God, Superman, and the Buckeyes

Bookends

2010-08-23T16:04:00.002-04:00

God, Superman, and the Buckeyes is coming to an end. After over five years of blogging at this location, I've decided to begin a new blog and have a fresh start. This blog has taken a great deal of many formats and directions over the years, and I've decided on a fresh start and a new direction. I'll leave this site up, and maybe occasionally post here, but from here on out I am hoping to begin a new emphasis on my blogging and writing. I would invite all of you who have followed this blog here to update to the new location below and hopefully join me over there. I'll probably be engaging in a little shameless self-promotion to begin with to get the thing off the ground. With the ascent of Facebook, I'll also probably not be spending much time on personal matters on the blog, leaving it as mainly a format to discourse on some of the fun and challenging issues I've waded through here in the past. You can find the new blog at . . .

http://theologicalvacillation.wordpress.com

Thanks again for all your comments and readership!

Book Review: Colors of God

2010-08-17T12:57:00.003-04:00

What? A post? The summer has kept me incredibly busy, and when I haven't been busy, I haven't really felt like posting . . . so there. I got a book to review from Viralooze as some motivation to post again. I read through the book pretty quickly, and here is the corresponding post. As an aside, I've been thinking a lot about moving my blog to another location and reformatting it somewhat. It's been kind of a kitchen sink approach now for almost six years, and I think a fresh start is needed. Hopefully I'll have some time here in the next month or two to begin working on a new look and I'll definitely post the updated change here. Thanks to everyone who still checks around here, and here's a few thoughts on The Colors of God: Conversations about Being the Church.

Three authors and fellow leaders of the neXus church in Canada have taken their experiences and conversations regarding their church and put them into a book. The book is written in a conversational style (the reader is told which author is speaking throughout) and the style remains loosely dialogical throughout. I found this format to be a little cheesy and corny at times, but overall, it made for a fast-paced book and kept my attention throughout. The authors seemed like likeable and fun guys to hang out with. The conversations stay lighthearted while addressing serious and controversial matters. So much for the format . . . the content is surely what will catch the reader's attention more than anything.

My first observation is that the book title is a bit of a misnomer. I had envisioned a theological/ecclesiological interface with these "four colors" that never really materialized. The four colors they describe are not really about God as much as they are about the church. I would have expected each of the four colors to be rooted in theology proper, and then applied to ecclesiology. That wasn't the case.

The authors are self-professed "emergent" pastors leading a self-described "emergent" church. The influences of emergent leaders is evident (the first part of the book is entitled "The Stories we Find Ourselves in" - Bryan McLaren would be proud), and one of the authors talks about the influence Doug Paggitt and others have had on him. Clearly most impactful in this book has been the work of Robert Farrar Capon (whom I profess being unfamiliar with), and his work on the parables. He is referred to throughout and quoted often. So, in some regards, this may be looked upon as an example of the rapidly evolving second order or second level of emergent theology - putting the ideas of the leaders into practice.

I could ramble on tit for tat regarding many of the specifics regarding the book, but instead I want to make a couple general points. There were some places I found great insight and appreciated their perspective (in particular, I found the first section on grace to be a good articulation of a challenging concept - I love their point that if we are preaching grace like we should, people should think we are being too liberal with it - see Paul), other places I found myself a bit challenged, and a few I was cautiously skeptical.

If I was grading my experience with the book, I'd give it a B-. I like their four-part division as I think the four areas are worthy of discussion and a helpful way to divide the topic (btw: blue is the Gospel faith - the strongest part, in my opinion), green is health - I really, really liked this approach to ethics, as well - it reflects the way I've approached sexuality when talking with teens (they're emphasis is on research - what is destructive, what is healthy as opposed to letter of the law . . . my problem here is that it places a lot of trust in research . . . remember, homesexuality was at one time listed as a mental disorder . . .), red is inclusive community (here I felt that the authors had to do a little hermeneutical gymnastics to make their point and blew through some strawmen arguments while overpassing more challenging texts), and yellow is contextual engagement (which I thought was helpful to hear them address pastorally, but wasn't done as well as many other books that our out now.)

In general, I think this is a book worth taking a look at for church leaders. They will no doubt challenge you (unless you too think cursing isn't that big of a deal and that sexual sins are less devastating than sins of pride and exclusivity - I challenge the authors who say that the Bible teaches the sins of pride and judgmentalism are more detrimental than sexual sins - you could argue the heart of the Old Testament antithesis began with sexual misgivings (Moab and Ammon came from where?) . . . but they raise some very helpful and insightful conversations - like this one regarding sexuality. I think they help raise questions that can push our thinking forward. I also think that they give a little insight into where the church will be heading into the future as younger leaders with different ethical mores, but strong spirituality lead them to cutting edge churches. This may be a good book for anyone fluent in emergent church conversations who feel themselves agreeing with everyone at every point . . .this book should offer a challenge to your status quo at some point.

Nationalism

2010-05-25T16:15:00.001-04:00

If you're not sure what exactly I'm talking about when I talk about compromised nationalistic messages . . . somehow I ran across this one today (I really wasn't looking for it!) . . . this is not the Gospel . . .

Why Wright Is Wrong from bellshoals on Vimeo.

Glenn Beck and Dealing in Politics

2010-05-25T13:55:00.003-04:00

I have made it pretty clear through my posts here that I believe the American political system has compromised much of the Gospel in the American church. It has become difficult to discern the Gospel from the right wing political alignment of the Religious Right. There is certainly a wealth of disagreement when it comes to the nature of the Gospel and politics. Whenever I have some time, I'll be taking some time to study and work through some of the more critical matters involved here - I've recently just touched the surface. I foresee a discourse on Romans 13 coming soon.

For now, I want to take a moment and post a thought or two about Glenn Beck. I used to tune into his show occassionally just to stay abreast of what his very influential show is teaching. I would get so frustrated in watching it I came to the conclusion that it wasn't very beneficial for me to participate. However, I went to the gym last week and, his show on one of the televisions, I caught wind of his recent attacks on the "social justice" movement. As someone who has read a good bit in this area, I was intrigued as to what this great conspiracy was holding.

I actually dvr-ed the Glenn Beck show (never thought I would do that!) and, when I later watched what ensued, to say that I was outraged, disappointed, saddened, and appalled all at the same time wouldn't do justice to the range of negative emotions I felt. What Beck says doesn't bother me much - he is what he is; an entertainer, a personality, larger than life - all that. What I found so appalling was to see two prominent figures in the American church standing behind his shadow and mimic his agenda. All you conservative friends, keep in mind, I have no political allegiance - what appalled me wasn't so much the Republicanism (I'm used to that) it's their compromise and public debunking of fellow Christians . . . right next to Mr. Latter Day Saint, Glenn Beck. Beck's LDS is another topic for another day . . . what I find so amazing is that, by their actions, the president of the leading Reformed seminary (Westerminster) and wellknown evangelical (from Liberty University) more closely align their ideology and perspectives from someone from a false teaching - the LDS than from a liberal-voting evangelical Christian (though they didn't come right out and say it).

I have been looking for some perspective in addressing this sensitive matter. No doubt any posting in this regard will stir quite a flurry of comments and downright arguing. Is it possible to avoid that? Perhaps not. I found this blog posting over at Vanguard Church that I think has helped me focus this on the pertinent matter.

Glenn Beck is a false prophet. That's the title of his post . . . and I think Bob, the blog's author, is getting at the issue. I keep hearing people - Christians - crying out that we can't get involved in politics, that we must remain neutral. I know what they are saying. I'm not in complete disagreement. However, Glenn Beck's false teaching and compromise of the Gospel must be addressed. It is perhaps here more than anywhere else where the church's Constantinian compromise most vividly comes alive. I just read a book by Alan Hirsch entitled The Fogotten Ways. The point is about how the methodology of the church has been compromised by culture to the point that we can no longer envision another kind of church. At one point he makes the point, "the template of this highly institutional version of Christianity is so deeply embedded in our collective psyche that we have inadvertently put it beyond the pale of prophetic critique." (p. 51). The point of the book is more about the form and life blood of church but I make the same accusation of the church's involvement with politics. We have become so compromised by political power and might that we have lost our way - we can have put ourselves beyond the pale of prophetic critique.

I don't expect most people who read this to agree with me. I know my audience much too well. My hope is that you can take a moment and look inside yourself. What factors have led you to these political ties and perspectives that you hold so dearly? Why do you get so energized in the midst of these conversations? Could you be wrong?

I will share this on Facebook . . . not sure that's the best idea . . . but I hope you can engage in constructive dialogue . . . no matter what your perspective.

Book Review: The Naked Gospel

2010-05-19T11:46:00.003-04:00

I received a free copy of Andrew Farley's book, The Naked Gospel, a few weeks ago in the mail from Viral Bloggers and didn't know a whole lot about it. The subtitle is enough to stir intrigue - "the truth you may never hear in church." Sounds in line with a lot of the stuff I've been reading. Even the section titles are interesting enough, "Obsessive-Christianity disorder," "religion is a headache," and "cheating on Jesus" to name a few. I set out with high hopes of the book.

About half way through, I kept waiting . . . waiting . . . waiting . . . two-thirds of the way through I actually went to the Viral Bloggers website to seek out some of my fellow reviewers in hopes of finding something positive to say. What I found there, instead, reinforced the opinion I was forming.

The premise to Farley's book is well-intentioned. He confesses to having been consumed with an unfulfilled religiosity that had basically created a monster. He had become a stereotypical evangelical preacher/evangelist and was serious about it - heartfelt, ambitious, and (mildly successful. However, in the midst of all that - he felt as though he was missing something. For the most part, a beginning exercise that prefaces the gist of many evangelical books gracing the new release shelves as of late. However, in my opinion, Farley falls far short of following through.

In hindsight, I think there is a great deal of similarity between what Farley attempts to do with his book and what David Dark does in his book: The Sacredness of Questioning Everything in attempting to get beyond a rules-based "Uncle Ben" (from Dark) kind of God who is lurching in the dark to zap his people for their sins. Unfortunately Farley isn't nearly as adept in navigating this premise. I don't wish to question Farley's ambition or the the relevance of this "naked gospel" for himself and others who have benefited. I am glad that he has found rescue from the oppressive and guilt-ridden past. However, there are so many glaring weaknesses, for me, I did not find this book enjoyable or helpful much at all. To summarize some of my biggest disappointments:
- I found Farley's Reformed theology to be an obstacle to overcome. I certainly have no problem reading material that stands outside of my own preference or belief, but I found Farley's Reformed take to be trite and lacking in several areas.
- While I applaud Farley's desire to rescue Christians from the guilty pretense of salvific works and moralism, I was disappointed by his exclusively individualistic focus. The communitarian (essential - I would say) aspect of faith is all but absent. Salvation remains the outlook solely of the individual for Farley.
- Farley's perspective of sin was also something I found too narrow. Related to the above point, Farley seems to completely overlook the communal nature of sin. What of the sin inherent in the powers and principalities? What of the addictive powers of sin? I could say more about this shortcoming, but I'll leave it at that.
- The disconnect Farley draws between the old law and new law (old and new covenant) is much too sharp. To relegate Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount as simply convicting the Jews of the impossibility of keeping the own laws with no real moral implication for Christians today since we've been relieved of the law (I think that is a fair take on Farley's presentation) was seriously lacking for me. His Reformed bias didn't do much for me and his treatment of James as well.
- Beyond the theological and ideological shortcomings I saw in The Naked Gospel, if I would have resonated better with Farley's writing style I could have become more engaged. Instead, I found Farley to be often trite with many shallow and random illustrations that didn't flow well and were often over-explained. I found myself saying, "OK, I get it."

Unfortunately, I couldn't wait to be done with this book and move on to something else. There were times when I felt like I was reading some kind of Reformed version of Joel Olsteen - probably more from his style than from his theology. A few words synopsis: Not what I expected, Good intention with poor follow-through.

I love this dude . . .

2010-04-29T09:53:00.002-04:00

Peter Rollins at Baylor University from Peter Rollins on Vimeo.

Moving words from David Cone

2010-03-31T10:20:00.002-04:00

On my way home from work yesterday I heard about this exhibit in San Antonio that highlights poverty and hunger in the United States. I just caught the end of it, but was moved by what I heard. I listened as they played clips from the exhibit as people reflected upon times in their lives when they were hungry. It dawned on me as I pulled into my driveway, "I have never been hungry." Now, that sounds like a pretty obvious comment, but I delved into the deeper ramifications of that fact. I've never been hungry. Ever. I've fasted on occasion, but never for more than 36 hours or so - and you don't get really hungry in 36 hours. So to relate to these voices - real people who have experienced real hunger. It was moving to me. Convicting.

It's the last week of Lent, and I feel a sense of accomplishment after having left both candy and pop behind for the duration (though I did have one bottle cap, and Monday convinced myself that chocolate covered cashews were more nut than candy). That's how trite I am. This story helped me stop in the mundaneness of my suburban life and reflect on the hunger pangs that so many people in our world feel. It doesn't make any sense to me, as I sit amidst so much excess it's hard for me to comprehend. I decided it's time for me to feel real hunger pangs. I'm committed to working towards a three-day fast in the near future. Three days seems sufficient for me right now. Just to connect. To reflect. To receive a kick in the butt. A wake up call. People feel this all the time.

Then, to top it off, I am reading Marvin McMickle's book Where Have all the Prophets Gone? with some minister friends of mine, and I came across his quotation of an incredible poem from African American theologian David Cone. It seems timely as I reflect through these things:

I was hungry
And you formed a humanities club
And you discussed my hunger.
Thank you.

I was imprisoned
And you crept off quietly
To your chapel in the cellar
And prayed for my release.

I was sick
And you knelt and thanked God
For your health.

I was homeless
And you preached to me
Of the spiritual shelter of God.

I was lonely
And you left me alone
To pray for me.
You seem so holy
So close to God.

But I'm still very hungry
And lonely
And cold.

So where have your prayers gone?
What have they done?
What does it profit a man
To page through his book of prayers
When the rest of the world is crying for his help?

From Cone's essay entitled "The Servant Church" in The Pastor as Servant. eds. Shelp and Sunderland Pilgrim Press, 1986.

Update

2010-03-29T13:23:00.004-04:00

Life has gotten quite hectic over the past few months. The kids keep growing, and they keep us on our toes. If you didn't know, my wife directs the preschool at our church; Clark and Clementine both attend the preschool. Our youngest - Cecilia - gets to come along and hang out with Mary Beth and I in the office. I'm not sure I would change anything - but that all makes life quite hectic. We're out the door running with all three by about 8:30 in the morning. School starts at 9:00. It's over at 12:00. Folks are around until almost 1:00. We've got to feed the kids lunch. Mary Beth sticks around until 3:00 or as long as she can. Then I try to get a few more things done in the afternoon. I try to get out and visit folks most afternoons . . . or have meetings . . . or whatever. In the meantime, I also have to clean up from lunch and help Mary Beth get out the door with all three. We try not to complain, but it is a busy time, and it's hard to keep it all in balance. We need to enjoy it while it lasts, because the big pictures reminds me how fleeting it all is. Clark will begin Kindergarten next year. Cecilia will be in the preschool the following year, and then off we go. So . . . in the mean time, we do our best to get as much work done as possible, and still keep our sanity and our family intact. It's great to all be here together, but it limits what we can do quite a bit.

And, on top of all that, I began my doctorate of ministry degree program today. I will be pursuing a D. Min from Fuller Theological Seminary over the next several years. This, again, will limit my blogging. I've thought about cutting the whole thing out, but I still really enjoy connecting here and, more than anything, venting, exploring, and creating here. I look for more opportunities in the future - possibly overhauling things and changing it up . . .but again . . . time . . . time . . . time. So, in the meantime, I'll be posting a random link or post here on occasion. I've already enjoyed my reading for the current class and look forward to further teasing out my thoughts here.

My program emphasis is on missional leadership. I hope to study in the area of the missional church and the potential that we have in Churches of Christ for engaging that ministry paradigm-change. That is where I am in the beginning; we'll see where I end up. Thanks for all who check in here on occasion and I look forward to what the future has in store.

Also . . . I have turned in a book proposal to ACU Press in regards to some of the things I had posted here earlier in the year. I'm excited about the potential, but we'll see if there is any reason to be :-) It's a bit of a shot in the dark, but something I think is needed, and something that, hopefully, will go along with my direction of study well.

Ugh

2010-03-08T13:51:00.001-05:00

Ugh . . .

What the Hell . . .

2010-02-23T13:34:00.000-05:00

Thoughts?

One Last Sermon

2010-02-16T11:23:00.002-05:00

OK, this will be the last sermon I post for awhile - I don't intend to make a habit of it. However, I thought the content of this series would make for a good series of posts. We've worked through a six-week series really of philosophy on what was hopefully a practical level. This final installment was intended to be a case study through the series of topics we covered in the earlier weeks. It seemed to me that the best topic that would make this as real as possible is one as controversial as the role of women in the church.

I find this an incredibly difficult topic to maneuver in the existing church (at least those churches like ours that have a patriarchal tradition so in-grained in their psyche). Something that seems to fundamental to me is so incredible offensive and troubling to many. I suppose the easiest thing to do is to find a group of people who agree with me and move on to somewhere else. Somehow, though, that doesn't seem Christ-like. So, we plod on in our efforts here. Our folks were generous to hear these words, words that were contrary to the thoughts of a good many of our folks. Hopefully you find these words helpful to you.

I knew it would take some time to work through this material (which it did), so I ended up cutting out my personal examples of women in the church early on in the sermon.

Deconstructing Theology #7
Alum Creek Church – February 14, 2010

Women in the Assembly: A Case Study

When it came time to choose a topic as a case study for a postscript on this series on deconstructing church, I don’t know if I chose the topic as much as the topic chose me. There are a number of different “controversial” topics of discussion that we could have chosen in our attempt to engage in our past few weeks’ study, but one stands above the others in scope, diversity of thought, and the breadth of its implication.

Mary Beth and I have been a part of this church for six and a half years now, and this topic has been a constant source of conflict and disagreement since we arrived. We have had small group discussions, Sunday school classes, surveys, numerous private conversations, the elders have been studying the topic for a year . . . and as far as I can remember, we’ve never addressed it through sermon. The topic, of course, is the role of women within the church, and, primarily, in the church service. What else could we talk about this morning? As best I can tell, we pretty much are divided down the middle on this topic. There’s probably as many of you who think we should expand the role of women in the life of the church as there are those of you who think we should keep it as it is, or even pull it back a little.

This morning, we’re going to take a little more time than usual because of the scope of our study. Let it be said first and foremost, this is not some type of official statement leading way to everything changing next week. I am not as interested with the conclusions we draw, as much as I am with the process that we explore together.

This morning there are people here from a diversity of backgrounds. Some of you are thoroughly “Church of Christers” – born and raised, and others of you are probably not overly familiar with the Churches of Christ. It’s rare that you’ll actually hear our beliefs laid out specifically in the Churches of Christ – partly because there isn’t a lot of agreement about them, and partly because we like to keep it nebulous and by default are guided by tradition. If you aren’t from the Churches of Christ, here are a few examples from my experience in the Churches of Christ in regards to our stance on women and their role in our churches that I think seem humorous to anyone from the outside.

· I was baptized at the age of 12 and began attending men’s business meetings soon after (our church didn’t have elders and the decisions were made by the men of the church – as the Bible commands????) So, there I was a fifteen-year-old men with a stronger “vote” than my mom.

· Later I remember a woman of the congregation who taught the young teenagers in Sunday school who felt she could no longer teach the class because her son was in the class and he had just gotten baptized.

· There was a blind woman at our church in Defiance who had a wonderful singing voice – better than anyone else in the congregation. She sang loudly and led every song from her seat, but would have never been allowed to stand up and lead the congregation in worship.

· There was a woman at our church growing up who kept all the books for her husband’s business – was much more qualified than the man who kept the church’s books – but she was not allowed to keep the church’s books because she was a woman.

· At a church I worked at in Nashville we had a preschool ran by a woman. She could make announcements in front of the church regarding the preschool but was not allowed to be part of the regular announcement rotation.

I’m not trying to make fun of anyone’s beliefs, and I’m not trying to be trite about
a very challenging situation. I’m simply trying to give some specific examples of the implications of our teaching on the role women have within the Churches of Christ.

As I stated before, there is a developing diversity within Churches of Christ. There are a few who have women elders. There are a few that have women preaching ministers. There are some where women serve publicly. This is not common or usual. This is not what you have experienced here at Alum Creek. We fall in a very patriarchal tradition, and we have, by and large, maintained that tradition – for better or worse.

If we were to summarize our beliefs, more or less, for better or worse, here is what the Churches of Christ have taught . . . and what Alum Creek has followed.
1. Men are the spiritual leaders of their families
2. Men are the spiritual leaders of the church.
3. Elders are to be men.
4. Deacons are to be men.
5. Men conduct all parts of the public service done in front of the congregation.
6. Women are not to teach men (at least men who are baptized).
7. Women are not to lead public prayers in front of men (again, men who are baptized).
8. Women are not to lead men in worship.
9. Women may teach children who haven’t been baptized (with children who are baptized there is some uncertainty)
10. Women may pray in front of other women and children (and here we allow for women to pray in front of baptized men, but not on Sunday’s during our public services).
11. Women may not read Scripture in front of the church during its assembly.
12. Women may prepare communion, but may not serve it.
13. Women make announcements only on rare occasions and do not do so regularly.

The list could go on and on as we’ve confronted an ever-changing world. Circumstances and situations are constantly changing presenting new challenges and new understanding to our foregone conclusions on these matters. We’ve created new jobs that women are allowed to do. We’ve come across various exceptions and hypothetical circumstances that open some opportunities and close others for women.

This is one of those topics that everyone’s got an opinion on . . . and almost always a pretty strong one. Some of you stand diametrically opposed to the case I’m going to lay out this morning. Some of you are right there with me “Amening” and “That’s righting.” I don’t want to cause division. I don’t want to cause a fight. I don’t particularly like conflict. But this is an issue that cannot be avoided. I don’t like conflict, but I’m not afraid of it, and I believe that it is often the path that leads forward to the brightest future.

In order for this morning to be productive and beneficial, you must be able to see through your bias and strong opinions and listen to the approach. Watch how we go about this. The conclusion is not the objective today – it’s the process. When we’re all done today, I don’t care if you disagree with me or not – sure I’d like to think I will convince all of you. But that’s not what this is about. It’s about learning to live together amid our differences. It’s about allowing for diversity – diversity not just in thought, but in practice and action. I want us to learn from the process and help guide us into a new way of addressing disagreements and division attaining a new reality of unity. That’s why we’ve chosen to talk about something so divisive and controversial.

This directly affects half the world, and since there’s almost always more women in church than men . . . more than half in churches. And since we’ve all got mothers and wives, sisters and aunts, nieces and daughters . . . it affects us all. So . . . yeah . . . it’s kind of a big deal.

Through our time together this morning, we are going to attempt to work from the groundwork we have laid over the past month and a half. We’re going to go through the work we’ve done, week-by-week, and discuss how we address this specific issue and the implications each week has for this particular topic.

Confronting our Belief Structures

The first thing we talked about in this series is that we must come to terms with the reality that there are a number of elements that help predetermine our thinking on certain matters. In some ways, this may be the most challenging part of our journey together. It’s here you have to come to terms with why it is that you think the way you do.
I want you to do that right now. Just quietly, to yourselves. The first question you’ve got to ask yourself is: Am I a man or a woman? Pretty simple, but the more challenging question is – how does this impact your perspective?

· If you are a man and you believe women should not have a place in public worship
o Is it because you are afraid of listening to a woman?
o Are you intimidated by women?
o Do they make you feel insecure? Do they intrude on your machismo?
o Does that go against the way you were raised? The way you were taught?
o Would you be open to giving up some of the power that has been given to you because you are a man?

· If you are a woman and you believe you should have a more open place in public worship
o Are you just envious or jealous of the men empowered to make decisions?
o Is this really about getting more power for yourself?
o Are you just succumbing to the prevailing winds of culture that tell you you can do anything a man can do?
o Does being kept from leadership positions go against the way you were raised? The way you were taught?

· If you are a man and believe that women should have a more open place in public worship (as I strongly do), I’ve got to ask myself some pretty tough questions myself:
o Are you just trying to get out of a very important role that God has called you to?
o Are you being sidetracked by your desire to open doors for your wife and daughters and taking your eyes off of God’s desire for you?
o Is this really just a rebellion against the establishment? Are you against it just to be against it?
o Are you just succumbing to the prevailing winds of culture?

· If you are a women who believe your place is not in the public service:
o Is this your personal belief because of your preference? Is it just not your personality?
o Does this go against the way you were raised? The way you were taught?
o Are you afraid of an “Uncle Ben” like God will damn you to hell if you expressed a desire to be part of a public assembly of faith and thus paralyzed by fear?

Listen to the importance of all these questions. Hear how our experiences and
our education and our personality help shape our understanding of the world around us.

Consider how differently an ivy league-educated world-class lawyer would understand this topic versus a high school drop out who lives on the family farm out in Boondock, Iowa. Has God given the farmer special spiritual insight because of his maleness? Is there a “right” way for these two to understand this topic? How can the two of them ever agree about this? How he ever let her lead him? How could she ever let him lead her?

Our personality, our family situation, our education, our background, the culture in which we were raised – all this is going to heavily jade our thinking on this matter. It all impacts how we understand women. It all impacts our understanding of authority and power. And before we ever read a Scripture or enter a Bible class, all this is already at work within us.

So now, we’ve got to ask the question that we introduced that first week . . . what if I’m wrong? Your upbringing and education and family life has helped predetermine what you believe about this matter – so what if you’re wrong. I had to go through this process. I didn’t always believe that a woman’s role should be expanded, but I had to wrestle with this – my mom was wrong, my church growing up, and preachers I knew growing up – they were all wrong . . . and maybe I’m wrong now.

Pursuing Biblical Humility

We have to be able to chill out sometimes. We can very easily assume in churches that the stakes are so high that there’s never a time to laugh or joke or have fun. Even on vitally important matters like this, we’ve got to enter into discussions with the mindset, “I don’t have all the answers.” We have to be willing to look like a fool on occasion. To laugh at ourselves, and to be wrong from time to time.

In the second week of our study, we saw how Job’s prepackaged understanding of God was completely undone when his family and fortune were taken from him. We saw that God is often not who we had in mind. He doesn’t always work the way we’d expect.

In our discussion of women today, there are some unsettling aspects of our study. No matter what perspective you are bringing to the text, you are going to have some issues to deal with. There are two pretty critical texts that have to be dealt with if you believe women should have an expanded role in the church – both from Paul.

Read 1 Corinthians 14: 33b – 35.
Read 1 Timothy 2: 9 – 15.

Can I be honest for a moment? I hate these verses. I don’t know it if is OK to hate anything in the Bible, but I really wish these weren’t here. I get so tired of studying them. I get so tired of them being misused. And I have to be honest; I’m not sure what they mean. I have some ideas, but nothing I’m so convinced of I would die for.

I know those of you who really believe in male leadership and male dominance in the public worship assembly have lots of trouble getting past these passages. You hang a lot on them – especially the Timothy passage since Paul ties his argument to creation –though I don’t usually hear too many men argue very loudly that their wives are saved through childbearing, and I’m not sure anyone is ready to argue how this applies to our wonderful women here who don’t have children. I understand your apprehension. I respect your desire to be biblical.

However, I think your inability to get beyond these passages shows a bit of myopia. The biblical witness is much larger than these two passages. In the Old Testament, women were very much submissive to man, and yet Judges 4 tells the story of a woman leading the entire nation of Israel – she was the most powerful person in Israel. That’s not a prepositional statement like the ones we just read, it’s a reality that has to be dealt with.

And as for a woman teaching or having authority over a man, the Book of Acts tells us that the evangelist Phillip had four daughters who prophesied (Acts 21: 9). The closest thing you are going to find to prophesying to what we do today is preaching. These daughters no doubt taught and preached the Word of God. And then, earlier, in 1 Corinthians 11, a few chapters prior to what we just read above, in the midst of a discussion of headship (which is another passage many of you like in stating male leadership) the assumption is women prayed and prophesied (1 Corinthians 11).

There is so much study and more to be said here, but for our purposes this morning, I simply want you to see that it isn’t a black and white issue – that folks on both side of this issue have to acknowledge there are some things that you just don’t know.

Questioning Uncle Ben

In week #3, we talked about the Uncle Ben like God who paralyzes many with fear. If this is the picture you have of God, it makes this issue incredibly difficult. Decisions to change anything will be riddled with fear. “If we change our practice or our thought, he might damn us to hell.” Hopefully, we’ve been able to show through this series that this is a false idol that some serve, and is not the true picture of God.

The God that we serve is not afraid of our questions. As we experience new realities in our world, it forces us to ask new questions of our traditions and our belief structures. In regards to our understanding of women in society, culture has changed immensely. Less than 100 years ago, women could not vote in our nation. The women’s liberation movement continues to fight for equal pay with men and overcoming prejudice in hiring processes. For the first time ever, there are more females in the workforce than males.

We are crazy if we don’t think this doesn’t impact our understanding of God. As I typed out this sermon I asked myself, “What would it be like if Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice went to my church?” These world leaders, two of the most powerful women in the world . . . but they wouldn’t be able to make decisions here. They wouldn’t be able to make announcements here or pray in front of the group, or ever address the group publicly.

I don’t have the answer . . . only more questions. How does a widow feel in our churches? Or a single mom? Or a mom whose husband isn’t a Christian? How do they find their place in our churches? Don’t they have some place at the leadership table? Are they really restricted simply because they are a woman? Our culture tells women they can do anything that a man can do? I happen to believe that and intend to teach my daughters that . . . but does the Bible teach that?
And the questions abound as we consider the structure of our churches. Is reading Scripture publicly really a position of authority? And serving communion? Is there ever a time to restrict anyone from praying in front of others – especially because of their gender? Where does our structure come from? So many questions remain – we must stop pretending as though we have all the answers or that we are even consistent.

Dealing with Disagreement

In a perfect world we could all agree on this issue. In a perfect world, we would simply have each person offer their arguments, we’d vote on the better choice, and move on. That’s not the way this is going to work. As I stated at the beginning, it’d be great if I could stand up here and convince you of my opinion, but we’re all pretty set in our ways.

When we discussed the topic of disagreement, we read from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians that demanded unity of the Spirit. The topic of women and their role in the church has divided just about every denomination. Some people have wanted to allow for women pastors to be ordained and lead the church, others have felt this to be unbiblical – and so divisions have prevailed.
We could allow this to divide us. We can say to ourselves, “Well, let’s see what’s going to happen and then we’d decide if we can stick around.” Or, we can say to ourselves, “This is my church family, I must figure out a way to make this work.” We stated that our source of unity in the Spirit can be found in the Apostle’s Creed – a creed we read aloud together. The tenets of that creed have united Christians for centuries. Missing from that creed is any statement regarding women and their place in church. This is not something to allow the church to be torn apart over.

Growing Pains & When all Structure is Gone

Disagreements, however, will come, and they will be incredibly difficult to deal with. In our fifth week, we looked at how early division and disagreement led to the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15. The Jewish-Christians were met with some new information as they interacted with the Gentiles. Here, the apostles Paul and Barnabas stood up and told the people what they had witnessed.

In the same way today, I believe we must stand up and share what we have witnessed as of first and foremost importance – even when it doesn’t fit into our structure. I have heard women preach the Gospel and been encouraged. I have seen women lead churches and have felt the Spirit upon them. I have heard women pray and read Scripture aloud – and been immensely blessed from it. I have seen their gifts of the Spirit . . . and as Paul stated to the Thessalonians, we must not allow that Spirit to be quenched.

But God would not contradict himself, you say. We saw last week that he has done just that in the past. He has allowed for new movements of the Spirit. He has allowed for exceptions in faithfulness. I know many of you believe this goes against the very order God has made . . . that’s the proposition that you see embedded in the text. But I am here in front of you as Paul and Barnabas was in front of the people in Jerusalem to tell you that as we saw last week, it hasn’t always happened the way you would think.

· In Genesis 1 – 2 Adam and Eve were created as equals, side by side, Adam not perfected until Eve was made from his side. It wasn’t until the curse entered the world in chapter 3 that Eve’s “desire will be for the man.”
· In Exodus 15, it was Miriam a prophetess who led the entire nation of Israel in worship alongside her brother Aaron and Moses. Miriam was a spiritual leader.
· In Judges 4, we’ve already mentioned how Deborah was the ruler of Israel – political leader over all Israel.
· In a story similar to what we read last week when Josiah found the Book of the Law in the temple, he went to the prophetess Huldah to affirm its content – this was at the same time the better-known prophets Jeremiah, Zephaniah, Nahum, and Habakkuk were working. But he chose a woman.
· In Luke, it was Jesus’ mother Mary who receives all the attention and blessing from the Most High.
· In the list of thanksgiving at the end of the Book of Romans, a name listed as Junias is almost certainly a woman whose name was actually Junia but was changed to cover her women-ness.
· Priscilla is quoted as teaching with her husband Acquilla taught Apollos together.
· Phoebe is listed as a special deacon of the church in Cenchreae.

Perhaps in our desire to maintain our structures, we’ve become so concentrated on
our structure that we have missed the Spirit of God moving all along through history. God has not created a hierarchy in this world of men over women. We have seen throughout Scripture women have served as political leaders, spiritual leaders, and even the very bearer of the Savior in Mary.

On the one hand, there are those of us here who believe the Bible is very particular about the ordering of men and women. We want to be biblical. On the other hand, there are those of us here who believe the Spirit of God is calling us to move beyond archaic structures that have been the work of sin working within social structures. Both perspectives have worthwhile objectives.
What we’ve tried to do this morning is work through a series of challenging steps to help open our eyes to what we’re bringing to the text, seeing the ambiguity that is there, and beginning conversations in how we move forward.

As I stated earlier, this is not statement as to what’s going to happen next week. Actually, I’m doing the best thing I could think of after preaching this sermon – getting out of town! Ha. I hope this is the beginning of a renewed conversation. There are many among us who feel passionately about this topic. As the father of two daughters I have become even more committed to changing our practices here. However, as soon as I state that, I realize how challenging this is for so many of you. I understand how much you have vested in this. I hope the things we’ve covered over the past few weeks have been helpful to you. I hope that they’ve made you think. I hope they’ve challenged you. And I hope, more than anything, you’ve been blessed with them. I don’t know where we go from here. All I know to do is to press on in what I believe in . . . just as you press on in what you believe in, and somehow, through the amazing providence of God, he will bless our endeavors. [End with a prayer shared with Mary Beth.]

I ended up leading the prayer sans Mary Beth. She felt uncomfortable leading unless the elders were fully aware . . . and I didn't think it was worth the long conversations and discussion. I figured the women prayed in Corinth (as we just read in this sermon), so they can pray here . . . but the conversation continues I guess.

Sermon #6: Deconstructing Theology Series

2010-02-11T15:21:00.003-05:00

This sermon wraps up our series on Deconstructing Theology, though I will follow it up with a postscript this week with a case study working through a specific issue in light of what we've done the past six weeks. I will post that sermon on Monday and be done posting sermons for awhile. I try to reserve this space for other random thoughts, so I'll get back to those soon. Here's last week's installment - thinking about things that don't "fit" the structure . . .

We began with this video clip from the Today Show accessible here:

Deconstructing Theology #6
Alum Creek Church – February 7, 2010

When All Structure is Gone

Last year, while Mary Beth and I were forced indoors with our newborn (who turned one yesterday!) we spend some time reading through Jacobs’ book, The Year of Living Biblically. Jacob’s intention of following the Bible literally is an overstated attempt to obey the laws since he doesn’t leave any room for metaphor or poetry, but the work is still an interesting reflection on obeying the Bible. Have you ever considered what it would take to keep all the laws of the Bible? Jacobs has a Jewish heritage so he is more interested in the Old Testament than the New Testament, which makes his foray into the Law of Moses especially interesting.

One of the most memorable experiences that I remember from his yearlong experiment was his concern over purity. You may or may not know that in the Old Testament, a woman was considered unclean when she was on her period. She was instructed to go to the edges of the community for the duration of that week. The law goes on to instruct that anything a woman touch while she is on her period is unclean as is anything she sits on. (Leviticus 15: 19 – 23). This caused quite a problem for Jacobs as he set out to follow the Bible as literally as he could. He lives in New York City, regularly takes the subway and eats and rests in public places. How could he be sure the seats in which he was sitting would be clean?

His wife, a bit embittered from the weeklong abstinence of touch demanded by the law, took this simple fact to really challenge his commitment.

The no-sitting-on-impure-seats presents more of a challenge. I came home this afternoon and was about to plop down on my official seat, the gray pleather armchair in our living room.
“I wouldn’t do that,” says Julie [his wife]
“Why?”
“It’s unclean. I sat on it.” She doesn’t even look up from her TiVo’d episode of Lost.
OK. Fine. Point taken. She doesn’t appreciate these impurity laws. I move to another chair, a black plastic one.
“Sat in that one, too,” says Julie. “And the ones in the kitchen. And the couch in the office.”
In preparation for my homecoming, she sat in every chair in the apartment, which I found annoying but also impressive . . .
I finally settle on Jasper’s six-inch-high wooden bench, which she had overlooked, where I tap out emails on my PowerBook with my knees up to my chin.

His solution is a creative one – a Handy Seat, which he describes as his “little island of cleanliness.” The Handy Seat was a portable seat that he took with him everywhere he went to ensure his cleanliness remained intact.

I have spent so much time talking about A. J. Jacobs this morning because I believe he illustrates the problem the Jews had with the Mosaic Law well – they couldn’t keep it. Last week as we read about the council in Jerusalem, in the midst of their considering the Jewish implications for Gentile converts Peter stood up and said, “Why should we expect the Gentiles to keep the Jewish laws? Our forefathers weren’t able to keep the laws!” “No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are now.” (Acts 15: 11).

We are saved by grace, through faith. What of everything else? What about the way we understand everything else? What about your stance on gay marriage? What about your stance on the environment? What about your stance on communion? What about your stance on salvation, and the salvation of others? What about these questions . . . and what about a million others? Where’s the line? Does grace eliminate the need to seriously address these things?

As we’ve spent six weeks now deconstructing our thoughts and ideas about God and faith . . . where do we go from here? All of our understanding and beliefs are laying on the ground before us in pieces, how do we put it all back together? What are we left with when the structure is gone?

I want to share with you five snapshots from Scripture that don’t’ fit into the structure. I think these snapshots help shed light onto what we are to do when our structure of knowledge and understanding is shaken – when we begin to realize that we don’t know as much as we thought we did and we’re unsure of the way forward.

Snapshot #1 – The Priest Melchizedek

I don’t want to spend a great deal of time on this first snapshot, mainly because there isn’t much to say. We begin in the story of Abraham. Abraham had been called by God and was blessed by God in all he did. He began amassing great wealth and notoriety in the area. Genesis 14 tells the story of two kings coming to see Abraham: the King of Sodom and the King of Salem. It is the King of Salem that brings our attention this morning. Read Genesis 14: 18 – 20.

We aren’t told much about Melchizedek and, for the most part, is an unimportant character in this story. He is mentioned again in Psalms and Hebrews which is very interesting, but for our purposes here, we just want to note one thing about Melchizedek – who is he? Not only is he a king – he is also a priest. Where does his priestly credentials come from? The priestly line through Aaron won’t be established for a long time. The extent of our knowledge of God’s working in the world are through Abraham and his family. Where does Melchizedek go back to? What is the nature of his priesthood? How many are blessed through his work?

Obviously, these are all questions that we can’t answer, and that is exactly the point. We don’t know. What we do know is that God was working in a way that we are completely unaware of and that completely does NOT make biblical sense.

Snapshot #2 – Celebrating Passover (Numbers 9: 1 – 14)

Two years after Israel is led out of Egyptian bondage, as they continue their traveling through the desert, it is once again time to celebrate the Passover. The Lord tells Moses it’s time to celebrate the Passover and all the preparations are made. Read Numbers 9: 6 – 8. Some of the Israelites had a problem. Many of them were not ritualistically clean as required by the Law of Moses prior to participating in Passover. There were some families that had funerals recently and had come into contact with dead bodies. What were they to do? Must they be excluded from this celebration? Moses inquires of God. Read Numbers 9: 9 – 13. Here, a very noticeable and obvious exception is made to one of Israel’s most fundamental laws.

You can interpret this text as an extremely rare exception to the norm . . . but you have to ask the question, why was an exception allowed? On what grounds is the appeal granted? Was God feeling nice that day? Had he not thought that far ahead? Or, was there a higher law He could appeal to?

Snapshot #3 – Finding the Book of the Law (2 Chronicles 29 – 30)

A similar situation comes about in 2 Chronicles when Hezekiah uncovers the Book of Law that was lost long ago. Upon finding the book, they realize the temple has become unclean, and Hezekiah had it cleaned and purified. Read 2 Chronicles 29: 35b – 36. With the temple back up and running, the regular worship of the community could begin. Central to the religious way of life for Israel were their festivals and they had just missed Passover. Passover was celebrated in the first month and it was now the second month.

Read 2 Chronicles 30: 1 – 6. The leaders consorted and determined that it would be good to go ahead with Passover. They sent letters out throughout the nation inviting everyone to Jerusalem for the Passover celebration. This was to be the greatest Passover celebration ever.

Upon the arrival to the city, many people had not been ceremonially cleansed. Read 2 Chronicles 30: 13 – 20. Again, the question remains, why the exception? Was God so excited to have his people back in conformity that he gave them a little leeway on how they went about the celebration? I can envision a group of devout old Israelites sitting on the outskirts of the party pointing and saying, “You know they haven’t been cleansed? What is this world coming to?”

Snapshot #4 – The Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11: 27 – 30)

Read 1 Corinthians 11: 27 – 30. 1 Corinthians 11 is a passage that we often read before taking the Lord’s Supper. It speaks to the seriousness of the Lord’s Supper. But, have you ever known anyone to get sick because they weren’t observing correctly? Paul indicates that that is exactly what is happening in Corinth at the time. Have we not experienced that because we have never done so inappropriately? Was that just something that happened back then?

Again, we can’t answer those questions, but we’re left with the idea that there is something going on here that is out of our typical experience and understanding of God and of the church.

Snapshot #5 – Deathbed Salvation (Luke 23: 32 – 43)

And we come to the final of our snapshots – on the cross of Calvary. Jesus is crucified between two thieves. Read Luke 23: 32 – 43. Of all the snapshots, this one is most difficult to fit into our structure. This criminal is given the promise of eternal life right here on his deathbed. He probably wasn’t a Jew. He didn’t know the Torah. He wasn’t circumcised. He wasn’t baptized. He wasn’t religious.

Yet this final professional of belief in Christ brings him the promise of eternal life. There are a few questions glaring back from this text. Was this a one-time exception? Granted, this is a unique, never to be duplicated event, but is there nothing timeless we can glean from this episode? Does this not say something about our attempt to figure things out? Doesn’t it provide us with at least a small dose of humility to realize that God is going to do what God is going to do, and we should be careful about telling people what God is like, or what God is going to do, and simply stand back and testify to what he is doing and what he is like and what we’ve seen – just as Paul and Barnabas do in their explanation of the Gentiles inclusion in Christ?

The passage of Scripture that is on the front page of the bulletin brings us to a fitting conclusion to this series. The questions the prophet asks reflect the same question we’ve been asking throughout this series, “What do you want from us? How do you want us to be your people? What are the rules of church?”

“With what shall I come before the Lord and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”

Sacrifices and offerings were all commanded by God. They were the “right” way
to do things. But there was a better way. There was a higher way. There was something that was more important.

I subtitled this series “Unlearning the Rule of Church.” I’m afraid we’ve spoken in far too many places in establishing the rules of church. We have become more concerned with “doing church” right than with living out the kingdom right. If I were to pray Micah’s prayer in this setting this morning, I think it would sound like this:

“With what shall I come before the Lord and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I ensure my singing is done in the right way, without instruments, and from the heart? Will the Lord be pleased if women are excluded from all forms of public service during our assembled times? Shall I present my certificate to him – baptism by immersion upon the age of accountability? Maybe I should be baptized seven times – just to be sure. Must I keep track of my how many times I celebrate communion? Should I insist that everything that happens during a two-hour window on Sunday mornings at the church building is exactly perfect – exactly the way that I want it?"

The answer that comes so boldly and powerfully to Micah screams from the pages to our ears this morning . . . “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Perhaps as poignant as what is said, is what is not said. No sacrifices. No burnt offerings. No temple rituals. Justice. Mercy. Humility.

In a similar vein, Paul ends his letter the Philippians with a memorable teaching:

“Finally brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable – if anything is excellent of praiseworthy – think about such things.”

Sermon #5 - Deconstructing Theology Series

2010-02-01T13:18:00.001-05:00

Deconstructing Theology #5
Alum Creek Church – January 31, 2010

Growing Pains

I often wonder what it would have been like to be one of the 12 disciples spending a couple of years walking around the greater Jerusalem metropolitan area with Jesus. Can you imagine what that must have been like? Sometimes I wonder if Jesus was a practical jokester. I wonder if he give nooggies to Peter. Did he pull the chair out from underneath Simon before he sat down to eat lunch? Did he have a big appetite? What was his favorite food? What was he like when he hadn’t slept in awhile? Did he ever get irritable? Was he constantly pointing out nuggets of godly truth, or was he more reserved and waited for just the right moment to speak the deep truths of God?
I wonder about those things, mainly because I really have trouble seeing Jesus as fully man. But, I also wonder about those things that would have come about because he was fully God. If I was God, I don’t think I’d have much patience for a lot of things. I definitely wouldn’t have had patience for the disciples listening issues. Just a cursory glance through the New Testament shows you how difficult dealing with the disciples would have been. Here are a couple of times when, if I was Jesus, I probably would have blown my top:
- They were in a boat out on the water when a furious storm came about, and all the disciples were worried like they were going to die or something. Jesus got up and commanded the storm to go away. “Why are you so afraid?” Jesus asked (Matthew 8: 23 – 27)
- Jesus tells the disciples one of his greatest parables in the parable of the soils. He finishes telling the story and the disciples have no idea what he is talking about. He has to explain the parable to them. (Matthew 13: 10 – 23)
- Jesus was walking on the water to get out to the disciples in the boat. Peter piped up and asked Jesus to allow him to walk on the water to Jesus. He took a few steps and then began to sink. (Matthew 14: 29 – 33)
- There were a bunch of children trying to get to Jesus and sit on his lap. It was causing quite a scene, so the disciples stepped in and tried to get rid of the children. Jesus rebuked them and told them to let the children come to him. (Matthew 19: 13 – 15)
- Some of the disciples were arguing on the road who was the greatest in the kingdom. Jesus had to rebuke them and remind them of the way of the kingdom. (Luke 9: 33 – 37)
- Later the disciples saw a man driving out demons in Jesus’ name, but he was not part of the disciples. They told them to stop, but Jesus told them not to stop them. (Luke 9: 49 – 50)
- Then the disciples were not welcomed by the people of Samaria and they asked Jesus if they should call fire down from heaven and destroy them. Jesus turned and rebuked them. (Luke 9: 51 – 56)
- When Jesus was in the garden praying through the things that were about to happen, he went back to check on his disciples – three times – and they had fallen asleep each time. (Matthew 26: 36 – 45)
- When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus and take him away, Peter lunged at the soldier and cut his ear off. Jesus rebuked him and healed the man’s ear. (Matthew 26: 50 – 56)
- Peter disowns Jesus in his final hours. (Matthew 26: 69 – 75)
- Jesus faces the cross alone as his disciples all leave his side.
When you go back and consider these many gaffes of the disciples, it’s amazing,
really, when you think about, that they couldn’t just get it. I mean there he was, every day, sleeping right beside you, eating at your table, patting you on the back, teaching you the truth. Why was it so hard for them to understand? Why was it so hard for them to get it?
Really, the crucifixion was like the disciples’ final exam. They had spent the good part of three years traveling with Jesus, listening to him, and doing their best to get it. He’d been telling them all through the years, “I’m going to tear down this temple and rebuild it in three days”; “the Son of Man did not come to live but to die”; “the Son of Man must suffer a great deal of things.” And they didn’t get it. They failed the test. All of them. They didn’t get any of the questions right. It was like they got the test from the teacher and blank stares fell on each of the disciples as they read the questions. “I wasn’t expecting this.” “I was not prepared for this.” “I don’t think we covered this.”
In the face of the many shortcomings of the disciples, right there in the presence of the messiah, is the glaring theological arrogance with which we so often approach others. As if we have it all figured out. As if our understanding of God and of the Bible and of faith are ironclad. I sometimes wonder if we believe that the disciples failed their final exam at the cross, but then, by the time Pentecost came around and the Holy Spirit descended He fixed them so that they never got anything wrong again and everything was always hunky dory. If you continue to read through the Book of Acts, however, you realize that the Spirit didn’t come and immediately fix all their problems freeing them up to sit around and sing Kumbayah. People started bickering and disagreeing pretty quickly.
Last week we acknowledged that we are going to disagree with each other, and we’re going to disagree over some pretty important stuff. Actually, the Bible has a very pertinent story in regards to navigating our differences.
If you remember back a couple of weeks, we spent some time looking at Peter’s vision of the inclusion of the Gentiles. That week we talked about the challenges Peter had in accepting such a radical vision from God. Peter’s vision, however, didn’t immediately universalize the acceptance of Gentiles by the Christian movement. There was still a great deal of division and disagreement from new Christians, and this disagreement all comes to a head right in the thick of Acts.
Read Acts 15: 1 – 21.
A great debate has arisen. Do the Gentiles have to accept certain Jewish customs to become Christians or don’t they? You can make quite the biblical case that they, in fact, do need to become Jews. That was the point of pretty much the entire Old Testament! But upon hearing the words of the Gospel, these early Christians saw no demand to uphold these Jewish laws. So what do they do? How are they going to decide? Do they take a vote? All in favor of letting them in say, “Aye.” “All opposed, Nay.”
It’s probably important to note here that the important American concept of “majority rules” is not in the Bible. More times than not in Scripture, majority doesn’t rule. In this important matter of the Gentiles, it was not up for taking a vote. Instead, the leaders appealed to what they had witnessed. They didn’t get involved in abstract arguments in regards to interpreting texts, working through backgrounds, contexts, and grammatical nuances . . . instead, they told stories of what they had seen. They couldn’t necessarily explain it. They just told what they had witnessed.
This is where things get kind of tricky. A few weeks ago we talked about how one of the most difficult things in the world to say is, “I don’t know.” Yet, we decided, it was imperative. This morning we go to what is probably the most difficult thing to say, “I was wrong.” This entire group of Jews has to come to terms with the fact that they were wrong. They were all wrong.
I really like that cartoon that is on the front of the bulletin this morning, “I’m not always right, but I’m never wrong.” We may acknowledge up front we’re not always right . . . but to acknowledge that we’re wrong just takes on a more drastic tone – a more humbling tone.
What might be even more threatening to these people than the fact that they were wrong is that their parents were wrong, their grandparents were wrong. Their teachers and rabbis of youth were misled. Everything they knew . . . was wrong. And this is no overstatement. For the Jews to accept the Gentiles was a paradigm shift of monumental proportions and to accept that fact was going to take a great deal of humility.
In the passage Jim read earlier, as Paul ends his letter with several instructions on kingdom living, one of his admonitions is “Don’t put out the Spirit’s fire.” What would it look like to put out the fire of the Holy Spirit? That would be a tough question to ask, “Are you putting out the fire of the Holy Spirit?” How would you answer it? How would you know?
Let’s consider the situation in Acts 15. The Spirit was moving the people of God forward. The Spirit was revealing to the people a new way. The Spirit was making them rethink the things that had been handed down to them. This situation in Acts is quite peculiar. Paul boldly proclaims that the Gentiles do not have to become Jews in order to be saved, but, they still give them a list of “Jewish” requirements they should uphold: “abstaining from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
Why would they still insist on the Gentiles upholding these laws? Here, built into a revolutionizing of the way they understood things, was a sentimentality for those who were having to change. There was a built-in appreciation for how difficult it is to change your mind – to acknowledge that you were wrong.
So as we consider this example for theological division and disagreements, we’re left with a couple valuable insights:
- The leadership of those appointed in invaluable. Over and over again, the Bible cries out in support of our spiritual leaders. When it comes to difficult decisions, this is a very difficult pill for Americans to swallow. We’re used to having our own vote. We’re used to things being settled in our own terms. And yet, the Bible insists we follow our leaders.
- However, this is not a free pass for leaders to do whatever they want. They are to follow the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Working against the way we typically understand the world to operate, it is not always the voice of the majority trumpeting the way forward. Paul is clear in his admonition to “Do not quench the Spirit’s fire.” It is important that all of us, especially our leaders take a look inside and consider our openness to the leadership of the Holy Spirit. It is my fear that we are so uncomfortable and unfamiliar with the Holy Spirit that he may very well come and we won’t recognize Him and we will shun him away.
- In the midst of division and disagreement, we have a responsibility to those who are being forced to say, “I’m wrong.” We don’t get to sit back and revel in their loss and pain. Instead we are called to walk beside them, helping them understand that the way forward is better, that we understand their difficulty. “They still got their way,” you may be thinking. Yes, but their way gave way to the Holy Spirit in His time. We don’t still follow those admonitions from Acts, many of those practices are archaic and don’t even make sense any more. Acknowledging that is to take an important step forward in our quest for unity.
In all of this discussion, it is my belief that we must be sure we consider the prompting and calling of the Holy Spirit. How might he be calling us forward today? What changes does He seek in our lives? In our understanding of God?
As we set out to understand God more, as we set out to come to a deeper understanding of him in our life, consider these questions that David Dark asks.
“Will we let the double-edged indictments of the scriptures cut us to the quick creating problems in the lives we are living? Or will we enlist the words to serve only in our projects of self-congratulation, skipping the bits that question our beliefs and practices? Will we read the Bible only to reaffirm our own take on the world?”
When is the last time you said, “I am wrong.” I mean really wrong. When is the last time you were convicted from a passage of Scripture to change a habit or practice that is central to your being? When is the last time you changed your mind? When is the last time when you actually said, “I’m wrong . . . you are right”?
This business of transformation by the renewing of your mind is challenging. If you’re in it for self-affirmation and pats on the back and thumbs up and “Good job!” you better look again at your motives. If you are here to convince everyone of your opinions and positions, if you are here to talk and then listen . . . you need to do some looking inside.
God loves you and He cares for you. He wants what is best for you. And just like when you were a child, what is best for you often times is something that you would not choose for yourself. May God continue to renew your minds, may he continue to reveal your flaws and shortcomings, and may he continue to sweep you up in His grace and goodness.

The Book of the Shepherd

2010-02-01T12:07:00.003-05:00

Last week I received a book in the mail to review for The OOZE. I didn't know anything about the book beforehand, so I read free of predilection. The Book of the Shepherd is actually a short, poignant fairy tale/fable telling of a shepherd whom the reader follows on the journey for a better way.

I found the story to be compelling, though not overwhelmingly complicated - it is, however, a parable. The story is engaging enough to draw the reader in from the beginning, and the story reads quickly enough that I read in one sitting.

I read another reviewer who suggested the story is best suited for an audience of children. I think teenagers may especially find the shepherd's tale inspiring. It is a fable encouraging the reader to challenge the moors dominant in society, to go against the flow, and to, well, seek a better way.

I appreciate the author's and publisher's efforts in cover design, book design, and chapter design to maintain the fable or storybook feel. I did have a strange Oprah Winfrey feel when I was done reading it. I thought, "Oprah Winfrey would really like this book." I'm not saying that's good or bad . . . I guess it just depends on how you feel about Oprah (perhaps I was jaded that way since one of the "Extraordinary Advance Praise" for the book on the back cover came from Meredith Vieira cohost of the Today Show).

Overall, The Shepherd's Tale is a unique story relaying a timeless and oft-told message that is refreshing to hear in a unique way.

Sermon #4 in Deconstructing Theology Series

2010-01-25T15:03:00.002-05:00

This week's installment focused on dealing with the inevitable outcome of the previous weeks' work: divisions are going to happen - so how do we deal with each other in the midst of our disagreements? More to the point: How do we maintain the Spirit's unity in the midst of such diversity? Hopefully, there's something helpful here. Enjoy.

Deconstructing Theology #4
Alum Creek – Jan. 24, 2010 – Alum Creek

Why Don’t We Burn Heretics at the Stake Anymore?

Have you ever thought about the fact that some of the most horrific torture devices ever created by humankind were created or at least used by Christians? Have you ever thought about the fact that some of the most horrific atrocities that have ever occurred on the face of the earth, have occurred in the name of Christ? Spend a moment describing the following torture devices from the Inquisition . . .
· Judas Cradle
This horrendous torture device is a chair with a steep and sharp point in the middle of it. The victim was tied up with chains around all their extremities. They were set on top of the chair and weight was added to the chains so that they were slowly, and painfully impaled by the sharp point.
Image here

· Strappado
This device is designed to dislocate the victim’s shoulders arms by pulling them up by their arms and then lowering them quickly, and then coming to an abrupt stop. To make matters worse, weights would be added to the victim to make the abrupt stop even more painful.
Image here

· The rack
This device is probably one of the most well known torture devices. In this one, the victim would have their extremities tied down on a board and the board would slowly move apart from each other pulling the body parts of the victim away from each other.
Image here

· Burning at the stake
And one final example of torture, probably the most well-known – burning at the stake. People whose views were deemed heretical were often tied up so that they could not escape, and then publicly burned in front of the rest of the community as a public spectacle of what happens to those who cross God (or, in reality, the church).

The idea behind the Inquisition was that if the church could just sniff out all the false teachers and anyone else who they didn’t feel lived up to the godly standard . . . in other words, anyone who didn’t agree with the church’s position on an issue . . . and have them publicly dealt with, there would be no opposition left. The opponents would either be killed or forced by fear to repent. The end goal was, then, that by force, the church could be the one, pure, united people of God. Force, however, is never a good answer to the problem of disunity and disbelief. Force is not the way of the one who was led like a lamb to the slaughter.

We have a bad track record as the church when it comes to dealing with those who see things differently than we do. The history of the church is really the history of those with “orthodox” opinions defeating those with “heretical” positions, and sometimes the defeating was an actual physical beating and defeating. With the stakes so high, debate within the church has often come at a costly, costly price.

We have set down some important touch points in recent weeks in this opening sermon series of 2010. We have seen that transformation begins with the renewing of our minds and the renewing of our minds often begins with the realization that we could be wrong. If we could be wrong, we next found out that we have to be willing to say, “I don’t know” more often. And then, last week, we discovered that at the heart of our faith must be a spirit willing to ask questions. Questioning our beliefs steadies the rocks beneath which we stand.

But now, an important question remains: What do we do with each other when we disagree? How do we coexist in such an environment? How far do we have to go?

If everything that we’ve said is true, so far, the inevitable fact is: disagreements will come. Major disagreements. Big ones. About big stuff. Important stuff. It seems there are a couple options on the table . . .

- The Inquisition presents us with one – rise to power and do away with those who think differently. If you believe that you are right, that God is on your side, then you just may decide to hand fate over to God – go on a murderous binge and whoever is still standing at the end of the day . . . . clearly must have been on God’s side. Below is an excerpt from the Edict of Worms where Martin Luther was officially branded a heretic by the Catholic Church. It illustrates this “identify and conquer” mentality:

To the honor and praise of God, our creator, through whose mercy we have been given kingdoms, lands, and domains hereabove mentioned, it is our duty to help subdue the enemies of our faith and bring them to the obedience of the divine majesty, magnifying the glory of the cross and the passion of our Lord (insofar as we are able), and to keep the Christian religion pure from all heresy or suspicion of heresy, according to and following the ordinance and custom observed by the Holy Roman Church. We are rooted in that faith with a true heart, like our predecessors and progenitors, who by the grace of God also persecuted the enemies of our faith and banished them from their lands. Through their labors, expenditures, and indescribable perils, they have augmented and preserved the faith of our Savior Jesus Christ. They were unceasingly concerned that no appearance or suspicion of heresy or unfaithfulness appear in their kingdoms and domains.

For this reason-after having learned of the mistakes and heresies of a certain Martin Luther, of the order of the Eremites of Saint Augustine, who teaches iniquity, preaches false doctrines, and writes, in both Latin and German, evil things against our Catholic faith and the Holy Roman and Universal Church, things which have already been spread throughout almost all of Christendom, and abusively into some of our lands and domains, greatly diminishing the honor of God and the Catholic faith, imperiling and endangering Christian souls, and bringing future confusion to all the public affairs of our Holy Mother Church-if we do not put an end to this contagious confusion, it could lead to the corrupting of all faithful nations and to their falling into abominable schisms.
Note the fear embedded in this perspective. An alterative voice to the understood “orthodoxy” is deemed destructive, harmful, and potentially eternally impacting (“corrupting of all faithful nations and to their falling into abominable schisms”). This is some harsh language. The answer . . . get rid of them.

Hopefully, it goes without saying, this option is not really an option. The church continues to pay the price for our violent, oppressive history. However, I did see an article in the paper this week about some gun sights that are being issued to some in the American military that have Bible verses quoted on them. So, just in case, I’ll be looking into getting some of those for us, if we choose to set orthodoxy the old fashioned way.

- Perhaps aiming for the same goal, only through a more non-violent means, another possible option could be to quietly leave the established church and begin a new – purer one. As Protestants, we are pretty good at this one. If you don’t agree with the direction or teaching of a particular church find another one . . . or start your own.

While, on the surface, this may sound like a great, nonviolent approach to
achieving some doctrinal purity (and truly the absence of violence is always a better alternative), the reality has created an incredibly splintered church that has polluted its witness to the world. I went to an area pastor’s meeting this past Wednesday and met with pastors who lead churches all over our area. One meets right back here at the Alum Creek Elementary School. One meets over there at the new Freedom Trail Elementary School. Another from the Anglican Church down the road. Another from the Christian Church over on Peachblow. Another from the church that meets in office buildings over on Orange Rd. All these churches, all over the place. What’s the point? Imagine what we could do if we ever united! That’s what I appreciate about the Just for Jesus gathering that the Berlin Church hosts up the road.

So . . . what is the answer?
The first thing we must do is realize the incredible importance the Bible places on unity. Paul pays special attention to the idea of unity in his letter to the Ephesians. Read Ephesians 4: 1 – 6. Paul tells the Ephesians to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit” . . . notice that he doesn’t tell them to make every effort to keep their doctrine pure (though he certainly wanted the pure message of Christ maintained). And, as if to remind all of us in our moments of individuality he reminds us . . . “there is one body and one Spirit . . . one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.”

I don’t think Ephesians gives the answer of what we are supposed to do when we disagree, but it does insist that whatever we do in our disagreements, we some way, some how, maintain our unity of the Spirit. That, then, presses our question further, “How do we maintain the Spirit of unity in the midst of disagreement?”

We must overcome our tendency to think that the answer lies in some yet-to-be-achieved consensus. That all will be better when I am done convincing everyone of my way while allowing for some slight improvement from your way. The Bible declares that we should be united but nowhere indicates we must be uniform. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament shows a great deal of variety of practice, thought, and language.

In John 17, Jesus cries out to God in His prayer that His people would be one. Read John 17: 20 – 26. “May they just remember that they are in this together,” Jesus begs of His Father. “May they unite in Me as I have united in You.”

We live in a world of division and diversity. Everyone has an opinion about everything. Now, thanks to the invention of the Internet, everyone has a platform to express his or her opinion to the rest of the world. There was an interesting article in the paper a few weeks ago about global warming. It was during the Climate Summit in Copenhagen that brought about quite the rhetoric from everyone. No doubt there are people here who trumpet the “climate change” cause . . . and others of you who think its some big sham. We could probably have quite the exercise in diversity with an open forum on that this morning.

Instead, I want you to consider a few things from this article entitled, “Climate ‘Debate’ Pits Loud vs. Louder.”

“Consider the global warming debate: The skeptics shout. The skeptics’ opponents shout back. The scientists insist they have research in their corner. And public debate shifts from the provable and the empirical toward the spectacle of argument.”

“Because whatever side you are on, to sample the worldwide conversation in the age of the broadband connection and the constant, instantaneous comment is to be confronted with one recurring thread: Knowing what you’re talking about ain’t what it used to be.”

And this diversity of thought and skepticism of expertise is nowhere more alive than in discussions involving faith. And in the smattering of questions and opinions we can quickly lose our minds and our bearings. The fact of the matter is that we're never going to have a consensus on alot of important matters. There's always going to be "experts" and "professionals" who disagree and have opposing "facts" supporting his or her side. It can leave us discouraged, frustrated, and cynical. Questions remain: What is worth fighting over? What is worth complaining about? What is worth arguing over?

I don’t have years and years of ministry experience to make this following comment especially impacting, but I can say that in my ten years of ministry, I’ve never witnessed a “church fight” or a “church dispute” that I felt was worthy of the time. Never once have I seen a silver lining in the cloud that was being pursued. We all need to be reminded of what is worth the fight, what is worth protecting. If we move away from the fence line that we have been talking about in recent weeks, and move to a central fountain in our midst, then we must understand what that fountain is. I have a proposal for us this morning. Across denominational boundaries and through a long and prideful history, there has been a creed that the church has proclaimed as a summary of her faith. I believe it is this creed that stands as the fountain in our presence, and anything not in this creed . . . and I believe this, and yes I know how broad-sweeping it is, anything, is not worth the fight. We can disagree, we can argue and even get kind of loud once in awhile, but the Spirit of unity must be maintained. Let us stand and read this great and glorious document as we close. Read the Apostle’s Creed together.

“I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of the heavens and earth; and in Jesus Chris, his only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried; on the third day he was raised from the dead; he ascended into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from where he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit; in the holy Catholic church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the flesh; and eternal life.”

Sermon #3 in Deconstructing Theology Series

2010-01-20T12:01:00.001-05:00

Here's Sunday's sermon from our deconstruction series . . .

Deconstructing Theology #3
Alum Creek – Jan. 17, 2010 – Alum Creek

The Grain of Salt: Learning to Ask Questions

Every once in awhile, a line is uttered in a movie that jumps off the silver screen and is forever etched in the psyche of popular culture. Often times one or two lines of dialogue from a movie forever represent an entire film. Before we get into the lesson this morning, I want to hear from you some of the greatest movie lines of all times. Some of my favorite:
· “I see dead people.” - The Sixth Sense
· “Nobody puts baby in the corner.” - Dirty Dancing
· “I feel the need, the need for speed.” - Top Gun
Who remembers this line? “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
That line, obviously, comes from the Wizard of Oz, one of the many famous quotes from this movie. As we move into our third lesson in our series on deconstructing theology, this scene becomes a very good starting point for our discussion. We began two weeks ago by asking some questions about the way we think. We acknowledged that our knowledge, our perspective, is circumstantial. There’s not getting around that. We think the way we think because our environment, our training, our personality, our tradition, our teachers, and an infinite number of other things affect what we know in addition to affecting the way we know what we know. In acknowledging this reality we came face to face with the fact that we could be wrong – about a lot of really important things, and thus, should always ask the question, “What if we are wrong?”
We looked to Paul and saw that his call for transformation of the mind in Romans 12 was really a call to acknowledge that we have been wrong. Paul states that transformation happens by the renewing of your minds . . . and the renewing of your mind is an ongoing process of stating, “Well, I’m wrong about this,” and then subsequent growth from righting the wrong.
Last Sunday we pressed on further by calling for some cognitive humility – confessing to others that we don’t have all the answers. We saw that Job was completely undone by not just the undoing of his life, but by the undoing of his mind. What happened to Job didn’t fit in his box – his understanding of things, of God. We will never be able to grow until we are readily able to admit, “I don’t know.”
But . . . is that allowed? Aren’t some things just given? Aren’t some areas just the way they are because they are?
David Dark begins his book The Sacredness of Questioning Everything by telling the story of a small tight-knit community. The community is close and they watch each other and take care of each other. Anyone visiting from the outside would quickly notice their blatant and constant affinity to “Uncle Ben.” It was very common to hear members of the community say, “Isn’t Uncle Ben awesome?” Even in tragedy, the locals acknowledge, “It just goes to show you how much we need Uncle Ben.”
At the beginning of each week there’s a meeting at the largest house in the town where the people get together and talk about the events of the community and each family. They talk about Uncle Ben until a bell rings and all the people get up from their seats and moves to a staircase that goes to the basement. The entire community descends the staircase where they see an enormous, rumbling furnace. There is a man in black overalls with his back to them. They wait in silence until the man turns around.
He turns and his face is slightly contorted with anger and he yells at the people, “Am I good?”
They respond to him in unison, “Yes, Uncle Ben, you are good.”
“Am I worthy of praise?”
“You alone are worthy of his praise.”
“Do you love me more than anything?”
“We love you and you alone, Uncle Ben.”
“You better love me, or I’m going to put you . . . in here” – he opens the furnace door to reveal a gaping darkness – “forever.”
Out of the darkness can be heard sounds of anguish and lament. Then he closes the furnace door and turns his back to them. They sit in silence.
Finally, feeling reasonably assured that Uncle Ben has finished saying what he has to say, they leave. They live their lives as best they can. They try to think and speak truthfully and do well by one another. They resume their talk of the wonders of Uncle Ben’s love in anticipation of the next week’s meeting.”
The Uncle Ben in this story shares a striking resemblance to the God that so many have directed their worship. They live their lives the best they can. They do good to others. They acknowledge their shortcomings. They pray, read their Bibles, and attend church services. And all along the way . . . they are completely paralyzed by fear. The God that they serve is Uncle Ben . . . the who threatens fire and damnation to the one who looks behind the curtain . . .
If your image of God resonates with the Uncle Ben portrait there is no place for questioning. Fear stymies questions. It extinguishes all hope of growth. It does not allow for transformation. It forces us to walk on eggshells hoping not to get anything wrong. It creates an environment of insecurity and unease – far from the peace that God promises His people.
There’s a great parable in another movie that I want to show you, it’s a very brief clip from the movie Bridge to Terabithia. The movie tells the story of two 10-year-olds, Jess and Leslie, who find a magical land in woods surrounding the homes. One day as their play date was rained out, Jess bemoaned the fact that he wouldn’t be able to return soon since he had to do chores the next day, and the following day was Sunday and he would have to go to church. Leslie asks to come along to church, but Jess is sure she won’t like it – after all, she’ll have to wear a dress. Listen to this amazing exchange the two of them have (with Jess’ little sister) on the way home from church.
[Play Bridge to Terabithia clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swcEExbjVMQ).]
“You have to believe it, and you hate it. I don’t have to believe it, and I think it’s beautiful.” What an incredible quote! If you have an Uncle Ben picture of who God is, then you have to believe. You can’t take a chance. It must have been what the philosopher Blaise Pascal had in mind when thought through what is now known as Pascal’s wager. Basically, he asserted that the existence of God cannot be determined, but if there is a God and he can condemn you to hell forever, it’s better safe than sorry. If you work your whole life believing there is a God and turns out there’s not, you’re not out nearly as much if the opposite proves to be true.
At this point I have to ask you the question, “Is this the God of Scripture?” Does the Bible portray a God who demands dogmatic precision and theological perfection? Is He the kind of God who will zap you if you miss too many answers on the final exam? Is our God really a “better safe than sorry” God? Is there really no room for error? Does it really have to be either/or when eternal torment is at stake?
Obviously, if our God is like that of Uncle Ben in the story we just read, the answers are always going to have to be pretty straightforward. But . . . what if God isn’t like that? What are the implications of a God who is different than Uncle Ben?
The Bible is full of stories of men and women who were forced to ask some very difficult questions . . . questions that called into question all that they have ever believed. This morning, quickly, I want us to consider two especially relevant stories from the Book of Acts.
As chapter 7 comes to a conclusions in the Book of Acts, we are told that, as Stephen was lying dead on the ground at the hands of Jewish leaders who had stoned him, a man named Saul stood giving his approval. Saul was an up-and-coming Jewish leader who was working his best to eradicate a Jewish sect of false teachers who were followers of a man named Jesus. He knew all the answers to religious questions. He had been trained in theology. He knew who God was. He knew who he was.
Then . . . Acts 9: 1 – 9.
What do you think those three days were like? What do you think he was thinking about? I bet a lot of the same questions we’ve been asking: What if I’m wrong? How could I have been so wrong?
The story of Saul is one we have grown up hearing. We talk about it all the time to the point where it nearly becomes dull to us. But we must not allow that to happen to us. Listen to the story. Saul is standing there watching some of his friends throw stones at a man who is tied up so that he wouldn’t run away. And they threw stones until he died. He watched every gory detail. And then he and his friends went back to the place where they were staying and had dinner and joked and went on their merry way.
And then . . . in just the matter of weeks, days, this same man is out promoting the very Gospel that he had been out to kill with force. He had been completely and totally wrong. Now, he was left with the ominous task of convincing others in the Christian movement that he wasn’t attempting to simply infiltrate the group and turn on them all.
And if the story of Paul doesn’t make the point well enough, another chapter over and we learn of the great Apostle Peter and his strange vision.
Read Acts 10: 9 – 23.
Something major was about to change for Peter as well. He knew that the Jews were the exclusive people of God. This was still their understanding after Christ was resurrected. The Christian movement was a Jewish one. Peter knew this. They all knew it. But now the vision . . . Cornelius . . . read verses 34 – 38.
And then what happens . . . challenges you a bit, too, doesn’t it? Read verses 44 – 48. This is a problem for those of us who have grown up in the Churches of Christ. We all know that the Holy Spirit comes on us at baptism – as it does to those who are baptized on Pentecost in Acts 2: 38 and at other places in Acts. But here, this is not what happens. They receive the Holy Spirit . . . then they are baptized.
But this is another time, a unique time, with the apostles and all that you may wish to argue . . . and maybe so, but in moving away from the Uncle Ben image of God . . . it becomes less important to argue the case for the proper practice of baptism and defining who is in and who is out and more important to simply revel in the glory of God’s goodness revealed to us. To rejoice in all that God has done and is doing.
Last week we spoke of the difference between putting up fences to bound our practices and define the boundaries of our pastures versus digging a deep well for all to come and drink from, knowing that no one will venture too far away from the spring and well of life. With fences up all around the property, some questions are off limits. In that kind of atmosphere, there are some things you just can’t ask. They are too threatening to the man behind the curtain. But with the God of Scripture, no questions are off limit. Yahweh is no deceiver hiding behind some great production. “Come and seek me,” he asks us, “I have nothing to hide.”
Paul was forced to ask incredibly penetrating questions. “How could I have been so wrong?” Peter is left with the far-reaching implications of his visions, “This changes everything!” And both men leave their ‘Aha’ moment changed forever. Forever. There was no going back. It’s as if the boundaries that they were so focused on maintaining kept them from standing back and seeing that outside of the boundaries were acres and acres of more property in the fold of God, but they couldn’t see them because their attention was so myopic.
What are we afraid of? When changes come? When new beliefs take hold? When new ideas prevail? What are we afraid of? If, indeed, Uncle Ben is our God, there is much to fear. But if our God is too complex to box in, if He’s too diverse to be defined, if He’s too deep to fathom, then we are left with nothing but questions. David Dark’s words are helpful again here:
God is not made angry and insecure by an archaeological dig, a scientific discovery, an ancient manuscript, or a good film about homosexual cowboys. Nor would I imagine God to be made angry or insecure by people with honest doubts concerning his existence. God is not counting on us to keep ourselves stupid, closed off from the complexity of the world we’re in . . .
Leaning on our own understanding of God in this way is idolatry, an inappropriate and unfaithful dependence on our pictures, concepts, and broken ideas that can’t hold life-giving water. Nothing we claim to know or have hold of or pretend to believe as children or as adults places us on the winning side of God’s affections . . . Standing firm in our beliefs will often take precedence over seeing what’s in front of us.
If we never ask questions, we allow ourselves to stand before the great Wizard of Oz and never realize that the one we’ve cast as God is nothing more than a fraud. Our questions force us to delve deeper. Our questions tell us that we don’t have to be afraid any more. God isn’t afraid of our questions. God likes our questions. God wants our questions.
Read Psalm 100. God is not the God Jonathan Edwards describes having us dangling like spiders above the pit of hell held in place by a “slender thread” ready to knock us in for every doctrinal ineptitude.
The psalmist rescues us from such a God. Our God is to be worshipped with gladness. Our God is a god that can be known. Our God is one who is worthy of praise and adoration. And our God is a God who welcomes our questions.

Hopeful Fruit #5 - Strong Theology of the Local Church

2010-01-19T16:10:00.003-05:00

A few years ago I learned that the area in which I grew up has fewer congregations of Churches of Christ than nearly anywhere else in the United States (see Mac Lynn's Churches of Christ Around the World). I haven't looked at this book in quite awhile, and I am not sure if it has been updated recently, but Lynn used to include statistics for the most populous counties in the country that did not have a representative congregation of the Churches of Christ. Several of the counties (Putnam and Hancock it seems to me were two) were in northwestern Ohio. This reality meant that growing up, by and large, I was completely unaware of the vast number of congregations like mine that existed in other parts of the country.

One of the most peculiar characteristics of the Churches of Christ have been their incredible uniformity while at the same time complete lack of any kind of national governing or organizational body. As I argued previously in the section on autonomy, our localized nature may be our strongest attribute for effective ministry in the postmodern world. In a world that eschews "the man" and nebulous bureaucracy, the localized structure (or better said: lack of structure) that describes Churches of Christ is of great value, not to mention its biblical foundation. In this last of the five "Hopeful Fruits" for the Churches of Christ ,I argue that our autonomous nature has created a legacy of strong, localized ecclesiological theology, or, more simply put - we have a strong, positive view of the local church. There is a correspondingly negative that has accompanied this strength (a weak concept of the univeral church), but we'll tackle that at another time.

For the most part, our churches are good at being the church, locally. Now, even as I type that, I admit that I have witnessed much evil conducted in local churches. Our understanding and practice of local church is positive and offers hope . . . it is not, however, perfect - nor has it ever been. While certain theological traditions in the Churches of Christ have led to some very ungodly characteristics in many of our churches, our understanding of what it means to be the local church, in my experience, has been mostly positive. While the individualistic swagger of evangelical soteriology (study of salvation) [which Stanley Grenz so adequately describes in his history and critique of evangelicalism in Renewing the Center] has certainly crept its way into the thinking of those in Churches of Christ, I do not believe that it has to the same as it has in evangelicalism.

The centrality of local theology is perhaps most predominant in the sacramental theology of Churches of Christ. The high place of baptismal theology in Churches of Christ continues to have an important ecclesiological function: baptisms are done in church buildings, surrounded by church families and almost always in public. While often lacking an overt pedagogy of community, the weekly celebration of communion also maintains some emphasis of the visible, local church. We remember the Lord's sacrifice . . . and we remember it together. This is perhaps taken to the extreme in the celebration of communion with one cup by the one cup churches still in existence. (I understand the doctrinal emphasis of the one-cup churches isn't necessarily ecclesiological - they opt for pattern theology's dependence on the example of one cup in Scripture - but the practice cannot help but emphasize the togetherness and oneness of the local church.) I use the example of the fringe one-cup group of Churches of Christ not to say that we should celebrate communion in such a manner, but instead to illustrate how even our most conservative groups maintain a high vision for the local church.

Churches of Christ are good at being the family of God. While I differ theologically with many in our heritage, I think most have a pretty good grasp of what it means to be a church. (Consequently, many think that they have a pretty good idea of what it means to be the church . . . and with that I strongly disagree and see a need for pruning sheers, but we'll get to that at another time.) Congregations of Churches of Christ pray together, pray for each other, have potlucks and eat together, they share their wealth with the needy, and establish important community missions and projects. We do many good things in our communities and for our local contexts. Any discussion involving a critique of this body of churches must first acknowledge the good that we are. No group of churches is perfect, but equally, I think all groups of churches bring something important to our understanding of who God is (here I still hear the ringing in my ears of Stanley Grenz's idea of a generous orthodoxy from the book Renewing the Center that I just finished reading over the weekend), and ours is no different.

By limiting our hopeful fruit to five, I am in no way claiming to present the exhaustive list. I think that Churches of Christ have positive fruits in other regards: some of our churches have been on the forefront of youth ministry since its inception (Steve Joiner's graduate thesis from ACU on the history of youth ministry in Churches of Christ is a good look into how long we've been at it). Winterfest is a premiere youth event attended by over 10,000 people in Gatlinburg alone and has expanded to Arlington, TX. NCYM has grown into a nationally respected youth ministry training event. Dudley Chancey is a visionary and has done much for our churches in this area. Our colleges, by and large, are incredibly healthy and vibrant. Lipscomb, ACU, Pepperdine, and Harding have all grown and established themselves as world class institutions, with Lipscomb and Abilene Christian especially moving forward in the academic world. These schools continue to grow in their influence and stature in the world of academia. As long as these schools maintain a focus on training church leaders, the future of Churches of Christ will continue. More could be said of our theology of baptism and communion - our unique perspective on both maintaining areas of great theological value for the broader Christian community.

But all is not bright for Churches of Christ. As I've noted in each of these sections, our hopeful fruits all have an accompanying reason to be concerned. Call them viruses or attacking foreign insects, there is reason to believe that the Churches of Christ as we know them need some work from some pruning shears. Over the next several posts, I'll offer some areas in which I believe the Churches of Christ must address as our tradition has developed some unbiblical obstacles to the Gospel that have become problematic for our ministry to the postmodern world.

Jesus and the Unclean Woman | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

2010-01-15T10:44:00.000-05:00

Jesus and the Unclean Woman | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Gut-wrenching . . .

Sermon #2 in Deconstructing Theology: Unlearning the Rules of Church

2010-01-11T11:18:00.002-05:00

Here's yesterday's installment. What do you think?

The Idol of Certainty: When ‘I Don’t Know’ is Good Enough

I’m not exactly sure about the complete makeup of our audience this morning, so I’ll try to speak the next several minute in a bit of code. If you do not follow the code . . . don’t be alarmed, we’ll explain it all a little bit later. I want to begin by discussing the pandemic ruse of little children in Western culture about one Kris Cringle. Take a moment and decipher the code . . . pandemic . . .ruse (trick . . . deception) . . . Kris Cringle . . . got it? OK
I don’t know how everything went down when the ruse was exposed to you, perhaps by your parental units, but all children get to a certain age where they begin to ask challenging questions. They begin to figure things out. There is a bit of unraveling that each child has to go through. What about this and what about that? The big hang up before I could see the light was . . . let’s see if I can be diplomatic again . . . I was very skeptical about the financial capacity of my legal guardians to afford the commercial offerings with which I was given each year – got all that . . . by the way, if your kids are following this discussion, it’s probably time to let the cat out of the bag, Mom and Dad. Although it might be cool to see if you could get a snipe hunting expedition out of them before they get older. In any case, I can still remember trying to rationalize and think through things when it was all crashing down around me.
The fact is we all go through some kind of rite of passage when it comes to some of our childhood fantasies . . . there are others, but I think we’ve risked enough already. In any case, Donald Miller tells a very humorous story on his investigation of this current ruse that I felt is relevant to our discussion this morning. It happened in the bathroom, so be forewarned of some bathroom content. Donald was at a mall to see the big guy, and, before he got in line, he walked into the bathroom. As he stood at the urinal, who should walk up beside him, but the big man himself. Donald’s retelling of the event is worth repeating. . . .
“I remember being at the mall when I was eight and seeing [him] relieve himself in the men’s restroom. I was excited because we were going to see him that day, but I didn’t want to disturb him as he was hardly in his element. I watched him, though, his red suit, his white beard coming down his belly, his loud echoing belch coming off the walls, his spread-legged stance and the way he looked straight up at the ceiling as [he finished up] (original is “shook the dew off the lily, as they say” but I won’t read that]. It was quite an honor to stand next to him and use the big urinal and act like it was nothing substantial to be standing next to him, as though I didn’t even believe in him the way my friends Roy and Travis Massie no longer believed in him. I believed in him, though. . . . edited for reasons of exposing the secret . . .
[Him] In the bathroom was a very tall man, younger than you would think, a bit depressed in the eyes and unshaven under his beard (if such a thing was possible). [He gave his familiar laugh to me,] (ho, ho, ho) zipping up his fluffy pants. I didn’t say anything back. I just stood there and peed on my shoes. He looked at me, raised his eyebrows, shrugged his shoulders and walked out.
That is when I realized the most terrible thing I’d ever realized: [HE] doesn’t wash his hands after he used the bathroom. How awful, I thought to myself. And I was horrified. All those little bacteria, the little flus and colds and cancer bacteria that grow in small villages on a person’s hands if he doesn’t wash them. I could see in my mind the village of bacteria on [his] hands; a kind of Tim Burton version of the microbial North Pole; all the textures and contours of the villages correct, but the colors off; grays for greens, blacks for blues, lots of coughing, lots of mad cows.
I washed my hands and joined the family already in line. I watched [his] dirty hands grab kids to pick them up and set them on his knee. I watched as he patted their backs and, heavens no, their heads. It made me want to throw up, if you want to know the truth. I asked my mother if I could skip my meeting, and she told me I could go across the aisle to Ladies’ Underwear and sit quietly on the floor, which is what I did, sitting there quietly on the floor, pointing women toward lingerie I thought might fit them best, trying to be helpful, trying not to think about the fact that Him, of all people, doesn’t wash his hands.”
Maybe your experience of revelation was similar to this, maybe it wasn’t. We laugh and joke about it now, but when we are faced with that mind-blowing revelation, it’s not the best day of our lives. It’s tough. We get thrown off our equilibrium. It’s like we’re inside a box and the box has been shaken up and turned over multiple times and we have no idea whether we’re on our heads or our feet. “What?” We ask ourselves. “How could we have been so wrong?” It’s a grand revelation that begins a series of dominoes falling on top of the next ones.
And the more confident of that reality that you were, the “righter” that you were . . . the dumber you feel. The harder it is to take. And that may have been the first time when you were that wrong, at least that wrong – and we think to ourselves, we will never be this wrong about anything ever again. But we will be. We all live a lifetime coming to terms with various things that we just knew to be true . . . but aren’t. I’m not sure you can ever get used to that.
And sometimes, I think that what people most want out of their church experience is to know, for a fact, that they are right. They want to know that, at least about one thing in their lives, they can hang their hats on their doctrine, on their belief, and know that beyond a shadow of a doubt, they’ve got it nailed down, they’ve gotten it right. It’s comforting. Reassuring . . . not to mention a little good for the ego.
So, maybe that’s why you’ve come here this morning. For answers – right answers, anyway. Perhaps you’ve come here to sing the right songs, sung the right way, and hear the right message preached, preached the right way.
And in your defense . . . through the years . . . the church has become very good at being answer providers. Give us your questions, we’ll give you the answers. You leave happy because you got an answer to your question and we’re happy because you asked us a question and we still feel needed in society. But last week we looked at how the church’s answers haven’t always been right. They were experts of astronomy assuring everyone that the earth was the center of the universe . . . and . . . yeah, they had Scripture’s support for that. And we share in that same question . . . “How could they have been so wrong?”
I wish I had more answers. I really do. I wish the Bible gave us more answers. I wish the Bible would be more direct and specific at times. I wish God himself would come down and whisper the answers to the test questions in my ear. I wish that, when my son asks me “Dad, why did Jesus have to die on the cross for me?” I had a better answer to give him. I wish I didn’t have to stammer and stutter through something that is at the core of my faith.
There’s an old story in the Bible that teaches about someone who wish he had more answers. Many people believe that the story of Job is the oldest text in the Bible. It’s one of the most compelling stories in all of literature. The story of this fine, upstanding citizen, who has everything taken from him. Job, you may recall, had things figured out pretty well.
Read Job 1: 1 – 5.
Job was deeply religious. He watched out, not only for himself, but his entire family, offering sacrifices for their behalf and purifying them after feasts. You have to imagine that Job had a pretty good hold on things. He didn’t ask a lot of questions as he may not have felt the need to.
He was the guy you went to when you wanted advice, when you had questions. And then the tests begin . . .
In the first test Job loses his wealth and his children.
In the second test Job loses his health and his well-being.
After the storm of events, the only thing he has left is a wife who tells him to curse God and die, three friends who are going to spend the rest of the book trying to convince him that he obviously did something wrong to deserve this punishment, and many, many questions:
· “Why didn’t I die at birth as I came from the womb?” – 3:11
· “Why should light be given to the weary, and life to those in misery?” – 3: 20
· “Why won’t you leave me alone, even for a moment?” – 7: 19
· “What have I done wrong?” – 13: 23
· “Who can create impurity from one born impure?” – 14: 4
· “Where do people find wisdom?” – 28: 12
What was happening to Job didn’t fit in his way of understanding. That, perhaps, was
the cherry on top of his trial – he didn’t understand it. Notice how so many of the questions begin from the lips of Job . . . Why? He just wanted some answers. He wanted to be able to understand it. He wanted to place it into some kind of frame of reference, have some bearings about the whole thing. Anytime you are around someone who is experiencing a devastating tragedy the question they are quickest to ask is, “Why?” “Why is this happening?” If he had an answer it would make the pain at least a little more bearable. Job really makes this clear in the questions he asks in chapter 31:
- “Have I lied to anyone or deceived anyone?”
- “Have I refused to help the poor or crushed the hopes of widows who looked for me to help?
- “Have I been stingy with my food and refused to share it with hungry orphans?”
- “Have I put my trust in money for felt secure because of my gold?”
- “Have I looked at the sun shining in the skies, or the moon walking down its silver pathway, and been secretly enticed in my heart to worship them?
- “Have I ever rejoiced when my enemies came to ruin or become exited when harm came their ways?”
- “Have I tried to hide my sins as people normally do, hiding my guilt in a closet?”
“Just tell me what I’ve done!” comes the plea from Job. In tragedy we often focus
solely on the emotional aspect because it is so important and so fragile, but there is also a cognitive or rational aspect that has been effected – a side that says, “This doesn’t make sense.”
And then God speaks . . .
Read Job 38: 1 – 7.
And on and on God goes justifying His position as the God of the universe. The final chapters of Job are perhaps the most emotive of the entire Bible. The entire book has been building and building to this moment. Questions flying back and forth. Accusations flying back and forth, and then, finally, comes an answer . . . but not really an answer.
Job first responds with these words from Job 40: 3 – 5:
“I am unworthy – how can I reply to you? I put my hand over my mouth. I spoke once, but I have no answer – twice , but I will say no more.”
In other words, Job is finally moved to saying, “I don’t know.” I don’t know about you, but I don’t like to say, “I don’t know.” Have you seem that commercial where the guy can’t get, “I love you” out of his mouth to his girlfriend”? That’s how I am about saying, “I don’t know.” Really, that’s how we all are. But being a parent has made it a little easier. Clark is full of questions, and I try to shoot back as many answers as I can, but he always gets to a question where I finally have to give in and tell him, “Clark, I don’t know.”
I think that the church is a lot like that when it comes to saying “I don’t know.” It’s almost as if we feel like telling someone “I don’t know” exposes us or lets them down. After all, we are Christians, part of the church, and we are supposed to be answer people. In reality, however, I think a lot more people would care more about what we had to say if we said, “I don’t know” more often. I like this quote from Donald Miller, which he writes just before the story we opened with:
“The very scary thing about religion, to me, is that people actually believe God is who they think He is. By that I mean they have Him all figured out.”
I know it is a lot more appealing for me to stand up here and give you all the answers. However, it is a lot more realistic to stand up here and tell you that more times than not, “I don’t know.”
This doesn’t mean that we jettison all the things that we believe. Instead, it means that we preface our beliefs with . . . this is how I understand God for now – but I’m certainly open to new ideas and new conversations. Consider some of these difficult questions:
· Does a person who has never heard about God go to hell?
· If a person isn’t baptized but shows all the fruits of the spirit in their lives, are they a Christian?
· What’s the “biblical” role of women in Christ’s church?
· What does the Bible teach about homosexuality?
· Are all people from other faiths hell-bound?
Imagine the difference in starting a conversation on these matters in humility stating,
“I really don’t know, I have some opinions . . . but I’d like to talk to you more about it” instead of, “I’ve got a pretty good idea, but you can try and convince me otherwise.”
I know this probably scares some of you to death because it speaks so contrary to everything you’ve ever heard in churches your entire life. Doesn’t the church have any authority? Isn’t there any truth to hang our hats on? I want to close with this story I ran across in my reading this week that I think speaks volumes for a new understanding of the identity of the church.
In some farming communities, the farmers might build fences up around their properties to keep their livestock in and the livestock of neighboring farms out. This is a bounded set. But in rural communities where farms or ranches cover an enormous geographic area, fencing the property is out of the question. In our home of Australia, ranches (called stations) are so vast that fences are superfluous. Under these conditions a farmer has to sink a bore and create a well, a precious water supply in the Outback. It is assumed that livestock, though they will stray, will never roam too far from the well, lest they die. That is a centered set. As long as there is a supply of clean water, the livestock will remain close by.”
We are so preconditioned by the idea of putting up doctrinal fences all around us, that most of us have never thought about another way. When there are fences erected, absolution is the stated case. We are stating, “We are right, absolutely, and there is no room for discussion.”
“But there are some things we know we are right about,” comes the response. Let’s make those the well at the center of who we are that keeps us together. Read 1 Corinthians 15: 3 – 8. Paul shares with us what those things are. As a church, let’s place these things at the center of who we are and anchor there, and leave some room for those who may differ on the other things.

I lost my footnotes on the copy - the Santa story comes from Donald Miller's book Searching for God knows what and the ending story from Hirsch and Frost is from The Shaping of Things to Come.

A New Year, A New Sermon Series

2010-01-06T14:34:00.002-05:00

2010 has kicked off and things have changed for me a bit (again) at Alum Creek. Effective the first of the year, I am back to being the only paid minister on staff. For about a year and a half I have been working alongside Anthony Whitley and have been greatly blessed in that relationship. I will miss working beside him for sure. Fortunately, he's not going anywhere, but his work responsibilities have made his position at Alum Creek impossible.

So . . . as I press on into a new year, full of possibilities and new challenges and all that, I have worked towards a new sermon series that I kicked off this past week. I wrestled with whether or not this series would best fit into a sermon setting, but have been encouraged by ministry peers that it is very much the kinds of things we should be talking about in our gatherings on Sundays.

In 2009, I greatly benefited from having the year's worth of Sunday morning foci already determined and in the same way I have set the themes for this year. I am excited to kick off this year with a series that I know will be a challenge for many. The series is entitled "Deconstructing Theology: Unlearning the rules to church." I wasn't crazy about using the word "deconstructing" because I figure that isn't really helpful to a lot of folks and to others it brings to mind connotations that aren't helpful. However, in the end, I felt as though it was accurate enough. I hope it brings to mind thoughts of building construction more than esoteric philosophical presuppositions.

In any case, I feel as though I'm shooting the moon a bit, but the risk, I think, is worth taking. When we're all done with this series, I hope that our folks have though through their beliefs a little more critically. I hope that we can approach each other with a little more humility when it comes to our beliefs and that we'll be quicker to listen instead of incessantly talking. I hope that we will allow for more diversity of thought, but also praxis as a group of Christians. Maybe it will be helpful, maybe it won't. You can help be the judge. I will try to post each one here in text format and, if you're really bored, you can listen to the sermon in the sidebar of my blog. I trodding on a bit of new ground and would appreciate comments from anyone as to your reactions to this material - helpful of blasphemous? Here's installment #1 (a bit more choppy than usual as I was preparing this over the holiday in various places and then crammed a bit Saturday night):

Deconstructing Theology #1

Alum Creek – Jan. 3, 2010

Under Construction: Honestly Confronting our Belief Structure

What if you’re wrong? Is there a more challenging or difficult question to ask yourself that that one? What if you’re wrong? And I’m not talking about what if you picked out the wrong movie to watch or blouse to buy or football team in your bowl selection pool. I mean, what if you’re wrong about the really important stuff? What if you’re wrong about everything? Now . . . of course, we all know that you’re not . . . but what if you are? Everything . . .

This morning we set out on a new series of lessons that will span the next eight weeks. Those of you hungry and thirsty for something deeper, something more challenging – here you go. I guarantee you’ll be challenged . . . .or double your money back. I guarantee that at times you’ll disagree with some of what you’ll hear said . . . and I hope to prove to you that that is good and downright healthy to hear things you disagree with. I guarantee you’ll think about things you’ve never thought about before – and hopefully longer and harder.

For those of you not so excited about the deeper things, I also share with you a challenge . . . hang in there, take a chance, work to grow. If all you ever hear only affirms what you already believe, then you will never grow.

Over the next several weeks we’re going to dabble into the deep waters of philosophy, theology, and reason. It’ll be a fun journey that I’m sure some of you will enjoy . . . and, I'm equally sure, some of you won’t. In either case, hang in there with us as we hit the ground running this morning by asking two very challenging and introspective questions:

What if you’re wrong?
How do you know what you know?

We begin with the first question . . . What if you’re wrong.

Galileo came into a time in the world when you didn’t have to ask that question, “What if you’re wrong.” In many ways it was a freeing time because you didn’t have to worry about being right – the church told you what was right and you just had to fall in line with them. The church had final say in all things scientific. The answers were already given for you.

And in this world where the church had the final say . . . and the church had all the answers . . . Galileo is led to a very scary place. The Bible, as he knew it, was wrong. He actually began as a theology student, later turning his attention to science, but always maintained a prominent place for faith. He gave his daughter to be a nun in the Catholic Church. His path of discovery was not one of rebellion . . His path of discovery was one riddled with challenges, humility, and obstacles.

The Bible, he was told by church scholars, teaches that the universe revolves around the earth. Copernicus, however, had proposed that perhaps the sun is at the center of the universe and the entire cosmos revolves around the sun. It’s more than obvious to us now, but in Galileo’s time, this was hippie, way out there stuff. It was more than some way out there wacky idea, it was downright heresy – blatantly against the teaching of the church.

This was no simple bullet point for the church's teaching on astronomy – this was foundational to all their belief structure. It wasn’t simply their basis for space mobiles that hung in church offices, it was the substance of their philosophy stemming from Aristotle. To challenge this belief of the church wasn’t to challenge their science textbooks . . . it was to challenge everything they knew to be true. And, as you know, this led to a great deal of trouble for Galileo. We don’t have time to get into all of the intricacies of the church’s relationship with Galileo, but suffice to say, Galileo, wasn’t completely reconciled to the Catholic Church until 1992 when Pope John Paul II issued a declaration expressing regret how the situation with Galileo was handled. Perhaps it's been awhile since you've had a history class and you're following all the way here. Galileo died in 1642. That's right, it took the church 350 years to acknowledge that they had been wrong. Turns out the church doesn’t like being wrong any more than the rest of us.

What if you’re wrong? Galileo asked an entire generation of the world’s population to ask themselves that question.

What if you’re wrong is the question that is at the heart of all that faces people as they consider the Gospel. In Romans 12, Paul asks us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. What exactly does it mean to renew our minds? To be transformed? Changed. To begin to think differently. Differently than what? Different than we used to? Different than other people do? Transformation is an ongoing process. We never arrive. We never circle the wagons around what we believe and put down stakes and say . . . we’ve done it. “What if we’re wrong?”i s a question we must ask of ourselves constantly. It’s at the heart of transformation.

"What if I'm wrong" is a question full of humility. "What if I'm wrong" is a beginning point. It’s a conversation starter. It’s a relationship starter.

In considering this question, we’re faced with a question that is a bit of a prerequisite to the other: “How do I know what I know?” How do you think? In philosophy, this is called “epistemology.” Big fancy word, but basically it asks the all-important-question: How do you know the things you know? We spend a lot of time talking about the things we know, but seldom do we consider how we know them. In this series we're going to do some thinking about thinking. Think about that.

I’m guessing this beginning conversation isn’t connecting with several of you. You’re out there thinking, what in the world does this have to do with anything. Just give us some Bible. But, you see, that's just it . . . I can't give you just the Bible. I can give you my understanding of it. I can give you my perspective of it. And even if I could give you just the Bible, you couldn't receive it as such. You could only receive it through your experiences and your perspectives. Through your glasses. A lot of you may want to rush out and argue away the implications of this. "We can't believe this or else . . ." and off we go drawing a million different conclusions. Let's stay away from the implications and think through this. Let's see it for what it is. I want to work through a passage this morning and instead of really camping out on the meaning, let's explore the way in which we perceive the meaning of this text.

Read 1Timothy 2: 6 – 10.

Now this is one of the more peculiar passages in the New Testament. We don’t have time to go around and ask each one of you for an interpretation of this passage, and we’re not really going to concern ourselves with the meaning of the text as much as we’re going to consider how we would go about determining the meaning. Consider the many aspects that impact the way we are going to “know the things we know.”

Gender

Do you think that men and women are going to read this text the same way? It doesn’t concern men, for the first point, so I wouldn’t imagine they would be quite as interested in it as a woman would be. This is just me, but I know that I'm going to read through here and when it says "for men" I'm really going to pay attention, but when it begins, "I want women" . . . I'm just not as tuned in. It doesn't affect me. Whenever there are generalizations made, "All women . . . all men . . ." we tend to really pick up our ears to what's being said. Why is this? Because it is true? Or . . . perhaps whether we are male or female determines a great deal of how we know what we know.

Tradition

What have you been taught this passage means? Should you dress up to come to church? Should you not draw attention to you? What did your parents teach you? What did your Bible school teachers and preachers teach you about this text? What we have learned from others forms a great deal of how we know what we know.
Perhaps you’ve heard the old preacher story about the woman who was teaching her daughter how to prepare the Christmas ham. The first step, she instructed her daughter, was to cut two inches off the ham, before placing it in the pan. “Why do you cut two inches off the ham, Mom,” the daughter asked. The mother had never thought to ask the question, and didn’t know the answer. “My mother always cut two inches off.” She called her mom and asked her the same question, “Mom, why do you always cut two inches off the ham before you cook it.” My mother always did, she instructed. Fortunately, her mother was still alive in a nursing home, and she called her up to ask her. “Mother, why did you cut the two inches off the ham before cooking it?” Because the pan was too small!
The story could have just as easily ended by the grandmother telling the granddaughter that she cut the two inches off the ham and brought it to their neighbor who was in need (a more valiant reason than the other) but the point is . . . . if we don't know that reason, we live in ignorance and do not avoid fulfillment.
Sometimes, the traditions we get passed down to us aren’t as clear as we may suspect them to be. We sometimes are passed down things in the name of what’s “true” or what is “truth” and not realize they are simply part of tradition.

Education

Consider how differently an ultra-liberally trained woman on the West coast would read this passage compared to a man raised in a super-traditional, woman does the women things around the house person would. What about someone educated in ancient near eastern culture? What about someone who didn’t graduate college? High school? Middle school? Think about how differently someone who was trained in school in China versus Western Europe versus the United States versus Africa would understand this passage. Our education background is going to have a great impact on how we know what we know.

Unending other options . . .

Personality
Think of the ways that our personalities so dictate the way we view the world and the way we understand things.
Family background

What ethnicity are you?
Where were you raised?

In the city
In the country
In poverty
In wealth

Birth order
Parenting style you received?

Did you get spanked?
Did you get abused?
Did your parents send you to Time out?
Were your parents good and loving?
Were your parents neglecting and hateful?

We're foolish if we think that these unique situations and realities do not impacdt the way that we understand the world around us. As we set out to consider how we know the things we know, we have to realize that a great deal of the way we see the world is set for us. I would liken it to body shape. You can work out all you want to, eat healthy, take care of yourself . . . and in all settings you'll be better off than if you hadn't done these things. But, none of these things is any more powerful than your genes.

We must come to terms with the fact that setting out to find the “truth” is going to be a tall order. We must realize, first and foremost, that truth its elusive, perhaps even impossible to find. In acknowledging this, we affirm that the pursuit of truth must be accompanied by humility. No one has a corner on truth. We should never become static in our approach to finding truth - as if we have it all settled. Instead, we should be slow to speak, and quick to listen. And once in awhile, someone is going to come along and challenge our understanding of truth. Someone will come along and force us to ask that incredibly difficult question, "What if I'm wrong? What if I'm all wrong?"

Isn’t it interesting that it was the church that stood in Galileo’s way of revolution? Are we naïve enough to believe that we would be on his side? All of us think that we would be Galileo, but Galileo stood largely alone. The next several weeks we're diving into the deep end, but, I promise you, you won't drown. We'll need to hang onto the walls for awhile, but, give it some time, and it will be an incredible feeling once you push off the wall and take a swim.

What is Truth?

2009-12-17T10:28:00.002-05:00

This is a great article reflecting on the current global warming debate especially in the context of the Copenhagen summit. This question summarizes well his concerns here: As the amplification of human opinion becomes more democratic, is suspicion of the excerpt and the intellectual - a long-held trope in American society - going viral?" Access article here.

Helpful Fruit #4 - A Tradition of Pacifism

2009-12-11T15:26:00.003-05:00

It was a trip to Columbus, OH that sealed my fate as a pacifist. I live in Columbus now, but at the time I was living, working, and going to school in Nashville, TN. I was working for a church in Nashville and had been invited to join a couple other former Buckeye residents to their yearly trek to the Ohio State - Michigan football game. I'll spare you the details (Buckeyes lost, John Cooper fired . . . really, really cold), but the connection to pacifism had to do with the car ride back to Nashville from Columbus. Two friends from church invited me, and one of the friend's brothers also came and provided our transportation.

Our foray into politics began while we were overnighting Friday at a friend's house and the topic of the recent election came up. Somehow, (I don't remember the details of the conversation, but if it was anything like most political conversations I've taken part in with Christians, the beginning presupposition of everyone present being a registered Republican probably played a role), the other men found out that I had voted for Al Gore. This (absurd, in their eyes) reality, opened us up to a weekend of political conversation and debate.

Even at that time, I had my suspicions about the benefit of a Christian being involved in the political process (even the less evil democratic political system), but had continued to meddle in the quasi-liberal-slanted perspective of my upbringing. Attending a private Christian school in the South immediately placed me in a smaller minority than the ethnic minorities at the not-long-ago-segregated campus of my alma mater.

It takes approximately six hours to drive from Columbus to Nashville, and that Saturday, after the game was over, our six-hour commute was solely focused on politics. The conservation moved from light joking about the parties, to the serious concern they had over my vote . . . and as I came to find out, my soul. The most tense moment came when the driver challenged anyone to, "Name one good thing Bill Clinton did for this country!" As a college student, that was pretty easy to do because the former President had help sign into legislation a huge college education assistance program that I had benefited from. "He had gotten me a few extra thousand dollars to attend college." Sounded like something good to me. Turns out, my traveling companion did not see this as in any way "good." His response began sternly, and grew louder to the point of a yelling crescendo, "It's my money and I worked my ass off for it, and why should I be paying for your college tuition?" The car sat in silence for quite awhile. Finally, as the tension began to lift a bit, I tried to make the point that I really had no dog in the fight. I wasn't card-carrying for anyone. My point was simply to force my companions into considering the biblical texts that didn't easily jive with their political views. "What about Acts 2 and 4 where the Christians met together and sold all they had and shared all they had?" I asked. "And how does the Old Testament practice of jubilee connect with your Right wing political stances?" These were questions they had never been asked before - really, they had never been asked these questions!

I relay this story not to characterize everyone with one broad-sweeping stroke. Certainly, politics are complicated and generalizations are seldom helpful. This experience, however, opened my eyes to the negative side of politics and the divisive and explosive discussions that often result. These events occurred nearly a decade ago, and the United States has grown even more divided along political lines. What a breath of fresh air a church who focused more on kingdom politics than on the tirelessly fallen politics of the nation would be! Never has the world needed the prophetic voice of the church to live out a nonpartisan politic who concerns herself with matters of justice, mercy, and righteousness.

In recent years, pacifism has grown in attention paid by Christian theologians. Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw brought some more academic concepts from people like John Howard Yoder and Jacques Ellul to a more popular-level, lay Christian audience through their book: Jesus for President. Other scholars and pastors like Gregory Boyd, Lesslie Newbigin, and a host of others, are receiving wide readership and extensive exposure. As the West continues to broaden its perspective through the advances of technology and mass media, global concerns are becoming prevalent, and for many Christian traditions, their theological structure is incapable of productive dialogue in this setting.

In my years in seminary at Lipscomb University, it came as a huge surprise that this private Christian school with an overwhelming pro-Republican undertone, actually bears the name of one of America's most important Civil War-era Christian pacifists (and I don't think this is overstated): David Lipscomb. In fact, it turned out, Churches of Christ have a ripe tradition of pacifism. Lipscomb's 1913 work, Civil Government, represents what might be one of the most overlooked and under-appreciated documents produced in America on the topic of pacifism. [The full version of Lipscomb's work is available online here.]

Scholars in Churches of Christ continue to maintain this longstanding tradition - most notably through the work of Lee Camp (Lee has written the very popular Mere Discipleship, and hosts the Tokens program at Lipscomb) and Michael Casey ("the topic about which he was most passionate and which forms the largest corpus of his published materials was that of pacifism in Churches of Christ . . ." from preface of And the Word Became Flesh, essays written in his honor published this year.) Lipscomb University also has faculty member Richard Goode who teaches in the history department who has been especially formative in my experience, even in my limited interaction with him. In short, the pacifist tradition in Churches of Christ is alive in well . . . at least in the academy.

The challenge before us as ministers within the tradition is to bridge the gap between the isolated tower of academia and the every-day life of the church. In my early years of ministry I see no message as desperately needed in the face of mounting political divisions as this one. At the same time I have experienced the loudest and most acute backlash from conversations in this vein. Nationalism has become the most uniting characteristic of our churches: progressive and conservative churches are equally as likely to sing patriotic hymns in their service and display the American flag prominently in their building.

Certainly, pacifism stands as one of the more hopeful fruits of our tradition. It is also, however, one of the most challenging in teaching and discussing. It is widely said the two topics to avoid in public conversations are politics and religion. What this topic does is jump head first into them both. When it comes to our political allegiances, Churches of Christ are as guilty as any other Christian group of losing our way. It is important for us to rekindle the thoughts and ideas of our pacifist forefathers . . . and be reminded that these are not novel ideas - as the accusation sometimes is made. Not only is there a great history of pacifism within the broader Christian church, closer to home, Churches of Christ share in this rich tradition. We must learn to not be afraid of talking about politics, but we must reframe the conversation. We must overcome the unnecessary obstacles that we have placed in front of those who differ politically and open our minds to a new political reality, a politics of the kingdom of God.

This is not a call for being anti-political (a charge I have been accused of). Quite the contrary, this is a call for a renewed orientation, for allowing God to set our political agendas instead of our governments, and for realizing that our politic is our life, not our vote. We must allow our political agendas to be caught up in the vision of God, not the latest candidate to ascend to power. May Christ grant us some sanity when it comes to charged political matters. May he grant us the confidence and vision of the prophets to speak the Word of God. Those of us in Churches of Christ stand in a great tradition to be able to do so, may we be bold in taking up that calling.

Hopeful Fruit #3 - Populist Insistence of the Priesthood of All Believers

2009-11-20T15:13:00.003-05:00

One of the marks of the Protestant Reformation, of course, has been the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. As a direct result of a priesthood that had become thoroughly corrupt and overly powerful, believers found life and hope knowing that Scripture was for all and shouldn't be reserved for the most educated and annointed. There are few groups of Protestant groups that have realized this as significantly as the Church of Christ.

I always find some humor in explaining to pastors from other denominations how our churches find their ministers. When you really step back and think about it, it is quite humorous . . . and yet, somehow strangely, refreshing. In a postmodern world where skepticism abounds and trust of "The Man" has all but deteriorated, it seems as though this tenet of our churches just might push us through a difficult transition. It seems to me that outsiders will be excited to know that our ministers are not the product of some denominational appointment or designation, but that this is who the local congregation chose. There is a great connection with our populist emphasis and our insistence upon autonomy.

I find myself talking out of both sides of my mouth on this topic. On the one hand, I am encouraged by our desire to level the playing field of interpretation and leadership. Regardless of education, background, or perceived expertise, everyone pretty much comes in on a level playing field. This is overstated, a bit, obviously, in that we still maintain some hidden or unwritten "weights" based on family demographic in the congregation (more prevalent families often have a more vocal place), socioeconomic bias I'd like to think we are free of, but are just as susceptible as other groups to injustice there, as well as racially and culturally. However, finding no perfect system, we may just have something to offer here.

I am writing these words as the Sarah Palin circus has come to town. They are expecting 5,000 to 8,000 to attend the Columbus-area bookstore where she'll be promoting her book. The Sarah Palin political entry last year has proved to be an interesting example of the power of populist appeal. Regardless of your political leanings, you can't help but find something attractive to the "normal person" who takes on "the Man." This is the heart and soul of Palin's attraction. She speaks for all the soccer and hockey moms - her now famous self-identification. And the response? A great outpouring of support (at least in the Midwest and Southeast . . . she's not surprisingly avoiding the coasts in her book tour - now there would be some interesting events!) In any case, I bring Palin up here because she illustrates the power of the populist voice still today. People like the story of the underdog. They like to think that no office is too big for the common folk.

Sociologically, Churches of Christ fit this mold for the religious sects perfectly. We don't ordain our pastors. The local congregation maintains the criteria and job assignment for the ministers. Worship assemblies are overseen equally by "clergy" and "laymen" (and maybe someday "laywomen" - we'll get to that into the pruning portion of the posts!) Ministers are generally appreciated and respected for their unique Bible knowledge and ministerial expertise . . . at least generally.
It is here I find myself speaking out of both sides of my mouth. On the one hand I believe the populist appeal of our Movement speaks volumes for how we can traverse the postmodern matrix. However, at the same time, I feel as though it has been one of our most signfiant liabilities. In my ten plus years of ministry, now, I can assert that one of the most challenging aspects of working for churches is leadership. I have taken special interest in leadership in the past three or four years, seeing it as such a glaring weakness of my own, and many ministers I have worked alongside and known. It is tough to know how to lead a church.

However, I believe in the midst of such a populist driven church, the issue is ampiflied. Suddenly, the minister's voice is watered down, and his significance dulled a bit. "He makes some interesting points, but let's hear what lukewarm member who doesn't do anything but warm a pew has to say," and we have to keep in mind that so and so just isn't there yet" and those kinds of comments abounds. It seems, from my experience, that the power and influence of a minister in Churches of Christ is truncated even to a greater extent than those in other denominations. This makes the task of leadership extremely difficult and probably says a lot about why our churches tend to remain pretty small.

Again, I see this populist approach as both a potential bonus for our involvement with non-Christians. Realizing the only folks setting doctrine and making decisions and excommunicating members and hiring and firing ministers are those folks you worship right beside on Sundays. However, it has potential risks as this populism can just as easily make us lazy and myopic in our understanding of our role in the invisible church. Group think can (and I think has) set in quickly under populist-driven congregations. Looking around at congregations of Churches of Christ throughout the rural parts of the United States, I think this is exactly what is ailing them.

Hopeful Fruit #2 - The Passion for the Sacred Text of Churches of Christ

2009-11-09T15:54:00.004-05:00

Perhaps it is one of the most enduring qualities of the Churches of Christ that we have managed to be unapologetically Bible-focused and Bible-centered, while at the same time remaining outside the limiting circles of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism [Richard Hughes argues that this may no longer be the case for much of the movement in his Reclaiming a Heritage (a great read for any reader of this blog!) ACU Press, 2002 - see especially chapter seven entitled: "Why Restorationists Don't Fit the Evangelical Mold; Why Churches of Christ Increasingly Do" Another topic for another day]. In compiling the "Heart of the Restoration Series," ACU Press was quick to release a work centered on the place of the Bible in our heritage [volume 2 in the series is entitled God's Holy Fire: The nature and function of Scripture, 2002.] Gospel meetings, mission statements, sermons, and classes echo from congregations of Churches of Christ the world over with the message of "Back to the Bible." Any study taken upon by her students inevitably begins with the question, "What does the Bible say about that?" Stated simply, there aren't many groups who know the Bible as well as our people do, and to not recognize that as a hopeful fruit would be disingenous and a disservice.

Brightly hanging down from the branches of the Churches of Christ tradition is their abiding love for the story of God. I remember sitting in Bible classes learning the books of the Bible, the 12 Tribes of Israel, the 12 Apostles, the chronology of the Old Testament . . . just about everything that's in those 66 books, we covered it. Bible bowls, Sunday school, lectureships, Vacation Bible School, and Gospel meetings still retain the undeniably Bible-focus even today. From the smallest, most rural congregations to the largest suburban megaplexes among Churches of Christ, these churches love to teach the Bible.

Among members of Churches of Christ, a person's age, education, and life situation all are considered secondary to how well she or he knows the Bible. Bible knowledge is often directly equated with spirituality - the more Bible you know, the more spiritual you are. Quoting Scripture is sometimes seen as paramount to a spiritual gift. These latter case points illustrate some worms that lay underneath the skin of a perfectly healthy piece of fruit, but shouldn't take away from the fact that Churches of Christ hold steadfast to the biblical text.

It is widely held that children within Churches of Christ are not learning as much Bible as they did in bygone days. Biblical literacy across denominational boundaries is suffering and the Churches of Christ are certainly not immune to this phenomenon. However, there remains, by and large, an incredible commitment to teaching our people the Bible. While there may be a general laxity in the general audience when it comes to the biblical literacy, it also should be noted that scholarship in Churches of Christ has gained an increased audience in recent years and is more widely respected by the broader theological community than ever before (could this be evidence of an increased Evangelical leaning??)

While the commitment to being biblical and Bible-people should be seen as hopeful fruit, the good fruit has not come without potential worms. Often, in Churches of Christ, the story about God has been elevated to a higher plane than God Himself. Bibliolatry has become the golden calf for many in Churches of Christ - this excessive emphasis on the bonded leather and gold-tipped pages to the neglect of the mysterious Creator and Savior of all that is in existence. Too often we have bound God to the ink on the pages instead of allowing Him the freedom to work apart from the Scripture itself (we seem to have overlooked Paul's point in Romans 1 all too often).

Just as damaging, we have often married our love and emphasis of the text to our love and emphasis of "necessary" antiquated interpretive devices. The thoroughly modernistic hermentuic evolving from Enlightenment philosophy is often valued equal to the text it seeks to interpret. Churches continue to be taught the interpretive system of command, example, and necessary inference both directly and indirectly. The limitations of this foundational philosophy has been exposed over the past several years (see the work of Michael Casey, John Mark Hicks, along with others). Unfortunately, for many in Churches of Christ their love for the sacred text is married to their love for their interpretation of the sacred text. The certainty demanded of foundationalism has created skepticism of alternative voices and a myopic view of the hand of God. As the Churches of Christ engage the world of postmodernism, nothing has been more harmful to her cause than the lack of place for alternative voices and this begins at the table of biblical interpretation.

I believe we must reinvigorate our love and passion for the story of God, and not find ourselves so committed to one interpretive device or another. Instead, we need to find our way beyond the need for certainty and past the place of answers, as very difficult as that is going to be. If we will once again fall in love with the text and, in the spirit of Psalm 119, meditate over it, take it to heart, allow it to sink into our very ethos . . . and allow part of God to be revealed in the text, but not limited to the text. Our churches should be filled with people who love the text and love to learn about the text and engage in long discussions about what the text means. Churches of Christ must become a place where conversation is encouraged and facilitated instead of streamled monologue and uniform teaching dominate the floor. May diversity abound and the unity of the Spirit be what unites us instead of the unity of thought and homogenous hermeneutics.

The Meaning of Life

2009-11-05T10:21:00.003-05:00

the Meaning of Life - stop motion from Vytautas Alechnavicius on Vimeo.

Saw this posted on Rainn Wilson's interesting blog and wasn't sure what to make of it . . . but at the same time found it strangley provocative. Enjoy.

Hopeful Fruit #1 - The Autonomy of Churches of Christ

2009-10-28T15:37:00.004-04:00

As I looked over the apple tree in my backyard, considering the harvest cycle that was now coming to an end, there were a few apples that actually made it to fruit. Not all these apples, to be sure, were created equal. Most of them died off before they became edible. A few of them made it some time further, but then were attacked by squirrels realizing their demise at the hands of these neighborhood pests. There were exactly three that made it long enough to actually become part of our dinner one night recently. As I assess the hope-filled fruit dangling from the apple tree of the tradition of Churches of Christ, I see an equal disparity in the fruit. While each of the fruit I mention offers hope, they do so at differing levels. So, I thought I would begin here with what I believe to be the most promising of the fruit.

I have become convinced that the single-most promising characteristic of the Churches of Christ as they engage in their ministry in the postmodern world is their commitment to congregational autonomy. From my earliest days in Churches of Christ, I have known that the Bible taught "autonomy." I think I was in college before I really understood what that meant. In a nutshell, our autonomy in Churches of Christ can be well-illustrated in business-terms: each congregation is locally owned and operated.

While the basis of this self-understanding in Churches of Christ stems from the belief that the autonomous churches in Acts serve as an example for how churches should operate today, the richness of a locally-run congregation is quickly becoming realized throughout Western Christianity. As culture deepens in its skepticism and distaste for globalization and cookie cutter development, hungering for creativity and authenticity, it seems to me that an autonomous church offers an organic structure that is both biblical and culturally significant. In Christian leadership circles, a localized approach to church dynamics is gaining momentum across the denominational spectrum (just a few recent examples are : Doing Local Theology, Preaching as Local Theology and Folk Art, It Comes from the People, Organic Leadership and Finding Organic Church).

What many see as innovative, Churches of Christ have maintained throughout its relatively short history. One of the most enigmatic qualities among Churches of Christ have been their relative homogeneity despite their autonomous claims. Although we have claimed to be autonomous, our practice has not been fully so. Congregations of Churches of Christ in settings as diverse as Boston to rural Pennsylvania, Texas, coastal California, Florida, and the Midwest all, for some time, have looked eerily similar. While there is no organizational hierarchy declaring edicts on church policy, the schools, literature, and lectureships training our leaders clearly have had a great deal of influence throughout these churches. But, should autonomy be limited to describing the lack of a denominational head quarters? Is there not more implicit in the reality of autonomy? Haven't we missed a great deal of our freedom?

Today, many in Churches of Christ find their Mecca in the Bible Belt of the South East or on the prairies of central Texas. In my ministerial interaction with those in Central Ohio, I am amazed when I come across ministers and elders who seem more concerned with what is happening at a school or lectureship hundreds of miles away than with the decisions of the local governments and churches within minutes of where he lives. I conclude that autonomy very well may be the best thing we have going for us . . . but it also may be the most widely misunderstood and undervalued.

I challenge us in Churches of Christ to take the autonomous heritage of which we have been the benefactors, and explore its deeper implications. What would it look like to be a truly autonomous agency of the kingdom? No denominational boundaries. We would be just as interested in the preaching and teaching of the Vineyard Church here in Columbus as we would the others who share our name. We would be willing partners in worship and fellowship at any time and with anyone whose sole aim was to lift up the name of Christ. And we would invite others to the table with no strings attached. We would converse and share, listen and learn. We would be more engaged locally allowing our theology and ecclesiology to emerge from within the voices of people we love and share with and worhsip beside. The oldest and the youngest would have equal say with great theological forefathers who are also part of our tradition. Our conversations would begin with empathy and care instead of doubt and hesitancy.

The future will be bright in Churches of Christ if we can further grapple with this notion of localizing our theology and practice. We can be proud of our heritage when we are about forming disciples instead of creating adherents. That is the duty of the church . . . and far too often we have gotten in the way. There is much to be said for the baggage that denominational structures bring. This post simply touches the surface of what I believe to be our most enduring and important characteristic. We live in a world who is much less interested in the position our denomination takes on homosexuals - though they will make judgments based on that (what edict has been sent down from your ruling body?) than in our local manifestation of the love of God (do you love homosexuals? can I tell that you love them?)

With the emergence of micro-narratives and village theology, the localized, contextual congregation has as much potential as ever. However, in order to embrace this potential, we must learn to listen, open ourselves, and be ourselves: here and now.

The Apple Tree in My Backyard

2009-10-07T14:54:00.003-04:00

I contacted a publisher about a year ago concerning an idea for a book I had. Nearly a year went by, and I hardly gave it another thought after I clicked send. Lo and behold, this summer I got an out-of-the-dark response that said there indeed was some interest and to start working on a formal proposal. Well, nearly two months have passed and I am no closer now than I was then to beginning anything formal. In the meantime, I haven't found much time to blog either. So . . . I found myself in my office today trying to avoid going home to my truck that won't start and my head kind of burned out from typing out leadership material all day long . . . and I thought I would try to work on some of both. So . . . on the Supermetz blog today, I am revealing this proposal that has piqued some interest.

Before we get too carried away here, I plan to be working on something with an extremely narrow focus - particularly within the group of churches within which I work called the Churches of Christ. I have taken many reflections from my years among them and have been asking the question, "Why is everyone leaving?" Now, there is a larger epidemic among all evangelical churches in America, and that no doubt those same problems are contributing to our group just as much. But what concerns me is the large number of friends that I have, strong Christians with many gifts to offer our churches, who are leaving the Churches of Christ to find a place elsewhere. These friends of mine cross the gamut of thought within our churches: progressive, liberal, traditional, conservative, whatever - there are so many leaving for other fields. Why is that? I am setting out to ask that question of folks who, like me, are sticking it out, often times while beating our heads against the wall, but remaining within the tradition which has helped shape my faith most dramatically.

So . . . with that much stated, I would like to post here, some opening thoughts from what, hopefully one day will be an introduction. [Warning: At this point, the post could get rather long, so if you've read this far, come back and check out the second half on a future lunchbreak]

My wife and I moved into our house on Main St. five years ago. Like all young married couples, we were excited about this major future-defining purchase that we had made (OK, major understatement). As we considered the number of bedrooms and bathrooms and squarefootage among other house-suitors, I was always drawn to the backyard. Growing up on a sprawling lot in the country surrounded by trees, I knew the metropolitan setting of suburbia was going to be a challenge for me. Sprawling country acreage was never within our financial means, so I settled for a big backyard, and our first house on Main St. has a nice big backyard where I spend as much time as I can.

One of the most striking features of our neighborhood is the trees. There is a sign on our street that decrees Westerville, OH as "Tree City USA." I'm not exactly sure what that means, but what I do know is that we have many large and beautiful trees in our neighborhood. As we visited potential houses five years ago, we saw many houses that were nicer, newer, and larger than ours but few had trees as large as the ones at our house. Directly behind our house is a beautiful silver maple tree that seems to stretch forever towards the sky. It has such beauty that I am willing to ignore the numerous large branches it has lost since we moved in - even the ones that have scraped our gutters. Behind the silver maple is an even more impressive sugar maple - a beatiful sight particulaly in the fall. In the back corner of the yard are two pine trees that shade our hammock in the summer. And just a few feet from one of those pine trees is a large apple tree.

When we first moved into the house, the trees hadn't been trimmed in many years. My first mowing experience was similar to running an obstacle course dodging hanging branches and low-lying limbs. The overgrown limbs greatly hid the beauty of our backyard. As a matter of fact, during our first year in the house, I didn't even realize we had an apple tree. Fall came and went and there were no apples on the tree. However, thanks to my pruning, when the next spring came around, the apple tree was full of the most beautiful blooms filling the air with their sweet fragrance. The scent was no guarantee of the apple harvest, however, as the blossoms gave way to small fruit. The fruit never matured, and we ended up with a tree full of rotten half-grown apples. Upsetting to us tenants, but great news for the local squirrel community.

The half-grown apples were a disappointment, but it was encouraging to know that we had made some progress. I was committed to giving the tree constant TLC and to willing it on towards a more bountiful future. And the tree reponsded. Unfortunatley, just as the tree seemed ripe for a large harvest, it was nearly destroyed by Ohio's first hurricane. (Really, Ohio had a hurricane!) One large gust sent the top-part of the neighboring pine tree right on top of the apple tree I had been caring for. So much for the progress!

This year I have done my best to salvage our apple tree. I trimmed all the branches that were damaged by the pine tree. I cleaned out all the dead branches and limbs. This spring there were but a handful of blossoms, but it looks as though it is going to make it. The handful of blossoms gave way to exactly three apples. Because there were only three, I gave these apples special attention. I did my best to nurture them keeping them free of insects and harm. Slowly, across the summer, all three of these apples matured right in front of our eyes. It was the most beautiful sight - these three apples hanging alone on this large, damaged apple tree.

I want to use this apple tree as a metaphor for the Churches of Christ. The tree has been beat and battered by the weather. It has been split by the storms life has rained down upon it. In the same way, the Churches of Christ have been beat and battered with storms of their own: divisions, scandal, and tension. And these churches have not been left unharmed. Unity has been the chief victim, but there are others. As I sat looking at my apple tree last fall after the hurricane, questions that I have had about the Churches of Christ seemed dually applicable - is she going to make it? Will she continue to bear fruit in the future? Is this the end? Has she finally been beaten into irrelevance? Does she have anything left to offer? Am I wasting my time trying to save her?

It's important to note here that in my analogy there are other, larger, more healthy trees in my backyard. Sure, they all have their problems: the silver maple has a disease that my kill it one of these days, the pine tree that took out the apple tree is missing its top half, and the sugar maple badly needs pruned. These are the other denominations. There are other, older, solid parts of the kingdom living out the Gospel alongside us. There are also some smaller shoots that have taken root and they that may or may not make it into adulthood - other denominational movements that continue to grow and shoot off from the others. In this analogy I am certainly not concerned that the church is by anyway defeated. This is an intramural dialogue for those of us associated with Campbell, Stone, and the boys.

There are some reasons to throw in the towel and give up hope - any Google search of "Church of Christ" can affirm that. And yet, like my apple tree in the backyard, there seems to me to be a few pieces of beautiful fruit still hanging from the tree, not ready to completely fall to the ground, giving up. This fruit needs nurture and attention. It needs time and care.

In the work that I have proposed, and will be fleshing out here in the months to come, there is some productive fruit still hanging from the group of disciples who call themselves "Churches of Christ." This group increasingly grows diverse and discussions about them grow increasingly complicated - but perhaps, considering the complicated postmodern matrix of the Western world, that in and of itself is one of those pieces of hopeful fruit.

In the next several series of posts I'll be addressing what I believe to be the most hopeful pieces of tradition in the Churches of Christ. This work will be divided into two sections: Hopeful Fruit and Pruning Shears. While there may be some hopeful fruit dangling from our tradition, there remains at the same time some major obstacles to our growth that will require pruning. In the coming months I'll be soliciting fellow ministers who are in a similar place to me to reflect on these areas offering practical and timely suggestions on how we might save our apple trees - if that is in fact what God wants us to do.

I would invite those of you in these churches to post thoughts and ideas about some of the hopeful fruit you see in our movement as well as other harmful limbs that you feel need to be pruned. I am continuing to assemble a group of writers with topics on this issue and would benefit greatly from hearing the ideas of others. I'll be copying this post throughout on the like-minded group site: Post-Restorationist Perspectives. I hope you enjoy!

Revisiting the Truth Project

2009-09-17T09:49:00.002-04:00

Last fall I did a series of posts reflecting on the video series promoted by Focus on the Family called The Truth Project. It was a well-produced series that promotes, by my assessment, a foundational Christian philosophy that has gone on the offensive in recent years as it has lost steam in the face of the demise of modern philosophy. I continue to receive many hits from folks searching for information to the Truth Project and thought I would repost my most recent response to a Truth Project inquiry.

Someone inquired to my reaction to this link regarding Lesson 9 on the state. I offered the following thoughts:

Thanks for the post, Randy and the link. I looked over the information and it lays out Tackett's premise in regards to the role of the "sphere of the state." In some of my other posts on The Truth Project, I've critiqued this "sphere" understanding to the Bible.

It is Tackett's understanding that the Bible somehow maps out this grandiose social order. Now, I'm the first to acknowledge there is a great order and scheme behind the great creative God, but I'm not convinced that he isn't over playing the cards on this one. Foundational to his argument (again, a philosophical underpinning that I've already rebutted in this post) is the idea that God has created blue printed confines within which the state must operate.

His case point is a handy one considering his conservative realpolitik. Why not consider the question, "Can the state murder unjustly?" His case study on can the state steal is simply his case against the welfare state.

In his argument he chooses the relatively obscure story of Uzziah. Now, Uzziah's in the Scriptures and I also believe he should be considered. But, it could hardly be argued that Uzziah somehow represents an exemplary story of the core identity of Old Testament social ethics.

A broader and more fundamental Old Testament example would be Leviticus 25's teaching of the year of Jubilee. Every 50 years the state of Israel was to forcibly redistribute wealth. It's not often termed that way since it sends up so many red flags, but is that not exactly what happens? Those who had become imprisoned were to be freed. Those who had lost everything were given a fresh start. Those who had accumulated too much had to give up their excess. Interestingly, Tackett makes strong statements about the Bible's teaching making it being an overstepping of the role of the state to do exactly what Israel was commanded to do (and later reprimanded by the Old Testament prophets for not doing!) And this is no obscure law on the edge of the Torah - this was fundamental to it's economy! By no means am I claiming that this solves any discussion . . . however, it blasts major holes in Tackett's arguments and shows him to be rather inept in his presentation by not dealing with the most glaring shortcomings of his overgeneralization.

One other aspect of the notes I'll comment on is the listing of the states and their leaders who have shown "obvious overstepping of the state's authority." It's a list of the notable notorious world leaders: the worst of the worst - Hitler, Stalin, etc. While I am in no way comparing these evil empires with the American empire, I do think it deserves mention that the United States and other Western empires are not allowed a free pass. Millions have died at the hands of American militaristic campaigns.

Again, I'm not in any way denying the blessings of our country. However, as Christians we are called to be prophets, standing back from the culture and acknowledging God when we see Him, acknowledging sin when we see it. More Christians need to acknowledge America is an empire. The only empires in the Bible were staunchly addressed in the Bible (be it Rome, Egypt, etc.) We must not give America some free pass. Tackett's theology here is a house of cards created to avoid real critique and consideration of prophetic implication for the new empire in which we find ourselves.

Thanks again, Randy for you comments, I'm going to post this as my newest blog entry as well since it's been awhile since I've commented on the Truth Project.

Even if it is Oprah

2009-09-14T14:00:00.002-04:00

So Oprah isn't my favorite person in the world . . . but this is pretty cool!! Have you seen it?

On Women (not that way!)

2009-09-14T12:44:00.002-04:00

Well . . . the Buckeyes lose another big game behind archaic play-calling and a brand of conservatism that makes Rush Limbaugh look like a Rachel Maddow wannabee followed up by the train wreck that is the Cleveland Browns (but did you catch that small smile that parsed by lips as I changed the channel just long enough to see the Bronco's long tipped bomb sink the Bengals!) . . . let's talk theology!

I have not blogged on the issue of gender in awhile, and it has been hitting my heart especially hard lately. I come from a heritage that has been extremely traditional in their teaching and practice of a woman's place in both the home and the church. In the ten years or so growing up at the Defiance Church of Christ, a woman never graced the front of the congregation. Never. They were "permitted" to speak out if asked a question, but their role was limited to teaching children's Bible classes (until a male was baptized) and pretty much run the church behind the scenes. They organized the potlucks, cooked the food, set up and clean up. The church had no elders and the minister was a lay-volunteer (paid, I think) and all decisions were made in closed door "men's business meetings."

It has become my belief that "men's business meetings" are the absolute worst idea ever created for church leadership. It required a terrible misreading of Scripture for the idea to ever have become a reality, and it permitted ungodly oppression and misuse of power. Certainly, God works in mysterious ways and created good from evil, but as we analyze and reflect on practices, this is one that begs for rebuke.

My dad has never really come to church (he had what I call a "marriage baptism." So, for the most part, it was my Mom draggging the three of us to service. My aunts also went there dragging their husbands along (that's overstating it). Something that I will always remember is that my mom was never permitted a "say" in the business of the church because of the "men's" requirement for permittance in a "men's business meeting." My mom, like yours, wasn't a man (still isn't as a matter of fact!) This left us without a family representative at the business meetings. That is, until I was baptized (at 14), then I counted. Now . . . that's messed up.

You don't have to turn to a book, chapter, verse to realize the fallacy here. However, to be fair, this practice shows the hermeneutical flaw of those who continue to press a male-dominated agenda in Christianity. If women aren't equal, there not equal. If the man is the head of the household - he's the head. As the traditional understanding of marriage and gender roles continue to be challenged, this dilemma continues to endure onslaught.

I recently heard on the nightly news that, one of the results of the reduction in manufacturing positions in this country, for the first time ever, we are approaching a time when more women will be working than men. Women's wages continue to be a great deal less than men's (a discussion for another day, but a reality no doubt reinforced by the traditional Judeo-Christian male prejudice), but the reality remains: more women will be working than men. Women continue their fight to the top of some of the most important and powerful companies and positions in all the world. It won't be long, surely in my life time, that a woman will assume the role of President and the barrier thrown asunder for African Americans will also be cast aside for woman.

So . . . picture this, Hillary Clinton now President of the United States, unable to serve communion in my congregation - and not just because she's a Democrat :-) Newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, unable to offer a prayer publicly in our service because of her gender. If Taylor Swift placed membership she would be relegated to our praise team, and not allowed to lead the congregation in singing because she was born with the wrong chomosome.

I'm afraid that in the minutia of our discussion in regards to the role women are to play in the kingdom of heaven, we get so caught up in minor points that we fail to step back and consider the implications of our teaching and beliefs. I don't know have all the answers for some of the more challenging texts about women remaining silent any more than those on the other side don't have the answers for the texts challenging their perspective (Deborah, after all led the entire nation of Israel in Judges, Phillip had four daughters who prophesied in Acts - seems as definitive as 1 Tmothy 2, and on and on), however, perhaps the best argument is to provide some big picture biblical common sense on the issue. That can only be done by considering the story.

What is wrong with a woman leading a man? The onus in on the other side to deal with this question. Are we arguing for something evil here? Are we inciting the rage of God by imporing others to do something contrary than what he has created us for? If this is the case, then we need to go on a crusade against the rising numbers of women in the work force - they are slowly taking us over! We must overcome this sacred/secular divide that is NOT biblical, as if leadership outside of church is ok, but forbidden inside of church. That doesn't even make sense. How many of our men come home from being led at work by women and then maintain a priveledged position of leadership over them in the church? Why? Because they understand spiritual things better than women? Because she ate the fruit from the forbidden tree? Because she was cursed through Eve? We better have some better theology than that.

This issue is of primary importance for me. I have two daughters that will challenge my action in this area for the rest of my life. "Daddy, why can't I lead a prayer?" "Daddy, why can't I share my testimony?" I am not prepared to answer those questions because I do not have an answer. Perhaps I am being duplicitous remaining at a place that cannot move forward in this area, but, patiently and faithfully I stick it out, hoping God's grace can fall and change hearts and attitudes. My wife has the gift of prayer and intercession. She is unable to share that gift as freely as she should due to traditions and oppressive ideologies - and these from good people.

So what are we to do? What is she to do? O the raw talents that go unused each and every day because of oppressive thoughts and practices and staunch rejection. They are waiting. God is waiting. I am impatient . . . my prayer is that His patience will endure . . .

Neither Conservative Nor Liberal

2009-08-31T13:29:00.001-04:00

Lee Camp's message is timely, poignant, and needed in pulpits across the nation.

http://ottercreek.podOmatic.com/entry/2009-08-30T13_05_53-07_00

On America as a Christian Nation

2009-08-28T13:44:00.003-04:00

Here are some interesting thoughts regarding the way the United States is so often portrayed as a Christian nation.

I also had this article published for Wineskins on the related topic.

Words from Brennan Manning

2009-08-25T11:05:00.003-04:00

I have seen Brennan Manning's The Ragamuffin Gospel in bookstores and on bookshelves for years. It is one of those few books that I have seen quoted all over the place - in academic books, among musicians, in devotional works, etc. For whatever reason, I have never had much interest in reading it. I found it at the incredible Goodwill in Lewisburg, TN last year (I've found lots of gems there the past few trips) and it's sat on my shelf since.

Last week, I met with one of the senior citizens who meets in our senior small group on Tuesdays, and we decided that we would study Manning's book. I took up chapter one this morning to prepare some opening thoughts for today's study before everyone has their copies. What a way to begin the morning! I can't believe I have waited so long to delve into this work. It has been a refreshing breath of air to my spirit. I am looking forward to reflecting on it in the coming weeks.

I have been busy working through several books lately and have had some blogging topics come to mind. I had planned to spend some time reflecting on a series of articles in this week's Columbus newspaper, following a priest through his seminary trainging at the local Pontifical College. I just finished reading Mike King's Presence-Centered Youth Ministry that had left an indelible mark on my understanding of youth ministry, and coupled with the articles reflecting on entering the priesthood: giving up a family, sex, ten years of your life to training, I started thinking about how seriously I have taken my role as minister/pastor/priest. King notes how when he is in the presence of a Hindu priest he feels like he is in the presence of a holy man, but in the presence of an evangelical minister he feels like he is in the presence of a car salesmen.

It seems to me The Ragamuffin Gospel is going to be just what I need to re-engage my spiritual fervor and remind me of what undergirds my purpose and my position. I found the ending of the first chapter especially compelling:

"Because salvation is by grace through faith, I believe that among the countless number of people standing inf ront of the throne and in front of the Lamb, dressed in white robes and holding palms in their hand, I shall see the prostitute from the Kit-Kat Ranch in Carson City, Nevada, who tearfully told me she could find no other employment to support her two-year-old son. I shall see the woman who had an abortion and is haunted by guilt and remorse but did the best she could faced with grueling alternatives; the business-man besieged with debt who sold his integrity in a series of desperate trasnactions; the insecure clergyman addicted to being liked, who never challenged his people from teh pulpit and longed for unconditional love; the sexuall-abused teen molested by his father and now sellign his body on the street, who, as he falls asleep each night after his last 'trick,' whispers the name of the unknown God he learned about in Sunday school; the deathbed convert who for decades had his cake and ate it, broke every law of God and man, wallowed in lust and raped the earth.
"But how?" we ask. Then the voice says, "They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."
They are there. There we are - the multitude who so wanted to be faithful, who at times got defeated, soiled by life, and bested by trials, wearing the bloodied garments of life's tribulations, but through it all clung to the faith.
My friends, if this is not good news to you,you have never understood the gospel of grace."
p. 32 - 33

That reminds me of something a friend told me last week that is especially convicting for my conservative friends, "If Jesus were here to today, you know the kind of people he's be with? He'd find a gay Latino who was in this country illegally, who was suffering from complications from an abortion she had, and had a rare disease that was only cureable by advances in stem-cell research.

Now . . . I must rush back to my suburban existence . . .

Necessitating an Egyptian/Roman Translation of the Bible

2009-08-17T14:13:00.006-04:00

Earlier this year the Patriot's Bible hit the bookshelves of stores all across the country. There is an interesting video floating around from the editor explaining the rationale behind the compiling of this work, but in the end, I have to side with others who see this as perhaps the culmination of the patriotic idolatry of the American church. I feel this is an important teachable moment for people who may feel uncomfortable with this latest marketed Bible (which by the way, shouldn't we feel uncomfortable with all of these "specialized" and "marketed" Bibles?) thinking this may go too far. I don't want to dwell on critiquing this particular Bible here. The few folks that do come by here and read, have a pretty fair idea of the string of that argument. Instead, I'd like to propose another Bible that needs to be compiled.

Stephen Prothero has an interesting book entitled American Jesus: How the Son of God became a National Icon. While I haven't has a chance to read the book, the description on the back details an important element in American culture. "Our nation's changing images of Jesus, Stephen Prothero contends, are a kind of looking glass into the national character. Even as most Christians believers cleave to a traditional faith, other people give Jesus a leading role as folk hero, pitchman, or countercultural icon." (From Dan Cryer, Newsday). Prothero pursues something that consistently shows itself to be true: humans are most likely to worship a deity that looks most like us. Of course Jesus was white. Of course Jesus would be in favor of capitalism. Of course Jesus woudl be in favor of democratic governments. Of course Jesus would be an American patriot - he'd probably wear red, white, and blue to the fireworks. That's what we do . . . so it must be what he would do. Thus the Patriot's Bible.

Unfortunately, for us, the Bible was written from the perspective of the oppressed, not the oppressors; from the perspective of the poor, not the wealthy; from the perspective of the powerless, not the powerful. Yet in the halls of our churches and seminaries, the Bible has been slanted toward those perspectives. Jesus, like Bruce Barton's The Man Nobody Knew, becomes a mirror of successful Americana.

It seems to me we need to come up with a translation of the Bible that would have been read in Cairo and Rome. A Bible that would have stood to convict Pharaoh and Caeasar of their sins of oppression. I'm guessing we wouldn't particularly care for the language that it would contain, the acts of sacrifice it would require, or the life changes it would mandate. It would, once and for all, specifically address the problems of affluence and excess. Gluttony and abundance would be given more than the scant references contained in the Holy Scriptures.

Our leaders should be spending their time composing a work such as this instead of wasting our time wading through the references to Scripture in the founding documents of the United States as if that somehow makes their genocide of the Native Peoples less significant.

Sometimes

2009-07-26T01:03:00.002-04:00

Sometimes I wonder if anything I believe is "true."
Sometimes I wonder if anything anyone believes is "true."
Sometimes I wonder why people try so hard to find what is "true."
Sometimes I wonder if there is more that is "true" outside of my church than inside.
Sometimes I wonder . . . what is the point?
Sometimes I wonder if Karl Marx was correct and I have spent my last decade doping up.
Sometimes I wonder if it would be better to be a Native American without so much blood on my hands.
Sometimes I wonder if it would be better to be ignorant and not ask so many questions.
Sometimes I wonder if that is exactly what other people wish that I would do.
Sometimes I wonder if I could possibly be a bigger hypocrite.
Sometimes I wonder why I find it so incredibly difficult to pray.
Sometimes I wonder why I find it so incredibly difficult to understand conservatives.
Sometimes I wonder why I find it so incredibly difficult to understand liberals.
Sometimes I wonder what it would feel like to punch Rush Limbaugh.
Sometimes I wonder what it would feel like to punch myself as hard as I could.
Sometimes I wonder what kind of person I would be if I wasn't an American.
Sometimes I wonder if I would be a better person if I had been raised in a different denomination.
Sometimes I wonder if I would be a better person if I had been raised in a different religion.
Sometimes I wonder why I can't shut my mouth.
Sometimes I wonder why I can't be sure about anything.
Sometimes I wonder why God has been so good to me.
Sometimes I wonder when He will choose to test me.
Sometimes I wonder if I should hold more principles at the center.
Sometimes I wonder why I hold so many there.
Sometimes I wonder why I sit before my computer at 1:00 am blogging.
Sometimes I think it is better to sleep than to wonder . . . especially at 1:00 am . . . time for bed.

Strange but Interesting

2009-07-10T16:18:00.001-04:00

Yet another angle to the Michael Jackson story you may have not yet considered

Catching Up

2009-07-07T12:40:00.004-04:00

Somehow I missed the month of June - skipped right over it. We had a great fifth work camp, painting 6 houses. Great to see how God has blessed our efforts there over the past several years. The following week I presented a paper entitled, "G.I. Joe and 'Bearded Lady Jesus: The Challenge of the Empire's Signs and Rituals to Christian Young People" at the Christian Scholars Conference in Nashville, TN. It was a neat experience, and I thoroughly enjoyed the conference. Heard a quite impressive presentation from Barbara Brown Taylor and definitely enjoyed a presentation entitled "Contesting the State's Narrative: Why Teaching U.S. History May be a Heresy" by Richard Goode. That fell quite in line with the work I had done. I've submitted my article to Restoration Quarterly, so hopefully I'll be able to reference the article in publication there soon. Had to hurry back for a wedding, then took a couple days off last week to recoup. Having trouble getting back after it this week . . . we'll be in Tennessee next week to visit Mary Beth's folks. Summer is always so scattered!

On the reading side of things, I have been digging into Nathan Hatch's classic: The Democratization of American Christianity, which directly addresses the political ethos underlying the American frontier Christian revival movements of the early 19th century - a designation my Churches of Christ background relates to directly. I'm just getting into it, but its a very interesting study. Also, each night I'm putting myself to sleep with one of Peter Rollin's parables in his The Orthodox Heretic. I love this book! I will be putting together a review of that one soon. (You can see my review of Hirsch & Frost's ReJesus at www.wineskins.org under reviews).

Over the next few weeks I want to be posting some thoughts on the sermon series my co-conspirator, Anthony, and I have been working on together. We kicked the series off this past Sunday with a message from Paul's experience in Athens. Many people have referenced Paul's actions in Athens as a guide for how Christians are to interact with American popular culture today. Never quoting Scripture, Paul utilizes themes and messages already present in culture that highlight the message of God, ("as some of your own poets have said . . . ") I'm going to try and get these messages added to the sermon player here and on the church's website. Hopefully Sunday's will be up later today.

Consequently, over the next two months we will be immersing ourselves into several movies searching for God in them. His nature and character and teachings are there, we just have to be able to watch with the eyes of an outsider instead of as an insider who is unable to examine the culture critically. It should be an interesting and challenging series as we are asking folks to do something pretty foreign to them. We kick things off this week with a look at the providence of God and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

I Suppose Sometimes It's OK Just to Laugh

2009-07-02T16:51:00.001-04:00

More funny videos like the "Jesus Sightings Montage" at Heavy.com
Do you think God ever just messes with us?

Readings off the Map

2009-06-05T14:21:00.002-04:00

In researching for my upcoming paper, I'm reading through a lot of scholarly work on the periphery of theological scholarship. Most folks who check this blog out will probably be pretty unfamiliar with much of this work. I know some of you will have difficulty stomaching some of it, but I think there is great reward in exposure to things we have difficulty understanding and that offends. Stemming from a pacifist perspective, consider the following excerpt from Walter Wink's book, Unmasking the Powers. (By the way, this book is written with the Cold War as a backdrop, and it has been interesting for me to see the many parallels with today's works reflecting on the war on terror.)

“This is why the American abolitionist and founder of the Oneida Community, John Humphrey Noyes, could write to William Lloyd Garrison,
‘When I wish to form a conception of the government of the United States (using a personified representation), I picture to myself a bloated, swaggering libertine, trampling on the Bible – its own Constitution – its treaties to the Indians – the petitions of its citizens, with one hand whipping a negro tied to a liberty pole, and with the other dashing an emaciated Indian to the ground . . . The question urges itself upon me – “What Have I, as a Christian, to do with such a villain?”
‘My hope of the millennium begins where Dr. Beecher’s expires – namely, AT THE OVERTHROW OF THIS NATION.’
I have quoted such an extreme view because it helps place in relief the most radical challenge of Revelation 18: its celebration of the fall of the richest and most powerful empire of the time. Are we then to entertain the terrible possibility that the salvation of humanity depends somehow on the decline, destruction or transformation of the United States as a sign of God’s sovereignty over the nations? Rome, yes, but – America? Never! The very suggestion of such a thing will strike many Americans as subervsive. And that reaction itself is an index of our idolatry. A godly people would react ot the treat of God’s judgment with fear, awe, consternation. They would know that no person and no nation is righteous before God. They would say, with Jefferson, ‘I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just.’ But Americans do not, on the whole, think that way. To the degree that they are religious at all, they actually believe that God is pleased, beholden to, partial to, and identified with our land.
This is not to deny that, in many ways, our nation may be a more desirable place to live than some other countries. Nor do I wish to ignore the many positive contributions it has made to human society. My point is simply that these contributions in no way mitigate the objective state of idolatry that has been the price we have paid for nationhood.”

Many of us who speak against the perils of our country take great offense and quickly dismiss us as "haters" or the like. I think the merit in Wink's point here is that it must be possible for the Christian to live critically in the world she is a part embracing the good, but prophetically rebuking the evil.

Checking in

2009-05-29T13:28:00.002-04:00

I'm entering that really busy time of the year over the next few weeks. We have our annual garage sale tomorrow, our first year of preschool is over this week at church, ending with a graduation ceremony and picnic (I am so proud of all that my wife has done to make this incredible year pass with few hiccups and a great program for our church), Work Camp starts two weeks from Sunday and there is still tons to do for that, I'm working on my paper for the Christian Scholar's Conference that I need to have into the moderator by two weeks from today, the conference is the last week of June, the week which I have a wedding ceremony to perform . . . so, yeah, lots coming up. Oh, and I turn 30 next Sunday . . I keep forgetting about that.

With the busy season, my reading slows as well, though I will be doing as much research as I can fit in for my paper on pacifism and children. Here's the abstract from the conference website:

Adam Metz, Alum Creek Church, Lewis Center, OH: “G. I. Joe and ‘Bearded-Lady Jesus’: The Challenge of the Empire’s Symbols and Rituals to Christian Young People”

Presupposing a position of pacifism, this paper examines the inherent tension existing between the symbols created by the state and conveyed through culture over against the antithetical parallels portrayed in Scripture and lived out through the church. Utilizing examples from popular culture, public school policies, and personal experience this paper extrapolates an inherent tension between Christian faith and patriotic loyalty. This tension has implications for Christian parents raising their children and ministers working with young people in a post-9/11 American empire that seeks to baptize them into an empire narrative at odds with the community of peace.

Before you go and think this is a big deal . . . it's such a big deal that I still have to pay to go to the conference :-) I am excited about the opportunity and will attempt to blog some reflections from my research. I would imagine it will evoke some discussion because it comes from the fringes of Christendom theology.

So . . . anyway, had a second at my lunch . . . looking ahead, I am very interested and working towards beginning my Doctorate of Ministry next fall ('10) and I keep coming back to Fuller's program on Missional Leadership. It'll take me three years, an incredibly loving and patient wife, and lovingly patient children. We'll see! Hopefully it will work out and God will continue to open doors to us. He's been better to us than we could have ever deserved.

Powers

2009-05-19T10:00:00.002-04:00

Haven't posted here in a while . . . May - August tend to be a bit slow on the posting front, I guess that's when I actually get some work done :-) I wanted to provide a short book review of Walter Wink's Unmasking the Powers. It is the second volume of his trilogy on the powers. For a more accessible and shorter treatment of Wink's work he summarizes the trilogy in his more recent The Powers that Be.

Over the past ten years, I've read several books that have made an impact on me and have challenged me. However, most provide gentle prods and slight nudges forward in my thinking. Whereas those books can be likened to the aftershocks of an earthquake, there have been a handful that have proved to be the actual earthquake. Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christian, Stanely Grenz & John Franke's Beyond Foundationalism, Shane Claiborne's Irresistible Revolution, John Howard Yoder's The Potlics of Jesus . . . these all would fall into that category. Wink is one of those authors who is quoted over and over again in the books I have read to the point that I said to myself, "I need to read this guy!"

I found Unmasking the Powers at Half Price books for six bucks, so I bought it and read it first even though it is actually the second book in the trilogy. Even though the entire book fell apart while I read it, it still proved to be one of those "can't put down" kind of books. The book "unmasks" seven of the powers: the devil, demons, the angels of the churches, the angels of the nations, the gods, the elements of the universe, and the angels of nature. Wink challenges so much of what we think we know about the world around us. He forces us to wrestle with texts that we simply disregard, writing them off as a product of pre-intellectualism and pre-scientific age.

Wink profoundly, and cautiously, deals with issues that are often left to science fiction and esoteric spirituality asking more questions than giving answers and providing fascinating perspective on the difficult topic of "the spiritual realm." In reflecting on my first exposure to Walter Wink, I think there are two things that set him apart from others who spend time in the area of angels and demons.

First of all, Wink resists the temptation most authors cannot of limiting the powers interation to the personal level. One of the better known works among Churches of Christ in this area is Joe Beam's Seeing the Unseen. I haven't actually read the book myself, so I can't make any firsthand impressions, but the rhetoric it has spawned among the people I know who have read it seems largely limited to personal interaction with the spirits/powers. Just about anything you find on the matter on the shelves of a Christian bookstore share this. Wink, while acknowledging the personal dimension of the powers, emphasizes, instead, the powers at work in the world.

Secondly, Wink is academically respected and rooted. So often studies of the devil and angels get lost in fanaticalism and extremism born more out of Hollywood than history and the Bible. Here, Wink excells providing examples throughout church history, again asking more questions bore out of the halls of history than brought from the movies.

Wink provides a vocabulary and structure to discuss the unseen in a way that remains open to new revelations (he leaves open theology to enter the discovery of a new dimension) that is at the same time exciting and humbling.)

I would quickly recommend this book for anyone who is open to discovering new ways of thinking and new possibilities. It promises to stretch even the most open-minded theologian, but patient reflection on this work will provide a whole new door of discovery . . . one that is both exciting and frightening!

Torture

2009-04-28T12:51:00.002-04:00

I have several topics of interest I hope to post about in the next week or so - health care being at the top of the list and what I had intended to blog about today, but then I read the editorial that Cal Thomas had in today's paper about torture. I have to be honest, I have been way out of touch with things in the media lately (that must account for the peace that I have felt over the past few days), and have just heard a piece here and there in regards to the big debate about torture and all that has come with that. Just another partisan battle for the ages.

I guess it's because I am a glutton for punishment, but for the most part, I expose myself to more conservative media personalities and outlets than liberal ones. It seems to me that listening to folks you agree with all the time doesn't do much to help your critical assessment of the world, so I listen to people who drives me nuts. In that spirit, I spent a few minutes over lunch a bit ago watching videos from conservative discussions on the topic of torture mainly from Fox News. I suppose what surprises me (and disappoints me) most in these discussions is to see publicly confessed Christians (Cal Thomas is a Presbyterian from Washington D.C., and I also saw Glenn Beck following his same lines of argument - he's a Mormon) offer the party byline when it comes to overt matters of morality.

It would be my hope that something like the possible torture by the United States government would help expose the idolatrous relationship that so many Christians have with their state. Much of the time the patriotism that has invaded the faith of so many Christ-followers sits idly by as they pledge allegiance to their flag, sing the National Anthem before their sporting events, and sport their "God Bless the USA" bumper stickers on the back of their SUVs - seemingly harmless events. I'm the first to say that seeing one's faith through the cataract of post-Constantinian Christendom, the aforementioned actions are difficult to give much critical attention to. This realm of life espouses such incredible passion and fervor that seldom do these issues ever leave the level of passion to a place where critical self-examination can take place.

Perhaps you don't see the harm in pledging your allegiance to a flag. Maybe you believe the United States is the great hope of the world (an aside note: I just finished reading Captain America and the Crusade Against Evil which does a great job of illustrating how the "Captain America complex" has dominated the pages of American history where her politicians, leaders, and public-at-large has seen the America in the role as super hero: never guilty, but falsely accused; never the provoker, but always the provoked; never fully appreciated for what she means to the world; always working from the omniscient presence - "I'll save you even though you don't realize you need saved." They do a fantastic job of showing how this fautly logic has driven the country's foreign policy since its inception and how the current chlallenges faced in the "war on terrorism" are the same challenges that faced the U.S. in the Cold War, Vietnam, and on back through history) but surely the sight or thought of your nation's government toturing criminals delivers you a bit of an ethical quandry.

Charles Sheldon suggested we ask, "What would Jesus do?" That, apparently, only applies to personal matters of morality. We allow governments to operate under their own rules of engagement. It's different for them, right? Well, that's the thing: a lot of folks are having to ask that question now. Is that right? Jesus would never torture anyone. Jesus was tortured. How can we sit back and, even for one moment, for one criminal, allow an exception? When does the Bible ever teach that the end justifies the means - especially when we are at war?

I'm tired of conservatives telling me that I just don't understand. Sean Hannity told me I suffer from a pre-September 11 mentality. I'm the dumb one. I'm the naive one. It's one thing for liberals and conservatives to banter this stuff back and forth. It's entirely something else when I Christian can idly stand by and join the conversation without maintaining their sense of uniqueness - holiness.

My plea for conservative Christians is to acknowledge that fighting violence with violence will not work - it never works. Our government has promised us that greater force is needed to fight off the enemies so that peace will prevail . . . again . . . even though it hasn't worked before . . . even when we dropped two atomic bombs and killed thousands of innocent people in Japan. The terrorists killed 3,000 people in the United States, and we have killed more than ten-fold in civilians in two other nations. When will it end? We should expect this faith in the empire from those without hope, but from people with faith in Jesus? Those pulling triggers and dropping bombs will always be closer to the soldiers killing Christ than the innocent one on the cross.

More Sharing

2009-04-21T13:12:00.001-04:00

I love this!

Peter Rollins' Parable

2009-04-20T12:47:00.000-04:00

Should be a pretty provocative book with parables like this:

God Joins the Army by peter-rollins

Hope for Churches of Christ in Ohio

2009-04-13T16:12:00.002-04:00

I want to continue in my postings about my Christian tradition. I spent some time in my previous post reflecting upon my upbringing in the small, backwards Defiance Church of Christ. I began my current ministry position five and a half years ago at a Church of Christ in northern Columbus, OH. Our church is on the very outer-fringes of the Columbus suburbs. It's about two and a half hours from Defiance. In the years I've been in Columbus, the atmosphere of the Churches of Christ I've experienced has been incredibly disappointing and frustrating. I suppose the phone book (and Mac Lynn) probably find evidence of about 25 - 30 "congregations" in the Columbus area. There are a few large enough to be multi-staffed (Fishinger and Kinney Rds., Spring Rd., Northland, Reynoldsburg, Genessee Ave. - Gennessee Ave. is a predominantly black congregation, and while it defies everything I believe to treat them differently, the fact of the matter is, in this conversation, they are a bit different), and Marysville. Also could be included is Heath and Lancaster, but they are a bit futher away. In any case, there are a few.

Columbus, OH is the 15th largest city in the United States. Perhaps you are surprised. I am. For a city that size, our particular denomination is very under-represented. What is more disappointing, is that the few churches that are here don't have much to do with each other. I mean, I know that churches are kind of known for not getting along, but seriously, the churches in Columbus, OH don't care too much for each other. I hardly ever talk to any of the other ministers. I am good friends with one of them, but the others I probably talk to less than once or twice a year. Perhaps that is because I am not making the effort . . . but neither do they. To show that it is not all on me, when I first came to town I tried to begin a regular lunch meeting with the youth ministers - there were about five or six of us at the time . . . we met a few times, then it flopped. Some of the ministers have been here for a long time, most of us have been here from between 5 - 10 years. From my best judgement, this is a deep-seeded disunity that goes back many decades - and there looks to be no progress in sight.

I have met a few ministers from a little further away - Jeff Slater in Ashland, Russell Howard and Matt Dahm in Marion. I could list a few others - but only a few. I went out of my way to attend a meeting in Marion that I didn't find too beneficial simply because I felt it was a good offering of fellowship on my behalf. I have attended events and brought teens and children to local events simply to be supportive. Seldom has that support been reciprocated. I'm not trying to sound high and mighty here either - I repeat, I have failed in this manner as well. I believe this group of churches is in some trouble.

The more conservative churches in the area (Fishinger and Kenney, Alkire Rd., Pataskala, and some others) do a much better job of communicating and associating with one another. They are united by some of their simliar antiquated events such as Bible bowls and such. (Alkire Rd. actually has a school where they offer Bible classes). I commend them for much of their efforts, while choosing to disagree with a great deal of their theology. I see some positive organizational points for them, though I think they may be dying under their oppressive and judgmental theology.

There are a few other chruches that lean more towards the center of "mainline churches of Christ" but are a little on the outs with the more conservative groups mentioned above. That leaves three or four of us others. These other churches (and ours probably leads the way) find ourselves in a theological quandry. We know we we are not "them." About half of our membership consists of people "born and raised" among churches of Christ. Several, however, have been burned by previous churches due to situations of divorce or other tragedies. Many find themselves here because they don't really know where else to go. We don't lose many members to other Churches of Christ . . . instead we tend to be the last church on their way out of the movement altogether.

Our church is different. Two of our elders are in their second marriage (all these situations are complicated, but people in most traditional churches of Christ would probably not be too excited about the details of either of these cases). We have claimed to be a grace-oriented church before it was cool. We don't know much of what's going on in our "brotherhood." We use instrumentally-accompanied tracks on occassions - though we usually don't sing with them. We have used women in an expanded use on occassion - though not regularly. More than anything, we aren't afraid to talk about anything. With all that said . . . we still don't have much of a sense of who we are.

Probably half of our church has been with Churches of Christ for quite some time, but we have a sizeable minority who have no clue about these things. We regularly have visitors, some who stick around even though we are a cappella, who don't know much about us. Our four elders all are "born and raised" church of christers. Both ministers are too. And none of us have any idea what to do.

Some of our members fit nicely in the Church of Christ mold, and would like it if we stand there. They seem really hell-bent on insisting that. We have another sizeable number who fit more in-line with an evangelical mold. They enjoy reading and listening to authors, pastors, from evangelical churches and attend concerts and events that are mainly evangelical. Then, there's a small minority who probalby empathize more with a mainline denominational structure (we have two Catholics who attend regularly for one example - though, of course, they are not considered "main-line").

In addition to these problems, our small membership (100 or so) live in a radius that comes close to surpassing 50 miles. We live in five or six different counties. All in all, it's a mess. And honestly and truly, I have no idea what to do. It'd be a lot easier, as I've stated before, to start a new church. Little of the emergent and missional ideas I read about and empathize with are prepared for any mileage here. Our baggage is immense. And, all the same, I figure we have it a whole lot better than many in our movement.

To make a long post longer, I think Churches of Christ in Ohio are in trouble - especially, and ironically, the progressive ones - or open ones - or whatever you call us. (Maybe confused ones). We have, probably more than anything, lost our mission. We've been so caught up in the newfound freedom in worship that we found two decades ago, that we've never moved beyond that. Now, so much of our time (and especially my time) is caught up in a two-hour event on Sunday mornings. We are currently a church culture more obsessed with the "correct way to conduct an hour-long worship service" than bringing hope, justice, and love to a dying and decaying world. That is a problem . . . and a big one . . .and I sure hope we can take a few very small steps in overcoming that in the coming months . . . perhaps God will allow us through our repentance to participate alongside him - and stand back and watch.

Me and Churches of Christ

2009-03-30T14:15:00.003-04:00

There is this peculiar group of churches of which I am a part. It is one of the few American Protestant creations, and it is one that I am proud to be a part - most of the time. I want to spend the next few posts discussing my history in the churches known as Churches of Christ, highlighting what I think are some of our most endearing qualities, apologizing for what I think have been some of our most unfortunate qualities, exploring the hope of the future of our movement, paying special attention to my specific setting: Churches of Christ in Ohio - there ain't many, and they ain't healthy.

In this post I will lay out my personal heritage in Churches of Christ. My lineage in Churches of Christ is linked to my mother's side of the family. My mom's mom died when my mom was only 17, so I never knew her. I know that her (my grandmother) as well as her sisters and brothers were the Church of Christers. We had a prominent place in the small church I first grew up in. Due to many reasons, all of which I am still not aware, my mom did not take us to church regularly until I was about 10. We had attended vbs and things like that on occasion, but not often. There are two churches which underly my upbringing in faith: The Defiance Church of Christ and the Paulding Church of Christ. Both churches are still in existence, but, all signs point to a rapid decline - at least in Defiance.

I have a strong sense of personal calling and it began almost immediately from our regular attendance at the Defiance Church of Christ. It was a church that never had more than 80 and most usally had less than 60 - and now has less than 30. It is comprised of mostly families with West Virgian ancestory (almost exclusively - we were just about the only thorough-bred Ohio family in the church). The Paulding Church of Christ (it is older than the one in Defiance and is a kind of step-father to the Defiance Church) was a little further from my house, so Defiance became our home church. Mom would regularly drag me and my brother and sister there every time the doors were open, as they say.

As I look back, I have a special place in my heart for all the people. They do love God and worship him the best they know how, but I feel strongly that they are the product of several decades of a narrow-minded group-think that starves out any kind of new thinking. Looking back, it was an oppressive environment that I have spent more than ten years overcoming. Financially, they gave me several thousand dollars (like, several, several thousand dollars) to get my degree in ministry, and for that I will always be thankful. As I said, I hold the people there very dear. However, the irony is, that going away to school and getting out of their group think mentality put me, for many of their folks, at odds with their doctrine - which, by the way, we have never talked about since I left.

To make a long story at least a little shorter (remember, this is 20 years of history!) I found the family of faith that I needed to nurture me at church camp. I attended camp at Camp Indogan (where my mom and her sisters had gone) in Angola, IN. That place, too, holds a special place in my heart. Facebook has helped reconnect with several of those friends again. It was there that I feel like my faith was most closely nurtured. From my earliest teenage years I had an insatiable hunger and thirst for the Bible. I actually read through the whole thing because I loved it so much - I didn't learn all the stories when I was a little kid like everyone else. This was all new to me. This is probably the single most endearing quality of our tradition - we love the Bible. We know it better than folks in most denominations - at least we used to, but I'm not so sure about that any more.

Anyhow, my camp environment was much the same as my church. I remember one of my friends from camp coming back from a year at some Preacher School in Florida and the disconnect began even from that early age. Some of my closest friends ended up at Freed Hardeman University, and one visit there during my college years helped me realize how far I was from their teachings - even though they were very consistent with my upbringing.

I grew up in a small town and looked forward to college in a big city - that was probably the biggest driving force to my attending Lipscomb University. I spent six years there for both undergraduate and graduate work. In those six years my understanding of church and specifically Churches of Christ broadened immensely. Many of the thoughts I had early on that I couldn't articulate were given language and a life of their own at Lipscomb. I never had intended graduate school, and looking back I still can't explain what led me there, but it turned out to be the very beginning of a major shift in my thinking. Lipscomb was a nice conservative, but safe place for me to explore and meet me where I was in order to get where I am today.

I now know that I grew up in one of an area of the country where there are fewer churches of Christ per population than just about anywhere else in the country. I now work in Columbus, central Ohio, and there are extremely few churches of Christ north of where I am. There are quite a few in Columbus, but they couldn't be more divided and further a part (and have the same name).

I worked for about four years for the West End Church of Christ in Nashville exposing me to the realities of minstering in Churches of Christ in their stronghold and realized I would probalby never be able to authentically minister there again. I now work for the Alum Creek Church in northern Columbus. I've been here for five and a half years. We have much baggage from our Church of Christ heritage, but the more I interact with people in other Churches of Christ around the country, I realize that we hardly resemble one any more . . . and I have even a more difficult time fitting in.

Probably 75% of our members are here because they have some affiliation or tradition with Churches of Christ, but don't want an old stodgy Church of Christ. We explore and do different things . . . but or leadership and vision continues to be bogged down in exclusively Church-of-Christ thinking. That doesn't have to be a negative, but, more often than not, it's not critically considered, it's just the way that it is.

So . . . I find myself in a precarious position. I love this church, dearly. Great folks here. I love God more, and I constantly ask myself what he has in store for me and my family. How can we best serve him. Often times, I feel the best thing to do is to leave the established church. We seem to be in the same mess the Pharisees were in when Jesus lived, and have the same inability to recognize it. It is incredibly frustrating. And at the same time, I find myself not even thirty. To claim to have many answers seems pretty arrogant and presumptuous. And then I think about David, and Josiah and Timothy . . . and even Jesus himself (I'm just about the point he was at when he "took it public") and I find myself in a push and pull with my emotions and direction. I think our faith is infected with a pretty serious disease. I don't claim to be immune, but I do think I've considered a lot of things critically, when most folks take them for what they are. And, I'm pretty sure that they're better off more times than I would ever want to believe.

In the end, I think there is a lot of hope for our group. There's a sizeable segment that, for all intents and purposes, has broken off. They are represented by about half of the churches in Columbus that have nothing to do with us (and vice versa if I'm being honest). However, there is also a great redeemable segment that is asking difficult questions, that are looking again at our earliest roots and considering whether we've gone astray even from their dream only 200 years removed. I think our group has much hope . . . and much work ahead, and I hope to address both in the weeks ahead.

Women

2009-03-11T10:29:00.002-04:00

Brian made a comment in my previous post that I wanted to address more fully here. This article is interesting along these lines. The discussion of women in ministry and leadership positions within churches needs to be freed from the context of the Sunday morning "worship" setting. So much of the discussion in churches like mine focus on what women can and can't do in the worship setting. I don't claim to walk moral high ground here - most of my discussions revolve around the same issue. Here's the deal - this issue scares people to death! We are afraid to talk about it, we are afraid to study it, we are just afraid.

Here's a little perspective of where I'm coming from. I grew up in a traditional, old-fashioned 1960's era Church of Christ in the northwest part of Ohio where there are approximately one church per county. We had 50 folks on a good Sunday. The church had no elders, but made decisions in "men's business meetings." My dad has never really gone to church thereby giving my mom no voice into the decisions of the church - a church that she was one of the most active people. However, once I was baptized, I got a vote! So . . . at 15 years old, I had a voice on the decisions of the church . . . but my 40 year old, life-long Christian mother did not. Even before I had thought much about anything, something seemed screwed up about this.

I moved on to Lipscomb University where all of my Bible classes were taught by men (white men, at that, but that is another story). I worked for a church for four years where I met my first minister who was a woman - our children's minister was a part-time minister, and our preschool director was a woman. These two women were the first women I had ever seen stand up in front of a church and talk - they made periodic announcements. Even this became a talking point among the elders and ministers there at times. The ministers saw no problem with it, but the elders "had to be sensitive to those in the congregation who could have issues with it." The inclusion of women elsewhere in the service was limited to women singing with microphones in the praise team, and occassionally running the sound board. Oh yeah, and our janitor was a woman. When it came to decision-making, the gender barrier was most prevalent. Most/all decisions were made on Sunday afternoons in a board room with the (all-male) elders.

In my first full-time ministry setting (in which I still serve) I have found a bit more inclusion, but only minimal. It seems to me what drives the issue as much as anything is practicality. If there are fewer numbers and more "able-bodied women," there are more opportunities afforded. Our particpation on Sunday mornings has mainly been through the public reading of Scripture. We had one of our teens (with her brother and dad) read through a Scripture in a traditional sense (up front, behind the pulpit) only once. One person got up and left. There were others a bit offended. We have done it more frequently without the person being in front. To answer Brian's question from the previous post, we've gone about it this way:

Frankly, I have pushed this issue. Those reading this blog from my church are aware of that, but I feel especially passionate that we have not afforded women the role in our churches that they deserve. I have publicly made that statement. I believe that the church has proliferated a world-wide culture of oppression, and are slowly awakening to it. I have tried to be soft and subtle. The elders have attempted to teach on this issue: when we set out to do a study of the issue a few years ago, one family left simply because we set out on the study, and few people cared to attend. My interpretation of this is that everyone already has their mind made up, they just want to be told what direction the church is going to go. Following the class, (and this gets at the shortcoming that the article decries), nothing really changed. I have set out the following "roles" of our service I believe we can most easily and most quickly include women: our formal announcements (this is a no-brainer for me), serving communion, leading public prayers, reading Scripture. Except for reading, we have not yet expanded in the other directions. There is plenty of work to be done through these issues, but it doesn't even get at the more difficult issues of "presiding" over the Lord's Supper, sharing testimonies (which we have done on several occassions, and what my church in Nashville would do), and the two biggies that I don't see as realistic in this setting: preaching and eldership.

I have completely changed my mind in this area. I was open, but always traditionally conservative right up through graduate school. John Mark Hicks challenged me on the issue, he does not believe women are called to serve as lead pastors or elders, and I wrote a paper reaffirming this. Perhaps it was giving in for a good grade, but I like to think I wrote what I believed. However, I have come to see Scripture differently, more organically and alive. It seems to me as though people who want to limit women's participation are failing to recognize a great working of God in our world today.

Our elders have recently retaken this issue up for study. In some ways it highlights the challenge of our leadership structure as our four elders have different perspectives on the matter. In the end, I think we can talk all we want about including women in these positions and that may or may not change things (though, of course, I hope it does), however, this process, is itself foiled. Four men, talking among themselves, deciding where they stand in this area that affects half of our population? This does nothing but further the problem. The real issue, as I've come to recognize it (mostly thanks to my wonderful wife) is that women are never consulted, appreciated, heard in these discussions. Our traditional structures of leadership have no place for women's voices. This is the issue that we should focus on. Most women in our churches are the product of an environment where their voices have not been heard or respected, and that makes the initation process all the more challenging. Just because she's a woman, she may or may not believe her role should be expanded - but surely she believes her voice can be heard more seriously.

This is a very challenging topic of discussion for any church. It brings into play so many prejudices and traditions. It is difficult to have an open and positive discussion without falling into negativity. However, it is a conversation that must take place. Now, having two daughters, I am more committed than ever to helping people overcome their bias and their misinterpretion of this critical area of faith. Oh to be a part of a church that no longer dwells on such issues, but has moved on to the meatier areas of faith.

The Challenge of Working in an Established Church

2009-03-05T15:50:00.002-05:00

Through my years in seminary and in ministry, I have often met people who have had their hearts set on planting a church or entering foreign (or domestic) mission work. I can quickly say that I've never shared that desire. I guess when I was a freshman in college I did declare "Missions" as a major, but I don't remember ever taking that seriously as a consideration for my profession. And while I've entertained church-planting on a lot of Mondays, I've never really considered it seriously. I've always been committed to working in an established church. And I often think I am a moron for doing so.

My first reaction to someone working in church planting is, "Man, that must be tough!" I can't even imagine where to begin. However, when I really begin to consider the differences of going at it alone like that and trying to navigate the incredibly complex waters in an already-established church, I think I'll take it back. I actually think it would be easier.

I do have my reasons for choosing an already-established church. If I'm being honest, there has to at least be some element of security in there. A church that has already been around for 50 years is more likely to be around for another 50 than a church that is just starting out. I have seen statistics that show, in the life of a church, the first ten years are the most likely years a church experiences growth. In addition to that, too many church plants end up being demographically uniform with little diversity - at least in age and life experience. Granted, working with a group of people who are mostly my age and in my life stage is incredibly appealing. However, it also seems anemic. The homogeneous church does not seem to be a biblical church. Paul's letters to the Corinthians sure wouldn't make much sense in these kinds of churches.

In the end, as the saying goes, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it. I'm about 5 and a half years into my ministry at Alum Creek. It is a rather unique already-established church. It is unique, because it is established in that it has been around for 50 years, but it also has a freshness because they relocated about 10 years ago to a location a good 10 miles away from the previous spot. I've managed to shrink us down to nearly half of what we were when I got here (ok, maybe 30 percent), but I haven't been asked to any church growth consultations lately. And I find in ourselves, an incredibly difficult flock to lead.

We're going about 100 strong and can probably be pretty well broken up into three groups: our kids & their parents, empty-nesters (Boomers), and older Boomers and seniors. We have folks that drive all over from about a 40 mile radius around us. Our facade places in what could be considers progressive mainstream among Churches of Christ (we have a praise team that a few folks don't like, we use videos with instruments that a couple people don't like, we have a very minimal use of women in our services - a Scripture read here and there, but never in front - which I don't like), but for the most part, I label us as a postmodern congregation with no imagination for anything but a modern way of doing things. We shake up the facade, but don't seem ready to address the "weightier matters."

Much of this has to do with being in an established church. There's a long history of the way we do things. We've changed that up alot in the ten years since we've moved, but the deeper issue is that we've not really changed the way we think about many things. Trying to work through that in the established church is incredibly difficult. We are small and pround . . . but we are also very tempermental - a wrong move here or there and you feel like the whole thing might blow up.

And maybe . . . just maybe . . . that's what needs to happen. Doesn't seem like much changes by sitting around and talking about things - that's what established churches are good at. Until we DO something radical, we'll be content to talk. In the midst of our talking - folks aren't connecting. Young people, especially, aren't connecting. We are associated with the Churches of Christ, which, in Ohio, have done much of the same things for years and years, and have seldom made an impression on the community. The easy thing seems to be to leave and plant a church somewhere . . . but that seems to be the easy things so things get done my way. And that's just scary. It's a matter of committing to a family and seeing where God will lead. It's not easy. It's definitely not quick! Some people will not make it through, for any number of reasons. That's OK, as long as they leave with their faith intact - and if it done in the right way - their faith should be even stronger.

I love the people I have been called to minister beside. I would never trade my intergenerational relationships for success or brighter pastures. However, to say that it's always easy would be a huge misstatement - it's incredibly difficult. So I have gotten what i've asked for . . . now I need to continue to ask for more wisdom and guidance as to where to from here - because I am incredibly frustrated. This post is more for me than you . . . but I hope you can empathize where I am coming from. What would ministry be if it wasn't frustrating? Jesus certainly had his share of frustration.

Ash Wednesday

2009-02-25T09:26:00.003-05:00

For just about every other year of my life, the fact that today is Ash Wednesday made no impact on me, I paid no attention, gave it little care. For most of my life, I really had no idea what Ash Wednesday was other than Catholics did it, so it was probably bad. I cringe realizing this as yet another layer of my being needing repentance.

This year, marks a new page for me. I intend to honor Ash Wednesday today as best I can, and continue on in the honoring of Lent beginning today. I have three children, one a new born, and I desire that we as a family honor the ethos of Ash Wednesday and Lent. That we take place in the repentance it requires, that we suffer the introspection it begs, and that we deepen our spirituality therein. If you know nothing of this sacred day of the church, I would encourage you to spend a few moments today seeking out the significance and place. I would encourage you to take a moment from your busy schedule and reflect on the many shortcomings in your life - your tangible moral failure as well as the more nebulous sinful structures and systems in which you contribute to the proliferation of evil in this world. Ignore the misuses of this holiday in the history of the church, and seek out the good that it can be for ourselves. Surely we would be moved to tears if we would but stop to consider our sins. Perhaps that, more than anything, keeps us from taking today seriously. As a way of aiding my own spirituality, and perhaps your own, I offer the below prayers and services of the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer for Ash Wednesday.

"Almighty and everlasting God, you hate nothing you have made and forgive the sins of all who are penitent: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we, worthily lamenting our sins and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of you, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen."

"Dear People of God: The first Christians observed with great devotion the days of our Lord's passion and resurrection and it became the custom of the Church to prepare for them by a season of penitence and fasting. The season of Lent provided a time in which converts to the faith were prepared for Holy Baptism. It was also a time when those who, because of notorious sins, had been separated from the body of the faithful were reconciled by penitence and forgiveness, and restored to the fellowship of the Church. Thereby, the whole congregation was put in mind of the message of pardon and absolution set forth in the Gospel of our Savior, and of the need whihc all Christians continually have to renew their repentance and faith.

I invite you, therefore, in the name of the Church, to the observance of a holy Lent, by self-examination and repentance; by prayer, fasting, and self-denial; and by reading and meditating on God's holy Word. And, to make a right beginning of repentance, and as a mark of our moral nature, let us now kneel before the Lord, our maker and redeemer."

"Almighty God, you have created us out of the dust of the earth: Grant that these ashes may be to us a sign of our morality and penitence, that we may remember that it is only by your gracious gift that we are given everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Savior. Amen. Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

[This is an incredible prayer!]

Most holy and merciful Father:
We confess to you and to one another,
and to the whole communion of saints
in heaven and on earth,
that we have sinned by our own fault
in thought, word, and deed;
by what we have done, and by what we have left undone.

We have not loved you with our whole heart, and mind, and strength. We have not loved our neighbors as ourselves. We have not forgiven others, as we have been forgiven.
Have mercy on us, Lord.

We have been deaf to your call to serve, as Christ served us. We have not been true to the mind of Christ. We have grieved your Holy Spirit.
Have mercy on us, Lord.

We confess to you, Lord, all our past unfaithfulness: the pride, hypocrisy, and impatience of our lives,
We confess to you, Lord.

Our self-indulgent appetites and ways, and our exploitation of other people,
We confess to you, Lord.

Our anger at our own frustration, and our envy of those more fortunate than ourselves,
We confess to you, Lord.

Our intemperate love of worldly goods and comforts, and our dishonesty in daily life and work,
We confess to you, Lord.

Our negligence in prayer and worship, and our failure to commend the faith that is in us,
We confess to you, Lord.

Accept our repentance, Lord, for the wrongs we have done: for our blindness to human need and suffering, and our indifference to injustice and cruelty,
Accept our repentance, Lord.

For all false judgments, for uncharitable thoughts toward our neighbors, and for our prejudice and contempt toward those who differ from us,
Accept our repentance, Lord.

For our waste and pollution of your creation, and our lac of concern for those who come after us,
Accept our repentance, Lord.

Restore us, good Lord, and let your anger depart from us;
Favorably hear us, for your mercy is great.

Accomplish in us the work of your salvation,
That we may show forth your glory in the world.

By the cross and passion of your Son our Lord,
Bring us with all your saints to the joy of his resurrection.

All Religion is Unbelief

2009-02-17T16:37:00.003-05:00

The concept of all religion as unbelief is from Karl Barth, and it is a concept I have recently begun to struggle with. Lately, I've been under the influence of Barth (only second-hand as I remain intimidated by his Dogmatics), Peter Rollins, and taking in steady doses of postmodern philosophy as steadily as my mind will allow. I find it unfortunate that I have been left so inadequately prepared to undertake conversations in philosophy, but have decided it's never too late to begin. So . . . the philosophical realm of theology is quickly knocking down walls and expanding my mind daily. Perhaps many of you have thought through these things on your own before, but it is new to me, and I can hadly get enough. More than anything, I see my understanding of God growing every day - and since I can never comprehend His immensity, I suppose anything that will broaden that understanding is a good thing.

I picked up a book just before Cecilia was born by Michal Frost and Alan Hirsch called ReJesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional Church. It is their follow-up work to the much praised The Shaping of Things to Come. While the jury is still out a bit, I am just about ready to declare this as one of the most important books I've read in the last five years. I have not read their previous work, so I am a litle cautious to utter too much praise before comparing to the other, but their work at "Rejesusing" the church is a powerful one.

The reason I feel that this book is so important for me, and for current discussions in theology in the Western church, is that it hits at a deeper level. It seems to me that much of the discussion in our churches is misplaced. Much of the discussion taking place in the American chruch revolves around the church. Our conversations have been consumed by discussions of ecclesiology. I'm all for ecclesiology. We've got major holes there. My church is as guilty as any. I have spent much time in recent months and years focusing classes, sermons, and leading discussions on church. Frost and Hirsch (and Barth, Rollins, and others) are challenging me on this. I am asking myself, now, how much of our discussions is God really interested in at all? It seems as though our human nature leads us to anything that will take our focus away from God - and so we have gone astray. We focus on church, worship, assemblies, hermeneutics, theology itself, whatever and we have left God out of the picture.

What I really appreciate about ReJesus is that it recognizes that anything we do needs to begin with reintroducing ourselves to the Messiah. I am eager to disagree with someone about matters of church or theology if I can be rest assured their first and foremost attention is to God. Seldom do I feel that. Often their focus is admirable - the text, their tradition, their experience, their spirit-led "feeling" but what of God?

It is no wonder that Karl Barth beleived that all religion is unbelief. Religion is simply where we throw our hands in the air and say, "I can't live with the mystery and uncertainty of a God I cannot explain," and so we methodologize and strategize. We write dissertations and go on ad nauseam in regards to the distant matters of faith. And slowly . . . after years and decades and centuries . . . often with little knowledge of it ourselves . . . there is but a slight visage and shadow of an unknowable object. It is time to shed ourselves of theology and religion as it keeps us from God.

Obviously, as soon as we say that, we realize the need and our utter dependence upon religion. Without it, what is our compass, our orientation. Surely the traditions, creeds, and rituals have a place? Therein is the paradox. Some of the things that can be most important to us maintaining our faith can just as quickly be our biggest barriers to overcome. The barriers in the Western Church have become mountains to overcome. There can be little doubt that our God is too small and, for many people, their religion has killed their God.

Fatherhood . . . Again

2009-02-07T16:17:00.006-05:00

Friday morning at about 3:00 am my wife got out of bed and informed me that she believed that her water had broken. An early morning wake up call to her doctor confirmed it. We headed to the hospital and later that morning at 9:40, Cecilia Elizabeth Metz was born at Riverside Methodist Hospital. She arrived in the world weighing a solid 7 pounds 4 ounces and was 20 inches long. She is incredibly healthy and beautiful. Her umbilical cord was huge highlighting a very healthy pregnancy. We will be leaving the hospital in an hour or two.

This most recent (and intended to be final) addition to the Metz family tilts the familial scales heavily in favor of the estrogen hormone. I have offered for Clark and me to take over the basement and have given the girls the reign over the rest of the house - we'll see how that proposal fleshes out.

In all seriousness, this day gives me pause for an incredible blessing from God. I have no words to thank God enough for the way he has blessed Mary Beth and I. In our pursuit of a family, we have never had any trouble concieving, we've never lost a baby through miscarriage, we've never had even a simple compication in now three child births, with the past two we've just spent one night in the hospital, our families have always been there to support us and help us out, our church family has always surrounded us and our children with love and support, our neighbors came over at three in the morning this go round to watch our kids - all incredle blessings from God.

Being in ministry, I see plenty of people who have had heartache after heartache in their pursuit of children and it serves to reinforce the goodness of God in my family's life. We don't deserve it. We are no better than any other family - far short of some to be sure. But we graciously accept it for what it is and give God all thanksgiving and gratitude. The road will not always be as clear and hazard-free as it has been to this point, but at the moment we thank God for all that he has done for us to this point. I feel the pull for the many families who have had the trials we have managed to avoid.

No matter how many times you go through the process of childbirth (Mom or Dad) the miracle of life never ceases to amaze. Yesterday I sat and looked at this little baby who was just a few minute ago in my wife stomach, and a few months ago nothing more than a sperm and an egg (in case you didn't know that - ha ha). Amazing. Life has never seemed more precious or fragile than it does for me right now. Abortion has never seemed more tragic. Child abuse has never seemed more inhumane. And love never more powerful.

And . . . just in case anyone was wondering, we failed on our boy name for the second time and are ready to release it for public knowledge - maybe someone needs a boy name:

Caedmon Adam Metz . . . wasn't meant to be :-) But, check out the story of Caedmon - awesome.

Reflections on Peter Rollins Lecture & Newt Gingrich's Book

2009-02-02T14:23:00.002-05:00

Peter Rollins

I found out a few weeks ago that Peter Rollins was going to be in Columbus yesterday, so I worked things out to be able and go listen to him. He offered a three hour lecture. The whole experience was a little surreal as I joined a crowd of 80 in a dimly lit old theater listen to a post-modern Christian philosopher from Ireland with beer on-tap. I haven't had a lot of exposure to Rollins, but my interest was piqued by some video clips I ran across online a few weeks back. Trained as a philosopher, Rollins has brought to light one area I feel especially inadequate in study. A few years ago I remember being challenged by John Caputo at a conference about the place of philosophy in our faith. To say that it was lacking in my training would be a huge understatement.

I'm not sure I could adequately reflect on Rollins' lectures here, but would strongly encourage anyone who gets the chance to hear him to do so. His group works on the fringes of Christianity and will stretch any Christian in our country with his thoughts. He suggests that his work (with the quasi-faith community called Ikon) has a prophetic voice on the fringes of orthodox Christianity. No doubt many would question his place within orthodoxy altogether, I do believe that he is providing necessary critique for the current state of the modern church. I am very excited to read his forthcoming The Orthodox Heretic (April) as it is a collection of parables created by Rollins to help communicate. Highly entertaining to listen to, Rollins is well schooled in parables from philosophy, rabbinic traditions, and other places - it will be well worth anyone's time to read from his forthcoming collection.

Essentially, Rollins argued in the first section of his lecture that the modern project of reason succeeded in objectifying God . . . the pinnacle coming with Nietzche's "killing of God." Nietzche, in fact, simply proceeded through the modern project. Rollins made use of a helpful image of God always pushing back at theology resisting the temptation to be objectified. I loved his image of God being so close, and so transcendent that we can't figure him out (as opposed to so far away we can see him, what, I'm sure many of his opponents argue). There's more to be said here, but I'm still processing.

Rediscovering God in America

Secondly I wanted to spend a few minutes dissecting a book given to me by one of our elders (thanks, Curt :-) ). The book, Rediscovering God in America, is a tour through the monuments and important structures in the United States which Newt Gingrich has compiled to "rediscover the historic source of American liberty and to rediscover the founding generation's understanding of what is required to sustain liberty in a free society." p. 131. I appreciate Curt giving me this book and offering it as a challenge to the pacifist perspective I argue.

I ackowledge that this book has forced me to reevaluate my considerations for the relationship between the Christian faith and participation in this nation. I believe that I often over-state the ills of our government in order to make the case that a Christian is not called to participate in government. The United States is a rather enigmatic case for Christians to consider when considering the government. I believe what Gingrich is trying to do is to combat the radical left that wants to rewrite history books taking "God out of the founding of our nation" - I would imagine he would say something like that.

Gingrich states that he does not intend for his book to be theological in nature, but for the theologian, everything is theological. To allow a book like to address state concerns or sociological concerns and NOT theology is to create and/or expand an incredibly harmful compartmentalization that deeply affects the American church. Gingrich's observations should be troubling for Christians on multiple accounts. First of all, the unspoken logic of the book is that because Scripture permeates the national landmarks we were indeed birthed as a religious (Christian) nation. It's amazing to me how many evangeicals rush to the frontlines of our nation's beginnings and uphold the founding fathers as born again Christians. It is well documented that many, if not most, of these forefathers were Deists at best.

With our Scriptures stamped all over the landmarks of this nation, I am disappointed more Christians are not disheartened by the early ways these forefathers did not act like Christians, devistating the Native peoples from their lands (in many ways, I believe the horrors inflicted on the Native Americans are every bit as horrendous as what Hitler did to the Jews - by the grace of God, the Jewish race survived the atrocities, but many Native civilizations were destroyed by this "Christian" nation - but becaue it is closer to home, it is not talked about). We are too quick to separate their behavior from their actions. We are too close to the situation. We want to have the Christian underpinnings of society, but to do so, we have some seedy baggage to deal with. Christ has called us to faithfulness to him, period. Not knowledge of Scriptures. Not claiming a land for him. Not policing the world in his name. We are called to love him and love others. By participating in the state, I am not sure we can do that. I see it in the people I care the most for. They cast a blind eye at blatantly un-Christian practices at the state level excusing it as if Jesus holds the state to a different standard.

This brings me to a second important point. I believe the most mis-guided aspect of our discussions about the state in America centers on the concept of freedom. It is vital that we ackowledge that the Bible is no guaranteer of freedom. The United States has propagandized the nation over recent decades, focusing especially on Christians, stamping our fight for freedom in all international conflict under the guise of godly oversight and protection. The Bible does not teach to fight for freedom. NOWHERE! If this offends you, stop reading right now and do a study. There is no guarantee of freedom. I know it's easy for me to say that. I wouldn't trade it for anything. But God has called me to faithfulness, obedience, and love, not the right of freedom. Slaves were told to obey their masters, not fight them or run away. This concept calls into question the very root of our nation - fighting (read killing) for our freedom. Is this what Jesus taught on the sermon on the mount? How dare we give a free pass to those in the military because they do so in combat? Jesus never makes that distinction, how can we? This places the onus on those who wish to argue for military participation, not me.

This is not an easy discussion to be had. I don't know if many are ready to fully open themselves up for the implications of what this means. I believe that Gingrich is narrow-mindly American in his book and potentially sows the seed for a future holy war. Perhaps he will follow it up with a second volume noting all the landmarks of Iran that are covered in verses from the Koran and how their nation is built around a good-peaceful religion gone bad and now must be destroyed. It becomes nothing more than a modern-day crusuade. The cycle of this thought continues. We must spend more money so our military is the biggest so that no one threatens us . . . haven't we misplaced our hope as soon as we do that? And so many of us do that without even thinking about it. My hope is in God. Period.

The idea of kingdom is political. It was the political jargon of the day. What purpose would Jesus have had in using that language unless he meant his kingdom to be an alternative politcal reality? We can praise the outcome of the wars of the state (freeing blacks, defeating Hitler, etc.) but Christians must always do so with a partly disappointed heart knowing that this is not the way of the kingdom. The means must be consistent with the end . . . the end cannot be used to justify whatever means possible. This is not an easy teaching to accept. But, something that Gingrich fails to ackowledge, is that every ruler, every war, is started and maintained by people who believe that God is on their side (is the swastika not a broken cross?) Just becuase we think God is on our side does not make us right . . . or good.

Strange Week

2009-01-30T18:18:00.003-05:00

This has been a strange week. We got a pretty good snowstorm Monday night into Tuesday. The 8 or 10 inches of snow wasn't that big of a deal, but the inch solid ice that covered everything was. Luckily we didn't get anything near what they did south of us, but it made for a strange week. The preschool was closed at the church every day but one (Monday), meaning our schedule was completely off. Me being a not real scheduled guy meant I struggled through the entire week. I think I had a bit of depression lingering in too (probably still do). That's a solid family trait so I'm sure it will come around from time to time. More than anything, I think it is an internal anxiety knowing how much our lives are about to change. Within the month now, we'll have the baby. Been there, done it before . . . I think that brings more anxiety instead of putting it to bay. In any case, I haven't gotten nearly what I wanted to get done this week (or probably should have). One of the biggest challenges in ministry is being totally at it alone (know what I mean here, I know God is here, but . . . well, you should get it). It's one of the best parts of it - that side everyone envies, but seldom do those same people acknowledge the difficulty that lies there too. Seldom is there a "right" thing to do. There are several options - some good, others better, and a few wrong, but mostly, the onus is on me. That's burden to carry. Haven't carried it well this week.

Anyway, I noticed I have't posted this week and I am trying to be regular. I appreciate everyone's comments. I have had a couple positive interactions this week from folks that I have met here, furthering reassuring me that this blogging things isn't a total waste of time :-) Due to the weather, I was not able to watch the next installment of the Truth Project. Our church finished with the project Sunday, and I need to go back and watch one episode on the state, one on America, and the final one on community. I'll try to briefly (yeah right) comment about each of the three separately. It seems to have been good for many folks to see some critique of each of the vidoes (though I did miss a few).

I also finished the book Onward Christian Soldiers: Freeing the Gospel from Political Captivity by Charles Marsh. Wasn't my favorite book in the world, and I'm not sure I'd recommend it, but there were a few places where I thought it was great. He just skipped around and the logic of the book was a little tough for me to follow.

In this book Marsh offers a stinging criticism of evangelicals in this country and the way they have sold out the Gospel for political power. I don't have time to offer a review of the book, but I'll say that it was a solid work and offered critique consistent with other books I have reviewed (see Jesus for President, The Myth of A Christian Nation, Mere Discipleship, et at.) This book differed slightly in that he took on the evangelical priaise for George W. Bush a little more directly. For Marsh, Bush's election marked the pinnacle of evangelicalism's selling out for political gain. He offers direct criticism of Bush's claimed evangelical faith (it was a little uncomfortable to read him being critical of another's faith, but I think he proceeded cautiously, and offered rationale for doing so).

For me, the real profit of this work came in Marsh's second to last chapter on "Passing the International Test." I found it incredibly moving and convicting to see how incredibly America-centric evangelicals in this nation have become. His argument culminates with the inclusion of five pages worth of statements from faith communities around the world standing in opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Brazil, International Movement of Catholic Students, the church of England, Germany, the conference of European Churches, Ghana, the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria and all Africa . . . and on and on . . . groups, churches, brothers and sisters, who opposed the invasion. And yet, at the height of the invasion, the approval rating for going through with the invasion among evangelicals was an incredible 70 or 80 percent. How could they not consider these voices?

Whatever you think about the war, Marsh offers a challenge for you to see the actions of our nation (this war most specifically) through the eyes of the church of the world - something that I know is sorely missing in my church, in my personal faith, and every faith community I've ever been part of. I must realize that I have more in common with the persecuted believer in Djibouti, than I do with my neighbor who votes the way that I do and who likes the same sports teams. That is an important first step forward in our discussions of faith and politics.

The Truth Project Twice More

2009-01-22T17:22:00.002-05:00

We are nearing the end of our small group study of The Truth Project. Last night I watched the second to last installment about the "sphere of labor." I did not get to see the last video about "The American Experiment" but have a pretty good idea of where he was going with it - a place I will be spending a great deal of time arguing against in the coming weeks. Essentially believing that America is a great last hope for the Gospel and we need to continue to try and "save it for God" or bring it back to God or whatever. Anyone reading this who has been here before knows that I especially struggle with such a perspective. I just finished reading Gregory Boyd's book entitled The Myth of a Christian Nation. It is a great pastoral piece written to challenge and make people uncomfortable in dealing with their idolatry of nationalism. This problem is alive and well and way too often has gone unaddressed. I would like to say more about the book as I found it to be a poignant and sharp pastoral treatment of a topic that is all too often left in academia.

However, back to the truth project. I had many misgivings and much reserve in studying this material knowing that it was produced (or at least marketed) by Focus on the Family. I knew there would be some underlying agenda-driven points along the way. It met me squarely with this video on labor. Now, I do applaude the inclusion of this topic in the series. He is right that we too often do not speak of the place of labor in our theological framework. And for the first part of his video I felt he did a fair job of presenting a biblical perspective. Our role in work is rooted in God's working in the Genesis account. God worked. He created us to work. Work is not inherently evil. The Fall did affect work (he states that the text shows it affected the ground, not work itself, which may be a semantical variation, but I don't feel as though he gives enough credance here to the affect the Fall has had - he sure was adament that the Fall had affected our moral capacity in the rest of the series!)

When he moves away from Genesis, however, he begins some hermentuetical gymnastics to make his right wing political ideology fit the Bible. I found his use of the biblical text in this video to be incredibly selective and misleading and incredibly unfortunate. He loves the Old Testament where it talks about leaving behind the gleanings for the poor people to work - to ensure they WORK for their wages. The poor should not be given hand outs. OK, I'm with him there. Systematic rehabilitation is at the core of addressing the complex issues of poor - but little progress will be made by wood-working factories leaving the sawdust for poor people to collect and recycle (the "incredible" example he gives). But here, as throughout this series, he is showing an incredibly myopic and fundamentalist perspective of the text. The Bible says it, I believe it, let's move on. He came across to me as a very well-intentioned (I don't doubt his heart) white, middle class American who has taken little time to sit down accross the table from the impoverished families who are all out of "easy" answers. For Tackett, everything is flat. The poor need jobs; people with money need to make jobs so they will work. If only it was that simple!

This is, to me, one of the most frustrating aspects that frequently surfaces from evangelical Christianity - an utter disregard for the complex sociological and economic factors affecting the world. Please don't take this the wrong way, but there comes a point and time when we need to put our Bibles down and learn from economics, sociology (and all other disciplines) and struggle and wrestle with how this impacts our understanding of the sacred texts. It is like Tackett has been unaware through this entire series how he has been shaped by these disciplines and through his life experience, and instead stamps his perspective as the way.

Unfortunately, his way doesn't consider the fundamental economic program in the Old Testament. I have had disagreements with his teaching throughout the series, but felt as though it served as good discussion. Some of his statements and teachings in this series are downright misleading and un-biblical. I am flabergasted that he would spend 15 minutes of his hour long session on the gleanings passage and NEVER mention jubilee. Jesus reads from the text in Isaiah at the beginning of his ministry in Luke stating that he has come to fulfill this (in their hearing). Israel was intended to be built around the idea of redistrubtion of wealth - something he lists on the screen that the Bible teaches is a SIN! A sin! It is a biblical teaching! I'm not supporting socialism or anything like that . . . my point is that Tackett has allowed his culture to dictate his understanding of the text. The Bible does teach that this is a sin. It actually looks a lot like what the early church did. Jubilee forcefully redistributed the wealth every fifty years. I don't believe that this makes everything easy to understand . . . but if you are going to have a Bible study you CAN'T spend a fourth of your times talking about the gleanings (because that fits into your Republican/Protestant work ethic ideology) and not address the jubilee (because that fits more into a Democratic/liberal sharing of wealth that you don't agree with). Why else would he avoid this teaching? It is even more central to Old Testament theology? And of course he went to the Proverbs to uphold the value of work and all that. There is a lot to be wrestled with here, and he avoids the conflict altogether and instead presents our form of economy as though it is ordained in Scripture - it is not. It may be a better version than most or all other economies . . but it is not presented in the Bible (our economy is totally foreign to the biblical authors).

He makes the same mistake in the New Testament. He rushes to you don't work you don't eat and says . . . See, told you. But totally avoids Jesus' fundamental teachings from the Sermon on the Mount - if someone asks for your tunic, give him your cloak as well. Tackett would say give him a job. Hey that's great . . . but all I've got is a tunic and cloak. His poor use of the Bible in this episode shows that he is not a theologian working outside his field, mistraining those in the ways of his ideology.

He shows his card and the house of cards falls out from under him by a simple and seemingly harmless comment he makes off the cuff and on the side. To completely understand this you'll have to know the general outline that he uses for his teaching. There are great foundations built on the nature and character of God, anthropological insights, supporting pillars of philosophy and others and on top are these spheres: labor, sociology, and others. His premise is that these spheres are the created order set in place by God with a purpose. It is when these spheres overlap into another sphere that sin enters. It sounds great, but it's not biblical. The Bible nowhere lays out some created order that everything follows. This is where modernistic scientific models break down. Sure, there is some good in organizing things this way and it is a helpful way to talk about things that don't get addressed enough. However, you can't draw logical conclusions based on these faulty logic premises. That fails to see them for what they are. They are illustrates for the sake of discussion, not ontologically secure facts.

His comment is that the spheres of government (the state) and labor are different and that jobs can't come from the state. Wait . . . was that John McCain or Dell Tackett. The Bible doesn't say anything about that. He knows that, that's why he quickly moves on, but if you're paying attention, you can't let him get by with that comment. His whole system breaks down if you begin to use it in that way. My postmodern mind was fatigued by trying to follow his thoroughly modernistic approach and application to Scriptures. It furthers my suspicions that The Truth Project is a thoroughly modernistic agent dressed up with some bells and whitles (there was a really well done and cool video at the beginning of this session depicting God's creation), but riddled with the same issues that are being debunked by postmodernity.

In the end, Tackett offers too many answers, and not enough questions in an area that is very challenging and complex. I appreciate his willingness to address the topic, but wish that he would do so acknowledging his biasses.

Reflection from The Shack author, Wm. Paul Young

2009-01-16T16:26:00.002-05:00

Last night Mary Beth and I went to hear Paul Young, author of the book everyone has now heard about, The Shack. The church was charging $10 a person to hear him, which was kind of a bummer, but I have to tell you it was totally worth it. You never know what you are going to get when you go to hear an author speak. Most authors make their money by writing and are not dually blessed with the gift of speaking. Young, however, was quick to point out that he is not an author, but became one on accident. He was humorous and engaging throughout.

He took a few questions from the audience about the book (there were probably about 700 or 800 of us there) and then segued into some personal reflections from the book. If you have done research on him, then you probably know a lot of this, but it was all new to me. He had written the book for his children, not intending that anyone else would ever see it. He has six children (I think he said six), and The Shack was a gift to each of them, and some of their close friends, as the result of a long process of Young's travel back toward his shack. The symbolism of The Shack is especially poignant after hearing firsthand its background.

The entire discussion was worthwhile, but I'll try to offer a few random tidbits from the night that I found memorable. If you haven't read the book, I really would suggest it. Very enjoyable and thought provoking - and if you are a Christian, everyone's talking about it, so join the discussion!

The first question of the night was about the name of the Holy Spirit in the book. The origin came from a phone conversation Young had while working in his previous job with someone in India. He asked her for the different names they had for the wind in Hindi. Sarayu seemed perfect - that unexpected but refreshing wind that all of us love (think of a hot day when it is almost unbearable - and then the freshness of the breeze). I thought it was great!

Another asked whether he was concerned with the controversy the book had stirred. Nobly, he answered that rather than disappointed, he was excited by all the discussion the book had stirred. He did note that some of the criticism had gotten personal which he regretted, but the vast majority of it had been the work of God. He told specifically of a women who had emailed him and just railed the book as a "juvenile piece of trash." Young promptly responded by pasting several responses from others who had emailed him responding with thanksgiving for the life it had breathed into their spirituality. The woman responded by asking for his forgiveness.

William Young spoke humbly as a guy whose life's baggage was now out in the open for all to see. He acknowledged that he had created something that was now way bigger than he was, and his role was to sit back and watch God work, something He is clearly doing.

With all of that said, the true highlight of hearing Young speak was gaining valuable insight into where the concept of the shack came from. The book amounts to the closing chapter of the healing process he and his family went through. Young was the overlooked child of missionaries in New Guinea where he grew up in a terrible environment. His perspective was a reminder to me to never neglect your family "for the work of the Lord." Quite the contrary, Young's father treated him harshly and allowed him to be severely molested throughout his childhood by the tribal people. Young tells the story of burying this trauma deep below the surface of perfectionism he constantly kept up through his young life.

He eventually married and his whole life of deception and duality culminated with a three-month affair his wife uncovered, setting off 2 years of hell. His wife was committed to keeping the family together, and so committed to being together and spent the next two years beating Young up emotionally and spiritually. She told him she would never believe anything that came from his mouth again - and who could blame her. The process of counseling was intense and long - he spent 8 months in intensive counseling with a counselor Young believes saved his life. He tells the story of his counselor, whose family life Young knew nothing about because of counselor-patient protection, whose son was addicted to narcotics, accidentally killed his father. This crushed Young to the point he could not go to the funeral.

The two years sped through eleven long years of healing and dealing with the matters of the shack, and finally came around full circle when he received a letter speaking to an incredibly healing a woman had received after her son had inadvertently killed her father. Young knew immediately the similarities were too close for this to not be the same person. He emailed her back and asked for her phone number . . . what an incredibly story of grace! He went on to talk of how his marriage was better than ever (something he said at least 10 times at the close). That the woman with whom he had an affair with had a daughter who was now a close friend of their own daughter and regularly at their home. Again, an incredible story of grace.

It was enjoyable and uplifting to hear the incredible story that now is being told all over the world. Hopefully Christians can focus on that and not let our divisive and obnoxious tendencies prevail as they so often do.

I was drawn to my own shack even deeper through Young's personal testimony. I thanked God then and there I didn't have to endure the journey that he has, and I thanked God that he has delivered him from his. However, it still left me to confront what is in my own shack that so often I want to avoid and change the subject. I continue that journey and need prayers in doing so.

Reflections from The Blue Parakeet

2009-01-14T10:55:00.002-05:00

I have kicked off my New Year's reading with Scot McKnight's very interesting book on biblical interpretation: The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking how you read the Bible. The book is built around the metaphor of McKnight seeing a blue parakeet in their back yard at the bird feeder - an escapee pet blue parakeet. McKnight uses the concept of the parakeet to apply to teachings in the Bible that don't "fit."

He begins by asserting all of us are inconsistent in the way we read the Bible. I love the brass tacks approach he takes - direct, yet tactful and humorous. He uses several examples of the ways we are inconsistent with our applications - "We all pick and choose" how to apply the Bible, McKnight states. Whether it's the sabbath, tithing, foot washing, surrendering our possessions, or a host of other contentious issues (ie. abortion, war, homosexuality, etc.), we all pick and choose what we want the Bible to say. I didn't find this statement all that earth-shattering, but he dresses his argument in a palatable way that is difficult to argue.

He asserts our inconsistency, and then provides keys for moving forward in our interpretation of the Bible. Central to his proposal is that the Bible must be understood as fundamentally a story (narrative). Contrary to what many critics have accused, reading the Bible as story is actually more involved and complicated than other options. We have become lazy in our Bible reading. Think about how much more time consuming it is to consider the entire biblical story in framing a text as opposed to taking the text as a tidbit of teaching!

McKnight outlines the narratives in what he calls "wiki-stories" (Creating eikons, cracked eikons, covenant community, Christ (the perfect Eikon) redeems, consumation). He states: "The unity of the Bible is this story. It is this story that puts the Bible together. Our grand systems do not form the unity of the Bible; the story that God tells forms and frames that unity." p. 67. This unity and wiki-stories approach to Scripture is how I have learned to frame all of my teaching and preaching in recent years. It is, as McKnight states, much more complicated and involved, and takes deep committment to the stories.

Next, McKnight explores the relationship between the Christian and the Bible. He wants to clearly affirm that the Bible must not be equated to God. "God gave us this papered Bible to lead us to love his person. But the person and the paper are not the same." p. 87. The Bible is a means to an end . . . and too often we have made it the end. I think McKnight really helps to ground us and remind us what the chief end of the Bible's teaching is in the first place. "Our relationship to the GOd of the BIble is to listen to God so we can love him more deeply and love others more completely." (p. 96).

He brings this all to bear in our every day application of the Bible in the final section addressing interpretion entitled "Discernment." In this section he addresses the matter of consistency and knowing how to "apply" teaching and how to "disregard" teaching. He's not so interested in the specifics invovled at this point, but in the process we go through in determining this. I believe this is the most overlooked step in our churches today. We just right in to the "issues" (women's place, homosexuality, worship battles, ethical quandries, etc.) and we fail to realize that these issues are not the issue. The real issue is discernment. How do we do with the teachings that are there. McKnight goes on to address the matter of women in ministry and leadership for the last third of the book. I have seen some reviewers critical of the amount of time he spends on that issue, but I believe it provides a good case study and makes practical the matters he's laid out in the first sections of the book.

One of McKnight's main points throughout the book is that God has always communicated with people in their ways and in thier days. This requires great discernment and process in bridging the gap between their days and our days and their ways and our ways. I think the following statement is a good summary of what McKnight is working towards:

"What is good for Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Ezra, Jesus, Peter and Paul is also good for us. But, the precise expression of the gospel or the manner of living of Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Ezra, Jesus, Peter, and Paul may not b e our expression or our manner of lving. Living our the Bible means living out the Bible in our day in our way by discerning together God would have us live." p. 143.

For what it's worth, I think McKnight is right on in this book. He provides a way forward in a time when we are quickly nearing an impasse in our churches as our hermeneutics prove insufficient for today's cultural challenges and vicissitudes (I like to throw that word in there whenever I can - thanks to Mr. Johnson my high school American history teacher). What he states about women in ministry I believe will be pivotal for churches to understand. It is something that many churches wish to ignore arguing - that's just the way that it is. However, we must begin asking what God is communicating to us today in our way.

McKnight's thesis in this book reminds me of a more evangelical clothed approach that Luke Timothy Johnson sets forth in Scripture and Discernment (I don't think McKnight ever references the work), and Johnson uses as his case study the more difficult issue, for many Christians, of homosexuality. Discernment is not easy and diversity is difficult, however, I hope that Christians will only become more willing to listen to one another and understand one another instead of demonizing and hating one another. The Emergent Village has gone a long way in increasing everyone's presence at the theological table. As the table becomes larger, those sitting there now will be faced with difficult choices and interesting discussions will abound. I believe we are on the cusp of a revival . . . but it will be a revival that looks much differently than previous ones.

I will be beginning a series of posts next week that will be especially challenging for most to grasp. I am preparing a paper for a conference this summer, and in preparation for it, I will be reading several books on the matters of nationalism and the intersection of faith and politics. If you have read much here, you probably have sensed that I have a strong pacifist leaning towards political invovlement coming partly from my tradition (David Lipscomb, Lee Camp) and also some of the ideology I have been exposed to in recent years (Stanley Hauerwas, J.H. Yoder, et al.) This will be a particularly difficult discussion for many to participate in, and even for some to stomach the reading. I won't focus on this topic exclusively, but that will be a major focus of mine through the next several months. [As a side note, I missed the recent video from the Truth Project entitled "The American Project" and from all that I have heard about it, strikes fundamentally against what I will be affirming in my upcoming project. I find it extremely unfortunate that so many Christians have so easily bowed to the idol of nationalism.] I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt, that you will hear me out, and that you will allow the discernment process to take place, because much of what I will set forth will probably be new to many of your thinking. I hope you find it beneficial and will be prompted to pariticipation. I'll work on not being so verbose in these things . . . I just type . . . type . . . type my little heart out. That's enough. God bless you.

Ringing in the New Year

2009-01-05T11:33:00.003-05:00

Now that the holidays are finally over, I have found a few minutes to update the old blog. Actually, I'm avoiding the long list of things I need to get after today in the office, but wanted to get things updated on here. I've had several thoughts of what to post here in the new year, but I figured I'll just offer a few random thoughts. The holiday foray lasts a little longer for the Metzes as we have managed to cram as many significant events in a short amount of time as possible: December 18 we celebrated our 9 year anniversary (even writing it now, doesn't seem possible), December 25 - duh, then the New Year (a.k.a. stay in pjs and watch football all day), and, just to get one more week's worth of planning and festivities in - Clark's birthday is Jan. 7 - Wednesday! So . . . next week EVERYTHING will finally be back to normal. Clark's going to be 4 - amazing.

I thought I might look back at last year and process some of the excitement that was 20o8. Major events seemed to occur on just about all counts:

In the family: there's no doubt our biggest event was finding out we'll be having our third little runt running around (due in about 7 weeks now). Mary Beth and I both felt as though one more baby would complete our family and God has once again been good to us with fertility and, so far, another relatively smooth pregnancy (easy for me to say!) Clementine had a run-in with a pretty nasty infection around her birthday last year that gave us a bit of a run - really our most serious health "crisis" to date - we ended up in urgent care. Other highlights were our trip to Cleveland for our fourth Opening Day event - probably our smoothest to date. Later, in May, we took Clark on the biggest surprise of his life when we watched the Indians get mauled by the Rangers, stayed the night in Cleveland, and then went to Day out with Thomas. (Thomas the Tank Engine rules at our house). I took Clark to his first "official" Ohio State football game (he went to two games when he was just a baby) at the Youngstown St. blowout - the big news of that game was Beanie Wells' injury.

On vacation: We had two great vacations last year. About a year ago we were anticipating our cheap flight down to Miami, FL - thanks to the now bankrupt Skybus airways. We sure are glad we got it when we did. We had a great week spent with our friends in Miami, at the beach, in the everglades, and then capped it off with three great days in Key West. It was a fantastic trip we'll always remember. Mary Beth and I took an early 10 year anniversary trip (a year early, but we're anticipating having trouble finding babysitters for 3 kids this year for our actual 10 years) in Maine. We stayed at a quiet bed and breakfast near Acadia National Park across the harbor from Bar Harbor. We had an amazing trip looking at some of the most incredible scenery I've ever seen. We even made an unexpected, but fortunate, trip to New Brunswick on Campbello Island - a really neat place I would highly recommend to anyone. It was a great week to get away with my wife.

On the job: We had a rather tumultuous year on the job - positive and negative tumults. The year started off with some major challenges as we had to fire my co-minister. He had just started working with us less than a year previous and the situation was never positive. He had misrepresented himself and reaped what he had sown. It was a learning experience for our congregation, our eldership, and, most especially for me. I admired our elders leading us through an especially difficult time and believe that we will be better for having lived through it in the end. However, enduring the process has no doubt tested the patience and faith of our members. Once some time had passed, and after extensive talks with our elders, my role changed a bit in October and we have brought on one of our members in part-time capacity to work alongside me. My title is now Family Life Minister, and while I maintain my focus on teenagers, I also now have an expanded role working alongside my co-minister planning our Sunday events, establishing a leadership framework, and doing whatever else comes along. The situation is a bit of a stretch for some, and I am doing my best to learn as we go each day.

A more exciting reality for our professional lives has been Mary Beth's venture as director of the new Alum Creek Preschool. Her hard year's work has paid off, and the preschool opened in September. It is a part-time program with three teachers and enrollment now around 30 children. The school meets on Mondays - Thursdays from 9:00 - 12:00. It has made our roll at the church even more complex as we now serve as preschool director, preschool parents (Clark is in the 3 year old class), preschool-church liason, and countless other roles.

On a personal level: I hope that 2008 was a year that I have become a better dad, husband, and friend. Those are truly immeasureable roles, and undoubtedly I have grown in areas - and shrank in others! The role as dad becomes increasingly more complicated by the day. Having a third child to be responsible for this year scares me even more! Finding time to be a husband through all of this is even more of a challenge. Through the year, my relationship with Mary Beth is more challenged than anything. We have to work so hard to see each other, and talk, and maintain and actual relationship - being married to the best woman in the world helps me out there alot!

I set personal goals to read more books and I have found time to do that (not having a newborn helped there alot! - we'll see that lag again this year). I also hoped to blog more regularly and I have found 2008 to be better served there as well. I have in the back of my mind plans to work towards my D. Min. degree, but time and finances continue to be an issue. I continue to be interested in Fuller Seminary, but have accepted that to be a far-reaching plan.

I have also continued to work towards becoming a better minister, professionally. Having our children with us, and with the preschool opening, I have Clementine by myself in the mornings, has tested my efforts of time management and organization. I press on and hope to improve in those areas this year. THere is a great need for improvement there. I have maintained relationships with only friend I've met through benevolence at the church this year - he was the first to call me on Christmas morning - and I'd really like to see that area of my life improve as well. I joined the Family Promise board in Delaware looking to open homeless beds in Delaware County - which will be a tenable effort.

The political scene of 2008 has gone a great dinstance in solifiying my pacifist positions. I got a bit sucked into the political season and it led to a time of reconsidering. One of my elders offered me a book that has challenged some of those presuppositions and has helped me think through some of the more challenging aspects of my opinions (thanks, Curt), and it has helped confirm to me much of that perspective. Academically, I feel as though I have grown in that area as much as any. Shane Claiborne & Chris Haw's book Jesus for President helped lead me in that area a great deal. I was most challenged in 2008 by my reading of Miroslav Volf's The End of Memory and have found a new theological mentor. I began Exclusion and Embrace, but will have to eat some more Wheaties and try again this year to really delve into it. The End of Memory really challenged the intersection of practice and theory in dealing with enemies for me. It was just great!

Spiritually, 2008 was a very challenging year. While I found renewed vigor in my academic pursuits, prayerfully and biblically, I continue to wrestle to find peace and quiet and solitude. I feel as though I have had four challenging years re-inventing this all-encompassing area of my life since Clark was born. I do not believe that spirituality is a part of life, but the whole of it, however, part of that spiritual life is maintaining the spiritual disciplines in rooting my faith - and that, frankly, continues to be a struggle. Prayer, especially, is a constant challenge. I continue to recover from the truncated prayer-life I was taught growing up, and the total absence of a family prayer life. Without that example and experience to pull from - leading my own family in that is especially a challenge. Following a friends suggestion, we have recently begun reciting both the Shema and the Lord's Prayer with our children before bed each night. That renewed emphasis has been a breath of fresh air that I hope will spill into my own spiritual fervor. My passion and desire for Scripture is higher than it's been in awhile. I hope in 2009 to find more time to sit and meditate as the Psalmist of the 119 Psalm does. I continue to look for his incredible desire for the Word in my own life. I prayerfully and humbly move on knowing the incredible need for growth in this area.

Well . . . if you've hung on this long reading this post, you've probably seen more about me than you've ever wanted to. A few words on the blog. I again hope to give the Supermetz blog added attention and time as the year procedes. I foresee a major facelift as I glance through some of the new tools available. It has been a neat tool to meet some new people - a few of you I've know for a long time and I appreciate you stopping by regularly to check out the thoughts here. Those of you who are new, I also appreciate whatever common cord I've seem to struck with you. I have added the feature in recent months to better track who visits here and how often they stop by and how they got here, and all that (the series of the Truth Project has added some additional traffic to be sure - I will probably be seeing the final three videos beginning next week, so I'll try to post on those).
I'd also like to see the blog become more dialogue-driven, but I understand the extra time that takes for everyone, so we'll just see what happens. I remain committed to commenting here regularly, as it proves to be theratpeutic for me . . . this post has especially prepared me for the New Year of excitement that awaits. Godspeed to everyone, and may this year be a year of blessings to all!

Going Amish?

2008-12-18T17:08:00.001-05:00

Here's a cool story from NPR about how the Amish bank . . .sounds kind of . . . Christian!

Peter Rollins

2008-12-18T11:32:00.003-05:00

My faith has been formed within a tradition of churches known as the Churches of Christ - not to be confused with the United Churches of Christ or the Christian Churches of Christ. No, we are a pretty unique group. We are definitely "conservative" but not evangelical (though we look more and more like we are). We, like the Anabaptists before us are a dissenting movement, so we have a penchant for the cynical and a strong "what-we're-not" theology. We were birthed through Presbyterian dissenters a few hundred years ago. We are thoroughly autonomous, but even in lacking any central governing or organizing structure, we are amazingly homogeneous (don't read that as a good quality - it is perhaps our greatest asset, and, at the same time, our most understood trait from within).

We are led by local elders and our ministers have a less significant role in the affairs of the church than in most denominations. Doctrinally, our members can be find all across the board - this is a good thing, and is making living peacefully together more and more difficult.

This clip from Rollins is great and highlights the challenges that are before our group - as well as others. Churches of Christ went astray several decades insisting on doctrinal consistency, and, as Rollins illustrates, that world is a facade. What a challenge!

Doctrinally

Good Stuff from Rob Bell

2008-12-09T13:25:00.002-05:00

I just finished Rob Bell's newest book Jesus Wants to Save Christians: A Manifesto for the Church in Exile. It was especially interesting to read it just after finishing Jesus for President, because so much of it correlates what Shane Claiborne says. Rob Bell, however, brings a softer and milder tone to the same radical concepts brought out in Jesus for President.

Much like Claiborne, authors Rob Bell and Don Golden retell the story of the exodus and offer that redemptive event as the paradigm for salvation and the foundation of the church. Bell has a knack for language and I connect well with some of his rhetorical devices. In general, however, I didn't find anything especially new or contributing to the areas he addresses. However, due to his creative use of language, it's always a profitable read to journey alongside him through the Old Testament, setting the framework for the redemptive work of Christ.

The authors use the four-fold outline of Egypt, Sinai, Babylon, and Jerusalem to frame the redemptive walk through Scriptures in a way that I found to be especially helpful. While, the overall scope of the book wasn't especially groundbreaking or new, there were a few places where I found myself exceptionally convicted by his words. I would definitely recommend Bell's book for the skeptic of the resurrgent anti-empire theology that has emerged in the post-9/11 days, as he has a way of conversing about these matters is a less confrontational and aggressive tone. As one example, I found it helpful to be reminded that the United States does much good all over the world and that should be celebrated and God should be thanked for that. However, Bell goes on to write, America is still an empire, and the entire Bible is written from the perspective of a people who are under the oppression of the empire. So . . . for us to quickly jump into Scripture, we ought to be careful where we see ourselves.

I thought I would include the passage below (forgive the length), but I found of the entire book, this selection below stands out as challenging to me personally and my ministry setting. I believe this strikes at the heart of the challenge before many of us in the suburban context. This section (for me) was worth the price of the book, and reflects an issue that I will be working and studying in the coming months in connection for a paper I've proposed for next year's Christian Scholar's Conference in regards to youth, empire, and pacifism. This speaks volumes (as well as some others below): Read herein the challenge before all youth pastors:

"And the students in this church, these are good kids. They are from families who just want to see their kids become good Christians. Imagine just how much is available to them. They hgave more at their finger-tips than any generation in the history of the world - more information, more entertainment, more ideas, more ways to kill time, more options.

Many of them own more than one pair of shoes.

There are even some among them who have eaten at least one meal every day of their lives.

So we are talking about a miniscule minority of kids in the world.

At the exit off the highway near their church their is a Best Buy and a Chili's and a Circuit City and a McDonald's and a Wal-Mart and a Bed, Bath and Beyond, much like the other towns in thier state and in their country. The music they listen to is distributed by one of five major corporations, which also own the movie studios that create the movies they watch, which are also connected to the corporations that create the food they eat and the commercials they watch, which also have signifricant ties to the clothes they wear and the cell phones they own, and the ring tone on their cell phones, the one by the artist who is signed to the record lable that is owned by teh same company that owns the cell phone company and the advertising agency that announced the artist's new album, which is owned by the same company that owns the beverage compalny in whose advertisement the artist appeared, drinking the particular beverage, singing the song that is now a ringtone on the students' phones that they purchased at the mall across the street from the Olive Garden next door to the Home Depot on the other side of the Starbucks.

And so each week they gather to hear a talk from the pastor.

Their pastor tells them about the Jesus revolution.

About Jesus resisting the system.

About the blood of the cross.

About many of the first Christians getting arrested.

About Jesus having dinner with prostitutes and tax collectors.

About people sharing their possessions.

About Jesus telling a man to sell everything.

About the uniqueness of their story in the larger story of redemption.

How do children of the empire understand the Savior who was killed by an empire? How does a twelve-year-old who has never had hunger pangs that lasted more than an hour understand a story about a twelve-year-old providing fish and bread for thousands of chronically hungry people? How do kids who are surrounded by more abundance than in any other generation in the history of humanity take seriously a Messiah who said, 'I have been anointed to preach good news to the poor?'

How do they fathom that half of the world is too poor to feed its kids when their church just spent two years raising money to buy an addition for their building? They gather, they sing, they hear a talk from the pastor, and then they go back in the car with their parent and they go home; the garage door opens, the car goes in, and the garage door goes down.

This is the revolution?

This is what Jesus had in mind?

And so the youth pastor turns to you and says again, 'I just can't get my students to engage with Jesus. Do you have any suggestions?

What do say?

How do you respond?

Your only hope, of course, would be to remind him or her that there is blood on the doorposts of the universe!" (p. 136 - 138)

This is unbelievable!

2008-12-08T11:06:00.003-05:00

This, truly, is a different way of being the church. It sure throws some skepticism on our "safe" suburban way of doing church.

If you aren't familiar with the ministry of the xxxchurch.com, check it out. They are really an impressive group of followers.

The Truth Project and History

2008-12-04T13:10:00.004-05:00

In our latest installment of The Truth Project, Dr. Del Tackett tackles the topic of history. After viewing the video, I have to admit that it wasn't what I thought it was going to be (a thought shared by one of the others in the group I watched it with). He said, afterwards, "I thought there would be . . . I don't know . . . more history." The topic title is a little misleading.

Tackett camps out on the frequent Old Testament admonishment to "Remember," looking at numerous passages where Israel was told to "Remember" different events of its life (Sinai, crossing the Red Sea, the Passover, etc.) Beginning here, Tackett states the imperative that we remember history correctly. He spends a good deal of time blasting revisionist history, offering passing insight into his conservative political position as he mentions secular liberals seeking to remember American history differently than the way it was written (basically taking God out of it).

I really like the premise of the topic. "Remember" is such a critical aspect of God's desire for his people. I was astonished that in the entire topic, he didn't mention the Eucharist once to my knowledge. What more key thelogical concept can there be t0 remembering than the communion celebration - "In remembrance of me." This shocking oversight is troubling.

However, the bigger difficulty I had with the history session was its thoroughly modern intepretation of history. He spends a few minutes debunking post-modernism and its lack of a meta-narrative. There's no doubt that the lack of meta-narrative in the postmodern world is cause for concern. However, I strongly disagree with Tackett's solution, which is to hold on to a modern worldview . . . which I think pretty quickly unravels when considering this topic.

Postmodernism, we are told in the video, jettisons the larger meta-narrative in obsession for the smaller individual narrative of the individual. Instead of realizing the great opportunity this offers, Tackett and those contributing to the discussion, bemoan the situation. However, he offers no answer to the problems postmodernism has challeged. Instead, he utterly ignores them as though they don't exist.

I find it truly ironic that he accuses the "world" of myopia when that is exactly the problem I see inherent in his belief system in regards to history. He has a great moving moment in light of a painting of the Pilgrims and talks of the great sacrifices they made to follow what they thought of as God's will - coming to America, expanding the kingdom he even says. What a great people they were, following God's will even to the point of death from the elements. It's interesting that he determines that this is the meta-narrative, the guiding story and following of God's people that will lead no doubt to where he's headed with the session entitled the "Great American Experiment" looming. It was God's will that this nation was founded. Upon the great principles of God. Perhaps that discussion can be had in political circles - but NOT theological ones. I believe that the founding fathers of our nation are irrelevant to the proposition of the church and her relationship to the culture within which she lives. America has baptized the church instead of vice versa. We have become so incredibly self-centered in our discussions of theology and politics. We must repent and overcome this. This point is made incredibly well by Rob Bell in his latest book Jesus Wants to Save Christians (I plan to review that book when I finish it up.) Theologically, we have to deal with the narrative of all people.

What Tackett fails to acknowledge is that the Pilgrims landing on this shore began the process for a much more heinous narrative to unfold as one of the most persecuted and oppressed people in the history of the world who would be massacred. This, too, must fit into our metanarrative. It does not, I contend, fit into the picture that Tackett is painting of history. Instead, it is his perspective that is, indeed, myopic. He sees only the history of his own people, failing to incorporate the story of others . . . which is the great gift of postmodernity. It forces us to consider the story of others. We very well may claim to have a meta-narrative that others can fit . . . but, more likely than not, it will have to be altered in consideration of the others.

The world of postmodernism is not a clean and cut world and it makes those schooled in modernity, like Tackett, very afraid and worried, and, unfortunately, defensive.

And . . . a last just unbelieveable word. Tackett actually tells the audience that the only date he makes his seminary students learn is 1859 - the year that Darwin published The Origin of Species. Wow . . . and he's accusing others of myopia?

Truth Project: Reflections from Treatment of Science

2008-11-25T13:26:00.004-05:00

I've had a bit of hiatus from the blog, and that was partly intentional as I want to continue my discussion of Focus on the Family's Truth Project, our church has been watching and discussing together. I missed a week's post because the section on science wound up being done in two parts, and subsequently took two weeks to get done. So . . . I watched the second installment of science last Wednesday and finally had a minute to post a few thoughts on it here (you can find the methodology behind the lessons here).

The professor of the class has been erecting pillars upon the foundation of his opening three lessons (who is God, who is man, what is truth). The first pillar was philosophy and now we come to science (to be followed by history and then ethics).

I found his two parts on science very interesting . . . and peculiar. Boiling it down, Tackett goes through a dressed up cosmological argument for the existence of God. I find it interesting that he offers this "world view" as though it is new (I mean he points to Scripture, of course, but never ackowledges the long history of the cosmological argument, although he does really like Paley's watchmaker argument). It's nothing more than a fancy cosmological argument with cool graphics. This argument has long been a key argument for the existence of God for Christians.

Tackett attempts to throw new fodder in the argument by utilizing skeptics of evolutionary theory from the scientific community (who are not necessarily Christians). In general, I thought the series on science was pretty good - he begins by reading, "The heavens declare the glory of God . . ." from the Psalter, and looks at the many incredible mechanisms that make up life.

The unfortunate aspect of the sessions are his insistently argumentative and combative tone when it comes to those to whom he disagrees - and in science he finds his enemy in Darwin. On several occassions, as he has throughout this series, he mocks and laughs at those who do not believe. If he had left the tone worshipful and awe-inspiring of the created order God has made . . . I would have nothing negative to say in regards to these two weeks. However, Tackett cannot leave it at that. He must deal with the "perniscious liars" who "manipulate truth" and are basically out to get us. I, again, cannot follow the rationale that gets him there.

For Tackett, it's basically a black and white issue. God created everything (nearly, if not completey) literally as it is portrayed in the Bible. Anyone who sheds doubt on this fact is a pernicious liar and the Evil One has overtaken them. When you get through the two-week lesson you are led to believe that anyone who believes is evolution is completely ignorant and totally misled by the lies of the world. He, once again, builds up a strawman and blows him down. I know it is impossible for him to treat everything in the area of science (it is telling that he limits himself to the Darwin discussion . . . we all know what is coming as we venture nearer the topics of the state and the American experiment - he's already tipping his hand), but I feel as though he does a great disservice by avoiding the more difficult matters.

Instead of picking up on the positives one can see in the world, the searching that continues to go on in science (this was no doubt put together before Ben Stein's movie, Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed), and there are great steps being taken by the science community as they continue to see the incredible world. Tackett does allow for micro-evolution, however he never mentions it in the actual presentation of the two sessions, but only in the post-script seen in the second session. No doubt he's afraid to open that can, and instead prefers to simply push it aside.

With Tacket, I see the long-held antagonism between the church and science. He is quick to mention how science was birthed from the church, but conveniently ignores the incredible persecution brought on by the church once science showed the church's error. Are we beyond that? Could that not still happen today? Charles Darwin has left an indellible mark in science that led a 19th century scientific revolution of near Capernican caliber, surely incorrect on many accounts (how much of Galileo's original findings were later shown to be inaccurate), but tipped a very important domino . . . and they continue to fall to this day.

While I found this session to be closer to where it needs to be, I still left disappointed with the avoidance of the the difficulties in faith and science. Too often the church portrays a message that says, "Yep, we have it all figured out, if you would just get your head out of the sand, you'd see it too." This is exactly what Tackett says. Only the sand is the perniscious lies sold to them by Satan. Why not be up front with people ackowledging the ambiguity of the creation story? Is he not familiar with the ancient near eastern parallels with that story, or does he wish to avoid their sure controversial implications? What about the neaderthals that keep popping up? That seems to fit with Darwin better than Moses. These are the things that we are all exposed to regularly through media, and yet he wants us just to ignore it all because it is all misleading and slanted and lying.

Surely there is a middle road here: to acknowledge the incredible wonder that is seen in creation. One of Tackett's favorite passages in this series is in Romans 1 where Paul talks of how God has clearly revealed himself in his Creation. Tackett takes that to mean that if you can't see it you are an idiot (though he never comes right out and says it). I think he can season that with salt better and ackowledge that we are all seeking for meaning and fulfillment and just maybe we'll see it in creation first, and have to back into a faith in God . . . and that's ok.

Truth Project Reflections

2008-11-10T11:15:00.002-05:00

I have seen a few more installments of the Truth Project without comment, choosing instead some political reflections. Tonight, I should finish reading Shane Claiborne's and Chris Haw's very impressive Jesus for President, so I'll rejoin that topic soon, but I did want to get back to a few thoughts on the Truth Project.

The last two installments of the Truth Project dealt with the two age-old questions of "Who is Man?" and "Who is God?" Interestingly, as least to me, he began with "Who is man?" before addressing "Who is God?" While not wanting to downplay the help these videos may be for many, I continue to be troubled by the underlying premise of much of the teaching. I've spoken previously about the underlying foundationalism from which the teacher comes. It continues to be a problem for me. For Del Tackett, the instructor, the world is laid out in black and white terms: good and evil. If something is not good, it is evil. This is why, in his "Who is God?" lesson, he states he began with man rather than God - man is evil and we have to understand that before looking at the nature of God.

I was more troubled with his teaching on man than his teaching on God stemming mostly from his Calvinist leanings which run counter to my tradition (suprisingly, and a little alarmingly, however, few of our members seem to notice any fundamental difference in perspective). I don't doubt that there is something to be learned in Calvinism, however, I cannot support the total depravity which was, in essence, the teaching in this video. Man, so stated the video, is inherently evil. This was the fundamental lesson of this session, and I cannot uphold such a view. I believe the Bible teaches that man is inherently good! Created in the image of God. Now, Tackett does acknowlege this in kind of a side comment at the end of the video as if to acknowledge the shortcoming of his own theology of anthropology.

What I found especially ironic about this session was the underlying premise was that man is inherently evil and therefore, nothing of the world is to be trusted. And yet, he paints himself into a corner at the end, because he accuses humanity of all the ills and leaves no hope - we messed up and we have to wait it out until Jesus comes back and fixes it all. What of the already of the kingdom!? He never addresses it. How then shall we live? (We'll get there, we'll get there, I'm sure he would say, but you cannot separate the praxis from theory, and here the theor is flawed).

He picks on Maslow and his teaching of the hierarchy of needs. Quoting miscellanious fragments from Maslow, Tackett once again sets up the strawman to show that Maslow is misled and all his teaching is hogwash. He doesn't come right out and say it, but he often jests and makes fun of the theory (really he only disagreed with Maslow's aim in the hierarchy of needs - that man's chief aim is self-actualization - something that he'll hang onto and through synedoche make represent all the teaching of world) but due to his extreme dualism, he throws the whole thing out and says - "What do you expect? He's of the world!" If only discernment was that easy! Instead, it seems to me that Paul would have an Athenian moment here. Your pyramid of hiearchy is good . . . though misguided. God is a God who has already actualized you. You are good by nature! Created in the image of God! To acknowlege total depravity, to me, allows evil to triumph good. No, there is nothing that can trump the good in us, that is what gives us hope now! Living out our faith right now, allowing the image that is within us to trump the cries and desire of the flesh - is that not the point of Romans 8!

The fact of the matter, there is much good (even biblical?) in Maslow's theory. Why must we throw all out, accusing all non-believers of having false motives because they are caught up in some scandal trying to work against us? While this series is dressed up with cool graphics and masquarades as intellectualism, it still remains highly critical and skeptical of all higher learning! After all, the "liberal" academy is after us! I believe that if we uphold the things presented in this video, we will essentially cut ourselves off from communication with higher learning. I'm especially curious to see the next two videos (both on science). At this point, I can't seem him being too enthusiastic about the direction of the sciences.

There is much more I could say on this video, I've said too much already, but I want to also comment on the next video on the nature of God. I found his approach to the question, "Who is God?" very disappointing if not just totally random. He asks the quetion and then never answers it. I mean, after all, how could you answer it? But, I would say he never even really addresses it. He has this long pastoral discourse on God being a jealous God which was sentimental and fine, but I found it random and wasn't sure how that fit into his main discussion of who is God. He never mentioned the communal aspect of the trinity as portrayed in Scripture. This is fundamental to the nature of God and as far as I'm concerned if you are only going to give one shot (one hour) at the nature of God and never address that aspect, I'm just puzzled. It continues a very worrisome theme that has been there throughout - a theology that is almost entirely individualistic.

His discussion of sin was largely individualistic (our choices). His discussion of God was entirely individualistic (our own personal relationship). The remaining "pillars" that he sets out to address in the end of this series (economy, work, politics) are going to be malnourished because of this complete ignoring of the communal aspect of the essense of God: in theological jargon, a "functional trinitarian theology." This is where theology has moved in recent years, and to ignore it comletely shows the reliance of antiquated, foundational modernistic philosophy underlying this entire video series.

With all that said, it's probably going to connect to the modern thinkers in churches (50 - plus), but really miss those of us under that age. It raises some big time questions about the direction churches that work from that philosophy are headed.

Political Wake

2008-11-05T17:05:00.003-05:00

I write this post as the 2008 political campaign has finally ended. At 29, this marks the third Presidential election of my voting career. Having taken part in these three elections (and most of the others in between), this election year was altogether different for me. In the weeks and months leading up to yesterday, I had countless conversations, emails, facebook exchanges, etc. with people who vehemently disagreed with my political ideology and an occassional sympathetic ear - but I find myself very alone in this arena. Perhaps, I'll look back one day and see that this was the political season that raped me of my youthful naivete in approaching politics. I, as a minister, I have found myself in a precarious position. Most of us know to leave politics out of the pulpit as it has no place there. I've never been tempted to dabble there - that area seems pretty black and white, but from there the water gets a little cloudy.

Most ministers I talk with leave politics at home. They don't put signs up in their yard or bumper stickers on their car (both, I strongly believe all people of faith should avoid - public endorsement like that seems like a bigger barrier to the kingdom than anything positive). They don't blog about it (unless they have some secret blog that no one from their church knows about - yeah, I don't think many folks from church come here, so I'm guilty). They limit their conversations with sympathetic church members they know to be "safe." I suppose there is some value there. It seeks to avoid polarization. I in no way wish to cast aside those good intentions. However, I can't help but seeing in that perspective a bit of superficiality and television evangelist. If someone asks me what I think, I believe I should tell them what I think instead of dancing around like some little girl holding in her pee. We, like the rest of the world, have strong convictions and beliefs. Talking about them with others helps temper our ideals as well as challenge them and grow them. I don't believe that we should go on the offensive, but I also believe that we should not run from them and play the politically safe game. Avoiding them altogether, as many do, seems too "safe." Perhaps, their naivete is long gone and they realize how hot the fire is we are playing with.

So . . . I chose to be a bit more vocal about things for the first time. Still no preaching or signs or bumper stickers, I'm not talking about that. But, I have posted publicly on facebook a couple of articles that lean to the left. (I'm sure there were a few folks who said, "I thought he was a minister!") I have made comments here and there on facebook (which are seen by 300 plus people I know at differing levels - most Christians, some not). It's been a great way to reconnect with some folks at a level beyond the, "How's the wife and kids" stuff. The result has been numerous conversations on ideology with people I know at varying levels and who are from an array of different socio-economic situations: doctors, lawyers, factory workers, professors, business folks, other ministers, that one strange guys that I don't know what he does, and that girl from high school who I think is stalking - just kidding, on both accounts). At first, I thought, great! We can talk through these things and hopefully help each other grow, etc. That's where that naivete was probably still alive and well. The discussions turned to tomes, and I came to realize that my minutes were turning to hours addressing this stuff. The tone of the discussions also changed. What I entered into, at first, with an open and honest heart, quickly became frustrated and more interested in changing the other person's opinion than any kind of growth or encouragement. I got really caught up in that again today, when I finally realized I needed to take a step back and think about things. The result is this, very long, post that is currently on my blog and posted as a note on facebook.

I am disappointed with the attitude of so many Christians I have seen living out their faith in this political season. I am disappointed, especially, in myself. I, like so many others, have lost my way this political season. I have become more interested in arguing my wacky concepts that nobody is pro-abortion, that capitalism isn't God's one and only design for the economy, that the zealous nationalist patriotism so many Christians hold to, looks similar to jihadism from outside our country, and on and on (these things I think are important and uphold a counter-culutral sense of politcs that the wounded Lamb embodied choosing the way of death instead of imperial power - that's the point of Revelation!) And I have failed to use this opportunity to hold unabashedly to my core tenet of faith: there is a Supreme Being who has created this world as it is, and who, through some incredible Providence that I cannot understand, will make all things good in the end. I have forgotten the great catechism that has guided so many believers in history: "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever." Not to win elections. Not to pursuade people of the "right" answers.

As we move forward into this new world, I believe that Obama's tenure will bring a new chapter to our nation in many ways. For me, the most important thing to be said as we move toward a new world will be learning to move beyond our prejudices. No matter your affiliation or feeling, you couldn't help but be moved by the scene in Chicago last night which inspired hope and opportunity for all African Americans in our country. Hopefully, all were able to set partisianship aside last night for a few hours and just enjoy what this means in the big picture of our nation - and of the world. John McCain's concession speech encouraged all to do so, and was a wonderful call for all to move forward. This is the most important political event of my 29 years.

The way forward means a call to a new conversation. I apologize to people who are not Christians who have watched over the past months and have seen no difference between people of faith and those without faith. I am sorry we have not shown the way forward in the midst of disagreement. We should have shown the way. Our sacred text reads that nothing is to divide those with a believing faith in Christ - but that has not been the case - or at least it has not been evident. We are divided . . . blue and red Christians.

You and I both must overcome the desire to be right, and instead let the desire to be good be our chief aim. Instead of locking heads about the semantics of abortion law, let's work together to help young people find more constructive things to do with their time than have irresponsible sex. Instead of fighting over how to best combat terrorism, let's make every effort as individuals, organizations, businesses, and even government to be people who love others. I am sorry to say that our faith does not fight force with force and may not always look "successful." Instead of bickering over money and taxes, let's share the incredible wealth our nation has been blessed with with those in our cities and living on the streets, with those around the world. I am sorry so many of my fellow Christians speak of what they want to do with "MY" money. All that I have is yours, and if you have a need that I can address, I will do all that I can to do so. Instead of arguing over health care, let's help take care of our neighbors and fellow citizens.

Most non-Christians would be surprised to know that this is exactly what the first church was like. There are four Gospels that tell us about the life of Christ, and then a Book called Acts which tells us what Jesus' followers did with his teachings. Early on we find thousands who were cut to the heart and didn't know what to do in light of thier faith. They came to believe that Jesus was God's Son, and became followers of him. The result was not toting Bibles around yelling at people, but instead living communally with each other. They shared all that they had. They cashed in their retirement accounts and took care of each other. They ate together every day. They created little communal societies of accountability. It wasn't easy - which is probably why they didn't last. But, there can be little doubt that if the church was doing that today, many of the arguments that created our political campaign this year would have never happened. Early on, it was difficult for leaders of the nations to do anything to the Christians - they were so peaceful and helped the nation so much. Compare that to today, and it is hardly recognizeable.

So . . . for all of those who are reading this who have had long dialogue with me, I am sorry that I have taken up so much of your precious time. Thank you for taking the time to read these words right now. Those of you who don't know me at all, or have lost touch, I hope this is a clear window into my heart and mind. For Christians reading this, I hope you will turn the news off tonight, stop reading political articles online, and spend time with your family. Pray with your wife and kids. Leave the comfort of your home, and find someone in need. Over and over again we are commissioned that way, but I run from those opportunities. Pray about your church. Pray that God will move in you. It is my suspicion that most of you are like me and have spent much more time reading through political rants than quality time with your Maker. I know it sounds trite, and it isn't like me to be trite, but I can't really remedy this issue any other way.

I come from a tradition that inadvertantly has used prayer more like a cop-out than the incredible world changing power that it is. I feel well-grounded and totally dependent on God in some areas of my faith, but prayer is not one of those areas. I think sometimes I read, blog, or do other things to avoid the face to face encounter with a God I so seldom talk with. I think, if you are like me, I need to stop typing and reading . . . and spend my time where I can actually do some good - relying on the one who will get me there. And, if he tells you how to fix some of these major problems, be sure to let the rest of us know!

Refreshing Perspective

2008-10-31T09:47:00.003-04:00

Everyone I know is sick of seeing the negativity in this year's Presidential election. I'm not sure we've seen anything like it. On my Facebook page, each time I log on I see all the articles and perspectives people on my friends list have posted. I have been distraught over the numerous articles filled win rancor and dissension from "Christians." Their arguments and their talking points are no different than their particular party's agenda. Hopefully, what I uphold here is not simply another talking post for liberal politics. If I follow closely with the typical liberal perspective, I am not where I want to be. I am sympathetic to much of the objectives of liberalism, however, see in them much short of kingdom perspective. I am in no way offended by conservativism. There is much there that is good. Why would half of our country espouse the two mindsets? There is good in each.

My strongest disappointment this year comes from (especially conservative, but not limited to) folks who have sold out to rhetoric of fear. My esteemed conservative friend who I discuss things with often (and who is no doubt reading this) falls solidly into that category. In arguing why he can't vote for Obama, it was exclusively a perspective of fear. As Christians why are we so afraid? We have a higher calling and a broader perspective. I found the following article in my inbox stating my perspective much better than I can. I hope, if you find yourself steaming at this post, you'll read the following link and see where I'm coming from.

http://www.sojo.net/blog/godspolitics/?p=3287

Divergent Emergent Perspectives

2008-10-28T13:01:00.003-04:00

I ran across this clip on Youtube today searching for emergent discussions. I found it interesting since both RC Sproul and Ravi Zaccarias are featured in the discussion - I never did figure out who the third guy was, but the link for the video on youtube references it as a Ligonier ministry - RC Sproul's creature. These two are prominently featured in the Truth Project, and their perspectives were unfamiliar to me before our time with the Truth Project. With our congregation in the midst of the discussion, I know find it important to better inform myself. Admittedly, most of the reading that I do is focused among emergent-type authors. Adding to the difficulty is the fact that I am part of churches of Christ who aren't really evangelicals (though some of us are looking more and more like them), but find ourselves, for the most part, of of these kinds of discussions.

So . . . a few thoughts on this video clip. The speakers unfairly use Brian McLaren as their dartboard picture. He's an easy target, no doubt, due to what is quickly becoming a prolific writing resume and his widespread appeal in the Emergent Church. However, he is better seen as the representative pastor of the emergent movement as opposed to the theologian and thinker. He is these things, but not nearly at the level of others. In large part, this area of theology is slowly gaining momentum in the academy. Better conversation points should be noted with N.T. Wright, Stanly Grenz, and John Franke, among others.

The end of the clip shows the climax over the issue of homosexuality and the "audacious" claims of McLaren. I don't want to post at length here, but the last thing I wanted to do was to share in the standing ovation of the crowd. The sharpness and condescending tone of their remarks were also unfortunate.

The relativist perspective they caricature is never seriously dealt with but cast aside in reference to extremist points. The one point they make that I feel needs further conversation among "evangelicals" is the accusation of the emergent movement as conservatives (theologically) finding of liberalism. There is some truth in this for much of what I read. I think the conversation at large is not confined to this, but it is a contributing factor. However, as a true postmodernist, I have to say that I don't find much help in those categories they loosely throw around. Anyway, for what it's worth, this video explores the reaction conservative evangelicals are having to postmoderns.

More Politics and The Truth Project

2008-10-22T09:57:00.002-04:00

I have a million things to do, but I want to put a quick blog post up in my hopes of being a little more consistent. Since we've returned from our vacation, I've been pulled a million different directions and I've been working at getting focused - all the while, still adjusting to our new schedule with Mary Beth and Clark at the preschool from 9:00 - 12:00. It's been a challenge.

I want to reference two different topics in this post.

First of all, more thoughts about politics. Recently I have spent some time watching some late night political talk shows. What a waste of time. Really! What a waste of time. Any Christian will have some explaining to do on judgment day as to why they wasted so much time in that arena. All the hosts are so extreme - regardless of the "slant." There are so many things out there that are more profitable. Some people reading this no doubt watch those shows and are offended that I would make such a swift/all encompassing statement - but seriously, what is the profit? You are more "up on the issues"? I've felt that shortcoming lately. It's easy to feel like you need to educate yourself to better debate the issues with friends and co-workers. The kingdom call us to a higher plane. If politically-obsessed Christians would spend more time creatively considering the crises of our world and the differences they could make in their own circles . . . I just have to think that is more profitable. Is there anything wrong with watching them? I'd say the answer is in that old adage: everything in moderation. If you want to watch a political show, fine. Pick one - just one, and do something more profitable with the rest of your time.

I plan to make a longer post in reference to Brian McLaren's latest book I'm nearly finished with - Everything Must Change. It's taken me awhile to get to it (I bought it last year at the zoe conference in Nashville - over a year ago). It's an interesting work and I'll post more later.

Two couples from our congregation spent a day in September attending a simulcast training presentation of Focus on the Family's The Truth Project. We began showing the series the week we were in Maine - three Sundays ago. It is a 50 minute video presentation, followed by a thirty minute small group experience. The two families that did the training were over-enthusiastic about it and brought that excitement to our church in hopes of bringing more depth to our membership.

Unfortunately, I head up our teens' small group on Sunday nights and that's really the only night that we can be together. I had some doubts about how much the teenagers would connect with it, and it's the only time we're together, so I was reluctant to separate the teens out. Anyway, the bottom line is I don't get to watch the videos with the rest of the church or participate in the small groups. There is a make up group during the week, and last night I attended that group watching the second video about worldview and philosophy.

I'll say up front that I expressed (quietly) some concern . . . no, not concern, doubt - about the underlying philosophy The Truth Project would be coming from - before seeing, but implying from what I know about Focus on the Family and the teasers that we watched. Our membership is excited about the series, and I in no way wanted to damper that, but instead wanted (and still want) people to consider the presentations critically. A note about Focus on the Family - I think they've done some good things and James Dobson began with a good direction, but has gone a direction that I am not comfortable at all and his political lobbying has outweighed the message he began with. Extremely disappointing. So, their affiliation with FOTF drew initial skepticism.

I searched for some information online about The Truth Project because I was unfamiliar with it, and couldn't find much. I did get a few hits praising it, but nothing real substantative, mostly passing references. I did find one substanitive blog in regards to it who shared concerns that I saw going in. If you are interested you can read his posts here. Maybe it was a bad idea to "jade" my own opinion before watching, but through some of his other posts I saw a similar theological outlook. So, if you see some repetition in my own thoughts below, I probably got them from him, and I think he was right on.

OK, so in reference to the second lesson:

It seems to me that the professor, Del Tackett, and the others involved in the series (R.C. Sproul, Os Guiness, Ravi Zaccarias, and others) are reacting to and struggling through a postmodern philosophical and theological shift that has already happened. This video highlights how unhelpful terms can be. "Postmodernism" according to Tackett is a false worldview that he groups next to "secular humanism," "Islam," among others. From my understandings, the philospohical foundations for this argument is not very accurate. Towards the end of the video the professor uses a chart which shows "Truth" on one side (what we're all after) and all the other "world views" on the other side throwing their lies at us, decieving us.

That is foundationalism. If we could just see those foundations, just weed out all the manipulations and half-truths and lies, we'd only be left with "truth." Tackett never addresses how we can do that when the only thing we have to work through are all those -isms and -ologies that shape our thinking.

He uses a box and some out-dated Sagan video series to illustrate the limits philosophy has put on its self. To see nothing outside the box leads only to despair and inner-conflict - Nietzche's nihilism (though for some reason, he never mentions Nietzhe). I don't like his box analogy. It's much too simple and cuts a critical step out. I told our small group I think I'd compare it more to a Rubik's cube. Sure, there's something outside the box (something that every poll shows 95% of people believe, I'm not sure why he spent so much time rehashing a dressed up ontological apologetic) but while we are inside the box are we free to understand that something on our own? I know it freaks out those absolutists, but relativity is inevitable. The great thing about Truth is not that once we have it figured out we are transformed (which is what I hear Tackett saying), but it is in our search for it and our conversations with other in regards to it, we are transformed. Realizing just how little of it we really know.

This is an area of theology I am extremely interested in, but unfortunatley, have difficulty communicating. This makes my interaction through this video series a challenge. I think I will be going back through Grenz and Franke's book Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context. This was my first exposure to the topic and highlights the divide alive and well in "evangelical theology." Tackett is more espoused to the D.A. Carson's and Millard Erickson's (this divide can be easily seen in Erickson's response to Grenz's book Renewing the Center which he aptly titled in opposition: Reclaiming the Center.

In other words, the disagreement and problems that I see coming in this video series are not something I just made up. It is reflective of a broader issue of doing theology in a postmodern context in a post-rationalism, post-absolute world - the world of fragmentation as Grenz and Franke refer to it. I'll end with a quote from Grenz and Franke highlighting the trouble with Hackett's criticism of postmodernity:

"Clearly postmodernism cannot be dismissed as nothing more than a deconstrutive agenda that stands in stark opposition to Christian faith and thought. On the contrary, there is much evidence that suggests that the postmodern context has actually been responsible for the renewal of theology as an intellectual discipline after a period of stagnation under the weight of mdernists demands concerning the acquisition of knowledge. Freed from teh constraints of modernity, postmodern concerns have spawned numerous new theological programs." (p. 22)

If you have seen The Truth Project, I would love to dialogue further about it. I am excited to be having this dialogue in our church and appreciate these two couples wanting to be challenged and wanting to challenge our folks. I hope we are all up to that challenge.

Back from Maine and Caught up . . . Almost

2008-10-17T16:02:00.002-04:00

Whew . . . what a couple of weeks. I've been able to sit back and really appreciate our blessings over the course of the past two weeks. In a matter of two weeks I've been able to spend some good quality time with my wife. I suppose it is the last hoorah before Astird (after last night's episode of The Office, our unborn child will be known until Astird until further notice - if you missed it, watch it on line!). We spent a week in Maine. We flew to Portland, spent a day there, and then drove up the coast through L.L. Bean land in Freeport, ME, and enjoyed the rest of our trip at the Oceanside Meadow Inn bed and breakfast on the ocean in Prospect Harbor, across the harbor from Acadia National Park. It was one of the most incredible places I've ever been. I'd tell you all about it, but I'll let the pictures do the talking. They are on another computer - I'm hoping to upload them to my new flickr account soon. We also took a really neat side trip we weren't planning on taking further up the coast and, actually entering New Brunswick, Canada, visited Campobello Island - follow the link to learn about it - it was really neat.

Monday night we went to the Monday Night Football game in Cleveland where the Browns took on the Giants in a beat down that lit that city up unlike I have ever seen. We hung out and tailgated a few hours before kick off with some friends. It was incredible. Got to my parents house at 4:00 am - that was kind of rough - but well worth it.

Tonight ends our little two-week escape from reality as we will be attending our first musical of the season (we have season tickets again this year) Frost/Nixon. Neither of us know much about it, so it will be interesting. Our social calendar has never been this full, but it has been nice to enjoy that time. We'll come crashing down to reality tomorrow. My last j.v. football game is tomorrow and I'll be done for the season. I am taking the advancement test on Nov. 1 to become a class 1 official to be able to do varsity contests next year. That'll be fun - if I pass.

I have a few things that have been rumbling in my mind to post here. One involves a book that everyone has been talking about. Another is a reflection on my current political status. And just some other ramblings. Since I've already posted at length here today, I'll think I'll just comment a bit about the book and get political next week - I'm sure you're disappointed!

Everywhere I look folks are talking about The Shack. Just Google it and I'm sure a million blogs alone will come up. I didn't really know anything about it other than everyone was talking about it - apparently I wasn't listening to them! So, I picked it up and Mary Beth and I read it together in Maine. In many ways it wasn't at all what I thought it was going to be - but at the same time, I didn't have a clue what to expect. Anyway,

It's the story of a father wrestling face to face with God over demons of his past - a poor relationship with an abusive father and the horrible murder of his daughter. Wm. Paul Young uses a vivid narrative to wrestle with some of the most challenging points of faith. There is a flury of folks debating over the intricacies of Young's theology. Interesting, as a "trained" theologian, I didn't spend much time reflecting on that (probably means I'm not trained very well!) , but instead engaged the story as it was. Without giving much away, God shows up in the story as three separate people: a large black woman, an intriguing and mysterious Asian woman, and a joe schmo Jesus. I loved the depiction of the three members of the trinity! It had to make you smile, and at the same time think!

I don't want to delve much into the book other than to say that I didn't like it in the beginning, but it grew on me. It was a bit cheesy at first, but as I worked through it, it grew, and then I thought the ending was great - fitting and provacative. On the cover of my copy Eugene Peterson's comment is, "This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his. It's that good!" I'm not sure that I share his enthusiasm quite to the extent that he does, but it is a good book nonetheless.

I think the true modernists will really struggle through the work focusing not on the well-described narrative and instead labor through -ologies and -isms that don't seem quite to fit into the "correct" box. I think it's funny how people freak out about stories like this instead of allowing them to simmer and transform us. I have already found myself using it as a solid reference work for people who have dealt with tragic, traumatic situations and severely wrestle with the "why?" and the "How could he?" questions - something we all at times have to address.

In the end, it left me reflecting on my faith and challenging my transparence and commitment. I enjoyed it and think it will be profitable for all. And . . . that's all I'm going to say about that.