The Wilderness Way #31

Our daughter and son-in-law met and four years later married in Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone and the adjacent Grand Teton National Park are among my most favorite places on earth. After their wedding, Jolynn and I stayed for a few days in the Park to hike with our son. He knew a special hike to some off-the-beaten-path geysers out in the back county of Yellowstone. It sounded great, and we headed out with enthusiasm. But then the plague struck!

We were attacked by mosquitoes so big they discussed whether to eat us on the spot or take us back to the lair. (Ok, I’m exaggerating, but only slightly!) It was terrible. We were pouring some heavy duty backwoods bug repellent on ourselves. Our pace speeded up subconsciously thinking we might out run the mosquitoes. I couldn’t help it. It just popped out of my mouth. I, who love hikes, sarcastically asked, “Are we having fun yet?” I was asking the “why” question as in “why are we out here?!” Both my wife and son reminded me in no uncertain terms that hiking off into the wilderness was my idea.

As we travel on the wilderness way, answering the why question becomes an imperative. Moses faced the “why” question. A nascent rebellion took place in wilderness. “Then all the congregation raised a loud cry, and the people wept that night. And all the Israelites complained against Moses and Aaron; the whole congregation said to them, ‘Would that we had died in the land of Egypt! Or would that we had died in this wilderness! Why is the Lord bringing us into this land to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become booty; would it not be better for us to go back to Egypt?’ So they said to one another, ‘Let us choose a captain, and go back to Egypt.’”[1]

Every church and church organization has people who want to go back to Egypt. Electing a chair of the Back to Egypt Committee is a common past time of dissenters. Heading back to Egypt feels comfortable. Egypt may have been bad but at least it represented the known way. Furthermore, Egypt represents a false security. It is commonly remembered as better than it really was. The temptation is high to think if we just get the right pastor or leadership mix, next year will be 1951 instead of 2011. We can go back to the day when Christianity reigned supreme in America.

The truth is that there is no going back to Egypt. A charismatic new pastor (preferably a young male married with a wife who doesn’t work outside the home and plays the piano, having 2.4 kids (one preschool and the other early grade school) won’t make all the difference. We can go back to the mythical security and sanctity of Egypt. Egypt had its own massive problems. Even more significantly it is God who has sent us into the wilderness of the twenty-first century. Secular culture is the vehicle God is using to build a new church.

One of the critical imperatives before us is to answer the “why” question for ourselves and our congregations as they seek to elect a new Captain to head the Back to Egypt Committee. Answering the “Why?” question involves theologically rethinking not only our mission but also our theology and core convictions that provide the foundation for our mission. Here we must begin in confession for the common theological orientation springing out of enlightenment thought[2] has run its course. The standard alternative of holding tenaciously to the Bible and rejecting modern theological thinking has likewise sprung massive leaks on the shoals of reality (scientific and otherwise).[3] In the wilderness, we must engage again in the hard work of rethinking our theology. This will challenge our most cherished bias across the theological spectrum. It will be different and it most assuredly will be met with deep resistance and renewed nominations for the Back to Egypt Committee.

[1] Numbers 14:1-4

[2] Such thought is usually referred to as liberal or progressive. I reject such labels because they are incomplete and inevitably confused with secular politics in ways that are both inaccurate and unhelpful.

[3] Such thought is typically referred to as fundamentalist, conservative or evangelical. Again I reject such labels. The three terms each represent a different point on the theological spectrum and cannot fairly be equated with each other. Furthermore, they are too are incomplete and inevitably confused with secular politics in ways that are both inaccurate and unhelpful.

By: Bishop Mike Lowry On 2/16/2010