Always About Us

Hey faithful readers. Sorry for the blackout in posts, but just got back from a week in glorious Chicago! This was a great trip to a fantastic city for a much needed break!

As I was gone, I tried to keep myself away from blogs (successfully I might add), news (mostly good), and anything on my usual tech. routine (except for google maps on my iPhone... needed that in the city)!

Yet now that I'm back I saw New York Times (and many AP papers) ran this story today: Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security

Now one doesn't have to be a liberal hippie to have heard warnings about climate change and its dangers for say that last 25+ years! And I know we in America have gotten better (at least while the gas is still high and the economy still low) and more aware on the issues. However, as our cogs turn in our American self-preservation systems it becomes front page news (it was sent out as lead story on NY Times daily update, and was front story on N&O) when it be comes a "security issue".

This saddens me for many reasons. It isn't an issue that our world is in trouble, or that our yet-to-be-born relatives will have this impact their daily lives. No, it is that it is a threat to the security and prosperity systems of our country. I don't understand why it takes the pentagon telling us it is an issue before we take it seriously.

I mourn for who we are and what we've become as ego-centered Americans. God knows I love this country and thus why I am so proud of who we were and so distraught by whom we have become. But I am still retaining hope that we will break out of our self-centered systems and step up to the plate as people who care about something bigger than ourselves...something bigger than a singe country. But as we have people fighting and misguiding health-care reform out of ignorance and selfishness, as we have people still walking on the meek to rise higher on the ladder, and as we continue to focus only inward I lose a little more hope in us each day!

But I haven't given up hope yet. We were created better than this... and we can become better once again!

How To Make My Sunday Morning

This from CNN made my day this morning when on an online poll (yes I know this isn't precise and credible data, but funny none-the-less) shows that the most trusted newscaster is also my favorite media critic: Give it up for John Stewart and the Daily Show!!! Take that Couric!

QotW + Cartoons

I apologize for the delay in posting. I've had a lot going on....falling off a 10ft ladder will do that to you! But I did want to post some things that have grabbed my attention in the past week or 2:

1st off, 2 cartoons from artist David Hayward:

Also a quote from Yann Martel (author of Life of Pi), on his faith journey while writing the bestselling novel as found in a recent article in Relevant Magazine:

What's nice about faith is-- once you have it-- it feeds itself; from life, from books, from everything. In a sense, it's a constant dialog.

I like this quote because it really captures the living essence of faith to me. How many people (and I have been guilty of this as well) get settled into one theology or one specific way of looking at God. Like the cartoons above, we only limit ourselves when we forget to place our faith in constant dialog (CONVERSATION) with other thoughts and ideas. And remember a conversation/dialog means listening as much as it does talking. That means taking in others thoughts and giving them the respect they deserve!

Finally a portion of lyrics from the band, Kings of Leon, in their song, Cold Desert:

i never ever cried when i was feeling down

ive always been scared of the sound

jesus don't love me no-one ever carried my load

im too young to feel this old

These lyrics hit me because of many conversations I've had in the last couple of weeks. I have heard several people say something similar to these lyrics, I have read a conversation from Andrew Marin, who works within the GLBT community in Chicago, recount a similar experience. What's sad, is that these comments only come when someone has been severly hurt or has received a great amount of injustice from someone or a group carrying the name of Christ. Think about all of the people groups (not just the GLBT community, although they have a lot of reason to feel this way) that can say this because of a Christian's or Christianity's action or inaction that hurts an individual or people group. Think about how many Christians are responding to the hispanic immigrants in America (legal or not). Certainly many of our words and actions can cause someone to say these things. We've made Jesus' burden far more heavy than he himself claims it to be!

I have to ask myself, who's load am I trying to carry? Who's load are you trying to make lighter? What theology is keeping you from God and others? Who/what are you having dialog with that broadens and enhances your faith? I think there's a lot here to ponder in these few words and pictures.

Leave your thoughts!

What Might The Church Look Like In 2034

An interesting and fun thought-experiment done by Collide Magazine. Below is an excerpt from that article.
__________

Gigachurces
The large churches, known in the future as gigachurches, are comprised of thousands of members who both necessitate and fund the high-tech gigachurch buildings of the future. And while gigachurches aren’t the majority of American churches, they unquestionably serve as the face of institutional Protestantism. Gigachurches, having more resources at their disposal than their diminutive brethren, consistently embrace and upgrade the technological aspects of their campuses in order to facilitate a user experience designed to rival that of any amusement park, hotel, or tourist attraction. This is never more evident to a gigachurch visitor than the first time he or she is guided into an available parking spot by an android. Or when he or she is greeted at the front door by an android. Or when he or she places the kids under the caring, watchful eye of an android. Sure, volunteerbots require a substantial investment upfront, but they are well-suited to the gigachurch in that they are easy to train, provide a consistent level of service, never complain about their assigned role, and they never sleep through the alarm clock on a Sunday morning. Based on the integral role androids play in their weekend operations, gigachurch Chief Technology Officers unanimously agree that the bots are worth their weight in gold. Other popular gigachurch amenities include interactive spiritual development stations, 360-degree environmental projection on all surfaces, and customized multimedia content pushed to attendees’ mobile devices the moment they step foot onto the campus.

Middlechurches
Most mid-sized church buildings aren’t church buildings at all—they’re movie theaters, rock clubs, and other performance venues that can comfortably accommodate a few hundred people at a time. Middlechurches lack the financial resources to own their own facilities (or they’ve chosen to divert the funds to other areas), but they can afford to rent space on Sundays. Generally speaking, media and technology integration is valued among actual and prospective churchgoers, so middlechurches choose rented meeting spaces with installed technology that can provide immersive environments for entertainment-seeking patrons. As it turns out, the desperation of the theater and live music industries to compete for consumers’ discretionary income by creating more distinctive entertainment experiences has helped middlechurches by subsidizing the high cost of keeping up with the gigachurches. Sunday morning church tenants also help subsidize overhead costs for facility owners at a time of the week when their venues are typically empty, so both sides appreciate the arrangement. For the most part, middlechurches take advantage of these facilities, media-savvy volunteers, and third-party church media resources to create worship experience productions on par with most live theater or mid-level rock band production.

Nanochurches
Nanochurches, small communities of 10 to 25 people, typically meet in living rooms, basements, coffee shops, public parks, unused rooms on gigachurch campuses, and other free spaces to which the community has access. Within the nanochurch classification, two distinct approaches to media and technology have evolved—those that use what they can (pro-tech) and those that don’t (no-tech). Those that employ media and technology elements in their services or gatherings do so using consumer electronics (home theaters, laptops, mobile phones, etc.) that fit the space in which they meet. These nanochurches know they can’t compete with the production and immersive environments of gigachurches and middlechurches, but they remain convinced of the potential of electronic media to communicate and connect. In the urban areas in which most nanochurches exist, electronic media is so integrated into every aspect of daily life that pro-tech nanochurches have no qualms about leveraging whatever digital elements they can in order to facilitate meaningful worship experiences.

No-tech nanochurches embrace a counterculture ideology that influences most aspects of their church life. They guard their faith communities as sacred institutions and thus resist the infiltration and influence of electronic media. When possible, they convene outdoors. If made to meet indoors, no-tech nanochurches observe a call to worship that begins with individuals turning off electronic devices such as mobile phones and even removing them from their person. This techno-cleansing ritual underscores the no-tech nanochurch’s perception of technology as distracting, invasive, and addictive, and thus each no-tech community worship experience serves as a short fast from the otherwise ever-present hum of digital advancement.

Networks & Preaching
In 2034, a discussion about preaching is a discussion about church networks. Church networks are not denominations, but instead function more like retail chains. Consider the present-day LifeChurch.tv model in which 13 physical campuses across five states (plus the Internet and Second Life campuses) feature preaching beamed from the main campus (or the flagship store, in retail terms). Twenty-five years from now, every gigachurch will be part of a network, either as the flagship location or as a location near the top of their network’s pyramid. Because of the widespread popularity of the network model, there is no stigma associated with attending a “secondary” location (especially since the teaching pastor of a given network rarely preaches live even at the flagship location).

The standard for church networks is set by “The Big Six”—six pastors that can each be found in most of the major markets in the US. Traveling to San Francisco on business? The Big Six are there. New York City? The Big Six are there. Philadelphia? Five of The Big Six are there. (As of 2009, you’ve probably only heard of two of The Big Six, and I don’t want to spoil the surprise of their identities.) While some critics deride this development as the Gap™-ification of the American Church, proponents say that making The Big Six—ostensibly the six most gifted spiritual communicators in the country—available from sea to shining sea is the best possible use of their talents and the best possible offering for the Christian churchgoer. Each of The Big Six sit atop a church network that includes at least a hundred churches, and each network is a healthy mix of gigachurches, middlechurches, and nanochurches.

Most middlechurches and pro-tech nanochurches belong to a network, which brings with it a myriad of benefits: established branding, established ministry and programming models, and an established teaching pastor (whom they don’t have to pay a salary). Given the choice of opening a Chick-fil-A franchise or starting a brand new fast food restaurant of your own invention, which would you choose? Using that same reasoning, most church planters (and a few shrewd executive pastors) began to recognize the value of joining a church network in the early- and mid-2010s and the network model exploded across the nation.

Sermons
The sermon itself has changed dramatically in 25 years. As I mentioned earlier, the teaching pastor rarely preaches a live sermon. Sermons of the future are so heavily-fortified with interactive multimedia that it’s easier on everyone involved—from the preacher to the post-production staff—to record an entire series of messages at one time in front of a green screen. However, at nearly every gigachurch and middlechurch, the illusion of live preaching lives on thanks to High-Definition hologram technology and significant advances in audio systems. For attendees, the live-preaching spell is only broken when the holographic projection grid flickers—an occurrence that grows more and more infrequent thanks to the dedicated Research & Development team at PanaSony.

Middlechurches use the aforementioned holographic projection (when available) or HD screens for sermoncasting, while pro-tech nanochurches use the best computer or home TV screen owned by someone in their community. Of course, no-tech nanochurches insist that preaching be done live by an active member in the community as part of their rebellious stance on church technology. The resulting sermons are more tailored to the community than a network sermon but lack the polish and production that have made church networks so popular.

Churches that don’t belong to a larger network aren’t necessarily required to host live preaching—many make use of downloadable sermon content from a variety of communicators and select the best messages for re-broadcast in their services. The staff member who makes these preaching playlist decisions for a local church functions like a sermon VJ, mixing and matching the best available sermons from one week to the next in order to facilitate appealing programming for committed and prospective attendees.

Overall, integrating multimedia into what was once single-medium monologue has made live preaching a largely forgotten pastime. Even so, audiences are more holistically engaged because sermons appeal to more than their ears. By involving more senses, and by incorporating dialogical elements that are facilitated by mobile communication devices, sermons are more interactive than ever for the churchgoer. If he or she is largely passive during a sermon, it is now by choice rather than obligation. Furthermore, the average sermon is now 20-25 minutes instead of 40+ minutes and moves quickly through a text-interpretation-application or topic-analysis-application progression.

As we’ll discuss later, a more prominent community conversation during the week led a shift from the sermon serving as the pinnacle of the church week to the sermon serving as the conclusion of one conversation and the beginning of another conversation. So despite the increased level of production associated with the sermon of the future, the sermon actually occupies a less prominent position in the scope of the week to week, Sunday to Sunday experience.

Music
Music is another traditional service element that has changed in 2034. In 2009, most contemporary worship services include a 20-40 minute music set before the band gives way to the sermon. Twenty-five years later, it’s most common for a 10 minute set to begin the service and for another 10 minute set to conclude the service. The first set introduces themes and gives worshipers the opportunity to reflect on attributes of God. Typically, the first set is followed by elements that are more interactive and interpersonal and then the sermon. Following the sermon, there are more opportunities for interactivity and response, followed by the second 10 minute music set. The second set differs from the first in that the songs are almost exclusively focused on response and action. When this new worship music paradigm emerged in the 20-Teens, a significant number of the old guard of reflective worship songwriters were unable to reorient themselves with the times, which made room for a fresh batch of young songwriters whose music focused the calling of the Church to be the hands and feet of Jesus in the world. Also, these new songwriters effortlessly incorporate hip-hop, techno, and world music elements into their songwriting and arrangements, broadening their appeal to the increasingly diverse churches of 2034.

Music Staffing
Another significant shift in worship music for the 2034 church is the widespread disappearance of “worship pastor” as a full-time staff position. This coincides with worship music’s decrease in prominence in a typical worship service and the new emphasis on visual media and interactive web experiences. Church payrolls reflect this change, and even the majority of gigachurches rely on contract worship leaders, who get paid per worship set, and volunteer backing bands. If a worship leader is on staff at a local church, it’s generally as a visual artist, web designer, or a demographic pastor (students, men, singles, etc.).

The overall performance quality of worship music hasn’t suffered as a result of non-staff worship leaders, but the position has become more transient as musicians come and go and hop from worship gig to worship gig. Many argue that this newfound transience disrupts the flow of the communal worship experience and creates an emotional divide between musicians and audience, but up to this point no research testing this assertion has been conducted. Besides, most people who acknowledge the divide aren’t willing to divert the financial resources toward bridging it, especially to the detriment of visual and web-based media budgets.

Nanochurch Music
Pro-tech nanochurches utilize the best musician or musicians they can find for free or very cheap. Of course, finding such musicians can be a difficult undertaking, so many nanochurches utilize pre-recorded visual song tracks that can be mixed and matched to create a custom worship music set without requiring any musical expertise or professional audio equipment.

No-tech nanochurches, ever the exception, still incorporate as much group singing as their time together allows, regardless of whether anyone in their small pool of members has any musical proficiency. In keeping with their commitment to forego electronics in their services, they typically employ an acoustic guitar or piano for accompaniment, or they just sing a cappella. These churches maintain that decentralized congregational singing has a healthy effect on a church community, but this model has yet to catch on outside the no-tech nano world.

Multimedia Experience
Touchscreen displays and 3D virtual environments support the interactive spiritual development stations found at many gigachurches. It is through these stations, often found in foyers or dedicated interactive spaces, that individuals or families can access on-demand content from the gigachurch’s central media library—an on-demand buffet of sermons, worship sets, interactive curriculum, and guided spiritual exercises and meditations. Churchgoers can access the stations and enter into a worship experience of their own programming, on their own schedule. The experience begins when the participant visits the station; the experience consists of the content the participant selects; and the experience ends when the participant is ready for it to end. Thanks to these elements, the very concept of the worship service (with its rigid beginning, middle, and end) has begun to erode in the minds of a few gigachurchgoers, who prefer the more casual, organic experience made possible by the stations to the traditional service format. Of course, these stations are out of financial reach for middlechurches and nanochurches, but some of them manage to create a similar feel on the Web.

Within the context of a worship service, free wireless Internet access allows attendees at churches of all sizes to interact via their mobile devices, discuss sermon points with fellow attendees, tag service elements for later reflection, or instantly upload the entire service (along with their on-the-fly commentary) to their MyFace profile. It’s fair to question whether this sort of technology-driven multitasking during worship services is helpful or hurtful for the churchgoer, but most church leaders simply view it as inevitable.

No, people aren’t solely focused on a sermon, a song, a prayer, or any other element of a service. But that’s how people in 2034 live every minute of every day—blogging and video chatting while watching TV, microblogging and shopping online during meals, and so on. The Church in 2034 ministers to people who have mostly embraced the ubiquity of technology in their lives. As a result, the Church in 2034, for the most part, has done what it can to facilitate the kind of weekend multimedia experience that people expect. If electronic media is the language of culture, most churches in 2034 have few, if any, reservations about speaking that language in every aspect of church life.

Between Sundays
Perhaps the most interesting effect of media and technology on the Church in 2034 is the increased member interaction between Sunday services. Each weekend, most sermons function as a conversation catalyst designed to provoke thought, conversation, and action during the week. Teaching pastors may blog or vodcast some key points and questions Sunday evening to get their audiences talking, or campus pastors and group leaders might fill that role. Congregations and other large groups within individual churches respond on the official church blog, social network profile, or forum, or on their individual blogs, forums, social network profiles, and vodcasts. Small groups (incredibly popular among gigachurch and middlechurch members) and pro-tech nanochurches take things a bit further and engage in short video conversations facilitated by a service similar to Tokbox (except that it’s completely reliable, is integrated with home TVs, and delivers HD signal). Consequently, Christians in 2034 are beginning to associate the term “church” with a group of people more than a building or a weekend experience.

Even with facilities that are more technologically advanced than ever, the Monday through Saturday techno-fellowship that characterizes the Church in 2034 is arguably its greatest strength. The political power and moral authority of the North American Church are long gone (though a few old-timers still fondly remember those days), so Christians of all shapes and sizes embody a renewed emphasis on deep connection with one another. The majority of the faithful appear to realize that resources, multimedia, and production are wonderful tools for weekend services but poor substitutes for authentic, missional community. In the Church of the future, this kind of community is increasingly facilitated and shaped by new technology—the effects of which should be clear by 2059.

As we live in the here and now, I think we owe it to ourselves and the generations of Christians that will come after us to imagine the future. We must think carefully and critically, even if we can’t see the future clearly, and we must do our best to consider the long-term implications of the way we do church today for the sake of the church tomorrow.

______________

What are your thoughts and feelings about these "predictions"?

Elevating The Conversation

My community this week is discussing this video. From OozeTV comes an interview with Andrew Marin who has spent a decade of pastoral work in the GLBT community. This interview has a lot of wisdom and insight in it. I never post about the topic of homosexuality because I don't want to be inundated with people fighting over IF it is "right" or "wrong"; "sin" or not! However, I think (and would love to hear your thoughts) that he has some great insight that sum up, stretch and challenge some of my own approaches to this topic. He speaks about HAVING THE CONVERSATION and ELEVATING THE CONVERSATION. Please leave your thoughts, what grabs you, and what perhaps you would like to add or disagree with. Please leave them in a respectful manner!



Original link:HERE

What Matters More?

New Derek Webb Song. I'm not usually a big fan, but he really hits home on a lot of good points. Also his use of strong language, to me, shows where his passion is even at the expense of his "Christian music audience". I know using cussing in a "CCM" song is taboo, but it really works here. This song gives me hope for the CCM genera of music. Honest and authentic lyrics have been emerging with a lot better music coming from some of the artists.

From Derek's on website, you can see what he's putting on the line (at least hints) to stand up for what he feels in his heart, led by the spirit! Here are copies of the 2 emails:

Email #1 (5/12/09):

friends-
i haven't sent many personal emails to this email list but we're in a situation that has gotten a little out of control and it's time to fill you in. as some of you may know, i've been working for months on my new record, 'stockholm syndrome', which i've recently finished and turned in to the record label. they've been very supportive over the years, but this time we didn't get the response we expected. it seems i've finally found the line beyond which my label cannot support me, and apparently i've crossed it.

i consider this my most important record and am adamant about all of you hearing it. we had originally hoped to have 'stockholm syndrome' out this month (next week even), but at this point we're not sure when the record will come out and in what form. the majority of the controversy is surrounding one song, which i consider to be among the most important songs on the record. so we've decided it's an appropriate time to break the rules.

but because of various legal/publishing issues we're having to be rather careful with how we do what we need to do. that's really all i can say for now and i've probably said too much.

this is our plan and we're moving ahead, but we're not sure what kind of trouble we might be getting into. we'll let you know as soon as we know our next move-
derek

AND

Email #2 (5/19/09):

friends-

this is turning into a bigger deal than we expected. as a result, we're having to temporarily pull everything online down (can't explain now). and to be on the safe side, i'm going to personally go offline while we sort this out. i re_ally shouldn't use my twitter account for now either so don't expect any updates there.

make no mistake, our trouble with the label over content is very real, and not as simple as one word; we're backed into a corner. but we have applied all of our creative resources to this, working furiously to create something that we believe not only subverts any legal issues but should also be a _pretty wild ride.

so this will be the l_ast email for a while. we'll try to leak information via a new twitter account, @syndrome. you're o_n your own so start paying attention. i'll see you on the other side-

derek

Feel free to leave thoughts on the MESSAGE and MEANING of the song (agree or not), as well as the mess he seems to find himself in because of his beliefs. This is similar to what a lot of people (including myself) have experienced as ministers in churches.

PLEASE DO NOT leave a comment chastising me for posting a song with strong language in it. I didn't write the words, so I leave that to artistic creativity on behalf of Derek.

Doubt and Certianty

If you have not seen the movie DOUBT, you really owe it to yourself to rent it. Based on an award-winning play and with 5 Academy Award nominations, this movie is def. a watch, think, and discuss movie.

In the spirit of discussion I post here a portion of Mike Leaptrott's thoughts on the movie. I find this the best and most eloquent insight on the movie, as well as the faith journey, I've read. Check the full post out here at Progression of Faith.

___________

From Mike's Post:

Brilliant movie! The best description I can think of is that it is a postmodern exploration of our sources for knowledge. The movie forces the viewer to ask questions about how we can "know" what it is we feel we "know". How do we come to "feel" certain? Is faith possible without doubt? Is doubt an act of faith? Is a search for truth a journey into the destruction of faith?

All of the performances are wonderful and each character helps us visualize a different foundation for epistemology. For some, our certainty remains in question until we acquire a particular level of evidence. For others, a declaration from some source of authority helps us claim to "know" with certainty. At times, we just can't locate the reasons why we feel so certain. These characters help us see that any search for truth is not a linear path from doubt to faith to knowledge; it's more of a constant interplay between all three. In the end, the movie explores the risks we take when we attempt to locate truth, a search which demands a willful sacrifice of our certainty, a deconstruction of our faith, and a full embrace of our darkest doubts.

Faith, Hope and Love Pt.1

I've been officiating a good number of weddings the last couple of months and since the passage on love from 1 Corinthians has been read in almost all of them, I have been reflecting a lot on that passage. I have been especially focusing on the last part of the passage: And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. (1 Cor. 13:13).

It is amazing to me when a passage gets stuck in my head and keeps reoccurring, I begin to hear, see and read things that directly correlate to my ongoing thoughts on theses passages. Perhaps it is serendipity or perhaps it is the voice of God at work through the everyday things that we usually are too busy or self-absorbed to hear the wisdom being shared.

This first post is on hope. I am reading Michael J. Fox's newest memoir, Always Looking Up, and I ran across a passage from an interview with George Stephanopoulos after Rush Limbaugh decided to take a jab at Fox after a political ad in which Fox's Parkinson's symptoms were very prevalent. Eventually in the interview, it came back around to Rush and other conservative comments about stem cell research saying that people like Fox, pushing the possibilities of stem cell research, was pandering a false hope. Here's an excerpt of that exchange:

George: "I'm going to ring up Rush Limbaugh one more time. One f the things he says is that when you are talking about all these cures, you're giving people false hope and that it is cruel"

Michael: "Which is crueler? To not have hope or to have hope? And it's not false hope. It's an informed hope. But two steps forward and two steps back, you know? It's a process. It's how this country was built. It's what we do. It seems to me that in the last few years, eight, ten years, we've just stopped. We've become incurious and unambitious..."( ALU pg. 150).

I have thought a lot about this statement. I don't want to get into a debate about stem cell research, for that is not the purpose of this thread of thought. Rather, I really have broadened my thoughts on hope after reading this exchange.

I've written before on hope. Is there such a thing as false hope? I suppose there is if someone is intentionally promising something that they KNOW is false. For instance, promising a child a reward for having a good day, knowing all along that you have no intention of seeing that promise through. Yet hope by it's very nature is illusive. The outcome is rarely a certainty, for we never know what is on the other side an event, choice, or even this life. That is why we hope! Faith and hope go hand-in-hand because neither one can produce tangible proof of the outcome of the circumstances in which these mindsets are present. Otherwise there would be no need for either faith or hope by their very natures.

Hope is more than wishful thinking. And I like here what Fox says about hope. He says the hope he and his foundation give is an "informed hope". I think that is the nature of true hope. I think this is one of the biggest things that distinguishes hope from simply wishful thinking.

So, let us segue to the idea of Christian hope. It is, as I have mentioned in the past, a (if not THE) central message/theme of the Christian faith, Bible, and mission and ministry of Christ. When the narratives and teachings of the Bible speak of hope, it is never in an ambiguous and uninformed way. In fact, it is the opposite. There seems to be an understanding that hope is informed, and in fact, we have a responsibility to "seek" in order to keep our hope informed!

Hope is active! It is not a feeling; it is not fairy tale wishes! It is seen as very practical. It is something that infects and affects our daily lives. As Fox says, it is "one step forward, two steps back... It's a process". Just like faith, hope is both a PART of the journey, and a journey in itself. Pragmatic hope is the hope that never fails. Why? because in the end it never fails our expectations. Participating in this process of hopefulness produces practical expectations.

But more than that, is inspiring....awe-inspiring! It inspires not only others, but it inspires yourself. It drives the creativity and imagination of people. I think that's why the statement Fox makes about us becoming "incurious and unambitious" strikes a chord with me. I see it so much in the world of religious life. People are settling for what they have, when it is far less than what God is calling them towards. People are settling for wishful thinking because 1) they are being taught that wishful thinking and hope are one in the same, and 2) because it is easier to sit and wish than it is to participate in the on-going process of hope.

People ARE very curious by nature, and it is because they are seeking hope in this world where we can turn on the TV, or walk across town and pay a visit to the hell that many people live in each day. The hell on earth that many of us settle for in our own lives, thinking we are helpless victims. But Christ's message of hope was different. It was not wishful thinking that one day we would be magically saved from the terrible situations that plague our world. Instead he gathered people and said, not only can you make a difference in your own situation and make it better, but hope is so powerful that you can actually go out and heal the hell that other people are living in. You can take away that hell and deliver heaven on earth... the Kingdom of God is at hand....in your hands!

Something (in my opinion) evil happens when we discourage the natural curiosity in people that produces an "informed hope"....a responsible hope, and replace it with wishful thinking! We need this hope now more than ever in this hurting world. I am convinced that the true message of Christ is more relevant today more than ever, but we first have to embrace that this message is far more than the fairy tale for which modern Christianity has settled. The idea that the whole of the message is about eternity in some ethereal after-life is decaying the bigger messages of Christ and the Kingdom of God. Please know I'm not saying that Heaven doesn't exist, what I am saying is that we have a calling to the here and now as well. And that call is as urgent, perhaps more-so if I may be so bold, than the eternal salvation message. Yet I don't think that one message is exclusive to the other. It certainly wasn't for Christ!

"And these remain; Faith, Hope and Love..." Hope is the infectious driving force that we have been given. Hope is the engine propelling us forward on this journey. It is the force that gives us ambition and curiosity. How are we using hope, and how are we encouraging a true hope in others?

Thoughts?

A Jesus Manifesto

Len Sweet and Frank Viola wrote and published a document on the 22nd of this month entitled A Jesus Manifesto. This is a great and inspiring document that has drawn a lot of good discussion. I repost it here to help in its circulation and continuing discussion.

A Magna Carta

for Restoring the Supremacy of

Jesus Christ

a.k.a.

A Jesus Manifesto

for the 21st Century Church

by Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola

Christians have made the gospel about so many things … things other than Christ.

Jesus Christ is the gravitational pull that brings everything together and gives them significance, reality, and meaning. Without him, all things lose their value. Without him, all things are but detached pieces floating around in space.

It is possible to emphasize a spiritual truth, value, virtue, or gift, yet miss Christ . . . who is the embodiment and incarnation of all spiritual truth, values, virtues, and gifts.

Seek a truth, a value, a virtue, or a spiritual gift, and you have obtained something dead.

Seek Christ, embrace Christ, know Christ, and you have touched him who is Life. And in him resides all Truth, Values, Virtues and Gifts in living color. Beauty has its meaning in the beauty of Christ, in whom is found all that makes us lovely and loveable.

What is Christianity? It is Christ. Nothing more. Nothing less. Christianity is not an ideology. Christianity is not a philosophy. Christianity is the “good news” that Beauty, Truth and Goodness are found in a person. Biblical community is founded and found on the connection to that person. Conversion is more than a change in direction; it’s a change in connection. Jesus’ use of the ancient Hebrew word shubh, or its Aramaic equivalent, to call for “repentance” implies not viewing God from a distance, but entering into a relationship where God is command central of the human connection.

In that regard, we feel a massive disconnection in the church today. Thus this manifesto.

We believe that the major disease of the church today is JDD: Jesus Deficit Disorder. The person of Jesus is increasingly politically incorrect, and is being replaced by the language of “justice,” “the kingdom of God,” “values,” and “leadership principles.”

In this hour, the testimony that we feel God has called us to bear centers on the primacy of the Lord Jesus Christ. Specifically . . .

1. The center and circumference of the Christian life is none other than the person of Christ. All other things, including things related to him and about him, are eclipsed by the sight of his peerless worth. Knowing Christ is Eternal Life. And knowing him profoundly, deeply, and in reality, as well as experiencing his unsearchable riches, is the chief pursuit of our lives, as it was for the first Christians. God is not so much about fixing things that have gone wrong in our lives as finding us in our brokenness and giving us Christ.

2. Jesus Christ cannot be separated from his teachings. Aristotle says to his disciples, “Follow my teachings.” Socrates says to his disciples, “Follow my teachings.” Buddha says to his disciples, “Follow my meditations.” Confucius says to his disciples, “Follow my sayings.” Muhammad says to his disciples, “Follow my noble pillars.” Jesus says to his disciples, “Follow me.” In all other religions, a follower can follow the teachings of its founder without having a relationship with that founder. Not so with Jesus Christ. The teachings of Jesus cannot be separated from Jesus himself. Jesus Christ is still alive and he embodies his teachings. It is a profound mistake, therefore, to treat Christ as simply the founder of a set of moral, ethical, or social teaching. The Lord Jesus and his teaching are one. The Medium and the Message are One. Christ is the incarnation of the Kingdom of God and the Sermon on the Mount.

3. God’s grand mission and eternal purpose in the earth and in heaven centers in Christ . . . both the individual Christ (the Head) and the corporate Christ (the Body). This universe is moving towards one final goal – the fullness of Christ where He shall fill all things with himself. To be truly missional, then, means constructing one’s life and ministry on Christ. He is both the heart and bloodstream of God’s plan. To miss this is to miss the plot; indeed, it is to miss everything.

4. Being a follower of Jesus does not involve imitation so much as it does implantation and impartation. Incarnation–the notion that God connects to us in baby form and human touch—is the most shocking doctrine of the Christian religion. The incarnation is both once-and-for-all and ongoing, as the One “who was and is to come” now is and lives his resurrection life in and through us. Incarnation doesn’t just apply to Jesus; it applies to every one of us. Of course, not in the same sacramental way. But close. We have been given God’s “Spirit” which makes Christ “real” in our lives. We have been made, as Peter puts it, “partakers of the divine nature.” How, then, in the face of so great a truth can we ask for toys and trinkets? How can we lust after lesser gifts and itch for religious and spiritual thingys? We’ve been touched from on high by the fires of the Almighty and given divine life. A life that has passed through death – the very resurrection life of the Son of God himself. How can we not be fired up?

To put it in a question: What was the engine, or the accelerator, of the Lord’s amazing life? What was the taproot or the headwaters of his outward behavior? It was this: Jesus lived by an indwelling Father. After his resurrection, the passage has now moved. What God the Father was to Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ is to you and to me. He’s our indwelling Presence, and we share in the life of Jesus’ own relationship with the Father. There is a vast ocean of difference between trying to compel Christians to imitate Jesus and learning how to impart an implanted Christ. The former only ends up in failure and frustration. The latter is the gateway to life and joy in our daying and our dying. We stand with Paul: “Christ lives in me.” Our life is Christ. In him do we live, breathe, and have our being. “What would Jesus do?” is not Christianity. Christianity asks: “What is Christ doing through me … through us? And how is Jesus doing it?” Following Jesus means “trust and obey” (respond), and living by his indwelling life through the power of the Spirit.

5. The “Jesus of history” cannot be disconnected from the “Christ of faith.” The Jesus who walked the shores of Galilee is the same person who indwells the church today. There is no disconnect between the Jesus of Mark’s Gospel and the incredible, all-inclusive, cosmic Christ of Paul’s letter to the Colossians. The Christ who lived in the first century has a pre-existence before time. He also has a post-existence after time. He is Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End, A and Z, all at the same time. He stands in the future and at the end of time at the same moment that He indwells every child of God. Failure to embrace these paradoxical truths has created monumental problems and has diminished the greatness of Christ in the eyes of God’s people.

6. It’s possible to confuse “the cause” of Christ with the person of Christ. When the early church said “Jesus is Lord,” they did not mean “Jesus is my core value.” Jesus isn’t a cause; he is a real and living person who can be known, loved, experienced, enthroned and embodied. Focusing on his cause or mission doesn’t equate focusing on or following him. It’s all too possible to serve “the god” of serving Jesus as opposed to serving him out of an enraptured heart that’s been captivated by his irresistible beauty and unfathomable love. Jesus led us to think of God differently, as relationship, as the God of all relationship.

7. Jesus Christ was not a social activist nor a moral philosopher. To pitch him that way is to drain his glory and dilute his excellence. Justice apart from Christ is a dead thing. The only battering ram that can storm the gates of hell is not the cry of Justice, but the name of Jesus. Jesus Christ is the embodiment of Justice, Peace, Holiness, Righteousness. He is the sum of all spiritual things, the “strange attractor” of the cosmos. When Jesus becomes an abstraction, faith loses its reproductive power. Jesus did not come to make bad people good. He came to make dead people live.

8. It is possible to confuse an academic knowledge or theology about Jesus with a personal knowledge of the living Christ himself. These two stand as far apart as do the hundred thousand million galaxies. The fullness of Christ can never be accessed through the frontal lobe alone. Christian faith claims to be rational, but also to reach out to touch ultimate mysteries. The cure for a big head is a big heart.

Jesus does not leave his disciples with CliffsNotes for a systematic theology. He leaves his disciples with breath and body.

Jesus does not leave his disciples with a coherent and clear belief system by which to love God and others. Jesus gives his disciples wounds to touch and hands to heal.

Jesus does not leave his disciples with intellectual belief or a “Christian worldview.” He leaves his disciples with a relational faith.

Christians don’t follow a book. Christians follow a person, and this library of divinely inspired books we call “The Holy Bible” best help us follow that person. The Written Word is a map that leads us to The Living Word. Or as Jesus himself put it, “All Scripture testifies of me.” The Bible is not the destination; it’s a compass that points to Christ, heaven’s North Star.

The Bible does not offer a plan or a blueprint for living. The “good news” was not a new set of laws, or a new set of ethical injunctions, or a new and better PLAN. The “good news” was the story of a person’s life, as reflected in The Apostle’s Creed. The Mystery of Faith proclaims this narrative: “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again.” The meaning of Christianity does not come from allegiance to complex theological doctrines, but a passionate love for a way of living in the world that revolves around following Jesus, who taught that love is what makes life a success . . . not wealth or health or anything else: but love. And God is love.

9. Only Jesus can transfix and then transfigure the void at the heart of the church. Jesus Christ cannot be separated from his church. While Jesus is distinct from his Bride, he is not separate from her. She is in fact his very own Body in the earth. God has chosen to vest all of power, authority, and life in the living Christ. And God in Christ is only known fully in and through his church. (As Paul said, “The manifold wisdom of God – which is Christ – is known through the ekklesia.”)

The Christian life, therefore, is not an individual pursuit. It’s a corporate journey. Knowing Christ and making him known is not an individual prospect. Those who insist on flying life solo will be brought to earth, with a crash. Thus Christ and his church are intimately joined and connected. What God has joined together, let no person put asunder. We were made for life with God; our only happiness is found in life with God. And God’s own pleasure and delight is found therein as well.

10. In a world which sings, “Oh, who is this Jesus?” and a church which sings, “Oh, let’s all be like Jesus,” who will sing with lungs of leather, “Oh, how we love Jesus!”

If Jesus could rise from the dead, we can at least rise from our bed, get off our couches and pews, and respond to the Lord’s resurrection life within us, joining Jesus in what he’s up to in the world. We call on others to join us—not in removing ourselves from planet Earth, but to plant our feet more firmly on the Earth while our spirits soar in the heavens of God’s pleasure and purpose. We are not of this world, but we live in this world for the Lord’s rights and interests. We, collectively, as the ekklesia of God, are Christ in and to this world.

May God have a people on this earth who are a people of Christ, through Christ, and for Christ. A people of the cross. A people who are consumed with God’s eternal passion, which is to make his Son preeminent, supreme, and the head over all things visible and invisible. A people who have discovered the touch of the Almighty in the face of his glorious Son. A people who wish to know only Christ and him crucified, and to let everything else fall by the wayside. A people who are laying hold of his depths, discovering his riches, touching his life, and receiving his love, and making HIM in all of his unfathomable glory known to others.

The two of us may disagree about many things—be they ecclesiology, eschatology, soteriology, not to mention economics, globalism and politics.

But in our two most recent books—From Eternity to Here and So Beautiful—we have sounded forth a united trumpet. These books are the Manifests to this Manifesto. They each present the vision that has captured our hearts and that we wish to impart to the Body of Christ— “This ONE THING I know” (Jn.9:25) that is the ONE THING that unites us all:

Jesus the Christ.

Christians don’t follow Christianity; Christians follow Christ.

Christians don’t preach themselves; Christians proclaim Christ.

Christians don’t point people to core values; Christians point people to the cross.

Christians don’t preach about Christ: Christians preach Christ.

Over 300 years ago a German pastor wrote a hymn that built around the Name above all names:

Ask ye what great thing I know, that delights and stirs me so? What the high reward I win? Whose the name I glory in?

Jesus Christ, the crucified.

This is that great thing I know; this delights and stirs me so: faith in him who died to save, His who triumphed o’er the grave:

Jesus Christ, the crucified.

—

Jesus Christ – the crucified, resurrected, enthroned, triumphant, living Lord.

He is our Pursuit, our Passion, and our Life.

Amen.

_____

Feel free to post your thoughts here!

Thoughts While Observing Life

I love when I sit back and watch kids doing an activity, and all of the sudden something they've done teaches me a lesson. I truly think that there is endless depth to the ideas of "faith like a child" and how much kids have to teach us!

Yesterday at a birthday party that I was taking photos for, I watched as my wife led some different activities for the group of kids ages 4-6. One of the activities had the kids putting in different ingredients to make something between Silly Putty and Nickelodeon slime. However, as with happens with a bunch of kids and a little chaos, the ingredients weren't measured correctly and it didn't come out like it was supposed to.

But here's the thing that really hit me. The stuff still felt weird, slimy and cool while they were mixing it up with their eager little hands. They were so excited by the most simple of senses: touch. They would say things like, "ewwwwww", "gross," and "that's so cool". But they could not get enough of touching the wet putty-like substance. Did they care that it didn't turn out like it was supposed to in the end? NO! Not in the least! They were so in the moment simply enjoying that instance in their journey.

Too often we waste each moment of our lives by looking for what's on the other side. As we grow older, we seem to lose the sense of excitement and giddiness that comes with the moment...with the journey.

Man, we have so much to learn from kids. There is something unblemished...innocent... something holy in them that seems to fade as we become adults. Perhaps we can blame life for doing that to us...or perhaps we should blame ourselves for ALLOWING life to take it from us. Perhaps we can be retaught to immerse ourselves in each moment of our journey!

QotW

This weeks "Quote of the Week"comes from Mat Kearney's new CD. From "On And On":

On and on and on we pray, we can break into a brighter day
Nothing worth anything ever goes down easy
On and on and on we go, I don't understand this windy road
Nothing worth anything ever goes down easy

The chorus just caught me on the road yesterday, and I've been listening to it a lot. It really has resonated on several levels. I think back to our faith community, Metavista Community, spending a couple of months trying to tackle the big issues that plague our world (Poverty, Hunger, Corruption, Trafficking, HIV/AIDS, etc...) and how overwhelming it is, as well as how much work we (not just our group, but everyone!) have to do.

On top of that, how hard it is to help people see 1) that there is a problem, 2)why it's a problem, and 3) why they should help to fix the problem. Even in that, convincing people that there IS a light at the end of the tunnel, the the Kingdom of God IS possible on earth as Christ taught, and helping them to BELIEVE in those possibilities is a deep challenge when Christianity is plagued by infighting and an unwillingness to work with other faiths and ideals other than their own.

It would be soo easy to give up! I could go on living the way I have been, or I can go in a DIFFERENT direction and act out of a faith that says, "we can break into a brighter day". That is the only way that we will be able to get anything done. We have to BELIEVE and ACT out of the belief of "repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand." Matt. 3:2).

Because to say it is one thing, but to truly believe it and act out of that belief is something quite different...and I believe, quite extraordinary!

Photography my Arthur Morris-Kenya

On Abortion And Murdering Abortionists

I actually never thought that I would write a post on the topic of abortion simply because I think that it has become a hot-button political/religious topic that has helped to polarized both the Church and America. None of the arguments we hear are fair, balanced, or productive at this point. So I simply avoid this topic. I have my thoughts and beliefs, but I also respect those that might disagree. I am not above having a civil discussion on the topic, but I can count how many of those I've encountered in my life on one hand!

WARNING: I am going to trust my readers, BUT I will break my own rule and delete inappropriate comments and even shut off comments on this post if they are not respectful. I invite constructive comments and even conversation. You are free to share your thoughts, but do so respectfully.

Anyway, something about this latest story on the death of Dr. George Tiller, gunned down while in church sets me off.

I've been sitting here watching CNN and tonight on AC360, I simply hit my breaking point. I can't believe what some people are saying publicly about this. The pure hatred and evil that pours from people's mouths is EXACTLY why I avoid this topic. Here's a great example on CNN, and interview by Drew Griffin with Dan Holman of Missionaries to the Preborn. Here's an excerpt:

Drew Griffin: When you heard the news over the weekend about the abortion doctor -- that I'm sure you are well aware of -- was shot and killed, what was your reaction?

Dan Holman: I was cheered by it because I knew that he wouldn't be killing any more babies. And I expect that would happen when all legal and moral -- legal ways of trying to stop it has been exhausted, as they have tried to prosecute him for giving abortions to people in violation of Kansas law.

Drew Griffin: When you say you were cheered by it, is there any inconsistency in your thought in that you are trying to protect life and at the same time here's this doctor who was shot and killed and in your own words you are cheered by that?

Dan Holman: No, because I'm protecting innocent life. I'm not -- and the doctor or the abortionist is guilty of murder as far as I'm concerned. It's no different for him to be killing a preborn child or a post-born child. The preborn child is entitled to the same rights, privileges and protections as a post-born child.

Drew Griffin: So, you support this killing?

Dan Holman: I don't advocate it, I don't support it. But I don't condemn it, and I believe that what he did was justifiable.

Drew Griffin: You told me earlier that he -- meaning the shooter -- he did what the law should have done?

Dan Holman: Right, exactly. The law should have protected the preborn child; and the law is supposed to execute vengeance, you know, in protecting the child. But what the man did was not execute vengeance, as far as I'm concerned. He was protecting preborn children, ones that are slated for abortion today and the future. I don't feel that what he did is vengeance.

Drew Griffin: Do you seek this fate on all doctors performing abortions out there?

Dan Holman: I believe that all abortionists are deserving of death, and they are not the only ones. There are politicians and judges and others who support this murder that are also deserving of death.

I choose this article because it is somewhat more kind than other comments I have heard. Anti-Abortionist Randall Terry was quoted on AC360 tonight as saying that, "Dr. Tiller was a mass-murder who reaped what he sowed."

But at least these two people "say" they don't condone the murder (I think that nice little semantic dance above is a particularly interesting exchange). I don't know if their other words match that lip-service, but let's give these two the benefit of the doubt. But right after Anderson quotes Terry, a close friend of the suspect was quoted saying, "[Dr. Tiller] was a rat and he needed to be killed." And that is still one of the more kind statements I've heard!

I listen to the rhetoric of hatred on this topic and I see such hypocrisy. Not to mention that it is an "issue" and we argue the issues (both sides) as if there are not real people with real hopes, dreams, worries, struggles, families, and whatever else constitutes living this life. Never mind that everyone involved in all areas of this topic are supposedly created by God and created in the image of God. We do a fantastic job of living as if we believed this to be true!

No matter where one falls on this, like most "issues", when we remove the human element from the topic, we begin this process of distancing ourselves from our own humanity. We devoid ourselves of things like empathy, compassion, grace, love, and humility. Yet these are the very things that make us supposedly "set apart" from all other creation. It's these things in part that supposedly places us at the top of the animal kingdom... yet it is instances like this that remind me just how close to animals we are.

It's time for a new rhetoric. We need to rethink how we talk about these issues, and more importantly, how we think about these issues. We need to regain our civility; it's time to find our humanity. We need to regain our imagio dei, both in ourselves, and in how we view and treat others.

I value Frederick Buechner's thoughts on abortion, and I think they really ring true with what I have seen and heard today:

Speaking against abortion someone has said, "no one should be denied access to the great feast of life," to which the rebuttal, obviously enough, is that life isn't much of a feast for children born to people who don't want them or can't afford them or are one way or another incapable of taking care of them and will one way or another probably end up abusing or abandoning them.

And yet, and yet. Who knows what treasure life may hold for even such children as those, or what treasures even such children of those may grow up and become? To bear a child even under the best of circumstances, or to abort a child even under the worst-- the risks are hair-raising either way and the results are incalculable.

How would Jesus himself decide, he who is hailed as Lord of life and yet who says that is is not he ones who, like an abortionist, can kill the body we should fear, but the ones who can kill body and soul together the way the world into which they are born can kill unloved and unwanted children (Mt. 10:28)?

There is perhaps no better illustration of the truth that in an imperfect world there are no perfect solutions. All we can do, as Luther said, is sin bravely, which is to say, (a) know that neither to have the child nor not to have the child is without the possibility of tragic consequences for everybody, yet (b) be brave in knowing also that not even that can put us beyond the forgiving love of God. (Beyond Words: Abortion Entry. Emphasis his)

Your thoughts are welcome, but keep it civil and respectful! I welcome honesty, but honesty with tact is expected.

Jesusland

IDK why but I never can get enough of this song. As you may see on the right and down, I've been listening to Ben Folds Presents University a Cappella. Below is the UNC Loreleis performing their version of the song. Hauntingly beautiful and really refocuses the song on the lyrics.


The original song is a beautiful video and song of juxtaposition in our faith, the USA, morals, priorities, and such. There is something that rings so true in this song every time I hear it! Here's the link to the original Ben Folds video!

Your thoughts?

Unlikely Disciple (Review)

In The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University, Kevin Roose sets out on a fantastic adventure to try and understand the religious right culture by forsaking a semester at Brown University and trading it for a semester under-cover at Liberty University. Here's a video preview of the book:

Now that you have an idea of the premise, let's get into the book. This book is one of the most engaging and fun books that I've read in a long time. I can almost promise that you will see this again in my end of the year book superlatives! I was able to read this book in two days, and was genuinely sad when I had to close the final page.

Being raised far more to the left, Kevin goes to Liberty with an open and curious mind. I also went to a Christian University (Campbell U.), which is by far a lot more secularized and less strict than Liberty, but I experienced a lot of the atmosphere that Kevin encounters in his book. The book brought up a lot of funny memories for me about the Christian culture that was prevalent on my campus. Yet like my own experience, he finds there is a wide variety within the student population. Not all of those he encounters all within the restraints of the typical "Liberty stereotype".

Why read this book? Well, it is a fascinating experience from Kevin's point of view. The people he meets and the experiences he has is captured in his wonderful writing style. Most people I have read or talked to that have read the book wished it was double the length. He is that engaging! But what he does best is re-humanizing the most conservative (both religious and politically) and Fundamentalist in our society. Because of his open-minded approach and his willingness to understand, he captures that there are people behind these ideologues that belittle elections and morals to that of homosexuality and abortion. How well does he succeed in this? He has one of the final interviews with Jerry Falwell before his death, and surprise; he's not evil incarnate as many people think! Kevin even has a great insight at, while not agreeing with him, understands why people like and follow him. He captures what distinguishes him from others that have been lumped together with Falwell like Haggard and Bakker.

I think that many people I have interacted with online and in person that would be considered liberal or postmodern have fallen into the same vices that plagues the other end of the spectrum. We have forgotten that there is flesh and blood behind these ideas that we might fervently disagree with. Even more, we've forgotten that there is a story and a journey for each individual that has gotten them to where they are. Let's face it, each side is probably missing something in the whole God, faith, and religion department. For instance, Kevin finds something vital and important in prayer.

Liberty changes him, but does not convert him. In his own words he states after his experience,

"Everything I did, even [back] at Brown, took on a new aura of openness. I began to tell everyone in my life exactly how I felt about them at all times. I poured my hear out at every available opportunity. I grabbed at transparency like an addict grabs at a crack pipe" (p. 314).

Roose acknowledges his own spiritual growth from his friends at Liberty, but sadly most of them could not celebrate this growth upon his revelation that he had been under cover. Why? Because they had to place him from the "saved" to the "unsaved" category again according to their binary thinking because he had never said the "sinners prayer".

There are a lot of great issues about faith and beliefs/ideals that are explored in this great book! Kevin sets out to see if there is a way to bridge the "God Divide", and found that perhaps it is possible. However, one has to wonder if the only way he was able to be a bridge was because he went in as "one of them", was accepted as someone who thought like they thought, and only after they had ALREADY accepted him and he came clean they couldn't just dump that relationship. Do we really have to pretend to think like each other in order to build relationships that transcend our differences? If so, there is something fundamentally wrong with us as human-beings!

Yet perhaps Kevin shows us all hope! This is a MUST READ book! You won't regret it at all! Yes, sometimes it feels a little choppy in the editing process, but his stories are amazing, humorous, and full of transparency. Get this book, sit back, and enjoy the ride!

My Feel-Good Post

Coldplay's Viva La Vida, is a song that has so much depth to it. Every time I listen to it, it sparks new thoughts and better understanding. I ran accross this video of an elementery school singing the song and it brought a whole new depth to the meanings of the song. Plus it's cool to see these kids get into it! Check it out!

UPDATE:
There seems to be an error on the YouTube Video posted above, I'll leave it up in case the error is fixed, but here is a slightly different version of the same group practicing. Longer but it's cool hearing the second half of them singing without the music.

Jesus Interrupted (A Review)

I am one of those people who likes all of Ehrman's popular writings and this

entry into his library is no exception. One reason that I like his popular writings is that he can take complex ideas and translate them so that it is accessible to the masses. If you were to put this book together with Misquoting Jesus and you basically have a crash-course of a New Testament Intro/Survey Class.

And this is Bart's purpose for writing. He wants to bridge the gap between Biblical academia and the pews. In his purpose he succeeds on a level that I think is unmatched by any other scholar. Is his scholarship debatable? Yes! He even lists critics (including website addresses) of the most respected critics of his previous book. I agree that there is a huge gap between the academic world and the Church world. I also think it is important that people step in to bridge that gap. Ehrman has a way of engaging the reader with sometimes complicated material and helps them to grasp onto these (many times for the audience) new thoughts and ideas. This is not a book that many Sunday School classes would use, so it raises many questions for the average reader about the Bible and perhaps the "faith" they are being sold in their churches.

This brings me to Ehrman's overarching purpose (why he writes what he does), which shows up beautifully in this book. Ehrman not only wants to engage the masses with Biblical scholarship, he has always enjoyed challenging the "inherited faith" of his students and many Christians in general. He believes (and I happen to agree), that a faith that has not been challenged and avoids the intellectual complications and enlightenment that can come from being exposed to Biblical academia, is not an "owned faith". So, on this, Bart succeeds in his book as well! So well in fact, that he gives you tons of information about things that are at odds with each other (or itself) in the Bible, and then leaves you to figure out what to do with it. He gets a lot of heat for doing this (deconstruction with no reconstruction), But I have to respect that he considers his audience to be intelligent people. For Ehrman, the fact that they do not know these things about the Bible has more to do with the teachers and leaders than it does the laity.

Most people know that Ehrman is a self-proclaimed agnostic. This is one reason he receives the amount of criticism he does. However, he does admit that reviewing the discrepancies (most of which he considers inconsequential, but are rarely pointed out anyway) is NOT why he is agnostic. In fact he goes as far as to say that 2 possible reactions that someone could have after initial exposure to these discrepancies is to 1) reject their faith, or 2) climb back into a hole and ignore their existence. He cautions against both of these outcomes and considers them an unhealthy reaction. This helps keep the framework of Bart's purpose intact. You can disagree with his scholarly view, but the challenge from there is to then continue to search and form your own opinions. He never comes across as arrogant in his writings, and in fact gives the reader access to other scholarly views in the notes. I think that these are huge reasons that his books succeed in the mass media.

So I believe that Jesus Interrupted is a successful book in the Ehrman library, but does it have any negatives. I would have to say that my views are more wishes than negatives. I wish there were more references to other scholars to back up his claims. He uses the phrase "many scholars" and "most scholars", but never truly names them, even in the notes. Although he names a few alternate sources for alternate views, most of the notes reference a previous work of his own.

The second wish is that, while I agree that there needs to be a bridge built from the world of academics to the pews, I think that there also needs to be a little more "spirituality" in the academic circles. It is way too easy to take the human/sacred element out of Christianity. However, I can't claim this as a negative since 1) that is not in Bart's purpose, and 2) I would think Bart would consider himself unqualified in this department. Being an agnostic, I think that he would claim that there are others far better at adding back in the spiritual element after breaking down the New Testament.

So what does one do with Jesus Interrupted? I think that one must use it as a primer for further research into the Bible and what else is out there. Just like a NT Survey class, you don't get everything that is out there from one teacher and one sitting. However, this book is meant to open up a whole new world simply by looking at something that the majority of his readers will be very familiar with. Just like most entry level Div./Seminary students who are taught these same views, there will be a lot of "How did I not know that?" and "Why have I never seen this?". This book is best used as a springboard to launch one into seeking out more about what the academic world has to say about the Bible and, through those people, work towards bridging the gab between the classrooms and the pews.

_-_-_-_

Preview Post

For a different perspective see:

Ben Witherington Detailed Review Post: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Also more reviews on Ooze Viral Bloggers

An Ooze Viral Blogger Review

"The Shack" Comes to the Triangle

I know many people I talk to about William P. Young's The Shack, ask about his personal experiences that led to him writing the both widely beloved, and widely criticized book. Some know that on the Audio version, there is an interview with Paul, and he gives some insight to his inspiration and experience.

On the front page of today's N&O, there is an article entitled Author's Journey Grew Into Spiritual Therapy (click for full article). I post here some answers into the author's insight and background for all those who have asked or are simply curious.

AND a shout out to my man George Fuller for getting a quote in print... You're my hero George!

_-_-_-_

...in Young's case, "the great sadness" that led him to his proverbial "shack" was childhood sexual abuse followed later in life by an extramarital affair.

For Young, who grew up in New Guinea as the son of missionary parents, God was a punitive presence in his life whom he could never fully please. For years, he said, he masked his true self, hiding his secrets from everyone, including those he loved.

On Jan. 4, 1994, his wife, Kim, told him she knew about his affair. He resolved to finally confront his demons, a process he said took 11 years, including nine months of intensive psychotherapy.

_-_-_

This was Young's real-life "shack" experience, but read the full article to get background on the book's own journey and how it is affecting people in my area!

Enjoy

Quotes of the Week

I keep a collection of good quotes all nice and neat in moleskine journals, but there's been two this week that have really made me laugh...and well... I just like sharing.

1)Kevin Roose: The Unlikely Disciple

The closest I came to consistent faith was during my senior year religion class, when we learned about the Central and South American liberation theology movements and I became briefly convinced that God was a left-wing superhero who led the global struggle against imperialism and corporate greed. Sort of a celestial Michael Moore. (loc.162-64 -- That's Kindle Page #'s for the laity)

2) From our Bible Study Discussion Group tonight: talking with a life-long missionary to Zimbabwe

QUESTION: Don't you think we've over-focused on "getting people saved" and aren't their higher needs that need to be met than that? I mean like getting people clean water is saving them in one sense....

MISSIONARY'S ANSWER: Yeah! I mean you can't win a dead soul!

3) I like the quote by itself, but the cartoon added has it's own thought-provoking message

Art by jon birch @ From ASBO Jesus

Shared with love,

j

Should Clergy Perform (LEGAL) Marriages?

I am ordained clergy and one of my favorite parts of being ordained is the unique role that I can play in officiating a wedding. I've already done 2 this year, and there's more to come. There is something so holy to me to when I walk a couple through the vows that they chose/wrote for each other as they look lovingly in each others eyes.

However, as of late there has been an interesting point being pointed out by many in the church. The latest is found on Tony Jones' blog entitled: Doug Kmiec Is Right: Clergy Should Not Perform (Legal) Marriages.

In this Tony points out some interesting and thought-provoking observations about clergy and marriage. He says:

In no other fuction as a clergyperson did I function as an extension of the government -- not when I was baptizing, burying, counseling, or communing. Only when performing a wedding did I, with the stroke of a pen, make official a legally binding contract that, in the eyes of the state, allowed that couple to enjoy certain privileges like the ability to file joint tax returns, visit one another in the hospital, and receive joint health care benefits from one of the partner's employers.....
I do find it odious that clergypersons are called upon, in this one instance, to act as agents of the state.

He goes on to conclude:

Clergy and churches, on the other hand, should have no part in legally-binding contracts. Instead, religious professionals should bless and sanctify unions and partnerships that fit within their religious traditions as part of their sacerdotal functions.

Of course part of this is brought on by the issue of same sex marriage. Douglas Kmiec on The Colbert Report (Video Below), points out that "the state has an obligation to treat all of its citizens equally and to preserve the principle of equality." In essence, he is saying that by allowing the polemic Church to decide who can and can't be married that the State is not upholding its role of equality for all citizens. This is something of which I had not considered, but has been thought-provoking to me.

By watching the video and reading all of Tony's blog, you will see that what they are suggesting is a separation of the two roles. This allows the state to practice equality, while allowing the Church to decide according to their own convictions and traditions. That would mean that different traditions would bless and marry same sex couples, and others would not. If a couple would not be recognized/blessed by their own church/tradition, then they could seek out another tradition. Either way, they would still have equal rights as heterosexual unions, because according to the State, all couples would have to go through the state for the legal union of marriage.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Douglas Kmiec
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Gay Marriage Commercial

I'm not sure this solves the problem, but it is an interesting concept. Let's face it, when it comes to marriage there is no separation of Ch. and St. When that occurs, others suffer. In this case, some churches suffer and many individuals and couples suffer. I agree that the Church and her clergy should not be agents of the State, but marriage has also become a tradition of sacrament.

I'm not sure what the right call is here, but it is a new (at least to me) thought that is interesting and will be given more thought! I do believe in equality, but in that equality it also means not forcing churches into performing marriages with which their beliefs do not mesh. How do we provide equality for all parties involved? I do not believe that there is true equality if one party is hurt by the "rights" of the other. I think on this issue it goes both ways.

In the meantime, I will continue to do weddings when asked because I truly do enjoy the unique perspective on that holy moment. I adore watching as everything that the couple feels for one another culminates into that one moment where they are pronounced married for the first time! I will continue to do it because I love the role that God plays in the blessing of those that want to seek the marriage commitment. But I will also continue to speak out for equality for all, even those that I don't agree with. Those that want to call me names and label me because I disagree with their theology, I will still fight for you. Why? 2 reasons: Because liberty for one means liberty for all. And 2, because I am called to love all and not be judgmental. And I will never forget that behind these "issues" are real human faces. People with feelings of love, pain, sorrow, etc... the same feelings that I feel. We must never remove the human element when discussing these issues or we chance perhaps losing our own humanity in the process.

These are some interesting thoughts, feel free to share yours.