We lament because we believe in God passionately

By David Funk

Psalm 88 is terrible. It is the one psalm that has no ingredient of resolution, no praise, not even a commitment to praise in the future. The poet ends his prayer by stating:

“I have been afflicted and dying from my youth on;

I have suffered your terrors; I am desperate.

Your burning anger has crossed over me;

your terrors have annihilated me.

They swirl around me all day like water;

they have encompassed me completely.

You have removed lover and friend from me;

Darkness is my closest friend.”

The final word in Hebrew is “darkness.” Marty Martin, author of A Cry of Absence: Reflections for the Winter of the Heart, writes that “the Psalm is a scandal to anyone who isolates it from the biblical canon, a pain to anyone who must hear it apart from more lively words. Whoever devises from the Scriptures a philosophy in which everything turns out right has to begin by tearing out this page of the volume.”

What is this psalm doing in our Bibles, we who have a faith characterized by hope, joy and the love of the Lord? Part of the answer must be that sometimes we as God’s faithful people find ourselves in the shoes of this poet.

Life is a God-ward journey, but the road toward him sometimes takes us into valleys. In those valleys we are not able to see our goal. More than that, some of these valleys are so deep that not even a ray of light enters the bottom. This is the valley of Tzel-Maweth, Hebrew for “the shadow of death.” We need this prayer because sometimes we sojourn in the Valley of Tzel-Maweth.

Psalm 88 is the prayer of a person in unrelenting pain. We don’t know the exact situation the psalmist was in, and that is intentional. This psalm is written in such a way that it can be the prayer of any of us who experience insistent pain for any reason. But one of the more common experiences of the Valley of Tzel-Maweth is the pain that mental illness brings.

Mental illness touches almost all of us in some way, whether because it is your own personal experience or because someone you love is walking that valley. Perhaps you know what it is like to visit the psychiatric ward when someone you love is on suicide watch. It is said that 22.1 percent of all adults suffer from a diagnosable psychiatric disorder in any given year.

To be sure, mental illness is a physical event. It has to do with synapses, neurons and chemicals of the brain. But we believe that we are created beings, in inextricable relationship with our Creator. We believe that we are not just souls, but embodied souls. Matter matters. Mental illness is therefore a physical event that has profound spiritual fallout.

The experience of mental illness raises some profound and troubling questions. We wonder, “Is it God who sends this suffering? If so, why?” Theologian Kathryne Greene-McCreight writes of her experience with bipolar disorder and clinical depression in Darkness Is My Only Companion: A Christian Response to Mental Illness. She writes: “Why, with my religious convictions about the love and mercy of God, with my belief in that unconditional and free grace of God poured out in Jesus even in spite of my basest longings and actions, why would I not be filled with joy at every moment, eager to greet the day with the love of the Lord?”

The basic question on which all others return is, “What is the relation of God to my suffering?”

Enter Psalm 88. This prayer is terrible, but it is not ultimately hopeless. It is not a psalm of mute depression. The fact that it is not hopeless consists not in what it does or does not say but rather in how it is said. Hopelessness sounds like resignation. Hopelessness sounds like silence, like non-prayer. This psalm speaks to God, and therein lies all the difference.

Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann writes, “This psalm, like the faith of Israel, is utterly contained in the notion that Yahweh is there and must be addressed.” It is as if on the bottom of the Valley of Tzel-Maweth there is a pit, and it is prayer like this that is the lifeline that keeps us from falling into that pit.

Prayer like this is, therefore, an act of courage and an act of defiance. By it we remember and insist that in all things it is the Lord with whom we have to do. Even in that horrible valley we are on a journey towards God, and that terrible valley cannot be—is not—where that journey ends.

So, why do we have this prayer in our Scriptures, which are otherwise characterized by hope, joy and love? Because this is what faithfulness sounds like in situations of unrelenting pain. We’re in real trouble when we stop praying like this, when we cease our part in this difficult conversation with God. Then there truly is hopelessness and we slip into the pit on the bottom of Tzel-Maweth.

The majority of the prayers that God has given us to pray to him give some expression to brutally honest lament. If this awful kind of prayer is one of God’s provisions for us when we are in the Valley of Tzel-Maweth, then we must have room in our faith for this kind of prayer. But we don’t. Lament has been mostly exiled from our personal and corporate worship, and the loss is great indeed.

Lament is driven by a conviction that God cares and matters and is who he says he is. We lament not because we don’t believe, but because we believe so passionately. Conversely, loss of lament is a sign of unbelief. God has given us Psalm 88 and other laments because this is what faithfulness sounds like when we walk in the valleys. Even here it is the Lord with whom we have to do. Yes, Lord!

ADNet offers resources on mental illness

Mennonite Brethren congregations and individuals looking for resources on mental illness can explore Anabaptist Disabilities Network (ADNet), an inter-Mennonite organization whose mission is to encourage families and equip the church to include persons with disabilities fully in the life of the congregation and community. Disabilities are defined broadly to include physical, sensory, cognitive, and emotional disabilities, including mental illness.

ADNet is committed to making available to families and congregations the best in Christian resources related to all types of disabilities, including mental illness. The organization offers print resources, including classic titles originally published by their predecessor Mennonite advocacy ministries at Mennonite Mutual Aid and Mennonite Central Committee.

The classic booklet, Supportive Care in the Congregation, describes care circles, a method for congregations to offer supportive care to families and persons who deal with disabilities, mental illness, chronic illness or other needs. A more recent booklet, published in this decade, is Crystal Horning’s A Christian View of Mental Illness. The booklet provides background on the church’s historic response to mental illness and outlines a Christian response based on Scripture.

ADNet also offers newer titles by Christian and secular publishers and a variety of articles, papers and graphics online. VHS tapes and DVD discs are available for loan, with newer titles available also for purchase, including Mennonite Media’s widely used new video on mental illness, Shadow Voices.

ADNet’s newer periodical resources are the Connections newsletter, published three to four times a year, and a quarterly electronic newsletter called ADNotes, which offers tips and additional resources especially for churches. Their newest program is the Congregational Accessibility Network (CAN), that provides resources for congregations to evaluate the extent to which they include all persons.

Most of ADNet's resources are free; others are offered for sale at minimal cost. The ADNet Web site offers full details. Information is also available by writing adnet@adnetonline.org or by leaving a message via voicemail or fax at 1-877-214-9838.

Take a closer look at Luke 2 and find new meaning to old traditions

We relive with Mary and Joseph the long, grueling trip to Bethlehem that was just a bit much for a nine-month-pregnant woman and led to a short labor and delivery on the night of their arrival in Bethlehem.

We respond with astonishment once more that the arriving king is not born in a palace, not even in a house or a hotel room, but in a barn. His first bed is a feeding trough!

We hear the angels’ message, run with the shepherds to see, ponder with Mary. In short, we relive the old story that never changes.

We try to make the traditions come alive, and we supplement them with traditions of our own. Traditions about trees and gifts and guests and Christmas dinners and lots of things that are designed to make Christmas special but often make it a dizzying cycle of busy activity and stressed nerves. Perhaps the time has come to make some changes. And I don’t mean only in the trimmings we’ve added. What if we reimagined the Christmas story itself!

I don’t mean that we should invent a new story. I mean that we should take the Bible very seriously but fill in the gaps differently than we are accustomed to doing. Have you never noticed how much of the Christmas story we actually make up with our own imaginations?

• How many wise men are there? Who knows? The Bible doesn’t tell us…so we make it three. You know, standardize it so we can create the right number of figures for the Christmas display.

• Which animals are there in the stable? Who knows? The Bible doesn’t tell us…so we make it an ox and an ass. You know, “Ox and ass before him bow, and he is in the manger now.” Oh yes, the little shepherd boy was carrying a lamb, wasn’t he?

• We use great imagination on the evil innkeeper. He’s the bad guy in the story. Whole Sunday school plays center on his opportunism (taking advantage of market conditions to quadruple his rates), his callous blindness (not recognizing the coming of the Lord of Glory), his hard-heartedness (not even finding room for an expecting couple) and his economic chauvinism. Poor carpenters just don’t cut it; you have to be a Roman census official or a respected Jewish leader to find a room in his hotel on this busy night.

And having created our images of Bethlehem, we let the story challenge us—challenge us to be as peaceful and calm as the shepherds on the hillside, as filled with worship and praise as the angels, as generous as the wise men, as contemplative as Mary and as obedient as Joseph.

It’s a beautiful story, this one we’ve filled in for ourselves. Well, beautiful except for that old innkeeper. But we need him as our scapegoat. After all, the larger than life “good guys” in the story leave us with an impossible ideal. One thing comforts us: At least we aren’t as bad as the innkeeper.

Start with the innkeeper

I want to suggest a way of reimagining what happened. I begin with the question: “How did the innkeeper get into our story?” The New Testament doesn’t mention an innkeeper.

Well, we get the idea of the innkeeper from the mention of the inn. “No room in the inn” must mean that some innkeeper didn’t make room. But the story in Luke doesn’t actually refer to an inn either—not in the original language at least. When Luke says, “There was no room in the inn,” he used a word that could mean “inn,” but almost never does. It almost always means “guestroom,” as the TNIV now translates the word.

The word used is kataluma, a word used exactly three times in the Bible. It is used once in Luke 2 and twice more to refer to the room in which Jesus had the Last Supper with his disciples. But they didn’t go to an inn. Luke clearly describes the location as a “large upper room” (Luke 22:1; cf. Mark 14:14). It is a large guestroom built, as was common for Jewish families, on the top of a normal house.

So kataluma normally means “guestroom on top of a house.” Moreover, when Luke wants to speak of an inn, he uses a different term, pandocheion. This is the term used in the parable of the good Samaritan. The injured man is taken to an inn (a pandocheion)—not a guestroom in a house. And Jesus’ parable even refers to an innkeeper, a pandocheus. It means the TNIV version correctly interprets what Luke wrote: “She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.” Baby Jesus was laid in a manger because other guests already occupied the guest room on top of the house!

No stable either!

Perhaps you are saying, “Inn, guest room—who cares? Why does it matter whether Joseph and Mary had to go to the barn because the inn was full, or because the guest room was full? It comes out the same, doesn’t it?” Well, here is where everything gets interesting. More disappears from the story than just the inn—and of course with it, the evil innkeeper. There is no stable either.

Check your Bibles. Do they mention a stable? Nope.

“But,” we protest, “there must have been a stable. There was a manger and a manger means a stable.” Not necessarily.

Evidence from elsewhere in Scripture shows that a typical first-century Palestinian manger was not to be found in a stable, i.e. a separate building made just for animals. It is found in the living room of the family’s large, one-room split-level house. The typical Palestinian peasant’s house was one large room under a flat roof. It was built with two floor levels, an upper level where the family lived, ate and slept and a lower level where the animals normally spent the night. And then, of course, there might be a guest room on the roof.

So where is the manger? In the most logical place in such a house: built into the floor of the living area, right next to the lower level where the animals are kept. Animals can stand in their lower level and eat hay from the manger built into the floor of the higher level.

A typical manger was in the living room of a house. So the stable disappears along with the innkeeper and his inn.

So then Luke 2 does not say, “They had to go to a barn because the innkeeper was too hard-hearted to make a room available for the holy couple.” Rather it says, “They were taken right into the living room, because the guest room was already full.”

The story is not about a full hotel, an evil innkeeper and the cold, dark barn. It is about a typical Palestinian house—one that makes room for the holy couple, even though the guest room is already occupied by other friends or relatives crowding into Bethlehem for the census.

Gains and losses

If this way of reading the text is correct, what do we gain, and what do we lose?

Well, this way of reading the story actually saves us a lot of trouble. It makes more sense of what we read in the Bible.

We don’t have to imagine that Jesus was born on the very night that Mary and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem. The way Luke tells the story, it sounds rather as though Mary spent the last weeks or months of her pregnancy there. We don’t have to wonder how Mary, who has relatives in the hill-country of Judea, and Joseph, who is a native son of the village, can’t find a single family (let alone one of their many relatives) who will take them in for the night, or for a week, or perhaps for the last months of Mary’s pregnancy. We’ve had to imagine Mary and Joseph arriving the night of Jesus’ birth in order to explain why they couldn’t find a decent place to sleep.

Best of all, we don’t have to invent a new house that the family moves to after Jesus’ birth, but before the wise men arrive. After all, if the shepherds came to a manger and the wise men to a house, we imagine Mary, Joseph and Jesus must have moved in the meantime. But with this new reading, they’re in the same house all the time!

And this means the wise men and the shepherds might actually have gathered together to worship Jesus—rich and poor, Jew and Gentile worshiping the one born to be King. And we can even imagine that the star leading the wise men to the place Jesus lay shone over the house not months later, but on that first Christmas night.

And so, instead of reimaging the story in such a way that we have to throw away all our manger scenes, we actually find a story that makes appropriate even those parts that we thought didn’t quite represent what actually happened. We lose nothing. There is still a manger and there are animals, and we can argue there was even a stable, though it was part of the house.

Oh yes, we lose the evil innkeeper—our scapegoat. But then, maybe we can find better motivations for enjoying a meaningful Christmas than staying a couple steps ahead of that old scrooge. Yes, we lose the innkeeper. But we gain a wonderful picture of what it really means for Jesus to come down from heaven to join humanity—a picture of God coming down to identify with common folks like you and me, coming down right where we are, being born in a normal home like all the other babies in Bethlehem. There were probably any number of babies enjoying the soft hay of mangers in the living rooms of other crowded homes in Bethlehem that year.

The story never changes

This reading of Luke 2 suggests a whole new internal motivation and spiritual resource for celebrating a meaningful Christmas. It challenges us to open our own living rooms for Jesus, making room for him not in the barn, not in the inn, but in our living rooms, right where the family lives, where the pets roam, where we work and sleep and play and eat—even when our homes are packed full of guests. If a home in Bethlehem can make room for Jesus in the hustle and bustle of census time, surely we can do it in the hustle and bustle of the Christmas season.

This year I don’t want to imagine Jesus lying out in a barn while we prepare our Christmas celebrations and go through the activities of the season. And I don’t want to limit the worship part of Christmas to a few reverent trips out to that stable—you know, once or twice during church services and maybe Christmas Eve or Christmas morning before we open gifts.

Rather, I want to imagine Jesus living in our house as we celebrate. I want to imagine him joining me in the kitchen as I prepare part of our family meal. I want to imagine him present—not out there in the barn. After all, they called him Emmanuel, God with us—with us not only on Christmas Eve and Christmas morning but through all the hustle and bustle of the season.

I don’t usually think of Christmas as a time that is devoid of planning—when things happen by accident. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. We work ahead to decorate our homes and do all the baking that we associate with this time of year. We orchestrate gift shopping, wrapping and delivery and coordinate a full calendar of community, work, church and family programs, parties and events. In order to accomplish all the good stuff that makes our Christmas season memorable, we plan, plan and plan!

As disciples of Jesus Christ, we recognize that the reason we’re doing all of these things is to celebrate his birth. He is the Savior of all mankind, and celebrating his incarnation should reflect and worship him. Our Christmas celebrations are full and rich when they draw our attention to Jesus Christ and his message of grace, salvation, forgiveness and new life.

But our Christmas traditions and celebrations won’t have this focus unless we intend them to. We can’t leave something this important to chance. We must deliberately provide ways for Christ’s message to infuse our Christmas season.

Last year we invited Christian Leader readers to contribute to an article on being intentional about holiday traditions by answering the question: What do you do to keep your Christmas celebrations focused on Christ? Some people replied informally while others wrote more detailed descriptions and even sent samples. Read on and you will hear from seven readers. I am blessed by the way each of these individuals reflect on their Christmas traditions, and I trust you will be too.

I also invite you to add your comments at the end of the article, telling us how you and your family intentionally focus your Christmas celebrations on Jesus Christ. —Connie Faber

Lessons from the nativity

It was early December about five years ago that Marlene and i were talking about the upcoming Christmas season. My thoughts went back to the Christmases I shared with both sets of grandparents when I was a boy.

As Marlene and I were discussing our Christmas plans for our family, I suddenly realized that what goes around comes around. Now I am the grandpa and the family comes to my house!

What could I do to make the Christmas story memorable for longer than the few minutes before the Christmas presents become the focus. Marlene was putting up the nativity scene her mother had made for her when an idea came to me. Why not have a grandchild read the Christmas story, and then I choose one item from the set as an object lesson?

The first year I chose the star. I made a large star out of cardboard and covered it with tinfoil. Our star had five points and I assigned a letter to each point. The five letters spelled the word “Jesus,” the reason the star shone so brightly that night. Jesus is the light of the world, I told the children.

When I asked the kids to repeat what each point was, they didn’t miss one—and they received a dollar for each point they remembered. Even our youngest granddaughter, not yet one-year old, watched with interest what was going on.

The next Christmas, I made a manger out of wood for each grandchild. The mangers had a false bottom where we hid a five-dollar bill. The lesson was that God used a simple, common feed bunk to give the world the greatest Christmas gift ever. If we accept Jesus Christ, God’s gift to us, then God will use us too, even if we think that, like a manger, we can’t do much.

The next year the camel had its turn as the object lesson and the year after that it was the angels. I hear that already the older grandchildren are wondering what the “lesson” will be this Christmas. Grandpa is wondering too!

Cards tell the story

I may have friends and family who have never received the gift of Jesus as Savior and Lord. So in 2006 my husband and I composed a Christmas card with our testimonies telling how we were born into God’s family.

Emerson and I are in our mid-70s, and since our health is uncertain we are thinking more about eternity. How we love our friends and family and want them to be with us in heaven some day. This desire prompted us to share our stories. Now we give the results to God to use and bless.

Alternative giving

For the past several years, the members of my extended family and I have agreed that we have more material possessions than we ever wanted. So I suggested that we stop exchanging gifts and instead give the amount we would have spent on gifts to the Lord’s work. Some family members were aghast at the suggestion while others thought it was a great idea.

Each year I have given $1,000 either to missions or to a special project within my local church. I moved to Hillsboro from southern California in the summer of 2007, so my “alternative” Christmas gift last year went to a special project connected with the new building of my church here in Hillsboro.

It has been a great blessing to give to the Lord’s work and to keep him as the focus of Christmas. And I must confess, it certainly beats going to all the stores and trying to select gifts for people who already have too much!

Stephen Vincent,

Hillsboro, Kan.

Thinking of others

Our two sons are now grown, but when they were younger we lit an Advent candle with day-by-day marks. We burned the candle at the evening meal, and they both looked forward to lighting it. Then we would read through the Christmas cards we got that day and talk about the families who sent them. We tried to continue this through high school, although they were not as enthused by then. We hoped this would help our sons think about others during the Christmas season.

Focusing on Christ

Our daughters are 10 and seven. Here are some of our ideas for keeping Christ the focus of Christmas.

• Our advent celebrations include a daily advent calendar with nativity characters to add to the scene and lighting an advent wreath candle each week and discussing the significance.

• We fill a "Jesus stocking" with notes telling of kind acts done by our family members "as unto the Lord." When we open our stockings on Christmas morning, we also read what kind things we've done throughout the month. Credit goes to Lisa Schmidt of Millard Bible Church, Omaha, Neb., for this idea.

• I read aloud many books from our now extensive collection of Christmas picture books that give further insight into the Christmas story—books by Max Lucado like Alabaster's Song, The Crippled Lamb or Jacob's Gift; King of the Stable by Melody Carlson, Legend of the Candy Cane by Lori Walburg and Pine Tree Parable by Liz Curtis Higgs.

• Watching The Nativity movie as a family and sleeping in sleeping bags by the Christmas tree is something we started last year that I think we’ll continue.

• At meals from Christmas until Easter, we pull a couple Christmas cards, letters or pictures from our collection and pray for those friends.

Carols and cookies

One of the things my family does to make Christmas about Jesus and God is to go caroling with two or three other families at a nursing home during the supper meal. Then our families have a potluck. We’ve done it for a few years now. Our family also memorizes Christmas hymns. Each year we select one new hymn about the Christmas story, and we sing and memorize it during the Christmas season.

Another thing we have done is to bake Christmas cookies and then take plates of cookies to our neighbors to wish them a Merry Christmas. It is one of the few times we have been in some of these neighbors’ homes.

Up to me

Two years ago I realized consciously for the first time that I no longer have any real Christmas traditions and keeping Christ at the center is, well, up to me. My parents are divorced and so are my husband's. He grew up without Christ; I grew up with him. My dad used to read us the nativity story from Luke every Christmas Eve. No longer. I miss that.

My husband's family is a mix of Christian, nothing and Mormon; mine is a mix of Christian and not sure what. In trying to make everyone happy, we find ourselves driving to multiple houses in an effort to have a "family Christmas." Two years ago we spent Christmas Day with my mom's side of the family. My husband and I organized a nativity skit with competing sides and had a fun quiz with questions about the nativity. It was the only way I could find to make Christ a part of the celebrations without once again being the "annoying Christian" of the family. They seemed to enjoy it.

Last year I did my own nativity reading of Matthew and Luke. It wasn'tmuch—just me, my Bible and a cup of hot chocolate—but it was my one way of connecting to the real meaning of what this holiday, turned month of craziness, is all about.

This year my husband and I will spend our first Christmas as parents. We welcomed our son, Maddox, into the world in October. The responsibility to clothe and feed him and keep him well seems immense. Yet, we know our responsibility includes much more than that—introducing him to his Creator. The Christmas season can play a large role in doing this and we look forward to seeing how our traditions are shaped by it.

Megan Richard

Fresno, Calif.

It’s been years since we spent our last Christmas together before you died. Everyone converged at my sister Jane’s to celebrate Christmas Eve 1994 in the way that had been our ritual for decades. The table was laden with hamburgers and french fries.

That tradition, as strange at it was, had been set years before when the three oldest of your five children were small. You told me why: Manson (Iowa) Mennonite Church always held a Christmas Eve service, and you wanted to prepare something “easy” for the children in order to make it to the service on time. The tradition stuck through the years, even when your five children grew up and moved away from home. I know you smile in heaven when you see how no matter where anyone is spending Christmas Eve, the hosting family always sets the table with the simple, ritual fare. Following supper, we share gifts and attend a candlelight service.

Mom, I know now, many years later, that my heaviness came from sensing the shortness not only of your breath due to your failing heart but of the shortness of your days left on earth. The first sign came when I saw you pick at your plate of hamburger and fries, unable to eat. Even so, you tried your hardest to smile at your children, their spouses and your grandchildren.

You saved some of your most special smiles that night for Jordan Lee, the baby of my nephew, Seth, and his then-wife Dena. The baby was decked out in her Christmas finery, ready to eat her meal at her mother’s breast. She was the last great-grandchild you held. You seemed to know that out of all of us around the table, she and you were closest to God. She had just come into the world, and you soon would leave it.

Then, there was the way your face looked in the glow of the small fire of your candle as the congregation sang Silent Night. The lines on your face looked deeper, sadder. And the gaze of your eyes turned inward to a place where only you could go. As I looked down the aisle at you standing by Dad, your husband of 53 years, I wanted to stumble over family members between us and grab you and never let you go. I wanted you to take me to that place inside your soul that experienced Christ’s coming into the world differently because of your impending exit. But fear held me in its grip, as I remained glued to my spot.

Finally, there was the time in front of Jane’s fire the night before I flew back to New York City where I’d lived for the last eight years. As had been our well-worn path since I had moved to that city without your blessing, you asked me yet again when I would “come home.” I had hardened myself against this inevitable question with my usual answer, “I’m not sure—but God will let me know when the time is right.”

As the words came bumbling out with guilt, they tasted like metal of a heavy chain wrapping itself around my heart. I moved to New York because there was unresolved misunderstanding and conflict between us, compounded by lots of self-chosen sin and unresolved emotional and spiritual wounds in my life. I fled home, family and church, hoping to outrun myself and all the pain inside. But it didn’t work.

During my sojourn in the city, I reconnected with God as a prodigal daughter who wanted no longer to eat pig’s food. But there were still many miles between us. I had come home to my Heavenly Father in repentance for my sins. Yet you, my earthly mother, still waited at the window of your failing heart. You never ceased to watch for the first sign of me on that road coming back towards you so we could mend our broken relationship.

In the dancing shadows of the firelight against your weary face, I again felt compelled to rush into your arms and to hold you and be held by you. But the heavy cloak of denial—made heavier by my pride—held me in my seat on the sofa across from you. To sing out my sadness, I picked up the guitar and sang an old family favorite. The words bounced off the dark walls in lonely echoes, as I sang alone. You sat silent, behind the emotional miles you had tried unsuccessfully to bridge one more time.

Mom, you didn’t feel well enough to come with me to the airport, and I flew back to the city. Two months later, I boarded another plane bound for Arizona and the hospital where you were dying. You had told Dad you wanted all of us to be together with you in the intensive care unit. All five of us kids made it in time to say goodbye.

My brothers, Neil and Brian, had to go back to work before you passed. But my older sisters, Jane and Paula, and I stayed until the end. On a Sunday a couple of days before you died, Dad, you and I had devotions together at your bedside. It was one of the last times you had a conversation with us before you fell into a coma. In that time, you bequeathed your mother’s ring and wedding ring to me as a symbol of your forgiveness and desire to complete the long journey that had kept us apart.

As morning sun bounced off the rings, the tiny bright flash reminded me of the last Silent Night, and the tiny fire that flickered in your hands at church. That fire will forever burn in my heart, reminding of the tenacity of your loyalty. The flames of your last act of restoration reduced my bricks of pride to the soft ashes of a pain remembered forever but healed always. Your faithful love transformed the memories of our last common Christmas Eve meal into a royal banquet of belonging to God and to each other.

Your ever-grateful daughter,

Ivy clings with a million feet,
drinks dew that seeps into
the plaster of the house.
Symbol of eternity, they say,
its tenacious stems climbing
upward. seeking entry.
At each tip, one pale tendril
unfolds into leaf, then
another, a quiet invasion.
Not to hold us here, but
to embrace us with its green
arms. I clip from its bounty
and shape a wreathe,
an "O" of hope and wonder
suspended in winter's chill.

• Islam officially began with the prophet Mohammed in Arabia in the sixth and seventh centuries after Christ and is more than 14 centuries old. “Islam,” itself means to “submission.” The Muslim is not asked to agree to the Islamic way of life but to submit.

• No statement is more important to a Muslim than, “God is one.” The name of God dominates the Quar’an and the speech of Muslims.

• The Quar’an is regarded as the last in a long series of books and supersedes former revelations. The Quar’an is four-fifths the length of the New Testament and is divided into 114 chapters called surahs.

• Jihad means, “to struggle.” According to Islam, there are two kinds of jihad—the great jihad is to struggle spiritually with oneself and the lesser jihad is to avenge wrongs done to Islam. Sometimes this takes the form of “holy war” or “just war.” Similarly, Islamic fundamentalism is of two kinds—to recover Islamic values or to avenge wrongs done to Islam by non-Muslims, even violently if necessary. Sept. 11, 2001, confirms that one interpretation of jihad and one interpretation of fundamentalism is violent, even terroristic. Unfortunately, this interpretation often dominates our consciousness.

• Mohammed identified five pillars upon which Islam is built: “bearing witness” in the Creed (“There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Prophet”), prayer (said five times a day, bowing towards Mecca), almsgiving, fasting during the month of Ramadan and the pilgrimage to Mecca (once in a lifetime).

• Eighty-five percent of Muslims are Sunnis and they are regarded as orthodox. Within this group are schools of interpretation that vary in their understanding of the place of the Qur’an, the traditions and human reason. The second largest group is the Shi’ite, which consists of about 14 percent of the modern population. They are found mainly in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. In Islam the concern for mystical union with God and love for God was expressed by the Sufis.

• Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion. The principal reason for this rapid growth is that one born into a Muslim family is automatically a Muslim. This is biological growth. But Islam also believes in mission (dawah) and they strive to attract people to their faith.

• Islam is today the world’s second-largest religion, with an estimated 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide.

• Although many associate Islam with the Middle East, only 20 percent of Muslims live in Arabic-speaking world. Most live in Pakistan, with Indonesia claiming the world’s largest Muslim population.

• An estimated 7 million Muslims—2 percent of the population—live in the U.S., practicing their faith in almost 2,000 mosques, Islamic schools and centers. Only a quarter of U.S. Muslims are of Arab descent. Thirty-three percent are south-central Asian and 30 percent are African-American. States with the highest percentage of Muslim population are California, Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island.

The good news allows Christians to live in peace with people of other faiths

These questions are important, and happily Christians are not left alone in attempting to answer them. They have the guidance of the New Testament, a scripture written in the midst of the missionary discovery of new cultures and religions. Christians also have the wisdom of missionaries who have served Christ long-term among Muslims, and the vision of clear-eyed mission leaders for peaceable gospel witness among Muslims.

For Christians, the basic rule is to approach Muslims with love and respect. Out of that love comes the freedom both to be realistic about Islam and to share with Muslims the good news of God’s love demonstrated to the world through the death of Jesus on the cross. Christians will find that they disagree with Muslims on some very basic faith commitments. However, disagreement does not mean that Christians cannot get along well with Muslims. In fact, a commitment to the gospel means that Christians will seek to live in peace with Muslims no matter how deep the disagreement may be.

As people living together, Christians and Muslims have much in common. They share the same humanity and the same basic needs. Christians believe that Muslims are created in God’s image just like they are. They believe that Muslims are loved unconditionally by God, and that God demonstrated his love for all of humanity in history in an unmistakable way. Christians believe that all humans are imperfect sinners by God’s holy standard, and that Jesus gave his life to save Muslims just as much as any others. They believe that ethnic or cultural distinctions make no difference in the good things which God wants to do for people. All of these understandings carry great promise for peaceful coexistence in a multifaith society.

When Christians and Muslims converse together, they also find many things which are similar in their faiths. For example, they share a belief in a Creator God and the stories of many characters from the Hebrew Bible. Both Christians and Muslims believe that God gave his law to humanity and can expect from his creatures their obedience. Both confess only one God. Many Christians and Muslims—arguably a significant majority of each respective world community—also share a similar philosophical approach to truth.

However, beyond these and similar affirmations Christians and Muslims disagree over who God is and whether he has revealed himself in the world. One of the main reasons for this is that in the process of the formation of Islam, Muslims responded to their perceptions of Judaism and Christianity. They rejected the Christian confessions of the deity of Jesus and his redemptive death on the cross. These denials became part of the sourcebooks of Islam. Few have described this process as directly as has Dutch missionary-scholar Hendrik Kraemer in The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World:

In the years of its genesis Islam, having originally taken a friendly attitude towards Christianity as the valid religion of revelation for the “nation” of the Christians, became antagonistic towards it by the mouth of its prophet, that is virtually by the mouth of divine revelation. This antagonism to and indignant rejection of some cardinal elements of Christianity (Jesus’ Sonship, His death on the Cross and consequently such doctrines as the Trinity and Reconciliation or Atonement) are incorporated in the Qur’an, the basis of the Moslem faith, and so belong to the system of Islam. To reject Christianity is with Islam not merely the natural and intelligible reaction of every religion or world conception that has sufficient vigour in it to want to maintain itself: with Islam it belongs to its religious creed.

Because these matters are so central to the faith of both Christians and Muslims, to avoid them in faith conversation would be inauthentic and strangely artificial. Christians who hold to the truth of the New Testament will want to affirm both the deity and redemptive death of Jesus. They may also attempt to remove misunderstandings about the meaning of “Son of God,” a term with which Muslims have major difficulties.

Differences appear to reach back to the origins of Islam in the seventh century. According to the earliest biographies of Muhammad and earliest extant commentaries on the Qur’an, Christians from Najran (in Yemen) came to Medina to make terms with Muhammad when his conquest of the Arabian Peninsula seemed unavoidable. The Christians explained to Muhammad their belief in the deity of Jesus, and Muhammad denied their claims. According to Muqatil (died A.D. 767) and Wahidi (died 1076), when the Najran Christians first met Muhammad, they asked him, “Why do you vilify and dishonour our master?” In other words, the Christians perceived that the preaching of Muhammad included a belittling of the Lord they held dear.

There is also the evidence of the famous Dome of the Rock, built by the Umayyad caliph ‘Abd al-Malik on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem in 691. The ruling caliph ordered a continuous Arabic message to be inscribed along the top of the inner and outer faces of the colonnade which circles the beautiful octagonal building. In the seventh century, the majority of the inhabitants of Jerusalem were Christian. The Arabic inscription proclaims repeatedly that God does not have a son, that God is not “three,” that Muhammad is the apostle of God, that God and the angels “pray upon the prophet” and that believers are to do the same. These Muslim statements appear to deny divine glory to Jesus and to claim authority and glory for the prophet of Islam.

The differences between the gospel and Islamic teaching, therefore, go to the heart of each respective faith. Another important example is that Islam does not offer humanity salvation from sin in the terms of New Testament preaching. Muslim scholars explain that in Islam, humanity is not considered to be in need of salvation; therefore, drastic measures like the sacrifice of a righteous prophet are not necessary. The Muslim teaching on crucifixion seems to match this doctrine. Muslims say that Jesus did not in fact die on the cross, but was rather “taken up” by God at the moment when the soldiers were about to seize him.

Partly because of the denials of the death and divine sonship of Jesus, Muslim teaching on the love of God is very different from what Christians affirm from the gospel. Statements on the love of God in the Qur’an, for example, make the love of God for humans conditional on their obedience to God’s law and on following the prophet of Islam. There is no command to love either God or humans, nor is human love based on the love of God. God is not “love” in the Qur’an.

Significantly for conflicts in the world today, Muslim teaching on response to situations of conflict is very different from what we find in the teaching and example of Jesus. All of the sourcebooks of Islam were written during the conquest and military domination of the Middle East by Muslims. The earliest biographies of Islam’s prophet tell a story of military engagement in Medina and throughout the Arabian peninsula. The Qur’an contains 12 commands to fight the enemy and five commands to kill. Islamic Law made these scriptural commands and the story of Islam’s prophet normative for Muslim behavior.

All of these matters are best checked in the sourcebooks of Islam themselves and in conversation with orthodox Muslims whom we have the privilege of meeting. There is a range of diversity in the way in which Muslims interpret their tradition, but there is virtual unanimity that the Qur’an and the traditional words and behavior of Islam’s prophet are the twin bases of authority for all.

There is no necessary link between disagreeing on crucial points of faith and Christian anger or antipathy toward Muslims—much less thoughts of political enmity or physical confrontation. Points of deep faith are not settled by force or threat of force, by raising one’s voice, by polemical skill or deception or manipulation. (Neither, of course, is anything settled by avoiding crucial issues or trying to smooth them over without open discussion.) Christians make their confession as clearly as possible and attempt to make the best case they can.

If they seek to follow Jesus in their manner, their approach will be invitation not compulsion. They listen carefully and sympathetically in turn to the confession which Muslims make and take the opportunity to challenge truth claims which seem to them false. However, beyond that Christians defer to the relationship between God and each individual and leave each person freedom to consider and respond as each sees fit. The response of the conversation partner does not affect the quality of the on-going relationship.

A model for the successful combination of compassion and open gospel witness among Muslims is the story of Herb and Ruth Friesen and their children, MBMS International missionaries in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Few knew more about how to serve the physical needs of Afghans in the operating theatre and at the front gate. At the same time they risked their lives to introduce Afghans in discrete, appropriate settings to the only One who could save their souls.

Many who wish for peace between Christians and Muslims today seem to assume that peace will be achieved through finding and highlighting similarities between the two faiths. This assumption deserves examination. Do the New Testament and the behaviour of the earliest Christians give us the impression that Christians understood peace to be established by the similarities between the gospel and other faiths? Or was it rather the particularity of the good news about Jesus which allowed Christians to live in peace with people of other faiths in the midst of public persecution and defamation?

“He himself is our peace,” writes Paul, and from that basis he hoped for the reconciliation of the most hostile groups of his day. God made peace “through his blood, shed on the cross.”

Jesus’ teaching and example of peace are unique. It is Jesus who blessed the peacemakers. His command to love the enemy rings out in a world addicted to revenge and the cold arithmetic of “justice.” No such command will be found in the Qur’an.

To the contrary, the Qur’an appears to forbid friendship with the enemy of Allah (Q. 60.1). Ultimately the distinction traces back to the respective concepts of God. In the New Testament concept, humans are to love their enemies because God first showed the way (Matt. 5:45-48).

The command of Jesus to love both neighbor and enemy gives Christians the amazing freedom to engage in significant ways with people of all cultural and religious backgrounds. Christians may use that freedom both to be realistic about Islam and to share with Muslims the good news of God’s love demonstrated to the world through the death of Jesus on the cross. Peace will be at the heart of their message, and their message will be the only sure anchor for their peace.

Answering this question requires asking some of my own

“What do you think of Islam?” I would have preferred the question, “What do you think of Muslims?” I know my answer to that question: I love Muslims, and I know that God loves them so much that he extends the same grace to them that he has extended to me, though his Son, Jesus Christ. I love to share the Good News but experience has shown me that time and many, many conversations are needed to gain the opportunity to speak and be heard.

There is great disagreement, even acrimony, about the nature of “true” Islam—and not just among Muslims. Before 2001, I held a small collection of books, articles and tapes on the topic of the nature of “true Islam.” Since the later part of that year, my collection has grown considerably.

That this is so reveals a bit of the diversity within the unity of Islam, but it also reveals the polarization within and without Islam over its relationship to 9/11 and similar acts of terror. So when asked by a Muslim what I think of their religion, I have found it useful to try to understand just what the inquirer thinks their religion happens to be.

There are accepted variations within Islam, different schools as to certain methodologies. There are also variations noteworthy in that each party views the other as something less than the true (or pure) Islam that they represent. The split between Sunni and Shi’a is familiar to many outside of Islam. Perhaps not so familiar are other divisions, contrasting the mystical with the sober, formal with the folk or Arab-based with the local manifestation of faith.

It is common for Christians to express ignorance of Islam, in any form. It has been and is less common for Muslims to express ignorance of Christianity. Why is this the case?

From the Christian standpoint, Islam is only anticipated in the Bible, not mentioned by name since it had not then been established. The informed student of the Bible has some idea of what to do with revelation different than that contained in Scripture. For example, Galatians 1:7–9 speaks of people who are “trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.” At the same time, it should be acknowledged that during their earliest encounters with Islam, Christians wondered whether they were encountering a Christian heresy, a false religion or an instrument of God’s wrath.

Islam is a “post-Christian” religion, both in its advent and in its message. Its adherents see it as being the most ancient and true of religions, the natural religion of humanity. This can be a little confusing to the non-Muslim. It helps to understand that, as an article of faith, Muslims believe that Islam was always the will of Allah for humanity and that the first man, Adam, is among its prophets. Muslims also believe that Islam was revealed through a series of prophets, only to be corrupted into religions other than what had truly been revealed. So in one sense, Muslims see Islam as superior to other religions because it has always been Allah’s intent.

At the same time, it is an article of faith that this “true” religion was ultimately perfected during the lifetime of Muhammad. Muslims accept as evidence of this truth the fact that Allah gave this series of revelations to Muslims after other “religions of the book” were well established; the later word corrects and replaces the earlier word.

Here I am reminded of my years as a civil servant. Nearly every day I received in my inbox revisions to the regulations that guided my work. I would cast aside the old regulations in favor of the new; there was rarely cause to return to those earlier pages. And so Muslims feel little need to consult earlier works, except from curiosity or for polemical purposes.

Chronology is not the only proof, however; what timing suggests, revelation makes explicit. First of all, the Qur’an is self-identified as bringing correction, clarity and completeness to Allah’s history of revealed encounters with humanity. In Muslim eyes, the “books” given to the Jews and to the Christians, our Bible, isn’t worth reading because Jews and Christians have changed the words to confuse Allah’s message. If this were not the case, then there would have been no need for the corrective of Qur’anic revelation. Muslims see Islam as superior to other religions because Allah “capped” revelation with it; nothing else remains to be revealed or will be revealed. The Qur’an is not just Allah’s latest word; it is his last word and uncorrupted word on his will for humanity.

Secondly, the Qur’an itself has much to say about Christians and Jews, what they believe and how Muslims should relate to them. Thanks to the Internet, it is not at all difficult to cull every reference within the Qur’an to Christians and to list these references in chronological order of revelation. Doing so reveals a steady progression from suggesting common cause with Christians to warnings that those who claim to follow Christ will not rest until they cause you (the Muslim) to stumble away from the truth and embrace Christian lies.

The combined effect of these beliefs is to secure in Muslim hearts a sense of superiority over the Christian faith, a fear that Christians are relentless in their efforts to lead Muslims astray and a belief that they know everything that they need to know about Christianity—from the Qur’an. I have myself met Muslims who have offered that they were experts on Christianity, and indeed all religions, having studied them through the Qur’an. This also explains the audacity of the Pakistani Muslim who wrote editorials in local newspapers on the occasions of Christmas and Easter outlining the “true” significance of Jesus Christ, entirely from Muslim sources.

I know of no actual follower of Christ who lives the religion described in the Qur’an as Christianity. So Christians do well to inform Muslims of what they actually believe and practice as followers of Christ, recognizing that one’s testimony will have its effect, even if one cannot be expected that our words will lead Muslims to admit, “Well, the Qur’an got that wrong!”

Confronting our ignorance

It would be enough if Christians found themselves defending their understanding of their own religion against erroneous interpretations of it, but there is more. Muslims and Christians have had centuries of encounter, and Muslim arguments against Christianity and in favor of Islam amount to much more than knocking down the “straw men” Christians of the Qur’an. Does it surprise you when I say that, in confronting Muslim ignorance of Christianity, we must also confront our own ignorance?

Sure, Muslims will ask certain questions polemically, but that does not discount the fact that accepting important Christian beliefs on faith should not mean those questions are unanswerable or unthinkable. The Bible encourages us to “always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15), and that does not mean the answer is “Because I said so!”

It is vital for a Christian to have a solid understanding of Christian basics because an inquiring (or merely engaging) Muslim will have questions about them. As U.S. and Canadian Mennonite Brethren, we have acknowledged 18 articles in our Confession of Faith as representing vital areas of Christian belief and practice. Are you prepared to answer Muslim questions about the Trinity? Do you understand the difference between Christian and Islamic perspectives on revelation? Can you explain the need for redemption from sin and how that must be accomplished? Is the use of violence within God’s will? If we cannot explain, defend and live our confession among ourselves, it is hard to see how we might do so before Muslims.

I have never wanted to be counted among those accused of comparing the “best” of my religion with the “worst” of another’s; neither do I want the other to treat me in that fashion. A “Golden Rule” in regards to religions need not, and I believe must not, require that I accept another’s religion as equal in truth to my own, but that each party be understood in truth and not in the projections or wishes of others.

Should Muslims understand Christianity and take the measure of me as a Christian through my adherence to the authority of the Bible and my success (and my weakness) in following the pattern of my master, Jesus Christ? Should Christians understand Islam and take the measure of Muslims through their adherence to the authority of the Qur’an and their success (and failure) in following the pattern of their master, Muhammad? I believe the answer to both questions must be “Yes.”

For many years, I struggled with the fact that my academic study of Islam appeared to give me a wider and deeper understanding of Islam than many Muslims. The many times that Muslims begged me to tell them more left me with the conviction that I was not called to make Muslims better, or at least better informed, Muslims. Given what I have already said here about letting the religious speak for themselves, I do not see myself in that role, but I do see the relative value of pressing both Christian and Muslim to be authentic to their foundations.

It is fair for a Muslim to ask a Christian why he or she claims to love Jesus (and live in obedience to the Father), but does not do what he has said or live a life according the pattern revealed within the Bible. It is also fair for a Christian to ask a Muslim why he or she claims to love Muhammad (and live in obedience to Allah), but does not do what he has revealed or live a life according to the pattern revealed in the Qur’an and sacred traditions.

It is on the basis of these shared values and requirements, the authority of our texts and our adherence to the model for living out each text, that the true nature of our faiths may be compared and contrasted fairly. And that Christian and Muslim can begin a conversation between those who would follow one who despised the sword and carried a cross, and those who would follow one who despised the cross and carried a sword.

Tim Bergdahl is currently pastor of Madera Avenue Bible Church, Madera, Calif. Bergdahl, a graduate of MB Biblical Seminary and Fuller Theological Seminary served with his wife, Janine, as missionaries with MBMS International to Pakistan from 1990 to 1996. His academic work concentrated on topics related to Islam.

Understanding one another is a gift that we need to keep giving

W. Marshall Johnston teaches ancient history and classics at Fresno Pacific University, the Mennonite Brethren university in Fresno, Calif.

It was extremely hot. Sweat rolled down my back and face and I began to pray, “God, please just provide a way out—please just let me go home.”

I was visiting my taxi family. I met them almost three years ago because of a business relationship with their son. The four brothers farm and drive taxis to earn their living. Their wives, children and Grandma and Grandpa stay at home. I’ve been visiting them regularly.

I usually enjoy a crazy and lively time with them in the kitchen or dancing to North African music, but on this day most of the family was away for a beach holiday. Grandma and Grandpa were there with one son and a daughter-in-law. The house was almost silent. In boredom and discomfort I wished for the luxury of my fan at home.

And there was another issue at hand. After lunch, Grandma sat next to me on the couch. I didn’t want to be alone with Grandma. I’m single. From her perspective, at the age of 32 I am in danger of never getting married.

A woman from a Muslim culture cannot survive as a single. Grandma is the most concerned and most aggressive about my marital status. When I am alone with her I anticipate another conversation about getting married to a single Muslim man she knows. Every few weeks I explain to her, “No, Grandma. I can’t marry a Muslim man. Because I follow Jesus I must marry a man who also follows Jesus. I am on one path; a Muslim man is on another. Our marriage would cause one of us to compromise. My relationship with Jesus is too important for me to jeopardize it for a man. I have family, good friends, a roof over my head and food on my table. God takes care of me better than any man ever could.” Though she listens, we go through the same dance every time we see each other.

I was frustrated that in the midst of this hot, stuffy day I was forced to endure the same conversation as she described another rich, educated, good looking and honest Muslim man. Then suddenly the conversation took an incredible turn. I firmly reminded her that I follow Jesus. She replied, “I know that. You are a Christian and you won’t marry a Muslim.”

I stopped short of my next sentence. Does she finally understand what I’ve been telling her for more than two years? Then she asked, “Do you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin?”

From this earnest question arose an incredible opportunity to share the Gospel. I pulled a Spanish hand fan from my purse and sat next to her to fan us both as I began to share who Jesus is. I told her everything. She listened; she asked questions.

We discussed the life in the body versus the life of the spirit. She wanted to know about death—I explained the difference between eternal life and eternal death. She is an elderly woman and this subject was very meaningful to her. We talked about how important it is to think about these things because death of the body will lead us to eternal life or death.

Toward the end of our conversation the Holy Spirit compelled me to be bold. I told her that I believe she has been deceived in her beliefs about God and that the only path to true, eternal and abundant life is Jesus. I said there is no way for me to convince her about who God really is, but that I pray for her and her family to one day have a relationship with Jesus. She was riveted and thankful for my prayers.

I never imagined that I would have the opportunity to share Christ with her of all people. I thought she was so hardened, so set in her ways. I was humbled by the fact that my own discomfort in the stifling heat made me so ready to escape instead of engage. But God didn’t answer my urgent plea to go home; he answered my steadfast prayers for an opportunity to share his love with this taxi family.

Amina is an American missionary serving in a restricted access country in North Africa. Her full name is not given due to the nature of her assignment.

Questions about how our denomination responds to situations of marital difficulties among our leaders—be they denominational leaders, local church pastors or missionaries—have swirled around our circles numerous times over the past five years or so. These concerns came to the forefront again this fall when Jim Holm resigned as MB Biblical Seminary president due to his involvement in an extramarital relationship. We realize these types of situations can cause us to lose trust in our leadership and church structures, so we felt it was important for our denominational periodicals to speak to the problem.

In early September Valerie Rempel, MBBS associate academic dean, addressed the seminary student body and spoke candidly about the situation and the questions and emotions that we encounter when a trusted leader admits to a moral failure. Her comments, while directed at one specific situation, also speak to the broader questions, and so we asked her to adapt her address for publication. We also solicited comments on this specific situation from Jack Falk, chair of the MBBS board of directors, and our national conference executive directors Ed Boschman and David Wiebe.

With regard to the details of Holm’s resignation, we affirm the seminary’s efforts to balance the privacy of those involved with a desire to be open about the underlying reasons for the abrupt resignation. We find it helpful to know that Holm contacted the board of directors himself and confessed the affair, which did not involve a past or current student, to the faculty and staff.

Commentary by Valerie Rempel

The news that a trusted leader has disappointed us through personal or moral failure grieves us. We hurt when we learn of disintegrating marriages, of sexual sin or even criminal activity. Often, that grief plays out in multiple forms—shock, sorrow, outrage, disappointment and fear.

We find ourselves asking questions: How could this happen? Why didn’t someone stop it? What should we do about it? What if it happens to me?

The questions reflect our curiosity but also our anxiety. If someone we view as spiritually mature fails, who of us is safe?

Some of the anxiety is good: It causes us to search our hearts and to examine our relationships. None of us is immune from failure and the words of Romans 3:23, which many Christians have memorized, continue to be true: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Our anger or fear may also stem from discomfort with the public acknowledgement of failure and uncertainty about how to treat the parties involved. Our inclination may be to keep scandal from staining the church’s witness. In these instances, several issues must guide the Christian community.

First, while it may be true that someone’s moral failure harms the church’s witness, keeping it secret only adds to what has already been deceptive behavior. Pretending that Christians do not face the same temptations or fall into the same kinds of sin that all human beings face is not honest and denies the biblical witness to human failure. Furthermore, the Bible teaches that sin is deceptive by nature. When the church refuses to keep sin hidden it witnesses to the importance of Christian integrity and truth-telling.

Second, in some instances, especially those involving young people or financial misdealings, the offense may be punishable by law. If the offense involves predatory behavior, keeping it secret may increase the likelihood of additional victims. In these cases, the biblical charge to care for the vulnerable must outweigh our desire to handle things privately.

Third, in deciding whether or not to make such information public, it is important to remember that the Bible holds leaders to a high standard (see, for example, James 3:1, or I Timothy 3). This is not because they are super-Christians but because they are charged with the spiritual care of people. This is not to be taken lightly. Because of the public nature of their roles as leaders in the church, their actions have consequences beyond the immediate circle of those who may have been involved in the situation.

When information is made public the intent should not be to hurt or shame people but to liberate the community from the bondage of secrecy. This does not mean that all the details of the situation, the “who did what and where?” that arises from natural curiosity, must be satisfied. Too much information can be burdensome and often serves no useful purpose. Remember that the Bible views gossip as sin, too.

Christian charity should also guide our behavior when deciding whether to release the names of victims or others who may have been intimately involved in the situation.

Of course, not all sin needs to be widely published, either for Christian leaders or others. Still, where sin is present, it is good to remember that the practice of confession—to a confessor or a trusted circle of Christian brothers or sisters—is a Christian discipline of long standing. It is a practice that can free people from the burden of sin, end the deceit and speed the healing work of forgiveness.

The Bible teaches us that our choices have consequences. In the case of Christian leaders the consequences may include release from public ministry. This does not necessarily invalidate their spiritual gifts or the effectiveness of past (or even present) ministries; it does, however, take seriously the effects of sin and especially the loss of trust.

The decision to release someone from a ministry role is a pastoral response to a personal or spiritual crisis. It recognizes the needs of both the leader and the community. Experience suggests that it is difficult to effectively lead when in the midst of personal crisis. This is only compounded when trust has been broken.

It is certainly true that God forgives sin and invites us to be reconciled both with God and each other. In some instances, this may allow for restoration to public ministry at a future date. God often uses wounded healers in very effective ways. Still, restoration to public ministry should be undertaken cautiously and with much discernment. It may not be possible or wise to fully reestablish the trust needed for effective leadership.

Finally, it is important to remember that in all instances of failure the church should seek to be a place of healing and reconciliation.

Additional comments

Jack Falk, MB Biblical Seminary board chair

President Jim Holm's resignation in August 2008 was especially difficult for the seminary because of the key level of trust placed in him. Dr. Holm informed the board of his extra marital relationship and offered his resignation. The board acted quickly and appropriately in accepting that resignation. Jim's actions do not invalidate the message he had, and the seminary contines to have, regarding the need to prepare pastors to serve the church. MBBS was and is a great Mennonite Brethren graduate school providing theological education and training. 

The board has expressed assurance of forgiveness to Dr. Holm and has agreed that the Pacific District Conference will oversee his restoration and care.

We are very fortunate to have an academic dean in Dr. Lynn Jost who is capable and willing to immediately take over as acting president. We have begun the process of filling this role on a regular basis.

The Board together with the administration led by Dr. Jost has moved quickly to address a number of our priorities which include: hosting a summit of North American Mennonite Brethren leaders, preparing for an accreditation visit, preparation of a major funding grant application, planning for the changing delivery and leadership needs of the church and searching for a new president.

I am pleased to report that amidst the normal challenges, the seminary continues to fulfill its mission to inspire and equip men and women to live as disciples of Jesus Christ, and to serve and lead in the church and in the world. The board and I have received much support through these leadership changes. I especially value the tremendous support from the two national conference owner representatives David Wiebe and Ed Boschman.

Our board, acting president and faculty remain passionate about our mission and convinced of our ability to deliver on it. Students continue to grow as they are equipped to serve the church, and our faculty is working diligently to give them the theological education and leadership training they want and deserve. We value and need your prayers, your commitment to seminary education and your financial resources to do so.

Ed Boschman, U.S. Conference executive director

For years I’ve had a fist-sized rock in my office, boldly imprinted with the words “First Stone,” a reminder of Jesus’ words in John 8 about stoning an adulterous woman. And etched into my brain is Paul’s warning in I Corinthians 10:12: “So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!” Both humility and grace are God’s gifts to us, and both are to be reinvested. This is a good time to practice humility and grace.

Current research indicates that 60 percent of marriages experience adultery, and that up to 40 percent of women and 60 percent of men succumb to infidelity. Astoundingly, in recent decades studies indicate that Christians are just as likely to experience failed marriage as non-Christians.

One wonders if the common responses are adequate: “It happens to the best of us” or “There but for the grace of God go I.” Perhaps it’s time to look each other in the eye and say, “There by God’s grace I will not go.” And to say this with the humble but realistic confidence that is available to us from the One who provides strength to do all things. Cockiness is not appropriate but neither is casualness. However, humble resolve will honor God, our marriages and the church. While temptation is unavoidable, God promises the necessary strength to escape. For the sake of Jesus, his church and our families, let’s practice humility, offer grace and choose confidence.

David Wiebe, Canadian Conference executive director

The resignation of our brother Jim Holm has been a challenge to all of us in leadership in the Canadian conference. We’re sorrowful that his ministry concluded as it did. We’re also grateful for the many times he challenged us through pastors’ retreats and church ministry. God’s Word and truth will still bear fruit. We support Jim and Shirley in prayer as they work through this.

We also support the seminary as it regroups. We have full confidence that MB Biblical Seminary will continue to provide quality, spirit-filled ministry training at MBBS ACTS in British Colombia, MBBS-Winnipeg in Manitoba and Fresno, Calif.

Through Regenerate 21-01’s leadership development programs, we’ll continue to partner with the seminary in a complementary way. It’s our hope to see young adults heed the call to pastoral ministry and eventually be ready to serve in our churches. The seminary will be part of that path.— Regenerate 21-01 is a $4 million initiative in the areas of church health, leadership development and out reach that the Canadian Conference approved this summer at its biennial convention.

Neil clearly believed that he was up to the challenge or he surely would never have agreed to take on this linebacker. When all was said and done, though, he proved to be woefully outmatched by his oversized competitor. As he thinks back on this experience, he wonders if maybe he let his confidence get the best of him. Was it merely a moment of foolishness that led him to believe that he could do this? Needless to say, this is not a mistake that Neil intends to make twice.

I think that Neil’s experience bears striking similarity to the source of anxiety that sometimes plagues the church as we strive to minister faithfully within a changing culture. A memory from my childhood might help me to explain this connection more clearly.

Many years ago, I had the opportunity to attend an arm-wrestling tournament. I still have vivid memories of that experience. Dozens of onlookers gathered around to watch as pairs of competitors with bulging biceps planted their elbows on the table and clasped one another’s hands. The whole point was for one contestant to exert enough force to cause the other’s hand to touch the tabletop.

The air was filled with energy and excitement as these muscular men and women, grimacing, grunting and clenching their teeth, strained against one another to determine who was strongest. The most exciting matches were those in which two opponents were deadlocked for some time, neither managing to overcome the other, neither willing to yield even an inch. In the really great matches, the wrestlers’ hands remained gripped together at the table’s center and at a perfect 90-degree angle from its surface.

Two crucial objectives

The message of Scripture remains true and unchanging throughout the ages. Yet the church is called by God to translate this message into the particularities of every culture. As a result, biblical faithfulness and cultural relevance function in relation to one another much like the hands of two great arm-wrestlers. They press in upon one another. They must be held in tension. Neither can exert a greater amount of force upon the other without a loss taking place.

What happens if the objective of cultural relevance is permitted to strong-arm our concern for biblical faithfulness? The result would be precisely the thing that many Christians fear so much: compromise of biblical truth. On the other hand, what is likely to happen if our concern to preserve biblical faithfulness is permitted to overpower the need for cultural relevance? We are likely to cling to an expression of biblical faithfulness that makes sense to us because it is relevant to our native time or place, the one that is most native or that seems most natural to us.

However, if we are striving to minister in a cultural setting other than the one with which we are most familiar, this expression of the gospel may very well be unintelligible to the people we’re trying to reach. This is the difficult lesson that past generations of missionaries had to learn as they sought to bring the gospel to distant lands. The church must be willing to maintain this tension of expressing scriptural faithfulness in a way that is relevant to the time and place in which it finds itself.

For many of us, this is a difficult prospect to consider within our current time and place. Our culture seems to present an imposing challenge. In recent decades, our world has changed rapidly and dramatically. Our society has become increasingly complex and confusing. Understandably, this can cause us at times to feel uneasy, anxious, vulnerable and even angry. Returning to the familiarity of simpler times can sound rather appealing. We may even be tempted to look for ready-made answers or quick fixes to help us restore a sense of normalcy or equilibrium.

In a world like this, a term like “cultural relevance” may sound questionable. We may suspect that the inevitable outcome of our efforts to be “relevant” will be much like what Neil experienced. We are destined to be overwhelmed by the big burly bicep of contemporary culture. All the more, the integrity of our witness is sure to be severely wounded. It will be ugly and tragic.

For a number of years, I have been part of a network of Christian leaders who are committed to a vision of the missional church. For me, this commitment has grown out of the conviction that the mission of God must be at the center of everything we’re about. In my early 20s, I took a course called Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. This course helped me see in a very compelling way that God’s mission lies at the heart of the storyline of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. This had a powerful effect on my life as a follower of Christ. It captured my heart and imagination.

A traditional notion has been that missionaries overseas do one kind of thing while we “at home” do another kind of thing. Perhaps this dichotomy made sense within past eras. Now, however, the vast changes that have occurred within our society challenge this notion. The church is not altogether “at home” anywhere anymore. In fact, the mission field now lies right outside the doorsteps of our church buildings.

Essentially, we find ourselves in a missionary setting. I'm convinced that this situation provides us the opportunity to come to terms with the reality that God never actually intended for "mission" to be left up to specialists laboring in distant lands in the first place. He has called and empowered his church everywhere to live and serve as his missionary people. This is an integral part of the church's true identity and calling. 

The missional church is an effort to rethink the life of the church from God’s mission outward. How will the way that we think and live be transformed if we truly take seriously our identity as a missionary community? A growing number of congregations are grappling honestly and earnestly with this question.

Some “emerging” faith communities are striving to embody the good news within a postmodern culture. Many of these churches identify a missional commitment as a key part of what is driving them. This is why the terms “missional” church and “emerging” church are sometimes assumed to mean the same thing. However, this is not exactly a one-to-one correlation.

Many established congregations also have been exploring the significance of the concept of the missional church for themselves. These churches have been awakened to a sense that God is inviting them to join in his mission within their communities. Such churches can be found in both large cities and rural communities. Many of them aren’t all that much different from the Mennonite Brethren churches that you and I attend. In fact, some of them actually are Mennonite Brethren churches.

Living for the mission

This is a great need of our time: churches that are willing to live, not for themselves or the past, but out of a passionate commitment to express God’s mission within a changing culture. Is it overconfidence that causes us to see this as possible? Is it mere foolishness? Shouldn’t we be afraid that we will be overwhelmed by an oversized foe? The fact of the matter is that God’s Spirit has empowered us for this task. The One who has sent forth missionaries throughout the ages to form biblically faithful churches in all sorts of cultural contexts is able to do this through us as well.

Furthermore, the gospel of Christ is plenty resilient. In fact, the gospel is actually meant by God to be “transculturated” into every culture. Certainly the gospel will challenge the members of the emerging culture to be changed. However, as we seek to bring the gospel to new generations, we might be surprised to discover how much it challenges us to change as well. Indeed, throughout history this process of communicating the gospel into new cultural forms actually has contributed powerfully to the church’s renewal.

Cory Seibel began serving this semester as assistant professor of pastoral ministry at MB Biblical Seminary and is based on the Fresno, Calif., campus. He came to MBBS from Sioux Falls (SD) Seminary. In addition to teaching, Seibel is directing pastoral ministry education, including supervised ministry experience.

Ministering in a culture that embraces Jesus—but not his church

“Your presentations were very postmodern and connected well with the group,” he said. Not sure what he meant, I asked him to explain the term postmodern. He said, “You used images well, had participatory exercises, connected with the group and gave us a meaningful experience. Plus, your understanding of leadership fit well with what is important to these postmodern leaders.”

Somewhat taken back by his explanation, I responded, “I do not know much about postmodernism. I am just trying to figure out how to communicate to the current generation what it means to be a follower of Jesus and to be the people of God.”

With a chuckle he shot back. “Jules, you are postmodern and you don’t know it.” This was my introduction to postmodernism and what has been called the emerging church.

 

Learning from the forest

And so the saplings continue to grow in an emerging fashion, each year adding a ring to the already existing rings. The new growth does not replace the previous year’s growth but rather enhances it, bringing the needed nutrients to the foliage of the tree. In this way the forest continues to thrive, growing and reproducing itself in a healthy ecosystem.

The church today can learn from the forest. According to 2007 statistics, 70 percent of Protestants ages 18-30—both evangelical and mainline—who went to church in high school quit attending church by age 23. By age 30, 34 percent had not returned, even sporadically.

Therefore, 25 percent of Protestant youth have left the church. What is most interesting is when these people are interviewed, they will tell you that they like Jesus but have no respect or love for the church or Christians in general.

Depending on the source, roughly 40 percent of Americans say they go to church. However, on any given Sunday, only about 20 percent are actually in church on a Sunday morning. When you factor in that most of those in church are age 55 or older, the handwriting is on the wall. We in the West are one generation away from empty church buildings.

In 2008, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life interviewed 35,000 adults regarding their faith practices. They discovered that 28 percent have left the faith in which they were raised in favor of another religion or no religion at all. Forty-four percent have switched religious affiliation and the group that grew the most was “none.” Yet these same people think that Jesus is pretty cool.

Add to this the discovery that David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, authors of unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity…and Why It Matters, made when interviewing people ages 16-29, asking them what they thought of Christians. They discovered that the perceptions of Christians by non-Christians is that Christians are: antihomosexual (91 percent), judgmental (87 percent), hypocritical (85 percent), teach the same basic ideas as other religions (82 percent), old-fashioned (78 percent), people with good values and principles (76 percent), too involved in politics (75 percent), out of touch with reality (72 percent), friendly (71 percent), insensitive to others (70 percent) caring (68 percent), and boring (68 percent). This is not a pretty picture of Christians. Something needs to change.

Speaking to the issues

During the past two years, the emerging church has been featured on the front page of the New York Times, the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times. ABC has produced an hour-long religious special on the emerging church, and publishers are creating lines of products for these churches to purchase.

To my knowledge there is no one event that launched the emerging church movement. In the early 1990s, Brad Smith, president of Leadership Network, called together a group of young leaders that were frustrated with what they saw happening in the church in the west. The Terranova Project, as it was called, was to be a conversation that would explore what needed to be done to increase the effectiveness of the church in reaching the current generation.

What the group discovered was that this was more than simply a generational issue. There were some fundamental fatal flaws that needed to be addressed for the church to be effective in serving this present age. From this project grew what is known today as the Emergent Village.

At the same time, church leaders across America began to question the church growth movement and the fruit of the seeker movement. People under the age of 30 were not connecting with the church. Sociologists were calling this the “emerging generation.” The shift that was taking place in culture from modernity to post-modernity was labeled the emerging culture. Those in the church that were attempting to serve the emerging generation were called the emerging church.

What is frustrating to many is that those who consider themselves emergent are hesitant to even accept the label of being a movement. They prefer to call what they are doing a “conversation.” Theologian Scot McKnight defines it best: “It is a conversation about the future direction of the evangelical church in a postmodern world; it’s a reaction and a protest against traditional evangelical churches; and it’s a conversation focused less on theological niceties and more on performing the gospel in a local setting.”

Characteristics of the emerging church

Strive to be positive. People in the emergent conversation are extremely positive and optimistic about the future. They believe that we are living in the greatest time of opportunity in the history of the church. Where my generation’s tendency is to critique the church, emergent people talk about what could be and work to bring about constructive change.

Concerned for the kingdom of God. Emergent people understand themselves as kingdom people making the world more the way God intends it to be. There is a focus on what N.T. Wright calls “putting the world to rights.” The gospel is about the kingdom of God and people joining and participating in the kingdom. The church is the catalyst for the kingdom and is to be a blessing to the entire world. Reconciliation, mercy, peace and caring for the poor and disenfranchised are embodied in the gospel.

Value theology. I have learned to never ask an emerging leader what they believe but rather to ask what they think. Emergent people love talking, reading and discussing theology. Sunday school has been replaced with schools of theology. They understand their communities as theological groups that attempt to articulate an understanding of God, faith and life.

Commited to faith as a way of life. Orthopraxy is of high importance; right living trumps right believing. Emergent people will be quick to say they need both, but that praxis is most important. In Brian McLaren’s recent book, Finding Our Way Again, he asks the readers to describe their understanding of faith along two continuums: faith as a belief system and faith as a way of life. Living the gospel carries the day.

Relationships carry weight. Community, hospitality and friendships are the glue of the movement. Authority comes from relationship. Structures and organization are built around relationships. Change happens through relationships. Emergent events that I have attended are relational marathons. Relationships are everything, and all are welcome. Conversations matter, and influence is generated through relationships. The church is one big happy family, dysfunctional at times but still a family.

Embrace multiple forms of church. There is no one form of church that is preferred over another. Ancient forms, contemporary forms, medieval forms—all are valuable and acceptable ways of doing church. The only form that is rejected is anything that smells of consumerism. Denominational structures are not important. What is important is the local church incarnating kingdom values.

Engaging culture. Emerging people are concerned with making the gospel relevant to the postmodern generation. Current ideas and methods from pop culture are quickly embraced. Involvement in political causes is normative. Being incarnational to the postmodern generation is important to emerging people.

So what do we make of all that is emerging? I do not know if this is a movement or a major shift in our understanding of God, faith and the church. Martin Luther was not aware that what would follow when he nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenberg door would go down in history as the Reformation.

Could it be that the church is in need of another major course direction similar to what was needed in the 16th century? Is it possible that what we are seeing in the emerging church is the beginnings of such a shift or is this simply the current generation seeking to make the church effective and relevant to today’s culture? I do not know which it is.

I do know that emergent people are seeking to be followers of Jesus just like the rest of us who claim the name of Christ. And when I look at what is important to them and the attitudes they have, I see striking resemblance to Anabaptists. As I consider all that we call emergent, the words of the Apostle Paul in Philippians 1:18 ring in my ears: “The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.” Let’s rejoice in what God is doing in the world.

Jules Glanzer, a 1978 graduate of MB Biblical Seminary, served as a pastor and church planter for the Mennonite Brethren and Evangelical Covenant denominations before moving into higher education, first at George Fox Evangelical Seminary and now as president of Tabor College.

Discussing the emerging church and missional church movements

Gray, who received his doctorate in New Testament studies from Fuller Theological Seminary in 2005, has been a missionary and pastor and is assistant professor of biblical and religious studies at Tabor College. Gray’s initial contact with the emerging church came through students at Fuller who were pastors or church planters working with an emerging model. Gray continues to learn about the movement from his home in Hillsboro, Kan., by daily joining the online emerging community at jesuscreed.org.

Bergen, a 2000 graduate of MB Biblical Seminary, is one of the pastors at North Fresno MB Church in Fresno, Calif. While he disagrees with certain conversation points, Bergen considers himself part of the emerging church conversation, is part of the emergent cohort in California’s Central Valley and has attended several Emergent Theological Conversations over the past few years.

An abridged version of this article was published in the October print issue of the Christian Leader.

CL: You’ve both noted that defining the emerging church movement is not easy. Nevertheless, how would you define the emerging church movement.

James: Some people are frustrated with the apparent lack of a clear definition of the emerging church movement. This may be in part because it is a newer movement and also that it is primarily a conversation with diverse boundaries.

After you hang out with friends for the evening, how would you define your conversation? It can be difficult to do. But the emergent church conversation and movement do seem to have some recurring themes. It is centered on the church and reexamining a biblical ecclesiology. It is about community and doing life together. It is a Christian movement and conversation seeking to anchor itself in the person of Jesus. And it acknowledges postmodernism and is trying to engage this culture.

Del: I would also include humility about our ability to fully comprehend God or the Scriptures, an openness to the diversity of thought and traditions within Christianity without the need to draw hard lines that would separate us or put an end to meaningful conversation and a de-emphasis of the importance of systematic theology, especially as it has traditionally functioned to make distinctions and divide.

There is an emphasis on orthopraxy (living as a follower of Jesus) as just as important—for some even more important—than orthodoxy (believing all the right doctrines). The emerging church movement often has a renewed appreciation for experiential forms of worship that involve all of the senses and a renewed appreciation for old, liturgical and non-Protestant forms of worship.

There is often a strong prophetic call for the traditional church, especially fundamentalist and evangelical churches, to change in order to reach out to our contemporary world and a strong emphasis on being missional. By this I mean playing an active role in joining God in his work of holistic redemption of all creation. Often this comes out as social action for peace and justice.

James: Another useful distinction that Scot McKnight, a writer and voice to help understand things emergent, points out is that the emergent movement is a protest. “I don’t think it is the next “Protestantism” as some have claimed,” McKnight says, “but it is clearly an anti- and protest movement.” In the U.S. there is a distinct protest of what the church has been offering in her worship and witness over the past years and decades.

CL: Reading about this movement, one encounters the words “emerging” and “Emergent.” Help us understand how these two are different.

Del: This is a hot discussion within the movement right now. As usual, there is a spectrum of opinion. Some see it important to “map” the emerging landscape in order to better understand and analyze while others think it falls back into drawing lines of distinction that separate the body. “Emergent” is usually short for the smaller sub-group “Emergent Village,” and it is an identifiable organization with official membership.

James: In 2001, a group of friends that had been part of the emergent conversation officially organized as “Emergent.” They can be found at www.emergentvillage.com. They host emergent cohorts all across the U.S. and internationally. Tony Jones is the national coordinator. Its most identifiable “unofficial” spokesperson has been pastor and author Brian McLaren. Some latch on to him as the definable voice or center point of the conversation, but that would not be fair. It is a broad conversation and McLaren is one voice among many.

Del: David Dunbar, president of Biblical Seminary has said about Emergent: “Disillusionment with existing church models is probably greater in this group than in the missional or emerging categories. For this reason the emergent critique of the past tends to be edgier and angrier. Many emergents have an almost knee-jerk reaction to anything that suggests fundamentalism or conservative evangelicalism.”

When you hear “emerging” church (usually not capitalized like Emergent is) it is the wider movement with no clear central organization or identity. Dan Kimball sees Emergent as focusing more on the theological issues while emerging is more ecclesiology, i.e., “What is the church and how should we shape it to fit this new culture?”

James: I consider myself a part of the emergent conversation and have people I talk with in Fresno. Overall, I think it has tremendous value for Christians and the church. However, I do not know of an Emergent Church in my city nor do I seek to lead the church I am a part of to become an Emergent Church.

James: I think Del’s final point is key for some people. The emerging church is a safe place to have conversation. Many people don’t find traditional evangelical circles conducive to honest conversation and question asking.

There is an emergent cohort in Fresno. They get together once a month, and it seems at every meeting a few people end up sharing their personal stories and journeys with faith and the church, their frustrations and some of the things they are wrestling with. They just want a place to process all this stuff going on in their head and in their world.

It seems the conversation itself is very life giving for some people who are experiencing dissonance with the faith they grew up with or the church of their past and their current experience of trying to be a Christian in the contemporary world. For some reason, their current church or denomination does not seem like a safe place to talk. The emerging movement is a good conversation for some of these folks.

I also think emerging church resonates with many people. It uses language and expresses a perspective on the Gospel and the world that many find refreshing. It also seems to be unleashing the vision and creativity of a group of Christians that are hungry to follow Jesus and be the church in a way that makes sense in their world. It is more liquid than structured which is attractive to some.

CL: What makes evangelical Christians uncomfortable with the emerging church?

Del: This is a terribly important question. Because there is often a strong call within the emerging movement for the church to change to effectively engage our society today, there is a justifiable feeling within evangelicalism that it is being criticized loudly. Naturally some of us get defensive when fingers are pointed at us. Many of the criticisms are quite harsh, even sometimes unfair and exaggerated with very polemic language. But if we honestly take a hard look at the church we will recognize that much of what is being said is true, and the same points are often made within our own ranks.

While these questions of how the church should relate to society are important, it is really the theological issues that are the most threatening to evangelicals. The emerging movement is much more comfortable with theological diversity and ambiguity than evangelicals. In fact, one of the major characteristics of the church in the modern era was clear definition of denominational groups according to theological positions. While most of us would agree that many of these positions are relatively less important doctrines, some emerging thinkers have questioned our traditional views on what many evangelicals see as core doctrines of the faith.

At this point it is again important to remember the wide range of thought within the emerging movement. A few authors and bloggers are at one extreme where they confrontationally challenge doctrines like the sufficiency of Christ’s death for salvation. Others, however, want to promote honest conversation and fresh thinking, even about these sacred core theological positions. Dialogue like this can be very healthy and brings new insights and vitality to our faith. There is quite a flurry of new thinking about the Trinity and the Atonement, for example, and is good for us to be challenged with fresh ideas, even if we ultimately disagree.

At the same time these conversations often result in the realization that much of what we believe is the product of tradition and a renewed dialogue with other traditions and ideas can bring in scriptural truths that we have often overlooked. For example the heavy emphasis in the church today on Paul’s use of the judicial metaphor for the meaning of Christ’s death has come at the expense of an awareness of the richness of the other metaphors he uses (participation in Christ’s death, reconciliation between enemies, sacrifice, redemption of slaves, et al.).

James: Its “anti-“ or deconstructionist posture toward the church puts some on the defensive or at odds with the movement. Emerging church also welcomes broad and diverse conversation partners and wouldn’t define or clarify itself as an evangelical movement. There are certainly evangelicals within it but it is larger and more ecumenical. Mainline and Catholic churches are part of this conversation. This makes some uncomfortable.

I think another reason why some may be uncomfortable or concerned with the movement is misinformation about what it is about. Someone can read one book from the emergent genre and take issue with something and think that is what the emergent church is all about, rather then just one author’s perspective. This is never a good practice regardless of the issue.

And as Del says, some are reacting to the movement because of the types of questions and re-envisioning that is going on within the movement. It is a place to ask tough and at times “unsafe” questions about what have been identified as orthodox issues in the past. Perspectives on truth, the Scriptures and the nature of Jesus seem to be the biggest flash points and uncomfortable issues for some that are arising in the emergent conversation.

CL: This is a presidential election year and I’m wondering if emerging church people are drawn to one party over the other?

Del: This is clearly a part of the dynamic of the conversations and the tension between emerging and evangelical. The last election saw a huge rise in the prominence and power of the “evangelical voting block,” even to the extent that it was a common topic in the news. Evangelicals became practically equated with Republicans.

The emerging movement, however, believes that much of the missional thrust of Jesus and the church is also found in traditionally Democratic platforms, especially with regard to care for the poor and the environment. Proponents of emerging are often Democrats for this reason, but for many there is a significant dilemma as neither party perfectly aligns with the values and mission of the church.

James: Politically, from what I have read and understand, the emergent conversation would be most concerned about the politics of Jesus. There is no party of the emergents, and there would be both Republican and Democratic supporters and everything in between.

The emerging church is trying to take the radical call and invitation to follow Jesus seriously and to work that out in every aspect of life and society. From what I have seen and read, a heart for the poor and broken and oppressed would be a core part of an ethic and politic of the emergents. It would be interesting to get the statistics from the November election on exactly how those who define themselves as emergent cast their vote.

CL: Articles in the November CL talk about being “missional” and “emerging.” Is there a difference between these movements and how is it helpful to distinguish between the two?

James: While the emerging conversation has been sparked by some of the same cultural shifts as the missional, I find that it is helpful to view them as two different conversations. The more the two conversations move forward, they seem to find each other as good conversation partners and the lines may be blurring between them. “Emerging” seems to be using the term “missional” more and more in their conversation, but many in the “missional” conversation would not be as quick to identify with “emerging.”

Del: Being “missional” is usually a central part of emerging churches. It certainly is possible, however, to be missional without being emerging. In fact the language and ideas that are used in the current understanding about living missionally should be very familiar to Mennonite and Anabaptists in general because the same ideas have stood at the center of our tradition.

Missional usually refers to active participation in God’s project of redeeming the world. For most evangelicals this would immediately bring to mind evangelism, and while that is certainly a part of it, “missional” is used in a broader sense that is more holistic. Many emerging groups would fold in the ideas of ministry to the poor and oppressed, justice, peace, social action and even redemption of the natural world in ecology.

James: Both movements are trying to take the Bible and Jesus seriously in what are perceived as cultural shifts and the church’s position within that culture. I believe they would both take seriously perceived shifts to modern culture over the past 50 to 100 years as well as acknowledge a post-Christian nature of Western culture. The church, Jesus, the Bible, culture and mission would be emphases of both movements. They are both contemporary conversation partners and movements within the church, but they are different.

CL: I have heard emerging church folks say that much of what they are saying is what we Mennonites have said for a long time. Would you agree with this?

Del: I definitely agree with this statement, and I think that it is exciting. The focus on putting hands and feet to our faith has always been central to Mennonites and the emerging church is finally catching up! This is also true in the emphasis on living in authentic Christian community that is now so popular in the emerging movement. Many emerging eyes are being turned toward Anabaptism with curiosity and appreciation.

James: Yes, I also believe there is some truth to this statement. If Anabaptists have been called “radical reformers” in the past, I think the same could be said of the emergents. They are certainly shaking traditional structures in an attempt to take the Bible seriously in the changing world in which we live. They see some apathy in the modern church and unnecessary ties to tradition and structure that they are reacting to and trying to reform.

Some are calling the movement a “third way” which sounds very familiar to the language of the Anabaptists. Emergents are rediscovering theology in community, living the way of Jesus, discipleship, care for creation, shared leadership and biblical theology. There seem to be a number of shared values with Mennonites/Anabaptists.

Resource list from James Bergen

Four books about the emerging church movement

• Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures by Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, (Baker Academic, 2005)
• An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches by Ray Anderson (IVP, 2006)

• The Church in Emerging Culture: Five Perspectives by Leonard Sweet, Andy Crouch,Brian D. McLaren, Erwin Rapheal McManus and Michael Horton (Zondervan, 2003)

• What Would Jesus Deconstruct?: The Good News of Postmodernism for the Church by John D. Caputo, (Baker Academic, 2007

Authors to read within the emerging church movement

• Andrew Jones

• Brian McLaren

• Doug Pagitt

• Dan Kimball

• Tony Jones

• John D. Caputo (to understand philosophy and postmodern thought)

Web sites

• theooze.com

• emergentvillage.com

• churchandpomo.typepad.com

Resource list from Del Gray

• To experience a vital emerging community on the web, read Scot McKnight’s blog and the community of readers at www.jesuscreed.org.

• Brian McLaren’s books are very popular and represent an Emergent thinker who is intentionally provocative to make some important points. His newest book is Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises and a Revolution of Hope (Thomas Nelson, 2007).

• Dan Kimball’s book They Like Jesus But Not the Church: Insights from Emerging Generations (Zondervan, 2007) will be more centrist in the movement and more comfortable for evangelicals on some levels. He also has a website .

• The official website of Emergent Village.

How evangelical Anabaptist Christians think about politics—and why

 
Historically, Anabaptists separated from society and regarded government as evil. In part this position developed from their interpretation of Scripture and the coercive nature of government at that time. But today American Mennonites live in a democracy. So except for some groups such as the Amish and Hutterites, this position is no longer relevant.

 
Rather, most modern progressive Mennonites have adopted what John H. Redekop calls “realistic Anabaptism.” This position encourages Mennonites to become selectively involved in the political arena—but from a different perspective. I see five areas to consider when approaching the differences and similarities between Mennonites and other Christian positions.

1. Selective involvement

 
What is the nature of government? Is government ordained of God? Most modern Mennonites believe government is ordained of God and do not regard it as evil. Still, government is sub-Christian and as Redekop says, it is “God’s plan B.” Sin entered the world and human behavior had to be controlled. This task fell to human government. And the protection of people is still the foremost function of government. Scripture condemns anarchy and requires a government to maintain order and protect its citizens.

 
The church is “God’s plan A” and should have the Christian’s primary allegiance. Moreover, while they have some overlapping functions, Christians should not confuse the church and state. Enlightened secular ethics and Christian discipleship are not the same, despite some common characteristics. The church’s primary function is redemptive. The state, on the other hand, must perform a wide range of social, political and economic duties.

 
God has a concern for how all people live and the state fulfills many functions that enable humanity to survive and even thrive. Evangelical Anabaptists should become selectively involved in these areas. They should exercise their citizen rights and responsibilities. The Bible requires all Christians to pray for good government. Voting in a modern democracy is the minimum level of participation.

 
While the modern state still must protect its people from internal and external threats, it has many other functions—education, social services, health care, agriculture, roads and bridges, disaster relief, environmental management, care for the poor, etc. Mennonites should consider avoiding the more violent duties of government. But they should participate in the other functions of the state.

2. Say “no” to Christian nationalism

 
We need to be grateful for the blessings America offers—religious freedom, political democracy, economic prosperity, personal liberties and many more. But we do not need to baptize America’s political and economic systems. While they may be very good, they are not necessarily ordained of God. They are not the 11th commandment. To Christianize our government’s various activities is at best a mistake. At worst, it borders on idolatry.

 
America was founded on a combination of Christian and enlightenment values. Enlightenment principles developed in 18th century Europe and challenged historic Christianity while emphasizing the values of reason, liberty, freedom and tolerance. These two ethical systems flow together and it is difficult to separate the two.

 
We began as a republic and evolved into a liberal-democracy, and in such a development Christian and enlightenment principles naturally merged. Democracy reflects majority rule but liberalism ensures certain rights for all people, even if they are in the minority. Having said this, many religious groups, especially the Puritans, have impacted our history and made religion a very important component in American public life.

 
But remember that the leading figures who influenced our development were what we now call deists. At the time deism was regarded as a form of Christianity, but it would not be seen as such today. Included on a short list would be Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton and Madison. These were men of the enlightenment, and they stood for freedom, liberty, tolerance and public morality.

 
But they did not necessarily embrace the historic Christian faith. And no, the great documents of America’s founding—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—are not Christian writings but products of the enlightenment.

 
Evangelical Anabaptists should be staunch advocates of the First Amendment, which guarantees religious freedom and has been interpreted as separating church and state. The early Anabaptists were the first to advocate separation of church and state. This value became part of the American religious landscape. Unfortunately, in recent years some have questioned this interpretation of the Constitution and have advocated a more theocratic approach to church-state matters.

3. Values

When entering the voting booth, all Christians must consider values as an important factor in how they vote. Still, while sharing much with mainline evangelicals, Mennonites should have a broader perspective. This viewpoint should be distinctively more inclusive than the one evidenced by many Christians on what is called the “religious right.” Most important, evangelical Anabaptists must consider a wide range of issues, not a narrow litmus list.

 
The personal morals of our political leaders are important. If they cannot be trusted in their personal lives, can they keep their word on national issues? But the issue is more complicated than this. Perhaps more important is the issue of public morality. Personal and public morality do not always go together.

 
Some rather pious presidents have not been personally corrupt but their administrations have been. Moreover, personal morality and competence do not always go together. Some very moral presidents have not had successful administrations. Conversely, some presidents who have not been virtuous in their personal lives have been our most competent leaders and have run the country well.

 
Evangelical Anabaptists should consider a wide range of values. The “religious right” has made a litmus test out of sexual issues—especially abortion, homosexuality and same sex marriage. These issues dominate their thinking, and one cannot be soft or compromising on these matters and be on God’s side. In focusing on these issues, many evangelicals ignore social justice, poverty, racism, peace issues and the environment.

 
Mennonites should not ignore or legitimize homosexuality, same sex marriage and abortion as a form of contraception. But they should think outside the traditional evangelical box.

 
In thinking politically, they should consider a wide range of value issues: Where does a candidate stand on the matter of social justice? Does he want tax breaks primarily for wealthy? What is her position on the environment? Does the candidate value all of God’s people regardless of their race or gender? Does she or he want all people to have adequate health care?

 
Coming out of the peace tradition, evangelical Anabaptists should not ignore the issue of peace. Yes, a government must protect its people from both internal and external dangers. It must fulfill its police and military functions. The early Anabaptists did not believe the state should be pacifist in its nature. And neither should contemporary Mennonites.

 
Rather, modern evangelical Anabaptists should encourage governments to exercise restraint and minimize violence whenever possible. They must be voices of restraint, advocating peace and justice whenever feasible. Diplomacy and alternatives to violent measures must be advocated. No, complete peace will never be achieved. But Mennonites should consider this question: Can a candidate protect America and preserve order while minimizing war and other violent measures?

4. Persuasion rather than coercion

 While evangelical Anabaptists share many values with other Christians, they differ on how these morals can be achieved. On one hand, evangelical Anabaptists do not believe Christian ethics are the norm for the secular state. On the other, Christian values are not irrelevant. Whenever possible they should penetrate society.

 
But how? Mennonites place more emphasis on persuasion and providing alternatives than passing laws to enforce Christian behavior.

 
In America two lines of thinking dealing with religion and politics go back to the colonial period. The Puritans desired to legislate morality and criminalize behavior contrary to Christian values. An example of this tradition became evident in the spring primary elections. One candidate said that the Constitution should be amended to reflect God’s law.

 
A second tradition goes back to at least Roger Williams, a Baptist minister who founded Rhode Island. This line of thinking recognizes that even then America had deep religious and cultural divisions. So with respect to public life, once some basic standards designed to allow civilization to survive were established, explicit religion should be separate from politics. Such a tradition, while not ignoring values in public life, does allow for more choice and emphasizes persuasion rather than coercion. In most matters, Mennonites have stressed voluntarism and providing alternatives.

5. Expectations from government

 For the most part, evangelical Anabaptist expectations for government are similar to what other Christians and even non-Christians value. In the Old Testament, what pleased God about rulers? They should be just, honest, competent, God-fearing and refrain from idolatry.

 
On the whole, Scripture indicates that governments can be expected to exhibit certain characteristics. They have a responsibility to rule in a competent manner—restraining evil, protecting people, maintaining law and order and upholding the general good. God expects governments to practice honesty and integrity and to be committed to the pursuit of justice.

 
Governments must work to promote freedom and human rights. It pleases God when governments assist the weak, marginalized, poor and elderly in society. Governments should also practice fiscal integrity and pay their bills as their citizens are expected to do. The rich should not receive preferential tax breaks either. Wherever possible, the state should seek nonviolent solutions to problems. And, governments need to promote public morality and root out corruption.

 
Last but not least: Please remember that God’s agenda does not coincide with that of either the Republican or Democratic parties. God is not spelled GOP. Moreover, GOP does not stand for “God’s only party.” Conversely, Jesus is not a Democrat just because he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey.

 
Three things to consider as you prepare to vote

 
Let’s face it: voting can be a difficult, frustrating and unsatisfying experience.

 
How do you sort out all of the conflicting claims coming from politicians more dedicated to snaring your vote than openly explaining their positions? What issues or principles should you use in deciding for whom to vote?

 
How do we see through the highly negative 30-second TV ads that often distort more than they inform? Does voting responsibly mean spending half your time between now and the election reading and studying up on the candidates and issues?

Let me suggest three principles that will help any voter but especially a young person voting for the first time.

1. Make a list

 
First, be an informed voter. To vote in ignorance may result in voting for candidates who would take our country in the exact opposite direction you desire.

 
Television commercials put on by the various candidates offer very limited help. Typically self-serving, they distort both the candidate’s and his or her opponent’s positions, and they appeal more to emotions than to thoughtful understanding. Those who put these political ads together are adept at discovering and pushing our emotional buttons, while revealing next to nothing about who a candidate is and what he or she is all about.

 
Instead, ask yourself what issues you think are most important. Is it the economy? Abortion? The war in Iraq? Make your own list. Doing so will help you avoid two mistakes. One is having the candidates decide for you what is important. If you don’t think about what issues are important to you, you will be informed only about those issues the campaigns choose to emphasize.

 
The second error you can avoid by making your own list is what has been called single-issue voting. This is picking one issue and voting purely on the basis of it, without ever thinking about or knowing candidates’ positions on other important issues. Even if a candidate takes the right position on one issue that’s important to you, you may totally disagree with the candidate on many other crucial issues.

 
After putting together a list of your important issues, make use of Web sites that can help you find out the candidates’ positions on those issues. I’ve found this the quickest and often the most accurate way to get such answers. Especially helpful is www.vote-smart.org. Vote Smart is a strictly nonpartisan organization. It lists the voting records and positions taken by thousands of candidates running for president, House of Representatives, Senate and state legislatures.

2. Talk about it

 
The second principle I suggest you follow in voting is to discuss the election and the various candidates with your friends and family. You should not, of course, simply vote the way your friends, parents or other relatives are voting. Your vote is yours; you should not give it away by simply voting the way someone else tells you to vote.

 
But by discussing issues, candidates’ stands on issues and for whom to vote we all can sharpen our thinking and test the conclusions to which we have come. Others may have insights you’ve missed.

3. Let biblical values guide you

 
My third suggested principle is that you be guided by biblical values as you make your voting decisions.

 
This one’s a little more complex. It means you should not simply ask which candidate would be best for you personally or for your pocketbook. It does not mean, however, that you simply go by the church membership of a candidate.

 
Nor does it mean voting for candidates who have been pictured attending church services or meeting with certain religious leaders. These may only mean that candidates are trying to give themselves a little religious polish without ever having their faith affect either their personal lives or their policy positions.

 
Rather, try to ask whether a candidate seeks justice for all people—rich and poor, religious and secular, born and unborn.

 
There is, of course, no one Christian or biblical position on specific issues of the day. Christians will often disagree what justice means on concrete public-policy issues related to the environment, aid to the poor, opposing terrorism, religious freedom for all, and even the details of abortion policy. And that’s OK.

 
What’s important for the Christian voter to ask is what are the religious beliefs of a candidate and how do those beliefs affect how that candidate views the world and the government’s proper role in it. Three questions are especially important:

• Do the candidates’ religious beliefs help form a moral compass that guides their actions in both their personal and public lives? If religion is not merely something for show, it should make a difference in candidates’ lives.
• Do the candidates’ religious beliefs lead them to respect all of human life, in all stages of the human life cycle, from before birth to old age and death? Or do the candidates take a pragmatic approach to human life, holding that potential scientific advancements, individual needs and society’s costs sometimes are more important than protecting and respecting human life?
• Do the candidates’ religious beliefs sometimes lead them to take positions that differ from what one would expect of a candidate of his or her party? Here I’m thinking of a Republican candidate who may favor stronger protection for the environment or a Democrat who favors vouchers to fund education, including in religious schools. This is a key tip-off. If a candidate marches in lockstep with his or her political party, it indicates that partisan principles rather than biblical principles are his or her guiding force.

 
It’s my prayer that all voters—young first-timers as well as older voters—will not only vote but do so in an informed, thoughtful manner that takes into account their Christian principles. It is then that Christ will be honored by our actions and citizens.

10 characteristics defining a responsible Christian citizen

God has a role for Christians in the political realm and we ought to give serious consideration to carrying out that role faithfully. Such an understanding has not been supported by all Christians in the past nor is it supported by all Christians now. For example, in AD 215 the early Christian theologian Tertullian wrote, “Nothing is more foreign to us Christians than politics.”

 
What, then, in specific terms, does God require of Christian citizens in a world permeated by politics? As I see it, there are at least 10 specific requirements.

 
1. We are to affirm the legitimacy of the state and its government and to submit to it. 1 Peter 2:13-15 instructs us to show honor and respect. We are to do this “for the Lord’s sake” to counteract “the ignorant talk of foolish men” who may assert that Christians are anti-government and inclined toward anarchy. Christians, at times, may have good reason to oppose certain government policies and actions, may work for the removal of some politicians and may even support the replacement of one political system or ideology with another. However, we may never reject the necessity and propriety of the institution of government. Faithful Christians do not support or endorse anarchy.

 
3. We are to be informed. In Matthew 16:3 Jesus rebukes the Pharisees because they could not “read the signs of the times.” Clearly Jesus thought that being informed about what is happening in our society is important. In political matters, as in other dimensions of life, we ought to make an effort to “read the signs of the times.” God wants us to be interested in all his agencies on earth.

 
We all encounter Christians who believe that they have no obligation to find out what is going on in their community or the world. Such an attitude puzzles me. How can we come to grips with Jesus’ instruction to be good to our neighbors if we remain ignorant about them and if we do not care what is being done to or by them?

 
Even as we obey a law we do not like or disobey a law that would require us to act in a God-displeasing manner, we urge our rulers to improve their policies. The issue at hand may involve racism, prejudice in immigration regulations, corruption among elected lawmakers, the abuse of foreign aid, militarism, desecration of the environment, judicial injustice and much more.

 
As we seek to be responsible Christian critics, we should realize that governments will likely not be favorably impressed if we ignore the pressing needs of others and only protest issues which benefit us specifically. If we advance only our own interests, our credibility will likely be very low. All other groups look after their own interests. If we Christians do nothing more, how are we different?

 
In keeping with the biblical imperative that calls everyone to live by godly principles of justice, righteousness, truth, humanitarianism, the promotion of human dignity and the pursuit of peace, we courageously remind all peoples and all governments that God’s standards have not changed. We remind others of this truth even while we strive to model adherence to God’s standards. If we address evil, we are following Jesus’ example.

 
An especially difficult problem arises when a country is tempted to think of itself as God’s favorite, even as a new Israel. While God may decide to use one country to punish another country for its evil ways, as he did in Old Testament times, it is inappropriate for any government or country to describe itself as God’s agent. Such a decision is strictly God’s prerogative. In our day, so-called Christian-Americanism has been a temptation for some American Christians. In earlier times, similar cultic claims gained support in Russia, Great Britain, Spain and Germany.

 
Further, a similar problem exists when the government of any country claims God as a modern-day mascot or patron. In making such claims, rulers ignore the fact that God does not describe himself this way. God clearly and unequivocally describes himself as the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords who will judge all people and all authorities. He is not the national chaplain of any one country or government.

 
Similarly, Christian critics must speak up when the government of any country claims that its policies, including its foreign policies, are uniquely righteous and that it is the power of light combating the powers of darkness. Christians must remind that particular government that all national governments are less than altruistic, that they all exist to advance their own political perspective, public policies and historical record.

 
Some years ago in a published article I strongly criticized the Canadian government for apparently planning to function as a “merchant of death.” I used that label because the government was considering how best to help a tobacco marketing board promote the sale of Canadian tobacco in various African countries and other parts of the developing world.

 
I said that the government would be “peddling poison.” My article was reported and quoted in major newspapers. Canada’s largest newspaper, The Toronto Star, included the following statement in its news story: “Redekop said it would be ‘un-Christian’ and smack of racism for the government to promote tobacco consumption overseas because Canadians would be exploiting an almost nonwhite Third World.”

 
I don’t know how insignificant my nationally reported opposition was, but I know that soon after the newspapers reported my stance and a growing number of Canadians and Christians objected, the Canadian government decided not to go ahead with such a plan. The fact that at the time I was moderator of the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches and vice-president of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada gave additional weight to my objections. If God puts us in positions of potential influence for good, we have a responsibility to use such opportunities to do what is good.

 
One closing point concerning our role as perceptive critics: If we want to be truly effective and taken seriously by government authorities, we should affirm them when we can so that we can with credibility criticize when we must.

 
5. We should be thankful. We are instructed to be thankful for the institution of government. God has established it for the benefit of all people (1 Tim. 2:1-3). We should thank God for the rulers of the day. After all, they are the ones who make the whole system work. In situations where the rulers are brutal and evil, it may be possible to be thankful that the situation is not worse than it is. There may also be specific policies for which we can be thankful.

 

6. We should faithfully pay our taxes. Some Christians argue that Christians, especially those of us who belong to one of the historic peace churches, should withhold that percentage of the taxes that is presumably being used for wrongful causes, particularly to pay for the country’s military establishment. Some very godly people hold to such a view. I respect them. They are contributing to a very important debate.

Secondly, can one seriously argue that a government should have no military capacity when such resources are needed to maintain law and order and to deal with situations of natural catastrophe? By definition, a government must have the capacity to enforce its laws. It must have the ability to protect its citizens. That is surely what Paul means when he says that the government “does not bear the sword for nothing” (Rom. 13:4). Quite frankly, to argue that a national government should not have any military capacity, which is the backup for the police forces, comes very close to arguing for anarchy.

 
Finally, I find no biblical support for such a stance. Jesus seems to go out of his way to model the propriety of paying taxes. Granted, the temple tax was both a religious and a political payment (Matt. 17:24-26). But Jesus also addressed the payment of regular political taxes. The Herodians asked him one day, “Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Jesus’ unequivocal response was, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (Matt. 22:17,21).

The exhortation is clear, and it is particularly telling in that Jesus lived in a colonial setting under an oppressive dictatorship that opposed him and his teaching. In Romans 13:6-7, Paul, despite the brutal treatment many political authorities meted out to him, also strongly endorses the payment of taxes. He makes a significant comment when he writes, “This is also why you pay taxes” (Rom. 13:6). Payment of taxes is assumed. The issue is not up for debate.

 
Some years ago I was part of a Mennonite Central Committee Canada delegation that requested time to visit with the Canadian Minister of Indian Affairs in Ottawa. When we arrived for our appointment it became clear that the minister had only about 15 minutes or so to meet with us.

 
He asked what we wanted. We responded that we wanted him and his government to move ahead with their stated intentions of pursuing more enlightened policies toward native people, that we had some specific suggestions and that we would do what we could to help. He was amazed. He asked if we were asking for any favors or special policies for ourselves. We said no. He then indicated that he had a lot more time for us, and we spent much of the evening with him.

 
8. We should pray for our political rulers. Many biblical passages, including 1 Timothy 2:1-2, urge us to pray for rulers. In Psalm 122:6 the people are urged to pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Ezra 6:10 instructs hearers to “pray for the well-being of the king and his sons.” Lest we think that such exhortations apply only in settings where we live under wise rulers, Jesus states, “Pray for those who persecute you” (Matt. 5:44) and “Pray for those who mistreat you” (Luke 6:28).

 
9. We ought to be willing to become involved in the political process. The democratic right to vote in an election includes the right not to vote, but I do believe that it pleases God when we use this very significant opportunity to influence the selection of rulers and the shaping of policies. In supporting the existence of a political system that God has established, a further issue is whether we are also willing to become involved more substantively. I firmly believe that if we are willing to do so, the opportunities will arise for at least some of us.

 
Let us not be too quick to excuse ourselves. As someone once said, “It is much easier to worship Jesus than to obey him.” Maybe we need to remind ourselves that faith equals faithfulness and the path to holiness passes through the world of action.

 
10. As Christian citizens we ought to remind our rulers that they are accountable to God. Our rulers need to know that as individuals and as governments they are ultimately accountable to a sovereign God. They need to hear that some day they will answer to him for how they lived their personal lives as well as for how they used the position and authority he delegated to them. There is a Prime Minister of prime ministers, a King of kings, and a President of presidents who will someday call them to account.

 
Jesus made the point of God’s sovereignty very clear to Pilate when he said, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above” (John 19:11). Pilate apparently did not dispute the point and, judging by his subsequent action, seems to have agreed with Jesus.

 
Paul left us a powerful example of witnessing to rulers about their personal relationship to almighty God. Although a prisoner, Paul courageously presented the gospel to King Agrippa. His testimony must have been effective because King Agrippa responded by implying that he was almost persuaded to become a Christian (Acts 26:25-32).

 
The apostle Paul was faithful in presenting Christian truth and Christian claims to the political authorities of his day. He participated in the political realm as he had opportunity. This is also what God requires of us, nothing more and nothing less. Of course, not everyone needs to be equally involved. We have varying abilities and callings. But we should all be knowledgeable and grateful and be willing to do what we can, motivated by our love for God and others, for a fallen world.

 
Let us be faithful in ways that our situations permit and involved to the extent that opportunities arise. Such a commitment and such actions are part of faithful Christian discipleship and obedient Christian servanthood.

7 Reasons why politics is an arena of opportunity, influence and responsibility 

Why should individual Christians view the political order as an arena of opportunity, influence and responsibility? Why not simply let the sub-Christian society tend to its own structures and problems while we Christians concentrate solely on the biblical mandate to evangelize the world and teach people to follow Jesus? As I understand the Scriptures and as I look at our situation in society, it seems to me that there are major reasons why Christians should give careful thought to political matters.
 

• The political order is a parallel, although secondary, order functioning alongside the church to serve God’s human creation. Government, as the agency of the state, is the expression of God’s love and especially of his providence toward those people who reject his lordship as experienced in the Christian church and proclaimed by it.
• God can achieve considerable good through the operation of the political order, namely, the prevention of anarchy, the restraint of evil, the maintenance of law and order, as well as the maintenance of conditions that, generally speaking, facilitate the carrying out of the great commission.
• Church and state share many concerns and goals. This reality is hardly surprising given that many of the positive services that the state now undertakes were first pioneered by the church. Indeed, many are still carried on by the faithful church.
• Although we may not realize it, most of us are much more involved in the political realm than we know. The political realm has become a substantial part of our social environment. Detachment and irrelevance are no longer options; perhaps they never were.
• Government is big and growing. Its tentacles now impact the church and the life of individual Christians in massive ways. Although there are many positive aspects to this expansion of political power and regulation, there are also many negative effects. Further, in most countries the government now makes claims and demands that specifically contradict how Christians ought to live. In many western countries, for example, including Canada and parts of the United States, such demands include the approval of same-sex marriages and other practices that both church and state previously rejected. These initiatives need to be challenged and addressed.
• No part of a Christian’s life lies outside the scope of Christ’s lordship. Christ is also Lord of the political order. Understanding exactly what this means is an ongoing challenge for every Christian.
• We may not be “of the world” (John 15:19), but we are certainly in the world. God, in his wisdom, has chosen us to be his representatives here on earth. Since that is the case, should we not become knowledgeable about the social setting into which God has placed us? Given that God loves the world even in its fallen state (see John 3:16), should those who worship God and seek to be faithful to his ethical values not also love that same world? And love, we know, always evokes a desire to get to know the object of one’s love.

What Mennonite Brethren have to say about being single in the church

 
These are the messages many single adults in our churches are hearing, leaving them feeling singled out.

But when I listen to single adults tell their stories and talk about their values, feelings, hopes and desires, I learn a lot about them. I am confronted with the reality that those of us in the married world have a ways to go when it comes to entering the single world and clearly and fully understanding single adults.

I focused my research for this article by posing questions to a focus group of single adults from four different locations. Eighty-six percent of those who were given the survey responded; that says something about how strongly this segment of our population feels about this.

Those who responded come from a variety of walks of life. Some are single adults who have never been married; some are divorced; some are single parents; some are widows. The respondents communicated with passion and conviction, often with emotion, sometimes with hurt or anger.

The remainder of this article consists of the questions posed in the survey and the responses I received. Rather than summarize the responses, I will let these men and women speak for themselves. I close by offering five action steps based on the comments and my observations.

1. What myths do people have about single adults?

Singles are unhappy with being single and want/need to be married. If we aren’t engaged or married by the age of 22, we won’t find anyone.
Singleness is not a gift from God.
We have to marry to be fulfilled.
Those who have never been married are better off financially.
Church singles groups are for finding your spouse.
Singles should have more time to offer the church.
Single adults are somehow dysfunctional and can’t make relationships work.
Single adults are irresponsible, uncommitted, untrustworthy and unstable.
There is something wrong with a person who is single.
Single women are domineering, have wrong values (other than marriage and children) and/or are selfish.
Single adults are too focused on work.
Often when we view those who are different than us, we develop caricatures that are inaccurate, unfair and hinder our ability to relate to them effectively. These myths suggest that some married adults may spend more time talking about single adults than talking with them.

Most sermon illustrations refer to husbands, wives or children, which makes me feel like they are most important in the church.
My church does a good job of valuing singles/divorced adults. Our pastor often finds a way to specifically relate his sermons to the single life.
The majority of church programs, terminology and mottoes are directed at families and children.
Married women don’t appear to want to have meaningful relationships with single mothers.
We (single adults) aren’t discussed or used as the example of good service.
An event may be advertised for everyone, but there’s still a part of me inside that wonders, will I get that “what’s-he-doing-here?” look.
Some churches isolate the single adult by having ministries that focus on married couples and families, without regard for the single mother or unmarried professional.
When an event came up for a Sunday school class, “couples” were asked to sign up.
A sermon series…on marriage for four weeks.
The church plays a strategic role in equipping couples and parents for their responsibilities in the home and there are a variety of settings where this can happen, sermons included. The disparity comes when the focus of church programs and activities and sermon topics and applications ignores the needs and feelings of single adults.

I want my voice to be taken seriously even though I don’t have a spouse or a large joint income to speak for me.
When I was part of a mixed small group I enjoyed the viewpoints of the female members. It was a chance to associate in a comfortable setting. I don’t often get the opportunity to chat with women about serious issues.
I would enjoy more opportunities to connect with married adults. My daughters need positive male role models in their lives.
Phone calls and invitations for a meal or other activity. Phone calls are mostly about church ministry areas rather than showing interest in me as a person.
After my husband passed away, one of our couple-friends always saved me a place to sit with them and that meant a lot. I didn’t feel as lost or displaced.
Pastors should be more involved with the singles ministry whether it is simply appearing at a social event or speaking at a Bible study on the unique issues we face as single Christians.
I need to visit with others about the problems and concerns that I face daily. My Sunday school class is there, but they don’t understand what it is like.
I would love to see ministry within the church that recognizes the needs of single women, in particular. Single women generally don’t make as much money and are usually the primary caregivers for children. The single woman may need a babysitter and have no family around or finances to commit to such a luxury. Perhaps her car is in need of repair, or her residence is substandard. I remember feeling like a fifth wheel in many social situations after my husband died.
Things like someone to volunteer a day to help with home repairs or lawn care. I also enjoyed the Sunday lunches that were provided for single parents.
I don’t want to connect with most married adults. If they have kids, that’s all they talk about.
Remind us, as Christ would, that we are loved. We need our friends to cover us in prayer, not withdraw from us when we are at our lowest point.

I don’t think any one part of it seems off-limits.
I have plenty of opportunities to serve.
I’ve served in several ministries without feeling any pressure.
My church offers plenty of opportunity to serve.
Typically, elder positions seem off-limits, but I find no lack of places to serve especially when Christ calls it to be.
Most staff positions come across as being off-limits.
My church is very open to everyone who wants to serve.

There have been long awkward silences when people discover that I am divorced.
I was real mad when someone in a church meeting wanted to remove a minimal amount from the budget for young adult ministries.
“If only you had more faith in God, he could have saved your marriage.”
“Maybe you should start going to another church so you can find that special someone.”
“I understand what you’re going through,” when, in fact, they don’t have a clue. Don’t patronize me!
“Everyone has to die sometime.”
“Why aren’t you married yet?”
“Why don’t you date so-and-so? He’s a nice guy.”
“You shouldn’t be so picky.” I truly hate this one. My single status is an example of what happens when you aren’t so picky.
“Don’t you miss sex?” Thanks a lot! That has not been on my mind until just now. Lord, help me through this again.
“Are you gay?”
“I’m afraid you might try to make a move on my husband.”
Several invitations to dinner where they were trying to match me up with someone else.
Someone scolded me for being selfish—the reason I was single.
Some people asked me about the status of a single guy in church. I think they were hoping to play matchmaker. That was awkward.

Raising a teenage daughter alone is draining. There is no one there to visit with about it.
Raising children alone, being both father and mother. Feeling overwhelmed by the enormous responsibility of trying to “do it all” and falling very short.
Lust for women and pornography. You can’t go through the grocery store or watch TV without being bombarded with it.
In dating, sexual purity seems to be the biggest struggle.
No sex! Prayer is what helps more than anything and not putting my thoughts or myself in that direction.
I had struggled with pornography, but God saw fit to prove it possible to trust in his Word to make me clean by the death of his Son and trust in the same Word to keep me clean, which is holiness. I have experienced victory in this spiritual warfare.
Sexual purity! We want to honor God with our bodies and yet crave physical touch! It is soooo difficult!
Finding a place to meet a solid Christian person that may lead to a possible relationship.
I do want to marry and have children so I do feel like I am waiting to marry so I can get on with my life.
To hold off dating too soon after a failed relationship.
Loneliness.
Going places alone.
Attending a church function where there are all couples and when a single sits down, it really messes up seating arrangements.
Not being invited by couples unless I am paired with another single, kind of like two singles make a couple.
As a relatively young widow with two small children, I had no one in my circle of friends who could relate to my situation. At my most vulnerable moments, I felt very much alone.
Not having another adult to give perspective when making significant decisions or facing problems, feeling overwhelmed or having low self-worth.
Not being asked to lunch after church.
Where I fit in the world. It seems like everything is focused on being a pair or a family.
Finding a Sunday school class with which I feel a real connection.
Living out my Christian lifestyle among non-Christians and being ridiculed for not going out and partying.
Financially it is a real struggle to survive. I have only one income, get very limited child support and am barely scraping by. I can’t afford to go to many activities, to travel, etc.

• Avoid stereotypes. Single adults come in all different sizes and shapes. No two are alike. Assuming that they all think and feel alike or that they all have the same concerns or challenges fails to treat single adults as unique individuals. Choose to ask sincere questions rather than make inaccurate, uneducated conclusions. Some single adults would like to get married, while others prefer remaining single and are offended by innuendoes to the contrary.

• Engage and include single adults. Single adults enjoy healthy interaction with other adults. Instead of always going out to eat with another couple, invite someone you may normally overlook because they aren’t married. I have found that single adults are fun to be around and offer valuable insights and perspectives. Get over your paranoia that they are “out to get your spouse.” Avoid the temptation to invite two of them together. Invest your life in a relationship that will be rewarding for both of you.

• Listen. Single adults need to be heard. They have great ideas, legitimate thoughts and feelings and worthy goals. Married people can (and should) learn from them.

• Treat single adults with respect. Single adults are not second-class people. God never created “half” people who wander aimlessly around looking for “the other half.” They are “whole” adults. Single adults don’t need to have a spouse to make them complete or “normal.” In 1 Corinthians 7:8 Paul writes, “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.” I get the impression from Scripture that Paul was an OK guy. And research also indicates that Jesus was single his whole life. Article 11 of our Mennonite Brethren confession of faith says, “Singleness is honored equally with marriage, sometimes even preferred. The church is to bless, respect and fully include those who are single.” Add single adults to your mental list of leaders who can serve as well as be served. They have strengths and weaknesses, just like married people. And for those who look forward to being married, don’t get in a bigger hurry to “make a match” than they are.

• Demonstrate compassion. Imagine being a widow or a divorced person and never getting a hug or a pat on the back or a word of encouragement. Single parents can use a break from parenting once in a while or a meal that they didn’t have to cook themselves or pick up at the fast-food restaurant. Some singles enjoy spending time with a couple or family that cares; just remember not to spend all your time talking about kids and grandkids. Single adults are sometimes lonely and just want someone with whom to converse. Divorce or death is often painful for months and even years; others can help bear the burden. And remember to ask questions before you draw conclusions. Some people could use help with fix-it projects that need another person’s expertise; sometimes it takes two people to move furniture around. Ask how you can help. When you go to a worship service, look for a single person with whom you can sit; save a place for a widowed adult. Some of us may need to go and be reconciled with those we have offended. The best comment that someone offered to a widow was, “I have no idea how you feel but I care.” Above all else, apply the counsel of Proverbs 12:18: “Reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.”

 Larger congregations may be in a position to provide a variety of opportunities for single adults to grow spiritually and relationally. Some activities may be targeted to specific areas such as: DivorceCare for those who are single again; small groups that are designed for both single and married people to interact together; support groups for those who have lost a spouse through death; group activities where single adults can interact without feeling like it’s a speed dating opportunity. Brainstorm ways that your church can become known for treating single adults with love and respect.

Statistics are staggering

 
As an adult ministries pastor, this statistic is staggering. The demographics of most American churches hardly reflect this division of adults. An analysis of the congregation I serve reveals that about 84 percent of participating adults are married, meaning that only 16 percent are single/unmarried.

MB church plant Bible study morphs into community single adult ministry

 
The 2008 Saturday Night Alive retreat is planned for Oct. 3-5 at Camp Kinship in the Black Hills. The three speakers for this year’s retreat are local; registration fees are typically kept under $100. Retreat information is available at www.saturdaynightalivesingles.com.Rapid City, with a population of over 60,000 and home to Ellsworth Air Force Base, is statistically much like the rest of the U.S. The U.S. Census Bureau lists single adults at 44 percent of the population; Rapid City lists 46 percent of its households as headed by a single adult.

 
Lisa Sissentein, a Saturday Night Alive leader, credits the group with helping her through rough times after a divorce. Sissentein was not sure what to do when she found herself single after 25 years of marriage. While she had always attended church, “it was not until…I started attending Saturday Night Alive Bible studies that I learned about the Word and how important it is to have a personal relationship with the Lord,” says Sissentein

Single by chance, change and choice

 
The mission of Saturday Night Alive, according to its Web site, is to provide a safe place for Christian adults to grow in their relationship with Jesus Christ and to be encouraged and challenged, meeting together in an atmosphere of fun and acceptance. The self-supporting ministry targets single adults over the age of 35 who are widowed, divorced and never married.

 
Darcie Decker, a Bible Fellowship member and an original member of Saturday Night Alive, says that the group grew due to word of mouth and was soon ministering to singles beyond their own church circle. Nickel’s gift for interacting and connecting with people helped many people feel comfortable and accepted in the group, says Decker.

SNA goes interdenominational

 
In time the Bible study participants decided to call their gatherings “Saturday Night Alive” and developed the current format. Two Saturday nights each month are devoted to Bible study, one night to an informal activity, and the fourth Saturday is reserved for a coffee house. Attendance fluctuates anywhere from 25 to 60, and participants hail from as many as 30 congregations. Some single parents bring their children with them for activities but Saturday Night Alive events are not planned specifically with children in mind, says Decker. A SNA leadership team helps plan events and steer the ministry; Decker and Jackie Dittman are SNA co-leaders.

 
During the summer, Saturday Night Alive participants take advantage of the many recreational opportunities, including bicycle rides and hikes in the Black Hills, rafting trips and picnics and barbeques. They attend community events together, including the annual “Festival of the Presidents,” a blues festival and car show. Participants can visit the group’s Web site for the what, when and where of each event. The group also serves the Rapid City church community. They have provided ushers for community events, including the National Day of Prayer service at Mount Rushmore, a Josh McDowell presentation and Superchick concert and volunteers for area nonprofit fund-raising events. The ministry has also sent two small work teams to the Pine Ridge Reservation.

Commitment leads to opportunities

 
Decker, who is the nutrition director for Rapid City’s Youth and Family Services, was also instrumental three years ago in beginning a young adult ministry they hope will reach across denominational boundaries to singles in their 20s and early 30s. The group meets two Tuesday evenings a month in Decker’s home for a Bible study led by Greg Blanc, a pastor in the Rapid City community. The group also meets for social events throughout the week.

 
The purpose of the ministry, called Oasis, is to encourage and refresh single young adults through Bible study and fellowship and by offering assurance that “each person is not alone in the world,” says the group’s Web site. “We want to be an oasis in the ‘desert of life.’” Reflecting on working with other singles, Decker says, “God designed both singles and married as a part of his plan. Therefore singles need not think of themselves as second-class citizens.” Decker says she is living a full life as a single, “knowing that God loves me exactly where I am.”

 Lori Belden Pope is a CL reporter living in California.

Sexual purity is possible

I am a passionate, sexual, curious middle-aged, single woman who deeply loves Jesus Christ, loves life, thrives on adventures and receives energy and life from relationships.

 
Sexuality and sex are not words that we often hear, see or read about in our churches, especially when mixed with the words single adult. Yet society screams the words at us constantly in all we hear, see and read.

 
She emphasized that these decisions had to take place long before we were in an “adoring” moment together, as my emotions rather than clear thinking might have swayed me. She also reminded me that she could still make some decisions for me and that I needed to be home by the time the street lights went on.

What I've learned

 
In reviewing several of these relationships there have been numerous times when I was greatly tempted to derail my resolve to embrace my sexuality, yet not be sexually active. By embracing my sexuality I mean being feminine, living as a gendered person and allow in myself to feel attraction and desirous of sexual intimacy.

 
What has made it possible for me to remain sexually pure all these years while interacting with and relating to men?

• God’s grace

• My mother’s willingness to pray, listen, give advice and not shy away from some very blunt conversations on sexuality and sex.

• The prayers of many who love me and know my deep desire to keep this area of my life pure.

• Friends and ministry colleagues who are willing to ask the hard questions to keep me accountable in my resolve to remain pure sexually.

• Great advice from women who had walked the path before me and chose to mentor me. A single woman who had been in ministry for over 25 years said to me at the beginning of my ministry life, “Sherryl, as a woman who will interact with many men in leadership, you would do well to know your boundaries as far as intimacy—emotional, spiritual and physical—are concerned. You would do well to introduce yourself to the man’s spouse if at all possible so she has an idea whom her husband is spending time with at home and on the road. You would do well to remember that visual stimulation is strong for men and you own the responsibility of carrying yourself in a respectful manor in this regard.”

• Great insight from male friends who have honestly shared their struggles and given me glimpses into the male psyche. They have taught me what a struggle it is to remain pure when so much visual, sexual stimulation surrounds them. They have enlightened me on how a man can dearly love his wife, yet compartmentalize that from the affair he chooses to be a part of. They have informed me on how differently men and women approach relationships and define intimacy. They have reminded me that a woman can attract with her beauty but that her confidence, humor and adventurous spirit can be sexually attractive as well.

• A growing love for myself. Jesus commanded us to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and secondly to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matt. 22:37-39), and we often miss the very important equation found in the second command. We are only able to love others once we love ourselves. If I could bottle self-esteem, self -confidence and self-worth, I could make millions since many North American believers find it difficult to believe in themselves.

• A growing understanding of what it means to love and be loved. How respect, patience, kindness, selflessness, humility and grace are integral in loving someone and someone loving you!

 
So far this equation has worked for this single white female who enjoys embracing her sexuality but chooses not to be sexually active. My prayer is that this equation will continue to be the foundation of my life in all the relationships of which I am privileged to be a part.

Hebrews 2:14 summarizes why Jesus came to earth. The writer states that Jesus came so that “he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death that is, the devil.” His purpose in coming is simple—destroy death and in so doing destroy Satan’s power over God’s creation. As we grow up, most of us discover that God has a particular purpose in mind for us. Sometimes we know exactly where this will take us, and sometimes we have no idea where the road will lead. Having turned, let’s say, a late 30-something I still tell my friends and family, “I don’t know what I want to be when I grow up.”

Jesus didn’t have this problem. He was born knowing the end result of his life—the death of his physical body to destroy Satan’s hold on death. Jesus was single-minded in pursuit of this purpose.

Living as a single

 
Many times through the ages stigmas have been attached to being a certain race, creed, sex, age or marital status. Just as Jesus elevates the place of women, children, Gentiles, outcasts and the poor in society, Jesus, by his very life, destroys the stigma attached to being and remaining single.

 
Even with his involvement in the lives of others, Jesus probably experienced times of loneliness. There are many in our world today who are lonely. I have met single people who spend their time focusing on the loneliness in being single. I have met married people who are lonely in spite of their married state. Sometimes loneliness comes from a state of being, and sometimes it comes from a state of mind. Jesus must have felt this loneliness often since he was so completely in the world but not of it. Yes, he relies on friendships with his disciples and followers, but when Jesus feels the loneliest he seeks the companionship of his Father. Joshua 1:5 reminds us that God will not leave us, nor fail us, nor forsake us. Whether married or single, young or old, we must rely on this promise just as Jesus himself does.

Living and worshiping with others

 
We human beings are so contradictory. We say that we do not want to be like everyone else. But then when we gather with others, we want to know if there’ll be someone “like me” in the crowd. God provides a purpose for our lives and we must determine to do his will, regardless of the circumstances or the people surrounding us.

 Single people can minister to those who are married and married people can minister to those who are single. Let’s not allow our marital status to keep us from serving the one true God or fellowshipping with his people. Just as Jesus was single-minded in the pursuit of the goal for which he had been sent, we need to remain focused on God’s call to each of us and serve one another.

 
Our turn

 Just as Jesus ministered to people in all walks of life and in all situations of life, we need to minister to everyone around us. Our congregations and their married people need to reach out to and fellowship with those who are single. Our congregations and their single people need to reach out to and fellowship with those who are married. We are together the body of Christ. Paul writes in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” I think this can be expanded to cover marital status. As a member of the trinity, Jesus Christ created individuals and he created the institution of marriage. He knows the benefits and the joys of marriage and family as well as the constraints of marriage. If we are married, we are called to take care of the needs of our spouse and our children. We must take care of them as Christ would care for them, or we will have to answer to him for our actions. If we are single, we are freed from these constraints and there is more time and energy to put into God’s work.

 
God, in his wisdom, chose that Jesus should perform his earthly ministry as a single man. That means that the church, his bride, is his immediate family, and as such he is committed to taking care of our needs. When we pray, we pray to the bridegroom who answers our needs with stunning accuracy and infinite compassion.

 
Jesus Christ’s purpose was to conquer death and to bring us to life eternal. Jesus achieved his purpose in conquering death and now waits with bated breath as we choose the life he offers or the death he conquers. He did this with single-minded singleness. He did this so that he can minister to us, the bride for whom he waits with patience, gentleness and understanding and to whom he ministers eagerly and lovingly.

Answers to four questions about Bible basics.

“How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth. Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.”

1. Where does the Bible come from?

 
Both testaments started out as oral history before they began to be written in different stages by many different authors. There was no one bringing some of our modern historical/critical methods and questions to bear on what happened. There were no newspaper reporters or cell phone cameras to capture the action. We get descriptions, history, stories and poetry that answered what people in that culture and time were interested in—how they were experiencing the presence of God in their lives and making sense of that.

By the time of Jesus, the books of the Old Testament were already well established and accepted. In A.D. 90, there was a Jewish conference in Jamnia that officially declared the Hebrew Scripture, with its 39 books, closed.

For the New Testament it was a long process to discern what would be considered Scripture—the 27 books we have now. Chronologically, the earliest documents are the letters of Paul, starting around A.D. 50, and then the four Gospels. Probably written somewhere between A.D. 60 and 90, the Gospels start with Mark, then Mathew and Luke, and lastly John. One of the gifts of the four Gospels is the diversity within them, the different perspectives and stories they have preserved. Then there is Acts, the other letters—known as epistles—and the Book of Revelation.

Over the first few centuries the church began trying to sort out which books were the Word of God. It debated and discerned which books were receiving a broad recognition and acceptance. It was not until near the end of the fourth century—through a series of councils—that the final canon was accepted.

2. What kind of book is the Bible?

3. How can we study and engage the Bible?

4. How can we make the Bible come alive for us today?

 
Myranda was a bubbly spirit on the high school cheerleading squad. She enjoyed concert choir. However, Myranda’s spirit was bound up, longing to be set free. She suffered emotionally. Family relationships were strained. She struggled with addictive behavior, a sign of inner turmoil.

Discussing Scripture

For instance Matthew 11:28-30 says, “Come to me….and I will give you rest…and you will find rest for your souls…” She wondered, “Is ‘rest’ literal or a metaphor?” She concluded, “Life is too precious for people to fight about small stuff.”

Myranda valued loving and being loved (Matt. 7:1-2). “That’s what I like about you, Josh (and wife, Sarah); you never judged me.” She really respected those who did not judge her. She just wanted to know, “Do you love me?” At Myranda’s funeral, Josh shared that they discussed Romans 12:9-21 at length. She sought unconditional love and found a vivid understanding of it.

Transformation

A young mother is transformed when she reads the Bible