From Somewhere To Everywhere And Back Again: An Advent – Pentecost Reflection
Bob Hyatt
December 19, 2012

by: Chris Backert, Ecclesia Network Director

Many of my friends within Ecclesia would know that, at best, I am a “low-church” liturgist.  A few years ago, most of the rigidity of the liturgical calendar was more binding than loosing to me – both as a pastor and as a Christian.  While I certainly still lean away from the fixed rigidity of the liturgical calendar in terms of the specific days and texts, I’ve learned a lot from some of my fellow Ecclesia leaders over the past few years, particularly regarding the broader sweep of the liturgical year.  I am drawn, like many of them, to the sense that we need to “re-order” our way of ordering our time according toGod’s grand narrative and less of the way we normally look at a year in the modern world.  We should ebb with the momentum of God’s drama and not the script propelled before us by most of those who pass us by.

When it comes to the Advent and Christmas season though, the irony within this is that for many people, this  season IS the high point of the year (save the possible exception of when school gets out if you are a child, or when it goes back in session if you are a parent).  Yet, for those of us who are attempting to enter into God’s grand narrative, in many ways the seasons of Advent and Christmas actually are our lowest points.

It might be strange to think about Christmas as the low point in a year, especially for a Christian.  Yet, I’ve come to see that the liturgical year arc’s upward, ultimately climaxing not in Easter, but in Pentecost.  This too might be strange to suggest since most tend to regard Easter as our high point, especially when so many within evangelical circles in particular have certainly heard a sermon during Advent about how Jesus was “born to die” or for those with a bit more of our understanding even “born to rise”.  But, perhaps it is more aligned with the purposes of Jesus himself and the Father who sent him to say something like he was “born to release the Spirit upon and within the Church”.

Of the many reasons for Jesus coming, one of the most often overlooked is that he came to make way for the Spirit’s perpetual arrival, and he left (death, resurrection, and ascension) to make way for that arrival to be ongoing, permanent and always present, upon the church in particular.  A few years ago we had the fantastic opportunity to have Dallas Willard with us at the Ecclesia National Gathering, and one of the many incredibly powerful things that he shared was that the Spirit was given in succession to Jesus so that Jesus might be everywhere that he needed to be.  He went on to say this:

Jesus was aware that as long as he was here, as we say, in the flesh, he was an obstruction to the power of the spirit coming into the very lives of people he was training.  Limited to flesh he was not able to everywhere he needed to be, as he can now, because the Spirit brings him everywhere he needs to be.  His death and resurrection was, among other things, Jesus’ way of getting out of the way of the Spirit.

If this were not his ultimate intention, how else could Jesus articulate something like he did in John 16 so clearly.  “But, I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away;  for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you, but if I go, I will send Him to you … He will glorify me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.  All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of mine and will disclose it to you.”

We are reminded in this season of Advent that the word became flesh and, as Eugene’s version says, “moved into the neighborhood”.  He became a person to dwell among us as a person.  But he did this so that he as the“Word” might become unfleshed so that it – by the power of the Spirit – could be everywhere and with everyone who is in the flesh – that is why he calls the Church his body.

The view of Advent then is not just historical, as in we remember the past, nor is it merely eschatological, in that we anticipate the future.  In addition, and perhaps even ultimately, it is first pneumatic, then ecclesial, and then missional.  The word became flesh and moved into the neighborhood, and then he moved out, so that He might move, through the Spirit, back into the neighborhood – not just with us – though he certainly is – but also within his body, the Church.

Perhaps this season moves us beyond reflection and nostalgia toward attentiveness (and ultimately action) to the ways in which the Spirit is bringing the person of Jesus into our specific neighborhoods, and among specific people, through “we” the church.  It is a season about the coming of Jesus, but the most faithful way to live within that is by actually sharing in his current presentness.  It should also cause us to ponder whether or not we are moving within the arc of Advent—the beginning of the Church year– and it’s forward path from now until June.   Is the Spirit’s presence among us increasing?  Is our dedication to a Spirit-empowered Church strengthening?  Is our love for this community and for its purpose abounding?  If we love the season of Advent and the liturgical flow, then we will love these things as well.

One of my favorite images of Advent is one I heard from John Eldredge many years ago.  He described this season as “God quietly seeding His revolution behind the scenes of time in the most quiet and unexpected manner in an exceedingly out of the way place.”  Now, the revolution continues on, not having yet met its match. Undoubtedly it will not.  The quiet revolution is in the neighborhood of your church right now, because Jesus is there, and you are too, even if it is happening in an exceedingly  unexpected way.

By Bob Hyatt September 15, 2025
A New Ecclesia Network Benefit! 
By By Jim Pace September 15, 2025
In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s shooting, social media has been filled with perspectives, as is typically the case. I am reluctant to add mine as there seems to be no lack one way or the other. To be clear, this is not just about Charlie Kirk, this is about violence across the board. I did not feel led to write this because it was Charlie Kirk specifically, but rather another in a long and winding line of acts of violence, that my ministering at Va. Tech gives me a bit of personal experience with. But as I have just finished teaching two classes on Christian Ethics, and as I was encountering again the spread of responses from my Christian sisters and brothers, I felt led to look at this event through that lens. Ethics, at its base, seeks to answer the question, “What is better or worse? Good or bad?” As a follower of Jesus, this is what seems right to me… 1. We never celebrate harm. Whatever our disagreements, rejoicing at a shooting violates the bedrock claim that every person bears the imago Dei (Gen 1:27). Scripture is explicit: “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls” (Prov 24:17); “Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you” (Matt 5:44); “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom 12:21). I don’t love blasting verses like this, but you cannot get away from them if you are reading the scriptures. 2. Moral responsibility sits with the shooter—full stop . Saying “his rhetoric got him shot” smuggles in a just-world logic that excuses violence. As a contextual theologian, I have an enormous amount of respect for the impact our various narratives have in shaping our understandings of the world around us. They are inescapable. But that is not what I am talking about here. Ideas can be wrong, harmful, or worth opposing vigorously, but vigilante ‘payback’ is never a Christian category. My primary gig is that of a consultant for churches and non-profits. Today, in my meetings and among friends, I have heard some variation of “He got what he deserved,” and “I vote for some very public justice for the shooter.” Both of these views speak of revenge; the follower of Jesus is called to lay these down as our Messiah did. Not asked to, told to. 3. Grief and outrage about gun violence are legitimate; schadenfreude is not . Channel the pain toward nonviolent, concrete action (policy advocacy, community intervention, survivor support), not dehumanization. Here are four thinkers who have had a profound impact on the Christian ethic I try to work out in this world. As I share them, three things are worthy of mention. One, I certainly do not claim to follow their guidance perfectly, and at times I do not even do it well, but they have all given me what seems like a Jesus-centered and faith-filled direction to move in. Second, I do not claim to speak for them in this particular matter; I am merely showing how my ethical lens has been formed. Third, clearly I am not dealing with all the components of our response to these types of violence, this is not a comprehensive treatment, merely the reflections in the moment. Stanley Hauerwas : “Christian nonviolence is not a strategy to rid the world of violence.” It’s part of following Jesus, not a tactic we drop when it’s inconvenient. Stanley Hauerwas, Walking with God in a Fragile World, by James Langford, editor, Leroy S. Rouner, editor N. T. Wright : “The call of the gospel is for the church to implement the victory of God in the world through suffering love.” Simply Good News: Why the Gospel Is News and What Makes It Good. In other words, we answer evil without mirroring it. David Fitch : Our culture runs on an “enemy-making” dynamic; even “the political rally… depends on the making of an enemy. Don’t let that train your soul.” The Church of Us vs. Them. Sarah Coakley : Contemplation forms resistance, not passivity. For Coakley, sustained prayer trains perception and courage so Christians can resist abuse and give voice against violence (it’s not quietism). “Contemplation, if it is working aright, is precisely that which gives courage to resist abuse, to give voice against violence.” Sarah Coakley, God, Sexuality, and the Self. Coakley would say that far too often we react before we reflect. This is the problem that Fitch is getting at in much of his writing, that our culture actually runs on antagonisms, the conflict between us. We need to find a better way.