Jeremy Troxler, the instructor for my fourth period class: “God’s Transforming Agent,” is the Director for Duke Divinity’s Thriving Rural Communities and an Ordained Elder in the Western North Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church. I confess that I have known Jeremy for a number of years, but that does not taint my judgment (but only helps to argue the point) when I say that he is a Guardian of the Vision. He has the ability to cast the vision in a way that I have never been able – kindly! Though he has a different presentation than do I of God’s Vision for the church and what it means to express the Cruciform, we share in heart the relentless Vision of what it means to be a “Christian” and what it means to be the “Church.” Over the last few lectures, he has cast the Vision – the definition – of what exactly it means to be the church in and among humanity as a whole.

The church (“ekklesia theou” – Assembly of God) is a sign of the kingdom of God. A sign points to a reality beyond itself. It has no meaning besides what it signifies. The church is a foretaste – a down payment; a first installment – of the Kingdom of God. It is a tool of the Kingdom of God.

Jesus said that His church is the “salt of the earth.” It has been instituted as a preserver; it is purposed to give flavor; to cleanse wounds; to heal; it has the power to melt ice; it causes thirst; it corrodes; and it is very valuable. Jesus also said that His church is the “light of the world.” The church is empowered to illuminate; to cause growth; to guide; it is to draw others near; and it is to transform space (with the contrast of darkness).

The Apostle Paul illustrated the church as the Body of Christ (Rom. 12:1; 1Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:24). Each of its members (people) is a significant and important part of the whole. Yet also, the Body of Christ signifies a cooperation of life where Christ is the head of the Body and worship is the heart of the Body, with Partnership (“koinonia”), nurturing (spiritual formation), service (in oppression, suffering or need in the world), and witness (our expression of Christ) are the extremities.

I think (if I may so add) that this definition of “church” has been recently recaptured by Jeremy and others. The church is not an ends in itself, but a means that, as Jeremy expressed, “is like John the Baptizer pointing at Jesus; we, as the church, are pointing to Christ.” Contrary to past experiences the church is not called to be boring, lifeless, and tasteless; not a place of white-washed sepulchers full of dead men’s bones, but a community of light illuminating the Good News of the grace of God in Jesus Christ. The church is equipped with many members, necessarily differing in appearance, shape, color, and use, etc., but each as equally important as another. The church is a sign that the Kingdom of God is Jesus Christ Himself; without whom, the church would only be a lifeless corpse.

In Dr. Efird’s class we are examining how the nation of Israel attempted to make sense of its existence through their Scriptures (the Christian “Old Testament”). From the time of Abraham to the exile into Babylon their theology was (what has been termed) Deuteronomic. In essence, this theology boils down to the understanding that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. If you want to do well, then be good and righteous. If you are wicked and unrighteous then you will not be well. However, Israel, upon being hauled into captivity, could not explain Theodicy (God’s fairness, justice and goodness) by these means. Bad things happen to good people and bad people appeared to get the good things in life. Thus it is that, during the Babylonian captivity, Israel developed a different theology to explain what was happening to them; it is known as the Wisdom Movement. The movement began with writings such as Proverbs and spread into longer stories using hyperbole, parables, allegory, and fables which expressed God’s providence in a practical manner (Job, Ruth, Jonah, and Ester, etc.). Finally, after the exile, Israel formed another type of thought in an attempt to explain life and the circumstances in which the nation found itself. Apocalyptic Literature (like, Daniel 7 – 12), with the use of symbols, imagery, numbers and colors, used a two-pronged approach to rationalize things – dualism, a war between good and evil and; “the two-age motif,” where sometimes good is winning and other times evil depending on which ever “age” was up. In Apocalyptic literature, God’s agent must intervene in order to end persecution.

In Dr. Copeland’s class we are processing how our practice affects our beliefs which, in turn, affect our practice; and I carry over to this class the conversation concerning Israel from the previous. Is it really as simple as Israel attempting to explain Theodicy in their evolution of literature or is it, in and of itself, the providence of God that their thinking develops? Asked a different way: Is it an end in itself that Israel goes from simple Deuteronomic theology to a more complicated Apocalyptic literature in an attempt to explain their suffering, or is it a means to an end where God is preparing the nation for the arrival of Christ as He reveals Himself more and more to the nation? As Israel practices being a nation – through suffering – it affects their beliefs, which affect their practice (specifically their writing style and thought process).

Karl Barth (one of the characters we are studying in Contemporary Theology) taught a “dialectical theology,’ where there was a “conversation” if you will; a kind of give and take between the “wholly otherness” of God and the humanness of humanity (for example, in the Person of Christ). What if there is a “conversation” going on with the historical/critical method which examines the literature, and another type of theology where an organic union with Christ is developed by means of the Scriptures? What if there is a “give and take” – a critical, yet spiritually discerning dialect which has been developing through the New Covenant (as the writings of Israel did through the Old)? This is, in essence, what Barth practiced and believed.

In Jeremy’s class we are talking about the “Upside-Down Kingdom” that Jesus institutes. The Kingdom (of God/Heaven) is characterized by a “New Creation” where God’s “empire” breaks in upon the present paradigm announcing the Good News of Jesus Christ’s victory over the enemy. If we can agree that paradigms are shifting presently, how much of a stretch is to imagine that each stage in Israel’s writings were paradigm shifts, as it were? Like “birth pangs,” the paradigms are becoming more violent, and as the time draws nearer, the evolution of God’s exposure becomes more and more visible – from a small nation to all humanity; from Moses to Christ; from humanity to God Himself. The Kingdom has been turning things upside down since Israel began to change its thinking from “if you want good stuff then be good” to “completing in my body the sufferings of Christ” (Col. 1:24).

I find myself at Duke Divinity School in Durham for the fifth July in a row. Though I thoroughly enjoy being here, I cannot help but have a sense of relief that I will graduate this August. And though I will probably be back next year (though not in residence) in my quest to receive everything The United Methodist Church has for me, this five-year segment is a milestone along the path on which I have been called. As usual, we have had some very interesting conversations in the classes of which I am a part, and I will share some excerpts with you from these conversations.

Again this year (for the third time in five years) I have the pleasure of instruction under Dr. Mickey “the Smiling Assassin” Efird in New Testament II. He begins class with, “Well, I see all of you made bail this morning,” then proceeds to annihilate any presuppositions one might have concerning the New Testament with his tried-and-true (50 years of personal teaching) “Efirdism” – otherwise known as the historical/critical method of biblical scholarship – while ending his assault with, “Well, I’ve got more minds to corrupt; y’all meditate and cogitate on that.” It is no use debating with Dr. E, for he considers debating, “the work of theologians.”

Next, I have Contemporary Theology with PhD student (Emory) Brad Burroughs. Brad has an interesting definition for Theology, Fides Quarens Intellectum – “Faith seeking understanding.” Using the simplest form of the idea of “faith” (and not my beloved Pauline “Faith of Christ”), we must understand why we believe what we believe. We are entering an ongoing conversation that began (at least) 2,000 years ago to understand God and God’s creation, namely, humanity (which then enters a subheading within theology called anthropology). This will be a good class because we get to debate!

Following that, my next class is Theology and Practice instructed by Dr. Jennifer Copeland. Now she has a slightly different approach to defining theology (though she would, I think, agree with “faith seeking understanding;” knowing why we believe what we believe) and suggests things like “learning the language” of God, “Mastering a closed system” (a blow to the previously male dominated practice), and rather prefers “constructing open spaces for living into God’s reign.” Dr. Copeland is also interested in redefining old words, such as, “doctrine.” Rather than it meaning “rules for controlling behavior,” she suggests “means of mediating God’s grace.” Rather than “rhetoric” being a weapon of persuasion, she suggests redefining it as a tool to “transform space.”

Finally, I have the honor of being instructed by the Reverend Jeremy Troxler of Duke Divinity’s Thriving Rural Communities. His class is Transforming Agent, which he is very gifted to lead. His entire vision concerns what he terms, Missio Dei – “Mission of God.” The church, according to Jeremy’s vision, is to be an agent of transformation in God’s mission of transforming humanity. The church mission is God’s mission; the mission of God has a church. In this mission we are invited to become part of God’s life. The church is an extension of that invitation. And who is the God of this mission? A God Who “Hears the grown of the cosmos” just as he heard the grown of the Israelites under bondage all those years ago in Egypt. A God Who “moves in” with humanity in the Person of Jesus Christ, to live among and in and out of a hurting world. He is a God who suffers for sinners at the cross of Christ. This is the God of the Scriptures.

The ‘97%-3% Rule’ is something I talk often about. It concerns humanity generally and is applied specifically to differing contexts in humanity. It finds its biblical principle in Ephesians 4:11 (and many Old Testament precedents). Where humanity inclusively (i.e. all humanity, whether they admit it or not and whether they know it or not) experiences a call by God and all are given gifts and graces to walk in His calling, there are some who are especially called to lead humanity in the casting of God’s vision for humanity. This ‘Rule’ applies to humanity in general, though it is found in the Christian First Principle (the Scriptures), because the church specifically is a category – a representation – of humanity. God has graced certain human beings from all walks of life, according to Ephesians 4:11, for the building up of the church, though many who are endowed with these graces thusly do not utilize the gifts directly or purposely for the church. The principle and ‘Rule’ stand none-the-less.

In the “gun world” the ‘97%-3% Rule’ is amply applied. The language for the ‘Rule’ is not too flattering – The 97% are called “Sheep” or “Sheeple” and the 3%, “Sheep Dogs.” In this context it is understood that 3% of the people protect and defend the other 97% from bodily injury or harm and/or death. According to the principle of the ‘Rule,’ the 3% have been graced with this special calling that the 97% cannot have by definition. The care of the 97% falls on the 3%.

In the church the ‘97%-3% Rule’ applies. 97% have no idea who Christ is personally or exactly what He has done. I am not questioning their salvation (that is between the individual and God), for one can accidentally stumble into being rescued by God by God’s sheer power (that is another subject). I am simply saying that I have found that 97% of the individuals in the church (by medieval design), as a whole, are biblically illiterate, ignorant of the Person of God, and ignore any kind of sanctification and are concerned only with their justification. 3% of the church population is at least seeking apprehension of “the knowledge of truly truth” (as the Apostle Paul would say). 97% are “fleshly Christians” and 3% are “spiritual Christians.”

Concerning “the Vision:” The ‘97%-3% Rule’ plays out in the fact that 97% of the people will need to be connected to the other 3%. The 97% can be termed “Carriers” or “Potential Carriers of the Vision” and the 3% are “Guardians of the Vision.” The 97% receive the Vision from the 3%. The 3% need the 97% to which to cast the Vision. The 97% are always in a constant state of un-learning, learning and re-learning the Vision. The 3% learn only the ever-expanding ways that the Vision applies. The 3% can only expect from the 97% nothing more than they can deliver, by definition. The 97% do not follow the 3%, however, but follow the Vision casted by the 3%. The 3% follow the Vision they cast out of the special gifts and graces received.

In any case, it cannot be ignored that each – the 97% and the 3% – are responsible and accountable for their calling generally, but the 3% are especially responsible and accountable because of the special gifts and graces given to them (this also concerns “cover,” which is another conversation). Whether in the “church” or without, the principle of God’s grace for the building of the church (the human factor), as expressed in the Rule, applies, and all humanity is accountable and responsible for it.

The apostle Paul spoke about folks being “members” of the “body” in his correspondence with the Romans (12:5). Membership in the Church (the Body of Christ) is signified by baptism – the identification with and being identifiable in Christ (Rom. 6:1-7). Membership in the local church (the local Body of Christ) is as a result of our identity as a member of the Body of Christ. Individuals who are “members” of Christ (the Universal Church) collectively come together in “membership” in the local church (differing geographical areas, denominations, etc.) because they are “members” of Christ. In baptism Christ invited “you” to be a “member” of His Universal Body, and then “we” express Him to “others” through the local body. This is the Body of Christ.

Unfortunately the word “membership” carries with it connotations of being card carrying members of some exclusive club. Understandably many reject the notion of “membership” in the church because it has become synonymous with being a member of “club dead.” For many decades (and centuries) “membership” has been a means of alienation, division, and exclusion. Baptism means, “Now you are like us.” The qualifications for “membership” in the church have appeared to be based on something altogether different than being identified in and by Jesus Christ. It is as though the present “members” set new standards after they were accepted into the club, designed to only recruit “others” that are not those other than themselves.

Fortunately the word “membership” is hereby re-defined (actually, properly defined again). It is once again becoming a word that has nothing to do with exclusion and everything to do with inclusion; it means, rather than a wall there is a bridge between people; it says that we are not turned inward in self-preservation, but are haphazardly poured outward under a single vision with multiple expressions (1Corinthians 12). We now must come to the understanding that there are “members” who are not of our culture, who are not under our control, and are not interested in any club (Eph. 3:6). “Membership” in the Body of Christ means that we are “members” of one another (Eph. 4:25) and are going to have to live, and learn to deal, with the discomfort of everyone being different. Jesus Christ invited you into His Body (the Universal Church), not simply for your benefit, but for the benefit of humanity (the local body of Christ). “Membership” does not mean that you have made it, but that you have just begun. It is not a life where others are there to please and serve you, but you are poured out – like Christ shed His blood for you. You are not a “member” sitting in the lap of luxury, but the crucible of agony (2Tim. 4:7 – “fight” in the Greek is literally, “agony”). And all this, not because it is something you must do to somehow repay God as some sort of “membership” dues, but because this is what it means to be baptized into Christ’s death, share in His sufferings, and to express His resurrection life with power (Phil. 3:10); this is the “membership” of the Body. This is the Body of Christ.

The New Paradigm is quickly and powerfully shifting into place. No matter where you look – organized (or unorganized) religion, politics, the economy, and sports, etc. – the ways things are done are strikingly different between Old and New Paradigms. I have discussed in other entries how God has shifted paradigms throughout history, but what we have not entered upon is some tangible, practical examples of these shifts in the way humanity is thinking about and executing various things. In a sort of compare and contrast fashion, let’s look at some examples specifically dealing with issues in the church.

Authority

In the Old Paradigm authority means that a pastor or spiritual leader is equivalent to a boss, in the secular sense. In this thinking, authority is simply a hierarchy of power and control where one with more authority is higher on the proverbial totem pole than another. The leader insists that we “do not follow the man,” but finds it often necessary to assert his/her authority (which is self-contradicting). In the Old Paradigm all the people run off the cliff because everyone is following the man (which the Old Paradigm irrationally denies) with a blind faith. It deems that those in authority are the only ones who hear God, and any who disagree are tools of the devil. Authority for the Old Paradigm is about people living and dying according to the leaders actions. Its view of “team” is inconsistent with its own definition of “authority.” However, in the New Paradigm, one is under the “leadership” of another’s authority. A spiritual leader is not a boss, but one who leads by example. Authority, therefore, is spiritual and powerful; not as a control factor but as an equipping factor to those under authority. Authority in the New Paradigm is about people living out of the vision casted. If anyone dies in the New Paradigm, it is those who do not follow the vision but, rather, the leader. If the leader does not lead according to the vision, in the New Paradigm he/she dies alone. The people are following the vision, not the leader. The leader leads from within the group, not from out in front of it. “Team” and “authority” are redefined under the supremacy of the vision, not the hierarchy.

Gifting

In the Old Paradigm, persons who are especially gifted by God’s grace are a threat to the hierarchy and the status-quo. One who does not fit into the cookie cut-out mold of the controlling party’s ethos is dangerous, uncontrollable, and to be forced into submission. In the New Paradigm thought the vision from the mind of God reigns supreme, not the agenda. The gifted themselves are a gift of God to the church. They are in fact dangerous to the status-quo. They are in fact uncontrollable, but do not confuse this with rebellious. And forced submission is tyranny, and the New Paradigm will mount-up a revolution against such things for it does not respect that which does not respect it-self.

Accountability

In the Old Paradigm accountability has only an upward movement, which is its only possible direction since the system is a hierarchy. One is only accountable to those in authority over that one. The necessary result of this thinking is an inconsistency in word and deed (i.e. hypocrisy). In the New Paradigm the people under authority are accountable to those in authority, but also those in authority are accountable to those under their authority. When the one in authority equips and empowers those under his/her authority, those being equipped and empowered are an accountability in and of themselves; for, one in authority cannot walk differently than they talk and that one cannot talk out of both sides of the mouth while walking with two left feet.

Diversity

The Old Paradigm sees a difference of opinion as divisive. It perverts oneness to mean sameness. If any think differently they must be reprogrammed to think as the powers-that-be think. The New Paradigm sees a difference of opinion as other’s ability to think for them-selves. It understands the manifold wisdom of God as necessarily demanding manifold expressions in the church. It views the church as a coherent corporate of individuals (Corporately Individualistic).

Cover

The Old Paradigm sees struggle and hardship as negatives which need to be “covered.” It views cover as protection. It understands that to avoid strife is to extend ministry. The New Paradigm understands struggle and hardship as major positive principles of the Gospel. It has been equipped to undergo struggle and endure hardship. It views cover as permission, and sees “protection” as a hindrance and contrary to their calling simply because they are barbaric warriors who are built for conflict and collision.

Hopefully this short conversation will enlighten your mind to self-reflect and overtly recognize and realize the times in which we live. Old Paradigm doesn’t mean “bad,” but an empowering foundation on which the New Paradigm stands as everything it is called to be precisely because the Old has fulfilled its calling in everything.

Whether we know it or not debating is something that comes with human communication. It can take the attributes of anger and it can be done in sport, but it is continually happening (even with oneself). Some are better than others at debating and for many it is a matter of being better at arguing than another. In the church today debates are waged in the names of doctrine, denominations, and theology, etc. What I have noticed, for the most part, is the fact that though we find ourselves daily in debates, most of us have no inkling of how to debate. I have found that the reason for this lies in our poor communication skills (ironically) and in our inability to think logically. Ultimately, for me, debates aren’t about winning and losing or which individual (or individuals) can argue the best, but that we think and think thoroughly about what we believe or not, what we accept as truth or not, why this is or isn’t the case, how this is done or isn’t done, when this is accomplished and when not, where we exercise this rational or not, and who equips us for this task and who doesn’t.

Since I am (heavily) tattooed, and since I have found myself in debates over tattoos for the past 15 years, I will use this subject as an example. The argument concerning tattoos and “Christians” usually begins with something like, “Christians shouldn’t get (have) tattoos” or “Christians shouldn’t mark their bodies” or the like; you have heard (or used) similar arguments. Again, what we will talk about is not just for this subject matter or simply for debates, but is a vehicle to better make us think.

First, I will not assume to understand what this person is talking about. They will have to learn to articulate their argument in order for us to have a rational discussion. The third law of logic is the Law of Common Ground (see my entry on the Laws of Logic), which states that we must have common definitions in order to be coherent to one another. What do we mean when we use the term “Christian?” What do we mean when we say that Christians “mark” their bodies? It is a certain “Christian culture” which finds an issue in this instance. Any other culture will not have this issue and will have no idea what the hang-up is all about (nor will they care).

Second, if this person’s preposition is an opinion then there is no debate as long as you do not attempt to subject me to your opinion. But if this person claims this to be axiomatic I will demand the principle that makes it an axiom. For example, “The Bible says…” is an axiomatic statement. I will then insist on a biblical principle for the preposition.

Third, what is the context of the passage (a text without a context is a pretext and, more often than not, a sub-text)? The passage in question for our purpose is Leviticus 19:28 – You shall not make any gashes in your flesh for the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the LORD. (NRSV) I would not surrender this information, however, in a real debate. 90% of the people that question me about tattoos have no idea where to find any such prohibition. And they only regurgitate what they have been taught; never thinking for themselves.

Fourth, at the risk of defying the first law of logic (The Law of Non-Contradiction), in context, have you applied to yourself the previous verse concerning “rounding the edge of your hair or shaving the corners of your beard? In other words, are you an Orthodox Jew complete with the curls hanging down the sides of your face? You cannot hold me to a law which does not apply to you at the expense of the other 600+ laws that are in conjunction with the one you quote out of context. Incidentally, are we, too, adhering to the laws concerning women, then? If one law applies then all 600+ laws apply.

Fifth, to whom were these laws associated? Since it is the Jewish Scriptures are they not belonging to the nation of Israel? Were not the Gentiles wretched and to be avoided?

Sixth, since they are the Christian Old Testament how do they concern the New Testament? If one is “New” and the other “Old” how does one affect the other? According to the definition of their names they are two completely different covenants. According to internal evidence they are two completely different covenants.

Seventh, Am I not the “wretched Gentile” that God warned the Jews about? Where, exactly, was it that the Mosaic Laws (which Jesus, Paul, and all the apostles interpreted as the “Five Books of Moses”) took effect on Gentiles? When I “accepted” Christ, did I proselytize – did I convert to Judaism? Or was I converted to “Christianity?” Perhaps it was actually Christ.

Eighth (returning to the text), the context is “gashing, tattooing, and marking,” according to most English translations. In a transliteration of the original Hebrew it is “cutting, branding, and blurred script.” Are we holding the English translation to task or the Hebrew in which it was originally penned?

Ninth, in context, the text is concerning “for the dead.” I’m not sure how many “Christians” are, have been, or plan to be “cut, branded, or induced with blurred script” “for the dead.”

Tenth, is it possible that tattoos are taboo for a certain “church culture” for reasons that have nothing to do with God? With Christ? With the Scriptures?

Now there are many more directions we can go and many more points to list, and I haven’t even begun to defend myself, personally, concerning my tattoos. Rarely, if ever, will a debate on this subject ever get that far. It has always (in the debates which I have joined) ended with “Well I don’t think it is right” or “That’s what I’ve always heard” or whatever. I don’t like it to end this way because I am not convinced that the goal of making people think (not agree) has been reached. But that takes me to the 97%-3% Rule, which is another conversation to be had.

I was having a conversation with an individual, recently, about “un-churched” folks and their ethos (beliefs, practices, dispositions, and habits, etc) and how they differ from many in the church today. I talked about the rejection of an assumed church culture, how the things that are important to “church folk” were alien to the un-churched, and how those without the church see nothing good being offered by the churches (or at least different than what is offered by the rest of society). Upon hearing this, the person with whom I was speaking asked how I supposed we could “educate these people?” Not understanding the question I asked, “In what are we to educate them?” The reply from my friend: “As the church we need to educate them in how to better themselves.” Still puzzled by this I returned the original question, “How do you suppose we educate them?” The reply was startling: “We need to educate them in the many things the church has to offer. But, more to the point, they need to learn to want more for themselves than the life that they have.”

This line of reasoning led into more of a refutation, on my part. First, my friend’s understanding of un-churched folks and their ethos is precisely the point to why they are un-churched. Much of the people in the church have the ideology that everyone should be the same. While people without the church have no issue with the sentiment of oneness, sameness is of no interest to them.

Second, when we say “education” what exactly do we mean? I have spent the last ten years of my life in the academic arena. Yet, I have not spent this decade because I thought it was somehow the civilized thing to do, but because I like it. The letters after my name do not mysteriously make me better than anyone else; neither do the degrees on my wall elevate me to some ridiculous, imaginary higher status. By “education” do we mean that the regurgitation of someone else’s thoughts make our lives somehow better? Or make us somehow smarter? Could we mean “re-educating” or “reprogramming?” Perhaps we mean by “educate” that the goal for any reasonable person is to join the ranks of elitism. Is it axiomatic that God’s plan and purpose for us is to climb the ever rising ivory tower?

Third, why should we educate “them” concerning “the many things the church has to offer”? Are we making disciples of the church or are we to make disciples of Jesus Christ? If there is some sort of “educating,” should it not be concerning God’s love for “them” as expressed in Jesus Christ? The church has nothing to offer, but a corporate life in Christ. If the church were expressing Christ (as is its purpose), the un-churched would not be rejecting it on the large scale that it is today. “They” are not un-churched because of any issues with God (or Jesus Christ for that matter) but because they reject the outright hypocrisy called “church.”

Fourthly, all un-churched folks are not the marginalized outcasts of society that many local churches like to imagine. They are not all drug addicts and/or alcoholics. They certainly do not all ride motorcycles and they are not nearly all tattooed. Contrary to popular belief (inside the church), what makes someone un-churched has nothing to do with economic circumstance; it has nothing to do with rebellion; it has nothing to do with “love for the world.” It has everything to do with these kinds of stereotypes, these prejudices, this out-of-touch-with-reality-state-of-mind that many in the church have.

And finally (though I could continue with much more), it is not up to “them” to convert to “Christianity” – for they see this as simply another religion of the hundreds and thousands. It is up to the church to live into their lives the Good News, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is not an honor for them to be a part of our local church; it is a privilege for us that “they” would want to share their lives with us. You see, “un-churched” is not necessarily synonymous with “unsaved.” Many of “them” live in and out of the gospel every day. Many of them are part of the Church, though not “Christianity” (as a religion). When churches decide to align with the Gospel I think they will be surprised by who actually needs to be educated.

I have been taking a bit of flack for my negative use of the terms “religion” and “religious” in my various writings – calling it a counterfeit to faith and/or a man-made version of the faith of Christ. Of course, every bit of flack (without exception) has come from “churched” folks, while “un-churched” folks simply affirm the sentiment of the negativity of being “religious” and especially of “religion.” Nevertheless, I will, here, explain my negative use of the terms, which, by-the-way, is derived from the Scriptures and the history of the church (which history, ironically, is the main flack supporting “religion” and being “religious”).

Unlike many who speak negatively of religion I am not an anti-traditionalist. I believe firmly in the traditions of the faith – particularly the orthodoxy of the first three centuries which, by the way, also rejected any form of religion that sets itself over against pure faith. The Middle Ages brought more religion than faith (though, it can be argued that it was out of necessity; which necessity is no longer relevant, today), and the Reformers of the 16th century reinstituted faith as the norm, but with “Christianity” still in power it proved much too difficult to shake the bonds of “religiosity.” Not until the present age, where Christianity is no longer the superpower, is the ground fertile once again for the sowing of a religion-less faith; that faith that is without a set culture, an accepted norm, a perverted “sameness” called oneness.

In the Scriptures the word “religious” is scarcely used (Acts 17:22 and James 1:26). In both accounts the word is used in a negative context. The word “religion” is used a few more times (Acts 25:19; 26:5; Col. 2:23; James 1:26-27). At best the term is used neutrally, and in Paul’s use it is exclusively used as a counterfeit to the established form of worship by God. There are many allusions to this “religious religion” in Paul’s letters. Nearly all of Paul’s adversaries were adherents to a religion that was but a ghostly form of true faith (2Tim. 3:5). This is the so-called “gospel” of “another” Christ (Gal. 1:6-9) and the “Jesus” of “another gospel” (2Cor. 11:4). Paul clearly explains that this counterfeit is not really another gospel, but a perversion of the true Good News. At its root, the Greek word for both “religion” and “religious” speaks of superstitions; not in the sense of black cats and walking under ladders, but in a ceremonial, sacramental, ritualistic sense that replaces (rather than enhances) the unadulterated faith.

Could the issue (on behalf of the churched folks) with my negative use of “religion” be because the faith of which I speak (that is over against religion) is that of the un-churched? Paul plainly states that “his gospel” was the Good News that did not come from the religious norm of the times (Gal. 1:11). His Good News was for “the Gentiles” – the un-churched, today (Gal. 2:2, 7). I, personally, in the strictest sense, am not religious. I claim not the “superstitions” of the Church as my own. The rituals of religion are not mine. The sacraments are but temporal signs to me. I care nothing for the ceremonialism of pomp and pleasantry. What I do claim is the faith of Christ in Christ. I call my own the sheer logic of the Resurrection life of Christ, and it alone. To me concrete reality trumps sacramental shadows. It is the total and complete lack of hypocrisy to which I subscribe.

Do with that what you have to…

Literally the word conscience means “joint-knowledge” or “co-perception” in Greek. As a stand-alone, the idea simply speaks of awareness of one’s own thoughts, or of one’s own self. It also brings to bear moral/ethical distinctions between right and wrong, approval or disapproval. An interesting thing is the conscience, in that it is subject to certain variables – such as information input (either by objective or subjective means) and the willingness of the person to utilize it, etc. The condition of the conscience will eventually reveal the condition of the person, for a person cannot consistently think or act contrary to their own conscience (1Peter 3:16). But don’t miss the literal definition for conscience, which has to do with a “joint” or “cooperative” knowledge or perception.

In its basic form, the conscience is fed information out of norms (cultural, moral/ethical, etc.). What a particular culture deems acceptable or unacceptable is an influential variable when it comes to the “voice” of the conscience. Yet, the Apostle Paul insists, because of the inert knowledge of God in all creation (Rom. 1:18-19), that the conscience will alternately accuse or defend the individual according to an absolute norm – the Plan and Purpose of God. One can silence this voice, but it comes at the cost of knowingly opposing the truth in creation (1Tim. 4:2) and it pays dividends in dishonor and dishonesty (Heb. 13:18).

The real danger concerning the conscience comes when the cultural norms reduce the voice of God to an almost nonexistent whisper. In religion, for example, an extreme devotee can actually (and, perhaps, honestly) think he or she is doing what God expects and requires (Acts 23:1), but in actuality it is quite the contrary (Heb. 9:9, 14). Some in the religious norm are so morally and ethically driven by their own convictions that nothing is pure, which only proves that their mind and conscience are so defiled that they themselves are impure (Titus 1:15). This is where the insistence of the power and influence of the Resurrection on the believer is crucial (Acts 24:16). Here is where we find the “joint” and “cooperative” knowledge and perception. It is in the Resurrection Life of one claiming Christ that the Holy Spirit becomes the prime feeder of the conscience (Rom. 9:1); ensuring God’s character and sincerity of faith, and not fleshly wisdom (2Cor. 1:2), with a foundation of God-produced love with a pure heart (1Tim. 1:5, 19).

The conscience was created to be the housing that holds the mystery of faith (1Tim. 3:9); a place of correction and a seat of truth-seeking before God (2Cor. 4:2). This in no way implies that one’s own conscience is in and of itself an absolute norm (as though all humanity should heed the weight of one’s words), but it does mean that you are accountable to your own conscience in matters of justice and mercy (Rom. 13:5) and when deciding what you personally can or cannot do as a “Christian” (1Cor. 8:7, 10, 12). In the end, the conscience calls us to liberty, but with a view for the weak consciences of others (1Cor. 10:25, 27-29). Such liberty clears your conscience, which aligns with the one true judge (2Tim. 1:3).

Is your conscience clear? Or severed?