Babylon is Fallen: Is it Destruction… or Transformation?

We often focus on punishment and destruction when we think of evil. But the Bible reveals a more profound truth: God’s primary strategy is infiltration and transformation. From Manasseh to Babylon itself, God sends His people into broken systems and lives not to escape or destroy, but to redeem. Our calling isn’t to await the fall of our modern “Babylons,” but to actively participate in their restoration through faithful, everyday work—to plant crops in the cursed ground and pray for the peace of the city, believing that enemies can be turned into friends.

When I was younger, I was an aficionado of Resurrection Band. I even saw them in concert once at the Centennial Auditorium in Saskatoon and wore a signed T-shirt of theirs for many years. One of my favourite songs of theirs was entitled Babylon, which includes the bridge:

“I saw Babylon slowly start to burn
I heard the voices crying
Refusing ever to learn, Babylon”

The final line — that sticks in my mind until today — is “Babylon. Babylon is fallen!” This imagery hearkens back to the Revelation of John, where the great harlot, Babylon, the city that is opposed to God and works at spilling the blood of the Saints, is finally punished and destroyed. In the Bible, Babylon = evil.

I was mistaken for years in thinking that the only legitimate end for things that are evil like Babylon is punishment, as the song says. And part of me probably anticipated seeing this punishment enacted in my lifetime.

It’s part of our nature to want evil to be punished; especially evil committed against us by others. We’re not entirely excited when our own evils are called out and punished are we? But we like it when the bad guys lose and the good guys win — even if that means turning bad guys into Robin Hoods so that even worse guys can be punished.

But more recently I have come to realise that there are actually two destinations for things that are evil like Babylon. On the one hand, Babylon awaits destruction. Because after all, what does one do with their enemies? One fights against their enemies and seeks to defeat them. But is that what God does with his enemies? It seems that God instead enacts a plan so that his enemies strongholds are infiltrated by his people so that it becomes transformed and turned into something that is good.

The Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Languages

Babylon’s origin story is the tower of Babel, where God confused human languages so that people would spread around the world.

A commentary I recently read said the tower was an attempt by people on the Earth to fulfill God‘s promise of “all the nations being blessed.” Rather than relying upon God for that blessing, they decided to enact that blessing themselves. Perhaps that’s at the core of Babylon‘s label of being opposed to God.

Manasseh

Manasseh was one of the kings of Judah. He was a bad guy. 2 Chronicles 33 outlines the extent of the evils he intentionally implemented to the point that he “misled Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that they did more evil things than the nations that the Lord had destroyed when the Israelites arrived in the land” (2 Chronicles‬ ‭33‬:‭9‬‭).‬‬

As a result of this, God calls the army of Assyria to come and carry Manasseh off to his kingdom, where he experienced difficulty.

Then we read this amazing story in 2 Chronicles 33:

“When he experienced this distress, he begged the Lord his God to be kind and humbled himself in front of the God of his ancestors. He prayed to the Lord, and the Lord accepted his prayer and listened to his request. The Lord brought him back to his kingdom in Jerusalem. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord is God.”‬‬

Wow!

Jeremiah 29

In the book of Jeremiah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem are confronted with a horrible reality. It seems that King Nebuchadnezzar, the Emperor of Babylon, will be successful in conquering their city and carrying them off into captivity. The book outlines Jeremiah’s prophetic words from God to help the people of Jerusalem face this horrible possibility.

Apart from the fact that being a prisoner of war is a horrible thing in and of itself, for the people of Israel this reality was especially difficult to accept because as far as they were concerned they were the people of God who had been blessed by being the owners of Jerusalem and the land of Israel around them. Their understanding was that this was a promise that God gave to them in perpetuity. And so for them to be carried away was almost an impossibility — their theology didn’t support that. In fact, Jeremiah was the sole prophet who prophesied that they would actually be carried off into captivity (verse?). All the other prophets of his time had convinced the people that they would not be carried off into captivity but that they would only be gone for a few weeks or months (verse?). One of Jeremiah’s tasks was to prepare the people for a lengthy captivity in Babylon. In fact, many of them would die in Babylon because the captivity would last for 70 years.

So, what were they supposed to be doing while they were in Babylon? They were supposed to infiltrate Babylon become a part of the fabric of Babylonian community; make their lives in Babylon the lives that God had called them to; they were to build houses, and they were to plant crops, and they were to get married and have children, and have their children get married. All of these things are things that new immigrants do when they come to a new place. Furthermore, they were also to pray for the blessing of the City.

What does Jeremiah 29 teach us about how God deals with evil places like Babylon? God sends people to infiltrate it so that Babylon too can be transformed from a place of evil to a place of goodness.

The Emperor who became a cow

Nebuchadnezzar the Great was the Emperor of Babylon but at a certain point in his life, God turned him into a cow! The point I want to emphasise here is that God chose to interact in an immersive way with the most powerful human king the world has ever seen. As the emperor of Babylon, he personified opposition to God — they called him the King of the Universe. Which is perhaps why God chose to allow his context to change from the most powerful human on th earth to a mere domesticated animal. Nebuchadnezzar’s worldview was deconstructed in a dramatic way but was then reconstructed into something better — he moved from being the so-called “King of the Universe” to submitting himself to the Universe’s True King!

Jesus

Jesus was all about freeing people from sin and the effects of sin in their lives. Jesus’ death on the cross and his subsequent resurrection from the dead ensured that we too would be saved from our sins and have eternal life. But Jesus is about more than merely saving us from death. He wants our lives on Earth to also be reflective of his life on Earth. He wants us to be his disciples. He wants us to be like him. He wants us to be holy. If he was merely interested in saving us after we died, what’s the point in talking about holiness?

One of the clues to Jesus’ purpose on earth can be found in Luke 4. In Luke 4, Jesus returns to his hometown of Nazareth and is invited to speak in the synagogue. He stands up and asks them to read from Isaiah 61. According to the account, this is what was read:

“The Spirit of the Lord is with me. He has anointed me to tell the Good News to the poor. He has sent me  to announce forgiveness to the prisoners of sin and the restoring of sight to the blind, to forgive those who have been shattered by sin, to announce the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Jesus concludes his sermon with the words “today this scripture is fulfilled in your presence.”

Surprisingly, the congregation is enraged and wants to kill him. Why do they want to kill him? What’s so significant about these words that he’s saying? When Jesus said these words and when he referred to Isaiah 61 as being fulfilled in him, he was equating himself with God. The inhabitants of Nazareth who regularly attended synagogue knew the work of God was encapsulated in this passage from Isaiah 61.

This is something that we have often neglected is the evangelical church today. We’ve focused on the sweet by and by without thinking too much about the here and now. I realise that’s a generalisation and I generally try to avoid generalisation but if I look at my own journey I can see how at one time in my life I was very fascinated and fixated upon having the right theology and not so much about living a life that’s filled with good works. In fact, good works were identified as a bad thing in my early theology — something to be avoided — because they didn’t serve any purpose. At that stage in my theological development, any good thing that I tried to do was only self righteousness and was not of any benefit in salvation. What I avoided was understanding that we are created to do good works. We’re supposed to be good people. We’re supposed to do good things. We’re supposed to imitate the life Christ lived. This has nothing to do with our salvation, but is a result of our salvation. So my generalisation is based upon my own personal experience. I realise that your experience may be different than that, and if so then that’s wonderful.

What of the Flood or Sodom and Gomorrah?

There, sometimes a perception of the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament of two different people. This perception typically identifies the God of the Old Testament as God of wrath and destruction, while the God of the New Testament is a God of love and peace and restoration. Of course we know this isn’t true. But then people point a certain events that happened in the Old Testament and say how can these be the actions of a loving God? Let’s look at a couple of things, including the story of the flood with Noah and the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

God went to extraordinary extremes to save Noah — the man who found grace in his eyes. Noah testified for 100 years. He lived his righteous life faithfully obeying God’s command to build a ship to save the people of earth from the flood he was going to send. Noah is an agent of salvation for the people of the earth. The flood is not necessarily an event that will destroy them — all they have to do is get on the ship. If they don’t then that’s on them. Isn’t it? This was Noah’s message to the world every day for 100 years.

Abram’s nephew Lot was given a choice of where he wanted to live. He chose to live in the lowlands because the land was richer. Note that this choice didn’t make Lot a bad man but it does lead us to ask the question of how successful Lot would become in the lowlands. We already know he was a successful farmer and business man — would this success follow him? We end up discovering that Lot was not as successful as he might have been because he wasn’t able to have a positive influence on the place he chose to live. We don’t know why this is but it’s clear that his presence in that city wasn’t enough to even influence 10 people to join the path of righteousness. Is that because Lot neglected his role? Is that because the people of the area were unwilling to listen to his message? We are explicitly told the answer but the fact that in the end God saves Lot and his family while fire rains down from the sky implies that those consumed had also made their own choices.

The Psalms provide us with a rationale for why there is war between God and humans in the Old Testament. Psalm 2:1 asks the question, “Why do the nations plot?” And it seems to me that the fact that there is a plot implies an explicit and intended opposition to God. This is a planned event. “We will be in rebellion against who God is.” We’ve talked about the tower of Babel. We’ve talked about Manasseh. We’ve talked about Babylon. We’ve talked about Nebuchadnezzar.

The best argument against claims that the God of the Old Testament is an evil God is that the very passage that describes how God’s people should engage society comes from this same Old Testament. And it’s interesting that in the midst of the distress that Israel is about to experience, there is a glimpse of the hope that God is bringing to the entire world. At this time it’s appropriate to bring out the verse that we most commonly associate with Jeremiah 29, namely verse 11, that says God has plans for us. What’s important for us to realize is that the good plans that God has for us are contingent upon our agreeing to those plans, aren’t they? Don’t the people Jeremiah is talking to within Jerusalem need to say, “OK God, I’m willing to accept the fact that we need to be exiled for 70 years, but that you have good plans for us”? Don’t the people of Babylon and also have to be willing to listen to the testimony of those who are in captivity so they too, can experience the good things that God has a store for them?

God’s love and call to repentance always come first, yet when that love is rejected, judgment surely follows. The fall of Babylon shows us both: an offer of transformation through grace, and, if spurned, the certainty of destruction. To keep both together — love before wrath, repentance before ruin — helps us see the fullness of God’s justice and mercy.

You and Me

Even though we’re talking about structural evil at the level of nations opposing God, we can’t ignore the fact that personal evil is also a major part of what goes on. We notice the engagement strategy that Jeremiah presents to the people of Israel is that they are supposed to live out their lives in a personal way, which includes homes for them to live in, families for their children, crops, etc. So, in order to be a good person in a society like Babylon I need to live out my life in a way as if I have a future there and there is a future for that city.

But this is not merely limited to making sure I live a good life in the midst of an evil city. Rather, it’s an understanding that through my living a good life in the city, setting down roots, and contributing to the economy of the city, I am also interested in the future of that city and praying for the city. Praying means calling upon God to help with the transformation of the city. Praying means calling upon God to make the city a place of justice, a place of goodness, a place of kindness, a place with love, with joy, with peace, with patience, with kindness, with goodness, with faithfulness, with self-control. And being a part of the fabric of the city means that we position ourselves for future leadership and guidance within that city as well.

Jeremiah 29 invites us to “Plant crops.” Even though the process of planting crops seems like a bit of a gamble. One of my friends referred to farmers as the people with the most faith in the world because they do everything they possibly can to invest in a product that is not guaranteed to emerge at the end of the process. Planting is hard but planting actually starts in the middle of the process. Before that we have to prepare the ground. I have to chop down trees and pull out stumps. We have to pick rocks. We have to break the ground. And then the broken ground needs to be broken up again. And only then can the crops be planted.

Growing crops is hard. Harvesting crops is hard. It’s a long and tedious process that takes a lifetime to perfect. And once you harvest him then you gotta try to sell it. Selling those crops at the end is hard, and some of the hardness of that process is directly because of the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. The ground is cursed and it’s by the sweat of our brows that we can get something to emerge from the ground. In our farming processes, we need to go beyond adding to the curse of the land and try to find ways that help remove that curse. And of course, beyond planting there are other aspects to it.

An example with a Brazilian connection

I recently attended a seminar in Brazil, where we talked in part about the integration of faith and agriculture. A couple of the things emerged that help inform our discussion today.

I was introduced to a paper that spoke of Palissy’s idea that even an unlearned potter can question accepted wisdom and put forth his own ideas. He derives this from Jesus’ parable of the talents implying that each of us is given a task and responsibility and we need to use that appropriately. These talents for Palissy include the land and the forests that have been neglected and are in need of what he calls a true formula in order to be restored to their original intent. 

Palissy’s very direct statements about not wanting to engage in clear-cut logging with no restoration can be directly tied to the concept of eliminating the sin that’s in the world. If the world’s natural state itself is destroyed then what of the task that’s been given to humans to overcome the sin that’s in the world? 

These aren’t just better farming techniques; they are acts of spiritual warfare against the curse, a practical way to “pray for the peace of the city” by healing the very ground it stands on.

If these are the examples that the Bible gives us about how to confront evil, that means that you and I have to be intentional as well about confronting evil. Not with the goal that evil will be punished but with the goal that evil people escape punishment because they are transformed into good people. The Bible calls this transformation repentance or changing the way we think and act.

How can I start working on this today? I need to start with my own life and find areas in my life that I need to repent of — I need to start being good. I need to then look at society I’m a part of — whether that’s my community, my church, my city, my province, or my nation — and find areas that we as a group need to repent of. And then we need to start doing better. And then I need to look at the physical world around me and begin the hard, faithful work of planting crops.

Because there is hope, even though the presence of evil in the world makes it next to impossible for us to believe. The hope that the Bible gives us is that Jesus is the key to this hope. Only Jesus can offer a better leadership than the leaders that we have continued electing time and time again — and we can testify to the effectiveness of serving Him over others, proclaiming the gospel of grace that makes it possible. Only Jesus can give us the values we’ve been trying to establish — these can only be found in His kingdom and we can be witnesses to it. Only Jesus can give the hope that I can actually love my neighbour just as much as I love myself — and our love serves as testimony to this truth. Only Jesus can supply hope, through his interaction with us daily, that God is faithful — and we can also testify to that truth.

Getting back to Babylon

The final lines of Babylon show us the way forward:

“Time to build again
Babylon, Babylon is fallen”

Is Babylon fallen because it has experienced God’s punishment or is it fallen because it has been rebuilt into God’s kingdom? Revelation 11:15 gives the answer:

“When the seventh angel blew his trumpet, there were loud voices in heaven, saying, ‘The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will rule as king forever and ever.’”

The fall of Babylon is prefaced by the rebuilding started in Jeremiah 29 where God sent his agents into the enemy camp in order for the enemy to become a friend.

God wants the same things to happen today as well. He wants enemies transformed into friends. And that transformation begins with us.

Image by Boban Simonovski on Unsplash.

Bears, Babylon, and Grace: Where God Meets Us in both the Wild and the Civilised

I’m sitting here in one of the fanciest, most high-tech, and newest recreation centres I’ve ever been in. It has a gym, physiotherapy, library, fitness rooms, pool tables, Foosball tables, hockey rink, swimming pool. Outside is a carefully manicured garden. I can look across the street and see a 7-Eleven, some condominiums, and other businesses. But just beyond that I can see the bush. A mountain rises directly in front of me — full of trees; evergreen trees by the look of it. It’s steep-sided, with no sign of any human settlement. And I know that if you go further beyond that mountain there are thousands of kilometres of other mountains just like it. Periodically roads cross it; perhaps a house or a small town; but there is no civilisation of any significance until you get to the north pole (where Santa has his workshop).

How is it possible for civilisation and wilderness be together like this? Inside this fabulously modern recreation centre there’s a sign that reminds us how to live with bears. Because you see, periodically creatures pass back-and-forth across the boundaries from civilisations to wildernesses. Bears come down from the mountain to feed on the salmon that are spawning in the river today — and upon garbage when there are no salmon! And humans brave the wilderness and climb up into the bush to see the wonderful views overlooking this valley.

This reminds me of the church.

This tension between boundaries and coexistence isn’t new—it echoes through history, even in how we’ve built our sacred spaces.

Throughout certain times in church history, churches were built like forts. That’s because there was a perception of the need of protection. From what, I don’t know. Hostile natives?? Enemies?? Natural disasters?? I wasn’t alive back then. I don’t know what the situation was, but I suspect that these threats were more imagined than real. I do know that my Métis forbears who were alive back then served as intermediaries between the Europeans who came to North America and the native peoples who lived here. Many of them served significant roles in the church. But their story — of bridging worlds without erasing them — is one we desperately need today.

But is there a way for such opposites to coexist? I think the perception back way back then was that the world was divided in two. There was the Christian world. There was also the Pagan world. A fairly clear dividing line existed between the two. One of the key marks of that division was civilisation, or rather if people conform to whatever civilisation means. Often it meant wearing clothes of a certain style and design, using technology of a certain kind, living in houses of a certain kind, thinking a certain way, having a “Christian” name, or receiving an education to remove all traces of Indigeneity.

But do we still need forts today? Apart from forts falling out of favour as a military option, perhaps they aren’t valid as a church option either. I am reminded of Theodore Wedel’s The Lifesaving Station, that tells the story of how a crude lifesaving station eventually transitioned into a clubhouse for members and forgot its original purpose — to save the lives of shipwrecked people. I wonder if as churches we need to break down the walls that make us look like forts and build bridges and windows to connect with our communities? Perhaps we need to embody the bridges rather than the walls of our past.

How does the Bible inform us on this?

The Bible speaks of all heavens proclaiming the Lord’s glory and stars communicating the wonders of God. Occasionally, my Facebook feed is filled with posts about the northern lights, and I’ve even taken my own pictures of them. What’s striking about these pictures is the frequent statements of awe and wonder, like “Look at the glory of God’s creation.” Even though from my perspective, I see a mountain covered in wilderness, from God’s perspective, I’m already in this wilderness.

This concept is called prevenient grace. It suggests that God precedes us in our global missions. That’s why it’s crucial to remember that wherever we go, God is already there engaged in his mission. We join him on this mission, not the other way around! We don’t bring God to them; our task as people entering the world is to share our experiences with the God they already know. Since he has already begun revealing himself, we can journey together. One recent example of this prevenient grace I’ve discussed is the redemptive analogies found throughout different cultures.

Bush vs Babylon (Wilderness vs. Empire).

It needs to be said that just because some places are civilized does not mean that God is automatically there. Babylon is the name often given to civilisation — based on Babel, the first place where the gathered peoples of the earth wanted to usurp God’s place. But even Babylon is not without hope. Israel’s captivity into Babylon was also an opportunity. Babylon received a group of people dedicated to its restoration. God says, “You know what? I will take you to the city — the city that is the ultimate example of evil in the world, the city of Babylon — and you will live in that city. You will build houses, plant crops, get married, have children, and your children will get married. You will pray for the blessing of the city and work toward its success, through the context of me as God — not only your God but the God of that city as well.” Thus God even appears among the civilised and his call to his people wasn’t to look back to their glorious past in the Promised Land but to look ahead to where Babylon also became a part of that land!

There are also countless examples from scripture and from history where, because of people’s sin and rebellion, God has said, “I’m here but I’ll let you guys figure things out a little bit and then I’ll come back.” This is the idea behind 2 Chronicles 7:14 — “if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves, pray, search for me, and turn from their evil ways, then I will hear ⌞their prayer⌟ from heaven, forgive their sins, and heal their land,” a passage that was not only relevant back in the day but also serves as a blueprint for those wanting to return to God today.

So what does this mean for us?

The bear foraging in a 7-Eleven parking lot, the northern lights over a prairie town, the Métis bridging two worlds — these are glimpses of a God who refuses to be confined by our categories. Civilization and wilderness aren’t opposites to reconcile but layers of a world God permeates. Our task isn’t to build walls or conquer, but to notice where grace has already gone ahead… and join in.

Babylon, like our recreation centers, isn’t inherently godless — it’s where God plants exiles to cultivate hope. Even in steel-and-concrete jungles, the wilderness of human longing for meaning persists, and grace meets us there.

Do you remember back to the time when you were first figuring God out? Did you experience prevenient Grace yourself?

Where do you see God already at work in the ‘wilderness’ of your life — the chaos, the unfamiliar, the seemingly secular? Share your story. Because if a bear can wander into a 7-Eleven and spark awe, imagine what our stories could do.

BCBC Improving your Serve – Abide to Thrive: Exploring the Church’s Identity in Christ & its Outward Function in the World

I recently had a chance to speak at the British Columbia Baptist Conference’s annual equipping session entitled Improving Your Serve. The theme this year was Abide to Thrive. In the seminar and subsequent reflection and discussion sessions, we reflected on how understanding our church identity informs community actions. We also considered how the good news, kingdom values, serving others, and truthtelling shape our identity. Then we explored where churches may need to realign their focus to be more present in today’s cultural conversations. All in all, we examined how abiding in Christ can lead to a more fruitful and impactful presence in the world.

If you missed the seminar, a video version of my talk can be found here, and a livestream here, but for those who are interested in getting the text of what I said here it is in its complete form.

Personal Story

When I was a kid, joining the church wasn’t just a formality – it was a process with theological requirements. Part of that process involved sharing my testimony. First, I had to present it to the church board. Once they approved, I had to stand before the entire congregation. Both groups had to vote before I could officially become a member. 

I remember envying those who had dramatic testimonies – stories – of being saved from lives of obvious, even salacious sin. My story wasn’t like that. It felt ordinary. I hadn’t strayed far or hit rock bottom. I didn’t have a before-and-after moment that felt remarkable. 

For a long time, I wrestled with the idea that my testimony wasn’t enough – that it didn’t measure up. But more recently, I’ve been struck by Connie Duarte’s words: ‘We are not called to be believers but disciples.’

That statement has challenged and reshaped how I see my journey of faith. It’s not merely about believing the right things or about meeting theological checklists. Nor is it about the level of initial transformation from darkness to light. Rather, it’s about abiding in Christ every day – submitting to Him, walking with Him, and letting His life flow through mine – journeying with him on a lifetime of being transformed. Being a disciple isn’t about how dramatic my testimony is; it’s about how deeply I abide. 

This shift in understanding has led me to see the gospel – and my place in it – in a whole new way. The gospel isn’t just something to believe; it’s something to live out daily. And abiding in Christ, particularly in His proclamation is at the heart of that.

The Vine Metaphor: A Living Metaphor

The title of our seminar is Improving Your Serve: Abiding to Thrive. When discussing the concept of abiding, there’s no better passage for us to examine than John 15. Here Jesus talks about us being the branches and he’s the vine. There’s lots and lots of rich imagery in this metaphor that we will spend some time looking at today. But if we want to get down to brass tacks, the basic message of this story is that whether we like it or not our lives are organically bound up in God’s and in each other’s – I like the fact that Jesus’ use of an organic example here shows that abiding is dynamic, not static. Adding to that, a vine is communal rather than singular: Fruit comes in clusters, and not in isolation; Pruning is necessary for the entire plant to both grow and produce fruit.

It’s this organic story of connection, care, growth, and production that’s a fabulous story of our identity. But we often stop here and say, “Okay, I can live my life now in satisfaction because I’m connected, and I’m identified with who I am.” Once we identify ourselves, we remain satisfied with that identity.

Identity is important. Let’s look at the church, for example – especially since that’s why we have gathered today. In the church we have a series of things that identify us for who we are.

Debie Thomas, in her Into the Mess and Other Jesus Stories: Reflections on the Life of Christ, says, “If God is the vine grower, Jesus is the vine, and we are the branches, what should we do? We have only one task: to abide. To tarry, to stay, to cling, to remain, to depend, to rely, to persevere, to commit. To hang in there for the long haul. To make ourselves at home.”  

Our seminar is entitled Improving Your Serve. And each of these three words in the title are significant for today’s conversation. That’s why, when speaking of identity, we will begin with the centre word: “Your.” So, let’s get into the nitty gritty of John 15!

ABIDING AS IDENTITY

The story starts with Jesus declaring “I AM.” This is God’s identity word – the name he uses when he introduces himself. Jesus’ ultimate identity, and we see this throughout the book of John, is his constant referral back to who he really is. He uses the technical term “I AM” to indicate that he is declaring that he is the same as the God who saved Israel from Egypt.

What’s interesting to note in John 15 is that Jesus does not simply say, “I AM.” Much like God’s declaration of who he was to Moses at the burning bush was not simply saying, “This is who I AM, period.” Jesus identifies himself as “I AM the vine.” I AM is connected to his creation – which is really how God initially identified himself in Exodus isn’t it? God made himself known to Moses at the burning bush, in response to hearing cries for help from his people!

YHWH exists for more to happen than mere existence – he exists also to save humans! We, too, are called to make this same movement from one thing to the next. And this progression starts with identity – Who are we? Who is God? – but then moves into ideas of purpose. It moves from merely being a vine and branches towards bearing fruit.

1. Worship as Identity

For example, we all engage in worship of some kind or another.  Every now and then we decide, “Hey, let’s worship without singing,” Matt Redman-style, but in all reality, singing forms the core of how we see worship. There’s all of this kind of stuff that we do that helps us identify who we are and the kind of church we are – and all of those things are music-related: Are we going to sing praise and worship songs? Are we going to sing from the hymn book? Are we going to use instruments? Are we not going to use instruments? Is there going to be a worship team in a band on the front or is it just going to be a guy in a toque playing a guitar with a candle burning? Years ago, at Missions Fest one church advertised “a massive wall of sound.”

All of that to say that sometimes rather than identifying ourselves as those who worship, we instead identify ourselves as those who worship this way.  

2. Word as Identity

We also identify ourselves through how we approach the Word of God. The Word of God – is it a significant part of our time when we gather, isn’t it?

Sermons, children’s songs such as “read your bible pray every day, and you’ll grow, grow, grow,” bible verses hanging on the church wall, arguments over bible translations, etc.

One of the churches I serve in the Philippines thought long and hard and eventually came up with the name, Metro Manila Bible Community – because for us as Bible believing Christians, the Bible is our sole source for faith and conduct. So much so that it becomes our identity.

But word is more than these things.

But then again, we often attach identity to the length of sermon – or bible translation used, or the place where the sermon is preached from, or whether or not we read through the bible in a year or not – rather than the fact there is a bible.

3. Sacrament as Identity

We have a third identifying mark. I have used the word “sacrament” here but some of you may be squirming in your seats because we generally avoid using that word. We say, “No, no, no, we’re Baptists. We don’t have sacraments; we have ordinances!”

In the long run, it doesn’t really matter what word we use. Rather what’s important is that we do have these things that are a significant part of how we identify ourselves. It’s right in there in our name: We are the BC Baptist Conference. Other groups don’t centralize baptism as much as we do, but rather they centralize the Lord supper. As members of BCBC, both of these are fairly intense processes for us.

I already told you my baptism story. There was a similar process when I wanted to participate in the Lord’s Supper. Mind you I didn’t have to convince the board. Rather, before I could take Lord’s Supper, I had to convince my dad that I understood what was happening so that I wouldn’t “partake in an unworthy manner.”

It’s different in the Philippines. Here children go through First Communion where they’re formally introduced into the rite. Why all the process? Because we have these things that we identify as being important, so much so they identify us with who we are.

4. System as Identity

A fourth identifying feature is system. I actually struggled with what word to use here. We could use governance. We could use discipline. We could use polity. But regardless, it’s the way we make sure that everything is orderly in our worship and our organization. How do we organize ourselves? We all have some kind of organizing system – whether we’re organized to attend church at a specific time, whether we’re organized into having a corporate worship and then a small discipleship or small group or Bible study, whether we have a Sunday school, whether we have a board of trustees or board of elders or board of directors, whether we have a pastoral team or not whether we agree that pastors are only male or can they also be female – all of this stuff is part of our discipline. It’s our way of addressing what’s in 1 Corinthians 12 to having an orderly experience and that’s also how we identify ourselves.

And of course we joke about this, right? Whenever you have two Baptists, you have three opinions!  Maybe we have an organizing system but maybe it’s not always that great.

ABIDING AS THRIVING

Now that we’ve looked at identity, let’s come back to abiding. Sometimes when we think about abiding, we think about abiding as identity – I’m connected to the Father, I’m connected to the vine – who is Jesus – because I’m one of the branches connected to this vine and I’m happy with that. But if we take the vine motif to its very end as Jesus does in his passage, we realize that this vine motif is more than merely identity and there’s this transition that happens as we transition from “being” to “doing.”

If we return to our title – Improving Your Serve – we’ve moved beyond Your to the Serve portion of the conversation.

When I was younger, we tried to avoid talking about doing largely because of Bible verses that say things like “We are saved by faith not by works.” We internalised this so much that when we came to other verses that seemed to value good works – such as James’ “faith without works is dead” – we struggled.

Another struggle with is avoidance of doing checklists as followers of Jesus Christ. And we have lots of checklists don’t we. When I was a kid, it was “Don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t chew, or go with them that do.” Another checklist might be

  1. go to church every Sunday – & invite your friends,
  2. read your Bible and pray every day,
  3. share the gospel with whoever comes across your path,
  4. be involved in the church through other things, such as teaching a Sunday school class or singing in the choir.

We even found biblical support for this. We looked at the story of Mary and Martha, and we interpreted Jesus words to imply that we should simply be sitting at the feet of Jesus and not be so busy doing the things that need to be done.

There’s a pushback against checklists in part because we don’t want to turn our relationship with Jesus into some kind of a cosmic game of Good Manners and Right Conduct. We’re looking for something more authentic than that. We’re looking for something more organic than that.

What we realize is that these checklists are in fact ways for us to engage in discipleship. We are confronted by two questions: How can we be disciples of Jesus Christ? Is it possible to be disciples of Jesus Christ without doing the things Jesus Christ wanted us to do?

This adds a different nuance to the checklist. Instead of checking off things on the list we evaluate each situation we came to in life. You may have heard of this phrase that has actually appeared over the past hundred years of the church at least – It was illustrated by an acronym WWJD? meaning What would Jesus do? It was a question we asked ourselves when confronted with a situation we needed to evaluate. An area perhaps that wasn’t directly spoken about in scripture but was an area where we needed a make a decision. With no to pull out of scripture to serve as our guideline, we rather tried to understand the mind of Christ and applied that our situations.

The story of the vine and the branches has some troubling features to It. It talks about a gardener. It talks of being proved. And it talks about bearing fruit. These things are troubling to us because it seems to imply there are actions associated with our abiding. There’s an expectation of care, discipline, & fruitfulness.

Which is why Jesus spoke about this as a gardener-vine-branches-fruit process. It helps us understand this as something that’s natural and organic rather than something that’s forced and required.

Debie Thomas again:

“But ‘abide’ is a tricky word. Passive on the one hand, and active on the other. To abide is to stay rooted in place. But it is also to grow and change. It’s a vulnerable-making verb: if we abide, we’ll get pruned. It’s a risky verb: if we abide, we’ll bear fruit that others will see and taste. It’s a humbling verb: if we abide, we’ll have to accept nourishment that is not of our own making. It’s a communal verb; if we abide, we will have to coexist with our fellow branches.”

Gardening is all about growing a garden that produces delicious fruits. There are so many different kinds of fruits, and they come from all sorts of plants. Right now, I can see a bunch of fruits hanging from the trees outside my window. Some of them are picked for their leaves and used in soups, while others are eaten right off the tree, like coconuts, mangoes, avocados, and papayas. And let’s not forget the beautiful gardens themselves! We love looking at them, which is why there’s a magazine called Better Homes and Gardens. It shows off all these amazing gardens and tells us what makes them so special.

The parable of the talents tells of one of the servants who hid his money in the ground because he fundamentally misunderstood his master’s desires. The purpose of investment is the same as the purpose for a garden – to bear fruit. Do you know you do if you have money? Invest it. Do you know what you do if you have a garden? You prune and cultivate it, so it bears fruit. Do you know what you do if you have a family? You want the outcome of your kids’ lives to be better than your own.

So, what about the church? Do we know what we do if we have a church? We have seen what the church is. Now let’s look at what the church is all about. This means moving beyond checklists and identity and transitioning into thriving and fruitfulness. What does thriving and fruitfulness look like as the church abides in the vine? This is an important question because without asking this, we tend to focus on checklists and end up making statements such as, “Oh you’re not a part of us because you don’t keep the right lists you haven’t done everything haven’t checked everything off enough.” It leads to us creating lists that we argue about – lists to determine whether someone is in or out or not. But what Jesus really wants us to do in the church is to bear fruit. This is because fruit bearing is a natural outpouring, the organic result of what we do. As Jesus followers we bear fruit.  

How do we get to that thriving point because mere identity is not thriving unless there’s fruit that is borne. It means while we keep our identifying features – while worship God in spirit and in truth, while we focus on the word as the sole standard of faith and conduct, while we continue to see the significance of the sacraments in our lives, and while we continue to maintain orderly worship – we also go beyond that and ask ourselves, “How does all of this help me bear fruit?”

A. From Worship towards Promulgating Kingdom Values to Those Outside the Church’s Four Walls.

The first level of this interconnectedness is with the vine himself. Verse 1 says, “I am the vine, my Father is the vinedresser,” and a few verses later, “remain in me, as I remain in you.” There’s a mutuality to our connection with God and with the other parts of the vine. None of these branches grow in isolation from either the vine or the other branches; together they bear fruit.

The values of the kingdom are so important that we should share them with others. We want to worship God and live according to these values, but we also realize that they’re not just personal; they’re values we incorporate into our lives and should share with the world. We enjoy being one with God, imitating Christ, and being Jesus-followers. But how do we connect with others? Understanding kingdom values, bearing fruit, and being part of the vine requires a shift from individual to communal understanding. True worship creates genuine community through mutual transformation in Christ’s presence. Christ’s work in us produces fruit, which isn’t just food but a seed that sprouts and bears new vines and plants, spreading around the world.

The most explicit description of these values is found in the fruit of the Spirit and includes love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. The fact that they are fruit means they are obvious in the lives of Jesus’ followers.

We can work at revealing the joys of the kingdom of God to people outside of our faith community through active participation with like-minded faith communities, active cooperation with like-minded groups, and active accountability in both the religious and secular world. All this is typified with the Christian attitude of unity in matters essential, liberty in matters non-essential, and charity in all other matters.

B. From Word towards Proclaiming Jesus Christ’s Role as Shepherd-Lord to Those Outside the Church’s Four Walls.

One could be forgiven for assuming when reading v7 – “If you remain in me and my words remain in you” – that this means that all we need to do is remain connected to Christ. He’s with us and we are with him. But the story doesn’t stop there because in the very next verse, we read “you will bear much fruit.”

There is good news – we are connected to Christ – but that good news extends beyond the salvation moment, and into our lives as followers of Jesus Christ.

The Good News of Jesus Christ is that Jesus Christ is not only our Savior. He is also the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus connects him with humanity, Christ connects him with being God’s plan for the salvation of all peoples, and Lord connects him with being the one in charge of the universe – the One ultimately responsible for ensuring we have peace and order, economic sufficiency, public justice, and national righteousness. We know he was responsible for this because of the way he introduced himself to the world laid out his terms of engagement with humanity. And what are these terms of engagement? We see them in Luke 4:18-19:

“The Spirit of the Lord is with me. He has anointed me to tell the Good News to the poor. He has sent meto announce forgiveness to the prisoners of sin and the restoring of sight to the blind, to forgive those who have been shattered by sin, to announce the year of the Lord’s favor.”

To see the gospel being limited to merely the salvation moment is to do it a disservice. While the salvation moment holds significance, it is not confined to that single event. Traditionally, the gospel has been understood as a one-way transaction, flowing from those who possess knowledge to those who lack it. However, the gospel transcends this notion and becomes a shared journey among all who seek the fulfillment of this message. Our journey through salvation extends beyond that, encompassing discipleship and a deeper commitment to following Jesus. We are not merely labeled as “Jesus people,” but as “Jesus followers,” embodying the essence of our faith.

If Jesus terms of engagement includes these things – if his presentation of what the good news is is described in this way – then we too must engage in more than merely the salvation moment but rather join into the salvation journey with our neighbors.

We see that in the book of Acts. In the city of Antioch the followers of Jesus were first called Christians. Now I don’t want to talk about Greek, but I’m going to talk about Greek. The word Christian is a grammatical construction in Greek; it’s a diminutive form of the word Christ. That means when people saw those who proclaimed Jesus walking around them, they identified them as being “little Christs.” There was something about these people that move beyond merely Jesus people, but people who followed Jesus and imitated him so much so that they became little Christs themselves.

I am reminded of Oscar Romero’s 1978 sermon where he says,

A community is a family that believes; it is a group where each member accepts God and feels strengthened by the others. In their moments of weakness, they help one another and love one another; they shed the light of their faith as an example for others. When that happens, the preachers no longer need to preach because there are Christians whose very lives have become a form of preaching.

Even though we have this authentic identity as Bible followers, this authentic identity leads us to proclaim the truths that we find in the bible. This is because, to abide is to remain connected for the purpose of bearing fruit. The thriving is bearing fruit through being connected to the vine.

Practically, this could look like declaring the Good News of Jesus Christ to all people. We declare Jesus as Lord and Saviour of our community and we recognise His central role in transforming the world through intentional evangelism, communicated effectively in a culturally relevant way by people who have themselves experienced the transforming power of God.

C. From Sacrament towards Serving God and Serving Those Outside the Church’s Four Walls.

If the sacrament is a way to be reminded of grace in our lives, how can we be grace to our community through this natural outflowing from sacrament to serving God, neighbor, and others?

In verses 4 and 5, the importance of connection is highlighted, saying that “no branch can bear fruit by itself” and “bears much fruit.” This shows how our relationship with the vine and the natural flow of that union into producing fruit are connected.

This connection starts fruit bearing, but it also means we can’t stop bearing fruit when we’re with the vine. This is because being with the vine naturally leads to the showing of fruit.

If we follow the vine and bear fruit, it changes us. Other people who follow the same path and bear fruit also have rituals that set them apart. Our rituals help us reflect, mourn, confess, and be restored. This reality, shown in our organization and how we’re run, can sometimes make us feel like we’re not in the world. But we need to move beyond these rituals and live a real life where we actively serve, love God, and love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

Sometimes, this emphasis on the daily details can be reduced to a checklist, focusing only on feeding, distributing, and doing enough. But the real meaning is being a real presence in our world.

Our connection to Christ is the foundation of this journey. By copying His example, we don’t necessarily mean sacrificing ourselves like Jesus did on the cross. Instead, we try to keep His life and teachings. Jesus was really interested in the everyday things of life, which is why He used parables, healed the sick, fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and comforted the grieving.

Practically, this could look like showing the love of God to people both inside and outside of our faith community though acts of mercy, relief rehab and development. We will be engaging in educational ministry services such as establishing schools of all levels. We will be delivering free medical-dental clinics. We will be conducting livelihood programs for the poor of our communities.

D. From Systems towards Testifying to Our Experience with the Truth to Those Outside the Church’s Four Walls.

The story starts with the Father’s role as a gardener, but it goes beyond that. We see that the whole purpose of the gardener is for us to show ourselves to be his disciples. This is evident from the beginning, where we read, “He cuts off… he prunes” all the way to the end, where we read, “showing yourselves to be my disciples.”

We’ve been so caught up in defining ourselves and setting rules that we’ve forgotten why we’re doing it. We need to go beyond just having clear terms and start living out our faith. Our goal is to become disciples of Jesus Christ, not just to have a well-defined identity.

The church has a problem: we’ve pulled away from engaging with the world. And guess what? That’s actually changed the world and made it more secular. We’ve been so caught up in the rules and systems of our churches that we’ve forgotten about the world around us. But Jesus’ story of the vine and branches is a wake-up call for us. It’s a reminder that we’re meant to be part of the world, not separate from it. We’re Christ’s body, and the gardener is taking care of us. We’re connected to the vine, so we can re-engage with the world from a place of authenticity. And when we do, our witness and our call to truth come from a genuine connection to Christ. That means we can connect with others on a deeper level and share our faith in a meaningful way.

Practically, this could look like being prophetic voice by engaging society with biblical truth through participation in public advocacy, social justice, value transformation, promotion of freedom, engagement in the public square, involvement in marketplaces, and the transformation of public perception through education, evangelism, church planting, intercessory prayer, and discipleship.

Momentary Conclusions.

The brilliance of the vine metaphor lies in its ability to portray fruit bearing as organic and natural, rather than programmatic. Identity isn’t merely a state of being; it’s not just about being connected to the vine, which would imply that our identity is solely determined by that connection. The very purpose of a vine, as well as all plants, animals, and organic processes in the world, is to bear fruit – and their identities are tied in with the fruit they bear. Therefore, our identity cannot be reduced to a mere connection with “being” – there must also be a “doing.”

However, it’s crucial to emphasize that this “doing” is not merely a means to an end; it’s organic and natural. It’s an inherent expression of our connection to the vine. Bearing fruit is an essential aspect of the nature of a vine. Without this bearing of fruit, there’s a sense of incompleteness, as our being is intrinsically linked to our actions. This is the essence of the Thrive aspect of our topic for today.

Where are we headed with all this? What does it mean for us in the BCBC as we strive to Improve our Serve, and Abide and Thrive? We must not only assert our identity but also become present wherever we are. We are integral to what we engage with, as Jesus became one with the world when he descended from heaven in Philippians 2. By this, he declared his intertwined future with the world’s. Similarly, our future is connected to the world’s. How can we unite our futures to connect with God? It’s a call to re-enter cultural spaces and engage authentically with the world as we strive to abide but thrive.

Debie Thomas, again:

“If only we would consent to see reality as it truly is. ‘I am the vine,’ Jesus tells his disciples. ‘You are the branches.’ It’s a done deal. Whether we like it or not, our lives are bound up in God’s and in each other’s. The only true life we will live in this world is the life we consent to live in relationship, messy and entangled though it might be. The only fruit worth sharing with the world is the fruit we’ll produce together.”

So, we’ve covered two of the three words in the name of our seminar improving your serve. We talked about Your which is our identity, we’ve talk about Serve, which means the responsibility we have to wear fruit, and now we get to the Improving part.

We’ve prepared a series of questions that you can discuss and there’s a panel discussion as well after this to help us as we think about how we can move onto the next step and Improve our serve.

So, from Quezon City, Philippines, this is Michael Fast greeting you a Magandang Araw! God bless you.

Debie Thomas, Into the Mess and Other Jesus Stories: Reflections on the Life of Christ (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022), 144-146. 
Óscar Romero, “The Church: A Communion of Life, Love, and Truth for the World’s Salvation,” homily, October 29, 1978.

If you enjoyed this post, why not share it with your network? After all, sharing is what friends do!

The National Day for Truth & Reconciliation: A time to ask the age old question when confronted by collective wrongdoing, “What must we do?”

The turmoil that started was of a cross-cultural nature. Visitors from far and wide had come to the city to celebrate one of their most important religious rituals. All of a sudden one morning they woke up to a familiar sound — it was the sound of their languages is being spoken in the streets! And while this may not have been unusual at first — there were a lot of visitors after all — when they looked out to see what was going on they realise that these men who were speaking their language were not native speakers but locals. And as they listened on they realise that the message that these men were telling was very significant. 

These listeners had come from 15 different nations to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover — a time to remember God’s salvation for their people when he led the out of Egypt. These locals speaking their own languages were talking about somebody named “Jesus” and connecting Jesus into both their people’s history and theology. Not their individual histories but the history of their people as a group and how they had been connected with God and how they are related to God. Eventually, according to the speakers, this Jesus guy had bad things happen to him. He was crucified. And the speakers accused these visitors of being complicit in that!

I’m sure at this point some people said, “I wasn’t around here then don’t blame that for me.” But others of them asked the question, “What then shall we do?”

Here is how the First Nations translation puts it:

“When they heard this, the words pierced their hearts like a long knife. With troubled hearts they lifted their voices to Stands on the Rock and all the message bearers. ‘Fellow Tribal Members,’ they said, ‘tell us what we must do.’” The Good Story Continues (Acts) 2:37

I think it’s interesting that the word used here is “we.” They didn’t ask, “What can I, individually, do?” but rather, “What can we, collectively, do?” They immediately recognised that they were complicit in the actions of both their ancestors and their coreligionists in the crucifixion of Jesus. Their response wasn’t, “Hey don’t blame me — I wasn’t there!” It was instead, “Oh no. You are right. So what can we do now? How can we make this right?”

Today on the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation we recognise the Truth that we are complicit in things that we shouldn’t have been as a church. And we ask the question, “What must we do for Reconciliation to happen?”

How can we make this right?

In the past couple of weeks, I’ve heard feedback on how reconciliation is only between us and God and that reconciliation between people can only happen in the context of Jesus. Connected with this is the idea that since an apology has already been given people need to just move on and stop being victims. As a follower of Jesus, I wholeheartedly agree that Jesus is at the core of all reconciliation. But for me I like to emphasise that fact that I cannot have true reconciliation with God if I do not have reconciliation with my neighbour. That’s one of the reasons why Jesus pairs “Love the Lord your God” with “Love your neighbour.” I also firmly believe that apology without repentance is of little value.

I’ve also seen references by some people that “If only we could return to the Canada of old everything would be better.” The problem with that is that it’s not a statement that we really want to be true because it doesn’t recognise the truth nor does it foster reconciliation. Many people did not experience goodness in the Canada of old. So when they reflect and look back it’s not with nostalgia but with pain. It’s only a series of bad memories and experiences.

I have heard a couple of apologies and land acknowledgements this week related to how institutions deal with Truth and Reconciliation — one from the Canadian Medical Association and the other from First Baptist Church of Vancouver.

What I appreciate about these two apologies/acknowledgements is the fact that they — like the visitors to Jerusalem at Pentecost — recognise our complicity in the evils of the past. I really appreciated what the First Baptist Church of Vancouver said. Here’s part of their statement:

“The truth is that we as the church can be quick to take collective credit for the good that those who came before us have done in Christ’s name: Schools, hospitals, orphanages, fighting for the abolition of slavery. But we can be equally quick to attribute bad behaviour to bad apples, dragging our feet when it comes to owning the things that others have done. 

“In Christ’s name, we downplay our history, the history where police helped Indian agents forcibly remove 150,000 indigenous children from their homes and communities where many were physically and sexually abused or deliberately malnourished under the guise of nutritional experiments where needles were stuck in their tongues to keep them from speaking their own language as those who came before us sought to ‘Kill the Indian in the child.’

“And in ‘killing the Indian in the child,’ they removed the values that have been shared with us by Chief Joe Norris when we went through this process with Darryl. Family values, trust, respect, integrity, love, forgiveness and responsibility. When we ask our indigenous neighbours to forgive before we’ve owned our part, or turn a blind eye in a deaf ear to the downstream effects that persist into the present day, we sin collectively by dishonouring God’s image bearers.”

The Canadian Medical Association also acknowledges complicity in the past when it says, “We acknowledge there are ripple effects on future generations. We take ownership of the CMA’s history, and we are committed to righting our wrongs and rebuilding our relationship on a foundation of trust, accountability and reciprocity.” Canadian Medical Association Apology

You notice that both groups point out that we’re very willing to embrace what we see as the good things that our ancestors have done and say, “Look at all the good stuff the Church/society has done.” But when it comes down to the bad things that the church has done, we are less than willing to accept that as being our responsibility or to take credit for that as well. And I think that’s where it’s important for us to actively engage in Truth and Reconciliation.

Moving forward in light of our complicity

So what can we do? I think we need to be guided by those who heard the message in Acts 2. Like them we must …

  1. Accept complicity.
  2. Ask “What must we do?”
  3. Listen to the answer.
  4. Change the way we think and act. As it says in Acts 2:41 “The ones who believed the words of Stands on the Rock became a part of Creator’s new sacred family and participated in the purification ceremony. About three thousand people were added to the family on that day!”

Now I realise that all of this seems pretty clear to me but you may be reading thinking that there are huge holes in what I have just said. If so, please let me know in the comments below!

Help is available. Call the 24-hour national Indian Residential Schools Crisis Line: 1-866-925-4419. 

Like what you just read? Please click Like or Subscribe to make sure you don’t miss the next instalment.

Sharing is what friends do.

Scripture quotations are reproduced from First Nations Version: An Indigenous Translation of the New Testament, copyright © 2021 by Rain Ministries, Inc. Used by permission of Inter Varsity Press All rights reserved worldwide. www.ivpress.com

We all want to journey to the sea, but we just might be better off if we travel in the opposite direction.

When I was a kid I always enjoyed watching the Bill Mason’s film adaptation of Holling C. Holling’s Paddle to the Sea. It’s the story of a small, carved First Nations man sitting in a canoe. The artist creates the wooden piece and paints it in bright colours before setting it carefully in the snow. A few days later the snow begins to melt and the figurine slides down the slope, into the creek, and on its way to the sea. It’s a nice story.

A couple of things this past week got me thinking about that story and how it relates to life and the church. We often think we want to leave the small streams and creeks behind as we journey down the river to the sea, which is full of excitement. If we are in a small church, we dream of when the church will be big. We want it to grow because often we believe that a big church is healthy while a small church isn’t. If we live in a small town, we want to upgrade to the city because we feel that’s where a better life can be lived.

And I think we see the problems with this. That is why we work hard at developing smaller groups within the church. But even when small groups are working well, unless they are a part of something bigger, we feel like something is missing.

Yesterday I read a great Twitter thread by Ari Lamm on the tower of Babel. I would consider this a must read. It is a rich analysis of the biblical account that comes to new conclusions not because of the influx of any new modern ideas but by simply looking at the text itself. I highly recommend that you take a look at the thread if you haven’t already done so. 

One of the key things that Lamm points out is that the tower of Babel was a means to keep humanity from spreading around the earth. God had encouraged — actually commanded — them to fill the whole earth but that didn’t seem to be something that humans wanted to do. Maybe because we like to be a part of something big? 

In reality, life truly happens on the creeks and streams, because that’s where authenticity dwells. That’s where one-on-one interactions happen. That is everyday life. Often in church we are trying to create something new, for example a new community better than the one that already exists. To do this we try to go big. But that is the wrong direction. A new direction is to turn around.

I have noticed this while watching Chef’s Table. One common part of everyone’s story is that they loved food, grew up to study French cooking, started hating food, returned home to their own place, started cooking and loving food again. Food didn’t have meaning unless it was connected to their place.

My childhood friend, Dwayne Harms, pastored a small church in a small part of rural Saskatchewan. I have written about him here. Even though some may see that as being a stepping-stone to something bigger in the future, Dwayne saw it as an opportunity. He said, “Mike, if I was a pastor in a big city church, I would be one voice among a multitude of others. Here my voice is clear because I am the pastor of the Baptist church and everyone knows it.” Dwayne wasn’t looking for fame but for a voice. The Baptist church in his community was one of the originals. It was a known entity. It was an accepted part of things. That meant that as the official representative of that entity, Dwayne was entitled to voice that entity’s concerns. He was already a participant.

That’s authenticity and that’s the direction the church needs to take. 

What is your experience with the streams and rivers of life? Have you tried journeying to the sea? How did that work out for you? Please leave a comment below to let us know.

Please also like and follow.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Image by Adam Rhodes on Unsplash.

Thoughts after reading Beth Allison Barr’s “The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth”

Not gonna lie. Any book that includes The Usual Suspects as part of its organising motif is pretty good. But that is only a minor reason why I enjoyed reading this great book. I love how it jumps straight into discussions of structural evil in relation to patriarchy because without a complex theology of evil we can’t successfully address issues like this. But I am getting ahead of myself.

Beth Allison Barr’s The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth paints a picture that combines her own personal journey with her expertise as a historian of medieval times. Barr’s argument is that church history, particularly medieval church history, shows that modern understandings of bible passages regarding the status of women haven’t always been interpreted to support patriarchy. Barr looks at how certain bible passages have been variously interpreted throughout the ages, how women’s roles within the church have shifted, and how bible translations have muddied the issue. I had the opportunity to read it after borrowing the ebook version from the Saskatoon Public Library. What follows is not a review, per se, but rather a series of reflections that emerged as I read the book.

Reflection #1: Positionality.

My area of expertise is in the realm of social sciences, more specifically in gender and ethnography. One key aspect to doing research of any kind is to determine where the researcher fits into the research. The two words are used to describe this process, Reflexivity and Positionality, basically tell us that researchers and the subjects they research are intertwined. Reflexivity is “taking account of itself or of the effect of the personality or presence of the researcher on what is being investigated.” Positionality is “the social and political context that creates your identity in terms of race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability status. Positionality also describes how your identity influences, and potentially biases, your understanding of and outlook on the world.”

Positionality is important in any study and this book is chock-full of it. Barr clearly states her positionality in relation to the topic: She is a woman who has been a member of evangelical churches in the USA since birth; she’s a pastor’s wife within the same movement, an accomplished Medieval historian with a couple of graduate degrees, and a professor.

As a comparison and contrast to this, let me show you my positionality: I am a white man, who has been a member of evangelical churches since birth (as a pastor’s kid and a missionary kid), I am a pastor, I have a couple of graduate degrees, and I am a professor.

Each of us is positioned in this conversation but are different in two important aspects: I am a man and my evangelical experience is shaped by my life in Canada and the Philippines, while Barr is a white women who is shaped by her life in the USA. These differences mean that we have different perspectives when it comes to understanding the matter at hand.

Positionality is important because it identifies our place in the conversation, reveals our connections to the subject, and allows us to see our advantages and biases. My positionality has blinded me to the truths that Barr’s positionality has revealed to her. Barr’s positionality makes this book more trustworthy.

Reflection #2: Sources of truth.

Apprehending truth is complicated. One of the first systems of determining truth that I learned as a child is that God is a God of truth and Satan is the father of lies. While that statement may be true, one aspect that I overlooked was God’s sovereignty over all. I had divided the world into neat categories of secular and sacred. I connected God’s involvement in the process with seemingly holy things only: Bible, church, religious people, etc. I rejected things — the example that springs to mind is psychology — that were seemingly unholy.

I was talking with a friend yesterday about the time I began to see cracks in my process. I was taking a class on religious perspectives on death and dying from Dr. Robert Kennedy at the University of Saskatchewan. We were assigned to read and comment on Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilyich. I thought I was being pretty smart by saying that Tolstoy had nothing to say about death and dying because his was a work of fiction and therefore was not true. Fortunately Dr. Kennedy was a nice guy and kindly showed me how works of fiction can also contain truth. It’s a lesson I haven’t forgotten.

A few years later I went to seminary where I learned the shocking reality that all truth is God’s truth. This means that regardless of the form of inquiry — social science, critical theory, hard science, literature, history, psychology, etc. — if it leads me to the truth then I have discovered something that is from God. This means that Barr’s study of the history of how the church has interpreted passages that seem to support patriarchy is a necessary way to help us apprehend the truth. As a historian her voice needs to be heard.

Reflection #3: The very nature of Scripture.

Dean Flemming gets it right when he talks about the New Testament as contextualisation in his Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission. When we shift from thinking the New Testament is a doctrinal document towards seeing it as a guide for contextualisation, it opens up a new framework of interpretation. It allows us to move from seeing the bible merely as a series of truths to be believed (or a series of proof-texts to be memorised) towards a series of examples on how to live out our faith in our own unique cultural contexts. From Moses, in Deuteronomy, reframing the law to a group that hadn’t personally experienced the exodus from Egypt, to Jesus reconciling what we have heard with what he really wants us to know, to John recounting a view of history that shows us what is happening behind the scenes, the bible is full of making the gospel understood in different contexts.

That’s how Barr interprets the idea that Paul is addressing specific cultural issues of the day & providing a framework for how to contextualise the gospel into those situations. To assume that all cultural situations are the same as ours — and to assume that our cultural context has no impact on how we interpret texts — is doing disservice to the text & is leading us to false conclusions about what Paul (& other New Testament writers) are saying.

Throughout 1 Corinthians Paul addresses specific issues apparently raised by the local church. In these interactions, Paul directly quotes issues that have been raised in the church and then comments on them. Included among these quotations are the following:

6:12; 10:23 – “I am free to do all things” but my freedom is limited by my relationship to others. My freedom is not an excuse to cause others to sin.

6:13 – “Food is for the stomach and the stomach for food – but God will destroy them both” is actually talking about Corinthian sexual mores. The body does have a specific purpose – that purpose being “for God” and “not for sexual immorality,” because in the end God will “raise” the body and not destroy it. Therefore, the Corinthians were to stay away from sexual immorality.

6:16 – “The two of them will become one flesh.” When one commits sexual immorality, in this case with a prostitute as an act of worship in a pagan temple, then that person is united with the prostitute. The basis for Paul’s argument is from Genesis where when a man and a woman are united sexually then they become one. Paul would much rather that we were united “with the Lord” than be united with a prostitute.

6:18 – “Every sin which a man does is outside of the body” was another Corinthian saying that identifies the body as being less important that the spirit. Paul counters this argument by saying that in fact our physical bodies are now and will always be important because it is here where the Holy Spirit dwells. This any sins that we commit against our bodies are in essence sins against the dwelling place of God.

7:1 – “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” Paul connects this aphorism with the issue of marriage. Should married Christians abstain from sex? Paul’s answer is to get married (7:2). There are, however, other implications to getting married: 7:32-34 that says those considering marriage should carefully weigh the pros and the cons so that in the end they can remain pure but also dedicated to the work of the Lord.

Since this is the structure of 1 Corinthians, it’s not a stretch to expect the same thing to happen when we get to the 14:33-35 bit about women’s silence. Paul begins by quoting the issue and then comments on it.

14:33-35 – “As in all the churches of God’s holy people, the women must keep silent. They don’t have the right to speak. They must take their place as Moses’ Teachings say. If they want to know anything they should ask their husbands at home. It’s shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

Barr’s contention here is that Paul’s actual beliefs begin in v 36: “Did God’s word originate with you? Are you the only ones it has reached? Whoever thinks that he speaks for God or that he is spiritually gifted must acknowledge that what I write to you is what the Lord commands. But whoever ignores what I write should be ignored.” In her explanation, Barr brings us into her classroom and allows us to feel what it’s like to have a eureka moment when trying to understand scripture. It’s a powerful description!

Barr is not the first to recognise this reality. Lucy Peppiatt also talks about this in her wonderful Rediscovering Scripture’s vision for Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts. What it does show us is that Barr doesn’t toss aside Scripture in favour of her argument. Rather she presents historical evidence that Scripture has had a variety of valid interpretations throughout history.

Reflection #4: Structural Evil is legit.

Some may bristle at idea that structural sin exists. They prefer to see sin as being entirely personal with the solution being merely a restored relationship with Jesus. Regular readers of this blog will know that I subscribe to a more complex theology of evil that includes personal evil, natural evil, and structural evil. If you are interested in a more detailed explanation take a look here and here.

Barr says, “Patriarchy wasn’t what God wanted; patriarchy was a result of human sin.” I tend to interpret the famous phrase in the second part of Genesis 3:16 as negative for both parties — a turning away from God’s original intent. “Desire” — the same word used later on to describe sin’s attitude towards Cain (Genesis 4:7) — and “rule” being the key words. For me, both of these words reflect a change that happens after the fall. While they were not a normal state of affairs prior to the fall they have now become normal — a new normal as it were (with all the negative implications that term has taken on). As Barr says, “after the fall, because of sin, women would now turn first to their husbands, and their husbands, in the place of God, would rule over them” and “Adam’s rebellion was claiming God’s authority for himself, and Eve’s rebellion was submitting to Adam in place of God.”

The reality is not only that patriarchy exists but that it is an example of how structures created by God — namely the relationships between men and women — can be twisted into sinfulness. Jesus taught us to pray, “Let your will be done on earth as it is done in heaven,” which means not only do we pray it but we work to make sure that it’s true. Patriarchy then becomes an enemy that need to be defeated.

Reflection #5: Women’s rooms.

Sometimes we think that all that needed to be done theologically happened in the Reformation. It becomes the basis for how we decide if people are real Christians or not. It even seems as if all of our theology is centered around the Reformation. But obviously not everything that happened in the Reformation was enough. Barr points out that the situation of women in the church took a turn for the worse as their space became smaller. Why? Because of Reformation theology!

Here is where Barr’s positionality as a woman who has grown up in the evangelical church is especially helpful in opening my eyes to things that I am blinded to as a man. The first surrounds the idea of women’s rooms that get bigger and smaller throughout history as things change. Barr’s argument is that the current state of affairs that keep women from certain roles and activities in the church hasn’t always been defined in the same way. Rather throughout history the spaces that women are allowed to inhabit have at times been larger and at other times have gotten smaller. As Barr says, “When political and social structures are less centralized and less clearly defined, women often experience greater agency; their rooms are bigger” (pp. 113-114).

When discussing “Official preaching space,” Barr tells the story of Anne Askew who argued that since “Preaching only took place behind a pulpit, and since she wasn’t behind a pulpit, she wasn’t preaching” (p. 116). This is is a clever use of logic to thwart a technicality — a technicality that doesn’t actually exist in scripture but we assume that it does. I am familiar with this idea but from a different angle. It relates to a different theological problem that we have here. There is an oft-cited idea that to be a pastor is to have the “highest calling.” It results in pastors being above reproach (even though people may have reasons to reproach them). Part of this “highest calling” is that only they are allowed inside the “official preaching space” — an area defined as being behind the pulpit.

What is interesting is that this “official preaching space” is an entirely social construct. No where does the bible mention any form of official preaching space. Looking at Jesus alone, we can see that he preached anywhere and everywhere — on a boat, by the seashore, on a mountain, on the plain, in the Temple, while walking down the road. Of course let’s not get into the idea that even “pastor” is highly constructed and bears little resemblance to what we see in the bible. (Should I point out here that one of the few people mentioned by name in the Bible as being a shepherd — another word for “pastor” — is Rachel in Ge 29:9?)

Reflection #6: Gender-inclusive language.

The final reflection that I will discuss relates to how we use language. The issue at hand is translating passages of scripture that do not specifically refer to gender in an accurate way. Barr discusses two ways that society has chosen to deal with this issue: Using gender-inclusive language or using a “universal” language.

Gender-inclusive language is language that allows latitude when referring to gender. When related to scriptures it refers to translating the original languages to accurately reflect it’s sometimes gender-neutral nature. Of course the topic of gender-neutral language is one that larger society is also facing for a variety of reasons.

The other option that society has chosen for addressing gender-related linguistic issues is a “universal” language. What this means is using male pronouns as the default even when the original is not gender specific. You can see where this would lead to problems. What I didn’t realise before reading this book is that this is a “False universal language.” This hit home for me because at least in the past I advocated for understanding words like “he” and “his” as referring to both male and female. Where this falls apart, as Barr so ably points out, is that this belief is not implemented in practice. “Words for men were used interchangeably in reference to kings, politicians, preachers, household heads, philosophers, and even to represent all ‘mankind.’ while specific words for women were used exclusively for women and mostly regarding the domestic sphere. ‘Man’ in early modern English could represent humanity, but the humans it described were political citizens, decision-makers, leaders, household heads, theologians, preachers, factory owners, members of Parliament, and so on. In other words, “man” could include both men and women, but it mostly didn’t. It mostly just included men” (p. 146). What this means is that in practice we assume “men” means “male” but look for evidence to prove that it also means “female.” Unfortunately, as Barr so ably points out, bible translators have not been as faithful at reflecting gender inclusivity in their work as is warranted by the text.

What is interesting is that Gender-inclusive language is completely linguistically-based. While that may seem like a rather obvious statement, what I mean is that different languages treat gender in different ways. Take for example one of the languages spoken where I live and work — Tagalog. Tagalog pronouns have no gender. Whether one is referring to a male or female person the pronoun is the same: siya. That means that even if I include the pronouns “he/him” in my Twitter bio, if my bio were in Tagalog it would say, absurdly, “siya/siya.”

All that to say if we take issue with making language more gender neutral we are probably focussing on the wrong things. We miss the forest by focussing on the trees.

The next step.

What if the theologies that I believe are also manufactured by others? Or what if they are based on misconceptions or misunderstandings of the text? Or what if they are based on theologies developed during a time of immaturity rather than maturity — milk rather than meat, so to speak? Or what if the narrative is not based on reality but instead on a limited understanding? The issue is how we understand something to be true or false.

Just before he went public with the truth about his involvement in the cycling world’s doping scheme, Lance Armstrong apparently said to his son. “‘Don’t defend me anymore. Don’t.’” He was believing a lie that had been repeatedly stated was a truth.

We need to face the reality that sometimes we end up defending things that aren’t really true. It’s looking more and more like the so-called traditional understanding of the passages supporting Christian patriarchy aren’t in fact all that traditional. The traditional interpretations, as so clearly delineated by Barr, are quite the opposite to what many of us have grown up believing.

I highly recommend reading this book. If you are already moving in this direction, this book will encourage you. If you are still weighing the issues, this book will help provide balance to make an accurate measurement. Regardless of your position on this issues discussed, you won’t be disappointed. And who knows? You may be led to reflect a little on your own. In fact, you may already have some reflections of your own. Please feel free to leave them in the comment section, below.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Please consider subscribing either via email or WordPress itself.

Image is a screen shot from the cover of the ebook I read and is copyright by Brazos Press.

My thoughts on Kristin Du Mez’ “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.”

Kristin Du Mez’ Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation is a New York Times bestseller and has been the centre of an online debate from the moment it first came out. Du Mez is a professor of History and Gender Studies at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA. I had a chance to read it a couple of weeks ago after borrowing the ebook version from the Saskatoon Public Library.

The publisher’s product description says, “Jesus and John Wayne is a sweeping, revisionist history of the last seventy-five years of white evangelicalism, revealing how evangelicals have worked to replace the Jesus of the Gospels with an idol of rugged masculinity and Christian nationalism―or in the words of one modern chaplain, with ‘a spiritual badass.’”

I like reading books because of where they take me and how they get my mind to go down trails that may or may not have been the intent of the author. This book is no different. What follows is not so much a critique as it is a train of thought brought about by the book.

I enjoyed this book immensely and highly recommend it. As is obvious from some of my previous posts, masculinities are an important part of my life and ministry. Du Mez presents a view of evangelical masculinity that is frankly disturbing. Rather than evangelicals having a carefully thought out theological argument for being men, what we discover is a political argument for being men that is then adopted by the evangelical church. Each paragraph is footnoted with sources so readers can double check what is said.

At this point I need to point out that while I was reading I did find it a bit like watching the neighbours through their living room window. I was born and raised in Canada and have spent almost half my life in Southeast Asia so the American context is largely someone else’s context. Any understanding of a necessary close connection between evangelical masculinity and politics escapes me. I really can’t for the life of me understand why my evangelical masculinity needs to be so closely connected with politics and political systems.

I will say this with regards to politics: I do believe that all people need to be involved in nationbuilding, Christians in particular. We need to tell people that Jesus is the best possible leader. We need to tell people that Jesus’ Kingdom has an unparalleled set of values. We also need to work at serving them. Finally we need to spend time together discovering the truth.

But beyond that, it is not a part of my framework to connect that with some kind of political system (which I think the Bible refers to as a wild animal rather than a lamb who was slain). So that’s the part that I don’t get. I guess it makes it even harder for me to believe it when I find out that some of the American presidential candidates most hated by evangelicals were in fact evangelicals themselves (and their most loved rivals were anything but). I just don’t get it but that may be because I am not from there.

I do know the names of the key players in the story because they are also of influence in the parts of the world with which I am more familiar. I have attended Promise Keeper’s rallies and seminars. I have been encouraged by Eldredge’s books. I have shown Dobson videos to my youth group. My best friend’s father was heavily into Gothard when I was a kid. So these are familiar names. I must say that it was disturbing to me to see how carefully the crafted a version of masculinity that was so politically motivated. It made be question the things that I had learned from them and wonder what shortcomings my own perspectives have.

I will tell you one thing: As I have written elsewhere (here, here, & here), I don’t hold to universal gender roles, much less God-appointed gender roles. Rarely do we find someone who lives out their theoretical framework (read “theology” in this context) perfectly in life. And rarely do we find a framework that exactly explains everything in the world. As Rorty says, “A + B = C, unless it doesn’t.” The same applies to gender roles. My wife handles our finances because she is better gifted at it — we would be quickly bankrupt if I were to take the reins. My wife is a better missionary than be because she seems to have the abilities to make connections and carry out plans while I struggle along. Both of us are involved in public ministry as our callings and giftings determine. We both cook at home because we both enjoy it. I suspect it’s the same with you.

My wife and I enjoy watching cooking shows — particularly contest shows. What surprises me is the predominance of men in professional cooking and the fact that the women who participate say that it’s a hard industry for them to enter. Wait a minute. I thought that cooking was supposed to be the realm of women? (I see a lot of references to sandwiches on Twitter). What happened? What happened was that the framework that we have been presented with is flawed. Patriarchy still rears its ugly head even in realms where we think that it doesn’t.

Du Mez emphasises one strain of masculinity in her book. At first I saw that as a limitation but then realised that Du Mez does periodically refer to other sides to the story but these are only in passing and in the context of having been rejected by the subjects of her book. She is in fact tracing a hegemonic form of masculinity through the evangelical church. If you don’t remember, hegemonic masculinity is a term developed by Connell to identify the form of masculinity that is the norm in the cultural psyche, even if this norm is not actually the normal masculinity when it comes to practice (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). It does leave me with the question of whether there is there a range of masculinities among American evangelical men? Du Mez may have highlighted the hegemonic form but what about the other, perhaps more practiced, forms that exist? How can we champion those? Is it possible to affect change in the cultural psyche so that more harmful forms of masculinity become marginalised?

I also was surprised to see the inclusion of fundamentalists in the realm of evangelicals, since the fundamentalists that I know try to distinguish themselves from evangelicals. But that is really neither here nor there since the underlying theme tracing is hegemonic masculinity.

The book caused me to reflect on what I truly believe masculinities to be. It got me to examine my assumptions on a deeper level. What is masculinity for me? How does it differ from femininity? Is it even important to make a distinction? Am I, as a man, somehow specially prepared/gifted/enabled/called to something that perhaps a women isn’t? Or are those things determined by personality? How can I best use my manhood (if that’s even possible) for the furtherance of God’s kingdom here on earth?

My own masculinity research, where I talked with men in my community, tells me that some men see themselves sometimes as humans, with the same problems that all humans share. “Tao lang ako” [“I’m only human”] is a phrase often on the lips of the men when they describe their ability to be obedient to God. It encapsulates both their desire to do what is right but also gives them some leeway in their performance since “tao lang ako.” It reiterates their weakness and sets themselves apart from God, who wouldn’t have any problem being obedient.

But men are also men and as such need to become better people. They want to redefine themselves from the traditional ideas that men are violent or womanizers into something better. Knowing Christ has helped one of my friends overcome his hot headedness. He also said that in his opinion womanizers aren’t really true men because all that results is that their families are destroyed.

I don’t have many answers yet but Du Mez’ book has helped me deepen the process of discovery. It may help you as well. Why not pick it up and read it? It may cause you to reflect on your own situation as well.

Then again, maybe God has given you insight into these things. Please feel free to share in the comments below.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Please consider subscribing either via email or WordPress itself.

Image is a screen shot from the cover of the ebook I read and is copyright Liveright Publishing.

What if there’s snow on the road? How can we find our way?

Our paths over the past 2 years haven’t been as clearly marked as we would have liked. The pandemic introduced enough changes that it felt like we were losing our way. Apart from the obvious issues associated with health and disease, there were also concerns of financial distress, social distress, disconnection, and religious freedom. Fortunately things haven’t been as bad as predicted in those areas. But it has caused us to reflect a lot on where we are going — especially in the church. It reminded me a little of driving.

Eva and I have spent the last two years in Canada. We had initially planned only 3 months but … COVID-19. While in Canada we got the chance to be reacquainted with Canadian weather; or more specifically driving in Canadian weather. We saw it all, from burning hot days with nothing but dust to blinding snowstorms. It reminded me of real life. The past 23 months have certainly been interesting, and I expect that things haven’t entirely returned to normal just yet. Who knows how many more months of uncertainty there are?

When driving, the goal is to stay on the road but sometimes that isn’t as easy as we think it might be. Here are some examples:

Some roads are clearly marked with nice lines, they are paved, they are dry, it’s daytime, and the sun is shining when you are driving. There is nothing better than this. We often have days like this, don’t we? We are in the groove and everything seems to be going all right.

Sometimes there is snow on the road. But even if this is the case, when the road is plowed you can still drive between the lines with some changes. Instead of two lanes, only one is available. Instead of being able to travel at normal speeds, snow and ice force us to slow down. But we keep on driving.

When the road isn’t plowed you hope there is someone who has already gone down it so you know generally where you need to go too. You will also need to use a technique my Dad called, “Driving by the seat of your pants.” This means that we drive more by feel than by sight. We can even say, “Walk by faith and not by sight.” But we keep on driving, cautiously.

Sometimes the weather takes over and makes things extremely difficult. When you are driving in freezing rain you need to use all your resources. Turn the heat up full blast on the defroster. Use the wipers and fluid constantly. Stop every now and then and clear the windshield. Open the side window to know where you need to turn. But we keep on driving, slowly and cautiously.

Sometimes you can’t even see the world around you. When the snow is still falling, and blowing, and you can’t see more than 3 metres in front of you, and you spend each moment in fear wondering if you are going to hit the ditch, or worse, drive off a cliff in the mountains, you need to rely on your wits in order to make it. Have you driven the road before? Does the GPS tell you where the curves are? Can you see anyone’s tail lights ahead? But we keep on driving, foolishly.

This is perhaps how many felt when the pandemic began because the pandemic affected the roads that the church normally drives down. Eva and I arrived in Canada on a Monday, with great plans to visit friends and churches from Port Alberni to Thunder Bay. By Thursday of that same week all of those plans went out the window because of the implementation of anti-COVID-19 measures. All of a sudden we were doing church by the seat of our pants. It was quite the ride. We all became experts at new things: Zoom, preaching to a camera, uploading videos to Vimeo, livestreaming, building community in new ways. It was weird. It was uncomfortable. But somehow it worked.

We did manage to visit friends and churches — in fact we spoke in more churches than we could have if we can been in person. The ministry of the South East Asian Theological Schools boomed with more classes and students from around the world. We connected with lots of people on Zoom. We even celebrated a significant birthday with nothing more than a computer, some videos, and and internet connection. We kept on driving — and so did you!

We know this because we have talked to many of you. We discussed plans for how to do church in a pandemic. We debated on Facebook about the proper approaches we needed to take. We chatted on Zoom about the future of the church. We even taught classes about what to do next. We used all the resources available to us: Theology, church history, Biblical studies, Christian fellowship, meetings, conversations, books, blog posts, videos, and sermons. Even though the road was treacherous at times, we now appear to be coming out of it (I hope). And guess what? The church is still here. People are still committed. Hope continues to be renewed. The mission continues. And we have lots of new understanding and tools to use for the future.

God is good!

How has it been for you? What kind of “driving” have you been doing lately and how have the roads been? How has your church been made stronger because of the trials of the past 2 years?

Feedback is always welcome. Please use the comment box below.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Image is mine.

Did you know that church polity is more a reflection of political realities than some kind of biblical prescription? Did you also know that in the grand scheme of things it really isn’t a big deal what your church’s polity is?

Have you ever thought about your preferred form of church polity? Church polity basically means the ways church organise themselves. There are four main types of church polity: Episcopal, Presbyterian, Congregational, and Hybrid.

Episcopal. This word is derived from the the Greek word episkopos, which basically means overseers or bishops. As you might have guessed, these churches often have people serving in the role of Bishops. Churches in this tradition include Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Episcopal, Lutheran, and Methodist. They find biblical support in Acts 6:6; 14:23; and Galatians 1:19; 2:9. They claim connection to the biblical Apostles because of Apostolic succession.

Reformed. The picture at the top identifies this as “Reformed” but a better term might be Presbyterian, derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which means basically elders. Presbyterian, Lutheran and Reformed churches all have this polity. The find biblical support in Acts 20:17; 1 Tim 5:17; and Titus 1:5. They claim connection to the biblical Apostles because they follow Apostolic teaching.

Congregational. Congregational churches put the congregation at the top of any organisational chart because it is the congregation that makes the decisions for the church. Churches in this tradition include Baptist, Mennonite, Evangelical Free, Congregational. They find biblical support in Acts 15:12, 22-25; Colossians 1:18; and 1 Peter 2:9. Like the Presbyterian system above, they claim connection to the biblical Apostles because they follow Apostolic teaching.

Hybrid. A blending of the above three. Churches in this tradition include many Pentecostal and charismatic groups. Because they are a blend, they find biblical support in the verses used by the other three traditions. They claim connection to the biblical Apostles because they exhibit the Apostolic signs.

As we can see, each of these systems has a series of biblical supports that they use to prove that theirs is the true biblical way. Of course that means that, if each of them has biblical proof, each one of them is biblical! It also means that none of them is actually prescribed by the Bible.

My missions professor in seminary, Dr. Vern Middleton, made an observation about church polity that has stayed with me until today. According to his observations a church’s polity is more a reflection of the political situation at the time the church was initially formed than it is of any biblical influence. Thus the Episcopal system was developed largely when Emperors, Kings, and Queens ruled; the Presbyterian system was developed largely when city and state councils ruled; the Congregational system was developed largely when democratic systems ruled; and Hybrid systems have developed only in the past 100 years or so. For example, in the Philippines many evangelical churches — even while being from a congregational tradition — often incorporate features from Episcopal systems because of the country’s long relationship with the Roman Catholic church.

More to the point, the term “New Testament church” should actually be the “New Testament churches because there was more than one of them. We often assume that the New Testament church is the one in Jerusalem as described in Acts. But what then about the other churches — in Corinth, Rome, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, etc? Are they not also New Testament churches? What also of the 7 churches in Revelation 2-3? Are they not also New Testament churches?

More importantly, does polity really matter? We often argue and act against other ways of doing things regardless of whether they matter or not. Oftentimes it’s merely an issue of preference or habit.

What really matters is functionality. Functionality is one of the main organising frameworks that I use in this blog so it shouldn’t be strange to us. In a nutshell, we propose that a church begin measuring its functionality using the fourfold matrix of kerygma, koinonia, diakonia, and marturia. Here is an example of what this looks like in real life.

I want to hear your voice. That’s why feedback is always welcome.

Sharing is what friends do.

Image from Vencer, A. (2004), DAWN Vision and Strategy (DAWN Ministries Leadership Development).

Is the Kingdom slipping away from us or is God shifting towards a new centre for the church?

I hear a lot of talk about the how the Christian influence in the west is slipping away. Sometimes this is referred to as the culture wars. Other times it’s referred to by terms such as multiculturalism, open borders, and statements like, “When people come to our country they should learn to do things your way because this is our country!” This is coupled with an uptick in things often labelled as “persecution” often tied to complaints that others are now calling the shots when it comes to values and morality.

And one can’t deny that change is happening. There is a definite change in Western societies’ values and morals and the influence of the church is definitely waning. Values that have long been identified as being Judeo-Christian are being replaced by other values and this has some Christians worried that the church is dying.

There is another perspective to this, however. Sometimes we confuse church with Kingdom and assume that our little corner of what God is doing is everything. Change can happen in various parts of a Kingdom without the Kingdom itself being destroyed. I grew up in Saskatoon, a small city in Western Canada that was fairly homogenous. Most people living there 30 years ago had a European heritage with some First Nations and Metis peoples seemingly on the fringes of society. That has all changed. Saskatoon is now a very cosmopolitan city boasting citizens from all around the world, with large non-European immigrant populations. The voices of the First Nations and Metis peoples are also stronger in the new society. In spite of all these changes Saskatoon is still Saskatoon — it is just a better and more interesting Saskatoon than when I was younger.

Andrew Walls, a missiologist and church historian, talked about the nature of the church worldwide. He saw how through church history the centre of the church would shift from one place to another. Walls described this is shifting “serial” rather than progressive. This means that the centre tends to shift from one place to another. For example, even though the church may have started in Jerusalem, Jerusalem is no longer the centre of the church today. That centre has shifted throughout history from one place to another. When we look at the current situation in the west that has been the centre of the church for so many years we can see that centre is shifting away. A 2009 study by Johnson & Chung tracks this center around the Mediteranean from Jerusalem, north through Europe, and currently moving south in Africa. Others have made similar claims.

So what does that mean for us today in the west? Well, we can mourn the loss of influence that we are having in the world and will have. We can also rejoice that God is moving the centre of his church to other places who are taking up the challenge of leading his church into the future.

We can understand that we can also survive on the fringes. After all, many of our fellow Jesus-followers have been there for a long time. They can teach us how to live under persecution, how to live even though no one focusses specifically on our spiritual needs, how to live when theologizing happens primarily in a language foreign to us, and how to live when the recognised spiritual authorities are from somewhere else.

Part of our responsibility is to help facilitate this transition. How can we help the transition to become smoother? We need to be gracious and realize that the things are changing are important. We need to listen to the voices of those who were previously been a minority even as we now move into being a minority now. We need to be open to the challenge to our traditional ideas — that have up until now been standard in the church — the challenges that are brought to these traditional ideas from new perspectives. We need to prioritize the voices of those who are now at the centre and submit to their leadership, realizing that even as God may have placed us in a place a priority in the past we are moving out of that.

If indeed God is the one who oversees the shifting centre of the church, then that means the things that are happening today in the world are of God. We need to honour that. What will you do to honour your changing role in the church today? How will you give way to those who have previously been minorities as they take up the mantle of leadership in the church today?

I want to hear your voice on this issue. That’s why feedback is always welcome.

Sharing is what friends do.

Image by Matthias Speicher on Unsplash.