Having been tied up the past few weeks with lots of RL commitments, much of my meditation/thinking/introspection time has been grabbed in little bits and chunks here and there, rather than in the larger periods I favor.

In one of these few times, though, I ran across a particular quote that shows up multiple times within the Talmud (such as Ecclesiaticus Rabbah 7:36) which many Jewish and Christian scholars have tagged as one of the underpinned beliefs distilled in Jesus’ teaching about Justice and Mercy:

Kol hamerachem al haachzarim, besofo yachzer al harachamim

Those who are merciful to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful.

This sentiment is also echoed from Solmon’s observation that the “kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.”

And so it is that we can observe this in daily life – where the very same people who will hold candle-light vigils at the executions of confessed killers by night will be found vehemently supporting abortion by day. Where conservative and liberal Christians, alike, find their Peck-sniffian voices – showing benevolence to those who shouldn’t be coddled and exuding disdain for those who truly do show mercy to the lost.

This is why Justice and Mercy must live hand-in-hand – this is where true “discernment” is required. This is Exhibit A in demonstrating that there is obviously little discernment to be found in the Armchair “Discernment” “Ministry” blogosphere…

I am currently rereading Mark Noll”s book Turning Points: Decisive Points in the History of Christianity. It’s a great read, and an even better reread. One chapter is dedicated to the Evangelical Awakening in Britain and America which was preceded by Pietism in Europe. He uses the conversion and ministries of the Wesley brothers as a focal point. In his historical background he lists six proposals penned by Philipp Jacob Spener in 1675. According to Noll, Spener’s proposals became a banner for Pietism and influenced the Wesley’s who influenced American Evangelicalism.

Spener…
1. said there should be a more extensive use of the Word of God;
2. called for a renewal of the priesthood of believers;
3. appealed for the Christian faith to be expressed in authentic practice;
4. asked his readers to show love and to pray for unbelievers and the erring. There should be restraint and charity in religious controversies;
5. called for reform in the education of ministers. They should be taught piety and devotion as well as academics;
and 6. encouraged ministers to preach edifying sermons, understandable by the people…

WOW, who knew Spener was such a 17th Century Emerging Church Leader? It is stunning how similar these six are to many of the issues taken up by today’s emerging churches (note: emerging not necessarily Emergent)… particularly 3, 4, 5, and 6.

RE: #3 – today “authentic” is nearly used to the point of meaninglessness. But there is a reason for this. Many young believers see the “established” churches as unauthentic in the expression of their faith.

RE: #4 – a call to engage unbelievers (and others) in a dialogue, loving them while we pray for them.

RE: #5 – looks a lot like the classes many schools are adding under the general term of spiritual development or the like. They have seen the need to address an over-emphasis on academics.

RE: #6 – in a word – “relevant” – sermons that build up the believer must be relevant to the believer.

Of course, Spener and Wesley had their ODM’s as well… those who opposed their new methods. For example, Wesley was attacked for preaching outside instead of in a church proper. Many within the emerging churches today are echoing Spener’s call for a revitalized Christianity. I can imagine how Spener would be opposed if he were to write this today. For example:

RE: #4 – Here he is obviously watering down the Gospel… we are not called to dialogue with unbelievers or show restraint – We are called to preach the Gospel and expect to offend unbelievers.

RE #5 – “Piety” and “Devotion” are just synonyms for spiritual formulation which is, of course, code for the new age and built upon pagan foundations.

RE: # 6 – Here Spener is clearly advocating we dumb down the message and use hollywoodesque methods to entertain rather than teach the simple counsel of God.

Of course, this is all somewhat tongue-in-cheek… but it is amazing how similar many of today’s emerging concepts/methods are to the concepts and methods introduced by Spener and Wesley and a host of others. It is also amazing how new ideas are opposed by the “establishment” of the time, every time – whether that time is now, or 350 years ago.

Friends,

I have spent the last three days mulling over what transpired here over the weekend. I have had to do a lot of soul-searching, so to speak, and even now I am hesitant about writing here–for some reason I am still not a little concerned that I have given .info a bad image or failed to live up to a certain standard of ‘expertise’; nevertheless, here I am. (I have developed a set of rules that will govern my future posts and writing here at CRN.info and I think I might actually publish it for you.) For now, I have decided to write again–because I must.

While lurking, I read this: “This place is supposed to be the “Christian” blog…er…right?” Well, I can say: “Yes! It is.” We don’t always agree (sometimes we don’t really even like each other very much); we certainly do not all share the same ideas about theology or politics!, but at the end of the day, we still have enough nerve to love each other, correct each other, demonstrate grace to each other, and help one another carry the burdens of this life. This is why I cannot, even though I said I would, stay away for a week. Not only is writing my passion, but I love those I write with here and those who read. This place, as a microcosm of the church, is where I meet grace daily–no matter how badly a post is written or how many people take umbrage with it. Grace. Ahh…how did Annie Dillard write it? “One catches grace as a man fills a cup under a waterfall.”

___________________________

My friend and brother Joe Martino wrote a great post about this very subject: Why I Stay in Church: What if it’s about Becoming Holy? What I appreciate about Joe’s post is that he is not afraid to be honest about the church: cuts, nicks, scars, bruises, blood, stink, tears, and sweat. It’s all there. I think it is only people who are not Christians who really expect the church to be perfect, an expectation that the Head of the church, Jesus of Nazareth, doesn’t even have (or else there would be no need for grace). Those of us who are Christians–whatever that means–have no such illusions. We, the baptized, are those who understand only too well that the church is a place for the misfits and losers of the world; those uninitiated in the ways of world domination; those unfazed by exploits of power, rebellion, and ‘wisdom’; those who demonstrate by their faith that they belong to a different time, and place, and person. The church is a place for people who are hungry for grace and forgiveness and mercy because they are tired of the manner in which the world conducts its business.

In short, the church is a terrible place at times; ugly; malformed; malnourished; distorted; unlovely; unkempt; and yet, strangely enough, among the church (es) is the place John tells us he saw Jesus: “And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest” (Rev 1:12b-13, TNIV).

Oh, he’s in the church? Oh, He’s in the Church! Here’s how Joe ended his thoughts:

I mean He didn’t have to create church this way. He could have done it another way.  How many people in church annoy you? How many people in church are just irrelevant to your life? How many people are lying to you? How many are cheating on their spouse? How many could care less if you can’t pay your bills this month?

So why did God design it this way and why should we stay. What are some common problems in the church and how might we wrestle through them?…What would happen if we looked at church more as a means to make us holy than we looked at it as a means to make us happy?

I couldn’t agree more. That holiness is shaped in us not because of the righteous things we do or the right things we believe or the holy places we go. No. It is shaped in us, we are formed for holiness, by the ever present help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us despite all those nicks, cuts, scratches, wounds, sins, etc. Strange that we are loved because of, despite our weakness and not despised for it. Strange that Jesus should walk among us. Strange the Holy Spirit should live in us. Strange that the Father would choose us. Strange that we are such a peculiar people and yet so fondly adored by the Creator of the Universe.

_________________________

I learn a little bit more each day about the magnificence of God. What sort of God chooses to align himself with the weak, the underdogs, the unwise–in fact goes out of his way to accept us? What sort of a God is it who loves people like us, people lacking in perspicacity and overflowing with indignation? I hear he is fond of us, his people. I’m glad. He has made me glad. There’s something to be said about ’sticking it out’ when we find ourselves in a place that makes us uncomfortable or unhappy or discourages us or abuses us or unhinges us. After all, God sticks around. In fact, Jesus promised never to leave, nor forsake us. Never. That’s a mighty long time. I guess I can tolerate a few years here on earth. What of you?

Semper Deo Gloria!

Tags: Christianity, church, discipleship, Jesus, Joe Martino