Reflections on Anarchy

[Origen, quoting Celsus:] "If everyone were to act the same as you Christians, the national government would soon be left utterly deserted and without any help, and affairs on earth would soon pass into the hands of the most savage and wretched barbarians." [Origen:] Celsus exhorts us to help the Emperor and be his fellow soldiers. To this we reply, "You cannot demand military service of Christians any more than you can of priests." We do not go forth as soldiers with the Emperor even if he demands this. [Origen goes on to say that if the Romans followed the teachings of Jesus, there would be no barbarians.]

Should Christians participate in the government? It is clear from history that the first Christians believed you shouldn't, especially not as a soldier. But two thousand years of Church history has demonstrated that perhaps the temptations of secular power can be too great for Christians at times. I some times wonder how politically active Christians should be, especially in the context of modern America with its "Moral Right." The first Christians were considered anarchists and insurrectionists by the Roman government but most American Christians consider patriotism a virtue. So what of this? Perhaps the early Christians simply couldn't envision a world in which politics didn't involve compromise. Politics is about give and take, at times I have to sacrifice to get something done. But the first Christians refused to compromise. Refuse to give an inch on their values for the world.

But if we dissolved the government, we'd have chaos! Perhaps. Surely human history has demonstrated the utter chaos which can be caused by the destruction of government. But perhaps thats because government is merely an expression of the innate human desire for domination and control. Humans, desiring to imitate God, seek to bring chaos. In some ways, the desire to bring order isn't bad. Order is one of the chief foundations of society. But how is that order discovered? Through domination or through love? Perhaps this is the cornerstone to the early Christian argument. When you attempt to live without a government in a society based upon domination you have destruction. You have war. But when you organize a society without a government founded upon love...you have the early Christian community.

Christians and government, can we get along? Or are we destined to combat each other based upon our founding principles? Many would argue that government maintains order and control. But does it? Or does it simply allow us to express certain desires in greater proportion (greed, selfishness, power-hunger)? Look at American greed, exploitation, lust, etc...do we really have control? Has government really solved the problems?

Children die everyday of hunger. Mothers die of diseases cured decades ago in the Western world. Fathers die without clean drinking water. You are being suffocated by the American dream. Your children are dying of greed and lust everyday. And yet we defend government as the cure-all to life. Maybe we should give love...nay, God...a chance.

Fresh Powder

We had a meeting today at the MET for all the adult volunteers about our wednesday night service. The service, or rather the building filled with gadgets and gizmos, attracts a lot of students from the surrounding community. Coming from low income families, typically apartment housing, we usually refer to these students as "community kids." The distinction comes because most of our regular attenders or "church kids" are from middle class, white families.

The majority of the adult volunteers at the MET are parents of "church kids" and so they have the natural aversion to the community kids because they are so different. Most of our community kids are highly unchurched so they have no idea of the unspoken rules church people have about cursing, fighting, talking in service, etc. So this afternoon we had a meeting about rules and guidelines so that we can maintain order at the church, but then also spent a great deal of time talking about how to connect with the students.

It was exciting and encouraging to see some of the parents really get what we were talking about because some of our volunteers had no idea the extent to which their help was needed. To hear from the volunteers the concept:

God loves us and that's why we're here...because God loves us. As volunteers, we should be the people sharing that love with the kids who are here. They might not get that anywhere else, so we should be Jesus to them.

I was happy to hear that as opposed to: "We've tried but these kids are just difficult and we can't do it. They should just learn to shut up during service."

But to hear from the hearts of the volunteers was great. Afterwards, Jon and I really wanted to take some of the ideas and put them in the hearts of our student leaders. Our students leaders haven't really been reaching out to the community kids. It seems the segregation between the two groups that society has put in their minds has really gotten to them. But I always remember about what Paul said about in Christ there being no slave or free, Jew or Gentile, male or female. One body.

Anyways, so Andy really agreed but we both recognized the groundwork that would have to be laid beforehand. Namely, creating a leadership team. But before that, educating our students who want to be leaders what leadership is and how it will function at the MET. Andy really wanted me to bring up some of my old binders from the TSM from back in the day and my Pit Crew stuff. He wanted me to work with him on developing some cirriculum. Which completely excites me. Takes me back to high school working on Pit Crew. Actually, I got so nostalgic today just looking back at my old Pit Crew binder.

If there is one thing I love, it's training a group of students to be leaders and then building a ministry from the ground up based upon that leadership. Just like Pit Crew. So the idea of helping Andy train these kids for leadership and then get them out there absolutely excites me to no end. I love it. Which is why I am blogging, I was so excited about that I just wanted to blog. Tonight I'm going to bring a box of old binders and notebooks to Andy's and hopefully go through some of it. This next week I would really like to work on some cirriculum. Right now I'm just in a flurry of ideas and have an incredible movement of the Spirit. I just love this stuff, ministry is what I love to do. So it's like being a snowboarder and hearing there's fresh powder on the mountain. I'm just excited to hop back on the board.

The Art Gallery

So I'm grabbing coffee with a friend and we are talking about ministry and how we think church should be done. In the midst of this conversation he says, "You know, when I go to an art gallery I feel inspired. I think church should be the same way: a place that inspires people."

Beautiful.

Our gatherings of community should inspire those who come. They should experience love, grace, beauty, truth, community, etc in such a way that they leave feeling inspired. Much in the same way that God inspires us. And perhaps each of us should be a Rembrandt: a person that people encounter and leave feeling inspired. If someone has a conversation with us, do they leave feeling encouraged? Perhaps my life should be more like an art gallery.

Life Together (vol. I)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer must certainly be considered one of my personal saints. He his included in my small community consisting of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis of Assisi, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I love Bonhoeffer because his prose is so beautiful it borders on poetry. Also, he is a realist. His theology is about practice, about how Christianity functions in the daily life of people. His theology isn't something which exists in some ethereal realm, but how faith expresses itself in the day today. Finally, he's not some theologian writing from an attic he locked himself in devoid of real human contact. Bonhoeffer is writing from an underground church in Nazi Germany where he is participating in a resistance movement. Bonhoeffer spits it how he lives it and he spits it hot.

Well, currently I've read 70 pages of the book but I am still stuck on the first page of the work. Bonhoeffer writes:

"It is not simply to be taken for granted that the Christian has the privilege of living among other Christians. Jesus Christ lived in the midst of his enemies. At the end all his disciples deserted him. On the Cross he was utterly alone, surrounded by evildoers and movers. For this cause he had come, to bring peace to the enemies of God" (17)

"For this cause he had come, to bring peace to the enemies of God." God hung from a cross, a slave's death, being mocked and hated. The epitome of human war machine, built on domination and corrosive strength, murdered the embodiment of divine reality. With our war factories we produced the daggers to kill Love. Our made-up religions of wealth and power persecuted the author of Life. And yet, God came to bring peace to them. Hitler, Stalin, Koresh....you...me...He brought peace to all of us. How absolutely mind boggling is that when you think about it?

Love for the entirety of humanity. The good and the bad. The beautiful and the ugly. And if this is something which I truly believe, if I really affirm that Christ brought peace to all, then why do I not act this way? Why do I not seek to imitate that kind of life? Why do I not actively seek to bring peace to my enemies? "For this cause he had come, to bring peace to the enemies of God." I am only beginning to wrestle with the cosmic significance of that truth. But if you aren't moved by those words, by that idea...if you aren't challenged....no matter how much more I write, you just won't get it.

What kind of prophet

So I was at lunch the other day with a friend and we were talking about my plans for the future. I told him that right now I am focusing on the next step of my journey (seminary) and letting God worry about the rest. I guess I just figure that at some point in the future I'll have developed into the person God has trained me to be and at that moment He'll reveal the path to follow for me.

All that to say, right now I feel like there are two paths I am interested in: the head pastor of a church in the inner-city somewhere or the life of a missionary. The fact of the matter is, I am drawn to the people on the margins of society. To the poor and the oppressed. Away from the haves to the have-nots.

But my friend, who was mirroring a not uncommon sentiment, was a bit uncomfortable with my life as a missionary. "Not to say that the life of a missionary wouldn't be as much of a success as the life of a pastor of a church of 5,000 writing books and doing speaking tours...but...I don't know." I dunno, it just seems like people in my life keep telling me that I'm so "talented" that I could better use my skills here in the States.

But I can't help but feel that the US doesn't need anymore Rob Bells (if I even had that potential). I mean, 90% of people called to the ministry feel called to ministry in North America. It's not that I don't like the US, but when I see all the people suffering simply to survive elsewhere in the world I can't help but want to go and help. I've grown up in white suburbia, trained in their schools, learned from their teachers, experienced the fruits of that life...but I feel like it's my duty to use all that to help other people.

I don't know what I'd be able to do in Africa. I don't have any skills to help dying people other than speaking. So maybe I could be someone who organized and mobilized churches to help God's people who are suffering. I dunno. But I am just uncomfortable with the idea of staying in the US to help people who already have. For what? To write some books and gain some kind of following as a great teacher? First, I don't even have that level of skill. Second, why? I decided to go into ministry because I wanted to be a part of what God was doing in the world. To participate in His work of rescuing mankind. Not to be Billy Graham or Rob Bell. Not to say those guys are evil, I just question whether that's really the path laid out for me. Esp for the reasons presented to me by my friends.

The Shaolin Monastery (vol.II)

It's quite fascinating to study the shaolin monastery as a martial artist. I mean, what I study today is the product of centuries of work and study by some of the greatest martial artists of all time. It's also interesting from the perspective of a philosopher as the monastery has a rich history. But I must say something that is incredibly intriguing is that Shaolin is a buddhist monastery. One of the highest principles of the monastery is non-violence and yet these monks developed one of the most sofficicated fighting systems ever. But Shahar's exploration of the monastery's history demonstrates how the monks reconciled the two. It appears that philosophy developed as a reaction to history and necessity. The reality of the monastery was that it was prime real estate for attack by bandits and at times monks were required to serve in the military. This reality caused the monks to create philosophical explanations for their breaking of a sacred law of Buddhism. I found it interesting because of it's connection to Christianity. Jesus himself, a teacher of non-violent resistance, has had to suffer the reality that his followers have often engaged in violence. We see in history how Christians justified their actions through theology which followed from practice rather than the other way around. It seems that all too often great teachers come and illuminate the path of righteouness for humanity and yet we are so fond of our ways we create loopholes to satisfy our desire to fight.

"The Shaolin Monastery" by Meir Shahar (Vol. I)

The Shaolin Temple resides in the Henan province of China near Mt. Shaoshi (shao from the mt. and lin meaning grove = Shaolin means the grove of Mt. Shaoshi). Ancient Chinese legends attribute the bringing of Buddhism to China to the Indian monk Bodhidharma. Bodhidharma is an interesting character, whose myth develops over a couple of centuries. One interesting part of the legend which develops is of his appearant resurrection. An emissary to central asia claimed to have encountered a barefooted Bodhidharma, who was carrying a shoe, who told him he was returning to India. When the emissary returned and informed his monks they opened the tomb of Bodhidharma only to find a single shoe. The Shaolin monastery itself was founded in 496 by the Indian-born monk Batuo (or Fotuo). The Shaolin monastery has traditionally accepted students age six and up, providing them with not only martial knowledge but also basic education.

Okay, enough of that. I just wanted to summarize what I had read in the chapter so as to more concretely put it into memory. There is so much going on in my mind after reading the first few pages because of all the questions it presents. Two such questions are incredibly interesting and I have often wondered: How did the Shaolin martial arts develop into elaborate systems? How did the Buddhist monks (who have such a strong tenet of peace) justify fighting? I hope in the next 160 pages the answers can be given some shape.

I did the legend of Bodhidharma's resurrection particularly interesting as well. In the West, we assume that the only religious story of resurrection is the one centering on Jesus. However, I think there are many other stories of the like in other civilizations. I mean, you could take Osiris I imagine as counting (even though he had to be put back together). So maybe it's the differences between the stories which are more fascinating. Hmm...well...Jesus raises himself from the dead and doesn't rely on other forces or help to raise him. Unlike Osiris, he doesn't suffer from any negative effects. Case in point, as is everything with Christianity, it's not the similarities which are as intriguing as the differences which point to something else. Nevertheless, I did like that bit about the one-shoe. I wondered if Jesus thought about doing something humorous like that. But then again, Bodhidharma never phased through walls after he died.

I also enjoyed the bit about some of the deities in Chinese tradition. Such as "the pot-bellied Maitreya Buddha...depicted in Chinese art and literature as holy fools, whose divinity is masked behind an eccentric facade" (14). I thought that was interesting. Made me think of Yoda from the Empire Strikes back.