Sovereignty, Predestination, and the Unscripted Life

Are some predestined to for salvation? Did God fore-ordain and elect some before the beginning of the world? Are some predestined to damnation? Do we have free-will? Is God in control of everything? Are we just robots in some cosmic game? These and other similar questions bubble to the surface in Christian conversations, especially in Reformed circles. Usually the conversations take place in abstract and ethereal ways with many hypothetical cases and dependent hypotheses. Rarely do such questions and conversations ever "get-real."

As a guest speaker last week for a class on the Quarterlife Crisis, I spoke on the topic of "Vocational Crisis." In it, I addressed the American desire and ambition to script out the future of our lives. In fact, such an idea is so ingrained in our culture that one is considered to be irresponsible and foolish not to script out, plan out, and spend an inordinate amount of time stressing about the future. We are told that if we wish to be responsible and successful (a.k.a. "moral" in an American sense), then we must be self-made and script our lives. This involves what clubs, sports, and classes you take school as children, what universities we attend,what corporations one works for during summer and after graduation, when and who one marries, and where and what type of housing one chooses. It's all scripted.

The "scripted life" is one that does not acknowledge a Sovereign God. The scripted life is one where "I" am in control of my life and future. The scripted life is one where God is not needed, where I am the salvation of my own world.

To believe in a Sovereign God, to believe in the predestined existence, is to have an unscripted life. It is a life where I am not in control of my future or destination. It is one where I am not self-made. Instead, I am formed by Another. I am created for Another's good will, pleasure, and purpose. It is a life where "I belong to God." It is the counter-cultural life. A life that is very "un-American." It is a life that exposes the fallacy and illusion that we have control. The unscripted life is the only way we as followers of Jesus Christ can truly be faithful.

Killing Cain

For many years now I occasionally ask other Christians a simple question, "Why is the story of Cain and Abel in the Bible? What is it meant to teach us?" Most often the response is something like the following, "It teaches us that killing is wrong." Others in the conversation often agree and then look at me and say, "I'm guessing you disagree." I have always been amazed at this little story. It is the only story that we have of Cain or Abel. We learning nothing more about them in the Scriptures. The NT makes some passing references to Cain being evil and to the blood of innocent Abel, but that is it.

The amazing aspect of the story is not murder, it is not about jealousy, and it is not about right sacrifices and offerings to God. Instead it is about our God. Cain murders Abel. God does not kill Cain. Cain is angry and thirsts for blood. God is angry but forgives. God not only forgives but goes even farther to putting a mark on Cain in order to protect him from the revenge of the human community.

Right here at the beginning of our bibles is this phenomenal story about forgiveness, peace, and the way forward for fallen humanity. Why don't we pay more attention to it?

Post-Missional?

So I saw an advertisement today for a whole new way of being church that is both post-modern and post-missional! Really? I mean, really? I am certainly someone who has defended the use of the "post-" reality world, but are we really going to talk about being post-missional? Isn't that akin to being post-purposeful or post-worshipful? I guess the "missional" seminars and cookie-programs have run their course, so to sell new seminars and books we had to create a "post-missional" mandate.

Blessed Dishonesty

I am continually amazed at the Holy Scriptures and the worlds apart they are from our modern day American culture and American Christianity. Living on a Christian college campus again brings up all of the contradictory and complicated aspects of evangelical college student's faith lives.

Exodus 1 is one of those chapters that throws a wrench in our nice spinning wheel. In this chapter, the king of Egypt issues and edict to have all of the infant males of the Hebrew people drowned in the Nile. Despite this ruling, the midwives of the Hebrew people refuse to kill the infant males-- in direct defiance of the king. The king even catches on and asks them why they are not killing the babies to which the midwives specifically lie to the king-- they create a very dishonest tall tale.

A few verses later, Exodus 1 clearly endorses the midwives dishonesty! Not only is there a blanketed endorsement, the text goes on to say that God blessed the midwives for their actions and gave them children of their own.

I love this story because it is such a shift from our Puritan ethics in American Christianity. The Old Testament does not have these neatly defined understandings of ethics. It always stands on the side of the people God is favoring-- almost always the oppressed people under the domination of some empire or corrupt authority. In each instance, some behavior that would be considered questionable or outright wrong in our current systems is used and endorsed by the Scriptures.

What scripture text like Exodus 1 tell us is that there are horrible atrocities going on in the world and that there must be some who are willing to stand up and stand against it. We cannot hide behind our quaint systems of morals and ethics. We must stand against oppression because God hears the cries of the people!

Twitter @ Church

Check out this story at Time Mag online.  I am certainly interested in both the positive and negative consequences of such a shift in church worship and ministry.  When I was in Fresno, teens would often text me while I was teaching... offering questions they did not want to ask out loud, offering contributive thoughts, etc.  I loved it.  However, I can also see a hyper-consumerist side to all of this too.  What do you think?

Monotheism and Literacy

As one looks down the halls of history at the various religions that have existed, it is easy to see that monotheism arises as literacy spreads across a culture.  The ability to read and write fundamentally changes an individual's existence.  The way they think, reason, perceive, and understand after gaining the ability to read and write is fundamentally different than before these skills were acquired.  Reading and writing create a type of logical reasoning that cannot be comprehended without those skills.  

A community before the advent of widespread literacy is dependent upon story and symbolism.  In such a pre-literate world, the mind is subject to the mythical-- the sun is a force, a tree decides to sprout leaves in spring, the sea is a god, etc.  

The skills of reading and writing provide a person and a community the tools to begin the journey of rationally considering the once mythical elements.  More importantly, they allow thoughts to be analyzed and ideas to be processed.  Finally, in a literate world, a person is no longer fully dependent on another for mediation between self and the divine.  In the literate world, I can communicate with God and God with me.  

What is Government?

Two blog posts in the past month from very different voices (Tony Jones and Travis Gilbert) have me thinking a lot about the nature of government the past few days. Over my life, I have given much thought to the idea of government, what is considered a legitimate government, and how Christians are to respond to government(s).

Americans tend to assume that government refers to the nation-state. Thus, the government is the United States of America or Great Britian or Russia or Iran. We remember that other types of governments used to exist such as the city-state of the ancient world, but for the most part government has come to mean nation-state. We understand that local government do exist, but believe in a hierarchy of government where the city is in a county, and a county in a state/province/district, and a state in a nation.

However, I have always seen government in terms of power. Who is in charge? Who is ruling this place? Because of this, I see many types of government in our lives everyday-- sometimes in cooperation with one another; often in conflict and in competition with one another.

Anyone living in the inner-city knows that there are at least two forms of government: 1) is the local gang or mafia; 2) is the supposedly "legitimate" government of the city in the form of police, judges, and jailors.

When I was a child in school, I knew that several authorities or governments existed when I was at school. One was the principal and teachers. Second was the very powerful peer groups. Third was the bullies on the playground and in the locker room.

Today, I watch and feel the power of corporations on my life. I am governed and ruled by Verizon, AT&T, the electric company, etc. Sometimes these various companies cooperate with the United States government and even with one another. Sometimes they are at odds with the US government and with one another. But these companies often have more power, rule, and control over me than any nation-state or local government.

In addition to all of this is the question of what makes a government legitimate. If my government doesn't recognize your government and I'm theoretically supposed to submit to my government and you are to submit to your government, then what are we to do? I dwell on this because my friend Travis brings up the argument that we are to submit to all earthly authorities except when their authority is in opposition to God. This creates for a very complex situation. First, when will any government not be in opposition to God in some way? Every government is always asking its citizens to do something that opposes the ways of God. Second, how are we to respond when we do feel like we should resist or disobey? Is this an active disobedience that results in some sort of action against the government (perhaps violence)? Or is this a peaceful resistance or non-participation? Something in between?

Finally, if you are a Christian who believes violence can be okay and even God's will for a particular moment, then how do you respond to the revolutionary war, or the civil war here in the United States? One could make the case that Christians should not have rebelled against England because it was the legitimate government. However, at what point did the colonialists become a legitimate government that Christians should submit to? Also, if the colonial powers did become legitimate, were Christians supposed to submit and against the English army and the Christians in that army? Were Christians from England then supposed to submit to their government and kill Americans? (Questions adapted from blog reply to Travis.)

The nature of government is very complex. Even more complex is the Christian's relationship to government. The Bible presents very different voices on this relationship. Jesus seemingly cooperates with government while also using rhetoric that questions the legitimacy of these human governments (essentially asking, "Are they real?"), Paul seems to support submission to government in Romans 13, uses his Romans citizenship in Acts, but also makes trouble with various local governments. Peter tells us to submit to earthly authorities and to honor the king. John's Revelation is a stark contrast that places the kingdoms of this world in sharp opposition with the kingdom of God. Even participation in the economy of Babylon makes one a follower of the beast.

Very complex indeed!

Original Sin, Capitalism, and Socialism

Suprisingly to some of you, I hold a decently historical and orthodox view of original sin. Overall, it seems to me that humans are born in a state of sin that is inherited in some way-- I'm not tied in to any particular theory on transmission, in fact they all seem a little off and crazy.

Recently, I've been discussing the ideas of capitalism and socialism with a highschool senior in my former youth ministry. Our discussion have made me take a longer look at the ideas of capitalism and socialism and how each looks at the idea of sin.

From what I can tell from my research, capitalism seems to believe that humans are totally depraved (meaning that every aspect of our existence is affected by selfishness) and sort of sees an original sin idea at the heart of humanity.

Socialism, on the other hand, seems to take the opposite view that individuals are mostly good and want the good but that institutions (such as corporations and the power classes of society) are corrupt.

Many American Christians lean towards a capitalist view, and even make the claim that capitalism has a better theology because it takes into account sin and depravity whereas socialism seems to be naive about human nature.

Here are the two problems that I see: both individuals and institutions are depraved. As well, both are need of redemption. Throughout the Bible God works in two directions: from the bottom up and from the top down. God works through individuals such as prophets to bring repentence to individuals. God also sends these prophets to governors and kings. God sends missionaries to save jailers but also sends these same missionaries to emperors. God seeks to set up governments and laws, transform whole cosmic states such as death, and take on the means and ways of the empire (crucifixion at hands of Rome). God also heals individuals on the road, plays with children, and has three really close friends among the disciples.

The problem with capitalism that I see is that it not only believes in original sin and depravity but also succeeds by thriving on such sin and depravity. It is a philosophy and system built around greed and selfishness and self-interest. It seems to take a non-ethical view of entities (corporations) and believes that the State/government is meant to protect the right of the individual and corporation to amass wealth while promoting self-interested competition. Rather than seeking any means of redemption of the depravity and sin in the world, this system thrives on it. Without such depravity, the system would stop.

The problem with socialism that I see is that it does not accurately view the individual, dismisses any potential for the corporation, and views the state as ultimately good if it redistributes wealth fairly.

Christianity and salvation must have a vision to redeem all of this. Although, we will fall and fail in our attempts to redeem, we must see ourselves as part of the missio dei to redeem all things and see our part as ambassadors of the kingdom of God. This requires a rejection of the socialist system because it leaves no room for redemption of the individual (because it basically sees the individual as good), and leaves no room for the redemption of the the corporation (because it basically sees such entities as inherantly evil). This also requires a rejection of the capitalist system because it does not want the individual, the state, or the corporation to be redeemed. It, instead, thrusts its uninhibted appetites of self-interest on the whole world.

We must believe the entirety of the gospel--that God seeks the redemption of the individual as well as creation. This is done from the bottom-up, as well as from the top-down. It involves the person, the corporation, and the state.

What are your thoughts?

Small Government, Military, and Colonialism

By and large, many conservative "believe" in having a smaller federal governement. This, of course, is stretching the use of the word "believe."

When you look at spending, the Republican party since 1980 has added more money to federal deficit. The federal government expanded under Reagan and G.W. Bush than at any other time in the past 60 years. Still, just about any conservative you meet will talk about how they value a smaller federal government, spending limit, etc.



Of course, the military, which is where a lot of this deficit came from, is not considered as a part of this "big government." Although the military ultimately answers to the Big Chief and the Pentagon commanders and the Department of Defense are the biggest expenditures of the executive branch of the government, most conservatives do not consider the military as part of an expanded federal government.

However, in the eyes of the globe, this is precisely how the American federal government is expanding, and how "big brother" finds his way into everyone's lives. In fact, our reach is so far and has so much influence over trade policies, interational disputes, etc. that many call our government imperialistic. Although we are not technically colonized other nations in the classical sense, it seems that we have in many ways colonized many, many places on the globe.



Many citizens here in the United States will speak about how great of a country we have, sing the virtues of the USA, and talk about patriotism and spreading democracy. They will speak about a grand history of liberation, wealth, and freedom. However, when put under the microscope, such ideas seem to be distorted. In its history, this land never belonged to "us." In fact, the whole land from Atlantic to Pacific was inhabited by Native Americans tribes. We took the land and kept taking the land even up through the 20th century.


Then there is the problem of slavery and racism. Up until the early 1970s, blatant disrimination was rampant. Even now, passive forms of discrimination still function towards African-Americans. Then there is the issue of immigrants-- legal and illegal. At some point, "we" began thinking that this land belonged to "us." Although a majority of Americans claim to be Christian, this idea of the land belonging to "us" seems to be very anti-biblical-- especially since "we" took the land from the Native Americans.



Put these things together with dozens of botched military activities, economic programs, and international policies, and what you get is not a benevolent nation with great actions of compassion and justice. Instead, you have a nation that was founded on killing and stealing, who has oppressed an entire skin color of people, and who still govern out of fear from the "other." Indeed, perhaps we should be afraid of the other. Eye for an eye seems to be the ideology of the day. We took, stole, manipulated, oppressed, and killed. Perhaps, we will reap what we sowed. Perhaps, we sowed in unrighteousness and will reap more unrighteousness.



To be sure, there is another side of the story shared here. There are plenty of good deeds, good policies, and good people trying to do good in the world-- in the past and now in the present. However, the story that I have shared is rarely shared (in my opinion of course). Perhaps some will feel that "we need to focus on the positive." This is just a stunt of words to prevent us from taking a sobering look at the oppressive policies and manipulative actions being done today.



I am always amazed at how we are willing to be 100s of billions of dollars in debt for a war on the other side of the world, but we would be unwilling to spend $500 billion in deficit on education. I can hear someone saying right now, "Well, we should not be in deficit for any reason-- military or education." That same person will scream, shout, and send a letter to his congressman when a "liberal" suggests spending that much on education, but will call it patriotic when we shoot a smart bomb that destroys an entire neighborhood halfway around the world.



I'm tired... very tired of the rhetoric and contradictions. I'm tired of people who call themselves Christians who sanction or at least turn a blind eye to "collateral damage" (a nice phrase for murdering innocent people!!!). I'm tired of Christians who believe in a large military apparatus that literally is in every region of the globe-- this is far beyond national security. I'm tired of Christians who say they believe in stewardship who continue to elect officials who wasted money in deficit spending. I'm tired of Christians who say they are pro-life and yet advocate for larger military budgets. The United States has committed the very worst atrocity in the history of the planet-- two nuclear bombs dropped on two cities full of innocent people-- including many, many children!!!



And yet, I will be the one who is questioned for writing this post. American Christians from the evangelical tradition question my faith-- in fact many don't even question... they believe that I am really not one. The first Christians sacrificed their lives without weapons in hand-- that is the true sacrifice. Just as Jesus told Peter, "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword." It's time for us to listen to Jesus. We must be Christians who live in America rather than American Christians. And in the end, this will actually make for a better America. The best way to be patriotic is to be Christian because it will make our communities better places which will in turn make a better nation which will in turn create a better world.

The Denial of Jesus Christ

I have wondered at times throughout my life why martyred Christians refused to sacrifice to Caesar or deny that they followed Christ. Indeed, as I've been reading from the ancient church fathers and mothers this semester in my church history class, this same question has come to mind several times. Why not just deny? Your life is spared for another day and then you get to go back home and be Christian, share the good news of Jesus with others, and continue building the church community. God will forgive, the church will forgive, and everyone's good.

The Romans wondered this as well. Local rulers would even plead with these Christians to deny Christ so that they (the rulers) would not have to execute them. Many of the local rulers felt that the Christians were not a real threat to the empire, were good people, and contributed in many great ways to the empire. Many of them did not want to kill the Christians, but in the end they did because the Christians were breaking the law. They even would use the reasoning I used above... just deny Jesus right now here in this court and go back to your community and be Christian and stop getting caught!

It occurred to me today what the real harm in denial is about, why the Romans would plead for a denial, and why I have wondered this as well. Empire!

Yes... EMPIRE. As a product of the American empire and the Romans a product of their empire, I have been schooled in a particular way of living in the world. A part of that way of living is "say whatever you need to say, do whatever you need to do, to advance our cause in the world (we would of course believe it to be a noble cause, even go as far as calling it a Godly cause: peace, freedom, liberty, democracy). We justify our actions in this way. If war and violence is needed to advance the cause, then we go to war in order to create peace down the road. If we have suspect in custody at a jail and need to tell him a few lies to get him to talk, then fantastic. We caught the guy. Justice is served. We feel safe again. And if we think we are doing something that is wrong, we figure that we can ask for forgiveness later. This is in fact the way empires have always acted. Some are more compassionate than others. Some are more moral than others. Some have better systems than others. But ultimately, the empire is the great deception.

The Christian martyrs of history and contemporary continue to refuse to deny Jesus Christ. They do so knowing that such a refusal is a direct confrontation of the very core values that make up the empire.

The Fall of Change

Many people have been outraged at Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments. On this blog, I have discussed Wright and recent lashing he has received. Senator Obama has sought to create a message that he is different than other politicians and that he will bring change. I have never gotten on the Obama train, but I did somewhat believe he would be somehow different. However, today any trace of that hope was erased. Senator Obama ridiculed and denounced his pastor's recent comments made over the past few ways. Rev. Wright had four very public interviews to defend himself, and Senator Obama further distanced himself from his pastor during this time. Senator Obama said the following regarding Rev. Wright: "What became clear to me is that he was presenting a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for."

Rev. Jeremiah Wright has shared many beliefs over the past few days that I find quite invigorating. He rightly sees parallels between the Roman Empire and the United States (in the book of Revelations, John describes this empire as Babylon, the great harlot). Rev. Wright rightly contrasts the difference between the way of Christ and the ways of the empire that crucified him. Rev. Wright rightly wonders what evils our government is capable of doing.

My pastor and I were reflecting on the book of Jeremiah in the Old Testament this morning. What astounded us was the similarities between the message of Jeremiah Wright and the message of Jeremiah the prophet. The language, tone, and feeling were very similar.

Senator Obama declares that his worldview is something different than Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This I believe is true. They share very, very different worldviews-- Rev. Wright's is one schooled in scripture. Senator Obama's is one schooled in American imperialism. Thank-you Senator Obama for confirming my belief that you are just like every other politician.

Why Charity Isn't The Answer

Charity is popular in America. American Christians have been giving millions of dollars to noble causes both at home and around the globe for the past century. Increasingly, America's evangelical circles are beginning to pay attention to various world crises and giving a lot of money to help. As well, Hollywood and the media are ramping up their efforts. Shows like Oprah's Big Give and Extreme Makeover Home Edition touch our heart strings week after week.

Before I move on I do want to make something clear. These are very, very good efforts! It is good for us to give. I am glad that the troubles of the world are beginning to find voices in America's pulpits and tv screens.

Nevertheless, I must say that charity is not the answer. This morning I was reading on CNN that Sam's Club is limiting the amount of bulk rice that people can buy. Why? Because rice prices have increased by as much as 75% in many places in the world. 75%!!! For the 1 billion people on the planet who were already struggling to buy rice at yesterday's prices, 75% is beyond imagination.

Add to this that the dollars Americans are giving have drastically fallen in value since 2003. What we need to realize as Christians living in America is that our social spending habits, our economic and political decisions, and our ideas about how the world works has a huge impact on the world (obviously not only our policies and idea but other countries as well).

The church was intended to be its own oikos, its own polis, its own ekklesia-- a place for an alternative politic and economic! Disputes were to be handled in new ways. Money and property were to be handled in new ways. Relationships (including the common divisions between male/female, slave/free, and chosen race/other races) were to be different. There was supposed to be a common meal made uncommon (Yahweh's Table) where people would eat together. There are supposed to be deacons distributing bread to the city. There are supposed to be apostles who teach us this stuff. Charity changes when it is linked to an intangible symbol (a piece of paper we call a dollar that is increasingly a relative number on a computer screen). When charity is no longer a tangible, real item (such as bread or property), it ceases to function to its fullest abilities.

Selling Out-- A Confused Rambling!

Recently, I have been re-reading Dr. David Fitch's The Great Giveaway-- Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism and Other Modern Maladies. I met Fitch several years ago when I was serving as an Associate Pastor in Indiana. He is a very intellectual person with a keen sense of how the conservative church has been infected by modernism (of course the liberals are too, but they self-admittedly were servants of modernism, whereas, the conservatives continue to maintain their integrity in the midst of such a great compromise).

In my first reading of Fitch, I initially agreed with just about everything he said. Those who know me know that I often rant about how the church has been taken captive by democratic individualism, capitalistic choice, militant justice, and corporate domination. I very much agree with Christian Smith's conclusion that overall the American Christian is actually a believer in moralistic therapeutic deism-- that great American religion that is being exported to the world through the media and missionaries.

Fitch makes some very good points about how the church is captive in this book. For example, in chapter three, he discusses how the church's ideas of leadership have been taken captive by corporate America. And I can agree with this. The pastor has become CEO, evangelism is now marketing, church growth is about increasing shareholder value and market share. We look to business for our ideas and ideals about teams, organization, structures, and vision. We look for entrepreneurs for church planting. Churches seek to be effective rather than faithful, and Christian teachers find a way to show how scripture and theology make those two things synonymous with one another. We are definitely captive.

However, upon my second reading I feel a huge tug to pull back from this. He criticizes the idea at the beginning of chapter three that "leadership principles" are universal. Thus, Maxwell can write a book called The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership. Fitch writes, "The implicit bottom-line understanding here is that leadership principles are not determined in specific ways by the person and work of Jesus Christ that demand allegiance to him in order to make sense."

I find myself completely agreeing, and yet disagreeing completely at the same time (if that is truly possible!). Jesus Christ changes everything. Jesus Christ should be the mediator of everything. Jesus Christ should be the lens to look at everything. But... good leaders seem to be able to lead well with or without Jesus. Good leadership principles seem to work with or without Jesus. The Empire marches on successfully. And while noting this, perhaps not all things in the empire are truly of the empire.

Which bring me to what I think is the crux of the debate... what is the role of general revelation? Although we are fallen-- or bent as C.S. Lewis liked to say, we still are able to do good in the world even if we do not follow Jesus. God's fingerprint is on his creation. These things can miss the mark most of the time, but they are not totally off. Sometimes, they just need a little correction. Or do they need a total re-haul. Do they need to be re-formatted-- erase and start all over? Except that even in Jesus Christ making us new creatures, we are not re-formatted like a hard drive (or are we?). We are still us! Yet, somehow different.

At this point some one always says, "It's a mystery. We can't comprehend how Christ works in us and changes us. We are not able to grasp how things are "already but not yet." The problem with this is that we have a real world, with real problems, and real debates like the one of the role of corporate America and the church. I don't want our churches to have a CEO like GM in the 1950s, but what if our CEO is more like Steve Jobs. That would be cool! Steve has a lot to teach us in the church. And Jesus would have some things to say to Apple as well. But now, it seems as if we have just put Steve and Jesus on the same elevation. Isn't Jesus supposed to be at the top? And yet, I could see Jesus serving Steve Jobs, even submitting himself to Steve Jobs.

If we are going that far, Jesus submits himself to sin and death-- even a humiliating and cursed death of a cross. Jesus submits himself to desecration-- which means he desecrates himself. The death on the cross actually made him an unclean sacrifice, unacceptable to God according to the Torah. He wasn't valid. Thus, he would be rejected by God in a similar way that Cain's sacrifice was rejected by God. It would be like breaking a sheep's legs and then trying to offer it in sacrifice at the temple. Nope! Such a sacrifice is invalid.

I want the church to learn some lessons from Starbucks and Google. Starbucks get something about team work-- and work in general for that matter. When the college ministries director and I went to the local fraternities as a way of our congregation reaching out to them, we came back proclaiming that fraternity to have better community and friendship and hospitality than our own congregation. To which people reply, well yes, I'm sure they do have some sort of good community. But it certainly isn't the fulfilling type of community that Christ offers. True! It might not be... but hey, it seems better than what we see in most congregations.

We talk about these Christ-ideals as if we have them and that we can provide them to people by simply giving them the gospel or believe that if they join up with us they will experience such a Jesus. But they don't experience such a Jesus, or such a community, or such a great way of leadership because we ourselves who believe in Jesus don't experience such a thing. The culture at some cutting-edge businesses is way better than in most congregations.

And that fact-- and I will restate FACT-- makes me doubt most of my typical thinking and ideas about culture. I preach the same message found in Fitch's book. I have stated on paper and screen and said out loud much of what he says in his book. I can't really find many lines I disagree with. But, I FEEL a sense that the ideas presented by him and that I hold so tenaciously are off in some way.

Painting Elephants

Check out this video of an elephant painting a precise picture of other elephants! By the way, this is no joke. I've been doing a lot of reading about the intelligence of various animals-- chimps, apes, dolphins, elephants, etc. It is truly amazing what other animals can do.

Re-writing Scripture

Speaker & scholar Phyllis Tickle believes that our generation is seeing the end of "sola scriptura," the Protestant idea of Scriptural authority correcting and superseding Christian tradition and papal authority. She believes that this end has been brought about in three movements:

1) Christians Against Slavery-- the bible does not say that one can't have slaves or should not have slaves, and yet most Christians today believe that slavery is wrong, against the will of God, and was only permissible in the bible due to cultural constraints.

2) Christian Acceptance of Feminine Authority-- according to Tickle, Paul speaks clearly against women being in authoritative positions in the church and seems to indicate that women should have very little spoken participation in the congregational setting. Tickle and a growing majority in Christian circles believes that this was a localized teaching from Paul, that he meant something else, that such a mandate does not apply today, or that he was just plain wrong.

3) Christian Acceptance of Homosexuality-- the western church is increasingly more tolerant of homosexuality and other sexual/gender issues despite the clear teaching in scripture (Tickle believes that the Bible very clearly stands against this-- and she seems to indicate that she disagrees with the Scriptures on this point, as well as feminine authority and slavery.).

Readers of my blog will have a wide variety of views on each of these three points. The point is not to debate any of these issues, but to shine light on a shift taking place. Many Christians in America today would say they believe in the Bible as their final authority and yet most of us would say genocide is morally wrong and against the will of God-- even though it is commanded by God to the Israelites. We would add that it is wrong for us to enslave other people (and people groups) because we are all created in the image of God and deserve to be treated with dignity. Most of us would then create complicated and complex arguments for why the Bible does command genocide in a few instances and how that is wrong today, as well as complicated arguments for why slavery is wrong but not stated as such in Scripture.

Tickle believes that we come to such conclusions based out of reason and experience. We "know" that slavery is wrong. We feel it in our gut. Thus, this belief supersedes that of scripture and we will then shape the scriptures and our theology to create an accommodated argument for our belief.

I do believe she is correct in saying that we are seeing the end of sola scriptura. I think we are beginning to see a new era emerge-- a place where theology is shaped by scripture but not controlled by scripture. Although I would argue that this is exactly what has been happening over the past 2000 years, it will become more visible and blatant in our time. Rather than appealing to cut-and-paste scripture verses as evidence for our systematic theology, theology will occur by appealing to themes in scripture and then departing from them to create something new. Essentially, we will blatantly state that our new theological thought is inspired by Jesus but contradicts Scripture in "such and such" ways and that this is okay and on purpose.

A good example of this will be departing from the Genesis narrative of creation and forming a theology that has evolution as its framing story but have a Yahwist-inspired value weaving throughout as opposed to a social-Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest value weaving throughout. Theologians will then argue that the Yahwist writer strain in the Torah was doing this when writing his parts of Genesis-- taking the general framework of Enuma Elish (the Babylonian Creation myth) but asserting Yahweh as creator who speaks forth creation in a loving, caring way rather than humanity and creation emerging out of the blood and violence and chaos of the gods. Thus, the new era will create its owns "scriptures" in the vein of the Bible, in a similar strain as that of the Bible, but wholly new and different.

We will appeal to various authorities for such a web of belief-- The Old and New Testaments, reason, science, experience, art and beauty, other religions/faiths/myths, Christian tradition and theology, technology, etc. Some believe that the Emergent churches (and Tickle seems to indicate this as well) are bringing about such a way of life. I'm not totally on board with that because many in the Emergent circles would never engage in the ways that I have outlined above. However, I do think Emergent is paving a road for this too occur and will converge with many other movements in theology and practice that will allow for such a way to EMERGE.

Thoughts? Questions? Push-backs?

Rev. Wright, Politics, and the Pulpit

I feel compelled to post about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Recently, I was in Chicago and heard him give two lectures in a seminary chapel. Both of these lectures were about racism and reconciliation. They were fantastic lectures and Rev. Wright was thoroughly generous and gracious. He even referenced the clips going around the news and YouTube-- this was before it became such huge media frenzy by the way. He was very clear that he regretted some of his comments in those sermons. However, he was very clear that we obviously have a gospel-sized problem here in this country and especially in the church. We are divided. Some of us are more privileged than others due to decades of unfair social and political policies. And the majority of Christians, especially those with the power, have often sat idly by and ignored these problems. Does not the gospel compel us to change our world? Does not the gospel compel us to affect the social and political landscape around us? Wright focused much of his first lecture on what is wrong in the church and the need for the prophetic function of the pastor to challenge this reality (using prophet the way it is most often used in scripture as one who calls out the people and exposes their sin-- not in the future-teller sense). and the second lecture was about the pastor as priest who must help bind up the wounds of those in pain and hurt (on all sides) in this political reality.

My friend Travis has posted his own ideas about Rev. Wright and politics in the pulpit. I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing. I hate it when pastors get on some political rant in the pulpit. Nevertheless, I find the gospel deeply political-- we declare Jesus as Lord rather than Caesar as Lord. Our citizenship is in heaven not in this earth. We are called to be transformed and to transform-- ourselves and our world. I definitely see my friend's point and agree in a lot of ways. But I also fear that many Christians think faith is a private matter that does not or should not have political and public ramifications.

What are your thoughts? Do politics and gospel go hand-in-hand? Or should politics be banned from the pulpit?

Do Traditional Churches Still Have a Place?

A friend and I were exploring this topic yesterday. I was in a particularly negative mood yesterday and my friend was upbeat but realistic. He said something like this, "I'm not sure if 10 years from now if these places [referring to traditional churches] will still be around in the same way they are today."

I have pondered this question many times over the past decade. Two reasons exist for this: 1) The growing clarity that these churches are out of sync with a non-Christian culture; 2) I'm completely in love with the worship in many of these churches. I took my youth group to Grace Cathedral in San Francisco two weeks ago... wow! Such a beautiful building that hosts many prayer services each day, spiritual seekers walking the labyrinths, and pilgrims interested in a church that loves all types of people. Last spring, I took my group to Chicago. While there, we visited Fourth Presbyterian (right across from the water tower on the magnificent mile). It's an old building with amazing art, sculptures, windows, pipe organ, and vast architecture. While there, the choir was practicing for their Easter worship services.... I thought I was in heaven or at least in Boondock Saints (you know the scene at the beginning where they receive their "call").

Thus, I return to my question about these churches having a place. I find their worship to be so very inspirational, yet they are so out of touch with wider society. Not that I see all that they do as grand either. Traditional churches often waste tons of money on their traditional trappings. They have an amazing tradition and liturgical resources, yet lack the creativity to improvise on it. They tend to put the majority of their resources into corporate worship services rather than seeing worship as a broader idea encompassing all of life (this is often very true of contemporary mega-churches as well). So ask, "Do traditional churches still have a [significant] place? Do they have a role to play?"

Non-Biblical Communion

About a week ago, Dave Dack posted on the subject of communion. He had a conversation with a friend in regards to the frequency of having communion. James, a friend of mine posted a great comment to the post: "Communion is a time for us to put aside lesser allegiances for the sake of the kingdom. "

This got me thinking about my own ideas of communion. First, I should note that I think the Eucharist should be the center of our worship together. However, in saying that I know that a strong biblical argument can't be made for such a notion. Nevertheless, I do not think you can make any strong biblical argument for our modern practices of communion-- tiny manufactured bread bits, Welch's Grape Juice in tiny cups, and a table where no one actually eats. Even those who use wine like Jesus did and real loaves of bread are selling the whole act short.

Thus, I think that we practice communion in a non-biblical way-- notice I didn't say unbiblical or anti-biblical. Communion is obviously some sort of meal or bread break during the day (this is possibly where we get our phrase "take a break" from-- it was actually a time to break bread). Jesus took an everyday ritual of Jewish society-- the breaking of bread at every occasion-- and infused it with new significance. In this way, the breaking of bread was a common experience for any outsider to the Christian faith and yet had a very distinct and peculiar ritual attached to it regarding Jesus Christ. It would be common during the 1st century to take the bread and say a blessing of some sort... such as "We thank Caesar for providing this bread to us on this day." To remember Jesus Christ instead was a very radical act. Also, the act of Christian communion was always one where your neighbors were invited to partake with you... in this way the Christian breaking of bread was about extending friendship and hospitality beyond the Christian community, while also serving an important function of feeding the poor.

If you travel to the world, you will find many cultures that have such hospitality and breaking of bread practices. Back in college, I traveled to Costa Rica. Everyday around 3:30pm, everything would stop (and I mean everything) so that people could take a break. At that break would be bread. If we were walking down the road when this occurred, random strangers would invite us into their homes and share their bread with us.

This is somewhat congruent with what is going on in Luke 10 when Jesus sends out the 70 to various towns. They would come to a door and give the standard Hebrew greeting "Shalom." If the greeting was returned (i.e. an invite was given to them to come in-- this was the command to be hospitable given in the OT), they went in. If it was not received, then judgment was supposed to be declared.

All of this taken together, I would say that communion must be at least be a true breaking of bread, if not a meal. However, we need to find a complimentary ritual in our own day for it to take on the significance that it did in the first century. Is there a common thing most people do in our culture regarding food?

Branded 0.2

I have labeled this post 0.2 because I'm still in the Introduction section of the book and this is my second post on it. Turpin makes the following observations on pages 2-3:

Our desires, our self-image, our taste, our leisure activities, our surroundings, our values, our sense of efficacy, and so much more are fundamentally formed by our participation in the system of acquiring and consuming goods.... There is no way to live in the United States and avoid the powerful and relentless formation that the system offers.... Consumption is at the heart of the way that we shape our lives, ever present and ever powerful in both our conceptualization of the world and the institutions we navigate on a daily basis.

Also, about 10 years ago she began working as a youth minister with parents who held significant commitments to urban ministry and a counter-consumerist lifestyle. However, she found that their kids were very committed to pursuing wealth and acquiring "status-granting goods." Here is her response:

I had already come to recognize the strength of consumer formation in my own life, but I had been raised in suburban contexts without the influence of parents or church with strong counter-consumptive commitments. If these young people who did have strong models of counter-consumer commitment all around them still fell under the sway of consumer formation, I wondered if any young people could resist the strong formation of consumer culture.

I find her remarks to be very informative and interesting. I, too, find that teenagers easily fall into the rat race of consumerism. However, I am going to make a move that I often shy away from because it seems to be unhelpful most of the time. Obviously I think it is helpful to do it here in this case. If you take the words consumer (and its related terms from her quotes) and replace them with sin... suddenly it makes a lot of sense theologically. By the way, I often shy away from doing this because people use it as a scape goat, as a way of avoiding the specific issue (in this case our consumerist lifestyles), and as a way of beating people up. But in this case, I think it will help us understand why consumerism is so powerful.

Our desires, our self-image, ... are fundamentally formed by our participation in the system of sin....
There is no way to live... and avoid the powerful and relentless formation that the system [of sin] offers....
Sin is at the heart of the way that we shape our lives, ever present and ever powerful in both our conceptualization of the world and the institutions we navigate on a daily basis.
If these young people who did have strong models of counter-sin commitment all around them still fell under the sway of sin, I wondered if any young people could resist the strong formation of sin culture.

Theologically, this is a given. Humans are under the sway of sin. Even in communities of faith who strive to be models of a way of life that opposes sin, people are still under the sway of sinful formation. This is why conversion is so necessary. This is why every person needs a conversion experience. We can raise our children in a culture of faith-- this is good. But we must alway recognize that even with our best efforts, our children are still formed by a system of sin that infects every institution, every process, every structure, and seemingly our very DNA. In order to resist, individuals must become aware of this captivity and choose to live in opposition to it. We are able to have hope that such freedom is possible because of Jesus Christ. We follow after him, seeking to imitate him, in the hope that such a way, such a life, such a light in the midst of so much darkness, will lead us to a new me, a new us, a new world

The Problem of Attempted Shelter

Being raised in a very conservative church, I grew up around families and church leaders who advocated for the sheltering of children from the "evils of the world." Many of these families prohibited their children from watching many movies and television shows and home schooled their children in an attempt to minimize the influence of "the world" on their kids (although these same families would often send their kids into the work place no questions asked, which often corrupted their children within several months if not weeks).

Before I go on, let me first say that I'm not trying to denounce these practices. Parents do need to watch out for their kids and protect them. However, I think these practices can be quite naive. What these families often misunderstand is that the influence of the world has already reached their kids. As they drive in their car, kids see a plethra of advertisements and logos. They watch commercials on television. Parents buy Happy Meals. Kids walk down the aisles of Target. And let's not forget their friends-- their peer educators and influencers. And finally, the parents. The parents are the chief infected influences in the kids' lives. Everything about our world-- our house, car, job, stress in paying the bills, dressing up or down for certain occasions, looking in the mirror, shopping at the supermarket, watching the news, discussing political concerns, etc.-- brings "the world" into their lives.

A great example of this is the series Veggie-Tales. Many Christians buy their kids these movies to help the kids learn biblical lessons/values and stories. However, the very idea of Veggie-Tales plays right into the consumerist value system-- one of brand marketing, consumption of a product, filling the need of constant entertainment, etc. At the end of the day, it represents captive Christianity-- the gospel being placed in servitude to a different story/message/value-system. One must learn how to discern the medium and what it promotes before before even looking at the message.

My point is that we cannot escape the infiltration of the consumerist world into our minds and lives. We cannot hide the children from it. However, what we can do is to create a new imagination that will create a counter, alternative form of divine-human agency in the world-- a gospel-storied people formed by an immersion in the tradition and liturgical practices of the faith and transforming the world through the simple means of life-- conversations, eating together with our neighbors, our enemies, and the disenfranchised/marginalized/ignored, etc. The true task that is given to parents is not one of sheltering but one of discernment and critical thinking. Children learn first-hand from adults how to see the world and how to respond in it. Children need to learn first-hand from a Christian community how to see the world (and its various component parts) differently and how to respond to it in transformative ways.

I am starting the book Branded-- Adolescents Converting From Consumer Faith by Katherine Turpin. Her introduction got me thinking about my own up bringing. Turpin described how her daughter knew everything about The Incredibles and was completely enamored with it even though she and her husband had decided not to allow their daughter to watch the movie because of the level of violence in it. On later reflection, she and her husband realized that their tactic did not work and that their daughter mimicked the violent actions of the characters with her friends on a daily basis. She uses this as the opening story in her book. Here is a quote:

... the average American child recognizes over 500 brand names before they reach the age of five.... After just a few days, I realized that she [the daughter] is well past the five hundred mark already. She knows names of restaurants, department, and grocery stores and recognizes their signs even though she does not yet read. She knows characters from Disney and Nickelodian and the Sesame Street Workshop.... She knows a few brand names of food items, particulary breakfast cereals. All of this is particularly remarkable because she has never watched "commercial" television. (page 2)

I am very intersted to see where this goes!

(Disclaimer: I know that even blogging this makes me a part of the consumer culture. I'm not advocating that we no longer participate in the consumer world, rather that we make ourselves aware of its influence and find ways to foster an alternative formation of our imaginations and actions. Thus, how does the medium of the internet, the computer, and the blogging world impact me?)