The Law of Love

One of the greatest experiences of my life was my friendship with the late Bruno Radi. What made it great was not that we agreed about everything. In reality, there were probably more things that we disagreed about than what we agreed on. I remember on one occasion Bruno was introducing me at a conference in South America and he said, “I have never known someone with whom I disagree more, and yet is one of my best friends”. The reason for that friendship was that we both were driven by a common, Christian love which overrode any possible disagreement.
There is a well known story about when John Wesley and one of his preachers were once taking lunch with a gentleman whose daughter had been greatly impressed by Wesley's preaching. The itinerant, a man of very plain manners and little tact, was conversing with the young lady, who was remarkable for her beauty. He noticed that she wore a number of rings, and taking hold of her hand, he raised it, and called Wesley's attention to the sparkling gems. "What do you think of this, sir," said he, "for a Methodist's hand?" The girl turned crimson, and the question was awkward for Wesley, whose aversion to all display of jewelry was so well known. But the aged evangelist showed a tact Chesterfield might have envied. With a quiet, benevolent smile he looked up, and simply said, "The hand is very beautiful."
Bruno often told me that it was possible to be right about something and yet not be in the right (it works better in Spanish). What he meant by that was very similar to what Wesley expressed. The law of love always overrides the law.
We live in a time in which people try to prove that they are right by being hateful toward other people that they disagree with. In my opinion, this is a case of being right, and yet not being in the right. Those who engage in this are not from just one part of society, but include the spectrum of atheists to fundamentalists from Muslims to Christians, and every sector of society. Perhaps, we could learn from my friend Bruno and from Wesley. The law of love is what distinguishes us more than anything else. I never thought that I would use Mormons as an example, but after discussion in class related to the missio Dei and homosexuality, a student sent me an article from USA Today that gives a good example of people who are trying to find a balance between the law of love and their faith in addressing the complex issue of homosexuality. I do not know if this is the right answer to a complex issue, and I do not know if the Mormon’s motives are pure motives. I do know, however, that we live in a time in which love which reflects the nature of God is in short supply. The following is the article:
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The Mormon church for the first time has announced its support of gay rights legislation, an endorsement that helped gain unanimous approval for Salt Lake City laws banning discrimination against gays in housing and employment.
The Utah-based church's support ahead of Tuesday night's vote came despite its steadfast opposition to gay marriage, reflected in the high-profile role it played last year in California's ballot measure that barred such unions.
"The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage," Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said.
Passage made Salt Lake City the first Utah community to prohibit bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Under the two new ordinances, it is illegal to fire someone from their job or evict someone from their residence because they are lesbian, bisexual, gay or transgender.
Utah lawmakers tend to quickly fall in line when the influential church makes a rare foray into legislative politics. So Tuesday's action could have broad reaching effects in this highly conservative state where more than 80% of lawmakers and the governor are church members.
"What happened here tonight I do believe is a historic event," said Brandie Balken, director of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah. "I think it establishes that we can stand together on common ground that we don't have to agree on everything, but there are lot of things that we can work on and be allies."
But the church has pointed out an inherent dispute it has with the gay lifestyle. Mormonism considers traditional marriages central to God's plan. Gays are welcome in church, but must remain celibate to retain church callings and full membership.
It's strong support for Proposition 8 in California last year drew a sharp reaction from gay rights supporters nationwide, with many protesting outside temples that singled out Mormons as the key culprits in restricting the rights of gay couples.
Since then, however, Utah's gay community has sought to engage church leaders in quiet conversations to help foster better understanding, said Valerie Larabee, executive director of the Utah Pride Center.
"I thought this conversation would never come to be while I was here in Salt Lake City," said Larabee, adding that the discussions have "shifted her perspective of what's possible" and could foreshadow a different relationship between the two sides.
But addressing the council on Tuesday, Otterson said the endorsement is not a shift in the church's position on gay rights and stressed it "remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman."
Church support for the ordinances is due in part to the way the legislation was drafted to protect those rights. Exceptions in the legislation allow churches to maintain, without penalty, religious principles and religion-based codes of conduct or rules.
"In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations," Otterson said Tuesday .
Previous Utah legislation that sought statewide protections for the gay community did not contain those exceptions.
And although this was the church's first public endorsement of specific legislation, it is not the first time the church has voiced support for some gay rights. In August 2008 the church issued a statement saying it supports gay rights related to hospitalization, medical care, employment, housing or probate as long as they "do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."
Last year, church leaders were silent on a package of gay rights bills known as the Common Ground Initiative, dooming them from the start.
*to see this article in context go to: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-11-utah-gayrights_N.htm?csp=34#uslPageReturn

The Majority World and the missio Dei

What difference does it make if we live into the missio Dei?

This weekend as I finished a presentation in Washington State about what would mean for the church to share God’s missional DNA, I opened the time for discussion, which is always interesting because it is the real test of whether you are communicating what you hope to communicate. A man raised his hand to make a comment, and after pausing he said, “This is so much harder than just giving money to a mission purpose in the church.” He was right, it is harder because it demands that we enter into real relationship with those whom God has chosen to serve. For some reason, those real relationships are always more difficult than giving to an organization that in turn sends someone else to do it. I believe that we are called to give and support those who are going, but living into the missio Dei does not stop there, it means that the whole body of Christ is sent. The following is a clip that brings that reality into focus and just as the clip related to the missio Dei and homosexuality brought difficult issues to the surface which cannot be resolved with reductionist answers, this clip is equally difficult to wrestle with. I would enjoy your open discussion with me about how the realities of the majority world affect how the Church lives into the missio Dei.

Statistic Lust

An article written by Christian Smith and published in Christianity Today (Jan.2007) expresses a concern that I have had for some time. The opening paragraph of his article is:
American evangelicals, who profess to be committed to Truth, are among the worst abusers of simple descriptive statistics, which claim to represent the truth about reality, of any group I have ever seen. At stake in this misuse are evangelicals' own integrity, credibility with outsiders, and effectiveness in the world.

Statistics are too often crafted to raise support, or to show a partial truth to gain support of donors for other causes. As long as I can remember, people have joked about how pastors count people on Sunday morning, or how a DS tells a prospective pastor the statistics of a church. I have often wondered what is really gained by inflating statistics. A good friend of mine made the observation that in reality most people in the world don’t notice and don’t really care about the statistics. He asked “Why are we so afraid of revealing more accurate numbers? Who do we imagine we will upset? It seems the administrative 'in-group' (and those intimately connected to them by power) would be the only ones who would see the difference. And, funny enough, most of them already know the lies! So, again, who are we protecting?”

As a missionary I often was involved in areas where there had been a time of rapid growth and then an equally rapid decline. I remember one particular district that showed statistics of about 5000 members and a large number of churches. In the district, however, I could only find three small churches with about 15-20 people each since there had been considerable decline after the initial growth. The people on the district told me that they felt “dirty” to report such statistics every year, but since the church (general church) would only allow them to take off a maximum of 10% per year, it would be a long time before the statistics met reality. There was always great fear of showing statistics that indicated a decline in numbers. Again, what did we really have to gain by inflating statistics? Other statistics in the church are just “slippery”. An example is found on the website for the Jesus Film Partnership which relies heavily on donor support. The page that states the statistics and goals of JFP says the following at the top: “These numbers reflect the ministry of JESUS Film Harvest Partners”, at the bottom of the page it says “*JESUS Film and other tools”. In other words, one would think the statistics are all about the Jesus Film, but in reality, these statistics are for all of the ministries (even those that have nothing to do with the Jesus Film) in all of the regions. Before I sound like the Grinch of the church, anyone who knows me knows that I am deeply committed to the church and I am deeply committed to God’s mission of restoring broken lives that have been devastated by sin, and giving people a reason for hope. I do not think, however, that using methods of an immoral society in order to gain statistical goals is consistent with the Gospel that has transformed our lives and in which we live.

On the flip side of this, are the alarmists who use statistics to show the darkest side of reality. Many have stated that the Christian church in the U.S. is dead, based on some research that has been done counting church membership and people who sit on pews. An interesting argument to much of this is by sociologist, Robert Wuthnow in his book Boundless Faith (see book of the month a couple of months ago). Wuthnow points out that we use the same statistical methods of years ago (measuring church membership, Sunday morning statistics, etc) to measure a church which is very different. He points out that the church in the U.S. is very interested in global ministry, but in ways that are very different than earlier generations. My own observations are that in many places, churches seem to lack a vibrant life. In other places, however, I see students and people in churches who are hungry for an authentic expression of faith, rather than building a bigger machine. If the students that I interact with daily are any indication of the future of the church, the future will not be driven by bigger buildings and inflated statistics, but rather by people who are in search of an authentic faith that is expressed in community more than bricks and numbers. This is exciting! This also means that Christianity in the U.S. is not as dead as some would claim. Rather, an authentic expression of faith is emerging that cannot (or should not) be measured with the old statistical methods.

I have probably gotten myself into “deep doo” with this post, but let me just say that I believe that the church should be about the mission of God and about being a people who live the mission of God as they interact with broken society. We should use appropriate means in order to do that. If raising funds to support those methods means operating in a way that is contrary to our nature, however, we have become hypocritical and our actions deny the very faith we profess. Our primary calling is not to make a bigger machine in which the ends justify the means. Our vocation is to BE a missional people and to BE Christian. To do so, we will have to sacrifice our lust for statistics in order for God to do something new in us as well as through us. What do we really have to lose?

Missional Leadership

Ed Stetzer does a very good job in this video of presenting missional leadership. This has many things in common with the perspectives of GOCN (Gospel in our Culture Network), and yet has some different nuances as well. There are very few things that have the potential of awakening the church to it's true nature as a clear understanding of our identity as a missional church. I would enjoy dialoging with you about this video.

Missional Leadership from Ed Stetzer on Vimeo.

"No Man is an Island"

This morning I spoke at a church for a mission emphasis Sunday. Besides being a mission emphasis Sunday, November 1st also has significance in the church calendar. Although not a tradition normally recognized in churches that I have been a part of, I was also reminded in an email I received from my pastor that yesterday was a day western Christianity celebrates what is called “all saints day”. My first exposure to All Saints Day was when we lived in Costa Rica and the Catholic Churches would always shoot off what sounded like cannons on this day. There is, however, a much deeper significance to this day that I have been thinking about this weekend.

If you have ever seen the movie Amistad, there is a very moving scene where the principle character who has endured incredible hardship is facing trial that will determine the freedom of him and others who have been taken as slaves from Africa. After months of not understanding what is being said in the court, the primary character stands and says that he has summoned the spirit of his ancestors. He states that his life was not his own but rather the culmination of generation after generation of his ancestors. “My life” said the actor, “is the reason for their existence”.

All Saints Day remembers those generations who have gone before us, and who have--in scriptural language--fought the good fight and finished the race (II Timothy 4:7). We also remember that we are not isolated islands but that we are the summation of those who have gone before us.

In relation to missions, we often find ourselves criticizing mission methods of the past that were too colonialisitic or paternalistic in nature. While this is true in many cases, we must also realize that the reason that we are now seeing worldwide expansion of the Gospel is because there were generations of missionaries who were willing to leave everything, many even packed their belongings in coffins, indicating that they were planning on staying on the mission field until they died. I have seen some of the graves of these missionaries, and I am awed at their complete trust in God. I am also reminded of generation after generation of Christians who have sacrificed incredibly to live as an authentic witness to the Gospel.

The following are the words of my pastor, Glen Shoup:
Sometimes, we're inclined to forget that this business of living Christian didn't start with us (or our parents or grandparents). For 2000 years fellow human beings have been walking and leaving footprints as they followed after the Christ. And while occasionally we're inclined to think that those who lived 1000 or 1500 years ago were so much less sophisticated and informed than we are with our laptops and IPhones, upon closer review and investigation we most often find quite the opposite is true. Those who lived closer to the time of Jesus, often give us perspective that is far more clarified and uncluttered than our own. So when we re-member (meaning "put back together again") the awareness of those who have walked the path of Christ-following before us, we gain encouragement, definition and correction for us to continue to walk the path of discipleship faithfully

I am soberly reminded that the faith that I confess is not just my personal confession. I confess my faith with the community of believers with whom I worship, but I am also joined with those who have gone before me and who have formed a chain of which I am but one of the links.

The following is from A Diary of Private Prayer by John Baille:
God of my forefathers... I thank Thee
that this Christian way whereon I walk
is not untried or uncharted road,
but a road beaten hard by the footsteps
of saints, apostles, prophets, and martyrs.
I thank Thee for the finger-posts and danger-signals
with which it is marked at every turning.

Since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith...Consider Him, who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart (Hebrews 12:1-3).