Have you ever found yourself at a place in life where you could look back and see how, in some inexplicable way, circumstances seemingly worked together for your good, often in-spite of your best efforts to the contrary? In Same Kind of Different as Me: A Modern-Day Slave, an International Art Dealer, and the Unlikely Woman Who Bound Them Together, Ron Hall and Denver Moore tell the gripping story of how two men, with nothing in common except both of them being children of the deep-south, find themselves drawn together by forces unseen and, as a result, their future’s are forever altered. Denver is an African-American homeless man whose early life on a Louisiana plantation has left him bitter and guarded. Ron is the self-made millionaire art dealer who sees little beyond the next deal. Brought together by Ron’s wife, the two forge a deep and lasting friendship that will eventually impact not only their lives, but those around them as well. Surprisingly for Ron, it doesn’t take long for him to realize that he has more to learn from Denver than he could ever have imagined. And for Denver, finding someone that genuinely cares about him, with no strings attached, awakens him to a world that had been closed to him for a very long time.

This is a well written, deeply moving book that had me both laughing and crying as I followed Ron and Denver on their remarkable journey. Ron and Denver both take their turn telling the story from their own perspective, allowing you to see through their eyes and relate more easily to their experiences. On the very first page, Denver draws you into his world and doesn’t let go. Ron soon follows with what you might hope is a brief rest from the tortured life of Denver, but you soon find that all is not well in the polished world that we often present as our own. I highly recommend this book and hope that it touches you as deeply as it did me.

I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

One of the most perplexing theological dilemmas for me is the tension created between God’s sovereignty and human free-will. And on some level, it seems that most of our theological debates at least hint at this ever present tension. For me as a pastor, it is the underlying question in nearly every pastoral care issue. When faced with human crisis, God’s sovereignty is called into question. While Lewis may not offer us a solution to this dilemma created by the proposition of God’s sovereignty vs. human free-will, he does offer us some interesting points to ponder.

In Lewis’ conversion story, he would seem to suggest that his experience of conversion was anything but a free choice. He says that he was converted "kicking and screaming" (Surprised 229). From the human perspective, with all of the logical deductions that led Lewis to accept Christianity, it might seem like he made a “choice”. But when he uses language that makes it sound like he was simply overcome by a more powerful force, it leads me to wonder just how much of a “choice” he actually had. He said, “All over the board my pieces were in the most disadvantageous positions. . . . [Then] my Adversary began to make His final moves” (Surprised 216). In the conversion process, the only intelligent option for Lewis was to submit. He could argue or run, but the reality was that he was, as he described, in checkmate. It is interesting here for me to imagine two people actually playing chess. When a person is in checkmate, there are no more moves left. The only option is to reach out and topple your own king. I guess you could upset the entire board, and just refuse to play, but if Lewis, with a mind like his, did that, would he still be C.S. Lewis? I don’t think so. It was his only logical choice. So is that really a choice?

Lewis in no uncertain terms affirms his belief in human free-will. But is that free-will limited to moral choices only and not extended to that choice of choices, the choice to accept or reject God? He said in Mere Christianity that…

Much of the preceding quote seems to deal with moral choices, or the choice between good and bad, but the phrase “voluntarily united to Him” in the last sentence leads me to believe that Lewis did in fact extend human free-will to the process of salvation. And so, I think that Lewis would agree that any salvation worth having would be only salvation freely chosen, and for that, humans “must be free.” Just when I think I have Lewis figured out, I come across a statement like this from Mere Christianity: “Every faculty you have, your power of thinking or of moving your limbs from moment to moment, is given you by God” (Mere, 143). So, if this is true, then why couldn’t God give the gift of belief to every human being? If all of our being is a gift from God, it would seem that a loving God would want each of God’s creatures to experience the ultimate joy – being joined eternally with God. But that would then render the ultimate joy “not worth having” because it had not been chosen freely. Maybe it is just a question that cannot be answered by our limited human understanding. Lewis said that, “In God you come up against something which is in every respect immeasurably superior to yourself” (Mere, 124). In Lewis’ works, I see revealed this tension that we as Christians live within, that is God’s sovereignty vs. human free-will.

Maybe the question is being framed in the wrong way. Maybe it is not God’s sovereignty vs. human free-will, but God’s sovereignty and human free-will. Maybe in some way that only God can comprehend, it is a both/and condition and not either/or. To us as humans this may seem impossible. Lewis may have even referred to this as “nonsense”, but I am beginning to think that there is no other alternative. Lewis said that [God’s] “omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense” (Problem, 18). While I agree with Lewis’ basic premise, I think it is important to remember that what seems to us like “nonsense”, may be nothing other than the unfathomable depths of God which are beyond human comprehension. The Trinity on one hand seems like “nonsense” – one God, three persons; three equals one; one equals three; unity in diversity. It makes no sense yet we affirm it as one of the basic tenets of the Christian faith. To say that any being, even God, is above or outside time seems, from the human perspective, to be utter “nonsense”, but we accept it as a valid theory within the realm of orthodoxy.

Would Lewis see it the way I do, or would he place himself more firmly in one camp or the other?. Maybe this question has more to do with God’s underlying purpose in creating humans. Lewis, I think, sees God as intimately involved in the maintenance of creation. It becomes obvious then that an understanding of God’s sovereignty vs. human free-will is incomplete without an understanding of God’s creative intention. God is much more than a creator of all, but also the everlasting preserver and sustainer of all. Many Christians assert that in/among God’s creation there is nothing that happens by chance, fortune, or fate. You commonly hear people, even people who fully affirm the free-will of humanity, say something like, “all things happen for a reason”, appealing to God’s sovereignty as a way to explain the way things happen or the way things are. Lewis, in The Problem of Pain, said…

People seem to recognize that there are instruments/creatures of God that act according to their nature, good or bad, but only as God empowers them to do so. But if this nature is truly independent, then it would only seem logical that we would have to admit that maybe there are things that do not happen for a reason. If we see God as active in God’s creation and not merely directing or influencing outcomes by establishing universal laws that govern it, does that involvement override the free-will of God’s creatures?

Even after reading Lewis, I am no closer to answers to these questions, and honestly, the questions actually become much more difficult to answer. It is an age-old dilema that Lewis seems to struggle with as much as I do. So maybe in the end, it is all just a bunch of “nonsense”.

In “Belief Matters: United Methodism’s Doctrinal Standards”, Charles Yrigoyen, Jr. presents a broad overview of the historical documents that make up the doctrinal standards of the United Methodist Church. In the “Introduction”, Yrigoyen gives a brief explanation of the importance of doctrine. He says doctrine helps us understand the biblical message in a more clear and organized way; provides a basis for the way we live our lives; is necessary in articulating our faith; provides a foundation for the community of faith we participate in; and protects us from “false and subversive teachings.” (11)

Yrigoyen quickly moves to the doctrinal standards themselves. He begins with an overview of John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the New Testament. After a brief look at the historical context that gave rise to the Notes, he then highlights many of notes themselves in an attempt to give the reader a glimpse of John Wesley’s theology that runs throughout. What emerges, for Yrigoyen, is a Bibliocentric theology that is concerned primarily with humanity’s estrangement from God, God’s saving work in Christ, and the fruit of Christian faith – holiness of heart and life. Also evident in the Notes is a well developed Christology that deals with who Jesus is and what his life, death, and resurrection mean.

Next, Yrigoyen deals with John Wesley’s standard sermons. Here he offers a cursory examination of the 151 sermons originally used as guidelines for those preaching in “Methodist buildings” during the early days of the Methodist movement. As with the Notes, Yrigoyen provides selected excerpts from the sermons to show the basic theological themes found throughout the entire collection. He highlights the central themes as original sin, prevenient grace, justification by faith, new birth, assurance (knowing we are children of God), and holiness of heart and life.

Yrigoyen treats the final two doctrinal standards, “The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church” and “The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church”, in similar ways. He includes the entire text of each document with interspersed comments between sections of related material offering an explanation of the theological underpinnings that contributed to the development of the text itself. He groups “The Articles” into five major categories: The Triune God, Scripture, Sin and Salvation, Church and Sacraments, and the Christian in Society; and provides commentary between each section. While “The Confession” contains similar themes, Yrigoyen treats each numbered confession independently.

Yrigoyen concludes with a summary of the central doctrines found throughout the four doctrinal standards. He also urges us to read and consider carefully “Our Theological Task” as found in The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church.

Early on, in the preface of the book, Yrigoyen states that he had two purposes in mind when writing the book: first, “to remind us that what we believe does matter” and second, “to explain the doctrinal standards of The United Methodist Church.”(7) In a relatively short work, 128 pages, he has made an admirable attempt to do just that. While it would be impossible to do an in-depth study of the doctrinal standards in such a short work, he does however provide a solid foundation for further study and reflection. He spends just enough time covering the historical background of the standards to give the reader a sense of how the standards evolved, leaving the reader with a good starting point for further reading and study. Spending more time on the theological content of the standards, he allows the reader to fully appreciate the scope and breadth of John Wesley’s theology. With the lack of in-depth treatment of the standards however, the “Suggested Reading” sections at the end of each chapter were welcome additions.

This book is a good starting place for any United Methodist who has been confronted with the oft repeated statement that, “United Methodists can believe anything.” If we take seriously the “doctrinal standards”, this is easily seen as not being the case at all. After reading Yrigoyen’s work and becoming more familiar with our doctrinal distinctives, I am becoming increasingly aware of our failure as United Methodists to adequately equip our congregations.

It is difficult to understand how we could have let our congregations become so totally uninformed when it comes to our Wesleyan heritage. I have found that very few Methodists can even tell me where the name Methodist came from. Fewer still have any idea what “prevenient” means. This is an indictment, not of the laity, but of the leadership who have allowed “Methodist” to become little more than a name. Yrigoyen’s book will be an indispensible tool in equipping my congregation for their “theological task.”

I am reminded by Yrigoyen however, that teaching doctrine is only part of our task as pastors. If the connection isn’t made between head and heart, then we have missed the mark. He said…

The word diakonia is the Greek word for service and sums up in one word the nature of Christian ministry. The last thing we fallen humans like to think of is serving others, instead our instinct is to seek power, wealth, status, and influence. Thinking and acting like a servant requires our minds to be transformed and our physical limitations to be overcome by the power of  the Holy Spirit. First, the Holy Spirit must create in our hearts and minds a new, independent perspective:  “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom 12:2). Next, we need the Holy spirit to provide the energy in our lives to begin to lead and manage in ways that truly glorify God.

The examples of servant leaders are numerous in the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments. From the Old Testament examples emerge two significant themes. First is the Levitical priesthood which was consecrated by God to serve the Children of Israel. Examples of the duties of the Levitical priesthood include: the teaching of the Law, offering sacrifices,  maintaining the tabernacle and the temple, officiating in the Holy Place, inspecting ceremonially unclean persons, and they adjudicated disputes. It is important to note that all of these duties are in service to the people as the priests mediate God’s presence among the Israelites. The Levitical priests derived their very identity from their service to God and God’s people.

However, no Old Testament passage exemplifies servant-leadership like Isaiah 53 and the portrait of the “suffering servant” we see there. Of significant note are verses 4 and 5 which state, “Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed.” Isaiah 53 paints a picture of a servant willing to give all for those served, which is in stark contrast to the way most humans live their lives; seeking to be served, desperately reaching for the next rung on the ladder of success.

Jesus himself condemns this form of power-over that seeks to subjugate others and elevates the needs and wants of the master over the servant. In Luke 22:14-34 he vividly sets forth the foundation for living the Christian life, that is, seek to serve. Seek to empower others, meet the needs of others, and descend from your perceived place of prominence and live as a servant whose only purpose in life is to satisfy others.

John Wesley recognized this and, in what is generally referred to as “Wesley’s Rule”, stated, “Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.” Wesley urged other Christians to not just concentrate on saving their own souls, but also to reach out to others in need by visiting prisons, giving practical help to the poor, educating those of lesser means, etc.

The Biblical witness and our own experience and traditions give us ample reason to believe that the role of the Christian minister is that of “servant-leader.” However, we must be careful not to allow one system of subjugation to be replaced with another. We should continue to ask ourselves serious questions about the intent of our “servant-hood.” Are we seeking to use servant leadership as just a rung on the ladder of spiritual progress, leading to the eventual “reigning with Christ” so often spoken of? Do we place ourselves in the position of servant-leader to gain some sort of cosmic advantage over those who we could not otherwise subjugate? Or are we truly seeking to imitate Christ and in so doing give our very lives in service to God and to others. The human condition requires that we continue to learn what it means to respond authentically to each other to avoid replacing one form of domination with another.

Even if there are questions regarding what it means to be a servant, the call is clear. Following Christ’s example, we are to give our lives in service to others. As a provisional member, my role as a servant takes a distinct form – word, sacrament, order, and service. My responsibilities will be to preach and teach, administer the sacraments, assist in the administration of the Church through pastoral guidance, and lead my pastoral charge in service ministry to the world. All of this is an expression of “love of God and neighbor” lived out as service to others

I wish that I could say that my response to God’s call had always been “Here am I. Send me.” Unfortunately, it has often been just the opposite. For as long as I can remember, God’s call has been present. Though it took nearly thirty-five years for me to answer, I now look back on my life and see how God’s guiding hand has brought me to this place, where I can say without reservation, just as Isaiah did, “Here am I. Send Me!”

My family first saw the evidence of God’s call when I was a small child, much of which I cannot even remember. As a small child, my Grandparents and I shared many Sunday mornings together, and while they rarely attended church, they never missed an opportunity to watch Adrian Rogers’ Sunday morning service on television. As soon as he was finished, I would set up a TV tray and “preach” to anyone who would listen.

A decision by my parents, during my adolescent years, began what I considered a great difficulty. In the winter of ‘81 when I was eleven, my mother and stepfather moved us from Memphis, Tennessee to Batesville, Mississippi where we began attending a fundamental holiness church. While that alone may not be a bad thing, for an eleven-year-old boy that could barely remember the last time he was in a church, three-hour worship services, four days a week can be something of a shock. This began a struggle with my parents that lasted through my teen years where I tried to balance pleasing my family and determining for myself what it meant to please God.

As a young adult, on my own, I continued to struggle with what it meant to please God and often questioned whether we could ever really know that God existed. This search for the reality of God eventually led my wife and me through the doors of Courtland United Methodist Church, where the love we felt assured us that we were home. As I began to study Wesleyan theology and the polity of the United Methodist church, I became more and more convinced that God had indeed led me to a place where my faith and belief could find true expression.

Most of my life has been like so many others. My wife and I have been married nineteen years. We have two wonderful children, who remind us everyday who God is. The journey has not always been easy and at times, I did not even recognize it as a journey at all. There have been times in my life when I was sure that in the face of my persistent refusal, God had given up and would let me live my life the way I wanted to, but thank God, that in spite of my protests, God has been ever faithful.

Just when I thought that I had reached a place in life where I could be comfortable, a wonderful family, a good career, God’s call began to echo within my heart, just a little louder. “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” There is only one answer that fills my mind, “Here am I, send me!”

Above all, my goal is to serve God wherever God’s call may lead. While I may not yet fully understand where that call will lead me, I am certain that God has called me to serve within The United Methodist Church – appreciating all that it is and rejoicing in the hope of all it can be. I cherish my role as pastor in the local church as I seek to discover new ways in which to express “theology” as relative to our society, and gaining new perspective on our lives as Christians. The opportunity to journey with fellow travelers who share a commitment to the quest for God’s revealed knowledge and wisdom is precious.

Seeking to understand God and each other draws us nearer to our creator and one another, because understanding is essential in the development of any relationship. My wife and I have been married nineteen years, and each day brings me new insight into who she is and what my response as her husband should be. In the same way that my love and appreciation for her grows through understanding, through understanding, we grow to love and appreciate God and each other even more. Participating with others seeking to “know” God in a meaningful way, seeing the expressions of God’s grace in their lives, and seeing God from their perspective has a profound impact on my spiritual growth and enables me to fulfill my duties as pastor with a glad heart.

As I continue to grow spiritually, I become increasingly aware of how vitally important it is that we as Christians find ways to express our faith in meaningful ways. If we retreat into our own world of self-centeredness and personal indulgence, how then do our faith-expressions maintain consistency with the truth of the Gospel message? How can we speak to our sisters and brothers of God’s sustaining grace, when all they see is our vain attempt to sustain ourselves?
While completing the requirements necessary for ordination in the UMC will be noteworthy, it is however, only a small aspect of my ministry. It is my hope, throughout my time of service in The United Methodist Church, to offer without hesitation my prayers, my presence, my gifts, my service, and my witness. I hope to continue finding new ways to express my faith, to continue exploring varied perspectives on social and theological issues, and to continue to explore effective ways to use my gifts and talents while assisting others also seeking to discover the reality of God in their own lives.

For me, connectionalism is the primary defining characteristic of United Methodist Polity. Bishops, superintendents, itinerancy, etc. all seem to be outgrowths of this central characteristic. I once heard our own David Stotts say, “Connectionalism is the DNA of United Methodism.” This can sometimes be the source of our greatest challenges as we attempt to navigate the waters of diversity, but our connectionalism, infused with life by the Holy Spirit, offers the best hope for accomplishing the mission of the churches and pastors who are within the connection. We can accomplish so much more together than we could ever dream of accomplishing alone.

Connectionalism gives rise to another primary characteristic of United Methodism – itinerancy. Ordained elders of The United Methodist Church are committed to an itinerant ministry. “They offer themselves without reserve to be appointed and to serve, after consultation as the appointive authority may determine” (The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2008, ¶333.1.). Itinerancy has been a hallmark of Methodism since it earliest inception. It offers churches the benefit of a large pool of well-trained leaders and offers the ordained elders the freedom to share their gifts and graces as they are so led.

The Book of Discipline says that the local church “is a strategic base from which Christians move out to the structures of society.” However, each local church is a member of a larger structure that facilitates the work and mission of the Church in the world. This structure, made up of conferences, begins with the Charge Conference organized by districts, then the Annual Conferences, Jurisdictional Conferences, and finally the General Conference which is the governing body of the Church. Each Jurisdictional Conference elects bishops to preside over Annual Conferences who then, according to the Book of Discipline, guide the local churches in carrying out our mission – “making disciples for the transformation of the world.”

The Church is the body of Christ in the world, formed for the restoration of God’s created order. The Book of Discipline states that the local church, “as the most significant arena through which disciple-making occurs” is a community of true believers under the Lordship of Christ, the redemptive fellowship in which the Word of God is preached, and the place where the sacraments are duly administered. There are three specific areas that the Discipline posits as the reason for the local church’s existence – “for the maintenance of worship, the edification of believers, and the redemption of the world” (The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2008, ¶201). Such is the nature of the church according to the best expression of our common tradition. This understanding of the church highlights its communal nature, which Wesley himself described, in his sermon titled Upon our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, Discourse IV, by saying, “Christianity is essentially a social religion, and to turn it into a solitary religion is indeed to destroy it.” He said “that it cannot subsist at all, without society, without living and conversing with other [men and women].” The church is called to be “in the world,” to be Christ in the world. As we live into this call, we endeavor to live out our mission which the Book of Discipline defines as “making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” The Church, as a community of faith, is all about calling others to share with us in the abundant life that Christ offers, while we ourselves grow together in “grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2Pe 3:18a).

Each faith tradition has its own nuanced approach to the making of disciples, but we as United Methodists are given significant guidance as to what this means for us. The Book of Discipline says that we make disciples as we proclaim the gospel; as we seek, welcome and gather persons into the body of Christ; as we lead persons to commit their lives to God through baptism by water and the spirit, and profession of faith in Jesus Christ; as we nurture persons in Christian living; and as we send persons into the world to live lovingly and justly. Our mission finds it fullest expression in the life of the local church, but that life has cosmic significance, as our life together transforms the world.

The primary source for our Christian beliefs and practices is the Bible. The Book of Discipline (2008) states that, “United Methodists share with other Christians the conviction that Scripture is the primary source and criterion for Christian doctrine” (The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2008, ¶104). In article V of the Articles of Religion we find the statement that the Holy Scriptures contain “all things necessary to salvation.” In Scripture, we find the story of humanity’s fall, redemption, and restoration. We see our own story played out over and over in the lives of women and men seeking to know God in a real and meaningful way, and sometimes failing miserably in the process. But throughout the narrative, we see God’s continual action and involvement in the lives of men and women as God works toward “paradise restored.” Through it all we are challenged to be followers of Christ as we come face to face with God incarnate. From beginning to end, Genesis to Revelation, we read of God creating, redeeming, and sustaining God’s creation. But we also hear our call to participate in this narrative. We find that the story is not just of some ancient people and their journey, but it is a journey in which we play an active role. We find that we are called to belief and to action; belief in the Triune God revealed in scripture and action that reflects our understanding of who that God is and who that God would have us be.

How do we determine if our understanding bears any hint of truth? For this we turn to the remaining elements of the quadrilateral – tradition, experience, and reason. It is through these that various faith communities, seeking ways to live out their faith in ways that are true to their beliefs, have developed. From the earliest of times, men and women have sought to interpret the Word of God. The interpretive lens through which they look, shaped by their own tradition, verified by their own personal experience, and passing the tests of their own reason have left us with very diverse ways of understanding God. For me to ignore the voice of my contemporaries and those who have gone before is the height of hubris.

This leaves me with something of a dilemma. The diversity of human tradition, experience, and reason leads to the inevitable conclusion that all attempts at knowing God are subject to the individual human condition. We are all subject to the effects of our unique brokenness that leads to varying responses to, and apprehensions of, who God is and who God would have us be. How then do we justify the elevation in our discourse of one person’s interpretation/revelation over that of another? Maybe the answer is, “We don’t.”

For me, the beginning of “the answer” is recognizing how the interconnectedness of our beliefs might provide a richer understanding of how we judge what we believe. In his book, He Is There and He Is Not Silent, Francis Schaffer in his discussion of the Trinity speaks of “unity in diversity.” Could it be that the diversity of human tradition, experience, and reason is not an obstacle to truth, but an ultimate consequence/benefit of the infinite God making Godself known in and through God’s finite creation?

Maybe I’ve created more questions for myself than I’ve answered, but I think that’s the nature of our theological quest: exhaustible creatures seeking to know the inexhaustible God.

As a Christian, my first obligation is to bear a faithful witness to Jesus Christ. As a pastor/theologian, my primary obligation is to instruct/guide/nurture others in seeking to understand and articulate their own theology which finds expression in their own personal witness. The Book of Discipline defines theology as “our effort to reflect upon God’s gracious action in our lives” (The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2008, ¶104). Theology is our limited human attempt to search the limitless reaches of an infinite God – no small task. The Book of Discipline provides a framework for understanding our “theological task.” It states that our “theological task” is critical and constructive; individual and communal; contextual and incarnational; and essentially practical. This framework offers us an insightful way of delving into the difficult task of “doing theology.” It is important to remember that everyone is a theologian; even if they don’t see themselves as such. We all have beliefs about how the universe/cosmos operates, the rules that are in play, and the ultimate outcome of it all; and we bring those beliefs, as expressions of faith, to any discussion.

As a pastor, it is my job to critique those expressions faith based upon criteria formulated by the Wesleyan quadrilateral – scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. I don’t however see it as my job to tell people which of their beliefs are right or wrong, but to help them critique themselves. I have often found that the best way to engage in meaningful discussion is to ask good questions. This helps to get at the real discussion that is taking place without becoming antagonistic. Often, the discussion is about one thing, when the underlying theology is really what is in question. So, my role as pastor is often just to be an observant traveler, journeying with my parishioners, not necessarily leading or pushing, just helping along the way as necessary. This, I think, is the only way that criticism can be seen as constructive – when the one you’re critiquing recognizes your relationship as one of mutuality, not one of power-over.

The next piece of the framework is the tension between individual and community. I’ve heard it said that you can’t be an isolated Christian, that the Christian faith requires community. I would have to agree. While the question of faith is deeply personal, the expression of Christian faith is always expressed in community. Personal relationships with God must grow and yield to the ever-present reality of human existence, which manifests itself in our relationship with God as well as our relationships with each other. It is in our relationships within the broad context of human existence that we show ourselves to be witnesses to the resurrection of Christ. How we respond to each other is an expression of our response to God.

The contextual nature of our theological expression is directly related to our communal nature as humans. Each of us operates out of a context that shapes our being and shapes how we respond to the world around us. Our response to issues of justice, peace, and reconciliation, as Christians, should be direct expressions of how God’s grace has affected these issues in our individual lives. “Freely ye have received, freely give”, is a command to relate to the world as Christ relates to us. Through education and spiritual growth, our understanding of Christ’s relevance in our own lives should affect the way we relate to the world. As we live as the “body of Christ” we live into the promise of the incarnation, that Christ is present in the world.

Finally, what does it mean that our theological task is “practical?” I have often stated that I see myself as a practical theologian. I am much more interested in how a person lives their life than if their theology makes sense. That is not to say that theology/beliefs are not important, they are. But my experience is that a person’s true beliefs/theology finds expression in their living. You can say all day long that it is right to love your enemy, but if you don’t practice that in life, you must not really believe it.

Getting people to see that the way they live their lives is an expression of their true beliefs and helping them to orient their lives as a faithful witness to Jesus Christ is the primary task to which I am called.