[the gospel of Rutba]

Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove tells this amazing story of embracing one's enemy:

During the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Leah and I traveled with the Christian Peacemaker Teams to Baghdad, believing that the way of Jesus called us to interrupt the unjust war our country was initiating. Three days after U.S. planes bombed the hospital in Rutba, our American friends’ car hit a piece of shrapnel on the highway outside of town and landed in a side ditch. Iraqis stopped by the roadside, took our bleeding friends into their car, and drove them to a doctor in Rutba. “Three days ago your country bombed our hospital,” he said, “but we will take care of you.” He sewed up their heads and saved their lives. When we asked the doctor what we owed him for his services, he only said, “Please, go tell the world what is happening in Rutba.”

The more we told the story, the more it sounded like a modern day Good Samaritan story. A good Iraqi—a good Muslim—not only saved our friends’ lives; he also showed us what God’s love looks like. We can’t be saved apart from the stranger, even the stranger who seems to be our enemy. The gospel of Rutba is that hope lies in the “enemy.”

Read the rest of Jonathan's post about The Gospel of Rutba (on his blog)

Check out the Gospel of Rutba website and read the book.

I'm gay unless...

Can people be themselves around those of us who are Christians?

Or do they feel they have to hide part of who they are, for fear of being laughed at, rejected, or otherwise mistreated?

If the cross around my neck is there because I have chosen to follow Jesus, will I follow Him in treating other people the same way he did?

---

On a related note, a pastor in Washington State has decided to reclaim the word gay -- to take it away from those who use it in ways related to sexual orientation and use it for the original meaning of happy and joyful.

He says he is "on a mission to take back words, phrases and symbols he believes groups, such as homosexual activists and other liberal organizations, have "hijacked" from the American lexicon." (source: christian post).

While he's at it, maybe he could "take back" some of the love and acceptance that these groups have hijacked from the church, 'cuz it sure seems that they have far more of it than some churches.

I'm Christian unless...

Christians should be Christians — in other words, like Jesus — regardless of whom they are interacting with. Unfortunately, that's not always the case. With some people they are nice and civil, with others they are cold, with some they can be downright rude, hateful and completely unChristlike! And then they do indeed become a tool of satan disguised as a religous nut, pushing people away from considering Jesus, away from being in relationship with Christians (who apparently have good news for everyone), and away from churches.

Are all Christians like this? Of course not. But enough of them are – particularly some very vocal ones – as seen by a survey of 16 - 29 year olds which found that 91% of those outside of the church perceived Christians as anti-gay, and 80% of churchgoers in the same age category perceived the church as anti-gay. (Unchristian, 2007).

Is this just about being pro-gay or anti-gay? No. You can fill in the sentence any way you like: "I'm Christian unless you're ______." What will it be for you?

Shouldn't a Christian be a Christian always? and in the same way?

Shouldn't we treat others with love and respect regardless?

Who would Jesus reject?

Whom do you have trouble loving the way Jesus did?

Please take time to read an excellent article called "I'm Christian unless you're gay" written by Dan Pearce, which inspired this cartoon. Despite the title, it's not specifically about gay people -- rather, it's about love, hate, respect...

---

On a related note, Red Letter Christians has an interesting article called "The Witness of the Sons of Hell", referring to Jesus calling the scribes and Pharisees "sons of hell" in Matthew 23, and discussing how we "become sons of hell when we devote our lives to locking people out of the kingdom of heaven."

[I'm sorry]

"Sorry seems to be the hardest word" – a line from one of the songs that played on the radio when I was growing up – is true of churches as well as individuals. But there are exceptions....

Here's an exciting story about Christians in Winnipeg stepping forward to say sorry to those they have hurt:

"On Sunday, June 3, a group of Christians from Little Flowers Community and Hope Mennonite Church said sorry to the lgbt people who have been hurt by the hatred and discrimination they've experienced from Christians and churches over the years. They went to Winnipeg's Pride Parade to "offer an unqualified, sincere apology."

The response was humbling. Hundreds of people marching in the parade stopped to thank us, hug us, take pictures and ask questions. However, most moving for me was the people who shouted out, “We forgive you!”. We were a small group and did not try to bring too much attention to ourselves (as the day was not about us), but made an intentional effort to let these neighbours know that we know we have done poorly and seek their forgiveness. That message seemed to be well received."

Read more about this, including concerns that some Christian communities expressed about participating and why saying sorry isn't enough, in the full post Why We're Sorry and Why It's Not Enough by Jamie Arpin-Ricci, "an urban missionary, pastor, church planter and writer living in Winnipeg’s inner city West End neighbourhood."

How often do we say sorry to one another?

How rarely do we see institutions such as churches and governments admitting wrong and saying sorry? Can you remember a time? The one that comes to my mind is when in 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a formal public apology to former students of the native residential schools. Perhaps you know of some?

the Lord be with you

Amazing that the pastor is still in the pulpit. In the typical elder-ruled or vestry-run church, he'd be long gone, dismissed via a secret meeting to which he was not invited. After all, he confessed his sin publicly, didn't he?

But somehow, here he is, albeit unsure of himself and of what to say, the Sunday after having inadvertantly outed himself in front of the entire congregation. And it is reasonable for him to be unsure. Many of his previous sermons had an anti-gay tone or message. He hasn't been fired ... yet. And now he finds himself at the mercy of the congregation. Well, at the mercy of those who have stayed, anyway.

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

I Peter 2:9 NIV

And here we have this verse played out, with a parishioner initiating the greeting with which a priest usually starts the eucharist (Lord's supper) in many liturgical churches. How fitting... a parishioner taking seriously hir role as a royal priest, using a phrase from the Lord's table at which all are welcome, the table of the Lord Jesus who broke stigmas and social rules and generally made the religious people of his day angry.

The Lord be with you.

televangelesus

Jesus didn't care about his reputation. He acted Christ-like regardless of who was around him and regardless of what the religious leaders thought about it.

Philip's reply was prophetic: while we don't hide passages where Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners, or was called a glutton and a drunkard, we downplay the significant ways in which Jesus broke the stigma and social mores of his time to reach out to those on the margins.

How about you and me? Do we love people like Jesus did? Or do we let cultural and social rules determine whom and how we love?

---

Note to readers: after reading this cartoon, one of my friends commented that it really should have been Philip who was concerned with Jesus' reputation, and Jesus replying this his disciples will ignore the significance of this in the future. This makes good sense in general, except that this is the "western jesus."

Who is that, you ask? It is a Jesus who acts the way that contemporary North American Christians tend to. This idea and theme came out of reading Richard Beck's book unclean, taking some of the concepts from it and applying them to Jesus. In other words, if Jesus was the way we tend to be, how would he have acted in the situations he found himself in?

I realize after his question that this is not so obvious in this particular cartoon, so I am pointing it out here.

See all western jesus cartoons.

[vineyard memorial garden for lost women]

Winnipeg.

A city where nearly 50 missing women, children and transgender Winnipeg sex-trade workers had been murdered or gone missing over the previous 26 years.

Most of them aboriginal.

Word has it that there has been a serial killer at work, and on Monday, June 25, 2012, police charged a man with three of these killings.

In Winnipeg's inner city is Vineyard Church,

located in a century-old warehouse at Main and Sutherland, which backs onto the memorial garden.

The Vineyard Memorial Garden, as it is formally called. Rieger [one of the pastoral staff at the church] and some friends started it to remember first 20, and now 24, murdered and missing neighbourhood women. At first, Rieger recalled Monday, it was murdered sex-trade workers who were memorialized; now it's any woman from the area who dies violently.

It was living sex-trade workers who inspired Rieger because they kept coming to him and asking if he could drive them to cemeteries where their friends were buried. And it was these same women -- women like Jane -- who helped build the memorial garden.

Stone by stone. Name by name. Tear after tear.

It was built in way that also honoured aboriginal tradition, and in a manner that allowed families and friends to have a place close by to grieve. The plaques to each woman still have to be put in place. So I asked Rieger when it would be finished.

"Never," he said.

Quotes from Gordon Sinclair Jr.'s full article at Winnipeg Free Press.

For more, read the Vineyard Church's story about the garden.

---

Christine Pohl tells this related story:

A very moving example of hospitality caught me by surprise as I visited one of the communities. Jubilee Partners has set aside a beautiful spot on its property for a graveyard. In it are buried several people who had been homeless before they died, a couple of refugees who became ill and died after they had come to the United States, and two men who had been convicted of capital crimes and were executed by the state. The quiet beauty of the place offered a poignant recognition of the humanity of people who were in many ways society’s castoffs. Their lives had been acknowledged with a simple funeral service and grave marker, arranged by a community who noticed, and cared about, their passing. This dimension of hospitality has very ancient connections. The early church took responsibility for burying strangers, especially indigent ones.

From Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition, p. 167.

Added January 3, 2013.

[understanding the cartoons on this blog]

First of all, if all you are looking for is a good laugh, you've come to the wrong place.

So sorry about that. This is a social commentary blog, and the majority of cartoons are involved in making comments about society and culture, especially the Christian subculture. Think of the editorial cartoons in major newspapers, with a Christian angle to them and without all the politics. The sidebar list of labels will give you a sense of the range of social, cultural and justice topics which are being addressed here. You can also check out about this blog to read more about my goals and vision.

Now about the cartoons. Most of the cartoons are a springboard to the discussion and questions contained in the text before and after the cartoon. It is thus important to read the surrounding text to understand the point of the cartoons. If you read only the cartoon and it does not make sense to you, read the rest of the post. If it still does not make sense, please post a comment with your questions or thoughts. (If it does make sense, I'd still love to hear from you).

A number of the cartoons use a pastor figure as the mouthpiece for negative views. No, I don't hate pastors. My dad is a pastor and I love and respect him. So why the pastor figure? Two reasons: first, pastors are often the public mouthpiece for the views of the church, and often the primary mouthpiece that tells the congregation how and what to think. Secondly, I'm not a great artist and so if I had to come up with a different drawing each time of different average people saying these things, I would be quite exhausted. This way, I can reuse the same basic layout which is easier. That having been said, the pastor cartoons will be evolving now that he has inadvertantly outed himself. Stay tuned for more on that.

Types of Humour

This blog deploys various literary devices and types of humour to get its points across in the cartoons and in the related text. These should be taken into account when trying to understand the content of the cartoons. Here are some examples:

1. Tongue in cheek
2. Hyperbole (exaggerating)
3. Irony
4. Inversion (saying the opposite)
5. Taking something out of its normal context
6. Caricature (this is particularly the case with the 'western jesus' cartoons, which recast jesus in the style of a contemporary north american christian)
7.  etc.

Thus, do I always exactly mean what the cartoon is saying? No. Do I always mean what the text is saying? No. But I do mean the cartoon and text to make the point that it is making, using whatever literary and humorous devices it's using. That having been said, you won't find me saying offensive things and then excusing them with the line, "I was just kidding." If something seems offensive, it's often either because you haven't read the text and understood the context, or because it's pointing out something that is not popular to point out and which the reader may not want to acknowledge.

Types of Cartoons

There are a variety of cartoons on this blog and I will describe some of the types here:

1. Purely funny with no deeper meaning. Simply a good laugh in the middle of the seriousness of this blog [example: chicken soup for everyone]. Because this is a social commentary blog, you won't find a lot of these, but there are some.
    
2. Funny with a deeper meaning. [example: man's best friend]
    
3. Possibly funny, but giving a twist to a familiar Bible story or passage, with a deeper point being made. [example: lost sheep]
    
4. Probably funny, and relating to a broader theme or exploration. For example, there are a number of cartoons labeled "western jesus" and "unclean". The "unclean" label is because this cartoon relates to my reading of (and quoting from) Richard Beck's book unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality and Mortality. The "western jesus" label is because Jesus is portrayed in these cartoons as responding as modern-day westerners might respond in similar situations. [example: jesus febrezus]
    
5. Maybe funny or not, and relating to a broader theme or exploration. This is similar to the previous item. For example, there are a number of cartoons labeled "love the sinner, hate the sin." After hearing this one day, I came up with a number of cartoons which are meant to deconstruct this saying, to point out what it is about, how other people hear it and how it can impact others. [example: third row] Similar themes would be "not anti-gay" which explores what it means to be or not be anti-gay, and "defining" which looks at how words are defined and who gets to decide what their definition is.
    
6. Not funny, and with a serious point. Essentially, the cartoon here is a pictoral way of introducing a topic. [example: the christian agenda]
    
7. Horrifying with a deeper meaning. There are a few of these, and they are not funny in the slightest, neither as a cartoon nor in the point that is being made -- but the point is an important one. [example: ecclesia]

Offensive?

If a cartoon or statement seems offensive to you, take a look at the whole context including the type of humour used, to see if perhaps it is really making a valid point. And keep in mind that I in no way mean that all Christians or all churches are a certain way, but that some Christians or churches are that way. Of course, it might well be that some readers will be offended — either by my perspectives and beliefs, or by the fact that I'm pointing out bad attitudes and wrong actions on the part of others. But my goal here is not to offend but to bring to light what is the case, to explore and process ideas, and to help us all move forward in loving each other as Jesus did. Again, check out about this blog.

This page is a work in progress, and may be updated from time to time.

defining enemy

Turns out that one of the Bible verses about "enemies of God" was in the church lectionary, and pastor decided to preach about it. That's fine, until he made a "real-life application" which included determining who today are the enemies of God.

His words are hurting men and women in his congregation – for themselves or for a loved one. They may even feel that they have to choose between doing what the church thinks is right and what their hearts and conscience tell them to do.

What makes him think he can know? Does he see into people's hearts and minds?

How can our words and actions welcome others, and help them move closer to God?

[the last supper for everyone]

A diverse collection of last supper images showing the width and breadth of God's love for everyone.


Jesus is my homeboy by David LaChapelle

David LaChapelle's Website

oops

Some members of the congregation absorbed the pastor's previous messages well – too well – and now that he has inadvertantly outed himself, they have outed themselves out of the church.

But some people have stayed. Perhaps they have not bought into his public views about homosexuality. Maybe some believe in full inclusion like the "church down the street." Perhaps they value relationships over facts and sexual orientation. Maybe some of them also understand where he's coming from. Or they've heard God's call to love one another.

How would you respond in such a situation?

unbaptized enemies

Can we agree to major on the majors? Can we focus on what really matters to the kingdom, and agree to disagree on the secondary things?

How easily we get distracted from what matters to the Kingdom of God. And surely quantity of water cannot be one of them. In this cartoon, pastor lumps the church down the street in with "enemies of God" because they baptize by sprinkling instead of immersion.

Growing up, I attended a Baptist church in Manitoba. It was part of a Baptist association which believed in baptism by immersion as an adult, and where one had to be baptized to be a member. They were completely against infant baptism. And they didn't just believe in immersion, they insisted on it.

Here's where the problem came up: when a person who had been baptized as an adult by sprinkling (in another denomination, obviously) came to the church (perhaps having gotten married to one of its members), they could not become a member unless they were baptized by immersion. Which meant that they had to be baptized again (from their perspective; from the church's perspective, it was for the first time). So really, it wasn't a matter of the person's ability to understand, or their conscious desire to be baptized, it was the quantity of water that was the problem.

One of the other churches in the denomination finally left due to such things.

If a person or a denomination feels so strongly about something, how many steps are they away from seeing the other person or church as misguided? heretical? the enemy?

How will people see the love of God for them when the churches they see are in conflict about things that are really not that important?


Note: this cartoon  was originally published on June 29, 2012, but that puts it out of sequence, in that chronologically it should have taken place before pastor inadvertantly outed himself on Sunday, June 17th . So I republished it to have it appear before.

chicken soup for everyone

the christian agenda

So much talk in conservative Christian circles about the gay agenda, about how gay people want to destroy churches and recruit children to homosexuality and so on. What about Christians? Do they have an agenda? It seems they do, and it's easy enough to suss out if one follows the news.

This cartoon captures a snapshot over time -- the first frame being an ongoing issue faced by teens when their good kind Christian parents kick them out of the house upon finding out their son or daughter is gay (sometimes on the advice of their pastor), the second frame something that was more commonly said in the early days of AIDS, and the last frame very recent. If you don't know the context, google "pastor worley fence" (especially if you are a follower of Jesus, you need to know what kinds of things other Christians are saying in public).

What will you answer if someone asks you about Pastor Worley?

How can you make the world a safer better place for everyone by showing Jesus' love and standing up against the mistreatment of those on the margins?

[revolutionary grace]

Jay Bakker writes about the time he and his wife, Amanda, “were invited to a drag show by RuPaul, the famous drag queen (recording artist, supermodel, VH1 talk-show host) who did the voice-over for the 2000 documentary about my mom, The Eyes of Tammy Faye.”

After considering whether or not to attend, he finally decided they would go. Here’s part of what he says about the event:

The first half of the show passed without incident. Then, during intermission, I stepped outside to have a cigarette. While I was standing there, one of the drag queens—a seven-foot-tall black man in heels who was wearing a massive replica of the Eiffel Tower on his head—approached me to say that he was a preacher’s kid too and that he had grown up in the church. He went on to explain how much he loved my mom and how worried he was about her cancer.

“Please tell your mom that I’m praying for her and that I love her,” he said, Eiffel Tower bobbing as he spoke.

“Well, let’s get a picture together so I can show my mom who you are,” I said, letting my guard down a little and taking a photo with him. Stubbing out my cigarette, I went back inside for the second half of the show.

Near the end of the show, a drag queen got up on stage and began spotlighting the famous people in the crowd…. And all of a sudden he said, “Did anyone here ever watch the ministry show Praise the Lord?”

I thought, Oh, no, here it comes. But half the crowd raised their hands and cheered (and chuckled). I think they were expecting someone to come out and impersonate my mom or something. “Well, Jim and Tammy’s son, Jamie, is here,” the emcee said. And suddenly, this huge spotlight hit me.

As I blinked into the blinding light, the emcee asked teasingly, “Are you straight?”

“Yeah,” I said, blushing and pointing a thumb at my wife, Amanda.

“Lucky girl,” the emcee said….

And then the emcee got real serious. Standing there in high heels and a sparkly dress, he said: “You know, this is where Jesus would be if He were alive today. Jesus hung out with the tax collectors and the prostitutes and the sinners…” He then launched into a three-minute speech about how Jesus loved everybody without judgment.

Then he looked back up at me and asked, “Jay, are you still doing your church?”

“Yeah,” I answered.

“Oh, that’s so wonderful, best of luck to you on that.” And everybody clapped.

So there I was, stunned, not knowing what to make of this. One minute a drag queen was making cracks about whether I’m gay, and the next minute he was saying these really amazing things about Jesus and grace. I looked over at Amanda, not knowing what to expect, and she had tears in her eyes.

“This is incredible, Jay,” she said. “A roomful of people, where you don’t know who believes what, they are talking about Jesus. They’re talking about His love and grace and how much they appreciate the fact that you, as a preacher, are here with them, that you’re willing to come out to the show and share this with them… This is where we’re supposed to be,” she said. “This is where God has sent us.”

I realized she was right.

That night, in a burlesque club in Los Angeles, I saw people hungry for the love and truth of Christ. Not the judgment and rejection they’d experienced their whole lives in the church, but the real deal: revolutionary grace.

That’s what they welcomed into their midst. That’s what grace is all about: loving one another and understanding one another and sharing in Christ together, no matter who we are or what others might think about it.

From: Fall to Grace, by Jay Bakker. Chapter “Saint Paul and RuPaul”, pp. 104 - 107

I highly recommend this book!

unearthly jesus

Bodily functions. Sometimes we hide their reality, sometimes we are open about them. Some of the crime dramas on television are pretty open – not only do they show characters heading through doors marked "Men" and "Women", but they might also feature entire conversations at the urinal.

Star Trek, in all its generations, is a marked contrast. Of all the episodes I've seen, there are no washrooms or toilets evident anywhere. The one exception to this is bathtubs -- I'm thinking particularly of an episode where Dianna Troy was taking a bath and turned into a bizarre water creature due to some DNA malfunction.

What about Jesus? Did his body function the way ours do? Did he have to take a rest now and then to regain his strength? Did he have to stop to go pee? Or do we prefer to think that he's above such things?

This cartoon was inspired by reading unclean by Richard Beck, which includes discussion of how we view our bodies and whether or not we think of Jesus as really human.

wheat and weeds

Then Jesus told them another story:

"The kingdom of heaven is like a man who planted good seed in his field. That night, when everyone was asleep, his enemy came and planted weeds among the wheat and then left. Later, the wheat sprouted and the heads of grain grew, but the weeds also grew. Then the man's servants came to him and said, 'You planted good seed in your field. Where did the weeds come from?'

The man answered, 'An enemy planted weeds.' The servants asked, 'Do you want us to pull up the weeds?' The man answered, 'No, because when you pull up the weeds, you might also pull up the wheat. Let the weeds and the wheat grow together until the harvest time. At harvest time I will tell the workers, "First gather the weeds and tie them together to be burned. Then gather the wheat and bring it to my barn." ' "

Matthew 13: 24 - 30 NCV

The pastor in this cartoon is being "inclusive" at one level, but also judgemental – he has decided who is the wheat and who are the weeds. And that is exclusionary and othering. That is tolerance of the religous sort but has nothing to do with Jesus.

In what ways do we judge who is in and who is out, whether on a social level or an eternal one? In what ways does the way we treat other people reflect the judgements we have made?

---

Richard Beck in a recent post says:

Should we pull out the weeds?

This question goes to the heart of one of the greatest temptations amongst religious people wanting to serve God: the impulse to sort the good people from the bad people, the saints from the sinners, the church from the world, the saved from the damned.

He then goes on to look at what the farmer says, and suggests that this parable offers two visions of what the kingdom could be like:

On the one side are the weeding Christians, those wanting to identify, sort out and burn the weeds.

And on the other side are those Christians who live alongside the weeds manifesting forgiveness and patience.

Cuz in real life, people are people.

[denying status boundaries]

From Richard Beck's book, unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality, and Mortality.

Given all this, and combined with the central place of table fellowship in Jesus’ ministry, it is not surprising that hospitality was a defining feature and virtue of the early church (cf. Acts 2:42-47, 4:32-37; I Tim 3:2, 5:10; I Pet 4:9; Titus 1:8; Rom 12:13, 15:7). As Christine Pohl notes in her book Making Room, these practices continued to be a distinctive feature of Christian communities during the first centuries of the church:

Hospitality to needy strangers distinguished the early church from its surrounding environment. Noted as exceptional by Christians and non-Christians alike, offering care to strangers became one of the distinguishing marks of the authenticity of the Christian gospel and of the church. Writing from the first five centuries demonstrate the importance of hospitality in defining the church as a universal community, in denying the significance of the status boundaries and distinctions of the larger society, in recognizing the value of every person, and in providing practical care for the poor, stranger, and sick.

Given the impact of sociomoral disgust upon human affairs, it is not surprising that the act of hospitality is fundamentally an act of human recognition and embrace. If exclusion is fundamentally dehumanizing, hospitality acts to restore full human status to the marginalized and outcast. As Pohl writes:

For much of human history, Christians addressed concerns about recognition and human dignity within their discussion and practices of hospitality. Especially in relation to strangers, hospitality was the basic category for dealing with the importance of transcending social differences and breaking social boundaries that excluded certain categories or kinds of persons … Hospitality resists boundaries that endanger persons by denying their humanness.

Beck, pp. 122-123 (Pohl quotes from Making Room, pp. 33, 62, 64)

And a quote from Henri Nouwen to wrap it up:
“Hospitality means the creation of free space where the stranger can enter and become a friend instead of an enemy.”

two-faced jesus

Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.

When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.

All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.”

But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”

Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

Luke 19:1-10 NIV

Can you imagine Jesus pretending to be nice to someone? Or having dinner with someone for show? Would Jesus decline to have dinner with someone because they are part of the "wrong crowd"?

How often do we do things for show? Or just to look good to our friends? Whom do we avoid?

What prevents us from truly and freely loving people just as they are?

That Jesus, a rabbi, would choose to go be the guest of a tax collector, is highly significant and breaks the social stigma of the day. The next post, with a quote from Richard Beck's book, explores the significance of hospitality in the early church.

ecclesia in the field

This is the second cartoon in the ecclesia series. Not as graphic as the first one, but still exploring the body of Christ and how ecclesia (the church) responds to unwholeness (a.k.a., being divided or broken).

What kinds of things cause destruction in the body of Christ?

What kinds of responses have you heard when faced with separation between different parts of the body of Christ?

[outside the moral circle]

From Richard Beck's book, unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality, and Mortality.

But what about those people on the outside of the moral circle? Those we identify as strangers? People on the outside of the moral circle are treated instrumentally, as tools to accomplish our goals in the world. In Kantian language, people inside the moral circle are treated as ends in themselves while people on the outside of the moral circle are treated as means to our ends. We treat those inside the moral circle with love, affection, and mercy, and those outside the moral circle with indifference, hostility, or pragmatism. And all this flows naturally from a simple psychological mechanism: Are you identified as “family”? Once the identification is made (or not), life inside and outside the circle flows easily and reflexively.

….

Does humanity end at the edge of the moral circle? That is, is the way we treat people outside the moral circle symptomatic of something darker and more sinister? Do we see outsiders as less than human?

The phenomenon of seeing people as less than human is called infrahumanization. Historically, infrahumanization occurs when one group of people comes to believe that another group of people does not possess some vital and defining human quality such as intellect or certain moral sensibilities. These infrahumans might be human from a biological perspective, but they are believed to lack some moral or psychological attribute that makes them fully human, on par with the "superior” group.

Beck, pp. 101-102

In Jesus' day, lepers were seen as less than human. So were Samaritans and Gentiles. Whom do we think of as less than human today?

See the untouchable jesus cartoon in the previous post.

untouchable jesus

From the gospel of Matthew:

When Jesus came down from the mountainside, large crowds followed him. A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.” Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immediately he was cleansed of his leprosy. Matthew 8:1-3 NIV.

Cartoon aside, here's what Richard Beck in unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality, and Mortality says about what the true Jesus did:

What is intriguing about this story is the sequence. Jesus touches the leper first. Then the command “Be clean!” is offered. That is, Jesus’ first move is into ritual defilement. By first touching the leper, Jesus intentionally and willfully seeks contamination, standing in solidarity with the unclean. This is striking because the expected sequence would be initial purification followed by contact. Jesus, surprisingly for the onlookers, does the opposite. Contact occurs first. Purification follows solidarity. And one can only wonder how various Christian communities approach this sequence in their own missional endeavors.

Beck, p. 76

Beck then goes on to discuss how the writer of Mark gives us several examples of how Jesus overturns the traditions of his day: when Jesus heals an “unclean” man in the synagogue, and then when he heals a leper after touching him first. Beck then comments,

… in this healing Jesus reverses the directionality and power of pollution (the attribution of negativity dominance). Rather than the unclean polluting the clean, we see, in Jesus’ touch, the clean making the polluted clean. Here, in Jesus, we see a reversal, a positive contamination. Contact cleanses rather than pollutes….
Soon after these events, in a parallel to Matthew 9, Jesus is found admitting “unclean” persons—tax collectors and sinners—to the sociomoral space of table-fellowship.

Beck, p. 81

Contrast Jesus' actions with what you see in church. Are "unclean" persons welcomed? How are those who are different treated? Are we willing to love and accept others where they are at?

go and sin no more

The story of the woman caught in adultery is amazing at many levels, from the trap the teachers of the law and Pharisees were trying to set to Jesus' way of exposing them:

At dawn Jesus appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

John 8:1-11 , NIV

But today, instead of seeing how life-giving this encounter is (literally and spirit-ually for the woman), some Christians have taken the phrase "go and sin no more" as the new golden rule. This is how it works: they identify people as sinners, and they apply the rule.

But Jesus said this once to one person, in a passage which is not found in the earliest manuscripts.  As someone named candeux said in a blog comment, "For one thing, we rarely read of Jesus calling individuals to repentance. In the case of prostitutes, I wonder if he recognized that these women were not choosing to be prostitutes because they were sex-starved but because they were forced into it for economic reasons (probably because they were unsuitable for marriage for one reason or another) and thus were in need of love and care more than they were in need of repentance." (comment source)

He saw, and sees, each person for who they are and where they are at. But many churches seem to have trouble with that, and I wonder if Jesus today might use the phrase one more time, addressing the church and its actions and attitudes toward lgbt people:

May 25th postscript: I also recommend checking out Richard Beck's post with accompanying comments on the topic of "Go and sin no more."

[why would I ever go there?]

grace: visual edition is an amazing book which combines the writings of Philip Yancey in his book What's so Amazing about Grace with great visuals. Here's one story which will give you a taste of the book and which also ties in with the theme of this blog:

"A prostitute came to me in wretched strait, homeless, sick, unable to buy food for her two-year-old daughter. Through sobs and tears, she told me that she had been renting out her daughter—two years old!—to men interested in kinky sex. She made more renting out her daughter for an hour than she could earn on her own in a night. She had to do it, she said, to support her own drug habit.

I could hardly bear hearing her sordid story. For one thing, it made me legally liable—I'm required to report cases of child abuse. I had no idea what to say to this woman. At last I asked if she had ever thought of going to a church for help.
I will never forget the look of pure, naive shock that crossed her face.

'Church!' she cried. 'why would I ever go there? I was already feeling terrible about myself. They'd just make me feel worse.'"

What struck me about my friend's story is that women much like this prostitute fled toward Jesus, not away from him. The worse a person felt about herself, the more likely she saw Jesus as a refuge. Has the church lost that gift?

Evidently the down-and-out, who flocked to Jesus when he lived on earth, no longer feel welcome among his followers. What has happened?

Yancey, p. 21

defining love

Brian, in a comment at Bridging the Gap, says:

I'm reminded of one of my favorite lines from Ellen Degeneres. She was musing about the weird habit some people have of saying something insulting and then saying "just kidding" as if that somehow erases the insult. "You don't know how to kid properly," she quips, "we should both be laughing."

Sometimes I want to yell at the church, "You don't know how to love properly. We should both be feeling the love!"

Brian at conversations-on-generous-spaciousness March 24, 2012 12:03 PM

Who defines love? Just the person claiming to be loving? Or do those who are apparently being loved have a say?

not good

[negativity dominance]

From Richard Beck's book, unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality, and Mortality.

Finally, consider the attribute of negativity dominance. The judgment of negativity dominance places all the power on the side of the pollutant. If I touch (apologies for the example I’m about to use) some feces to your cheeseburger the cheeseburger gets ruined, permanently (see above). Importantly, the cheeseburger doesn’t make the feces suddenly scrumptious. When the pure and the polluted come into contact the pollutant is the more powerful force. The negative dominates over the positive.

Negativity dominance has important missional implications for the church. For example, notice how negativity dominance is at work in Matthew 9. The Pharisees never once consider the fact that the contact between Jesus and the sinners might have a purifying, redemptive, and cleansing effect upon the sinners. Why not? The logic of contamination simply doesn’t work that way. The logic of contamination has the power of the negative dominating over the positive. Jesus doesn’t purify the sinners. The sinners make Jesus unclean.

Beck, p. 30.

See the naked jesus cartoon in the previous post.

There is an online discussion of the book at uncleantheology.blogspot.com

naked jesus

From the gospel of Mark:

A large crowd followed and pressed around him. And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.

At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, “Who touched my clothes?”

“You see the people crowding against you,” his disciples answered, “and yet you can ask, ‘Who touched me?’ ”

But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it. Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth. He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.”

Mark 5:24-34 NIV

In Jesus' day, women who were having their period were ritually unclean, and anyone who touched them would also become unclean. This woman had been hemorrhaging for many years, and would have been considered unclean. Yet instead of rejecting her, Jesus rejected the social rules of his day. He blessed her with his response that included her by addressing her as daughter, acknowledging her faith, and then giving her a blessing for her future.

ecclesia

Because this drawing is explicitly violent, I recommend you read the background information to better understand what it is about:

The idea originally came to me in the context of I Corinthians 12:

12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.
 15 Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body. (NIV)

Here, rather than the foot feeling like it is not part of the body because it is not a hand, the foot is feeling like the hand is not part of the body. The additional influences are the idea that the church is missing out on the gifts which other parts of the body bring to it, and the idea of Christ being the head and the church being the body ("Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior" Ephesians 5:23b).

One day, as I was developing the drawing, I had outlined the body and then it came to me that I needed to add a particular implement. Drawing this implement was a disturbing experience for me due to the additional degree of violence it brought. Later, as I considered the drawing and what it meant, the words which are written below it came to me. While they are shocking at one level, there is also an element of hope and safety in them, tying in to Romans 8:38-39:

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (NIV)

Ecclesia, by the way, is from the Greek word for church or congregation.

So we must ask, what parts of the body of Christ is the main part of the church rejecting? Who are these Christians who are being cut off and called "not body"? What is this costing them, and what does it cost the rest of the church?

rob goetze

[love and disgust]

From Richard Beck's book, unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality, and Mortality.

As the self gets symbolically extended so does disgust psychology, the primal psychology that monitors the boundary of the body. Disgust accompanies the self as it reaches into the world, continuing to provide emotional markers denoting “inside” versus “outside,” the boundary points of the extended symbolic self. With this understanding of the self in hand, we are well positioned to understand human love, intimacy, and relationality. Specifically, as the notion of “one flesh” highlights, love is a form of inclusion. The boundary of the self is extended to include the other. The very word intimacy conjures the sense of a small, shared space. We also describe relationships in terms of proximity and distance. Those we love are “close” to us. When love cools we grow “distant.” We tell “inside” jokes that speak of shared experiences. We have a “circle of friends.” “Outsiders” are told to “stop butting in.” We ask people to “give us space” when we want to “pull back” from a relationship. In sum, love is inherently experienced as a boundary issue. Love is on the inside of the symbolic self.

….

What we discover in all this is that disgust and love are reciprocal processes. Disgust erects boundaries while love dismantles boundaries. This was the conclusion of St. Catherine noted in the quote at the start of the chapter: sound hygiene was incompatible with charity. One also thinks of St. Francis rushing up to kiss the leper. Love is, at root, the suspension of disgust, the psychic fusion of selves.

Beck, pp. 86, 88.

See the jesus febrezus cartoon in the previous post.

jesus febrezus

It happened that as he made his way toward Jerusalem, he crossed over the border between Samaria and Galilee. As he entered a village, ten men, all lepers, met him. They kept their distance but raised their voices, calling out, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!"

Luke 17:11-13, The Message

While the cartoon is consistent with our western attitudes toward those who are unclean (whatever that means to each of us), this is not how the real Jesus responded. Here's the rest of the passage:

Taking a good look at them, he said, "Go, show yourselves to the priests."

They went, and while still on their way, became clean. One of them, when he realized that he was healed, turned around and came back, shouting his gratitude, glorifying God. He kneeled at Jesus' feet, so grateful. He couldn't thank him enough—and he was a Samaritan.

Luke 17:14-16, The Message

This is the first cartoon in my "unclean" series, inspired by reading Richard Beck's book unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality, and Mortality. I will be pairing these cartoons with related quotes from Beck (usually posted after the cartoon), which I recommend you read.
Edited June 25/2012

business as usual

What should be the church's "business as usual? What have you experienced it to be?

Churches and Christians often act as if their purpose is to focus on right and wrong, even to the point of enforcing this in the lives of others. What's with that?

Was Jesus' life focused on right and wrong, or on loving people and speaking the truth in ways that they could hear it? Granted, he also had this annoying habit (annoying particularly to the very religious people) of upsetting the status quo, overturning power structures, and breaking social mores. He probably wouldn't be welcomed in most churches....

[God's partiality]

From Miroslav Volf's book Exclusion and Embrace:

Consider, second, God’s partiality. In the biblical traditions, when God looks at a widow, for instance, God does not see “a free and rational agent,” but a woman with no standing in society. When God looks at a sojourner, God does not see simply a human being, but a stranger, cut off from the network of relations, subject to prejudice and scapegoating. How does the God who “executes justice for the oppressed” act toward widows and strangers? Just as God acts toward any other human being? No. God is partial to them. God “watches over the strangers” and “upholds the orphan and the widow” (Psalm 146:7-9) in a way that God does not watch over and uphold the powerful.

Why is God partial to widows and strangers? In a sense, because God is partial to everyone—including the powerful, whom God resists in order to protect the widow and the stranger. God sees each human being concretely, the powerful no less than the powerless. God notes not only their common humanity, but also their specific histories, their particular psychological, social, and embodied selves with their specific needs. When God executes justice, God does not abstract but judges and acts in accordance with the specific character of each person. Do we not read, however, that God’s Messiah will “not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear; but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth” (Isaiah 11:3-4). But should we conclude that his eyes will be closed when executing justice? To the contrary. He will judge truly because he will not judge by appearances and hear-say. God treats different people differently so that all will be treated justly.

Volf, pp. 221-222

ticket to heaven

Fr. Ron Rolheiser, omi, wrote:

"The great Jewish prophets, the forerunners of Jesus, coined a mantra which ran something like this: The quality of your faith will be judged by the quality of justice in the land and the quality of justice in the land will be judged by how "widows, orphans and strangers" (biblical code for the three most vulnerable groups in society) fared while you were alive.

Jesus wouldn't disagree. When he describes the last judgment at the end of Matthew's Gospel, he tells us that this judgment will not be, first of all, about right doctrine, good theology, church attendance, or even personal piety and sexual morality, but about how we treated the poor. Nobody gets to heaven without a letter of reference from the poor. Jesus and the great biblical prophets make that clear."

Source: WCR, posted Feb 7/2011; retrieved jan 14/2012
Thanks to Laurier for pointing me to this quote from Fr. Rolheiser.

It's pretty obvious who the orphans and widows are in our culture. Who are the strangers? Just people we don't know, or perhaps people we find to be strange (viz., different than us)? Who are the most vulnerable groups in our society?

sermon from the pit

[lady gaga, jesus, and little monsters]

Richard Beck on his blog has an excellent post about Lady Gaga and how she embodies the gospel:

In short, in this song [Bad Kid] Gaga is trying to get on the inside of these "monsters," to speak to their brokenness, sadness, loneliness and alienation. To society these are "bad kids." But Gaga sings to them "You're still good to me."

And I ask you, doesn't that sound a whole lot like Jesus?

Gaga calls out to the little monsters. And Jesus eats with tax collectors, sinners, and prostitutes.

...

This is what I think. I think every Christ-following church should start talking to their youth groups, saying unambiguously: We want you to be a wall of protection for kids like Jamey. Seek out and protect--emotionally and socially--every weird, weak, nerdy, lonely, queer kid at your school. We don't care if they are a goth, or a druggy, or a queer. Doesn't matter. Protect these kids. Churches should train their youth groups to be angels of protection, teaching them to find these kids and say, "Hey, I love you. Jesus loves you. So no one's going to bully you. Not on my watch. Come sit with me at lunch." That's what I think. I think every Christ-following church should start Guardian Angel programs like this, teaching their kids to stick up for kids like Jamey. Not with violence. But with welcome and solidarity. Because it's hard to bully a group. So let's welcome these kids into a halo of protection and friendship.

From The Gospel according to Lady Gaga by Richard Beck. Reading the entire post is recommended!

What a difference it would make for today's youth, if churches encouraged and equipped their young people in this way! What a challenge to be outwardly-focused in a way that is concrete and desperately needed.

[hitler’s sweater]

From Richard Beck's book, unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality, and Mortality. Regarding a study which (put briefly) investigated whether people would be willing to put on a sweater purportedly worn by Hitler:

What studies like this reveal is that people tend to think about evil as it if were a virus, a disease, or a contagion. Evil is an object that can seep out of Hitler, into a sweater, and, by implication, into you if you try the sweater on. Evil is sticky and contagious. So we stay away.

What we see in this example is how disgust psychology regulates how we reason about and experience aspects of the moral universe. Disgust psychology prompts us to think about evil as if it were a virus or polluting object. When we do this the logic of contamination is imported into moral discourse and judgment. For example, as noted earlier, we begin to worry about contact. In the domain of food aversion contact with a polluting object is a legitimate concern. But fears concerning contact might not be appropriate or logical in dealing with moral issues or social groups. Worse, a fear of contact might promote antisocial behavior (e.g., social exclusion) on our part.

The example of Hitler might sound extreme, but consider another study done by Paul Rozin, Maureen Markwith, and Clark McCauley. In this study the researchers observed that many people don’t want to wear sweaters previously owned by homosexual persons, or even lie down in the same hotel bed if a homosexual person was the previous night’s occupant. In short, just about any behavior judged to be sin could active disgust psychology, subsequently importing contamination logic (e.g., contact fears) into the life of the church.

Beck, pp. 25-26.

man's best friend

Once in a while, Pastor Stickman's resistance to wearing his reading glasses does him good.

And further to dog's love for us, the Archbishop of Canterbury has asked,

What difference would it make if I believed I am held in a wholly loving gaze which saw all my surface accidents and arrangements, all my inner habits and inheritances, all my anxieties and arrogances, all my history, and yet loved me wholly with an utterly free, utterly selfless love? And what difference would it make if I let myself believe that each person around me is loved and held in the same overwhelming, loving gaze, and that this love made no distinctions of race, religion, age, innocence, strength or beauty?

(as quoted in a sermon by Bishop Jane on March 4, 2012).

And that is what dog is like, loving us with an utterly free, utterly selfless love, no matter what, and wanting us to do the same for others.

trump

Why is it that the "gay = sin" card so often trumps the "love your neighbour as yourself" card?

I realize that some people believe "gay = sin" is Biblical, and others do not. The point here is that, for those who do believe it, why do they so often stop believing in love? Why do they find it so easy to treat people in ways which are opposite to the way of Jesus?

Why, when faced with ideas that seem contradictory, do we find it hard to choose love?

[in or out]

I couldn't resist posting this image from www.postsecret.com (week of January 21/12). It illustrates how we sometimes judge people based on the silliest things.

FYI
Postsecret.com is a website to which people send their secrets on postcards. Each week, a selection of postcards is shown online. The postcards cover a wide range of topics and emotions. Richard Beck has written about postsecret.com on his blog, particularly from his perspective as a research psychologist. On his first post on the topic, Beck says,

No doubt, many with find PostSecret odd, exhibitionistic, ill, and voyeuristic. I think these adjectives do apply. But at its core I think PostSecret has touched a nerve and is meeting a need. A need for authenticity and acceptance that the church has failed to address.

defining anti-gay

The pastor and church doesn't treat lgbt people the same as straight people, yet claims to not be anti-gay. Do you agree? Does it matter how lgbt members of the congregation feel about this?

Who defines anti-gay — the powerful or the powerless? The privileged or the marginalized?

Compare this cartoon with the 'defining hate' cartoon — there it is pretty obvious that we wouldn't and shouldn't let the slave owner decide whether he is being hateful toward his slaves. Is it as easy to decide with this cartoon? While the overall situations are not parallel, do the same principles apply in terms of the minority being given a voice and the right to say whether they feel those in power are against them?

defining hate

Would you believe the slave owner who says that he does not hate his slaves? Would you even need to ask the slaves their opinion on this question? Or would you say that owning someone is inherently hateful regardless of whether you "take good care of them" or not?

Who defines hate - the powerless or the powerful?

[psychological non-starters]

From Richard Beck's book, unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality, and Mortality

In sum, the antagonism between mercy and sacrifice is psychological in nature. Our primitive understandings of both love and purity are regulated by psychological dynamics that are often incompatible. Take, for example, a popular recommendation from my childhood years. I was often told that I should “hate the sin, but love the sinner.” Theologically, to my young mind (and, apparently, to the adults who shared it with me), this formulation seemed clear and straight-forward. However, psychologically speaking, this recommendation was extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to put into practice. As any self-reflective person knows, empathy and moral outrage tend to function at cross-purposes. In fact, some religious communities resist empathy, as any softness toward or solidarity with “sinners” attenuates the moral fury a group can muster. Conversely, it is extraordinarily difficult to “love the sinner” –to respond to people tenderly, empathically, and mercifully—when you are full of moral outrage over their behavior. Consider how many churches react to the homosexual community or to young women considering an abortion. How well do churches manage the balance between outrage and empathy in those cases? In short, theological or spiritual recommendations aimed at reconciling the competing demands of mercy and sacrifice might be psychological non-starters.

Beck, p. 3

After drawing numerous cartoons which comment on the idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin," I found Beck's take on this from a psychological perspective very interesting. And it's pretty obvious that most churches who believe this infamous saying aren't doing a good job of following it.

opposites

And how can we encourage one another to be more like the Jesus we read about in the Gospels?

historical hiccup

History repeats. With the occasional hiccup, the extraordinary disruption that changes everything, but unfortunately not everyone....

[unclean: intro]

After reading Exclusion and Embrace by Volf, I heard about Richard Beck’s book unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality, and Mortality. Not only does he refer to Volf frequently, but his book is a fascinating look at the very real psychology which influences exclusion and embrace. A key Bible passage he references is Matthew 9, where Jesus is eating with tax collectors and sinners. The Pharisees confront Jesus’ disciples about his behavior and he replied, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice’” (verse 12).

“I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” Echoing Hosea, Jesus defends his embrace of the “unclean” in the Gospel of Matthew, seeming to privilege the prophetic call to justice over the Levitical pursuit of purity. And yet, as missional faith communities are well aware, the tensions and conflicts between holiness and mercy are not so easily resolved. At every turn, it seems that the psychological pull of purity and holiness tempts the church into practices of social exclusion and a Gnostic flight from “the world” into a “too spiritual” spirituality. In an unprecedented fusion of psychological science and theological scholarship, Richard Beck describes the pernicious (and largely unnoticed) effects of the psychology of purity upon the life and mission of the church.
          (from the back cover). 

I will be posting some quotes from his book that relate the themes on this blog. They will be labeled quotes from beck.

If you are interested in reading the book yourself, here’s the reference:
unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality, and Mortality
Richard Beck (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011)

Jamie Arpin-Ricci has interviewed Richard about the book. Read the interview at missional.ca