Take Me In (From the Outer Courts)

Take me past the outer courts;
To the Holy Place,
I hunger and thirst for Your righteousness
and it's only found one place.

Take me into the Holy of Holies
Take me in by the blood of the Lamb
Take me into the Holy of Holies
Take the coal
Cleanse my lips
Here I am

I recently began attending a new ministry for me. It harkens me back to my early days in the faith when I was deeply involved with the Promise Keepers movement. I will not spend time here deconstucting the pros and cons of coach McCartney's brainchild. That has been done ad nauseum.
There is a significant number of men in this ministry (which will remain nameless, because the points I will bring up, I'm sure are universal) who are either unemployed, low-income, or struggling in recovery. At first, I didn't perceive this as a problem. Indeed, since my last posting, I have had a relapse of sort that cost me dearly. Still, my heart and longing are for a deeper, richer, more cerebral encounter with God that will spur my emotions.
I have realized that the very dynamics of emotion versus intellect creates a theological stereotype that is as worldly as it is fallacious. I am intellectually stimulated...this is where my passion is. Therefore, the expectation is that because I am intellectually motivated that my theological POV will be seminarian and middle of the road...palettably acceptable. Conversely, the expectation that emotional driven people will respond like a BF Skinner experiment, reacting to each prodding of the Spirit...staying in the moment.
This was made clearer to me when I attended a second meeting of this ministry. The leadership is well-meaning. However, I don't know if I can remain there. I want to feed myself but the trappings of the seeker friendly church pervade the gatherings. The theology has been thus far, esoteric at best. Testimonials...door prizes for recalling one line Scriptures...and the brooding specter of recovery always just below the surface.
I want my emotions lit up by a rapturous epiphany of intellectual understanding. My salvation experience was like that. I likened the moment to walking in the rain for 30 years and suddenly realizing I am wet. I am no example for any person to follow in my walk with God. The only true assurance that I have is that I am saved. Everything else is left to the quality of my lackluster obedience.
If I struggle so mightily with obedience and I believe I have a fairly seasoned understanding of the Scriptures, how much more flaccid will be the walk of those who do not have that experience. Where are the systematic inductive Bible studies that so many women's ministries seem to have? Do we challenge the emotional to intellectual growth as much as the intellectual have been challenged to emotional response.
I don't want to exclusively nail this malady to the mega-church concept, but the fact is that often this becomes the way of the large congregation. There is no model for the mega-church in the Scripture. On the contrary, the teachers were intinerant and home churches were often left to study the Scriptures and allow the Spirit to reveal through the logos what the rheyma is saying.
This may simply be my own issue. I have a deep restlessness in me. I don't know as much as I want. But I want to be affected by that knowledge. I pray in tongues, I know my Word, and my spirit perks up when I hear error that unsettles it. I want His Word to be so familiar to me that I don't need to pull out the Book.
I no longer want to be the one on the outer courts. If you love Him with only your intellect, you are still in the outer courts...the same with only your emotion....
"Thou shalt love the LORD your God with all of your heart, mind, and soul."

Gigantic Problems

It has been awhile since I have posted. Those who actually read my blog...that would be you, Mike...know that since April I have been writing a novel whose premise is that a very tall basketball player comes to believe that he may be one of the Nephilim of the Bible. I am writing a new blog which you can check in my profile. In it, I bring up one of many oddities that I came upon while I was researching. As I go on in the next few weeks, I will share in both blogs some of the conundrums that have challenged the bedrock of my theology.

From the Outside Looking In

I had the most interesting viewing experience recently and it was both impacting in its content and inciteful in its ability to show the shallowness that pervades the Evangelical church in the post modern era.
Like many people, I was mesmerized by Morgan Spurlock's devestating expose of McDonald's, Super-size Me. So, while I walk in to viewing his follow-up television series, 30 Days knowing that he carries with him a strong ultra-liberal agenda, I was keenly interested to see the conflagrations that he came up with. The one I will comment on here is a second season episode where an atheist moved in with a young Evangelical family in Texas.
The 40 something atheist mom was a stereotypical, affluent, progressive liberal. She was kindly and sensitive, well-considered and hopelessly locked into her position of atheism...a turn from her previous experience as a young person where she was a practicing Christian for half of her life, though to what extent and level of piety is not revealed on the program. However, the muddiness of what happens is the Christian family she was placed with.
First, they can only be described as "cookie-cutter" Evangelicals. They lived in Texas, the heart of the Bible belt, were members of one of two mega-churches in their town, and the faithfully attend Bible study or small group twice a week. The husband was something of a caricature of what Spurlock views Evangelicals as. He was brash, eager to challenge the atheist's position, incredulous at her position, and, frankly, not well-spoken when it comes to defending the faith. Indeed, their small group also showed the same incredulity and lack of depth when brought face to face with this opportunity, which Spurlock subtly turned into a successful dig at the buffoonery of the Evangelical community.
I do not judge the family. Indeed, the only hero portrayed by Spurlock in the Christian family, was the softening of acceptance on the mother's part, bonding with her on mothering issues. This is not surprising since female Believers are often perceived by the left as unwilling drones in a patriarchal faith system. It is logical in Spurlock's paradigm that the only redeeming matter was the obviously progressive acceptance by the oppressed female.
No the clue to culprit was seen when the camera observed the family with their atheist guest attending service. The sanctuary was a lavish auditorium with full staging and lights, the worship was somewhat choreographed, and the message, most greivously, was esoteric and shallow. How then can I expect a paritioner to be challenged to know his Lord with all of his mind. This is a common theme in what is now called the Emergent church. This atheist would have had a different, more challenging, intellectual experience had she sat at Grace Community Church and heard John McCarthur teach. She may well have still disagreed. But it wouldn't have been for lack of intellectual engagement balanced with a strong dose of grace.
I know that Spurlock carefully orchestrated this episode reflecting the liberal position of tolerance and understanding. Don't we as believers have a responsibility to be defenders of the faith...to have such an unconciously close relationship with the Father that in those moments, we need only listen close to His still quiet Voice and speak exactly the right thing at that time. Even a novice Christian can see that the Father of this house was ill-prepared for this engagement and Spurlock pounced on the opportunity. To his credit, Spurlock actually did make the episode bringing the two divergent positions together,...perhaps next time he will make sure the Christians are armed for the battle. Moreover, maybe the Church can start passing out the ammunition.
I will continue with this thread in future notes.

Biblically Sufficient

I was just browsing some other blogsites and I came across one who had a trove of Christian books on living, self-help, etc. It has struck me even as I examine my own library about how many voices I allow to help me divide the Word. What happened before Christian mass media. How is it in an age where there is unlimited amounts of accessibility to Christian resource that the world is so unsalted by those resources and the theology aspoused is so flawed and ununified? Before such benefits our culture was much more strongly influenced by the character of the Christ. This may seem oxymoronic and yet as we abandon traditions, familial relations, and intimacy to the isolation of technology, media, and culture this becomes more clear. In the next couple of weeks, I will be tackling issues of error by the Church in these areas. The running theme through all of this is God's grace being sufficient and therefore, God's Word being sufficient.

Anecdote on the Appearance of Holiness

I just returned from a three month job experience in Alaska, in the fishing industry. Those who know this business seldom cross paths with those who write and comment on theology. So it was with incredible naivetee that I entered into the job I found myself in this summer as a chef on a processing boat.
I am in no way a pinnacle of Christian virtue. I state that catagorically so that this episode will have its intended effect. I struggle every single day to make more good decisions than bad decisions. By the grace of God, I am not a serial killer. Having said that, I found myself in a closed environment for 86 days with a decidedly worldly and mostly unsaved crew. To say that they were salty would be an understatement. I also realize that my life as a beleiver has insulated me from exposure to that life...a life that was not so different from my own 20 years ago.
Soon after my arrival on board, I experienced a different kind of insulation.
The crowded small, almost claustrophobic quarters, neccesitated me taking my Bible and other devotionals into the common area of the galley, to read, write and meditate in relative comfort. No one disturbed me and it seemed fine at first. Soon, however, I saw a pattern in the way I was 'not disturbed'. I was noticed and people would sit at least 3 to 4 seats away in the small 40 seat galley. In my periphory I could see them watching. There was a look of trepidation, unease and yes...holy fear. As if these books I was reading, and these things I was writing were an actual point of such awe and mystery that a safe distance was kept. Soon after this revelation, I noted that most of the salty folk were working hard to not belch out colorful metaphors and cuss with their usual vigor in my presence.
The epiphony was simple and yet large for me. The Word of God was written on their hearts. I would wager that most of those people had never read the Word. But in their spirit, they knew what it said. Submit, obey, repent.... These fundamental concepts pricked their flesh even from the safe distance of my personal Bible devotion time.
This strange reaction later morphed into the erroneous idea that I had some sort of higher knowledge. Often, they would venture closer to me and, like the pilgrim climbing a mountain to speak to a sage, inquire about my devotions. Before I left for Alaska, I agreed with the Lord not to go with the intent to prostelytize the crew. But I did feel free to answer inquiries that were genuine and I was blessed with many. Often though, this was perverted into the idea that I was smarter than most in all facets of life and like Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof", was being asked questions that would 'cross a Rabbi's eyes'.
It was sweet of God to show me that there really is no innocence and certainly no ignorance. In our deepest places, we know that we know, that righteousness and holiness are in conflict with both our flesh and the culture of the world. My brief incursion into worldly domains was an epiphonous moment for me. One that continues to expand my grace for the nonbeliever and drive me to know (yadda) Him and His ways more and more.

Fundamental Symmantics

It is an ingenious and compelling way to eliminate or marginalize an opponent. Give them the rope and let them hang themselves. So it is with evangelicals in the post 9/11 era. Eager to rush into the suddenly soft center of the population and fill the void of helplessness left by the carnage of the attacks, Christian leaders have unwittingly joined a subtle methodology that will serve to further disenfranchise Fundamentalist Christians even more in the US. One of the first early by-products of the attacks was the bumbling attempts by Christian leaders and left-leaning media to quickly characterize Islam to their paticular benefit and ideology. The government and the media both went to great lengths to mitigate potential backlash, retaliations, persecution and prejudice against Muslim Americans and other foreign nationals in the wake of their identification of Osama Bin Laden as the prime suspect in the attacks. Lengthy articles and television pieces appeared pontificating Islam as a "religion of peace" and that the attacks and other acts of Islamic terrorism, do not reflect the essence of the Muslim people and their faith. Anxious to contrast the wholesomeness of Christianity against Islam, Evangelical leaders like James Dobson, and others, pointed out that these were innaccurate depictions of Islam and that "radicals" were a constant in the faith. Painting Muslims as the "Klingons" against the "Federation" of the Judeo-Christian world, Evangelicals have inadvertantly walked into a trap of symmantics which could prove to be the mechanism that brings about further Christian marginalization in the post-modern world. Both of these positions are fellacious,...based on erroneous world views. The government and the media used American Muslims to demonstrate the unfair perceptions of Islam and to characterize the terroists, in contrast, as a fringe element. Both label the combatants against the US occupation of Iraq as "insurgents" or "fundamentalist extremists". One can hardly believe in suicide bombers when we see these communities in the US blended so well into the melting pot of American culture. All of these spokesmen and media portrayals of Islam have been secularized, Westernized, Muslims, living in our culture and far removed from the true faith practiced in Mecca or Medina. While they do represent a contingent of Islam, they no more represent a true view of Islam any more than a liberal Methodist church could represent true fundamentalist theology. Having live in Saudi Arabia for an extended period, I have seen the iron-handed administration of Islam. War, ethno-centrism, mysogony, and suicidal zeal are all aspects of fundamentalist Islam. Islam, like Christianity, has sects and denominations, each with its own distance or closeness to the truer, fundamentalist original. The Bible supports this view of Islam when God blesses Ishmael and tells him that he and his decendants will multiply but always be in contention with their neighbors. This, of course, is supported by the landscape of history and current events. The House of Saud, the ruling family of the Kingdom, decended from Bedowin nomads, learned this quickly. To maintain their precarious hold on the oil and the country, the secular, oppulently wealthy royal family realized that they must maintain Saudi Arabia as the most stringently fundamentally Islamic nation on Earth. They realized that secular, westernized Islamic nations don't survive. Lebenon's constant turmoil, Iran before the Shah are examples. Most disturbing though is the media and government's rhetoric about "Muslim fundamentalists". The implication is that fundamentalist are extremist and do not represent the true faith. They are outside the main stream. The media has married the term fundamentalist with the term extremist and I contend that it will serve a further purpose. Fundamentalist Christians and the government/media are often polar opposites, usually diametrically opposed. Even the conservative Republican party would be more content if the social agenda of the Religious Right wasn't having to be appeased...the Religious Right...the fundamentalists...the extremists. Ruby Ridge and Waco were extreme examples of government intolerance of unpopular expressions of Christian or Constitutional fundamentalism. The core point is this. Blind support of a war on non-secular, fundamentalist Muslims could serve to set a precedent for the culture to further marginalize Christian fundamentalists...especially as the Church itself is becoming more wordly and secular. The true faith will only stand more glaringly in the light of Laodecea. The Social War gets fought in high profile arenas like abortion-rights, gay marriage and seperation of Church and state. It could be lost in the more innocuous battles the symanntics of words like "fundamentalist". 80 percent of Americans say that they identify themselves as "Christian". Yet, those who support fundamentalist, evangelical theology account for a dramatically smaller portion. One of the lessons of the history of the Church, that it may be doomed to repeat, is that the Emerging Church has been so concerned with its call to Evangelize, that it ceases to work out its own salvation with fear and trembling. Confident in the rightness of its position and purpose, Evangelicals have joined in another crusade against Islamic fundamentalism, aligning itself with a culture that despises its theology and ingraining in the secular masses the opposition to all things fundamental". In a nation and culture where religion is so marginalized and secularized, the symmantic easily translates from Islam to Evangelical Christianity in the sound-bite, fast-food information age of the secular world. This secular world view accepts religious conviction as long as it is "personal" and non-invasive. Conversely, fundamentalism, both Christian or Islamic, seek to impact and win the world for their faith. Islam demands that a code of behavior be adhered to and enforced on the population, rejecting all other beliefs and in some cases, conquering non-believers to conform them to the true faith, even to the costs of their own lives in martyrdom for their god. Fundamentalist Christianity demands adherance of obedience to a code of righteousness that was demonstrated by Jesus and brotherhood with a non-believing world that, by the Holy Spirit, would stand against the prevailing world-view and permeate the society. A true Believer in Christ may be called upon, and should be willing to, lay down his life for his God. The correlation is too great to ignore. For Evangelicals the error in judgement comes from a fellacious understanding of Scripture. It comes from a failier to agree with the Biblical admonition about the assuredness of moral entropy in the culture. Instead of working on personal holiness which best reflects Jesus and therefore best effects the world, like battling a tsunami with a sandbag, Evangelicals seek to change moral fiber by activism and aggressive opposition. This forsakes the command to be in the world and not of the world. It is also hard to love your enemy while you are supporting a war to kill him. Instead, we have Christian talking heads joing the teeming masses of secular talking heads in opposition to the evils of Islamic jihad. Some day there will be a time where those secular talking heads will be giving scathing analysis and editorials about the dangers of Christian fundamentalist extremism.

A Tale of Two Tragedies

"Do you believe in God? Written on a bullet Say yes and pull the trigger. ...and Cassie pulled the trigger." ----"Cassie" by Flyleaf When this song came out, reflecting on a young Christian girl's split-second decision to allow herself to be martyred at the Columbine high school shootings, I found my own thoughts drifting back over two similar tragedies which had diametrically different eternal consequences. I qualify all that I'm writing by stating for the record that any violent loss of life is repugnant. I also state for the record that I am a gun owner, support gun-owner rights and have a concealed weapons permit. Recently, a deranged, or simply very angry, man burst into the commons area of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, heavily armed, having just shot 4 people outside the building. His intent was to inflict terrible loss of life. New Life is the states largest church and services at the mega-church were just releasing. Having heard the shots outside, Jeanne Assam, a former police officer, and part of New Life's armed security team engaged the assailant and killed him. New Life, like many churches in America, has a full staff of security, half of which, according to Pastor Brady Boyd, are licensed and are armed. Ms Assam was lauded by law enforcement officials, Boyd and the church constituency for saving lives Contrast that event with the deranged man who, heavily armed, walked into an Amish schoolhouse, took hostages and then killed five little girls, aged 7 to 13, before killing himself. Clearly, New Life's proactive foresight to have armed security prevented in Colorado, what the Amish were unwilling to do in Pennsylvania...to use deadly force to protect itself. Let me clarify here. The Amish were not in a house of worship. Had the man come into an Amish home, the result would likely have been the same. The Colorado incident was hailed as a victory for conservative, gun-rights activists. Indeed, as a husband and father, a Christian, a gun owner, and an American, I demand the right to use deadly force, if neccesary, to protect my family. There is Old Testement precedent for this as well as admonition to the head of the home to protect his own. So why did I find the results at the New Life so much more unpalatable then in Pennsylvania? The answer lies in the starkest contrast between the two incidents. It wasn't the body count...it was the eternal ramifications. I don't pretend to be knowledgable about Amish theology. Like most people the most I know is from watching the movie, "Witness" with Harrison Ford. Clearly, I don't embrace their theology about the use of force in the protection of family. The Amish are ardent pacifists. However, there is one place that I can come alongside the Amish and where I part strongly from New Life. The Amish are willing to die for what they believe in. They don't want to die. They don't want to suffer. They didn't want to grieve the lives of 5 little girls. Yet, much like Cassie's decision to say that she believed in God at Columbine, the Amish do not love their lives so much as to shrink from death. The extraordinary belief that safety isn't an end paticularly in the post 9/11 age of fear and security leaves post modern Americans to shake their heads at the tragedy of 5 little girls being laid on the alter of martyrdom. Conversely, Pastor Brady noted at a news conference with Ms. Assam, that she had perhaps saved 60 or 70 lives with her quick action. In the aftermath, there was a gush of thankfulness of the church constituency and law enforcement. Then the events faded into media factoid history. But let us examine the eternal, transcendent consequences. It is very possible the gunman at New Life might have killed himself as so many lone wolf killers do after exacting their wrath. However, we will never know that because an agent of the church, representing Jesus, the Christ, the Savior...his Savior..., shot him dead. What we do know is that one lost soul will not be in the kingdom. One person who will never have the opportunity to repent, who will never receive our forgiveness, or our mercy or His Grace extended through us. Who will never know Salvation. So, with this result we are left to tally the scorecard between the two events. Our culture has already determined that the Amish, tragic though their loss is, are a partial victim of their own eccentricity. That culture has already assigned praise to Ms. Assam and New Life for their security measures. New Life and the culture have declared by their actions that they value their lives more than the salvation of one soul. We must now consider the hypethetical. What if a large number of New Life's congregation were killed, martyred for the Kingdom. Speculate that after his initial rage relented, the perpetrator doesn't kill himself and is captured or surrendered. Imagine further, that the church and the grieving families extended to the killer, unwarranted Christian grace and forgiveness that the Amish did to the killer of their children. (Oddly, no one doubts that the Amish would have extended forgiveness to their children's killer even if he hadn't taken his own life.) One wonders how far reaching the scope of the Amish experience has advanced the Kingdom. We will never know this side of Glory, outside of the immensely favorable testimony of their Savior that warmed the hearts of America in the weeks that followed. At New Life, we will never know the scope of what would have happened if the killer had been saved. I don't take away the proper right of self-defense of one's self and more importantly the protection of one's family. If I were at New Life that morning and I had been armed, I would have shot the man myself. But I would have been acting as the protector of my family. I wouldn't be an agent of the church. In much the same way that Timothy was charged with a higher standard of accountability in the pastoral letters, so too does New Life, and all churches now arming themselves, take on a higher responsibility and higher level of risk. Democratic Freedom and Christianity share that in common...risk. I know that Jesus would have allowed Himself to be crucified even if I was the only person on earth to believe. His love for me and for that killer are such that He did not love His life so much as to shrink from death. This is the attitude of the Amish. This is why we, as a culture, can't understand suicide, Islamic terrorist. Because we have been taught that there is nothing more valuable than life...as transient and temporary as it is...and that their testimony is only valid if it is a living one. Doesn't the New Life, and other similar churches, assume a greater level of risk. Certainly, Jesus spelled out the risk to His disciples, assuring them that if He, God Himself, would be persecuted, so too, would they. Still, He admonished us to "love our enemies" and to "offer them our other cheek". This is just one more example of how humanism has crept into the Christian world-view. Safety and comfort have supplanted freedom and risk. We can thank the Patriot Act for this spirit of fear. Christianity, like freedom, isn't supposed to be safe. The Gospel of Jesus is dangerous...provocative...convicting. One day we can ask Stephen about martyrdom. Or perhaps we can ask the countless saints recorded by Mr. Fox. Or we can simply sit at lunch with a nice, Amish family in Pennsylvania and reminisce about their late daughters. One thing is for sure. We won't be able to ask a repentant persecutor of New Life Church in Colorado. "Don't be surprised, When people die. Be surprised you're still alive." ---from "Cassie" by Flyleaf