The Progressive Salvationist

 On 20 December 2012, a good friend of mine, Jeff Carter, and I decided to form a group on Facebook for Salvationists and former Salvationists (i.e.: members of The Salvation Army) who identified themselves as liberal both theologically as well as politically. We both knew of a couple of other people who considered themselves to be liberal and we wanted to give ourselves a forum where we could discuss those topics.

This became a turning point in my life.

It started out slowly and the discussion was good. We got to know each other and our various beliefs. We talked about issues that confronted us in our everyday life. It was during that time that the terrible shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School took place in Connecticut. We shared our disappointments with each other as we realized that my country would do nothing to curb the violence in our schools, other than what the President could enact via executive order. The division seemed too great in our country.

We celebrated when our group crossed the 200 threshold. People began quoting from the movie, "Fight Club," jokingly saying that we weren't supposed to talk about the group to anyone. When the group crossed over the 300 mark, we celebrated with Spartan 300 memes; although in retrospect, perhaps Gideon's 300 would have been more appropriate.

I noticed something else happening. People in my denomination were beginning to talk about me and not always in a good way. I was at a Men's Conference in Southern Illinois last weekend and more than once, someone made the comment that I was plotting something sinister. This was said in a joking manner, but I felt there was some seriousness in it. In fact, I had one officer tell me that everyone who thinks like I do needs to leave The Salvation Army.

Why? Because I'm a liberal? Because I believe that guns are not a cultural symbol of America, but a blight on our society? Because I have no issue with repealing the Second Amendment? Because I believe that helping the sick should be a mandate in our country and goes along with Matthew 25? Because I believe that we need to be more loving of humanity and less condemning? (Some Christians call this act of condemnation "exposing sin.")

I will admit that I was severely demoralized when this officer told my fellow liberals and me to leave The Salvation Army. This officer believed that our theology was incompatible with the doctrines of The Salvation Army. I don't see how that's possible.

Do we disagree on certain things? Absolutely. Do we always need to fight over them? No.

I love The Salvation Army. I love that we serve those in need. I love that Matthew 25 is our vision and our mission in life. My worldview adds to this and enhances it.

 I love the Progressive Salvationist group. I love that it's a safe haven for those of us looking to talk about these issues without fear of reprisals or people putting us down, simply because we are heterodox. I also realize that we are all part of the Body of Christ, helping each other out. To this I say with Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:18 (NASB):  "But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired."

The Response

 

The Conduit

My good friend, Jeff, wrote an amazing poem that speaks to me more than anything else he has written lately. It probably had to do with the fact that he and I had been talking about God using us to do his will and feeling the presence of God.

Here is his poem:

What does the wire know
of the lamp’s illumination?
Electricity flows through him
undetected.

And what does the pipeline know
of a refreshing glass of water?
It flows through him
unperturbed.

The Response

I am not by any stretch of the imagination one who considers himself to be a poet. However, I was unsettled at the idea of not realizing God was at work. Am I always going to know when God is at work? Am I always going to feel him moving? Then I realized that this, too, is a part of doubt that leads to faith. Here is my response:

How would the light shine without the wire?

How would the water flow without the pipeline?

Even in this they perform a task
Although they are unaware of the results.

Hosanna!

 

Michael W. Smith

Growing up in a Christian Community, one was invariable exposed to all the traditional Contemporary Christian music scene. I can't remember how many times I had been to a Salvation Army Camp and heard several renditions of "El Shaddai," "Father's Eyes," and "Friends." The last one was written by Michael W. Smith and was sung ad nauseum. I am not putting down Michael W. Smith. However, too much of a good thing is still too much.

One of the songs I really enjoyed was also by Michael W. Smith:  "Hosanna." Of course, I always associate that song with Palm Sunday.

Matthew describes it in this way (Chapter 21, NASB):

When they had approached Jerusalem and had come to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, ² saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to Me. ³ If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.” ⁴ This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:

⁵ “Say to the daughter of Zion,
‘Behold your King is coming to you,
Gentle, and mounted on a donkey,
Even on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’”

⁶ The disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them, ⁷ and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their coats on them; and He sat on the coats. ⁸ Most of the crowd spread their coats in the road, and others were cutting branches from the trees and spreading them in the road. ⁹ The crowds going ahead of Him, and those who followed, were shouting,

“Hosanna to the Son of David;
Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord;
Hosanna in the highest!”

¹⁰ When He had entered Jerusalem, all the city was stirred, saying, “Who is this?” ¹¹ And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.”

Prophecy Fulfilled

 Two prophecies are fulfilled in this passage. The first is fulfilled in one of my favorite Old Testament books, Zechariah.  In Zechariah 9:9 the prophet states,

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your king is coming to you;
He is just and endowed with salvation,
Humble, and mounted on a donkey,
Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

I love this passage. It shows the humility of the Eternal King, arriving not as we would imagine with pomp and circumstance, but on a colt. An Advent song we sang in Germany, Tochter Zion, uses this text. I always thought it was strange that this be sung in Winter; however, it quickly became one of my favorite Advent songs. I even got my corps in Hanover to sing it on Palm Sunday on a couple of times.

The second prophecy fulfilled was in Psalm 118 (NASB):

²⁵ O Lord, do save, we beseech You;
O Lord, we beseech You, do send prosperity!
²⁶ Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord;
We have blessed you from the house of the Lord.

The people in Jerusalem were shouting this in the streets.

A Play on Words

 At first, glance, one might not understand the play on words going on. It's not like everyone speaks Hebrew, though. Names are important in Hebrew.  The Hebrew root word "to save" is "yasha'."  This might look somewhat familiar. Jesus' name in Hebrew is Yeshua, which means "Yahweh saves." In Psalm 118:25, the Psalmist is saying:  "Hoshiana," which we understand as "Hosanna." It is in an imperative form:  "Save us!" It is not a word of praise, but an imperative word of command. So when the people were greeting Jesus, they were in effect saying, "Jesus (the Lord saves), Hosanna! (Save us!)" For us in The Salvation Army, this play on words would be similar to our "Soup, Soap, and Salvation."

The question I have is:  Did the people of Jerusalem realize what they were doing? The answer is no. I have a feeling that when they were shouting Hosanna, it was more in the style of the Hosanna from the musical, Jesus Christ Superstar. They wanted Jesus to free the from tyranny and he came to free them from the tyranny of their sins.

Geborgenheit

 

 The Background

In pursuit of my Master of Arts in Missions in 1997, I was required to do a 6-month mission trip to Germany. Having been to Germany before, I realized that when I listened to something being sung in German, it took me a bit longer to understand it rather than when it was spoken. Now, I haven't done any research into this, but something tells me (at least in my case) that music is processed in a totally different way with our brains than spoken language is.

One of my real pleasures about visiting any new culture was also experiencing their music. In church, however, I quickly realized to my disappointment that there were way too many songs translated from English into German and fewer German ones at all. In the German edition of The Salvation Army Song Book, there are only 3 songs composed in German that were written in the 20th Century. In other traditions, especially with the Praise and Worship music (Lobpreismusik), there were several songs translated from English to German. There were even some denominations I knew who preferred singing in English rather than German for various reasons.

• It takes a shorter amount of time to say something in English than in German. (Perfect example:  "Matchbox" in German is "Streichholzschachtel.")
• Many of the songs were difficult to translate into German or sounded a bit off.
• Some Germans felt that their language is unlovely. (I reject such notion outright.)

I even had some pastors who had to insist that at least one third of the songs sung were songs in German.

 The Song

I sang in a worship band in Hamburg with The Salvation Army's Mission Team. Occasionally we would find a song that I really enjoyed that was also originally written in German. One of these was entitled "Vater ich komme jetzt zu dir."

Here are the words in German:
Vater, ich komme jetzt zu dir
Als dein Kind lauf ich in deine Arme.
Ich bin geborgen, du stehst zu mir, lieber Vater.

Refrain:
Vater, bei dir bin ich zu Hause.
Vater, bei dir berge ich mich.
Vater, bei dir finde ich Ruhe.
O, mein Vater, ich liebe dich.

Vater, du gibst mir, was ich brauch'.
Du empfängst mich mit offenen Armen.
Du füllst all' meine Sehnsucht aus, lieber Vater.

Translation?

Before I come to the translation, I got stuck on a word:  "geborgen". In this case it's an adjective. The verb form of that you can see in the refrain: "berge". The noun version of this word is the title of this blog:  "Geborgenheit". I have found that this word is nearly untranslatable.  Dutch and Afrikaans have a similar word in their language, but in English, this is nearly impossible to translate. We have to use several words to translate it.

Which words?

Security, protection, invulnerability, closeness, warmth, quiet, peace. It has the idea of being surrounded and buried in love. I became fascinated with this concept and this word! If you are familiar with with Gary Chapman's book, Five Love Languages, you will know that there are 5 types of languages of love that we identify with most readily.  They are:  Giving Gifts, Quality Time, Words of Affirmation, Acts of Service, and Physical Touch. For me, my love language is Physical Touch. So this beautiful image of being surrounded, buried, and encompassed by a loving God appealed to me like no other.

So here is my feeble attempt at translating this beautiful song (but not to be sung to). The words in bold are my translation of "geborgen" and "berge":

Father, I am coming right now to you.
Like a child I run into your arms.
I am warm and secure.
You stand at my side, dear Father.

Refrain:
Father with you I am home.
Father with you I am safe and sound.
Father with you I find quiet.
O, my Father, I love you.

Father you give me what I need.
You receive me with open arms.
You fulfill all of my deep desires, dear Father!

 I couldn't use just one word to translate "geborgen". It's simply impossible.

My loving God, in whom I am geborgen

Our Creator is a loving God in whom we have a very special relationship. We can also be "geborgen" in him. He calls out to us as our Father. He seeks to draw us nearer to him. When Israel was disciplined by God for their idolatry and sent off into exile under the Babylonians, he still had not forgotten Israel. They were far off, but God said to Israel,

The Lord appeared to him from afar, saying,
“I have loved you with an everlasting love;
Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness.”
- Jeremiah 31:3 (NASB)

God calls out to us today! Do you hear him? Do you hear his love for us? 

Word of God ≠ Bible?

The Armor of God

This past week we had Vacation Bible School where our theme was "The Armor of God." My wife did an excellent job at teaching our kids what the Armor of God is. She found some good material, but we ran into a snag when we were talking about the "sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." The material stated that the sword, representing the word of God, was the Bible.

Is that true? I don't believe so.

Where is the Word of God found?

The phrase "the Word of God" or "the Word of the Lord" appears often in both the Old and New Testament. In the Old Testament, it often refers to a message from God (e.g.:  Hosea 4:1, 1 Chronicles 17:3). Whether or not this message has been written down is not specified, but doesn't seem to be necessary. This would make sense because literacy was something highly prized and few could read, let alone write (1).

In the New Testament, this concept continues in the Gospels. When Jesus was teaching, Luke's Gospel says in chapter 5, verse 1, "Now it happened that while the crowd was pressing around Him and listening to the word of God, He was standing by the lake of Gennesaret . . ." (Italics mine). When the apostles preached, it is recorded that they "were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness." (Acts 4:31 NASB)

In Romans 9:6, Paul speaks about the Word of God not failing in relation to God's promise to Israel. In this, it clearly is about God's spoken Word. In speaking about the Word of God throughout his epistles, it is clear that this is a message from God to his people, but it no way signifies that it is Scripture. (See 2 Corinthians 4:2 and Philippians 1:14 for examples.) In this instance, if Paul had meant Scripture, he would have meant the Old Testament because he surely would not have believed that his own writings were scripture.

If the Word of God is not Scripture, but the message of God to his people or audience, then the armor of God takes on a whole new meaning, especially the Sword of the Spirit.

The Ultimate Word of God

Finally, we have the ultimate Word of God:  Jesus himself. John's Gospel has that beautiful description of Jesus, reminiscent of the Creation Story itself:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

This theophany of Jesus represents something powerful. The Word of God has become flesh. These two concepts represent a synergy. The Word of God becoming flesh is more powerful than the Word of God by itself, being spoken by mortal humans. The author of Hebrews expresses this concept succinctly:  "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12 NASB)

And Scripture? Is that the Word of God? No.

Does Scripture contain the Word of God? Yes.

What does this mean, then, for Scripture? God can speak through Scripture, but His Word goes beyond Scripture. This helps me in dealing with inconsistencies and obvious contradictions in Scripture. (How did Judas die? Did he hang himself, as Matthew 27:5 maintains, or was it an accident, as Acts 1:18 declares?)

Scripture was written by humans who made mistakes and had a very different worldview than we do today, but Scripture still contains the inspiration of God, even if it isn't inerrant or infallible.

Better than Scripture:  We have the Word of God, which is "living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword."

The Hullaballo About Noah

So many people lately have been complaining about Darren Aronofsky's film, Noah, that one would think the world was about to end. Well, it did in the movie! There were so many objections on so many different levels that I will not attempt to address each and every one of them. That would be pointless.

I had seen 2 of Aronofsky's films (The Fountain and Requiem for a Dream) and was quite aware of their dark, existential, and introspective nature. The Fountain dealt with immortal life and Requiem for a Dream dealt with drug addiction and the death of the "American Dream." I do not recommend Requiem for a Dream, unless you have a strong stomach for the brutalities of addiction.

The problem that many people have with the movie is that it does not hold up to our traditional image of Noah. I have a feeling that most people still conjure up images such as this:

Although such imagery is nice for children, this is not what happened. I believe that one of the most difficult scenes in the entire movie to deal with is the fact that the majority of humanity was killed. The screams from those outside of the ark were deafening and nerve wracking. Those inside the ark even debate about whether they should let some in or drag ropes to bring them in. None of them dare do it because those people were under God's judgment.

I believe that the main problem so many people have with the movie is that someone has interpreted the story in a completely different way than our preconceived notions. We like the idea of the happy animals on the ark with a rainbow afterwards. We conveniently forget the reason there was an ark in the first place.

There are definitely some things that the movie could have done without. If you haven't seen the movie yet, then be forewarned:  SPOILERS ALERT!

My Main Problem with the Movie

The main problem I had with the movie was the idea of a stowaway on the ark. I'm not certain it was necessary. However, it does make one feel extremely sorry for Ham, who unfortunately gets a bad reputation not only in this movie, but in the Bible, too. After Ham notices that his father is naked and drunk, Noah curses Ham's son, Canaan, in a clear reference to why the Canaanites were to be punished in later years. (It should be noted that Noah did not curse Ham in this movie.)

In all honesty, that was the only problem I had with the movie. They did not need to have the stowaway on board.

What is Praiseworthy about Noah

There are many things that are praiseworthy about this movie.

• When we first see the Earth, the land mass is Pangaea. It is simply one land mass. Geologists have speculated this for many years now, as evidenced by the tectonic shifts in the Earth's crust.
• I loved how the creation of the Earth was depicted. It incorporated modern science's understanding of the Big Bang, evolution, etc., yet understood from an Ancient's perspective. We sometimes forget that the Bible was not written to us in the 21st Century. It was written to a people who had no concept of planets, astrophysics, or even that the world was round.
• I got a secret delight out of seeing two Paraceratherium board the ark. I'm certain Ken Ham was unhappy that there were no dinosaurs on the ark, as he maintains.
• The fact that Aronofsky was even willing to tackle the complex issue of the Nephilim is laudable. Many of us would like to skip over the fact that the Bible seems to say that either angels mated with humans or they came to Earth and there were actual giants. Who are we to say that Aronofsky's vision is wrong or incorrect?
• The film depicted the absolute depravity that humanity had sunk to. Certain people take issue with the vegetarianism portrayed by Noah and his family, but this was a non-issue to me. According to many Jewish commentaries, eating flesh was not permitted until after the Flood. Aronofsky, being a Jew, would understand this. The depravity of humanity was so great that the Earth had become a virtual wasteland.

Probably the best thing that I enjoyed about the film was the fact that Noah was presented to us as a normal human who has his moments of uncertainty. He is not God. There is no Scripture for him to go by to deduce what God wants from him. He has his doubts. He has misconceived notions about what God wants with humanity. In hindsight, we can see perfectly that God meant to save humanity, too. However, I can see how Noah might not have been so certain.

As a work of art, Noah is breathtaking. The scenes are beautifully displayed. We are not in the Mideast in this movie. We could be anywhere. Humanity is more advanced than we presuppose.

What concerns me is the reaction that I have seen to the movie, especially and most regrettably by Evangelicals. Condemnation seems to be easier than noting what is good about the movie. Theologically there is nothing wrong with this interpretation. The fact that not only is Darren Aronofsky a Jew, but an atheist, brings out strong reactions from the Evangelical community. We tend to view atheists like the mad professor in the recently panned movie, "God's Not Dead." However, atheists as a rule are just as moral and ethical as Christians. I do understand that Christianity is more than morals and ethics, but it is worthy to note that atheists are not the bogeyman we think they are. They are our brothers and sisters.

If we Christians are going to be fair in our condemnation of films based on the Bible, then we should note all the fallacies in every production. As an example, I give you the widely praised film (even by Evangelicals), The Prince of Egypt:

My Personal View on Noah

If, however, you want me to be technical about what I truly think of the Biblical account of Noah, it is as follows:

We have many tales throughout the Mideast about a Deluge that killed huge numbers of people, most notable Utnapishtim from the Gilgamesh Epic. A nice comparison between the two stories (which hold a remarkable number of similarities) may be found here.

The physical evidence for a worldwide Flood is lacking; however, there is archeological evidence for a localized flood catastrophe. Therefore, I believe that a significant Flood did happen in the Mideast and left its collective cultural impact on the survivors. According to the Bible, these survivors were Noah and his family. I do not believe a worldwide flood did occur because it would have killed off all vegetation and made all freshwater undrinkable. It would have killed off any freshwater fish life, too.

My personal belief is that the story of Noah is more important to us theologically rather than literally. God punished the wicked and promised never to do so in the same way. God cares very deeply for us and is slow to anger, not wanting to punish us at all. (See Isaiah 54:9-10.)

“For this is like the days of Noah to Me,
When I swore that the waters of Noah
Would not flood the earth again;
So I have sworn that I will not be angry with you
Nor will I rebuke you. 

“For the mountains may be removed and the hills may shake,
But My lovingkindness will not be removed from you,
And My covenant of peace will not be shaken,”
Says the Lord who has compassion on you.

The Good Serbian - Reworking a Parable of Jesus

In 1999 when I was a cadet in The Salvation Army (similar to a seminary student), I received a very unusual practicum assignment. I was to go out with a team of Salvationists to Albania during the 1999 Balkan War between Serbia and Kosova. Yes, the Serbs call it Kosovo. The Albanians call it Kosova. Since I was helping Albanians, I decided to honor them by calling it Kosova.

I had never been in a war zone before. This was a first for me. I will never forget the flyovers of fighter jets, the hot dusty trails, and the construction engineering of Communist Albania.

Which came first? The highway or the pylon?

Albania had changed so much in the short time since Enver Hoxha (the communist dictator of Albania) died and isolationist communism with him.

Just across the border in Kosova, civil war had erupted and the Serbs were forcibly kicking Albanians out of Kosova, imprisoning hundreds of men just because they were of fighting age, and killing thousands. The human toll was horrific. The stories I heard were disturbing. Kosovar men in prison were taken to courtyards, handcuffed, and then allowed to be beaten by Serbian children. Serbian soldiers would rape girls as young as 15 years old while their family was forced to watch. Then, because the women were Muslim, the Serbs would carve the Cross into their breasts. There was no love between the Kosovar Albanians and the Serbs. The hate went back for 500 years.

As an inexperienced cadet, who nevertheless had an enthusiasm about serving and wanting to learn languages, I felt overwhelmed in my assignment. I started learning Albanian and trying to speak it with anyone who wanted to speak with me. Funnily enough, there were several young Kosovars who wanted to speak English with us.

One of them became my translators. His name was Kreshnik and he was from the town of Gjakova in southwest Kosova. Kreshnik was only 15 at the time, but could already speak Albanian, English, Serbo-Croatian, and Italian. Our assignment was providing food for the refugee camps at Hamallaj, which was located on the coast of Albania on the Adriatic Sea.

At its height, we had 5000 refugees in these camps. We worked with 2 organizations:  the Norwegian People's Aid and Samaritan's Purse. These 2 agencies set up the camps and we supplied the food. When we first got there, Kreshnik and I were walking together and passed by one of the vehicles from Samaritan's Purse.

Kreshnik asked me, "What does 'Samaritan's Purse' mean?" Of course, I knew the story from the Bible about the Good Samaritan, but Kreshink, who grew up in a nominal Muslim family, would never have heard of the story. I thought about how I could explain it best. So I told him this story:

A Kosovar was traveling from Prishtina to Prizren (2 cities in Kosova). On the way, his car was pulled over by bandits and he was mugged and left for dead on the side of the highway. While he lay there, a Kosovar was driving by, saw the man lying in the ditch, but passed him by. An Albanian likewise saw the man lying in a ditch, but hit the accelerator and zoomed past the man lying there. Awhile later, a Serb also drove up, but instead of passing him by, he pulled his car over, got out his first aid kit, and began to help the man. He put the Kosovar in his car and drove him to the nearest hospital. At the hospital, the Serb paid for the Kosovar's medical expenses and made certain he had a way home after he was released.

Many of you would recognize this story as the altered version of the Good Samaritan. When I told this story to Kreshnik, I wasn't prepared for his reaction. His jaw dropped in shock and he exclaimed, "A Serb would NEVER help out one of my people!" Then I explained to him that this was the message of Jesus: we are to love everyone, especially our enemies. The message was hard, but it also emphasized God's greatest command:  to love God with our whole being and to love our fellow human as we do ourselves.

In my years as an officer, I had often struggled with trying to find a similar "enemy" for American Christians to identify with. Then it occurred to me. There is such a huge backlash among American Christians towards the LGBT Community. Many feel that they are out to get us, but in truth, 91% of non-Christians in America describe Christians first and foremost as being anti-gay.

The fact is that we Christians need to overcome this image. We need to love first and foremost and forget the judging. Forget the so-called "teaching others." This "teaching" is not accepted by non-Christians. Love is universally accepted.

We should love others, just like the Good Transsexual.