belonging to such as these

At our church we are in the middle of our VBS week, a time full of activity and fun and (eventually) exhaustion.

Teaching children is interesting. It takes more animation and a different way of explaining, but in the end the truths of the Word are still the same. Also, it is a great experience to see a number of church folks come together on a common project.

While in the middle of teaching some of the younger children about The Unforgiving Servant, making my best attempt at explaining what forgiveness is, I noticed the look in their eyes. It was as though they were encountering gospel and God's love for the first time. Perhaps they were. They were engaged and interested and intrigued.

I think that you can tell who the children are even when their physical ages do not correspond. The children of the kingdom are those who are not concerned with the ordinary minutia of a singular conception of church, but are captivated by the weird and radical excitement of following Jesus. It is hard to envision returning to the meetings, mediations and mess of 'big church' when our week-long emphasis on children's ministry has come to a close.

Jesus said that the kingdom would belong those who were like children, those who are totally engaged and excited by this gospel. Is it any wonder? When the singular focus of the church is on Jesus and his kingdom - what today is being termed missional - the junk of our own lives no longer has room within the community. But when we lose the childlike wonder of our faith we slip into a life devoted to seeking out our own wants and desires.

No, it will never be 'perfect' as we go along. But it will be markedly distinct from the rest of the world, unlike much of what we spend 'full-time ministry' trying to do.

fury around the the N-I-V-L-E

The Southern Baptists are raising fury around the 2011 update to the NIV. Evidently, boycotting restaurant chains is out of season. Their concern echoes much of what was said about the TNIV, although this time they are with even less of a case than they had before. Their problem? "Gender-inclusive language." (They are arm-in-arm here with the Committee for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.)

Their charge against the NIV is, "This translation alters the meaning of hundreds of verses, most significantly by erasing gender-specific details which appear in the original language." The notion that one single translation has flaws is nothing new, nor is any translation above critique. However, their claim is that these flaws are to the specific end . . . "Our main concern is that in hundreds of places, meaning in the Bible is eroded because of the translators’ decisions to remove words like he, him, his, father, brother, son, and man. God’s Word is the product of his infinite wisdom and all the details of meaning are there for a purpose."

Simply, this is a charge against the Committee on Bible Translation for placing political views above the written Word of God. True to form, the statements made by the Southern Baptists are intended to gain attention and provoke a response, but unfortunately cross the line and make unfounded charges against some of the leading biblical scholars in the world. Poor performance indeed.

On the one hand, we can be somewhat thankful that the King-James-Only crowds have faded back a little bit. On the other hand, now we have to deal with those who are now overly attached to the N-I-V-L-E. At no point in these assaults on new translations is there a display of humility in two areas: 1) English is not Scripture's primary language; 2) God's Word is bigger than any one modern communication sphere. We need to constantly learn, grow and adapt if we are to understand God in our context . . . not because his truth changes, but our fallenness changes.

The Committee on Bible Translation has a number of notable scholars in the field of biblical studies and linguistics. Above this each one has a strong reputation for being "above reproach" in matters of Christian character. I do not agree with everything each one of them has published; some profess theology I disagree with the majority of the time. But this is a group of scholars which have shown consistently that human systematization of theology is secondary to the proper communication of the text. In other words, this committee is comprised of members who make every attempt to get out of the way and allow the text to remain pure.

Is the translation perfect? No. But that should not give us context to act as though the previous NIV is a modern textus receptus. It is as though the Bible was clarified in 1984 and therefore can remain unchanged . . . (yet, how many are still aware of the fury around that version?) This is fickle and fallen discussion. And it unfairly attacks what is undoubtedly a solid and faithful translation of God's Word.

love and let god worry about your holiness

Jesus told many stories which are disturbing. Some of them have become part of the cultural vernacular, and thus have become tame and glossed over by many. Yet under the various layers of theological systematizing there remains a radical redefinition of faith that modern believers can no more escape than did the ancient hearers of the message. The parable of the Good Samaritan is one such story, and it indicts the modern church in many ways - some things have never changed while other things have simply moved from one problem to another.

Klyne Snodgrass writes, "The parable is one more example of Jesus substituting the mercy code for the holiness code" (Stories with Intent, 358). I agree. Jesus always seems to have an agenda which doesn't quite match up with our assumptions of what is important. An interesting piece of background to this story is not so much the ins and outs of what priests and Levites were expected not to do around a corpse, but rather the exceptions to the law that should have come into play here. Since the victim in the story is half-dead the purity laws were put on hold for the sake of a life (cf. Snodgrass, 355).

Here are examples of a priest and a Levite coming from Jerusalem - the seat of holiness and the blessing of God upon the world - who believe their personal purity is worth more than even the exception to the law that they could have optioned. It is the Samaritan, who is quite unwelcome within the cultic and racial divisions of Israel that places the work of life above self. Therein lies a great lesson for us within this story: we are called to show God's love, not maintain our own righteousness.

Yes, the mercy code is more important than the holiness code. I think we still often act as though God will be unable to handle our 'defilement' in the world even when we are working on behalf of his love and his kingdom. Jesus came to destroy that approach and establish a new way.

The message for the church: Show love and let God worry about your holiness.

The message for the church in culture: Worry less about image and more about kingdom.

There is more to the Good Samaritan parable, to be certain. But this is a significant small piece that should not be taken lightly . . . and never ignored.

worldview getting foggy

In a recent news article in the Colorado Springs Independent, Focus on the Family President Jim Daly speaks broadly about adoption, with a visible shift in the principles upon which the ministry was founded and flourished for the past thirty years. Of course, the media relishes in two implications of his statements: 1) that Focus on the Family will not be as "hardcore" as it was in the past, and 2) finally we have someone that we can talk to, unlike that Dobson guy.

In the interview Daly makes a few statements which will undoubtedly concern the typical constituents of Focus on the Family. He clearly is making an attempt to broaden the acceptance rate of the ministry, mostly by appearing to be open, caring, and accepting - tolerant - of other worldviews. His attempt at doing this doesn't seem to convey the right message.

One of Daly's responses to same-sex-couple-adoption is: "You know, the church, we can't expect the world to be the church. And likewise, I've talked to people who have a nonfaith background, [and] I've found a great deal of respect for the fact that the church can't be the world, either. So there is this dividing line when it comes to our deeply held beliefs, and I think that's reasonable on all sides."

Admittedly, I can't be entirely certain of what he is trying to communicate behind all of the politically correct rhetoric. But what seems to be quite clear is that he is not afraid to blur the lines of worldview in order to gain a few brownie points with the culture. Although I fully recognize that the church can rightly be accused of speaking without love, the one component which can never be sacrificed in our dialogue is the truth.

Later in the article Daly challenges the notion that same-sex-couple-adoption is a wise choice, but then also leaves the door open for the "culture" and "legislation" to determine whether or not civil unions could be seen as morally acceptable. Ping-and-Pong; back-and-forth.

He is interested in a dialogue with culture, which is not a real possibility when discussing principles. Truth is not up for grabs, nor is it to be determined by some sort of consensus. The church is not interested in policy making its beliefs and practices, no matter how many postmodern believers think that it sounds like a noble endeavor. The traditional Judeo-Christian values upon which our society was built are still worth something, even after the mainstream has swept them under the rug.

The door which is being opened by Jim Daly is nothing new, nor is it any sort of progress on behalf of Focus on the Family, evangelicalism, or the church. Some will indeed applaud the undoing of the lifelong work of Dr. Dobson, even from within the church. But these typically come from people who promote tolerance, peace, love and fairness while simultaneously being public and genuine jerks towards him and his faith. I have seen first- and secondhand how Dr. Dobson is the walking definition of character, regardless of what you choose to agree or disagree with his principles.

But that is my point, they are principles upon which he has stood. The article's unflattering (and unimpressive) line on Dobson is: "Quick to temper, and slow to apologize, Dobson never had to be asked twice about what he really thought." The translation on this probably is, he spoke with conviction and passion (so he's got a temper), and he communicated clearly (so he was rude). The very reason why Dobson speaks quickly, clearly, concisely is that you do not have to reevaluate your principles . . . they are your deeply held beliefs. And it will always bother the world (even some believers) that you hold them and know what you believe so certainly.

Where have we gone when clear and articulate truth threatens our society, both in and out of the church?

review: making the corps

Thomas E. Ricks, Making the Corps (New York: Scribner, 1998).

About nine years ago someone I know recommended this book to me. I didn't take the time (during my graduate school work) to read it then, and I have often thought about it over the subsequent years. So I eventually made the time to get this want-to-read to the top of my list. At the time I first heard about the book I was managing Denver Seminary Bookstore, and the recommender was one of the leaders in the training and mentoring program. When he came to special order the book he explained to me, "Everyone that I [spiritually] mentor is required to read this book as we begin the process."

I am the son of a Marine and have great respect for all members of the United States Military. To discover some sort of correlation between that life and spiritual formation intrigued me, especially since Ricks does not write with the intention of making this connection. There is, if you choose to explore the contents of both of these worlds, a definite similarity. (Perhaps the two have something to learn from each other.)

Sixty-three men make the journey to Parris Island, South Carolina, to enter Basic Training as Marine Corps recruits. The book follows their journey through the eleven weeks, highlighting various recruits' backgrounds, successes and failures. It is a journey into a culture - a way of life - that makes the Marine Corps different from the other branches of the United States Military. How they draw undisciplined young men and women into this culture holds powerful lessons for what it means to be disciples.

A point which is drawn out early in the book is the distinction which Marines voluntarily hold from the Army, Navy and Air Force. Throughout the recruiting process you will find advertisements for the military which, like good commercials do, try to give you good reasons for joining their particular organization. The Marine Corps, however, have taken a completely different approach. They are the few and the proud, and maybe you are good enough to become one of them. Such an identity drives the community ethos of the Marine Corps, giving them a distinct identity.

Throughout the book Ricks also has an emphasis on the culture wars which exist between the Marine Corps and average American society. Since so much of Marine life is discipline and dedication, there is a strong potential (and often reality) for a cultural gap between those whose lives are dedicated to the Marine Corp and those who wander through life. Many of the young men whose stories are included in this book come from such a background themselves, and begin to transform into disciplined Marines. This will later become an issue for a few who struggle to hold both lives in some sort of balance.

In broad strokes this is what one finds in this book.

The parallels to Christian discipleship are many. Although we do not approach membership in the church with the mentality of exclusivism, it would do well to hold the challenges and rigors of spiritual life in high regard, lest we continue to perpetuate disciples who know not how to count the cost. It was Jesus himself who said that those who walk this path will be few.

Further, when we talk about Christian discipleship are we talking about transformation? Are we thinking in terms of a cultural identification to a community? Does the church understand that we are taking people from their existing way of life and are introducing them into a whole new realm of existence? Probably not. At least, probably not to the extent that we are speaking of here.

And when the church does make disciples, are we preparing for their entrance back into their former lives? The Marine struggles with going back to his/her civilian life - old friends and hang-outs and activities - and must learn to adapt in order to remain a successful Marine. Similarly, those who are believers still exist (most often) in their 'former' lives and must learn how to negotiate the demands of Christian discipleship in 'civilian' territory. (As a side note: Too often the church removes new believers from their former context, replacing all of their friends and activities with church friends and spiritualized activities. Unfortunately, this mostly becomes a removing of the witness from the community which needs it most!)

The last chapters of the book talk briefly about post-Parris Island life for the Marines who emerged from boot camp. Some go on to relative success in the Marine Corps, there is one particular stand-out appearing, a handful become disenfranchised with the Marine Corps (for one reason or another) and drop out, a few discover that they cannot adequately balance their external lives, and most simply do their duty and go home when it is finished.

Just like the church. Real life affects all sorts of commitments, especially ones which demand duty, honor and discipline. Some will fall away, others will become jaded, most will simply become what they were trained to be.

trying to keep up

Among other things Pentecost is a powerful reminder that we cannot keep up with the Spirit of God. As we prepare to read through the powerful account of Acts 2 we would do well to keep in mind the subsequent recounting of the early church, especially the fact that God's Spirit continually outpaces the first believers in the kingdom's mission.

When we lose sight of this we think of the early church as a group which quickly figured it all out - right belief, right practice, perfect community - and then assume that we simply must return to that time period (somehow) and we too will have everything figured out. Therein lies one of the most glaring distinctions between the modern and ancient churches: while we so often believe that we have the Spirit in our comprehension, the first believers knew that it was impossible to properly understand (much less systematize) the holy Spirit of God. And so we are doing church in a much different context than it was ever intended to be.

Church leadership expert, Reggie McNeal, suggests that we must "change the scorecard" of how we understand and evaluate our church culture. He is right on this, for the taming of the Spirit in the contemporary expressions of church is the primary reason for the current failures of the church. One example of this may be found in the overly used "track record" for evaluating leaders within the church. The phrase indicates a search for some sort of measurable criteria by which one's ministry can be evaluated. In other words, this is a tracking of success within the field of ministry. And because such tracking needs to have "objective criteria" it doesn't take too long for it to be a Christianized evaluation of worldly triumph.

If we are to believe that the Spirit of God is untamable and unstoppable, then we must accept that no single criteria can be used to evaluate the Spirit's activity. Spiritual gifts inventories can only go so far, numerical growth can only show so much, and churches that are run simply as business with an opening and closing prayer doesn't cut it. The real mission is the spark which is set off within the heart of an individual and community that fuels passion and gives purpose to the work of the kingdom of God.

And that will make us all begin to look like Jesus. Radical. Bold. Loved. Despised. Jesus.

It seems to me that this fruit is the only measurable presence of the Spirit, that we should have the love of Christ being poured out as Christ into all the world (with all the defining features of joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control). And in a quest to become Christ in the world we have no hope of catching up, though we are blessed to be able to run hard after him and spread his work around as we go.

So, among other things Pentecost is a powerful reminder that we cannot keep up with the Spirit of God. The book of Acts is a demonstrable reminder of that.

graham and allen, bell and bashir

In between the knee-jerking reactions to Rob Bell's Love Wins and the subsequent books that are undoubtedly going to continue the fervor, I wanted to make another point from observing the whole controversy. Whether or not you agree with the positions taken in Love Wins, or whether you believe it is a good discussion on the topic, or even if you think that Rob Bell should be writing any books whatsoever . . . there is the issue of public proclamation which I wish to examine.

For me it began with a simple discomfort from watching some of Bell's media-blitz, one that mostly turned me off from reading his book - which I might not have read still without someone placing a copy of it on my desk. I was less-than-thrilled with the message that Bell was giving, with all of the mysteriousness, dodging, questioning and other attempts at keeping the contents (and conclusions) of his book private. In doing this Bell made many (mostly evangelicals) people uneasy about just what he believed and advocated. From here it was a rather short and unfortunate gap for heresy hunters to fill on their own.

A few weeks ago I received a phone call from a friend of ours at another church, asking me questions about Rob Bell, the book, and all of the hubbub. His concern came after reading the Time Magazine article featuring Bell (14 April 2011), wondering what this guy had to hide and if he had fallen off some theological deep-end. Please understand that this friend was not making any judgments on Bell's theology at all. He simply remembered this guy from the Nooma videos that we used for some classes at church a while back, now in Time Magazine going all cloak-and-dagger about the existence of Hell.

This reminded me of an old video featuring Mr. Evangelical himself, Billy Graham. He appeared on the Woody Allen Show sometime in the late 1960s, where the two had a rather pleasant conversation . . . even though it was filled with laughs and jabs. Ultimately, the two respected each other and had a good talk.

Having seen this video, look at the conversation between Rob Bell and MSNBC host Martin Bashir. Note the differences.

Remove for a moment a few things: 1) HD v. 1960's-D; 2) Modernity v. Postmodernity; 3) King James Sounding Billy and Message Sounding Rob; 4) Commandments v. Heaven and Hell. At the end of the day both hosts are presenting questions which many in their audience want to know. Whereas Billy Graham unabashedly and openly gives answers stemming from his belief in Scripture, Rob Bell fails to say anything too definitive.

There are, I suppose, many reasons for Bell's presentation and posture in this (and others like it) interview.

One defense is possibly that he is trying to get people to move beyond the short and pithy answers so that they may enter into a more thorough discussion by reading his book. Unfortunately this places too much responsibility into the hands of people who, by the premise of the defense, are not engaging in news stories more than five minutes at a time.

Another defense is that postmoderns are more interested in the questions than they are the answers, thus Bell is appealing to that segment of culture. This may be true to a certain degree, but I do not believe that questioning overcomes the deep and natural desire of the individual to find truth and freedom. In other words, many in our culture are interested in asking questions which come in the context of a truthful system.

There are probably more reasons. But at the end of the day I think that it comes down to the priority given to selling books than the bold proclamation of the gospel. That is to say, whenever you have the opportunity to share to a listening world what Scripture says you don't refer them to your book . . . you tell them the truth. If it gets you uninvited to these talking heads shows then so be it. There are worse realities than being labelled a Jesus-freak and having a bunch of unsold books in the warehouse.

Billy Graham is a cultural icon, not only in the United States but around the world. He did this by preaching the gospel first, and doing all of the other stuff (the radio, books, magazines, etc) as extensions of his primary ministry. Theologically, Graham doesn't get a pass . . . but he avoids many of the debates because he held tightly to the simple and clear presentation of Scripture to a world that was hungry for God to use his voice. If we do not seize the opportunities to step up to the microphone and speak boldly, then there will not be another leading voice in evangelicalism - at least not one that we can all recognize.