Here's what's really going on in Palestine

I found this link a gripping story of a leader in the Palestinian non-violence movement. Yes, there is such a thing as a non-violence movement among Palestinians.

Here is how they are treated.

Read and weep

How should Christians engage the powers that be?

Below is an ongoing conversation between me and my good friend Dan Sidey:

Question: One of the questions I'm wrestling with these days is how to be a Christian who is truly engaged in contemplative resistance. I realize that the US is not a peaceful country. I live in a small town that relies on the assets that come from our military. We have plenty of families that rely on the money made by troops and an airbase that nearly five times a day, with F-15s, tries to remind us that the US wants to own the skies of the world. The whole thing is disillusioning, yet so ingrained as deeply valuable in the mind of most folks here. I see the tragedy of this paradigm played out constantly in the violence in my own neighborhood. It is as grand as gang fights and as minute as unhappy parents neglecting their children to run from their own violent demons.

I'm beginning to believe negotiating with these powers for a share in their use is not our calling. We're meant to denounce their ability to help as Jesus did. He calls us to love the least of these. Instead of climbing the ladder of success in search for the scarce resources of power we turn around and find an abundance of opportunity to serve in love those the empire considers a liability. Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove believes that we will finally find abundant life only in community with others engaged in contemplative resistance like this.

I'm looking for this message of Jesus fleshes out. I'm curious how you'll wrestle with these ideas in your books. What does Carl believe about this message?

Thanks for dialoguing about this.

Answer:

Thank you Dan.

I think that's a lot to chew on. Of course, based on what you've written, I would say to you "Go for it!!" I think we have to keep in mind though that different people have different callings. Carl and I are primarily trying to speak to the evangelical world, telling them to reconsider their hate and prejudice towards 1.5 billion Muslims. That's a pretty tall order! Carl travels and speaks quite a bit, so he wouldn't fit nicely into the "beware of your carbon footprint" camp. I probably wouldn't either since travel is a large part of my calling. I've come to realize that I can't do everything and take up every cause, though that doesn't mean that I can't encourage others in their respective callings. As long as we're loving Jesus, loving people, practicing non-violence, and taking the admonitions of Jesus towards the poor seriously (whether that means living among them or advocating for them politically), I think it all counts.

Not sure if I'm making sense here.

I hope this helps.

Aaron

Dan's response:


It's true that many New Monastics are concerned with their carbon footprint, but thats not really one of the distinctives that I'm gleaning from them as paramount in my journey. It doesn't surprise me that both you and Carl don't either. Your interests seem to be more along the lines of mine, focused on a Christian response to Muslims and the practice of non-violence in the face of militarism, nationalism and radicalism.

So how do we engage the world as a political body? The political Body of Christ. Are we called to negotiate how the government uses force? Or are we called to have a prophetic witness that is not a stake holder in power, but a denouncer of force that points others to love? Maybe a little of both?

I recall in your book(at the very end) you said something about force being a possible asset in the face of extremes like genocide. Do you feel that way? Are we stakeholders in power?

Peace, Dan

Answer:

Dan, this is one of the best questions ever posed on this blog! I love the way you frame it: How should followers of Jesus engage the world as a political body? Should we negotiate the government's use of force or should we refuse to be stakeholders in power?

I love the way you frame this question, since it underscores a key point I make in my book "Alone with a Jihadist." If you remember the last chapter, Powerless Prophets I make the case that followers of Jesus would be a lot better off renouncing earthly power (and by that I mean most political power positions available and definitely military power) for the very reason that you stated. When we become "stakeholders" in power (thank you for the phrase--I'm going to use it!), we lose our objectivity and our credibility as prophetic witnesses. Almost like a conflict of interest if you will. So, to answer your question, I don't think it's an either/or. It's both/and. We renounce power not just so that we can withdraw in our caves and let the world self-destruct. No. We renounce power so that we can be a credible voice to the powers that be! At times this may take on the form of prescribing practical solutions for just peace making between warring parties, but we have to be careful here. Political solutions are almost always ambiguous. If a follower of Jesus isn't well informed on the issues at hand, he or she should keep their prophetic distance and work for peace and justice in non-political ways. God uses all kinds!

That's where I stand right now. If I end up moving my position, it'll be in the direction of non-engagement, where we don't even bother at all with telling the earthly kingdoms how to run their affairs. I'm not there yet because I still feel that if we refuse to participate in the violent structures earthly kingdoms use to advance their interests, the very least we can do is propose alternatives to mitigate the violence. I think John Howard Yoder has it right when he says, and I'm paraphrasing here, "We can't hold earthly governments to Kingdom ideals, but we can hold them accountable to their highest ideals."

I hope this helps!

So, Am I a Reductionist?

A few weeks ago I wrote a post on my blog entitled Will the Real Gospel Please Stand Up? In the post I talked about how America, being a trendy nation, seems to have a gospel to fit just about every corresponding trend in society. For the materialist trend, we have the health and wealth gospel. For the postmodern trend, we have deconstruction and negative theology (I can kick myself for forgetting to add the patriotic gospel, but I’m happy to mention it now). Point being that with all the different gospels floating around—even granting that some of these gospels contain grains of truth—the gospel according to the Apostles often gets lost. After carefully studying the Book of Acts and the Epistles, I summarized the gospel that the Apostles preached this way:

"Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. He was buried and rose again on the third day. He ascended into heaven and now He sits at the right hand of the Father. On a day that God has appointed, Jesus Christ is coming back to judge the living and the dead. Anyone who repents and believes in Him will receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life."

The vast majority of my critics are people that comment anonymously (undoubtedly people that I know personally) that don’t like either my implied political views or my stance on non-violence. In this case, however, I received a couple of anonymous comments coming from a different direction.

Anonymous number one said, “It's too bad all those parables from Jesus got in the way of his gospel message...”

Anonymous number two was a bit more forthright in saying, “Yeah, you kind of left out everything Jesus announced, performed, and taught while he was in ministry. That is, the best part. Abstract religious thoughts about his death for sin, resurrection, and return have no context or meaning to a seeker without mention of the Kingdom Jesus announced and the history into which this took place. I love this blog overall, but this entry falls prey to reductionism. This is not the whole of the Good News.”

I especially agree with Anonymous number two that the announcement of the Kingdom of God often gets sidelined in standard gospel presentations. Having said that, I do find it odd that the Apostle Paul didn’t mention the Kingdom of God when he summarized the gospel “by which you are saved” in I Corinthians 15:1-4, but I digress.

Here was my response:

“If you're a regular reader of my blog (and you've read my book Alone with a Jihadist) then you'll know that I also have serious criticisms for those that neglect the teachings of Jesus, as if we can divorce Christ's death from His life and teachings. I've made that point in many ways, which is why most of the criticism I get comes from the other end of the theological spectrum than the perspective that you're articulating. So, I do agree with you.

Having said that, I think I made a valid point here that what constitutes as evangelistic preaching nowadays bears little resemblance to how the Apostles preached in the Book of Acts. Case in point, when was the last time you heard a Bible teacher or preacher say that Jesus is coming back to judge the living and the dead? And yet, this is precisely what Peter claims that Jesus told His Apostles to preach:

"And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be the judge of the living and the dead" (Acts 10:42)

In my own evangelistic sermons, I often emphasize the teachings of Jesus and the parables, but I want to be careful that I don't leave out the elements that the Apostles preached when they were calling people to repent and receive Christ.

Either way, I think this post could generate a good discussion. Thank you again for your feedback.”

So, am I a reductionist?

Or is it that the gospel is so huge and mind-bending awesome that all of us are reductionists regardless of the particular kind of Christianity—new and old—that we follow?

Discuss!

What I learned from the--gasp!--Word of Faith movement

Perhaps you’ve heard of them. Televangelists with bouffant hairstyles and Rolex watches saying send me a dollar and God will give you a hundred, women with gaudy make-up, and the ever-famous “Be healed in the name of Jeeeee-sus” while pushing people to the ground. These are the excesses that come to mind when the average Christian thinks of the “Word of Faith” movement. I’ve been writing progressive evangelical articles for about a year now on the Sojourners website, but I think it’s time for me to come out of the closet. Not only was I raised in a Word of Faith church; one of the most profound intellectual influences on my life is a female Word of Faith teacher.

I met Dianne Kannady when I was a student in public high school. Dianne was a history teacher and I was the high school evangelist. I started a prayer club and Dianne was kind enough to be the host. It didn’t take me long to figure out that Dianne knew a lot more about Scripture than I did, so I went to her with all of my questions. After I graduated from high school, I started attending her Friday night Bible studies at a church near downtown St. Louis. I also started listening to her daily radio program and for several years met with her on numerous occasions to discuss theology—often for hours on end.

I realize that some people may write Dianne off because of the dreaded words “Word of Faith” but before you do, let me tell you what I learned from Dianne. The first thing I learned from Dianne is that the Bible is progressive revelation and that it should be interpreted through the lens of Jesus (ring a bell Anabaptists?). I also learned that through Christ’s death and resurrection, I’ve been given “everything that pertains to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3), “been made a partaker of the divine nature” (Vs 4), I’ve been “seated with Christ Jesus in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 2:6) and that Christ is my “wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption” (I Corinthians 1:30). I learned that there are unseen realities all around us and that God’s Word spoken on the lips of faith has limitless power to change what we see and feel. Perhaps most importantly, I learned that love isn’t merely an attribute of God. It’s who God is.

I would have a hard time identifying with the Word of Faith movement today. For one thing, the Word of Faith movement, and modern day Pentecostalism in general, has some pretty huge blind spots. To the average Word of Faith practitioner, the definition of living like Jesus is limited to healing the sick, casting out demons, and saving souls. It has very little to do with practicing non-violence and challenging institutional structures that perpetuate inequality.

Having said that, I often wonder if the emergent /progressive evangelical movement will have the same staying power as the faith that Dianne teaches. If there’s one thing that remains consistent about all of the Word of Faith practitioners that I know, it’s a deep appreciation for the work of Christ on the cross, and an unshakable conviction that the benefits of the cross—be it eternal life, healing, victory over sin—are appropriated by personal faith. While Dianne is hardly a fundamentalist, you won’t find Dianne wishy-washy on issues like the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the Deity of Christ, the atonement, or salvation by grace through faith.

Liberation theologians may have a preferential option for the poor, but I hate to be the bearer of bad news for liberation theologians, if we look at the kind of Christianity exploding in the global south, it appears that the poor have a preferential option for Pentecostalism. Emergent groups may congratulate themselves on their intellectual ability to “deconstruct” the Bible in the light of postmodernism, but we’ll see how long that lasts. Because unless a theological movement can bring God from the head to the gut, it runs the risk of having a form of godliness, but denying it’s power. It may save social security, but will it save Sally?

Is CPT the new face of global missions?

I’m trembling as I write this one. Not because I don’t feel strongly about what I’m about to write, but because I’m already isolated within my own faith community (Pentecostalism) for my unorthodox views on war and peace; and I know that what I’m about to write may put me at odds with a lot of people in the progressive evangelical community—a community I’m just getting used to. In addition, there’s always the fear of being misunderstood, so regardless of whether you agree or not with what I’m about to write, know that at least it’s my aim to speak the truth in love. So here goes.

I love Christian Peacemaker Teams. I especially love their motto, “What would happen if Christians devoted the same discipline and self-sacrifice to non-violent peacemaking that armies devote to war?” I wish every Christian on the planet would ask themselves that question. I have nothing but admiration and respect for full and part-time CPT workers that live out that motto every day. When I went on a delegation with CPT in October 2007 to the West Bank, it radically changed my life.

So why am I conflicted about CPT? It’s not that I don’t believe in the organization. I do. Nor is it because I necessarily disagree with their anti-proselytizing policy. I understand that every organization has it’s own purpose and mandate. The reason why I’m conflicted is because I’m concerned about the implications of progressive evangelicals continuing to promote CPT as a new face of global missions.

As a long time evangelical missionary and a recent convert to non-violence, I find myself caught between two worlds. On the one hand, I move freely in circles that “pray through the window” and map “unreached people groups” (ethnic groups that have yet to embrace Christianity). On the other hand my devotion to peace and non-violence cause me to move in peace circles—many of which are comprised of theologically liberal Christians.

Never was this more obvious than when I was on the CPT delegation. It took all of about two hours for everyone in the group to realize that I was the “evangelical” in the group. When I was asked to describe myself, I shared with the group honestly about what I had been doing over the past several years—traveling the world and sharing the gospel. For the most part, the group was respectful, but there was the occasional anti-missionary remark that reminded me of my minority status within the group.

Throughout the week, I had many discussions with individuals in the group about why I believe that Jesus is God and why I don’t believe that all religions are equal paths to the same truth. Because I was the odd man out in the group, I left that week thinking that Mennonites were mostly theologically liberal. It wasn’t until much later that I befriended some Mennonites and discovered that Mennonites are mostly theologically conservative—which is one of the reasons why I’m so concerned. If a Biblically orthodox denomination continues to send its young people to CPT to experience a “new face of global missions”, how many of these young people will eventually jettison their Biblical orthodoxy?

My concern isn’t just about conservative Mennonites and their ongoing relationship with CPT, but with the progressive evangelical movement at large. I wonder if in our sincere efforts to promote peace and tolerance between people of different faiths, we’re becoming more “progressive” than “evangelical?” I wonder if our zeal to be good stewards of God’s creation has dampened our zeal to evangelize the lost—as if Jesus would have approved of a carbon footprint exception clause to “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” I wonder if we’ve gone too far in laboring to share physical bread with the masses that we’ve neglected to share the “Living Bread” with the masses.

Maybe peacenik evangelical missionaries like myself need an alternative to CPT. Then again, maybe not. I think it’s at least an option that should be looked into, and I’m willing to dialogue with anybody even remotely interested in pursuing the matter further. Either way, I pray that we in the progressive evangelical community will never forget that despite all of our efforts to save the world, that the “form of this world is passing away.” May we labor “not for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life.”