Since there is only one way to heaven, there is only one way to Hell? Can you explain to me how you get that?

Many of those raised in the church (and many of those who were not) are taught that, while there is only one way to heaven (John 14:6) there are many pitfalls, traps, and sins of omission as well as commission that deliver us to “Hell.” Though this appears to be an effective way to scare people into the church (and counter-logically, into heaven), it makes absolutely no sense and defies all known rational thinking (not to mention, good theology).

“Logic will never fail you” is one of my favorite terms! In spite of the fact that, historically, the church has attempted to distance itself from the Laws of Logic, strictly speaking, the use of logic is what separates us from the animals. In this realm of logic is the category concerned with the Law of Opposites.

[Incidentally, please do not allow the abuse of this logic by the Marxists (who borrowed it from the school of philosophy and made a religion of it) to confound your use of it.] This law dictates that everything has a necessary logical opposite. For simple examples: In electricity, a positive charge must have a negative charge. Atomically, there are protons and electrons, which are contradictory.

Applying this law to theology within a strict application of logic, the opposite of life would not be death. Life is a progressive state. Death is an instantaneous moment in time and, therefore, not a logical opposite. Dying is within the state of living, thus not contradictory either. The opposite of life is not-life. Whatever the definition of “not-life,” that is the logical opposite. Again, theologically speaking, eternal ruin is the logical opposite of eternal life.

Likewise, if there is one way to heaven, then, there is only one way to “not-heaven.” [The scope of this essay is not to define, exactly, what is “not-heaven” (Hell, Hades, Eternal Lake of fire, Outer Darkness, Annihilation, Soul Sleep, etc.).] If Jesus is the only way to heaven, then, not-Jesus is the only way to not-heaven. What one does with Jesus determines to which existence that one goes. If “accepting” Jesus is the requirement for entering “heaven,” then, “not-accepting” Jesus is the requirement for entering “not-heaven.” Therefore, not going to heaven has nothing to do with anything else than rejecting Jesus if the only way to go to heaven is accepting Him.

I don’t have to go to church to be a Christian, do I?

I think the question in and of itself reveals the problem at hand. Brick-and-mortar has replaced flesh-and-blood in our working definition of “church.” My question, in turn, then becomes, “When did a building replace the people as ‘the church,’ by definition?” Before we can ever deal with whether or not we need to “go to church,” we must deal with the fundamental flaw in our thinking that initiates such a question. Either we are asking if we need to venture to a building, which is a legitimate question, or we are asking to be removed from humanity somehow (which is quite irrational).

The first official “church building” – a central structure where Christians meet for worship – did not appear until the third century. Before that, any given community could have had any number of “church meetings” in any number of houses in said community. The average house would hold a handful of people and, in turn, several houses would make up the local “church.” When Paul wrote his letters to specific “churches,” it was not to centralized buildings to which he addressed them. They were circulated among the many “house churches” in the community (and, by the way, many of his letters were circulated among many communities).

Thus, it was the people, and specifically gathered, that constituted “the church.” In fact, theologically speaking, humanity itself is the church (at least by original intent). And Christians signify that mass of humanity. Where two or more are gathered, by definition that is church.

That being said: I understand your sentiment of “going to church” as the building and, typically, on Sunday. While folks could “have church in [their] front yard,” many (it is safe to say) do not. However, technically speaking, I have played football with my kids and the kids in the area in my front yard, which could have been defined as, in fact, “church.” A time and chance to be a part of their lives is the gospel message lived out in humanity. Unfortunately, our excuse of no need for “going to church” has less to do with living the gospel out in humanity and more to do with, ironically, living without (out-side-of) humanity.
And while I agree that the building has become an idol and graven image of some so-called god for many, certainly in order to have church in my front yard I need to be equipped in order to do so. Perhaps, rather than discounting the building, we should utilize it and its centrality as a center for equipping the saints. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, simply throw away churchianity!

So, to answer your question: If we are speaking of “the church” as a building then, no, we do not “need to go to church” to be Christian (“Christianity” is not about church but, rather, Christ by definition). But if we are speaking of “the church” as its proper meaning – humanity – then, yes, it is how God has designed to have His Good News expressed. With this definition in mind, it is “the church” for which Christ died. And it is His death which initiated the same.

You have explained that we are the same person after we’re saved as we were before-hand. How do you explain the “new creation” that the Bible says we become in Christ?

Since it is Paul who speaks of the “new creation” or “new self,” we must understand how Paul’s theology is categorized, so to speak. Throughout all of Paul’s letters, the core of his theology can be divided into two categories: That which pertains to the Flesh on one hand, and that which pertains to the Spirit on the other. So, when Paul speaks of certain things we must first decide into which category the subject falls. Concerning our subject – the New Creation (2Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15) or the New self (Eph. 2:4; Col. 3:10) – it is not in the flesh which this newness occurs, but the spirit of a person.

When we receive Christ, we are not a new person (in the flesh), for we are just as we were before. This is why under the category labeled “flesh,” Paul places subjects like sin, Law, and death, etc. (Rom. 7:5, 25; 8:3, 5-8, 12-13). It is the killing power of the cross which the flesh must suffer. Paul says, “I know there is nothing good in my flesh” (Rom. 7:18).

When Christ took on flesh, it was “hypostatic;” that is, His divinity and His humanity never mingled. The two natures aligned side-by-side, as it were, but they never became a “new creation” (that would defeat the purpose of the redemption for humanity).

On the other hand, when the Holy Spirit enters into us, He mingles Himself with our spirit (non-hypostatic) and what is produced is a “New Creation” (Our spirit + the Holy Spirit = a “New Creation” in us; though, still not a new nature). Our flesh is not affected by this union. Incidentally, the resurrection of the dead is for the redeeming of the flesh. What would be the point of a resurrection if the flesh were a “new creation” already? In fact, according to the standards of the “new creation,” the flesh would never die! Is that not the reason that God removed Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden; so that they would not eat of the Tree of Life and live forever?

So what we have, here, is the place between the “now” and “not yet.” We are now “New Creatures” in the spirit (Rom. 8:4, 9; 13:4; 1Cor. 3:1) – humanity with spirit-mingled divinity. However, we are “not yet” fully redeemed in that divinity because our flesh still dies. One day, and soon, we will enter full redemption at His “parousia” (His appearance and presence) when He comes for what and who are His (the Resurrection of the Dead).

I cannot end this without reminding us that, since our “Old Self,” which falls under the “flesh” category, is not affected by this “New Creation” or “Self” we must crucify it with its desires (Rom. 6:6; Gal. 2:20; 5:24; 6:14). (See “Cruciform” entry for more details on this subject.)

Why do you not speak more often on the importance of “repentance?”

Is it because I do not use the words “repent” or “repentance” (or “repenteth” or “do penance”) that you feel I do not speak enough on the subject or that the subject is not important to me? I do not make a habit of using those words for at least two reasons: First, the words have become sacred calves for the brick and mortar church. They carry with them, in my opinion, a bit of Hell-fire and brimstone. Second, the Greek word used for Jesus’ and John the Baptist’s famous proclamations is hopelessly mistranslated “Repent.” Some scholars believe it to be the worst translation in the New Testament! The problem is that we have not in English a proper equivalent to the Greek word.

The word translated into English as “repent” is the Greek word “metanoeo;” meaning, “to think differently;” it is, quite simply, but specifically, “to change the mind.” Theologically, it denotes a change of volition and, therefore, action toward God. It is a change that must begin in the mind before it can be expressed in actions. Incidentally, one can change his/her actions and call it repentance, but in actuality it is only hypocrisy when the mind has not first been changed.

Logically, one can “repent” (negatively speaking) of being a Christian, and if their mind is truly changed then his/her actions are changed as well (unless, of course, he/she is a hypocrite).

Furthermore, according to Paul, the idea of the Greek word is more than a “feeling of sorrow” (2Cor. 7:10). God produces in a person “a change of mind and heart,” which leads to salvation; and humanity produces in itself a simple “sorrow,” which leads only to death. Human “sorrow” is about being wrong, not for sinning against God. The difference is whether we feel sorry for self or sorry toward God. But the word “repentance” does not do justice to this distinction.

Now, to whom are we implying that I never speak about “repentance?” If one would listen to any of my sermons (www.solidrockumc.org) or read my writings or attend my classes, one would see that the subject (though not the word) is the rule rather than the exception concerning the church. In fact, another good translation of the Greek word “metanoeo” would speak to “reformation.” And I often talk about the need for further “reformation!”

Concerning the Un-churched, logically speaking, how does one accept and believe what Christ has done without “turning, both away from where one is heading, and toward God?” To truly be in right-standing-with-God (God is not fooled) one must have “repented.” But since we are questioning my speaking about it (rather the lack thereof), we must be “judging the fruit” of those whom I pastor and their claim of Christ; to which I will simply say, “to be a fruit inspector I have not been called.”

The only other concern in this matter would be the kind of people to which I speak; to which I will simply say, “I would rather stand before God and answer to why I let them in His church, then to have to answer to why I did not.” God will (and can, I am quite sure) handle the “repentance” of a person, since it is He who brings “the change of mind and heart.”

I feel that we have lost the point of Thanksgiving. What is your opinion of the purpose of Thanksgiving?

For many folks, Thanksgiving Day in America is couched in Nationalism where America collectively recollects all the reasons it is thankful (the holiday is celebrated in other countries for other reasons as well). While the earliest attested “Thanksgiving” celebration is disputed, it is the common tradition that Thanksgiving was first officially celebrated in America at Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1621. This celebration was borrowed from the European harvest festival. I think the reason for its lost purpose, if it has lost its purpose, lies in the fact that the celebration was originally a “thanking of God” by the colonists, rather than the modern feeling of simple “thankfulness” in general. If one is simply thankful for what one has, without directing the sentiment to the One who gives everything, then logic dictates that it won’t be long before the means becomes the end.

The reason for Thanksgiving, technically speaking, for the original celebrants (as well the reasoning of it becoming an official holiday) was to thank God for God’s sustaining hand in the lives of human beings. It was not until the “modern” thinker (enlightened and post-enlightened) was being thankful for God’s grace seen as ignorant (ironically, the absence of God in one’s life, historically, is in fact ignorant by definition). Am I thankful for what I have, whether physical or metaphysical? Certainly! But I am not irrational enough to idiotically believe that these things just fell out of the sky. Nor am I self-centered enough to ridiculously believe that I have somehow manipulated reality into my apprehension of these specific things (Incidentally, the belief that things just happen and/or assorted self-help will power are religious in and of themselves). Let me make this clear: Logically speaking, one is not simply thankful without direction for such thanksgiving. Either you’re thankful to some deity (or whatever) or you’re thankful for and to yourself. Of course, you may just be confused and have mistaken some self-centered motive as being, in fact, “thankful.”

Thanksgiving is an inward expression of God’s grace. Thankful for the grace of His saving act through Jesus Christ, of His love for you individually and collectively, of His inclusive plan and purpose (i.e. including you therein), of His sustenance and provision, etc.

Thanksgiving is an outward expression of God’s grace. As thanksgivings abound, so God is expressed. It is not about giving thanks for, or out of, personal benefit (we should be thankful for God’s grace effectual in the lives of others, too). Thankful for family, community, friends, and the joint human experience in general, etc.

However, and with whatever and whoever, you celebrate remember this: “Thank you God!”

The apostle Paul hardly ever talked about forgiveness in his letters. Why is that?

It is true, of the 159 times the Greek noun, “aphiemi” or its verb form, “aphesis” occur (as “forgive, forgiven, forgiveness, or forgiving”), Paul accounts for only seven of those uses (and even then, only three of those times is he referring to “forgiveness” of sins or iniquities) (Rom. 4:7; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). However, we cannot draw from this the conclusion that Paul cares little for forgiveness or that forgiveness plays no role in Pauline theology. For Paul, the idea of forgiveness is an argument from silence, as it were.

Just as the life of the historical Christ is a necessary presupposition in Pauline theology (he never mentions, and rarely alludes to, Jesus’ earthly ministry), so is forgiveness of sin(s). When Paul speaks of Jesus Christ, he almost exclusively speaks of Him in His resurrected state. For Paul, the life of the historical Christ is of no accord to the Gentiles since He was fulfilling the Jewish Law. Likewise, forgiveness of sin(s) came with the crucifixion, where the new life (because of that crucifixion and subsequent forgiveness) comes in the resurrection life. Certainly, in order to be resurrected, Christ died. In order to die, He must have first lived. By the same reasoning, then, the new resurrected life (that which is Paul’s concern) is a production of the forgiveness that came by His crucifixion. Thus, the sanctification (the new life) results from justification (forgiveness).

The Greek word “charizomai” and its sentiment appeal to Paul more than that mentioned above. Its root word is “charis,” which is “grace.” It is defined as, “to give freely or graciously as a favor” or “to pardon.”

Though he can speak concerning sins (Rom. 4:7; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14), Pauline theology is far more about sinners themselves, rather than their sins, as being forgiven (2Cor. 2:6-7, 10; 2Cor. 12:13; Eph. 4:32; Col. 2:13; 3:13).

We should not fail to mention a few other terms that Paul utilizes as well.

“Paresis,” or “passing over,” does Paul speak concerning God and our sins (Rom. 3:25). He also enlists the word “epikalypto,” “to cover,” when quoting from the Septuagint, to talk about our relation to the Law of Sin (Rom. 4:7). He uses “hilasterian” to refer to God’s work in Christ of “remitting” sins (Rom. 3:24-26).

So, the idea of forgiveness is very much a Pauline thought, though he expresses it differently than the other (and younger) writings of the New Testament. For Paul, forgiveness speaks volumes about God and His desire to live in proper relations with His creation. This speaks to something far more than removal of a penalty, but to God’s grace in the establishment of a personal relationship – with God, with one another, and with our own selves.

The gospel which you preach is void of judgment. What is your biblical basis for this “non-judgmental” gospel?

Why, “my gospel” is nothing but biblical. Where should I begin?! There are two Greek words used for the English word translated as “gospel” in the New Testament. The first is “euaggelion,” which is “a good message.” The second is “euaggelizo,” which is “bringing good news;” it is often translated as “preach, preached, or preaching.” Nowhere, in over 125 appearances in the New Testament, do these words even allude to judgment. In fact, it is because of judgment that there is a need of “good news.” In judgment is where humanity finds itself without God, but God gives us the “good news” of Jesus Christ!

“Euaggelion,” “a good message; the gospel”

In all four gospel accounts, one out of two times in Acts, the only time the word is used in 1 Peter, and the only time it is mentioned in the Book of Revelation, “the gospel” is concerning the “Good News” of Jesus Christ and/or His offering of salvation, and the kingdom of God (as being in the heart of believers), (Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 26:13; 24:14; Mark 1:1, 14-15; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; 16:15; Luke 2:10; Acts 15:7; 1Peter 4:17; Revelation 14:6).

Some sixty (60) times Paul uses the term (the other Acts account for the term 20:24; Romans 1:1, 9, 16; 2:16; 10:16; 11:28; 15:16, 19, 29; 16:25; 1Corinthians 4:15; 9:12, 14, 18, 23; 15:1; 2Corinthians 2:12; 4:3-4; 8:18; 9:13; 10:14; 11:4, 7; Galatians 1:6-7, 11; 2:2, 5, 7, 14; Ephesians 1:13; 3:6; 6:15, 19; Philippians 1:5, 7, 12, 17, 27; 2:22; 4:3, 15; Colossians 1:5, 23; 1Thessalonians 1:5; 2:2, 4, 8-9; 3:2; 2Thessalonians 1:8; 2:14; 1Timothy 1:11; 2Timothy 1:8, 10; 2:8; Philemon 13). Paul uses the term “the gospel” to mean: The plan of salvation, Christ as it’s Founder and the Father as its Author, the preaching of it, and an all-inclusive life of it.

“Euaggelizo,” “bringing a good message;” often “preach, preached, or preaching”

This term was used to speak about “bringing a good message,” it speaks of those who had proclaimed “the good message,” and it speaks of those who had received “the good message.” The “good message” brought, preached, and heard was exclusively “good news” about Christ, what He had done, and the results of what He had done (Matthew 11:5; Luke 1:19; 2:10; 3:18; 4:18, 43; 7:22; 8:1; 9:6; 16:16; 20:1; Acts 5:42; 8:4, 12, 25, 35, 40; 10:36; 11:20; 14:7, 21; 16:10; 17:18; 1Peter 1:12, 25; 4:6; Revelation 10:7, 27; 14:6). Even for Paul this was its sentiment (Acts 13:32; 14:15; 15:35; Romans 1:15; 10:15; 15:20; 1Corinthians 1:17; 9:16, 18; 15:1-2; 2Corinthians 10:16; 11:7; Galatians 1:8-9, 11, 16, 23; 4:13; Ephesians 2:17; 3:8; 1Thessalonians 3:6; Hebrews 4:2, 6).

Any mention of condemnation or judgment in all of these is a logical opposite to the “Good News.” The “Good News” carries with it no judgment, and for two reasons: One, it is “Good News” by definition (not “the warm fuzzies,” however) and, secondly, judgment was already in place. The reason for the “Good News” is because judgment is the alternative. Likewise, if the “Good News” carried with it judgment, then a person could choose between three options: salvation, judgment, or judgment(?). The last (and best) I understood, there is but two choices.

There are many reasons why and how the “Good News,” over the centuries, has been presented with salvation and judgment as its components, but I will not consider these at this time. However, I will say it is not because the original “Message of Good News,” from the biblical accounts, contained judgment. It was conveniently added for effect, I am afraid.

The “Good News” concerning Jesus Christ is that we do not have to be separated or otherwise far removed from God. Outside of this “Good News” is complete and total judgment.

I never hear you mention your political views from the pulpit or the “teaching chair;” do you have an opinion of the political climate?

In certain circles I am very boisterous with my political opinions and I am very politically active. However, the Vision in which we’ve been called reigns supreme over any “opinion” and/or ideology generally and politically. That being said, my opinion of the political climate is that people in the United States are divided by definitional complications. Logically speaking, we are divided over the definition of “America,” and whether or not that definition can be, in fact, re-defined. Our politics are influenced by our ideologies, and thus, so are our definitions.

“America” is an ideology of how the United States is to function. The name, “United States ‘of America’” makes the point clear. The “United States” is “of America” and not “America” “of the United States.”

The dilemma is concerning the definition of “America.” There are two main ideologies that have their own distinct definition of “America,” and we are taking-up sides (know it or not) on either side of this definitional dilemma.

Let’s explore the fundamental definition, logically:

“America” is an ideology, of which the Constitution of the United States is its first principle. That which defines “America” must be its first principle or the definition is relative and the ideology is irrelevant. By comparison, the Christian first principle is the Scriptures. The definition of “Christian,” therefore, is dictated by the Christian first principle. Without a first principle, the definition of “Christian” becomes relative and its ideology irrelevant.

This being true, then, based on the first principle, the definition can be interpreted, but such interpretations cannot alter and especially contradict the original intent. Therefore, logic dictates that the original intent of the Scriptures cannot be altered or contradicted by their interpretation. And, likewise, the original intent of the Constitution cannot be altered or 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 do not align their content with our context, but we are to align our context with the content of their context. We can certainly change the meaning of the original intent by our interpretations, but we cannot call any such conclusions “American” by definition. Again, just as “Christian freedom” doesn’t mean we can do whatever we want, so “American freedom” doesn’t mean that either; logic will not allow such lunacy.

So, the argument is either we seek the Constitution’s original intent, in context, or we re-define the constitution according to our own context. The former defines “America,” while the latter defines something else. This conclusion is not an opinion but a fact based on logic (as exemplified above).
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. One cannot re-define “America” because the “American” ideology has already been defined by its first principle. Again, if one ignores that first principle then it is not “America” which is being defined, but “The United States of ‘Un-America,’” technically.

Incidentally, to further divide this argument into Democrat and Republican is arbitrary. For both of these camps have proponents of “re-definition.” And as such, both of these camps have subjects that are illogical. Re-define 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 you believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures?

The ideology of inerrancy (without errors) and infallibility (never failing or making mistakes) of the Scriptures is one that depends on many variables. Pertaining to which translation are we asking this question? To which language shall we apply our answer? Is inerrancy and infallibility probable (or possible) when human beings are involved? Do readers bring with them presupposed interpretations of the Bible regarding this question? Is the question about the Scriptures themselves or is it really about our hermeneutics (interpretation skills) of the Scriptures? Without any qualifiers, my answer would have to be, “No, I do not believe that about the Bible.”

However, with certain qualifiers included – If we are speaking about the original autographs, if we can assume that the ideology is not loaded with bias, and if we can agree that inerrancy and infallibility preclude any doubt in our hermeneutics – then I would answer in the affirmative concerning this question; then, and only then, would I answer with a resounding “Yes” to this fundamentalist principle.

But, do we have access to the original autographs? Can we logically say that our minds are a blank slate when it comes to our interpretation of the Scriptures? Or can we honestly believe that we have interpreted the Scriptures in perfect accuracy? “No,” we do not have original autographs, for they are long gone; “no,” we are not absent of presuppositions when it comes to our interpretations (or this question would not be, in fact, a question) and; “no,” we are not perfect in our interpretations of the Scriptures (because we are human beings).

Now, I do believe that when the writers originally “penned” the Scriptures, the writings were divinely inspired. The writers did not write of their own knowledge and will, but that of God’s. Neither were the writers “possessed” – autonomous, as in a trance – when they wrote, but God utilized their minds, vocabularies, characteristics, and experiences to produce the Scriptures. Incidentally, the longevity of the Bible, as well as the accuracy of the copies from the oldest extent manuscripts, speaks volumes concerning its inspiration.

When compared to the oldest Greek manuscripts in existence, the transliterated translations are very accurate. In fact, with the exception of the Latin version (Vulgate), none of the few differences change the message originally penned. Yet, there are errors in the translations and, therefore, not inerrant, nor infallible. In fact, any and every translation is going to have errors simply because we are “translating” from one language into another, and one copy from another will certainly have minor errors. Also, differences from the original manuscripts can be blamed simply on human error – i.e., scribal mistakes, poor condition of manuscripts copied, presuppositions, etc. The differences, again, are minimal and of no threat to the message (in most translations) and of all the translations down through the centuries (again, with the exception of the Vulgate) there is not a single change in orthodoxy (as far as the Scriptures alone go).

As God inspired the original autographs, so God inspires the reading of the Scriptures today when we seek His face concerning them. Though we bring to the table our own dispositions and presuppositions when we read, God is willing and able to work in us that which we need for life and living from the Scriptures. And though I think that the ideology of inerrancy and infallibility brings with it too many variables, I do stand firmly behind the ideology of the Scriptures – in any language – as a necessity (logically speaking) for Christian faith. After all, the first principle of the Christian faith is the Bible, without exception.

Mike, what is your fascination with the Apostle Paul?

First, I share his collision with, and not simply conversion to, Christ. Second, it is a calling and not necessarily a choice. And third, the unadulterated definition of “Christianity,” and therefore “church,” are found in the mind of Paul – particularly in the Pauline letters.

Like Paul, I was not looking for Christ and, quite frankly could have been identified as an enemy of His, when He found me. Though not as dramatic as Paul’s Damascus Road accounts, Jesus Christ stood in my bedroom (about fourteen years ago), pointed at me, and told me to believe. Like Paul, I do not recollect a conscious effort to, in fact, believe (the Calvinist in me says, “see!” While the Wesleyan in me says, “It was through God’s prevenient grace that you were ‘wooed’ toward a conscious decision, somewhere.”). What I do know is that, like Paul, I simply believed and a complete reversal of life (thought-out and lived out) took place almost immediately. As Paul dropped from the scene for a period of time before his ministry began, so I spent several years in a small United Methodist Church (Carbonton – where I was baptized), formulating and processing the calling in which I found myself with Christ.

Like Paul, the calling of the collision takes the ethos of the previous religion (or lack thereof) and turns it upside-down in the cause of Christ. It is by calling, like Paul, and not by choice, that I have been sent to the “Gentiles.” Where Paul, literally, went to the “non-Jews,” I have gone to the “Un-churched” (those “without” – not with and outside of the plan and purpose of God). Neither Paul’s calling nor mine are exclusively to such group; for as Paul kept strong ties to the Jewish church in Palestine, so I covet my relationship with the “churched” generally, and the United Methodist’s particularly. Nevertheless, the calling is clear and the purpose is to carry the Good News to those who are in darkness, forgotten and “left loosed” by the church. The vision was never (and is never) to separate the Gentiles (Un-churched) into their own group, but to the contrary, it is to include and find acceptance for them in the present church; thereby tearing down the wall of separation between the two – Jew and Gentile (churched and un-churched).

And, as Paul taught those many years ago, I teach that the “mystery” of Christianity is found in the ‘Cruciform’ (“in Christ,” for Paul). That the Christian life is neither found in Law nor lawlessness (but in the grace of being “without law”); that “works of the flesh” are necessarily irrational (because the flesh, hopelessly bound to sin, has died); that if we have died with Christ, then we are raised with Christ in this life (and the life to come); that the resurrection life is a present reality (and not just a future hope); that Christ lives in us (not that we live “for Christ”); that the church is where the needs of the community meet God’s supply of the needs; where the church is ever expanding with humanity (rather than separating itself from it); where everyone, regardless of who they are, is accepted; where anyone, regardless of what they have done or haven’t done, is included; when Christ is the object of the church (and not simply the subject); and when “Christians” are owned by Christ (and not simply “on loan” to Him).

Thus, like Paul (though I, in no way, am attempting to compare myself to the great apostle; but, am simply following his example), I desire to reach the Un-churched and to “un-church” the church (in the present sense of the word, “church”). I am driven, like Paul, by the collision with Christ, the calling of Christ, and the definition of a “Christian” (and, therefore, the “church”) in Christ.