"Liberal" is not a bad word

Growing up in church the easiest way to write off a group of people (i.e. another church, a university etc.) was to label them "liberal". Liberal in my congregation was equivalent to if not worse than claiming someone to be a heretic or apostate (fancy word for stabbing your 'faith-group' in the back). The dichotomy was clear: to be liberal was evil, conservative was good. The champions of conservatism in my church would declare that this was a black and white issue. They had chosen the white, and in there mind all shades of gray, no matter how pale were obvious compromises in the purity of true, Christian doctrine.

This church, being in Texas, upheld the patriotism that all good Christians hold to. The Holy Republican Party ruled. All Democrats were dismissed with a social armband identifying them as "misguided", and definitely not to be paid attention to. After all, the Democrats were the liberal party. To vote for Kerry in the last election meant you probably delved into witchcraft in your spare time.

And it is here that I find an irony worthy of the harshest ridicule. Part of the propaganda that America puts forth to prove ourselves better than other countries is the obvious fact that we are "free" to believe what we each feel to be right. Conservatives will defend this lofty ideal, and in the next breath condemn anyone who would practice freedom by believing differently than they do. Political beliefs bring out some of the deepest (and most misguided) vehemence from peoples hearts towards other people. I'm sure it comes in the other direction (liberals condemning conservatives), but I've spent my whole life in the South and mainly witnessed the Left being backed into a corner.

Monuments are a way of encompassing meaning for a culture. In the OT they would make piles of rocks to serve as monuments for later generations to remember what God had done. They would erect huge pillars of rock to commemorate significant battles. Monuments are markers where a societies idenity is anchored. All cultures have them, and they do quite a bit to tell you about that culture. It's funny that one of our prided monuments is known as the Statue of Liberty. That would be the same root word as liberal. On the one hand we are called to patriotically declare our country to be a place of liberty, and then if you live in Texas espeically, scream "Anathema!" at anyone who would be so arrogant as to make use of the liberty to believe differently than the rest of the crowd.

Lord Acton was a guy who could be described as a historian, who lived in the time when the Catholic church was officially beginning to declare the pope to be infallible. Acton didn't like this. He was a Catholic, and a liberal. One his statements was, "Liberty is so holy a thing that God was forced to permit Evil, that [liberty] might exist." Over the past year I've read a lot of stuff related to liberation theology. Liberation is giving liberty to those who have lacked it, which allows them to be liberal if they so choose. Liberation theology is a declaration that the oppressed people of the world have the right and duty to create their own theology based on their own worldview and experiences of reality. It is a declaration that the poor are free from oppression, by the blood of Jesus, and now have the right to live free of the yoke of the privileged. Now, history has shown that in the light of this liberation there will most likely arise a plethora of syncretism and religions "from the buffet". This is the mark of a liberal world. Pluralism loves liberty. America is often paving the way. Never before have we seen so many people who are "cool with Jesus", who also participate in occult New Age rituals, and do a little Yoga meditation on the side. Cars with a Jesus-fish on the bumper are commonly seen with Indian dream-catchers and Mardi Gras beads hanging from the mirror. Being liberal opens one to the newly recycled polytheism that is sweeping America.

And it is on that point that I think Acton's statement is so profound. There is no shortage of evil in our world. There is plenty of it to go around. Yet liberal and conservative both suffer its consequences equally. God allows liberty, even at the cost of Evil. Evil's result is a cross, and only rarely do we begin to grasp the astounding price that actually is. Being conservative is not the answer. By holding to the traditions, we do not spare God the slightest pain. His lashes number the same whether we appear moral, or descend into hedonism, and God's silence on that day is not broken by our outward purity.

The most under-valued doctine in the church is Free Will/Liberty. Liberty is holy.

. . . our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons and daughters of God to be revealed. For creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from bondage unto decay, being brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. - Romans 8

Liberty is a fact of the Kingdom, and a sign of heaven. It is only in liberty that we can truly become what God intends us to be. Irenaus once said, "The glory of God is man fully alive." Part of our coming to life is having the freedom of choice. Only in and through our poor choices now are we taught to set the trajectory of our life in such a way as to live for the Kingdom. Liberty is the provision of space to become what God has already made us. It is one of the many great foundational concepts that America has lost.

Our age is one of uncertainty. It is one where true freedom is distrusted, and understandably so given the track record of humans granted total freedom. Yet, Christians receive their liberty not from Jefferson or Adams. Nor is our freedom given solely by our being born. It is given by God who absorbed a cost that should teach us to hold Freedom with a reverence much deeper than even the most patriotic of Americans. The story of Braveheart is a pathetic shadow of Our God's story. All of us, created in God's image, have a Glory waiting to be revealed. The spectrum of humanity is unified in its need for a liberal freedom to shine as God intended us to.

Hegemony

Hegemony . . . . huh? This is a word that I had avoided for quite some time until a few days ago. On plenty of occasions in books past, I would read past it. I never took the time to figure out what it actually is. Leave it to Walter Brueggemann to fix that. I'm reading a book he wrote on preaching. For the record, I have long felt that preaching is a pretty absurd activity. For the seeming billions of hours of sermons I have listened to, there remain only a precious few that I was on any level transformed by. I typically find sermons a way to fill the air and time, but I find their ability to effect the congregation very limited. I say all this to point out that it is odd to me, and I'm sure to those who know me well, that I would read a book on preaching. So far though, Brugg is pointing out pretty much everything I have hated about preaching my whole life, and offering some alternatives.

Hegemony is one thing about preaching that to me results in its worthlessness. I imagine most people probably agree without realizing it.

Hegemony is a term for the norms that the "majority" adhere to: social, cultural, economic, and intellectual. It is the influence of conformity a society has over everyone. Even "non-conformists" in America are forced into some semblance of conformity. Consider: why is it that all punk-rock kids look the same? Why is it that with our society growing increasingly tolerant of everything, that somehow that is slowly resulting in everyone looking just like everyone else? Why is it that in high schools, jocks, punks, skaters, band geeks, etc, all can unify around picking on the one kid who because he can't afford to shop at the mall, can't afford to identify with a social clique? I remember being a skateboarder growing up. The number one way to show everyone you were a skater, was not to be seen skating, but to dress a certain way: make sure your jeans were sagging, you wore a baggy shirt with a skateboard logo on it, have big, suede, heavily-padded, "skate" shoes. This was the means to prove your identity. No one cared much if you could skate or really even owned a board. Originally some group of guys in California were too stoned and apathetic to care what they were wearing, and these guys happened to be pro skaters the trend is set. Now, if a kid wearing a sweater and tight fitting jeans was seen with a skateboard he was automatically despised as a poser, even if he was better at the actual sport than anyone else in the state. Skating didn't make on a skater. Looking like a skater made on a skater, whether they actually skated or not.

Let's go with an example familiar to most. One shows up to church. Carries a Bible that they don't read or care to understand. They attend as is suggested by the "religious" gurus of that church. Yet they would stare, utterly baffled if asked about their sense of intimacy with God. Or, let's imagine one of the millions of "good Christians" in our country who assume that the Bible expects one to not only avoid adultery and murder, but more importantly demands they vote Republican, never question the president, value safety as the highest of Christian virtues, and expect wealth as the measure of one's approval in the sight of God. Justice is a "mean" word for them. It is circumvented by Grace. Hooray Grace.

In this context the "good Christian" happens to be someone living comfortably within the white picket fence of the American dream. They cause no problems, nor fix any. They are nice as can be, so long as everything is made superficial, and allows them to remain in subtle yet complete self-absorption. It is tame Christianity. It never rocks the boat. It always lends a helping hand to those who have no need for a helping hand. It cherishes segregation and flees further into the suburbs when integration appears inevitable. It values random acts of kindness as a way out of intentionally being kind. Ultimately it is a faith of lotus-eaters who sedate themselves with materialism and lies so as not to be faced with the massive task before them. This is hegemonic Christianity. It is syncretism.

I find the attitude of church in America asks how can we be cutting edge without really calling out and opposing the narcisistic tendencies of our culture. How can I get drunk on worldliness and still walk the strait and narrow. I find that preaching tends to play to this attitude. After all, the preacher, too, has a mortgage. To defy hegemony would initially imply the loss of his own house in the suburbs. And maybe that's not what we need. I imagine if a preacher were to call out the evils of American society we would label him a fundamentalist and hire someone new and optimistic.

I think what we need more of is individual Christians who don't presume to judge Americanism, but live out a life that explains without words the worthlessness of hegemonic Christianity. Christianity is meant to have greater influence than it does. It is meant to scare people. It is meant to give dignity to those who have been deprived of it. It is an activist faith. It is meant to be a force that terrifies the dominant culture . . . not one that gives it a high five and says "Jesus thinks you're awesome."

I am far from being this kind of Christian. Largely because I'm selfish. Largely because I've hardly ever seen Christians who have modeled it. The only ones I've seen living it out are those who have resided in other countries for large portions of their life. Maybe that's what it takes to break the lotus-like spell that it seems like all of us are under. Maybe, but I hope not. I know that when I read books that challenge this mentality, I see how far I am from being like Jesus. I also get a glimpse of how good it would be if even a few of us lived with his heart of Justice, Mercy, and Sacrifice.

Hegemony is the propaganda of America, enticing us away from the Kingdom. The choice is clear, though hard.

Prophets

"What is the Bible?"

Most of my Bible classes started off this way while I was in college. Asking a question that the professor already had a very specific political answer to. Typical answers from students ranged from a love letter, a history of God, a holy rule book, the story of Jesus (both testaments implied), etc. Professors would listen however long it took to eat up the necessary amount of class time before offering a very dry and safe answer: "it is a collection of books and letters written to specific peoples in specific contexts that the Holy Spirit inspires to reveal God to us . . . . . . ."

I just started a new book. I like the way it opens: "The Bible is a story". That's it. It's a story that is often about God, but not always. Look at Ruth and Esther and try to tell me that God is really a central character. It's often about Jesus, but not always. The fact that the OT leads up perfectly to Jesus, does not mean it was written with him in mind. Fulfillment of prophecy does not mean that the only purpose of the prophet was to declare one single event that was to come.

Most of the Bible is prophetic. Moses was considered a prophet, which means the Torah ascribed to him is a prophetic collection. The "history books" of the Bible are actually refered to as the "Former Prophets". Then there's obviously the Latter Prophets that follow. Typically we pick out the Jesus-friendly aspects of those and ignore the rest. Then think of how much prophetic material in the Gospels is pulled from the Psalms and literary books like Ruth, etc. We tend to read the Gospels themselves in a very literal sense, but it's hard to deal with synoptic theory and still believe that all Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John had in mind was to give a police report of the Jesus event. We can read the life of Jesus and start to see that much of what is said is prophetic of his Church. The Church fulfills the life that Jesus lived . . . ideally, at least. We can read the account of the early churches and find in them prophetic threads that carry into our congregations today. Have you ever been urged to model the Bereans? How many churches today are seeking to fulfill the prototype of Antioch?

Prophecy has never been a matter of predicting something that would happen once and only once, describing it specifically and letting that declare it once for all. There are times in the OT that such predictions are made, but rarely. Even those instances are vague; there is little detail to them. Yet, today, this is what we expect from "prophets". With our Modern mindset we say "Well, if you can see the future, tell me what will happen to me tomorrow at 5:34pm."

The book I started had this to say: "the prophets were gripped by the pathos (passion) of God - not God's pity, but God's deep emotional concern. Prophets had God's heart and passion for justice and mercy. So . . . real experience of God is that which livens our hearts and lines up with the heart of God, a heart of mercy and justice, a heart given to unconditional love and blinding holiness."

Prophecy is the heart of God, not necessarily the voice of God!

The book of Joshua is considered a prophetic book. How!!? It is a book that sanctifies genocide. (this is not a question I really presume to give any form of adequate answer to here) Except, that God calls sinful people to be his. God does not wait for the murderer to quit and adequately pay for his sins first. God redeems him with blood as he pulls the trigger. As God looked on the mess that was the Ancient Near East, he realized it was hopeless to wait for them to get it together. The sons and daughters of Abraham were evil, but he introduced his heart in that setting. A heart of holiness. A heart of conquest. A heart that calls for purity. In this sense I find that the heart of God is all over Joshua, but allow me to say I do not believe God was proud or in any way pleased as the people of Jericho were slaughtered. And I firmly deny that God's voice in this text justifies any form of war or genocide. Later texts uncover more of God's heart, and we find that he is strongly opposed to violence.

Often I hear the statement that prophecy is the proclamation of truth. I agree. I just think we've got a jacked up idea of what truth is. Reality is Truth. As Christians we believe that everything we see and experience does not necessarily reflect the way things really are. Truth is not empirical facts. Eldridge points out that truth is found in the heart. Truth calls on your mind, but is verified by your heart. What is in the heart of God is True. Prophecy proclaims Truth in this sense. It is not concerned with things to come, it is concerned with the heart of God.

Back to story. If the story of the exodus, wilderness, and conquest are attributed to a prophet, what does that tell us? If the "history" of the Bible is actually considered to be prophetic writing, shouldn't that hint something to us? If the story of Jesus is supposed to become our story (read: be fulfilled by us), what does that say about it?

We often refer to inspiration like we refer to Ph.D.'s. "It's inspired", means it's got the credentials to be listened to whether or not what it's saying is important to anyone else or not. There are plently of professors that are totally irrelevant, and I'm sure many people think the same of plenty of the books within the Bible. "It's inspired" has ceased to mean, "it matters".

In every book of the Bible, and every follower of Christ there are deep wells into the heart of God which is Truth. We live by prophecy and it flows from us.

purpose

While I was in college I fell in love with missions. I think the reason why is that there was absolutely no question in my mind if God loved what I was doing. As I went through my studies I discovered that "Mission" is actually God's activity, and we simply join with him in what he would be doing anyway. Through the past years my view of what mission is, has been ever-expanding, and recently came to include even my life here in my home town. This is where my theology arrived at, but my heart has remained in adamant denial. I can respect that I should participate in Missio Dei even here, 20 miles from where I grew up, but it's just not the same.

Overseas it is easier to focus on what you are doing. Everywhere you turn you are reminded that this place is not home. You are reminded that you are in that place for a purpose. At home, you don't have to have a purpose. You were born. Every time the word "why" comes up you put it on layaway until you retire at 65 and have the leisure to consider such questions. For right now you find your role in the social machine or accept ostricization: either way you don't have a purpose. As a missionary you purposely choose to enter a second childhood. You start over from scratch. But, this time around the purpose is not simply to grow up for growing up's sake. Now you mature with the intent leaving a mark for the Kingdom of God. Everything in one's life is purposed. You learn languague to communicate God's Truth. You learn culture to incarnate God's Word. You counsel people to build God's community. These are your jobs. You wake up every day with these purposes in mind. It's a fantasy world in this regard.

Purpose is more ambiguous when you are participating in the common life. In spite of wanting something radically different, it feels like my life is fitting fairly well into the gerneral mold that is presented to Americans. I'm in the middle of nursing school right now. Honestly, I've felt very stagnant for the last few weeks. Life on the whole has been on the up-swing, so I'm not really in a state of desperation or anything, but I have ceased to truly wrestle with "purpose" in my life. That scares me. God has been good to me beyond what I can describe, and I know it. Still, I'm tired and defiant towards trying to understand the purposes in my life. Part of me is tired of getting negative answers. Part of me is tired of waiting indefinitely to really understand. The rest of me is just tired. period.

John Eldridge is telling me that it's probably spiritual warfare. Paritally I'm tired of "professional Christians" telling me what the problem is. Let Eldridge go to nursing school for a few months and then preach to me about what's going on. When life feels mundane the last thing I want to hear is "it's actually the mysterious cosmic battle be waged all around you, blah, blah, blah. . . . ." But still, mostly, I agree. I feel the cosmic war language leads me to a sense of total anticlimax, but I do agree that it is the subtle, strong force of untruth and doubt that work against me.

Here are some things I'm struggling with:
1. Finding purpose in going to class and loving what I'm studying
2. Seeing that God is proud of the things I do even when they're not totally directed at/focused on him: music, reading, learning, relationships, I commonly feel if I don't live in "devo-mode", God is displeased.
3. Wondering if God's blessings in my life really have the capacity to extend beyond me
4. Questioning if I have the slightest clue what God really hopes to acheive through me
5. Questioning if my desires are irredeemable. Do I have to give up my dreams to live for the Kingdom, or are my dreams how I live for the Kingdom?

Eldridge is telling me to be careful in agreeing with the answers I receive for these things in my head. He's probably got a point, and that annoys me. Still, to maintain a sense of purpose requires that I overcome these doubts and the 50 others that I'm not aware enough of to list. I know mission can occur even at home. Probably more at home than anywhere else. Still, right now God's mission seems a long way off. Maybe it happens in Thailand, but good luck finding it here. Or so it seems . . .

And, to end on a positive note, I must say, I am glad that faith does not come from me. If it did I would have none right now. Praise God for his grace.