The Church’s Vision Problem

Last week, I was privileged to attend the Christian Reformed Church’s 2013 Multi-Ethnic Conference. The keynote speaker was Rev. Alexia Salvatierra, an ordained pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and former Executive Director of Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice. She is a leader in the faith-based economic justice movement in the United States among evangelical Christians.  I want to share some highlights from her wonderful keynote speech at the conference.

Relationship, Religion or Both?

Wedding ring, Byzantium, 7th c. AD, nielloed gold. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

(This was published as a guest editorial in Christian Courier, Jan. 28, 2013 issue, p.4.)

As a young Christian, I grew up with the ever popular mantra that Christianity is not a religion but rather a personal relationship with God. But I am now strongly opposed to this dichotomy. Why?

It’s a False Dichotomy. To say that Christianity is only a relationship and not a religion is like saying marriage is only a relationship and not an institution! It’s simply false. Yes, I understand the desire to get back to the authentic love for God rather than simply religious ritualism. But a marriage based only on a loving relationship without the rings, legalities or blessings of families and friends that mark it a social institution would be called “living in sin”! At least, we used to call it that. It was God’s idea in the Old Testament to set up the priesthood with its offerings and sacrifices, as well as the covenant laws and the ritual of circumcision as more formal (yes, religious) ways of expressing His relationship with Israel. In the New Testament, Jesus came not to abolish these OT Laws or the Prophets but to more deeply fulfill them. (Matt. 5:17) And Jesus also gave us at least two rituals – the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. And the apostle James did not throw out religion but defined what true religion is all about: “to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” (James 1:27)

Five Marks of an Ideal Church?

I have recently been thinking about what an ideal church, for me, might look like. So, I have come up with five marks of my ideal church. Of course, no one congregation will be able to embody these five marks perfectly. I have no delusions of finding or creating an actual ideal church. But I think these five marks can help guide us towards improvements and in what direction we should go. And I am curious as to how others would imagine their ideal church, so please leave comments.

Be Perfect?

English: perfectionism at its finest (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

(This post was originally published as an article in The Banner, Jan 18, 2011)

Are you a perfectionist? Is your boss one? Perhaps you have a perfectionist parent or sibling? In any case, you probably know that perfectionists can be hard to please.

The pressure to be perfect is hard to escape. We live in a culture that demands, especially at work, things and products to be just right. Some of us, like me, also have perfectionist tendencies. When I try too hard and expect too much of myself—trying to write that perfect sermon or that perfect article—it can really slow me down or even paralyze me from doing what I can.

Perfectionism is a tough critic and master.

And how many of us expect perfection of our local church and/or worship experiences? How many of us expect perfection in our spiritual walk with God? Moreover, how many of us think that God expects perfection from us?

Jesus commands us in Matthew 5:48, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” That sounds impossible to live up to. What kind of perfection does Jesus expect from us? Are we doomed to failure and frustration?

To answer such questions, let’s first consider what biblical perfection is not. Then, digging deeper, let’s look at the Old Testament view of perfection, followed by the New Testament view and the Matthew text in particular. You may be surprised by what we find.

Religion and Science, Faith and Reason

Science and Religion are portrayed to be in harmony in the Tiffany window Education (1890). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

(This blog post is adapted from my sermon at ClearView Christian Reformed Church, Oakville, Ontario on Oct. 28, 2012.)

In our society’s popular mindset, religion and science are at war with each other. Often, people see faith as connected to emotions and values, while science is connected to evidence and truth. And, furthermore, people link religion with theism and science with atheism.

So, what we have in popular mindset is a war between theism, religion, faith and emotions on one hand, and atheism, science, reason and evidence on the other hand, as the table below shows. And science is seen as leading us to truth while religion is only leading us to values, at best or delusions, at worst.

Theism	Atheism
Religion	Science
Faith	Reason
Emotions	Evidence
= Values	= Truth

I think this popular mindset is inaccurate. I want to go down these two columns in the table and talk a bit about: 1) Theism and Atheism, 2) Religion and Science, 3) Faith and Reason. In summary, I want to suggest that only theism and atheism are incompatible but religion and science are complementary to each other, and faith and reason are both necessary for us to find truth.

Victory through Sacrifice

A while ago, my wife noticed a bumper sticker on a car that read: “I’m the Christian the Devil and the liberal media warned you about!” Now this bumper sticker is obviously aimed at non-Christians. Even as a joke, as tongue-in-cheek, what kind of message does this convey to non-Christians? I get a number of underlying messages from this. One is this: FEAR ME. I am the Christian you should be afraid of. Don’t mess with me. But why should we be afraid of this Christian? Maybe I am the Christian who will stand up to you? Make you angry? Make you uncomfortable? Or maybe I am the Christian who will convert you? Judge you? Reveal your sins to you? Preach at you?

Whatever it is that we should be afraid of, one thing is in common to all of them – I think – and that is: POWER. I have the power to beat you, triumph over you, convert you, make you angry, judge you, etc. I have power to do something to you, so be afraid – I am the Christian they warn you about to stay away from. I am powerful – whatever that power is.

“I am powerful, therefore fear me.” This is not exactly a message we would automatically associate with Christ, would we?

Going to the Dogs?

English: No racism Lietuvių: Ne rasizmui (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have been alerted to an interesting article: Jesus Was Not Colorblind: Racial Slurs and the Syrophoenician Woman. It’s a reflection based on Mark 7:24-37. The author, David R. Henson, suggests that “Jesus uttered a racial slur” towards the Gentile woman – the “giving crumbs to the dogs” reference. Henson then re-imagines this story in the racial context of the American Deep South:

Perhaps we can put this story in better context, my current context, the Deep South. Imagine the Syrophoenician woman as an African-American woman who comes to Jesus, a white male, seeking to be healed. In response, Jesus dehumanizes her, calls her an animal, a female dog, a bitch, even! Maybe he goes further, criticizes her for seeking a medical handout and labels her a welfare queen. He asks her why the good things meant for whites only should be given to the sweet little n*****s.

If those slurs are too harsh, choose a different one: a House Negro, an Uncle Tom, an Oreo. Boy. Dominant, oppressive cultures have a long history of assuaging their own latent guilt with terms of endearment for those they are abusing.

Do these diminutive forms, even when they have been used affectionately by whites, soften the sting of raw racism in the words? Clearly not, and I don’t think Jesus’ diminutive case of “dog” in this text softens the bite of his own racism either.

So what are we to make of this exchange? … This, I think, is the great lesson of the Syrophoenician woman. It teaches us the dynamics of racism, of how even the best of humanity — the Incarnation himself — can get caught up in systems of oppression, in a culture of supremacy. As a good Jew, Jesus would have been reared to give thanks daily that he was born a Jew, not a Gentile, a man and not a woman. Jesus could not help but become entangled by such a sexist and racist snare.

Jesus, given his embedded culture, could not be colorblind. And neither can we.

This created a little stir among my Facebook friends, which was how I was alerted to the article in the first place. Was Jesus racist? My position is that, YES, Jesus was not colorblind (in the way that most people use the term in North America in relation to racism) – Jesus would acknowledge and affirm everyone’s ethnic and cultural backgrounds – God created them as such! BUT Jesus (and God) shows no partiality to any persons or groups or peoples (Deuteronomy 10:17; Luke 20:21).