Every election cycle I desire to remind us of our definitional disagreements. “America” is ideologically divided (almost completely in half). I regularly have conversations regarding this fact; having to continuously point-out the obvious observation that we must examine, logically – the definition of “America.” We can argue at length concerning the advantages and disadvantages of our competing ideologies, but we cannot refute the logic of “America” by definition.

The notion of “America,” itself, is an ideology of how the United States is to function. The name “United States ‘of America’” makes this point obvious. What is overlooked concerns the definition of “America.” There are two main competing premises of what “America” means. But two competing premises cannot both be logically true (the First Law of Logic: the Law of Non-Contradiction). Thus, the discussion must be definitional (the Third Law of Logic: The Law of Common Ground or The Law of Identity).

As an ideology, “America” has as its first principle the Constitution of the United States (including its Amendments). That which defines “America” must be its first principle, otherwise the definition is relative, the ideology irrelevant, and the point mute. By comparison, the Christian first principle is the Scriptures. The definition of “Christianity,” therefore, is dictated by the Christian first principle. Without a first principle, the definition of “Christianity” becomes relative, its ideology irrelevant, and its point mute.

This being true, then, based on the logic of first principles, the definition can be interpreted (as with the Amendments to the Constitution), but such interpretations cannot contradict the original intent. Therefore, logic dictates that the original intent of the Scriptures cannot be contradicted by their interpretation. And, likewise, the original intent of the Constitution cannot be contradicted by its interpretation. Thus, “America” must be defined by the Constitution’s original intent. Just as we ask what the writers meant when they penned the Scriptures, so we ask what the founders meant when they penned the Constitution. We can certainly change the meaning of the original intent by our interpretations, but we cannot call any such conclusions “American” by definition, or logical according to the Laws of Logic.

So, the argument is that we either seek the Constitution’s original intent in context or we redefine the constitutions intent according to our own context. The former defines “America,” while the latter defines something else. This conclusion is not an opinion but a logical fact. If one wishes to disregard the original intent of the Constitution that one may do so, but that one is not defining “America” by doing so; that one is defining another ideology altogether. One cannot redefine “America” because the “American” ideology has already been defined by its first principle (the Constitution). If one ignores that first principle then it is not “America” which is being defined but “The United States of ‘Something-Other-Than-America,’” logically speaking. Redefine what you wish you cannot logically redefine “America,” you can only define another ideology altogether. Whether it’s logical or not is another discussion.

Do with that what you have to…

“Repent!” The word conjures different notions in people according to the varied experiences that they have had with it. Some describe the idea as that point when they “left the road to Hell and began on the road to heaven.” Others have imagined simply unadulterated judgment (usually from “those church folks”) without a bit of that grace, which “those church folk” also speak of concerning themselves. In Systematic Theology Repentance comes before Justification, which comes before (or at least parallels) Sanctification. More practically, much of theology teaches a continued return to repentance, daily. But the question remains, biblically speaking, what was the intent before 2,000 years of baggage (positively or negatively) affected the word?

The Greek word translated “repent” in many of the English translations of the Bible is the word metanoia. It simply means a change of mind. Thus, taking the word at face value, one could be going the “right way,” have a change of mind, and decide to go the “wrong way” (Incidentally, in many circles this action is termed “back-sliding,” which term I despise! Bygones…). The biblical context of the word speaks of a positive change of heart that is expressed in a positive change of lifestyle. I prefer a more general, but direct, sense of the word – “think.” According to its definition, metanoia is any point and time in our lives when we must actually “think” (as opposed to just going through life reacting to actions based on emotions and feelings, and ignorance). Biblically and theologically speaking, those times when we “think,” are times when we are tapping into the mind of God; conversing with God. Philosophically, the mind of God is the epistemological seat of human thought; the fount from which reason and logic flow.

The New Testament idea of “repenting” comes as a result of God’s in-breaking into the life of humanity. When Jesus first came on the scene – God’s in-breaking into humanity – the message was “repent and believe the Gospel.” Humanity generally, and Israel in particular, was helplessly locked away in its own form(s) of religion. Jesus broke in and said, “Think! It will lead to belief in the reality of the Good News!” Humanity (nor Israel) can reach God on its own accord, thus, “Change your mind and heart! Believe the Good News of God’s love, which is expressed in a changed way of life!”

God is daily breaking into our lives, still. Not because we are going the wrong way, but often because God wants us to learn anew. God wants us to “repent;” “think” differently about things or something. Repentance is a continuous cycle – daily cycle, even – where we are continually challenged to “think,” and “think” differently. When we are first challenged by the Good News, “repentance” is where we first learn (or at least relearn) how to “think” and “think” differently. Today, living life in the Good News of God’s love, we are still challenged to “think;” to “think” about new paradigms, new ways of expressing life in the love of God, and what it means.

Sometimes God’s in-breaking is a positive point of “repentance” and sometimes it’s a negative. But either way it is God breaking into our lives, to which we must “think” – observe what is happening, reflect on what is happening, discuss with others what is happening (all of which can and should take the form of prayer), and then act on what we’ve learned from what is happening. Repentance is not some magical exchange, but a thought process. It is not a blunt instrument of judgmental ignorance, but an invitation into the heart and mind of God. To “think” is the proper response to the in-breaking of God at any point and time in our lives. If you will “think,” then you can believe the Good News of God’s love for humanity (Mark 1:15).

Aggravation being a gift (and a curse), I spend a lot of time stirring the stagnant waters in which the church, for the most part, finds itself. It is true however that many in the church are aware and awake, and causing ripples. There is an ever-growing movement within the church that is reminiscent of John Wesley and the old Methodist revival days of 18^th century England (even for those who do not claim to be either Wesleyan or Methodist). There is also a paradigm shift occurring, the likes of which we haven’t experienced since the first couple centuries of the Christian era. It is interesting that the movement and the paradigm shift have something in common that the church (bound in Christendom) has long since abandoned. What the church has lost, but the movement and the paradigm shift demand is, not just a Christ-centered focus, but a life lived out of the Resurrected Christ lifestyle.

Church, centered in the Resurrected Christ, concerns a balance of two fundamental practicalities. Where the old paradigm attempted to teach the right information in order to get the right behavior, the new paradigm (and its movement) strikes a balance between invitation and challenge. I do not question the idea of teaching the right information (theology – the Logic of God). I simply question what the old paradigm thinks is “the right information” – I question their theology – when the end-goal is “right behavior” (religion). Invitation and challenge necessitate faith, which necessitates the Resurrected Christ for living life.

An invitation to humanity to live in proper relations, with God, with other humans, and with creation, is the mission of God in Jesus Christ to humanity. The challenge is to live a lifestyle out of the life of the Resurrected Christ, not out of the alienation of our personalized religions; to be the expression of Christ in creation, not expressing our own fallen nature to the world. The challenge is to equip multiple cultures to be the collective church, not to build a church with a singular culture. An imbalance in these two is catastrophic, producing something else altogether, something almost worse than having neither of the two.

No invitation and no challenge is an apathetic society. Status-quo is inevitable. No one is invited to share in the life of the society and no one is challenged for not inviting anyone. This church is balanced between their lack of excitement and their lack of interest.

No invitation and all challenge is a members-only club. No one invites anyone because everyone is challenged (continually) to find someone who fits the requirements. Judgmental criticism for not mirroring Club Dead members is acceptable in this church.

All invitation and no challenge is a consumer culture. Anyone and everyone are invited, but to challenge someone contradicts the economics of the culture. This church needs people to be needy so as to sustain the budget and the image. The only challenge is maintaining the product.

A balance of a lot of invitation and a lot of challenge is the Body of Christ. Everyone is invited into relationship and everyone is challenged to invite everyone into relationship by the life of the Resurrected Christ living in everyone. This church has no consumers – the people are empowered for life – and no clubs – the people are included in the life of the church. Enjoying God every day, everywhere, and at any time (even those times that are not officially designated as “church services”) is now church. This was the motivation in the Methodist movement, this was the combination that pushed the Good News of Jesus Christ off the map, and this is the life for living in the Resurrected Christ in the new paradigm.

The apostolic church (where it all started) can be described as a movement of disciple-making. It was making disciples of Christ that resulted in the primitive church that followed (the next couple hundred years). In Christendom (the next 1500+ years), the church can be described as the keeper of status-quo; disciple making of the church, building a church culture. Building churches, we do not make disciples of Christ. Church, by definition, is the effect of making disciples of Christ, not the cause. We do not build a church in the hopes of making disciples; we make disciples who become the church in person.

If you start with the church (which is historically impossible, but we are usually ignorant of history) you enable consumers who are dependent on professional providers of religion, but you do not make disciples of Christ. Built to consume, the church uncontrollably sucks the life out of everything that happens across its path; claiming as its own (as a rite) the life of the community. The people who populate its statistics are takers; they habitually come to “services” prepared to take from the religious provider and from one another. Even the professional providers, though depended on by the consumer, are consumers themselves; taking from the people to feed their incessant need to be needed.

In the new paradigm church (like the apostolic church), Christ is calling people to follow Him – to be a disciple of Christ – not build churches and count its own disciples. In this era we start with Christ – resurrected and imparting (or imputing) His own faithfulness to (into) humanity. We do not enable, but equip; not consumers, but disciples; breathing life into everything and everyone that enters our sphere of influence. We claim nothing but the Cross of Christ as our own; our lives are ever expanding relationships with Him; empowering others to give, to live a life of pouring out in service to others – prepared to give all that Christ has given us – the church, the expression of Christ on earth.

Like the circular logic in the question, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” (Incidentally, the chicken came first. Have you ever read Genesis?), we confuse which came first, Christ or the church. At first, the implication seems absurd but, as with the rhetoric of the chicken and the egg, we get lost in the information and lose touch with reality; it’s the old “not seeing the trees through the forest” adage. What Jesus did in His life’s ministry, when He walked the earth in the misty recesses of time, has nothing to do with life as church. When He was nailed to the cross He redeemed and reconciled humanity, but it is His resurrection and ascension that empowers humanity; resurrection and ascension make redemption and reconciliation possible, and not the other way around. It is the power of His resurrection life, today, that empowers humanity to “follow Him.”

The resurrected Christ (the chicken) births resurrection life in us (the egg). Our incubation is discipleship lived out in community, called “church.” Otherwise, we build a church and lay eggs hoping to get Christ, but continually get offspring of the church and not Christ. So, “if a tree falls in the woods” of course it makes a sound even “if no one is around to hear it.” It doesn’t make a sound because we hear it; we hear it because it makes a sound. And it is resounding, whether someone is around to hear it or not. Do not be fooled, Christ is making disciples for Himself. The church doesn’t make disciples of Christ; disciples of Christ are the church.

Trucking for as many years as I did, being a part of the biker community for as long as I have, growing up in the midst of the Metal scene (of which I still embrace), and coming from an “un-churched” background as I have all combine to form a certain culture of me; a particular way of thinking. For nearly a dozen years now I have been a “pastor” (whatever that means), the last eight of which being “fulltime” (as if there is any such thing as “part-time”).  This strange combination has made for some odd encounters, experiences, and relationships; not to mention much understanding, and many misunderstandings.

Many pastors find incredible comfort in the Sunday service called “church.” For them, the church culture is a safe place. Dressing up, playing the role of worship leader, fluctuation of the voice during the sermon, needing to be needed, and the ancient liturgy, etc. all combine to form a comfortable safety that they can receive nowhere else; a certain culture, a particular way of thinking.  This is rather alien to me. “Church,” quite honestly, is not that way for me. It is, to me, a place of invitation and challenge, where ever you are – Church. It is an opportunity to invite people into relationship and to challenge them to invite others into relationship – the full expression of God on earth. The church building is a platform from which the Vision is cast, no more and no less. Sunday morning is just another day of the week, another hour that I get to talk to people. I bring my un-ceremonial, un-sacramental self (usually in leather) and talk about the Cross of Christ. Church is not a place to sit and relax, to me, but a place to cast and receive Vision; non-stop, not a day off, always inviting and challenging, and not necessarily organized.

Being “at church,” I find no comfort or safety. However, I find it necessary for the matter at hand, for it is the place where the “churched” gather; a people to which I’m called to cast a Vision. With the “un-churched,” without the building, I am also called, though I feel no more comfortable or safe than with the “churched.” Although I love casting Vision, neither is the comfort and safety found in the casting of the Vision itself, regardless of to whom I am casting it. Vision casting is a calling; it is suffering – completing the sufferings of Christ.

When I meet people I previously did not know, and they find out what I do, they almost always ask me what “biker church” or what “metal church” I pastor. While it is interesting that we must always categorize people we don’t understand (where I pastor is a melting pot of a mass of humanity), the point in this is not simply culture either. Culture is a variable, but not the reason for my point of view. I may be uncomfortable in a culture that is not my own, finding no safety in a place quite odd to me; but the thing is, comfort and safety are not why I’m a pastor and they’re not what I’m looking for “at church.” I’m a pastor solely out of calling. I’m a Vision caster because I love God and His Vision casted. When asked what I would do if the UMC no longer had a place for me as a pastor I reply, not that I would start a church somewhere, but that, “I’d say, ‘thank you God’ and get in the truck!”

Comfort, for me, is found “in the wind” – riding the ultimate two-seater, my bike – or when I was truckin’, to be in the truck, in some state; just the road to guide me. [Oh, how I miss truckin’!] Safety is being “at the house” – in my own home; my castle. On the bike, in the truck, at the house, that’s comfort and safety. Where I come from, Heavy Metal is the form of worship. The musically expressed dissatisfaction of humanity with humanity causes me to discern the Vision. I do not look for comfort and safety anywhere else. That is my culture. That is how I think.

Do not confuse hyper-spirituality with new paradigm thinking. Likewise, do not think, because some folks are “traditional” in their values, that they are simply old paradigm. Though many do not operate with an ultra-spiritual mentality, it cannot be assumed that they are without the Spirit of God. And because some may evidence the gifts of the Spirit, it does not necessarily follow that they are beacons and pillars of honor, integrity, honesty, and transparency.

God may be extreme (by definition), but God is not the god of the extremes. Extreme spirituality divides everything into two distinct categories: Secular and Sacred. Because of its extreme bent, the super-spiritual mindset must construct superficial walls between what it assumes to be God’s realm and that which is the realm of “the world.” By this, the super-apostle (as Paul calls those in Corinth) does not invite, but only insists that those not like them must convert from “the world” to “Christianity.” This thinking is necessarily old paradigm and is, highly hypocritically. “’The world’ is vilifying God because of you.”

While it is true that many traditions replace and otherwise kill the work of the Spirit in the church, it is not true that this is axiomatic. Though traditions can inhibit us from doing the things that God is doing, they cannot in any way inhibit God from doing the things that God is doing. It is not rational to say that “tradition is keeping God from doing His thing with us.” Again, tradition may be a type of religion with which you have replaced God, but it has not actually replaced God, logically speaking, but only in your delusional mind. Yet, “tradition” is that on which the Church is built. Do you read and study your Bible? That is tradition. Do you meet with others at some point to discuss and/or worship God? That is tradition. The theological things we believe about God are, for the most part (and in most cases) traditional. Now, not all of the things we traditionally believe are necessarily true, but they are still traditional none-the-less. Belief in God, itself, is traditional.

I, personally, have found the most “spiritual” people to be the most aggravating. I have also found it a rule (there are exceptions, which make it a rule) that the most spiritual are the most hypocritical. New paradigm thinking demands that we, first, take off our masks and be honest with ourselves. God offers a safe place for us, individually and collectively, to do so. But ignoring this place, we over-compensate for our own inadequacies by flaunty a false-sense of spiritual supremacy. “We may speak in the tongues of angels,” as Paul says, “But without love we are just noisy.” Perhaps we hide within our traditions to discuss the fact that we are spiritually shallow.

New paradigm thinking demands that God is more interested in you being transparently honest, with honor and integrity, than He is with your counterfeit perfection (comparing yourself only to others). The new paradigm mandates that God sees no separation between sacred and secular, but is always in mission to all humanity (inclusive of all and exclusive of none), whether included or excluded from the organized church. The new paradigm states that the move of God “now” (new) is a continuation of the move of God “then” (old). The new paradigm is traditional in its biblical authority, its ancient church tradition – by which it spread exponentially – and it is spiritual in that it is a product of the mind of God, powered by the Spirit of God, and lives in the life of God through the Resurrected Christ.

The Vision reigns supreme! This simple phrase is the only concrete rule to doing church in the present paradigm shift. It has also proved to be a phrase of contention for many within the church. One problem is that the Vision is not our own, but is in fact from the mind of God and placed in the imagination of God’s Vision casters. Another issue is that we must understand that all are not Vision casters, but most are Vision carriers. Carriers of the Vision must be in constant connection with a Vision caster. Casters of the Vision often do not see the details of the Vision but are always imagining it; recognizing it when they see it lived-out. Vision carriers are usually detail oriented. They catch the Vision by living out its values. Values are the principles of the Vision which are experienced as mission.

The Vision reigns supreme. The values of the community where the Vision is cast cannot contradict the Vision. Vision casters equip Vision carriers to own the Values of the Vision. For example: The Vision insists that Christ died for all humanity. Therefore, a value of the Vision is that all are enveloped in God’s love for humanity; there cannot be a single individual (or group) that is not included in the all-enveloping love of God. Thus, the mission is to express the love of God to all humanity, and not just a few. Likewise, the notion that church is about folks being either, “right” or “wrong,” is not a value of the Vision. The Vision does not differentiate between “right” and “wrong,” but between God’s holiness and humanity’s lack thereof. Simply, there are values that are the Vision, and there are values that are not. Examples of Values:

Law and Grace Cannot Co-Exist
The necessity of the Cruciform (the Form of the Crucifixion)
“Church” is defined not by bringing people IN, but by sending people OUT
“Church” is not a building but a people
Christ centeredness rather than self-centeredness
The Kingdom of God shapes the church; church doesn’t dictate in what shape the Kingdom is

When the Vision reigns supreme it does not displace God, but it demands Him. If it is not from the mind of God it is not Vision, but only and simply an agenda – a human made plan and purpose; a human worldview that may or may not lay claim to God. But its values will speak to its origin. Furthermore, if the Vision reigns supreme then an individual (or individuals) cannot have a plan of action around which they manipulate the Vision to fit, but must plan their action firmly within the Vision. We do not get to do what we think is proper and call it Vision, for it is an agenda (by definition). The Vision reigns supreme and we must adjust to that reality.

Though Vision carriers are drawn to certain Vision casters, they follow the values of the Vision casted. Vision carriers are drawn to Vision casters 1) whom they like, 2) whom they will listen to and, 3) with whom they want to serve the Vision. The Vision caster expresses the Vision to equip the Vision carriers. Vision carriers live-out the values of mission. The Vision caster mandates no more rules than one: The Vision reigns supreme. The Vision carriers are accountable to the Vision, not rules, and the Vision caster is accountable to the Vision carriers (because the carriers express the values). That is the Vision!

In the words of Aristotle, “Excellence is not an act, but a habit.” Church (or Christianity) is not something we act out – like an actor on a stage – but something that is habitual; it is something (or someone) that we are to the core of our being; it is a way of life, lived by a life supply. John Wesley used to tell his preachers, “Preach faith till you have it; and then, because you have it, you will preach it.” While many understand this as a sort-of fake it until you make it kind of thing, I think Wesley was speaking to our practices and our values. Though we can pretend anything, for a period of time, we habitually practice what we value. Faith is habitually practiced, and once we are transformed by it, we will practice it habitually.

Because we admire Jesus (as a teacher or example of morals/ethics, or as a founder of a movement) it does not necessarily follow that we have been transformed by Him. We can feed the poor and clothe the naked as an organization all day every day, and still be faithless (many in the church, encouraged by the church, have done so for years!). But not until we are transformed by the life supply of the Resurrected Christ will we do such things for the benefit of others, and not ourselves. Our attempts to simply change society lack the transformation of individuals in that society. Through Jesus’ internal transformation of ourselves do we externally change society. The individuals of society are internally transformed by Christ in a society changed by faith.

A hand-out is, in fact, not a hand up. In the primitive church (approx. the first 300 years after Christ’s ascension) ministry was not “to” or “for” society, but it was mission “with” society. It was expected that everyone would participate, not spectate. Christ (“Excellence”) is not an act nor a string of acts (ministry) but a habit (mission, empowered by the Spirit of Christ). Jesus came – and is here – not to plant churches, but to implant the Good News in humanity.

Do we value our ideology of church more than the actual people of it? We act as though quantity is of prime value – more ministry, programs, and people. When will we live in and out of the quality of excellence – mission, people, and lives? It is an act when we attempt to bring people in, control them, adding to our numbers. Excellence is a habit of transforming faith where we send people out, equipped for mission, multiplying faithful followers of Christ – the Church.

“I feel that Christianity is more about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ than it is about going to church” is a growing sentiment among many folks today. My reply is that it depends on what we mean by “church.” While I can appreciate the argument put forth by so many of the importance of a personal relationship with Christ, He and His “church” are not an either/or proposition. There is no biblical principle to which one could point that would back the notion of Christ without His church. Perhaps it is time to regain a both/and understanding of what it means to be a “Christian” and what, exactly, is the “church.”

The “the image of God” is humanity expressing the community that God shares within Himself. As God is community (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), so humanity has been created to be also. Adam was alone and “without a partner” in the beginning, so God fashioned him a woman out of Adam’s self. Though this is often used for the marriage setting, it cannot be separated from the notion of community. We are all a part of one another; we are community.

Furthermore, how does one possibly say that they have a “personal relationship” with God, yet not want anything to do with His church? Christ has come to live out His expression in humanity as a whole, individually and collectively. This expression of Christ is the church, by definition. Further still, how does one go about loving God without loving others? God has declared that the love of others, itself, is the love of God. The love of others is in fact the action of the church.

Therefore, it has nothing to do with the church as a building, and everything to do with the church as a people. The “church” is a community, not an organization. It is a misnomer to talk about “going to church,” for we are the church, though (for better or for worse) we have organized ourselves. I have yet to hear a coherent, rational argument against “being the church,” and especially by a so-called “Christian.” One necessitates the other.

We can argue about all the horrific things done by “the church;” to which I will say, It was not the church (that Christ is building), but the religion of humanity, that committed these atrocities. Unfortunately, it is so-called “Christians” leading the way in this religion. Certainly there are offenses committed in humanity that are not committed by “the church.” Thus, it must be a fault in humanity generally, rather the church specifically concerning these.

So, to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is, in fact, to be a member of the church (universal). One cannot be a “Christian” (owned by Christ) and not be part of His “church.” To be excluded from the church is to be alienated from humanity altogether.

I had the honor this weekend of pastoring the funeral service for a premier guitar player/singer/song writer/producer (you name it) and band member of As Oceans, a rising band out of NC’s local metal scene. The honor was mine to be of service to both his immediate family and the family and friends of the metal community. Wes Bryant was so influential in so many lives, immediately and beyond his immediate surroundings. He was an imposing figure, both in his physical and metaphysical stature. Yet, “Teddy Bear” was the name his former band (Seventh Denial) had given him. He was genuinely interested in everyone he met, and in what was going on in the lives of everyone he met. He was a beloved son, brother, nephew, cousin, and friend. He was my friend.

I met Wes a few years ago, when he was still in high school. Obviously, with our shared interest in all things Metal, most of our conversations were about… Metal. However, there were a few conversations that were not (so much) about Metal. These conversations began when he got his first tattoo. Wes was what you could call “a seeker of truth.” He was very intelligent (he graduated from college with the honor of Cum Laude); a thinker, he had already concluded that their necessarily had to be a God (a First Cause; a Primary Source). It was in relating to this deity that we talked. It was in a constant thirst to know, to relate to God that Wes lived.

“Is God pissed because I got a tattoo?” My reply was that “I don’t think God cares that you got a tattoo, bro.” Before I could continue, Wes said, “But there are those who do care.” His reference was concerning the church. This exchange led to several conversations, all revolving around the contrast of religion and faith. He was concerned that this message would get me in trouble with the church one day. I told him it was “a hill I am willing to die on.” He then said, “It [the message] is what people need to hear.”

Some conclusion that our conversations drew: In Wes’s words, “Being down with God” does not necessitate any religion, as we first suspect; as we have been led to believe. Religion is a result of the human variable. The divine variable is faith. Human religion alienates that which is different than itself. It kills that which it does not understand. Faith, on the other hand, is genuine; it loves; it has integrity, honor, and honesty (with itself and others). Faith demands that God move toward humanity (Christ), contrary to religion’s move toward itself.

Wes lived into this understanding and expressed enough light to warrant the contrast. And when he died, “the message” was still what the people heard. “Throw down your religion and accept the challenge of faith.” The Metal community celebrated Wes the night before his funeral at a local metal club. His band, as well as others played. A canned food drive for the hungry in the community was successful and will be an annual memorial to Wes Bryant. Many commented that night on how they could honestly “feel Wes with them.”

As hundreds gathered around Wes’ body at the funeral, I reminded us of what we experienced at the club the night before. Though Wes strongly disliked “going to church,” here we were, meeting “as the church.” I explained the reality that this body before us was not Wes! For how could he have been with us the night before if he were supposedly dead? No, this before us was but a tent that Wes carried around for 22 years. The reality is that the Church Universal, as the true Body of Christ, is both visible and invisible, and active together at the same time. “Wes lives because Christ lives!” As one observed after the funeral, if it is true that whenever two or more are gathered Christ is present with them, then Wes is there too. It’s true, for the Body (and, therefore, its members) is always with its Head.

As Wes’ crowning achievement, ‘As Oceans’ released their first full-length record, ‘Enough Light to Warrant the Contrast’, just a couple weeks ago. It is available on iTunes and Amazon.