Rod White's Blog, page 48

Moslems Are Just as Nominal

I had a very enlightening pilgrimage (as you expected). You will hear more (as you expected).

I am not recovered from my nine-hour direct flight from Istanbul to JFK, then my three-hour van ride home. So maybe I am not so coherent. But I want to offer one reflection for you to ponder. If you think the United States seems like it is descending into a religious wilderness (which it is), do not think it is alone among the nations. We often receive a lot of images on the screen and in other newsmedia of hundreds of moslems praying in the street. It looks like Islamic people are very religious. Some are, of course. But from my scant collection of evidence, I get they are just as irreligious as the rest of us, in general.

We were chatting with our boat captain about the call to prayer blaring over Bodrum. He said it was all pre-recorded and plays automatically. We asked him if he prayed five times a day and he said quickly and dismissively, "Nobody prays." We were not sure we were always communicating with our Turkish-first friend, so we checked again. He said 98% of the people did not pray. Some of the women were devout.

OK. That was news.

In Istanbul, at the Blue Mosque, Gwen and I were "befriended" by Sekit, a handsome young, light-eyed Kurd. He assured us he was not going to ask for money, worked for the mosque, and would show us around. We were justifiably skeptical of his motives, but we went with it. He gave a great tour — both of us shoeless, Gwen in a scarf, me in a skirt to cover up my infidel legs. At one point he took Gwen's camera into the prayer-only zone to get us pictures and we weren't sure we were going to see it ever again. But he came back. All he wanted was for us to go to his uncle's carpet store and get a pitch. We did it — mainly because the shop was air conditioned and we would get apple tea. (Did I mention that Turkey is HOT!!!?) We asked Sekit how many people prayed when the muzzein called them to prayer. He said 45% — but then he "works for the mosque." He also told us that women don't usually go to the little space reserved for them in the mosque to pray, they really like to pray better at home.

Hmmm.

I think most of the Christians I know don't pray, either — certainly not five times a day (unless you count OMG as a prayer).  Christians and Moslems alike, at least in the big cities I experience, are all going to the mosque to sell carpets, so to speak, because their god is profit, or at least their god is keeping themselves as comfortable as possible.

I am so glad we are aspiring to something better. Right now we are perspiring, right along with Istanbul. But I hope we will not be breaking a sweat for profit, alone. Let's pray five times today and see what is happening in the Kingdom of God. Something is happening post-Christendom and post-Islamdom; we are right at the beginning of a new era of real Jesus-following. I'm excited about it.

Set the Holes Aside for a Day and Eat Cheese

I am one of those people often accused of being anti-American. That's not true. I am not anti-American, I am just so pro-Kingdom of God, it looks like I am anti-American in comparison. If I get thrown in a lion's den, like Daniel, or I get run out of Thessalonica, like Paul, for looking like my allegiance is not to whatever power that is usurping God's place, that would be an honor. So I suppose that compounds the issue.

But I don't think Jesus is anti-American in the slightest. So I am not. I doubt that he's happy about everything the government does, but I leave that to him to work out. But I have no doubt that he loves every American right down to the hairs on their heads. And I know he loves his people. Did you know there are over 220,000 Christian churches in the United States? That's one for every 1500 people, or so, I think. God is one with them.

I don't think we could say that God loves the "typical" American, since there isn't one,

or that he loves what typifies Americans when sociologists talk about them. But there are some general characteristics that are probably worth lauding on the National

Holiday. Last night, I mentioned a few things I considered a blessing:

country music,
rich people like Jon Bon Jovi giving away money (like to Habitat for Humanity and Project Home),
the governments support of home-buying and family-building,
the optimism that says things like "who says I can't do that?"

Ultimately, my point was that we should walk around our city (and country) and find

something good in it like Paul did when he went to Athens. He told the Areopagus this, "As I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. " In the forest of  temples  worshiping demons, he found a possibility. He found something he could report as good. I like that.

Life should be about seeing the Swiss cheese all around us instead of focusing on the holes. This should not only apply to the country, but to our intimate relationships, as well. It is all too easy to take a little trip around the "city" of our children, or birth families, or spouses, and note all the distressing issues, maybe even idols — and then get depressed, get scared, get mad, or get judgmental. It is great to walk around the "city" of our intimates and see what is good, even see where something in them is reaching out to the unknown God, or to imagine the unknown way God is going to save them in their distress.

I think that is how Jon Bon Jovi could walk around North Philadelphia with wise guides like the leaders of Habitat for Humanity or Project Home and see homes in the holes. That is how you and I can look around ourselves or our intimates and see wholeness in the holes. Who says we shouldn't do that?

A Little Tweet of a Defense of Twitter

Not too long ago, one of the staff decided we needed to be on Twitter, as Circle of Hope, to talk to Tweeters. About 20 million Americans access Twitter about once a month. A lot of them are in the age group we like to influence. A lot of them influence the age group we like to influence.

So the staff got excited about this initiative and put the word out on the Dialogue List. We are @CircleofHopeNet. They even put a tweety on the announcement! They didn't mean it to be a major use of their time; just more fun ways to get the word out.

Not too long afterward a person wrote in to the Dialogue List and said, "This is sad." Not too long after that another person wrote in and said, "Unsubscribe!" We had a micro-protest about Twitter! No doubt there are many other people who would have protested or unsubscribed had they checked their email!

I would like to make a gentle defense of Twitter-using. In the interest of full disclosure, I am @rodofcircle. I use it mainly for fun. The fact that I wrote this blog will also be made known to my few "followers."

My main defense is this: Twitter is a tool. You don't have to be a tool of Twitter. It is like

anything else.

Using a tool implies that you are making something. In this case Twitter could be building some community with people who use Twitter.

Not using Twitter is fine. Just because the staff is communicating that way doesn't mean we have all succumbed to virtuality or that Joshua will be on a jumbotron next week at the PM. If you know of someone who is addicted to Twitter and not making relationships face-to-face, please do what you can do to help them. But not using Twitter out of some prejudice or knee-jerk reaction to anything faddish seems kind of ungenerous, maybe even fearful.

One the other hand, just going along with every social-networking thing the world produces isn't necessarily action, either. Being tossed by every whim of technology could corrupt your soul. We are being assaulted on every side by some new invasion of our humanity by communication devices. Resisting is important.

I am not sure the Apostle Paul would have used Twitter; but it wouldn't surprise me if he loved it. When Paul is working on how believers relate to the world, he has a lot to say (just do a little search of "world" in the internet Bible program). To the Corinthians he said, "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world." He finds it kind of obvious that we would lose our purpose if we left the world, somehow. He's all about the mission.

I suppose the Twitter-objectors might be judging the Twitter-users of the church and deciding not to associate with such immoral people. I doubt it. (But I am checking.) I  suspect they are more concerned that we are becoming like the foolish people of the world, sucked into our devices and calling it relating. If that is their point, I think they have a good point. I think Paul's point is that we don't need to leave the world before our time. We'll be associating until the time for associating is up. I think I am agreeing with Paul when I say that we don't need to be "of" the world, but we do need to transform it. If God can be a baby and end up a slave to the world, I can hold my nose and use Twitter to communicate with the Twitterians.

Actually, I think Twitter is kind of fun. But I don't recommend it to people who don't want to use it to communicate for some eternal purpose. I don't really do much, consciously at least, that doesn't have some connection to Jesus, so Twitter is just one more thing. If you aren't able to use it for mission, reject what you like. If I am trying to make an eternal difference, just pray for me if you think I am using questionable means. For me, Twitter is just another chance to give some news, be vulnerable, share a small touch of love or joy. It is like a tweet, but it is still music.

Would God Send Gandhi to Hell?

At the wedding last night I ran into people asking interesting questions about the afterlife! One man was wondering about Rob Bell, who recently wrote a book that questions typical interpretations of what happens when we die. In the promo video (apparently everything Bell thinks is accompanied by a video) he asks the question, "Would God send Gandhi into eternal fire?"

Just a few minutes later another guest at the reception said he was impressed with Christianity above all the other world religions – especially the call to love one's enemies. But he just couldn't get over the idea that Gandhi might be in hell!

Is the fear that Gandhi might be in hell the reason no one is becoming a Christian these days? I am so out of it, I had only a slight impression of Rob Bell, and I did not expect a random wedding guest to ask the pressing question Bell had already made a video about!

My chance encounter at the wedding reminded me that most people really have an investment in defending themselves from any judgment. Gandhi's steps toward nonviolent political action, more brilliantly adapted and applied by Martin Luther King, make him a secular/Hindu saint. His sainthood was predictably deconstructed lately in a new biography, but that doesn't bother people that much. Because when they are defending

Gandhi from any judgment that might send him to hell, they are really just exercising the first line of defense against any sense that they, personally, might be sinful and liable to judgment. I always think it is amazing, as bad as we all feel about ourselves, that we can still rise to the occasion to claim that we are good enough to go to heaven – we're sure that if God judges us worthy of hell, he is not a good God.

Let me question the question a bit. Would God send Gandhi to hell?

Why do you care?

I think people care about whether Gandhi is in hell because they still think that good people are rewarded for their goodness with a blissful state of repose in heaven, which is "up there" somewhere (and maybe we get to fly like angels, which would be cool). And they take comfort that bad people, like Hitler (it is always Hitler) will burn in hell, as they deserve. They think, "While I am not as good as Gandhi, I am sure not as bad a Hitler, and I am about as good as most people I meet, so is God going to send us all to burn forever with Hitler?" I have heard this piece of logic repeatedly, and I heard a version of it as a reason not to have faith last night.

Let me repeat after Jesus, "If you save your life, you will lose it."  Whatever the consequences of thinking you can save your own life might be, holding on to the hope that one is good enough is going to result in loss, at least the loss of what might be more than one's earthly life. If you think you are good enough, why do you care about heaven and hell? Be content with the good enough you are. If you can't be content with that, then trust God to be good to you in Jesus.

Why would Gandhi want to live with God forever?

To be honest, Gandhi's whole philosophy was about saving lives through direct, nonviolent political action. It was so much better than direct, violent political action (which immediately followed the success of his nonviolent action, big time) that he became a saint, or at least he became the image he worked hard to portray.  In an era in which God has been banished from the public sphere, and in which there is hardly a sense of "public" at all, anyway, the endless competition of politics is all there is left. Gandhi succeeded in "saving" people without God, why would he care about being in heaven with some Western, imperialistic "god?"

What's more, Gandhi believed in reincarnation and believed he was already, at least metaphorically, living forever, in some form. He was well acquainted with the Lord's claims and publicly rejected them: "I regard Jesus as a great teacher of humanity, but I do not regard him as the only begotten son of God. That epithet in its material interpretation is quite unacceptable. Metaphorically we are all sons of God, but for each of us there

may be different sons of God in a special sense. Thus for me Chaitanya may be the only begotten son of God … God cannot be the exclusive Father and I cannot ascribe exclusive divinity to Jesus." (Harijan: 1937)

Although Gandhi did not accept Jesus according to his own introduction of himself, I believe that God will accept Gandhi according to his own sense of himself. God respects us, though we do not respect him. If we choose to die under our own terms, I think those terms are respected for what they are: death. Though we will undoubtedly realize this choice on the way to our permanent death in some way I do not understand fully (of course!), I don't think it includes being eternally tormented in fire. The death is permanent; that is punishment enough. But if one does not care to be with God, so what?

Are you sure about your image of hell?

In Matthew 25, Jesus tells a story about the end of the age when the sheep are separated from the goats This is the line that bothers people, even if they have just heard about it: "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'" This seems to be a reflection of Enoch 10:13 (which did not make it into the Protestant Bible) in which evil angels are locked forever

in a prison at the bottom of the fire, the "pit of hell."

I do not think that God, who absorbed the ultimate violence the world could offer on the cross in Jesus Christ, is waiting around to come again in order to send millions of people to unending judgment – to absorb the ultimate violence he can offer! People do not want to follow Jesus because they believe the Bible contradicts itself by calling on people to love their enemies, while showing plainly that, in the end, God will condemn his enemies

to experience ever-burning fire. Maybe quoting Miroslav Volf again will help with this problem (I think Exclusion and Embrace is a great book, if you can take dense arguing).

"The evildoers who 'eat up my people as they eat bread,' says the Psalmist in God's name, will be put 'in great terror' (ps. 14:5). Why terror? Why not simply reproach? Even better, why not reasoning together? Why not just display suffering love? Because evildoers 'are corrupt' and 'they do abominable deeds' (v. 1); they have 'gone astray,' they are 'perverse' (v. 3). God will judge, not because God gives people what they deserve, but because some people refuse to receive what no one deserves; if evildoers experience God's

terror, it will not be because they have done evil, but because they have resisted to the end the powerful lure of the open arms of the crucified Messiah." (p. 298)

Those who do receive are welcomed into a renewed creation under God's loving reign. That is the goal. The evildoers are not reserved, screaming in agony, in some eternal land of unrenewed creation. I think they get what they desire. They get themselves without God, and that is death.

I am amazed that at one moment I could be singing a spontaneous duet to the bride and groom (oh yes, I did that) and then be talking about Gandhi and eternal torment the next moment. It was a fun evening. It also reminded me that eternity is never far away from our minds. We were meant to live with God in love and peace forever. May we not resist what we most desire out of some persistent perversity.

Post-Pentecost Top Ten List

Some parts of the Bible are just more important than others. Acts 2 is one of those parts. It so splendidly captures the wild, generative, upending work of the Holy Spirit.

On this day after Pentecost, I am again reminded that the Lord is going to build his church with people who are moved by the Spirit. I offer you my top ten list of what God wants to move us to do, based on Acts 2. Each item is, basically, number one. So I did not try to create an order. I don't think God orders them either:

Speak up. (They "began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.")

It is kind to be "another voice" at the table. It is OK to be socially "pluralized." But in our hearts we know we have something to say about Jesus that is not just another "belief."

Forget being qualified. ("Aren't all these who are speaking Galileans?")

Acting in the name of Jesus does not mean we are smarter than everyone else or that we have a recognizable right to offer what we offer.

Think big. ("Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, our old men will dream dreams.") 

Whatever you think is the boundary that restricts your purpose – it probably doesn't. Test the limits of your unbelief.

Act on your spiritual urges. ("They were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?")

You have something from the Holy Spirit happening in you right now that is just a valid as whatever happened on the first Pentecost. Move with it. The promise is for you, too.

Tell the truth. ("He warned them; and he pleaded with them, 'Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.'") 

Jesus is the truth. No amount of accommodation to the society or "religifying" of the message is going to make it any easier to swallow. Don't play people.

Create a counterculture. (They "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.")

Let's not lose track of the old culture, the birth family, the old relationships. But within them, let's create what is new and be serious about it. We don't have one foot here and another there; we are a circle in many circles.

Share. ("All the believers were together and had everything in common.")

It is not about making donations. Sharing is about mutual ownership. Sharing is being a responsible slave managing God's stuff.

Care for people in need. ("They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.")

This starts in the body of Christ, but if it does not get outside its walls, we're not expansive enough. Self-giving love is so hard, we probably can't do it unless we "sell out" in regard to being as rich as we might otherwise be.

Form daily relationships. ("Every day they continued to meet together.")

There is going to be a contest for the schedule. Again, it is not about making donations of our time, either. There is always a new person to include a new task to start. It takes relating and working together.

Expand the circle. ("The Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.")

The church exists for those yet to join. The basic work of the Holy Spirit in the world is redemption of people and restoration of creation. It's a restart. If there is no expansion, it might be time to work out the rest of the list.

Monica and the New Marriage

The statistics are in a duel when it comes to whether living together before marriage results in a higher rate of divorce. Around here we tend to call cohabitation "faux marriage" and one does not have to be "living together" to be in one. But that is beside the point (already!). Some statistics keepers say 45% of cohabiters breakup before they get married.  "67 percent of cohabitating couples who marry eventually divorce, compared to 45 percent of all first marriages," claims Michael Foust.  Others are very skeptical about how the numbers are crunched, like Catherine Harris, who says that her sense of the stats is that cohabitation isn't that big of an indicator of marital success. So many PhDs! Such a big internet to argue on!

Marital "success" is nice. But people are not consulting the stats before they decide whether to cohabit or marry, are they? "Success" is not a very convincing moral argument for a moral decision. Success is not even moral – or is that all we've got, now? Moral is still a discussion of right conduct, right and wrong according to one's principles, or, in my case, how I should live in response to the way of life revealed by God, primarily in Jesus, and persistently informed by the Holy Spirit. Getting married is a significant place where we get to decide, "What is best for me to do? What is best for the person I love?" and also, "What does my community think is the right way to go about this?"

An awful lot of us seem to be floating around in the rudderless ship of our personal decision on the ocean of our undefined thinking when it comes to moral choices about marriage. Many of us are not in a family system with any strength to guide us and most of

us are not part of a community we respect to inform us. The new marriage is a personal expression of "whatever."

Monica Mandell appears to be an evangelist for the new marriage. I ran into her in the latest edition of Philadelphia Magazine. In the online version she gushes "Living together is a phenomenon previous generations did not experience. Although the divorce statistics show that it does not matter if you rush into marriage, marry your high school sweetheart or live with your future spouse, it must make things a lot easier to actually know the person you are marrying. Not only are women in the workplace today, but  they are also having premarital sex! Can you imagine being with your partner for the first time on your wedding night? It is a miracle that so many unions lasted from that generation!"

I took just a cursory look at the stats and there is no way one can say that it does not matter how you marry or whether you don't marry. Of course it matters, unless nothing matters. One stat that I found most stat keepers agreeing on is that people who value marriage are more likely to stay married.

What's more, let me be amazed at how Dr. Mandell breezily dismisses virginity with a "Can you imagine?!" I am surprised she did not include the implied "OMG!" Yes, Monica, I can imagine being with my partner for the first time on my wedding night. I don't think marriages automatically die from lack of virginity. But I don't think they are worse off with it, not by a long shot. The couples I counsel put a lot of stress on their love and undermine their commitment by never having any thresholds to cross. Forming a healthy relationship that contributes to one's spiritual health is not a light matter.

She goes on, "Modern women should be seeking to balance good marriages with good jobs. Happy, productive parents breed happy, productive children. Having weekly mahjong sessions, lunches and shopping might have been considered fun as a standing operating procedure in the past, but the 1950s are over. Marriage is a partnership. Women who are not using their brains to full potential are selling themselves short."

First of all, the 50's were 60 years ago and the stereotype of the TV fifties never existed. That being said, I think Monica means that "postmodern" women "should" be doing the

balancing act she describes. They are more likely than modern women to see themselves as the defining factor in what should happen.

Secondly, families are built in a context and they are not just about happy productive parents (who apparently get their happiness from their marriages and jobs). Marriages happen in the world and "successful marriages" happen in community – hopefully in an extended family, ideally, in the church.

Thirdly, mahjong is not that easy. Using one's brains as an economic tool is not always that satisfying, either.

I've got a feeling that Monica Mandell's sense of what is good is mainly derived from economics. Looking for love aside, the lookers for love, these days, cohabit because they are shopping. Getting what one wants is the principle, shopping is the moral act. Monica's

byline names her: "Director of the Philadelphia office of Selective Search, the premiere (off-line) upscale matchmaking firm for the most eligible singles."

From what I can tell from the website, Monica is a personal mate shopper. This is what her

website promises the men: "Selective Search Clients are single because they're selective and don't want to settle. We honor our Client's preferences and don't judge them, regardless of their criteria. In fact, we don't consider having preferences like age, religion, and physical or personality type as being 'picky'. We think it's about knowing who and what you want and being selective….It's our goal to introduce to you to that 'needle in the haystack' – a high caliber woman who will make you happy and fulfilled." For a "premium fee" the website says, she will find you a premium selection.

Perhaps she "should" have added: Can you imagine the best possible, potential mate to try out in your very own bedroom? We deliver! Marriage as a commodity sounds like a perfect adaptation to a society that is all about economics, now that we have hollowed out its soul and forbidden God to influence it. I am not saying that everyone cohabiting is that shallow. But I am saying that they are wading in a shallow pool.

Memorial to Brendan

St. Brendan made a big impression on me from afar. When I visited Ireland on pilgrimage, I was impressed in person.

We made many what-we-considered-brilliant navigation decisions to find his final resting place at Clonfert Cathedral. While it hadn't been torn down to build condos, or anything, I still found it kind of a sad place: unkept, remote, unused, perhaps mostly unknown. My memory of the time of reflection we shared there, all alone with the past, aroused this poem. I share it with you as one of the ways I want to experience Memorial Day. Some people, like Brendan, have fought hard for the faith. I haven't forgotten.

The fly's sporadic monotone

Disturbs the still air of Clonfert Cathedral –

That remote island of memory

In a sea of sleepy farms

On a sleepy summer day.

The dusty, unused altarpiece

Cries out for the old man buried in the yard –

That distant vision of voyage

In a sea of sleepy faith

On a pilgrim's well-worn way.

A dazzling, sunlit Celtic cross

Shines in the door and vainly warms the stones –

The pavement hiding the hearty

In an earth of rotting flesh

And a land's forgetful day.

A faint persistent irritant

Infects the still air of silent reflection –

The startled pew-creak of contempt

In a tomb for caring men

Shrieks the end of Brendan's way.

Err on the Side of Singing

Like a broken tooth or a lame foot

is reliance on the unfaithful in a time of trouble.

Like one who takes away a garment on a cold day,

or like vinegar poured on a wound,

is one who sings songs to a heavy heart. Proverbs 25:19-20

My aspirations for the day:

When you use me to bite down on an apple, I will not fall out of your mouth (metaphorically, at least).

When we need to get away from the bad guys, I will not turn up lame (I am working on not being lame).

When it is cold, I will not have left the coat I said I'd bring for you in the closet. (Sorry Gwen).

When you are wounded, I will not pour vinegar on your wound. (But then, why would anyone but a psychopath do this?) 

But I might sing. 

I love this proverb and I hate it. I guess that is what the Proverbs are for — to get me thinking. This one even has the little argument in it about translation that makes it even more interesting. It is hard to know how the language even worked in 700-400BC, or whenever the sayings were written. The alternative version of pouring vinegar on a "wound," is pouring vinegar on "soda" and causing an irritating chemical reaction that neutralizes and spoils the soda. Regardless, it is a proverb about doing all the wrong things when someone is sad.

Honestly, Solomon seems kind of crabby, to me. If I don't want to be cheered up, nothing is good enough. So why blame me for bothering you? I know plenty of people who think everyone is lame like it is a conviction, like it is their declaration of independence from the pressure to be happy. You don't need to take away their garment, they have already walked

over in the rain without one on purpose.

So why should I feel bad about singing, just because misery loves company? (Let me slip in one of the most absurdly amusing renditions of misappropriated religion ever, here, in case you aren't feeling too well. It might cheer you up).

I choose to interpret this proverb as not against singing in some universal, anti-Jackson Five kind of way. It must be talking about singing just to be mean: a snaggle-toothed leer, hiding your coat, pouring salt in your wound. It must be talking about the time my sister was sick of traveling across Colorado from Amarillo and she wouldn't stop singing a little song she had made up: "I long to see the beauty of the Colorado Springs." The tune still is stuck in my mind and I still feel like killing her, since the car did not have air conditioning, either, and mom was conserving snacks.

So let's make a promise to each other today: "I will not be that irritating, just because I am miserable, or because I am prone to being irritating."

But go ahead and sing. If you fear someone will think you are like a bad tooth, I think it is OK to ask them, "If I sing you this song, will you think I am like a bad tooth?" They will let you know. Better to err on the side of singing, in my opinion.

The ABCs of the E Word — EU

The word evangelism comes from a collection of Greek words rooted in eu-angelos – good-news. The E in the ABCs of evangelism is EU –as in good, but also, as in YOU.

1. It is GOOD news. What followers of Jesus have to share is not a painful confrontation. News in democratic/media culture is often just political wordplay. Christians have tried to play that game with their evangelism a bit, or at least the people I know are deathly afraid they will need to play if they open their mouths. They are scared that as soon as they talk about Jesus, they will need to have good answers for questions on sex, war, right to life, or any of the myriad "issues" that people think people should be talking about if they are being serious. Serious news is, essentially, bad news — or it is at least it is about conflict and likely mayhem. All we followers of Jesus are saying is that a new king is on the throne. It is good news. Things are going to change. There are some politics in that, of course, but it isn't something we will be voting on. It is just good news. If you have ears to hear, listen.

2.  It is GOOD news because it is full of joy. At least I am happy about being saved. Strangely enough, we followers of Jesus need to remind ourselves we are happy, sometimes, so we can keep the good in good news. I wake up in the middle of a conversation sometimes and tell myself, "Don't let them steal your joy." For some reason, I can feel obligated to be downhearted, because not being so would violate my friend's sensibilities.  They think the world sucks, so I should, too. My "silly" words about Jesus aren't making it for them, so I should adapt to their way of handling the mess they are in. It sounds like a simple choice to "don't worry, be happy" but it is more complex than that. I need to skillfully deploy my joy; but I sure need to hold on to it, regardless.

3. It is GOOD news because it is undermines the ungods. My simple, persistent good newsing is one of the best things I can do, in my finitude, to stay in the fight against the anti-Jesus forces. It is being good. Jesus did not end the war with his resurrection, he began it. Humankind has a chance, now, against the forces bent on their destruction. I think we followers of Jesus think of ourselves as so miniscule, we don't think that what we say means anything. In these postmodern days when philosophers doubt that words have any lasting value to communicate truth, we get a lot of encouragement to take ourselves lightly. But the way God sees it, we are very important to his cause. Our lives tell a story and we tell the story of our lives. It is a re-telling of THE story of life. The process opens up the possibility for more people to get in on what Jesus has done.

4. Which brings me to my main point: It is GOOD news because it is you. You put the EU in good news. As soon as I wrote that, I got the feeling that someone was saying, "Oh brother." But I am sticking with it. Thinking we are not good thwarts evangelism. You have to be saved to tell a salvation story, obviously. If we can't confidently stand before God in his grace, knowing we have been forgiven, rescued, and welcomed into the kingdom, where we live, now – then that's an issue. If, when we open our mouths to speak a good word for Jesus, we are worried about how good we are at it, if we don't trust Jesus to take our capabilities and multiply them – that's an issue, too.  But if we have faith as small as a mustard seed, that is enough faith, Jesus says. We are good enough, and Jesus is good in us.

I have been talking about the ABCs of evangelism in an attempt to normalize the E word a bit. I think we need to think about it more and figure out how we can practice it, in our own way. I was really motivated to speak up when I picked up Guy Kawasaki's book and found out he called himself an "Apple evangelist." What with the Christians scared to use the word and the marketers stealing it, I was afraid we would lose it altogether. But the family business is still the redemption of the world. We need to at least learn our ABCs – all of us.

The ABCs of the E Word — Devote

The D in the ABCs of evangelism is for devote. We can never face the task at hand and access the inner resources we need to do it unless we come to it from a place of deep devotion to prayer. Evangelism is first about prayer because it begins in God's own heart.

There are two kinds of prayer that we can apply to our family business of redeeming the world and spreading the blessings of the kingdom of God.

The metaphor for the deepest kind is "as old as the hills:"

Those who trust in the LORD are like Mount Zion,

   which cannot be shaken but endures forever. Psalm 125:1

Martin Laird teaches about this deep devotion in his book Into the Silent Land. It is "mountain prayer":

"Allow to arise whatever arises, without determining what is allowed to arise in awareness and what is not. Meet everything with a steady, silent gaze. What notices the mind game is free of the mind game.

            A mountain does not determine what sort of weather is happening but witnesses all the weather that comes and goes. The weather is our thoughts, changing moods, feelings, impressions, reactions, our character plotted out for us by the Enneagram or Myers-Briggs. All of these have their place. But they are only patterns of weather. There is a deeper core that is utterly free and vast and silent, that no thought or feeling has ever entered, yet every thought and feeling appears and disappears in it."

Evangelism brings up our deepest spiritual distress, probably because it is the most profound spiritual act in which we engage. I've been calling it the "E word" because many of us can't even say it because it brings up so many distressing thoughts and feelings. These are the weather, but we are the mountain. For some of us, the thought of evangelism is spiritual stormy weather, but we are the mountain in Jesus, nonetheless.

Paul speaks very eloquently, I think, about "being the mountain" when he speaks about bringing the message of Jesus to people:

"My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God's power.

We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God's wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Corinthians 2:4-8 

I think, for many followers of Jesus, they mostly pray out of their weather and not as the mountain. We might still be practicing the prayer we learned as a child. Personally, I think God is fine with that. I think he loves children – I'm one of His.  Laird might call that level of devotion "surface," in that it is more about our thoughts and feelings rather than about our deep spiritual awareness. He's right, of course. But the more "surface" work of intercession, of pleading for people who need God is important work that everyone can do, even beginners in faith. I wouldn't dismiss it as mere "weather.' 

So to devote oneself to evangelism, try both weather prayer and mountain prayer. 

Try to get through your own stormy weather. 

Dare to talk to God about what troubles you about being part of his stubborn attempt to redeem creation. Let's face it, a lot of us don't like the assignment and don't participate in it, even though we are very glad, ourselves, to have been welcomed into eternity. Some of us might not even like to pray because we might get a marching order and we don't want to feel guilty for not obeying it. 

If we can get through that cloudburst of resistance, we might want to concentrate on who it is we would like to see come to know Jesus. Make a list. Listing is a risky business, of course, because it implies that we will someday see someone crossed off the list — better to have not made a list at all than to bear the shame of not completing the task, right? But intercession is about what God is going to do, not us. The benefit to us is that interceding softens our heart and directs our attention to where we need to be devoted. Praying for others often opens up our heart and broadens our horizons so we become more loving and imaginative partners for God. Besides, God loves to give gifts to his children, why wouldn't he answer us if he has decided to partner with us? 

Better, I think to get to mountain prayer as soon as possible. 

As the mountain we receive our rest and confidence in the silence. When our ambitions and fears do not control us with their incessant dialogue, we demonstrate the mystery Paul was talking about and our inner prayer becomes impact. 

While contemplation is not, itself, purposeful, I think we carry people with us into our unshakeable Zion of the heart. The deepest intercession might be to let go of the many people we love and work for as we are being in Christ and see them held in the light of God's love and truth.