grasshoppers dreaming

the aimlessly ambling church

2012-01-25T15:33:00.001-05:00

It appears that it is quite popular to be out-of-the-box thinkers in church leadership these days . . . so long as you are out-of-the-box in certain ways in certain directions with certain ideas. We can't have complete rebellion here. Until now. In order to be a rebel without a cause in our Christian faith we are going to need to reconsider everything . . . going intentionally unintentional, purposefully purposeless, and being committed to non-commitment.

This may seem initially contradicting, but it is bound to work for it is the outworking of creating a self-defining system of church life that fixes everything else the church has been doing - right or wrong - for the days between us and the apostles.

Step One: Secure a Pastor. One of the problems with pastors is that many of them actually want to be the spiritual leaders in a church. There is obviously something wrong with such self-centered hubris, thus we cannot trust anyone who claims to be called into full-time ministry. Probably, these are men and women who simply don't want to go to a "real job" and have become a pastor to fill their own desires of self-aggrandizement. Solution: Wait for a suitable person to wander into the church building (perhaps looking to use the bathroom, needing a box of food, or who thought this was a Presbyterian church). Secure an ankle bracelet around them and inform them that this is their new vocation. They don't come with the baggage of biblical training, church leadership, lofty seminary ideals like praying, etc. In fact, they will be submissive to the church leadership as a whole since they didn't even ask to be the pastor . . . and they don't have a key to the ankle monitor.

Step Two: Worship Services (or Not). This becomes a bit tricky since we all feel as though Christians should have a weekly gathering. (Well, those of us who have yet to discover that weekly church is simply something to do when your weekend is out of other options.) To gather or not? Hmm. And, if there is the decision to have music during said service then we should ensure that no music that existed before our church was started is used - simply because there was no concept of proper Christianity until this congregation was established, so how could any of them be correct in their perspective? Solution: Weekly gatherings happen whenever there are people who show up. One would think that the pastor would always be at the service, but the anklet doesn't work that way: You see, this is an aimless and ambling church so the pastor is given the freedom to explore his/her own spirituality and not required to be at the church. In fact, we would prefer he not passively demand our presence with his presence. Unless we are there, then the pastor should be there.

Step Three: A Prayerful Place. It is clear that everybody wants prayer. Unfortunately, the act of praying can become long, tired and boring; nobody is really interested in praying. Solution: The aimlessly ambling church will be a place of prayerful expression, though we will not infringe on anyone's personal praying habits. Whatever prayers are satisfactory for the individual are acceptable, for it isn't as though there are particular rules for praying (i.e., no guidelines or specific teachings). Also, corporate prayer gatherings will not be planned, for groups that pray together are probably cliques that are subverting the unity of the church anyway.

Step Four: Small Groups. Small groups have been the conventional wisdom of those seeking to go against conventional wisdom in traditional church for some time. However, the subdivision of the church into groups has often been linked to factions within the body, unless they are groups getting together to watch the Super Bowl. Solution: We will neither encourage nor discourage small groups in the aimlessly ambling church. Either way we are providing direction, and we are already committed (in an uncommitted way) not to do that. Remember, we are true rebels . . . and nothing is more rebellious than doing nothing to achieve everything.

Conclusion. The tradition of the church is bogus. We all know that. But replacing it with a different tradition under the guise of non-traditional is also bogus. So, we're upping the ante and going non-traditional on the non-traditional.

Maybe this will work.

Or maybe we could go in the exact opposite direction, putting purpose and drive and intention to all that we say and do.

Or maybe we could just be the church instead.

simply Jesus 2

2012-01-20T13:18:00.001-05:00

N. T. Wright, Simply Jesus (New York: HarperOne, 2011).

In Part Two of The Bishop's latest book about Jesus, we take a look at the public ministry of Jesus - what he was trying to accomplish - and how it leads to the central message of Christianity, namely, his death, resurrection, and ascension. This is the longest of the three sections of the book, and (along with the rest of the investigation) provides an introduction that works out of a type of 'translation' of who Jesus is, what he said, and what he accomplished. Case in point comes with Chapter Six: "God's in Charge Now" - this is Wright's way of translating the impact of Jesus' proclamation, in word and deed, that the kingdom of God has come.

Wright places the notion of God's kingdom come, as proclaimed in the public ministry of Jesus, within the context of a new exodus event, steeped in the heritage of Israel. Second Temple Judaism held fast to the belief that God had created the world and was able to overcome its evils just as he brought Israel out of captivity and bondage in Egypt through the exodus event. Thus, Wright includes seven themes of the exodus event that will significantly play out in the remainder of the book (64).

Chapter Seven then speaks about the beginning of this campaign of the kingdom of God. It comes through celebration, healing, and forgiveness (68ff.). Central to Jesus' mission, however, was that God was coming with his own agenda - going to the outsiders and lost. "Their God isn't simply coming to endorse their national ambitions" (77). Of course, this led many to question Jesus on many levels, not least of which was his very forerunner, John the Baptist (80f.). In this context the radical nature of Jesus' message comes through as one who is subverting the present kingdom for the coming of another.

Chapter Eight then looks at the stories which Jesus told to explain this arriving kingdom. Wright comes from the perspective that these stories contained echoes (87), that they connect to and build upon the stories which Israel held in their long corporate identity (89). Jesus tells them as "kingdom explanations for Jesus's kingdom actions" (91). Thus, Wright posits, "The very form of the parable thus embodies the content it is trying to communicate: heaven appearing on earth" (93, emphasis original). Embedded in these stories, and thus the announcement of the kingdom, is a warning not to miss out and to embrace the transformation of hearts and the renewal of lives that is coming through Jesus' work. "This is the point at which Jesus's whole agenda embraces the 'vocation' aspect of the ancient Exodus story" (101, emphasis original).

Chapter Nine then moves into a well-presented and succinct overview of the messianic-wannabe-activity which colored and shaped the world of Second Temple Judaism. Far too many evangelicals are ignorant to the history of other messiahs who presented themselves as God's choice for bringing the final kingdom of God. Included here are brief introductions to Judas Maccabeus (Judah the Hammer), Simon bar Kochba (Simon the Star), Herod the Great, and Simon Bar-Giora. Jesus arrives into this context with his message and mission.

Chapter Ten then turns to what is probably the most significant factor in understanding Jesus as Messiah and Jesus as he is perceived as messianic within Second Temple Judaism. In what has been a hallmark of my own understanding and teaching of Jesus for many years, Wright includes a chapter on "Battle and Temple" in which we may place the work of Jesus. While common messianic expectations expected the battle to destroy God's enemies (presently Rome), and then cleansing the Temple as the true place and center of heaven-meets-earth worship, Jesus came with a different understanding altogether. Wright presents that Jesus' greatest enemy was Satan (120-127), and that his enterprise of cleansing the Temple was accomplished through his followers (127-130).

Although I believe that the establishment of the church is the renewal of God's Temple through Jesus, placing me in full agreement with The Bishop, I might take a slight quibble with his notion that Jesus was fighting Satan as the archenemy. This may initially seem small, but I think there is historical accuracy at stake, and am uncertain that Jesus would limit himself to battling Satan in personified terms when there is much to be said about the battle against sin and death in more abstract terms. This heightens the battle and gives place to human responsibility for sin and failure - the blood of his life is on our hands - which further gives place to much of Jesus' kingdom message. While there is nothing particularly wrong with the view that is presented here, I believe that it can be expanded to give a fuller sense of what Jesus is accomplishing.

give us rest

2012-01-19T11:00:00.000-05:00

davidcrowder*band:

oh great God give us rest
we're all worn thin from all of this
at the end of our hope with nothing left
oh great God give us rest

oh great God do your best
have you seen this place it's all a mess
and i've done my part too well i 'fess
oh great God do your best

could you take a song and make it thine
from a crooked heart twisted up like mine
would you open up heaven's glory light
shine on in give these dead bones life
oh shine on in give these dead bones life

let it shine
let it shine
on and on
on and on
come alive

let it shine
let it shine
on and on
on and on
come alive

you shine
oh you shine

written by David Crowder and Matt Maher © 2012 sixsteps music worshiptogether.com songs

(still) tired of church, inc.

2012-01-18T19:50:00.002-05:00

The over-systematization of church continues on, despite its continued failure as a means to effectively establish the kingdom of God in our congregational communities. Over and again we continue to hear about how this approach or that methodology will yield the fruit of healthy congregations, yet never breaking the cycle of life that is necessary for such approaches to exist. I previously wrote about this being the 'enterprise of church' that must provide its own fuel lest it exhaust its own effectiveness (translation: the methodology cannot provide a cure, because a cure would make the methodology unnecessary [further translation: it is good business for those who consult to keep a situation in which they can consult.].).

One of the more recent buzz-words for this behavior is intentional. We must be 'intentional' about this and that (and the other . . .) or else it doesn't work. Ironically, much of what is set out to be labelled 'intentional' kills the work that should have been happening in the first place. This happens because we are overanalyzing (not over-thinking) situations where common sense would be good (and Christian thought even better). The quest to be 'intentional' has simply become the latest label for what some self-appointed experts deem acceptable within leadership. It is to imply that embarking on any direction without the consideration and implementation of whatever 38 steps are currently en vogue is random and pointless wandering. (Someone should have told this to Israel, who wandered in the wilderness recklessly thinking it was God's will they needed, rather than intentional leadership . . . Moses was such a failure by today's church leadership, if judging on the intentional-will-get-you-where-you-need-to-go scale.)

Contrary to the objections which might be raised against my point, non-intentional leadership (when so narrowly defined) is not aimless. For that matter, wandering in the wilderness is not aimless* (I shall come back to this one, I think), if it is following the pillar of cloud and fire that is God's presence. And, as we should have discovered by now, his fiery presence refuses to be systematized. But, the argument for being intentional (so narrowly defined) will continue to be made, so long as certain people need to make their living in the corporate constructs of church, church leadership, church consulting, denominationalism, etc.

Hence, I am (even more than before) tired of the Church, Inc. mentality that is getting in the way of meeting people where they are for the sake of the kingdom of God. In fact, Church, Inc. mostly requires that ordinary people within our congregations accommodate to the leadership of the statist church. (And I always thought good leaders related to others, not vice versa.) In practice, the lingo and theories and philosophies that are handed over to the good men and women of a particular congregation are confusing and overwhelming. These folks are typically average people who have not been trained in the practices of pastoring, and who simply want to have a straightforward discussion of how to make our church move forward. Those who operate out of Church, Inc. fail to deliver this.

There is a broad gap between those who write, speak, and conduct church leadership events and those who are in the thick of it at a church. What they do not need is a litany of evaluations, surveys, training seminars, 17 steps to making a better community, or some video curriculum that teaches everyone how to effectively use terms such as relational development. My experience is that we can use all the fancy lingo and method that we want, we can have the Sam's Club of resource libraries, but without love we are a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

It seems that the most basic command is still ours to achieve: love. The world, both in and out of the church, from suited leadership to church custodian, need to receive love and move in love. That will be more powerful than everything else we try to convince ourselves is so important. Then we will follow him on the path to which he has called us, rather than the path charted out in some introduction of a book that will be obsolete by the end of the year.

simply Jesus 1

2012-01-12T15:57:00.000-05:00

N. T. Wright. Simply Jesus. (New York: HarperOne, 2011).

The latest work by noted scholar and theologian, known here as The Bishop, is an incredible book about Jesus. Yes, Wright has written two significant books about Jesus, and yet has decided to offer another. As he quipped during a recent speaking engagement, "Jesus hasn't changed, but I have" - thus he has once again entered the world of Jesus scholarship and takes the reader on a powerful journey to a better understanding of who Jesus was (and is), and the context in which he came with his message of kingdom.

There are times when you run across a book that so resonates with your own belief systems that you feel almost as though you could have written it. For me, this is one of those books (not to sound as though I consider myself on par with The Bishop). What I mean to say is that I so appreciate and enjoy the manner in which Wright has succinctly introduced Jesus and his first century context, that there was a resounding 'Yes!' on many pages of the book.

I want to take a series of posts to briefly review and summarize what Wright presents in Simply Jesus.

The book is divided into three parts. In Part One Wright sets the table with his key questions and the context of Second Temple Judaism as the world into which Jesus came. He briefly touches the question of the Gospels but is more interested in discussing Jesus than historical reliability - that he can point to other works which have made the case. Telling in what the reader will find in this book, Wright says at the outset of Chapter Two, "Jesus is mysterious because of what we do know - what our evidence encourages us to see as the core of who he was and what he did - is so unlike what we know about anybody else that we are forced to ask, as people evidently did at the time: who, then is this?" (9, emphasis in original).

Wright strives to make the case that we must do much work in order to enter into Jesus' world, that time, space and thought are quite different now than they were then (and there). But all of this brings about "the perfect storm" that characterizes Jesus, his identity, and his world. Before getting at this, however, Wright takes a few pages to dispel the two major and opposing myths about Jesus - conservative and liberal. All of this lends to Wright's overall premise that Jesus is very much unlike us today, even though most people seem to cast their own experience back into their understanding of Jesus.

What made the first-century storm? Chapter Four outlines the factors that came together to make Second Temple Judaism and (by definition) the person and work of Jesus what the Gospels are trying to tell us. There is the Roman storm (28-31) and the Jewish storm (31-35) which placed the confrontation of imperialism and God's covenant with his people at odds. The hope of Israel was that God, not the Roman caesars would be king over the earth and would reign through his people Israel. "The God who brought order out of chaos and who brought his enslaved people out of Egypt would do it again" (33).

This, according to Wright, all gave way for the great hurricane (Chapter Five) of Jesus coming into the world. Mounting within the Second Temple period was the belief that it was time for God to become, once and finally, the one king (41). The prophecies and prayers of Israel repeat this refrain, and the book includes a good number of such passages. The people of God were waiting for God to be enthroned through his people, that justice and righteousness would be established on earth, and that the nations would be brought into obedience.

Of course, the biblical story is that those who were appointed to fulfill this task initially - the 'shepherds' of Israel (Ezekiel 34:2-16) - were a failure, thus leaving the story for God alone to fulfill the task of redemption and restoration on behalf of his people. This leads to the question, ". . . would YHWH actually appear, visibly and in person, to take charge?" (50). Further, when God does appear, it is noted that it will not look like the power struggles familiar in the imperialism of the Roman Empire (or Babylon, Persia, . . .), but with the establishment of the covenant kingdom upon the whole world (cf. 53).

Also included here is the promise of a Davidic king (2 Samuel 7), who was now expected to come and rise to the throne of Israel and establish the rule of YHWH. When bringing this context to the life and ministry of Jesus Wright raises two questions: 1) "First, why would anyone say this of Jesus, who had not done the things people expected a victorious king to do?" and, 2) "Second, what on earth might it mean today to speak of Jesus being 'king' or being 'in charge,' in view of the fact that so many things in the world give no hint of such a thing?" (55).

These are the initial steps in Wright's approach to understanding Jesus. Thus far he has done well to establish the preliminary context of the world into which Jesus came. And, as I have seen time and again, getting a better grasp on Jesus' context already enlightens one to the things he said and did. There is more contextual work in Part Two, but Wright begins to move toward a discussion about Jesus' own actions as well. All in the work to answer the two questions of why he was considered to be Messiah, and what his present rule means for the world today.

churchgoing

2012-01-10T13:46:00.002-05:00

"I remember, you know, you go to these parties on Saturday night and people would say, about 8:00 on Sunday morning "Whoa, I have to go - I gotta get to church!" People would say, "Why do you want to go to church, all those hypocrites." And I say, "Look, why do I want to stay here with all you hypocrites?"I never knew why going to church made you a hypocrite. They'd say because you go to church and you're all "Holy, Holy, Holy" for two or three hours, and then you go home and sin. I'd say "exactly!" For two or three hours you're doing pretty good! Maybe the problem isn't that you go to church, maybe the problem is that you go home! I never understood why going to church made you a hypocrite either, because nobody goes to church because they're perfect. If you've got it all together, you don't need to go. You can go jogging with all the other perfect people on Sunday morning Every time you go to church, you're confessing again to yourself, to your family, to the people you pass on the way there, to the people who will greet you there, that you don't have it all together. And that you need their support. You need their direction. You need some accountability, you need some help."

:rich (1995)

what were you expecting to see?

2012-01-09T17:33:00.001-05:00

In reading through Tom Wright's latest book, Simply Jesus (HarperOne, 2011), I was struck by a few comments he makes in relation to John the Baptizer. The Gospels demonstrate that Jesus was announcing the arrival of God's kingdom - God's rule of all nations through Israel - and that John played the role of forerunner for his arrival. The story of John ends with his beheading while imprisoned for his outspoken criticism of Herod Antipas.

John sends his own disciples to ask Jesus the now famous question, "Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?" (Matt 11:3). In response Jesus talks about the work he is doing to bring the kingdom of God into the world as a visible and recognizable manifestation of his announcement: blind see, lame walk, lepers cleansed, deaf hear, dead raised, good news coming to poor. The answer which Jesus sends back to John is a powerful and resounding affirmation of his own role as the anointed one who is ushering in the kingdom of God.

And then, as the story goes, John dies alone in prison.

Wright's question to this scenario is raised well, "Why didn't it mean setting John free from prison?" (82). Indeed. Jesus is telling John, and everyone who hears his words, that this is what the world looks like when God is in charge . . . yet, for John, it was enough to make him wonder about this new kingdom. I think the same is true for those of us who struggle to grasp the coming of a new reality which we have not yet considered or experienced. Perhaps this is why Jesus can be so unsettling even after we have wholeheartedly accepted his coming and his kingdom. For, even when we believe we have grasped it, we so often discover that we are not quite ready for the demands it will make of us.

As someone who has walked many bloodied fields of church conflict and spiritual warfare, who often struggles with battle fatigue for continuing to labor for this kingdom, who must stop himself from coveting the 'successful' ministries that exist in the greener grass of the other sides, and whose broken humanity must again seek God's grace lest I despair of the life he has called me to, I need to know why the arriving kingdom of God didn't release John from prison. Paul would eventually speak of all creation groaning for this new world to be birthed into the old (Romans 8), and John would have a vision that shows how dragons pursue those who give birth to the messiah (Revelation 12), and we should remember that the hope-filled Christmas story shook the darkness and evil so greatly that the baby boys of an entire village were murdered at the coming of God-made-flesh (Matthew 2).

This kingdom-come is messy. This kingdom-come is hard. This kingdom-come will put to death all that is in the kingdom-present, sometimes at the very cost of our lives. Those who enter into the place of martyrdom have already relinquished their lives, following the demands of Christ and the proclamation of Paul that we take up our cross, die upon it, and live only by the presence of the risen Jesus within us.

For those who walk the challenging and lonely roads of ministry we need to be aware of John who, even with his monumental role in the gospel story, never made it out of prison. This is not to be dismal and downcast, but (oddly enough) hopeful and steadfast. As Wright says later in his comments, "This is the sharp edge of what God is doing" (84). And, in Matthew 11, Jesus will further ask "What were you expecting to see?" We must be conscious of the fact that the arrival of this kingdom of God comes with its own justice and righteousness to be established. This will be done with equity, from the throne of God, but it will be a demanding and destructive (for all the powers of earth, even the human heart) experience leading to an everlasting peace.

Also, the arrival of this kingdom of God will not come in a vacuum - not in Jesus' world, nor in ours. All hell will break loose when this kingdom comes, which is why babies are murdered, saints are martyred, churches are attacked, believers lose sight, and even church leaders become disheartened. When we find ourselves asking if this Jesus is the one we were waiting for or if we should move on to another salvation, he will give us the calm assurance that his kingdom has come - with the raging fury of heaven and hell encircling it - and that it is in the effects of the kingdom that we find our answer.

In ministry there are struggles, hurts, pains, disappointments, and the like. But there are also moments of love, grace, hope, and the unbridled kingdom of God restoring and renewing people, families, communities and, yes, even the world. When we find that we are on the front lines of the battle we must recognize that he has called us to this place. Here we can focus on the work of destruction or the work of the kingdom of God, which is more fully arrived today than ever before in the history of the world.

church football

2012-01-05T21:20:00.001-05:00

From somewhere, I don't know its origins . . .

What Football and Church Have in Common

Draw Play: What to do with the bulletin during the service.

Halftime: The period between Sunday School and worship when many choose to leave.

Benchwarmers: Those who do not sing, pray, work, or do anything else but sit.

Staying in the Pocket: What happens to a lot of money that should be given to the Lord's work.

Two-Minute Warning: The point at which you realize the sermon is almost over and you begin gathering up your children and belongings.

End Run: Getting out of church quickly, without speaking to anyone else.

Flex Defense: The ability to allow absolutely nothing said during the sermon to affect your life.

Backfield-in-Motion: Making a trip to the back row during the service.

Blitz: The rush for the restaurants following the closing prayer.

Play like a champion today, folks.

it's the job

2012-01-04T10:06:00.005-05:00

Listen to any surgeon complain about the odd hours of his job and you probably aren't going to have much sympathy for his plight. The same could be said for a professional athlete who laments the long hours of traveling, or perhaps the CEO who whines over the headaches of flying coach. There are certain jobs which the majority of folks believe to be better-than-most, and therefore (after the consideration that everybody has bad days) above the grumbling.

This is also the context in which most people consider the pastor. In many ways this is not too far off, since there are many privileges of the pastoral vocation, even though there is a case to be made for regarding the weight of the task of leading within the church. It is a bit of both/and here, and my thought here is that not enough is given to the heavier end because most people think that working in a church is a pretty sweet deal in which no one would have a bad day. And yet most pastors are having more bad days than good . . . the stats should direct us to a different perception of reality.

As a pastor I know that the struggles that take place in the office will always follow me in my other areas of ministry, on vacation, through my 'distractions' and hobbies, and (worst of all) to my home. There are many of us who fight the tendency to covet those with punch-in-punch-out jobs that stay in the workplace, in a quiet contempt of God's calling. (These are not those who should never have been pastors in the first place, this happens among those who truly value God's church and their role in it.)

And so, it becomes lonely. And sacrificial. For many pastor's homes there is (of necessity) the working out of the weight of conflict and uncertainty that has trailed back from the very church that was supposed to make families stronger. Herein lies the enemy's greatest foothold against those who would choose to lead within the church.

What I have discovered is that there are, basically, two types of people within the church that catalyze this difficult reality. First, there are those who pour on the conflict and crises in an effort to make the pastoral ministry in a church become a nightmare. This is an all-out-attack driven by personal issues - sometimes disagreement, sometimes spiritual oppression, sometimes bitterness, etc - toward the pastor. And an attack on the pastor is an attack on his family and the church he leads. Typically, there is no regard for this in the mind of the antagonist, for they effectively segment their own actions and motives to fit their own self-serving rational. It is no use complaining here, because this is part of the job and if you can't find a way to work things out (even with unreasonable people) then you're probably not suited to be a pastor in the first place.

Second, there are those who have an opportunity to help minister to the pastor (there's an outrageous idea for you!), but choose not to do so. Why not? Because it's part of the job, and if you can't handle a little conflict then you're probably not suited to be a pastor in the first place. I remember sometime about a year ago when someone in a church board meeting was making the case that I was being a lousy pastor - that I didn't care and wasn't trying because we as a staff had taken a couple of days off following the extra days of working around Easter (yes, I'm serious). My response outlined all of the work we had done and how much we had sacrificed those few weeks from family, personal time, along with the 'overtime' that could be considered. I gave up trying to convince the room when I was met with apathetic looks that conveyed one simple message: it's the job, and you should be used to it.

My point here is that it is wrong for Christians to enter church with a consumerist mindset that only uses and discards the gifts, ministries and lives of those within it. And the way many churches treat their pastors as though they were as disposable and replaceable as a crappy Dell computer is morally reprehensible. It is an utter failure to live out love for God and others. There are so many places where such activity is commonplace enough not to be considered as abnormal or unChristian. So, we have yet one more layer of why so many thousands of pastors jump ship and find entirely different vocations every month. Once again, our ability to love will transform our lives and the lives around us. Failure to love only conforms us to the pattern of this world.

merry christmas

2011-12-25T07:46:00.001-05:00

on giving, briefly

2011-12-07T16:24:00.001-05:00

Although this has been observed and stated before, it is worth another voice giving perspective. And while my particular view of the world isn't that unique, there is always value in communication - even if it is for my own benefit.

Giving. Churches are notorious for talking about tithing, even though the perceptions seldom match reality. Some people think that the only real things that the pastor is interested in is getting money from your wallet into the offering plate. Others will say that their pastor never talks (adequately) about tithing, typically understood as the reason for struggling finances in the congregation. Again, these two extremes do not often serve as accurate descriptions of what is actually happening in a given church community.

What have I discovered throughout my church experience and ministry? First, that any understanding or conversation about giving should always include much more than finances. Many times I hesitate to refer to giving because I intend to speak of an attitude and practice of life, but I know that many ears will hear nothing more than money. So we must push forward and advance the notion that giving is being a living sacrifice, a notion which encompasses every aspect of our lives - both individually and corporately.

Second, I have learned a simple rule of thumb that I have yet to have seen disproved. Those who grumble and complain are those who do not give. Always. Again, although this encompasses the area of giving financially, it is more than that. Within the church community those who are not investing their lives typically do not see the positives of the ministry that is happening around them. But they are quick to identify and problems (real or perceived) and share their disappointments with those who will listen. It is easy to be a pessimist, and easier still to be a dissatisfied consumer. It is human nature, and that is what the Spirit's work in sanctification is trying to overcome.

Jesus spoke about streams of living water (John 7) which would flow from him through the one who believes. If we receive the Spirit but keep it to ourselves we are stopping its life and causing it to pool up and become stagnant, dead water. Only when we give of the grace we have received does the Spirit have the full effect of making us children of God. Thus, the stench of a life that is filled with stagnant water emerges in the attitudes of those who are not allowing the Spirit to flow. The result of this typically reminds us of another image which Jesus used to describe the so-called religious elites of his day: whitewashed tombs (Matthew 23) - looking good and clean on the outside, but decaying and rotting on the inside. The only power in all of creation that can dam this living water (that is, the only power that can stop the Spirit of God) is the human heart.

As I mentioned above, I have never seen a situation where this was not the case, though it is rare for people to actually confirm that they do not give (financially, volunteer, prayer, etc) to their church community. But it does happen, and I do know of some repeated troublemakers who can see nothing good in what God is doing simply because they have not allowed their lives to be surrendered to the supremacy of Jesus. May their hearts be changed, their minds be renewed, and the kingdom glorified through the living water that is desperately trying to flow.

neither do i cry for polar bears

2011-12-02T12:27:00.001-05:00

"The crisis of global warming, now beyond contestation, indicates that this 'unnatural' standard of living cannot be sustained" (Walter Bruegemann, Out of Babylon, Nashville: Abingdon, 2010).

Thus I find every reason to preview books before purchasing them on my Kindle. I had figured, since this was Brueggemann, that I would be safe in making this purchase. Nope. I have come to discover that I can barely bring myself to read any further once a few statements such as these have been so carelessly tossed in under the veil of knowledge and understanding.

Brueggemann's statement comes at the end of a short list of reasons why the United States is comparable to the ways of ancient Babylon, and thus in need of becoming sober to the judgment of Scripture. Although I happen to think that there are more than a few reasons why such a comparison is appropriate, the examples cited here are somewhat revisionist in their historical perspective, and also inaccurate to factual data. I'm not interested in making a head-to-head history battle over the purpose of the Monroe Doctrine and such, but I am (once again) tired of the fraudulent and manufactured 'crisis' of the mythological 'global warming' to be the impetus for which the church fulfills the kingdom of God.

It is said here that the global-warming-crisis is "now beyond contestation," even though that is far from being truthful. Even if Brueggemann is himself convinced, it is no secret that there are many who contest the reality (at minimum, the scope of the reality) of anthropogenic global warming. (No, the author does not specify 'anthropogenic,' but since he places it in the realm of human responsibility the reader can only assume he is not referring to the warming and cooling trends that have already been documented to occur on our planet.) The fact happens to be that there is a debate over anthropogenic global warming, and it is an irresponsible statement to say that there is not.

Secondly, the argument for anthropogenic global warming is one that appeals to and claims 'consensus,' which is anti-scientific by its very nature. Science used to claim - by consensus it was accepted - that the earth was the center of the universe. That was proved to be factually false, which means that even without consensus the truth remains that the planets of our solar system revolve around the sun. That is science. Facts are inconvenient things . . . because there are none that can debunk the opponents of the claim of anthropogenic global warming. (Remember Climategate, which openly demonstrated a manufacturing and propagating of fraudulent data that supported the claim of anthropogenic global warming.)

Let's assume for a moment that someone came into Walter Brueggemann's world and made sweeping claims regarding the Old Testament, Israel or even the Christian faith. Of course, this happens all the time with Jesus, who is often claimed to be a cynic sage, to have fathered children with Mary Magdalene, was actually a student of Buddhist monasteries, and so on. In fact, the Jesus Seminar did a lot of work on the historical reliability of the Gospels by consensus. And why aren't these ideas taken seriously by biblical scholars and historians such as Dr Brueggemann? Because they lack the credibility of facts, and speak of things that they do not adequately understand!!!! It is unacceptable in one direction, therefore it should be unacceptable in every direction.

But, come on now, let's settle down from one simple statement, shall we? I mean, he is not claiming to be a climatologist, he is simply stating his position as a means to build a much bigger point, right? I might be willing to take that line of thinking, especially for those who think I do not respond in love or with grace. The reason why I have moved on from such naiveté is that I know such approaches do not really work, and that the erosion of biblical truth continues on when such things are not stopped. He freely chose to include this statement, knowing that it is a hot topic for discussion. He freely chose to make one feel isolated and (shall we say) stupid for daring to disagree with what everyone knows to be true. And I, for one, am tired of these kinds of maneuvers, especially in the church and biblical scholarship.

There is more damage being done to the two-thirds world because of the myth of anthropogenic global warming than because of our failure to act upon it. (The same line of reasoning can also be applied to his other examples, which are often half-baked and fail to take credit for the positive work of the kingdom of God that has also happened through the examples he freely chose to include!) Yes, national self-interest can be a damning reason that can hurt more than it harms. But let us also consider that, over the history of our nation that more worldwide good has come from our efforts and sacrifices than any other nation the world has ever seen. Perhaps we have a lot in common with Babylon - I see this every day of my life - but the issue is far too complicated to make statements that are as irresponsible as simple hubris or anti-hubris.

Brueggemann adds the phrase, "Empires rarely notice such challenge in time, nor do they concede anything to those who mount the challenge." This is a sort-of catch-all that I often discover in discussion such as these. If you do not notice how bad things are, that's just typical of being in the situation . . . thus proving my point. And if you disagree with my assessment of how bad things are, that's just typical of being in the situation . . . thus proving my point.

I understand that this isn't intended to be a scholarly work. Yet it is built on scholarly ideas. If Dr Brueggemann's description of the exile of Israel was written with such sweeping inaccuracies as the examples I have critiqued here, then the world of biblical history would be up in arms. But it isn't, because he is a proven academic who knows well the value of being factually informed about that which he speaks. I simply demand that he should be equally tenacious for truth in other areas about which he freely chooses to write. This chapter is foundational material, but I do not anticipate being able to stomach anything built on such disappointment. The opening chapter, from where all of this is drawn, is titled, "The Facts on the Ground . . . Twice!"

But again, facts can be inconvenient things . . . if you really want to know them.

jubilant song

2011-11-27T14:54:00.001-05:00

Today I read an article about the styles of music that is used in evangelical worship. So, here we go again with the internal debates and wars over the mode instead of the message. Normally, I would have rolled my eyes and declared that I have moved past such discussions . . . but I haven't. To be more accurate, I haven't been allowed to leave all of this behind.

This morning our church gathered together for community worship, as is our custom. As our worship leader was making his way to the stage he was confronted by one of our 'fussier' older men. The message was simple, "The music is too damn loud!" Although I was unaware of this until after most fo the congregation had dispersed for the day, I was somewhat aware of why the morning worship was not becoming more than the sum of its parts.

It is difficult to constantly face the internal opposition and would-be discouragement that is continually lobbed at those who have accepted the call to lead the church. It is easy to stand on the sidelines, contribute nothing, and constantly offer criticism and pessimism in the house of God. That is the failure of divinity to overcome our humanity, for the only force in all creation that can stop the Holy Spirit is the human heart.

There comes a point at which there is nothing more that can be said. Of the many responses that could be offered to such a statement, none would serve to soften such a hardened heart. Such statements can be disruptive, hurtful, and worse. So perhaps the battles over music are going to continue, but not as they have been fought before. For it is time for the church to move on and stop wasting time arguing over that which yields no fruit. The simple fact of the matter is that no one is bound to a particular congregation, which means that you may feel free to come and go as you please. But no Christ-follower should ever feel that it is his or her place to distract the congregation from the work of building the kingdom.

So much could be conveyed and avoided if God's people would do more to speak and act like Christians rather than church-gathering culture-ites. The primary purpose of the assembly is to offer praise and worship to God. There are many passages that declare that this should be loud and joyous, meditative and quiet, and any other expression that is fitting to bring as the best of who we are. Scripture speaks of shouting, crying, strings, drums, horns and cymbals to express a new song fitting for a new life and a new creation. I have yet to discover where old music is required, and the Bible never once mentioned an organ.

In my estimation, over 90% of planning and implementing worship is appropriateness, which means that various groups (and even individuals) are free to express in ways that are appropriate for them. I have been in churches where David Crowder would be wholly inappropriate, and others that would find no expression in even the greatest of ancient hymns. And I am quite certain that God doesn't care about the mode of our expression, but rather the heart which offers it. Just as he was not more into meat than he was into fruits and vegetables when he sent away Cain's offering with displeasure.

Mostly, I think that more people in our churches today simply need to have a personal encounter with the risen Christ. He can change more than any of our own thoughts, rhythms or rants.

review: ff bruce - a life

2011-11-08T10:02:00.002-05:00

Tim Grass. F. F. Bruce: A Life. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2011.

Few scholars have had the impact on contemporary biblical studies as The Dean (F. F. Bruce). This biography offers many of us (especially those who entered the world of biblical studies post-1990) the opportunity to understand the life and influence of this top scholar. Hopefully, a good number of people - academically involved or otherwise aware - will take the time to consider one of the greats. In any field or endeavor, such is an important task to know who and what has gone on before us. And since, I believe, we stand on the shoulders of such giants as Bruce in more ways than one.

Although the book was well-written and engaging, one aspect that made it more personally enjoyable was the sense of how accessible Bruce was to a broad range of people. Additionally, I personally had the sense that in many ways he and I were cut from the same cloth in our perspectives on the world of biblical studies (he obviously from the brighter end of said cloth); there were numerous times when I chuckled at the way he would respond to questions, address issues and controversies, or spoke about the endeavor of biblical scholarship.

The book progresses more or less along the lines of a traditional biography, beginning with an account of Bruce's family, birth, childhood and early life. One of the hallmarks of his life is the association to the Brethren throughout his life, often leaving him to navigate a sea of in-betweens - he was often seen as too 'liberal' by the Brethren and too 'fundamentalist' by the academic community, a perception that he consistently broke through by his commitment to the text and to his faith. He worked to broaden evangelicalism, defining the Christian faith in the simple Pauline understanding of possessing faith in Christ. He thus became self-identified as an "unhyphenated evangelical" based on his belief that the term evangelical included "every one who believes in the God who justifies the ungodly" (152).

Along with his perspective on evangelicalism, perhaps the second most influential fact of his scholarship was his commitment to the biblical text. Such a comment should not be striking, but Bruce's dedication to Scripture still presented a challenge to much of the work being done (in both his day, and times before and afterward). Bruce defined tradition as the family memory of the church and warned that the notion of sola Scriptura "had all too often meant allegiance to Scripture as our tradition has interpreted it." Further, "He suggested that the essential principle of canonicity was witness to Christ; this was what gave the biblical documents their unity. And since the Spirit's task was to bear witness to Christ, the supreme evidence for the authority of the Bible was the inner witness of the Spirit" (159).

Such a position gave Bruce an interesting voice in discussions regarding Inerrancy v. Infallibility, the role of women in ministry, the millenium questions, biblical inspiration, along with others. Time and again he would return to what he found in Scripture, mostly repeating the refrain that he saw emerge from the Pauline epistles - freedom. Once, when asked if there was any scriptural support for the idea of a secret rapture of the church he replied, "There may be, but I have yet to find it" (179). Such was his approach to many topics, and often brought him to a place of scrutiny among the Brethren with whom he continued to minister and worship.

The author also includes a chapter on Bruce's writings, providing good summaries of the major content and their impact. Here is a helpful overview in its own right, providing those who are less familiar with F. F. Bruce to get a better sense of his influence on biblical studies.

The legacy of F. F. Bruce is given consideration in the final chapter, as the author looks at the impact made on three communities: "Brethren, evangelicalism generally, and the world of academic biblical studies" (212). Throughout his life, Bruce sought to broaden the notion of evangelical by appealing to the text of Scripture over and above any particular tradition or vantage point. I believe movement such as this greatly enhanced (and still continues to push today) the experience of being Brethren. (As part of a Brethren community - slightly different than Bruce's particular thread of Brethrenism - there is much for us to learn in order to grow.)

As for being an academic, Bruce's uniqueness is also seen in the lack of 'one big idea' that can be identified (223). In fact, there is not a heavy emphasis on originality so much as there is on understanding the biblical text. Moving exegesis to application was the heartbeat of Bruce's life, ministry and academic career. How did he become so influential? Through faithful engagement and exposition of the text, making it accessible to the evangelical community. Here again is a point of agreement between myself and Bruce: the perceived need to become novel in our studies does not necessarily make us more intuitive or accomplished, but often runs the risk of moving us from faithful interpretation for the sake of attaining something new. Bruce refused to go this route yet still made his impact on the world.

Here is a great mind, a committed evangelical, and a fearless scholar. F. F. Bruce was 'old-school' in many ways: his choice of church, his opening of doors for other people (even young students), his refusal to work with a computer or electric typewriter, and his lack of interest in an ever-changing popular culture, choosing instead to work for the gospel.

soiled and sterile in sardis

2011-11-07T16:47:00.001-05:00

One of the great benefits to those of us who work in the church, especially as teachers and preachers, are the (quite popular) lay commentaries on the New Testament produced by The Bishop (NT Wright). They are known as the for Everyone series and, if you have yet to encounter one of them, seeks to make the text of the New Testament accessible to folks who would otherwise not open a commentary on Scripture. Based upon Wright's own translation of the text, there is a dynamic presentation of both the original meaning and contemporary application that many have used for personal study or small group settings.

Wright has recently completed the publication process for the New Testament (John Goldingay is embarking on a similar quest for the Old Testament), appropriately saving Revelation for the final volume. Although I now possess all of the volumes (I went on a blitz to finish out my set), I confess that I have only read straight through two of them. The rest I have jumped in and out of as situations arise, mostly when I am looking for ideas of how to present a passage of Scripture to a particular group. Having been a student of Revelation (as an academic hobby, I suppose) and currently leading a Sunday school group through the text, I have decided to read through Revelation for Everyone along with the material from week to week.

Whenever someone has written as extensively and in-depth as The Bishop, it is a matter of time for even his bigger fans to find areas of disagreement. I openly admit that I'm a fan of Wright's scholarship, but have had those times when I think he isn't quite on target with a particular thought or idea. But this time I think he's simply wrong on the facts.

In presenting the Letter to the Church in Sardis (3:1-6) Wright reads v. 4 ("You do, however, have a few people in Sardis who haven't allowed their clothes to become dirty and polluted") as part of a two-stage criticism of the church from the risen Christ. Let's look.

The critique of Sardis is not good. Caird once said that this is "perhaps the perfect model of inoffensive Christianity." They are pronounced dead, yet with the summons to wake up (perhaps only mostly dead). The sense that there are a few people, "however," that have not soiled their clothes seems to indicate a contrast to those who are not keeping awake, waiting for the coming thief (v. 3). Yet, Wright takes verses 4-5 as "the second charge" against this church (30), perhaps indicating that these are believers who have demonstrated spiritual laziness and have not allowed their clothes to become dirty from working on behalf of the gospel. They are likened to people who don't regularly wash their clothes, becoming slack in their spirituality.

Still, vv. 4-5 says that this group of people (the "howevers") will walk with Christ as those who have clean robes, along with those who overcome. Nowhere have I encountered the notion that this image is used as a criticism rather than a commendation. Lupieri's commentary says it this way, "Throughout the book 'clothes' are to be 'kept' (16:5) from being 'defiled' (3:4), and if they are not yet white or are no longer white they must be 'washed (7:14; 22:14 . . .) or 'purified' . . ." (124).

I'm not sure what happened in the for Everyone series at this particular point. And perhaps I will have further disagreements as I move forward in the text. But this is a point on which I felt the need to respond. In many ways it is a minor disagreement, but it is also the Word of God which should be sought after for the greatest accuracy possible. This in no way overshadows the power of Wright's handling of the text (notably the seven letters), and the entire for Everyone collection remains at the height of my recommended reading list.

the experts

2011-11-02T13:27:00.000-04:00

One of the most disturbing bits of modern evangelical terminology is church expert. We have been convinced that we need a class of the superchurched who can lead us along the path of ecclesiastical prosperity. In our ongoing quest to discover the placard map which will not only tell us "You Are Here" but also the right path to get where we want to be, we seek out canonical gurus that can guarantee our success. Or so we have sometimes told ourselves.

My problem with this line of thought is that I strongly disagree that there are any modern church experts. That's right, I deny their existence. At first, you might think this is a near-incoherent rambling of someone who has been burned in the catacombs of church leadership. You are right on some regards, but my decision to question the existence of church experts was not made on the basis of emotional reaction. Instead, I come to this as a theological determination, reflective of what our larger narrative context ought to be.

Sure, there are programs and degrees which confer on ourselves the perception that we have attained some expertise in the life and health of the church, though we must be reminded that true wisdom and understanding is the growing acceptance of the knowledge that we are aware of far less than our arrogant youth assumed. That is to say, if we are truly wise we know that there is far too much knowledge that we are not experts - not in any sense of superiority - for learning is lifelong and truth holy and profound.

But there is a sea of books, audio lectures, seminars, consultants, curricula and, yes, degree programs that capitalize on our sense of having mastered the science of church life and health. We believe that we can create for ourselves a class of spiritual physicians, headed up by a team of specialists and surgeons for when those difficult situations arise. And maybe we are not so far off in asking for help from those who have been there before, or seeking the counsel of those who display godly wisdom, But how does that become its own trek of Christian discipleship, that we should sit at the feet of those who program church as though it were a corporation?

It seems to me that the church has already identified a group of church experts, and that they have served as the foundation for how the body of believers will move in faith and practice upon God's word. Indeed, we rest upon Apostolic Authority, not only in the determination of how the canon was assembled but also in the message we have received regarding our path of discipleship. The Early Church Fathers understood this and sought to build upon the work of the apostles, some of whom were the disciples of these twelve disciples. The same could be said for the Reformers and many other moments in church history.

But I fear that it is far too common for church leaders today to give more credence to the fleeting whims of publication and trendiness than we will to the work of the apostles. In other words, we are trying to find our faith in the systematized techniques of modern organizational theory than we are reading and learning and memorizing our Scripture. There are far more answers for the church in its sacred canon than in all of the leadership treatises combined. Many would echo that statement, but few will be innocent of it; many will walk the wide path, few will choose the narrow.

How many church experts have you encountered? I haven't seen too many, but from what I have seen there is nothing new under the sun, and there is often a lack of spiritual or scriptural depth to what I have seen presented. One particular piece of correspondence chided the congregational leadership for lacking in credibility, though never once in a multiple page document did they make an appeal to Scripture (or even a scriptural principle), personal character or ethics in God's kingdom (that context didn't appear at all) . . . but did make reference to the appropriate fee structure that could be arranged for any assistance that was given.

I am beginning to wonder about any of this taking money for ministry (even though it is my vocation), as I see how it can be a strong internal motivator against the people of God. For with such a set of parameters, both truth and love are certainly taking hits for the sake of retaining a position, an income, or a reputation . . . all three of which should have been crucified with Christ and no longer living.

thunder and plunder

2011-10-31T13:29:00.002-04:00

"The LORD had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians." (Exodus 12:36)

Plundering is an activity which is supposed to be reserved for the strong, the mighty, the upper-end, the winners. Here, against all of the wisdom and understanding of both modern and ancient world, it comes from the hands of slaves as they exit the front door of one of antiquity's most impressive civilizations. The ancient Israelites plundered the spoils of Egypt and began their migration into a land they believed to have been promised to them.

Of course, the exodus is at the foundation of the corporate identity of Israel, and the apostle Paul could easily reflect on this slave plundering when he spoke of how God was going to be glorified in his weaknesses, or how the weakness of God is mightier than human strength. Slaves are the losers, exile is for those who have survived, and oppression was the result of defeat. In Egypt it happened gradually, since Joseph summoned his family to come to the place where what his brothers intended for evil God intended for good (Genesis 50:20). Over time they settled and became comfortable, watching as their freedoms eroded slowly and gradually, until they were faced with the back-breaking task masters of Pharaoh.

Regardless of how they reached this point in their history, it was evident that now was the time for them to go. With many questions, much confusion, ten plagues and a Passover later, it was clear that this 'weakness' of God on behalf of his people the slaves was unravelling the might of the Egyptian empire. And they plundered. They were on the side of the winners. They prevailed.

It is not coincidence that those who still follow the God of Israel in the modern church are faced with the same dilemma: we wish to plunder the riches of culture and achieve the status of winners, rather than be the losers of our society who must learn their place in the world. It is not for the church to plunder the culture in that we strip it of all its riches, but rather come out as those who have truly subverted the status quo and have asserted the authority of a different kingdom. Hence, we must learn just how ancient Israel pulled off this dramatic upset of an empire.

We must, as did they, learn that we are slaves first to Almighty God and not church workers, cultural servants, or people here to help. Such endeavors might be well and good, but they are not the essence of who we are as a people. This is not the thunder of power and might being displayed for all to stand in awe of our own projected greatness. Rather, it is the life that emerges from death, the strength that rises out of weakness. In echoing the self-identification of the apostle Paul, we are slaves of Jesus and are thus completely surrendered and bound to his will. This is how those who are otherwise seen as marginalized losers of culture will come to have overcome from the most unexpected of places.

Of course, it will greatly help God's people to learn that there is no strength or security in such riches - they exist only as God's blessing and tools for further expansion of his will. We must never lose ourselves in the blessing but continually serve the Creator from which they originate. When we miss out on this God is more than willing to wait for a generation to respond to his life. Slaves plundering the empires of the world? This is what happens when the shadow powers are confronted with the true Lord of the world.

the great divorce 6

2011-10-20T10:40:00.003-04:00

8.

"What are we born for?"

As the narrator moves from observing yet another scene with another of the Ghosts he begins to ponder the very existence of this place. He admits that he has not yet considered the intentions of the Solid People, and now must consider whether or not there are ulterior motives to their apparent friendliness. He recalls various scenes of mythology, and even imagery from Revelation, regarding the terrible fates of those who were given eternal punishment. Thus he begins to wonder if this is nothing more than the same.

He speaks of Tantalas, a story derived from Greek mythology, which is a clever indication that he now is considering his visit nothing more than a temptation without satisfaction. The story of Tantalas (which is not included in Lewis' work here) speaks of his invitation to dine at the table of Zeus. There he stole nectar to bring back to the people and therefore reveal the secrets of the gods. Further, he takes his own son, boils him and offers him to the gods at a banquet. For this heinous act he is punished by being bound in a pool of water beneath tree branches with fruit. Whenever he would try to take a bite of fruit, the branches would raise beyond his reach. Likewise, when he would bend to take a drink of water the pool would recede before he could do so. The notion of tantalize come from this myth.

As the narrator considers these images in his mind he begins to see the Solid World in a different way: it becomes more sinister to him than it had previously been. Here is an outcome of the fallenness of creation - what is good and pure is now either questioned or marred in our relationship to it. At this point he sees another Ghost who is (making an attempt) to run and hide from another one of the Solid People.

The Ghost is trying to get away from the Solid Person and the conversation in which they had been engaged. There is the (now common) plea to come toward the mountains and join this world, and it seems that the desire is indeed present in the Ghost, though not enough to overcome her own obstacles. She is held up by her current state of being, "Do you really suppose I'm going out there among all those people, like this?" Her concern is that everyone will be able to see through her (because of her being one of the ghosts), and her pride will not allow her to move forward.

The Solid Person continues to plead with her, "But we were all a bit ghostly when we first arrived, you know. That'll wear off. Just come out and try." This leads the Ghost a little further, but she is still in a desperate state of affairs because of her present reality. She eventually replies, "I wish I'd never been born . . . What are we born for?"

Despite all of this the Solid Person continues in her effort to persuade the Ghost to come and try to walk to the mountains. For a moment it appears that the Ghost has come around and will indeed make the hard and long walk. Suddenly, however, she recants and refuses to move. The final effort given by the Solid Person was given, "Friend . . . Could you, only for a moment, fix your mind on something not yourself?"

This scene certainly highlights the current state of many people who are bound up by their own pride and circumstance. Truly, the walk of faith is one which opens us up that those who watch us will definitely be able to see through us. That is why it is necessary to have our eyes fixed on Christ for such a journey. The Solid Person never denies that everyone will see through the Ghost, and likewise there is no denying that the believer will not be exposed on many levels for such a commitment. But, just like the walk to the mountains makes one more solid and whole, those who walk in faith will lose the transparency of hypocrisy, guilt, and sin, to become a solid representation of Christ into the world.

Here we see another barrier to the human heart from engaging the process of sanctification. Our own pride keeps us focused on ourselves rather than on the goal - which contains the reason for life itself. Further, not only do we harm ourselves but we lose our witness when we do nothing but hide our spiritual nakedness in the bushes.

review: turning the tide

2011-10-19T09:30:00.000-04:00

Charles Stanley. Turning the Tide. New York: Howard Books, 2011. 1439190623.

Although there is no shortage of Christians who choose to speak on socio-political topics, there certainly does seem to be a lack of responsible dialogue in the arena. In the name of fairness, one could say that this is somewhat true for believers on both sides of the political aisle. I personally believe that many left-wing advocates are pushing in ways that discredit not only the Founders but also the Bible on which they forged this nation. So I admit that I am personally biased in my assessment (you are too, even if you claim otherwise). Having a stated position does not make a person wrong; knowing what you believe is a product of actual thought rather than sentimentalized feelings.

Anyways . . .

Given the sea of voices that have `emerged in the last decade, it is worth listening to the voices of our elders, who have spent their lives working in America's church to see God's Word make an impact in our culture. Charles Stanley is one of our nation's great preachers, and he offers here the product of godly wisdom that has come from a life of service and devotion to Word and Truth now directed toward a shifting and changing nation. And it is worth our time and effort to listen to his perspective, rather than follow the trends of those who only hear what they want to hear and forget that those who have built this country have a contributing perspective for us today.

In terms of a book review, I'll be brief. Among other things, this book is a primer for young pastors on how the church should interact with the issues of culture, society and government. Stanley speaks clearly from his own convictions, but never makes a statement which is tied to a particular party, movement or candidate. That is part of the calling for preachers - one that needs to be relearned - to neither decry nor support a particular political agenda any further than it is working for the kingdom of God. I have often said that in my work as pastor I do not look to speak about the state, but then there are days when the state comes into the church and must be addressed directly. This is the same vein in which Dr. Stanley writes, and offers his perspective on this nation under God.

The book is written to the believer who wants to see a more godly presence in our nation, not out of legislative or judicial will, but out of a sincere turning to be the people of God among those who work together. The Founders did not establish an official religion, and that is not what Stanley advocates here. But the principles of Christian behavior remain at the core of what our first documents advocate, and the Christian faith has played a pivotal role in the history of this nation . . . the phrase God Bless America is not exclusive to us as a people, but is a prayer seeking to have the divine-human relationship flourish in this country.

Turning the Tide guides the reader (by the way, the book is more than suited for small group or personal devotional study, complete with prayers and action steps to help the process of moving forward) to understand biblical precepts of society and government. Although the chapter titles begin to look more like a political platform type of book, the content never denigrates to that level. There is a continual emphasis on life as a gift from God and the rights and responsibilities that come along with that gift. Stanley does well to keep that at the forefront of the discussion.

Again, this book is highly recommended as a proper way to have a biblical discussion regarding the socio-political side of the American experience. As I write this it is clear that all sides are unhappy with the present state of affairs. But there remain some deep divisions on just how to move forward. As Christians we ought not jump on the bandwagon of any movement or party, nor defame and disown any involvement in the political arena until we have considered the type of perspectives offered in this book. Maybe Charles Stanley doesn't work for you, maybe it's not enough . . . Either way, consider this level of discussion, which begins and ends with Scripture and the glory of God through the kingdom come in Jesus. (All in the tone of a humbled love.)

the wright new testament

2011-10-18T15:21:00.001-04:00

Scheduled for a late-October release in the US is The Kingdom New Testament, a translation put forward by The Bishop, N. T. Wright. The UK version has already been published (as The New Testament for Everyone) and public reviews are beginning to come in for it. Of course, the latter version reads with an accent so American readers will want to take that into account before deciding on which to purchase.

In July 2011 Wright gave a paper regarding his translation to the International SBL Meeting in London, "The Monarchs and the Message: Reflections on Bible Translation from the Sixteenth to the Twenty-First Century."

Why another translation? Indeed, why do we have a plethora of translations in the first place? Wright addresses these oft-stated concerns from the evangelical laity with: "The reason is that we believe in translation. Putting the message of Jesus, and the message about Jesus, into different languages so that people can understand it in their own idiom is one of the things Christians characteristically do" (emphasis in original). I rather enjoy the reading of that first sentence - we believe in translation. Perhaps is cuts both ways (whether or not The Bishop intended for it to), in that while we are theologically committed to sharing the gospel, it is also true that our experience of belief happens in the translation fo divine to human. Thus, our faith journey exists in translation - as the flow of Living Water to us, through us, and out to the world.

English Bible translations are traced back to the work of Tyndale, where Wright begins his story as well, identifying the social, cultural and political context into which that Bible was introduced. The dedication and sacrifice of Tyndale certainly paved the way for translation, and his commitment to the kingdom message drove his own process, believing that he could help bring about much needed reforms from a public understanding of God's Word. His move was somewhat counteracted by the work of the King James Bible (which uses more than 87% of Tyndale's original text), who sought to place the language just above the common reader once more. Though, as Wright points out, ". . . in terms of style, Tyndale had already, as it were, let the English cat out of the bag."

With this historical background, Wright presents his own translation theory and approach to what he has provided in The Kingdom New Testament. He begins with the example of 'Christ' - what is mostly used as a swear word in today's culture, or as the last name of Jesus and his family. Others might take it as a sign of his divinity, but "none of these corresponds to what the word conveyed in the first century." So there is a challenge in taking the meaning of that word (Christos) and communicating its importance and fullness to the contemporary reader. While this one word can cause all sorts of problems in this regard (though, not all such problems would be considered bad), it highlights the vast amount of biblical language that is so contextually wrapped in first-century Judaism that translation becomes quite difficult.

One of Wright's aims therefore is found in his statement, "The best the translator can do is set up signposts pointing in more or less the right direction, and encourage readers to read on and glimpse the larger picture within which the words will flesh themselves out and reveal more of the freight they had all along been carrying." Further on he shares, "Translation is bound to distort. But not to translate, and not to upgrade English translations quite frequently, is to collude with a different and perhaps worse kind of distortion."

I believe that the latter statement is true for more than the translation of the text, inasmuch as it points to the way disciples of Jesus are meant to live their faith. While it is certainly true that our witness is imperfect and bound to distort the truth, it is far worse to cease living out our faith in significant ways - a distortion that works along with the enemy's agenda.

The passion which Wright has for the text and its message comes through in this paper, and will undoubtedly be seen in the translation he provides. Those who have been keeping up with the for Everyone series have already seen seeds of this. He shares, "The whole point of the New Testament, after all, is that it is one of the most dramatic, subversive and life-giving collections of writings ever assembled. lose that and you've lost the plot."

Yes, there are reasons for ongoing translation work and the continual production of versions of Scripture. Unfortunately, many in the church simply do not leave room for such reasons before grumbling, complaining and arguing. It is probably too much to ask every churchgoer to have an appreciation for the work of translation, but is is certainly not too much to demand that no Scripture wars be started without a proper understanding of the original languages, translation theory, and proper Christian behavior. Sadly, these realities continue on along with each new translation offered.

"But what a new translation can perhaps do today is to jolt people out of the familiar, and open their eyes and imaginations to new possibilities: particularly to the new possibilities which speak of the ultimate monarchy, of Jesus as the king of the world in a way that Paul and Mark understood well but most contemporary readers have hardly begun to imagine."

alive in the absolutes

2011-10-14T22:40:00.002-04:00

Grey area is all around; we are surrounded by it. The Christian philosophers have been screaming truth for more than one or two generations, knowing that the distillation of absolutes would lead to the ultimate undoing of the church and its mission. Those who have decried the relativism of the postmodern culture may have caught the attention of some, but we still witness the abandonment of clearly defined parameters of right and wrong in the work of the church.

And this been a significant contributor to the failure of the church to bring about the kingdom of God.

Mostly it happens in the name of grace: we do not want to be known as a people who are close-minded and demanding, but rather considerate and compassionate. These are good qualities, to be sure, but sentiment does not make for right and wrong. There must be something more; the fruit must come from the Spirit and not from our emotional warmth.

One of the most striking aspects of Jesus is that a reading of his life according to Scripture does not yield the pseudo-neo-hippie that we wished he would be for us. He remains the god-man who became emotionally and spiritually involved, many times angrily, because of the seriousness of the war he was waging against the darkness. Evidently, when dealing with death it will not do to offer words of encouragement and make every attempt to understand all sides.

Yes, Jesus was full of grace and compassion. But he also was the Word incarnate - the truth, the absolute, the essence of God - intent on bringing life more abundant into a broken and hurting world. He loved people, but was not too fond of all of their choices of self-destruction. (He was less fond of choices that brought others closer self-destruction.) And so, while he at all times operated in love, he stood on the absolutes of the divine character. We see this in the Torah (or Word), but we see it in the very life of Jesus, if we indeed consider him to be the incarnation of God.

While the world wishes to see in shades of grey all of the ethics and morality that make up the human experience, those who follow Christ should be able to recognize blacks and whites, even when life forces the in-between shades upon us. This does not make our work easier. In fact, seeing things in black and white should make it more difficult, thus providing a further narrowing of the path that the few will find to life. Let us make no mistake about it, this is the very reason why shades of grey dominate - absolutes demand something from us, and it is easier to play with spiritualized sentiments than it is to live out the requirements of truth.

Let us not forget that within the absolutes there is life, and the death to our moral consciousness is found in the fog of relativism. This is true even when it is masked in the (over-abused) name of grace. For we are called to be agents of gospel more than we are to be people of grace in the first place. And gospel, properly understood, does not leave room for make-it-your-own ethics. It is instead the absolute proclamation of the definitive and universal lordship of God's Messiah over the entire world. That is the source of our message, our hope, our ethic, and our life.

I am quite amazed at the number of Christians (many of whom are certainly well-meaning believers) who have abandoned the work of the gospel in the name of grace, giving free reign and license for the loss of Christian character and conduct in our churches and ministries. Of course, we could avoid such loss if we could only remember that we are not raised to new life in the name of grace, but in the name of Jesus - who taught us what true grace looked like. Indeed, a kingdom unlike any other and a life more abundantly lived in the absolutes of faith.

ponder anew

2011-10-13T14:03:00.002-04:00

I think I first realized the lack of wonder within the church when it became painfully obvious that many congregations have simply become corporations capitalizing on the business of spirituality. We now have church leadership books, seminars, retreats, coaches, etc. to teach us how to do church better - or, at least, gain some desired outcome. And thus we now subject ourselves to a litany of tests: spiritual gifts inventories, church health profiles, core competency evaluations, ad nauseum.

When did the love of God become institutionalized?

Can someone please answer this for me? At what point did we systematize and organize ourselves away from the passion and fire of the wild and fierce Spirit that can penetrate our hearts? And, who still figures that we must simply do better systematization and organization to get ourselves back from our current state?

The pastorate is full of good men and women who are giving everything they have for the sake of becoming better leaders, teachers and ministers. So there is no surprise that such books sell out, conferences fill up, and the coaching treks have become well-worn paths. These are the signs of people who are giving of themselves, trying to erase whatever deficits they've been convinced their ministries will not overcome, and become the best kingdom workers they can be. Perhaps, however, it is time to consider that sentiment does not make truth out of opinion, even when it is in the name of the Lord.

I find it inconceivable that the early church - and many, many centuries of believers since (even to this day!) - were able to successfully build the church without classes, seminars, retreats, 7 Secrets to Making Your Church Awesome, or even Outreach Magazine. These poor souls had but the Word of God in front of them and the Holy Spirit surrounding them, and yet they still managed to make a little good come from it, if you think they're results were anything worth considering.

Of course, I speak facetiously here, but it makes my point. We have all of these other things and we seem to be losing touch with the Spirit in the average experience of the church. It would be good for us to remember that the average experience of the early church was a continual filling of the Spirit, personally and corporately, that led to the unleashing of the gospel.

In Acts 2 Peter (who quotes Joel 2) says of the experience at Pentecost, "In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams . . ." One of the reasons we think that this passage is so exciting is because it demonstrates the passion and power of God as it moves to create and sustain his church. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that such a promise has ceased since Peter said it - in fact, the point of Peter's message was that it was the dawn of a new era of salvation that comprised the 'last days' and would bring us to the return of Jesus.

Yet there are no dreams and visions in the shallow mindsets of systematized religion. The love of God is a reckless raging fury that refused to be tamed or controlled. It unleashes itself into the world with such abandon as to bring death upon the very Giver of life. We who can not comprehend such love have no business trying to organize it and packaging it. There are simply too many of us who fear that we will not have jobs (or a purpose) without doing so, thus keeping us from trusting in God alone . . . alone . . . alone. We instead choose to trust in God plus whatever clever ideas we have in front of us.

Those who have awakened will ponder anew what the Almighty can do, rather than become lost in a sea of competencies that inevitably lead to vocational depression. For, although we may try, and even succeed in convincing ourselves we are spiritually profitable in doing so, he is not silent and he will not be contained.

stand

2011-10-12T17:12:00.000-04:00

A dream:

We were at the playground. We had to stand on the playground because there was a man who was coming to knock it down. He couldn't knock down the playground if we were standing on it, so we stood on it and told him, "No!" When he saw us standing on the playground he turned around and walked away and was burned up in a fire.

:Melina, four years old.

the great divorce 5

2011-10-05T12:29:00.000-04:00

7.
The Game.

At this point the narrator is confronted by another one of the Ghosts who engages in conversation. It begins with a request from the Ghost, "Thinking of going back?"

There is more of a game-element to in this particular conversation, as it demonstrates the idle curiosity of humankind which so often overtakes the genuine longing of the soul towards God. What is presented as humdrum is covering up the lack of wonder in the world, something that C. S. Lewis combatted frequently with his own perspective and writing. The Ghost has determined that everything is essentially the same, and that it is all part of a worldwide system that dictates to people what should be fascinating. So much so that even grey town does not live up to his expectation of what he expected of Hell.

Thus, the solid world in which the story takes place is no different than any other park the Ghost has seen, except for the disappointing and frustrating aspect of everything being too solid for him to experience. What is more, the Ghost is unwilling to allow an unidentified "They" to keep this sort of game going at his expense. He is ultimately denying the legitimacy of a higher authority, though he is willing to admit there are influential forces that may determine his actions.

I would say that the perspective shown here by the Ghost is a bit of Deism: the notion of a higher authority (typically god) who has created things that facilitate some sort of game (cosmos), but which does not interact directly with any person or have any moral standards or qualities to which one may appeal. With the detached deity the individual may choose how to accept reality, but all ends up more or less the same. In this case, more-or-less-the-same is a disappointing mediocrity.

Added to this perspective is a twist of gnosticism on the part of the Ghost. Everything he's ever been told has been a lie, and in order to cope or escape this so-called game is to come to the knowledge and understanding of the higher truth - although here the Ghost would shudder to even be willing to identify some sort of truth. For, in the end, the deistic and gnostic elements simply bring out a conspiracy theorist who is dissatisfied with life - now carrying that dissatisfaction into the afterlife.

In the end the Ghost refuses to accept the truth of what is being handed to him, again showing that the center of one's passion and purpose will carry on into eternity. No one is stripping him of his opportunity to make a choice, but his fate seems to be sealed by the perspective that he has for so long affirmed. He has moved from rationality into absurdity - a fate unfortunately reached by many long before they are standing in the world of solids.

speaking the love in truth

2011-10-04T10:29:00.001-04:00

One of the challenges of living in a postmodern - and increasingly pluralistic - society is holding firm to the truth claims of the Christian faith. There are a good number of churchgoing, self-affirming Christians who simply do not live out a visible acceptance of one standard of truth. This, of course, is a major contributor to the church's ineffectiveness disarray.

Douglas Groothuis once wrote, "The truth itself does not decay" (Truth Decay, IVP, 2000). And I have learned in recent years the modern day axiom, "The truth does not need a majority to prevail." (I withhold the reference for the time being, because it will cause a major distraction to my main point.)

If the church's primary problem is a lack of regard for truth, then it will certainly affect numerous areas of church life and witness. One such area that ought to be recovered is that of reconciliation. First, it should be noted that the biblical view of reconciliation is twofold: first to God, then toward each other (2 Corinthians 5). Also, this passage shows us that Paul believed his ministry was one of reconciliation, and that the truth of the gospel through Jesus the Messiah was working toward this end. So our understanding of reconciliation must be placed in the larger context of God's kingdom, and the Messianic enthronement of Jesus.

Once the church returns to the context of the cosmic restoration of the kingdom of God, then truth will not be allowed to suffer compromise. Instead, there are far too many voices in the body of believers who are placing individual feeling and corporate sentimentality above the standard of truth. This is played out in kowtowing and appeasement in our congregations, rather than accepting the premise of a messianic family who are summoned to work together and accept one another in the name of (true, biblical) reconciliation.

When feelings are placed above truth, the effectiveness of the gospel - even gospel reconciliation - is hindered. Although I might be able to understand what is trying to be said, in the context of gospel and truth I disagree with the notion that "perception is reality." For, among many, I have been handed the short end of the stick with this line. Not to address a particular message being conveyed through my image or leadership, but as a means to accept what people have said about me regardless of any damage to the truth and concede without question. Yes, there are certainly times when the letting go of minor offenses is good and worthwhile. But this should not happen at the expense of the truth when the church will be required to pay the bill.

We are often reminded that it is the responsibility of all believers to "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15), and this should always be the tone of a Christ-follower. But we must also remember that disciples of Jesus will follow him in speaking the love of God in words of truth that will not compromise, despite the fact that some will not want to hear, some will walk away, and some will crucify us. Nevertheless, it is the truth of God's love and the truth of gospel, without which genuine reconciliation is impossible. Despite the opinion polls, popularity contests, or the fear of dissatisfied consumers, the church must stand on truth. Our culture is more than wrong, it is somewhere between ignorance and ambivalence; it is a greater need than before to proclaim God's truth.

aiden michael

2011-10-03T13:04:00.000-04:00

Aiden Michael Thompson
September 29, 2011

(Or, the reason why I haven't been blogging much lately.)

May God's strength for you be
As strong as the typhoon wind
As faithful as the daily tide
As sweet as music of the violin
As pervasive as the starry sky

May God's care for you be
As light as a singing thrush
As swift as a mountain stream
As gentle as a baby's touch
As alluring as a lover's gleam

And may God bless you
The Father of power and strength
The Son of wisdom and knowledge
The Spirit of loving care

rich: virtue reality

2011-09-21T11:08:00.001-04:00

Virtue Reality.

Virtues are funny things. They are the fruit of faith and whenever paraded, become parodies of themselves and the worst kind of vanity imaginable. When they are not the fruit of faith they become its greatest obstacle. Virtues are most vital when invisible and most sharply imaged when they are not the focus of our attentions. They are evidence of their Source (and ours) and not the generators of it (or us).

Take, for example, wisdom. Wisdom has at its source the 'fear of the Lord' - the highest regard and reverence for Him. The tendency among many of us, though, is to confuse wisdom with omniscience and to think ourselves wise in proportion to how much stuff we know. God calls us to be wise and provides us with Christ. We pressure ourselves to be all-knowing and fret over where Cain got his wife and how the earth can be as young as the Scriptures claim when geologists say that it takes millions of years more than that to produce a barrel of oil. We tend to suspect that wisdom lies in the ability to answer imponderables rather than in Christ. and we sometimes end in self-contempt and even abandonment of our faith, not because our faith is false, but because we focused on a wisdom that is not a virtue but a vanity.

It is the same way with strength. God calls us to 'be strong' and we mistake that for a call to omnipotence. We confuse strength to endure trials with an ability to walk unfrustrated through life. We convince ourselves that if we were strong we would never fail, never tire, never hurt, never need. We begin to measure strength in terms of ease of progress, equate power with success, endurability with invincibility, and inevitably, when our illusion of omnipotence is shattered, we condemn ourselves for being weak.

God has called us to be lovers and we frequently think that He meant us to be saviors. So we 'love' as long as we see 'results.' We give of ourselves as long as our investments pay off, but if the ones we love do not respond, we tend to despair and blame ourselves and even resent those we pretend to love. Because we love someone, we want them to be free of addictions, of sin, of self - and that is as it should be. But it might be that our love for them and our desire for their well-being will nto make them well. And, if that is the case, their lack of response no more negates the reality of love than their quickness to respond would confirm it.

Love is a virtue and not a feeling. It is fed and fired by God - not by the favorable response of the beloved. Even when it doesn't seem to make a dime's worth of difference to the ones on whom it is lavished, it is still the most prized of all virtues because it is at the heart of the very character of God. By loving we participate in His Life and Essence. When we stoop to bait and buy good behavior we are no longer loving as God loves. We are manipulating and cheapening the dignity of the person whom we are called - not to save, not even to change - but to love. If real salvation is possible (and we know it is) it is because real love is there. And love that is real, love that is truly a virtue and not just an act - agape love - gushes from God through those who know Him. It is not strung along by those who don't.

In a world where quantitative values have obscured the reality of qualitative values - where we long to measure progress and chart growth - it is easy to give in to the temptation to judge ourselves and to try to walk by sight. But into that confused and meaningless effort God speaks with His great, still, and small voice, and His Christ. He speaks through these invisible virtues with which His people shine and in the light of their lives this desperate, smug world sees not strength, wisdom, or even love, but Him who is the source of these things and the Savior of humankind. Let us in whom He dwells look also to Him so we can shine more brightly.

(Rich Mullins: Release Magazine: July-August 1994)

i'm here: on the metaphysics of starting the day

2011-09-20T10:03:00.000-04:00

Probably you've had a conversation go like this before.

"Hi. How are you?"

"I'm here."

It's a simple response, and often conveys more than a sense of geographic presence. On the one hand, it is a statement of fact - oversimplified and obvious, no doubt. On the other hand, it is a statement of being that can be discerned only through the tone of the speaker's inflection.

"I'm here" can be released in a sigh, as though the speaker would rather be "there," wherever there is. Thus it is a sign of disappointment with the current outlook of a day. Add a bit of depression to this scenario and you have a conveyance of disappointment. Sometimes this means it took everything in one's power to get up and come to this place, as opposed to running away or checking out of life altogether.

On the other side, the phrase "I'm here" might imply a bit of anticipation. When greeting someone who replies with an upbeat use of these words, the receiver should know that this person is looking forward to what is in store this day. (Somewhere in between we have the I'm-not-necessarily-looking-forward-to-this-but-I'm-determined-to-get-it-done resolve of "I'm here.")

One of the reasons for why I am pondering this simple phrase this morning is that I caught myself answering my own question of how I am doing this morning. I said, all-too-quickly, "I'm here." We all have days when this is the report of a significant accomplishment in and of itself. We are here, where we are supposed to be, even when there are internal and external reasons to be somewhere else. As I allowed my own reply to sink in for a moment I realized that it was not said properly. "I'm here" should, if we believe that our greater metaphysical place is within the divine storyline, be said with a conviction that we are supposed to be here.

I'm not talking about some divine predeterminism that gives us nothing more than the illusion of the choice to be elsewhere. Our commitment to be here is instead a chosen partnership with the divine will that has called us here, and which the world will fight tooth-and-nail to interrupt. And when you allow yourself to enter into that story, then you know that "I'm here" is a statement of first commitment and the choosing of a path. Here is indeed a place between the past and the future, if we believe that ours is a journey to something fulfilled - an eschatological path of kingdom covenant.

Though we would be in great error to think that our work is completed at the point of being, it is the first step in knowing who we are and what we are called to do . . . today.

rethinking remanant

2011-09-15T10:10:00.002-04:00

In my ongoing quest to uncover the nuances of Second Temple Judaism I am reading through Joseph Blenkinsopp, Judaism: The First Phase (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). He raises a point in the early part of the book (pp. 36-37) which I found of particular interest and worth a short rabbit trail.

"In the prophetic writings 'the remnant' is the traditional way of referring to those who survive a catastrophic disaster" (36).

Recently I heard someone ponder if the modern church is in a similar situation of ancient Israel, waiting for God to raise up a remnant of true believers from within the larger community. By this he meant to say that, for both ancient Israel and modern Christianity, there are far more people who say they are people of God (believers) than actually are in their life and practice. First, there is very little gained in identifying those committed from casual observers, for every religious community that will ever be identified will find this to be true. But, secondly, even with such statement serving to identify a particular socio-religious trend in our current Christianity, are we so certain about the self-identification of the remnant?

Blenkinsopp's statement is certainly true, the prophetic writings which speak about a remnant do so in the context of horrific events and tragic circumstances. He cites Amos 3:12, "This is what the LORD says: 'As a shepherd rescues from the lion's mouth only two leg bones or a piece of an ear, so will the Israelites living in Samaria be rescued, with only the head of a bed and a piece of fabric from a couch." Certainly, those who are in need of rescue will readily accept the promise of salvation. But have we adequately understood the implications of the imagery that the majority of the sheep (Israel) has been devoured by the treacherous lion before only a few pieces could be salvaged?

If we are so quickly applying the remnant idea to modern evangelicalism, then most likely our modern interpretations of the remnant are failing. For we are a people who sacrifice little, who suffer little, and who have very little opposition to our faith (other than a bit of comic ridicule). Hopes of the identification of a modern remnant from within the church are the expressions of the need for a vibrant faith to once again emerge in our evangelicalism. And that's not bad either, except that even then we discover that very few are willing to do what it necessary to see it happen.

All of this is to remind ourselves (yet once again) that, "Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die."

Further in Blenkinsopp's argument on this point is the identification of those who claim to be the Israel with all of the fulfillment of divine promise and privilege is now being claimed by one particular group over another within Israel. Those who are interested in receiving the promised blessing from God must also be willing to endure the life he has called us to lead.

If we are to think that the church stands in line to inherit the covenant blessings, then speaking of a remnant might just be the right direction . . . but only in the context of the suffering that must come before the salvation. And here is where so many who desire restoration are unwilling - unwilling to be destroyed in themselves to the point where they can be rescued by their God.

september 11 and the faithfulness of God

2011-09-11T15:40:00.000-04:00

"Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged." (Ronald Reagan)

It was one of those moments that you will never forget where you were when you heard. For me, I was driving up Interstate 25 to Denver Seminary to begin classes for the fall semester. The news was of an unfortunate accident involving a plane and the World Trade Center. About an hour later I was rushing back home with the knowledge that the attacks were very real.

The moments were uncertain and confusing, and my instinct was to get home and get in contact with my wife. It is quite telling that in times of crisis our reaction is towards love. In the wake of the news there were no thoughts of animosity or messages of hate. We were drawn to the most basic human need: love.

And September 11, 2001, is a reminder of God's faithfulness. Of course, not everyone will see it that way at first. But when is God supposed to show his faithfulness if not in our times of need? Crises are inevitable in this life, especially if we believe that this world is inhabited by fallen and broken people. But the rise of heroes who rush into danger, offering their lives as a means to save others . . . that is God's faithfulness working its way through human flesh. Tragedy is inevitable; heroism a choice.

Embedded within the sentiment of never forgetting what happened on that fateful day is a call to be mindful of God's abiding love, whether it was found in firefighters and policemen, a group of passengers on a hijacked airplane, hundreds of medical personnel, or those families who simply chose to hold themselves closer that night. The choice to love is a decision to move within the faithfulness of God.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." (Thomas Paine)

untasked: the pastoral vocation

2011-09-07T15:01:00.001-04:00

A few days ago I had an unplanned visitor come into my office. We had not had an extended conversation for some time and we spent a while catching up and covering a good number of issues. It is not uncommon for those in pastoral ministry to have days where unexpected visitors and even unexpected tasks suspend the list of activities that occupy one's calendar. I will readily admit that any time unplanned events take away from some of what I was hoping to accomplish in a given day it can be somewhat difficult to swallow.

As I was reflecting on the fact that the majority of my office day was spent in the company of this gentleman, I was once more reminded of something I've been learning over my years of experience in the church. Perhaps it is a sign of youthful exuberance moving to wisdom's experience, or maybe it is the movement of sanctification in the heart of this believer. But as Christians, especially those in pastoral ministry, the people are the job. We are called to make the gospel a significant presence in their lives through our spiritual leadership within the church. When we lose sight of that, we miss the purpose of our vocation.

I would suppose that one of the reasons why we pastors are often frustrated by unexpected encounters is that too many times church leadership is cast as a task-oriented endeavor. Many pastors are overwhelmed with jobs within the church building and structure that they are simply too busy to be reflective, both in their own spiritual maturity and in giving guidance to others.

Eugene Peterson's memoir (The Pastor) speaks to this same condition within pastorate, where the actual ministry is overshadowed by the 'need' for momentum of the congregation. It seems that many who are in the leadership of the church will agree with this assessment, but few will take the opportunity to help bring about the change that needs to happen for the life of the church. This has been the experience of many, and my own journey has not been different. There is a sense within many congregations that we know what we want our pastors to be, but we do not provide the how (or perhaps even the why) to become.

It is perhaps accurate to assume that this shift has come out of the increasing view of pastors as CEOs or employees or something worse (. . . personally, I feel that trainee comes closest to how many of us are regarded), when in fact we have a calling from the Almighty to be the voice of spiritual leadership and direction within the church. When such a shift happens, not only do we have unhealthy congregations but we also have handcuffed our means by which we can recover from such sickness.

We must remember that this is not about the tasks and programs. It is about the kingdom and its people (both the initiated and uninitiated), and the summons to develop disciples of Jesus. Churches all across the wide spectrum of evangelicalism have this in common: we are desperately in need of changing the dynamics of the pastoral role of ministry.

the great divorce 4

2011-09-05T14:23:00.003-04:00

6.
The Apples.

The narrator has been walking, quite carefully, upon the river, having taken some practice at navigating it. Once he climbs upon the shore and begins to walk toward the sound of "an immense yet lovely noise" which shook through the forest. He discovers that this is a rather large waterfall. It is a beautifully described sight, and the narrator sees that this is more than he has ever experienced while on earth. This was something more real than anything else he has seen or heard.

At the center of this scene stands a tree, full and large and ripe with golden apples. He sees that crouching beneath one of the surrounding trees is another of the Ghosts, motioning to keep the narrator away. While trying to discern the situation, the narrator does not move but watches what will happen next.

The Ghost could not move very quickly, for the pain of the grass and the flowers surrounding the tree were too much. His efforts, however, eventually brought him under the great tree. Each attempt at maneuver brought pain to the Ghost, for this world was far too solid for his present state. At one point a wind blows through the tree, knocking off some of the apples. The falling fruit lands on the Ghost and knocks him down for a few moments. His efforts continue - he is trying to take an apple with him, slowly and surely.

A voice from the waterfall speaks to him, "Fool . . . put it down. You cannot take it back. There is not room for it in Hell. Stay here and lean to eat such apples. The very leaves and the blades of grass in the wood will delight to teach you."

At the center of this chapter is a discussion of the Real, how this world and that world are quite different from each other. Further, it speaks of the incompatibility of the two. In some ways this might be seen as a return to the Garden of Eden, now seen as the apple's revenge. What humanity has done to disrupt the nature of God's created reality now exacts its retribution.

More seriously, though, is the notion of holiness as otherness. Pictures of the heavenly realm are consistently portrayed in Scripture as something other. It is an existence which is not far from our own, but which is comprised of something completely different than ourselves. We are often left with more questions than answers when we see the thin line of separation between heaven and earth breached, and The Bible does little to help us understand it. We are simply left with the notion that it is other.

If this is not to be seen as an epistemological reality, then it is at minimum a moral one. One cannot rightly claim the physical distance between heaven and earth, for there is no specific geography of heaven that does not intersect with earth. It is God's existence, and thus is another reality. And it is invading earth with each moment. What the apple then speaks to here is an existence in which God's reality is no longer able to go. Hell.

The apple does not go into Hell the same way in which God's holiness is not presently shown. The reality of God's holiness can transform those who come and embrace it, but will destroy those who do not. Whenever holiness and unholiness come into contact, it is holiness which destroys unholiness. In the narrative of grey town this time has not yet come, though it is approaching with the imminent nightfall.

stones into bread

2011-08-31T13:04:00.002-04:00

Well known within the church are Jesus' three temptations in the wilderness just prior to the start of his ministry (Matthew 4:1-11). They are devilish challenges to what type of Messiah Jesus will choose to be. Using the decisions of his faithfulness, these temptations make God the central issue . . . and whether divine authority will become secondary.

"If you are the Son of God" does not imply doubt on the part of Satan, but places the conversation in the context of challenge, simultaneously mocking and questioning Jesus in the messianic role. The first issue is to turn stones into bread in order for Jesus' to satisfy his own hunger from fasting. Jesus' response is to quote from Deuteronomy 8:3, "Man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD." This clearly places the spiritual need above the physical, and sets God's will above human desires.

An interesting note to this comes from Pope Benedict XVI who writes, "The aid offered by the West to developing countries has been purely technically and materially based, and not only has left God out of the picture, but has driven men away from God" (Jesus of Nazareth, 33). This is particularly interesting given Jesus' later example of God's love, "Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone?" (Matthew 7:9).

I will not voice a blanket decry the efforts of the West (particularly the somewhat popular anti-American-involvement) that brings much needed political, physical and social need and recovery to many in the world that desire to have it. However, I will agree that the loss of true holistic (most notably spiritual) assistance is missing from much of the aid given to the world. Is this what is happening through our churches as well? Have our missions organizations and outreaches become content with throwing money and supply at various problems rather than investing in lasting and significant change?

Perhaps one way to evaluate this would be to examine local missional movements - how we are doing in transforming our local communities through the work of the church. Of course, the difficult first step here is to get congregations to recognize their missional activity as a way of life for all believers, not just something that happens in other cultures. (And to this is the tendency for individuals to act as 'model missionaries' while on short-term trips, but who then fail to make any significant impact on their homefronts. This is because is it easier to be Christ among people who don't really know you.)

If we are not taking an opportunity to spread the gospel and build the kingdom, are we sharing with the world the Bread of Life that Jesus self-identified as? Pope Benedict XVI continues with this as well, "The idea was that we could turn stones into bread; instead, our 'aid' has only given stones in place of bread. The issue is the primacy of God" (Ibid., emphasis mine).

So it would appear that we can give people the methods to live, but simultaneously we strip our message of any reason why people would want to live. Our churches can be architecturally appealing, they can enhance property and neighborhood values, they can open up their playgrounds as parks, and even have a pastor who is well-known and liked. But all of this community-connection fails without an active missional movement which seeks to transform lives, families and communities.

I am not advocating a return to church-community-relations that is defined by the church's Bible-beating of its community's sins. Neither am I interested in that relationship becoming so heavenly minded that it is of no earthly good. That is the point exactly. There needs to be a proper balance of the two, so that the active mission of the church is not stripped in the name of good barbecues but is found embedded in such activities for the true Bread of Life to come and feed those who are hungering most.

review: tom wright for everyone

2011-08-29T16:47:00.005-04:00

Stephen Kuhrt. Tom Wright for Everyone. London: SPCK, 2011. 9780281063932.

Tom Wright (known also as The Bishop) is undoubtedly one of the most influential theological voices in the world today. One of the distinguishing marks of his scholarship is that he is able to engage it both in the realm of higher academia as well as accessible lay theology. His writing accomplishes this quite naturally, thus providing a rather large base for those who are intrigued by his perspective.

Although the impact of Wright's theology is widespread and has changed the perspective of many, the stark reality of the typical evangelical church is that we don't know what to do with such seismic shifts in our theology. That is to say, we like what we have heard Wright say but we, by and large, don't know what is next. Maybe the book will emerge, After You Believe Tom Wright, or perhaps this is the first step in making that journey.

Stephen Kuhrt is Vicar of Christ Church, New Malden, UK. He writes this particular volume as an introduction and overview of how his congregation has implemented Tom Wright's theology into practice as a community. As a primer, it is a good 'first steps' to connecting theology to practice around Wright's perspective.

The first three chapters of the book serve as an introduction to Tom Wright and his theology. Chapter One introduces the reader to his career and emergence as an internationally renowned scholar. Chapter Two begins to connect a wide range of readership to Wright's theology, mostly by surveying the current landscape of evangelicalism and the "Theological questions awaiting an answer . . ." Kuhrt includes here the questions surrounding resurrection (and its implications), the atonement, the mission of the church, etc. This chapter serves as a bridge from the state of the church to the theology of Wright. Then, Chapter Three provides the reader with an overview of Tom Wright's theology. Perhaps for those yet familiar with The Bishop's writings this will serve as an invaluable introduction to the sometimes-daunting work of understanding Wright's theology.

The next three chapters begin to place Wright's theology into the practice of the local church, rounded out with examples of the ministry happening through Christ Church, New Malden. Chapter Four is "Tom Wright's Theology in a Pastoral Context," and focuses mostly on the impact of the resurrection within the work of the clergy. The central idea here is the aspect of funerals which often give the most challenging opportunity to setting resurrection theology in its proper perspective.

Chapter Five then moves to a missional context in which Kuhrt follows up on Wright's theology of a new heavens and a new earth becoming a present reality, not simply an end-times salvation destination. To move this into the local parish requires structural change as well, ultimately resulting in a fuller practice. "The preaching of 'new heavens, new earth' as the Christian hope, and going on to explain its practical implications for Christian mission, has resulted in a more holistic approach to mission, achieving a far greater degree of both confidence and clarity" (75). Kuhrt explains that such an approach will require a much greater degree of humility within the church (81) if it is to be about the business of God's kingdom-building.

Chapter Six speaks of the 'Church Life' theology that emerges from Wright's perspective. Kuhrt explains, "Like many evangelical churches, Christ Church has had a tendency throughout its history to be a 'gathered' congregation, with its major emphasis on teaching 'the faithful' (83). This perspective begins to shift when the kingdom is seen as presently inclusive rather than a removed future. Readings of Paul's literature in particular have challenged this congregation with such issues as the inclusion of outsiders, the edification of the community, the development of Christian character, the use of gifts and talents, the full ministry of women, and others. Many of the conclusions rest upon, "But the principle of constantly seeking to be reformed by Scripture has remained our conviction, and the church as a whole has been pushed on in this agenda and received immense blessings as a result" (101).

The final chapter then works as a conclusion and challenge for churches to continue to find ways in which Tom Wright's theology can be pragmatically implemented in local ministry. One of the questions Kuhrt leaves with the reader is, ". . . what fresh insights from the Bible have really changed our evangelical tradition in the last ten years?" (103). Tom Wright has proven himself to be a significant voice within both academia and the church. His scholarship cannot be ignored and the practical implications of his perspective will clearly enhance the mission of the church.

Let me finish by saying that neither this book or this blog are interested in making the mission fo the church about Tom Wright. Kuhrt's work does not read that way; he keeps a clear focus on the Scripture and Spirit in the kingdom-building life of the church. Why does the world need a volume like this? Because Tom Wright is an extensively present significant voice in the life of the church which needs to be heard, understood and considered in our praxis.

climbing sycamores

2011-08-25T10:46:00.004-04:00

Luke 19 contains the famous story of Zacchaeus, who was evidently a wee-little-man. (Or so I have been told.) In fact, this passage might have become infamous in that it potentially contains theology that might possibly terrify those who have so diligently preserved it in Sunday school song. There is a question that begins to unravel what we thought we knew about Zacchaeus himself, and which begins to encroach on other areas of evangelism that we would prefer just stay as they are. Rather than being a passage that summons seekers to kneel at the altar with deacon Bob and say the sinner's prayer, here is a challenge to our modern evangelicalism.

The question: Does Zacchaeus repent?

Yes! No? Yes. No. Yes? No! What are we digging at? In the passage itself there is no indication that Zacchaeus meets the 'standards' of 'typical' conversion, which is more than simple historical gloss. If the scene were written with the purpose of showing a commitment to Jesus, and it is, then it would be rather odd to omit the actual conversion. Unless it is not omitted.

One detail this is often remembered about the Zacchaeus story is that he chose to give half of his possessions to the poor, along with four times the amount that he has cheated. What we have assumed is that this is the outcome of his conversion experience. What Luke is trying to show us is that this is the conversion experience. Throughout the Gospel there is a connection between those whose faith is serious and their willingness to give away their resources.

I once heard Craig Blomberg ask of this passage, "Does Zacchaeus repent? Or does Zacchaeus enter the kingdom?" The emphasis shifts away from the reception of personal religious experience to the stewardship and giving of one's self for the gospel. So the reasons why we learned this song as children don't quite hold up the same way, for we placed it in an evangelical context of inward salvation. Jesus is not willing to be confined to such a context, for his heart is so greatly driven to seek and save those who are lost that he will go wherever is necessary to bring the kingdom in all its fullness.

All of this happens with the circulating criticisms of those who can only judge the external. This is the way gospel comes into the world, with all of the whispers and grumblings designed to intimidate and embarrass. None of this external concerns Jesus when he is engaged with matters of the heart. That other stuff will have to wait until later.

Are we interested in building churches or working for the kingdom? How do we respond and welcome those who are on the fringes of the Christian faith? Is our salvation secure enough to allow God to work in ways that we previously could not imagine? Are we willing to allow the Spirit to go beyond ourselves and allow salvation to come to those in ways that are not 'evangelical' (or even 'Christian'), but which make children of Abraham?

Endnote: In a world where our most vigorous discussion swirls around trying to determine who God is going to let into heaven - and when and where and how - is it not sadly interesting that when we see a clear example of salvation (from the agent of salvation) we aren't certain how it fits into our worldview? But then again, as Rich said, We are not as strong as we think we are . . .

this echo

2011-08-23T18:48:00.002-04:00

Thomas Merton writes:

"Contemplation is also the response to a call: a call from Him Who has no voice, and yet Who speaks in everything that is, and Who, most of all, speaks in the depths of our own being: for we ourselves are words of His. But we are words that are meant to respond to Him, to answer to Him, to echo Him, and even in some way to contain Him and signify Him. Contemplation is this echo."

It is no secret that our lives are generally ruled by the tyranny of activity. This has long infiltrated the church, where programs and events have replaced personal development and discipleship. Part of the missional movement (and emerging movements) within evangelicalism is an awakening to the need for a deeper spiritual experience among believers. We need to recover the spiritual dimension of our lives and reach for the depths of divine mystery.

I have discovered that we all, at some point in our lives, become empty. This is one of the inevitable points of the human journey. The circumstances of life will drain us of everything - our strength, our will, our peace - and we must make the choice to move forward or drift away. Christ has also offered us an emptying, though it is often overlooked by our present church culture. He has summoned us to a path which begins with a kenosis, the most difficult thing in the world.

In order to reach out and grasp the Creator we must open our hands and let go of whatever it is we hold tightly. This is counterintuitive to the human condition, and to a culture which has (effectively) convinced us that the way forward is gaining, not losing. Even when we have lost it seems that we are told to gather together - why so many people and governments believe the accumulation of stuff erases the effects of debt.

I have now been summoned to this path in a way which I never before conceived. The promise that has been given is that it will be difficult and painful, that there will be much required of me that many others will not be willing to accomplish . . . or follow. It is not a journey of personal pride or accomplishment. In fact, it is the opposite - it is a kenosis. And this echo will be the renewed creating voice of God speaking once again to reconciliation and renewal. What is clear is that when we are part of the kingdom it is not our life that makes a difference in the world, it is Christ now living in us. To that end, it is not our voice that is heard but an echo of the voice of God now speaking to his own . . . even when his own does not receive him.

And thus our lives are echoes back to him and reverberations to others.

"We ourselves become His echo and His answer. It is as if in creating us God asked a question, and in awakening us to contemplation He answered the question, so that the contemplative is at the same time, question and answer."

both quotes Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation, 3.

the great divorce 3

2011-08-17T12:46:00.003-04:00

"You went there because you are an apostate."

This comes from an exchange that the narrator witnesses between another of the ghostly people (such as himself) and a solid person. The prancing around of two solidly lions before him in the grass was a bit disconcerting, so he moved on and stumbled across this dialogue. Again, the two in conversation knew each other well on earth and now continue some of their debating in the afterlife.

There is a rather large amount of denial on the part of the ghost about the current state of existence, demonstrated by his condescending statements regarding a literal Heaven or Hell. When pushed on this initially, he explains that his life is quest to find the Kingdom . . . though it appears to be carried out in a rather backwards view of things. He does not see grey town as a place within twilight, but rather with the continual hope of morning - Heaven, for those with eyes to see it. That is the description he gives to it from within. How is it seen from the solid place?

"We call it Hell."

At this the ghost is taken back by the "profane" nature of such a description. Here, Lewis' narrative - through the ensuing discussion - begins to highlight the failure of relativistic-postmodernism to adequately handle truth. Suggestions of moral right and wrong so often are charged as being profane, insensitive and rude. This, as is demonstrated in the current dialogue, is little more than a means of deflection so that the individual can work from their own ethical standards.

The ghost states, "Buy my dear boy, I believe already. We may not be perfectly agreed, but you have completely misjudged me if you do not realise that my religion is a very real and very precious thing to me." Interestingly, this seems to be acceptable enough for the solid person, who then invites the ghost to make the journey further in so that his confession might have action. The ghost agrees, so long as he can find 1) a wider sphere of influence, 2) a scope for his talents, and 3) an atmosphere of inquiry.

Here is where the religion breaks apart, for it is one that originates from within the individual and seeks nothing more than to edify the individual from within. He is told that none of these things exist for him, because 1) you are not needed there at all, 2) there is only forgiveness for having perverted your God-given talents, and 3) this is the land of answers, not questions. It is a summons to a life defined outside of ourselves rather than the self-centered religiousity of the postmodern mind.

In an attempt to persuade the ghost to accept this reality and embrace the journey to its fulfillment, the solid person offers, "We know nothing of religion here: we think only of Christ."

This reminds the ghost that he is scheduled to give a paper to a "theological society" back in grey town, and that he should not leave for the solid land. He is interested in many inquiries, and has come to the place where he believes he is doing good by assisting the other grey town inhabitants in their quests. All said and done, he has appreciated the discussion that has taken place, and walks away stimulated and thinking to his own intellectual inquiry, "What a different Christianity we might have had if only the Founder had reached his full stature!"

This is a great example of the misunderstandings of our current philosophies - either serious or popular-level - have done to the message of faith. The proper response to theological study and inquiry is belief, though this road is often much more complex than that simple rendering. Lewis was right to make the point that much of our theological debating is concerned with only the debate and not discovering the truth of what we seek . . . or, at least not accepting the truth when we find it.

Novel theologies abound when we think that everything should be questioned and deconstructed. But novel theologies are often shallow and cheap on the one hand, disruptive and damaging on the other. For when we trade opportunities to explore and edify truth so that we might sound clever enough to write many books and give many speeches, we pervert the work of the kingdom that has been entrusted to its followers.

Yes, this same conclusion is included in the discussion of Chapter 5, when the solid person challenges the ghost on his earthly life of constant inquiry, "What risk? What was at all likely to come of it except what actually came - popularity, sales for your books, invitations, and finally a bishopric?"

thirty-three

2011-08-11T14:58:00.002-04:00

Most people haven't realized that Jeremiah is the longest book in the Bible. Mostly we think it is Psalms, because there are 150 of them. One of the difficult realities for the modern reader is that we hear how long Jeremiah is, and it simply adds to our dread of actually having to read it. Let's be honest about it, this is a difficult book by a prophet who was forced to deliver an unpopular and difficult message. He was in the minority and was thus persecuted for the things he said, because he had to speak to God's people in a difficult time of unbelief and disobedience.

There are moments in Jeremiah where the light breaks in and we can see that God still delivers a promise filled with hope of a coming restoration for his people and his creation. "While Jeremiah was still confined in the courtyard of the guard . . ." a promise of restoration was given to him - light shining into the darkness, a spiritual gift for the prophet and the kingdom (Jeremiah 33).

The passage recognizes the failure of God's people, but still beckons them to return to him. "Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know" (33:3). Death and destruction are still to come into the experience of this people, for the times are dark and the situation is dire. "Nevertheless . . ." says YHWH, God of Israel, ". . . I will bring health and healing to it; I will heal my people and will let them enjoy abundant peace and security. I will bring Judah and Israel back from captivity and will rebuild them as they were before . . ."

I can't imagine Jeremiah being excited to be held in captivity, nor do I think it is appropriate to envision him with a hyper-spirituality which leaves him without a dark cloud for his present reality. But the hope of renewal and restoration which comes from God himself - the Creator of the heavens and earth - holds the power to cut through the despair and shine a bright light into the present darkness.

As I reflect on my own thirty-three I see that the powerful message of Jeremiah still rings through. Brueggemann referred to the phenomenon as "texts that linger, words that explode." This explodes into my reality today. For there is a constant bombardment of hopelessness, despair and loss that continues to pour into my life. There is no shortage of discouragement and heartache. And I remain in the place of my life where perhaps it feels as though I too am still confined in the courtyard of the guard.

But this is not how the one who created us and loves us most speaks to us. He never tells us it's not worth it, or that it doesn't matter anyway. He never has spoken into my heart to tell me I'd be better off quitting, giving up, or dead. The enemy speaks to us that way, while YHWH, God of Israel, issues a cosmic-shaking "Nevertheless! . . ."

What he told Jeremiah he whispers into my heart on this day of thirty-three, "You say about this place, 'It is a desolate waste, without people or animals.' Yet in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem that are deserted, inhabited by neither people nor animals, there will be heard once more the sounds of joy and gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, and the voices of those who bring thank offerings to the house of YHWH, saying, 'Give thanks to YHWH Almighty, for YHWH is good; his love endures forever.' For I will restore the fortunes of the land as they were before" (33:10-11).

There follows for Jeremiah a messianic promise - the fulfillment of the promise of restoration that is to come. I live on the opposite side of the messianic reality and experience so much of the faith he only envisaged. But the need to discover the fulfillment of genuine hope and live-giving love is for us both. The enemy and the world seek to define us by the courtyards in which we are presently confined, working desperately to keep us from the freedom-giving words of the promise of hope and restoration.

Thirty-three. What once sounded a bit old now is quite young. Life never seems to go the you imagined it . . . forget about planning it. But somewhere for all of us the common story comes around and we discover we are a part of it just the same. And today mine is the words of Jeremiah . . . and the promise of God.

review: the pastor

2011-08-09T09:31:00.004-04:00

Eugene H. Peterson, The Pastor: A Memoir (New York: HarperOne, 2011).

"I had only the vaguest of ideas of why I was there and certainly nothing that I would recognize as a pastoral vocation. I didn't know it at the time, but what I absorbed in my subconscious, which eventually surfaced years later, was a developing conviction that the most effective strategy for change, for revolution - at least on the large scale that the kingdom of God involves - comes form a minority working from the margins" (16).

This description, early on in the book, speaks to Eugene Peterson's life experience while a young man in a New York seminary. As far as pastors go, this isn't quite the vocational focus and drive that describes many of those in-training. But that captures the ethos of Peterson's journey, as he discovered - step by step - that his vocation was pastor.

Memoirs are interesting so far as they convey a rather intriguing life by someone of note, or they contain the wise reflections of someone whose life is similar to your own. Eugene Peterson has indeed lived an interesting life worth reading about (he begins his story as a child and speaks to his lifelong development and spiritual journey from there), but also he has a particular insight given to the pastoral calling that comes from years worth of work, adaptation, seeking-counsel, and facing head-on the challenges of church leadership. As a pastor who is also learning to grapple with all of these layers of life and leadership, I commend this read to all church leaders, both clergy and laity, for godly guidance.

One of the defining (and desired) marks of Peterson's perspective of the pastoral vocation is that it seeks to strike the appropriate balance of in-and-not-of that the Christian life demands. He does not get lost in overly spiritualized cliches of religious dogmatism, keeping such a holy view of pastoring that it has no tangible earthy significance. But neither does he present church leadership as something that is to absorb culture so as to lose its own otherness, instead holding to the demands of Christ that followers be distinct from the world. One particular passage illustrates this:

"I am quite sure now that the way I as a pastor came to understand congregation had its beginnings in the 'congregational' atmosphere of our butcher shop. Congregation is composed of people, who, upon entering a church, leave behind what people on the street name or call them. A church can never be reduced to a place where goods and services are exchanged. It must never be a place wehre a person is labeled. It can never be a place where gossip is perpetuated. Before anything else, it is a place wehre a person is named and greeted, whether implicitly or explicitly, in Jesus's name. A place where dignity is conferred. I first learned that under my father's priesthood in his butcher shop" (40).

In the end, he found that the most important work was in the mess of ministry. This helped define his "long obedience in the same direction" which gave context to his vocation. Perhaps it is out-of-line to say something like this about a person's own memoirs, but if one reads through only for the purpose of being able to read Chapter 35 in its proper context then you will discover an incredible set of lessons on what it means to live with the pastoral calling. That chapter alone is worth the purchase and reading of the entire work.

A great summary of what the book seeks to convey comes from a student of Peterson's, Irene:

"I don't want to be so impatient with the mess that I am not around to see the miracle being formed. I don't want to conceive of my life as pastor so functionally that the mystery gets squeezed out of both me and the congregation" (285).

a more profound essenism

2011-08-06T12:27:00.004-04:00

It has become commonplace within the world of biblical studies to equate Qumran with the Essene movement as a whole. While there are some deep connections between the two, the oversimplification with which they have been treated is misleading our understanding of the diversity of Second Temple Judaism. We have not adequately understood Essenism as it existed in ancient Judaism.

One of the best books to help uncover this, and point us in a better direction, is Gabriel Boccaccini's Beyond the Essene Hypothesis (Eerdmans, 1998). And because a consensus for Second Temple Judaism is still being sought, the need to reexamine the data is high. This examination is especially needed by those in the world of biblical studies who have had little exposure to the wider Second Temple literature. Yes, it is a daunting scope of writing, but it is the fuller context of the world of the Jesus movement - we need context to understand history.

So, what's the deal with Essenism?

First, Josephus tells us that they were not confined to one particular city but rather had a presence throughout Israel (Jewish War 2.124). And while we may consider the sectarian community at Qumran a part of the Essene movement, we must confess that it is a matter of historical record that they were much more than the desert-dwellers. There are some competing theories to the nature of the division between Qumran and the larger Essene tradition, but for now we will leave it as a subdivision of the same overall movement.

Boccaccini's text demonstrates a plausible history based upon the available texts that shows an Enochic tradition which later develops into Essenism, which then includes a break of the Qumran community. But Essenism continues on even with Qumran to the side.

Second, scholars increasingly express the popularity of the texts associated with the Enochic-Essene tradition, especially the five-fold work of 1 Enoch. Many of these texts are present in the wider expressions of Essenism - even though some may be seen as sectarian and kept within Qumran. With such a widely popular group of writings that were not confined to a desert community but present throughout all Israel, we should not think for a moment that Jesus and his early followers were not influenced by them. The questions for us are How and How Far.

Boccaccini's work helps give a sense of these texts and leads to some interesting thoughts about the emerging Jesus movement. And he just might be on to something here. Though I don't include it in specific quite yet, some of the teachings in the Enochic-Essene tradition are surprisingly similar to things we find in the early church and gospel.

There is a lot of attention given to the Hellenistic influences upon the early church. Much of this is good research and insightful study. But we must also consider the context of Second Temple Judaism, which helped define life for ancient Israel and continued for about forty of the first years of the church. Hence, we must be more diligent in reading the Second Temple Jewish literature, remaining open-minded enough to shift our understanding of how what we read in the Gospels are influenced by such a context.

more culture than christian

2011-08-05T13:01:00.002-04:00

I think the ongoing (perhaps eternal) struggle with evangelicalism is that it is trying desperately to find itself somewhere between culture and christian. We self-define this endeavor in the context of in-but-not-of, though the discussion seldom reaches serious scriptural examination. When individuals cannot adequately locate themselves on the spectrum of Christlike behavior in a fallen world, then a community of individuals isn't going to look any better. Hence, we have churches that are more culture than christian while the kingdom goes drifting by.

It is somewhat like the parable of the two sons who were called to work in the vineyard (Matthew 21:28-32). The church is full of people who initially responded appropriately to the summons to go and work on behalf of the master, but in the end did not. Of course we have all seen this and know it to be true, but our focus should turn to that transition - the moment when acceptance turned into rejection. For some, it is simply a lack of genuine commitment. For others it was a certain 'yes' that drifted away at some other point.

This drifting away can be pulled apart and examined in many different ways, but one epidemic that is sweeping through our congregations - via the hearts and minds and souls of individual believers - is a stronger affiliation with culture than with Christ. It is a failure to become disciples of Jesus rather than churchgoers or christians (by socio-identification). Being a disciple demands spiritual growth and the transformation of one's identification. Christians-in-name-only do not reflect this because they still operate from a cultural ethic rather than a Jesus ethic.

Hence, we have churches filled with people who hold grudges rather than show forgiveness. We have self-proclaiming believers who handle conflict by separation rather than embrace. Too many churchgoers seek to hold the community of faith hostage by threatening to remove their presence . . . and cash. And, as I have witnessed from close-up, entire churches which operate on this principle do not flinch over the opportunity to act illegally in order to prop themselves up over and against another church and its programs.

Which part of our faith is any longer being lived out in fear and trembling?

Those who conform to this world forsake the grace of God insomuch as they live as though their salvation is certain and that they are not like other people. Those who are more culture than christian have no need to look toward heaven and cry, "God have mercy on me, a sinner." And though their hypocritical lives - mouths speaking of mercy and hearts burning of vengeance - might gather around the 'winners' of the world into large groups, they also allow the genuine life of faith to slip through their fingers like sand . . . and miss the kingdom of God.

Christ came to initiate a radical transformation within the hearts and lives of the people of God. The notion of radical transformation means the complete surrendering of who we are to the image of Christ for the sake of others. To follow Jesus demands that we first must follow Paul, who became a slave (one without rights or self-governance) to the Messiah and his new life springing into the world. Without this we simply replicate our own fallenness and multiply the damning of our selves.

But if we could catch for one eternal moment the fire he came to light . . .

the great divorce 2

2011-08-03T16:49:00.002-04:00

"I do not look at myself."

This statement is made by Len, spoken to his earthly friend 'the Big Ghost' in Chapter Four. It should be read as an echo of 1 Corinthians 4:3, for it speaks to embracing grace and laying down pride. By all human standards of right and wrong - virtue and vice - we are incapable of goodness and must therefore discover another standard.

This is what the Big Ghost finds quite difficult, of course, in that he continues to push on for his own so-called rights (based upon his own self-righteous views of morality). He is implored by Len to "stop thinking about it" and embrace this new reality. What is the stumbling block? Len is a murderer, and the Big Ghost knows that he has taken Jack's life. What the Big Ghost is unwilling to accept is that both Len and Jack are waiting for him to join them in the new real world.

Truth and morality come under fire here, for when the context is explained to the Big Ghost - in that he was not in fact a decent man, along with the failed morality of all humanity - the Big Ghost refuses to let go of pride and instead fights for his own sense of ethic. Interestingly, Len further confesses, "Murdering old Jack wasn't the worst that I did. That was the work of a moment and I was half mad when I did it. But I murdered you in my heart, deliberately, for years. I used to lie awake at nights thinking what I'd do to you if ever I got the chance . . ."

Matthew 5:21-22 should come to our minds here, even though a great number of Christians who have brought no deliberate physical harm on another person are guilty of the same kind of murder that Len refers to in his confession. So often we think that what is physical is real, diminishing the spiritual realities which surround us. Perhaps this is why we overemphasize the physical sufferings of Christ and do not adequately understand why he so desired for this cup to be taken from him. The context of this story is a spiritual existence so real that the fallen physical world cannot intrude on it, until it embraces it.

In the end Len confirms to the Big Ghost, "There are no private affairs." Just like the lamp on a stand (Luke 8:17) judgment comes publicly and swiftly. Further, Lewis builds on the tradition (largely lost in Western Christianity) that the work of the church and kingdom is a community affair, and our faith is worked out together.

Having spoken his piece to the Big Ghost, Len joyfully invites him to travel along to the mountains - a happy invite to the world which now awaits. But the Big Ghost still cannot let go of himself and his pride. He is still unable to see the spiritual reality masked behind the fallen physical world in which he lives. And that will be one of the greatest challenges to each character - and to the reader/thinker/theologian - to remove the veil of this reality for the sake of embracing a higher truth.

too safe

2011-08-02T19:02:00.003-04:00

Freedom entails risk. This is the starting point of a good amount of theology, for it sets the context of the divine-human relationship. The human heart yearns to be free, and will embrace any risk to attain it.

Interestingly, I recently read an article about a scientific study regarding playgrounds. The research presented seems to indicate a rather fascinating phenomenon: playgrounds that are too safe may stunt emotional development in the individual. "Children need to encounter risks and overcome fears on the playground," according to Norwegian psychologist Ellen Sandseter. The article goes on to cite six categories of risky play: "exploring heights, experiencing high speed, handling dangerous tools, being near dangerous elements (like water or fire), rough-and-tumble play (like wrestling), and wandering alone away from adult supervision."

Children learn to navigate risks at a progressive rate - climbing higher and higher over time - as proper development of life. And the more we learn about life, the more we learn about life. Examining creation reveals the Creator. Here we learn that the proper development of a free creature means encountering (and overcoming) risk. So why is one of our most sought-after desires in life to be safe?

Remember what Mr. Beaver taught us about Aslan: "Safe? . . . don't you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."

Here's what psychologists are saying about the undeveloped experiences with risk in children: "Paradoxically, we posit that our fear of children being harmed by mostly harmless injuries may result in more fearful children and increased levels of psychopathology." In a very real sense, our fear of short-term physical cuts and bruises damages much more than that by making long-term damage of psychological, emotional and spiritual selfs. The context in which the human was placed - to serve, to learn, to grow, to govern - is a world of risk and danger. Some of this is too much - physical and otherwise - and so we must be safeguarded from certain hazards. But the rest is known as life, and we continually search to be free and to discover that life more abundant that we have tasted and follow as a promise.

Thus we are filled with a sense wonder for what is out there. We want to explore, to discover purpose, to fulfill destiny. This is not because we have been conditioned by any particular configuration of playgrounds, but more so that we have been created with that drive in our core. This desire will ultimately play out differently for each of us, but stems from the same spark of creativity which the Giver has placed within the human heart. And it explains why mom used to say, "You'll never know unless you try."

is missional post-pastor?

2011-07-20T11:04:00.003-04:00

At the heart of the 'missional movement' emerging in the modern church is the notion that ministry is worked by all believers. Thus, the challenge is to dilute hierarchy for the sake of empowering and equipping all who are part of the church for service. An immediate push-back to this idea is the lament of a loss of control and proper authority. I don't want to be one of those people. However, I also happen to think that this particular piece of becoming missional needs qualification - before it incorporates anti-intellectualism and relativistic-spirituality.

Recently I heard the missional approach discussed at a conference, where three leaders of this mind-set were presenting their perspectives on the church. One of them expressed his experience of letting-go of the control and oversight to allow the small-groups to be what they were. His story went on to talk about some of the surprise that he is often met with (that he would not have any proper oversight into the groups), to which he said it is not about the doctrine but about groups of people reading and living the Bible. This is done without curriculum, but with only Scripture and the Holy Spirit - just like the early church.

Let me first respond that we cannot make the simple claim that our ecclesiology (on any side of any issue) is best done 'just like' the early church. No matter what we do or what we say, we are not the early church and cannot simply copy those things that we know they did and expect them to be effective in our context.

It is true that the early church did not have professional clergy as in our modern sense. Yet, they clearly set aside the apostles for the sake of teaching and directing the believers. It is true that the early church only read Scripture (sans curriculum). Yet, they met together at least weekly to have the sacred texts read and explained. It is true that the early church did not have seminarians leading the charge. Yet, the average person had committed much of their Scripture committed to memory (a shockingly stark contrast to the modern believer).

(And, quite ironically, the early church did not have the New Testament - which is always included in modern attempts at doing church 'just like' the early church . . .)

Moderns typically think that the earliest believers had everything quite right and together, all without any bumps or challenges along the way. Such folks obviously haven't read all of Paul's letters - especially to that group in Corinth.

Are we living up to the standard of always being "prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" if we are handing new believers a copy of the Bible and sending them out with the Holy Spirit? (It becomes a sort of Christianized version of James 2:16.) Or do we ignore that Philip had to explain the Isaiah scroll to the Ethiopian eunuch in order for that text to come alive in his life (Acts 8)?

Yes, it is exciting to consider the life of the Spirit exploding into the world. And I certainly rejoice with those in India who are experiencing more growth than Western evangelicalism can begin to comprehend. But we must not lose sight of the needs of our culture - which is the most biblically illiterate group of active Christians the world has ever seen - and the demands for making disciples of Jesus. It is different for us because we are not them. This is realism, not hubris, that says we are in our culture with our challenges rather than having the challenges of another culture.

Let me say that I believe that the role of pastor in our modern context is changing - some for the better, some for the worse. Such is the way of the world to see things change, and we ought not be bound to our churches or institutions more than we are devoted to the mission of God's kingdom. But we do not know what the pastoral role will look like until it makes the change. Much the like free-marketplace, it will not be mandated or special-ordered . . . the changes will come by way of supply-and-demand - pastor will morph into what the needs of the church and community become, just like the last thousand times the role has shifted. But I think it is a rather large mistake to think that the role will simply come to an abrupt end.

I have signed off to this missional movement. I'm a fan. But it will need its tempering if it is to work. Inflexible thought and theology always dies in irrelevance.

the great divorce 1

2011-07-18T11:05:00.000-04:00

There has been a lot of recent discussion about heaven and hell, with various voices making every attempt to connect their position to history - either original meaning or great thinkers through history (usually both). Interestingly, one of the thinkers that is being used as a plumb line is C. S. Lewis - most notably, The Great Divorce (1945). I have come to realize that more people have read about CSL than have actually ready CSL (this is similar to the infinitely worse decision to reading about the Bible than actually reading Scripture itself).

In my undergraduate I took a course on the life and thought of C. S. Lewis. I confess that I did not understand everything I read at that time. Many years later I still do not consider myself in any sense an expert on his theology or ecclesiology, but I am willing to evaluate the words as they lie on the page and let the author speak for himself. At least then we can begin to see if Lewis' relevance is still powerfully among us.

For those unfamiliar with The Great Divorce, it is a work of fantasy in which the first-person narrator describes a journey in which he experiences heaven and hell. Conceptually, it is not unlike Dante's Divine Comedy or Milton's Paradise Lost. The basic plot is the pilgrimage of an individual in the after-life as he takes a bus ride from "grey town" to a strange "paradise" where a decision to move forward or return is required. The theology of the book is conveyed primarily through discussions and characterization, all to reveal Lewis' approach to heaven and hell.

The story begins with the narrator standing in line at a bus queue, in the rain and at twilight. He recalls that he has wandered the dirty streets always in the rain and always at the point of sundown, before the "cheeriness" of lights comes into the dark. This is "grey town," which exists at the end of a day, waiting for the night to come upon it fully. The other people who are in line are rude, obnoxious and self-centered, constantly fighting over something (they all fight to get on the bus, even though it is only half-full when the do). It is a dull existence, but one which the citizens seem to prefer over any other possibility. As the bus begins to pull away the narrator notices that they have left the ground.

From an arial perspective "grey town" could be seen as a great expanse of (a sort of) civilization. It is explained to the narrator that the quarrelsome nature of "grey town" leaves people to move further from each other, producing empty streets and expanding the parameters of the town (those who have been there longer continue to move further and further away). One of the hallmarks of this place is that an individual does not need to live with any other, so there is no potential of quarreling less. It is at this point that a great secret first begins to be discovered - that night is actually coming upon the twilight of "grey town."

The bus comes to a rest on a hill, where the brightness and freshness of springtime is almost overcoming of the people, who all fight to disembark the bus. At this point the narrator discovers that the fellow passengers are simply ghosts, "man-shaped stains on the brightness of that air." Nothing in that environment was disturbed by their presence - the grass did not bend, the flowers were unmovable, leaves were to heavy for them to disturb. The narrator also notices that he himself is one of these ghosts, just as one woman went scurrying to the bus never to emerge again. In the distance there is another town, and over the hill a group of solid and bright people came to meet the ghosts.

imitators of his patience

2011-07-12T14:07:00.003-04:00

"Let us then continually persevere in our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ, 'who bore our sins in his own body on the tree,' 'who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth,' but endured all things for us, that we might live in him. Let us then be imitators of his patience; and if we suffer for his name's sake, let us glorify him. For he has set us this example in himself, and we have believed that such is the case." (The Epistle of Polycarp 8:1-8)

We fill our spiritual lives with all sorts of talk, mostly about how we should be more like Jesus. Typically this includes various items like praying more, giving more, not having bad thoughts, etc. I wonder how much of our spiritual growth follows the instruction of Polycarp here. He is calling believers to be imitators of God's patience, enduring suffering for his glory and following the example of Christ.

How is our kingdom-work affected by our impatience? If we are unwilling to trust in the providence of God's time, we will most certainly fail in living the very nature of the kingdom that of which we are a part. That is to say, failure to wait upon the Lord for strength is to rely on one's own strength which, by definition, is worthless. True faith begins with the willingness to wait upon the Lord - a stance which is not characterized as passive, but which operates in the context of God's eternal presence.

Scripture beckons us to wait upon the Lord for strength, for salvation, for life. It is the path to an uplifting from the mire of corruption, sin and earth. And here, the early Christian writer believes that this patience - this waiting upon the Lord - is imitation of God himself. Perhaps we have missed one of the fundamental aspects of the quiet, insomuch as it brings our noisy fallenness closer to the calm of the divine presence in order that we might connect with him.

Still, I remember the apostle: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). That reads a bit differently now.

carded and discarded

2011-07-10T14:14:00.005-04:00

I'm getting tired of trying to process the notion that God wants to use us. It's as though we are envisioning our lives as something that are valuable only to the point that we have accomplished some piece of God's will, and then we are discarded so that the next part of God's will can happen. So, I think that it simultaneously gives us too high a view of our own significance, and too low a view of the amount of love God has for each of us.

Rich Mullins once said, ". . . and eventually we'll all be dead, and it will probably matter very little any of us actually lived - except to God who made us."

The notion that we 'do ministry' is a way of segmenting our lives so that we can be a disciple at certain points, but not completely. If our entire existence matters mostly (at some point only) to God, then we must pause to ask what he wants from us. And if he made us who we are, then the way to bring him pleasure and glory, as well as discover the fulfillment of all of the passion he has put within us, is to become who we truly are.

It appears that much of church is defined with one of two extremes on this. We either make the experience of discipleship so 'non-threatening' that it matters very little if we follow Jesus or not, or else we make it so that discipleship is framed as a complete break with any personal distinction of the individual at all. There seems to be a life more abundant that is found between these two poles, where passion and purpose are discovered around the uniqueness of the person.

N. T. Wright said of the transformation of character, "This revolutionary vision of virtue thus enables us to shift attention quite drastically away from the idea that Christian behavior in the world is basically about 'good works' in the sense of good moral living, keeping the rules, and so on, and toward the idea that Christian behavior is basically about 'good works' in the sense of doing things which bring God's wisdom and glory to birth in our world. (After You Believe, 71, emphasis in original).

Now that I have set up that context, let me say that I do in fact think that God does use our lives to bring about his purposes and advance his kingdom in the world. My point here is simply that we become too focused on that narrow understanding of things, assuming that we are not spiritually successful aside from some specific accomplishments in our lives. But I happen to believe that God loves us more than our dos and don'ts - much more than we love ourselves. And he is looking for a people who will live as he made them, on the higher plane of his kingdom.

I think that is why he set eternity in the human heart (Ecc. 3:11), bestows his Spirit so that we might see visions and dream dreams (Joel 2:28), and shows us himself that we might be filled with laughter (Ps. 126:2).

I think that Scot McKnight has it here as well, "Forget 'church' and forget 'Sunday morning service' and forget 'Christians' and forget church history's major mistakes, and for right now just connect these terms: Jesus and dream and your One.Life" (One.Life, 22, emphasis in original).

Thus, it is about being who we are in the place that we are . . . all to the glory of God and the renewal of heaven and earth. And then to follow the desires of our hearts, he begins to strip away our phony image of ourselves and gives us a life more abundant. ". . . and if God wants you to go to Egypt, he will provide eleven jealous brothers and they will sell you into slavery" (Rich).

belonging to such as these

2011-06-29T21:12:00.003-04:00

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

2011-06-21T10:43:00.005-04:00

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

2011-06-13T17:41:00.000-04:00

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

2011-06-10T16:34:00.003-04:00

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

2011-06-08T16:24:00.003-04:00

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

2011-06-07T19:36:00.000-04:00

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

2011-06-01T14:18:00.003-04:00

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.

church in the present tense 4/4

2011-05-25T15:13:00.004-04:00

Scot McKnight, Peter Rollins, Kevin J. Corcoran, Jason Clark.Church in the Present Tense: A Candid Look at What's Emerging. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2011.

This review is divided into four parts, one for each major section of the book. Here we discuss Part Three: Bible and Doctrine.

The final two chapters of the book are authored by our friend over at The Jesus Creed, Scot McKnight.

Chapter Seven is entitled, "Scripture in the Emerging Movement." It begins with a bit of autobiographical background to explain McKnight's entrance into the emerging church discussion. As his blog discussions and his placement in this book demonstrate, he has become one of the more significant voices in the present discussion. (I think this is the case because he is willing to both commend and critique other voices in the movement, based not on sentiment or desire but on truth.) Regarding the questions surrounding emergent: "What attracted me? The willingness to question things, even sacred things. The desire to get Christianity back on track with Jesus's vision for the kingdom" (106).

The remainder of Chapter Seven is thus designed as a miniature introduction to the identifiable methodologies of approaching and applying Scripture from emergent groups. To accomplish this he leans heavily on his larger (and outstanding) book, The Blue Parakeet (2008). Those who are unfamiliar with the book will find the chapter to be a good introduction to the larger discussion. Those who have read the book will most likely shift into a skimming mode through a lot of the chapter.

Following the brief discussion on how the Bible is read (and noting that there does not exist a single type of reading among the emergent groups (111)), McKnight does draw some fresh conclusions and even issues some warnings to the new movements within the church. One such is quite appropriate for Christians of any stripe: ". . . commitment to the linguistic turn and its profound impact on hermeneutics and Bible reading dare not lead to arrogance. It leads one to drink form a well that cannot be drained, to an ocean that is too vast for words, and to a God who is so distant and holy and unapproachable that reverence is the only proper entailment of an emerging understanding of Scripture" (114).

Yet, in support of the movement which introduces diversity into hermeneutic he writes, "No single story, not even Jesus's, can tell the whole story. We need them all" (117). It is imperative to recapture the context of Scripture, with all of its twists and turns, and apply it to ourselves in the same way it was intended. This is a point which is built upon in the final chapter as well.

Chapter Eight is simply titled, "Atonement and Gospel," and is one of the best offerings in the entire book. Mostly I say this because it seeks to read Scripture in context as a means of cutting through layers of theological discussion that are more grounded in philosophical-theological thought than in the biblical text. There is a good amount of effort in the front half of the chapter devoted to understanding the concept of gospel in contemporary usage. Biblical studies have shown how this term is quite different in first century contexts than in contemporary ones, and McKnight applies the discussion well to the state of the church.

This discussion leads McKnight to examine Acts, for he believes that ". . . none of these atonement theories is at work in any central manner in the gospel preaching of the book of Acts. Something else is at work" (131). Herein lies the other piece of high value to this chapter - its survey of the first century church's message as demonstrated in Acts. This is driven by a response to the notion that, "Atonement theories are driving the meaning of gospel" (129).

Eight points are given to draw out the emphases of gospel preaching in the book of Acts, guiding the reader towards the notion of story as gospel. Simply stated, the early church told the story of Israel and the story of Jesus as a way of explaining the impact of messianic death, resurrection and exaltation. That story was not weighed by theory, but was told as a new reality which has broken into the world. McKnight suggests we return to that as a starting point in the church's (both emerging and otherwise) proclamation (cf. 138).

Having spent much time and energy in exploring the New Testament texts and contexts, I must say that I strongly agree with McKnight's analysis here. This chapter goes further in presenting that material in a manner relevant to today's church.

when it's time to go

2011-05-23T14:25:00.003-04:00

Here we go with one of those art imitating life which is imitating art situations. And since it revolves around David Crowder Band, it is quite appropriate to have the mixing of the two. In a press release issued Saturday, the band announced that its sixth album (along with the upcoming fall tour) would be its last.

There is a perception in our culture that success is built into doing the same thing forever . . . or, for as long as is physically possible. This seems to be true in popular music, since the coveted longevity and unending 'relevance' is a sought after prize. And there is a certain truth to the quality of a band which has been able to sell music over the course of many years (for some, decades). The Christian music scene has often followed suit on this, assuming that if it is 'for the ministry' then it must continue on until Jesus comes back.

I'm not going to list any specifics on this, for that would be a matter of taste and distracting to my main point. But I think we can identify some Christian musicians who have continued making albums which were not actually any good, mostly from their commitment to their 'ministry' (and the fear of losing their place at the CCM table). Of course, these albums have been purchased in large number, but I often wonder if it is because of the Christian sub-genre or if it is legitimately solid music. I suppose it becomes a case-by-case basis. (Let me note that I do not think all Christian music is bad . . . I simply refuse to assume that all Christian music is good because of its adjectival label.)

What I appreciate about David Crowder Band's exit is that it happens on the time of their calling, not on the failure to sell recordings or pack out arenas. I would almost say it is on their time, but their point is to say that it is on God's time that they depart. Their statement cites new horizons of personal growth and exploration, a change of scenery in the past ten years, and new families which have come into their midst. In other words, there is life to be lived which is more abundant than this band. Sadly, most believers won't understand this decision.

Based on a few statements which I have caught over the past couple of years of following DCB, I have figured that they were intentionally on a journey that had a set completion to it. So I was not surprised by the news. However, it is still a bit sad for their voice to become still for a season.

There is wisdom and maturity in our ability to see the bigger picture in this life. So often we get caught up in the shortsightedness that we forget about the eternal. Here is a great reminder that the abundance of the life of Jesus is not something reserved for a sweet by-and-by. Rather, it is something which surrounds us every minute . . . if we allow ourselves to have eyes to see.

for those watching for Saturday's rapture . . .

2011-05-20T13:44:00.002-04:00

. . . see you on Sunday!

(pic HT:McK)

grounded . . . or amish

2011-05-19T06:54:00.000-04:00

My parents took me to Amish country, which to a kid, to see a bunch of people that have no cars, no TV, no phone, you go, "So what? Neither do I." Who wants to see a whole community that's been grounded? That's the way they should punish the kids after they've seen Amish country. "All right son, get up to your room. That's it, I've had it, you are Amish young man. For the rest of this weekend. Did you hear me? Amish! And don't come down till you've made some noodles and raised a barn."

-Jerry Seinfeld

church in the present tense 3/4

2011-05-18T14:46:00.004-04:00

Scot McKnight, Peter Rollins, Kevin J. Corcoran, Jason Clark.Church in the Present Tense: A Candid Look at What's Emerging. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2011.

This review is divided into four parts, one for each major section of the book. Here we discuss Part Three: Worship.

Jason Clark once again provides a chapter, this time on "The Renewal of Liturgy in the Emerging Church." Chapter Five comes as a critique of current evangelicalism and the place that liturgy has within our modern worship. There is much to be said regarding the state of worship today, with a great amount of shallowing in individual faith because of a collapse of corporate tradition.

Clark writes, "Without a recovery and understanding of liturgy we are in danger of a collapse of ecclesiology and church into solipsistic worship aesthetics and private spaces" (75). Perhaps you are intimidated by that sentence. Let me paraphrase: We as churchgoers either enter into the larger narrative of our faith or we turn this into an elaborate enterprise of worshipping our own desires. Clark continues later, "We are whatever we want to be. We make ourselves in an image of our own manufacture. Often the selves we create are shallow and superficial, as they are based on issues of taste, personal preference, or whatever makes us happy" (80).

This is the sad and stark reality that our worship resembles, and I think that Jason Clark has made observations which are quite accurate. But his essay is not intended to simply decry the failures of the current practices of the church. Instead, his critique is intended to move forward to a more comprehensive and complete form of worship. He states, "Liturgy and ritual open up the possibility of reconnecting beliefs to their origins and to the people who held and practiced them generations ago. They connect us to the past, to the story, and shape us for life together in an alien world" . . . "We live in a world that does not know what to do with the ordinary"(81).

Following this discussion Clark introduces Flow: A Short-Term Catechism which came out of his own emergent church community. The notion is compared to a short-term missions experience, but through which the experience is replicated to one's own life and work on a daily basis. It is a forty day commitment to take one's faith into a secular world. It is built on three key elements: doing, knowing, being. It is worth taking a closer look, for certain, and contains the seeds of missional living for all believers.

Chapter Six is written by Peter Rollins, "Transformance Art: Reconfiguring the Social Self." Admittedly, there were some philosophical comments early on in this chapter that were a small challenge to distill . . . (especially when one begins to quote the writings of Karl Marx). However, I think that Rollins is on an interesting path with the early comment, "The ironic stance can be described as a way of distancing oneself from a certain social activity while simultaneously engaging in it" (90). Further, he says it this way, "The ironic stance can be maintained through engaging in what we may call perverse transgression. A perverse transgression is any act that appears to undermine a particular system but that actually affirms the very system it purports to attack" (92).

Rollins' point here is that Christian belief is often contradictory in what testimony comes from our mouths in comparison to what testimony flows from our lives. And the emerging generations of believers are unwilling to perpetuate such a system. It is simply unacceptable that we should talk about injustice and then participate in activities which make injustice more prevalent in the world. To this, Rollins asks, "To what extent can our prayer meetings and weekly commitment to the poor actually be the very activities that enable us to engage in careers that help to perpetuate what we are praying against?" (94).

Is it more important to defend our own culture and socio-traditions or follow the radical demands of the kingdom of God? If it is the latter, then the former must be removed . . . a complete transformation of the self over a 'better version' of the self. In one of the most quotable passages in the book thus far, "Christianity promises not intellectual satisfaction but rather substantive transformation, that is, a qualitative change in our being that reconfigures our way of being in the world" (97).

Although I don't readily understand or jump on board with the notions of what Rollins calls Transformance Art, I think that I ultimately grab hold of his underlying notion. Where I agree is that the individual (and community) who is transformed by the Spirit of God ought to also identify a renewal of the world around them, at least the potential renewal of it through the ongoing work of the Spirit from within. It is heaven that has come into the person and now seeks to move outward in a transformation of all creation.

The section on Worship should not be taken lightly, for it is a dimension of our lives that we worship. Whether it is a healthy worship of our Creator or a destructive worship of ourselves and our stuff, we must examine the context within which our devotion occurs.

heaven's becoming a popular place . . . (sort of)

2011-05-17T20:00:00.002-04:00

Not to be outdone by the attention which has been given to Rob Bell, popular physicist Stephen Hawking has made his own radical statement regarding the abode of God - it doesn't exist. In a story which broke this week Hawking declared that any belief in an afterlife is nothing more than a "fairy story" for people who are afraid of death.

I wholeheartedly agree with Roger Olson's comment on this: ". . . how does being a physicist make Hawking an expert on metaphysical questions?" Indeed, it appears that Hawking is as misguided on the context of heaven as many other folks, including (sadly) a great number of Christians. For, heaven is not some place where one might find God's house - even though many metaphors use this imagery to help us explain that which goes beyond our ability to explain - it is, rather, a completely other dimension of reality/existence. Heaven is the experienced presence of God, which means that it has the potential to be anywhere and everywhere at any given time. It is the connection to his omnipresence.

Culturally speaking, we have heaven on the brain these days. Rob Bell has made a bunch of noise regarding heaven and hell, and we are also being assured by some kid that heaven is for real.

But I'm curious - will Hawking's comments create anything close to the firestorm which Rob Bell's (mostly unread) comments made? Probably not. I suppose that this is because the Christian community will write Hawking off, even though the world (who hasn't heard of Rob Bell) will take him seriously. This is the fruit of internal wars, and evangelicalism's commitment to treat our non-believing-neighbors better than we treat our believing-selves.

But, hey, y'know . . . so long as we got it right.

Right?

the idolatry of church

2011-05-16T15:39:00.003-04:00

This past Sunday I spoke on Luke 10:38-42, the story of Jesus, Martha and Mary. It is simply an object lesson on the priority of Jesus, especially in a world full of tasks, objectives and distractions. The story is a prime example of the complex simplicity of Jesus - here is a lesson that can be fully understood on an initial reading of the text, yet remain eternally challenging and applicable.

Although my sermon was focussed in its own direction, this scene continues to gnaw at my perceptions of church.

Jesus always makes it clear that he is to be the one priority in the life of the believer, and this scene highlights such a demand. I wonder, when we say that Jesus is our one thing do we really understand the implications . . . and are we truly willing to embark on such a journey? The issue for Martha is that she is consumed with the activity which is around Jesus. Martha obviously believes that her activity is as important as Mary's, perhaps more so. Jesus sees it otherwise.

What is profoundly applicable in this passage is the extent to which we also believe that our Christianized activities are on the same plane as entering into the presence of Christ. We see this when our church communities become consumed with their own rituals and behaviors, or when the shouting over ministries and structures becomes more vital than hearing the still, small voice of the Spirit, or when we make any attempt to create a subculture that will shield the community of faith from the world around.

The apostle Paul said that Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Ephesians 5:5). Two points lie in the background of his statement: 1) We are the church that Christ loved, 2) The church has already had someone give themselves up for her. Our task then is not to give ourselves up for the church, for that would be self-love at Christ's expense. We are called to love Christ with everything - the reason why Paul crosses the metaphors of husband-and-wife with Christ-and-church - and give ourselves up for him.

Perhaps our role with church has become skewed in that we believe that our work for the community is equal with our love for Christ. Yes, Jesus did tell Peter that love for him was to be fleshed out in feeding his lambs (John 21). My contention is not that the two do not intersect, but that there is nothing in the world - no matter how small or great - which can be equated with the priority of Christ. We are called specifically to care for the church, but to serve Christ.

It must also be said that Jesus told us simply to Love God and Love Others (as ourselves). This has become known as The Jesus Creed, and I have said it daily for the few years I have become familiar with it. I am not making an attempt to split the command which Jesus gives, for a simple reading of this passage does seem to equate love for God with love of others. My position here is that there is a certain nuance in how that love is shown, that it becomes a love for others on behalf of Christ and not on behalf of ourselves, our tradition, or our churches.

The passage with Jesus, Martha and Mary seems to be a scene which is based on Deuteronomy 8:3, ". . . man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD." And here is Jesus, the Bread of Life and Word Incarnate, who offers himself to us and waits to discover whether or not we will be consumed with the physical bread of daily sustenance or the the eternal significance of his presence.

has evangelicalism turned gnostic?

2011-05-06T00:09:00.002-04:00

My friend, Andrew Perriman, introduced a rather interesting discussion on his blog, p.ost earlier today: that modern evangelicalism has some points of comparison with second century Gnosticism over and above first century Christianity.

Although the comparisons are not exact, Andrew does make some astute observations on the current status of evangelicalism. There is a lack of historic understanding of the context of the New Testament, given way to some sort of redeemer-myth that could very well exist without the details of history. This is quite similar to the gnostic approach.

This line of thought also gives way to the escapist notion of Gnosticism, which is ever-present in modern rapture theology - a theology which is not found in Scripture, nor understood in the Jewish-Christian worldview of the first century. These points are often found in modern preaching, reinforcing viewpoints that resemble gnostic thought over early Christian theology.

It is an interesting discussion. Whether or not it is a modern Gnosticism, it certainly reveals the disconnect of modern and ancient Christian thought.

church in the present tense 2/4

2011-05-04T16:09:00.003-04:00

Scot McKnight, Peter Rollins, Kevin J. Corcoran, Jason Clark.Church in the Present Tense: A Candid Look at What's Emerging. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2011.

This review is divided into four parts, one for each major section of the book. Here we discuss Part Two: Theology.

Chapter Three is "Consumer Liturgies and Their Corrosive Effects on Christian Identity" by Jason Clark. It is an outstanding essay on the current status of the church and the responses being given by the emergent community. Identifying cultural shifts which no longer have Christianity at the center of the community he explains that his own emergent experience was around a new set of questions, "Our question became not, how do we do church better so that people do not leave? but, how do we recover church for our context?" (39).

Cutting to the heart of the matter, and indeed many frustrations shared by those currently immersed in the church traditions, Clark writes, "Indeed, church has become nothing more than a meaningless expression of private religious association or a private club. But what if church were not just one choice among many but an ultimate and final choice?" (43). Clark's is a summons to move beyond consumerism in the life of the church in an effort to discover the life-changing renewal which is found in conformity with Christ.

Along this line of thinking Clark also ponders what a church that is more conformed to Christ would begin to be: "What if there is a 'givenness' to ecclesiology and church, a givenness in which we find our identity in contrast to the endless self-creation of identity of the modern consumer agent?" (45). These are lofty ideals indeed, but ones that seem to be embedded in the hearts of emergent Christians. Yet before the reader can fall into an ethereal conceptualization of the *perfect church* the author gives this important perspective, "I just want to be part of a 'real church,' we might cry out of exasperation. Perhaps we have been part of real churches already but have simply failed to notice" (48).

Having greatly appreciated the words in this essay, especially with the doses of imperfect realities throughout, I think Clark has contributed well to the conversation. I might echo Roger Olson's critique that perhaps some more concrete answers could have been included. This is but a minor quibble, though.

Chapter Four is "Thy Kingdom Come (on Earth): An Emerging Eschatology" by Kevin Corcoran. At the beginning of his thought he identifies this trend: "Emerging folks are, it seems, an eschatological lot, people who seek to make God's future a present reality, as best they can" (59). This, however, is not the eschatology of rapture and pre-post-a-Left Behind-millenialism that has been a part of the previous generation of the church. Rather, this is a future-made-present understanding of the kingdom of God, being the impetus of missional work.

This sort of approach makes it rather obvious why Tom Wright has become the unofficial patron saint of emergent Christianity. Corcoran writes, "Heaven is here, now, embodied in earth and mud. Granted, this kingdom has not yet been consummated or fully actualized. Still, it is here and it is now. It is a kingdom come and still coming" (65). This type of reality - one that makes the Lordship of Christ and the experience of his people presently meaningful - has given a renewed vigor to the emerging generation of Christians, as well as a breath of fresh air into our congregations.

slow dancing in a burning room

2011-05-03T14:05:00.003-04:00

Yesterday I stood in the front of a room full of people, most notably a seven-year-old boy, to preach a funeral for a young woman who had taken her own life. The boy was notable because it was his mom.

A few weeks ago my wife and I hugged one of our college classmates, whose seven-year-old girl was killed because of a gun which went off by accident in their home.

On a weekly basis we have people who call or come into the church because they need food or heat or help. We know that some of them are trying to take us for a ride, but many of them are not.

Not long ago I sat in our preschool office and spoke with a nearly drunk father about how he needed to be doing a better job at single-parenting his only daughter. He wanted to get it, but I'm not certain he could have reached a sobering moment.

It doesn't take too much to realize that families in our culture are hurting and broken. Dr. Dobson was absolutely right, the fracture of the family has intertwined with the breakdown of our society. Now a new generation is taking up the sinful cycle.

These are the realities which encompass the church in its mission. Many of you could offer stories of greater difficulty and more intense need. (In fact, I withhold some that could better make my point because of their sensitive nature.) But this is what we are up against, all the while announcing to ourselves that the gospel was meant for people such as these.

And as it has been said before . . . We are 'doing church' better than ever, but watching the increasing ineffectiveness of our message. What is happening?

From my point-of-view it is a combination of factors, with the common denominators being the church's inherent loss of the kingdom. Let's face it, much of what American evangelicalism currently looks like a have-it-your-way, self-at-center, preference-oriented spiritualized experience. And it's failing to move the gospel outward (euangell-ize).

In the past four months my church experience has included those serious situations that I have described above. However, I have also been working through other things around here that make one feel almost bipolar. For instance, a few weeks ago there was a letter that asked the board to fire me because I wasn't friendly enough to someone who walks out of church, withholds tithes, and openly boasts about both. They don't participate because they don't like me. Also, someone stopped me after church and told me that my attire was not 'respectful' to God and that our culture's overall lack of respect is why the world is going to hell (somehow my dress became equated with the number of abortions in our society). And it's also being said that I don't like old people (mostly since we don't make habit of singing the doxology), which has been thrown in as some added bonus to the rest of it.

When you compare these two realities it becomes clear that the church's ineffectiveness is directly linked to our inability to look beyond our own noses. There were a couple of grumblings at the beginning of Holy Week . . . from people who did not participate in one single event throughout the remainder of the week. (We had a lot of stuff going on this year.) This helps show that those who are willing to journey with Christ will have his perspective in the world, while those who forego daily submission to him highlight their own lack of spiritual formation.

Life is going on today, whether or not the church is aware of such a fact. But it takes more than constructing walls which keep believers safe from the outsiders. It takes the courage to open doors so that the righteous can go out and the unrighteous come in, all for the transformation which comes from pure holiness. Without such the people of God are simply lost in their own existence, while the world around us continues to pass away without hope.

. . . and the decline of western civilization5

2011-04-28T23:22:00.004-04:00

It's been a while since I've added to this series, which is not an indication that there is no current decline in western civilization. Rather, it is more indicative of my own distractions posting on other items. Nevertheless, we return with . . .

"The DVR Ten-Second Rewind Button and the Decline of Western Civilization"

There are a few features that I enjoy about the DVR: 1) the ability to pause live TV, 2) the 30-second skip ahead, 3) the 10-second skip back, and others. But there seems to be an ill-effect coming from our ability to manipulate live action - we now have difficulty experiencing live action!

Not long after we had been using our DVR I found that while driving in my car I would miss something on the radio and would reach for the dial as though I could jump back ten seconds. This is because that is what I had become accustomed to while watching television. My level of engagement to the information coming at me had shifted. Honestly, this freaked me out a bit, and I have reevaluated my lifestyle and made some changes lest I get too far lost.

But now I see how this is becoming part of our larger culture. People simply do not listen or pay attention any longer to the reality of the moment. It is perhaps a combination of becoming reliant upon technology to repeat information at our will, and our now-inherent drive to wait for our technology to tell us it was important in the first place. Yes, all of this technology has a certain place, but only when it is subservient to us (not vice versa).

One example from a recent visit to Chipotle, the greatest manifestation of the burrito. I had to order four times in order to be heard and understood (only two people were taking my order). This is because the one person was preoccupied with talking to other people who were working, and also because she would sort-of hear me and then ask me the same question mere seconds later. She was using her own ten-second rewind on me . . . except that I was experiencing repetitive frustration.

The DVR 10-second rewind is not the sole source of society's ills. But it is proving itself to be a contributor, and is thus included here as a small piece of the decline of western civilization.

church in the present tense 1/4

2011-04-27T14:30:00.006-04:00

Scot McKnight, Peter Rollins, Kevin J. Corcoran, Jason Clark.Church in the Present Tense: A Candid Look at What's Emerging. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2011.

What has been missing from the emerging church movement is a solid academic presentation and critique of its trends and ideals. I have often found myself frustrated in finding a coherent and comprehensive system of thought in much of what has been said and written about the movement. In fact, it often feels as though the concept of 'emergent' might be a breath of fresh airstylistically in the worship of the church, but theologically (or philosophically) it is a bit of a mess.

This is why I am interested in the current book, and want to spend some time interacting with it. Brazos Press has produced a volume that appears to have helped the conversation along quite nicely. The method of review and discussion here will be in four parts (one for each section of the book): Philosophy, Theology, Worship, Bible and Doctrine.

Part One: Philosophy

Chapter One is on the question, "Who's Afraid of Philosophical Realism? Taking Emerging Christianity to Task" by Kevin Corcoran. Admittedly, some of the upfront material is a bit philosophical in its writing style and will undoubtedly be a challenge to many readers, specifically many pastors who have not engaged in a philosophy course for some time. Nevertheless it is a good chapter.

One of the foundational points that Corcoran makes is that there is a role-reversal in the divine-human relationship: "Instead of recognizing God as our Creator and responding to him as such, we keep fashioning him into whatever role we need him to be playing at the moment" (7). Thus, approaching a real and living faith needs to be reevaluated.

Also in play in this essay is the question of postmodernity. I wholeheartedly agree with the author that this is one of the most overused and least understood terms in modern discussions of philosophy and (especially) theology (cf. 13). Hence, Corcoran goes on to establish a viable definition of postmodernism (which I was already tired of about ten years ago!). I remember my philosophy instructor (William Hasker) explaining that we cannot adequately define postmodernism as a philosophical movement because we do not have the ability to see it for what it is - beginning to end. The actual term only implies that we are now moving out of modernity into something else. So it would be wise to be patient and see what happens.

In this same tenor, Corcoran arrives at the following, "The postmodern turn for Christians is, therefore, a turn away from Christianity as believing or knowing certain things and a turn toward Christianity as opening oneself up to a transformative event" (14). He thus sees Christian faith in the postmodern understanding as a movement fundamentally built upon spiritual formation and connected to the long traditions of spiritual practices (cf. 15). The reality of the Christian journey is, therefore, the process of becoming (sort of a Kierkegaardian idea, I think), which leads the author here to say that he is constantly at the beginning of his faith (cf. 17).

Chapter Two is offered by Peter Rollins on "The Worldly Theology of Emerging Christianity." It is a solid discussion on the uniqueness of the Christian message, utilizing much Pauline thought to get his point across. Central to the argument is the notion that the church is a group that is completely distinct from all others. He puts it in a great perspective: "Instead of writing about both Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, men and women, he writes of a new identity in Christ, one that cuts across political, cultural, and biological divisions, one that involves the laying down of such identities" (23). That is to say, it is no longer a both-and of personal identification and Christian belief, it is an either-or of belonging to the world or to the kingdom narrative.

Turning this thought further on its head, Rollins asks what Paul's thought would look like if the gospel was able to transform (or call into question) the social distinctions that encompass us (cf. 25). In this line of thought he includes an interpretive semi-translation of Paul's famous Galatians 3 statement, which is interesting but makes me wonder about some of the categories listed. On a logical level why would there be both theist and atheist who have faith in Christ Jesus? I think he is going for a rather Inclusivist position here, but it reads awkwardly.

Further on this is the inclusion of his statement, "[neither] gay nor straight" which is a difficult button to push here. How far can we take such inclusion? This is not to condemn any who are homosexual, nor is it to say that it should be considered more of a sin than any other. But, on the other hand, homosexuality should not be considered more acceptable than any other behavior. Where are we allowed to draw the lines of this community if it is automatically all-inclusive without a call to leave one's sin? (Nor do I think this as a matter of God's special preference for those who are marginalized by society.)

With this piece out the way, I must say that the remainder of the essay raises some great points. One of Rollins' central points is that, ". . . to identify with Christ means to acknowledge that it is not the ultimate horizon" (25). Certainly this is a key point to understanding the faith. Salvation, after all, is not the end . . . it is the means to an end within God's kingdom-coming. And, yes, Rollins is correct in saying that identification with Christ means shaking ourselves free from the socio-cultural baggage we carry with us (cf. 26).

Even though I don't see all of the proposals following through, there is a strong philosophical foundation set here for approaching postmodern and/or emerging Christianity in a thoughtful way. It will be interesting to see how the theological perspectives (Part Two) continue to build on this.

unsung lessons of the resurrection

2011-04-26T10:02:00.002-04:00

There are lessons throughout the resurrection narratives, specifically the more detailed version found in the Gospel of John. Some are more emphasized than others, perhaps because they are more important. Yet, I feel that these other pieces should be pointed out as well. After all, the beloved disciple thought to write them down that we might believe . . .

Early on the first day of the week the women went to the tomb and discovered that things were not as they expected. This, of course, is because ancients were quite aware as moderns that dead people have a tendency to remain dead . . . and probably the whole Roman guard bit as well. Being logical they figured that those who had conspired against Jesus and carried out his execution had come to further dishonor him by moving his body.

Mary tells this to Peter and the other disciple (most likely John), and they run away to investigate.

Lesson 1: John is faster than Peter.

Both disciples are in a full-out dash to the tomb. This is gird-up-your-loins-style haste, to be certain. But John gets there first and has some figurin' to do. He stands questioning these events at the entrance to the empty tomb. He is also aware that dead people don't walk away . . . he's Jewish and doesn't want to become defiled . . . this could be some sort of a trap to weed out Jesus' followers . . . with all of this maybe he just doesn't want to get involved. (It's hard to blame him.)

Lesson 2: Peter doesn't think that much.

Notice that Peter, who arrives second at the gravesite, doesn't think of any of this. He runs straight into the tomb to see what's going on. Or he doesn't care. Either way, in this moment Peter acts the same as he acted throughout his life - recklessly. Gospel readers have seen how Peter has a tendency to speak before thinking, now we see him leap before looking. He wants to know what is going on . . . right now.

After this, Peter and John return to the house. And then we remember that Mary was still standing at the empty tomb.

Lesson 3: Peter and John kind of forget about Mary.

The first two verses of John 20 give the account of Mary coming to the tomb. Then we are preoccupied with Peter and John for a few verses. The narrative is focused on them with such excitement that verse 11 leaves us almost with a thought of "Oh yeah, Mary was still there . . ." However these scenes were put together, it is interesting that they didn't take her with them. But we can never know if they tried to get her to come or not.

Mary seems to want to linger at the empty tomb, perhaps thinking that she will be able to get some answers if she looks around. She finds a gardener and starts asking questions, only to discover that he is the one she is seeking.

Lesson 4: Jesus is fond of the pop-in.

The evening of the resurrection has the disciples huddled together, mostly in fear and trembling, behind locked doors. Jesus appears in their midst and speaks to them. He does this a week later when Thomas is telling them that he will not believe until he sees. What is the deal with all of the popping-in and out? I think he might just be messing around with them on one level. But if I had been in a locked room when someone who I know was dead suddenly appeared in the middle of it . . . the room would not have been locked for long (*swinging hinge*).

Lesson 5: Don't miss a church meeting 'cause Jesus might show up.

Everyone gets on Thomas' case, but the reality is that he was as skeptical as the other disciples. He is singled out simply because he missed the first of Jesus' pop-ins. And we don't even know why he was gone. Perhaps it was because someone needed to go pick up some pita breads from the corner convenience . . . maybe he was out trying to ask around to what happened to the body . . . maybe he just needed to walk. Either way, it's important for us to learn here - not that doubting is a sin but that missing church sometimes leads us to missing Jesus.

These are some of the little bits that help make the story complete. People often think that the resurrection was made up, perhaps with the rest of the gospel story. But these details don't lend that as a real possibility, for the beloved disciple has simply gathered together accounts of what happened - perspectives from those who lived the story - in an effort to invite us all to become a part of that story.

Because in the end it doesn't matter if you stand outside and think about whether or not you want to get involved or rush in with reckless abandon, all that matters is that you come in and see an empty tomb, linger in his presence for a moment, and then go to tell the world.

morning has broken

2011-04-24T07:22:00.000-04:00

Morning has broken, like the first morning

Blackbird has spoken, like the first bird
Praise for the singing, praise for the morning
Praise for the springing fresh from the word

Sweet the rain's new fall, sunlit from heaven
Like the first dewfall, on the first grass
Praise for the sweetness of the wet garden
Sprung in completeness where his feet pass

Mine is the sunlight, mine is the morning
Born of the one light, Eden saw play
Praise with elation, praise every morning
God's recreation of the new day

walking in gethsemane

2011-04-22T20:50:00.002-04:00

As I sat alone in a small room enveloped by a large and empty church building, I meditated upon his cross. Tired and fighting off sleep, I sat and pondered in the silence of the midnight hour. I sat and listened. It was the first hour of what we now call Good Friday.

There is a beauty in our brokenness. Our inabilities, inconsistencies, failures, lacking must all become the very vehicle for God's love to be shown to the world. Ours cannot be the method by which the world achieves - for the world is fallen and corrupt, its accomplishments twisted and sinister. The world is anti-logos and anti-agape.

The cross stands as the ultimate sign of human brokenness. It is the vehicle through which divine love was poured out upon sinful earth. It defies power-plays and attention-seeking. It breaks apart life and pours into its place life more abundant. Success is through failure, strength is through weakness, and wisdom is discovered as foolishness.

Unbeknownst to us, love has gained victory through brokenness, for we as the world did not understand the Word when it came to us. That is what demands a radical change. We as death-bound must now change course completely or be destroyed in his raging fire. We are naturally part of this death, we must therefore radically alter our core nature in order to journey into life. That begins at the cross, the most profound sign of the beauty of brokenness.

review: Jesus of Nazareth (2)

2011-04-20T15:13:00.003-04:00

Joseph Ratzinger Pope Benedict XVI. Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011.

I have read both of his books on Jesus published since Joseph Ratzinger was made Pope Benedict XVI in 2005. His first volume to a life of Jesus (Jesus of Nazareth, 2008) spent a lot of time on the character and teaching of Jesus. This second volume, as one can tell by the subtitle, is a study on the passion, death and resurrection of Christ.

Certainly there are points of theological disagreement, but I will contend that a Protestant would have a difficult time reading these volumes and not appreciating the portrait of Jesus that emerges from the text. In what might possibly be a move to help with such schisms in our approaches to Jesus, Ratzinger provides a study which is spoken in unity and love rather than centering on our ecumenical divisions.

The book itself covers the final week of Jesus' life, from the not-so-triumphal entrance into Jerusalem until Easter Sunday. (An epilogue is provided to help bridge thought into Ascension and even Pentecost.) This is a good read for Lent and Holy Week, for it helps us to remember that there is so much more to be gained when we focus on the cross than when we simply look at ourselves.

From the perspective of biblical studies the book is good, but not great. Ratzinger has his pocket of scholarship from which he draws - most of which are quite solid, actually - but there are clear moments when appealing to other work would benefit his text greatly. For instance, any examination into the Resurrection without mention of N. T. Wright's extensive research into the area is almost painfully obvious. (But, then again, where are we on the whole Anglican-Catholic thingy these days?) Given the research that he does interact with, it would be natural/necessary to catch these pieces.

There is, however, some good theology found in this book. Notice that I do not say there is good 'Catholic' theology, for I suppose that if it is true about God then it is good theology without distinction. A few examples to help you get a feel for the book:

1. Ratzinger's examination of Jesus' high priestly prayer is quite good. He explains it this way, "'Eternal life' is thus a relational event . . . The relationship to God in Jesus Christ is the source of a life that no death can take away" (84-85). Throughout the book there is a clear focus not only on the knowledge of Jesus, but on the impact he has on the life of the believer (as well as the life of the church).

2. His work on the Last Supper is also interesting. It is a shame that communion is so vital to the church, yet so often goes without proper theological reflection. This has shifted very recently (see Pitre's work), but there is still more to do. Here, Ratzinger spends time on the breaking of bread motif in the Gospels, "It is also a gesture of hospitality, through which the stranger is given a share in what is one's own . . . God's bountiful distribution of gifts takes on a radical quality when the Son communicates and distributes himself in the form of bread" (129).

3. Further insight is given to the Last Supper-Eucharist connection by seeing it from the perspective of Jesus as God-Man. "This faithfulness of his means that he acts not only as God toward men, but also as man toward God, in this way establishing the Covenant irrevocably" (133). This certainly connects with the notion of Jesus taking the place of Israel when she could not achieve her own redemption, and also demonstrates (from one perspective) how this covenant in Jesus' blood has been brought to reality.

4. A final section to highlight is the Garden of Gethsemane. Ratzinger challenges the reader to consider Hebrews' title of Jesus as High Priest to help us understand what is happening in the hours before Jesus' crucifixion. "For these cries and pleas are seen as Jesus' way of exercising his high priesthood. It is through his cries, his tears, and his prayers that Jesus does what the high priest is meant to do: he holds up to God the anguish of human existence. He brings man before God" (163-164).

Those committed to understanding the Passion of Christ ought to read this book, regardless of what baggage might be sitting around regarding the Roman Catholic Church. There are times of theological wrestling and ecclesiastical disagreements, staunch and fiery as they may become. But when it comes to understanding Jesus - his life, teaching, love, suffering, death, resurrection, ascension - such things need to be put away. Especially today, when so many people who are lost and hurt and who don't care about that stuff anyway.

There is something to learn from this little book by Pope Benedict XVI, who is flawed and broken and searching and holy . . . just like every one of us.

culmination

2011-04-19T09:12:00.004-04:00

Alright, I'm going to be honest here. There is a good chance that this only applies to me, even though I've a suspicion that I am not alone.

The fact of the matter is that Holy Week, no matter how special and prioritized, is a lot of work for ministerial staff. I'm not saying this to gain pity, but am rather simply setting up the parameters of my point. There is a lot that happens in the next few days, requiring preparation and setup, jumping around and execution, cleanup and decompression. Sometimes it is easy for pastors to get so caught up in all of the stuff that we start to lose our grip on the meaning behind all of the stuff.

There are a few factors which challenge a pastor's ability to embrace the experience of Holy Week. One is the simple reality that these things take time to plan, which means that most have been mentally and spiritually engaged in Christ's passion for a number of weeks. And the most effective way of planning an appropriate and meaningful experience is to enter into the mindset of Holy Week/Easter before it actually arrives. Thus, when the day comes it almost feels as though you've been there for quite a while - and that pushes your emotional capacity to do it one more time (even if this time is 'for real').

A second factor that challenges the pastoral experience is time. Nobody has enough time anyway. Weeks can fly by in pastoral ministry just like everywhere else, but a special observance week heightens it all. Added to the difficulty of planning-execution is the feeling that there isn't enough time to pause and reflect. In order to do so requires an intentional effort and often takes form in awkward moments.

Perhaps one of the most difficult burdens on the life of a pastor is the third factor, the lack of family presence. I'm not saying that families aren't supportive or present, for in my case they are very much so. But my wife's reality on a Sunday morning is that she is a single-mom facing all of the pressures of get-to-meetin'-on-time alone. Because we have young children this is present. And while she does an amazing job handling this every week, it can often be disappointing that we don't get to have a comprehensive experience of our own church together.

A fourth challenge is energy. It takes a lot. Holy Week is just starting and I'm already out of it. There are always external distractions that will pass through the church office this week, just to make it interesting. And then you're supposed to fast, right? I don't know . . . maybe it's more about surviving? . . . am I being realistic or copping out? . . . aaaaannnd there goes my mental energy along with everything else.

On the one hand these challenges are unique, for they intentionally push against the pastoral leadership as we try to facilitate the church experience and engage people with the presence of God. On the other hand these challenges are not unlike those we face throughout life - these factors make the season challenging, not impossible. For Jesus still speaks to the hearts of tired, distracted, meager, boring pastors: Seek . . . and you will find.

and then they killed the dog . . .

2011-04-12T21:58:00.004-04:00

It began many years ago when my sixth grade teacher spent the half hour after lunch reading to us the novel Where the Red Fern Grows. I remember listening to a captivating story about a young boy and his two redbone coonhound hunting dogs, growing up in the Ozark mountains. Although I could not tell you what the average girl in our class thought of the book it was, for the boys, a great experience.

What happens at the end of Wilson Rawls' novel is that the two dogs die. Big Dan suffers too many injuries after protecting the boy from a mountain lion, and Little Ann dies a few days later from heartbreak.

And it was hard not to cry. At least, among my classmates. Inside the air was sucked out.

It was the same feeling I had when they shot Old Yeller. Look, I understand that he had gone rabid and it was the right decision. But it was hard for Travis to do and it was hard for me to watch. Coming of age moments or not, it's hard.

This is the way the world works, I suppose. The male mind is often an odd place, and I'm not sure why this is the case. It seems that we can watch movies of war and murder without much thought given to the loss of human life. But kill off the dog, then we're somewhere between devastated and defiant. What's going on with this?

In I Am Legend Robert Neville is left with an empty New York (aside from a whole bunch of people-turned-vampire-bat-thingies) with his only companion being a German Shepherd. The fact that the world is devoid of humans is interesting, the mutant vampire bat thingies are creepy and cool, and the death they have brought makes the story. But the moment Sam dies it is tragic. Not until then, but from that point forward.

Signs was a great movie, and I wanted to see what the aliens were going to do to this family. Until I heard the screech of the dog they forgot to bring inside the house. Then it became sad.

Even Sweet Home Alabama was funny enough until they were sitting in the local coon dog cemetery, simply talking about how she was gone when the dog died. In fact, it was more emotional (in the context of the film) that Melanie walked out on Bear (the dog) than that of her walking out on Jake (the husband). And the dog died.

On and on we could go. I don't know what the reason(s) for this behavior might be, but it is an observance that I've run across. Send Rambo in and guys will cheer in the face of carnage; let the dog die and the tears will come. Of course, movies are so often used as an escape from reality, and other times they are artistic attempts at capturing reality. Since it is human nature to desire dominance and winning, we can accept certain levels of violence. But when it comes to our innocent faithful canine companions . . . back off, dude.

review: evolving in monkey town

2011-04-07T09:54:00.004-04:00

Rachel Held Evans. Evolving in Monkey Town. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.

In the opening pages of her self-described "too young to write a memoir" project, writer Rachel Held Evans admits, "I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy" (18). This is one piece which continues to confront the current younger evangelicals - that we should believe in something worth believing in, wrestling with the question of God instead of uncritically accepting the answers of a previous generation. Therein lies the heart of this book, and the inner drive to discover something challenging and transcendent which the author demonstrates.

Certainly this book will ruffle feathers and, frankly, scare some people to death. But Evans has hit on something important here, the necessity of defining essential beliefs from those things which are uncompromising in the faith. "When you count each one of your beliefs as absolutely essential, change is never an option. When change is never an option, you have to hope that the world stays exactly as it is so as not to mess with your view of it" (99).

The current place of the Christian sub-culture is in this exact place, and Evans is the right person to help shake up our irrational grasp of irrelevant details. Having been raised in a family and culture steeped in American evangelical subculture, she began to ask questions which were considered 'wrong' and 'inappropriate' - all stemming from an unsatisfactory ability for her faith to answer her own questions. I am certain that anyone who dares to move forward with this level of spiritual tenacity has lost many friends and gained many frustrations along the way. But, in the end, it is truly knocking on the door to heaven.

What are believers to do when the are faced with the millions (billions?) who are damned to hell simply because they were not born in the right time or place to hear about Jesus? (This is what Evans refers to as a cosmic lottery, "Some of us are randomly selected for famine, war, disease, and paganism, while others end up with fifteen-thousand-square-foot houses, expensive Christian educations, and Double Stuf Oreos" (103).)

Further, what are Christians to do with those who call themselves homosexual Christians? On this point Evans raises some good discussion, perhaps too good for the average believer to answer without going through some uncomfortable moments. Since this is a review, I am willing to say that I was personally disappointed in some of her conclusions, or lack thereof. I will agree that most modern American evangelicals have too visceral a reaction to homosexuality, especially when it gets in the way of sharing God's love. But it must be said that such activity is a sin within our Scripture and needs to be regarded as such. (I am not as open as Evans on this matter.) She doesn't necessarily cross any lines here, but her writing on this isn't exactly definitive either.

As if her questions weren't difficult enough for modern evangelicals, she also weighs in on salvation, though a number of months before Rob Bell's book made everyone go crazy. But she summarizes it quite well: "Some Christians are more offended by the idea of everyone going to heaven than by the idea of everyone going to hell" (130). True. And from what we have seen in the last few weeks surrounding the release of Love Wins, it's going to be hard to challenge such a statement. (Evans doesn't go any further than C S Lewis either.)

This book is, as the title suggests, a journey of an evolving faith that doesn't contain neatly packaged answers. It is a shared journey in order that the reader might also be encouraged to go along and find a faith that is engaging instead of static. Toward the end of the book she writes, "False fundamentals make it impossible for faith to adapt to change" (218). In other words, orthodoxy should not be made to include things that are not essential to Jesus or the kingdom which he brought to us.

What lies behind this book is a postmodern approach to faith, necessary for the changing hearts and minds of the generations. It is becoming painfully obvious that the answers of yesterday no longer deliver the impact on the questions of today. Though the answers we once had emerged from a culture that needed to arrive at them, it is clear that we must keep moving now. "So prepared to defend the faith, we missed the thrill of discovering it for ourselves. So convinced we had God right, it never occurred to us that we might be wrong. in short, we never learned to doubt" (225).

Quite an interesting walk.

glory and the character of god

2011-04-06T08:11:00.003-04:00

Often you hear about how someone's wrestling thoughts about God as posted on a blog landed them in serious trouble. This might end up being one of those posts. Yet, nevertheless, I am going to continue typing and see where this thing goes.

It began at a discussion on Roger Olson's blog regarding comments made by John Piper. We're only talking about John Piper because he decided to act judgmentally against Rob Bell, who has different (and popular) views on salvation than does Piper. And sometimes going against John Piper - and/or the Reformed tradition - is heresy enough.

There is a statement made in a YouTube video by Piper which makes the claim that God allows Satan to live and evil to occur because his glory can shine more brightly in the presence of darkness than in its absence. I have seen this theological logic before and I think it is wrong. As a first year seminary student I remember hearing someone say that God ordained the Fall so that we might understand better his character and glory, through grace and mercy and salvation. I wondered why God would need a fallen state to reveal to us what a perfect moral state could not . . . I wondered why God needed evil . . . I wondered why God needed.

So, logically this breaks down. But what about the moral character of God that is on the table here. It appears to me that we are creating more of an schizo Dei than approaching the imago Dei when we try to rationalize evil as part of divine necessity. Does God actually need evil to reveal his glory? I don't think so.

Further, if God did in fact need present darkness in order to more brightly shine his light, would he so callously be responsible for human suffering for the sake of his own ego?

Look, we talk about and peddle the love of God and then we say that God has us suffer because he needs to be glorified more. These appear to be contrary sentiments on a moral scale, for it seems to say that God needs to hurt us in order to show how much he loves us. If this is true then perhaps we are institutionalizing some of the godliest people in our culture.

Theologically, this is a question of determinism. Morally, this is a question of looking at a God that I can love.

John Sanders once wrote, "This is borne out in the biblical materials. God, because he cares, is repeatedly hurt, angered and saddened by sinful human actions" (The God Who Risks, 172, emphasis mine). There are many responses to the reasons for God to reveal, glorify and establish himself above all others. But do those sentiments hold up when it comes at the cost of his own creation? . . . a creation that Scripture repeatedly says he cares so much about?

There are many pages in the Bible that become problematic because of these wires getting crossed in our concept of God. Think about the genocide that happened during Israel's conquest, for example. Is that God's glory at the expense of lives and families? I don't know if I can find an answer which I am willing to accept just yet.

As I anticipate some responses to this line of thought, let me say that the discussion here is not revolving around human sinfulness and consequence. We are talking about God's character (at least John Piper was initially speaking of it). This is about God's supposed willingness to allow suffering and death so that he might be glorified more . . . because he needs a fallen state to reveal himself whereas an un-fallen state would not do.

Is God willing to run over humanity for the sake of his own glory?

Before we jump into a misguided-quotation-driven rehearsal of 'his ways are not our ways' let us remember that we are speaking about holiness and goodness. Ultimately, can we trust this God in what he says?

If God is using suffering to bring about his glory, then are we stuck in a theistic caste system? Wouldn't any attempt to heal potentially interrupt the work of God? Let's look at this:

1. God ordains a sickness in a person.

2. God desires for the person to be healed.

3. God will obtain greater glory through the healing.

4. Can God obtain even greater glory if the sickness becomes more severe?

5. Are we potentially undoing God's glory if we heal prematurely?

6. Did Jesus lessen the glory of God by healing?

7. Is God more glorified in raising Lazarus than in healing a woman with hemorrhage?

8. Does God grant healing out of his love for us or from his desire for self-glory?

I don't think that this definition of glory allows it to be compatible with love, as some immediately think. Some will say that the revelation of God's glory is synonymous with his love for us, since he knows that is what we need more than anything. This, again, sounds like rationalizing.

Perhaps it is time that we come to grips with the notion that this God loves us and will go through death for us, even though the world still rages around us. We are caught up in this fire when we see that divine intensity is greater still. But our concept of God must do honor to him rather than be borne out of our own character. There it is true that his ways are not our ways - for his ways are passionate and perfect love. I am not ready to accept a God who is as much a glory-seeker as we are when his center is an intense fiery love which goes beyond our comprehension.

review: Jesus and the jewish roots of the eucharist

2011-04-04T15:46:00.002-04:00

Brant Pitre. Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. New York: Doubleday, 2011.

Ever since I read through Brant Pitre's published thesis, Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of Exile, I knew that this was going to be a scholar worth watching. Having interacted with him on a few occasions, I know that he is a great person to have written this book. This study is a solid combination of academic rigor, scholarly precision, and ecclesiastical heart.

The primary objective of this book is to explore the mystery of the biblical account of the Last Supper, as well as the ongoing practice of Eucharist (or Lord's Table, Communion, etc.). Through an examination of the first century Jewish context of the Last Supper, Pitre seeks a better understanding of what Jesus was trying to say and what his disciples would have heard. This then serves as the foundation for understanding of modern Christian belief.

There is both shock and mystery in the Christian faith, as is evidenced by the challenges of understanding what Jesus said and did. The simple fact of the Eucharist is, in and of itself, a shock and mystery. Pitre includes a quote from scholar Geza Vermes, "The imagery of eating a man's body and especially drinking his blood . . . even after allowance is made for metaphorical language, strikes a totally foreign note in a Palestinian Jewish cultural setting" (17).

Alright, but then just how did the disciples understand this?

Pitre's exploration covers a variety of themes within the background and context of The Last Supper. Jesus comes as a new Israel which experiences God's new exodus, thus infusing the common Passover meal with powerful symbols of this new reality (chs 2-3). It has been widely understood that Jesus deliberately alters the typical Jewish Passover meal (73), in order to demonstrate his sacrifice and God's salvation.

Points that most modern readers probably have not seen are the implications of Jesus as a new manna (ch 4), or as the Bread of the Presence (ch 5). Both of these are steeped in Jewish tradition and Hebrew Scripture more than the typical modern evangelical is aware. But, the imagery, as Pitre demonstrates, is ever-present throughout Jesus' teaching and context.

It should be noted that Pitre makes no attempt to hide his own Roman Catholic beliefs on the Eucharist, making a strong biblical case for understanding transubstantiation - the belief that the bread and wine become, supernaturally, the body and blood of Christ. I would love to explore this, but will do so in a later post. Those who are unfamiliar with the Roman Catholic understanding of this should read through Pitre's book for this reason as well.

Jesus is intentionally taking the symbols of bread and wine and making them about himself. He takes the Bread of Presence (lit., Bread of the Face (121)) which was present in the Tabernacle/Temple and defines it with his own body. Jesus now places powerful symbol on the fact that something greater than the Temple is with us - as though God has now tabernacled among us (cf. John 1:14). Pitre quotes the ancient words of Cyril, "Jesus once in Cana of Galilee turned the water into wine, akin to blood; is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?" (146).

Regarding the wine (ch 6), Pitre explores the four main cups around which Jewish Passover feasts are structured. In the gospel accounts we can account (via Luke 22:19) that Jesus reached the third cup during the Last Supper (158-159). He makes the third cup (berakah, the cup of blessing) the symbol of his blood, gives it to his disciples, and then vows not to drink of the fruit of the vine until he comes again in God's kingdom. Thus, a point drawn out by Pitre, Jesus does not complete the Passover Meal because he does not drink the fourth cup (which is hallel, or praise).

Coming to his crucifixion, Jesus does not accept the first offer of wine - probably an offer given to the condemned as a means of dulling their senses to the pain. As he prepares to die he says, "I am thirsty" (John 19:23), at which point he is offered wine vinegar. Once this is done he declares the work to be finished and dies. It is perhaps best understood, advocates Pitre, that this is the fourth cup of praise, given after the Lamb has been sacrificed at the coming of God's kingdom (166-168). It was the Last Supper which gives the sacrificial context to the execution (168).

Chapter 7 brings together various ideas regarding transubstantiation, with the notion of Jesus' body and blood being supernaturally found in the bread and wine. Pitre has done well to show reason for Jesus to have believed that this was 'supernatural bread' (182), along with the support of early church fathers.

The concluding chapter (ch 8) serves well to illuminate the current participation in the Eucharist. Many churches do not participate in the weekly participation of bread and cup, and are greatly missing the power of this ritual. The bread and wine are typically brought out at Maundy Thursday-Good Friday services, but what about Easter? What about Pentecost? What about the third Sunday of September? The Eucharist is not only a participation in the death of Christ, it is a participation in the resurrection (197). Pitre brings this out with a brief examination of the post-resurrection encounter in Emmaus.

This book is a tremendous resource for any who are interested in a better understanding of the body and blood of Jesus. Thus it should be a resource close to all believers, for the sad truth of the matter is that we have lost the context of the Last Supper and are lacking the power of Jesus' symbolic retelling of a new exodus.

God loves animals (but PETA is stupid)

2011-04-01T19:41:00.002-04:00

Posting anything on April 1 is somewhat dangerous, even when it is a story that is as weird as this one. But I assure you that what we have here is, unfortunately, not a put-on.

The animal rights advocacy group known as PETA has released a statement regarding the NIV 2011 Bible translation. That's right, now we have to hear from yet another group who have no concept of biblical translation or hermeneutical theory on what is and is not acceptable as Scripture.

PETA is calling for the removal of "speciesist language" - which ultimately means that the Bible should use personal pronouns ("he" or "she") instead of the current rendering of "it" when referring to animals. (Also, this would include "who" instead of "which" in the text.) In a letter written to Douglas Moo, Chair of the Committee on Bible Translation, the activist group is making the case that all of God's creatures deserve the mercy and compassion of nice words.

If you feel the need to read the letter, it may be found here.

Yes, these are the same people who place nude people on giant billboards because God's mercy and compassion for all living creatures is so important that we may ignore those other pesky passages which highlight God's desire for modesty and proper respect for the human body as his own eikon in the world.

Also, this is the same group that is calling for the tolerance of animals in the Bible but which have also failed to maintain levels of common decency in how they confront those whom they oppose. They often attack - with paint, pies-to-faces, etc. - people when they are ignored. One 2009 ad was an affront to the very religion to which they are now trying to play nice - a model posed as an angel, wearing nothing but wings and a strategically placed cross while hovering over a church building.

One thing that our culture does not lack is the abundance of people who are willing to share the expertise of their own self-righteousness, especially when lecturing the Christian community. Their letter makes a poor attempt at biblical scholarship and translation, for it cannot move beyond Genesis 1-2. The opening chapters of Scripture are clear to show that, of all of the creatures made by God, humanity alone is made in his image and given charge to rule on his behalf over all he has made.

Not only with PETA, but with many groups it has become an unfortunate reality that we should continue the outworking of self-desire more than the development of true faith.

book review: love wins

2011-03-24T23:29:00.000-04:00

Rob Bell, Love Wins (HarperOne, 2011).

Let me say that I thought the hype surrounding the release of this book was ridiculously disappointing and was a significant factor in my near-decision not to read the book. That is to say, I only come to this discussion out of obligation (and because of a copy that voluntarily landed on my desk). I don't have a wide readership, but I evidently will sleep better tonight knowing my two cents are posted.

In what has been a stunning display of evangelical slam-culture, Rob Bell has been (once again) maligned as some sort of heretic for what he proposes as truth in his latest book, Love Wins. What is particularly fascinating about this judgment is that it has been given a priori - which is to say that people decried Bell's position before they ever knew what his position was going to be. Sadly, those who are supposed to be more concerned with truth than anyone else were actually quick to judge without knowing truth. And that might be the biggest lesson from this whole episode: Love Wins (Except in Modern Theological Debates).

As to the book itself:

First, I wholeheartedly agree with Jeff Cook's comments (posted at Jesus Creed) that one would be hard-pressed to find any more controversial idea stated in Bell's book that in the writings of C. S. Lewis. However, I will say that one issue that I have with Love Wins is that Bell is content to leave some avenues of thought open to interpretation. While this might sound like the theological high road, it will make life difficult for those who are looking for more definitive answers to his direction of thought. I suppose the solution to this is for Bell to state his position and make a more concerted effort to guide the discussion to an absolute rather than playing the postmodern fog of eternal questions.

Second, in spite of my stated concern, I will say that Rob Bell has much to say that is definitive and straightforward. This is especially true for human freedom and the divine will. For instance, he makes the strong statement: "God gives us what we want, and if that's hell, we can have it. We have that kind of freedom, that kind of choice. We are that free. We can use machetes if we want to" (72).

Such a statement is also in the context of Bell's conviction that heaven and hell are not simply realities that are to come in a future and disconnected 'eternity,' but that they are descriptors of what life is like in the present. This strongly echoes the Jewish-Christian belief in exile and restoration, where the majority biblical expectation was for God to bring his kingdom of justice and righteousness into the present experience of the world.

Third, Rob Bell takes much from parables and apocalyptic/poetic imagery that sometimes calls into question whether or not he uses proper methods of hermeneutic, but overall I think he does capture the tenor of most passages. At first it appears that he is going to read too much into 'The Rich Man and Lazarus' but then unveils a profound point: that even in the stark realities of the afterlife the rich man still expects to be served by the poor man, which is why he is dead but still hasn't died (77).

Also in this area is his discussion of the Prodigal Son, to which Bell highlights the singular party, which is heaven for the younger son and hell for the older son . . . the same experience offered by the father. This is straight interpretation inspired by the singular experience of the Holy Spirit as both judgment and blessing as found elsewhere in the New Testament.

Fourth, Rob Bell arrives at what I consider one of the most significant and revealing theological questions in front of us, Does God get everything that he wants? How one answers this is significant. 1. Scripture says that God wants all people to be saved (1 Tim 2); 2. Not everyone will be saved. Therein lies theological synthesis and inquiry. Although, it appears that while God wants all people to be saved, most of his followers do not share his sentiment.

So the love of God seems to go further than human emotion. This is not surprising, but it is revealing. In the end, one of Bell's main points says it well: We do not need to be rescued from God . . . God is the one who rescues us from ourselves (cf. 182).

Notice that this review did not get bogged down with the discussions of hell and universalism that so many people have accused the book of containing. That's simply because the book isn't preoccupied with those things. Regarding both heaven and hell, Rob Bell makes a powerful point - the Bible doesn't say as much about them as we believe to be concrete truths. This reveals the evangelical tendency to narrow our thought based on the assurances of the unknown.

In the end, this is Rob Bell's best writing to date. There is a lot to investigate here, and nobody should expect to enter into the discussion without minor disagreements along the way. That might be true here. However, in the end Love Wins does not contain or assert any idea that falls into unorthodox categories. Much of the book reflects thoughts presented in N. T. Wright's Surprised by Hope. Other parts contain pieces which are reminiscent of John Sanders' presentation of Inclusivism as found in What about Those Who Have Never Heard? - which is an investigation into the destiny of the unevangelized.

What is, sadly, overlooked in the entire hype is Bell's personal testimony to the power of God's love and salvation which is included in the final chapter. It is quite powerful.

What We Should Learn:

1. Rob Bell doesn't conclusively know the realities of heaven and hell.

2. Neither do we.

3. God's love never stops pursuing us, nor does it cease to amaze us.

4. Everything else matters, perhaps more than our knowledge of heaven and hell.

God, deception, and young earthies

2011-03-23T10:00:00.004-04:00

My life had a glancing pass of a statement of young-earth creationism yesterday, and I was reminded of some of the issues I have with the entire movement to push the Bible's message into the packaging of certain fundamentalists.

My concern is specifically for the Omphalos hypothesis, or the notion that the earth is young but that God created it to appear old - a position designed to reconcile geological data with the young-earth hermeneutic. (This, then, deteriorates into discussions about whether or not Adam and Eve had navels. *sigh*)

I have two nagging questions regarding the Omphalos hypothesis, and they both the same: Why?

Firstly, why is God interested in making the earth appear older than it really is? What purpose would he possibly have to deceive the people of earth into thinking that things are really much older than they actually are? This is quite peculiar behavior for one whose main purpose is to establish a relationship with his creation, specifically humanity, when we all know that strong ties do not start with half-truths or non-truths.

Secondly, why is it acceptable for God to deliberately deceive his own creation? This should not need elaboration, for it stands to reason that a trustworthy deity would necessarily act trustworthy at all times. Furthermore, I do believe that all of our theology - the parts that are actually built upon holy Scripture - tell us that God does not / can not deceive as part of his character of holiness.

Interestingly enough, this is simply one case (out of what would certainly be a long list) of our desire to win arguments that we are willing to sacrifice truth - even God's own stated character - to get there. So we should have a definite problem with those who would assert God's wisdom in deception by making the earth appear older than it actually is.

For a lie's a life, no matter how small.

distance and freedom

2011-03-18T16:47:00.002-04:00

"True human life is possible only if the vision of God is of such a nature that disbelief remains possible. The concern is not to keep people ignorant, but to preserve them."

(T. Fretheim, The Suffering of God, 92)

At the base of Sinai there are instructions not to allow the people to see God, or else they will die. Typically we assume that this is because the divine presence (holiness) is too intense for humanity to gaze upon, and thus would be our destruction. Old Testament scholar, Terence Fretheim, thinks that a more careful reading of the text demonstrates otherwise. And I think that he is more right than wrong here.

“The intensity associated with certain theophanies does not happen because God stands in some fundamental disjunction with the world, requiring much ‘sound and fury’ to occur in God’s wake. Some of the most ‘face to face’ comings of God are very quiet, it should be remembered, even childlike. There is a certain ‘nexus’ here that cannot be denied. Although God and world are categorically different, they are not as irreconcilable as repelling magnets or oil in water" (Ibid.).

Simultaneously we suppose that God cannot reveal himself to us and pray that God would be ever-present in our lives. We ask for the glory of God to be made known to us, but our mouths often testify to the 'fact' that God's glory is too great for us to handle. Yet one more unmatched theological rendering in modern evangelicalism, where our words about God and our words to God are not consistent.

Fretheim's assertion here is that God's distancing from humanity is for the purpose of preserving the whole of Creation as he made it - that it should have the relational freedom to act on its own, even to the point of denying the very existence (or the inherent glory of) its Creator. In a sense Christian thought has already run ahead to this point and arrived there. We confess, along with Paul and the early church, that the moment of parousia and the triumphant return of Christ will be the moment when every knee will bow and every tongue will confess (cf. Philippians 2:5-11). Thus, there will be no *choice* in accepting the sovereignty of God or his agent.

So, if God desires freedom in the world before the moment of Christ's second coming, is it possible for him to show his glory before that point? Not if the system of his creation - and the plan of his creation-activity - is to be preserved.

This also means that the presence of God hasn't been as far off as we've allowed our own minds to convince. It takes work to make a relationship flourish, and God will no more give us every blessing without the commitment of our own hearts engaged with him. Any time humans are given blessing too quickly and too easily it typically ends in some sort of disaster. Hence, we are free and we are given the opportunity to grow because of the distance of God's glory, and the nearness of his Spirit.

Pentecost seems to fit into all of this quite nicely, for it is now that our Creator is revealed in a more profound way . . . to bridge the gap for those who are willing to travel the road.

emptiness or divine quiet?

2011-03-16T11:58:00.003-04:00

The past week has been given over to fasting and prayer. We as a church have collectively started our Lent season this way in the hopes of seeing a spiritual breakthrough and renewal among our congregation. Personally, I do not enjoy fasting, and that's fine to admit - it is the voice of God that I am seeking, not the absence of food.

Because we are in a church which is riddled with much spiritual warfare and internal conflict, we knew that this was going to be a significant undertaking. And, indeed, in the weeks of planning and preparation we saw a number of things that could only be described as attacks from the enemy. Certainly this would be an intense time of fasting and prayer.

My personal experience with the fast is something that I never quite anticipated. My initial reaction to the fast was that I felt empty. I know, right? You're supposed to feel empty . . . that's the deal with a fast. But I am talking about something deeper than the physical. In essence, I felt nothing. And this nothingness has become quite hard to explain.

At first, it was as though I had lost all desire, drive, interest, motivation . . . it was nothing. A person can handle this for a day or two, but then things start to become unnerving. Was I not doing it right? Was God not happy with me for some reason? Am I not able to enter into spiritual warfare on this level? What is happening?

What initially left me confused has now perhaps come to a fuller revelation. Sometimes we wait to hear God, but we want him to speak on our terms. This, of course, he does not typically do - for his ways are not our ways. There I was, sitting in the cave of the mountain waiting for God to come in a fire, earthquake, mighty wind . . . something. But he came and spoke most profoundly in such a deafening silence that my soul could barely endure.

Without noise, distraction, or the roaring conflicts of spiritual warfare filling my heart, my home, my family, or even at the church, there stood the Almighty. And his voice had once again spoken to the raging storms of creation, "Peace; be still." When all is said and done there can be no greater gift for me right now that the stillness of the divine presence. Of course, he knew that long before my shallowness could understand it.

Hence, I am left with a threefold understanding of his nature: 1) Every gift from him is a good and perfect gift; 2) We will never, ever be prepared to be approached by him; 3) Wherever we are, he will come and take us where we need to be.

a lenten resolution

2011-03-04T15:41:00.002-05:00

Every spring it is time to start thinking about resolutions for Lent, typically those things from which we are choosing to abstain in an act of self-denial. For the most part evangelicals have been tongue-in-cheek regarding Lenten fasts, as though our 40-day lack of donuts or soda will do the job at aligning our spirit with the sufferings of Christ. Sometimes it is more serious than that, and some people take up the challenge quite dramatically.

And sometimes, albeit rare, there are Lenten fasts which fall into both categories. I have one of them this year. Though it may initially sound whimsical and dismissive, I assure you that I am serious about this - and the outcome just might be serious all the more.

This year I abstain from inner-church conflict.

Some will want to roll their eyes over this one, but consider my context. Most of the people that browse this blog know that I pastor a church. Some of you know that this particular church has been riddled with internal conflict for many years, and that our family walked into a rather volatile situation just over one year ago. Amidst all the attacking, I am declaring a holy fast - from making any sort of response.

There will likely need to be some parameters set in place. After all, I am a pastor and cannot rightly see others being attacked without stepping in to mediate. (I am not talking about abstaining from this activity.) But I am saying that any personal defense of my actions, when I am maligned or attacked, will simply stand unanswered. I will stand before God alone and let the world think what it will.

I suppose, in a very Abraham Lincoln-esque way, that keeping silent is the only way to assure that there will be no deceit found in my mouth - as there was none in Christ's. For it was Lincoln who aptly reminded us that it is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

And I am so ready to get out of the rhythm of conflict that my Lenten fast begins a bit early this year. For I have, over the last few weeks, already moved to this end. And sometimes Lent takes us to a place where we should never resume our old life again.

abba

2011-02-23T09:27:00.004-05:00

"This Holy 'abba' is a God who can be trusted the way children trust their father, who loves Israel as a father loves his children, who can be talked to the way children talk to their father, and wants Israel to respect him and obey him in the same way a father deserves respect and obedience." (Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel, 65).

Beyond the boundaries of anthropomorphic description lies the true essence of God the Father. The nature of anthropomorphisms has constantly been a struggle within theology. On one extreme there is the thought that since God's ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9) we cannot accurately describe him with human terminology, and on the other extreme is the thought that since all language about God is anthropomorphic then our theology is simply a mask for conducting anthropology.

Yes, the Bible teaches the incomprehensibility of God - God cannot be known unless he chooses to reveal himself. But (and I believe this comes from Barth), the mystery of understanding God does not come from the limits of language but from the metaphysical distinction between Creator and creation. In other words, it is not the fault of human reason and communication that keeps us from understanding God, it is the very essence of who he is in comparison to the very essence of who we are.

Abraham Heschel once wrote, "God's unconditional concern for justice is not an anthropomorphism. Rather, man's concern for justice is a theomorphism . . . Prophecy is essentially a proclamation that God's ways are not man's ways" (The Prophets, 2:51-52).

Thus, understanding the Almighty as Father pushes the limits of human reason, not because our language doesn't properly hold to the notion of 'abba' but because his ways are not our ways. Jesus also pointed to this when he compared the goodness of God the Father with human fathers (Matthew 7:9-11). All of the reasons why we do not understand or accept the blessings of fatherhood with our God is found in the distinction that our ways are different than his ways.

Of course, this does not negate the reality of his loving, fathering presence. The Bible is filled with accounts of God's enduring love for his people, a point which Jesus often reiterates with his own message. It is a covenantal love with his people, and it is an intimate love which whispers into the heart of everyone who hungers and thirsts for his presence. The prophetic message of Scripture is not a condemnation of our failure as it is a reality of our ways moving to destruction while his ways are moving toward life - a life to which he beckons us come.

wonder and connection

2011-02-21T15:29:00.003-05:00

"What if the healing of the cancer patient and attracting the attention of a child with a passing butterfly are of equal importance in moving people toward a relationship with God?"

This question is found within Matt Litton's well-written book, The Mockingbird Parables (Tyndale, 2010, p. 32). There is a profundity embedded in such a query, for it reminds us why wonder exists, and demonstrates the workings of God as nothing short of miraculous regardless of when and where they are found. Too often we forget about such things.

But what if we were to stop, for a moment, and recognize the wonder that encompasses us in this world? Right now it is snowing outside of my window. There was a time when I marveled at the event, which somewhere turned into the cause of grumbling about the inconvenience it brings to my life. Rather than being fascinated by the way in which God chose to make the world he created for his own enjoyment, I am distracted by self.

Without wonder we cannot find God.

The delight within a laughing child from the liveliness of a butterfly in the air is a moment of connection to the Creator. For it is the Maker who also chose to delight in the liveliness of that flying insect, now becoming a shared moment of joy with the innocent response of the young. Have we yet to realize that when we have grown old enough to overlook the wonders of the world we have also lost a sense of his presence?

Along with the passing butterfly, Litton's comment speaks of the healing of cancer. It is human nature to place the latter event into a more powerful and profound category than the former, but neither is the case for God - though one may be a more serious and reflective event - for he is equally able to accomplish any task that he wills. Yes, our world is complex and troublesome, but that should not lead us to believe that anything is too impossible for the Almighty.

So, what is the purpose of God interacting in our world. Whether found in butterflies or healing, God comes to us with one singular purpose: to reveal himself and connect with our hearts. He does this through the story of our life, sometimes while we are captured with the sheer brilliance of the world, other times when we are struggling to make it through the challenges which surround us.

But, nevertheless, he is there . . . waiting to catch our attention.

of all places

2011-02-17T13:17:00.003-05:00

The phrase came to mind today, "of all places." Typically we use this phrase to indicate an event which has happened in an area which is assumed to be the exact opposite of the event itself. If good thing happens in a bad situation, we might think that "of all places" it is interesting that it should happen there.

So, the phrase intends to convey a sense of irony. "Of all places, it happened there." It's quite an interesting sentiment. Many times it is thrown in as part of a story, often a joke, that indicates a rather interesting twist and/or detail to the narrative.

"So there was a moment of healing at the bar, of all places." "They demonstrated such responsibility in, of all places, Washington D. C." "They played some good baseball, in the American League, of all places."

I wonder if the average churchgoer has this same sense of the world around them. We are often surprised when we see things happen, as though we are shocked that God has done something here, of all places. Or did we forget that the whole earth is filled with God's glory?

The context of the Great Commission, as well as the opening chapters of Acts, is that the whole earth is now encompassed with the glory of God through the Lordship of Jesus. No longer bound to geographic or ethnic boundaries, the gospel message extends to the earth now waiting for the people of God to carry it forward.

Of all places, this hurting and dirtied earth now witnesses to the coming glory of God. Perhaps the amount of our surprise is directly related to our lack of believing what God has done to restore the earth. Amazement will always be present, but we should be expectant of what he is doing.

books review: antagonists and stones

2011-02-03T09:07:00.003-05:00

Those who know me are familiar with some of the struggles in ministry we have been working through over the past year. It is sad and difficult that the work of the church must go through such battles, but it is a reality found in our world. There has never been a time in history when the people of God have been able to do this thing called church without some sort of conflict from within.

Still, I find myself longing for a time when I could "simply" preach and serve without the internal warring of a congregation. Maybe someday.

In the last few weeks there have been two books that have crossed my path, which I thought might be good to note here. They have been a source of help for me in trying to maintain balance, direction and purpose in the throws of a challenging ministry time.

The first came via recommendation to "those who struggle with conflict in churches" that I heard at our denomination's annual conference. Kenneth C. Haugk, Antagonists in the Church (Augsburg, 1988). For those who are struggling with (or suspect they are struggling with) antagonistic people in their congregation, this is a valuable tool in identifying and approaching the situation. Haugk does well in describing antagonists - I could immediately recall people and situations from a broad spectrum of my own church history.

While being firm in his understanding and approach to such situations, he never fails to keep the flag of caution close. In other words, not everyone you encounter is an antagonist, but those who are should be dealt with swiftly and surely. One of the strengths of the book is Haugk's ability to explore the psychological and spiritual conditions that typically lie beneath the words and actions of antagonists in the church.

The second book I discovered "randomly" as I walked through a not-so-good-used-bookstore near my house. There was almost nothing that interested me, and then this book sat at the edge of one of the tables. Blaine Allen, When People Throw Stones (Kregel, 2005). The subtitle of the book captures it well: "A Leader's Guide to Fielding Personal Criticism." Although most of the principles here could be more universal in application, Allen focuses primarily on the work of the church.

Pastors who are dealing with personal attacks are looking for someone who cares, yes, but they are more interested in finding someone who understands. The opening chapters of Allen's book show that he understands - he has been there - and establishes an atmosphere of meaningful support for the beleaguered pastor. There is much helpful information here, including guidelines for when to blow off an attack and when/how to respond to personal criticism.

Every pastor and church leader should read at least one book like these, in order to navigate through tough times in ministry. My only regret here is not having adequately covered this material before I needed it, so that I could have been more prepared for the rough waters. But it is difficult for us to see the fruit of such labor until we know the season will come for it to bear.