I Want to Be in that Number

I’ve made some assertions lately, that in every age of history God will have a people to give witness to God’s design and purposes for creation.  There have been times in human history when that body of people has been numerous, and other times, witnessed in scripture, when there have been fewer - a righteous remnant - a missional outpost of the kingdom of God.  I have also described the transition Christianity seems to be experiencing this century, in which traditional embodiments of the faith seem to be waning while new expressions are forming.  I have tried to avoid making judgments about these new expressions, but it stands to reason that some are more faithful than others in embodying the essence of the gospel - the good news of Jesus Christ and his kingdom.  If so, which of these expressions of Christian community are the “righteous remnant”?  

This is a question history has answered with its 20/20 hindsight.  There has been a tug-of-war between true belief and heresy.  Many heresies which have been cast on the waste piles of Christian history - heresies that at one time seemed like valid expressions of faith - Gnosticism,  Arianism, Marcionism, Docetism, Donatism - and the list goes on.

In more recent history, the church has been less prone to brand “heresies” but there are certainly irregular and flawed expressions of Christianity in modern times.  To name a few:  

Darbyism, with its dispensationalist sensationalism. 

Nazi Germany’s coopting of Christianity as a facade for its horrors. 

The Prosperity Gospel’s “name it, claim it,” theology.

The appropriation of Christian language and symbols by white supremicists.

The profiteering of TV evangelists.

I could name more examples but the question remains, how do we recognize the righteous remnant?  How easy it is to fall into the self-deluding belief that we are among the righteous, when more often than not we are actually being self-righteous. How pleasing it is to think, “I am among the few who are right!”  Even when we could not be more wrong!

And while I may be as guilty as anyone in assuming that my opinions are the right ones, the history of orthodoxy leads us not to absolutes but to certain consensual conclusions.  While there are sects and tangential religious movements, some of which have offered helpful, and even needful, lessons for the Church, there  is a core of beliefs and a witness of practices which, over time, have offered a foundation upon which any expression of Christian faith may be judged.  We call that orthodoxy (“straight teaching”).

However, I prefer to focus on orthopraxy (“straight practice”) - instead of being overly concerned with right belief, should we not be looking at right, or fitting, actions?  While Protestantism has been built on “salvation by faith,” perhaps we should not discount the importance of “works.”  John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement, insisted that Christianity was based on faith manifested by works.  Our practice of faith, and not simply our creedal beliefs, reveal who we are as Christians.  I am known as a Christian, not only by what I profess, but also by what I do, perhaps principally so.  Jesus, as Savior, calls me to be a disciple, which means “follower.”  Following is an action.  Jesus, as Lord, calls me to obey.  Obeying is an action.  Orthopraxy is as valid a measure of Christian faith as is orthodoxy.  Both are important, together.    

Are there beliefs and practices which are marks of authentic Christianity?  As Christianity evolves into different expressions, is it unfair of us to ask which of these expressions is most authentic - most Christlike in word and deed (orthodoxy and orthopraxy)?  In the end, all that really matters is Christlikeness.  I want to be considering what that Christlikeness looks like in the coming weeks, and what a community looks like which practices such Christlikeness.  I want to be a part of that kind of community - that righteous remnant.  I want to be in that number.  

Christlike Christianity

          I know.  The title seems redundant but bear with me a moment.  The word Christian is a time-honored reference to followers of Jesus.  But through the years it has taken on some, shall we say, excess baggage: Charlemagne having the Saxon’s baptized at the point of a sword in the late 8^th Century; the Crusaders in their campaign to annihilate the Muslims in Jerusalem in the 11^th and 12^th Centuries; the long history of Jewish persecution by Christians; the Inquisition in Spain; the persecution of witches in Salem; the sad affairs of TV evangelists, prosperity gospel preachers, and the list could go on . . .

          Why is it that in these days when I think Jesus has never been more desperately needed by the world, I feel a certain embarrassment at being identified as a “Christian”?  I suppose it’s because the name can so easily be misunderstood. Has the word lost its meaning?  Like the word “love,” which we use to express the heights of passion for another person, and the most casual of pleasures (“I love what you’ve done with your hair!”), perhaps the word “Christian” needs an adjective.

          Ah, that’s right!  Someone has already come up with one, as in “born again Christian.”  Still, that phrase has become as divisive as modern politics.  Others argue for “biblical Christianity,” as if there is any other kind.

          Let me cut to the chase.  What if we came back to Jesus, who we are supposed to be following?  What if, instead of being biblical Christians, we became Christlike Christians?  After all, wiping out tribes of Ammonites and Philistines might be biblical, but it is hardly Christlike. 

          What if, instead of being born again Christians, we were simply Christians who were trying to be more Christlike in our actions?  After all, Jesus said you must be born again to only one person – Nicodemus; but he said to all those who were attracted to him, “take up your cross and follow me.”  

          My argument is articulated with greater style and depth by many theologians in the emerging church – writers such as Brian McLaren.  But I am convinced that our identity as Christians is significant not because of what we believe but because of how our beliefs are manifested in our practice.  Some would argue that what we believe will be seen in our actions.  I would argue that it is our actions that reveal what we believe. 

          The way ahead for the people of God will not be shaped by theologians who articulate the faith, but by Jesus-followers who actually live it.  And I share this quote, from an unknown source.  May it be a guide for all who follow Jesus:

          “The answer to every life test you’ll ever face is the same.  The answer to every test is this; Christlikeness.”

                        

We Do Not Need a Pope

One of the members of my church was kidding with me last night, saying that we Methodists need to elect a pope so we can draw some attention our way.  He was remarking on how amazing it is that all the world seems fascinated by the conclave of cardinals - the election accompanied by the traditional white smoke.

Elections, whether in the church or in larger society, are always accompanied by hope.  I commented on the U.S. elections last fall that we seem unfailingly optimistic about the candidates we support.  We imagine that if only the people will elect our candidate of choice then the problems we face will be rectified, and progress and prosperity is sure to follow. 

I think our personal agendas must cloud our memories.  Surely we have seen enough candidates fail to achieve their stated platforms to know that no matter who we elect, he will eventually disappoint us.  So, regarding the election of Pope Francis I, I will pray for him and hope for the best, but I suspect that people will, in time, become disappointed in him, too.    When half the world’s Catholic Christians want a progressive pope, and the other half a conservative, what are his chances of getting everyone on the same page?  The Roman Catholic Church is such an unwieldy institution that even the greatest Pope can only do so much.  I imagine him sitting on a mechanical bull in a Texas bar, trying to hold on while being tossed to and fro.  I am not a pessimist, really.  I simply remember that at the end of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem there was a cross awaiting him.  We human beings can be dangerously fickle.

I am encouraged that the new pope has a reputation for humility and concern for the poor.  That’s a good sign.  Hopefully, he can straighten out the web of other problems and challenges facing Catholicism while maintaining that missional thrust.  As for us Methodists, no, we do not need a pope.  We have enough challenges these days without adding a new wrinkle to our administrative structure. 

All churches, no matter how we are organized, have blessings to give to the world, and flaws to overcome.  We don’t need media attention, necessarily.  What we need is more Christlikeness -  among our leaders, among our clergy, among those of us who worship in the pews.  I’ll take one Christian who will visit the sick and elderly, for every two who want to do the latest, greatest popular Bible study.  I’ll take one Christian who will check each week to make sure the homeless have food and blankets, for every two who are offering their opinions about the music we are singing on Sunday mornings.  I’ll take one Christian who is willing to teach the children the stories of Jesus, for every two who are enthralled with my preaching. 

Again, the answer to every challenge facing the church is Christlikeness.  From me.  And from you.  And perhaps, for those of you who continue to be put off by the church, a little more Christlikeness on the part of more Christians might make you change your minds.  In the mean time,  don’t be disappointed in us Christians.  As with any pope, we will undoubtedly let you down at one time or another.  Much better to keep your eyes on Jesus.  He’s the one who reveals the will of God.  Really.