Jazz music is not a music of precision in the traditional sense of precision. There are moments when a precise note may be called for, but jazz is an art that is always reaching and exploring the edges. It is an art in which the individuals play in relation to the music, one another, and the core anchor of the style. Jazz requires trust and a willingness to follow the notes where they may lead. Even you play a wrong note, your fellow musicians find a way to incorporate it and make the note “right.”

I hear echoes of jazz when I read Tolkien’s Silmarillion and the chapter “Music of the Ainur”. This is Tolkien’s creation story of the world of Middle Earth. It is creation in which music is the medium for creating. When Melkor introduces his own music in dissonance, Iluvatar incorporates that dissonance and reshapes the whole for the good. Much like a jazz combo brings the dissonant note into the piece and makes it “right,” Iluvatar takes what Melkor means for his purposes and turns it into beauty as Iluvatar desires.

Like jazz, I truly believe that much of what Tolkien is telling us in his work is relational. Not a scholarly take, but a take born in love and reverence for the material. I just can’t help seeing the multiple layers of relationship within the stories of Middle Earth. Relationship with the earth, relationship of races, and relationships of friends. Even the relationship between good and evil. Many of the stories tell of how characters are made better through those relationships.

Doing theology in public works best when it is done relationally and with a method like jazz. Probing at the edges and seeking the wonder present in an idea or a discovery. Doing theology this way takes trust, a centering, and often courage. It is not a precise undertaking even when we sometimes need to use precise language. Theology is done in faithfulness, not precision. Scripture shows us an often wild and surprising Spirit of God. When we try to fit theology into precise parameters, we end up leaving it bruised and bloody.

My friend Tim puts it this way:

The kind of work theology does is big enough to pluck up a nation, to reduce it to rubble, and to plant something new. Theology cannot be beholden to preconceptions, no matter how comforting or natural those preconceptions may be to us. If it fits nicely into a given category, it is probably not theology. Theology is social, but it is not social talk. Theology is scientific, but it is not science talk. Theology is political, but it is not political talk. Theology is God-talk. Because it is God-talk, it will not and cannot be beholden to anything less than God. So, the theologian speaks with words that are gifted by God. Of course, this only happens long after the theologian comes to terms with being known by God. (Gaines)

Of course, when we do theology we are usually centered in a tradition like Wesleyan-Holiness, Anabaptist, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, etc. But within that centering, we have a lot of movement to the edges. Dan Boone uses the tetherball to explain this movement. Always anchored, but able to move in multiple planes and directions. Contrast this idea with guardrails as an example. Guardrails keep you in the lines whereas centering keeps you grounded.

Many theologians practice this style of doing theology. You may encounter them telling stories, working out a concept, or simply thinking out how to exist in a world that seems so upside down at times. But you will also see them wrestling with sacred text, doctrines, people, and God. As Tim says, “[a]n invitation to walk the theological life will also be an invitation to wrestle with life’s largest questions, with social and cultural issues, and most of all with the holy God who meets us in the wrestling.”

And much like jazz, doing theology in this style takes trust and relationship. Trust that we are wrestling with God in honesty and vulnerability; trust that we are authentically working to understand God and our world. The sad part is that just as some do not “get” jazz music, some do not get doing theology as wrestlers, prodders, and explorers. No, these neither trust nor are willing to work in relational trust.

I have seen many theologians who dare to work out theology in public get attacked. Some are my friends. The funny thing is that even when those friends and I disagree, we stay friends. Because we trust in relationship. We know that even in disagreement, we trust that we are each working out how to know God.

Mistrust is the currency of those who do not trust. They will sow mistrust and accusation outside of any relational trust. It appears as a cowardly and proud stance rather than one of humble seeking. Often the people wanting to lay down guardrails and expel have their own metaphorical planks in their eyes.

To be explicit, when theologian Craig Keen was recently accused by fellow clergy of teaching against doctrine, his accusers had not had any interactions with him. Trust me, he will dialogue with you if you disagree and he will explain things when you do not understand. Any mistrust the accusers attempted to sow appears to have had the opposite effect. Maybe even a “Streisand Effect” because now more people are aware of the work of a retired professor of religion who shares his thoughts on the internet.

You might find it ironic, but two of the five churches represented by the accusers have statements on the doctrine of scripture on public websites which are contrary to that of the Church of the Nazarene. Fundamentalists typically do not care that they break with doctrines because they are arrogant enough to believe that their contrary take is just fine because it matches their view of God. It’s like they read or hear the parable of the wheat and the weeds and think it’s a good idea to disobey Jesus and try to rip the weeds out even though they may destroy the wheat.

Be a wrestling jazz musician rather than a referee. Trust the Spirit to draw others to that beauty. Or decide to be a referee policing boundaries and miss those beautiful stories.

GAINES, TIMOTHY. WALKING THE THEOLOGICAL LIFE Discovering Method for Theology in the Lives of Biblical Characters. INTERVARSITY PRESS, 2024.

Steve is a country boy from the American South whose winding road led through Trevecca, a PhD at the University of Glasgow, a career in medical communications, a charity with his wife Tasha, and finally a call to ministry in Scotland. In this episode he shares how he and Tasha took on the Camino Primitivo, the original and hardest route from Oviedo to Santiago, through a 95-degree heat wave, mountain climbs, and an eighteen-pound pack.

But the Camino was never really about the finish line. Steve talks about carrying a homemade journal full of prayer requests from their church and literally bearing other people’s burdens mile after mile, leaving them on rocks at shrines along the way. He reflects on meeting fellow pilgrims and the strange trust that builds with strangers, the locals who welcomed two tired pilgrims into a Wednesday evening service they stumbled into by accident, and the realization that the moments along the journey mattered far more than the arrival in Santiago.

He brings it all home with a simple pilgrim lesson for those of us who can’t walk 200 miles: simplify your day to just getting from here to here, carry as little as possible, leave behind what you don’t need, and don’t rush past the moments that actually mean the most. It’s a conversation about bodies, burdens, and what it means to actually walk with God rather than just talk about it.

Get more from Brandon Brown in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Hypocrisy is rampant within the church. It has always been an issue in spiritual realms. Jesus aimed condemnation at only a few types of people and among those are hypocrites. When I think of the loud-mouthed virtue signalling Christians who pontificate on and on about this or that societal ill, I invariably see what appears to be a large plank protruding from their eye. The other group Jesus condemned were religious leaders who heaped extra requirements upon the ability to know and follow God. The Venn diagram for these two groups is most likely just a single circle.

The longer I exist within holiness circles, the more I believe Mildred Bangs Wynkoop was being too soft when she talked about credibility gaps. She should probably have just gone with rank hypocrisy. Alas, many would not have listened to her. The world is much less subtle than it was when A Theology of Love came out. But the hypocrisy and credibility gaps have lingered and widened. So many stand in absolute certainty that their particular thoughts on a doctrine or theology are the only possible thoughts such that they are willing to eradicate differences of opinion.

It must be exhausting being the holiness police. Being the only ones who care so much about holiness that they must wage war against fellow clergy. The great irony is how many of the names you typically see attached to loud shouting, puritanical pontificating, or accusations against fellow clergy invariably have public statements that disagree with the very doctrines they claim to be concerned about. They’ll say they care about your soul all the while sticking a knife in your back.

Whether it is a vindictive charge without any merit whatsoever that gets dropped suddenly over a year into the process or overly restrictive readings of doctrines, there seems to be a mismatch in concern over sin. You see, amongst all the pearl clutching and gnashing of teeth in concern, there is a large gap in the application of concern.

What do I mean? Well, we claim to be a people who desire that all find freedom from sin. We believe in that so strongly that we will run roughshod over people to tell them about their sin. We will beat them over their heads about sin. Sorry, that’s wrong. We will hit people over the head with the sins of those outside, not the sins of the inside group. Only the scapegoat sins matter, not the ones we see in those who agree with us.

Religious bigotry? That’s fine as long as it is aimed at “those people.” Exclusionary nationalism? Perfect for those who look and think like me. Railing against those who work for a more just and equitable society? That is Gospel, because equity is “woke.” Opposing women’s ordination or teaching patriarchy as Christianity? That’s fine because “feminism is liberal.” If we had an ounce of consistency, the preceding would lead to discipline, but more often than not, it brings on accolades.(1)

If you feel comfortable signing on to accusations against a fellow member of clergy you have never met or even had a conversation with, be my guest. But when you do that while teaching against our doctrine of scripture, ordination, baptism, or other doctrines, do you feel even an ounce of irony? I asked a friend who had his credentials taken away in my denomination about someone who really seemed to dislike him. He said he had never interacted with that person other than seeing the name on a letter against him. Think about that for a moment.

In the past few years, there has been irony upon irony in the pursuit of a certain kind of purity of thought. Irony is one thing, but absurdity entered the room when one member of clergy faced charges for a typical exegesis of Matthew 18 in which he pointed out that the passage was not Jesus weaponizing discipline, but a picture of reconciling relationship. The gist of that essay was that accountability is a relational idea in which those who disagree are seeking discernment together with an eye always pointing to reconciliation. Let that sink in. (The discipline of clergy section of the Nazarene Manual says the same thing about reconciliation for contextual irony.)

As for being concerned about souls? We’re free with truth about certain sins, but our silence in the face of misogyny, protection of abusers, syncretic nationalism, and syncretic partisanship exposes hypocrisy. Of course, if we are being honest, we are all hypocrites at times. It is part of existing in a complex world. But we also need to recognize that hypocrisy is real and repent.

I keep dreaming of what change holiness folk could bring about if we worried more about proclaiming a transformative relationship with God rather than endless culture wars. If we simply lived out the ideals within our covenants and doctrines, I wonder how much good would enter the world. Might it look a lot like “thy Kingdom come?”

The truth is that I deeply love the Church and the promises present within a community that is seeking to bring flourishing to a world of darkness. It is just so frustrating when Christians keep throwing wet blankets upon the lights shining into that darkness out of fear, lack of control, or just raw hatred.

My friend Aaron Simmons published a revised essay on the liberal arts recently in which he stated that “[e]xistence is an affective baptism and sometimes the water gets up our nose.” I love that sentence for so many reasons. But I also believe we can use that about holiness. Holiness is an affective baptism and sometimes the water gets up our nose. And that’s a good thing because it reminds us of the power of holiness to act in the world. We keep treating holiness as some kind of pure thinking rather than relational action in creation. No wonder people don’t “get” holiness.

I pray we remember where holiness comes from before it is too late and the hypocrisy epidemic becomes a pandemic.

(1) See the Manual: 2023 Church of the Nazarene (2)

Philosophy in the Wild

A Defense of Liberal Arts Education

Quick disclaimer: Today’s post is a much revised version of a talk I first gave all the way back in 2013. I mention that for two reasons. First, I know that nobody is still listening to Macklemore and so don’t judge me. Second, I actually thought that I had turned this talk into a previous post, but despite searching all my previous material, it doesn’t…

Read more

16 days ago · 8 likes · 3 comments · J. Aaron Simmons

What does it look like to live a qualitative life on a normal Tuesday?
How the Tower of Babel speaks to our obsession with growth and technology. Why caring for creation is a holiness and sanctification issue, and how salvation is better understood as the healing of all things rather than a ticket out of here.

I was once asked what I do when I don’t feel like writing. If you subscribe, you have experienced that answer. I don’t write. No one depends upon the words I write, I don’t make any money writing, and I choose to write. So, if I don’t feel like writing, I don’t write. But I wonder if we applied that thinking to broader life what it might look like.

There are things we just can’t say no to. Feeding those who depend upon us, medical visit, jobs, and taking care of ourselves. But, what if we could choose moments when we just say no to all the things in the moment. This is the mythical life balance discussion, but it is also about living. In a world in which we are inundated with information, entertainment, and shouting; silence and boredom are counter cultural. Actually, silence is revolutionary.

The revolution may not be televised and that could be the best thing about it. I am not advocating being quiet in the face of injustice, but rather being silent in the endless outrage cycle of fear being thrown at us. The silence my allow us to hear the quiet voices crying out rather than the loud bullies. Transformational quiet can be had if we refuse to participate in the constant fear about people who look different, worship differently, speak differently, live differently. Turn off the bullies and do not allow them to control how you see the world.

We are too often led around by the tyranny of the ignorant. Sure, they sound smart and may even reinforce our prejudices, but they are spouting foolish ignorance. Try to turn that off, your own health may improve. One simple way to achieve peace - shut down the bullies. Those of us who are Christian should be the last to share the voices of bullies. We should instead be telling stories of beauty. Stories that invite others into our story and paint beautiful pictures.

There are real things to be angry about in our world. But, if you are constantly outraged by some joker with a microphone spreading lies, then silence may be the best antidote.

Subscribe now

We talk about the rescue mission model: where it came from (including Jerry McCauley, who started the first one), what went wrong, and what is worth recovering. Kevin is honest about harmful practices - the transactional way basic needs get tied to conversion - but he refuses to stop at critique. The book is full of stories of churches actually getting it right: a few San Diego churches whose storage program helped more than 100 people secure housing, a mission in Oklahoma City that went from worst example to best, churches opening parking lots to people living in their cars, and organizations centering people with lived experience in leadership.

We also get into the harder questions: how to respond to NIMBY opposition, what is happening with criminalization and Housing First policy, and why Kevin ends the book by calling us to turn “I” into “we.”

If you have ever felt overwhelmed by the size of the problem and wondered what your church could actually do, this conversation is for you. Kevin’s answer is not a bigger program. It is finding one other person who wants to do something, and going from there.

In my last essay I discussed the ways in which the American church has hurt its witness with Gen-Z specifically (see below for that link). I wanted to think about this in more detail and I kept thinking about the scene in Lord of the Rungs where Gandalf has gone to Saruman to discuss how they can work to destroy the One Ring. Gandalf realizes to his horror that Saruman has already been corrupted by Sauron through a desire for power. Saruman mocks the brown wizard Ratagast then attempts to pull Gandalf in to his own surrender to evil.

‘“And listen, Gandalf, my old friend and helper!” he said, coming near and speaking now in a softer voice. “I said we, for we it may be, if you will join with me. A new Power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us at all. There is no hope left in Elves or dying Númenor. This then is one choice before you, before us. We may join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it. As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means.” (LOTR 518-519)

Saruman believes that he can control the power and twist it back upon Sauron. Of course Galdalf recognizes the futility of attempting to use the power of the One Ring against its creator, but the lust for power has corrupted and twisted Saruman. Gandalf sees the lust within Saruman’s eyes that could not be contained and realizes that Saruman is lost.

‘He came and laid his long hand on my arm. “And why not, Gandalf?” he whispered. “Why not? The Ruling Ring? If we could command that, then the Power would pass to us. That is in truth why I brought you here. For I have many eyes in my service, and I believe that you know where this precious thing now lies. Is it not so? Or why do the Nine ask for the Shire, and what is your business there?” As he said this a lust which he could not conceal shone suddenly in his eyes. (519)

Gandalf becomes trapped upon the top of Orthanc, the tower of Isengard because he refuses to give in to the same lust for power that has consumed Saruman. Gandalf is willing to be outside the story rather than join Saruman’s descent. That does not mean that Gandalf gives up, but that he is willing to be on the sideline for a while to resist the evil that Saruman has embraced. Gandalf knows that Saruman is naive at best to think that the Power he seeks will come to him rather than destroy him.

Subscribe now

Hopefully you see the parallel here. Portions of the American church, including within the Church of the Nazarene (COTN) have been seduced by the possibility of wielding cultural or political power. As I consider why so many can ignore the very real evil present in partisanship and in policies that harm, I believe that there is a misguided belief that embracing the imagined power in choosing a partisan “side” will allow that power to be turned upon the world to reshape it.

But we are New Creation people. We would much better look to the example of Gandalf and be willing to reject cultural and political power rather than give in to them. Our witness would be stronger and we could speak prophetically into a world suffering from Old Creation. Could we make the kenotic move of giving up the lure of power in order that we can be the place those who are rejected by power can come and be transformed?

Of course in the Lord of the Rings, Gandalf is eventually given the mantle and power that Saruman held before his descent. But Gandalf wields that power in pursuit of justice. He does not hold it like a treasure, but pours himself into the fight for Middle Earth. Saruman is eventually defeated by his own hubris and ignorance of nature when the Ents go to war against Isengard and Hobbits lay siege as well. Saruman was so consumed by the pursuit of Power that he misses the threat of trees and Share folk. His disdain for others is his defeat. Ultimately, he dies at the hand of one he twisted. Saruman dies in obscurity in the Shire h saw no value in.

I end with a simple question. Are we Gandalf or are we Saruman?

Church of the Nazarene Clergy this series has a Lifelong Learning Code: 919014

An interesting study has emerged from the Wheaton College Billy Graham Center Research Institute. This study is the result of a survey conducted in 2024 of Gen-Z participants. These are young people born between 1997 and 2012. The study data shows results that had anecdotal assumptions from many clergy and those who look at religious trends. The results are not surprising to me or to many clergy. Evangelicals alliance with President Trump and the Republican party has an affect on how Gen-Z views church attendance. I will link the source article below that Ryan Burge participated in for more context. But here is the quote that should wake us up.

But has the strong alliance between Christians and Donald Trump actually pushed some people out of church?

We now have data to answer this question with a great deal of specificity among those who would be the future of the church: Generation Z. The Wheaton College Billy Graham Center Research Institute fielded a survey of 2,365 Gen Z adults (ages 18-28) through NORC’s AmeriSpeak panel between Aug. 9 and Sept. 26, 2024. This effort was supported by the Lilly Endowment, and the lead investigator for this project was Rick Richardson at Wheaton College. Buried in a battery about political de-motivators for church involvement was this statement: “Christians’ support of Trump has made me less likely to go to church.”

I shared the article in a group of Nazarene and holiness clergy for discussion. The majority took this as an opportunity to reflect and comment on how we might do things differently, what kind of language we may use, and how cheerleading for partisan politics harms the witness of the church. But then we have those who took another path. Here are some quotes.

It’s no surprise. Gen Z has grown up in an environment where education, the culture, even much of the church, is stridently opposed to the teachings of the Scriptures. We have a lot of work to do.

The assumption in this comment is twofold. One, Gen-Z avoids church because of opposition to scripture. Two, the Republican party is aligned with scripture. My response read in part:

Gen-Z is staying away from church in spite of being open to spiritual ideas. The reason given is insistence upon support of a partisan political framework.

Gen-Z rightfully sees that the policies and actions of Donald Trump do not necessarily line up with Christianity. They are not mentioning doctrinal issues, but partisan issues. Your statement assumes they have doctrinal issues, but that is not supported by the data.

The truth is that political parties and governments are often at odds with Christian ethics and morals. No party has a monopoly on Godly thought. This was once widely accepted in American Christianity (including evangelicalism). But we lost our way and assumed that political partisan power would give us cultural power. On that note, here is another comment:

I read the article. “In some part” is too generic to mean anything at all. Everything people do is, “in some part,” due to some things. This is just convenient ammunition for those who want to blame evil conservatives for ________________.

The obvious misunderstanding of how statistics work aside, do you see an obvious problem? This is assumed to be an attack to make political conservatives look evil. Sure, if you assume Wheaton University and the Billy Graham Center Research Institute are likely to attack conservatives those being bastions of liberal thinking and all. (that last is sarcasm by the way) The conversation continued:

I’m not going to waste the time to prove it, but for every “48% say they won’t go to church because of Trump” there’s 52% who will. Statistics say what we want them to say.

Once again, not how statistics work nor is this accurate per the data. In the data, less than a quarter said support had no impact. While we can suppose that of that number, some go specifically because of support, but way less than 52%. But I have a bigger issue with this line of thinking. I also believe that it exposes an idolatrous relationship with political partisan politics and a disregard for those outside the church - the “lost” if you will. One of the hallmarks of the call for clergy in the Church of the Nazarene (COTN) is a concern for all the lost. Notice we don’t say only those who support x political party.

Here is my response to the comment:

But beyond that, are you willing to leave a large group of people out of the opportunity to hear about holiness? I want to reach as many people as possible for the Gospel and our holiness message. That means as many as possible.

Those who love Donald Trump and those who reject Donald Trump should both find respite from the world’s demand for political allegiance in our holiness churches. I know our church has people from across the spectrum politically. We don’t alter a thing about holiness and we probably make it uncomfortable for different people at different times. But that’s the power of the Gospel. It calls us to be different, not to be the world.

It is sad that you appear to be willing to write off people who need to hear the Gospel because you insist upon embracing a worldly ideology rather than imagine the kingdom as wholly other.

Another clergy friend mentioned that she has sat in countless seminars and conferences where the question of what, why, etc. about younger generations comes us. Here we have an answer about one stumbling block that should be easy to remove. But we want to argue why we don’t have to give up our partisan cheerleading. It is unbelievable to me that we would be willing to block people from coming into our churches over politics. That is evidence enough to diagnose apathy toward human beings at best and idolatry at worst.

When did political comfort come before holiness? You want to know why the church is not experiencing revival? Because we put roadblocks up to the very people needing revival. We may get some cheers for using outrage against the other political party, but at what cost? Are we so entrapped by partisanship that we cannot fathom being in communion with people who vote differently? The COTN claims to be a missional people. Missional people are willing to be willing cultures that are foreign and different. But we can’t get along with people who are almost exactly like us but voted differently. God forgive our hard hearts.

Not surprisingly one of the commenters above was part of a discussion leading up to the 2016 and 2020 elections on how to strip COTN clergy of credentials if they either voted for Democrats or, for some refused to vote for Donald Trump. Their reasoning centered on abortion. Well, concern for the lost is also important and in the Nazarene Manual so...

Holiness is hard, but not because it places undue burdens. Holiness is hard because it demands that we see fellow human beings as God does, that we reject the ways of the world (including political power), and that we lead with love. Transformation is possible, but we need to get out of the way of the Spirit. Prevenient grace tells us that God is working in ALL places. Are we willing to be more exclusive than God just to make ourselves feel good about politics?

There are real world consequences to the attitude shown toward those who see partisan support as a deterrent to going to a church. That attitude is infectious and can seep into every level of a denomination out of fear. The fear of upsetting “the base” can lead to silence and inaction. You cannot multiply by zero, so maybe we need to be more humble and repentant. For a good example of this, the Maryland Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church is lobbying for Haitian immigrants currently facing a sudden revocation of temporary protected status. A status given to refugees who follow the rules and “do things the right way.” Meanwhile, save for a few voices, the thousands of Haitian members of the COTN are not being advocated for publicly. We should feel the shame of that in light of the Gospel.

The solution here is simple. Repent of partisanship and preach Christ and holiness. Yes, we will preach on politics, but a politics shaped by the Kindom of God rather than human greed or desire. Doing this may upset everyone at some point, but the Gospel can be offensive. We often speak as if it is offensive to the world, but it is most offensive to the religious ones who demand God be in their image.

Share

https://religionnews.com/2026/07/20/half-of-gen-z-says-trump-support-keeps-them-out-of-church/?fbclid=IwY2xjawTNyd5leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFycFpKZ01YZURuTEd1OWdhc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHhUhZdmIZMGWz0qMQf_C43DbLL1PxZqLGWPiu4M86bi_wshN8WDGsRIJeMS4_aem_ZdQFkUc0pKi7r9pKvk5E-w

In this wide-ranging discussion, they open up about:

- What surprises people most about a pastor’s week

- The one thing they’re praying when they look out at the congregation on Sunday

- How they’ve evolved in their thinking about ministry, structure, and sanctification

- What’s been harder than expected (relational ministry in a busy, screen-saturated culture)

- What’s been better than expected (younger generations stepping up to serve)

- The honest advice they’d give someone who feels spiritually stuck

- The biggest misconception about how pastors actually relate to each other (hint: they don’t all think alike)

- How they keep the energy fresh after decades of preaching the same texts

Church of the Nazarene Clergy this series has a Lifelong Learning Code: 919014

In an online forum recently, I saw a question asking for feedback on an article (link below). The article is part of a series in which several writers associated with the Global Methodist Church (GMC) are opining on their thoughts of what the future of the Church catholic may look like. I commend anyone looking to the future and trying to determine what the Church may look like, but what I noticed in the article is the idea of re-formation as in reforming (physically and theologically) what the Church looks like. Sadly, I see both a lack of imagination and a vision of a church as institution with rapidly narrowing guardrails.

Your vision of church may be of guardrails, but to project that onto the entirety of the Christian experience is a category error at best. I also believe that trying to fit institution into an organism leads to where we are today in the wider Church. Here are my unvarnished comments on the article.

The Church needs new birth. not revival, re-formation, or any institutional idea. This article and the series have a good premise, but I believe they lack the imagination that ignited the early church. Here is why I think that.

The thinking and questions are assuming institution rather than organism. The mention that God is doing something new does not track with the institutional nudges.

I believe this is a vision the authors have for the Global Methodist Church (GMC) and that is fine, but to project it upon the Church catholic is a category error. The GMC is definitely working toward a re-formation, but it appears to be a re-formation of modernism within an institutional church. The move toward inerrancy is just one example of this move toward modernism as the framework.

I can’t help shaking the feeling that the GMC is going down a similar road to the ANCA. Guardrails constantly narrow as you attempt to form an institution. Much better to have a centering that creates a source upon which we move out only so far as our center holds. That center is Jesus, not our institutions.

Why my rather cynical assessment? Because the GMC is already moving toward institutional rules making as a function of the Church. If you have played Table Top Role-Playing Games like Dungeons and Dragons you will be familiar with the concept of rules heavy and rules light games. The most popular game system is Dungeons and Dragons which is a rules heavy game. It has very dense and sometimes over complex rules which can constrict gameplay and the fun. A rules light game in contrast allows for more fluid storytelling and a faster pace. For a new player, rules light is much easier to understand and a much more inviting invitation into the hobby.

Subscribe now

The GMC is institutionalizing an idea which helps to form institutional control over the hermeneutical (interpretative framework) of scripture. A solid hermeneutic is a good thing, but a rules light hermeneutic is more open to the Holy Spirit and the moves of God in the world than a rules heavy approach. What is my evidence of the GMC leaning toward a rules heavy approach? The fact that they are proposing changing their Methodist doctrine of scripture into a fundamentalist vision of an inerrant text. As a member of clergy in the Church of the Nazarene (COTN), I am watching this closely because we have clergy who not only desire for our doctrine of scripture to change to this same idea, but also teach inerrancy as doctrine.

What’s wrong with inerrancy? Good question, but also a question born in modernism’s insistence upon certitude and proof. Inerrancy is a recent idea within Christianity. In fact, it is a true child of twentieth century modernism. Ironically, the fundamentalists became modernists by fighting historic liberal theology with its own ideas. But back to inerrancy itself. The allure of inerrancy is that it places a burden upon scripture to be perfect in content rather than in purpose.

There is a very large gulf between content and purpose and we do well to remember that. The purpose of scripture is to reveal God, and for Christians, the perfect revelation of God is found in Jesus. These are the claims of the Gospels and other scripture. The Gospel of John and the book of Hebrews address this directly. The clarity of purpose being more important than content is shown very clearly in Hebrews chapter one.

Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. (Heb 1:1-3 NRSVue)

The writer of Hebrews is explicitly rejecting the idea that the scriptures they know are flawed in that they are not the perfect reflection of God’s character. Inerrancy is a poor understanding of scripture and the inspiration of scripture. Many Christian traditions have never held to any form of textual inerrancy. There are those, like the COTN, who teach the idea of soteriological inerrancy. This is simply that scripture is able to inerrantly reveal how we can have relationship with God. In other words, this is an inerrant purpose. You will find this claim throughout my writing.

But what I have come to believe recently is that textual inerrancy is not only a poor understanding of the purpose of scripture, but that it may be like heresy. It is definitely idolatry. Sure, those who believe in inerrancy will say “we don’t worship the bible.” But that’s not the fullness of idolatry. To define idolatry is the placement of authority within the object or thing itself instead of solely in the source of inspiration. In other words we shift from a God-breathed text, to a text that derives authority from itself.

That’s the ultimate problem with inerrancy, it constrains the text to the point of strangling its life. The text is nothing without the breath of God. For Wesleyans, this God-breathed nature extends to human beings, and to the Holy Spirit revealing the truth within the text which points to God. The authority of scripture exists within the invitation to engage with the living God, not the words on a page.

Textual inerrancy is an unnecessary and empty view of scripture. There is no claim to inerrancy within scripture. Many try to show inerrancy within scripture, but those are typically proof texts that ignore the context and even the very words. I imagine that in the new birth the Church is groaning toward, inerrancy will be a quaint artifact of modernism that gets shed in repentance of the idolatry that it is. At least that’s my prayer.

https://firebrandmag.com/articles/the-new-normal

In this episode of the Parson Brown Podcast, Brandon welcomes back fan-favorite guest Nick Polk for the summer series to explore one of J.R.R. Tolkien’s most brilliant and hope-filled ideas: eucatastrophe. Coined by Tolkien from the Greek “eu” (good) and “catastrophe,” the term describes that sudden, unexpected joyful turn when all seems lost - the happy ending that emerges organically from the story itself, not dropped in from outside.

Nick and Brandon unpack the difference between a true eucatastrophe and a cheap deus ex machina, tracing examples through Tolkien’s legendarium (the creation story of the Ainulindale, the romance of Beren and Luthien, the reshaping of the world from flat to round) and into pop culture touchstones like Star Wars, Independence Day, and Toy Story 3. They wrestle with Tolkien’s claim that he didn’t invent eucatastrophe but discovered it - and how the ultimate eucatastrophe, for Tolkien, was the death and resurrection of Christ.

Along the way they tackle perennial fan questions - why couldn’t the eagles just take the Ring to Mordor? - and explore how the shape of story echoes the shape of the gospel. Whether you’re a Tolkien nerd, a theology nerd, or just someone who loves a good happy ending, this conversation will leave you seeing stories -- and your own story - in a new light.

Church of the Nazarene Clergy this series has a Lifelong Learning Code: 919014

In my last essay, I engaged with the idea of an embodied theology. We looked at how bodies relate to ministry, the church, and doctrinal decisions. The practical theology of embodiment is perfect for an ecclesiology of embodied action. In other words, the Church is a body! The Apostle Paul is concerned with the embodiment of the Church as the incarnation of Christ in the present; what if we turned to look at the Church like Paul? Paul talks a lot about bodies and his clearest metaphor for the Church is as the body of Christ. This is deep theological understanding about who the church is to be.

The Body is Laboring

In her book, The Pastor as Midwife Rev. Dr. Shawna Gaines writes about the current state of the Church.

In this moment, the church is in great pain: Congregations are dwindling, denominations are fracturing, church scandals have become a genre, church leaders are at a loss to navigate rapid change, Christians are co-opted by tactics of the empires of this world, and survival is threatened. (Gaines)

Despite attempts to shoehorn bad data into celebrations, the church in the U.S. is facing decline. Or decline in the traditional Western understanding of successful churches. It is true that institutional metrics are largely discouraging. Spend some time on Ryan Burge’s excellent Substack and you can see the trends. Church attendance and membership is down across the board. Some denominations are shedding huge numbers, including the largest Protestant group in the U.S. - The Southern Baptist Church.

But, what if we are experiencing productive pain in the labor of new birth? I don’t mean the next cool idea or system, but actual new birth. What if visionaries like Phylis Tickle and others are right and we are currently in the transition between the Church as it has been and the Church as it will be? Phylis Tickle was an Episcopal layperson who had great insight into the Church catholic and the changes she foresaw. We really miss her voice in these days of labor moving toward birth. There is a pattern as Tickle pointed out through the words of a priest.

The Right Reverend Mark Dyer, an Anglican bishop known for his wit as well as his wisdom, famously observes from time to time that the only way to understand what is currently happening to us as twenty-first-century Christians in North America is first to understand that about every five hundred years the Church feels compelled to hold a giant rummage sale. (Tickle)

Or as Shawna Gaines mentions, “We need change that is less like a website facelift and more like a new birth...”

If the church were pregnant, we would be pushing toward the moment when a doctor would say it is time to induce. The pain we are currently experiencing as a people is not a pain inflicted by God, but it may just be that which shows us the path back to God. Our pains are labor pains moving us toward the next birth of the Church as the embodiment of the Christ, but what is the Church giving birth to?

The Strongman in Shepherd’s Clothing

In The Pastor as Midwife Shawna Gaines interrogates the typical metaphor of pastor as shepherd. She does not reject the metaphor of shepherd overall, but takes issue with the way we typically talk about pastor/shepherd as a visionary leader and protector. Gaines comments upon the way many pastor have been taught what success is. “The big church conferences told me that a pastor was a visionary leader, like Moses the shepherd, who had been to the mountaintop and would fearlessly lead the flock onward.”

Or even worse visions of shepherd are those of men like Mark Driscoll who imagines pastor as strongman directing the flock and protecting the flock from the world. The idea is that the only responsibility of the sheep is to survive. The irony is that even egalitarian churches see pastors in light of a patriarchal lens. The strong CEO leading the church into prosperity is a patriarchal, capitalist vision. It is not the picture of a shepherd in scripture.

We do need new metaphors for pastor that meet the Church being born anew. While not throwing out the metaphor of shepherd, we can see shepherds through the lens of midwife. After all, shepherds often serve as midwife to their sheep. Shepherds are present at new birth. The shepherd of first century Palestine was not a visionary leader, but a loving guide to sheep. Yes, shepherds protected, but only in the sense that wild animals were a threat. The sheep did not need to constantly cower because the shepherd was in their midst. Not controlling, but guiding and caring.

Shifting the metaphor to midwife allows the church to reject the strongman and see the world through eyes that are part of the risen savior. These eyes see the world differently than eyes focused upon the strongman. We can also shift from the end result of pastor as CEO and release that to welcome the pastor as a shepherd who midwifes.

Organization Without Institutionalization

What does it mean for the Church if we shift from the strongman to a midwifing shepherd? It shifts us to a very Pauline metaphor of the Church as the body of Christ - an embodied church. The language changes from institution to organism. From standard operating procedures to living and breathing organic structure. There is a marked difference between the idea of institutionalization which serves the institutional structure versus the organic and healthy structure that serves life and living.

Pastor Shawna explains this within the work of midwives.

“I’ve witnessed pastors and midwives working in the wisdom of the birthing community bring order and peace to a process that can be filled with fear and anxiety. Their work as professionals is orderly and organized, but it is not institutionalized.”

Midwives bring order within chaos, but they do not control the birth. They are there along side and with the mothers and others involved in the birth. They invite form rather than chaos or control. I cannot help but see echoes of Genesis within this idea. God births creation from chaos in the opening of Genesis. Midwives bring order to chaos in new births as an ongoing reflection of God’s work in the world.

Gaines tells us that institutionalization leads us to create things designed to outlive us. This transforms the Church into an institution that serves itself rather than the mission of God. Much like modern birth within a hospital has institutionalized into postures, placement of bodies, and setups that are convenient for the doctor, but often highly inconvenient for the mother giving birth; institutions form themselves around ways to serve the needs of the institution. The mother ends up on a table and on her back allowing the doctor to sit in comfort and command the situation. This leaves little room for the mother to adjust to what her body is saying. The structure is geared toward doctor rather than mother. This is what we have done with the church.

We have placed the institutional concerns onto the doctor’s stool. We have placed the Church on her back and made it hard for her to see the paths God is leading toward. The new birth seems to be ancillary to the whole production. This informs the statistics we gather, the ways we structure hierarchies, and even how doctrines are enforced or not enforced. The importance becomes centered on the survival and ease of the institution - often at the expense of the human beings within the structure. What would a church that saw itself as an organism do differently. What would polity, roles, accountability look like within such an imagination? It would definitely not be one in which polity, roles, accountability, structure, organization, and doctrine become flattened into a single essential doctrine. Instead it would be one in which those things other than essential doctrines were subject to the move of God rather than institutional survival. There would be a cooperative and humble listening and seeing what God is doing, even if it is detrimental to the institution.

It would look much more like the description by a doula in Gaines’ book of birth as a dance. “There is rhythm and swaying, and the rhythm increases and speeds up, bodies move and sway. But the mother is the one who sets the rhythm, even if she doesn’t know it.” I imagine the rhythm, cooperation, and move of the church being in sync with God. More accomplished in sync choreography versus Elaine Benes.* A beautiful swaying in response to the song of the Spirit becomes the unifying move of a church being witness and moving toward new birth.

The Spirit Sets the Rhythm

Rhythm needs to be set by someone so others know to match that rhythm. One of the recurring ideas within Pastor as Midwife is the idea that the mother sets the rhythm of the birth. The entire birthing community of the mother syncs to her rhythm. Trying to set the rhythm for the mother only causes trauma. Why is this so important to midwives? Because the baby is not theirs. If pastors see the church as their baby, they will kill it. For the Church, our rhythm should be set by the Spirit, because the Church belongs to Christ and not us, not our denominations, and not our own comfort.

Pastor Shawna puts it very well.

“Pastor, your first and last priority is attending to the Holy Spirit, who centers the church on Christ. The well-being of the church is a secondary outcome of the church’s attention to the Spirit. If the Spirit is our true Mother who is leading the church in the birth of new creation, a pastor’s role is to listen to her lead and help the church follow in her rhythm.”

Would our anxieties about decline be more about trying to control a birth not our own. We could release that anxiety by seeing ourselves as attendants to the Spirit birthing the new life of the Church. How would our measurements of the Church change in light of centering us in the rhythm of the Holy Spirit?

Success would be measured very differently than it is today. Attendance, giving, and raw numbers don’t really tell the story well. Instead we might highlight evidence of lives changed, communities transformed, and people sharing the stories of how they are moving in the rhythm of the Spirit. It may be difficult to quantify, but imagine recounting the people who attend to those who go to altars. What if our numbers included those who prayed with rather than just those who prayed? I can imagine the picture now of the church swaying in rhythm to the Spirit.

It would be very like my first encounter with an African-American church in my youth. The Hammond B3 started the movement, then the choir burst into the sanctuary swaying to the rhythm. Soon the entire church, even the row of young mostly white Boy Scouts, were swaying to that same rhythm. My entire recollection of that morning is that rhythm woven into every move. The preaching had call and response in the rhythm, the prayers had rhythm. We were all one in that rhythm on that day and there was an obvious seeking of the rhythm with God. That’s what it looks like when the Spirit sets the rhythm - a whole room, even the skeptics and the uncertain, finding the same sway.

The “Dead Twin” and the Future of the Church

I believe we all have anecdotes of positive moves within churches that are slowed or ended because of those clinging to the past, even if that past never existed. Gaines refers to these as the dead twins within the church. Within the joy of birth, there are those intensely sad realities of not quite living in new creation fully. One of those is the reality of a dead twin who slows the progression of the living twin.

What are the dead twins in our midst? A program running years past its usefulness? The aging and expensive building? A cultural identity that the church clings to out of fear? It is not only pastors that feel the anxiety of not being in control, but congregations and denomination as well. What are the responses when you choose to follow the lead of the Spirit to the fear of an unknown path? Pastor Shawna tells the story of a pastor sharing about an exciting new direction of ministry to the community. “We just got the news that we are pregnant, and not everyone is sure they want the baby.” The reality about birth is that “[e]verything in the womb has to be born, whether dead or alive”

So pastors come alongside all and help the church grieve that which must die while midwifing what must be born. This is not running roughshod over objections, but helping the grieving to grieve and rejoice in rhythm with the Spirit. I know of several pastors who made decisions to remove aging pews and replace them with chairs. But, pews represent a safe and stable past. I am amazed at the response to removing pews, but I also recognize the grief of change. Allowing for grief while new birth is happening helps us to move everyone toward the promise of the new birth. This is movement, as is all birth, but we don’t just cut those and move on from the dead twin. We grieve and invite the fearful to witness the promise of new birth.

The Body Christ Is Still Birthing

What would it look like to love the Church as organism. A messy, alive, and unpredictable living organism rather than an institution? We don’t build the church - God births the church. The organism of the Church has outlived institutions over the millennia. The great “rummage sales” mentioned above included upheaval and anxiety much like we feel today. Around 500 C.E. Rome fell and that birthed an emerging Western Church shedding the ancient world order. Then around 1000, the Western and Eastern Churches finally cleaved their unity through the Great Schism. The last we named is around 1500 and the Protestant Reformation. Those all caused grief and the end of institutions, but the organism experienced new birth. In the words of Dr. Ian Malcom, “life finds a way.” The Church is life.

Are we prepared to assist in birth? Gaines invites us:

“If you believe that God is bringing new creation into the midst of the old, prepare to assist in birth. Roll up your sleeves and boil some water. And quickly! Let the Spirit lead, and get yourself out of the center of the frame.”

“The Lord is my midwife, I shall be kept safe.” is a posture of invitation to be participants in the new birth of the Church. We are invited as Paul reminds us, ALL creation is groaning as in the pains of labor. New creation is being birthed by God and we are witnesses and co-laborers in that birth. We do not set the rhythm or the timing, but we move within that rhythm and invite others to experience this with us. We may even need to get out of the way.

Imagine if we quit trying to preserve a dying version of the Church? We don’t stop grieving the loss, but we continue with the birth, trusting that God is with us in these pains. Where are you in the birthing process? Where is your congregation? Your denomination? How do we become a body still being born?

Notes

Books

Shawna Songer Gaines, The Pastor as Midwife (IVP, 2026). The primary source for the midwife metaphor, birth-as-dance imagery, and the “dead twin” concept running throughout this essay.

Phyllis Tickle, The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why (Baker Books, 2008). Tickle popularized the “giant rummage sale” framing of the church’s 500-year cycles, attributed to Bishop Mark Dyer.

Ryan Burge’s Substack, Graphs About Religion (graphsaboutreligion.com), is the source for the denominational decline data referenced in Section 1.

Pop Culture References

Elaine Benes — A character from the television show Seinfeld (1989-1998), played by Julia Louis-Dreyfus. In Season 6, Episode 18 (”The Fusilli Jerry”), Elaine performs an awkward, jerky dance at a party that became one of the show’s most iconic moments. The reference in Section 3 contrasts her uncoordinated flailing with the idea of the church moving in genuine sync with the Spirit.

Dr. Ian Malcolm — A character from Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park (and the 1993 film adaptation, played by Jeff Goldblum). A chaos theorist who repeatedly notes that life cannot be contained or controlled, culminating in the line “life finds a way.” The reference in Section 6 draws the parallel: the Church as organism will outlive any institution built to contain it.

The conversation covers the tension between waiting and suffering, why male pastors might need this metaphor most, the difference between generative pain and oppression, informed consent in the church, and why “if ministry is your baby, you’ll probably end up killing it.” Whether you’re a pastor, a lay leader, or just someone trying to figure out what it means to be the church, this episode will change how you think about what God is doing in the dark.

Church of the Nazarene Clergy this series has a Lifelong Learning Code: 919014

Embodied Imagination

“We meet God in our bodies.” (Gaines)

When we neglect the physical, it inevitably suffocates the image of a God who ate, slept, cried, bled, grew, and healed. And whether or not the origin of that neglect is hatred, it will indeed end in hatred. You want to tell me to love God? Ask me when I’ve last eaten. Come now, you want me to tell you a prayer? You’ll find it in the blood beating from heart to head to toe and home again.Don’t ask me of salvation. Listen to the hum of my chest as I now fall asleep. I cannot see the face of God by rejecting my own. -- COLE ARTHUR RILEY, THIS HERE FLESH (Gaines)

We are an embodied people. Christians claim to worship an embodied God. We gather in the ecclesial imagination of a body of that very God.

What if we really believed that? What if those of us who are Wesleyan-Holiness believed and acted as if we are an embodied people? What if we lived into this reality and claimed rather than running from it? But like many of our ongoing credibility gaps (see Wynkoop), we do not actually live out our claims. There is a tremendous gap between what we claim to believe and what many of us teach through our actions, speech, and even teachings. To get specific, the Church of the Nazarene (COTN) has copious words around our concern for the sanctity of life, the care for bodies, the care for embodied people who are oppressed, the concern for recognizing the way some bodies are treated differently than others. The egalitarian belief that the body does not determine fitness for ordination, administration of the sacraments, or leadership and the care for our own bodies by abstaining from harmful activities, substances, and attitudes. Yet, we don’t actually live those words out consistently.

For all the concern over following our doctrines, we have clergy who continue to make claims contrary to our actual doctrines. You see, we have an imperfect doctrine of human sexuality. It is imperfect because we try to hold tension and tension creates imperfection. But if we live out our doctrines with consistency we can at least be honest. But, we don’t seem to be able to live that out. Our doctrine can be summarized into the idea that sexuality is only holy within a monogamous marriage of people of the opposite sex. Of course, we expound by being clear that same-sex attraction or queerness is not inherently sinful, only sexual acts outside of the aforementioned statement are sinful.

This leads to some gaps. But one overwhelming gap is the idea that one cannot see themselves as gay or queer. The way this is expressed is generally something like this: “You cannot call yourself gay and be a Christian. You cannot have any identity that is aligned with a temptation, in fact your only identity must be in Christ.” There are multiple logical, anthropological, and theological problems with such a statement. For Nazarenes, we have our Manual statement and a ruling from our Board of General Superintendents (BGS) that contradict such language. In addition our 2023 General Assembly rejected a resolution that would have insisted we can only have our identity in Christ. It was rejected partly for being illogical. One stated objection: in addition to having an identity in Christ, I am a father, mother, son, etc.

But the language is incongruent with our doctrine as well. The identity section was to be inserted in the section on human sexuality; the very section that makes this idea illogical from a Wesleyan perspective. It also creates credibility gaps against that which we claim. Why, after the rejection of this language, would clergy continue to make the claim that one cannot see themselves as gay? Because there is pressure to be like non-Wesleyans who make inconsistency a mark of their theology. It is also a gap that persists because of a lack of theological depth and understanding of Wesleyan embodied anthropology. That is an expensive gap because filling it requires hard work, open dialogue, and humility. And we have not yet decided we want to do that work.

Subscribe now

Why “Identity in Christ” Fails

The COTN was right to reject language of having our sole identity in Christ. In fact, the resolution that was rejected by the full assembly added language about identifying with temptation or sin. That’s the language mentioned above. This was rejected for primarily logical reasons. But I believe that gaps remain because we have not dealt enough with the theological reasons that dissolving our particular identities into Christ are inconsistent with an embodied Wesleyan theology.

Language such as having our sole identity in Christ may seem a pious or holy way to view identity. Paul after all uses similar language in Galatians 3:28.

1. There is no Jew or Greek, servant or free, male or female: because you are all one in Jesus Christ.

But as with all proof texts, this one fails to prove the identity claim when we look at the broader passage context.

For all those of you who were given baptism into Christ did put on Christ. There is no Jew or Greek, servant or free, male or female: because you are all one in Jesus Christ. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and yours is the heritage by the right of God’s undertaking given to Abraham. (Gal 3:27-29 NRSVue)

Do you see it? We are to be “one in Jesus Christ.” This passage is about how our differences do not keep us from being one in Christ, not about those differences melting into one. If that were the case Paul’s description of the Church as a body in 1 Corinthians would be irrelevant. You can’t be a diverse body with all the parts dissolved into one. You can have a unity of purpose as a body and that purpose is to be clothed with Jesus - to reflect the goodness of God.

If we adopt or live out the idea of our only identity being in Christ, then race, gender, or disability do not matter. But our doctrines claim these do matter in recognition of how the world twists and warps the value of human beings based upon our differences. It is hard to repent of racism if you claim that race is unimportant for example. Waving aside differences with a doctrinal claim of only identity is a dead end, and the COTN saw it as a dead end.

More than a dead end, it is an accommodation of Platonic dualism and one of the roots of Gnosticism. The logical argument is enough to reject the “only identity in Christ” language. But the theological cost is deeper than logic.

Wesleyans reject the idea of sanctification as an escape from the body. No, for Wesleyans, sanctification happens in and through the body. The cross is our example - the body of Jesus the Christ beaten and hung on a tree points to the redemption of the body in resurrection and ascension. Jesus did not escape his embodiment and neither do we.

It is in our bodies that we are sanctified, because Wesleyans believe sanctification is a reality that comes in this life, not something deferred to the next. Our identity is sanctified through the body of Jesus and through our own bodies. Our clergy forget this when trying to impose platonic ideas about identity onto our Wesleyan conviction of embodied holiness. Wesleyans believe in embodied sanctification because we take seriously the origin story of scripture. Rev. Shawna Gaines says it this way:

My work is grounded in a theological anthropology that begins in Genesis 1 and not Genesis 3, a view of creation and bodies created by God in love, made in God’s image, and called very good (Gen 1:31). God created a people who are creative, giving birth to new ideas, inventions, art forms, organizations, and bodies. And it is very good! (p. 67)

Placing our identity outside this reality and theological belief does damage to our doctrines.

The Body as a Site of Grace

For Wesleyans, the body is not a problem to be solved. The body is the site of God’s labor. We can connect the quote of beginnings with a wider understanding of the metaphor of midwifery from Shawna Gaines. We are a people who need new birth, but as Nicodemus recognizes, this is not a return to the womb. No, it is a new birth within the body we have now. Ours is a labor of the body being newly born.

As I mentioned previously, we are embodied and sanctified, not disembodied and sanctified. Our bodies are means of grace because they carry the reality of human experience. The one in whom we are discipled, Jesus, carried embodiment into the heavens. Yet we continue to act as if our bodies are anchors to the world rather than entrances into the Kingdom of God. Like labor, sanctification is the sometimes painful experience of the incredible joy of new life. New creation cannot come disembodied because creation is itself the substantive reflection of goodness.

This helps us understand that desire is never the enemy. Disordered desire is the enemy. But what is disordered desire? It is desire that has turned in on itself - a lust for power, wealth, another human being. Disordered desire can never be quenched because it feeds only upon more desire. Wesleyans have traditionally called this concupiscence: desire curved inward, away from God and neighbor.

We can see disordered desire at work in both poles that attempt to stretch the human being. The sexual revolution insists that sexuality is nothing more than a physical act; desire expressed is desire fulfilled. Purity culture responds by treating human beings as helpless pawns to animal desires that must be contained. Neither has a good answer for an embodied theology of humanity. Desire is not self-actualized lust that must be expressed or quenched, nor is it a thing that must be ignored or suppressed.

But attraction is not the same as desire. This is where careful distinction matters, especially when we talk about same-sex attraction. Our understanding is better expressed this way: attraction is what we experience as human beings in a general sense - we find people, ideas, experiences compelling for reasons we do not always control. Same-sex attraction and opposite-sex attraction are both forms of this general human experience. What matters theologically is not the direction of the attraction but what we do with it - how it is taken up into the life of sanctification.

But desire is also not sin until it becomes a consuming, disordered lust. Desire can be sanctified and shaped by becoming like Jesus. This does not entail our attractions changing, but it shapes our desires to be centered in a Christlike life. Pastorally, we often find ourselves sitting with someone for whom desire has become disordered. This can be in many contexts including sexuality, adrenaline rushes, food, drugs, alcohol, and so many other things. But whatever the desire, we can lead with grace and mercy by being with the person whose life is being transformed into Christlikeness. We also must trust the Spirit in these interactions.

Much like a midwife does not control the birth, pastors do not control the path of sanctification. Nor do we control responses to the Spirit. That is the work of prevenient grace and love. We can let go of the desire to control and become free to minister.

Orientation, Identity, and the Life of Sanctification

If orientation is not sin then what is it? That is a legitimate and important question for anyone who cares about a life of holiness. The simple path is to label orientation with categorical certainty, but life is not easily categorized. Life is complex and we are a complex species. So here is my attempt: orientation is a feature of embodied existence that, like all embodied features, is taken up into the life of sanctification. It is not the whole of a person’s identity, but it is not nothing either.

The pastoral vocation of the church is not to resolve the tension of affirming or rejecting human beings, but to accompany people in the tension while the Holy Spirit does the work. We are a people who claim the grace of prevenience, yet we flee from the very tension that prevenient grace brings. This is a move Andrew Root would call sitting with people on their sorrow. (Root)

Concretely, this looks like a pastor sitting across from a young adult who has trusted them enough to say, “I don’t know what to do with this part of myself.” The pastor’s first instinct may be to reach for a category - to classify, to resolve, to give an answer. But the midwife knows that birth cannot be rushed. The pastoral task is not to have the right answer ready. It is to stay in the room, to trust that the Spirit is already laboring in this person’s life, and to accompany them while the Spirit works. That is harder than having a rule. It is also more faithful to a Wesleyan theology of embodied grace.

In the end neither orientation nor identity are barriers to sanctification. That is because sanctification, like any work of grace, is a move of God. We cooperate, but it is only through God that we are sanctified. It is not only individuals who need sanctification. The Church also needs sanctification in our understanding of orientation. We need better language, categories, and better pastoral practices. We need better willingness to sit in the discomfort of not having it all figured out.

The Pastor as Midwife to Embodied Holiness

The pastor who trusts the Spirit’s labor stops needing to have the right answer. Instead, the pastoral task is accompaniment - we are accompanying people in labor. Every person in our lives is laboring with life’s curveballs and with the transformative work of the Holy Spirit. There are so many things we cannot control, and our calling is to trust the Spirit rather than attempt to control the labor.

Continuing this idea, pastoral work is one of informed consent when done properly. Human beings are active participants in the work of transformative holiness. They are not passive recipients of pastoral pronouncements (at least they should not be). We definitely do not rain shame upon people. “Shame is the enemy of intimacy and the greatest obstacle to true maturity in Christ” (Gaines) Human beings are not going to experience transformation if we keep putting roadblocks in their paths.

What does this look like on a Sunday morning? It looks like a sermon with a different kind of authority - not the authority of someone who has all the answers, but the authority of someone who has learned to trust the Spirit’s work in bodies she does not control. It names the complexity of human desire honestly, without flinching, and then trusts the congregation to sit in that complexity rather than rushing to resolve it. It looks like a small group where someone can say “I don’t have this figured out” and the response is not a corrective but a quiet “neither do I. Let us walk together.” That kind of space is not soft or directionless. It is harder to create than a rule. And it is the only kind of space where real transformation happens.

A pastor who midwifes embodied holiness creates space for people to wrestle with their desires in community without fear of condemnation and without the pressure to have it all figured out. This is hard. It is also worth it. Imagine walking with people being birthed into new life, seeing moments of transformation and growth into the likeness of Jesus. That becomes possible when we stop needing to be certain. Rules are easy. Embodied transformation is hard.

Subscribe now

The Body Christ Is Birthing

In the introduction to The Pastor as Midwife Gaines quotes Barbara Brown Taylor:

New life starts in the dark. Whether it is a seed in the ground, a baby in the womb, or Jesus in the tomb, it starts in the dark. --BARBARA BROWN TAYLOR, LEARNING TO WALK IN THE DARK

The church may be in the dark on how we better explain, minister, or find language, but it is in that early darkness that life springs forth. What if we approached our mission to invite people into discipleship by seeing this as a birthing process rather than a systematic sales pitch? What difference does embodiment make to the church in difficult conversations?

I imagine it looks like the church in which each and every person sees themselves as participants in new birth. Imagine the church in which those who make us uncomfortable reach out in their own discomfort to kneel and pray with someone they see is hurting? I can imagine a line of human beings kneeling at altars, embraced in mutual prayers of anguish and joy, of heartache and new life.

It may even look like the Wesleyan choice to trust the Spirit working in and through bodies over time. Trusting that in time healing and transformation will take place in all of us, but not rushing the Spirit to perform for us. It is the Wesleyan invitation to be bathed in the grace and love of God until that love overflows into those around us. I have no conclusions or pithy bite-sized solutions. What I do have is many questions, the biggest being

Where is the Spirit laboring that we are afraid to attend?

Share

Gaines, Shawna Songer. The Pastor as Midwife: Life-Giving Leadership for the Healing of the Church. IVP Academic, n.d.

Root, Andrew. Evangelism in an Age of Despair: Hope beyond the Failed Promise of Happiness.

There was once a pastor who had a zeal for holiness. They desired that everyone they encountered would experience holiness and transformation of the Holy Spirit. This desire was good, but as with all desire, sometimes the desire itself becomes the goal rather than transformation.

It began with a small speck. That speck felt a bit uncomfortable, but it helped the pastor to focus upon those things they felt were most important. Holiness itself began to be less important than a particular expression of holiness. Focusing upon that expression eased the discomfort of the speck. But the speck grew.

Maybe the speck caused a blindness toward the work of the Spirit outside particularities, but the very idea of holiness began to shrink for the pastor as the speck sprouted outward beginning to form a sapling. Some fellow pastors noticed that sapling and mentioned that it may become a problem. But the sapling was really helping holiness to come into focus.

As the sapling grew outward it began to slowly close off entire paths of holiness from vision. The blindness caused anger in the pastor whenever those paths would come into view. Those paths must be wrong for they only show up in other spaces. The desire for holiness drove the pastor to attack others who shared a passion for holiness but went about it differently. How dare those other pastors engage with those who disagree about holiness. They attempted to have those pastors uprooted from their flocks. They desired that the shepherds be sent packing if they would not conform to the narrow vision seen past the tree.

The tree grew larger and began to close off even more paths of holiness. Others mentioned the tree because it was large enough that it began to strike and harm others who were inviting people to experience the holiness of God. But alas, the tree had become so ingrained that any thought of removing it struck fear in the pastor’s heart. Plus, it appeared that the vision through the tree was true. A few pastors had been excluded from the larger flock. Some even moved their pasture elsewhere because that tree could really hurt.

The pastor railed against those who saw different paths than were available to them through the vision of the tree. There were demands that more pastors be shunned. The tree even allowed the pastor to engage and promote people who disagreed with important doctrines of he larger flock. But those were no longer the most important things. Once accusing a fellow pastor of allow someone who disagreed with holiness ideas, the pastor now invited some who disagreed on some of those same ideas. But it was okay because this was for the greater good of the true path of holiness.

The tree had become a large, twisted, and blinding growth that choked out the light of holiness to such an extent that the blindness became holiness for the pastor. Unable to see what God was doing in the world, the pastor retreated to a time that never existed looking for the perfection of holiness as the revealed through the tree. But that was a search in vain because what the tree revealed was only a small portion of the holiness God was pouring into the world. Anger, spite, and vehemence became the calling card of the tree for that was all anyone could see when looking toward the pastor.

But oh did the tree allow focus to exist when seeing specks in the eyes of others. If one observed an interaction from afar it was a darkly comical vision of a tree smacking into a poor soul attempting to clear out their eyes.

When a dog is lost, there is extreme effort put into finding that dog. Posters, social groups, driving or walking around searching. How much more do you think God pursues us in our own stumbling fog? We think of the lost as wicked people who rebel. But what if we saw “the lost” as God sees all of us? Human beings made in God’s image struggling to understand the world around us. The truth is that we are never truly lost when it comes to God. For God is always near. God is always wooing us to open our eyes and see the goodness that is possible when the kindom comes on earth and it does in the heavens.

When I consider the parable of the Two Brothers (Prodigal Son) I envision the way the father runs to greet his once lost son. The picture we have is of a father running in a comically undignified manner. He runs, grabbing his robes to meet the son who left. Much like a dog running to meet us vibrating with excitement. All pretense is gone when we greet the lost ones who are found. We are lost but we are found.

Subscribe now

Being found is more about recognizing that we are known and loved even when we think ourselves beyond love. The love of dogs especially exposes our own feeble understanding of the wideness of love, the wideness of mercy, the wideness of God’s grace. Forgiveness is given, grace is given, love is, mercy is. Need I go on?

Consider the father running to greet the son he feared lost. He doesn’t care that the servants may laugh at the way he runs. He just runs. The father doesn’t care whether the son feels unworthy or not because the father has no other thought than how worthy the son is of his love. I cannot imagine any other way for the father to be.

God is like that father in the parable. We may not believe this, but God is always near because “God does not lose that which God loves.” We may feel lost and abandoned, but God is there. We may think God is distant, but God is not. How do we know this?

Because God did a comically undignified thing. God came into the world as a baby. Attended by outcasts and foreigners. Annunced by Angels in an undignified town and born to a young woman who was most likely at risk of being outcast. But God came into our world. lived among us, and eventually was killed by our violence.

But then as if to laugh in the face of sin and death, raised, and then ascended into the heavens to bring humanity into the heavens. It sounds more like a farce than reality. It make look funny to us and seem undignified or at least ungodlike. But that’s kinda the point. It is easier to love someone who knows how goofy it can be to be a human being.

Share

The former Twitter has been buzzing this past week like in the “old days.” First is the wonder of a German tourist here for the World Cup. His description of the people, scenery, food, and quirkiness of the United States is a reminder of who we can be outside of polarized pressures upon us. But then there is the Japanese account @japan_nobunaga commenting upon shopping and food in a wondrously creative way. I almost cried at the description of biscuits and gravy.

The most interesting to me was a visit to a Hibachi restaurant in which @japan_nobunaga’s friends thought they woudl experience a taste of home. You may see where this is going. Hibachi restaurants in the Unites States have little in common with Japanese cuisine or food traditions. That’s where this gets fun.

USA. A hibachi restaurant. My American friends brought me here to enjoy the cuisine of my homeland, and I witnessed a ritual I have never seen in eight hundred years of being Japanese.

The chef stacked onion rings into a tower. He filled it with oil. And he set it on fire.

“THE VOLCANO!” my friends cheered.
They knew the ritual.
They had seen it many times.
In Japan, I have eaten ten thousand meals.
No one has ever built me a volcano.
I said nothing.
A guest does not question the ceremony.
“Is this how they do it back home?” my friend asked, glowing with joy.
“...The technique is flawless,” I said.
A samurai may retreat. He may not lie.
He may, however, aim the truth very carefully.

Then the chef flicked a shrimp through the air at my face.
“Catch it!” the table roared.
In my land, food is set before you with two hands and an apology for the wait.
Here, the shrimp attacks.
I caught it.
With my mouth.
The table erupted.
The chef saluted me with his spatula.
I have received medals with less pride.
“You’re a natural,” the chef said.
“My family has trained for this for generations,” I said.
It was not technically a lie.
We trained. Just not for this.
My friends drove me home, full and happy, honored to have shown me my own country.
A man does not question the volcano.
He catches the shrimp.
Whatever this cuisine is,
wherever it was truly born -- the fire is real, the joy is real,
and I caught what was thrown at me.
That is Japanese enough. (https://x.com/japan_nobunaga)

This is a perfect picture of how we can be gracious even when someone is completely getting our traditions, cuisine, liturgies, and culture totally wrong. I would say this is a good example of how we can be loving and compassionate when we interact with people we don’t see much in common with.

As I read the tweet, I thought of John Wesley’s catholic spirit idea. To Wesley, love and being followers of Jesus were much more important than getting everything exactly right or even perfect. Wesley has a lot to say about how we approach people different than we are.

“Every wise man, therefore, will allow others the same liberty of thinking which he desires they should allow him; and will no more insist on their embracing his opinions, than he would have them to insist on his embracing theirs.” (Wesley)

“I dare not, therefore, presume to impose my mode of worship on any other. I believe it is truly primitive and apostolical: but my belief is no rule for another.” (Wesley)

Or to be more clear about our own assumed beliefs.

“Yet can no man be assured that all his own opinions, taken together, are true. Nay, every thinking man is assured they are not, seeing humanum est errare et nescire: ‘To be ignorant of many things, and to mistake in some, is the necessary condition of humanity.’” (Wesley)

So even if we don’t want to give others the liberty to believe as they do, we need to be willing to understand that we may be wrong as well. To Wesley, the catholic spirit is one in which we might actually catch the shrimp tossed at us even if it is not what we expect in that context. How have we lost this grace?

Our Japanese friend shows us a better way of seeing one another and experiencing the different. The volcano and the flying shrimp are “opinions” and “modes of worship.” They are not wrong, just not how you do it at home. Wesley says you’re not required to adopt them, you’re not even required to be neutral about your own preferences, but you are required to catch what’s thrown at you with good humor and recognize the fire as real. The test isn’t “do you eat it my way?” but “is your heart right?”

Is your heart right? Discipleship isn’t about getting things right or perfect, it is about having a Jesus shaped heart. That requires trust of the Spirit within our differences. We seem to be so worried these days about what is right, accurate, or our way. So worried that we miss the beauty of difference and become afraid to embrace the different.

I wonder how the world would be different if we embraced the way of love rather than fear...

John Wesley, Sermon 39 “Catholic Spirit” (full text via Wesley Center Online)

What if we stopped looking at scripture like modernists? Let’s say we could move past the assumptions of both fundamentalists and the modernists of the early twentieth century? What if we stopped and realized that the fundamentalists were and are just as guilty of what they accused the early modernists of; reducing the authority of scripture?

I have put down a lot of words on scripture and the typical Wesleyan and Wesleyan-Holiness understanding of scripture. But we have an opportunity to watch as a very young Wesleyan denomination works out wether to stay true to their Wesleyan and Methodist roots or to embrace modernism, propositional faith, and generic Reform flavored evangelicalism. While this essay is not about what is going on the the Global Methodist Church (GMC), the arguments being put forth are helpful in understanding two very different approaches to the nature and authority of scripture. Plus, for those of us in the Church of the Nazarene this may serve as a foreshadowing of moves by the fundamentalist modernists within our midst. (Links to many of the essays about the GMC are included below.)

Subscribe now

The fact that the proposed Article of Faith on scripture as published embraces inerrancy is a clue to how this will end up. It leans into claiming that the scripture is “without error in all that it affirms.” Here is the text minus the listing of the canonical books according to most modern Protestatnts:

We believe in the divine inspiration and authority of the Old and New Testaments in their entirety. The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, for Christ offers us everlasting life in both. Scripture is without error in all it affirms and the only infallible rule of faith and practice. It contains all things necessary to salvation. Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be taught as essential to salvation.

The same Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures continues to work through them, illumining the Church’s interpretation for the edification of the people of God. They are the basis for the Church’s proclamation and a vital means of grace for all who hear them. Through the proclamation of the Word, the Spirit awakens us to sin, calls us to repentance, draws us to faith in Christ, and renews us in the image of God.

The second paragraph is solid Wesleyan thinking although Word might better be lower case. But the first paragraph introduces propositional language of inerrancy of the text. The argument for this begins with the idea of authority. The primary question for supporters appears to be “is scripture true” or “how do I prove scripture to be reliable?” These questions are those of modernism needing propositional certitude for belief or faith. I believe certitude to be the very antithesis of faith because it requires no faith.

Dr. Joel Green points out that John Wesley’s primary concern about scripture was what it does in and for people who read it and who come to understand God through the leading of the Spirit. (Green) For Wesley, you can only understand scripture through the Spirit who inspires it. The authority of scripture is within the invitation and its ability to reveal the God who breathes into it and us. Inerrancy robs scripture of its God breathed nature as it forces propositional assumptions upon a relational text. Green puts it this way:

In other words, Wesley’s doctrine of Scripture is, at its root, pneumatological. The Spirit who animated the composition of these texts is dynamically at work in their faithful reception and interpretation. A Wesleyan account of Scripture’s authority begins and ends here—not with a theory of errorlessness but with the dynamic work of the Spirit in a community being formed toward holiness.

The primary drivers of inerrancy appear to be either a fear that the sufficiency of scripture is only present in certitude, a long grudge against Outler’s Quadrilateral as a hermeneutic, and even keeping up with the generic evangelicals. For the GMC, Matt O’Reilly and the framers of the article are trying to squeeze inerrancy into Wesleyanism by using Wesleyan adjacent arguments. However, Timothy Tennant (past president at Asbury Theological Seminary) makes all of his arguments for this language from either Reformed centered thinking, or even trying to fit in with generic evangelicals as if that is required for global evangelism. Wesleyan traditions cooperate in global evangelism just fine without becoming fundamentalists.

When your arguments are from the fathers of fundamentalism or ridiculously about fitting in with the supposedly cool kids, you’ve lost the plot. A traditional Wesleyan approach to scripture is perfect for our cultural reality of the deconstruction of everything. When you start from the relational rather than the propositional then you have invitation. It is much easier to invite people into relationship that try to prove an unprovable. Apologetics may sound nice, but it is mostly just attempts to logic the illogical.

I just keep wondering why so many Wesleyans are hellbent on becoming fundamentalists. It’s like they watched the train wreck of the Southern Baptist Convention and decided “that looks like fun.” Or, they are being discipled by the internet influencers who don;t seem to understand half the arguments they make but are dead certain that any disagreement with them is heresy.

Scripture never describes itself in terms of inerrancy. in fact, scripture really only describes its purpose in fleeting ways. 1 Timothy tells us it is God breathed, but doesn’t expound much other than to state purpose. And that should be a clue for Wesleyans to pay attention to that which we claim to be important and authoritative for knowing who God is. God breathes life into us and scripture. It is only through the breath of God that we can understand the invitation given to us. Inerrancy wrings the life out of scripture and invalidates core doctrines like prevenient grace.

Green states the following to begin his conclusion and I keep going back to this truth when thinking about scripture.

What Wesleyans need is not a better property claim about the Bible. We need a richer account of how the community of faith reads Scripture under the guidance of the Spirit, toward the end of salvation.

Instead of expending energy on trying to prove something how about we try living like we believe scripture? We spend so much time trying to prove God exists, scripture is without error, and how to have certitude that we forget to live out who God truly is. Instead of a reflection of the image of God, we are dirty glass. What if we quit thinking of scripture like modernists and lived into the Spirit centered idea of a living and breathing text pointing us to the perfect Word of God who is Jesus?

Share

https://firebrandmag.com/articles/the-global-methodist-proposed-article-on-holy-scripture-a-critique

https://firebrandmag.com/articles/global-methodists-and-holy-scripture-a-response-to-scott-kisker

Joel B. Green

What Scripture Does: Wesley and the Limits of Inerrancy Language

Read more

3 months ago · 16 likes · 8 comments · Joel B. Green

https://www.theologyproject.online/post/an-even-more-excellent-way-a-response-to-joel-green-on-the-bible-in-global-methodism

https://timothytennent.com/the-global-methdist-church-and-our-discussion-about-scripture-a-response-to-scott-kisker/

Tom's Substack

What IS Scripture, Pt. 1

It’s no secret that the United Methodist Church has undergone a disheartening and divisive split over the last several years. Indeed, the tensions that eventually produced the present schism existed long before my birth and were sewn, sometimes incoherently, into the original 1968 union…

Read more

3 months ago · 7 likes · 14 comments · Divine Reverberations

https://firebrandmag.com/articles/the-proposed-global-methodist-articles-of-faith-addressing-a-legacy-of-unfinished-business

The Earnest Wesleyan

Methodism's Confessional Inheritance

At the 2024 General Conference, the Global Methodist Church empowered the Discipleship, Doctrine, and Just Ministry Commission to “synthesize the content of the Articles of Religion and the Confession of Faith into a single document.” An exception was added to the Restrictive Rule to allow for this task…

Read more

5 months ago · 9 likes · 4 comments · Sid Johnson

https://firebrandmag.com/articles/scripture-and-the-global-methodist-church

https://peopleneedjesus.net/2024/03/15/scriptural-authority-and-the-global-methodist-church/

https://peopleneedjesus.net/2024/07/06/reconstructing-our-doctrine-of-scripture/

https://goodnewsmag.org/contrasting-views-of-scripture/

Watching Christian social media can be very interesting. Especially that of white evangelicals. It can be amazing how very upset that group can get over things. But the more I watch I have realized a few truths. Some are not surprising, but others are very much surprising.

First, most American evangelicals claim to love the American system of laws of liberty. But, they don’t really believe in the personal liberty of the constitution. Instead they believe in a liberty in which their cultural assumptions are the primary cultural reality. We’ll come back to this, but I fully believe that the liberty as expressed in the U.S. Constitution is very different than the liberty found in Christian scripture.

Subscribe now

Second. this group also believes in the myth of scarcity to a frightening degree. From capitalism to the rights of people within the United States, they believe in scarcity of ideas and freedom. This works out in the attitude that if someone enjoys a freedom that the particular Christian group disagrees with that somehow Christian freedom is reduced. A glaring example of this is the constant need to hammer on cultural celebrations. The reactions to Pride month, Juneteenth, non Christian religious holidays, and general freedoms is harsh.

Just because you don’t understand it or agree with something does not make it illegal or wrong in a societal sense. But these reactions are actually funny to me. In addition to acting as if cultural divergence is to be forcefully squashed, they also harp on and on about the evils of the world and the culture of the world. So why act surprised and outraged when the world acts like you claim it to be (at least in your mind). It is an eye rolling moment to see Christians whine about things they don’t understand or agree with being enjoyed by human beings who enjoy the same freedoms that Christian do. Oh, and criticism is not persecution.

The many fears of “sharia law” are ironic. First, no one is trying to implement Sharia in the United States. Second, does anyone remember “blue laws?” Those were essentially Christian versions of Sharia. Stores were not allowed to open on Sundays during traditional Christian worship times, but no other religion was granted that privilege. Part of the decline in church attendance in the United States can be attributed to the church having to compete in the realm of time.

The ultimate irony is what Christian liberty represents. The scriptures are awash with the word liberty. But what is liberty for the Christian? In the letter to the Galatians, liberty is the freedom from legalism, the freedom to love, and the freedom of being a child of God. In Corinthians it is freedom from participating in oppressive systems and freedom from fear of those systems. For Jesus it is the freedom to live an everlasting quality of life without the fear of the systems that harm. It is the freedom to see the marginal as children of God.

Liberty in Christ is the liberty/freedom from fear. Freedom from fear of sin and fear of death. Freedom from the fear of different ideas. It is true liberty as it is freedom from doing everything on our own. Liberty is freedom to not be consumed by that which is not Christ. Liberty (like love, mercy, and grace) is not a scarce resource. Liberty is everlasting in God’s steadfast faithfulness.

Subscribe now

Yes, the liberty promised in the United States Constitution is often at odds with the liberty of Christ. BUT, it is not something to be torn down by Christians. We have liberty to live into the liberty of Christ. Therefore, others have the same liberty to live, worship, or not worship as they please. Our liberty is not threatened by the liberty of the one who does not believe, look, vote, or behave as we do.

Why is this important? Because the church often acts as if the liberty of those outside the church harms the liberty of Christians. Liberty does not shield you from discomfort or from seeing things with which you disagree. When we act that way, we look ridiculous.

How does this potentially harm the church? Well, when we throw fits because people live in their own liberty. Or, we make claims that our liberty is diminished by someone else enjoying liberty. We look like fools, and not in the way Paul would use that word for believers.

A good example is the attitude of white Christians toward celebrations like Juneteenth. The criticism is often something, something - division. Sure, if you believe that celebrating the end of slavery in the United States is divisive. What if we instead took a moment as Christians and reminded people that Christians stood for abolition against Christians who defended slavery? We can celebrate as one.

But let’s look at something way more controversial. In the U.S., June is Pride Month for our LGBTQ+ citizens. Whatever you think about Pride in this context, our country’s freedom allows people to celebrate. There are some very good pastoral responses by those who minister in spaces where Pride is celebrated. But there is also a very good pastoral response in general; if you do not want to celebrate something you do not agree with, then don’t celebrate. When Christians try to disallow others freedom, we appear to be hypocritical. Freedom for me but not for you in other words.

My state has claimed June as “Nuclear Family Month” with the claim that the nuclear family is the bedrock of American society. The problem with that claim is that the nuclear family is actually one of the phenomenons of the industrial revolution which began the erosion of many things nostalgic to those looking back. The extended family was the picture of stability prior to the ripping apart of generational togetherness into small units.

Politicians are also now taking extreme positions based upon their Christian assumptions. A candidate for governor in my state is arguing that he can outlaw Islam in the state because of a phrase in the state constitution speaking of the freedom to worship “Almighty God” as one wishes. I love the dismissal of the First Amendment of the United States which would take precedence anyway, but just think of the arrogance and hatred that causes one to refuse people to worship as they wish.

The worst part of all of this is the fact that we cannot even engage with anyone who disagrees with us without yelling at one another. Do we really love the tenets of the liberty accorded in the United States, or do we want a theocratic version of America. Christian Nationalists argue for the latter. The former is a much more generous reality. In the end, the point should be that your freedom never endangers my freedom in a context where freedom is not scarce or afforded only a privileged few.

Share