Jeremy Hoover

I had something I was working on all day today so I didn't have time to create an audio devotional. Instead, I want to share with you two quotes from a tremendous book I'm reading called John Woolman's Journal.

John Woolman was an 18th century Friend (a Quaker) who spent a lot of time traveling the early American frontier visiting with different Friends groups and spreading the light of Christ. Woolman was convicted about slavery; he vehemently opposed it from a Christian perspective. This led him even to decline business where slaves were involved.

I hope you enjoy these two quotes. The first quote references Woolman's attitude at becoming a businessman, and the second quote references his realization after turning business away (he declined to write someone's will because the individual planned on passing his slaves to his children as part of the inheritance).

"I saw that an humble man, with the blessing of the Lord, might live on a little, and that where the heart was set on greatness, success in business did not satisfy the craving; but that commonly with an increase of wealth the desire of wealth increased. There was a care on my mind so to pass my time that nothing might hinder me from the most steady attention to the voice of the true Shepherd" (p. 18).

"I had fresh confirmation that acting contrary to present outward interest, from a motive of Divine love and in regard to truth and righteousness, and thereby incurring the resentments of people, opens the way to a treasure better than silver, and to a friendship exceeding the friendship of men" (p. 31).

What do you think of these quotes?

Peter Lovenheim, In the Neighborhood (Perigree, 2010).
ISBN 9780399535710

In Luke 10, after sending the 72 out on an evangelistic mission, Jesus teaches about neighborly conduct. In Jesus' understanding, being a neighbor is, or at least opens the door for, the mission.

Yet, we often would like to take the evangelistic mission without the charge to be a neighbor. After all, does it really matter? If we preach or teach and the person makes a decision, isn't that enough? But it was this mindset that Jesus challenged when he taught about being a neighbor. When we seek to justify our behavior we have missed Jesus' mission. Being a neighbor means being proactive and involved--the Samaritan used his time, resources, and money to help someone who, under different circumstances, would have been an enemy. We are encouraged to go and do the same.

Peter Lovenheim wrote an interesting book called In the Neighborhood. After hearing about a neighborhood family involved in a tragedy (a murder-suicide while the children were still in the house), he realized that he did not know the family and that likely no one in the neighborhood did. This realization set him upon a goal of creating a community within the neighborhood he lived in, to enable and help physical neighbors become real neighbors to each other.

The book is very enjoyable and a quick read. Lovenheim sought to learn more about his neighbors by spending more time with them, even including sleeping over at their homes! As he began to meet his neighbors more he began to become aware of needs and he was able to make neighborly introductions between neighbors.

One neighbor he met had cancer. He realized that to be a neighbor to her he was going to have to help her. One chapter is devoted to this quest. In that chapter, he states that "the real measure of success of my whole effort [to neighborize the neighborhood] would be if someone who previously did not know Patti...woud join me in helping her out. If that could happen...we would have a real community" (204). Thanks to Lovenheim's work, it did happen. Patti and several other neighbors connected and Patti did not have to struggle alone.

I really enjoyed this book. It left me with several ideas I am thinking through:

• Being a neighbor to others is hard work. It takes time and sacrifice to get to really know someone. We cannot be real neighbors to people we see simply on a casual basis. (Wake-up call to churches here--if we spend only an hour a week with each other, and most of that in passive listening, how are we being a neighbor to each other?)
• It takes dedication and persistence. Once we have sacrificed time and made a real effort to get to know someone, it takes time and effort to maintain the relationship! Sometimes, we may have to call a neighbor whose mail appears to be piling up. We may need to finish mowing our yard and then spend another hour at an elderly neighbor's mowing hers. This is what we're called to when we embark on a goal of being a neighbor to others.
• It is more than merely "being nice." We are not a neighbor to someone simply because we say "hi" when we're both out collecting our mail. Being a neighbor is a mindset; we need to be thinking and acting neighborly to actually be one.

Lovenheim concluded his book with a statement from someone else. It's a fitting ending to this post:

"If we all cared about our neighbors, we could change the world one street at a time" (236).

Let us go and do likewise.

How do you read the bible?

Ron Martoia, in his new book, The Bible as Improv, points out (accurately) that all bible reading is interpretation. To understand is to interpret. Otherwise, we bog down in details about what is timeless and what is cultural. In other words, what can we ignore and what are we obligated to do.

Here's an example: In 1 Timothy 2:8-15 Paul says both that women are to be silent in worship (women are not permitted to teach and/or assume authority over a man) and that women are not to have elaborate hairstyles and wear "gold or pearls or expensive clothes." In conservative churches, we uphold the former teaching as essential and required but not the latter teaching. I personally know of no church that bars their women from doing their hair however they'd like and wearing gold or pearl jewelry. I also personally know several churches that prevent their women from teaching men.

How do we hold these things together? How do we look at one passage, and in that passage find things that are universal and timeless on one hand, but on the other hand, find things that are cultural and time-bound? This way of reading seems very arbitrary and open to abuse of interpretation by the one reading.

Martoia proposes a different way--that of seeing the bible as a classic. He argues that, while the bible may be or is much more than a classic, it is at least a classic in that it forms and shapes our worldview according to the spiritual categories represented in it. We ought to read it as we read other classics of literature (Shakespeare, Homer, etc.) by reading entire books in one sitting, or by reading larger sequential chunks. Reading the bible verse-by-verse, in a piecemeal way, is not how it was intended to be read.

Martoia, building off the work of N.T. Wright, proposes that we see the bible as a script. This script is made of up of five acts of which we are missing the fifth (because the work of the church is the fifth act). The first four acts are 1) creation; 2) the fall; 3) the life and ministry of Israel; and 4) the life and ministry of Jesus. The fifth act, from which we take our cue, is missing. But we have clues about how it will end (Romans 8; 1 Corinthians 15) and how we are to "fill in the gaps" (the New Testament). It is up to us, as "actors," to understand the first four acts so we can live out the fifth act and complete the script.

Since we don't have the script in front of us, we cooperate with the Spirit to improv our way forward, much like jazz musicians improv during their play. We improv based on the themes and tones we pick up from the other four acts. As we read the bible in large chunks (and read books sequentially and straight through), we begin to understand the themes and tones and how they play out through the script-ure. We read the bible for this larger story, God's story, and discover the importance of the smaller details in this larger context.

Martoia offers some ways churches and groups might approach bible reading as an improvisation of the first four acts of a five-act script:

• Read a large portion of scripture (say, 9 chapters) and discuss both the themes that arise from this section and how those themes connect to previous themes from earlier readings. Which act of the script are you in and how does this act connect with earlier and later acts?
• Articulate answers to questions about plot, story-lines, characters, and the actions of key characters.
• Teachers should act as master story connectors who understand the sweep of the biblical story, facilitate conversation around that story, and help people connect their stories to God's story and imagine the future of their stories.

This is a really good book about bible reading and interpretation. Martoia popularizes the work of N.T. Wright, Walter Brueggemann, and James Fowler to discuss how to read the bible for spiritual growth and for faithfulness to God's story. It is very readable and even contains a study guide for groups to work through as they read it. Highly recommended.

Chapter 6: The Myth of a Christian Nation

In chapter 6, Boyd addresses several negative consequences of viewing the US as a Christian nation, which he refers to as the "myth of a Christian nation."

First, this myth harms global missions because US aggression becomes associated with Christ when America is identified as a Christian nation. This view compromises the spread of the kingdom of God (KoG) because the KoG is associated by others as tainted by or because of the kingdom of the sword, which is how all kingdoms of the world operate.

If we profess allegiance to Jesus, Boyd argues, we must commit ourselves to proclaiming in action and word the truth that the kingdom of God always looks like him. When the US operates by the power of the sword, it is not evincing the love of Christ to others. We must resist this myth for the sake of the spread of the kingdom of God.

Second, this myth harms missions within the US because civil religion is seen as real Christianity. Civil religion is useful to bind people together and to give them a shared vision to work towards, but it is only an aspect of the kingdom of God. There are two dangers in this: 1) We may lose our missionary zeal because we believe we live in an already-Christian nation; there is not much need to evangelize because most people already know God. 2) We end up wasting time and resources o the civil religion, trying to tweak it to make it more "right" or "godly," rather than spreading the kingdom of God.

Instead, what if we did the kingdom of God? What if, instead of tweaking the civil reigion, what if we fed the hungry, found housing for the homeless, etc. What if we replicated the loving sacrifice of Jesus to all people, at all times, in all places, regardless of their circumstances or merit?

Third, this myth tempts us to trust the power of the sword to create the conditions by which the kingdom of God might spread. This is faulty thinking because it assumes that, once overtaken by the power of the sword, people will be willing to listen to or accept the power of the cross. This myth causes us to trust the kingdom of the sword to change things rather trusting God in prayer.

What if, instead, we truly believed that we can influence God through prayer? What if truly believed that God was seeking to bring his kingdom to bear in our midst and we worked for that, "from below," as it were?

We can counter these myths by focusing on the kingdom of God. But it will be difficult and not all who claim to follow Jesus will be on board. Our goal needs to be to love Jesus and others in his name...not the expansion of the kingdom of this world.

What do you think?

The Myth of a Christian Nation: Chapter 5

Before getting too far, I should note that I agree 100% with Boyd's assertion in this chapter that this phrase, "taking America back for God," is wrong to begin with because it implies that America once was God's. When, asks Boyd, as he cites a number of occasions in which ungodly behavior by the nation's leaders would call into question their following of God (pgs. 98-100).

Further, this quest, to take America "back" for God, lies in the realm of the power of the sword. It is a quest for power, a quest to mold others (by force, if necessary) into a particular brand of Christianity's views of religion.

When?, asks Boyd, did Jesus ever act or talk like this?

Jesus' example demonstrates that God no longer acts nationalistically. He calls together a spiritual nation, embodied across cultures, operating under the banner of the Kingdom of God.

Boyd asks these questions about Jesus (p. 92):

• Did Jesus ever suggest by word or by example that we should aspire to acquire, let alone take over, the power of Caesar?
• Did Jesus spend any time and energy trying to improve, let alone dominate, the reigning government of his day?
• Did he ever work to pass laws against the sinners he hung out with and ministered to?
• Did he worry at all about ensuring that his rights and the religious rights of his followers were protected?
• Does any author in the New Testament remotely hint that engaging in this sort of activity has anything to do with the kingdom of God?

Boyd also asks us to examine Europe, where Christians ruled for (long) periods of time and the church prospered. What we see there are places that are more secular and less open to the gospel today. This is what happens when the church tries to live by the sword rather than by the cross.

What do you think?

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Chapter 4: From Resident Aliens to Conquering Warlords

In this chapter, Boyd traces how the church transitioned from a band of resident aliens who viewed themselves as separate from the kingdoms of this world (because they were part of the kingdom of God) to a group that largely uses the means of the kingdoms of this world to operate by and gain power.

He wants us to understand the concept of firstfruits. We, who are kingdom of God people, are to be the visible sign of what the kingdom of God will look like when it is fully manifested.

This is how it plays out in the biblical narrative: To take back God's creation from the influence of sin and Satan, God put his plan into motion regarding Jesus and his sacrifice. But Jesus' victory, though eternally complete, is seen in incomplete ways by us.

Hebrews 2:8 clarifies this when it states that although everything was put under Jesus' feet (he is authority over all things), we don't always see it this way. "In putting everything under [him], God left nothing that is not subject to [him]. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to [him.]"

While we wait for that completion, we are not to be passive but active, letting the kingdom grow and expand in and through us. We are the firstfruits of what will happen because we manifest in our lives what humanity and the world will look like when God's kingdom is fully manifested (2 Thess. 2:13).

This is why we are to view ourselves as different and separate: we are called to be holy, which means being Christlike, not merely subscribing to particular sets of moral and ethical commands (2 Tim. 2:4; Heb. 11:8-10; Phil. 3:20; 2 Cor. 6:17).

Staying separate and holy enables us to authentically serve others without compromise. Jesus' way of sacrificial love--of which the cross is the fullness of the kingdom--is in contrast to all attempts to use power to get one's way. The history of the church, sadly, is one of trading it's holy mission for one they perceived to be "good," but one that was too often compromised by control and coercion in the interest of gaining power.

Instead, we need to proclaim with our lives, and with our words when necessary, that the sole criteria for determining whether something is a manifestation of the kingdom of God is the person of Jesus. If an individual or group looks like Jesus, dying for those who crucified him and praying for their forgiveness in the process, the kingdom of God is manifested.

Likewise, if a group is making a power-play, how can they ever be said to manifest the kingdom of God? This brings to my mind the "battle" over school prayer. Of course, this implies Christian prayer, because those fighting so hard for prayer in public schools are not interested in multi-faith prayer. To my mind, they are interested in asserting power over the system, gaining control, likely for (in their mind) a positive outcome. The result, if they are victorious (I'm deliberately using the language of conquest), is to coerce those who do not feel the same way and to subject non-Christians to Christianity. How does this manifest the kingdom of God as seen in the person of Jesus?

What do you think?

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Chapter 3: Keeping the Kingdom Holy

In this chapter, Boyd argues that it is our responsibility as agents of the kingdom of God to maintain purity and holiness. Holiness is not subscription to a particular set of morals (i.e., no drinking, no dancing, etc.) but a life lived like Christ. We're holy when we live sacrificially for others.

The distinctive mark of a Christian is one who follows Jesus. When this happens, the kingdom of God is manifested in that one's life.

But is there ever a time when it's proper to use the means of the kingdoms of this world? We live in a complex time with many political and social choices. Can we use parts of the kingdoms of this world to negotiate our way through, to make sure that "God's" way stands firm and succeeds?

Boyd answers this question by stating that a version of the kingdom of the world that effectively carries out law, order, and justice is closer to God's will for the kingdom of the world...but it is not the kingdom of God. In other words, using power and coercion to achieve even a perceived godly end is not representative of the kingdom of God.

Further, Jesus himself was born into a highly complex, political time. The people he served tried to get answers from him about political questions but he always maintained his focus on the kingdom of God.

• When asked about paying taxes (Matt. 22:20-22), Jesus asked why one's focus was on taxes in the first place--was it because they wanted to hold on to even more? "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's," Jesus said. Taxes are a product of the kingdoms of this world, but Jesus reminds us that we are to be about God's kingdom.
• When Jesus was asked to arbitrate someone's will, he responded to watch out for greed (Luke 12:13-15). The kingdom of God is not found in possessions and in social stature but in service to God and others that manifests God's kingdom.
• Jesus brought together in his group of disciples both conservatives (Matthew, the pro-Roman tax collector) and liberals (Simon, the anti-Roman zealot). He showed that there is something more and deeper in God's kingdom than political divides.

The kingdom of God looks like Jesus and our sole task as kingdom people is to imitate the love he revealed on Calvary. Our central job is not to solve the world's problems but to be like Jesus.

Towards the end of the chapter, Boyd asks a question: Which is easier? To vote against the "sin" of prostitution, or to spend years serving prostitutes by ministering to their real needs with love and care? It's harder to transform people, and many find it easier to use the power of the sword and vote in favor of a system that will seek to change the prostitute's behavior by coercion and force.

A similar question could be asked about abortion: Is it easier to vote against the "sin" of abortion or to love those struggling with the decision? The former is easy and seeks to modify behavior by coercion and force; the latter is harder, requires us to spend time and energy (and perhaps money) and get our hands dirty, and has uncertain outcomes.

But which of the two decisions is in keeping with holiness? Which of the two is Christ-like?

Greg Boyd's central thesis in The Myth of a Christian Nation is this: The kingdom of God is centered on Jesus. Jesus taught it, lived it, and called others to it. We--the church--are his body, which means we should expect to live and act like him. He lives in each of us individually by the Spirit. As we love others, he loves them as well--through us--and others are brought in to his kingdom through that. This all leads up to his return, when he will take the power over the kingdoms of this world from Satan and restore to God all things left unrestored.

Thus, God is looking for a group of people who embody his kingdom. Since there is no greater power than self-sacrificial love to transform hearts, the kingdom of God must be focused on how people are and what they can become. In contrast, the kingdoms of this world focus on what people do and how that behavior can be controlled.

Two defining traits of kingdom-of-God-people are humility and loss. These are signs of the cross. Victory and "winning" are symbols of the sword, signs that the kingdom of the world is taking hold. To choose retaliation, violence, and self-interest is to choose the kingdom of the sword, not matter how justifiable such responses are.

Instead, as agents of the kingdom of God, we should promote humility. Jesus provided examples of this:

• when he taught about sacrificial love that loves one neighbor as oneself (Matthew 22:36-40)
  
• in his teaching about becoming like children and disregarding social privileges and advantages (Matthew 18:3-4)
• when he washed his disciples' feet as a servant (John 13)
• when he healed the ear of an enemy after Peter cut it off (John 18:10)

This is the kind of power that transforms people. Anyone can be coerced or forced into a particular type of behavior, but these actions transform people because they are signs of a new society.

Boyd concludes this chapter by stating the only criteria that matters whether anything has value within God's kingdom is love. A chart illustrates several concluding points that contrast the difference between the kingdoms of this world and the kingdom of God.

This chapter is an important part of his argument. To be a Christian means to be a follower of Jesus. Our lives need to be conformed to his. This will never happen if we live by the values of the kingdoms of this world. The difficulty for me comes in training--I've been trained by these worldly kingdoms to respond with the sword, to be right, to seek vengeance. Christ calls me to something higher--to love those...even those who offend me. He calls me to love my enemies to the point that they are treated as my friends. This is radical.

What if we gauged our church's success or failure on whether we are loving others (especially enemies) as Jesus loved? This is the only way the kingdom of God grows and expands among us.

The Myth of a Christian Nation, by Gregory Boyd, is sub-titled "How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church." Originally presented as a series of sermons previous to the 2004 election between George W. Bush and John Kerry, the book tackles the difference between the "kingdom of the sword" (political power and kingdoms of the world) and the "kingdom of God," represented by Jesus. Of particular interest to Boyd is how Christians are to live out kingdom of God values in their lives, including in matters of politics.

In this series, I intend to blog my reactions to this book. In today's post, I'll be blogging about the introduction and chapter 1.

Introduction
Boyd immediately jumps into his topic. He states that the kingdom of God conflicts with the kingdoms of this world. All versions of the "kingdoms of the world" operate "from above." They are top-down and seek to acquire and exercise power over others. Leaders in the world desire to be served, to be held in awe because of their power.

On the other hand, the kingdom of God operates "from below." Below, because agents of the kingdom of God are servants. Servants are always "below" the one they serve. God's kingdom is modeled and incarnated in Jesus. It advances in power only when power is exercised "under" someone else, to lift them up.

Chapter 1: The Kingdom of the Sword
According to Boyd, a version of the kingdom of the world exists wherever a group or person exercises power over others. He does not consider the exercise of power over others to be evil all the time (neither do I); nevertheless, the potential exists for abuse. The "power of the sword," which is the weapon of the kingdoms of the world, produces conformity but cannot produce internal change. This does not refer to a literal sword, but to the power of the kingdom to dictate behavior and responsibility. (Notice the emphasis on power.)

The kingdoms of the world are not entirely evil. In fact, God uses these kingdoms to achieve his ends and to keep law and order in a fallen world (Romans 13:1, 3-4). However, although God works in these kingdoms, the authority of these kingdoms has been given to Satan (Luke 4:5-7; John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11).

Therefore, even though God institutes governments for purposes of law and order, Satan is at work in these kingdoms for purposes that are against God's. Political conflict is an attempt to gain or seize power "from above" and is satanic in origin. Such conflict does not originate from God or operate out of his principles "from below."

The "myth of redemptive violence" contributes to this cycle. That myth states that "good" is able to save us by eliminating "evil," but it presumes that one kingdom's values are superior to another. And, in eliminating one evil, another is often started when members of a different kingdom become fearful of the one seizing power.

Boyd states that as long as people locate their worth, significance, and security in their power, possessions, traditions, tribes, and nation, rather in a relationship with God, this game of violence is inevitable, ongoing, and always likely. We, as Christians, can never assume one government, even our own, is always, or even usually, aligned with God.

The kingdom of God is in contrast to all this. We must put our hope in God and in his kingdom (see Luke 22:25-27).

You are immoral if you buy luxury and leisure items for yourself because that money could have saved lives and combated global, absolute poverty.

This is the logical extension of Peter Singer's recent book, The Life You Can Save (sub-titled, "Acting Now to End World Poverty"). Building on principles of moral philosophy, Singer begins by discussing a moral problem: If you are walking to an appointment and see a child drowning in a pool, are you morally obligated to help that child? The obvious answer is "yes," regardless of the time spent or the damage to our clothing that may result. Singer suggests that we are, then, morally obligated to aid other children around the world if we are able to.

To argue this more forcefully, he demonstrates a "logical argument from plausible premises."

First premise: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.
Second premise: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.
Third premise: By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.
Conclusion: Therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong. (pgs. 15-16)

Singer seeks to establish that each of us is under a moral obligation to help others as much as we can without sacrificing anything nearly as important. This means, unless we are withholding food, shelter, or care from our family members, we ought to give. The logical extension of this is that most, if not all, luxury and leisure activities and things must be seen as immoral pursuits that cause us to overlook our moral obligation to others.

As an example, Singer writes, "To buy good stereo equipment in order to further my worthwhile goal, or life-enhancing experience, of listening to music is to place more value on these enhancements to my life than on whether others live or die" (p. 149).

The book is filled in by discussions of aid, types of aid that may be given, and how to arrive at an appropriate amount to give. While advocating much more, Singer recognizes it is not realistic to expect people to give as much as he desires them to. Even he himself does not achieve that much giving.

He draws from the principle of fairness to suggest a modest goal. We can all chip in, and if we do our fair share, we will not become disgusted by those who are not doing their fair share. The alternative is to push people to give a lot, only to become frustrated when they see others not doing their part. He suggests that most of us can start at 5% of our annual income. (He does think the rich can and should give much more than 5%.)

I found this to be a fascinating book that caused me to really think through my giving and my lifestyle. In fact, I'm still thinking about it. I enjoyed the argument from moral philosophy and found him to go much deeper with his thinking than many Christian writers do. I recommend the book for anyone interested in the problems of poverty, service, and giving.