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?

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.

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!

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

Jesus, Interrupted (Preview)

Dr. Bart Ehrman, professor of Religious Studies at UNC Chapel Hill, has written several books that often cause a lot of conversation (and sometimes controversy) over the years. My first experience with him was reading Lost Scriptures (and its companion Lost Christianites) in my New Testament class. He deals with the books and manuscripts left behind in the canonization process of the NT. This book was an eye-opener for me because it made me (and through me, my class) ask the question, who gets to choose which version of Christianity "makes it" into the bible. There are many other traditions in our early Christian history that have all but been silenced though the canonization. One big question that this book made us wrestle with was, "did in fact the 'winners' get to choose our Christian beliefs, and what did we lose when we lost the views of the 'losers'?" Now many people will argue (and have argued...a lot!) that the process (which was messy and happened over a long period of time) brought forth the "true" scriptures and the heretical scriptures were weeded out. After reading many of those "weeded out" texts one begins to wonder what exactly we have lost in declaring them the "losers"? In essence, at that period in our history all of these groups and writings were struggling with the same questions: "Who was Jesus?", "Who are we as followers of Christ?" and "What exactly does it mean to be 'the Church'?". The answers may vary, but the questions are some of the same questions we struggle with today!

Among Ehrman's other publications, his most talked about have been Misquoting Jesus, where he explores the translation and preservation (copying) process and how that has impacted the Bibles we hold today. He sheds light on how messy and inexact the process is, and how what we read may not have been in the original texts.

His last book, God's Problem, dealt with the questions of pain, suffering and evil and how it is or isn't present in the Bible. Both of these books have brought equal amounts of praise and scorn from their readers. However, What I admire most about Ehrman, is that he brings these issues, which are commonly talked about in the world of Christian academia, and delivers them to the pews. Many people who read these publications (which are highly accessible to the average reader) are forced to ask, "is this true?" and, "Why have I never heard this talked about in church before?". Ehrman peels off the outer layers of the surface religion that is so common in American Christianity, and forces the reader to encounter, question (I would argue in a good way), and converse with the deeper parts of their own faith, assumptions, and beliefs. While I myself may not always agree with his conclusions, I highly respect and encourage his works and the dialog opportunities that they offer!

His newest book, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them), is on its way via snail mail, and I will be reviewing it within a month of receiving. Until then, as with the last post, I offer these materials to help get us all pumped for the book.

This is an excerpt and description!

This is Dr. Ehrman's Webpage

This is a blogalouge debate on the problem of pain and suffering between Ehrman and NT Wright, also a revered New Testament Scholar.

This is a video:

And if all that doesn't tide you over, I don't know what will.

What are your thoughts on the books you've read by Dr. Ehrman?

UPDATE: New Media
Ehrman's Interview on Colbert

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bart Ehrman
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

An Ooze.com Viral Blogger post.

Thoughts From A Wanderer

My friend, Mary, has 2 fantastic posts over @ Not All Who Wonder Are Lost. The first one I want to link to because I want to give her credit. We are all part of the same Bible study community, and spicifically one of her comments that she made (repeated in the post A Square Peg Goes To Church) inspired the thought pattern that led to me last posts.

This comment from Mary spicifically led me to my last posts:

I realized last week, that my framing story for God, theology and the body of Christ is NOT the same as many of those in my church. I kinda figured that out a long time ago, but it really became explicit for me. That realization helped me at least articulate why I felt like the square peg.

It is a good glimpse at how some of our conversations go, and how we bring our own experiences into our group to share and discuss. We have come up with some amazing questions and thoughts!!! Check it out, it's worth the read.

Also her newest post: Pro-Life=Pro-Baby was a direct comment from her tonight.

I post these links, not only to link to some good thought-provoking material, but also because I am proud to be in a group that 1) thinks critically about their faith, 2) lives and learns within the questions, and 3) (most importantly) is a free place to share one's thoughts, struggles, and disagreements openly and freely with a group that practices love and encouragement.

It is proving to me a point that many confrontational Christians have disagreed with me, that UNITY IS NOT CONFORMITY... instead it is acting in love and respect towards one-another regardless of our differences. We all acknowledge that we are broken people doing our best to become fully human (in all that means), and/or to become the person into whom God is making each of us!

We (Christians in churches) spend a lot of time alienating people who feel like "square pegs" instead of listening and learning from each other. What we would realize is that there is a communication problem...different framing stories mean we are speaking different languages! More and more people are finding that their framing story is not matching up with that of the conventional framing story as presented by the modern Church. The next question that led to my post from this was, "how then do we move forward in love once the problem has been diagnosed?" And thus we get to where the framing story posts have led thus far.

We keep splitting, pushing, and running away, but I'm here to tell you that:

IT IS POSSIBLE PEOPLE! :)

And I'm grateful to be a part of where it is happening!

Thank you Metavista Bible Study Group!!!!

Biblical Criticism and Postmodern Christians

An interesting post by Tony Cartledge @ Campbell Divinity School over at his blog. The post is entitled: Biblical criticism, when the new becomes old. (click title and give it a read!)

Are those of us who embrace more postmodern methods of exegesis and interpretation throwing away the academic approaches we learned in our studies in favor of other preferred methods? Simply because we have moved past modernity, doesn't mean that we leave behind all of the experiences and methods available to us behind with it. That's assuming that we've truly left modernity behind, which I argue that we are still in transition and have not arrived.

No, if we are truly experience gatherers, then we must use as many tools at our disposal for understanding and interpreting the Bible as possible. If we don't, then we are not what we claim to be as postmodern Christians. In fact, it takes us away from our claimed "holistic approach" back to simply picking and choosing once again. It takes us out of the conversation, and puts us back in a bubble. It deceives us since it is a different bubble than the Christianity out of which most of us emerged, but it is still a bubble that ignores realities.

your thoughts?

Packing Away The Baby

After Christmas Thoughts on Christmas:

"Jesus is the reason for the season"

"We must fight this war on Christmas"

"Keep Christ in Christmas"

These are just a few of the things that I hear each year during the holiday season. They get tiresome and old to me, and the whole "war on Christmas" seems more than a bit over dramatic. Yet as we were packing away our nativity sets this week, I thought about how much I love the nativity image and the Advent season, and wondered why we couldn't just leave it up year round. I mean, Christ wasn't born on Dec. 25th... that's just the date the Church set to commemorate his birth. Ironically enough, I am worried less about people forgetting the Christ-child during Christmas than I am about them forgetting the child the remainder of the year. Shouldn't we be celebrating his birth ALL YEAR LONG?

Some would say, "but, now that Christmas is over we must look to Lent and Easter!" I would say that Christ's birth is always overshadowed by his death. Many Christians fight so hard for Baby Jesus from the day after Thanksgiving to Dec. 25th, and then by the new year are already ushering Christ to the cross. It made me think of many parent's saying, "they grow up so fast!"

But in this in-between time (between Christmas and Easter), let's think a second about "packing away the baby". I think that there is much that we need to leave unpacked for the entire year!
----

The Christmas story sets the overture for the life and death of Jesus in both Matthew and Luke. You can read more about it in The First Christmas, and there's a good podcast with my man, Tripp, here (interviewing the author; Crossan). This overture sets the themes of what Jesus would teach, live, and give his life for in the gospel narratives. Those themes are set up so beautifully, and placed purposefully by the authors so that when you open the gospel narratives you are faced with these vital themes up front.

Think about the themes we celebrate during Advent and Christmas:

Peace on earth

goodwill to all men (humanity)

Freedom from bondage

equality

humility

servant-hood

and much more!

Take a verse to O Holy Night:

Truly He taught us to love one another;
His law is love and His gospel is
peace.
Chains shall He break for the slave is our brother;
And in His name
all oppression shall cease.
Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise
we,
Let all within us praise His holy name.

We see the themes of peace, love, equality, brotherhood, etc... in there. It was hard to sing this verse for me this Christmas season after the 2008 events of war, politics, racism, and bigotry that drove the years biggest headlines. I watched as people sang it at the top of their lungs and wondered who they place in bondage each day; who they stole joy and peace from all of the other 364 days of the year. I am not placing myself above them, I too am guilty, but this is what I'm taking from Christmas this year!

I then thought, what if Christ had waited to be born this year? Would it be so different? I know a lot has changed since the 1st century, but then again perhaps not...
Christ was born into:

An empire

Abuse of power

Wars

greed

Poverty

Hunger

Religious piety

Religious feuds

Those that have vs. those that have not

These are some of the themes of the Christmas overture. Now, here we are over 2000 years later, and, as big an impact as Christ has supposedly made in our lives, he still would be born into many of the same circumstances. When will we be able to say that, "Christ, if born today, would be born in a better world"?

How long?
How long will we sing this song?
When will we do more than simply sing?

Maybe this year, we shouldn't pack away the baby....

Same Sex Marriage Blogalogue

An interesting discussion Over at Beliefnet between Tony Jones (Emergent Church) and Rod Dreher (Conservative politics and religion blogger) on the issue of Same Sex Marriage. Obviously this is a hot topic after the prop. 8 vote.

I am not promoting one over the other as the discussion continues (it will continue over several weeks), but give ear to both writers and the comments. It is a great resource that you can participate in...just please do so respectfully on all sides!

check Tony's first post here, Rod's is linked at the end of Tony's post, and at the top of this post.

feel free to leave your thoughts here too if you like!



A taste of the discussion!

Brian McLaren on "The Voice"

I recently plugged The Voice, A new Bible translation now available. Today, on Emergant Villiage's blog, Brian McLaren writes about working on the project and a little more on what the purpose of this translation is. There's a lot of info in the article.

Check it out here!!

There's also a video which I will post here...but the article is worth reading!

Election Afterwards: A Reflection

John Ortberg Writes a great post as he reflects on the election, and the role that Christians seem to play in politics. He calls it the, “Seven Deadly Sins of Evangelicals and Politics.”

It is a good reflection and warning about how NOT to approach an election as traditionally most Christians (esp. evangelicals) seem to do. I post this because of my own conversations during this election season, and I see how utterly true this has been. I've cut-and-pasted the list below.
_-_-_-_
Messianism. The sin of believing that a merely human person or system can usher in the eschaton. This is often tipped off by phrases like: “The most important election of our lifetime” (which one wasn’t?); or “God’s man for the hour.”

Selective Scripturization. The sin of using Scripture to reinforce whatever attitude toward the president you feel like holding, while shellacking it with a thin spiritual veneer. If the candidate you like holds office, you consistently point people toward Romans 13: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.” If your candidate lost, you consistently point people to Acts 4:10 where Peter and John say to the Sanhedrin: “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.” It’s just lucky for us the Bible is such a big book.

Easy Believism. This is the sin of believing the worst about a candidate you disagree with, because when you want them to lose you actually want to believe bad things about them. “Love is patient, love is kind,” Paul said. “Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth.” But in Paul’s day nobody ran for Caesar. There was no talk radio.

Episodism. The sin of being engaged in civic life only on a random basis. The real issues never go away, but we’re tempted to give them our attention only when the news about them is controversial, or simplistic, or emotionally charged. Sustained attention to vital but unsexy issues is not our strong suit.

Alarmism. A friend of mine used to work for an organization that claimed both Christian identity and a particular political orientation. They actually liked it when a president was elected of the opposite persuasion, because it meant they could raise a lot more money. It is in their financial interests to convince their constituents that the president is less sane than Jack Nicholson in The Shining. Alarmists on both sides of the spectrum make it sound like we’re electing a Bogeyman-in-Chief every four years. I sometimes think we should move the election up a few days to October 31.

One Issue-ism. Justifying our intolerance of complexity and nuance by collapsing a decision into a simplistic and superficial framework.

Pride. I couldn’t think of a snappy title for this one. But politics, after all, is largely about power. And power goes to the core of our issues of control and narcissism and need to be right and tendency to divide the human race into ‘us’ vs. ‘them.’
_____

Find it in full here.
NOTE: I place the picture of our President-Elect, not to point out that this happens one-sided. It is on both sides, but this is the man that was elected, and I like putting up pictures to easily identify posts:)
Thanks to Mike for pointing this out.
let me know your thoughts.

The Voice

Recently I've jokingly had a discussion about the amount of Bibles that I own. My wife sarcastically asked, "how many Bibles does one person need?" While I agree that the average person doesn't need 20 different Bibles, my suggestion is that people who want to engage in deeper study (above simply reading) that they have at least 2. You need one good translation, and one good Study Bible. I also suggest that they check out ones that are written in easier language, which until recently consisted of pretty much either The Message or The Living Bible. These are paraphrases, and cannot be depended on for a good translation. I also usually promote the Amplified Bible since it tries to keep the feel of the original language.

Here are my top Bibles I use:
1) The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha (NRSV)-- Got me through 2 religion degrees
2) Archaeological Study Bible: An Illustrated Walk Through Biblical History and Culture (NIV)-- A fantastic Bible that takes you into the context and history of the Bible.
3) The NoteWorthy New Testament (TNIV)-- This small leather-bound Bible has every other page blank for note-taking, a lot like my beloved Moleskine notebooks.
_-_-_-_
My latest Bible is the reason for this post. It is a newer Bible (only NT so far) that I was really skeptical about, but it has recently won me over.

The Voice




This is a new project that tries to recapture the feel of the original texts with the accuracy of translation. This translation is called a Dynamic Translation, which means it is short of a paraphrase, but still not as accurate and academic as some of the best translations. However, it is easy to read, and it's language is beautiful. They partnered good writers (Leonard Sweet, Donald Miller, Sara Groves, Matt Wertz, Brian McLaren, Phyllis Tickle, and more) With renowned Biblical scholars. This means that the commentary notes are insightful, and the language is poetic where it should be poetry, conversation where it should be dialog, and well-written narrative where narratives are being told.

The People picked to work on this Bible come from all across the spectrum in their beliefs. The Voice truly feels balanced (and by the credits I would say that each "side" has had just as much input). It is Holistic. It does a fantastic job of trying to capture the holistic understanding of spirituality, as well as the holistic meanings usually lost to our 21st century readings of loaded words.

For instance, Acts 2: 42-47 does not use the word saved/salvation. I know that that right there will turn many hard-core evangelicals off, but it is a more contextually honest translation and feeling of the text. It replaces the phrase, "...those being saved." to, "everyone who was experiencing liberation." That doesn't mean that the word "saved" is not a correct way to translate there, but Paul is speaking about something far bigger (the work and teachings of Jesus) than the connotation of the word "saved" usually means for us today. Paul is speaking about more than just eternal security, but those being liberated into a new life. I truly like the choices of wording in The Voice for the most part.

I had already done my research of context and translation for our Bible Study last week (which included this passage in Acts), and then went and read the passages in The Voice. Along with the commentary, I truly was struck with how readable, discussable, and insightful this translation is. This is one of the most accessible Bibles I have ever read, and will be a constant resource for my personal study, as well as teaching/leading/discussing Bible Study.

The Voice features:

Screenplay-like format, ideal for public readings and group studies
Insightful commentary within the passages (not a "Study Bible" or
truly a "Devotional Bible")
Book introductions that are concise, but spot on and very informative in
contextualizing the book

I encourage people to check this out. To grab it, and let it grab you! Again, it shouldn't replace a good academic translation, but it can be a great constant companion, and truly a Bible that is hard to put down! My hope is that they continue on with an OT, and it can't get here soon enough!

Check it out and let me know your thoughts.

Below The Line

Today is "Blog Action day", where many bloggers come together and focus/discuss one issue: Poverty!


Blog Action Day 2008 Poverty from Blog Action Day on Vimeo.

I start with some links to some great posts:
Poverty Sucks
A Deconstructed Christian
Blog Action Day 2008 :: Redistributive Giving
Blogging about Poverty
Blog Action Day 2008: Poverty - Two Things You Can Do
Blog Action Day: Their Daily Bread
________________

As I sit and watch the presidential debate tonight, one can really see that the economic recession, depression....whatever we call it, is hurting many people. As I look at how much money my wife and I have lost in this past month in our investments...well it's discouraging!

But there is one thing it is NOT. What it is not, is sickening! What is sickening is the issue of world poverty. When I see numbers and figures of people (and it's not just in underdeveloped countries.... News Flash: there's a poverty problem in the U.S. prior to the economic crisis) who live DAILY in poverty, hunger, and disease. looking at even our seemingly meager budget, my wife and I STILL can't imagine what it is like to live a life below the poverty line. It's not even a fair comparison. But maybe, just perhaps, we will remember how hard it is now that we have to cut back on some wants, and then think about those that have no budget for needs...little less wants.

So two things I want to contribute to the discussion:

1)A verse and a thought:
Proverbs 13:23-- “A poor man’s field may produce abundant food, but injustice sweeps it
away.”

Poverty is a huge injustice in this world. Every person, made in the image of God; a child of God, deserves the basic human rights. Each person deserves the right to feed themselves and their families. Everyone deserves the right to have shelter and medicines. Everyone has the natural human right to live... to experience a life where each day's bread is provided.

Do we hear the poor's prayer that says, "give us this day our daily bread." Perhaps when we were commanded to pray that same line as those who "have" it was partially a reminder that we DON'T have to worry about having food tomorrow, so let's think about what we can do for those who do have that stress.

2) How I help:
There are many links of charities to give to within the links above. Alison and I have several things we do. Compassion International is a good organization (I've known people who work with the kids), and we support a child from Honduras. There are a lot of other organizations we support, but you have to find the one(s) that's right for you.

My personal favorite is the ONE Campaign. The reason I like this is because you don't send them money. If you want an organization to send money to, there is a list on there site here. I have worn the bracelet and shared the vision with many people for almost 2 years. I like that I can take a more active role. I have written letters, signed petitions, spoken with organizations I have connections with about partnering/supporting ONE, and have worked through those organizations to further the cause of ONE: the campaign to end world poverty!

ONE wants the poverty issue to be known, to truly become an issue that we care about! They have been very active during this election year. Here's a vid.



This may not be the organization for you, but still, help make the issue known. Talk with your friends and family about it. Make this invisible issue an ongoing discussion. Find a way where you can help, and know that it's not always about giving money. Your time and energy can be just as effective.

This is more than just a "one day a year" discussion and issue for me. It is a big part of the essence of my calling as a follower of Christ.

Do I believe that world poverty can be eliminated? I HAVE to believe it, because I have to believe that since there is enough wealth and food in the world to eliminate poverty, that one day humanity in all of its goodness will come together and take this issue off the table. Then on one "Blog Action Day" sometime down the road, we can have a discussion of what a terrible thing poverty used to be, rather than what a terrible thing it IS...

Love,
Justin

TRUE<

Several weeks ago, the church my wife and I have been going to recently, Crosspointe, wrapped up a series called "The Truth Is Not Enough". This series really caught a lot of what has drawn me into this church. It is a great place that encourages thinking for yourself, challenging the status-quo, allows/encourages doubts, frustrations, and welcomes real life into real faith! I know that there are other churches out there like this, but as you guessed this is the diamond in the rough so to speak. The exception over the norm.

Anyway, this series truly had me thinking. The last several posts and comments/discussions are kid-of a semi lead-up to this post. During the series I tried to publish my thoughts on this but each week gave inspired new thoughts and questions. Thus it has remained in draft limbo of late. It's just now that I feel I can at least hold my breath long enough to hit the "publish post" button. This is a mixture of Jonathan and Steve's thoughts as well as my own.

As you can see from a portion of the graphic from the series the subtitle was "TRUE<" This was inspired and great!!! As listed in my journal the series was: True <

Jesus
Faith
Grace
Hope
Love

The essence of the messages was this: Truth is less than _topic__! Yeah, that's it. What a person considers that he/she KNOWS or THINKS is the "truth" is not as important as Jesus, Faith, Grace, Hope, and Love. Let me break it down a little more.

There are a lot of bloggers/Christians/churches that want to argue. They all want to be RIGHT! There are even some blogs that's sole purpose is to call people names, "expose heresy", and just to be downright divisive and cruel. I won't link to those blogs as not to seem like making them the focal point of this post, but you don't have to search hard to find any of them. No, as stated above, I have run into these argumentative types all throughout my life. People that believe they KNOW/HOLD the Truth and that all other ideas/thoughts/beliefs are simply wrong or heretical. People have written books and by-laws on what a person HAS to believe in order to follow Jesus.

The problem is that doctrine can have the effect of making God so small. And although it is helpful to help us understand God, Jesus, Faith, Discipleship, etc.. better, in the end it should never become the main priority in one's faith. We can think we know concepts, doctrines, and creeds, but when it comes down to it there will always be disagreement. This usually leads to people becoming harsh towards those who's idea(s) of "Truth/truth" is different than their own. In addition, concepts and ideas are great, but honestly worth NOTHING when it doesn't translate into a way of living!

My last post, on people sincerely sharing why they aren't a Christian is a great example. It was an inspired question and forum to allow others to be heard. But what many people will do with that, what it seems the church is doing with that, is offering MORE KNOWLEDGE; ANSWERS to these real stories. Diminishing and "debunking" their REAL questions, doubts and issues through the means of apologetics, is offering knowledge when most of them are saying that knowledge, or TRUE, is not enough. I need REAL! But that seems to be the only way Christianity (for the most part) responds. Why is that?

Being a follower of Christ was never about holding knowledge, but a better way of living. In Christ's final words, he tells his disciples to "GO"....

There are many problems with thinking that you "know" the answers. It makes a person complacent in their pursuit of God. When we become complacent we forget that merely "true" is vastly different from REAL! And one thing that I have seen from a decade in ministry is that people are more interested in a faith that's REAL than the are in a faith who's approach is a piling on of abstract concepts! When being a Christian is all in our head, then it is far from real! When it's stuck in our head, it is not found in our hands, out tongues, our feet and our hearts! We need to get past conceptual/theoretical faith into a faith that is real and works in a real world!

What does that mean? Well, it means that we can argue about these concepts all day long, but if we go to bed at night and these concepts have not made a difference in the way we live out our lives... or if we have wasted a lot of time ARGUING (for the record I love discussion of concepts, and am fine with someone disagreeing with me (I actually encourage people to critically think about what I'm saying), but there is a huge line between discussion and arguing) and not living then it is not real. To be a Christian is to be REAL. Christ came to be real. He dealt with reality. He didn't escape from it, he didn't argue with it, he just lived the kingdom life within it!
TRUE less than JESUS

What about TRUE less than FAITH?
Faith is tough. what "having faith in God/Jesus" truly means in all of it's depth and breadth, is not as important as living in that faith... as best we understand it. We can't wait until we hold all the "answers" on that subject before we allow our faith to become real. In fact, I think one of the problems with most of the churches/Christians/bloggers who spend 99% of their time "fighting false prophets", "heretical knowledge" and "Defending the faith", is the sad understanding that we all can easily fall into; that it is easier to argue concepts than to try to live out our limited understanding of faith within reality. Steve called this "a form of escapism". Faith is part of that active command: GO...

But what's worse is not so much the disagreements...those are bound to happen. There are a lot of questions that any honest Christian has... a lot of questions Jesus left us with! But many of those who think they hold all the answers and knowledge, spend their time defending that knowledge. And everyone knows that any good defence is good offence. The problem is that many times these people (and I have been guilty of this), can let their offence become offensive! I am surprised at how little grace happens in these encounters. I would even go as far as to say that grace can be the difference between argument and conversation. But having the Truth is not enough. Grace needs to be offered, and grace comes only out of humility. I personally think humility can only come for many of us by acknowledging that we don't hold all the knowledge, and that God is far bigger than a collection of concepts!

TRUE is less than GRACE

I think out of all of these, the last two are the most important, because it is the ones that many people have the hardest trouble making real: Hope and Love. So little of our degrading arguments about who's right and who's not is void of hope and love! In the sacred scriptures for all Christians, The Bible, whether we agree or disagree about the knowledge of it being inerrant and infallible, the central message remains the same: Hope! It is a narrative of hope. Hope for the hopeless. But what's to hope for?... What hope is there in someone choosing to follow in the way of Christ when all they ever see are the hopeless arguments and the unloving comments? Knowledge of the "truth" is important, but it is far less important than hope. Hope is greater than True!

And what about love? 1 Corinthians 13 says, "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal." I know that many of those who are longing for a spiritual fulfillment look at Christianity and churches and what they hear is similar in worth to white noise, static, a "resounding gong". The cacophony of our argument of what is "truth" and what isn't; what is wrong and what is right, turns people away. we have become the dwellers who's domestic disputes are so frequent, loud, and cruel that we drive out all our neighbors. We are the ones who call each other harsh names, only to turn around to say "For God so loved the world...".

We can KNOW that love exists, but very rarely do we let it leak over into becoming a true reality in our own lives. In 1 Cor 13, the greatest of "all these", including "knowledge" is love. Without love we as Christ's followers are nothing. In John 15, Christ has only one command... and that command is love! Christ goes on to say that true love requires sacrifice, one to "lay down their life"(v. 13), to give of your WHOLE self... to lay it down!
"Showing that Love is REAL (more than true), shows others that God/Christ's love is also REAL (more than simple knowledge)." (--Steve)

Arguing about God's love IS NOT REAL! Blogging about God's love is not real! Simply preaching about God's love IS NOT REAL! Love is active! Love has to be seen and felt. Love isn't content to sit and type or stand safely behind a podium and preach. Love has to be something more! Love has to be out there, DOING! Knowledge is fine, well, and good, but Jesus LIVED love. Love bleeds! Love hurts! Love is "GO"!!!!

Love is Greater than True!

TRUE is less that LOVE

The Truth Is Not Enough!
It wasn't enough for Christ, it shouldn't be enough from his followers!

"Sola Scriptura"-- a perspective:

A fantastic article challenging the idea of Sola Scriptura (by scripture alone) has been a staple in protestant thinking since the reformation. However, in light of a shifting worldview, many have begun to rethink this doctrine along with many other "traditional dogmas".

Tim Staples has an article on the Houston Chronicle's commons page on this topic.

He makes a case against the validity of this doctrinal stance and how it's been used and defended/explained. A great article to think on, whether you agree or not, I think it is always good to challenge the traditional doctrines in order not to be focused as much on worshiping theology over worshiping God.

Thanks to Relvant Christian for posting the original heads up on the article.

let me know your thoughts.

"Let Others See Jesus In You" (Redux)

I've now finished 2 weeks working at the hospital as a chaplain, and have done a LOT of processing of what I've done and seen. It is interesting to do ministry from the point of view where you are not tethered to a specific representation of a church and its theology.

I know that sounds harsh, and I don't mean it as such, but it truly causes us to completely approach ministry in many different ways. My co-workers and I have discussed this. One has been in pastoral ministry for many years and we have agreed that this approach to pastoral care is very different from when we do pastoral care to our parishioners in the hospital.

Here, respect above all else seems to be the underlying approach. We can't go into a hospital room and begin trying to "convert" people. I know this has been many a temptation for people who have done CPE in the past. I acknowledge that if this is the focus of one's theology, this can be very frustrating to that person. However, walking into a room with this agenda (or really any agenda other than providing the best emotional/spiritual care that you can) will quickly frustrate the patient on who's behalf we are there.

So many things...so many approaches in the "Christianity" that I grew up in I began realizing long ago are upside down from the gospel. Even when Jesus said, "the last shall be first", I know of very few Christians in the last two centuries that heard this "good news" and hustled to the BACK of the line! No, we're still pushing, pulling, betraying, and jockeying for a better position on the socio-economic ladder. This is not just true in business, but in all aspects of the contemporary life in the US (and most of the world).

I chose the words of a familiar hymn in my Baptist upbringing, whose lyrics encourage us as Christians to: "Let others see Jesus in you, Let others see Jesus in you. Keep telling the story, be faithful and true; Let others see Jesus in you."

I was thinking about this the other day in my reflection, when a prayer from Mother Teresa "On Being The Church" was read during our morning devotion time. The prayer clicked automatically with EXACTLY what I was thinking.

Dearest Lord,

May I see you today and every day in the person of your sick, and whilst nursing them minister unto you. Though you hide yourself behind the unattractive disguise of the irritable, the exacting, the unreasonable, may I still recognize you and say: 'Jesus, my patient, how sweet it is to serve you.' Lord, give me this seeing faith, then my work will never be monotonous. I will ever find joy in humoring the fancies and gratifying the wishes of all poor sufferers. O beloved sick, how doubly dear you are to me, when you personify Christ and what a privilege is mine to be allowed to tend you.

There is a little more to the prayer, but this is that to which I keep returning. My thoughts had been on how much my experience and education in the field of Church ministry has been to think and teach the exact opposite. Yes, we are supposed to be a model of Christ, the light of the world. But how often do we teach...do we think in terms of searching for Christ in other people? Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

When was the last time that we looked for Christ in others? When have we looked at an irritable person, a person infirm, of differing theology, or even of differing religions and said, "hmmm... you know what? I see Christ in them!" To many Christians this is inconceivable! To actually be able to glimpse Christ or God in someone of a different faith, theology, or philosophy! No, we're too busy pushing our own agendas and protecting our own insecure beliefs that we dare not look too closely for "truth" in a person that differs from us. Yet Christ didn't place any parameters on who we should treat like Christ, and who Christ would revel himself through in the world. He didn't say, "only whe those Christians who are sick, that you took care of , only then will you be taking care of me." No, he said ANYONE that we meet, made in God's own image, when we are interacting with them, we are interacting with Christ. In some unexplainable, tough to comprehend way...they too are Christ.

So while we are busy teaching others to see Jesus in us... why not take the time and really challenge ourselves. Challenge ourselves to see Christ in the least likely people and places. In "the least of these". We may find ourselves and especially our understanding, of God, Christ, and the 'good news' being stretched and reshaped. Maybe then we will think about not trying to always be the first in line, and regain our perspective of where we truly are called to be in this world!

Inspired Inspiration

This blog post is a result of MANY conversations (some much nicer than others towards me...and I admit that I can get defensive online) and a common root to those discussions. No matter what the topic of conversation is (dealing with Christianity), a divide of beliefs is bound to happen. It can usually then go one of several ways multiplied by the number of people involved in said discussion.

1) We have a nice discussion, ask questions, listen to each other's opinions, and walk away with new nuggets of thought to process.
2) The person begins drilling me on my comments in attempts to prove me wrong, inefficient in my "arguments", and attempts to poke holes in my theology. MOST of the time this is done in a civil manner and is not meant to be harsh or demeaning. However, by it's very nature it puts me on a defensive platform, and becomes not a conversation but a debate. The difference between 2 and 3 is the usual civility and there is still a fair amount of listening going on, yet toleration is more the theme here rather than acceptance in #1.
3) The person begins calling one such names as "heretic", "apostate", "non-Christian", and false prophet. (I'm waiting for someone to combine all these together and just call me a "Harry-false-no-Christ-Ape:) At this point, NO listening is going on on either end, everyone is trying to "prove" they're right, and it is the furthest thing from conversation.

So, when speaking of Christian issues, the most common disagreements that arise can be followed back to ONE issue. That of Biblical inspiration. I wrote a couple of posts back about Biblical Interpretation (literal v. other) and the disputes and actions that rise from that (see the article to see about the teacher being fired for questioning a literal interp.) However, I purposely left out a key factor in this discussion/debate. You see, those that argue for a literal interpretation are usually arguing about a kin, yet slightly different subject: that of Biblical Inspiration!!! What is the theological stance on the book that inspires all of Christianity. How do we understand this "Inspired Inspiration"?

The main theories are three-fold
A) God spoke to the writers and they wrote down word-for-word what God is saying, thus making the Bible "the word of God".
B) God actually led the hand of the writers of the Bible (as well as those that copied and translated the manuscripts down through history), and again, word-for-word it is God speaking.
C) It is a book written by different people (perhaps more than one author to a single book) from a certain point of view, with a specific audience and agenda. Thus, not technically, the "Word of God" (at least as far as it goes word-for-word).

Can you see where the arguments would come in? That's right, not between A/B, but between A and/or B v. C . Because you can't logically have infallibility and inerrancy without believing first A or B.

(I must now state that there are other positions, but in the blog world where these debates are happening, these represent or most closely represent the majority.)

So, what happens with C? Well the Bible becomes a collection of humans writing from their own experiences in a specific context and culture, with a specific reason and audience in mind. I tend to explain it this way: "It is the human record of humanity's (from a Hebrew to an early Christian context) attempt to understand and explain their experiences with the Divine and mankind's relationship to that divine through the use of language." So it is a certain culture, specific experiences, and a message being delivered through the writings.

What does this mean?
Well it means that things in the Bible might conflict. A culture who does not record history in the same way we understand recorded history (preserving the actual events), is not trying got make the Bible a "history book", but instead a book with a metaphorical understanding of the Divine. These writers knew that language was not adequate enough to describe God, and only serves to contain God to a being within our understanding. But how else are we to understand except through language? So they use stories and metaphors (the most elegant of comparisons) to communicate God and their experiences with him. That doesn't mean that things like the Exodus didn't happen, but the story (preserved through verbal transmission for centuries before someone wrote it down) is not concerned with being accurate, rather it is concerned with preserving the message. Therefore ACCURACY is not the highest priority for any of the writers...even the "history books" (Acts, 1&2 Kings) have conflicts with historical details put forth in other books mentioning the same histories. But does the Bible have to be 100% accurate in the same mindset we think of accuracy in the modern mindset in order for it to be inspired, inspirational, reliable, informative, and most importantly: sacred?

Another example:

Jesus understood all of this. Why do you think that he chose to speak in parables that even his closest disciples couldn't understand at times. One of his most used phrases is, "________ is like _____________ ."
"The Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed."
"The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field."
The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough."
"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field."
etc... (that's just the first part of Matt. speaking about the Kingdom!

"God, Heaven, the Divine...it is LIKE ______, not exactly, but it's a good example....oh, and it's also LIKE ______ too. As well as it being LIKE__________....." And that's kinda how Jesus speaks of things that our language can't quite express.
___________

Ok, so what does all this mean about INSPIRATION?
Well, anytime we come "face-to-face" with God/the Divine...anytime we experience something Holy...we are inspired. These authors recounting the stories, experiences and messages that were holy to them were inspired. It doesn't matter if God led their hand, or took over their body and mind so that each drop of ink was directly from him. He's been using mankind all throughout history to share their experiences and work together (dare I call this communal aspect community) in order to understand him and his wishes. He then sent Christ to give us even more direction and inspiration for humanity's journey. I think the Bible can still be INSPIRED even if it was written by man in his own words because the experience and tradition (stories) that prompted the writing was indeed inspired by God.

But doesn't this make the Bible less SACRED?
Again, I would argue that the Bible is still JUST AS sacred in this understanding as it is in the "Divinely Inspired" approach. Some would even argue that it is MORE sacred from this vantage point! Let me explain. Sacred has traditionally been tied to the source of said topic. However, that is always in hindsight. What MAKES something sacred is us! How we treat and approach something is what makes it sacred. Why do you think idolatry is high on the "no-no" list? It's not that making en graven images, or having icons is in itself idolatrous, it is how we approach and treat these icons that makes our acts idolatry.


For Centuries, these writings have been held in the highest esteem. They have been considered "sacred" by more than one religion because of how they speak to us! There were many writings that didn't make the Bible's "cut", yet were considered sacred to different communities in a different time.

Addition: (I don't feel like I finished my thought process here)...
I sometimes feel that in the way we approach the Bible, there's a fine line between that sacredness and idolatry. I have had people point this out with the above idea..."don't you think that this view/approach leads to an idolatrous view of the Bible?". I would have to admit that yes, it can be a tendency. However, admitting that it is NOT God's dictation, and that it is in fact errant and fallible stems people away from treating it as MORE THAN sacred. In fact, I would argue that in modern Christianity, the A and B view has actually LED people to allow the Bible to become an idol. When we allow the Bible to be something MORE than what it is, when it becomes an extension of God (part of God), or hold the same qualities of God (without error/ never wrong), it can become a sort of god in our lives. There are many people that focus so much on the Bible (like the argument that God CAN'T reveal himself outside of the 66 leather-bound books) that they can fall victim to a form of idolatry. Modern Christianity has had a habit of raising the Bible BEYOND the sacred, to the Divine...in all practicality, worshipping the Bible rather than worshiping God. Worshiping their pick-and-choose scriptural God, over a God that is not bound in or by the scriptures. As Marcus Borg Says, "The Bible is the finger pointing towards God, not God himself. There is a big difference in worshipping the finger, and worshipping God." (Reading The Bible Again For The First Time emphasis mine and slightly paraphrased).

In addition to C's view still being sacred, when people view these writings as human beings and communities struggling to understand God and our purpose in the world (the same question that people and communities of faith are asking today!!!), there is a connection that transcends time and space. We can relate to their humanity, their struggles, their mistakes, and their victories. We add their stories to our own stories; their experiences with the Divine to our experiences with God and his Kingdom/work!!!! This timeless, seemingly supernatural, connection makes the Bible even MORE sacred to many people!
__________
So, nutshell version of this approach. What are the implications? Well, there is a language barrier... an understanding barrier when two people (one who belongs in A or B and thinks anything else is wrong, thus cannot converse with C because their theology (built with this cornerstone) begins to fall apart if questioned) simply cannot accomplish true conversation. It leads usually, to either #2 or#3.

The question I'm pondering is how to get around this hump. This theological and religious structure we call inspiration, seems to be the biggest dividing point amongst Christians because everything else Biblically derived is tied to a person's personal understanding of the inspiration of the Bible. Until we can cross this language/viewpoint barrier...I'm afraid, I'm afraid that we will continue this trend in Christianity to keep dividing when Unity is needed most. I wish we could switch our focus from unity around beliefs to unity around something else? ! That's where our conversations need to be centered! We need to be finding what it is we can unify ourselves around, not continually debating that which continues to divide us!

What are your thoughts?

Searching For Questions?

Is it ok to question the historicity (the historical accuracy of what is said and portrayed literally) in the Bible?
What can be gained from this?
What harm can it bring?

One man, Ed Dobson, found out the answer to that first question was "no", in a tough way:



BIO/BACKGROUND--From ThinkChristian
Dobson, the 31-year-old son of retired Calvary Church pastor Ed Dobson, resigned his post as Bible teacher at NorthPointe Christian High School last week after the school board questioned his role in the March 16 special, “Jesus: The Missing History.”
On the hourlong program, Dobson questioned biblical scholars on possible contradictions between the Gospels and the historical evidence of Jesus’ life. The questions included:
Was Bethlehem Jesus’ birthplace?
Was Jesus a carpenter or a stone mason?
Was Jesus’ eviction of money changers from the temple a political or religious move?
Is there any truth in the Gnostic gospels?
In the program, which is not scheduled for rebroadcast, Dobson does not definitively answer the questions or take a position. He interviews biblical scholars who present evidence that contradicts the Bible.

A series of emails from the school board and community shows that the situation is predictably messy and complicated, and while I’m sympathetic to Kent and have a great deal of respect for his work, I don’t want to comment much on this case because I don’t know all the facts. Hopefully he and his church community will work this out in a Biblical manner. However, this bit—from an email by an upset parent—stood out and points to a broader question (emphasis mine):
We understand that this was done with unbelievers and that parts of this were edited.
The part that actually concerns me that as a Christian the Bible was questioned. The Bible is never to be questioned!
Why as a Christian would one place himself in this type of situation where we would actually be questioning the Bible.
________________________

Ok, so I have some questions...

In the world of academia, this question was the "make or break you" point for most religion majors at many schools. I remember how few people who came in as rel. majors my freshman year actually graduated with a degree in Religion, mostly because they had a really tough time emotionally and spiritually looking at the Bible, Christianity, and Theology critically. I don't mean that to diminish them, simply stating the BIGGEST (not only) reason that those that chose to quit did so.


On many conversations (both online and in person), there seems to be this running consensus by many that questioning the Bible is in some way a negative thing. There are many people like this teacher, and John Dominic Crossan (older man at the end being interviewed) who have spent their lives asking the hard questions about the Bible. This involves looking at the latest scholarship, archeology, and cultural studies of all of the people groups and areas represented in the Bible. There is soo much more to the scriptures than what we find on the pages. Those that see this as a negative thing are quick to label those people who question, "heretics" or "false teachers".

Most of the time a person's opinion comes from their theological approach to the Bible. Many people, myself included, grew up being taught that what you find on the page is the "only" meaning of the text. The text was taken at "face value" and could have no other meaning. This is known as a LITERAL INTERPRETATION of the Bible. Basically, what you see is what you get.

However, what some people call the "obvious meaning" is not always so obvious. Even with those who take a literal approach to the Bible you can find many different schools of interpretation. Many theologies have grown over the years by different literal readings of the same texts.

But one thing that the modern research has taught us is that there is a lot behind, between, and beneath what we find on the pages of the Bible. Knowing things like cultural practices, political subtleties, secular philosophies, and the differing religious sects and beliefs of a region play a significant role in understanding the life and times of those in the Bible. In addition, knowing the dates, identity, audience, and intentions of the authors of each book can play a big part in helping us to have a DIFFERENT understanding of the passages we were taught literally growing up.

But which is a BETTER way of interpreting the Bible?
The literal interpretation requires less research and persistence in keeping up with the latest scholarship. However, one who DOES keep up with the research will find that there is not always a consensus amongst Biblical scholars. That means making some judgement calls in what scholarship is most accurate. This can be tough! This also means that new research usually provides more questions than it does answers. As we see in the video, Ed's quest provides him with more questions than he had in the beginning.

In my opinion (having been exposed to both sides), I personally have found a greater depth than I ever had by adding in different historical findings and theories (let me stress, a lot of historicity is and ever will be theory save the invention of the time machine). Many use this an argument FOR a literal interpretation. But, there are so many passages, ideas and concepts that were taught to me one way (using the literal interpretations), that I have found far deeper and more meaningful interpretations by adding in the historical context. Things that I took for granted as "knowing" to be true before, now have room for questions, but have multiple depths and meanings. To me, and this is my humble opinion, it has opened all new depths and understandings to things like the teachings of Christ. It has made God seem more complex, but so much bigger in the process... a place I am comfortable with him being...I mean, he is God.

Whichever view you fall under, they both present their own problems and benefits.

But back to my questions....
1)Is it wrong to question the Bible?
2)Why or Why not?
3) Why are we HOSTILELY critical of those that choose the side different from ours?

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?