Are Evangelicals Killing Christianity?

It’s admittedly a dangerous title, but I chose it, not for shock value or to gain attention (although I hope it does gain attention).

I hope to open productive conversation, not start a fight. In a fight there is a winner and a loser. Any time I do a conflict resolution consultation, whether between troubled marital partners, a parent/child conflict, or in an organizational setting, I always begin by asking, “Do you truly want to resolve the issues between you, or do you just want to win the fight?”

Nobody wins a fight. The only thing a fight accomplishes is the establishment of one’s power over another--and resentment on the part of the loser. Relationships—indeed, civilizations—cannot thrive indefinitely in a power relationship.

Thus, I attempt here to open a conversation. Agreement is neither necessary nor truthfully expected. Mutual understanding, I think, is a reasonable expectation. Respectful conversation teamed with earnest seeking might lead to some common ground upon which to build “a more excellent” way than the way that has produced four generations of decline in the Body of Christ.

These thoughts were stimulated by a paragraph from evangelical author, Philip Yancey. In Vanishing Grace. He writes:

“I decided to write this book after I saw the results of surveys by the George Barna group. A few telling statistics jumped off the page. In 1996, 85 percent of Americans who had no religious commitment still viewed Christianity favorably. Thirteen years later, in 2009, only 16 percent of young “outsiders” had a favorable impression of Christianity, and just 3 percent had a good impression of evangelicals. I wanted to explore what caused that dramatic plunge in such a relatively short time. Why do Christians stir up hostile feelings—and what, if anything, should we do about it?”[1]

I haven’t read beyond those words. My mind was stimulated to distraction, and I was compelled to put my thoughts on paper. I look forward to finishing Yancy’s book.

One of my greatest frustrations in ministry is what Thomas Bandy Calls the largest and fastest growing spiritual population in North America, viz. “the spiritually yearning, institutionally alienated public;[2] a population that calls itself, “spiritual but not religious.” Yancey notes in his book the phenomenon of the “nones:” those who, when polled about religious preference, respond by checking “none.” They now constitute one-third of all Americans under the age of thirty.

My frustration is that virtually two generations have abandoned, not just that part of “religion” (specifically Christianity) that offends them but essentially all organized religion, and in the process have thrown out the proverbial baby with the bath water!

My read is (and has been for a couple of decades), that they really don’t disagree with the theological content or the essential purpose and ministry of the denomination in which I serve. My impression (again, biased and unsupported by data) is that they experienced, either personally or vicariously, something in a relatively narrow religious context that offended or hurt them and have generalized from that isolated experience to justify their judgment about all religion.

The truth is that I agree with the two most frequently identified offenders: hypocrisy and judgmentalism. And while no discipline or community has a lock on hypocrisy, it would be difficult to deny a distinct aura of judgment as a definitive characteristic of evangelicalism.

As a recovering evangelical, here is what I remember: the first premise is the basic Calvinist dogma of the total depravity of man. Already, we’ve lost the “nones,” but hang with me; I think I can get us out of this mess. I learned the “Roman Road to Salvation” as the basic “plan of salvation,” and it begins with Romans 3:23, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” The basic approach in this doctrine of salvation is to assume that that all are lost and bound for hell.

The trouble is, some people—probably a large majority of people—don’t “feel” lost. I’ve heard in more than one discussion group or conversation, “But, I’m not a sinner.” People generally associate “sin” with gross crimes and harmful behavior (especially sexual in nature), and most people don’t fall into either category; therefore, we have to create that sense of being lost for them. It is manipulative and dehumanizing and the origin of a lot of the impression of judgmentalism.

Here's the thing: one thing I’ve always loved and admired about evangelicals is that they’re sincere in their concern for the salvation of all humans. Who can fault that? But the Kennedy approach: “If you were to die today, where would your soul be tomorrow?” and the basic assumption that everyone is lost and bound for hell—right or wrong—is dehumanizing, and has become increasingly ineffective; indeed, it has become increasingly counterproductive since the middle of the last century! The results are available on basically any related survey or poll.

WHAT IF…

Instead of the Pauline “Roman Road” (which has been proof-texted and tailored to fit the Calvinist doctrine of the depravity of all humans), WHAT IF we began with Jesus? Most who identify as “spiritual but not religious,” and even many who are classified as “none” affirm an admiration and/or devotion to Jesus. But, like Gandhi, “I love your Jesus; but your Christians are so unlike him.”

Still, why not begin on common ground? Jesus said, “If I am lifted up…” WHAT IF we simply lift up Jesus, rather than create a need? WHAT IF we quit preaching hell and “lift up Jesus?” Does one absolutely need to recite the “good confession” or pray the “sinner’s prayer” to enter an eternal relationship with God through Jesus Christ? Is it the recitation of the words, or would the act of following Jesus by following his example accomplish that same relationship? Would not the action indicate the acceptance of Jesus as Lord?

Yes, I memorized this, too: “Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven” (Matthew 10:32-33 NRSV). Is the good confession and/or the sinner’s prayer the only way to acknowledge Jesus before others? Or do actions truly speak louder than words, especially when a “spiritual but not religious” public points vociferously at religious hypocrisy? Would not actions that are consistent with our words remove any impression (or reality) of hypocrisy?

The truth is, while the overall trend of American church is downward, there are those entrepreneurial churches that attract large flocks. And—right or wrong—those growing churches put out a message that is clear of judgment or condemnation, offering instead a prosperity gospel or the Prayer of Jabez. No, Jesus is not the core of that message. BUT NEITHER IS HELL OR CONDEMNATION! Misguided or not, the offering is hope!

WHAT IF there is yet another approach: an approach that lifts up Jesus only? Could that be a valid starting place—common ground upon which to begin?

Stay tuned. I’ll continue this conversation with some specific applications.

That’s the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Phllip Yancy, Vanishing Grace, Page 15, as quoted in Artman, David. Grace Saves All: The Necessity of Christian Universalism (p. 103). Wipf and Stock, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.

[2] Tom Bandy, Talisman: Global Positioning for the Soul (p. 6) Wipf and Stock, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition. [Bandy identifies this population in several other books, including Christian Chaos, Kicking Habits: Welcome Relief for Addicted Churches, et.al.]

 

My 2016 Lenten Journey--Day 18

February 27, 2016 ~ Day 18

My 2016 Lenten Journey: Exploring the Gospels to discover what following Jesus and becoming more like him would look like? ‘And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32 NRSV).

Matthew 7:1-5 ~ This first verse may be the most misunderstood, and certainly the most misapplied verse in the Gospels. In practical application, the overwhelming understanding of this verse, at least insofar as I have seen and heard it applied, is simply, “Don’t judge.” And by that is universally understood, “Don’t react negatively to anyone else.” Period. That’s not it; nor is it a simple verse to understand.

First, in the original language of the New Testament there are two words that can be translated, “to judge.” One means, literally, to condemn. The other, the one used in this verse, means “to discern”, to differentiate, as between good and evil. While the former refers to the sentencing of the guilty, the latter refers to the application of standards.

As is so often the case the misapplication is the result of yanking the verse—or a part of it—out of context. The larger passage is not directly related to judging, but rather to the standards by which we judge. Bottom line, it’s about hypocrisy: criticizing others while there’s dirt under our own fingernails.

The key verse is not verse 1, but verse 3, “Take the log out of your own eye before worrying about the speck in your neighbor’s eye.” Insofar as judging is a part of the meaning, the application would be, “don’t judge others by any standard different than the one by which you judge yourself.”

How many people do you know who are harshly critical of almost everyone else’s driving; but who then drive 85 mph in a 70 mph zone? And then become outraged if ticketed for excessive speed?

Judgmentalism is sinful; but, there are other verses that address it more directly than Matthew 7:1.

If I am to follow Jesus, I cannot live by double standards.

Whoever has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9 NRSV)

‘And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32 NRSV).

That's the way it looks through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

Spiritual Fruits, or Just Religious Nuts?

“By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things.” ~ Galatians 5:22 (NRSV)

The sermon ended with a simple question: “What fruit does your life bear?” Afterward, she confronted me in the narthex: “You totally omitted all the context that goes before that verse—that stuff about the fruit of the flesh and all that sexual immorality.”

Never mind that of the fifteen listed fruits of the flesh, only three made any reference to sexual immorality. Of the dozen remaining fruits (idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing), most of which she (and I) commit regularly, if not daily, eight relate to animosity in human relationships.

We tend to specialize when it comes to sin; and I suspect it’s the sins we don’t regularly commit that show up most frequently on our list of “worst” sins. I want forgiveness and pardon for my jealousy, factionalism, strife, enmity, etc.; but throw the book at him for his sexual immorality.

And never mind that the New Testament is abundantly clear that there is no hierarchy of sins. Sin is sin, and “the wages of sin is death.” The breaking of one law—one sinful act—makes us sinners. How fast do you drive in a 65 mph zone? If you drive 66 mph you are a law-breaker.

Yeah but…

So, out of a list of 15 fruits of the flesh, she picked out the three that relate to “all that sexual immorality.” She wanted me to damn the sexual sinners to hell.

My response was, “Yes, I recognize that there is a list of fruits of the flesh. My question for us today is, ‘Do our lives bear fruits of the Spirit?’”

“But, what about those sins of the flesh?” she countered. 

“Don’t do them.” I responded. “If your life produces Fruits of the Spirit you won't have to worry about fruits of the flesh?”

“But aren't we supposed to rebuke and correct sin?” Now I was beginning to get it. She felt safe in her righteousness; so, she wanted the bad guys to "get theirs."

“I’m wondering if you’re confusing the task of Scripture[1] with our task. Our task is to bear fruits of the Spirit.”

She persisted, “Well, we can’t be soft on sin,” and turned on her heels and left in a huff.

It’s been my observation that in a culture smothered in the residue of Puritanism and Victorianism, most people already know all about sin. But threats of hell and other fear tactics never seem to make a dent in the preponderance of sinful behavior. Fear tactics, however, do produce a lot of guilt and self-justifying behavior; and one of the easiest ways to justify oneself is to condemn others: “his sin is greater than mine.”

Among the prophetic writings of the Hebrew Scriptures, far and away the most frequently named sins of Israel were idolatry/unfaithfulness toward God and injustice toward the poor. Jesus most frequently condemned the hypocrisy of the religious leaders and their unjust treatment of the poor. Yet in many Christian circles today injustice toward the poor has become a scripturally sanctioned institution by blaming the poor for their lot. 

The obsession over "welfare fraud," [you don't work, you don't eat (II Thessalonians 3:10)] justifies the withholding of all assistance in all forms from all people. Yet it is documented repeatedly that welfare fraud accounts for a minuscule portion of monies spent on public assistance. Administrative embezzlement accounts for much more.

The strategy I infer from the confrontation in the narthex is, “Don’t let anybody get away with anything!” It’s a diversionary tactic to focus attention away from my own brokenness.

We are not responsible for the sin of others (Ezekiel 18:3, 17, 19). Our calling is part of “the more excellent way” of I Corinthians 12:31. Love calls us to bear faithful witness—with integrity of words and actions—to the Love of God. And Jesus was crystal clear: we will be known by the fruit we bear. But by emphasizing the sin of others, we risk neglecting the orchard.

That’s the way I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk

Jim 

---

[1] A reference to II Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” The reference apparently was wasted on her.

The Mind of Christ

I've spent most of my life studying the Bible and related sources in an effort to discover who God is and what God wants to accomplish through me. The longer I live the more important it seems that I continue to do so. That activity is called theology, and everybody, even agnostics and atheists, has “a theology.”

The greatest difficulty with theology is keeping ourselves out of it. What passes for Bible study too often is really an exercise in finding justification for what we already are doing or have decided to do. As the old cliché goes: “You can prove anything with the Bible.” In seminary we called that “seducing the text.” Sometimes it’s more like “raping the text.”

Perhaps the most egregious—and at the same time the most denied—abuse of Scripture and theology is how it is twisted to support the use of violence or the threat of violence to inflict and enforce specific doctrines or practices; and it makes little difference whether the enforced doctrine or practice is religious, political, economic or simple greed—even the enslavement of other humans has been justified through the rape of Scripture.

In other words, the history of theology is filled with intrusions of human fallibility. Theology and faith have been shaped by human need, desire and ambition to a much greater degree than they have shaped those human foibles. While most theology emerges as a way of shaping human relationships and culture, in virtually every case, culture eventually shapes theology, rather than the other way around.

The bottom line is power and control. In a recent blog, Kyle Roberts develops the idea that throughout Christian history theology has served “to empower certain persons over others and to inscribe authority in one way of theologizing over another way, one way of thinking of Christ over another, one way of understanding salvation over another way.”[1]

Why drag out all the dirty laundry? Isn't it more uplifting and constructive to lift up Christ and his grace? Absolutely. But, if that’s what we've been doing, we've done a terrible job! We've been long on condemning the sins of others, and short on any kind of self-evaluation.

For a couple of generations people by the droves have been bailing out of virtually every manifestation of organized “religion.”

And the reason they’re leaving? They point primarily to a lack of integrity between what religion preaches and what it practices.

Of course they often generalize the entire religious world on the basis of some single manifestation of religion—quite likely one particular experience related to religion. But the tragedy is that those counterproductive experiences of religion seem to outnumber those of religious integrity.

In short, the church has lost its power, and none too soon! The problem with a power-based ideology is that power eventually runs out. The church has reacted to its loss of power simply by redoubling its investment in ineffective and counterproductive strategies of institutional maintenance.

Three quarters of a century ago those strategies spelled power, and “success.” But success increasingly was measured by the standards of the marketing industry, rather than by biblically-based theology. When “the customer is always right,” the church cedes its power to the market.

Power was never a part of Christ’s agenda in the first place! The truth is, we humans have gotten it wrong—over and over and over!

We’re not perfect; and one of the greatest manifestations of our imperfection is that we don’t always recognize or acknowledge it. It’s always the other guy who gets it wrong (you know, that cinder in the other guy’s eye…).

But the cry from the “spiritually yearning, institutionally disillusioned public”[2] is simple: “Show us how to follow Jesus.”

WHAT A CONCEPT!!!

How does one “follow Jesus?” Many of us have spent the greater part of a lifetime trying to do, and we still don’t get it right on a consistent basis. But how about starting simply by adopting one quality of Jesus at a time? For some of us even that will be a life-long struggle; and for most of us it will be an ongoing exercise in one step forward, two steps back.

I propose the quality of humility as a starting place. Fair or unfair, accurate or inaccurate, one of the most frequent stereotypes of Christians today is arrogance. It’s easy to see in some people (please don’t show me a mirror!)

In contrast, consider my favorite passage in the Bible:

 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,

6 who, though he was in the form of God,
    did not regard equality with God
    as something to be exploited,
7 but emptied himself,
    taking the form of a slave,
    being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
8     he humbled himself
    and became obedient to the point of death—

    even death on a cross.              ~ Philippians 2:5-8 (NRSV)

Humility, in this text, involves surrender of status, acceptance of a life of servanthood and remaining obedient to the life of service to which God called him.

How about that as a starting place for following Jesus?

That’s the way I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] http://www.longlooking.com/2015/04/theology-is-about-power/

[2] A phrase coined by Thomas G. Bandy and used in several of his books.

A New Paradigm of Faith (which I think is a carbon copy of the original)

• "I believe that the world was created and approved by love, that it subsists, coheres, and endures by love, and that, insofar as it is redeemable, it can be redeemed only by love." ~ Wendell Berry

• “Choose being kind over being right and you’ll be right every time.” ~ Richard Carlson

My heart aches to the point almost of tears when I dwell on “man’s inhumanity to man”. Jesus ate with sinners of every variety, touched the untouchables, healed the unclean and even reminded those in Nazareth that when there was famine in Israel, God sent Elijah to feed a woman from Sidon; when there were many lepers in Israel, God had sent Elisha to heal a Syrian named Naaman—both of whom were heathen aliens!

Jesus refused to condemn a woman caught in the act of committing adultery (a capital offense in that culture), he visited in the home of Zacchaeus, a treasonous, embezzling Publican, and he advised carrying a Roman soldier’s pack not just one mile, as the law allowed, but two miles.

 Jesus called upon his followers to forgive others 70 X 7 times (literally 490 times, which is more than any of us would ever attempt; but which in the numerology of the day was probably intended to mean an infinite number of times) and never, ever to retaliate or seek vengeance. He even forgave the ones who nailed him to the cross.

Jesus reserved his strongest reproof for those who openly boasted of their piety and moral superiority and then used their considerable religious authority to dominate all who dared any divergence from their dogmatic pronouncements.

The Pharisees boasted of their righteousness. Perhaps they even kept checklists of the laws they obeyed. They dotted every “i” and crossed every “t”; but Jesus said, “…unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20 NRSV).[1]

But so many who claim to follow Jesus call others the foulest of names over disagreements about political ideologies, and seek legal authorization to discriminate against people they judge to be the vilest of sinners (but will gladly serve sinners of every other category). Then we all assemble at church and congratulate each other on our moral superiority.

We tend to read Scripture selectively. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Jesus read Scripture selectively, too; and so did Paul. The crux of the matter is not whether we read the Bible selectively, but rather, which texts we select. Jesus selected those that lead to compassion, healing, restoration, reconciliation and love. He rejected those Scripture passages that lead to vengeance, retaliation and violence or domination of any kind.

Theologian, Walter Wink, begins the 9^th chapter of his book, The Powers that Be, with these words:

“American culture is presently in the first stages of a spiritual renaissance. To the degree that this renaissance is Christian at all, it will be the human figure of Jesus that galvanizes hearts to belief and action, and not the Christ of the creeds or the Pauline doctrine of justification by grace through faith. And in the teachings of Jesus, the sayings on nonviolence and love of enemies will hold a central place. Not because they are more true than any others, but because they are crucial in the struggle to overcome domination without creating new forms of domination.”

As I said earlier, we all read the Scriptures selectively, and that’s not necessarily bad. Having surrendered all anxiety over my eternal destiny to the one who said, “My grace is sufficient,” it is my intention, and my prayer, that my reading of Scripture will always put me on the path of following Jesus, even in—especially in—the selection of Scripture texts I choose as my standard for living.

Having arrived so late in life at this paradigm of faith, I have a deeper sense of freedom and joy in Christ, and I have a smidgen of resentment for all those years wasted in the old pattern of reading the Bible to find evidence that I’m right. I’ll never be totally right, except in the act of entrusting my eternal destiny to Christ and moving on to serve him.

That’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] I believe the Pharisees were totally sincere in their attempts to be faithful; but, their faithfulness had become misdirected toward legalistic and unquestioning obedience to a set of laws, and their manipulation of those laws pointed them away from their intended purpose, which was to describe a relationship with God that resulted in loving treatment of persons. 

Musings for the Fifth Day of Christmas

For some reason this year I’ve been more than usually sensitive about the whining and gritching about how “they’ve” taken Christ out of Christmas—as if Christ could be taken out of Christmas by any person or entity outside of ourselves. No matter what anyone else did or said, and no matter how early “they” started, I felt Christ was totally in my Christmas; and I have no control—and no right to judge—whether Christ was in yours or anyone else’s Christmas.

What I don’t recall seeing or hearing from a single individual was how he or she kept Christ in Christmas.

Oh, there was this graphic that was shared several times on Facebook. I think it captured the spirit of the “Christ in Christmas” mantra.

But I’d be very interested to see and hear what some of my readers did to keep Christ in Christmas this year.

For many years we’ve kept an Advent Calendar in our home. There is a bare nativity scene, and below it are pockets for each day of Advent. Each day we take an item from the appropriate pocket and place it (using Velcro) on the Nativity scene.

Our youngest Granddaughter has always enjoyed being the one to put the items on the Nativity. This year she is living with us while her father is on the road, and Jo Lynn came up with the idea of adding an activity to each day’s pocket, along with a part of the Nativity. 

There were things like baking cookies and taking them to a local fire station, making a trip specifically to put money in the Salvation Army kettle, writing Christmas letters to military personnel overseas, etc. Of course, there also were some at-home activities, too; but, the intention, in some tangible ways, was to instill in our granddaughter (and to reinforce in ourselves) the presence of Christ in Christmas. In all honesty, even that little bit sometimes seemed intrusive in our "busy" schedule.

In past years a lot has been written about the exodus from the church of Generations younger than the Baby Boomers. If the reasons given can be summarized in one sentence, it might be that they didn’t see the church living out what it taught. When they read the Bible they find a different gospel than the one they hear being preached and see being lived in the church. It kinda’ puts “literalism” at a different level.

Theologian, Walter Wink, begins the 9^th chapter of his book, The Powers that Be, with these words:

“American culture is presently in the first stages of a spiritual renaissance. To the degree that this renaissance is Christian at all, it will be the human figure of Jesus that galvanizes hearts to belief and action, and not the Christ of the creeds or the Pauline doctrine of justification by grace through faith. And in the teachings of Jesus, the sayings on nonviolence and love of enemies will hold a central place. Not because they are more true than any others, but because they are crucial in the struggle to overcome domination without creating new forms of domination.”

The spirituality of younger generations is not nearly so much about what is believed as it is about how any belief is lived out.

Millennial Generation author, Christian Piatt, is gearing up for a personal journey, beginning in February, to keep Christ, not only in Christmas, but in all of life. Here is how he puts it:

“Being a Christian, by definition, means we endeavor to follow Jesus. But few, if any, of us does it, really. I mean all the way. As Shane Claiborne famously once said, Jesus ruined his life. Once he went all in on what he felt God was calling him to do, everything in his life – all he held dear and felt was important – got turned upside down.

“It happened all the time in the Gospels. The second someone decided to follow Jesus, BAM! life as they knew it was over.

“Who wants that? Who of us is really so invested in this idea of following Jesus that we’d set it all down and walk away if we had to? I don’t know about you, but the very idea of it is pretty terrifying.

“So I’m going to try and do it. With some ground rules, like I’m not going to abandon my family. But over the next 16-18 months, I want to be lot more intentional about what it means to follow Jesus. For real.”[1]

I haven’t decided whether I have the courage or the energy to do it with him. I know how much I’ve really sucked at following Jesus in my past. I don’t mean I’ve sucked at believing and trusting and loving and admiring and worshipping him. But I’ve really sucked at really—REALLY—following him. And I know the truth of Piatt’s statement about the disciples and anyone else who decided to follow Jesus. “The second someone decided to fallow Jesus, BAM! life as they knew it was over.”

So, it’s that thing about the cinder in my neighbor’s eye and the log in my own; but, until I decide whether I’m willing to go all out, I’m going to keep my mouth shut about how anybody else keeps Christ in or out of Christmas, or any other part of life.

By the way, Christian Piatt is also my nephew.

That’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christianpiatt/2014/11/following-jesus-for-real-this-time/

Balance

I’m wearing my preacher’s hat today.

Although most of us want balance in our lives, history is more like a pendulum swinging from extreme to extreme. Historically, the church has mirrored secular culture and more closely proclaimed political party talking points than it has preached and lived the kingdom.

My own awareness of church/cultural dynamics dates back to the 1960's: "flower children", bell-bottom pants, sideburns and peace symbols. My ministry was emerging, and the church whose call I answered was more about social relevance than about stained glass and brass plaques; more about justice than doctrine. Matthew 25 and Luke 4:16-28 were frequent preaching texts, often to the neglect of more personally edifying texts.

Were things better then? No. It was a time when part of the Church neglected crucial elements of faith and practice, like evangelism and spiritual discipline; and in our concern for being non-judgmental we diluted views of morality and erased some lines that should never have been crossed.  Much lost ground was never recovered.

Perhaps the greatest fault of the church in that era was the rigid, non-negotiable lines that were drawn between various manifestations of the Body of Christ. In the last six decades the church has sinfully wasted much time in-fighting over specific differences, instead of finding common ground and working from there to build up the kingdom. “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand” (Matthew 12:25 NIV). That may explain the six-decade decline of the North American Church. A partially united kingdom is better than a broken, divided one.

So, were the 1960's worse than today? No. The social consciousness then was a needed corrective to a tunnel-vision evangelicalism that was suffocating the church. It presented the church as hardly more than an ecclesiastical maternity ward: its only purpose to get people "born again." But if the Church prior to the 1960's was too narrowly defined in terms of maternity, many churches of the 60's and 70's closed down the maternity ward altogether, and attempted to define the church more like an ecclesiastical Department of Human Services.

Again, both are good and necessary dimensions of Christian Disciple­ship. On balance Jesus talked more about ethics than about prayer; more about money than about salvation; more about social justice than about heaven. His kingdom parables were filled with images and metaphors of justice; and, he more frequently spoke of just and ethical relation­ships than of prayer. The Hebrew prophets consistently called God’s people to repent from two sins: idolatry and the unjust treatment of the poor.

But to diminish either focus is to weaken the Gospel, and the pendulum of history brims with correctives that become more destructive than the evils they were designed to correct, and each swing of the pendulum provokes its own hostility. The rigid moralism of Victorianism led to a reactionary swing to "19th century liberalism". When liberalism seemed harmful enough the reactionary swing was toward biblical literalism, which, in turn, created yet another reactionary swing into the 1960's cry for relevance.

NOTE: each reaction was a valid corrective, but when each became an end in itself, rather than a means toward a more balanced, holistic end, it became counterproductive to the Gospel.

Today, for the first time in the church's history, the pendulum may have stopped, and nobody seems to know what to do. An emerging generation is sick and tired of watching people "play church"; sick and tired of watching people who call themselves Christians fighting with each other over style and semantics; sick and tired of seeing Christ represented by people who come across as judgmental and intolerant.

What a wonderful opportunity for the church to become real again! What a wonderful time for the church to hear, as if for the first time, the Word of the Lord:

"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?  Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard." (Isaiah 58:5-9 NIV)

And what a wonderful time to acknowledge that the same Bible also says,

"I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.  Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' (John 3:5-7 NIV)

And that same Bible says,

Pray without ceasing. In everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. (1 Thessalonians 5:17-18 KJV)

And,

If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.  But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.  For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.  For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:19-22 NIV)

What a wonderful time to proclaim the balance: the Word of GRACE that leads to the peace and wholeness that is God's Shalom (salvation); the PROPHETIC Word that calls God's people to repent and to seek justice and to love mercy; the INSTRUC­TIVE Word that teaches God's people how to walk in the ways of the Lord; and the Word of PROMISE that fills us with hope. I believe it is only through hearing and believing and living such a balanced diet of God's Word that Jesus' words make any sense:

"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.  Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.  In the same way, let your light shine before everyone, that they may see your good deeds and praise God in heaven." (Matthew 5:14-16 NIV)

And that’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim