There is a great deal of talk about production and consumption in American society today. Such talk is found inside the American church as well. In fact, a noted pastor has called on men to be real men by moving from being consumers to being producers. Whether we are talking about men or women, we need to move beyond thinking of humans as mere producers and consumers and approach human identity and the church in communal terms. So, instead of separating people into classes such as producers and consumers, we must encourage everyone to move toward being “communers.”

Of course, we consume even as we produce, and everyone produces and consumes in some manner. However, we must never reduce our communal identity as humans and as the church to acts of production and consumption. Why? I maintain that the Bible teaches that we are created in the image of the triune God who creates us as an overflow of holy, loving communion; God’s purpose is to create and, after the fall, to transform us so that we can share in the glory of this loving, holy communion in the divine life for all eternity (Gen. 1:26-27; Jn. 17). Creation and production are not the ultimate categories. They point beyond themselves to something even more profound—communion with God and one another.

Another reason why we must speak in more communal terms rather than reductionistic terms involving mere production and consumption is that the latter categorization scheme leads to a bifurcation of humanity. When we move from communer categories to producer and consumer divisions we destroy the possibility of experiencing profound relationality. Relationality always involves reciprocity and mutuality. It is never unidirectional.

I will offer three examples of how this bifurcation affects us. If, for example, we define noble people as those who produce, it leads to a devaluing of those who consume their products. Related to this point, don’t producers need consumers to consume what they produce? Does that not entail the need for fostering at least two classes of people? The producers—the elect or naturally selected by their own survival instincts—will “enslave” or at least corral others to be consumers so that they can make their own election or natural selection sure. In the church culture today, there is at times a tendency to identify entrepreneurial creativity with a greater sense of personal worth and identity. Many Evangelicals rightly challenge consumerist tendencies and greed, but our production proclivities can still enforce an “us” and “them” mindset: those who produce the best justice packages for those in need of food and other necessities should not be seen as having the most worth; as important as these justice entrepreneurs are, we all have worth as we share life and resources with one another. We all have something to offer when we view matters relationally. Those who have the least “stuff” often have the most to teach us relationally, for they have learned the secret of the meaning to life: the fullness of life is experienced not in the abundance of possessions, but in the abundance of communal presence.

Besides noting the problem of enforcing and reinforcing two classes of people by way of productivity, we can easily move in the opposite direction by promoting a state of affairs where those who consume the most win. This problem often has economic as well as ethnic dimensions. The developed world—which generally is very white—consumes an inordinate percentage of the world’s resources, while the non-white developing world with its human and natural resources is used increasingly as the field to produce the goods for these enlightened, developed world consumers.

Beyond considering class and race issues, we must also account for matters of gender. If women stay home, that does not mean they aren’t producing. While husbands may be the breadwinners in some homes, they are not alone in cultivating family life. To many people, housewives and househusbands do not appear to contribute to the bottom line, if we think simply in production and consumption categories. But when we think communally, we find that breadwinners in families are not the only ones producing. It is much more constructive to think in terms of sharing. From the standpoint of sharing, everyone is needed—husbands, wives, and children. Everyone matters because everyone shares in communal life together.

We do not exist because we think, produce, or consume. We exist ultimately because we are loved by God. God calls us to be communers—to respond to God’s love by loving God and others in return (Mk. 12:30-31). As we move toward viewing life and people in communal terms, it will have a profound bearing on how we approach a variety of subjects. Most importantly, it will help us move from treating other people as objects, and see them as human subjects who really matter.

Back in May of this past year, I posted on Facebook and wrote, “A sobering, disturbing, significant article. While gentrification is a complex reality, we must work diligently to partner with vulnerable communities so that they are not displaced/replaced.”  The article itself begins with the words, “Portland, already the whitest major city in the country, has become whiter at its core even as surrounding areas have grown more diverse…Nearly 10,000 people of color, mostly African Americans, also moved out. They moved to the city’s eastern edges, where sidewalks, grocery stores and access to public transit is limited.”

One of my Facebook friends wrote, “Help me understand what white people are doing wrong, Paul. (I don’t like looking at things with ‘color’ in mind to begin with—isn’t this more a basic issue of economics?) If they move out to the suburbs it’s bad. If they live in the inner city it’s bad. What is the problem and what solutions do you propose?”  These are great questions.

I intended to respond in May, but then my Dad passed away.  I have not had the opportunity or emotional strength to write this piece until now.  I would like to begin with remarks made by Paul Kurth, who also wrote me in May in response to my post.  Paul is a designer at a Portland architecture firm.  Paul argued, “Architecturally, the city is an evolving organism and must change to survive—some buildings and neighborhoods get worn out and need to be fixed, but after reconstruction the neighborhood isn’t the same because it’s hard to make new buildings affordable without subsidies. Good city planning mixes uses and income levels. Affordable housing should be built alongside the more expensive homes. The segregation of higher income areas (the Pearl District) isn’t helping to ease economic tensions/imbalance. It’s up to the people who have the means and choice to make changes to integrate their own lives with people who are different than themselves and don’t have many choices.”

Sometimes we don’t determine to integrate our lives with people who are different because of lack of bandwidth and/or interest.  Sometimes we aren’t even aware of gentrification’s evolution and negative impact on some vulnerable (yet resilient) communities.  But if we are really about community, we must be diligent to diversify.  While people are often well-intentioned who claim that we should not look at things with color in mind, the lack of awareness of color is problematic for various reasons.  For one, we are not color blind; nor should we be.  Attention to color is attentiveness to the richness of cultural diversity.  Moreover, we often associate with those who are most like us.  So, if we are not intentional, we will not engage those who are of different ethnic backgrounds, especially when they belong to a different economic demographic.  And in America, race and class issues often track with one another historically and presently.  While I appreciate people’s desire to be color blind in the sense of not prejudging people, we must be intentional and see people for who they are in the fullness of their ethnic and cultural identity, including the color of their skin, though not exclusively so.  Moreover, given how racial profiling often occurs today in unimaginable ways (such as the racial profiling of a student I know in Portland by a white police officer last spring), we would be blind to injustices if we sought to be blind to matters pertaining to the color of one’s skin.

Back to my Facebook friend’s concerns.  I have no problem with people of diverse ethnicities moving into or out of Portland’s heart.  What I have problems with is when it is against their will.  There used to be a thriving African American community in what is now the Rose Quarter.  Then the community was displaced to Northeast Portland as a result of city planning endeavors.  I doubt if city planners would ever restructure thriving affluent communities on the Northwest side of town for whatever the reason, if such restructuring would threaten to displace them.  Given the recent migration of young Bohemians with bistros and art studios to Northeast Portland, African Americans living there have been displaced to places like Gresham and Beaverton.

My friend Robert Wall, a former Portland government official, reflects on Portland’s patterns of gentrification: “In most of these cases the driving force is the planning process without the incentives to remain.  I find it interesting that in almost every redevelopment there are huge profits made. Most of these profits are funded by the set aside tax dollars paid by the land owners prior to the redevelopment. So, in part we have a planning problem and a greed problem that adds up to racial discrimination. It used to be called red-lining. Now it’s mainly green-lining (of someone else’s pocket).”  Mr. Wall maintains that whenever a few people benefit economically from decisions that they know negatively impact many, it is greed.  Doesn’t that sound like greed to you?

The African American church has been significantly impacted by this trend.  So, what can be done?

Sister churches of diverse ethnicity can partner with them to minister effectively in their increasingly diverse context by working with African American pastors and congregations to reach out in these increasingly diverse settings.  This may include doing service projects together in the community, or sending a team of people to the churches in the historically African American community who would become members of those African American churches.

Moreover, one can work with one’s neighbors to keep the community intact.  A friend of mine who lives in Northeast Portland worked with his neighbors to make sure that one family would not have to move when the cost of living and taxes rose.  That family switched houses with another family: the family who could no longer afford their house moved into their neighbors’ house that was more affordable, and those neighbors moved into theirs, which they were able to afford.  While this is not often possible for a variety of reasons, it became reality for this neighborhood.

It is also important to be in contact with one’s city commissioner and one’s neighborhood association, advocating for equality and diversity.  When neighbors partner together in this way, the possibility exists that unjust forms of gentrification will occur less often.

It is also critical that we make ourselves aware of past and present tensions.  One reason why Portland’s central city is so white is because it was intended to be so historically, as one African American pastor reasoned with me recently.  A friend who teaches urban studies at a local university informed me that for many African Americans urban renewal is Negro removal.  He often cites the expansion of Emmanuel Hospital in the 1970s as one such example (See discussion on this expansion and its impact).  Moreover, red lining along with city developments historically in thriving African American sections of town along with laws on the books in Oregon and Portland in days gone by certainly made it extremely difficult for African Americans to live in Portland and Oregon generally.  The impact of those decisions is still felt in the city, even though those laws are no longer in place.  With this long-standing impact in mind, we need to restructure our laws and neighborhoods so that people of diverse ethnicities will feel more welcome and their businesses can survive and thrive. (See one recent proposal).  Cities and states offer such benefits for thriving companies to move to their regions.  The same kinds of incentives should be offered to those communities and businesses that have been impacted negatively from various forms of gentrification and urban renewal.  While some might take the following statement by an African American business woman in Northeast Portland for sour grapes, I take it to be more in keeping with what occurred to the migrants in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath, albeit in a less overt and more subtle manner: “A black person’s property has no value until a white person owns it.”  It’s so easy to try and deny her view when one is white.  But one cannot deny her experience, if one has not lived in her shoes.

This point on experience and interpretation of events also calls to mind the statement made at a public gathering in one Northeast Portland neighborhood a few years ago.  A group of young white business owners of cafes and bistros and other such shops were meeting to protest the impending attempt of Starbucks to enter the neighborhood.  Those gathered there were recent transplants, and they were afraid that Starbucks would hurt their businesses.  It was almost as if they were saying, “A small business owner’s property has no value until Starbucks owns it.”  One African American man standing in the back during the gathering finally spoke up and said something to the effect, “To the traditional community (African American), you are the Starbucks.”  So, it is.  I often am.  So, now that I know that I am will I become more sensitive, as Starbucks has been known to do in many cases, or will I keep on pouring lattes laced with opium for the masses?

How do you define success in life and ministry? This was a key question raised at the ordination council meeting for Milan Homola and Josue Gonzales.

Many people today and throughout the ages define success in life according to one or more categories; a few of the big ones for defining success are economic excess, physical prowess and academic progress. While financial viability, physical strength and educational advance certainly have their place, they should not define our lives in terms of what we prize most. Unfortunately, economic excess, physical prowess and academic progress so often do define the lives and views of success for many.

Such values and definitions stand in stark contrast to Scripture. Paul quotes from Jeremiah 9:24 in 1 Corinthians 1:31, where he is challenging the false boasts of the Corinthian Christians. Paul declares, “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.” Paul calls on them to boast in their relationship with the Lord–the same Lord who reveals his power in weakness and his wisdom in foolishness in the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18-25). The boast in Jeremiah 9:23-24 puts everything in perspective: “This is what the LORD says: ‘Let not the wise boast of their wisdom or the strong boast of their strength or the rich boast of their riches, but let the one who boasts boast about this: that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness ["steadfast love"--ESV], justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,’ declares the LORD.” (NIV)

Jeremiah challenges those who boast in their academic or intellectual progress, physical prowess and economic excess to go deeper and define life and success by way of intimacy with God, who although he is all-wise, all-powerful and owns the cattle on a thousand hills, defines himself relationally, as set forth here: the LORD exercises loving-kindness/steadfast love, justice and righteousness on earth in relation to us, for in these things he delights.

Josue and Milan, I heard your hearts the night of the ordination council. I was so struck by your relational instincts and concern for God and his people. I encourage and exhort you to continue defining yourselves in relation to God and intimacy with him, and in exercising his steadfast love, justice and righteousness toward those you serve, for in these things God delights. If you boast in the Lord and in bearing witness to his loving-kindness, justice and righteousness here on earth, you will live and minister well. You will succeed in the midst of fading failures and passing discouragements in ministry, as you succeed with God. Those who don’t define success in life and ministry along the lines described here will have a hard time making it down the road, for their boast is not in the Lord.

Let me go deeper. We live in a church age that values charismatic preaching, cutting edge marketing along with entrepreneurship, and CEO leadership. But do we value good shepherding? I believe those who truly define success the way I have defined it above will approach leadership and shepherding of God’s people in Jesus’ way.

So, what makes for good shepherding according to Jesus? Jesus says, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep” (John 10:10-13).

Good shepherds are not ravenous wolves: wolves steal the lives of the people.

Good shepherds are not volunteers, who simply donate their time and labor to people.

Good shephers are not hired hands. Hired hands sell their time and labor to the people.

Good shepherds labor to lay down their lives for their people–daily.

Alluding to Ezekiel 34 which he fulfills, Jesus is the good shepherd, who contrasts himself with the failed shepherds/leaders of Israel: specifically those leaders who opposed him and the healing of the man born blind in John 9–the previous chapter. These supposed shepherds were ravenous wolves at worst and hired hands at best. But Jesus laid down his life for the sheep, even this man born blind whom he healed at great cost to himself at the hands of these bad shepherds of the nation. Such acts of sacrificial love led Jesus to the cross at the hands of his enemies, the same enemies of the sheep. Even the man’s parents wouldn’t sacrifice themselves for their son born blind, whom Jesus healed. They were so unlike my own dad.

My dad passed away in May after a long battle with cancer. My dad was not a pastor. He was not a Christian celebrity. But he was a precious Christian minister in his own right, who lived out the name of his parish church–”Good Shepherd.” My dad was a simple man, who was profound relationally. Simple profundity. My dad certainly had regrets about never being able to visit Europe. But he had no relational regrets. In this sense, he died a great success. My dad sacrificed his life and body to get me through school and life, working all hours of the day and night, for my mother, siblings and me. He cared for those from all walks of life with whom he came in contact–letting them know how much they mattered. The world was his parish. God used my dad more than anyone to bring me back to the faith after an intense time of rebellion in my youth. It was not a philosophical argument that brought me back. I could beat my Dad in any debate. It was his love for Jesus–the Good Shepherd–and me. My rebellion was no match for my Dad’s ceaseless and sacrificial love poured out on me. My key verse from my time of restoration from my life of youthful rebellion was John 10:10: “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” Jesus came to give each of us life to the full and he used my dad to snatch me back from the hands of Satan the thief who had come to steal and kill and destroy my life.

Milan and Josue, I find you to be men marked by love. Don’t listen to how so much of the surrounding church and secular culture defines success and leadership. Listen to the men who were in the room with you that night in the ordination council meeting. Their values were and are precious to me. Define success and leadership the way Jeremiah and Paul and Jesus define success and leadership–in terms of God’s sacrificial love poured out for others. As you move forward in ministry, listen well to Paul and Peter, who learned a thing or two from Jesus about how to lead and shepherd well. I close with the words of Peter as he exhorts fellow leaders in 1 Peter 5. Josue and Milan, these are my closing words to you. May your eyes and heart be open to your high calling and Christ’s deep love for you and through you to those entrusted to your care:

“To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away” (1 Peter 5:1-4).

Dear Friends,

Thank you for this enriching conversation. I am including current and future Advisory Council members in my response.

The conversation on the Trinity followed by this conversation on the theology of the affections is vitally important to New Wine, New Wineskins. As you know, New Wine’s theology of cultural engagement model is framed by the sacrificial love of the Triune God revealed in Christ and created in our lives by the Spirit.

I have articulated this in various ways over the years. I would encourage each of you on the AC now and those coming on board in the near future to read my essay, “Free at Last,” in New Wine Tastings. There I build on Martin Luther’s essay “Freedom of a Christian,” which was a foundational treatise for the Protestant Reformation. Further to that essay, Luther told Erasmus in his debate on “the bondage of the will” that Erasmus got to the heart of his writings: the matter of the heart (over against the enabled will), not the indulgences. Luther maintained in response to Erasmus that the will is enslaved to the desires (whether they be ungodly desires or godly desires). In my theology classes, I speak of hostility toward God vs. captivating affection from and for God over against disabled will vs. enabled will (the latter model is found in many Roman Catholic and Protestant circles–I reject the latter model as unbiblical and contrary to the Reformation teaching of Luther).

At New Wine, we speak of a Trinitarian theology of the affections. Affections change behaviors, according to Luther. Behaviors don’t change affections. Luther’s associate, Melanchthon, in his 1521 edition of the Loci Communes, develops this model at great length. Luther references Melanchthon in his debate with Erasmus, saying that Melanchthon’s work should be in the canon, and that Melanchthon’s arguments crush Erasmus’s model (most unfortunately, Melanchthon later modified his view, though Luther never did in my estimation).

According to Luther, whom I believe is true to the Apostle Paul’s teaching in Romans and Galatians, we are not made good by doing good things; we do good things because we are made good. For Luther, we are made good as God’s love is poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5–the later Augustine, Luther and Jonathan Edwards all developed their model of salvation and grace in relation to this text). All good moral actions flow not from spiritual habits and virtues that enable godly desires; rather, all godly actions flow from the Spirit of love poured out into our hearts. Sanctification, for Luther, is not a second work. In fact, he never developed a doctrine of sanctification, in my estimation. He feared that it would compromise the focus on the transformation of our hearts that occurs as the Spirit of God is poured out into our hearts thereby creating faith (Galatians 2:20; no doubt, Luther would also call to mind Paul’s challenge to the Galatians: “… Having begun with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?”–Gal. 3:3).

While I find people performing godly actions growing in their love for the Lord, I believe that Scripture teaches that such godly activity flows from a prior love from the triune God of grace poured out in our hearts. As that love is poured out and we respond to that love which is instilled in our hearts by the Spirit, we then perform godly actions. This response to God’s love continues to express itself in godly actions. I am ultimately talking about a deep affection and not a passing feeling of infatuation. Sometimes I may not want to honor God given my struggle with the flesh; but I want to want God as the Spirit of God moves in my life. The affections from the Spirit wage war with the affections of the flesh (Romans 8, Galatians 5).

I have risked speaking more theologically here to get some fundamental issues out on the table. This is consistent with what I was driving at in the discussion of the triune God as love. In addition to the New Wine essay, I also wrote on this for the Westminster Theological Journal (“Mystical Union With Christ: An Alternative to Blood Transfusions and Legal Fictions”), challenging the Roman Catholic notion of infusion of righteousness and the Protestant Scholastic notion of imputation (which I believe is secondary to such participation and follows from mystical marital union with Christ through the affection of love poured out by the Spirit that creates faith in our hearts and the ensuing moral activities). You will find more concrete engagement of this material in my book, The Gospel of John: When Love Comes to Town. John’s Gospel is steeped in these categories. See John 8, John 14 and John 15 and my discussions of these texts in When Love Comes to Town. I flesh this discussion out culturally in New Wine Tastings.

I hope this moves the conversation forward even further. Thanks so much for your friendship and partnership.

Best wishes,

Paul

In short, as I see it, God is a holy, loving communion of divine and eternal persons. At the core of God’s being, we find holy, interpersonal love. God is relational to the depths of his being. Love always requires an object. In the divine life, there is mutuality and reciprocity. Such love flows out from the Godhead into the world. While God does not need us, God does not use us either. God longs to have communion with us, for God is communal, and God’s glorious love is expansive and inclusive. The church as a Trinitarian community is first and foremost being-driven, not purpose-driven, as Brad Harper and I say in Exploring Ecclesiology. The church’s purposes and activities must flow out of this sense of relationality. Instead of “I think, therefore, I am” or “I shop at Wal-Mart and Macy’s, therefore I am” or “I have a job, therefore I am,” the model here is “I am loved by God, therefore I am.”

I received the news a few days prior to the New Wine, New Wineskins San Francisco Bay Area trip scheduled for May 17th-19th that my Dad might pass away within a week’s time. When I spoke with my Mom about my Dad’s condition and about my upcoming meetings in the Bay area, she urged me to move forward with the trip. She emphasized that my Dad would not want for me to cancel; she added that my Dad worked and prayed for me for years in terms of God’s calling on my life and saw his own life and ministry flowing through me. My Mom’s encouragement and exhortation moved and mobilized me. Her words from above gave me the strength and focus with which to proceed.

My Dad died a few days earlier than we had expected. He passed away into the presence of the Lord on Wednesday the 18th, when I was in San Francisco. Soon after I received the news, my friends and fellow New Wine, New Wineskins Advisory Council members Gloria Young and Cooky Wall encouraged me to be alone with the Lord and pray and reflect. They went out to buy lunch and bring it back to Gloria’s office for us to eat before our afternoon meetings. As I prayed and reflected in the presence of the Lord, the words “the table” were impressed upon my mind and imagination. There I was kneeling and crying out to God and saying, “The table, …the table, … the table!” What did these words mean?

One of the things that stands out most to me about my Dad is that he always invited people to “the table”—at home, at church, in the neighborhood, and elsewhere. No doubt, his life has shaped my writings on matters pertaining to the Lord’s Table. I believe his life will continue to shape my life so that I will invite others to “the table” and receive their invitations to table fellowship, too. I thank God for my Dad’s life and love. May his life—a legacy of love—continue to flow through me.

I believe my Dad’s legacy of love will be alive and well in New Wine, New Wineskins’ ministry in the San Francisco Bay Area. Why? Because I believe New Wine, New Wineskins is being invited to the table there as a member of the family and as one whose task it is to make sure everyone else in the Bay Area is invited to come and remain at the table of Jesus’ love by faith. As long as we proceed in prayer and in sacrificial love for those around us—whoever they may be—rich and poor, conservative and liberal, large and small, cool and un-cool, Black and White and Hispanic and Asian and Other (no longer treating them as other but as us), we will be drinking from the Vine who is Jesus and bearing biblical witness to my Dad’s living legacy who with all the saints drinks from Christ’s cup and who eats the same broken bread. O Lord, O Broken Bread, O Vine, as I consume you, break me! Break me and flow through me. Flow through New Wine and replenish these wineskins! There is such a need for brokenness on our part, such a need for prayerful repentance and renewal, such a need to eat the Broken Bread and drink from the Vine. Only as we eat this Broken Bread and drink from this Cup will we make relational space for others to feast, too, in the Bay Area and beyond.

A few overlapping comments shouted out to me during the trip and bear witness to the pressing need for being intentional on making relational space for others at the table. I had shared with a Chinese American pastor in San Jose on Tuesday of that week what the African American pastor couple in San Francisco who had invited me to San Francisco on behalf of New Wine, New Wineskins had shared with me: the white Christian establishment in San Francisco has not invited people to dine at “the table” with them. If anything, they are sometimes invited as guests who can only return when invited again. They are not really seen as part of the family. When I shared this painful statement with the Chinese American pastor, he quickly claimed that “We aren’t invited to the table either. So, we have made our own table.” The next day, Wednesday, the day of my Dad’s passing, a young white emerging church leader led us up on a high hill that overlooked the city and outlying region to give us an aerial perspective. As he pointed to various sectors below us, he spoke of how disconnected and isolated the various Christian communities were in the Bay Area. He also noted in one of our recent conversations that it is not only the African American Christian community that feels vulnerable. In San Francisco, all Christian groups feel vulnerable. After all, it is post-Christendom there and the Christian table appears to be getting smaller and smaller and the number of chairs at the table appears to be dwindling. No doubt, the various Christian groups are trying in conscious and unconscious ways to make sure they have a place at the table. Perhaps, as a result, table fellowship ends up looking there (and in many other places, too) more like the game “Musical Chairs.” Only it is not a game.

The African American pastors who invited New Wine, New Wineskins to come to the table in San Francisco had indicated to me that as we grow in our friendship and partnership, we will share with one another our relational networks. At the table where we celebrate the bounty of the Lord Jesus’ love, we will find that we no longer have to fear scarcity. We no longer have to compete or guard our turf or make sure that we are seizing a sliver of the increasingly smaller religious pie in post-Christendom America. We no longer have to worry about not having a place to sit when the music stops. When we’re at the Lord’s Table, we’re no longer playing at Musical Chairs. There’s seating for one and all.

One event in particular served as a microcosm of hope for what can transpire where there is seating for one and all. I am referring to the final meeting which took place on Thursday afternoon, just hours before I returned to Portland. One leader present later wrote, “The group was small but represented an interesting cross section of the city. Various denominations and church personnel showed quite a variety. The discussion needs to broaden to include many more church leaders. Many of the shakers and movers of the city need to be invited to the table.” Another leader present at that meeting and with whom we interacted the previous day wrote about our efforts: “It is clear that the people involved in the conversation are high caliber people who see what is at stake and who are ambitious for the Kingdom of God. I enjoyed hearing people’s stories and feeling their passion. It is great to see people take time out of their busy schedules to prioritize being together in a listening posture to each other. This is the way of Christ! I believe that doors will be opened that would not have been were it not for the proactive servant-leadership demonstrated by the New Wine, New Wineskins team.”

No doubt, as we celebrate at Jesus’ table, we will be mindful of our need to be good stewards of what God has invested in us. We won’t hide our talents in the ground. Instead, we will make sure that we are investing relationally as we pour out our lives with and for one another as Christ’s body and for the world in the Bay area and beyond. The new wine of the kingdom will flow through New Wine, New Wineskins as we sit at the table to which we have been invited in the Bay area and at which we continue to dine and as we continue to pass the cup and break the bread together and as we make sure that everyone else is invited to the table, and there remain as cherished brothers and sisters, cherished ministry partners and friends. As we live into this reality, I will be offering day in and out a toast to my Dad and a drink offering of sacrificial praise to the Lord.

Slavery was the fundamental reason why the North and South went to war, but according to the TIME article, you wouldn’t know it based on how history and Hollywood have often portrayed the conflict and its origins. No one likes to admit guilt, unless perhaps it is someone else’s. But Lincoln viewed things differently. He believed the entire country was to blame for the war (a point often lost on us Northerners). Lincoln no doubt knew what the TIME article claims: “Slavery was not incidental to America’s origins; it was central” (p. 48).

This TIME article got me thinking further about the matter. I reviewed three of Lincoln’s most famous speeches: his first inaugural address, the Gettysburg address, and his second inaugural. I came across a “This American Life” documentary on the second inaugural. The following statement from the program puts the matter well: “In his second inaugural address, Lincoln wondered aloud why God saw fit to send the slaughter of the Civil War to the United States. His conclusion: that slavery was a kind of original sin for the United States, for both North and South, and all Americans had to do penance for it.” Assuming that this is correct, if the Lincoln of the second inaugural were here today, I wonder if he would claim that those who died in the Civil War to do penance for the nation’s “original sin” died in vain based on the North’s and South’s ongoing denial of the war’s true cause.

So often, we function with pragmatic and collective amnesia for the sake of pursuing progress. Like Teddy Roosevelt who according to the article became the champion of reconciliation and the prophet of progress, we grew up as a nation post-Civil War receiving “a master tutorial in leaving certain things unsaid in the pursuit of harmony” (TIME, p. 48). But there can never really be progress where there is no ownership and repentance of personal and corporate sins. As 1 John 1:9 declares, “If we confess our sins, he (God) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” No confession, no forgiveness, no cleansing, no true progress. This is not simply an individual matter. What some of us take to be true personally for our spiritual condition and relationship with God must be taken to be true corporately as a church and as a nation.

Lincoln did not view slavery as the sin of the South for which the North brought judgment during the war. As stated above, Lincoln saw the war and its carnage as the judgment of God on the North and the South. Lincoln’s words taken from the second inaugural come to us from the grave:

If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether” (link).

The American church is often so rootless. While you and I may not have not committed any act to reinforce the evolving structures that slavery and its post-Civil War legacy generated, are we doing something—anything—to overturn those structures the previous generations put in place and nurtured? If not, we are still reinforcing those evil structures, for failing to act righteously is just as bad as acting in an unrighteous manner. Both forms of sin flow from a hardened heart and both forms of sin harden fallen structures. We must understand that history is with us. It lives into the present. Lincoln saw the connection between the nation’s past and its present trial at the time of the Civil War. The connection was and is organic. As such, we are not talking about fatalism. Fatalism involves a sense of helplessness, being bound to impersonal cause and effect forces beyond our control. Corporate guilt passed down from generation to generation is not a problem we are powerless to challenge. We can bring an end to it by owning it and restructuring our individual and corporate existence, beginning with acknowledging the real cause of the War and repenting of our nation’s ongoing disengagement from our racialized story.

By not seeing that North and South alike were to blame for the Civil War (TIME, p. 51) and by not advocating for racial equality and unity in our day, the people who according to Lincoln died to do penance, from his perspective, may have actually died in vain. The same might be true for Lincoln. If only we could talk to him now.

I believe we listen more to General George McClellan today than we do President Lincoln. McClellan had been Lincoln’s chief general at the outset of the war and later Lincoln defeated McClellan on the way to his short-lived second term in office as President of the United States. McClellan viewed the race question as “incidental and subsidiary” to unity (TIME, p. 42). But what kind of unity is it when there is no reconciliation? McClellan “did not perceive…that the Union and slavery had become irreconcilable” (TIME, p. 46). The same held true during the Civil Rights era, but Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his movement sought to show us that separate but supposedly equal is no real equality and cannot sustain a nation—or a church.

Things still have not changed all that much as a country and as the church in this country (See the consumingjesus.org post by Daniel Fan titled “Is Racism Over Now That a Black Man is President of the United States?”. See also the link to The Oregonian “Opinion” piece by Clifford Chappell titled “Is Racism Gone for Good?” along with the ensuing interview at consumingjesus.org with Rev. Chappell). In all too many quarters, we are still separate and nothing more than supposedly equal. As Black Theologian James Cone said in a 2006 interview, in some ways the situation is actually worse in terms of such things as health care, education, employment, and the prison system. In the interview, Cone exhorts white theologians to speak out forthrightly about the unrighteous situation in which we find ourselves, claiming that the white Christian establishment is complicit. As a white theologian, I believe we should listen to Lincoln and Cone, among others, and speak out and live forthrightly. Otherwise, I fear that not only Lincoln’s death but also Jesus’ death may be robbed of its redemptive, catalytic power in our lives (See 1 Corinthians 1:17 where Paul talks about the possibility of emptying Christ’s cross of its power in his ministry if he were to preach the gospel with words of human wisdom). Sins of omission (righteous acts we have failed to do) are just as evil as sins of commission (evils we have committed). Jesus died for both. May we live to please him in every way, making sure we contend against sins of commission and omission.

What does speaking out and living forthrightly look like—especially in the church? For starters, we need to denounce the McClellan version of the church growth principle that claims that the race question is incidental and subsidiary to Christian unity. What kind of unity are we talking about when we claim that we are separate but equal in our ecclesial experience (separate churches for whites and blacks and others)? The McClellan church growth principle is pragmatic, though not practical if we mean missional. Christendom’s collapse in our country is bound up with the Civil War: Christianity came to be viewed as captive to cultural trends—the North and South had the same red, white and black letter Bible but read and preached it differently on matters black and white. Christian America took a further hit during the Civil Rights era, as many Christian conservatives stood in opposition to King’s biblical mandate. The Evangelical church will take another hit shortly if white Evangelicalism doesn’t make far greater space for unity along ethnic lines in its worship centers across the land, for America is becoming increasingly brown, decreasingly white.

However, our concern is not political correctness, opportunism and penance, but biblical justice and repentance. Again, 1 John 1:9 puts it well: “If we confess our sins, he (God) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (This is not simply an individual, personal matter. The prophets of old identified with their people’s sin and confessed on their behalf; see Daniel 9:1-19). No confession, no forgiveness, no cleansing, no true progress. What kind of unity and progress are we talking about when we are talking about unity and progress based on non-confessed sins of commission and omission? There is no prophetic power and progress in such unity.

Lincoln was seen as a rabble rouser in his day. That’s why he got shot in the head. King was seen as a rabble rouser in his day. That’s why he got shot in the head. Jesus was seen as a rabble rouser in his day. That’s one key reason why he was hung on a cross. Each one died to bring unity and create one people out of the ashes of disparity. While as a Protestant, I do not believe in doing penance, I do believe that we are responsible for our sins of commission and omission. When we don’t own the sins of our past and present disunity whereby we fail to love our brothers and sisters of diverse ethnicity in concrete forms of ecclesial and civic engagement, it is almost as if we are saying with our lives that Lincoln, King, and the Lord Jesus died in vain. Did they?

Monthly gatherings of The John 17:23 Network are open to the public. Join us on Sunday, May 15 from 6:00 – 7:30pm at Central Bible Church (8815 NE Glisan St. in Portland) for a time of teaching and encouragement with a special focus on caring for refugees.

One of the main reasons I believe we find it difficult to move beyond prejudice and objectification toward reconciliation with “the other” is our fear of vulnerability. The fear of losing control and of being vulnerable leads us to conceive of people who look different from us as always “them.” White Christian leaders like me often like to minister from a position of strength. No doubt, those of other complexions do as well. Flesh (as in carnality)—no matter the color of one’s skin—enjoys boasting in oneself. But what usually differentiates us is that many of us white Christian leaders have a long history of ministering from a position of supposed strength, especially when engaging those of diverse ethnicities. We often have no idea of how much power and privilege we have until they are challenged or taken away from us. Ministry undertaken from seeming strength fails to perceive one’s relational need. As a result, we fail to sense our need to lean into God, and so we minister from the flesh. The only ones we can connect with in such settings are those belonging to our homogeneous demographic groupings of whatever kind—those we naturally like and those like us.

In contrast, Jesus brought people together who previously were opposed to one another through his weakness on the cross. As a result of his crucifixion and resurrection and our participation in him, there is no longer any division between male and female, Jew and Gentile, slave and free (Galatians 3:28). Jesus’ greatest hour of power—the hour of glory of cross and resurrection recorded in John’s Gospel—was when he was most dependent, hanging on a cross and depending on the Father to raise him from the dead. Following from this, when Paul was weak in Christ, God’s power was manifest most profoundly through him (2 Corinthians 12:9-10). Paul’s very conversion experience and early Christian life involved incredible dependence on others: Saul was led as a blind man to Ananias who laid his hands on him so that his sight could be restored; and he was given the right hand of fellowship by the Christian community through Barnabas (Acts 9:8, 17-18, 26-28). Saul experienced great suffering in ministry—beginning with dependence on others, especially dependence on the Christian community, whom he had once persecuted. How humbling that must have been for Saul who became Paul!

Without experiencing vulnerability in ministry whereby we sense our need for those who are different from us (those we would often think are in need of our help without a sense of our being in need of theirs), we will never experience the breaking down of divisions between those of diverse ethnic and economic backgrounds. Instead, we will reinforce barriers by ministering out of privilege. In fact, it is not enough to minister to others whereby we use our power for their good. We must sense our need for them and receive from them as well. Only when there is give and take, where people are interdependent, is there intimacy in relations and reconciliation. Paul could never have been the Apostle to the Gentiles had he not become so dependent on Jesus and the church whom he once had persecuted. He was enslaved to Jesus’ vulnerable love that breaks down divisions between people.

White Christian leaders like me often treat African Americans, legal and illegal immigrants from Mexico, Arabs, Jews, Muslims, and the homeless as “them” or as “those people” who need us. When this is our posture and perspective, we violate these people. What is required is that we experience vulnerability, which would involve encountering these people face to face, eye to eye, and heart to heart. While this is a common problem for the majority culture in any given society, it should not be common among God’s shepherds of his people. It is only as we experience vulnerability and spiritual vertigo whereby we find ourselves secure in the Good Shepherd’s embrace that we will be in a position to move beyond the marginalization of others toward mutuality and partnership in ministry.

The young white pastor friend to whom I referred at the outset of this piece shared with me that his spiritual director is an African American woman. I couldn’t believe it when he told me. Not that this is scandalous, but because it would often be viewed as scandalous to many white male leaders, I believe. I was so impressed, and hope that other white male pastors—and white theologians like myself—will avail ourselves of similar opportunities. My young pastor friend informed me that he recently told his spiritual director how isolated and weak he feels in ministry. He was wondering if God was no longer working in and through him. His spiritual director responded by saying something to the effect of “Don’t pull back. You are truly experiencing the fruit of the Spirit in your ministry.” And again, “Now you know how I feel every day as an African American woman.”

Now my young pastor friend is really beginning to connect with his congregation, bearing much fruit. Instead of modeling professional distance, my friend models pastoral intimacy with his ministry team at the church. His ministry team made up of people of diverse ethnicities encourages him to keep pressing on and into Christ’s vulnerable love with them.

I hold out great hope for this young pastor in the inner city of Chicago in terms of breaking down ethnic barriers. Instead of approaching people of other ethnicities from a position of presumed strength, he is approaching them from an authentic form of weakness. He senses his relational need for them, thereby moving beyond charity toward the poor and condescension toward non-whites. He is pressing into community where the Spirit’s charitable fruit breaks down divisions. The poor is no longer them. The poor is me. The poor is each one of us. You are no longer “the other.” I am in you and you are in me.

Click here to listen to the interview.

New Wine Tastings: Theological Essays of Cultural Engagement is a collection of essays providing samplings of a theological engagement of culture that Paul Louis Metzger has been developing over the years in his work as founder and director of The Institute for the Theology of Culture: New Wine, New Wineskins at Multnomah Biblical Seminary of Multnomah University. Metzger espouses an incarnational over against a predominantly worldview-oriented or market-driven theological approach to engaging culture, and situates his work in Trinitarian communal and co-missional thought forms. This volume of biblically and theologically framed and compassion-driven essays addresses such themes as postmodernity, structural evil, cultural genocide, sexuality, HIV/AIDS, the prison system, the global slave trade, and the arts. It will be welcomed by those analyzing and developing theological-cultural paradigms and engaging key issues in the contemporary setting.

Click here to purchase a copy of New Wine Tastings: Theological Essays of Cultural Engagement for $13.60.

The Gospel of John: When Love Comes to Town is the debut volume for the Resonate series, for which Dr. Metzger serves as executive editor and for which Advisory Council member, David Sanford, serves as managing editor.

The Resonate series recovers the ancient wisdom of Scripture and helps us understand how it resonates with our complex world. The stories and insights of each book of the Bible are brought into conversation with contemporary voices of hope and lament – the cultural messages we interact with on a daily basis. The Scriptures become a meeting ground where God speaks to the pressing concerns of our day, and we are confronted in turn with a fresh experience of God’s truth. In this journey through the Gospel of John, Paul Louis Metzger wrestles with the question of what happens when God, who is love, comes to town and takes up residence among us. For some this new neighbor love is welcome; for others, unusual; for still others, suspect – even dangerous. We learn from John’s Gospel what it means to be called friends and lovers of God, what it means to put love to death and what it means for love to rise again in our midst and in our lives.

The Gospel of John: When Love Comes to Town is available on Amazon for $12.24. Click here for more information on purchasing the book.

To read an excerpt from The Gospel of John: When Love Comes to Town or if you’d like to find out more about the Resonate series, click here to download the series sampler.

This brand-new book by Dr. Paul Louis Metzger is a collection of essays providing samplings of a theological engagement of culture that he has been developing over the years in his work as founder and director of The Institute for the Theology of Culture: New Wine, New Wineskins at Multnomah Biblical Seminary of Multnomah University. Metzger espouses an incarnational over against a predominantly worldview-oriented or market-driven theological approach to engaging culture, and situates his work in Trinitarian communal and co-missional thought forms. This volume of biblically and theologically framed and compassion-driven essays addresses such themes as postmodernity, structural evil, cultural genocide, sexuality, HIV/AIDS, the prison system, the global slave trade, and the arts. It will be welcomed by those analyzing and developing theological-cultural paradigms and engaging key issues in the contemporary setting.

Click here to purchase a copy of New Wine Tastings: Theological Essays of Cultural Engagement for $13.60.

Dr. Paul Louis Metzger has a brand-new book out! The Gospel of John: When Love Comes to Town is the debut volume for the Resonate series, for which Dr. Metzger serves as executive editor and for which Advisory Council member, David Sanford, serves as managing editor.

The Resonate series recovers the ancient wisdom of Scripture and helps us understand how it resonates with our complex world. The stories and insights of each book of the Bible are brought into conversation with contemporary voices of hope and lament – the cultural messages we interact with on a daily basis. The Scriptures become a meeting ground where God speaks to the pressing concerns of our day, and we are confronted in turn with a fresh experience of God’s truth. In this journey through the Gospel of John, Paul Louis Metzger wrestles with the question of what happens when God, who is love, comes to town and takes up residence among us. For some this new neighbor love is welcome; for others, unusual; for still others, suspect – even dangerous. We learn from John’s Gospel what it means to be called friends and lovers of God, what it means to put love to death and what it means for love to rise again in our midst and in our lives.

The Gospel of John: When Love Comes to Town is available on Amazon for $12.24. Click here for more information on purchasing the book.

To read an excerpt from The Gospel of John: When Love Comes to Town or if you’d like to find out more about the Resonate series, click here to download the series sampler.

I want to affirm the sanctity of human life, and so I appreciate Tim Tebow’s concerns and his desire to do something with his faith. Not having seen the commercial, I cannot speak directly to it. However, while I affirm Tim Tebow’s zeal to speak out on this issue, and while finding the personal story of his birth significant, I do wonder about the approach. In other words, affirming the sanctity of human life is a great message, but is the Super Bowl a good venue? Will the commercial help move the discussion of the sanctity of human life forward, or will it simply serve to raise the volume on the culture war rhetoric from various sectors?

We should also ask about what is to be made of the use of celebrities in this discussion? Is this how we make our views as conservative Christians credible, as we seek to exist and thrive in a secular world that does not affirm our values? Are we saying that Jesus needs celebrities? The Apostle Paul talks of how God often uses the weak and foolish things to present the power and wisdom of the Gospel. We are attracted to high profile impact, but is it also long-term and deep-seated impact? Christian Scripture promotes saints, not celebrities. While there are many wonderful collegiate and professional Christian athletes, they must make sure that they serve as witnesses to Jesus, pointing beyond themselves to him (like John the Baptist, who said that Jesus must become greater and he himself must become less) rather than drawing people to themselves.

Evangelical Christianity is close to popular culture, and often makes use of popular culture (such as sports) to share about the faith. While Christian Scripture does talk of sports and athletics, and while sports is very prominent in American culture and so provides a very visible forum for engagement, we still need to ask about the effectiveness of using professional sports for conveying our faith. For example, what are we to make of all the violence and materialism associated with professional sports? Sports as a vehicle of communication is not neutral, and it is not always pure. At the very least, I would hope that professional (and collegiate) Christian athletes would address these subjects, too. It would also be wise for them to acknowledge Jesus when their teams lose. Otherwise, are we saying that Jesus is only with the winners, and not the losers? Wouldn’t that be a form of prosperity gospel thinking?

As an evangelical Christian, I affirm sharing the good news of Jesus Christ publically. Yet public witness must be done thoughtfully and sensitively. We want to engage people from other sectors, not disengage them in our public witness. As part of our public witness, it is wise that we enter into discussion with other groups, since it is not simply what we say but also what we communicate that matters. Other groups can help us to perceive what we are actually communicating. Sound-bite, bumper sticker Christianity and Decal Jesus can appear shallow and simplistic—quickly uttered and quickly stripped away (being only decal deep), failing to communicate the richness, depth, and wisdom of the Christian faith.

Lastly, we’ve seen the conservative Christian movement make use of Christian celebrities previously. It does not always turn out so well. Will the conservative Christian public be there to pick Tim Tebow up if and when he falters and falls (and hopefully he won’t), or will we leave our celebrity in the dirt to be soiled by the late night talk show hosts of this world?

You can learn a lot about the relation of American religion and sports from journalist Tom Krattenmaker. You can also learn a lot about Tom Krattenmaker from his personal story with American religion and sports.

So, who is Tom Krattenmaker? Tom serves as a member of USA TODAY’s editorial Board of Contributors and writes regularly for the paper’s “On Religion” commentary page. In addition to authoring the controversial book on American Evangelicalism and sports, Onward Christian Athletes: Turning Ballparks into Pulpits and Players into Preachers (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2010), his article, “The Evangelicals You Don’t Know” (USA Today, Opinion, June 2, 2008), received critical acclaim as one of the top three pieces of religion commentary in the American Academy of Religion’s 2009 Journalism Awards program.

Dr. Metzger asked Tom for an interview to discuss his journey into the realm of American religion and sports as well as his own faith journey. What makes Tom especially interesting is that he is a reporter who positions himself as a member of the religious and cultural left (attending a Unitarian Universalist Church and serving as Vice-President for Public Affairs and Communications at Lewis and Clark College), who engages American Evangelicalism fairly, openly, and insightfully. Here’s what Evangelical leader Kevin Palau, Executive Vice President of the Luis Palau Association, has to say about Tom and his work. “Tom Krattenmaker—in my opinion—is one of the most informed and relevant writers on the Evangelical movement today. His critique is fair and his knowledge is impressive.” No doubt, some of his insights and expertise in this area derive from Tom experiencing numerous courtships with Evangelicalism over the years, including flings with Young Life and Campus Crusade for Christ. None of these flings with Evangelical Christianity stuck, but his fascination with the movement has not diminished.

Check out this audio clip from the interview. Stay tuned for the whole interview, appearing in Cultural Encounters Volume 6, Number 1.