Author: Paul Louis Metzger

The multi-ethnic church race is not a sprint, but a marathon race for life. What will energize us in the midst of the challenges and obstacles that would drain us, exhaust us and lead us to call it quits rather than overcome? Solidarity in community is key. But what kind of community? A community sustained by the reality that the God revealed in Christ by the power of the Spirit has already run and won the race to make one people out of many nations, tribes, peoples, and languages.

Ephesians 2 speaks to the reality of what Christ has already accomplished. He has already broken down the dividing wall of hostility between Jews and Gentiles and has made them one (Ephesians 2:11-22). By extension, Jesus has broken down the dividing walls that exist between various people groups and sub-cultures in our day. We live now in light of what our Lord Jesus has done, is doing and will do in making his people one. Not only do we look back, but also we look forward to that future reality disclosed in Revelation 7:9-17. Here we find that God’s community of people from a plethora of diverse backgrounds is one, centered round the throne in worship.

This is no pie in the sky wishful thinking that leads us toward escapism, but an eschatological vision firmly rooted in the history of God’s reconciling act of just love in Christ. With this constructive vision, we can overcome the negative forces that would cause us to abandon justice for hate, justice for status quo peace, and love for revenge-based justice.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr’s vision for a post-racialized, unified America sustained him in the face of the extreme hatred of Bull Connor that was demonically oppressive, the moderate though perhaps more diabolical resistance of white clergy who favored peace apart from justice, and militancy that wanted justice apart from love. Dr. King had a dream that sustained him, a dream that was rooted deeply in the American dream of unity. King’s dream was also shaped by the African American church’s biblical, prophetic vision of a just future in view of God’s reconciling power of love in Christ. Do we have such a dream? We need to live now in light of what Christ has completed and bring the future into the present through concrete practices of reconciliation that are loving, equitable, and just.

We need to realize that the God revealed in Christ has big shoulders, big lungs and strong legs to help us win each leg of the journey. Our firm hope in the revelation of God in Christ should energize us to run well the multi-ethnic church marathon race. This all-consuming vision of what God has done, is doing, and will do will keep us centered, secure and sustained in the face of the consumer-driven culture that would divide us over petty preferences. We shall overcome, for Jesus has already won the race.

I will be addressing these themes as I speak at Mosaix 2013 Multi-Ethnic Church Conference, November 5 – 6 in Long Beach, CA.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.

I remember hearing a lecture from a mainline Protestant liberal scholar who said that his seminary students were hard pressed to engage people of other religions well. It wasn’t because they weren’t deeply interested in other faiths (as is the case with many conservative Christians), but because they didn’t know enough about their own faith tradition, including Christology. While conservative Christians need to be inquisitive rather than inquisitional (further to what was stated in the last post on this subject), this mainline Protestant liberal seminary professor maintained that liberal Christians need to be better informed about their faith tradition.

If I wish to take someone else’s tradition seriously, I had better take my own tradition seriously, too. How can I understand the religious other in all her or his distinctiveness if I don’t understand well and take seriously my own particular tradition?

At the Buddhist temple yesterday morning, my world religions class got into this conversation with the Buddhist priest. The priest in question, Abbot Kyogen Carlson, added that regardless of our faith tradition we should all think ours is the best. If we don’t, he feels sorry for us. Those who are lukewarm about their own traditions usually end up simply sampling various trailheads without doing serious exploration of a given trail wherever it might lead. Instead of simply taking a few steps forward at various trailheads, we need to commit ourselves to explore fully one of the religious paths. Of course, it is not enough to say that our trail is best, but to express why it is best from our vantage point. Those who explore paths all the way to their end will experience challenges, struggles, risks, and dangers. They alone can really claim how costly the journeys are. They alone can claim that making the journeys were worth the cost. They alone have stories worth the telling, marked by battle scars and long-lost treasures now discovered.

Abbot Carlson and I agreed that this emphasis on considering our respective traditions best and providing the rationale for our claims is counter-intuitive to many Portlanders, who think that in the spirit of equality we should sample all paths rather than immerse ourselves in journeying up and down one trail all the way to the end. As a result, no trail will be fully explored and taken seriously. It is good for them that Lewis and Clark did not follow their approach in exploring trails. If they had only sampled trailheads and never risked the arduous, costly journey, those of us who call precious Portland and the great Pacific Northwest home would likely have never gotten here.

Those of us who are Christians need to love and consider our tradition best and be well-informed holistically and experientially about why this is so if we are to engage other traditions well. Moreover, being inquisitive of other paths by interacting seriously with serious adherents of those traditions may help us see and appreciate our tradition better, as was stated in the previous post on this subject: “Inquisitiveness rather than an inquisitional posture is key. One can be inquisitive in a way that does not leave one’s own faith behind, and which is informed by one’s faith. In fact, the answers people of other faith traditions provide can shed light on parallels and also distinctive and unique features of the respective faith traditions that further inform one’s own faith.”

Whether we are Christians or representatives of other faith traditions, we need to understand that taking seriously adherents of other traditions does not necessarily entail discounting one’s own tradition, especially if we consider our particular tradition best. Further to what was stated above, the religious other sheds light on one’s tradition’s uniqueness.

Just as taking seriously the adherents of other faiths’ views can enhance appreciation of one’s own tradition, so too, taking most seriously one’s tradition can entail taking the religious other seriously. How can we take seriously and appreciate other religions’ adherents’ convictions based on costly experience that their respective paths are best if we don’t consider our own paths worthy of being taken so seriously that we are willing to pay any price to reach our own trails’ end? Furthermore, if we practice the great commandments of loving “God” (however our various faith traditions define God) with all our hearts and our neighbors as ourselves, we should take one another seriously enough to enter into serious, honest and open conversations that will really cost us time, energy, and relational vulnerability. We need to share with one another the good news from our distinctive vantage points, showing why we all believe our respective faiths’ great commissions are really great and alone worthy of our ultimate allegiance. This requires understanding and experiencing the cost of pursuing our paths and finding our respective paths worth the cost no matter where they lead. Why would you and I take the time and find worthwhile what one another believes and practices if we don’t believe our distinctive paths are worth the risk of being explored, experienced and expressed to the full as the very best?

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.

I am struck by Paul’s appeal to the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 1: they are all to agree with one another; there are to be no divisions among them, and they are to be perfectly united in mind and thought (1 Corinthians 1:10-11). Why is Paul making this appeal?

It has come to Paul’s attention that there is quarreling among the Corinthians based on growing factions. Some wear Paul’s brand, others Apollos’ brand, others Cephas’ brand, and still others Christ’s supposed brand (1 Corinthians 1:11-12). The Corinthian church has lost sight of Christ’s supremacy and the call to swear ultimate allegiance to him. Everyone is subject to him.

“Why is Christ supreme?”, someone might ask. Paul’s answer: Christ is not divided. Christ was crucified for them, not Paul. They were baptized into Christ’s name, not Paul’s (1 Corinthians 1:13). Christ’s blood is thicker than their factions resulting from Christian celebrity brands.

We divide Christ when we make him one of many competing Christian brands. We dishonor him when we place our boast in anything or anyone but him. After all, Christ’s blood is thicker than brand.

Have Christian celebrities (Paul, Apollos, Cephas, or someone else) suffered the humiliation of crucifixion, bled and died to take away our sins? Have we entered the church through baptism in their name? Of course not. But then, why do we do it—boast in others rather than Christ, and so divide and dishonor him?

Ultimately, it is bound up with the foolishness of not finding Christ most attractive. It is bound up with not seeing how fickle and fleeting brands are: here today and gone tomorrow or sometime down the road. In contrast, Christ and his shed blood’s imprint last forever—they’re thick, not thin.

Still, competition for religious market shares weighs heavily on us today. We feel the pressure of finding our worth and significance in relation to how many fans we have and how many seats are filled. All of us struggle in this regard. Will we ever be immune to such fantasies that bewitch us in view of the serpent’s cunning? (2Corinthians 11:1-4) How will we ever be truly concerned for the common good within the church and outside the church if what drives us is not our uncommon God revealed in Jesus and the affection that flows from him?

How can we work to build unity in view of Paul’s exhortation and example?

First, compare the incomparable Christ favorably to oneself, as Paul does. He does not go after Peter or Apollos and leave himself out of the picture. Rather, Paul tells everyone, including the Paul faction, that his brand is not worth anything in comparison with Christ and his shed blood. Christ alone is worthy of our ultimate affection and allegiance: Who else is so true? Who else loves so purely? In view of Paul, we should compare Christ favorably to ourselves. After all, we pale in comparison. Moreover, we should not demean other leaders to promote Christ and oneself. Please note that Paul does challenge the super apostle celebrities in his day (2 Corinthians 11:5); however, Paul was not trying to elevate himself, but to win the Corinthians hearts back to him as their spiritual father so as to nurture them to adulthood in Christ (2 Corinthians 11:1-15). The super apostles, not to be confused with Cephas or Apollos, had no inclination in this regard. They were not concerned for Christ, but for themselves. Paul wanted the Corinthians to follow his example as a faithful witness to Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1), not to follow him and become his fan. How did Paul try to win the Corinthian church back to Christ? By reminding them of his own resume in service to Christ and them. Please note that the resume he shares is not one filled with celebrity accolades, but with his sufferings for Christ and for them (2 Corinthians 11:16-33). Paul’s posture was one of suffering on behalf of Christ and the Corinthian Christians, not one of lording it over them, as was the case with the super apostles (2 Corinthians 11:20-21). Paul shared his sufferings and weaknesses with them so as to soften and break their hard hearts and win them back to Christ. Paul’s aim was to magnify Christ’s power and wisdom through his own weakness and foolishness demonstrated out of his love for Christ and them (2 Corinthians 11-12).

Second, connect everyone in the church to Christ. After all, Christ is not divided (1 Corinthians 1:13). All who are Christians have Christ in common. As much as is biblically possible, find points of harmony and agreement. Focus on what we share in common in Christ as revealed in the Bible, while not discounting important differences. While this is often easier said than done, we must make Christ the main thing and bring his supremacy to bear on everything that divides us. Everything else pales in comparison. Keep in mind that 1 Corinthians 15’s presentation of Jesus’ person and work is central to Paul’s understanding of the gospel, and should be ours as well. See also 2 Corinthians 11:4 about the preaching of other Christs and other spirits and other gospels than the Jesus, Spirit and gospel proclaimed by Paul and the apostolic community, including Cephas and Apollos.

Third, cling to the content of Christ, not cleverness. Paul did not cling to wisdom and eloquence, though he was a profoundly wise man and a master of rhetoric, as displayed in his arguments against fleshly thought forms and trickery set forth in 1 and 2Corinthians. Christian fan clubs are built around personalities, not the person and work of Christ and his call to carry our crosses and follow him. I surely hope I am not Christ’s fan, but rather his servant follower. It is one thing to follow someone on Twitter or Facebook, quite another to follow Christ. Arguments empty of Christ’s cross (1 Corinthians 1:17) are empty of his power and wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:17-31). How empty are we, no matter how full of ourselves we might be? Let’s move beyond boasting in brands to boasting in Christ and his blood:  Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord”(1 Corinthians 1:31).

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.

President Obama has indicated that the credibility of America’s Congress and the international community is on the line concerning how to respond to the reports of Syria’s use of chemical weapons on its citizens. While that may be true, I wonder if our credibility would increase if the United States and other countries with chemical weapons would dispose of them fully.

As President Obama highlighted, the international community has deemed “abhorrent” the use of chemical weapons. What about our own possession of chemical weapons? While America has disposed of 90% of its own chemical weapons, 10% still remains (See the reference to this percentage in a recent Guardian article). Going further, what about our stockpile of nuclear weapons? For all our concerns over other countries having or attaining nuclear weapons, the U.S. is the only country to have used nuclear warheads in battle.

Have you seen the movie, John Q, starring Denzel Washington and Robert Duvall? The movie is about a man (Denzel Washington) who is down on his luck, whose little boy needs a heart transplant, and his insurance company won’t cover the operation. In his desperate situation, he takes desperate action and takes hostage a hospital emergency room until the doctors perform the operation.

While some may find the story far-fetched, John Q does raise far-reaching questions bearing on health care reform. Questions that arise include: How accessible was the necessary healthcare to the boy and his family? How affordable was the healthcare to the boy and his family and to the American taxpayers at large, who may have ended up having to pay the bill since the boy’s family’s insurance company wouldn’t cover the cost of the operation? And how did the situation bear upon public health in our country (if the boy had died, how would his loss have impacted not only his family but the public at large)?

Do you think we could all agree that we all want more accessible healthcare, more affordable healthcare, and better public health? Are we individually and collectively entitled to these three values? Could we ever realize these values as a society? Do we have examples elsewhere in the world where all three are attained?

One of the public health concerns I have today is that we need to cultivate an open, healthy conversation as the American public on healthcare reform, not try to shoot down one another’s positions, but seek to find a way to work together to attain all three values: more accessible healthcare, more affordable healthcare, and better public health. On October 19, The Institute for the Theology of Culture: New Wine, New Wineskins will host a conference on healthcare to do exactly that. We invite you to join us for open conversation, learning about the healthcare needs of our community and efforts to address them. Register for the conference before October 1 to take advantage of early bird rates (just $20 for general public and only $5 for students!). Hope to see you there!

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.