The weekly schedule looked like this:

Wednesday Night–A devotional thought borne out of that week’s book.
Sunday Morning Class–An overview of that particular text
Sunday Sermon–How Jesus figured into that text (Hebrew Scriptures focused on “The Scarlet Thread” or how the Messiah was prophesied in each book. The NT focused on what Jesus calls us to be in each book.)
Sunday Night Class–A discussion on issues pertaining to that week’s book and clarifying other issues.

Last night we finished with the Song of Solomon. (We took the wisdom section out of the study of Hebrew Scriptures and placed it at the end of the NT study. This gave us 34 and 32 books to study, respectively, each school year).

Without fail we have worked through each and every book of the Bible and I can now say I have preached through the entire canon. (Note: I was sick the week of Obadiah and had to summarize my planned sermon the following Wed night. In addition we combined 2 and 3 John).

I had no clue how difficult this process would be. I had no clue how much study would be involved in become semi-conversant with a new book each and every week.

But now, I feel that I can somewhat hold my own in a discussion on any book of the Bible.

I can argue how interpreting Song of Solomon as having anything to do with God, the church and/or Israel is faulty exegesis.

I can even make a fairly reasoned argument for who I think might possibly have written Hebrews.

I can line out the many variations in the differing accounts of each of the four gospels.

I can explain why I find Paul to be so incredibly frustrating in so many instances.

But, to me, the best part of this study was the directions that it took me that I did not fully expect. I have a greater appreciation of the entire canon of Scripture.

–However, my study has led me into a greater desire for a handle on textual criticism. This study led me into greater wrestling with issues of inspiration, inerrancy and canonicity. And, for better or worse, my position on those issues are much more tenuous than they once were.

–I’ve long believed that you cannot understand the NT without a proper understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures. I was able to refine that into a position that you cannot understand the NT without a proper understanding of Second Temple Judaism AND the Hebrew Scriptures.

Ultimately, Biblical scholarship is not citing book, chapter and verse and constructing an argument. Nor is it simply arguing tradition, command, example or necessary inference.

It is understanding each and every book based upon genre, location, author, audience, time, date, place, situation and intent. To approach the Bible as a document written for the benefit of 21st century Westerners is to rob the Bible of its intent, purpose, meaning and mystery.

And that is what I have attempted to delineate over the last two years. Scripture is a powerful tool that illuminates and tells a rich narrative of flawed people seeking purpose, meaning and redemption. That story does not end there.

I understand Scripture better now but I have more questions.
I have greater faith after this study but more doubts.

But, ultimately, as I end this study and place all of the resources, materials, commentaries and word studies back on the shelf I come away with some strong, unshakable conclusions:

1. It’s all about Jesus
2. Jesus came to teach us about being in relationship
3. That relationship is bound up in loving God and loving God’s people
4. All else is commentary

Now, what am I going to preach on Sunday?

For many, the suspicion goes to their megalomaniacal emperor, Nero. His desire to seal his legacy is tied to his expansionist dreams for the Great City. Nero was obsessed with his popularity and the thought of being accused of such a crime was too much to bear.

Understandably, the Romans were devastated by the conflagration. Homes were consumed, lives snuffed out and livelihoods were compromised. Not only that but much of their religious life went up in flames.
Shrines, idols, temples were destroyed. There was only one group that did not suffer the loss of their religious identity–Christians. And because they were seen as being hostile to the empire and due to their close ties to the hated Jews Nero used them as a convenient scapegoat.
Persecution began as a result of Nero’s deflecting the suspicion onto this nascent sect.

In the midst of this period of Christian persecution (that saw the executions of both Peter and Paul) Peter wrote a letter of encouragement to those Gentile Christians who were living in fear of the sword. That message, 1 Peter, is a lesson in non-violent living.
Here we see the early church working out its practice of turning the other cheek, living in community and comporting themselves in such a way that even their enemies could see that they are different.

Peter’s Message: Live as Christ lived.

2:13–Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor (!) as supreme,
2:15–For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people
2:16–Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.

And the money passage (1 Peter 2:19–25):
this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

For Peter it was imperative that these early believers did not live the way of the sword but by the way of the cross. The live and example of Jesus was normative for the believer in the early church. His example was that of non-violence, turning the other cheek, loving your enemy. Even a despotic tyrant such as Nero.

1 Peter is a manifesto for non-violent living. For the first pronounced persecution of Christians in world history was met without arms or retaliation. It was met with the very person of Christ.

Way too much TV. Our girls are in the habit of saying “I want to get that” whenever a commercial comes on for some toy that catches their eye.

Far too often, said toy is from the Bratz line of dolls that are far too popular. They know, of course, that the answer will be no.

That other kids may get those dolls but we will not get them for our girls. Because the message of these dolls is a message that is far too prevalent in our society: that it is ok to be petulant, spoiled, immodest and bratty.

We are in a culture that often appeals to the lowest common denominator. And, as a result, people are commodified and marketed. Prurient interests become a market category.

And square in the crosshairs of those who would profit from such titillating merchandising are my children. A 3 year old. A 5 year old.

It’s part of the larger cultural message that says that you can be anything you want to be, do anything you want to do. And don’t let anyone stand in your way.
If you want it, it’s yours.
If you name it, you can claim it.
Be your own Higher Power. With a little positive mental attitude, elbow grease and karma you can carve out your own destiny.
The end is your happiness. So dress the way YOU want, behave the way YOU want, market yourself so you can get what YOU deserve.
And if you have to tart yourself up a little bit, so be it.

You may be thinking “Scott, it’s just a toy. Lighten up.” Well, yes and no. I understand that playing with a Bratz doll will not make my daughters more predisposed to dressing like a tramp than me watching Studio 60 makes me want to write bad television.

But look at the two leading female headline-grabbers today: Anna Nicole and Britney. Two cautionary tales that highlight the fact that any kind of prosperity theology, or Oprah “Secret” or “power of positive thinking” claptrap is antithetical to a true “best life now.”
That how you market yourself is often predictive of how you will behave.
If you market yourself as petulant and spoiled then your behavior will become such.
If your end-game of happiness is wealth and feeling good then pleasure at all costs becomes a god.

And that is not the message I want my girls to get. Because Osteen, Oprah, the Bratz manufacturers, Britney, et al are missing a very important message: that the road to true peace and prosperity is not through being self-focused. It is not about getting what you want.
It is not about money, fame, prestige or scoring the lustful gazes of others.

It is about sacrifice, humility, meekness.
It’s about following in the example of Christ.
Wanna know “The Secret?” It’s Jesus.
Wanna know how to be prosperous? Set your hopes on things above.
Wanna truly make a difference? Live a life worthy of the calling.
Wanna make people look upon you with true admiration? Get ugly and dirty yourselves with the lives of people.

Now, if they come out with servyntz dolls. I’m all over that.

But I see Christians far too often try to do just that.

Growing up I was called by a lot of different names that were not my choosing.
I had bad acne, was overweight and had bad teeth.
I was a convenient target for a lot of name-calling.
It hurt. Some days, when I am truly honest and reflective, it still does.
I longed for the day that I would grow up and the name calling would cease.

Because adults, especially Christian adults, would never stoop to name-calling, right?
Right?
Refined, educated, godly people would never resort to slurs or epithets, would they?

What I have found, instead, is an all too pervasive proclivity to brandish people with derogatory aspersions. And I know that it grieves God.

I am amazed by how Christians will condescend to name-calling with those that we disagree with:

Homosexuals are a ‘bunch of queers,’ ’sicko’s,’ ‘fruits,’ ‘homo’s’ ‘perverts’ or ‘fags.’ Despite the fact that they are children of God.

Muslims are ‘towel heads,’ ’stans’ and they are all ‘zealous fanatics hell-bent on destroying the world.’ Despite the fact that they are children of God.

Environmentalists are ‘tree huggers’ and ‘environmentalist wackos.’ Despite the fact that they are children of God.

Those who are pro-choice are ‘baby-killers.’ Despite the fact that they are children of God.

Democrats are ‘commies,’ ‘pinko scum’ and ‘America haters.’ Despite the fact that they are children of God.

African Americans are, well you get the point.

To me, the saddest part of all of this is that these are phrases that I hear coming out of the mouth of Christians.
In the defense of what we believe to be true and right we have marginalized and stereotyped the very people that our Savior died for.

In John 10 Jesus proclaims that He is the Good Shepherd. He also proclaims that His sheep know His voice (v. 3)

How sad and appalling, nay damnable, it is that so many precious souls of God never get to hear the voice of the Shepherd because all they hear from His sheep is hatred and slurs.

And understand this, it is hatred. Everytime we utter the slur or insult, hatred has seized our heart. And we do not love God

We will never win the souls of homosexuals, Muslims, etc if we stand on the periphery of their lives and hurl our insults their way. And we do not love God.

We can disagree with their lifestyle choices or political views all day long but there is NEVER any defense for invective.

Yes, we need to “speak the truth in love.” However, aspersions are neither true, nor are they love. If Jesus is the Truth, and I believe Him to be, then we must approach those He loves as we would approach Him.

Christians, when we resort to name-calling then we negate an opportunity to be Christ to others. Jesus is our example, not Ann Coulter (I pray that she will experience God’s love).
Stop worrying so much about whether or not people know that you hate the sin. Stop worrying so much about labeling the sinner.

Let’s love God’s children.

Because understand this: by hurling hurtful names you show hatred toward God.

Growing up when I was called ‘fatty’ or ‘bucky’ or ‘zit-face’ it tore me up. When I turn my ire upon someone else today through the same weapon of name-calling I grieve the Lord.

Let’s end the name calling and instead be the voice of the Good Shepherd in a lost and dying world, shall we?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I am out of the office for the most part of the day. I thought I would re-run an article I wrote several months back. Several of you mentioned it as one of your favorites. I know it is one of mine.

I Had a Blog Post Today…

…but I deleted it.

Therefore, I will not blog today.

I was going to blog about the anger I feel about the injustice, hatred and mean-spiritedness I witness all too often in the world today.

But, I removed it, because it seemed too angry and mean-spirited on my part.

So, I’ll just keep quiet and lay low. I’ll remain quiet out of the fear of offending. I’ll still my voice in order to avoid stirring the waters of public debate and frustration.

Nope, no blogging today.

I’m probably wrong anyway.

* I’m probably wrong to care less about the USA than I do the Kingdom of God.
* I’m probably wrong to believe that war is wrong and violence is never the answer.
* I’m probably wrong to view children of Iraqi’s to be as precious as my own.
* I’m probably wrong to want my children to go to public school (even though I support Private education and have benefited from it) so they can learn at an early age to be salt and light.
* I’m probably wrong to believe that laws are often misguided and the health of a nation depends upon dissent against civil rights abuses. Maybe Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr shouldn’t be heroes of mine.
* I’m probably wrong to believe that it means something that the one time Jesus talked about judgment He did so in regards to how we treat the poor and the forgotten.
* I’m probably wrong to interpret grace into Old Testament laws of dealing with sojourners and aliens.
* I’m probably wrong to worry about genocide and AIDS in other lands when there is so much here to be concerned about like Brangelina’s baby.
* I’m probably wrong to want to love more than I judge.
* I’m probably wrong to believe that hatred runs deep into the fabric of American society–against gays, illegal immigrants, the French, Democrats, Republicans, minorities, or whatever group catches our ire at this particular point in time.
* I’m probably wrong about worrying about having too much “stuff.” I should just suck it up and buy a new car since the one I’m driving doesn’t have air conditioning in this Texas heat.
* I’m probably wrong to believe that the words of Jesus should propel us to make peace, love enemies, and deny self.
* I’m probably wrong to believe that political parties cannot be champions of the Kingdom due to differing agendas.
* I’m probably wrong to feel so discontent with the state of the church’s compassion, love and humanity for the lost, disaffected, poor and foreigner.
* I’m probably wrong to feel so much regret for all the times I’ve harbored hatred, hurled ethnic slurs, branded sinful people with vitriolic names, and supported agendas that suited me at the expense of others.
* I’m probably wrong to believe that being stewards of God’s creation means care for the creation and not just domination of it.
* I’m probably wrong to believe the greatest terrorist threat is not one of flesh and blood.
* I’m probably wrong to believe that it is a travesty that so many cannot afford insurance.
* I’m probably wrong to believe that liberals can be Christians despite what some might say.

So, instead of blogging today, I’ll just keep my mouth shut. I’ll not unburden my heart.

Cause, I’m probably wrong.

Although I sure don’t feel like I am.

In fact, I feel like I’m getting closer to the heart of Jesus.

And I really pray I’m not wrong about that.

My blogging buddy Phil Wilson has already written a great post about this sign, so I won’t repeat what he has already said.

However, I want to tip my hat to several churches in Australia who are tapping into the subversive and life-transforming power of the gospel.

In a world that is so prone to fear, where the lines of demarcation between “enemies” and “friends” are so sharply drawn, we need the continual reminder of the words of Jesus to “love our enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

The prospect of praying for someone like Osama is one I reflexively flinch at. He hates me, those I love and my faith.

And yet, I am reminded of another terrorist. Another man who wanted nothing more than to see the deaths of believers in Christ.

But an encounter on the road to Damascus changed all that. And although he considered himself to be “the foremost of sinners” he knew that Christ died for him.

It’s a tough message. But, honestly, it’s a tough gospel. A stumbling block.

1. It was closer to family and where Tracy received her undergrad.
2. I love a challenge
3. The church owned property in a more upscale, faster growing area with the dream of building on that land sometime in the near future.

Two years later that dream of moving to a new location seems further away than ever. We are a rapidly aging congregation with limited resources and few young couples..
We could not finance a new build no matter how much we wanted to.
And no longer do I think we should.

Our building is an older structure, sitting along I-35 in a very economically depressed, primarily Hispanic area of north Waco. Many of our neighbors either don’t speak English or struggle with communicating competently. The houses that surround our facility are run-down, ramshackle rental homes. Our neighbors clamor for our aid in clothing, food and other assistance.

Why would we want to move? There are too many churches that have fled to the suburbs. Not enough have elected to stay among the least of these. I hope that we will choose to.

Granted, we haven’t been a very good neighbor through the years. I think our long-standing members would agree to that.

But we are seeking to rectify that:

–This past Saturday about 25 of us showed up to go and knock doors in our immediate neighborhood. Our purpose was to invite them to our annual Friend Day this coming Sunday. After our worship time we will provide them with a catered barbecue dinner. (Note: we had 2 families show up yesterday, simply because we asked.)

–Each week we give away a lot of groceries in addition to operating a Clothes Closet for people who need adequate clothing. We are currently inviting all those who seek us out over the next 2 weeks to come to a free Valentine Dinner for them and their spouses/significant-other. The people in our neighborhood would never be able to take their loved one to a romantic dinner. We want to provide them the opportunity to do just that.

–I am currently searching for someone in the area to come and teach us Spanish. What better way to show that we love and care for our neighbors than to illustrate that by being willing to learn their language rather than simply expecting them to learn ours?

I know that if these and other efforts that I hope we undertake bear fruit that I will have to change my approach to things. My preaching will need to become more simplistic. I will need to network more among urban ministers.
But that is what I am willing and excited to do if we will commit to being more missional.

Here is my question for you: what suggestions for events/ministry offerings would you suggest we try? How can we better be a light where we are? How do we share Jesus here?
For this I know: we are in this neighborhood for a reason. To love the people God has surrounded us with. How can we love them better?

Yet, in verse 2 there is a message of hope—of deliverance and redemption.

A ruler would come. It would not be to a world of opulence. It would not be to Jerusalem. It would not be amidst great fanfare and hoopla. Instead the ruler would be from Bethlehem.

David was born in Bethlehem, about 5 miles outside of Jerusalem. The chief priests, teachers, and rabbis all concurred that this passage was an explicit prophesy of the coming Messiah.

Jesus was the fulfillment of that prophesy in Micah 1 that says the Messiah would come from Bethlehem.

But why Bethlehem? What message can we learn from this birth?

What is significant about the way Jesus came to this earth?

It’s not just about the fact that He came—it’s what He brought with Him:

1. He brought justice into an unjust world—the proud people of Israel are now a subdued subject to the Roman power. As Genesis 49 tells us, the scepter of power has been removed from Judah and they are nothing more than vassals to the Great Roman Empire.

Look at the lack of Justice:

· The creator of the world born as the created.

· The author of Heaven and earth born homeless

· The Savior of all mankind outcast from His people

· The paragon of Holiness born to an unwed teenager

But Jesus would turn our ideas of justice on its head. He would teach us anew the virtue of justice in an unjust world

2. He brought kindness into a cruel world—Could Jesus have been born under more cruel circumstances? Much has been made that there was no room in the inn. But where is Joseph’s family? He was from the Royal line of David. They had to travel back to their hometown to register. Surely, there was family there. Why do they have to stay in an inn? Is there no one who will acknowledge and embrace their kin and his pregnant fiancé? Is the shame too much for them to embrace Mary? Does Joseph have not a single friend who will take them in, from his own hometown? Will no one make space for a woman in her final moments of pregnancy? No compassion, no kindness.

Instead, the Messiah is born in a feeding trough in a foul-smelling stable.

You might think that maybe Joseph didn’t have any family. That there was no one who could extend that kindness. Yet, just 12 years later when Joseph takes his family to the temple for Passover there is an entire caravan of relatives and acquaintances. Where did they come from? Was 12 years ample time to restore them to the family’s good graces? To me the story is not the lack of room at the inn, but the lack of room among Joseph’s own people.

3. He brought humility into an arrogant world—Jesus was born in a small town. Bethlehem was so small it is not even mentioned in the list of towns in Joshua or Nehemiah.

The birth of the Savior of the world in such a little-known backwater is significant. There was no splash or birth announcement. No showers or cigars.

Outside of the notice of some shepherds and angels, the birth was not recognized.

His humble birth was set against the backdrop of an arrogant census. All of the world was to be registered, illustrating the Terraram Orbis Imperium (the empire of the whole earth). The purpose of this census was to be named and enrolled as part of the Roman Empire. Taxation was secondary, a sign of their subjection to the world power, namely Augustus.

We see the idea that Augustus is cementing his legacy, stroking his pride and proclaiming to the world the far-reaching grasp of his power. It was unbridled arrogance to force these vassals to travel to their place of birth for the purpose of enrolling as subjects to the kingdom of Rome. The expense of this trip would have been a burden on such a young family but members of the royal family of David were compelled to return to their homeland.

In that arrogant atmosphere, the humble king was born. Outside of any earthly herald, the cosmic savior of the universe stepped into flesh. A stark contrast to the arrogance of the Roman Empire.

Interesting side-note #1—By the occasion of this census, the prophecy was fulfilled. Jesus would not have been born in Bethlehem, otherwise. God uses even our fallenness to achieve His aims.

Interesting side-note #2—This registration would served to corroborate the claims of Jesus as being from the line of David. Years later Justin Martyr and Tertullian would refer to these roles as corroboration of Jesus’ lineage.

The ignominy of Jesus’ birth is far too often lost on us. In fact, it was lost on the original readers of the Micah text as well.

They knew the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, yet they had such a limited perspective of what they would be.

They see in Micah 5:3 that he will be born to a woman.

But there is also the idea in the remainder of this passage that He will be king, that He will “stand and shepherd his people” (v. 4a), that He will “be their peace” (v. 5), and He will “deliver” them (v. 6)

Here is one reason why the Jews failed to recognize Jesus as the Messiah: although many OT passages talked about Messiah as a “Suffering Servant” many more talked about Messiah as being a “Victorious Ruler.”

They failed to see the incarnation as suffering servant and the resurrection as victorious ruler aspects of the one and same Messiah.

For Jesus turned everything upside down. Conventional wisdom was turned on its head. The humiliation of His birth pointed to something greater. The low station of Bethlehem compels us to go deeper to find how Jesus lived and to seek to apply how He lived to our own lives.

What we must learn from the birth (and life) of Jesus:

1. Do Justice—Jesus brought justice into an unjust world. We must be people who are committed to the balanced pursuit of justice. When I say balanced, I mean that we often approach the concept of justice from the punitive aspect.

But Justice also carries a tremendous restorative component. In our western mindset we often approach justice as offenders getting their due.

But justice is about fairness. It is about making sure that the oppressed, the disadvantaged, the forgotten have a voice, have a champion.

Justice is about doing right to others. The oppressed long for justice because it gives them relief.

The poor longs for justice because it gives them assistance.

The lost long for justice because it gives them hope.

Those who dread justice are those who have been unjust—the ones who have failed to be fair.

To live that Christ-centered life we must understand that there are social implications to justice in addition to the legal, punitive aspect.

Look at how Jesus lived His life, who He broke bread with, who He ministered to: People in desperate need of justice: an adulterous woman, a shamed woman at a well, a leper, a tax collector—Justice for them was not punitive but restorative.

Too often we look at proclaiming justice as pronouncing impending punishment—where to proclaim justice is to offer hope to the hopeless, homes to the homeless, salvation to a lost and dying world.

2. Love Kindness—We live in an inconsiderate and rude time. We want what we want, when we want it—and anyone who keeps us from that is an inconvenience and a nuisance.

Social interaction and good graces are sacrificed. We must be intentional about kindness—a hand up, a tender word, and a compassionate glance.

In his book The Divine Conspiracy, Dallas Willard rails against our reliance on slogans that, to Christians, should make no sense. One of those slogans is “Practice random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty.” Instead he says we should be people who would “Practice routinely purposeful acts of kindness and intelligent acts of beaty,” We must be intentional.

3. Walk Humbly with your God—Lord, it’s hard to be humble.

But as Jesus demonstrated the ultimate humility in His birth, so we too must practice humility in our daily walk.

The key to our humility is to place ourselves in Bethlehem, at the foot of a manger—to gaze upon the Celestial Maker of all creation as he encounters this world for the first time, not as God but as baby.

The humility of lowering Himself to minister—to be just and kind in an unjust and cruel world should drive each of us to our knees—it is what God requires of us.

Micah 6:8

That is what Jesus did—He did justice, loved kindness and walked humbly with His God.

How can we do anything different?

Praise God for Bethlehem. It shows us His justice, His kindness, and His humility.

And calls us to live the same way.

There is one thing that drives me crazier than the crass commercialization of Christmas: the “Christmas Wars” that see well-intentioned Christians seeking to make Christmas and its observances mandatory for all.

But there is nothing in the original Christmas story that anywhere indicates that Jesus wanted people to feel compelled to worship Him or to celebrate His birth. The manger is proof of that. The lowly birth was indicative of God’s approach to sharing the Good News.

People don’t want to say “Merry Christmas?” Fine. They shouldn’t have to. Instead in our kindness and humility we should be the incarnation of Christ in this world.

People should never be compelled to honor or follow any tenet in Christianity. They should not listen to us because we have power. They should listen to us because we are good.

Isn’t that how He did it?

With that said, I have a few thoughts.

1. Do we merely believe in Jesus or do we believe what Jesus believed? This question, posed by Clarence Baumer, has shaken me this past week. I’m good at professing a faith in Christ. But have I moved enough in my discipleship where I hold the same beliefs that Jesus did: that the meek will inherit the earth, that loving your enemies is the right way to treat them, that turning the other cheek is more effective than retaliation? I think if we are honest then we will find that there are truths that Jesus held dear that we don’t necessarily share. It’s a sobering thought, but Jesus didn’t operate according to logic, reason or earthly practicality. For us to adopt that belief system means more than merely imitation. It necessitates transformation.

2. “Just War” advocates and nonviolence proponents are not that far apart. Therefore we must work together to find ways to alleviate the amount of violence in this fallen world. David Augsburger, in his tremendous Anabaptist primer and Mere Discipleship companion piece, writes:

Those who teach just war ethics are not on the opposing side from those who teach nonviolence because both seek to limit the use of violence–the just war believers through a limited participation in war; the nonviolence disciples through constructive practices of peacemaking that, if followed, point toward the elimination of war. As friends we press one another to be more faithful to our goals, more consistent in our practices.

Although, I completely reject the notion of just war and militarism, that does not mean that I am unable to work with those who disagree with me toward the cessation of violence. I do not believe that the use of violence can be reconciled with the teachings of Jesus. I do not believe it is the way of Christ. However, I am in full fellowship with wonderful brothers and sisters who disagree sharply with me. Yet we are still children of God, saved by grace and grace alone. May we work together.

3. We must continually make sure that we do not conflate the missions of the Kingdom and America. The “America as Christian Nation” notion does not baptize all that we do regardless of the consequences. Clay Jenkinson, Theodore Roosevelt scholar-in-residence at Dickinson State University recently had a tremendous article in the Bismarck Tribune. Here is an excerpt:

Most Americans, then and now, do not share Jefferson’s and Paine’s distaste for the Bible or their antagonism to institutional religion. A solid majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians in some sense of the term. Some of them, like Patrick Henry, wanted an official established religion in each state. Most believed that religion was an important restraining mechanism in human affairs. Many of them, if we could lift them out of their context and into ours, would probably be distressed by the degree to which we have chosen to prohibit religious activity in the public square.

It is easy for religious conservatives to compile anthologies of pro-Christian sentiment from the founders’ writings, including – with a bit of disingenuous manipulation – from the works of Jefferson. There is room for an honest debate about what the founders intended, but any honest participant acknowledges that there is plenty of “evidence” on both sides of the argument. In other words, there is no definitive “intent of the Founding Fathers” on religious questions.

It is certain that the United States is a more religious country in 2006 than it was in 1806. For Jefferson, who declared in 1822 that “there is not a young man now living in the U.S. who will not die an Unitarian,” this would come as a surprise and something of a disappointment. Jefferson, like Paine, believed that science and reason would emancipate mankind from faith systems, and that at some future, but near, date, all people would admire, though not worship, the one universal deity.

If there were an unambiguous intent of the founders, there would be no special reason for us to follow their lead 219 years later. Their intent was to perpetuate slavery. Their intent was to count every five slaves as three for the purposes of apportionment and representation. Their intent was that senators would be elected by state legislatures. Their intent was that the Electoral College would sit in independent judgment about who was fittest to be president. Their intent was to exclude all women, almost all African-Americans, all Indians and white males without property from voting or holding public office.

We have discarded all these 18th century notions because they do not serve us well in the 21st century. Nor, in a nation with as much religious diversity as the United States, does it make any sense to force the 5.8 million Muslims, the 5.2 million Jews, the 1.5 million Buddhists, the 1 million Hindus, and the 433,267 Wiccans, pagans and Druids under one Christian tent. About this the First Amendment is very clear.

The government of the United States is overwhelmingly tolerant of the widest possible variety of religions and religious sensibilities. Nobody is legally punished for being a Mormon, a Christian Scientist, a British Israelist, a Mennonite, a Deuteronomist, a Scientologist or a member of a Native American peyote tradition. Members of each of these groups have held public office in the United States. We have no test oaths that prevent Catholics or Anabaptists from holding public office. A Catholic has been president. A Mormon (Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts) plans to run for the presidency. Joe Lieberman, who is Jewish, nearly became vice president of the United States in 2000.

In this our happy and tolerant republic, tax exemption is afforded to individuals and groups whose religious views would be unrecognizable to the Founding Fathers, and deeply abhorrent.

The “wall of separation” between church and state works. We have the freethinking Founding Fathers, among them Tom Paine, to thank for that great gift to human freedom and diversity.

Any thoughts?

They were less concerned with the practicality of nonviolence and much more concerned with their faithfulness to The Way. To live and respond as the early church did to the oppression and terrorism that they experienced was not rational.

It was faith. It’s what prompted the reformed Christian killer to write in Ephesians 2:14

For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility

Christ was peace among them. He had reshaped, re-created and transformed them into people of peace: people who lived the way of the cross and not the sword. They knew that Jesus had not saved them from physical death, but had rescued them from eternal death redeeming them from the spectre of fear.

And this message of hope and reconciliation was intended for all people. No longer were the children of God to be defined by nationality, ethnicity or belief. ALL were invited to come. The gentile was no longer the enemy, he was the co-heir of God’s eternal promise.

As Paul wrote in Colossians 1:19–20: For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

The early Christians were renowned for being peaceful. The second century letter to Diognetus had this to say about those early disciples (emphasis mine):

They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.

That’s who they were. They were marked not by the nations of this world but by a Kingdom that was not from this world. They were less concerned with “reality” and “practicality” and more concerned with faithful witness. They endured persecution and martyrdom for the sake of the cross.

Will Durant wrote:

There is no greater drama in human record than the sight of a few Christians, scorned and oppressed by a succession of emperors, bearing all trials with a fierce tenacity, multiplying quietly, building order while their enemies generated chaos, fighting the sword with the word, brutality with hope, and at last defeating the strongest state that history has known. Caesar and Christ had met in the arena, and Christ had won.

Do you see that? The message of Christ was propagated not by the sword, but by the cross. They were not trying to Christianize the world. They were offering a different world altogether. They were not seeking for a Christian nation-state. They were living the Kingdom come.

The agenda for the church today is to do just that: not to Christianize the world but to offer a different world, where there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, American or Iranian.
But if we make the Kingdom a political objective then the Kingdom is lost. It is not of this world and was never meant to be.

If we truly long to be a restoration movement then we have to take into account the life of the early church. Origen, who lived in the late second and early third centuries, wrote “for we no longer take up sword against nation, nor do we learn war any more, having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus.”

For almost 285 years the early church resisted war and violence. Ignatius called for warfare to be abolished. The only way that could be done, he stated, was to embrace the teachings of Christ. There were exceptions as some Christians “behaved like Gentiles.” But the way of the early church was that of peace.

Read this stirring passage by Lawrence Apsey:

The Roman Empire during the first three centuries of Christianity equaled modern dictatorships in ruthlessness, paganism and violence. Nevertheless, during this period, Christianity, by its witness of love and sacrifice, grew from a tiny Jewish sect to become a religion professed by the majority in the most populous areas of mankind. In the words of K.S. Latourette, a leading historian of the period, ‘Never in so short a time has any other religious faith or, for that matter, any other set of ideas, religious, political or economic, without the aid of physical force or of social or cultural prestige, achieved so commanding a position in such an important culture.’
During this period, Christians refused service in the army; and there is no direct evidence that they ever used force against the bloodthirsty persecutions to which they were subjected. While paying lip servie to the mythology of the ancients, most people in the Empire at the time of Jesus recognized no responsibility to a divine power beyond themselves, and their rulers spared no cruelty in the ten major persecutions which were launched against the Christians. Under Nero, Christians were torn by dogs or nailed to crosses and set on fire to serve at night as living torches. Under Valerian, the death penalty was enforced for meeting in church and entering cemetaries. Christian leaders were exiled for not doing homage to the pagan gods. Clerics were put to death, others deprived of property, enslaved or burned at the stake. Christians were happy, without resistance by force, to share the martyrdom of Jesus; and this had a tremendous effect in converting those who witnessed their suffering.

If we have any claims or interest in being a part of a restoration movement, then the legacy of nonviolence that the early church left behind cannot be dismissed out of hand. No matter how distasteful or untenable we might find nonviolence to be, the example is there.
Those who were just a few short years removed from the life, words, teachings and example of Jesus interpreted that life as a prescription for a nonviolent life.

It wasn’t until Christianity was co-opted that that changed.