My initial response to the blogs is that there seems to be a couple of main issues surfacing in the conversation.  What are these issues you ask?  It’s the issue of human sexuality.  Chad Holtz, and Rachel Held Evans are good examples.The other issue is that of what do we do with those who disagree with us. David Adams, Greg Bolt, Julie Clawson are good representatives of this side of the coin.

As I think about these two sides of the same coin I begin to wonder if we are missing the key issues that are potentially at stake in this conversation.  While we talk about enlarging our tent, I think we are missing the key issue, as Scott Frederickson helpfully points out, taking our tables out of the tent.

I am growing more and more convinced that as we authentically engage in the lives of people we will change our understanding of the way we understand “who” can belong.  People with real relationships with the homeless easily include them in the community.  People with real relationships with homosexuals easily include them in the community. People with real relationships with heterosexually broken people easily include them in the community. The list could go on…

The issue that continues to rise to the forefront of my mind is this: Who we know determines who we love. The unknown creates fear.  To broaden the “tent” we must broaden our relationships. As we broaden our relationships we will constantly have to return to the question of grace and what it means to embrace those who “live in a broken world with broken relationships and bad records”.

Check out the blogs and let me know what you think…

I hope that as the week continues we will see conversations move from our personal “hot button issues” to grand visions of a unified body of Jesus.

What are your hopes and dreams for the church?

I think that before I can answer that question I need to ask a more fundamental question.  What is the church?  There are so many definitions running around that it’s hard to keep up.  It used to be (back in the 50s in America) that the “church” was simply those folks who showed up and sat in their pew on a Sunday morning.  Now we have “communities” and “networks” and “friends”  and “who knows what else”.  So, I don’t think I can express my dreams for the church until I can have some working definition of what the “church” really is.

I want to follow most of those before me and say that the church is broken up into two large parts, the church visible and the church invisible or universal.  I hold to a robust sovereignty of God and so I leave the latter to mystery, I am more concerned with the former. The definition that I want to posit for the “church” is a group of people who communing together in the midst of being on mission with Jesus.

So, let’s break that down. “A group of people”: this is necessary because following Jesus does not call people to be alone on mission.  He calls them to be a part of his body, family, and bride.  I think you can get a good sense of this from this clip:

The body of Christ ought be a collection of people of who speak with one voice because they are centered on one man and pursuing the same mission.

“Communing together”.  Alan Hirsch calls this “Communitas”. Whatever you want to call it, I think that the church must go beyond community to communing.  This is the active lived life of a group of people together.  They are engaged with one another sharing the mission, life, and life of Jesus. They are practicing the sacraments together (communion and baptism).  This is a group of people who worship around a common table and as they commune with Jesus through the Spirit they find themselves drawn to one another.

“ In the midst of being on mission with Jesus”.  A group of people doing “community” does not the church make.  They must be on mission with Jesus.  There is no other mission that they are to be on.  They are to be on Jesus’ mission. This means that they are glocally concerned with living revolutionary lives calling those around them into this mission.  It is interesting that Jesus’ invitation was always to follow him.  This following was at its core an invitation to join him in his mission.

So, that’s my definition. What do you think? Later, I will post some comments on the other blogs in the discussion.  Tomorrow, I will write about my dream for the church.

Jesus Manifesto

This not a book that wows you.  There is nothing controversial or new.  It is a book that you read and then you find yourself thinking about an illustration from it. It is a book you read and then find yourself mulling over some description of Jesus.  It is a book you read and then find yourself quoting it to someone else in conversation.

The only thing that twinged me as a downside was from the introduction. The comment made there is, “So what is Christianity? It is Christ. Nothing more. Nothing less. (xxii)”  I agree that Jesus is central to the Christian. However, to say that Jesus is the full sum of the Christian faith is not exactly accurate. I would suggest that this be edited to highlighting his centrality. This statement by Sweet and Viola I think pushes down toward the problematic view of “me and Jesus” that is predominant in our post-modern world.

Overall: grab the book.  It’s always worth the time remind ourselves how incredibly great Jesus is.

Then “they” showed up. The religious, the high and mighty Pharisees.  They were always around.  They said, “Your disciples are breaking the Sabbath rules!”

The Teacher’s response was amazing, “Really? Didn’t you ever read what David and his companions did when they were hungry, how they entered the sanctuary and ate fresh bread off the altar, bread that no one but priests were allowed to eat? And didn’t you ever read in God’s Law that priests carrying out their Temple duties break Sabbath rules all the time and it’s not held against them? There is far more at stake here than religion. If you had any idea what this Scripture meant—’I prefer a flexible heart to an inflexible ritual’—you wouldn’t be nitpicking like this. The Son of Man is no lackey to the Sabbath; he’s in charge.”

Then we went into the Synagogue for worship.  When we got there “they” thought they had the Teacher trapped because there was a crippled man there. “They” asked, “Is it legal to heal on the Sabbath?”

The Teacher got them again, “Is there a person here who, finding one of your lambs fallen into a ravine, wouldn’t, even though it was a Sabbath, pull it out? Surely kindness to people is as legal as kindness to animals!” Then he said to the man, “Hold out your hand.” He held it out and it was healed. “They” walked out furious, sputtering about how they were going to ruin Jesus.

(Based on Matthew 12:1-14, with a little help from the Message)

–

This is an amazing story.  It’s really a central text for our question about freedom and law. The law said, “Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Work six days and do everything you need to do. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to God, your God. Don’t do any work—not you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your servant, nor your maid, nor your animals, not even the foreign guest visiting in your town. For in six days Godmade Heaven, Earth, and sea, and everything in them; he rested on the seventh day. Therefore God blessed the Sabbath day; he set it apart as a holy day.”

The Pharisees were somewhat right in their questioning of Jesus and the disciples.  In their minds they really were breaking the sabbath commandment. But Jesus response flips their understanding of the commandment on its head, “the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath”. Brilliant!  He even says that the disciples in this case are guiltless!  He goes so far as to point out that they missed the point of the command when he quotes Hosea 6:6. In Hosea God has his people in the dock and calling them to account.  The Pharisees would have felt the sting. Jesus was calling them out as heartless and completely disconnected from God himself.

In their quest to be faithful to God the Pharisees had missed God’s heart and his desire for them to worship.  I think we are guilty of this.  What are the rules that you have put in place to be faithful to God?

Maybe some of these ring true:

• No R rated movies.
• No secular music.
• No smoking.
• No drinking.
• No dating.
• No being a Democrat.
• No being a Republican.
• No being Pro-Choice.
• No being Pro-Life.
• No watching MSNBC.
• No rooting for Ohio State University (OK, this is mine, I admit it.  I think God’s OK with it.)

Freedom is about worship.  Freedom is about coming to the God of the universe and being with him and with his people. There are no longer divisions.  The boundary markers of in and out are changed they are now spiritual and communal.  They are no longer based on law.

What’s your list?  How does it need to change? Are you building barriers on behalf of God? Are you OK with God’s dismantling of barriers through the crucifixion of Jesus?

The Sex Question: Can we find a way to address human sexuality without fighting about it?

McLaren begins this second question of application in a way that plays to our prejudices (it’s a fantastic bit of writing!).  He paints the picture of what many Christians would consider to be the “homosexual movement”.  However, he is really painting a picture of what he calls “fundasexuality” which is centered on “heterophobia” or the fear of the different. He says that this is packaged in many forms, “Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, or even atheist. (174-175)” McLaren goes on to argue that sociology tells us that “groups can exist without a god, but no group can exist without a devil (175).” Who is the devil for the fundasexualist? Gays, lesbians, bisexual, and trans-gendered people.

The argument against “fundasexualism” is built on the story of Ethiopian eunuch from Acts 8.  I think I rightly summarize the argument this way:

• The Ethiopian eunuch had visited Jerusalem to worship.
• The Ethiopian eunuch had not been allowed to worship because he was not Jewish and Deuteronomy 23:1 prohibited a eunuch from doing so.
• The Ethiopian eunuch hears the gospel of creation, liberation, and reconciliation “embodied in a man who was stripped naked and publicly humiliated, despised, rejected, and misunderstood, a man without physical descendants, a man who was cut and scarred forever.” This is a man to whom the Ehtiopian eunuch can relate.
• The Ethiopian eunuch who was condemned “by the Jewish scriptures” now has found entrance into the kingdom of God and requests baptism. Which he is by Philip.
• The Ethiopian eunuch a “non-heterosexual” becomes a missional leader taking the gospel to Ethiopia.

This argument is then extrapolated to be inclusive of homosexuals and undocumented aliens.

McLaren continues to paint the horrific picture of sexual brokenness that exists in the heterosexual world and within the church. The list of sexual sin is long, painful, and honest.

The solution? “We must pursue a practical, down-to-earth theology and an honest, fully embodied spirituality that speak truthfully and openly about our sexuality, in all its straight and gay complexity.(189)”

Reflections

I continue to appreciate the fact that McLaren does not let us get away from the hard questions that face us today. Sex is the predominant topic everywhere.  Ads, pop culture, the news, and even Sportscenter: sex overshadows it all.  I agree with McLaren that the dialogue must be opened.  We have to have the conversation, no, we need to have the conversation.  I also agree that we must move beyond the binary, “I’m right, you’re wrong” bickering. I agree with McLaren’s conclusion.

There are parts of the discussion that I disagree with though.  I think that he makes a leap with Ethiopian eunuch.  There is nothing in the text which tells us of his gender identity.  We simply know of his physical limitation to carry out the sex act.  This has nothing to do with gender.  To make the leap that he was “non-heterosexual” is too far and it is too far to assume that he was “heterosexual”. I think that his sexual identity is not the question at hand.  I think that McLaren rightly identifies the issue of the Ethiopian eunuch not being allowed to worship, but is wrong when he asserts it has to do with gender identity.

I come back to the same issue as I have had so many times before.  How? At this point in the text McLaren has removed all means by which to have any kind of authoritative ethic.  Sexual conduct is of deep concern in the Scriptures and there is an expectation of honoring God with our bodies and there are limits. However, if the Scriptures are simply one voice in the discussion then we can regulate them to a more primitive idea and that we have evolved past their prescriptions for healthy lives. This is very dangerous and unwise.

The sexual brokenness that exists in our world is in desperate of not only a “man who was stripped naked and publicly humiliated, despised, rejected, and misunderstood, a man without physical descendants, a man who was cut and scarred forever” but a man who also died and rose again and in so doing made a way for reconciliation between God and people, people and creation, and people and people.

Well that's not quite how it works...

This is the second post interacting with Brian McLaren‘s A New Kind of Christianity. Please remember that I cannot reproduce the book in these posts. I will do my best to summarize without being overly simplistic or reductionistic. Each post will be two parts.  The first will be a summary of McLaren’s discussion and the second will be my reflections.

The Authority Question: How should the Bible be understood?

As with the narrative question, McLaren, sets up two opposing views of how to understand the Bible.  The first is what he calls the “Constitutional View (78).”  He sees this view as the cause for three critical problems he highlights regarding our use and understanding of the Bible:

1. The scientific mess (68)
2. The ethical mess (68)
3. The peace mess (69)

We come out on the “wrong side” of these issues over and over again because we have missed the very nature of the Bible. McLaren argues his case by using the issue of slavery and comparing how Christians in the South used the Bible to defend slavery.  As a result, “We must find new approaches to our sacred texts, approaches that sanely, critically, and fairly engage with honest scientific inquiry, approaches that help us derive constructive and relevant guidance in dealing with pressing personal and social problems, and approaches that lead us in the sweet pathway of peacemaking rather than the broad, deep rut of mutually assured destruction (70).”

McLaren goes on to argue that as a result of our understanding the Bible in a constitutional matter we read it like lawyers in a courtroom.  In so doing we create a case for a particular and then look to find how to support our case by the precedents found in the text. This approach, it is argued, creates tensions in the text that have to be reconciled and in so doing damage is done to the Bible.  The greatest problem is that unlike constitutions which can be amended, the Bible is the word of God and therefore cannot be.

This is in opposition to the nature of the Bible that McLaren proposes, that of a library of culture and community.  This means that it is a “carefully selected group of ancient documents of paramount importance for people who want to understand and belong to the community of people who seek God and, in particular, the God of Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and Jesus (81).”

The Bible then should be expected to have tension and even contradictions. Why? Because it is a library with different works of literature that are coming from different perspectives. This is what we expect in any library and the biblical library is no different. Internal discrepancies within a constitution are great problems but they are signs of “vitality and vigor in the literature of a culture (82).”

How does then apply out to understanding the issue of authority?  If the Bible is not full of propositional truth, then how does revelation work?  It works, says McLaren, through conversation.  The basis for his argument comes from the book of Job.  He sees in Job proof that, “revelation occurs not in the words and statements of individuals, but in the conversation among individuals and God, we might say (italics original, 89-90).” How does he get here?  He does so by seeing that Job’s companions are chastised by God even though they were quoting from the Bible in their responses to Job. Job is not chastised and yet he was the one questioning God.  The problem continues for McLaren because in Job we have Satan speaking and God speaking and these other characters.  Are their words inspired by God?  Certainly not, McLaren says.  These words are used by God to draw us into conversation with the text to leave us in a place of wonder.

He contrasts his view with conservatives who seek to “put us ‘under’ Scripture (96).” He also contrasts his view with liberals who seek to “put us ‘over’ Scripture (96).”  McLaren’s desire is to “put us ‘in’ Scripture (96).”

Reflections

I really appreciate the call that McLaren makes in regard to how we understand the Bible.  I have seen this constitutional view in action and it is disheartening.  I also appreciate how he desires us to come to the Bible with awe and wonder.  This is good, nay, very good.  I really like how he closes this section out, “I hope this approach can help us enter and abide in the presence, love, and reverence of the living God all the days of our lives and in God’s mission as humble, wholehearted servants day by day and moment by moment (97).” Any approach to the Bible that short circuits this response is flawed and yet often times the lack of this response is not due to our approach but to our hearts.

I think that where I struggle with McLaren’s approach is that, in my opinion, he does not give the Scriptures their due.  It seems that he has made them less than what they are.  To relegate them as  a mere conversation partner in our spirituality pushes them to the periphery, by definition.  Looking at Job it seems that revelation comes through God’s self-disclosure, not as result of conversation.  The Scriptures are a special revelation of the transcendant God to his creation and in so doing help us experience his immanence.  It is here where our sense of awe is derived, the immanence of the transcendant God before us in the Bible.

When we read the Bible we interact with God.  We must ask questions and seek him in the midst of this.  We must engage fully.  Dare I say even converse? Yes.  In so doing though we must acknowledge that this interaction is more along the lines of a student conversing with a professor as opposed to a peer.  The Bible is not an ongoing conversation.  It is not changing.  When the authors wrote they wrote with purpose.  They had an intended meaning.  We engage with the Bible and ask questions to understand this meaning, then we must understand how it applies to our world now.  This process does not change the Bible.  It changes us.

• “Compassion and love — we agree with all that stuff, too,” said Brandon Beals, 37, the lead pastor at Canyon Creek Church outside of Seattle. “But what led me to find Christ was that Jesus was a fighter.”
• These pastors say the marriage of faith and fighting is intended to promote Christian values, quoting verses like “fight the good fight of faith” from Timothy 6:12. Several put the number of churches taking up mixed martial arts at roughly 700 of an estimated 115,000 white evangelical churches in America.
• “The man should be the overall leader of the household,” said Ryan Dobson, 39, a pastor and fan of mixed martial arts who is the son of James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, a prominent evangelical group. “We’ve raised a generation of little boys.”

First, I agree that the church has “wussified” men.  We have cut men’s legs out from underneath them and have asked them to be “nice”.  We want them to share their “feelings” and hold hands, yada, yada.  Second, I agree that we must change the way we do things and bring masculinity back to the church and help men to embrace who they are as men: leaders, strong, and kind.

Pretty Jesus

However, I grow concerned when we begin training men in the way of violence.  This is in such contrast to the life of Jesus that we will be doing more harm than good.  Jesus is not the feminine, blue eyed, long haired pretty boy but a rough necked, back woods Jewish carpenter.  He was strong.  He had convictions that he was willing to die for.  He also displayed compassion, grace, restraint and kindness.  We must realize that kindness is very different from being “nice”.  Being “nice” means that you are a push over.  You are a doormat that people walk all over.  Being kind means that you are strong enough to tell people what they need to hear and how they need to act with honesty, compassion, and gentleness.  It means that you can love well in spite of the potential of loss.

Jesus demonstrated ridiculous amounts of restraint.  Have you ever wondered what it must have been like to be in possession of the full power of God?  Jesus could have wiped out his enemies with one fell swoop.  He did not. He held back.  He taught the value of restraint and that in his restraint there was great power.  It was in his restraint where he chose to bear the cross, “scorning it’s shame for the joy set before him.” Jesus did not need to beat the tar out of someone to prove he was a man.

Fighting Jesus

He did it by being strong in the face of adversity.  He did it by standing up to the imperial and religious leaders at the cost of his life.  He did it by choosing to live a life of obedience to his father.  He did it by demanding respect through his words and deeds.

So, we raise a generation of Spartan-like boys into Spartan-like men for Jesus.  What does this get us? It gets us men who subdue their wives through anger and rage.  It gets us men who do not understand kindness but only power.  It gets us men who are willing beat their opponents into submission through violence as opposed to loving well with powerful kindness, compassion, and mercy.

Finally, I would suggest that the MMA Church take some time to study and understand the ramifications of their actions in light of Matthew 5, I will quote it below (oh and this is Jesus speaking, just saying):

Matthew 5

1 Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. 2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

7 Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

13 You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.

14 You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

21 You have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, You fool! will be liable to the hell of fire.23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison.26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.

27 You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery.28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

31 It was also said, Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

33 Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.37 Let what you say be simply Yes or No; anything more than this comes from evil.

38 You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

43 You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The driving question that Keller is seeking to answer comes from a description of Americans by Alexis de Tocqueville who said that Americans exhibited a, “strange melancholy that haunts the inhabitants…in the midst of abundance. (x)” De Tocqueville analyzes this “strange melancholy” and comes to the conclusion that it is the result of taking an “incomplete joy of this world” and having that become the center of your life. Keller states, “That is the definition of idolatry. (xi)”  He goes on to say that an idol is, “anything more important to you than God, anything that absorbs your heart and imagination more than God, anything you seek to give you what only God can give. (xvii)” This is the central motif of Keller’s text.  He then draws us back to the reality that it is in relationship with Christ, the idol breaker, that we can be set free from our idol worship.

Keller hits on topics like money, greed, power, politics, sex, and love. He grabs your attention with riveting personal stories from his life, his ministry, and from the headlines.  The economic collapse of 2008-09 plays a heavy role. If you come to this text with an open mind then you will walk away from this text with a challenged heart. It is strong in biblical exegesis as Keller works through key texts and draws out their central teaching and their contemporary application. I would say that the weakness of this text is that the issues raised are difficult and that in such a brief text they can only be given a cursory examination.  I would like to see Keller develop this text more fully at a scholarly level.

I was deeply challenged by the book.  I was most especially brought to a place of deep consideration regarding the idolatry of religion.  I think that as a pastor I am easily swayed by this idolatry. I can get caught up in my Reformed, Presbyterian dogma and lose sight of the sacrificial savior who called me to follow him. Following a self-sacrificing savior is painful, difficult, and yet fully satisfying and glorious! But, the comfort of a religious dogma that provides all the answers is seductive and so easy to embrace.

I encourage you to grab this little text and evaluate the idol factory in your heart.

Trolls and Truth: 14 Realities About Today’s Church That We Don’t Want to See is written by Jimmy Dorrell.  He is the lead pastor of Church Under the Bridge and also the Executive Director of Mission Waco in Waco, TX. This is a little book and quick read.  It hits on 14 key issues that Dorrell has found to be truths that the first world American church needs to hear.  He argues that most of the American church ignores the poor and broken in their communities.  He is writing from his own experiences as a pastor to those very people.  He tells the stories of 14 different people.  Those stories each function as a parable for a particular truth that he believes the contemporary church can learn from those people who live on the fringe of society. He covers a wide range of issues including appearance, actions, societal barriers, giving, communication, and music.

I found that his most powerful chapters were regarding the issues of gifts (Dedrick’s Truth) and the fact that the “rich need the poor” (Catfish and Pilgrim Bill’s Truth). Regarding giftedness, Dorrell tells the story of Dedrick and his unique issues and life.  While Dedrick has serious mental limitations he joyfully worshiped God.  Dorrell’s church embraced him and found a place for his infectious excitement and exuberance.  He served the community with how he was made.  This is particularly challenging.  If you look around your congregation you know who “those” people are.  Will you embrace them and find a place for them to serve their God or will you ignore them?

Catfish and Pilgrim Bill’s tale flips the script on the American mindset.  It argues for the fact that the rich need the poor.  The rich need the poor because it is through their engagement with them that they find meaning and purpose.  The poor teach them what it means to love and care for things beyond the almighty dollar. The rich need to get outside themselves and it is through relationships with the poor that they are able to break out of their self-centeredness. Truly powerful.

One area that I find weak in Dorrell’s text is that I wish he would have written from a bit of a more universal application of his principles.  The question that I kept coming to was, “What if you do not have access/proximity to these kinds of people?” For example, our church is located in Farmington Hills, MI. While there are those who struggle and there are certainly a handful of homeless people, it is not a hot-bed for the poor and indigent.  For us to find the people represented in Dorrell’s parables, we would need to relocate the church. I believe that our church is called to where we are and that God has a mission for us.  Dorrell would have provided an even greater tool for the church had he broadened his application a bit to more of a principle level.

All in all this is a wonderful book, especially if you are willing to do the work to take the application to the principle level and apply it to your context.  Well worth the read.

You see, it’s not everyday that you see a snapshot of Detrtoit that points to the racial and the spiritual. But, here we do. I have worked in and around the city of Detroit for four years. My first three and a half took place on the college campuses and for the last six months I have been in the suburbs working at Grace Chapel, EPC.  In my time here I have been amazed by what is happening in and around our city.

Many people look at 8 Mile and Telegraph, those grand dividers as the keys to what’s going on here.  The reality is that they aren’t.  There is a movement growing of the emerging generation to re-engage in a real way the very real problems that our city faces.  They see the problems.  They live the problems.  Yet, when you go to Wayne State University or talk to people from Citadel (a multi-ethnic church in the heart of the city) you begin to glimpse a different picture: hope.

Whereas our parents generation was one “lost in space“, our generation is one that seeks to rectify those problems and change the future. Are we despairing? Yes. Are we frustrated with an institutional agenda that makes change difficult? Yes. Are we without hope? No.

As I think about what David Swanson says in his article I can’t help but think that this is the generation that will change the tide. We can only hope.

View Original Article