Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee

Don't kill 'em, just make like us

Andrea Smith's book, Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide, opens the eyes of those that are not blind but shrouded, the ears of those that aren't deaf but plugged, the hearts of those that are cold but not dead.  It may just give a voice to not only the oppressed but also to the unaware yet passive oppressors...





There are options to solving this and it begins with open eyes, ears and hearts...

Invisible Children Meet Obama and he's going "to do something about this issue"

President Obama signed the LRA disarmament bills today that Invisible Children  and many others have worked so hard to get passed through Congress.  Watch the video of their recap watching President Obama sign the bill in the Oval Office.

Theological Fragments and an Elephant

Duncan B. Forrester, Emeritus Professor of Christian Ethics and Practical Theology in the University of Edinburgh, Scotland,  has written a fantastic approach to theology in his book, Theological Fragments: explorations in unsystematic theology.

The description reads, "Forrester here develops the notion, which is partly borrowed from Kierkegaard, at greater length, also responding to post-modernism and to the so-called end of ideology. This important collection provides a coherent and engaging exploration of a fragmented topic, and the essays contained within demonstrate how fragments of insight can be illuminating and effective guides."  

Drawing on the idea that no one perspective can explain what it is perceiving or what it has received comprehensively, Duncan tracks through different chapter titles like,


Theology in Fragments
The Mystery of the Human Person in Community
Good and Gay?
The Pastoral Significance of Mary: A Protestant Perspective
The End of Sacraments: Sacramental Action and Discipleship


While working through this text I was encourage and astounded by it's claim of no center but rather perspectives that should find confluence for greater clarity.  Kevin Vanhoozer borrows from this idea in his chapter in Globalizing Theology: Belief and Practice in an Era of World Christianity.  

Their basic premise can be summarized in the story of the blind men and the elephant,

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
 
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

Many have critiqued this poem and held it up as an example of relativism.  The problem with that is that the premise of the poem is that all the men are blind and have never seen an elephant before.

In regards to theology, this explains the message of the book.  There can't be one way of describing God, especially from one's cultural-linguistical-geographical context.  We need the global community to do that and as such have a long way to go.

Truth is not relative - we are relative to the Truth! 

Theological Butt Dust?

My sister posted this about my 4 year-old niece and her theological question in church recently, 


"This particular Sunday sermon...'Dear Lord,' the minister began, with arms extended toward heaven and a rapturous look on his upturned face. 'Without you, we are but dust ...' He would have continued but at that moment my very obedient daughter who was listening leaned over to me and asked quite audibly in her shrill little four-year old girl voice, 'Mom, what is butt dust?"

At the Table or on the Menu

"If you're not at the table you're probably on the menu."

-anonymous

"Tribes" by Seth Godin book excerpts - by www.davidmays.org

Tribes

We Need You to Lead Us


Seth Godin

Portfolio, 2008, 147 pp. ISBN 978-1-59184-233-0


Seth Godin is the author of ten international bestsellers, including Permission Marketing and Purple Cow. A tribe is any group of connected people and an idea. With barriers eliminated by the internet, those with a passion have the opportunity to lead their fellow employees, customers, investors, readers, etc. Individuals have far more power than ever before in history. Rather than chapters, the book is divided into segments of ideas, principles, and suggestions.


A tribe needs only a shared idea and a way to communicate. Plus a leader. Tribes are about belief in an idea and a community. Humans need to belong and many can’t resist the thrill of a new idea. There is an explosion of new tools to help people connect around an idea. So it’s easier to create a movement.


A leader doesn’t market to his audience or manage it or push it. He leads it.

Everyone is now a leader.


People work a lot and it is much more satisfying to work on things they believe in. Consumers are deciding to spend time and money on things they believe in.


Heretics are the new leaders. They challenge the status quo and make new rules. “Leadership…is about creating change that you believe in.” (14)


“New rule: If you want to grow, you need to find customers who are willing to join you or believe in you or donate to you or support you. And guess what? The only customers willing to do that are looking for something new. The growth comes from change and light and noise.” (18)


Messages go from leader to tribe, sideways within the tribe, and back to the leader. People are in it together. People wanted to hear the Grateful Dead “together.” “The movement happens when people talk to one another, when ideas spread within the community, and most of all, when peer support leads people to do what they always knew was the right thing.” (22)


“So a leader can help increase the effectiveness of the tribe and its members by

* Transforming the shared interest into a passionate goal and desire for change;
* Providing tools to allow members to tighten their communications; and
* Leveraging the tribe to allow it to grow and gain new members.” (25)


The ideas that spread are remarkable ones.


“An individual artist needs only a thousand true fans in her tribe. It’s enough…because a thousand fans will bring you enough attention and support to make a great living, to reach more people, to do great work.” “…the real win is turning a casual fan into a true one.” (33)


Organizations that destroy the status quo win. The status quo could be the time that ‘everyone knows’ it takes you to ship an order. Changing it gives you the opportunity to be remarkable.


Twitter doesn’t cause an event; it merely enables it to occur because of the respect and permission a tribe allows a leader.


Organizations of the future will be filled with smart, fast, flexible people on a mission. And that requires leadership. (41)


Boring ideas don’t spread. And ideas that spread, win.


Great leaders focus not on their own glory but on the tribe.


A leader may first tighten the tribe by increasing communication among them. This is more important than growing the tribe. A tribe that communicates quickly with emotion thrives.


You do not need a majority to win, only to motivate people who choose to follow you. “Through your actions as a leader, you attract a tribe that wants to follow you. That tribe has a worldview that matches the message you’re sending.” (65)


“Ultimately, people are most easily led where they wanted to go all along. While that may seem as if it limits your originality or influence, it’s true. Fox News didn’t persuade millions of people to become conservatives; they just assembled the tribe and led them where they were already headed.” (66)


“Great leaders don’t water down their message in order to make the tribe a bit bigger. Instead, they realize that a motivated, connected tribe in the midst of a movement is far more powerful than a larger group could ever be.” (67)


“Welcome to the age of leverage. Bottom-up is a really bad way to think about it because there is no bottom.” (75)


Easiest: react. Next easiest: respond. Hardest: initiate. Sometimes it makes more sense to follow. If so, get out of the way and follow.


At first, the new thing will rarely be as good as the old thing. If the new thing has to be better from the beginning, you’ll never begin. Soon enough, the new thing will be better than the old. But if you wait until then, it will be too late. The music industry refused to understand this. Industries don’t die by surprise. It’s not as if you didn’t know it was coming. (95)


The key elements in creating a micromovement:

1. Publish a manifesto.
2. Make it easy for your followers to connect with you.
3. Make it easy for your followers to connect with one another.
4. Realize that money is not the point of a movement.
5. Track your progress publicly and create pathways for your followers to contribute to that progress. (103-04)

Principles:

1. Transparency really is your only option.
2. Your movement needs to be bigger than you.
3. Movements that grow, thrive.
4. Movements are made most clear when compared to the status quo or to movements that work to push the other direction.
5. Exclude outsiders.
6. Build up your followers instead of tearing others down. (104-05)


“Tribes are the most effective media channels ever, but they’re not for sale or for rent. Tribes don’t do what you want; they do what they want.” (107)


The transactional costs of tribes are falling fast while the costs of formal organizations keep increasing.


Initiative is an astonishingly successful tool because it’s rare. (112)


“I despair for most of the top fifty nonprofits in the United States. These are the big guys, and they’re stuck. …the top charities rarely change.” (115)


“The big win is in turning donors into patrons and activists and participants. The biggest donors are the ones who not only give, but also do the work. The ones who make the soup or feed the hungry or hang the art.” (116)


“The Internet allows some organizations to embrace long-distance involvement. It lets charities flip the funnel, not through some simple hand waving but by reorganizing around the idea of engagement online. This is the new leverage. It means opening yourself up to volunteers and encouraging them to network, to connect with one another, and yes, even to mutiny. It means giving every one of your professionals a blog and the freedom to use it. It means mixing it up with volunteers so they have something truly at stake. This is understandably scary for many nonprofits, but I’m not so sure you have a choice.” (116)


“Growth doesn’t come from persuading the most loyal members of other tribes to join you. They will be the last to come around. Instead, you’ll find more fertile ground among seekers, among people who desire the feeling they get when they’re part of a vibrant, growing tribe, but who are still looking for that feeling.” (119)


There is a huge penalty for being too late.


Real leadership rarely comes from the CEO or senior VP. “Instead, it happens out of the corner of your eye, in a place you weren’t watching.” (122)


“Hope without a strategy doesn’t generate leadership. Leadership comes when your hope and your optimism are matched with a concrete vision of the future and a way to get there. People won’t follow you if they don’t believe you can get to where you say you’re going.” (122)


“Caring is the key emotion at the center of the Tribe. Tribe members care what happens, to their goals and to one another.” “If no one cares, then you have no tribe.” (125, 26)


“People what to be sure you heard what they said—they’re less focused on whether or not you do what they said.” (128)


“Tribes grow when people recruit other people. That’s how ideas spread as well. The tribe doesn’t do it for you, of course. They do it for each other. Leadership is the art of giving people a platform for spreading ideas that work.” (129)


“Part of leadership (a big part of it, actually) is the ability to stick with the dream for a long time.” (132)


“(Jerry) Sternin went to Vietnam to try to help starving children. Rather than importing tactics that he knew would work, or outside techniques that he was sure could make a difference, he sought out the few families who weren’t starving, the few moms who weren’t just getting by but were thriving. And then he made it easy for these mothers to share their insights with the rest of the group. This seems obvious, but it’s heretical. The idea that an aid worker would go to a village in trouble and not try to stamp out nonstandard behavior is crazy. ‘The traditional model for social and organization change doesn’t work, he told Fast Company. ‘It never has. You can’t bring permanent solutions in from outside.’” (133)


www.davidmays.org

Deer Attacks Redneck...

<a href="http://video.in.msn.com/?mkt=en-in&from=&vid=d1f3d3e8-ea5f-4629-b047-7c68ca2448b4" target="_new" title="Deer Attacks Big Guy">Video: Deer Attacks Big Guy</a>

Be there

Dealing with Idolatry to Avoid God: Part 1

In G.K. Beale's landmark book on idolatry, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry, he boldly yet conventionally claims that we become what we worship, either for ruin or restoration.  In his own words, "We resemble what we revere for our ruin or restoration."  One could summarize this statement by stating that God judges those that run after other gods by making them resemble what they run after. He offers an audio sermon here of the content of his book. 

His strategy is to pull allusive material in the Bible together in an intertextual convergence that sheds clarity on the greater idea taking place in the text.  His main text, Isaiah 6:19-13 reads,

 ⁹ He said, "Go and tell this people:
       " 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
       be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'
 ¹⁰ Make the heart of this people calloused;
       make their ears dull
       and close their eyes.
       Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
       hear with their ears,
       understand with their hearts,
       and turn and be healed."
 ¹¹ Then I said, "For how long, O Lord?"
      And he answered:
       "Until the cities lie ruined
       and without inhabitant,
       until the houses are left deserted
       and the fields ruined and ravaged,
 ¹² until the LORD has sent everyone far away
       and the land is utterly forsaken.
 ¹³ And though a tenth remains in the land,
       it will again be laid waste.
       But as the terebinth and oak
       leave stumps when they are cut down,
       so the holy seed will be the stump in the land."

which is an allusion apparently to this passage in Psalms focusing on verse 8 as the grounds for his statement and the widely held belief that "we become what we worship"...

Psalm 115

 ¹ Not to us, O LORD, not to us
       but to your name be the glory,
       because of your love and faithfulness.
 ² Why do the nations say,
       "Where is their God?"
 ³ Our God is in heaven;
       he does whatever pleases him.
 ⁴ But their idols are silver and gold,
       made by the hands of men.
 ⁵ They have mouths, but cannot speak,
       eyes, but they cannot see;
 ⁶ they have ears, but cannot hear,
       noses, but they cannot smell;
 ⁷ they have hands, but cannot feel,
       feet, but they cannot walk;
       nor can they utter a sound with their throats.
 ⁸ Those who make them will be like them,
       and so will all who trust in them. 

Seems bullet-proof.  Not so convincing though if we look at the nature of idolatry, its definition and what it means to worship an idol.  Are we really worshiping the idol, ascribing worth and value to it instead of to God?  Tim Keller takes a stab at this in his latest book, Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope that Matters and explains it succinctly in this video.

The pervasive understanding of idolatry seems to be more of a smoke screen for a much deeper problem that is rarely addressed.  Dealing with "idols" is ultimately only a step to the real problem and not necessarily an end in itself.  If we become what we worship, the questions I have are,

1. Is it a one way process?
2. Do we become only that which we worship?
2. Do we become what we worship or do we worship what we are becoming?
3. Is addressing idolatry, the "end" or a smoke screen for true our avoidance of God?

These and more questions will be dealt with in a following post.

Prosperity Dating and Christian Culture BS

Ok. This may seem harsh, but this instructional dating video made me cringe and laugh about the same amount. After attending a fairly conservative Bible college in my early 20's, I heard this kind of talking all the time. But there are so many loopholes. It can help some and that's good, but again, there are so many loophole in this kind of thinking.

What about the pressure to be the Proverbs 31 woman. A female professor at my conservative Bible School commented to me once, "Proverbs 31 woman is too hard. It's too much to live up to. Forget it." She was joking but also serious. The Proverbs 31 woman may not be what we expect it to be - it has been proposed to be an attempt by the compiler of the proverbs as an esteeming of the role of women in society. Wisdom was the ultimate virtue/characteristic/goal to have in the life of any ANE person but because the ANE was a predominantly patriarchal society, women weren't esteemed in light of the Wisdom traditions. So shen wisdom is personified as a woman early on in Proverbs, it then moves to chapter 31 where wisdom, again personified as a woman, is doing things that men usually did in that society. Then wisdom is perceived as being an egalitarian virtue that is bestowed upon all, male and female. This chapter could actually be a subversive case for the egalitarian evaluation of women in ANE society - a careful move forward for them. The woman is expected to play a role in society that is both fitted to her feminine and maternal role but also on par with the dealings and international business transactions that generally only men dealt in.

The irony in the video is that though the instruction is to focus on God and not focus on the "man of God" - everything she says and gives instructions for is ultimately based on focusing on "the man of God" and making sure you do the right things so that God will bless. There is a high degree of moralism and Cause/Effect spirituality being taught here. Some of the conventional "wisdom" is not wrong necessarily but the entire presentation is basically, "If you do the right things, the right things will happen to you and you'll get what you want." Prosperity Dating anyone?

There are plenty of people who will give accounts where that wasn't what happened. There are those who waited for the perfect person and "true love waits" promises. Now, their sex life is in disrepair or they eventually got divorced or they can talk a good talk but their ability to be honest with themselves is diminishing daily because they can't keep the facade and reality glued together anymore. This girl's line of thinking is quite dangerous, superficial and extremely self-righteous. Where is the topic of brokenness, forgiveness and the desire to love the bad as much as the good. What about the commitment to be honest about your past issues that will continue to plague aspects of your marriage? The greater one's expectations, the greater the fall when they are not met. This kind of let down, disappointment or disaster can actually end marriages, or end the intimacy because one partner is not getting what they "deserve" based upon their "list" or "godly expectations." Love is something so different from that, something so much more real and visceral and kind. That's the kind of relationship advice that I would like to hear given to young people and will give. There is so much pressure to perform in this video.

Regardless, I have a ton of problems with this line of thinking and propogating a culture of perfection and unrealistic expectations. Why not have high expectations? There is a difference between having standards, growing in maturity vs. having high expectations.

Many college students are looking to their mate to play a role in their life that their father or mother have played historically. The girls in the situation seem to want a "spiritual leader" to make up for their lack of their own commitment to grow up and take responsibility for their own relationship to God. A relationship with the Creator is a rich experience to share together as partners not an expectation to receive from one's spouse.

Many young guys are just figuring life out when they get married. The point isn't to look for someone who "is" a spiritual leader, but someone who wants to grow spiritually and shows signs of a desire to know God on their own. This fellow will probably still screw up and at times royally and maybe continuously, so we need to understand that he isn't a spiritual leader, he is a follower of Christ just like the girl. He needs space to grow just like the girls do. Over time, he will learn what it means to be spiritually sensitive, responsible, gracious, patient, etc... and so will the girl, but to expect him to achieve something on her behalf like "spiritual leadership" prior to marriage sounds more like shifting responsibility for one's own insecurities in their relationship with God.

Either way, the hope that is based in a human relationship should never be placed in the salvific, righteous or messianic characteristics of the individual one is desiring to marry. That is something to look for only in God. Let them be who they are and if that isn't good enough to be around, then maybe you're not the right person for them rather than vice versa. If who they actually are isn't good enough or who you think they should be isn't there yet but could be, then just stay away. You need time to figure out what it means to live in the reality of a broken world for a bit more and they need some that will love them as they are.

The other side of this is that there are some real scumbags out there - but generally - if your eyes are open, they are not that hard to spot.

Loneliness and the desire to be married are strong forces in our culture. How one goes about dealing with those forces in your own life is a difficult path to walk. Advice is the plenty but here goes a bit more. Don't short-change yourself but also don't short-change what it means to be human, a broken and redeemed human. We don't deserve grace and we don't deserve love, we just long for them but they don't come exclusive of each other when they arrive. When and if a list is made, make sure you put somewhere on there, that you want to love them and give them grace like you want to be loved and be given grace and have been loved and given grace by God. That should help to create and filter the great characteristics that you're looking for. One more item - if the majority of your list is made up of moral qualities rather than hobbies, dreams, personality traits and shared experiences, then you're probably not going to satisfy that list very easily. Let that person live, let them breathe and make space for them to be themselves on your list, and then look to enjoy who that person is, who they are becoming and who they will become as you share in that becoming with them. You'll enjoy life with them a lot more and be able to enjoy them a lot more.

WORLD CUP IS ON ITS WAY

After traveling back and forth between about 5 different countries during the 2006 FIFA World Cup, I was able to see the frenzy that it creates. From the UK to Malaysia, to being onboard a 50 + nation international ship, I got to see a lot of response to World Cup action. It's almost like the Olympics. The number of people that are involved globally is staggering. It's truly an international event...

A lament without hope

Sit in my seat of scoffery
and wear my harlot's heart

on your shoulder as you laugh at me
to play the mockers part

I tried so hard to not be
the fool proverbially

The path to her apartment
was just so damn ea-sy

I lick the dust from my teeth
as I lay at your feet

grasping for the moment
when dust before was sweet


You say we see the same sun
I only see the grave's won

You say we see the same moon
but I see only the night's gloom

You say we see the same blue sky
but I can't look up
I can't even cry

When you shook the dust from your feet
was I on your good way

When you shook the dust from your feet
did I get in the way

When you shook the dust from your feet
then went so far away

Do I ever cross your mind?
Do I ever cross your mind?


-Nathan S.

Crusades for Christ

This interview with Rodney Stark is great for an insight into the fallacies of blaming so much of the Islamic Extremism that we see today on the Crusades. Rodney's  interview gives an overview of the Crusades that reflects a more balanced opinion. In one lecture I heard that the Crusades aren't the motivation for much of the Islamic Extremism that we see today because it has more to do with Colonialism and Post-Colonialism. That is as good a reason as any. Very little is written about the detriment of the Crusades for Islamic peoples until the 20th century - the same era of colonialism and post-colonialism. Interesting read! It makes me fear what I've said and will say about "history."

Crusades for Christ

Great Quote by Woodrow Wilson

"If you want to make enemies, try to change something." ~ Woodrow Wilson

The Mistakes of Multiculturalism Part 3: Capitulating our own glory or Accumulating the glory of the "other."

Imagine a big round table and each chair is made of the same plush material (Eurocentric boardroom metaphor – sorry). In front of each chair is a singular name plaque encrusted with a tongue, tribe and nation of the world proudly glinted on the surface for all to see. Each chair represents authority, responsibility and a voice. Many of the chairs are vacant, others have stout, overweight “men” sitting in them, some seat more discreet looking men with a few that hold women - some who have the look of a noble.  All those seated send their voices forth to the center of the table in an attempt to discern which direction to go.  Most are ignored and a few speak over the rest, with short interludes of listening.

Sound like the league of nations? Not so fast, this one happens to be better, though at times mismanaged and unorganized. The difference is that the now defunct "League of Nations" was made up of the winners, the biggest and the most important countries.  They had many honorable pursuits to benefit the minorities of the world with their power but in the long haul - things didn't work out as well as they'd hoped.

The league we are talking about is different because it is a hopeful league.  This isn't the kind of hope that we "hope" for - it is hope that is actual yet hope that we still have to wait for.  At this league's table, there is actually a chair and a plaque to recognize each and every nation, tribe and tongue whether they are there or not. The problem is that not all are able to be in their seat yet. There are some who have already taken their seats who have long past set traps, misdirected, sent invitations without directions, sent directions and the unnecessary need to have an invitation, outright killed or booby-trapped and at some points sent away most of the missing representatives.

Other representatives have not been met or discovered yet? Their empty seats confuse some but others who have been around long enough know that once in awhile an unknown representative shows up, not because they are late, but because they show up in their own time which is on time or we could say "in the fullness of time."  Everyone is supposed to have a seat, but not everyone is supposed to show up at the same time. In real time, not all have the same voice, but in reality they all do have the same voice and so, all will one day  (already-not-yet). There is an organic process going on, not because organic is best but just because that’s the way it is. Nature just has a way of correcting itself (but not always).

Another problem has been and continues to be, “Why are so many seats still vacated…and how can we fill the seats?” The first question is great, the second one is lacking, lacking in respect and is the dilemma that we’re faced with today. The dilemma is not how to fill the seats, it is how to stop filling the seats and allow the occupants to come to those seats in their own time and in their own way. They may have needed to be there long ago, but pushing them there is not the solution. So what can be done?  It begins by clearing the path with appropriate and commensurate apologies.  The vacants may be fettered by or buffeted away by the overt efforts to get them there. Sometimes they are really pushed away by "help."   A track record has a way of following the pushers around. So a better second question would be, “how can we help to clear the littered path towards the cushioned seat, a path that we and others have historically littered upon and at times even set up road blocks upon. Road blocks have a funny way of reappearing though - in the opposite direction.  Dominant societies are annoyed and feel unfairly tampered with when these roadblocks are set up by those who’ve “had enough.”  What does this have to do with multiculturalism?  Well let's turn to an example of how this works out in principle.

My uncle Steve, a native of New Orleans, discovered a universal principle about multiculturalism when working on a ship with an international crew. He was working with two shipmates from Africa and began to befriend them.  As he interacted with them he began to notice that he couldn’t get past their hierarchical treatment of him.  They weren't treating him as an equal but rather as a superior despite the fact that they shared the same status on-board.  He tried and tried to undermine their overt treatment of him but to no avail.  It became increasingly frustrating for him. An even greater problem commenced when they realized that he wanted to be equal. He didn’t want to be above them, something they were literally pushing on him, he wanted to equal. They immediately set to work to amend their efforts and began treating him different - but now they treated him as if he were lower in status than they. They had understood from my uncle that a shift needed to take place and the obvious 2nd choice of the only two choices for them was to rise above him. So in utter frustration, he went back to being "above" them and they went back to being "below" him.

What universal principle was this – “To keep the upper hand, you must never shake the ‘other’ hand.”

We are called to realize that one way to grow into one’s identity is to actually limit oneself to oneself.  God has given each individual a deposit of glory.  How does that work?  How can human beings have glory?  Isn't God the only one to be glorious?  John 17 (The Message) teaches that the glory given to Christ by the Father has actually been passed on to us.

The New American Standard Bible says it like this in John 17: 22-23,


²²"The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;
 ²³I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.

John 17: 20-23 in The Message translation renders it,


 ^20-23I'm praying not only for them
   But also for those who will believe in me
   Because of them and their witness about me.

   The goal is for all of them to become one heart and mind—
   Just as you, Father, are in me and I in you,
   So they might be one heart and mind with us.
 
   Then the world might believe that you, in fact, sent me.
   
   The same glory you gave me, I gave them,
   So they'll be as unified and together as we are—
   I in them and you in me.
   Then they'll be mature in this oneness, 

   And give the godless world evidence
   That you've sent me and loved them
   In the same way you've loved me.

If the goal is to be of one heart and mind the Trinity, then the glory that is given to us - our unique and distinct identity - cannot be capitulated to anyone else and on the other side, we must not then accumulate the glory of the "other's" identity.  Creating space and the time needed for those distinct identities to be formed, embraced, graced and esteemed and then given distinction apart from the identity of the "other" is absolutely necessary for the goal of unity that multiculturalism needs and wants.  For us to be of one heart and mind the distinctions and borders of our unique identities need to be maintained, respected and esteemed.  The only time that these distinctions should be more fluid and porous is when a child is growing and developing under the care of a parent, spiritually or in a familial environment, but with the goal of eventually helping the child to create identity boundaries that  distinguish them from the parent.  If the parent doesn't do this, the child either rebels and disassociates from the parent too much (though this may be necessary for emotional health) or the child capitulates to the parents' identity and never truly receives their own identity.  For some parents, this is exactly what they want as it is a way of accumulating their child's identity/glory to placate their own insecurities.  The healthy parent creates space for the child to "borrow" from the parent's identity until they are able to settle into their own identity through the process of maturation, education, social and sexual development and the resulting individual.  The child leaves the dinner table of their parents in order to establish their own dinner table and once they have, they bring their own dinner table back to the family reunion and add it to the conglomerate puzzle of other "tables" that have now been received by their siblings.  They all add their tables to the edges of their progenitor's (parents) table.  Altogether, a larger and more fruitful table of plenty is created, but not without distinction of the individual tables, which have the ability to remove themselves whenever they want to, but they increasingly don't want to as long as the edges of their table are recognized, appreciated and given respect.  Sometimes, other family members will turn into carpenters and will seek to miter the edges of the tables so that they can be glued and joined.  It's an on-going struggle that never ends requiring each participating member at some points and to some degree to remind those at the table, that their tables has edges, sharp edges if necessary and though they would love to keep the tables together, they may need to take their table and go home if it is not respected.  This may sound like taking one's ball and going home - but that may be necessary if your friends don't care that it's your ball, they throw at it your head and continually don't let you play with it when you bring it out to play with them.  Sometimes taking your ball home is the only way for people understand that you aren't there to be relegated to a place of demoted indignity for their entertainment.  Instead you are there to contribute, participate, compete and have fun.  Taking your ball home because you're being selfish, narcissistic and manipulative is a different story.  

While in Singapore, a clear example of rightly identifying with one's core identity while still capitulating to the identity of another reared up.  I was visiting the historic Bugis Mall, a cosmopolitan center for the city of Singapore.  One would think walking through this extravaganza of consumerism that this could be any mall anywhere in the U.S. or the U.K.  All the same major labels, brands and stores were present with the exact same advertising and styles.  It was sad that at the expense of their own cultural identity, the advertising models that portrayed these styles, donned the new clothes, and portrayed the good life of consumerism were predominantly "white."  Blue eyes, blonde hair and translucent skin was everywhere on the placards.  I remember seeing maybe one or two dark-skinned models while the rest were definitely Euro-American in the appearance.   I looked around at the shoppers and my heart dropped because each of these beautiful Singapore women were being told that to be white and to wear these clothes was the "ideal" expression of style that was necessary to embrace.  By allowing this to go on, they were degrading their own cultural and colored identity on some level.

Saddened, I walked out into the hallways and ventured upon some stand alone plaques that were strung out throughout the hallways accessing each store.  On the plaques, historical explanations of the history and pride of the people of Singapore donned the interior of this ironic consumer experience.  One such story explained that the well known "Bogeyman" was actually tied to this area of the world.  When the British explorers happened onto the region surrounding Singapore, a tribal trading group who had navigated those seas for centuries was being pushed out by the dominating Dutch nautical trading industry.  For a long time, the "Bugis pirates" (pronounced boo-gee), as they were known to the traders from Europe, had dominated the trading routes from Indonesia all the way to Australia.  They were known for being fearless in their battle to establish trade routes among the islands South East Asia and thus established a pronounced reputation for being both fierce and industrious.   As the British East India Company moved into this region, they soon realized that in order to compete with the Dutch, they had to form an alliance with the Bugis.  The placard read that an alliance was formed and the port of Singapore was created to be a staging ground for their new found partnership that would then give the upper hand that they both needed against the Dutch.    The irony, between these placards celebrating their indigenous identity in the center aisle of the mall, alongside the advertising placards of a culture so far removed from theirs was astonishing.

What does this tell us about embracing identity - that it's hard, it's complex and while many right appropriations of one's identity can be taking place, other aspects of one's identity can be lacking.  This process of embracing identity is not easy and has many ironies but it is worth pursuing, even it is seems that the goal to be achieved requires an endless pursuit.  That being said, the pursuit of "becoming" who you really are is most likely not supposed to end but it does have a healthy direction.  That direction is what we're after in this post.  So how do set our intention like flint in the right direction - by resisting the temptation to muster one's worth and identity based upon the worth and identity of the "other."  Positively, it is to embrace your own identity thereby providing an environment for your God-given glory to flourish as well as the permission for others to do the same.  Like Marianne Williamson once said, "We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."  

Sadly though, the temptation that continually presents itself to us, is the temptation to muster one’s worth by doing one of two things.  Instead of the freedom of one's own embodied identity with it's consequent but healthy limitations, we either accumulate the glory of others or  capitulate our own glory to the other.  Ultimately, we gain an inauthentic identity and our core degenerates into self-hatred, which then is projected onto the other as hatred of the "other."
One will not give what one has not first received and conversely, one will give what one has received.  If one has received self hatred, they will give away hatred of self.  We feel like the only way to numb this reality is a dismal spiral into more capitulation or accumulation presented in detail with these two paths.  Christ has presented a third way to rescue us from this deathly spiral, a way of affirmation, celebration, collaboration and dignity.  We will get to that eventually.

1. The first path to gain an inauthentic identity is to overwhelm the “other” and appropriate them underneath you by demeaning them, enslaving them, dejecting them, using them, resisting their equality, etc… Basically the idea is that we feel better about ourselves (our self-affirmed identity) by putting down the others (their identity). So the way to go up is by pushing down, by stealing their glory or accepting it from them willingly.  We also keep what’s already down down or even push them further down however we can do so. This isn't just an act of lowering the "other" but lowering them to a place that then pushes us up.  Essentially we are using their God given embodied identity and dignity for our own use and our own sense of control over our own worth.  By pushing them down we are actually pulling them close.  By pushing ourselves up at their expense we are knitting a loop between our hearts and theirs.
we essentially are joining ourselves to them by pushing them down and the lines of distinction that make them them and us us are now more porous and less distinct.

Is this intersubjective interchange wrong?  Of course not - it is God's design - it s the way of the shepherd - it is the becoming one of marriage - it is the relational space of parenting and the "becoming" of a child.  This interchange of intertwining our heart with the "other" happens whether we like it or not but when it is done to dominate rather than to shepherd, when it is done to consume rather than consummate, when it is done tyrannically over against the the "other" rather than tirelessly on behalf of the other, it becomes imperialism rather than cooperation, it becomes usery rather than love, or it becomes tyranny rather than sacrificial benevolence.  Though the act of domination has short term effectiveness, it actually works to destroy one’s own core identity as well as the identity of the "other."  This is because it still avoids the nascent steps necessary to forming a healthy identity of one's own self. If I appropriate the effect that another’s identity, the weight that their own glory has - the effect it could have had on me or on others - for myself, I am circumventing the slow but necessary formation of my own identity.  If I steal their glory – I may be lead away from the limitations of my own singular identity - the effectiveness of my own glory but I exchange my own 'real' self, with all of its healthy limitations, for the conflagration and accumulation of many selves from the “other” who surrounds me.  I desire to accumulate the effects of their personal glory instead of allowing my own glorious identity to come to fruition, which requires perseverance, testing and difficulties that in my selfishness, I don't want to undergo.  We can all do this to some degree. Governments do it, bullies at school do it, parents at home do it, manipulators do it, pastors do it, I do it, Fox News does it, CNN does it, my child does it, my boss does it, my co-worker does it, America does, Luxembourg does it, we all do it.  We all at some point attempt to accumulate the glory that belongs to the "other" in order to control our insecurities and our inherent lack of self worth that comes with being a fallen human being.

2. The 2nd way to gain an inauthentic identity is to give away one’s identity to another who is famous, older, more respected, envied, one who willingly leads, one who gives security, a person, sect, group or gang who will give you an established identity and immediate respect in exchange for your unquestioned allegiance to them and their ideals, etc… This identity seeking method wants someone that is “more” to become responsible for you, who are “less.” In this method we accept that we are less so that they can be more.  This promotes the same dynamic that the previous point made - that when you discontinue the distinction between you and the other either by dominating the "other" or by elevating and impersonating the dominator, you only receive an inauthentic identity.  There are many reasons why we allow this to happen.  Some allow the dominator to give them a sense of identity so that they don’t have to be as responsible for their own growth, issues, talents, calling, mistakes(aspects of identity).  You name it - there are plenty of things in our lives we don't want to take responsibility for.  We'd much rather have someone else do it for us - someone who has it all "together," someone who has proven themselves or has lead others or someone that we fear or want to fear.  We give permission to the "more" people to be something for us, who are the "less" people, because we actually fear being who we are really supposed to be.  We also want someone to blame for our mistakes other than ourselves.  We project our issues our pathologies and our faults onto the leader of our choice so as to not face them down ourselves.  We can only do this by allowing the "leader" in our lives to be more than just an example.  We ignore their faults or look over them.  They ultimately become more than what they are supposed to be in our lives,  They begin to have access to the formation of our identity that can almost be akin to the dynamics of demonic possession.  They think for us, speak for us, direct for us and we begin to integrate their anger, their opinions, their limited perspectives into most of our responses.  We defend them to no end and attack those that attack our leader.  We can sacrifice our own ethics and boundaries for their sake in order to preserve our allegiance to them, even if that allegiance requires that we diminish our own dignity, betray our own conscience and give away our own glory to them.  Symbiotically, we acquire our own self designed security from them whilst they accumulate our portion of the glory and dignity that God has deposited in us.  He, she or they then become our conscience, our ethic maker, our boundary marker, our creed creator, etc...  We end up looking more like them than we look like ourselves, we end up sounding like them than sounding like ourselves and in the end their "image" is spread and their "glory" fills the earth rather than God's image and God's glory.

We not only want someone to take responsibility on our behalf - we also want someone to take the blame on our behalf - which is only possible when our heart and identity is intertwined with the person who is "more."  We need someone to blame other than ourselves as it was with Eve, Adam and then Cain.  Orchestrating a lifestyle by which we can circumvent responsibility in all of its capacities is at the core of this second path to an inauthentic identity.  Both of these paths converge and form the wide path of idolatry.   To become oneself, truly oneself, takes time, hard work and perseverance and it is scary at times. It also requires that we receive, truly receive, from Got only that which He wants to give - which will blow our minds if we give up on our own machinations.  The process of truly becoming oneself does provide freedom but also uncomfortable limitations.  We can fear both the freedom and the discomfort of those limitations, which is ultimately a fear of our true self.

In the film, Akeelah and the Bee (2006), Akeelah has this conversation with her professor about her own identity and ultimately the glory that God has put into her - her created and embodied identity,

Akeelah: [quoting Marianne Williamson] Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.
Dr. Larabee: Does that mean anything to you?
Akeelah: I don't know.
Dr. Larabee: It's written in plain English. What does it mean?
Akeelah: That I'm not supposed to be afraid?
Dr. Larabee: Afraid of what?
Akeelah: Afraid of... me? 

(There are other ways that we ignore/lose our identity that could be discussed like doing so because of the shame associated with one's historic cultural or dysfunctional identity.  We can also spite our own identity by embracing the identity of the 'other.'  Many more descriptors could be presented as to why identity is never gained, rarely embraced, only half appreciated or just plain lost, but that isn't the focus for this topic so we'll move on.  The point does need to be made that there are more paths to describe identity issues than what I've presented, but what I've presented is not an attempt to summarize and include every issue surrounding identity.)


The temptation is to shortchange this process of coming into one’s identity by either giving ourselves away for the sake of security which also provides "belonging" (giving away our God-given glory).  The 2nd way discussed is by accumulating the identities (glory) of others for oneself and by giving them a place to belong in, but where they belong to the leader who is medicating his or her own insecurities.  We gain this security by capitulating to a more established identity or by appropriating and accumulating the “other’s” identity to myself in order to amass their glory, their security for myself. These two directions of capitulation and accumulation end up marrying each other and go on for long periods of time in a co-dependent destructive relationship. Is anyone safe? No. From parenting to colonialism, from fashion mongering to pastoring, from over-priced education to school yard bullies, we all do it.  

Hence, the way to be multi-cultural is not necessarily the quick fix of pushing people together. It is creating space for each identity to take their seat at the great table of dialogue. If we haven’t historically allowed that to happen by pushing people out of their seats or into their seats, by either making them sit on the ground or hiring them to serve the buffet while the real conversation happens by those sitting down, we really haven't done multi-culturalism.  It is one of the most difficult plateaus of reality to achieve - but one of the most important in God's grand narrative of redemption.  As we nurture and nourish the God-given glory of our identity and the identities of the "other", we will all flourish, and that flourishing is what glorifies God.  It is the path of glorifying God.  One of our beloved church fathers said it best,

"The glory of God is man fully alive."  - St. Irenaeus


So how do we make space for each others' place at the table?

We do it...

1. By receiving our proper and limited space at the table,

2. By embracing yet limiting ourselves to our own path to the formation of our identity,

3. By knowing where we end and where the “other” begins

4. By taking only our seat instead of our seat and then the seat of so many "others.'

5. By knowing that God is glorified when our identity flourishes unto itself, yet interdependently within the community of the world.

5. By recognizing and honoring distinct identities (generationally, ethnically, geographically)among our common humanity.

6. By recognizing the that distinct identities are not just ethnic/racial - distinct identities can be epistemological, generational, religious, occupational, vocational, gendered, sexual, etc...


So what does this have to do with the predominantly white and suburban Emerging Church?  We will discuss that in "The Mistakes of Multiculturalism Part 4."  Weighing in will be Dave Gibbons, author of "The Monkey and the Fish: Liquid Leadership for a Third Culture Church"

Is spiritual "affirmative action" necessary as the best route in the body of Christ or is it more damaging in the long run?  Is there a way that Christ has laid out for responsible and dignifying multi-culturalism to take place?

Failure = Success

The mistakes of multi-culturalism part 2

Generally, we can agree on the strengths of multi-culturalism, but what about it’s weaknesses?

Growing up in a town that was split between two dominant ethincities, First Nations and Euro-Canadian, I saw firsthand how two communities can ignore each other while living right next to each other. There are always exceptions but having grown up in both communities, I couldn't help but see the rift, culturally, ideologically, economically, etc...

Because of my parents’ commitment to be among the First Nations community (they’re still there) I was able to be in both communities throughout my childhood and adolescence. An issue that kept coming up over and over again was how to do church and be the church in a community that was obviously split right down the middle in so many ways. The “white” church in town had a building, programs, a strong core community and a solid history within the community.

As children, we were aware that our parents had come to this little town in Western British Columbia to be a part of what God was doing to birth a First Nations Church among the Statlimx people in the interior of that great province. In the first years my family attended the “white” church but eventually broke off to commit themselves completely to the First Nations community. When that decision was made, we were commissioned by this community in a good way, but still misunderstood by some.  From some, there was no small disagreement in this family that had nurtured our growth and Christian need for community from the first year that we arrived as a family. Why did they disagree?

Well, it had been my parents’ intention from the beginning to be there for the First Nations community and that had been made clear. Otherwise they wouldn’t have considered a little town in Western Canada to be their home, where they would raise their children and where they will probably pass from this life into the next and be buried. Some from our very loved "white" church had assumed that in order to be faithful, we needed to be multi-cultural and do community together as one community and we could do it in their building since they were already meeting, had space and were hoping to see their church grow.  For my parents, they had realized very soon that if they didn’t have a mono-cultural environment for the Native to community to discover Christ and grow up in their love for him – it wouldn’t happen.

What wouldn’t happen – a distinct First Nations expression of faith, practice and belief would not come into being. There were some years where the First Nations community did visit the “white” church but historically, this proved to produce disappointing results and not because anything was done to hurt them but because of the need for distinctives.  Why do we need distinctives in our expression of belief and practice?  If every tribe, tongue and nation is to stand before Christ worshiping one day, each tribe, tongue and nation will need to do so in their own distinct way - the way that God created them to worship him, both distinctively and corporately.  In order to be "truly corporate" in our worship of the Creator, we need to be "honestly distinctive" and to recognize and honor others in their distinctiveness instead of begrudging them of their identity so that they'll just do it our way.  Getting others do to it our way may be more expedient but it is ultimately sinful and imperialistic.  For a First Nations community to worship both distinctively Native but also within a corporately diverse Christian community, some incubation time is still needed to allow their distinctives to be retrieved, appreciated and recognized by self and others - something that has historically been a bloodied battle ground.  Organizations like Wiconi International and NAIITS (North American Institute for Indigenous Theological Studies) are pioneering this project among others like  Broken Walls, a First Nations worship band that writes and composes songs that can be sung to the Creator in a Native way.  Criticism and praise has been received by these organizations by those who think that syncretism is right around the corner.  Jonathan Maracle, the lead singer for Broken Walls, once asked a white church, "If our drum is evil, then what makes your Yamaha piano holy?"  There are questions and concerns of contextualization and syncretism that need answers but require the input and valued insight of First Nations Christians more than (but not exclusively) others and therefore space and recognition is required for this to take place. 

Historically, certain ethnicities have always dominated the cultural milieus that exist, ideologically, politically, economically, etc...  Faith communities are no exemption.  I remember speaking with a Native friend when we were just teenagers and asking him about choosing to follow Christ.  He had one issue holding him back, that I had to wait for patiently.  Eventually he disclosed, "If I become a Christian then my friends will think that I'm betraying them."  I asked him to explain what he meant, "If I become a Christian then my friends say that I'm not an Indian, that I'm not one of them and that I'm betraying them."  To understand this, one would have to study how the church in this last century has historically participated in one of the most horrific and pervasive cultural genocides this continent has seen.  One cannot fathom the destruction that was wrought (some can I'm sure) by the U.S. and Canadian governments with the churches as their partners among First Nations people of North America.  So to be Indian, is to not be a "Christian" in more ways than one.  So for a solid and contextualized Native expression of church to come into being, these and other concerns had to be taken into consideration.  As such, they have had to do it on their own for awhile.  This provides an environment where they can answer their own questions as they search the Scriptures and where they can respond to Christ in their own way, thus providing a long overdue and culturally distinct approach to their God, who is as much theirs as he is ours. 

So, in order to be responsibly and faithfully multi-cultural, is it necessary to be mono-cultural for a season, even a long season?  More coming in part 3.

Soong-Chan Rah and The Mistakes of Multi-culturalism

The Emerging church is blamed for being too white, too young and too mono-cultural and lately for being too dead. The most scathing critique is that there are few if any minorities involved in the movement. The first time I heard this was when D.A. Caron, one of the leaders of the Gospel Coalition, remarked that Crawford Lorritts said something like this to him regarding the Emerging Church movement during the 2007 Gospel Coalition conference,

"Of course there's a sense in which from the point of view of the African American community, the Emerging Church movement is basically a movement of rich white kids who have their dad's platinum cards and can thus pay for their journey along the road."

The audio can be found here

If you want to hear Crawford's quote as stated by D.A. Carson it begins at about the 12:00 minute mark.


Lately, Soong-Chan Rah has written in his book, The Next Evageliscalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity about the Emerging Church being too white and even more recently an article from Sojourners Magazine gave Dr. Rah a chance to write (along with a student at North Park Seminary) more detail on is perspective.  Chances to respond were given to Julie Clawson and Brian McLaren, to spokespeople from the Emerging Church family.  The article can be found here

In the article Rah and Mach researched the emerging church's ethnic orientation and Dr. Rah had this to say,

"At the time the emerging church was coming into vogue, I was pastoring a multi-ethnic, urban church plant in the Boston area. It seemed that every brochure for nearly every pastors’ conference I received featured the emerging church. As I began to attend some of those conferences, I noticed that every single speaker who claimed to represent the emerging church was a white male. A perception was forming that this was a movement and conversation occurring only in the white community."

So why is that seemingly true?  Why are there so many white guys and girls in the Emerging Church movement?  Some would say it is because the EC is a reaction against modernity's influence on the conservative from of Evangelicalism - the search for certainty (which is not Christian but human) through Biblical exposition and propositions.  Some would say it is a long overdue re-alignment of the Gospel with social justice.  Why the re-alignment - apparently  because of the theological witch hunt that many conservatives went on in decades past to protect the Gospel from Liberation theology, the World Council of Churches' dismal failure and the Social Gospel.  The result being that social justice and mercy ministries were relegated to the place of little importance or a tool to get people saved - which was the real deal.

Recently in a conversation that I was having with two African American students on campus at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, I asked them why they thought that the Emerging Church movement wasn't as prevalent or even known in the African American community.  They were surprised to hear about some of the aspects of it but when I asked more pointed questions, one of the girls laughed and said in so many words, "We have always been the emerging church.  Social justice has always been a part of who we because the social needs of our communities have always been right in front of us - that's how you do the Gospel." 

Most African American communities skipped the invasion of modernity into every aspect of their culture and thereby didn't need to be post-modern because they were largely never modern (with exceptions of course).  So what bearing does that have on Crawford's earlier remark and did Dr. Rah do enough research into why some whites are drawn to the elements of the Emerging Church movement as opposed to why large swaths of other ethnicities aren't?  It is frustrating that whatever white males do can always stink with the stench of imperialism instead of understanding how white people form their cultural identities alongside everyone else.  Imperialism is an issue but it isn't the greatest contributor to the distinctives that  make up a people group's cultural identity (though it can play a part).

Epistemology, the study of how we know what we know, is much more the issue at hand rather than the color of skin.  So how do we do multi-culturalism responsibly without making blunders along the way (which is ultimately impossible but we can do a better job)?  If multi-culturalism is good are there any mistakes to be made along the way and have we made some already?  What are the mistakes of this ideal push for multi-culturalism?  I will discuss that from a First Nations perspective in my next post.

Breaking News: Police Brutality for Christians

Mega Church Mania

Is it wrong to make fun of stuff like this? Sometimes

"Sunday's Coming" Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.

Tim Keller on the fence?

Tim Keller recently spoke at the recent Q conference on the contested issue between justification and justice?  Out of Ur reported on his presentation here.  How are they related and how are they unrelated?  Which one is more important or which one comes first?  Are they part of the same message or is one the central message and the other follows as an implication.  Generally I have heard Tim Keller, a leader of the Gospel Coalition, teach that the Gospel is the Gospel of Justification by faith through Christ's death and resurrection.  Once we as sinners are justified and set free from the condemnation of our sin by faith in Christ, we have received the Gospel - therefore the Gospel is strictly our justification by Christ's death and resurrection.  In an interview with D.A. Carson and John Piper, Keller outlines that he agrees with this clearly,



The question remains - is the Gospel just justification or is it what N.T. Wright projects as the rescue, redemption and reconciliation of all things, (Colossians 1:19 and the full passage of I Corinthians 15)?  Keller goes on to explain this further in the first part of this video,




Tim Keller is helping a lot of people and is a great teacher and communicator.  I believe that he doesn't want to fall on one side of this issue or the other because he's trying to forge a via media.  Some have called this the "third way" kind of thinking which is fine I guess.  There are many third ways that are helpful but this is not one of them.  Tim is hard to nail down on this issue - he's on the fence in a manner of speaking.  I can appreciate what he's trying to do but it might cause confusion.  Either way, he seems to be saying two different things.  On one hand he is in agreement with Carson and Piper's view of how we do social justice and mercy ministries but on the other hand he wants to say that justice and justification joined at the hip and should be view through the lens of a "both/and" rather than an "either/or" perspective.  I couldn't agree more with the exception that it doesn't seem like he really believes that.

What he believes it seems is that justification comes first and then an obvious implication from a human being justified is social justice.  Social justice has no place in the definition of the Gospel because it is not the Gospel or an aspect of the Gospel - it is only an implication that follows the Gospel - the Gospel Christ's death and resurrection that sets us free from the condemnation of sin.  Therefore instead of a "both/and" view he is actually positing a "this/then that" view.  Social justice is not the Gospel because it comes after the Gospel.  This is an effort to protect the definition of the Gospel from being appropriated like it has been in the past and being widened so far that it loses its justification foundation.  That's a good concern, but we need to revisit the lost cause of the battle between social justice/the social Gospel and the fundamentalist clinging to the proclamation of the Gospel as primary.  If we revisit this debate, it is possible that a new way of inter-relating these two poles could come into existence.

Either way, it seems that Keller is still riding the fence on this one with a few quotes and comments here and there to put him on either side.  Is the Gospel on about Jesus dying and resurrecting to free us from spiritual death or is it the whole message of reconciliation and redemption of all things - which includes and even elevates humanity's redemption but not to the exclusion of everything else as being part of the Gospel's reconciliatory effects.  Our redemption may be the first fruits of the Gospel's effects but it's not the only fruit.  If sin's effects are as complicated and pervasive as they are, the Gospel's effect has to be as pervasive and effective and more.  Christ told his disciples to preach the Gospel even before he died or they understood how his death would play a role in the Gospel.  The book of Hebrews teaches that the Old Testament saints had the Gospel preached to them.  If that's the case then the Gospel has to be the whole message of redemption that has been communicated throughout both Testaments, not only the work of the cross for our justification but the work of the Trinity to redeem all things so that God might be all in all (I Corinthians 15).