and creation as a whole; his tenure on Earth instituted that agenda and initiated the kingdom in embryonic form, the proverbial mustard seed, now planted.

So, back to the issue: criticizing the ‘church’. My 40-year tenure in the Protestant/Baptist/Fundamentalist church has led me to the point of frustration/disillusionment/regret/done-with-that syndrome. I began questioning ‘stuff’ a decade ago, and my journey has led me to the point of rebellion. I’m a rebel. I’m rebelling against what has become ‘Christ-ianity’ (maybe ‘Christendom’ is a better descriptive) because I believe it to be quite unlike what Jesus had in mind when he said he would build his church. In fact I contend it is anti-Christ. .. oops, sorry .. .

If that is so, if there’s misdirection and misrepresentation coming from the spiritual guides of the church, then it needs to be addressed. I began by saying the world of Christianity is changing, and I am encouraged by it. People have begun to put shoes on their (my) disillusionment and are challenging the traditions. They are revisiting the theology and interpretations and commentaries, and are tossing all sorts of flammable material into the fire. And I’m glad.

I do not agree with all that is emerging, but the process is what I exult over. I join in the rebellion, happily, and look for change, because what I see in the annals of Christian history and hear from the pulpit and see on the tele and read in the books is, to me, quite disparate from the person of Jesus, the incarnation of God. I revel in the rebellion.

Further, I call out the ‘church’ in all its forms to submit itself to the process, to ask forgiveness across the board: that God forgive it for the misapplication of Scripture and the misrepresentation to the world of who God is; that the world itself forgive it for the massive abuses foisted on it under the name of Christ; that those who have left and are leaving the church forgive it for the abuses unloaded on them; that the poor and the impoverished of whatever form, the abused, the fatherless and widows, the forgotten aged, the children enslaved in pornography and child-labour camps forgive it for our contribution to the problems and neglect of their conditions… ask for it, humbly, and be thankful if there is a response, for there is nothing more reprehensible than abuse under the name of Creator God, nothing.

Jesus took the religious leadership of his day to task for it, and I see no reason to forgive the church apart from its penitence and repentance, or before the church asks forgiveness of the world. Jesus told the public of their abusive ways; he derided their wickedness; he called them ‘Hypocrite!’ to their very faces, in public, in the synagogue; he told them they misinterpreted the Scriptures, and burdened the people with unbearable burdens; he called them all sorts of names, like ‘vipers’ and ‘white-washed sepulchres’; he handmade a whip in the temple and used it do undo the merchandising institution of the leadership. He never backed away from conflict with them, but rather took them on, confronting them at every turn, even after they set out to kill him.

Aside:- imagine the scene: Jesus walks into the temple and (again) reflects on, and is angered by, the merchandising of God’s house. His anger deepens and morphs into rage. He gathers materials, sits down, and begins to weave and plait a whip. This takes time. Some people notice and watch as the weapon is constructed, wondering what he’s doing, what he’s making. And all the while his anger strengthens as he purposes the thing he is about to do, in the temple, in the house of his father, in the very seat of religion. Imagine it.

My question is this: if Jesus took the battle directly to the religious leadership of his day, and exposed their wickedness and deceptions to the people, and if I am a follower of Jesus and see similar deception in the present day, am I above my master? Shouldn’t I be in the trenches battling against the spiritual wickedness in Christianity today, while doing all I can to adjust, to help, to become Jesus to this world?

So when you say ‘forgive’ I say ‘challenge’, I say ‘confront’, I say ‘question’, I say ‘don’t accept the same ol’ stuff, but test the spirits to see if they are of God’. It is not enough to allow it to continue unchallenged; that is a great evil. If there is abuse under the guise of the cross how can we allow it to persist? How dare we?

We are to be Jesus to the world, and we need to look to right the wrongs, to help wherever we can to relieve the suffering and abuses in this fallen world, doing our bit to advance the kingdom, to spread the love of Jesus to the underprivileged and the hurting, the maimed and blind and hungry and cold and homeless and persecuted and … we are to be the saviours in our world, the rescuers, the ones people run to for help.

Failing that … who then are we? And what on Earth is this life for?

NB. Earlier I said it might have been better to use the word 'Christendom' than 'Christianity'. I take that back. It is precisely Christianity that I describe here, and any other word would simply cloud the issue. It is the Christian church as it stands today, particularly in the West, that I decry, none other.

Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road?

The recent hullabaloo/blowout over the Chick-Fil-A (CFA) controversy bears remarking on ... I had thought to leave the issue alone, perhaps because it was so hot a topic, and no sense adding heat. But then someone resuscitated the thingy (in another form) from the pulpit, and broadcasted it on the net and on the radio, and ... well here I am with my first blog posting.

My inclination is to shoot, and, in a previous life, the bullets have mostly borne a Fundamentalist stripe. I'm trying to change my ammo ... and to keep my gun holstered, to boot.

The crux of the matter turned out to be homosexuality (although I understand that it was not so in the initial stages).

I always respected CFA for their unusual and uncommon practice of closing on Sundays. This is a fast-food place; fast, lower prices, greater turnover = profit. A Sunday close (weekend, mind you) hurts that. I admire it because it shows respect for the commonly acknowledged Christian holy day, allowing for and promoting gathering as churches to celebrate God, fellowship with one another, and share God's wisdom. Cool. (As an aside, please note that those who tout Sunday closings need to consider the propriety of themselves eating out on Sundays, and, for that matter, any other activity that involves buying, for they thereby hypocriticize their position.)

But CFA went a bit further. Apparrently it takes an avowed anti-gay stand, and  funds anti-gay organizations.

While CFA has the 'right' to close its doors on Sundays as a mark of respect for Christianity, and while the individuals that own CFA have their individual 'rights' to support anti-gay activity, engaging the law in support of a religious philosophy is, at least questionable. In this, from my vantage point, CFA crosses the road from business under the law to Christianity under God, and runs the risk of being run over by oncoming Christians, gays, liberal, conservatives, and government too. It stands in no-man's land.

I have, at this stage anyway, a couple of things in mind: (1) Christian marriage as defined by God (2) Christian marriage is not a legal construct (3) Jesus' approach to life.

I daresay the vast majority of marriages, including Christian marriages, are a far cry from what God intended. God-marriage is the very unique love two people have for each other that engages an intimacy on the human level that far surpasses any other human relationship. This love is unique to lovers. It is well described by God in Song of Songs. Unfortunately Christianity itself, in the personage of its theologians and pulpiteers, has re-tuned the Song of Songs melody and produced an analogy typifying the relationship between Christ and the church. While the analogy can and should be made, the obvious intent of the text is clear; and the reason for the analogizing is clear, to me, anyway: most marriages do not come close to the passion portrayed in Song of Songs; therefore rationalize it away. How sad. We seldom go to this book in personal reading or from the pulpit, even in the face of the dread state of lovers' relationships.

Secondly, God's intention for marriage is outside and above law. Human government and laws cannot encode God's intention. Marriage is defined by God, and is under his authority, and no human law can create or nullify a marriage.  For Christians then to bow to the authority of government as to what constitutes marriage is puzzling. In fact it disses the authority of God himself.

To look to legalize a Christian perspective (or some particular form of it, as there are many) is to look for a theocracy. Further, to seek to impose on the general citizenry of the nation, through government, a Christian definition of marriage is untenable. America is not a Christian nation: no such nation exists. The only nation to ever fall directly under God's authority is Israel, and he created that nation.

In fact, this speaks to to the ' same ol' same ol' ' ... the historic adultery of the church in its relationship to Earthly governments. Wherever this unnatural bond has existed there has been nothing short of injury and damage to the cause of Messiah Jesus, from Constantine to the Roman church to Calvin. How can we seek to impose a Heavenly wisdom on an Earthly system? The twain shall never meet. "My kingdom is not of this world", Jesus said. Have we forgotten? Has he changed his mind? How can we expect an unbelieving nation to live under the moral law of God?

The fact is that Christianity has (and still does) relinquished its role in the Earth to government. It wants the government to legislate its own brand of morality, and school teachers to substitute for parents. Morals should be taught in the home by the parents, and Biblical instruction begins there, supported by the church. Whether or not the government or school supports your morality is beside the point, and escapism to boot.

The 'church' is, in fact, a groundswell of counter-culturality. It exists within the culture, at ground-level, but operates in a most un-cultural fashion, to demonstrate love to the culture, and to illustrate the Way of Jesus, to grow his kingdom. It takes the parabolic form of the mustard seed.

That leads to this: what would Jesus' approach to this anti-gay church stance look like? I contend it would look quite different from the picture painted across the nation over the last month or so. In fact, I envision Jesus shaking his head in bewilderment and disappointment at the damage done to his reputation by 'the church', and the injury inflicted on the people he loves and died for.

The Gospels portray Jesus as a loving, caring person who was non-discriminatory in his embrace of humanity, non-judgmental in his declarations, and decidedly for the oppressed, the down-trodden, the abused, the damaged, the out-of-the-way, the alien, the widow, the fatherless, the prostitute ... It is a matter of record that the only people he condemned and castigated were the religious authorities! What does that say to us today, in our churches, in our safe-houses, and in our approach to those people, the people out there, in our neighborhood, and the neighborhood next door?

Jesus never came to judge or to condemn (John 3); his ministry was one of healing, restoration, building-up, and declaring the love of God to all peoples. And the people loved him, because he loved them first, wholeheartedly. He ate and drank with 'sinners'. He embraced the hated tax collector, Zacchaeus. His chosen apostles were fishermen, tax collectors and Zealots. His greatest admirer was a whore. He was, in summary, the friend of sinners.

Does that shock you (me)? But ... why does it? Am I reading a different Gospels than others? I read just that in them: accounts of a man who was sent by God, was, in fact, the perfect imprint of God on a human person, and who fed hungry people, healed sick people, reprimanded and cast-out demons, and fought against spiritual oppression of all kinds for the good of the people, to declare the acceptable day of the Lord, and demonstrate His authority in the Earth and over all spiritual wickedness in heavenly places and wherever else they operate. 

That's the Jesus I know. And to the extent that I look like, smell like, sound like, taste like that Jesus, to that extent I assess myself his follower. Anything else suffers under the guise of anti-Christ; and I use that term purposefully, for I am convinced that Christianity, as it in manifested today, is precisely opposed to the Way of Jesus, and needs to be called-out in just those terms. Anything that works against the person and mission of Jesus is anti-Christ, particularly that which seeks to look like him, wolves dressed in sheep's clothing, disguising themselves as angels of light.

So, I've ended on a rather stern note. Forgive me; I suffer from pent-up anger at what calls itself 'Christianity' today, and some leaks out.

I simply cannot see the point in the 'church' in this country coming out against the gay community, and virtually slamming their doors in their faces. If I am gay and am disowned by my parents, shunned by my friends, etc., where is the one place I should feel secure, the one group of people that will accept me, with open arms and  judge-less attitudes, in love? 

Is it not to be the church that Jesus built?