god and country
Supposedly speaking about religion or politics do not make for polite dinner conversation. Perhaps because it causes some to become defensive, which causes others to become uneasy, which causes the defensive folks to attack with more tenacity, which causes those who are uneasy to feel threatened, and, as Vonnegut says, “so it goes.”
The only thing worse than religion or politics is religion and politics. Tangle these two things together and you may just be in for it. Or you may have the foundations of an empire. It is interesting to note that since the inception civilizations, countries, kingdoms and empires, there has been the entanglement of religion and politics.
In ancient Egypt there was a boy king named King Tut. He lived an ruled for roughly a decade in the 2nd Century in the North African Empire. His full name was Tutankhamun. This was more than the name his mother used when he was in trouble, it was a name with deep religious significance. The name, literally translated, meant “The living image of Amun,” or “He is who is like [the god] Amun.” Amun was a one of the chief gods in Egyptian Mythology.
For the Egyptians, the king of their Empire was not just a person, he was the image of god. If you wanted to see who god was, go see the king. This was an important idea. For the people of Egypt when the king issued and edict, it was not just a concept of a man, it was the word of god. In Egypt religion and politics collided.
The Romans chose to do the same thing. Octavian, who later was named Augustus, told the world his Great Uncle, and the Caesar who ruled before him, Julius was a god. This then made Augustus a son of god. From this point on, Caesars had the title, DIVI FILIUS, or son of god. One Caesar, Domitian, demanded that all people address him in written and spoken word as “Lord and God.” The myth was told that the god Jupiter indwelt the Caesars. They were not just Romans they were gods.
Why is this? Why do empires feel it necessary to connect the two in the most overt ways? One could argue that it is not because of one’s religious convictions. Roland H. Worth, in his book The Seven Cities of the Apocalypse & Roman Culture, said that announcing Caesar as a god “functioned as a religiously garbed expression of political loyalty to Rome.”
For the ancient people, to cloak politics in religion was a powerful tool to win the hearts of their people. Those in power knew that religion involved the heart and soul of a person in ways that politics cannot. Rather than try to engage them with simple political ideology, they chose to use religious propaganda to win the loyalty of their people.
Religion also united the people. Citizens from all over the empires would gather together for large festivals honoring the god-kings. People from every class, race, language, background, region would unite under the banner of the gods. Whatever your political allegiance, you could put that aside in order to honor the god-king.
Religion was powerful. Political leaders gained the power and loyalty they needed to strengthen their empires, build their military, and amass wealth on the back of religion. This idea that existed in the ancient world, is still alive and well today. It is rare in the West to believe our political leaders to be gods. If anything, we would have an easier time convincing people that they are the devil. However, consider the deep connection that religion and politics still have.
In the last U.S. Presidential election, some pundits said that the losing candidate may have faired better if he used more “religious language” persuading more people of faith to vote for him. Consider the winning candidate. He not only used religious language, he quoted Bible verses, but substituted the USA in place of the name of Jesus. While he never claimed to be a god, he insinuated that the United States can serve as the person of Jesus. This is powerful rhetoric. It is religious rhetoric used to gain the loyalty of citizens.
In politics today we see many who invoke the name of Jesus or speak of the Kingdom of Heaven in order to gain loyalty, further their own political means, and/or excuse their horrendous actions. While they do not point to themselves as gods, they point to American idealism as “Christian” or claim they have the guidance of “the Almighty God.”
Suddenly politics and religion are in a familiar place. Intertwined in a way they never should be. It is dangerous to mix politics and religion. However, we move into a more dangerous place when we mesh the Kingdom of Heaven with any Empire of this world. Empires are not necessarily evil, but they must never be mistaken for the Kingdom of God.
As Greg Boyd says in his book, The Myth of a Christian Nation, the Kingdom of Heaven is not an improvement of the kingdoms of this world. Indeed, they are not the same, and never will be. Jesus says they are not from the same place. If we want to be truly religious, our devotion will be first and exclusively to the Kingdom of God. Our true religion will then reveal itself in our concern for orphans and widows.
The concepts of religion and politics are so connected in our world that one finds it almost impossible to speak about politics without religion. It feels empty, and lonely. Maybe it is time to have the conversation about how each can have their rightful place, just do not do it over dinner.
The only thing worse than religion or politics is religion and politics. Tangle these two things together and you may just be in for it. Or you may have the foundations of an empire. It is interesting to note that since the inception civilizations, countries, kingdoms and empires, there has been the entanglement of religion and politics.
In ancient Egypt there was a boy king named King Tut. He lived an ruled for roughly a decade in the 2nd Century in the North African Empire. His full name was Tutankhamun. This was more than the name his mother used when he was in trouble, it was a name with deep religious significance. The name, literally translated, meant “The living image of Amun,” or “He is who is like [the god] Amun.” Amun was a one of the chief gods in Egyptian Mythology.
For the Egyptians, the king of their Empire was not just a person, he was the image of god. If you wanted to see who god was, go see the king. This was an important idea. For the people of Egypt when the king issued and edict, it was not just a concept of a man, it was the word of god. In Egypt religion and politics collided.
The Romans chose to do the same thing. Octavian, who later was named Augustus, told the world his Great Uncle, and the Caesar who ruled before him, Julius was a god. This then made Augustus a son of god. From this point on, Caesars had the title, DIVI FILIUS, or son of god. One Caesar, Domitian, demanded that all people address him in written and spoken word as “Lord and God.” The myth was told that the god Jupiter indwelt the Caesars. They were not just Romans they were gods.
Why is this? Why do empires feel it necessary to connect the two in the most overt ways? One could argue that it is not because of one’s religious convictions. Roland H. Worth, in his book The Seven Cities of the Apocalypse & Roman Culture, said that announcing Caesar as a god “functioned as a religiously garbed expression of political loyalty to Rome.”
For the ancient people, to cloak politics in religion was a powerful tool to win the hearts of their people. Those in power knew that religion involved the heart and soul of a person in ways that politics cannot. Rather than try to engage them with simple political ideology, they chose to use religious propaganda to win the loyalty of their people.
Religion also united the people. Citizens from all over the empires would gather together for large festivals honoring the god-kings. People from every class, race, language, background, region would unite under the banner of the gods. Whatever your political allegiance, you could put that aside in order to honor the god-king.
Religion was powerful. Political leaders gained the power and loyalty they needed to strengthen their empires, build their military, and amass wealth on the back of religion. This idea that existed in the ancient world, is still alive and well today. It is rare in the West to believe our political leaders to be gods. If anything, we would have an easier time convincing people that they are the devil. However, consider the deep connection that religion and politics still have.
In the last U.S. Presidential election, some pundits said that the losing candidate may have faired better if he used more “religious language” persuading more people of faith to vote for him. Consider the winning candidate. He not only used religious language, he quoted Bible verses, but substituted the USA in place of the name of Jesus. While he never claimed to be a god, he insinuated that the United States can serve as the person of Jesus. This is powerful rhetoric. It is religious rhetoric used to gain the loyalty of citizens.
In politics today we see many who invoke the name of Jesus or speak of the Kingdom of Heaven in order to gain loyalty, further their own political means, and/or excuse their horrendous actions. While they do not point to themselves as gods, they point to American idealism as “Christian” or claim they have the guidance of “the Almighty God.”
Suddenly politics and religion are in a familiar place. Intertwined in a way they never should be. It is dangerous to mix politics and religion. However, we move into a more dangerous place when we mesh the Kingdom of Heaven with any Empire of this world. Empires are not necessarily evil, but they must never be mistaken for the Kingdom of God.
As Greg Boyd says in his book, The Myth of a Christian Nation, the Kingdom of Heaven is not an improvement of the kingdoms of this world. Indeed, they are not the same, and never will be. Jesus says they are not from the same place. If we want to be truly religious, our devotion will be first and exclusively to the Kingdom of God. Our true religion will then reveal itself in our concern for orphans and widows.
The concepts of religion and politics are so connected in our world that one finds it almost impossible to speak about politics without religion. It feels empty, and lonely. Maybe it is time to have the conversation about how each can have their rightful place, just do not do it over dinner.
i want to know what love is
Have you ever had those lunches that turn awkward before the food comes? This happened to me once. I was at lunch with a fellow who was upset about something. The server brought us water to drink, and he began to speak about what was bothering him. It turns out that his beef was with love. Really, he was upset with the idea of love.
He began to illustrate what he meant by telling a story about another individual. He spilled way too much information about this other guy’s dark secrets and then provided the clincher. He said, in a very animated way, “And you know what, this guys says, ‘I am sorry’ and everyone acts like everything is okay!’”
He then spoke about how people in the church today do not want to deal with sin anymore, all they want to talk about is love. He concluded in frustration by saying, “So we just love people and that is it!”
I sat puzzled for a time listening to him. I asked him what vehicle God used in response to sin. He said "The blood of Jesus." I asked him what motivated Jesus to spill his blood at all for people like the guy who said he was sorry. He said, "Grace." I asked him what motivates grace. He said the character of the person giving it.
At this point the lunch got awkward. I then told him that I was pretty connected to the guy who said that he was sorry. I also told him that I was one of those people who understood him to be sincere in his apology, and therefore was one of those acting like everything is okay. Then, I concluded that grace comes not from the character of any person. Grace, I contended is rooted deep within the very essence of God. “That essence is love.”
I can understand the idea, at some level, that people who are bad no longer receive what they deserve. For those with a high sense of fairness this can be frustrating. But isn’t that love? Love is the most unfair thing in the world. There is nothing that makes sense about it.
Maybe this is why God is so hard to understand. Because God is love.
The Christian faith states that God exists in Three Persons – Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. We call this mystery the Trinity. People spend countless amounts of hours trying to explain the Trinity. They talk about water, ice, and steam. Or they speak of an egg with its shell, whites, and yolk. While all of these word pictures are clever, they are all incomplete. This is why the Trinity is called a mystery.
One piece of the mystery of the Trinity, that is truly more difficult to comprehend than one being three or three being one, is the eternal community that exists within the person of God. As humans we cannot even begin to wrap our heads around this.
This community exists in perfect love. Miroslav Volf, my favorite theologian (and no this is not code for Bono), says that God exists in “mutual, divine, self-giving love.” In other words, God can exist completely and eternally in community because the Son holds nothing back from the Spirit or the Father. He gives all that he is to them, with no fear of feeling empty, because the Father and Spirit are giving all that they are to him. This is true love. Total and complete giving all the time to the other with no other motive than giving and love.
At the lunch table, our food arrived and this other fellow wanted to point out the way that Jesus boldly spoke against sin in his day. He was right. Jesus in fact did. However, most often Jesus called out those representing the religious establishment. He said things like, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean!” He was also seen weeping over Jerusalem, longing to have gathered them like a mother hen gather her chicks.
Beyond that his ultimate response to evil was the cross.* Which is the ultimate act of love. The act of death on the cross was also the most unfair treatment of the evil in our world. This whole thing is really bothersome, mostly the Scriptures instruct us to act like Jesus. As the Church we are to be the embodiment of this kind of love. We are able to be this, because God who exists in community, who is love, invites all men and women into community with him.
Which would mean that love should characterize all that we do, even when it comes to dealing with sin – both systemic and personal. This does not mean that we ignore the crap in people’s life. The people who love me the most are the ones who are constantly encouraging me to live better. They are the one’s who speak not when the plank is their own eye, and when they do speak, do so gently, and seeing clearly can remove the massive amounts of wood from my eye.
*One note, I do not believe that the only reason for Jesus' death, burial, and ressurection was simply the sin of the individual, so that all people can have a personal and private relationship with him. This thought seems to cheapen the expense of the cross.
He began to illustrate what he meant by telling a story about another individual. He spilled way too much information about this other guy’s dark secrets and then provided the clincher. He said, in a very animated way, “And you know what, this guys says, ‘I am sorry’ and everyone acts like everything is okay!’”
He then spoke about how people in the church today do not want to deal with sin anymore, all they want to talk about is love. He concluded in frustration by saying, “So we just love people and that is it!”
I sat puzzled for a time listening to him. I asked him what vehicle God used in response to sin. He said "The blood of Jesus." I asked him what motivated Jesus to spill his blood at all for people like the guy who said he was sorry. He said, "Grace." I asked him what motivates grace. He said the character of the person giving it.
At this point the lunch got awkward. I then told him that I was pretty connected to the guy who said that he was sorry. I also told him that I was one of those people who understood him to be sincere in his apology, and therefore was one of those acting like everything is okay. Then, I concluded that grace comes not from the character of any person. Grace, I contended is rooted deep within the very essence of God. “That essence is love.”
I can understand the idea, at some level, that people who are bad no longer receive what they deserve. For those with a high sense of fairness this can be frustrating. But isn’t that love? Love is the most unfair thing in the world. There is nothing that makes sense about it.
Maybe this is why God is so hard to understand. Because God is love.
The Christian faith states that God exists in Three Persons – Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. We call this mystery the Trinity. People spend countless amounts of hours trying to explain the Trinity. They talk about water, ice, and steam. Or they speak of an egg with its shell, whites, and yolk. While all of these word pictures are clever, they are all incomplete. This is why the Trinity is called a mystery.
One piece of the mystery of the Trinity, that is truly more difficult to comprehend than one being three or three being one, is the eternal community that exists within the person of God. As humans we cannot even begin to wrap our heads around this.
This community exists in perfect love. Miroslav Volf, my favorite theologian (and no this is not code for Bono), says that God exists in “mutual, divine, self-giving love.” In other words, God can exist completely and eternally in community because the Son holds nothing back from the Spirit or the Father. He gives all that he is to them, with no fear of feeling empty, because the Father and Spirit are giving all that they are to him. This is true love. Total and complete giving all the time to the other with no other motive than giving and love.
At the lunch table, our food arrived and this other fellow wanted to point out the way that Jesus boldly spoke against sin in his day. He was right. Jesus in fact did. However, most often Jesus called out those representing the religious establishment. He said things like, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean!” He was also seen weeping over Jerusalem, longing to have gathered them like a mother hen gather her chicks.
Beyond that his ultimate response to evil was the cross.* Which is the ultimate act of love. The act of death on the cross was also the most unfair treatment of the evil in our world. This whole thing is really bothersome, mostly the Scriptures instruct us to act like Jesus. As the Church we are to be the embodiment of this kind of love. We are able to be this, because God who exists in community, who is love, invites all men and women into community with him.
Which would mean that love should characterize all that we do, even when it comes to dealing with sin – both systemic and personal. This does not mean that we ignore the crap in people’s life. The people who love me the most are the ones who are constantly encouraging me to live better. They are the one’s who speak not when the plank is their own eye, and when they do speak, do so gently, and seeing clearly can remove the massive amounts of wood from my eye.
*One note, I do not believe that the only reason for Jesus' death, burial, and ressurection was simply the sin of the individual, so that all people can have a personal and private relationship with him. This thought seems to cheapen the expense of the cross.
enjoy the ride
Remember the Smurfs? They were the kind of creepy blue creatures who measure just three apples high who live in Mushrooms, in Smurf Village. Some accused these little things of being Satanic, and sent hate mail to their Belgian creator because of the character Gargamel and his cat Azrael.
There were famous lines and quotes that came from the fictional characters, one that comes to mind was the one often asked of Papa Smurf, “Are we there yet Papa Smurf?” This question came from the mouth of a weary Smurf on behalf of his troop of traveling companions. Papa Smurf would often answer in a comforting tone by saying, “Not much farther now my little Smurfs.”
This question, regarding destination, has become one that is on the lips of many people in the church today. (It goes without saying that we are not imitating the Smurfs, for they are Satanic, remember?) We want to know what the end is. In other words, “What is the bottom line?” We have stopped enjoying the journey and only fix on the destination.
One of the most depressing trips I ever took was driving across Western Illinois, Iowa, and Nerbraska with a Garmin Satellite Navigation System. No matter how far I drove, the line representing the road remained straight, and the destination seemed no closer. My fixation on this three inch screen prevented me from enjoying the drive. I do realize that driving across a flat, vast, treeless expanse is difficult to enjoy, but you get the point.
This, however, has happened more and more beyond a drive through the plains with a Garmin. We are always interested in there, and not getting there. Consider the way some churches have set up there structure to get people to their destination.
When one joins a faith community, they are thrust into a system that takes them from a "pagan" to a clean-cut, born-again, Bible speakin’, Jesus thinkin’, Bible believin’ Christian, complete with a subtle southern accent. So we have anywhere between one and five steps that people are to go through. The focus in all the steps are getting them through the first set of steps to step five. Once they are there, they are good to go, they “get it”, and they can begin helping get more "pagans" to be stage fivers.
It is so easy to have a place where people should end up. In this however, we are creating a type of person, and not leading all men and women to live out exactly who it is God has called them to be. We can systematize discipleship, and throw easy answers (or directions) that guide all people to the same place, regardless of their point of origin.
This whole idea seems odd. If this system is really how we are supposed to do things, then in many ways Jesus died and ascended too early. I have no idea where his disciples were at with regard to levels one through five, but consider the evidence. One betrayed him and then killed himself, one denied him and then wept bitterly, one doubted him, the rest abandoned him, and when he rose from the dead none of them got it. They could have been no better than second level. Yet, Jesus tells them to change the world.
Maybe, however, Jesus was more concerned with direction and movement in general than destination. Can we really have a standard for where everyone should go? Or can we recognize that in following Jesus there will be times of rapid growth and slow growth, differing directions, different expressions, and continual growth. What if there is no actual destination, but a continued journey deeper and deeper into the eternal, boundless, infinite person of God and his love?
This frustrates us, because we cannot measure it. We cannot say, “Not much farther …” because we know the journal is eternal. We are even tempted to say, “We will know this or that when we get to heaven.” Really? Maybe the beauty of heaven is that we will finally recognize that we are far away from having anything figured out. Maybe this is why we will finally understand what it means to worship.
Rather than asking God when we will get there, we will finally spend an eternity enjoying the beauty of our journey. If we do ask him if we are there, we may just hear him say, “We are not even close, my children.”
There were famous lines and quotes that came from the fictional characters, one that comes to mind was the one often asked of Papa Smurf, “Are we there yet Papa Smurf?” This question came from the mouth of a weary Smurf on behalf of his troop of traveling companions. Papa Smurf would often answer in a comforting tone by saying, “Not much farther now my little Smurfs.”
This question, regarding destination, has become one that is on the lips of many people in the church today. (It goes without saying that we are not imitating the Smurfs, for they are Satanic, remember?) We want to know what the end is. In other words, “What is the bottom line?” We have stopped enjoying the journey and only fix on the destination.
One of the most depressing trips I ever took was driving across Western Illinois, Iowa, and Nerbraska with a Garmin Satellite Navigation System. No matter how far I drove, the line representing the road remained straight, and the destination seemed no closer. My fixation on this three inch screen prevented me from enjoying the drive. I do realize that driving across a flat, vast, treeless expanse is difficult to enjoy, but you get the point.
This, however, has happened more and more beyond a drive through the plains with a Garmin. We are always interested in there, and not getting there. Consider the way some churches have set up there structure to get people to their destination.
When one joins a faith community, they are thrust into a system that takes them from a "pagan" to a clean-cut, born-again, Bible speakin’, Jesus thinkin’, Bible believin’ Christian, complete with a subtle southern accent. So we have anywhere between one and five steps that people are to go through. The focus in all the steps are getting them through the first set of steps to step five. Once they are there, they are good to go, they “get it”, and they can begin helping get more "pagans" to be stage fivers.
It is so easy to have a place where people should end up. In this however, we are creating a type of person, and not leading all men and women to live out exactly who it is God has called them to be. We can systematize discipleship, and throw easy answers (or directions) that guide all people to the same place, regardless of their point of origin.
This whole idea seems odd. If this system is really how we are supposed to do things, then in many ways Jesus died and ascended too early. I have no idea where his disciples were at with regard to levels one through five, but consider the evidence. One betrayed him and then killed himself, one denied him and then wept bitterly, one doubted him, the rest abandoned him, and when he rose from the dead none of them got it. They could have been no better than second level. Yet, Jesus tells them to change the world.
Maybe, however, Jesus was more concerned with direction and movement in general than destination. Can we really have a standard for where everyone should go? Or can we recognize that in following Jesus there will be times of rapid growth and slow growth, differing directions, different expressions, and continual growth. What if there is no actual destination, but a continued journey deeper and deeper into the eternal, boundless, infinite person of God and his love?
This frustrates us, because we cannot measure it. We cannot say, “Not much farther …” because we know the journal is eternal. We are even tempted to say, “We will know this or that when we get to heaven.” Really? Maybe the beauty of heaven is that we will finally recognize that we are far away from having anything figured out. Maybe this is why we will finally understand what it means to worship.
Rather than asking God when we will get there, we will finally spend an eternity enjoying the beauty of our journey. If we do ask him if we are there, we may just hear him say, “We are not even close, my children.”
my confession
Recently I have had several individuals ask me about “what” I am. I always begin by telling them that I am simply a human being made in the image and likeness of our Creator. Once we establish this truth they then ask the question - the question that I have been asked more in the last three months than any other. It goes something like this, “A you Post-Modern or Emergent?” This question is most often asked with regard to the way I view the church, its place in society, my thoughts on truth and the Bible, and on God himself.
For some reason my being either of these things is really important for many people. I usually ask them to define what these terms mean. One person’s reply to my response was, “How are you different from someone who is modern or anti-emergent?”
Over the last few months I began thinking about how to answer this commonly asked question. I do not like labels and am driven mad by those who want to label me (or anyone) so they can quickly get to the judgment side of things. So I thought I would simply write my confession (or creed) and allow anyone who reads to judge if I am Post-Modern or Modern. Liberal or conservative. Tolerant or narrow-minded. Evangelical or Post-Evangelical. Republican or Democrat. Nice or Mean. Beer or wine. Cigarettes or cigars. (Never mind the last two). So for what it is worth here is my statement.
A Disclaimer: I am supremely confident that some may disagree or feel that this is an incomplete creed as it does not cover every area of theology. I would appeal to the historic creeds of the church – not that I am comparing this blog the Nicene Creed, the Apostolic Creed, the Athanasian Creed, etc. – I simply say this to point out that in comparison with typical systematic statements today they too can be considered incomplete. A Disclaimer on the Disclaimer: I am sure that some will want to argue about the early church creeds not being incomplete for some were written as a clarification or defense regarding what the church or individuals believed. I am aware of this, and I write my creed as a response to the question stated above.
I believe that God inspired authors to write his words in his book, the Bible. His book is perfectly suited to equip his people for every good work. The Bible is not a list of rules or an instruction manual. Rather, it is a living book that speaks to all people everywhere for all time, and should never be relegated to our whims or fancies. As the community of God we should study and explore the endless wonders and mystery within this text communally and individually so that we might better understand how to authentically live out its teachings in all parts of our lives.
I believe in One God, who formed all that is in our world. He is one God who was not created but has always existed in Three Persons in eternal, mutual self-giving love. He is a God who is above definition, trite phrases, stupid bumper stickers, and lame clichés. He is a God who invites all people to not figure him out, but to worship him according to our understanding of him revealed in the Bible, and the world in which we live, and embrace his infiniteness and bask in his mystery.
I believe in Jesus, who being fully God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, rather came to earth and lived as a poor Jewish Teacher on whom the Spirit of the Sovereign LORD rested, because God has anointed him to proclaim good news to the poor. He was sent to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. His good news was the radical availability of his Kingdom. His death was not about my being able to get to heaven, but about his defeating evil, death, sin, and suffering and inviting others to join in his movement to bring heaven to earth and in that experiencing redemption from the exile of sin and to enjoy true freedom.
I believe in the Holy Spirit of God who empowers all who follow Jesus with gifts and serves to guide, instruct, comfort, and reveal truth through a communal life of worship and shared mission. As a community we now live in the power of the Spirit existing as a community to live out the teaching of Jesus.
I believe that all men and women are in need of redemption, and that redemption is found in Jesus and the new exodus he offers to humanity. For those who trust God he invites us to live in unity and within his love. Those who have chosen to follow Jesus are, globally, the embodiment of Jesus in our world – regardless of denominational tags. I believe that the church are to be people who proclaim justice, meaning that all people are all deserving of the same amount of food, deserve access to clean water, and should never have to live in extreme poverty. We are to proclaim that all men, women, and children are equal and that boundaries created by human governments should never decide the worth of a person or what they deserve.
I believe that the church should be champions of peace and pursue it at all costs – even at the cost of our own lives. I believe that we should beat our swords and spears into farming tools and cultivate peace in our homes, cities, and our world. The church should cultivate the love of God, justice, peace, hope, and the expectation of a future given to us by the crucified one. We should never return violence for violence nor repay evil with evil. Instead we must bless those who curse us, and if our enemy is hungry, we should feed him; if he is thirsty, we ought to give him something to drink.
I believe that the sole allegiance of the church should be to Jesus and his kingdom and not to the United States or any other country, and we ought not hold dual allegiance. Our pledge of allegiance should not be to flag, republic or empire. The pledge of allegiance of the church should begin with the words, “Our Father in Heaven …” and end with, “… for thine is the power and glory forever and ever. Amen.” We ought not entangle the name of Jesus and his kingdom with any platform, candidate, party, military, or nation. Rather we must live within the empires and regimes of this world as people with hope, peace, love, and justice in the face of all powers.
As the embodiment of Jesus in our world the church should be defined by love, which is the essence of God, so that all people would know that we follow Jesus. We should live each day with the hope that Jesus will return to us and restore all things to himself to the glory of God. When Jesus returns he will judge all men and women, he will loose the chains of injustice, set the oppressed free, and bring redemption to the world. He will sit on his throne and rule forever. He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many people. His dwelling place will be with humanity on the new earth, and he will wipe away every tear, there will be no more death, mourning, crying or pain for evil will be no more. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. This is our hope and joy, and the church must give our lives to living out that future reality today.
If this confession makes me post-modern or modern, liberal or conservative, evangelical or progressive-evangelical or post-evangelical, open minded or myopic, or anything else I am okay with that. This is what I believe, and this is what I, and our community, are trying to live out every day. This is my confession.
For some reason my being either of these things is really important for many people. I usually ask them to define what these terms mean. One person’s reply to my response was, “How are you different from someone who is modern or anti-emergent?”
Over the last few months I began thinking about how to answer this commonly asked question. I do not like labels and am driven mad by those who want to label me (or anyone) so they can quickly get to the judgment side of things. So I thought I would simply write my confession (or creed) and allow anyone who reads to judge if I am Post-Modern or Modern. Liberal or conservative. Tolerant or narrow-minded. Evangelical or Post-Evangelical. Republican or Democrat. Nice or Mean. Beer or wine. Cigarettes or cigars. (Never mind the last two). So for what it is worth here is my statement.
A Disclaimer: I am supremely confident that some may disagree or feel that this is an incomplete creed as it does not cover every area of theology. I would appeal to the historic creeds of the church – not that I am comparing this blog the Nicene Creed, the Apostolic Creed, the Athanasian Creed, etc. – I simply say this to point out that in comparison with typical systematic statements today they too can be considered incomplete. A Disclaimer on the Disclaimer: I am sure that some will want to argue about the early church creeds not being incomplete for some were written as a clarification or defense regarding what the church or individuals believed. I am aware of this, and I write my creed as a response to the question stated above.
I believe that God inspired authors to write his words in his book, the Bible. His book is perfectly suited to equip his people for every good work. The Bible is not a list of rules or an instruction manual. Rather, it is a living book that speaks to all people everywhere for all time, and should never be relegated to our whims or fancies. As the community of God we should study and explore the endless wonders and mystery within this text communally and individually so that we might better understand how to authentically live out its teachings in all parts of our lives.
I believe in One God, who formed all that is in our world. He is one God who was not created but has always existed in Three Persons in eternal, mutual self-giving love. He is a God who is above definition, trite phrases, stupid bumper stickers, and lame clichés. He is a God who invites all people to not figure him out, but to worship him according to our understanding of him revealed in the Bible, and the world in which we live, and embrace his infiniteness and bask in his mystery.
I believe in Jesus, who being fully God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, rather came to earth and lived as a poor Jewish Teacher on whom the Spirit of the Sovereign LORD rested, because God has anointed him to proclaim good news to the poor. He was sent to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. His good news was the radical availability of his Kingdom. His death was not about my being able to get to heaven, but about his defeating evil, death, sin, and suffering and inviting others to join in his movement to bring heaven to earth and in that experiencing redemption from the exile of sin and to enjoy true freedom.
I believe in the Holy Spirit of God who empowers all who follow Jesus with gifts and serves to guide, instruct, comfort, and reveal truth through a communal life of worship and shared mission. As a community we now live in the power of the Spirit existing as a community to live out the teaching of Jesus.
I believe that all men and women are in need of redemption, and that redemption is found in Jesus and the new exodus he offers to humanity. For those who trust God he invites us to live in unity and within his love. Those who have chosen to follow Jesus are, globally, the embodiment of Jesus in our world – regardless of denominational tags. I believe that the church are to be people who proclaim justice, meaning that all people are all deserving of the same amount of food, deserve access to clean water, and should never have to live in extreme poverty. We are to proclaim that all men, women, and children are equal and that boundaries created by human governments should never decide the worth of a person or what they deserve.
I believe that the church should be champions of peace and pursue it at all costs – even at the cost of our own lives. I believe that we should beat our swords and spears into farming tools and cultivate peace in our homes, cities, and our world. The church should cultivate the love of God, justice, peace, hope, and the expectation of a future given to us by the crucified one. We should never return violence for violence nor repay evil with evil. Instead we must bless those who curse us, and if our enemy is hungry, we should feed him; if he is thirsty, we ought to give him something to drink.
I believe that the sole allegiance of the church should be to Jesus and his kingdom and not to the United States or any other country, and we ought not hold dual allegiance. Our pledge of allegiance should not be to flag, republic or empire. The pledge of allegiance of the church should begin with the words, “Our Father in Heaven …” and end with, “… for thine is the power and glory forever and ever. Amen.” We ought not entangle the name of Jesus and his kingdom with any platform, candidate, party, military, or nation. Rather we must live within the empires and regimes of this world as people with hope, peace, love, and justice in the face of all powers.
As the embodiment of Jesus in our world the church should be defined by love, which is the essence of God, so that all people would know that we follow Jesus. We should live each day with the hope that Jesus will return to us and restore all things to himself to the glory of God. When Jesus returns he will judge all men and women, he will loose the chains of injustice, set the oppressed free, and bring redemption to the world. He will sit on his throne and rule forever. He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many people. His dwelling place will be with humanity on the new earth, and he will wipe away every tear, there will be no more death, mourning, crying or pain for evil will be no more. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. This is our hope and joy, and the church must give our lives to living out that future reality today.
If this confession makes me post-modern or modern, liberal or conservative, evangelical or progressive-evangelical or post-evangelical, open minded or myopic, or anything else I am okay with that. This is what I believe, and this is what I, and our community, are trying to live out every day. This is my confession.
i want to ride my bicycle!
I remember when I first learned how to ride a bike. I was riding a red-orange Schwinn with a banana seat that had a cowboy design on the seat. I remember the first few feet of coasting effortlessly, the sound of the wind in my ears, the rush of excitement watching the pavement speed below my feet. It was one of life’s greatest moments for a five year old.
Years later I was given a new bike for Christmas, I rode that bike until it broke (literally). Then in the late eighties I got a new freestyle bike that was neon pink. Lest you laugh, you must know that riding a neon bike of any color made you the envy of your street. I rode that bike until it broke me (literally). As the years went on I rode less and less.
Recently I bought a new road bike. More than exercise, I have also begun commuting to work on it. My commute really is amazing. I ride along the South Platte River trail. It is a bike path that runs along the river banks of the Platte River for five miles. The trail is within a half-mile of my house and the church building so it makes for a very easy commute.
Initially, my motivation was to curb spending on gas (some of my riding is related to the fact that I do not want to give the oil companies any more money on top of the billions of dollars in profits they greedily net every year), and I wanted reduce my carbon footprint. That is until I realized what other benefits there are.
Last week I was riding under an overpass. As I did I heard a car horn honk, and an angry voice follow calling someone something because that someone had cut the horn honker off and apparently the horn honker was able to determine what kind of person that someone was by the way he or she drove. The traffic was gridlocked so much so that I was moving faster than them. I began to think about the stress that accompanies driving. I mean admit it, how many times do you get frustrated by some yahoo in a Suburban (remember the footprint comment?) who should never have been given a license?
As I surveyed this scene, I rode under the overpass, and looked at the river to see a family of geese. The rush of the river complimented the sound of wind in my ears. I could no longer hear the traffic, I could no longer smell the exhaust fumes, it was perfect. It was simple.
So often when it comes to simplifying we do it to save money or time. But there are so many other things that come with it that we miss. Things like getting home in the same amount of time on my bike minus the frustration of rush hour traffic on I-25 Northbound. Things like getting home and having your son waiting for you with his bike. Things like seeing geese swim along the river. Things like hearing the rapids and waterfalls crash and twist along the way. I could go on and on.
Maybe we should do what we can to just live more simply. Buy smaller houses. Driver less. Eat dinner at home more. Spend time playing wiffle ball outside instead of playing Wii inside. Keep only the clothes that you wear. Sit with friends to talk and laugh. Give more and spend less. Run through a field with your kids. Go hiking. Sit by a river. Laugh a lot. It is amazing that in all of these things, there is deep joy that far exceeds saving a few dollars or carving out more time for you to do more. It is the joy of simplicity. Enjoying people and life more.
Each day when I commute, I am reminded of the simplest thing of all, the joy of riding a bike.
Years later I was given a new bike for Christmas, I rode that bike until it broke (literally). Then in the late eighties I got a new freestyle bike that was neon pink. Lest you laugh, you must know that riding a neon bike of any color made you the envy of your street. I rode that bike until it broke me (literally). As the years went on I rode less and less.
Recently I bought a new road bike. More than exercise, I have also begun commuting to work on it. My commute really is amazing. I ride along the South Platte River trail. It is a bike path that runs along the river banks of the Platte River for five miles. The trail is within a half-mile of my house and the church building so it makes for a very easy commute.
Initially, my motivation was to curb spending on gas (some of my riding is related to the fact that I do not want to give the oil companies any more money on top of the billions of dollars in profits they greedily net every year), and I wanted reduce my carbon footprint. That is until I realized what other benefits there are.
Last week I was riding under an overpass. As I did I heard a car horn honk, and an angry voice follow calling someone something because that someone had cut the horn honker off and apparently the horn honker was able to determine what kind of person that someone was by the way he or she drove. The traffic was gridlocked so much so that I was moving faster than them. I began to think about the stress that accompanies driving. I mean admit it, how many times do you get frustrated by some yahoo in a Suburban (remember the footprint comment?) who should never have been given a license?
As I surveyed this scene, I rode under the overpass, and looked at the river to see a family of geese. The rush of the river complimented the sound of wind in my ears. I could no longer hear the traffic, I could no longer smell the exhaust fumes, it was perfect. It was simple.
So often when it comes to simplifying we do it to save money or time. But there are so many other things that come with it that we miss. Things like getting home in the same amount of time on my bike minus the frustration of rush hour traffic on I-25 Northbound. Things like getting home and having your son waiting for you with his bike. Things like seeing geese swim along the river. Things like hearing the rapids and waterfalls crash and twist along the way. I could go on and on.
Maybe we should do what we can to just live more simply. Buy smaller houses. Driver less. Eat dinner at home more. Spend time playing wiffle ball outside instead of playing Wii inside. Keep only the clothes that you wear. Sit with friends to talk and laugh. Give more and spend less. Run through a field with your kids. Go hiking. Sit by a river. Laugh a lot. It is amazing that in all of these things, there is deep joy that far exceeds saving a few dollars or carving out more time for you to do more. It is the joy of simplicity. Enjoying people and life more.
Each day when I commute, I am reminded of the simplest thing of all, the joy of riding a bike.
dispensationalism, eschatology, and email
This is an email and video I received today ...
FW: THE RAPTURE
This is not to say the Rapture is coming, I am not into predictions ... but it's only two minutes of video ... see it to the end.
Love to all of you
This is my reply to the email ...
Re: Out of Office Reply
Thank you for your email. I am currently out of the office due to the fact that I have been raptured. I will never be back in the office. If you are reading this, you have been left behind. Good luck and hang on tight I hear the next seven years are not going to be good.
Peace be with you,
Michael Hidalgo
consumer service
For several years I have spoken (and written) about the culture of gross consumerism that exists in the American church. Often church leaders, myself included, lament the attitude of many people who are a part of churches that simply want to be “fed”, find some music they can tolerate, or find a place that serves the right cup of coffee. However maybe we should stop pointing the finger at those who are consumers and point the finger at the church culture that has been fostered by church leaders in America.
For so long we have made the presumption that people are like this in spite of leadership’s best efforts. However, it just may be that people are consumers precisely because of what we are doing. It may be healthy to pause and consider whether or not church leadership has enabled men and women to be the consumers they are. The true guilt may lie in the leadership of today’s churches who aid and abet those who are a part of faith communities to sit back and demand solid customer service.
Two weeks ago I was vacationing with my family in California. While there I met a young couple who were struggling with their faith. It was, as many are, a good struggle. They were asking important questions of themselves and God concerning life and how they should live. One of the big struggles they had was “going to church.” As they spoke I began to think about the vernacular that we have created.
We talk about “going to church.” By that we are referring to waking up on a Sunday morning and walking, biking, or driving to a building where some people gather to hear and/or sing some music, hear a teaching, give some cash, and maybe say hi to a few people. An event has become the church.
Another scenario is when we make plans with friends who live on the other side of town. So we say something like, “Let’s meet at the church.” By this we are referring to a building where the people on Sunday morning meet. Brick, mortar, steel, glass, wood. Steeples, stained glass, pews, candles, naves. A building has become the church.
These may seem like small things, but if we go beyond just the jargon to the way events and buildings came to be known as “the church” we may see one way in which we help others to become the consumer.
For years the central idea of church has been the all-important hour on Sunday morning; over time it has become known as “church.” Since this hour has become so important, a consistent place to meet has also become necessary. Overtime these places have become known as “church.” Meanwhile the very group of people who gather on Sunday morning (an event known as church) in a building (a place known as church) have no idea who they are anymore (some call this group church).
These people go to a building where they like what is happening at the event on Sunday. When what is happening inside the building no longer suits their tastes they leave. It is that simple. For them they are not leaving a family or a community of faith, they are simply going to better restaurant, or at least one that better suits their tastes. This should come as no surprise.
I have heard many pastors tell others that they should be consistent with their “church” attendance. Meaning, “you should gather with some people in a building on Sunday.” For many this is the hallmark, or at least gateway, to the full life that Jesus talked about. If someone is struggling with a tragedy, an addiction, or sinful behavior, they may jbe counseled to “go to church.”
Several weeks ago I was speaking with a friend who said, “I really feel I am doing well in my walk with God. I am even going to church.” Another friend who follows Jesus gets frustrated because many feel he lacks any commitment to God because he does not “go to church” often. While he has a community of men and women with whom he gathers in homes, for some it is not enough.
This kind of thinking causes people to think about church as an event. If we are expected to “go” to “church” then can easily be telling people to “go to an event at a building’ (both of which are called church). When left to this without any explanation, sitting in pews then becomes something that one is to do when trying to be a good Christian. Add to this, the many communities of faith that add every possible accoutrement to their buildings, sell all kinds of drinks for attendees to enjoy while taking in the program, and the fact that many of these events are created to look like a concert or a Broadway production; and you have given the person who is supposed to “go to church” criteria by which they can choose your place or the one down the street.
Adding all of this stuff to a gathering of believers is in many ways accepting the consumer culture, and even capitalizing on it. If people will choose to go to a certain place because they like this or that, and church leadership responds by finding out what the masses want and delivering it, then we are simply feeding the problem. Churches today do demographic studies, talk about their “target audience”, imitate the most popular restaurants, attempt to look and sound like the latest hip entertainers, and often give sermons that only serve to scratch what itching consumer ears want to hear. Maybe making the all-important hour like Disneyland has only fueled this. It is no wonder we call these gathering "services."
Some will say that we should use the culture to communicate the message so that others will more easily understand. However, we cannot forget that the medium is the message. What happened to reaching out to anyone and everyone? What happened to the community of God living as an alternative to the prevailing culture, rather than being poor imitators of it? What happened to the message of Jesus and the prophets? I suppose that in today’s church culture Jesus would not have many people who would want to “go to his church”.
As church leadership, we must first look within before we point the finger at the problems we see in our faith communities. We just may recognize that our failures occur not in spite of our best efforts, but precisely because of them.
For so long we have made the presumption that people are like this in spite of leadership’s best efforts. However, it just may be that people are consumers precisely because of what we are doing. It may be healthy to pause and consider whether or not church leadership has enabled men and women to be the consumers they are. The true guilt may lie in the leadership of today’s churches who aid and abet those who are a part of faith communities to sit back and demand solid customer service.
Two weeks ago I was vacationing with my family in California. While there I met a young couple who were struggling with their faith. It was, as many are, a good struggle. They were asking important questions of themselves and God concerning life and how they should live. One of the big struggles they had was “going to church.” As they spoke I began to think about the vernacular that we have created.
We talk about “going to church.” By that we are referring to waking up on a Sunday morning and walking, biking, or driving to a building where some people gather to hear and/or sing some music, hear a teaching, give some cash, and maybe say hi to a few people. An event has become the church.
Another scenario is when we make plans with friends who live on the other side of town. So we say something like, “Let’s meet at the church.” By this we are referring to a building where the people on Sunday morning meet. Brick, mortar, steel, glass, wood. Steeples, stained glass, pews, candles, naves. A building has become the church.
These may seem like small things, but if we go beyond just the jargon to the way events and buildings came to be known as “the church” we may see one way in which we help others to become the consumer.
For years the central idea of church has been the all-important hour on Sunday morning; over time it has become known as “church.” Since this hour has become so important, a consistent place to meet has also become necessary. Overtime these places have become known as “church.” Meanwhile the very group of people who gather on Sunday morning (an event known as church) in a building (a place known as church) have no idea who they are anymore (some call this group church).
These people go to a building where they like what is happening at the event on Sunday. When what is happening inside the building no longer suits their tastes they leave. It is that simple. For them they are not leaving a family or a community of faith, they are simply going to better restaurant, or at least one that better suits their tastes. This should come as no surprise.
I have heard many pastors tell others that they should be consistent with their “church” attendance. Meaning, “you should gather with some people in a building on Sunday.” For many this is the hallmark, or at least gateway, to the full life that Jesus talked about. If someone is struggling with a tragedy, an addiction, or sinful behavior, they may jbe counseled to “go to church.”
Several weeks ago I was speaking with a friend who said, “I really feel I am doing well in my walk with God. I am even going to church.” Another friend who follows Jesus gets frustrated because many feel he lacks any commitment to God because he does not “go to church” often. While he has a community of men and women with whom he gathers in homes, for some it is not enough.
This kind of thinking causes people to think about church as an event. If we are expected to “go” to “church” then can easily be telling people to “go to an event at a building’ (both of which are called church). When left to this without any explanation, sitting in pews then becomes something that one is to do when trying to be a good Christian. Add to this, the many communities of faith that add every possible accoutrement to their buildings, sell all kinds of drinks for attendees to enjoy while taking in the program, and the fact that many of these events are created to look like a concert or a Broadway production; and you have given the person who is supposed to “go to church” criteria by which they can choose your place or the one down the street.
Adding all of this stuff to a gathering of believers is in many ways accepting the consumer culture, and even capitalizing on it. If people will choose to go to a certain place because they like this or that, and church leadership responds by finding out what the masses want and delivering it, then we are simply feeding the problem. Churches today do demographic studies, talk about their “target audience”, imitate the most popular restaurants, attempt to look and sound like the latest hip entertainers, and often give sermons that only serve to scratch what itching consumer ears want to hear. Maybe making the all-important hour like Disneyland has only fueled this. It is no wonder we call these gathering "services."
Some will say that we should use the culture to communicate the message so that others will more easily understand. However, we cannot forget that the medium is the message. What happened to reaching out to anyone and everyone? What happened to the community of God living as an alternative to the prevailing culture, rather than being poor imitators of it? What happened to the message of Jesus and the prophets? I suppose that in today’s church culture Jesus would not have many people who would want to “go to his church”.
As church leadership, we must first look within before we point the finger at the problems we see in our faith communities. We just may recognize that our failures occur not in spite of our best efforts, but precisely because of them.
being green
Just a few weeks ago, April 22, we celebrated Earth Day. In recognition of that, we at DCC stopped and spoke about our commitment to the environment, to being green. Many who are a part of this faith community embraced this idea. We encourage our faith community to find alternative forms of transportation, to recycle, to use less energy by simplifying, etc.
What has been fascinating to me about the angry response that caring for the very earth that God called good generates from some people. I really do not understand why there is such vehement disagreement and debate among some about this issue. Since I have been asked repeatedly about this, I thought I would simply take the time to talk a little about why I am green.
In Genesis 1, the writer tells us that God said, "' ... fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.' Then God said, 'I give you every seed bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.' And it was so." From the start the first thing God tells the man and the woman in the garden is to care for his earth.
In Genesis 2, the writer tells us, "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. " (Scholars refer to this as "The Creation Mandate"). The word for "work" in that in this verse is abad. The idea of working and caring in the garden carries with it the idea that we are called to continue to create alongside of God. Caring for the earth was not simply for practical reasons. It was God entrusting what he created to us - to humanity. He was giving us a way to interact with the earth - the dirt from which we were created - in worship to him. Humanity is made in God's image - so when we co-create - care for and work his creation we are identifying with him ...
In Genesis 3, the writer tells us, "To Adam he said, 'Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, "You must not eat of it," 'Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.'" One of the immediate results of sin is the cursing of the dirt. Which is interesting. God puts a barrier between man and the earth because of sin. At creation he gave humanity a charge to care for it and to work it. However, the work has now changed to toil. The word "toil" is atsav. It means more than work - it is sorrowful / anxiety devoid of joy. Suddenly the relationship God instituted between man and the earth is broken - The care which Adam once was given was work / care that was ultimately a vehicle for worship. That all changed and now has become joy-less labor.
However, in all of this there is a promise. It is interesting to note how many times God brings the land/earth (The Hebrew word for land eretz is translated both as land, ground, and earth) into the promises he makes to humanity. We often say that a rainbows are God's sign of his promise to us never to destroy the earth again by a flood - however Genesis 9.13 God says in the midst of his renewing the Creation Mandate with Noah and his family, " I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth." Which raises the question - God made a covenant with the earth? In the midst of God making a covenant with Noah and his sons God includes the earth.
He also gives a promise to Abraham - central to that promise is a promise to give him land. He promises the same to Isaac, Jacob, and the people of Israel throughout Torah. He then gives a promise to David - promising him a throne/kingdom established forever. He points to a physical location - Jerusalem - at the center of it all. The beauty is when we get to the end of the book - John has a vision in Revelation of the new heaven and new earth. It seems that each time God reaches toward humanity he is redeeming an initial relationship he ordained from the beginning - our relationship with the earth.
It seems that there is something in the Bible about God caring for his creation too. The reality is that today we are no longer living in the garden, but we are headed for one (see Revelation 22). As a result we believe we are to live in light of that future hope now. In direct relation to the earth then, we have a responsibility to care for creation. We should have a deep concern for the environment and ask how can we be more earth friendly? God called this place good - and we should treat it as such. We recognize that one day he will restore/renovate it, however God never rescinded the creation mandate - he has just given us a way to have a relationship with the earth that brings him glory.
In all of this I still find some get angry about this. Someone recently said to me in an angry tone, “I thought you worshipped Jesus, not Al Gore.” (I did not take the time to tell him that if I worshipped Al Gore, I would not so much care for creation, rather I would make statues in Al Gore’s likeness and bow down to them, leave food around said statues and do other stuff to honor Al Gore.) This comment struck me as odd. Again, why the anger when it comes to caring for God's earth?
I paused for a moment and responded. My response was something like, “No, I just may worship the same God Al Gore does, maybe this is why we both care for the environment.”
What has been fascinating to me about the angry response that caring for the very earth that God called good generates from some people. I really do not understand why there is such vehement disagreement and debate among some about this issue. Since I have been asked repeatedly about this, I thought I would simply take the time to talk a little about why I am green.
In Genesis 1, the writer tells us that God said, "' ... fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.' Then God said, 'I give you every seed bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.' And it was so." From the start the first thing God tells the man and the woman in the garden is to care for his earth.
In Genesis 2, the writer tells us, "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. " (Scholars refer to this as "The Creation Mandate"). The word for "work" in that in this verse is abad. The idea of working and caring in the garden carries with it the idea that we are called to continue to create alongside of God. Caring for the earth was not simply for practical reasons. It was God entrusting what he created to us - to humanity. He was giving us a way to interact with the earth - the dirt from which we were created - in worship to him. Humanity is made in God's image - so when we co-create - care for and work his creation we are identifying with him ...
In Genesis 3, the writer tells us, "To Adam he said, 'Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, "You must not eat of it," 'Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.'" One of the immediate results of sin is the cursing of the dirt. Which is interesting. God puts a barrier between man and the earth because of sin. At creation he gave humanity a charge to care for it and to work it. However, the work has now changed to toil. The word "toil" is atsav. It means more than work - it is sorrowful / anxiety devoid of joy. Suddenly the relationship God instituted between man and the earth is broken - The care which Adam once was given was work / care that was ultimately a vehicle for worship. That all changed and now has become joy-less labor.
However, in all of this there is a promise. It is interesting to note how many times God brings the land/earth (The Hebrew word for land eretz is translated both as land, ground, and earth) into the promises he makes to humanity. We often say that a rainbows are God's sign of his promise to us never to destroy the earth again by a flood - however Genesis 9.13 God says in the midst of his renewing the Creation Mandate with Noah and his family, " I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth." Which raises the question - God made a covenant with the earth? In the midst of God making a covenant with Noah and his sons God includes the earth.
He also gives a promise to Abraham - central to that promise is a promise to give him land. He promises the same to Isaac, Jacob, and the people of Israel throughout Torah. He then gives a promise to David - promising him a throne/kingdom established forever. He points to a physical location - Jerusalem - at the center of it all. The beauty is when we get to the end of the book - John has a vision in Revelation of the new heaven and new earth. It seems that each time God reaches toward humanity he is redeeming an initial relationship he ordained from the beginning - our relationship with the earth.
It seems that there is something in the Bible about God caring for his creation too. The reality is that today we are no longer living in the garden, but we are headed for one (see Revelation 22). As a result we believe we are to live in light of that future hope now. In direct relation to the earth then, we have a responsibility to care for creation. We should have a deep concern for the environment and ask how can we be more earth friendly? God called this place good - and we should treat it as such. We recognize that one day he will restore/renovate it, however God never rescinded the creation mandate - he has just given us a way to have a relationship with the earth that brings him glory.
In all of this I still find some get angry about this. Someone recently said to me in an angry tone, “I thought you worshipped Jesus, not Al Gore.” (I did not take the time to tell him that if I worshipped Al Gore, I would not so much care for creation, rather I would make statues in Al Gore’s likeness and bow down to them, leave food around said statues and do other stuff to honor Al Gore.) This comment struck me as odd. Again, why the anger when it comes to caring for God's earth?
I paused for a moment and responded. My response was something like, “No, I just may worship the same God Al Gore does, maybe this is why we both care for the environment.”