It is our experience that particular churches can become ‘holy places’, this does not require us return to some quasi-Jewish theology of ‘sacred-turf’; rather, it is because one day the whole creation will be sacred, will throb and thrill with the presence of the living and loving God, and because at certain points ‘where prayer has been valid’ this can be seen as it were in anticipation. To that extent the church is called to worship God revealed in Jesus and by the Spirit in every corner of the globe, and so to claim it for his wise and healing rule. In this process, moreover, there are clear indications of God’s ultimate purpose: he intends to establish his new city, new Jerusalem, as the place where he will live with his people forever. If, then, we are called to anticipate what God is going to do in the future with our acts now (for example we are called to implement already the justice which will be perfectly worked out in the age to come), we should surely also be seeking to create societies in the here and now, which will anticipate the nature of the renewed and healed Jerusalem. Not that we could ever ourselves build or bring about the New Jerusalem itself; such things leads to delusion and ruin. Rather, we are called, while forswearing all racial, cultural or geographic imperialism, to create communities of love and justice out of which healing can flow to others.

What struck me with this passage was what makes something holy. Historically, geographic locales were called holy based on the presence of God – e.g. the Holy Land, the Holy City. This is the quasi-Jewish theology of carded turf that was done away with by and in Christ.

But what makes a church or a person holy? How does a person or fellowship heed the command to be holy? And if God is the standard, which attributes and behaviors are we to mirror? To some a church is not a holy space of they use the wrong translation of the Bible, or worship to the wrong style of music, or use “worldly” tactics… “worldly as defined by “them.” These are the ones who we do not take too serious. Certainly there is a spiritual parallel to the sacred-turf theology; a person or church is holy based on the presence of God – not as literally as Jesus walking the hills of Galilee…but spiritually. Holiness is also based on behavior and attitude. So we think of holiness as doing the right things – or more often, not doing the wrong things – holiness by subtraction.

Herein is a challenge to add to our existing criteria of holiness, a holiness based on anticipation… and our role in response.

I’m reading a wonderful little book by Mitch Albom. The book is called Have a Little Faith. Every now and again a book sort of creeps up on me and disturbs me…in a beautiful and wonderful sort of way. So far this book is doing just that.

I read this today and thought I would offer it up to you for your thought and consideration.

Albom is telling the story of being in class one day in 1974 when the teacher began discussing the Red Sea crossing by the just emancipated Hebrews.

“There is a Talmudic commentary here,” the teacher says. … “After the Israelites safely crossed the Red Sea, the Eyptians chased after them and were drowned. God’s angels wanted to celebrate the enemy’s demise.”

“According to the commentary, God saw this and grew angry. He said, in essence, ‘Stop celebrating. For those were my children, too’” (76).

Be blessed, my friends.

Recently, I’ve been making my way through Alistair McGrath’s book, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea. The book is an account of Protestantism starting off from the Reformation. The main premise of the book is that the radical idea proposed by the Reformers, whether intentionally or unintentionally, was that individuals could interpret the Bible for themselves. McGrath explores how this idea has played historically and through different regions of the world. I’m not done with the book yet, but so far, there have been several fascinating insights.

This morning while I was reading, I came across the following paragraphs regarding the vast variety of Protestant churches.

It is not unfair to suggest that the Protestant vision of the church unleashes a Darwinian process of competition and survival in which maladapted churches are gradually eliminated and what survives is better suited to the needs and opportunities of the day. Using an essentially economic model, Laurence Iannaccone and Rodney Stark argue that the European state churches have created a religious monopoly, leading to a radical restriction of religious options for its people. In marked contrast, the United States offers an open market of religious options, with none either sanctioned or restricted by the state. Commitment to organized religion is higher in countries such as the United States because religious pluralism encourages market responsiveness to the religious consumer. In Europe, they argue, the institutional churches have seen little purpose in identifying and meeting the needs of their parishioners.

If Iannaccone and Stark are right, Protestantism flourishes in the United States on account of open competition, which forces churches to take the needs and aspirations of their members seriously. In contrast, the privileged position of state churches in Europe has often led to the entrenchment of outdated approaches and attitudes, and above all a neglect of the religious consumer by leaders who are often wedded to the convenient certainties of the past. In America, competition encourages religious entrepreneurship and vitality. As Steve Bruce, professor of sociology at the University of Aberdeen, points out: “Free-market capitalism explains why Americans are rich; free-market religion explains why Americans are church-going”.

I find McGrath’s explanation of the “free market” nature of Protestantism to be sort of fascinating. Perhaps it’s because I have heard so many writers and speakers use this type of explanation in a derogatory way. In fact, I’ve probably done it myself a few times. So what’s your take? Is some amount of “natural selection” healthy in the landscapes of American Protestantism? Or is this simply McGrath putting a positive spin on a bad situation?

I think we need a new topic.

I’m tossing back and forth which one of these quotes to put up first because both are wonderful and revealing in their own way. One of them will be a thought for the day, the other will serve as a segue for a short post I will put up later this afternoon. Both tell me something about being judgmental (an icky, gross word); both are patently myopic. And they both come from the January/February 2010 issue of Modern Reformation magazine. Here’s the first, written by Annette Gyson who is an editor at a ‘Christian book publisher’ in Grand Rapids. She is commenting, in conclusion, on the book Why We’re Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be:

This is an excellent book, one that all Christians would benefit from reading. Emerging Christianity does ask some valid questions, ones that should be taken seriously. Unfortunately, their own answers draw from sources other than Scripture. Like Jude in the New Testament, DeYoung and Kluk remind us that our comfort in life and in death is the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. (40)

It may not appear to be much, and maybe it isn’t, but that one word ‘unfortunately’ really bugs me for some reason. I know we’ve been down this road before, but let me ask the obvious question: Is it unfortunate?

I don’t believe it has been mentioned here formally so I’ll do so. Please keep Michael Spencer, aka the Internet monk in your prayers. He has been sick for some time now and announced at his blog yesterday that he has a cancer diagnosis.

From his post:

I have a cancer diagnosis. It’s complex, but has been quickly diagnosed once I was in the Markey cancer center. We know have a plan. Many weeks as some of you know, but that is my life for now.

It is amazing how small the world has become since the invention of the internet by Al Gore and it is amazing how we can learn to love people we have never met. iMonk is an honest man whose writings have touched many of us. I’m passing this along to him so he knows that the PPP community is praying as well; and to you in order that you might pray and continue to do so.

So I pray in the Name of Jesus and the power of the Spirit that the Lord will deal with this illness in a mighty way and bring healing to Michael and his family.  I pray for the doctors and nurses and other attendants who will wage this war on his behalf by administering medicines and counseling and more. I pray for his family that they will be supported and loved by their community during this difficult time. I pray for Michael that his faith will be strengthened as he fights this against this disease. I pray the Lord will soon return him to full health. God Bless you Michael and Godspeed.

Thank you.

Merry New Year!