light bulb zoo

Last Friday we took our daughter (who is 1 1/2) to the zoo in Indianapolis. This was the first time I had visited this zoo and it has been a while since I have been to a zoo at all. Overall, it is a pretty good zoo - very clean and well-presented, with good views of the animals and such (I don't know how else one rates a zoo). One special attraction here was the dolphin show, located in an indoor arena and pool. We figured that our daughter would love this experience, so we went.

And she loved it. Totally. It was more fun watching her watch the dolphin show than it was actually watching the dolphins. Great fun.

However, my comments do need to go further with the dolphins. . .
By way of making this show more *interesting* they decided that they would tell a story throughout which the dolphins would break into various routines and tricks. Not a terrible idea, except that the story was all about changing the incandescent light bulbs in our homes to fluorescent light bulbs in order to cut down on CO2 emissions and, therefore, save the planet from its certain impending doom. OK, I guess I should have expected a fair degree of conservationism at the zoo but get this. . .there was NOT ONE WORD mentioned about the dolphins! None! I kid you not. Not even their names, age, how long they've been at the zoo. Nada. My comments were clearly made from my seat, "What the crap!?!"

The facts on this, by the way, are contrary to the zoo's presentation (along with a bunch of other people who are getting money from promoting such garbage). Consider this example: Australia wants to replace all of their light bulbs with these fluorescent bulbs and brags that it will save an average of 800,000 metric tons of CO2 per year for the next four years! Wow. Except that they did not tell you that this only amounts to 0.21 percent of their total emissions. This would reduce world emissions by 0.003 percent! Calculations are that this *savings* would be nullified in approximately 5 hours.

Now, if you want to install these pieces-of-crap light bulbs then more power to ya. But don't preach about it to me and don't think that you're saving the planet. It is just stupid. And a note to the Indianapolis Zoo: Please don't allow the money-power of these light bulbs to take away from the animals - it's really counterproductive. If you don't believe me, then consider implementing this suggestion:
1. Make the dolphin show about the dolphins. Talk about them, show them off, educate us about them, etc. . .
2. Create a show about fluorescent light bulbs. Offer it at your zoo and keep everything else out of it, and take thirty minutes to tell everyone how these light bulbs are going to save the planet.
3. See which show is completely empty by the end of the first day.
4. See if we really give a crap about the light bulbs.

Yes, we're smarter than this. And you know it. But somebody needs their kickbacks.

Since I'm a biblioblog:
As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease.
Genesis 8:22

N.T. Wright on Colbert

overly biblical

I participate in a church which is part of the brethren movement, which places a great amount of stress on its statement: "The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible."  This sounds great and quickly cuts through a lot of garbage which otherwise gets in the way of a sound biblical church, but is showing kinks within its armor in some of the church polity and practice.  This is primarily because it does not allow for theory and practice to integrate well enough.

Although it is necessary for a church to be built upon Scripture before any creed or statement of faith, there is still a very human element which is found to the workings of the church.  Ignoring this as a reality does not help the situation, it hinders a practical and effective outworking of the community.  At present, I am participating in meetings which are trying to explain various procedures concerning the church government and it seems as though the leadership is trying to go out of its way in order to make sure that everything in our government is "biblical."  Again, this sounds better than it really is.

Question: Is there anything wrong with churches admitting that a certain portion of what we do is human and comes from a human perspective, so long as it is guided and driven by Spirit and Word?  Is not the message of the church that the kingdom of God comes to unite heaven and earth (individually as exemplified in the Incarnation), so that a fallen and corrupt humanity can be cleansed and integrated with a holy God.

I might be treading on ground which needs clearer thought, but my ecclesiology leads me to think that the church is both human and divine - the partnership which reflects a restored people of God and which foreshadows the ultimate joining of the new heavens and the new earth.  Thus, our approach to church should reflect this.

But I probably would have been just fine if we could just admit this and stop making everything sound so super-spiritual (super-biblical?).

distance running

I had to pause and wonder today: Why is it that the closer I come to God the further I am to the church?

My first question on this: Is this possible?  Can we participate in God without having a connection to his Spirit-community?  In a very clear sense, the answer is that we cannot.  The people of God are the necessary and established presence of Christ in the world, as the Spirit works through their kingdom-building efforts.  So I wonder how bad this is for my spiritual health that I feel close to God but far from his earthly kingdom presence.

On the other hand, the people of God do not always exhibit godliness.  This makes me think that the church(es) from which I feel most distanced are not aligned with Yhwh in the first place.  This means that moving away from the church is not necessarily a bad thing, when the church and the kingdom are juxtaposed in their mission.  So perhaps this is my dilemma.

But the more I try and find a place for myself within the organized people of God, the more I lose my passion for working in the church.  Fundamentally, I am fed up with an overly blessed people who are overly apathetic in their practice of faith.  And too often the answers are to impose more leadership and more structures and theories over a passionate pursuit of knowing Christ and being led by the Spirit to change the world.  While leadership structuring certainly has a place, it is not until we can have the fire of the Spirit upon us that they can have a chance of working.  Otherwise we have social gatherings but no experience of the Spirit.

The bad news of my situation: distancing myself from the church possibly jeopardizes my connection with the full experience of God's Spirit.  It also means a radical undoing of my way of life and for my family.

The good news of my situation: if my life must be undone and reduced to ruin, I would choose to have Yhwh ruin it than the church.  On this, I make my decision.

unacceptable sacrifices

At the church where I am pastor we have embarked on a campaign to read through the Bible in 90 Days, which has materials published by Zondervan.  The reasons for doing something like this are many and shouldn't have to be stated.  The novelty of the 90 days helps overcome many of the hurdles which make it too difficult for most people to ever read through Scripture (or even venture into certain areas of their Bible at all!).  So it comes as no surprise that many of my thoughts right now are centered upon Leviticus and Numbers, the primary part of my reading this week.

Although many people consciously look for reasons why the Torah has no connection to the church and thus seek for excuses to abandon these texts as applicable to Christianity, I continue to find that we are not as far removed from their spirituality as we would sometimes like to believe.  I believe I have found one such example. . .

Throughout the listings of proper modes of worship within the Torah, one can also find special emphasis given to those sacrifices which will be considered unacceptable to Yhwh.  Although churchianity would like to oversimplify this concept and suggest that all those 'unacceptable' sacrifices were linked together by improper attitudes/postures on the part of the giver, I believe that the text actually makes the specific actions of worship the key part.  (This does not assume that the attitudes and postures of the worshiper are not an issue, but a challenge to the notion that it all hinges on such.)

A case in point for this: Leviticus 10 and the death of Nadah and Abihu.  These were two of the sons of Aaron and were summoned to the priestly work of the tabernacle, specifically to present the appointed offerings before Yhwh.  What happens is that they come to the meeting place with "unauthorized fire before Yhwh" (v. 1).  In response to this, Yhwh authorizes his own fire to destroy them in the tabernacle (v. 2).  Certainly, the stakes here are much higher than their attitudes of worship, for it appears that they come with the best intentions to honor Yhwh but do so without first considering Yhwh's instructions - like father, like sons (see Exodus 32, same issue).  

It becomes clear that Yhwh has given a specific means by which we are to celebrate him, approach him, and minister on his behalf.  These means always have pointed reasons to them, many of which are worked out through the remainder of Israel's narrative.  And contrary to the failed belief of many churches, these continue to be worked out in the life of the church.  But the issue which connects *us* to *them* is that the church has fallen into this mode of 'whatever-is-done-as-an-act-of-god-directed-spirituality-is-good' and forget that most of our inherent behavior as humanity is despicable before Yhwh.  That is why he summons us to something greater; he calls us into his presence and outside of ours.  I am afraid to say that the church has come before Yhwh with a mentality of 'this is how we will worship' and the hell with whatever comes from Word and Spirit.

In our little congregation, so many of the traditional aspects of a church remain intact even though there is little to commend this group of true spirituality.  For we have decided that we will dictate to God what our worship and service should be rather than coming before him as a community devoted to Scripture and prayer and kingdom.  Thus our Bible in 90 Days campaign is more than a novel way to fill a summer; it is a decisive maneuver in a spiritual battle to keep the drought of Yhwh's word from overtaking us (cf. Amos 8:11-14).  I hope I do not stand alone.

jonahvangelism

Stephen B. Chapman and Laceye C. Warner, "Jonah and the Imitation of God: Rethinking Evangelism and the Old Testament." Journal of Theological Interpretation 2.1, (2008): 43-69.

This interesting article appeared in the latest issue of the new journal series, Journal of Theological Interpretation.  The premise seems quite straightforward: the Old Testament (especially Jonah) is undervalued in Christian theology, with specific interest in mission and evangelism.  Jonah is a good test case for this as the narrative (and main character) continue to be interpreted in various ways.  The question which is presented by the authors of this article is whether or not Jonah serves as a paradigmatic figure of evangelism within the biblical tradition.  Some say yes, others no (or else we wouldn't have an article, would we?).

In examining Jonah the authors appeal to the narrative focus as a whole, rather than seeing the opening chapter or the closing chapter as disjointed from the rest.  While this sounds simple enough, the extremely well-crafted narrative of Jonah pushes the interpretive limits on this more than one would initially think.  But the authors seem to get it right in both theory and execution.  For the story of Jonah is just that - a story.  And stories are meant to be read/told as whole units, which means our understanding of Jonah and his failures must make sense in light of the whole narrative.  Too many read this story and assume that his running away (ch 1) is because of his lack of faith.  In actuality (as this article points out), his running away is an improper outworking of "too much faith rather than too little" (60)!!  But we are not told this is the case until chapter 4, which allows us to pass judgment upon Jonah before we are able to evaluate ourselves - a maneuver properly identified in Allen's commentary on Jonah.

By the time we reach chapter four we have Jonah sitting on the ground with steam coming out of his ears.  I like the way Chapman and Warner put it: "God skillfully puts Jonah in the position of favoring mercy for a plant in order highlight Jonah's disapproval of mercy for the Ninevites" (58).  Ultimately, what is discovered about the Israelite mission via Jonah is that it envisages both a 'gathering in' and a 'going out' (50) to bring the nations to repentance.  And this seems to be the rub which also leads many exegetes to a break between OT evangelism and NT evangelism.  It is not as though Jonah represents a message only of judgment and destruction while the NT gives only a message of salvation, as Bosch suggests (cf. 44-46).  This is a gross misunderstanding of the Gospels, especially John the Baptist and the role of the Spirit.

Finally, the article notes seven points of which Christians can take Jonah and more adequately fulfill its mission.  The overarching principle is found in the notion that this is God's mission and it is not confined to any of our efforts.  But also, "Christian community extends itself in order to remain itself" (66), which might be the most direct way the narrative of Jonah hits modern evangelicalism between the eyes.