Buzz Words

 I have always had a desire for people to get along. Perhaps it's the middle child in me. I remember in high school there being animosities between "jocks" and "stoners" and I felt a deep sadness at the notion that they couldn't get along, loving people from both groups and wishing they could love each other too. This sounds corny, but it's true! I feel very upset whenever someone is a neigh sayer on the issue of unity. I also feel very upset when people accuse others without having evidence. 

What I am seeing is that there are certain buzz words that trigger so much more than just the word. Just as wearing a certain color can identify you with a certain gang, instantly creating friends and enemies, but more so enemies than friends, buzz words can do something similar. This is an extremely oversimplified way of thinking, and it promotes division instead of unity. 

These buzz words are also often fear based. If the group you affiliate with can convince you that a certain buzz word is bad, just hearing someone else mention it can provoke a fear in you and an automatic judgment of the person or situation, placing him, her, or it in a box that you think you understand and have some control over. I am the type of person that sees opportunity and potential in everything and everyone. I guess that would make me an optimist. When I see people full of fear and caution, avoiding other people or situations because they've mentally put them in such a box, I see unmet potential and lost opportunity.  

God apparently will not allow such division in his kingdom. Galatians 5:19-21 includes enmity, strife, rivalries, dissensions, and divisions as works of the flesh and says they will not inherit the kingdom of God. The list also includes jealousy, fits of anger, and envy, which could perhaps be included in the category of division. In fact, I count 15 topics in the list of works of the flesh in this passage, five of which directly relate to division, plus three more that are affiliated. I think this says a lot! It looks like this is the English Standard Version that I randomly am examining here. 

Let me give an example of how the same word is used by two different Christian voices to mean two different things. This first video I found after reading commentary under a Holy Post podcast (Phil Vischer). The guest that day was a pastor of a multi-ethnic church and he spoke about how he likes to address race, talk about race in his sermons, and such things are quite present in the bible. He finds that discussing it helps unify his church. In the comments under this podcast, it was clear that many people really appreciated the podcast, as did I, but some saw it as politically charged, when in reality, it was not at all. The simple topic of race is being overly politicized, which is sad. 

One person suggested that everyone watch an Alisa Childers podcast, which I did. Afterwards, I came across another one of hers where she broke down signs that a church is becoming a progressive Christian church. I had not heard the exact term before. Here is that video. In case the video is not showing up in your device, here is the link. 

I am glad to have been introduced to Alisa and that she dedicates her time to sharing God's word. I watched the video to see not only how she defined progressive Christianity and what she was the warning signs were, but also to see where I stood on the issue. The five signs she outlines are:  

1. Lowered view of the bible, such as people picking and choosing which parts of the bible to believe. I watched this shortly after I wrote this blog post where I declared my belief in the bible at face value, while I know some illustrations such as parables were examples, not to be taken literally, and that there is discussion over the actual amount of time that the Bible spans.  

2. Feelings are emphasized over facts. She observes that progressive Christianity relies on people's feelings over topics, rather than facts. In this blog post, I shared verses that a charasmatic, self-declared prophet posted and applied to modern day politicians. No factual examples were used to support the claims. Many of these modern day prophets (or self-proclaimed prophets), several of whom believed that Trump would serve a second term, interpret dreams on a regular basis and seem to use those interpretations as equivalents to biblical truth. So I suppose this warning sign goes in all directions, but it seems to highly apply to charismatic Christians during this time. I also made basically the same point she is making here in this same post, valuing an intellectual rather than emotional approach, but was referring to Eric Metaxas and Christianity along the lines of Pentecostal, which charismatic Christianity is. 

3. Core essential doctrines are questioned. She brings up the question of an actual hell, saying that questioning that is questioning a core essential doctrine of Christianity. I would argue that this is not a progressive issue as Jehovah's Witnesses have taught against the doctrine of an actual hell for over a century. I also talked about this in this post. As someone who does believe the bible at face value as a the sacred word of God and will take any biblical verse into consideration in all things, I do not see how the existence of an actual hell where those who fail to repent are tortured for eternity is a definitive biblical doctrine. I see a more clearer illustration in the book of Revelation of those whose names are not in the book of life being thrown into the lake of fire, but no mention of torture, as we can conclude that a lake of fire would quickly destroy anything that enters it. Please feel free to share your thoughts on that!  

4. Historic terms are redefined. She didn't really use many examples on this one, except for the word love. I agree that a biblical definition of love is very important and that there is plenty of biblical evidence to follow, with Jesus' sacrifice being the prime example. I also shared this in another post, saying it is my offering to God. These are the verses that guide me in my mission, starting with the greatest commandment to love God and love others, then verses that define love.  

5. The heart of the gospel shifts from sin and redemption to social justice. I agree that the gospel is about Jesus dying for our sins and reconciling us to God. That should not be compromised. But she says, "This is the message that will truly bring freedom to the oppressed." I agree that the gospel gives strength to overcome the impossible and that ultimate power comes from the Holy Spirit, which Jesus says he baptizes his followers in. But oppression wouldn't actually exist if it weren't for oppressors. So the gospel doesn't just magically free the oppressed. But it should, if applied sincerely, convict the oppressors in addition to empowering the oppressed. And in that way, it should bring about social justice. I don't see why this would be an either/or. The gospel and social justice should simply go hand in hand. A thirst for social justice is the perfect opportunity to remind of or share about the solution Jesus' sacrifice is.

Alisa ends by saying, "Identifying the signs are not always obvious. Sometimes they're subtle and mixed with the truth." She then says to watch out for false prophets. Well, we've seen a lot of them lately with this last election, haven't we?! But they didn't fall into the category of progressive Christians.  

In conclusion, she gives some good points to watch out for. But the optimistic unifier in me says that if something is subtle and mixed wtih the truth, then let's focus on the truth and try to identify what is not of the truth, rather than fearful of what falls outside of the truth. Also, is it dangerous to look at some things through a different lens? Is it dangerous to ask whether there is really enough biblical evidence to confidently teach about eternal torture as a punishment? If someone or a group of people do seem to highly align the gospel with the issue of social justice, can you not run with that and reel it in? 

My prayer for Alisa is that she would be careful and intentional with her witness, as she is, but additionally, be filled with fearless love (1 John 4:18). I also pray that she would continue to question and seek and consider, as perhaps not all historical doctrines or even notions and ideas linked to Christianity are as biblically sound as we may have thought, just as not all leaders are. What should we fear when we have the bible to compare them to? I see she attributes a lot of her adulthood learning to Ravi Zacharias, Ironically, I just read an article about him that shows how human/flawed he was. I believe these confirmations of abuses he committed are just now coming out as this article was published yesterday. 

Next video. I came across this one by mistake, looking for the pastor who was the guest on Holy Post podcast who pastors a multi-ethnic church and likes to talk about race. It's called Transformation Church, but so is this other church whose video I stumbled upon. I didn't realize it was the wrong church until I got through the whole thing, although I did realize that this pastor wasn't the same one as I listened to on the podcast. I just assumed they were on the same team, and I believe they are, whether they know each other or not.  (One is in OK and the other in SC). This second Transformation Church, led by Michael Todd, also identifies as a multi-ethnic church. In case it's not working on your device, here is the link. 

This sermon celebrates Todd's sixth year as lead pastor at the church. He is extremely energetic, honest, transparent, righteously confrontational, funny, welcoming... I was impressed! I also would say that he nicely displays a mix of intellect and emotion. The core of his sermon surrounds Jesus calling Peter to go out where it's deeper in Luke 5:4 and let down their nets to catch fish. They caught nothing the first night. Jesus said to do it again. "If you say so". He said that Peter's response is bathed in faith. "If you say so". And they were blessed. 

He said that the dynamic only happens in the deep. This is where development takes place. And it all comes from obedience. He talks about how although now he's now a successful pastor with quite a following, he struggled and remained obedient previously. I related to him so much when he said, "Y'all didn't wanna see me the 10 years before that when I was leading youth. I was saying all kindsa things you shouldn't say to young people". Even just looking at this blog, you can see where I sort of disappeared for around 10 years. Check out the sidebar on the right that shows the year and how many posts I wrote that year. I used to be addicted to writing, especially during my teenage years. But over the past 10 years plus, I've been literally getting my butt kicked in the deep. I didn't have much to say or time to say it. Finally I've seemed to come out on the other side with some words to share. 

God was developing Michael Todd and Todd himself was preparing his net. Jesus didn't give Peter the nets. Peter was already prepared. When you don't have a big catch, you just keep preparing your nets. He said he continued to work on his communication skills, his leadership skills, etc. until God started using him in big ways. He was preparing his nets. He goes onto say that their church had so much financial overflow recently that they were able to gift $100,000 US to 20 different churches!!! 

 The reason I share this in this post is because he speaks about when he gave his life to Christ. He confessed that he previously was a liar who was addicted to pornography, and that committing his life to Christ didn't make him a perfect man, but it made him a progressive man. In the same sermon, he exclaims that he will never be politically correct but will always be biblically correct. Therefore, he did not mean progressive in a biblical way. He meant that his life was always progressing to reflect Christ, to reflect the image of God in which he was uniquely created. 

So there we have Alisa Childs using the buzz word progressive in a scary and dangerous way. Michael Todd uses it in a much different way. Over the past several months I've seen an argument surrounding diversity training at the elementary, middle, and high school level. Some see this as liberal indoctrination in children, while others see it as necessary to avoid social injustice and civil unrest that could easily be prevented by deeper understanding on the topic. 

I won't get into it too much, but my prayer is that the fear of the buzz words and the placing of ideas in boxes that we think we understand and can control would subside. I don't think Jesus would want himself  forced upon anyone, but is pleased when his heart be shared with everyone. We know that social justice is of utmost important to him, so why don't we use the opportunity to celebrate all image bearers and figure out how we can coexist. Starting in elementary school is a great way to do that. May all fear and buzz be removed from the topic and may the opportunity be seized. May it not be a discussion as to whether or not diversity training is necessary, but simply an argument of how it should be presented. Christians should have no opposition to the topic in general, and certainly no fear or disdain towards it.  

I'm going to share one more video that hits the nail on the head regarding diversity. A friend shared this eloquent TEDx talk the other day by Chandra Arthur. She tells about how she learned to code switch being bussed from her neighborhood to a school of different demographics in the next town over, as part of a gifted program. In case the video isn't showing up on your device, here is the link. 

Here are some highlights from the video. 

"The expectation of code switching threatens true diversity."

"I learned to behave and speak in a way that made me a non-threatening person of color." 

"There have been countless incidences in recent history where a person's ability or inability to code switch has been the difference between life and death." 

"For the person who is expected to code switch, to exist almost simultaneously in two or three different worlds constantly presenting a slightly edited version of self, the pressure can be immense." 

"What about a truer diversity where people are praised for their uniqueness and the cultural capital they bring to places and situations as opposed to being disciplined or shamed for it?"

"Most of us understand that by exposure to people and places and ideas that are different from us, we actually end up being better, smarter, more compassionate people." 

"The cost of code-switching on society is huge because it means that those of us that belong to minority groups spend a lot more time learning the language of cultural compatibility and less time doing the things that matter to all of us."

"As the tides of acceptance change in our nation and cultures continue to shift, I challenge all of us to really give every person, regardless of who they are, the space to really be and exist as their true selves. Because it's only when each of us can really live in our truth that we all gain the incredible benefits of true diversity." 

So let's be careful with those buzz words. As Jennifer Eivaz said, a prophet quoted in the New York Times article I linked previously in this post and here again, "social media rewards buzz and sensationalism" over wisdom. Those image bearers that mention those buzz words that cause you to put them in a box probably have more to them than you think. Let's give each other credit and dig deeper!