Hints, Allegations, Things Left Unsaid...

Ahh...Insight

2007-02-05T12:15:00.000-05:00

"He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative."
--GK Chesterton

Marking Time...

2007-01-31T15:03:00.000-05:00

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way--in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."

--Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

Now For Something Completely Different

2006-11-08T10:46:00.000-05:00

Okay, so not to change the subject, but it looks like Britney Spears is back on the market after filing for divorce from husband Kevin Federline. Oh sure, we all knew it was going to happen, but a newly-single Spears is an interesting development in the world of entertainment news. One news source apparently listed it higher on their "ticker" than midterm election results.

On a similar note, Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Philippe are also formally separating. I'll admit that I hold Ms. Witherspoon in higher regard than Ms. Spears, but this bevy of blondes currently on the market provokes some interesting thoughts: how many across America are suddenly going to think of these women as "available," even though both are recently split-up, and neither are yet formally divorced?

It is strange the way how we think of celebrities as "common property," cultural icons that belong in some way to us all. The way celebrities capture our imaginations in film or music causes us to project ourselves onto the picture of their lives. We begin to consider their life events as somehow our life events too. And in the fast-and-furious world of Hollywood marriages, these women are now "available."

I admit that I do this as well, and while I never held out much hope for Spears and Federline (come on, who did really?), I'll admit that I'm saddened by the separation of Witherspoon and Philippe. They seemed to me like a classy couple, intent on staying out of the spotlight and putting their family (two children) first. In a week with sad news coming from all across the country, it's hard not to feel a little melancholy about life. Even the weather is grey and rainy.

So, whatever happened to role models? What happened to people we could look up to and try to emulate? It's very hard to find them in the religious arena (as Ted Haggard recently proved), and perhaps even harder in the marital world. Okay, so I suppose I'm just asking for trouble if I look for marital examples in Hollywood, but sometimes I just want someone famous to "stay the course," so that I can have a little faith that it is possible to succeed. It's nice to point to someone that everyone else knows and say, "See? it can be done!" Ah well, I guess I'll hold out hope for tomorrow...

Grace & Peace

Life Is Hard

2006-11-03T14:43:00.000-05:00

I feel very sad. Somewhat overwhelmed. There's a sense of betrayal, mixed with frustration and anxiety. And I just feel sick when I think of the fallout over the next few weeks and months. I need to pray.

Evangelist admits meth, massage

What Would YOU Do?

2006-11-02T19:00:00.000-05:00

From Marshall Sahlins here:

"There is a story often repeated in European annals of the strenuous efforts made...to convince the Hawaiin King Kamehameha of the comparative merits of Christianity." In 1798, the American trader Townsend heard that:

Capt. Vancouver was very anxious to Christianitze these people, but that can never be done until they are more civilized. The King Amma-amma-hah told Capt. Vancouver that he would go with him to the high mountain Mona Roah and they would both jump off together, each calling on their separate gods for protection, and if Capt. Vancouver's god saved him, but himself was not saved by his god, then his people should believe as Capt Vancouver did. (Townsend 1888:74)

This expirement did not appeal to Vancouver, and he not only declined to perform it, he did not even mention it in his "Voyage." Thus ended the discussion on religion. (Golovnin 1979:207)

This makes me wonder: what would I do in this situation? Part of me thinks that this is exactly the kind of challenge that God relishes. I think of Elijah at Mt. Carmal, mocking the prophets of Ba'al, and calling on God to vindicate his role as a prophet and to bring Israel back to God (I Kings 18:16-46). But then I think of the temptation of Jesus - how he refused to jump off the temple even though he would be saved (Matthew 4:1-11). Perhaps we are not to put God to the test that way.

Of course, it's not a clearcut answer. The Hawaiian case was for the cause of the evangelism of an entire people (like Elijah), and not for the selfish motivation suggested by Satan in the temptation of Jesus. But the temptation story is much closer by comparison to the story described above. I just don't know what I would do. What would YOU do??

Grace & Peace

Ahhh...The Subtle References

2006-10-27T15:18:00.000-04:00

"La plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas."

I love this quote. I finally came across the original author. Does anyone want to harbor a guess? (Hint: It was written in 1862).

And, for bonus points: what is the well-known contemporary film that references the English translation?

Grace & Peace

In Praise of "the Dash"

2006-10-23T11:17:00.000-04:00

I love "the dash." I first picked it up reading Kerouac. Later in life, a friend was fond of writing long letters in the style of Kerouac and Ginsburg. I think I find the dash vaguely romantic and, when used correctly, a marvelous way to convey emotion.

Undoubtedly, the best definition of "the dash" that I have seen is as follows:

A dash is a mark of separation stronger than a comma, less formal than a colon, and more relaxed than a parentheses.

(Bold and underlining added)

*from The Elements of Style, fourth edition, by William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White, page 9.

Grace & Peace

"Hats Off" for the Clergy!

2006-10-17T13:58:00.000-04:00

In God's Potters, Jackson Carroll puts forward the results of several years of survey and research on the nature and role of pastors in American churches. I was fascinatedby the number of hours that clergy report working in the survey conducted for this book. Carroll notes that mainline Protestant clergy report working 50.8 hours per week, higher than any other manager and professional group (averaging between 42-49 hours). This leads me to speculate on the nature of professional occupations in general, and specifically on the role of clergy: when is it okay to “take off the clergy hat” in the life of a minister in order to simply be a regular person?

In my experience, it is difficult for a professional in a recognized profession to ever take off that hat once it is established. For my friends who are doctors, even before they are licensed they become a source of free medical advice to their friends and family. My friends who are lawyers are always asked to give out free legal advice. Even professions like accountants and veterinarians are constantly asked minute questions about tax law or taking care of a beloved pet.

As it is for other professions, so it is for clergy. Once ordained (and often even in seminary), we are asked for “free religious advice” from friends, family, and even the occasional stranger. In the novel Gilead, the main character notes that, even while on a trip to another state, people recognize him as a pastor and ask him to “open up a little scripture,” or simply say a prayer. From the stories of more experienced clergy, it is not uncommon to encounter a stranger who, in learning of the profession of the clergyman, will ask him theological questions or will begin opening up about extremely personal issues in a “confessional” setting without ever “making an appointment” or even visiting the pastor’s church!

It is likely that this kind of interaction is quite simply “part of the job.” As clergy, this is the mantle we take on when we accept the responsibility of God’s call on our life. But even if that is the reality, how do we begin to practice the necessary “self-care,” especially as it relates to sabbaticals and downtime away from the profession, that is necessary to prevent burnout? How do we recognize, and work out, that “being a pastor is not the sum total of one’s life” (pg. 103)?

Grace & Peace

Currently Reading
"God's Potters"
By: Jackson Carroll

"Hang on God, I'm Waiting for my Calling"

2006-10-12T13:47:00.000-04:00

“Work and Integrity” got me thinking about seminary, and religious education in general. As a society, we need properly trained engineers, doctors and lawyers. But I wonder why we are so committed to graduate-level education for pastors? What is this instinct that pastors need to have a Master’s degree in order to be properly “prepared” for ministry?

Until very recently, this level of education was not required for ministers. Even colonial preachers, who were required to have formal ministerial training, would enter college between the ages of 14-16, spend a few years studying (mostly liberal arts), and then move on to a church. During the Second Great Awakening, Methodist and Baptist pastors were often little more than itinerant prophets who experienced a profound encounter with God and felt called to share His love with others.

It seems that the “elite,” educated clergy model rests on a notion of “pastor-as-civic-leader” that no longer exists. There was a time, especially in the late 19^th and early 20^th Centuries, when the pastor served as a focal point for civic organization and cohesion – like the doctor or judge. The pastor needed to be highly educated – not primarily for his religious duties – but so that he (and it was mostly “he”) could adequately lead the secular civic society. The current equivalent might be something like a city councilman. But is that what pastors are really for? Can you imagine a biblical story of God calling someone, only to have him or her say, "Well, that sounds good God. Now, if you'll just wait three years for me to get the necessary education, I'll be happy to serve." Yeah, right.

Nothing seems more foreign to me than sending a ministry candidate far away from his or her church in order to be “trained for ministry."

Grace & Peace

Currently Reading
"Work & Integrity"
By: William Sullivan

Honor the Sabbatical and Keep it Holy

2006-09-27T01:59:00.000-04:00

I think the relationship between full-time ministry and necessary “sabbaticals” is really important - and really complicated. Kurt Schuermann says (pg. 114), “The landscape of ministry is littered with the wrecked careers and shattered lives of people who believed that they could function without giving into the need to escape reality.” It was really fascinating to learn that it takes ten years for experts to consider us “accomplished” at any give task – while at the same time acknowledging that after ten years of full-time ministry, many pastors are exhausted and ready to quit. Just when sociological and cognitive-science research says that they should be at the “top of their game,” these pastors have nothing left to give. I know that PB usually takes the entire month of August off from church: no cell phone, or even checking e-mail for a month! Elbo's parents are full-time missionaries; they take really regular sabbaticals/furloughs, paid and financed by their supporters at home and by their missionary organization. They once took eight full months off!

But all this emphasis on sabbatical is an interesting thing: my father works at his desk job fifty weeks a year. He has done so for as long as I’ve been alive! Excluding federal holidays, he works consistently with only two weeks vacation - year-in and year-out. How is it that he is able to function with only two weeks vacation, when Elbo’s parents once needed eight months? I can imagine a difference in stress loads, and I’m sure that the mission field requires a greater degree of flexibility, and more working with people. Is that commensurate with the degree difference of vacation time needed? It seems that 21^st Century, America has both a perverse fascination with, and a phobia of, relaxation and leisure. We point to European societies with long vacations admirably, and then turn around and highlight African societies that have almost none.

When it comes to Sabbaticals, what is the balance? How can we find it?

Grace & Peace

A Man Who Never Ceases to Surprise

2006-09-27T01:54:00.001-04:00

The war on terror will not be won "until we shake ourselves free of the wretched capitulation to the propaganda of the enemy, that somehow we are the ones responsible".
-Tony Blair

I have to admit that when New Labour first won the Prime Minister's Office in England, I never thought that a man like Tony Blair would have the courage to say and do the things he has done. He will be missed.

Grace & Peace

When Accusations of Violence are Violently Protested

2006-09-22T16:07:00.000-04:00

From David Brooks here:

"As anybody who has traveled around the country or listened to talk radio of left, right and center knows, these genteel manners [or America's political elite] do not inhibit the masses. Millions of Americans think the pope asked exactly the right questions: Does the Muslim God accord with the categories of reason? Are Muslims trying to spread their religion with the sword?

These millions of Americans believe the pope has nothing to apologize for. They regard the vicious overreaction to his speech, like the vicious overreaction to the Danish cartoons, as another sign that some sort of intellectual disease is sweeping through the Arab world.

What these Americans see is fanatical violence, a rampant culture of victimology and grievance, a tendency by many Arabs to blame anyone other than themselves for the problems they create. These Americans don’t believe they should lower their standards of tolerable behavior merely for the sake of multicultural politeness, and they are growing ever more disgusted with commentators and leaders who are totally divorced from the reality they see on TV every night."

Word.

Currently Reading
"The Communist Manifesto"
By: Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels

so brilliant

2006-09-16T16:00:00.000-04:00

"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools." - Thucydides

Grace & Peace

Blame it on The Feds

2006-09-10T22:07:00.000-04:00

According to Tom Kloza of the Oil Price Information Service, in each $3 gallon of gasoline, between 10-25% of the total cost (.30 -> .70) is comprised solely of federal, state and local taxes. While the percentage varies by state, it is ridiculous to me that hard-working people might not be able to afford important things because they have to pay an extra $.50/gallon just to drive to work.

This kind of squeeze is felt hardest by middle and lower income people, who barely can afford to drive to work already. The federal government needs to stop spending billions of dollars on programs that don't work, and start letting people use their money to get to work or daycare, and not to feed Uncle Sam's bloated appetite.

Grace & Peace

Recovering

2006-08-08T16:07:00.000-04:00

Just arrived back home. It's been a long eleven days, but all is going to be okay...by the grace of God.

Hallelujah.

Grace & Peace

A Necessary Recension

2006-07-28T15:57:00.000-04:00

I stand corrected. I appears that Anti-Blog and HG37 have started a NEW BLOG (I don't know what was wrong with the old ones!) to chronicle their adventures in the aforementioned far-away land. While this might be a principally chronological storytelling forum (as opposed to theological reflection), any news is good news.

I anticipate with joy following their many adventures in the coming weeks.

Grace & Peace

Anti-Blog and Another Stall

2006-07-27T10:26:00.000-04:00

After numerous promises of insightful and scathing thoughts on the Christian life, I realize that Anti-Blog has reached a juncture where it will be difficult for him to post anything like that in the near future. Namely, he has taken himself and HG37 to a far distant land without the continual internet access provided at home.

This is unfortunate, because I realize just today that Anti-Blog has gone longer in his posting lapse that at any other time in his posting career. It is a shame for him because he eschews the forum to coalesce and articulate his excellent ideas. It is a shame for us, because we lack his insight.

Grace & Peace

Why Vineyard?

2006-07-26T14:33:00.000-04:00

So, I found the following an interesting and concise historical explanation for the "sources" of Vineyard theology. It's taken from a short article entitled "Why Vineyard?", written by Don Williams, PTS grad and Ph.D from Columbia, as well as founding pastor of Coast Vineyard in San Diego. You may find it enlightening...

The Theological Structure of the Vineyard
The Vineyard’s “Statement of Faith”...is fed by a number of sources. First, the creeds of the Church Fathers. We confess the Trinity, one God in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the two natures of Christ incarnate, both fully divine and fully human at the same time (God and Man).

Second, as heirs of the Reformation, we agree with Luther, “He only is a theologian who can distinguish between law and gospel.” Abandoning salvation by works or salvation mediated by the church, we hold to Pauline “Justification by Faith” alone. Like the Reformers, we concur that “Popes and councils can err.” Thus we accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the Word of God written, as the only absolute authority for the church. This (sola Sciptura) is the final rule for faith and practice. And like the Reformers, we know that “still our ancient foe, doth seek to work us woe” (Luther). Spiritual warfare is our lot in this world. While we live in Christ’s kingdom, we do battle with Satan’s kingdom, knowing that the victory has already been won. As Luther sings, “Let goods and kindred go. This mortal life also. The body they may kill. God’s truth abideth still. His kingdom is forever.”

Third, we embrace the themes of the Evangelical Awakening of the 18th century, led by John and Charles Wesley. We believe in the necessity of personal conversion to Christ through the “new birth,” authored by His Spirit, and personal holiness as its necessary fruit. The character of Christ and the works of the kingdom: reaching the lost, healing the sick, serving the poor, and seeking justice for the oppressed, come through this transforming work. As Detrich Bonhoeffer writes (in proper sequence), “Only he who believes can obey and only he who obeys can believe.”

Fourth, we are heirs of the “Great Century of World Missions” (the 19th Century), and believe that the “Great Commission” stands, making us intentional “missional communities.” Calls for conversion and church planting are not optional. As a movement, we exist to bring the nations to Christ.

Fifth, we are also heirs of the 20th Century Pentecostal/Charismatic renewals. We welcome this stream of the Spirit into the church, while remaining solidly evangelical in our theology. As our “Statement of Faith” confesses: “We believe in the filling or the empowering of the Holy Spirit, often a conscious experience, for ministry today. We believe in the present ministry of the Spirit and…exercise…all of the biblical gifts of the Spirit.” This leads to action: “We practice the laying on of hands for the empowering of the Spirit, for healing, and for recognition and empowering of those whom God has ordained to lead and serve the Church.”

Sixth, the “Biblical Theology Movement” instructs us. We see New Testament faith as fully “eschatological.” This means that we are not simply waiting for the End, we are living in it. The consummation of all things has already begun in the life, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and the outpouring of his Spirit at Pentecost. We live in the tension of the kingdom come and coming, “the already and the not yet.” We grow in sanctification and build churches knowing that the kingdom is here, but not fully here.

Grace & Peace

Ye Olde Preaching Rotation

2006-07-24T12:07:00.000-04:00

Sometimes, it is just how you feel.

By the grace of God, VCFNH has a number of very gifted speakers. On any given Sunday, no fewer than ten people could deliver God's Word to on relatively short notice. Several of us really enjoy preaching, and the Great PB has graciously allowed 4-5 of us to preach sermons throughout the summer. It's a "guest preacher series" from within the congregation.

This Sunday will be the first of two consecutive Sundays for me. I have never preached two weeks in a row (at least, not adult sermons), so I am looking forward to the opportunity. I considered (gasp!) a series, but decided that weas too bold even for me! Ultimately, that isn't God's leading anyway.

Keep your eyes peeled for my "shameless plug" - an audio recording of the sermon. In case you're terribly bored and have nothing else to do. Yeah, right...

Grace & Peace

hablas ingles?

2006-07-06T17:37:00.000-04:00

Have you ever wanted to know What Kind of American English You Speak? I think this is pretty fun, and reveals a lot of the idiosyncrasies that I noted when I first moved from California to Yale, with roommates from all over the country (Cleveland, DC, the Bronx). Let me know what you think!

Jason's Linguistic Profile:

50% General American English

15% Upper Midwestern

15% Yankee

10% Dixie

5% Midwestern

Grace & Peace

burned out...

2006-06-14T14:51:00.000-04:00

Wow, after a month of not posting (for no particular reason), I have concluded that I am simply a little "burned out." My recent finals season was the most intense of my academic career, both in terms of volume and content, and I simply pushed myself beyond a limit, such that it is difficult to motivate myself to sit down and write anything coherent. But rest assured, strange in incoherent thoughts still percolate in my brain, and I have faith that they will cohere sometime soon and the madness will again ensue.

But for the moment, how old do you feel? Attached here is a sound file; if you can hear the noise, you have the ears of someone less than 24 years old. The tone is a new cellphone ringtone used by students in the UK and the US. Since most adults over the age of 24 cannot hear the tone, students are able to keep their cellphones on in class without their teachers knowing. For more information, the entire article is available here.

Grace & Peace

Paper Writing

2006-05-11T00:06:00.000-04:00

Grace & Peace

A Lesson in Hermeneutics

2006-05-10T13:49:00.000-04:00

"In Kenya, vervet monkeys take the ground
Until a sentry gives a chattering bark,
Which in the simple vervet lexicon
Means snake, and connotes evil, death, and dark.
Or else the sentry makes a gutteral sound
That translates in our own more complex tongue
To hawk or eagle circling for prey,
And sends the mokeys scampering. Either way,
The monkeys must take action - jump or flee
Across the ground or to a sheltering tree.
Should one, instead, hearing a sentry speak,
Decide to deconstruct the fellow's meaning
And prove all urgent chattering oblique,
A python's fang or hawk's cruel curving beak
Will punctuate the monkey's idle preening,
Ending his dissertation in mid-squeak." --Paul Lake

Grace & Peace

we know that suffering produces perseverance

2006-05-08T10:31:00.000-04:00

“I have no sympathy with the idleness that would contrast this fighting with the teachings of the pulpit; for, perchance, more virtue is being practiced at Sevastopol than in many years of peace. It is a pity that we seem to require a war, from time to time, to assure us that there is any manhood still left in man.”

-Henry David Thoreau. Letter, February 7, 1855, to Thomas Cholmondeley, in The Writings of Henry David Thoreau, vol. 6, pp. 249-250, Houghton Mifflin (1906).

'To be' is to be called...

2006-04-29T18:19:00.000-04:00

There is a contradiction between the theology and practice of ordained ministry in the Vineyard Church that I have had trouble identifying...until now. In my discussions with close friends (Anti-Blog and The Great PB among them), I have been made aware of this tension, but I have had trouble articulating exactly what it is. According to various statements (official and otherwise), "to be" an ordained minister in the Vineyard is "to do" the stuff that an ordained minister needs to do. Of, course, it's not exactly that simple. To be ordained might better be stated (from this perspective) as "the recognition and affirmation of a person doing the things of ordained ministry."

This "to be is to do" model is argued most forcefully by Anti-Blog in our various conversations, and has many theological and practical advantages. One of the interesting characteristics of this model is that "ordination" only applies to people who are currently serving in a pastoral capacity; that is, you don't remain ordained once you retire from the ministry, or move on to another job. Another interesting element is that your ordination is tied to the local Vineyard Church that ordained you, and not to a larger directory of (or authority over) Vineyard pastors. Much of this perspective undoubtedly comes from the Vineyard self-understanding as a "church planting movement." Because the Vineyard is relatively young (around 30-years-old), most of its pastors have been church planters. These individuals (or couples, mostly couples), have been sent by local congregations, venturing into territory with no other Vineyard Churches and established these churches themselves. In this way, the church planters served in a missionary capacity at the behest of their former local congregation, evangelizing the unchurched in primarily urban/suburban settings and establishing a Vineyard presence in those areas.

If Vineyard pastors are essentially missional church planters, then several practical and theological implications ensue. First, whatever is not required of a missionary should not be required of a pastor. This means that advanced seminary degrees are not required for ministry, nor are lifelong commitments to "vocational ministry." Just as missionaries may not be seminary trained, and may feel called to serve for a period of a few years, so pastors (church planters) may only be involved for a period of time. Second, it means that pastors can be affirmed as a married couple, and not merely as an individual (male or female). Both the man and the woman are serving in a pastoral capacity. Just as you cannot drag your husband or wife to Borneo (for example) and pretend that only one of you is a missionary, the same is true for the church planting couple. Finally, it emphasizes the Protestant notion of the "priesthood of all believers" and affirms it in such a way as to recognize the practial importance of an administrator, while at the same time freeing others in the congregation to perform important elements of traditional pastoral ministry (preaching, administering sacraments, counseling, etc.).

Interestingly enough, this explicit and implied theological position tends to run into problems not in theory, but "in practice," because in practice, most Vineyards are not set up this way. In fact, it can look like Vineyards are hypocritical when it comes to the "working-out" of this theological position in the real world. As articulated, this model seems to point toward a strong belief in "team leadership," based on the notion of the priesthood of all believers, whereby one person (or a married couple) assumes a sort-of "leadership by default" - by virtue of their recognition of the practical needs of the church and their desire to meet them. In this context, however, most of the real leadership takes place among a group of leaders, identified by their desire to engage with the mission of the church and their love and compassion for its local members. This vision is not the reality in many Vineyard Churches. At my current church home, there is one clear leader. Despite strong personal relationships and the value placed on discipling people in leadership, everyone else stands in a reduced position of authority to the pastor, no matter what their leadership capacity. For The Great PB, "the buck stops here." Whether or not this is a remnant of the more authoritative pastoral model of Calvary Chapel (the movement from which many Vineyard pastors came) seems irrelevant. At the Cincinnati Vineyard Christian Fellowship, I never met the wife of the senior pastor, despite the fact that I spoke with him on many occasions and worshipped with him for almost two years. It was a large church with multiple services, and meeting everyone (and establishing a strong relationship with them) was simply impossible. It was clear in this context that he was the one serving in the leadership position, and not his wife. Of course, this worked out fine in a place like Cincinnati, with an established church in a situation where the spouse had no desire to be a "pastor," or even less perhaps a traditional "pastor's wife."

The appearance of hypocrisy in the "to be is to do" model slides all the way back to John Wimber himself. Although Wimber was very open to God doing just about anything in the context of the Church, he only allowed men to serve as senior pastors, out of respect for what he saw as a clear mandate in the Biblical tradition. Yet in a missional, "to be is to do" model, this makes no sense! Not only are women occasionally "doing" the work of ordained ministry, but they are often serving right alongside their husbands and missionary church-planters, and deserve the recognition as such. If "to be is to do," women who "do" pastoral things ARE pastors, and should be accorded the same recognition.

Unfortunately, I believe that "to be is to do" is an insufficient model for understanding pastoral ministry, and rests on foundations that do not take into account the full thrust of the Biblical and historical tradition. We need to look for a different model that takes these various elements into account. I believe that a better foundation for a Vineyard theology of ordination is an understanding that "to be" is not "to do." Instead, "to be is to be called by God," and to answer that call appropriately. Think about it: the role of pastor, of shepherding the people of God and leading a Church that is "for the world" is not something you do now and then, because no one else is doing it, like being a little league coach or stepping up and cooking meals for the soup kitchen. Pastors serve a more important role than simply "filling in the leadership gap" in a church. In fact, I believe pastors are responding to a direct calling of God upon their lives to dedicate part of their on Earth to the service of the Kingdom of God. This does not have to be a lifelong calling, or even necessarily a full-time calling, but it is nevertheless a serious and weighty calling.

Of course, this is actually the same for missionaries and church planters! It is not meant to be a distinction. It's not as though the pastoral calling is somehow ontologically distinct. But we need to recognize that missionaries, pastors, and many other roles serve not at the behest of a whim or even a need, but at the calling of God. It is the call the we respond to, and in the proper response of that call we become ministers of the Gospel of Christ. The actual ordination process (like that of baptism or communion) is merely the Church's recognition and affirmation of that calling.

Understanding "to be is to be called" has several advantages. For one, I believe it aligns more closely with the Biblical narrative. Yes, the Bible affirms the priesthood of all believers; yes, Paul talks about Spiritual giftings available to everyone. But this does not mean that everyone has each of these gifts! Not everyone is called to be an apostle, nor just anyone a prophet. From the very beginning - when God called Abraham, through the anointing of King Saul and King David, to the callings of the Old Testament prophets, and ultimately the Disciples and Paul on the Damascus Road, God chose certain people and invited them to play a unique role in His plan for the World. Some are called to be prophets, some to be teachers and preachers...Paul recognized these as distinct gifts that are imparted by the Holy Spirit, and only affirmed by the Church.

This understanding solves a few other dilemmas as well. For example, since it is God that calls, it is He who determines who will be chosen. God can call whomever He wants, and can choose not to call whomever He wants. It is at least consistent in this framework to say that, while God may call both men and women to missionary roles or to other church function, God may choose to restrict the calling of senior pastors to males. I am not necessarily claiming that this is in fact the case, but I respect John Wimber's understanding of the New Testament, and it is my desire to remove the appearance of hypocrisy within the framework of ordained leadership. (I might offer a tentative explanation of this by noting that perhaps God desires to model the pastor-church relationship on His own relationship to the universal Church - so limiting those whom He calls by virtue of upholding some element of that relationship.) This is not to denigrate the importance of feminine leadership in the Church, nor is it to undermine the priesthood of all believers. Affirming the central importance of calling does not absolve the priesthood of all believers any more than Jesus calling the Twelve does. Similarly, it does not increase the "bureaucracy" of the Church to a mainline levels, because it is God's calling, not an M.Div. or some fancy process that establishes the pastor in his capacity. The Church merely recognizes that calling, and affirms it.

I will admit that part of my emphasis comes from my observation of the way Vineyards actually function, and the appropriate (I believe) emphasis they implicitly place on the unique calling to ministry displayed by those seeking ordination. This is occasionally in spite of their "to be is to do" rhetoric! They seem to understand the importance ordination without properly being able to articulate just why is it so. My mindset shaped by my understanding of my own call to pastoral ministry in the military chaplain corps. This role is very distinct, both in the Church and in the military, and allows for a unique kind of access to authority by virtue of this position. It is not something you just "start doing" and are then recognized. For military chaplains, "to be" is most certainly not "to do." It is a position that entails rights and responsibilities that are occasionally matters of life and death. Just as an apostle has certain responsibilities, a prophet has others, and an evangelist still others, so too does the chaplain/pastor. You do not leave the Church to become a prophet, evangelist or pastor. You are not called out from the Church for these roles. Instead, the ministry is internal to the church body and to the world. But the recognition and affirmation of that calling provides both responsibilities and rights. It may be important to be called "Pastor _____", or perhaps in certain occasions to wear a certain type of clothing. This is not to highlight your special characteristics as special, but to enable those in your care (or perhaps more importantly, in the world) to recognize your calling and identify you as someone who might help them see God in their situation. In the military, I will be addressed as "Chaplain ________." I will wear a uniform with a cross on the sleeve and on the collar, so that anyone who sees me will know that they can approach me with spiritual questions and have confidence that I will take the time to help them address these questions. The same rules apply in the civilian world (although perhaps less distinction is required for practical purposes) and there is no reason to shun either the rights or the responsibilities of a calling from God under the pretense of false humility or "team leadership." Humility and team leadership are important, but we must recognize that God calls certain individuals to distinct roles in the church (prophets, evangelists, pastors, etc.), and if he has done so for a reason, then we ought to step aside and let them do their job, or step out ourselves in confidence and live out those rights and responsibilities. To do otherwise is to undermine God's call.

A proper understanding of Vineyard theology of ordination ought to focus not on "to be is to do." This notion fails not only on the practical level, but also on the theological and Scriptural ones as well. God's call will lead us to understand rather that "to be is to be called," and to respond and be affirmed appropriately in that calling...I welcome your thoughts and considerations.

Grace & Peace

'The Issue' is not the issue here dude!

2006-04-24T09:42:00.000-04:00

Much of what separates ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ theological positions (however defined) is, in my estimation, rarely a question of practice. It is most often a question of hermeneutics – specifically, how Christians ought to relate to the sacred text of Scripture. In other words, though some denominations may choose not to ordain women, it is the rare church that has no women in positions of authority – either elsewhere in the church or behind the scenes. Similarly, though some churches frown at the notions of “seeker sensitive” services, it is the rare church that takes no thought of possible visiting guests. While many denominations place limits on the affirmation of an active homosexual lifestyle, it is the (increasingly) rare church that actively tries to root out any ‘gender uncertainty’ from the church body. The question is not so much whether we will seek to love our neighbor, but within what framework we will do so.

Broadly speaking, the liberal tradition holds more loosely to divergent elements of Scripture, while still retaining a strong notion of what it means to be Christian. Conservatives hold more tightly to the Scriptural text, trying to make it fit together coherently and generally unwilling to sacrifice some parts for others. But, when debates get heated about some subject or other, it is important to keep in mind that what is ultimately at stake is not often the issue, but rather what this issues implies about the importance of the biblical text to the participants.

Grace & Peace

I am indebted to Anti-Blog for inspiration and direction in this post.

The problem with "who we are"

2006-04-22T13:27:00.000-04:00

Grace & Peace

What Makes a Church? (Or, why isn't my Home Group a church?)

2006-04-20T13:33:00.000-04:00

I've been thinking a lot about what it means to "be a church," and more specifically, why something like an InterVarsity or Campus Crusade meeting doesn't really count as church; or why a 12-step meeting does not qualify. This comes after some extended reflection on the many ways that my current (and most excellent) home group functions as a church. And, while I have not come to any conclusions, here are some formal and informal ways that this amazing group of Christians functions like a church body:

We gather each week in the name of Jesus Christ to hear and engage God's Word. (We have a regular teaching rotation)
We worship with music and song each week. (We have a regular "worship team" rotation.)
We regularly meet with one another for informal friendship/fellowship outside of the Home Group setting. (We have a sense of Community.)
We go on retreats together as a community.
We have a pastoral care/outreach ministry - providing materially (food and finances) for those in our community and elsewhere that are in need.
We have an (admittedly informal) accountability structure.
We have "small groups" within the larger group that pray for one another.
We are multi-generational (well, at least partially. Folks in their 40's down to infants...If the infants ever will come!)
We have our own online directory and home page.
We are willing to provide child care.

According to a book on Vineyard ecclesiology that I have been reading, the following are "characteristics of an authentic church:"

Where believers gather regularly in the Name of Jesus Christ for fellowship, worship, prayer, ministry and mission.
Where the Word of God is faithfully preached
Where oversight and disciple are properly constituted and administered
Where the ordinances (sacraments) of Christ are properly administered
Where recognition and respect is given by the broader Church

While I think that definition misses some important points, we fulfill 1 & 2, we at least partially fulfill 3 & 5. Because we do not think of ourselves as church, we do not yet fulfill 4. In any event, it is interesting to think about what constitutes a church, and which elements are important, and which come naturally (without much forethought).

Grace & Peace

A Small Poem on Grammar

2006-04-18T17:15:00.000-04:00

In words as fashions the same rule will hold,
Alike fantastic if too new or old:
Be not the first by whom the new are tried,
Nor yet the last to lay the old aside.
--Alexander Pope
An Essay on Criticism, II.133–136.

Grace & Peace

More of the Same

2006-04-14T15:51:00.000-04:00

I am now on a mission to expose ridiculously crazy women teachers and their perverse relationships with students. Since my last post I have seen three (3!) more articles on women teachers in anappropriate relationships with their students. I was going to ignore them until this latest one here, which involves not only sex with underage student(s), but apparently an attempt to involve one of the students in a murder plot! Please check back often for the latest on this most disturbing of trends...

(Another one here.)

Grace & Peace

Hot for teacher?!?

2006-04-11T17:48:00.000-04:00

An unusual number of teachers have been indicted in the past year for inappropriate sexual relationships with their high school (and even junior high) students. What is noteworthy in this case is that these teachers were women.

The Smoking Gun has a series of postings on these cases. You can find all of them here. Another interesting article is posted here. One female teacher is accused of having sex with her 13-year-old student (!!) 28x in one week! Simply mind boggling...

There are several elements of this phenomenon that I find intriguing. First, I find the actions of these women incomprehensible. Although several are somewhat 'homely' in appearance, none of them are repulsive and several are quite beautiful. The often have families and children of their own. Many of us are familiar with the case of Mary Kay Latourneau, an attractive teacher who married and has two children with a student who was 13 years old when they began an affair. Prior to her arrest, she was (to the outside world) an apparently happy wife and mother. The ambivalence with which society approached that incident was surprising, but even more surprising is the apparent 'trend' that Ms. Latourneau began. It seems that this trend has now turned into something of an epidemic.

However, after speaking with one female teacher friend of mine, I am starting to understand the twisted dynamics that apparently underlay at least part of this grotesque phenomenon. For one, the males (students, children) are often the aggressors in these situations. The hyper-sexualization of society creates young men who are extremely sexually knowledgeable and often quite sexually aggressive. Unhappy teachers lose a certain perspecitve on reality, and begin to view these children who are making aggressive sexual advances as exciting, thrilling in a way that their quotidian suburban lives are not. Often these 13-16 year old males are physically mature, taller than their female teachers and quite capable of "talking the talk." They are often quite willing participants in their own statutory rape, aggresively pursuing the relationship and bragging to their friends about their 'conquest' of the teacher.

Additionally, society does not view female-to-male sexual assault in nearly the same terms as it views male-to-female assult. The uneducated often assume that it is not physically possible to sexually assault a male in the same manner as a female, while even the educated offer a much more muted criticism, blaming the teacher for an ethical violation, while making gestures to the idea that 'boys will be boys.' Some even offer a tacit endorsement, with suggestions that laws should be changed to decriminalize at least part of this behavior around the age of 16.

Frankly, I think this undermines the common understanding of men as the primary sexual predators in society. This is perhaps the most interesting element of these stories to me. As a man, I find myself under significantly more scrutiny than my female friends when it comes to my association with children. People are often suspicious of any involvement of men with their non-biological children. There is the presumption in society that men who associate with children are strange and likely sexual offenders. These men are viewed with open suspicion. This occurs at all levels and is 'enshrined' in a policy on two Australian airlines that stipulates that unaccompanied minors are never seated next to men. Apparently, all men are potential sexual predators? Apparently women are not? Perhaps we ought to rethink our prejudices...

Grace & Peace

Whoa there!

2006-03-30T18:26:00.000-05:00

Grace & Peace

The Death of a Marriage

2006-03-25T11:18:00.000-05:00

"A friend of mine who has been divorced said, "I don't think you ever really get over it." We wondered why that was; we wondered why the world reacts so differently when someone physically dies. When someone dies, friends and family bring casseroles; they travel from afar to attend funeral services. They send cards and notes of encouragement and make phone calls. They join you at the cemetery and mourn. Their very presence brings healing.

So why is it that when a marriage dies, people do nothing?

When my marriage died, I was left on a ledge with little to no support. Friends and family didn't know what to say, so they often said nothing. No one visited; no one sent cards.

But when someone dies, there is comfort for those who feel the loss. There is a tangible, physical reminder of the loss. There is a body. There is a tombstone. There are ashes, rituals, prayers, community. It's obvious that I will never get these things; it's obvious I will never have the same comfort that widows receive.

But what about community? What about the group of people who sat at my wedding, the people who agreed to support my marriage? Where are they now? I still see their faces, smiling and laughing. I see them with glasses of champagne. I see them handing me wrapped gifts - pots and pans, pillows, other things that are now shoved to the back of cupboards and closets. Things that I would gladly trade for a hug or a phone call.

Today, these wedding guests are only a memory. Today, they are like passengers on the Titanic, celebrating while a disaster that they know nothing about is on its way. I wish my wedding guests were around to support my marriage, but communities have become fragmented. The people who attended my wedding live in dozens of cities around the country, and most of them never knew there were problems in my marriage until they heard about my divorce.

Most of them probably know now, but what should they say? What should they do? I don't know. They don't know."

Grace & Peace

(excerpted from "With or Without You," by Cameron Conant)

A New Type of Typo

2006-03-22T09:17:00.000-05:00

Ah, the era of misspellings and miscommunication grows ever more complex! In an evolutionary twist on the old-fashioned typo, brought about by the latest form of digital communication, the 'text message,' readers no longer have to sort through the occasional misspellings or typos produced by pen or keyboard. The new 'text message typos' are, in fact, entirely misplaced words in the context of an otherwise normal sentence.

This strange phenomena occurs because new telephone software, designed to aid readers in inputting text messages (never an easy feat with clumsy thumbs and tiny cell phone key pads) anticipates possible word choices based on the number combination entered on the phone. For example, rather than typing the entire word "awesome," my telephone recognizes the key combination 1-9-3, and automatically suggests "awesome" as the likely word choice. When used correctly, this saves an enormous amount of time and makes text messaging a more viable means of communication, albeit in short staccato bursts.

Unfortunately, the speed of text message entry often means that the suggested words used in the message are not the right words at all! This is especially common with certain key combinations like 4-6, which in my phone is both "in" and "go." The suggested word is determined by the cell phone's software based solely on the last word that I chose when entering that particular number combination. Similarly, 4-6-6-3 represents the keystrokes for both "home" and "good," two very common words in text messages. The problem occurs when, in a desire to dash off a quick text message response, the text messenger fails to notice that his telephone has selected the wrong word corresponding to his keystrokes and inserted it into the message.

This results in strange text messages. I recently text-messaged a friend a short communication, "Hey, how are you doing today? What are you up to this afternoon?" To which I received the following response, "I'm doing home! I'm just about to in run some errands." Huh?! The apparent perceived gibberish was really the result of my friend's phone selecting the word "home" instead of "good," and "in" instead of "go."

This type of communication quirk is leading to a whole new way of understanding miscommunication. In the days of pen and paper, the most common form of miscommunication was simple spelling error. The letter writer misspelled a word, and the reader often needed only to "sound out" the word to determine what was intended by the misspelled word. By the time typewriters and computers became widely available, a new form of miscommunication was in full swing. This was the era of "missed keystroke," where the writer often failed to notice that he had struck a nearby key instead of the intended key in composing his work. Because the resulting word was not the result of misspelling but mis-typing, sounding out the word no longer worked. It was up to the reader to recognize the typo and determine the intended word. The more acquainted the reader was with the keyboard, the more likely he was to correctly interpret the misspelled word. In today's world of high powered word processors, most typos are corrected by the omnipresent Spell Checker, whose constant Big Brother-esque monitoring of all of our communication nourishes an entire generation of poor spellers (myself included), but mitigates the all-to-common problem of miscommunication.

Of course, all of this doesn't even touch the subject of poor grammar, or even worse, the semi-grammar of e-mails and instant messages for whom punctuation, capitalization, complete sentences and traditional spelling are optional, or even arbitrary. Some people become seriously apoplectic when encountering this de-evolved communication, with content like, "lol...i dunno...i might go 2 her house b4 work 2nite." While this lax grammar does not much bother me (I've even been known to partake a little myself under the usual circumstances), I am fascinated by text messaging typos. No longer do we have to sound out misspellings or recognize missed key strokes. Now we have to recognize entire words, sometimes key grammatical words, as representative of certain telephone key combinations and then supply for ourselves the correct substitute when it has been incorrectly entered. Our ability to identify the correct word indicates a remarkable degree of abstract critical thinking, revealing just how hard our brains will work to communicate effectively. While this next phase in the evolution of the typo is likely more complex than its earlier iterations, communication is not lost. In an interconnected world increasingly dependent upon our ability to communicate both critical and mundane thoughts, that's almost certainly a "home" thing.

Grace & Peace

A Tentative Position on War

2006-03-20T10:07:00.000-05:00

After some reading and reflection, I have stumbled upon the clearest articulation of my own (evolving) beliefs on war. I remain open to criticism, thoughtful engagement and continued reflection on this matter...

"War is evil, but there are times when it is the lesser of two evils...the Christian church exists in a world which is essentially, "between the times", between the Incarnation and the realization of the Kingdom of God. During this time war, as ethically controlled as possible, may be seen to be necessary to relieve the suffering of the weak and to limit the oppression of the powerful."
(Giles Legood, "Chaplaincy." Pg. 63)

Grace & Peace

Warmongers in the pews

2006-03-18T14:29:00.000-05:00

According to a Gallup Poll taken early this year, "the more frequently an American attends church, the less likely he or she is to say the war was a mistake." (italics added)

While these statistics are nothing new, I never cease to find them incredible. Part of this stems from the overwhelmingly liberal/pacifist bent of students and faculty at Yale Divinity School, where I spend most of my time. Here, support for the war is tantamount to heresy (if they believe in heresy at all - which most don't). I seem to know precious few of this supposed myriad of Christians supporting the war. I'm also willing to admit my own misgivings about the war - and I stand to the right-of-center on a good number of political issues.

Are all these Christians wrong? It's easy from an intellectual standpoint to argue that they are products of their time/place - and either way, churches do a poor job of instilling a Christian worldview in most of their parishioners. Just look at the statistics. However, my heart believes that God is working in these people, transforming and changing their lives. It is not easy to simply dismiss them all as wrongheaded. In my dismissal I recognize my own elitism. When a high percentage of engaged Christians support something against secular society, I'm likely to err on the side of the faithful.

So which is more revealing: That the Americans most supportive of the Iraq war are also the Americans who most frequently go to church? Or that the Americans least supportive of the Iraq war are also the Americans who never go to church? Why does churchgoing seemingly make you more of a warmonger? Maybe Quakers and Mennonites just need to start more mid-week services...

Grace & Peace

analysis taken from The Washington Times here, and a summary by Christianity Today here.

Stupid Quizzes?

2006-03-17T12:36:00.000-05:00

I don't like most of the online "quizzes" out there. 75% of them are just plain lame. Another 15% are obvious and can be easily manipulated. There are maybe 10% that are actually useful - either for others to get to know you, or (more importantly) for you to get to know yourself.

I took the Myers-Briggs a few years ago, and it really helped me reflect on my own personality, and specifically to look for ways to improve my (many, many) weaknesses.

The following quiz was among the 15% of relatively obvious/lame quizzes. Interestingly enough, however, after answering honestly, I was surprised how "liberal" I was ranked. What do you think? Is it possible that I'm really a closet moderate?!

NOTE:If you're interested in following up on the question format, you can following the link to find out How Liberal / Conservative you are. Be warned, however, it's not the most "subtle" of exams.

Grace & Peace

Jason's Political Profile

Overall: 65% Conservative, 35% Liberal

Social Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Ethics: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

hmmmm...

2006-03-01T09:57:00.000-05:00

"Si Dieu nous a fait à son image, nous le lui avons bien rendu."

--Voltaire. "Notebooks" (c.1735-c.1750)

Grace & Peace

Currently Reading
"On the Genealogy of Morals"(Cambridge)
By: Friedrich Nietzsche

Playing the Odds

2006-02-16T13:49:00.000-05:00

I've never been much of a gambler. I have been inside three or four casinos, but probably only gambled a total of $10. My usual strategy in this situation is to see how far I can get on $2 at the nickel slots. I even won $0.13 once! Even in Las Vegas and Atlantic City, my interests were taken with the bright lights and spectacle over the chance to win "big money" at the tables.

Over the past year, this type of risk-aversion has intensitified. I'm playing it safe. It seems to me an inevitable part of growing up - with admitted pluses and minuses. If someone came to me and explained that I could bet everything on a 50/50 game of chance - where winning would purchase a new house and comfotable living, while losing would leave me broke and destitute, there's no way in hell I would play that game. It simply isn't worth it.

Yet this is what people do every day in choosing to get married. Everyone knows the statistics: it's a 50/50 shot they will wind up alone and broken, suffering through some of the worst agony a human can feel. But we are so conditioned against seriously confronting these risks that we naïvely throw ourselves into marriage believing that "it'll never happen to us." But it does. Again and again.

If people were realistic about the enormous risks involved in marriage, there would be many more people following the Apostle Paul in extoling the virtues of unmarried celibacy (see I Corinthians 7 for Paul's take). If we took seriously the dangers, even in light of marriage's benefits (which many concede is a "mixed blessing"), how many of us would play Russian Roulette with a 1 in 2 chance of blowing our brains out?

So, call me cynical...call me unromantic, jaded or burned, but I have absolutely no desire to ever marry. It is quite simply not worth the risk. Instead, I find my identity and purpose in the One who created me; I do not look to someone else to "complete me."

Grace & Peace-

Currently Reading
"Searching for God Knows What" By: Donald Miller

Spiritual Leadership...

2006-02-12T10:21:00.000-05:00

"...Is not won by promotion, but by many prayers and tears. It is attained by confession of sin, and much heartsearching and humbling before God; by self-surrender, a courageous sacrifice of every idol, a bold uncomplaining embrace of the cross, and by an eternal, unfaltering looking unto Jesus crucified. It is not gained by seeking great things for ourselves, but like Paul, by counting those things that are gain to us as loss for Christ. This is a great price, but it must be paid by the leader who would not be merely a nominal but a real spiritual leader of men, a leader whose power is recognized and felt in heaven, on earth, and in hell."

--Samuel Logan Brengle, leader of the early Salvation Army, in "The Soul-Winner's Secret"

To be "like" Jesus...

2006-01-22T13:54:00.000-05:00

Ever the effusive blogger, Anti-Blog provoked no small amount of thought with his most recent post (his 6th in only two years!). This is the kind of reflection that gets me out of bed in the morning - this is good stuff. So I have wrestled with Anti's thoughts for two weeks now, and I'm ready to respond with an opening salvo - hopefully something worth thinking about. I want to focus on one tenet of Anti-Blog's message: the assertion that, as human beings (qua human), we are created to reign and to rule, and called to follow the example of Christ in the exercise of this authority today.

This idea is not intrinsically unique - indeed, it is found in the very first chapter of the Bible, Genesis 1:26-28 - but it is often overlooked in more general conversations about what it means to bear the imago dei. Anti extends his idea to Jesus, invigorating Jesus as a "Second Adam" to include the idea that Jesus' authority over sickness, disease, and even the natural elements is not divinely derived (at least not immediately), but is rather a measure of his properly-ordered humanity. Anti asserts, "The authority Jesus wields is not Divine authority, in the sense of immediate Divine authority, rather, Jesus comes wielding mediated Divine authority, Adam’s authority, the authority that is the imprint, the Image of God."

Anti appeals to the famous Christ Hymn of Philippians 2 to exhort us to the same pattern - accepting our inate authority to rule and reign through an emulation of Christ and submission to the Will of God. With few qualifications, this is very standard Vineyard theological doctrine, and I myself articulate similar points in a recent paper on "loving as Christ loved." However, I was pressed by my professor to articulate more clearly what it means to "love as Christ loved," and it is this articulation that has caused me some concern. My professor's reservation is that failing to make proper distinctions between ourselves and Jesus risks blurring the distinctions between our roles and actions in the world and those of Jesus Christ. We are not Christ - we are not called to save the world from sin through the sacrifice of our blood, we are not innocent, we are not without sin, and we do not posess the Divine Word - the second person of the Trinity - in hypostatic union with our mortal flesh.

For my professor, this is not intrinsically a theological concern. As an ethicist, he is worried that we may seek to "love as Christ loved" by subverting ourselves in a manner that we are ultimately incapable of. We would be inappropriately submissive to others (a concern of feminist theologians that I share), or end up on a "cross" inappropriately and ultimately inefficaciously. Alternately, we may set ourselves up as "Christ figures," attempting to love as Christ loved, and in return, desiring the affection that only Jesus deserves.

If we are to emulate Jesus in all things, then why don't we all end up dead on a cross? I mean that quite literally. Would that be right? Why didn't all of the apostles follow Jesus in this? Why is it inappropriate for us to follow Jesus in the very act which gives us the freedom to follow him in the first place - His saving death on a cross? As I have meditated on these ideas over the past few weeks, I keep coming back to a central question: what does it mean to be like Jesus?

You see, while Anti-Blog (and many others) may be right, there are several things we must continually remind ourselves of when seeking to understand and emulate our Saviour. We are not Jesus. We will never be Jesus. We are not divine, we are not sinless. In Eden we may have been created to rule and reign, but we forfeitted our right to that crown in our disobedience in the Fall. It would be inappropriate (and likely sinful) for us to attempt to exercise authority we have ceded. Of course, part of this authority may be restored to us through redemption in Christ. But this is not following in Christ's footsteps - it is a response to Him. Jesus exercised this authority throughout His life. We may only (poorly) reflect it after the cross. As simul justus et peccator, we ought not attempt to exercise this authority until we are tranformed in the eschaton. Revelation 22:5 emphasizes this point when it speaks of us reigning with God in the end. That authority is not for today. Our theosis is only cosummated in the resurrection. While Christ reigns today and forever, only in the end will we join him and exercise the authority we were meant to have in Eden.

All of this is not to say that Anti-Blog is inherently wrong, or that the Bible does not speak in ways that suggests his assertions. But I keep running in to the concerns of my professor, and others from from my theologically conservative colleagues, who are quite concerned about the idea of attempting to literally "be like Jesus" in all things. My professor suggests an ethic that emphasizes learning to love because Jesus loved rather than constantly trying to love as Jesus loved. Since we are not God, we cannot (ontologically) loves as He does. I simply don't know how to respond to these concerns. Seriously reflection is needed to articulate an overarching hermeneutic of what it means to follow Christ. I think it is important. I think it is right. I think the Vineyard is onto something great when it emphasizes these things. But I think the concerns are right too, and I think they merit our attention and concern.

This is open call for ideas. I'm thinking about it too, but no solutions just yet. Contributions to the cause?

Grace & Peace

(You can hear Anti-Blog's sermon delivery of this piece here.)

2006-01-08T20:37:00.000-05:00

Put this in your weblog if you know someone who is fighting, has survived, or died from pirate attacks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Today we salute you, Mr. Constant Collar Putter Upper. You, bedecked in popped collar, teach us that we no longer have to live with a cold, back of the neck. Sure, your pink alligator polo may look feminine to some, but not the 17 other frat guys wearing the same thing at the bar. Where others may see thoughtless fashion conformity, you preach a higher gospel. You preach of a world where it is okay for a man to go tanning. You ask "why can't we wear makeup, and use shampoo with lavender essence?" So crack open a fresh bottle of candy cologne, Mr. Abercrombie (or is it Fitch?), because we all know, when we really need a piece of gum, you might have one...in your man purse.

Beautiful or Cute?

2006-01-03T16:24:00.000-05:00

The following paragraph was taken from the NYTimes article (here) about what humans find "cute." The article focused specifically on why we find certain animals (particularly infant mammals) cute, but I was struck by its potential application to our notions of intrahuman attraction as well. Read...and if you feel so moved, discuss.

"Cuteness is distinct from beauty, researchers say, emphasizing rounded over sculptured, soft over refined, clumsy over quick. Beauty attracts admiration and demands a pedestal; cuteness attracts affection and demands a lap. Beauty is rare and brutal, despoiled by a single pimple. Cuteness is commonplace and generous, content on occasion to cosegregate with homeliness."

Grace & Peace

Mother, can we trust the NFPers?

2006-01-02T20:48:00.000-05:00

I've recently begun to wonder whether the NFPers (Natural Family Planning types) tend to promote urban legends about oral contraception in order to discourage its use among Christians. I have mostly anecdotal evidence for this, nothing hard and fast, but it causes me a certain amount of frustration. I know that NFP people are essentially working from a philosophical position that differs from my own, but I don't want to see elements that disagree with their philosophy unfairly slandered.

WebMD lists the advantages and disadvantages of oral forms of contraception. These are specifically for those forms that contain both estrogen and progestin.

The advantages that apply to most Christians include:

Reduced bleeding and cramping with periods, which lowers the risk of anemia
Reduced pain during ovulation
Reduced fibrocystic breast changes
Reduced risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID)
Reduced risk of ectopic pregnancy
May reduce acne
May reduce ovarian cysts
May reduce symptoms of endometriosis
May reduce bone density loss
May protect against ovarian and endometrial cancer

The main disadvantages are:

Pills must be taken every day
May not be as effective when taken with certain medications
May delay return of normal cycles when heavy dosage is used.
May cause weight gain when heavy dosage is used. (thanks to Ellen for this reminder)
May cost more than other methods if used for many years
Does not protect against sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV.

I guess I basically want a level playing field if we're going to talk about these issues. No false accusations, and let's be honest about the advantages/disadvantages of both sides of this increasingly pressing debate in Christian circles.

Grace & Peace

Whizzing in the Spirit

2005-12-14T14:25:00.000-05:00

The following is a hysterical quote from from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It reflects the strange and occasionally circular way people discuss "new movements of the Spirit":

What if I told you that you should come with me to a church that has a brand new work of the Spirit? You say, what is it? I say, when the Spirit moves us, we stand in a circle and urinate into a big tub. We pee in a pot. We call it "whizzing in the Spirit." You say, Koukl, that's bizarre. I say, there are no verses against it. Find a verse against it. In fact, I've got a proof text: "From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water." There it is! Works for me! After all, you can't put God in a box, can you? God can do whatever He wants, can't He? So who are you to judge Him?

You gotta admit...that's pretty damn funny.

Grace & Peace

Defending Luke (or, "Quirinius, we still love you!")

2005-12-13T20:37:00.000-05:00

I am undoubtedly among the worst of our merry band to enter a discussion on historical issues. So, I will merely offer a few timely observations as we approach the Christmas season. (Anti-Blog, this is mostly for you.)

The Problem:
Luke 2:1-2 states that Quirinius was the Roman governor of Syria when Jesus was born. This statement occasionally puzzles historians because Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6AD, and Luke dates the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod the Great (1:5), who, according to Josephus (Ant. 17.7.1 191), Strabo, and Tacitus, died in 4 BC. This appears to render Luke's account historically irreconciliable.

Possible Solutions:
That Augustus issued a census decree is both reasonable and plausible. Augustus' propensity to count and tax is well known. According to the Acts of Augustus (see #8 therein), Augustus ordered three censuses (censi?) during his reign (27BC-14AD). Interestingly, an Antioch manuscript exists with an inscription describing a soldier who was 'legate of Syria' twice during this time frame. There are two common interpretations: one is that it refers to Q. Varus, and the other that it refers to Quirinius himself. The New Bible Dictionary (IVP:1996) says this (s.v. "Quirinius"):

The possibility that Quirinius may have been governor of Syria on an earlier occasion... has found confirmation in the eyes of a number of scholars (especially W. M. Ramsay) from the testimony of the Lapis Tiburtinus (CIL, 14. 3613). This inscription, recording the career of a distinguished Roman officer, is unfortunately mutilated, so that the officer’s name is missing, but from the details that survive he could very well be Quirinius. It contains a statement that when he became imperial legate of Syria he entered upon that office ‘for the second time’ (Lat. iterum). The question is: did he become imperial legate of Syria for the second time, or did he simply receive an imperial legateship for the second time, having governed another province in that capacity on the earlier occasion?...The wording is ambiguous. Ramsay held that he was appointed an additional legate of Syria between 10 and 7 bc, for the purpose of conducting the Homanadensian war, while the civil administration of the province was in the hands of other governors, including Sentius Saturninus (8-6 bc), under whom, according to Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4. 19), the census of Lk. 2:1ff. was held.

Perhaps Luke 2:2, "This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria" is saying that there was second census that Quirinius oversaw. Josephus documents a census taken early in Quirinius' term of office (Antiquities 18.1.1 1). In fact, Luke also mentions a second census himself in Acts 5:37.

E.M. Blaiklock, writing for Zondervan's Biblical Encyclopedia believes that Quirinius was in Syria for an earlier tour of duty, not as governor but in some other leadership capacity (s.v. "Quirinius"). It is notable that term Luke uses for Quirinius' is the general term hegemon, which in Greek can apply to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. Even in the Testament it applies to procurators--pilate, festus, felix--and to general 'rulers' (Mt 2.6). The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology gives 'leader, commander, chief' (vol 1.270) as among the possible range of meanings. Of course, this term would have applied to Quirinius at several points in his career. In the proper sense, there might also be several individuals so addressed at the same time. Justin Martyr specifically refers to Quirinius as 'procurator' in Apology 1:34.

However, even if Quirinius is not the referred legate, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (pgs 23-24) implies that Luke 2:2 "prote" can (should?) be translated 'before the census of Quirinius' instead of the usual 'first census of Quirinius.' This potentially solves the problem without requiring two terms of office for Quirinius at all.

Either way, if we admit the weakness of the historical record (Joesphus himself is often confused about dates and numbers), it appears that Luke's case, as articulated in chapter 2, has serious potential to be correct as it was originally written.

This post is the result of a few days of simple research and not a lifetime of careful analysis. Obviously, there is much more than can be said. I'm not even going to attempt to go beyond the simple issue of Quirinius here. That would just take too long. But, I hope this proves that these are still live issues worthy of examination and discussion, and that a more 'traditional' read is not outside the realm of intellectual honesty.

Grace & Peace

Props to the SJV

2005-12-05T11:25:00.000-05:00

I'm passing out props to my people in the San Joaquin Valley - according to a yearly study by Men's Fitness Magazine, two (2!) SJV cities rank among America's fittest! My old stomping grounds, "the Fres-yes," tops out as the 14th fittest city in the U.S.ofA. How about that for unexpected?! A lot of people make fun of Fresno, and my family moved to the outlying community of Clovis (30m Northeast) when I was 8, but at least it is among the healthiest places to live. I also give out major props to the people of Sacramento, the 7th fittest city in America.

The complete results of the 2005 study are here.

Now, I'm not trying to say anything in particular to my non-Cali friends, but did any of you notice how many of the fittest cities in America are in California?! (hint: the answer is 7). Yup, that's what I thought...ya'll best step back an' recognize! (*grin*)

Grace & Peace Out!

Waiting for the Revolution

2005-12-02T19:57:00.000-05:00

What is it that you're waiting for?

I am waiting for the Revolution to begin. I am waiting for nuclear fission to start: when all the elements are in place, the chemicals are in sufficient quantity, when the energy thresholds have been overcome and the critical mass is present. I am waiting for that uncontrolled chain-reaction that will spread out from the detonation point, igniting somthing far beyond my wildest expectations! I am waiting for the Revolution.

Did you know that Lenin was first arrested in 1895? He spent more than a year in prison, and didn't see the Soviet Revolution until 1917. More than 20 years later. I have been talking about the Revolution since 2000. I remember standing in Dwight, talking with Anti-Blog about the impending Revolution. But it never really materialized. Then 2001-2002 was supposed to be the year. Porterhouse was our critical mass - but it never spread beyond the walls. By 2003, we were moving out. People were leaving, and the spirit of revolution with it.

Somehow we were harvested back, well most of us anyway. The agony of those lost grieves me. But our Colony appears yet more promising - stronger, more mature, wiser - and I believe that the Revolution may yet break out. I am waiting, time is passing, sparks are flying and the heat is simmering. Still I am waiting...for the sparks to catch; for flame to take hold; for the reaction to begin that will sweep outward and I'll gaze in awe, throwing my strength into the fire and my back to the work, barely able to hang on because it won't come from me when it comes. From He who calls these elements together, I don't want to lose any more.

I am ready for the Revolution.

Grace & Peace

Shameless personal plug

2005-12-01T13:52:00.000-05:00

I feel slightly famous and desire to share this with anyone interested. I preached my first official "sermon" this past Sunday at the New Haven Vineyard. As part of my internship there this year, I will preach two sermons to the congregation. I'll probably preach again in the Spring. It was pretty nerve-wracking, even for someone used to being up on stage! In all honesty, I don't remember a lot about the actual event - I think I was worried about getting through without making mistakes, making sure my points were intelligible, and hoping that it all made sense - but I got a lot of positive feedback, for which I am incredibly appreciative.

So...if you want to hear my first attempt in crystal clear, .mp3 audio, the link is here! You can listen to this sermon, and several others, at:

http://www.vineyardnewhaven.org/message/sermon.htm

If you want, just save the file to your computer and listen to it whenever you have time. I hope you enjoy!

Grace & Peace

Currently Spinning
"Copland: The Music of America"

Amen

2005-11-15T08:41:00.000-05:00

Weekly Battles

2005-11-03T17:53:00.000-05:00

It’s not a bad place really. The AIDS center feels like something between a hospital ward and a nursing home. It always smells vaguely of cleaning chemicals, medicine, and bodies that don’t stay as clean as the rest of us. But it’s not a bad place. There is plenty of light, fun things to do, and the staff are friendly and competent.

I don’t know how long he’s been here. But visiting him is the cornerstone of my trip each week. Usually there are three of us that go and visit the folks living there. He’s probably in his early 60’s. An African-American man, who says that he used to be 6’3”, 235lbs, but a recent stroke has deprived him of the use of his arm and consistent use of his right leg, so he’s wheelchair bound. Most of the time he just lies in bed. What little body he has left is protruding with tubes beneath the sheets of his bed.

I get the impression that other folks don’t like him much. I don’t think he’s really a “good neighbor.” Although there are brightly colored paintings on the outside of the door – paintings he has created but look like a child’s – he is not very friendly with the other patients, the staff, or many other visitors. For some reason he just seems to like us. No one really knows why.

We always come about the same time in the afternoon. And like clockwork we talk to him about his week, about baseball (he’s a diehard Red Sox fan) and about how he is feeling – all while Jerry Springer plays on the t.v. above his bed. I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to concentrate on a conversation while Jerry Springer-style fights rage above your head, but it is not easy. The interesting thing about him, and about most of the patients there, is that they never talk about their HIV or AIDS. When you ask them how they are doing, they’ll say “doing alright. But my arm is hurting this week.” Or, “better this week, but I can’t get rid of this cough.” If they ever do mention it, it is ‘the virus,’ or ‘my condition,’ - but they almost never do.

This week, after 15 minutes of visiting with him, we asked if we could pray, and what we should pray for. Like always he asked for prayer for increased mobility in his arm and leg. I don’t even know if he believes in God. “Dear Heavenly Father…” and the three of us began to pray. He never prays aloud with us – just closes his eyes there on the hospital bed and listens, while Jerry Springer plays in the background. We implore God to come and heal his leg and arm, “God, you are a God who heals. Come and touch this man – make his body strong again.” I know that the three of us are all praying for ‘the virus’ in our heads, but none of us mentions it aloud. I believe that God does heal, that God can supernaturally transform this man just like Jesus did at the Bethesda pool. But after weeks of prayer, calm and orderly, usually lasting about 5 minutes, I realize that I’m not sure if I believe it for him anymore. Oh, it’s not that I lose the faith in my head, but somewhere in my heart I realize that I have begun saying the words, and even believing the concept, without really expecting anything to happen.

As I stand there beside the bed, I rationalize that there are lots of reasons why God doesn’t choose to heal through my prayers. I’m not a very good Christian sometimes. I snapped at someone the other day. I haven’t been regular in my personal devotions. But I can dismiss those in my head as quickly as they appear. Of course, that doesn’t mean I don’t believe them somewhere. As we finish our prayer, he smiles and shakes hands with the three of us. We smile and talk about the upcoming basketball season, something sure to lift his spirits after a disappointing Red Sox season. And all the while I am left in my own head, wondering why I even bother to pray. Is it for this man’s sake – this person who I don’t even know believes in God? Am I trying to accomplish something else? What good is prayer if I’m not sure that I really expect God to do anything? Maybe I should be praying for something else entirely…and we turn in our visitor badges. And the three of us walk out the door – talking about the World Series.

Grace & Peace

A Pity, We Were Such A Good Invention

2005-10-26T12:17:00.000-04:00

A poem, by Yehuda Amichai

They amputated
your thighs off my hips.
As far as I'm concerned
They are all surgeons. All of them.

They dismantled us
Each from the other.
As far as I am concerned
They are all engineers. All of them.

A pity. We were such a good
And loving invention.
An aeroplane made from a man and wife.
Wings and everything.
We hovered a little above the earth.

We even flew a little.

Grace & Peace

Which theologian are you?

2005-10-25T20:30:00.000-04:00

Here are my results from the "Which theologian are you?" test. Pretty fun. I am happy with most of this analysis. I even think Anselm kind of looks like me! Or, wait...
-----------------------------------------------
You scored as Anselm. Anselm is the outstanding theologian of the medieval period. He sees man's primary problem as having failed to render unto God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives God what he is due. You should read 'Cur Deus Homo?'

Anselm

87%

Karl Barth

80%

John Calvin

67%

Jonathan Edwards

67%

Charles Finney

67%

Friedrich Schleiermacher

60%

Martin Luther

47%

J?Moltmann

40%

Augustine

40%

Paul Tillich

20%

Which theologian are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

the old guard

2005-10-15T13:05:00.000-04:00

After discussing my previous post with several people, I though a demonstration of the quintessential Vineyard style of some of the original leaders might be in order. See if you don't think I'm right:

Pictures of the "Yale School" are forthcoming.

Grace & Peace

hairbrained schemes

2005-10-11T17:50:00.000-04:00

Something interesting is happening in the church where I work. It's not a theological shift, nor a religious awakening. We're not changing staff. We're not building a new wing. In fact, most people wouldn't notice it at all. We're simply changing...hairstyles.

Actually, it's a little more complicated than that.

For a long time I have joked that all the early Vineyard leaders appear so much alike! If you could see pictures of many of the early pastors, you would notice this strange convergence of styles. It's a particular "look:" casually dressed, slightly overweight, balding but with straight, sandy-colored hair changing to silver. And all of them have beards - John Wimber, Kenn Gulliksen, Bert Waggoner, even my pastor Bill Elander. It is somewhat uncanny.

But as I've met the younger generation, especially folks interested in diving into the Vineyard from a historical or theological angle, I notice that a lot of us have a particular style too. Maybe someday we'll be called the "Yale School" of Vineyard thought. We all tend to be casually dressed too, but instead of sandals and hawaiian shirt, we have the relaxed look of postmodern graduate students. Most of us are tall and thin, occasionally scruffy with dark shaggy hair. I can't tell you how many times I get confused for Matt Croasmun, a friend and fellow YDS student who also works at my church.

Okay, so maybe what I'm describing is simply the "grad student" aesthetic. Maybe we're not that unique. We dress comfortably because we're students, we don't shave because we were up till 1am studying. We don't get haircuts becuase we cannot afford it. Maybe we're all skinny because we don't eat well. Of course, I'm not pretending to be a social scientist in my analysis, just note something of interest that never ceases to make me laugh. But who knows? Maybe someday people will joke about those "old Vineyard guys" that all look alike. It's funny how that seems to happen.

Grace & Peace

How Rhenquist Screwed the Pooch

2005-10-09T02:04:00.000-04:00

For his many years of service to the nation, William Rhenquist deserves our greatful admiration. He was undoubtedly a capable and beloved Chief Justice - leading the court through its conservative 'renaissnance' of the past 25 years.

But Rhenquist really screwed the pooch.

When he first became ill with cancer, Chief Justice Rhenquist should have retired. The US currently has a Republican administration committed to nominating justices in the mold of Clarence Thomans or Antonin Scalia - folks Rhenquist would have been proud of. Instead he decided to stay on at the Supreme Court until his death, and made the selection process much more difficult for the President. Now Pres. Bush is in a tough fight selling his nominee, Harriet Miers, not only to Democrats, but to conservative Republicans as well, who question not only her judicial and constitutional philosophy, but her credentials to serve as well.

But imagine if Rhenquist had resigned back in early 2005.

Initially, things might have seemed more difficult. It was certainly a tough time for the President, putting things back together after a difficult election campaign. Even in the wake of victory, there was a fragility to the national political conscience, and increasing worry about the fate of Iraq and the global War on Terror. An all-out fight over a Supreme Court nominee might have seemed a risky endeavor.

But the President would have had many tools at his disposal that he no longer has. For example, if Chief Justice Rhenquist had retired, Pres. Bush could have chosen a woman to take his place. A strong conservative in the mold of Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown. While these would have been a tough sell to liberal Democrats, the President would have had the added political benefit of nominating a women to fill a man's seat (thus increasing the representation of women on the court) and inviting this woman to be our nation's first female Chief Justice.

Assuming the success of such a nomination, the President would have exchanged one solidly conservative Justice with another of even greater political gain. This would have left someone like John Roberts available to fill the seat of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Conner. Of course, Justice Roberts was initially tapped to fill Justice O'Conner's seat, and while it would certainly have been a difficult nomination process, the benefit of not having to nominations back to back would certainly help, and Justice Roberts seemed like such a strong candidate from the beginning that he was destined to succeed.

Thus, by refusing to retire early enough, the late Chief Justice Rhenquist has unwittingly made Pres. Bush's task much more difficult, and potentially robbed the President of the ability to enact the conservative shift on the court that so many have so long desired.

So, Mr. Chief Justice, may you rest in peace...but gosh, if you haven't made things difficult!

Grace & Peace

Danish Air Force Compensates Santa

2005-09-29T15:39:00.001-04:00

The Danish airforce are compensating Santa Claus for the unintended death of one of his raindeer. No, I'm not joking...read all about it here.

Grace & Peace

think about it...

2005-09-27T10:14:00.000-04:00

the least I can do

2005-09-19T12:09:00.000-04:00

Lookup a word or passage in the Bible
Include this form on your page

I use Biblegateway all the time. It is perhaps the most useful site on the web for direct access to Scripture. The only downside is that NCC won't let Biblegateway use the NRSV on their site. But after all the use I've gotten out of Biblegateway, I figure that the least I can do is send a little linkage their way. Feel free to use this, copy the code, or use it yourself. It's pretty handy

Grace & Peace

J'ai soif

2005-09-12T09:53:00.000-04:00

Preacher and author Andrew Murray once wrote, "Wherever there is life, there is a continual interchange of taking in and giving out...The one depends on the other - the giving out ever increases the power of taking in...It is only in the emptiness that comes from the parting with what we have, that the divine fullness can flow in."

Several colleagues have recently expressed concern to me about the common analogy of the Christian as a "conduit" of God's love - directed from God to us and then out into the world. Their concern, it seems, is that this idea reduces the Christian to very little as a person - reducing his/her identity to something like a pipe and no more. "Where," they argue, "is the affirmation of the Christian's identity as a beloved child of God?"

I admit that this is something I had not considered, and am currently wrestling with...this notion of individual identity and our loving interaction with others around us. The "conduit analogy" was common in my spiritual upbringing, and I have found it useful tool in both personal reflection and apologetic discourse at various points in my life. Reflexively, I'm simply not quite ready to give it up.

There seems to be tension in Scripture as to whether we find our identity "in Christ alone" (thus implicitly subsuming our identity or possibly losing it completely), or if it is precisely Christ's message of redemption and restoration is exactly what validates us as 'individuals' (in the theological, and not socio-political sense) and calls us to be 'priests' and 'children of God.' Both analogies are frequently employed and implicitly assumed and many points, and it's not immediately apparent how these ideas are to work together.

A recent sermon on the need to serve others reminded me again of this idea. It was brought home during a moment of prayer when I Corinthians 13:3 jumped out to me as clear as day: "If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing." I want to think more about why we love, where love comes from, and what our reasons and obligations are as it regards this love. C.S. Lewis, in his book The Four Loves, discusses whether or not earthly love is actually love only insofar as it participates in the divine Love (an admittedly Platonic idea, but one that bears considering) or if love is somehow independent in each of us, and therefore succeptible to perversion and decay while still properly remaining love.

Is love ultimately something we possess or something we merely channel? Can we (really) love others as God loves us, or rather because God loves us? Can we love someone with implicit or even explicitly selfish motives (..."but have not love, I gain nothing)?

to be continued...

Grace & Peace

The way we see it...

2005-09-11T00:16:00.000-04:00

Embrace this right now life while it's dripping, while the flavors are excellently woesome. Take your bites with bravery and boldness since the learning and the growing are here in these times, these exact right nows. Capture these times. Hold and kiss them because it will soon be very different.

--Jill Scott

Currently Reading
"Testimony"
By Dana Glover

In other news...

2005-08-31T19:41:00.000-04:00

According to a recent survey from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, the public's impression of the Democratic Party has changed in the last year.

Only 29 percent of respondents said they viewed Democrats as being "friendly toward religion," down from 40 percent in August of 2004. Meanwhile, 55 percent said the Republican Party was friendly toward religion.

The poll of 2,000 adults was conducted July 7-17 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

Well, I'll be darned...

interesting...creationism is quite popular

2005-08-31T19:34:00.000-04:00

In a poll conducted last month by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution altogether with creationism.

I will admit - this is a surprise...even to me.

Read the NYTimes article here.

das evangelische kirke?

2005-08-29T11:08:00.000-04:00

Anyone who has studied American Religious History knows that defining "evangelical" is a particularly tricky business. Fortunately, Wheaton College's Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals provides an especially useful way of delineating references to contemporary American Evangelicalism.

According to the ISAE, there are three senses in which the term "evangelical" is used today:

All Christians who affirm a few key doctrines and practical emphases. From British historian David Bebbington, a more concise (and probably accurate) rendering of Alister McGrath's six points: conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
An organic group of movements denoting a "style" as much as a set of beliefs. Groups as disparate as black Baptists and Dutch Reformed Churches, Mennonites and Pentecostals, Catholic charismatics and Southern Baptists all come under the evangelical umbrella.<
The self-ascribed label for a coalition that arose during the Second World War. This group came into being as a reaction against the perceived anti-intellectual, separates and belligerent nature of the fundamentalist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. Importantly, its core personalities (like Carl Henry and Billy Graham), institutions (Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College), and organizations (such as the National Association of Evangelicals and Youth for Christ) have played a pivotal role in giving the wider movement a sense of cohesion that extends beyond "card-carrying" evangelicals.

As the coordinator for the YDS Evangelical Fellowship, I wonder which of these elements I am supposed to represent. Certainly there is some overlap, but our mission statement is heavy on definition one, and this seems to encourage certain people (particularly theological conservatives at odds with their denomiation) to get involved. However, midwestern and western evangelicals at YDS are often more interested in things like praise-and-worship nights, which seems to emphasize definition two. This, of course, makes all the evangelical Anglican's roll their eyes...it's a difficult balancing act.

Really? (Part II)

2005-08-24T12:21:00.000-04:00

In the business of the summer, I never recounted the content of my conversation in which I noted a striking connection between Christianity and sex. Actually, in retrospect, I should note that the connection is more between the Christian Life and sex than with Christianity per se.

The controlling metaphor that links the two is the recognition that while both are beneficial/pleasurable for the individual, the moment that it becomes "all about you," you miss the best of what they have to offer.

The Christian life and sex are ultimately 'other centered' activities...at least, in their best moments. Both can (and often are) pursued for personal or selfish reasons, but doing so misses out on the true and lasting benefits inherent in each. The more other-focued we become, the more we recognize that extravagent love stems not from our own pleasure/benefit, but in the recognition of the other as a worthy participant in the same.

Grace & Peace

What is it all for?

2005-08-21T11:31:00.000-04:00

The end of another summer - 2005 - and the start of yet another academic year, and I'm following the trend of 'taking stock of my life.' Not in the grand, existential sense, though I just realized that I have been preparing for school every Fall for the past 21 years of my life save 3 (Falls of '01, '03 and technically '04). I am simply thinking about what this blog is 'for,' and why I should keep it around.

I've been at this for nearly a year (with some admittedly extended gaps), and my life has changed pretty dramatically in that time (see posts here and here). Now, a few of my friends are considering dropping off the blog bandwagon (here), leaving our little corner of the blogosphere, but I don't think I am ready to do that just yet. Part of my determination to stick it out, as it were, is the desire to not be a "bandwagon" person. I don't need to enjoy the 'flavor of the month' because that is what everyone else is doing, and then move on the next month. I have no need for podcast and no interest in starting one...

Frankly, my blog has always been (or should have been) more about me than about readers (not that there ever were many). Blogs have many stiles, purposes and intended audiences. For some, it's all about the 'dialogue,' and success or interest is measured in the amount of comments and heated exchanges that a post generates. I'll admit I never get many comments. But as I stated in my very first post, this space is meant to be something of an 'intellectual diary' for me, a place to vent the thoughts in my head and see how they look on paper. Less personal than a diary, but requiring less editing than a 'paper.' In the end, this blog should serve as something of an intellectual timetable for the ideas that I wrestle with. Going back through it as I have this morning, it does a pretty good job of that.

I know that I have not posted in a long time...but that's the way diaries are sometimes. This summer has been amazing and challenging and has blessed me in many ways. For those that actually read this or care, I hope to share that with you soon. But working at a camp 14 hours a day, 6 1/2 days a week with limited internet access made the time, energy and means for blogging difficult. Introspective and ongoing works are all about second chances. And third chances...and fourth. So, with a renewed sense of purpose...here I go again...

"It's never too late to be what you might. have been." —George Eliot, British novelist (1819-1880)

Really?

2005-07-04T12:16:00.000-04:00

I just finished an hour-long conversation about why Christianity is a lot like sex. Now, I will note that this is not a typical conversation for me, although both topics hold a certain allure - as I'm sure they do for most of us. Actually...come to think of it, maybe this is a typical conversation after all.

I will not divulge all the interesting analogies that I found illuminating in the discussion, but suffice it to say that I will ponder their similarities and post later. I think I just need time now to let it all...percolate. Hmmmmm

Graced & Peace

Currently Reading
"The Untamed God"
By Jay Wesley Richards

Three Degrees to Kirk Cameron

2005-06-02T16:36:00.000-04:00

The small size of the Christian community in the United States - particularly the evangelical community - never ceases to amaze me.

If you're a 20-something evangelical, chances are I know someone you know. I'd bet on it. I've had this conversation with several friends, and whether we are from Chicago, California, or Connecticut, it invariably takes less than three degrees to find someone we know in common. This is especially true when the smaller "Christian college network" is invoked. All you need is a friend who went to Wheaton, Gordon, Seattle Pacific, Messiah, or Westmont and you've got an interlaced evangelical network that stretches from sea to shining sea.

This wasn't as true as an undergrad, when most of us came straight from our family's homes to college. But as we have moved, started working or gone on to graduate school, it is becoming more frequent. This is increasingly true for the evangelical colleges as their academic rigor has increased, and they are now have graduates attending top schools all across the country.

A few pertinent (though continually surprising) examples:

my good friend from Yale (who grew up in Chicago) has recently become quite close with a "friend of a friend" from my public high school in California. The connection? Princeton Seminary and Seattle Pacific.
Another friend working in Washington, DC randomly met a girl I attended summer camp with in high school while both girls attended Westmont.
In the past 3 months, I have become friends with a girl from Gordon, and another from Westmont, all through a connection at Yale Divinity School. Turns out that this Westmont girl TA'd my brother while he was there!
I got an e-mail yesterday from a Wheaton girl getting ready to attend YDS. She is looking to take part in a group that I lead there, was directed to me by a close mutual friend.

Though these connections are becoming frequent, they never cease to amaze me! They are even more common as my social circle begins to narrow to the Seminary and Religious Studies types, who often come from this small network of schools, or from this close community.

I wish I had more insight into this strange phenomenon - something pithy to say or some great social observation to make. Instead I'm merely reporting what I see, and asking you for your comments. Do you have any stories like this? Why do you think this is happening? Am I merely on crack? (don't rule it out) As always, I await your response...

Grace & Peace

An Improper Relationship With God

2005-05-02T11:28:00.000-04:00

Turmoil rocked Heaven this morning as allegations arose that God had an "improper relationship" with a former worshipper. The scandal broke when a 21 year old woman, known only as Mary, claimed that she had given birth to God's "only son" last week in a barn in the hamlet of Bethlehem. Sources close to Mary claim that she "had loved God for a long time", that she was constantly talking about her relationship with God and that she was "thrilled to have had his child".

In a press conference this morning, God issued a vehement denial, saying that "No sexual relationship existed", and that "the facts of this story will come out in time, verily". Independent counsel Beelzebub immediately filed a brief with the Justice Department to expand his investigation to cover questions of whether any commandments may have been broken and whether God had illegally funnelled laundered money to his illegitimate child through three foreign operatives know only as the "Wise Men". Beelzebub has issued subpoenas to several angels who are rumoured to have acted as go-betweens in the affair.

Critics have pointed out that these allegations have little to do with the charges that Beelzebub was originally appointed to investigate that God had created large-scale flooding in order to cover up evidence of a failed land deal. In recent months, Beelzebub's investigation has already been expanded to cover questions surrounding the large number of locusts that plagued God's political opponents in the last election, as well as to claims that the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah was to divert attention away from a scandal involving whether the giveaway of a parcel of public land in Promised County to a Jewish special interest group was quid pro quo for political contributions.

If these allegations prove to be true, this will be a big blow to God's career, much of which has been spent crusading for stricter moral standards and harsher punishments for wrongdoers. Indeed, God recently outlined a "tough-on-crime" plan consisting of a series of 10 "Commandments", which has been introduced in Congress in a bill by Representative Moses. Critics of the bill have pointed out that it lacks any provisions for the rehabilitation of criminals, and lawyers for the ACLU are planning to fight the "Name in Vain" Commandment as being an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

pondering Sabbatical

2005-04-11T19:35:00.000-04:00

While numerous thoughts plague my mind and urge me write, the weight of words bids me take time...to feel their weight and confirm their worth. And as logistics press forcefully on this inopportune time of year, and blossoms beckon after many dark days of fitful slumber, I contemplate a brief sabbatical from my dear weblog. To allow my ideas to percolate and distill, and to indulge my procrastination not in front of my computer but in front of creation. If I am temporarily silent, do not mistake my absence for lack of love. I shall return.

Grace & Peace

word

2005-04-03T22:31:00.000-04:00

"The ascetic character of the person, derived as it is from the eucharistic form of the ecclesial hypostasis, expresses the authentic person precisely when it does not deny eros and the body but hypostasizes them in an ecclesial manner."

-John Zizioulas, 'Being as Communion' (pg. 63)

The Anti-blog

2005-04-03T19:07:00.000-04:00

The Anti-blog has a new post, which happens rarely enough that it's worth mentioning. Not as profound (perhaps) as his last, but here's to him deciding to continue...

Grace & Peace

Non impediti ratione cogitationis?

2005-04-02T19:11:00.000-05:00

(Or, It takes an Man to make a Woman feel like a Woman.)

On a recent transatlantic flight, a plane passes through a severe storm. The turbulence is awful, and things go from bad to worse when one wing is struck by lightning. One woman in particular loses it. Screaming, she stands up in the front of the plane. "I'm too young to die," she wails.

Then she yells, "Well, if I'm going to die, I want my last minutes on earth to be memorable! Is there ANYONE on this plane who can make me feel like a WOMAN?"

For a moment there is silence. Everyone has forgotten their own peril. They all stared, riveted, at the desperate woman in the front of the plane. Then an Italian man stands up in the rear of the plane. He is gorgeous--tall, well built, with dark brown hair and hazel eyes. He starts to walk slowly up the aisle, unbuttoning
his shirt.....one button at a time.

........No one moves.

He removes his shirt.

.......Muscles ripple across his chest.

.......She gasps...

.......He whispers:

"Iron this, and get me something to eat..."

Joyeuse Paques

2005-03-27T18:59:00.000-05:00

Happy Easter everyone. For many reason, this is my favorite holiday of the year. May your time with friends and family be blessed by the knowledge that Christ is alive, and that the power of the cross is that it is empty.

He is risen. He is risen indeed.

Grace & Peace

Ready, Fire, Aim...

2005-03-20T13:40:00.000-05:00

Taking inspiration from a friend (whom I recently discovered is a fantastic narrative writer), I have become enamored with the idea of serial posts - periodic thoughts in a related vein addressed under a common title. These are not to be confused with posts that take a few iterations to complete (like our community's thoughts on worship), or mutiple posts in a similar theme that lack the conscious coherence of a serial post (e.g. many politically oriented posts close to last year's election).

I currently have two serial posts: "who's your grandma?!" a serial including random thoughts and fun news items, and "Non impediti ratione cogitationis?" a new serial of my thoughts on the fairer sex.

At the risk of overkill, I'd like to kick-start another serial entitled "who we are" (no linkage yet for obvious reasons), that examines and reveals things about myself that I often find surprising. I consider this post to be a proto-iteration of this serial.

As with all serials, I will link the current post to its previous iteration, and welcome your thoughts and comments, especially stream-of-consciousness thoughts that will inevitably spark me to look deeper at my reflections.

Grace & Peace

Currently Spinning
"Kind of Blue"
By Miles Davis

Non impediti ratione cogitationis?

2005-03-19T23:59:00.000-05:00

(or, my thoughts on women)

A post of this magnitude certainly entails more layers than I can ever imagine uncovering. Plus, I have precious few thoughts I dare categorize as "conclusions." But in a spirit of profound humility (dare I say reverance?), I would like to make this a periodic post of my thoughts on the fairer sex.

The following poem you may find distressing, humorous, profoundly beautiful, or perhaps deserved, depending on your perspective. I hold these in tension:

I, being born a woman and distressed
By all the needs and notions of my kind,
Am urged by your propinquity to find
Your person fair, and feel a certain zest
To bear your body's weight upon my breast:
So subtly is the fume of life designed,
To clarify the pulse and cloud the mind,
And leave me once again undone, possessed.
Think not for this, however, the poor treason
Of my stout blood against my staggering brain,
I shall remember you with love, or season
My scorn with pity, --let me make it plain:
I find this frenzy insufficient reason
For conversation when we meet again.
Edna St. Vincent Millay

In a complimentary, or perhaps contradictory spirit, to what degree do we think that men and women need each other? This may be taken in many ways, and I consciously imply all of them, but anticipate a response predicated on the likely impression of one element over the others.

Don't second guess yourself too much. We're all smart enough to play devil's advocate with ourselves. But stream of consciousness is far more enlightening...my answer to follow.
Grace & Peace

The Tale of Ernest Christian (Explained)

2005-03-17T20:40:00.000-05:00

Several people have wondered at my posting The Tale of Ernest Christian. Given its relevance, I think it is worth returning (in brief) to this story, and what I find powerful about the questions it raises: Why does this happen? Is this inevitable? How might it be prevented?

The Tale of Ernest Christian is not about me per se. The strength of this story is the degree to which it reflects every divinity student after a time. I have been back at YDS only a few months, but I sense the cynicism and rigor mortis all around me. Given the variety of people that I know, we are certainly not alone. While some aspects of the Tale will resonate more with some than with others, each of us sees a reflection of our unique spiritual struggle in this simple story.

Like our reflection in the story itself, the answers we glean are unique to each individual. This is why I posted the Tale. Not merely to reveal something about me, but to reveal something about you. That's not to say that thinking about these questions resists systematic analysis completely, but that the power of reflection is greatest when each person encounters him/herself in the story, and wrestles with the answers that are unique to the individual. A long hard look in the mirror is rarely a fruitless endeavor.

For myself, I anticipate the approaching storm, and would like to ensure (to the best of my ability) that I am attached firmly to the Rock, no matter now strong the winds may blow.
Grace & Peace

heard on the trail

2005-03-14T20:32:00.000-05:00

During a weeklong excursion on the AT, the following quotes became anthems for our merry band of YDS travelers:

"Bring the motherfuckin ruckus!"
"Bitches best believe that hype!"
"Zero degrees? Ten inches of snow? Ha, ha bitches!"

You just gotta love divinity students...

The Tale of Ernest Christian

2005-02-25T10:02:00.000-05:00

"Ernest Christian was converted as a high school senior. He went to college and studied computer science; but he also worked hard at his church and enjoyed effective ministry in the local Inter-Varsity group. His prayer times were warm and frequent. Despite occasional dearth, he often felt when he read his Bible as if the Lord were speaking to him directly. Still, there was so much of the Bible that he did not understand. As he began to reach the settled conviction that he should pursue full-time Christian ministry, his local congregation confirmed him in his sense of gifts and calling. Deeply aware of his limitations, he headed off to seminary with all the eagerness of a new recruit.

After Ernest has been six months at seminary, the picture is very different. Ernest is spending many hours a day memorizing Greek morphology and learning the details of the itinerary of Paul's second missionary journey. Ernest has also begun to write exegetical papers; but by the time he has finished his lexical study, his syntactical diagram, his survey of critical opinions, and his evaluation of conflicting evidence, somehow the Bible does not feel as alive to him as it once did. Ernest is troubled by this; he finds it more difficult to pray and witness than he did before he came to seminary. He is not sure why this is so: he does not sense the fault to be in the lecturers, most of whom seem to be godly, knowledgeable, and mature believers.

More time elapses. Ernest Christian may do one of several things. He may retreat into a defensive pietism that boisterously denounces the arid intellectualism he sees all around him; or he may be sucked into the vortex of a kind of intellectual commitment that squeezes out worship, prayer, witness, and meditative reading of Scripture; or he may stagger along until he is rescued by graduation and returns to the real world. But is there a better way? And are such experiences a necessary component of seminary life?"

D.A. Carson, "Exegetical Fallacies." Pg. 23.

μενοῦμαι, Article I

2005-02-19T13:13:00.000-05:00

(in which I am simultaneously intellectually pompous and existentially alienated)

μενῶ, ὦ φίλε μου, μενῶ....

Currently Playing
"O"
By Damien Rice

waiting for the light to shine

2005-02-15T21:45:00.000-05:00

Because I am opposed to the idea of "Blog as journal" (for myself), I tend to wait for inspiration to strike. But it has not done so for over a week, and I'm not sure why. Like many people, I tend to work in creative bursts, and all my creative juices have apparently been flowing toward scholarly projects due this week.

I did, however, run across the following quote which I think is quite brilliant (in a dry, British sort of way):

"You do not have to be a fundamentalist to admit that it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit supports guiding the Church into denying His existence." --Prudence Dailey, of the Oxford diocese

feels like home

2005-02-07T18:18:00.000-05:00

just when you thought it was safe...

2005-02-01T19:53:00.000-05:00

Soooo...for those of you who thought that Iraq might not be GWB's Vietnam after all, there's this reminder of President Johnson's response to the 1967 South Vietnamese elections. It could have been pulled from the the front page of Monday's national newspapers.
Spooky, indeed.

(Edited to add) You can purchase the entire article from the NYTimes here.

thinking out loud

2005-02-01T12:25:00.000-05:00

I do a great amount of my intellectual processing and "working out" my thoughts out loud, espeically in dialogue with others. This is my latest stab at the same:

In a recent conversation, M reiterated his belief that there is little in the way of "Truth claims" that we can firmly stand on in the context of the Biblical text by itself. (See this post for a more comprehensive articulation). He has also expressed support for the well-worn - though often not properly analyzed - assumption that people do not come to faith on the basis of the historical truth of the Bible, or words on a page, but on the basis of a heart transformation as the result of such a God encounter. Taken together, I believe these conclusions amount to something of an intellectual copout and leave Christians vulernable to the critiques of several groups we ought to be evangelizing with confidence. Thus I offer the following observations/critiques:

If an "encounter with the divine" is both the telos of Scripture and it's illuminating light, then the encounter preceeds Scripture in importance and becomes it's Judge. This model has no independant resource to judge those who claim to have "experienced God" and then set out to interpret Scripture in an entirely unbiblical manner (think Heaven's Gate or Jonestown here). Since human experience of the divine is undeniably unreliable, Scripture must act as the foundation and judge of our experience of the divine. We must seek Truth in Scripture so that we are not led astray by our own interpretation or the faulty interpretations of others, and more importatly, set limits on what is an acceptable reading with a clear understanding of what the text says.
On a similar note, we become impotent to articulate the Gospel to members of other religions (think Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, etc). Each tradition claims to have encounters with the divine, and without an appeal to a verifiable Scripture, we can only counter by somehow claiming that our experiences are "more true," or by lamely restating that Christ is somehow unique in a way that can only be "experienced" and not verified.
While it may be true that people will not believe on the basis of rational, historical or logical arguments, I think it is often true that people will disbelieve on the basis of such arguments (think atheist/agnostic here). I personally know several people for whom this is true. If Scripture can't stand up to intellecutal scrutiny, they won't give it a second look. While we may not win converts with articulations of historical truth, by doing so we remove obstacles for the skeptic and allow the Spirit to soften the hearts of those that would otherwise disbelieve. If the truth of Scripture is not itself sufficient, neither should it be proven false.
Lastly, simply claiming that the truth of Scripture is unknowable and appealing to a subjective encounter with the divine amounts to an intellectual copout. I realize this is a controversial point, but if the material cannot stand up to tough scrutiny, then we should honestly recognize that and reject it. We would expect the same of members of other religions (the Mormons, for example) or in any other area of life (science, politics, history). Our desire to hold on to what we cannot understand on the basis of subjective experience is admirable, but foolhardy. We feebly claim that this Christianity cannot make sense, or it would lose the mysterious or we try to hold on to the trappings and symbols of Christianity for the sake of our heritage or personal comfort, but we have lost the foundation on which all else is built.

I invite your response - loud and angry denial though it may be.
Grace & Peace

You ain't seen nothing yet

2005-01-31T18:57:00.000-05:00

Crap.

It is the dreaded "4th week of semester," when all of my lofty academic goals start falling apart and inevitably collapse into the chaos that defines academic life. This is when I start just trying to keep my head above water.

And I brought this on myself?? Wow, I can't wait till finals week. If I'm more than a lump of quivering flesh on the last day of finals, I'll consider it a victory.

getting it on?

2005-01-26T22:21:00.000-05:00

definitely rated PG-13. Proceed with caution.

In a special with Katie Couric, NBC reported tonite on "Teens & Sex." Focusing on teens from age 13-16, they reported that while teen pregnancy and the transmission of STDs are statistically declining (complete results here), the amount of variant forms of sexual activity (specifically "hooking up," oral sex, and "friends with benefits") are increasingly common even in this young group.

One interesting connection? Young teens who wish to avoid "having sex" will increasingly compromise with oral sex, because (duh!) teens don't consider oral sex on par with intercourse. If you're not ready to have sex, you can appease your boyfriend/girlfriend by agreeing to oral sex. Loveline hosts Adam Carolla and Dr. Drew often note that 30 years ago oral sex was "more than sex," while most teens today consider it a standard "third base."

With such a hyper-sexual society, constantly bombarded by sexual images from tv, film, radio and print advertising, why are these countervailing trends seemingly at odds? What's going on here?
Grace & Peace

Call them on it (Part II)

2005-01-21T13:37:00.000-05:00

Note: this will make no sense if you have not read Part I, below:

Reflecting on my earlier post, I have come up with what I think might be an example of an acceptable answer (though certainly not a sufficient one), for those that are unclear exactly what I'm hoping for. I'm sure I am opening myself up to all kinds of criticism now:

The type of response we need developed is similar to the Catholic Church's understanding of the celibate priesthood. Centuries of wrestling with this issue has lead the Catholic Church to a complex theological understanding of celibacy that does not simply deny the sexuality of the priest as a human being. Though the Catholic Church has not abdicated its moral authority, (remaining firm on extra-marital intercourse) they have developed a well-articulated recognition by priests that they are, in fact, married to Christ and to His Church in a unique manner more real than a traditional male/female marriage. This special union necessitates the abdication of the right of the purely physical expression of sexual love, but focuses that energy toward the love of Christ and of the parish, instead of simply ignoring or denying it. This unique union provides special benefits of authority and uninterrupted communion with God not enjoyed by those partaking in marriage, and each diocese works to mentor and support the priest in his tasks and in this difficult calling. (See, for example, several scenes on this topic in "Keeping the Faith.")

How well this particular ethic plays out in real life is beside the point. What is significant is that this is a comprehensive understanding human sexuality outside of the context of marriage. Any comprehensive ECSS (Ethic of Christian Single Sexuality) would need to be formulated for a completely different constituency . But the possibility exists, and the theological tools are there to begin such a project. It's time to step up to the plate...
Grace & Peace

Call them on it

2005-01-20T08:22:00.000-05:00

NOTE: this is taken from a journal entry on 15 March 2004. Rated PG

I was listening recently to a Christian radio station in my area broadcast a program that was dealing with the issue of Christian teen sexuality. The hosts, a man and a woman, ended the program by nothing that the woman's daughter had pledged not to kiss any man until she was engaged. The finished the show by revealing conspiratorially that "many girls today are waiting to kiss until they get married," and exclaiming, "wouldn't that be great?!"

I turned off the radio, scoffing to myself and more that a little upset. Beside the fact that there are few statistics supporting the claim that "many girls" are waiting till they are engaged to kiss anyone, I found myself - a devout Christian and supporter of much of this radio station's content - angry at these commentators enthusiasm for something I considered absurd. Why was I so mad? Obviously, the route advocated by these commentators was not one I pursued myself, though sex was certainly not on my dating agenda. But I believe that my reaction was more than a case of self-righteous jealousy or indignation. In fact, I understood and even empathized with the commentator's "slippery slope" argument - each new sexual experience satisfies us, but leaves us wanting more. What I found so disturbing the complete lack of an understanding of what it means to be a sexual creature outside of the context of marriage. This is displayed by so many (married) Christian commentators that I've lost count.

In "The Most Important Year of a Woman's Life," the authors note that many people, but especially girls, find it hard to go from saying "no, no, no" with regard to their sexuality to "yes..yes...yes!" as soon as they're married. Although with the best of intentions, and important Biblical principles at hand, too many Christian leaders are, at best, simply unaware of how to articulate an ethic of healthy Christian sexuality out of the marriage context , and at worst, contributing to the sexual dysfunction of that new generation of Christian young people by refusing to develop a thoughtful model to articulate.

In their defense, this is a relatively new problem for many church leaders. For centuries, the American church tradition kept all manner of sexual discussion firmly pent up in private, reflecting their Victorian, and yes, Puritanical heritage. (Puritans were known for having sex with their clothes on in order to prevent immodesty and discourage lust.) Prior to the European Reformation, celibate Catholic priests/theologians hardly had the resources to articulate any vision of healthy sexuality, much less in the lives of today's young and single. (though I do believe that Catholic celibacy to be a viable, healthy sexual option that affords celibate priests resources of time and energy not possessed by married clergy).

It was the traumatic cultural upheavals of the 1960's and 1970's that actually encouraged Christian leaders to begin to speak openly about healthy sexuality. Thought they almost universally criticized the excesses of this era, it was the pressures of a rapidly evolving sexual society that forced many pastors to begin to talk openly about healthy sexuality at home. Today, many churches offer some form of "marriage retreat," a combination weekend-long counseling session and romantic getaway, where couples are encouraged to re-ignite passion in the bedroom as an essential key to a healthy marriage partnership. But when the subject switches to the unmarried (including, I might add, those who are engaged), these same pastors have nothing to say - preaching either implicitly or explicitly a complete "hands-off" (literally) approach to sexuality. This lack of a coherent vision is becoming an increasing problem in churches that regularly have 50-80% of their "twenty-somethings" unmarried. In a society that is maturing (physically) earlier and earlier, and marrying later and later, the Church has no comprehensive approach for dealing with often 15 years of sexual maturity and frustration beyond simplistic quips about lust and self-control.

What does it mean to be a sexual being in God's eyes, and why does this Bible seem to present a limited number of examples for dealing with these questions? This has more to do with the structure of ancient societies than it does with Biblical insufficiencies. Ancient societies, almost universally, have two things in common: a patriarchal structure and a low life-expectancy. The patriarchal norms means that women usually had little choice of when/who to marry, and girls - especially post-pubescent women - were often kept strictly separated from men. The low life expectancy, combined with a high mortality rate, means that women were married young, and forced quickly into childbearing and child rearing. Many girls might have been physically mature less than three years before they were "safely" married off. Much of this tradition continued right up to the recent past, when women's liberation and sexual revolution (especially the development of simple and effective birth control) finally meant that women and men can now interact together freely in the public sphere, without social pressure, and marriage and childbearing is delayed later and later for the pressures of education and career. Given these recent and dramatic changes, it is perhaps commendable that the Church has come as far as it has. Yet we are still left with a seemingly intractable problem: while previous century's theologians did not need to develop a "Christian single" sexual ethic because so few Christian singles existed, today's Christian single must wrestle through 10-15 years of sexual maturity, with little in the way of guidance from Church leaders, and virtually no understanding of what it might mean in God's eyes to be a sexual being, mentally and emotionally mature, looking for that special someone, but increasingly, not there yet.
Grace & Peace

a burning bush

2005-01-17T10:23:00.000-05:00

or, "thinking about God"

God wakes you up during the night to tell you that he has a very important message for you. He wants to deliver it next Thursday from a burning bush near your house. Assuming that this message is from God and not last night's left-over sushi (never a good idea), you arrive at said bush and, sure enough, God delivers to you a powerful message.

Since God has promised to be there, to what degree is your encounter with the bush an encounter with God, and to what degree is your encounter with God simply an encounter with a bush?

ACHTUNG: This quetion contains epistemological overtones. Passengers should be warned that you may experience epistemological angst if you proceed.
-------------------
I was speaking recently with my good friend M about the importance of Scripture. His take, grossly oversimplified, is that it is not so much the "words on the page" that are important in Scripture, but that these words lead us to an encounter with the divine. What makes the Bible so unique, in M's understanding, is the degree to which it is able to perform this function among all other elements in creation. Thus the Bible is essentially a vehicle that leads us (better than all other vehicles) to God. It's a fine distinction to make, but M iterated quite clearly that the Bible is not God, and God is not the Bible.

I believe that M is making an important observation about the nature of Scripture, and is quite right to resist the (all-too-common) urge to "deify" the Bible. Only God is God (spoken like a true theologian).

But God has also promised to animate the text of Scripture, to "breathe life" into it, and in some sense, to call these words "His Word." We are reminded in II Timothy that "All Scripture is God-breathed..."

Since God has promised to be there, to what degree is our encounter with Scripture an actual encounter with God, and to what degree is our encounter with God simply an encounter with words on a page?
-------------------
There is a troubling extension here that I freely recognize, in the spirit of open dialogue on this issue; God has also promised, in some (analogous?) sense, to inhabit each of us (cf. Revelation 3:20). Yet we do not believe that an encounter with any Christian is a literal encounter with the divine - though we are adoptees into God's family, we are in no sense God. So there is a distinction to be made here, and I am legitimately curious where you think that distinction is.
-------------------
Grace & Peace

let's be honest...

2005-01-13T09:40:00.000-05:00

a.k.a The Jimmy Carter syndrome

A recent expose on the Presidency of Jimmy Carter reminds me that George W. Bush is not the first President to wear his evangelical faith "on his sleeve," nor the first to justify difficult and controversial decisions in religious terms.

Democrats love to hate our current President - vilifying him is not only en vogue, it's practically assumed among the people I meet in my new residence. Democratic Christians especially seem to bristle under the religious language regularly invoked by the administration and its well-meaning supporters. Yet this was something Jimmy Carter did at least as much as the current administration, if not more so.

Interestingly, these very same Christians will not hesitate to state their own politics in decidedly religious terms! I have heard several progressive evangelicals speak of Jimmy Carter as if he were the answer to merging Liberal politics and evangelical faith - this from a Presidency considered by politicans and historians (on all sides) to be an unmitigated failure.

This type of double-speak drives me crazy, and implies to me that Christians of both political stripes have a very nasty habit of deriving political views, and then bending religion to fit politics, and not the other way around. I'm sure that I am as guilty of this as the next person, and I don't see any easy way around it. But I am highly uncomfortable with the idea that I do this...perhaps a certain self-consciousness of this habit is a step in the right (though not perhaps liberal) direction.

I also sense a lot more venom from my Liberal colleagues, though this is perhaps to be expected given the resounding losses they recently suffered. Most Republicans I know consider Democrats to be simply misinformed - "if they only understood the way things really work they would realize that Liberal policies are ineffectual." My Democratic friends, meanwhile, quite literally assume that Republican leaders get up in the morning and plan ways of decisively ruining our country and stomping on anyone they can in the process. This "assumption divide" has big implications for the possibility of productive dialog across the political aisle.

Here are a few instances of President Bush's Christian faith affecting his politics in ways in positive ways I think are worth considering:

A commitment to human rights abroad - especially efforts to stop sex trafficking.
Strong support for fighting AIDS worldwide.
A practical committment to securing the rights of pre-born infants.
The desire to see religious liberties spread to areas of the world not currently experiencing such freedoms.
A belief that religious charities applying for social-service grants shouldn't be discriminated against simply because they are religious.
White House's support for a college student who was denied a state grant because he planned to major in theology (that could have been me!).
The Cleveland school-choice case, defending the rights of parents to choose which school their children attend with voucher support, whether religious or secular.

I don't know. It's not an easy issue no matter how you look at it. But at least think about it.
Grace & Peace...

spinning my wheels

2005-01-09T15:37:00.000-05:00

As a tribute to my good friend "B," I am currently spinning the following tracks:

Radiohead - Climbing up the Walls
Hendrix - Purple Haze
Beatles - Strawberry Fields
R.E.M. - What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
Rolling Stones - Sympathy for the Devil
Led Zepplin - Ramble On
The Who - You Better, You Bet
Pearl Jam - Even Flow
Pink Floyd - Hey you
Grateful Dead - Casey Jones...?
Led Zepplin - When the Levy Breaks
Nirvana - All apologies.

Missed you this weekend, B.

With this level of inspiration, expect more profound posts to follow swiftly. I'm back home, people! Look out!
Grace & Peace...

(re)starting it up

2005-01-05T21:37:00.000-05:00

After a long and ridiculously ardous journey, I have found myself in a new haven that will be my home for at least the next semester. Given the difficulty I seem to have relocating, I may very well stay here indefinately. I apologize for my extended absence.

I hope to have much to say in the future, including the extended remix of my trip (suffice it to say that I don't move well). I'm excited about everything in store for me this next semester, and I'm glad you will along for the ride.
Grace & Peace

oxidized

2004-12-20T11:15:00.000-05:00

It's funny what catches my heart, and when, and how:

I had a dream in time gone by
When hope was high
And life worth living
I dreamed that love would never die
I dreamed that God would be forgiving...

I had a dream my life would be
So different from this hell I'm living
So different now from what it seemed
Now life has killed the dream I dreamed.
A song. (Anyone know where this is from?)

"Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life." Proverbs 13:12

here's to the end

2004-12-16T13:09:00.000-05:00

For those who know (or care), 2004 has been, without question, the worst year of my life, and recently included the worst day ever.

Here's to another year rapidly approaching - may 2005 be NOTHING like 2004.

Grace & Peace

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?!

2004-12-09T14:57:00.000-05:00

“It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (John 19:30)

funny, that

2004-12-08T16:48:00.000-05:00

Funny how when someone pisses you off, they are wrong for pissing you off, and when you piss someone else off, they are wrong for interpreting it wrong and are being stupid for being mad about it.
(from a nascent friend.)

(thanks to StaciMichelle for posting this cartoon.)

that's not normal

2004-12-07T13:50:00.000-05:00

I recently watched a film in which, during a dramatic scene, a young boy of 9 or 10 witnesses his uncle (and several bad guys) get killed. My first thought was, "Wow. That kid's going to need a lot of therapy." This got me thinking, because in the vast scope of human history, it is only recently that this level of violence has not been witnessed by a large number of us, children included. Now, I'm not saying that witnessing the death of a loved one is somehow "good," or is part of the "natural order" of growing up, but you have to admit that it puts certain things in perspective.

I don't know what it is about modern America, but we seem ready to send ourselves and our children to therapy, onto medication or into clinics and hospitals for the strangest of reasons. Perhaps we sucked our thumb for too long time as a child or were ridiculed by our peers as adolecents. Parents, educators and psychologists seem to believe that children are so fragile that not enough affirmation as a child is enough to drive every one of us to psychosis. Even serious events like the death of a classmate or the serious illness of a relative warrant "code-red" emotional triage. And that's probably a good thing. I'm sure every school district in the nation has a plan to respond to the psychological needs of students in the event of a serious campus event.

But what did we do for all those years of human history when those responses weren't available? When men routinely went off to battle and didn't come home? When women and children directly witnessed wars, famines and plagues? Those that survived managed to make it to adulthood and become contributing members to society, with families and careers despite the devastation of their childhoods. We can't be as emotionally fragile and we're sometimes made to appear

So, what is "normal"?

If normal is defined by what is most common, then from the standpoint of human history, it is much more normal to experience tragedy than to avoid it. And more than history, this type of evil continues today around the world with famine, genocide, rape and more. From an evolutionary perspective, humanity must have adaptations that allow us to deal with tragedy at this level, or we never would have survived as a species.

If normal is defined by what is most healthy, then it becomes a bit trickier. From a Biblical perspective, God obviously didn't create us (in the Garden) to experience tragedies of this magnitude. So perhaps tragedy is not normal. On the other hand, humanity fell with Adam, and God has sustained and healed us throughout generations without the help of professional psychology or a cocktail of SSRIs. Some people might simply argue that evidently every generation before us really was messed up, and no one could have been truly happy. I'm not buying that so easily. And let's be honest, although depression and suicide have been around forever, growing up in a less violent culture doesn't seem to help much. The Swedes haven't fought a war in years, and they have among the highest depression rates worldwide.

[Note: This is the part of this blog where I will likely get myself into trouble]
Part of me thinks that we've become a society of pansies, who scream at the first sight of blood and have become so sensitized to pain that we freak out when we encounter it. We believe we have a right to lead a pain-free life, and feel put-upon when tragedy occurs. We've come to believe that we're so fragile that we can no longer handle the tragedies that every generation before us in history considered a natural part of life.

Another part of me thinks something more insidious is going on. Psychologists and psychiatrists have an incentive to make us believe that we're irreperably messed up, because it benefits their bottom line. So they continually feed us this line, no matter what we say about our childhood or past. But more than that, if we can convince ourselves that everyone is "messed up," then no one needs to feel inferior to anyone else, because really, we all need counseling. Anyone who doesn't admit this is seen as even more messed up with their delusions of invincibility. We make ourselves feel normal by assuming that, in fact, no one is. (this is similar to the argument made in "The Incredibles." If everyone is "special," then no one is). We're told that any little character flaw reveals our deeply held neurosis - that we can't even recognize our issues because we've become so blinded by our pain or bottled it up so tight. The strength of this arument is that it is impossible to escape. Once it is proferred, any denials only reinforce its truth! It's the Salem Witch Trial argument in a modern form.

So on Pearl Harbor Day, take a minute and remember the real tragedies we experience. The brave men and women at Pearl Harbor that not only survived, but in many cases became heros, and I bet most of them made it through without large doses of Paxil or years in a counselors chair.
Grace & Peace

These hallowed halls?

2004-12-03T13:14:00.000-05:00

The following quote comes from a thought provoking article featured in this week's Economist (linked above):

"Academia is simultaneously both the part of America that is most obsessed with diversity, and the least diverse part of the country. On the one hand, colleges bend over backwards to hire minority professors and recruit minority students, aided by an ever-burgeoning bureaucracy of “diversity officers”. Yet, when it comes to politics, they are not just indifferent to diversity, but downright allergic to it."

As someone who recently graduated from a prestigious, and reflexively socialist, university, this type of analysis smacks of the obvious. But it might not be as clear to many of my culturally enlightened illuminati (new word for this ad hoc intellectual posse that seems to have developed), even though many of us left college much more liberal than we entered it. It's as difficult to be conservative in an agressively liberal institution as it is to be an evangelical in an atheistic one (perhaps more difficult, especially if you happen to be a conservative evangelical instead of a liberal one, as is the unlikely norm among Christians in these places).

It's hard to explain if you're not used to seeing it. A quick read of the article might give you a glimpse. I imagine that it's a varient of good ol' fashioned prejudice. And prejudice of any stripe is concerning.

I realize, of course, that it's bizarre to consider myself an "oppressed minority" as a "conservative Christian white male." But in reality, that definition puts me on par with the likes of Satan, Karl Rove, and Hitler as far as most Yalies are concerned. Even Stalin gets a better rap. Think about it...
Grace & Peace

Recently Reading
I am Charlotte Simmons
By Tom Wolfe

who knows why?

2004-12-02T09:09:00.000-05:00

I am currently spinning what is likely the most random mix collection ever assembled. There's only one thread tying all these songs together, and I'm not telling...

Changes - 2pac
The Luckiest - Ben Folds
Color Blind - Counting Crows
Blue in Green - Miles Davis
Out of the Woods - Nickel Creek
Hold Me Now - Jennifer Knapp
Goodbye to You - Michelle Branch
It Takes Love - Grits
Your Love is Extravagant - Darrel Evans
Your Body is a Wonderland - John Mayer
If You Could Only See - Tonic
I'm Sensitive - Jewel
Song for a Winter's Night - Sarah McLaughlin & Jewel
Somewhere in Between - Lifehouse
In Your Eyes - Peter Gabriel
Everybody Hurts - R.E.M.
Fire and Rain - James Taylor
Never Fit - Gandalf Murphey
Light up my Room - Barenaked Ladies
I'll Be - Edwin McCain

Take care of yourselves, and each other...
Grace & Peace

a weltanschauung apparatchik

2004-11-17T16:42:00.000-05:00

I am a moderate grammer nazi - if "moderate" and "nazi" can be used in the same sentence. [Edited to add: correction by the spelling nazi, "grammar." Whatever.]

I distinguish this specifically from a spelling nazi, becuase I tend to use words like "tonite" with a certain gleeful abandon. I also consider myself moderate, because I am sensitive to the conventions of style (form following function) and open to convincing on most points. I am also highly permissive of elipses, parenthesis, and many of the overused iterations of modern communication, especially in instant messages, mostly because I consider them effective communicators of emotion, and more accurately represetative of verbal communication. I'll admit to overusing them myself from time to time, and of being afraid to be the man who "throws the first stone," as if I don't have regular grammer slip-ups myself.

The issues that bring out my inner nazi tend to be noun-verb agreement, singular-plural agreement, and certain, more archaic conventions like the correct use of the subjunctive in phrases like "If I were..." (I must give credit to Brilau for driving this point home in college.)

But for sheer fastidiousness, few people beat this man, who has written several volumes on the correct and modern uses of the English language (dare I say, the "American" language?) But in the article referenced above (NOTE: NYTimes articles require free registration) the author uses several foreign words to convey his point, and also, I believe, to indicate his linguistic superiority over his subject and readers.

When are foreign words appropriate in an English language composition?

Is it acceptable for someone to critique another's use of the English language using several prominent foreign language words? I know that the philosophy/theology world tends to use foreign words (biggest culprits here: Latin, Greek, German and French) to express particular theological concepts that have no English equivalent. However, I have noticed a certain "creeping" of these words into the regular parlance of our small band of illuminati. I'm distressed, because I feel that this not only makes us look like intellectual snobs, but huge dorks as well! There's a grey area as well, because the words listed in the title of this post are in the dictionary, though most of us have no idea what they mean.

So what do you think? Am I right to be skeptical of so much creeping "polyglottalism" in my own vocabulary and in others? Or is it simply a fait accompli as folks move up the educational ladder? I await your thoughts...
Grace & Peace

Subscribe to 180colony

Powered by groups.yahoo.com