ItzAboutEternity

Will Ethnic Diversity Destroy America? part 2

2011-06-25T12:35:00.000-07:00

Here are the next two points given in a speech entitled "I have a plan to destroy America," by Richard D. Lamm, former Colorado governor (see the first in this series for background).
3. We can make the United States a "Hispanic Quebec" without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently, "The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved, not by tolerance, but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically, and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together." I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences, rather than Americans emphasizing their similarities.
4. Having done all this, I would make our fastest-growing demographic group the least educated – I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50 percent dropout rate from school.
RASMUSSEN COMMENTS:
a. I agree with some of these points. Mere tolerance is a poor basis for survival. Engagement in relationship, working through issues, is a much better option, though more difficult. Tolerance, while a positive characteristic, can be taken to an extreme where people are afraid to stand up for what they believe in. Such hyper-tolerance is just as bad as intolerance.
b. With his repetition of a "rather than" dichotomy, Lamm casts diversity against unity as an either-or dynamic. By inference if not actuality, he says that we must choose either diversity or unity, and the latter is clearly better. My belief is that unity is meaningless (in fact, nonexistent) without diversity. We can't have a mosaic without different shapes and colors of glass. We can't have an orchestra without violins, cellos and trumpets in collaboration. We wouldn't have a body except for its different complimentary parts. So what we need in American is different groupings freely and joyously celebrating their cultures while at the same time gladly enjoying and contributing to their citizenship as Americans.
c. Lamm's fourth point is enigmatic. Who is he indicting here, the poor Hispanic migrant worker who refuses to get an education? If anyone stands to blame for the chronically poor (whether the inner city black youth or the Hispanic poor), it is the upper-middle and upper class who perpetuate poverty by enjoying privilege without concern for the poor. This point is a really cheap shot, woefully oversimplifying a very complex situation with a fear-mongering, blame-spewing venom that adds nothing toward a solution. It is the finger-pointing judgmentalism of one who sits in a seat of privilege and pretends he is not a part of the problem. If this attitude prevails, ethnic diversity will destroy America--not because of the diversity but because of the ethnic-pride of those who sit self-righteously in their comfortable lifestyle, accusing newcomers of creating all the problems.
Your thoughts?

Will Ethnic Diversity Destroy America? part 1

2011-06-25T12:34:00.000-07:00

A friend forwarded to me a speech given in 2004 by former Colorado governor Richard D. Lamm. Since his subject matter (Immigration, Ethnicity, Unity) is extremely important, and since his viewpoint is quite provocative (that America stands a good chance of self-destruction if we continue down our current path), I decided to divide up his speech, citing it word-for-word, to invite comments from anyone who wants to weigh in. I will start off the discussion with some of my own thoughts. I welcome any input as long as it is respectful. I will be seeking to reconcile governor Lamm's opinion with my own viewpoint as a follower of Jesus.
A word about the text quoted in the four emails of this series of posts. Snopes.com cites a popular email version that has long been circulated, and provides a revised version by Richard Lamm http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp. The revised version is the one I quote, which I accessed June 9, 2011 at http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50997
Now to Richard Lamm's speech....

I have a plan to destroy America

Posted: July 11, 2006
1:00 am Eastern
By Richard D. Lamm
© 2011 WND

Editor's note: In 2004, Richard D. Lamm, former governor of Colorado, addressed a conference sponsored by the Federation for American Immigration Reform in Washington. The following remarks are reprinted with his permission.

Richard. D. Lamm

I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that "an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide." Here is my plan:

We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way: "The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon – all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons and Corsicans."
I would then invent "multiculturalism" and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.
(watch for the next post which will carry Lamm's third and fourth points; click on RSS feed above to receive notification; thanks!)

ROBERT RASMUSSEN COMMENTS:
a. Lamm certainly has a gift for overstatement. And possesses an unsurpassed grasp of the history of the human race. To know that the citizens of every nation have underestimated the fragility of their nations is an amazing..fact.
b. I agree that a bilingual nation is going to face challenges. But citizens who commit to work together can overcome temptations to divide. Citizens must quell the rebellious leaders who want power. Given the selfishness resident in all of us, one cause or another will tempt us toward division; if not language and culture, it will be land or rights.My point is that bilingualism is not a necessary cause of divisiveness, any more than monolingualism is a guarantee of unity and national survival.
c. My main objection to Lamm's train of thought comes from the different worldview through which I see the issues. Lamm seems to primarily ask, "How can we preserve our nation for our continued enjoyment?" He wants American to survive "the ravages of time." From my worldview, which I hopefully draw from the Bible, does not place America's survival as a top priority. I appreciate so many things about the USA, and I am grateful for those who have settled, developed, and defended it. I appreciate the way of life America affords me and my family. However, America exists for the purposes of God. We are not blessed because we deserve God's favor, but because God has created this country that His name might be proclaimed to all, including those who have been coming in droves from other lands, speaking other languages, believing in other gods. This is where my U.S. citizenship must take a secondary place to my citizenship in the Kingdom of God. The proliferation of Jesus-followers and, therefore, the expansion of His kingdom are more important than the preservation of American society and the privileged lifestyle we its citizens have enjoyed.
Now I turn it over to others. What thoughts do you have on this speech?

Somebody blessed me today...read on

2011-03-10T11:28:00.000-08:00

Dear Robert Rasmussen -
WOW. That's the only way I know to begin to describe how much I have enjoyed reading your book, "Imagine Meeting Him". I was actually cleaning some book shelves for a friend of my mother's in whose house I am staying, when I came across the book. I started reading, thinking I would just read one story, but I couldn't stop. I eventually asked if I could buy the book from this friend! He gave it to me and I am still reading - because I don't want to rush thru.
The stories I have heard and read growing up in Sunday School and church, but you have managed to tell them in a way that makes them real - makes HIM real! I feel as tho I really have seen Him or met Him. Your Reflection questions are always spot on, too! I have found myself going back to re-read a story when I was especially struck by it. So many have moved me - though I might say that a favorite is "From Anger to Wonder" because of the turmoil of my life recently.
Thank you so very much for writing this book. I thank Jesus for giving you the insight to write it - surely I am not the only one who has seen Him more clearly because of this?!
So thankful I cleaned those shelves!
In His Love - Melody

Guest Ken Baker on "If We Really Need Each Other...."

2011-02-16T16:07:00.000-08:00

One of my good friends in this intercultural journey, and one I have leaned a lot from, is Ken Baker, who served for 25 or so years in West Africa planting churches, and now serves in the USA with SIM-USA (Serving In Mission). Out of a recent retreat of the Ethnic America Network, and discussion group carried on an email exchange dialoging whether multi-ethnic churches are mandated by Jesus and the Scriptures, or are recommended. In this post, Ken argues (if I may summarize) that if we really believe we need each other in the body of Christ, then we will not consider it normative nor acceptable to fellowship in isolation over the long term. Here's Ken....

"I believe the best starting point is to focus upon shaping our understanding of ‘kingdom character’ and its implications. The foundation of ‘kingdom character’ is “love one another.” This is a restoration narrative as the body of Christ lives into the character which God intended for humanity from the outset…joining a restoration of all things which culminates in God’s stated goal to “bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.” (Eph 1:10) In Christ, we are not only new creatures, but also a new type of humanity. (Eph 2:15) We are not the same as we once were. We have a new identity, a new role. Just as Christ is the 2nd/last Adam, the realization of what a human was to be, we, in and through Christ’s body, collectively, represent true human community as it was intended to be.

What does it mean, then, to “love one another?” Are there any limitations to this mandate? Any who are not included? What is the rationale for not pursuing relationship with each other in Christ? (too hard, impractical, wastes time, too idealistic, we prefer not to, etc.—deep down, we know these are not sufficient responses) The bottom line is that our prayed that we would be one, that we would be together. Thus, unless we are continually moving toward each other, then we are falling short of that which God intended for us. But, why?

The whole point of the metaphor of the body is to emphasize how much we need each other…not just our functions as edifying contributions, but our personness as well. All that we each embody (personality, ethnicity, culture, age, gifting, history, joys, sufferings, etc.) is part of this contribution; and each culture has the contributive role as well, for the edification of the entire body. In my observation and experience, this is the fundamental disconnect—realizing and embracing the biblical reality that we need each other, that we are incomplete without each other.

This disconnect is driven by human nature. We don’t naturally believe that we need those who are unlike us (however we would define this). The progressive among us can be curious, appreciating the mosaic of diversity, kind, welcoming, polite and accommodating of difference…but still not believe that we need what people from other cultures (ethnicities, generations, gender, economic status, etc.) can contribute. It is why ‘inclusion’ is not enough… the new humanity in Christ is about kenosis, emptying ourselves, submitting one to another, confessing our sins one to another… that is, living in full mutuality—the image of the Father, Son and Spirit.

Given this reality, what are the implications? How is this new type of humanity in Christ supposed to live in this diverse, fractured, antagonistic, selfishly sinful, lost-without-Christ world? In such a way that “all men will know” that we are his disciples, that “the world will know” that Jesus is from God… that’s all.  We are to be living out a divine, restoration narrative to the glory of God. What do this look like? Perhaps it is better to ask, what does it feel like? I would propose this… when there is no longer a “them,” just an “us.” …when we can gaze upon our co-followers of Christ, and all our humankind ‘neighbors’, as our Lord does, gushing with compassion, love and humility, saying, “what do you want me to do for you?”

We are on a journey to understand and apply that which God has revealed and entrusted to us. We are sinful and imperfect, thus, our models are flawed and compromised, but we press on.

I fully realize that much of what I have shared is rather ethereal. But, I defend it as a way of clarifying biblical outcomes. If our understanding of outcome is incomplete, by default, the process will also be incomplete. We tend to be limited by what we believe to be possible. Since most of us, if not all, have issued from Christian churches and contexts that were (are?) primarily homogenous, we often do not have a track record of experience which provides an alternative perspective of what is possible. An example: when we first went to Niger as church planters we had already had twelve years of church planting on two other fields in W. Africa. In our experience, we had enjoyed good, edifying relationships between mission and church. However, upon arrival in Niger, we discovered that relations between church and mission were chronically strained and tense. Hence, discussions among the missionaries were negative and generally hopeless as far as the church was concerned. The vast majority of these colleagues had never lived and worked on any other field, so their experience was shading their conception of what was possible…

What if intercultural mutuality was the normative experience of every believer? How would the Christian landscape be different? Such has been my experience… of the five churches that I have had the privilege to see born, in five different cultural contexts, each one has been a diverse community of multiple tribal identities coming together in Christ. For me, this became normal. I didn’t start out that way… I had to learn it. They taught me. They lived it. Were they perfect pictures of grace and harmony? No, but they were trying to navigate this new humanity in a hostile environment. (Three of these churches were in Islamic contexts.) I am trying to communicate in the North American context what I have seen and experienced here, in Europe and in Africa…

Why our democracy is currently broken

2010-11-18T20:57:00.000-08:00

I have felt for some time that our much-heralded democratic government is not working. This documentary gives voice to many of the reasons for this. We have moved past the point of being able to cordially dialog on issues of common concern. Corporate dollars determine media slants. Marketing firms provide branding for candidates, and so called "debates" are measured successful to the degree the candidate stayed "on message." I am embarrassed by some statements made by my fellow Christians in this movie, even as I am chagrined at the historical naivete of some on the left, even though they are educators on the collegiate level. As it looks to me now, the logjam will only be broken by the emergence of a set of issues (or one gigantic one) that drives us out of our boxing corners into mutually-deferential dialog. War doesn't even unite us anymore.

Onward Christian Soldiers?

2010-11-12T08:15:00.000-08:00

A friend sent me the link to this video and asked me to comment on it, which I think I will do here since I would value interaction on this very important issue. In fact, I believe the matter of Christians interacting about Islam is one of the most vital issues of our time, and likely will be for the next 50 years.

Colonel West has answered the question as we would expect a Colonel to answer it. Plus, he is articulate and well read. My point is, West is viewing the issue from the standpoint of national security and military might. He is looking at Islam through the lens of the terrorist threat, and sees the historical agenda of Islam to expand and conquer through military and social needs (he doesn't mention that Muslims buy schools and dig wells, offering the services of such only to those who subscribe to Islam; someone converting to another religion is ostracized, disenfranchised from such services, and disowned by family if not killed. In many countries, oil money from the Middle East funds the construction of mosques every mile or so in order to put forth a presence for Islam leading to the conversion of the entire country). The threat to American security is real. I am not a student of the Q'uran but I am quite confident there are many verses calling Muslims to violence against those who do not believe.

But let's be fair. It is possible the Bible outnumbers the Q'uran in such statements. Reading the Old Testament is a bloody journey, and one shutters to imagine how our loving Father could prescribe so much violence even against innocents, and chastise leaders who failed to obey His commands to slaughter entire cities. I know God always had a good purpose for the training of Israel, but if we're counting violent verses let's not pretend the Q'uran corners the market.

This leads me to a related issue that is also of grave concern to me, and looms as a huge part of the story of how our Christian faith is going to fare in America over the next 50 years (And here I will promptly get myself in trouble with many of my friends). The military mindset expressed so well and properly by Colonel West has become the perspective of the Republican party which in turn has become the passion of many, if not most, conservative evangelicals (especially those of us who are white and established). "Syncretism" is a word that describes the blending of beliefs such that a new belief system is created; it is normally not intended to describe an improvement but a pollution of the original belief. Syncretism as on the march (excuse the pun) in conservative evangelicalism, and this subject reveals one of the main areas where the words and example of Jesus are being hijacked by a military-political-economic agenda.

Here is my heart longing. I know the Church in these United States numbers in the millions. What if we could condense ourselves and walk alongside Jesus as He walks through the towns and cities of America, the way He once walked with His disciples through fields of grain telling them He is Lord of the Sabbath, telling them that His ways and laws were higher than the current thinking of the day? Watching Him interact with the poor and proudly rich, would we not see things so differently? I think He would agree that Colonel West has a very valid point; that there is great cause for concern. But wouldn't Jesus then tell us how He loves all people, including those embedded in the culture of Islam and Hinduism and atheism? Wouldn't He tell us, His followers, that He is not desirous that any of them perish? Wouldn't He tell us not to put our own safety and security as our top priority, but to instead be willing to take up our cross daily and trust Him with our very lives? I think He would tell us to lay down our rights to the American dream and join the majority of the world community that struggles daily with insecurity.

I've gotten wordy with these comments. I think my bottom line is that we are citizens of a temporary country called the United States (with leaders, policies and values that change) alongside our citizenship in an eternal Kingdom (led by the King of kings, whose principles are unchanging). I am thankful for politicians who work to make this a blessed place to live, and I thank the veterans who defend this land. My personal struggle is to be a faithful citizen in both arenas while keeping my eternal loyalty to Jesus as the main filter through which I view everything and make my decisions.

"Kingdom" restraint, please

2010-11-09T19:28:00.000-08:00

I have heard the word "kingdom" used in a variety of ways, some of which confuse or trouble me. Specifically, I am concerned when "kingdom" is used in ways that distinguish it from the Church (i.e. the universal church consisting of all believers in Christ).

For example, a Christian pastor is "kingdom-minded" if he cooperates with leaders from other churches and denominations. The sentiment is, "He isn't building his own kingdom, but really wants to work with others." Why not say he is a servant leader, or that he is humble. Does the use of "kingdom" in this instance add clarity? Shouldn't all pastors cooperate with other Christian leaders?

Here is another usage that I have trouble agreeing with. Let's say Christian leaders cooperate with leaders from different religions (like Islam, Hinduism, etc.) as well as leaders from the political or civic community. They cooperate on a cause, such as ending human trafficking or feeding the poor. This is sometimes labeled a "kingdom cause." This implies that the work of the Church is different from kingdom work. Why is this troublesome? Because it could infer that the kingdom (i.e. of God) consists of doing good, of bettering society, while (again, possibly inferred) the work of the Church is more restrictive. Is not the Church to be doing good and bettering society in the name of Christ? One could draw the conclusion that the Church is sectarian and non-cooperative while the kingdom joins forces with others. It could infer that the Church should not rub shoulders with politicians or leaders of other religions (while kingdom workers can). I think this diminishes the role of the Church. I would rather see our understanding of the work of the Church expanded such that it moves into the marketplace of ideas and initiatives, partnering with non-Christian groups, but doing so not because truth has been temporarily set aside for the purpose of inter-religious cooperation, but as a vibrant conveyor of truth in Christ that willingly risks criticism as it works alongside others who differ.

So, I hesitate to entertain the dichotomy between the Church and the kingdom. If God wants His kingdom to move in and take action, should that not be the very terrain the Church should traverse? Many issues and causes belong to the domain of kingdom, the subjects of which ARE the Church, such as: proclamation of the message of salvation, demonstration of the power of God in working of miracles, healing the sick, setting captives free, ending abuse, delivering from addictions, caring for the planet, improving neighborhoods, reducing crime, digging wells, etc. Which of these should not be the concern of the Church? Again, rather than create a dichotomy between Church and kingdom, why not expand the role of the Church to the extent which (I believe) God intends?

Having argued this way, I will now (ironically) add that I have thought of one way in which the kingdom of God involves a sphere in which the Church has not been asked to go: the sovereign rule of God in the universe and history. God's rule, which comes from His being the King of His Kingdom (and of course Jesus Christ receiving/inheriting that Kingdom, Dan. 7), extends to His sovereign control of the universe He created. The Godhead sustains that universe today (Col. 1), a task the Church has not been called upon to share with God (though we are to be caring for the creation... a far cry from being in control of it as ruler). We do not control the meta-narrative of history (unless perhaps one subscribes to Open Theology); yes, we play our part in our spheres of influence, which are important in their own way, but that does not elevate us to sharing control with the King as to how things go for the world. In (at least) these ways, the Church is distinct from the Kingdom of God.

So I come back to lobbying for a more restrained use of "kingdom," a use which enlarges the capacity of the Church.

Come Join Us! or, May We Help?

2010-10-13T15:43:00.000-07:00

I often check out church websites as I seek ways to minister. Many websites say, "Come Join Us" and they mean it. They want their doors to be open to all.

Many churches are seeing that this is lacking however. People are not willing to risk venturing into a church. The church must go to the people, not with heavy-handed witnessing, but a testimony of a changed life through love. "May we help?" must become the attitude of the church in America today.

"Missional" is the word often given to this shift of perspective.

What are your thoughts about this?

What language will we speak in heaven?

2010-06-17T14:33:00.000-07:00

Our dear long-time friend from Arcadia, Darlene Ashley, asked a great couple of questions in a recent email.

Tell me. What language will we sing and praise the Lord when we see Jesus?
I've always thought how beautiful all the different languages will be. But, the curse of the Tower of Babel will not be in effect . Will it be all one new language?

I've been so poor about blogging lately, I thought I would post my answer to Darlene here. I welcome your input to her good questions....

Hi Darlene,

You have some good questions there. Rev. 5:9 and 7:9 suggest that our cultures will not be removed once we enter the Lord’s presence. That is, unless you argue that the worshippers there used to be of various cultures but are not any more in heaven. But it seems to me that God is going to be delighted with the multi-cultural and multi-lingual worship of all the nations. After all, Jesus clearly died to reach people from every tribe and tongue. It would seem important to him to hear worship in all their languages.

To me, one of the miracles of the Church is that the divisions created by languages at the Tower of Babel have been bridged by the power of the Holy Spirit. This was a key emphasis on the day of Pentecost when the Church officially began in a big way (Acts 2). The big deal there was that all different cultures of the Jews (and proselytes) present heard the good news in their own mother-tongues. The Spirit was making the point that the Church was going to be for all the nations. So heaven, I think, will be that same miracle only in a bigger, bolder scale than we can imagine. Can you fathom all the warring peoples who have fought each other over the centuries suddenly loving each other in the presence of Christ as His equally loved children?! Wow, that is going to be something.

And that is why many of us are laboring to bring in a foretaste of heaven right now, by encouraging churches to take intentional steps in the direction of including all nationalities in their church life, leadership, and worship.

So in answer to your question about what language will we speak… I think we will all speak the language we are most comfortable with, and miraculously, we will all be able to understand each other, and be understood. The other option (or is it a part of the same miracle?) is the instant proficiency of a language suitable for heaven; something like Paul mentions in 2 Cor. 12:4 “how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”

Lyn’s Aunt recently went to be with the Lord. She was a very godly woman. Before dying, she had a vision of Jesus, Being an artist, she was enthralled by the vivid colors emanating from her vision of Christ. She said they were colors she had never seen before. Perhaps the language experience of heaven will be like that. Heaven will be so brilliant and miraculous in every way that it is impossible to compare it with the way things are in this earthly world where the colors are dulled by the Fall, where language is divisive due to pride, and where relationships are fractured by sin. Heaven will not have any of those limitations, but creation itself will be set free from the corruption it now suffers (Rom. 8). Wow, I’m getting excited now!

Well that is a longer answer than you asked for, but you can tell I am passionate about this subject. I only wish I had been more aware of these things when I was pastoring in Arcadia. What a cultural gold mine we were sitting on there!

Bob

Bob Rasmussen
OC International
U.S. Ministries
www.OC-US.org

Social Justice for the Burbs?

2010-05-08T21:10:00.000-07:00

Here is a thoughtful article by Anthony Bradley writing for World Magazine, in which he challenges the notion that "the poor" are urban and black. Excerpt.

According to the latest census data 44 percent of America’s poor population is white while 25 percent is black. Why then does “the poor” have a black or brown face?

Bradley, of African descent by the looks of his picture, does not avoid controversy, such as this statement:

Moving to the city is great and you don’t need to appeal to justice to sanctify it. Seriously. What’s wrong with moving to the city for the consumption of cultural options and opportunities, to save on auto expenses, and to live more efficiently? Besides, most cities could use the beautification and economic face-lift that gentrification brings.

Read article here.

Prejudice should be abnormal

2010-04-27T21:12:00.000-07:00

Col. 3:9-11 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new [man] who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave [nor] free, but Christ [is] all and in all.[NKJV]

This is one of the texts that demonstrates that intercultural fellowship is not a peripheral or optional pursuit for a believer or for a local church. The abolition of cultural and socio-economic walls is part and parcel of Jesus’ greatness. The supremacy of Christ in one of his follower-apprentices, and throughout communities giving Him allegiance, brings about a new creation that reflects His very image. In that new humanity, divisions are destroyed even between the most antagonistic elements of society.

It is not coincidental that the Apostle Paul cites the most rancorous divisions of his day: The clashing cultures of Hebraic and Hellenistic (Jew and Greek), the irreconciliable religions of Monotheistic-Judaism versus Pantheistic Greek mythology (“circumcised nor uncircumcised”), and the socio-economic resentment of the lower, underprivileged class against the upper middle to elite class (“slave…free). And for good measure Paul mentions those on the periphery of nationalities who carried little weight (“barbarians”) and the “Scythians,” pastoral peoples who dwelt in the hinterlands of the north. If you identify the most adversarial groups in any society, you have a more current sense of the strength of what Scripture is declaring here. In America it is the black resentment of the whites, the Native American bitterness toward those with opportunity. Those are the kinds of enmities that Jesus desires to melt away by His reconciling love. This is the powerful “good news” in the ears of peoples that have been at war for as long as they can remember. And such is the kingdom of God coming to earth as it is already decreed in heaven.

The unity envisioned is not based merely on negotiation or compromise over sensitive issues. This is not a peace plan based on tolerance. The image created by the apostles’ words is that of people who formerly and traditionally have hated each other coming together in the acknowledgment that they all must bow the knee to Christ the king, for “Christ is all and in all.” This is a mutual recognition that Christ is so great that all other matters must take second place, that all other rights must be surrendered to the supreme One. Interdependent surrender to Christ is the true basis for lasting reconciliation, the kind that manifests the gospel in power. Christ is all. Not only that, Christ is in all. He is allowed into every area of life both personal, ecclesiastical, and societal. He is allowed into those inner places of the heart where we harbor cultural pride and racism. Christ enters every relationship and transforms every attitude.

Looking at the paragraph in which this statement is found, it becomes apparent that laying aside all prejudice and racism is, in the view of Scripture, on the same level as telling the truth, being kind, and showing mercy. Scripture expects that normal living for the believer is characterized by reaching across society’s divisions and engaging and even embracing those we are expected to dislike. Imagine a world characterized by this new humanity. Imagine the compelling nature of the community of the Jesus-followers.

Good Friday

2010-04-02T14:32:00.000-07:00

Today is “Good Friday” and I began the day pondering how one should spend a day with such a name. How do you appropriately commemorate the day the Son of God paid the ultimate price for all of humankind?

I know that in countries where Roman Catholicism prevails that the faithful re-enact the torturous experience of the Savior by carrying crosses through the streets. Some of the more devout even undergo literal crucifixion. I do not doubt the sincerity of such asceticism, but in my mind I am not at all sure Jesus would ask us to repeat his suffering as a way of showing devotion.

So how would Jesus want me to remember Him on Good Friday? If, nearly 2,000 years ago, as the Son of God spent those hours of abuse and execution,…if He projected into the future to today, how would He hope to be honored by all of His followers? How would He want me to spend the day? Here is what comes to mind.

Today I should be deeply grateful for what Jesus did for me, however feebly I understand the depth of it. Rather than moping around the house with a dire countenance, rather than denying myself of food as a way of identifying with His suffering, I think my best commemoration of His cross is a heart of genuine thanksgiving. I want to remove the clutter of personal concerns, those worries that often vie for my emotional energy, and dwell instead in the lush meadow of His salvation. I want to bask in the provision of eternal life which He won for me by paying with His lifeblood my eternal penalty of condemnation. Because He hung on the cross, I don’t have to. It is finished, the work is done. Glory be to God, in Christ His Son!

Today should also be a day of kindness to others. Jesus made it clear that love was the bottom-line priority of His kingdom. Love was His motive in coming to earth, and the reason He submitted to the cross. What better way to honor Him on Good Friday than to show His love to others. I want to focus today on being a loving husband and dad. I want my neighbors to be glad I moved onto their street. I want my pastor to be encouraged that we joined the church. And I want my teammates to reflect joyfully that we are serving the Lord together. I want my mother to be glad she got me as a son, and for my dad to nod over at his Father in heaven as if to say, “That’s my boy.”

One other thought emerges. I think Jesus would want me to reflect on the blessed life I enjoy. I am surrounded by so many people who also enjoy a favored lifestyle it would be easy for me to assume this is what I have coming to me. I am blessed to live in America, to have a nice home to live in and a good car to drive. Jesus didn’t live in such a time or place. He knew personal hardship and sought out people in villages and cities who found themselves on the outside of privilege wishing they could get in. Today I want to honor Jesus by reflecting on the goodness of God in my life, refusing to take it for granted. I want to live simply, to give away things I don’t need or even use. I want to accentuate my awareness of those around the world today who live in poverty, who hurt physically or emotionally, and who live in spiritual darkness, unaware that a righteous Man died so as to redeem them from slavery to sin.

This is the man I want to be for Jesus today.

Preaching in a Multicultural World

2010-03-04T10:12:00.000-08:00

If you are ministering in a city, anywhere in the world, you should be aware that you are preaching to an audience that brings many different worldviews. The challenge is, you as a preacher have only one worldview. So it is your task to try to understand something of the various worldview in your audience and attempt to communicate clearly to them.

The Scriptures are written exclusively by writers from eastern worldviews. They were Middle Easterners. As such their worldview contrasts significantly from the western worldview. The eastern worldview cannot be generalized for there are many variations within it. Yet, in contrast to a more western worldview, we can say that easterners have a more cyclical than linear perspective. When a preacher or teacher from a western worldview expounds the Bible, he will try to put events in a chronological line-up from beginning to end; he will tend to put things in an outline format. But the eastern mind is more cyclical. Events come and go in iterations. This is especially significant in interpretation of prophecy. But that is a huge subject when one talks of hermeneutics as it relates to the worldview of the interpreter versus that of the human author.

A practical consideration regarding preaching is that of methodology. Some of your listeners (in a multicultural context) are oral learners while you may be of a literate/reading culture. If you are seminary trained you most certainly received a literate education and learned a literate preaching style with outline, illustrations. You tend to lead with the main point and then develop it with textual material and illustrations. This is the method I learned and as a westerner find most convenient.

However, some of your audience is oral, i.e. they learn better through stories and concrete examples or objects. They do not find it easy to think in the abstract. The preacher who wants to communicate clearly to them will seek to use story often. When he gives illustrations, they will not be abstract but concrete. For example, the oral/concrete learner envisions a round shape and thinks of its practical use, such as a pot or a floor mat. If an abstract-think describes a circle as representative of all humanity, or of the sphere of influence, he will not be connecting with the oral learners in his audience.

The best way to proceed is to have some conversations with attenders from African, Middle Eastern, and some (south) Asian countries and ask what aspects of your preaching they find most helpful. You could be brave and ask what aspects of your preaching do not communicate so clearly.

What's Most Important: the Schedule or the People?

2010-02-18T14:09:00.000-08:00

In chapter two, Lingenfelter and Mayers contrast Time-Orientation with Event-Orientation.

TIME-ORIENTATION

Concern for punctuality and amount of time expected
Careful allocation of time to achieve the maximum within set limits
Tightly scheduled, goal-directed activities
Rewards offered as incentives for efficient use of time
Emphasis on dates and history

EVENT-ORIENTATION

Concern for details of the event, regardless of time required
Exhaustive consideration of a problem until resolved
A "let come what may" outlook not tied to any precise schedule
Stress on completing the event as a reward in itself
Emphasis on present experience rather than the past or future

Like most European-Americans, I am more Time than Event in orientation, and I am surrounded by people and culture pretty much the same. So when I go to plan a meeting, I am blind to the fact that not everyone has the same expectations, especially where that meeting is an intercultural one. I remember many times in rural Kenya where our pastoral training conferences would start anywhere from one to three hours after the stated starting time. But the actual starting time was when a sufficient number of pastors arrived and greetings exchanged. We missionaries would sweat it out, wondering how we would cover all our material in the time remaining (no wonder we expatriates are called wazungu, which refers to those who go around in circles!).

What are the implications for ministry settings, be they multi-ethnic churches or mission agencies seeking to "internationalize"? More often than not (I would guess) those convening the gathering are of a Time orientation. We set out the purpose of the meeting and design a schedule to achieve it.We set the groundrules and expect others to adapt to them. As Lingenfelter writes, "Time-oriented persons typically have specific objectives they want to accomplish within a given period. They will set a time within which they must finish a job or carry out a specific activity. People with this orientation often fill their time to its maximum potential. Their lives take on a frantic pace and are so filled with appointments that nothing can be done on the spur of the moment" (p.40). And I would add a Time-oriented leader who seeks to accommodate Event-oriented participants will likely get accused of inefficiency by those oriented to time!

The strength of Event-oriented people is in quality of relationships and decisions. "For them, meetings begin when the last person arrives and end when the last person leaves. Participation and completion are the central goals. For event-oriented people, playing the game is indeed more important than winning. They also differ in their style of managing problems or crises. Whereas time-oriented people will quickly grow weary of discussion and call for a vote, event-oriented people will exhaustively consider a problem, hearing all issues and deliberating until they reach unanimous agreement" (p. 42).

But (we argue), people who have risen to levels of leadership in mission organizations or denominations have adapted to western-style meetings and communications. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in a position to attend. I wonder if that is as true as we assume, and I wonder what we are losing in expecting others to accommodate our blind assumption that our way is the best way.

In an multi-ethnic church setting, it must seem very abrupt to an Event-oriented participant for the worship service to end just when the Spirit was starting to impact lives. The "event" was in mid-strength when it suddenly ran into the schedule. Commenting on the repetition of choruses which we Anglos often complain about, an African-American explained that in his culture, "We sing a song until we can feel it."

When there are people with different orientations ministering together in the same group, the object is not to get the minority group to adapt to those in charge. Rather, there is an opportunity to draw on the substance that bridges the gap and draws forth the presence of Jesus more fully. I refer to humility. "An important key to effective cross-cultural ministry is an incarnational attitude toward time and event--we must adapt to the time and event priorities of the people with whom we work. When we Americans enter other cultures, however, we often bring a cultural blindness to this issue. We feel the urgency of time and orient our lives to reflect our own culture. God commands us, however, to do nothing out of self-centeredness but to consider others better than ourselves (Phil. 2:3-5) (p.50).

Why churches naturally exclude

2010-02-09T11:00:00.000-08:00

I am beginning to re-read Ministering Cross-Culturally (Lingenfelter and Mayers, Baker Academic) in preparation for taking a small group to Kenya. While I always profit from these discussions in the context of foreign mission, I now cannot help but reflect on issues of culture through the lens of the multiculturalism of the USA and the West in general.

Lingenfelter writes, "Acceptance in our groups comes at the cost of exclusion from the groups of others. An attempt to belong to groups whose standards are in conflict with ours produces emotional stress within us and antagonism in our relationships with others. For this reason, most of us choose to belong only to those groups within which we find people who have standards and values similar to our own. As a consequence of our choices, the communities we form include some and exclude others." (p. 21)

Intentionally intercultural churches are therefore a challenge because we must reverse this instinctive exclusion to include those who are different, whose values and behaviors clash with those that are natural to us.

At the same time, as a community hailing from different cultures work together over time to understand, appreciate and draw from each other, a new kind of meta-culture can form among them. In the same way that every person ultimately has their own unique personal culture, surely every church (including multicultural ones) has its own unique culture. (I suppose this might lend credence to the idea that the homogeneous unit principle is unavoidable, even in the multi-ethnic church philosophy which chastises the HUP).

Here is another quote: "The cultural bias we share with others in our communities becomes a consensus we use to protect ourselves from others.... The comfort of our community becomes a bias toward [against?] others and a blindness to viable relationships different from our own. (p.22)

This is where the HUP turns ugly even as it does its good work of community preservation and strengthening. Shared culture shuns those who are excluded and thereby misses the opportunity to learn that there are aspects of other cultures that are actually worth evaluating and even adopting. People who leave a multiethnic church because they are not willing to consider the benefits of other cultures have made a decision to stay within the safe fortress of their community. I cannot fault them for this because I (and all of us) do the same thing, we just choose different levels of risk. I may take some risk in living in Kenya, or joining a primarily African-American church in Federal Way. As a result I might consider myself superior to someone who stays in their comfortable church made up of people pretty much like them. But I have also limited my risk in that I have not gone for 50 years to a city that is 100% muslim or Hindu; I have not sold my house and gone to live in a pre-historic village in a forest somewhere. We all make self-preserving choices. (And how did I get on that topic?)

For those who are willing to attempt the risk of multi-ethnic church, read this next quote (in which the author speaks to the cross-cultural missionary) from the standpoint of building trusting relationships across cultural lines in your multiethnic local church: "The practice of incarnation (i.e., a willingness to learn as if we were helpless infants) is the first essential step toward breaking this pattern of excluding others. Missionaries, by the nature of their task, must become personally immersed with people who are different. To follow the example of Christ, that of incarnation, means undergoing drastic personal reorientation. They must be socialized all over again into a new cultural context. They must enter a culture as if they were children--ignorant of everything, from the customs of eating and talking to the patterns of work, play, and worship." (p. 22-3)

One of my concerns in the multiethnic movement in the USA is that many of the practitioners do not seem to have this missionary mindset. Of course I don't know what is in their hearts. But if the movement is to be reconciliatory, the leadership will need to pave the way and have this sacrificial, incarnational commitment. If the multi-ethnic pursuit is seen primarily as a way of better reflecting the changing neighborhood around the church, or if it is basically an implementation of the Biblical passages that call for it, without this deeper issue of self-denial to the point of incarnation, then the efforts will stop short of their potential as external witness and internal transformation.

I think an interesting question to discuss this would be: Must incarnational church life be a special calling from God, or does He expect it of all his kids?

Another would be: How is my community life helping me learn "drastic personal reorientation" that comes with doing life with those of different cultures than my own?

P.S. (will this post ever end!?) Funny enough, this is one area where the "missional" conversation doesn't benefit from the "missionary" world. How much missional activity preserves cultural safety while launching efforts at (or to) the unreached?

Does this stuff push any buttons for anyone out there?

2010-01-27T21:50:00.000-08:00

This is the marvelous location we enjoyed for two weeks in Jerusalem. It is the roof of Peter and Lauren's apartment (our kids); the tower on the left is a Catholic church on Mt. Zion. The hill in the center that slopes down to the right is the old City of David. The distant hill in the right is the Mount of Olives. The Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount is visible but barely about a third of the way in from the left of the picture. Can you believe I got to enjoy this view daily? We had Christmas dinner around those table and chairs at night! My, what a privilege to be there with my whole family.

Islam and American lifestyle

2010-01-12T17:25:00.000-08:00

In response to excellent article at http://europenews.dk/en/node/14505
I reply:Yes, I agree with much of this article. Americans will have to come to the realization that the ECONOMY actually is not our number one concern.

Interestingly, Islamization will probably lead to the revival of Christianity as the clash of ideologies forces nominal Christians to choose to serve Jesus or accommodate any other religion so as to preserve “our way of life.” The article does not mention that there are outbreaks of the Kingdom of Christ throughout Europe, a vibrant remnant that is willing to live and sacrifice for Jesus. This is why the Kingdom of God is resilient and cannot be crushed. But if a person associates Christianity’s success with maintenance of American way of life, they are going to be sadly disappointed that God does not uphold that association.

One other miss in the article is the fact that God loves Arabs and Palestinians, that Jesus died for them out of love. When we view world developments only through political and lifestyle and freedom lenses, we miss the call on each of our lives to pray for the salvation and redemption of all peoples, even Muslims. “Love your enemy” takes on a different hue when reading an excellent and important article such as this.

Sorry for muddying the waters, but that’s me,

Bob

Subversive Gospel

2009-12-05T09:00:00.000-08:00

The essence of our message, the very person we represent and proclaim is counter to the system and values of society, of humanity as it has developed. It seeks to recruit and train a band of rebels who will fight for and even die for the principles of Jesus. This gospel is disgusted at the way things are. Where there is division and segregation and prejudice, it proclaims unity and mutual respect. Where there is injustice, abuse, cruelty, it preaches and demonstrates compassion and fairness. Where there is addiction and imprisonment, it proclaims true freedom and forgiveness. Where there is pride and power, it topples the high and mighty, empowering those with no voice. Where there is ignorance and eternal condemnation, it proclaims forgiveness of sins and eternal life. The kingdom of God quietly undermines the kingdom of this world as a counter-insurgency.

When the gospel takes root and grows up among a group of people, all of whom ascribe allegiance to their revolutionary Leader, they become an infiltrating force seeking to overthrow the bastions of evil that are well-entrenched but must be changed. Their methods are as revolutionary as their agenda. For one, they are not physically violent, unwilling to destroy property or harm life in any form. They don't take up arms, nor are their means political in nature. Legislation, maneuvering from state capitols, alliances with money and power--these are not the ways of the Jesus followers. Nor is economic clout which buys favor or brings cosmetic change that can be outdone by another surge in spending. No, the subversive gospel overturns bastions of pride with humility, of hate with love, of evil with good.

People of the gospel infiltrate family and society where they live as the Master did. In business they treat others with fairness and respect. In their homes they nurture spouses and children and parents for their good. In neighborhoods they show compassion and helpfulness. Their speech is gracious while truthful. Their pocketbooks proclaim honesty and generosity. When wronged, they forgive and even counter offense with a favor. When persecuted they bear it as a privilege. When seeing the work of evil well-disguised in society, their hearts break with compassion. They become known not for self-righteous criticism of those who differ, but for holding firmly for truth while lovingly correcting those who disagree. In this way whole cities hear of these unusual people who love each other sacrificially, who refuse to cheat or gossip, who live for another world that is yet to come, and who work now to bring in the character of that world for the blessing of all.

This is the subversive gospel that quietly topples grand towers of egotism. This is the message that confronts pride by its resilient weakness. This is the good news to thirsty souls that have grown tired of fighting for status. This is the embodiment of the Revolutionary in the people who follow Him. This is a pursuit worth commiting ones entire life to. And that is what I have done.

Creation

2009-11-13T20:30:00.000-08:00

Intriqued.
Today they say there is water on the moon.
Then where are the signs of evolution?

Intriqued.
Yesterday my bride and I walked by a forest.
Effortlessly it boasted color and texture.
Life.
Parts were dying, so others could live.
All in synchronization.

Olympic National Forest

Without Love

2009-11-13T20:14:00.000-08:00

It seems to talk about cross-cultural competency or multiethnic church is premature until we talk about loving others, loving everyone in Jesus' name. The heart of love drives the hands of reconciliation.

Though I speak of the virtues of welcoming the nations, and enlighten the masses about cultural competency, but have not love, I am nothing.
Though I have a church of 20% Latinos and 20% Blacks and 20% Asians and 20% Anglos and 20% Pacific Islanders, yet have not love, I am merely counting heads.
If I don't look my neighbor in the eye, and hear his story--if I don't have him in my home and visit his, if I don't ask about his hurts and reconcile our differences, I am merely pursuing a strategy, merely playing church with diversity--I have not love, I am a missional sham.

Lord, I desire to be a "vessel of honor"--a useful, sharp tool you can readily and frequently reach for and find satisfactory for the job. I offer myself fresh today.

Pilgrim Theology

2009-06-24T17:32:00.000-07:00

"These all died in faith, not having received the promises but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth" (Hebrews 11:13, emphasis mine)

Not only are we called to be hospitable to strangers, we are called to be strangers ourselves, to be so fixed on future life as to be detached from this one, unpossessed by the present. I am not to know all the nuances of this world, not at all comfortable with it--for I live for a future place with another set of values. I must be bicultural--able to move and minister in the world, but one foot reaching out, stepping forward into what is unknown--a "homeland" (v.14).

A friend of mine expained a simple way to differentiate between a refugee and an immigrant. Because a refugee left his homeland under duress, he looks back longingly, regretably. Because an immigrant left his homeland voluntarily, he looks ahead expectantly, hopefully. As believers, we should imitate immigrants, tackling what is new and unknown because we pursue a better future.

Should not we who are to live as strangers and pilgrims to this world have special grace for those who must live that way now? Of all people, shouldn't Christians take interest in those who leave their homeland, since they epitomize the life to which our faith calls us? My own travels have given me a taste of wandering, of being new and an "outsider," of getting lost and needing advice and assistance from local insiders. Perhaps this is why I am drawn to those who have come to new lands as immigrants, who face the struggle to get settled. We need immigrants--not just to help them, but to learn from them.

That's why I need to be in community with people different than myself, people who have come from faraway places, or at least other cultures and worldviews. They teach me not to cling to surroundings for security, but to God; to make friends along the way who can help me; to take a learner's approach, getting what I need and using what I get (the LAMP method of language learning); to learn a new language so as to hear and be heard. Immigrants teach me to live in hope of promise, to borrow strength from a future dream, to think of my children and their potential rather than being content with my own fulfillment now.

Yes, I need to find myself a community of fellow strangers who can remind me I am not made for this world, not expected to see all promises fulfilled. I need comrades, fellow wanderers, walking in convoy toward home

How would my life be different if I fully believed and professed my pilgrim status on earth?

Darwinian Truths

2009-06-24T17:18:00.000-07:00

When visiting our friends Ron and Mikel Ann Pritz in Ashford England, I picked up the March 2009 copy of English Heritage magazine (see http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/). The issue featured two English heroes, King Henry VIII and Charles Darwin. Steve Jones, Biologist and Professor of genetics at UCL is quoted:

Darwin was interested in the transforming power of the tiny. Something which seemed trivial, unimportant but given long enough could have dramatic impact.

In my opinion, God's creation and sustaining of the world is compatible with Darwin's basic principles. God is fully at work in the wonderful display of change and survival. He does not run a static universe. Darwin's big mistake was to conclude from a host of brilliant observations that God was unnecessary to explain our physical origins.

Darwin was, I think, a brilliant man from whom Christians should learn a lot, such as:
1. the transformative power of the tiny
2. small things (like seeds) travel far, survive, multiply and adapt to new surroundings
3. change is constant, and sometimes very slow
4. living things are resilient
5. death is inevitable; let dead things die; death allows other things/ideas/movements to live.

The opening quote stirs my thinking regarding vision. Where tiny things or tiny influences are organic and multiplicative, they can spread broadly, given enough time and the right conditions. Too often we look for things that give quick results, that we can observe in transformation. What if we strategized to initiate tiny changes that would not be observable for 200 years! What might those incremental initiatives be?

When 20% of "Us" is "Them"

2009-05-12T10:24:00.000-07:00

In Tipping Point [Back Bay Books, c2000], Malcolm Gladwell cites sociological studies that indicated a shift in integrating neighborhoods:

The expression [tipping point] first came into popular use in the 1970s to describe the flight to the suburbs of whites living in the older cities of the American Northeast. When the number of incoming African Americans in a particular neighborhood reached a certain point--20 percent, say--sociologists observed that the community would "tip": most of the remaining whites would leave almost immediately. The tipping Point is the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point." (p.12)

So the whites decide, "Fine, our neighborhood has reached a point of change we don't want to cope with anymore. We're out of here." This is sad and wrong, but not the point of this post. The point is, there must be a progression that is true of neighborhoods and true of churches in transition.

Toleration -- perhaps at 10% change; transition is coming; it is uncomfortable but tolerable
Tension -- perhaps at 15% change; resisters are increasingly discomforted; some leave, others voice protest
Tipping -- the point at which dissenters decide they no longer wish to tolerate; they either fight back or capitulate

This surely happens in churches in any number of ways:

a new theology brought in by the pastor influences an increasing percentage of the congregation
a new ministry approach (such as missional thinking) is adopted by an increasing percentage of the congregation

It is often said (based on research done by Emerson and Smith, written of in Divided By Faith) that if 20% of a congregation is not of the dominant group, it is considered a multi-ethnic church. That has always struck me as a low number, not enough to qualify a church as multi-ethnic. But the neighborhood study cited by Gladwell lends some credence to it. At 20% the (let me call them) Builders who have worshipped, led, raised kids in, built buildings, hired staff--all within the comfort of their cultural and economic preferences--have already passed through the three "T's"

The Builders tolerated "them" (i.e. the culturally-different) at 10%, accepting that they had a right to come to the church, but considering some of their attitudes and practices odd. But good for the Builders, they reached out occasionally and tried to befriend them.
But at 15% of "them," tensions emerged. The fact that their numbers continued to climb, indicated that they were comfortable enough to invite their friends, who were inviting their friends. The invasion was on. And it was clear that, even with time, the minority was not changing their attitudes; they weren't adapting. They were as different as always. The tension only mounted. Some Builders left. Those who stayed became more vocal in their displeasure with what was happening to their church. They feared losing the church they had come to love.
At 20% things tipped. More Builders than you would expect suddenly had enough. They departed seemingly as a group. The leadership had not heard their plea to preserve the church, but were letting this trend continue. Builders who didn't leave decided to stay tolerant, watching cautiously; they would withhold judgment for now. Some Builders embraced the change, seeing it as a positive trend, one to be encouraged. (These were the ones who understand the Biblical view of strangers, hospitality, the church, etc.)

At tipping point, these three reactions--departure, tolerance, embrace--combined to bring a kind of relief. Much of the tension was broken or at least lessened for now. The atmosphere of the church had changed.

The 20% of "them" felt the change too; their presence wasn't as much of a challenge to the church. Some began to feel they belonged.

The leaders who were happy to see this trend wondered if they should have pushed to reach the tipping point sooner for it might have lessened the pain in the long run. Forced the tip.

The work of doing church together in mutuality still lay before them. Their story was still in the early chapters. The percentage wasn't the point. Beginning the journey of living for Jesus with humility and grace alongside of, and interdependent with those who are different--that is the point. When the character tips to love, then you have something that gets attention.

What do you think?

Bonus: I just noticed this scribble I made in the back of United By Faith: "There is a way to be missional by your very make-up. If worldlings could see a group of people living together in oneness, sharing life and resources, across lines of race, culture, class, age, and gender, they would have a hard time denying it's authenticity or resisting its attractiveness. Even if a monocultural congregation turns outward and impacts its community, is the witness as powerful as a multi-racial church acting supernaturally toward one another and doing good works, together, in the community as well?"

10 dynamics of today's mission context

2009-04-15T20:42:00.000-07:00

CONTEXT: What are ten noteworthy dynamics in the current and anticipated context (U.S. and global)? Or, what is happening that practitioners should understand if they are to be effective? (Random order)

1. Post-Christianity; increasing numbers of westerners claim no religious affiliation. Number of “unchurched” also increasing in USA.

2. Globalization/flattening; a dramatic increase in international communication and business due to advances in travel and technology.

3. Refugees and Immigration; increases in many major cities; “Gateway Cities” tracked by Brookings Institution; heightened caution due to terrorism; workers report inherent and systemic injustices in treatment of detainees.

4. Resource saturation and overcommitment; hyper-opportunity; many available human resources are in fact unavailable due to involvement in too many endeavors to be effective or contented in any.

5. Tolerant multi-culturalism without engagement; multi-cultural acceptance (Obama); many consider racism to be a thing of the past, or localized (elsewhere); the “melting pot” concept is now considered a “salad bowl” in which elements are mixed but not blended, co-existent but not collaborative.

6. Economic downturn; more under poverty line; increased unemployment; greater national debt and increased burden on next generation; heightened desperation leading to violence; greater self-protectionism.

7. Religious nationalism and regionalism (globally); Islam inseparable from nationhood in countries where it dominates; aggressive strategies.

8. Social and ecological fragility; overextended development/modernity with little concern or understanding of long-term ramifications.

9. Post-modernity; intuitive processes of self- and communal-discovery emerging instead of empirical conclusions based on authority sources.Post-Christianity; increasing numbers of westerners claim no religious affiliation. Number of “unchurched” also increasing in USA.

10. What would you add?

A great man... my father

2009-04-08T19:41:00.000-07:00

GORDON F. RASMUSSEN

Dr. Gordon F. Rasmussen, 86, of Turlock, California was ushered into the presence of his Lord and Savior on March 26, 2009. He is remembered as a loving husband, father, pastor, missionary and friend, and a humble servant of the Gospel of Christ.

Gordon was born and raised in Seattle, Washington. He served his country with the U.S. Marines in WWII and was trained as a Japanese translator. Gordon also worked in his early years as an FBI agent (including a stint searching out Nazi operatives in Argentina), as a radio announcer, and as a Youth for Christ chapter president. Following the war, he met an Army nurse and the love of his life, June Edman, and they were married in 1949. They both felt God's calling on their lives to full time ministry, and just two months after getting married, they left for Japan as missionaries with the Pocket Testament League. Among those who came to know the Lord during the three years of ministry in Japan was Mitsuo Fuchida, the Commander who led Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.

After returning from Japan, Gordon received his Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1957. He returned to the mission field, this time to Nigeria, Africa, with his wife and four kids in tow, ages 6 months to 10 years old. Most of Gordon's work was in the jungle villages of Africa, culminating with personally handing his 5 millionth Bible to the President of Dahomey. Although the rest of Gordon's life and ministry was in the States, he provided continual encouragement to missionaries throughout his life.

Gordon pastored churches in Dallas, Chicago, and Everett, Washington prior to moving to Turlock, California, where he was called as the senior pastor of Beulah Covenant Church. Turlock would become "home" to Gordon and his family. In 1965, God moved him to establish a non-denominational church in Turlock, Monte Vista Chapel. Gordon served as senior pastor of Monte Vista Chapel for 15 years and witnessed God's goodness and blessing in remarkable ways.

In 1974, Gordon obtained his Ph.D from the California Graduate School of Theology. He served as President of Shasta Bible College in Redding, California from 1981 – 1985, after which he joined the Neighborhood Church of Redding as an associate pastor, where he served amidst a loving congregation until his retirement in 1994.

Gordon loved to play tennis, work in the yard, study God's Word and sing hymns. He was gentle and compassionate, and a man of integrity. He had a heart for the lost and the needy, and pursued God's glory above all things. He was a loving and faithful husband and father, and we miss him. But we are rejoicing that he is now filled with immeasurable joy as he worships at the feet of his Savior in heaven.

Gordon is survived by his wife of 59 years, June; his four children and their spouses, Jack and Bonnie Rasmussen of Novato, CA; Bob and Lyn Rasmussen of Federal Way, WA; Rich and Pam Rasmussen of San Gabriel, CA; and Diane and Scott Hefner of Macon, GA; along with nine grandchildren and two great grandchildren. He was preceded in death by his parents, Ole and Hilma Rasmussen; his stepfather, Harold Lyman; his sister, Dorothy Christie; and legions of people who came to know Christ through his life and ministry.

A memorial service will be held at Monte Vista Chapel in Turlock, California on Saturday, April 4, 2009 at 2:00 pm. All are welcome. In lieu of flowers, the family suggests a contribution in memory of Gordon Rasmussen to OC International at P.O. Box 36900, Colorado Springs, CO 80936 [Rasmussen Account], or to the missionary of your choice.

My dad's homegoing

2009-04-08T19:07:00.000-07:00

My dad went to heaven on March 26, 2009.

I began to say my father "passed away," but stopped myself short of uttering that clearly unBiblical expression. Dad didn't float into the unknown mist, didn't vanish untraceably into nothingness. Rather, Gordon Rasmussen, went, at just the time God appointed, in just the way appointed, to be with God who created him. Dad went into the existence he was created to enjoy, in the presence of the Almighty God.

Nothing like the sickness of a loved one tests your theology. My dad had been sick for some time, losing mental capacity, losing bodily dexterity, losing his apparent contribution to society. So what were we as a family to make of it? If we were humanists, or Christians who didn't really believe our theology, we would regret his departure as our last opportunity to be with dad. But given our theology, and conviction of its truthfulness, we were able to release our father (and husband, grandfather, uncle, friend) to his graduation to glory.

So our "Celebration of the life and ministry of Gordon Rasmussen" was truly a celebration. That is not to say I have not had tears...when my brother Jack called informing me of dad's death, I cried for the loss, out of regret that dad had to suffer. But mainly mine were tears of relief for dad, for my mother, and for all of us who had cared for him as best we could.

In a way, I cried out of sympathy for all the fatherless in our world, for I was having just a mere taste of that loneliness. I thought of countless children who never knew a father in their whole lives. I on the other hand, had been blessed with a dad who was loving, honest, and a man of God. I'll try to post a summary of his extraordinary life soon.

How should I dress for church?

2009-01-26T20:38:00.000-08:00

Patty Lane, in her excellent book, "A Beginner's Guide to Crossing Cultures" discusses HIGH CONTEXT CULTURES and LOW CONTEXT CULTURES. High context culture places a high degree of meaning on the context which includes environment, process, body language and appearance. Her first point re: High Cultures is that "The context of an event is as important as the event itself" (p. 49).

This made me think of the past weekend. Lyn and I have joined a multi-ethnic church near our home, a real God-send since we wanted to be involved in such a church and found one so close. We have a wonderful African-American pastor who really feeds the flock from the Word. Anyhow, I was invited to preach for the second time this past weekend. I dressed very casually, as in blue jeans and a reddish long-sleeve shirt. Background: last year the pastor announced that in the new year we were all going to start dressing casually so that anyone and everyone feels welcome and comfortable. Great, I love casual.

Lyn and I have been attending the Saturday night service to try to help build some consistency in that time slot. That service is totally casual in dress; we sit around tables and eat hot dogs during the warm-up. Picture really casual. So I come into the service last Sunday morning and guess what, folks ain't casual. Even though the pastor announced casual, and the people likely started out that way, most have driften (or swung back) toward a middle ground of what I'll call "business casual in basic black."

So Patty Lane says that some cultures, in which we would have to include the African-American culture, considers it appropriate to dress up for church. If you got a nice suit, you best be wearing it on Sunday morning. She writes about knowing the context of a particular group before going there so as to dress and act appropriately. To quote, "When I attend an African American church, I will dress in a suit or nice dress and heels, because the context of worship in this community is high" (p. 51).

Now here is the rub and here is where I would like your opinion. I don't attend an African-American church, even though my best guess is that 75% of the attenders are black. Still, I attend an intentionally multi-ethnic church with the stated vision, "Growing people from every tribe, tongue, and nation into disciples." A part of my California-via-urbanKenya background is casual dress, even in church. That is the culture ("low context" to use Lane's term) that I bring into this intercultural church. It is good for them to see the Word of God preached from a plain dressed man. In a sense, I represent the low context Anglo who visits, sees me on the platform, preaching no less, and concludes, "Cool, Idon't have to dress up to fit in here."

But it is not good for the majority African-Americans to be offended by a preacher with the title of "Reverend" who apparently doesn't understand that the context of an event, the respect paid to an event, is as important as the event itself.

Such is just one of the challenges of churches intent on blending cultures. How are you discovering these clashes of High and Low cultures? What working these days?

Pathetic Lessons from Gaza

2009-01-18T09:33:00.000-08:00

I've been fascinated to see "Gaza" in the Old Testament as the ancient land of the Philistines, the nemesis of Israeli kings. Also, cities currently targeted by Hamas rockets are historic towns on the pages of Scripture--Ashdod, Askelon, Beer Sheba.

I welcome your correction or disagreement, but here is my take on the recent month-long war between Israeli forces and the Palestinians in Gaza (Oh, sorry, the attack was only against the Hamas leaders, not the Palestinian people themselves).

Things I see:

1. Israel can initiate whatever aggression it wants against the Palestinian settlements. With these occasional strikes, they can keep the Palestinians weakened. Thus, whatever rhetoric they give about a peace process, they occupy and control the land.

2. Neither the USA nor any other strong power will step in to either stop Israel or protect the Palestinians. It is a powder keg no one cares to get involved with.

3. Hamas leaders will sacrifice the lives of their own people in order to stay in power, even though their leadership is ineffective and fruitless.

4. The Israeli occupational strategy effectively keeps hatred alive within the Palestinian community, ensuring ongoing conflict. Resolution is not really a desire or goal of either side, because there is too much suspicion to trust any peace agreement.

5. A "litmus test" for American evangelicals is support for Israel (and by default, apathy toward the plight of common Palestinians). It doesn't seem to cause much concern to Christians that many Palestinians are brothers and sisters in Christ. For all our talk about our faith taking priority over our nationality and political affiliation, we seem to tolerate inconsistency (hypocrisy?) on this point.

6. Most Palestinian people are the product of their context, which fundamently means being hated and therefore hating in return. Alongside that, they are like everyone else, people who feel obliged to be loyal to their religion, who want to raise their families in peace, and how want their enemies to go away. (Israelis are a product of their context too)

7. The Jews and Palestinians live on contested land, each claiming historical, political and religious right to the same real estate. Each claims the right to exist as a nation. I do not fully understand why each resists the nationhood of the other.

8. I am an evangelical myself. I believe God still has promises to keep for Israel, not the least of which is a revival in the end times (Rom. 11). I have often felt that praying for the peace of Jerusalem and Israel meant Israel's victory over her enemies, or a kind of detente. I am coming to believe it is much more complicated than that.

9. Many (or most?) Palestinians would treat Israelis the same or worse if they had the stronger military might. They would occupy the land and oppress Israel, and would likely attack America. They voted for Hamas because they wanted more aggressive action for their plight. They got what they voted for.

10. The Israeli political leaders have political motivations. Elections are coming up; parties and individuals are posturing for increased power. Perhaps the "lame duck" presidency of George Bush, preceding an anticipated negotiating style of President Obama, provided an urgency to deal the Palestinians this blow at this time.

If this summary makes you mad, I am sorry. I welcome your input and response, but please don't just repeat platitudes that you have heard over and over. I am tired of platitudes.

Jesus the Only Way?

2008-12-27T16:16:00.000-08:00

I recently bought a cord of "dry firewood" (said the guy on the phone). It isn't dry. So I'm constantly having to coax the fire into burning.

Maybe that's why the fire of American Christianity doesn't burn very well. We need some dry wood.

I continue to be troubled by the Pew Research study that concluded that 57% of self-identifying evangelicals think that someone can be saved by other means that Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter how missional we are in methodology, if we don't have our message right, we are spreading the wrong kingdom.

The Pulpit Test
Now here is my question: What are evangelical pastors preaching that allows for such weak doctrine? What are they saying, or not saying, about hell and judgment? How are they treating the statements of Jesus and Paul that there is only one way?

This relates to cultures intermingling. As evangelicals befriend immigrants, as our kids go to school with immigrant kids, our respect for their culture must not carry over to accomodation of unBiblical theology.

Did evangelicals take their eye off the ball? Did we focus on abortion and gay marriage to the extent we ignored the basics of love and salvation? And is it happening again? Are the new evangelicals looking at creation care and sustainable development more closely than salvation in Christ alone? Did McCain and Obama get us to blink?

Beware the Whispering Evangelists
Soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, is everywhere. And so are the preachers.

Atheism preaches a soteriology of rejection--there is no God, no salvation or deed of it.

Agnosticism preaches a soteriology of ignorance, neutrality, or apathy--it cannot be known.

Non-Christian religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam preach soteriologies of disagreement--there are ways besides Christ, better ways, to be saved.

Unitarianism preaches a soteriology of accomodation--there are many paths to God; Jesus is one of several; take your pick.

Universalism preaches a soteriology of magnanimity --all will eventually be saved, none lost; the discussion is unnecessary.

Some Christian churches (such as Mormon, Roman Catholic, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.) preach a soteriology of denominationalism--yes, salvation is in Christ, but you must take our particular slant on Him; join our group and find salvation; it isn't as simple as grace through faith.

The American believer, and preacher, dwells in a sea of treacherous soteriologies. Are we training ourselves to recognize their differing voices, and clarify with truth? How can we advance God's mission if we are confused about His message?

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (Jn. 14:6)

Paul wrote, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (1 Tim. 2:3-6; emphasis mine).

John described Jesus' uniqueness: "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him" (Jn. 1:18)

We desperately need a new, multi-generational, multi-cultural army of preachers and teachers who design new innovative methods and church forms while hanging tenaciously to this essential truth. If proclamation is conceived as a pleasant occupation which pleases most, we have failed to recognize the antagonistic nature of our message. We have refused to let it be the "foolishness" it is intended to be. We have failed to sacrifice popularity on the altar of an accurate soteriology.

Tolerance our quiet undoing

2008-12-26T14:58:00.000-08:00

or, our theological slippage is showing.

Time magazine reported on a study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1817217,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-bottom

I quote:
Americans of every religious stripe are considerably more tolerant of the beliefs of others than most of us might have assumed, according to a new poll released Monday. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life last year surveyed 35,000 Americans, and found that 70% of respondents agreed with the statement "Many religions can lead to eternal life." Even more remarkable was the fact that 57% of Evangelical Christians were willing to accept that theirs might not be the only path to salvation, since most Christians historically have embraced the words of Jesus, in the Gospel of John, that "no one comes to the Father except through me." Even as mainline churches had become more tolerant, the exclusivity of Christianity's path to heaven has long been one of the Evangelicals' fundamental tenets. The new poll suggests a major shift, at least in the pews.

JWs and Mormons are holding firm to their theology though:
Quizzed on the breadth of the poll's definition of "Evangelical," Pew pollster John Green said the 296-page survey made use of self-identification by the respondents' churches, denominations or fellowships, whose variety is the report's overriding theme. However, he said, if one isolates the most "traditionalist" members of the white Evangelical group, 50% still agreed that other faiths might offer a path to eternal life. In fact, of the dozens of denominations covered by the Pew survey, it was only Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who answered in the majority that their own faith was the only way to eternal life.

This relates to the immigrant scenario developing in this cosmopolitan nation of ours:
Analysts expressed some surprise at how far the tolerance needle has swung, but said the trend itself was foreseeable because of American Christians' increasing proximity to other faiths since immigration quotas were loosened in the 1960s. Says Rice's Lindsay, the author of Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite: "If you have a colleague who is Buddhist or your kid plays with a little boy who is Hindu, it changes your appreciation of the religious 'other.'"

BR-syncretism is weakening the doctrinal strength of the evangelical church in USA. As American believers interact with immigrants of other faiths, they seem to be influenced as well as being an influence.

Says Lindsay, "The problem is not that Americans don't believe in anything, but that they believe in everything, and the two things don't always fit together." But he adds, the views are consistent with tolerant views expressed by Evangelicals he met in various cities as he toured while promoting his book. Mohler agrees: "We've seen this coming," adding that the query about whether others can make it to heaven "has been the question I get asked by more college students and on my radio program." More so than Christ's divinity or Resurrection, he says, "the exclusivity of the Gospel is the most vulnerable doctrine in the face of the modern world."

This coincides with what I have found in Prother's book, American Jesus, to wit, that Americans are following the Bible-cutting lead of our first President. Your Jesus OK, my Jesus OK.

Who bears the responsibility for this quiet weakening of evangelical training and firmness? Who is supposed to keep believers firmly committed to the truth? Is it not the parents and pastors?

One should not read these kinds of stats while reading Jeremiah for his morning devotions! (which is precisely what I have been doing) The shouts of the prophet ring in my ears! He would blast the shepherds for allowing their flocks to become so weak willed, so ignorant of truth. He would forecast the judgment of God on our cities, our women and children.

I don't know where to go with this. Prothero talks about how we follow "a cannon within the cannon," by which he means we read the portions of Scripture we want to. So I prefer the gracious passages of the New Testament while shying away from the harsh sections on a jealous and judging God. Yet, I believe we merit His dissatisfaction.

What could I do to help American believers recover the foolish truth that only Jesus can save?

Thankfully blacks didn't reject Christianity

2008-12-24T10:31:00.000-08:00

I continue to be stretched and fascinated with American Jesus by Stephen Prothero. As I have rubbed shoulders with African-Americans, and now attend a predominantly black church, I am thankful that they didn't turn their backs on God and Jesus in light of how Christians exported them to the New World as slaves. Prothero writes:

"Given the historyof slavery and segregation, and of efforts by Christians to baptize both as godly institutions, it may be surprising that more African Americans have not followed Cox [Renee Cox painted a gender-blending rendition of Jesus entitled "Yo Mama's Last Supper" in which Jesus and all the disciples are black, except a white Judas] in a mass exodus out of "white man's religion." African Americans turned to Protestantism en masse during late-eighteenth-century revivals, in part because evangelicalism seemed to echo key beliefs, practices, and sensibilities of West African religious traditions. Today they remain extraordinarily Christianized--more likely than whites to attend church, read the Bible, and report a close relationship with Jesus. Blacks did not become or remain Christians because they were duped. They did so because they were able to make Christianity their own"(p.226)

Blacks held onto Christ by distinguishing Jesus from Christianity in the distorted form they had been exposed to it in America, says Plothero. They had every reason to disassociate themselves from what Frederick Douglass [a black abolitionist orator in the mid 1800s] called, "men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members." As is oft-illustrated in this book, they contextualized Him in relation to their own experience. They rightly hated the contortion of the faith they saw in slavery, but they sorted through the rubble and found Jesus, who became all the more dear to them because of their suffering. The quest for their Jesus led them to "the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ" (Douglass).

American Miscommunication

2008-12-21T12:04:00.000-08:00

When a country is attacked by terrorists, there is a sudden national need to self-protect. Most recently, India has rallied to this cause by the Mumbai attacks.

Pictured: Youth take a pledge to fight against terrorism during a rally organized to protest against recent terror attacks in Mumbai, India. (December 20, 2008)
Associated

After 9/11, the USA rallied to the same cause. Pictures from around the world illustrate how horribly President Bush's intentions have not been communicated or performed for the proper effect. We live in a complex multi-cultural world. To simplistically say that Obama understands cultures better, and will therefore do a better job, is treading on thin ice. Make no assumptions. Let us all be learners from one another. We need a host of cultural informants, continually.

A Jordanian man waves a pair of shoes with the word "Bush" written on the soles during a demonstration in support of shoe-thrower Muntazer al-Zaidi at the Professional Association building in Amman, Jordan. (December 20, 2008)

A woman throws a shoe at an effigy of President George Bush in front of the U.S. consulate in Montreal during a rally in support of jailed Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi. Behind her, third from right, is newly-elected Quebec Solidaire MLA Amir Khadir participating in the protest. Al-Zeidi has been in custody since the incident last Sunday when he hurled his shoes at Bush during a news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. (December 20, 2008)

Thomas Jefferson's faith

2008-12-21T11:18:00.000-08:00

Jefferson saw himself as a pure believer in Jesus. That is why, along the way, he rid himself of the trappings of Christian religion. He extolled Jesus as a great moral teacher, but found it contrary to reason that Jesus did supernatural acts. The Trinity did not stand the test of Jefferson's reason, and therefore was rejected. The President had no use for salvation and the resurrection. He wanted the simple teachings of Jesus, calling Him "the most innocent, the most benevolent the most eloquent and sublime character that has ever been exhibited to man." (Prothero, p30)

Yet, Jefferson would be too conservative for many Americans today. "Jefferson was convinced of the existence of God by the argument from design, which affirmed that the universe, so exquisitely crafted, must have sprung from the mind of an intelligent designer" (p.30)

I appreciate the intellectual honesty of a sitting President to wrestle with issues of faith. I regret that it led to the expunging of the divine part of Jesus, and left Jefferson with nothing more than a works-path to eternity.

Though (fortunately) most Americans today have rejected Jefferson's bold rejection of historical beliefs about Christ, many (inside and outside of the faith) maintain his spirit of getting back to the real Jesus rather than blithely accepting the version handed down by predecessors. As Prothero puts it, "they have inherited from Jefferson a strategy for understanding Jesus and Christianity that continues to drive religious change, from both the left and the right. That strategy begins with a bold refusal. It starts with a religious reformer refuses to equate Jesus with the Christian tradition. The religion of Jesus, the feformer asserts, is not the same as the religion about Jesus; and what really matters is what Jesus did and taught" (p. 41).

Do current trends within evangelicalism, including new expressions of church, stem from this similar desire to strip off cultural additives so as to stay true to who Jesus really is?

Jesus reconfigured as easy to believe

2008-12-19T16:27:00.000-08:00

I saw a PBS interview (which some would call a mistake) of Stephen Prothero (chairman of Dept of Religion at Boston University) and author of American Jesus: How the Son of God Became a National Icon(ISBN 0374178909). I found the content interesting enough to put a hold on the book at the local library. It came today and reading the introduction has confirmed what most of us already suspected: the reason such a high percentage of Americans believe in Jesus, heaven and hell, God et.al, is because "we" have felt the liberty to recraft Him (yes, I will capitalize the pronoun) according to our wishes without the constraints of accuracy to either Biblical texts or theological systems.

As the colonies broke away from the heavy hand of cheerless England, Americans seized the freedom to break away from the heaviness of the early church creeds, and the sovereign destiny of Calvin's predestining God. This freedom is epitomized in Thomas Jefferson taking a razor to his Bible and cutting out the parts that He could not live with. Over the decades of our brief national history, Jesus has been morphed into such a plain ol' nice guy that Mick jagger and Bono can sing about Him, and even a Hindu, a Jew, a Buddhist, and even an agnostic call call Him a friend. As Prothero says, while Jesus used to be the guy nobody knew, "Today he is the man nobody hates"(p.11)

In From Jesus to Christ (1988), Paula Fredriksen has described how the early Church transformed Jesus the man into the Christ of the creeds. in the United States, Americans reversed that process. As they made it possible to reject the Calvinist Christ, the creedal Christ, and the biblical Christ, jesus became accessible to Americans who could not believe in predestination, the Trinity, or the inerrancy of the Bible. As they disentangled Jesus from Christianity itself, Jesus piety became possible even for non-Christians (p.14).

I find it interesting also that immigration to America has affected our view of who Jesus is. Europeans brought the sovereign God of the Reformation, with Christ being secondary in importance. Charismatics from Latin America helped make Him our lively friend, interacting with us daily. More lately, Hindus and Buddhists even proved hospitable, inviting Jesus into their pantheon. I guess even the Dali Lama is a fan.

All this makes me wonder how far from the actual Guy we have drifted. We are all affected by our culture. None of us has a pure view of Him, but interpret writings about him through our traditions, our contemporaries, those we read, and our own personalities. We evangelicals have surely cast Him in tones that work for us, and work in evangelism. Have we cast Him as a likeable fellow who loves everyone and wants everyone to believe, hoping thereby to save more souls.

Recently we have had a scuff up over who can put up displays in the rotunda (where did they get that word!) of our Washington state capitol. Of course, there was a nativity scene, a menorah; and then an atheist puts up a poster that says religion is bogus. So, there is an outcry that Christmas is a Christian holiday, that different religions can celebrate the season but the atheist sign was an attack, not a celebration. I wonder where we lost the idea that Jesus came not only to heal but to divide families. He is a right offensive personage, his Gospel is foolishness to the world. What do you think? How much are we shaping Jesus in the mold of our own preference in the way we do church? The way we do our preaching, rounding off the sharp edges... the friendly aires we sing about Him in choruses and convenient expectations for discipleship...who is our Jesus?

Moment of truth with Doctors

2008-12-01T22:12:00.000-08:00

I read this poem recently by Raymond Carver, and remembered the evening in September 2000 when a doctor changed the life of Lyn and me. With email, I now hear of many who enter this passageway, and feel these feelings, feel this need to be polite to a man who just stepped into our lives with muddy boots. But God is a steady Mate during these storms.

What The Doctor Said

He said it doesn't look good
he said it looks bad in fact real bad
he said I counted thirty-two of them on one lung before
I quit counting them
I said I'm glad I wouldn't want to know
about any more being there than that
he said are you a religious man do you kneel down
in forest groves and let yourself ask for help
when you come to a waterfall
mist blowing against your face and arms
do you stop and ask for understanding at those moments
I said not yet but I intend to start today
he said I'm real sorry he said
I wish I had some other kind of news to give you
I said Amen and he said something else
I didn't catch and not knowing what else to do
and not wanting him to have to repeat it
and me to have to fully digest it
I just looked at him for a minute and he looked back it was then
I jumped up and shook hands with this man who'd just given me
something no one else on earth had ever given me
I may have even thanked him habit being so strong

An honest question to women about honoring men from a position of strength

2008-09-25T16:35:00.000-07:00

In 1 Cor 11, Paul presents women who are Jesus-followers with a real challenge, especially in our day of debate about women's roles in society, business, politics and the church. Essentially the challenge is: Find socially appropriate ways to show deference to, and respect for men (not just their husbands, but men generally--at least that's my read). This must be done from a position of strength of calling, and knowing the God-ordained relationships between men, women and Christ. This honoring of men must not be done in any way that disempowers women or humiliates them. Christ is all and in all, including the relationship between men and women (Col 3:11).
In Paul's social context, the main means for doing this was by women wearing a head covering, and men going uncovered. This was a way of symbolizing externally the internal attitude of respect. Some groups today still abide by this method (the Amish and German Baptists, I believe), but I regard this as a culturally-determined method which is still appropriate and clear in some cultures today (especially Middle Eastern and Asian subcontinent, such as Pakistani). But in North American culture generally, women's head covering is not an effective way of communicating a Christian woman's respect in Christ-honoring gender relations. Hence the challenge for Christ-following women today. How do you conduct yourselve so as to honor men?
Finding and practicing this might have far-reaching effects. For one, men who observe such behavior might begin acting as caring men; they might begin to treat women with the "headship" they deserve. Men might begin to provide loving headship the way God the Father heads Christ, and as Christ lovingly heads men (according to 1 Cor. 11:3).
Another effect would be that the church would be, for yet another reason (i.e. the respectful deportment of its women) distinct from society at large. To some, this might win respect. To the vaste majority, it would gain scorn as foolish--which is as it should be (1 Cor. 1:23).
This distinctiveness is lost when a Christian woman conforms to the values and pursuits of women who do not have Christ. I would love to learn from women how they re seeking to live differently.
Cultures differ in these expressions. Women in some cultures walk behind their husbands; others avoid making eye contact so as not to appear flirtish; others eat separately with the children; some maintain silence.
In North America mainstream culture, I suspect the symbols of honor have to do with words and attitude. When a woman speaks to men, about men, and of her husband, it may soon become clear whether she is living out 1 Cor 11. This may extend to the clothes and jewelry she wears, the way she decorates her home, etc.
I would like to hear from women on this.
And while I do, I need to focus on my part as a Christian man, in 1 Cor 11. My head is Christ, and I am to lovingly extend that headship to my wife, my daughters, and women in general. In so doing, I am to glorify God (11:7). Only as I, and we Christian men fulfill our headship role, will women feel safe to fulfill theirs. These are simultaneous pursuits. Men cannot ask of women what they are not first doing.
So what is headship? It is not classism, not superiority that disempowers--for God is the head of Christ. Headship is mutual love which ensures the well-being and fulfillment of the other. This is what the Father does for the Son, and what the Son does for men. So must men provide headship for women.
As churches strive for obedience in our current contexts, gender relationships between Christian men and women need a fresh look. Intercultural churches need to present and discuss these principles, and allow for varying expressions and applications which are appropriate for the different cultures and generations represented.

Ethnic prejudice exposes by Presidential election

2008-09-21T20:37:00.000-07:00

Here is an amazing poll that ought to make every white American examine his heart and prejudices. Why is it that white Republicans are more negative about blacks that white Democrats? Even merging white feelings together into a composite, the prejudices are arresting and troubling. Unfortunately these figures are not much if any different within the church, as discussed in Divided by Faith.

Italy shows class or insensitivity in Libya

2008-08-30T10:19:00.000-07:00

A very interesting development reported by a BBC article indicating that Italy has agreed with Libya's Gadaffi to pay billions over the next 25 years in restitution for mistreatments during the colonial era.

The article raised the question as to whether this will set a precedent for other colonial masters (England, France, Belgium, Portugal), and I suppose by implication in the slave trade, America. I have no doubt that other African (and Asian) countries will seek to make it a precedent, not to mention formerly enslaved (and resultantly disempowered) communities. Will other dominating countries follow suit? I expect not. Does this kind of restitution satisfy? Only temporarily.

I found something humorous in the article (or is it a back-handed slap). As part of the deal, Italy returned a statue of the goddess Venus which had been taken from Libya to Rome during the colonial era (see picture of the presentation). In a country, dominated by Islam, where the female body is shrouded in black so as not to tempt men, where exposure of even the face is considered inappropriate at least by the faithful, it is a fascinating gesture for Italy to give a gift that shows all (at least what hasn't been broken off). Is this another example of incredible cultural ignorance that is so common from well-intended Western leaders? Is this a financial move out of which Italy will eventually come out smelling like a rose of economic profitability?

Perhaps Gaddafi will put a burka over the goddess. Or sell her to the Louvre.

Intercultural church and orality

2008-06-25T21:10:00.000-07:00

I've been invited to teach a Bible Survey course to a group of Ethiopians (maybe some Eritreans too) this Fall. While pondering how I would handle such a task in just 4 Saturday afternoons (!) I ran into my friend Ron Holcomb who trains Sudanese to story the Bible. He gave me a small paperback to read, Making Disciples of Oral Learners. I am now working on learning and weaving in some elements of orality into my Bible Survey.

Meanwhile, I got to thinking about intercultural church and it dawned on me that some hearers in multi-ethnic churches probably aren't hearing the sermons--not because they don't understand the preacher's language, but because they are oral learners. Their worldview has been shaped by, and resides in story format. They learn and convey truth not in books and outlines, but in dance and art and story.

The intercultural leader must therefore begin to think outside the box in terms of his teaching and preaching. Especially since he was probably trained in a literate (not oral) tradition and worldview. His expository style, lauded by Anglo-Americans and others, may be missing the target of many of his listeners. See International Orality Network and StoryRunners for more.

Moved my dad to assisted living

2008-05-18T20:45:00.000-07:00

Last weekend I was in Turlock for a transition we have foreseen for some time but finally had to face. I was not able to engage the full emotions of it, because there was a job to do and I couldn't process the significance while also moving boxes and assuring others. This is not something my dad was prepared for, even though we had told him in advance. His memory is fading and he may not understand or remember something from a short time ago. To a degree, he is aware of this change, but also aware enough that he has a mind and is a person with rights. When we finally moved him over to his new residence, he was first intrigued to see his books and clothing all there in the room (which had been nicely decorated), but then he began to connect the dots and was, for awhile, frustrated that he had not been consulted in the decision. But how do you consult with your dad when a change must be made and it isn't the change he wants?

My siblings and I wrestled with this process, by email and phone, for some days beforehand. It is a struggle for all of us, yet it came to where it was increasingly needful for my mother to live by herself without having to a 24/7 caregiver. The burden was affecting her both physically and emotionally. Even now she wrestles with false guilt...if she could have held out longer, dad wouldn't have had to move.... but these thoughts can't get in the way of making the hard, but right call.

This has made me think more about my own aging process. What can Lyn and I do to lessen the strain on our kids? Are there decisions we can make to prevent them from having to make these hard calls? I know aging cannot be reduced to easy formulas or solutions, but I have thought several times that it would be kind to our kids if Lyn and I went into one of these "graduated care" facilities. Granted, you donate a lot of your life savings to enter such a place, lessening the money you can perhaps give to your kids as an inheritance. But, as I told "Poppi" when he was here recently, we may not be able to leave a great financial inheritance, but we can leave our kids a "peace inheritance."

My last night in turlock, God gave me the idea of taking my dad for a (slow) joy ride in the yellow VW convertible I had rented for the weekend (actually, I merely rented an "economy car" and they gave me this VW); so I told Dad we were going on a special ride, and to bring his cap. So we plied the boulevards of Turlock at dusk, did the drive-thru at In-N-Out for 2 cheeseburgers, sat in the Safeway parking lot and ate; then drove to the campus of Monte vista Chapel, where dad was founding pastor, and reminisced how God had used Dad, but now young leaders are taking the helm and keeping the ministry going. The drive was a good connection; he kept asking me if it was my car, and when I'd repeat "no" he would say "its a great car, so clean." Thanks Lord for that gift. I needed it.

What followers care about

2008-02-15T20:22:00.000-08:00

Something caught my attention this morning while starting through Joshua: the apprentice General takes over for the deceased Moses, and gives orders with a firm voice, telling the Israelis to pack up provisions to finally cross the Jordan and take possession of the land God had promised them.

The people promise to be good followers with a remarkable double statement, each with a veiled warning about waffling leadership.

Promise with veiled warning #1:

"Whatever you have commanded us we will do, and wherever you send us we will go. Just as we fully obeyed Moses, so we will obey you. Only may the Lord your God be with you as he was with Moses" (Josh. 1:16-17)

Paraphrase....yeah, we're with you mate, but we're watching to make sure God is on your side the way He was with Moses.

Promise with veiled warning #2:

""Whoever rebels against your word and does not obey your words, whatever you may command them, will be put to death. Only be strong and courageous" (Josh. 1:18)!

Paraphrase...count on us to back you up! Anybody who opposes you will have to face the likes of us. But don't you go wimp on us, hear! You lead with backbone and we'll follow you anywhere.

How many leaders would be helped to stick to the course and stay the course if they had followers like these? Am I sure God is with me as I lead? Am I showing courage in my leading? As it turns out, Joshua more than exceeded their expectations, and proved to be (in my view) more leader than the people could handle.

Supremacy of Christ in a Fractured Nation

2008-02-11T21:37:00.000-08:00

I have a little blog on http://www.ethnicimpact.net/ and thought I'd put it over here too...

Easily overlooked is the fact that the bold statement "Christ is all" is placed by the Apostle Paul in sharp contrast to the most divisive elements of society--economic advantage and ethnic pride!

Let me back up. This past weekend Ethnic Impact hosted its first Prayer and Planning Day. Thanks to our own Steve Hall, we were able to have David Bryant with us all morning to lead us in considering the Supremacy of Christ over all. The title of his new book, CHRIST IS ALL, is taken from Colossians 3:11. On reflection, I noticed that this rifle shot of truth takes on shocking significance when we look at the immediate context. Let me give it to you (Col. 3:11, from the NKJV)

"...where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all."

The Apostle takes no shortcuts here. He mentions the most emotionally-charged issues of his society:...Jewish ethnic pride and religiosity...the uneducated, illiterate barbarians...the low-life Scythians...the economic snobbishness of the free...and the chronic disempowerment of the slave

Into this cauldron of pride and resentment he tosses the atom bomb of the Supremacy of Jesus Christ! He says that for the Jesus follower, Christ's all-supremacy must trump all of society's class distinctions and disinterest in those who are different.

How possible? Check the context...prior verse: [You, follower of Christ] have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him" (Col. 3:10).

I agree with David Bryant: the Church of Jesus Christ has not begun to live up to the command of Jesus Christ. We tolerate an un-Christlike situation. Those of us with privilege work to retain our position; we protect our comfort. And if we are moved to reach out and understand and care, it is usually in ways that cost us little.

And those of us who lack opportunity and power live as if Christ were not supreme at all. We resent and complain; we fail to love our brothers who have more.

Unfair charge you say? I give you the words of Scripture, written to us all equally. "Therefore," --that is, because you have put on this new man, and gained this new knowledge of Christ's supremacy in the middle of all societies inequalities and prejudices...

"Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering...." (Col 3:12)

I pause...this is not going my way....this is not coddling my hurts nor protecting my comfort zone. None of these attitudes is necessary in a perfect world; they are only required when I'm getting the shaft...or giving it!

"...bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection" (Col. 3:13-14).

I've preached on those commands before, but not until now have I seen their actual context. They tell me how to hold Christ supreme in my life, as I wrestle with the inequalities that surround me, as I try to walk alongside brothers who despise the color of my skin or envy the car I drive.

Think of this. Jesus already put a garment of love on me. Now, today, I've got to put that garment of love on my mind, my words, my actions. I must love the person who doesn't love me, because Christ is all!

2008-02-04T20:17:00.000-08:00

Hey, my daugther is getting married! I'm so happy for her...and so struck with the significance of letting go of a precious child into the care of another. Wow, this is heavy.

So I dance for joy. As you will see in this clip, the novice (that would be me) has no shame for he has no knowledge of excellence. Here I am to prove it...in my home on Christmas (near) eve, with my daugther, Lauren, soon to be wed to terrific Peter.

The counterbalance to sharing my daughter is gaining a wonderful son. Welcome Peter into our family. We've been a'waiting for you for awhile now!

Superbowl and super mission

2008-02-04T20:03:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I watched the great Superbowl game between the NY Giants and the New England Patriots. Though my mom is from Connecticut and there fore I felt some obligation to hope the Pats did well, I was mainly pulling for a good, close game....which meant rooting for the underdog, not-predicted-by-hardly-anyone-to-win Giants. Watching with Greg and Denyse, Ron and Mikel Ann, Ray and Diane and Chris, Ralph and Joyce, and Michael Jaffarian...which in itself was a blast... I was overwhelmed with the incredible treat we were served. Thank you, Eli Manning, for coming of age as a top quarterback on such a grand stage!

OK so today was the main purpose for my coming to Colorado Springs..to attend a meeting to discuss the current state of sending missionaries out of North American churches. Do Iwant to rehearse for you here and now the stats Michael presented to show that while the sending of long-term (4 year and longer) missionaries is slightly increasing, the sending of short term missionaries (2 weeks to 1 year) and mission trips (2 weeks) is literally exploding exponentially....forgive the horrible grammar. We talked about the implications of this; what is this saying about the US church? It is easy to dis the church for lack of commitment,but there is something to be said for the church taking missions into their own hands and at least getting involved. I love to see people get overseas. I know all the problems about ineffectiveness, insensitivity, cultural tourism, work load on the field missionaries....I know all the negatives. And i know that some ministry cannot be done apart from going and learning the language, absorbing the worldview and earning the right to be heard....these require long-term commitments.

But it got me thinking further about the challenge of the mission agency today, to come alongside US churches to help them think through the real impact and effectiveness of their short term strategy. What do they really feel they are accomplishing? this is not an indictment, but a question that I think we need to help US missions pastors think through. More later...I'm brain dead right now. Good night from snowy COS.

Life Parable: Which books do I keep?

2007-11-15T16:51:00.000-08:00

Something transpired the other day that symbolizes change and (I believe) growth in my life. Because I can't get the big bookcase (from my Dad's office in Turlock) into our house here in Washington, and because I need to cut it in half, I must therefore downsize my library...which I began doing yesterday. As I sorted, my choices of books to keep and books to give away forced me to see that I am less conservative than formerly--in this sense--I used to cherish the words, trusted and authoritative words, from the past: commentaries, books on preaching by Philips Brooks, Charles Spurgeon, etc.--but I looked at those large hardcover, dark-covered volumes and concluded these do not represent my growth areas anymore. They don't merit space on my shelf.

Instead I chose to retain books that mean something to me now, that represent who I am and where I'm growing as a person. It is like the snake who sheds a skin in order to let the new one emerge. So here is what I kept: First, books that are old friends, that spoke to me at nexus poitns in my life and that I don't want to lose touch with; these are books I love to hold in my hand, flip the pages, smell and remember with a smile back to the time when its words were just the ones I needed to hear. Authentic Christianity (Stedman) and New Reformation are a couple examples.

In giving away commentaries, I was dceclaring that I am now more interested in what God is saying to me through the text and through my life--less concerned with knowing the boundaries prescribed by others. To some this sounds heretical; as it did once to me. I am discovering the safety of God, and more trust in Him, and I think more trust in me.

Anyway, i did keep some systematic theologies because I'm still interested in categories of thought, more as a frame of reference. For some reason, I kept study tools--mainly in the original languages--but those made for English speakers. I'm saying goodbye to my underused Hebrew Bible; time to get real!

I got rid of books people gave to me--many are not interesting or well written--and kept ones on emergent church, coaching, multi-ethnic church that are of interest to me now. I couldn't give away old Bibles that Lyn and I had written in, but I did liberate a study I did (preached) on the Holy Spirit; my understanding has moved on I'm sure, and I'm not nostalgic in that way.

So, my task of paring down my book collection because reflective of changes in my life. At 55, maybe I'm starting to down-size toward a simpler life. Old sermon notes are gone. Old files of illustrations and articles didn't move north with us. I'm lighter on my feet now, carrying more of my relationship with God in my heart (and computer) than on my bookshelves. I'm shedding some flaky skin, while ever committed to truth.

What kind of leaders do suppressed people really need?

2007-11-15T16:32:00.000-08:00

I've been reading in the book of Exodus, reflecting on Moses and back to Abraham.
In the creation of the nation, God called Abraham to "father" the nation.
In preserving the nation, God placed Joseph in Pharoah's household to bring Jacob and his 11 other sons (in effect, the clans of the nation Israel) to Egypt to survive famine
But the salvation in Egypt became a prison of slavery, so God called Moses to deliver the nation.
Point? There was an ORDEAL OF FAITH that each of these leaders had to undergo (to refer to my master metaphor: a death-burial-resurrection) in order for them to fulfill God's crucial role.

In brief, Abraham was asked to "die" to self in offering Isaac.
Joseph endured prison, falsely accursed, raised to seconed only to Pharoah,
Moses fled Egypt to Midian for 40yrs; and later sinned by striking the rock and suffered the consequence of being disallowed to enter the promised land.

This relates the this exchange of emails with the native american pastor....I wonder what kind of leader it would take to deliver a "nation" like the Native Americans, or African-Americans from their suppression and poverty? Do their current leaders care enough to become those leaders?

Presently, African-American leaders (for to be honest I don't know who the Native Americans would consider to be their leaders) fight a seemingly hopeless battle because they cry out to powers they cannot convince: Government. This is the great mistake; they rightly blame government for the institutionalized prejudice that suppresses them--but they wrongly believe that government is the entity that will rescue them.

Suppressed peoples must take their fight to a battlefield on which they can win. What is that? It should be the Church, but unfortunately the Church has historically proven weak and carnal, failing to demonstrate sacrifice and love. No, the context for victory is the soul of the suppressed nations themselves. They the people must determine they will fool their captors, trick them, by becoming strong from within, no matter what the odds. They must have strong leaders who put the past behind and like Moses, go in God's strength to their own people and say, "Let us rise and build our own life, from our own resources, using our own hands."

They will find allies in some quarters of both Church and Government. This is where Anglo churches need leaders who will sound the alarm of compassion and justice.

So, my opinion, as an outsider, is that the plight of oppressed peoples today is a lack of true servant leadership. Famine, flood and fire do not kill nations. Selfish leaders do. Under sacrificial leadership, calamities strengthen a people.

More uphill reconciliation

2007-11-11T19:47:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I shared two responses which boomeranged back on my notice of a need for a refugee family. Today I got two more...one from the same angry "Rev." Native American, and another hailing the beauty of hosting refugee families...which is my starting point

There are two Burmese girls, age 16, who are arriving and have no other family. They need foster families. AS foster family to a 16 year refugee girl from Bhutan/Nepal, I can vouch for the challenges and incredible rewards of taking a young woman in to your home and urge everyone to consider doing this. Please pass the message.
For information on becoming a foster parent (married, single, working or at home), contact Ms. (name withheld) of Community Services North West.
(name withheld)work phone is ***and her email is (name withheld)
(name withheld)

---
I wrote back last night to the Native American; I wanted to be non-provoking and...reconciling; here's what I wrote to him:

Dear Reverend (name withheld),

I am truly sorry for the immense pain you and your people have suffered. I only pray that God will pour His grace into your heart. I also believe that He has seen all injustice and will make all things right in the life to come.,

Here is the reply I got....

Bob

I think you missed the point. The "Church" is always ready to give to those over seas but they forgot where Jesus told them to start their ministry First in Judea.... Whenever I hear a young person tell me they want to be a missionary I tell them "You want a mission field? Go to the Native American Reservations, now there is a mission field where you will not get shot but you will suffer for Christ and do some real good!"

Our land is already too full of people. We take in every people group of the whole world, give them food stamps, give them money, and let them retire in four years. Yet we do not take care of the people we have here. Many of the First Nations people (us Indians) suffer daily. There are so many homeless people in our country, many of which are First Nations Native American. We do not have the money for housing for them. They do not have the money for homes. Yet you bring in foreigners from across the ocean and GIVE them homes, give them food, give them clothes, etc. And you will not care for the people that are already here! YOU CHRISTIANS ARE NOT BEING GOOD STEWARDS! YOU ARE NOT TAKING CARE OF WHAT GOD HAS ALREADY GIVEN YOU!

I refuse to give to an organization that does not recognize what God has given them to do, and is going to push our country further into ruin. Leave those other people where they are, educate them there, give to them there. But do not worsen our conditions here! We have more people than we can care for. Our homeless population runs in the millions in our country. Our foster system is filled to overflowing and is gaining daily. How can you tell God you love him when you do not take care of his people? You do not take care of the refugees in our own country yet you bring in refugees from other countries that in turn become homeless here or cause others to become homeless. Because you give to these refugees that you bring in from overseas our housing prices soar, our food banks become over run, our social services are overrun, and we have to put up signs and do other documents in their language. But the First Nations people HAVE to learn to speak English. WHY DO YOU MISTREAT THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE OF THE LAND THIS WAY??

God will make ALL people account for what they do!Rev. (name withheld)
---
Bob here...
Suddenly I'm responsible for the immigration policies of the United States.
I honestly cannot pretend to empathize with the resentment this man has taken upon himself for generations of abuse against his people.
But neither can I see much of the Spirit of Jesus in his attitude. It would be very difficult to lovingly shepherd people with so much personal and corporate baggage. Lord, deliver!

Reconciliation, an uphill climb

2007-11-10T20:31:00.000-08:00

This morning I wrote an email asking our network of friends to consider helping a refugee family. Tonight I received two email responses. Taken together they show the complexity of reconciling peoples. If only they knew how similar their stories actually are. If only those of us in positions (ethnicities) of power knew how much damage we cause through complicity in institutional racism. If only the angry people knew how they worsen their situation with this kind of rhetoric. If only grace would invade our relationships.

Here is my email, and the two responses (names withheld):

----- Original Message -----
From: bobrasmussen@oci.org
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 7:36 AM
Subject: Car seats, microwaves, kids clothes needed for refugee family

To: Ethnic Impact friends in Puget Sound area
I just received word through our colleagues in the Baptist Association that new refugees are arriving from Burma and Thailand and have some practical needs; I thought some of your church families might like to help in this meaningful way rather than putting those items in a garage sale! Read below and make contact directly with (name withheld).
Thanks! Bob Rasmussen

(name withheld), Pastor of (name withheld)Church, is reaching out to many refugees that are arriving from Burma and Thailand. They have ongoing needs, but he has asked me to share these specific needs. If anyone can help, please contact (name withheld)Thank you!

(name withheld)request:
We have new refugees, who came with us recently that a family of 7 members. Their children are 5, their youngest is 13 year old. Another family has twin boys, 4 months old babies. These twin boys need Car Baby seat, their agent does not provide them with one. These children need warm cloths, blanket etc.

If you can help them in anyway, we would appreciate it. Many families also need microwaves.

--
Reply #1

Bob,

Thank you for passing this along. I will certainly follow up with Pastor Ezra.

--name withheld---

---
Reply #2

Please relay to (name withheld)this message:We do not want to seem unfriendly. But us Native Americans (as we are called) have had needs for a long time. They took our people, put us in a penal colony they call a Reservation, took away our culture, our traditions, our languages, and our children. Then they fed us meat that was spoiled, gave us blankets infested with diseases, denied us medical attention, and told us our God was a false god and their God was the ONLY God, without learning what we truly believed. The Christian Government along with the churches and missionaries demonized us and told lies about us.

We had to wait until 1924 to become citizens of this country who has taken our land. We are still considered property of the United States Government and they are planning to take away our reservations and our sovereignty soon (so says the Army Corps of Engineers). We had to wait until 1936 before we could legally own land off of the reservation. Yet our forefathers fought in the wars for this country, Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and the current War on Terrorism in Iraq, and Afghanistan, With no appreciation.

AND NOW YOU WANT TO BRING YOUR PEOPLE INTO THIS COUNTRY AND HAVE US GIVE THEM THE THINGS WE HAD TO FIGHT FOR? And you want to give them a Driver's test in their OWN LANGUAGE? WHEN YOU BEAT OUR GRANDPARENTS FOR SPEAKING THEIR OWN LANGUAGE??

Please tell your people to go home. We have NO MORE to give up for them.

--name withheld-- Lakota/Cherokee

God's Whistle

2007-02-25T08:52:00.000-08:00

I came across this passage this morning and love it:

"He will lift up a banner to the nations from afar,
And will whistle to them from the end of the earth;
Surely they shall come with speed, swiftly.
No one will be weary or stumble among them,
No one will slumber or sleep;
Nor will the belt on their loins be loosed, Nor the strap of their sandals be broken." (Isa. 5:26-27 NKJV)

What a picture! Here is God, who in previous verses excoriates those who out of greed acquire more land and houses than they need or can even use...warning those who in their partying have long forgotten Him....who call out to God not in need but as if He is their servant ("Let Him make speed and hasten His work, that we may see it," v 19). But now God lifts up this huge banner of mercy, and He whistles to the nations! "Y'all come! From the ends of the earth...you, steeped in strange religions, bowing to gods of your own craftsmanship, come to the living God. You who are humble, seek me, and you will find me."

And they come! They run, "with speed, swiftly." They don't dawdle, but like the disciples, they leave what it is they have been so focused on, and they pursue the master. They don't trip along the way, don't sleep in for that extra hour. No, they strap their sandles tightly, gather up the loose ends of their garments, and RUN!

God is a gathering God. Ever looking into the future, He desires to restore fellowship, reunite His peoples...to each other, to Himself. I love this picture. I see it in Jesus, who said, "Come, follow Me." Leave what you're so preoccupied with, and come be with me.

Nothing profound or ear-tickling. But something beautiful to hold in the mind, and long for. Lord, sound out with your liberating whistle, and let the nations run to you. And God, let me be a part of making that sound; give me the privilege of being a small part of the nations coming back to you.

2007-02-24T09:02:00.000-08:00

First post...nothing on my mind...have to do my taxes today...back later....