The Church of Christ and Where I Am

For most of my life, my home church has had the words "Church of Christ" in the title. I have many fond memories of Churches of Christ: several have employed me, I graduated from a university affiliated with the CoC, and a Church of Christ even served as my home for a semester.

During my life, I have tried to do my best to notice the positive aspects and encourage them within my stream of faith. On the other hand, I have often noticed what I consider discrepancies between what I believe and how the Church of Christ functions as a body. For the most part, I have quietly continued to work within the church structures that I call "home," seeking one-on-one or small group discussions, rather than confrontation. This was always a difficult choice, because my desire to be a voice pushing for positive change is and must always be tempered by my desire for unity.

With that said, my church situation has changed, and with it my situation. My time as Youth Intern for Buffalo Gap Church of Christ ended amicably this month as I transitioned into a new job. Amanda and I were brought to the front and prayed over as we begin a new phase of our lives. For the first time in my life, I am not affiliated by membership or employment to a Church of Christ, though I will certainly be visiting many of the local congregations.

As you might have read on facebook or in the last blog post, I was recently hired as a Community Coordinator for Connecting Caring Communities, a local, Christian nonprofit. While there are many facets of my position, one of the tasks I was most excited about was visiting churches in the neighborhoods I serve. This allows me to meet many different people and participate in a myriad of different worship styles.

What does this all mean?

Well, for starters, here's what it doesn't mean. It does not mean that I am exempt from promoting unity within the body. It does not mean that I will start popping off about what frustrates me most about the Church of Christ. It doesn't mean that I love my brothers and sisters who live and love in the Church of Christ any less.

What this does mean is that I can now gently and thoughtfully push for more conversation and consideration on issues that I think are important. This means that I can do so without fear that my views will be mistaken for the views of the elders or ministers who lovingly serve at a church I attend. It means that my words can be my own, and I can harbor less fear of them causing disunity.

This newly found freedom is a blessing I do not take lightly. I hope to use this freedom to spark authentic conversation. I hope that conversation blesses those who participate, myself included. With that said, I'm excited to see where this takes us.

Blessings, friends!

Oh, SNAP! Day 3

Do you ever do things that you immediately regret? Sometimes, I do. For instance, a few days ago I told my friends Keith and Durran that I was going to jump over a metal gate that was about chest high, and ended up landing rear-first on the cold, hard ground. Why did I mention anything out loud? Because I knew my sense of pride would make me go through with it once I had said it. By verbalizing my ridiculous stunt, I eliminated my choice of not performing what I had decided to do, if at some point in the future I thought better of it.

That logic heavily informed my reasoning behind choosing to broadcast the Bowen family trying to eat for a month on the budget of a family on SNAP benefits (previously known as Food Stamps). As soon as Amanda signed on, with gusto I might add, I typed up the previous blog post. I'm not sure how many people read these musings, but those who do are typically people I greatly respect. You are the sort of people who would either call me out directly to ensure I was keeping up with commitments, or at least would casually ask how the project was going. The embarrassment of having to explain that I had backed out served as a good deterrent when I later faced the inconvenient realities of the coming weeks.

With all that said, Amanda and I have gotten started well. I'll have some thoughts on how it's going later in the process, but for now, I want to better explain some of the details. We're facing the task as if Amanda and I both lost our jobs, and immediately went out and got SNAP benefits. We'll be trying to stretch the funds (about $4 per person per day) over the course of the next four weeks, through the first Saturday in February. We would have started at the beginning of January with David Smith, but our trip to Abu Dhabi made that difficult. By the time we got back to the states, it was mid-week, and we were both up to our eyeballs in work and school, so we decided to start Sunday the 13th and go for four weeks.

Some friends have already been asking how group meals work. For instance, the Kaczmareks wanted to have us over for a meal to catch up, but didn't want to impede in our month of meals. We assured them that we can be guests for meals just as real families on SNAP benefits can enjoy meals at the homes of their friends and family. In fact, leaning on their communities is an important part of life for many living in poverty. And though our budget won't allow us to bring expensive food to the proverbial/real table, we are excited to help by bringing something affordable to the meal, even if it's simply some rice or beans.

Additionally, we're working under the assumption that all the food in our pantry is available for us. Leftovers and such are fair game, too. We felt like this would be the case for two people who just lost their jobs. We did not, however, stock up on food beforehand. We felt like that would be cheating, since I doubt most people know the day they're getting laid off.

So, we're three days into our month of SNAP benefits. I'm excited to share more about what I'm learning later in the month!

Oh SNAP! (31 Days of Eating on Food Stamps) - Prologue

David Smith is a good man. In addition to being a much more regular blogger over at preachersmith.com than I am here, David also presided over the wedding of Amanda and myself. (The wedding probably deserves some retelling here on the blog, so maybe around our anniversary I'll retell some of the best stories from the experience.)

So when David Smith messaged me a link to his recent blog post, I immediately decided that it was a terrible/wonderful idea. As with almost all ideas that fit into that category, I ran it past Amanda before officially signing up. Thankfully for my hopes of joining in this grand social experiment, my wife shares my love of people in poverty and enthusiastically agreed to join.

As someone who professes to care about the poor, I'm looking forward to experiencing a little sliver of what it's like to try to plan a month of meals as if we only had SNAP (aka food stamps) benefits. I'm going to miss those Taco Bell Cantina Burritos something fierce, that's for sure. As a person called to love the people Jesus calls "the least of these," I hope this experience helps me grow in empathy for those living in poverty.

We're still working out a few of the nuances. For example, we won't be doing it for just January, since we'll be visiting family in Abu Dhabi for the first few days of the year, so we'll spill over into a bit of February. I'm already excited about this adventure, and the new perspective it will bring. I'll be doing my best to chronicle my thoughts and experiences here, so get excited about reading along, and feel free to try it out! I'd love to hear from more people

Additionally, be on the lookout for some exciting news next week! We're still waiting for final confirmation, but it looks like Amanda and I will have something really cool to share with y'all Monday. (Note: Before people start jumping to conclusions, no, this is not a kids type of news item. Seriously, people.)

Hope for Something Better

(Programming note: As a full-time employee, it seems like I'm just not going to have the time and energy to post as regularly as I had hoped. As someone who has failed at blogging twice before, I know that I am prone to feel frustrated when I don't post often enough by my own standards. That tends to lead to avoiding writing at all, which keeps me frustrated until I eventually give up on blogging altogether. With that in mind, I'm going to post when I can, do my best to write well, and give myself slack when I don't post for a week or two. It seems like my writing is more well received when I don't overdo it anyway.)

Presidential elections have fascinated me for years.

My love of following politics was born while I was half a world away from the United States, living for a semester as a missionary apprentice in Chiang Mai, Thailand. I didn't get homesick in the traditional sense, but I did feel very disconnected from my family, friends, and the world I had known.

I hadn't spent much time thinking about elections before my time overseas. My lone voting experience was in the 2004 election at age 18. As I have already described, I had not voted in a particularly thoughtful way. (I would like to note that Robert Edmonson, my first Democratic friend, was kind and persuasive without being pushy in telling me about Chet Edwards. His passion for politics and combined with a faith that drove him to serve kids at Camp of the Hills was one of the first indicators that a good Christian could also be a good Democrat.)

Suddenly, politics seemed interesting. The 2008 primary season was especially attention holding, and I was enthralled. Clinton, McCain, Obama, Richardson, Palin, and even that weird guy who stares into your soul then tosses a rock into a pond. I couldn't get enough. Even once I returned to the country, I kept watching, reading, thinking. I stopped following all the little nuances after the election, but kept up with the big stuff.

I say all that to say that I was ready to consume some news when the Republican primary geared up. Since early spring, I've been closely following all the inner workings of what ended up happening Tuesday. There were lots of important things that were said, argued, reframed, shouted, and said again. And while it would be disingenuous to pretend like there weren't a lot of issues addressed that I care about, I wanted to highlight what excites me most about the election results.

For years, I've worked with children from at-risk backgrounds here in Texas, many of whom come from Latino households. Though I haven't polled them directly, I have come to learn that many of the kids I have come to love and their families are living in the United States without documentation. Fearful of deportation. Unable to stand up for their human rights for without being found out.

I bet I've already lost some readers, but please stay with me. It's important.

I'm not happy with how either party has treated the Latino communities in this nation. The rhetoric against undocumented immigrants by both sides has been frustrating to say the least, and I can't imagine how it feels for the people spoken against. I have heard people suggeting electrified fences, border patrol "volunteers" with rifles, and making life for immigrants so miserable that they leave on their own. I watched Arizona pass laws legalizing discrimination if someone looked like an immigrant. I watched a president who had promised comprehensive immigration reform deport twice as many people as any other president in U.S. history, then have the audacity to paint all of them with the same brush, calling them "gang-bangers" in a live, televised debate in front of the world. Nobody's hands are clean.

Have their been bright spots for those who earnestly care about immigration reform? Certainly. Both parties have proved that some desire a change of policy. Several Republican candidates for the party's nomination had nuanced and thought-out immigration policies. President Obama made headway towards a possible solution for the children of immigrants over the summer. Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio argued for a change in their party's stance. But these measures and words have not changed the reality for the thousands hoping and praying for a better life.

It was through this lens that I watched the results of our election on Tuesday night and on into Wednesday morning. I didn't know exactly what to hope for with regard to immigration, since it wasn't officially on the ballot. Would the nation reelect a man who had promised to change the nation's immigration policy, but had never even introduced such legislation over the course of four years? Or would they choose a man who had recently suggested "self-deportation" as a solution? Would our other elected officials choose to demonize those without a voice to defend themselves, or work to make their lives better?

I'm an optimist, as you might know, so I was ready to look on the bright side of any outcome. With that said, I thought some of the polling has created a perfect storm that could lead to Republicans and Democrats working together for a mutually beneficial solution to the challenges of immigration reform. Lemme break down my thoughts on how it went down.

According to articles from Fox News, the Huffington Post, and others, President Obama won the votes of upwards of 70% of Latino voters, while Governor Romney won less than 25%. A resounding tally, no doubt. But what does it mean?

It sure looks like the majority of Latino votes were more willing to give President Obama a second chance to make good on his promises, as opposed to giving Governor Romney a first chance to follow through on his. And while the election certainly did not hinge on only one issue for any group, including Latino voters, many pundits are explaining this overwhelming vote as a rejection of the Republican platform on immigration.

With the Latino population growing at such a rapid rate, neither party can afford to ignore this demographic in the future. For example, solidly Republican strongholds like Arizona and even Texas have such a high concentration of Latinos that forecasters are suggesting that within eight years, these states might become swing states, or at least much closer than in the past. That means Republicans are very interested in winning back the support they used to enjoy under people like President George W. Bush, who was much more moderate on issues of immigration, in turn winning a much higher percentage of the Latino vote.

Democrats, on the other hand, would probably not have won the White House without such overwhelming support from the Latino voters. President Obama and others on the left made lots of promises, which seem to have resonated with Latinos. Now that Latino Americans have given their support to the Democratic side, it's crucial for them to follow through on their promises. Additionally, the left would love having another voting bloc similar to African-Americans, who regularly vote for Democrats, especially if their support could create inroads in potential future swing states.

Suddenly, we have a perfect storm. For the first time that I know of, Latino Americans are going to be courted from both sides of the aisle with earnest vigor. That means that politicians are going to have to change their tune about some of the issues that matter most to the Latino community. That will certainly include immigration reform.

And here's the crazy thing: it's already happening!

Here are two articles that I've read that indicate that change is already coming. The first one comes from Colorlines, the other from Fox News. They both declare that Republicans are ready to switch their stance on immigration, facing the reality of a more Latino voting public. Democrats seem to be ready to work together for a solution as well.

Does this mean that everything will be changed for the better soon? Not at all. But I am hopeful that both parties will seriously work to reform our immigration laws, even if it is only because it's politically helpful for them. I have written, prayed, and preached about justice for immigrants for a while now. I feel invigorated by the ways our country seems to be shifting. I look forward to what the future brings!

Linking for Thinking - 9/9/12

Every Sunday, I'll be whittling my reading list down to a few links that I found particularly interesting from the past week. Some may be profound/deep thinking articles or news stories, others may be things that fascinate me or made me laugh. Some will be on issues I already agree with, others will be those that have challenged me to think in new ways. If there's anything you think I'd be interested in, or something you think might be worth sharing in this space, feel free to leave it in the comments section, email me at coth.guy@gmail.com, or hit me up on facebook.

Lifehack of the Week
If you have a tiny bathroom with little storage space and need somewhere to keep a few towels and washcloths handy consider buying an inexpensive nesting basket set from a discount housewares store and mounting the baskets to your wall to provide an easy and inexpensive way to keep bathroom linens handy.

A Community Called Forgiveness (by Dr. Richard Beck)
Because isn't the problem with Christianity that we want God to forgive us but we don't care about being reconciled to others? Isn't it much easier to pray to God for forgiveness than to put in all the time and relational work to live at peace with others?

Simply Seeing
I simply saw her as a mom who cares deeply for her children, just as I am a dad who cares deeply for mine. I simply saw her as a parent who trusts me to be a teacher for her child and for her.

Is Americanism the Fourth Biblical World Religion? (Via David Smith)
But Leithart’s message is not about people who explicitly affirm that their religion is America; it’s about how America has come to regard itself as “God’s New Israel.”

The Amazing Speeches of Women in the Conventions makes the Silence of Women in the Church that much more Deafening
Not having the voices of women in the Church is not just sad for women but even worse, it’s sad and a deep loss for the Church. We’re missing out on the stories, convictions, and challenges from the Ann Romneys, Condi Rices, and Michelle Obamas within our churches. 

Draft Day with Royce White (Warning: Slight language at the end of the video)
For us, Royce (a 6-foot-8 forward from Iowa State) was the most suspenseful and important story in the draft — someone blessed with an extraordinary combination of skills and size, and also with a refreshing openness about his mental condition. His doctors call it "generalized anxiety disorder," a condition defined as "constant worry."

Is the Death Penalty Racist?
Five Connecticut death row inmates are suing the state to get their sentences overturned because they argue race and geographic bias played a part in their prosecution.

Playing in NFL Triples Risk of Alzheimers and Parkinsons Diseases
NFL players are three times as likely as the general population to die from a neurodegenerative disease such as Alzheimer's disease or Parkinson's disease, according to a new Centers for Disease Control study of retired NFL players.

Super Mario Summary
Check out this online game that summarizes the original Super Mario Brothers game. It brought back some fond memories!

Reflections on Football in the South by A&M Coach Kevin Sumlin's Father
William Sumlin is hesitant to get into it. He doesn't want to go all PBS documentary on his son Kevin as he prepares for his first game as head coach at Texas A&M on Saturday. But as a high school coach in the segregated South a half-century ago, William Sumlin will allow that he never, ever thought the day would come when his son would be a head coach in the Southeastern Conference.

God and our Political Platforms (by Rachel Held Evans)
But this is the danger of civic religion: it convinces us that God’s name is the same as God’s presence; it convinces us that we’ve “won” when we hear the right words, regardless of whether we’ve seen the  right fruit. 

The Debate, and How I Got There

Ethics was an interesting class.

I'd only had Randy Harris one other time, and that was for my wide-eyed, "I thought I knew a lot about the Bible because I did well in Bible Bowl but now you're blowing my mind with new ideas!" phase. By the time the fall of 2011 had rolled around, I was still having my mind rocked by new ideas, but a lot of the earth-shattering new beliefs were in the rear-view mirror, even if that meant that I had invited them to pile into the backseat for my journey.

Randy presented us with an outline of the different things we'd be working through in class: the first half of the semester would be examining different ethical models to better understand from which we operated, while the second half was more built around learning by debating about different issues of the day. Randy would present both sides of an issue to the best of his ability for a class period, then had two groups debate it back and forth the next class period. He would moderate those debates, sometimes soothing tempers if things got too testy, sometimes ripping into a group who were winning too easily to keep us on our toes. (He's quite talented at that.)

I had my preferences for what I really wanted to argue for when the topics were named, and I had some topics that I wanted to avoid like the plague. For instance, I was watering at the mouth to debate on the side of Affirmative Action, but would have been crestfallen to be on the opposite side. With the decision not up to the students, however, I could only hope that I would be debating on the side of something I believed in strongly.

Flash back to 2004 for a moment. I had recently turned 18, and I had a deep sense that it was my duty to vote in the presidential election. (Part of me still wrestles with why I'm so willing to vote for someone to work in Washington, D.C., but so often I'm apathetic towards local elections. I'm working on it, though...) Being young, I wasn't very well practiced at parsing the nuances of issues or candidates, so it all came down to two factors when I went to the polling place: I thought that George W. Bush was more likely to do a good job of taking care of Texas than John Kerry, since Bush was from Texas, and I thought that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could end up being a positive if once they were won, Christian missionaries would have more ability to evangelize there.

Looking back, I'm pretty ashamed of my reasons for that vote. Sure, there were legitimate reasons to vote for Bush and for Kerry, but I didn't search very deep for those reasons, I just went with the easiest answer. That frustrates me, especially that I so easily justified war in my mind.

Within the space of a few years, I watched several friends go to war. I feel eternally blessed that most of them have returned alive so far, but through my conversations with them, I have begun to realize what a heavy burden war is to so many. In my heart, I began to believe that the reasons I held in 2004 were not justification enough for the horrors of war.

I have continued to look at my own justifications of war and those of others. Though it was a long and slow journey, the list of reasons I could accept as reasonable shrank considerably as the years progressed.

Suddenly, Randy Harris called my name. I was a part of the group advocating for peace without the use of violence.

SCORE!

I feel like every group project in school has either that one person who goes all out, the person who doesn't contribute anything or both. Confession time: I was the non-contributor at times during my extended college career. But not this time.

We were required to debate as if we held the views for which we were advocating, so we divvied up the different topics for our paper. As the resident Ministry/Sociology major of our group, I was assigned writing up the Biblical and social aspects of our "Pro-Peace" debate. (If you're just a glutton for punishment, feel free to read the paper here. The parts I wrote are the introduction and page 3 and 4.)

One of the most persuasive arguments against our side had already been laid out in three simple words: "What about Hitler?" We knew, without a doubt, that our classmates would be tossing that question at us, hoping that we would be unable to squirm around the uncomfortable truth that if a raving lunatic or truly evil person gains power, something must be done. Their position was that just war was not only allowable, it was necessary at times. How do you argue against fighting Hitler?

We had arrived at our answer to that question well in advance, since we knew it was coming, but I happened to be strolling around the Bible building an hour before our debate, when I ran into Dr. Chris Flanders. He's a professor in the Graduate School of Theology, a friend, and something of a mentor to me, or at least someone who cares about me. I casually mentioned the debate, and he said, "You got a minute? I've got something you might find helpful." I quickly agreed, and he led me to the campus bookstore. There he pulled a book from the shelf and handed it to me as my eyes got wide. He smiled as I hurriedly thanked him and purchased it immediately.

I found the rest of my group preparing for the debate, and beamed as I lay the book down on the table. It was entitled "What about Hitler?"

We flipped to one of the last chapters, because authors rarely just get right to the very best part, and found our position articulated beautifully, much more eloquently than we could have pulled off on the spot.

"At this juncture it is time for me to respond to the Hitler question: how should Christians respond to the kind of evil Hitler represents if just war theory and supreme emergencies are precluded, and if we live with a different measure of success?

We must live faithfully; we must be humble in our faith and truthful in what we say and do; we must repay evil with good; and we must be peacemakers. This may also mean as a result that the evildoers will kill us. Then, we shall also die.

That's it. There is nothing else-- or rather, anything else is only a footnote to this. We are called to live the kingdom as he proclaimed it and be his disciples, come what may. We are, in his words, flowers flourishing and growing wild today, and tomorrow destined for the furnace. We are God's people, living by faith.

The gospel is clear and simple, and I know what my response to the Hitler question must be. And I desperately want to avoid this conclusion. When my time comes, I may well trot out every nuanced argument I can develop, or seek a way out in St. Thomas Aquinas or Paul Ramsey. This would serve me and my fear, my hypocrisy, and my faithlessness very well. But I would not be telling the truth or living as I ought and as I am called to live.

I've had a hard time justifying killing under any circumstance for a while now, but my problem with that has been the lingering question of, "If not violence, then what?" While war feels wrong to me, I don't feel right about standing against something without offering a viable alternative solution. Yet that alternative had been taught to me my whole life without me realizing it.

Jesus was innocent, and had every right to use violence, but chose a different path. He did not hurt those who we would call his enemies, but he also stood up peacefully against them. He found a third way to deal with those who used violence and intimidation to hurt others, like when he disarmed the crowd who sought to stone the woman caught in adultery. He did not run from the soldiers who came to arrest him, neither did he allow his disciples to fight them. His words, "Put your sword away, for he who lives by the sword dies by the sword!" ring in my ears when I try to rationalize the losses of war as necessary. Jesus affirmed the humanity of Peter and Malchus in the garden.

So, as a Christian who has long struggled with violence and what could be an appropriate alternative, I would like to submit Jesus' example to those who might be feeling the same as I have, and even to those who have no problem with waging a "just war." Below is a potential way that non-violence could be used to mitigate between two warring sides, whether both are aggressors, or one side is attacking a peaceful group.

Imagine Canada suddenly broke out into a civil war. Eastern provinces vs. Western provinces. Instead of choosing a side that seems most right and fighting with them or staying out of the entire mess, imagine ten thousand Christians standing between the two groups. No weapons, just people. The Christians send word to both sides with a simple message:

"We believe that you are worthwhile, because you are a human, and thus we cannot suffer the thought of you dying or being ravaged by war in your body, mind, or heart. In the same way, we believe that our brothers and sisters with whom you are at war are just as worthwhile. We will not stop you from fighting, but you will have to fight through us. We are willing to die on this ground, but we are not willing to allow violence towards any human. If you choose to fight those you call your enemies, do so knowing that to kill them, you must kill us first."

It's certainly not a popular vision of how to mediate conflict. I'm sure that there are some glaring issues that would have to be worked out (Like how to stand between factions in a time of guided missiles, where are you going to find that many people willing to die for the sake of others, etc.). This vision is not easy, by any means. It's so radical that it seems impossible. But we have glimpses of those who lived in such a way, like Jesus, Gandhi, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It's a standard I don't know if I can live up to.

But it also helps my faith to see an alternative to war. I have a hard time believing that God desires war. Certainly there are passages in the Old Testament that point to a bloodthirsty God, but in Jesus, we see God's best representation on Earth of what God desires for a human to be like. In Jesus, we see someone who is radically peaceful.

I do not want to belittle or invalidate Christians who feel called to join the military. My voice is just one of many in a chorus of believers who are trying to figure out how best to follow Jesus. And while the conclusions I have drawn are right for me, I do not pretend to speak for the entire spectrum of Christianity, nor can I with any certainty say that I've figured out what God wants. I can only express what I have learned and believed based on my own experiences and studies.

This isn't the last time the blog will feature this topic. Next time it comes up, I'm looking forward to sharing some ideas about how this ideal could be lived out daily. Shane Claiborne has some good stories that speak to that, so be looking for it in the future. Until then, feel free to discuss your own thoughts in the comments section.

Media Monday - One Day

Each Monday, this blog will feature a song, video, piece of art, or other type of media that tells part of a story. Sometimes the message will be light and funny, other times it will be deeper and more somber. I may not even fully agree with what is posted. My aim is to present narratives that are worth experiencing, knowing, and discussing.

For today, our media is one of my favorite songs of all-time. It's by Matisyahu, called "One Day," and because I think I finally figured out how to embed youtube videos directly into my posts, all you have to do to watch it is click below...




If you clicked on the links from Sunday, you might notice a continuation of the same theme from Dr. Beck's post. Matisyahu sings about a future without war, free from violence and hate. As you might realize if you've met me, these posts aren't popping up on the blog for no reason. They are a big part of who I am and who I hope to be.

Before someone attempts to gently burst my overly-optimistic bubble, I don't think the "one day" he sings about is coming anytime soon. Though I would love to live in a world without war, I hold no grand illusions of seeing such a place. But as a Christian, I feel like I am called to not only hope for a better world, but work for a better world.

For a better explanation of the story behind some of my thoughts on war, check back Wednesday, when I'll be writing about an interesting debate I was assigned to in an Ethics class, and some of the precursors to that debate. I'm certain that many won't agree with the conclusions I have reached, but I've found that I can respect those I disagree with more easily once I better know the road they traveled to come to their conclusions. Whether you agree with where I stand, think I'm a fool, or something else, as of Wednesday at least you'll know how I got here.

Linking for Thinking - 8/19/12

Every Sunday, I'll be whittling my reading list down to a few links that I found particularly interesting from the past week. Some may be profound/deep thinking articles or news stories, others may be things that fascinate me or made me laugh. Some will be on issues I already agree with, others will be those that have challenged me to think in new ways. If there's anything you think I'd be interested in, or something you think might be worth sharing in this space, feel free to leave it in the comments section, email me at coth.guy@gmail.com, or hit me up on facebook.

A Plea to Engage in Racial Reconciliation (by Grace Biskie via Rachel Held Evans)
I don't toss that list out lightly. Nor do I present it with judgment or condemnation. I am not looking to set you on a point-of-no-return guilt trip. None of that from me. Please consider this an invitation for you to love me, your neighbor. To disengage is to fail to love.

Porch Journal (from Larry James at CitySquare)
Before I left I told Art, "You have real community here.  All you lack are places to live."

Your God is Too Big (from Richard Beck)
Might our God be too big? Too big for us to see the smallness of God? Where is God? God is here--weak and hanging on the gallows.

Heartwarming Tearjerker
What happens when a ten year old Canadian's elation at his country winning bronze is shattered by a disqualification? He writes a letter to the sprinters to encourage them, with a surprise gift for them! Super cute and kind!

Council in Jerusalem

There's a professor at ACU named Randy Harris. I was blessed to have him for a class my first semester studying in Abilene for Acts-Revelation and later in my next-to-last semester for Ethics. In my first day in his class, I was fresh from the mission field in Thailand, ready to sink my teeth into some Biblical knowledge that I hoped would help guide me as I sought to be a minister in the future. My enthusiasm bled into my notes, which I saved onto my computer for later perusing. Rereading it years later, I still remember how excited I was to be learning from Randy, especially when I read through my notes, a piece of which I've copied for you to check out below.

Acts 15 Council at Jerusalem Crucial Moment

What must a Gentile do to become a Christian?

Accept circumcision? Nope. Don't hafta be a Jew to be a Christian.

Accept Christ. Boo-yeah.

Food laws? What the what?

TABLE FELLOWSHIP! OH SNAP!

One table, not two!

THIS IS DANG IMPORTANT!

Looking back, I get the feeling that my note taking style isn't especially helpful for most people, especially those who weren't in the class to hear the points that my notes reflect. Which is why I decided to decipher my scribblings. For starters, here's a link to Acts 15, in case you need a refresher. (I sure did!)

One of the things that jumps out to me in this passage is that the council decides not to put the yoke of extra rules on the Gentiles, and decides that only the most important rules will be passed on. This seems like a good idea for a group of relatively new believers. The idea of not burdening them with the cumbersome laws from the Jewish culture is astonishing, especially since the Jews placed such a value on their culture. This is not without good reason, either. Though many Jewish customs had been added to and amended over the years, their culture was still a product of God's choosing them. Jesus, Savior of the World, came from within this culture, and though he challenged many pieces of the culture that were not of God, Jesus was most certainly a Jew.

With that in mind, when these Jewish leaders of the early church were faced with wrestling about how to integrate Gentiles into an overwhelmingly Jewish faith, they opted to leave out as much of the cultural trappings of Judaism as they could. Anything they didn't believe was essential was left out of the equation, and the Gentiles were given a short list of what they needed to do. (This was obviously on top of the message that was preached to them by Paul, Barnabas, or other missionaries.)

And what were these stipulations? Avoid sexual immorality and don't eat some stuff. Don't worry about circumcision, you're fine without it.

On the one hand, this short list doesn't seem like the biggest of deals to me. Jesus has already mentioned the sexual immorality thing. Unless the missionaries conveniently forgot to mention the, "Oh, by the way, before you sign on: God doesn't want us to be sexually immoral..." part of Jesus' life and teachings, I think the Gentile Christians are already down with that point. (I don't know Paul personally, but that doesn't seem like the kind of mistake he would make while ministering.)

And to be fair, I bet the Gentile Christians were pretty relieved about the whole circumcision thing. I don't know how much the co-pay was back then, but I'm always thrilled when I learn I don't have to have surgery, and I imagine them being pretty stoked to hear the news.

But I had always been confused by the food laws part of this. Sure, Leviticus and Deuteronomy seemed to be chockablock full of commands about what the Jews could or couldn't eat, but this is part of the new covenant! I thought food laws got thrown out when God said to Peter, "Take and eat," otherwise, I've got a lot of fried shrimp and bacon on my conscience. I guess where I ran into a snag wasn't an unwillingness to give up those foods, but a lingering question of, "Why are these food laws so dang important?"

As Randy explained it, these requirements were imperative for table fellowship. If Jews and Gentiles were going to be a family, they had to eat together. It was a must. Christianity meant shared meals. The Jews were not in a place, theologically, to be alright with those foods. If Gentile Christians brought them to the table, it would fracture their unity. Maybe it would have been easier to split the table, with Jews at one and Gentiles at another, but unity was far too important.

The Jewish Christians were alright with not burdening their Gentile brothers with unnecessary surgery, but they and the Holy Spirit agreed that unity was worth sacrificing for. It was inconvenient and troublesome on the Gentile Christians. It wasn't even something Jesus specified as part of his teaching. But the unity of believers was of such great importance that the sacrifice was made.

I often wonder which part of this story I am called to live on a given day. Will I have to sacrifice freedoms in order to preserve unity, like the Gentile Christians giving up foods? Will I have to sacrifice important parts of my culture in order to ensure that the yokes of my sisters and brothers in Christ are not overly heavy unnecessarily, like the Jewish Christians not demanding circumcision, even though it had long been an outward sign of being one of God's people. Will I need to be like Peter, Paul, and James, speaking on the behalf of others when biases and traditions stand opposed to God's work in the lives of people?

I became excited when I learned what was actually happening in Acts 15. Randy taught me that God's people were trying to find what was most central to the Gospel in this passage, and helped me learn to seek the same thing in my own life.

"...the hand of God was on the people to give them unity of mind..."

One of my favorite passages from the Bible is the story laid out in 2 Chronicles 30. Obscure? Yes, definitely, but relevant. Let me set the stage...

The king of Judah is a guy named Hezekiah. His father, Ahaz, was king before Hezekiah and did a pretty terrible job of it. Ahaz got his butt kicked by just about everyone and led the people away from God. I'm not sure how Hezekiah ended up so good when his dad was a super jerk, but it happened.

Chapter 30 joins Hezekiah as he's preparing for one of the biggest celebrations of the Jewish calendar, one that hadn't been properly observed in a long time. The Passover, a celebration of God delivering their people from Egypt, was a big deal. It was important to the young king for everything to go right.

But there was a problem: he had just finished a major renovation/rededication project to the temple in their capitol city, and there wasn't enough time to put everything together. The Passover was supposed to be held at a certain time of the year, and there was no way to make it happen on time.

Beyond that, Hezekiah had this crazy idea of not just inviting the people from his country of Judah, but extending the invitation to Israel to the north, along with Manasseh and Ephraim. If you're not super familiar with all the geo-political implications of this move, Judah had been a part of Israel back in the day, but they split into two separate factions after a big dispute about who was the rightful king. In fact, one of the countries that had been kicking Ahaz's butt was Israel. There was some bad blood going on between these two countries, for sure.

Instead of sending an army to try to avenge his father's losses, Hezekiah sends words of reconciliation to his neighbors. He ends his message to them with the following:

"If you return to the Lord, then your fellow Israelites and your children will be shown compassion by their captors and will return to this land, for the Lord your God is gracious and compassionate. He will not turn his face from you if you return to him."

Hezekiah, the priests, and "the whole assembly in Jerusalem" choose to break the rules about when the Passover is commanded to be celebrated. Maybe they broke it so they could keep moving forward with the momentum they gained from restoring the temple. Maybe it was so that the messengers could have extra time to invite Israel. Maybe it was a little of both.

The invitation is laughed at by many, but chapter 30 also reveals that some of those who were far removed from Judah heard and accepted the offer. It ends with a huge party that the people just refuse to let end, so an extra week gets tacked onto the celebration. That text even mentions that foreigners living in Judah and Israel get in on the action! God's providence in the past is remembered with joy, and certainty of God's nearness in the present is proclaimed.

The reason I love this passage so much is that it gives me hope for reconciliation. As I wrote about on Monday, unity is a big deal for me. Hezekiah shows that not only is reconciliation worth working for, but it is also something that the people of God have bent/broken the rules for in the past. It was against what was written about how to observe the Passover, but it seemed right to the king and the people, so they did it. Instead of being struck down for their impudence, Hezekiah gets described as someone who "...did what was right in the eyes of the Lord..." in the previous chapter.

While I don't take this passage to be a blank check for breaking every rule God set forth as long as I can couch my reasoning in the name of unity, it encourages me that sometimes the people of God can love and invite others into community, even when doing so is against the letter of the law. I want to be the kind of person that looks for creative ways to show the world God's love, even if that means some laws aren't upheld for the sake of the unity God desires.

Media Monday - Diversity's Symphony

Each Monday, this blog will feature a song, video, piece of art, or other type of media that tells part of a story. Sometimes the message will be light and funny, other times it will be deeper and more somber. I may not even fully agree with what is posted. My aim is to present narratives that are worth experiencing, knowing, and discussing.

For today, our media is a spoken word piece by David Bowden called "Diversity's Symphony." Check it out below.

Diversity's Symphony by David Bowden

One of the parts of this video that strikes me the most is David's wrestling with his church's lack of unity with other groups of Christians. His Southern Baptist congregation doesn't work with the Nazarenes, Catholics, or even other Baptists. He speaks to the need for unity among the Body.

I don't know about others, but I have heard more sermons on unity within the Body than I can count. But unfailingly, they all seem to center around the idea of one congregation being the Body, instead of the entire Church being the Body; "Don't act like our church doesn't need somebody just because they play a different role," instead of "Don't act like the Presbyterians aren't Christians just because they do things differently."

I come from a stream of Christianity that has a history of believing that only those who are a part of our faith community are real Christians. (And that many claiming to be in our group aren't really Christians either!) Though these beliefs are not nearly as widespread in the Churches of Christ today, they've been so ingrained, both in CoCs and in those who know of them, that I'm sometimes asked, "Is that the one that thinks they're the only ones going to Heaven?" This questions hurts, because it's so far from the truth for me.

Confession time: I have a huge thing for unity. If a person can have a crush on an idea, then I definitely have had it bad for unity for several years. When I think about what I consider the ideal future for the Church, I imagine something similar to what David Bowden described lyrically. I imagine congregations that are united by what they have in common, not divided by their differences. I picture churches that value people from diverse backgrounds, whether that diversity means races, ages, mental disabilities, languages, financial situations, or faith backgrounds.

Sure, it seems overly optimistic. But I have seen flashes of it in the past. Christian sisters and brothers from a wide variety of faith backgrounds coming together to serve a one Body for a season. A congregation that actively seeks to bring in and make welcome mentally handicapped, and serves them and their care-takers with love and dignity. Regular gatherings planned and led by a racially diverse mix of Christians, each mutually submitting to one another. These experiences have left me with hope that God can still unify us, even if it seems impossible at times.