DISQUS

In my own "season of death", let's call it... :) ...God spoke deeply to me through Psalm 77. Not just the lament itself, but the metaphors contained in it. At the end of the lament, the psalmist makes references to the parting of the Red Sea and says, "Your path led through the sea, your way through the mighty waters." This, just like water baptism, symbolizes death and resurrection. It was an image--and a principle--I never forgot: "His way is through the waters."

As you said, death is not the end. His way is *through* the waters, not *into* the waters. In God, the "way" is always death UNTO LIFE.

Thanks for this post.

I was raised Episcopalian in early childhood, and can remember my Mom getting the "eyebrow raise" from evangelical family members who doubted her salvation. She later became charismatic. :) So I've seen this issue from both sides, I guess.

My belief is that while the Bible is clear about confessing Jesus as Lord, beyond that, only God knows the heart of any individual and whether they truly seek Him. There are people both in Catholicism and protestant churches who are churchgoers but whose hearts are far from God. But God knows who are His. And truth be told, I've seen Catholics who act a lot more like Jesus than lots of evangelicals I know. But I don't know if we can honestly categorize anyone, Catholic or otherwise, as "Christian" simply based on their denomination. I think we know them by their fruit, as Jesus said, not by what brand of Christianity they subscribe to.

I wrote a post awhile back that kind of ties in with this. Here's the link to it.

I operate in all five roles at once quite nicely...which I why I have no use for a ministry team.

(Sorry...you sort of have to get to know me to understand my particularly dry sense of humor.) :)

Joking aside...I think that for some reason we are far too eager to label and categorize people and things, especially in our culture. So we use passages like this, and the "motive gifts" in Rom. 12, to define people by their gifts and roles rather than just embrace the particular expression of them: "This is what you are, therefore this is how you can be expected to act." If we didn't have this mentality, I think we'd naturally assume that these roles are not exclusive. I don't think God intended us to define one another by their roles.

One of the most precious revelations I've received in the past few years is that we cannot truly live if our goal in life is to avoid pain. I spent most of my life trying to dodge it, and it didn't work, anyway--I still had pain, no matter how many ways I tried to avoid it. Much better to engage it and make a difference through it.

I'm going through a transition right now that has been extremely uncomfortable, and it's the first time in my life I've gone through such a season with this approach...the first time I haven't desperately tried to take the reins and control everything. A very different experience, but overall a lot more peaceful since, like you, I've resigned from the job of trying to control the people and things around me--especially considering I was never really in control, anyway. :) Like so many others, it's teaching me a whole different way of loving people in their brokenness, even as I continue to deal with my own.

Thanks for this post. I related to it a lot.

I don't think we can know what Jesus would have said...especially considering that we don't really know if the forbidden fruit was actually an apple. :) It could be anything from, "Do you have any idea what that is going to cost Me?" to "Hey! Can I have some?"

We. just. don't. know. :D

Thanks, Jonathan, for stating the case plainly here. I can't say that I see this issue the same way you do, but this post goes a long way in helping me view it from your perspective, and I have a lot of respect for the fact that you can give specific reasons why you believe it this way.

Charlie,

First...as I told Dan...I never saw this as an accusation of outright sexism, but a calling out on the message that was being sent. No one was saying either way whether a message of sexism was *intentional*--only that it existed in the presentation.

Second...Dan clarified in his explanation to me that the six guys shown in the core leaders group on top were representatives from the three churches, but that the *actual leadership* was the creative team comprising men and women. I might add that Dan has consistently maintained that they value the equality of women. The problem here was that the intial presentation was inconsistent with that claim, so either the claim was incorrect, or the presentation was miscommunicating--one of the two. My personal challenge to Dan was that if women really were on the same plane with men here, the Origins site had veiled that fact by the layout and needed to be changed. And that's apparently what happened. At any rate, the page layout is now a lot more consistent with Dan's claims of what the leadership team actually looks like.

The conversation was *not* just about a page layout, but the page layout raised the deeper questions about motives and started a much-needed dialogue. Are there deeper sexist issues at Origins? Is it possible that they just changed the page to diffuse the tension? I don't know, and it isn't yours or mine to judge that. All we can ask of Origins is that their outward demonstration be consistent with their verbal claims, and they have now made that adjustment. Unless there are any further signs of sexism going forward...the right thing to do is let God be the judge of their hearts. But I will say this--because they made the change, I personally am more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Bottom line...the point was made, and it was heard, and responded to. Anything beyond that has to be left between them and God. The honoring of women is ultimately still a heart issue, person to person.

(It might also give you some more context to read theactual dialogue that took place between Dan Kimball and me...)

I just wanted to pass on that at some point today (I don't know when)...Origins changed its "About" page. Now the six guys who were once listed as the "core team" are interspersed among the creative team, and it looks a lot more balanced than before.

Jonathan, again, I think you are verbalizing the issue very well here.

There's a thread within Patrick's criticism, as well as some things I read in Dan Kimball's responses to your first post, that tell me the point here is still being missed. While Patrick feels you have unfairly attached a "historical narrative" to Origins and basically cast a shadow on their image on the first day of their launch...I have to say that the burden of first impression lies with ORIGINS, not with you. And Dan's tone in defending the organization's egalitarian stance seems almost like he feels as though Origins is being labeled as sexist, when in fact nobody has made that claim.

Imho, both are missing the initial point you were trying to make--that the website, as well as the choice of core leaders, makes it *look* like the women were overlooked. They seem to be faulting you a bit by saying it's unfair to draw this kind of conclusion by the website alone, when people like Patrick who were at the opening event got a completely different vibe. But that isn't the point. For most of the people Origins will reach...the website is the most important portal! That IS the first impression. The website, and the choice of all-male leaders at the top...that is conveying a message. You have not pinned a narrative on them; you have just repeated back to them the message it was sending. And you aren't the only one who saw it.

I know my wife well. And I can tell you that if she had come to the Origins site with no prior knowledge of it, and looked at the "About Origins" page...the first words out of her mouth would have been, "Look at that. All the core leaders are men!"

Just sayin'.

Bro, you posted this when--this morning? I go out of town for one day, and come back to find I'm late to the party. :)

I have so much respect for the fact that you have already put feet to this discussion. With no intent on judging the heart motives of these leaders...let me say that by raising this question, you have stepped past the rhetoric into acting on it, which is just what is needed.

Dan, as an active participant in this discussion, let me say that while I count you personally as a great influence, I am with Jonathan on this one. And I think I can offer another explanation as to why he has called Origins on the carpet about this. Let me share something I said in a recent related post:

"...it is not enough for us guys just to passively assent to women finding their place. It is not enough for us to just "stop" being chauvanistic or sexist, because the default setting in our world still leans heavily against the woman--no matter how you choose to explain it. If we are passive, we will inevitably begin to lean the wrong direction and add to the pain. To overcome the negative pull, I believe we men must be much more purposeful and intentional in the affirmation and restoration of women. "

Like Jonathan, I have no reason to presume women were purposely excluded from your core leadership. But I think it should be considered whether they were *passively* excluded by the simple possiblity that no one thought of it. That is why I think it's important that Jonathan called this into question--to raise awareness of something we men far too easily overlook, simply by passively agreeing to the *idea* of females in leadership without actively doing something about it. I believe more is required of us than that--especially among men in leadership--because without that stronger level of commitment, more oversights will inevitably take place.

Hysterical! Just plain funny.

I am a proponent of restoration, for sure, and I can definitely see the double standard. It still feels like a slippery slope, though, when a fallen leader tries to get back up...nobody knows for sure *when* it's okay to trust that person again. Everyone is questioning his/her motives, especially when our versions of leadership are less about function and more about position. I know this has happened for Haggard, and personally, I disagree with a lot of his choices since his failure was made public, although I have compassion on him in the midst of his failures.

But I totally agree that the "graceless culture" kept Haggard in secret for so long--the stakes were just too high. And to me, that's an even bigger problem than the issue of forgiveness and restoration. Leaders in church are placed on such pedastals and given a super-human standard of conduct, that when they fail to meet expectations and are found to be as real as everyone else...no one trusts them to ascend the pedastal again. And yet...it seems like the only way we consider such a one "restored" is if they can attain ministry "position" again.

Seems like within this conversation there are questions we aren't asking. Why does the pedastal have to be there in the first place? Why do we have it in our heads that the leaders are supposed to be better than everyone else? Is this the way Jesus taught us?

Is it possible that the root issue of this double standard doesn't begin when a minister falls, but when he/she rises? Because we have a different standard for our leaders than we do for ourselves?

You will have to forbear my background here...but imagine me now standing up, waving my Pentecostal handkerchief in the air....Amen, Amen, AMEN!!!!!

Nailed it, bro.

Boy, this could be a hot one... :)

IMHO, I think it's too simplistic to say categorically that war is just or unjust, or that protecting oneself or one's family by force is categorically right or wrong. As the video shows, anyone can find justification in the Scriptures, and even more specifically in the gospels, to demonstrate his/her point on this. The context in which war is taking place is a huge factor that's missing when someone tries to determine one way or another about whether war itself is ever just.

It helps to take the whole counsel of Scripture here, and not only the gospels, because the life of Christ was a context, and the Old Testament is also a context. The same God who, in Christ, told us to go the extra mile and turn the other cheek--commanded Israel to commit aggressive genocide. Yes, it was the Old Testament, not the New...but it was a *context*. If God considered *all* war unjust as a moral ethic, why would He ever have implemented it for His purposes?

By the same token, when Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, and modeled non-resistance in His death...the context here was when we are attacked personally, and mainly for our faith. He even said He could have called angels to fight for Him, but He *chose* not to respond for a higher purpose. And even so...I don't see evidence either way that this non-defensive stance applies to when someone in our charge is attacked, that we should stand by and allow our children, who trust us to protect them, to be harmed without a fight.

I guess what I'm saying is that both pacifists and warmongers can find plenty of ways to stretch Jesus' example to fit their perspective. It is true enough that man has wrongly justified many wars, and opinions are mixed on the current one, even among Christians. I'm simply saying that it's one of those issues where context plays a part in determining its validity. Should we Christians form an army to go to war against our persecutors? By Jesus' example...no, of course we shouldn't.

But should we have stood by and allowed Hitler to take over the world and eradicate the Jews from the planet, because war is unjust? Should black people still be slaves in America? Should America even exist as a nation? War was part of all these critical moments in our history.

To look back and say, as a matter of principle, that we were unjust in fighting those wars in those contexts...that's just not a moral judgment I feel qualified to make.

Milpitas, CA (twice): 2 homes
San Jose, CA: 3 homes
Alma, MI: 1 home
Cincinnati, OH: 3 homes
Tulsa, OK (twice): 6 homes

Total of places lived: 15 homes, six cities, five states.

The album is definitely worth it. "Magnificent" is one of my faves, also. As much a worship event in itself as anything they've done. U2 performed it last night on Letterman; it was...well...magnificent. :)

Moral of the story:

If you try to please everyone, you'll lose your ass.

Yep. Great analogy...although it comes with its own set of temptations. I'm having lawn trouble at the moment, and wish I had MC's know-how. :D

I am a relatively new reader, but I definitely enjoy your posts and your thoughtfulness.

I am reading on a Sunday morning, when I should be getting ready for my home group meeting.

Congrats on a year. Hope there's much more to come...

An awesome and inspiring story. Thank you for sharing it.

Since I doubt I'm smarter than you, I'm probably not qualified to answer this. :) But some thoughts anyway, from what I know of church history...

I think part of where we got off track with this is when the Greco-Roman mentality began to dominate the way we look at faith and the Bible. Greco-Roman thinking focuses on abstracts and ideas--"what is God like?" while the Hebrew way of thinking has always been more tangible--"what does God do?" I think over time, because most of us tend to think like Greeks and Romans rather than Hebrews, we started seeing Christianity as a set of ideas and beliefs rather than a lifestyle of following Jesus.

I know I'm trying to answer a loaded question that really isn't a question. It's an indictment, and one we deserve. This *needs* to be about how much we love, not how much we know. The question itself demands more than talk. Thanks for asking it.

Wow. Wow to the information, and wow to the question.

I hesitate to answer the question because I wonder if it's a trick question. :)

If I understand the nature of what we call the Great Commission--to preach the gospel to all creation--and then, as Jesus said, the end will come...I'd say we have a mandate to try and share the gospel with them in some way.

HOWEVER...I do NOT believe it should be done in the ways we've done it in the past. I've heard the word "post-colonial" recently, talking about how we have intermixed the gospel with colonization, superimposing our culture on the peoples we were reaching. I think history has shown this is a big mistake.

The good news of Jesus crosses cultures, and different people groups can worship Him with their own flavor. I think there must be a way to reach people groups like this without "infecting" them with cultural elements they don't want or need. I don't claim to know HOW this can be done; I just think there must be a way to do it.

I guess what I'm saying is that the question shouldn't be about IF, but HOW.

LOL! Bless your heart, brother! I loved this post so much I'm going to print it off and read it to my simple church this morning! Can I get an Amen?

You have such a sweet spirit. Keep going for Jesus! God is good.

I have a mixed, almost two-sided view of the Lakeland revival. While I can accept the idea that God is doing genuine miracles there, I am weary of the churchy "hype" surrounding it and occuring in the meetings. I also share some of the doctrinal concerns.

Because people I respect have attended and feel that God was there (without buying into the hype), and because I don't want to discount people genuinely being touched...I wouldn't want to denounce it. Let's just say I'm wary. At any rate, I'm looking for Jesus in another direction myself.

I posted a few times about this, if you want to check them:

Jaded? Or Just Hungry for More?
Why God Shows Up Where We Don't Think He Ought To
Discussions of Lakeland Revival...

Jeromy,
What a great story. It is encouraging to see what God is doing in your life. Thanks for going public. :)