the intrinsic commission of natural revelation

In the past I have addressed the difference(s) between natural and special revelation, but to be sure:

Natural Revelation – what is revealed of the relationships between God, Creation, and Humanity through Creation itself by God; considered accessible to all, through all. (Sunrise, seeds growing, parenthood, life…etc)

Special Revelation – what is revealed of the relationships between God, Creation, and Humanity through special instances of God’s explicit action; normally through individual Humans or events in Creation. (authors/prophets of the Bible, miracles…etc)

The idea behind natural revelation is that all humanity would come to a realization that at the very least, someone or something is ultimately that on which all things rely. Humans rely on crops; crops rely on rain; rains rely on seasons; seasons rely on sun, moon and stars; sun, moon and stars rely on some unseen forces…etc. Why, even the self-awareness of humanity is a natural revelation. We are gifted, there is no denying, above other creatures to reason. Humanity is blessed and cursed with a psychological ability to create, discover, learn, develop, adapt…it is an obvious thing to note that those who do not run miss out on something we were built to do; the same may be said of our creative, linguistic, reasoning abilities among a myriad of others.

It is no large leap then to come to the understanding that this natural revelation comes with some responsibility, some weight, some sort of intrinsic commission. In the same way the Sun is commissioned to govern day, the bird is commissioned to flight and song, the soil to bring forth vegetation, and the cool springs to revitalize and refresh, humanity is commissioned to care for and learn from Creation.

So we come to it, the intrinsic commission of natural revelation will lead us question, listen, respect, reap, sow, and savor Creation. What is that gut wrenching feeling you get when you see starving children from Africa, or the suffering after a natural distaster? What disturbs you about abused and starving animals or an oil spill that kills or mames all life for hundreds of cubic miles? Perhaps a better question may be, why does it disturb you that you are not disturbed by these things? These things do or should disturb us because they denote a failure to take our commission seriously.

Finally, I would like to point out that this is where I find the sciences in my faith system. For example, you are welcome to be a seven-day creationist, you may excuse your way out of recycling or giving to a charity, and you may certainly busy yourself to the point that you never stop to “smell the roses,” if you will; however, do not be so diluted as to think you are even attempting the intrinsic commission of natural revelation. A faith that is at odds with the sciences ends up being an ignorant faith that dismisses the very basic commission to all humanity. May you find yourself answering this intrinsic commission to the challenge and ultimate maturing of your faith. May your understanding that comes from special revelation be ever deepened and supplemented by the knowledge and understanding that comes from answering this intrinsic commission of natural revelation.

perhaps it is time…

In my junior year of college, I met a girl. I was serious about my relationship, and felt a bit of apprehension when I realized that our parents would be in the same town, free to share a meal to meet. Preparing for the coming embarrassment, I was asking my mother what I should be sharing about myself as we were growing in the relationship. The words my mom had to offer were lacking in encouragement when she replied, "You should make sure she knows that you aren't going to make much money; I mean, you'll most likely only be able to provide a lower-middle class house." Thanks mom. When I told my girlfriend this, she scoffed, "I was planning on probably living in mud hunts anyway, since I'm called to the mission field." Needless to say, this was not the girl I married (she found a good guy in the future though).

There is little to convince me that my mom had malice for my future in her advice; as a matter of fact, her forthcoming comments convinced me of her better intensions for my life than I had! Point being, my mother loves me, wants the best for me, and many times that has taken on a form of apparent cynicism.

No one calling you to a higher standard, a more selfless way of life, a more adequate Christ-likeness, will be seen as an optimist by the majority. Those who receive the critique, and struggle with the blemishes, they will find themselves in the place of the prophet. They will find that all along, what the prophet sees is a potential that is not being reached, an ideal within reach, a beauty misunderstood.

Whether a football coach correcting my undisciplined routes, or a drawing teacher challenging me to draw a different way, the result is not a sense of bewildered folly, but the ghastly and humbling realization that I was not right. Church, you confess too late, you only soundbite the critiques you agree with, but misunderstand. Church, you see too many shepherds (which makes for enablers, coddlers, and babysitters) and not enough prophets.

That day, when my mother shared what she really thought, she risked what it would do to our relationship, and my self-image. A coach risks players reacting poorly to the guidance. A teacher risks reputation and the student’s abandonment of the craft altogether. For the prophet, the voice of critique and optimism, the risk is a loss of life, the chance that some may desert, and burned bridges. I fear that without risking much in the near future, I will become a useless, coddling, enabler in the distant future. Perhaps it is time…

wedding rings and contraceptives

At the heart of the issues of justice, especially when it involves violence, in this fallen world, is a distinction that becomes indispensable in understanding how a Christian should act or believe. On the one hand, we are absolutely commanded to love. In no uncertain terms, the new command of Jesus is to love one another. This command in addition to a life summed up by “Love the Lord your God” and “Love your neighbor as yourself,” makes it difficult to celebrate when an Old Testament, eye for an eye, justice is carried out. Jesus even turns the question of “Who is my neighbor?” into, in essence, “Who are you being a neighbor to?” Matthew and Luke tend to think Jesus even went so far as to say “Love your enemies!”

Now, I am in no way a fan of Bill Maher…as a matter of fact, I wouldn’t be able to tell you any of his stances, his shows, what movies he might be in or what he stands for. That said, in the video I’m attempting to post below, Mr. Maher, however smug, speaks truth to the majority of American Christians, myself included, on this issue of celebrating when an enemy is killed. (By the way, I think it would be awesome to write a book and name it “Auditors for Christ”)

WARNING: I do not condone the Strong Language used in this video. Consider this my attempt to guard your heart and ears from what might be regarded as a “stumbling block” to certain believers. As an aside: Regard this my attempt to warn you as well of judgement! Perhaps a video I post shades your view of me, while you are not judged for watching John Candy movies!

The other hand holds a very disturbing and highly misunderstood position. This position comes specifically in the form of a German theologian named Dietrich Bonhoeffer. On the road to becoming not just a voice, but a leader in the theological community, Bonhoeffer found himself stuck in, to use baseball jargon, a “pickle.” Bonhoeffer knew the severity with which Jesus spoke when it came love, and when Bonhoeffer had the chance to never return to Germany and avoid the horrors that lie there, he returned, determined to act redemptively. While doing all he could to help Jews flee the country, Bonhoeffer volunteered any influence he had to a group planning an assassination of Hitler. What people generally do not understand is that Bonhoeffer believed he was risking damnation. He could not stand by and do nothing, so he tried to save people; at the cost of his soul, he was willing to provide support for those trying to kill the Furhrer.

On a corporate level, Christ-followers need to reflect such an attitude. To revisit a quote, “the Church is my Mother,” ought to be a song we ever sing, but…in the rarest of evil occasions…when governments fail…the Disciple is faced with a choice: to continue to reflect a tormented Mother, or to resort to Whoredom at the risk Her Husband will never take Her back.

Ironically, it is my opinion (because I dare not take the Husband’s right), that it is when the Church recognizes Her adulterous ways, especially in a pre-meditated act of unfaithfulness, that Christ would be most willing to have Her as His Bride once more. It is when She tries to explain away Her misdeeds and horrors, when She condescendes to prophetic voices of idealists and atheists, when She sells Her wedding ring to buy contraceptives…when we call the lesser evils good, and celebrate them…that She is in the most danger of an estranged divorce.

In summation, I feel as though the Church reflects the servant with one talent, burying it, playing it safe, so that a vindictive Master will not brow beat us when He returns. I tend to think the Master would be more pleased to find that His servant invested the talent and that the investment went sour…at least then the servant remains in the Master’s house. The case, as tends to be revealed in the Biblical narrative, has never been that God punishes those who try and fail to love; it is when love grows cold that God’s eyes turn from His Bride. So please note, my kerygma is never for perfection (that’s fundamentalism/legalism), it is a much more subtle challenge to say, “You could at least try.” Trying does not mean success, it means the desire, passion, and love to fail again and again, yet still strive to obey.

Speak.

Lightbulb Tragedy

I apologize if I just blew up your entire inbox, but this has the possibility of being great! I can not remember where the idea for this design came from, but I have literally worked on this off and on for 6 months. If you love it, hate it, think it’s the most grotesque illustrated picture of lightbulb death you’ve ever seen…well…let’s just say, if you would like to support me, have looked at the paypal button and thought, “I just can’t,” here is a way that won’t cost a strawpenny: Just click on the picture and vote positively for my design! Thank you for reading, for supporting, and for contributing.

everything is a matter of life and death

There is a dichotomy in our world that I believe few will allow themselves to see. Some refuse because, while a simple idea in and of itself, this perspective muddies the waters of a world of bold limits and those who wish to color outside of them. This dichotomy takes seriously every individual and how they interact with their community; however, it also takes seriously the corporal realm. The dichotomy I speak of is something we are all subject to, and yet, we all have the ability to bring about one side or the other. I speak of Life and Death…of Light and Dark…of Love and Apathy…of Creation and War.

Debt, integrity, regulations, efficiency, charity, competition, sales, corporations, budgets, rest, technology, entertainment…every aspect of our lives is affected and defined by its relationship to Life and Death. Does swiping my credit card for this bring about Life? Does showing compassion to my mortal enemy bring about Death?

Now before you begin answering these questions, realize something: resurrection happens. This is not about a 25 year old’s idealism, this is about faith in a God-person, and His testimony, witness to, and enacting of what is and will be. You can say from the pulpit, the pew, at the potluck or in parley that “Death is defeated.” Thank God your words judge your actions and not the other way around! Fact is, to have faith in Jesus is to speak Life into the Deathly…remembering, of course, that should you not enact Life, you have simply proved your own lack of faith.

I target the Church for examples, not because the Church is my torturer, but because an individual is responsible for their actions, whether standing alone or in a multitude; and because She should know better. To refuse to at least whisper in this corner of the internet is to hide in the shadows. The “communal conscience” holds no Light and enacts no Life if it works against Resurrection; with an exception, that God works in spite of it. That exception is no excuse for the individual who knows better and trades enabling Life for the Deathly practices of the corporate body.

Practically speaking, this is foolishness. How could the Church function without making rules about this or that? Then we would have people taking advantage of…but stop. Do you not see? That in the very worries you bring, you assume Death! Let John and Suzy Q  fail us before we assume they are not trustworthy with (blank). “We do not allow…” automatically means that a person wishing to commit has three options, besides not committing: 1-they already think that way (and if you can find a “communal conscience” that you agree with entirely, blessed are you…what happens when the “communal conscience” changes?); 2-they agree, but in confidence will one day show that really being a member/leader/deacon/pastor was more important than their being a person of integrity (Yes, being a person of integrity is enacting Life, even when admitting to the Death in your life!). Sub-textually, they may allow their convictions (because I am speaking of non-essentials to the Gospel) to be dictated, or conformed, to a specific “communal conscience,” however, this is an act of cowardice and a subtle, but clear, replacement of Jesus as the Master of your convictions! If you look forward to a day when you will act this way because that is your conviction, you have committed to being a person who lacks integrity; 3-they will commit, but act differently in secret.

So you see, that when the Church does not allow people (no matter their position) to be truthful of their follies,  struggles, and temptations, She is making people into “twice the sons (and daughters) of Gehenna” than She is. Christians I talk to about this fear that anarchy and debauchery would be the face of the Church…not only is this ironic, since two churches across the street from one another communicate the same things…the problem is, this is still a position of fear, i.e. Death. To put it simply, we think the Joker is right, that introducing a bit of diversity will create a dog-eat-dog world (Essentially his argument in “The Dark Knight”); funny thing is, in our effort to be efficient, we have created a dog-eat-dog world. Where condemnation, judgement, and self-preservation is the rule. We gnash our teeth at wine drinkers, and put to flame pastors who admit they are human (by which I mean a respected pastor admitting in confidentiality that he needs accountability with [blank]).

Now it is not that I believe anarchy is good or that the Joker is right; rather, I believe it was because Jesus had faith God would raise Him from the dead that He could have Zealots, tax collectors, Pharisees, Sadducees, and prostitues at His table. It is because of Jesus’ resurrection that we can faithfully proclaim the Gospel to the alcoholic and the wine drinker alike…that we can welcome the homosexual into our midst (I almost erased this because I fear the response!!)…that the “God Hates Fags” people will have to turn our dinner invitations down again and again…it is because of His resurrection, that death is not an excuse to hate, or fear, or hide.

So I find myself in the midst of a crowd…and I feel a cringe from my generation because they disagree with what was just said. But like George Bailey, I cannot allow myself or others to wait to live in a home, biding our time while we grow old and empowered by this system of Death. I hope and pray for the courage to stand up, walk out away from the crowd, and begin to live a life that enables Life.

over-contextualized

Recently I begged a question to a friend of mine and it was this: Can we over-contextualize when it comes to interpreting Scripture? Of course, when I asked the question, I thought I knew my own position, but in discussing this further with a few others, there are a few things I have come to recognize that make answering this question difficult.

First of all, the idea that we can over-contextualize, for example, one of Jesus’ statements, assumes we know where, when, who, how, and why the statement was said in the first place. It assumes we can somehow achieve the same understanding of an average Jew in this or that region of Israel, with the fullness of one who has grown up within Israel, as a Jew. It would also assume we have a thorough grasp of the positions Jesus is and is not taking while making statements. Within language itself, there are nuances that we must have a grasp on that would enable us to understand puns, hyperbole, metaphor…nuances, that do not come from grammar, but from vernacular. Because of all of this, just this…over-contextualization sounds like saying you are too-alive, too-breathing. My question then becomes, “Can you be too here in the dining room?” No, I would say we can falsely-contextualize; however, if one does it properly, the most adequate picture we can get of 1st century Israel will still be incomplete.

Second: False contextualization comes in a few different forms. An example would be if someone decided to take a contextual fact from 1st century Spain and tried to apply it to Jesus. There is also the danger that information is just false. “A camel through the eye of a needle” is not an original word picture for 1st century Rabbinical teaching, and it is becoming less and less accepted that there was ever a “Needle’s Eye” gate in Jerusalem. Contextual ideas are sometimes omitted as well. So for this passage we focus on this information, but in this passage another set of information, and we forget that we are speaking of an interconnected world. Understanding that context will always be incomplete, does not necessitate dissecting and omitting other contextual ideas. Finally, on this point, Jewish understandings are not the only shaping factor in context. Just because these people worshipped this god, or this king built that palace but was never “saved,” does not negate their contextual relevance.

Third: Because the contextual information is incomplete, because we do not have the Apostles to tell us which English word they meant by that Greek word, and because we tend to abuse Scripture the higher the view we have of it: interpretation, even when contextually informed, needs to be delivered with a “grain of salt” or as a position within a discussion of other viable positions. Now do not falsely read me, there are some generally clear understandings about what it is Jesus is doing, and when any Jesus-follower comes to Scripture they will seek to edify and deepen understanding, not negate it. That being said, I find the most adequate interpretive position is one of humility, of understanding when it comes to differences, and of fidelity to Jesus…no one and nothing else. Sadly, context is most adequately approached in the classroom, juxtaposed to the pulpit; but, that is an issue in and of itself.

Finally, contextual information is invaluable, and we tend to find new information on occasion. Since contextual information directly effects our ability to interpret the text, new interpretations are acceptable, necessary, and have the possibility of being responsible. Cautious, responsible, and humble pioneering is required; however, it is still required. We cannot be afraid of reform, renewal and redemption of our traditions. Pastors, Bible teachers, and Professors alike need to realize this, that adequate, responsible, Biblical teaching does not ignore the context of Scripture.

rawest reality of resurrection

As we have come to this season in the Church, Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection has been in mind. I have been a bit silent as of late, so I have decided to try to put into words a theory/hypothesis I would like to submit for your chewing, thinking, and theological pleasure. Just to be clear: This is not something I have bought into, but thought of and would like a little dialogue on.

Going through college, I heard my professors make the point that Christ’s coming was predestined from the beginning; however, they would go on to clarify, Christ’s sacrifice, the need for atonement is not said to be determined or even alluded to before the Fall, specifically when Paul talks of Jesus. This technicality is a huge issue in determinist/free will/ omniscience discussion…however, let us assume my professors knew what they were talking about when it came to the writings of the Gospel writers and Paul (they have, after all, spent much more time researching and learning the original languages and Scriptures than I have). The first premise is then that Christ would have descended into Creation had humanity never sinned. But why?

Heaven, the New Jerusalem, is joined with earth in the end. I guess according to Ezekiel 36 people will be given crops (meaning there will be crops to be given), and from Amos 9 new wine will be dripping from the mountains. In Revelation the tree of life changes its fruit every season. Point being, for crops, wine, and seasons to exist, some sort of rhythm is made. But this rhythm requires some sort of waste, decay or death. Crops do not grow without seed, and seeds do not plant without dying. Wine must ferment and fermentation is decay. Seasons to season somethings die, while others flourish, many times relying on the death of the previous season. Heaven includes these things though they require something that seems unheavenly.

The third premise is this, and all Christians should find this easy to buy into: Christ shows us reality at its rawest. The resurrection is not just an exception, it is the reality. People live, die, and resurrect. Death is not the end, nor does it have the final word. Life is the standard state of all things, and death is only natural in bringing life (I mean to attempt a strange and complex statement of human existence; namely, that human [maybe even animal] death is not the natural state of Creation, by which I mean Heaven and Earth being one).

To qualify my statements above, how God created plays a huge part in the first premise; therefore, I must insist that in this dialogue we come from a theistic evolutionary stance on the creation process. This is not due to some underlying vendetta, it is simply that for consistency’s sake if Eden is not in some way communicating a truth beyond historical events, it seems inevitable that Christ was predestined to descend to earth to die for sin from before the world existed…contradicting the first premise. To restate: Christ shows us that all things live, die, and resurrect, which is reality at its rawest.

If you are still with me, you might know where I’m going with this. Assuming these premises, as well as a historical, theist evolutionary view, death is part of the way things have been created. Sin absolutely does make Death a prison of humanity and creation, but this is a furthering, perhaps even an unavoidable result, of the death included in the creation process. Now, to be clear, this would be a two-sided view of death…on one hand, death is necessary as a passing on of life, as the in-and-out of breath, as the step by step of a dance; on the other hand, death is the threat of all that is evil, it is the inevitability that convinces us that power and fear are reality at its rawest, it is the despair of the hopeless. IF the second type of death, the one resulting from sin, had not entered the world, it is my contention that Christ’s first coming would have ended with an old aged death, followed quickly by resurrection. In the end, we see a Messiah who would come testifying to reality, that death is not final, that resurrection is the natural process of what happens after bodily passing; simply put, Jesus came to reveal that death is not the end. This would have required God’s single humiliation (The Philippians 2 hymn speaks of Christ humbling Himself twice, once to human form and once to death, even death on a cross), but was the intension of God from the start.

Practically speaking, this brings up a couple of issues:

1) The Dual Nature of Death – As part of God’s created order; and as the product of sin. This would demand a renovation of terminology.

2) This maintains humanity’s culpability for sin and the murder of Jesus, but it also makes sense of how a Christian may maintain a theistic evolutionary stance, while also keeping the Death of sin the enemy.

3) The necessity of Christ even in the created world.

Chew on this and then dialogue please…

Pyro-theology

Recently, Peter Rollins filled the pulpit at Mars Hill Bible Church. He told a story that went something like this:

Once when there were skirmishes between the Irish and the British sent troops to keep the peace; a very bored Sargent, stationed in a rural area would take newly stationed soldiers to the pub after they were done for the day at the base. He would say, “Look gents, I’ll show you how dumb the Irish are.” So he calls the oldest, drunkest Irish guy he can find over and pulls out a shiny pine coin, saying, “Shamus, which would you rather have, this shiny pine coin, or this old, dirty bill (worth 5 pine)?” Shamus would bite into the coin, inspect it and say, “Oh sir, I would take the coin.” The officers would laugh and let him take it. An American tourist saw this game the British were playing, and once they were gone she asked in horror, “What are you doing? Don’t you know the bill is worth 5x what the coin is?” And Shamus would answer, “Yes, but if we take the bill, they would stop playing the game!”

We, the people who claim to follow Christ, doubt God’s existence. Pastors doubt God’s ability to save us in spite of ourselves. Board members doubt God really can sustain us. Laypeople doubt that God is sovereign in the face of suffering and tragedy. War veterans who are dragged to church services week after week by wives doubt God can forgive them for killing teenaged enemies, let alone their own friends through what is called friendly fire. Business people who had to cut payroll and lay off even just one single parent doubt God will provide mercy when they are in desperate need of it. Christians doubt.

Too often we silence those doubts. Too often we are fighting on the way to a church service because we’re secretly so tangled in our doubts about where we’re going in life, only to wear our smiles for a couple of hours. Too often church is not about being the Church, about worshipping God, about enacting the Gospel to one another…Too often church is about reinforcing unBiblical convictions, rules and regulations, about stifling the freedom we have in Christ. Too often church is a security blanket  to keep our doubts hidden in a facade. Too often church is a game no one believes in, but we continue to take the coin instead of the bill. Too often church services and fellowship supply water that will leave us thirsting again.

The horror of faith though, is that we continue to doubt. The horror of faith is that our doubts eat us through. The horror of faith is that our doubts will lead us to act as children of the Accuser. The horror of faith is that weakness is raped and thrown out, and we continue to look strong instead of sounding the alarm. The horror of faith is that we have jumped without checking the parachute. The horror of faith is the silence of an unjustly murdered corpse. The horror of faith is when we hear “God has a purpose for this” spoken over a miscarriage and know it is false. The horror of faith is a cyst that will either be ignored until it kills us, or will be illuminated to our shame. The horror of faith is God hanging on the cross, crying “My God, My God why have you forsaken me?”

The choices are clear:

- Carry on, denying this is the reality of things. Find comfort in your security blanket rather than the love of God.

- Try to reform. Abolish all or some of what is holding people back from sharing their doubts. Perhaps a few holes in your security blanket will allow for a passive aggressive way to allow others to doubt, while you do not. But the absolutized rules and regulations will come back, sooner or later.

- Light a match, walk inside, and let it burn. Everything you hold onto will burn, stripping away all security, until all that is left are two maybe three things that will last through any fire. Experience the horror of faith, to know that the God you know may not make it, but that YHWH, the undefinable God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who raised Jesus from the dead, is the fire.

Perhaps, in the near future, when we have abandoned ourselves to the horror of faith, bore the cross of humiliation and shame, and come to grips with our own death, YHWH will be faithful in revival. Pyro-theology is not a movement, a fad, or a system of theology, it is a discipline, a painful pruning of pride. What will remain is not denominational or a particular religion, these are only shadows in a dusty, broken mirror, but what remains is reality at its rawest, that though we doubt, God loves us yet. That though we are humiliated, Christ is with us still. That though we are shamed, sinful, and not fit to be called human, let alone a son or daughter of God, the Spirit leads, comforts, enables and forgives.

Like holding my finger over a delete button to wipe away all the work saved on my computer; like standing on the edge of a cliff 100ft above water; like the sigh before a confession that will kill her inside; like the moment just before the curtain opens; like a match in my hand about to be struck, I wait. No guarantee of returning. No possibility that I can escape shame. No hope of holding onto my dreams. This will ruin me for sure.

the Gospel According to the Nightmare Before Xmas

Recently there has been a lot of talk concerning “the world to come,” also known as the Kingdom of God. Much of this talk has been about who is wrong, right, and not even in the ballpark. When talking about the Gospel though we know that the Kingdom of God was at least introduced into the world through Jesus, if not, ushered into the world, in the world still, and yet to be consummated. Either way, to follow Jesus is to enact this Kingdom of God…which, much of the time, seems like a completely different world. As a matter of fact, it is almost like communicating Christmas to Halloween Town.

If you have not yet, you need to get a hold of a copy of Nightmare Before Christmas; and it’s not to be “hip” with the goth/emo crowd, nor for the amazing musical numbers, but for the purpose of witnessing a great story. A quick synopsis of the film would tell you this, Jack, the Pumpkin King of Halloween Town, is disillusioned with Halloween and with his role. Searching to fill the emptiness inside, Jack stumbles upon a completely different world, Christmas Town, where he experiences the mystery, magic, and good feeling of Christmas. No matter how hard he tries once he returns to Halloween Town, Jack struggles to communicate this experience so that others can understand. In his attempts to recreate Christmas Town in Halloween Town, Jack will find himself the antagonist of everything he’s trying to achieve. From having Santa Claus kidnapped, to toys that attack, Jack’s Christmas is doomed from the start.

With the words, “Oh well, might as well give them what they want,” Jack’s testimony becomes more about entertainment that recounting his experience. It is difficult to communicate Christmas to Halloween town…probably as difficult to communicate a world defined by love, hope, and Resurrection, to a world defined by fear, power, and death. Unlike Jack, we are not left to our own devices to communicate this coming world. We are free to use and rely on our own devices, though nothing will be as effective in communicating the Gospel as an uncompromising testimony (not “convincing,” nor “logical,” but “uncompromising” in saying, “this I do know, I was blind and now I see”) even in the face of death. Would Jack have insisted on such a place as the Christmas town he experienced, he may have been thought too crazy to remain the Pumpkin King; instead, he twists Christmas Town out of frustration at their misunderstanding. Granted, they realize “something’s up with Jack,” but even as Halloween Town is “making Christmas” they don’t get it. In the end, Christmas must be saved from Jack’s catastrophic misunderstanding, from Halloween Town’s idea of presents…Christmas must be saved by Santa. But, even as he saves Christmas, Santa brings a bit of Christmas to Halloween Town, for all to take part. I imagine, and the soundtrack CD suggests, that little by little, the holiday towns became aware of one another, understanding better their part in the year, as well as everyone else’s parts.

You must realize also, that Jack felt the need to hide when he stumbled into Christmas Town. Can you imagine what happens when the literal embodiment of one holiday descends into a different town defined by a different holiday? Chaos, misunderstanding…violence? Death? This is what almost happened to Santa, but the Oogie Boogie character is just a mean guy…Surely, in Christmas Town a walking skeleton would be welcomed right? What would happen if someone who embodied the world to come descended into this world? Chaos, misunderstanding, violence, and death? You see, the beauty of the Nightmare Before Christmas lies in the simple way it communicates what it means to testify to a different reality in this one. In the event that Jack did make himself known to Santa in Christmas Town, and Santa coached Jack in how to enact Christmas, and Jack returned to Halloween Town to try to enact Christmas, do you think Halloween Town would accept Jack Skelington as their Pumpkin King any longer? No way!

Finally, I love to recall that scene where Jack tries to tell everyone about his experience. You can tell they’ve heard his stories before…they think they know where he’s going with it all. But this story is different. To understand they’ll have to accept that they don’t know about this other town, they’ll probably have to hear “no, it doesn’t work like that” a lot, and for years, until they are able to experience Christmas themselves, they’ll have to figure out how best to practice Christmas. Do not tire in your testimony about this coming world, instead persevere and you will be fulfilled when your faith has been consummated. How difficult it will be for those who assume too much about their own understanding. They will sound like broken records, saying, “this isn’t how ‘Christmas’ is supposed to be,’” denying what is right in front of them.

on convictions: the black, the white, the colorful

This, I have come to realize, is just as much a practical issue as anything. Within our politically correct society we find it unpleasant to disagree with others. The result is a group of unauthentic and many times resentful people. I speak of new Christians not accepted at church until they dress a certain way on Sunday, of prominent lay-people who cannot share their thoughts on a movie they saw because of it’s rating, of ministers who never have the freedom to decide their views on alcohol because if they are “wrong” they lose their job. These, and other issues, contribute to a church that more and more lacks a resemblance of Christ’s table and begins resembling political gatherings, where we are no longer tied together by the Holy Spirit, but by our common socio-political views. When was Christ’s table a place of reprimand for eating the wrong food, i.e. being convicted the “wrong” way?

Just to clarify, I am not speaking of doctrinal differences…but we must realize, I’ve covered those and included my own interpretations of them. Yet even these things were not included on some survey before the Pharisees, Jewish leaders, disciples or prostitutes were allowed at Jesus’ table. So we must realize that even Jesus took part in debates over His meals. We do not have to agree to all sit at Jesus’ table.

Romans 14 and 15 are normally brought up in this conversation. Understanding Paul’s position is complicated. The convictions at stake are “to eat meat or abstain from all meat.” Both were held by people who knew the reasons they felt the way they did. They knew for certain that eating meat, namely meat sacrificed to pagan gods, was abhorrent, nay sinful, in God’s eyes. While others were convinced it was what God had done through Jesus, making what was once unclean, clean. Paul believed the strong in the Lord sided with the “meat side,” with a stipulation…social responsibility, the application of loving one another even in your differences. It is better to never practice your convictions, than to make another fall away from God. One the same note, not practicing your convictions is sinful! This has little to do with others and much to do with Who a believer answers to. We don’t stand before our neighbors on Judgement day, there is none other we serve than God. Who are you, Paul asks, to judge someone else’s servant? The strong bear with the shortcomings of the weak…but the two know where the other stands, and they love in spite of that.

So the question comes up, “Should I decide where to go to church based on what is permitted?” Then again, “Is it the Church’s place to even dictate what is and is not permitted?” Your extreme examples have no place here…the question is, should the cigar smoker be excluded from church membership? Paul’s answer, considering the church is to be Catholic, would be “absolutely not!” No local congregation, denomination, or sect of Jesus-following peoples should ever turn someone away from church membership, let alone leadership, because of conviction issues that are not essential to the Gospel.

What is at stake here that includes the Gospel is how we love on another. It is not the type of love we are called to for us to hide these things from one another, this nurtures resentment. Neither should we throw this in one another’s faces, a prohibitionist will never be acting as a follower of Christ while condemning someone who enjoys a glass of wine every day, and vice versa. Instead, we are to sit down at Christ’s Table, perhaps even at a more exclusive Table, and discuss, even mull over why, how, when, and where we should practice our convictions. Has the wine-drinker loved his neighbor by looking around a restaurant before ordering a glass? Or is he strictly tied to his home? In a group of people who do not follow Christ, should she be more concerned with showing her neighbors how to have a good time without losing all inhibitions, or should she be worried about the off chance a follower of Jesus might see her? Or is it possible the end of these conversations should be “We are all servants of Christ, part of the same Body, and we will remember that we are not always convicted the same ways. If we abstain, we abstain to the Lord. If we drink, we drink to the Lord.”

Many will argue that our social responsibility is much more stringent than this, to which I have to wonder with Paul, “Who’s servant are you?” Abstinence and addiction are both states of defining oneself by the object of which one is abstaining or addicted. Too often the Church tries so hard to protect itself from the “world,” She becomes defined by the “world.” Social responsibility is not only to respect another’s conviction, but to practice your own; otherwise, you are living by someone else’s convictions, and by Paul’s standards you are sinning.

What I am calling for is an exposure of our denominational rules and regulations. The whorish ways of the Church begin with these pretenses of efficiency. She cannot be clothed in white and with Her bedfellows at the same time. You cannot have a political event every year or every four years, where people vote on leaders and convictions the denomination will enforce, and then claim what you are doing at this event is spreading the Gospel. You may be spreading the Gospel in other ways, but only in spite of yourself and your denomination. The governmental structure of denominations are the forces that are usurping Jesus’ place as sole Master of pastors, board members, laymen, and regular non-members. For the strong language Paul decides to use, making it clear that the individual is responsible to respect others and practice his convictions, the Church has become the greatest corporate offender of forcing Her convictions onto others (I dare say this is just as much about church membership as it is about how the church tries to influence politics).

I am also calling for individuals to come to grips with their own convictions and live them. If you don’t think a glass of wine is sinful, perhaps it is time you hang around a table with a few wine glasses on it, even if you don’t drink any. Perhaps it’s time for us to realize how much we’ve been relying on the Church to define our convictions for us…perhaps it’s time we went to our Lord and Master and asked His desire for us in these matters. Perhaps, we should find ourselves around more tables, with more people with different convictions. Perhaps this is part of what it means to love one another as Christ loved us, part of what it means to be a servant of God, part of what it means expose the Powers and envision the world to come.