I am often accused of being more a logician than a theologian or pastor or whatever I am supposed to be. Whatever I am, notwithstanding, logic and reason are not contrary to faith (as discussed here); in fact, faith demands reason and logic (or it is not faith, but something else completely – myths, fables, superstitions, etc.). Though it is true that some proponents of “junk science,” disguised as logical reasoning, have attacked the faith, it does not necessarily follow that reason and logic should be attacked and excommunicated from the church.

I understand that, culturally, there is a large chasm between intellectualism and its disdain. Yet, we cannot throw out the (proverbial) baby with the bathwater. Common sense (which isn’t very common and doesn’t make much sense, today) demands the use of logic and reason. Experience, as opposed to “book sense,” insists that we learn (logic and reason) from our mistakes and make decisions (logic and reason) based on what we have or have not lived. It is agreeable that we can do without the agenda-driven intellectual elites (which, ironically, do not find basis in logic and reason), but it does not necessarily follow that we can do without the tools of the trade (logic and reason).

We cannot even communicate (intelligibly) without logic and reason. Furthermore, contrary to the Scriptures and the Christian Faith (we couldn’t even write without logic and reason), not only could we not communicate with God, but God could not make Himself known to His creation without logic and reason. Logic is the fabric of creation, literally. Out of the mind of God came the Laws of Logic (i.e., the laws of formal logic, mathematics, physics, and thermodynamics, etc.), with which God not only created the universe, but also sustains it. Reason is the means by which we arrive at logic. Logic is the measuring rod of our reason. Are you with me? Human beings did not decide what is logical. God is logic (John 1:1), and He makes Himself known to creation through reason that carries us to logic. Humans have discovered the Laws of Logic, but only because through reason God has made Himself known.

So, to say that “God is beyond logic” is ridiculous (for more reasons than one!). He may be beyond an individual’s comprehension of logic, though not actually beyond logic. Now, when we say, “God doesn’t have to be logical,” I hope we are only confused. Of course God has to be logical, for He cannot be anything else than what He is (He is pure logic). 1+1 will always equal 2 because God has predetermined the validity of that equation. God determined that 2=1+1. Humans discovered the truth, by reason, that 1+1= 2. Our confusion is in our communication (do you see the irony?). I think what we mean is that God doesn’t have to think like us, because He’s God. But when we attempt to think unlike Him we will never reasonably arrive at what is logical and, therefore, never rightly communicate with God. God may be “beyond our own reasoning,” but He could never be “beyond reason that leads to His own logic;” otherwise, how would we ever come to know Him or what He has done in Christ?

By the way, concerning what, exactly, I am: To the Wesleyan, I am communicating nothing more or less than what John Wesley affirmed in his (so-called) Quadrilateral – The primacy of Scripture through Reason, Tradition, and Experience. To the other Christian denominations (or non-denominational denominations), I am communicating nothing other than what the primitive church – from Pentecost through, at least, the fifth century – communicated. And to the non-Christian, as the ancients – the first through third century theologians – used to express: Press your reason until it aligns with logic, and you’ll arrive at God.

I have found, in the last decade, among humanity generally a certain measure of resistance to the use of reason and logic. Perhaps thinking is an unnecessary inconvenience in our emotionally charged “feel good,” self-absorbed generation. Maybe our confidence in our own ability to think is being called into question. I think, also, that we are too lazy to put forth the effort, and desire only that others do the thinking for us. In the church, particularly, these forms of resistance are present, as well as the assumption that the use of reason and logic is (somehow) “secular” and (somehow) contrary and destructive to the faith.

It is true that the Age of Reason (though not necessarily logic) has been the underpinning of the attacks against the church for over a century, and often for good reason (no pun intended). When the (so-called) sciences accuse the church of being unreasonable and perpetrators of naive myths and legions, the church unreasonably responds by declaring reason unfaithful and the enemy of faith. I (for one) refuse to accept that, because I am of the faith I am, and must be, somehow unreasonable. Furthermore, I declare that faith demands logic. I insist that there must be (and is) a logic to faith, by definition of “faith.”

Biblically, the word “faith,” in the Greek, is pistis: Being persuaded, convinced; belief. It is concerning confidence or trust in a thing. Faith is an intellectual assent to certain truth statements, which may or may not include experiences of such truth statements. What I would add to this definition is that there is no such thing as a (so-called) “leap of faith” or “blind faith.” By definition, faith is not an irrational “blind leap.” Strictly speaking, if one “leaps” or follows “blindly,” then that one is operating out of something other than “faith.” Such a one could easily be religious, but void of any faith, in fact. The logic of faith is found in the fact that, whatever emotional response that may accompany it, faith is an “intellectual assent” – it is necessarily reasonable, and something, first, done with the mind.

“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God” (John 1:1 – CEB). “Word,” here, in the Greek is logos: Spoken reason (it is where we get our word “logic”). Now, John was proving a different point in the text, but the context doesn’t change the fact that what John says is: “In the beginning was the spoken reason and the spoken reason was with God and the spoken reason was God.” Thus, God is the source and fount of all thought and Jesus Christ is the spoken reason of God to humanity. Our ability to reason and think logically comes from God. Therefore, faith necessitates the reason (and logic) of God found in Christ; and reason (and logic) necessitate the faith of Christ, for they originate in God.

For the Apostle Paul, the mind is precisely where faith actively transforms a person (Rom. 12:2). The mind, for Paul, is deep in the core of one’s being – a compound of the spirit, the conscience, and the seat of thought. In fact, without faith, the compound is inactive and reason becomes a tool of human depravity that works against God’s worldview in ironic ignorance (Rom. 1:28; 7:23, 25; 8:6-7, 27; 11:34).

So, when reason is used against the faith it becomes illogical – it contradicts the fount and source of reason. Likewise, when the church attempts faith without reason it abandons “the Word” of God – the mind of God. However, reason will always reveal the hypocrisy of (so-called) faith when it acts illogically, and rightly so. And the church must utilize reason in order to secure the faith, or risk being found contrary to God’s worldview. Faith transforms how one thinks. When the church (or any other agenda-organized entity) tries to advance a blind leap of adherence to a thing, preventing or perverting thought, reason and logic stand faithfully on guard. The logic of faith is that there is no faith without reason, and reason absent of faith is illogically depraved and ironically uninformed. One cannot remove reason from faith. The logic of faith is irrefutable – it is the mind of God.

Many are confused. The gospel accounts speak heavily of the Law, while Paul’s letters tell us the law doesn’t apply. Can we make sense of this (apparent) contradiction? Yes! In the form of two questions: First, “When did the New Testament begin?” and, secondly, “To whom was each (Paul, Matthew, John, Peter, etc.) speaking when he wrote?” The answers to these questions will lead us to a clear understanding of the apparent contradiction.

Though the literature of the New Testament begins with Matthew’s account of the life of Christ, it is not the New Testament paradigmatically or historically speaking. The debate over which Gospel – Mathew’s or Mark’s – is older notwithstanding, none of the gospel accounts are technically the New Testament. Jesus walked the earth in the gospel accounts fulfilling the requirements of the Jewish Messiah (Old Testament). As a rule He came for the Jews (Matthew 15:26; Mark 7:27). He was divinity in the flesh, born a Jewish man, who lived according to Jewish law, and He was the Jewish Messiah who necessarily had to hold completely the Jewish Law (or fail the qualifications thereof). Also, as a rule, Jesus spoke to the Jews, and the Gentiles were simply incidental over-hearers. The Law was the identifier for Jews, but was no such thing for Gentiles. Though the gospel accounts are, biblically speaking, “Christian” articles, they are still very much Old Testament and very much Jewish.

Likewise, it was established at the (so-called) “Jerusalem Council” (Acts 15) and subsequently in the letter to the Galatians, that Peter was the apostle to the Jews (Gal. 2:8); James was equally concerned with Jews (Gal. 2:12-14) and, in fact, James, Peter, and John were known as “The Pillars of the Jewish Church” (Gal. 2:9). Quite simply, the letter of James is written to Jewish Christians; it is the Jewish Gospel, if you please (Gal. 1:6-9). The letters of Peter and Jude, for the most part, bear no resemblance to the gospel accounts, but deal with practical issues of the recipients – mainly Jews. It can be argued that the three epistles of John are directed to Gentiles (for instance, the “Gaius” in III John is arguably the same “Gaius” the Macedonian – Acts 19:29, who hosted Paul in Corinth – Rom. 16:23, who was a recipient of one of the rare baptisms that Paul performed – 1Cor. 1:14, and who accompanied Paul to Ephesus – Acts 19:29). But all letters bearing John’s name were written three decades after the Apostle Paul’s.

For the Apostle Paul, whose letters were the very first collected as a whole, the Gospel of Grace does not begin before the Cross of Christ. The reason is that he was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and as such, the Gentiles would have known nothing about any Mosaic Law, save that it was Jewish tradition. Furthermore, Paul (at best) only alludes to the earthly life of Christ; as the apostle to the Gentiles, it would be the Resurrection Life of Christ that would concern the pagan nations. His theology demands conformity to the death of Christ (Phil. 3:10), not the earthly life of Christ. For Paul, the fact that Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses only concerned Gentiles because of His sinless life and, therefore, His ability to be the Gentile Savior.

However, as important as the Cross of Christ is to Pauline Theology, the crucifixion is not the beginning of the New Testament. It is the Acts 2 account of the Day of Pentecost where the paradigmatic and historical New Testament began. It is not until the Holy Spirit is the indwelling power-plant that the church is born, resulting in the dawning of the New Testament era.

So, with all that being established, though the gospel accounts appear first in the Scriptures, they were written after the Day of Pentecost but deal specifically with events before it. We see in the gospels the Law as the norm because they are still of the Old Testament paradigm. And we see in the letters generally, and Paul’s specifically, that Jesus Christ is the norm because the Day of Pentecost has occurred, shifting Testaments to the “New.” What makes the New Testament distinct from the Old is the Resurrection Life of Christ, rather than the attempted best efforts of humanity (and Israel, specifically). Being the New Testament church, our lives are hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3) – the Resurrection Life of Christ – and not a part of the ministry of death contained in the killing letters of the Law (2Cor. 3:7).

While baptism is the means by which one enters the membership role of his/her local church, it is in actuality entrance into the identifiable “Catholic” (i.e. Universal) Church – the Body of Christ; which is both, visible and invisible, and earthly and at the same time heavenly. So, yes, baptism is technically a joining of the church, though not simply the local but the Universal; which traces itself back to the original disciples and those who had “the faith of Abraham” before the Cross of Christ.

Baptism, first and foremost, is an act of God’s grace more than a human action. It is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual/mystical truth. God has made water the way for humanity to be re-identified with Him. As such, the mode of baptism makes no difference. Whether sprinkled or dunked (and smothered, covered, or chunked; or I’ll hold you under until I get tired), baptism is about God and our identity in His Son, not by what means we are baptized. However, the act of submersion is a better analogy of God’s grace at work. In the sign of baptism, we are first buried with Christ (enter into the water) and then we die with Christ (go under the water). Upon coming up out of the water it is Christ that is raised. We, our old fallen natures, are still buried under the watery death. It is no longer we who live, but Christ who lives in us – the Resurrection Life of Christ as our life for living.

“Why water?” you ask. “Water represents judgment,” I say. Water is the sign through which God destroys that which alienates us from His-self. It is through water baptism that creation is first identified with God in the Creation Deluge (Gen. 1:1-2). It is through water baptism that primitive humanity is re-identified with God in the Noahic Deluge. In the first, creation is baptized under Adam, being made from that which was created; signifying their identification with God. In the second, humanity is baptized under Noah, repopulated from his family; signifying their identification with God. Likewise, the Israelites were baptized through the Red Sea under Moses (1Cor. 10:2), signifying their identification with God (and not Pharaoh). And under the water baptism of Christ all humanity is identified, finally reconciling us to God, through His Baptism of Death (of which the previous water baptisms were precedents).

Thus, baptism is not so much a cleansing as it is a killing; a killing of our old nature of depravity – inherent from Adam, passing along through Noah (and Moses), and unified in the baptism of Christ and crucified on the Cross of Christ – and the Resurrection Life of our new nature in the Resurrected Christ; identified with Christ (as God’s exact image) and identifiable as the church (Christ’s express image), reconciling us to the original baptism of creation and its subsequent goodness in God (Gen. 1:4).

“How is Jesus the rescuing act of God?” is a question to which we each need a concrete answer. God’s rescuing act of humanity through the improbable possibility of Jesus Christ – God in human form; a virgin impregnated and birthing a child – is but a part of this work. The life of Christ is completely alien in purpose without the death of Christ. The cradle is pointless without the cross. Chromatius of Aquileia, a 5^th century Bishop, writes, “Though Jesus was merely a whimpering infant… [The magi] perceived one thing with the eyes of their bodies but another with the eyes of their minds. The lowliness of the body he assumed was discerned, but the glory of his divinity is now made manifest… A cradle the world cannot hold.”

Because Jesus descended from heaven and was placed (as it were) into the womb of Mary He was born, then, of a virgin (being that Joseph and Mary didn’t have sexual relations). As such, He was without the nature of depravity that plagues all humanity. Without this nature of corruption, Jesus lived life perfectly, fulfilling all of God’s requirements for humanity. In perfection Jesus was able and equipped to carry all of humanity’s depravity (though, without containing it Himself) onto His cross, thereby making Himself a sacrificial substitution (in the Old Testament sense). Completely and utterly God, yet completely and wholly human is the way (the only way) that one – namely, Jesus – could pull this off.

This sacrificial death on the cross – one life for all lives, one perfect human for all imperfect humans – is the redemption that humanity needed so badly. It is through the perfect death of the perfect Christ that all humanity is redeemed. There was a debt owed by humanity to God; a debt that humanity could not pay. As a result of the inability to pay, the penalty was alienation from God for all humanity. Thus, Jesus came – descending from heaven, born of a virgin – to free humanity from the debt and the penalty, on the cross of Christ. That day Christ took upon Himself the debt of and the penalty owed to all humanity. And He satisfied God, on behalf of humanity, to the point of death.

But, humanity being redeemed is but half of the dilemma. Now, in Christ’s death, humanity is no longer in debt nor under the penalty of the debt. But humanity is still not reconciled to God. Is it possible that redemption without reconciliation is a worse situation? If Christ is rotted, laid still in the earth, then not only are we still cruelly separated from God, but neither is Jesus who we claim; neither is He who He claimed – God incarnate.

However, on that Sunday morning all those years ago, the flip side of the same coin landed. Jesus Christ rose in Resurrection Life! Not only that but, He ascended back to heaven; thus, bringing reconciliation for humanity – reconciliation with God, one another, and self. He died for our redemption and was resurrected for our reconciliation. In the Resurrection Life of Christ God offers life for living throughout humanity. Understand this: In the death of Christ all humanity has died (whether we know it or not). In the resurrection of Christ all who believe live in the Resurrection Life of Christ (whether we know it or not). If we do not believe on the death of Christ, obviously then, we do not live in Resurrection Life, and are simply a rotting corpse crucified with Christ 2,000 years ago (whether we know it or not). Though redeemed, not reconciled; if not reconciled, then not redeemed. The sacrificial suicide is, then, yours to keep.

The thought of the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus the Christ is not simply a tradition, but a necessity for good theology. When one takes into account that, as the Spirit of God overshadowed the surface of the waters (Gen. 1:2) generating life, so the Spirit of God overshadowed Mary (Luke1:35) generating life likewise – a virgin birth is altogether probable. To understand the necessity of the virgin birth we must begin with a profound presupposition. The Jesus that was born to Mary is none other than the eternal Word of God that spoke creation into existence (John 1:1-3, 14). This incorporeal Word created Adam and Eve in the image of God, to whom it was given to be the expression of God on earth (Gen. 1:26-28).

When Adam and Eve disobeyed, they lost that expression. Though they lost the rite of expression, it was still given to humanity to be that expression in all creation. Since, therefore, the rite of expression was given to humanity it must be humanity which redeems that expression; nothing else was given the rite of expressing God. Angels could not redeem the expression in humanity, obviously, because they are of a different order and not human. God Himself, in His incorporeal essence, could not redeem humanity for the very same reason. Again, it must be a human being that redeems humanity since it was humanity that forfeited the expression. But no human being was able to do so because all humanity suffers under the nature of depravity brought about by the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

It is ironic to conclude that humanity had to rescue itself, but was unable to do so for the very reason that it had to do so. In other words, humanity could not rescue itself because of the nature of depravity, which nature was the reason that humanity had to rescue itself.

Enter, here, the continually existent Word of God. The invisible Word of God put on flesh and was born, bodily, as a human being. The virgin birth is necessary to avoid the irony of the corrupt nature. Seeing that Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, and not impregnated by human means, Jesus was born without the depraved nature. In fact, it is the only way to be born without the corruption of depravity that so plagues humanity. Thus, though He was tempted as every human being, Jesus lived a life having not caved to temptation because of the lack of the nature of depravity (which causes the rest of humanity to so cave).

So, while Jesus was/is in fact God (the preexistent Word), He came to earth in the form of a human in order to rescue humanity. By living perfectly He regained the expression of God. He, having suffered to the point of death on a cross, was raised from the dead for the redemption of humanity. He now sits at the right hand of God (in human form) for the reconciliation of creation with God. He is, technically speaking, as God’s express image, the Head of the Body; which body humanity is, as we express the image of Christ, who returned us to the image of God. This magnificent plan necessitates the virgin birth – the clothing of the Word of God with human form, though without the depraved corruption, necessarily.

The phrase “Merry Christmas” seems to be more of an issue every year. Perhaps it is the multiplicity of social outlets. It seems that, the more “they” oppose the phrase, the more Christians attempt to force adherence (to the phrase, anyway). I have not been able to pin-down who exactly “they” are, but “they” appear to have an opinion on everything! Are there folks who wish to remove anything and everything concerning Christ from the traditional date that His birth is celebrated? Certainly! Is this based on a probability? Certainly not! As long as there are Christians then Christ will be celebrated. Let us be sure about the facts, though, before we have any knee-jerk reactions over this subject.

Certainly there are folks who use “Xmas” rather than “Christmas,” relieving themselves of Christ in the holiday. However, Christians in the primitive church used the Greek letter “Chi” (“X”) as a symbol for Christ. It is the first letter of the Greek word “Xplotos,” transliterated into English as “Christ.” The symbol was used as a cryptic sign (drawn in the dirt, for example) that Christians used to help identify one another or clue one another to a meeting or gathering. Similar cryptic symbols were the sign of the fish and the sign of the cross (sometimes combined with the “X”). Now, the ancients never utilized “Xmas” simply because there was no such thing as a “Christ Mass” (a later Roman Catholic invention). I am of the opinion that “X” does in fact keep “Christ” in Christmas, logically, traditionally/historically, and linguistically speaking.

Another point to consider concerning “Xmas” is that of the electronic age in which we find ourselves. In the age of electronic mail (email), instant message (IM), private message (PM), texting (TX), Facebook (FB), and Twitter, etc. others with much more wit than I have invented acceptable acronyms, if you will, in the attempt to reduce the amount of typing in any one communication. Is Christ offended because “Xmas” is shorter and easier to type than “Christmas?” Is “Christ,” here, really being removed from “Christmas?” Are we sure that this isn’t simply another example of our golden calf being smelted?

The debate concerning the term “Happy Holidays” can refer to my first point. I still do not understand the outrage of many Christians concerning this term. After all, we are dealing with two “holidays,” Christmas and New Year’s Eve/Day. Based on my third point, is it easier to say, “Merry Christmas and Happy New Year” or “Happy Holidays?” Again, the point is not lost on me that some wish to remove Christ from the “Holiday,” but that issue cuts far deeper than terminology; at best the issue is ideological and at worst it is irrational. On the other hand, attempting to force someone to use the phrase “Merry Christmas,” rather than “Happy Holidays,” does nothing to express the “Good News.”

Another heading we must briefly mention is the actual date of the “holiday.” The ancient church did not celebrate the birth of Christ, but His death, burial and resurrection. Once again, the Romish church initiated the celebration of Christ’s birth. While history proves that the date to celebrate the event was debated, the Winter Solstice (a pagan holiday) was settled upon as the date of the celebration. Thus, tradition holds that Christ’s birth is celebrated on that specific date, and there is nothing wrong with that in and of it-self. It only becomes a problem when Christians either ignore or are ignorant of history.

Finally, my last point concerns “the reason for the season.” I understand both the history and the tradition of the “Holiday.” And for me personally, the “reason for the season” is “peace on earth for all humanity.” I’m reminded of stories from WWII (short-hand) of how American and Germans troops – sworn enemies – celebrated Christmas together across battle-lines.

No, in spite of efforts to the contrary, Christ can never be removed from “Christmas,” regardless of certain words and phrases (or the lack thereof). The “Christmas Spirit” lives out life in all creation, regardless of the day of the year or any particular phrase.

The movement of the new paradigm church can be measured by where it finds itself in certain stages. Notice, first, that the church is not to be a static establishment of the status-quo, but a fluid move of God in the people that is ever evolving, morphing into the Vision of God for the church within humanity. Secondly, I know that to be “measured” in the old paradigm church was not necessarily a good thing.  Effectiveness was always “measured” by numbers of people infected, programs inflicted, and cultures imposed upon. To be “measured” in the new paradigm is not the ends of effectiveness, but it’s a means. Measuring is necessary to perceive where, exactly, we are in God’s worldview. We need road signs so as to know if we are on the correct road, and/or in fact moving, according to God’s Vision for the church in humanity. The stages of movement can be categorized as four. Where we are in our movement (or not) is measured by the people’s characteristics and leadership style.

Stage One – People are excited and confident about God’s Vision, but competence is low because of their inexperience in this new paradigm. Leadership should be almost exclusively visionary. Leaders should give lots of direction and example in Vision casting, but hardly any explanations of how, what, when, where, and why, and rarely should they expect consensus.

Stage Two – [The critical stage] People are losing excitement and have no confidence in the Vision being cast. Competence hasn’t improved because what they experience is opposition from the status quo and the guardians of the old paradigm on all sides. Here is where new church launches (or newly revitalized churches) find themselves at a crossroads. Usually we tend to take the fork which carries us back to Stage One because we liked the excitement and confidence there. Not everyone can live strictly out of Vision. Many need something tangible that reinforces the Vision being cast (at Community UMC, where I pastor, it was the influx of “new people” that tripled their previous numbers, the physical completion of Phase One of the Vision – the remodeled fellowship hall – and the support from the NC Conference and Duke Endowment for the initiation of Phase Two – the child care center). Leadership must be consistently visionary, here. Direction toward God’s worldview (especially concerning the church), practical discussions about the vision, and being poured-out with and in the people are key. This is about God and God’s grace enacted through the church.

Stage Three – Excitement, confidence, and competence are building, not out of child-like naivety as before, but because of experience; not only positive experiences but also the negative – completing the sufferings of Christ – make the Vision a lifestyle. The uncomfortable “unlearning” of churchianity in Stage Two has given way to the learning (or learning again) the definitions of church, Christianity, and disciple. Leadership is conversational and by consensus; permission is given for the people to be the Church of Christ; measured by “being,” not “doing.”

Stage Four – Excitement, confidence, and competence are maximized by experience; not so much the practical and tangible, but the experience of a lifestyle lived in Resurrection Life – the Vision of God for the church within humanity. The church is the expression of God’s worldview; a matter of who’s we are, not what we do, but who is doing it in and through us. Leadership is working itself out of a job, as it were. Delegation of authority (which is counter-intuitive to the old paradigm) frees leaders to continue to press forward, never satisfied, in God’s Vision. Leadership understands that the Vision is never fully actuated, but is always a movement in which we flow. You can’t catch up with God, or it was never God you were chasing.

We find ourselves, in this present paradigm shift, swallowed-up in an overwhelming need (we think) to be managed. Confusion, discontent, and fear, etc. have filled the vacuum left by the passing paradigm of Christendom – its influence reaches far beyond church and religion into politics and social behaviors as a whole. In our condition we yearn for someone to take care of us. We desire to make sense of the chaos, managers to make everything like it once was. But you cannot manage chaos and we do not need managers of a time that is no longer. We need leaders. In the church, specifically, we need leaders who are living in and out of God’s Vision – God’s worldview; His mission in humanity.

A common misconception in the “managing church” is that everyone should be involved in everything that goes on in the church. Wherever there is a need, just plug a warm body in the position – post a sign-up sheet, anyone can do anything. We have certain things that the church does. All we need are managers to list job descriptions and to ensure positions are filled. The pastor is in charge of managing worship; the basic figurehead for the church. She gets paid to visit the hospital. He is expected to be easily accessible 24/7, if he wants to get paid. After all, the pastor only works on Sundays. Join the church; fit nicely into our establishment; we know what you need; don’t make waves.

The new paradigm church looks, feels, and is logically much different than the way it’s always been. Church is not something we join, it is who we are. It is incomplete without you. You do not “fit in,” but have your own place; an individual part of the Body. Leaders are not managers but visionaries. When the pastor is a vision caster, the vision cast equips people to be the called church. That which we used to manage is now a matter of gifting. What and to where is God calling you? I am not interested in filling positions but giving permission to be everything that God has called and equipped us to be in and with humanity. Everyone doesn’t have to pick up a paintbrush because there is painting to do. Painters paint; child care workers work with children; detail people handle the details; visionaries envision. Everyone has a point and purpose according to the Vision. What is your calling?

To be taken care of is not what we need! We need leadership. We need leaders who dream God’s dream. We need leadership that speaks truth, even if it rocks the boat. What we truly yearn are leaders who will pour out their lives in a life with us. If you cannot lead me I will not follow. Jesus does not enable us but equips us in His leadership. He leads us to the killing of our victim roles – our confusion, our discontent, our fears, etc. – but never manages us to death. He dreams in us God’s Vision and mission in humanity. He calls out injustice for what it is, not rocking just the boat but the world. He poured out His life to live a life with us. Leaders call us to follow Him as they lead in their following of Him. This is the church, today.

Why has life as “human beings” become life as “humans doing?” Christians claim to cast their heavy, unsustainable burdens on Jesus, when in reality we have defined Christians by what they inconsistently do (or not). If Jesus said that His burdens are easy and light, why is the church being crushed under the weight of its own bloated corpse? The irony of all this is the fact that, in order to measure what we do as humans we must have victims to do it to; we must have missions and ministry so as to commend “those who do” for/to “those who do not.” It appears, then, that we have converted human beings to humans doing for the strict benefit of the ones doing it. How could this be God’s worldview?

Isn’t it a conflict of interest to measure what we do by those to whom we do it? According to the logic of this model, it would be in our best interest not to equip humanity but, rather, to forever enable them so we can feel good about our own doing (not to mention that it gives us the control). A more disturbing bit of irony here is, not only do we not find our identity as “human beings,” but neither do those whom we do it to!

The issue at hand here, in our doing, is not that we work. God, when He made Adam and Eve, placed them in the Garden to work. It is not reasonable to say this was some kind of punishment, for this work in the Garden came before the disobedience; thus, there was no punishment. The work was for the care of the creation. Being in the “image of God” – the impression, the imprint of God – human identity is found in God and God’s care of creation according to God’s worldview.

The issue at hand is found completely in the reason that we are humans doing. As human beings our identity is found in God. After the disobedience of Adam and Eve came the alienation of humanity from God and our subsequent loss of identity. Now, we are humans doing anything and everything that we can do to find, again, our identity. Our faulty (and lost) logic tells us that by doing the best we can do we regain our lost identity. But logically, how could we (so-called Christians or not) ever “do good-enough” for God by definition?

Christ has (is) come as a human being to do all that human doing could not. So now, our identity is found in “being” Christ’s, not “doing” what Christ as done (which He did because we cannot do it at all, ever). Likewise, our identity is “being” Christ’s in His doing according to God’s worldview, in humanity, now – today (Hello?!? He’s the Potter, I’m the clay. It’s not I who lives, but Christ who lives in me.). This tears down once and for all the superficial wall of separation between the one’s doing and those having it done to them, for Christ has returned human dignity to all humanity; equipping (and not enabling) both to never mistake human doing (or not) for a human being ever again. Christ does it in human beings for the benefit of other human beings, which ultimately benefits all humanity – the impression, the imprint of God.