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