the aimlessly ambling church

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.

church football

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.

for those watching for Saturday's rapture . . .

. . . see you on Sunday!

(pic HT:McK)

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

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?

and then they killed the dog . . .

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.

God loves animals (but PETA is stupid)

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.

really open theology

The passing of Clark Pinnock has me thinking about our current lack of theological button-pushing, although we still have an abundance of theological ignorance being displayed. So, it is with great inspiration that I begin a new movement destined for the dustbins of heresy - Really Open Theism.

We'll call it ROPEN, and be sure that we'll be wrangling in some good thoughts about God.

[This will also be good for those Christians who just don't get the buzz from emergent theology anymore, but are still looking for a faith that's happening. After all, when the theology never shows up and all you're left with is a few McLaren stories, it must be time to move on.]

ROPEN will drive after the harder questions about God than anyone ever thought possible. This endeavor will make Openness look like child's play, and will further drive so-called Reformed theology into the irrelevant obscurity.

EXAMPLE:

Calvinist = God determines the future. No question.

Classic Arminian = God does not determine the future, but he knows the future. Little question.

Openness = Does God know the future? Good question.

ROPEN = Does God know the future, or does God only think he knows the future? Great question.

An inquiry which begins at this level can only yield massively powerful results. We shall know our theologies more, and they shall set us free from boredom. Novelty is the path toward God, and we are well on the way with the rise of the ROPENness doctrine.

*N.B., Before I get hate email, please ROPEN your mind and see this is a joke. Sort of.

the end is nearish

post

namesake

why so many books?

Having just read through a book I began to type in a blog review of it here, only to find that 1) I had little to say about the contents of the book, (which in turn led to); 2) I had little good to say about the book.

And the problem?

It was a good book.

How can this be? My paradoxical statement certainly runs deeper than my feeble attempts to write something of my own which is witty and eye-catching. This is my actual reaction to what I have read. The difficulty I am having today is that I have come to the realization that there are many books being published, many authors and church leaders being touted as having something vital to say, and very little crossing my desk worth my investment of time.

Perhaps this is why I don't read so many of the Christianized book market, and why these types of 'leadership' books and 'how-to-be-Christian' tomes are so worthless. I would rather grapple with something hard for weeks that to skim through a read which attempts to hand the kingdom of God to me in salad-bar fashion. Thus my perception of the Christian book industry still holds true. In fact, the situation is not stagnant . . . it has become worse! I must therefore make greater efforts to avoid theologically-oriented drivel and make sure that my faith is challenged and my mind renewed by God's truth.

I am convinced that so many small paperbacks being published contain such little meat on the bone because our written communication abilities have deteriorated to the point where we can take a series of chapters to say what should have been articulated in an essay (or even a blog). We're so impressed with our words. While the book which sparked this brief outrage was indeed a good book in its overall message, it was long and drawn-out and ultimately a waste of many moments. (And before you ask, I was requested to read this book and said that I would - thus my ethics demand that I will indeed finish it.)

replacing god

Every time that the world witnesses a catastrophic disaster it doesn't take long for a religious leader of some sort to come out and make a connection to either 1) divine retribution, 2) supposed end-times sequencing, or 3) both. But simply noting the context of these voices reveals much - they typically come from Westernized evangelical cultures where suffering rarely happens and major tragedies seldom impact. And, in the wake of the crisis in Haiti, we have witnessed lame sympathies and shocking explanations that are supposedly based upon the gospel of the kingdom. I can't help noticing that they convey the same hallow wisdom that Job's four idiot friends give him in the midst of his suffering.

It has become clear, then, that these voices continue to replace God with some other theology which they have concocted on their own. Their own perception of the world, and their own eisegetical reading of Scripture enable them to say outlandish things which do not convey the true message of God's grace, love and (yes) judgment. That is to say, it is quite easy to misread judgment into our world by only seeing the specks in the eyes of everyone else.

But now there is a new piece being folded into this fabric of lunacy. Today it is being reported that a certain actor (those are his only qualifications, someone who makes money playing make-believe) has said that the crisis in Haiti is 'retribution' from the failure of the Copenhagen global-warming-mythology summit. This is quite interesting. If there is a retribution at work, then that would require some sort of external force to the cosmos - one that would have moral standards of right and wrong.

The thing is, these leftists and statists who ram anthropogenic climate change down our necks do not believe in God - or any sort of being that has any type of morality that can be made standard from one person to another. What has happened? Another replacing of God. Those who deny God do not live a life without commitment to something external, they simply replace God with whatever is most important to their own well-being. This could be (as in case number one) a God who is modeled after human desire or (as in this second case) something inanimate, such as the earth.

In the words of G. K. Chesterton, "Somehow one can never manage to be an atheist."

In the end, something has been further revealed which many of us have known for a long time: Anthropogenic global warming is a god for many of those who hold to it, replacing the rightful Creator of the universe (who also knows it is a perpetuated hoax and continues to be unintimidated by the arrogance of humanity).

christmas lights

Holdman Christmas

ante christ

no sbl this year

I will not be attending SBL this year, which is a bit disappointing but not entirely a let-down. There are so many things going on right now that this would seem oddly out-of-place, and perhaps I need a bit of a break from some things right now.

It shouldn't need to be stated that my biggest loss is the exhibition floor, where books flow and friendships connect. I've come to the point where I don't even pretend to be excited about the sessions - aside from a few gems which arise once in a great while. It's all about the experience, and the most fruitful time is spent in the company of scholars who are genuine enough to befriend you (if only for a moment).

Well, start planning for a return to Atlanta . . .

worship: how to

(HT: Steve Walton)

numbers

end of the world again

honk

A parable.

I was at a stop light, behind a car with a bumper sticker that said HONK IF YOU LOVE JESUS.

So I honked.

The driver leaned out his window, gave me a very impolite gesture and yelled, "Can't you see the light is still red, you Moron?!?"

post-rapture pet sitting

This gets filed under one of the two: 1) most-pathetic-attempt-at-a-moneymaker; or 2) I-wish-I-would-have-thought-of-it-first. A little of both. But because I am numbered among the sane exegetes who do not see any clear reference to a rapture (via the common perception) in Scripture, it didn't occur to me. And since people want to make actual reading of their Bible secondary to reading things like Left Behind and lame David Jeremiah drivel, then let's get some profit out of it.

I present: Eternal Earth-Bound Pets

N.B., Seriously, you can't make this stuff up.

This is the evangelical version of carbon-offsets. There is no scientific evidence for human-driven global warming, yet guilt poured on the successful goes a long way for raking in some cash.

However, this one is more perfect than the carbon programs. Because there is no way to get your money back - there can be no enforced broken contract. Think about it. If you are raptured, you cannot file lawsuit on the failure of this company to perform its duties. One might even assume that the post-rapture nirvana-like bliss that Christians expect to have while their human family is being lost in the torment of self-destructing earth, you probably won't really even care about ole Fido. (Just a guess here.) And if the rapture doesn't happen (at least, not before Muffins lies in her eternal shoebox) then the contract simply hasn't had opportunity to be executed. The perfect crime.

And I want some action here. (I will also plant a $10 tree for every $100 for carbon credits sent my way . . .)

And, notice, that the program is headed up by an atheist - so you know he's not going anywhere. If you don't have access to a committed atheist - being fearful that he might come to Jesus - there is this chart offered by a competing company, which helps determine who you can trust in the post-apocalyptic scenario.