In contrast, it is our responsibility as Christ-followers to be positive change agents- bent solely on the fulfillment of Jesus’ prayer to the Father: “YOUR KINGDOM COME, YOUR WILL BE DONE, ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN.” We cannot do this alone, thus our desperate need for Christian community and cooperation. Thus, the Church.

Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, Let light shine out of darkness, has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. [2 Corinthians 4:1-6, ESV]

May I wake up tomorrow with the desire and ability to be a good servant of Jesus Christ to the world. To you.

A note from Joe: BA Stewart is a friend of mine from seminary in New Orleans. He’s one of the most intelligent and thoughtful guys I’ve ever known, and I’m grateful for our many conversations that elevated my knowledge and comprehension of philosophy (and photography). Please enjoy his guest post.

C.S. Lewis’ book, Mere Christianity is among one of his more popular non-fiction works. Lewis’ objective in his book is to discover what it means to be merely Christian–that is a Christian without the perceived trappings of Christianity. He does so by starting with general revelation and concluding Jesus through a series of arguments from emotion and joy and avoiding Christian jargon and divisive theological issues so that the reader is not distracted by such things. Lewis has found many friends among Christians who share his sentiment that Christianity in and of itself is a beautiful, but is often tarnished, duly or unduly, by the perception that Christians are divided, bigoted, old fashion, hypocritical, or one of a million other indictments that keep people away from the faith. Interestingly enough, even some of these attempts to recover the basic teachings of Christianity are now used to as fodder against Christians. Take for instance Christian fundamentalism. This movement was bread out of a series of pamphlets released at the turn of 20th century entitled, “The Fundamentals”, which attempted recapture the basic doctrines of Christianity. This among other movements to one degree or another have all in one shape form or fashion attempted to discover mere Christianity.

Reclaiming the essential doctrines of Christianity is a tough gambit, as inevitably one will include a doctrine that some consider extraneous, or one will exclude a doctrine another considers essential. I have my theological convictions of which I will not relinquish, but there are other doctrines I hold more loosely. To me, however, the more important question to Christianity is, what does it mean to be merely Christian, practically speaking? I ask this not to diminish doctrine. I personally believe that doctrine is more important that praxis because theology undergirds praxis–without the doctrine the praxis  is meaningless. I ask this because as Christians, we have a theological conviction that we have a highly doctrinal message that the world needs to hear and believe. Interestingly, Jesus cared a lot about praxis too. The bulk of his teachings are practical theology as opposed to philosophical theology. But with this said, Jesus did not give a huge list of do’s and don’ts or a how-to guide for delivering the message. Rather, he summarized his commands into two commands and spoke largely in the form akin to wisdom literature. Paul was not a whole lot more specific. We do get somewhat synoptic view of his ministry in Acts and autobiographical glimpses in his letters, but this raises the question, are such things prescriptive or descriptive? At the end of the day, I am not sure, but taking in to account the message of  Romans, perhaps the most systematic theological work in the Bible spends 12 chapters talking about one particular doctrine, (namely the gospel) and reduces the implications of the gospel to a matter of conscience in Chapter 14, so if I was to err, I would err on the descriptive side. But nevertheless I do understand that everything they did was for the purpose of spreading the the gospel.

As a person interested in such things, I have run the gauntlet about how I’ve approached praxis. I was raised in a rather fundamental environment. While I don’t think that there is anything inherently evil about my upbringing much of what I was told as to what Christians do as a child was a product not so much of biblical teachings but of rather traditional forms of Christian behaviors. I however did not become a Christian until I was 18. After becoming a Christian, I rather embraced the more fundamentalist precepts I already knew because to me, such things were what Christians did. But then I changed. I went a trip to another land and came back and did a pendulum swing the other way. I became highly critical of Christian practices in America and rejected many of them on my own accord. It took some time to center myself again, although Joe probably still thinks I’m a fundamentalist .  While I probably over-reacted to my experience, I think lesson burned in my brain is one of self-evaluation. I constantly ask myself a personalized form of the one I asked earlier: are the actions that I perform merely Christian? Relating back to my experience, I was amazed when I stepped off the plane in another land how the in-house “wars” American Christians fight diminished. These Christians weren’t debating young earth creationism against old earth creation against theistic evolution against intelligent design. There weren’t  arguments over traditional and contemporary forms of music. There weren’t “emergents” critiquing the “seeker sensitive”/relevance movement critiquing church growth movement critiquing whatever came before that. There weren’t debates over which translation was the best and which ones were from the devil — in fact, most were happy to have a translation, period. There wasn’t much discussion at all, really, other than discussion over what the Bible say, talks about whom they shared with this week, who they would share with next week, prayer, and where they would meet next week as to not draw too much attention to themselves.  In personal reflection when I ask myself the aforementioned question, I am amazed how much of my quote “Christian” practices melt away. This is not an indictment of American Christianity, but a self-evaluation, and one that I think needs to be asked. This helps me stay focused on the task that God commissioned his disciples to do.

Sometimes I think we treat our theological differences like a boxing match. I can hear the announcer standing center ring proclaiming loudly, “IN THIS CORNER, THE DEFENDER OF THE DOCTRINES… THE GUARDIAN OF THE GOSPEL… THE SULTAN OF THE SCRIPTURES… SUUUUPER… THEEEOOO… LOOOOOGAAAAAN!!!”

What you rarely hear these days is, “And in this corner, Paul, a humble servant of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Maybe there’s a reason for that. Having an open relationship with others, regardless of religion, denomination, or theological bent, is what we are here for today. We don’t build those relationships for the sake of old school bloodsport. We build them for the sake of friendship, for love.

We are so busy protecting and defending God from humanity that we forget to be servants of Christ to humanity. We’re spending so much time protecting God and the Gospel from those who would deny it that we forget to lovingly live it out on a daily hourly basis. We don’t  build relationships with an agenda. We make friends because of love. Plain and simple. When we see others through the lens of an agenda other than love, we turn them into fixer-uper projects. Our job is not to fix people. That’s God’s job.

Christine Mallouhi, in her book Waging Peace on Islam, tells the story of St. Francis of Assisi, who during the height of the Crusades traveled to Egypt and visited the Sultan Kamil (the nephew of the great Islamic leader Saladin). Francis came in humility and peace, in contrast to the conquering Crusaders. His approach and attitude so impressed the Muslim Sultan that he invited Francis to send his Little Brothers throughout his territory. It is out of this experience that we have perhaps Francis’s wisest counsel: “Preach the Gospel at all times, and if necessary, use words.” He saw the dignity of God in every Muslim person. Such grace toward Muslims was radical in his day, and still is in ours. [Paul-Gordon Chandler, Pilgrims of Christ on the Muslim Road]

And it’s not just Muslims who deserve that humility and respect. It’s our Christian brothers and sisters. Our atheist and agnostic friends.We honor and love our Hindu friends. Love must have no bounds.

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. [John 13:34-35, ESV]

“Thus there is such a thing as human absorption. It appears in all the forms of conversion wherever the superior power of one person is consciously or unconsciously misused to influence profoundly and draw into his spell an individual or a whole community. Here one soul operates directly upon another soul. The weak have been overcome by the strong, the resistance of the weak has been broken down under the influence of another person. He has been overpowered, but not won over by the thing itself. This becomes evident as soon as the demand is made that he throw himself into the cause itself, independently of the person to whom he is bound, or possibly in opposition to this person. Here is where the humanly converted person breaks down and thus makes it evident that his conversion was effected, not by the Holy Spirit, but by a man, and therefore has no stability.”

[Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together, pp. 32-33]

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

(John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

-John 1:1-18, ESV

Okay, so Mark Harmon didn’t make a cameo in my English class at Auburn in January 2000, but you can imagine my surprise when his lookalike did. He was laid back; he was cool. He wasn’t our professor- that would feed a power structure created by The Man. No, this guy was a part of the counterculture. He was our guide.

Twice at Auburn I had professors who thought they were my spiritual guide: both English and Literature professors. Another, an economics professor, was our political conscience. He taught us what it meant to be a libertarian, then he ran for governor of Alabama. I digress…

Mr. Shoop, as I shall call my hippie English teacher (I’ve long forgotten his actual name), stood before our class and professed that all literature was open to interpretation. Everything. If it has been written, it is open for interpretation. I challenged his assertion, “So if I write something about a tree and you interpret it as being about the mechanical workings of a modern factory, then that’s okay?” He said yes. “What if I tell you that it’s about a tree? That it’s not about a factory, but simply a tree?” Mr. Shoop explained that it didn’t matter. Everything was open for interpretation.

That’s an interesting take on truth. The good news is I got an A. I guess he could have interpreted my work as an F, but I would have challenged his interpretation. I always think my work deserves an A, even if it doesn’t.

Some years ago Voddie Baucham joked that if someone approached him with the premise that “there is no truth,” he would take the liberty to punch that person in the nose. I can think of more creative methods of making the same point, all of which would be endlessly entertaining. It comes down to this: there will always be one correct interpretation, one absolute truth. If I write a poem about a tree, and I tell you that it’s about a tree and nothing less, then my poem is not open to interpretation. You may wish that I had a secondary meaning. You may even project that wish upon my poem, proclaiming that I am actually writing about factories. But the truth remains the same regardless of your interpretation. My poem is about a tree.

Here’s the point, which I’m positive any thinking individual realizes. To say that no truth exists is to make a truth statement. It contradicts itself. Even anthropologists accept that truth does exist, regardless of cultural differences. It’s not always clear what that truth is, but it exists. The goal is to find it, no matter hard it is to find. And that’s okay.

Anyway, we all know this whole post is really about those fascist fluffy bunnies.

Most of my seminary-educated friends would mock this attempt, since they read close to a book a week. My friend Adam Feldman is the inspiration for this little project. A while back he attempted to read 50 books in 52 weeks. You can read his final review here. For me, this is a stretch. I’m easily distracted. I live in the Internet age. If I want to know something, I look it up on Wikipedia, I Google it, or if my books aren’t packed in boxes and stuck in a storage room (and most are right now), I might open one of my books to look it up. I learn in ADHD. I learn in article format, not book format. And so far that learning method has worked for me. But I need to be more disciplined in reading.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. You see the list of books above and realize I’ve got a 20-something page children’s book filled with pictures up there. True. But sometimes less is more, and I think there’s a lot to be learned from Shel Silverstein. Also, I think The Giving Tree offsets NT Wright’s Justification, which I anticipate will be a pretty difficult book to sort through. It turns out The Word Became Flesh is written in a one year devotion style, so I’ll be reading it every day.

I’ve got a few alternates (that’s why you see 27 books listed above), just in case some turn out to be duds. And who knows- maybe I’ll beat my 2 books a month pace and read more. If you’re interested in any of these books listed above, click here and you can visit my Amazon.com aStore, where you’ll find the entire list with book descriptions. You can buy each book there, too (and I get a little cut from Amazon for each book you buy).

So this is actually a challenge. Twenty-five books in fifty-two weeks. Wish me luck. I’ll need it.

Oh, this “noble” culture of ours! It speaks so piously of human dignity and human rights and then disregards this dignity and these rights of countless millions and treads them underfoot, only because they live overseas or because their skins are of different color or because they cannot help themselves. This culture does not know how hollow and miserable and full of glib talk it is, how common it looks to those who follow it across the seas and see what it has done there, and this culture has no right to speak of personal dignity and human rights…

I will not enumerate all the crimes that have been committed under the pretext of justice. People robbed native inhabitants of their land, made slaves of them, let loose the scum of mankind upon them. Think of the atrocities that were perpetrated upon people made subservient to us, how systematically we have ruined them with our alcoholic “gifts”, and everything else we have done…We decimate them, and then, by the stroke of a pen, we take their land so they have nothing left at all…

If all this oppression and all this sin and shame are perpetrated under the eye of the German God, or the American God, or the British God, and if our states do not feel obliged first to lay aside their claim to be “Christian” — then the name of Jesus is blasphemed and made a mockery. And the Christianity of our states is blasphemed and made a mockery before those poor people. The name of Jesus has become a curse, and our Christianity — yours and mine — has become a falsehood and a disgrace, if the crimes are not atoned for in the very place where they were instigated. For every person who committed an atrocity in Jesus’ name, someone must step in to help in Jesus’ name; for every person who robbed, someone must bring a replacement; for everyone who cursed, someone must bless.

And now, when you speak about missions, let this be your message: We must make atonement for all the terrible crimes we read of in the newspapers. We must make atonement for the still worse ones, which we do not read about in the papers, crimes that are shrouded in the silence of the jungle night… [Albert Schweitzer, January 6, 1905]

“I used love like money, but love doesn’t work like money. It is not a commodity. When we barter with it, we all lose. When the church does not love its enemies, it fuels their rage. It makes them hate us more.” [Don Miller, Blue Like Jazz]

When we are passive-aggressive, we tend to make snide, underhanded, and indirect comments toward those whom we harbor ill-feelings. We are not direct with them. We do not approach them, as Jesus mandated in Matthew 18. It is only through direct confrontation with God or people that reconciliation is possible. We use our love a a commodity, withholding it from those with whom we’re angry. Nothing is resolved through passive-aggression, nor is its primary goal to resolve conflict. The priority of passive-aggression is to release anger and frustration while maintaining the façade of spiritual maturity. Passive-aggression could not be further from spiritual maturity; it is the foundation for vanity.

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. [Matthew, 18:15-16, ESV] 

I know we all have moments of passive-aggressive behavior, and there are plenty of times when it is better to bite our tongue than to act out in aggressive confrontation. No question, it is imperative that we use wisdom when picking our fights. Still, we cannot hide behind the ruse of false humility and conflict avoidance by protesting, “but it’s for the greater good to avoid division!” More than likely, it is not. By avoiding the conflict, we are merely festering division within the ranks. We are suppressing division and conflict, and like a volcano erupts under great pressure, so will that division and conflict erupt at the least opportune moment. This is why entire church staffs turnover in less than a year. It’s how churches split. It’s of Satan, and passive-aggressiveness must be rebuked.

Do not read this as an invitation to stir up trouble or speak out for no reason. The Scriptures are very clear about how we are to approach others with whom we are in conflict. Five years ago I was introduced to the Heart Attitudes by my church planting professor Jack Allen. Having seen the wisdom they speak into my life, I’ve spent much of those five years trying to integrate them into my life. It’s a daily task. The following are two of the Heart Attitudes that speak directly to the issue of passive-aggressiveness and conflict resolution.

Live an Honest, Open Lifestyle
What this adds up to, then, is this: no more lies, no more pretense. Tell your neighbor the truth. In Christ’s body we’re all connected to each other, after all. When you lie to others, you end up lying to yourself. [Ephesians 4:25]

Humbly Give and Receive Correction
Warn each other every day, as long as it is called “today,” so that none of you will be deceived by sin and hardened against God. [Hebrews 3:13]

Listen to constructive criticism, you will be at home among the wise. If you ignore criticism, you will end in poverty and disgrace. [Proverbs 15:31, 13:18]

Keep Relationships Straight
If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
[Matthew 5:23-24]