I am re-reading a few books of mine while Gina and I are in our first round of the internship under Fuel. One of my favorite current writers/teachers is Rob Bell, and I am currently in the middle of his book Sex God for the second time since I read it while driving through west Texas on my way to New Mexico in 2007. If you have ever driven through west Texas, you’ll know it’s really easy to read a book while doing so… There is absolutely nothing else going on and it’s a straight shot. 

One of his footnotes had a statistic that there were (this was in 2007) 27,000,000 slaves in the world, more than ever in the history of mankind. When I read this, my reaction initially was not one of surprise or shock. I have a cursory knowledge of the human trafficking situation, but still, that number didn’t necessarily startle me the way I’m sure Rob Bell intended. I just thought to myself that it only makes sense: slavery is one of the oldest stories in world history, so it would follow that the more “connected” the world is and the more access to power people have the more there would be slaves. In one sense it is not shocking at all. 

The more shocking part, besides the fact that literal human beings are being bought and sold for unspeakable and horrific things, is that we are at a point in history where something like this, something so tragic and oppressive, is not being done by the hands of one centralized leader. 

Think about that; in all the [popular] stories of history of a liberation of oppressed people there is usually one big oppressive regime that can be targeted as the main group of oppressors. However, with a worldwide spread of money, power, and immorality there is not one megalomaniac holding down a people group but many many would-be gods of the sex trafficking and other trafficking industries buying and selling people for a measly profit. It is disgusting and troubling to think about. 

The more I think about it the more I realize that I need to be an active part of the solution. I am very intrigued by liberation history, and have actually acquired a good number of books about the Civil Rights movement. I have often thought to myself, “If only I could’ve been alive at that time, I would have been a part of the movement.” 

Well, I’m alive now, at this time. I have a chance. I am over-saturated with information about this issue. I cannot afford to let it appear as though distant to me and then research the topic in later years out of intrigue. I must be a part of liberation, because I have been called by a God whose primary work in this fallen world is liberation. I have a definitive story from which I draw strength that includes a people crying out under the weight of slavery and, because of their cries, being set free and given a brand new life with a brand new identity. 

So I am going to start down the road towards being active against this most obscene perversion. This is not a “resolution” as most, even I, typically make. It is a resolution to do what I can where I am, which I think is a great deal of things. 

I guess all I really want to do is challenge anyone reading this to do the same. 

Start by reading this story that was posted on the International Justice Mission website; then pray to God for a holy, burning conviction and clear guidance and direction. 

Let’s not sit idle while more than twenty million are bound. 

If I was the person in charge of deciding how everyone should act to truly be called a “Christian” there are a whole lot of changes I would make in how most people live out their faith. It’s true. Admit it, so would you. There is much work to be done, and many things on my list; however, among all the miscellany of items on my list of things to change, one thing a little closer to the top of my list is that I would require everyone to learn how to fish before engaging in any sort of real-world evangelistic efforts.

I find it so profound that the Gospel writers depict Jesus as going to young men training to be fishermen and tells them that He wants them to put down their nets and follow him so that they can be “fishers of men”. This statement loses so much significance and weight after taking a severe beating from so many half-assed sermons (let’s be honest) being preached with a lack of thought given to how powerful a statement like that really is. Think about it: fishers of men.

It doesn’t really make much sense when isolated…

I wanted to share a brief thought on this idea in relation to the way evangelism is generally viewed and practiced in a lot of Western and Western-influenced churches. I hope this might expand that metaphor and make it somewhat more meaningful to think about and practice.

So the disciples, actually just some of them, were training to be fishermen when Jesus called them to follow Him. They were training with their fathers because fishing was a family trade. The system of education in the time of Jesus was more focused on vocational training and experience for people like these fishermen. There’s no need for a good game of Trivial Pursuit’s worth of book knowledge when your family literally survives by how well you know how to catch some fish. There is one major goal… I’ll let you fill in the blank.

In training with their fathers, fishing being a family trade, I imagine that these young men were learning so much more than the mechanics of how to cast a net, row a boat, and bring in a catch. I imagine a bulk of the lessons to be about the nature of fishing—when the fish are out, where they like to group, etc. There were probably so many little “family secrets” to hand down about how to be the best fisherman. Generations of knowledge were being handed down to these guys so they can provide for their families and, more importantly, keep the family trade alive.

Then Jesus comes along and says He wants to make them “fishers” of men, and apparently these guys know EXACTLY what Jesus is getting at here—and possibly because they know how to fish.

Simply put—many of us don’t know how to fish.

I have gone fishing many times in my life, and I have a habitual problem of always pulling the hook up too soon and not really sealing the deal on the catch. I feel the slightest tug on my hook and all of the sudden I’m wrenching the rod up as fast as I can only to reveal a dangling worm. For all the time I spent “patiently” waiting for a fish to come along I completely wasted it in the most crucial moment for sheer lack of patience and understanding.

Typical evangelism today, if it exists in the life of a believer, looks an awful lot like this. In fact, there is such a compulsive urge to seize any semblance of an opportunity that often-times we are not even found sitting in the boat with our hooks in the water, we have abandoned hook and reel entirely and jumped into the water to see how many fish we can grab with our bare hands. We are too often outside our element, lacking understanding, foolishly grasping for fish we will never be able to catch; and our greater offense is a lack of criticism towards our assumed method.

What is our problem? Why do we lean towards such an obviously flawed methodology? One reason could be that we never really learned how to fish. For lack of someone willing to teach or for lack of being teachable we don’t know the first thing about fishing. For all we know we may be inches away from the biggest catch of our lives would we only have the patience and care of a true fisherman.

My advice to all (and to myself) today is simply take a fishing trip with someone who knows what they are doing. Take a literal fishing trip and see if you don’t end up gaining better understanding of what Jesus is saying about how He wants us to reach out to the world.

Two men go to church. 

One is just barely sober, stinking, and extremely “uncouth”. The other is a more regular attendee, nicely dressed, freshly bathed, and a faithful giver. 

Both worship God with passion and, for all an onlooker can know, authenticity. Both love going to church on Sundays. Both enjoy the sermon preached, but probably don’t have the attention span past point #4. 

Sunday is seemingly an isolated event for both men. Monday-Saturday the first man  gets stinking drunk as often as possible, and the second man goes to work, comes home, watches tv, and spends his money on himself and his family as often as possible—with the exception of his tithe. 

What differentiates these men?  Blood-alcohol content and a healthy number of possessions.  

Which one of these men would you say needs some serious help?

This is one of my journal entries from a while back. I read it this morning and just wanted to share:

This morning when I sat down I finished out chapter 3 in Galatians, and after reading it the first time over felt like I needed another pass at it. I prayed and asked God to give me understanding and began to read again. Because of taking the Perspectives course, I feel like I have a totally different understanding of the promise that God gave to Abraham, and it seems like everything Paul is saying in the book hinges on having an understanding on the significance and meaning of that promise.

I started to think about why the promise of God to Abraham would be important, and why our faith in Christ including us in that promise is significant. I started to think about the things outlined in Perspectives as part of the “blessing” and the ones I can remember are posterity and provision, so I went to Genesis 12 to see if I couldn’t find exactly what it was. I started in ch 12 where God gives the initial promise of blessing and skipped over to other times (after Lot and Abraham separate and in ch 15). I was actually surprised to see that in ch 12 God doesn’t list out verbatim benefits of the promise as I had understood them. He tells Abraham that his name will be made great and that his descendants will be many and that he will be blessed so that all nations through him would share in the blessing. From there the story is basically about how that promise unfolds (something I learned more about through the Exploring series), and ch 15 is actually what struck me most so far this morning that I wanted to write about.

Abraham has already been in and out of Egypt, separated from Lot, rescued Lot, and been offered blessing by Melchizedek, and then says to God, “Behold, you have given me no offspring and a member of my household (a servant, I think) will be my heir.” Abraham basically asks God out of wonder - a natural human response after receiving the promise and living through all he’s lived through, and the assurance God gives him is, “This man shall not be your heir, your very own son shall be your heir.” God then adds, “Look towards heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them. So shall your offspring be.”

What was Abraham’s response? He believed the Lord and it was counted to Him as righteousness. This really stood out to me in the way God responded. Initially there was no timeline. He had already told Abraham all that he needed to know, and now instead of showing Abraham something definite He gives Abraham hope - something not necessarily clear, but something pointing to a fulfilled promise. I feel like I cannot even write how this made me feel. In this passage I see God’s understanding of Abraham’s need, God’s great plan revealed through mystery, God’s sovereignty in knowing that He would fulfill the promise given even beyond what Abraham was able to conceive. So instead of particulars God looks at him and tells him to look at the stars, and Abraham believes. And that belief makes Him right in God’s eyes.

I’m not sure if the movie “Machine Gun Preacher” has come out yet in the States… I’m assuming it hasn’t because otherwise I think Facebook would be littered with comments here and there and opinions and all of that nonsense. Sadly, a lot of my pop culture news comes from other people’s status updates these days. Either way, I had the opportunity to watch the movie tonight, and I can confidently say that it will not likely fit into anyone’s expectations.

Honestly, I was not looking forward to the movie. After Liam Neeson’s “Taken” I wasn’t necessarily ready to see another real-world issue sensationalized on the big screen as if it were another installment of the Bond series. I was utterly biased against the idea of “Machine Gun Preacher” and when I pictured it thought mostly something that looked like the “Hot Shots” parody. Seriously, I mean, what else was I to expect when it is starring Gerard Butler of 300? The only difference in my expectation between those movies was context…

However, because of my stronger conviction of always being open-minded, I watched the movie tonight. There is so much I could say, so much going on inside of me right now. For a long time, since my Junior year of college, I have been reading everything I can about Christianity and Non-violence. I have written a few blogs about the issue, and done whatever I can in my life to practice Non-violence and sort of “experiment” with the idea in different situations. What does this look like? It looks like one time ending a heated argument leading to a fight by offering a man a taco (true story) and also standing there and crossing my arms after a giant, half-drunk man spit in my face, smiled, and said, “Hit me, man.” My experiences are obviously limited, but to be frank so are most people’s experiences with this issue. My problem with this movie at first was that most Christians speak about Non-violence while wallowing in a virtual sea of ignorance on the issue and offering nothing in argument more than self-preservation and instinctive morals based on how they feel about the situation. Often, when honestly trying to probe someone and not start an argument, I have asked for them to substantiate their position via Scripture… only to be given silence.

For me it’s not about being “right” or even about avoiding pain and conflict. I simply want to know the Truth of the matter. The fact is that there are lots of things that Jesus said and did that, for me, clearly point to Non-violence as the Way of the cross, but at the same time commands towards Non-violence aren’t as (seemingly) clear and repetitious as other “no-brainers” of the Christian life (like taking care of the poor and being pure in your sexual life). For all the pain it brings me, I can understand when someone doesn’t see it the way I do.

In case the movie hasn’t come out yet, I will not write any spoilers, but I will talk of the general premise (man encounters slaughter in Africa, starts a church, then starts gunning down members of the LRA). This brings up many questions for me. I will simply list them, try to tie up any loose ends, and then be done with this post.

1. Is “my God” big enough to allow violence in extreme situations, yet still be the God who died Non-violently on the cross?

Since the Exodus of Israel, God has always retained full rights to define Himself, for He is owned by none other than Himself. He is utterly free in His holiness and identity. That being the case, He is allowed to do things utterly beyond my understanding; including something of this nature.

2. Could this man’s calling have been as clear as MLK’s?

It is fairly common knowledge that MLK, while spending himself seeking peace in the name of Christian Non-violence, was a voracious adulterer. There are even accounts of him saying such vulgar things as, “I’m f***ing for the Lord!” while having sex with women who weren’t his wife. However, I still believe God used him in mighty ways to change the course of history, so why not the Machine Gun Preacher?

This, however brings up different questions: Do MLK’s sinful acts negate his effect on the world around him? No. Does the change brought about by his role in history make it okay that he was immoral in regards to his sexual life? Certainly not.

I wonder if this train of thought could speak to this issue…

3. Was this man’s calling the result of a lack of God’s people obeying the command to “seek peace and pursue it”?

The only thing keeping me sane right now is this thought. There seems to be a void in Africa, and for all the compassionate single women going over to offer aid, and for all the “awareness” being created worldwide, and all the documentaries begging us to act that void seems to be ever gaping. Where has the church been? Where have I been?

The heart of God is not idle when there is such bloodshed, such evil. God does not delight in violence-that we (hopefully) know for sure, but if the arms and legs of Jesus are motionless towards such an onslaught of massacre, is it possible that God would send something, someone, less than ideal? He seemed to be fine with it throughout the Old Testament. He seems to be fine with it today (working with a very imperfect, fumbling group of people called “Christians”).

This is not an easy issue. I am haunted by what I just saw and haunted even more at the thought of people still living out such horrific scenes. I just hope and pray that the “Machine Gun Preacher” does not become equivalent to some blockbuster super hero in the minds of Christians, legitimizing their steadfast yet thoughtless stance on redemptive violence. Christians cannot let culture’s reflection of reality dictate their morality, we should only let it make us think more deeply about what Scripture has to say about how we are to live in this world.

The fact is that this is a real story, and for that reason alone I am perplexed and sleepless tonight.

(I would like to amend this by saying that this movie didn’t turn me into a “believer” in redemptive violence. It’s still difficult for me to reconcile the Jesus on the cross saying, “Father, forgive them.” with someone wielding artillery. Machine Gun Jesus? Hmmmm… I do see Jesus wanting to save children, I do see him weeping for them, sacrificing for them, giving it all for them. I just wanted to make it clear that this is a struggle for me—not a mere pendulum swing.)

I love the church Gina and I are a part of here. When you approach Full Gospel Center Church (there is another church here called “Jesus is Lord Church”), you can hear them blasting worship from almost a kilometer away. Walking into that atmosphere every Sunday is more than refreshing, more than encouraging, more than any descriptive word besides “holy”. These are people who love to sing and dance and praise God, and it’s not JUST about the volume either. One of my favorite people to watch is this old blind lady; she always sits on the far inside end of the second pew on the left side, she is always wearing white “Rayban” shades, and she is always singing loudly with one hand lifted and both feet moving. She is probably four and a half feet tall.

This morning, through tears, I looked around and realized something that I’ve always felt but was never able to conceive quite this way, I thought, “I could never experience God like this on my own.” I want to expound on that thought, as it might not hit the reader at first as it hit me.

I am 26, I am white, and I grew up in America. I am considered middle class, I have been in several “indie” bands, I have tattoos, my profession is coffee/venue managing, and I have an insatiable fondness for v-necks and tank tops. I also think JD Salinger is a brilliant writer. I am the quintessential example of a “twenty-something” of my generation excluding one fact: I have not yet rejected the church. I have always been, and will always be someone who is involved with what most know as “church” today, however certain I may feel that there could be a different way of going about it. Am I a hypocrite? An idealist slowly turning into something a little more “reasonable”? I hope I am neither.

I have many friends who, for whatever reason, have come to the conclusion that they, “don’t need to go to church to have a relationship with God.” Honestly, I think they are correct, but as is the nature of things involving a “double-edge” by their same conclusion they are very wrong.

As I realized this morning that I would not be experiencing the same things were I not worshipping with the people of Full Gospel, I thought about the defense of most people’s individual relationship with God. I wondered how big their faith really is. It’s very fashionable and pious to speak of a God “bigger than a church building”, but another leap of faith altogether to think that God could possibly have set things up in such a way as to be willfully limited in certain facets of His relationship with you. It is not only possible but evident (through scripture and through many examples currently) that the Church is meant to be a mutually supportive structure. No one can stand on their own. When I go into a church service on Sunday I can choose to let others support me in my faith. I can be encouraged by the wild praise of a blind woman, I can be inspired by the worship team singing and jumping and playing, I can be shown insight into scripture by the preacher, and I can connect with someone in the church who may also have something to offer me should I be willing to receive. Because Full Gospel has it’s doors open on Sunday I can bring someone in who lives an otherwise empty life and see him smile and close his eyes, absolutely reveling in an atmosphere of God’s presence.

To all who stand alone in their conviction that church is not confined to a building and a schedule I applaud your bravery, I really do. I know it takes guts to step out into something different. I also empathize with your questions and reservations, but I have to say that to eject oneself from the problem is not a part of becoming the solution. It never has been. Even the prophets sent to condemn the people of Israel were sent TO them and lived among them and spoke in their public places.

I didn’t want to make this long, so I will just leave a thought that a mentor told me a few years back:

Immaturity usually defines itself by what it isn’t.

I pray that faith matures as we discover not what is lacking in church today, but what there is to gain because of it.