Hide and Seek

In the book unChristian, when asked by The Barna Group what words or phrases best describe Christianity, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was “anti-homosexual.” For a staggering 91 percent of non-Christians, this was the first word that came to their mind when asked about the Christian faith. The same was true for 80 percent of young churchgoers. The next most common negative images? : “judgmental,” “hypocritical,” and “too involved in politics.” (http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/win-culture-war-lose-generation-amendment-one-north-carolina)

After listening in on a conversation with Shane Claiborne who spoke at Andrews University on the topic, I began to formulate a response to his sentiment to, "live out the Gospel in our daily lives so that all will know we are Christians by our love." My response fits best in the title of "hide and seek Christianity", and it centers around the following question:

What would it look like to hide our Christianity in order to seek Christ?

Too often it seems that our Christian beliefs and denominational preferences become the reason for so much of the Christian backlash that the Barna report illuminates. How else would so many people conclude that Christians hate gays, judge freely, dictate policies, and speak and act in a two-faced manner? As Shane illustrated during one service, "those who interacted with Jesus did not seem to walk away from his message wondering, 'Why does he hate homosexuals so much?'"

It has become denominationally acceptable to speak against homosexual marriage and uplift the votes for state legislation to barricade the doors of abortion clinics. But in the end, what Christians are being observed for is words that pertain more to hate and less of love. We've become the standard of morality and ethical principles by policing the world with our religious laws and opinions. But maybe enforcing the will of God by flashing the badge of church branding, and serving the tasks of doctrinal search warrants, we run the risk of missing what it is we are looking for.

Would it be the worst situation to hide our denominational Chirstiandom, and find that we can love without structured parameters? As blasphemous as this may seem, if we look at the figures, the Christian flag is tattered and stained wherever it flies. So maybe it is well past time to do some cosmetic surgery to the face of faith before we continue to wave it in the faces of the conquered and subdued non-Christians that evangelistic endeavors so desire to claim.

Church activities that flourish because they come in the name of love and hiding the name of "Christ" in hopes that Christ arrives and claims his own name without the bloated and heavy words of those who boast of church and their own personal breed of gospel. Not because Christians are embarrassed or ashamed to speak the name of Christ incarnate, but because our lips are not doing justice to the name as we say it. And if we are doing injustice to the name of God, how can we expect to speak well of the Gospel that Jesus came to preach?

Too often I hear the pleading words of believers to pastors and teachers to, "make the Gospel relevant!", "What does this have to do with me?', and "why should I even bother to care about this?". The Gospel by definition is the good news to all people. It's very basis is relevancy regardless of social, political, economical, racial, generational, or educational boundaries. The Gospel was adopted and generated with you already in mind. It cannot be more relevant than that.

But this in itself does not quell the chorus of Christians grasping for relevancy when they look away from the news reports and scan the pages of the bible. So what if instead of trying to pour over the bible searching for the relevance in the Gospel, what would it take to give the Gospel back to Jesus in hopes of finding what we are looking for in our searches?

If we returned the bible, the Gospel, and our constant need for relevance to the arms of Jesus, then we would be forced to search for Jesus. And much like those who met Jesus as he walked the earth thousands of years ago, we may be surprised to find the gays aren't so hated by the man who we once proclaimed was behind our embittered marital prohibitions nor the one who wants the prosperity message for those who believe well enough.

The constant struggle as Christians as it stands today appears to be the task of wrestling the Gospel away from the god-damned gays who want to get married using the equality described in our bibles. This is a message fueled by degradation and oppression and therefore cannot fit within the parameters of good news. And yet this is the finalized and polished copy of the Gospel which is pushed into the public persona of Christianity. Maybe we missed something along the way if where we stand now is "mission accomplished" in capturing the Gospel message. And if what we have has made us comfortable, then maybe it's time to seek again.

The Pope gave a message on the Day of Peace last year that spoke heavily about the need to solve the gay problem. Within the message, there was a constant battle between "us" and "them". And as long as "they" were attacking the traditions of Christianity, there would be no peace. This presents in itself a dilemma of presenting the gospel. Because nowhere in the good news does it speak of a dichotomy in blessings as much as it encompasses all people. If a day of peace can only be achieved at the expense of another's goodwill, it is not peace. If the gospel message you speak is not good news for everyone, it is not the Gospel.

"We worship independence," Claiborne remarked at the conclusion of his speech. "But only interdependence is a message of the Gospel." Interdependence is the key to speaking well when attempting to embodying the Christ-driven love he came to teach. This means a shift in policy, in-speak, and evangelistic missions. Giving the Gospel away for Jesus to hold in hopes that when it is rediscovered millennia after it was originally presented in hopes that it can be found.

This journey will need to be a collection of followers willing to admit that we do not know how, what, where, and why the journey is over. The only standard that dictates the achievement is knowing that the who, Christ, has been discovered. And only when we have heard from the one who carries the message, do we considered Christianity and its Gospel recaptured. This means, the flag must be lowered and the badges of belief be put away. Christianity as we know has taken a dive and the good news plummets with it. Christ left a wake of love in his departure, and we along with the Holy Spirit exist in the murk of a planet bent upon promoting disdain.

Something has got to give.

Maybe it is time to play hide and seek as we as children once did. Loving without feeling the need to claim that Christianity told us to. And instead forget that we ever held the Truth as we shield our eyes and count to twenty. When we lift up our gaze, we find that the Gospel has wandered off and it is our task to seek after it. For now it is hidden, and until we upturn every item imaginable that could hold its presence, we cannot claim to have it. There will be lots of disappointment for those who lose patience with the search, the homesick who still remember a time before the exodus, and the ones who wish that we could turn back. But this cannot be rationale worthy of stopping the mission. Often the search will prove only that God is not many, many things. But in finding where God isn't, it only fuels the hope that God is something greater than perviously imagined. God is more than what held the Gospel message hostage and disseminated such hatred.

Hide the need to claim Christianity and seek Jesus fully. And once the man and the mission are reunited, and that message is loose, the Gospel is free to be given to everyone. Only then the real description of Christianity can emerge. A message of love free for all.

Olly olly oxen free

Harlem Shakes and Death Stars

The White House has a website entitled "We The People," where any American can create a petition and if they get enough signatures can receive an official response from the executive branch of the U.S. Government. Rather recently an official response to a petition suggesting that the government begin constructing a real-life "Death Star," made its way around the internet. It gained notoriety for the whimsical nature of the response, the apparent Star Wars fandom the author revealed, and for being one of the possible reasons the White House raised the signature threshold that a petition must reach before receiving a response.

Another recent internet phenomenon is that of the "Harlem Shake." I admit that I hadn't seen any of the countless recreations of this video meme until today. As a casual fan of hip hop I assumed that the videos were of people dancing to a song from several years ago, and since I had my fill of the original dance during its initial outbreak however long ago, I never clicked on any of the videos that popped up in my various social media venues. However, I had seen the links to many of these videos and even a Spectrum blog listing the various Adventist iterations of the video. The impetus for my eventual viewing was an email sent out to the entire Andrews University student body chastising students for their involvement with one of the videos filmed on our campus, and insisting that this was not how Christians should behave.

I'm currently sitting in a seminary class where, for the entirety of the class period we are viewing a popular film from many years ago that won several Academy Awards. The film is quite good, and as a self-proclaimed movie buff I'm rather glad that we're watching it. When I arrived for class and discovered the film we'd be watching, it immediately caused me to reflect on the reactionary email from Andrews administration that I saw earlier today.

I can see two reasons for sending an email of this nature out to the student body. Either the administration actually believes that such a trivial, silly video is inappropriate and un-Christian, or they have received, or expect to receive, complaints from parents, alumni, donors, and/or factions within the Seventh-Day Adventist church. If the former assumption is true then the administrators involved need to develop a sense of humor or reconsider their career choices, since college students will, and dare I say should, do silly things. If the latter is true, then it is indicative of a problem I have noticed throughout SDA institutions. Instead of ignoring loud factions within the church that are intent on imposing their view of Adventism on the larger body, our institutional leaders are giving credibility to these various groups. In the case of this video they are more concerned with how dance-aphobic Adventists view their institution than on how their student body views its administration.

Andrews University students will not stop dancing because their administration told them its un-Christian, and the administration will not likely crack down on this rapid repositioning. What I believe the administrators want is deniability when they're accused of permitting such abhorrent practices on their campus. Why is that better than just saying "some of our students don't think dancing is wrong and we're not going to stop them?" Isn't there a significant number of Adventists that would object to my required viewing of a popular, secular film in seminary? Is that film allowed simply because word hasn't gotten out yet? If it did become public knowledge, would the administration demand that professors no longer show films because some people object to it? Or would they ignore the complaints? Or even better, would they support their professors? I hope they would support their faculty but my experience tells me that they would choose to give more authority to their detractors than their own professors.

The White House chose to respond to a ridiculous petition by giving a ridiculous response. They set an arbitrary threshold for signatures and when it was reached they had to respond. They could have ignored the petition, which would have contradicted their promise to the American people. They could have lied to their citizens and told them they would begin construction on the Death Star, all the while continuing their policy of not building Death Stars. Instead of either of these despicable choices, they gave a silly suggestion a silly response. In my opinion this last choice was the strongest and most appropriate. Our Adventist institutions have chosen a different route. They've chosen to tell us that they'll build a Death Star when they have no intention to. No one at Andrews is going to keep students from dancing or making videos, nor should they. But they do want to be able to say that they tried to stop them. Why not just give a ridiculous objection the appropriate response?

Our administrators have made a policy out of telling the Death Star proponents that they're building Death Stars when they're not and they won't. Our seminary teaches Spiritual Formation, but since the Death Star proponents don't want them to they call it something else. Our schools teach about evolution, but since the Death Star proponents don't want them to the church is willing to scapegoat only one institution. Our college students act like college students, but since the Death Star proponents don't want them to our administrators tell them they've tried to stop it. How about we stop telling them what they want to hear and stand up for what we actually believe. If we all tell them that we're not going to build their Death Star then maybe they can start getting over it.

Trying Too Little

"For many students, college is a smorgasbord of easy courses chosen for their lack of academic rigor." -Jane S. Shaw


Oh how often I have taken the road of ease. Last May (2012) I took a detour from pastoring three churches to spend time in a scholarly setting (seminary) for a prescribed time (2.5 years). It had been several years since my last classwork had finished up, but one thing certainly had not changed.


"Hey, tell me about Professor X," says the newbie to the experienced seminarian. "What's their style like? Is their class difficult? How much work is it? What are their requirements?"


Inevitably, the experienced seminarians will be sought out by the first-year students and the majority of the first-years will begin charting the course of least resistance. They avoid the professor who assigns the extra 50 pages of reading or the paper that is 15 pages and not 12. They do the minimum necessary to stay off of academic probation and receive their degree so they can go on to half-heartedly carried out ministries, stay under the radar and get paid.


I cannot speak with authority on all seminarians, all graduate students or even all undergraduate students. Certainly someone will read this and find offense in the suggestion that they aren't trying hard enough. For some, college courses of any kind are challenging regardless of whether they are taking them from the "easy" professors. Others will take issue with the thought that so many seek out the "easy" path to a degree.


My thesis is not that all students lack motivation or shrink from challenging courses. My thesis is not that some students don't struggle. My thesis is that more students need to grow up and look for more challenge in class because life is not lived in the easy lane. Furthermore, for those who are extremely gifted with minds built to study the abstract and struggle through tough issues, don't waste your mind by avoiding the tough thinking. You must exercise it for it to handle even greater topics.


I would also suggest that no matter what you believe your mental capacity is, it can be still greater if you exercise it and push yourself outside of the realm of easy.


Read like crazy. Read everything. Look up words you don't understand. Read and re-read and read yet again as many times as it takes to catch a glimpse of what you are reading. Your mind can handle it. (Admittedly, I have wasted many years not reading and it was tough at first to start reading regularly.)


The attached article (where the quote above is taken from) advocates for colleges and universities to stop babying students and requiring more from them. I am all for that (though my actions do not always suggest that in my course selection). My last point is this: if your classes and professors and life itself isn't challenging you enough to learn, challenge yourself to learn.



Wall Street Journal article

Communal Confusion

              I've been saying for a while now that foot washing does not make logical sense. I have been a part of quite a few discussions backing the notion that following what Jesus did in that time is little more than a useless mimicry and misses the point of the symbolism of what Jesus meant. If we were to be walking around in sandals on unpaved roads and our feet were as disgusting as the disciples were in the story, we could easily see how this activity were important and needed. But today with the high fashion that churches bring with them, feet just aren't dirty enough to validate washing them as part of the Communion service. 

              Now as a pastor in the Adventist denomination, I am not allowed to say these words out loud for fear that the GC will hear me and cast me out like the chaff I already represent in my "oxymoronic" existence as an SDA preacher from La Sierra University. But I think that there is more merit in the idea of hawking foot washing on the main roads in the city (like a carwash) where people are not warned a week in advance that they should scrub in between their toes and toss an extra puff of sneaker deodorant into their polished kicks that very morning, literally hours before they are to be little more than symbolically cleansed at church. It's nothing more than a show. And more often than not, we get reports that people avoid this week in church more than any other. (It should be noted that people claim that they are uncomfortable with the confessionary intention of the communion service than the foot washing, but it doesn't help the cause if they are scared to remove their shoes as well as partaking of the offering of the Conference mandated quarterly snack time with Christ.) 

              I'm convicted that we could do away with foot washing all together and replace it with some other mission work of Christ instead. Sure the story feels more complete because you don't have to read from some other section of the bible and get to read straight through the story of the Last Supper, but I think we miss the point when we try and affix the message of Christ's humility when we stoop to rinse off a fresh and clean foot and say that we did as Christ did simply because that's what the book describes. Next we will be able to put on our resumes that because we participated in the actual crucifixion story just because we watched an Easter Passion play. It just isn't the same to witness a reenactment as it is to get to the grimy truth. 

                Those disciples were cramped in an attic by candle light sitting with someone who was about die the next afternoon. They had walked for hours on flimsy leather thongs and they were cautiously chowing down on a meal of unleavened bread and wine. We sit in a warm and spacious church building on a cushioned pew bench. We remove our expensive shoes and dip our feet into warm and fresh water held in an individual tub that has been vigorously scrubbed and sanitized for its single use. We are given personal towels that are discarded after their single use. And after we massage the water into our friend's feet, we call the mission a success. And with that we are rewarded with an individual portioned cracker and an individual disposable plastic cup of grape juice. I wonder at which point we look around and ask, "Are you kidding me with this?" 

                 I love the church and its mission, but I have since lost the enchantment of the song and dance of a quarterly formatted mockery of the Gospel tale. I was invited to speak for a week at a Conference's Junior Bible Conference in California last year. I made a request a week in advance if it was cool that I did a biblical sermon on Communion that would end in an actual Communion service. My request was denied because the woman who "makes the official special Communion bread needed more time to fill an order". I think if I could have done so without losing my job, I'd have sat this event out after that news. So, in a way, I'm with anyone says that they're not onboard with the whole thing as they sit alone in the pews as the rest of the faithful wander into special rooms the day of communal foot bathing.

                  But in the meantime, I stick around and find every single excuse to hold Communion when it's not on the Conference schedule. If for no other reason than to do exactly what the Bible calls for and give people a chance to experience the activity as it is read as much as possible (I still haven't been green-lighted to use actual wine. I don't think I'll hold my breath on that one.). So when I officiate Communion, I try to give a smaller window of notification. To serve bread from one communal loaf that everyone has to share. And there is one cup that everyone pulls from. There is nothing individual about Communion and no one should be as comfortable as they have been allowed to be by pretending that it is. 

                   I still can't figure out how to "fix" foot washing, but I'm working on remixing the idea. And not to solely stand up and complain, here's an idea: What if we have everyone remove one of their shoes and leave it at the door as they walk in. Then during the "foot washing" section, everyone goes and picks up a shoe that isn't theirs. Effectively finding the only part of a person that probably smells and is dirty that morning. And then they have to search for the person that it belongs to. And after they have been matched up, they introduce themselves, pray with that person, and only then they get their shoe back. Thus helping them not walk so crooked, warm up their foot, and giving them a chance to meet at least two new people they probably would not have met without this exercise in discomfort. 

                   Or what would it take to bring Communion to the streets like a car wash would. Kids standing on the corners of busy intersections with signs brightly decorated with the words "FOOT WASH" emblazoned on the front directing cars to the parking lot behind the busiest bus depot in the city. And instead of catching people in their Sunday best at 11AM, we find people at 5:00PM just leaving work and dead tired in need of a massage, a rest on weary feet, and a chance to eat a simple meal. Pull over or unload from the mass transit and for a few minutes take a load off and kick your feet up. Let someone you've never met talk to you about how your day went. Put one of those "Free Hugs" signs up if you must, but put it right next next to a table full of breads from every country imaginable and a cup full of juice (maybe tanking up on alcohol here is not the best laid plan, so Welch's wins out). Let's wash the feet of the tired weary traveler who didn't intend to meet humility and a listening ear. A quick meal and a reminder that there is some decency in the world.

                   Maybe not the answer, but to say that we've figured it out the way we are doing it makes me wonder why we've settled for formatted communal confusion.

Segregated Services

Recently, I found myself seated in the fifth row of a half-full church service. A service designed, dedicated, and designated for people who descended from Adventist spanish-speaking families. I am a caucasian, English-speaking, Adventist believer.

As I sat waiting for the program to begin, one of the progenitors of the program did a double take as she streaked across the front of the stage. Backtracking her steps to greet me, she said, "Hey! I'm kind of shocked to see you here. Are you here to support your girlfriend tonight?" Taken aback by the statement that my presence must be somehow connected to a logical association when entering a church, I sharply (and admittedly somewhat sarcastically) answered her, "Yes."

"Well, welcome all the same. Glad to have you with us." she responded as she returned to her task.

This experience led me to write the following post in hopes of calling out the intentional, accidental, and prevalent segregation that continues to breed separation within the church.

_ _

Church should never be a place where the leaders are pleasantly surprised that you came. Our pews should never be counted by color, sexuality, age, social standing, economic stature, or physical appearance. The word of God is only found in one form, one Gospel message. And somehow this good news is good for everyone where one size fits all. The gospel does not have different news for anyone. It is the good news for every man woman and child spread over many languages to all people.

That being said, let our churches be diverse. Let us never be surprised, saddened, or dismayed when we arrive as find that we are a minority in a room. But instead may we celebrate that the kingdom of God is a habitat for the many. The ark that Noah built was a sanctuary for everything. Yet even as it was being filled with every living thing, there were only two of any one thing. Which means there was only one other object that looked familiar. God somehow found a way to repopulate the planet with just that.

 If God can reseed the garden outside of Eden with two seeds, then assuredly Heaven has room for the masses.

If we were fit to be called "good",

if we are fit to be made in the image of God,

if we were fit to be given grace,

if we were fit to be a chosen people,

if we were fit to be called,

then assuredly in heaven,

we will all fit.

We all await the time in which we are told that we, "have done well thou good and faithful servant." At that time we will not be asked for our papers to show our credentialed documentation. There will be no further need of a burden of proof. And if that much is true, then God is not a stranger to our deeds. We are not a stranger in the eyes of a Savior. Nor should we be surprised when the people that God is familiar with, sit adjacent to us in the pews of a church looking entirely different than we. The opportunity arises and we have the chance to begin to ask questions about why they are here with puzzled bewilderment. Instead, may we begin a new chapter as we ask questions that find out who God is in the eyes of those who God has welcomed into the story of our collective history together. Let us begin to piece together that which we have missed in looking through the interpretive lenses of our personal brand of understanding. This goal will constantly be more difficult if we continue to segregate services based upon that which already holds us apart (lingual requirements aside).

This Sabbath day we are commanded to cease and assist. This day belongs to the Lord. Not you, your son, your daughter, your maid, your butler, your ox, your donkey, your livestock, nor your resident alien are to do anything other than receive the love found in the presence of your God.

Our God.

Not in the sense that we possess God,

but in that God possesses each of us.

The Sabbath is the closest thing we have to Heaven on earth. So slide over in your pew and make room. If not already seated, roam and find a new spot to land that would be otherwise foreign if it weren't for our desires to maintain the habit of status quo living. For today is the day that the good Lord made. A day which had each of us in mind, not in spite, but because of, our differences in color, sexuality, age, social standing, economic stature, or physical appearance.

Therefore, what God has put together, let no one separate.