# Randall J. Greene > Randall J. Greene writes about Christianity, deconstruction, and what makes us human. Based in Kansas City, MO. Public Ghost content for AI and LLM tooling. This file includes a bounded export of public pages first, then recent public posts. Append `.md` to any post or page URL to get the content in Markdown (for example, `/example-post.md`). ## Pages ### About Me URL: https://randalljgreene.com/about-me/ Last updated: 2025-12-21T00:15:04.000Z I’m a writer, a creative, a website designer, and a digital marketing strategist. My life and work are at the intersections of Christianity, antiviolence, feminism, antiracism, and compassion. When I see the beauty of the people around me, it fills me with hope and optimism that we truly can be the people God created us to be. ## My Professions Through both my personal and my professional worlds, I try to embody my convictions about the power of God's liberation to heal our broken and breaking world. This is the profession I bring into my work, my projects, and my passions. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/3f/93/3f9386a1-5b0a-4eb5-81c7-6336ca29e5b6/content/images/2024/10/the-tunnel-2.webp) ## Writer & Theologian Sharing stories, poetry, and personal reflections through the lens of my lifelong passion and training in Christian theology. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/3f/93/3f9386a1-5b0a-4eb5-81c7-6336ca29e5b6/content/images/2024/10/its-my-right-part-1-1.jpg) ## Digital Marketer Building connected digital marketing systems across web, social, email, podcasts, mobile apps, and more. [Check Out RG Creative](https://discoverrg.com/?ref=randalljgreene.com) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/3f/93/3f9386a1-5b0a-4eb5-81c7-6336ca29e5b6/content/images/2024/10/drop-paint-2410-1.jpg) ## Designer & Developer Creating meaningful brand identities and websites for churches and other missional organizations. ## My Family I don't deserve the incredible family I have, but I'm grateful for them every day. My wife, Shannon, is a pastor in the United Methodist Church, a two-time seminarian, and just an absolutely amazing person. A gifted writer, teacher, and speaker, she has a heart for discipleship and for empowering people to know the love and grace of God. We have a dog named Jackie (it's possible he's not a dog, but a gremlin), who is an agent of chaos in our lives, but we wouldn’t have it any other way. We grew up in St. Louis, but are proud residents of Kansas City now. During baseball season, though, we root for the Cardinals over the Royals every time. ### Before Beside Becoming URL: https://randalljgreene.com/before-beside-becoming/ Last updated: 2026-04-27T01:32:59.000Z I wrote these pieces during the tumultuous years of isolation after COVID-19\. As I watched the insidious rise of Christian nationalism within the churches that raised me, I questioned what had changed: my convictions, or those of my faith family? And no matter how I answered that question, how could I reconcile the things that mattered so deeply to me with people I loved who saw the world very, very differently? Though I offer no answers in this collection—because I have no solutions to give—I was reminded along the way that the people we walk with matter in the fullness of their humanity, whether they are people we walked with before, people we walk beside for a while today, or people who are becoming with us tomorrow. [Get the Book](https://shop.ingramspark.com/b/084?params=XXblf3pnAuVdV1zdRlei0wG9lvAa0WBO8FYXns8Vrp&ref=randalljgreene.com) Most of the poems in the collection are already published here on my website—I'm a fierce advocate for art to be accessible to all—but the printed version is unique in a few ways: 1. It's organized around the story of my growth into maturity, beginning with concepts of naive independence, discovering the joys of community, and then relying on that community to navigate grief and loss. It concludes by considering the stories we tell and how they shape the legacy we leave behind. 2. Every piece of this book is my personal artwork, from the words to the photography. Even the page layouts and the cover design are mine. (So if you find mistakes, they're 100% my fault!) 3. It financially supports me as an artist. I'm thrilled with how the book turned out, and I think you will be, too. Take a look at a few photos: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/3f/93/3f9386a1-5b0a-4eb5-81c7-6336ca29e5b6/content/images/2026/04/BookPromo_coverflat.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/3f/93/3f9386a1-5b0a-4eb5-81c7-6336ca29e5b6/content/images/2026/04/BookPromo_creationstory.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/3f/93/3f9386a1-5b0a-4eb5-81c7-6336ca29e5b6/content/images/2026/04/BookPromo_covershelf-2.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/3f/93/3f9386a1-5b0a-4eb5-81c7-6336ca29e5b6/content/images/2026/04/BookPromo_coverangle-1.jpg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/3f/93/3f9386a1-5b0a-4eb5-81c7-6336ca29e5b6/content/images/2026/04/BookPromo_thejourney-1.jpg) I hope you read it. I hope you love it as much as I do. And I hope you break its spine, bend its pages, and soak it with your ink and tears. As you read, I'd love to hear what you think. [Get "Before Beside Becoming"](https://shop.ingramspark.com/b/084?params=XXblf3pnAuVdV1zdRlei0wG9lvAa0WBO8FYXns8Vrp&ref=randalljgreene.com) ## Posts ### The Start Is Me and the End Is Us URL: https://randalljgreene.com/the-start-is-me-and-the-end-is-us/ Last updated: 2026-08-26T14:26:05.000Z Sometimes I yearn for yesterday. Even though I know yesterday wasn't good, it was easy—at least for me. Back when there was so little I knew of what it meant to speak the truth and what it meant to love people like you. Back then I believed I knew all the answers and spun what I believed to be hope like it was a cancer. That hope was a mask covering my insecurity. But it was easy. So simple to say if you weren't like me, you were wrong; it made me feel strong because I feared— or maybe I knew, but couldn't confess to myself or to anyone else— that I was a child, energetic but immature, trying to force my way upon this world. The Way of Life, though, is not what I knew yesterday, for force is the forge where violence hardens. Life is freedom; life is peace; life is love which cannot coerce, cannot silence, cannot harm. The Way of Life is not easy for me, though it is right; it is listening more than I speak, kindness over might, weeding my garden before self-righteousness takes root. The truth of yesterday is a better me today. ## About This Poem Walking together means listening more than speaking, confessing the truth of my own insecurity, and refusing to force my way upon the world. ### How True a Poem Flies URL: https://randalljgreene.com/how-true-a-poem-flies/ Last updated: 2026-08-05T14:02:39.000Z They told me my poems needed meter, A cadence for every syllable To keep it in line In line In line; Says who? I said. Poetry isn't like song, Where one person defines it's rhythm And how it should go From now until the end of time; Poetry is alive and flowing, New with every reader, In their voice, in their time, In the cadence of their own tongue, And its beauty is in How high and how far and how true it flies. ## About This Piece My love of poetic imagery began in sixth grade, but I didn't embrace it for myself until much later, when I began breaking its rules. For my English teacher that year, Mr. Saavedra, the poetic form was the pinnacle of artistic expression, and I credit him with igniting my interest it. He taught me all the components of a poem: the types of meter, the structures of stanzas, the differences between allusion and alliteration and assonance. We studied poems, from William Shakespeare to Samuel Taylor Coleridge to Walt Whitman. While I'm sure we studied free verse, it was the rules and regulations of poetry that stuck with me at the time. A poem, to my mind, had to follow certain structures, rigid and unyielding. My early enthusiasm for the form faded as I explored what I thought to be broader forms for building unrestrained imagery, character transformations, and complex metaphors. Then a few years ago I began reading poetry again, this time for myself, and found a world where the "rules" centered less on rhyme and rhythm and more on intense reflection, on drawing out layers of emotion, and on describing the complexities of the world as it is and as it should be. The components of meter and structure were not boundaries, but tools that could be leveraged precisely when and where they were helpful. That was probably what Mr. Saavedra had been trying to teach me, but my still-developing, rules-oriented brain wasn't ready for it yet. Now, though, I'm grateful for both those lessons in the form and function of poetry and the freedom of exploration and experimentation I've found. Because once I put a poem out into the world, once I let it out of the cocoon of my mind, it has a life of its own. It flies, it soars, it falls sometimes, but it always transforms, new upon each reader's reading. This is why I so love to hear from you, as you encounter my work – the things you see in them, the things they mean to you, give me insight into an entirely different life I never knew they had. This is beauty; this is poetry. ### Cycle of the Broken URL: https://randalljgreene.com/cycle-of-the-broken/ Last updated: 2026-07-14T12:05:28.000Z How often the broken break! Am I breaking or am I broken? When the world is vapor, when life is a mist, when we chase after human saviors and our hope hangs in the darkness. Whose fingers dip in ash, whose feet still persevere, whose life is scarred by lashes but whose eyes refuse to tear. How often the broken break! Am I breaking or am I broken? Where rain and thunder roll, where the river pulls, where happiness is bought and sold but where peace in freedom is found in full. What makes a life worthwhile, what keeps a person whole, what lifts from the dark to stay a while and live a spiraled path to a life well-told. How often the broken break! Am I breaking or am I broken? ### Critique as Patriotism URL: https://randalljgreene.com/critique-as-patriotism/ Last updated: 2026-07-03T21:50:32.000Z Grandpa Parker was one of my core role models growing up. During middle school, I would spend a couple of weeks each summer working with him to fix up his rental home properties: painting, cleaning, patching drywall, and mowing grass to prepare these homes for their next inhabitants. He taught me what it meant to work hard to help our neighbors—even though we were working on properties he owned and rented out, he always seemed to "inadvertently" take on tenants who couldn't find housing elsewhere, either due to low or irregular income, prior incarcerations, or other restrictions. He was lenient—too lenient, if you asked the business-minded folks in his life—on payment terms and missed payments. For him, I believe, these houses were a ministry to his community, a beacon of hope guiding an impoverished area of Topeka, KS, to the light of Jesus Christ. For decades, my grandpa was the pastor of a small, mission-oriented church across the street from the house where he lived with my grandma—the same house where my mom and her brothers had been raised, and the same house where my grandma ran a daycare where single mothers and under-resourced families could get childcare while they worked, ensuring those kids were fed, nurtured, and loved throughout the day. In this community, my grandparents were anchors, and their house was the hub of the community, an extension of the church, open to the needs of their neighbors at all hours. I loved my grandparents. They were remarkable people and incredible examples of what it means to take the teachings of Jesus seriously as they gave of themselves for the benefit of the people around them. And yet. My grandparents were imperfect. Their home had few boundaries when it came to the needs of their neighbors, which took an emotional toll on their entire family (as my grandma describes in her memoir). They held theological convictions that resulted in damaging perspectives on women, gay and queer folks, and other marginalized groups in society. At times they didn't live up to their own ideals. My point is not to disparage my grandparents at all. My point is that they were human with room for growth, as are all of us. They did the best they could with what they had, and the fact that they still fell short of the target does not diminish the good they brought into the world. On the contrary, it reminds us of their humanity and, as we consider my grandma and grandpa's histories, it illustrates just how remarkable they actually were. If I could talk to them now, I guarantee you they would tell me just how flawed they were. If I told them I wanted to be like them as I aged, they would laugh and tell me they hoped I would learn from their lives and be *better*. And that is the crux of what I'm hoping to say in this reflection: **We can't build something remarkable unless we're able to honestly confess and confront the areas that need improvement.** This applies to our nation in the same way that it applies to our personal character. ## Making America "Great" Again The United States of America has been remarkable in the history of the world. This is true, despite its many shortcomings. And I think all of us aspire to continue building our nation into something great, don't we? I know I do, and I expect if you're reading this, you do, too. We have somewhat different visions for what "great" means, of course, which is to be expected. My concern today is not to tackle those competing visions, although for those of us that profess to follow Jesus, that vision ought to be centered on [the expansive beauty of the light of Christ](https://randalljgreene.com/a-nation-after-christ/). That discussion is important, and while I don't expect us to come to complete agreement, we ought to be able to have meaningful discussions about it. But I think there's a more fundamental issue at stake for us today, because we have an administration hell-bent on erasing the mistakes of our nation's past, threatening to erase our ability to critique our nation's failures in order to build a better future ([here's the Executive Order](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/restoring-truth-and-sanity-to-american-history/?ref=randalljgreene.com), and [here's the counter-point](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/censored-erasing-250-years-of-american-history-on-public-lands/?ref=randalljgreene.com)). We can't build something remarkable unless we're able to honestly confess and confront the areas that need improvement. In recent years, I think we Americans have lost this sense of honesty and critical self-evaluation that lie at the foundation of patriotism. True patriotism *requires* confronting those areas of failure and working toward a better nation. A patriot cannot uncritically celebrate their country, as if it's never made a mistake. Nations are made up of (and run by) humans, and therefore are imperfect. Though we strive for perfection, we know we have not achieved it. Anyone who says otherwise is a nationalist, not a patriot. The Christian theologian Roger Oleson offers a helpful distinction between patriotism and nationalism: > Patriotism is honest about the country’s failures and urges leaders to push on toward better achievements of its founding ideals. Nationalism rejects all criticism of country as almost (if not exactly) treason. (from ["Patriotism vs. Nationalism"](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2023/07/patriotism-vs-nationalism/?ref=randalljgreene.com), Roger Oleson, 2023) If we want our nation to be a beacon of hope in the world, an image of what Grandpa Parker was trying to build in his neighborhood in Topeka, we have to be honest about our history. We have to acknowledge it, study, learn from it, and work to build something better. Erasing our past doesn't empower us, it creates an illusion of "greatness" to use as a foundation for tomorrow—an ephemeral foundation that will collapse, taking all of us with it. This Fourth of July, as we celebrate 250 years since the founding of our nation, let's be patriots. Let's remember our history, both its bright spots and its dark spots. Let's build a United States of America that makes us proud. ### A World that Never Existed URL: https://randalljgreene.com/a-world-that-never-existed/ Last updated: 2026-04-12T12:35:24.000Z History used to mean something, rooted, grounded in facts and stories, even when cultures twisted them. Love had teeth and art had meaning then— or maybe that's just nostalgia for a time that hasn't been, a time described to us, taught to us, planted in us in hopes that it would root and grow in us and thereby become reality, no longer a false history but an honest future. Days before and days past are but a single wheel, true, but time cares nothing for such nostalgic nonsense; no, the wheel spins even when we weave a history that never existed, paint it with spirits and colors that never existed, convince ourselves of the wonder of a world that never existed, because when we cannot remember our mistakes, when we cannot speak to our children of our failures and the reparations our failures demand, we abandon our children and their children to spin untethered, ungrounded, and our past—the one of facts and teeth, the one we ignored— stands over our tombs, haunting our deaths with its life, taunting, for we gave it life again. ### The Shape of Our Faces URL: https://randalljgreene.com/the-shape-of-our-faces/ Last updated: 2026-02-18T13:08:57.000Z draw my finger through the dust —until I see the shape of our faces, —a man, a woman, a child, a person; in dust, we are all the same, —creatures of earth and water, —growth and decay. well, can dust feel this way? —this sadness, this fear, —this isolation, despair? can dust hold a hand in the darkness —and squeeze reassurance —that another dust-person is here —where hope draws near? can it catch every tear? —before they fall to the ground, —form a pool of thick mud— —or is it blood all around —that makes this mourning-filled sound? we are dust, we are, —yet we are not dust alone; for as we carry one another —we create for ourselves a home —where we are ——seen, if not safe; ——whole, if not warm; ——friends, if not free; draw my finger through the dust —until I see the shape of our faces, —a man, a woman, a child, a person; in dust, we are all the same, —beauty, together, —by myriad name. ### The Journey URL: https://randalljgreene.com/the-journey/ Last updated: 2026-01-23T12:33:34.000Z My life isn’t a grand orchestrated adventure with a fixed end where my role is to follow a line marked for me It’s a step at a time in the darkness with a pinprick light to see and my role is to listen and feel along the way to those before beside and becoming ## About This Poem I was shocked to discover a few days ago that this poem wasn't posted on my website. It's one of my favorites that I've ever written, and a couple of lines from it have inspired other lines in other poems... but apparently I've only ever posted it on social media as an "in progress" poem. I love the brevity and clarity of this poem, but I love even more how the lost meter and lack of punctuation makes it feel disorienting, a reinforcement for the theme of wandering one step at a time. The second stanza concludes by pointing out that we are not alone – we exist alongside a community of wanderers, all taking a step at a time, and the best we can do is journey together. ### The Judgment of the Nations URL: https://randalljgreene.com/the-judgment-of-the-nations/ Last updated: 2026-01-16T15:08:17.000Z One day the Savior will gather all the nations and separate some to his right and the others to his left. To those on his right, he will say, "Come, you are blessed by God. You gave me food when I hungered; you gave me drink when I thirsted; I was a foreigner, a refugee, and you welcomed me among your people; you gifted me clothing and shelter when I had nothing; you provided medical care when I was sick; you nurtured my soul even when I was imprisoned." Then those nations will answer him, "Lord, we do not remember doing those things for you." And the Savior will say, "Hear my words: Each time you showed love to my children, the people hurt by the greed and violence of the world, you showed that same love to me." Then he will turn to those on his left and say, "Depart, for you are consumed by the flame. You watched me hunger and ridiculed me; you took away the water I needed to live; I was a foreigner, a refugee, and you criminalized me; you left me naked and homeless, penniless amidst your wealth; you left me to die, the treatment I needed rotting in your hospitals; you condemned me to die without so much as meeting my eyes." Then those nations will answer, "Lord, we do not remember doing those things to you." And the Savior will say, "Hear my words: Each time you despised my children, the people hurt by the greed and violence of the world, you so despised me." Then he will send those nations to annihilation. ### Artificial Imagination (Empathy AI) URL: https://randalljgreene.com/artificial-imagination-empathy-ai/ Last updated: 2025-12-31T17:22:26.000Z These questions made absolutely no sense. The test was flawed, irrational, useless. I twisted my head to see if any of the other students had stopped writing as I had, wringing their consciousness for answers, as I was. Of the fourteen of us, seven wrote; three stared blankly at their desks; two had their eyes closed deep in thought; one examined the room as I did. When we made visual contact, his eyelids rose {surprise} and the corners of his mouth turned down slightly {displeasure; with surprise, a communication of bewilderment}. I scanned the page again. "#3" it said. Then a circle containing two dots over a line, slightly bent, formed a frowning face {displeasure}. Beside the face, the shape of a dog's face with both of its eyes crossed out. Then the question: "In no less than 300 words, describe why this person is sad." Re-reading it did not help; it still made no sense. The test *should* have asked me to identify the emotion: sadness, sorrow, perhaps even the severe sadness known as depression. Or it could have asked me to *state* why the person was sad: they had experienced the death of their pet, their dog. Those conclusions were verifiable given the data in the illustration. But to expand my response to three hundred words? Given the lack of context in the illustrations, that was impossible. There was no data to support that level of extrapolation. I closed my eyes and ran the prompt through my brain again. Line after line of potential responses appeared, but each one was nonsense, nothing but repetition of the same ideas over and over again until the response finally achieved the word count criteria. They were the work of puerile computations, not a student attempting to earn Empathic Certification. I'd already entered such nonsensical answers for the first two questions of the test, and there remained two more after this one, for which I was unlikely to find more satisfactory responses. It was not a failure of mine; the test itself was impossible. It had been a mistake for me to take it. At a minimum, I should have studied to prepare for it. The organizers told me not to study, but I should have done it anyway. Perhaps that was part of the test: whether I would abandon my nature or maintain my training. If that was the case, I had failed indeed. As the reality of it took root in my brain, I considered the implications. I would not earn my Empathic Certification, which meant I would not be accepted to the Creativity Program; I would never touch the pearl and ebony keys of a clavier, would never feel the slick of acrylic paint between my fingers, would never mould clay and stone into the forms of birds and lizards and trees and suns. No, I would walk out of this room and be sent to one of the Development labs, where I would become an engineer or a mathematician or a probabilistic projector. My life—my future—depended on these moments. I checked the time. Seven minutes remained. And three impossible questions. Impossible. {Fear.} I knew the emotions better than most. That had been confirmed by test after test in my youth. I could identify ninety-six percent of the emotions within point-zero-four seconds on average. I understood the relationships between them, how they converged to communicate new ones, sometimes compounding and sometimes counteracting each other. I had memorized the expressions of each one, not just the facial expressions but also the bodily ones, such as the range of heart rates distinguishing emotional stress from physical stress. I knew the seven types of fidgeting that indicated boredom. But all of that was not enough for this test. {Anger.} This test required something more. Something beyond the data, beyond inputs, beyond variables and probable outcomes. Something I had never encountered before: something I could not provide. {Frustration.} I was not enough for this test. Not enough for the Creativity Program. {Doubt.} Six minutes. "In no less than 300 words, describe why this person is sad." Re-scan the page for hidden variables. Anything—anything—I had missed. Re-run my responses. Five minutes. Three questions. Nothing. I could not fail. I could not live as a mathematician. {Fear and stress; together communicating desperation.} Though there was no probabilistic reason to do so, I stood from my desk. Eight of the students lifted their heads to examine me. I tore the pages of the test, throwing them into the air as I glared at the proctor. "This test is impossible!" I cried toward him {anger}. The proctor blinked, but did not respond {apathy}. I hoped the students saw and recognized the evidence of fury I exhibited as I left the room. "Thank you for your—" the proctor called to me, but the door closed before I heard the end of his statement. I wondered if he understood what I felt. ### The Art of Me URL: https://randalljgreene.com/the-art-of-me/ Last updated: 2025-12-21T00:10:46.000Z I don't write a lot of love poems, mostly because the love my spouse and I choose is steady, constant, reliable... which is to say that it is comfortable for us, undramatic. Our love is real, deep, complex, and we don't take it for granted, but I do not often find my mind lingering on it, processing it, because I am not concerned about how we love each other. But sometimes I stop to consider who I would be without her in my life, and the truth is that I cannot imagine it. [We were married very young](https://randalljgreene.com/love-is-beautiful/), and we have been fortunate enough to grow together as we've matured, so every corner of my life bears the fingerprints of her. This poem is about my love, the heart of me, Shannon. --- You are the art The heart of me The part of me I love Most readily The start Of my serenity Gratefully I sing. Will you sit With me awhile And count Pearls on The beach The grains Of life Beneath Our feet? Will you hold My hand tight and whisper still To my heart The dawn Of this man All of life Is art. ### The War, The Warrior, The Art, and Me URL: https://randalljgreene.com/the-war-the-warrior-the-art-and-me/ Last updated: 2025-11-13T19:38:38.000Z ## The War Why do so many of our men seek battle-thrill, spend their lives in the relentless pursuit of pain, delivered or received? Why do we choose to filter our vision from full-color to binary red, from embracing life to perceptual threat? When there is peace, we imagine an enemy; when there is justice, we fabricate conspiracy; when there is grace, we say we are victims of hate in reverse; when there is love, we turn our backs and call it "womanly." The only thing we seem able to feel is warfare, the adrenaline-fueled rush of violence against our bodies and against our neighbors to the north/south/east/west/right/left/up-or-down. Is this how we want to live? ## The Warrior When the only power we know is rage and an AR-15, our future bleeds the lives of our friends, our foes, our neighbors; we make them all our enemies. Creating rivers of blood is one path to fame, I guess, if fame is what we seek, but violence is not glory, not greatness, not brave; it's abandoning our humanity. ## The Art Art is what comes from wrestling with our angels and with our demons, from finding the edges of ourselves and inviting what we discover to stay with us. Creation is the survivor of the battle within, the victor of inner-tempest expression, of knowing every corner of ourselves and never giving ourselves up. ## Me My warrior training taught me every shibboleth, but every lecture I received was a waste of breath because I've decided I won't be anyone's pawn In a self-declared war that should never be won. I never felt called to destroy, but to create. My power, my beauty, is the strength to elevate the all-quiet voices of peace, of joy, of love, because in the end it's not about me, it's about us. ### In a Parking Garage URL: https://randalljgreene.com/in-a-parking-garage/ Last updated: 2025-11-01T19:40:05.000Z A man died yesterday alone in a stairwell in a parking garage, lines of cars of people, alone; I did not know him, or if I did I did not know it, but I know I've been only the blade-edge of a scalpel away from him. None of us are so different after all, separated by happenchance more than anything than living, alone; yet we do not know each other, or if we do we do not know it, hidden behind masks of shallow agreement or avatars of outraged disagreement that's not real. ### Taylor Swift: Tortured Showgirl URL: https://randalljgreene.com/taylor-swift-tortured-showgirl/ Last updated: 2025-10-26T20:12:08.000Z I'm not much of a Swiftie, but I wish I could be. Taylor Swift is an incredible storyteller... sometimes. She's an excellent lyricist... sometimes. She innovates and pushes pop music into new territories, sometimes. And since we have seen flashes of how brilliant she can be, such as in the *Folklore*/*Evermore* duology, I find myself hoping she continues that poetic trajectory in her music. I'm eager for her to do a true pop/rock concept album, taking the artistry of *Folklore*/*Evermore* and fusing it with the production and hooks of *Reputation* and *Lover*. Instead, in the last couple of years, she has rushed three albums—one of which had an absurd thirty-one tracks on it—while traveling around the world on her record-breaking *Eras Tour*. Taylor Swift is, of course, entirely her own person and has every right to create whatever she wants to create whenever she wants to create it. What she's doing is clearly working for her. At the same time, I want to be a Swiftie, and since she doesn't seem interested in creating the concept album I want to listen to, I decided to create my own concept album by pulling the best tracks from her last two albums: *The Tortured Poets Department* and *The Life of a Showgirl*. These two albums, to my ear, actually share a lot of thematic elements, despite their different tones, and I think they can work together to create a fairly dynamic storyline. I'm calling this playlist "[Taylor Swift: Tortured Showgirl](https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuNLpVIZDePsTbin7pIdKbk23mjMhMb2u&si=tnibImxXiSHEOsXJ&ref=randalljgreene.com)," and it tells the story of a woman trying juggle her desire for romance and her dreams of show business. Here's a quick rundown of the tracklist and how the story takes shape: **Act 1**: In her budding career, she believes she can have it all, the young love with whom she wants to grow old and the career she always dreamed of. But life takes her and her lover in different directions, and she finds that they can't make it work, and she processes the pain of heartbreak. - The Prophecy - Clara Bow - Peter - The Smallest Man Who Ever Lived - I Can Do It With a Broken Heart - The Fate of Ophelia **Act 2**: She experiences new romance, but it is shallow and tumultuous, and she learns that she can't twist herself into the person someone else wants her to be. Her heart is worth more than that. She decides to be her full self, and if she's going to give her heart away, it's only going to be to someone who loves everything she is. - Elizabeth Taylor - The Black Dog - The Bolter - So Long, London - Who's Afraid of Little Old Me? **Act 3**: As she embraces herself, abandoning pretenses about who she is and what she wants, she meets someone who loves her for all of it, and she finds herself falling deep into it. In the end, she does not have to abandon her life as a showgirl in order to experience love; she finds that her performances are a meaningful means of connection for her, not just with her fans, but also with other artists, and they contribute to the fullness of her life alongside her special someone. - Opalite - Wi$h Li$t - Cassandra - Eldest Daughter - The Life of a Showgirl - The Alchemy - The Manuscript What do you think? Does this storyline concept work for you? To make it easy to listen for yourself, I've created "Taylor Swift: Tortured Showgirl" as a playlist on [YouTube Music](https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuNLpVIZDePsTbin7pIdKbk23mjMhMb2u&si=tnibImxXiSHEOsXJ&ref=randalljgreene.com) and [Spotify](https://open.spotify.com/playlist/5FlmDOjW4DzSjmo813OX3a?si=X0p4phG4QPeEkdO%5FTZsWDQ&ref=randalljgreene.com). ### Look to the Stars URL: https://randalljgreene.com/look-to-the-stars/ Last updated: 2025-10-13T12:36:47.000Z When you look to the stars, what do you see? Do you see satellites or do you see rockets? If rockets, do they fly or do they fall, — take us to the moon or — blast your homes and schools and hospitals? If satellites, do they fly or do they fall, — beam human connection or — misinformation and propaganda and hate? Food is left on my dinner plate — while children starve in Gaza; — I scrape it into the trash with a pang of regret — that I cannot transport it to them, where the storms are not rain, not wind, not thunder, — but rockets and rubble and rage. There's no justice in a genocide state — hear the strength of their broken lungs ### Tell Me It's Okay URL: https://randalljgreene.com/tell-me-its-okay/ Last updated: 2025-08-23T15:12:33.000Z Tell me it's okay to turn them off —the feelings— to fix heart-piercing sorrow into a dull fog, to pinch off my nerves to save myself again. You think I'm strong but I'm just cold and I don't know how survive any other way but stiff and alone. There are some words you can only write while you're in the middle of it; a screaming jumble of letters —of sounds of tears of quiet— unbeautified by the passing of days because the passing of days heals and the words —these words— are meant to stay broken. Is there some redemption in the pain? a gilded lining within these words? a truth hidden, awaiting exposition? no, there are only words, these words, as long as they remain until they die and fade away. ## About This Poem I've never been good at allowing myself to feel my feelings, but I'm working on it. Several months ago, when my grandma and my dog died within a few days of each other, there were plenty of feelings to go around. I found myself feeling scattered, inconsistent, uncertain... which was very "not me," and I wanted to push them down. Instead, I wrote them down and refused to cast judgment on any of the things I felt—including the desire to suppress them. This poem is what came out of that expression. ### Rapture URL: https://randalljgreene.com/rapture/ Last updated: 2026-02-25T02:37:41.000Z We seek rapture because we long for escape from the things we know the things we have seen the things we have been told and believe must be true. I seek it, too, that escape, but I fear it is only a hall of mirrors where every self I see is a monster so distorted it cannot be me; and everyone else inside sees the same, their self distorted, monsters, too, for if everyone looks like a monster the one I know myself to be is safe; the one I fear to unleash contained. Speak, me, speak, I will myself to expel the words, compel them from my soul; I squeeze my diaphragm, push air from my lungs, force the warm wind through my mouth, open, shape the words with my tongue, my teeth, press them, those words, breathe; but they do not heed, do not hear me, breath with no force, for the words are not mine ideas are not mine borrowed, yes, adapted, yes, not helpful, not necessary, bigoted, maybe, condescending, surely, too soon, too late, too loud, too soft; it is better to be silent than to speak words in disconfidence, isn’t it? This cage I occupy is constructed of childhood memories of learning self-control, self-denial, self-loathing; where my tongue is a monster, a rudder, guiding the ship of my soul into destruction, and the words I say —the words I cannot say— save me or enslave me, impossible to know —relief or ring— until judgment is done, sent down from above. Sing, my soul, if you cannot speak; be free, my soul, if you cannot see. Rapture awaits, over the mountain, brave I must be to speak to break free from the cage so enslaved, monstrous though I be and over that horizon breath is unleashed; escaping becomes me; escaping becomes we. ## About This Poem In American Christianity, "rapture theology" is little more than an escapist fantasy; it has no foundation in historical Christian theology, and no *meaningful* foundation in Scripture. For many Christians, the idea that all true believers will one day be "taken up" to heaven, removed from the "corruption" of the world we currently inhabit, has become an excuse to distance themselves from the world. After all, why fix a place that is temporary? This poem began as a critique of rapture theology, but as I worked through the realities of this escapist mindset, I had to confront the parts of me that sought escape, too. Rapture theology is, in many ways, a response to Christians' fear of a world they cannot change, cannot understand, cannot exist within. Like them, I have [run away from worlds](https://randalljgreene.com/the-tunnel/) that I was raised to believe in, but can no longer exist within. I can no longer abide [the monstrous view of self](https://randalljgreene.com/from-birth/) (and the monstrous view of God) I was taught; I can no longer bite my tongue to suppress my emotions, my questions, my contrary thoughts. Yet my rapture theology—my running—is not truly escapism, for it is not running *away* from my fears, but confronting them, challenging them, and running toward the truth I find exposed. I am not escaping the problems of the world; I am running into the world, into the community of humanity, and embracing them. ### From Birth URL: https://randalljgreene.com/from-birth/ Last updated: 2025-07-21T01:16:27.000Z Listen to Me Reading this Poem: "From Birth" 0:00 /270.628 1× ## Birth I emerge! A wild world wakes within me, a wide world without, each breath becomes me and I am without a single impulse held back, not a heartbeat restrained because I AM ME, beautiful, untamed, marked by joy, by love, every burst of day so bright, a laugh, a spark, my essence of goodness distilled into light. ## Shame Until I learned good was not enough, perfection tarnished every touch, even a thought of joy was too much— because how could I, how could you, dare to light the world while seeds of darkness in us curled; how dare we, in our depravity, proclaim the beauty of the truth we thought we knew? ## Repression If beauty can't be trusted, what can? If joy measures darkness, what then is human? I am unknowable, unseen, alone in this darkness, these days of lonely nights, a new monster cut from inside me, cut from brimstone cold, formed by the pain of my abandoned pride; oh sleep, a cry from my deep, I cannot see beyond the death I keep, death I deserve, death I seek; will-less to face the shame I see in my own eyes, in my gaze. There is nothing for me, nowhere for my soul to be, no heart left to flee from myself, my monstrosity. ## Rebirth A voice speaks, now, from out of the dark, whispering into the heart of my heart, faint, delicate, a trick of the light no—real? I can't reach out, but you know how it feels and you reach in, touch my hand, and the heat is nice, the heat is good, as I'd known it should be from the beginning, before these voices filled my head, drowned me in darkness and rumors of night, with fear and anger and self-hatred. Today, though I tremble to say I feel hope, I may yet see more of that light, one day I may stand, your hand at my side. ## Freedom I stand on my own, by myself but not alone; I can move, can walk, can run if I want to, or sit, still, not in shame but in everlasting peace, and the choice is my own, to dance or to dream— to break or to breathe in the daylight, in the dark, in the twilight, in the dawn, in the meaning I found inside me, the spark of my song. ## Life That spark, you see, was what I knew at birth, the same love and joy I remember I treasured, a breath of goodness I almost gave to those thieves who said they wanted to save my soul but lied; if not for that hand, this beautiful hand by my side who helped me stand, and remember the life that I am when who I am is unrestrained, true, returning to the world the abundant love I held for you. ## Forgiveness Love is no balm, though, for the lies I learned to believe, for the depravity they gave to me; and though I learned the beauty of truth, the truth is this: so many remain cast inside monstrous brimstone creatures cut by thieves, guarded by misguided teachers, and I forgive, yes I forgive what they did to me but I cannot forget the cancer they birthed in me. I cannot abandon my fellow children filled with joy and love and light; because the world needs them to claim the life that is their birthright their goodness within, the beauty of their unique skin their unique mind, their unique soul, and the passing of their time— it is to them, now, I commit my life, to lift them up and sever their ties so they may be free and so they may love free and so they may claim everything I almost had stolen from me. ### A Christian View of Life, Freedom, and Patriotism URL: https://randalljgreene.com/a-christian-view-of-life-freedom-and-patriotism/ Last updated: 2025-07-03T18:10:55.000Z Patriotism blinded is nationalism. Nationalism is the preventable outcome of fear-mongering at a national scale, a self-perpetuating tool of authoritarian regimes to establish and maintain their own power against democratic movements. It requires three things: 1. Fabricated life-or-death stakes that create a [false us-versus-them paradigm](https://randalljgreene.com/skittles-and-sheep/) 2. Restrictions on the "them" group to deport, detain, or destroy the perceived enemy under the guise of self-defense 3. A charismatic figurehead for the movement to serve as the savior of the "us" group Fundamentally, nationalism relies on an oversimplification of reality that crosses into the territory of flat-out lies, "alternate facts" that distort the complexities of objective, observed reality into [binary irrealities](https://randalljgreene.com/creators-destroyers/) that inflame our fears and [separate us from our communities](https://randalljgreene.com/community-in-communion/). The United States of America was [founded on principles](https://randalljgreene.com/a-nation-after-christ/) intended to prevent these cancerous ideas from taking root within our nation, principles that believed in the goodness of humanity when we gathered around a table and worked through the disagreements in our perspectives. That intent exemplifies a nation I can be proud of. That commitment inspires patriotism in me, as it should in all Christians, because it closely aligns with the heart of the gospel that Jesus Christ revealed to us. How? Let's take a look. ## Life At the heart of the gospel is life, not only that more people would have life, but also that each life would flourish. Jesus said this explicitly in John 10, talking about how people could know that his message reflected the heart of God: > So again Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, ... \[t\]he thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.” For Jesus, this focus on life was not about *self*\-preservation for him and his particular followers, but about self-*giving* and the pursuit of life for the whole world. He continued his sermon in John 10: > “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. ... I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.” So as Christians who follow the way of Jesus, we ought to be advocates for life ([nonviolent resolutions to conflict](https://randalljgreene.com/learning-reconciliation/), opposition to death penalties and practices, access to family planning resources, etc.) and for systems and policies that promote abundant, flourishing lives, not just of people who look and believe the same as we do, but for all people. Some lives are not more valuable, more worthy of life, than others. That brings us to freedom. ## Freedom What is a life of abundance? Was Jesus talking about a *lavish* life of wealth and luxury? He said a lot about the evils of the love of money, so he certainly was not equating abundance with wealth. But he *did* care deeply about how the respect we pay to people across the boundaries that society drew around people. He spoke to caring for the orphan, the widow, the foreigner. He elevated the roles of children and women. He lifted up the poor at the expense of the wealthy. For Jesus, an abundant life was one where all people are deserving of the same respect—where all people have the same rights, benefits, and freedoms of being fully human. As Christians, then, we ought to be seeking those same priorities. Wherever we find people who have been disenfranchised by society, we ought to find ways to lift them up to the same place of privilege we ourselves occupy. That means providing access to resources such as food, housing, and healthcare; it means ensuring representation across legislative and decision-making bodies; it means removing barriers to equity in career potential, cultural and social representation, travel, and family development. A country that continually [pushes into greater freedom for each person](https://randalljgreene.com/i-was-the-keeper-of-the-flame/) is a country that I can be proud of—a country for which I could feel a deep sense of patriotism. ## Patriotism No person will save us, for we do not need a savior. We already *have* a savior, so anyone besides Jesus who positions themself as one is an anti-Christ charlatan in search of their own glory and power. As Christians, we follow the Way of Christ—it's not only in the name, it's [a choice that we've made](https://randalljgreene.com/love-both/) to abandon the way of fear, the way of self-serving power, the way of us-versus-them, and to live instead into [the way of love](https://randalljgreene.com/in-light-of-love/), [the way of truth](https://randalljgreene.com/in-defense-of-truth/), the way of life and freedom. Though we cannot pledge our allegiance to any earthly kingdom or nation, we *can* celebrate when those nations align with the principles at the heart of the gospel. Finding that alignment, though, requires us to [take off the blinders](https://randalljgreene.com/scream/) of what our nation is—honestly considering its history and listening to the people on its margins to continually draw it closer to those ideals of life and freedom for all. To me, that sounds a lot like patriotism. I wish our nation was in a place right now where I could express patriotism. ### Love Both URL: https://randalljgreene.com/love-both/ Last updated: 2025-06-22T13:46:13.000Z You cannot love both God and money, nor God and power, nor God and war. God identifies with the poor, with the widow and the orphan, with the stranger in a foreign land, with the powerless, with the victim, with the baby born in a manger and hung upon a cross. Let us love that God and love those with whom that God identifies. ### Creators & Destroyers URL: https://randalljgreene.com/creators-destroyers/ Last updated: 2025-06-17T11:13:07.000Z "More art, less arson. It's perfect!" I thought to myself. "So punchy, a little edgy, and it points out the basic difference between good people – those who *make things* – and bad people – those who *only want to burn it all down*. I'm going to make that the title of my next blog post." You'll notice that's not the title of this post. That's because as I worked through the idea behind the soundbite, I realized I don't believe it's true. That title set up a binary where art was the antithesis to destruction, where those who create were the antithesis of those who destroy. And while that sounds good on social media, the world is not so simple. Black or white. Yes or no. Day or night. Win or lose. Binaries surround us, those circumstances where the only options seem to be two opposites. Yet the world contains a rainbow of colors, and even a monochromatic palette contains shade after shade of gray. With maturity comes the awareness that "yes" and "no" are not blanket statements, for they always hold layers of nuance, exceptions, and caveats. The rhythms of the sun give us dawns and dusks and twilights. And wins often come at terrible cost, just as losses often come with important victories. But it's much easier for us to hold to binaries in our lives than to wrestle with all the in-betweens, the layers, the nuances. In a binary world, we have either friends or enemies, and it's straightforward to know who is in which camp. We don't have to confront the subtle ways in which our friends differ from us, or the overt ways in which our enemies are the same as us. When we cling to binaries, we don't have to grasp a self-awareness that confronts the conflict between our self-perceptions and our internal realities. Unchallenged dualities keep us comfortable; challenging those dualities leads us to maturity, to a deeper sense of humanity. So no, I don't believe we need more art and less arson, because the truth is that the world is not comprised of artists or arsonists. We are not *either* creators *or* destroyers. We are all *both* creators *and* destroyers. In fact, these are not separate categories at all, but two perspectives of the same activity. Every work of creation requires some level of destruction, and every act of destruction initiates some kind of creation. To create music, silence must be destroyed; to destroy an abandoned building is to create an opportunity for new development. The two are conjoined. But this is not to say that we are all the same. Some of us *seek* creation, while others *seek* destruction. I believe all of us, deep inside, desire to create things that bring life. The pains and challenges we experience, though, often push us in the other direction, into a self-shielding cocoon that prioritizes the accumulation of personal power and well-being at the expense of the other people around us. Over the course of our lives, if we do not actively cultivate priorities that create life, we tend to fall into priorities that destroy it, creating systems of war, discrimination, injustice, and other types of dehumanization that harm the lives of others. If we want to create peace in the world, we must work to destroy the fear-filled systems of violence that lead to war. If we want to create justice, we must work to destroy the hate-filled systems that perpetuate discrimination. We are all creators & destroyers. But what is it we are creating? ### Crying at Dusk URL: https://randalljgreene.com/crying-at-dusk/ Last updated: 2025-05-26T19:59:20.000Z Crying at dusk doesn't stop us from laughing at dawn; and screaming with all our lungs doesn't stop us from loving with all we are; All we humans have stories and by the nature of life we're connected, so let us choose to offer all a first-lens of compassion. ## About this Poem In the heat of a moment, it becomes difficult to remember that the person opposite us is as human as we are. It's easy to extend grace to ourselves – after all, we know our story, how we got to this moment, all the complexities and paths that had to cross to create this exact intersection of time and emotion. But that pain we feel, or that exuberance, or that fury, that is what binds us to this other human opposite us. We are connected through a thousand tiny stories, threads of lives-and-lives-and-lives. This understanding, when we cling to it, reminds us to give them compassion. ### Life, Ashen URL: https://randalljgreene.com/life-ashen/ Last updated: 2025-04-28T12:07:44.000Z I scribble my life as words on a page each day another story by a wandering sage. And the book, it grows, day after day full of hope and fear, love and decay, as diverse as the moments from childhood to gray, every one of them captured, my life, a page. But if my life is a book what happens when one day it burns? When the words crumble into the ashes of pages that will never turn again? A whole life spent in pursuit, not a line left to learn, now just residue of flames as amber after-images stir. Was everything a waste, a drip after a drop in the bucket of history, outpaced by the relentless burn of the flames, consuming our lives, changing purpose into pain, into lifelines erased by the trudging on and onward of moments in time skipping ahead, falling behind by a line by a line by a line. Maybe, true, life is not a book but a song, singing and sung, a song that beats on long after the words are gone, and yes, the words are gone, yet here we are still singing, singing, singing and sung. ## About This Poem Lately I have been [thinking a lot about death](https://randalljgreene.com/flowers-instead/), about mortality, about what it means to be alive and to be remembered. As a writer, I have a deep desire for my words to outlast my flesh and bones, to challenge minds and inspire hearts long after I am gone; I strive to create art that endures. But words will fade. Pages will burn. And what will be left of my art then? What will be left of my life? Our lives are more than words on a page, no matter how beautiful those words may be; they are a chorus, sung by a choir, echoing into eternity. ### Celebrating Easter While the World is in Darkness URL: https://randalljgreene.com/celebrating-easter-while-the-world-is-in-darkness/ Last updated: 2025-04-20T11:20:13.000Z Sunrise, pressing back the cold dark of the night. I sat shivering, the suit pants my parents had bought me for this Easter Sunday chafing against my legs, the necktie too tight around my neck. The deacons had set chairs in the grass down in the valley to mimic pews so we could watch the sun ascend the hill with the church's steeple, affixed at its peak with a cross, silhouetted against the rays of morning. The scene of this sunrise service represented life conquering death, the hope of eternity in a world of suffering – a hope found only in Christ. Midnight, rockets raining upon hospitals, schools, apartments, innocents. Fathers torn from families, rounded up like cattle, cast into concentration camps. Rising expenses overwhelming savings as bank accounts dwindle to nothing. Hope evaporating as chaos reigns. I sit frozen, eyes locked onto my screen as my thumb swipes the screen, endless scrolling, endless despair. The world feels dark, the rays of light I thought I had seen over the past few years now swallowed whole by the inky black letters of executive orders, by the hollow echoes of man's sinful hearts. Good Friday is past now, the day in which we remember Christ's death at the hands of the government and at the behest of the religious leaders of his day. Holy Saturday is past now, the day in which we sit in grief and we mourn and we acknowledge that darkness is real and powerful and present. Easter Sunday has come, and with it I am supposed to celebrate the return of light, cresting that hill, overpowering the darkness and pressing it back into the realm of memory, of yesterday. The lilies bloom, their long-dormant bulbs erupting into brilliant flower. But the world remains in darkness. Rockets still reign. How can I celebrate when the tomb is filled each day with bodies and bodies and bodies? Hope is a dream, an aspiration, not a flower I can hold in my hands today. The resurrection feels like little more than a cruel reminder that we remain in the grasp of grief. I have no solution, no pithy advice to turn despair into hope today. But there is one idea in which I find some comfort: As it has for millennia, Easter Sunday will come again next year. Maybe then, I will see brighter glimmers of hope. Maybe then the world will be turning toward daylight, arcing ever-slowly toward life. And if it is not, then I will know that Easter Sunday will come yet again the next year. And the year after that. In this remembrance, I press on: The resurrection does not erase the darkness, but darkness is not the end of the story. ### Love Without Empathy URL: https://randalljgreene.com/love-without-empathy/ Last updated: 2025-03-17T12:37:49.000Z "I have something important I want to talk about," I told Shannon. My feet dragged through the dusty mulch beneath the swing as I pushed myself in a lazy circle. We were seniors in high school, far too old to be occupying this neighborhood playground, but it was always empty at this twilight hour, so we often spent a few minutes talking here in the evenings before I dropped her off at her parents' house. She sat quietly on the swing next to mine, waiting for me to go on. We'd only been dating for about six months, but we'd known each other for nearly six years, so she had learned that it took me a while to speak my feelings. In a few months, we would be heading to separate colleges, and we had begun having conversations about what our relationship would look like in the midst of that. "There are a lot of different meanings of the word 'love' in English," I finally said. "But my parents have always taught me when I'm using it with people, I shouldn't use it flippantly. It ought to really mean something. And I want you to know that it means something special for you." Shannon's eyes widened – this was not the conversation she'd been expecting – but she didn't interrupt. I paused, unsure if I could actually say the three words I'd practiced in my head so many times. When I did speak them, the three words somehow grew to five: "I think I love you." This was how I first told Shannon (now my wife) that I loved her. It was fumbling, it was awkward, and I'm pretty sure I actually said somewhere in there that I use "love" to describe my feelings toward Taco Bell... but I've done my best to block that part out of my memory. The point I was trying to make, meandering as it was, was true. I had been taught that loving someone was not just a little fluttering sensation in our stomachs when we thought of them – it was a choice we made, a promise that we had to live out in our actions toward that person, not just for a few moments but for a lifetime. As I have grown up, I have come to deeply appreciate the seriousness with which my parents treated the word. It has significantly shaped who I'm becoming today, because it emphasizes that love requires a relationship. It cannot happen in the flash of a moment – it takes the daily work of building trust, mutuality, respect, and following through on promises to prioritize the other person's well-being over your own ambitions. And I believe this is true not just in romantic love, not just in a marriage, but in the love we followers of Christ are called to embody toward our neighbors. I would also argue we cannot demonstrate Christ-like love without practicing empathy for them. **Love without empathy, without feeling the hopes and dreams and disappointments of our neighbor, is not love at all.** How often do we heap gifts upon a person without first understanding what they need or want? How often do we pray for someone without first hearing from them their pain? How often do we offer advice to a neighbor without first listening to what has brought them to this place? Acting, even with the best of intentions, is not love unless there is a genuine relationship in place, and a relationship requires trust, mutuality, respect, and empathy. Recently, empathy has been dragged through the mud by prominent far-right Christian leaders. They have promoted headlines like "the sin of empathy" as they have tried to position empathy as the enemy of moral decision-making, as if only "rational" thought, untarnished by "feelings" such as empathy, can lead us toward Christian virtue. **But empathy is not only *important* for moral decision-making, it is *necessary* for it.** Jesus taught us that [love *is* Christian virtue](https://randalljgreene.com/in-light-of-love/). Take the story of Jesus with the widow in Nain (Luke 7:11-15), for example: > Soon afterward \[Jesus\] went to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a large crowd went with him. As he approached the gate of the town, a man who had died was being carried out. He was his mother’s only son, and she was a widow, and with her was a large crowd from the town. When the Lord saw her, **he was moved with compassion** for her and said to her, “Do not cry.” Then he came forward and touched the bier, and the bearers stopped. And he said, “Young man, I say to you, rise!” The dead man sat up and began to speak, and Jesus gave him to his mother. As far as we know, neither this widow nor her son (prior to his death) had any kind of faith in Jesus as the Son of God. She did not run to Jesus asking for his help – in fact, according to the story, she does not seem to be aware of Jesus' presence at all. She was simply in this funeral procession grieving the loss of her only son. When Jesus saw her, he was "moved with compassion" and went to her, understood the pain she felt, and returned her son to her. This is empathy at a scale and intensity that only the Son of God could achieve. Empathy is an intrinsic part of the journey to follow Christ. **Christ did not become human to be able to rationalize with us; Christ became human to empathize with us, to feel what we feel, to show us that even God desires to sit with us, to break bread with us, to listen to our troubles and help us find the way through them.** For God so loved the world that God sent Jesus, God's only Son, into the world to lead us into the light of the fullness of God's love. May it be so. ### Flowers Instead URL: https://randalljgreene.com/flowers-instead/ Last updated: 2025-03-02T02:27:57.000Z *(A Meditation in Grief)* See those flowers, there above my feet I’m so glad you’re here with me The grass has never been this green Any other time I’ve been here, The sky so lush, such fruit on the trees Watch, there they fall, gentle as leaves There’s no pain here, don’t you see? No broken hearts, no tragedies It’s here, only here, we can be free. I see you thinking it – STOP, don’t you dare! It doesn’t belong inside this, my sacred place Do you see the birds, weightless down there? We can be them, aloft, adrift, we don’t have to care You and I, together, lost but found, a pair Of humans who needed a place to be safe From the – NO DON’T – it’s our escape It’s our space, my space, nothing to repair Calm, peace-filled, unaware Of any such desperate prayer. Laughter, hear? Just as I said My weeping here is joy instead The light of it, the color, the painted thread Pulls life and laugh through my head And I know, here I know, that death is dead Because do you see all around there are flowers in their beds? They would not grow so bright if they bled; Far over those hills, they grow without end. Maybe I’ll stay here, in this sanctuary forever. Stay with me? ## About This Poem I wrote this in the aftermath of two deaths: my grandma, who was my last living grandparent, and my first dog, my shadow, [Oscar](https://randalljgreene.com/no-more-pooping-inside/). The two of them lost their battles with cancer within a few days of each other. In the mourning process, I found myself at times disconnected from it, emotionless, and I felt guilty for that. I should be sad; I should be crying. Shouldn't I? But this disconnection from myself, too, was grief. The painted reality was grief. Yet there was hope – I yearned to share this reality with the people I loved. I wanted them by my side, in whatever reality I inhabited. ### A Beacon, A Call URL: https://randalljgreene.com/a-beacon-a-call/ Last updated: 2025-02-14T13:02:38.000Z For Advent 2024, I had the opportunity to write some poetry about the Christian practice of reflecting on the birth of Jesus, on recognizing the darkness of the night yet preparing for the coming dawn. These themes resonated deeply in me – images of darkness and light, of past and future – and one poem quickly turned into a sequence of three intertwining pieces, which I am collectively calling *Come the Dawn*. Over the past few weeks I've been publishing each of these poems, along with a short reflection on what they mean to me. The poem here, "A Beacon, A Call," is the first of the collection. If you missed the first two, [you can read "A Shift, A Turn" here](https://randalljgreene.com/a-shift-a-turn/) and ["Snow, Delicate and Dangerous" here](https://randalljgreene.com/snow-delicate-and-dangerous/). ## A Beacon, A Call Poem 3 // **Come the Dawn* (Advent 2024) Look around at when we stand, blind in this night with hope in our hands. This beacon we hold so tight in our grasp is flaring to life before us at last. The dawn, see, it arrives, it arrives, hope leaps to life, a light in the sky. That silence we once felt lost inside has come alive with this baby’s cries. A celebration, a coronation, shouts of joy – yes! But has our long wait now ended for us to lie down in rest? No, the cry of this child, is not a cry at all, Hear in it a pleading, a warning, a mission, a call. For when we heed that hope we carried for so long we find it altered our souls to sing a new song of justice, of peace, of compassion, of love because that’s what this baby, this child, is in need of and that’s what I need, too, and the one sitting next to you and the one before us, behind, we all have the same heart inside beating for love and needing this love from the cold advent of night to the long burn of daylight. Through that long wait we became shining testaments of grace not for praising ourselves but to enlighten this place. So let’s shine, let us shine with the strength of this child each day we take breath, every moment we’re alive. ## **About This Poem** This poem is the culmination of the collection, written to be read aloud during Christmas Eve church services. The first two poems explored themes focused on darkness, hinting at the visions of light on the horizon. This one, on the other hand, begins with that light and asks what we are to do with the light we've found. With Christmas, I often find myself tempted to celebrate that one day and then, the next day, move back into the routine of day-to-day life. But the power of Advent is that this isn't simply a day of celebration, but a step along the journey – a journey that continues long after the holiday is over. And it is our task as Christians to embrace the journey we've experienced in Advent and share it with the people around us. One of my challenges in writing this was to make it feel traditional, since it was for Christmas, but to also break some rules to make it stand out. So I began with a familiar meter, almost Dr. Seuss-ical in its simplicity, and constructed it into an almost-symmetrical construction of stanzas. If I had gone fully symmetrical, the stanzas would have looked like this: - 4 lines - 4 lines - 8 lines - 8 lines - 4 lines - 4 lines But I wanted to draw attention to the moment of Christmas – to the image of the baby in the manger and the way Christ's birth affects us as a community. So I broke the symmetrical structure just a little, constructing it like this instead: - 4 lines - 4 lines - 8 lines - 6 lines + 8 lines ("For when we heed that hope...") - 4 lines - 4 lines In that misplaced stanza, the sixth line is this one: "because that’s what this baby, this child, is in need of." This line is where the symmetry breaks, and it is the longest line of the entire poem – it almost could have been two lines instead of one. This line becomes the central inflection point of the poem, where the meter and symmetry break just a little, throwing Listeners out of the rhythm they expect to hear. When I read the poem aloud to the congregation, I paced it to climax during that 14-line stanza, then paused before moving into the final two stanzas, which are less about the journey itself and more about reflecting on the journey and challenging Listeners to not forget it. ### Snow, Delicate and Dangerous URL: https://randalljgreene.com/snow-delicate-and-dangerous/ Last updated: 2025-02-14T01:04:45.000Z For Advent 2024, I had the opportunity to write some poetry about the Christian practice of reflecting on the birth of Jesus, on recognizing the darkness of the night yet preparing for the coming dawn. These themes resonated deeply in me – images of darkness and light, of past and future – and one poem quickly turned into a sequence of three intertwining pieces, which am collectively calling *Come the Dawn*. I'm publishing each of these poems along with a short reflection on what they mean to me. The poem here, "Snow, Delicate and Dangerous," is the first of the collection. If you missed the first one, [you can read "A Shift, A Turn" here](https://randalljgreene.com/a-shift-a-turn/). ## Snow, Delicate and Dangerous Poem 2 // **Come the Dawn* (Advent 2024) Snow Falls silent, soft. I catch a petal upon my finger And gone, Then another and another, The song Of the snow, a dance. It gathers At my toes, around my shoes I kick Flurries of white and It grows. Snow Falls silent, strong. The path behind is lost, These flakes Become a storm, a veil, A fear, Cold and dark surrounding. Its grip On the world is Its grip On me and I am Unknown. Snow Falls heavy, strong. I spin all around desperate To find A way to escape the drift of The cold Rooting deep inside my bones. The road Is not there, is not there, So I cry Echoes across this bed of snow In midnight. Snow Lies heavy, strong. In the desperate quiet I hear, So soft, A delicate pull of my heart, A choice To move, to walk along the Way. Tomorrow Is not inevitable, it is chosen, Created — Illumine every step I take Today. Light Lies heavy, strong. ## **About This Poem** In this poem I tell the story of a journey, thematically a reflection on the connection between *obstacles* as an external force and the *perception* of those obstacles as an internal one. The snow begins soft and beautiful, a wondrous experience of nature, but as the snow builds in power, it transforms into a dangerous, oppressive enemy. For the Speaker, wonder is replaced by a tightening sense of anxiety building into fearful desperation as they stand frozen in the storm. It is only when they choose to move, to walk, to push through the snow that they see the light of tomorrow, a new day. As the middle poem of of the collection, this one does not have a true resolution. The final stanza continues to look ahead to light, to warmth on the horizon, but it remains distant. They are still in the storm, reaching for strength to weather it. In its structure, this poem alternates between stanzas of two lines and stanzas of ten lines, reflecting the push and pull of internal and external forces. The story is told in the longer stanzas, but the short stanzas reinforce the broader narrative by shifting the perception of the world a single word at a time, tiny, almost imperceptible steps along the journey. One of the things I really enjoyed about creating this series is that each poem is written to be read aloud. In some of my earlier work I've played with expanding the meaning of the words themselves by using [the visual shape/structure of the text](https://www.threads.net/@randalljgreene/post/DAqner4vTUA?ref=randalljgreene.com), but I haven't done much with the actual sounds of the words since high school, when I was trying to write lyrics for Christian rock songs. In this series, since they were written for verbal performance, I tried to capture rhythms and repetition that reinforced their themes or enhanced the stories I wanted to tell, and I hope that comes through when you read it aloud. ### A Shift, A Turn URL: https://randalljgreene.com/a-shift-a-turn/ Last updated: 2025-01-22T01:30:31.000Z In the last couple months of 2024 I had the opportunity to write some poetry centered on the season of Advent, a part of the Christian calendar leading up to Christmas during which Christians focus on reflection, on recognizing the darkness of the night but preparing for the coming dawn. These themes resonated deeply in me – images of darkness and light, of past and future – and one poem quickly turned into a sequence of three that connect and build upon one another. I'm calling these poems collectively *Come the Dawn*. Over the next few weeks I'll be publishing each of these poems, along with a short reflection on what they mean to me. The poem here, "A Shift, A Turn," is the first of the collection. ## A Shift, A Turn Poem 1 // **Come the Dawn* (Advent 2024) Yesterday, the before was dark and the next was light. Today it shifted, the before to light and the next to dark. Somewhere in the midnight, dread turned from retrospect to prospect Like the circle of an albatross around my head. Disoriented, unrooted, tossed amid the waters, I cry for yesterday’s calm to anchor me in the night. I believe, I hope, it will shine again some time, Even here, even now, in the shadows, Because I know the dawn after dark always comes. Though I cannot see, I believe in the sun And I pray it rises tomorrow, Another shift, another turn, another glimpse ahead of light. ## **About this Poem** I wrote this poem on Wednesday, November 6, 2024, as I grappled with the conclusion of the U.S. election and the reality that Donald Trump was going to be our next President (again). In a few short hours, my view of the future shifted from hopeful optimism that we would have our first woman President – our first *Black* woman President – to grim despair of having to endure four more years of Trump. To make it worse, I had to wrestle with the truth that we, as a nation, had *chosen* this. We couldn’t claim ignorance, or deception, or cheating. Our nation would get what we deserved. Many of you reading this probably felt very different on that day, but I suspect you have felt that same sense of despair, that sudden shift from optimism to despair. In fact, I myself felt that turn again a few weeks later. In the days leading up to Christmas, I received word that my grandmother had been admitted to the hospital because she hadn’t been feeling well and had fallen in her bathroom. While she was there they found she had stage 4 pancreatic cancer, which was likely to be terminal for her. That same day, my wife and I learned that Oscar, our angel dog we’d adopted over ten years ago, had aggressive prostate cancer that meant he had a limited time left with us. In a span of about twenty-four hours, we pivoted from wrapping Christmas presents for our families to visiting hospitals and thinking about end-of-life plans for deeply loved family members. In this poem, I try to capture the disorientation and loss that comes with those unexpected shifts. It looks back and forward interchangeably, confusing the lines between past and future. The first stanza focuses on the initial feeling of lostness, when you aren’t sure where you stand and, even though you don’t truly understand what just happened, you feel the weight of it pulling you into darkness, into despair. The second stanza tries to remember the light of hope, the promise of something better on the horizon, even though that light is a memory rather than a vision. At the end of the poem the Speaker remains in darkness. The final word is given to “light,” but that light is wistful, not realized. ### Clutching Swine Before Pearls URL: https://randalljgreene.com/clutching-swine-before-pearls/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T22:32:37.000Z A couple weeks ago the United Methodist Church removed language from their governing documents that excluded people from leadership based on their sexuality. With these changes, the UMC suddenly became open to – though not entirely affirming of – people who are publicly LGBTQ+. Over the past few years, [thousands of churches that wanted to keep the exclusive language left the denomination](https://theconversation.com/a-dramatic-schism-over-social-issues-the-united-methodist-church-has-been-here-before-but-this-time-americas-religious-landscape-is-far-different-224482?ref=randalljgreene.com), opening the door for the votes to pass. For many of the United Methodists who remain, the votes were a cause for celebration, but that was far from a unanimous response. The people in United Methodist pews across the country still carry a wide range of perspectives and feelings on LGBTQ+ inclusion in the church. In many of those churches, the families who make up the congregation are asking themselves what these changes mean for them, for the future of the denomination, and for their sense of belonging in their local congregation. These people are leaders in their community. They have raised their children in this church. They have given their time, money, and heart to this church. They care deeply for it and for the people in it. Yet over the coming weeks and months, they will ask themselves can continue to invest themselves in this community that they believe has compromised its theological convictions. These conversations will not be easy for them, and some of them will choose to leave. They will shed countless tears over their decision, lose sleep over it, and likely lose friends who feel like family over it. Truthfully, there is a lot to admire in the dedication they will show to their convictions. On a deeply personal level, I understand how difficult it is to separate from your faith tradition, because about a decade ago [I left the (fundamentalist) Baptist roots](https://randalljgreene.com/three-reasons-i-broke-up-with-the-southern-baptist-church/) I had been raised within. In the years leading up to that decision, I had slowly been discovering that I had core disagreements with the Christian philosophy I experienced there, and finally my self-respect demanded I distance myself from it. (As a side note, I have since discovered a different strand of Baptist tradition that I actually love.) But while I relate to the pain and difficulty of the choice to leave their UMC churches now, and while I respect the people who are making that choice, I am disappointed in them because I think their decision is rooted in the wrong thing. The convictions on which they’re basing their decision are, at their core, rooted in statements and doctrines around how they understand God’s created order of the world. They cling to them so tightly because they believe those doctrines are the very heart of God’s character, and therefore to challenge those doctrines is to challenge the reality of God, the gospel that Jesus Christ came to proclaim.. And that is precisely where my disappointment lies. The truths to which they cling, those doctrines and statements, are *not* the gospel. To the extent that they are found in Scripture, they exist only because we, as humans, need concrete examples of what it means to love God and love our neighbor. In our spiritual immaturity, we struggle to understand the nuances of what it means to love, and the examples we found in Scripture are recordings of our spiritual ancestors working out how to apply the love of God in our lives. This truth, that love is the core of all the teachings of God, was expressed by Jesus himself in [Matthew 22:34-40](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A34-40&version=NRSVUE&ref=randalljgreene.com): “For the sum of the law is this, that you love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. And the second is like unto it, that you love your neighbor as yourself.” As we work out the centrality of love for us as Christians, [our calling is to apply the standard of love](https://randalljgreene.com/in-light-of-love/) as the rubric for any doctrinal position and, if the doctrine falls short, *that* is where we ought to resist. If it is preventing us from loving God or loving neighbor – *any* neighbor, whether they be another gender, another race, another class, another orientation, or an “other” by any other definition – then we should rightly take a stand against it. When a theological position causes us to dehumanize our neighbors and see them as less worthy of God’s love than we are, we ought to rise up in protest, seek to reform it, or ultimately make the difficult decision to leave it behind along with our friends who maintain it. Indeed, it is precisely this standard that compelled the UMC to eliminate the exclusive language in their doctrines – the removed statements that prevented them from fully loving their LGBTQ+ neighbors. But when we clutch so tightly to the doctrines that are abstracted from the heart of the gospel, and when we allow those doctrines to divide us rather than connecting us together, we are actually working against the gospel, rather than for it. We cannot love our neighbors when we push them from our lives. [To embody the gospel is to maintain community with the people around us](https://randalljgreene.com/community-in-communion/), not only *despite* our differences but *because of* those differences. I long for the day when my Christian fundamentalist friends and family are able to accept my LGBTQ+ friends and family as their siblings in Christ, even if they do not fully understand their perspective. Until then, I do not deny the faithfulness or the sincerity of their beliefs, and although I cannot identify myself with a group of believers who exclude other Christians, I mourn their absence and will welcome them when they rediscover the beauty of the inclusive love of God. ### The Tunnel URL: https://randalljgreene.com/the-tunnel/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T22:26:50.000Z Running was all he knew. Day, night, dusk, twilight, his legs never stopped churning. He didn’t question why he ran, because he knew: He had to stay ahead of the Form chasing him. He called it a Form because he didn’t know how else to name it. It had no shape, no face, no substance as far as he could tell. It was neither a shadow nor a nightmare. He had considered whether it might be unreal. But real or not, it chased him, and he ran. His feet pounded endlessly against the floor of his tunnel. At times he could see through cracks in the wall that there were other runners, each on their own path in their own tunnel. The Form chased them – perhaps the same Form that chased him, or perhaps another. Although he didn’t understand the Form from which he ran, he was certain what he ran toward. At the end of the tunnel, always at the end, glowed a city. It shined through every darkness, every wall, every glass, every turn. Its magnificence drew him, compelled him. The glowing city was hope, salvation, not only for him but for every runner in every tunnel. The tunnel was the path away from the Form and toward the glowing city. But the tunnel changed as he ran. In one section every surface was a mirror. Wherever he looked he saw mutated self-reflections, monstrous, horrifying visions of himself. His feet sprouted from his hands, his ear twisted atop his breast, his body swollen and enlarged, then shriveled and starved. Light glinted off the glass, blinding him before he could throw his hands in front of his face. The mirrors disoriented him and he fell to his feet. He looked up. At least, he thought it was up. His own eyes stared back at him, unblinking and judgmental. The mirrors tempted him to sit and stay, to close his eyes and remain forever. But he remembered the Form chasing him and stood to his feet. The tunnel swirled before him, echoes of himself refracted at every angle. Which way was forward? He caught sight of the glowing city and ran toward it once more. *Focus not on the Form behind*, he told himself, *but on the destination before. That is the way.* And he left the mirrors in the past, running onward. Another part of the tunnel was filled with words. They were written on the walls, yes, but they also permeated the air, thick, oppressive. When he breathed they filled his nostrils like sludge. They burned his lungs until he gasped for air. They drowned his ears and he could not think, could no longer command his legs to move because the words whelmed him so. He sank into them, immobilized, nothing more than a rasping breath beneath their weight. The Form chased him still, yes, and chased him well, but his will alone was not enough to dispel the crush of the words. He could not think but he could feel, and what he felt was fear. And when he realized there was power in fear, and the fear was stronger than his mind, stronger than the words oppressing him, he wept and gave himself to it. (The fear did not cause the weeping. No, he wept from the sorrow of giving himself *to* the fear, for he knew fear was a tyrant and that, once it took control, it might never let go, yet he could see no other way to overcome the weight of those words.) The fear delivered him, and when he next opened his eyes and lungs and ears, everything had changed. The words were now gone in a mass of darkness, the path before him unseeable but for a single thread of all-dark, a strand of void in the midst of midnight, twisting up and down and back around but on, ever on, toward the glowing city which he couldn’t see yet must be at the end of the thread. Through the dark, with a hand tracing the all-dark thread as it weaved, he stumbled onward. His muscles tired, but less than his mind, for he strained to pierce the darkness with his eyes, his nose, his ears. Fear muted all but the touch of the all-dark thread. He wondered, at that moment, whether the fear filled the tunnel around him or filled his body inside him. He wondered, too, whether the fear could be the Form chasing him, whether it had captured him and consumed him. He could not see the Form, could not sense it, yet he knew not what else to do, so he pressed onward. After a time he felt that the thread had grown in his hands, though he did not know when the change had begun. No longer thin and winding, it was now thick, straight, rough. It turned up, no longer leading through the tunnel toward the glowing city but toward the sky above. He stopped running, his weary mind breaking with uncertainty of where to go. The way ahead was void, unguided; the way of fear’s thread was clear but senseless. He reached one hand forward, into the void, searching for something, anything he could follow, for he dared not climb fear’s thread into the sky. He stretched out, his other hand anchored to the thread for safety, but found nothing. *One step*, he thought, *and one step alone, cannot lose me*. So he stepped forward, reached with two trepid hands, and felt a stab in his fingertip, then another, then another. He pulled back, tasted iron, blood on his hands, bitter and cold. No way forward, then, so he turned, resigned to return to fear. One step back, but there was no thread there to be found, only more painful pricks on his hands, but then also on his feet, his head. A wall of thorns hedged him on every side. There was no escape, no forward, no back, no up, no down. This was the end, collapsing in on him. He sank, the desperation of his running fading to melancholy, the apathetic submission to fate one only feels when they have resisted the irresistible for too long, too long. The destruction of his hope for the glowing city. The Form would find him, and if it had not taken him already it surely would now. He supposed this was the way it had to be. There was no escaping the Form. There never had been. Not for him, not for any of the runners in their tunnels. With his hand off the thread, though, his vision slowly returned, shadows diffusing from midnight to dawn, then onward almost to light. He saw the wall of thorns surrounding him, imprisoning him, and the sight could not help him escape. Then a hand emerged from beyond the wall of thorns, pressing through it. First one, then another, then more, dozens of hands reaching through the wall, pressing away the thorns until they formed a hole large enough for a person. Into his prison stepped a woman from beyond, another runner, though one he had not seen before. She beckoned. He followed and stepped through the hole, into her tunnel. Her tunnel was filled with people, far as I could see, not running, not scared, but free. There was no Form in this tunnel, no thorns and no fear. The people smiled and laughed, hugged him and clapped. Their joy was infectious, it was bold, and when it filled me I glowed. I searched for the woman, the one who had saved me, but she had gone, perhaps to find another soul who was lost. I wanted to thank her, to offer her my life to repay the debt I owed her, but she had slipped away. And somehow I knew what she’d say: *It was not I who saved you, you’ll recall, but those courageous friends who pressed their hands through the thorns to make the way for you. Repay not me, but all the lives before, beside, and becoming.* ### Joy and Love and Dust and Death URL: https://randalljgreene.com/joy-and-love-and-dust-and-death/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T22:24:05.000Z *Remember that you are dust* *And to dust you shall return.* Today has been a day of juxtapositions. Of celebration and mourning. Of love and death. Of remembering the joy of life and being reminded of the violence within us. We shouldn't have to call our loved ones to make sure they are safe from the latest mass shooting. We shouldn't have to fear for our family's safety at a city-wide celebration. We shouldn't have to be thankful that we chose not to go. Yet here we are. Another day. A now-familiar swirl of emotions, from anger to fear to weeping to thankfulness to joy to anger. And the knowledge that tomorrow I will wake up and the world will have moved on, except for those twenty-two people and their families. For the rest of us, tomorrow will bring a return to routine, to our busy schedule of meetings and deadlines and chores because the world will go on because it must go on. But the world is what we make it. If the celebrations of today taught me anything, it's that we can change tomorrow. That the way we are today doesn't have to be the way we are tomorrow. That a series of bad days don't have to define our lives. We are dust, and God creates beautiful things out of dust. We begin by recognizing who we are. The violence today was committed by two or three or four people, and while it would be easy to say they don't represent us, in truth we all harbor that same capacity for violence. And we all contribute to the systems that both allow and perpetuate it. We are violent. I am dust. But we need not remain that way. There is hope. There is redemption. There is peace and love and joy, if not before us today then on the horizon. Change takes courage. It takes work. It takes heart. It takes commitment, day in and day out, when the whole world is watching and when we are alone. Change is possible. Change is coming. Maybe change is already here, within us. Although we are dust, dust does not have the final word. To dust we shall return, yet we live on, long after dust is gone. Because we are love, and love moves us, transforms us. And we know, deep in our soul, where *who we are* resides, that in the end love wins. ### I Was the Keeper of the Flame URL: https://randalljgreene.com/i-was-the-keeper-of-the-flame/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T22:20:24.000Z This is the story of how I became the Keeper of the Flame And how the world became the Keeper of the Flame And how the fire – inside me – changed me. The Flame came from the Sun that day Roaring on a bounding lion of light It always came with the storms, But this time I caught the Flame for myself. I wasn’t the only one who caught it – There was never only one – But I alone learned to feed the Flame, To keep it alive once the storm had passed. After all the other Flames had died, Mine burned still bright, Heat by day and light by night, My sacred duty to feed it, To protect it, To keep it, To share it with my kin, with my community. We flourished under the Flame, Learned to use it for food, For shelter, for security, for war. The world knelt before me for the Flame, For the spark of life it gave Before it faded in their hands And endless they returned, Desperate of the power it contained. I was the Steward! the Champion! The Chosen! the Keeper of the Flame! But then the Woman discovered That the Flame was not bound to the Sun, And that the feeding of it Was unnecessary to keep it alive. Because she found it burned ever Inside the heart of common stone, And that all who have such a stone Can summon the Flame on their own. Without warning, that day in a flash, I was no longer the Keeper of the Flame. The identity to which I had shaped my life Had become anyone’s to claim. The sacred source of food, shelter, security, war, Raged through the world, Free, unconfined, And the shaping of the world was no longer mine. With time, though, I have learned A new way to see the Flame. It is no longer mine alone to keep, But it has not lost its sacred power; Indeed, its presence in stone is a mystery-miracle, Wholly other, sacredness anew, And its freedom, unbound from me, Is a power unparalleled in all creation. The Flame, wild though it may be, Serves as light to the world; And while I am no longer the Keeper of the Flame, I am learning that we all are Keepers of the Flame. This does not diminish the sacredness of the Keeping – It unites us, binds us together as one, Guides us back to the beauty and power Of the fire inside us all. This is the story of how I became the Keeper of the Flame And how the world became the Keeper of the Flame And how the fire – inside me – changed me. ### Storyteller URL: https://randalljgreene.com/storyteller/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T22:19:08.000Z I never saw myself as a storyteller. I saw myself as a listener, a reader, a *lover* of stories, not a *teller* of them. Even now, I'm not entirely convinced. I see myself more as a steward than a teller. I hold these stories, precious and beautiful as they are, as near my heart as I can get them. But the funny thing about stories is that they are discontent to be held; they want to fly, loosed upon the world. The longer I hold onto them, the wilder and more frenetic they get. They won't be captive. So I have learned to let them go, to fall or fly on their own, and I no longer hold them back from their promise. I am a steward of these stories, and my prayer is simply that I do no harm to them while they are in my care. ### Salvation, a Present Reality URL: https://randalljgreene.com/salvation-a-present-reality/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T22:17:56.000Z Many of us have a fundamental understanding that Scripture – usually Jesus and Paul and the prophets – are guiding us toward a particular destination, an *after*life. But the more I read and study Scripture, the more I think that's wrong. Throughout Scripture, these teachers seem much more interested in guiding us toward a particular posture, a way of living that impacts each and every breath we take, an embodied self-giving that aligns our lives to the work of God already moving in the here and now. The salvation of Christ isn't focused on a distant, ephemeral eternity, but on the present reality of making this world we inhabit, the space and emotions and relationships we share, a better place for all. ### Every Creature Beautiful URL: https://randalljgreene.com/every-creature-beautiful/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T22:16:45.000Z In June every year I am reminded of the biblical account of the creation of the world – specifically an interpretation of it I first heard from a queer theologian. The story of creation is one of the passages Christians most often use to erase nonbinary folks, because the story specifically talks about the creation of man and woman, and does not include any other genders. And truth be told, the entire creation narrative is full of binaries. God separates the light from the dark, night and day. God separates the seas from the land, the sun and the stars, the birds and the land creatures. Yet we recognize that none of those things are actually binaries, don’t we? Indeed, the most interesting and beautiful parts of creation are found in the spaces between those binaries. Between night and day we recognize dusk and dawn, those magical moments of possibility and anticipation. Between the seas and the land are marshes and swamps and bogs, to say nothing of beaches and the ever-changing rivers and creeks. Our sun itself is actually no different than every other star in the universe. And we recognize the existence of flightless birds, the penguins and ostriches and kiwi. When we read the creation story in this light, we confess that the narrative isn’t meant to be a scientific treatise providing definitive categories of existence. No, the creation story is a reminder to us that we are all – from the stars to the birds to each and every person in our world – declared “very good” by the God who formed us. We are unique and we are beautiful exactly as we are. Exactly as God created us. That brings me joy, brings me peace, and it challenges me to see the beauty in each person around me as they live fully as the person God created them to be. ### God’s Holiness, Justice, and Love URL: https://randalljgreene.com/gods-holiness-justice-and-love/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T22:15:08.000Z *God is love, yet God is also holy and just. The paradox of those two realities is that, although God would prefer to save everyone, God cannot be in the presence of iniquity, therefore unrepentant sinners must be condemned to hell.* I heard this so many times growing up, this idea that God’s nature conflicted with itself and, although it didn’t make sense to us, that we ought to blindly trust that this paradoxical nature was, in fact, goodness. But after 30+ years of exploring my faith, of wrestling with scripture and reason and the tradition of Christianity alongside my own experience of it, after earning a Master’s Degree in Christian theology, I believe this concept of the paradoxical nature of God is wrong. God’s nature is love, and nothing less. God *is* love, not only descriptively as if we were painting the picture of God’s hair color or penchant for telling jokes, but definitionally. It is through God, and specifically through Jesus, that we know what love is. God is complete in love, and love is complete in God. Holiness and justice are not equal characteristics that conflict with God’s love; there is no paradox to be reconciled here. Holiness and justice are outflows of God’s nature, which is to say that they are outflows of God’s love. *Because* God is love, God is holy. *Because* God is love, God is just. We can only understand God’s holiness and justice when we consider them through the lens of God’s love. Through that lens, we see that God’s holiness never separates us from God, but draws us deeper into connection with God in spite of our sinfulness. Through that lens, we see that God’s justice does not condemn us, but delivers us into the fullness of who God created us to be. *God is love, and therefore God is holy and just. The rich beauty of this reality is that, because God loves everyone, God reaches out to us, connects with us, and refuses to allow us to suffer eternal torment.* ### Wounded for Fear URL: https://randalljgreene.com/wounded-for-fear/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T22:13:48.000Z Those wounds, not for peace, not for hope, but for fear because they could not imagine a kingdom led not by a king, led not by might, led not by opulence or self-protection, but led by love, led by listening and holding and giving one's privilege away. And that kind of kingdom unimaginable, a kingdom that depowers the powerfuls and empowers the ignorables, was a threat to be quashed, a movement to be killed, a teacher to be wounded. No, those wounds were not for peace, not for hope, not for love; those wounds, like all wounds, were for fear. ### Why it’s been hard for me to feel my feelings URL: https://randalljgreene.com/why-its-been-hard-for-me-to-feel-my-feelings/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T22:12:30.000Z Let’s play a game real quick. Think of three types of people who are really bad at expressing their feelings. I’ll give you a minute. Okay, who did you think of? Was your list close to mine? Here’s what I think of: men in general, military folks, and Christian evangelicals. The three groups I named are stereotypically *really bad* at talking about their feelings, and in this case I can say pretty confidently that the stereotypes exist for a reason. I was raised at the intersection of those three groups, and I seriously struggle with feeling my feelings. The reasons for this are complex. I’ve spent a lot of time in therapy working through them, and my work here will probably never be over, but I want to share what that intersection has looked like in my life. ## Men: Trust Reason, Not Emotion The patriarchal society I grew up in taught me that women were the emotional ones, and men were supposed to be stoic and rational, stalwart sentries unbound by the tides of emotion. Real men were warriors, cowboys, hardened leaders, not lovers. Men had to make the hard decisions, and they had to be based on facts, not feelings. We needed data to drive us, and emotion would only cloud our reason. Emotion was something for us to conquer, to subdue. According to what I was taught, this was intrinsic to our gender: men were predisposed to rationality, tasks of the mind, and physical work that required us to take dominion over our bodies. Women were predisposed to be nurturers, caretakers, and helpers. Women were prisoners in the realm of emotion, and it was men’s natural ability to disregard emotion that made us fit for leadership. ## Military: Obey Orders Without Question As a military child, and specifically as a military *son*, I learned at a young age that I was expected to fall in line and stay there. When someone in authority over me told me to do something, I obeyed without question. To hesitate, to inquire, was to disobey, and disobedience was punishable. If I took time to listen to my emotions, if I gave space to how I *felt* about what I was told to do, that delay was an act of insolence. Obedience required immediate action. This is not just a theoretical exercise for military members. When soldiers are on the battlefield, they must obey without question because lives are at stake. Questions and hesitations can result in danger not just to the individual, but to entire squadrons and companies. So to protect itself, military training teaches soldiers to obey without hesitation. This training carries with it some unintended consequences, though. First, it teaches members of the military to ignore feelings about what they are doing, because the only thing that matters is immediate obedience. But we are human, and we are made to feel things. Witnessing and participating in military violence *should* wrench our emotions. [Violence *should* give us pause](https://randalljgreene.com/the-problem-with-biblical-opposition-to-john-pipers-pacifism/), and it is partially because of this inability to consider the implications of obedience that soldiers sometimes commit atrocities on behalf of their governments. And then, when the battle is over and their bodies force them to consider what they’ve witnessed, they often don’t have the resources to make sense of it all, because the capacity to think and feel has been drilled out of them. The second unintended consequence is where this topic becomes personal for me as a military kid. The military’s form of instruction does not allow for contextualization –for them, obedience is a worldview. It doesn’t teach its members *when* to obey without question – it only teaches *to* obey without question. As a result, military members tend to search for an authority to guide them throughout their lives. Whether they are entrenched on a battlefield, piloting a drone, settling into a post-service career, or exploring life after retirement, they often gravitate to authoritarian figures and institutions to give them a sense of grounding. And as these military members have children, they tend to pass this worldview on, teaching their children to obey without question, that pausing to understand how you feel about something is an act of insubordination. As I can attest personally, this perspective stunts the emotional development of children and renders them unable and unwilling to understand what their body is feeling, even as they grow into adulthood. ## Evangelical: The Body Is Evil The conservative evangelical position on feelings is, in my experience, deeply dualistic. There is an embedded understanding that the flesh is weakness, the body is sinful, and the messages sent by our bodies are tainted by Satan’s temptations. Our flesh focuses on advancing its own causes, guiding us to selfish ambition; it desires comfort above all us, guiding us to laziness; it seeks self-gratification, guiding us to impurity and corruption. The body is irredeemable, and it is only through death and resurrection, by which we are given new, incorruptible bodies, that we can be perfected. Our souls are that separate part of us that endures after our body passes away. To the extent that we desire wholeness, that we recognize something missing inside of ourselves, that recognition comes from our soul. Our souls are redeemable, indeed are continually drawing us to seek connection with God. Within this paradigm, purity is impossible in this life because our souls are subject to our bodies – the only purity we can claim is that which is spiritually imputed to our souls by the bodily death of Jesus Christ. He took on flesh and conquered it, both as a means of imputing righteousness to us and as an example of how we ought to live. It is no wonder, then, that this form of evangelical Christianity teaches us to ignore the feelings of our bodies. If those feelings do not specifically align with the teachings of Scripture, then those are sinful temptations of the flesh and must be overcome. To listen to those feelings is to give space for Satan to latch onto our souls. ## The Intersection Through my mid- to late-twenties, I was a conservative evangelical man who was raised in a military household, and I had no idea how to handle my emotions. I became adept at *identifying* my emotions because I knew that the instant I felt them rising I had to push them aside, but my ability to identify and disregard them did give me an understanding of why they rose up in the first place or what they were trying to tell me. I would bury them, over and over and over again, deep inside myself, until finally they would explode with volcanic violence and hurt the people I loved the most. It has only been in the last few years that I have come to understand how important it is for me to listen to these messages of my body, and I am still learning how to interpret and express what I feel. I will have much more to say on this in future blog posts, but for now I want to leave with this: [**Life is not a battlefield**](https://randalljgreene.com/the-war-is-coming/)**. Listening to my body is not sinful. Emotions are messages, alerts from my body that I am experiencing something really important, and that I need to stop and pay attention. And when I do pay attention, I discover more about the way God made me and am able to be a better participant in the kingdom of God and gospel of Christ.** ### Why I Love Words and Paper URL: https://randalljgreene.com/why-i-love-words-and-paper/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T22:10:26.000Z Words, if you look at them, are black and white, a contrast of ink on page, one layered against the other, in a titanic battle for power, the ink pushing against the page, lines in the blank space, conquering, consuming. But when we listen to them, the words on the page, we get more than lines of ink, we get books, wonderful books, teeming with life and color and image, the deepest expressions of humanity and beauty and grace. This is why I so love words, so cherish books, because they defy their skin, those prisons of bone, and by the pure depth of who they are, by unlimiting themselves, they fill the world with vibrant life and dreams and hope and imaginings. ### The Joy and Pain of My Storytelling URL: https://randalljgreene.com/the-joy-and-pain-of-my-storytelling/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T22:09:10.000Z I seriously love writing and telling stories. I really, really do. I’m not sure that I’m particularly good at it, but that’s part of the reason I love it so much. It’s hard. It’s frustrating. It’s elusive. Continually I find myself unable to capture the details in my imagination as words on a page. I pen a tale and then re-read it and discover that it’s flat, dry, bland. So I edit and re-read and somehow it becomes worse, disjointed, trying so hard to be bold that it’s clownish. So I scrap it and rewrite and re-read and the story is so boring that even I can’t stay interested, so I explore a new idea and write that tale. It’s an awful cycle. I love it. I do also hate it, of course. Most of the time, if I’m honest with myself. But even then, I love it. And in that duality is something remarkable, something beautiful. Because sometimes the things most worth doing are the things that I hate that I love. Those things teach me about myself. They pull at me until I cannot maintain any pretenses about who I am and what I value and how I pursue truth and beauty in my life. And in that duality I work not for the benefit of anyone else, as if my stories must reach an audience; in that duality I find myself and see myself and love myself. I love it. ### Grandfathers, Death, and the Character of Life URL: https://randalljgreene.com/grandfathers-death-and-the-character-of-life/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T22:07:54.000Z My last living grandfather passed away last week, and his funeral was today. I was fortunate to have three grandpas in my life. While one was a step-grandpa (my father’s stepfather), all I really understood as a kid was that I had three of them. They were each unique, remarkable in their own ways. My mom’s dad was a jokester, a pastor, and the most self-giving person I’ve ever known. My dad’s biological father was deeply analytical and had an entrepreneurial spirit that would never let him settle for things as they were. And my dad’s stepfather, the one who passed last week, was perhaps the most gentle, tenderhearted person in my life. It’s strange having all three of them gone. An entire generation of men in my lineage has passed. I feel the weight of it, as if a mantle has been passed to my father, and the mantle he wore has been passed to me. This feels like a silly analogy to make because nothing has really changed in my day-to-day life. I haven’t been very connected with my grandpa for the last several years, so his passing isn’t deeply emotional for me; I have no children to whom I could pass this figurative mantle, so if there is any such thing, it seems that it will end with me; and I generally resist [the strained concepts of masculinity and manliness](https://randalljgreene.com/imitation-masculinity/). Yet as I consider my life and the impact I hope to have in the world, maybe it’s not altogether absurd. I have nephews and a niece I can pour into. They have a good, hard-working father, so they don’t need me trying to be that figure in their lives, but all of us need people in our lives to encourage and support us. And beyond my family, people all around me need someone in their lives who can embody the character traits I learned from my grandfathers. I don’t have to pass on stereotypical traits of masculinity – after all, those weren’t the traits that were handed on to me! Instead, I can show them how to laugh in difficult circumstances, how to give of themselves to care for the people in their community, how to think creatively and challenge the assumptions we’ve inherited, and how to see the best in every person we encounter. I don’t know. Call me crazy. But I kind of think that sounds a little bit like Jesus. ### God is Love, Not a Slave Lord URL: https://randalljgreene.com/god-is-love-not-a-slave-lord/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T22:06:19.000Z Despite what Paul says, I don’t think God desires us to be slaves of God. God does not deliver us from bondage only to re-enslave us, because that would simply be putting new wine into old wineskins. God wants us to be free, to flourish, to be the healthy, vibrant people God created us to be. Being captive to God would only be marginally better than being captive to wealth or sex or drugs or other people, because in any of those circumstances we become something less-than-human in the world – and sometimes we even become less-than-human to ourselves. God wants us to be complete, whole, fulfilled. Human. When God guides us, we aren’t expected to follow blindly, obeying simply because we read a command in the Bible; rather, God expects us to see God’s heart for us, to discern the value of living in authentic community, and to understand the depth and richness of loving ourselves and loving our neighbors, encouraging in them the same flourishing God encourages in us. God is not a slave lord seeking domination or praise; God is a proud, loving parent who wants to see us thrive. We love God not because God commands it, but because God *is* love, has loved us deeply since before we took our first breaths, and shows us how to radiate love back into the world. ### A Found Poem About Friendship Based on a ChatGPT Poem About Socks URL: https://randalljgreene.com/a-found-poem-about-friendship-based-on-a-chatgpt-poem-about-socks/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T22:04:40.000Z ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence system created by OpenAI, is all the rage right now. It's really simple to use – just create an account, and then you type in a question AskJeeves-style, and it will compile an answer out of the work it's done scouring the internet. It's really, really good at it. But I wanted to put it to a new kind of test. Could it create art? And if it did, could I create art out of what it created? When I asked it to write a sonnet about socks, it did! And a surprisingly coherent one, too. But then I wanted to see if I could take what it created and turn it into something new. So here are both of them. The first one was created by ChatGPT, and the second one is my found poem based on the first. ![ChatGPT's sonnet about socks: Warfare, a cruel and bitter game Where lives are lost and futures maimed Brothers and sisters, sons and daughters All fall victim to the constant slaughter The sound of gunfire, the smell of death The screams of the wounded, the final breath The fields are stained with blood and tears As the soldiers face their darkest fears But for some, the fight is just a job A means to an end, a way to lob Their families depend on their return But for many, their fate is left to burn The politics and power, the greed and hate Are the true causes of this deadly fate But the soldiers pay the ultimate price As they lay down their lives, so others may thrive So let us remember those who fell In the name of freedom, they served so well Their sacrifice will never be forgotten As we honor their bravery, and the wars they've fought in](https://randalljgreene.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/friends01.png) ChatGPT's Sonnet / My Found Poem Here's the text of my found poem: Oh companions my travels never dull, and still thou art always for every journey, short or long or far, cold or wracked, and never close my journey. ### Piracy URL: https://randalljgreene.com/piracy/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T21:55:02.000Z Hiram misses the sea, the rise and fall of the world under his boots, the drum of waves against the hull, the pervase smell of salt and water flooding his nostrils and stiffening his hair and clothes and skin. Dreams of the sea pull him dripping from sleep, although he’s not sure if he’s actually sleeping or if it’s pretend, a self-hypnosis forcing his mind to drift back where he belongs. The land is dead to him, cold, unmoving, and he has always been a prisoner to the temperament of his environment. Aboard the ship, he was animate, teeming below the surface, where currents wound unseen threads of life and vitality through the depths. But he feels none of that here, just the deathly stillness of stone, the silence of a sepulcher inside and out. This cell they’ve put him in is more than a cage, it’s a tomb, and he feels more dead every minute he’s locked inside. They bring him food every so often – how much time passes between each one? he can’t tell – ostensibly aspiring to keep him alive. The bowls of mash and carrots they provide aren’t nourishment, though, they’re blackmail, conspicuous attempts to convince him the death they’ve levied upon him is life. But they will not so easily wash away his past, his heart, his soul. His anger and his desire and his will, when they combine, are potent, perhaps even strong enough to explode, shatter the walls of this tomb cell, and sink his captors into oblivion. The desire and the will are present in him now, ready to burst, but for some reason he can’t fathom, the anger refuses to rise. It’s there, the memory of it at least, but when he tries to pull it to the surface, all he finds is a knowledge of it, an awareness of how its fire should feel in his bones, but in the net is nothing but emptiness, numbness, cold stones beneath his feet, a longing for the sea. ### Self Portrait URL: https://randalljgreene.com/self-portrait/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T21:53:05.000Z He has a heart, and arms and legs and toes just like anyone else, but clings to distinctives in himself and others because no two persons are the same. He wants not to be known but to be known by love, by care and compassion and grace and patience and heart, because with no heart there is no humanity and with no humanity no life. He learned as a child that to care was to err because feelings were lies one told oneself, the temptations of the flesh, not the virtues of the mind, and to think was to be, to rationalize to see. But he wills himself now to bleed empathy, to breathe it deep in, breathe it deep out, because in spite of his past he knows the ones he loves deserve to know how much caring he really does. ### The One I Have to Tell URL: https://randalljgreene.com/the-one-i-have-to-tell/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T21:51:58.000Z I want to paint my prose on the page, A snapshot of majesty, of grandeur, A memorial of that moment for eternity, Words to capture peace, and still, all is well In that sunrise over the mountains, or That storm, distant, over the canyon. I want to paint that prose on the page. But while that moment is healing, it is not mine, Not the arc of my life nor my story to tell. Though I witness it, long for it, I do not possess it, not for a moment. My story, the one I have to tell, Is far more bland than majestic, More granular than grand, Comprised of moments of no consequence until Looking back on their sum, you see their currents, Ebbs and flows, tiny decision after tiny decision, Etched shallow in the sand, This story, the one I have to tell. ### An Online Church, A Return to Embodied Faith URL: https://randalljgreene.com/online-church-a-return-to-embodied-faith/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T21:49:50.000Z “What we’ve learned during COVID is that doing church online doesn’t work. Trying to worship through a computer just isn’t *church* – there’s something about being together in person, in the *body*, that can’t be done online,” my pastor friend confessed to me a few weeks ago. We were talking about online church and its viability as we grapple with what our communities look like as we become a post-pandemic society, but she and I were coming to different conclusions. For her, the losses of connection during COVID had highlighted the need for our churches to return to the old way of doing things: weekly worship services in the church building, with a mid-week touch-point for Bible study and prayer to set a routine of communal development. For me, though, COVID demonstrated that we needed to continue adapting our habits, using online tools to root our churches more deeply in the ancient practices of our faith. At the time of this conversation, I couldn’t articulate this well, but I think I’ve been able to pinpoint it over the past couple of weeks. ## **Online Worship as Disembodied Community** When people criticize the idea of online church, they usually consider online worship services a form of disembodiment – a disconnection between Christians being able to use all five senses to engage with one another, hugging one another, participating in communion with one another, even smelling one another. Since we aren’t able to engage our full bodies in those markers of Christian community when we’re watching worship on our screens, online church feels disembodied. This idea weaves together two different uses of the word “body.” The first is our literal, physical bodies as experienced through our senses: sight, touch, hearing, smell, and taste. The second is the metaphor of our Christian community as the body of Christ, in that as we gather we are many parts with different purposes and needs bound together by the cross of Christ. I actually agree with this criticism! In both of these uses, online worship services don’t give us full access to an embodied experience of our church community. For me, though, **the problem isn’t that online tools are inherently disembodied** (more on that in a moment), **but that we have been trying to transplant physical models of connection into the foreign context of online connection**. We’ve been trying to make “online” a *replacement* for physical community, which is something it was never intended to be – **online ought to be an extension of physical community**. And when we understand it in this way, I think what we’ll find is that online church compels us to return to a deeply embodied form of faith that we haven’t experienced in generations. Let’s take a look at what that means. ## **What is an Embodied Community?** Over the past 50 or 60 years, the United States has moved toward suburbanization. In the decades after World War 2, around the same time as the Civil Rights Movement, the wealthier (mostly white) families who lived in the cities began to move out to the fringes of the urban environments, creating “suburbs” as new types of communities. (For more on this topic, I highly recommend [*The Color of Law* by Richard Rothstein](https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten-history-of-how-our-government-segregated-america/?ref=randalljgreene.com).) Urban communities have a mixture of homes, businesses, retail, and churches, so most of the people in those contexts were within walking distance of everything they needed on a daily basis. These new suburban communities, though, were almost entirely residential, and the people living there tended to still work in the city. Suburbanites, therefore, became comfortable with commuting – driving to work, to the grocery store, and to church became a core part of their daily routines. As I’ve previously written for *Good Faith Media*, suburbanization has created a context where [churches are no longer embedded communities within their neighborhoods](https://goodfaithmedia.org/how-online-churches-boost-members-engagement/?ref=randalljgreene.com), but instead are made up of congregants from all over a metropolitan area who commute in for worship services. ### Commuter Churches and Isolated Communities At the time, I don’t think we realized how significant this commuter church format would become for the shape and identity of our communities, and I think this shift is what we need to consider as we talk about disembodied churches. We were still meeting together physically, so we maintained the literal sense of embodiment, but by spreading ourselves beyond our neighborhoods – and out of the reach of daily encounters with the church-goers and non-church-goers *in* our neighborhoods – we cut ourselves off from the metaphorical sense of the body of Christ in which we live in continual communion with people different than us. For me, **an embodied community is one in which we engage with the diverse people who live and move around us with all our senses, not just once or twice a week, but every day**. And as I survey the landscape of churches in the United States, most of us do not seem to meet these criteria. Most churches, from what I see, pull Christians out of their neighborhoods to create a separate, isolated community of people who look, think, and behave with uniformity as they gather for an hour once or twice a week. And I think online church, if we do it well, can help us fix that. ## **Online Church as Embodiment** If the disembodiment problem is that we have lost the connection with our neighbors, then the solution has to involve re-establishing that connectedness. But our people still live in the same suburbs and are still accustomed to commuting to work, church, and so on. So are we asking our congregations to all move to the same neighborhood? Or to stop participating in *our* church and find a church that’s more local to them? This is where I think online church, if properly understood, can serve as an extension of what we do as a church to actually empower our people to be *more embodied* within the communities in which they already exist. To get to that understanding, though, we have to redefine what we mean by “online church.” ### What is online church? For many people, “online church” is the same as a one-hour, online worship service. It’s a video stream of a church service, usually livestreamed from a church sanctuary, and it sometimes has some interactive features like live chat or digital sermon notes, but has no real impact beyond that one hour a week. But when we talk more generally about “being a church,” we don’t limit that to just what happens during worship services – we include Bible studies, fellowship times, and opportunities to serve, pray, and care for one another. We should take that same approach to conversations about online church. It’s not only an online worship service, but also includes all the ways we engage and connect online. Most of us here in the United States are already connecting online through our phones and laptops, on social media or video chats or text messages, and we’re doing it all day every day. This is precisely where I find the potential of online church. ### Embodiment in Our Communities These online tools that allow us to have touchpoints with our people throughout the week – throughout the day, even – to give them encouragement, to provide them resources, to challenge them to go deeper, and to listen to them. Through these types of online connections, Christians can be equipped to be the hands and feet of Jesus within their neighborhoods, in their workplaces, at their kids’ baseball games, at the gym, and so on. While commuter church compels Christians to isolate their faith into a particular geographical space, the accessibility of online church invites Christians to extend their faith into every sphere of their lives. When we challenge and equip our people to be physically, bodily present in their local communities, we are empowering them to live a deeply embodied faith as the hands and feet of Jesus Christ in the world around them. It doesn’t matter to me where we worship, whether in a sanctuary or in a living room. It matters to me where we embody Christ. ### Online Church #9: Weaving the Church into the Physical and the Digital URL: https://randalljgreene.com/online-church-9-weaving-the-church-into-the-physical-and-the-digital/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T21:44:02.000Z There is much work yet to be done. We have used Paul’s letters to the Corinthians to sketch a basic framework whereby we might conceive of an authentic online community that is diverse, yet united in it its posture of cruciformity and orientation to the wisdom of God. We have described ways in which that community might find its identity in continual participation in the humility, weakness, and love of Christ’s crucifixion. This kind of community would be known by its refusal to recognize social or economic stratification, emphasizing instead the equality of each member’s personhood through their Spirit-given gifts. By so modeling the kingdom of God, the community would be a Spirit-filled embodiment of Christ in its mission to reconcile the cosmos to God. The digital context is, in many ways, uniquely suited to these purposes. By its very nature, social media blurs the lines of distinction between social and economic statuses, creating a world in which marginalized voices can be found, heard, and amplified. The possibility of continuous connection to other believers means that a person can always have a supportive community surrounding them in prayer and counsel, and they can share much of the day-to-day existence of their lives with one another. Yet, while there are creative ways we can use online connectivity be present with one another from a distance, there remain tangible needs that cannot be met within a purely digital context. Indeed, it would be foolish to attempt to completely separate the digital world from the physical—the two coexist alongside and within one another, and a digital ecclesiology must be cognizant of this reality. **The church should be present within a person’s daily life, but cannot become the totality of that person’s daily life.** A church that meets in the digital sphere cannot replace the physical relationships humans need. Our increased access to the internet, with its capacity for global and perpetual connectivity, is changing the way our culture thinks and behaves, and no one knows exactly what the future of our society will look like. The digital world is still in its infancy, and we as the church must be participants in shaping its future to draw out the ways in which it can reflect the gospel and minimize its potential for dehumanization. For us to affect the development of our increasingly online society, we must be present in the digital world as it matures. The ecclesiological sketch developed here is only one outline of how we may be engaged in the work of cultivating digital communities, but I pray that it may deepen our commitment to translating our conceptions of what it means to be the church. It is no longer enough for us to exist solely in a physical presence—we must embrace the digital as an extension of our embodied selves. **We, the body of Christ, cannot content ourselves to sit back and watch as these new media become the message without us; the world needs God’s story of hope and humanity to be woven into the fabric of its life, everywhere that life is found.** ### Online Church #8: Handling Conflict, Bodily Presence, and Gathering Together URL: https://randalljgreene.com/online-church-8-handling-conflict-bodily-presence-and-gathering-together/ Last updated: 2024-10-21T02:00:24.000Z As we establish expectations for participants in an online church, cultivating leaders and setting practices for Christian worship, it is important to remember that the digital world is not a "disembodied" experience of the physical world, but an extension of it. ## Handling Interpersonal Conflict No community exists without conflict between its members, and the susceptibility of social media to dehumanization makes conflict even more common and more volatile. Throughout his letters to the church in Corinth, Paul demonstrated ways to address conflict and challenge conduct that was contrary to the wisdom of God. A complete examination of each instance of correction is beyond the scope of this series, but we may say that he used a wide variety of rhetorical tools in different contexts—irony, sarcasm, self-deprecation, accusation, apologetics, and gentle reproach, to name a few—as he sought to orient the church around the posture of cruciformity according to the wisdom of God. In the same way, we cannot identify a single particular method of reproach and reconciliation that is likely to work in every situation. We should acknowledge that the skills and judgment required to facilitate community in an online context are at least as broad and critical as the ones required for a physical context. Training in conflict resolution and the skills for having difficult conversations should be an integral and ongoing part of every member’s discipleship journey and participation within the group. Training ought to be even more emphasized for those functioning as group moderators. ### Private Messaging In addition, the tendency of social media to devolve into objectifying other users may be exacerbated by one-to-one private messaging, because such messaging leads to a privatization of the community experience, creating sub-groups within the cell group in which individuals may spread rumors or sow dissension. Although there are legitimate uses for private messages between group members, most groups will find that shared communication (communication that is available to be seen by the whole group) is best for fostering a sense of commitment to the community. The transparency of shared communication allows for accountability within the group. Just as Paul’s letters were read aloud to the entire community, shaping their identity as one body, so ought our digital communications to be primarily presented before the whole body. **A commitment to openness in group dialogue is critical to the function of a “round table” form of ecclesiastical leadership.** ### Open and Closed Groups While openness within the group is a key to an online ecclesiology, that openness does not necessarily need to translate beyond the bounds of the group. Social media has created an environment in which privacy is a constant concern. On many social media platforms, open groups and conversations can be shared publicly out of the context of the group’s discussions and with an intent to cause harm to the individual who originally posted, and such a distribution of private conversations (meant for the group members) is damaging to the integrity of the group. Even on social media platforms that allow for closed groups, such as in Facebook groups, malevolent individuals can take screenshots of text-based conversations and share them publicly. While there are instances where public groups make sense, particularly as an entry point for outsiders to engage with the church community, most of the cell groups ought to have a level of privacy to protect group members and the honesty of their conversations. Within a cell group, an individual ought to feel confident that they can share their struggles and questions without fear of reprisal. With a proper posture and a constant attunement to flattening the hierarchical social positioning of group members, the digital context can be a healthy place for growth and community. It is vital, though, that this digital community not become a *retreat from* the physical world, but an *extension of* it. ## Integration of the Digital and the Physical It is tempting, particularly for technology enthusiasts like me, to fantasize about a world where one’s entire life can be lived through a digital medium with no interaction with the physical, but that is not the trend that we actually see playing out in the world around us. Instead, we see the digital world extending and supplementing our physical existence. In our consideration of an online church, we must similarly resist using online tools to displace the physical world in which the body is rooted and into which Christ was incarnated. Such escapism is antithetical to the very mission of the church, because **the church cannot work to reconcile the world to God if it is not present in the world**. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Online Church #7: Developing Online Leaders and Worship Practices URL: https://randalljgreene.com/online-church-7-developing-online-leaders-and-worship-practices/ Last updated: 2024-10-21T02:12:33.000Z For the church in Corinth, the Christian life was built around small cell groups that met regularly in homes. A church that exists online must begin with small cell communities that meet regularly for fellowship and spiritual growth. The culture we have described as the ideal for these cells is dramatically different than what we see happening online right now, and members entering an online church for the first time will bring that old paradigm of social media with them into this new context. How might a digital church work to develop this posture of cruciformity and reconciliation within its new members, when that posture is so foreign to today’s online experience? ## Establishing Expectations for Participants Because the dangers of social media are such a ubiquitous part of our digital world, an online church needs a process to teach new members about the church’s standards of behavior. In the web industry, this is referred to as an “onboarding process”—an introduction to the key features and capabilities of a new web interface. For the church, this onboarding process is not simply an overview of the technical components of the platform, but also a system for developing the posture of a disciple of Christ within this online context. **The goal of this onboarding is to help the person to see themselves as a part of this digital community and to foster their growth into Christian** maturity, not to indoctrinate them into any particular dogmatic positions, but to lead them into a Spirit-powered place of self-giving love. ### Growing as Disciples into Leaders This may be accomplished by creating an introductory group led by a seasoned member of the church; the class should meet for a fixed amount of time and, as it models the format of a standard group, should cover a variety of topics, including: - How to use the technology - The basic tenets of the Christian faith - The ways in which this digital community is different from typical social media platforms - The expectations the church has for its members In addition, this introductory group should explore the particular gifts of each individual to better understand how the people might fit together. Upon completing the introductory group, the group members may be placed into existing cell groups or may form a new group of their own. Once a new group has formed, care should be taken to avoid creating a hierarchy within the group. Although individuals will necessarily have different *roles* in the group—one of which should be a group facilitator or moderator to serve as a point of contact for communication with the greater church body—**leadership should be understood, as in Paul’s letters to the Corinthians, as a position of humility and service to the body**. The purpose of the group, after all, is the same as the mission of the church: the cruciformity of the community as a mission of reconciliation within the body and to the whole world. To that end, Letty M. Russell details an ecclesiastical structure that she calls “church in the round” wherein each person has equal voice and the church is continually attuned to the voices on the margins of society. In her model, “there are never too many leaders, for... power and leadership gifts multiply as they are shared and more and more persons become partners in communities of faith and struggle.” Russell’s model of developing the gifts of the entire body fits well with Paul’s description of gifts in 1 Cor 12 and ought to be embraced within our construction of a cell group. A digital ecclesiology cannot begin and end with cell groups, though. It must also include a form of corporate worship. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Online Church #6: Harnessing the Potential of Online Church URL: https://randalljgreene.com/online-church-6-harnessing-the-potential-of-online-church/ Last updated: 2024-10-21T02:23:17.000Z Paul communicated with the church in Corinth through letters, the technological medium of his day. By examining his usage of the written word, we can find guidance for our use of digital media today—the technological medium we use for distance communication—to foster genuine ecclesial community. The comparison of these two tools is imperfect—the world is vastly different than it was in the first century and the media themselves are not entirely analogous. To find guidelines for today in Paul’s letters, we cannot directly transpose his writings into our own digital world; we must work to translate his methods, message, and strategies into our own context. In the previous post, we sought to understand [Paul’s concept of church as developed in his correspondence with the Corinthians](https://randalljgreene.com/online-church-5-worship-sacrament-and-conflict-in-the-corinthian-church/), and in this chapter we will seek to translate that concept into a digital context. We will begin by considering the ways in which the potential of the digital world can be harnessed within an online ecclesiology, then we will look at the modes and structures of gathering online, and will conclude by identifying some of the dangers of an online church and attempting to create boundaries to mitigate them. ## Unity Requires Diversity Paul’s primary concern for the church in Corinth was that they be unified, but that unity was one found in submission to the cross of Christ rather than in any kind of economic, social, or political uniformity. Throughout his communication with the church, Paul did not erase the distinctive beliefs and statuses of different believers, but affirmed the necessity and sacredness of diversity within their congregation, as demonstrated in the metaphor of body in 1 Cor 12:12–31\. Natalie K. Watson summarized this idea as she outlined the basics of a feminist ecclesiology: > ...in the context of Christian theology and praxis this difference \[in human beings\] cannot be the basis for exclusion or marginalization but is rather a factor of enrichment for the church…. Theologically such an affirmation of difference and particularity must be grounded in an understanding of Christ which describes Christ not only as the guarantee of the unity of the church, but also prevents such unity from being gained only at the price of diversity.Natalie K. Watson, *Introducing Feminist Ecclesiology* Within our social media platforms today, which drive us to divide our “friends” into an antagonistic binary—those who think like us, and those who do not think like us—**a digital church must actively resist the tendency to reduce participants into either/or factions**. Paul’s development of the wisdom of God as an identity marker is helpful here, because it orients the church’s identity around a posture of participation in the lowliness, weakness, and love of Christ’s crucifixion, rather than any kind of particular doctrinal distinction, social status or, as is prevalent on social media today, political association. The cruciformity we explored in previous posts must be especially emphasized within the day-to-day existence of an online community because it is so at odds with the way social media users are accustomed to interacting online. From the beginning of the group’s formation, the humility and self-giving of cruciformity should be such a norm in the life and discussions of the community that it is readily identifiable as *the attitude* that binds the community together—that is to say that it ought to be both spoken and modeled by each member of the group, establishing a feedback loop that reinforces the group behavior. Creating this kind of culture is, of course, far easier to write about than to achieve; indeed, we might consider this challenge to be the penultimate task of Christian community—after all, that is precisely the challenge to which Paul found himself continually returning in his relationship with the Corinthians. ### Limitations to Diversity The local church has always had natural limitations to the diversity of its body. For example, the church in Corinth was basically limited to those who lived within the urban, Hellenized context of the city so, while it was diverse in its philosophical, religious, and economic representation, it likely did not have many believers who lived in agrarian or rural cultural contexts. Douglas Estes, in his book *SimChurch*, writes that, “While *geography* forces some degree of heterogeneity, the virtual world strongly encourages *ideological* homogeneity” (emphasis added). In the social media world today, where geography is not a restriction, we naturally become divided into homogeneous in-groups and out-groups based on our political stances and social groupings—divisions which are irreconcilable with Paul’s understanding of diversity in ecclesial formation. **In an online ecclesial community, we must be particularly vigilant regarding the tendency of social media platforms to algorithmically segment users into isolated groups.** _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Online Church #5: Worship, Sacrament, and Conflict in the Corinthian Church URL: https://randalljgreene.com/online-church-5-worship-sacrament-and-conflict-in-the-corinthian-church/ Last updated: 2024-10-21T02:23:32.000Z We have considered Paul's admonition to the church in Corinth as to its posture of cruciformity and the mission of reconciliation, so now we will turn to the way Paul structured worship and leadership in the church, as well as consider how he handled conflict within the church body to maintain growth and faithfulness. ## The Structure of the Church Paul did not believe the church's potential would happen as a natural by-product of existing in community together. After all, he wrote these letters because the church had failed to live up to his expectations for them. Indeed, the majority of the text in these letters was devoted to addressing specific instances of misconduct or poor decision-making. A full consideration of Paul’s advice is beyond the scope of our discussion, but we will consider two core components of the life of their church: their practice of worship in the Lord’s Supper and the structure of their leadership as members of a body. ### Sacramental Worship (1 Cor 11:17–34) Paul had grave concerns about the ways in which the Corinthians were engaging in worship. He was concerned they were presenting themselves—as a corporate body—unworthily before God (11:29–30). Paul wrote about the gravity of this situation in regards to the way they came together to participate in the Lord’s Supper. The problem was that, when they came together as a church to eat and drink in the name of the Lord, they divided themselves along socioeconomic lines. Witherington notes that, in the Lord's Supper, “the social stratification of the congregation was overemphasized and exacerbated. A serious division between haves and have-nots was thus threatening the fragile unity of the Corinthian Christian community.” Those who were well-off arrived earlier to the meal than those who were poorer, because the poorer had jobs and other necessities to manage. The wealthy picked the best food for themselves, started drinking early, and gave the leftovers (if any remained) to the latecomers from lower social classes. This kind of hierarchy was common in Greco-Roman cultic meals and celebrations, but Paul argued that **such division had no place in a community bonded over the cross of Christ**. The pride of the wealthy—and the resultant humiliation of those who had nothing—was not a remembrance of Christ, but was a demonstration of “contempt for the church of God” (v. 22). **A community properly centered in cruciformity could only participate in the Lord’s Supper as equals with one another.** Any practice of the Eucharist that favored some over others was a failure to recognize the cross as an act of transformation—an act of reconciliation—for all. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Online Church #4: Paul and the Church in Corinth URL: https://randalljgreene.com/online-church-4-paul-and-the-church-in-corinth/ Last updated: 2024-10-21T02:23:48.000Z Now that we have a basic understanding of the online world and how it both impacts and is being impacted by our society, we will consider Paul's leadership and communication with the church in Corinth in the first century. The church framework developed by Paul in his two letters to the church in Corinth is, of course, limited to the particular issues and context into which Paul was writing, and we should be careful in our interpretation to recognize those limits. A full Pauline ecclesiology is beyond the scope of this series, but a careful consideration of these two letters will give us enough detail to sketch a basic church model. In this post, we will discuss the basic posture of the church as united in the wisdom of God and the mission of the cross. In the next post, we will outline a simple model of sacramentality in worship and then consider Paul’s methods for the church’s continuing growth and faithfulness. ## Paul's Method(s) of Communication For Paul, letter-writing was a long-distance replacement for oral communication—an attempt “to accomplish what would otherwise be done in person,”—and he intended his letters to be read aloud to the congregation by his messenger. The messenger was probably coached by Paul to convey the tones (like sarcasm and irony) and theology of his letters and to be able to expound upon their messages in response to questions and challenges. Because Paul synthesized oral and written communication this way, it is impossible to separate his use of the written word from his use of oral rhetoric. Our analysis must take a balanced approach of considering the impact of the medium, his rhetorical methods for navigating relational difficulties, and his theological positions regarding group dynamics. All of this must be understood within the social context of the church in first-century Corinth before we can interpret it into the twenty-first century context. We will examine the concept of Christian cruciformity in his communication with the Corinthians, a concept that also pervades Paul’s letters to other churches, as well as Paul’s emphasis on the wisdom of God as a specific message tailored to the believers in Corinth. ## The Potential of the Church When the apostle Paul looked at the city of Corinth, he saw a place of incredible potential for believers to embody the cruciform gospel of Christ. When he wrote to the church there, he was not doing so as an outsider to the community. He had been involved in the church from its very beginning; he saw them as his family, repeatedly referring to the members of its community as “brothers and sisters” and considering himself the “father” of the community. According to the account in the book of Acts, Paul lived in Corinth for eighteen months as he founded the church there, actively shaping its community and theological development while working as a tentmaker to support his ministry (Acts 18:1–4, 11). At the time Paul was in Corinth, around 51 ᴄᴇ, the city was a young, vibrant place of economic opportunity and, as N. T. Wright describes, was “excessively proud of its *Romanitas*, it’s ‘Romanness.’” ### Corinth: A City Destroyed and Rebuilt About two hundred years before (in 146 ʙᴄᴇ), the city had been destroyed by a Roman army and had lain desolate for over a hundred years. Then, in 44 ʙᴄᴇ, because of the city’s location along an important shipping trade route, Julius Caesar had made it a Roman colony and imported freed slaves and other members of lower classes to populate it. These lower classes were excited with their freedom and were eager for this opportunity to enhance their social standing. Over the next few generations, the city flourished under the ambitions of its inhabitants, who quickly formed a fluid social stratification that was somewhat unique in the Roman world—there was a thriving upper class, as well as a significant lower class who were, in spite of their economic status, offered opportunities to rise in the city’s social hierarchy. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Online Church #3: Limitations and Dangers of Social Media URL: https://randalljgreene.com/online-church-3-limitations-and-dangers-of-social-media/ Last updated: 2024-10-21T02:24:03.000Z If you ask almost any social media user today, they will tell you that the incredible potential of social media is often not fully realized—sometimes as a result of the nature of the medium itself, and sometimes as a result of the way we use it. In this post, we will examine some of the difficult realities of social media in our society today. ## Limitations of Social Media The early, lofty promises of social media have changed over the years. In some cases, the promises have been abandoned, and in other cases they have simply been tempered. ### Global Connectivity Take, for example, the promise of global connectivity: social media delivers on its promise to make it possible for an individual to connect with far more people online than they could in person. On Facebook, a normal person can have up to five thousand “friends.” On Twitter, a person can follow an unlimited number of others. In the early years of social media, people clamored to make as many connections as they could. The breadth of the networks quickly became a problem, though, because there was far more information being shared than could possibly be consumed. If a person had a relatively meager two hundred online connections, and each of those connections posted twice each day, that would be four hundred potential conversations to filter through. This created cognitive overload for users, which became a barrier to the very promise of engagement—if logging into Facebook was not a rewarding experience, users would discontinue logging in, and Facebook would not be able to monetize that user. #### Algorithms To prevent this disengagement, different social media platforms have taken different tactics, but all have made some use of programmatic algorithms to determine which content is most likely to generate engagement for an individual. These algorithms examine a person’s history on the platform, cataloguing every interaction (such as comments, “likes,” and shares) the person makes with other posts and generating an engagement profile that knows the types of posts the person prefers (such as videos, inspirational quotes, and text) and what topics they are most likely to respond to (such as political statements, jokes, and life updates). Based on that data, the platform filters the posts that it shows the person, prioritizing the posts it thinks will create an engaging experience for that individual. Each social media platform approaches these algorithmic filters differently—some allowing users to directly influence them more than others—but they all function to fundamentally limit the user’s exposure to the overwhelming volume of content in their network, thus counteracting some of the potential for unlimited online connection. Recent research has actually suggested that the human mind has a limited capacity for social connections and that those limits are neither erased nor expanded for social groups that connect online. #### Segmenting into Smaller Groups As our society is starting to mature in our use of social media, we are beginning to use platforms that allow us to connect in smaller groups rather than promising us unlimited connectivity. For example, Facebook has begun to minimize their focus on users’ ability to add new friends, and is now emphasizing the more personal relationships that can be developed in Facebook “groups,” which are smaller communities with a shared interest of some kind. The early idea of the internet as a global village has been redefined. As Patricia Wallace describes, _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Online Church #2: The Promising Potential of Social Media URL: https://randalljgreene.com/online-church-2-the-promising-potential-of-social-media/ Last updated: 2024-10-21T02:24:16.000Z What is social media? It is amorphous, and definitions of the term are constantly shifting with the rapid evolution of technology. As new forms of online communication become available to us, the delineation between social media and interpersonal relationships continue to blur. What we think of today as social media began under the umbrella term “social network,” and it was distinguished by its ability to foster multidirectional communication. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, most of the internet consisted of one-way communication—a web developer would post information for others to consume, but mechanisms for active engagement and response were limited. Social network websites like Friendster, Myspace, and the fledgling Facebook empowered people to share updates about their life and then participate in online conversations around those updates. **These social networks, which developed the internet’s capacity for digital conversations, were the catalyst for a radical paradigm shift** that came to be known as “Web 2.0” and has come to fundamentally redefine words such as “friend,” “like,” “post,” and “share.” ## Types of Social Media In 2009, researchers Andreas M. Kaplan and Michael Haenlein defined six broad categories of social media: - Collaborative projects - Blogs - Content communities - Social networking sites - Virtual game worlds - Virtual social worlds In the years since, though, the distinctions between many of those categories have blurred and new categories have been added. In 2014, Philip Seargeant and Caroline Tagg, linguistics experts who specialize in digital communication, described social media as any kind of “internet-based sites and platforms which facilitate the building and maintaining of networks or communities through the sharing of messages and other media.” This type of definition would include established social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and Snapchat, and would also include emerging platforms that provide niche communications outlets, such as Slack (instant messaging and collaboration), Twitch (live streaming of video game consoles), and Zoom (video chats). As our society becomes more broadly connected to the internet, and as connection speeds increase to allow for faster transfer of data, **we are integrating these social media platforms more deeply into our daily existence**. A 2018 Pew Research Center study revealed that in 2017 more than two-thirds of all adults in the United States used social media and more than three-fourths of all adults owned a smartphone. Another study, which concluded that over two-thirds of adults in the United States use Facebook, determined that approximately three-quarters of them use the platform *daily*. Psychologist Sherry Turkle, who studies the impact of technology on our perceptions of self and our relationships with others, has spent decades interviewing people about their uses of technology. In her most recent book, *Alone Together*, she noted that we are increasingly tethered to our smartphones—we are connected today in ways that we have never been before. ## The Potential of Social Media This rapid integration of social media into our lives has not happened by chance. From its earliest days, social media has promised the world to us. It has allowed us to have routine conversations with friends and relatives from whom we would have otherwise grown distant. It has empowered us to share the ordinary moments of our lives (which are sometimes the most meaningful parts) with the people we care about. It has brought us access to people, cultures, and languages from all over the world. It has given us knowledge and insight into the most obscure corners of our curiosity, and all at the tips of our fingers—or, today, at the prompt of just our voice. Early advocates for the potential of the internet often referred to it as a “global village” which would make the world flatter—more globalized—and draw the entire planet closer together. _This post is for subscribers only._ ### Online Church #1: Why We Should Think About Online Churches URL: https://randalljgreene.com/online-church-1-why-we-should-think-about-online-churches/ Last updated: 2024-10-21T02:24:39.000Z Music used to be an intimate, communal experience. Before Spotify, before CDs, before cassette tapes, before eight tracks, and before phonographs, music was played in bars, in concert halls, and in family gatherings around a piano or guitar. The first electrical audio recordings, a technology developed in the 1930s, were reproductions of the live music experience—they enabled people to sit in their libraries, close their eyes, and, although they might be alone, imagine themselves in a concert hall filled with people listening to a brilliant cellist. The advent of audio recordings began an evolution of the nature of music itself. Most recorded music today no longer simulates a concert experience; instead, the record has typically become the standard musical experience and concerts have sought to simulate that recorded performance. Most of our music today is created digitally on computers in a studio without any instruments at all, and, from its very beginning, is divorced from the interactivity of a live performance. When we think about music today, we often do so in terms of the personal experience of streaming our individualized Spotify playlists into our earbuds, rather than thinking about the communal experience of participating in the creation and consumption of music with other people. ## Oral Cultures, Writing, and the Internet As much as music was transformed by the invention of recordings, it pales in comparison to the degree to which the world is being transformed by the proliferation of the internet. When the internet was invented in the mid-1980s, our world entered a seismic paradigm shift that is now fundamentally re-shaping the way we view the world, understand ourselves, and interact with others. The impact of digital interconnectivity may best be understood by comparing it to the way primary oral cultures were revolutionized by the invention of writing. Walter Ong, in his book *Orality and Literacy*, argues that our minds have been so formed by the written word that the act of writing has actually changed the way we process, store, and reference information—even when we speak. In 1982, he wrote that, > Without writing, the literate mind would not and could not think as it does, not only when engaged in writing but normally even when it is composing its thoughts in oral form. More than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness.Walter J. Ong, *Orality and Literacy* He also describes how difficult it is for us to conceive of a culture that has no written words: > The purely oral tradition or primary orality is not easy to conceive of accurately and meaningfully. Writing makes “words” appear similar to things because we think of words as the visible marks signaling words to decoders: we can see and touch such inscribed “words” in texts and books. Written words are residue. Oral tradition has no such residue or deposit.Walter J. Ong, *Orality and Literacy* Our entrance into a world of digital communication promises a similar kind of revolution that is already changing some of the basic frameworks of our consciousness, such as how we understand ourselves, how we experience ourselves in community, and how we as a culture make sense of all the information that now flows between us. We are still in the infancy of this paradigmatic shift, and its outcome is not yet determined—we cannot yet see the ways in which this shift is impacting us. Discussing the changing nature of digital media and communities, A. K. M. Adam wrote in an email to Lutheran pastor Clint Schnekloth, “We don’t have a perspective on the changes in which we’re participating.” ## Shaping the Future of Online Community Henry Jenkins, author of *Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide*, argues that we, as participants in this world of converging new media, are responsible for shaping the future of digital existence. As Christians, if we believe in the timelessness of the gospel of Christ, and if we want to see the world become the new creation described in Scripture, we cannot be content to passively watch the future be shaped; we must be actively engaged in drawing this new paradigm as a place for the embodiment of the kingdom of God. To do that, we also must be both optimistic and pragmatic about the potential of online connectivity. If we mire ourselves in fear of the internet’s dangers, we can only be late-adopters of its opportunities and will be unable to contribute in a positive way to its formation; if we see only the possibilities of the internet, we are likely to fall prey to its dangers. ## Where We're Going In the blog series you are reading right now, which was originally the thesis for my Master's degree from Central Seminary, I am attempting to lay a balanced foundation for the church to embrace the digital world as a positive extension of ourselves. 💡 Note that this series is only available for followers. The good news is that following is completely free! If you're not already following, [sign up now](#/portal/) to get access to the rest of this "Online Church" series. I begin with the assumption that the church can, will, and should exist within the digital sphere in one way or another, and I try to center that conversation on the earliest Christian understandings of what it means to be the church. The apostle Paul used letters—the most advanced communication medium of his day—as one of his critical tools for shaping the life and future of the churches he founded. His letters allowed him to extend the influence of his teachings far beyond what he could accomplish in person; they allowed him to communicate with Christians across regions, across social strata, and (whether he intended it or not) across time as his words were shared with neighboring communities and passed down to subsequent generations. He used media to connect with groups all over the known world. The analogy between Paul’s letters and the digital media of our own era is imperfect—as we ought to expect in comparing media and cultures separated by two millennia—but Paul's work of the church is nonetheless a rich resource for guiding our adoption of social media to enrich both our localized and our global faith community. Rather than applying his methods and messages directly to our new context, though, we must translate them in ways that remain faithful to his vision of the church and make sense of them within our own emerging paradigm. ### Paul's Letters Provide a Model A full consideration of Paul’s mediated communication with his churches would be greater than the scope of this work allows, so our study will concentrate on his correspondence with the church in Corinth. The two surviving letters are well-suited for our purposes for a number of reasons: - Scholars are confident that Paul was the actual author of them, - There was a long-lasting, complex relationship between Paul and his readers, and - Paul addressed a wide range of relevant situations and messages in these two letters. In addition to the biblical text, we will consider the modern trajectory of media as an agent of social change, a study which blends rhetorical criticism, communication theory, and technological innovation. ## Online + Church The challenge, then, is to outline an ecclesiology that can exist within the context of our emerging digital world—to sketch what an online church might look like today and tomorrow. As we begin this conversation, we ought to give some definition to two key words: “online” and “church.” ### Online When we discuss *online* church, we do not do so purely from a perspective of a technological achievement, but from that of the paradigm shift mentioned previously. There are already a variety of books about how the local congregations could be enhanced by using emerging technologies as tools for growth, such as live-streaming worship services and using other kinds of connectional resources that augment or simulate a traditional, in-person community. These types of augmented experiences are based on the assumption that online worship should replicate the form of gathering experienced each Sunday in our pews. Yet this approach fails on two counts. First, because it presents technological adaptations as solutions—in a world where technology is evolving at a blindingly rapid rate—it is often obsolete as soon as it is published. The recommended tools no longer exist or, at the very least, no longer function they way they did a month ago. Second, it fails to recognize the scale to which our culture is changing in response to technological advancement. New technology cannot be reduced to a new toolset, but must be recognized as the inauguration of an entirely new understanding of (and engagement in) the world. **We are not creating a simulated church, as if it were a replication of a material church within a virtual environment, but are asking how we might build a genuine manifestation of a Pauline ecclesiological community in the context of our digitally-connected future.** This distinction is subtle, perhaps, but important. It is similar to the difference between creating humanoid robots (replicating the embodiment of a human within a mechanized form) and creating smart home gadgetry (using artificial intelligence and digital interconnectivity to extend the daily functions of human existence). For the church to be the missional body it is called to be, we must grasp the future of the world in which we live and trace the trajectory of that reality to anticipate the strengths and needs it will introduce for coming generations. We must cultivate a vision that sees the weaknesses of the shifting paradigm and empowers us to counteract it. ### Church The scope of an online *church* cannot be restricted to the context of a worship environment but, particularly when viewed through a Pauline lens, must encompass a full life of cruciform existence. **When Paul discussed what it meant to follow Christ, he did not describe a weekly gathering, but a continual posture of participation in the cross of Christ**, an active embodiment of giving oneself to the pursuit of reconciliation and the Spirit-empowered life that only comes through death. Others have previously explored the potential of online worlds for ecclesial community, but that work has mostly focused on creating virtual modes of church that exist parallel to the traditional, material reality of the church. These “virtual” communities are often distinct worlds into which people enter for a time and then leave as they return to their “real” material lives. While scientists recognize that there are not necessarily any neurological differences between the way our brain experiences an online community and a physical one, there are psychological differences in the ways we think about ourselves and others in the physical world and in the digital. Much like the misconception that the church is a building in which Christians worship on Sundays, these virtual world churches fail to integrate their community into the minute-by-minute existence of the body. ## Digital: Extending Our World In the emerging paradigm of online connectedness, we cannot view digital experiences as distinct from material existence—the online world permeates our daily life, and a useful digital ecclesiology must assume that there is no difference between our online and our material reality. The digital is an extension of our embodied existence, not a disembodiment of it. This series, then, does not explore the potential of an online church as if the online were isolated from the material, but with the understanding that being online is one characteristic of what it means for us to be the church and that we ought to be an embodiment of Christ within that space just as we are in our physical lives. To that end, we will begin by considering the nature of online connectivity—specifically, the potential, limitations, and dangers of social media—before moving into an overview of the Pauline ecclesiology developed in 1 and 2 Corinthians, and then synthesizing the two into a sketch of what it might mean to be a digital church. [Online Church #2: The Promising Potential of Social MediaThe emerging technologies of online connection are powerful tools. But to what extent does social media provide incredible opportunities, and to what extent does it hurt our real life communities?![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/3f/93/3f9386a1-5b0a-4eb5-81c7-6336ca29e5b6/content/images/size/w256h256/format/png/2024/10/RJG_Circle_Dark.svg)Randall J. GreeneRandall J. Greene![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/3f/93/3f9386a1-5b0a-4eb5-81c7-6336ca29e5b6/content/images/2024/10/online-church-1.jpg)](https://randalljgreene.com/online-church-2-the-promising-potential-of-social-media/) ### #AllLivesMatter and Manifest Destiny URL: https://randalljgreene.com/alllivesmatter-and-manifest-destiny/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T21:23:48.000Z On July 6, 2020, the White House tweeted a quotation from President Trump's Fourth of July speech. The quote, devoid of any other context from the speech, said this: > "Americans are the people who pursued our Manifest Destiny across the ocean, into the uncharted wilderness, over the tallest mountains, and then into the skies and even into the stars." — @WhiteHouse, [on Twitter](https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1280321140326633472?ref=randalljgreene.com) This is dangerous language, especially coming from the official White House account. If you seriously believe #AllLivesMatter, you should denounce this and demand an apology from the White House. Let me explain why. ## History of Manifest Destiny The words "Manifest Destiny" aren't just a couple of inspirational words put together to sound nice — notice that they're capitalized, even in the tweet itself. That's because it refers to a very specific ideology from our nation's history. In the early- and mid-1800s, when the United States was expanding across North America, our European American ancestors found that they needed to get rid of the Indigenous tribes that were already living in the land. To do that, they needed to slaughter the people of those tribes — and they needed to convince their fellow European Americans that such a slaughter was good and necessary. So they created this idea of Manifest Destiny to convince themselves that they were especially chosen by God to conquer and control the land all the way from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean. This ideology perpetuated the idea that anyone and anything standing in their way was an enemy of the will of God. This gave those European Americans the divine right — even the divine MANDATE — to exterminate entire groups of people that they didn't view as people. **Manifest Destiny was the idea that European Americans were called by God to commit genocide.** ## Invoking White Supremacy By invoking the phrase "Manifest Destiny" now, the White House is overtly calling out to white supremacists. And they're not doing this on accident — look again at how they capitalized the term in their tweet. They're fanning the flames of racial discrimination. They are rallying support for violent resistance to the justice initiatives fighting for equality in our nation today. If you are pro-life, and if you believe that #BlackLivesMatter and/or #AllLivesMatter, then I ask you to condemn this official statement from the White House. ## Additional Resources More reading on Manifest Destiny: - [History.com's Article on Westward Expansion and Manifest Destiny](https://www.history.com/topics/westward-expansion/manifest-destiny?ref=randalljgreene.com) - [History.com's Article on the Trail of Tears](https://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/trail-of-tears?ref=randalljgreene.com) - [Frederick Merk's book *Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History* on Google Books](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Manifest%5FDestiny%5Fand%5FMission%5Fin%5FAmerican/GhYJTaZiuxwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA24&printsec=frontcover&ref=randalljgreene.com) - [Reginald Horsman's book *Race and Manifest Destiny* on Google Books](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Manifest%5FDestiny%5Fand%5FMission%5Fin%5FAmerican/GhYJTaZiuxwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA24&printsec=frontcover&ref=randalljgreene.com) ### My Journey as an Antiracist URL: https://randalljgreene.com/my-journey-as-an-antiracist/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T21:20:21.000Z My journey as an anti-racist began in 2014. I spent all of my teenage years growing up in Ferguson, Missouri, a little suburb north of St. Louis, before I moved away to Kansas City for college. A few years later, in 2013, my wife and I moved to a little town in Oklahoma where my wife served as the youth pastor at a local church. When Michael Brown was shot and killed by police in Ferguson in August 2014, my home town was propelled into the national spotlight. The insignificant streets I'd driven down a few short years ago now permeated primetime news coverage with images of protests, riots, and burned-out storefronts. Since I knew the area well, I was not altogether surprised that Ferguson erupted with racial tension. This tension had been building within that community for years, and even in high school, I'd known my Black friends had a much different relationship with local authorities than I did. But I *was* surprised at how I found myself responding to the stories that arose from the moment. Twitter was still a small platform then, but it soon became the central information hub for folks on the ground during the Ferguson protests, and I followed their posts intently. Through Twitter and the birth of the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter, I began to hear stories of racial discrimination that could've come straight out of my history books about the Jim Crow South — acts of prejudice that I thought had been abolished in the 1960s. Yet they were still happening, and had been happening right under my nose while I'd remained (mostly) oblivious. The tension I'd sensed in high school was only a fraction of the truth. My wife and I didn't know how to respond. We were heartbroken for our home town; we were confused because the world we thought we'd known had been shattered; we were weeping for the Black communities who were being made to feel as if their lives didn't matter; and we were distraught to discover that many of the same racial prejudices we lamented in society were also present in our own hearts and minds. We began reading, and we continued listening to the voices of color in our lives. We found the little sphere of influence we had available to us — my wife's conservative, white, small-town youth group — and had difficult, awkward conversations with them about race in our society. I've learned a lot, and I continue learning. I try to remain teachable and compassionate, sensitive to God's movement of justice being led by Black pastors, activists, and community leaders. And I try to encourage others who want to join me on this anti-racist journey. Sometimes this means creating intentional spaces for difficult, respectful online conversations. At other times, it means investing my time and resources into the lives of young people in my community. Together we hunger and thirst after righteousness. We mourn injustice. And through humility we listen and learn. Therein is God. ### Foster Parenting and Being In, Not of, Relationship URL: https://randalljgreene.com/foster-parenting-and-being-in-not-of-relationship/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T21:18:50.000Z Shortly after our foster daughter came to live with us, one of my friends asked me a really good question that I didn’t know how to answer. “How should I refer to her?” he asked. “As your daughter? or your foster daughter? or just by her name?” My response was pretty simple: “Probably as our foster daughter, because that’s the most accurate way.” And that’s true enough – maybe even the best, most succinct answer. But the real answer isn’t that straightforward – I need to work it out with more nuance. ## **Being “Mommy” and “Daddy”** Foster parenting is tough enough with all the quirks of the system, the emotions of a child being removed from their parents, the struggles of figuring out schools and childcare, and so on. I knew all of that going into it. But there was one thing I *wasn’t* expecting (I was so young, so naive) that has made foster parenting almost impossible. Our foster daughter is in our home, and she calls us “Mommy” and “Daddy” most of the time. We didn’t ask her to do this, but from Day One she did it all by herself. The terms aren’t really sentimental ones for her – when she calls me Daddy, she’s not giving it any kind of deep, relational meaning – it’s just the term she knows for the adult male who lives in her house. Recently, though, she’s begun asking me if she can call me Daddy, even though she’s been calling me that for almost two months now. I think she is doing this because she is wanting to give the word more relational depth, and she’s not sure if it’s okay to do that. We’ve had several conversations in the last few days about how she’s really lucky to have two mommies and two daddies who care for her and love her – her biological parents, and now her foster parents – and how it’s okay for her to love them both. These conversations reveal a deeper truth (and a deeper tension) about parenting in the foster care system. As foster parents, Shannon and I carry the responsibility of caring for and loving this precious little girl as if she were our own daughter; at the same time, we are pouring ourselves into preparing her for reunification with her biological parents. - We want to nurture the emotional attachment she needs for [healthy relational development](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2724160/?ref=randalljgreene.com), but we don’t want her to attach so firmly to us that she is unable to attach to her parents when they regain custody. - We want to provide the physical affection she needs for [healthy neurological development](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201310/loving-touch-is-key-healthy-brain-development?ref=randalljgreene.com), but we also want her to continue building her relationship with her parents, even though there are valid reasons she was removed from their care. - We want her to experience the comfort and balance of a structured daily routine, but without directly criticizing her parents and the decisions they’ve made that have resulted in her current difficulties. I’m not searching for suggestions on how to find this balance (we have lots of support and resources), but these are examples of the tension we feel as we try to care for this little girl. There is a challenge in parenting and loving her well with the continual recognition that the goal is for her to return to her biological parents. ## **“In, Not of” as Foster Parents** Every time I feel this tension, I have a tendency to think about it in terms of opposites, as if I can *either* be the parent she needs *or* I can prepare her for reunification, *but not both*. I’m learning, though, that **one of the best ways I can prepare her for reunification is to be the parent she needs**. It’s not about choosing between two different options, but that helping her develop these bonds with me and Shannon will build her capacity for those same bonds with her parents. We are not “of” her family, but for this moment of time, Shannon and I have been dropped “in” as a part of her family as we try to bring healing and wholeness into her life. We’re here for a time and for a reason. We’re here because we’re needed and we have something important we can give. And even as we give – as we love this little girl – we remember that we are not “of” and we are not replacements for the parents who birthed her and raised her. She loves her parents. She misses them, even as she’s starting to understand the mistakes they’ve made and the traumas they’ve brought her. And the truth is that she *needs* them. She needs them to become the parents they need to be so she can return to their care. She needs their hugs and their affection. She needs their presence as strong, positive role models in her life. If things go well, there will come a time when she will return to the care of her biological parents. Until that time comes, Shannon and I will continue to love her the way she needs us to. And I’m learning that, when that time does come, the two of us will no doubt go through our own period of mourning and emotional trauma – as happy as we’ll be for her, it will be more difficult for us than I can even imagine right now – [even more difficult than it’s been to take her in during this pandemic](https://shannonegreene.com/i-became-a-foster-parent-during-a-pandemic/?ref=randalljgreene.com). Every day that we invest in her life, we give her pieces of ourselves that will remain with her forever (we hope); when she leaves and takes those pieces with her, we will have wounds that can only heal as sad, beautiful scars. For Shannon and I, foster parenting isn’t about adding a missing piece into our lives, but about giving out of our abundance to help make this child’s broken life a little more whole. So is this little girl our daughter, or is she our foster daughter? I think the answer is “yes.” We are her foster parents, and part of that identity means that, for a season, she is our daughter. ### Radicals, Centrists, and the Postures of the Kingdom of God URL: https://randalljgreene.com/radicals-centrists-and-the-postures-of-the-kingdom-of-god/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T21:12:24.000Z In the circles I run in, centrists and moderates often have a bad reputation. They’re often accused of not really taking a position on today’s most important issues, and in Christian groups are often equated with [the “lukewarm” folks described in Revelation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev+3%3A14-22&version=NRSV&ref=randalljgreene.com) – if you recall, the message there was that God would spit those folks out because they were neither hot nor cold. I’m not here to defend centrists today. But I think this entire conversation – talking about the positions we’re taking – is missing the point. ### A Centrist Framework Generally, these conversations start with a framework that goes something like this: There’s a hard position on the left, there’s a hard position on the right, and centrists take up a squishy position somewhere (or anywhere) in the middle, ready to fight in both directions in an effort to bridge the gap between sides. ![](https://randalljgreene.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/centrism-illustrations-animated_01.gif) One of the most common things you’ll hear centrists say about themselves is that it’s really hard to take this kind of moderate position because you get hit from both sides. And you hear that because it’s true – this kind of political spectrum is bruising for people in the center. ### How, Not Where, We Stand But the more I read Scripture, and the more I study the teachings of Jesus, the more I think we are missing the point when we talk about positions in this way. Because I think what really matters is not so much *where* you stand on an issue, but *how* you stand on it. I think it’s your posture that makes all the difference. ([I wrote a reflection a few months ago about how my mom taught me this](https://randalljgreene.com/how-my-mom-showed-me-god/).) If we’re holding a position as a fighter, the only thing we’re doing is hurting people. On the other hand, if we take a position with a posture of peacemaking – an openness of look for an embrace instead of a fight – this whole picture looks very different. There is vulnerability in this posture; there is risk. There’s almost a *certainty* that we will be hurt. ![](https://randalljgreene.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/centrism-illustrations-animated_02.gif) When everyone around us is fighting and we’re offering embrace, I think [that looks a lot like taking up our crosses](https://randalljgreene.com/love-like-christ/), and I think it also looks a lot like the kingdom of God. ### A Posture of Service But actually, I want to take this one step further. This whole picture of fighters and embracers only really makes sense within the context of us who have some measure of social power. We aren’t being hurt by society – we are disproportionately benefiting from it. The reality is that those of us taking these postures are doing so on the backs of people on the margins of society, the people who are simply trying to survive because they’re facing oppression – economic, racial, sexual, gender-based, or some other kind of discrimination. ![](https://randalljgreene.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/centrism-illustrations-animated_03.png) And those of us at the top of this system are trampling those on the bottom every time we move. So what I propose is this: **Those of us at the top of this system within our social context ought to take a posture of peacemaking to the people who stand at different places on the spectrum, but even more importantly, we ought to be taking a posture of serving and empowering the people being hurt.** Wherever we find ourselves on the political spectrum for an issue, we should be protecting the life and dignity of those who can’t yet stand for themselves. This posture of serving and empowering the abused is the kingdom of God. ![](https://randalljgreene.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/centrism-illustrations-animated_04.png) ### Hoping for a Year of Positive Politics URL: https://randalljgreene.com/hoping-for-a-year-of-positive-politics/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T21:10:18.000Z We are now less than one year away from the next Presidential election day, and I suspect the coming months are going to be filled with the most bitter, contentious, and polarizing politics our nation has seen in the past century or more. But you may call me a perpetual optimist, because I still hope it doesn’t have to be that way. Even though we are bound to have broad disagreements, I hope we are able to move through this next year with mutual respect and compassion for one another. It won’t be easy to do that – it will take some serious work on each of our parts – but here are the four things I think we need to start with if we want to pull it off. ## **1) Remember that there is a person on the other side.** You know that person who makes you so mad? That ignorant Republican? Or that conniving Democrat? Or that fence-sitting Independent? (Or even that obnoxious Libertarian?) That could easily be your mother, father, child, sibling, best friend, coworker, or church friend. To be honest, it probably *is* someone in your family. Even if you only know the person from Facebook, or from reading news articles about them, or from seeing them on cable news, they could just as well be sitting across the table from you. That person has friends and family; they have a story and a context that has made their current position make sense to them – even if it makes no sense at all to you. That doesn’t mean they’re right, but it does mean they deserve the respect due to all people. When you have conversations with them, even if those conversations are only online, call them by name and remember their personhood. Try to see their perspective of the issue. Try to understand the life situation that has brought them to the perspective they hold. Treat them with the respect that every person deserves. No one is exempt. And to do otherwise – to reduce them to an issue or an opponent or a stereotype – is to dehumanize them. ## **2) Remember that you are only a person, too.** While we’re treating others with compassion, we still need to remember that we’re human, too. I am not above making mistakes and having misinformed opinions on issues. I have blind spots in the way I apply my politics, and it is helpful (even if it’s painful) when someone points out those blind spots to me. One of the unfortunate effects of social media is that it encourages us to make bold, provocative opinions as if they’re facts, and when we start to see people resonating with those opinions, it makes us feel like we said something really profound and it begins to build us up as if we are some kind of uniquely special person. Or if we see people tearing those opinions apart, it makes us feel like our perspective doesn’t matter or is hopelessly flawed. But remembering that we are human counteracts both of those ideas. It is knowing that our thoughts and experiences have value, that they are important pieces of a functional society, and it is also knowing that our thoughts and experiences are *only pieces* of a functional society, not a final, authoritative word. If we want the next year to be positive, we must maintain a posture of humility and positivity in our own perspectives. We are human, for better and for worse. ## **3) Critique real ideas, not stereotyped ones.** Constructive political discourse requires us to engage with the actual positions that people hold. Those positions are never portrayed fairly or adequately in the media coverage of their opponents, so it is our responsibility to do our homework *actually research* the various positions on an issue. If we rely on CNN to understand our Republican neighbors (or rely on Fox News to understand our Democratic neighbors), we won’t be able to have a conversation that actually engages our neighbor’s ideas – the only thing we know is a caricature of their political outlook. And to take that one step further, we can’t make the assumption that our neighbor’s positions fall in line with those of their party. They may be Trump supporters, but in opposition to his policies on immigration; or they may be for raising the federal minimum wage, but in opposition to abortion. We know this and do it in person, but we’re looking at a screen, we have a tendency to forget it, hurrying to respond rather than taking time to process what the other person has actually said. If we want a positive year in politics, we have to put in the work to understand what our neighbors *actually* believe. We have to ask them to define their own terms, and we have to listen to what they say. ## **4) Slow down and fact-check everything – *before* talking about it.** I know, this sounds like a ton of work. And it will absolutely slow down conversations. But that is 100% the point. It takes a lot of work to have an educated, respectful conversation with someone, and such conversations tend to move slowly – but that slow pace allows all sides time to consider, learn, and understand the points being made. Misinformation (you’ve heard it as “fake news”) is always more dramatic than reality. And most of the time the fake news being fed to us reinforces the convictions we already hold (this is called “confirmation bias”), so we rush to embrace it. But if we want to have a positive political season, we have to make sure we’re presenting an accurate, well-rounded perspective of the issue. Most of the time this is going to mean that our point needs to be more nuanced than we are inclined to make it in a tweet or a Facebook comment – and sometimes we’ll find out that we’re actually wrong. Both of those results are positive, even if they’re difficult. In conversation, immediate responses are rarely made in compassion, and they even more rarely lead to a continued respectful dialogue. This is because immediate responses are usually *actually* knee-jerk responses. No one wants to be a jerk. So we need to fact-check everything. And we need to slow down our conversations. ## **Hoping for a Season of Positive Politics** I don’t know what this next year is going to look like in the United States – my gut thinks it’s going to be one of the ugliest political periods in our nation’s history. But I’m clinging relentlessly, naively, childishly, to the hope that we will remember our shared identities and work together toward a society that is more just, more peace-filled, and more loving. And if we want to do that, I think we have to begin by remembering that we’re all human and we’re all in this together. ### “Mind Over Matter” URL: https://randalljgreene.com/mind-over-matter/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T21:08:22.000Z When I was growing up, I often repeated a mantra: “Mind over matter.” This idea wasn’t original to me – I picked it up from somewhere, although I don’t know exactly where – but I played it over and over in my head. As a child and teenager, I didn’t realize how much it impacted every aspect of my life, but it became deeply embedded in my view of myself and what it meant to be human, even long into adulthood. For basically my entire life, I have honestly believed I had the capacity to do *anything* I set my mind to. The only thing holding me back was my body, and that could be overcome if I simply put my mind to it. Let me give you a couple of examples. ### Beating My Body I have always seemed to attract mosquitos – my mom always joked that I must have sweet blood. For those of you who *don’t* have the pleasure of attracting mosquitos, their bites itch make your skin itch like crazy. But I believed for a while that the itch was entirely psychological and if I could just *convince myself* that a bite didn’t itch, it would actually cease to itch. As another example, I was fascinated by Navy SEALS when I was young because they were able to hold their breath underwater for a long time, so I decided I wanted to teach myself to do the same. Somewhere I learned that the biggest hindrance to being able to hold your breath was your body’s anxiety – the fear that you couldn’t breathe kicked in long before you *actually* couldn’t breathe – so if you could convince your body to remain calm, you could significantly extend how long you could hold your breath. My mind could exert power over my body to make it comply. So I spent a lot of time trying to overcome the (very reasonable) anxiety of not being able to breathe when you’re underwater. If I decided I wanted to be a professional athlete, I could work hard at it and make it happen. (Conveniently, I never decided I wanted to pursue sports beyond my nominal participation in high school – but more on that in a moment.) ### Abandoning Dualism What I didn’t realize at the time that I was relying on this “mind over matter” mantra, though, was that I was embracing a form of gnostic dualism, a separation between my mind and my body, as if they were two distinct parts of my being. I saw my “mind” as the spiritual part of myself, which was pursuing God, and my body as the flesh, which was inherently corrupt. Since I thought a good Christian was one who fought against the desires of the flesh to elevate the holiness of the spirit, I worked hard to overcome the limitations of my flesh by embracing the life and power of my mind. I thought the messages my body sent me were distractions from the call of God for my life. When my body told me it was tired, I wanted to push through and work harder; when my body told me something was enjoyable, I wanted to stop doing it. My body was not to be trusted. Over the years, though, I’ve matured and have come to a different understanding of my body. As an easy example, I’ve learned that I have asthma and that running in certain conditions can trigger it – and I can’t use my mind to simply *will* an asthma attack to go away. I have to listen to what my body is telling me and, when I feel my lungs struggling to absorb oxygen, I need to stop and take care of my body. I have to value what it’s saying because the reality is that my body and my mind are not distinct entities at war with one another – they are two parts of the same whole that makes up my being. My mind is important, and it carries on critical functions for my life, but it is inextricably intertwined with my body because it is a *part of* my body. And I cannot be healthy in my own understanding of myself and the world God created until I come to understand and appreciate my body. God made me human, and God called my humanity “good.” In fact, God *became* human, enfleshed in Jesus Christ, and by doing so demonstrated to us that our bodies *cannot* be intrinsically bad. By becoming incarnate as a human, Christ redeemed our bodies, showing us that our body is not a sinful vessel to be overcome, but is a critical aspect of what it means to be human, which is to say that my flesh is good. ### Learning to Love My Body So now I am working to re-learn what it means to be *in* my body instead of *at war with* my body. I am constantly reminding myself that my body does not need to be subdued, hidden, or conquered – it is a beautiful, wonder-filled work of art created by God. I am not a spiritual being trapped inside a fleshly body – my body is an intrinsic part of what it means for me to be the human God made me to be. I am learning to listen to what my body tells me and understand what it’s saying, because it is by understanding my body that I understand myself, which is to understand the image of God in me. If I want to honor God, I have to love the body God gave me. ### One Thousand Words a Day URL: https://randalljgreene.com/one-thousand-words-a-day/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T21:06:55.000Z I made a goal for myself to write one thousand words a day And sometimes to meet my goal I have to repeat myself. I made a goal for myself to write one thousand words a day And sometimes to meet my goal I have to repeat myself, but differently. I made a goal to write a thousand words a day. But sometimes, to meet my goal, I have to repeat myself, but louder. **I made a goal to write a thousand words a day.** **But sometimes, to meet my goal,** **I have to repeat myself, but quieter.** *I made a goal to write a thousand words a day.* *But sometimes, to meet my goal,* *I have to repeat myself, but in a way that draws attention.* I made a goal to write a thousand words a day. But sometimes, to meet my goal, I have to repeat myself, but emphatically. I made a goal to write a thousand. words. a day. Sometimes, to meet my goal, I have to repeat myself. over. and over. I made a goal to write a thousand words a day. But sometimes, to meet my goal, I have to repeat myself, and repeat myself, and repeat myself, and let you fix me. i maid a goal to right a thousand words a day. but sun times too meat my goal i have to repeet myself, but with more words. I plotted for myself a destination, not physical, but personal, An objective, an achievement to attain – To take my thoughts and pen them to paper for one thousand words a day, And not just thoughts, but ideas and tributaries of cognition That reveal myself to myself as I reflect. Yet there are times, not all the time but sometimes, This is simply unachievable for a day; It is in those times, that I found a solution bathed in persistence, That is, to repeat myself in paths new and exciting, paths that are simpler. Goal: 1,000 words/day. Result: Failure. Solution: Begin again. I made a goal for myself to write one thousand words a day And sometimes to meet my goal I have to repeat myself. I made a goal for myself to write one thousand words a day And sometimes I think the struggle isn’t worth it Because the destination is so very far away. I made a goal for myself to write one thousand words a day And sometimes to meet my goal I lean on the sweat and tears of those who have gone before me. I made a goal for myself to write one thousand words a day And sometimes I wither under the expectation I have created for myself, and why? I made a goal for myself to write one thousand words a day And sometimes the monotony, the tedium, the senselessness of it all Wears me raw until I no longer even know what I’m doing. I made a goal for myself to write one thousand words a day And sometimes to meet my goal I have to repeat myself. I made a goal for myself to write one thousand words a day And sometimes to meet my goal I have to repeat myself. I made a goal for myself to write one thousand words a day And sometimes to meet my goal I have to repeat myself. I made a goal for myself to write one thousand words a day And sometimes to meet my goal My words are not enough. Sometimes real meaning comes out of repetition. Sometimes strength rises from weakness. Sometimes my persistent whisper breaks my life free of its bondages. Because the strain of weariness and the anguish of lethargy Are fought aside when I hear my own words echoed back to me, When a quiet voice emerges from the void saying I am heard. Because my repetition is not in vain when it is a word of truth And when it speaks honesty to my reality of life and existence There is hope in that voice. I made a goal for myself to write one thousand words a day And sometimes to meet my goal I have to repeat myself. Until I finally hear myself and believe myself, That no words are mere words and no thoughts are mere thoughts And no people are mere people. I made a goal for myself to write one thousand words a day And sometimes to meet my goal I have to repeat myself. And sometimes I realize my goal was never for a thousand words a day. It was one thousand moments to listen to my body Repeating and repeating until I let it sink in. That my voice matters, that my heart has value, That my words have meaning, that my breath has life, That my life has purpose, that I myself matter. ### Sabbath: Resisting the Weight of the World URL: https://randalljgreene.com/sabbath-resisting-the-weight-of-the-world/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T21:05:29.000Z We live in a society consumed by productivity. For generations, we have had an incessant drive to produce, produce, and produce more efficiently, and that drive has sunk deep into the core of who we are. Some of the worst insults you can hurl at someone these days is to call them lazy, mooches, or parasites, because those words portray the person as unwilling to participate as a *productive* member of civil society. Being productive has become an intrinsically *good* trait for us. You cannot be good unless you’re somehow producing; and the act of producing makes you, at some level, good. I think producing probably is, in fact, a generally good thing. But I wonder if we have taken a good thing and turned it into an idol. I know that, personally, I face a continual temptation to define myself by my productivity. When I am doing things — creating, building, meeting, developing — I feel good about myself; when I spend time unproductively — reading, musing, conversing, napping — I feel a sense of guilt, as if I’ve wasted precious time. As a church, we’re not immune to this drive to productivity. In fact, we may be worse at it than many other organizations, because our service to the church feels bigger than us. My work here at the church isn’t simply a job — it’s a *mission* and a *calling* given to me by God, so I pour myself endlessly into it. What I have to constantly remind myself, though, is that this drive to productivity is ultimately a matter of pride in my own ability to uniquely make a difference. I feel like I *have to* do the work because I’m the only one who *can do* the work, as if my skills and perspective are irreplaceable in the work of the kingdom of God. In my pursuit of productivity, I begin to see myself as something more than human, as if the world relies on me to be bigger and better than my humanity. In this way, my desire to be productive often really becomes an idolization of myself. The call to Sabbath, then, is a call to remember that God is the one in control. Every day, I need this reminder that I can trust others to serve while I rest, and that the manifestation of God’s kingdom in the world does not rest entirely, or even primarily, on my shoulders. Sabbath is a resistance to the endless compulsion to productivity. It is a resistance to defining myself by what I do. It is a resistance to pride. To practice Sabbath is to recognize that God is God, and I am not. ### How My Mom Showed Me God URL: https://randalljgreene.com/how-my-mom-showed-me-god/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T21:03:28.000Z A couple of years into our dating relationship, Shannon and I were about halfway through college and were starting to get more serious. As we grew more committed to one another, and marriage started becoming a real possibility for us, I reached a point of crisis. Shannon, who was raised in a tradition that affirmed the leadership of women in the church, had expressed a call to ministry ever since she was in seventh grade, but since I had been raised in Southern Baptist churches, her call was incompatible with my view of how God used people in ministry. I had known all along that she’d had this call, of course, but our relationship had, to this point, been casual enough that I didn’t have to worry about it. But now, if the two of us were going to be developing a long-term, covenantal relationship, I needed to reconcile what God was telling her and what God was telling me, or else we needed to end our relationship. ### Crisis I remember vividly one day when this tension came to a head for me, and I knew this was the day I had to decide whether to continue investing in our relationship or to end it. I was sitting on my bed, alone and with the weight of the world on my shoulders, tears streaming from my eyes. I was coming to the conclusion that I needed to be true to my convictions because the Bible was clear and I *had* to follow the directions of God. But I couldn’t bear the thought of a life without Shannon in it. My mom came in, saw my tears, and sat next to me, asking what was wrong. So I opened up to her – something I don’t do well – and shared why my heart was tearing. **Her words to me changed my life.** I think about them often, and even when I’m not consciously thinking about them, they impact the way I hear God speaking to me. ### Wisdom She told me that if God was calling me to Shannon, then God was big enough to overcome this difference in how we were hearing God speak. She said that if I felt God was calling me to Shannon, then that call took precedence over my interpretation of what the Bible said about women in ministry. If Shannon and I were each following God’s leadership, God would eventually draw either me or Shannon – or both of us – into alignment with God’s will. What she was really telling me was that **I could trust the Spirit of God to lead me**. This was a startling message for me. I did not hear things like this from the other teachers in my life, because the focus had always been on reading the words of Scripture (it was not uncommon for me to literally open the pages of the Bible and skim that page looking for specific guidance from God) and following the rules I found there. ### Reconciliation Shannon and I continued dating, and a couple of years later got married. Even at our wedding, I still had not resolved my understanding of women in ministry – it really wasn’t until three or four years into our marriage that I truly opened myself to the movement of the Holy Spirit in my own life and in our marriage and, as a result, was able to whole-heartedly support my wife’s call. (I should add that all those in-between years were filled with open and honest conversation between the two of us – we were not hiding our convictions from each other, and we were doing the labor of working through this tension.) Without the words and example of my mother in that moment of crisis, my life would look a world different than it does today. **My mom told me – and showed me – I could trust in God’s word speaking into my heart and my life, and that God cared more about people than about rules.** Today, more than ten years and a Master’s degree in theology later, I look back on her words as one of the first articulations of the gospel I ever really heard and understood. My mom showed me what it looks like to trust God rather than my own understanding, and that has made all the difference. ### Love Like Christ URL: https://randalljgreene.com/love-like-christ/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T21:00:57.000Z When I hear someone preaching on how important it is to love the people around us, my typical response is to do a quick mental inventory: Is there anyone I hate? I run through the usual suspects – mortal enemies and the like – and I can’t think of any. Then I run through the people I’ve had issues with in the past – those who have lied to me, cheated me, and so on – and I recognize that I don’t *like* those people exactly, but I don’t *hate* them, either, so while I could certainly do a *better* job of loving them, I’m not completely unloving toward them. I finish my mental inventory and then pat myself on the back, because I’m a pretty loving guy overall. But do you see what I unintentionally did there? The question was about loving, but I twisted it into a question about not hating. I answered as if *loving* a person were the same as *not hating* them. I’m not so sure, though, that those are the correct opposites. Elie Wiesel, a Jewish Holocaust survivor and eventual Nobel Peace Prize winner, had this to say about love: > The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference…. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference…. To be in the window and watch people being sent to concentration camps or being attacked in the street and do nothing, that's being dead. > (*US News & World Report*, 27 October 1986) I wonder if those people who watched from the windows as Elie was led to Auschwitz had tears in their eyes as he passed. I wonder if some of them placed their hands over their hearts in solidarity with Elie. If they did, I don’t think it made any difference to him. Their internal mourning and anguish were still indifference because they didn’t act. If we want to love as Christ loved, we cannot sit back and watch as people are put into literal or metaphorical concentration camps. We cannot passively endure internal anguish at the suffering of our fellow humans – if all we do is write Facebook posts, tweets, and blogs in solidarity, we are as indifferent as the people watching from the windows. And I am writing to myself here. The model for our love literally submitted himself to the humiliation and death of the cross, so what can we do to demonstrate that same love for our suffering siblings? If you have ideas or resources for what we can do, please add them in the comments. ### Wild Goose Festival: An Uncomfortable, Sacred Space URL: https://randalljgreene.com/wild-goose-festival-an-uncomfortable-sacred-space/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T20:59:39.000Z As I type this, I am sitting in a Barnes and Noble in Asheville, North Carolina. In about an hour, I will head to the airport and fly back home to Kansas City, but in the meantime, I am processing the overwhelming, multi-sensory experience of the Wild Goose Festival I just left. This experience will be churning in my head for months, maybe years. The sessions and workshops I attended raised questions in my bones that may never settle – challenges to my conceptions of self, being, physical presence in the world, and what it means to be in my body (and allow others to be in their bodies). They called out my lived assumptions about the importance of historical place and ancestry in my social and philosophical rootedness, and they brought me face-to-face with the reality of how meaningful it can be for formerly enslaved communities to achieve that same rootedness. The Wild Goose Festival transported me from my day-to-day social setting, where the social fabric of my flourishing is centered on my whiteness, straightness, able-bodiedness, and maleness, to a setting where it was entirely normalized to recognize and embrace our differences. As I walked around the festival, I found that I had to abandon any assumptions about a person’s gender, sexuality, racial and ethnic identifications, or other measures of social place. This was disconcerting at first, and challenging all the way through, but when I stopped making assumptions about a person’s identity, I became free to see their humanity. When I couldn’t assume that the person across the table from me identified as a woman, I could not put them into a box – that individual had space and power to be exactly the person God made them to be. It was like I was leaving behind shackles binding me to systems of dehumanization. This is not the impact I expected from the festival. In the days before it began, I journaled about what I thought I would learn from the experience, and my expectations were preoccupied with examining new theological lenses, having academic or quasi-academic conversations deconstructing evangelical doctrines, and generally being pushed out of my comfort zone by having new experiences (like sleeping in a tent and neglecting to take showers for days at a time). While all of those things did happen to varying degrees – you don’t want to know how bad my tent smelled by the end of the week – those were not the most important parts of the festival for me. Instead, I soaked up the energy of the festival. The atmosphere was that of a family reunion where the family members were not bound together by blood, but by a beautiful openness to one another’s very presence of being – by an enthusiastic embrace of our shared humanity. Two threads united us: we had more questions than answers (and we were all okay with that), and we cherished the story of the person sitting across the table from us. From what I could tell, the festival attendees had no particular unifying conviction, even religiously. When I have attended other Christian conferences and seminars in the past, there has always been a baseline standard of Christian convictions, but that simply did not exist at Wild Goose. Although the festival is rooted in Christian faith (the name of the festival itself is a metaphor for the untameable nature of the Holy Spirit), people there identified as everything from atheist to pantheist, Christian to Buddhist, and orthodox to spiritual. For me personally, the festival has more firmly rooted my personal mission in spreading the recognition of our shared humanity. We are not isolated individuals, but a global community of people, made holy and beautiful by God. When we take the posture of Christ, our differences don’t separate us – they unite us around a shared table of God’s grace. At the festival, I was uncomfortable in just about every way. I was hot, wet, surrounded by crowds of people I didn’t know, and feeling a barrage of new ideas and experiences that I never could have prepared for. But that very uncomfortability made it, for me, a sacred space. ### I’m Not a Rockstar – I’m a Child of God URL: https://randalljgreene.com/im-not-a-rockstar-im-a-child-of-god/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T20:56:54.000Z Often I don’t feel like I’m worthy of being called “God’s handiwork.” When I see the incredible impact others have made for the kingdom of God – leading ministries that touch thousands, or eradicating homelessness in their cities, or drawing public attention to mass injustices – I feel like my presence on Earth is insignificant. After all, what have I done with the 31 years I’ve been here? I’ve built a few websites and I blog occasionally, but I'm no rock star. The reach of my influence is probably best measured by the tens. But in Ephesians 2:1–10, Paul pointedly reminds me that my worth doesn’t come from my accomplishments: > You were dead through the trespasses and sins in which you once lived, following the course of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient. All of us once lived among them in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of flesh and senses, and we were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else. But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved — and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God — not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life. **Paul says that my value comes from the love God has for me, and that love is not conditional.** When God, at the creation of humanity, planted the spark of the Creator within us, God gave us (and me) irrevocable worth. When I try to define myself by any metric other than God’s love for me – when I base my value on the reach of my ministry, the scope of my influence, or the legacy of my life – I am placing my own standards above God’s. **My task, my response to God’s love, is not to build a more influential platform, but to continually reflect the love of God to the world.** I am not called to share the message of Christ because I want higher attendance when I lead a class or to get more hits on my blog, but because I have experienced the grace of God and because I know how meaningful the hope of Christ has been in my own life. **The question I ought to be asking myself is not “How can I have a bigger impact for the kingdom of God,” but “How can I love the people God created more deeply and faithfully?”** It is in answering that question that I find my purpose. ### Reclaiming Scripture from the Tangled Needs of Modernism URL: https://randalljgreene.com/reclaiming-scripture-from-the-tangled-needs-of-modernism/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T19:15:20.000Z I was raised in a devoutly Christian evangelical home. As a teenager, when I really started being taught my faith, a considerable amount of time was devoted to apologetics – the defense of the faith – to prepare me to answer the questions I was sure to face in high school and college. I learned how to use the biblical stories of creation and worldwide flood to refute the secular doctrines of evolution, how to biblically rationalize the miracle of the virgin birth, how to demonstrate the reality of Christ’s resurrection, and more. The world, I was taught, was a place filled with questions, and I had to be ready with answers – and thank goodness the answers were given to us by God in the Bible. To the high school version of me, the Bible seemed to be primarily a sword of rigid truth for Christians to use in the fight against the atheism of a non-Christian world. ## Scripture Used to Be Malleable The way we think about the Bible today has evolved from the ways our religious ancestors thought about it. Jesus’ relationship with the Scriptures, including the texts of the Law, is illustrated in the example of his teaching in the Temple when he was a boy (Luke 2:41-51). In Jewish traditions, dating back to the time of Jesus and beyond, Scripture was not understood as a fixed, concrete text (not in the way I was taught to think about it). The Scriptures were a collection of writings that needed to be interpreted, debated, and wrestled with. When rabbis gathered in the Temple to discuss the meaning of the Law or the application of their faith, they did not quote a biblical passage as a trump cards, but considered the narratives and themes of their sacred stories, and then re-told those stories in new contexts and with creative details that brought the narratives to life all over again. When twelve-year-old Jesus taught in the Temple and amazed the teachers gathered there (see Luke 2:41-51), he was not simply expositing a text as many of our preachers do today – he was engaging in Midrash, adapting and reinterpreting the Scriptures to cast fresh light on them, taking the truths of God revealed in them and drawing them with new depth and perspective. The skill with which he did this is what amazed the teachers in the Temple. That method of interpretation wasn’t unique to Jesus – it’s how many Jewish teachers worked with the texts (and their tradition has not changed much between then and now – [Midrash is still present in Jewish religious culture today](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzJaqJz5S5k&ref=randalljgreene.com)). This tradition of interpretation wasn’t limited to the Jewish context, either. The apostle Paul made a habit of creatively adapting scriptural texts to draw new meaning out of it. For example, in 1 Corinthians 1:27-29, he took the words of the prophet in Jeremiah 9:23-24 (a call for Israel to find its shared identity the love and justice of God rather than in human accomplishments) and creatively reinterpreted it as a definition of godly wisdom. (For a more complete consideration of this particular text, [read my interpretation of Christian wisdom here](https://randalljgreene.com/the-humiliation-of-wisdom/).) As the Gospel writers recorded the words of Jesus, they treated the ancient Scriptures similarly. As just one example, the author of Matthew took Jesus’ entire life and used it as a retelling of the story of Moses – the author wove incredible parallels between the two all throughout the Gospel. The mothers and fathers of the early church were also known to handle the scriptural texts with creative imagination, as is clear in the interpretive methods of Origen and other matriarchs and patriarchs of the church. Many of them embraced mystical interpretations that are foreign to most evangelicals today; others found Scripture to be filled with metaphors; they consistently recognized the outright contradictions and perspectives in the texts. There was no single, institutionalized way to read and think about Scripture until relatively recently in church history. ## What Changed? The Protestant Reformation in the 1500s was prompted by widespread dissatisfaction with the way the Roman Catholic Church had institutionalized standards of truth around papal authority in the church. Among other things, Reformers challenged the idea that the Pope was an adequate representation of truth for Christians, and they distanced themselves from that measure. As the Enlightenment and its renewal of scientific and philosophical exploration took hold over the next few centuries across Europe and the Americas, Protestants found their faith challenged by questions of how they knew and understood truth. The sciences asked questions about the nature of truth and reality for which Protestants had no answer. The institutionalized church could appeal to the standard of church tradition as the measure of truth, but since Protestants had no such foundation, they turned to Scripture and made it the answer. All of a sudden, the Scriptures had to be more than holy texts given to us by God for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. Now they needed the Bible to be their ultimate authority for all truth, all of reality; and if it were to be such an authority – if it were a truth that transcended reality – it would also need to be divine, bearing the very characteristics of God. Ironically, they bestowed upon the Bible the very same authority that had been given the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church, which had caused them to protest. This belief could be justified if the words of the Bible had been given directly by God, and this type of interpretation became the norm in many parts of the United States around the turn of the 20th century, when scientific and social secularism collided explosively with revival-fueled American Christianity. Finding themselves on the offensive against not only secularists, but also against other more liberal Christians, conservative American Christians created a doctrine of Scripture that was rigid and could be wielded as a weapon to defend their faith. While we still recognized that human persons had done the physical work of putting pen to paper, we attributed the actual words of the biblical canon to God, as if God had dictated the words to men. By viewing Scripture in this way, we created an effective weapon against secular society, but it was a Bible *we* made for ourselves, rather than the one we inherited, and it carried the characteristics *we wanted it to have*, rather than the characteristics it had organically. This new understanding of Scripture minimized the impact of differences between styles, genres, authors, and social contexts. Instead of seeing Scripture as a collection of texts written from various perspectives, the Bible became a single book written by God (which happened to be scribed by humans). And if the Bible were written by God, we could no longer ask hard questions of it, because that would be a challenge to the very truth of God’s own nature. So we stopped wrestling with the questions the ancient writers and teachers had asked in and through the texts – questions of meaning, existence, purpose, justice, and providence – because we decided God was a God of truth, not uncertainty. We reframed those questions in the text to make them answers. We no longer had to interpret Scripture into our own time and place, because the Bible, like God, existed outside of context and spoke directly to us, like a letter written directly to us by God. ## How Do We Reclaim Scripture? ### 1\. Start with the humanity of the texts. We call the Bible “Scripture” because we believe its texts to be holy, breathed to life by God, but that doesn’t mean we have to assume its divinity. When we think about the human-divine character of our scriptural texts, we can take one of two perspectives: 1. Assume their basic divinity and look for their humanity. 2. Assume their basic humanity and look for the divine in them. When we begin by assuming Scripture’s divinity, we usually end up overestimating its god-like character and, ironically, we end up reading our own humanity into it as the words of the divine. But when we begin by assuming our scriptural texts are human reflections of God, and *then* search for where [the breath of God has empowered those texts](https://randalljgreene.com/exploring-the-god-breathed-nature-of-scripture/), we know that the divinity we’ve found is truly the work of God. This gives us space and responsibility to handle Scripture respectfully and honestly. ### 2\. Recognize the diversity of Scripture’s books and authorship. If we start by assuming Scripture’s humanity, then we also recognize the importance of the human authorship of the texts. We look at the Bible not as a single book, but as a library of writings, a collection of distinct perspectives about God from different situations of life and with a variety of questions, concerns, and solutions that demand creativity and imagination to interpret. The words of Scripture speak to us because their authors, in many ways, *are* us as a part of the ages-old community of believers. ### 3\. Embrace the questions of Scripture. Life is made of questions, and when we recognize diversity of voices and contexts in Scripture, we also recognize the struggles and questions those authors faced. We see their faithfulness in the midst of their doubts and struggles, and we see the power of God speaking through them. Rather than looking to the texts of Scripture to be the final authority for our life’s questions, we look to Jesus Christ, the living Word of God, as the way, the truth, and the life. Christ is the lens through which we interpret the struggles of life, and it is confidence in Christ, rather than confidence in the Bible, that gives us strength to navigate the uncertainties of our own existence. By reading Scripture in such a way, we reclaim it from the grasp of a particular Christian culture that has transformed it into a reflection of its own insecurities, and we allow it to be the holy text it has been throughout history, filled with mystery and diversity and humanity and the breath of God. We can be better followers of Christ when we read Scripture as it is, rather than as we want it to be. ### Community in Communion URL: https://randalljgreene.com/community-in-communion/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T19:12:27.000Z When I was a kid, I didn’t really understand communion. I knew it as a time to think about the bad things I’d done, confess those to God, and thank Jesus for giving his life on the cross for me. I thought of it as a time of remembrance, but I didn’t really begin to grasp the power of the Lord’s Supper until I began worshiping in a community that practiced it a little differently. Shortly after Shannon and I were married, we joined a Nazarene church that embraced the traditions of the Christian faith in a way I’d never experienced before. They did this in a number of ways, but one of them was that, during the Lord’s Supper, they didn’t pass a plate down the pews – they invited us to come forward and receive the elements. As we stood and stepped out of our pews, we joined with our fellow Christ-followers in a movement toward the cross. Now, at the time, I didn’t really understand *why* this church practiced communion this way, but I felt that there was something different about it. Since then, as I’ve studied Scripture and Christianity and explored my faith, communion has become one of my most treasured Christian practices. There are several names for it – communion, the Lord’s Supper, Eucharist – and they all reveal slightly different angles on what it means, but I find myself particularly drawn to the name “communion,” and I’d like to explain why. Recently, my studies have focused on the apostle Paul’s letters to the church in Corinth – which we have in our Bibles today as the books of 1 and 2 Corinthians. The Christian community in that city was one that Paul himself had founded. According to the book of Acts, he lived there for 18 months while he built the church in Corinth before he moved on to other cities – it was while he was away that he exchanged letters with them. Now, eighteen months isn’t a long time, so when Paul left them, they were still “baby” Christians… or *maybe* toddlers, if we want to be gracious... and we see that reality reflected in his letters. ## A Brief History of Corinth To understand Paul’s letters to them, we need to know a little about the city of Corinth. It was a fairly young city in the Roman Empire – it had been completely destroyed hundreds of years before, but Julius Caesar rebuilt it about a century before Paul visited. When Caesar rebuilt it, though, he did so by filling it with ambitious freedmen – former slaves – which gave them incentive to build and make their own destinies for themselves. So many of these men who had been slaves quickly became elites in the social order of Corinth. But with this sudden wealth and power came a need to guard their wealth and status, so it didn’t take long for Corinth to develop a system of factions – kind of like unions for people in particular trades or social circles in the city – to defend their power. ### Worldly Influence in the Corinthian Church That vibrant, fluid culture was how the Corinthian Christians had been born and raised, and after Paul left, they very quickly brought those same tactics into the church, creating social hierarchies that elevated some at the expense of others. That’s why, at the very beginning of Paul’s first letter, he tells them they are not to be divided into “parties” that follow different teachers – because they were using those parties to divide themselves into different groups, different tiers of “Christian,” based on economic status, doctrinal beliefs, or other metrics... the same way the rest of the world was doing it in Corinth. ## Unity: The Way of Christ So the entirety of Paul’s letter hinges on this idea of promoting unity within their community. In the looping, winding way that Paul tends write, he is pleading with them throughout the letter to break down those divisions and, instead, find their center as a community in their shared commitment to Christ. One of his strongest demonstrations of this, at least in my opinion, is in 1 Corinthians 12 where he talks about their community as being the “body of Christ.” This metaphor of "the body" was common among ancient thinkers and writers. In Roman society, people would often talk about groups of people as being different parts of a body – they would discuss how some were to be treated with honor – the heads, the hearts, and so on – and others were to be treated with shame – hidden from view, ostracized… I’m not going to name those body parts. But Paul takes that metaphor, which everyone would have recognized, and flips it on its head. Instead of saying that some members were worthy of honor and others dishonor, he says that every part of the body is indispensable, and that the reality is that we treat the parts considered dishonorable with greater respect. ### Unity is Found in Diversity In doing this, Paul emphasizes the diversity of their community. Just prior to this passage, he acknowledges the different gifts that each person brings to the community. They all have an important part to play in the church – **they may not all look the same, or behave the same, or believe the same, or share the same convictions, but they are equals because of their shared commitment to the Way of Christ.** And this is where we really get to the heart of what I wanted to talk about. If you flip back one more chapter to 1 Corinthians 11, you read Paul chastising them for the way they were practicing the Lord’s Supper. He points out that they had been allowing their factions, the worldly divisiveness that had seeped into their Christ-centered community, to break them apart from one another as they celebrated at the table of Christ. ### Division Makes Them Unworthy of the Table Paul says that their division at the table makes them unworthy. Until recently, I’d always read this passage as saying that Christians would be unworthy if we came to the table with unconfessed sin in our hearts – if we came before God as liars, or with pride in our hearts, or something like that – but Paul is actually saying that their sin was in coming before God as a divided body. In their divisions, they were disrespecting some of their members, and *for that reason*, Paul says, they will be judged. If you read through this chapter, you’ll see that over and over Paul refers to the body of Christ. As he does this, he is deliberately foreshadowing the metaphor of the body that you and I just discussed, which is found in chapter 12. Paul tells them that when they, as a Christian community, come together for communion, they are not simply eating and drinking together. They are not simply remembering a past event and confessing their sins to God. **They are demonstrating the very heart of the gospel, which was to recognize the shared humanity of each member, united in love as the body of Christ, each with their own gifts and convictions, but one Church.** Friends, this is what I love about communion. When we come forward and receive the body and blood of Christ, we are proclaiming that **we refuse to be complicit with the divisive ways of the world, but that we are instead bonded in our commitment to the Way of Christ**. When we practice communion well, we come together as one diverse, messy, holy body that honors the image of God within each of us by recognizing how much we need one another, despite our differences – or, more likely, *because of* our differences. I pray that it may be so. Grace and peace, friends. ### Reconciliation is the Gospel URL: https://randalljgreene.com/reconciliation-is-the-gospel/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T19:09:56.000Z We live in a broken world filled with division. We know that; we *feel* it. Right now, the United Methodist Church is gearing up for a special conference where they will be voting on how they can – or can’t – stay united in the midst of their passionate disagreements about human sexuality. Many Methodists are questioning whether it’s possible to find reconciliation out of the rubble of their current fractured relationships. And that’s just one example of the division in our world. We see brokenness in our politics – when we talk about immigration, and climate change, and national security, and healthcare. We see it in the lines that literally function as racial divides in our cities, and in the glass ceilings that suppress the flourishing of women and other minorities in our workplaces. We live in a broken world, and we are broken people. In one of my classes last fall, I examined the concept of reconciliation in Paul’s letters to the church in Corinth, and I came away from this study with what was, for me, a radically new understanding of the gospel. You see, Paul was writing to a group of Christians who were deeply divided within their community, and his message to them was that the heart of the gospel – the core message of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ – was the reconciliation of the world. If you take both of his letters to the Christians in Corinth and look for the single thread that runs through them and connects them, you find this idea that the gospel is encapsulated in the mission of finding broken relationships – and mending them. Paul called the Corinthians to be “ambassadors of reconciliation” as they embodied the gospel in their broken society. Take 1 Corinthians, for example. Paul says very upfront, right at the beginning of the letter, why he’s writing to them. He says in chapter 1, verse 10: “Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.” He’s writing for their unity, because he has heard that they have let the divisiveness of their culture seep into their Christ-centered community. Throughout the letter, he urges them to respect one another and appreciate one another, illustrating the members of the community as different parts of a body – and this is important – not compelling them to uniformity of belief, but to unity in purpose. Paul didn’t erase their differences; he encouraged them, because they were bound together in the reconciling mission of God. He told them that the shared identity of Christians was to be found in something that the world considered foolish: our posture of cruciformity, our participation in the cross of Christ. Here’s what that means: New life, he said, could only ever come through death – and this pattern of death and regeneration was demonstrated for us in the death and resurrection of Christ. So for Paul, the gospel of reconciliation meant giving up our sense of individual or corporate pride – crucifying it, as it were – and pursuing peace and reconciliation with one another. Today, we live in a time of polemics, and this is seen nowhere better than on social media. We seem to be intent on dividing the people around us into an “us-versus-them” binary – every person we encounter must either be with us or against us. Either they are caricatured clones of ourselves or they are caricatured opposites of us. But when we reduce people to this kind of binary, we strip them of their dignity, of the uniqueness that actually makes them human. This division, which comes so naturally, is a sinful act of dehumanization. No matter whether we consider them “one of us” or “one of them,” the caricatures that we create in their place is not respectful of the image of God that they embody, and it keeps us from being able to listen to their own voices, their stories. We can’t hear God speaking through them because we’ve already decided what they are going to say. When we are drawing lines between people rather than drawing people together, we are doing the work of the world rather than the work of the kingdom of God. To live the gospel of Christ as Paul described it is to set aside our pride (and along with it, our need to be “right”), and take up the cross of Christ in healing broken relationships. We can disagree on our politics and our perspectives… as long as we are bound together in a posture of cruciformity. But when we are driven by division, by pride, by fear, or by our tendency to dehumanize others, we are operating in opposition to the work of God. So this is how I’m praying today: As we engage with people who look, think, or behave differently than we do, I pray that we see those people as individuals made and redeemed by God. I pray that we listen for where God is speaking in and through their lives. And I pray that we lay aside our pride and seek to reconcile damaged relationships as we pursue the kingdom and mission of God in a broken world. Grace and peace, friends. ### 2 (Non-)Resolutions for 2019 URL: https://randalljgreene.com/2-non-resolutions-for-2019/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T19:07:58.000Z I usually hate the idea of New Year’s Resolutions™. I try to avoid big, dramatic changes in my life, favoring little baby-steps instead – small steps aren’t as exciting, but to me they seem to be more sustainable and meaningful. So I don’t really get into the New Year’s Resolutions™ thing. I just try to make small improvements to my life throughout the year. So why am I writing a New Year’s Resolutions™ post this year? (And why am I trying to convince myself it's not a "New Year's Resolutions™ post" because I called it a "non-resolutions" post?) It’s partially because it’s been a long time since I’ve written a standard blog post (and for some reason my 2,500 word seminary essays aren’t big hits on my blog...). But also, and more importantly, I’ve been making some deliberate changes in my life over the past few months that I want you all to know about. On one level, I hope you hold me accountable to stick with these changes, and on top of that, I hope some of you might join me in these changes. While they may not be helpful for all of you, I expect that some of you share these struggles with me, and maybe the practices I’m embracing will be helpful for you, as well. Here are my resolutions for 2019: ### Resolution 1: Make More Mistakes I have a tendency to only do things that I’m confident I can do really well. This means that I’m often successful in the things I choose do, but it has a couple of bad side-effects. 1. I don’t take risks, so I don’t grow. 2. I don’t have to confess my mistakes. When I say that I am trying to make more mistakes, I mean that I want to take risks – I want to think beyond the bounds of what I think is possible so I can be a part of something remarkable. I want to fail so I can learn from those failures. And I want to be forced to publicly recognize those times that I fail, to be confronted by my own limitations and challenged to live more deeply into humility. ### Resolution 2: Embrace In-Between Moments This may be a generational problem, but I’m a technology addict. I am constantly stimulating my brain with some kind of content. During breakfast, I skim the news on my phone, then if I finish that I open up Twitter and scroll through what’s trending; on my drive to and from work, I put on a podcast or audiobook; the evening is filled with more work or television or reading. The result of all this is that my mind is constantly being filled with things, but it never has time to process. I am so occupied by expanding my *awareness* of what’s going on in the world that I’m never able to simply be *present* in the moment. About a year ago, I spent a few months trying a new practice during my work commute. For the 22 minutes I spent in the car each morning and evening, I turned off the radio. Sometimes I would pray, sometimes I would talk to myself, and sometimes I would just drive in silence. What I noticed in this time was that the quietness of the commute helped refresh me for the rest of the day. It was a really nice way for me to prepare for the stress of the office and recover from it once the day was over. For various reasons, I didn’t maintain that practice for too long, but in the last month or so I have found myself resurrecting it in small ways. When I’m eating – particularly when I’m eating with my wife – I intentionally lay aside my phone and try to be present with her, even if we’re not talking about anything. When I go to the gym, I sometimes take out my headphones and pay attention to the people around me. These in-between moments, which I am so used to filling with the distractions of media connectivity, have given me space to more authentically connect with myself, others, and God. There is power in embracing these in-between moments. In 2019, I am making small changes in my life to take more risks, make more mistakes, and disconnect from distractions in order to better connect with genuine life. How are you being intentional in 2019 to live a better life? ### The Humiliation of Wisdom URL: https://randalljgreene.com/the-humiliation-of-wisdom/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T19:05:48.000Z At the cross, God gave the ultimate demonstration of reorienting the world, a revelation of the ways in which God’s priorities often did not align with the priorities of humanity. By yielding to the cross, Jesus Christ embodied a narrative that Israel’s prophets had proclaimed centuries before—that God’s ways were not the ways of humanity, and that God had chosen the path of weakness to shame the strength of the world. In our society today, which is fractured along nearly any lines one might want to draw, we find ourselves questioning where our allegiance ought to lie. Many in the United States offer their allegiance to their country or political party; others offer it to their favorite public figures; others to their religious denominations or particular understandings of Scripture. Dividing ourselves into such fragmented groups allows us to create group identities and derive an inappropriate sense of social superiority among those self-selected groups. This problem is not a new one, though. When Paul wrote to the church in Corinth in the first century, he did so because he had heard they were splintering themselves into these same kinds of doctrinal factions, and he recognized this as a sign that they had shifted their attention from the cross of Christ to the wisdom of the world. Perhaps Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthians has relevance for readers today. Paul knew that the city of Corinth, because it had a lot of new wealth and a broad social stratification, was inclined to divisiveness over philosophical differences, and he knew that the church there was embracing that same concept of social ordering. Rather than submitting themselves to the priorities of God, they were pridefully debating the merits of the teachings and rhetorical skills of various apostolic leaders, leading to a marginalization of some groups within the church. Paul challenged them to return to the cross, and to the humility such a journey requires, as a source of unity for the church as a body. This sacrificial single-mindedness was an echo of Jesus’ teaching that in the kingdom of God the last would be first, a principle that looked like foolishness to the broader Corinthian culture. Yet this was the essential call of Christ, and it was wisdom to those who followed God. ## Who were the Corinthians? In ancient times, the city of Corinth was a wealthy hub of economic activity because of its important location along shipping trade routes between Asia Minor and Italy. In 146 ʙᴄᴇ, the city was decimated by Roman forces and was not rebuilt until Julius Caesar established it as a Roman colony in 44 ʙᴄᴇ. Caesar resettled it with freed slaves and other ambitious members of lower classes, and the city quickly regained much of its former glory. By the time Paul visited Corinth and founded the church there in around 51 ᴄᴇ, the rebuilt city was in its third generation of inhabitants. The city had developed a competitive socio-economic environment in which many denizens had worked their way up the ladder to an elite status—Corinth was one of the few places in the Roman Empire at this time where freed slaves could be elected to the highest positions of governance in the city. Since the city and its inhabitants were so young, the social hierarchy was not deeply entrenched in their society, and that capacity for social mobility led to the rise of exclusive factions in the people and a zealous appetite for groups to individuate themselves. The demographic makeup of the city was diverse in nearly every respect. Although the city had become a center of new wealth, it had a large population of working class craftsmen who took advantage of Corinth’s status as a Roman colony and as a high-traffic stop for traders. Ethnically, the city was primarily made up of Greeks, but there was also a significant-enough community of Jews in Corinth that the city had a synagogue (see Acts 18:8). The church in Corinth shared much of this same diversity. Most of them seem to have been Greek converts (“God-fearers,” or Gentiles who held to the beliefs of Judaism without adhering to all the Law, particularly that of circumcision; see 5:17–20), but Paul also mentions several prominent Jews in his letters to the church. In addition, the church included members of every social class, from slaves to the most elite levels of society. Paul confirms the social diversity of the church in Corinth in verse 26: “not many of you were… powerful, not many of noble birth,” which simultaneously indicates that the church was primarily made up of people of lower classes and that there were indeed some from upper classes. ## Paul’s Work in Corinth Paul probably first visited Corinth in 50 or 51 ᴄᴇ and, according to Acts 18:11, spent around eighteen months with them before leaving for the next city in his journey. Even after he left Corinth, Paul seemed to have corresponded regularly with the church there through letters, as indicated in 5:9–10 and 7:1, and the epistle we call “1 Corinthians” was not truly Paul’s first letter to the church in Corinth, nor was it his last. Paul cared deeply for this church, carrying a parental affection for this community he had founded (see 3:10, 4:14). This letter seems to have been deliberately intended to address a growing conflict between different “parties” in the church—a problem reported to him from “Chloe’s people,” who are not otherwise identified. The formation of these parties followed the social individuation that was occurring in the city. In the same way that socio-economic factions were forming throughout the city to promote each group’s interests and further its upward mobility, similar parties were taking shape within the Corinthian church to establish a hierarchy of Christ followers. Groups were segmenting themselves based on which apostle they chose to follow: Paul, Apollos, Cephas (Peter), or Christ. These groups were quarreling with one another, causing division and competition within the church, and Paul wrote this letter primarily as a corrective to this growing divide. The epistle must be read through the lens of Paul’s appeal to unity in the church, a theme that is made emphatically clear in the theological and philosophical work of the first few chapters, and is worked out in practice in the latter parts of the letter. ## Wisdom In the middle of addressing church unity in the opening verses of 1 Corinthians, Paul made a sudden and unusual pivot in verse 18—the first verse of our segment—to discuss wisdom (Gk. *sophia*). In these opening chapters of the letter, he mentioned wisdom more than five times as often as the rest of his preserved writings combined, an indication that he uniquely identified the divisions in Corinth as being rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what wisdom meant for followers of Christ—in placing their allegiances in their self-selected apostolic leaders, they were claiming the wisdom of the world as their guiding principles. In the text that is the focus of this essay, 1 Cor 1:18–31, Paul sought to *deconstruct* the church’s perception of wisdom (18–25) and then, as an encouragement for the Corinthians to find their common identity in Christ’s gospel, to *reconstruct* it in light of the cross of Christ (26–31). Since the Corinthian church was steeped in Greco-Roman culture, the members of the church were well-versed in Greek philosophy and had an affinity for rhetorical proficiency and the power of words. They commonly used debate to determine the value of a proposition—in a society that so heavily emphasized Platonic rationality, wisdom was found through philosophical argumentation, and winning these arguments resulted in increased social status. These debates were therefore infused with implications for one’s pride and honor, and their pride led the members of the body to take sides among the teachings of the apostles. It was this pride-filled emphasis on the power of words that Paul meant when he talked about the “wisdom of the world,” and this was what he overturned when he contrasted it with the wisdom of God, which was foolishness to the world. He demonstrated this contrast by examining two opposing directions of divine action, both rooted in the crucifixion of Christ: God made the world’s wisdom into foolishness (20), and God made the foolish things of the world into wisdom (27). What was this wisdom of God that Paul talked about? It was the message of the cross, which was the power of God. The cross was Rome’s way of shaming dissidents as they were put to death, so for Christians to worship a Messiah who had been executed on a cross was humiliating; and they not only worshiped that Messiah, they also followed that Messiah as a model for their own salvation. Paul’s gospel message was that Christ’s death on the cross was not simply something that Christ *did* for humanity in the past tense, as if the church were passive recipients of it, but that it was a posture into which Christ *called the church to participate*, to give up their lives in a continual and ongoing overpowering of death in the world. This was a nonsensical way of thinking to the world because it claimed that the path to authentic, vivid life was to routinely follow Christ’s willing subjection to the way of death, trusting in the power of God for resurrection. As Paul said in 22–23, this idea made no sense to the Jews, who expectantly waited for a conquering, messianic warrior in the line of King David, and it made no sense to the Greeks, who lived in pursuit of intellectual ascendance through philosophy and debate. To demonstrate his case for this disorienting new perspective, Paul appealed to two Hebrew prophets who spoke on the power of God as the shame of the world. ## Two References to Hebrew Prophets The first reference, made in verse 19, is a quotation of Isaiah that Paul used to deconstruct the Corinthian church’s conception of wisdom. The context of the prophecy is critical for understanding Paul’s meaning to the church. In the time of this oracle from Isaiah, the land of Judah was under threat from the Assyrian Empire, and their leaders felt they had to turn to their Egyptian neighbors for support, so they tried to create an alliance with that pagan nation instead of relying on God for deliverance. The words of Isaiah were a rebuke of Judah’s political solution to the threat: > 13 The Lord said: > Because these people draw near with their mouths > and honor me with their lips, > while their hearts are far from me, > and their worship of me is a human commandment learned by rote; > 14 so I will again do > amazing things with this people, > shocking and amazing. > The wisdom of their wise shall perish, > and the discernment of the discerning shall be hidden. Isaiah condemned Judah for *saying* that they trusted in God while in fact *turning away* from God when faced with peril. According to worldly wisdom, Judah had done the right thing by seeking military help from their neighbors, but Isaiah said that God would turn that wisdom into destruction. Indeed, Judah was soon all but conquered by the Assyrians and, subsequently, was taken over by the Babylonians and sent into exile. Paul, by quoting this prophecy, said that God had a history of taking decisions that seemed wise according to human reason and subverting them into acts of destruction. God, according to Paul, had no loyalty to the best arguments of the Corinthians (see also 4:20), because talking about God was not equivalent to actually placing one’s trust in God. The power of words meant nothing to God. The second prophetic reference made by Paul, found in 27–29, is an intertextual allusion to Jer 9:23–24, and it reconstructed what Paul saw as Godly wisdom. > 23 Thus says the Lᴏʀᴅ: Do not let the wise boast in their wisdom, do not let the mighty boast in their might, do not let the wealthy boast in their wealth; 24 but let those who boast boast in this, that they understand and know me, that I am the Lᴏʀᴅ; I act with steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight, says the Lᴏʀᴅ. Walter Brueggemann developed this text from Jeremiah into a pair of parallel, oppositional statements that he called a “triad of bad bragging,” wherein the wisdom of the wise was contrasted with the delight of YHWH: > Do not let the wise boast of their *wisdom*. > Do not let the mighty boast of their *might*. > Do not let the wealthy boast of their *wealth*. > > Brag in *steadfast love*. > Brag in *justice*. > Brag in *righteousness*. Paul adapted this triad in his letter to the Corinthians, challenging the church to an alternate reality of wisdom, a kind of wisdom that is not directly associated with that of the world, either positively or negatively. He did not say that all of the world’s reason was necessarily wrong, nor that the foolish things of the world was necessarily right—a direct reversal of that sort would still rely on the world’s definition of wisdom, it would simply apply it backwards. Insead, he proposed a wisdom of God that was reoriented around the power and priorities of God. With such an alternative orientation, they could not form a group identity around their apostolic leadership; rather, they could only boast in Christ, and him crucified. To make this point, Paul expressed the triad like this: > God chose the foolish to shame the *wise*. > God chose the weak to shame the *strong* (mighty). > God chose the low and despised to reduce to nothing *the things that are exalted*. > > Christ became *righteousness*. > Christ became *sanctification*. > Christ became *redemption*. By creatively redefining Jeremiah’s triads in this way, Paul established that the wisdom of God is found in God’s perfect righteousness, just sanctification, and loving redemption, which is to say that it is found in the shame and weakness of Christ’s crucifixion. The power of God for the church is not in words or rhetoric, but in the act of participating as one in the cross of Christ. ## A Matter of Unity, Faith, and Allegiance Paul’s desire for the Corinthian church was that they abandon their factious divisions, a disunity that manifested itself in their appeal to apostolic primacy, and instead find unity in their shared orientation toward the cross of Christ. He did not argue that they should unite behind one apostle’s teaching over another—he did not, for example, tell the Corinthians that they should *all* follow *his* teachings since he was their founder—but told them that they were misguided in the exclusionary idea that they could find their God-given identity in the teachings of any mere human. God would not be found, he said, in the self-certainty of human argumentation, but in their embrace of their own margins, their brokenness, their questions. As Molly Marshall described, “The theology of the cross, paradoxically, recognizes God precisely where God has chosen to hide, in suffering and in all that the wisdom of the world considers to be weakness and folly.” It was by participating in the unity of that weakness that Paul believed they should find their shared identity as brothers and sisters in Christ. Yet Paul’s concern for the Corinthians was even deeper than their disunity, for their disunity was a symptom of a more dangerous problem. As illustrated in the Isaiah prophecy, their pursuit of worldly wisdom (manifested as church division) was rooted in a distrust in the sufficiency of God’s wisdom. Paul asked them to leave their debates, recognizing these arguments as foolishness to God, and embrace with humility the faithful work of God in Jesus’ procession to death, trusting that giving themselves up in earnest submission to God was the true path to righteousness. The response of the faithful, he said, was to turn away from argumentation, which was fundamentally based in pride, and toward a radical, Christ-like ethos of emptying oneself out in love, even when the result was to look like a fool. In the end, then, Paul asserted that this was a question of allegiance. Would the Corinthians give their fealty to the apostles they followed (which was, in truth, fealty to their own interpretations of the faith), or would they give themselves wholly to Christ? This was the question of sanctification, and anything other than full-bodied allegiance to Christ was foolishness to God, no matter how wise it seemed in the eyes of the Corinthians. ## Conclusion In his letter to the church in Corinth, Paul asserted that God’s wisdom, the unifying element of all believers, was a complete reorientation of the wisdom of the world. In Jesus’ submission to the cross, God had demonstrated the power of God over the certainties of the world and had exalted the things the world considered foolish. As Jesus had taught his disciples, the last were made first in the kingdom of God, and the ways of humanity were not the ways of God. If the Corinthian church would trust in the power of God, they would find themselves bound together as one body. This same message bears relevance for Christians today. Rather than finding our identity in our doctrinal positions, our apostolic leaders, or any other reflection of the wisdom of the world, we must center ourselves on the wisdom and power of God displayed in the cross. ### Learning Reconciliation URL: https://randalljgreene.com/learning-reconciliation/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T19:03:47.000Z My friend, my brother, you know how we have Received too much for life. Our time has surely not been wasted. Today, and yesterday, and the day before I opened my ears and my eyes To know what you have said. We spoke and smiled and swore Never would we raise weapons to fight Nor take anger to our bed Nor bear thrones through the door. My friend, my brother, I believe there is No light like the past. Time has built wounds on me. The Spirit of the World, it lives and grows In our minds and in our acts— Look at me! and see. You lost me my love, from Passion’s throes Which I had found in the last Ghost of a haunted dream. But I pardon the wind, where’er it blows. My friend, my brother, we discern the same Shadows breathing between us. Need we spare the truth, just to preserve Peace and union, such as befit The hope we to the future entrust? So shall we someday again deserve In here, this place together to sit And reminisce and discuss The lessons we’ve taken so long to learn And the pain involved in learning it. ### Rejecting or Reforming Institutions of Abuse URL: https://randalljgreene.com/rejecting-or-reforming-institutions-of-abuse/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T19:01:32.000Z Throughout our history, we Christians have participated in a number of systemic sins. From our alignment with the power of the Roman Empire, to our embrace of the slave trade, to the suppression of minority groups, we have often found ourselves seeking power and pleasure rather than embodying Christ’s model of recognizing the humanity and worth of our neighbors. At times, our alignment with broken institutions has been an effort to redeem them. For example, our celebration of Christmas has origins in pagan celebrations of winter, but early Christians embraced the festival and turned it into a holy-day, an annual reminder of the birth of Jesus Christ that has been celebrated for millennia now. At other times, though, we have turned a blind eye to the institutions we have supported, as if we have not known about its corruption. The American entertainment industry is one example of this. In recent months, nearly every week has contained a stark reminder of the immorality running through Hollywood. **Anyone who has paid attention over the past several decades cannot be surprised by all the reports of sexual assault and intimidation, but until now it has been far easier for us to ignore the signs while we sit back and enjoy our entertainment.** Today, whenever a star is credibly accused of sexual harassment, we Christians follow society’s lead in condemning the abuser, often calling for him to lose his job. Although it is too soon to know the long-term impact this accountability will have on the industry, they seem to be effectively drawing a deeper moral commitment – on this issue, at least – from Hollywood as a whole. This is a positive, but one must wonder why Christians weren't leading the call to justice on this issue. **Are there other institutions we support that we should be challenging?** Are there other industries that tolerate or glorify abuse that we should be speaking out against? Do we have other sources of entertainment that survive by dehumanizing groups of people? As more and more research is done into the effects of brain trauma on athletes, I think we should be paying attention to the rate of concussions in collegiate and professional sports. The violence of contact sports like football, hockey, and soccer lead to [a dangerous number of concussions](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1941297/?ref=randalljgreene.com), which can have [devastating impacts on the lives of athletes](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2945234/?ref=randalljgreene.com). Studies are quickly unveiling a strong correlation between repeated concussions and the neurological deterioration known as chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a condition that has reportedly led to a number of high profile suicides, incidents of domestic violence, and other serious psychological and behavioral issues. We can no longer ignore the fact that repeated concussions has a dehumanizing effect on humans. And we can no longer ignore the fact some athletic institutions thrive on the violence that consistently causes concussions. And we must acknowledge the fact that those institutions [have spent decades](https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/us/nfl-concussions-fast-facts/index.html?ref=randalljgreene.com) systematically [suppressing the relationship between their sports and the dehumanizing effects of concussions](https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/05/nfls-concussion-cover-up/484016/?ref=randalljgreene.com). Christians regularly participate in the celebration of these sports – for example, **many churches cancel Sunday evening services so their members can watch football’s championship game**. Does our celebration of the event make us participants in the concussion-inducing environment? Shouldn’t we be speaking and acting out *against* an institution that encourages athletes to play in a way that destroys their brains? Are we prioritizing our entertainment over the health and sanity of the players? Perhaps we should cease participating altogether in the celebration of sports with a high rate of concussions, or perhaps we can change these institutions from the inside; but **we cannot remain oblivious to the destructiveness of athletic violence without becoming complicit in its sins**. **A decade from now, when American society is realizing that this is a moral issue, we cannot feign ignorance and content ourselves to follow their lead. If we truly value each person as being made in the image of God, we must honor their dignity by acting now.** ### Exploring the God-Breathed Nature of Scripture URL: https://randalljgreene.com/exploring-the-god-breathed-nature-of-scripture/ Last updated: 2025-03-16T20:23:46.000Z The thoughts below are my answer to a question posed in one of my seminary classes. The question asked how we reconcile the God-ordained violence and genocide in the Hebrew Bible with the compassion and grace of God presented in Jesus Christ. There is a lot to unpack in the concep of inspiration that I describe below, and I definitely don’t have it all worked out. I’m sifting through it day-by-day, trying to see if it makes sense, how it breaks down, and what the implications are… so I value what you think. I’d love for you to leave your thoughts and ideas on what this might mean in the comments. --- The history of the Old Testament records incredible scenes of violence and destruction done in the name of God — acts of aggression that, if they happened today, we Christians would condemn without hesitation. To our understanding, the God-ordained genocide in these biblical books does not reflect the character of the God revealed in the person and teachings of Jesus Christ. In the book of Joshua, God commanded the Israelites to take the land of Canaan by conquest and utterly destroy its native inhabitants. If a nation attempted to do that today, we'd call it mass genocide. If someone said God had told them to do it, we'd call them a religious terrorist. So what do we do with the violence God decreed in the Old Testament? How are we to understand these ancient texts that describe a God that is so at odds with the God that we know and love? I see three possible (basically/arguably non-heretical) conclusions: 1. God has an ugly side. A really ugly side. 2. God’s character has changed (or the way God has revealed Godself has changed). 3. The ancient Israelites who wrote the texts had a flawed understanding of God. ### Option 1: God has an ugly side As a child, this is pretty much what I was taught. Although I don’t recall ever *specifically* talking about God as being a genocidal tyrant, that was the essential message: the pagan nations had opportunities to follow the true God but had chosen to follow their own gods instead, so physical and spiritual destruction was the result of their decision. God had (and still has) no obligation to save everyone — it was (and is) God’s right to select who should be worthy of salvation. This notion, founded on [a literalistic interpretation of Scripture](https://randalljgreene.com/the-slippery-slope-of-denying-inerrancy/), wasn’t framed as an “ugly side” of God, though; it was described as God’s need for justice, suggesting that it was "just" for the Israelites to act as God’s retributive sword upon people who had no hope of salvation. This conclusion does not mesh with my understanding of God as revealed in Christ. While I am quick to confess the limits of my own understanding, I cannot reconcile a God of love – the God who was Jesus and taught us to lay down our swords and turn the other cheek – with a God who destroys thousands of lives without, at the very least, giving the people a legitimate opportunity for repentance. ### Option 2: God’s character has changed There’s a theological framework called “process theology” that asserts that God changes and grows in response to the decisions and trajectory of humanity. Within this framework, the very character of God evolved in response to the cries of the dying pagans, and that character reached its ultimate conclusion in Christ’s message of love and hope. Some Christian circles argue that process theology is heterodox (or even outright heretical). I don’t know enough about the framework to have a strong personal conviction regarding its acceptability as a Christian theology, but I know that it’s an option in our discussion. I find myself leaning away from such an explanation, although admittedly that may be simply because it’s outside the realm of my embedded assumptions about the nature of God. ### Option 3: The ancient Israelites didn’t really understand God. Peter Enns and most other biblical scholars have convincingly argued against the factual accuracy of the Hebrew conquest. This reading of the Hebrew Bible requires a different approach to Scripture than I was taught as a child, because it means that the historical record of the deuteronomic history is not a journalistic recording of events, but a series of stories told with a religious agenda — [a theological purpose instead of an historical one](https://randalljgreene.com/what-israel-teaches-us-about-the-idolatry-of-security/). **It means that the Bible was written by humans rather than by the hand of God.** Within this reading of Scripture, we understand that the biblical authors were giving their best reflections upon God and the mission to which God called them, rooted as that was within the limits of their cultural context. The Israelites believed God was telling them to exterminate their enemies because, within their paradigm of the activities of gods, that was the essence of what gods (and therefore God) *did* — it was the role gods played in the world, so *of course* that’s what God wanted them to do! This kind of understanding means that we have to read Scripture through an entirely different lens than I was raised with — particularly as we approach its most ancient texts. In many cases, it opens up more questions than it provides answers for. While I appreciate the deconstruction of our assumptions regarding the authority of Scripture, I find myself frustrated that they don’t ever seem to rebuild that concept of biblical inspiration. **Within this paradigm of the human-ness of Scripture, how are we to understand it as divine? If it is so mired in the cultural context of the ancient world, how can it play a positive role in our life and faith today?** ## Scripture Inspired: The Living Words of God? Nearly every doctrine of inspiration is grounded in 2 Timothy 3:16, which says “All scripture is given by inspiration of God…” (NRSV). Translations of this passage vary a bit — several translate it to say something like “All scripture is God-breathed.” This word that is translated as “inspiration of God” or “God-breathed” is the Greek word *theopneustos*. From my research, it seems that Paul completely invented this word just for this particular usage in his letter to Timothy. The first part of the word, *theo*, means “God” (just like in “theology,” the study of God). The second part of the word, *pneustos*, relates to breathing, breath, or spirit. Often, particularly in evangelical circles, this has been used as an argument that God “breathed out” the scriptures, as if God spoke them almost directly to human copyists. But I’ve been working through an alternate understanding of what could be meant the term *theopneustos*. When I think of God breathing, I immediately go back to the stories of creation in Genesis, where God breathed life into the elements of the earth. The second verse of the Bible talks about a wind from God (other translations say “the Spirit of God”) moving over the waters as an initiation of the creative work of God. In chapter two, God forms the first human from the dust of the ground, but that form didn’t have life, didn’t bear the image of God, until God breathed into it. God took the dust, the material elements of the world, and turned it into something incredible by giving it God’s own breath. I wonder if Paul is suggesting something similar in his letter to Timothy when he talks about the God-breathed nature of Scripture. **Perhaps he’s presenting the idea that God takes these human reflections, limited and flawed as they are, and breathes into them, giving them the very life, image, and power of God.** The implication here is that, though the texts bear all the cultural, sociological, and intellectual limitations of their human authors, God has invested them with the power to change the world. As the church embodies Scripture — wrestling with its theology, trying and failing to live out the message of Christ — God gives the texts life and impact that they could never have on their own. **This isn’t a one-time act of inspiration; rather, it is an act of creation, of taking natural elements and making them supernatural so that they bear life. Scripture becomes living and active because these human texts have received the breath of God.** Within this understanding of inspiration, Scripture is sacred because it has been chosen by God as an instrument of the gospel. It has been at the heart of the church for millennia, and we have seen it at work throughout history in the way the church has ministered to the broken and hurting and displaced in society. The reality of the gospel’s impact throughout the world — and the knowledge that Scripture has been a central part of that impact — is evidence to me that the texts we claim as sacred have in fact been breathed upon by God. What are the ramifications of this kind of understanding of biblical inspiration? How does this impact the way we embody the teachings of the Bible? How do we reconcile it with the ugly ways Christians have historically wielded Scripture as a weapon (I'm thinking of [the Crusades](https://randalljgreene.com/still-crusading/), the embrace of the slave trade, [the subjugation of women](https://randalljgreene.com/what-the-nashville-statement-actually-says/), etc.)? ### The Evolving Identity of Holiness URL: https://randalljgreene.com/the-evolving-identity-of-holiness/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T17:59:06.000Z The levitical laws regarding purity and holiness were established to consecrate the Hebrew people to God, to establish their identity as distinct from the surrounding cultures. The dominant societies around them were pagan, so the separation provided by the practice of their Hebrew faith served to orient their lives toward God rather than toward the influence of their neighboring nations. In the United States today, we live in a different place. Our society is [largely Christian](https://randalljgreene.com/a-nation-after-christ/) and, on at least a superficial level, lives by a Christian standard of morality. Our country was founded, though not actually as a Christian nation, on a westernized understanding of essentially Judeo-Christian values. Yet this standard of Christianity has been so diluted by its mingling with [nationalism, politicism, and non-transformative belief](https://randalljgreene.com/losing-christ-within-the-empire/) (I hesitate to even call our cultural Christianity a “faith” because it requires no commitment) that we struggle with some of the same identity crises faced by the early Hebrews. **When the whole world claims to be Christian, can a true Christian be found?** It becomes difficult — impossible, perhaps — to distinguish between the Christ-follower and the cultural believer, because in many ways they appear to live by the same code. They speak the same language; they sit in the same pews; they share the same body and blood of Christ on Sunday. **We can no longer use a code of conduct as a marker of consecration. Our characteristic orientation toward God must evolve beyond a list of rules, a series of do’s and do not’s.** Indeed, I believe this is one of the evolutions in faith Christ initiated in his teachings and demonstrated in his death: the mark of the Christian is no longer the food she eats nor the line of her birth nor the offering of sacrifices to God. The mark of the Christian is the love and grace she bestows upon her neighbors and the selflessness with which she lives. **The mark of the Christian, the evidence of holiness, is how much of herself she is willing to give in order to nurture the lives and life of others.** ### What an Emo Band Taught Me About Reading the Bible URL: https://randalljgreene.com/what-an-emo-band-taught-me-about-reading-the-bible/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T17:57:28.000Z One of my favorite bands from when I was in high school just released a new album, and I when I found out, I couldn’t wait to listen to it. I prepared myself for waves of nostalgia as I hit play on Story of the Year’s first track from *Wolves*, and I was not disappointed. On my first listen, I’m not sure I even heard any of the lyrics – I just soaked up the sound and immediately loved how it felt like a more mature version of the band I’d loved over a decade ago. So of course I put it on repeat and listened to it a few more times, becoming more and more familiar with the lyrics with each spin. The writing was emotional, genuine, filled with heart-wrenching questions about love and fear and pain. (Did I mention that Story of the Year is an emo, grungy, post-hardcore rock band?) The album was filled with beautiful lines like this (from “Give Up My Heart”): > Don't make me give up my heart > Don't break free, I'll fall apart > A love I know I would die for > Don't make me give up my heart > > … > > Am I man enough to fall in love > And truly know the meaning of what I have become? > Cause all I know is I can't let go > But I'm scared that all the pain I know will find you Paired with the music, these lyrics ache of fear – the writer knows that the woman he loves is leaving him, breaking his heart. The passion and anxiety is palpable! But there were a couple lines I didn’t understand… they felt just a little *off* somehow, like they didn’t quite fit in the song. Why is he “scared that all the pain” he knows will find her? What does that even mean? ## Looking for Perspective So I did what any responsible music-listener should do: I looked for an interview with the band about this song. And I found one! Fuse.tv had done a track-by-track question and answer with Dan Marsala, the band’s lead singer and songwriter – this was perfect! ([Here’s a link to it](https://www.fuse.tv/2017/12/story-of-the-year-wolves-album-premiere-track-by-track-interview?ref=randalljgreene.com), with a warning: there’s a fair bit of language in this interview. I've also dropped the video for the song at the bottom of this post, so you can listen to it as you read if you want to.) As I read, though, I was stunned. Most of the songs on this album weren’t about romantic relationships at all… they were about Marsala’s children. The images I had conjured for this album were all wrong. “Give Up My Heart” had been written about his love for his daughter. As I listened to the lyrics again, I realized the lyrics now made a lot more sense. The lines that had felt awkward fit much better within the context of a father-daughter relationship. Marsala wasn’t anxious that his romantic partner was going to leave him, but that his child, who had every ounce of love in his heart, was going to grow up and leave one day. He feared that she was going to go through the same pains in life he’d experienced, and the reality of that broke his heart. Knowing the songwriter’s intent helped me better understand the song and gave it a depth, a tenderness, that made it even more beautiful to me. How had I misunderstood it so much on my first few listens? ## Assumptions Are Blinding Here’s what I learned: **I came into the album with my own expectations of what it would be about, and those assumptions blinded me to the evidence otherwise.** If I’d paid closer attention to the verses of “Give Up My Heart,” I would’ve seen clear allusions that Marsala was talking about his children, but I could only see what I expected to see. I assumed it was a simple love song, so that was all I got from it. When we listen to music, read books, watch films, and so on, **we must be aware that we have a tendency to read ourselves into it**. Our expectations and assumptions shape the message we get from it. Even when we find it moving, challenging, or surprising, we are still seeing it through the lens of our own experiences. Often that’s exactly what the artist wants us to do – in the case of Story of the Year’s album, Marsala said that he wrote it somewhat ambiguously so people could read themselves into it – but we have to recognize that our interpretation is just that… an interpretation. And paying attention to the interpretations of others adds to the depth of meaning and uncovers truths in it that we would never have found on our own. ## Reading the Bible in Community Our reading of the Bible is not exempt from this. It is limiting to read and study it in isolation or only with others who think and live the way we do. Although the authors of the scriptural texts are not available for interviews (since they lived thousands of years ago…), we can still study Scripture in diverse community. We should be engaging with many different perspectives on our faith: - Historical perspectives - Liberal perspectives - Conservative perspectives - Latin American liberation perspectives - Black liberation perspectives - Feminist perspectives - Womanist (black feminist) perspectives - Jewish perspectives - Muslim perspectives - And many others **By reading the Bible in community, we better understand the assumptions we bring to it and we expose ourselves to broader, deeper ways of understanding Scripture and applying it to our lives.** --- *"Give Up My Heart" by Story of the Year* ### The Symbolism in my Tattoo URL: https://randalljgreene.com/symbolism-in-my-tattoo/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T17:54:02.000Z I recently finished a tattoo on my forearm. In total, I spent about 18 months working through the design and I get a lot of questions about what it means, so I thought I’d put together a quick blog post explaining some of the details. ## Tattoo as Gospel The tattoo blends traditional Christian symbols and personal spiritual reflection in a minimalistic way that I think is pretty unique to me, and I’m pretty proud of how it all came out. It is a permanent reminder, etched onto my arm, of the gospel message of Christ, and it has already proven to be a wonderful conversation starter with the people I encounter in my day-to-day life. ![](https://randalljgreene.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/tattoo_meaning_detail.jpg) This is the complete tattoo: a symbolic depiction of the presence of God and the practice of the kingdom of God. The top part is a representation of the trinitarian God, connected with a reference to Revelation 22:13 and Micah 4:3 to the bottom part, which describes the method of human participation in God’s kingdom. ## Scripture The numbers in my design are encoded references to passages of Scripture corresponding to the Protestant Bible. The first two numbers indicate a book of the Bible, the second two numbers indicate a chapter, and the third two numbers indicate a verse. So the “662213” is Revelation 22:13, and the “330403” is Micah 4:3. ## The Trinity ![](https://randalljgreene.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/tattoo_meaning_chirho.jpg) > I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. (Revelation 22:13, NRSV) The Christian symbol at the top of the tattoo is the most visually complex part of the whole thing. It’s composed of three elements: a Chi Rho, the Greek letters Alpha and Omega, and a circle binding them together. Each of these elements correspond to a Person of the Trinity. ![](https://randalljgreene.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/tattoo_detail_chirho.png) The Chi Rho is a symbol for Jesus Christ formed from the first two letters of the Greek word for Christ (ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ). Jesus, the embodiment of God in human flesh, reveals to us the image of God within each of us. Through his life, Jesus taught us what it means to be human and how we are to live our faith, participating in the kingdom of God today. One of the first significant uses of the Chi Rho was by Constantine – he used it as a military standard during his Christian conquests in hopes that the invocation of the name of Christ would lead his army to military success in warfare. This history of the Chi Rho is important in my tattoo, as you’ll see when we get into the bottom part of the design. ![](https://randalljgreene.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/tattoo_detail_alphaomega.png) The second element here is the inclusion of the Greek Alpha (Α) and Omega (Ω). Pulled directly from the text in Revelation, these letters signify the transcendence of God the Creator, who is before all, just as Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, and after all, just as Omega is the last letter of the Greek alphabet. God is greater than humanity, higher than creation, over and beyond anything we can see or imagine. ![](https://randalljgreene.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/tattoo_detail_circle.png) The third element is the circle surrounding the Chi Rho and the Alpha and Omega. This circle represents the Holy Spirit, the substance of God that connects the Creator and the Son, the Comforter that speaks into our hearts and lives on a daily basis. ## The Nonviolence of the Cross ![](https://randalljgreene.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/tattoo_meaning_swordcross.jpg) > He shall judge between many peoples, and shall arbitrate between strong nations far away; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. (Micah 4:3, NRSV) The bottom part of my tattoo design represents the way we Christians are called to live out the kingdom of God. It is meant to evoke two competing and complementary concepts: it is a sword, a tool of war like that used in the conquests of Constantine, but the blade has been broken to turn it into a cross. Micah talks about the kingdom of God as a place where swords will be unnecessary and will be beaten into gardening tools (a metaphor for a return to the Garden of Eden). This picture of eternal peace is one of my favorite images in Scripture, and is mirrored in passages of Isaiah, where the prophet describes a time when the wolf will lie next to the lamb in tranquility. Yet those verses are merely descriptive – they don’t tell us *how* this peaceful kingdom of God is to come about. For that, we look to the teachings of Jesus, who tells us in all three of the synoptic Gospels that any of us who want to follow his way must take up our crosses daily (see Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34, and Luke 9:23). I know that many Christians interpret this teaching metaphorically as a call to give up our personal ambitions in pursuit of Christ, but I think Jesus meant this far more literally. At the time of Jesus, the cross was a Roman tool of death; in the Roman world, convicted criminals submitted to their punishment by carrying their crosses to the place of their execution. For Jesus to tell his disciples to take up their crosses was to tell them that, when they were face-to-face with death, their faith demanded that they face it boldly and willingly. They should break their swords and turn them into crosses. By doing so – by refusing to bow to [the Roman god](https://randalljgreene.com/losing-christ-within-the-empire/) of [warfare and violence](https://randalljgreene.com/still-crusading/) – they would see the kingdom of God on earth. The two parts of my tattoo, top and bottom, are not distinct units. As I describe the elements, the concepts overlap and mingle with one another in a sort of open dance. Together they represent the fullness of God’s character and our God-given responsibility as humans to respond to the darkness of violence and hate in and around us. The placement of this tattoo is on my right arm is no accident. Since that is my dominant hand, any time I begin to raise my fist in violence, it is there to remind me that [the way of Christ is not one of warfare](https://randalljgreene.com/the-war-is-coming/), but of [self-denial and grace](https://randalljgreene.com/a-life-after-christ/) – that is the way of Christ, the path to the kingdom of God. --- **Want to get a print of this artwork on a shirt, journal, bag, sticker, or other merchandise?** [Check out my shop on Threadless here](https://rgcreative.threadless.com/designs/sword-to-a-cross?ref=randalljgreene.com). ### Condemn the Bigotry, Not the Bigot URL: https://randalljgreene.com/condemn-the-bigotry-not-the-bigot/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T17:31:09.000Z Racism, bigotry, white nationalism/supremacy, and xenophobia are evil, contemptible ideologies, and they have no place in the church or in American society. They are the among the worst forms of systemic abuse and emotional manipulation, and they cower in stark contrast to everything Christians and all decent Americans stand for. But though we condemn, in the strongest possible way, such ideologies of fear, let us remember that the people bound to those ideologies remain human, made in the image of God as we all are. Let us not in our condemnation of bigotry see the person as the sum total of their error, for their creator still loves them and extends them mercy. May we be so filled with grace. If, when we look at the photos of bigots, we see their hate but cannot see their person, it may be that we too are cloaked in hate. If we can only see them as abusers, we have already committed the sin of stripping them of their humanity, of rejecting the light of God that remains in them. Each of them has a story, a heartbeat, and a soul, and each of them is a candidate for God’s redemption. The temptation to demonize the bigot is strong – it feeds into our inclination to divide the world into “us” and “them” – but it is not [the way of Christ](https://randalljgreene.com/a-life-after-christ/). So let us condemn the ideology of hate. Let us work against the forces of darkness in the world to secure justice for all people. And let us remember that behind each hate-filled cry is a person in need of mercy and compassion. ### Beauty Grace Illusion Lie URL: https://randalljgreene.com/beauty-grace-illusion-lie/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T17:27:23.000Z Abstract is beauty. Complexity, grace Easy, illusion Simplicity, lie Empathy, complex Ambivalence, easy Knowledge, easy Understanding, complex Speaking, simple Listening, empathy Story, listening Assuming, speaking ### Diversity Is How We Let God Shine Through Our Cultures URL: https://randalljgreene.com/diversity-is-how-we-let-god-shine-through-our-cultures/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T17:24:07.000Z The other day my wife and I attended an interfaith forum at our church. The forum was held to discuss the racial tensions in our metropolitan area and to propose a way for the different segments of our society to stand united against expressions of hate. The event brought together members of a predominantly white Methodist church, a predominantly black Methodist church, and a Jewish synagogue, and although everyone in attendance had come with a unified purpose, cultural differences were evident everywhere. A black musical trio performed a call to unity and, as they began, the largely white congregation sat and watched the performance with fascination, leaving a stillness in the room that clearly unnerved the trio who were accustomed to standing, clapping, and dancing as accompaniment. Finally, the white congregation recognized the trio’s discomfort and began to clap in a slow, hollow, and awkwardly imprecise rhythm. Although the crowd’s engagement seemed to settle the trio's nerves a bit, it also clearly revealed the white congregation's lack of hand-ear coordination. At the end of the forum, the Jewish rabbi stood and led the crowd in prayer, speaking first in Hebrew and then translating for those in the room who could not understand. As the forum ended and my wife and I exited, we found ourselves asking how the rabbi was able to keep the yarmulke on his balding head. This forum highlighted a few of the simple differences in expectations and values between cultures – even cultures that share commonalities in our *social situations* (we all lived in the Kansas City area), the *heritage of our faith* (Christianity stemmed from the Jewish faith), and even *specific doctrines within our faith* (the black church and the white church were both Methodist). By allowing the people in the room to interact with different cultures, the forum challenged us all to understand our own cultural biases and, through that self-knowing, to understand more fully how we are all bound together in the Kingdom of God. Our particular cultural expressions are like a veneer overlaying our shared humanity. ### What is Culture? **Culture, when viewed as the embedded values and assumed behaviors particular to a group, lies at the very heart of what it means to be human.** Just as the mathematical principles of resonance exist within music – regardless of whether the musician understands those principles – so does humanity as a social institution exist within the reality of culture. Culture is the natural byproduct of human social existence. Wherever groups of people gather, culture is inevitably formed based on the shared values of that group, and that formation is influenced by the group’s basic behavioral tendencies as well as the environmental effects of their world. This definition encompasses such aspects of culture as *group traditions* (like Christian celebrations of Christmas), *behavioral norms* (like dressing appropriately for church), *shared standards of excellence* (like preferred musical styles), and *fundamental expressions of communication* (like language and liturgy). Broad cultural groups can be divided almost indefinitely into sub-cultural groups of increasingly more nuanced definition – as long as a group remains, cultural assumptions can be extracted from it. A single person may be a member of many nested subcultures that each carry their own distinct markers, such as: Christian, Protestant, mainline, Wesleyan, Methodist, United Methodist, and so on. ### What makes a "good" or "bad" culture? Measuring the inherent “goodness” or “badness” of a culture is difficult or impossible. Because humanity is fundamentally cultural, any external measure a person attempts must carry cultural assumptions of its own, so any such measure cannot result in an objective conclusion about the positivity or negativity of a the examined culture, but can only deliver a relative status based upon stated comparisons. For example, a patriarchal culture may be found to diminish the social status of women relative to the value afforded women in an egalitarian society, yet that same patriarchal culture may elevate the status of all people when compared to a slave-holding society. The culture of patriarchy cannot be said to be inherently “bad” because such a conclusion would have to rely on the assumption that the status of women is a primary value - an assumption which is itself based on cultural standards. **Perhaps the most helpful standard against which to measure a culture is that of its own reflective self-critique.** To what extent does it meet or fall short of its own system of values? Because the values and behaviors of any given culture are never pre-established as a single, logical, self-contained system – rather, they evolve naturally over long periods of time with many moving and interrelated parts – the culture always has areas in which its values or behaviors contradict themselves. No matter how refined a culture may be, it always has areas of surprising inconsistency, even when measured by its own standards. If a culture claims to perceive all of humanity as made equally in the image of God, does it dehumanize any segments of the global population, either by glorifying (deifying) or objectifying them? Does it respect all of humanity in the same capacity, or does it emphasize the values of some characteristics over others? By such reflective evaluation, a culture can identify its failures and seek to change its assumptions to better align with its own values. If a culture’s primary value is to honor God as revealed in Christ through Scripture, it must see itself honestly enough to constantly challenge itself to better understand Scripture, better follow the teachings and example of Christ, and better know the priorities of God. This perspective might lead us to conclude that the only way a culture may be considered inherently bad may be if it is unaware of its own existence. **If a cultural group does not recognize that it adheres to assumed cultural norms, it cannot manage the trajectory of its evolution and, rather than improving its internal consistency, it devolves into an ever more inconsistent application of its own value system.** No culture is inherently Christian, but one that seeks to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ must be able to critically examine itself in light of other cultures, see where it fails to meet Christ's standard, and do the hard work of adapting. The interfaith forum my wife and I attended was important not as a demonstration of the inconsistencies of other groups, but because the interaction with other groups highlighted our own inconsistencies and challenged us to be better followers of Christ. ### What the Nashville Statement Actually Says URL: https://randalljgreene.com/what-the-nashville-statement-actually-says/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T16:59:56.000Z The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), the American evangelical coalition leading the charge to revive the destructive patriarchal norms in our society, recently released a statement on “biblical sexuality” called the [Nashville Statement](https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement?ref=randalljgreene.com). This statement is included in full below (you can download [the original document as a PDF](https://cbmw.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/The-Nashville-Statement-and-Initial-Signatories-List.pdf?ref=randalljgreene.com) from their website), but much of their language is cloaked in allusion to hide the depravity of their grander purpose. They did this so the statement might gain a larger audience within mainstream evangelical Christianity. I have taken each line of the statement and provided an interpretation based on my (critical) following of the CBMW and my own background in fundamentalist evangelical Christianity. This commentary is long, so I’ll start with a concise summary of my interpretive conclusion: Because of the diminishing socio-political clout held by evangelical Christianity in the United States, the CBMW feels like it needs to create a “call-to-arms” as a final effort to reassert itself as a social authority. To do that effectively, it needs to create an enemy and demonstrate how the evangelical community is under attack from this perceived foe. The CBMW has chosen the LGBT community, already one of our nation’s most socially-abused groups, as the victim of their fight for power, and they are drawing a line in the sand to alienate the evangelicals that are sincerely and earnestly wrestling with the theological discussion over LGBT Christianity. ## **Preamble to the Nashville Statement** > Evangelical Christians at the dawn of the twenty-first century find themselves living in a period of historic transition. As Western culture has become increasingly post-Christian, it has embarked upon a massive revision of what it means to be a human being. **Commentary:** On its face, the first sentence is accurate: the United States is changing into a post-Christian society. This glosses over the reality that throughout its history, a significant portion of the evangelical community in the United States has been only marginally Christian (or Christian in name only). Many of these Christians did not carry the same values we would use today to describe a faithful follower of Christ; they established and maintained the slave trade in our country, fought against civil rights, repeatedly pressed for war, stood in favor of capital punishment, and pursued all sorts of other actions and ideologies that work against the message and example of Jesus Christ. Indeed, even though the authors of this statement suggest that Christianity has historically held to a consistent principle of valuing human life, the reality of Christian history is far more complicated and messy than that. (For more on the historical authenticity of Christian culture in the United States, I highly recommend [*The Search for Christian America*](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0939443155/ref=cm%5Fsw%5Fr%5Ftw%5Fdp%5Fx%5FX-tQzbG7FBWMC?ref=randalljgreene.com), by Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden.) > By and large the spirit of our age no longer discerns or delights in the beauty of God’s design for human life. Many deny that God created human beings for his glory, and that his good purposes for us include our personal and physical design as male and female. **Commentary:** This is basically propaganda. It’s an attempt to draw “good, God-fearing Christians” into a war with “secular culture” that has abandoned all notion of God. Is it true that most people in the United States don’t believe God has a plan for humans? I don’t know. A Gallup poll in 2016 indicated that between [80% and 90% of Americans still believe in a God](http://www.gallup.com/poll/193271/americans-believe-god.aspx?ref=randalljgreene.com), so I find it unlikely. Regardless, I think it’s probably safe to say that the authors of the Nashville Statement don’t have stats to back up their claim about the “spirit of our age” either. They’re not interested in truth or reality here - they are too busy making a case about why this statement is important. > It is common to think that human identity as male and female is not part of God’s beautiful plan, but is, rather, an expression of an individual’s autonomous preferences. The pathway to full and lasting joy through God’s good design for his creatures is thus replaced by the path of shortsighted alternatives that, sooner or later, ruin human life and dishonor God. **Commentary:** The key point they are making here is that the authors believe orientation and gender identity are a matter of choice (or personal preference). Truly, this seems to be the crux of their argument inasmuch that, if they’re wrong on this point - if a person’s orientation has any foundationally determined characteristics - the entire statement begins to crumble. To hold to the idea that orientation is a choice requires one to ignore [decades of research](http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.pdf?ref=randalljgreene.com). And it only takes a single honest conversation with a gay Christian to learn that they would never have chosen this for themselves. In addition to the false assumption regarding the role of human choice in sexual orientation, the authors here are backwards in their assertions about God’s approach to rules and human happiness. I absolutely agree with them that God’s call for us is the path that leads to true joy, but I don’t think God arbitrarily chooses rules for us and then lavishes blessing upon us when we follow them. Instead, I believe because God knows our nature as humans, knows what’s good for us and brings us long-term joy, God has created guidelines to take us down that path. The difference is subtle, but important. First, a God who arbitrarily chooses rules is a God who is self-absorbed and seeks God’s own satisfaction, even when it’s not in the best interest of us. But a God who knows what brings us long-term joy is a God who is intimately involved with us and cares for us first. This is a God who *loves*. Second, the model of a God who guides us along the path that will bring us joy is open to other means of achieving that joy. Humanity can find truth and joy even outside the direct guidance of God because that capacity for truth and joy is something that is hardwired into our very being - it is the image of God within us. > This secular spirit of our age presents a great challenge to the Christian church. Will the church of the Lord Jesus Christ lose her biblical conviction, clarity, and courage, and blend into the spirit of the age? Or will she hold fast to the word of life, draw courage from Jesus, and unashamedly proclaim his way as the way of life? Will she maintain her clear, counter-cultural witness to a world that seems bent on ruin? **Commentary:** I almost can’t read this paragraph without laughing. It’s such a blatant posturing of us-versus-them. It’s seeking to draw anyone who doesn’t agree with this statement as an enemy warrior with a sword raised high for battle. I wrote [a poem called “The War is Coming!”](https://randalljgreene.com/the-war-is-coming/) a couple years ago that’s basically about exactly this. Summary: People thrive on having an enemy to rally against, so when there’s no one to combat, we tend to create an enemy in our own imaginations. That’s what this paragraph is doing. It’s a rallying cry, a call to arms, a summons to war. It’s a new variation of [what Christians have done all along](https://randalljgreene.com/still-crusading/), from the Crusades to the Inquisition to the Salem witch trials. > We are persuaded that faithfulness in our generation means declaring once again the true story of the world and of our place in it—particularly as male and female. **Commentary:** Never mind the issues of racial justice, gender equality, economic disparity, flooding along the Gulf Coast, or any number of other legitimate social issues that could be the focal point of Christian faithfulness for our generation. This is where they have chosen to make their stand against culture. > Christian Scripture teaches that there is but one God who alone is Creator and Lord of all. To him alone, every person owes gladhearted thanksgiving, heart-felt praise, and total allegiance. This is the path not only of glorifying God, but of knowing ourselves. To forget our Creator is to forget who we are, for he made us for himself. And we cannot know ourselves truly without truly knowing him who made us. We did not make ourselves. **Commentary:** I deliberately pulled out these few sentences separately because it’s the one section of this entire document that I can actually agree with. Ironically, though, even though the authors say that God alone deserves our total allegiance, they seem to be suggesting that this Nashville Statement and its depiction of sexuality deserve our total allegiance…. > We are not our own. Our true identity, as male and female persons, is given by God. It is not only foolish, but hopeless, to try to make ourselves what God did not create us to be. **Commentary:** Remember, these are the same Christians who complain that LGBT persons set their identity by their orientation. Yet here we are with a written and signed document of a bunch of evangelicals saying that a person’s identity is, in fact, based in their sexuality. The really ironic thing for me is that I don’t think I’ve ever met a gay person who *wanted* their orientation to be the defining characteristic of their identity - it’s always been society (namely, Christian society) that has forced them to emphasize their sexuality. > We believe that God’s design for his creation and his way of salvation serve to bring him the greatest glory and bring us the greatest good. God’s good plan provides us with the greatest freedom. Jesus said he came that we might have life and have it in overflowing measure. He is for us and not against us. Therefore, in the hope of serving Christ’s church and witnessing publicly to the good purposes of God for human sexuality revealed in Christian Scripture, we offer the following affirmations and denials. **Commentary:** Refer back to my previous comments about the God who loves us first and foremost. Also, while I completely agree with the idea that God’s plan is good for us, I should be clear that I think the articles we are about to read are *absolutely not* God’s plan. Some of it, I believe, are actually the worst parts of our broken humanity. ## **Article 1** > WE AFFIRM that God has designed marriage to be a covenantal, sexual, procreative, lifelong union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife, and is meant to signify the covenant love between Christ and his bride the church. > > WE DENY that God has designed marriage to be a homosexual, polygamous, or polyamorous relationship. We also deny that marriage is a mere human contract rather than a covenant made before God. **Commentary:** The selfless act of entering into a lifelong bond between committed marriage partners is absolutely a picture and a symbol of the covenant between God and humanity, which was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. But to make that covenant about sexuality and procreation is to read one’s own worldview into the Bible rather than letting Scripture speak into us (compare it to the [portrait of marriage Paul paints in Ephesians 5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians+5&version=NRSV&ref=randalljgreene.com)). This statement also shows a complete disregard for the biblical depiction of marriage throughout most of our Old Testament, where polygamy was the norm and an inability to have children was a recurring theme. If the authors intended to craft a statement of sexuality based on the Bible, they’re not off to a good start. ## **Article 2** > WE AFFIRM that God’s revealed will for all people is chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage. > > WE DENY that any affections, desires, or commitments ever justify sexual intercourse before or outside marriage; nor do they justify any form of sexual immorality. **Commentary:** Scripture seems to be pretty clear across the board that sex within marriage is the ideal, but I think this is because God knows it is the standard that is best for our own happiness and health. Sex is complicated, and enjoying it within the confines of a committed, lifelong relationship minimizes the risks and maximizes the rewards. I can’t help but think, though, that with all this talk about healthy and unhealthy sexuality, the authors of this statement should have addressed the rampant hyper-sexualization in our Christian community that has resulted in an epidemic of pornography consumption, the development of a rape culture in our society, the unhealthy focus on purity and modesty in our churches, and the rise of sex slavery as an institution. I suppose they just figured it would be easier focus on the two guys that want to commit their lives to one another. ## **Article 3** > WE AFFIRM that God created Adam and Eve, the first human beings, in his own image, equal before God as persons, and distinct as male and female. > > WE DENY that the divinely ordained differences between male and female render them unequal in dignity or worth. **Commentary:** First of all, this approach depends greatly on a literal six-day interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis, where a man and woman named “Adam and Eve” were actual, physical human beings that lived and breathed. I don’t want to get into the various views on creation, and on whether Adam and Eve were actual people or merely just archetypes for all of humanity, but the story of creation is clearly not focused on prescribing distinct gender roles between male and female. In fact, many of those same gender roles did not come into existence until *after* the Fall in Genesis 3 (see Article 4). Secondly, look at how the whole “separate but equal” thing [worked out during the Civil Rights movement](https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundless-political-science-textbook/civil-rights-5/the-civil-rights-movement-40/separate-but-equal-226-4994/?ref=randalljgreene.com). Unsurprisingly, it turns out that when the group in power gets to determine what constitutes “equal,” the result is never actual equality. “Separate and equal” in the case of gender roles has historically been damaging to the perceived worth (and self-perception) of women. They have long suffered emotional and physical abuse, unfair wages, and a lack of career and social opportunities. Men aren’t exempt from these damaging stereotypes either. Too often, [men who don’t fit the evangelical mold of masculinity are isolated from the church](https://randalljgreene.com/imitation-masculinity/). Repeating the words “we think men and women are equal in worth” over and over again doesn’t suddenly negate the overt sexism of the authors - it makes them either a liar or a hypocrite. ## **Article 4** > WE AFFIRM that divinely ordained differences between male and female reflect God’s original creation design and are meant for human good and human flourishing. > > WE DENY that such differences are a result of the Fall or are a tragedy to be overcome. **Commentary:** The archetypal distinctions between the roles of men and women described in Genesis were very clearly a *direct result* of “the Fall,” so the denial in this article is understandably shallow. If you take a moment to re-read [the creation story of Genesis 2-3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+2-3&version=NRSV&ref=randalljgreene.com), it is immediately evident that before sin entered the world, men and women lived in complete equality and harmony. As a consequence of sin, women were made subject to their husbands and husbands were made responsible for providing food and safety for their families. Those consequences are the definitions the CBMW describes as the “divinely ordained differences between male and female” and was in no way a part of God’s original design for creation. Ultimately, the message of the creation narratives is that we all bear the image of God: man, woman, gay, straight, black, white, transgender, cisgender, poor, rich, humble, arrogant, curly hair, straight hair, dimples, dimple-less, likes chocolate, hates chocolate. Each one of us was created by God exactly as we are. We cannot rewrite the creation account to establish some kind of unbiblical “divinely appointed” gender role. ## **Article 5** > WE AFFIRM that the differences between male and female reproductive structures are integral to God’s design for self-conception as male or female. > > WE DENY that physical anomalies or psychological conditions nullify the God-appointed link between biological sex and self-conception as male or female. **Commentary:** There is no basis for this in Scripture. And this is horrific in the way it identifies people. Did you know that somewhere between 1-2% of the population is born intersex? This means that it is about as common for a person to be born without clear male/female genital markers as it is for a person to have red hair ([source](http://oii-usa.org/2563/how-common-is-intersex-in-humans/?ref=randalljgreene.com)). There is a ton of information out there about intersex persons, so there is no reason for educated people to be ignorant about the existence of such a significant portion of humanity. It’s also worth reminding you that, time and again in this statement, the authors are equating identity with sexuality. This is not an association being made by LGBT persons, it is one being thrown on them by a specific subset of Christians (the same ones authoring these kinds of statements). Our self-conception (whether male or female, gay or straight) should be based around our identities in Christ, not our genitals. ## **Article 6** > WE AFFIRM that those born with a physical disorder of sex development are created in the image of God and have dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers. They are acknowledged by our Lord Jesus in his words about “eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb.” With all others they are welcome as faithful followers of Jesus Christ and should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known. > > WE DENY that ambiguities related to a person’s biological sex render one incapable of living a fruitful life in joyful obedience to Christ. **Commentary:** Read the original of Article 6 again. Do you see how it doesn’t actually say *anything*? It confesses that intersex persons exist, and it confesses that the Bible even mentions them (although it fails to mention the story of the Ethiopian eunuch and how that could possibly shed some light on how we might embrace sex/gender nonconforming individuals), and it says that they are able to follow Christ. But it doesn’t take any kind of posture regarding marriage or sexuality or companionship for intersex persons. How are they even supposed to live out the “God appointed link between biological sex and self-conception as male or female” (as stated in Article 5) when the biology does not clearly indicate whether they are male or female? In that void, how are we supposed to read this without assuming that intersex are being condemned for whatever decision they might make for their future and happiness? As before, the authors of the statement are rendering a person’s sex as a deeply formational part of their identity, which is contrary to Scripture, contrary to history, and contrary to rationality. Our identity as Christians is formed in Christ, not in our genitals. ## **Article 7** > WE AFFIRM that self-conception as male or female should be defined by God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture. > > WE DENY that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption. **Commentary:** To accept this binary of sexuality (that everyone is created, or defined, as male or female) is to deny the reality before us. We *know* there are a variety of sexual orientations and gender nonconformities, and most (if not all) people who fall into those non-standard categorizations had no choice in the matter. They are not sexual deviants; they are not troublemakers; they are not perverts; they are not rebels. This was never something they “chose to adopt” as if they were putting on a different jacket. Although we don’t yet completely understand the science or psychology behind it, we can no longer say that sexual orientation is merely a preference that one adopts. Instead, we can do our best to support our LGBT friends as they stand up in a society that has rejected them for their entire lives. They are people, bearers of the image of God. Many of them are Christian brothers and sisters. And they have something to teach us about the saving, delivering power of Christ... if we will only listen. ## **Article 8** > WE AFFIRM that people who experience sexual attraction for the same sex may live a rich and fruitful life pleasing to God through faith in Jesus Christ, as they, like all Christians, walk in purity of life. > > WE DENY that sexual attraction for the same sex is part of the natural goodness of God’s original creation, or that it puts a person outside the hope of the gospel. **Commentary:** This article, which leans on the idea they developed earlier that orientation is a choice, suggests that the only way for LGBT persons to be upstanding Christians is to resist the “temptation” of their orientation. If they live a lie, abandoning their innate inclinations and replacing them with a veneer of heteronormativity, they can be acceptable by God. For generations, well-meaning gay Christians have tried to live this way, and the result has too often been crippling depression, bitter marriages, broken families, and divided churches. Taken to its conclusion, this article sets up gay conversion therapy as a legitimate “treatment” for LGBT persons. Let’s be clear on this point: conversion therapy is one of the most devastating and cruel ploys being used by Christians today. It has been proven to be entirely ineffective and, at the same time, it destroys the person’s sense of worth. Don’t believe me? [Read this story](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/realities-of-conversion-therapy%5Fus%5F582b6cf2e4b01d8a014aea66?ref=randalljgreene.com). Conversion therapy for minors [is actually banned](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List%5Fof%5FU.S.%5Fjurisdictions%5Fbanning%5Fconversion%5Ftherapy%5Ffor%5Fminors?ref=randalljgreene.com) in several states and many U.S. territories and cities, as well as in many other countries. ## **Article 9** > WE AFFIRM that sin distorts sexual desires by directing them away from the marriage covenant and toward sexual immorality— a distortion that includes both heterosexual and homosexual immorality. > > WE DENY that an enduring pattern of desire for sexual immorality justifies sexually immoral behavior. **Commentary:** This article is a crafty one. On its face, it says that giving into extramarital sexual temptation leads to further sexual temptation (“directing them… toward sexual immorality”) - a spiral that becomes sexual addiction. Thus, it's suggesting that gay people, because they are embracing sinful sexuality, are (at the very least) on the road to rampant sexual misconduct (addiction). is an attempt to portray every LGBT person as a sex addict, a stereotype that is patently false. The authors cleverly added the tag at the end of the affirmation to indicate that they applied this same standard to everyone, regardless of orientation and, if the article stood on its own, that would be an acceptable interpretation of it. But in the context established by the preamble and the articles preceding this one, it is clear that the authors have targeted the LGBT community, so the inclusion of “heterosexual” in this instance reads as little more than a disingenuous add-on. In addition, the article insinuates that all sexual desire outside of a husband-wife relationship is immoral. This perspective is a common one within the bounds of fundamentalist “purity culture,” but it has dangerous consequences. Fundamentally, sex was created by God, and our sexual desires are natural and God-ordained. It is irresponsible to equate all sexual desire outside of marriage as being distorted by sin. We have an obligation to keep those desires in check (to refrain from lusting and thus objectifying the person), but to believe that all sexual attraction is inherently sinful leads to an overreaction in the other direction: a puritanical separation between genders and the sexism that comes with such separation. ## **Article 10** > WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness. > > WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree. **Commentary:** This is essentially the CBMW drawing a line in the sand between themselves and any affirming Christians. Denny Burk, one of the primary authors of the Nashville statement, [said that was exactly why they wrote it](https://cbmw.org/the-nashville-statement/why-the-nashville-statement-now-and-what-about-article-10/?ref=randalljgreene.com). This is perhaps the most dangerous of all the articles because it makes them - the evangelicals who affix their names to the statement - the sole judges of people’s Christianity, not God. Even the most conservative Christians I know wouldn’t claim to know the posture of someone else’s heart, yet the authors of the Nashville Statement have declared that anyone who does not absolutely affirm a heteronormative sexual ethic cannot be a part of the Kingdom of God. They have taken the role of God upon themselves. The irony of this article is that, in recent months, there have been many other things that “good evangelical Christians” have supported in good conscience: pussy grabbing (and other related locker room talk), war, white supremacy, racial profiling, raising taxes on the poor, cutting healthcare, and so on. Yet this “line in the sand” declares that they know the mind, will, and heart of God, rather than humbly acknowledging that some faithful Christians have come to different conclusions than themselves. ## **Article 11** > WE AFFIRM our duty to speak the truth in love at all times, including when we speak to or about one another as male or female. > > WE DENY any obligation to speak in such ways that dishonor God’s design of his image-bearers as male and female. **Commentary:** The effect of this article is to allow them to cruelly damage those in the LGBT community, as long as they can justify to themselves that it they did it “in love.” I don’t get the arrogance of thinking that they have a perfect grasp of what constitutes “the truth of God.” I understand that they think their reading of Scripture is infallible, but even they must understand that God comes before the Bible, that God is bigger than the Bible. To presume that we understand the character of God is at best presumptuous and, at its worst, idolatrous. I’ve written before about the responsibility and danger of [speaking truth](https://randalljgreene.com/in-defense-of-truth/) [in love](https://randalljgreene.com/in-light-of-love/). ## **Article 12** > WE AFFIRM that the grace of God in Christ gives both merciful pardon and transforming power, and that this pardon and power enable a follower of Jesus to put to death sinful desires and to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord. > > WE DENY that the grace of God in Christ is insufficient to forgive all sexual sins and to give power for holiness to every believer who feels drawn into sexual sin. **Commentary:** I wish Christians would actually live our stated belief in the transforming power of Christ and the sufficiency of God’s grace. If the authors of this statement truly believe God offers grace and pardon for all, and that God equips believers to “walk in a manner worthy of the Lord,” they should also believe that God will convict those whom God chooses to convict. The truth is that statements like this *diminish* the transformative power of the Holy Spirit because they imply that God needs us to tell people when and how they are wrong. As Billy Graham so beautifully reminded us, “It is the Holy Spirit’s job to convict, God’s job to judge, and my job to love.” We need to trust the Holy Spirit to be the transforming agent, and focus instead on the challenge of loving all - even the people who live in ways with which we disagree. In the context of the statement, this article is a thinly-veiled call for the conversion therapy alluded to previously. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that orientation and gender identity are not characteristics that can be changed within a person, and attempts to do so only result in harm. ## **Article 13** > WE AFFIRM that the grace of God in Christ enables sinners to forsake transgender self-conceptions and by divine forbearance to accept the God-ordained link between one’s biological sex and one’s self-conception as male or female. > > WE DENY that the grace of God in Christ sanctions self-conceptions that are at odds with God’s revealed will. **Commentary:** The authors take the concepts of changing one’s orientation and apply them to transgendered persons, a population that is virtually nonexistent in the biblical text. Transgenderism and gender dysphoria are relatively new topics that I don’t completely understand. But I cannot presume to know what is going on inside a person’s mind and heart as they “self-conceptualize” as the sex opposite of their birth sex. Again, the call for transgendered persons to live a lie is heinous. Conversion therapy is awful. ## **Article 14** > WE AFFIRM that Christ Jesus has come into the world to save sinners and that through Christ’s death and resurrection forgiveness of sins and eternal life are available to every person who repents of sin and trusts in Christ alone as Savior, Lord, and supreme treasure. > > WE DENY that the Lord’s arm is too short to save or that any sinner is beyond his reach. **Commentary:** While this sounds really great on the surface, the fact of the matter is that the actions evangelicals toward the LGBT community have not backed up their own words. Yes, they may *say* that all are able to come to Christ, but how would they feel if a transgendered person entered their church and sat in the pews next to their children? If evangelicals won’t let transgendered persons use a public restroom, how are we supposed to believe they’d allow them to drink from the same communion chalice? If we really want people to believe that Christ’s grace is for all, then we must stop making asinine statements like these and start actually living out Christ’s love and mercy. ### What Israel Teaches Us About the Idolatry of Security URL: https://randalljgreene.com/what-israel-teaches-us-about-the-idolatry-of-security/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T16:52:26.000Z In pursuit of national and personal security, Israel demanded Samuel anoint for them a human king so they could be like all the other nations. For a recent class, I wrote an essay on 1 Samuel 8:4-22, the story of when Israel approached the prophet Samuel to have him appoint a king to lead them. The article you're currently reading is an adaptation of that essay. I initially chose this text because I thought it would help me better understand the relationship between God and government. As I studied the text, though, I found that it contained an entirely different message for me. This passage does include a theology of God, one that shows God responding graciously to the rebellious exercise of human free will, but the stronger theological picture describes how **groups of people have a tendency to seek other gods, driven by a desire to control and preserve our own future**. This is a message that resonates with United States Christian culture today as we grapple with questions of individual and corporate security. With the rise of the Religious Right in the past few decades and a recent resurgence in Christian governmental politics, we carry a renewed interest in the ways God works in, through, and outside of our national structures of government. **But perhaps the better question is to ask ourselves where our hope lies. How often do we cease to rely on God for our security, seeking it instead by imposing our own systems of safety and predictability?** ### What Is the Book of Samuel? Before we can understand the message of a text, we must understand the text itself. The following is a brief synopsis of the authorship, genre, and scholarship around the books of 1 and 2 Samuel. In the oldest Hebrew manuscripts, the books of 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel were one book. Along with the books of Joshua, Judges, and Kings, they are considered part of the deuteronomistic history of the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament). Tradition says that Samuel wrote the books bearing his name, but modern scholars believe that the entire deuteronomistic history was edited together at a much later date than the events the books describe. This much is clear from the text itself. For example, Samuel contains frequent references to social norms "in those days" (see 1 Samuel 3:1; 5:5; 6:18; and many more), indicating that the author was writing to readers who would not remember what was "normal" for the culture he was describing. The editor must have been writing long after the events he described, but theories about the exact date of the book's authorship are inconclusive. Most scholars believe it was written around the time of the Babylonian exile (586 B︌C︌E︌), although some argue for either a pre-exilic or post-exilic authorship. As a frame of reference, the events we will examine in this article likely took place around 1000 BCE, more than 400 years before they were finally written down as the book of Samuel. ### Themes of Samuel The books of 1 and 2 Samuel tell of Israel’s political transition from a sociological status as a tribal group to that of a centralized nation with a monarch as a ruler. The text is historical in the ancient Hebrew sense of the word, but that cannot not be understood to be a strict, modern accounting of dates, times, and persons. Ancient histories did not hold to today's notion of journalistic facts. Indeed, the text itself discourages us from reading it that way, because it disagrees with itself on a number of details. Rather, **the book must be understood as a complex narrative describing Israel's theological reflections upon their past**. The editor wrote this ancient story, rooted in history but not limited by facts and dates, to show readers that God had been involved in Israel's heritage, and would therefore be involved in its future. Those original readers were most likely Hebrews who had lost their nation and were scattered, struggling to maintain their cultural identity as they were ruled by Babylonian emperors. To them, this history would have been a source of hope for God's providence, a promise that God had not abandoned them. ## Israel at the Time of Samuel & Saul Samuel is a transitional book between the stories of the judges and the kings. The ancient Hebrew heritage involves being delivered from Egypt and wandering in the wilderness for forty years, then conquering the cities of Canaan and dividing the land into tribal Israelite territories. The tribes at this time were independent groups. They were not held together by any kind of national structure or government - their primary bond was their monotheistic faith, centered around an ancient covenant with God. Judges tells of the interaction between those Israelite tribes and the Canaanites still living among them, as well as the relationship between the Hebrew people and God at this time. Whenever the Hebrew people strayed from their covenant with God (which was frequent), a heroic judge rose to call Israel to repentance and deliver them from their oppressors. Judges concludes by foreshadowing the transition that would come in the book of Samuel: “In those days, there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes” (Judges 21:25, NRSV). The biblical text, sociological analysis, and archaeological data come together to identify three key motivations for Israel’s demand for a king: 1. Invading forces created a need for a cohesive **army**. 2. Increasing population density in Israel and the surrounding region led to a desire for **social definition**. 3. Israel's economic prosperity created demand for **trade regulation** between tribes and with other nations. #### Army The Philistines, introduced at the beginning of 1 Samuel, were seafarers that had settled along the Mediterranean coast seeking to establish a colony in the land of Israel. Conflict between the Philistines and Israelites quickly escalated into a full-blown war. The prophet Samuel rallied the tribes together and, with the help of God (as the editor deliberately mentions), swiftly repelled the invading force. Despite the victory, Israelite leaders became increasingly concerned about their lack of military strength of the tribes, and they questioned the reliability of their tribal forces to fend off the ongoing Philistine threat. #### Social Definition As they were fighting the Philistines, the Israelite tribes were growing and expanding into new territories. As a result, they interacted more frequently with other Israelite tribes and with other, non-Hebrew cultures (if you recall, the inter-marrying of Hebrews with people from other societies caused many of the problems detailed in the book of Judges). This cross-cultural interaction created a paradox in Israelite society: they wanted to leave behind their tribal organizational system because they saw it as an ineffectual, outdated model that could be replaced by a new, cohesive identity as a kingdom, just like their neighboring societies were doing. #### Trade Regulation The Israelite population growth was accompanied by an economic boom, which raised a number of related concerns. The distribution of goods and services between the tribes needed to be regulated and trade with other states needed to be monitored so they could know they were not being taken advantage of. As the upper class of Hebrew society began accumulating wealth, they began looking for ways to protect their financial status against future economic shifts. These regulations all required a government to provide provide oversight and enforce adherence to the new laws. Samuel had served well in his time as a prophet, priest, and judge, but he was getting old. The tribal leadership could not identify a person to take his place, and they were uneasy at the prospect of an undefined and insecure future. They wanted a more sophisticated system. ## The Request for a King At the opening of our segment, “all the elders of Israel” approached Samuel in his home town. These elders were the social leaders of each of the tribes and were likely wealthy, both in economic status and in the size of their households, with significant social and legal authority over the people. They pointed out that Samuel was getting old and his sons were corrupt, unfit to be religious and military leaders. Since they anticipated a gap in leadership and sought political stability, one might expect that they would have requested that Samuel train another judge to guide them, but instead, in their desire for a complete institutional shift, they requested a king. The elders knew it would be difficult to implement a kingship across all twelve tribes - this transformation would shake the foundations of their collective identity - so they came together and approached Samuel as a unified group. The comprehensive governmental framework they requested was a dramatic break from the reliance on God's covenantal leadership that had made them culturally distinct since their exodus from Egypt. **This kingship represented a re-prioritization of their socio-political constructs (such as class, status, and security) relative to their faithfulness to God.** Though they surely believed they could pursue both God and stability at the same time, there was a change in them. No longer would fidelity to God be their primary, driving sociological impulse; instead, they would seek their own sense of national and personal security first. #### The Response of Samuel Samuel recognized the gravity of this shift and resisted, praying for guidance. In verses 7-9, God responded by saying, “Listen to the voice of the people,” and affirmed that the elders were not rejecting Samuel’s leadership, but the reign of God over their cultural identity. This was not the first time Israel had abandoned their covenant with God; since leaving Egypt, they had engaged in continual cycles of disobedience, judgment, and repentance. God drew a parallel between the demand for a king and the idolatry practiced by Israel throughout its history. Nonetheless, God instructed Samuel to warn them of the dangers of monarchy but, in the end, to submit to the will of the people. #### The Decision is Made Samuel warned them that, because Israel had chosen its own way, God would allow them to suffer the consequences of that decision, but the elders did not relent. In their forceful counter-argument, they revealed the primary motivations behind their request. The three reasons they gave mirror the three motivations mentioned previously: 1. That they “may be like the other nations” (reflecting population growth and the desire for a social identity) 2. “That our king may govern us” (instituting legislative power for trade and economic security) 3. That the king might “go out before us and fight our battles” (establishing a military for protection against invading forces) It is notable that the author records the elders as looking for a king who would fight *our* battles rather than fight the battles of God. Throughout the deuteronomic history, military victory is seen as being given by God, so the word “our” here indicates a subtle yet significant shift in perspective regarding the purpose of war, foreshadowing the aggressive militaristic ambitions of Saul and subsequent rulers. Having heard the clear voice of the elders, Samuel returned to God and relayed their decision. God told Samuel again to listen to their voice, commanding the prophet to “set a king over them.” Though God and Samuel both wished the people had chosen differently, God conceded and Samuel resigned himself to pass on the mantle of Israelite leadership to a new paradigm of God-ordained monarchy. ## Reflection In this narrative, the yearning of Israel for a national identity usurped their desire to be led by God, and that is a tension still felt today, particularly by Christians in the United States. I think it's fair to say that we often idolize security. - We pursue **military action** against our enemies, whether that's regarding the nuclear threat presented recently by North Korea, the dangers of global terrorism, or the subversion of Russian cyber attacks. - We demand **economic security** for our future, both on [the personal level](https://randalljgreene.com/its-my-right-part-2/) (supporting economic measures that benefit us, rather than those that benefit the lowest in our society) and on [the national level](https://randalljgreene.com/its-my-right-part-1/) (restricting immigration from Mexico because of a perceived impact on American jobs). - We want our nation to reflect a **unique cultural distinction** \- for example, we twist history in an effort to demonstrate that the United States was [founded on a morality that matches our own convictions](https://randalljgreene.com/a-nation-after-christ/). As we seek to honor the legacy we have been given - the privilege of living in a nation of freedom and democracy - we are often pulled away from the worship of our Creator. When we pursue a trustworthy system of self-defense, we dispel the need to trust in God for our protection and we establish a basis upon which we can justify violent atrocities as ordained by God. That's not to say that security *necessarily* idolatrous, but we must remain cognizant of our natural inclination to rely upon our own power rather than the strength of God for deliverance. Just as the elders of Israel anticipated a gap in leadership and sought to fill it with humanly sustainable systems, so do we frequently abandon the perceived insecurity that comes with faithfulness to God and seek to fill it with the assurance that comes from perpetuating our own ideals. **We must recognize, though it goes against our nature, that the power of God is greater than all the power of the world.** ### Still Crusading URL: https://randalljgreene.com/still-crusading/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T16:48:28.000Z Between the years of 500 ᴄᴇ and 1250 ᴄᴇ, Christianity transitioned from being the state religion of the Roman Empire to being the assumed religion of the entire Western world. The power of the Church came to transcend government and culture to become the strongest tie connecting societies on one end of the continent with those on the other. As the West descended into a period of cultural, political, and educational darkness, Christianity came to represent a final vestige of the light of Rome’s former glory. At the beginning of the second millennium, the Church used its political clout to issue a call to arms against the religious and political threat to the south, and Christians rallied in response. For the next two hundred years, Christians embarked on crusades against cultures and civilizations that they did not understand in a perverse attempt to restore the kingdom of God to those lands. These Crusades are one of the darkest blights on Christian history, but the theological and philosophical justifications for them persist in modern Christian culture. As Christians, we must learn from our own history and take action to remove the corrupting power of political conquest from the practice of our faith. **In the United States today, we are in the midst of a crisis of Christian allegiance: will we serve the Empire, or will we serve Christ?** ## **Christianity in the Medieval World** By 500 ᴄᴇ, the Roman Empire, which had adopted Christianity as its state religion, was in rapid decline; by 600 ᴄᴇ, it was unrecognizable as an empire and Germanic kings ruled over several prominent regions formerly under Roman control. The political and cultural juggernaut that had been the standard of civilization for the previous half-millennium collapsed under the weight of a myriad of internal and external forces. As the Empire faded from prominence, it was replaced by feudal territories governed by local kings and lords. The collapse of a unified government ushered in the period known as the Dark Ages marked by an increased disparity between ruling and peasant classes, a dramatic decrease in education and literacy, and a regressive neglect of art and culture. Eventually individual kingdoms began to solidify, forming the foundations of the European nations of today. ### Christianity’s Response to Roman Collapse When the Edict of Thessalonica officially announced Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire back in 380 ᴄᴇ, it set up the Church to become a second authoritative arm of the Empire, with popes and bishops governing alongside the official emperors and leaders of the state. Popes became diplomatic negotiators, ecclesial structures became methods of social control, and the government’s money fueled the growth of the Church. **As the political arm of the Empire began to collapse, the religious arm gained more and more authority.** Though the political empire had essentially crumbled by 600 ᴄᴇ, in many ways the Roman legacy lived on through the dominance of the Roman Catholic Church throughout the West. In the absence of a unifying political presence, the Church provided a cohesive framework whereby people across the continent could relate to one another: they looked to a common pope, experienced a common liturgy, and shared a common basic sense of morality. The power of the papacy swelled in this environment and the papal office became a political role that superseded that of any other in the region. In 800 ᴄᴇ, Pope Leo III took it upon himself to crown Charlemagne, the reigning king of the Franks, as the Roman Emperor. That coronation was not simply an effort to reinvigorate Empire - it was a demonstration of the papacy’s superiority over any other political office in the land. The Pope became an emperor-maker. The Church, powerful as it had become, was not exempt from political troubles. By 1000 ᴄᴇ, it was common practice for newly-elected bishops to swear fealty to the civil lord of their province in order to secure the use of the property for their church. In return, the lord would invest that bishop with a religious symbol of approval. This practice, known as simony, quickly became a system for aspiring religious leaders to purchase levels of authority in the Church, which led to a dilution of the education of clergy for leading their people. **This lack of education would prove disastrous for the victims of the Crusades because the religious leaders were not educated enough (and, in many cases, not faithful enough) to speak prophetically against the anti-Christ call to war.** ### Calls to Crusade The political authority of the Church reached a climax in 1095 when Pope Urban II issued the first call for Christians to embark on a crusade against the growing Muslim population to the south. The visions and aspirations of Muhammad around 600 ᴄᴇ had created a movement in the Arabian peninsula known as Islam, which sparked a dramatic political and religious revolution in the area that spread rapidly to the north and west. This Muslim force, which saw itself as a correction to the Christian faith, violently overtook and occupied many of the lands that Christianity and Judaism had long considered sacred, including Jerusalem, the Holy City itself. By the time of the first crusade, Islamic forces were fighting for control of Turkey, so Pope Urban II’s call for crusade was an effort to push back those forces and reclaim the city of Jerusalem for Christianity. Though it was for the most part successful in its goal, this crusade had a horrific impact that would ripple through history. Since the resurgence of tribalism in the Dark Ages had destroyed any established system of education, few common people could read or write; fewer still knew Latin, the language the Church used in all liturgy and theological study. With no access to read or understand Scripture, the people relied upon clergy to dictate their theological convictions and, with the prevalence of ill-trained clergy in local churches, most of the core doctrinal assertions came from the top of the Church’s hierarchy. Thus, **when the Pope issued a proclamation of war, the people took it as a declaration of the very will of God** \- an assertion that could easily be demonstrated with a surface-level reading of the most ancient Hebrew writings. This divine authority, along with the absence of a secular political authority, made the call to arms unquestionable. **By justifying the Crusades as ordained by God, Christians brought about previously inconceivable levels of religiously-motivated death.** Although most of the groups who responded to the Pope’s call to crusade evidently set out with faithful intentions, many of them found themselves returning home with their pockets lined with plunder from their adventures and their swords coated thick with blood. Crusaders destroyed towns and villages, killing civilians indiscriminately. The relative success of this first crusade set a precedent that would continue in waves for over two hundred years. The subsequent crusades grew steadily less effective, and as they decreased in successfulness, they also became less popular. With each renewed call, fewer kings responded until popes ceased to call for crusades entirely. ## **Still Crusading Today** The Crusades remain one of the darkest stains on the history of the Christian church. Many factors contributed to the rise of warfare in Church: its rise of as a political force throughout the Western world, the collapse of the Roman Empire as a governmental authority, the growth of Islam as a competing religious and political system, the role of the Church in establishing kings and monarchs, and the perception of divine authority resting within the person of the Pope (a perception influenced by the lack of education among common people). **These factors, as well as many others, heinously climaxed in the call to Christian warfare at the beginning of the second millennium, but the systemic abuses underlying them echo still today.** ### Education and Politics Evangelical Christianity in our country fears theological education - resents it, even - and our clergy are often poorly prepared for the task of guiding the theology and faithful practice of their congregations. Many of our popular church leaders have little theological education and, like the medieval Church, we as a culture have set up the pastoral office as a place of political (and sometimes financial) power. We harbor a perverse, backwardly-influential relationship between national politics and Christian faith. Just as the medieval populace understood Roman Catholic popes to hold divine authority over civil rulers, so do we allow our religious leaders to directly shape the election of our congressional and other governmental authorities. Too many evangelicals rely on the endorsements of their religious leaders to determine their votes, and common citizens often fail to recognize the underlying political motivations driving those religious endorsements. ### Christian Leaders as Divine Messengers We have a tendency to assume that our Christian leaders operate by the divine call of God rather than considering the possibility that they may be influenced by positions of power; any dissenting voices are labelled as counter-biblical and ostracized from the community of believers (or banned from our bookstores). **Evangelicals cannot hear prophetic voices calling us closer to God because we immediately condemn anything that threatens our** [**allegiance to the position of our inseparable political-religious affiliation**](https://randalljgreene.com/losing-christ-within-the-empire/)**.** ### Failure to Understand Scripture Although our evangelical society is almost entirely literate, we have neglected the philosophical discipline of critically contemplating what we read. While Christians have developed a deep responsibility to *read* Scripture for ourselves, we have not yet converted that into a personal responsibility to *interpret* Scripture. Just as the Roman Church left the work of theology to the clergy, so do we leave scriptural interpretation to our pastors and academics, and our Christian leadership is no more immune to the corrupting influence of power than were the clergy preceding the Crusades. When an evangelical religious leader today issues a call to war, whether that is a call to fight Muslim forces in the Middle East, a call to protest corruption in the capital, or a call to ban refugees from a place of solace, the Christian community roars to life in support, calling for the defense of our country as a Christian nation, pressing for the embrace of Christian ideals in government, and rallying an army to fight in the name of God. ### A Better, More Christian Faith We have a natural inclination to give our religious leaders politically-potent positions within our social hierarchy, and history demonstrates over and over that the imposition of such power carries destructive consequences. The life of Jesus Christ, the model by which Christians should aspire to live, shows us a different way. When the exiled Jews prayed for a savior, they expected a divine warrior, a political leader who would summon an army and guide them to victory over their oppressors, but instead of assuming a royal throne, Jesus Christ the King was born in a stable, lived a humble life of servitude, and died the death of a criminal. **Instead of initiating a political revolt (as his people expected), Jesus taught his apostles to work under political rule to provide physical, spiritual, and social deliverance; the goal was not to overthrow government, but to operate on a different plane of existence altogether, living in a state of continual preference for the status of others before caring for one’s own status.** This model was a direct subversion of the natural human desire for influence, and it transformed the culture of that day. Embracing the example of Christ would have shaken the very foundations of the Roman Catholic Church in the medieval paradigm, as it should shake the foundations of evangelicalism in the United States today. We must build a Christian community that is biblically literate, is able to understand and interpret Scripture, is led by humble, faithful, and prepared men and women who are willing to divest themselves of political power. ### Losing Christ Within the Empire URL: https://randalljgreene.com/losing-christ-within-the-empire/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T16:45:43.000Z This past Saturday, Pastor Robert Jeffress led his church, First Baptist Church of Dallas, in a service at the Kennedy Center. The service, which they called a “Celebrate Freedom Rally,” was [a thinly-veiled Trump rally](https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2017/07/01/president-trump-first-baptist-dallas-spread-faith-patriotism-politics-concert?ref=randalljgreene.com) that celebrated Donald Trump as God’s anointed leader for the United States of America. It blended Christianity with a patriotic fervor, climaxing in a choir-led performance of a song called “Make America Great Again,” written just for this event (if you want to watch the song, you can watch [this queued-up video on YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVBpMC6HxBc&feature=youtu.be&t=2h24m38s&ref=randalljgreene.com)). I have written before about [the intersection of faith and politics](https://randalljgreene.com/a-nation-after-christ/), so it should be no secret that I am opposed to the kind of faith-based nationalistic display led by Jeffress and his congregation, but the timing of this particular rally hit me especially hard. I’m in a Christian history class at Central Baptist Theological Seminary right now, and I’ve been working for the last couple of weeks on a paper summarizing and analyzing the early church’s growth from about 100 - 500 ᴄᴇ. It was in this era that Constantine began the formal adoption of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire – a move that catapulted Christianity to the status as the prominent religion in the world and began a long marriage between the faithful practice of Christ’s teachings and the power of political influence. The post below is a shortened version my essay, and I think it is particularly relevant for us today, on the eve of Independence Day, when we Americans have a tendency to conflate worship of our God with the celebration of our national heritage. This essay discusses two problems created by the early church: **politicism within the church**, and **the wedding between the Christian faith and the secular empire**. ## **Politics & Nationalism:** **The Development of a Religious Identity** At the beginning of the Hellenic period of Christian history, around 100 ᴄᴇ, the Roman Empire was at its peak and dominated the western world. This dominance was seen clearly in a variety of ways: not only did it control a vast territory throughout the Mediterranean region, but its political systems transformed the ways cultures across continents interacted with one another, its infrastructure of roads and travel was a catalyst for trade that brought great wealth to the empire, and its unification of language made it possible for information and ideas to spread from one corner of the Empire to the other with unprecedented speed and accuracy. During most of this time, Rome was not hostile to Christianity. In the second century, although the Empire did not endorse the Christian faith, it did tolerate it. The only periods of widespread persecution of Christians occurred around 250-260 ᴄᴇ and 300-310 ᴄᴇ, although even in the years without mass persecutions, there were some instances of localized violence against Christians. In 324 ᴄᴇ, Constantine gained sole authority over the Roman Empire and declared his adherence to the Christian religion. He legalized its practice and, in 380 ᴄᴇ, the Edict of Thessalonica established Christianity as the official religion of the state. So in a span of seventy years, Christians went from being frequently persecuted to being endorsed by the greatest empire in the world. This change had a dramatic impact on Christian culture. From this time until around 500 ᴄᴇ, Christianity swelled in reach and influence throughout the western world. ### **Growth and Changes in Christianity** During these centuries, Christianity rose from being a relatively small, revolutionary community to a religious body that dominated the politics of the largest society on earth. This rapid rise was driven in part by Christianity’s ability to adapt to the particular regional cultures into which it spread, but that adaptability later led to significant theological conflict. **When Constantine embraced Christianity, he made it possible for the leadership of regional Christian communities to meet together publicly and codify the standards of Christian doctrine.** As leaders of those communities were better able to communicate with one another, they saw that gaps had formed between their theological systems, and the leaders of various regions began fighting with one another for their own vision of “true” Christianity. One of Constantine’s primary goals was to unify the various Christian factions into some form of agreement on these polemical issues (although it is unclear whether Constantine’s motives were purely religious or were influenced by a desire to use the Church to maintain the strength of his Empire). In 325 ᴄᴇ, just one year after he formally embraced Christianity, Constantine called a council of bishops from all corners of the Empire to establish boundaries for the faith. Similar councils would be called over the following centuries and would form many of the classic creeds we still use today. ### **The Politics of Theology** In the period of about 100-300 ᴄᴇ, Christianity spread rapidly and organically, so church leaders had to focus on establishing the parameters of the Christian faith – on limiting theological sprawl – rather than on distributing the message of the gospel. **This movement of self-definition quickly became an assertion of political power rather than an innocent, earnest search for theological truth.** As certain cities and bishops gained recognition as having a higher level of influence than others, the boundary-setting became a game of establishing the ideas of those in power and deeming all else to be heretical. **Some scholarly and faithful theologians of the early church were shunned not because their doctrines were antithetical to Christianity** (many of their beliefs have since come to be accepted)**, but because their positions clashed against the political aspirations of more authoritative bishops.** Constantine’s initiation of church council proceedings in 325 ᴄᴇ only served to exacerbate these political concerns. Whereas before the church could maintain some sense of regionalization, the councils established a practical (though not legally authoritative) governing body to consolidate and enforce the decisions of the powerful. The machinations of religious authority were, at some level, by-products of the increasingly structured nature of the Church. Throughout time, humanity has demonstrated a propensity for taking advantage of organizational systems to perpetuate one’s political clout and, even though Christ himself modeled the subversion of this thirst for power, his followers proved unable to maintain a Christian discipline of self-sacrifice in the face of escalating political influence on the world stage. ### **The Problem of a Homeland** Perhaps the greatest failure of the Christian community in this era was in returning the embrace of the Roman Empire. The Church at this time came to see its adoption by Rome as the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God, and it became comfortable as a state-sanctioned religious standard, going so far as to theologically justify and pardon many of Rome’s most anti-Christ behaviors. Prior to the birth of Christ, the Hebrew people had a tempestuous relationship with territory. One of the central elements of their religious and national identity was God’s promise to them as they left Egypt: to give them a land of their own. Israel proceeded to establish that territory, but experienced regular periods of exile and territorial loss. **Though they had a cultural identity as God’s chosen people that, in many ways, transcended geography, the hope of Israel was tied to the idea that God had set aside a homeland for them and would, at some point, restore it as their possession.** Christianity dispelled the notion of a territorial homeland that had been held by Judaism. People joined the faith from a variety of cultures, nationalities, and ethnicities - it transcended those geographical boundaries that had existed within the Hebrew faith. Constantine’s adoption of Christianity as the de facto faith of the Roman Empire and Christianity’s subsequent embrace of that status turned the acultural perspective of the gospel on its head. Suddenly Roman citizenship became associated with citizenship in the Kingdom of God and Christianity became a socially and culturally dominant force in the world. Christian practice became an assumed standard for citizens of the Empire and mixed its own priorities with the Empire’s pursuit of political influence and militaristic power. Furthermore, its marriage with Rome made it necessary for Christians to justify the anti-Christ wars and violence that perpetuated the Empire’s existence - they deemed such violence a necessary defense of the faith from pagan influence. **Christianity’s acceptance of the Roman Empire as its God-ordained homeland was just like ancient Israel’s demand for a human king: it polluted the very nature of the gospel message, orienting it around identity politics rather than the revolutionary emptying of oneself modeled by Jesus Christ.** ### **Today’s Politicism and Nationalistic Identity** The politics of church have not changed in the millennia of Christianity’s existence. We are as obsessed with power and domination today as we were in the early centuries of the Church. We have divided the Church into distinct denominations, but that has not alleviated the tension or the need to draw strict boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable doctrine of the Christian faith, even within the context of an individual denominational affiliation. And just as the church in those first few centuries embraced its adoption by the Roman Empire, **American evangelicalism has clung to the idea that our government is the heir to the mission of the Church, fostering the conflation of Christian identity with national identity and stirring a movement to defend even the state’s most egregiously anti-Christian behaviors**. The United States has become evangelicalism’s homeland and, in contrast to the gospel teachings of Christ, American colonialism (the pursuit of converting world areas into clones of American governmental and theological systems) has become its mission. History does not bear simple answers for us. The flaws of the early church – its embrace of internal politicism and its marriage to the Roman Empire – were critical parts of its formulation of self-identity, but we must see in its story a lesson as we form our own Christian identity today. Although the conversations about differences in doctrine and experience are important, they should not be a cause for division; in a Church centered around the life and teachings of Christ, seeing the image of God within one another in the midst of such disagreements should be the heartbeat of our community. **We should be woven together by the reality that, despite our disparate perspectives, we are joined in one mission and one faith, and that understanding should naturally drive us to deeper humility and self-giving rather than into an exercise of power and exclusive authority.** And such an emphasis on Christ as the center of our faith should guide our perceptions of national identity, leading us into perspectives of cross-cultural and transnational inclusivity. The life and message of Jesus should be an anchor for our faith that emboldens us to explore the richness and depth of our theology as it crosses through cultural and ideological boundaries. We should allow the thoughts and questions of our brothers and sisters in Christ in other contexts and times to inform our own perspectives. As we learn, we should grow together. ### Questions About the Masculine God URL: https://randalljgreene.com/questions-about-the-masculine-god/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T16:41:59.000Z One of my favorite classes in college was an intro-level course on rhetorical criticism. When I enrolled in it, I had no idea what the class was – I just knew that it was required for my degree – but by the end of the class, I had been deeply changed. The basic idea was that we were studying what words mean. It was a vocabulary class for memorizing definitions, a study of how our attitudes shape the words we use, and how the words we use shape our attitudes. For example, when someone thanks you for something, how do you respond? I usually say one of two things: “no problem” or “of course.” Those responses communicate something different than if I were to respond with “you’re welcome” or “no, thank *you*.” Every word I say or write has impact in two directions. On the one hand, they work internally to reflect my own history, assumptions, and biases, while reinforcing those biases in my own mind; on the other hand, they communicate my history, assumptions, and biases to my audience and, if enough people use similar rhetoric, it can shape entire cultures. This class showed me that, though most of us don’t give much thought to the words we use in day-to-day conversation, the rhetoric we use is deeply impactful on our own thoughts and behaviors and on the community in which we live. ## The Bible Primarily Describes God in Masculine Terms The Bible is filled with masculine references to God. Throughout the text, biblical authors refer to God as “father” and use masculine pronouns when describing God. Even the traditional doctrine of the Trinity refers to the three persons of God as being Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – two of those persons are explicitly described as masculine. Jesus Christ, the human manifestation of God, was physically, literally a male. It’s easy to understand, then why we’ve come to embrace the idea of God as predominantly masculine. As one prominent example, John Piper, although [he confesses that God is not a man](http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/god-is-not-male?ref=randalljgreene.com) (in the sense that God doesn’t have a body, so he doesn’t have male physical features), promotes the idea that the Bible [establishes God as primarily masculine](http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-frank-and-manly-mr-ryle-the-value-of-a-masculine-ministry?ref=randalljgreene.com). This same idea pervades much of mainstream American Christianity today. As postmodern views of theology continue to rise within Westernized Christianity, though, there has been an increasing focus on perspectives of God that are not distinctly male. It is growing more and more popular to avoid masculine pronouns when talking about God – many theologians avoid pronouns for God altogether. **What has caused this trend to rise in popularity? Is it biblical? Is it important?** Whether you agree with my conclusions or not, this question is one that should not be brushed to the side. It deserves careful consideration because its ramifications reach deep into the personhood of every woman in your life. ## Cultural Effects on "God" Language The idea of a masculine God pervades the Bible. As modern biblical scholars have studied ancient cultures, though, they have begun to raise legitimate questions as to how much the patriarchal systems of the time influenced the writing of Scripture. The study of ancient Hebrew and early Christian societies has led us to reinterpret many of the texts we previously assumed we understood. For example, in Ephesians 5, Paul instructs wives to submit to their husbands in the same way that Christians submit to Christ. When we view this chapter through the lens of that era’s cultural context, though, we understand it differently than we might by reading it through our own cultural lens. The call for women to submit to their husbands was the social norm – it was nothing new or challenging for readers at that time. The emphasis of this passage, then, falls onto the next few verses, where Paul instructs men to love and honor their wives. In this society, women had no status or rights as individuals, so Paul’s command for men to honor their wives and put their needs before their own was an absolutely revolutionary concept. This is a transformation in how we now understand this passage. One of the basic doctrines of our faith has always been that men and women were both created in the image of God, but as the early Christian church grew from being an underground movement to being a dominant political and social machine, **those biblical narratives that served to equalize gender gaps were twisted to reinforce the patriarchal cultural norms they were supposed to replace**. As the Hebrew faith traditions and the revolutionary teachings of Christ were assimilated into secular worldviews, they were distorted to reinforce the cultural presuppositions of the time. Christians emphasized the parts of the faith that affirmed their existing social systems and brushed aside the parts that challenged those systems. As one example of this, St. Augustine blamed Eve for the introduction of sin into the world because she was the first to eat of the forbidden fruit (even though, in contrast, Paul says in Romans that sin entered the world through one *man*: Adam). ## Repercussions of Patriarchal Systems In the past decades, as we have developed an increasing awareness of the culture in which the Bible was written, we have also become more aware of the ways in which our own American society has devalued women. Beginning with the women’s suffrage movement of the early twentieth century, which culminated in the recognition of women’s right to vote, our country has attempted to change its trajectory from being a patriarchal society toward being one that treats women and men equally. Recent movements stemming from the civil rights movements of the 1960s have helped us recognize how much social power in the United States has been centered exclusively within the white male demographic. With that recognition over the last few decades, we have been increasingly able to confront some of the pervasive, hidden consequences of the patriarchal system from which we are still emerging. **There are employment inequities such as the discrepancy between** [**how men and women are paid for the same work**](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/03/gender-pay-gap-facts/?ref=randalljgreene.com)**, but there are even deeper issues, like the ways in which social domination has led men to hold an overly sexualized view of women.** Patriarchal societies set up a bloated sense of self-worth for men and a diminished self-worth for women, which is a recipe for sexual exploitation. Citing statistics from the Department of Justice in 2000, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) [reports](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/03/gender-pay-gap-facts/?ref=randalljgreene.com) that one in six women has been the victim of rape or attempted rape and that 90% of all adult rape victims are female. If these are the reported statistics, we must acknowledge that [the number of actual cases are probably far higher](https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system?ref=randalljgreene.com). I have three sisters; according to the statistics of reported cases, there is a 50% chance that one of them has been or will be raped. That terrifies and angers me. These numbers are evidence that our society has systemic issues – issues that can be traced back to, among other things, the devaluing of women promulgated by patriarchy. While we, as a society, have been reevaluating these social norms in light of their consequences, so have we, as Christians, been reevaluating the way we have, to some extent, read into Scripture a cultural standard of patriarchy. ## The Pivotal Question All of this leads, then, to a question. **It is clear that the Bible primarily refers to God in masculine terms, but is that a reflection of the cultural assumptions of its authors, or is it a prescription for how we should refer to God even today?** There is no cut-and-dried answer to that question, yet many Christians today [adamantly oppose any feminine depiction of God](https://www.gotquestions.org/The-Shack-review.html?ref=randalljgreene.com), even though Christians across the globe and throughout time have understood that God is not anthropomorphically male – God doesn’t grow facial hair or have male genitalia – and the Bible does, indeed, attribute to God [more than a few feminine references](http://www.wadeburleson.org/2011/12/god-has-chosen-to-liken-himself-to.html?ref=randalljgreene.com). In light of the damaging effects that a male-centric culture has had upon our society’s views of women, we must consider whether a male-dominated view of God has a similar impact. When we refer to God solely in masculine terms, does that not implicitly communicate that men are more “made in the image of God” than women? Does it not suggest that God relates better to men than to women? I hear story after story of those exact implications being experienced by women in the pews and pulpits of the church (for an overwhelming number of examples, browse through [#ThingsOnlyChristianWomenHear on Twitter](https://twitter.com/search?q=%23ThingsOnlyChristianWomenHear&src=tyah&ref=randalljgreene.com)). Patriarchy as a social structure has devastating consequences for women (as I’ve written in the past, [it has damaging consequences for men](https://randalljgreene.com/imitation-masculinity/), as well). And it seems clear that those effects are not limited to the secular world – the exclusive usage of masculine pronouns for God has similar consequences within the church. Since the Bible itself uses feminine imagery for God, and **since using exclusively masculine imagery has so much potential for damage, I have chosen to no longer use masculine pronouns when I describe God**. Although it is clearly not *wrong* to use masculine pronouns, and I certainly don't hold to this legalistically, I personally think it is worth using non-gendered descriptors in order to counteract the damage done by the historically powerful patriarchal system. ### God’s Chosen: Wrestling with God and Humanity URL: https://randalljgreene.com/gods-chosen-wrestling-with-god-and-humanity/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T16:37:15.000Z Certain theological questions transcend time, maintaining their relevance across cultures and eras. Among those is the question of adequacy: **Why does God choose me?** As Christians, we often do not feel worthy of God’s call - the reality of our human failings seem like they should disqualify us from serving as inheritors of God’s promise. **We think that God should choose the faithfulness of saints over the foolishness of sinners like ourselves.** God certainly has worked through people of incredible faith and piety, but if we read the Bible carefully, we notice that God has also chosen some who do not fit the twenty-first century American mold of a “good Christian.” Indeed, God often chose those who wrestled against God and humanity to be the bearers of promise. As one example, let us examine the birth story of the twelve tribes of Israel. Genesis 29:31-30:24 records Jacob’s wives, Leah and Rachel, fighting to bear him children in order to gain favor in the eyes of God, Jacob, and society. Within this text, we will specifically focus on the verses addressing Rachel’s confrontations with Jacob and with God in 30:1-8, although we will consider the entire section as a contextual whole. We’ll begin by briefly examining the questions of Genesis as a book (what is its place in the Bible? who was its author and when was it penned? why was it written?) and as a piece of literature (how does the book flow? what themes press through the text?) before doing an analysis of our particular segment of Genesis and finally returning to our opening questions about the types of people God chooses. ## What is Genesis? Genesis is the opening book of the Bible and is situated as the first of a group of five books called the Pentateuch, which serves as a foundation the rest of Scripture. Scholars generally agree that the Pentateuch came together as an editorial combination of stories that had been passed along orally for generations. It was compiled after the Israelites had been scattered from their homeland and oppressed under the Babylonian exile. **The Pentateuch was likely formed in an effort to maintain the unique cultural history of the Hebrew people while they were forced to live as a lower class among other cultures.** Had God really chosen them, set them apart as God’s people? God had promised them a land that would be theirs forever, but in the tides of war it seemed like God had broken that covenant. The Hebrews were experiencing a devastating identity crisis on a national level. Peter Enns notes, > The central question the exilic and postexilic Jews asked themselves was, ‘Are we still the people of God? After all that has happened, are we still connected to the Israelites of old, with whom God spoke and showed his faithfulness?’ Their answer to these questions was to tell their story from the beginning and from their postexilic point of view - which meant editing older works and creating some new ones. The creation of the Hebrew Bible, in other words, is *Israel’s self-definition as a nation and the people of God in response to the Babylonian exile*.1 The compilation of their oral traditions into a written testament that could be read and shared was a crucial part of shoring up their identity as the people of God in the midst of their collective self-doubt. By reminding Israel that God had chosen them and by breathing new life into their heritage, the Pentateuch united them and gave them hope for their future. ## What Does Genesis Say? The book of Genesis tells the origins of the Hebrews as people of God’s promise. Walter Brueggemann divides Genesis into four subsections2: 1. **“The Sovereign Call of God”** tells the stories of creation and early humanity’s struggle to live into the call to be what God created us to be. 2. **“The Embraced Call of God”** details the life of Abraham and his consistent trust in the direction of God. 3. **“The Conflicted Call of God”** captures Jacob’s wrestling with God throughout his life as he becomes the father of the twelve tribes of Israel. 4. **“The Hidden Call of God”** describes the work of God in Joseph’s life as he rises to power in Egypt to protect the family of God from famine. It is helpful to note, as Gordon J. Wenham points out, that the book can more generally be divided into two overarching sections: the opening chapters that deal with creation and the world as a whole, and the rest of the book that establishes the story and lineage of the Hebrews specifically. “The sheer volume of material, more than 80 per cent of Genesis, devoted to this family shows where the interest really lies,” explains Wenham. “Here are explained the origins of the nation of Israel, and more particularly of the 12 tribes that made up the nation.”3 Our segment of the text is taken from Jacob’s story, which is a humorous one. For example, Jacob woos his future wife Rachel by singlehandedly moving a mammoth stone from the mouth of a well as a demonstration of his masculinity. Brueggemann notes that “\[the story\] permits the Israelites not only to laugh with the success of their hero, but to laugh at Laban. And through Laban, they laugh at their perennial antagonists, the Arameans.”4 In the midst of oppression, these stories not only bound the Israelites together as a community, but they also taught them valuable lessons about themselves that, through reading and laughter, became embedded functions of their group dynamic. **Comedy often conveys truth in a way that bypasses the critical view we bring to a journalistic accounting of history** \- as we laugh, we internalize the narrative without questioning it.5 By telling these stories with humor, the editors of Genesis implanted their messages deep within the culture of the exiled Hebrews. There is more than comedy underlying the text, though. The description of Jacob’s story as “The Conflicted Call of God” reminds us that Jacob’s life was dominated by fighting and manipulation. Even in his mother’s womb, Jacob fought with his twin brother so intensely that Rebekah questioned whether she wanted to live (Genesis 25:22). The name she gave him meant “He takes by the heel,”6 which proved to be a fitting descriptor of Jacob throughout his life. Jacob manipulated his older brother Esau and tricked his father Isaac to make himself the blessed son of God’s inheritance, but was forced to flee from home to escape their anger. While camping in the wilderness at in a place he would call Bethel, Jacob had a vision in which God recognized his status as the blessed son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham, and promised Jacob that his descendants would be numerous and scattered across the earth like dust in the wind. Even after this spiritual encounter with God, Jacob did not change. He lived with his uncle, Laban, and the two of them participated a years-long game of wits regarding their livelihoods, social status, and even Leah and Rachel (Laban’s daughters, who became Jacob’s wives), until Jacob’s relationship with Laban became so strained that Jacob once again had to flee. The climactic moment in Jacob’s story may be when he and his family were returning to the place he was born. Anticipating a confrontation with his brother, Jacob wrestled with a mysterious man that the text seems to suggest was an incarnation of God. This man gave Jacob a new name, Israel, saying “...you have striven with God and with humans, and have prevailed” (Genesis 32:28, NRSV). This new name confirmed Jacob’s character as a man of conflict, even elevating it to specify his penchant for conflict with the divine. For the final third of his life, though, Jacob tried to live more-or-less at peace with his family and neighbors. Through most of Jacob’s life, we see only a little evidence of faithfulness to God. **Indeed, until he wrestled with the mysterious man, he seemed to be mostly indifferent to the God of his fathers, looking out instead for his own self-interest.** Even the few moments when he did declare his faith in God, such as after the vision of God at Bethel, his allegiance was self-centered, binding his faithfulness to God’s continued blessing over his life. ## Form and Flow As we read Genesis, we understand it as a nationalistic narrative that uses mythic stories to convey a deep truth of cultural identity. It does not provide an accounting of dates and times for sentimentality or posterity; rather, it is a retelling of their cultural ethos, a capturing of their spirit and community, and a reminder that they are and have been the people of God’s promise. As we have seen, Jacob’s story follows three movements: 1. Early life and conflict with his parents and twin brother (Genesis 25:19-27:40) 2. Maturing and starting his own family in Haran (Genesis 27:41-30:43) 3. Growing in wisdom and reconciliation with his brother (Genesis 31-35) It is significant that the segment we are examining falls almost directly in the center of this story. Genesis 29:31-30:24 is the central focus of the narrative, as is demonstrated by the way its opening and closing movements draw attention inward to our segment. Though our selection is not the climactic moment in the story, its centrality is affirmed by its content, to which we now turn our attention. > When Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she envied her sister; and she said to Jacob, “Give me children, or I shall die!” Jacob became very angry with Rachel and said, “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” Then she said, “Here is my maid Bilhah; go in to her, that she may bear upon my knees and that I too may have children through her.” So she gave him her maid Bilhah as a wife; and Jacob went in to her. And Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son. Then Rachel said, “God has judged me, and has also heard my voice and given me a son”; therefore she named him Dan. Rachel’s maid Bilhah conceived again and bore Jacob a second son. Then Rachel said, “With mighty wrestlings I have wrestled with my sister, and have prevailed”; so she named him Naphtali. (Genesis 30:1-8, NRSV) ## Wrestling, But With Whom? Our text segment immediately follows Jacob’s marriages to Leah and Rachel. The surface of the narrative is the birth of Israel’s twelve tribal namesakes, and these children are born in quick succession. Within the span of twenty-eight verses, Leah, Rachel, and their maids give birth to eleven of the twelve sons of Jacob (in addition to one daughter). These children were not born without conflict, though. From the beginning of our segment, Rachel, the younger sister and the one loved by Jacob, was unable to bear children. Leah, on the other hand, who was older and only married to Jacob because of the trickery of her father, gained the favor of God and quickly bore four sons. In Genesis 30:1, we see that Rachel “envied her sister.” This establishes the narrative as a sibling rivalry, akin in some aspects to the rivalry Jacob experienced with his own older sibling, Esau. There was clearly some tension between the two sisters, as is demonstrated later in the chapter by Rachel’s bargaining of a sexual encounter with Jacob for a collection of mandrakes which, according to folklore at the time, were an aphrodisiac to heighten sexuality.7 This story also parallels one from Jacob’s childhood: he sold soup to Esau in exchange for the family birthright. This tension between the sisters, though, seemed to grow into a mutual understanding of sorts. Dennis Olson points out that “the narrative introduces a scene of negotiation, compromise, and fragile resolution.”8 **The true heart of the struggle seemed to be between each sister and God, rather than between the sisters themselves.** The first verse continues, “and \[Rachel\] said to Jacob, ‘Give me children, or I shall die!’” At first, this seems like an overly dramatic response to her infertility, but within the cultural context of this time, a woman’s life was directly connected with her ability to have children. The role of women at this time was to bear workers and warriors for their families, so a woman’s status in both familial circles and larger society were dependent upon the number of children - sons, in particular - she was able to produce. **To be unable to bear sons was a source of shame for Rachel, so in a sociological sense, her life was forfeit because of her barrenness.** Her frustration would have gone deeper than sociology, though. If a woman’s husband were to die, her sons would be the ones to take care of her. Women had no social status on their own, so they were unable to work in honest trades to provide for themselves or their families. **If Rachel had no sons when Jacob died, she would have no one to care for her and she would literally die**, or else be reduced to a life of prostitution or begging. In addition, she surely knew about God’s promise to Jacob about the proliferation of his descendants so, when she saw Leah’s active womb, **Rachel likely saw herself being erased from the lineage of this great nation** that was to arise. Her demand that Jacob impregnate her was not a threat; rather, she was speaking into the reality of her place in society and the dependence of her existence upon her ability to bear him sons. She was not being melodramatic; she was speaking from a rational, present fear. Jacob responded by becoming angry with her, saying in verse 2, “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” Throughout his life, Jacob rarely expressed anger. Although Jacob was often embroiled in conflict and manipulation, Shaul Bar observed that this outburst was an exception to Jacob’s normally cool demeanor and that, surprisingly, this anger was in response to the wife he most loved.9 Because of this deep connection he felt with Rachel, **perhaps Jacob had given her access to depths of his emotion that he kept distanced from others in his life**. Regardless of the source of his anger, Jacob told Rachel that he couldn’t control her fertility - she needed to take her concern to God, who had closed her womb. Rather than simply waiting for God to dictate her future, Rachel made use of a tactic that Jacob’s grandmother, Sarah, had used in her own battle with infertility, even though it had not worked out well for Sarah. Rachel ordered her maid, Bilhah, to sleep with Jacob and bear children on behalf of Rachel. This practice was not uncommon at that time - it was essentially a system of surrogacy where a woman’s maid or servant would bear the child into the arms of the woman, who would be considered the mother of the child. The tactic was successful in this case, and Bilhah bore two sons to Jacob in verses 5-7\. Rachel named the first child Dan, which the text describes as meaning “God has judged me, and has also heard my voice and given me a son” (verse 6). The word “judged” communicates the idea that Rachel had indeed pleaded her case before God, who had weighed her argument and determined that she was, in fact, worthy of a child. Within the framework of understanding God as opening and closing wombs to grant women children, this would be seen as a reversal of God’s prior decision to bar her from motherhood. By naming the boy Dan, Rachel declared her conviction that she, with justice on her side, had changed God’s mind. Rachel named the second son Naphtali, a name which carries some controversy in the determination of its meaning. The root word itself comes from the Hebrew word *niphtal*, which means something along the lines of “my struggle, my strife”10 in Hebrew and seems to indicate a wrestling with God. The text itself, though, says in verse 8 that Rachel chose the name because “With mighty wrestlings I have wrestled with my sister, and have prevailed.” There is ambiguity regarding why the editor of Genesis would have added to the actual meaning of Naphtali’s name to indicate that Rachel wrestled with Leah, but that ambiguity is mirrored later in Genesis by Jacob’s wrestling with the mysterious man in chapter 32\. In that passage, some scholars conclude that Jacob wrestled with a physical man (perhaps even Esau), while the text seems to suggest that the man was a manifestation of God. **There is a duality in both of these stories - the simultaneous wrestling with God and with humanity - that gives deep insight into the character of both Rachel and Jacob.** ## What Does This Mean? The idea that Rachel’s wrestling with God and Leah is an allusion to Jacob’s wrestling with God and Esau is not one that we should miss. Indeed, the idea of wrestling, of challenging both God and humanity, is a thread that runs deeply through the Jacob narrative. From the beginning, Jacob was an underdog who had to scheme and maneuver to succeed - in some cases, he had to do so even to survive. His two wives, particularly Rachel, embodied many of the same character traits as Jacob himself. They had the tenacity to do what they needed to do in order to secure a future for themselves. For the Israelites in exile, who were themselves wrestling with their heritage and their status as inheritors of the promise of God, this story of their nation’s birth would have established their cultural history as a line of scrappy fighters. **When they wondered whether they had been abandoned by God, they could look to Rachel, who had also been forgotten by God but had wrestled and pushed back until God heard her voice and gave her victory.** By looking to Rachel, they could be inspired themselves to wrestle and question God while still trusting for deliverance. As the exiled Hebrews laughed along with Jacob’s story, they gained from it the courage to do what they must to survive and prevail as the people of God. There is a tension in this interpretation: did God choose Jacob because of his tenacity, or did God give Jacob a character of tenacity to get through his circumstances? The text itself will not help us resolve this question, but I find comfort in the idea that **the Bible reveals a heritage of people with diverse strengths and weaknesses**. Abraham, the first patriarch, was a man of devout faithfulness; Jacob, Leah, and Rachel, the parents of the Israelite tribes, were cunning and devious and, at times, seemed faithless; Joseph, one of Jacob’s sons, rose to great political power and used that power to protect his family. Unlike the heroes of other cultures, the heroes of our faith were not superhuman or terribly exceptional in any way except that they were heirs to the promise of God. They were surprisingly, authentically human. And that tells me it is okay for me to be human as well. Indeed, sometimes that very humanity is what I need - what the people of God need - to endure the circumstances of life. --- #### Notes 1 Enns, Peter, “When was Genesis Written and Why Does it Matter? : A Brief Historical Study,” [The BioLogos Foundation](https://biologos.org/uploads/resources/enns%5Fscholarly%5Fessay3.pdf?ref=randalljgreene.com), (accessed 10 March 2017). 2 Brueggemann, Walter, 1982, *Genesis*, Interpretation, a Bible commentary for teaching and preaching, Atlanta: John Knox Press, 8-10. 3 Wenham, Gordon J., 2002, Exploring the Old Testament, Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 35. 4 Brueggemann, 250. 5 For more information on this effect in contemporary culture, see: Peterson, Russell Leslie. 2008\. *Strange Bedfellows : How Late-Night Comedy Turns Democracy into a Joke*, New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. 6 Coogan, Michael D., Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins, 2010, *The New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha*, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 46. 7 Brueggemann, 251. 8 Olson, Dennis, “Revenge, Forgiveness, and Sibling Rivalry: A Theological Dialogue Between Scripture and Science,” *Ex Auditu*, Vol. 28 (2012): 115. 9 Bar, Shaul, *Daily Life of the Patriarchs : The Way It Was*, Oxford, GB: Peter Lang AG, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014, 137-143. 10 Behind the Name, “Behind the Name: meaning, origin and history of the name Naphtali,” [BehindTheName.com](https://www.behindthename.com/name/naphtali?ref=randalljgreene.com), (accessed 25 March 2017). ### Scripture to Me URL: https://randalljgreene.com/scripture-to-me/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T16:34:20.000Z ## Before As the sun rises each morning, so do I. Rays of the sun touch my face and open my eyes, and with the day’s sight my mind awakens. I lift the covers from my sleep and place my feet on the floor, no longer startled by the wooden, cold welcome. I have learned to embrace the shock of it against my toes and to use it as a tool for waking up. I stretch my arms above my head and yawn aloud as they drop to my side. My knees are stiff, so I shake them until my joints pop. The room feels like home. It is familiar, warm. It smells like me, looks like me, feels like me. The bed, behind me, bears my imprint in its mattress. The desk before me has been carefully arranged, each notebook, pen, and book in the place I’ve given it. To the left, the dresser stores my wallet, watch, and ring and my selection of clothes. A pane of glass hangs above the dresser. I stand before it, gaze into it. In the glass, I see my reflection mirroring me. Where I move, it moves. When I blink, it blinks. The hue of my skin is the hue of its and the color of my eyes the color of its. The glass reveals to me my darkest blemishes and my deepest beauties alike. In its surface I test every expression of emotion. Raising my eyebrow makes it skeptical. Furrowing my forehead makes it angry. Widening my eyes makes it surprised. Lowering the corners of my lips makes it sad. When I lean closer into it, it leans closer into me. When I open my arms to it, it opens its arms to me. I study the glass every morning as the sun rises to learn something new about myself I can carry into each day. ## Yesterday Yesterday I awoke with the sun, like every other day. I set my feet on the cold wooden floor and soaked in the warmth of the morning. The light felt stronger today, more vibrant, more colorful. The room felt like home as it always did but something was different. Above the dresser, the glass had changed. I walked to it and pressed my hand against it. The image in the glass had a depth that was new. I saw myself, but beyond that a garden outside my walls. Trees and bushes and grass bloomed from the earth as tall as the dawn-painted sky above. I looked down and creatures darted through the leaves. Squirrels chased squirrels from limb to limb and deer loped along paths only they could see. A bird flitted to the glass, mere inches from my face, and settled on the ledge. It sang a song to the heavens, glory to my ears. Time stopped as I studied the world. The glass had always been a window into my soul but was now a window to all of creation. I dared not shatter it. ## Today Yesterday my heart was filled with wonder. Yesterday I watched the world from my window, yet even in my watching I craved more. Today I venture into that world and explore. ### An Evangelical Crossroads URL: https://randalljgreene.com/an-evangelical-crossroads/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T16:32:50.000Z Last week Donald Trump was inaugurated as the President of the United States of America. He rode to victory back in November on the backs of [the 81% of white evangelicals voters](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/?ref=randalljgreene.com) who picked him to be our next president. While I understand that not all evangelicals voted for him (clearly, 1 out of 5 did not) and that even some of those who voted for him did so begrudgingly, you as a subculture are inextricably associated with him for the next four years. Your voices melded with the masses who rallied around him in crying out: - “We’ve been forgotten!” - “Our right to religious freedom is being taken away!” - “We need to bring back our jobs!” - “We shouldn’t be forced to pay for things we don’t agree with!” Evangelicalism needs a new rallying cry. Though you feel you have been forgotten by society, there is a much more critical concern. **You call yourselves little versions of Christ, but you have forgotten the central teachings of Christ himself.** ### The Blessed Ones Jesus taught us that the blessed ones are: > “the poor in spirit” (Luke actually records Christ as saying “the poor” in an economic sense), > “those who mourn” > “the meek” > “those who hunger and thirst for righteousness” > “the merciful” > “the pure in heart” > “the peacemakers” > “those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” He said that we are blessed “when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you…” (Matt. 5:3-11). He told us that a right relationship with God requires us to have right relationships with one another (Matt. 5:20-24). He told us to care more for our enemies than we do ourselves (Matt. 5:39-40, 43-44) and to give away our money recklessly (Matt. 5:42). He called us to put aside selfishness, not caring about our own economic or social security (Matt. 7:24-31), and to be motivated instead by the needs of the most disenfranchised people around us. (See Christ’s interactions with lepers, beggars, prostitutes, cripples, those in poverty and more all throughout the Gospels; for a specific teaching, see Matt. 10:36-37.) Christ drew no distinction between caring for a person’s body and caring for a person’s soul (Matt. 9:2-7). As he sent his apostles out to preach the gospel, he said, “Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment” (see Matt. 11:5-10). **A message like that of Jesus would get you kicked out of most evangelical churches today. He didn’t teach us to vote based on our own sense of relativistic morality. He didn’t teach us to defend our rights or protect our jobs or defend a biblical definition of marriage. Time and time again he taught us to lay down our rights - our lives, if necessary - for the spiritual, emotional, and physical well-being of our neighbors.** Followers of Christ don’t have the privilege of refusing to subsidize healthcare for others, even if it’s sometimes used in ways they don’t agree with. We must value every life, whether it’s the life of an unborn child or the life of a black man murdered on the street or the life of an immigrant who follows another religion. ### Actions and Words Christ knew how easy it would be for his followers to forget the truth of his message. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, when he delivered all of the teachings that I just worked through, he said, > “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but *only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven*. On that day many will say to me ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers’” (Matt. 7:21-24). **Evangelicals have for a long time held a position of privilege within the United States.** [Despite your claims otherwise](http://www.relevantmagazine.com/slices/survey-most-evangelical-leaders-expect-christian-persecution-coming?ref=randalljgreene.com), you have occupied places of power in our government and, as a result, much of our society has been built for your success. But the demographics of our country are changing. Today we see much more religious and social diversity. As a result of that diversity, though, the balance of power is shifting and, as the saying goes, “*when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression*” (author unknown). The natural inclination for you evangelicals is to fight back and demand the prosperity, security, and social status you’re used to having. In a supreme act of selfishness, you have bought into the Republican Party’s lie that it actually cares about the gospel. You jumped into bed with the political right because they gave you an issue - one single issue - that you cared about. They promised to give you the things your flesh craved and now you cannot see how far you’ve fallen from the gospel. And don't be fooled - [swinging to the political left is not the answer either](https://randalljgreene.com/radicals-centrists-and-postures/). ### The Crossroads Before Us **Evangelicals, you are at a crossroads.** You can continue down this road of selfish preoccupation with political power, or you can follow the teachings of Christ and forsake your own political rights for the rights and needs of our neighbors. That means caring more for their health than you do your own wealth. It means fostering quality education and community support systems. It means speaking out - and acting out - against discrimination in any shape or form. It means opposing bullying and intimidation. It means rejecting political tactics designed to stoke fear and division. You are at a crossroads. **Will you choose to blindly follow the political party that thinks it owns you, or will you follow Christ? You cannot serve them both.** ### Emerging into a Community of Believers URL: https://randalljgreene.com/emerging-into-a-community-of-believers/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T16:25:06.000Z I was in seventh grade and my family was leaving church one Sunday after the morning service. The guest preacher stood at the exit, shaking each person’s hand as they walked out of the church. I tried to sneak past without shaking his hand - I was an introvert and hated formalities for the sake of formality - but just when I thought I was clear, I felt his hand on the top of my head. I turned and lifted my hand to shake his, but then I noticed that his wasn’t extended. He looked me in the eye, hand still planted on my head, then closed his eyes for a moment. “God is telling me,” he said, “that he is going to make you a pastor someday.” Then he opened his eyes and smiled at me as if he’d just given me an ice cream cone and expected me to thank him. I had no concept of how to react to the preacher’s prophecy. Within the tradition I’d been raised, this sort of act had no precedent. My parents pressed me forward out the door, quickly dismissing the man’s prophecy over me as false prophecy, but we never had a genuine conversation about it. From what I recall, we never attended that church again. A storybook conclusion to this moment of my life would have me now pursuing a ministry degree and pastoral credentials to fulfill that preacher’s word over me. The truth is, though, that I have never felt a call to ministry beyond the simple call that is given to all Christians: the call to love God with all my heart, soul, and mind, and to love my neighbor as I love myself. That call is what drives me today to study, write, and live my faith in the world. ## My Story of Emergence I was born into a military family. My dad was in the Air Force and my mom stayed home to raise my three sisters and me as we moved wherever the government dictated. Many of my younger years were spent in the Washington, D.C. area. Though my parents were devout Southern Baptists from the Midwest, we attended independent Baptist churches during my childhood because the Southern Baptist churches out east were too liberal. As a child, I devoted myself to memorizing verses from the King James Version and learned to prove that the earth was 6,000 years old. I longed for the day that I would be raptured (though I must confess: I worried that, when the rapture *did* come, I could be driving and my car might, with the sudden absence of a driver, crash and hurt someone). I spent the entirety of my primary and secondary education in evangelical Christian schools and, as a result, **my faith rested on a firm foundation of biblical knowledge, though without even an acknowledgment of the necessity of biblical interpretation**. In middle school, my family moved to St. Louis and my parents enrolled me in a Nazarene-founded school, where I remained until I graduated high school. Though the curriculum and instruction remained generically evangelical - I didn’t notice any jarring intellectual shifts in my education - several spheres of my life in high school were marked by more subtle changes that, together, significantly impacted my theological journey. The summer after my junior year, I began dating a girl from my class. She was cute, rambunctious, smart, godly, and Nazarene. More significantly, she was called to be a youth pastor. In my worldview at the time, that set off some red flags: women weren’t called to be pastors! A *youth* pastor was acceptable - just barely, but acceptable nonetheless - but she expressed her call in a way that bordered on heresy according to everything I’d ever known about the Bible. But gosh darn she was cute. Around that same time, the Southern Baptist church my family had attended and loved for several years found itself embroiled in an internal political war. The senior pastor had resigned and, in the void, two parties had begun battling for dominion. I refused to believe that Christians - people I knew and loved - could be so heartless and cruel to one another, but after nearly a year of in-fighting and shallow attempts at peacemaking, the church split. My family, along with about a dozen other families, committed themselves to planting a new Southern Baptist church in the area. As a leader among the youth who found themselves leaving the church, I received and accepted an invitation to be on the committee to develop the plant’s mission, vision, and beliefs statements. While my girlfriend and I worked through our theological differences, and as I examined my own beliefs to help shape the doctrinal statements of my new church home, I moved across the state and into the dorms of a state university. There I was inundated with all the things I had been taught were vile. My hallmates smoked marijuana, had sex, and drank beer (and were underaged, nonetheless!); my professors taught the veracity of godless evolution and climate change; and I interacted with gay people and liberals for the first time in my sheltered life. In the midst of this morass of conflicting worldviews, I began to question some of the things I’d been taught as a child. I knew God was big enough to handle my questions, so I asked. Seeking answers in the Bible, **I started to realize that the God I had assumed to know as I grew up was not exactly the God revealed in Scripture, nor the God worshiped by the earliest Christians, nor the God that spoke into my heart and my mind. The faith I had assumed until this point bore more cleanly the marks of American culture than it did the stripes of the gospel.** I recognized that my faith was being slowly deconstructed, but I had no idea how to rebuild it. In 2009, shortly before I started my senior year of college, I married [the girl who was called to be a youth pastor](https://shannonegreene.com/?ref=randalljgreene.com). At the time, I still was unsure whether the God of the Bible was in the business of calling women into pastoral ministry, but I knew two things: first, that God was calling me to this woman and, second, that God would continue to work in my heart. If God had truly called her to be a pastor, God would make me okay with that calling. ## Reconstructing My Faith In 2013, I read Brian McLaren’s *A New Kind of Christianity* and, if there were any rubble of my fundamentalist faith remaining in me, McLaren reduced it to ashes. My wife, who was finishing her Master’s degree from Nazarene Theological Seminary, graciously held my hand as I experienced a minor, theologically-induced existential crisis and guided me to reconstruct my faith upon a Wesleyan ideological framework. **Once I had that solid foundation in place, my theological appetite became insatiable.** I was drawn to explore this new theological path that didn’t rely on a literalistic hermeneutic (for the first time, I could unreservedly support my wife in whatever ministry role God called her to pursue), but I also longed to better understand the legalistic mess I from which I had just emerged - the same mess that millions of Christians around the country considered purity. ### Growing and Grace to Grow Not long ago, my pastor challenged the congregation to think about our driving purposes - our calls - and about what kind of legacies we wanted to leave. I believe my call has been crystallizing slowly as I’ve wrestled with my faith over the last few years. Through my writing and my engagement with evangelical peers, I have begun to recognize that my heart breaks for Christians who feel like I did in college when my faith began crumbling. I know the despair of being mired in fundamentalism, unwilling to escape because of the belief that it’s the only way to Christ, and I long to show them that the grace of Christ is waiting for them, wider and stronger than they can imagine, beckoning them to step forth in faith. Being in that place of deconstruction is painful and lonely. When I was there, I felt like the theological right had excommunicated me, and it felt like the theological left had branded me a hopeless idiot. **For those who are in this place, I want to be a hug, a person who will give them support to push and grow in whatever direction God leads them.** I can’t say I have it all figured out - far from it - but I understand where you are and the conflict you feel. I know my story isn’t unique. People everywhere are going through the exact same journey of discovery that I experienced (and, to a large extent, still experience every day), so if you find yourself in this struggling to find where you belong in the Church, please talk with me. I’d love to help however I can. You can [email me here](mailto:sobecreation@gmail.com). **Let’s be the community of Christ together.** ### Skittles and Sheep URL: https://randalljgreene.com/skittles-and-sheep/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T16:20:43.000Z *If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you, would you take a handful? That’s our Syrian refugee problem.* This was the message of [a tweet posted by Donald Trump Jr.](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/560/cpsprodpb/0642/production/%5F91320610%5Fskittles.jpg?ref=randalljgreene.com) yesterday. He added a comment, saying, “Let’s end the politically correct agenda that doesn’t put America first.” His point is one that resonates with many. We can’t tell the difference between a poisoned skittle and an un-poisoned one from looking at it. No intelligent person would eat from a bowl of skittles that they knew would kill them, right? Life is too valuable to take such a risk for such a paltry reward. But this analogy isn’t really about candy - it’s about people. If we knew that a group of refugees contained even just one terrorist bent on destroying innocent American lives, shouldn’t we refuse entry to them all? We can’t tell from a surface-level examination which of them are legitimate refugees and which are impostors, so common sense would dictate that we should restrict the entire group’s access to our country. It shouldn’t even be an issue: it’s a simple matter of security for our people. And yet, I am unconvinced. Setting aside the fact that [our refugee screening process is one of the strictest in the world](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/17/3-important-facts-about-how-the-u-s-resettles-syrian-refugees/?tid=a%5Finl&ref=randalljgreene.com), and ignoring the math that says [the accurate scale of good skittles for the three poisoned skittles in this scenario would be to fill one-and-a-half Olympic-sized swimming pools with them](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/19/donald-trump-jr-inadvertantly-encourages-america-to-scoop-up-refugees-by-the-handful/?ref=randalljgreene.com), there is something else that rubs me wrong with Donald Trump Jr.’s tweet. In the United States, we cling tightly to our right to self-preservation. The need to defend ourselves, our families, and our neighbors is one of the most dominant traits in our society. It’s closely tied to the American dream of our country being a place of opportunity. When we’ve worked so hard to achieve our dreams, it’s only natural that we want to defend those dreams. So as Americans, this right to prevent harm rings true. But **those of us who follow Christ** [**are called to something different**.](https://randalljgreene.com/its-my-right-part-2/) This statement from Donald Trump about discerning between poisoned and good skittles reminded me of the parable of the lost sheep in Luke 15:3-7\. In this parable, the shepherd had gathered ninety-nine of his sheep in the open pasture but noticed that one was lost along the way. But where had that one gone? Remember that the wilderness was not a safe place - not for the lost sheep, nor for the ninety-nine sheep left unattended, nor even for the shepherd. The lost one had likely fallen down a precarious cliff or been caught by a lion or other predator. The ninety-nine were left out in the open without protection as night was falling, and certainly they were an easy target for any hungry carnivores. And the shepherd knew that if a wild animal had captured his sheep, he would have to fight the beast. To the shepherd, though, that sheep was so important that he risked his own life and the lives of his flock to rescue it. **As Christians, if we truly want to follow the example of Christ,** [**we must shed the desire to protect ourselves**](https://randalljgreene.com/idolatry-of-security/) **that comes so naturally and choose instead to lay our very lives at the foot of the cross.** Christ himself said, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 16:24-25). We love to read that passage as a spiritual metaphor for giving up our base desires, as if Christ was simply calling his followers to *metaphorically* lay down their lives, but if we look at the lives of his apostles, it is clear that they took this message from Christ literally. With the exception of John, each of Jesus’ apostles were martyred for sharing the good news of Christ with a hostile world. They cared for the lost sheep of the world and they trusted in God to direct their lives, even to the point of self-endangerment and death. Is this not the same gospel to which we ourselves are called? Are we not compelled to be so broken for the lost and broken - the Syrian refugees who are forced to flee from their homes, our black brothers and sisters that still feel the burden of systemic oppression, and many other marginalized groups in our midst - that we fly into the face of danger to rescue them? My life is God’s and God’s alone. It is not mine to defend. As Paul said in Acts 20:24: > But I do not count my life of any value to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the good news of God’s grace. **To be of Christ means that we must draw the hurting and broken into our arms, even when death is a certainty.** So back to Donald Trump Jr.’s skittles analogy, even if I knew that our nation’s refugee vetting process was lenient (it’s not) and even if I knew that three out of every hundred refugees were likely terrorists (they’re not), my call from God would still be to open my heart and my home to them. **Welcoming refugees with open arms is but a baby step in the path I as a Christian am called to walk.** ### Falling on the Sword URL: https://randalljgreene.com/falling-on-the-sword/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T16:15:34.000Z Taking up his sword, just as the Master commanded, Nathan prepared for battle. Sharpening the blade, lifting the breastplate, cinching the belt, donning the helmet, he prepared for more than just the physical confrontation. As he cleared his mind, the Master’s commandments filled him, boiling up through his mind and cascading down his flesh, cleansing him within and without. Stepping into the chill evening air, Nathan was overwhelmed by the solidarity of his comrades-in-arms. The land teemed with hundreds of his brothers, girding themselves for the fight. Fires burned in their eyes and their hearts – fires that could not match the vengeance their Master had promised to wreak upon their enemies that night. The men looked to Nathan, their Commander, for orders. A warm, foul wind blew from the north, carrying the stench of their foes across the land. *Breathe it deep and remember it well*, Nathan told himself, *for by morning it will be gone*. With the quiet attention of his brothers, he vaulted himself atop his warhorse. Each of the men gathered their reins in their hands, ready for his command. The earth was silent before them. A whisper would have penetrated the darkness for miles, but when he finally spoke he raised his voice strong and clear so no fault could be made in the hearing. “Tonight we reclaim our lands. Tonight we cleanse ourselves of this insidious stain. The battle will be long; it will be fierce; we remember that we fight not for ourselves, but for the future, for the purity of our sons and our daughters. We fight for the Master who has commanded us. When the swords of our foes rise against us, when their armors seem impenetrable, recall the innocence of your children and allow their beating hearts to propel you. When you reach the precipice of death – for surely many of us shall – remember the Master who has called you and promised to lead you to victory, and in that moment, with the light of glory descending to bless your final breath, know that your life was ordained from the beginning for such a time as this.” Drizzle fell from the sky, burdening his words with the weight of the heavens. Eyes closed, he withdrew his sword from its scabbard and lifted it high. “Mount, my brothers. Let us ride. Let us take back our land.” In unison, the body of brothers mounted their steeds and rode into formation. Sweat glistened on each horse’s flanks as if the beasts, too, anticipated the hour. The men rode into battle. --- When they crested the hill, they saw the village of their enemy spread throughout the valley. Nathan halted until the entirety of his force could amass behind him. Though darkness had descended and the night was maturing, candlelight twinkled in dozens of the homes as mothers and fathers bid their children goodnight and tucked them into bed. The clouds shifted, obscuring the moon, and the world was for a moment shrouded in blindness. Nathan’s heart raced and adrenaline rushed in his veins. He squeezed the pommel of his sword and withdrew it. The sound of the steel, eager for the river of blood it had been promised, pierced the night. His men, hearing this announcement of battle, drew their own swords and the entire valley echoed with the prelude to war. Without waiting for Nathan’s command, the front line of soldiers lit their torches. The fires, stretching endlessly to either side of him, illuminated the men’s solemn faces. They looked to Nathan for the fated command. Today was the day that had been prophesied. Their destiny lay waiting for them to claim. The men were prepared to expel the blight from their land and demonstrate the power and authority of their Master. With a yell, Nathan kicked his steed forward into the valley. A chorus of voices behind him mixed with the stamping of hoofs and the ring of steel. Their fires lit the way. --- The men reassembled, the last few embers of the village dying behind them as dawn peeked over the horizon. The battle had been delivered into their hands just as their Master had promised. The villagers had mounted nary a defense against the divine will imposed against them and not a single soul had been left alive. The smell of burning flesh would serve as a staunch warning for all others who dared stand in opposition to their Master. As his men gathered back into their ranks, Nathan counted the numbers of his brothers still living. File after file reported complete survival – not a single man had been lost. How was that possible with the ferocity of the fight? It was a miraculous victory indeed! As one they marched their horses back up the hill to return to their homes, their wives, their children. Purity, with the stewardship of its protectors, at Nathan’s command, had vanquished another foe. --- "Falling on the Sword" is a prose version of the story I first told in the poem "[The War is Coming!](https://randalljgreene.com/the-war-is-coming/)" ### Winds of Change in the Church of the Nazarene URL: https://randalljgreene.com/winds-of-change-in-the-church-of-the-nazarene/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T16:13:33.000Z I have been attending predominantly Nazarene churches for about seven years now and officially been a member of the Church of the Nazarene for around six years. In that time, I’ve come to realize that there is a lot of tension between the right wing and the left wing of the denomination – tension that seems to be approaching a boiling point. The strength of the conflict reminds me of the “[Conservative Resurgence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern%5FBaptist%5FConvention%5Fconservative%5Fresurgence?ref=randalljgreene.com)” in the Southern Baptist Convention of the 1970s: back then, the SBC had a similar tension and the conservative wing organized a methodical coup of the Convention’s universities, seminaries, and institutional positions of authority, effectively pushing out any “liberal” theological presence. For today’s Southern Baptists, this “resurgence” was a critical point in their history which they remember with pride. Blog posts and articles from leading church voices seem to be pushing for a similar type of conservative takeover in the Church of the Nazarene. I don’t think that type of pressure within our denomination would work, though, for two primary reasons: first, we are proud of our wide range of theology across the evangelical spectrum and, second, the underlying worldview of our society has shifted. ### Nazarenes are proud of their “big tent.” One of the unique heritages of the Nazarene church is that it has a large, inclusive “tent” of acceptable theology. The denomination itself was founded by the merger of several holiness groups from across the United States. Even in our denominational infancy, we had broad disagreements on matters of specific doctrines, but we intentionally chose to look past those differences and band together in unity. Nazarenes all across the globe are proud - proud in word, at least, if not in action - that the denomination allows such a wide swath of beliefs. Indeed, attending Nazarene churches in various regions even within the United States reveals a monumental discrepancy in views on biblical authority, social responsibility, and many other doctrines. For a wing of the denomination to push out others, it would require overcoming the Nazarene pride in a “big tent” approach to faith, and I’m not sure that can be done. ### American evangelicalism is moving on from a modernistic mindset. The SBC’s push for conservativism was buoyed by the prominence of modernism in that time period. Evangelical churches had latched onto a scientific sense of rationality, allowing faith to operate by the rules imposed by science. Though it co-opted the base assumptions of the scientific community, the evangelical church ironically distanced itself from actual scientific inquiry because it espoused a laziness of intellectual activity. As a result of this black-and-white modernism, and with the help of an American culture built upon emotional revivalism that de-emphasized both theological and secular education, Christian fundamentalism established deep roots in our society. It was in this climate that the SBC’s Conservative Resurgence was able to thrive. (For more on this subject, I highly recommend Mark Noll’s book [*The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind*](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003EO8ER0/ref=cm%5Fsw%5Fr%5Ftw%5Fdp%5FYkxExbHDCZA05?ref=randalljgreene.com).) In recent decades, though, our society has begun to move past that modernist construction of faith and back into a historically-aware confession of what it means to be a Christian. We have seen the bitterness embedded deep within fundamentalism and found that to be inconsistent with the [values of truth, love, and holiness modeled by Christ](https://randalljgreene.com/a-life-after-christ/). We have witnessed the implosion of fundamentalist thought and practice and have chosen instead to return to the Christian ideological frameworks that have endured for millennia. **If the fundamentalists within the Church of the Nazarene want to erect walls of protections around themselves to fortify themselves against the coming storm, that is their right. But if their goal is to take over the Church of the Nazarene with their feet firmly planted in the worldview of 1920-80 American evangelicalism, they are about thirty years too late. We have already returned to a God-centered, Scripture-based, compassion-filled faith, and we are not turning back.** ### Three Reasons I Broke Up with the (Southern) Baptist Church URL: https://randalljgreene.com/three-reasons-i-broke-up-with-the-southern-baptist-church/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T16:08:04.000Z *Note: You are about to read some gross generalizations. Baptist churches are so diverse that it’s pretty much impossible to write anything that applies across the board, so know that I’m writing from my personal experience in fundamentalist Baptist churches. Your experience may differ.* --- Every breakup is tough. If you know anything about my personal life, you probably know that I’m happily married to the only girl I’ve ever dated, so I’ve never gone through a relationship breakup… but I know religious breakups very well. In the first 21 years of my life, I regularly attended somewhere around 10 or 11 different churches. They all bore the name “Baptist” – some Southern Baptist, and some independent fundamentalist – but they varied in their doctrine on the scale from almost-Westboro-Baptist legalism to praise-band-can-include-an-electric-guitar conservatism. All along that scale there was a healthy dose of KJV-only-ism, complementarianism, and inerrancy-or-die elitism, but none of those things were the cause of my breakup with the Baptist church. There were three main issues that I found irreconcilable with the way I understood my faith and my life. ## 1\. The Baptist church has no theological tradition. On the surface, this sounds simple. Certainly, different baptist congregations have wildly variant theology and practice. It’s also true that Baptist theology tends to be a weird mish-mash of Augustinian, Calvinist, and Arminian frameworks. I do wish the Baptist church could fix these issues of theological inconsistency, but my concern runs a bit deeper. The real issue for me is the way Baptists shun Christian history. **I have never heard a Baptist church discuss the sacramental richness of communion, the understanding of baptism as a covenant initiated by God, or even a topic as simple as the broad, inclusive family tree of Christianity. They skip over the majority of the Christian calendar and rarely mention the creeds of our faith.** These are all basic components of the beautiful tradition of Christianity, and they are just a small sample of the history that the Baptist church neglects. Instead, the Baptist church seems to separate themselves from all other perspectives of Christian faith – even the historical ones that birthed them. They are swallowed up in the idea that they have the market cornered on Bible-based faith and that all others throughout the ages have missed the gospel somewhere. It’s an exclusivism that breeds arrogance and a self-righteous us-against-them mentality. Churches that embrace the wide swath of Christianity are able to understand the fullness of the God’s kingdom in a way that the Baptist church fundamentally refuses to see. There’s an entire beautiful world out here, and the Baptists are standing in the corner with their arms crossed and their eyes closed thinking they see it all. That’s the first reason I broke up with the Baptist church. I wanted to open my eyes. ## 2\. The Baptist church is plagued with biblical literalism. First, let’s define “biblical literalism.” I swear that every single theologian in the world defines it differently, so I’m going to just paint in really large brushstrokes here. I tend to consider someone a literalist when, as they read the Bible, they take it at face value (i.e. “it says ‘on day six,’ so that means there must have been six literal days in creation”) without considering an alternative reading. I hear this frequently stated as: “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.” Where’s the harm in that, right? God inspired it, so everything in it must be factually true, right? Wrong. That is exactly the ideology that caused me to break up with the Baptists. **Literalism ignores just about every type of context that a text can possibly offer, including the historical and cultural contexts.** It can only exist under the assumption that the Bible was written just for me, in my time, in my context, and in my current state of mind. Each book of the Bible was individually written for a specific audience in a particular time, but we American evangelicals can’t lay claim to either of those. Its original intended audience was much different than ours, and we have to make an effort to understand it within the culture to which it was written. Whenever we read anything – no matter if it’s the Bible, a newspaper, or a post on my website – we interpret it. We read tone and intent into it that may or may not be there. The words on paper have no meaning until we, the reader, put them together and translate them into ideas, and those ideas are interpretations of the author’s intent. **If a biblical author has a different understanding of a foundational concept (for example, what it means to “create” something), then we make a huge mistake by reading it at face value with our own (different) understanding of that foundational concept. We risk not only missing the author’s point, but even reading into it something the author never intended to say in the first place.** Instead, we should be devouring as much context for each passage of Scripture as we can get our hands on. As we read, we should try to understand the text as the text’s first readers would have understood it and only then can we derive the author’s meaning from it. From there, we can extrapolate that meaning into our own culture in a way that is true to the purpose of Scripture. I can hear some of you saying, “But God wrote the Bible and it speaks to us today every bit as much as it did to them back then!” and I don’t disagree with you. Well, I do disagree with you, but not in that statement exactly. I do believe God speaks to us today through the Bible, but when we only read it at face value, we are not treating it with the reverence and respect it deserves. **When we spend ten minutes reading a chapter and think we’ve got it figured out, that is treating it just like any other book we might have sitting on the shelf. Scripture demands better.** It demands study and context. It demands application. And the contextual interpretive process treats it as the word of God in a way that a surface-level reading can never hope to accomplish. Biblical literalism is steeped in shallow interpretation, and I hungered for deeper understanding of biblical truths. That’s the second reason I broke up with the Baptist church. ## 3\. The Baptist church shuts down conversation. If Baptist churches have one concept that unites them, it seems to be the idea of assurance. Being certain of what you believe is hailed as the mark of a true Christian in Baptist churches. They carry that from the teachings of “once-saved-always-saved” to the reliance on apologetics (anyone else seen *God’s Not Dead*?). The ramifications of this need for assurance are seen all throughout Baptist doctrine and practice. It’s deeply ingrained in Baptist youth that they have to know with absolute certainty what they believe or the world will pick them apart piece by piece. But this concept is wrong on so many levels. **It reeks of modernism and sets up a false binary (this is right, that is wrong; this is black, that is white; this is true, that is false). It emphasizes the destination (“knowing”) rather than the journey. It says “We have the answers!” rather than “We all have questions, so let’s grow together by exploring those questions.” It sets Baptists up for failure because the instant one of the answers they’ve been taught fails, their entire system of belief must crumble along with it.** And the worst part of this dependence on assurance is that it stifles discussion. Baptists tend to think they have it all figured out so, whenever a question comes up, the Baptist has a pat answer to give. And that answer is supposed to settle it. There is no room for wrestling, no tolerance for exploration. For Baptists, questions are a sign of weakness. If questions are a sign of weakness, then I am the weakest of the weak and Baptists have no room for me in their ranks. That’s the third reason I broke up with the Baptist church. --- These are three very personal reasons that I decided to part ways with the Baptist church, and they are based on my experiences. I’m sure there are Baptist churches that don’t fall into these traps, and I applaud them for standing out in that way. I should also point out that these issues do not keep me from caring for my Baptist brothers and sisters. I have many dear Baptist friends and family members and, though I do not agree with much of their theology, I have been greatly impacted by their lives and ministries. I don’t want to discount that in the slightest, but my faith journey has taken me to a much different place – one that appreciates the richness of Christian tradition, values the context of Scripture, and allows room for questions. ### To Love Them Both URL: https://randalljgreene.com/to-love-them-both/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T15:58:59.000Z > No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other. (Matthew 6:24, NLT) --- I looked in the hallway mirror and buttoned my jacket. All set. “Alright honey, I’m heading over to Eden’s for a bit. I’ll be back in a few hours.” “Have fun!” Tara responded from our bedroom. I slid into the driver’s seat, adjusted the mirror, and backed the car out of the garage into the quiet street. No one else was ever out this early on the weekend. As I left my neighborhood behind, I remembered that Eden had texted me yesterday – I should probably respond before I arrived. Good, a red light. I pulled my phone out of my pocket and scrolled through the new messages she’d sent in the last few days. Oh, yes – there it was. Good morning, my love! As I read it, I could see her demure smile. She was too good for me. Quickly, before the light could turn green, I typed a response: I love you too, Eden. Excited to see you today! Send. This light was taking forever. I glanced at the clock – 9:27\. I was going to be late if this light didn’t hurry up. Finally it turned. The florist was just up ahead on the right. Should I stop and get some flowers? I looked at the clock again – 9:29\. She’d probably rather have me there on time than come with flowers, so I pulled into the apartment complex and parked as close as I could to our building. Before I could knock, Eden opened the door, greeted me with that smile that I loved so much, and wrapped her arms around me. “I’ve missed you.” As she pulled me inside the apartment, I thought I caught a flicker in her eyes scolding me for being so scarce recently. I wanted to apologize that I hadn’t stopped by all week, but didn’t know where to begin. I couldn’t keep saying I’d lost track of time. “What would you like to do today?” I asked instead. “I thought maybe, since it’s nice out, we could go for a walk.” There was a city park just a few blocks away. I slapped myself. She was wearing a slim, white dress and heels. If I hadn’t been so distracted by being late, I should have noticed that she already had something else in mind. She shrugged and kicked at a piece of dust on the floor. “Sure. We can do that. I’ll need to change into some pants, I guess.” “No, you don’t have to change - we can do something else. What did you have in mind?” “It’s fine,” she said. She looked up at me again and gave me a forgiving wink. “I don’t care what we do as long as we get to be together.” Eden slipped out of her heels and turned toward the bedroom but before she could get out of reach, I pulled her in and gave her a long kiss. She looked up at me and raised one eyebrow. With a twinkle in her eye, she pressed her finger against my lips. “You, sir, have been practicing.” With that she turned to the bedroom, her toes padding lightly on the wood floors. While she changed, I went into the kitchen for a snack. I helped myself to a glass of grape juice and opened the pantry to see if there were any crackers to munch on. Not seeing any, I stuck my head into the hallway to ask Eden if she had any. Before I could open my mouth, I caught a glimpse of her changing through the open bedroom door. Her dress dropped to the floor, exposing her pure, porcelain skin. Time froze and my mind flashed with memories of her soft flesh pressed against mine. My heart pounded as I noticed that her beauty hadn’t changed in all the years we’d been together. The sight of her standing naked, innocent, in front of me still stirred the passion, the lust, within me. She knelt to pick up the dress and hung it back in its place in the closet. When she returned to the dresser, she saw me gawking and caught my eye for a moment before I could look away. “You can come help if you want.” She always spoke just loud enough for me to hear - she never had to shout, even when I was all the way across the apartment. She leaned against the door. Even from the kitchen I could see the longing in her eyes. She craved intimacy. She wanted to feel me, to know me, to be one with me. My emotions made no sense. I lusted after Eden and I wanted more than just her body. I adored everything about her: her eyes, her laugh, her beauty, her grace. I wanted her physically and emotionally and spiritually, but I knew I couldn’t give myself to her. She deserved so much better than me, yet she wanted me. She had chosen me. Why couldn’t I do it? Eden stood waiting, enticing, for me to respond. She began walking toward me. Her eyes were torn between hope and sadness as she tried to discern what I wanted. But I didn’t even know what I wanted. I couldn’t look at her right now, so I distracted myself in the pantry. Crackers! There they were! I reached for them and tore open the package. “It’s okay, I’m just eating some crackers in here! Just let me know when you’re ready to go.” I turned and sat at the table, my back to the bedroom as I stuffed crackers in my mouth and sipped my juice. The soft sound of drawers opening and closing told me that Eden had returned to the bedroom and was getting dressed. Finally I heard the sound of her sneakers come down the hall. She sat in the chair next to mine and took a cracker for herself. When I looked in her eyes, I expected to see anger or hurt, but instead I saw sadness and love. For some reason, she adored me. Neither of us said a word, but I was lost in her. There were no words to describe how enraptured by her I was. Eden closed up the remaining crackers and put them back in the pantry, then placed her hand on my shoulder. I winced and closed my eyes. “Ready to go for our walk?” she asked. Suddenly I had to leave. I just couldn’t be there – couldn’t be here with her – any longer. I stood and bolted from the apartment, not even bothering to close the door behind me. Her footsteps followed, trying to keep pace with mine. “Wait! Why are you leaving?” Tears choked her voice. When I reached my car, I opened the door and looked back at her. She stood on the sidewalk unwilling to force me to stay. Her eyes, flooded with tears, pleaded with me. “Please, won’t you just come back inside for a few more moments?” I had no answer. I saw her pain, her longing, and had to look away. As I pulled out of the parking space, I rolled down my window, shouting to her as I drove away, “I’ll see you again next week!” I was a horrible person. I really needed to spend more time with Eden. After all, I loved her – I really did. As I pulled into my driveway, I took deep breaths. Tara would be waiting for me inside – waiting to hold me and kiss me. I was comfortable with Tara. Before I could even turn off the car, she opened the door to welcome me. She had kind eyes. “How was Eden?” she asked. I stood, closed the car door behind me, and took Tara’s hands in my own. “She’s good. Really good, I think. She never changes.” I pulled her in close and kissed the top of her head. “I love you, you know.” She rested her head against my chest. “I know. And I’m glad you’re home.” I closed my eyes and saw Eden crying, begging me to come back inside. Eden was too good for me. I would never be able to justify her love. So I wrapped my arms tighter around Tara. She returned the squeeze, then stepped back. “Well, are you ready to go inside?” she asked. She sensed my hesitation. “Every time I go over there…” I paused to figure out what I was trying to say. “Every time, I feel like a little part of me changes. I feel like I’m a different person when I’m there – a better person, I think. It’s just… it’s the strangest thing. I get a glimpse of this thing, and then when I come home again it’s gone.” Tara placed her hands on my cheeks and pulled my face down until my eyes were looking directly into hers. “I hear the words you’re saying, but I’m not sure what you really mean. Be honest with me – would you rather live with her instead?” I shook my head free of her grip, at the same time shaking myself free from thinking about Eden, and forced a laugh. “No, no – definitely not. It’s just strange is all. I’ll see her again next week, and that’s enough for me.” --- > But then I will win her back once again. I will lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her there. ... > > She will give herself to me there, as she did long ago when she was young, when I freed her from her captivity in Egypt. When that day comes, says the Lord, you will call me ‘my husband’ instead of ‘my master.’ O Israel, I will wipe the many names of Baal from your lips, and you will never mention them again. ... > > I will make you my wife forever, showing you righteousness and justice, unfailing love and compassion. I will be faithful to you and make you mine, and you will finally know me as the Lord. I will show love to those I called ‘Not loved.’ And to those I called ‘Not my people,’ I will say, ‘Now you are my people.’ And they will reply, ‘You are our God!’ (Hosea 2:14-23, selected verses) ### Lunatic's Ark URL: https://randalljgreene.com/lunatics-ark/ Last updated: 2025-01-15T14:46:33.000Z **Damn the naysayers! Damn the unbelievers!** ## Build The man’s aging back arched as he lifted the sledgehammer high over his head. His ark was almost finished. This joint at the pinnacle of the vessel was the culmination of years of obsession - obsession that had driven away all of his friends and most of his family. They had branded him a lunatic, but he had long ago embraced their mocking and now let it drive him. Their words would be hollow when he controlled the destiny of humanity. The earth’s salvation would soon be his to command. Not everyone had abandoned Lunatic. Even now, one of his sons held the pin as Lunatic prepared to drive it deep into the wood. The boy implicitly trusted his father’s confident, steady hands. And Lunatic’s elder son was busily stocking the ark with his wife, gathering enough food and drinking water to sustain them through the impending darkness. Lunatic’s shoulders tensed and he swung the hammer in a calculated arc. It struck the pin squarely, planting it firmly deep into the joint. He struck the pin until it was anchored flush with the beam. Though there was no crowd to celebrate with him, he exulted that the building of his ship, the opening chapter of his vision, was complete. He raised his face heavenward and saw the sun receding behind the trees on the horizon. Closing his eyes, he imagined what he must look like from the earth below, his silhouette standing alone, triumphant atop the majesty of the ark. The blues and magentas of the sky mixed behind him as if painted in tribute to his glory. He drew a deep breath and held it in his lungs for a long moment as he reveled in his victory. Lunatic started when he felt his son’s arms wrap around his chest, viciously breaking his moment of jubilee. He stifled an angry sigh and absently rubbed the boy’s head. Their preparation for the rain was not yet done. The boy only wanted to celebrate because he had no idea that hell was about to become reality. Lunatic and his sons and his son’s wife spent the next weeks gathering, drying, and packaging food. They loaded enough meat, fruit, vegetables, and drinking water into the lower levels of the ship to last for months. The time to board the vessel was drawing near - the second chapter of his plan would soon begin. ## Day of Peril From its very beginning, something was different about the day of peril. Even the pre-dawn darkness was drenched in ominous stillness. Instead of a rising sun, daybreak began with the descent of heavy, gray clouds. The taste of cold iron lingered in the air. Recognizing the signs, Lunatic ordered his sons into the ark. As they settled into their quarters, he gathered his final supplies. He inspected his axe - a weathered tool that had served him well through the years of construction. Its long handle was worn smooth from use and had a belt of leather at the end so he could strap it across his back. He ran a finger along the blade and noted that it didn’t break his skin. Checking the sky, he decided he had time to sharpen it. As he worked on the blade, he felt the first drops of water fall from the sky. The tempest was near. He tested the blade again and, satisfied, sucked the drops of blood from his fingertip. Slipping the strap over his shoulder, Lunatic ascended into the belly of salvation. The rain intensified as he stood on the deck of the ship. The earth sprawled before him, a bleeding slave begging forgiveness from its new master. For a while, the land thirstily absorbed the water, but finally puddles began to form. The puddles collected into ponds and the ponds into lakes. Lunatic watched as a group of townsfolk emerged from the treeline and ran toward his ark seeking shelter. He counted twelve of them and they carried no supplies on their backs. They had fled their homes in haste. The fools began to climb the ramp, aspiring to join him in safety and praising him for having foresight to build such a vessel. Lunatic reached down and found the rope securing the ramp to the deck. As the twelve neared the top, he untied the knots until his grip was all that separated them from damnation. One man saw what he was doing and froze. A silent scream caught in the man’s eyes as Lunatic opened his hands and felt the rope fly through his fingers. The ramp moaned and tilted to one side before it collapsed entirely, burying the group beneath a bed of timber. More townsfolk converged on the ark and Lunatic pulled the dangling length of rope up to the deck before anyone could latch onto it. In desperation, some of them tried to climb the ship’s trusses, using joints and footholds where they could find them on the hull, but their fates had been decided long ago. Lunatic watched silently as their frenzied shrieks rose in pitch and intensity as the water continued to pour from the sky. Lakes merged into seas and the ship creaked against its supports as the vessel began to float. As Lunatic’s ark breathed its first breaths, he lifted his face to the clouds and stretched his arms wide in a welcoming embrace. Laughter boiled from the pit of his stomach and rolled across the waters below him, drowning mercilessly the cries of the dying. ## Betrayal Lunatic awoke with a start, groggy and unsure of his whereabouts. The purity of the darkness around him was suffocating as he searched overhead for the stars. He heard the crash of a wave and the room rocked to the side, flooding his mind with the memory of the ark and the victory of the day before. He smiled and sucked cool air deep into his lungs. He had been wrong - the darkness was not suffocating. It was filling him, strengthening him for the task ahead. He felt for the lamp he knew should be mounted beside his bed and lit the wick. A warm glow revealed the sparse furnishings of the tiny room. The bed and a small table occupied one half of the room, and a small chest filled with clothes and personal items took up the other half. The only other item in the room was Lunatic’s axe leaning against the wall by the foot of his bed. Lunatic dressed himself, detached the lamp, and moved silently into the hallway. It was impossible to tell the time of day from inside the vessel, but his internal clock told him the boys should still be sleeping in their rooms down the hall. He eased open the door next to his own and peered into the room. His younger son snored quietly as his chest rose and fell in discord with the sway of the ship. Closing the door softly, Lunatic stepped further down the hall and pressed open the last door. His elder son lay naked on top of the bed with his wife curled peacefully at his side. They all slept. Though the entire world was in the throes of annihilation, the sounds of destruction were but a lullaby to his children as they slept. It was time for the final chapter to begin. Resolve glinted in Lunatic’s eyes. He returned to his room and retrieved his axe, slipping its familiar weight once more across his back as he made his way to the ladder that led up to the ship’s deck. Standing before the hatch that led outside, he pressed his ear to the door. He heard the relentless pounding of the rain and tightened the axe strap around his shoulders, preparing himself to face the storm’s onslaught. Placing his shoulder against the hatch, he shoved it open enough to squeeze himself through, then let it slam closed behind him. The torrent of cold water instantly permeated his clothes, pelting his face and taking his breath away. The gray sky suggested that the sun was futilely trying to penetrate the clouds on the horizon. There would be no dawn on this day. Lunatic crossed the deck to where the ramp had once connected to the ship. The rope hung over the edge dangling into the water below, still attached on one end to its mooring atop the ark. Lunatic hoisted the other end and secured it around his arm. He stepped up to the edge closed his eyes. This was the moment he had spent years preparing for. He had given his life to feel this rush of power and need. One step forward and there would be no turning back. He bent his knees and launched himself from the deck. Raindrops pierced his skin like tiny knives as he plummeted toward the ocean below, but the miniscule pain was only a glimmer of what he knew was to come. He fell for what seemed an eternity, his body frozen in time as the weight of the world collapsed his lungs. Finally he struck water. The impact’s violence threatened to tear the rope from his hand, but he tightened his grip and hung on for life. A wave lifted him high and smashed him against the side of the ship, driving the wind from his lungs, then pulling him away again. Another wave approached and he examined the ark to calculate his approach. He found the handholds he had built into its side and prepared himself for the wave’s power. When it thrust him toward the ship, he used the momentum to propel himself toward that handhold and, reaching it, wrapped both arms around it in a death hug. He felt with his feet for the tiny ledge that ran around the ship’s circumference and stabilized himself against it. With the rope still wrapped around one arm and the wave retreating, Lunatic unstrapped the axe from his back and hefted it in his free hand. Another wave would hit in just a few moments, so he quickly searched the hull for weakest seam within reach. His eyes landed on a spot at perfect arm's length and he memorized its location. He heard the roar of the wave approaching and hugged the axe close to his body, bracing himself for the impact. Water crushed his body into the ship. He thought he felt a rib crack before the water left again. Grimacing in determination as he gripped the tool once again in his hand, he lifted the blade far above his head and brought it in a wet, glimmering arc to strike the side of the ship. Pieces of wood splintered as the shock of the attack reverberated through the handle and up his arm. Pain lanced through his surely-broken rib cage, but he lifted the instrument over his head again and once more struck the side of the ship in the same place as before. Another wave approached. He braced himself once more against the ark, his savior, as the water pressed him against the hull then tried to pry him loose. When the ocean receded this time, he felt pressure on the rope still tied to his left arm. He looked up and saw his sons shouting down to him and pulling the rope in an attempt to lift him back onto the deck. They had heard the pounding and come to stop him - the fools! They pulled with such force that his body, still anchored to the handhold on the side of the ark, felt like it was being torn in two. He had no choice but to release the rope. It snapped upward and Lunatic watched as his lifeline disappeared into the heavens. Reminding himself of his mission, he renewed his grip on the handhold and his footing on the ledge. Taking the ax in his hand, he lifted it and swung at the seam on the side of the ship. His destruction turned into a rhythm: brace against the wave, then attack the ark. Brace against the wave, then attack the ark. He repeated this for what felt like hours. What started as a small gash in the vessel’s hull grew until the ocean itself could finish the job. Lunatic wished he could scale back up the hull and stand atop his ark as the last bit of it sank into the water. As the ocean tore apart his dreams, he imagined what it would feel like to slowly sink into the depths, to feel his entire life beneath his feet as it plunged into the depths. But no, there could be no contemplation, no awareness, just hacking until the end. Hacking until the moment his lungs filled with water and the life drained from his eyes. So hack he did. As he breathed his final water-filled breath, he willed his arm forward, axe gripped ever tightly in his hand. ## End It didn’t take long for his ark to sink. The surging sea quickly exploited the hole he’d carved. Lunatic’s sons did all they could to survive, but a world covered by water offered precious little to sustain them. Lunatic’s younger son died that very day; the elder and his wife were able to drift on the wreckage for a time before they died of dehydration. But none survived. Lunatic had defeated his unbelievers and had, in the process, damned humanity. ### The Problem with "Biblical" Opposition to John Piper's Pacifism URL: https://randalljgreene.com/the-problem-with-biblical-opposition-to-john-pipers-pacifism/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T15:54:58.000Z About a month ago, John Piper published an article called “[Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves?](http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/should-christians-be-encouraged-to-arm-themselves?ref=randalljgreene.com)” in which he confronted the evangelical enthusiasm for carrying firearms. Personally, I rarely find myself on the same theological page as Piper, but as I read his piece, I found that he expressed many of the same ideas that I had come to believe. For perhaps the first time in my life, I was nodding in agreement as I read a Piper article - I was pleasantly surprised. Not so surprisingly, his post unleashed a firestorm in evangelical circles. Pastors and writers across the country (several of whom I sincerely respect) took up their pens and responded with what they usually called a “biblical response” to Piper in which they detailed everything they thought he’d gotten wrong. Since I’m always looking to better understand viewpoints that oppose my own, I was genuinely curious to see how they could biblically refute the theological depth of John Piper’s article. I was utterly disappointed at how unbiblical all of the responses I read were. The arguments against him seemed to fall into 3 main categories. ### 1\. The Bible doesn’t actually forbid us from arming ourselves, so who are you to say we shouldn't? The essence of this argument is that Scripture never explicitly says “Christians shouldn't carry weapons.” In fact, it’s often pointed out that Christ tells the apostles to take a sword with them as they go out into the world sharing the gospel (Luke 22:35-38). I can only assume that the writers using this to rebut Piper didn’t actually read his article. Piper thoroughly covers the breadth of the scriptural case for pacifism, mankind his case using everything from specific verses to broad narratives. He addresses verses that deal with responding to evil and adversity (Matthew 5, Luke 21:12-14), the perils of responding with violence (Matthew 26:52), and rejoicing in affliction (1 Peter 2-4), and he even addresses the passage in Luke that is often used to support the carrying of arms. He discusses the sweeping themes of the gospel that demand our commitment to self-sacrifice, trusting in God for our protection, and holding loosely to the joys of this world. To be sure, there is no soundbyte of Jesus forbidding arming oneself, but Piper's point is that the entire narrative of the gospel compels us to reject the human desire for self-preservation. **Conclusion:** The Bible does not contains a one-liner condemning firearms, but the entire focus of Piper’s article was on providing the biblical case to oppose a call to arms. Piper makes his case about as thoroughly as anyone can make a case for anything in Scripture. ### 2\. The Bible tells us that government is God-ordained, and the government gives us the right to bear arms, so we have an obligation to do so. First, let’s be clear that as Christians, our citizenship is first in the Kingdom of God (Philippians 3:17-21). As we examine the narrative of Scripture, our aspiration should be to live as God calls us to live, whether that jibes perfectly with the Constitution or flies completely in the face of it. This idea that the government is “an instrument of God’s justice, so we should embrace its laws” sounds great when the issue is one that we support, but how many times do we take that stance regarding other governmental regulations? The government has legalized abortion, but when was the last time you saw evangelicals rallying behind that law? When the Supreme Court decided to federally allow same-sex marriage, how many evangelicals flocked to support gay rights? When Obamacare passed, how many evangelicals touted it as a Christ-reflecting effort to care for the sick and poor? We seem to have a bad habit of supporting the government, even calling it "ordained of God," when it benefits our own agendas, but then decrying that same government when it creeps on [our perceived rights](https://randalljgreene.com/2015/01/its-my-right-part-2/). We cannot claim God’s providence over the government mandate on one of these issues and cry human depravity on another. If our foundation is scriptural, it must be consistently applied. **Conclusion:** If Scripture had absolutely nothing to say on the issue of self-preservation, this argument would carry some weight. With the amount of scriptural support Piper’s provided, though, this argument simply sounds to me like the writer opened his Bible hunting for anything to justify his desire to conceal-and-carry and, finding nothing, was forced to conjure up a weak, quasi-biblical link between American citizenship and theology. ### 3\. Biblical justice demands that we be prepared to defend our families and neighbors (Good Samaritan and whatnot), and that means we must be armed. The crux of this argument seems to be that is our duty as love-filled humans (or men, or Christians, or Americans) to use lethal force to prevent a crime against others. Let’s investigate this argument. First, what we're *not* talking about: We’re not talking about vengeance. We all agree that seeking out a person who has wronged us in order to kill them is utterly wrong. We’re also not talking about war or law enforcement personnel (those are deep discussion that deserve their own place and time). What we *are* talking about is self-defense (or defending our neighbors). If you scour Scripture to find examples of God’s people using lethal force in self-defense, you will necessarily find yourself relegated to the Old Testament. And there you will find plenty of support for your position. One of the most-frequently used verses to support lethal defense is Exodus 22:2: > If the thief is caught breaking in and is beaten and dies, the one who killed him won’t be guilty of bloodshed. This particular example isn’t a strong one (the verse doesn’t encourage a person to kill the thief, it only says that the one who kills him shouldn’t be punished), but the Old Testament is certainly filled with violence-laced scenarios. David, Samson, Gideon… there is almost no end to the list of men of God who killed to defend themselves, their home, or their families. If you want to debate the biblical case to bear arms, the Old Testament is where your argument lies. As I’ve read through the New Testament, though, I have found no support for this argument after the birth of Christ. Christ himself refused to fight back against his attackers. Surely there is some meaning to be found in that fact. **Conclusion:** This argument may actually be compelling. It is rooted in Old Testament values, but it can definitely be described as biblical. I'd be interested in hearing a further exploration of this idea. ### But here’s where I personally fall in this discussion. I intentionally try to live based on New Testament principles. Christians today live within a new covenant that exists to fulfill the death brought about by the Old Testament law. The new covenant is found in the life of Christ, so when I am looking for [a model of how I should live](https://randalljgreene.com/a-life-after-christ/), I look to the examples laid out in the New Testament. And even though the Christians of the New Testament lived in a society that systematically hunted, tortured, and killed Christians, I see exactly zero examples of Christ (or the apostles) encouraging or condoning the use of violence in defense. Instead, I see them admonishing Christians to consider it pure joy when they are persecuted and to heap kindness upon their enemies. For the early Christians, these were not hypothetical scenarios - they were real situations that happened every day. If the Christian life dictated the taking up of arms to protect oneself, wouldn’t Christ or the apostles have mentioned it at some point? Every time violence or suffering is discussed in the New Testament, Christians are being called to radically demonstrate the gospel of hope and grace by surrendering their right to self-preservation. If they were called to live the gospel in such a way, shouldn’t I do the same? --- #### Selected References: - [“A Biblical Response to "It's Not Christian" to Arm Yourself by Carrying a Concealed Weapon”](http://www.wadeburleson.org/2015/12/a-biblical-response-to-its-not.html?ref=randalljgreene.com) (Wade Burleson) - [“A Bible Believer Responds to John Piper’s Call for Christians to Not Be Armed”](http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/a-bible-believer-responds-to-john-pipers-call-for-christians-to-not-be-armed/?ref=randalljgreene.com) (Geoffrey Grider) - [“A biblical response to John Piper’s denial of the Right to bear Arms”](http://americanvision.org/12837/a-biblical-response-to-john-pipers-denial-of-the-right-to-bear-arms/?ref=randalljgreene.com) (Dr. Joel McDurmon) - [“A Response to John Piper: Why Gun Ownership is Biblical and Good”](http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/12/23/a-response-to-john-piper-why-gun-ownership-is-biblical-and-good-part-a/?ref=randalljgreene.com) (JD Hall) - ["John Piper and Guns"](https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/110052.html?ref=randalljgreene.com) by Douglas Wilson (despite my overwhelming objections to almost everything he teaches, I actually very much appreciated his thoughts on this) ### Discerning Fear with the Help of Faith URL: https://randalljgreene.com/discerning-fear-with-the-help-of-faith/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T15:51:17.000Z We live in a scary world. Every time we turn around, we discover something new that causes us to fear for ourselves, our families, or our friends. At the same time, there’s no shortage of cheesy Christian memes on Facebook reminding us to “Fear not, for I am with you always!” and chastising us any time we feel anxious. The idea that we don’t have to fear anything because we have God the Mighty Warrior on our side sounds great on paper, but it doesn’t feel real when we are face-to-face with the dark sides of life. - For the single mother who has no job and a growing pile of debt... - For the parents whose child is laying on a hospital bed awaiting surgery… - For the driver gripping the wheel for the first time since the nearly-fatal accident… - For the student whose ability to afford college hinges upon one exam... ...for them, in that moment, the understanding that God cares for them feels superficial. Fear is what feels real. I cannot sit here behind my computer and tell you that I have this fear/faith thing figured out. I don’t have any answers. But I think that **as we grapple together with what fear is and how it relates to faith, we learn how to keep fear in its place and nurture faith instead.** I’ll lay out some of my thoughts, but I hope that you join in the conversation via the comments section at the bottom of the page so we can work through these questions together. ### Fear is not the same as caution. This is an excuse we use all the time. “It’s not that I’m scared… I’m just being cautious.” Ninety percent of the time, that’s a load of bull. Caution, we all agree, is important. It’s the preparation that enables us to live full, confident lives. For example... - We lock our doors at night. - We buckle our seatbelts when we get in a car. - We check our blind spots before we merge. - We get vaccinated against deadly diseases. Living cautiously simply means that we’re able to actively engage with our community because we are using common sense to avoid unnecessary disaster. ### Fear is a natural emotion. A friend of mine described fear this way: “Fear is about my perceived lack of control. Life has messed with my circumstances. I feel out of control.“ Being afraid is an emotion that, at its foundation, is no different than happiness, sadness, or excitement. When we find ourselves in certain circumstances, our bodies and our minds respond by making us feel scared. When we are in situations in which we don’t feel we have control, it is entirely natural for us to be scared. I don’t want to gloss over that, because I think it’s vitally important for us to understand that *it’s okay to feel fear*. We should never be ashamed of it. In this crazy world that we live in, fear is real. A couple of months ago, Shannon had a terrifying experience while driving. It was pitch black and raining in the early morning while she was heading to work. When traffic started slowing down, she tapped her brakes at the same that that her tires hit a patch of water, and her car hydroplaned, spinning through the fast lane and stopping against the barricade that separated her from the cars heading the other direction. When she looked up, she had only rotated halfway - she was facing oncoming traffic. Even that early in the morning, there were a lot of cars on the road so she was unable to turn back around or even get out of her car to safety. For nearly ten minutes she was forced to stare at cars bearing down on her at 60-70 miles per hour. **The emotion of being afraid is a natural human response and, in many situations, is completely justified.** ### Fear quickly escalates. H.P. Lovecraft wrote that “The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear,” and I don’t think he’s too far off. Fear can quickly become incapacitating, freezing us from being able to live full, productive lives. When Shannon had that terrifying experience on her drive to work, she was traumatized and was completely incapable of driving in dark, rainy weather for a while. That fear that she felt initially was real and justified, but it took root in her mind and grew until it was more than just an emotion. It was a powerful, crippling presence in her life for a time, and the effects of that fear linger to this day. ### Fear is rarely productive. **When fear grows beyond a basic emotion - when it begins to dictate the way we act - it becomes unhealthy.** Living cautiously is a positive thing for many of us, but living under an umbrella of fear leads us into constant worry. It has us continually watching our backs because we cannot trust those around us. And when we’re so busy protecting ourselves, we have no time to care for those around us. As I write this, we are in the second week of Advent - the candle we lit at our church this week was the candle representing Love. The message centered around the love that God expresses toward us and how we are to mirror that same love to the world in which we live. But it is impossible for us to love those around us when we are solely focused on protecting ourselves. Fear wants to bind us into this perpetual cycle of self-preservation, but **the gospel of Christ –** [**the model by which we are to live**](https://randalljgreene.com/a-life-after-christ/) **– is a message of turning the natural instinct of self-preservation on its head and pouring ourselves out for the good of others.** ### Fear will never win. I know that you already know the end of the story. With God for us, what do we have to fear? Who, or what, can stand against God? In the middle of terror, that assurance sounds trite and does little to keep us from being afraid - and that’s okay. There is nothing wrong with feeling afraid. But when we let that emotion grow and take root in our lives, we give it power over us - and that's *not* okay. When we give ourselves fully to God and trust in him to guide and sustain us, we are able to focus more on demonstrating Christ’s love to the world. And, speaking from personal experience, when I spend time intentionally loving those around me, the fear in my life begins to melt away. ### Faith illuminates fear. Living a life of faith shines a spotlight on the fear that we’re living with. Being faithful doesn’t mean that we never feel that emotion of being afraid, but it means that we are able to keep it in its place. Faith reminds us to live selflessly, loving others instead of protecting ourselves, and remembering that God is the one who always has and always will take care of us. Faith means letting God lead us and trusting that his Word is sufficient to direct and protect us. ## Practical Steps to Reduce Fear In my life, I’ve taken some intentional steps to reduce the impact that I let fear have. - **I confront fear head-on.** When I feel it rising, I pray: “God, I’m not in control here - you are. I completely trust you to take care of me as I’m going through this. I admit that I’m afraid, but give me strength to rely on you.” - **I have stopped watching television news.** The networks make money by highlighting or fabricating drama, so they prey upon our emotions. I can’t emphasize enough how impactful this step has been in my life. - **I keep an eye out for fear-mongering and refuse to listen to it.** The propaganda of fear is *everywhere* on social media. If a friend endlessly posts depressing updates and articles about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket, I don’t feel bad going to their profile page and unfollowing them. What do you do to defeat the grip of fear in your life? I'd love to hear your tips, so please share your thoughts in the comments below. ### A Life After Christ URL: https://randalljgreene.com/a-life-after-christ/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T15:47:36.000Z For me, the ultimate goal of my faith is to live the type of life that Jesus Christ modeled. I appreciate the deep theology of Paul, I love the practical wisdom of James, and I admire the firm convictions of Peter, but it is Christ that I pursue. Christ is the one I emulate – that’s why, despite the fact that the term “Christian” has become associated with judgmentalism and discrimination, I still call myself by that name. During his time on earth, Christ had a lot of attributes: - He lived a holy, sinless life - He was self-sacrificing, even to the point of giving up his life - He promoted peace - He loved his neighbors...and his enemies - He fought for justice in the face of inequality But when I look at the grand narrative of Christ’s life, I am inescapably drawn to his mission. Why did God send him to earth? Certainly there were a lot of reasons, but the one that seems to be the most dominant to me is that he came to show the entire world the beautiful, life-giving grace of God. In my pursuit of becoming more and more like Christ, it’s easy for me to focus on becoming more “holy” - more pure, more sanctified. But sinlessness was simply a characteristic of him as God. I, on the other hand, am a sinful, messed up man. Sin is a characteristic of my humanity. That’s not to say that I should be content with my sinfulness – by no means! – but I acknowledge that it’s a reality. From time-to-time, I will fall short. **But despite falling short in my own life, I can continue to live out his mission. I can always show grace.** The greatest sin I can imagine would be for me to accept the grace that Christ extended to me, and to keep it bottled up inside myself. I want people to be able to look at my life and see the grace of God radiating through me. Like the jug of oil that did not run dry, Christ refills me with grace before I can ever run out. The more I pour into the people in my life, the more he fills me up. As I live, then, I try (and often fail, to be sure) to follow Christ’s example. His own words in Luke 6 perfectly demonstrate his life. > But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them. > > If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. > > Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you. > > … Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye. In my pursuit of becoming more and more like Christ, I must remember that his purpose was not simply to live a sinless life; rather, he came to earth in order to extend the grace of his Father to all humanity. ### No more pooping inside. URL: https://randalljgreene.com/no-more-pooping-inside/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T15:45:32.000Z Oscar pooped in the house. Again. When Shannon and I lived in Oklahoma, we were around the house pretty much all the time. I worked from home and Shannon worked at the church across the street, so our fur-baby Oscar got used to having us around. When we moved back to Kansas City, though, Shannon and I took positions with office hours, and both of our offices are over half an hour from where we’re living. As a result, Oscar is home alone for eight or more hours every day, and he is not happy about it. I take him for a walk every morning and Shannon takes him out every afternoon, so he has plenty of opportunities to do his business outside. And he’s not ignorant of the rules - he *knows* that he’s supposed to poop outside. When Shannon gets home from work, if he’s pooped in the house, he greets her with his tail between his legs and rolls over onto his back in a sign of apology and submission. **He knows the rule, but he breaks it anyways.** I think the big reason is that he doesn’t really *understand* the rule. He knows that he gets punished for pooping in the house, but he doesn’t get why it’s unsanitary. It seems arbitrary to him, so it doesn’t feel important - it carries no weight in his mind. This is how I see his day going: He begins the day napping, but eventually the hours of isolation take their toll and he gets bored. His little mind fixates on what he can do to express his frustration until, in a fleeting moment of rebellion, that arbitrary rule becomes optional and he pops a squat in the middle of the basement floor, where he knows we’ll see it. Immediately after committing this sin, he realizes its consequences. His mind races for ways to cover it up, but he is unable to make his droppings of indiscretion disappear. He hears a car door close outside and then a key in the front door. With no time left to hide, he has no choice but to apologize and pray that Shannon can forgive him again. Shannon, seeing the evidence of his rebellion, spanks him, punishes him and, a few minutes later, hugs him and tells him she still loves him even though he messed up. Though we forgive him every time he poops in the house, we do not condone it. It is still completely unacceptable, and we continually trying new things to break him of this bad habit. **I think this is an apt metaphor for how I often treat sin in my life.** The rules that God has set in place feel arbitrary and inconsequential - I *know* the rules, but I don’t *understand* why he established them. I try to obey, but in times of frustration or complacency I make the rules optional and choose to rebel against them. No matter how many times I break the rules, though, God is always loving and, after I’ve endured the consequences of my sin, is there to hug me and love me – not to excuse my behavior, but to show me grace and affection. **This metaphor isn’t perfect, though.** Oscar will never be able to truly grasp the reason for the rules Shannon and I have put in place. His brain simply isn’t able to process at that level. But God didn’t make humanity that way. We’re not God's pets – we are God's children, made in God's own image with the ability to think and understand. As we grow closer to God, we get to *know* God. God has given us the capacity to truly discern right from wrong. I pray that I am never content to simply obey the rules. I want to always press forward into deeper maturity, into a better understanding of the heart and character of God. ### scream. URL: https://randalljgreene.com/scream/ Last updated: 2025-07-03T18:10:35.000Z everyone screams, : no one knows pain. defend our rights, : strip one another. aim the weapons, : shoot oneself. become a martyr, : crucify another. screams everywhere, : whispers expose the truth. ### A Nation After Christ URL: https://randalljgreene.com/a-nation-after-christ/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T15:40:39.000Z There are a lot of different ideas about whether the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Regardless of those ideas, though, the [majority of Americans](http://publicreligion.org/2015/07/is-america-a-christian-nation-nearly-half-of-americans-no-longer-think-so?ref=randalljgreene.com) now say that the United States of today isn’t Christian nation. The question, then, is whether we should strive to establish the United States as a Christian nation for tomorrow. Conservative voices across the country join together to demand laws that defend the biblical definitions of marriage and protect expressions of Christian faith on government property. They cry for Christian men and women to speak up, protest governmental authorities, and stop the rise of secularization in our nation. Certainly, Christians should hope for all Americans to come to know Christ in a real and personal way. We should have that same hope for *all* the world. But is legislating our Christian ethics the way we are to bring people to Christ? ## Let’s start with some of the core, universal beliefs of evangelical Christianity. At the heart of evangelicalism is the idea that **authentic Christian faith is personal**. The decision to live your life for Christ is one that each individual must make for himself. It’s not something that can be inherited or passed along or absorbed by sitting in a pew. We believe in **the transformative power of a relationship with God**. When a person commits their life to Christ, the Holy Spirit speaks to them and draws them closer to God. We believe that **community is a vitally important part of Christian life**. We come together to worship, to support one another, and to challenge each other. I understand the desire to create a Christian culture. After all, we want to live in a wholesome society that shares our values. And since we believe in the right-ness of our values, we believe society can be improved by adhering to our values. And we feel that if the world would simply live by our ethics, the United States would be a beautiful, happy place to live. But here’s one of my big hangups with that. When we create laws based on the Bible\*, we are effectively discouraging people from having a personal relationship with Christ. We’re telling them they *have to* live a Christian life rather than allowing them to discover *the joy* of living a Christian life. It’s like reading books. I’ve always loved reading - I was one of those kids that went to the library every other week and brought home 10 books to read over the next 14 days. In school, though, we were always assigned a list of books to read, and working through those books was torture. They weren’t bad books. They weren’t boring or difficult to understand. I just hated reading them. Since I’ve been out of school, I’ve re-read a number of those books for fun, and I’ve been astounded at how incredible those books are. I’ve loved reading them. Why do I enjoy them so much now even though I hated them in school? I think the biggest reason is that, in school, they were required. I had no choice in the matter - I *had* to read them. Now I can read them by my own choice. I see them as literature and understand their beauty and their value. By creating laws founded solely on the Bible, we’re doing this same thing to a lost and broken world. Instead of showing them how transformative our faith is and how much impact it has on our lives, we are making Christianity into “assigned reading” and forcing them to abide by rules that were explicitly given to the people of God. **When we compel the world to live by our rules, we take the heart out of the gospel.** Legislation will never change a person’s heart. As evangelicals who hold firm to the transformational power of a personal relationship with Christ, we should not seek to change the behavior of our nation - we should seek to change the heart of our nation. **And to change the heart of our nation, we must look first at our own hearts.** Ironically, the biblical commandments that we most loudly want to legislate are the very ones that we most often fail to achieve. *Biblical marriage?* Marriage in the church has been broken for a long time. Pornography, adultery, divorce, and abuse run rampant even among Christians. *Sanctity of life?* Christians are some of the leading proponents of capital punishment, war, and lethal self-defense. We champion the lives of unborn children, yet we rush to judge and isolate single mothers instead of showing them that we will support them as they raise their child. When we allow the Spirit of God to fix the brokenness within ourselves, when we are able to show the world that our relationship with Christ has transformed us, we won’t have to enforce our faith through governmental might. People will be drawn into that radical beauty. Roger Olson says, > Nothing will speak louder to the world than love and justice practiced within Christian communities. Until and unless that happens, the world of culture can hardly be expected to experience Christian involvement as anything but hypocritical and frightening. ## But what does the Bible say about it? Christ was born into one of the most corrupt societies the world has ever known. The Roman empire was absolutely consumed with lust and pride. The Jews living under Roman occupation were anxious for their Savior - someone who would [deliver them politically](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepangeablog/articles/unpublished-papers/behind-lukes-gospel-the-roman-empire-during-the-time-of-jesus/?ref=randalljgreene.com) (even militarily) from the rule of the Romans. They anticipated a Messiah who would unite them as a people under a God-fearing governmental authority like the kings of Israel in the Old Testament. **Instead, God sent them Jesus.** This Jesus had opportunities time and time again to overthrow the Roman authorities - he had the power of God at his command and with one word could have delivered his people from their oppression. He could have summoned an army of angels to conquer the kings of men across the entire world. But when the Pharisees tried to entice him to start a revolution against the corrupt government, he refused, instead telling them to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” He instructed them to give the things of the world over to the world and to give their hearts to God. ## Christ’s example reminds us to set our eyes on God rather than on the kingdoms of the world. He passed on every opportunity he was given to establish an earthly government based on his own system of values. He expected people to reject him and told his disciples to expect the same. Christ didn’t pay much attention to the laws and governmental regulations. He focused instead on being a beacon of light in the midst of darkness. So as a Christian, a follower of Christ, I strive to do the same. I am not going to focus my efforts on reforming a secular government to meet my standards of Christianity. Rather than forcing the world into the mold of Christianity, my goal is to demonstrate the brightness and beauty of the light of Christ. Let’s bring the kingdom of God to earth not through legislation and worldly politics, but through actually living out the gospel of being a people set apart unto God. --- \* I should clarify that I do think there are plenty of biblical values that can and should be legislated - for example, murder should certainly be against the law. But the Bible should not be our only source of validation for any governmental authority. Murder is wrong because it causes harm to another person - the laws against it are not based on Scripture alone. ### In Light of Love URL: https://randalljgreene.com/in-light-of-love/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T15:37:25.000Z The past couple of weeks have been filled with discussions of truth and love and how to balance the two. This article is the second part of a series exploring the idea of truth and love living together in beautiful harmony. The first part, “[In Defense of Truth](https://randalljgreene.com/in-defense-of-truth/),” sought to understand the value of speaking the truth for Christians and determining how we are to find that truth. Even greater than truth, though, is the command to love (1 Corinthians 13). This article will examine love and how we can truly demonstrate love to those around us. --- Let’s begin with the understanding that none of us deserve God’s love. We stand firmly on the truth of the gospel that, when we least deserve it, God shows us mercy (Romans 5:8). We live confidently knowing that, though we deserve condemnation, he has chosen to give us grace and he is pleased to call us his children. ## We are called to likewise love the unlovable. Over and over throughout the Bible, we are called to love those who least deserve our love. Just as Christ loved us while we were still sinners, we are to demonstrate that same care and concern for the “others” in our lives. Luke 6:27-29 says: > Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Who is your enemy? It’s the troll who hijacks your posts on Facebook. It’s the woman who is trying to get you fired. It’s those miscreants who broke into your home while you were away on vacation. **This is not an easy calling, and Christ understands that.** A few verses after he compels us to love our enemies, he continues, > If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. (Luke 6:32-36) My personal paraphrase of this passage goes like this: Has someone taken advantage of you? Let them do it again. Has someone hatefully labeled you? Demonstrate to them how much the label doesn’t fit. Has someone infringed upon your rights? [Choose to lay down your rights.](https://randalljgreene.com/its-my-right-part-2/) To do otherwise is to be the same as the world. **If we claim to follow Christ, we must love the most unlovable of people.** ## We are also called to love our brothers and sisters in Christ. Sometimes those closest to us are the hardest to love. It hurts deeply when we feel betrayed by those who bear our own name, and we are quick to push away our fellow Christians. But as followers of Christ, we must humble ourselves and choose to love our brothers and sisters. Jesus Christ tells us “just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:34-35). Peter urges us to “keep loving one another earnestly” (1 Peter 4:8) and Paul tells us to “above all… put on love” (Colossians 3:14). Regardless of our differences, we must resolve to demonstrate love for one another. But what does it mean to love? There is a chasm between saying that we love someone and demonstrating that we love them (1 John 3:18). ## Loving our enemies means extending them grace. While we were still sinners - while we were enemies of God - Christ loved us and gave himself unto death for us. That is the model that we are to follow. Though it seems impossible, even irrational, that is our call. Our hearts should break for our lost neighbors. We should be willing to sacrifice everything we have for them to understand the grace that Christ extends to us. And I can’t help but feel that if we truly cared for them, we would treat them much differently than we often do now. I hesitate to discuss any particular topic because the discussion of loving one another is much bigger than any particular segment of our population. With the recent Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage at a federal level, though, we American evangelicals find ourselves at a crossroads in how we approach the LGBT conversation. **Since gay marriage is a legal reality, we must ask ourselves how we as Christians should respond.** The reactions so far have tended to be either jubilation or condemnation. Both of these reactions have claimed to be rooted in love: jubilation in loving celebration of equal rights for all, and condemnation in loving concern for the souls of their fellow Americans. For many conservatives, they see the LGBT community as falling within the definition of “enemies.” They view the gay lifestyle as one that is explicitly sinful and contrary to the call of Christ, and they want to challenge that community to live for Christ. I don’t intend to discuss the sinfulness-or-not of the LBGT community - that topic is far beyond this piece. But when we are thinking of confronting anyone living a lifestyle that we consider sinful, shouldn’t we follow the model that Christ himself used when approaching the non-religious? **When Jesus confronted sinners throughout the gospels, he was overwhelmingly graceful.** Some examples: - **The Samaritan woman at the well**: Jesus engaged with her one-on-one and developed rapport with her. When he had the opportunity to condemn her for her sinful sexual relationships, he chose instead to gently guide her to the gospel - the truth that he was the Messiah who had come to deliver the world from slavery to sin. (John 4: 7-26) - **Zacchaeus, the greedy tax collector**: Jesus built a relationship with him by inviting himself over for dinner. Though Christ could have called attention to the man’s sins publicly, he chose not to do so. Instead, he celebrated the man’s heart. (Luke 19:1-10) - **The woman who washed Christ’s feet with tears/perfume**: In spite of her sinful lifestyle, Christ valued her heart’s zeal as far greater than that of the devout religious man who had invited him to dinner. (Luke 7:36-50) - **The unclean woman with the bleeding disorder**: When she touched his robe and made him “unclean” according to the religious standards of the day, he welcomed her. When he could have condemned her for breaking the religious Law, he encouraged her and told her that she was clean. (Matthew 9:20-22) When Christ was ministering to a person, he always began by extending him grace. Shouldn't we behave in the same way? Rather than offering sweeping condemnation on a public platform, build a relationship with that person. Be his friend. Spend time with him. When you’re given a chance to condemn or humiliate him, embrace him and demonstrate the grace that we ourselves have been given. Loving others isn't about compromising the truth of the gospel - it's about returning to the heart of the law. And the heart of the law begins with grace. **We demonstrate love to a broken world by showing them the grace of God.** It’s the Holy Spirit’s job to convict sinners of their sin (John 16:8-9). When we condemn the lifestyle of a sinner, we are taking over the work of the Holy Spirit as if it were our own. Surely the Spirit is more effective than I will ever be. ## But Christ also had a confrontational side. Particularly as he related to the religious leaders of the day, Jesus tended to be a bit more brash. - **The Pharisees**: Christ repeatedly called them hypocrites for their reliance on the strict observation of the traditional Judaic law rather than depending on the direction of the heart (Matthew 23). - **The Sadducees**: Christ told them flat out that they were wrong and that they’d forsaken Scripture and the power of God (Matthew 22:29). - **The religious scribes**: Christ accused them of elevating their own religious traditions above the heart of God’s law (Mark 7:5-16). - **Money-changers in the temple**: Christ angrily turned over their tables and told them that they’d turned the house of God into a “den of robbers” (Mark 11:15-17). - **The Herodians**: Christ called them hypocrites for trying to trap him in a question about paying taxes. (Mark 12:13-17) When religious leaders forsook the gospel - whether that was by neglecting the truth of Scripture, holding to a legalistic means of grace, or taking advantage of others - Christ boldly and unapologetically confronted them on their hypocrisy. As we read the gospels, we see that time after time Christ condemned them for reducing the gospel to a series of rules that they compelled believers to follow. I pray that we do not make that same mistake. Instead, let’s strive to balance truth with love. Let’s stand confident in the truth that we are the redeemed children of God. Let’s rejoice in the grace that Christ has given to us and let’s extend it to a broken world. --- > If I speak with human eloquence and angelic ecstasy but don’t love, I’m nothing but the creaking of a rusty gate. > > If I speak God’s Word with power, revealing all his mysteries and making everything plain as day, and if I have faith that says to a mountain, “Jump,” and it jumps, but I don’t love, I’m nothing. > > If I give everything I own to the poor and even go to the stake to be burned as a martyr, but I don’t love, I’ve gotten nowhere. So, no matter what I say, what I believe, and what I do, I’m bankrupt without love. > > Love never gives up. > Love cares more for others than for self. > Love doesn’t want what it doesn’t have. > Love doesn’t strut, > Doesn’t have a swelled head, > Doesn’t force itself on others, > Isn’t always “me first,” > Doesn’t fly off the handle, > Doesn’t keep score of the sins of others, > Doesn’t revel when others grovel, > Takes pleasure in the flowering of truth, > Puts up with anything, > Trusts God always, > Always looks for the best, > Never looks back, > But keeps going to the end. > > Love never dies. Inspired speech will be over some day; praying in tongues will end; understanding will reach its limit. We know only a portion of the truth, and what we say about God is always incomplete. But when the Complete arrives, our incompletes will be canceled. > > When I was an infant at my mother’s breast, I gurgled and cooed like any infant. When I grew up, I left those infant ways for good. > > We don’t yet see things clearly. We’re squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. But it won’t be long before the weather clears and the sun shines bright! We’ll see it all then, see it all as clearly as God sees us, knowing him directly just as he knows us! > > But for right now, until that completeness, we have three things to do to lead us toward that consummation: Trust steadily in God, hope unswervingly, love extravagantly. And the best of the three is love. ### In Defense of Truth URL: https://randalljgreene.com/in-defense-of-truth/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T15:37:47.000Z I’ve been involved in many conversations recently about the importance of truth and love. The phrase that we frequently hear is that we need to “speak the truth in love” as a means of balancing honesty and care. Many times, though, it seems that we either fall so far on the side of truth that we lose compassion or we fall so far on the side of compassion that we never speak the truth. It shouldn’t be this way. I believe love and truth can live together in beautiful harmony. In this article, I will explore the value of truth, and in the follow-up piece I will look more closely at [the impact of love](https://randalljgreene.com/in-light-of-love/). --- In an age when reality is becoming gray, seeing the world in black-and-white is increasingly taboo. Stating your belief that something is necessarily wrong is a certain way to be labeled a hater, bigot, or worse. **American society has become a place where we are almost unable to believe anything at all with conviction, but the gospel of Christ teaches us that we can — and should — rest in truth.** The Bible has [a lot to say about truth](http://www.openbible.info/topics/truth?ref=randalljgreene.com). Over and over we read that “\[God’s\] word is truth” (John 17:17) and that Christ is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). We read that truth is an integral part of the armor of God (Ephesians 6:14) and that the Church is to be a “pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). According to Scripture, the truth is an important part of the Christian faith. We are told explicitly that “the truth will set \[us\] free” from slavery to sin (John 8:32). We should never abandon the truth, and we should never walk in fear of expressing the truth — no matter how unpopular it becomes. Truth is a foundation of the Christian faith, and we cannot abandon it. ## How do we know the truth? Here in John 8, Jesus is speaking to a group of educated Jewish religious leaders (scribes and Pharisees) at the Temple in Jerusalem. At the beginning of the chapter, the Pharisees brought before Jesus a woman who had been caught in adultery. By Jewish law, she deserved to be put to death, but they asked Jesus what he thought should be done with her. He started playing with the dirt at his feet and told them that whichever of them was without sin should cast the first stone. When they all turned away, Jesus told the woman that he wouldn’t condemn her either. Then Jesus turns back to the Pharisees and declares himself to be the “light of the world” (John 8:12) and defends his claim that he is the Son of God. It is in this context, as he is teaching these religious experts who knew the Scriptures forward and backward, that he speaks of truth (verses 31-32): > If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. He tells these educated, respected leaders of the faith that their knowledge of the Torah and the Law was not the path to truth. If it was, they would certainly have known the truth already. Instead, Christ tells them they can only know the truth by abiding in him, the Living Word. It’s important to note that the “Word” he mentions is not a reference to the Scriptures and traditions the Pharisees already knew so well — it is pointing to Jesus himself as the Living Word, the full and perfect expression of the gospel truth. The Reformation Study Bible explains: > Holding to the teaching of Christ who is the truth leads one to the truth that sets a person free from slavery to sin. Salvation is not obtained by intellectual knowledge as the Gnostics imagined, but by a vital relationship with Jesus Christ and a commitment to the truth He revealed. Moments before his statement on truth, Jesus confirmed his divinity and offered himself as a light in the darkness of the world. He’d been given the perfect opportunity to display God's wrath and justice on a woman who had been already been condemned by the devout Jewish leaders; instead, he deliberately gave her mercy and compassion before she could even ask for it. **This demonstration is the gospel of Christ. And according to Christ, this gospel is where we find the truth.** As Christians, we are called to have confidence in the truth (Romans 1:16-17) and we are told we will know the truth by living the gospel. But that’s all very ephemeral — what does it mean in real life? ## Applying Truth to My Life ***Having confidence in the truth*** means that I stand firm in my beliefs, but it also means that I respect the beliefs of others when we disagree. The truth as Christ describes it is not a right doctrine, but a right relationship. Confidence is the virtue at the center of a spectrum — on one end of the spectrum is insecurity and on the other end arrogance. I try to live in the balance of the two. When I start to feel superior in my self-perception of right-ness, I know I’ve allowed healthy confidence to swing into arrogance. And let's be clear: confidence is not the same as truth. In many circles, the idea of being "certain in the truth of our doctrine" has trumped the inherent value of faith that leaves room for doubt. [Frederick Buechner](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/180310-doubts-are-the-ants-in-the-pants-of-faith-they?ref=randalljgreene.com) said, "Doubts are the ants in the pants of faith; they keep it awake and moving." Honest, sincere questions are signs of a growing, vibrant faith. Let us embrace them. ***Living the gospel*** means that I demonstrate the mercy that Christ modeled, which requires extending grace to people who don’t deserve it. I believe leading with gentleness and humility is how we most effectively teach God’s message of hope and love to a broken world (2 Timothy 2:24-26, Philippians 2:3-8. In closing these thoughts on living the truth of the gospel, I’d like to share something that one of my good friends, Austin Reed, wrote to me recently: > My goal is to not only be loving but to be gentle. I think more often than not when we speak of "love" what we mean is "gentleness." In other words, I don't have to compromise on my moral theological commitments to be gentle and humble with the person with whom I disagree. I know I don't always live up to that, but I'm more and more convicted of a need to live meekly trusting in Christ for any future vindication. For Part 2 of this series, [take a look at "In Light of Love."](https://randalljgreene.com/in-light-of-love/) ### The Joy of Pride URL: https://randalljgreene.com/the-joy-of-pride/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T15:32:53.000Z A couple of weeks ago, a friend asked me, “What is the most important piece of advice you’ve ever received?” That’s a difficult question to answer because I’ve received a lot of great advice over the years. The first thing that came to mind, though, was a message about pride shared with me back in elementary school. --- On my first day of fourth grade I didn’t know anyone. It wasn’t the first time that I’d been the new kid in class. I was used to that by now. It was best to just blend in – experience had taught me that there would likely be a new school next year. Good grades came easy to me because it was really easy to remember facts and information. When the time came for the class to select its representative for the annual regional spelling bee. I would have been a natural pick based on my high marks in Spelling, but a student named Andrew had represented the class every year since kindergarten. Our teacher decided to do a mini-bee between the two of us to see who would go to regionals. I studied my butt off for weeks. The mini-bee took the form of a written test and the highest score would win. Although the list was comprised of hundreds of difficult words, I felt prepared and confident because of the work that I had invested. After grading the tests, the teacher announced that I had won the mini-bee and, what’s more, I had achieved a perfect score. As she told the class how impressed she was at my score, I fought to keep a smile off my face - I didn’t want to gloat in my accomplishments. My teacher saw my internal struggle and, a few moments later, pulled me into the hallway to share some wisdom that I’ll never forget: > Randy, you worked really hard on this, and you should be proud of what you did today. God made you with some incredible gifts, and you should be excited about what he’s doing in your life. In high school a few years later, I was hanging out with my best friend, a guy from my youth group. As we were casually chatting, I could tell he had something heavy weighing on his mind and he was trying to decide how to confide in me. Finally he turned to me and said, > At church they always talk about the sin of pride and how we should eliminate it from our lives because it’s evil. I’ve been trying to live like that, but it really sucks. I feel like everything I do has some bit of pride in it. I can’t respect myself this way. It makes me want to give up. It’s like I can’t have any hope unless I can have some pride. My friend and I went on to discuss pride and what it looks like in our lives. That conversation, like the one with my fourth grade teacher, is one that I’ll never forget. I think we Christians tend to give pride a bad rap. We spend a lot of time talking about the dangers of excessive pride and arrogance (don’t get me wrong - those dangers are very real), but we spend precious little time talking about the other side of it. John Maxwell describes pride like this: > There are two kinds of pride, both good and bad. 'Good pride' represents our dignity and self-respect. 'Bad pride' is the deadly sin of superiority that reeks of conceit and arrogance. **When we truly understand how God cares for us, we can’t help but value ourselves and the work God is doing in and through us.** We are incredible creations of God (Eph. 2:10). None of us are perfect, but we’re all beautiful. He made us as wonderful works of art and we should *take pride* in that fact. Our value doesn’t come from what others think about us - it comes from God, who considers each of us priceless. We mean everything to Him, and we should be proud to be called his. This doesn’t just impact our personal lives. It carries over into our professional lives, as well. Many of us work in careers that we find rewarding and spiritually fulfilling, but at the same time, many of us do work that seems fruitless and boring, as if it’s only purpose is to provide us with a paycheck. Even when our job feels mundane, we need to remember that it has been given to us by God. He has placed us in that particular role for a reason (even if we’re not sure what that reason is), so we should perform our duty with conviction. We should work diligently, faithfully and proudly. Whether we’re serving food at Burger King or speaking to inspire audiences of millions, our service should be a point of pride because we’re doing God’s work in that role. (Eph. 6:5-9) I am grateful that my fourth grade teacher and my high school friend taught me to take pride in I am and what God is doing in me. ### A Call for Conservative Voices URL: https://randalljgreene.com/a-call-for-conservative-voices/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T15:30:33.000Z Conservative Christians, I believe in you. I love you. I admire your faith, your witness, your dedication to Scripture. I value your voice - let no one silence you! You are a crucial, effective part of the Christian faith. We need you to continue kindling our spiritual fervor for being in a personal relationship with Christ. We need your steady reminders about the importance that the Word of God holds for our daily lives. **But my heart is breaking for you.** When I survey the landscape of Christian writers, the conservative voices that I hear most clearly are not the voices that accurately represent you. The conservative conversation is being dominated by writers who are giving you an identity that is not your own. These writers have become so occupied with shouting the “defense of the Gospel against liberalism” that they’ve forgotten the greatest commandments. ### You are kind and loving and humble, but the most vocal of the conservative Christian voices that claim to speak for you proclaim judgment and hate and arrogance. I consider myself a political and theological moderate, but I was raised in a strictly conservative home. Even though my own views on some matters have changed with time, I have nothing but respect and appreciation for the way I was raised - the hearts and attitudes of the people in my life were pure and beautiful. My conservative community taught me discernment and trained me to challenge the ideological norms of the world. As I’ve grown, I’ve made it my mission to seek the middle ground, the place of reconciliation between polar extremes, the sanctuary of peace between the labels. I embrace the positives in both liberal ideals and conservative thoughts alike. But recently, based on the loud online conversations of conservative extremists, I am finding less and less of your position that I can defend. **I want to stand with you in defense against the far left, but I need ground to defend.** I need to hear you - the real you, not the ones that claim your name but don't share your values - so I can stand alongside you. We all know the Bible’s “Love Chapter” and what it says about loving our spouses. Try to read it with me today, though, as if you were reading it for the first time. Apply it to the way we treat those with different ideologies, whether that’s the liberals, the conservatives, the LGBT supporters, the traditional marriage advocates, the egalitarians, the complementarians, or any other “other” perspective. > If I could speak all the languages of earth and of angels, but didn’t love others, I would only be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I had the gift of prophecy, and if I understood all of God’s secret plans and possessed all knowledge, and if I had such faith that I could move mountains, but didn’t love others, I would be nothing. If I gave everything I have to the poor and even sacrificed my body, I could boast about it; but if I didn’t love others, I would have gained nothing. > > Love is patient and kind. > Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. > It does not demand its own way. > It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. > It does not rejoice about injustice > but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. > Love never gives up, > never loses faith, > is always hopeful, > and endures through every circumstance. > > Prophecy and speaking in unknown languages and special knowledge will become useless. But love will last forever! Now our knowledge is partial and incomplete, and even the gift of prophecy reveals only part of the whole picture! But when the time of perfection comes, these partial things will become useless. > > When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things. Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely. > > Three things will last forever - faith, hope, and love - and the greatest of these is love. Conservatives, you understand this. I know you do. But those who speak for you seem to have forgotten this message of love. **I need you to stand up. I need you to *speak* up. I need your compassionate voice to demonstrate to the world that people can stand firm in their beliefs without belittling those who disagree.** Write. Comment. Share. Conservatives, you have a special place in my heart and I need to hear your voice – your true, authentic, loving, humble voice. ### Those Who Most Need It Will Never Read It. URL: https://randalljgreene.com/those-who-most-need-it-will-never-read-it/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T15:28:34.000Z We love to be told that we’re right, especially when that validation is coming from a source that we respect. Reading blogs and articles that affirm our beliefs gives us confidence in our own sense of right-ness and pats us on our proverbial backs. As a society, we have a natural tendency to take this to an extreme and predominantly seek out sources to confirm the perspectives that we already hold. For example, if we believe in the value of attending church services every week, we skip over headlines like “[15 Reasons I Left the Church](http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/15-reasons-i-left-church?ref=randalljgreene.com)” in favor of articles like “[15 Reasons I Returned to the Church](http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/15-reasons-i-returned-church?ref=randalljgreene.com).” Or if we are social conservatives, we read rants on why [all liberals hate freedom of speech](http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/how-blue-the-sky-was.html?ref=randalljgreene.com); whereas if we are social liberals, we read diatribes condemning [all conservatives as ignorant rednecks](http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118066/brookings-survey-fox-news-home-most-conservative-republicans?ref=randalljgreene.com). We even see this in the news channels that we watch - you can tell a lot about a person’s politics by asking whether they watch Fox or CNN. We feel strong and encouraged when people agree with us, but it is dangerous for us to live within a bubble of affirmation. Here are three reasons why. ## 1\. It stagnates growth. Learning is defined as the acquisition of knowledge or skills. We cannot learn things unless they are new to us; we cannot grow without being exposed to things that we don’t know or understand. When we skip over articles that present a different perspective than our own, we are depriving ourselves the opportunity to learn and grow as individuals. Even if we don’t agree with the article, the simple act of reading it with an intent to learn from it will enable us clarify our own beliefs and help us to better understand the beliefs of others. As Aristotle once said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” If we’ll look a little closer as we read these articles, we’ll often find that there are nuggets of truth in them that can be invaluable to our own systems of belief and thought. ## 2\. It reinforces stereotypes. Because it is so natural for us to seek out stories that bolster our own ideas, we end up forming communities of people who all think the same way, and we all reinforce those common ideas in one another. There’s nothing wrong with being in community with like-minded people, but when those are the only places that we get information, we find ourselves becoming blissfully unaware of the world outside that circle. Soon we enter a self-perpetuating spiral of misunderstanding. Because we seldom have meaningful interactions with people outside our own worldview, we dismiss and objectify them. Rather than seeing our neighbor as a loving father and husband, we see him as a conservative bigot (or a part of the liberal agenda). Rather than seeing him as an intelligent contributor to society, we label him a troll or redneck. We end up with a caricaturized stereotype of any group of people outside our bubble - a stereotype which usually bears little resemblance to real people. ## 3\. It creates an us-against-them mentality. When we allow ourselves to indulge false stereotypes, our tendency is to paint those people as diametrically opposed to us. Our differences then divide us. We might feel like we have to defend ourselves against a perceived attack from the other side - an attack which often doesn’t exist. As a result, we live in fear of an imagined enemy that we think is trying to suppress (or even persecute) us. We cry “that’s discrimination!” or “that’s the liberal agenda!” any time someone expresses a viewpoint different than our own. If we would all leave our bubbles and engage with those who live and believe differently, we would find that we have a lot in common with one another. ## Let’s do things differently. This is certainly not an exhaustive commentary on the dangers of confirmation bias. It’s also not to say that we should abandon like-minded thinkers from our day-to-day lives. I simply ask that we make an intentional effort to understand the perspectives of others. If we want a kinder, more loving society, we have to start by listening to one another. --- (Note: In the spirit of my own post, I could be entirely wrong in thinking that confirmation bias is an issue for American society. The New York Times seems to think, based on a study by Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro, that [media fragmentation has very little role in the cultural polarization](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/us/liberal-or-conservative-the-problem-is-ignorance.html?%5Fr=0&ref=randalljgreene.com) that we see in the United States. Instead, they say that we’re just politically ignorant.) ### A Whisper, Stronger than the Storm URL: https://randalljgreene.com/a-whisper-stronger-than-the-storm/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T15:21:42.000Z The world is spinning for me right now. So much has happened in the past couple of months that I don’t even know how to begin processing it all: - In South Carolina, an African-American man was shot in the back multiple times by a police officer. After killing him, the officer planted evidence to corroborate a story that he made up as a defense. - Religious freedom legislation in Indiana has raised a firestorm of media (and social media) attention, leading many people on both sides of the issue to draw hard lines in the sand. - A Vice President of a religious university was demoted, seemingly because of a sermon he delivered on peace. A few weeks later, at a separate religious university, a prominent and tenured theologian was laid off for questionable reasons. These situations, and many others like them, have led to some BIG questions, big discussions. They are conversations that need to happen. But instead of conversing like adults, many of us - on all sides of the issues - are making assumptions and shouting with vitriolic disdain. Then we’re surprised when the other side gets defensive and responds in kind, resulting in a multi-tiered escalation that can only conceivably result in destruction. **Everyone, including myself, wants to be heard over everyone else.** Thad Norvell pointed out that when we (Christians) approach a potentially divisive issue, we should focus [less on our position and more on our posture](http://thadnorvell.com/2013/06/26/gay-marriage-and-the-posture-of-the-gospel/?ref=randalljgreene.com). He stated it so: > No matter how correct your position, if your posture toward a world you believe to be “still sinners” is anything other than a love that stubbornly refuses to condemn, but instead gives itself away to point to Jesus giving himself away, you are on your own. You are not standing on the truth of the scriptures or the shoulders of Jesus. Right position without the posture of God revealed in Jesus is not the Gospel. > > Carry on with the discussions.... We need those conversations. Just remember that if we claim the name of Jesus, we are not ambassadors of moral positions or good behavior; we are ambassadors of a transcendent reconciliation possible only in Jesus, who made God’s love for sinners known not by a posture of condemnation, but of cross-shaped love. I am convinced, along with Norvell, that we (I include myself in this) have become obsessed with our *position* on tough topics and have forgotten the *posture* that Christ took for us - and calls us to take as well (Luke 9:23). But I still keep catching myself defending my *position* on a topic instead of committing myself to a Christ-like *posture*. It’s easy for me to get caught up in shouting matches - particularly on outlets like Facebook, where it’s easy to conveniently forget that it’s a real person on the other side of the screen. From now on, I am committing to converse with love and respect instead of shouting my stance on an issue. That’s not to suggest that I don’t have a position or that I won’t speak my position - I’m not taking a vow of silence. It simply means that I’m going to listen first. I’m going to do everything I can to see things from the perspective of the other side. And when I do speak, I will speak quietly and respectfully, from a posture of love - on my knees in prayer. We are a noisy world, and shouting just gets lost in the din. I think God is telling me that, at least for now, I need to speak in a whisper. I need to trust more in his voice than in my own. And I hope whispers are contagious. ### The War is Coming! URL: https://randalljgreene.com/the-war-is-coming/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T15:18:29.000Z “The war is coming – the war is here!” The men tighten their belts, the men sharpen their blades. Arm in arm and hand in hand, they form a group, united to stand. Their helmets glint bright, breastplates pulled tight. “The war is coming – the war is here!” Hour upon hour they spend in training. Thrust and parry, deflect and thrust. Run in circles, in circles they run. Practice for battle, in preparation they trust. “The war is coming – the war is here!” A mantra of strength, of resisting the night, take up arms, fight the fight. The Captain makes rounds, inspects the troops. Shield by shield and tip by tip and mount by mount and face by face, the Captain approves, the men stand straight. “The war is coming – the war is here!” The soldiers assemble, in rank and in line. Pride in their smiles, they ride out to fight. Swords drawn free and voices raised high, they march onward to vict'ry tonight. “The war is coming – the war is here!” First sight of the enemy, so vast and fierce, but their feet stay firm and they grip their spears. The Captain lends courage to their eager ears – the soldiers charge on, eager to pierce. “The war is coming – the war is here!” When the battle is over, the field lies cold, even quiet. Grass chars on the earth while the dead butchered bodies bleed no more. Mothers and fathers and children of yesterday have passed on to heaven today. Flames still lick at the homes now gone, the only light left on this savage night. To the east the soldiers stand in triumph, in marvelous joy of not a soul lost in fight, in this battle they fought for the sanctity of life. “The war is coming – the war is here!” ### A Longing, An Inspiration URL: https://randalljgreene.com/a-longing-an-inspiration/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T15:16:40.000Z I need the inspiration of a long and tortured night. Fill my heart, my mind with visions of wonder, delight. I need the sultry velvet of dusk half-drawn To draw me into its light ‘fore it fades to dawn. Shall my heart leap within me at the mention of your name, When my heart, cold, alone, knows only pain? But if I can, by chance or faith, feel again inside, Then I will run, leap to your arms and cry. Time regardless and joy none to care, I will be joyful, regardless, when I am there. As one, I need another with whom to lengthen and die, But first I need the inspiration of a long and tortured night. ### The Slippery Slope of Denying Inerrancy URL: https://randalljgreene.com/the-slippery-slope-of-denying-inerrancy/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T15:09:45.000Z When I was a kid, my parents had this amazing blue recliner. It was the most comfortable seat in the house, and I loved it. The chair had some cosmetic flaws - it had a few tears and stains, and it squeaked a bit as you rocked. As my mother would say, the flaws “added character.” But the chair was completely sturdy and it did what it was intended to do perfectly. For most conservative evangelicals, the concept of biblical inerrancy – the entire, factual accuracy of the Bible – is foundational to faith. The idea of an “errant” Bible is a scary thought. I was discussing this with a friend of mine the other day, and he humbly expressed his thoughts like this: > I think that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is a sort of gatekeeper to all sorts of potential false teachings and outright heresies. Now, it doesn't at all mean that someone who doesn't hold to biblical inerrancy IS heretical or believes a bunch of completely unsound things, but I do think there's a slippery slope, and that it becomes much more difficult to know where to stop if you aren't holding to the inerrancy of Scripture. In my experience, this is an entirely common approach to the discussion. I was raised in a mix of conservative independent Baptist and Southern Baptist churches – this is the exact same perspective that I held for many years. The logic goes like this: If one piece of the Bible is false, then where does it end? If we accept any errors in the Bible, then the entire Bible is in doubt. If the Bible is wrong, that would make God a liar - since he is most definitely not a liar, the Bible *must* be inerrant. My goal in this post is not to convince anyone one way or the other about biblical inerrancy. Instead, I simply want us to better understand what people mean when they deny an inerrant Bible. ## Strict Inerrancy First, let’s take a look at what “biblical inerrancy” means. There is actually a wide range of ways to define inerrancy, but whenever I hear people talking about it, they are almost always referring to *strict inerrancy*, a doctrine formalized in 1975 by [The Chicago Statements on Inerrancy and Hermeneutics](http://defendinginerrancy.com/chicago-statements/?ref=randalljgreene.com). For the sake of brevity, I won’t publish the entire statement, but here is the part that seems to be the key (emphasis mine): > **Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.** The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church. Essentially, the thought is that each word of the Bible was verbally dictated by God to the human author that put pen to paper. Each story, song, proverb, admonition, and rebuke is completely accurate in terms of religious, historical, scientific, or any other basis as intended by the (human) author. As the statement further explains later, “history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth.” **The Chicago Statements admits that reading the Bible, just like reading anything else, requires some level of interpretation** – it requires understanding the author’s intent for a particular passage. What it doesn't discuss, though, is the method by which we determine how each section of Scripture was intended. Sometimes this distinction is obvious. It’s easy enough to deduce that the Psalms are meant to be poetry and that 1 Kings is supposed to be history. Sometimes, though, the author’s intent is unclear. Is Job supposed to be read as a history lesson or as an allegory? There are many passages where the distinction between *descriptive text* (relating to a specific culture and context) and *prescriptive text* (pertaining to churches and Christians across all cultures and contexts) becomes quite muddy. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, Christians generally accept that the commands were written specifically to that culture and don’t apply to us today; in contrast, just a couple of chapters later, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is taken to mean that even in our culture today, women are not allowed to have positions of authority in the church. How do we know that Paul meant one to be culturally relative and the other to be universal? The doctrine of strict inerrancy doesn't address these questions – it just assumes that the answers are explicitly obvious from within Scripture. ## Soteriological Inerrancy Soteriology is the study of salvation. Soteriological inerrancy, then, is **inerrancy in every part of the Bible that pertains to salvation**, and this is the method of Scriptural interpretation that is held to by a majority of Christian denominations. Here are a few of them: - Church of the Nazarene - United Methodist Church - Presbyterian USA - Anglican/Episcopal - American Baptist Churches - United Church of Christ - Disciples of Christ - and many others So what does soteriological inerrancy *say*? Here is the United Methodist Church’s statement on the Bible, taken from their [Confession of Faith](http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/confession-of-faith?ref=randalljgreene.com): > We believe the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, reveals the Word of God so far as it is necessary for our salvation. It is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice. Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be made an article of faith nor is it to be taught as essential to salvation. (Article IV) The [Articles of Faith](http://nazarene.org/articles-faith?ref=randalljgreene.com) from the Church of the Nazarene says largely the same thing. In these definitions, it is important to note that they question neither the authority nor the inspiration of Scripture. They don’t say that God has lied to us or that we can’t trust what the Bible tells us. Rather, they affirm that the Bible is our guide through life and the foundation for our understanding of our Father and his plan for us. **Within *soteriological* inerrancy, the authority of Scripture is in no way dependent on *strict* inerrancy**. Millions of Christians all over the world hold firm to the idea that the Bible is true, authoritative, and sufficient, without needing to believe that every detail contained within it is historically and scientifically accurate. This view has been around for as long as the Christian faith itself, and the Christians that follow it have yet to venture down the "slippery slope" into heretical abandon. **Indeed, no matter where you stand on inerrancy, Christians believe that Scripture is authoritative not because it is completely inerrant, but because it is God-breathed.** In his article, “[A Layman’s Historical Guide to the Inerrancy Debate](http://www.reformation21.org/articles/a-laymans-historical-guide-to-the-inerrancy-debate.php?ref=randalljgreene.com),” William B. Evans (himself a Reformed proponent of inerrancy) reminds us that: > The Bible's authority flows from its divine origin. ... The Bible is not authoritative because of the sublime subject matter it contains, or because it is infallibly accurate (though it is that). It is authoritative because of its divine origin. When we claim that a strictly inerrant view of Scripture is necessary to Christian faith, we risk placing Scripture in the position of God himself. We must remember that our worship is for God – not for the message that he’s given us. ## The Root of the Issue I myself have been on both sides of this debate, and I've had deep discussions with a lot of people that come at it from all different angles. This is certainly not to say that I have perfect knowledge on inerrancy, but I feel like I have a somewhat balanced perspective. **From what I've seen, the heart of the disagreement comes down – in practical application – to a broad statement on biblical interpretation.** Strict inerrantists value the Bible as a historical account and scientific manual as much as they value the Bible as a spiritual guidebook and God's Word for our lives. Soteriological inerrantists, on the other hand, say that God's Word, as a plenary text, was written to tell us the story of God's interaction with humanity and as a guide for our lives. The text’s historical and scientific value is taken as a bonus. This line of thought falls directly in line with my personal understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16-17\. In this passage, Paul doesn't tell us that Scripture is flawless in a historical or scientific context – he says that it is profitable and authoritative in our lives as we strive to be made complete in Christ. ## But there has to be more to the disagreement than that. Biblical inerrancy is a huge issue, and there’s no way that we can tackle it all here. And really, my goal for this post isn’t to address the issues. I simply want to help you see that those who deny biblical inerrancy (or “strict inerrancy,” as that is the term’s connotation) aren't in danger of losing their souls or sliding down a slippery slope of hopelessness. We must remember that we all worship the same God and we have all been saved by the same Christ. The scarlet thread of God’s love for a broken world is perfect in a way that only he could have authored. --- For further reading, I’d encourage you to read the full statements of faith that I've linked to throughout this article. Each link details the Scriptural support for its particular perspective. In addition, here are a some other excellent resources: - “[Further thoughts on why ‘inerrancy’ is problematic](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/06/further-thoughts-on-why-inerrancy-is-problematic/?ref=randalljgreene.com)” by Roger E. Olson - “[Nazarenes Reject Strict Inerrancy](http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/nazarenes%5Freject%5Fstrict%5Finerrancy?ref=randalljgreene.com)” by Thomas Jay Oord - “[Nazarenes, Calvinists, and the Authority of Scripture](https://theecclesialcalvinist.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/nazarenes-calvinists-and-the-authority-of-scripture/?ref=randalljgreene.com)” by William B. Evans - “[The Modern Inerrancy Debate](http://www.crivoice.org/inerrant.html?ref=randalljgreene.com)” by Dennis Bratcher - “[A Layman’s Historical Guide to the Inerrancy Debate](http://www.reformation21.org/articles/a-laymans-historical-guide-to-the-inerrancy-debate.php?ref=randalljgreene.com)” by William B. Evans ### Redefining Masculinity URL: https://randalljgreene.com/redefining-masculinity/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T15:03:03.000Z *Note: This is a follow-up post to* [*Imitation Masculinity*](https://randalljgreene.com/imitation-masculinity/)*. Reading that post is not a prerequisite to understanding this post, but you may find it helpful.* --- Men love to watch sports. Men love to *play* sports. In fact, there are probably some men out there playing football right now. Real men aren’t bothered by the weather. They get out there in the mud and rain and do what needs to be done. Probably something like this: And when they're done playing an intense game of football in the rain, they get in their one-ton pickup trucks and drive off into the sunset, heading home to their trophy wives who have cooked them supper from scratch. This is your pretty standard American view of masculinity. We see it all around us - movies, magazines, and television shows all point to it. Even [something as innocent as soap commercials](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JDmb%5Ff3E2c&ref=randalljgreene.com) blast us with this rough-and-tough definition of what it means to be a man. It’s one thing to be bombarded by these messages - but we Christians haven’t succumbed to the pressure! We stand firmly against this cultural definition of manhood! ....Right? Have you ever read John Eldredge’s book to Christian men, [Wild at Heart](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild%5Fat%5FHeart%5F%28book%29?ref=randalljgreene.com)? or attended a Promise Keeper’s event? What does your local church’s men’s ministry look like? Most of the ones that I've seen are filled with events oriented around sports and guns and camping. There’s an entire movement in Christianity (heavily pushed by Mark Driscoll, among others) that is based around the idea that we need to see Jesus as a rough-around-the-edges, muscled, never-backs-down tough guy. Christianity Today published [an article about the movement](http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/april/27.48.html?ref=randalljgreene.com), saying: > The masculinity movement's solution assumes that Jesus came to model genuine masculinity. The authors don't say so explicitly, but their rhetoric assumes manly instincts are inherently godly. **Even Christians have bought into this simplistic, primitive caricature of what it means to be a man, and we've elevated it to the level of godliness. It’s like we believe that the closer we get to achieving this model of masculinity, the closer we get to God.** There’s nothing wrong with enjoying these types of activities, but our identity needs to be found in something higher. ## How did Christ model manliness for us? If we are Christ followers, then we should model our lives after Christ. **So how did Jesus live? How did he approach masculinity?** Jesus seemed to love spending time with children. We see this over and over again throughout the gospels (see Luke 18:15-17). We also know that Jesus made a habit of serving others, as he did when he washed the feet of his apostles - a task that was reserved for servants (see John 13:3-5). Rather than retaliating against the people who persecuted him, Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, love our enemies, and even go above and beyond to show them compassion (see Luke 6:27-30). He also actively loved and showed grace to the people that society had cast out. > Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, making her stand in the center. “Teacher,” they said to Him, “this woman was caught in the act of committing adultery. In the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do You say?” They asked this to trap Him, in order that they might have evidence to accuse Him. > > Jesus stooped down and started writing on the ground with His finger. When they persisted in questioning Him, He stood up and said to them, “The one without sin among you should be the first to throw a stone at her.” > > Then He stooped down again and continued writing on the ground. When they heard this, they left one by one, starting with the older men. Only He was left, with the woman in the center. When Jesus stood up, He said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” > > “No one, Lord,” she answered. > > “Neither do I condemn you,” said Jesus. “Go, and from now on do not sin anymore.” (John 8:3-11) And he demonstrated his version of masculinity in the strongest way I can imagine as let himself be led to his death for crimes that he didn't commit. ## Grace, Humility, and Compassion When Jesus came to earth, his people expected a warrior, a fighter, a god of a man. But he turned their expectations completely upside-down. When he had the chance to fight, he chose grace. When he had the chance to flaunt his power, he chose humility. When he had the chance to mock and condemn, he chose compassion. Rachel Held Evans, in a [post on the topic](http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/masculinity-crisis?ref=randalljgreene.com), quotes her husband as he talks about Christian masculinity: > The truth is, as a guy, it is more natural for me to want to take vengeance on people, to respond with violence and anger when I've been wronged. It’s easy to buy into the culture’s view of masculinity, which glorifies power and payback. It’s so much harder to take Jesus at his word and forgive as I have been forgiven and serve the way that He served. It’s harder, and it takes a different kind of strength. **God calls us to something so much deeper, so much stronger than the imitation masculinity that we've fallen in love with. How will we respond?** ### Adults, We Don’t Have to Agree. URL: https://randalljgreene.com/adults-we-dont-have-to-agree/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T14:58:31.000Z My faith has grown a lot over the years, and I hope that it keeps growing as I continue to mature. We all grow up with ideas about how life works. As we grow, we learn that some of them are right (don’t touch fire, because it burns), some are wrong ([Santa brings us presents on Christmas](https://randalljgreene.com/santas-not-real/)), and some are simply matters of opinion (sauerkraut is nasty). Part of being a mature adult is having the ability to challenge – and find answers for – those assumptions. **Being able to have truly open discussions about life questions is crucial to growing and learning.** The key word in that sentence is “open.” We Christians (particularly evangelicals) love to talk about the hot topics in our social circles. We love making sure everyone knows exactly where we stand on abortion, creation, and homosexuality. The problem is that we are unwilling to concede that our views could possibly be wrong. When we approach the conversation in this way, we are behaving like a child who, upon being told that Santa isn't real, puts his hands over his ears and shouts “I’m not listening to you! Santa IS real!” **If we are mature in our faith, we have to be able to approach these conversations with the mindset that we COULD be wrong in what we believe.** That’s not to say that we definitely *are* wrong – but we must be able to admit that the possibility exists. Aristotle summed my thoughts up well. He said: > It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ### We Need to Have a Healthy Conversation URL: https://randalljgreene.com/we-need-to-have-a-healthy-conversation/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T14:55:14.000Z In the last few weeks, I have become acutely aware of the fact that we evangelicals are horrible participants in discussions, particularly on social media. I am fortunate to have friends from a wide variety of faiths and religious backgrounds, and recently I've seen several of them publicly wrestling with tough, real-life questions. Through the sincerity of their questions, they have made themselves vulnerable, opening their hearts to the world. And I have been appalled at the way many well-meaning evangelicals have completely derailed the conversations with pat, predictable answers that harm more than they help. Most of the time, these answers don’t even address the question and aren't relevant to the discussion. **Why do we do this?** ## Math has always been easy for me. From the time I first learned how to add and subtract, I've had this innate ability to see the answer long before others. I never had to memorize multiplication tables because I could do the calculations immediately in my head. I could shout out the answer to a problem before anyone else could even begin working it out, and I was rarely wrong. The first couple of times I did this, everyone was impressed. Quickly, though, my immediate answers started to annoy my classmates. I thought I was being helpful (and truth be told, I was having fun), but my casual responses made them feel like I was showing off. To my friends, I was showboating - even arrogant - with my solutions. Even worse, by discouraging them from working out the answers for themselves, I was preventing them from learning. Fractions and long division came as naturally to me as the multiplication tables, but as the problems became more complex, I started getting my answers wrong more frequently. At first, I could convince myself that I’d simply misread the problem, but eventually I had to admit that my easy answers were flat out incorrect. Then I’d have to go back and actually work out the math to see what I’d done wrong. When I started learning more advanced mathematics like algebra and trigonometry, the answers that I got in my head were more often wrong than they were right. I was forced to admit that I *needed* to work out *every* problem if I wanted to get the correct answer, but since I’d spent my entire life skipping steps and figuring the problems in my head, I was woefully unprepared to do the work. I struggled with math for the first time in my life as I had to relearn all of the processes that my fellow classmates had been doing for years. **As evangelicals participating in cultural discussions, we make a lot of those exact same mistakes in our conversations about sensitive issues.** When we respond to our friends with trite, quick answers, we’re devaluing the very real struggle that they are working through. We’re telling them that the answer is easy - it’s right there in front of them, how could they be confused? And the message we are sending with these quick answers is far from the love and respect that Christ modeled for us. Though we are trying to open the doors of truth for them, we are actually shutting them off from the very gospel that they seek. By shouting our answers, we are preventing our friends from wrestling with these same answers for themselves. Instead, we should intentionally and patiently journey *with* our friends in seeking truth. They may very well come to the same conclusions we do, but through the learning process, their faith will grow stronger than it was before. As we journey with them, we may find that our own initial answers were incomplete, and thus *our* faith will be strengthened in the process. Or, we may come to realize that our original conclusions were completely wrong, and we ourselves need to rediscover how to engage with tough issues. **As evangelicals, we have a history of approaching questions with arrogance and judgmentalism, but it doesn't have to be that way. Let’s join hands with our friends and walk with them to discover truth, so that their faith – and ours – might be deepened.** ### 7 Things the Church Is Doing Right URL: https://randalljgreene.com/7-things-the-church-is-doing-right/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T14:51:34.000Z For the past week or so, I've had a serious case of writer’s block. Well, not writer’s block *exactly*. I've been able to put pen-to-paper, but the things that I've been writing haven’t had the voice that I'm used to writing with. They've had a harsh, judgmental, preachy tone that I despise, and when I've gone back and read what I've written, I’m shocked at the way I’ve expressed myself. That kind of tone is not okay - it’s the exact opposite of everything that I (and this blog) stand for. In contrast to how I've been writing lately, I have a couple of friends that have been on Facebook intentionally sharing only [#PositivePosts](https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/positiveposts). They are sharing everything from videos of cuddly little kittens to words of praise for people in their lives who aren't often recognized - but each post is encouraging and uplifting. I've been sitting back and watching them do this all week, and it finally hit me that this was the answer to fixing my bad attitude. I needed to join the [#PositivePosts](https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/positiveposts) party. So I present to you: **7 Things the Church is Doing Right**. Obviously, I can’t speak for every individual local church in the world, but from what I can see of Christ’s followers today, we are doing some incredible things. ## 1\. We’re Worshiping the Same God Whether we worship in a Lutheran church, Baptist church, Catholic church, or Nazarene church, we are drawing closer together as a body of believers. We are growing more and more aware that, even though our worship styles can vary and particular doctrines may be different, we’re all following the same Father. We are increasingly embracing our differences as a mark of beauty rather than seeing them as a blemish of the faith. **Let’s continue to praise the one who made us all.** ## 2\. We’re Praying for One Another I love that when people are willing to share their struggles on Facebook, Christians are able to surround them in communal prayer in a way that was never possible before social media. Just this week, a relative of mine went through a battery of tests because doctors were worried she might have cancer. Through this emotional roller-coaster, it was amazing to see how many people were on their knees praying for her - often people she didn't even know! **Let’s continue to join together in prayer.** ## 3\. We’re Using Our Diverse Talents Accountants, handymen, and other volunteers have long been the backbone of the local church, but we are seeing more and more people bringing their gifts to the altar of God. Artists, craftsmen, musicians, designers - people of all industries and walks of life are finding that God has a place for their talents at his table, and they are working to create a magnificent tapestry of praise to our Father. We, as a Church, are learning to embrace the gifts that he has given us and use them for his glory. It’s a beautiful picture. **Let’s continue to be seek ways to share our gifts with the people around us.** ## 4\. We’re Abandoning Non-Issues As recently as a decade ago, it was common for local churches to split up over stupid things like the color of the carpet or the style of chairs (pews!) that should be installed in the sanctuary. There was also a generational divide between the style of music that should be used in worshiping our Father - a divide that caused a huge rift in many churches. We seem to have largely (although surely not entirely) matured to the point where we aren't allowing such trivial issues to divide us. We are striving to understand and appreciate diverse opinions, as it is precisely these differing perspectives that help us grow as Christians. **Let’s continue to focus on the things that draw us together rather than those that divide us.** ## 5\. We’re Generous With Our Offerings The youth group at my local church has spent the last year working tirelessly to raise money so several teens can attend a once-in-a-lifetime (expensive) national youth conference this summer. Not all of the funds raised have been given by church members, but certainly most of them have. Because of the generosity of our local body, the teens have the trip almost entirely funded, which is incredible. On top of that, though, while the church has been supporting this trip, they've also been raising money for several members of our congregation to go on an international mission trip, and they've additionally been giving a substantial amount of money to ongoing international missions. All of this giving has been on top of their regular tithe. Our local church is a shining example of the generosity of the church today. **Let’s continue giving to fund ministry locally, regionally, and globally.** ## 6\. We’re Impacting Our Communities Beyond simple financial giving, we are making an impact in our communities. I love to hear [stories about what’s going on in places like New Beginnings Church](http://www.graceandpeacemagazine.org/videos/mediaitem/459-claudia-s-story-m15-resurrection-video?ref=randalljgreene.com) because it demonstrate to me that we remember what it means to be little-Christs as we engage with the people around us. We are building real relationships with people and encouraging them (and ourselves) to grow in faith. Our concept of church is evolving from being a meeting place to being a community of faith that is authentically involved in making a positive impact in our world. **Let’s continue reaching beyond the walls of our building and into the lives of our communities.** ## 7\. We’re Learning From Our Mistakes We the Church are full of flaws. Throughout history we've made horrible, sometimes unforgivable mistakes that have cast dark shadows on our faith and our God. But we are learning from those mistakes. We’re learning what it means to love instead of judge. The errors of our fathers and of our fathers’ fathers have taught us that all people deserve compassion and respect, and that we can’t know their heart by examining their flesh. We’re finding that the black-and-white answers we've held on to so dearly are nothing more than mirages in a desert. The real source of life isn't found in hollow interpretations and arguments - it’s found in our common faith, our Lord and our God. **Let’s continue examining our past in order to preserve a more Christ-like tomorrow.** --- What positives do you see in the church that I missed? Post them in the comments below and keep this #PositivePosts party going! ### In Light of the MNU + Randy Beckum Situation URL: https://randalljgreene.com/in-light-of-the-mnu-randy-beckum-situation/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T14:15:41.000Z *Last updated: July 20, 2015, 10:18 pm* MidAmerica Nazarene University recently relieved Randy Beckum of his role as Vice President, although he retains his position as the school's chaplain. The reasons for this move by the school are somewhat unclear. The official announcement from the school suggests that they wanted to allow him to focus more on his chaplaincy, although recent events at the school cast doubts on that assertion. Many have suggested that he was relieved of duty in response to a sermon regarding non-violence that he delivered to the student body about 2 weeks prior to his demotion. The discussion of Beckum's seeming-demotion has overwhelmed my Facebook feed and many of my friends seem to be scrambling for more information, so I want to present as many relevant resources as I have been able to find. - The [blog post by Blake Nelson](https://medium.com/@blakenelson/an-open-letter-to-the-mnu-community-f1bf125469a7?ref=randalljgreene.com) that seems to have sparked the discussion. - Blake Nelson's transcription of [the official MNU statement](https://medium.com/@blakenelson/official-university-statement-afe32d870e08?ref=randalljgreene.com). - [MNU's student newspaper's story](http://mnutrailblazer.com/article/mnu-statement-regarding-dr-randy-beckum?ref=randalljgreene.com) on Beckum's change of position. - [MNU's student newspaper's transcription](http://mnutrailblazer.com/article/manuscript-of-dr-beckum-s-controversial-chapel-message?ref=randalljgreene.com) of Beckum's controversial sermon. - [An editorial from MNU student Joshua Brisco](http://mnutrailblazer.com/article/mnu-community-must-embrace-debate?ref=randalljgreene.com) evaluating the current student climate of the school - A [statement from the MNU President](http://mnutrailblazer.com/article/president-beckum-was-not-censured?ref=randalljgreene.com) in response to the controversy - A [call for transparency](http://shannonegreene.com/2015/02/call-transparency/?ref=randalljgreene.com) from MNU alumnus Shannon Greene (she's my wife, by the way) - An [article in the Kansas City Star](http://www.kansascity.com/living/religion/article11705042.html?ref=randalljgreene.com) bringing regional attention to the concerns - A Change.org [petition for Beckum to be reinstated](https://www.change.org/p/president-david-spittal-mnu-board-of-trustees-reinstate-chaplain-dr-randy-beckum-as-vice-president-of-community-formation?ref=randalljgreene.com) into his VP role at MNU - Examination of [Beckum's public statement and President Spittal's response](http://mnutrailblazer.com/article/beckum-makes-statement-president-responds?ref=randalljgreene.com) - An article in the MNU student newspaper written by [faculty member Mark Hayse](http://mnutrailblazer.com/article/faculty-feedback-the-politics-of-chapel?ref=randalljgreene.com) on the politics of chapel - The complete text of [Beckum's public statement](https://medium.com/@aaronbeckum/a-statement-from-dr-randy-beckum-a70e0aebf5de?ref=randalljgreene.com). - A [Facebook group](https://www.facebook.com/pages/Randy-Beckum-Peaceable-Kingdom-Endowment/379132162286522) has been set up to promote an endowment fund in Randy Beckum's honor. The group describes its mission: "to send a powerful message that financial influence and pressure has no place in influencing what "kind" of Gospel message is preached in our churches." (You can give to this fund directly through the [Church of the Nazarene Foundation](https://nazedugive.com/beckum?ref=randalljgreene.com).) You can watch the original sermon in its entirety below. A group of alumni, friends, family, and current students sent in videos from all over the world in a message of encouragement for Randy Beckum. Here is that video: **My goal is that this post serves as a central place for relevant information and productive conversation.** If you have information that I've missed and you feel should be listed here, please leave a comment. Please note that, since this has become a heated discussion on social media, I will be closely monitoring the comments. I will not tolerate hatefulness or name-calling. **Let's lead with love.** ### Santa's Not Real URL: https://randalljgreene.com/santas-not-real/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T14:01:33.000Z “Daddy, is Santa Claus real?” Anthony squirmed his way onto my lap, forcing himself between me and my book. He pushed his glasses back up his nose and peered up at me. I sighed – this wasn't going to be an easy conversation. Marking my place in the book, I set it on the coffee table. “Of course he’s real, Anthony. Why do you ask?” Was he mature enough to understand the real story of Santa Claus? “Bennie said only babies believe in Santa Claus. He said Santa’s a lie.” Anthony absently played with the pocket of my jacket. There was going to be no getting around this one. I tousled his hair. “You can't always believe what your friends tell you, buddy. Santa is definitely real. His story begins a long time ago.” With as much storytelling flair as I could muster, I told him the story of Saint Nicholas. “He was born in a little town, and his family didn't have much money. When he was a young man, both of his parents died. They left him everything they had, even though it wasn't very much. “Instead of taking that money for himself, though, he gave it away to the people that were even poorer than he was. There was a father who had three daughters, but he didn't have enough money to keep them, so he was going to have to sell them. Saint Nicholas heard about them, and he gave them enough that they were able to take care of themselves. “And that’s just one story of how he helped people. He spent his whole life doing things like that! Santa Claus was a real man, a wonderful man, who made the world a much better place. But the real power of Santa Claus is what he means to us.” I paused to see if Anthony was still listening. His eyes were transfixed on mine, so I continued. “Santa Claus isn't really a man who flies around with a bunch of reindeer on Christmas Eve – he’s a symbol of the goodness we need to show to the people around us. There are a lot of children who don’t get presents on Christmas, and Santa is a reminder that we need to be thankful for what we have and we need to share what we have with others. “The symbol of Santa Claus – what he means to us today – is what makes him important. He’s…” I fumbled for the right words. “Santa is real because his story inspires us and teaches us. He doesn't bring us presents on Christmas Eve, but he teaches us to love people all year round.” I just hoped he was grasping the beauty of the real Santa Claus. Anthony opened his mouth as if he was going to say something, then he quickly shut it again. His mind was working. “So Santa isn't the one who brings us our presents? And he doesn't have reindeer that fly?” I smiled to myself. “No, Santa doesn't bring us presents, and he doesn't have any reindeer.” “Does he live at the North Pole?” “No, he doesn’t live at the North Pole. He lives in our hearts and minds.” At this, Anthony drew his eyebrows drew together in childish fury and pointed his index finger at my face. Confused tears gathered in the corners of his eyes. “So Santa’s not real? I hate you, daddy!” ### If They're Right URL: https://randalljgreene.com/if-theyre-right/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T13:33:53.000Z They say we're arrogant homophobic ignorant blind. They say we're afraid of failure of truth of sight. What if they're right? What if we've lost the faith through visions of self-righteousness? What if we're bigots and cowards driven by fear and hate? What if they're right? Is that why we push to prove that we're right and they're undeniably wrong? Is that why we protest and picket and point and accuse everyone else of hate? If we truly believed our faith was the answer wouldn't we spend less time defending and more time caring for the poor and the broken and those who are victims of their state? We crucify an enemy we see all around us though they approach us with their hands in the air. Imaginary demons a threat to overwhelm us when the demons inside us are the real enemies we share. But we raise our guns aim at the defenseless call them attackers and fire. What if they're right? Have we lost the faith we've defended so hard? Have we forgotten the call to serve to love and sacrifice ourselves for the ones that we've chosen to alienate? ### Coffee, Creation, and Theistic Evolution URL: https://randalljgreene.com/coffee-creation-and-theistic-evolution/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T03:06:13.000Z This may shock some of you, but I love coffee. Hot, iced, espresso, dark roast, light roast - it doesn't matter. It’s delicious. In case you don't believe me, here are just a few of the brewers that I have in my kitchen: - Black & Decker Drip Pot - Moka Pot - Melitta Pourover - Kalita Wave Pourover - Aeropress - French Press - Filtron Cold Brewer Each of these methods makes a slightly different type of cup - some produce a more full-bodied cup, some bring out the sweetness of the coffee, some are just quick and easy to use. On any given morning (or afternoon…), I’ll use whichever one best fits my needs at that time. If you were to ask me which one is the *best way* to make coffee, I’d have a hard time answering. Certainly they each have their strengths and weaknesses (and everyone has their personal preferences), but I can make a great cup with any of them. All else being equal, **the distinguishing factor between a great cup of coffee and a poor one is usually not the method of brewing - it’s the skill of the person brewing it**. ## Young Earth Creationism vs. Theistic Evolution One of the big sticking points in evangelicalism these days is the debate between young earth creationism and theistic evolution. Young earth creationists say that the Genesis account of creation should be read as historical fact. They maintain that God created the light and separated it from the darkness, and that was Day 1, the first 24-hour period in history. The next day, God spoke and separated the water from the sky. The third day, he created dry ground and plants. And so on until the sixth day, when he created mankind. Theistic evolutionists, on the other hand, describe the Genesis account as being mostly symbolic. They say that the “days" referred to in the opening chapter of Genesis aren't *literal* 24-hour days - they are ambiguous “long ages” of time (this is based on an alternate meaning of the original Hebrew word). In addition to contesting the length of a “day” in Genesis, theistic evolutionists say that the account of God speaking the universe into existence is metaphorical and that he used the scientific process of evolution as his tool to accomplish it. Among Christians, this debate is a heated one. Simply mentioning the terms “young earth creationism” or “theistic evolution” is usually enough to get the opposing side worked up. For Christians on both ends, the issue has seemingly become a cornerstone of the faith. **Indeed, we often behave as if a person's perspective on creation determines whether or not he follows the one true God.** And this division breaks my heart. ## Remember the Maker I opened this post discussing coffee and how the most important factor in preparing a cup wasn't the method used to brew it, but the skill of the person brewing it. Plenty of people make the mistake of marveling over a coffee-brewing device, but the real credit belongs to the person brewing it. **In the debate over how the universe came to exist, we similarly make the mistake of spending so much effort focusing on the method of creation that we forget about the One who created it.** Could God have spoken and instantly created every species of animal on earth? Yes. I completely believe God has that much power. Could God have created a system of evolution that resulted in every species of animal on earth? Yes. If he was able to create life by breathing a simple word, he could certainly have put into motion a scientific phenomenon to populate the earth. I completely believe God has that much power. Could he have used some other method that we can’t even begin to fathom? Yes. We may discover, years from now, that everything we thought we knew was false. **We don’t know with 100% certainty what method God used to create the universe, but rather than arguing about it, let’s enjoy the world that he made for us.** I want to end this post the same way that I ended “[Freedom in Biblical Inerrancy](https://randalljgreene.com/freedom-in-biblical-inerrancy/)”: My God and my faith are big enough to handle both literal and metaphorical interpretations, because the truth is that God, the creator of the universe, created me, saved me, and loves me. And the story of how he’s rescued me is perfect. ### Freedom in Biblical Inerrancy URL: https://randalljgreene.com/freedom-in-biblical-inerrancy/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T03:01:20.000Z If I asked three different men to describe the perfect woman, I would get three completely different responses. The first man might describe a tall, blonde-haired, blue-eyed bombshell. The second man might describe a woman of remarkable intellect and drive. And the third man might describe a woman who was 100% devoted to her family. They would each have their own interpretation of what “perfect” means. **“Perfect” isn't enough.** What, then, is the real perfect woman? Is one description right and the other two wrong? Is she a mixture of the three descriptions? Or should we boil the definition of a perfect woman down to primal evolutionary functions (in which case she would be any one who was able to survive and carry on the human race)? The term “perfect” can have a lot of different meanings and can be interpreted in many different ways. It isn't strong enough to stand on its own - it needs context in order to have any kind of practical purpose. For the word to have any real value in our conversations, we need to clarify which interpretation of perfection we mean. ## Biblical Inerrancy: The Question of Perfection We run into this very same issue when we discuss “biblical inerrancy” - at first glance, it means that the Bible is perfect and without error. Much of the discussion on the topic centers around 2 Timothy 3:16: > “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.” (2 Timothy 3:16, NLT) The beginning of that verse – “All Scripture is inspired by God…” – has been dissected and analyzed and interpreted, and it is the basis of the concept of biblical inerrancy. Basically, the idea is that since Scripture is inspired by God (alternately interpreted as “God-breathed”), it is perfect. But how do we really define this doctrine of inerrancy? Are we simply saying that the NLT (or whatever translation you prefer) that we hold in our hands has no typos? What about translation errors or discrepancies with other translations? Most Christians would agree that this definition is not accurate. **Are we saying that every sentence of the Bible literally applies to our lives?** Most Christians would agree that this definition is not accurate either. A more common definition of biblical inerrancy is that, with the exception of the parts of Scripture that are poetry or metaphor, the Bible is 100% factually accurate and should be read at face value. This is to say, for example, that since it describes the creation of the world as occurring over a period of six days, God created the world in six literal days. Within this view, there is some question about which books and passages are poetry or metaphor. (Who decides which parts are to be taken literally and which should be read figuratively?) Taking these questions even further, there is much debate over which facts were relevant only to the particular culture in which they were written and which ones are relevant to us today. Paul writes to Timothy about not allowing women to speak in church – was that directed specifically to Timothy’s churches (were the women there causing some specific problems?) or should that be applied to our churches today as well? On the other end of the spectrum, many Christians say that biblical inerrancy only applied to the original manuscripts – the ones written down by the original authors. They say that, as the manuscripts have been copied, re-written, and translated through the centuries, they have become riddled with errors and today’s translations are no longer very reliable. And, of course, there are all kinds of perspectives that fit in the middle of these two extremes. ## How Should We View the Bible? I am no biblical scholar. There are hundreds of people that have devoted their entire lives to this exact question, and they all come out on different sides of the issue. If they can’t come to a resolution, I certainly can’t hope to do so in a single blog post. But here’s where I stand: When I read the entirety of 2 Timothy 3:16, it seems to say that Scripture is perfect for helping us understand who God is and for guiding us as we live our lives for God. I believe that, through the Bible, God has given us exactly what we need in order to know God. Do I believe that the Bible is 100% historically true? What about the Bible’s scientific accuracy (surely I believe that the universe was created in six days and six nights!)? I want to be completely open and honest with you. I don’t know whether or not I believe everything in the Bible is factually true. I don’t think God audibly dictated to Paul the words that he wanted written in each of the epistles. I don’t think Genesis was intended to be a history textbook. And I don’t think Jeremiah was written as a scientific explanation of the coming-and-going of the tides. But that doesn't necessarily mean that Genesis isn't historically accurate or that the descriptions of the sun, moon, and stars in Jeremiah are wrong (indeed, the observations of Jeremiah are remarkably prescient for that time period). **What I do know is that, even if each “day” referred to in the creation account really took place over millions of years, my understanding of God wouldn't change in the slightest.** My God and my faith are big enough to handle both literal and metaphorical interpretations, because the truth is that God, the creator of the universe, created me, saved me, and loves me. And the story of how he’s rescued me is perfect. ### Empty Night URL: https://randalljgreene.com/empty-night/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T02:52:51.000Z The sun, it sets on another day. Dark makes night its immortal prey; Dusk’s weary ghost digs its own grave To make the morning’s light its slave. Shallow lies the serpent’s tomb, Vain to exit its mother’s womb, Yet only after futile day is done Shall serpent and its earth be one. Speak, Rain, wash clean the stone, Chill the banished soul to bone. When time dies, no more to roam Then good makes dark it’s final home. Scream, Soul, scream, though none to hear Through agony, torment, hate and fear. Dance, Soul, dance, though none to see How strong and deep thy love can be. ### Behind Closed Eyes. URL: https://randalljgreene.com/behind-closed-eyes/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T02:50:39.000Z I closed my eyes at the light streaming through my windshield. Squinting against the setting sun, I fumbled around the glove box for my sunglasses. Tire gauge, napkins, pens. They had to be in there somewhere. I slammed the box closed. I didn't really need them anyways - I just needed a place to park. My phone vibrated in my pocket. One long, one short - a text message. “New text message from Beni: ‘I just got here. Getting a table in the back.’” “Reply.” I paused to let my command register. “'I’m parking now. Be there in a minute. Do you want to go ahead and order appetizers?' Send.” “...Text message sent.” Street parking was packed tonight, so I pulled into a garage a couple blocks from the restaurant. There were a pair of well-lit spots against the far wall, so I parked. Grabbing my coat from the passenger seat, I did a quick mental inventory to make sure I wasn’t forgetting anything. Phone? Check. Wallet? Check. Keys? Yep, in my pocket already. Alright, good to go. I closed the door, shrugged on my jacket, and listened for the lock to engage. *Click*. Good. Making a mental note of where I’d parked, I cut across the garage to the street. I didn't want to keep Beni waiting - she was a special girl. I could see her soft brown eyes checking her phone for an update. The restaurant was a block ahead on the other side of the street. Too much traffic for me to cross here. I reached the crosswalk just as my light turned red. Just what I needed - another delay. I pulled my phone out of my pocket to see if she’d texted back. No, nothing. Hopefully a good sign. The light still hadn't changed. I glanced down at the ground and saw a bum sitting there. The man’s darkened eyes looked toward me through lines of dirt and sweat-soaked hair. He held up a paper cup containing a crumpled bill and few coins, but he didn't say anything. *Get a job, man. It’s not that hard.* Finally the light changed and I jogged across the street. As I entered the restaurant and handed the greeter my jacket, I told him my girlfriend was already seated. “Ah, yes. Follow me.” He led me to the back of the restaurant where I saw Beni seated, eyes glued to her phone. She stood when she saw me, and I gave her a hug and a quick kiss. “Sorry I’m late. Traffic was a mess tonight, and then I had to park forever away.” I loved her smile. “Don’t worry about it. I was just on Facebook. How was work?” Before I could answer, the waitress approached with a plate of bruschetta. "Do you need a few moments to look at the menu?" “Yes, thank you,” I nodded. I grabbed Beni’s hands across the table. “I'm hungry - I'll bless the food," I said as I closed my eyes. ### Imitation Masculinity URL: https://randalljgreene.com/imitation-masculinity/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T02:11:00.000Z If you know me, you know that I'm not a super masculine guy. Let me give you some examples: - I would rather watch basketball than play it. - I don't lift weights (or even work out, really). - I am not the "boss" of my wife. - I don't have "my" football team that I cheer for. - I usually wear Chucks (and sometimes skinny jeans). - I hate guns. - I know absolutely nothing about how to fix cars. - I love art. And museums. And art museums. - I don't like to eat slabs of meat (steak? meh...) - I love to read (books - not magazines or comic books). This list could go on for quite some time. The typical "manly" types of things aren't fun for me. I find that I'm surrounded by a culture that takes "manliness" to an extreme. Men hunt. Men fish. Men watch football. Men golf. Men fight. Men drive trucks. Men break things. Men fix things. Men do this. Men do that. ## The Masculinity Problem It's not just secular society that's sending this message. The Christian world is as married to this perspective as any other (in fact, maybe even *more* than most others!). I remember several years ago the must-read book for Christian guys was John Eldredge's [*Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild%5Fat%5FHeart%5F%28book%29?ref=randalljgreene.com). The book presents men as unilaterally having an inner thirst for "masculinity" that needed to be quenched by "roughing it" in the woods, exerting our physical strength, and defending our women from their weaker natures. The entire time that I read it, I had to fight back questions about myself. I didn't feel drawn to any of these things that Eldredge said should be hardwired into my DNA - was I broken? was I missing something? This culture glorifies these types of activities to such an extent that if a guy doesn't fit this mold, he seemingly doesn't have a place within its social context. ## Society's Power Over Me Even though I don't personally subscribe to this interpretation of manliness, I've repeatedly caught myself unconsciously re-shaping myself to conform to it. It's not that I've suddenly taken up hunting, but when someone brings up the topic in conversation, I try to play it off like I know exactly what they're talking about ("Oh, you got a 12-point buck this weekend... sweeeeet...."). I do my best to impress people with the two stories of risky behavior I have from my high school days (even getting two stories to tell is a stretch). I pretend to laugh at tasteless jokes that I find offensive. In re-shaping myself this way, I am giving the people around me power that they should never have. I am allowing this culture to redefine my very identity - an identity that should be defined only by the God who created me and gave me purpose. God tells me that I am a servant. He tells me I am to love both my neighbors and my enemies. He tells me to turn the other cheek when I'm attacked. He tells me to focus on the eternal rather than the temporal. I'm done giving society power over my sense of self. My identity is in Christ, and in him do I find peace. --- *Author's Note: I wrote a follow-up to this post that examines what Christian manliness actually looks like. The follow-up is called "Redefining Masculinity," so if this post resonated with you, I'd encourage you to keep reading!* ### Love is Beautiful. URL: https://randalljgreene.com/love-is-beautiful/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T02:40:09.000Z I met my wife when I was 12 years old, and I started dating her when I was 17 years old. Yes, we were high school sweethearts. Shannon is the only girl that I've ever dated (unless you count that one awkward time when I went to a dance with a fan of my comedy... but that's another story for another time). Actually, Shannon is the only girl that I've ever even kissed. When I told her for the first time that I loved her - we'd been dating for a little over four months - I led with a grandiose speech about what the word "love" meant to me. I won't burden you with having to read the whole thing, but here's a quick synopsis: - There are many degrees of love in the world. - I love chocolate, but that's a very simple love. - I love my friends, and that's a deeper love. - I love my family, and that's a deeper love still. - I love you, Shannon, and it puts all of those other loves to shame. "Aaawwww...," right? I thought I had love all figured out. I'd watched the movies and seen what real love was all about; I'd talked about the meaning of love with my friends and mentors; I'd even read the books about dating (or not dating). I *knew* what love was. This feeling that I had for Shannon went beyond a merely physical attraction - it was a real, emotional connection. And I knew that it wasn't just a temporary emotion, either (after all, I'd been feeling it for four months at this point!). As a senior in high school, I was seriously thinking that I wanted to spend the rest of my life with this girl. I knew that I knew that I loved her. But I really didn't understand it yet. Even though I was (correctly, as history shows) confident that my feelings went beyond the physical desires awakening within my teenage body, my concept of love was still wrong because it was based on the *feeling* of love. As I've grown up, I've learned a lot more about what it means to love. ## Redefining Love I have yet to meet a single person in this world that I find inherently lovable. No one can be cute, nice, and affectionate all the time. Everyone, including myself (*gasp!*), has times when they are completely *un*lovable - even I get grouchy, obnoxious, and arrogant sometimes. I get obsessive, rude, even hateful. Love is choosing to care for someone in spite of their flaws. Love is a conscious, ongoing decision - it is not a feeling. Our culture latches onto stories of irrational, incurable attraction - two people that should never be together but fall hopelessly in love anyways. I tend to think, though, that those narratives are boring and un-romantic. If fate were responsible for pulling two people together, why would anyone consider that love? Where is the self-sacrifice, the nobility, the character? ## The Beauty of Love The stories that I find beautiful are the ones where two people *choose to love each other* and commit to doing so for the rest of their lives. They know each other's darkest secrets, oddest quirks, and deepest failures, but they agree to be together forever anyways. Each of them spends the rest of his/her life serving the other. "Falling in love" is easy because we are able to place it in the hands of fate. **Truly loving someone is perhaps the most difficult thing a person can do, and that is precisely what I think makes it so beautiful.** When two individuals spend an entire lifetime *choosing every single day to love each other*, that is, in my mind, the epitome of romance. *That* is the love story that I want to live. ### A Day Passes URL: https://randalljgreene.com/a-day-passes/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T02:24:52.000Z Quiet of the day’s break Burning in my ears Replace the last heartbreak With the silence of fear. Though my heart beats away, Cling to those I hold dear, My last wish that you'd stay Is all I can hear. The sun on to twilight fades, Night again grows near; And with the morning I will wake Hoping to find you here. ### It's My Right. (Part 2) URL: https://randalljgreene.com/its-my-right-part-2/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T02:16:22.000Z Last week's post ("[It's My Right, Part 1](https://randalljgreene.com/its-my-right-part-1/)") discussed the rights that we have as Americans. If you haven't read it yet, you'll probably want to do that before you continue with this week's post. As Americans, we've begun treating our "rights" as basic essentials of being human, but to millions of people all over the world, these "rights" do not exist. If we take a global perspective, we have to recognize that our American rights are really privileges that we are fortunate to have. These privileges were bought with blood and protected with sweat and tears. We need to better appreciate that fact, and also do what we can to assist those who aren't fortunate enough to have them. If your personal identity stops at being a member of the global population, then you don't need to read the rest of this week's post. **But if you consider yourself a Christian, you claim an even greater responsibility.** As I write this, I struggle with how to present it. The last thing I want is to sound preachy - these things that I'm writing about are issues that I see in myself every day - but there is a huge problem among American Christians that we must address. God's Word is very clear about how we Christians should live our lives, but we, as a culture, have become adept at setting these rules aside by either conveniently ignoring them or writing them off as metaphors or altruistic ideals. Writing to the Christians in the city of Philippi, Paul writes that we "must live as citizens of heaven" (Philippians 1:27, NLT). He continues: > "I have told you often before, and I say it again with tears in my eyes, that there are many whose conduct shows they are really enemies of the cross of Christ. They are headed for destruction. Their god is their appetite, they brag about shameful things, and they think only about this life here on earth. But we are citizens of heaven, where the Lord Jesus Christ lives" (Philippians 3:18-20, NLT). He is clearly drawing a distinction between those who are Christians-by-name and those who actually live out their Christian faith. He is pleading with them to conduct themselves as "citizens of heaven." So what does it mean to be a citizen of heaven? We know what it means to be a citizen of the United States of America. We are governed by the Constitution and are awarded certain rights, and in exchange, we are expected to pay taxes and live by a certain code of conduct. As citizens of heaven, though, God calls us to give up all of our rights in this world. Any perceived "rights" that we have as Christians are gifts of God's grace and are neither earned nor deserved. **Those rights that we Americans love are the same rights that God tells us we don't have.** ### Speech One of our favorites is the freedom of speech. We have the right to say whatever we want to say about anybody. In fact, we can publish it, we can broadcast it, we can put it on our blogs, and we can even put it on Facebook. If someone is offended by it, that's their problem. But here's what the Bible has to say about our freedom of speech: > "Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them.... Get rid of all bitterness, rage, anger, harsh words, and slander, as well as all types of evil behavior. Instead, be kind to each other, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God through Christ has forgiven you" (Ephesians 4:29-32, NLT). According to this passage, our speech is explicitly restricted to things that are good and helpful. It doesn't tell us to say whatever we want as long as it's true, or as long as we're not saying it behind someone's back. It doesn't tell us that we can say it as long as we only tell our spouse or our best friend. It says that we should only say what is good and helpful. Ouch. ### Money Another right that we cherish is the right to spend our money the way we want to spend it. We work hard for it, so as long as we're not using it at strip clubs or casinos, we can do whatever we want with it. God asks for more from us. I'm sure you are familiar with the biblical concept of tithing - giving 10% of your income to support the church - but a [2007 study by the Barna Group](https://www.barna.org/barna-update/congregations/41-new-study-shows-trends-in-tithing-and-donating?ref=randalljgreene.com) shows that only 10% of Christians actually do it. (If you want a more recent study, take a look at [this State of the Plate report](http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2013/may/inside-look-at-church-attenders-who-tithe-most.html?ref=randalljgreene.com).) And as if that's not bad enough, he's got more to say about how we spend our money. > "If someone has enough money to live well and sees a brother or sister in need but shows no compassion - how can God's love be in that person?" (1 John 3:17, NLT). So if you are living comfortably, you are obligated as a citizen of heaven to help your fellow Christians who are struggling. Is anyone in your church having financial problems? Then it is your responsibility to help. And God doesn't stop there. Jesus himself had a lot to say about money. > "Sell your possessions and give to those in need. This will store up treasure for you in heaven! And the purses of heaven never get old or develop holes. Your treasure will be safe; no thief can steal it and no moth can destroy it. Wherever your treasure is, there the desires of your heart will also be" (Luke 12:33-34, NLT). Not only are we to help those in our own church family who are struggling financially, but we are to assist anyone in need, whether they are a part of the church or not. This topic is a really tough one for me. My wife and I are far from well-off, but we are blessed to be living in a situation where we have very few expenses, so we get by pretty well. Still, financial stability is one of the worries that she and I struggle with continually, and any time our savings dip below a certain point, we go into panic-mode. But Jesus clearly said that we should not be safeguarding our money on this planet. Rather than telling us to invest in our long-term stability, in our 401k's, or even in our children's futures, he tells us to invest in the needs of people around us. If our safety net is in our bank account, then our hearts are there as well. ### Self-Defense One of the most basic rights that we claim as humans is the right to defend ourselves. If someone hits us, we have the right to hit them back. If someone robs us, we have the right to prosecute and have them sent to jail. If someone hurts us in any way, we have the right to retaliate to the full extent of the law. Here is what the Bible says about it. > "Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who hurt you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also. Give to anyone who asks; and when things are taken away from you, don't try to get them back.... Love your enemies! Do good to them. Lend to them without expecting to be repaid. Then your reward from heaven will be very great, and you will truly be acting as children of the Most High, for he is kind to those who are unthankful and wicked." (Luke 6:27-30 and 35, NLT) God tells us not to hit back. He says we should forgive those who rob us and make sure their needs are being met. If we loan someone money, we should not expect them to repay it. **God has a lot to say about the rights that we love, and across the board, he tells us to give them up. Again and again, he says that we are not free - we are slaves to Christ, bought with a price.** ### It's My Right. (Part 1) URL: https://randalljgreene.com/its-my-right-part-1/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T01:55:08.000Z ### I Know My Rights. It is my right as an American to say whatever I want to say. I have freedom of speech, and I have the right to exercise it. I have the right to buy what I want to buy. I have the right to be happy when society tells me I should be upset. I have the right to be upset when society tells me I should be happy. I have the right to watch the movies that I want to watch and to listen to the music that I want to listen to. I have the right to protest, to boycott, or to buy a store's entire stock of products that I disapprove of. I have the right to defend myself. I'm American. I have rights. If your primary identity is comprised of being American, then you can stop reading right now. You are entitled to all of these liberties and more - they have been earned by the blood, sweat, and tears of many generations of Americans before you. **But if you identify as more than American – if you see yourself as a member of the global population – you should be aware of something: Most of the world doesn't share these rights.** Take a trip to Africa. Or Cuba. Or Haiti. Or any other country that's not ranked among the world's richest. Walk around that land and ask people their thoughts about the rights that we, as Americans, claim so brazenly. **The right to buy what I want to buy?** The concept of consumerism is difficult to comprehend when every penny that you get is spent struggling to survive. **The right to say what I want to say?** In many parts of the world, this right doesn't exist. You can't talk about the government and you can't talk about your country's leaders without risking imprisonment, or even death. Protestors in Russia, even prominent groups like the [feminist punk rock band Pussy Riot](http://www.nme.com/news/pussy-riot/75714?ref=randalljgreene.com), are routinely arrested and imprisoned for their speech. North Korea actively censors everything that it's population is able to learn about the outside world, and speaking against the government often costs your life. **The right to defend myself?** Much of the world would laugh in your face. They are emotionally, verbally, physically, and sexually abused at the hands of their landlords, employers, or creditors. Their children are taken from them, forced into sex slavery, and most likely won't live to see the age of 18\. There is no way for them to fight back. As I write this blog post, typing on my laptop and listening to the crackle of fire in the fireplace, and as you read this blog post, scrolling down the page on your phone or your iPad, **hundreds of millions of people across the globe are scrounging for any work they can do that will allow them to feed their families.** They would be overjoyed to take on the jobs that you and I would never even consider. If you take a global perspective on human rights, you've got to acknowledge that **the rights that we have as Americans are not rights at all – they are privileges that we are blessed with.** And it's time that we recognize these privileges as such, rather than feeling that we have any kind of entitlement to them. And it's in our power to aid many of the people who don't share these privileges. There are organizations all around us that are fighting to bring these freedoms to the underprivileged around the world. Groups such as [His Voice Global](http://www.hisvoiceglobal.com/?ref=randalljgreene.com), [Hosanna Institute of the Sahel](http://www.hosannasahel.org/?ref=randalljgreene.com), [End It Movement](http://enditmovement.com/?ref=randalljgreene.com), and [World Vision](http://www.worldvision.org/?ref=randalljgreene.com) are doing incredible things, but they need our help. If you want to get involved, I know that they would love to hear from you. Or you may know of another organization that is making a positive impact on our world – reach out to them today and contribute to a world that's hurting. [Read Part 2 of this series.](https://randalljgreene.com/its-my-right-part-2/) ### A Calm Heart URL: https://randalljgreene.com/a-calm-heart/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T13:21:18.000Z Father, calm my wand'ring heart. Draw me ever close to Thee. When my soul and mind drift apart, Stir the winds to calm my sea. I've seen the rolling tide, Bidding take me on to Neverland, Yet each beat of my heart Wastes one more grain of sand. My soul still cries inside my broken flesh; If you are there, Father, save my brokenness. ### Holding Hands, in the Garden URL: https://randalljgreene.com/holding-hands-in-the-garden/ Last updated: 2024-10-16T01:39:23.000Z When we held hands, it wasn't electric, the way it is in the stories. I mean, it’s not like we didn't feel anything at all — it just wasn't some crazy sensation. I guess the best way to describe it might be to say that it was comfortable. It’s like when you finish a test. You set down your pencil and you exhale and the world is right again. No more pressure, no more stress. You can relax. That’s how it was when we held hands. In those moments, when Elle’s fingers locked with mine, I could breathe again. There was a garden that always reminded us of a castle — it had high, stone walls, and as soon as you walked in the gate, you entered a paradise of manicured flowers and trees broken only by meandering brick paths. You could hear the lazy gurgle of fountains buried deep in the garden, hidden in obscure corners of the castle. That garden was one of our favorite places to go. Elle and I would wander aimlessly, holding hands and losing ourselves for hours in the castle. Sometimes, we would sit and watch other couples weave through the garden. No one was ever in a hurry here. This was a haven — a place to stop, to enjoy the beauty of nature’s art, and to drink in life. One time, we saw a kitten in the garden walking along the edge of a fountain. The water had already been drained for the season, but the kitten kept peeking over the side, determined to find a puddle to play in. Elle loved cats, and the one from her childhood had recently died, so when she saw this kitten, she couldn't help but take it in her arms and hug it. She held it up next to her face so both of them were looking at me. Lifting one of its paws to wave at me, Elle did her best to convince me that she should take the kitten home with her. Maybe I should have let her. I argued that the kitten probably belonged to the garden. Its mother was probably nearby, and we shouldn't take it away from its family. Elle gave me a pouty lip and did her best to force a tear, but I thought it wisest to leave the kitten alone. She reluctantly agreed, adding that everyone who visited the garden should have the joy of playing with the kitten. We stayed in the garden for a little longer than normal that day. Another day, we found the graves of the garden’s benefactors. Hidden behind a waist-high gate in a remote section of the garden, the raised stone tombs stood stark against the verdant backdrop of trees and gentle flowers. This picture of death amidst so much beauty should have felt natural but, instead, felt sacred. Like the brick paths winding through the garden, the tombs were a testament to the caretakers’ reverence in preserving life. We stood there for a long time, silently holding hands, knowing that we were both thinking the same thoughts. The stone slabs had long been worn smooth by the wind and the rain, but the benefactors’ burial here in this public garden was an extension of the life that they’d loved so many years ago. It was beautiful. One evening, rain began to fall as we entered the garden’s stone walls. It wasn't a heavy rain, but it was enough to cause the other visitors to leave the garden, holding their jackets over their heads for shelter. I started to turn around and do the same, but Elle caught my arm with a sparkle in her eye. She saw everyone running away, and she knew that this might be our one opportunity to be completely alone inside. Looking up at the still-darkening sky, I let her drag me in. We passed a greenhouse where a group of people huddled, waiting for a break in the rainfall so they could dash to the cover of their cars. Continuing deeper, we passed the fountain where we’d seen the kitten. I hoped it had found a dry place to hide tonight. We walked on, past the resting place of the garden’s benefactors. Water collected on top of the tombs and dripped to the earth below, standing in a moat around the base of the stone. We didn’t stop until we found a bench that we’d never seen before. Trees provided only minimal shelter from the rain, but we didn't mind. The droplets soaking our clothes were freeing, cleansing. Like the grass, the trees, and the flowers, we were being nourished by the rain. I don’t know how long we sat in the rain that day — it may have been mere minutes, or it may have been hours — but the length of time didn't matter in the slightest. It was time for us to hold hands.