However, what I would like to comment on is something that seems to have received lesser emphasis in our current culture.  This article talks a lot about Jesus’ acts and what he did and achieved as a human among us.  It deliberately talks about him as someone other than God the Father.  He’s a prophet, a high priest, a king, a servant, a Savior, the Son of God, the incarnate Word, the Lord and final judge.  But there is something that gets passing mention that I think is important to re-emphasize.

See, in today’s pluralistic society, people like Jesus are a dime a dozen.  There are so many religious figures that people can point to as a “good person” or a “prophet like no others” or an “inspiring figure”.  People can be disciples of almost anyone, any great teacher.  What sets Jesus apart from all the others?

I think the COF points this out when it says

As fully divine, he is the one in whom the fullness of God was pleased to dwell. During his earthly life, Jesus had an intimate relationship  with his heavenly Abba and taught his disciples to pray “Abba, Father.” He is the image of the invisible God, and “all things have been created through him and for him, for he is before all things.

But I think that something brought out in the commentary needs to be brought fore-front in our theology discussions in the church.  The commentary points out a passage from Colossians 1 as specifically discussing Jesus divinity.  We recognize one God.  We recognize one creator.  With one God and one Creator and Paul being a VERY Jewish man also steeped in Monotheism, these statements in Colossians bring us pause.

¹⁵He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. ¹⁶For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. ¹⁷He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ¹⁸And he is the head of the body, the church; he
is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. ¹⁹For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, ²⁰and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Note the parts that I’ve accented.  While there can be debates about other passages about Jesus being a person, perhaps not God but some other being lesser than God, these words of Paul seem to indicate that Jesus was the Creator.  Also, to have “all his fullness” dwell in a man seems to be beyond just some portion of a spirit laying on Jesus but an indwelling of the complete divinity of God.

This is something that I admit that I’m not an expert on: the divinity of Christ.  But Paul was an expert on the Judaic YHWH and, with his Pharisaic training, I cannot imagine him switching over to a polytheistic worship.  Also, his Damascus road experience showed that he recognized Jesus for who he was.  “Who are you, Lord?”.  A Jew would not call any being Lord except for YHWH.

I leave the major theological arguments to others who are more well trained than I am.  However, I do think that this is something that we need to emphasize in our churches.  Jesus was a great man, but he was more than just a man.  Without the divinity of Christ, there is a lot of our theology that just falls through.  If just any man could live so purely just by talking with God more, why did do we need to rely on Jesus?  Why can’t we just do it ourselves?  If Jesus was some sort of angel or something, why would God who gives the command “You shall have no other gods before me” allow worship of Jesus on equal with him?  For that matter, if Jesus was just an angel, what would be the point of the crucifiction or even the incarnation?  The theology of the NT relies on God’s indentification with man through the incarnation as proof that God loves us. “¹⁵For we do not have a
high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have
one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without
sin.”

In our post-modern/post-Christendom culture where people are seeking everywhere for someone to believe in, a God who cares, and a way that gives hope, Jesus as just a man falls flat.  But Jesus as God, who came down among us to identify with us, that rings solid.  God condescended.  God came down among us to our level because God realized that, in our humanity, due to our falleness, we could not understand how to relate to him.  We needed Jesus to put a face to God, to bring God into reality, to make God relatable.  No longer do we have a figure like a man on a throne, burning like fire.  No longer do we have a mysterious wheel within a wheel.  No longer do we have to be content with seeing just the backside of God.  Now we can relate directly to God.  When Moses spoke to God, it was as a friend speaks to a friend.  Because God came down and put on flesh, now we, too, have that awesome privilege.  Like Adam, we now have the opportunity to walk with God in the cool of the day.  God is no longer a mystery to us because Jesus is the revelation, not just of who God is, but of how man can relate to God.  John said it best.  The Word became flesh and walked among us.  That Word is no longer a mystery.  We can give it a name.

Jesus.

In any case, something my wife mentioned today made me wonder some stuff.  Here are some questions that I think the Christian church in the USA needs to seriously ask themselves.  Likewise, these are fair questions for any Christian in any society today.  Please note, these are not political questions, these are ecclesiology and missiology questions.  They apply no matter what the politics, governmental structure, economic philosophy, or what not that you are currently living under.

1. If your government were to fail utterly today and a tyranny that is unfriendly to the mission of the church arise in its place, what would you, as a Christian, do differently?
2. If there is something you would do differently, why aren’t you doing it now?
3. What is preventing you from making those changes in your life?

I personally need to think very hard and very carefully about these.   The answers may be a lot harder to deal with that appear on the surface.

If you are challenged by these questions, please comment here or on the corresponding FaceBook link.  Let’s start this discussion now, before it becomes necessary.

One of the ideas behind confessions of faith and creeds and the like is to attempt to answer questions being asked by people of the current culture and society as relates to matters of faith and the practice thereof.  So, in these posts I make about the articles of the Mennonite Confession of Faith I’m going to attempt to address them in how well they answer the questions of our current society and culture.  And, honestly, I do so with great humility.  I am by no means an expert in sociology or culture, nor am I a pillar when it comes to theological discussion.  But I am someone who struggles at times with belief and faith and what it means.  Perhaps we need more people like that talking about theology than people who study in the ivory towers.

So, with great trepidation, here I go.

The first article of the Confession of faith is simply titled “God”.  I think this is an important factor.  Any religion you pick has some sort of concept of a supreme deity or deities.  Even those that are devout atheists (those who adamantly deny the possibility of any existence of such a being) have something to say about supreme beings, albeit in the negative.  And yes, I consider atheism to be a religion in the purest sense of the word.  So, it is important for a confession of faith to start with a defining statement about that ultimate question: Is there a God?

Note that the article in the confession answers that question in the positive.  The Mennonite Church part of the body of Christ definitely believes that there IS a God.  We must establish that first.  There is a God and He has made Himself known.  Now, note that I am using the male pronoun.  Considering some words from one of my sisters in the church (Hi, KrisAnne!), I use this pronoun, not out of saying that men are superior or that God Himself has a gender.  However, the traditional form of addressing one aspect of God is as “Father” or “Son”, both being male indicators.  Rather than muddy the waters with some sort of strange way of addressing God, making up pronouns or words (like “godself”), I’ll bow to tradition simply because the English language is insufficient to truly describe God in those sort of terms.  However, as I said, God has no specific gender and even is described in very feminine ways in various scriptural passages.  Humans, male and female, were made in the image of God in that both human genders display the characteristics of God.  So, we can not say God is male or female, but is God.

This article of the confession makes some great effort to describe who God is, what He does, and so on.  He is the creator.  He loves His creation.  He reaches out to people.  He has called specific peoples to be His witness to the purpose for creation.  He calls people to love as He has loved.  He is glorious, compassionate, sovereign, powerful, merciful, full of love.  He knows all and abounds in wisdom.  He is both full of perfect grace that gives to no end.  But he is also righteous in His wrath and the ensuing campaign against sin and rebellion against His purposes.  God is just but He is patient.  He is a redeemer.  He gives great freedom and gives selflessly of His love.  There is so much about God that characterizes God that a few paragraphs seems hardly to begin to do justice.

And that is something that I think needs extra emphasis in today’s US culture and society.  This confession makes a point of saying “We humbly recognize that God far surpasses human comprehension and understanding.”  This is very important to remember.  Many of those characteristics that the article uses to describe God, in our limited humanity, we perceive as being paradoxical.  How can someone be both merciful and wrathful?  How can justice be done but mercy also be done?  How can there be a sense of grace but a demand for righteousness?  This all seems to contradict itself.

The commentary seems to try to make sense of this but I think it still falls short.  Using a phrase like “righteous love” helps, but it does not satisfy the questions that these contradictions raise.  Again, the commentary says that there is a tension in knowing the unknowable.  God has revealed Himself but our human understanding sometimes cannot make sense of it.

In our post-Christian world, we cannot depend upon people understanding God in the same way that we do who have been brought up in the church.  In our post-modern age, we cannot rely on human reason to describe it either as, in the reaction to modern age of reason, the post-modernist is skeptical of the ability for human reason to answer all questions.  What is truth?  We can answer that God is the source of all truth.  And that is a characteristic of God.  What that implies, though, is that God, being beyond our understanding, “owns” a level of truth that we cannot grasp as humans.  We can only see parts of that truth and comprehend it in our finitude.  We will even make mistakes in this comprehension in our falleness.  And that is where the revelation of God’s grace comes to play.  Through his grace, mercy and compassion, he allows us to make those mistakes in the journey of coming to grips with the truth that He alone can contain.  And, through His grace, he has reached out to us in a way that we can get a glimpse of that light.  Calvinists use the term “condescend”.  This is not a bad term.  It is the same fashion in which parents and teachers take a complex idea (like the refraction of light waves) and explain it to a child who cannot comprehend of quantum particle theory.  Things are explained in a context and in a fashion suitable to the person receiving the information.  It is not false.  There is nothing wrong in saying “The rain drops break up the light into all the colors”.  That is true.  And it is understandable for a younger mind.  It is not a lie.

So, God has revealed himself in such a way that we can understand him.  Jesus is the ultimate means of that revelation where God, Himself, came down to our level, experienced what we experienced, and taught us about Him in terms even we can understand.  Does this answer all the questions?  It doesn’t even start.  But we can trust God (that is what faith is, anyways) to not lead us wrong.  After all, he went through all that effort to reach us, he must care deeply for us.

But I get ahead of myself. Tomorrow, I look at Jesus Christ.  God bless!

Remember this post?

http://ballymennoniteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/09/post-anabaptism.html

And this one?

http://ballymennoniteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/01/daunting-challeng.html

It’s been a little over a year since I set that challenge before myself.  Well, guess what.  I’m starting this now.

See, I’m working on my MLI for the Mennonite Church Leadership Database and one of the questions in that database is my reactions and responses to the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective.  Since I’m going to be spending the time looking at that in detail for that purpose, I thought I would blog about my reactions as well.

If I can swing it, tomorrow I’ll be hitting Article 1 on God.  If y’all wanna follow along with me, you can read the articles as I go.  I’ll be sticking to the order in the document.

Before that, though, you might want to review the Introduction.  There’s a lot of information there about the importance of Confessions but also points out that the commentary published along with the Articles are important in understanding the articles as they were written.  Instead of looking at the commentary as “opinion” commentary (as some commentaries on Scripture are), these commentaries should be viewed the same way the book of Romans would be if Paul had written it as a blog article and interacted with commentary. The commentary on these articles were written by the people who constructed the articles so they are a window into the mindset and thought processes of those men and women.  They should not be discounted but instead used as a tool to gain understanding for those parts of the articles that may be less clear because we are not part of the context in which they were written.

So, come with me.  This is a journey for me.  I invite you to join in.

Here we go… and may God go with us.

One criticism that I’m bound to get on this (and I’ve heard some of this already from a few places) is “Why are we talking about watching some of these movies from Hollywood? Why not show and talk about Christian movies?” This bothers me somewhat (lots of things bother me, as many of you already know). I recently read a blog article from someone else (I can’t remember where and if you’re reading this and you’re the culprit, please speak up) about the “ghettoizing” of Christianity. Music is performed and Christians historically have done one of two things. Either we have denounced it as “from the devil” and called for boycotts and other protest means (and this is not relegated only to “Rock ‘n’ Roll”… read up on Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach sometime) or we’ve “redeemed” it and made our own music and made it “OK” to listen to. Books are written and the same things are said and done. Poems are made. TV programs are made. And now, suddenly, we want to do the same with movies. I read on a ChristianityTodayMovies website article that there is some sort of movement in Texas where they are going to make their own “Christian” Hollywood and put out “good” movies.

Yeah, you know, that’s a good idea. But there’s something that has happened in all the other ventures. The medium chosen as the target of vilification and subsequent redemption, upon getting “cleaned up”, ends up getting stale. Christian books become platforms for authors to preach and pontificate on particular platforms and ideas. Christian poetry stops speaking from the depths of the heart and becomes only about the goodness, light, and happiness. Christian music has become the ground for all worship songs and the “meat” of the music, crying out from the heart of hearts, is lost in the flood of choruses.

Stop a second. Before y’all start saying “What’s wrong with that?” I’ll answer… nothing. There’s nothing wrong with writing books to get a point across, using poetry to praise and express our “good feelings” and using music to worship and praise the wonders of our Lord. What’s wrong is when we that becomes the ONLY thing those art-forms are good for. What about the cries for mercy? What about the wails of despair? What about the lamentations? What about the examination of those dark corners of our hearts, exposing them to the light? What about digging into those tough issues and problems for which there is no easy 4 line chorus to express the answer for? What about real life situations that are NOT resolved in 30-60 minutes with plenty of breaks for advertisements? When we remove those things from our art, it stops being art reflecting life and starts becoming a stale expression. Read Psalm 22 as a prime example of a “Christian” poem that is not afraid to ask those hard questions. Keep in mind that this was most likely the Psalm that Christ quoted from the cross.

Especially in a world and society where people in the culture are seeking answers to those rough questions (”Why did my 6-month old daughter have to die in that car crash?” “Why are my parents getting a divorce?” “Why does everyone seem to hate me?” “Why is there so much war, death, and disease in the world?” “Why do bad things happen to good people?”), we cannot go blindly through and saying “Don’t worry, be happy”. Real life is a lot harder than that. Yes, we are SUPPOSED to “Don’t Worry, be JOYFUL” (Philippians 4) but living a joy-filled life is a lot different than the modern world view of happiness.

For music, this is why I like bands like Newsboys, Third Day, and Casting Crowns because they are not afraid to ask some of those rough questions and examine life from the darkness. Steve Taylor, when he was still putting out music, did a lot of this (Look up the song “Harder to Believe than Not to”) and Jars of Clay with their recent song “Oh My God” expresses that lament of the state of the world. This trend in Christian music is encouraging and I’m glad to see bands like Switchfoot take their music out of the realm of “All is well” into the world of “The fight is long”.

So, back to movies…There are a lot of films out there that have some amazing Christian themes in them, made by amazing Christian men and women. There are plenty of films made by people who are NOT quite so holy in their views. This does not make them any less relevant or worthwhile viewing. A good example that comes to mind is the third film in the Spider Man series. I won’t give away much (as I plan on using this film for my class) but I’m pretty sure that Spider Man does not come in as the best “Christian” film of all times but if you want a film that exposes the damages of revenge and hatred and the redeeming grace that comes from forgiveness, please watch this film. While the filmmakers that put Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” on the big screen had some intention to show what humanity can do to overcome evil, Tolkien’s original intent of showing the invisible hand of providence comes out over those 12 hours of cinematic glory. Jim Carrey comments on the “trapped” feeling of living in this world through “The Truman Show”. “The Mission” exposes what happens when the church champions political agenda. “Blade Runner” comments on what it means to truly be a human. “Signs” also shows that plan of the invisible planner. “The Matrix” expresses the human desire for some sort of savior. “Terminator” and “I, Robot” try to give a warning about the dangers of letting technology make our decisions for us. Even thriller movies like “The Sixth Sense” show us the meaning of love that goes beyond life. I can go on and on. In fact, someone else has already. Take a look, sometime, at LookingCloser.org to see what Jeffrey Overstreet has discovered in years of film review.

We do need to be discerning in what we watch. “‘Everything is permissible’ but not everything is beneficial” to quote the Apostle Paul. And, for that matter, we have to understand that there are “stronger” and “weaker” brothers and sisters. For one person, they may not be affected by certain kinds of images. For another, they may be a source of intense temptation and fallen-ness. A person who struggles with lust and impure thoughts about the opposite (or same) sex is not someone who should watch a movie filled with many images and themes of that nature. A person who struggles with the temptation to act out violently should not fill their mind constantly with the same (this is a conviction that recently has come to me). Can we avoid these images totally? Probably not. After all, all one has to do is turn on the news for images of violence. Drive past some areas of any big city and the images of scantily clad men and women jump out all over the place. The real world is full of this stuff so to assume that we can isolate ourselves totally is just wishful thinking.

Which brings me to the title of this post. We, as Christians, are called to be in the world, but not of it. The way I read that is that we are called to live here as Christ calls us to live. Our lives are to be characterized by the character of Christ in all that we do. This includes our reactions and responses to the world around us in all its filth, depravity, darkness, hatred, and apathy. We need to instead of walling ourselves away from the darkness of the world and trying to convince blind people to come into a light that they cannot see, we need to go out into the world, taking the light of our lives into that darkness and opening the eyes of the blind people to see the truth. Instead of taking Christianity out of Hollywood into some artificial “Christian” movie industry, let the Christian artists work within the industry that is already there, taking the light where it is needed most, into those dark corners of our culture. Christian musicians are already trying to undo the damage the church did to the Rock ‘n’ Roll industry in the 50’s (how can a Christian artist feel like they can call themselves Christian when they play music that the church has called “of the devil”?). Potentially the church can do the same thing to the movie industry. And who says they haven’t already? How many Christian actors, producers, directors, etc, are out there that cannot call themselves such for fear of being railed against by the church?

So, to borrow from Jeff Overstreet’s book title, I will look “Through a Screen Darkly” at the world around me. As the images flicker across the screen, I hope to catch a glimpse of the world around me and, at times, even a look into the darkness in my own soul. I hope to engage those stories in a conversation about the truth about life and love. The conversations I have with those “authors” of the movies I hope will help me understand better the world in which I live so that I can go into that world and bring that light into the darkness. And I know that the darkness will not overcome it.

A new issue of the online version of “The Mennonite” church publication has been released.  I just got my e-mail today.  I enjoy getting this weekly dose of information from the primary publication of my denomination.  It keeps me informed as to what’s going on at the denominational level and gives me some different insights on modern issues from a Mennonite perspective.

However, I must say that this morning’s issue disappointed me.  Not because of the lack of content, nor because it somehow didn’t meet the professional standards of the publication.  It disappointed me because of the content itself.  The lead article in today’s e-mail found here discusses how the health-care reform bills currently being worked on by the US federal government coincide with Jesus’ inaugural sermon from Luke 4.

On one level, I agree with this article.  The Kingdom of God is a kingdom in which there is no more poverty, no more disadvantaged, no more illness, no more pain, where everyone can come to the table of the Lord with equal stature and be blessed by God.  Amen.  Preach it.  Come Lord Jesus.

What disappoints me about this article goes towards the roots of what the Anabaptist movement and the Mennonite denomination has been about for centuries. 

The foundations of our denomination are not in advocating programs in the government, having the state dictate the ethics of the church, giving power to the secular human institutions to carry out God’s kingdom.  Quite the contrary.  As I read the stories of faith from our denominational past, both the general as well as the ones more close to my personal story, I hear stories of a people who have a faith in their God that acts out in personal witness and activity.  I hear of people who, when the secular organizations are insufficient, step up to the plate and sacrificially give of themselves to meet the needs.  Organizations like MCC with their meat canning project, Mennonite Disaster Service when FEMA fell through, educational programs in third world countries, advocacy for peace in Palestine when the UN fails to save lives… the list goes on.   One instance after another where a denomination, when a need is seen, gets out of the pews and goes into the world to carry out the mission of the Kingdom that Jesus read about in the writings of Isaiah.

Don’t get me wrong.  I do feel that it is the responsibility of the members of the Kingdom of God to act as God’s ambassadors to this world, calling our governments and secular institutions to repent and come into line with God’s plan.  However, the article in the Mennonite, along with many discussions with other Mennonite church members, advocates giving this power to the government.  One reasoning I heard was that “It’s such a big job, there’s no way the church can do it.”  This has been the primary argument for a number of things, from this current health-care reform debate to debates on welfare reform to conversations about marriage.  The church does not have the power or the resource, therefore we must advocate the government’s role.

I’ve got one word for that argument: BUNK.  Here’s why.  The suppositiion seems to be that the human ability of the Christian church is insufficient to meet the immense needs of the poor around us.  Listen to that again.  God’s church does not have the power to do it.  Okay, one more time.  The body of Christ is unable to change the world.  You hear that?  You hear what is being said?  The argument seems to be that there is a limit to what a people, who call themselves the body of Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit to do God’s work in this world, blessed by God with talents, abilities and gifts…there is a limit to what God’s people can do.  The power of God, acted out through his people, is limited.  We can’t do it.  God is not big enough to help us do what needs to be done.  The same God who, as the God-Man Jesus, raised Lazerus from the dead, healed countless people, cast out demons, fed 5,000 men with a few loaves of bread and some dried fish…  Nope.  Can’t do it.  The church cannot do it.  God does not have the ability to give us any power to make these changes.  It costs too much, takes too many people, takes up too much time, there are too many obstacles.  Nope.  God cannot help us do this.  We’ve gotta have the government do it.

This is the same God who Paul wrote, as a reason why he was able to surmount many obstacles, “I can do all this through him who gives me strength.” (Philippians 4:13).  Or how about the same Paul who wrote that, when faced with the power of sin, is able to say “What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31).  What about the many stories in the book of Acts where the church stepped up to the plate and, through their own sacrifice and generousity, were able to meet the needs of hundreds of people without having to ask the Roman emporer to do so?  Paul alludes to this in his letters to the churches, how Macedonian Christians gave out of even their poverty and, because of this act of sacrifice, were able to bless many.

Again, please understand, I do believe that we need to call our government to justice and mercy.  We need to ask our government to step in on the part of the poor and disenfranchised, to act justly, to live mercifully.  But we CANNOT.. I repeat, we CANNOT expect the government to do it.  It is a human institution and subject, especially in an institution that is constitutionally not a spiritual organization, to the failings of all such human institutions.  Our own church confession of faith, concerning government says, “Even at its best, a government cannot act completely according to the justice of God because no nation, except the church, confesses Christ’s rule as its foundation.” (Article 23).

As I said, I agree with the article in The Mennonite and the resolution in Columbus that the Mennonite church “asks members to urge their legislators to support legislation extending access to all Americans, especially the poor and disadvantaged”.  That is EXACTLY what the Mennonite Church has done over the centuries.  But what is MOST important to our traditions of the church, is that it doesn’t stop there.  It is the church (meaning the body of believers characterized by faith in Christ) living out the mission of God that ultimately bears the responsibility for the Kingdom.  To sit back and expect the government to do so I would argue is going along with the idolatry of the government (also stated in Article 23 of our confession of faith).  To say that the government has more power than the church to effect change in our society, I believe, is a wrong statement.

Let’s write to our legislators.  Let’s tell them what we want.  Let’s be that voice the cries out in the darkness.  Let’s be the light on the hill.  But let’s also be salt and light in the world.  Once we’ve raised our voices to the secular powers, let’s grab hold of the power given us by God, as joint heirs with Christ, and step out into the world, confident that God will bless us with everything that we need to be able to do the work of His kingdom in this world.  Peter Dyck used to tell the story of the Berlin Exodus.  He always introduced the story by stating a German phrase: “Gott Kann”.  Obama’s supporters used a particular chant during the campaign.  “We can do it, yes we can.”  As the Christian church, I would say we can borrow this, with a slight edit:

“We can do it!”
“Yes, God can!”

“Hello, Everybodeeeee!” (gotta love Grover).

I’ve just been given the privilege to be a contributor here on YAR and it was suggested that I give a bit of an intro so y’all know who it is writing this stuff.

For what it’s worth, concerning my denominational “pedigree”, I was born and raised in the Mennonite denomination.  At that time, the churches I went to were the MC churches (as opposed to GC).  My life started in Puerto Rico as the second son of two mission minded people.  My parents got their start in PR in Voluntary Service and spent 10 years there all told.  So, culturally speaking, while I’m German Mennonite by descent, my preferred flavor of church is a little less traditional.

I’m not sure how “young” I am.  I’m 36 years old.  But I guess I’m “young” in that I’m not stuck in the Mennonite/Anabaptist “church as usual” mentality.  We need to start thinking about what it means to BE the church and not just GO to church.  Life in the “church” is so much more than Sunday morning and the “church” is so much more than the institution that runs that Sunday morning service.  “Church” is who we are every day and should define what we then do every day.  If Sunday morning “go-to-meeting” should go away, the church will still be the church.

That kinda brings me to the “Anabaptist” part of why I’m here.  I’m Anabaptist in my upbringing and, as much as can be said, my ethnicity.  In fact, I’d classify myself as neo-Anabaptist in that would love to see a revival in the Anabaptist denominations (Mennonite, Brethern, etc) towards getting back to our roots of radical faith.  The Anabaptist movement in Europe was so much more about being the church instead of “doing” church.  The whole point of “re-baptising” was to get away from the ritualistic and legalistic practices of even the early Protestant denominations and to move into a genuine whole-life living out of the Gospel.  Four hundred years later, it seems we’re emulating those denominations that we broke from in the first place.

Which brings me to the “radical” part.  Someone classified my preaching in church as a  “free radical”.  I’m not afraid to ask questions, challenge answers, think outside the box, argue the devil into and out of a topic, etc.  To keep preaching the same stuff each Sunday is what someone called “chewing old vomit”.  We’ve been there, done that, and we’ve gotten stale.  Does this mean there’s no truth in what we’re doing?  No.  But is what we’re doing relevant and important in the post-modern, post-Christendom, post-Enlightenment world that is present in Europe and beginning to find prominence in thought in North America?  That’s the question that requires an answer.

I’ve embarked on a journey with God to become His minister in this dynamically changing world.  I’m doing it from an Anabaptist viewpoint but I like to think (and who knows, I could be wrong), I’m getting back to my radical roots.  As Anabaptists, historically, we dared to stand up to the status-quo, risking our lives.  We stressed living the faith every day and in every way.  Our lives, historically, have been categorized by our characteristic of living “non-conformed” lives and working towards transformation of ourselves, of our communities, and of the world around us.  My challenge is to be non-conformist even within our own Anabaptist denominations.  Have we come so far that we are no longer the radicals we started out as?  I think so.  I pray that God will lead me in the exploration of what it means to truly live a radical faith.

-Robert Martin, Pennsylvania