::{P$†}Modern Day Contemplations::

Wrestling with God: Doubt

2011-03-01T22:54:00.001-08:00

This week, I've been reading and rereading a strange story in the Bible, where Jacob is accosted in the middle of the night by a mysterious being who breaks his hip and renames him Israel. The story never actually specifies that the person Jacob wrestled with was God, though many suspect it. It says only that “a man wrestled with him until daybreak.” Ironically, the vagueness of this description of events has led Jews and Christians alike to “wrestle” with this scripture, and try to figure out what’s going on.

Some have said that the person was an angel, which sounds reasonable since “angel” means messenger and this mysterious character certainly left Jacob with a message.

Others have said that this was God himself. The passage gives evidence for this when Jacob names the place Peniel, which means “face of God”, and gives the reason for the moniker: “I have seen God face to face, yet my life is preserved.”

In further defense of this view, this puzzling character gives Jacob the name Israel, a name which means either "Man who wrestles with God," "Man who persists with God," or "Man who is saved by God," depending on how one translates it. The first translation fits the context the best, and supports the theory that the enigma was God, but we shouldn't let that overshadow how much was packed into that name. All of those names highlight a different aspect of Jacob’s relationship with God. And in a culture where names were viewed as potent reflections of a person's identity, we’d be foolish to ignore the significance.

Just to make the story potentially even more strange, we could also suppose that the shadowy figure was Jesus. If Jesus is God incarnated as a man, and this person was God incarnated as a man, the logic makes some sense...

Regardless, the explanation most hinted at in the verse, is that this person was in some way God, however that incarnation took place.

So why would God consider this event so significant that he would rename not only Jacob, but the entire nation that would grow out of Jacob?

Personally, I’m fascinated by the fact that God would see it as an honorable thing that Jacob wrestled with him. As a person who always asked a lot of questions; that is, as one who has done and continues to do a lot of spiritual wrestling, this passage really speaks to me. I love living in doubt and "wrestling" with God in this manner. It’s weird, I know.

Until this week, I had this verse totally nailed down. I loved how it showed that God embraces those who are willing to wrestle with him and even doubt him, and how God perhaps even most faithful in our doubt and skepticism.

But then I had a conversation with a student, and found myself wrestling with God in a different way, not doubting God, but doubting myself.

A student of mine made an appointment with me to share about a wild adventure that he’s going on. This young man, independent of any church structure, is going to be taking 20 college students to Mexico to build a house. He’s selling his own vehicle to buy a van that can carry most of the people, he’s applying for grants, he’s finding people who will help him make this vision a reality.

And as I listened to him talk I thought, “Man, it’d be great to join you, but I’m old now!”

I know I’m not that old, but I’ve got a wife, a son, and another son on the way in July, and I’m just not as free to do that kind of thing as I once was. But, it turns out, I wasn’t just thinking that, I was SAYING that. Fortunately for me, this guy is real sweet, and he affirmed me in my gutlessness and my satiated apathy.

Our conversation continued, we talked logistics, I told him I’d help out where I could, and he left.

A couple weeks later, he says, “We’ve got to talk! Something you said gave me an idea, and I’m really excited about it.”

Now, I’m feeling pretty good about myself! I start replaying in my mind the things that I had said to him, the suggestions I’d made about team-building, Bible studies, and logistical details. Apparently I must have said something brilliant, right?

We meet, and he says, “You know how you said that it’s tough for you to consider doing something like Mexico because you’re old and you have kids now.” And I’m thinking, yeah… I remember saying that, but let’s get to the part where I said something really INSPIRING. He says, “I want to start taking people like you to Mexico. I’ll take college kids too, but I really want to grab the people who are being placated by their comforts and their responsibilities.”

Ouch.

We kept talking, but it’s a bit of a blur after that. This college student, who I’m supposed to be spiritually leading, is taking it upon himself to spiritually lead me. And you know what, it’s working. In all likelihood, I won’t be going to Mexico this year. I have some good reasons, primarily the fact that my wife and I are expecting, but I have excuses too.

God is wrestling with me.

For all of my willingness to doubt God, He has showed up and is wrestling with me and causing me to doubt myself instead.

If you know me at all, you know that I’m critical of a lot of things in the church, and perhaps my largest complaint is that the Church is all too often satisfied with making us feel secure where we are, instead of challenging us to step off the boat, to walk away from our jobs, to sell all of our possessions and follow Jesus, and to get up and walk. And yet, here I am, 26 years old, pretty comfortable sitting in the boat, dealing with the storms as they come, and asking God to bless me where I am. I’m holding the royal standard for Western, comfortable Christianity. I’m wrestling with this.

I don't know, maybe you are too.

Mining for Gravel

2008-08-17T17:09:00.000-07:00

Anna and I have been visiting a church in Portland the last couple of weeks called Evergreen. You won't often hear me say this about a church, but I'm pretty damn impressed.

A few months ago, when I was considering a pastoral position at another local church, I was surveying church websites for ideas and stumbled across theirs. While most churches had a large and highly specific "What We Believe" section, Evergreen instead had a huge "What We Value" section, and summed up their beliefs with the time-tested Apostle's Creed.

This morning we picked up a leaflet stating these values. Honestly, the whole statement was refreshingly honest and humble, but I was particularly struck by the section valuing History. In part: "

We see ourselves not as a disconnected community, but as a group of people who stand in the stream of something much larger than ourselves: the church down through history. as a result, we want to look back to that history and draw inspiration, resources and role models from it, while recognizing that we aren't necessarily bound by it.

As the (post?)modern church seeks to pursue Christ in community and finds itself in stark contrast with many churches and leaders of the twentieth century church, we need to define the role of tradition.

Perhaps the most costly and valuable form of art in the Western world today is jewelry. Before your wedding ring arrived at the Shane Company, someone shelled out copious amounts of cash to mine for small reserves of gold hidden in tons of rock and gravel, hundreds of meters deep in a mountainside. After this, someone else heated these reserves in a purifying process, discarding worthless metal and preserving the valuable gold. This can be a metaphor for the work of pastors and missionaries today, who in their creative process get to mine our rich Christian heritage for valuable ideas, practices, and expressions, without drawing up the gravel, landfill waste, and fossilized cow droppings (AKA codified bullshit, if you will) that are also found in the earth. In humility, the leaders of the twentieth century church have to recognize that not all of their metal is gold, while the twenty-first century leaders need to be gracious enough to admit that not all stones are gravel.

My Video Project

2008-06-10T15:17:00.000-07:00

For any of you whose ears I have talked off about the video project I've been working on for my music class, here's the final product. It's no Scorsese, but I enjoyed making it!

Online Videos by Veoh.com

A Christian Defense of Marilyn Manson (Part 2)

2008-05-14T11:41:00.000-07:00

I was reading back through some past posts, and realized that I never produced the sequel to my article, "A Christian Defense of Mariliyn Manson (Part 1)." I hope I'm not kicking a dead horse, but here is the second half to my thoughts on the subject.

Marilyn Manson's music is a lot like terrorism, punk, homelessness, and abortion. If you know me, you might be surprised to hear me say that, so let me explain. By saying this, I mean that Marilyn Manson's music is a symptom of deeper problems. Just like terrorists, punks, homeless people, and abortion doctors, Marilyn Manson is rejected and hated by the church and the larger culture. These people make us aware of the deeper problems of our cultures, our morals, our economics, our churches, and our politics, so we call them our "enemies." This frees us to ignore them, hate them, blame them, and judge them.

I just watched a film called, "The Filth and the Fury" about the British rock band that kicked off the rise of punk in the late 70's. The film did a great job of showing the Sex Pistol's social context of unemployment, a long-running garbage strike, the collapse of the unions, rolling blackouts, etc. Out of this context, the film showed two significant events: (1) The Queen's Silver Jubilee, which was a massive celebration of England and all that is great about it, and (2) the rise of punk, a noisy, undisciplined, violent, music of the unprivileged youth. As I watched the video, I thought "Which of these two events responded insanely to the world, those who exposed it and said it was screwed up, or those who ignored it by throwing a big party?"

As the people of England (and especially the Christian community) positioned themselves in opposition to punk, they lost the opportunity to ask what truths punk was drawing attention to. They hated the symptom, and ignored the disease. They hated the cancer, and lost the opportunity to find out what caused it. How insane would it be to demonize people with cancer and ignore the causes of those cancers?

As Christians, we don't have the privilege of responding to our enemies in this way. If we choose to call terrorists, musicians, other countries, the homeless, the democrats, the republicans, or abortion doctors our "enemies," we have just increased our responsibility to them. Jesus tells us to love our enemies, feed our enemies, seek peace with our enemies, to engage in conversation with our enemies, and to pull the log out of our own eyes before addressing the slivers in the eyes of our enemies.

When Christians encounter those whom we would consider as enemies to our beliefs, values, or way of life, it becomes imperative that we pursue peace with that person, group, or country, and peace means first seeking understanding. Perhaps it's just me, but publicly decrying someone is a terrible way to begin understanding them. As I've entered into rock music and Marilyn Manson within that genre, I've found a cancer that is willing to tell me what caused it. In the same way that Jesus' healings and miracles were "signs" pointing to the inbreaking of the kingdom of God, Marilyn Manson's music is a sign, pointing to the hypocritical, violent, obscene, self-justifying, self-glorifying nature of the church, the world, and human nature.

Where do we find that Jesus teaches us to silence our enemies? Where does Jesus teach that those who employ obscene means for communication are our enemies? Where do we learn that we are to be the moral judges of the world? Where in the Bible do we learn that those who make us aware of evil are evil?

I imagine that I might receive a response to this post, saying, "Sure, we should engage Marilyn Manson. If I meet him, we'll talk, but buying his music doesn't allow me to engage him." My response is two-fold. First, I do get to engage with Manson through his music, because I assume that his music is a sign that points to the cause of disease. Through Manson, I get to gain a perspective about the things and people that have made his world (and many others like him) an evil place, and that is of concern to me as a Christian. Secondly, I will not likely ever meet Marilyn Manson, but I have met and will continue to meet those who share his world view and who are inspired by it. I wonder how equipped I would be to connect with these people if I ignore the words of their prophets? If I hate their forms of expression, and fear exposing myself to it, how fruitful are the conversations I have with them likely to be?

Inversely, if I take seriously the Christian call to purity without taking seriously the Christian call to love and engage in conversation with my enemies, what will be my response to those who look, think, and sound much like Marilyn Manson? Our ethics make us into certain kinds of people. When I fear and avoid Manson, what kind of person will I become in relation to his followers?

As a caveat, I'm not necessarily arguing that every Christian must be well-versed in Manson's music. There are too many musicians in the world, and we can't keep up with all of them. Besides, you may not enjoy hard rock, but, there are artists in whatever art forms you do enjoy with whom you should be engaging. The gospel, if anything, would command that we do engage with the creative works of those whom we might consider to be "enemies." Christians should be the most capable of loving and truly understanding the people who produce these works. If there is blame to be had in regards to Christians and the creative works of the church's "enemies", I believe it falls on those who refuse to engage with these creations rather than those who do.

Quote du Jour

2008-05-14T10:30:00.000-07:00

"Let it be said clearly, however, that the reasons for choosing Jesus' way of peacemaking are not prudential. In calculable terms, this way is sheer folly. Why do we choose the way of nonviolent love of enemies? If our reasons for that choice are shaped by the New Testament, we are motivated not by the sheer horror of war, not by the desire for saving our own skins and the skins of our children (if we are trying to save our skins, pacifism is a very poor strategy), not by some general feeling of reverence for human life, not by the naive hope that all people are really nice and will be friendly if we are friendly first. No, if our reasons for choosing nonviolence are shaped by the New Testament witness, we act in simple obedience to the God who willed that his own Son should give himself up to death on a cross. We make this choice in the hope and anticipation that God's love will finally prevail through the way of the cross, despite our inability to see how this is possible. That is the life of discipleship to which the New Testament repeatedly calls us. When the church as a community is faithful to that calling, it prefigures the peaceable kingdom of God in a world wracked by violence.

... One reason that the world finds the New Testament's message of peacemaking and love of enemies incredible is that the church is so massively faithless. On the question of violence, the church is deeply compromised and committed to nationalism, violence, and idolatry."

- Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, p. 343.

Patriotism and the Kingdom of God

2008-05-05T13:52:00.002-07:00

Years ago I read a book called "Johnny Got His Gun," by Dalton Trumbo. It's about a soldier who goes to war, not truly understanding what he's fighting for, who winds up losing his limbs, vision, hearing and lower jaw. The book consists of the thoughts and memories of a suffering soldier who is incapable of communicating with anybody in the world outside his mind, wrestling with the nature of war, violence, and patriotism.

I wish I could say that Jesus' teachings had made me into a pacifist, but truly it was Dalton Trumbo.

Regardless, after I underwent that Gestalt switch, the text of the Bible began to come to life in a new way, and since then I've come to take seriously Jesus' teachings regarding non-violence on a national scale.

The convictions I've come to hold are usually revealed in political discussions, when I become critical of American militarism as a means for "fighting evil". Inevitably, such conversations usually earns me the title unpatriotic, and I respond to this title by saying that I believe it's more patriotic to support the ideals of freedom and the right to free speech than to stand behind the nation's current leader or current military actions. I think it is a better reflection of our founders' democratic ideals that my voice be heard in its critique of the nation's leadership, than having my concerns reflect the values American nationalists.

Lately, however, I've been wondering whether my response is a sufficient reflection of my most deeply held values. If the true source of my rejection of violence is Jesus' teachings, why do I feel the need to appeal to nationalism when I defend that? Why is "patriotism" a virtue? Why is "unpatriotic" an insult? If "there is no longer Jew or Greek," (Gal 3:28) in the Christian community, do I not have some precedence for rejecting values that seek to preserve such (now meaningless) distinctions?

Here is my new answer, for the moment, and I welcome criticism:

I do not think it is any coincidence that when Jesus named his gospel, he called it a "kingdom"; that is, a certain kind of nation. Jesus often used the language of Rome's leadership and twisted it for his own uses. For example, he hijacked the term "gospel" from the Caesar, who was using it to announce Pax Romana (Peace brought by the power and military of Rome). So, when Caesar said "I come to bring the good news (gospel) of peace through Roman military might," Jesus responded, saying "I come to bring the good news of peace through the kingdom of God." Caesar claimed to be the Son of God, and Jesus said, "No you're not, I am." Jesus was criticizing the claims of the political powers, claiming that they were only distorted parodies of the real kingdom. Today, as we hear our president say that we are "fighting evil" and that we are spreading peace through military action, are we not founded in saying, "There is another kingdom to which I will give my loyalty, and another King. You are claiming that you and your military can do what God alone can do, and I won't support your deceit. Instead, I'm going to live as a witness to another kingdom."

If we have a loyalty to God and a loyalty to our nation, what happens when the two demand different action on our part? When the nation says, "Support us, and support the people who are killing our nations enemies for your protection," and Jesus says, "Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt 5:44) to whom should I pledge my allegiance?

The most common argument against pacifism or non-violent resistance is that the failure to adopt military action in the event of an attack would wreak havoc on our nation, cause a loss of our position in the world, make us look weak, and strip us of our power. I say in response that the kingdom of God is destroyed when we enter into the cycles of violence, fear, and hatred that Jesus freed us from, and that the "greatest" is not the wealthiest or most powerful, but is instead a servant of all.

If someone had said to Jesus, "Rome must rule by the sword to bring about peace, defeat evil, and to protect its powerful position in the world, don't you support that?" how do you think he would have responded?

I imagine he would have pointed to the irony of bringing peace through violence, called his disciples to seek peace more actively than Rome, reminded them that the kingdom of God is to be the source of peace, and decried the folly of those who seek power for themselves.

I'm not unpatriotic. I'm just patriotic to a different kingdom.

Wisdom of the Rockers: Flobots

2008-05-02T15:49:00.000-07:00

I stumbled across some lyrics today that I was really impressed with, so I thought I'd share. They are from the group "Flobots," a rock-hip hop outfit that has found quite a bit of popularity lately with their song "Handlebars" (song here; music video here). Keep in mind this isn't a Christian band, so if your ears are sensitive, you might have to put on earmuffs for the occasional "F" bomb. To give a little background, here's a little snippet from their PureVolume page where they talk about their newly found fame. You tell me if this doesn't sound like a group who has grasped the concept of the kingdom of God, and wants to see it grow in popular music?

To fully comprehend the opportunity, we had to imagine the possibilities. We imagined a world where the message of Fight With Tools is the mainstream, with the airwaves broadcasting honest statements about our nation's past violence and calling for a new vision of a fully engaged, non-violent society. We imagined a network of music fans in cities around the globe organizing to implement this vision. We imagined major recording artists rallying people to become involved in a grassroots peace movement.

Those who write the words for the Flobots aren't always explicit about the motivation for their beliefs, but as you'll see below, they find them in the teachings of Christ. With their lyrics, which are now becoming widely heard, they speak to a hip hop crowd and use the microphone to call for non-violence, encouraging their listeners to take a prophetic voice against the powers that be when the value of life is not preserved. They are as critical about America's response to Hurricane Katrina as they are the country's activities in the Middle East. In multiple tracks they call out to the "least of these," the women, children, and infirm, and they lift them up as the hope for the future. They ask us to take a "leap of faith," and try non-violence in order that peace may spread.

As a person who has to fight the urge to stand up in church each week and say with Amos, "Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream," I hear worship in the songs of the Flobots. I hear them spreading the kingdom of God into music and through music into the hearts of their listeners.

Now, while I fear the unintended effects of detaching the lyrics from their musical context, I more greatly fear having my ass sued for copyright infringement. So, here are the lyrics, but know that you can go to PureVolume and hear the entire album legally for free.

From the latest album's title track, "Fight with Tools." I hear echoes of the Beatitudes...

All free minds to the front
We call upon women
We call upon children
We call upon the handicapped
The infirmed
The week of heart
We need your courage
Your dedication
Your passion
Your commitment
Gather up your platinum
Melt it down

This next set of lyrics is from the track, "We are Winning." I feel like it wouldn't be inappropriate to start this with, "The kingdom of God is like...

Rival gangsters sit down to plan an after-school program
A religious fanatic posts footage of an interfaith service project
A group of teenage boys watches a video of a father playing catch with his son
An adult film star paints thumbnail portraits of elderly couples, fully clothed and smiling
A record executive records a demo of his apology
A policeman makes reverse 911 calls instructing residents to take to the streets
A patriot reports for duty
She's wearing an orange jumpsuit and holding a picket sign
She's ashamed of her birthplace
But retreat is not an option...
Butterfly wing crosswinds send black hawks toward hurricane survivors
Roses sprout from empty lots and sidewalk cracks
Pacifist guerrillas move undetected through concrete jungles
New forms are beginning to take shape
Once-occupied minds are activating
People are waking up
The insurgency is alive and well

In "Stand Up," the Flobots tell us that Jesus and those for whom his heart was moved are to be the basis of our passions, defining that for which we stand and that against which we stand.

We've seen flames send the chills through London
And we've sent planes to kill them and some of them were children
But still we crumbling the building
Underfunded but we still don't understand
Under god but we kill like the son of Sam
But if you feel like I feel like about the son of man
We will overcome...

Stand up
We shall not be moved
Except By a child with no socks and shoes
Except by a woman dying from the loss of food
Except by a freedom fighter bleeding on a cross for you...

Mighty warlord wanna-be street thug
a threat for a threat leaves the whole world terrified
blow for blow never settles the score
word for word is time need clarify
We the people did not want war

And just to be clear about the source of the Flobots vision, this is from "One Love,"

My role model will not only brush ya shoulders off
But wash your feet, give his life as the soldiers watch
And forgive his torturers below the cross
So when youre slapped and youre told to fight back
And they taunt you over the phone to incite smack
Get back! Get back in the zone despite that
And rely on the strength that the bonified have

"What is Theology" -- A Parable

2008-04-30T11:54:00.000-07:00

Jesus often found it more helpful to explain something difficult by telling a story of what it's like to experience that thing... so I'm going to try and do the same. I'm spurred to this by conversation in one of my classes, in which 60 of us were talking about the meaning of theology. The basic answer is that it's "the study of God"... but the literal definition leaves much to be spoken. This parable finds its seed also in a quote from songwriter Nick Cave, who, when describing his motivation for song writing once said, "To write allowed me direct access to my imagination, to inspiration and ultimately to God. I found through the use of language, that I wrote god into existence. Language became the blanket that I threw over the invisible man, that gave him shape and form." So here we go.

Theology is Like a Blanket

There once was a young boy who had an invisible Friend. Every day he would talk with his Friend despite the chiding of his other friends and the concern of his parents. One day, while walking through a park, the boy asked his friend, "What is your name?" But as usual, his Friend said nothing. "You know everything about me, I've told you all my secrets and I spend all my time with you, but I know nothing about you! I'm not even sure any more that you're still here!" Then the boy spotted a blanket lying on the ground nearby and, thinking quickly, he cast the blanket upon his Friend. Sure enough, a shape was revealed. The boy was assured that his Friend was real, and for a short time, he was satisfied.

Some time later, the boy caught the flu and spent a few days home from school. The boy was lonely even as he sat with the blanket cast over his Friend, so he asked again, "Please! Tell me your name! I would not be so lonely if I could just talk with you." The blanket rose a bit, and shimmied out of the room. The form returned a few minutes later with a bowl of soup, and as he held the bowl and spoon, the boy realized for the first time that his Friend must have hands. Extending a spoonful of soup, the blanketed form began to feed the boy. Knowing that his Friend cared for him, the boy was satisfied once again.

When the boy recovered, he went outside to play. He knew his Friend was with him even though his Friend would not wear the blanket outside, and again the boy demanded, "I know that you are real, and that you care for me, but I need to know your name. Talk to me, tell me something about yourself, tell me your name!" At that point, a young girl came over and asked the boy if he wanted to play soccer. While hesitant to drop the argument, but also not wanting to reveal to the girl that he had been talking with an invisible person, the boy agreed. All afternoon he and the girl played, and when the streetlights came on, the girl picked up the ball and began to run home.

"Before you go," the boy called after her, "I haven't even asked you your name!"

"Why do you always ask me that?" she said with a wink and ran off.

The boy ran inside, looking for his blanket. He found it under his bed, and he began casting it around in his room, hoping that it would land on his Friend. Finally the blanket fell and revealed a form. "All day you played with me, and still you told me nothing about you! I don't know if you can talk, but I know you have hands," He held out a pen and a notepad to his Friend, and demanded "Write down your name!"

The draped form reached out and grabbed the writing tools, and began to write.

"I am who I am," the tablet said

"What is that supposed to mean? That means nothing at all!" The boy shouted. Then he pulled the blanket off his Friend, wrapped it around himself and fell asleep.

Year after year, the boy slept with the warmth of that blanket. Occasionally he would talk to his Friend, but he never heard a response and he never used the blanket as he once had.

Years passed until one dark night, shortly after the young man had moved away for college, and he found himself in his dorm room feeling very lonely, drinking cheap vodka by candlelight. On in an impulse, he pulled the blanket off his bed. Laughing at himself for his foolishness, the boy cast the blanket lazily in front of him. As it had so many years before, the blanket revealed a form: a person with arms wide. The young man embraced the form unhesitatingly, "You're still here! You've been here all along haven't you?" he cried. The form nodded, and the young man believed he saw a smile revealed in the draping of the cloth. That night, he did not use the blanket for warmth, but instead left it on his Friend, telling him about college and the difficult time he was having making friends, until he fell asleep.

At three in the morning, the young man woke up with smoke in his lungs and the noise of a fire alarm piercing his ears. He crawled to the door, but passed out in the thick cloud. As he slipped in and out of consciousness, he saw glimpses of a firefighter kicking down the door and carrying him to safety. Finally he awoke in the yard of his college, lying on his back, as the firefighter called to him, "Can you hear me? Wake up!"

"Yes," the young man coughed, "What happened?"

"It seems that a blanket in your room caught fire. You shouldn't sleep with candles burning; you're lucky to be alive."

"I know." The young man replied, feeling quite dumb, "Thank you for coming after me. What is your name?"

"Why do you always ask me that?" The masked figure answered, then he backed away as the crowd forced in. The young man smiled.

Without the blanket, the young man always had to wonder whether the people whom he loved and who cared for him were really his Friend in a different disguise. When he sensed that his Friend was near, or that somebody's words were really the words of his Friend, he learned from them. He could never assure himself of his Friend's presence, but he talked as if he were never alone. And when he came across those in need, he cared for them as his Friend had cared for him.

The Loss of Innocents (sic)

2008-04-16T14:45:00.000-07:00

There's a pretty well-known story in the Bible where some religious leaders bring a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery before Jesus, saying, "The law tells us that this woman should be stoned to death, what do you say?" He responds "Let the one without sin cast the first stone." Slowly, each of the accusers leave their stones on the ground and walk away. (Read the story in John 8)

The story is significant for those of us who see in Christ's teachings a consistent demand for the preservation of life and a staunch opposition to violence. Jesus intervenes on a violent act that was not only allowed, but prescribed by the Jewish Law, and successfully prevents it from happening. Jesus' ethic, which is revealed in this story and in others, created the foundation for Gandhi's non-violent revolution in India and Martin Luther King's non-violent resistance against racist law and practices in America. It has inspired Christians and non-Christians alike to avoid violence as a means to preventing further violence.

Recently, stories like this have been used to form the foundation of a growing number of American pacifistic Christians who are looking to Jesus' life and teachings for answers to questions like, "What does it mean to be a Christian in an evermore militaristic country?" "What does it mean in this context to love our enemies?" "What does it mean to turn the other cheek when we are struck as a nation?" "What did Jesus mean when he said 'Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.'?" "Can Christians fight in the military?" "Do Jesus' life and teachings forbid violence and killing in all forms?"

In a conversation regarding the role of war in international politics, a student in one of my classes recently asked, "What do we do if all of our peacemaking strategies have failed and war is the only option to prevent someone from killing innocent people?" At first I thought, 'Good question! Jesus teaches us not to protect our own well-being ("Turn the other cheek," etc.), but what to do when another person's life is at risk?' That's when the story of the adulteress came to mind. Here Jesus takes non-violent action to prevent the death of another person whose life is threatened, and through this, we can find the imperative to do likewise.

But what if the accusers hadn't dropped the stones?

What if they had said, "The law prescribes it, it's what God commands!" and began throwing the stones? What would Jesus have done then?

At this point, I'm stepping out into speculation. Forgive me! This blog, you may be surprised to hear, is non-canonical. But I'd like to think it's inspired.

The first answer that comes to mind is that Jesus would have stepped in front of the stones, and his own execution would have happened much earlier. Today, we'd be wearing stones around our necks instead of crosses. Now I'm walking on really thin ice because I'm going to draw moral implications from something that never happened, but I think it's fair to pursue this line of thought. Even though Jesus did not have the opportunity to respond to this situation, our knowledge of Jesus' actions elsewhere inform our imagination and nearly all of us will imagine Jesus responding in a non-violent way. So, let me ask, if you imagine that Jesus would continue to act non-violently, which says something about your understanding of Jesus, what is the implication for us as individuals and as a nation? To put it more pointedly, if you're a Christian and you see non-violence as a characteristic of the man you worship and imitate, how should you encourage your nation to respond when we see other people in the world being threatened?

What would a pacifistic response look like? Just imagine a non-violent military, sending 'troops' out to die with innocent people who are being threatened, and making a statement on the world stage in so doing. How much more empowering to the oppressed in those places would it be if they had tens of thousands of 'soldiers' sent there to be with them, ready to work towards peace, refusing to abide by unfair laws, and even willing to die at their side? Isn't it at least possible that a dictator could fall from power simply because he could not control his people anymore when they are joined by non-violent, civil disobeyers?

Let's return to my initial question, 'How would Jesus have responded if the adulteress' accusers proceeded with her execution?' In addition to the part of me that says Jesus would step in the way of the stones, another part says that this could never have happened, because Jesus had pegged the true source of the accusers' motivation and questioned its grounding. In other words, Jesus didn't just have a really handy and disarming one-liner; he knew his crowd. His response was pointed and intentional. Because Jesus knew the people to whom he was responding, because he knew their motivation and the way in which their religion had permitted the violence, he was able to respond.

He didn't say, "Your religion is archaic, outdated, and violent!" and throw stones at the accusers before they could attack the woman. He didn't build up support by turning to the crowd and saying, "Look at what these judgmental, legalistic, and violent people are doing! Pick up your own stones and defend this woman!" This is what the heroes in our American movies would do, and it's how our nation has responded to attacks. Because we do not sufficiently understand the motivation behind terrorist attacks, we can not begin to question their motivation much less teach a higher ethic. And because we ourselves resort so often to violence, we cannot be that moral guide and say with any sincerity, "Violence is not the answer!"

As usual, I welcome your disagreement and thoughts! Any other theories as to how Jesus would have responded?

Postmodern Spiritual Practice #2: Prayerful Life-Framing

2008-03-06T21:52:00.000-08:00

This entry is the second installment of a series in which we will be looking at ways that Christians can integrate their everyday experiences into their spiritual lives and vice versa.

Life gets busy, the urgent overtakes the important, the "now" oppresses the future. We find ourselves living paycheck to paycheck and weekend to weekend. When somebody asks how we're doing, we give answers like "Same shit, different day," or sarcastically claim to be "Living the dream." In our marriages, we find that we have different expectations about the future than our spouses, or that we have different values on which decisions are based. We get stuck in these cycles in which our circumstances govern the ways in which we spend our time, and this can lead to all sorts of ills: depression, a lack of hope, marital problems, addictions, etc.

Don't worry, you're not about to get a shameless plug for a self-help book, a timeshare in Cabo, a new miracle cure drug, a ten step solution to all of life's problems, or the next "Secret". Instead, I'm going to share this week's Postmodern Spiritual Practice, which I call "Prayerful Life-Framing", but you feel free to call it whatever you want. There's enough stress in your life without having to put up with the names of things that you don't like.

The basic idea behind this practice is that once a year (or more) you take the time to get away and assess your life situation, give thanks for the blessings you've received in the last year, pray about unresolved issues, ask God for wisdom for the future, and, if you're sharing your life with a special someone, seek to align your hopes, plans, and expectations for the next year. If you've read my post, entitled "Teach Me Something...", you might also apply the same principle described there, and ask God what he was working to teach you over the last year. If you keep a journal or a blog, I recommend bringing it along and reviewing your writings to refresh your memory of major events, developments, realizations, etc.

The suggestion for this practice came by the advice of my uncle when Anna and I were in premarital counseling. We exercise this practice annually, usually during the month of January, as a way of kicking off our new year. For the last two years we've spent our Christmas money on a weekend at a nice hotel in Long Beach. We like heading somewhere that we can walk around and enjoy the sites, go shopping, enjoy some new restaurants, hit a bookstore, etc. We usually spend a good amount of time in the hotel room, so we can work through any complicated issues, and so that we can just enjoy being together. It's rare that we spend time with just the two of us without the ubiquitous presence of computers, TV, textbooks, or homework.

Last year, on our trip, we dealt frankly with the issue of having kids soon (which had been for us a huge source of tension), and this year we ended up spending a good amount of time at Barnes and Noble reading about the house-buying process, and made the decision to make our first purchase when we return to Portland later this year. It is common in most marriages (or at least it is in ours!) that big issues get pushed under the rug because there just isn't the time to deal with them directly when the topics arise. Passive aggressive jabs and sarcastic remarks pass for true communication and tensions build. With this practice, we've been able to nip many of those problems in the bud and bring our two very different lives and personalities into closer harmony.

I don't want to give the impression, however, that this practice is only for married people. I wish someone had given me the advice to do this when I was a young single man. The practice will look different for single people, so let me paint a picture of what it might look like in that case. If I were in that boat, I would plan this trip a few weeks in advance. I would ask my parents, my mentors, and a couple of close friends to write me letters (or make videos or CDs), and prod them to tell me where they see me headed, what concerns they have about me or my future, what their prayers are for me, etc. Then I'd ask them to pray for me during the time that I'm gone that God would open my eyes to the paths on which he's leading me, and that I would receive encouragement, guidance, wisdom, and energy. I'd bring along a journal and plenty of ink and the letters these people wrote, and I'd probably go backpacking or to stay at the cabin of my friend, Orlie. I'd spend a good amount of time in prayer, I'd probably bring a book or two that I'd been meaning to read, but more than anything, I would give the time to these thoughts that they deserve.

I'm sure this suggestion will not be groundbreaking for many, but for Anna and I, it was! We've depended on it every year, and will continue to do so. For those who are able to break way more often, I'm sure it would be helpful as frequently as time allows. The point of the practice is to bring harmony, hope, vision, and unity to our marital and spiritual lives. Prayerful Life-Framing helps lead me towards that goal by giving me the time to take stock of my life, listen to God's heart on the issue, and ultimately choose new paths.

Recent films and music that can facilitate this practice:

Movies:
About Schmidt
Gardenstate
The Bucketlist
I (Heart) Huckabees

Songs
Switchfoot- This is Your Life
Iron and Wine- Naked as we Came
Incubus- Drive
Further Seems Forever- Lead the Way

Postmodern Spiritual Practice #1: "Secular Prayers"

2008-02-29T01:00:00.000-08:00

This entry is the first installment of a series in which we will be looking at ways that Christians can integrate their everyday experiences into their spiritual lives and vice versa.

I posted an entry a while ago entitled, "A Christian Defense of Marilyn Manson," in which I talked, about lessons we can learn from those outside of the Christian fold, even when the person stands vocally against our tradition. The following spiritual practice is an extension of such thinking.

No religion has the monopoly on Truth, nor, especially, does any single person or group. This is not to say that God himself is ignorant, but rather that we, despite revelation, most certainly are! Just as Martin Luther King Jr. (a Christian), was able to use the non-violent practices and teachings of Mahatma Ghandi (a Hindu), there is a richness of truth to be found not only in other religions, but in non-religious
(or secular) people. Hopefully this statement alone is not too controversial... if anybody has any questions about the premise, I'd be more than glad to discuss it further.

The spiritual practice of "Secular Prayers" takes the poetry, music, writings, films, speeches, and art of secular voices, and allows their creations, when they ring of truth, to become our own prayers. In other words, to employ this spiritual practice, you expose yourself to the creations of people who don't claim your religious faith, and you allow their art to become the basis for worship. That's abstract, I know, so let me bring this into context. My two biggest interests are music and film, so I'll focus on these. Here are a few ways I've allowed secular creations to become my own prayers and devotions:

Here's a few examples:Music Lyrics
I can only speak to the music genre I'm most familiar with, but in rock music, it is not rare at all to hear lyrics that seem like they fell out of a worship song and into the mouths of the most secular of musicians. When this happens, I allow the song to become a worship song for me. In other cases, the lyricist might put to words a particular pain or yearning in my life, and again, I allow it to become worship. At other times, he/she might express adoration for a person, using words that I might also use towards God. So, I worship. At other times, I hear blatant honesty about the person's life or about the human situation, and I'm brought to prayer on behalf of the person or for our collective situation.

"If I traded it all; If I gave it all away for one thing, just for one thing. If I sorted it out; If I knew all about this one thing, wouldn’t that be something?"
-- Finger Eleven: "One Thing"

"I wanna thank you mom, I wanna thank you dad, for bringing this (bleeping) world
to a bitter end. I never really hated the one true God, but the god of the people I hated."
-- Marilyn Manson: "Disposable Teens"

"I believe in a world that can take you high, in a place where patience can prevail,
in a sky where sunshine breaks the clouds. I believe in a thought that can set you free and the seeds of hatred always fail, in a mind that hears its heartbeat loud."
-- Ra: "I believe"

"This is my life inside your heart. Take my hand and I'll promise not to ever let it go. Take my hand 'cause this hope is greater than you'll ever know. Take my hand and this is all I'll ever ask of you to show."
-- Rise Against: "My Life Inside Your Heart"

Movies
For me, the kinds of movies that lend themselves well to worship are those that draw attention to life's painful realities, and stick with you long after the movie ends. These movies are helpful because they open my eyes to the pain in which many lives are lived. In so doing, they can move me to action, or at the very least expand my horizons so that I can enter into the pain of those I might otherwise judge or ignore. Here's a few such movies that come to mind at the moment.

Human Atrocities and Prejudices
Schindler's List
Hotel Rwanda
Rendition
Crash
No Country For Old Men
Life is Beautiful
Lord of War
Amistad
Syriana

Drugs
Requiem for a Dream
Blow
Traffic
Trainspotting
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

Heartbreak
The Story of Us
The Notebook

Death and Aging
About Schmidt
Rent
Philadelphia
The Bucket List

Social Estrangement
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Edward Scissorhands
Brokeback Mountain
As Good as it Gets

Hope
Shawshank Redemption
Garden State
Stranger than fiction
I Heart Huckabees

Now, again, why do this? Because movies, film, art, political speeches, newspaper and magazine articles, books, and plays are not just modes of entertainment, they form part of the fabric of our postmodern existence. To "worship" is to bring before God that which he has given us, and to return it back to him in praise. So, in this spiritual practice, we are taking our entertainment and we're turning it into worship. Just as people of old would take the rocks around them to form an altar before God, I'm suggesting that we take the scripts and lyrics that form our context, and that we too build an altar.

Nota Bene: If any of you has any other songs or movies (I'm sure there are hundreds) that you would include if you were making a list, leave a comment. If this is helpful, or you think it's heretical and syncretistic, let me know!

The Postmodern Spiritual Practices Series: An Introduction

2008-02-29T00:23:00.000-08:00

An Introduction

I'm taking a class right now called "Spirituality and Urbanism," in which we're being encouraged to more fully integrate our spiritual lives and practices with the reality of our every day urban existence. In other words, we're looking for ways to break down the unnatural Sacred/Secular Divide that has become a mainstay of the Christian religion over the last few centuries. We're shattering the illusion that there is a division between the spiritual and non-spiritual.

In the class, we've looked at ancient practices like "Lectio Devina," but we've also talked about spiritual practices and disciplines that each of us have created as ways of incorporating our spiritual, professional, family, social, communal, and psychological lives. So, I'm going to share a few of these over the next few weeks in the hope that some of my practices can be helpful to others out there in the ether. For the most part, these are my own inventions, but I'll let you know when they aren't. If you have the time and proclivity, consider commenting and sharing ways in which you're fostering your spiritual life in our postmodern context. Check the next entry for the first in a series I'm calling Postmodern Spiritual Practices

My Official Endorsement

2008-02-08T00:48:00.000-08:00

I know that in all of this political confusion that you must all be waiting patiently, wondering quietly to yourselves, "Who will Cody endorse? I've heard Oprah, Governor Schwarzenegger, Rudolph Giuliani, and Chuck Norris make their endorsements. But they're small fries. I need to know who Cody will endorse!"

Yeah, right.

But in case you're curious, I cast my vote on the evening of Super Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama. He received my vote for a number of reasons, not the least of which is his long standing criticism of the violent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his strong history of advocacy on behalf of the underprivileged. Further, when given the choice between he and Hillary, I believe that he stands a better chance of getting the national vote in November.

There you go, now you can sleep at night. Enjoy the clip below, and tell me that it doesn't get your blood flowing!

In Defense of a Lighter Beer

2008-02-06T14:06:00.001-08:00

I'm from the Northwest, therefore I'm a beer snob. I was brought up 5 minutes from the beer capital of the world (Portland, OR), within a Christian denomination spurred by a monk known throughout Germany not only for his 95 theses, but his for his beer-brewing capabilities (Martin Luther). It's in my blood. Well, not at this moment-- it's only 2 in the afternoon. But at some point tonight it is likely to be in my blood.

I am a vocal critic of weak, mass-produced, domestic light beers like the dog urine we call Coors Light, Bud Light, Keystone Light, and Miller Lite. To be honest, my criticisms often spill over into any light beer, because beer is supposed to leave you full and warm. But I've come to learn that this prejudice grew from living in an extremely wet and cloudy area of the country, where "full and warm" is the desire of the masses, and light beer is for the tourists. Living in Southern California for the last 2 years, I've learned that light beer has its place. I've recently come under fire for my acquired taste in Hefeweizens, an extremely flavorful, unfiltered, light-colored beer. I was accused of becoming Californian and cheap, a neglector of my rich heritage of beer drinkers with taste. I struggled to defend myself, but today I was redeemed.

Through an article in the September/October issue of Imbibe Magazine, called "Hazed and Confused", I learned that not only are Hefes a true German beer with a rich history (as the guttural name would suggest), but that they were popularized in America through Widmer Brothers' Brewing Co. in Portland, Oregon! Not only is this a great Portland company, but the owners are fellow German Lutherans! So there you have it, the cloudy American Hefeweizen beers began in a cloudy Pacific Northwest city.

Just a little beer for thought.

Jim Wallis at Fuller!!

2008-02-05T22:07:00.000-08:00

When I entered college, I was a political and theological conservative who was convinced that any person who had come to any different conclusions was an idiot and a heathen. Four things humbled me:

1. A book called "Blue Like Jazz", written by Portland author Donald Miller,

2. A counselor and mentor of mine named Terry McGlasson, who questioned the wisdom of my conclusions and the attitude with which I held them,

3. My marriage to a left wing Episcopalian, and

4. The book, "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It" by Jim Wallis.

"God's Politics" was so influential for me that Wallis' remarks in the book about having spent time with students from Fuller Seminary played a key role in my decision to pursue a Master's degree here. Tonight everything came full circle when Wallis came to Fuller once again, this time to talk about his latest book, "The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post-Religious Right America". I finally had the opportunity to see him in person, and I've got to ask, 'Is there a better way to celebrate Super Tuesday?'

His speech was essentially an hour and a half trial-size version of "The Great Awakening", an appetizer or foretaste of things to come, if you will. So if I were a wiser person, I would probably read that book before making blog entries about Wallis' latest contributions to the spirituality and politics discussion in America. But I'm not, so I won't.

Just a few short years ago, when Wallis wrote "God's Politics", he was responding to a spiritual and political context in which the so-called "religious right" had monopolized the Evangelical Christian vote and convinced America that God had a political party. Wallis decried the fact that Christians had aligned themselves with political conservatives to the extent that they had lost their prophetic voice. They were, for the most part, hard line Republicans rather than Christians equipped to challenge the acts of politicians by God's standards. The Christian heritage includes the Israelites who made the mistake of demanding human leadership when God warned them that it only produces greed and power-hunger, and it includes the prophets who cried out against the political powers who did not protect the poor. Most singularly, it includes Jesus, who stood up against the religious and political powers of his day for having the effrontery to use the name of God to empower themselves and judge the actions of others. With this as our history, Wallis asked, how do we align ourselves unwaveringly and recklessly with one political group in the name of God?

Just three years after Wallis released "God's Politics", he gets to write "The Great Awakening", in which he claims that things have changed, and they've changed drastically! Christians are no longer single- or dual-issue voters. They've come to realize that the destruction of God's creation is a spiritual issue. Oppression and poverty are spiritual issues. Darfur is a spiritual issue. Health care is a spiritual issue. Immigration and war are both spiritual issues, and the Christian block of voters will no longer stand behind presidential leaders that ignore all of these great spiritual problems simply because they run on the Republican ticket.

However, the best news, according to Jim Wallis, is that people are digging deep into their Christian faith and drawing out the resources to tackle these problems. Rather than having a religion and putting the power of that religion's constituency behind a political party, they are drawing on their faith in order to wrestle with the issues and produce better solutions. The most significant changes in American history have not been invented or propagated by leadership in high positions, but rather by grassroots movements that gain popularity and pressure the leadership to address and respond to their concerns. And further, no major movement, he argues, in which societal ills have been radically transformed, have ever succeeded without significant support from the spiritual communities in our country. He points out that the "altar call" was invented by Charles Finney during the Second Great Awakening, so that if someone wanted to commit his life to Christ that Finney could connect that person with the anti-slavery movement and begin working for change in the world alongside the Church. The Third Great Awakening brought women the vote, and the Fourth Great Awakening was led by Martin Luther King Jr., who, empowered by his faith convictions, inaugurated an offensive against racism. A spiritual movement, Wallis pointed out, is not considered a 'revival' by sociologists, unless it transforms in some major way the greater society. It's not a revival if society isn't transformed, and our society's greatest ills have never been successfully transformed for the better without a spiritual revival. The great news is, we're on the verge of a new revival that Wallis calls a 'Justice Revival'.

Again, I haven't read the book yet, but it promises to prepare us for the Fifth Great American Awakening on three levels: (1) personal, (2) communal and congregational, and (3) political and legal.

The problem with listening to a great communicator like Jim Wallis is that you sit and listen, and you hear another person put words to your deep-felt concerns, and you feel a weight come off your chest as you realize you've finally found clarity. Then you go home and try to process what was said, and it dissipates like a late morning fog. Fortunately for all of us, we have Jim Wallis' thoughts in written form, and I personally can't wait to jump into "The Great Awakening".

A Christian Defense of Marilyn Manson (Part 1)

2008-01-05T23:51:00.000-08:00

Music has always been an important part of my life. At the best of times it has been a vehicle for celebration and at the worst of times, an escape. It is something that I've enjoyed creating, and the art form with which I most directly connect. But people are sometimes surprised to learn that I, a seminary student, listen to bands like Marilyn Manson, AFI, The Deftones, Mudvayne, Rise Against, System of a Down, Tenacious D., The Used, et al. . Recently, the topic came up when the sister of a very good friend of mine happened across this blog and saw the infamous shock rocker Marilyn Manson's latest album endorsed under my "Great New Albums" list on the right side of the page. I hear that it spurred quite the conversation about the appropriateness of Christians' involvement with the likes of Marilyn Manson. I'd love to get a discussion started about it with anybody who reads this. I know that I have a much higher tolerance for things that many people find offensive, and it has been criticized by some, so I do not consider my views beyond reproach. On the other hand, I've grown to love the producers of this media and have grown to understand the development of their anger, twisted perceptions, and addictions, in addition to their love, criticism of the status quo, passion, and yearnings for honesty. It is this perspective that I hope to share.

I know that the issue at hand isn't Marilyn Manson in particular, it is music like his, which was written by people who claim beliefs and values clearly contradictory to the Christian gospel. But, I want to make an example of him, because he is perhaps the most widely known and most criticized of his genre. If I can convey why I support an artist like him, it can be seen how my support might stretch to others. Manson is not, as many would think, the most obscene or violent heavy rock musician, nor is he even close. Much like Eminem is not the most potty-mouthed of rappers, nor Slipknot the most violent heavy metal band, these artists have received greater attention and criticism due to their unprecedented popularity.

In order to separate ourselves from those we don't understand and to free ourselves from the obligation to love and understand such people, we often reduce humans to titles and icons. People who use guerilla tactics to attack Americans are terrorists, and those with compulsions for taking the lives of others are psychopaths. Marilyn Manson, born Brian Hugh Warner, intentionally or not, has done the work for us of reducing (or elevating) himself to an icon, an inhuman image, and even a monster, and for this reason, is quite easy to attack. The self-proclaimed Anti-Christ Superstar stigmatizes his stage persona with haunting album covers, a contact lens that blocks out the color of his right eye, a machete-microphone, chilling face make-up, unusual costumes, and blasphemous lyrics. Perhaps it is no surprise that people have responded to him as though he were something beyond human, a representation of evil that a man alone cold not achieve.

On April 20, 1999, Harris and Dylan Klebold brought an arsenal of guns to school and began to fire openly, killing a total of 15 people, including themselves and a teacher, in addition to wounding 23 others. When it became too difficult to blame two young boys for the massacre, the blame was passed to gun dealers, "a culture of violence", and eventually Marilyn Manson. A number of times, Warner has let his mask drop, and has shown those of us who were paying attention that he is just a human, that his character, "Marilyn Manson" is part of his elaborate living art exhibit. When parents claimed their children committed suicide because of his music, he went on Phil Donahue (watch video here), and when he was blamed for the Klebolds' massacre, he interviewed with Michael Moore in his film "Bowling for Columbine."

The thing I find most striking is the tail end of the video. Moore asks Manson, "If you were to talk directly to the kids at Columbine or the people in that community, what would you say to them if they were here right now?" Manson responds, "I wouldn't say a single word to them. I would listen to what they have to say. And that's what no one did." For me, statements like this transform Marilyn Manson from an icon to a person. He is a blatantly (if offensively) honest person who is wrestling with life like the rest of us, and has a heart with the ability to love. I won't psychoanalyze him without having had the opportunity to meet him, but his lyrics speak often of pain and struggles in love, and his autobiography, "The Long Hard Road out of Hell" is more honest about these things than any song. In the video below, Marilyn Manson talks about his new album "Eat Me, Drink Me", and in it, he says "This record was me, as a symbol, being Marilyn Manson, becoming human for the first time, making this record." And later, he admits, "If this record didn't exist, then I probably wouldn't exist, because I was in a state where I didn't want to make anything any more. I literally lost any sort of hope in general, and I've never been in that position before in life. So, I don't ever want to be again... If you listen to (the album), you can hear what it's like to know me personally, probably more than any of my other records." As a person who studied psychology, I see this album as Marilyn Manson's dropping of his mask (not just the Manson icon, but the self- or ego-protecting defense mechanisms it entailed), and subsequently wrestling with life without this shield. As a listener, I appreciate his sharing of this process with us, as I too struggle to do the same. As a Christian, I recognize the devil as "The Deceiver" who lies to us and tells us that we need to lie about ourselves before other people and before God... and I see Manson beginning to break through that lie. Manson alluded to being on the edge of suicide prior to creating this album, but that in his honesty, he was able to get beyond that.

I'm sure the following claim could be criticized, and certainly so by my parents who often remind me "Garbage in, garbage out", or by someone who might quote Phillipians 4:8, "Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things." Regardless, as a person who at one point wanted to be a therapist, who strives to love the whole of the people I meet, I love Marilyn Manson for his honesty, his critique of things we accept as normal, his genuineness, and his growing confidence in who he is. I admire all of those things. It doesn't mean that I endorse every aspect of his beliefs or all of his claims, but I don't even put that kind of faith in myself. I endorse Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but not everything they could possibly say, and I honor my parents, but don't believe every claim they make. I take people with a grain of salt, and try to recognize that nobody is purely evil or purely good. I applaud Manson's struggles to become more honest, and admire his guts in doing so. I think it is a step towards Christlikeness, whether Manson himself would ever recognize it or not. Jesus stood before a prostitute who was about to be killed for her behavior and told her executioners that the one without sin should cast the first stone. Not one of them could do it, and neither can I. Before Jesus could tell her "Sin no more," he first had to stand by her.

For further thoughts, find my follow up article here.

A Little More Light Entertainment

2007-12-04T11:00:00.000-08:00

Some day I'll get back to putting meaningful thoughts on this damn thing... but I was just struck by the lyrical quality of my favorite unknown band PlayRadioPlay, and thought I'd share. I can't remember if I've endorsed this guy before, but I've been following his music since he was 17 and recording out of his garage (or Cave, as he calls it) in Texas. His music has quite a few similarities to The Postal Service, but he's got the creative wordplay and romance of Dashboard Confessional. Anyway, this a portion of the lyrics from the song "Decipher Reflections from Reality", which I believe you can find on iTunes.

I was told you were depressed
by a little bird that was severely hurt,
as it did not notice my window.
It just flew wherever the wind blows.
As it convulsed on the pavement,
it whispered, "I am hated."
"Your genetic flaws," I said,
"say it all. You can't decipher reflections from reality.
But neither can I."
I noticed either can I

On paper (or the monitor), you lose a bit of the prosody. You have to hear it in context. Someone apparently made their own really shitty music video to it, which I've embedded below. Turn off your monitor and check the jams, yo.

I cannot lie...

2007-11-30T22:15:00.001-08:00

Teach Me Something...

2007-10-29T15:11:00.000-07:00

My dad and I have always been very close. I've looked up to him as long as I can remember and find that my eagerness to argue and debate usually quiets inside me when he shares his wisdom. I can still disagree on many things, but I know that beyond all political, theological, and social issues he is a better man than I am, and I have a lot to learn from him.

Before I moved to California, I would constantly ask him to "teach me something". I knew that for the next two years I would be starved of his wisdom, and I wanted to make sure I'd be able to get by. "Teach me something", I would say in the middle of a CSI episode or while smoking a pipe with him in the backyard. His response was always the same: "Wisdom is situational. Ask me something and I'll teach you something." I knew I was putting him on the spot, like when people say "You're funny, tell me a joke."

I've come across a passion for meditation and prayer lately by understanding them in a way much like I approached my dad. I've never found enjoyment in giving God my laundry list of concerns and requests, and get easily irritated listening to others do it. One of my favorite Bible verses is Ecclesiastes 5:2b "For God is in heaven and you are on earth, therefore let your words be few." I've gotten it down to three words, I hope that's few enough: "Teach me something".

At the behest of a professor this quarter, I have been praying at the end of the day, "I'm sure you've tried to teach me something today, but I haven't been listening as well as I should... please teach me." This is a prayer in which it's okay that your mind wanders... it's supposed to. My mind begins to replay the day and it hones in on frustrating situations, sadness, anger, joy, and my anxieties about tomorrow. And at each of these, I pray "Teach me something. This is the situation, teach me." Today I did this and found my eyes drawn to a "Willow Tree" piece on one of our shelves. It's a woodcarving of a husband and wife dancing. My wife and I have had a lot of challenges lately, primarily with her health and for the first time since we received this Willow Tree statue as a gift, I noticed it. The man is standing strongly and holding his endearing wife, but he is stalwart by no means. His head too is dropped just slightly. He is not holding her in a formal dancing stance, but is holding her hand to his chest. The two figures seem to be holding each other up. Anyway, my wife and I are not completely out of the forest with our medical concerns, but at least we're still dancing. We have each other, and we both have God, who always seems to know the right thing to say when I ask him to "Teach me something."

The Problem of Religion: Losing the Squid

2007-08-22T13:35:00.000-07:00

I don't know how many times I've tried to write this entry. Every time I try, I end up over-qualifying, over-complicating, or over-caviating it until I haven't said very clearly what I intended to say. But I want to comment regarding a pattern I see in our culture today in how people respond to religion in their world, and I'm going try again to describe it. This is a critique of modern culture, postmodern culture, the Church, New Age religion, American Religion, and myself.

Author Steve Bruce, in "Religion in the Modern World" tells a parable about a tribe living by a great ocean that worships the Giant Squid. They've never seen it, and yet large waves and distant water movements confirm for them its existence. Each generation is raised hearing that the rain from the sky and the food from the ground depend upon the blessing of the large animal. There are a number of traditions practiced regularly that aim to please the squid: birth and death rituals, regular worship, seasonal dancing, etc. For generation upon generation, no one questioned the existence and power of this squid, and none had needed to. It was only when they interacted with another tribe who worshiped another great animal that the questions arose: how do we know that the giant squid exists and controls the rain, or that he cares for us? Never before had members of this tribe had to have faith in the squid, it was just an accepted fact. And never before had they needed to choose belief in the squid, it was an assumption they made about the world. From that time on, those who believed in the squid had to choose to do so. The decision involved faith and it relied upon trust in the claims of some people over the claims of others.

In the world today, very few, if any of us, are raised with a single unchallenged and unquestioned understanding of the one who sends the rains and grains. We, in the post-Christendom west, have had the realization that the squid might not exist a number of times over the last five hundred years, and individually, those of us raised in religious homes have experienced the loss of the squid in school, youth groups, college, marriages, volunteer groups, the workplace, etc. We have to choose the squid, or the bear, or the clownfish based on our trust in people and writings. But we, in the west, tend not to trust other peoples and books; we trust ourselves. The trend we see so often these days is people piecing together a God they can believe in, trusting that this is the best way to get beyond the dogmas, perversions, traditions, and closed minds of squid worshipers.

I understand the sentiment. To a large extent, I do the same within the Christian church: I try to get beyond the limited perspectives of each denomination by learning from the best of each and taking these teachings back to the Bible to see if they are faithful to the Christian tradition. I like the contemplative and non-violent practices of anabaptists and Catholics, the biblical knowledge of the Baptists, the somber worship of the Lutherans and Episcopalians, etc. I see this as a valuable approach, because every tradition has it's blindspots (more in depth thoughts on the topic could be found on my previous entry, "Balance)".

However, I think a large problem arises when the standard for such thinking is nothing more than my own standard of what I'd like to believe in. The problem, as I see it, is that a god who is disallowed from making any claims on us is no God at all. God should not be a member of our mutual admiration society. All of the Abrahamic traditions (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) have a prophetic tradition, that is, a recorded history of God sending messengers to the masses to tell them that they have turned from His ways and are valuing the wrong things. Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad are all prophets within their traditions, who claim to tell us that God as we wish he was, is not who He really is. Moses had to tell people that God isn't a golden cow or a pandering Father, and Jesus had to tell people that God is not pleased by a simple following of the rules, nor judgmentalism, hypocrisy, and loveless theology.

I want to speak about Jesus, partially because he is the character I understand the most, and partially because in America all major religious traditions have wrestled with Jesus in some way or another and view him fondly (See Stephen Prothero's "American Jesus"). Jesus told the religious leaders of the time that they had God all wrong. They didn't understand His expectations, they didn't know how to worship Him, and they were glorifying themselves by their strict following of the law. A HUGE Christian figure, who the vast majority of us respond to at least as a good teacher, came and told people that the God we want to have is not good enough.

It is a difficult balance (again, see previous entry) because we are not raised in tribes with a single, unquestioned understanding of God, to which we can ascend. We are forced to make a choice, and this ultimately makes us the authority for our decision. I don't necessarily have a solution, but I simply want to point out that the god of our desires and understanding is no God at all. He/She is just an idol that we can employ to support any behavior or mentality we choose. We, who are a part of Christ's church quite often create such a God, but decry it when people outside the church do the same. We're doing it within the bounds of a particular tradition, they're doing it with a broader buffet of traditions. Again, I don't have a solution; maybe others do. I just want to say that there is a widespread tendency to create God as we want him, and that Christians often bless this within the church and curse it when it happens outside. Again, this is a critique of modern culture, postmodern culture, the Church, New Age religion, American religion, and myself.

Balance

2007-08-14T13:27:00.000-07:00

I'm taking a class right now called "Evangelizing Nominal Christians"... strange as it may sound, I'm not a fan of any of the three words in the class' title. "Evangelizing" sounds like something you do to someone, "nominal" (meaning 'in name only') is a title we often give to those in our church who fail to burn themselves out for Jesus, and "Christian" is a title with almost no specificity in the American context.

However, I'm finding enjoyment in the class as I find that it helps me deal with my own nominality; that is, the ways in which I put my relationship with God on autopilot, or worse yet, procrastinate and tell myself that I'll develop a more holistic and genuine faith when I get out of seminary (yes, the irony is deafening).

It resonates well with me when people say that the answer to political and spiritual questions is to take the best from all sides of the debate. For example, Brian McLaren has a book called "A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, Depressed-yet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished Christian" whose name says it all, and Jim Wallis has a one called "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It". These books and many others like them, teach that it is not more "Christian" to be a republican or a liberal, but it is Christlike to assess the motives of both parties, and to be a prophetic voice against both where they stand against God and/or humanity. So this means that I can be a conservative-leaning tree-hugger or a liberal-leaning pro-lifer. But such an approach (while I think it's necessary for a Christ-like life) demands a complicated balancing act resulting from something psychologists call "cognitive dissonance". What the term essentially means is that when our values or views are not reflected in our actions, the resulting tension typically causes us to alter our views and values instead of the behavior. So, if I vote democrat, but disagree with abortion, I'm more likely to begin finding acceptance for abortion than to change my voting patterns. This is complicated because, unless you are comfortable being a single-issue voter or fall in line 100% with a particular political party, there will be dissonance between your behavior (in voting) and your values and it will likely result in your adopting of the views of your party. Thus, to follow Christ and learn your values from him, demands that you always be at odds with the status quo and the simplistic options you are offered both in the realm of politics and religion.

Why do I bring up voting patterns in a discussion on nominal involvement in the Christian faith? Because we tend to 'vote' with a particular branch of the Christian family, whether it be denominationally (Lutheran, Catholic, Presbyterian) or on the liberal-conservative spectrum, and in this we alter our views and values based on these decisions rather than the example of Christ. This is exacerbated by the fact that to associate with one group often means to disassociate from another. To be Lutheran is to be anti-Baptist and anti-Catholic, to be conservative is to be anti-liberal... and in these ways again we will alter our values and views based on our association with a group, rather than upon God's values. For me, this means that I am hesitant to talk about the uniqueness of the Christian Gospel and the life of Jesus for fear of sounding like a conservative, or worse yet a fundamentalist. Or it means I don't take time in prayer and mediation with God for fear of seeming like the legalistic people I've known who demanded that good Christians take "quiet time" every morning. To be nominal in your Christian faith is to claim to associate with the historical Christian faith without committing yourself to it in heart, mind, and body (or behavior). I find that whenever I associate too strongly with a branch of the Christian family that something ends up giving in my faith. I learn to love and care for the poor, but then I stop reading the Bible, or I learn to care for the environment, but then I stop praying. It takes a prophetic heart to balance all of these tensions and say that I will do that which honors God, not that which honors my affiliations.

I see this being difficult when Anna and I open up our coffee shop in a few years. It would be easy to do all that we can to serve the poor and build up our community (both of which are Christian behaviors), while lacking meditative hearts for Christ. In abandoning the traditional Christian Church mode (church buildings, professional clergy, and Sunday meetings), which in the evangelical churches can create a mind for God which does not truly serve him, we can create a mode in which we have Christ-like behaviors, but do not trust or seek him. Again, what is needed is a prophetic heart and balance. And those are my two prayers today.

Apologies to Chaplain Rajan Zed

2007-07-16T11:26:00.000-07:00

Below is an e-mail I received from my mentor, in its entirety, regarding recent events in the U.S. Senate when a Hindu chaplain was invited to pray. Terry McGlasson explains it and responds to it about as well as I could hope to:

Heh Friends,
Many of you probably heard about this in the news last week...if not, I have included a link to a very brief USA Today news article regarding a Hindu clergyman who offered the opening prayer to the US Senate last week. Unfortunately, he had difficulty finishing his concise written prayer because self-proclaimed Christians in the gallery of the auditorium kept shouting him down claiming his presence there to offer a prayer, was an "abomination."
The hypocrisy here is self-evident but two specific things came to mind:
First, they arrogantly invoke the founding of this nation and the founding fathers, but seem to have forgotten that we became a nation fleeing the religious bigotry and persecution experienced in England...the very kind they themselves were displaying in one of the "houses" of our founding fathers.
Secondly, they dare to invoke the name of Christ, who not only would not act in such a fashion, but on the rare occasions when Jesus did get fired up and engage in heated words, they were directed to leaders of his own faith tradition that were...you guessed it...acting like hypocrites!
But perhaps the greatest irony of all is that prayers are being offered at all, in the House or the Senate chambers...seats of power of a nation that prides itself in the separation of Church and State! I guess it means separation, only from "churches" that we don't agree with.
Sincere apologies to Chaplain Rajan Zed. I wonder...what was the REAL 'abomination" that day? Sigh...

Terry

USA Today Article

Quote du jour

2007-06-05T15:51:00.000-07:00

"Narrow minds see only the dangers on one side of the narrow path; broad minds see both."

- Brian McLaren (Adventures in Missing the Point)

"Emerging Churches" Chs. 10 & 11

2007-06-04T21:14:00.000-07:00

I remember when I was first a part of the emerging church discussion, there was a great deal of de-construction in my faith. There were so many assumptions I held that needed to be challenged. The two questions which plagued me most at the time were, "What is the point of baptism?" and "Why do we do communion?". This is ironic, because both of these ancient Christian practices (but especially the latter) play prominent or even central roles at worship in emerging churches. Further, I expelled a lot of breath and spittle raging on the antiquated music and presence of liturgy in Christian worship. I felt that both of these needed to be given the boot. But just like communion and baptism, these also are given prominent places in most emerging churches.

But here's the real problem: I still have those questions, and I'm still prone to ripping my hair out during liturgical worship. I don't look back and laugh, "Oh, if I knew then what I know now!" I still don't get it!

It makes sense that the emerging church would want to maintain a connection with the historical church, and I believe that there is much to be gained there. But on the other hand, it seems like we're always looking to the past to a time when we knew how to be holy. In response to these concerns, I appreciate what Gibb's and Bolger say in "Emerging Churches":

There is nothing magical about ancient practices. They are not valuable because they are ancient. Rather, they serve as resources from a time when the church did not practice the Western heresy of secularism. Today, they can be modified in ways that seem culturally appropriate.

That simple statement puts a lot into perspective. It doesn't answer my concerns or questions, but it helps me frame my concerns with accuracy.

Reflecting... Jurassic Park and Plumber's Crack

2007-05-30T09:25:00.000-07:00

When I think "Chaos theory", I think of Jeff Goldblum's character Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park sprinkling water droplets on Ellie Sattler's hand, to show that something done in the same way twice in a row does not always yield the same results. In spite of all of the controls put into place by John Hammond (the old dude who built Jurassic Park), Malcolm insists that "Life... uh... finds a way."

Some of those who have gotten tired of the church trying to be Hammond, keeping the world at bay so it doesn't destroy itself, are now becoming Malcolm. Allan Hirsch gives a "Crash Course in Chaos Theory" at the end of his recent book, "The Forgotten Ways", which takes Chaos theory and applies it to the church's mission. The logic is essentially this: not only do many forms of life succeed without 'leaders' calling the shots, people do it in many realms. If there is a shortage of plumbers in a city, the mayor does not need to pass a law requiring a certain percentage of young people to sign up to become plumbers or ship in people from other cities; instead, the spots get filled because there is a felt need. Plumbers choose to move into that city, and people choose to go into plumbing and get the necessary internship experiences to do so. Life finds a way.

In the church though, we do not often let the needs be felt so that people can choose to step up. An authority comes in and starts begging people to fill the positions, or worse, just fills that position himself (I say himself, because I think this is typical of male leadership). Further, if the leader doesn't see the hole, no one is allowed to fill it. This stifling leadership style could benefit from chaos theory. In chaos theory, civilizations survive best when the least powerful have great communication and an awareness of the struggles of the whole. This mode of thinking suggests that these, then, are the services that leadership provides. Leadership helps create and encourage that communication between the least powerful while helping them to become aware of the needs in their community. Then leadership steps back and lets life find a way.

Peter Rollins' "How (Not) to Speak of God"

2007-05-27T23:45:00.000-07:00

Most books I read are 'skimmable'. The author introduces each paragraph, subtopic or chapter, and it becomes obvious what they are likely to say. I read a few sentences to make sure I've estimated their intent well, then I breeze over the text to learn how the author defends his/her claims. But Peter Rollins' first book, "How (Not) to Speak of God" is completely unpredictable. With subtopic headings like "Infinite Readings and Transfinite Readings", "Religion and the absence of God", and "Christianity as a/theistic", one is reading constantly with questions. And often answers are not readily found with even the most focused of readings, but something tells me Rollins would be quite happy to hear that.

The book is divided into two parts with the first half (Heretical Orthodoxy: From Right Belief to Believing in the Right Way) representing the 'theory' of postmodern Christianity he puts forth, and Part 2 (Towards Orthopraxis: Bringing Theory to Church) containing descriptions of 10 services at Ikon, the 'church' Rollins founded. With few new ideas being introduced in the second half, the first 71 pages make up Rollins' entire theological presentation. I can say without hesitance that these were the most thought-provoking 71 pages I've ever read.

Essentially what Rollins argues is that in Christianity we do not ever truly name God or describe Him because He is beyond all words and conceptions. Defining 'theism' as a particular understanding of God and 'atheism' as a rejection of that particular conception, he describes Christians as a/theists. We hold beliefs of God, but we do not hold that our beliefs of God are accurate. "... the Christian can be said to operate with an a/theistic discourse, which makes claims about God while simultaneously acknowledging that these claims are provisional, uncertain, and insufficient" (p. 98). However, this is not because God's revelations of himself to us have been insufficient or because He is distant, but because He has overwhelmed us with his presence. In the same way that light reveals things so that we can see, too much light leaves us blinded. "Instead of being limited by the poverty of absence we are short-circuited by the excess of presence" (p. 24). God is transcendent in his imminence. After establishing well all of these arguments (which I have not done, I am only regurgitating here), Rollins pushes the question 'What is belief in God'?

How do I trust in God without putting my trust in my own understanding of God? If I know my beliefs fall short, do I believe in God? Did I believe in God more or less when my beliefs were simple and my theology shallow?

In response to these questions, Rollins suggests that the Christian faith does not truly depend on orthodoxy (that is, right beliefs); rather, it depends upon beliefs held in the right way. He argues that worship of God as we understand him rather than of who He is beyond our understanding is mental idolatry. "The only significant difference between the aesthetic idol and the conceptual idol lies in the fact that the former reduces God to a physical object while the latter reduces God to an intellectual object" (12). In this understanding it is the faithful who worship God even if they cannot define Him, while the heretics worships their own understanding of God. Referencing 1 John 4:7b-8 ("... everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.") Rollins makes the argument that knowledge of God is something discovered in love, not in doctrine. Thus to 'believe in the right way' -- that is, in a loving and sacrificial way -- is true knowledge of God.

This summary is far too brief; it is a half-page version of a 70 page discussion which could easily have been 1,000. I struggle to encapsulate or even comprehend the depth of Rollins' argument, but I know that they ring true. While my definitions and understandings of God have changed dramatically over the last ten years, I do not believe that my faith in him has changed all that much. I have long sought a faith in God that did not depend on my flawed understanding, and believe that in Rollins' writings I find a path to this.\

The questions stirred by this reading are so great that I'm hesitant to say how such a book transforms my small-groups church planting ideas. A couple of us are probably very excited about Rollins' ideas, while I suspect one or two would reject them. Thus I do not believe it has the capability of transforming the identity of the group, but I wish it could. I would be curious to see how evangelism takes place when what is sought is 'belief in the right way' rather than 'right beliefs'. I often hear preachers throw around the word 'truth' meaning correct understanding, and I wonder to what they are referring. When the sanctuary contains a hundred people with a hundred perspectives, how can we go spread correct understanding of God? But if truth is connected with "liberation and transformation", defined as "that which arises from a life-giving encounter" (p. 56), then this is a truth which can be spread by a group of people with very different understandings of God. Our group is confronted with the question, how do we spread THAT truth?

Reflecting on Emerging Education (Thursday, the 24th)

2007-05-25T11:14:00.000-07:00

I've heard it said often that the church is moving away from education-based training for its leadership. People say that Seminary isn't worth the money, and that soon your pedigree will be unimpressive to churches hiring leaders. What really matters in becoming a pastor or minister is your ability to lead, and to know and love the people you serve.

As I throw myself into debt at Fuller, these conversations come back to my mind. I am not here to get a degree, I'm here to get an education. Especially in this time of cultural transition inside the church and out, it's important to know where we've been and where we're going. It's invaluable that we learn the assumptions on which our ministries and theologies are based so that we can question them. That sort of intense study is unlikely to happen outside of an educational setting, and its for these reasons that I'm here.

But I wanted to know how the Emerging church in general felt about the topic, so I asked Ryan. He gave a pretty interesting history that spanned the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which ended with the 1990's. At this point, the Church had taken on so many of the characteristics and values of the business world, that theological understanding became less important than one's ability to manage, organize, lead, etc. Hearing that this emphasis on leadership over education arose largely from business models, I saw the debate in a whole new light. I should make clear that I believe good leadership is necessary; you can memorize the Bible and the history of the Church but if you can't impart that knowledge and motivate others to believe that it matters, you're going to be ineffective as a minister. The opposite threat has received much less press though. If you are a Fortune 500 business leader who decides to be a minister, you will be ineffective if you do not truly understand the Christian gospel and value it. In fact, you might be in a position where it's damn near impossible to truly value it. Jesus says it will be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich person to get into the kingdom of God. He also says that the last will be first, the first shall be last, and that the leaders are known for their servanthood -- not their management skills. But I digress...

The emerging church has a different understanding of education. They highly value a deep theological understanding, whether they acquire it through dense theology texts or a formal education, but they seek it for everyone. Taking the 'priesthood of all believers' seriously, it does not make sense to have one overly-trained minister with hundreds of 'inferior' people learning from his wealth of knowledge. Emerging churches want everyone involved to know God deeply in relationship and in understanding, and for this reason they want deep education for everyone.

I thought that was a pretty dang good answer.

Blackle

2007-05-25T11:03:00.000-07:00

A customer at the bar the other day told me about one of Google's side projects, called "Blackle". It's essentially identical to Google's search engine but instead of a white background, it's black. The hope is that, given the huge number of people who use the search engine, energy can be saved by projecting a black screen instead of a bright white one. I hear they're clocking the amount of time spent on the site, in order to figure out how much energy is being saved. It's a small way to do your part in preserving our natural resources. For more information, click on the logo below.

Segue: Java and Coffee Cocktails

2007-05-22T17:56:00.000-07:00

BIG, FAT, HUGE, ANNOUNCEMENT: Anna and I have decided to go ahead with a ministry we've been thinking about for a while. If you follow this blog, you're probably already aware of my ideas, but here's a brief synopsis. We want to open some sort of conglomeration of coffee shop and pub, probably hoping to find a niche by mastering the art of coffee cocktails. Anybody who knows me, knows that I consume a hell of a lot of liquids... I consider myself an amateur connoisseur of coffee, tea, and beer, and I currently earn a living by bartending. Oh and I spend at least a third of my day peeing. I can't make a frozen burrito for lunch without preparing garnishes, and I have a hard time consuming coffee from an ugly mug. In short, I love my food and drinks and have a huge value for the presentation of both.

We want to run this business as a non-profit, so that the proceeds can go back into community charity and needs. But it is the customers who will decide where the money goes, whether this be on an individual basis or by a democratic vote. We will be closed on Sundays so that ownership, employees (hopefully), and customers can all join together and volunteer for the local charity we are giving to at a given time. My hope is that a community would form around those who are a part of this on a consistent basis, providing opportunities for people to be in community as participators in the Kingdom of God, whether they have a belief in God or not. For those of us who are seeking Christ, this will be our worship to which we invite others. Afterwards, I hope to host a low-key Bible study or worship time for those who are interested in participating, or for those who want to see another aspect of Christian worship.

My hope is that people would rather see their money go towards good than to making someone rich, and they'd like to see a business truly care, not just using care as an advertising slogan. And I hope the business would be so successful that other local businesses would have to contribute to the community in order to compete, and in this way, far more is done than I could hope to accomplish on my own. I also hope that people would come to interact with the Kingdom of God that Jesus was so caught up on, and respond to his invitation to come be a part of it.

I have lots of other little ideas about how to engage the community, seeking the ways in which God is already moving and meeting him there with support. But the main thrusts have been described above. Please add us to your prayers, we think we've received some vision but we have a long road ahead of us. Donations can be made by clicking on the PayPal link below. Just kidding... no, really.

Okay, I'm kidding, there's no link. But we are broke as a joke and would welcome any advice on how one starts a business on good intentions and a nice smile.

Christmas Trees and Heavy Metal

2007-05-22T17:19:00.002-07:00

In a discussion on the topic of the church and its use of the creations of our culture for worship of God, Ryan mentioned Christmas trees, the symbols of pagan worship that remain from the celebration that used to occur on December 25th before Christians took it over as the date for remembering Jesus' birth. I will grant that many Christians refuse to erect Christmas trees for this reason, but the vast majority do not object. In fact the rather conservative church in which I was raised did not bat an eye at erecting a 35 ft. tall tree next to the altar once a year. Considering the tradition of the Christmas tree, this is a surprising thing in a tradition that is fearful of most cultural inventions.

At this same church, I was criticized by many for making use of the church's sound equipment for band practices because they felt that Christian heavy metal was an oxymoronic phrase. "Rock and roll is the devil's music!" "Rock music glorifies drugs, sex, and violence." "How can you be praising God, it's so angry?!" Yada, yada, yada. If only I had had the wisdom at the time to call upon the gigantic tree in whose shadow I played. Christians do not reject cultural creations in Christian worship, they only reject new ones.

Some have pointed to the creation of the printing press as the death of community. Prior to that, it was not possible for any and every citizen to have access to the ideas and thoughts of people they had not met. Teaching and story telling always took place in conversation and in community, but after the mass production of books, both of these things became individual practices. But Christians who are in the habit of decrying culture do not reject books, they reject television and the internet, and they open Christian book stores.

For the sake of clarification: I love books, Christmas trees, heavy metal, and long walks on the beach. My point is this: It is idolatry to hold back from God that which we enjoy in our 'secular lives', and self-righteousness to ordain the tools of worship employed by our own culture while demonizing those of others.

"Emerging Churches" - Chapters 9 and 10

2007-05-20T23:33:00.000-07:00

Last week I wrote a couple of papers for my Gospels class and my Anglo-American Postmodernity class on the topic of the kingdom of God. I employed the writings of Doug Pagitt (which was assigned in my third class, Emerging Churches) to inform that discussion, making use of his definition of the Kingdom: God's creative process re-engaging in all aspects of life, into which we are invited to join as re-created co-(re)creators.

Over the weekend I read a couple more chapters from Ryan Bolger and Eddie Gibbs' "Emerging Churches", the first of which was entitled "Creating as Created Beings". Man, do I wish I read this chapter before writing those papers. The authors expanded upon Pagitt's ideas in a way that would have informed my assignments well. It seems like I always get the idea that something belongs in the church and should play a big role, but I can't defend why this is so biblically. The value of art and creativity are just such issues. Bolger and Gibbs do a good job of explaining why these are not only acceptable but essential values of a Christian community. "Individual and corporate creativity expressed in worship becomes participation in a God who is both creative and the source of creativity in human kind, created in his own image" (p. 177). They make much of the fact that humans are the only animals that have the need to create; beavers may make dams and birds nests, but this is out of necessity. All inventions of the animal kingdom fulfill a need, while even the earliest stages of evolution that produced man from the primates shows an immediate desire to create for the sake of creation. God is known often in the Christian and Jewish traditions by the title, Creator, and for good reason. Is it pure coincidence that we, who are made in his image, exhibit a propensity towards creativity foreign to all other forms of life? Creativity, then, in the truest sense is Godliness. To be creative is to be like God, in the same way that it is godly to love others and care for the 'least of these'.

The other chapter I read this weekend dealt with leadership in the emerging church. Again, I have sensed that leadership in a church setting needs to be expressed very differently from leadership in other realms of life. The business models that so many churches absorb are not the epitome of humanity's thinking on leadership. As Andrew Jones puts it, "The business world is now quoting scripture to help itself give leadership to its projects. Maybe it's time for the church to put down the management books and pick up the Bible to see what all the fuss about" (p. 208). Bolger and Gibbs explain the fuss: "The very nature of the Kingdom of God leads to a reexamination of all views of power, as all previous power structures are made relative" (p. 192). As is well known, in the Kingdom of God the greatest are the servants. Power and authority are found in God, not the leaders, and this is foreign to the business world. The authors examine all sorts of leadership structures with which emerging church leaders have experimented, and report the degrees of success which each have discovered. Any one of them seems complimentary to the ideas that my small group has come up with for emergent expressions of church planting. In fact, our conversations have also produced the same ideas of rotating leadership and gift-based leadership that the authors discovered in many emerging churches.

While the ninth chapter was the most striking for me, the tenth is the most easily applied within our vision. Creativity will be a real struggle, but one worth having.

Reflecting... Tuesday, the fifteenth

2007-05-17T08:34:00.000-07:00

While discussing creativity in the church during class today, the conversation led towards the two things in church which are naturally creative: the sermon and worship. Both of these require a degree of creativity, but we rarely break outside of the bounds of what is typical for each of these. A sermon is almost always a prepared speech given by one person to a group of people and worship is almost always prepared music given by a small group to a larger one. If intentional worship includes all those things that we do in which we focus in awe and gratitude upon God, then we have many more options to explore, not only musically, and not only in the arts.

Why not go hiking? Oh, and while we're on the topic, why do we always sing church songs around a fire when we skip church to go camping?? Can we not worship without music when out in the wilderness surrounded by all of the beautiful lakes, animals, and trees God made?

Here's a thought I had: cooking class worship. I would love to go with my wife and learn to make some new foods, being led by a teacher who recognized God's hand in every ingredient we used, having us taste each one while he/she describes the complex flavors of every vegetable and spice and pairs it with wines that bring out these flavors. If God was a part of this conversation, as the creator of the great complexity of flavors made solely for our enjoyment, would that not stir up awe and gratitude in your average amateur connoisseur? There we go, wok worship. Somebody please do it.

Doug Pagitt's "Re-Imagining Church"

2007-05-13T16:38:00.000-07:00

Few things give me hope for the institutional church of the future. I find that with everything I learn I see the Church (Big "C") moving out of buildings with pastors and Sunday services and into the lives of Christian communities independent of these structures. It seems to me that these elements are far too 'structural' for both the dreams that result from the inspiration of the early Christian Church and the postmodern culture in which we find ourselves.

The community which Doug Pagitt has begun in Minneapolis, Minnesota called Solomon's Porch, has become for me one of these small sources of hope -- a city on a hill, if you will. In a book Pagitt wrote with the help of many at the Porch, the reader is given a glimpse into a week in the life of this relatively small community, which is in nearly every way re-imagining the structures, mission, and call of the Christian church (hence the book's title). They have not abandoned leadership, they've recast leaders as members of the community who 'share the stage' with everyone else, while offering up their unique gifts for the benefit of those gathered and those not present. They've kept the church building, but have stopped referring to it as the church; instead, it is a worship space adorned with the art of those involved at Solomon's Porch where some meetings occur and community services are offered. They have not ditched the sermon, but they've come up with ways of casting it too as an outgrowth of the community, rather than a lesson from up on high. They've also retained formal meeting times, but not the ones usually expected of church communities. Their meetings are the ones which they've discovered are valuable and necessary for their particular community.

Solomon's Porch hasn't kept every element of the church format we've inherited. They've given the boot to the stage and pulpit, honorary titles, music of other communities (for the most part), one day a week worship, the divide between body, soul, and spirit, unidirectional teachings, and foundationalism. Surprisingly for some critics of Emerging churches, they've held on to many ancient forms of worship. As Pagitt puts it, he has seen in the emerging churches "... a desire not to ignore what's come before us, but to be informed and inspired by it as we create ways of living in harmony with God in our time" (p. 192). Perhaps Solomon's Porch finds less to be gained from post-enlightenment practices than from the many Christians who came before modernity, but this is not a rejection of tradition. Pagitt continues his response to concerns, "The great risk of the church is not in losing our traditions; it is losing our ability to re-imagine" (p. 192).

Re-imagining is something that many church leaders fear necessarily leads to heresy; to rediscover theology is to reject the theology of the Bible and of the historical Church. To assuage these concerns, it is helpful to know first of all that the Porch is very concerned with the historical faith and seeks to ally itself on issues of doctrine (See pp. 123-6). But Pagitt does not see doctrine as the seat of belief. "Beliefs... (are) not based on information but on... hopes and experiences" (p. 161).

If you've ever met someones who could not believe (or rather, trust) in God because of their child's death or a past abuse, you know that belief comes from experience. All claims that God is trustworthy and powerful will be rejected if she has never seen this. She does not lack the ability to trust, she lacks a reason to do so. As Christians we can help build this trust with our lives individually and communally, not by telling her she's wrong but by trusting God with our lives and inviting her into that. Similarly, we help people to know God and his Son in all situations by being living testimonies in community, rather than giving rehearsed statements about who God is to us and why others should feel the same. In our relativistic age, where things are 'true for you but not for me', our responsibility is to make God true for others. This cannot come from stating boldly our understanding of truth, but by living our lives in such a way that others cannot help but see God in it, which makes Him 'true' for them. It seems to me that this is the principle upon which Solomon's Porch does theology. This is the re-imagining and re-working of the Christian faith that takes place in every person and community to which the Kingdom of God comes. This practical theology is not heretical it is personal.

This book reminds me that my small-group's conception of church is very young. We have a lot of growing to do so that we can more fully exhibit God's truths in our community. Solomon's Porch is a wonderful example of a group doing this even within the bonds of a semi-traditional church structure.

Reflecting... Thursday the Tenth

2007-05-11T23:34:00.000-07:00

During break on Thursday, I went on a brief walk with Ryan to find some caffeine. We talked a bit more about the idea of a community- and service-oriented pub/cafe, and without me mentioning that I was considering running it as a non-profit, he suggested it. He had a much grander vision than I had yet come up with, but I was quickly persuaded. He hopes for a time when a great number of businesses are run in this way, so that those businesses who exist to create lots of money for a few people would be pushed out of the market by consumers who would rather see their money go to good use. He used Bono of U2 as a good example with the (red) campaign in which red clothes and other items which are sold create profits that can be given to finance the AIDs battle in Africa.

It thus became my hope that the business would be so successful that in order to compete, other local businesses would have to contribute to the community too. Perhaps that means not creating a non-profit though. If our status was such, then others couldn't hope to compete with the level of giving we would be free to do. Perhaps it's important to remain oriented as a profit-earning business so that we are competing in the market on the same level as other local businesses and our success (if it is found) can more greatly influence those businesses. Well, there's a wrench in the machine.

Reflecting... Tuesday the Eighth

2007-05-11T22:53:00.000-07:00

I got the opportunity to talk about my future ministry ideas with the guys in my group class project, and then afterwards with the rest of the class. It really helps to flesh things out with other people who are seeking Christ and God's kingdom while thinking outside of the established ministry boxes. One of the guys in my group, Allen, had some concerns about how things would play out, and felt that there is a risk in combining business with ministry much like the tensions that exist between church and state. He worried that either the pub/cafe would come across as 'preachy', and not succeed at being a place where people would go to relax, or the spiritual aspects would be hindered by the drive for money. They're certainly fair concerns, and I'm trying to give them due thought, especially the latter concern. In response to that second concern and some encouragement I've been getting from friends lately, I've been thinking more and more about making the business a non-profit. It would certainly curtail any drive toward monetary gain - I would be driven to acquire money for the various benefits the business would support rather than for a new car or bigger house I might want. It might also make the initial fundraising easier, while freeing us to give far more than 10 or 20% back to the community.

The friend of mine who first suggested the idea talked about the non-profit he used to work for in which the Christmas party was always the best part because the business had to burn off any profits made that year before thes first of January. That got me thinking: in the Old Testament, tithe went towards four things: 1) feeding the poor, the widowed and the orphans, 2) supporting the priest and his family, 3) sacrificial burnings, and 4) parties. If that last one surprises you, check out Deuteronomy 14:25-27:

Set apart a tithe of all the yield of your seed that is brought in yearly from the field. In the presence of the Lord your God, in the place that he will choose as a dwelling for his name, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil, as well as the firstlings of your herd and flock, so that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always. But if, when the Lord your God has blessed you, the distance is so great that you are unable to transport it, because the place where the Lord your God will choose to set his name is too far away from you, then you may turn it into money. With the money secure in hand, go to the place that the Lord your God will choose; spend the money for whatever you wish—oxen, sheep, wine, strong drink, or whatever you desire. And you shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God, you and your household rejoicing together. As for the Levites resident in your towns, do not neglect them, because they have no allotment or inheritance with you.

How great would it be if, in addition to all of the community contributions made throughout the year, that we were able to throw a big party in a public place, inviting any who wanted to come, offering free food, drink, and entertainment. There's no catch, just a party for the community because God tells us to and our tax status even demands it. By budgeting the profits earned, we could throw winter and summer parties, bringing together the rich and the poor for a gay old time.

Emerging Churches (Chs. 7 &8)

2007-05-05T13:34:00.000-07:00

As I read books on the emerging church or postmodern Christianity, I have in mind two things: (1) the churchplant being formed for a class project and (2) the ministry in which I hope to some day be involved. The seventh and eighth chapters of Bolger and Gibbs' "Emerging Churches" are on the topics of "Serving with Generosity" and "Participating as Producers", respectively. The former seemed to speak into my own future plans with amazing prophetic pungency, while the latter really helped focus some plans we have made regarding our class project church.

Over and over again, Bolger and Gibbs cited emerging church leaders as seeking a life of servanthood, involved directly in their communities. The goal of ministry is thus to help people live this life of generosity in response to Jesus' life and message, including both those who are following Christ and those who are following those who follow Christ in one's efforts. Anna Dodridge says,

One great thing about this community-type church is that we can involve non-Christians in our community. They can hang out with us, eat with us, and get served by us. That to me is evangelism as it should be. People can belong to the community and really get an idea about our day-to-day lifestyle. This approach puts a lot of pressure on us and how we behave and our attitudes, but isn't that what picking up the cross and following Jesus is about? (p. 145)

In this I find support for my most recent dreams about opening a cafe or pub where the profits beyond my family's needs are donated to the charity of the customers' choosing. Each month or quarter our guests choose a local effort to support, and Sundays are reserved so that my wife and I and our employees can be joined by our customers to go work together for those charities. These joint efforts will form the basis for our community, and this seems to fit well with much of what the authors teach. But I also find myself challenged by many of the authors' criticisms of churches as marketers of spiritual goods. I agree with their criticisms whole-heartedly, and will thus need to be very cautious with a business-oriented ministry to allow the medium (a coffee shop, in which things are sold) to distort the message of Christ which is freely given.

As the guys in my class and I discuss our smaller church and try out things like revolving leadership, we also find support with Gibbs and Bolger. Using Karen Ward's analogy of Linux vs. Windows-based computer operating systems, we want "... each person (to) code or customize the system", rather than having "... a fixed structure... set by someone else" (162). In that way, we are all leaders and producers, guiding each other rather than each looking to one person or a team who have the answers. It is ironic that this week in our group, we will be discussing the roles and qualities of leaders in the emerging church, but will doing so in the form of a community discussion. It is not that leadership is something to be avoided or feared, but rather embraced fully by all involved.

Reflecting... Thursday the third (Missiology and Harry Potter)

2007-05-04T12:19:00.000-07:00

Darrell Guder, dean of Princeton Theological Seminary came to Fuller this week to present a paper he has written. I caught the second half of his two-day lecture on the topic of "Formation of the Congregation for Worthy Walking". I didn't feel that there was anything groundbreaking in what he taught, but rather, it found resonance with many of us who share Dr. Guder's concerns. He drew a lot of attention to the fact that the church has been living as an entity of political and societal power for 1700 years, and that the tides have turned. Not only do we need to rediscover the Christian faith as it existed prior, but we need to look with humility upon our behavior in getting, maintaining, and benefitting from that power. During the time since Constantine, Guder taught, we have emphasized only have off the Churches mission: we tell people to "come and hear", but we don't send them out. The Christian "call" is a call for the purpose of sending, not simply calling.

One rather inciteful statement Guder made is that churches need trained seminarians for the purpose of encouraging better questioning on the part of the untrained, in addition to informing and guiding the questioning when the untrained step outside of their expertise. This stands in contradistinction from common thought on the usefulness of formal theological education, that we need theologians to teach lay people what the Bible says and to counter heresy. I think of my buddy Andrew who knows the ins and outs of the Harry Potter series, having read it a number of times. When he sees the latest movie or reads each book, he's drawing hundreds of connections that I miss. While I very much love Rowling's stories, I have not engaged with them on the same level. He can point out the connections made, which allows me to experience his level of excitement and ask better questions. For these, he often has more stories he can remind me of and even be insighted to new thought. His greater knowledge makes my reading and viewing more meaningful. Were he to simply recapitulate the stories without me having read them, it would be far less stimulating for me. I need to experience them myself, but I experience them far better with his support and excitement.

Reflecting... (Tuesday, the First)

2007-05-02T11:27:00.000-07:00

I had the opportunity to get together with my imaginary church plant on Tuesday, and we enjoyed some great conversation. It was actually a pretty encouraging thing to do. We've been trying to get away from the model of the Church in which the energies go toward the gathering (or 'church service'), which is simultaneously a marketing of the Christian faith for those not a part of the tradition. We wanted to replace that with a vision in which people get together naturally because they are part of a community together, and intentional gatherings for the point of worship are just that. We are envisioning a community which is outwardly focused, equipping and challenging each person to live like Jesus and his disciples, but in the contexts in which we find ourselves. We want to learn together what it means to live lives of good news. For a too long, we as the followers of Jesus have been 'cacangelists' (In Greek: Kakon= bad, ugly, wicked [as in cacophony]; angelos= messengers: "bringers of bad news"), not evangelists ("bringers of good news"). We've brought bad news in our hell-focused fear-mongering. Wee've brought bad news in the form of judgmentalism. We've brought bad news in the form of cultural destruction and even genocide. We've brought it in the form of crusades. We've brought it by seeking power and authority. And we've brought it by being mouths without ears and eyes.

What was great about our get-together was that we couldn't even SWAY the conversation so as to focus on the group itself (for the sake of our project), because we were each far more interested in what was going on in each of our lives, and the role of God there. I'd say we're not off to a bad start.

Alan Hirsch's "The Forgotten Ways"

2007-04-30T17:10:00.000-07:00

Years ago I had the opportunity to read the book that Alan Hirsch co-authored with Michael Frost, called "The Shaping of Things to Come", and it rocked my world. As an undergrad student on my way to the Lutheran seminary, I was looking for an expression of Christian ministry that wasn't... well, boring. I felt a calling to ministry, but understood that call very narrowly, and felt stifled because of it. Frost and Hirsch's book was an eye-opener, suggesting that ministers exist in many non-churchly settings, and are following the true biblical call to discipleship and leadership more genuinely than many pastors in churches.

I just about shat my pants six months ago when Alan Hirsch wandered into the bar where I work. I had been talking to him for quite a while, and didn't know it was him until he gave me his credit card to pay for his meal. That led to another hour of discussion, and my world was once again rocked as I remembered how influential his book had been. While initially it only freed me from my more structured concepts of ministry, this second time around I was in a better place to really think about what was being suggested. We maintained e-mail contact for a short while after that, and time and again he told me that my further questions could be answered in his book (which at that time was not out), "The Forgotten Ways". I admit to being a bit miffed - I thought he was just promoting his next book.

I was wrong.

Just about every thought swirling through my head in the last few years is addressed by this outstanding book. The main argument that he makes is that the Church is naturally embued with the passion and ability (which he refers to as Apostolic Genius) built into its very nature (which he calls mDNA [for missional DNA]) that allows it to be a radical Jesus movement. However, for almost 1700 years the church has been hindered by a a teaching contrary to Jesus's Sermon on the Mount - we've been taught to seek and expect power. Thus, we have forgotten our ways (hence the name of the book). This is a message with which many would be uncomfortable, but it's a basic assumption of Emerging Churches. What Hirsch contributes to the conversation is his analysis of these 'ways', and a resulting ecclesiology based on these. Having just taken an entire Ecclesiology class last quarter without learning about the ways of Jesus or his disciples, I found this book to be a breath of fresh air. It challenged me to ask new questions about the future bar/cafe that I'm considering running, like, "How will discipleship occur?", "How can that business be used to bring healing to Portland?", "How will I be challenging the consumerist culture (which Hirsch argues fulfills many of the roles occupied prior by religion in America) with a business?" and "If I can succeed at answering that last question, how can I hope to reproduce more kingdom-minded businesses?"

I thought: how great would it be to hire young people for a job where they are given a mentor, and it's required that they be involved in community healing activities with the others at work. 20% of all the store's income could go to a different local and international humanitarian effort each quarter which customers choose. Then, we can provide the opportunity for the community to get involved with the local efforts, giving their time and energies alongside the employees and ownership. I could hire some of the many transient youth in Portland, giving them mentorship, and the structure of a job along with an opportunity to give back. This would all be done in Christ's name, allowing people to become a part of, and be challenged by, the Kingdom of God. People may not initially know what it is that they are a part of, but a business being run so counter to common consumerist assumptions is bound to produce questions.

In regards to my classroom project in which we are imagining a new churchplant, I think this book gives us plenty of fuel for the discussion fire. It lays out the values of a Jesus movement, and allows us to ask whether as individuals and a church community we are enacting these things. If I am running a business, my fellow 'church members' can ask me the same questions I listed above (and many more I'm sure!), and where my answers come up short, we can envision together ways of bringing the kingdom more fully into that business. Similarly, if we find that our rather insular ideas for church are not producing a community which embodies and incarnates Jesus to the greater one, then they must be rethought.

There are so many great ideas in this book that I can't possibly cover them all, so go read it and learn about apostolic leadership, mission-minded incarnation, the shema, Hebraic vs. Hellenistic views of discipleship, etc., etc., etc.

Reflecting... (Thursday, the 26th)

2007-04-27T07:54:00.000-07:00

Ya know, I'm getting pretty excited about our imaginary church plant. In fact, we decided to actually get together once AS the church plant to see how things feel from the inside, rather than talking about it in the abstract. The more I think about it, the more it really makes sense to give Seeker Sensitive churches the finger, and allow Christian worship to happen amongst people who desire to worship the Christian God, without making sure that when we do so it looks 'fun' to people who don't consider themselves to be followers of Christ.

I'm not trying to sound seclusive, or say that the HEATHENS do not belong in GOD'S HOUSE. I'm saying that Christians should not try to market the worship of God. Christian worship should be genuine praise of God, whether it happens during a walk, while at a concert, at childbirth, during conversation, while singing praises with others who worship the same God, or after work over a couple of beers. But we connect worship with singing in church (if you doubt this, tell me what comes to mind when you picture a worship leader). So for the average pew-warmer, worship is something done once a week, it's as much about the individual as it is about God, and it's organized by people who are trying to attract more tithing members. Do we truly learn the value of worship in that scenario? Do we learn how to live a LIFE of worship in that setting?

Archos 404

2007-04-27T07:13:00.000-07:00

So, with the cashola I got for my birthday I decided to replace my older Mp3 player which has been going kaput on my lately. Apparently I'm partial to hearing music in both ears... consistently.

Unfortunately getting an iPod just simply wouldn't work for me... too much of the music I have is unprotected, or worse, it's in WMA format which the suckers won't play. There's actually quite a bit more out there than I thought there would be. So if you're trying to stick it to the man and rebel against the monopoly which is iPod (or you've downloaded too much of your music and live in proprietory audio formats), there's some great reviews at Anything but iPod. By the way, in my research, I also discovered a great blog that is updated at least 10 times a day with new tech gadgets, from absurd to brilliant; check it out: Crave - The Gadget Blog.

But here's the real reason I write: The Archos 404 PMP (Portable Media Player). Not only does it have a screen twice the size of a video iPod's AND it plays WMA files, but it doubles as a TiVo!! You connect it to your TV, schedule it to record all your favorite shows, then you watch them back on the device or on your TV. It'll record the audio and video output of any device with RCA output: TV, VCR, DVD, digital cameras, video cameras or whatever other fancy gadgets you may have floating around. It has a 30 gig memory, which is admittedly modest, but since it plays the compact WMA file format, I have room for the 4th season of The Family Guy, the 3rd season of The Office, the most recent episodes of Mythbusters, The Daily Show, Numb3rs, Criminal Minds, and CSI, plus my entire music collection. And there's room to spare. If you're willing to have a bit beefier PMP, Archos does offer other devices with bigger memories and more gadgetry like WiFi, video cameras, touch screens, and 160 GB storage capacities. That is, if you're willing to shell out for it. I opted for the smaller one because I found it at Circuit City for only $200 (FAR cheaper than a video iPod), and I wanted the thing to actually fit in my pocket. By and by, great device.

Reflecting on Lutherans and Other Unenthusiastic People (Tuesday, the 24th)

2007-04-24T16:00:00.000-07:00

It's no secret that I was brought up Lutheran (LCMS, to be more specific), but don't worry. I'm getting better.

Having this as my background, movies like Jesus Camp and the church scene from Borat just scare the bejeezus out of me. I've lived for a couple of decades now following Christ, and never once have I felt compelled to yell in piglatin, collapse uncontrollably, or smack people in the forehead to show them God's presence. I watch these movies depicting Christianity as close-minded and seemingly cultic, and I worry that people will come to believe that this is what Christian worship looks like. I do not deny that Pentacostal or charismatic expression are forms of Christian worship, though I do find them suspicious. I would say that I sense alterior motives behind these expressions, but if Wikipedia is to be trusted on the topic, that would be an unforgivable sin in the eyes of Pentacostals. Considering I don't speak in tongues, I guess I've already missed the boat, so I might as well go for the gusto: I don't deny that the Holy Spirit can do some pretty strange things and that Christians worldwide have the mysterious gift of tongues, but I find it curious that this gift and others fall quite often along denominational lines.

Today at break, a classmate mentioned that he was surprised to discover a large number of charismatics involved in the Emerging Church, a pattern I'd noticed too. In fact, it is often those with whom I find myself in most agreement, whom I discover to have charismatic backgrounds. Again and again I've been surprised to find such kindred spirits in a tradition I'm so wary of. But I have a theory: it seems to be the case that those with such backgrounds are drawn to the Emerging Church because of dissatisfaction with Christian spirituality as they knew it. If this is true, they're here for the same reasons I am. To borrow Dieter Zanders' phrase, I've come to realize that in my youth I was abducted by an "alien gospel", an over-simplification and perversion of Jesus' teachings. Charismatics, Pentacostals, and most of the Evangelical church have also been abducted by an individualistic, hell-avoiding gospel, and we are all looking for something else.

"Breaking the Missional Code"

2007-04-22T17:43:00.000-07:00

I've learned not to judge a book by it's cover. Instead, I flip it over and read other authors' reviews... so I guess I judge it by the back cover. Even though I'd never heard of Ed Stetzer or David Putnam, and they gave their book a shitty title like, "Breaking the Missional Code" (during the summer of the blockbuster flick "The Davinci Code"), I saw that Alan Hirsch and Dan Kimball both had good things to say about it. So I blamed the P.R. guy for the title and design and excitedly cracked the spine.

Oops.

The phrase 'cracking the missional code' is used at least as many times as the letter "A" throughout the book but it is never defined. The best I can surmise is that it refers to the conjuring up of just the right combination of quality leadership, musical style, organization, culturally relevant media, and financial resources in order to make the Gospel attractive in your given community. To be fair Putnam and Stetzer do seem to have an awareness that Christ's teachings are not dependent upon slick advertising, a chubby budget, and charismatic leaders, but it's easy to forget that when reading the authors' characteristics of good church planter: (1) He/She must be called by God, (2) be able to lead, and (3) be able to raise financial resources (pgs. 159-160). It's harder yet to remember when during the chapter called "Revitalization to Mission Ministry" ink is spilled describing all of the places you should have greeters in your massive-ass church (pg. 147). Further, the "Resource Challenge" faced by church planters is all monetary. Forget friends and family, emotional and spiritual support, or even a place to meet... we have three budgets (start-up, operational, and salary) and thirty to forty investors to worry about.

I recognize that I am probably naive. I have never had to start a church from scratch, and I'm sure that money can be a real headache. But this isn't a book on all of the considerations one must make before beginning a church, it is on the topic of being missional. There is an assumption throughout the book that success is defined by numbers (for example, to 'crack the missional code' for your city, you should look at the most quickly growing churches in your area), and that your 'mission' is to create another standard attractional church institution (if not a megachurch). Again, this is nuanced as they also describe the attractional model's demise. It's just that the time spent on musical choices, greeter placement, and descriptions of the authors' churches numerical success tell another story.

Despite all of this, the book's intentions are noble: it aims to encourage pastors and church planters to approach American ministry as a mission field, and to recognize that churches are often formed on archaic or 'churchy' culture which is foreign to those outside.

"Many evangelicals live in a 'Christianized" world where people listen to James Dobson to tell us how to raise our children, consult Ron Blue to understand our finances, sing along with Third Day for musical inspiration, choose political candidates based upon Christian Coalition voting guides, and read Tim LaHaye to enjoy some good Christian fiction. We live in this evangelical subculture, this evangelical bubble, and we see all kinds of people just like us... What we see becomes our reality. We think that everyone around us knows where we are, and they can come to church if they want to be like us" (pg. 33).

Rather than following this Christian model, the authors encourage us to create 'indigenous churches' which look different from culture to culture (pg. 183).

While the author's intentions are honorable, it is unclear to me whether they truly seek cultural indigenous expressions of the Christian faith, or culturally relevant regurgitations of the traditional institutional model. In reading Stetzer and Putnam's work, those of us with a passion for church planting gain encouragement to truly love and understand the people with whom we hope to join in worship. But unfortunately, we probably need to look elsewhere to find examples of where this has truly been undertaken.

As for the fictitious church plant I'm involved in, our ideas so poorly fit the models the authors described, that I struggled to find connection. However, I think that the book got me thinking about ways that our group could take on a public expression beyond our individual lives. While our intentions have not been to create a growing community, but rather a small and intimate one, perhaps we need to at least be open to the possibility that God could use such a community in ways unforeseen, and to remain flexible in light of that.

Reflecting on 'Teaching the Truth'... (Thursday, the 19th)

2007-04-21T14:39:00.000-07:00

There's an issue which I've been confronted with from a number of directions lately which challenges the emerging church's ability help its constituents learn about God. A member in a class discussion group brought it up most recently, by saying that the central focus of a church must be on "teaching the Holy Scriptures", and implied that the postmodern churches weren't honoring this. I was glad that there were two others in the group who could respond educatedly because my gut response was just negative. I really had to stop and think about why I had such a reaction. I don't know if I've sorted it all out, but here's what I've found so far.

As a young American born during the time in which the social atmosphere is moving towards a postmodern way of thinking, I have an aversion to authority. Young people resist authority because they want to have power over their lives, and postmoderns reject it because they don't see anyone as having all the answers who would be justified in making decisions for another. So I guess I'm double damned. But my reasoning for resisting the 'authoritative teachings' of another person are much more philosophically postmodern than sophomorically power-resistant. I know all too well that hundreds of people can read the same scriptures (or even the same passage) and have extremely different understandings of its message. Thus it's impossible to hear someone say "The Holy Scripture says...", without supplanting "What I understand the Holy Scriptures to be saying is..." Even if a teaching comes to me in the form of authoritative preaching, I take it in the context of a conversation, because that persons opinion is colliding in my mind with all of the others I've heard. So, naturally I place a very low value on the necessity of 'preaching' in church, because I don't greatly value monolithic opinions on complicated topics. Inversely, I love a good conversation with people with whom I disagree so that my discernment on these issues can be better equipped.

I agree with the gentleman in the discussion group that the Bible needs a central position in communities that consider themselves to be a 'church', but perhaps the way in which it fulfills that role can be different. It's important that Christians know about the Bible, why it's important, and how it speaks into their lives. But I don't know if it's important that they gain this awareness through sermons and preaching. I equate it to those who have to learn second languages when they move to another country. Do they gain a greater knowledge of the language through formal lessons or through everyday interactions with others? I've talked with people who moved to America and found that while they thought they'd been learning English since third grade, interactions with Americans taught them that they just knew abstract rules and not the art of English communication. When I communicate with some hispanic friends of mine, I am limited to pre-memorized sentences and can't truly communicate because I don't know the 'art' of Spanish. Perhaps knowing the facts about Jesus life and death is like knowing how to say "Where is the bathroom?", rather than "Sorry to interrupt, but you wouldn't happen to know if there's a bathroom around here, would you?" or "Hey man, where's the can?" The essence of the concept needs to take on a fresh life depending on the context, and this requires more than preaching. To know that Jesus is God, that he was incarnated, lived a perfect and loving life, and that he died for our sins is to know no more than the demons in the New Testament claimed. This is like being able to say, "Where is the bathroom?" and it can be learned by scriptural preaching. But to believe that this matters, and to commit your life to learning to live and love like Jesus lived and loved, this is the 'art' of faith... the "Hey man, where's the can?", and this is learned through experience and loving relationships.

Holistic vs. Reductionistic Epistemology

2007-04-18T14:43:00.000-07:00

An element of the current trend towards postmodernism is a reconstruction of epistemology, that is, how we understand, conceive of, and identify Truth. The modern conception was one in which a single unarguable fact is established on which the rest of our understandings are to be built. This is known as foundationalism: our broad constructions of truth are built on a single indelible foundation. Postmodern thinking is moving away from this reductionism, towards a conception of Truth that is much more like a web, containing many elements. The truthiness of which is to be determined by examining the interrelationship between various parts for consistency (according to Alasdair MacIntyre).

So what does this mean for Christianity and its search for, or claims to, Truth?

By taking a holist position on how epistemology is to be understood, Christians gain a stability to their apologetics which is not found in reductionism. As Christians, we claim that God is Truth, but we also know that we cannot 'look upon his face'. Knowing that Truth exists is not the same having access to or knowledge of that Truth. There is nothing in the Bible which should lead us to believe that we have received any sort of complete revelation. In fact, the two thousand years of arguments since Christ's death should confirm that we have not.

The greatest revelation we have ever received came in the form of a living human being, a dynamic and multi-faceted life -- Jesus. Life does not serve well as a foundation, especially when we no longer have the sort of terrestrial and conversational relationship with him that first century Jews and Gentiles had. The concept that Truth is to be founded on a single comprehensible foundation has served Christianity poorly as we do not have this. Instead, we have stories from dozens of men over thousands of years who received varying degrees of revelation, we have the stories of Jesus's life and death, we have 2,000 years worth of historical Christianity seeking to make sense of these two traditions, and we have our own individual experiences with God to call upon. All attempts at reducing this great history to manageable and palatable nuggets of truth (reductionism) have produced insufficient concepts of Truth and God with glaring blindspots in addition to a long and violent history of conflicts over power.

Holistic epistemology provides us with a different conception of truth, a web which contains much grander schemas of truth which can give weight simultaneously to Jewish history and Christian history, Jesus' life and his death, his actions and his words, orthodoxy and orthopraxy, and contemporary and ancient revelation. Holistic epistemology frees us to have a broader and coherent worldview without reducing it to single doctrines or least common denominators. It liberates us from the impossible task of distilling our faith down to a small and easily communicable truth of which we have full and complete comprehension and the responsibility to protect.

Reflections (17th of April)

2007-04-17T16:03:00.000-07:00

Spurred by recent class discussions and having not come upon any direct attacks of the Emerging church in any real sense, I decided to peruse the blogosphere to see what's out there. There are two very popular and vocal critics whose names surfaced again and again, John Macarthur and Phil Johnson. I found the latter of the two to be far more diplomatic, but shorter on content, while the writings of the former were far harsher but specific in their complaints. Today, I'll address Macarthur and his main criticism that Emergents attack the clarity of the scriptures.

For the sake of transparency, I'll admit I had a hard time finding writings from Macarthur, and instead had to depend on written chunks of one of his sermons and a few statements he's made here and there. If I'm feeling especialy masochistic I may read his recently released book in the coming months to form a more educated opinion. But I did find the following video on YouTube which is helpful in understanding his perspectives:

In this video, Macarthur claims that "The Bible says its inerrant..." In response to Larry King's pressure that he cite his source, the verse he uses is 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed..." Apparently, he interprets 'God-breathed' or 'inspired' to mean something like "God-dictated" or "God-imposed". This is an interpretive move, and it's one which many make, but for fairness's sake, let's admit that it's an interpretation, not a quote.

"The bottom line... in the (Emerging Church) movement," according to Macarthur, "is the denial of the clarity of Scripture. It is a denial that we can know what the Bible really says" (From: "What's so Dangerous about the Emerging Church?"). Here is the beautiful irony: in his polemics establishing that the Bible is perfectly clear and that we can "understand precisely what the Bible means", he has to replace the Biblical phrase "God-Breathed" (in reference to the origin of Old Testament scripture, which by the way says nothing of the New Testament) with "inerrant". In order to show that the Bible is perfectly clear, he has to illuminate it's 'intended meaning' with different words.

We all interpret the Bible, and Macarthur has illustrated this well. The Emerging Church, along with many other strains of Christian thought are beginning to put this out on the table. The Bible is complicated work of religious scripture, containing the writings of at least dozens of people as they experience God in cultures very different from our own. It isn't always clear, and we have Macarthur's on-air interpretations to prove that.

For further readings by the Emerging Church's critics:
Emergent No
Emergent Delusion: A Critique of McLaren's "A Generous Orthodoxy"
Apprising Ministries

For more video:
John Macarthur: "The Battle for Truth"

A Bouncy Faith...

2007-04-15T23:33:00.000-07:00

I read Rob Bell's book, "Velvet Elvis" a while back, and while there were some great insights within, his metaphor of faith as a 'trampoline' did not connect with me. Perhaps it did, but his juxtaposition of it against a 'wall' might have foggied for me the issue he was trying to make. The wall made no bloody sense.

But in a conversation recently I was given a second chance to understand the trampoline perspective, and I've got to admit: it's brilliant and it's probably even smarter than Bell intended. It actually echoes a philosophical argument made by W.V.O. Quine, which challenges the presuppositions of the foundationalist's model of the modern era. Put in simple terms: foundationalists argue for a single unarguable fact upon which they build entire philosophies (a solid 'foundation'), while those who oppose it tend to present an image more like a spider web in which all of reality is related to other observations, explanations, and theories. In Quine's presentation, reality is a web with borders supported by our observations which are connected by theories, doctrines, etc. Tough to picture? Visualize a TRAMPOLINE. The coils around the outer edge are our observations, while that which comprises everything in the middle are our theories that explain, connect, make sense of, and synthesize these observations into a stable concept of reality. In this sense, our conceptions of reality are interdependent, and are not completely destroyed when a single portion is lost. That's an oversimplification, but it's all I need for now.

Bell talks about our faiths in the same way, but his metaphor depicts the coils as doctrines. There is a flexibility to be found here, in that we can suffer the loss of a coil (say, the doctrine of creationism) and not lose the entire trampoline. We can even try unhooking various coils, or hooking on new ones. Sure, the metaphor breaks down eventually, but the idea is quite cool. When faith is built upon a single foundation beyond God himself (like the inerrancy of scripture, Calvinism, Lutheranism, or any other '-ism'), there is the risk that new experiences will challenge or crack that foundation, bringing down the whole building. Knowing this, we ferociously protect this foundation as if it were our faith itself (See posting below: "PERVERSION!! ABOMINATION!! Hypocrisy.") . In doing this, we hurt ourselves, and almost certainly others.

Further, Humpty Dumpty fell off a WALL... and no one has ever gotten hurt falling off of a trampoline. Ever.

Emerging Churches (Chs. 5&6)

2007-04-14T15:17:00.000-07:00

The guys with whom I'll be putting together an imaginary church plant and I started toying around with the idea of an intentionally insular church (which requires virtually no planting at all) for the sake of reaching out individually as pastors into the worlds and cultures in which we live. This builds rather well upon Dieter Zanders' conception of the church as a ring (like a hula hoop) onto which a few hold in order to reach their other hand out further, grabbing onto the ring of another community. In other words, our church community is what enables us to reach out and connect with communities with which we would not otherwise be able (See posting below: "Week 1 Reflection (Thursday)".

If the six of us guys were to get together as one of God's communities, loving each other and teaching each other how to do so better, we hope we would then be better agents of God's Kingdom in our lives outside that community. We would be church with each other so that we can better learn to be Christ in the other communities of which we are a part. Essentially, this is a rather traditional church model, with a twist. The twist comes in the form of the 'ring' we each have in our other hand. We want to make ourselves into church plants, so that in the end we are each a part of at least two church communities. We learn to care for, love, and support each other and bring that energy to the 'other ring', our second church, our communities of which we are already a part. This grates upon most views of the church, which are inviting us to become more inclusive. But it is a missional concept when the 'other hand' is viewed as the central vision.

I had this in mind as I read two chapters of Ryan Bolger's "Emerging Churches" book, and found quite a bit of support. I could not find one definition of church that would challenge this idea, and in fact, many support it quite well. For example, Kevin Rains concludes a description of his church community with the statement, "But primarily, church is the people of God on mission together" (p. 107). And Bolger elaborates further, "... church is a set of strong relationships supported by gathering together. All the while, the people in these relationships recognize that they exist for those outside their community." Joe Boyd adds to this, "We (in my faith community) belong to each other, but our primary connection is to the world... My pagan friends are church for me as well. While with them, I spend time with Jesus because he is with me."

There are certainly some downfalls to this view of church. In some ways it seems to re-establish a sacred/secular split, wherein I have my "Christian Church" and my "Pagan Church". Many might rightly suggest that these two realms get together. Further, there may not be a Kingdom community to which we can invite people, so that they can see the way of Jesus lived out, which is the central theme of Bolger's next chapter on hospitality. Ideally, the'ring in the other hand' should come to play this role (i.e. it itself becomes a healthy expression of the Kingdom), but then the first church becomes little more than a "Clergy Prayer Breakfast".

Thursday the 12th: Reflections

2007-04-14T11:50:00.000-07:00

It's no secret that the church is facing many problems it hasn't faced before, or at least ones it hasn't dealt with for a number of centuries. What is a secret is how we are to respond to these challenges. When even the most basic assumptions of what it means to be a church (or 'the Church) are on the chopping block, it is tough to know where to begin rethinking. Even getting six guys with similar visions into a conversation to a hash out the basic assumptions on which a ministry project in the 21st century could/should be based is damn near impossible. To differing degrees we have each thrown out bits (or chunks) of the tradition of church polity and structure which we've been passed, but there is still a tension regarding what the GOAL of a church is. Should corporate worship be a goal of a church plant? Does that require singing or preaching? Is it enough to say that a group of people in deep relationship worship God with their lives and are gathered somewhere? Is that corporate worship, or is more necessary? Do we need a building, a name, or recognized leadership? How many people would be involved? Does a person need to recognize themselves as a church to be part of it? Could the planter simply be working to develop a community of people who love God and each other? Is that enough? Is that a church? To what degree can one be a pastor who builds up the Church (Big 'C') not seek to create a church (little 'c')? Is he/she still a pastor or church planter, or is that person just nice and hospitable? To sum up, is there a difference between a God-pleasing community and a church?

Anybody? Hmm?

Sick Puppies: "All the Same" (VIDEO)

2007-04-11T13:15:00.000-07:00

Maybe it's cheesy, perhaps I'm in a sappy mood, but does anybody else find this video really peaceful and inspiring. I'm half tempted to go make myself a sign.

Reflection Tuesday, May 10th

2007-04-10T20:20:00.000-07:00

According to Ryan Bolger's book, "Emerging Churches", there is a movement within the postmodern church away from a "gospel of salvation" towards a "gospel of the kingdom" (p. 91). I certainly feel a transition going on in my own thinking in this direction, but I think it brings up some concerns. Certainly the church needs to rediscover what is, in fact, the thing Jesus seems most concerned with, but I think it's too easy and safe to focus solely upon this. I myself am really wrestling with universalism, or at least a more expanded concept of salvation than the majority of churches adopt, but I don't trust myself to come to the right answers. I never will.

If it does turn out that God is as strict as the Evangelicals (for which there is some Biblical evidence), is the Emerging church's focus upon a lifestyle which incarnates Jesus' love without calling for "saving faith" doing a disservice? Granted, many do balance these two aspects of the Christian Gospel, but the majority of the literature doesn't seem to represent this balance. I really hate to write this, because I myself get really irritated when people say, "Yeah, yeah, but what about the Gospel? We need to preach about JAY-SUS' death and call for repentance." My response is, THAT'S NOT THE WHOLE GOSPEL. I guess I just want to be fair and say the same thing back to myself, as an emerging church leader.

I am reminded of St. Francis of Assisi's statement (roughly): "Preach the gospel everywhere you go, and when necessary, use words." The church does need "a little less talk and a lot more action", but we've been known to go from one extreme to the other! And I'd LOVE some discussion on this... I'd be happy to be corrected.

PERVERSION!! ABOMINATION!! Hypocrisy.

2007-04-10T19:43:00.000-07:00

In my New Testament class today, the prof was illustrating a point by comparing the Pharisee's heavy teachings on maintaining the law which we outside that ancient community view as hypocritical and judgmental. She showed how the arguments Pharisees used to attack Jesus for healing on the Sabbath or getting a bit smashed with his buddies mirror the arguments many evangelicals use against gays. She did this not to defend gay marriage or gay ordination (I doubt she would support these), but rather to help us understand the Pharisees and their good intentions. Some middle aged lady on the left half of the class gets all hot and bothered by this and complains that there's no comparison because "in the Bible, homosexuality is clearly a perversion and abomination!"

I think it actually helped the prof make her point.

I scowled at the lady, but moved on. There were more interesting things going on than this lady's intolerance, and I was heartened by many other disgusted faces in the crowd.

Then, at least twenty minutes later, while the class is on a very different discussion, this lady raises her hand again to draw an outlandish connection between the Essenes and... you guessed it.. impure sexuality (and really, she meant homosexuality)! At break I saw her talking with the prof, then with anybody unfortunate enough to have sat within hearing distance. She was pretty worked up.

Now I understand the complicated debate which surrounds this issue... I hope to address it in some blogs pretty soon here. It's not an easy debate, and both sides have valid points. But for God's sake, why get so heavily worked up at the mention of the word 'gay'? We talked about poverty, and no one got caught up on it. Why? Because we've all agreed that it's a problem, and that if we all do nothing about it no one has to feel guilty. The same thing would have happened if the prof had mentioned evolution. Somehow, modern Bible-thumping evangelicals have distilled our entire faith down to four issues rarely or never mentioned in the Bible: inerrancy of scripture, abortion, evolution, and homosexuality.

If there's anybody out there reading this... somebody help me understand what the hell is going on?

Incorporating Barna's "Revolution" into Church Planting

2007-04-07T10:50:00.000-07:00

Based on his well-respected research, George Barna's book, "Revolution" identifies a large group of people who are seeking to develop their Christian faiths outside of the institutional church (though sometimes from within). Unfortunately, nearly every observation of his beyond this initial fact show no evidence of being the result of research, but originates rather from his conservative, modern perspective on what these people must be seeking. This exilic Church, in his perspective, seems only incidentally to be missional, and is instead an individualistic pursuit of spirituality.

As I read Barna, I recognize a bit of myself in his description of the discontent, but I no longer share the concerns that he has. In my opinion, Barna has correctly recognized the impetus for many Christians' departure from their churches, but has failed to follow the conversation that has continued since. If someone leaves the church (if even mentally) and begins to whole-heartedly pursue God unfettered by bureaucracy and unempassioned tradition, they will not long remain individualistic in their pursuit. If there is anything to be said about the Kingdom of God, it is that it is not individualistic. If one seeks this Kingdom, their faith will no longer take on the expressions Barna seeks, with the "personal 'church' of the individual" (66), the advancement of "my faith" (67), a "closed circle" (58), with the desire to become "an unrivaled leader" (72), or a "connection with like-minded people" (22). The Kingdom of God, quite oppositely, is an incarnation of God in our communities.

The imaginary church plant leadership team in which I am involved has much to learn from Barna's book, but we cannot stop where he did. "Revolution" will help us to reconnect with our spiritual life as it existed when our frustration finally hit the tipping point and we were driven to action. There was a lot of passion, vision, excitement, and a sense of freedom. But there is also a brashness, a haphazardness, which seeks what is understood to have always been missing. One cannot achieve happiness by pursuing it directly, and the same is to be said of worship, devotion, and deep spirituality. The action plan of our church plant must begin with a discipleship of these well-intentioned Christians, helping them to re-evaluate their Christology, their theology, and especially their ecclesiology. Those who are leaving the church often feel that they have been neglected, that their individual spirituality has suffered so that the corporate church could continue its business. There is surely truth here, but the answer is not to pursue the atrophied individual spirituality, it is rather to pursue Christ in a community which itself seeks the Kingdom of God, rather than efficiency, financial stability, programs, or church growth. Our action plan in church planting is thus: to create new communities or to come alongside existing ones, seeking out the mustard seeds of hope within, and nurturing growth so that we learn together what it means to love God entirely and our neighbors as ourselves while participating in the Kingdom of God. Wherever there exists self-centered spirituality (and there certainly will), we invite further involvement in the Kingdom, the community.

Week 2 Reflection (Thursday)

2007-04-06T00:03:00.000-07:00

We got together for the first time with our church planting groups, and I'm pretty excited. From the first day of class, when you hear you'll be working in groups, you start building your Fantasy Team. I'm a bit bummed about the fact that there are no females in our group. Having been raised in a traditional church in which women had no place in ministry leadership, this would have been a great opportunity to see what sort of perspective might be brought to church planting when a little estrogen is thrown in the mix. The other group has 3 or 4, so it will be interesting to see if there's any noticeable differences between the way these two groups govern.

Week 2 Reflection (Tuesday)

2007-04-03T18:07:00.000-07:00

I had an epiphany of sorts today. In my New Testament class, the prof was describing ancient Jewish theology as a process of discovery towards answering the question, "What does it mean to be the children of God?" The answer they came to was a way of life dictated by the laws given them by God. Christians often understand this poorly, seeing legalism instead of dedication. The misunderstanding comes from the strong emphasis throughout Christian church history upon orthodoxy (right thinking) rather than orthopraxy (right living).

Two hours later, I'm in my Emerging Churches class, and Ryan is talking about how postmoderns are far less concerned with the nature of truth, and demand instead to see a life which attests to held beliefs. In postmodern culture, belief is something which is lived out rather codified and dogmatized. Thus, we who consider ourselves to be emerging Christians (or postmodern, postevangelical, postdenominational, compost, or whatever) who want to meet postmoderns where they are, get to go back to our Jewish roots. I think this provides us a great opportunity to learn from a group with whom we have throughout history had strained relations. Further, when the living of a life before God that is worshipful is the central concern, then Christians and Jews have far more in common than when our main concern is a logical, dogmatic one. This is not to say that our differences are to be swept under the rug or that they become unimportant, but rather that we have some common concerns around which we can center conversations. And really, could it hurt Christians to know a bit about our heritage before John 3:16?

Emerging Churches, Chs. 1-4

2007-04-01T18:51:00.000-07:00

For those of you who may be following this blog but aren't in my "Emerging Churches" class, here's the context: I'm reading books and applying them to an imaginary churchplant to be led by myself and other class members. This week: it's Ryan Bolger and Eddie Gibbs' "Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures". There you go. The stage is set. Witness art in the making.

The first thing that struck me about Gibbs' and Bolger's book is that it would be a fantastic way of getting the leadership team of a church plant on the same page. It establishes three major things: (1) the emerging church signifies a radical break from the modern, post-enlightenment church, (2) it is not intended to be divisive or antagonistic, and lastly (3), there are unifying characteristics of the many disparate expressions of the emergent church.

The church has a long history of top-down-style leadership, with which the emerging churches are attempting to do away. Team leadership presents new challenges which agreement on these points could help assuage. The first point would be a point of contention for those who see the emergent church as a candle-lit, guitar-led reiteration of the modern church model, and who are unwilling to question its theology. The second would put on ice those whose church wounds are too fresh, who need time to heal and forgive before being given the responsibility of leadership. And finally, familiarity with the emergent church's unifying characteristics helps to weed out those who use the postmodern church's lingo as catch phrases without commitment to its postmodern ideology.

Week 1 Reflection (Thursday)

2007-04-01T18:29:00.000-07:00

Dieter Zander, in describing the postmodern church's paradigmatic shift, described it as a transition from a 'rubber band' mentality to that of a 'ring'. Whereas the modern church tried to bring people into a flexible and expanding space (like a rubber band), the postmodern church does not seek to strap people in. Instead they use the church's structure (in this case, a solid metal ring big enough for a handful of people to hold on to) to reach out further than they could without it. This allows them to hold another ring out for more to grab onto. Thus, the church is that which holds communities together. To be a part of the church is not to be a part of one community into which you try to fit more people, but rather to be a part one which allows you to reach out to others to create more communities.

Week 1 Reflection (Tuesday)

2007-03-28T11:48:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm again blessed with the opportunity to take a class from Ryan Bolger. What this means for you, my imaginary readers (and my loyal wife), is that you will again be getting actual postings here on my blog! The class this time around is "The Emerging Church in the 21st Century", which Ryan has decided to take in a church planting direction. In other words, it's a class written specifically for me. That's probably a lie, but it sure seems like it, right?

Class is off to a great start, and I'm pretty excited about this quarter. So stay tuned... or logged in... or online... or whatever the kids say these days.

I'm a Christ Follower

2007-03-06T00:04:00.000-08:00

That's funny! I don't care who you are, that's funny!

2006-12-10T01:05:00.000-08:00

MadTV - T3 (parodie)
Uploaded by Van_Lock

You've gotta watch this, it's hilarious!

Tuesday Reflection: Week 9

2006-11-30T13:45:00.000-08:00

The best part of class today happened AFTER class. We had been discussing the "McDonaldization of America" in which there is a move toward efficiency and cost-effectiveness in production and advertising regardless of the environmental, health, or social impacts of the industry. We wondered which of the four following scenarios is most likely in the future:

1) McDonalds-like companies are rationalized outposts in a predominantly posmodern world
2) McDonalds-like companies disappear
3) We see a hybridization of the two paradigms, with companies of both persuasions existing, reflecting -to differing degrees- each mindset.
4) McDonalds takes over the world, and defeats the emergence of postmodernism.

The class nearly universally agreed that the most-likely possible future was the third option: hybridization and coexistence. After class, I talked to Ryan about the future of the emergent church in light of the societal developments. I had been discouraged for a couple of weeks ever since he predicted the decline of professional ministers in the emergent church. Leaders, he suggested, would surface within naturally developing groups of people who have moved towards following Jesus. In that paradigm there is little room for professional ministers who seek work.

To my relief, Ryan said that what is most likely in the future for the American church is the same as what is most likely for American society. We will see a traditional-emergent hybrids, likely reflecting the theological, social, and political paradigm transformation which the emergent church has experienced, which is expressed in a somewhat modern vehicle. This is good news for me because it means I may not have to live in a cardboard box, but I must admit I'm a bit nervous that these 'hybrids' may simply become 'compromises' between the challenges of the gospel and our corporate, capitalistic paradigms.

Frank Miller does the Battle of Thermopylae

2006-11-22T12:45:00.000-08:00

Oh snap.

Thursday Reflection Week 8

2006-11-20T16:17:00.000-08:00

We discussed a couple of the books in class today (see my reviews below for Kalle Lasn's "Culture Jam" and Robert Linthicum's "Transforming Power" if you are interested). I was surprised to find that while I had found Lasn's book so transformational at first reading, that taken in context with 8 weeks of class discussion it was almost "ho hum". I suppose this means that my thought process has been radically transformed, as I remember Lasn bringing up all sorts of things I had never before thought about. Well, what do you know. I'm a new man.

UCLA Student Tazed for Failing to Produce a School ID Card

2006-11-18T00:10:00.000-08:00

The video is of pretty terrible quality, and it's tough to make out what's going on, especially following the initial tazing, but it's still rather disturbing. The student did not have his ID card on him when randomly asked to produce one by California Police who work on UCLA's campus. The officers left him alone, and he chose to leave. On his way out they tried to stop him, when he wouldn't stop they tazed him. You can hear a number of students accusing the cops of misusing their power and abusing their authority. I'm hesitant to pass judgment because I was not there, and frankly there are many other voices out there willing to do that. But it seems to me that the criticisms of those who were there seem valid. Decide for yourself.

Tuesday Reflection: Week 8

2006-11-15T00:31:00.000-08:00

Ryan mentioned today that he had written a blog a while back entitled "Youth Leaders Need Not Apply", which pointed to the fact that the emergent church views leadership as a natural and organic outgrowth of an already established community- not one in which positions for leadership are applied for by unknown applicants (as is the business world's custom). Apparently the article had created quite the buzz, and many contacted him, upset that he was challenging their future in ministry (or at least their expectations regarding that future).

Honestly, this has been an area of concern for me for years. I feel quite torn between the view of ministry in which ministers are nothing more than yeast being worked into bread, nearly invisible but changing the characteristics of the whole ball of dough, and one in which we get to be full time pastors and financially support our families. Perhaps I am exaggerating the differences between the two schools, and perhaps I will be free to be 'yeast' in a culture while still making a living (without neglecting my family by supporting my ministry through a separate full-time job). But 'perhaps' is a hard thing to build one's future upon.

Someone may feel tempted to e-mail me, saying "Don't worry. God will take care of you." Thank you in advance... but I must admit I'm not sold. Churches go under all the time, and pastors with them. Further, I do not think it is unwise (nor unfaithful) to ask whether the twenty-first century will continue to have 'professional' caretakers of their churches. Because if it's not, I need to be dedicating some time and energy to developing other skillsets like safe-cracking, bank website-hacking, or get-away driving.

Thursday Reflection Week 7

2006-11-14T01:44:00.000-08:00

I find that my heart breaks way too easily these das. Perhaps this is because I am at a time in my life in which my future is so open: I know that I want to do ministry, but that could take me in any number of direction. Thus, everything I hear convinces me that that's where I need to spend my time and energy.

So when I attended Bryant Myer's presentation last week on "Children in our Midst: Our Mandate", my heart cracked for the children abroad being driven into slavery, disease, abuse, poverty, and the sex-trade. My fire for adoption was rekindled... hell, I could fill my house with little rugrats! It'd be tough, but what's the alternative?!

Then, I attended Jude Watson's presentation on "Children and the Kingdom: Our Mission", in which she was introduced by a 35 year old hispanic guy whom she had saved from the ganglife in L.A. 20 years prior. Frankly, the young man stole the show, exhibiting a gentle spirit and a graceous heart all these years later; it was nearly impossible to believe he had once been a violent and troubled youth. So then I'm thinking, I'll stay in L.A. and be a foster parent for kids in trouble, I'll provide a household with the structure and love they need, and I'll get to help save kids like this one from the streets!

Unfortunately, I came home and caught up on my missed episode of Studio 60... so now I want to be a television producer.

Olbermann- Cajones the Size of a Buick

2006-11-09T20:47:00.000-08:00

My favorite part is the end!

Tuesday Reflection: Week 7- The Emergent Church, a Flatulent Analogy

2006-11-08T11:17:00.000-08:00

The so-called emergent church first captured my attention because it offered a new approach to an old ministry. I thought that what we needed was new packaging... a "New and Improved" worship service with "edgy" worship and CANDLES! Lots of Candles!! Friends and I had been dreaming for years about punk church with a retranslated Punk Bible- something to make that old-time message new and fresh.

Those discussions were a good start and our complaints were well-founded. The medium is the message. If the churches are filled with white, conservative, upper-middle class, pamphlet passing, hymn singing, middle-aged or greying citizens from middle America who are trying to bring you in, you will probably avoid them like the plague. What do they have to offer you? Not much!

But repackaging isn't enough. Within the bowels of the emergent church is a rumbling, a low toned groan for a rediscovery of Jesus, like a 30 year-old becoming aware that his body is tired of working on processed Pizza Pockets and McNuggets. The emergent church wants real, organic, undilluted, corn fed Jesus. It doesn't seek candles (really, the sort of visceral indigestion being experienced should not be let near open flames) and acoustic guitars. Though it may find these things as a result of a renewed desire to worship. This new theology is one in which Jesus redeems all of creation, not just souls. Those who follow Jesus' teachings live wholly different and uniquely freed lives (Yeah, really!) and become something of interest to those who don't have that. They are not a threat to the poor, the environmentalists, or the immoral... they are a threat to those who wield power over these very same people. In the first century it was the poor, the outcasts, and the vulnerable who loved Jesus while the powerful, rich, conservative, and religious hated and feared him. Today, the followers of Jesus are usually members of the latter groups. The Emergent Church is seeking to reverse that. And as their flatulent grumblings of discontent come forth, the politically and economically powerful Christian church will see who is really downwind.

Book Review: "The Social Movements Reader" (2006, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

2006-11-05T23:18:00.000-08:00

In the 1960's and 70's America experienced an unprecedented time of political upheaval, rebellion, and protest. Women, blacks, gays, lesbians and others fought to be recognized and experience the same rights that the dominant classes took for granted, while anti-war, anti-nuke, and pro-choice activist groups challenged many of the governments other laws and actions. "The Social Movements Reader", edited by Jeff Goodwin and James M. Jasper catalogues sociology's discussion regarding the nature of these movements throughout the second half of the twentieth century.

The text is divided into 10 sections, with each focused on answering questions like, "When and why do social movements occur?", "Who Joins or supports movements?", "How are movements organized?" and "What changes do movements bring about?" among others. Journal articles and book excerpts written over the past 35 (or so) years investigate different answers to these complicated questions, including classic writings from influential thinkers, authors, and researchers.

In the context of a seminary class focused on the Christian church's role in transforming contemporary culture, certain sections were far more relevant than others. And to find the reading directly applicable at all, one must be willing to think of the church as a social movement, a moniker that many might consider to be demeaning or too political. In their introduction to "The Social Movements Reader", the editors define a social movements as "... conscious, concerted, and sustained efforts by ordinary people to change some aspect of their socity by using extra-institutional means" (p. 33). Considering this definition, when one considers Jesus and his interactions with the culture of his time, it is difficult not to view him as a social activist leader. And if we, the church, are to be his body - his hands and his mouth, the extension of his earthly activities beyond his physical presence- then we are not only to be the followers in a movement, but the leaders of that movement in every generation. Thus, an understanding of the ways in which movements develop, survive, and succeed is paramount to our ongoing education.

So, what can we learn? Jo Freeman tells us that social movements successfully take off only when they have either a developed yet flexible (she uses the word "co-optable) communication network or significant organization (p. 22). The latter means one or more people intentionally developing a movement and tends toward "top-down" sort of engagement unlike that which Jesus sought. Thus, we need to work on our communication. We can also learn from Bert Klandermans that people tend to leave a movement when they have no role, but burnout when their role is greater than the support they receive (p. 116). This tells us both that "pew-warmers" without roles tend not to stick around, and that pastors and leaders are some of our riskiest members. It also might not hurt to take a page or two from the "world civic" activists' book, which indirectly influences governments by "identifying and manipulating instruments of power for shaping collective life" (p. 203). In Paul Wapners article, these activists transform the leadership structure by including the powerless in their environmental work, thusly achieving their immediate goals while stirring the locals to desire longterm solutions.

These are but a few of the many writings which address many of the church's challenges most directly (also noteworthy are chapters 6, 7, 10, 18, 20, 26, and 33), while using wholly different language. Too many books have investigated the many ways in which a church can hope to grow, but perhaps too few have asked the harder questions like, "What are we hoping to achieve?" and "How can our knowledge of human nature help us to maximize our influence without manipulation?" Perhaps a conversation with our fellow social movement activists (and the sociologist who study them) will help us with these questions.

Thursday Reflection for Week 6: Del.icio.us

2006-11-03T11:24:00.000-08:00

I may be the last person on the planet who's new to the whole "del.icio.us" concept... but I've finally been turned on to it. In case you happen to be one of the other three people in the developed world who missed the memo, it's a way to store your website bookmarks (or "Favorites"... if you're an IE user) online to be shared. So if you wanted to help other people to find all the great websites on Belly Button Lint that you've found, you can make all those links searchable by... say... tummy fluff, navel cotton, and umbilical dust bunnies.

Tuesday Reflection for Week 6: Rabbi, Prophet and Jedi

2006-11-02T09:26:00.000-08:00

In class, we have been discussing the many hats that Jesus wore. By putting him in the long lineage of prophets and rabbis, we can better understand the way in which he would have been received by his hearers in the first century, instead of turning him into a twenty first century celebrity or pastor. In a small group discussion, we stumbled upon a question: was Jesus unique in donning both of these hats? Rabbis were known for having followers, whereas Prophets had no friends (besides other prophets). If so, it's possible that this is yet another social structure rule that Jesus shattered.

He rails on the socio-reliogio-cultural structures of his day, making a mockery of the powers that be, while pointing to another world in which we could live where God's rule brings peace, justice, and an end to poverty. he's a prophet.

He invites men (and women too) to follow him, teaching them a new perspective, his interpretations of the holy scriptures, and educating them on how to live: he's a rabbi.

But most importantly, he waves away sickness, walks through walls, wears a robe and conquers his fear of death, fighting for the greater good: he's a Jedi.

Okay, ignore that last one... (or dont', eh?) but again Jesus leaves people guessing. What is he going to do next? He's a teacher, and yet he's taking on the powers like a prophet! He's a religious man, and yet he's hanging out with prostitutes! He's a peaceful man, and yet he's pulling out his light saber!

Book Review: "Culture Jam" by Kalle Lasn (Quill, 1999)

2006-10-28T12:18:00.000-07:00

"You may not have had a name for this particular emotion until now, but you know if you have it. You're bored, yet anxious. Your moods soar and dive. Barely controllable anger wells up without warning out of nowhere" (p. 141).

Kalle Lasn calls this emotion "psycho-rage", an "information-age anger", one of the many states of confusion that we find ourselves in once we realize we've donated too much of our lives to our T.V.'s and computers. Lasn is the founder of Adbusters Magazine and world renown counter-culture activist, who is seeking to free us from our advertisement-saturated existence one major corporation at a time.

Feeling much like Hubert Selby Jr.'s "Requiem for a Dream", Lasn's "Culture Jam" progresses through America's history, with each era symbolized by a season of the year.

In the Autumn, Lasn explains how American consumer capitolism evolved into its current state. To understand the Autumn is to recognize all that we've come to accept as normal: the constant noise, the infiltration of billboards and advertisements, the celebrity infatuations.

There was a time when corporations served the people, knowing that if there came a time when they did not, the populace would shut them down. But in the Winter of American history, the corporations create and fulfill our desires. We chop down too many trees, guzzle more and more oil (See "Oil, Smoke & Mirrors"), and eat far too much food, living far beyond sustainable means.

In the Spring of American history, the revolt begins. The Situationists, the hippies, and the punk rockers enter the stage. The information war is fought, and the rebels seek to gain an audience with the masses on which the media corporations have placed their firm grips. This is done through 'subvertising', the opposite of advertising (you see a few on this blog). Internet, T.V., Magazines, Movies, posters, and all other forms of media are used to free us. Where a corporation tries to convince us that we 'need' their product, we twist the advertisement like Weird Al Yankovic and make a mockery of the concept that we 'need' anything else.

And in the Summer, this rebellion begins to trickle into the mass consciousness, and the tide turns. The collective consciousness is poisoned with questions.

Many of us raised in the Christian Right have heard Lasn's message repackaged for years. We have heard that we need to question culture and live counter to it- in order to set a Christian example. I have always had a hard time with this teaching, seeing it as separatist and feeling that it fosters superiority complexes. I need a greater reason to live differently than "to show non-Christians that I'm different". I think Jesus lived counter-culturally because he was not 'taken in' by culture, and he knew a better way. His life pointed to another culture, one in which the sick were healed, the hungry were fed, and the powerful were humbled. Lasn and Jesus both point to this sort of world (though obviously for different reasons). If we are going to challenge the mainstream, let's do it for a reason that matters! Jesus did not call us to a world of Veggie Tales, Kutless, and Focus on the Family. These are just the symbols of another equally twisted culture- not the Kingdom of God.

Thursday Reflection for Week 5: A Jesus You Can Get Excited About

2006-10-27T13:19:00.000-07:00

There's been a lot of ink spilt over the last few years on the topic of making Jesus and Christianity relevant to today's generations. Early on this movement was probably best captured in the "Seeker Friendly" churches which stripped their buildings of religious symbolism, aiming to make the 'church building' into a less threatening space. It has since evolved into much more mature forms that emerged from our realization that we had trapped the Christian message in archaic language and rhetoric. Freed from limitations of outmoded epithets, Jesus has been able to come alive for many, unencumbered and able to be discovered anew. I've come to realize, though, that the limiting frameworks in which the Christian message was being passed along did serve a purpose. Our brain works in matrices, we naturally simplify and group the stimuli that we receive in order to manage the massive amounts of info which we are constantly taking in. With no framework at all, Jesus the person is reduced to a vague idea or concept which we easily manipulate into the God we hoped for. There is something to be said for releasing Jesus from the simplistic "Sunday School" stories, but ultimately we need a refreshed understanding of him. And THAT'S why I'm loving my Transforming Contemporary Culture class, which has largely been seeking to discover Jesus' role in the day in which he lived. We cannot repackage Jesus as a twentieth (or twenty-first) century concept, but rather need to seek him in his first century personhood, as a prophet, a Jew, a rebel, and a healer.

Vegas: Margaritas & Snoop D-O-Double G

2006-10-26T22:58:00.000-07:00

Anna and I got to take a long awaited trip to Vegas this last weekend. I am no longer a Vegas Virgin! Unfortunately, I'm also a few hundred dollars poorer. But somehow all the free margaritas that the waitresses kept bringing me washed my concerns away...

The city lights were beautiful, and a great time was had by all (accept maybe those poor waitresses who had to be freezing in their little outfits). Everything that can be said about the heavenly City of Sin has probably already been said elsewhere, and far more eloquently. So I'll limit my remarks to this: I SAW SNOOP DOGG!! Dude was walking along right at me in aviators and a low slung hat, and while I did resist the temptation to be the white guy who yells "Yo G, what is up my brother?", I did not resist the temptation to pass by him and sit back down at the video poker machine and order another free margarita.

Tuesday Reflection for Week 5: Repent!

2006-10-25T17:57:00.000-07:00

The Church has almost always taken Jesus' call for repentance and belief to be an invitation to ask forgiveness for our sins and accept Him as our Lord and Savior. In class today, Ryan laid out an alternate interpretation put forward by N.T. Wright. As with all of his works, Wright struggles to place Jesus' words in the context of the ancient Jewish culture to which he was speaking. Arguing that Jesus' main thrust was a mass invitation to be a part of the imminent Reign of God - a redefinition of social order of nearly mythological proportions-, Wright suggests that Jesus is calling for "repentance" of the Hebrews' idea of what the Messiah's return should look like, and "believe" in Jesus' loving, welcoming, non-violent reign, to which all are invited. To many in the church, Wright's argument rings of a social rather than spiritual Jesus that is somehow less impressive. But despite our visceral reaction to "liberal" theology, the notion that Jesus was dismantling their concepts of God's rule is virtually unarguable. To me, the real question is whether Jesus sought a social transformation in His calls for repentance, or our rejection of sin (or are these one and the same?). My guess is that He was calling for both, challenging both the Pharisees of His time to reimagine God's rule and what that would look like, and also challenging us today to broaden our ideas of repentance, allowing Jesus to confront all aspects of our lives, actions, and visions.

Clip from "An Inconvenient Truth"

2006-10-23T22:30:00.000-07:00

For those who haven't seen the movie, here's a really crappy quality clip of one of the most memorable segments...

Book Review: "Fences and Windows" by Naomi Klein (2002, Picador)

2006-10-22T16:57:00.000-07:00

Journalist, activist, and author Naomi Klein has compiled a collection of her speeches, essays, and internationally syndicated articles in the incisive, analytical, and impassioned book, "Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate. The book is, more or less, a chronicle of her public interactions with the globalization debate in Canada and the U.S. for which she has become so popular.

Klein has been one of many voices who have challenged the philosophical, moral, and economic underpinnings of the world's economic powers' drive towards a single unified trading market. She begins her book with writings with which she had responded to each of the major events in free trade globalism protests: Seattle, Washington D.C., L.A., and Toronto. It was through these events, and Seattle in particular, in which 'The Movement' had held its 'coming out' parties. Hundreds of thousands of individual headless groups (without any independent leadership) had swarmed to protest non-violently at the sites in which closed-door meetings between powerful world economic and political leaders were occuring.

Klein's introduction was followed with insightful discussions on the issues which had brought about the protestors' frustrations; namely, the decrease in true democracy that had accompanied the spread of commercialism and globalism. However, she makes it clear that the bone she and her colleagues pick is not with globalism, but the brand of globalism for which the economic powers of the world are advocating. This brand comes with too many strings attached: the power-traders have been known to place sanctions on other countries, removing them only when that country's trade rules are deemed beneficial for the power-traders. The smaller companies, of course, would lack the power to inflict the same on the more powerful ones, and the result is a trade that is far from 'free'. It feels more like Wal-Mart style business.

In the second half of her book, Klein describes how the 'powers that be' have fought to silence and disqualify her voice and others', but concludes with hopeful images of different visions of globalization.

One of the things that I found so striking about Klein's book, was the way in which the protestors she described seemed to embody Jesus' image of the Kingdom of God. The movement is described as every day people living their lives, who seem to arise spontaneously in a thousand little groupings to respond to injustice in a peaceful manner that makes a mockery of the domination systems which they challenge. They respond to smoke bombs by hitting them back with hockey sticks, they return rubber bullet fire with teddybear catapults (while wearing pink tutus). They do not respond to dominating power in like, but rather subvert it with ridicule. She tells the story of people at the first World Social Forum cheering with hope as a speaker announces, "We are here to show the world that another world is possible!" (p. 193). I don't know about you, but I hear echoes of "the kingdom of God is near!" and righteous-anger-driven-temple-table-flipping-action. Try saying that three times fast.

Now Playing: The Album Leaf: Into The Blue Again (2006)

Thursday Reflection for Week4: Practice-Redemption.

2006-10-19T13:39:00.000-07:00

Ahhhh... refreshing. Class today was much like enjoying the first foamy sip of a Black Butte Porter. We took that step today in class that so many churches are hesitant to take. We escaped the hip facade which many so-called 'postmodern' churches have adopted in order to be more appealing, and instead tapped into the unique philosophies and theology of emergent churches. This theology which has arisen from the historical, scriptural research of the last couple of decades identifies Jesus as the frontman (or frontGod I suppose) and advocate for an alternative subculture in which all aspects of our lives are envisaged as the loving, balanced, healthy lives for which God had created us. In that culture there are no poor and there is no domination or coersion, rather there is subversion of the powers that demean and control. But as we talked about redeeming the whole world for God (a la the Kingdom of Heaven) as opposed to just individual souls, I became despondent. I am despondent because I don't really see (m)any churches doing that. What is the point in joining a 'church club' if it's ultimately not serving the purpose it was created for- to carry on what Jesus started, i.e. a counter-cultural movement in which the meek will inherit the earth and the prostitutes beat the religious leaders to heavens gates? If indeed God was calling us to an alternative lifestyle- I think we've missed the boat. I could use a beer...

Tuesday Reflection for Week 4: Saving the Rich from their Poverty

2006-10-17T18:31:00.000-07:00

In Transforming Contemporary Culture class today, we were discussing Emergent Churches (as defined by Ryan Bolger and Eddie Gibbs' criteria in "Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures") and their propensity to place themselves into poverty in order to best touch the lives of the poor- a step which I heartily support. A student asked in response, "How do emerging churches work with the middle class then?"

My first thought was, "Beats me! Even Jesus didn't take on that challenge!" Jesus seemed to aim his ministry at the poor, perhaps because they were most in need of him, because they are the most often ignored, because Jesus had such a strong drive for justice, or because the poor are the most receptive. "Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God"- Luke 18:35. Jesus himself recognized the challenge of trying to get rich people to understand the vision of the Reign of God... so why don't most churches see it as a challenge, and instead work predominantly with the middle and upper classes? Perhaps we've missed the vision. Regardless, as the emerging churches grow (or spread...) ministry to the rich will be a challenge to overcome. Perhaps we could consider it feeding the poor to offer something of real sustenence to a group which appears to be starving- consuming and consuming while never becoming full. Perhaps we can save the rich from their poverty...

Now Playing:

Book Review: "Transforming Power", by Robert Linthicum (InterVarsity Press, 2003)

2006-10-15T12:27:00.000-07:00

Robert Linthicum, author of "Transforming Power: Biblical Strategies for Making a Difference in Your Community", is a seasoned teacher in addition to founder and president of Partners in Urban Transformation. He has years of work dedicated to World Vision International and is the author of several books related to the Christian's call to renewal of our societies. Unlike many who write in a similar vein, Linthicum's writing seems to address the issues of injustice most decried in the Bible (i.e. political, social, and religious forms of domination).

In the first section of the book, entitled "A Theology of Power", Linthicum defines power as "the ability, capacity and willingness of a person, a group of people or an institution... to act" (p. 12), and argues that the church needs to learn to adopt and make use of it "... in a Christian manner- relationally, not unilaterally- because relational power is the essence of the gospel" (p. 20). In other words, he does not see power as synonymous with dominance and thus to be avoided by the church, nor as a political ally to be acquired by any means. Rather, it is the capability of action- a necessity if the church is to have any impact on the world. This discussion is followed by an exegesis of Deuteronomy, in which God calls for a unique and radical view of society in which the king is a commoner, loans are given without seeking interest, and the poor are always taken care of. Linthicum then connects this vision of God's with Jesus' imagery of the "Kingdom of God", citing Jesus' miraculous healings, teachings regarding our treatment of the power, and his criticisms of the powerful elite. This connection has the intended effect of associating Christians with God's goal of creating a Deuteronomic society in which no one is dominated, and all are truly free. For direction in seeking this vision, Linthicum points us towards Nehemiah, whose leadership helped the Jews to rebuild their city walls while following the so-called "Iron Rule": "Never do for others what they can do for themselves" (p. 93).

The second section of the book, entitled "The Practice of Power" vacillates between stories of churches using relational power, and instruction on the application of Nehemiah-like Leadership. Relational power, a running theme throughout the book, is viewed as a group's ability to enact that which they desire through the power of their relationships with each other. Linthicum gives practical directions for leaders, teaching us to lead a group of people by seeking to understand the groups' passions, identifying their strengths (and their group members who already have social power), aiding in focused planning, and motivating the group to perform their plan of action.

Overall, I found the author's vision of leadership to be helpful, and found his expansive experience to be supportive of his advice. I do intend to employ many of his recommendations, and appreciate the biblical support for bold, yet uncrippling and undominating leadership. However, I found the book to be a bit unfocused. Had more of the book been dedicated to the specifics of leadership that employs relational power, I would have taken those particulars with greater interest. But because those instructions came after 130 pages of frankly more intriguing discussion regarding God's vision for society and leadership therein, I found myself eager to get beyond those instructions and return to the stories and discussion.

Thursday Reflection for Week 3: Pacifism

2006-10-12T16:03:00.000-07:00

We gathered into small groups at the bottom of the hour in Transforming Contemporary Culture class today to discuss "Transforming the Powers" (See previous post: Book Review: "Transforming the Powers", edited by Ray Gingerich and Ted Grimsrud (Augsburg Fortress, 2006)).During the discussion, Amanda was discussing the unlikelihood of our country ever forfeiting military power. And the thought occured to me, that the very presence of a powerful military inevitably prohibits true peaceful negotiation.

If we were to try and take an honest active pacifistic stance- that is, actively seeking peace through non-violent means (a la Ghandi, MLK Jr., Jesus, et al), the presence of our powerful American military would be a visible reminder to our enemies that if negotiations don't work, we have the ability to kick their ass. It would be like Ghandi showing up at to Britain's councils with a hulk of a body guard carring an AK-47. His peaceful message would have been null and void... the presence of his beefy buddy would send messages of power, dominance, and violence. As we continue to escalate our weapon surpluses, weapon development programs, and military presence in foreign countries in order to ensure our position as the world's Super Power, we continue to reduce our chances of bringing peace to any corner of the globe. AK-47's, M-16's, and nuclear missiles are not symbols of peace, they are symbols of dominance and hostility

The Redeemed Redeemer

2006-10-11T10:21:00.000-07:00

What do these four pictures have in common? Ignore the fact that the characters have a propensity to go out in their bathrobes.

More importantly,they are all pictures of our heroes, the greatest heroes that our generation knows.

Now, I'm sure most of us have heard the sentiment that the Bible contains the 'grand narrative' the greatest story ever told, and recognizing the power of that story we retell it over and over again in different contexts. Deep down, we all know about the Messiah, and we tell stories of discovering him, (Like Morpheus finding Neo and Dumbledore finding Harry). And deep down, we all love the story of a hero, because God put in our hearts a desire to find that hero, hoping that it would lead us to Jesus. It's a Jungian "archetype" and "collective conscience" all in one, or so the story goes.
Today, in my Patristic Theology class we were discussing a Gnostic poem called The Hymn of the Pearl. And no, Captain Jack Sparrow is not in it... just to aleviate any confusion.

In a nutshell,the poem tells the story of a young man who is cast out of heaven, sent with the mission of bringing back a pearl which is being guarded by a serpent (Hobbit connections anybody?). Along the way he forgets his mission, and gets lost in all the temptations that Egypt has to offer. He is ultimately reminded of his greater voyage, completes it, and returns to heaven to be with his heavenly father and mother.

We were comparing this short but epic tale to Christian biblical teachings, and it occured to me that this Gnostic story contains the hero we all recreate... and the Bible doesn't. We rarely write stories about perfect men (or women), we write about Neo... a nine-to-fiving techno geek who would rather be clubbing, and Frodo, a little four-foot hombre who can't resist the temptation to put on the ring. And all four of our heroes, Neo, Frodo, Luke Skywalker, and Harry Potter had a greater destiny in life that existed before they were born. They are, in a sense, reminded of their great destiny which they pursue and fulfill. And this is in fact the great tale which we tell over and over again: the story of the redeemed redeemer, the fallen hero.

Now, the Bible does have its stories of men with destinies who were imperfect and overcame their weaknesses. Moses was a stuttering bloke and David was a player. And it could be argued that it is these stories which are written on our hearts, which we love to tell. But the real hero of the story, from a Christian standpoint, is of course Jesus. It seems we don't really like to tell his story though, because there's no room for us to be heroes in a narrative like that. The best we could hope for is a martyrdom- and we do tell those stories. Instead, we love the tales where we learn that we could, in fact, be a hero. We want to be the central figures in our stories, and we write them in such a way that we are. It's egotistical, but it seems to be human nature. Our challenge as Christians might be to ask how we deal with those stories, and how do we tell different stories?

Tuesday Reflection for Week 3: The Powers

2006-10-10T23:00:00.000-07:00

In response to the reading we did for my Transforming Contemporary Culture class over the weekend (See previous post), we talked today about the meaning of the term Powers. What are the Powers that control our life, and are they just limited to the governmental, corporate, and religious spheres in which issues of dominance and control are easy to see?

Ryan lectured about seeing the Powers as the rules we live by (spoken and unspoken) in addition to the people and structures which control, dominate, or influence us. So party fouls are the Powers. But so are the people who enforce them. It was an interesting thought in and of itself.

Then Ryan throws this spin on it... and I'll do my best to capture the "AHA!" effect... whenever people want to enact change, they almost always first seek a powerful position from which to enact it. This can be good or bad change... MLK Jr. or Hitler, we all do it. It's logical, if you have power, then people will listen. Power buys influence. So instead of gaining power in any traditional sense, Jesus starts challenging the Powers, the rules that people lived by that were oppressive. He throws parties, but invites all the wrong people. By challenging the Powers (rules), he cracked the power structure and instigated change.

Did I get the "Aha!"? Did I capture it? I think I missed the mark...

Book Review: "Transforming the Powers", edited by Ray Gingerich and Ted Grimsrud (Augsburg Fortress, 2006)

2006-10-08T13:47:00.000-07:00

Having just slogged my way through the conceptually and linguistically dense book, "Transforming the Powers: Peace, Justice, and the Domination System", I find myself weary. I am tired of wrestling to unearth the keynotes of each of the variant essays presented within the book, and prematurely fatigued at the idea of enacting the counter-cultural movements for which many of the authors appeal.

The book is a compilation of essays presented at Eastern Mennonite University in 2001, which aimed to "offer tribute... and contribute to" the writings of(Grimsfrud, p. 6) Walter Wink, the author of the trilogy, "Naming the Powers", "Unmasking the Powers", and "Engaging the Powers". Among his many writings, it is this trilogy for which Wink is best known, in which he argues for a Biblical understanding of the Powers and Principalities as the very real spiritual ethoses of individuals and corporate personalities.

The first part of the book, "Worldviews and Powers", shares articles by Wink, Nancey Murphy, Daniel Liechty, and Dan Grimsrud. Each author's contribution introduces and elucidates a perspective which recognizes the power of worldviews to conceptualize and ultimately change the world in which we live. Wink does so by introducing many popular worldviews, and championing the "integral worldview" which seems to have been birthed partly from metaphysics, and seeks to take seriously man's relationship with the spiritual world. Murphy follows this with a discussion of the relationship between the implicate values of the social sciences and the conclusions their research produces. Liechty and Grimsrud draw part one to a close with two essays on how the Powers and Principalities, as embodied in social forces, are to be exposed and countered, with both authors concluding that the answer lies in a philosophy of nonviolence.

Part two of the book contains essays by Wink, Murphy, William Swartley, and Ray Gingerich, in a section called "Understanding the Powers". In an extremely thought-provoking piece entitled "Providence and the Powers", Wink aims to redefine how Christians understand the concepts of God's providence, challenging the notion that God would (or even could) take care of His followers when Powers are constructed around evil. Both Murphy and Swartley discuss the ways in which our church practices can avoid being constructed in such a way, investigating the practices of the Radical Reformers and the early church. Gingerich discusses the ways in which political ethics can avoid similar downfalls, while challenging the "two kingdom" philosophy of Martin Luther, which distinguishes between the ways in which the gospel should be applied to individuals and corporate entities.

In the final section of the book, two essays by Glen Stassen examine the ways in which the Powers and Principalities can be re-examined, challenged, and redefined in order to promote a non-violent, peace-seeking way of life, while Swartley's essay questions whether such action is permissable within the Mennonite tradition.

I have long taken an anti-war stance in my own political beliefs, but have never developed an all encompassing non-violent or pacifist ethic, as is called for most compellingly by Liechty and Stassen. Though I found nearly the entire book to be unnecessarily esoteric, I did find resonance in these two authors' writings, which called for a private and public life lived in such a way that it promotes peace, instead of just avoiding or defeating violence.

Thursday Reflection for Week 2

2006-10-05T13:56:00.000-07:00

During a class discussion on early twentieth century critics of mass media, the question came up, Is the media in control of us, defining what we wear, feel, and think, or is mass media more so dependent upon our approval, and is thus a product of our culture? In other words, in relation to mass media, are we the object or the subject?

This week's episode of Studio 60, depects the writer and executive producer (played by Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford, respectively)of a "Saturday Night Live-esque" show scrambling to keep a show on the air which the polls show to be viewed as "unpatriotic". There is weeping and the gnashing of teeth as they FIGHT to win the audiences approval. I suppose this would be a fair representation of the belief that mass media is the object of our narrative, responding to throes of its millions of potential viewers.

Inversely, one could look at iPod commercials and come to a very different conclusion about our relationship with the media. The iPod is a great product (but there's better!), but you would think in watching these commercials that Apple invented music! People are always dancing with white cables flowing out of their skulls, having the time of their life... listening to the same thing they listened to before Apple blessed us with the iPod. Apple is creating a desire for their product that didn't exist prior. And it's working! iPods have spread like the bubonic plague, and we're buying them. Is the tail wagging the dog? I'd say that iPods are one example (among millions) of media creating a desire in the populace, then selling them a product to feed that desire. In this case, we the people are little more than the subject of the narrative.

The fact is we are always going to influence, and be influence by, our culture. And a huge part of our culture is the mass media. The question doesn't call for a 'yes' or 'no' answer. The real question is to what extent are we living unaware of the fact that we are allowing ourselves to be objects instead of subjects or agents.

DUPED!!

2006-10-05T13:35:00.000-07:00

So hear I am, making my self a sammich and some tomato soup, minding my own business... when the phone rings. "GREAT!! Anna must be on lunch break too...", says I to one in particular. Wrong, it's Dorothy.

"Who's Dorothy?", you may ask. Well so would I, but Dorothy's on a roll... I haven't even had a chance to ask her how she's been! I wanted to ask, because maybe her answer would give me a clue as to who the hell she is.

I try to cut in, "Excuse me, I'm sorry." But she doesn't even slow down. She doesn't slow down because she's a recording... and I have been duped. Dorothy has called "just to let me know" that my house's value has increased. That's awesome, 'cause I didn't even know I had a house. Never in my life have I heard such a realistic, non-robotic, and non-formulaic recorded sales call.

"Well-played!" I admitted as I hung up the phone. "If only we had met under different circumstances, Dorothy. We could have been the best of friends.""

Tuesday Reflection for Week 2: Discussion of The Irresistable Revolution

2006-10-03T14:38:00.000-07:00

Following the lecture on the development of culture in the West, my Transforming Contemporary Culture class broke into smaller groups. We introduced ourselves and gave brief autobiographies as they relate to our interest in culture. I have been repeatedly surprised as I meet people at Fuller to learn that many of the people I meet recall a positive experience with the churches of their youth. While able to pinpoint shortcomings, most seem to have found their experience to be motivational. Secondly, many people are not at the seminary with aims of doing professional ministry, at least in the way most traditionally think of it. As a person who intends to pursue a semi-traditional ministry field (whatever that may turn out to be), it's exciting to think of leading a church with people who are every bit as educated as I will be, who can question, support, and guide me. The church I was brought up in had a clear separation of 'clergy' and 'laity', and I've felt for sometime now that this is an obstacle to overcome. At that church, seminary was the great divide: you didn't go to seminary unless you were going to be a pastor or a missionary to another country.

As I met with this group, I launched a question or two that Claiborne's Bookhad stirred up for me. I was just jumping with joy (on the inside, of course) and filled with glee (yes, glee) to find that the 'answers' (I put that in quotes because they were not presented as end-all solutions) were not ones that I could have given myself (no more parenthetical notes, I promise). We've all been in youth groups, community groups, or Bible Studies asking questions that we find to be truly challenging, only to receive 'Sunday school', given with a disappointed look and slight wag of the head. My group didn't do that! We had a great discussion, and I'm looking forward to spending more time with them.

Thursday Reflection for Week 1: Culture

2006-10-03T10:27:00.000-07:00

Culture: That big ambiguous word for which no definition is quite sufficient. But at least Webster tries. Here's one of the many definitions he came up with: "The integral pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations" (a definition which was followed shortly by a link to learn about "Urethral Discharge Culture"... sadly I didn't have time follow that link, though you are welcome to.)

The issue came up once or twice in class, and Webster supports it, that culture is inherently inherited. The path I led in high school was one of bucking the culture which was being passed on, frusterated as I was with the concept of tradition. Maybe it was adolescent rebellion, maybe it was justified anger with the all-inclusive package which my Christian, white, American, middle class culture offered. And I don't regret my rebellion because it was a necessary step towards finding a balance between valuing that which is handed down, and questioning that which we receive. In discussing sub-culture, Ryan said that the way punks, ravers, and gangs (among many other groups) choose to dress conveys the message: "I will not be controlled". The spikes, chains, and leather of my adolescence were adorned to convey that message exactly, though I ignored the fact that I looked exactly like the band members of the music I chose- I was still being controlled.

The question that we have as the church of the next generation is how do we convey that we are not controlled by our culture, but we still have respect for the positive things it hands down? How do we see through the churchy culture into which we were brought up to suck the nectar of two thousand years of human experience and experiments in following Christ, while still being open to new experiments in the same? And how do we not through the baby out with the bath water... or the lyrics out with the pipe organ? How do we engage western culture, challenging it where it is perverse and misdirected, while being humble enough to recognize that it is the greatest critic (or satirist) of the church- a voice which we dare not ignore? How do we do all of that in love?

Move over All Saints!!

2006-10-02T23:11:00.000-07:00

Amidst rumors of transgression on the part of All Saints Episcopal Church for taking a religious stance against the war in Iraq back in 2004 during the election season (see "Pasadena Makes the News!" below), comes this story in the L.A. Times today.

It seems that the Rev. Rick Scarborough is gathering together a legion of so-called "patriot pastors" in order to "...promote an agenda that aligns neatly with Republican platforms". The article goes on to say,

"The campaign encourages pastors to use sermons, Bible Studies and rallies to drive Christians to the polls- and by implication, or outright endorsement, to Republican candidates."

Enough said. All Saints, you have my permission to walk. It seems the government now has bigger fish to fry!

Book Review: "The Irresistable Revolution" by Shane Claiborne (Zondervan, 2006)

2006-10-01T10:27:00.000-07:00

Over the weekend, I had the pleasure of reading Shane Claiborne's new book "The Irresistable Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical" (Zondervan: 2006). Claiborne is a co-founder of a unique community of faith in Philadelphia called The Simple Way and, as he puts it, an "ordinary radical". The meaning of the oxymoronic term used throughout the book is elucidated more with every story he tells of his experiences and experiments in loving the unloved.

The memoire of sorts tells of how this 31-year-old bachelor has played a key role in getting homes for the homeless in Philadelphia, spent time in Calcutta with Mother Theresa (or Momma T., as he endearingly refers to her), been jailed numerous times for acts of civil disobedience on behalf of the poverty-stricken, and has spent time in Iraq fighting against the war. "The Irresistable Revolution" tells these stories and many more in simple narrative form, and is peppered liberally with Claiborne's hard-earned wisdom and different perspective on familiar Bible verses. It was these new spins on Jesus' age-old teachings embedded in the tales of a life lived, that made the book come alive for me. The first hearers of Jesus' words didn't have to work to make the teachings relevant to every day life, but two millenia later many of us do. In reading Claiborne's book, I began to feel convicted that we find Jesus' words to be stumbling blocks not because of our position in history but because of the contrasting ways in which we in the rich West live when juxtaposed against the poor Easterners to whom Jesus was speaking.

After describing some of the many ways in which The Simple Way and other similar groups have done their part to transform their neighborhoods and global tribe, Claiborne introduces his criticism:

"Today the church is tempted by the spectacular, to do big, miraculous things so people might believe, but Jesus has called us to littleness and compares our revolution to the little mustard seed, to yeast making is way through dough, slowly infecting this dark world with love" (p. 132).

This is one of the many times throughout the book when his prose feels suprisingly familiar: "You have heard it said that... but Jesus says to you..." And in this way, Claiborne bridges that gap between the East 2,000 years ago, and the contemporary West. He does so in such an unassuming way, that one finds it tough to take offense as Claiborne prods at the fact that the average American's entire basis for the expression of our Christian faith is fatally flawed.

I found it easy to connect with Claiborne when he tells of people often asking him what he wants to do with his life. It's not difficult for me to describe the impact I want to have, but I haven't the foggiest idea what venue it will take place in. More so, I felt challenged when he spoke of church leaders wanting to make grand plans instead of being willing to simply live as yeast, salt, and light. Is that enough? "I would like to be yeast when I grow up... but I'd like to get paid to do it."

If you're interested in finding out what Shane Claiborne is all about... but you're not so interested in picking up a book, sitting down, and reading about it (not my fellow class mates of course), you can watch a speech given by Mr. Claiborne at Fusion Youth which pretty much summarizes his whole book. Just click play below!

Now Playing: Derek Webb's "Mockingbird" (2006).

A Note to My 3 1/2 Readers

2006-09-29T14:08:00.000-07:00

To those very few whom it may concern... I have good news and neutral news. The good news is that I will be updating this blog far more consistently than I have thus far (is that good news?). The neutral news is that a class I'm taking at Fuller Theological Seminary with Ryan Bolger (co-author of Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures) is asking the class to respond to class discussions and readings in blog form. SO... that means you will get the opportunity to follow along with me for at least one of my classes! But know that you'll be reading a ton of book reviews and my reflections on discussions of which you were unlikely a part. In other words, this blog may soon become one long (and consistently updated) "Guess-you-had-to-be-there" story. I do think it'll be enjoyable... I'll try to be intentional about continuing to update you on my time here in Pasadena, and responding vehemently to news events which come across my radar. ENJOY!

New Hope! New Fears!

2006-09-20T00:41:00.000-07:00

Just in case you might have missed it, I wanted to draw your attention to a recent article in the Washington Post. My favorite politically progressive evangical (and yours), Jim Wallis is now using his clout and reputation (earned from years of public speaking, the successful magazine Sojourners, and the recent hit, "God's Politics: What the Right Get Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get") to begin a new project which aims to unite Green (ecologically-minded) and Blue (politically liberal-minded) Christ followers who also happen to be evangelicals.

The Washington Post article suggests that this is a "liberal" movement; though, according to an article written by supporting member and popular author, Tony Campolo, this is an overly simplistic approach. Despite the group's attention to typically liberal issues, the group has intentionally adopted the moniker "Red Letter Christians" in order to escape bi-partisan politics and their limiting epithets. On the other hand, the group is intentionally vocal that they are becoming "increasingly frustrated by the alliance between evangelical Christians and the Republican Party".

The project is being supported by other popular authors, Brian McLaren, Richard Rohr, and many more. The group aims to confront wider issues of Christian morality than those typically addressed in the political arena and on popular media, like gay marriage and abortion.

I wonder, however, if Jim Wallis and the Red Letter Christians will be able to escape the politics of fear so often employed to garner quick support. Anti-abortionists, gay marriage protestors, creationist, evolutionists, environmentalists, protestants, Catholics, Muslims,patriots, anti-immigrationists, and nearly every political, social, or religious group that has an agenda have all made use of this shameful ploy. In thie sixties, politicians convinced blue collar white America that blacks were the source of their financial troubles. Currently, politicians are telling us it's the Mexicans. Democrats say Republicans want to steal your rights, and Republicans say terrorists want to steal your freedoms.

The fact is, it's easy to garner support by creating, blaming, simplifying, and exaggerating the characteristics of an enemy. It's easier to convince a group of people that they and their values are under attack, than it is to step into dialogue with those who we don't understand. It would be far too easy for these Red Letter Christians to use the war in Iraq as political leverage to garnish support than it would be to really discuss with, and seek understanding from, those who do and do not support the war. The same could be said regarding environmental care, marriage rights, etc. My prayer is that Jim Wallis will lead this group to a higher plane of Christian morality by encouraging those involved in this new project to live out their faiths in the very ways in which they pursue this worthwhile agenda. Love propaganda? Is it possible?

Now Playing: The Damnwells: Air Stereo

Pasadena Makes the News!

2006-09-17T01:42:00.000-07:00

According to Yahoo! News, a local Pasadena church is making the news again. I followed the story briefly a couple years back when All Saints Episcopal Church was being worked over by the Conservative political party for making anti-war statements on the Sunday before voting polls opened. Accusations were made that the church had overstepped it's tax exempt religious organization role by supporting a political candidate. Like the rest of the country, I assumed the issue had become water under the bridge when the church clearly had not managed to sway the country's voting.

Despite the fact that the this sort of thing tends to set legal presidences, and the fact that All Saints shares a walkway with the California Pizza Kitchen I work at, this is a story that I'll be following. One of the biggest issues here is that the church was addressing a political issue and not a politcal person.

In the early days of Judaism, the Hebrews were often castigated by prophets, people who lived in their midst and had the guts to make it known that Israel was ignoring, perverting, manipulating, or in any way disrespecting their God and his ways. These prophets often drew attention to the fact that the Israelites would often claim the power of God as their protector while living in ways that Yahweh had not called them to. According to many historians and theologians this was the sort of behavior being prohibited in the fourth commandment (Exodus 20:7 "Thou shalt not take the Lord thy God's name in vain"). We currently have a president who speaks of us as a country dealing with the 'evils' of the world. And he has been known to take Christian hymns and replace Jesus' name with "America" or "the American People" (Don't believe it? See Jim Wallis' book "God's Politics" or his article at www.sojo.net: "Dangerous Religion"). Why do I point this out? Because I think this country needs a prophet or two who are willing to speak out. And is All Saints Church a [post]modern day prophet? Check out their website and decide for yourself. Maybe!

Now, what I can't figure out is who on earth is calling All Saints Church out? You don't meet many conservatives who truly believe that religion has no role in politics. And if they honestly want to seek out churches who are taking a stand on political people, then I believe there's probably a thousand churches out there who have supported Bush's Campaigns far more directly who deserve to be brought in front of a court. And if taking a stand on a political issue counts as supporting a political candidate, then I would like to see every pastor who has ever made an anti-abortion statement taken into court. And if we're not willing to do that, then we need to be leaving a God-seeking church who takes a political stance against a war that they believe to be unjust alone.

On a lighter note... it seems that the upcoming movie "Lonely Street", starring Robert Patrick and Nikki Cox is being shot on the other side of the street across from the California Pizza Kitchen. It's a happening spot, what can I say? Well, frankly I could say much more. But I'll spare you.

Now Playing: A Perfect Circle: eMOTIVe

Anything but the Truth!!

2006-09-14T15:18:00.000-07:00

I've finally given into the pulls of the blogosphere. I have my doubts that these words will ever grace a screen besides my own, but we'll see. Anna has been subtley pushing the issue for a while, and today I had an experience that pushed me over the edge. I'm sitting there outside of Vroman's Coffee Shop, enjoying my over-priced cup of black coffee while trying to memorize some drink recipes for my new bartending position when I hear yelling. The first sentence that I can make out is, "These books are naught but F***", followed closely by "... and anything but the Truth, so help me God!!!"

Now, I'm a Portlander at heart, and when I hear screaming on the streets I'm prepared for an angry transient. But here in L.A. I get an overweight, but well-kempt man in a work-out outfit. It occurs to me, this man's no bum, he's just nuts. And I begin to contemplete the cleverness of his statements. Really, how often do you hear "... naught but..." in everyday language, and though short of prophetic, his latter comment would make a great A.F.I. album Title. But the only reason I care at all is that this man is dressed well. I mean, how does a man who talks to himself loudly, and by most definitions offensively, end up with a job that supports him? How is he aware of modern fashion to the point that he blends in on an L.A. street, but he missed the memo that yelling "F***!!" on a crowded street is a party foul? Had he been the bum I was expecting, I would have chuckled to myself and moved on with my uneventful day. Instead I started a blog.

What did this man have to do with my blog? Beats me. But it's a good story isn't it? Really, quite strange...

Testes, Testes, 1, 2... 3?

2006-09-14T12:49:00.000-07:00

Is there any room left on this bandwagon? Oh, okay. Good, I'll start a blog.