Under This Tree - A Poem About Freedom

Come, sit with me under this tree

It is the Tree of Knowledge Of Good and Evil

Yes, that tree, the one that Adam and Eve ate from

The one that God warned them about

The one that made them die

Only they did not really die

 But they learned something

Their eyes were opened

They realized they were naked and were ashamed

They began to understand right and wrong 

And how to judge each other

Now we all die in that way

We all know right and wrong

We all face the burden of shame and guilt

We all judge each other, and ourselves
It is unavoidable

At least that is what they tell us

But what if they are wrong?

What if they’re not telling us the whole story? 

What if we are not condemned to their fate?

What if each new day, we sit at the foot of this same tree

And can decide whether or not to partake? 

What if you and I, right now, can choose not to eat 

From The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? 

What if we can resist the knowledge of right and wrong?

What if we can avoid the judging?

And the shame?

 And the guilt?

Come, sit with me under this tree, 

and let us find out together. 

Let us turn away from this tree toward another

It is The Tree of Life

It can make us like God

It can provide eternal life

It is this tree that God really does not want us to eat from

At least that is what they tell us

But what if they are wrong?

Come, sit with me under this tree.

What Is The Tree Of Knowledge Of Good and Evil?

In the mainline Protestant tradition, Walter Brueggerman is perhaps the leading Old Testament scholar. Imagine my dismay, then, when I was reading his commentary on Genesis and came across this passage on the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (referred to from now on as “TKGE”):

“Even less is known of the tree of knowledge. It is found nowhere else in Scripture. While it is true that this is the prohibited tree, nothing is made of that. It seems incidental there are two trees... in any case, the story is not interested in the character of the tree. The trees are incidental to the main point that God’s command is a serious one.”

I completely disagree. The character of the trees are of the greatest importance, as is the fact that there are two trees - “The Tree of Life” and “TKGE.” Understanding what happened to Adam and Eve when they ate the fruit, and not merely the fact that they “disobeyed” God, is where we find vast potential for movement into greater freedom.

So I made a search for other Christian thinkers who had given the character of the two trees more credence. Here are two rather random writers I found, who represent the two basic understandings of the character of the TKGE. (with my commentary in parentheses).

Douglas Stuart:  “The idea is that we now have more knowledge than we can morally handle. That is the point of what is emphasized here in this story. Part of the human dilemma as a consequence of the fall is that humans have enormous knowledge of how to do bad things as well as how to do good things.”

(The TKGE represents the capacity of humans, unlike other animals, to make moral judgments - and even to know that right and wrong exists. Which means we can choose whether to do good or bad deeds.)

Micah Redding:  Humanity was created to be like God, to do the sort of work that God does: to create and cultivate life, to name and categorize creation. And so these two trees were not hidden away from humankind—but planted directly within reach. And yet, God forbids humans to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Why?... Humans weren’t ready.”

(Redding takes Stuart’s description a step further. The TKGE is not just about knowing right and wrong. Along with the Tree of Life, it represents the capacity of human beings to surpass their animal natures and flirt with divinity - to “create and cultivate life.” Which Adam and Eve were not prepared for. Giving humans this possibility is kind of like putting a 5 yr-old behind the wheel of a car. The results can be disastrous.)

In short, the TKGE and The Tree of Life represent what separates humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom - both in moral and creative capacities. Which makes the distinct character of the two trees not only relevant, but also fundamental for understanding who we are as creatures and as human beings, and why we continue to struggle so deeply to enjoy lives of peace and abundance.

Reinhold Niebuhr is perhaps the modern theologian who most famously captured this concept, with his description of human nature as being simultaneously "finite and free." But he still seems to operate within the rubric of sin-guilt-pardon. Can a fuller treatment of the nature of the TKGE, and its companion the Tree of Life, move us to a more freeing understanding of human nature, human predicament, and human possibility?

In the next post, I will pivot to the Tree of Life and search for its character, which is just as important and just as elusive as the TKGE.

Is “Guilt and Punishment” The Best Way To Understand Adam and Eve?

Freedom is typically defined as a lack of physical confinement or as not living under any form of political tyranny. For the purpose of this series of blogposts, however, freedom has more of a psychological or spiritual meaning. It is a lack of assumptions that limit the possibilities of our human existence. 

For example, we might believe that one race is superior to another; that certain body types are more attractive than others; or that money is of absolute value. We are aware of some of our limiting assumptions, but most operate well beneath our conscious understanding. The path toward freedom is found when we begin to have our assumptions revealed to us and can overcome them.

In the Christian tradition, one commonly unrecognized assumption occurs in how we read Genesis 2. Moving past this assumption has the potential to reshape many aspects of our belief and practice.

“And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”  (Genesis 2: 8-9)

“The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”  (Genesis 2: 15-17)

Typically, this death has been seen as a punishment. God is enforcing a rule that God had established. Since Adam and Eve don’t physically die after they eat, we assume that it means the concept or awareness of death is introduced on that day. Because of their transgression, their innocence and idyllic existence is lost; they feel shame for their nakedness; they are expelled from the Garden; and they know they will eventually taste death.

As a result of this assumption that God is punishing the pair, a belief structure emerged which made sin and guilt the core of Christian belief. All of humanity has inherited their sin and its consequences, and it is only through the death and resurrection of Christ that this “sentence” is overturned.

But Genesis 2-3 never actually says that death is a punishment from God, and does not focus on the legal language of guilt and pardon. Many read it that way, but perhaps because the assumption that is brought to the reading creates an understanding that is not really in the text. And in many Christian traditions, this notion of punishment has hardened into a belief in eternal suffering for those who disobey God.

So what happens if we set this assumption aside? Many possibilities emerge. One intriguing alternative is that God is being descriptive when God says, “you will surely die.” Instead of instituting death as a punishment, God is merely equating eating from that tree with death. God is warning Adam and Eve about what it would mean to acquire that kind of knowledge, as the very end of story reveals. 

“Then the Lord God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.”  (Genesis 3: 22-24)

For reasons that are unclear, God does not think it is best for humans to enjoy the fruits of either tree which had been placed in the Garden. This story is ultimately about what those trees represent, not about some process of disobedience and punishment.

In future posts, I will indulge in a little speculation on what God might be concerned about, and how we face the same temptations that Adam and Eve did. But that will be merely speculation, unlike the rigid assumption of so many Christians about sin, guilt, and pardon.

For now, let us consider how unraveling this assumption might open tantalizing new avenues of faith. What is it about the knowledge of good and evil that is so consequential that God equates it with death? Is it possible for us to undo that knowledge, and to go back and enjoy the idyllic state that Adam and Eve enjoyed before their “snack.” 

And how can a reimagining of Adam and Eve open up many other new avenues of freedom?

For the next few posts, I invite you to sit with me under these two trees as we consider the possibilities.

Are We Really "Sick With Sin”?

Imagine that you wake up one morning in your bed, and you are sick. You have a headache, and you are lightheaded. You have a scorching fever, your stomach is violently upset, and you feel like you might vomit. You are so weak and in so much pain that all you can manage is to roll off the bed and crawl toward the bathroom. You realize that even accomplishing the most basic of tasks today will be beyond your capabilities.

The next day, imagine that your illness is gone, but now you wake up physically bound in multiple ways. Your hands, your wrists, your elbows, your knees, your ankles, and your feet are all tied together - not in a painful way, but it almost completely prevents you from moving. All you can manage is to wiggle yourself off the bed and along the floor. Just like the previous day, you realize that accomplishing even the most basic of tasks will be impossible.

Two days. Two different ways of being incapacitated. Two different ways of being rendered less than a fully functioning human being. Sickness, or boundedness. Which one of these is the better way to think about the human predicament?

The Christian faith, like virtually every belief system, is built on the notion of the human predicament. It assumes that there is some problem, some deficiency, something about our lives and our world that is not what it should be.

Christians explain this problem through the story of Adam and Eve. What was originally an idyllic, innocent existence is spoiled when the first humans ignore God's command and eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Since then, humans have faced the predicament of being born into this "sinful" condition, and we have struggled mightily to know how we might be delivered from it.

Which brings us back to those two days I asked you to imagine. By and large, Christians have viewed this predicament like the first day. We are born into a world where we and everyone around us are sick with sin. We have inherited the disease that first entered the world with Adam and Eve, and we continue the problem through our own disobedience.

Many of our classic hymns reflect this notion of sin as sickness, such as "There Is A Balm in Gilead" - where the saving work of Christ is repeatedly referred to as a healing ointment for the sin-sick soul. This perspective assumes that there is not only a predicament to the human situation, but that there is dysfunction - that we are doing something wrong and must be cured of our waywardness.

When we see our problem as sickness to be healed, it causes us to look for where the sickness resides - which leads us into negative attitudes of judgment and condemnation. Both with ourselves and toward others, we frame individual behaviors in terms of healthy and unhealthy, right and wrong, or even good and evil. And we see larger systems and the world as a whole in term of brokenness.

But let's look at our human predicament like that second day - when we didn't wake up sick, but rather bound up and tied together. What if, instead of being born with a congenital disease called "sin," we are born with chains that limit us - that do not need healing, but that need to be untied and unbound? How does this shift change the way we look at ourselves, at one another, and at this human predicament that we share? Does it lessen our negative tendencies toward judgment and condemnation, and instead increase our positive tendencies toward growth and freedom? In a world full of people destroying one another over notions of right and wrong and good and evil, is an orientation toward freedom instead of healing the more peaceful and compassionate path?

Are Human Beings Born Free?

As human beings, our freedom is constrained in many ways. Often, it is by structures of our own choosing - like a job, a school degree program, or marriage and family commitments. We also make philosophical, religious, and ethical choices that place self-defined limits on our behaviors and lifestyles.

More often, however, we are “unfree” because of chains we did not choose and often do not know exist. For example, the ingrained social attitudes that lead to violence and oppression - such as American exceptionalism, white privilege, and heteronormativity. These attitudes, which we inherit from our families and cultures of origin, shape our beliefs and social behaviors in ways we often do not recognize. We are in no way independent political agents, choosing our values and commitments in a rational and objective fashion. Instead, we are acting out of the worldview and the understanding of reality that was given to us. 

In other words, we are not born free, either in thought or deed. All that we do and believe is constrained by where we come from, and what we learn as we go through life. 

As people are educated, in both formal and informal ways, the constraints into which we were born are generally multiplied and tightened. Knowledge is good, but it limits freedom. The possibilities of existence are measured and rationed. Truth and falsehood, and right and wrong, are increasingly defined - often in very useful ways, but also in ways that shut out new and divergent ways of thinking.

Which is why, from time to time, people exclaim, “Children say the darndest things!” Children might be limited by the assumptions they have inherited, but they do not yet have the additional chains of what they have learned in life. Occasionally, a child will perceive something that makes perfect sense to them, but that lies outside the realm of possibility for most adults, whose view of what is possible has been constrained.

“Unfreedom,” therefore, is something we are born with, and that deepens as we grow older. Even as adults, most people continue to harden in the assumptions and the belief systems that shape their lives. Studies have shown that younger voters in their 20’s and 30’s are more likely to change their voting pattern. Older voters tend to stick with the same party election after election. 

Given these strong tendencies for becoming less free as we age, is there hope for moving in the opposite direction? Is it possible for an adult to grow more open to the possibilities of human existence?

Many philosophical and religious traditions have tackled this very question. I believe the Judeo-Christian tradition has a powerful response, lodged in the earliest of its sacred writings (Genesis 1-3). This story finds the mythical first humans living an idyllic and free existence, until they eat the fruit from something called "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil." It is at the foot of this tree (and the accompanying "Tree of Life") that we can find some clues to the possibilities for greater freedom in our own lives.

(In the next installment of “Born Unfree,” I will dig into the ancient story of Adam and Eve, which gives us some clues about the nature of freedom and why it can be such an elusive concept.)

10 Top Reasons Churches Should Have Buildings

Building Up The Kingdom, Or Just Building? - Part 3

(Before I go any further down the road of deconstructing the need for church buildings, I’d like to share some reasons they are beneficial. Because they can be very useful for the practice of ministry.)

10. Consistent worship space that is designed for worship, and that doesn't require set-up and break-down time each week. It doesn't take many weeks of pushing furniture around a rented space to start wishing for permanent pews.

9. Permanent signage and free advertising space for your church and all its programs. Got a special service coming up? A brief message to share? Or just want an easy way to remind your community that you exist? This requires consistent money and effort when you don't have the convenience of your own church sign.

8. Office space. This isn’t really appreciated until the pastor and church employees have to work out of their homes on an ongoing basis. Children, pets, the dirty dishes. They are all distractions. A healthy balance between work time and off time is much easier to achieve when you have a physical place to go to each day.

7. Space for classes, meetings, counseling sessions, youth activities, etc. Again, not usually appreciated until you don’t have it. Meeting in private homes is wonderful in its own way, but gets to be a burden after a while. And most clergy spouses don't want a whiteboard installed in their living room.

6. Storage space. Once again, not appreciated until you don’t have it. I can't recall how many times we have said, "That would be a great thing to get, but where will we put it?"

5. Sense of legitimacy. As much as we might say, "The church is the people, not the building" - the culture in general still doesn't think you're a "real church" until you have erected an edifice. Many people won’t visit a church until it has a building of its own.

4. Random encounters and conversations. Many of the best ministry moments happen when someone just “drops by the church,” or you happen to meet them while they are at the building for another reason. This doesn’t happen when there is no building.

3. Ability to host community events. It’s much more difficult to host an interfaith service or a community forum when it involves finding rental space and conforming to someone else’s regulations.

2. Ability to develop outreach ministries. Churches without buildings are able to start food pantries or grief sharing groups. But it’s a lot more convenient when you’ve got your own space that you can schedule as you please, and that you make the rules for.

1. The default setting. Ministry by nature is unpredictable and chaotic. A consistent location that is “yours” provides a sense of stability and grounding that goes a long way in giving a congregation an identity. Having "a place of our own" provides confidence for a group of disciples seeking to do the difficult work of being God’s people.

As the pastor of a new church that doesn’t have a building, I sometimes find myself driving by other churches and feeling some pangs of jealousy. There are many challenges to doing ministry in a “homeless” church context. But in the end, I feel that moving beyond our buildings is ultimately the only way we will reach the emerging culture of the 21st century

(In the next installment of “Building Up The Kingdom, or Just Building?” we will begin to look at the Biblical concept of place, and what we can learn from the struggle of the Israelites during their 40-year period of being "homeless.")

The Homeless Church

(Building Up The Kingdom, or Just Building? - Part 2)

For the first 250 years of their existence, Christians did not build buildings. They met in homes and other places where they would be safe from disapproving authorities.

The first church buildings began to appear in the 3rd century, and by the Middle Ages, a system of cathedrals and parish churches had developed throughout Europe. This system was more or less replicated by Christians in the New World, and continued on through the latter part of the 20th century.

Watching the Tour de France, one can see the remnants of this “Christendom” practice of church building. In each of the small towns that the cyclists ride through, a church with a steeple is the central and most prominent structure. It is the same in most small towns in the United States. 

The grand cathedrals can also still be seen in the cities of Europe, but now function more as museums than as houses of worship. In the US, the big steeple churches are faring better, but are nonetheless struggling to maintain their prominence in a culture that increasingly does not participate.

As the post-Christian wave rolls from Europe through the United States, many Christians are rethinking this assumption that dates back to the 17th century - namely, that church buildings are essential to the practice of Christian faith.

Today, many of the most vibrant new churches are deciding not to own property and a building. Some established churches are selling their buildings or giving them away for non-profit work. These congregations are deciding that the resources they have been entrusted with have better uses than maintenance bills, mortgages, and construction contracts. 

These “homeless” churches share the Gospel in private homes, restaurants, rental spaces, parks, or sometimes just right out on the sidewalk. I happen to pastor such a church, even though many in our congregation do want a building eventually. Wrestling with whether we really need “a place of our own” is a central question for us, and for the 21st century church as a whole.

In your current church, do you think your ministry could be enhanced if you no longer had the responsibility of a building? If going completely “homeless” isn’t possible, what are some ways you could move toward less dependence on buildings?

(In the next installment of “Building Up The Kingdom, or Just Building?”, I will take a step back and examine some of the assumptions and underlying issues behind the question of church buildings. Is there something about “a place of our own” that is essential to Christian witness? What Biblical and theological evidence points us toward being a “homeless church?”)

Building Up The Kingdom, or Just Building? - part 1

Four years into my first pastor position, it became clear that I needed to move on. Not because I was unhappy, and not because the church wanted to be rid of me. But for economic reasons.

As a small church of 80 members, they were barely able to afford my full-time salary when I started. After the deaths of three key contributors, the dwindling income demanded serious budget cuts. 

The congregation faced a choice. Give up having a full-time pastor, or sell the building. When they voted to make expensive repairs to their front columns, it became clear which choice they had made. 

The vast majority of churches in this position choose to keep the building and go to part-time pastoral leadership. Even as we say, “the church is the people, not the building,” our actions usually indicate the opposite. There is an emotional attachment to place - and especially to a place where a congregation has worshipped and celebrated many significant life moments - that cannot be separated from the core identity of the people.

Even new churches who do not own a building exhibit this attachment to the idea of a permanent place. There might be vibrant worship in a rented space, a thriving small group ministry that meets in homes, and an impressive program of outreach projects - but until a building is built, the new church is largely seen as not yet legitimate. In my new church context, many potential members have indicated they will give us a try when we have “a place of our own.”

Why are modern churches so attached to buildings? For declining congregations, why is the building almost always the last thing they let go? And for new churches, why is acquiring property and beginning construction so often the primary goal? Are churches in the 21st century being called to a different set of priorities?

(In the second installment of "Building Up The Kingdom, or Just Building?", we will examine the history of churches and buildings, and consider how in this era, context is key when deciding whether having "a place of our own" enhances or inhibits the mission.)

The Brave New World Of Social Media Ministry

It didn’t make any sense. 

It was four days after the horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas. 163 people in my community had liked the Facebook post proposing a neighborhood prayer vigil. At least 30 had indicated they planned to attend. So we made a quick run to buy several dozen candles, and prepared for a good crowd of people on that Thursday evening.

Six people showed up.

I asked a colleague why so many people would be in favor of the idea, but so few would actually participate. His response reoriented my approach to social media and ministry.

He said, “Those people who liked and commented on your Facebook post did participate. To them, that’s how they contributed to the event. In this era, online engagement is as real as in-person engagement.”

My colleague was right, but his response raises as many questions as it answers:

1. For churches who have lived and died by the worship attendance metric, how do we adapt our measures of success to include online engagement?

2. How do we help people move from social media engagement to in-person attendance? Or is to enough to build online community? 

3. How is community that is built online different from traditional church communities?

4. How do we foster stewardship, voluntarism, and other forms of investment for people who engage through social media?

5. What about the fact that many people in our society still don’t have access to or the desire to use the Internet? How do we avoid creating exclusivity through our social media ministries?

These are just a few of the many issues we face as we plunge ever deeper into the Digital Age. It truly is a brave new world. As our experience with the prayer vigil taught us, it full of surprises and challenges. 

In what ways have you done ministry through social media? What success and challenges have you faced?

The Line Of Obligation

(Originally published March 9, 2014)

There is a division in our churches. It has nothing to do with race, gender, sexuality, or politics. It is loosely based on age, but specifically has to do with attitudes toward worship. I call it the Line of Obligation.

Above this line, people feel a sense of duty or obligation to go to church on Sunday morning. They might find worship fulfilling, but what gets them out of bed consistently is this feeling of "I ought to be there."

Below this line, the sense of obligation is gone. Church, if it is even considered, is just one of many possibilities for a Sunday morning. Those below the line who do attend regularly do so because of particularly strong faith or to enjoy the feeling of community. "I ought to be there" carries little or no influence.

As time goes by, the Line of Obligation creeps higher, and less people in our communities wake up on Sunday morning feeling the "ought to" feeling. Nonetheless, many churches continue to rely on the sense of obligation to get people there. 

As a result, churches are not only struggling to attract “unchurched” young people, but are also seeing many of those who do come slipping in their regularity. The answer is not to try to attract them back with consumeristic methods, but instead is to be realistic about what the end of the "ought to" age means. 

It means that we must do a lot more than try to convince young folks that they "ought to" come to church - and perhaps that we should stop considering attendance at worship the scorecard of faith. 

We have to find ways to nurture deep and abiding faith, and tight community to go with it - in ways that might go well beyond what church going meant in the "ought to" era. And when we do this, we will find a whole new way of living the faith opening up below this Line of Obligation.

Stop Trying To Attract People To Church

It was just a joke, but it revealed something deeply challenging for the 21st century church. 

I was sitting in a neighborhood park with one of the leaders of my new church development. (We’ll call him Paul.) We were discussing our plans and ideas for building up the church.

A mother and two young children walked up to the nearby playground. Paul reached his hands out, and with a slightly crazed voice whispered so only I could hear, “Come into our church!” We laughed, and then continued with our strategy session.

Only later did it dawn on me that what Paul said wasn’t really that funny. It reflected an attitude we usually bring to starting new churches or growing existing ones. We tend to ask the question, “How can we get more people into our church?” Most often, we are referring to worship attendance. 

The Great Commission instructs us to “go and make disciples.” But we have turned the “go” into “attract” or “bring in.” We have established our places of gathering and expect others to come and join us, when the calling is to do the opposite. 

After that conversation with Paul, it struck me that the desire to attract people to our church is a selfish desire. It is about us needing their presence. We need their attendance to boost our statistics; we need their kids to give us a youthful appearance; and most importantly, we need them to pledge and become regular givers, so we can pay our pastor and have a building. (How many toes did I step on with that last sentence?)

But what does that family that we saw on the playground need? What does a young mother in a new neighborhood need? What do those children need? And why do we assume that coming to our church is what they need? Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. 

What I’ve learned in my time as a pastor is that approaching a family or an individual with a mindset of “how can I attract them my church?” leads to a much different kind of ministry than a simple, “how can I be the loving presence of Christ with this person?” Maybe it’s time we realize that the second question, and not the first, is what the Gospel is about.

A New Blog On Changes In The Church

Why aren’t people coming to church like they used to?

It’s a question that most church leaders are asking these days. Heck, it’s THE question that most church leaders are asking these days. It’s a reality that has been discussed, debated, studied, and measured so much that people are sick of hearing about it.

So this blog won’t address that question. Not directly, at least, although it will touch on the various theories that are out there as to why the North American church is in decline - including, but not limited to the the following:

- Resistance to change
- Inward focus
- Intolerant and hateful attitudes, especially toward women and the LGBT community
- Lack of concern for poverty, racism, and other social issues
- Ongoing sexual misconduct scandals
- Preaching focused on fear and threats of eternal damnation
- Being boring and uninspiring
- No longer being the cultural center of society
- Other cultural changes beyond our control

Using these explanations as a backdrop, this blog will focus in on the specific practices of the church as we try to respond and move forward into whatever this shift is bringing - from worship to education to evangelism to polity to outreach and mission. It will also examine how these practices derive from the core doctrines and traditions of the church, how we make assumptions about them, and how God might be calling us rethink some of what we consider to be foundational.

I invite you to read, comment, and even submit your own blogs to be published here. I enjoy a healthy and respectful debate, and don't mind people telling me they think I'm wrong.

I also would like to have a variety of voices represented here. If you have written something relating to this topic, please submit it to revjimmoss95@gmail.com.

For now, here's a funny picture that reveals some of the practices and attitudes we are being called to move past.